Tile man process
.JPG)
The Kachelmann process was a criminal case against the weatherman Jörg Kachelmann in Germany in 2010 and 2011. The prosecution Mannheim and the co-plaintiff threw Kachelmann a particularly serious rape in coincidence with a grievous bodily harm to his lover before. Kachelmann denied these allegations and was acquitted on May 31, 2011 at the Mannheim Regional Court . The procedure received considerable attention.
In September 2016 it was judged in a civil case that the rape allegation to the disadvantage of Kachelmann had been deliberately untruthful by his lover. In March 2017, the Mannheim public prosecutor initiated an investigation against her because of the initial suspicion of deprivation of liberty , which was discontinued in September 2017 on the grounds that the suspicion was insufficient.
Accused act
Jörg Kachelmann had had a relationship with Claudia D., who later became a joint plaintiff , for about ten years . At the same time, he maintained conditions comparable to those of other women. Assessments of the nature of their relationship differed. While the later co-plaintiff saw the love of her life in Kachelmann , the relationship for the moderator was an occasional mutual agreement. The two agreed to meet by chat in the early afternoon of February 8, 2010 for the night of February 9, 2010 in Claudia D.'s apartment in Schwetzingen . He wanted to come by around 11 p.m. at the latest; she informed him that she had already cooked.
Both representations of what is happening in the apartment differ from one another:
According to Claudia D.'s first statements in the investigation, she found an anonymous letter in her mailbox at around 5 p.m. after the chat. This included copies of two tickets of Lufthansa flights to Canada . One was made out to Kachelmann, the other in the name of an "Isabella M." The envelope also contained a sheet of paper that read: “He sleeps with her!” According to the later co-plaintiff, she confronted Kachelmann with this letter immediately after it had arrived. There should have been a dispute in which Kachelmann finally admitted that he was not loyal to her. She said the relationship was over. He said that he would decide for himself when it was over. He then took a tomato knife from the kitchen and held it to her neck. He pushed her into the bedroom and raped her there. Finally he left. Afterwards she couldn't sleep and vacuumed, washed dishes and sorted CDs .
Kachelmann presented the process in his only statement as follows: After an intensive SMS exchange, he rang the doorbell at D's front door at around 11 p.m., went upstairs and entered through the open door of the apartment. You waited in the bedroom. There was consensual sexual intercourse there. Then they would have watched TV, ate and drank a glass of white wine in the living room . Then the conversation turned to the letter. He admitted that he was not loyal to her and ultimately accepted that she had ended the relationship. He then left the apartment and drove away. He spent the night in a hotel in Mörfelden . The next day he flew from Frankfurt to Vancouver for the Winter Olympics .
Criminal proceedings
During the investigation, Kachelmann was arrested on March 20, 2010 after flying back from Canada , where he had moderated the weather for the first time at the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver , on the grounds of Frankfurt Airport . He spent more than 130 days in custody before the 3rd criminal division of the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court overturned the warrant on July 29, 2010.
The investigating public prosecutors were public prosecutor Lars-Torben Oltrogge and senior public prosecutor Oskar Gattner. Kachelmann was initially defended by the lawyer Reinhard Birkenstock from Cologne and the lawyer Klaus Schroth from Karlsruhe . During the main hearing, Kachelmann changed defense attorney and now hired the lawyer Johann Schwenn from Hamburg to do the defense. Additional members as public defender Andrea Combé from Heidelberg and as a media lawyer Ralf hump from Cologne to legal team Kachelmanns.
Preliminary investigation
On the morning of February 9, 2010, Claudia D. went to her parents' house next door and told them that Kachelmann had raped them. At 8:11 a.m., Claudia D.'s father dialed the police emergency number (110). His daughter said in the call that she had been raped by her boyfriend. About half an hour later, she and her mother went to the Schwetzingen police station . A knitted dress and a pair of briefs were brought to the police that she claims to have worn when she was raped. At the police station, she described her version of what had happened on the night of February 8th to 9th, 2010. The interrogation by an officer lasted three quarters of an hour. Then she was driven to the gynecological clinic of the Heidelberg University Hospital , where a gynecological examination was carried out by an assistant doctor. The doctor found reddish welts on the neck, left lower leg and left forearm and palm-sized reddish-blue hematomas on both inner thighs . Claudia D. also had to describe the events after 12 noon to Rainer Mattern , then head of the Institute of Forensic Medicine at the University of Heidelberg . Mattern then wrote a five-page report. In the report, he assigned the determined injuries to the possible crime. The redness found on the neck could be traced back to the repeated pressing of a knife with the back of the knife. But they could also be caused by horizontal scratching. Vigorous blood underflows on the inner thighs are the result of violent impacts, the contours speak for multiple impacts. The shape and position of the hematomas suggested forcefully pushing the legs apart. Scratch-like injuries to the thigh, stomach and forearm could have been caused by a knife point. There are no holding injuries from firm gripping by a possible perpetrator. The injury picture depends on the extent and type of resistance of the victim and is rarely characteristic. Mattern came to the conclusion that there were no obvious contradictions to the described course of events. Self-injuries could not be ruled out, but the large bruises would be unusual.
During the medical examinations, evidence was secured in Claudia D.'s apartment.
Since only Claudia D.'s testimony was available on February 9, 2010, the urgent suspicion required under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for ordering pre-trial detention was initially denied by the public prosecutor and Kachelmann was able to travel to Canada. The first five-page report by Mattern on the injuries to the beloved finally came to the conclusion that the injuries could be reconciled with the crime. There are no major contradictions. The public prosecutor's office now saw the urgent suspicion as given in accordance with Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On February 22, 2010, she therefore applied for an arrest warrant against Kachelmann. As a reason for detention , she stated the risk of escape (Section 112 (2) No. 2 StPO). Kachelmann had at the time no fixed abode in Germany and disposal in Switzerland and in Bridge Lake in Canada on real property . The then Kachelmanns company, Meteomedia , was based in Switzerland. The responsible investigating judge at the Mannheim District Court issued the requested arrest warrant.
Arrest of Kachelmann
After Kachelmann landed in Frankfurt on March 20, 2010 after his return flight from Canada, he was arrested at the airport. His lover and later wife Miriam, who had picked him up, was also present. The arrest was carried out on a locked parking deck, avoiding public interest. According to the police involved, Kachelmann took the arrest relatively calmly and made use of his right to remain silent. He named Ralf Höcker , who already advised him on media law matters, as a lawyer . Since Höcker is not a criminal lawyer, he referred Reinhard Birkenstock , who reported as a criminal defense attorney in Frankfurt on the same day. In the evening of the day, Kachelmann was housed in the Mannheim correctional facility .
On March 24, 2010, four days after his arrest, there was an appointment for a detention at the Mannheim District Court . During this appointment, Kachelmann got involved for the first and last time as part of the proceedings about what happened on the night of February 9th. He explained that Claudia D. was waiting for him in the bedroom and that consensual sex had taken place. Then they would have sat on the sofa in front of the television, ate and drank white wine. Then she confronted him with the plane tickets. There was an emotionally charged conversation that lasted about half an hour. In this conversation, she ended the relationship. He accepted this. At first he stated that he had not touched the knife and a tampon that was used that day, but put this into perspective when explicitly asked, saying that he was not sure. Then he went to the hotel in his car so that he could leave for Canada the next day. The judge stated during the appointment that he did not consider Kachelmann's statement to be credible. He initially assumed that the statements of alleged victims were generally truthful and ruled out that Claudia D. had inflicted the injuries on herself. He also found it unbelievable that a woman would first engage in sexual acts and only then confront her partner with such accusations. Attorney Birkenstock then withdrew his application for a detention review, but at the same time announced further evidence. The warrant was not overturned. After the detention test date on March 24th, Kachelmann had to board a prisoner transporter . He was filmed and photographed by numerous press representatives. On the short walk between the door to the Mannheim district court and the van, he explained: “I'm innocent, that's all I can say at the moment. Thank you. ”This time has been referred to as the best-documented eleven seconds of March 2010. Media lawyer Christian Schertz criticized this judicial procedure as a public demonstration. On the part of the local court it was said that the procedure had been coordinated with Kachelmann. The public's interest in information also had to be taken into account.
Also on March 24, 2010, Kachelmann's former lover went to the Heidelberg University Hospital, where she received therapeutic care from the specialist in psychotraumatology, Günter H. Seidler .
Kachelmann's lawyer Reinhard Birkenstock had already contacted Isabella M., whose name was on the flight tickets, on March 23, 2010. She remembered that in December 2009, a "Christina Brandner" called "Canada Connection" reported to her for the first time on the social network Facebook . The name was unknown to her, googling only gave evidence of a character in the daily soap Verbotene Liebe . “Christina Brandner” or “Chris” claimed that she and a “Frank” had met Isabella and Jörg Kachelmann in Canada and asked whether the relationship with Jörg still existed. The person I wrote to reacted rather cautiously. When at the end of the Facebook-Dialog “Christina Brandner”, which lasted for some time, on January 12, 2010, an acquaintance of her had seen Kachelmann with another and expressed her condolences, Isabella M. replied that her relationship with Kachelmann continued . The dialogue then broke off; “Christina Brandner's” profile picture on Facebook has been deleted. On the sixth day after the arrest, the defense attorney presented Birkenstock with a printout of the dialogue on Facebook and a handwritten letter from Isabella M., in which the circumstances of the dialogue were explained from her point of view and in which she stated that Kachelmann was involved in an act like that accused not capable. Later, however, Isabella M. forwarded incriminating emails to the police , from which Kachelmann's psychological problems could be read, and named other possible witnesses. The presence of the Facebook dialogue meant that the public prosecutor had Claudia D.'s laptop secured. In doing so, she complied with a request made by lawyer Birkenstock a week earlier. However, the public prosecutor's office refrained from securing her computer at work or her parents' computer. At the same time, Kachelmann's laptop and mobile phones were seized.
The contents of Claudia D's laptop were copied and later examined by an IT specialist from the Heidelberg Police Department. The original data, which may have been deliberately deleted, was missing on Kachelmann's cell phones.
Beginning of the "battle of experts"
Birkenstock was not only concerned with securing computers. As defense attorney for Kachelmann, he submitted three reports to the public prosecutor's office , which dealt with the forensic side of the case. The experts doubted whether the act could have been committed in the manner described by co-plaintiff Claudia D. Commissioned by the defense, this was the beginning of what was later called in the press the “battle of the experts”. In terms of procedural tactics, the introduction of experts and reports in German criminal proceedings is not without problems. Defense lawyers cannot force the collection of further expert opinions. In the main proceedings, the court has a relatively wide range of options in Section 244 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to reject expert opinions. One possibility to bring this in anyway is the self-summoning of the experts ( § 220 StPO) by the defense. As a rule, this instrument cannot be used in criminal proceedings, as Section 220 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the accused to be obliged to make advance payments and this often cannot be financed. In the case of the relatively wealthy Jörg Kachelmann, however, this approach was feasible.
The defense commissioned the Düsseldorf specialist for forensic medicine Andrea Schultes , the professor for forensic medicine at the University of Cologne Markus Rothschild and the professor for forensic medicine at the University of Münster Bernd Brinkmann to prepare the reports .
- In her report, Andrea Schultes assumed that the almost parallel, sharply delineated traces on Claudia D.'s neck were not compatible with the dynamic events described. A self-provision is possible and also obvious. The nature of the injuries to the abdomen, thighs, and arms suggest self-inflicts. They are located in places insensitive to pain and cannot be reconciled with the course of the crime described.
- Bernd Brinkmann interpreted Claudia D.'s neck injuries as self-inflicted. It can be ruled out that this type of injury was inflicted with the knife edge. The injuries are too superficial for that. It is not possible to inflict such injuries with the back of the knife. Also, during the entire process described by Claudia D., including undressing, the knife could hardly have injured only the same relatively small area. Brinkmann suspected that a fingernail was the cause of the injuries. Most likely he attributed the bruises on the thighs to fist blows.
- Markus Rothschild saw the neck injuries as unusual for exposure to a knife. In his opinion, the injuries indicated vertical scraping movements. These require calm and concentrated movements. The most conceivable instrument is a cord, ribbon or belt. The similarity and fine parallelism of the marks on the stomach is unlikely in a dynamic event, self-improvement is more likely.
As a result of the submission of these reports, the public prosecutor's office followed a request from the defense for a testimonial psychological assessment of the co-plaintiff on the question of the credibility of Claudia D.'s statements . The legal psychologist Luise Greuel was commissioned .
