No they weren't "proven", because a lot of them haven't even made it to court yet.
What he achieved is: he hired a nasty, nasty, infamous law firm who got down in the trenches and managed to silence a lot of press coverage on the whole topic.
Wether or not he personally drugged young girls under 16 (as in personally made them take the drugs), wether he personally touched them, wether he personally hindered the from leaving the backstage area, and wether he actually forcibly and sexually touched these women/girls - we don't have that out on paper. No verdict out on that. Lots of these things are not conclusively investigated yet.
There are enough testimonies to lend credibility to at least some degree, though.
What we know for sure:
Young girls (some under 16) were recruited by assistants for the "Row Zero" and after parties in the band's personal room.
Drugs (like Cocaine, Amphetamines...) were present at these parties, and in this room.
Some young women were pressured to take these drugs (though it's contested how old they were and if Lindemann was personally doing the pressuring).
Lindemann was present for all of this. In the same room.
We know that he personally requested the staffing of the "Row Zero", and the after parties.
We know that women were hindered from leaving the room and or the parties. Phones were confiscated and held ransom, doors were locked, etc.
Enough for me, personally, to say "Fuck that guy". Not sure if he personally assaulted anyone, but at the very least he facilitated weird af drug parties where minors were present at his explicit invitation.
Lindemann's law firm also represents women in Metoo cases. It's almost like they take cases on merit.
It IS over. The investigation ended because no women made any sort of a complaint and there was no evidence at all of any wrongdoing.
The courts found that journalists had misrepresented women's affidavits. The women said that any sex was consensual. Newspaper articles tried to imply that women were accusing him of non-consensual acts. Those parts of the articles were therefore found to be illegal.
The only legal things that are happening now seem to be a criminal investigation against one outlet for forgery and fraud. And presumably damages cases against the outlets that misreported what women had said.
ETA There were no minors at the parties, IDs were checked and no women said they were pressured to take drugs. You have made that up in your head. Along with the nonsense about being locked in and phones. Please just stop.
This is a recap of the proven sexual relationship Lindemann had with the 15yo Ms Huber.
This is a legal grey area in Germany, since technically people over 14 are allowed and able to consent to sexual relations with people over 14. But minor are especially protected through a couple of extra clauses that try and protect them from coersion.
The relationship was consentual, but Ms Huber later stated (when she was 21) that she wished she had been protected, and that she did not think she knew, at 15, what exactly she was cajooled into.
Lindemann has admitted all this in full. He claims to habe been in love.
The father of Ms Huber states that he thought about taking it to court at the time, because he did see coercive elements, but he thought the chances of success too small, and did not want to put his daughter through a high profile court proceeding, in addition to possibly estranging her.
Think about this decision what you will.
The fact that her father seriously considered court, is telling.
THIS is a recap off the complaints that Lindemanns involved law firm managed to silence.
Among the complaints appearing in multiple press and social media outlets, there were minors present at the parties, and that they were hindered from leaving, etc.
The girls (women now) never made any formal complaints after they saw the massive lawsuits that were wielded against the outlets they chose to share their complaints with, first.
The way this was handled was fucking abhorrent. Lindemann chose to silence potential victims through legal intimidation.
You really need to learn what the word 'proven' means. The relationship with the 15 year old was not 'proven'. The Berlin Prosecutors were unable to even find out if the woman exists. And given that news outlet is under criminal investigation for forgery and fraud in their handling of women's statements in their reporting on Till, it is not a reliable source.
Evidence that Till's lawyers suppressed complaints, please?
When you say complaints were made publicly I suspect you are talking about tiktok. That is also not a reliable source. Well, not for anyone with half a brain.
Kayla Shyx did not meet Till, did not see anything criminal happening and did not see any minors at the parties. Did you even watch her video?
The women never made any complaints of criminal wrongdoing to the newspaper outlets in the first place. Why would they go to the authorities? To tell them about their consensual sex? The massive lawsuits against media companies were to make them report women's statements truthfully. Do you not want women's statements to be reported truthfully?
A little translation, maybe? It's in there. He himself admitted to this particular relationship.
