logo
German palliative care doctor goes on trial for murder of 15 patients

German palliative care doctor goes on trial for murder of 15 patients

The Hindu4 days ago
A German doctor went on trial in Berlin Monday (July 14, 2025), accused of murdering 15 of his patients who were under palliative care.
The prosecutor's office brought charges against the 40-year-old doctor 'for 15 counts of murder with premeditated malice and other base motives' before a Berlin state court. The prosecutor's office is seeking not only a conviction and a finding of 'particularly serious' guilt, but also a lifetime ban on practicing medicine and subsequent preventive detention.
Murder charges carry a maximum sentence of life in prison. If a court establishes that the defendant bears particularly severe guilt, that means he wouldn't be eligible for release after 15 years as is usually the case in Germany.
Parallel to the trial, the prosecutor's office is investigating dozens of other suspected cases in separate proceedings.
The man, who has only been identified as Johannes M. in line with German privacy rules, is also accused of trying to cover up evidence of the murders by starting fires in the victims' homes. He has been in custody since August 6, 2025.
The doctor was part of a nursing service's end-of-life care team in the German capital and was initially suspected in the deaths of just four patients. That number has crept higher since last summer, and prosecutors are now accusing him of the deaths of 15 people between September 22, 2021, and July 24 last year.
The victims' ages ranged from 25 to 94. Most died in their own homes.
The doctor allegedly administered an anesthetic and a muscle relaxer to the patients without their knowledge or consent. The drug cocktail then allegedly paralyzed the respiratory muscles. Respiratory arrest and death followed within minutes, prosecutors said.
The doctor did not agree to an interview with a psychiatric expert ahead of the trial, German news agency dpa reported. The expert will therefore observe the defendant's behaviour in court and hear statements from witnesses in order to give an assessment of the man's personality and culpability.
So far, it is unclear what the palliative care physician's motive might have been, dpa reported. The victims named in the indictment were all seriously ill, but their deaths were not imminent.
The defendant will not make a statement to the court for the time being, his defence lawyer Christoph Stoll said, according to dpa.
The Court has initially scheduled 35 trial dates for the proceedings until January 28, 2026. According to the Court, 13 relatives of the deceased are represented as co-plaintiffs. There are several witnesses for each case, and around 150 people in total could be heard in court, dpa reported.
Among the cases now being heard in court is that of a 56-year-old woman who died in September.
On September 5, the doctor allegedly administered an anaesthetic and a muscle relaxant to the physically weakened woman in her home without any medical need. However, fearing discovery, he then made an emergency call and falsely stated that he had found the woman in a 'condition requiring resuscitation', according to the indictment. Rescue workers were able to resuscitate the woman and took her to hospital, dpa reported.
The indictment said that 'in continuation of his plan of action and in the knowledge of the injured party's living will', according to which the woman did not want any life-prolonging measures, the doctor is said to have called one of her daughters and apologized for violating this will. With the consent of both daughters, artificial respiration was discontinued and the woman died on Sept. 8 in a Berlin hospital.
An investigation into further suspected deaths is continuing.
A specially established investigation team in the homicide department of the Berlin State Criminal Police Office and the Berlin public prosecutor's office investigated a total of 395 cases. In 95 of these cases, initial suspicion was confirmed and preliminary proceedings were initiated. In five cases, the initial suspicion was not substantiated.
In 75 cases, investigations are still ongoing in separate proceedings. Five exhumations are still planned for this separate procedure, prosecutors said.
Among the cases still being investigated is the death of the doctor's mother-in-law, who was suffering from cancer, court spokesman Sebastian Büchner said. Local media reported that she died during a visit by the doctor. In 2019, a German nurse who murdered 87 patients by deliberately bringing about cardiac arrests was given a life sentence.
Earlier this month, German investigators in the northern town of Itzehoe said they were examining the case of a doctor who has been suspected of killing several patients.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Press Has To Learn To Be Truthful': Trump Threatens To Sue WSJ Over Epstein Letter Report
'Press Has To Learn To Be Truthful': Trump Threatens To Sue WSJ Over Epstein Letter Report

News18

time7 hours ago

  • News18

'Press Has To Learn To Be Truthful': Trump Threatens To Sue WSJ Over Epstein Letter Report

Last Updated: US President Donald Trump said that he'd ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi 'to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval'. US President Donald Trump has threatened to sue The Wall Street Journal, Corp., and media mogul Rupert Murdoch over a report linking him to Jeffrey Epstein. The reaction from the US President comes following a report by The Wall Street Journal claiming that Trump had allegedly sent a sexually suggestive letter to Jeffrey Epstein — a claim the former president has strongly denied, calling the letter a fabrication. Trump also posted about the same from his social media platform saying that he'd ordered Attorney General Pam Bondi 'to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval." She quickly responded on X that she was ready to do so on Friday, though the process of getting judges to sign off on such a move would likely take considerably longer, as per a report by CNN. 'The Wall Street Journal, and Rupert Murdoch, personally, were warned directly by President Donald J. Trump that the supposed letter they printed by President Trump to Epstein was a FAKE and, if they print it, they will be sued. Mr. Murdoch stated that he would take care of it but, obviously, did not have the power to do so," Trump said in a post on Truth Social. On Thursday, the American President had vowed to sue The Wall Street Journal and Rupert Murdoch. He mentioned that they have been warned about publishing the story and that the letter was 'fake." view comments First Published: July 18, 2025, 08:44 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

Bombay High Court upholds constitutional validity of UAPA, rejects sedition challenge
Bombay High Court upholds constitutional validity of UAPA, rejects sedition challenge

