The opinion of Dr. M. does not justify continuance of the accommodation in spite of advocacy of continuance:
It was only on 11.27.2014 challenged the Penal Execution Chamber of LG K. to an opinion. As witness Dr. M., a specialist in neurology and psychiatry, 56XXX E. was commissioned for expert reports. A commissioned appraiser is obligated to finalize its opinion within 3 months. That is, not later than 02.27.2015 the report should have been available to the court. Not later than 03/08/2015, the report should have been available to the convicted person. All obligations have been ignored by the appraiser.
From the two reports from the 01/22/15 and 02/04/2015 shows that the evaluators had originally provided its opinion to write less self-conscious. Only from regard to the opinion of the clinic from 12.22.2014 changed the expert his approach. This may be because the condemned loudly opinion the hospital announced to want to take legal action against the initial report and the initial judgment in the sense of a retrial, he should not be released to the next test date. The exploration appointment on 02.12.2014 was completed at the time. The appraiser wanted for the reason of influencing another appointment although the time was no longer given for this. Although the experts had been asked by the Penal Execution Chamber on 03.05.2015, now complete the supplementary opinion on the file, the evaluators led after two “accidental” meeting of the convicted with him brought to lecture adversely on the condemned. Only on 02/04/2015 he presented the report completed. Now due to the delayed completion and the hearing date has not been determined as required by law not later than 04.09.2015 until 05.29.2015 but.
The evaluators do not seem to take things so precisely with accuracy. So many inconsistencies in the report are from 04/02/2015 and 01/21/15 recognizable one of the inconsistencies that raise questions:
In the “Supplementary Report” by Dr. M. 2.4.15 announced that he had completed the report already on 12/22/2014, but at 22:12:14 received the opinion of the clinic.
Extract reports 2.4.15 Page 1:
“By letter dated 12.22.2014 I received after completing my preliminary opinion, the statement pursuant to § 67 e of the Criminal Code of X. Clinic from 12.12.2014.”
The “preliminary” report or the “design” was created on 01/21/15. Here would therefore still have plenty of time to take the advice of the clinic to the attention and to be included in the assessment, especially since the expert opinion which concluded yet changed with the addition of a second “Exploration Date” – the 01.14.2015.
Excerpt opinion 01/22/15 Page 10:
“Once again, Mr. Perez was visited X. at the clinic on 01.14.2015.”
Why Dr. M. the report does not equal completely finished placed from 01.21.2015 but named as “preliminary” report with “preliminary summary”, reminiscent of a conflict between the appraiser and impartiality Clinic opinion. He made despite two performed “Explorations” an attempt to avert the assessment to someone else.
Excerpt from report 01/22/15 page 11/13:
“Preliminary Summary (…) If the court follows the suggestion of the subject and instructed another witness, I like any documentation available in case an opinion without cooperation of the subjects to be created, this would be possible by access to additional information.”
The expert points out that without further accessing documents, no assessment would be possible, although he had performed at this time two exploration and documentation of maintainer present still has insisted on their inclusion of convicts.
Excerpt from report by Dr. M. 01/22/15 Page 1:
“The opinion is based on the knowledge of the prosecutor Vollsteckungshefts X., Bl. 1-343, which was referred to the invitation of the subjects of his supervisor, Mr. X., requested”
Finally, an appraiser should be interested in the truth to identify, even if this results facts which are contradictory to the judgment. Only then misjudgements can be determined and protracted failure Accommodations are avoided. The appraiser on the side of the clinic is proved by the 5-page takeover of the clinic-description in a nearly 14-page report and the complete omission of the documents requested by the supervisor.
Although the time was short and the report was completed since 01/21/15, the evaluators found that the “preliminary” report not titled as a preliminary report, not even titled as design but as “nerve Medical Prognosis Report”, the assessor sends the report until its letter of 10:02 .15 to the Penal Execution Chamber. In the letter dated 10.2.15 Dr. M. stated that it would be in the report dated 01/21/15 a “draft”. Accordingly, the opinion adopted on 1/21/15 would not be recovered !!!
Excerpt letter dated 10.2.15 Dr. M. to the Penal Execution Chamber:
“At the request of the Penal Execution Chamber of the Landgericht Koblenz (…) I have explored Mr. Michael Perez (…) at 2:12:14 and 01/14/15. (…) My findings I have summarized in the attached draft. ”
The expert points out in his letter dated 10.2.15 declared “draft” from 01.22.2015 out that position is taken to the diagnosis and prognosis of subjects. The draft, however, there is not a separate diagnosis, nor an opinion on the prognosis, nor an opinion on the proportionality, nor an endorsement of the continuation, even an endorsement of the dismissal, nor an opinion on criminal responsibility.
