are still hurting. He wasn't a Scientologist but a former infiltrator and the German court gave my kidnappers and abusers really lenient sentences because I am just a Scientologist and have as good as no rights in Germany. German Tilman Hausherr laughed about the lenient sentences and indicated that kidnappers of non-Scientologists would get a much stiffer penalties in Germany.
Barbara Schwarz
Cyril Vosper - Criminal Conviction
Back | Home
Judgement documented on 03 Feb 1988 Judgement
has been legally binding and
Office of the District Court "Amtsgericht"
enforceable since 2? Dec. 1987.
Weilheim i. OB
Weilheim i. OB, 3 Feb 1988
The document officer
Officer of the District Court
[signature]
The document officer
Garza
[signature]
Clerk of the Court
Garza
Clerk of the Court
------------------------------
IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE
JUDGEMENT
by the Court of Lay Assessors at the District Court "Amtsgericht"
Weilheim in Upper Bavaria
[Germany]
In the criminal case against
Mathewson John Richmond
Vosper Cyril Ronald
as a result of attempted aggravated deprivation of liberty etc.
On the basis of the main proceedings of 29 December 1987 with the
following participants:
1. Judge Dr. Wanner President
2. a) Fischer Elisabeth
b) Halbritter Leni Lay
assessors
2. Public Prosecutor Ramm Officer of the
Director of Public Prosecutions
3. a) Solicitor Bockhorni f. Mathewson Defence
b) Solicitor Kraus f. Vosper Defence
4. Judicial employee Schomach Document officer
of the District Court office
------------------------------
I
1. The accused
Cyril Ronald Vosper, date of birth 07.06.1935, place of birth
Hounslow, married, British citizen,
of [address deleted], technical author; parents [deleted]
2. The accused
John Richmond Mathewson, date of birth 07.02.1962, place of birth
Elgin, British citizen,single,
present abode [deleted], cult counsellor; parents [deleted].
are guilty
of joint deprivation of liberty legally concurring with jointly
causing bodily harm.
II
Therefore the accused Vosper is given
a prison sentence of 3 months.
Therefore the accused Mathewson is given
a prison sentence of 3 months.
III
In each case, the accused are released on probation.
IV
Costs of the proceedings are to be borne by the accused.
Regulation applying: 239 1, 223 1, 25 II of the Penal Code StGB,
Reasons:
(abbreviated according to 267 para 4. of the Code of Criminal
Procedure StPO)
------------------------------
I.
1. The accused Cyril Vosper works as a technical author and
scientologist (sic). He is self-employed. His monthly net income is
approx. 1,200 British pounds. He is married, with three children aged
25, 23 and 21. He is providing financial support for his youngest son
aged 21. His other children are independent. Previously, the accused
Vosper has not made an appearance under the criminal law.
2. The accused John Mathewson works as a cult adviser. He achieved the
degree of Master of Philosophy at a British university. Immediately
after graduation he turned to cult advising. At present he lives off
unemployment money. The accused is single, has no obligations in
respect of dependants and previously has not made an appearance under
the criminal law.
------------------------------
II.
On 14.11.1987 towards 13.00 hours the accused, in conscious and
intended collaboration with the person Douglas Reynolds who is being
prosecuted elsewhere, at the instigation of [deleted] who is being
prosecuted elsewhere, lured [deleted]'s daughter, [deleted], a member
of the religious society Scientology Church, from her apartment at
[deleted], to an outbuilding/annexe of the property of Dr. Schleuter
at [deleted], using a sham telephone call. In the telephone
conversation by a so far unknown woman,[deleted] was deluded into
believing that her mother had suffered a fall and was in urgent need
of an inhalation apparatus and the respective medication.
The accused and Reynolds, who is being prosecuted elsewhere,
subsequently imprisoned [deleted] against her express wishes, in the
property, in order to lead her away from her belief by using physical
and psychic force. A period of up to three days was envisaged for
carrying out deprogramming. For this purpose,[deleted], who is being
prosecuted elsewhere, had rented the building and paid 4000.00 DM to
the accused as well as to Reynolds who is being prosecuted elsewhere.
In addition, the accused and Reynolds had barred the window shutters
in the living room of the building with padlocks; had removed the
curtains, curtain rails and pictures on the wall; covered up the
ceiling light and removed door handles. And in the bathroom, they
taped over the power point and removed the wall light. During an
attempt to escape, which was stopped by force by the accused
Mathewson, [deleted] broke a window pane whereby she suffered
"haemorrhaging injuries" on her hands. After Reynolds, who is being
prosecuted elsewhere, had left towards 15.00 hours, the accused
started with deprogramming, by showering [deleted] with doctrinal
theses and opinions. When [deleted] called out for help towards 20.00
hours, the accused threw her to the ground and held her mouth closed.
Due to notification to the police by a passer-by [deleted] was however
freed by the police towards 23.30 hours on 14.11.1987.
Because of the action of the accused, [deleted] suffered blood
effusions on her right upper arm and severe shock.
Prosecution occurred in the proper format and within the prescribed
time.
Through this action, the accused are guilty of joint deprivation of
liberty legally concurring with jointly causing bodily harm according
to 239,223,25 II of the Penal Code.
In the charge statement of 21.12.1987, the accused were also charged
with having envisaged a period of 14 days for deprogramming. As far as
an attempted crime of aggravated deprivation of liberty is concerned,
a fictitious partial 'Not guilty' had to emanate from real reasons.
The main hearing did not produce the required conviction that the
accused had committed and were guilty of committing the offence. The
accused denied having planned and intended the duration of deprivation
of liberty to extend for more than one week. They both maintained that
"deprogramming" against the wish of the person who was to be
deprogrammed would at the most be carried out for up to three days,
whereby any further deprogramming would be called off at the time when
it was realised that it would not promise success. Otherwise, i.e.
with good chances of success, the person to be deprogrammed would be
in agreement with continuing deprogramming. In spite of certain
misgivings as to the veracity of this argument, in particular because
the building in question was rented for two weeks, the accused were
not rebutted. Altogether, therefore, this resulted in the accusation
of aggravated deprivation of liberty being untenable.
------------------------------
III.
In regard to handing out the sentences, the fact that both accused had
not previously made an appearance under the criminal law, was in their
favour. It also counted in their favour that they admitted, openly and
without digressions, to the matters of which they were accused, as far
as they could admit them. It was further evaluated in their favour
that they, from their subjective view, committed the offence in order
to help the mother of [deleted]. It counted in John Mathewson's favour
that this offence was undisputedly his first attempt at being active
in the area of deprogramming.
Unfavourable for both accused was the fact that they proceeded with
great sophistication. In this they abused the particular relationship
of trust between mother and daughter, in order to carry out their
deed. The fact that [deleted] sustained considerable injuries also
counted against the accused.
When weighing all relevant circumstances for and against the accused,
it seems adequate on the one hand, but appropriate on the other hand,
to impose a short-term prison sentence of 5 months upon the accused
Vosper. A short-term prison sentence of 3 months for the accused John
Mathewson seemed appropriate in regard to guilt and deed. the
imposition of short-term prison sentences was indicated from the point
of view of general preventative and special preventative reasons.
Serving the sentences on probation was made possible because the
social prognosis of the accused are favourable.
------------------------------
IV.
The decision regarding costs is based on 464, 465 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure.
[signature]
Dr. Wanner
Judge
No comments:
Post a Comment