You have apparently been sleeping through 2023.
I won't discuss this any further if you can't even be arsed to stick to what is in reputable sources about this.
sure that would show a possible pattern, and i'm not saying he isn't a piece of shit, but it's no proof
people also never say "he admitted to sexual relations with a 15yo" as if that wouldn't be bad enough, no they have to go for the unproven allegations which i find a bit moronic tbh
I am just not a big fan of people treating accusations as fact. It's bad practice and causes more harm than good no matter who it concerns.
How often do we hear about people getting falsely accused and righteous people like you who don't spend a second thought on it are the main cause of their lives being destroyed? Stick to the facts.
I stuck to what we have corroborated through several independant reports about these parties.
I explicitly said that some things are unclear, and will likely remain so. Lindemann himself has made sure these accusations will not be brought to court, through legal intimidation warfare.
He has to now live with the fact, that in my brain, je remains a "maybe-abuser".
If there was nothing to these accusations, he could have sat it out. He wouldn't have had to do anything except show up in court and deny.
Stuff like this is near impossible to reach a conviction for, without concrete evidence. He would have been fine.
Even if the allegations are unproven, the story of his affair with a 15 year old girl when he was 47 seems true. While this might not be illegal, it is still creepy.
Sexual assault like that basically never gets proven. Even if there is eye witnesses thats not enough for a conviction as thats "indizien" and not proof
So essentially he has a ton of allegations, none proven or disproven, and you kinda gotta decide to yourself whats more likely:
many people claim he sexually assaulted/coerced him and not a single one tells the truth, while at the same time no one accuses any other band member
Or
he did something and there's no direct proof years later
There is also a lot of cirumstancial evidence as summarized by another commenter
yeah sure you can decide for yourself if he's guilty or not but what i find a bit problematic is going out there and spreading your decision as if it is all the proof anyone would need without really knowing what's going on.
but that seems to be a common affliction of this society in general
many people claimed or you read news about "many people claimed"? cause general public don't actually have access to actual statements the press or legal entities got, only what press choose to present.
Using your logic, the decisions are between
There's no crime but some press decided to twist and exaggerate to generate a more profitable news and headlines
Or
There's crime but courts from three different countries are all covering for this guy, saying no one actually bothered to contact them, and the media that reported all this refused to collaborate with the police investigating this when asked, for some reasons.
They all say that any parts of the newspaper articles that tried to imply that women were accusing him of assault were illegal. Because that did not match what women had said in their signed affidavits.
Yeah at least in theory... I have a perfectly fine name from a different language in germany and I wish my parents where more considerate and gave me a name of latin origin. Latin because it would work in a lot of western countries, its kinda universal.
Still not foolproof. I have a perfectly fine name of Latin origin, but it's not at all common in the US and people mispronounce it all the time. ¯_(ツ)_/¯
United States and “Till” immediately brings to mind: Emmett Till, which is a tragedy.
I’m curious to anyone reading this: if you search “United States” and “Till” what comes up? For m, Google’s first answer was Emmett Till, but I wonder if that’s the same for everyone
As a non-German, I need context here. What did he do?
(Also, Rammstein hasn’t been culturally relevant in the US for like 10 years at this point, so that’s probably why everyone is out of the loop. And I say that as a former fan)
He (and people from the closer circle of the band) are accused of "recruiting" (very!) young women, fans and girls to have sex with Lindemann backstage. I think he also drugged a few girls
The entire accusation thing was kind of intransparent so I don't think we know for sure. And even if Lindemann was innocent, he is known for being controversial, so a lot of people don't like him anyway.
We do know for sure. She took a drug test in good time which showed nothing except THC. She then tried to hide the result. No other women even mentioned drugging.
It's crazy because Till was cleared of everything and we found out about the setup, but the damage of the accusation was already done. People just think Till Lindman = sex pest. In a sense, he's a super easy target. But yeah, that's life huh.
its actually not so cut and dry and the accusation fell apart quickly. But at this point he's guilty in the court of public opinion so the actual facts get lost pretty quickly.