In the design, there is only a collection of content in the main judgment and in the main report from 2008, and intrinsically interpreted statements of two explorations of 12:12:14 and 01/14/15.
But even in the designated by Dr. M. “supplementary opinion” from 2.4.15, there is neither a comprehensible diagnosis yet an opinion on the criminal responsibility nor an understandable opinion on the forecast is still an opinion on the proportionality. In this report dated 2.4.15 can be found from page 1 to page 7, the 6-sided copy of the opinion of the clinic. Only two terms by the expert changed on page 5. While documenting the opinion of the clinic on page 4 “(emphasis by the author)” and “ass-kisser”, the expert documented instead of these two phrases on page 5 “assholes”. Since the contents are copied, the contents of these parts will be referred to the reasoning under point observations of the clinic. In this “supplementary opinion” can be found no longer the self-imagined content of the draft to the exploration of 12:12:14 and 01/14/15. but here can be found after the copy of the statement, the two self-interpreted “accidental” meeting in March 2015. For these intrinsically interpreted statements of the experts will now underpin described by the clinic “verbal aggression”.
Extract reports 2.4.15 Page 7/8
“In March 2015, there were two accidental contacts of speakers to Mr. Perez: On the way back from the M-House for output of the speaker by Mr Perez, who obviously was in a crisis intervention room as the speaker was loudly addressed and asked for therefore come to make an opinion about him, that he was not yet always outside. On 03/12/2015 there was a chance encounter on the hospital grounds. Mr. Perez held the speakers, complained that he was still in the hospital, he was treated unfairly here, the speaker wants his opinion certainly earn thousands of Euros to him. Even against the Russian doctor he would proceed to meet. To the objection of the speakers that yes could be perceived as a threat again, he adds – slyly smiling – “in court, of course …” On the other hand he had a bad experience with the court. In processes that he had strained, he was told by everyone that he was right, he had but got no right. The appraiser would not even help him to his right to stand on the side of the hospital. As the experts then said that he would not listen, he said: “Oh well,” and walked away.
From the self-imagined conversation presentation concluded the expert, also on page 8:
“In an interview Mr. Perez had significantly reduced distance, but non-threatening (…) The mood seemed in the first contact is not calm and relaxed, which in the later contacts but much stronger, showed the way to verbal aggression.”
The appraiser twisted something. The condemned man asked in this “accidental” encounter, which is why the report, which had long must be done, is not yet always ready. Instead the word “like” remarked the condemned man the word “when”. The condemned were the evaluators also to understand that the time delay hurt him in his fundamental right to freedom, because the dismissal by the late expert reports delaying. The evaluators interpreted to and evaluated its reinterpretation as “verbal aggression”, which is reminiscent of a Machtausspielung. Even the experts interpreted this legitimate notice of the condemned as “paranoid-looking mindset”. The fact that the convicted person has recognized that perceived injustice feeling not physically but legally solvable in terms of violence distancing, this distancing was ignored by the evaluators because he subjectively against itself felt a slight, probably due to low frustration tolerance, which is in the form of a negative interpretation and evaluation expresses the opinion.
