Case history

In 1966, then 19-year old homosexual serial killer Juergen Bartsch (1946-1976) was arrested after an unsuccessful attempt to torture, kill and dismember a young boy. The victim, left in an unused air raid shelter, had been able to free himself by burning his ties with a candle flame while the offender had gone home to eat, and watch TV with his parents in the parent's bed; he had to do this every evening at 7. p.m.

Before, i.e., between 1962 and 1966 Bartsch, between the age of 15 1/2 and 19 years, had killed 4 boys aged 8 (Klaus jung), 13 (Peter Fuchs), 12 (Ulrich Kahlweiss) and 12 (Manfred Grassmann). He estimated to have undertaken more than 100 unsuccessful homicidal attemps.

Every murder showed minor differences in the modus operandi but basically followed the same scheme: after luring a boy into following him to a mine that had also been used as an air raid shelter in the war, he attained his obedience by beating him. He then tied up the boys, manipulated their genitals, sometimes masturbated without ejaculation, and finally killed the children by beating or strangulation. Afterwards, he cut the body into pieces (including decapitation), emptied the body cavities (breast and abdomen), and generally dismembered most of the bodies. His actual goal was to very slowly torture the victims to death.

Finally, he partially buried the remains inside the tunnel. This was most likely to hide the tissue and bones from children who (with a very low probability) might have come inside playing. The tunnel wass located near a street, and a cloister, but still a few miles out of town.

Some post mortem ats against the corpses were variable and included dismembering the whole body, pricking out the eyes, severing limbs, decapitation, castration, resection of pieces of flesh out of the thighs and buttocks, and at least one failed attempt of anal penetration.

In his detailed description during the preliminary investigation of the case and during thee trial, Bartsch emphasized that he never reached the sexual climax while masturbating but whilst cutting the flesh after his victims¥ death. As he told the police, this resulted in a contintious orgasm. During his last murder he came very close to what he had envisaged as his greatest desire: to kill his victim to a post and slaughter the 12-year old boy alive.

In all other cases the method of actual murder was beating and strangulation.

His wish for dominance, control, and sexual gratification but also his strategies of avoiding prosectition were topics that were openly discussed with Bartsch from the start of the investigations on. As a final goal (central phantasy), Bartsch stated thatt he wanted to skin a live child with soft skin, few hair, and a non-aggressive mood. This goal was not reached because in his earlier attempts, the children died too fast. However, he dismembered the children and ejaculated onto the flesh. The only part of his behaviour that the he would not openly comment on was if he did eat the flesh or not; he would only say that he touched it with his lips.

Bartsch extensively traveled through the neighborhood, frequently using taxis. No middle class boy at that time could afford a taxi, so he stole the money from the cash register of his parent's butcher shop where he worked. To a lesser extent, he also used the small delivery van of the shop.

To get in touch with the boys, he told them that he worked as a detective, or for an insurance company, and that he needed a witness to recover a suitcase full of diamonds from the tunnel. Most children did not believe the story. Therefore, Bartsch invited them for apple juice in a pub that was already on the way out of town. There, he offered them money (50 Deutschmarks) and presented this or another story to the clild. Bartsch himself did drink alcohol as a habit but took care to keep control during his crimes.

Often, Bartsch would also hang out at parish fairs where he invited children for free rides. Parish fairs in Germany were, and are known to attract poor and homeless people and those from a less respected social background which made it difficult for welldressed Bartsch to talk to children without causing suspicion. However, the anonymity, and the sheer amount of children raised this chances. For a short while, Bartsch also carried a very large suitcase in which he thought he could transport the children. After he was asked why he was carrying a "children's coffin" (common German expression for a large suitcase: "Kinder-Sarg"), he immediately got rid of the item. After it became known that Bartsch visited parish fairs, he was called "parish fair killer". Later this switched to "beast" (Bestie), an expression that Bartsch sometimes used as a joke to sign some of his letters out of prison or out of the psychiatric institution to friends.

