Rape trial in Berlin: “Hard to understand”

When the judge delivers the verdict, the two co-plaintiffs hold hands. They are the only victims who appeared at the Moabit Criminal Court on Wednesday for the verdict. With its decision for 12 years and preventive detention, the chamber is very close to the public prosecutor's demand of 13 years and preventive detention. The criminal defense had demanded 8 years without further action.

Are you affected by sexual violence? You can get support from advice centers such as the Federal Association of Women's Advice Centers and Women's Emergency Hotlines, HateAid, Weisser Ring e.V. or the "Violence against Women" helpline on 116 016. The Antistalking-Haecksen offer technical help against cyberstalking at antistalking.haecksen.org.

The perpetrator - now no longer suspected - drugged and raped 14 women in 22 cases in his apartment. He filmed some of the acts. However, no distribution of the videos on the Internet could be determined. The perpetrator must pay 30,000 euros in damages to two of the co-plaintiffs and 15,000 euros to another. He also has to bear the procedural costs.

In all 22 cases, dangerous bodily harm occurred in which substances harmful to health were administered to the victims in a deceitful manner. In 9 cases there was also an infringement of the most personal area of ​​life through image, video or sound recordings. In the other cases this was already statute-barred. The court does not grant the man reduced culpability.

Presiding judge Jakob Weber justified the preventive detention with the perpetrator's strong tendency to commit further crimes. This tendency became particularly visible through his “calmness and routine” evident in the videos. After the crimes, he often sat at his computer smoking while he processed the recordings. Most of the time, the victims were still lying unconscious next to him.

“They patiently attracted the women with intelligence, charm, eloquence, adaptability and ability to manipulate,” Weber said. Mr. S. deliberately looked for particularly vulnerable women. The women wanted closeness at a time in their lives when, as the defendant knew, they felt alone. Some of them were widowed, had just separated from a strained relationship or, in some cases, had even just lost their own children.

"It is significant that the victims blame themselves for their gullibility. It should be natural to trust others," said Weber. What all women have in common is that none of them developed the slightest suspicion. “In the beginning you were a friendly, likeable, completely normal man.” This way the perpetrator managed to lure the women into his apartment.

According to Judge Weber, based on the videos it can be safely ruled out that the women's condition is solely due to alcohol consumption. The administration of the substances posed a great abstract threat to the lives of the women. It is “purely coincidental” that none of the victims were in any real danger to their lives or even died.

The chamber chairman described the acts as “heartless” and “hard to understand”. None of the women gave their consent. “It is significant that the victims blamed themselves for wanting further contact or even developing feelings,” said Weber. “From our point of view, this does not speak in the slightest against the credibility of the witnesses.” The victims' reactions are rather a result of the perpetrator choosing women who "wanted to have someone in their life so much that they suppressed any possible disturbing feelings."

According to the court's assessment, the perpetrator is still far from truly deeply remorseful. “We are convinced that to this day you have not fully understood what you did,” Weber addressed the perpetrator directly. An example of this is that in response to the insults from one of the co-plaintiffs in the courtroom, he raised his hand and said “Sorry”.

“They have made every human being’s primal fear of losing the ability to act and remember the reality,” said Weber. He treated women like objects. But: “These women were not objects.”

“You tried to take away the women’s dignity,” the judge said. “But you didn’t succeed.” The process was called Berlin's Pelicot case. “The victims are not Gisèle Pelicot, but rather women with different names, personalities, desires and attitudes,” said Weber. And above all: no less courageous than Gisèle Pelicot.

What happens now for the remaining 44 victims? One case had to be discontinued due to the statute of limitations. The public prosecutor's office said the investigation into the proceedings was ongoing. It might be expected that Frank S. will be charged again once police investigate new cases, said Alan Bauer, spokesman for the public prosecutor's office. “The penalty from the first trial would then be taken into account in the case and a total penalty would be formed with the penalty from a second trial,” explained Bauer.

The renewed indictment also does not contradict the principle that a suspect may only be brought before court once for the same crime - the so-called “use of criminal charges”. “Even if it is the same crime, the individual rapes are different crimes,” said Bauer. The investigation into the further facts was ongoing. If there is another prosecution, it is likely that the case will be heard by a different judge and a different chamber.