Bundesministerium für Verfassung und Justiz – Antrag den vom Familiengericht Mistelbach gefährdeten Schutz eines minderjährigen Missbrauchs-Opfers sicherzustellen

Federal Ministry
for Constitution and Justice

Dear Federal Minister of Justice Dr.in Zadić, LL.M. !
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen !

As Austrian Victims of Justice Society we support potential victims of justice by organizing self-help groups to gather evidence, by accompanying them psychologically and by investigative, journalistic processing of individual court cases for their publication in newspapers, on the Internet and in social media.

In the course of this activity, we were confronted with the following highly explosive case in the area of responsibility of the Federal Ministry of Justice.

Due to imminent danger to life and limb of the minor M***** B*****, we therefore feel compelled to bring the following facts to your attention and to request the

REQUEST

the competent disciplinary department of the Federal Ministry of Justice to conduct an objective investigation – without
without regard to the function of the suspects as officers of the District Court Mistelbach, as well as the Family Court Assistance Mistelbach – and to

the constitutionally guaranteed protection
of the minor victim

M***** B*****, born ******,
residing ********

immediately
to ensure.

In addition to the provisions of the Criminal Code, the legal frame of reference for the facts presented is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which was incorporated into the Austrian Federal Constitution in 2011.
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, according to which every child has the right to immediate protection by the Republic of Austria from economic and sexual exploitation. Judges, family court aides and authorities must report all facts that have come to their attention that are necessary to prevent or avert a concrete danger to a specific child.

In Article 19, this Convention explicitly states the State’s duty to protect the child against any form of maltreatment by his or her parents or other caregivers, and to provide appropriate prevention and treatment programs.

Article 34 CRC also standardizes a right of the child to be protected from violence and all forms of sexual exploitation, including prostitution and participation in pornographic performances.

Under the guiding principle of the best interests of the child, the State shall take all measures to guarantee the protection and safety of children from sexual violence and abuse.

Article 5 of the Federal Constitutional Law on the Rights of Children stipulates that every child has the right to an upbringing free of violence. Physical punishment, infliction of mental suffering, sexual abuse and other maltreatment are prohibited. Every child has the right to protection from economic and sexual exploitation.

It is further stipulated that every child victim of violence or exploitation has the right to adequate compensation and rehabilitation.

If children come out of their secrecy – which is always associated with sexual abuse – then official decisions must be made immediately as to whether and which court experts are to be appointed and the public prosecutor’s office is to be involved.

These decisions must be made even if it is not yet completely certain in advance how far the suspicion of sexual abuse is founded.

Judges, family court aides and authorities must report all facts that have become known and that are necessary to prevent or avert a concrete endangerment of a specific child.

The report of concrete suspicion of maltreatment must be made without hesitation and without weighing the interests.
This means that the report must be made without exception and that all other considerations, such as whether it would not be better for the child and its well-being to refrain from making a report, are not permissible.

As the employer, the Republic of Austria is liable for the selection of personnel and the task-appropriate training of the officers and civil servants deployed.

Circle of facts: District Court & Family Court Assistance Mistelbach

The mother concerned, Ms. E******B*****, reported the sexual abuse of her son to the family court assistance in April and June 2020 and hoped for quick help.

The family court help center states that it informed Ms. Karin Beber, born 1978, as the responsible family court judge of the Mistelbach District Court.

In view of the personal entanglements, neither the employees of the responsible family court assistance, nor the responsible family judge Ms. Mag. Beber have initiated the immediate measures required by law to protect the minor injured party M***** B*****.

Already in the summer of 2020 (starting in April 2020), the minor began to express himself about sexual abuse acts of the suspected child’s father. The mother informed the court-appointed family court assistance Mistelbach of this suspicion of sexual abuse of her minor son by telephone (12.04.2020). Despite this information, the legally prescribed precautionary measures to protect the abused child were omitted.

On 17.04.2020, the suspected child father tried to take the minor M***** to himself – in the process, a video of the handover and M*****’s panic attack at the sight of the child father in the living room of the maternal household was recorded.

