Interview with Till's lawyer, Simon Bergmann, for Cicero.
Mr. Bergmann, what are the criminal charges against Till Lindemann, which prompted the Berlin public prosecutor to start investigations?
The authorities in Vilnius have already stopped their investigations due to a lack of sufficient suspicion. The investigations by the Berlin public prosecutor's office were not triggered by criminal charges from victims, but by two people and an association who refer to media reports or a YouTube video.
So the Berlin public prosecutor's office did not officially open proceedings, although the information was publicly available, but only reacted to the criminal charges?
As we can see from the investigation file, this is the case. I cannot say whether the authorities reacted to public pressure. On the other hand, we have nothing against it. An investigation has the advantage that the allegations are clarified by professionals and not by investigative journalists. We'd rather have the public prosecutor's office check that than leave it hanging in the air. I also know of cases like this, where suspicions are reported, but at the same time there are no investigations at all. This is a new phenomenon.
In the case of Julian Reichelt / Axel Springer, the old publisher Dirk Ippen intervened in Munich and at the last moment prevented any publication about alleged misconduct by the Bild editor-in-chief in the Ippen group. As a result, his investigative team resigned and went to Spiegel together . Der Spiegel must and wants to use these people and make full use of them.
The most spectacular result so far is the cover story from June 9, 2023: "Rammstein: Sex, power, alcohol - what the young women from 'Row Zero' report", produced by 13 authors. Do you see a pattern in the recent suspicious reporting? Is this a new development with results that were not seen five or ten years ago?
One gets the impression that the topic has gained a whole new spin in the media with the MeToo movement and Harvey Weinstein. You noticed that this topic triggers people. It attracts a lot of attention, just the catchphrase "MeToo" alone, and it guarantees high sales figures, especially in the digital sector.
That's why you will hardly find any MeToo reports without a payment barrier. They appear in the print edition - which you have to buy - and often in the paid subscription area, so they are not freely accessible. The reason for this is that they also want to make money with it. This has led to a significant increase in impermissible reporting of suspicions and to a dangerous shift in the guidelines.
Where do you draw the line between permissible and impermissible reporting of suspicions?
This is very complex, actually a case for legal seminars. There is no such thing as black and white. It must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. In order to be able to report identifyingly, a celebrity must usually be affected. If it is not about a celebrity, the story is usually dead, because then there is no public interest in naming or depicting the person. The reporting interest of the public must not only be given, but also relatively high, because the risk of stigmatization is enormous. You are reporting something that has not yet been clarified.
The authors and one of the publisher's legal advisors recently said in a video discussion with selected readers – “ Spiegel – Backstage” from June 29th – themselves: “We don't know whether what we're writing is true.”
That's how it is. There are accusations, there are clues or witnesses or there aren't. The person concerned denies it or does not comment. One does not know whether the person did what someone claims. That has to be clarified by the investigative process or by a court, or it will clear itself up. Only: As long as that is not clarified, the accused has to be considered innocent. That is why there are these strict requirements from the Federal Court of Justice to the Federal Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights.
As far as the public interest in Rammstein is concerned, you don't have to worry too much: Yes, of course such allegations are also possible in principle. In any case, the lack of prominence is not the KO criterion. Only: The article would not really work for Lieschen Müller or the average consumer anyway. It takes celebrity to make it sell.
The second hurdle is then the main one: Depending on the severity of the allegations, the press may only report when sufficient evidence is available or has been determined. The press now has to see for itself: Is there enough evidence that the person did it? It must have a minimum number of connecting facts and, if requested, produce them that support its presentation. Only then is she allowed to publish her suspicions. This is where most mistakes are made.
Do you assume that such legal disputes and even defeats as now before the Hamburg Higher Regional Court, which also cause considerable costs, are factored in by the magazines in their sales expectations from the outset?
I do believe that publishers see the risks and consciously take them. The Spiegel legal counsel and also the investigative editors have recently commented on the alleged thoroughness of their research, even before a legal dispute arises. I am very surprised that the press obviously feels compelled to justify its research in such a proactive manner, given that it is a matter of course in journalism.
Or she turns the tables and uses the opportunity to celebrate her own professionalism, impartiality, her ethos and thus to do additional advertising. On the one hand you want to arm yourself against criticism, on the other hand it is a marketing tool: "How did our research in the Rammstein/MeToo case go?" New people are attracted to listen to it: Take a look and you can consider getting a subscription. This is really new.
Is that voyeurism that is being exploited and exploited in terms of sales? Especially since you know next to nothing about the private life of the band Rammstein. They isolate themselves and allow no insights, let alone home stories; which makes you really curious.
Definitely. That's also my point of criticism. The alleged perpetrators do not peddle their private lives. In the case of Luke Mockridge, the preliminary investigation had been discontinued when the reports began, in the case of Rammstein suspicious reports were used as the basis for a preliminary investigation, and in the case of the gallery owner Johann König, there was no preliminary investigation at all until today, which did not prevent Die Zeit from getting started against him .
What is the evidence in the Rammstein case ?
I ask for your understanding that I do not want to comment on the status of the criminal investigation. On the other hand, I can judge what was put forward by the publishers in the press law disputes. And the means of making the allegations credible - rape, administration of knockout drops to enable sexual acts - do not convince me in any way.
There is surprisingly little, considering what has been announced in the articles and headlines. Der Spiegel is an example of an approach that I have observed in numerous recent MeToo reports: When the article says: We spoke to around two dozen women and this resulted in a certain pattern, a system. A man who pushes boundaries. A man who does not respect the will of women. You read the article and you think: Well, two dozen women – that sounds pretty bad. There must be something to it. And the higher the number of witnesses, the more one believes that this is true.