From these two perceived as an insult by the expert interview situations and because of the opinion of the Department of evaluators then interpreted on page 8 its perceived and interpreted from the subjective perception out “psychological findings”:
Extract reports Page 8:
“Psychic findings: Mr. Perez was awake at the respective contacts, consciousness clear, place, time, literally and situationally oriented due to the person. His involvement in the exploration was given in the first contact, the second contact, he was uncooperative and hostile, in short further contacts a collaboration was not expected. The mood seemed in the first contact is not calm and composed, but this much stronger, showed up in the later contacts through to verbal aggression. In the longitudinal section were Stimmungsauslenkungen that resembled an irritated mania, described in the documents before the Court. Depressive elements were recognizable by most auto aggressive behavior. Increased irritability seemed each by certain situations, usually frustration, triggered an intrinsically legal change of affect, as with diurnal or seasonal periodicity was not recognizable. The thinking was simple in structure, sometimes there were descriptions that were reminiscent of magical thinking, paranoid sounding interpretations seemed rather strengthened from outside interference beliefs than on delusional, krankheitswertige symptoms be due. Total found himself for a clear psychotic experiences or thinking no evidence. Perseveration, rigidity in the beliefs, difficult conversion capability suggest organic brain component. No indications for phobic or compulsive symptoms eruierbar. If facts and figures were given for Pre Sent by him, no apparent discrepancies regarding public location could be identified as possible evidence of memory impairment, rapid loss of concentration capacity at the first exploration was not given. The intelligence capacity is lying as below the norm, but not estimated with certainty in Schwachsinnsbreich of § 20 StGB lying. ”
The expert contradicts itself. The psychiatric term “rigidity in the beliefs” (rigid, obsessive beliefs) in terms of a compulsive personality disorder which the appraiser additionally with the word Dress “perseveration” (obsessive thought circles), the word Dress “difficult conversion capability” and the Dress word “obsessive” rewrote. When motivated search for multiple words that say the same thing, overlooked the evaluators that he contradicts himself:
Excerpt page 9:
“Perseveration, rigidity in the beliefs, difficult conversion capability suggest organic brain component. No indications for phobic or compulsive symptoms eruierbar. ”
With the psychiatric concepts of “magical thinking”, “paranoid sounding interpretations” interprets the appraiser invented by him stating from its “design” with a supposedly swallowed bullet that would have caused a change in breathing should order his from him again subjectively interpreted Summary to designate additional word dresses subjectively created.
Extract reports Page 9:
“Summary and assessment: In the today 33-year-old Michael Peres is psychological abnormalities show in childhood. Whether these services are connected with an accident at the age of 5 years, if the lack of success at school, due to which he – exactly like the older brother – the special school visited, whether the additional social history are due to deficient variants without organic substrate remains unknown. For a traumatic genesis speak abnormalities until now psychological findings, inter alia, on the other hand talk test psychological examinations and unremarkable in neurology and in imaging. ”
Although the convicted person in writing and also in relation to the verifier verbally stated that he had never taken heroin to be in the time of free output 2012-2013 never tempted came to consume alcohol or other psychostimulants and now also for 8 years Cannabis was abstinent and abstinent from any psycho-stimulants, claiming the appraiser.
Extract reports Page 9:
“Already having about 14 years will be added an additional disturbance, namely a drug abuse, initially cannabis, heroin recently.”
At the end of page 9 of the reviewers lists no significant offenses that have been judged in the state of criminal responsibility against a former owner or his environment. Finally, the appraiser then documented the index offense, the basis of which the accommodation has been judged in a psychiatric hospital.
Excerpt page 10:
“In 2008, Mr. Perez was sentenced by the district court for attempted grievous bodily harm to a prison sentence of 9 months, at the same time, the placement in a psychiatric hospital was located. The chamber went – advised by the experts Oberarzt S. – of an organic-related personality disorder and affirmed the requirement for application of § 21 of the Criminal Code.
Next explained the expert from page 10 to page 11 his interpretation of the opinion of the clinic A .. That the convicted to 2013 worked in the open labor market already in 2012, the experts did not think to mention it necessary at this point. The evaluators interpreted subjectively with their own legal errors aggressiv- psychiatric word vocabulary. Thus, from the words, as they were told by the convicts – “self-conscious appraiser”, “false reports”, “wrong condemned criminal offense (the convicted person had no sharp object at index offense, there was no attempted grievous bodily harm rather than merely a punch)” , “false statement” etc. – the psychiatric aggressive words – “delusional distrust”, “unrealistic portrayals experience”, “personality disorder”, “deficient Impulskontolle”, “paranoid and antisocial traits”, “deficient wrongdoing”. Awareness of the evaluators will stigmatize psychiatric words, discriminate and manipulate. Why the convicted person should be holders of such psychiatric discrimination language, the experts could not explain. In addition, the experts will suggest that there had been during placement ever physical violence against staff or staff, which is not true. At no time in the 7 years of detention of the convicted person was physically violent towards patients or to staff.