Despite repeated urgings on the part of the mother, the Mistelbach family court assistance unlawfully failed to initiate measures to preserve evidence and secure a judicial prosecution of the friendly suspect.

Last year, the underage victim, in safe custody at home with his grandmother and mother, began to report repeated sexual abuse and – in specific details – unspeakable humiliation at the hands of his producer, who lived separately in Vienna.

The District Court of Mistelbach and the family court assistance there have had demonstrable knowledge of these very concrete and detailed incriminating facts since last year. Despite this knowledge, the responsible officials have obviously failed to ensure the legally guaranteed protection of the underage victim from violence and exploitation.
In our opinion, according to our research, this circumstance can be explained as follows:

Preparatory acts to thwart punishment and prosecution at Mistelbach District Court:
Suspicion of the targeted installation of a relationship network in the area of family court assistance of his mj. Victim:

It is significant in this context that only the mother and the victim, her minor son, live in the area of jurisdiction of the Mistelbach District and Family Court.
The suspect lives in Vienna and has no other connection to Mistelbach.

Nevertheless, the alleged “best friend of the suspect” works at the Mistelbach family court assistance.

Apparently, the suspect has established a strategic friendship with a senior employee of the Mistelbach family court assistance in order to be able to defend himself against the threatening accusations of sexual child abuse.

In this sense, the suspect threatened the child’s mother, in the presence of the maternal grandmother, with the following words: quote:

“If you play with the right of contact, you have no chance in Mistelbach.
The S*** (note: meant is Mag. Th**** S**** from the family court assistance, who is friends with the child father) works very closely with all judges there.”

With this help, the suspect was apparently able to actually exert influence on the Mistelbach Family Court in order to divert attention from the massive defensive reactions of his child against his continued acts of abuse and to shift suspicion – to “educational errors” imputed to the child’s mother.

Due to M*****’s extremely poor condition – which was related to the contacts with the child’s father – and the health and psychological consequences for the minor M*****, which had been ongoing for years, the mother attached particular importance to the fact that an unbiased official escort should be present during the child’s contacts with the child’s father in order to obtain an objective impression of M*****’s situation.

This official assistance was also demonstrably denied to the abused child.

At the beginning of June 2020, on the part of the family court assistance, the decision was executed with regard to the suspect’s right of contact with his minor victim, without having previously clarified the specific accusations of the minor victim against the suspect for child sexual abuse.

The officially enforced stays of the child with the suspect were followed by renewed illnesses of the abused boy, behavioral problems and breakdowns of the child.
The family court assistance was informed by the child’s mother, but continued to be grossly negligent in failing to take the measures required by law in any case to protect the child in the interest of the suspect.

With the help of his preemptively installed, friendly relationship network in the environment of the Mistelbach Family Court, the suspect succeeded in preventing the officials there from taking protective measures for his underage victim and in implementing his defense strategy, namely to question both the credibility of the victim’s very detailed statements as well as the credibility and
parenting ability of the mother, and the credibility of the grandmother’s testimony.

Suspicion of seduction of useful accomplices:

The father suspected of child sexual abuse is a persuasive salesman for financial services.
These sales skills also relate to his own person and demeanor. He is overtly manipulative, as well as strategically planning and acting.

In the course of the minor victim’s current therapy and age-related development, the victim most recently reports that the suspect has been calling his victim on

“other – very fat, bad – men”

who are doing “the same thing” to him as the child’s father.

The suspect is wealthy. It is therefore out of the question that he would pass on the underage victim for additional financial gain in a pedophile ring or raise such a ring himself.

His central interest must be the thwarting of his criminal prosecution.

In our opinion, it is logically compelling that the suspect only entices such men to commit the same acts against the underage victim and passes the victim on to them as an accomplice who has sufficient influence in the judiciary to hinder the preservation of evidence and the clarification of the criminal prosecution,

Suspicion of deliberate cover-up of physical abuse injuries of his minor victim.