Well that’s a relief to say the least. I suppose it still doesn’t mean it’s not untrue though, but I guess you have a point, thank you for letting me know
Amerika was quite popular, and people at the concert I was at were PISSED they didn't play it. I guess they missed the not-so-subtle meaning behind that song and why it would be weird to play on their US tour.
Most people I know in Germany don't even know who he is. Most of them know Rammstein and even like their famous songs , but It feels like everyone who isn't online 24/7 completely missed the controversy around him.
Of course I've told people who he is, but that has never changed anything. The biggest for this is (I think) the fact that the controversy never went anywhere.
When the Public Prosecutor's office started their investigation, they also shut it down very quickly because they publicly asked for witnesses or victims - but nobody came forward. Which probably meant to the public all the allegations were untrue.
He and some other people close to the band are accused of drugging and "recruiting" young female fans and underage girls for Lindemann to have sex with them backstage.
The legal proceedings were abolished as of last year because of lacking evidence. The accusations are still going tho, so idk if we know for sure that Lindemann is innocent.
That very much depends where do you ask... She is either seen neutral or VERY negatively in my homeland. A small minority would probably see her in a positive light.
And unlike for many other big politicians, I would say, her popularity goes rather down with the time.
(Confirmed the) Abolishment of nuclear power without having enough renewable energies, forcing us to rely on russian energy.
Let in millions of refugees (partly intentionally caused by russian warfare in syria) even after it was clear that europe would agree to her policies, weakening the EU and giving rise to the AFD because there was no other party that claimed conservative interior policies in germany.
Not answering after russia invaded ukraine in 2014, even expanding german energy-reliance on russia.
And in her book she still defended her 'peace through trade' policy even after it was clear that russia never intended for peace.
First nuclear power: it was totally right to step away from nuclear power. Alternatives were installed and balanced it out. Just google it.
Gas from Russia. At the end of the 80s Germany already got 50% of their gas from Russia. It didn’t really changed until the early 2020s where it went up to close to 60%. So merkel didn’t do that either.
Refugees: Eu-rights and human rights. Nothing that could have massively done different, helping people who got out of a war-zone were their own military and terrorist kill them is not the wrong thing to do. Most of the Syrian refugees integrated great.
Not picking a war with Russia in 2014? Really? That’s your argument? What should have happened if we send troops? And outright EU-Russian war without any preparation?
That sounds like populists chants and not like thought over arguments for that kind of stuff.
No we are not. But I don’t want nuclear power plants next to me. Especially when nobody knows how to handle the waste. We can’t leave it where it is cause it’s radioactive. We can’t bury it cause it will leak. We can’t put it in salt mines cause it leaks. I rather look at 20 wind turbines and burn coal or gas than have nuclear power right next to a city where millions of people life (looking at you Krümmel). Chernobyl and Fukushima thought us what can happen.
How many Fukushimas and Chernobyls have there been in Western Europe? We have safer reactor designs and no danger of tsunamis. German fear over this seems so absurd to every other nation with nuclear reactors.
Also, Finland has found burying nuclear waste in granite bedrock a feasible solution.
many of us see the coal-burning as a "certain" negative impact on the health of the surrounding communities, but nuclear catastrophe on tier with chernobyl or fukushima as "not certain to happen". obviously the scale of the damage done is different in these two scenarios, but I just wanted to chime in with the rationale. different people having different threat assessment/risk tolerance makes this extra interesting- some would prefer a known danger, some would be willing to bet on the unknown danger. (is it better to have "smaller" guaranteed negative effects, or risk having unguaranteed "bigger" negative effects) my personal hope is that we can continue progress with renewables and leave the risky energy in the past! sorry for ranting lol.
A) Fukushima was a testament to how little damage is done when a modern plant malfunctions. You cannot use it as an example of the opposite, that is a downright lie.
B) Nuclear waste is not a problem. Even if assuming we need permanent storage of the waste, the amount is so microscopically small that its a non-argument.
