/nginx/o/2016/01/05/4853315t1h2ae9.jpg)
The 16-year-old boy who shot and killed his German teacher in Viljandi's Paalalinna School almost two years ago did not act in affect but had planned the crime at least two weeks in advance. It took the young man only ten minutes to find the revolver which he had practiced shooting with his father on the morning of the shooting.
The chain of events had started weeks earlier. Vaiko (name altered – ed), described by student evaluations as a quiet and modest student, was not a rule-breaker. While he had a tendency to become irritated quickly and take offense from teacher's remarks when studying at the Paistu School earlier in his youth, these patterns had seemingly disappeared by ninth grade. If there was anything teachers criticized him for, it was low pressure tolerance.
How and why Vaiko's relationship with German teacher Ene Sarap (56) soured, and whether it had at all, is known only to those directly involved.
What is for certain is that the court has found Vaiko did not get the idea to kill the teacher on the day of the incident in a state of affect, but thought of it two weeks earlier, on October 13. A print screen provided by a witness as well as initial Facebook posts pointing to intent were made on that very date.
When detectives opened the browsing history on Vaiko's phone, they found searches of school shootings in Estonia, as well as murders, prisons, punishments, revolvers, and using keyword the «Ottowa terror».
The latter points to an act of terror in Ottawa, Canada five days earlier, in which then 33-year-old Michael Zehaf-Bibeau opened fire near the parliament building, killing a watchman with his hunting rifle. The terrorist was killed in an ensuing firefight with security guards but left behind a video message.
«This affords the conclusion that he was aware of the fact that an act of violence would lead to public coverage of events, and, considering the circumstances, attention paid to the perpetrator,» the district court notes.
On the morning of October 27, immediately after the end of the fall school holiday, Vaiko decided to find his father's Amadeo ROS-SI-851 revolver before going to school. He was familiar with the gun as he had practiced with it in a local quarry with his father and brother at least once. It only took the boy ten minutes to find the key to the weapon cabinet that was hidden in a cupboard in his parents' bedroom.
Vaiko carried the gun and nine cartridges with him until about 1.55 p.m. when he opened fire on the teacher in room 204 seemingly without any reason. After killing the teacher, the boy closed the classroom door, keeping four students from leaving the room, and reloaded the gun.
Vaiko gave statements in court, according to which his relationship with the teacher had been bad and he was afraid the teacher would start picking on him that morning. Looking to prevent this emotionally difficult conflict with the teacher, he stood and fired. The accused said in court that he killed the teacher on account of persecution that consisted of mockery and physical contact. During one of the sessions, Vaiko even said that there were voices in his head that ordered him to kill the teacher, even though he never mentioned these voices to anyone.
The court deemed all these claims to be realistically unreliable and disregarded Vaiko's testimony. Witnesses said that while Sarap had developed a habit of touching students, contact was either encouraging in nature or had pedagogical cause. Sarap's written evaluation of the accused provided no reason to believe she felt animosity towards the student.
So what had happened? To get closer to the truth, authorities took an unprecedented step and ordered a complex expert analysis that cost approximately 6,000 euros.
Evidence examined in court gave no reason to believe Vaiko had developed a state of excitement during class and that he had committed the crime as a result of his emotional state.
The ruling also found that Vaiko's father had not been sufficiently careful as the key to the weapons cabinet had been hidden in a cupboard in the same room as the cabinet.
Why had the boy's father not turned to the teacher, class teacher, the principal, or the police in a situation where he later said he was aware of differences between his son and the teacher and suspected Sarap of having pedophilic tendencies?
«The district court finds that upon learning of problems affecting the child, the parent should have intervened in a timely fashion to comply with his obligation of providing care,» the verdict reads.
«He failed to develop in his child the idea that problems can be solved through conversation and negotiation, or by reporting them to the proper authorities.»