Processes
Expert sees risk of recurrence for “Horror House” perpetrators
Trial files are in jury courtroom 205 in the Paderborn regional court. photo
© Friso Gentsch/dpa
A court must decide whether the perpetrator in the so-called “horror house” case will be placed in preventive detention after his release from prison. What are the requirements for this?
In the case of the perpetrator in the so-called An expert at Höxter’s horror house sees a great risk of repeating his serious crimes. There is a high risk that he would commit such acts again within months of his release from prison, said psychiatrist Prof. Johannes Fuß, who examined Wilfried W. on behalf of the Paderborn Regional Court, on Wednesday.
According to the expert, he has a high level of manipulation skills and an antisocial personality disorder.
Wilfried W. tortured several women for years in the house in the east of North Rhine-Westphalia with his ex-wife, who was also convicted. Two of the victims from Lower Saxony died completely emaciated after months of severe abuse. He was sentenced to eleven years in prison in 2018.
Reviewer: no empathy, no remorse
In the trial, which has been ongoing since the end of August, the judges have to decide whether the now 53-year-old will be placed in preventive detention after serving his prison sentence. To do this, there must be a high probability of future serious crimes.
His examination revealed a picture of a psychopathic man who appeared superficially charming and childishly naive, said forensic scientist Fuß. “Below the surface there is a cold person” who is unable to show empathy for his victims or remorse for his actions. Instead, he himself insists that he was a victim of sadistic women – an assessment that cannot be reconciled with the crimes that were identified and makes therapy difficult.
Another expert was supposed to give an assessment on Wednesday. The defense has also requested, among other things, that the expert from the original proceedings be called as a witness. At that time she came to the conclusion that W. could not distinguish between good and evil. The defendant was then classified as having reduced criminal responsibility in 2018 and was admitted to a psychiatric hospital. A court overturned this in 2020 after doubts arose about its limited ability to control. Since then he has been in the regular prison system.