Photo documentation of the minor victim’s repeated injuries show signs of abuse, beatings, stabbing with sharp objects, etc.

The minor victim reports that his father also inflicted injuries by pushing him off the swing or dropping him on his back on sharp objects in the living area.

In this context, it is noteworthy that the – obviously strategically planning ahead suspicious child father – has taken out an accident insurance policy with the Generali insurance company for these physical damages of his victim, in which he himself is the beneficiary in case of damage.

Proof: Generali accident insurance policy ************** UV

 

Suspicion of obstruction of prosecution through the deliberate use of dangerous threats
towards the minor victim:

On the evening of 08/31/2020, M***** made very credible statements to his mother, with specific repulsive details that he could no longer keep secret and that no one could make up.

At the same time, the minor child reported the dangerous threat with which the suspected child’s father had secured his silence in the past.

The abused child, in addition to his shame, has great fear and difficulty talking about the abuse, as the suspect threatens him that wherever the child would reveal his abuse.

“the good Lord will come through the wall and smack him if he reveals anything.”

Regarding the suspicion of the existence of the dangerous threats against the minor victim, reference is made to medical findings in which it was actually recorded:

“The boy knows why he is here and states that his dad hurt him.

Whispering, the patient assures his mother that “the good Lord won’t come through the wall anyway and won’t hurt him anyway if he tells anything.”

M***** asks his mother to tell what happened to him and keeps whispering in the mother’s ear what she should say.”

The dangerous threat towards the abused child is a clear indication that all – by the abused child against heavy inner resistance such as shame and fear – brought forth crime descriptions must be fully true.

The responsible officials to Az 17 PS ***/19*of the district court Mistelbach and the associated family court assistance have –

despite demonstrable knowledge of these official offenses – did not request an investigation to clarify and protect the rights of the minor victim:

Therefore, on September 10, 2020, the mother had to independently file a statement of facts with the Vienna Public Prosecutor’s Office to protect her minor son, who was unlawfully left alone by officials.

Suspicion of unlawful intervention

After the actual facts of the case had to be disclosed by informing the mother to the public prosecutor’s office, the responsible persons of the family court and the family court assistance Mistelbach obviously pursue the goal of

to justify the misjudgements and unlawful omissions for the protection of the underage victim in the area of responsibility of the Mistelbach District Court,
to intimidate the reporting mother by threatening to take away the child, and
to make the abused child understand that no one will believe his suffering and that he should remain silent, as he will be returned to his tormentor in the end, who will punish him for his betrayal.

To this end, reports and statements sent on record omit or misrepresent material information that could incriminate the suspect.

Unsolicited calls are used to try to influence the investigation in favor of the suspect.

Evidence: Order and approval form AZ 206 St ***/20* – ON 1 , file note dated 15.09.2020.

 

Suspicion of attempted influencing of an expert witness

In addition, the responsible officer at the Family Court Mistelbach, in response to the mother’s complaint, ordered a significant expert opinion by decision of 26 January 2021.

In this expert opinion order, she requests an expert opinion on the question of whether the child’s mother is capable of raising the child without restrictions or whether measures by the guardianship court are necessary to safeguard the welfare of the minor child.

The desired result of this court order for an expert opinion can be clearly seen from the informative reasoning of this order.

Courts are generally not required to give detailed reasons for the appointment of an expert. Rather, the questions of the expert opinion order are to be formulated in a factually neutral manner.

In contrast to a factually objective statement of reasons, the one-sided statements in the “statement of reasons” of this decision in favor of the father – accused of sexual abuse by expert opinion – are obviously only a pretext.

In our opinion, they can only be understood as a message and order of a predetermined expert opinion result towards the appointed expert.

The bias and the clearly recognizable attempt to influence the appointed expert as a witness in her sense is further proven by the setting of the – highly unreasonable – deadline for the assertion of only 3 days for the assertion of reasons for rejection.

Citation:

“…objections against the person of the expert must be
be raised in writing with the court within 3 days.”