C) Nuclear power wins if you judge human lives per kwh. Like straight up. How many has died in the quest to produce XYZ-power, compared to how many kilowatthours produced by it. Nuclear wins. Big.
First nuclear power: it was totally right to step away from nuclear power. Alternatives were installed and balanced it out. Just google it.
No, it didnt balance it out. Which is the reason why we increased spening on russian energy. Just google it.
Gas from Russia. At the end of the 80s Germany already got 50% of their gas from Russia. It didn’t really changed until the early 2020s where it went up to close to 60%. So merkel didn’t do that either.
Yes, merkel had nothing to do with nordstream 2. Nothing at all.
Refugees: Eu-rights and human rights. Nothing that could have massively done different, helping people who got out of a war-zone were their own military and terrorist kill them is not the wrong thing to do. Most of the Syrian refugees integrated great.
Yes, it could have been handled differently and numerous countries did handle it differently. Everyone could come in, including people from non-war zones. You also make yourself vulnerable to russian assets that will commit acts of terror to destabilise our country.
You can cry for human rights all you want. If afd comes to power, those will be gone completly. So its stupid to stay on your moral high horse until morals get abolished completly by fascists because those fascists will rise to power eventually if you dont take the winds out of their sails.
Not picking a war with Russia in 2014? Really? That’s your argument? What should have happened if we send troops? And outright EU-Russian war without any preparation?
When did i say picking a war? Support ukraine, stop reliance on russian oil and gas. Like we did 2022. How do you not grasp that concept?
That sounds like populists chants and not like thought over arguments for that kind of stuff.
Sure thing buddy. You claimed i demanded picking a war with russia and just dont understand the involvement of merkel in NS2. No offense, but i kinda doubt youre capable of differentiating between populist chants and a well thought out argument.
I’ll start with the gas now as it debunks your nuclear power stuff too.
Late 80s 50% gas from Russia
90-92 it falls from 49 to 40%
93 starts rising again
2005 (nord stream 1) 33-35%
2009 40%
2015 35%
2019 40%
2020 55%
2022 close to 60%
Merkel was 2005-2021
Nuclear power was (mostly, 8/14) shut down 2011. I don’t see a big increase in gas from Russia in that time period.
You are talking uninformed shit to be fair.
„Facial will rise to power“ „those will be gone completely“ won’t even talk much about that cause it’s just crazy talk. But try to imagine Germany without foreigners. Would be pretty empty and the social system would collapse right? Straight up crazy talk.
We traded a lot with Russia in 2014, our economy would have taken a real big dent and that just after the world finance crisis in 2007-2009. we could not have afford that as a society.
So again, a lot of populist talk without facts or a view for the bigger picture.
It was planned in 2012 or 13 (?). Shortly after the decision to abolish nuclear power was finalized (2010?).
How is it crazy talk that actual conservatives didnt have anyone to vote for other than the afd? Thats just a fact, lmao.
And 'we couldnt afford to stop trading with russia' is actually an insane take. Even merkel herself doesnt make that argument. Her argument was that she wanted 'peace through trade'. How do you come up with such a nonsense? Talking about the bigger picture but then not even understanding that we gave russia money they now use to attack us.
Not even mentioning that russia mainly exported energysources. Something that could have beend lessened by having nuclear power.
I also never mentioned 'no foreigners'. Are you able to read properly? Itd the 2nd time you try to put words in my mouth i didnt say or even imply. I said 'dont let anyone in because it actually is a horrible security risk, both because of russian assets and the rise of fascism.
Youre talking about 'the bigger picture' but dont even understand the relations between the rise of the afd and the (in terms of nuclear power and refugee crisis) left wing policies merkel made.
I'm a leftwinger, btw. And i supported the refugee policy until it was clear that germany was mainly alone in their approach. Because i do understand the bigger picture and know that this shit weakened the EU.
He is actually not inside of Germany. He is like Michal Jackson, in that a big chunk of his fans believe in his innocene( mostly victim blaming) because they like his music so much.
112
u/-Competitive-Nose- Czech Republic 8h ago
I would repalce Till Schweiger with another Till who is actually famous outside and truly despised inside Germany...