A Bitter Twist in Dresden: The Unraveling of a Suspected Murder Case
- *
Widow of the Jogger on Trial in Dresden Declares Innocence Regarding Involvement - Dresden's Homicide Trial - Jogger's Widow Declines Guilt Accusation
In a shocking turn of events, the widow of a man brutally killed in Klipphausen-Ullendorf near Meißen is standing trial for his murder at the Regional Court of Dresden. Claiming her innocence, her lawyer, Andrej Klein, contends that she had no reason nor was she present at the crime scene. Instead, he asserts that the co-defendant, believed to have driven the car, was the architect of the heinous act.
The authorities are adamant that Ramona B., a 76-year-old insolvency administrator and the owner of a prominent law firm in Dresden, intentionally ran over her husband with an SUV, leaving him with fatal injuries. According to the prosecutor, she deliberately drove the vehicle into her husband's legs at a speed of 30 to 40 mph while he was jogging near their shared home on September 27, 2024. After striking him, the car threw him onto the hood and then into a ditch, causing rib, neck, and torso injuries. The defendant, finding the vehicle stuck, continued to drive over her husband, allegedly to amplify his injuries.
Prosecution: A Cold-Blooded Premeditated Act
The prosecutor accuses Ramona B. of premeditated murder, citing her motive of inheriting her husband's estate. Allegedly, she intended to cause her husband's death out of greed, ending his life in a cunning and heartless manner.
The co-defendant, Claus T., formerly a handyman and caretaker for the couple, is said to have played a crucial role in the plan. He purchased the car used in the crime for 15,000 euros, handed it over to Ramona B. on the day of the crime, and then took it to a workshop in Dresden for repair. Having arranged a repair appointment beforehand, he received 5,000 euros and the car for his assistance. Therefore, he is charged with aiding and abetting premeditated murder.
Defense Evasion and Accusations
The widow, professing herself as a sales representative during the trial, was arrested on the same day as the incident, while Claus T. was apprehended on October 2 in Koserow on the Baltic Sea. Both are in custody. Her lawyer argues that she was neither present at the crime scene nor was she the driver of the car. He alleges that Claus T. made distorted and contradictory statements to the investigators.
Instead, he claims, Claus T. had a motive to dispose of the body due to debts resulting from shoddy workmanship. Ramona B., on the other hand, was a wealthy woman due to real estate, stocks, and investments, and was also well taken care of by her husband. The couple had tied the knot in 2022.
Ramona B. remained resolute as her lawyer implicated Claus T. in court, alleging that he lived in "very modest circumstances" and faced the threat of losing his job as a household helper. Claus T. repeatedly shook his head throughout the proceedings.
The lifeless body of Peter B. was discovered shortly after the incident by another jogger. Initially, the police suspected a hit-and-run accident. Ramona B. had been an active insolvency administrator in Dresden since 1992 and owned her own law firm. Her sister, acting as a co-plaintiff, seeks to have her declared unworthy of inheritance, citing her "cold-blooded, heartless, and merciless" actions toward her brother.
The trial, set to run for twelve days until mid-August, will continue on Friday. The initial witnesses, including the jogger who stumbled upon B.'s lifeless body and another jogger who encountered him ten minutes prior, will take the stand.
- The community in Klipphausen-Ullendorf near Meißen is discussing the unfolding events of the suspected murder case, which is currently under trial at the Regional Court of Dresden, raising questions about the moral integrity of its prominent insolvency administrator and law firm owner.
- As the trial proceedings continue, general-news outlets and political commentators are analyzing the case, offering various interpretations on whether the alleged premeditated murder constitutes a crime-and-justice issue or simply a private matter, given the involvement of vocational training income and estate inheritance matters.
