Gustl Mollath | Chronology (original) (raw)

2006-08-08 Court case in front of the District Court of Nürnberg:

The authorized expert Leipziger convinced the court of the following (quote from the verdict): "The actions of the defendant are characterized by the illness of a delusory psychotic disease. It can therefore not be excluded that at the time of the actions, the self-regulation ability of the defendant was impaired and he is therefore not legally liable according to §20 German Penal Code". On the other hand, when he spoke to Mollath, Dr. Leipziger had stated the following "the defendant is psychologically aware and oriented, with a normal consciousness and mood. No formal thinking confusion could be confirmed. Mollath's thinking was however, characterized by a suspicious attitude. With respect to memory, ability to remember and concentrate, there were no abnormalities. The defendant showed no signs of aggressive behavior." Ultimately, the expert asserts that Mollath suffers from "a paranoid delusional symptom complex", the diagnosis of "paranoid schizophrenia" should also be taken into consideration.

(In 2012 as well, the forensic expert from the main trial, Dr. Leipziger, had submitted an advisory opinion on Mollath's further internment).
The court decided that Gustl Mollath carried out physical assault, deprivation of liberty and material damage, acting with "natural intentions".
The prerequisites for diminished criminal responsibility are certainly given in all the above cases. The prerequisites for the diminished criminal responsibility due to emotional disturbances cannot be excluded, the verdict states.
For this reason, the court acquits Gustl Mollath but orders his internment in a psychiatric clinic, because _"an overall evaluation of his person and his acts give reason to believe that he may in future commit further illegal acts and is therefore dangerous to public safety as per § 63 German Penal Code."_From the sentence: "The statements on the marriage of the defendant, the descriptions of his strange behavior and his increasing aggressiveness are based (...) on the testimony of his ex-wife, whose credibility is not called into question by the court". The evidence and vague statements of those involved in the willful damage to property, however, do not suffice to provide definitive proof that Gustl Mollath committed these acts, which would also prove he is dangerous to public safety.

Both the charge of physical assault as well as the charge of deprivation of personal liberty are based on the allegations of the ex-wife, as well as the medical certificate of June 3, 2002 [see 11 above].

According to the opinion of the court, Gustl Mollath is indicted for material damage on the following grounds:

a) "all aggrieved parties are in some way connected to Petra M., Martin M. (Mollath's ex-wife and her second husband) or the divorce of the couple.

b) "all aggrieved parties, with the exception of Thomas Lippert, are mentioned in a negative context in a letter of the defendant to the lawyer Dr. Woertge dated August 4, 2004."
On the basis of the expert opinion of Thomas Lippert, however, the defendant was "interned in the Clinic at the Europe Canal on April 22, 2004, as per the ruling of the District Court of Nürnberg."

c) All car tires were slit in the same way at the edge. "The way this was done speaks for a tire specialist. The defendant (...) had the corresponding skills."

d) "The video recordings and the clothing (...) found in the house of the defendant do not provide clear evidence of the perpetration of the crime on the part of the defendant, but point additionally in the direction of the above statements."

"Furthermore, Petra M. said that the defendant might be the perpetrator when viewing the video (...)."(Mollath was taken to the hospital in Bayreuth because he requested that his ID be verified (see above), and not because he was captured by force; this is falsely stated in the ruling [see police protocol]).
[Ruling of August 8, 2006]

2013-02-04 Lawyer Lorenz-Löblein requests the District Court of Bayreuth to set a date for a hearing soon, dealing with the necessary initial investigations and a court decision on the petition made re incorrect internment, finishing of internment and dismissal of custodians.

Already in the communication of November 19, 2012 a petition was made to confirm the incorrect internment again. Failure to act, the communication stated, would be a breach of duty as per § 67e sub-p. 1 German Penal Code, which describes the duty to investigate into the circumstances of the further enforcement of this law.

If, using common sense alone, the court does not see itself in a position to end the illegal internment of Mollath since 2006, due to the current situation , then the court must call an expert in, who can judge the incrimination posed by the expert opinions until this date, and including the current findings.

Lorenz-Löblein asks why the expertise requested by the Public Prosecutor from the hospital in Bayreuth could be restricted to a description of the course of events, when his further internment as ruled by the court is the subject at hand.

The progress report made by the hospital in Bayreuth from December 18, 2012, she states, is a testimony to the desperate attempt on the part of officials to convince Mollath that the official view of events is correct. There is no discussion of any possible danger to others, but just a description of the failure of Mollath to let the official view of events be forced on him.

The events around the ruling of the District Court of LG Bayreuth is sent to Justice Minister Dr. Merk and Bavarian state president Horst Seehofer.