Subsequently, the appointed expert demands from the commissioning family court Mistelbach for this foreseeable expert opinion result at the expense of the concerned mother a fee in the absurd amount of EUR 6.000.– !!!, which could never be justified for objective factual reasons.

Nevertheless the BG Mistelbach holds on to this clearly to be understood expert’s order and wants to let the expert for the ordered expert’s opinion actually a remuneration at a value of EUR 6.000.- come.

According to any objective understanding, these facts can, in our opinion, only be understood as attempted witness influence in favor of the suspect and as attempted coercion against the child’s mother.

Evidence: File 17 PS ***/19*of the District Court Mistelbach,
in particular expert opinion order to SV Dr. Waldenmair ff
including a cost warning to SV Waldenmair for a fee of over EUR 6,000.

The responsible office bearer therefore, despite knowledge that criminal proceedings are pending against the suspected father of the child and despite knowledge of the child’s statements
also in spite of knowledge of the statements of the child, over the heavy sexual abuse before the police, the questioning of the educating ability of the child nut/mother and
the threatened removal of the child to her top priority.

Suspicion of continued abuse of authority through
Omission due to personal conflict of interest.

The present, objective expert statement dated 01.02.2021 and psychological statement dated 31.01.2021 show that with actual, objectively verifiable facts, the continued denial of child victim protection, the threatened removal of the minor victim M***** B*****, as well as the deprivation of parental authority for the protecting mother cannot be justified.

The current threat to the minor victim M***** B***** results beyond doubt from the police witness interviews of the minor victim M***** B***** with the criminal police GZ: PAD/20/********/008/KRIM and GZ: PAD/20/**********/003/KRIM cited in the enclosed application for a temporary injunction, which we hereby bring to your attention.

Evidence: Application of the mother to be attached for the issuance of a temporary injunction pursuant to § 382e EO to the District Court Mistelbach dated 08.03.2021.

According to objective criteria, there is no reason to doubt the parenting ability of the mother, Ms. B*****, who is the only one to stand up for the well-being and protection of her damaged minor boy with exemplary strength and courage.

We assume on the basis of the available facts that by the threat connected with the expert’s assessment order, the only for the well-being of their child fighting Mrs. Mag. B***** and their abused son are to be put deliberately over a longer period in fear and fright and brought to the silence.

In justification, reference is made to the following facts about the child mother under attack, Mag. E******B*****:

Born ********
Best possible moral and ethical education through
7 years of grammar school with the school brothers in Strebersdorf
Studies of journalism and communication science at the University of Vienna
Studies of Business Administration at the University of Vienna
Successful completion of studies in 2010
Book author about “**********”
(on sale in all specialist bookshops and on Amazon)
Successful professional career at the Austrian Broadcasting Corporation,
Department ORF 2 television information
Successful professional career in PR and public relations of banks

A will to incriminate the mother of the injured minor victim against the suspect is excluded on record. In particular at the beginning of the judicial clarification of the contact right, the mother was demonstrably primarily endeavored to make a regulated entrance possible for the child to its father for its well-being.

The mother, who herself came from an intact family, was initially unable to recognize the child’s pathological physical and psychological stress symptoms following his stays in his father’s care.

Only through the trusting opening of the abused underage son to his mother and his grandmother, the current accusations against the suspect have become clear. Accusations against the suspect concretely came to light.

The procedural interruption of the traumatizing contacts of the minor victim with the suspect and the loving security of the child, with his mother and grandmother have strengthened the child’s confidence to reveal his trauma.

The fact that the co-victimized mother, Mrs. Mag. B*****, has a high psychological intelligence and special empathy, which go far beyond normal abilities, already results from her academic psychological work on the topic “************”. This academic work of Mrs. Mag. B***** is a recognized technical book and is sold in the standard assortment of the psychological specialized trade and with Amazon.

The mother, who is psychologically trained through her studies and her scientific work on bullying in the world of work, consciously acts therapeutically – according to the findings of Sigmund Freud – on her child:

“Our way of strengthening the weakened ego starts from the expansion of its self-knowledge. …
We want … the ego, made bold by the security of our help, to dare to attack in order to regain what it has lost”
(Sigmund Freud).

