crime
Girl abused: Suspect closely monitored before crime
Andreas Sarter, police vice president at the Rhine-Palatinate police headquarters, at the press conference: “We knew who we were dealing with.” photo
© Andreas Arnold/dpa
The suspect was known to the police – and yet he is said to have kidnapped and abused a ten-year-old girl on Monday. Now the authorities have to ask themselves: Could they have prevented the crime?
The suspect in the case of a kidnapped and abused ten-year-old in Edenkoben was close to the alleged crime police checked. Andreas Sarter from the Rhine-Palatinate police listed more than 25 contacts in Ludwigshafen on Thursday since the man was released from prison in mid-July.
He was repeatedly monitored using covert measures. A specific danger situation was not apparent.
“We didn’t carry out 24/7 observation measures. And that’s why we didn’t lose him,” said Sarter. “I would also like to emphasize again: We did not underestimate his potential danger. We knew who we were dealing with.”
Three convictions for sexual offenses
The 61-year-old is suspected of kidnapping and abusing a ten-year-old girl in his car on the way to school in Edenkoben, Palatinate, on Monday. According to their own statement, it took the police half an hour to find the suspect’s car. “Despite the quick reaction time and the courageous intervention of all emergency services – after all, it took around 30 minutes from the time the father was reported missing until the vehicle was found – the terrible and incomprehensible act could not be prevented,” said Sarter. He is convinced that the “sensible possibilities of the constitutional state” available have always been carefully examined and exhausted.
The man had been convicted of sexual offenses three times in the past, said Hubert Ströber, senior public prosecutor at the Frankenthal public prosecutor’s office. The man committed the last of the crimes in 2008. According to initial findings, there were allegations of child sexual abuse. The 61-year-old was finally released from prison in July of this year, where he had most recently been serving time for violating instructions from his supervisory authority.
The senior public prosecutor from the Landau public prosecutor’s office, Angelika Möhlig, added that two further convictions dated from the 1990s. However, the files on the judgments are not yet available.
An arrest warrant request against the man had not yet been received by the responsible court. The most recently issued arrest warrant related to violations of conditions after his release from prison. On the one hand, the man got a cell phone, which he was forbidden from doing, and on the other hand, he refused to put on an electronic ankle bracelet, said Ströber. He also rented a house near which there was a children’s playground. “It could not be determined that he had any contact with children,” said Ströber.
Why was there no preventive detention?
Investigator Sarter said it was being examined whether schools should be informed about the man’s dismissal. However, the man was allowed to move freely and also slept in his car, so he was mobile. Therefore, a spatial limitation of the warning did not make sense. The man had planned to move to Leipzig or emigrate to Croatia.
According to the Frankenthal public prosecutor’s office, the abuse of the ten-year-old could have been prevented through preventive detention. “In my firm impression, preventive detention would have resulted in the now accused man still being in custody and the crime in question would not have been committed,” said Ströber.
But in 2020, in a trial against the alleged perpetrator for offenses such as bodily harm and violations of instructions from the supervisory authority, an individual penalty was less than what would have been legally necessary for preventive detention. “The instrument of preventive detention was therefore not possible.”