The Provincial Court delivered a verdict in a high profile case involving Lucia Patrascu and John Ciotauer, labeling the act as murder with aggravating factors of betrayal and kinship. Ciotauer received a 22-year prison term and was ordered to compensate Patrascu’s children with substantial damages. The Supreme Court later upheld the decision, noting the defendant’s cold demeanor and his belief that his wife lacked autonomy over her life, a stance the court described as deeply possessive.
The events unfolded on May 29, 2016, at the couple’s home, where they had lived until three weeks prior. On the morning of the incident, Patrascu had attended a Civil Guard appointment, and tensions between the spouses escalated when they returned home. The verdict records Ciotauer blaming his wife for her absence and demanding details about her whereabouts. He seized Patrascu by the neck, and the situation shifted briefly when their son intervened, prompting Patrascu to call for help from the balcony.
In the kitchen, Ciotauer retrieved a six-inch knife and returned to the terrace. He stabbed Patrascu multiple times in the back, chest, and sides before she could mount a defense. Neighbors, alarmed by her screams, watched from their windows as the violence intensified, culminating in a fatal strike that left Patrascu exposed on the balcony railing.
The court found that Ciotauer delivered the final stab while Patrascu clung to the railing as she approached death. The assailant directed sexist insults at the victim during the attack, and those same words were later directed at himself. He allegedly told bystanders that he killed her for being a prostitute before fleeing the scene and later being apprehended by authorities.
The judges described the defendant as acting with a macho justification, a belief in ownership over his wife that persisted even after the tragedy. The verdict concluded with a 22-year prison sentence and a financial obligation of 100,000 euros in moral damages to each of Patrascu’s children. The court’s reasoning underscored the severity of the crime, the harm to the family, and the persistence of abusive attitudes that culminated in fatal violence. The case has been cited in broader discussions on intimate partner violence, victim autonomy, and the legal treatment of gender-based offenses. [Court records, appellate rulings and accompanying press summaries]