The Dangerous Sleep
Frank S. is on trial at Berlin Regional Court (Landgericht Berlin) for serious offences against several women.
On the second day of the trial in the case of Frank S. it became visible how systematically the defendant’s digital archives had been organised.
Frank S. is a small, slim man with a full head of hair and glasses. He comes from Berlin-Lichtenberg and is 68 years old, though he looks younger. He sits slumped in his chair, staring straight ahead. He holds his hands firmly clasped together, as if they had to hold the whole man together.
He is currently charged with 22 offences against 14 women, allegedly committed between 2016 and 2022. The charges comprise rape, aggravated assault (gefährliche Körperverletzung) and violation of the most intimate personal sphere through image recordings (Verletzung des höchstpersönlichen Lebensbereichs durch Bildaufnahmen).
The women came from Berlin, were mostly between 50 and 60 years old and had met Frank S. through dating platforms. They came to his flat for the meetings.
The directories on his smartphones, his laptop and the hard drives are well structured, laid out with great clarity. One of the hard drives holds 126 folders with names such as AndreaSPDAU or AnjaKRB. The folders contain, among other things, video and image files. In the videos, naked sleeping women lie on a bed or a sofa; in police parlance: motionless persons. The IT forensic examiner assumes there were 59 women whom Frank S. is alleged to have sedated.
On the first day of the trial, Frank S. confessed to the rapes. On the covert administration of the sedative drugs he did not wish to comment for the time being.
Under the name Sepp or Z70, Frank S. exchanged messages with male users who were likewise interested in the sedation and sexual abuse of women, on pornography sites of that kind such as “Motherless”. The expert witness (Sachverständiger) listed Frank S.’s search terms: Drunk, Besoffen, Fuck Fat 18, Fuck Drunk 18, Fuck Drunk Russian Girl, Drug Sexy Girl Fucked. His searching finally led him to forums that called themselves “Sleep-Fetisch” or “Sleep/Abuse”. He uploaded his videos and met with approval.
In the courtroom the chats with other users were read out.
Chat exchange with Duke78, noted down in substance:
Hello Bro, nice video! What did you sedate her with?
With benzos.
Nice drug wife. How long have she been sleeping?
About 4 hours.
Pics?
Later.
I can’t wait.
Chat exchange with Wolfgang from Paderborn, noted down in substance:
I want to sedate my wife. She is to sleep for one or two hours.
How tall is she, how heavy? Does she drink, does she smoke?
55, 160 tall.
Is she allowed to know?
No! In secret.
Use knockout drops or etizolam. That lasts three to six hours.
How deeply does she sleep? She is not to notice that she is being groped.
I’ll send you something.
Later in this chat the photograph of an apparently sedated woman was sent. Another chat suggested that he was offering material in exchange for cryptocurrency.
How did all this come to light? The tip-off came from the police in Verden (Aller). An investigation there concerned another man who is alleged to have sedated and raped his wife; through his chats the Berlin police came upon Frank S.
Evidently many of the women learned only through the investigation what is alleged to have been done to them. The police identified the women by matching the dates of the image files with the defendant’s arrangements to meet in WhatsApp chats. In this way 42 women could be matched.
In front of me sits one of the women affected, an older woman with long hair that she holds together at the back of her head with a clasp. She belongs to that age group to which this trial keeps returning: women in their fifties and sixties whom Frank S. met through dating platforms. During the hearing she listens attentively, nodding in confirmation again and again at the expert witness’s account. For instance when he relates that one of the cameras was aimed at the sofa. When the procurement of the sedatives is discussed and the related activities on the internet are listed - for example “Making Chloroform Tutorial” or “California Pet Pharmacy”, she shakes her head, at a loss. Her companion sits next to me and tells me that she is the only one of the women affected who wants to “sit through” the hearings. The companion believes, however, that the woman cannot begin to gauge what she is letting herself in for.
After the break I stand with the other visitors in front of the still-locked courtroom door. There are only women. We talk about our horror. The companion wonders “whether you don’t notice that something is wrong when you walk into the net of an offender like that.” Another replies: “There probably are warning systems, they are just often ignored.” A younger woman counters: “But you can’t go into dating with a warning system all the time.” Another: “Probably you have to, though.”
I will follow the further course of the proceedings and report on it.