The Hindu

time17 hours ago

  • The Hindu

Bombay High Court upholds constitutional validity of UAPA, rejects sedition challenge

The Bombay High Court on Thursday (July 17, 2025) dismissed the petitions challenging the constitutional validity of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and also of section 124A (sedition) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). A Division Bench comprising Justices A.S. Gadkari and Neela Gokhale held that the UAPA, in its current form, is constitutionally sound. The Court rejected the 2021 petition filed by Anil Baburao Baile, 46, a Mumbai resident, who was issued a notice by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in July 2020. Mr. Baile had challenged the validity of the UAPA and amended it up-to-date, and section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, and prayed for a declaration of these laws as ultra vires and unconstitutional; and to quash and set aside the NIA notice issued to him. He said that the meaning of 'unlawful activists', 'terrorist', and 'sedition' needs to be examined. 'Nowhere in Chapter IV of UAPA 'Terrorist' is defined; what is defined is Terrorist Act in section 15. The word 'Unlawful Activities' is defined in section 2(o) of the said act, and 'Sedition' is defined in section 124A of the IPC,' the petition said. Mr. Baile further argued that the amendments made to UAPA—especially those incorporating the 2001 UN Security Council resolution on international terrorism—enabled the government to arbitrarily designate Indian citizens or organisations as terrorists without adequate safeguards or definitions. 'Nowhere does the Constitution authorise a blanket power to the executive in deciding, and Parliament cannot be granted blanket power to declare an organisation as unlawful,' the petition contended. The Bench found no merit in the arguments and concluded that the provisions of the Act met constitutional muster and dismissed the petition. A detailed order is yet to be uploaded.

'Brutality Alone Not Enough': SC Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Who Raped, Killed 10-Year-Old
'Brutality Alone Not Enough': SC Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Who Raped, Killed 10-Year-Old

News18

timea day ago

  • News18

'Brutality Alone Not Enough': SC Commutes Death Sentence Of Man Who Raped, Killed 10-Year-Old

The Court held that brutality of the offence cannot be the sole ground for imposing capital punishment, and the convict's potential for reformation must also be assessed. The Supreme Court on July 16, 2025 upheld the conviction of a man for the rape and murder of a 10-year-old girl in 2018 but commuted his death sentence to life imprisonment without remission. The Court held that brutality of the offence cannot be the sole ground for imposing capital punishment, and the convict's potential for reformation must also be assessed. A bench of Justices Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol and Sandeep Mehta partly allowed the appeal filed by Jai Prakash, modifying the Uttarakhand High Court's judgment with respect to sentencing. The incident took place on July 28, 2018, when the body of the victim was found in the hut where the appellant lived with his family, within the under-construction premises of Shivalik Engineering College, Dehradun. An FIR was registered at Police Station Sahaspur based on her father's complaint. As per witness testimonies, the appellant had invited several children to his hut that afternoon, giving each ₹10 to buy chocolates. He let the others go, but the victim did not return. The child was later found dead in the same hut. By its judgment dated August 26 and 28, 2019, the Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 376(AB), 377, and 302 of the IPC and Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act. The Court noted the accused was in his 30s and himself the father of two children, one of whom was around the same age as the victim. The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence. On appeal, the Supreme Court reviewed the evidence presented. The case rested on three primary circumstances: the recovery of the body from the appellant's hut, last-seen theory, and DNA evidence. The Court found no reason to disbelieve the witness accounts. 'We find the witnesses to be inspiring in confidence and the children's deposition to be in a natural form," the bench noted. It was established that the appellant was last seen with the victim inside his hut shortly before the incident. Further, the Court noted that no one else was present in the hut at the time. The DNA evidence, obtained from the appellant's clothing matched with that of the victim. 'There is no infirmity in the chain of seizure or forensic examination. Taking a cumulative view of all circumstances, the prosecution has proven its case beyond reasonable doubt," the bench held. Accordingly, the Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction by the courts below. However, it disagreed with the imposition of the death sentence. The Court emphasised that the case was based on circumstantial evidence and referred to the decision in Mohd. Farooq Abdul Gafur v. State of Maharashtra (2010), which held that courts may give primacy to life imprisonment over the death penalty in such cases. The bench observed that while the crime was undeniably grave, the courts below had relied solely on its brutality to justify the death sentence. 'No other circumstance came to be discussed in concluding that this case falls under the 'rarest of rare' category. Such an approach cannot be sustained," the Court said. Referring to Gudda v. State of MP (2013) and Manoj v. State of MP (2023), the Court reiterated that sentencing must follow a two-step process: identifying and weighing both aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and then determining whether life imprisonment is clearly inadequate. The Court held that neither the trial court nor the High Court had assessed mitigating factors, despite acknowledging their relevance. 'Though the High Court outlined the requirement to consider such circumstances, it failed to actually apply them in its analysis," the bench held. In support, the bench cited Sundar @ Sundarrajan v. State by Inspector of Police (2023), where the death sentence was commuted due to lack of inquiry into the convict's background or prospects for reform. In Jai Prakash's case, the Court had called for reports from the probation officer, jail authorities, and psychological evaluators. These revealed that the appellant came from an impoverished background, began working at the age of twelve, did not attend school due to economic hardship, had good conduct in jail, and suffered from no psychiatric disorders. 'Taking into account the mitigating circumstances and the threshold under the 'rarest of rare' doctrine, we deem it appropriate to award life imprisonment without remission extending to the natural life of the appellant," the Court concluded. About the Author Sanya Talwar Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked More Get breaking news, in-depth analysis, and expert perspectives on everything from politics to crime and society. Stay informed with the latest India news only on News18. Download the News18 App to stay updated! First Published: Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store