The Toxic Date
In the case of Frank S. an expert report shows: the sedation of the women could become life-threatening.
Frank S. is on trial at Berlin Regional Court I (Landgericht Berlin I) for 22 offences against 14 women. He is alleged to have covertly sedated, raped and filmed women in his flat whom he had met through dating platforms. On his storage media investigators found material relating to considerably more women besides. On the third day of the trial one question moved to the centre, a question that makes the case appear in a different light once more: what did these substances do to the women – and how close were some of them, possibly, to a life-threatening situation?
What so far sounds like drug names and dosages quickly takes on another dimension in court. Even low to moderate doses of sleeping pills and sedatives can trigger severe drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, nausea, vomiting and gaps in memory. In combination with alcohol the effects can reinforce one another.
Some of the women evidently still reacted: when spoken to they opened their eyes, said single words, moved. But such reactions can be deceptive. According to the expert witness (Sachverständige), a reaction of that kind does not mean that a person is able to grasp the situation, to understand its meaning or to consent freely to sexual acts.
The videos showed clear warning signs that the women were not simply asleep. One woman displayed convulsive symptoms, others gagged or coughed. One woman said: “I don’t want to.” Another cried and uttered words that did not fit the situation. Some snored. For the expert witness such snoring sounds could indicate that the upper airways were already partly obstructed. In the case of one of the women a video showed her vomiting while lying on her back, without turning onto her side. The expert witness assessed this situation as life-threatening. She described the risk of what is known as aspiration: sedative substances can diminish or switch off vital protective reflexes. If the women vomit in this state, the normally protective reflexes may fail. Stomach contents can then enter the airways. The consequences range from severe pneumonia to suffocation.
An intoxication can reach deep into the organism. As the expert described it, the spectrum of poisoning symptoms ranges from severe drops in blood pressure and cardiac arrhythmia through neurological abnormalities to coma and respiratory arrest.
By the time the investigators came upon the alleged offences of Frank S., they already lay some way in the past. The women could only be identified afterwards, through the videos and his saved contacts. By that point a toxicological examination was no longer possible. Which substances they had actually been given, in what dose, and how severe the poisoning had been in each individual woman can therefore no longer be established with certainty today. The states documented on the videos were, however, consistent with an intoxication and, in the expert witness’s assessment, went considerably beyond a therapeutic application.
The proceedings concern various sleeping pills and sedatives that Frank S. is alleged to have administered to the women. Among the things found in his flat was a bottle containing a mixture of etizolam and GHB. Etizolam is not licensed as a medicine in Germany. GHB, also known as a party drug, can according to the expert witness take effect after roughly 15 minutes and last around three hours. Etizolam likewise sets in quickly, but can act considerably longer – by her testimony up to seven hours. With the mixture of GHB and etizolam found in the defendant’s flat it is conceivable that GHB accelerated the onset of the effect. A delayed breakdown of both substances through mutual interaction is also possible; but she expressly described neither as an established finding.
The toxicological report may also become important for the legal assessment of the offences. Aggravated assault (gefährliche Körperverletzung) is already among the charges against Frank S. How dangerous the substances actually were for the individual women can carry additional weight here. The possible danger to life plays a part in the rape charges as well: criminal law judges an offence more severely if a victim suffers serious damage to health as a result or is even placed in danger of death. Whether the court will assess individual offences in this way is currently open.
During the break a middle-aged woman spoke to me. She had driven for two hours to attend the trial as a member of the public. She asked me the defendant’s age. “68, I believe,” I said, “and the women affected were between 50 and 60 years old.” She looked at me for a long time, then exclaimed: “Phew! That could have been me too. How are you supposed to know whose net you are walking into? He does look quite respectable, and if he then acts a little kindly and attentively, that might well be enough to go along with him.”
On this day of the trial it was described how the substances used and their combination with alcohol could cause life-threatening conditions. Was Frank S. aware that one of the women could have died – or did he not care? The expert report does not answer that question.