Tages-Anzeiger Online, October 21, 2008,
Thomas Hasler
Continued from October 24, 2008
The jury has been dealing with a difficult and tragically human case since Tuesday. The 31-year-old Swiss woman has essentially confessed. "What happened happened with intent to kill," she said towards the end of a long day. However, she sees one detail of the events differently.
On October 25, 2005, another argument broke out in an apartment in Kloten between the mother of a 17-month-old child and the biological father. As usual, the parents hurled accusations, insults, humiliations, and abuse at each other. The reason for the dispute was apparently the father's visitation rights.
When he threatened her with the guardianship court and the removal of her parental rights, she said she panicked. She would rather kill her son and then herself than leave the little boy with his father. "Look, this is how it's done," she reportedly said. She laid her son on the living room floor and choked him until his throat turned red. The father, initially completely bewildered, intervened and was able to push the mother away. The boy's injuries were not life-threatening, and specialists believe he will not suffer any lasting damage.
The Look into His Eyes:
Two details in the indictment are disputed before the jury. The woman is accused of strangling the child with both hands until she was pushed away by the father. The woman claims she only used one hand to strangle the child. She also claims she loosened her grip before being pushed away. She says that when she looked into the little boy's eyes while strangling him, she saw only fear, horror, and incomprehension. That's when she realized: "I can't, I mustn't, and I won't do this."
The difference between the accounts is crucial. While the woman faces a conviction for attempted murder in both cases, if the prosecution's version is true, the court can mitigate the sentence because the crime remained an attempt. However, if the defendant's version is true, then there is likely a case of "withdrawal and active remorse." If a perpetrator does not complete the criminal act of their own volition, the court can even refrain from imposing a punishment.
Three children – three fathers.
Although the 31-year-old was questioned for over four hours on the first day of the trial, a peculiarly vague picture of her remained. For almost a year and a half, she claimed that the father, who was subsequently arrested, was the perpetrator . The woman, a mother of three children by three different fathers, suffers from a severe personality disorder that is difficult to treat. According to her own account, she was sexually abused by an aunt's partner for two years starting at the age of twelve and came into contact with various drugs at an early age. She lost her jobs in the care sector because she stole money from pensioners.
Her first child lives with its father. She gave her third child up for adoption after its birth. She would rather see her second child dead than lose it. "I just wanted to protect him," she said, weeping. On Thursday, the psychiatrist will answer the question of her criminal responsibility.