As the trial of a paranoid schizophrenia patient accused of murder nears its conclusion, questions arise about how Luxembourg's mental health system failed to prevent the tragedy.
The trial of a man diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, accused of killing his flatmate's girlfriend in Bonnevoie in December 2022, reached its final day on Thursday.
The defendant is alleged to have attacked the 32-year-old woman while she slept, killed her, and dismembered her body. He also seriously injured his flatmate with a knife during the same incident. Describing his client, defence lawyer Daniel Scheerer stated, "He seemed quite nice and extremely friendly to me. Not like a dangerous person."
The defendant, who has long been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, shared delusional beliefs during the trial. He claimed to see the devil and demons in people, insisting that voices from God, Jesus, and the Virgin Mary compelled him to "save the world."
Defence: Accused not criminally liable
The defence aligned its plea with the prosecution's case, arguing that the accused is not criminally liable due to his mental condition. "Even if acquitted, he will need to be admitted to a specialised institution," Scheerer explained after the hearing. He emphasised that the defendant requires close monitoring and lifelong supervision, acknowledging that the man could never again live independently, relying solely on occasional psychiatric visits.
The civil parties, representing the parents of the deceased woman and the injured flatmate, contested this view. They argued that the defendant bears at least partial criminal responsibility, particularly because he stopped taking his medication days before the tragedy. "The man certainly wasn't in his right mind when it happened. But he made a mistake by not taking the medication he knew he needed, even if he didn't fully understand why," said Fränk Rollinger, the lawyer for the victim's parents. Rollinger insisted that the defendant must prove that discontinuing his medication did not contribute to his actions in order to avoid criminal liability.
While Rollinger acknowledged that "the man does not belong in prison," he suggested that a prison sentence could still be imposed, followed by placement in a specialised institution.
Question of responsibility extends beyond the trial
Beyond the issue of the accused's criminal liability and the outcome of this trial, a broader question emerges: How could a man who had been receiving treatment for years be living in shared accommodation without closer supervision? Just months before the incident, he had been forced to move out of a supervised living facility because his condition was deemed to have improved.
"It's a civil law issue," said defence lawyer Daniel Scheerer. However, he also suggested that the Neuro-Psychiatric Hospital (CHNP) in Ettelbruck should "ask itself some questions."
The verdict in the case is set to be announced on 27 March.