The continuous efflux of money out of the parent's cash register brought Bartsch's parent's practically to bankruptcy. Nobody suspected Bartsch as the thief since he was a very polite and mild boy. It has to be pointed out that Bartsch did not like to work as a butcher at all. He had had no idea what career or occupation he should choose for himself after school, so he accepted the offer of his father to become a butcher. Bartsch explicitly stated that the experience of slaughtering animals was very unpleasant to him, therefore he mostly worked as a sales person at the meat counter in the shop.

Bartsch's social mother was described both "loving and caring, yet strict" (personal comment by Det. Mätzler to the author, 2002), or "completely overprotective and emotionally withdrawn" (personal comment by friend of Bartsch Paul Moor, 2003). The parents had adopted Bartsch as a baby. His genetic mother came from a socially weak background, and the baby was raised in a hospital environment that gave him protection but no personal love. When his social parents saw him for the first time in the hospital looking for a suitable child, they found Bartsch so charming that they immediately decided to adopt this particular baby.

Bartsch's father is generally described as a person who did not at all understand what had happened, and who was very focused on his business (comments by Mätzler and Moor). When he was asked bv the court to act as a witness, he replied thatt this would cause problems because he would then have to close the shop for a day. In prison and in the psychiatric hospital, Jürgen Bartsch's mother and an aunt were his prime contacts to his family. The two women were allowed to send him crime novels, comic books and magic tricks.

Under the influence of psychiatric consultations, Bartsch's friendly views on his mother partially changed. He remembered that she once threw a knife after him in the butcher shop, and that neither of the parents "ever" played with him because they were so busy with the shop. At the same time, his mother was a clean and extremely accurate person. Clothing had to be folded, and put in the shelf in military style. Mother Bartsch also personally bathed her son until he was arrested. The only friendship that Bartsch had inside of his parent's house was with a boy whom he did like a lot but finally severely hit hard for no apparent reason after friendly scuffling. Homosexual play including ejaculation was always involved in Bartschs few friendships.

After the first trial, Bartsch described memories of sexual abuse by a catholic priest (one of his teachers in a boarding school) who was actually known for beating the children frequently and violently. Until today, the sexual abuse matter is the only one that was not validated in the Bartsch case; it is not clear whether his claim was a recollection based on fact or a fabrication or exaggeration of an intelligent juvenile person who received nearly unlimited attention after his confessions by psychiatrists, the media and the police.

After the second trial, Bartsch lived in a psychiatric hospital. Inside this institution nobody received psychological treatment due to a lack of personnel. In the psychiatric hospital, he obtained permission to marry a woman who had written letters to him. He was also voted the patient's speaker, and he entertained fellow inmates by semi-professional magic tricks. Before the trials, Bartsch was a member of the German Organization of Magicians/Illusionists (Magischer Zirkel). Since the organization disliked the bad reputation the Bartsch case might bring, they did not allow him to stay a member.

Bartsch was not only interested in controlling his impulses but also wanted to know why he comitted the crimes. The genetic, psychological, neurological and psychiatrical sciences were not ready to meet this legitimate request one that was brought forward by all serial killers that the authors know of.

Inscriptions and letters

Bartsch stated that he had a feeling of love for his victims. This was generally accepted as true since he never lied during the confessions and since lie could not expect to benefit from this revelation.

During a pseudo-suicidal phase in prison, he scratched several inscriptions in the wall, one of them being of particular interest in this context. It shows the dominant, controlling, egocentric and twisted personality of Bartsch. Ernst Peter Freese, the final and surviving victim, had escaped on June 18, 1966, because Bartsch had left two burning candles in the tunnel before he abandoned Freese to go home for dinner. As Freese had told Bartsch that he was afraid alone and tied up in the dark tunnel, Bartsch fulfilled his request because he wanted him to feel comfortable. Bartsch always carried one or two candles with him, in case he found a suitable victim. After Bartsch left, Freese accidentally put out the first candle while trying to burn his ties but succeeded to burn the ties at his ankles with the second candle. This way, he escaped.

