BGH on judgments in the Lübcke case: Sometimes it just doesn’t get any better

The Federal Court of Justice has rejected the appeal in the Walter Lübcke murder case. The basic acquittal for the second accused Markus H. is unsatisfactory. But part of the rule of law is living with it.

Anyone who listened to the trial for the murder of Walter Lübcke in the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court must have noticed that Stephan E., the main accused, seemed confused and not very intelligent at times. In earlier years, he had at times distanced himself from the right-wing extremist scene.

But after contact with Markus H., the second accused, he was immersed there again. Was Markus H. perhaps the string puller in the Lübcke murder or at least an intellectual supporter?

Not enough evidence

The Frankfurt Higher Regional Court found no, there was not enough evidence against Markus H. No trace at the scene of the crime. And what else was known about him, that he had practiced shooting with Stephan E., that would not be enough. In addition, the contradictory descriptions by Stephan E. First Markus H. was not present at the attack on Lübcke, but then he was. Sometimes Markus H. shot, but then Stephan E.

We can’t derive anything from that, says the experienced Frankfurt Senate. And the Federal Court of Justice, as the highest German criminal court, is now giving its blessing. The federal judges had examined the judgment from Frankfurt in detail, but found nothing that would have violated legal craftsmanship.

sorrow of the family

It sounds logical that Stephan E. was convicted as a murderer and that Karlsruhe has now confirmed this. But the acquittal of the second accused, Markus H., is unsatisfactory. It must certainly be painful for the Lübcke family – also because they were able to observe the two accused on many days in the Frankfurt courtroom and certainly made sense of their relationship.

The presiding judge at the Federal Court of Justice, Jürgen Schäfer, tried to address the family’s suffering. Yes, it was impressive what Walter Lübcke’s wife in particular said in the Karlsruhe courtroom. But there is no more evidence. And then Schäfer pointed out: It is a great achievement of the criminal procedure that the accused are only convicted if the court is convinced beyond a doubt of their guilt.

Acquittal for Markus H. unsatisfactory

Even if the basic acquittal for Markus H. is unsatisfactory and the public pressure is high in view of the political explosiveness – of course it must be the case that judges only convict if they are sure who is responsible for an act. Even in the Weimar period, the judiciary was suspected of looking less closely at right-wing extremists than at left-wing extremists. But here the public took a critical look at the Frankfurt trial, and nobody raised the accusation that the judges there were not taking things so seriously.

Sometimes it just doesn’t get any better. And that is part of the rule of law, to live with it. I like that the Lübcke family says: Walter Lübcke stood up for the rule of law. And that would have included accepting today’s decision, even if it’s difficult.