Parents funded son's Nazi obsession as he manufactured explosives, court told

During the third day of proceedings against a neo-Nazi, a second criminal police investigator presented evidence to the Luxembourg City court, outlining the defendant's extremist activities and lack of empathy.

The investigator provided a chronological case overview that revealed the defendant's apparent disregard for family and friends. Testimony included concrete evidence of attack planning and active recruitment efforts for extremist groups, specifically the neo-Nazi organisation The Base and the eco-fascist Green Brigade.

The investigation originated from a tip by Luxembourg's State Intelligence Service (SRE), which identified the defendant as a potential threat. According to testimony, the SRE believed he possessed both the technical knowledge and determination to execute explosive attacks, warranting immediate intervention due to "imminent danger."

This intelligence led to a high-risk arrest operation on 22 February 2020, when police intercepted the defendant and his parents returning from a holiday in Sweden to Strassen. Given potential explosive risks, special forces conducted the apprehension – an operation the investigator acknowledged was executed "heavy-handedly."

Notably, photographic evidence presented in court showed contrasting reactions. The defendant appeared self-assured and smirking post-arrest, while his parents displayed visible distress.

'Haughty and arrogant'

The investigator described the then-18-year-old defendant's behaviour during police questioning as "haughty and arrogant," noting his consistent refusal to cooperate. When officers enquired about potential hazards in his residence – seeking to protect both law enforcement and nearby residents – the teenager claimed he could not remember specific details. He dismissively remarked that police had adequate protective equipment to detect dangerous substances themselves.

The situation escalated when special forces, while searching the property, transmitted images to the police station of a smoking bottle discovered in the refrigerator. Subsequent analysis revealed the container held a high-proof acid capable of causing irreversible lung damage. Under continued questioning, the defendant eventually admitted to storing nitroglycerin in the home. Bomb disposal experts immediately destroyed the volatile compound on-site.

The Grand Ducal Fire and Rescue Corps (CGDIS) responded to remove remaining hazardous materials, though investigators noted some substances proved too dangerous even for professional storage. A subsequent search of the property uncovered an extensive collection of illegal items, including Nazi-era uniforms and multiple bladed weapons such as knives, sabres, and swords. All contraband violated Luxembourg's weapons laws and was determined to belong exclusively to the defendant.

Defendant left parents in danger with unstable explosives

Two weeks after the initial search, police returned to the residence where they made a chilling discovery: a fully assembled improvised explosive device (IED) in the defendant's bedroom. The homemade bomb consisted of an aluminium pipe lined with plaster and packed with pyrotechnic materials.

The primary objective of this follow-up search was to locate additional explosives, based on evidence collected during the first operation. Investigators were specifically searching for triacetone triperoxide (TATP) after the defendant had boasted about manufacturing the compound in messages to a fellow neo-Nazi. These claims were corroborated by video evidence showing the defendant filtering liquids through a coffee filter to extract explosive crystals.

During the search, officers uncovered approximately 50 grammes of TATP – equivalent in destructive power to a military hand grenade. The investigator explained to the court that the defendant had attempted to stabilise ("phlegmatise") the volatile substance before his Sweden trip by saturating it with oil. However, as the oil gradually evaporated over time, the compound became increasingly dry and unstable, significantly raising its risk of accidental detonation.

This unstable explosive had been left in the home with the defendant's father and stepmother, who had returned to live at the residence unaware of the danger.

Defendant exhibited violent tendencies from childhood

The investigator presented evidence suggesting the defendant has long displayed a troubling lack of empathy, with violent behaviour dating back to his early school years. According to testimony, he physically assaulted his mother as a child and, during a meeting with his nursery school teacher over behavioural issues, threatened to kill her. His mother reportedly dismissed the death threat, stating, "My son has to express himself."

Further revelations highlighted the extent of his parents' enabling behaviour. They financed his makeshift explosives lab, which required thousands of euros in materials. The father even filmed his son – dressed in military gear – conducting chemical experiments in nearby fields. While the defendant wore protective gear, his father and friends did not, exposing them to dangerous fumes.

In one particularly reckless incident, the defendant brought a small amount of highly unstable TATP explosives to school as a "birthday gift" for a friend, endangering classmates and bus passengers. The investigator emphasised the extreme risk posed by transporting such volatile material.