As a consequence of his newly found self-worth, the damaged child has since then revealed more and more facts of the sexual abuse – according to SV expert opinion actually experienced.

Every objective and factual judging official would therefore have to acknowledge that it is a blessing in disguise for the underage child to have such a qualified mother who courageously stands up for his protection.

The threatened uprooting of the abused minor boy M**** B***** from his familiar, loving family environment with his mother and grandmother is absurd and can in no way be explained by the legally mandated pursuit of the interest in protecting the abused child.

Fact circle: Omitted investigations against the suspected child father and his environment.

The following necessary investigations have been omitted by the authorities so far:

Expert opinion on the detailed, psychiatric examination of the suspected child father:

In this context, it is requested that supplementary investigations be carried out and taken into account:

Investigation of the sexual abuse presumably suffered by the suspect himself.
Obtaining the suspect’s medical records from the regional health insurance fund
Obtaining the Generali accident insurance policy ******* UV
taken out by the suspect for injuries to the minor victim M***** B*****
Procurement of the file of the position commission of the Federal Armed Forces on the grounds of the suspect’s unfitness for military service due to physical limitations
Medical records of the suspect’s alcoholic mother
Procurement of earlier investigative files regarding the suspect’s violent loss of control in the course of the destruction of a Bank Austria foyer
Investigations regarding serious mental disorders of the suspect in relation to sexual contacts with adult women, suspect and his pathological disgust for female sexual organs
Evidence: Witness Mag. E******B*****, *********

Witness: Britta (née) Bauer, ev. married in the meantime, address still unknown

and other witnesses to be determined

Likewise, no forensic examinations for traces of abuse on the underage victim have been arranged so far (although the child had made statements about abuse and rape in the anal area),
nor has a house search been carried out on the suspect.
Nor were any investigative actions taken to the effect that

hard drives or other digital data carriers of the suspect with suspected images of the abuse of the underage victim and the accomplices probably involved by the suspect were seized,

5) nor were the alleged crime scenes examined for evidence of abuse.

Conclusion

The life of the minor M***** up to now has been characterized by decisions of biased officials of the District Court of Mistelbach, which – without any factual evidence procedure and scientific findings – are based on pure “faith” and not on expert investigation and competent judgment.

The suspect – who was a friend on record with the network of the Mistelbach District Court – was simply believed without questioning the physical complaints and abnormalities of the minor victim, which occurred exclusively in connection with the father.

The child’s mother handed over the reports and statements of the minor, as well as pictures of injuries and hematomas known to the officers responsible for the guardianship case.

Despite all warnings, applications and requests of the protective relatives on the mother’s side to the involved judicial authorities, the martyrdom of the minor – characterized by illnesses, injuries, fears of the father and behavioral problems related to the father – was trivialized to negated by the responsible authorities.

Evidence: Guardianship file of the Mistelbach District Court

At the age of five, the minor managed – despite massive pressure to maintain secrecy due to the known threats of the suspect – to communicate to his caregivers about the serious sexual abuse by the suspect.

Outlook

In order to avoid possible consequences of official liability, the current legal situation – even if the evidence is still unsatisfactory – forces immediate, clear decisions to ensure the protection of a vulnerable minor victim of abuse.

It would be understandable that those in charge of the family court have so far preferred to close their minds to this tension of repulsive reality and would like to negate the imminent danger to the child.
The fact that the obtaining of such an expert opinion for a well-founded taking of evidence has been omitted so far raises further questions.

In any case, it would be scientifically unjustifiable to assume that one could see behind the facade of a manipulative, socially conditioned, potential sexual abuser by pure eye impression and “faith” – without any help from an expert opinion – and base tenable decisions and judgments on this.

The age-related increasing personality development of the underage victim in the safe custody of his mother and his grandmother, as well as the steadily consolidating evidence, make it clear that the true facts cannot be suppressed in the long run and will emerge in the course of time in any case.