Excerpt opinion page 10/11:
“Mr. Perez was first treated in the Forensic Psychiatric Department of Hospital A.. After initially favorable course with easing the way to release prisoners status, there was deterioration with easing violations, finally took place laying in the Department of Forensic Psychiatry of the clinic. Here, too, showed both times when the volunteer staff and fellow patients compared with was friendly, but also times with an increased irritability. Both states were also observed by the speakers. To psychoatrischen diagnosis is to say that a connection with acute drug intoxication can be predicted as impossible. A connection with an endogenous psychosis can not be regarded as proved at least, even if individual, temporary symptoms such as delusional mistrust, unrealistic portrayals experience could remember. The symptomatology is applicable for the diagnosis of a personality disorder. Evidence of suspected and obvious from the findings and course of organic brain component has not yet been carried out. Consistent main feature of the personality disorder is the lack of impulse control, paranoid and antisocial traits are secondary to the background. In particular, from the last report of the Department of the Prosecutor’s Office can be seen that a significant improvement of symptoms has not been achieved, both in terms of impulse control as well as with respect to an understanding of the subject in the offense. Again and again, verbal attacks, threats and insults were describing, the descriptions also indicated that physical attacks were feared, but actual physical aggression of staff or other patients have not been described in recent years. ”
On page 11 of the expert’s unrealistic subjective interpretations are back again, which he claims as forecast-description:
Excerpt opinion page 11-14:
“For the importance of forecasting and the future social reception room plays a role. From the documents before the Court, as well as from information provided by the subjects in the exploration shows that the part of the family of origin of the Family in his inadequate sense of wrongdoing rather than supports is corrected. Not least because there is a concern for a social reception room in the vicinity of the family of origin. Finally, to be listed in summary and evaluative criteria of so-called DITTMANN list for forecast assessment. 1. Analysis of the qualifying offense: In the index offense “attempted grievous bodily harm” can be only taking into account the history of multi-year dispute with a group of people, which also includes the last Tatopfer heard an unfavorable prognosis, as regards other offenses, derived. 2. Previous crime trends: Early onset of criminal record, prison stays, different groups of offenses on the one hand and perennial disputes with persons associated with the former landlord also suggest a rather unfavorable prognosis. 3. personality, existing mental disorders: Severe personality disorders, diagnosed as in subjects of drug abuse and intellectual deficit are factors with a rather unfavorable prognosis. 4. Consultation of the offender in his illness: is here – in the course of therapy – an insight, a change will not be recognized, temporary approval for the therapy has been revoked – negative. 5. Social competence: Mr. Perez was he ind social history largely isolated. “Everything is against me.” Even outside the family barely contacts. 6. Specific conflict behavior: Both from the facts of the case as well as past medical history, when evaluating the conflicts in the ward, staff and fellow patients face to face widespread inability shows adequate ability to handle conflicts. 7. examination of fact: Mr. Perez still feels the law, in particular, he does not rule out that it future similar – is behavior – verbal threatening. 8. General therapeutic possibilities: Treatment of personality disorders is for all practical and theoretical knowledge lengthy and difficult. 9. Reliable therapy options: The Clinic X. has opportunities for therapy through group and individual therapy, occupational therapy and supported by broad additional offer at the necessary security and control options. 10. Therapy Readiness This was at least not recognizable at the time of my review. 11. Social reception room, leave of absence, dismissal: relaxations granted in the past repeatedly to avoid screened candidates complications (physical attacks and others), but they also had to be revoked. A relaxation at the level of leave outside the forensic psychiatric hospital is not appropriate in the opinion of the speakers present. 12 previous course: From a therapeutic results can on the file are spoken at most in the early days of therapy in A., there already in the course increasingly rule violations that and also during the time in the hospital X. particularly by threats and unwillingness inability to fit into the order of the stations, were recognizable. A distancing from the original offense and previous offenses in the dispute since 2004 can not be seen, even a lack of victim empathy, to change awareness of the injustice their own actions and also the will, the behavior that has confronted him repeatedly with the police and court in the future , Overall it can be from the current findings do not give the information about the psychiatric history and the course of therapy at the present time to the satisfaction of the speakers a favorable prognosis with a recommendation of dismissal from the forensic unit. It should be emphasized that the hazard assessment of future offenses falls within the competence of the Court. ”
The expert believes because “infractions”, ie “violations of station orders” or “aggessive word uses” or “abusive language” he can justify a continuation of the extreme seriousness of Maßregelvollzugs. Even for violating the appraiser of the rules of assessment and used aggressive psychiatric words. The expert is mistaken.
The condemned man has evolved from its initial offense – disassociates minor injury. He now recognized that wrongs feelings can not be solved with physical aggression, but with legally permissible legal defense. Unfortunately, this knowledge is exactly the convicts charged as a “personality disorder” and as “paranoid-looking mindset”.