Testimony also painted a picture of the defendant's domineering control over his parents. He once publicly berated his mother for standing near another man in a queue, citing her marital status. Additionally, after suffering alcohol poisoning in his first year of secondary school, he refused to attend psychological evaluations at the Centre Hospitalier de Luxembourg (CHL), forcing his mother to attend in his place.

Dressed as a Nazi next to a Christmas tree

The investigator presented evidence indicating the defendant's parents not only tolerated but actively supported their son's extremist interests. A series of photographs shown in court depicted the defendant posing in various Nazi uniforms – images his parents attempted to justify by claiming he was preparing for a film internship in the US.

According to testimony, the defendant had written a screenplay titled Officer's Duty, which propagated the false historical narrative that the Wehrmacht were victims during World War II. However, the investigator cast doubt on the parents' explanation, noting the implausibility that all his Nazi paraphernalia was solely for film purposes.

One particularly striking photograph showed the defendant wearing a Nazi uniform beside a Christmas tree – a domestic setting that undermined the parents' claims about the uniforms being purely for a supposed internship.

Investigators "repulsed" by defendant's messages

The investigator revealed disturbing evidence of the defendant's complete lack of empathy, admitting that even the investigative team found his communications deeply repulsive. Among the materials presented in court was a video the defendant had shared online titled "Schindler's List Funniest Moments," which spliced scenes of Jewish deportations and executions with the upbeat Move It song from the children's movie Madagascar.

Further messages exposed chilling discussions between the defendant and his friends, including debates about the "appropriate" age at which a child could be killed "like an adult" and up to what age children "deserved" a painless death. The investigator also displayed memes featuring the defendant in uniform brandishing a hunting knife, overlaid with racist captions such as "Out n**er hunting," "kill n*gs lol," and "no political solution."

Notably, the investigator confirmed that the defendant had never undergone psychological treatment or participated in a de-radicalisation programme – neither during his nine-month pretrial detention nor after his release.

A handwritten letter, intercepted after being sent to a detained neo-Nazi associate in the Netherlands, further underscored his ideological commitment. The investigator emphasised that the defendant is "not a confused boy, but someone fully aware of his actions."

A Google Doc listing potential attack sites

The investigator presented evidence suggesting the defendant was not only radicalised but actively planning attacks while recruiting and training members for two extremist organisations: the eco-fascist Green Brigade and the neo-Nazi group The Base.

Communications between the defendant and a Dutch associate revealed detailed discussions about targeting critical infrastructure. Drawing parallels to Luxembourg's infamous "Bommeleeër" attacks from 40 years ago, they identified electrical transformer stations as vulnerable targets – poorly guarded yet capable of causing widespread disruption if attacked. The defendant allegedly believed such strikes could spark the race war his ideology promoted, writing to his associate: "You got to help me bro. we need to compile a massive list like this for us and our eco brethren."

A collaborative Google Doc listing potential attack sites for the Green Brigade was uncovered, further demonstrating the defendant's operational planning. In an attempt to recruit his Dutch contact more formally, he emphasised the group's militant approach, boasting: "We take real world action."

Investigator: Defendant was preparing to execute attack plans before arrest

The investigator testified that in the months preceding his arrest, the defendant had focused exclusively on two activities: attending school and developing his attack plans. Authorities maintain there is no doubt about his intent to commit violence – had he not been apprehended, they believe he would have acted on his threats.

Evidence presented in court confirmed the defendant's deep involvement with The Base, including his awareness of the group's terrorist objectives from the outset. Upon joining, he actively recruited for its Swedish cell and assisted in vetting potential members. While some recruitment efforts failed – including one instance where infiltration rumours deterred applicants – the defendant retained high-level trust within the organisation. A message from the group's vetting coordinator stated: "Trust only 2 EU members and you are one of them."

Further communications revealed the defendant's operational role, including distributing bomb-making manuals and offering technical advice. In one exchange, he instructed another member: "Make sure that it will detonate." When questioned why, he replied pragmatically: "If it doesn't, there would be a trove of evidence for police."

The investigator emphasised that law enforcement has no doubt the defendant was transitioning from extremist rhetoric to tangible, violent action.

The trial will resume next week. The presumption of innocence remains in effect until a final verdict is reached.