Change of the incriminating statement
On March 30, 2010, Claudia D. was interrogated at the Heidelberg police headquarters. During this interrogation, the officers asked whether she knew a Christina Brandner, a Chris or a Frank. She said no. She said that she had only looked for Isabella M. on the Internet the day she found the letter. She is not on Facebook.
On April 19, 2010, the results of the evaluation of the hard drive of Claudia D.'s laptop were available to the public prosecutor. The experts were able to determine that there were data gaps on it. Furthermore, they were able to prove that Claudia D. had not googled for Isabella M. before the night of the crime , but in February 2009. They were also able to restore two deleted photos of hematomas that resembled those of Claudia D. The recording date could no longer be determined.
Senior Public Prosecutor Oskar Gattner and Public Prosecutor Lars-Torben Oltrogge then asked in an interrogation on April 20, 2010 whether Claudia D. wanted to correct her statement on any point. She then admitted that she had heard of Isabella M. and made contact with her earlier. She only had reservations about admitting this earlier, otherwise it might have looked as planned. She found out about the existence of Isabella M. through a phone call about six months to nine months beforehand. At first she just wrote down the name and left it at that. Finally, as "Christina Brandner", she made contact with the rival. But at first she had the impression that Isabella M. and Kachelmann were not having a relationship after all. When Isabella Ms answer on January 13, 2010, it was clear that there was a relationship, she did not notice. Then she received the letter in question on February 8th. She was confronted with the result of an investigation into the letter. The result of the investigation was that only her and Kachelmann's fingerprints were detectable on the envelope and cover letter. After a pause for questioning, Claudia D.'s lawyer stated that she wanted to correct her statement again. She now admitted that she had already received the plane tickets in mid-2009. She wrote the letter with the statement "He sleeps with her!" And printed it out on the transmitter. When asked why she hadn't spoken to Jörg Kachelmann about Isabella M. at a get-together on January 20, 2010 in Herrenschwand , Claudia D. explained that she hadn't gotten that far.
On April 22nd, 2010 the public got the impression that Kachelmann's guilt had been proven: The Süddeutsche Zeitung published an article with the title “Knife with Fingerprints”, according to which the examination of the knife had revealed DNA traces and fingerprints. This message turned out to be a false report relatively quickly . In fact, the report sent on April 26, 2010 revealed that no fingerprints could be found. There is a DNA trace on the knife handle at the edge of the detection limit. It is a mixed track that has more DNA features from Claudia D. than from Kachelmann. Presumably it is flakes of skin .
The expert Luise Greuel held two meetings with Claudia D. in May, which lasted a total of eleven hours. After the talks ended, there was a phone call with prosecutor Oltrogge. In this phone call, Greuel Oltrogge stated that Claudia D. had not abandoned her allegation and also had no clear signs of a mental disorder. However, the report will only be able to be completed by the end of May, as the situation is not uncomplicated.
Indictment
The Mannheim public prosecutor brought charges against Kachelmann on May 19, 2010 . The charge was rape in a particularly serious case in unity with dangerous bodily harm . On July 9, 2010, the Mannheim Regional Court admitted the indictment in full and opened the main proceedings . The proceedings were scheduled for 15 days to be held until October 27th.
The indictment was served on Kachelmann on May 25 at around 3:00 p.m. Shortly after this delivery, Luise Greuel sent an email to the public prosecutor. In this she briefly summarized the results of her report. Claudia D.'s statement has too many shortcomings for the background of the rape experience to be substantiated using psychological testimony. Luise Greuel also stated in her written report that from a psychological point of view there was no evidence that Claudia D. was raped by Kachelmann. There are shortcomings in terms of the level of detail and the logical consistency of the statement. Some of what Claudia D. describes could not have happened that way.
On June 7, 2010, attorney Birkenstock filed a complaint against the public prosecutors involved in the case. This was justified with investigative failures. The complaint was dismissed in September 2010 on the grounds: "The legal assessments of the public prosecutor's office were accurate or at least justifiable."
Revocation of the arrest warrant
On July 29, 2010, the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court upheld Kachelmann's complaint and overturned the arrest warrant of February 25, 2010. The higher regional court ruled that there was no longer any urgent suspicion . It is a classic constellation of "statement against statement". In the case of the joint plaintiff, motives for punishment and false charges could not be ruled out. During the filing of the complaint and in the further course of the investigation, she also made incorrect statements about parts of the prior history that was the subject of the proceedings and the peripheral events that were significant for the assessment of the core events. A self-infliction of the injuries cannot be ruled out according to the state of the investigation.
Main hearing
The main hearing in the Kachelmann criminal case began on September 6, 2010 at the Mannheim Regional Court. Because of the large number of visitors, access for press representatives had to be regulated. Journalists had to get accreditation . Several pots were created for different types of media and care was taken to ensure that not only German but also Swiss media were taken into account. In the context of the controversy about journalist accreditation in the NSU process , this approach was described as a possible and exemplary solution.
The main proceedings took place under the file number 5 KLs 404 Js 3608/10 before the 5th Large Criminal Chamber of the Mannheim Regional Court and ultimately lasted 44 days from September 6, 2010 to May 31, 2011. Thirty witnesses were heard during the main hearing Among other things, the employees of the hotel in which Kachelmann stayed after he had left the co-plaintiff, ten ex-lovers, one of them in Switzerland, the girlfriend of a former lover and Alice Schwarzer , who was accredited as a journalist , but who refused to testify. Hundreds of files were evaluated. Even the minutes of Kachelmann's chat and email correspondence with the co-plaintiff filled five folders. Ten reviewers took part.
Course of the main hearing with defense lawyer Birkenstock
On September 6, 2010, the first day of the trial, the trial was adjourned to September 13 after about ten minutes. The reason was a rejection request by the defense against two judges in the criminal chamber. Because of the short session, the reporting focused heavily on the interaction between the defendant and the co-plaintiff. The representations differed from each other. Gisela Friedrichsen, for example, wrote: "During the short negotiation, he repeatedly sought eye contact - looking questioning and confused - with his alleged victim." According to Friedrichsen, however, she is said to have refused to look. According to the caption of the picture, he should not have given her a glance, but according to the text, he should also have avoided eye contact. After another observation, she first looked at him, but he did not notice this, but later he looked at her once and she is now said not to have noticed.
It was perceived as unusual for a criminal trial that it was not the co-plaintiff who was first questioned as a direct witness, but rather a number of Kachelmann's former lovers as witnesses. Vincenzo Capodici: These interrogations of relationship witnesses , as well as later interrogations of other ex-lovers, were carried out in camera to protect the privacy of the witnesses. Overall, most of the negotiations took place in camera. The fact that various witnesses informed the public beforehand or afterwards via the press became a persistent point of criticism. Most of the discussion of the reports also took place in camera. Thomas Knellwolf put it this way in his book on the Kachelmann case:
"In the Kachelmann case everything goes wrong: During the criminal investigation, actually secret, almost everything became public, during the trial, actually public, most of it remains secret."
On October 6, 2010, the expert Bernd Brinkmann appointed by Kachelmann's defense lawyer was rejected as biased under Section 74 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the opinion of the court, Brinkmann limited his investigations unilaterally to the thesis of self-harm that was favorable to his client. The defense appealed against a remonstrance , but gave up a motion for bias against the court. Brinkmann was later to be heard as an "expert witness".
Six weeks after the start of the negotiations, Claudia D. testified as a witness. The statement was preceded by a dispute about the instruction of witnesses according to § 55 StPO: Birkenstock insisted that she should also be instructed that she could also refuse to testify if she accused herself of a criminal offense, such as a false suspicion ( § 164 StGB ) would. The court initially refused. There was a renewed request for bias by the defense. Finally, the instruction was given in the form desired by the defense. The testimony was made in camera and lasted four days from October 13, 2010, for a total of 20 hours. The termination of the testimony was originally scheduled for one of the last days of the trial of the main hearing.
Change of defense attorney
At the end of a break in negotiations, Kachelmann parted ways with attorney Birkenstock on November 29, 2010 as defense attorney. The mandate was now taken over by Johann Schwenn. According to Sabine Rückert , Ralf Witte , a victim of a miscarriage of justice , contacted Kachelmann by email and advised him to commission Schwenn, who had defended the victim at the time. Kachelmann himself presented the reasons for the change in the defense team as follows: He got the impression that the Birkenstock style was too cooperative and the other side saw this as a weakness. Together with his future wife, he also wrote to Birkenstock e-mails that were “clear by Swiss standards”. During the two-week break in negotiations, he realized that a change would have to be made. When communicating via Skype , his future wife remembered a dossier from the time . From the lawyers named there, the choice fell on Johann Schwenn. Shortly afterwards the email from Ralf Witte arrived.
In contrast to Birkenstock, Johann Schwenn was very aggressive in court. On the second day of the trial, for example, he filed a petition for bias against the expert Luise Greuel, although she had drawn attention to deficiencies in the statement of the co-plaintiff. He also applied for a search of the briefcase of the expert witness Günter H. Seidler and attacked him by stating that there were strange things in his therapy protocols; the behavior of the expert witness is cross-border and downright charlatanic . According to Gisela Friedrichsen from Spiegel , the steps that were decisive for the process had still been initiated by Reinhard Birkenstock. Birkenstock had confronted the public prosecutor's office with the possibility of lying by the co-plaintiff. In addition, with the selection of the experts, he had put the public prosecutor under pressure, which ultimately led to the commissioning of Luise Greuel by the public prosecutor and contributed significantly to the acquittal. Birkenstock had the arrest warrant lifted by the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court. This decision anticipated the final judgment of the regional court.
Expert opinion in the main proceedings
In the Kachelmann trial, part of the “crème de la crème of German forensics” essentially gave expert opinions on two complexes of questions: whether a rape in the night of February 8th to 9th, 2010 could be forensic evidence and whether Claudia's statement D., to have been raped by Kachelmann is credible.
After the change of defense counsel, negotiations began on December 13, 2010 on the forensic medical reports on the course of the possible offense. It began with the interrogation of the expert witness Bernd Brinkmann. He reported on the experiments that led him to his opinion, which was rejected by the court in September. The expert Rainer Mattern was questioned from February 1, 2011. As a result of the reports submitted by the defense during the preliminary investigation, he carried out further investigations. As a result, he did not want to rule out the possibility of the injuries being caused by rape or self-harm. He stated: "I can neither prove that the defendant caused the injuries to the co-plaintiff, nor can I prove that the co-plaintiff caused the injuries to herself." The experts named by the defense, Markus Rothschild and Klaus Püschel , contributed their reports the injuries on February 9th. Rothschild was guided by a ten-point catalog of characteristics in the "Handbook for Forensic Medicine" for self-harm. The lack of defensive injuries, the easily accessible point, the superficial scratches on the abdomen, left thigh and left arm, the parallel arrangement indicated, in his opinion, that he was self-inflicted. Püschel assumed there were clear indications of self-harm. He could rule out an attack-like event. There are many indications of manipulation, either by Claudia D. herself or with the help of another person.
The second expert-examined complex in the process concerned the credibility of the statement by Claudia D. Her therapist Günter H. Seidler testified on five days of the trial, on four days in camera. He argued that his patient had memory gaps as a result of a post-traumatic stress disorder . The psychiatrist Hans-Ludwig Kröber testified on Friday, February 25, 2011. He explained that traumatic events tend to be particularly memorable. A complete loss of memory is a rare exception. One should not succumb to the mistake of reversing the conclusion and conclude from memory disorders that a stressful event has occurred. In life-threatening situations, feelings split off so that fear is no longer felt. This leads to the statement by those affected that some of them no longer remember. Traumatization can also result not only from serious crimes, but also from severe humiliation or separation situations. On Monday, April 4, 2011, the neuropsychologist Hans J. Markowitsch was interviewed on the question of the possibility of memory disorders. Markowitsch was originally named by Birkenstock, but was unloaded by his successor Schwenn. He has now been questioned at the request of the public prosecutor. In the public part of his testimony, Markowitsch said that victims of crime usually remembered the core events very clearly. When it comes to memory disorders, the victims only remembered the facts without emotion or, conversely, only the feelings. On the 38th day of the hearing, May 2, 2011, the expert Luise Greuel was questioned about the credibility of Claudia D.'s statement. Greuel's testimony was largely closed to the public. On May 9, the psychologist Günter Köhnken gave his opinion. Reinhard Birkenstock asked Köhnken to comment on the Greuel report. Schwenn had added the question of whether Claudia D. had made a false statement. Köhnken saw a clear break in style in the very detailed description of the separation interview and the thin and poorly detailed description of the rape incident. Claudia D. is mentally capable of making a high-quality statement, but has produced a weak statement. An auto-suggestion he concluded, since the time between the events on the night of 10 February 2010 and Sichanvertrauen with the parents and the first statement to the police had been too short. He also thought it was possible to make a deliberate false statement. He criticized the fact that no verbal transcript was taken in the first interrogations and that there was not enough critical inquiries. Köhnken also criticized the traumatologist Seidler, who had been convinced of Kachelmann's guilt since the beginning of Claudia D.'s therapy. The co-plaintiff was influenced by Seidler's corresponding expectations in therapy. At the time of the talks with the Greuel expert in May 2010, your statements had already been "contaminated". Luise Greuel, who was interrogated again on May 9, stated that any trauma caused by the separation could have led to auto-suggestion. In terms of statement psychology, it is not possible to determine whether she is telling the truth.