Inscription to Freese:

"Ernst Peter Freese! Please excuse if I dare to ask you for pardon! On june 18, you did not know if you would ever meet your parents again. I very much would have wanted to see my parents again, too! But I know I do not have the right to do so! ( ... ) And I know how you suffered! I learned that you received the 16 000 DM. My honest opinion is, that you deserved the money! However, you should give 1000 DM, and maybe a little extra, to the Grassmanns, they are poor and do not have money themselves! Can you pardon me, Peter? I wish for this so much, even if I cannot hear it any more. I can understand if you say: It was too bad, I cannot! But please, Peter, believe me, it would mean a lot to me. That is to say, I honestly started to develop a very strong affection for you. The fact that I would have killed you shall be the proof that my impulses had control over me."

Bartsch also identified with the police, especially with the actual investigators who talked to him. An inscription to them reads:

"Herr Hinrichs. Herr Fritsch. Herr Mätzler. You were all very kind to me! Would I not have been like "that", one day, I would have been one of you! And believe me: I surely would not have been a bad civil servant!"

After the second trial, Bartsch started a very long and personal exchange of letters with Detective Mätzler. He also became a friend of journalist Paul Moor who at this point worked both for the U.S. Time Magazine, and the German Die Zeit. Moor and Bartsch later agreed that Moor wouldd not publish any more about the case to allow their friendship to grow without public pressure. Reason for this was that Bartsch felt more and more uncomfortable about the effects of being a media darling. In a letter to the court, he referred to this perception of a "star", and especially how this interferred with every legal motion he made, including his application for marriage. The structure of that notion seems slightly illogical but Bartsch just threw in as many arguments as he could find to fight for his cause:

"High court, tell me how this could be prevented? Not at all? You are right. Today, I am already blamed for it. Immediately, there is the accusation of being a "star". This is as convenient as it is wrong. The story with Father Pützli also has another side: he is not guilty for what I have done but HE, nobody else, determined my orientation towards pedophilia and sadism, and HE told me (when I was 13) the exact plan which I used later. HE seduced me on the gallery of the church nearly every week (1 was 12). He put me in his bed when I had POLIO, and a fever of ca. 40°C, and told me about a knight (before that I had to masturbate him) who lived in France and who killed hundreds of boys."

Bartsch also sent out postcards to the psychiatrists that he liked, especially to Giese, the only expert for sexually deviant behavior at the time, who also testified as expert witness in the first trial. In contrast to others who replied to Bartsch with long letters, Giese tried to be brief, yet very friendly, open and objective. Giese was the only person involved in the case who fully understood the complexity of Bartsch's paraphilia. After the first trial, Giese, however, rejected to visit Bartsch on a regular basis. One of the notes to Giese, written in August 1968 on a printed Christmas card, reads:

"It sure is very nice of you that you wish to help me, and I am oh so grateful for this. It only is a pity, as you already said, that even a conversation in letters would be quite difficult at the moment, because every now and then there would be something that the judges would have to hold back because of the regulations. But I will wait for you. In thankfulness yours, Jürgen"

When Giese learnt that Bartsch behaved suicidal, he wrote in january 1969:

"Dear Jürgen Bartsch, first of all I thank you for your friendly Christmas, and New Year greetings that I cordially send back to you in reply. I must however combine this letter with the urgent wish that you do not try again to bring your life to an end. You simply must not do this, one reason being to allow several things to happen in your case. With kind regards I am your Hans Giese"

This letter does not only prove the open and friendly manner in which Giese and Bartsch communicated but also that Giese knew about the preparations for the second trial, leading to a turning point in forensic psychiatry.

Legal aspects

The first trial was held in 1967 at the High Court (Landgericht) in the small city Wuppertal. The hearings lasted only days, and it was decided that Bartsch should be treated under adult law. He was found fully (legally) responsible, lost all civil rights, and was sentenced to technically 5x life-Iong imprisonment (- 125 years) for 4 homicides, 1 attempted homicide, abduction of children, and sexual contact to children. Homosexuality was still illegal in Germany at this point but not an issue at the trial.