The convict said already at the trial of the cause offense (attempted grievous bodily harm), that he had a pointed object in itself. Also in the documents by the supervisor of the convicted person has this in writing. Even against the convicted appraiser L. had declared at the exploration on 12/12/2014 this fact. L. evaluators did not consider it necessary to forward this declaration, which would be contrary to the judgment, to give a lecture in writing. The assessor disregarded its duty of care to the convicts. He may not be aware – conceal the convicted person exonerating facts. Only in the copy of the opinion of the clinic indicated the appraiser with “trivializing the offense” that the condemned man denies having had a pointed object at the blow of 2008. It would have been the duty of the expert with respect to explain the “trivialization”, in any form of the convicted accused indeed had weakened in their relevance.
The adoption of the convicted person, the appraiser would not help to him justice, is fully justified and real. Apparently the reviewer has a low frustration tolerance, because it can not withstand criticism itself but is used to criticize only others negligence.
In the report dated 2.4.15 of the experts now copied as already set out from page 1 to page 7 to the opinion of the Department of 12.12.2014.
On page 2, there is a copy of the hospital asked Diagnosis ICD-10 F: 07.0 and ICD-10 F: 70th
Extract reports Page 1 and 2, page 9
“The statement pursuant to § 67 e of the Criminal Code of X. Clinic from 12.12.2014. And – slight mental retardation: organic personality disorder after traumatic brain injury (F 07.0 ICD-10) – This is where the diagnosis was: put “(ICD F 70).
However, the evaluators themselves distancing oneself from the diagnosis “organic personality disorder after traumatic brain injury – ICD-10: F 07.0.
Extract reports 2.4.15 Page 9:
“Evidence of suspected and obvious from the findings and course of organic brain component has not been done.”
To the opinion of the clinic-diagnostic “slight mental retardation (ICD: F 70)” takes the appraiser contradictory terms.
Extract reports 2.4.15 Page 9:
“The intelligence service is as below the norm lying, but not estimated with certainty in bullshit area of § 20 StGB lying.”
On page 7 of the “design” of the expert will be based on the initial report and derived from this conflicting figures for IQ:
Extract from the draft 01/21/15 Page 7:
“In the physical, especially neurological examination there were no groundbreaking findings. Test Psychologically found himself in Changer Intelligent Test overall IQ of 69 points, with the action-IQ of 79 was significantly higher than the verbal IQ of 66. ”
Should have been identified in the initial report Why an IQ of only 69, according to witness Dr. M., the appraiser has not explained. Rather, he argued that the performance IQ of 79 is in the normal range.
The initial report was produced on the basis of the expert opinion of Dr. S. in 2006. In 2006, an IQ test was done with the volunteers. He showed no mental retardation:
Extract reports Dr. S. 16.02.2006 Page 17/18/19/20/21
“Multiple Choice Vocabulary Intelligence Test MWT-B (…) Mr. P. scored with 18 points a value corresponding to the area of the (…) (IQ = 73-90) is to be allocated.”
“Short test for general basic quantities of information processing (KAI) (…) From these measured quantities of base Infromationsverarbeitung an IQ of 83, which is slightly below average yields. (Average range: 85-115 IQ points) ”
“Mosaic Test (…) Mr. P. posted Rohnwert of 29, which corresponds to 9 points and values is to settle in the average area”
“Images can complete (…) Mr. P. reached a raw score of 12 and therefore with 8 points worth an average result.”
“Assign Pictures” (…) The subjects reached from raw score of 23 also corresponds to 8 values and points located in the average range. ”
“Vocabulary Test (…) Mr. P. reached 5 points values (raw score = 8) is below average.”
“General understanding (…) The agreement reached by the volunteers values point Betruf 7 (raw score = 13) and is therefore not to settle in the lower average range.”
“General knowledge (…) Mr P reached with a raw score of 5 and 5 points values is below average.”
“Find common ground (…) The respondent scored with 7 points values (raw score = 16) in even average result.”
“According to the International Classification of Mental Disorders of the WHO (ICD-10), a mental retardation is not available. (…) Thus arose psychological testing no clear evidence of an acquired disorder of the cognitive functions or to organic brain degradation processes ”
With regard to the anticipated offense description, the appraiser has not expressed itself even. It merely copies the prophecy of the clinic:
Extract reports 2.4.15 Page 6:
“The behavior that he proposes to doors, windows or cabinets will repeat itself.” “Later, he repeated sequestration during a KIR (Note isolation torture prison), very often and very aggressive against the steel plate of the lattice door and also against the window beat the crisis intervention room, until the skin is split open to him at the knuckles. ”
Outside the forensic danger situation is not given that any isolation torture more exposed the condemned then. Torture makes irritated. Torture makes aggressive. Everyone knows that a layman. By draining the torture and torture-related symptoms are gone.