On May 5, 2011, the psychiatric expert Hartmut Pleines was heard. He had been commissioned by the regional court to examine Kachelmann for his culpability . Pleines ruled out personality disorders. Even if Kachelmann is no stranger to selfishness and selfishness, there is no narcissistic personality disorder . Although Kachelmann deviates from the ideal of a balanced personality, a clinical diagnosis is not associated with it. Pleines based his opinion on Kachelmann's biography, observations during the main proceedings and the information provided by his former lover. Kachelmann himself had refused an appraisal.
Closing speech and verdict
On the third-last day of the trial, the public prosecutor's office pleaded for a prison sentence of four years and three months. In the pleadings of the public prosecutors Lars-Torben Oltrogge, Oskar Gattner and Werner Mägerle, she admitted that Claudia D. had given false information, especially about the previous history. However, she described the argument, the alleged attack with the knife and her fear of death in detail and credibly. Gaps in the description of the rape itself could be explained by the fear of death and the associated psychological stress. According to the public prosecutor's office, Kachelmann's statements were untrue, he first claimed that he had not touched the knife and tampon, and then, after consulting his lawyer, claimed that he did not remember them. The defendant deliberately deleted SMS messages from his mobile phone. The forensic medical reports also speak in favor of the co-plaintiff's version. All experts had confirmed that the injuries to the neck could have been caused by the tomato knife. The possibility of self-harm should be ruled out because of the associated pain. There were DNA traces of her and also of Kachelmann on the knife, even if these could not be assigned to him with certainty. The individual indications could also be interpreted differently. The necessary overall view of the evidence can only be reconciled with the act described in the indictment.
The defense attorneys' pleading followed on Tuesday, May 24, 2011. While Andrea Combé dealt with the evaluation of the evidence and the possible psychological backgrounds that had led to a complaint, Johann Schwenn concentrated in the afternoon on the failure of the court and the public prosecutor's office from the point of view of the accused. Combé argued in a three-hour plea that from her point of view the co-plaintiff was a deceived and frustrated ex-lover whose motive was hate. It has been proven that Claudia D. lied, stuck to her lies and was able to deceive even experienced detectives. She not only wrote the letter "He sleeps with her" herself, but also printed it out at work so that it could not be traced back to her. She also contacted a rival with a false identity on Facebook. If a defendant had done this, one would speak of high criminal energy. Otherwise you have a typical testimony-versus-testimony situation. Knife, knitted dress and slip did not show sufficient traces of Kachelmann. According to the expert report, D. was able to self-inflict the wounds. There is no evidence that it was as the ex-lover claims, but there is some evidence that it could not have been. The chat log shows that the sequence of eating and sex was as presented by Kachelmann (sex before eating).
When the verdict was announced on May 31, 2011, supporters of Kachelmann applauded and cheered in the courtroom when the acquittal was announced. Even during the trial, the audience in the hall had clearly tended to accept Kachelmann's innocence. The court preceded its oral judgment with the following comment:
“Today's acquittal is not based on the fact that the chamber is convinced of the innocence of Mr. Kachelmann and thus, in return, of a false accusation by the joint plaintiff. However, after the result of the evidence, there are justified doubts about Mr. Kachelmann's guilt. He was therefore acquitted according to the principle of ' in dubio pro reo '. "
The public prosecutor's office and co-plaintiff Claudia D. each first appealed against the judgment. However, the appeal was withdrawn at the beginning of October 2011 on the grounds that there was no prospect of success, and the acquittal thus became legally binding .
Criticism of procedure and judgment
The Kachelmann trial was widely noticed by the public. Both the criminal proceedings themselves and the final verdict were criticized many times and from different sides.
Criticism of the procedure
From the house of the mirror of the prosecutor in the proceedings has been criticized for being too "edginess". This dashing leads to a prejudice by the judges, who then hide behind “a mass of scientific reports”, the quality of which is not adequately checked. The public prosecutor's office had decided too early and only interpreted evidence to the detriment of Kachelmann. The investigations were superficial, so the importance of the co-plaintiff's laptop was not recognized. The indictment was brought before the completion of an important report. The criminal law professor Monika Frommel stated in an interview that the public prosecutor should have recognized early on that they had no objective evidence. It would have been better for all concerned, the procedure set .
The defense attorney Johann Schwenn criticized in the political magazine Cicero even before he took on the mandate in November 2010 that the Kachelmann case was an example of the fact that if a sexual offense is suspected, the path from alleged victim to alleged perpetrator is not far. The lawyer Christina Clemm accused Schwenn of polemics. In the case of sexual offenses, the majority of the proceedings are discontinued due to doubts about the statements of the victims or end with an acquittal according to the principle of “ in dubio pro reo ”. Sabine Rückert von der Zeit also traced the proceedings against Kachelmann as well as the investigation against Dominique Strauss-Kahn to the fact that the combination of a prominent man with rape allegations resulted in a lack of openness, which led to hasty investigations.
The Mannheim public prosecutor was criticized by the lawyer Volker Boehme-Neßler , the former constitutional judge Winfried Hassemer and the FDP politician Gerhart Baum for having given unjustified documents to the media and thus encouraging a prejudice. On the other hand, it was asserted that the public prosecutor's office, as an authority, had obligations to provide information, which it merely complied with. The lawyer Gerson Trüg, on the other hand, took the view that only limited information from the public prosecutor's office was permitted until the main hearing, e. B. Information that an arrest warrant has been applied for and issued. The legislature has already met the public's and the person's interest in information in favor of a secret investigation.
The arguments of the public prosecutor Lars Torben Oltrogge in his plea “You can evaluate all the evidence differently. But that is the essence of the circumstantial process , that it depends on the overall picture "was criticized in the Spiegel to the effect that this could lead to arbitrariness if the same evidence could lead to acquittal or conviction. Truth could become a matter of opinion. This damages trust in the judiciary. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung commented that the judiciary could not be completely free from arbitrariness. Contrary to the public impression of the trial against Kachelmann as a "smear theater ", court hearings, as Cornelia Vismann already analyzed, are basically also other theatrical performances.
Sabine Rückert attested to the Mannheim court in December 2010 that it was “on the road to sentencing despite the poor evidence”. Gisela Friedrichsen criticized that the court was aware of all exonerating circumstances before the main hearing began. For the defendant as well as for the co-plaintiff, it was an eight-month "nightmare of the main hearing". In particular, she was thereby branded for all time as a person in public who also lied to all persons close to her. Claudia D. had also been "burned" by other people "as a means to the end of increased publicity". The criminal lawyer Ulrich Eisenberg stated in a contribution to the JuristenZeitung that in his opinion the proceedings against Kachelmann were an example of the fact that the main proceedings should not have been opened without further investigation given the evidence.
In an interview, forensic scientist Michael Tsokos criticized the expert's lack of determination regarding Claudia D.'s injuries. In his opinion, these were typical for self-harm, but the colleague did not want to commit himself; so the process was not ended early enough.
The very extensive exclusion of the public from the trial was also heavily criticized. The publicity of court proceedings is important from the point of view of the rule of law . Since judgments are pronounced “in the name of the people”, it is necessary that it is made transparent how these judgments come about. The protection of privacy is an important good, but courts have to balance this. In the form, as it happened in the Kachelmann trial, only space is created for speculation and conspiracy theories. This undermines trust in the rule of law.
Victim associations such as the Weißer Ring or Terre des Femmes criticized the media coverage. Due to the partial pre-conviction, rape victims would in future be more likely to prevent them from reporting such crimes quickly. For Christa Stolle from Terre des Femmes, the acquittal had a fatal signal effect, since violent men had not been adequately conveyed that attacks against women were reprehensible. "Even a moral ostracism by the public" is "hardly present when celebrities publicly stand up for accused men". On the Anne Will talk show in August 2010, ex-public prosecutor Hans-Jürgen Karge said in connection with rape cases: "In case of doubt, I would advise my daughter not to go to the police."
It was assumed that Kachelmann had to pay for badly gone proceedings before the Mannheim Regional Court, such as the Harry Wörz case , the FlowTex process or the nuclear smuggling process . The process took so long because the court and prosecutor wanted to make it too precise. Thomas Knellwolf saw the judiciary as overwhelmed and criticized the excessive length of the proceedings. From this point of view, he viewed the case as a media and judicial scandal .
Criticism of the judgment
Emma magazine highlighted that the trial operated on suspicion against modern women who used the lie of sexual violence as a weapon against men. Conversely, men are subject to an assertion of innocence. The judgment of the regional court had ruled for the accused, but not against the version of Claudia D. It was "a third class acquittal", the doubts about the innocence of the accused are so great that "the judges are still in the reasoning explicitly emphasized that the suspicion that Kachelmann raped his ex-girlfriend had 'not evaporated'. ”Sabine Rückert commented at the time that this“ second class acquittal ”was not an act of glory by the judiciary. Ultimately, the rule of law came to its senses, but this was due to the defense, who first determined the exonerating factors.
Gisela Friedrichsen criticized that the grounds for the verdict were ruinous for the acquitted accused. Heinrich Gehrke criticized in a talk show that the court had exceeded its powers with its justification. In the legal journal, Heike Jung criticized the court 's introduction to the grounds for the verdict. Although a court must justify its decision and also undertake an assessment of the evidence, this does not justify for reasons of the rule of law to bring out the doubts about innocence in such a way. Johann Schwenn, as defense counsel for Kachelmann, claimed that the court would have loved to convict Kachelmann. With this introduction, the criminal chamber "stepped properly" in order to "damage the defendant as much as possible". The Swiss lawyer David Gibor felt reminded of the Inquisition trials by the reasons for the verdict . The Inquisition was not only able to clearly acquit or condemn, but also to pronounce a special punishment if suspicion persisted. The District Court of Mannheim pronounced such a decision by “making a stigmatizing suspicion of acquittal, which now echoes timelessly into the living space of a legally innocent person”.
Criticism of behavior after the trial
The appearance of Kachelmann after the trial and the protestation of his innocence were attacked. Bild editor -in- chief Hans-Hermann Tiedje explained in Günther Jauch's talk show that, in his opinion, Kachelmann, unlike Andreas Türck, had not received a “first class” acquittal. Springer-Verlag was later sentenced to the highest fine in the history of German journalism for its untruthful reporting and the violation of Kachelmann's personal rights by the Bild newspaper.
In the magazine Emma was argued similarly to that of the picture . There it was written:
“One should actually think that someone who is accused of rape at the knife edge and is acquitted after eight agonizing months - but not because of 'proven innocence', but because of the principle: 'In case of doubt for the accused' - that such a reason has to be silent. Especially when the doubts about the defendant's innocence were allowed to be as great as in the Kachelmann case, and where the judges explicitly emphasized in the grounds of the verdict that the suspicion that Kachelmann had raped his ex-girlfriend had 'not evaporated'. However, at the same time there would be 'doubts about his guilt'. So a third class acquittal. But no, two years after the start of this process, Kachelmann is starting again. "
Stefan Niggemeier , on the other hand, pointed out that Türck was also acquitted at the time according to the principle of “in dubio pro reo”. The view taken by Tiedje or Emma shows that an acquittal is probably worthless. During the time , Fabienne Hurst wrote in 2017 that the trial against Kachelmann was an example of the fact that the acquitted also had to deal with the public's suspicion that he was the perpetrator. Another problem is that no member of the judiciary likes to correct himself.
Media coverage and litigation PR
Kachelmann's arrest on March 20, 2010 became known to the press relatively late. Only on the morning of 22 March 2010, the received image - reporter Janine Wollbrett a call in which she was told, Joerg Kachelmann had been arrested. The public prosecutor's office responded to the news of the arrest with a press release that did not name any names but spoke of a "51-year-old journalist and moderator". The director of the Mannheim correctional facility later behaved differently. Upon request, he willingly gave journalists information about Kachelmann's life in prison. In the evening, almost all German news programs reported prominently about Kachelmann's arrest. The exceptions were the programs Tagesschau and Tagesthemen on ARD . The reason is said to have been that it was just a suspicion.
