Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

News

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Josef Fritzl on trial....

43 replies

georgimama · 16/03/2009 14:04

I don't think a defence lawyer has ever had a tougher gig. Opening statements in mitigation include:

?My client is not a monster. He is a man who wanted a second family and wanted to care for that second family.

?If it was just rape, sexual lust, then he wouldn?t have wanted children, or he could have used contraception. Or if he just didn?t care and had the children, he could have just got rid of them.

?But this was a man who cared for his family and spent Christmas with them.?

AND

?He could have just abandoned them all, killed them all and continued his life in Amstetten as a respectable businessman. No-one would have known. He would have gone to his grave with a message on his tombstone: ?Here lies a respectable man?.

OP posts:

bettany · 16/03/2009 14:34

So sad. That poor woman and her children. No adequate words for the monster and his idiot lawyer.

Strawbezza · 16/03/2009 14:43

FFS what planet is that lawyer on? Spending Christmas with the daughter you imprison and rape counts as 'caring' for her?

Tempting to say 'let the punishment fit the crime'. A life sentence isn't enough. Lock him in his own dungeon and subject him to the same treatment that his victims suffered.

ilovemydogandMrObama · 16/03/2009 14:46

Oh well - as long as he spent Christmas with them

Lulumama · 16/03/2009 14:48

i guess someone has to defend and mitigate things but let's face it, i doubt the jurors will accept much mitigation and surely the judge will direct appropriately

lawyer is not neccesarily an idiot , everyone is entitled to a legal defence and someone has to do it.

SobranieCocktail · 16/03/2009 14:50

Totally bizarre isn't it? And the concurrently running sentences thing is truly shocking.

cestlavie · 16/03/2009 14:53

Christ, you have to be deeply unthrilled to be handed that case if you're a lawyer (presumably state appointed) - absolutely zero benefit in for you. You've got to represent a piece of scum to the best of your abilities, even though I imagine you also find him a piece of scum, whilst everyone else thinks you're scum for trying to justify what he did. Talk about a hospital pass!

Original poster

georgimama · 16/03/2009 14:55

I am a lawyer lulu so I'm all for the principle that everyone deserves a defence - for one thing justice must be seen to be done and an unfair trial is little better than a lynch mob.

But mitigation is "my client was sexually abused himself" or "my client is mentally ill and never recovered from xyz" not "well at least he didn't kill them"!

OP posts:

ilovemydogandMrObama · 16/03/2009 15:04

Georgimama - his (alleged) crimes are so appalling and very little redeeming features other than the fact he didn't kill them...

How would you defend him?

Original poster

georgimama · 16/03/2009 15:07

I'm not a criminal lawyer. I wouldn't.

In the unlikely event that I woke up one day and found myself a criminal lawyer defending such a person, I wouldn't let them testify and I'd put the prosecution to proof. I think they are going to struggle to make the murder charge stick - although presumably the Austrian definitions of murder charges are different to ours, as the prosecutor is talking about murder by negligence. That's manslaughter in the UK.

OP posts:

mayorquimby · 16/03/2009 15:25

his lawyer is obliged to provide a defence for his client. i think this is a serious misdirection of anger if people are giving out about the lawyer here, when fritzel is sitting 5 feet away.

Original poster

georgimama · 16/03/2009 15:27

I'm not angry with the lawyer for defending him, I'm just stunned by his attempts at mitigation. I think that is quite clearly what other posters are talking about too.

OP posts:

Ponders · 16/03/2009 15:33

He's already pleaded guilty to most of it, hasn't he? It's the murder (& one other charge) he denies & presumably the mitigation is in that context.

Original poster

georgimama · 16/03/2009 15:35

Slavery and murder are the charges he is denying I believe, he has admitted to rape and incest.

OP posts:

Ponders · 16/03/2009 15:36

Oh, the other charge denied is enslavement. I wonder how they'll defend that?

cestlavie · 16/03/2009 16:00

Pounders: mitigation would be in response to the charges which he has already admitted, i.e. yes, I'm guilty, but please take the following into consideration. In terms of the other charges, he is pleading not guilty (rather than mitigating), presumably because he and his defence believe that he is not guilty of the specific crimes with which he is charged.

Georgimama: I'm not a lawyer but once he has admitted those charges (of incest and rape) the only option open to the defence would be to attempt to mitigate the sentence, wouldn't it? I presume that he pleaded guilty as (a) the evidence against him on these specific crimes was overwhelming and (b) counsel advised that there may be some (slight) benefit to mitigation from pleading guilty. You'd only plead not guilty if there was a tiny chance you'd get off (weighed up against the potential benefit of pleading guilty). Given the nature of his crimes, it's virtually impossible to mitigate but nonetheless the defence has to make the best of a bad job.

Kathyis6incheshigh · 16/03/2009 16:10

I think the argument re the enslavement charge is that the concept of enslavement is to do with buying and selling people and was never meant to cover the kind of thing he did with Elizabeth, ie they'll argue it in terms of definition rather than deny what he did.

Ponders · 16/03/2009 16:17

Ohhh - thanks, cestlavie - can you tell I'm not a lawyer? (mitigation - defence - it's all the same to me)

StewieGriffinsMom · 16/03/2009 16:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

dittany · 16/03/2009 16:29

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Ponders · 16/03/2009 16:39

"Fritzl did not talk to his daughter during her first few years in captivity and would punish her by shutting off electricity to the cellar for days"

She must have an incredibly strong character not to have lost her mind over that alone

Janos · 16/03/2009 16:46

I would think someone has to do it, legally speaking, or there can't be a trial.

Imagine having to defend that man.

bettany · 16/03/2009 20:30

If you look at any of the statements made by the lawyer when this case first came to light, it would be hard not to see him as an idiot. He went well beyond his legal obligations, saying things like "Fritzl could be viewed as a patriarch". A policeman also made inappropriate comments about Fritzl's sexual prowess.

I also think the proposed sentences are shockingly low for what they must have gone through.

bettany · 16/03/2009 20:49

Compare Madoff's likely sentence with Fritzl's. Sorry I forgot, that was a really important white collar crime as opposed to just burying a woman alive for 24 years. There is something deeply patriachal about the law.

Ponders · 16/03/2009 20:52

I read a comment (forget where, will look) which said that Austrian law is at fault here & that the same offences in the US would result in a sentence of 100s of years (shame Fritzl won't live that long)

noddyholder · 17/03/2009 17:10

Can I just ask how he got away with keeping 3 of the kids he had with his daughter upstairs.How did he explain tehm to his wife?

Flip

1 2

Swipe left for the next trending thread