interview
Frauke Liebs case
“The homicide squad should get Frauke’s mother on the team,” says the lawyer who advises the Liebs family
Lawyer Roman von Alvensleben advises Frauke’s mother Ingrid Liebs. One of his best-known cases is the abuse case in Lügde, where several men had abused children for years. After the crimes became known in 2018, Alvensleben represented one of the victims, a ten-year-old girl who got the case rolling with her testimony.
© private
The police have been looking for Frauke Liebs’ murderer for 17 years. Lawyer Roman von Alvensleben is convinced that he can still be found. He advises Ingrid Liebs, the mother of the murdered woman. In an interview, he explains why he has hope
Roman von Alvensleben, 56, is a criminal lawyer in Hamelin in North Rhine-Westphalia. Since 2021 he has been advising the mother of Frauke, who was kidnapped and murdered in Paderborn in 2006. The crime is still unsolved and is one of the most puzzling criminal cases in Germany. More details on the case can be found here.
Why do you think this case still needs to be clarified?
I think it’s likely that the killer is closely following what is being reported about the case in the public domain. This will possibly put pressure on him because he feels that the search for him has not stopped. On the contrary: that it is gaining momentum again, because the media is reporting on the case, witnesses are being called, and new information is being sent to the authorities.
TV tip
Dominik Stawski will be a guest on the RTL show “Punkt 12” on Thursday, February 9th, from 12:12 p.m. There he talks about the Frauke Liebs case and the success of true crime podcasts.
You think he’s following this?
Yes for sure. And maybe he feels guilt alongside this public pressure. I don’t think it’s a cold-blooded killer. So I don’t think it’s out of the question for such a person to say at the right moment, when the pressure is just great enough and he just can’t take it anymore: It was me, and now I’m finally going to let it all out and take it away from the relatives Uncertainty so that they can finally find out what actually happened back then and why Frauke had to die.
Do you think it’s the perpetrator alone who’s in control? Or do you suspect that there are other people who know who killed Frauke?
I can’t imagine that the perpetrator’s entire environment didn’t notice anything. The perpetrator held Frauke captive for at least a week, he must have locked her up somewhere, he drove around with her again and again in a vehicle. All of this requires a lot of logistical effort because he had to keep Frauke under control at all times.
You think he must have given himself away somehow?
I can well imagine that people around him made observations that they may not have put in the right context. Maybe they had a queasy feeling, but couldn’t imagine that that person really had anything to do with Frauke Lieb’s disappearance. Maybe they had their suspicions too, but he appeased them with excuses. Or they didn’t say anything out of solidarity with the perpetrator.
And why should they suddenly say something now?
Because almost 17 years have passed. A lot changes there. Such confidants no longer have to fear any legal consequences, for example.
What do you mean?
Knowing about the perpetrator alone is no longer punishable, offenses such as evading criminal prosecution and favoritism are statute-barred.
And if there is someone who even helped the perpetrator?
Of course that’s different. Complicity does not expire. But here, too, a judge can be generous and accommodating. This is what is known as the Leniency Notice. It allows an accomplice who testifies as a key witness to receive only a light sentence or even no sentence at all.
But why should someone speak who has not spoken for 17 years?
Because he or she could have gained distance from the perpetrator. Maybe we’re not as close as we used to be. The conscience can also weigh heavily on an accomplice, after all he protects the person who is responsible for Frauke’s death. How long can you stand that? At some point you want to get rid of this burden. This murder can still be solved, it is in the hands of a crucial witness.
They advise Frauke’s mother, Ingrid Liebs. One of her most important goals is that Frauke’s mother has access to all investigation files. Why?
‘She is the mother, probably no one else knows Frauke and her environment at the time as well as she does. The two had a very close relationship, they talked about everything, including new and old acquaintances that Frauke had met.
Why is Ingrid Lieb’s perspective so important?
Because there are indications that the perpetrator probably comes from Frauke’s environment. Maybe it’s a rather fleeting friend, we don’t know, but names could turn up in the file that might mean nothing to the police, but Ingrid Liebs does. That’s why Frauke’s mother can be of great help in this case, I’m quite sure.
Why are the public prosecutors hesitating to release the files?
Because it is an ongoing process. It is common for relatives to only look at the files in the course of court proceedings. But here I think it would be wise to deviate from that and enlist the help of Frauke’s mother in the investigation. That’s already happening to some extent, Ingrid Liebs was able to see some of the files, but not most of them. I hope the public prosecutor’s office realizes what an opportunity there is in giving them the remaining files for inspection. Homicide should get Frauke’s mother on the team. You have nothing to lose from this, but you can gain a lot.