The process subsequently attracted considerable media attention. The Süddeutsche Zeitung described the trial as "one of the most spectacular trials in the history of the Federal Republic". From the point of view of a conversation partner from Time magazine , the Kachelmann trial was the process of the year. From a Swiss point of view, the Kachelmann case for World Week in the otherwise uneventful year 2010 was outstanding. In particular, it was a high point of media decadence. In the reporting, Jörg Kachelmann's private love life was also made public, including details of sexual practices. Before the criminal proceedings, Kachelmann had avoided giving the public or those around him insight into his private life. An evaluation of nine print media by Heike Jung showed that the media interest in the announcement of the verdict was shown by the fact that in each of the media the acquittal was noted on the front page and three or more articles were dedicated to the verdict. No medium noted the outcome of the proceedings under “Miscellaneous”.
The reporting was also reflected in the sales figures: For Bunte , issue no. 23/2011 was with the headline “ Jörg Kachelmann: acquittal, but what will become of her? “With 348,627 individual sales, the second best-selling magazine after the magazine reporting on the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton in 2011; For Stern magazine, issue 31/2010 with the Kachelmann cover story was a sales success with 360,332 copies sold. The magazine with the two-part title page " The Kachelmann Files " / " Gauck - the better president " gave the Spiegel the best sales result in 2010. On the other hand, the talk shows people at Maischberger and Markus Lanz on the verdict in the Kachelmann trial were relatively weak Quotas of 5.7% ( Markus Lanz ) and 5.9% ( people at Maischberger ) and thus remained significantly behind the daily winner Dr. House (19.4%) back.
Journalists and the media took part in the reporting. While Der Spiegel and Die Zeit clearly represented Kachelmann's positions, he was rather prejudiced by the media from Axel Springer and Burda . According to critics of the media coverage, this led to both the accused and the co-plaintiff being exposed in public and ultimately socially exhausted - he as a possible rapist, she as a liar. In the end, the reporting did not contribute to informing media consumers.
The court reporters Gisela Friedrichsen (Spiegel) and Sabine Rückert (Zeit) were accused of a lack of journalistic distance. With Friedrichsen it was clear from the beginning that only an acquittal would come into question. This did not only in their reports in the mirror , but also in the talk show of Markus Lanz in ZDF and in an interview for Radio FFH clearly expressed. Sabine Rückert influenced the change of defense attorney without disclosing it.
Based on an idea from editor-in-chief Kai Diekmann , Alice Schwarzer started writing in September 2010 in the Bild newspaper as a “litigation columnist ” in the Kachelmann case. Schwarzer justified the collaboration with Bild by stating that it was important that the alleged victim's point of view also appeared in a daily opinion-forming newspaper. Leading media in the German press landscape ultimately sided with the accused. In their view, the Kachelmann trial was the first exemplary process on sexual violence within relationships. It should be taken into account here that statistically every second rape occurs by the partner or ex-partner. Ms. Schwarzer's comments on the trial were criticized for being biased and prone to prejudice. Alice Schwarzer and Gisela Friedrichsen met on the Anne Will talk show in the summer of 2010 and represented their respective positions. Schwarzer and Friedrichsen were perceived as the main opponents in other media.
Before the opening of the main hearing, Focus magazine published the main content of the investigation files as a cover story under the title “The Kachelmann Files”. Kachelmann's lawyer was able to obtain an injunction against several explicit passages before the Cologne Regional Court .
The process was discussed on talk shows immediately after the acquittal. The show Menschen bei Maischberger took up the verdict shortly after the trial. In the program, Alice Schwarzer criticized the court that the media and defense attorney Schwenn had put enormous pressure on the court . Schwenn kept talking about revision . She doubted whether the verdict was true. The former judge Heinrich Gehrke contradicted her. It is not primarily the task of a criminal court to determine the truth, but to check whether the evidence is sufficient for a conviction. This was not the case in the case of Kachelmann. The assessment as "second class acquittal" is wrong and unreasonably incriminates Kachelmann. At the same time, the process at Markus Lanz was discussed on ZDF with the defender Kachelmanns and Gisela Friedrichsen, among others. In 2012 the case was resumed on the Günther Jauch program. Here the case was discussed with Jörg Kachelmann , Hans-Hermann Tiedje , Gerhart Baum and Winfried Hassemer . In the program, Tiedje spoke to Kachelmann as a possible rapist despite acquittal. The assessments of the show with Günther Jauch diverged, as in the process. There was agreement that Jauch seemed overwhelmed. In Spiegel Online it was criticized that the presumption of innocence was treated as an oddity among lawyers and that the judiciary did not intervene when Tiedje insulted Kachelmann as a “lousy character” and a possible rapist. On Focus Online , on the other hand, it was criticized that Jauch had offered Kachelmann and his wife a platform as poisonous toads.
During the ongoing process, Alice Schwarzer announced in 2010 that she would publish a book on the Kachelmann case. In 2012 the publishing house Kiepenheuer und Witsch announced that the book The Kachelmann case by Alice Schwarzer would not be published. Instead, Schwarzer is working on a thematically broader book on sexual violence. In 2011, Kachelmann said in an interview with Die Zeit that he worked between one and ten hours a day on a book on the case. The book should be called Mannheim . In October 2012, the book, written together with his wife Miriam, was published under the title Law and Justice. A fairy tale from the provinces . Shortly after the end of the trial, the book The Kachelmann Files was published. Anatomy of a scandal by the journalist Thomas Knellwolf. The book was written quickly on Deutschlandfunk , but it was well researched and discussed objectively. After its publication, Knellwolf's book rose to number 63 on the Spiegel's bestseller list .
Criticism of the reporting on the Kachelmann case
During the statement of reasons, the court criticized both the press and the handling of the case in forums, blogs and other forms of communication on the Internet . Overall, it was not possible for the public to form an unbiased opinion on the case. For the Neue Zürcher Zeitung , Rainer Stadler commented that reporting on the Kachelmann case was a “declaration of bankruptcy by the information industry”. The public was confronted by the reporting only with a "just as inedible as transparent pulp of rumors, allegations and counter-claims". It was presumptuous of journalists to make early judgments about guilt or innocence. The Cologne lawyer Norbert Gatzweiler criticized the media and their handling of the case at an event organized by the University of Trier on the subject of "criminal law and the media" with the words:
“The proceedings against Mr. Kachelmann are probably the most shocking example of media reporting in our country that has gotten out of hand. From the beginning, not only the presumption of innocence was trampled underfoot in these proceedings. Serious wrong decisions, a barely comprehensible one-sidedness of the investigating public prosecutor's office, a pre-determination of the court that is becoming increasingly clear over long stretches, in each case in clear combination with launched media reports, have every chance of litigation that could have done justice to the fair trial principle , right from the start destroyed. "
In 2015, Christian Bommarius saw the tabloid reporting on the Kachelmann case as a rare example of the systematic pollution of public spaces with information from the intimate life of celebrities.
An appearance by Oliver Pocher as a Kachelmann double on the occasion of the opening of the main hearing was perceived as the media low point of the proceedings .
Whether the media coverage actually had any influence on the course of the proceedings is, however, controversial: While Gisela Friedrichsen cited the Kachelmann trial in the criminal defense journal as an example of the fact that massive media interest would lead to massive changes in criminal proceedings before German courts and criminal defense, the legal side argued that this media and public interest had always existed, and that the proceedings against Kachelmann were not essentially influenced by it. Professor Heike Jung also commented that, by and large, the court had proven to be insensitive to media reporting, even if the media scolding in the grounds of the judgment was understandable but did not show professional sovereignty.
As a consequence of the reporting on the Kachelmann trial, the CDU politician Siegfried Kauder asked the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung that reporting on rape trials must be restricted by law "unless the media are ready to make a convincing commitment". In contrast, Gisela Friedrichsen stated that this proposal entailed the risk of censorship . In the case of Kachelmann, such a regulation would have been unsuccessful, since the intimate details had already been made known before the main proceedings were opened.
Fabienne Hurst criticized the fact that the press processing had contributed to the fact that the public still suspected that Kachelmann was guilty.
Litigation PR during criminal proceedings
Kachelmanns lawyers pursued in dealing with the media a dual strategy: on the one hand, Kachelmann zuneigende media such as mirrors or time information, exclusive interviews and the like supplies, on the other hand, was legally by Kachelmanns media lawyer against unfavorable reporting massive Ralf hump proceed. The prosecution was accused by the defense of having passed on the results of the investigation to the magazine Focus . The prosecutor denied this. Reporters also assumed that such information would be passed on by the public prosecutor's office. The main reason for the presumption was that the interests of the accused and the co-plaintiff could not have been directed towards the disclosure of the most intimate details.
During the criminal proceedings, at the request of Kachelmann's media attorney Ralf Höcker, numerous injunctions were made . In total there were over thirty such orders within one year. Jörg Kachelmann listed law and justice in his book . A fairy tale from the province dated August 2012 91 before the Cologne Regional Court obtained temporary injunctions. The press chamber of the regional court in Cologne is relatively popular with celebrities when they invoke the violation of personal rights. In such cases, an overriding place of jurisdiction within the meaning of § 32 ZPO applies , that is, the plaintiff may choose the locally competent court (also called forum shopping ). When balancing personal rights and freedom of the press , the Cologne Regional Court tends to protect personal rights more than other regional courts and is more willing than other courts to decide on temporary injunctions due to urgency without hearing the press. Many of these orders in the Kachelmann case, for example because of the publication of pictures from prison, reports of statements by a former lover about Kachelmann's behavior more than ten years ago or the publication of Kachelmann's statements with details of sexual behavior, were made in civil courts even after the acquittal Criminal case still being dealt with. At the beginning of 2012, the Cologne Higher Regional Court finally had to decide numerous of these disputes as a court of appeal.
After the picture became known on March 22, 2010 that Kachelmann was imprisoned, the lawyer Birkenstock was called, among others , to have this confirmed. Then Ralf Höcker took action for the first time: He applied for an injunction at the Cologne Regional Court. This should prevent Bild from reporting on the arrest. The responsible judge refused. Just because Bild was aware that Kachelmann was arrested, there was no risk of first ascent that would also be reported.
About three weeks after Kachelmann's arrest, a reporter took a photo of Jörg Kachelmann while walking in the prison from a nearby high-rise building with the help of a telephoto lens with a long focal length . His lawyer initially successfully appealed against the publication of this photo in print and online media with an injunction applied for before the Cologne Regional Court. An objection was filed against this, which was rejected by the regional court (Az. 28 O 318/10). Finally, the Cologne Higher Regional Court ruled that the publication of the pictures was unlawful. When weighing the freedom of the press and the public's interest in information against the rights of Kachelmann, it was crucial to consider that he was in an area of seclusion that excluded the public. Furthermore, the pictures were taken secretly, i.e. without the knowledge of the person concerned and using technical means. The publication of the pictures in the specific forms of injury is not related to a historical event. Bild -Zeitung and Springer-Verlag were defeated by the European Court of Human Rights in 2019; the court prohibited the further publication of the photo taken in 2010, which shows Kachelmann as an inmate on remand. The newspaper and the publisher had asserted the inadmissible violation of freedom of expression. In Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court ruled in the highest instance .
In one case, the legal disputes surrounding the Kachelmann trial also reached the Federal Court of Justice . With an injunction of June 21, 2010 (Az. 28 O 401/10), the Cologne Regional Court prohibited bild.de from disseminating certain details from Kachelmann's statement in his first judicial interrogation. It was about details that allowed conclusions to be drawn about the sexual behavior practiced by Kachelmann and Claudia D. The Cologne Higher Regional Court dismissed the appeal in a judgment dated February 14, 2012 . In these judgments, bild.de's interest in the publication of the corresponding article from June 13, 2010 and the public's interest in information on the one hand and the general personal rights of the accused on the other were weighed up against each other. The courts came to the conclusion that Kachelmann's right to privacy prevailed and that distribution should be prohibited in accordance with the principles of interference liability . The later reading of the minutes on September 13, 2010 in the main hearing did not change anything. As a result, this information was not made known to the public, but only to the trial public in the hall. Following the admitted appeal, the Federal Court of Justice overturned the rulings on March 19, 2013. The case raised the question of the limits of reporting from the main hearing of criminal proceedings. The Federal Court of Justice assessed the decisions on the original illegality of the publication as correct. However, he saw a change in the main hearing as a result of the reading of the minutes in question. Now it was possible for the press representatives present to quote legally. The risk of repetition of an illegal statement, which is necessary for an injunction, no longer existed. A constitutional complaint was lodged with the Federal Constitutional Court against the judgment of the Federal Court of Justice .