Opinion of the clinic does not justify a continuation of the housing and is incorrect
The opinion of the clinic from 12.12.2014 has many errors, is wrong and should not justify continuance recommendation of accommodation according to §§ 63 of the Criminal Code, 67 d of the Criminal Code. On page 1 the hospital documented a false admission offense:
Excerpt opinion of Nette-Gut Clinic Page 1:
“Briefing offense: grievous bodily harm”
Facts: briefing offense: attempted grievous bodily harm without any consequences, the convicted person admits only a punch in terms of § 223 of the Criminal Code.
Einsortiert unter:Bayerische Landtag, Bayern, Bayernsumpf, Befangenheit, behoerdenstress, Betrug, Betrugsverdacht, CDU, CSU, CSU-Skandal, CSU-Sumpf, Demokratie, Demokratur, Deutschland, Die Anstalt, Die Richter und ihre Denker, Dirk Lauer, Diskriminierung, Disziplinarverfahren, Eilmeldung, EILT, Entlassung, Ermittlungen, Europa, Fall, Fall Mollath, Frankfurt, Gefälligkeitsgutachten, Gericht, Gerichtsverfahren, Gudrun Rödel, Gustl Mollath, Gutachten, Gutachter-Skandal, Hessen, Innenministerium, innere Sicherheit, Journalist, Justiz, Justiz-Opfer, Justiz-Skandal, Justizversagen, JVA, Käufliche Justitia, Korruption, Kritiker, Landesregierung, Landgericht, Manipulation, Medien, Medizin, Medizin-Opfer, Medizin-Skandal, Menschen, Missbrauch, Mobbing, Mobbingbeauftragter, Nachrichten, NEWS, Politik, Politik Hessen, Politik-Skandal, Polizei, Polizei-Skandal, Polizeiarzt, Polizeibeamter, Polizeibeamtin, Polizeidienst, Polizeieinsatz, Polizeigewalt, Polizeimobbing, Polizeipanne, Prügel, Presse, Pressefreiheit, Psychiatrie, Psychiatriesierung, Psychogutachten, Psychopharmaka, Qualen, Rechtsanwalt, rechtswidrig, Richter, Sicherheit, Skandal, Skandal-Urteil, SkandalMedizin, Uncategorized, unschuldig, Unterschlagung, Urteil, Verdachtsfälle, Verfahren, Vetternwirtschaft, Vorteilsnahme, Vorwürfe, Whistleblower, Willkür, Zeitung, Zerstörung Tagged: Affäre, Aktuell, Aktuelles, Anklage, Anschlag, anwalt, Aufklärung, Aussagen von Ulvi, Ausschuss, Bayerischer Rundfunk, Bayern, Bayreuth, Berlin, Bouffier, Brandenburg, Bundestag, Bundeswehr, CDU, Christine Haderthauer, Deutschland, die Freiheit von Ulvi, die Polizei, dirk lauer, Dr. Leipziger, Druckfrisch, Eilmeldung, Eilt, Eltern, Ermittlungen, EU, Euro, Europa, Facebook, Flüchtlinge, Flüchtlings, Flughafen, Frankfurt, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Frankfurter Neue Presse, Frankfurter Rundschau, Frankreich, Freispruch, Gefängnis, Gericht, Geständnisses von Ulvi, Gewalt, Gudrun Rödel, Gustl Mollath, Gutachten, Gutachter, Haft, Hessen, Hessischer Rundfunk, Justiz, Justiz-Skandal, JVA, Kinder, Landesregierung, Landtag, Lehrer, Maßregelvollzug, München, Medien, Missbrauch, Mobbing, Mord, Nachrichten, New York, NEWS, NSA, NSU-Prozess, Opfer, Peggy Knobloch, Politik, Politiker, Polizei, Polizei-Skandal, Polizeigewalt, Polizist, Polizisten, Pressespiegel, Prozess, Psychiatrie, Rüsselsheim, Richter, Sebastian Edathy, Sicherheit, Skandal, SPD, Staatsanwalt, STAATSANWALTSCHAFT, Tugce, Uli Hoeneß, Ulvi Kulac, Urteil, USA, Volker Bouffier, Wiederaufnahmeverfahren, Wirtschaft