The only names of the newspapers that reported about it that I recognized on Google News were Focus (more of a magazine than a newspaper, pretty much like Der Spiegel) and Express (second biggest yellow press outlet I believe). If they even let terrorists run around free, why would they put rapists in jail? That particular story did even get some mainstream mention, but very little, can't risk the narrative. The weapon used in the attack vanished, apparently it doesn't matter how many people saw it happen, even when the police catches them red handed, without the weapon it didn't happen in the eyes of the law. Police took the terrorists in for questioning, then let them go and that was the end of it. The doctor's wife suffered a heart attack. Other patients and staff jumped out of the window to save themselves and called the police who then stopped the terrorists from killing the doctor. In a small town near Cologne they even let three terrorists go, a father and his two sons, after they tried to decapitate a doctor in his office screaming allahu akbar because they weren't satisfied with the treatment the son received. So doesn't seem to be yellow press or a satirical paper like The Onion.Īs for the article itself, I don't even know what to say to that anymore. According to Wikipedia, the newspaper the article was published in is the biggest in the state of Brandenburg where the crime happened, the newspaper was originally published by the SPD (mainstream German left wing party) and was sold a couple of times over the years to different publishers, belonged to the FAZ for some time which is a well regarded newspaper. The SJWs still dismissed it outright because it goes against their narrative.Īs far as I can tell the article is legit. This was posted in 2XC, and a german reader claimed that the article was legit based on the cited german newspaper. No objections to the ruling were stated, so it's official and final. Furthermore, the non guilty verdict was recommended by the prosecution. They specifically state that the perpetrators Turkish ancestry did not matter. They came to this conclusion, because of the victims repeated statements that she could not assert that the perpetrator acted with intent to rape, but thought it was consensual sex. They came to the result that intent could not be proven. Summarized it states they talked to 7 witnesses including the victim. Please read some comments on the story for more information.Įdit: Okay since some people here do not believe me or still think the OP and especially the headline are not misleading. The court could not establish this intent because the victim herself stated that it is possible that the perpetrator saw it as consensual sex (see quote in the OP). There was no conviction because the court could not establish that there was intent, which is required for it to be considered as rape. There's more to this story and the headline is misleading.