Alice Schwarzer claimed in her column for Bild , on emma.de and on her website that defense attorney Birkenstock had defamed the co-plaintiff by claiming that she was a stalker . Birkenstock brought Alice Schwarzer to submit a declaration of cease and desist with penalties , as he had never claimed to do so. This was corrected on bild.de , but could still be read for a few days on emma.de and aliceschwarzer.de . This resulted in a fine of 5,000 euros. In addition, on October 28, 2010, a corresponding preliminary injunction was obtained from the Cologne Regional Court, stating that Schwarzer should refrain from making such allegations. In fact, shortly after the allegations became known, only one of Kachelmann's business partners told the media that there had also been cases of stalking in the past.
In 2011, Höcker obtained, among other things, an injunction from the Cologne Regional Court (Az. 28 O 539/11) because of reader notifications in the “Opinio” reader portal at RP-Online . Due to the liability for interference, it was forbidden to publish prejudicial opinions of the readers, even if they did not come from journalists of the Rheinische Post .
The strategy of Kachelmann's lawyers was criticized. The aim should have been to keep reporting as low as possible. This was not achieved, Kachelmann's reputation was damaged in violation of the presumption of innocence . To what extent the judgment and the process were influenced cannot be determined. On the other hand, the thesis was put forward that after the verdict, Kachelmann should not have tried to portray himself as innocent in the media. The damage was thereby decisively increased. Like Andreas Türck , he could have tried to remain calm.
Civil law disputes after the criminal trial
Further civil trials took place as a result of the criminal proceedings.
Injunctive proceedings against Claudia D.
Claudia D. herself gave an interview to the Illustrierte Bunte after the trial . This was preceded by an interview that Kachelmann had given the weekly newspaper Die Zeit . In July 2011, Kachelmann initially had an injunction against certain statements made in the interview with the magazine and Claudia D. Finally, there was an action for an injunction at the Cologne Regional Court . Claudia D. asserted a right to a counterattack for herself. At the end of May 2012, the regional court upheld the action under file number 28 O 1065/11. The Cologne Higher Regional Court rejected the appeal against the first-instance ruling and confirmed the Regional Court's ruling on November 6, 2012. The Higher Regional Court weighed up the mutual interests and concluded that it was not known which version of the night of the crime was the true one . It should be taken into account that Kachelmann is considered innocent because of his acquittal before the law. It rejected the right to retaliate in this form. The Federal Court of Justice confirmed the judgment with a non-acceptance decision of July 30, 2013 (Az. VI ZR 518/12). However, in a decision of March 11, 2016, the Federal Constitutional Court granted Claudia D. the counterstrike in view of the previous behavior of Kachelmann and his defense lawyers; she was allowed to publicly and emotionally reaffirm her allegations of rape against the weather presenter even after his acquittal. The Constitutional Court referred the dispute back to the Higher Regional Court for renewed hearing.
Lawsuit against defense lawyer Birkenstock
Kachelmann brought an action before the Cologne Regional Court for the repayment of fees in the amount of 37,000 euros against his former criminal defense lawyer Birkenstock . Birkenstock filed a counterclaim . The court dismissed Kachelmann's lawsuit and sentenced him to pay a further 14,865 euros on the counterclaim.
Injunctive proceedings by Claudia D. against Kachelmann
In the book Law and Justice written by Kachelmann and his wife . A fairy tale from the province had given Kachelmann the full name of Claudia D. and described her as a “false accuser” and “criminal”. The radio presenter initially successfully appealed against this in 2012 with an injunction before the Mannheim district court . The court forbade naming on the grounds that the public's interest in information had to be weighed against Claudia D.'s general personal rights when naming the name in full . The reappraisal of what happened, which Kachelmann intends, is not given greater weight if the name is given in full. In the main proceedings, however, this ruling was largely revoked in October 2012 by the Mannheim Regional Court under file number 3 O 98/12. The designation as “criminal” was forbidden, the use of the full name and the designation as a “false accuser” were permitted.
The appeal lodged by Kachelmann was rejected by the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court on October 30, 2014. The judgment of the regional court was confirmed. The higher regional court did not allow the appeal.
Damage lawsuit against Claudia D.
In 2012, Jörg Kachelmann brought an action for damages (Az. 2-18 O 198/12) against Claudia D. before the Frankfurt am Main Regional Court . He demanded that she pay 13,352.69 euros for expert costs that he had incurred in the criminal proceedings. Kachelmann justified the lawsuit by stating that the costs were incurred through her knowingly false statement as well as the self-infliction of the injuries and the resulting criminal proceedings. The Süddeutsche Zeitung wrote about this civil case: “One of the most spectacular legal disputes in recent years is entering the next round.” Trial observers suspected that Kachelmann's complaint was less about compensation than about proof that Claudia D. had lied at the time .
Because of the independence of criminal and civil proceedings , it is possible that their results will be different. While the principle of in dubio pro reo applies in criminal proceedings , the rules of the burden of proof apply in civil proceedings . It was therefore basically possible that a civil court found that Claudia D.'s statements were untrue, even if the criminal court was not fully convinced of this.
Claudia D. applied for and received legal aid , although she had collected 115,000 euros for an exclusive interview and film rights and was therefore not in need. As a result, she paid a fine of 1,000 euros for attempted fraud.
Kachelmann's lawyer had supplemented her presentation with an opinion from forensic doctor Michael Tsokos . In this, he stated that, in his opinion, the pattern of findings of the injuries left no doubt that Claudia D. had inflicted the injuries herself. The defendant argued that Kachelmann was not authorized to file a lawsuit because it was not he, but his defense attorney who commissioned the expert opinion. Claudia D. also had no criminal authority , an intent could not be proven. In December 2013, the performance suit was dismissed. The district court did not consider it to be proven that the defendant had knowingly given false statements. Since Kachelmann bore the burden of proof , it dismissed the lawsuit. The Regional Court took the view that, although it was not bound by the judgment of the criminal court, the criminal court's findings should generally be followed, unless serious reasons for their inaccuracy were put forward. A further taking of evidence is therefore not necessary.
Kachelmann appealed to the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main in 2014 in January calling one against the first instance judgment. The higher regional court decided in the case 18 U 5/14 to raise further evidence. For example, the head of forensic medicine in Frankfurt, Marcel Verhoff , was commissioned to re-examine possible self-harm. The possible crime knife should also be examined again. At the beginning of February 2015 it became known that the Higher Regional Court expected the report to be available soon. There should then be an oral hearing as soon as possible. The report was completed in early July 2015. The parties were given a few weeks to comment on the result. The hearing took place on January 20th. Verhoff explained during the three-hour hearing that the nine injuries documented by Claudia D. could have been caused by an accident or by another person, but that the overall picture suggests that Claudia D. did it herself. The presiding judge of the 18th civil senate of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court stated that the Senate considered the complaint to be justified and that the complaint was basically in control. The procedure should continue on March 1, 2016. The OLG ordered the hearing of witnesses on April 13, 2016 to clarify whether Kachelmann had paid the costs for the experts privately.
Like the criminal case, the civil case has been followed by the media. The media patterns followed those already known from criminal proceedings. Franz Josef Wagner wrote for Bild in his column “Post von Wagner” that he considered Kachelmann to be a night walker. Gisela Friedrichsen , on the other hand, criticized the Frankfurt Regional Court for making its decision too easy. The public was also excluded from the compensation process because, according to the court, “the personal circumstances of the parties are discussed which do not belong in the public”. The announcement of the civil law judgment before the Higher Regional Court was followed by far fewer press representatives than the acquittal before the Mannheim Regional Court. The negotiations were accompanied by a demonstration by women against the claim of a “victim industry” by Kachelmann and also against a “rape culture”. On the occasion of the hearing before the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court, women's rights activists demonstrated against a “perpetrator-victim reversal”, among other things with the slogan: “Show me it's my turn”.
On September 28, 2016, the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court upheld Kachelmann's appeal against the judgment of the Frankfurt Regional Court and sentenced Claudia D. to pay more than 7,000 euros in damages plus interest (Az. 18 U 5/14). In the grounds of the judgment, the Senate stated that it was convinced that Claudia D. Kachelmann “deliberately and untruthfully accused of rape”. Claudia D. lied with the intention of taking Kachelmann to prison. The court relied primarily on an opinion by the Frankfurt forensic doctor Marcel Verhoff. He came to the conclusion that Claudia D. had inflicted the injuries on herself. The scratches and bruises on the neck, stomach and thighs were relatively superficial and uniform and were each in places that right-handed Claudia D. could easily reach with her working hand. The typical characteristics for self-harm had thus been fulfilled. The amount of the damages resulted from the costs of three reports that Kachelmann had commissioned while he was still in custody. When asked, Kachelmann's lawyer Ann Marie Welker said: "The actual damage was much greater". Kachelmann is no longer allowed to work for ARD, has lost advertising contracts and had to sell his production company. "We deliberately only sued a small sum, because it wasn't about the money, but about rehabilitation." The court did not allow an appeal to the Federal Court of Justice . Claudia D. called the judgment a “judicial scandal”. Accusing her of just fabricating rape was "a catastrophic misjudgment" by an "all-male Senate," she said in a statement she read. The verdict is intended to set an example in the “male-allied perpetrator state Germany”, since women have become more courageous in the fight against sexual violence attacks. The judges called them "poor, cowardly despisers of women".
“For the first time Claudia Dinkel - the alleged victim in the trial against Kachelmann - spoke publicly. After the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court had pronounced its judgment, she read out a statement. 'You witnessed a judicial scandal today,' she said. The 'all-male Senate' ignored 'all facts and circumstantial evidence' that 'speak against false testimony and in favor of rape'. "
After the decision, Kachelmann was "grateful" for the verdict. It is now unequivocally established that he has become a "victim of a crime" because of the false accusations. Now he has regained confidence in the German judiciary. Kachelmann's lawyer, Johann Schwenn, pointed out that the Mannheim or Frankfurt public prosecutor's office could have acted because of the false statement that led to Kachelmann's pre-trial detention.
As a result of the ruling by the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court, the Mannheim public prosecutor initiated an investigation into the opening of preliminary proceedings against Claudia D. for any criminal offenses committed against Kachelmann.
Injunctive proceedings against Alice Schwarzer
Alice Schwarzer had proposed the words “consensual sex” and “presumption of innocence” as the unword of the year in the magazine Emma, which she published , and justified this with the fact that “the best thing to do is to Nafissatou Diallo or Claudia D. or any of the 86,800 estimated raped women in the Jahr, whose rape was never reported, never charged or never convicted, ”should ask. Kachelmann obtained an injunction against this . The Regional Court of Cologne rejected an objection directed against this in its judgment of June 13, 2012. Alice Schwarzer appealed against this to the Cologne Higher Regional Court. In its judgment of May 27, 2014, the latter assessed the gloss as a violation of Jörg Kachelmann's personal rights. The impression is given that the acquitted moderator committed the rape. It rejected the appeal in a judgment from the end of May 2014 and did not allow the appeal to the Federal Court of Justice. A non-admission complaint was lodged against the judgment of the Higher Regional Court. The article was about language criticism and freedom of expression and, contrary to the assumption of the Higher Regional Court, not about the guilt or innocence of Kachelmann. “Presumption of innocence” and “consensual sex” are “basically neutral terms” that “not only in such spectacular cases as Kachelmann or Strauss-Kahn (who was also not convicted), but in almost all cases of suspected sexual violence between one another Man and a woman have been central arguments against the alleged victims from the outset. And usually long before the question of guilt or innocence is even resolved ”.
In February 2015, the Federal Court of Justice dismissed the non-admission complaint, stating that the case was not fundamentally important.
In another cease and desist proceedings, Kachelmann was unsuccessful against Alice Schwarzer. The subject was an article by Schwarzer in the Bild newspaper . In this, referring to statements from former lovers in the criminal trial, she claimed that Kachelmann was violent in relationships. The Cologne Regional Court upheld the lawsuit on June 10, 2015, and the Higher Regional Court dismissed the lawsuit on February 11, 2016. It was a marginal incident of the allegation that it was a permissible summary. Kachelmann's lawyer announced an appeal.
In 2018, Kachelmann was unsuccessful with the application for an injunction against Alice Schwarzer at the Düsseldorf Regional Court . Kachelmann wanted to have banned an article by Schwarzer on the MeToo movement. In the article, Schwarzer did not mention the conviction of his former lover in the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court and described him as acquitted for lack of evidence. The district court ruled that although his personal rights were affected, there was no illegal interference. Schwarzer did not mention the judgment of the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court, but neither did he mention the termination of the criminal proceedings against the ex-lover. The criminal judge in Mannheim had expressed the acquittal in such a way that Schwarzer's testimony was therefore covered by freedom of expression .
