A 45-year-old bricklayer from the district of forchheim was charged with sexual abuse of a child before the bamberg district court. The case was basically so clear that everyone expected a conviction. But then things weren't as clear-cut as they often are when it comes to such offenses.
In addition to the purely forensic side, there is also a psychological side, and that has nothing to do with malice. Because the girl in question had undoubtedly confided in her mother to talk about a sexual assault – she and her mother were obviously at the end of their tether. Both made use of their right to refuse to testify at that time.
The girl, who is now 18 years old, was considerably affected by the trial. The danger of consequential damage was too great, they loved to confirm with a certificate from their psychologist.
The accused had run an inn and had gone broke in connection with the accusations against him. Until the very end, he had sworn tooth and nail that he had not come too close to his stepdaughter. At the time of the crime, the girl was between eight and twelve years old. There had been months of suffering, at the end of which the girl finally had to undergo a credibility assessment to decide how reliable the child's testimony was.
The man had always insisted that he had never had sexual contact with her: "she was like a daughter to me"." and he could never do something like that to her. What still came through negatively was the village gossip, but that falls rather on the villagers back.
Black measurements read by the mother, an intense conversation between her and her donkey – that caused damonish rumors and was nothing that mother and daughter could have brought into the world. As a side effect, this was a wild rumor that had only one purpose: to discredit the mother.
Was the girl really abused?? The expert burkhard schade from bonn came to the conclusion that from a subjective point of view the girl had done anything but lie. However, at least at that time, there was an almost "symbiotic relationship" between mother and daughter. The girl had not made any deliberate false statement.
Schade juggled between expressions such as autosuggestion, testimonial psychologist, who had reached her limits of "qualitative competence and "kon-stanzprufung", whereas a "psychology of false statements" but could be excluded. The girl had been able to make it all up, but that was only noticeable when she wanted to use her "false statement competence" as an 18-year-old as an 18 year old, when she describes what she had experienced as a child.
According to the expert, there had never been any indication that the girl had told the untruth.
Every person who has to remember things from his own youth has to visualize what he actually experienced and it becomes blurred. "There has never been any evidence that she lied to anyone." the case of abuse was now about ten years ago, and that makes the memory fade.
However, their autobiographical memory was in good condition. However, the police officer also pointed out that some things could no longer be proven. She also knew that "there had been something", that she had experienced something. However, as a police officer, she could not make any "concrete findings" meet.
The expert concluded that the girl had identified more and more with her role as a victim as the interrogation progressed. "With the means at my disposal, the statement is not sufficiently provable", he summed up and added: "a background of experience cannot be ruled out." that was probably the statement that led the prosecutor to plead for acquittal.
A similar argument was made by defense attorney brandl, who asked not to hide behind general platitudes in the verdict. And lawyer christine leuker, representing the nebeklagerinnen, pointed out that "this family has gone through hell" be. Whatever had happened, the girl's only concern now was to finally get some peace. This is also what judge manfred schmidt wished for the acquitted man.