The unsolved Peggy case comprises tens of thousands of pages of files, so it is not trivial to explain what role Manuel S. plays in these proceedings. Perhaps you can introduce him like this: S. was the focus of investigators for a short time in 2001, at the beginning of the search for the then missing girl from Lichtenberg in Franconia. After the child’s remains were found in 2016, clues led to him again. He was questioned and made a partial confession in which he claimed to have taken the already lifeless nine-year-old to a forest – but not to have killed her. He later retracted this. The investigations against him were closed.
Since Thursday, Manuel S. has had to defend himself against a civil lawsuit at the Hof regional court. Peggy’s mother demands compensation from him. The plaintiff’s working hypothesis is that the undertaker and farmer S. could have saved Peggy’s mother a lot of doubts, pain and slander if he had already spoken about the girl’s whereabouts in 2001.
The court asked S. to appear in court in person. He is asked about the interrogation with the partial confession – which was later revoked. That was almost six years ago, but it’s practically pouring out of S.. He was looked after at the bakery at his current place of residence in the Fichtelgebirge, a huge contingent of officers. He was taken to a windowless interrogation cellar and continually talked to him: They wanted to hear a plausible story. “A story, a story,” says S., visibly excited.
If, in order to get rid of the situation, he gave details that – from S.’s point of view – obviously did not fit the officers’ concept, the demand for a plausible “story” was repeated. If S. said things that people obviously enjoyed hearing, there was supposedly great satisfaction at the table.
His lawyer Jörg Meringer adds this. Apparently they wanted to build a bridge for his client. There was talk that certain investigations could be stopped. But you want to hear the real story. Microscopic traces of peat were found on Peggy’s remains. Also particles that are supposed to indicate renovation work. According to the files, S. had worked in the garden and renovated his apartment. But, says Meringer, just to stick with the peat: It was just plain old potting soil from the hardware store. In May 2001, when the search for Peggy began, half of the country could have been found doing gardening work.
S. says that the officers suggested to him that they had discovered traces that led to him. He was questioned without a lawyer for almost ten hours, between 8:40 a.m. and 6:32 p.m. At some point he just wanted to go home to his family. And he didn’t know what else to do other than just say something – that he thought might be acceptable. Simply to finally have peace and quiet. Moving a corpse? That would have been an obstruction of justice. 2018 long expired. So admitting that was obviously dangerous.
The mother could have been spared “a lot of harassment and slander.”
After telling his “story,” S. was allowed to leave. At the police station – he describes it – an officer said to him: “You don’t go home now and kill yourself.” When he was at home, lawyer Meringer reports, S. told his wife that he had told the investigators some story so that he could leave. S.’s apartment was bugged by the police. So that is documented.
Peggy’s mother also appeared at this court date. She wanted to sit opposite the man, says her lawyer Ramona Hoyer. The mother sits upright, and once she speaks quietly herself. She knows how torturous interrogations can be, she says. Not only did she not know what had happened to her daughter for a decade and a half. She was also repeatedly suspected of having something to do with Peggy’s disappearance. She could have been spared “a lot of harassment and slander” if she had known about her daughter’s fate earlier.
Her lawyer reinforces this. For a mother, the death of a child is a trauma. But it is even worse to live in uncertainty for years. And even being blamed yourself. The 75,000 euros that are being asked of S.? “It’s a symbolic sum,” she says. Attorney Meringer emphasizes once again that his client has nothing to do with the entire case.
There is no agreement between the two parties to the dispute. On May 22nd, the court will announce how the proceedings will proceed.