Litigation for pain and suffering against Bild , Bunte and Focus
Shortly before the expiry of a limitation period , the lawyer Ralf Höcker filed for Kachelmann lawsuits for compensation for pain and suffering against the publishers Springer and Burda because of the reporting in Bild , Bunte and Focus . The proceedings were preceded by notices of payment issued during the criminal proceedings . The defendants had contradicted the decisions at the time. Springer-Verlag stated that it viewed the lawsuit as a lawsuit filed shortly before the statute of limitations expired due to unfounded claims. The editorial offices of Focus and Bunte also saw the demands as unfounded. Because of the size of the application, the defendants were given six months to respond. According to Höcker, the action was delayed in order to be able to base the action on as many final judgments as possible. It was clear from the start that a lawsuit would be brought.
The negotiations against Bunte and Focus had been postponed in February 2015 to a different date than the negotiations against Springer. On May 21, 2015 it was announced that Kachelmann had reached a settlement with Burda.
In the oral hearing against Springer-Verlag on February 25, 2015, the Cologne Regional Court suggested a settlement . It sees an agreed campaign between Springer and Burda, which was alleged by the plaintiff, not as proven. Nevertheless, there were 47 potentially serious personal injuries. In the event that the parties would not come to an agreement, a decision date for June 24, 2015 was set. On May 18, 2015, negotiations on the settlement between lawyer Kachelmanns and the representative of Springer-Verlag failed. On September 30, 2015, the Cologne Regional Court announced its verdict, according to which Springer-Verlag should pay Kachelmann 635,000 euros in compensation for pain and suffering. The court was unable to identify any indications of a "press campaign" against him, which Kachelmann had complained about, in which it had acted "deliberately and with intent to cause harm", but the accusation that the newspaper "negligently failed to draw legal boundaries" was justified when weighing up conflicting fundamental rights positions ". The judgment is not final, Springer-Verlag had announced that it would appeal to the Cologne Higher Regional Court . Jörg Kachelmann's lawyer also announced that he would appeal because the amount of compensation for pain and suffering was not appropriate.
The higher regional court ruled on only 395,000 euros. 215,000 euros are to be paid for publications in fourteen print media and 180,000 euros for publications in online media. Springer-Verlag filed a non-admission complaint with the Federal Court of Justice against the judgment in which the revision was not admitted. Springer-Verlag justified the complaint by stating that truthful reporting on legal proceedings against well-known personalities should not be sanctioned by fines of this magnitude. The Federal Court of Justice rejected the non-admission complaint in April 2018. The lawyer of the Springer publishing house announced that it would be checked whether a constitutional complaint would be lodged.
Administrative dispute with the public prosecutor
The Mannheim public prosecutor told Stern TV in 2012 that traces of DNA had been found on the handle of a knife that would match Kachelmann's DNA typing. In 2014, Jörg Kachelmann brought an action against this at the Karlsruhe Administrative Court . It was a re-conviction after the 2011 acquittal. The public prosecutor's office kept quiet about the fact that it had already been clarified in the criminal proceedings that the DNA trace would match every man. In a hearing on July 27, 2017 before the Administrative Court of Baden-Württemberg , the state of Baden-Württemberg, as the legal entity of the Mannheim public prosecutor, put it on record not to repeat the allegation after the Senate of the VGH had pointed out that the allegation was unlawful and the general right Kachelmanns hurt.
Criminal proceedings against Claudia D.
On March 7, 2017, it became known that the Mannheim public prosecutor had initiated an investigation against Claudia D. on suspicion of deprivation of liberty . The public prosecutor said that just looking through the files could take months. In September 2017 it became known that the public prosecutor had discontinued the proceedings because there was insufficient suspicion. The public prosecutor's office assumed that the numerous reports in criminal and civil proceedings would not present a uniform picture. Kachelmann appealed against the setting.
The Kachelmann Process in Culture
Bad word of the year
In 2012 Jörg Kachelmann and his wife Miriam Kachelmann gave an interview to Spiegel . In this interview, Kachelmann answered the question "How could you provoke this hatred in this woman?":
“This is the victim subscription that women have. Women are always victims, even if they were perpetrators. But people can also be genuinely angry, even if they are female. "
“ Victim subscription ” was voted the unword of 2012 before “Schlecker women”. To justify this choice it was said:
“In this context, the word 'victim subscription' places women generally and unacceptably under the suspicion of inventing sexual violence and thus of being perpetrators themselves. In view of the dramatic fact that only 5–8% of women affected by sexual violence actually call in the police and that only 3–4% of cases lead to a complaint and a lawsuit, the jury considers this to be grossly inappropriate. "
Kachelmann responded to this election on Twitter with the words: “Hui, the bad word of the year. Who invented it? Unfortunately, it is the truth that is sometimes politically incorrect ”and stated that his wife was probably the author.
Alice Schwarzer welcomed the vote for Unword of the Year, as it sends a signal that the vilification and intimidation of victims of sexual violence will not pass. Ludwig Eichinger, director of the Institute for German Language, criticized that this unword was not well known. But it was "a not nicely meant word formation in a very emotional dispute". The White Ring pointed out the danger that this choice could make the non-word popular in the first place, even if it was important to expose such terms.
Stage and film
The episode Summ, summ, summ of the Münster crime scene with the investigator duo Thiel and Boerne and the guest star Roland Kaiser alludes to the Kachelmann case.
The television thriller In Dangerous Proximity (production title: At the end of the day ) by Johannes Grieser , which was broadcast on January 8, 2014 on ARD, was based on the Kachelmann trial.
In October 2011 it became known that the German-American company Story House Productions had acquired the rights to film her life from Claudia D. Filming should start in 2012. The film should not ask about Kachelmann's guilt, but rather deal with “how society deals with rape allegations in the 21st century”. No further information has become known about this planned film adaptation.
The Theater Felina-Areal in Mannheim brought the play Kachelmanns Rashomon by Sascha Koal to the stage in April 2012 . In the play, the different versions of the crime were freely portrayed. According to the scriptwriter and director, no sides will be taken. It is also about cannibalizing and marketing through the environment, be it from newspapers, the film industry or theater makers. Kachelmann had it explained:
“I endured a lying Schwetzingen false accuser, lying Schwetzingen police officers, a lying Mannheim public prosecutor and 132 days innocent in Herzogenried. So I no longer care about people who want to lure a few more people into their provincial cabaret world with my name on my back. "
Jochen Neumeyer for the Hamburger Abendblatt ruled that the play was an attempt at a stage scandal, but that it was far from reaching the real scandal.
literature
- Thomas Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files - anatomy of a scandal. Orell Füssli, Zurich 2011, ISBN 978-3-280-05443-7
- Jörg Kachelmann , Miriam Kachelmann: Law and Justice. A fairy tale from the provinces. Heyne, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-453-20025-8 .
Documentation
Hansjürg Zumstein shot the documentary Kachelmanns Fall for Swiss television ; the 49-minute program was broadcast on March 31, 2011 while the trial was still in progress. He took the position that it was a case of prejudice by the public prosecutor and the media for which there is no example.
The broadcaster Kabel1 included the case in the series The most spectacular criminal cases - the crime on the trail and advertised the case in a trailer . Jörg Kachelmann successfully defended himself against the trailer with a warning.
On May 2, 2017, ZDF broadcast the series Scandal! the consequence of scandal! The Kachelmann case . The episode was produced by Barbara Radl and Klaus Kastenholz .
Web links
- Chronology - The Kachelmann case. In: faz.net . May 31, 2011
- Kachelmann Trial: The Most Important Stages of the Case. In: derStandard.at . May 31, 2011
- Robert Bongen , Fabienne Hurst: Jörg Kachelmann: Convicted despite acquittal. In: Panorama , Das Erste from October 26, 2017 (video, 14 min).
Individual evidence
- ↑ a b Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 82.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 12, p. 18.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, pp. 85-87.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, pp. 50-55.
- ↑ Moderator Jörg Kachelmann is free again. In: The world . July 29, 2010, accessed May 2, 2014 .
- ↑ Simone Utler: Jörg Kachelmann in freedom: Relieved, smiling, silent. In: Spiegel Online . July 29, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Malte Arnsperger: Kachelmann and "Devil's Kitchen". In: Stern . March 31, 2011.
- ^ A b Simone Kaiser, Christoph Scheuermann, Barbara Schmid: On the flight . In: Der Spiegel . No. 31 2010, ( Online - Aug. 2, 2010 ).
- ^ A b Gisela Friedrichsen : Kachelmann defender Birkenstock: Surprising departure of a lawyer. In: Spiegel Online. November 30, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, pp. 14-16.
- ↑ a b Kachelmann took arrest calmly. In: Focus Online . September 15, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, pp. 17-20.
- ↑ a b Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 20.
- ↑ a b c d e f Petra Hollweg: The Kachelmann files: case with exceptional character. In: Focus. No. 31, August 2, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Thomas Darnstädt : The judge and his victim - When the judiciary is wrong. Piper, Munich / Zurich 2013, ISBN 978-3-492-05558-1 , p. 67.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, pp. 46/47.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 45 f.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 51 ff.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 55.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, pp. 86-94.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, pp. 94, 95.
- ↑ Kachelmann remains in custody. In: Stuttgarter Nachrichten . March 24, 2010.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, pp. 95-96.
- ↑ The Kachelmann Case: Discharged, Presented? In: Spiegel Online. March 25, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ According to the court, Kachelmann wanted to show himself to the press. In: The world. March 25, 2010, accessed May 2, 2014 .
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, pp. 70, 88.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, pp. 100-105.
- ↑ a b Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 105.
- ↑ a b c Sabine Rückert : Battle for Kachelmann. In: The time . No. 51, December 20, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ a b c Thomas Knellwolf: Data puzzle in the Kachelmann process. In: Tages-Anzeiger . March 2, 2011.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 120 f.
- ↑ Nina Poelchau : The bizarre battle of the experts. In: Stern.de . January 24, 2011.
- ↑ Reinhold Schlothauer : Preparation of the main hearing by the defense attorney. C. F. Müller, Heidelberg 1988, ISBN 3-8226-3488-3 , RdNr. 101.
- ↑ Reinhold Schlothauer: Preparation of the main hearing by the defense attorney. C. F. Müller, Heidelberg 1988, ISBN 3-8226-3488-3 , RdNr. 104.
- ↑ Sabine Rückert: Guilty on suspicion. (No longer available online.) In: Die Zeit. No. 26, June 28, 2010, archived from the original on March 18, 2014 ; Retrieved May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 121.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, pp. 111-117.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, pp. 136-143.
- ↑ a b Jürgen Dahlkamp , Simone Kaiser, Barbara Schmid: He sleeps with her! In: Der Spiegel . No. 23 , 2010 ( online - June 7, 2010 ).
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, pp. 145/146, 148, 149.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, pp. 149/150.
- ^ Rüdiger Soldt: Up to 15 years imprisonment possible. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung . May 19, 2010.
- ↑ Hendrik Ternieden: Indictment against Kachelmann: DNA traces on the kitchen knife. In: Spiegel Online. May 19, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Things are getting serious for Kachelmann. In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung . July 9, 2010.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 154.
- ↑ Hans Holzhaider : Truth and Lies. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung . May 30, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Printed in full in: Jörg Kachelmann, Miriam Kachelmann: Law and Justice. A fairy tale from the provinces. 2012, p. 354 ff.
- ↑ Frank Krause: Service supervision complaints rejected. In: Stuttgarter Nachrichten . September 16, 2010.
- ↑ Kachelmann fails with a complaint against investigators. In: Focus Online. September 16, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Jörg Kachelmann: Appeal is successful (press release of the Karlsruhe Higher Regional Court of July 29, 2010).
- ↑ a b NSU trial: Turkey questions the Munich judges' neutrality. In: The time. March 29, 2013, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Patrick Gensing : But there is another way of doing it ( Memento from March 18, 2014 in the Internet Archive ). In: tagesschau.de . March 27, 2013.
- ^ A b Yasin Baş: NSU trial: The scales of Justitia and a communication disaster. In: German Turkish News. May 6, 2013.
- ↑ a b Harald Staun: On the Right Stage. In: FAZ.net . May 30, 2011.
- ↑ a b Simone Utler: The process adjourned in a flash: Kachelmann's defense attorney rejects two judges. In: Spiegel Online. September 6, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ a b Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 198 f.
