New details emerged during the trial of a schizophrenic man accused of killing a 32-year-old woman in December 2022, shedding light on his history of violent behaviour and escalating delusions leading up to the crime.
During the trial on Tuesday of a schizophrenic man accused of killing a 32-year-old woman in December 2022, new details emerged about the defendant's history and mental state leading up to the incident.
It was revealed that the defendant had previously come into contact with law enforcement several years before the crime. In 2017, while in Italy, he reportedly attacked individuals with a metal claw due to religious delusions. However, this incident did not result in legal consequences. Instead, Italian authorities deported him back to Luxembourg after determining his ties to the Grand Duchy.
Text messages exchanged between the defendant and his girlfriend, who resides in Colombia, provided further insight into the extent of his delusions in the weeks preceding the murder. Already in early December, he mentioned "demons" living with him in his shared flat. A police commissioner testified that reviewing these communications revealed a pattern of escalating delusions. The day before the killing, the defendant spoke of preparing for a "fight," which included going to confession and obtaining holy water and candles.
On the day of the crime, 22 December, the defendant kept his girlfriend updated via text messages. He wrote, "I killed Lucifer," and later added that he had beheaded Lucifer. The court highlighted the role of the girlfriend, criticising she appears to have encouraged the defendant's beliefs through their conversations.
In statements to police, the defendant explained that he believed destroying the victim's body was necessary to eliminate the demons he perceived were inhabiting her. He also claimed that the boyfriend of the deceased, who shared the flat, was the "main demon."
According to the defendant, when he entered his flatmate's room that morning, the man had already left, leaving only his girlfriend behind. However, the defendant insisted it made no difference, stating, "because both of them are demons."
Is the defendant criminally liable?
The trial also delved into questions surrounding the defendant's criminal liability, with testimony from a member of the forensic police unit and a toxicologist shedding light on his medication adherence and mental state. The toxicologist addressed enquiries about the levels of antipsychotics in the defendant's blood at the time of the incident. The defendant had previously informed police that he chose to stop taking his prescribed oral medications, though he continued to attend regular appointments for injections of another antipsychotic drug. His last injection was administered on 13 December 2022.
In his report, the toxicologist confirmed the presence of the antipsychotic from the injection in the defendant's bloodstream, as well as an additional pharmaceutical substance that had not been prescribed to him. However, verifying the exact nature of these pills would have required further testing, leaving the defendant's claims about his medication use neither proven nor disproven.
The lawyer representing the parents and sister of the victim raised critical questions regarding the defendant's criminal responsibility. While acknowledging the defendant's illness, the lawyer pointed out that the individual made a conscious decision to discontinue his oral medication despite being aware of his condition. This deliberate choice, the lawyer argued, casts doubt on whether Article 71 – which could exempt the defendant from criminal liability due to mental incapacity at the time of the offence – applies in this case.
More broadly, the lawyer highlighted systemic concerns, questioning whether individuals exhibiting severe symptoms of mental illness should receive closer monitoring upon discharge from psychiatric care or similar facilities.
In this instance, the defendant met with his psychiatrist every four months and received injections every two weeks. However, the civil party criticised the lack of oversight to ensure such patients adhere to their medication regimens while living independently. They emphasised that this issue is particularly relevant when non-compliance with treatment is a known characteristic of the disorder in question.
