Official version of 2001 Zug massacre questioned

September 27, 2001 was a black day for the Canton Zug and Switzerland. Friedrich Leibacher stormed into a meeting of the Zug Cantonal Government and killed 14 politicians in less than three minutes. The assassin then shot himself. This version of the event was established by the Zug police and the prosecutor of the Canton Zug in a detailed investigation. (The photograph shows flowers on the memorial in Zug)
 
This was confirmed two years ago by a third instance - the St. Gallen prosecutor Beat Fehr, who was appointed to re-examine the case as an independent body following claims from two brothers from Zug that Leibacher did not shoot himself, but was killed by an shot aimed by a police officer.
 
One of the two brothers is still not satisfied, and has sent a letter to the Zug government. Under Paragraph 1, he writes: "Significant new facts have arisen in the course of my investigation into the death of Friedrich Leibacher."
 
Together with his brother, he has investigated the circumstances, including interviewing the now deceased mother of Frederick Leibacher, who confirmed that her son was left-handed. All efforts "to correct” this - a standard procedure at that time – had failed. This leads to the letter writer to the conclusion that the Zug assassin could not have shot himself, as Leibacher’s final shot penetrated his right temple. A final report published in October 2003 to close the official investigation stated that the Zug assailant was right-handed. The new letter states that this cannot be true, and that the photos of the dead gunman were by no means conclusive. This leads him to the conclusion that we are dealing with manipulated presentation of the body.
 
In support of his left-handed thesis, the man has enclosed a photograph of Frederick Leibacher at the age of 26. "Leibacher is sitting in an open car holding a cigarette in his left hand, and is also waving to the photographer with this hand." The private investigator believes this is a further indication that Leibacher must have been left-handed. He continues: "Given that a suicide would have occurred under massive mental stress and that habits would have dominated, a left-hander would always use his left hand."
 
The letter writer believes there can only be one conclusion: "Frederick Leibacher could not have shot himself in the way described by the Zug criminal justice authorities. This is completely impossible." And these facts obtained from his research prompted him to reopen the Zug assassination. The man, who by his own admission can recite the final report by heart, has approached the Zug authorities because "I simply want the facts of the attack to be truthfully resolved." In order to find peace, he wants to "know everything." The letter should in no way be construed as support for Leibacher, however: "The fate of Leibacher does not interest me. And I feel very sorry for the people who lost their lives."
 
The Zug Civil Recorder Tobias Moser confirmed to our newspaper that the letter had been received at the State Chancellery. "I have forwarded it to the Supreme Court," says Moser, as the executive has no jurisdiction in this matter. It’s not clear how the letter should be classified, as it does not contain a clear request.
 
The letter is now with Iris Studer-MIlz, the President of the Supreme Court. But, as yet, she cannot say what will happen next in this matter. It would be possible to consider the letter under the supervisory rules, or to consider re-opening the examination. This follows from the Article 323 of the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure, which states in paragraph 1: "The state prosecution can re-open a legally terminated proceeding if new evidence and facts become known regarding the criminal responsibility of the accused person that did not arise from the earlier records."
 
As the State prosecutor generally reports to the Supreme Court, the latter could order a re-opening of the proceedings in terms of the Zug massacre.
 
According to Marcel Schlatter, media spokesman of Zug law enforcement, the prosecutor has not yet received the letter from the private investigator. Schlatter is clear about one thing, however: "A re-opening of the proceedings is not an issue." The letter writer will clearly not be happy such a response: "I have additional proof that supports my contention”.