- ↑ Gisela Friedrichsen: Prelude to the Kachelmann Trial: A Question of Bias. In: Spiegel Online. September 6, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Janina Wollbrett et al .: Kachelmann did not pay any attention to ex-lovers. In: Bild Online . September 6, 2010.
- ↑ Martin von Müller, Barbara Schmid: Kampfansage from Mannheim . In: Der Spiegel . No. 36 , 2010, p. 44 ( online - September 6, 2010 ).
- ↑ a b Sabine Rückert: A procedure. In: The time. No. 37, September 9, 2010.
- ↑ a b "A negative lesson in German criminal justice". In: Tages-Anzeiger. June 22, 2011 (interview with Swiss criminal lawyer David Gibor).
- ↑ Hans Holzhaider: Unsavory questions. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. December 1, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Gisela Friedrichsen: Kachelmann trial: negotiate secretly, chat in the press. In: Spiegel Online. March 21, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ a b c d Volker Boehme-Neßler : Kachelmann trial: in the end only losers. In: Legal Tribune Online . May 31, 2011.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 210.
- ↑ Kachelmann trial: the court rejects the defense expert. In: Spiegel Online. October 6, 2010.
- ↑ Kachelmann's expert Bernd Brinkmann excluded due to bias. In: Focus. October 11, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ a b Hans Holzhaider: Hematomas and their forms. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. December 13, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Hannelore Crolly: Claudia D., the trauma and the silk scarf. In: The world. October 18, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 208 f.
- ↑ Trial against TV presenter: surprising change of lawyer in the Kachelmann case. In: Spiegel Online. November 29, 2010.
- ↑ Sabine Rückert: Tormentors of Justice. In: The time. 18/2001.
- ↑ Jörg Kachelmann , Mirijam Kachelmann: Law and Justice. A fairy tale from the provinces . 2012, pp. 204-215.
- ↑ David Klaubert: "Almost charlatan-seeming demeanor". In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. December 3, 2010.
- ↑ Gisela Friedrichsen: Tile man vs. Ex-girlfriend: Mud fight between two losers. In: Spiegel Online. June 17, 2011.
- ↑ Thomas Knellwolf: Kachelmann's psychiatrist has the most difficult task. In: Basler Zeitung Online . 17th September 2010.
- ↑ Hans Holzhaider: He doesn't know either. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. February 1, 2011.
- ↑ Round one in the "expert battle". In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. February 1, 2011.
- ↑ Gisela Friedrichsen: Kachelmann process: lessons in forensic medicine. In: Spiegel Online. February 9, 2011.
- ↑ Christoph Albrecht-Heider: : traumatologist says again. In: Frankfurter Rundschau . January 25, 2011.
- ↑ Expert doubts the victim's memory gaps. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. February 25, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ The dispute of the brain researchers in the Kachelmann trial. In: The world. April 4, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ^ Hannelore Crolly: Kachelmann trial. Remember or not? In: The world. April 5, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Kachelmann process: trauma researcher should bring clarity. In: Tages-Anzeiger. April 4, 2011.
- ↑ Kachelmann Trial: The credibility of the alleged victim. In: Spiegel Online. May 2, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ a b c d Gisela Friedrichsen: Expert in the Kachelmann trial: “Maybe she just felt the knife?” In: Spiegel Online. May 9, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Christoph-Albrecht Heider: Plea for the defendant Kachelmann. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. May 9, 2011, accessed May 2, 2014 .
- ↑ Jörg Kachelmann: Expert rules out personality disorder. In: Spiegel Online. May 5, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ "No major psychological disorder". In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. May 30, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ^ David Klaubert: Public prosecutor demands four years imprisonment. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. May 18, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Gisela Friedrichsen: Rape Trial: Day of Settlement for Kachelmann's lawyers. In: Spiegel Online. May 24, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Hans Holzhaider: Defense pleads for acquittal. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. May 30, 2011.
- ↑ a b Judgment in Mannheim: Judges acquit Jörg Kachelmann. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. May 31, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ^ A b Julia Jüttner: Judgment in Mannheim: When in doubt for Kachelmann. In: Spiegel Online. May 31, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Friederike Haupt: The show must go on. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. November 16, 2010.
- ^ Acquittal for Jörg Kachelmann (press release of the Mannheim Regional Court of May 31, 2011).
- ^ Kachelmann judgment: Mannheim public prosecutor appeals. In: Spiegel Online. June 6, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ^ The joint plaintiff is also appealing. In: FAZ.net. June 8, 2011.
- ↑ No revision - Kachelmann can breathe easy. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. October 7, 2011.
- ↑ Jörg Kachelmann's acquittal is final. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. October 7, 2011.
- ↑ a b c Thomas von Darnstädt, Gisela Friedrichsen, Dietmar Hipp, Andreas Ulrich, Antje Windmann: Faith and Truth . In: Der Spiegel . No. 22 , 2011 ( online - May 30, 2011 ).
- ↑ a b Sabine Rückert: Only a second class acquittal. In: Zeit Online. May 31, 2011.
- ↑ Sebastian Engel: "Stopping the proceedings would have been better". In: Focus. May 31, 2011, accessed on May 4, 2014 (interview with Monika Frommel).
- ^ Johann Schwenn : Kachelmann trial: The plague of our days. In: Cicero . 12/2010.
- ↑ Christina Clemm: Because of the plague of our days: A reply to the Kachelmann defender Johann Schwenn. In: Cicero. December 20, 2010.
- ↑ Sabine Rückert: Lies that one likes to believe. In: The time. No. 28, July 11, 2011.
- ↑ a b Volker Boehme-Neßler : The public prosecutors and the Kachelmann case: The cavalry of justice. In: Legal Tribune Online. September 6, 2010.
- ↑ a b c d e f g h Stefan Niggemeier : The Kachelmann couple near Jauch: Parroted lies. In: Spiegel Online. October 15, 2012.
- ↑ Martin W. Huff: The public prosecutors and the Kachelmann case - a distorted image is spread. In: Legal Tribune Online. September 8, 2010.
- ↑ Gerson Trüg: media work of the criminal justice system - possibilities and limitations. In: New Legal Weekly . 2011, 1040 (1043).
- ↑ Gisela Friedrichsen: Kachelmann judgment: A really free man - final. In: Spiegel Online. October 7, 2011.
- ↑ Ulrich Eisenberg : Criteria for opening the main criminal proceedings. In: JuristenZeitung . 2011, 672 ff.
- ↑ Forensic doctor Tsokos: "Quite a few murders remain unresolved for reasons of cost." In: Spiegel Online. March 10, 2013 (interview).
- ↑ "This confirms the worst fear of women". In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. May 31, 2011.
- ^ A b Johanna Bruckner: Guilty? Anne Will's TV Tribunal is in session. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. August 16, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Hannelore Crolly: At the Kachelmann trial, the judiciary has lifted itself. In: The world. May 30, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 7/8.
- ↑ In case of doubt for the accused ...: ... but not against an alleged victim! In: Emma Online . October 9, 2012.
- ↑ a b A mockery of the rule of law & victims. In: Emma. October 8, 2012.
- ↑ a b Gisela Friedrichsen: Kachelmann's counterattack . In: Der Spiegel . No. 45 , 2012, p. 48 ( online - November 5, 2012 ).
- ^ A b c Johanna Bruckner: The last television court. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. June 3, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Heike Jung : The Kachelmann judgment in the mirror of the press - a snapshot on the subject of “criminal justice and the media”. In: Legal journal. 2012, 303 (304)
- ↑ Kachelmann lawyer resigns. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. May 31, 2011.
- ↑ a b c Fabienne Hurst, Innocent and yet condemned , Die Zeit, October 26, 2017.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 59.
- ↑ Janine Wollbrett: I reported exclusively on Kachelmann in prison. In: bild.de. January 6, 2011.
- ^ Wording of the press release in: Knellwolf: Die Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 64 f.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, pp. 65/66.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 69.
- ↑ a b Tristana Moore: Weatherman's Rape Trial Takes Germany by Storm. In: Time . September 15, 2010. (English)
- ↑ Kurt W. Zimmermann : Low point in the underground car park. In: Weltwoche . No. 51, December 8, 2010.
- ↑ Kate Connolly: German weatherman faces rape trial. In: The Guardian Online . September 5, 2010. (English)
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 34.
- ↑ Heike Jung: The Kachelmann judgment in the mirror of the press - a snapshot on the subject of “criminal justice and the media”. In: Legal journal. 2012, 303 (304).
- ↑ Bunte: strong sales with Kachelmann. In: Meedia . July 5, 2011.
- ^ Spiegel: Annual record with DVD and Hitler. In: Meedia. September 24, 2010.
- ^ Georg Altrogge: Kachelmann files: Spiegel clears away at the kiosk. In: Meedia. July 13, 2010.
- ↑ Jens Schröder: Kachelmann guests leave talk audience cold. In: Meedia. June 1, 2011.
- ↑ a b c d e f Michael Hanfeld : And that's what journalists want to be? In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. June 1, 2011.
- ↑ a b Bernd Gäbler : Absurd battles of the media. In: Stern. May 30, 2011.
- ↑ Peter Mühlbauer : Alice Schwarzer puts the picture on Kachelmann. In: Heise online . September 5, 2010.
- ^ "Image" column: Alice Schwarzer comments on the Kachelmann trial. In: Spiegel Online. September 4, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Alice Schwarzer writes about Kachelmann: Every truth needs a feminist. In: The daily newspaper . September 5, 2010.
- ↑ "Kachelmann invested a lot of energy in destroying women". In: Tages-Anzeiger. November 30, 2010 (interview with Alice Schwarzer).
- ↑ Hans Holzhaider: Alice Schwarzer at the Kachelmann trial: Compassion for women. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. February 19, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ^ Markus Krischer, Marco Wisniewski: The Kachelmann files. In: Focus. No. 31, August 2, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ a b Kachelmann gets EV against Focus. In: Meedia. August 6, 2010.
- ↑ a b Josef Seitz: Bad Jauch-Quake with Jörg Kachelmann. In: Focus. October 14, 2012, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Thomas Knellwolf: Alice Schwarzer writes a book about her ex-dance partner Jörg Kachelmann. In: Tages-Anzeiger. October 28, 2010.
- ↑ Kachelmann and the sense of law and justice. In: Frankfurter Rundschau. April 19, 2012.
- ^ A b Sabine Rückert, Stefan Willeke : Kachelmann interview. "Nobody blackmails me anymore". In: The time. No. 24, June 13, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Sabine Pamperrien : The process. In: Deutschlandfunk . June 22, 2011.
- ↑ Wochenschau book report, calendar week 25/2011.
- ^ Rainer Stadler : Kachelmann and the disinformation industry. In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung. June 1, 2011.
- ↑ Ludger Fittkau : When the courtroom becomes a boulevard. Conference of the University of Trier on media in criminal proceedings. In: Deutschlandfunk . April 4, 2013, accessed October 11, 2015 .
- ↑ Jörg Kachelmann and the hell of freedom of the press. In: Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger . February 25, 2015.
- ↑ Hannelore Crolly: Kachelmann trial turns into a smear comedy. In: The world. September 6, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Parody before trial: Pocher gives the tile man. In: Spiegel Online. September 6, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ StV 2012, 631–636.
- ↑ Lorenz Leitmeier: Influences on criminal defense - internal and external factors. In HRRS - Online Journal for Supreme Court Jurisprudence in Criminal Law Issue 12/2012, p. 540 ff.
- ↑ a b Heike Jung: The Kachelmann judgment in the mirror of the press - a snapshot on the subject of “criminal justice and the media”. In: Legal journal. 2012, 303 (306).
- ↑ Norbert Geis from the CSU told the same newspaper that self-regulation of the media was necessary.
- ↑ Drawing lessons from the Kachelmann case. In: New Osnabrück Newspaper Online . May 31, 2011.
- ↑ Wolfgang Janisch: When the media play judges. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. June 2, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ David Klaubert: Allegations against the public prosecutor. In: FAZ.net . December 10, 2012.
- ↑ Gisela Friedrichsen: Criminal defense in transition. In: Defense lawyer . 2012, 631 (632).
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 60.
- ↑ Jörg Kachelmann, Miriam Kachelmann: Law and Justice. A fairy tale from the provinces. 2012, pp. 369-383.
- ↑ "Cologne takes it all". In: Der Spiegel. No. 42, October 13, 2014.
- ↑ Martin W. Huff: Kachelmann's long fight against the press. In: Legal Tribune Online. January 18, 2012.
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 63.
- ^ Judgment of the Cologne Higher Regional Court of November 15, 2011, Az. 15 U 62/11. In: Journal for Copyright and Media Law . 2012, 703.