On the one hand, the danger for the injured party – as the main incriminating witness – increases when, with growing awareness, he is increasingly able to understand and articulate the mistreatment that happened to him.

On the other hand, even by the suspect – who, in the absence of state intervention, does not receive therapy – the victim can only be seen as a growing source of danger and threat to his own person.

If the credibly presented accusations are correct, from the point of view of the suspect the compelling logic arises that this main incriminating witness must be eliminated and thus an – in any case to be considered – acute endangerment situation of the underage victim.

Basically, it must be considered that any attempt – in order to avoid possible liability consequences – to prevent further emergence of the truth through coordinated statements that can be used in the short term cannot be successful in the case of facts such as the present one and the damage threatens to increase disproportionately – both financially and to life and limb.

Each maintenance of the contact right of the suspect, bring therefore the under-aged victim – as central load witnesses – into highest danger for life and limb.

Otherwise, public officials of the Republic of Austria would accept with approval that

the suspect is given the opportunity to actively thwart his criminal prosecution by gaining access to his main prosecution witness and thereby eliminating him. (e.g. through a bathing or household accident)
because of extremely high recidivism rates among sexual abusers, it must be assumed that in the future, in addition to minor M***** B*****, other minor victims will be acutely endangered.

After the shameful findings as a result of the “FRITZL” and “KAMPUSCH” cases, as well as the significant educational work of the “KLASNIC Commission” of the independent Catholic Victim Protection Commission on the subject of child abuse in Austria, the Austrian judiciary has committed itself in its public relations work to increased awareness and prevention work.

Failure to provide assistance in the past should, if possible, not be repeated in Austria after these events.

MOTION

We therefore propose, with due regard for the presumption of innocence, that disciplinary measures be taken against the responsible officials at the Mistelbach District Court, against the Mistelbach Family Court Support Service and against unknown perpetrators, and in particular that that the disciplinary department investigate the suspicion of offenses against § 2 StGB, § 12 StGB, § 15 StGB, § 95 StGB, § 105 StGB, § 292 StBG, § 286 StGB, § 299 StGB, § 302 StGB, § 321i StBG.

As stated in the expert opinion of the expert Dr. Eva Seidl, the pressure of suffering of the minor victim due to the described massive abuse – both sexual and sadistically humiliating perversion – may have been so great that the minor was able to make a verbal communication about his suffering at such a young age.

The psychological report of the court-certified expert Dr. Eva Seidl makes clear the need for action and the legal obligation that the Austrian justice system owes to the minor victim of a bestial, long-term crime.

The court sworn expert Dr. Mag. Eva SEIDL, has stated completely clearly in her expert opinion, cit:

GUTACHTEN Dr. Mag. SEIDL:

“that the statements of Max are untrue or have come about through influence and suggestion, CANNOT be further upheld”

“that the statements of M***** are EXPERIMENTALLY BASED CAN BE CONFIRMED, since M***** shows a statement constancy.”
“From an expert point of view, a deliberate (intentional) false statement by the child can be ruled out.”
“From an expert’s point of view, there is NO evidence of extraneous influence.”

Another unbiased, expert witness, the treating psychologist of the minor injured party, Dr. Marialuise PLATZ has also clearly spoken out against any further contact of the suspected child father to the minor victim in her written statement of 31.01.2021 available to the court cit:

PSYCHOLOGICAL OPINION Dr. PLATZ:

“Contact with the father is extremely contraindicated and massively detrimental to his further thriving development.”

 

The facts presented are noticed and taken seriously by leading Austrian media in addition to the upset relatives of the minor victim on the mother’s side, the Austrian Justice Victim Assistance, the Child Protection Association L.U.C.A, the expert witness Dr. Seidl and the child psychologist Dr. Marialuise Platz, who has been in charge of the case for many years.

For further information, collection of facts and requests for documents, we are of course at your disposal at any time.

However, the priority is to implement the protection of the underage victim guaranteed by the laws and the Austrian Federal Constitution by the Republic of Austria, so that the underage victim M***** B***** can heal and grow up in safety in our society.

