Internet gay cannibalism net widens

expatica ^ | 7/17/03

[knak]

KASSEL - Prosecutors Thursday said they have filed a murder indictment against one of two gay men who met in an Internet chat room, where it allegedly was agreed that one of them would kill and devour the other.

And in a stunning new development, prosecutors in Kassel said they are broadening the investigation to include some 430 other persons believed to have been involved in the Internet gay cannibalism chat room that led to the death of a 42-year-old man in March 2001.

Prosecutors are convinced that the victim, a computer analyst from Berlin, agreed to be killed and eaten. His dismembered and partially devoured remains were found at the residence of a 41-year-old suspect.

That suspect, identified only as Armin M., has been charged with murder. Cannibalism per se is not a crime under German law.

Despite the fact that the victim willingly agreed to be killed, prosecutors said the case could not be considered "assisted suicide". So they opted for a murder indictment.

Prosecutors Thursday said the suspect has admitted videotaping himself killing the Berlin man, a computer chip developer at Siemens corporation, identified only as Bernd Juergen B.

On the morning of his disappearance from Berlin on March 9, 2001, Bernd Juergen B. completed his will. He left the bulk of his estate including a lavish penthouse apartment and EUR 50,000 worth of computer equipment to his live-in partner, a man named Rene.

According to police, the victim had several thousand dollars in cash and his passport when he travelled 300 kilometres from Berlin to the alleged murderer's house near Kassel.

Searching the rambling, 30-room, half-timbered house in the village of Rotenburg, investigators unearthed skeletal remains, some of them packaged in a freezer, along with videotapes and CD-ROMs on which the suspect allegedly recorded his actions.

Authorities were tipped off to the crime by internet surfers who stumbled upon chat room requests allegedly posted by the suspect in which he was looking for people willing to be slaughtered and eaten by him.

[scripter]

Hopefully they will run out of food!

Now there's a thought!

[vaudine]

And besides, if it is in the privacy of their own homes, isn't that a personal private matter? Take it to the Int. Court for an opinion.

vaudine

[Clint N. Suhks]

I think we should let consenting adults do whatever they want as long as they don't scare the horses.

NOT TRUE! "pain" couldn't care less, his political social experiment doesn't care about anyone but them self.

[Delphinium]

Aren't they born that way?

[Clint N. Suhks]

Aren't they born that way?

Are incestuals born that way?

[weegee]

I heard a story that I'm going to chalk up somewhere between a bad joke and an urban legend.

It seems that back in the early 1970s there was a party held after hours at one of the hospitals (probably in the medical center, it doesn't matter).

Things were kind of wild, they were pumping laughing gas through the venelation to the basement (where the party was held).

There was a black man who had been riding his motorcycle and had an accident. His leg was amputated (but he pulled through otherwise).

Someone on the staff made tamales for the party. One of the guys reportedly told a woman at the party where the meat came from. She expressed repulsion and gagged.

His response was, "You're not racist, are you?"

[jmc813]

Since you obviously don't know his stand on open borders, you know nothing about him and are a waste of time.

I know a lot about him. Please read and tell me thatr he wants open borders.

And my opinion of him has nothing to do with Bush (don't know how you came to that absurd conclusion).

I apologize if I falsely assumed. Please understand that the most common detractors of Paul are almost always either Bush fans or the "God hates fags" style FReepers.

[Delphinium]

No they aren't born that way. If they are going to use that argument it to justify one perversion, why not use it for all?

[breakem]

You didn't respond the other day and now you come back with this. The only BS around here is the fact that you couldn't civilly respond to my last post to you. Now you want to play gotcha. You haven't earned the right. Deal with the failings of your own position.

[breakem]

You are wrong again in 159, I never said personal property has to give consent to sex. You are wrong and I believe intentionally misrepresenting my position. That is what we honest folks call lying. Prove your point, if you can, and I'll acknowledge it. If you can't, stop chasing me from thread to thread with the same previously answered point.

[tpaine]

Humorless twits scare me, -- just as public displays of disgusting deviancies scare the horses.

Get a life you two, and let your peers live theirs.

[Kozak]

I always felt "Survivor" would be more interesting if they ate the person voted off the island. Not to mention how it would change the dynamics of the vote. Do we vote off the chunky guy now, or wait till we're really hungry?

[Kozak]

White Kassel burger

Home of Der Slider.

[scripter]

You tell me I have you pegged incorrectly because you think I've based my opinion of you from what others have said. After I tell you that's not true you say:

Humorless twits scare me, -- just as public displays of disgusting deviancies scare the horses.

Get a life you two, and let your peers live theirs.

I don't know what you're problem is here, but if you want to clarify your position then don't respond with ambiguity. Your latest post is simply more of the same, and telling me to get a life is a non sequitor from my last post to you.

I pinged you because I was hoping for some clarification:

I get the feeling (and perhaps I'm wrong), they think we should let consenting adults do whatever they want no matter what the consequences or cost on society, both morally and financially. If that's their position then I have to vehemently disagree.

Whatever doesn't scare the horses doesn't help.

[tpaine]

I don't know what you're problem is here, but if you want to clarify your position then don't respond with ambiguity.
-scripter-



One of my 'problems' here are silly posts like yours.

My 'position' here on this thread has been one of telling you clowns that you're wrong to believe KC's or CJ's lies that I advocate or:

"think we should let consenting adults do whatever they want no matter what the consequences or cost on society, both morally and financially".

I have no interest in attempting to clarify ~anything~ to you bozos, as it is a waste of time.
Take your baiting to the backroom. Better yet, get lost.

[scripter]

If you don't want to clarify your position then you shouldn't complain when we take a best guess at your position. Sheesh.

[tpaine]

My position on individual rights has always been clear. I side with our constitution.
You clowns don't, lie about it, and lie about being constitutional conservatives.

[scripter]

Saying you side with the constitution is still ambiguous as everyone knows not everyone interprets the constitution in the same way.

I originally said you might "think we should let consenting adults do whatever they want no matter what the consequences or cost on society, both morally and financially."

Whatever doesn't scare the horses was your clarification and a day and numerous posts later you say you side with the constitution.

I now have a better idea from where you're coming and not only was I apparently accurate in my best guess, I see what others have said about you is apparently accurate as well. That's too bad as I was hoping to find something worthy of consideration in your position.

[tpaine]

Whatever.

Please, try to overcome your obsessive concern about 'my position'. Find another fixation for your demetia.

[scripter]

Whatever.

Thanks for the confirmation.