- ↑ Kachelmann photo remains under lock and key. In: faz.net . January 10, 2019, accessed January 12, 2019.
- ↑ Judgment of the Regional Court Cologne of June 22, 2011, Az. 28 O 956/10. In: Open law .
- ^ Judgment of the Cologne Higher Regional Court of February 14, 2012, Az. 15 U 123/11. In: Multimedia and Law . 2012, 768 (= Journal for Copyright and Media Law. 2012, 330).
- ↑ a b BGH, judgment of March 19, 2013, Az. VI ZR 93/12. In: New Legal Weekly . 2013, 1681 (= industrial property rights and copyright . 2013, 965; = multimedia and law. 2013, 807).
- ↑ Martin W. Huff: Limits of media coverage before the BGH. In: Legal Tribune Online. March 19, 2013.
- ↑ a b Kachelmann demands 3.25 million euros: "We will receive the highest compensation in press law history." In: Legal Tribune Online. June 26, 2014 (interview with Ralf Höcker).
- ↑ Alice Schwarzer is supposed to pay 5000 euros to Kachelmann's lawyer. In: Der Spiegel. November 22, 2010, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Knellwolf: The Kachelmann files. 2011, p. 68.
- ↑ Tobias Sommer: Liability for third-party content. Kachelmann fights against reader comments. In: Legal Tribune Online. July 14, 2011.
- ↑ Nadine Maier, Litigation PR - Public Relations in Legal Disputes, diplom.de 2011, ISBN 3-8428-2115-8 , pp. 73–75.
- ↑ KACHELMANN AND TÜRCK - Rehabilitation on TV , Cicero .
- ↑ Jörg Kachelmann: Now she's talking! Colorful online . June 16, 2011 and Bunte. No. 25, June 16, 2011.
- ↑ Weather presenter: Kachelmann obtains an injunction against ex-girlfriend. In: Spiegel Online. July 27, 2011, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ OLG Cologne , judgment of November 6, 2012, Az. 15 U 97/12 . In: Open law. 2013, 144.
- ↑ a b Az. 1 BvR 2844/13.
- ↑ Kachelmann's ex wins with a constitutional lawsuit. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. April 29, 2016.
- ↑ Civil process: Kachelmann is defeated in court by his ex-defense attorney. In: Spiegel Online. November 28, 2012, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ^ Regional Court of Cologne , judgment of November 28, 2012, Az. 20 O 49/12.
- ↑ Markus Ruttig: Kachelmann-Buch gives Claudia D's full name: Once identified - always recognizable? In: Legal Tribune Online. October 13, 2012.
- ↑ Court ruling: Kachelmann is allowed to name his ex-lover again. In: Spiegel Online. October 26, 2012, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Kachelmann is not allowed to call former lovers “criminals”. In: FAZ.net . October 30, 2014.
- ↑ Julia Jüttner: Kachelmann's pain and suffering process: three minutes of revenge. In: Spiegel Online. October 31, 2013, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Hannelore Crolly: Kachelmann wants 13,000 euros from ex-lover. In: The world. October 30, 2013, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ a b lawsuit for compensation against ex-lovers: Kachelmann trial takes place in camera. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. October 31, 2012, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ a b Jörg Kachelmann appeals. In: FAZ.net. January 13, 2013.
- ↑ Christian Wolf , Hanna Schmitz: A question of truth - acquittal and compensation in the Kachelmann case. In: Legal Tribune Online. 19th November 2012.
- ↑ Daniel Müller: Revenge is sweet. Double room No. 42 from October 6th 2016, p. 26
- ↑ a b c d Gisela Friedrichsen: Truth is what judges believe . In: Der Spiegel . No. 26 , 2014, p. 40 f . ( online - June 23, 2014 ).
- ↑ Kachelmann loses the claim for damages. In: The world. December 23, 2013, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ a b Gisela Friedrichsen: Kachelmann loses the compensation process: a court makes it easy for itself. In: Spiegel Online. December 23, 2013, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ^ Damages lawsuit against ex-lover: Kachelmann appeals. In: Spiegel Online. January 13, 2014, accessed on May 4, 2014 (file number 18 U 5/14).
- ↑ Kachelmann process: Expert opinion is expected. In: Der Tagesspiegel . February 6, 2015.
- ↑ New expert opinion in the proceedings by Kachelmann against ex-lovers. In: Tyrolean daily newspaper . 3rd July 2015.
- ↑ Court considers Kachelmann's lawsuit against ex-lover to be justified. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. 20th January 2016.
- ↑ a b Compensation litigation - good chances for Kachelmann. In: Welt Online . 20th January 2016.
- ↑ Civil lawsuit against ex-lover: Court considers Kachelmann's lawsuit to be “entirely justified”. In: Spiegel Online. 20th January 2016.
- ↑ OLG invites witnesses in the Kachelmann compensation process. In: Focus Online. March 1, 2016.
- ↑ Stefan Winterbauer: ... and every day the tile man says hello. In: Meedia. November 1, 2012.
- ^ Franz Josef Wagner : Post from Wagner. In: image. November 1, 2012.
- ^ Compensation for damages: Kachelmann trial in camera. In: Spiegel Online. October 31, 2012, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Kachelmann's compensation process: Second quality appointment failed. In: Spiegel Online. January 30, 2013, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ The Kachelmann case: The victims strike back. In: Emma. January 31, 2013.
- ↑ Kachelmann's ex-lover has to pay 7,000 euros . Spiegel Online, September 28, 2016.
- ↑ Jörg Kachelmann has been rehabilitated in court . Badische Zeitung, September 29, 2016.
- ↑ Emma accessed on September 20, 2019
- ↑ Kachelmann's ex-lover inflicted injuries on herself . FAZ, September 28, 2016.
- ↑ Judgment of the OLG Frankfurt a. M. regarding the claim for damages by the weather moderator K. - Mannheim public prosecutor initiates the investigation process . Communication from the Mannheim public prosecutor's office dated September 28, 2016.
- ↑ Jörg Kachelmann obtains an injunction - LG Cologne rejects Alice Schwarzer's objection. In: Legal Tribune Online. 2nd July 2012.
- ^ Regional Court of Cologne, judgment of June 13, 2012, Az. 28 O 96/12.
- ↑ Kachelmann and Schwarzer continue to argue. In: The world. September 18, 2012.
- ↑ OLG Cologne, judgment of May 27, 2014, Az. 15 U 3/14.
- ↑ Cologne Higher Regional Court: Alice Schwarzer loses to Jörg Kachelmann. In: Spiegel Online. June 29, 2014.
- ^ Legal dispute with Kachelmann: Schwarzer wants to force a revision. In: Spiegel Online. 3rd July 2014.
- ↑ Kachelmann judgment: EMMA defends itself. Emma press release of July 3, 2014.
- ↑ Defeat for Alice Schwarzer. In: Der Spiegel. No. 8, February 14, 2015, p. 19.
- ↑ Alice Schwarzer is again defeated in the glossary court proceedings against Jörg Kachelmann. In: Meedia. February 13, 2015.
- ↑ OLG Cologne, judgment of February 11, 2016, Az. 15 U 114/15.
- ^ Dispute with Jörg Kachelmann: Legal success for Alice Schwarzer. In: Spiegel Online. March 11, 2016.
- ↑ Kachelmann loses in the legal dispute against Schwarzer , Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of May 9, 2018.
- ↑ Kachelmann loses against Schwarzer , Legal Tribune Online, May 9, 2018.
- ↑ Kachelmann is suing Focus, Bunte and Bild for over three million euros in compensation for pain and suffering. In: Meedia. June 25, 2014
- ↑ Kachelmann sued “Bild”, “Bunte”, “Focus” for compensation for pain and suffering. In: The time. June 25, 2014.
- ↑ Tile man and no end. Now he wants millions in compensation for pain and suffering. In: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. June 25, 2014.
- ↑ Lawsuit against “Bild”, “Bunte” and “Focus”: Kachelmann demands millions in compensation for pain and suffering. In: Spiegel Online. June 25, 2014.
- ↑ Kachelmann sued “Bunte”, “Focus” and “Bild”. In: The world. June 25, 2014.
- ↑ Jörg Kachelmann wants high compensation for pain and suffering. In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung. February 25, 2015.
- ↑ Millions lawsuit: Kachelmann and Burda conclude settlement. In: Meedia. May 21, 2015.
- ↑ Marvin Schade: Kachelmann vs. Springer process kick-off: Each side sees itself as a winner. In: Meedia. February 25, 2015.
- ↑ Jörg Kachelmann wants record compensation for pain and suffering. In: Süddeutsche.de . February 25, 2015.
- ↑ Agreement between Kachelmann and Bild failed. In: Legal Tribune Online. May 19, 2015.
- ↑ 2.25 million euro lawsuit: Bild and Kachelmann let judgment come down to it. In: Meedia. May 18, 2015.
- ↑ Springer has to pay Kachelmann 635,000 euros in compensation. In: FAZ.net. September 30, 2015.
- ^ Kurt Sagatz: Kachelmann wins against Springer-Verlag. In: Der Tagesspiegel. September 30, 2015.
- ↑ Court reduces compensation for Kachelmann. In: Welt.de. July 12, 2016.
- ↑ Springer-Verlag argues further , Spiegel Online from August 15, 2016.
- ↑ BGH confirms compensation for pain and suffering for Kachelmann , Spiegel Online from April 15, 2018.
- ^ It remains with the compensation for pain and suffering for Jörg Kachelmann , Legal Tribune Online from April 16, 2018.
- ^ Rape trial: Kachelmann sued the Mannheim public prosecutor. In: Spiegel Online. 19th September 2014.
- ↑ VGH Baden-Württemberg, Az. 1 S 191/17.
- ↑ No Kachelmann DNA on the alleged crime knife. StA Mannheim issues a declaration of discontinuance. In: Legal Tribune Online . July 27, 2017. Retrieved July 28, 2017 .
- ^ Justice investigates Kachelmann's ex-lover , Die Welt Online from March 7, 2017.
- ^ Justice investigates former Kachelmann lovers , Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of March 7, 2017.
- ↑ Stefan Winterbauer: Mannheim public prosecutor's office closes investigations against Jörg Kachelmann's ex-lover. Meedia , September 22, 2017, accessed October 27, 2017 .
- ↑ Investigations against Kachelmann's ex-lover discontinued , Spiegel Online from September 22, 2017.
- ↑ Robert Bongen and Fabienne Hurst: Jörg Kachelmann: Condemned despite acquittal. Panorama , October 26, 2017, accessed October 27, 2017 .
- ↑ Thomas Tuma : Spiegel talk: "Collective blood rush". In: Der Spiegel. No. 41, October 8, 2012, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Kachelmann's “Victim Subscription” Unwort of the year 2012. In: Die Welt. January 15, 2013, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Choice of the “22nd Unword of the year ”. In: Website of the “Unwort des Jahres” campaign (press release; PDF; 499 kB).
- ↑ a b c d Unword of the year: “Victim subscription”? Kachelmann thinks well. In: Spiegel Online. January 15, 2012, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Christian Buß : Münster- "Tatort" with Roland Kaiser: Murder and dead hits. In: Spiegel Online. March 22, 2013, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Alexander Becker: How much tile man is there in the "crime scene"? In: Meedia. March 19, 2013.
- ↑ At the end of the day. In: Internet Movie Database . Retrieved May 22, 2015 .
- ↑ Elmar Krekeler: The Kachelmann case as a psychological thriller. In: The world. January 8, 2014, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Franzisca Priegnitz: Kachelmann: Story of the ex-lover is filmed. In: BZ October 28, 2011.
- ↑ The life of Kachelmann-Ex is filmed. In: Meedia. October 29, 2011.
- ↑ a b Play on the Kachelmann Trial: That doesn't matter anymore. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung. April 13, 2012, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ a b Kachelmann rages because of the play about the trial. In: Focus Online . April 13, 2012, accessed May 4, 2014 .
- ↑ Kachelmann Theater: Fragile Truth, No Scandal , Hamburger Abendblatt from April 15, 2012.
- ↑ Kachelmann's case. ( Memento from May 5, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) In: Swiss radio and television . DOK . March 31, 2011.
- ↑ TV review: The lost honor of Jörg Kachelmann , Basler Zeitung from April 1, 2011.
- ↑ Kabel Eins turned Jörg Kachelmann into a criminal. In: The Huffington Post . July 16, 2015.
- ↑ In the midst of criminals: This is how Kachelmann reacts to the cable-one trailer. In: Focus. July 16, 2015.
- ↑ ZDF program announcement
- ↑ ZDF press release on Presseportal.de