If the credibly presented accusations are correct, from the point of view of the suspect the compelling logic arises that this main incriminating witness must be eliminated and thus an – in any case to be considered – acute endangerment situation of the underage victim.

Basically, it must be considered that any attempt – in order to avoid possible liability consequences – to prevent further emergence of the truth through coordinated statements that can be used in the short term cannot be successful in the case of facts such as the present one and the damage threatens to increase disproportionately – both financially and to life and limb.

Each maintenance of the contact right of the suspect, bring therefore the under-aged victim – as central load witnesses – into highest danger for life and limb.

Otherwise, public officials of the Republic of Austria would accept with approval that

the suspect is given the opportunity to actively thwart his criminal prosecution by gaining access to his main prosecution witness and thereby eliminating him. (e.g. through a bathing or household accident)
because of extremely high recidivism rates among sexual abusers, it must be assumed that in the future, in addition to minor M***** B*****, other minor victims will be acutely endangered.

After the shameful findings as a result of the “FRITZL” and “KAMPUSCH” cases, as well as the significant educational work of the “KLASNIC Commission” of the independent Catholic Victim Protection Commission on the subject of child abuse in Austria, the Austrian judiciary has committed itself in its public relations work to increased awareness and prevention work.

Failure to provide assistance in the past should, if possible, not be repeated in Austria after these events.

MOTION

We therefore propose, with due regard for the presumption of innocence, that disciplinary measures be taken against the responsible officials at the Mistelbach District Court, against the Mistelbach Family Court Support Service and against unknown perpetrators, and in particular that that the disciplinary department investigate the suspicion of offenses against § 2 StGB, § 12 StGB, § 15 StGB, § 95 StGB, § 105 StGB, § 292 StBG, § 286 StGB, § 299 StGB, § 302 StGB, § 321i StBG.

As stated in the expert opinion of the expert Dr. Eva Seidl, the pressure of suffering of the minor victim due to the described massive abuse – both sexual and sadistically humiliating perversion – may have been so great that the minor was able to make a verbal communication about his suffering at such a young age.

The psychological report of the court-certified expert Dr. Eva Seidl makes clear the need for action and the legal obligation that the Austrian justice system owes to the minor victim of a bestial, long-term crime.

The court sworn expert Dr. Mag. Eva SEIDL, has stated completely clearly in her expert opinion, cit:

GUTACHTEN Dr. Mag. SEIDL:

“that the statements of Max are untrue or have come about through influence and suggestion, CANNOT be further upheld”

“that the statements of M***** are EXPERIMENTALLY BASED CAN BE CONFIRMED, since M***** shows a statement constancy.”
“From an expert point of view, a deliberate (intentional) false statement by the child can be ruled out.”
“From an expert’s point of view, there is NO evidence of extraneous influence.”

Another unbiased, expert witness, the treating psychologist of the minor injured party, Dr. Marialuise PLATZ has also clearly spoken out against any further contact of the suspected child father to the minor victim in her written statement of 31.01.2021 available to the court cit:

PSYCHOLOGICAL OPINION Dr. PLATZ:

“Contact with the father is extremely contraindicated and massively detrimental to his further thriving development.”

The facts presented are noticed and taken seriously by leading Austrian media in addition to the upset relatives of the minor victim on the mother’s side, the Austrian Justice Victim Assistance, the Child Protection Association L.U.C.A, the expert witness Dr. Seidl and the child psychologist Dr. Marialuise Platz, who has been in charge of the case for many years.

For further information, collection of facts and requests for documents, we are of course at your disposal at any time.

However, the priority is to implement the protection of the underage victim guaranteed by the laws and the Austrian Federal Constitution by the Republic of Austria, so that the underage victim M***** B***** can heal and grow up in safety in our society.
Sincerely, and with the expression of the highest esteem

Austrian Victims of Justice Society

Georg Wagner

Chairman

 

 

Contact Us

We're not around right now. But you can send us an email and we'll get back to you, asap.

Start typing and press Enter to search