Gina H. Denies Being at Fabian's Home During Rostock Trial

The defendant, Gina H., generally appeared composed while answering the prosecution's questions during the trial concerning the death of eight-year-old Fabian from Güstrow, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. She became particularly emotional when describing a past relationship marked by alcohol and violence, appearing on the verge of tears. In contrast, she recounted the violence in her relationship with Fabian's father in a more matter-of-fact tone.

The Rostock public prosecutor's office alleges that the 30-year-old cunningly murdered the child. The defendant continues to vehemently deny the charges. During questioning, Judge Holger Schütt challenged several of her statements. Two weeks prior, the defendant presented her version of events in a lengthy statement, initially without allowing questions. Now, she has changed her approach.

Schütt clarified at the beginning of the 27th day of the trial that the questioning was intended to resolve contradictions and ambiguities in her statements, not to confront her. "It's not a formal cross-examination as you might see in American movies," the judge remarked.

Nevertheless, the questioning is expected to take hours due to numerous contradictions to address. Schütt inquired about the defendant's relationship with Fabian's father, a former partner with whom she has a child, financial concerns, as well as depression, jealousy, and her conflicting relationship with Fabian. The prosecution claims the 30-year-old lured the eight-year-old from his apartment in Güstrow on October 10, 2025, then stabbed him at a pond near Klein Upahl, about 15 kilometers south of the town, and subsequently set the body on fire. The motive is said to be related to the defendant's relationship with Fabian's father and their temporary separation.

Public interest in the trial is immense. Even on the 27th day of the proceedings, people queued in a long line outside the Rostock Regional Court to attend the hearing. The first spectators reportedly arrived shortly after 2 AM.

"He repeatedly raised his hand against the children"

The defendant once again denied any involvement in the crime. Instead, she portrayed herself as Fabian's protector within a relationship with the child's father that was characterized by violence. "He repeatedly raised his hand against the children," she stated at one point, adding that she intervened and sustained blows herself.

In her earlier statement, she had claimed to love Fabian as if he were her own son. However, during questioning, she also said that if Fabian's father had hit her son, she would have thrown him out of the apartment. The judge, perplexed, asked why she then remained in a relationship with a man who was violent towards Fabian.

Contradictions and an Emotional Outburst

The court repeatedly played voice messages that highlighted contradictions with the defendant's statement. For instance, Schütt expressed surprise at a voice message from the defendant in which she accused Fabian of "playing games." He commented that it sounded as if "you didn't want him to have contact with his father."

This is relevant because, according to the prosecution, the defendant committed the murder to have Fabian's father all to herself. A psychotherapist had previously testified that the defendant suffered from a personality disorder with borderline symptoms. She herself had admitted during the proceedings, which have been ongoing for over four months, to experiencing jealousy and compulsive control issues.

However, on this day of the trial, the defendant maintained her version: "How was I supposed to know that Fabian would disappear that day? I have nothing to do with it," she declared in an emotional outburst.

Judge Doubts Statements

She insisted she had never been to the apartment of the deceased child from which she allegedly lured Fabian. "I don't know the apartment." She also stated she didn't know which floor he lived on with his mother. When she picked Fabian up, she would wait in the car on the street. She claimed the child had "barely" been with her and the child's father since starting school in 2023. On the day of the crime, she said she was only in Güstrow because her grandparents had sent her to the town to collect money for them from the bank. The judge cast doubt on this. Schütt pointed out that on a previous occasion, she had presented the event as her own initiative.

The judge also confronted her with contradictory statements regarding her voice messages to acquaintances and her internet searches. She had left a message for an acquaintance on the day of Fabian's disappearance stating the boy had stayed home due to stomach pain. The judge asked how she knew this at the time. "That seems conspicuous," he remarked. The defendant initially claimed she was informed by the child's father. Schütt deemed this statement unbelievable, as she had spoken to him later. Consequently, she amended her statement during the proceedings, claiming she learned about it online.

An internet search by the defendant shortly after the crime regarding whether wild boars eat dead people also made the judge suspicious. Schütt asked why she would want to know that, but she could not provide a clear explanation.

The judge found her claim of an alibi unconvincing, particularly because her phone was turned off around the time of the alleged crime. Even after 27 days of proceedings, the evidence remains circumstantial. However, the judge's questions indicate that he questions a number of the defendant's statements. The trial is scheduled to continue on September 15th.