As a person affected, you then have to sue, so in this case apply for an injunction against Der Spiegel . Only then do you have a chance to find out what's actually true about it. Most of the time you don't even know who is accusing whom of what. These are often alleged or actual events that happened years ago. So you have to force the press in court to disclose the results of your research.
As part of a process, the court then has to check whether the stated principles of reporting on suspicions have been complied with. Other criteria are whether the reporting was balanced and objective, and whether the opportunity to comment was given. And it shouldn't be prejudiced. Incidentally, all points that I believe were disregarded in the article. Anyway. Then you go to court and then Der Spiegel presents its research results and then you check: where are the two dozen women actually?
The text is about the "casting system", but also about the accusation that Lindemann used knockout drops or had them used to make women compliant. And we only attack this latter, this really serious accusation, because the "casting system" is more a question of moral evaluation. You may ask: Do you still have to go to bed with groupies these days, do you have to make a “selection” based on visual criteria? You can evaluate everything critically and raise the moral index finger. I find this feigned indignation completely exaggerated. For me it's a puritanical hypermorality that's being shown.
But: If there were criminal offenses, then I don't want to defend it. I just can't see it at all right now, at least not in terms of a "casting system". And as far as the knockout drops are concerned, I didn't find anything relevant in the documents and evidence provided by Spiegel . The district court of Hamburg has meanwhile also assessed this in the same way.
So what follows from this?
The media must find out: Is a statement credible? Are there additional indications, facts? The thesis that in testimony-against-testimony offenses the man always wins because of the principle "in case of doubt for the accused", i.e. it should never be reported on, is wrong. It's not like that. Criminal proceedings on sexual offenses are checked very carefully because the public prosecutor's office does not want to be accused of stopping such proceedings too quickly.
That's how it should be. It's different from a few years ago. There are other options; you have very well-trained civil servants, above all. There are indications such as Whatsapp messages, signs of injury, cell phone data on whereabouts. This is often the subject of an indictment. Whether or not there will be a conviction is another question, but prosecutors are trying their best.
But abuse of power is also accused of Lindemann.
Because of serious sexual offences, which, given the current state of affairs, is not even remotely possible and, by the way, is not even covered by the allegations made by Der Spiegel : I did not find any evidence in the file about the knockout drops. At this point, Der Spiegel is already rowing back and says that it did not raise this suspicion at all, but that it primarily came to speak of this "casting system" and of abuse of power.
What is the abuse of power in the Lindemann case?
If you compare this with the Weinstein case, you realize that the abuse of power does not exist. What kind of power is that supposed to be? Rock star prominence is said to be power. He uses it. Only: You could level this accusation against any celebrity who has sex with a woman who may not be his own.
Have you found any indications that your client has given or promised anything to women? Does he put together a backing choir? A dance group? vocals? Or did he conversely threaten them with the end of their careers if they are not compliant?
Nothing like that. The women whom Der Spiegel is now using as witnesses do not claim that either . The affidavits I've seen make no mention of that. On the contrary, the majority of women say they knew there would be sex at the after-show party, and they went anyway. Only two of these affidavits come from women who report from their own experience. Others only report atmospheric. And that they left when they became uncomfortable.
Were women prevented from walking when they wanted to?
I did n't find anything about this in the documents provided by Spiegel . But I was never there myself. So I can only reproduce the statements I have seen so far. Result: None of the women say they were prevented from leaving the room. And none of the women talk about abuse of power. On the contrary: Most of them, at least that's how I understand the statements, were interested in sex.
I also see the problem that, as a person affected, you first have to put a lot of money on your table before you can even attack an issue of Spiegel or anyone else.
That's added. I have clients who honestly say: Unfortunately, we have to lay down our arms, as sorry as we are. It's no longer financial.
If it goes all the way to the Higher Regional Court and then to Karlsruhe, that will be really expensive - and woe betide you lose in the end. Do you have an example?
I'll give you a case. The client, himself active in the media, was accused. We took action against the mirror , applied for a restraining order. That took a long time. It was issued in essential parts, so initially a success, but the mirror raised a hearing complaint and the BVerfG suspended the enforcement of the temporary injunction.
Consequence: What we had achieved, the deletion of passages from the article, is reversed and the text can be put online again. Negotiations were then to continue in August, which lost another two months. And Der Spiegel had already announced that it would go through all the instances and also force my client into the main action. Against this background, the continuation of the proceedings no longer made any sense.
So if things go as Spiegel has threatened, that means: In the injunction proceedings you have two instances with two oral hearings and you then have main proceedings with at least two, but probably three instances, because then it goes from the regional court to the higher regional court to the Federal Court of Justice.
How much money does that add up to?
This depends on the amount in dispute and the course of the proceedings - the more serious the damage to reputation, the higher the costs. If the client loses in the end, which thank God rarely happens, he has to bear all the costs, including those of the other party. That can add up to a six-figure sum. Of course there are people who can and must afford it, but there are also clients who are prominent but not millionaires.
And they are brought to their knees.
And the media, the opponents of the trial, know that. They take into account the financial situation of the person concerned. They say to themselves: We'll report on the suspicion despite all our reservations, but the scoop is so big that it definitely pays off and we'll include the lawyer's fees. My impression is that the mirror has now reached the level of an image newspaper. In the specific case even clearly worse than the picture . Methods are used that are actually attributed to tabloid journalism. This is a bad development.