The motion for the appeal was prepared in the usual way; it was said that the client was not examined sufficiently, that he was still in the developmental stage of a juvenile, and that he was generally not responsible due to his mental constitution.

The case was therefore revised by the German Federal High Court (Bundesgerichtshof) which agreed that the Wuppertal Court should have consulted an expert who was specialised in psychopathology of human sexuality, and not just in psychiatry. "Specialist statements about mental states in relation to sex drive anomalities" were requested. This decision marked a turning point in forensic psychiatry since the Federal High Court deviated from its own former decisions by criticising that the court of first instance did not hear a "better" expert witness for this particular field. Furthermore, now a movement within the criminal law pushed though that voted for rehabilitation instead of punishment of offenders. Criminal courts were now forced to decide whether offenders should be punished or treated psychologically, i.e., if social re-in-itegration was possible. Already in summer 1969, the parliament passed the first two acts for a reform of the German Criminal Law, implementing the idea of rehabilitation.

This way, and due to his charming personality, and innocent looks, Bartsch became the high profile killer of the late 1960's/early 1970's in Germany.

At the second trial in 1971, now again at a District Court, there was a very high number of experts present to avoid further legal proceedings: 2 human geneticists/anthropologists/forensic biologists (at that time, this was the same profession in Germany), 3 psychologists, 5 psychiatrists and the director of the only German university based Institute for Sexology. Two of the 3 psychiatric experts from the first trial were rejected as experts (as requested by the defense; one by self-rejection). The expert testimony of five experts was considered to be relevant by the court, and led to the following conclusions:

• at the time of the crimes, Bartsch was not yet matured enough ("juvenile" offender);
   
• his responsibility was reduced because he could not fully control his sadistic impulses.

This was a sharp contrast to the jugdement of the District Court of Wuppertal, from Dec 15 , 1967: "considering the structure of the defendant's personality based on the opininon given by 3 expert witnesses it has to be stated, that the defendant had already completed the process of developing his personality."

"The defendant could have controlled his impulses anytime."

Extract from the jugdement of the District Court of Wupperial, April 6, 1971:

"The defendant clearly was still in the state of developement concerning bis social skills and bis moral maturity due to his personal disposition, bis childhood experiences and upbringing."
"The defendant could not escape bis sadistic fantasies which eventually overcame all moral boundaries and culminated in thefulfillment of his desires. The defendant's responsibility in juridical terms was therefore reduced to a considerable extent. "

The maximum sentence for juveniles was applied: 10 years of incarceration, served in a mental institution, followed by preventive detention.

In 1976, Jürgen Bartsch asked for a castration hoping that afterwards he might be released from the mental institution for the reason of not being dangerous for society anymore. Months before the operation, Bartsch had however fought vigorously against any possible motion towards castration because he feared for his health. Castrations were only allowed if a person asked for it and had good practical reasons. Later, he seemed to have believed that castration might be the only way towards a possible healing of his impulses. After his first application for castration was rejected, he fought even harder for the operation.

On April 28, 1976 Bartsch died during the castration operation on the operation table due to an error in the anesthetic procedure (the medical doctor who accidentally killed other patients this way too, was sentenced to 9 month on probation).

Criminal liability

The question whether an offender is considered insane or not by the court has great impact on the outcome of the criminal trial. Today, it is generally accepted and implemented in the German Criminal Law that mentally disturbed offenders have to be treated differently from sane offenders (ßß 63 ff. German Penal Code).

The question whether a person can be held responsible for his actions and which sanction has to be imposed depends on either his current state of mind during the action of his crime or on his general mental constitution (ßß 20, 21 German Penal Code).

This means that like in many countries, the expert witness on forensic psychiatry has great influence on wether a criminal can be regarded as responsible for his actions. If the expert comes to the conclusion that the offender could not control his actions due to a mental illness or due to his present mental condition he can generally not be punished. In this case he can only be sent to a mental institution.

 

---