Talk:Death of Oury Jalloh

message: This article seems particularly POV; a quick read should illustrate that.  For example, "In spite of the fact that the State Prosecutor of Dessau has made formal accusations of negligent homicide and bodily harm with fatal consequences, new excuses are nevertheless found to close the case—to the point of absurdity."
Seems to me that there are lots of weasel words and phrases designed to provoke sympathy in the reader, and while it may be warranted, Wikipedia is not the appropriate platform.  --Chris (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: most of the stuff, except the first paragraph is intendend to force the readers in a certain way of thinking -- why is an article so biased allowed to stay fully if disputed? it would be far more appropriate if it was shortened to contain nothing but the facts, ie the first paragraph.
atm the authors of this article are able to propagate their suspicions without any way to correct those!
btw: the article does not even contain the informations of the german article on the topic (which doublessly is ab bit biased) but contains far more informations instead of pure allegations.
:Problems don't get fixed so long as nobody willing to fix them is aware of them. You could have shortened the article yourself, providing an explanation in the edit summary to make sure it is not mistaken for vandalism. Now I am aware of this article. I have started to improve it, and hope I can turn it into a good article. Hans Adler 09:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is that article not shortened? 

message: Oury Jalloh is notable only for his death. This situation is similar to that of WP:BLP1E, except that he is dead. If we leave the article at the current title, we can never do the supposed topic justice since we simply don't have any useful reliable sources about any details of his life other than its end. As in all other similar situations, such as the featured article Death of Ian Tomlinson, the article should be renamed to make the scope implicit. This is also necessary so that we can describe the court cases, an important aspect, in detail. 
I do not expect any opposition, and in fact I moved the article. However, an editor has moved it back, apparently (the editor has not replied to my request for clarification yet) based on some idea that articles may never be renamed while subject to an AfD, even when the AfD is clearly baseless and the move appears to be uncontroversial. Once the AfD is over, I intend to move the article again. If anyone opposes this, please say so now and I will start the more formal WP:RM process. Hans Adler 14:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I guess this must now go through WP:RM. I will humour you and wait for the end of the AfD. In the AfD one commenter proposed renaming the article, I commented without explicitly agreeing – simply implementing it instead –, and another short comment did not touch the issue. I really don't see how you can construct a lack of consensus to move from this unless you yourself have a valid reason for opposing and are willing to divulge it. In my experience renaming an article during an AfD is normally completely uncontroversial unless it's an attempt to change the outcome by gaming, and I am not aware of any guideline against doing it. Hans Adler 09:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename to [[Death of Oury Jalloh]] 

message: The section about a supposed "parallel" to the Yangjie Li case was recently deleted by another editor as OR.
So I threw out this unneeded source but only gave "really executed the removal decribed in my last (non-)edit " as an edit summary, when there is no 'last edit' to see. (Please don't ask.) Mentioned here for completeness' sake. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Garn, 2016 

message: I have just thrown out Bartsch, 2008 (taz) as a source, because his report about the first verdict from December 8, 2008 is quite misleading. His title is "Acquittal and fine for policemen", when in fact the fine part was in the prosecutors's speech only, not in the final verdict. Bartsch only mentions the demand, not the final verdict for Andreas S., which was acquittal, here. That's sloppy journalism, in my opinion. (Personally, I'm a bit disappointed. I've always been a bit of a taz fan.)
The other sources already cited only have "acquittal" and no mention of a fine, this had me a bit confused. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Establishing the facts about the 2008 verdict: Acquittals only 

message: I'm working to translate and fill the chronological gaps (2012 - 2020) in this section. Please help me with my current draft for this. I'm no native speaker, so a bit of proof-reading would be a big help already. Thanks. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion of section "Official investigations and prosecutions" 

message: I'm still a bit unsure about this.
From what I have read so far, it appear there have been (at least) the following:
Autopsies
the regular autopsy ordered by the disctrict attorney, 2005
another independent autopsy, commissioned by Jalloh's family and supporters, before the beginning of the first trial (2007-2008). It additionally discovered a broken nasal bone.
the autopsy by Dr. Boris Bodelle and Goethe University Frankfurt, forming the basis of the 2018 law suit.
Expertisesthe August 2016 fire expertise by Kurt Zollinger (CH)
Please help me sort this out and find missing dates, sources and results. --ΟΥΤΙΣ (talk) 08:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autopsies and criminal / fire expertises 

message: Zunächst muss ich mich vielmals entschuldigen, mein Englisch ist leider derart lausig, dass ich gar nicht erst einen Versuch wagen möchte. Zudem muss sich derjenige, der sich meines Einwurfs annimmt, ohnehin intensiv mit deutscher Juristensprache auseinandersetzen, denn ohne ein Verständnis meines Aufsatzes Die Zeitenwende im Klageerzwingungsverfahren und meiner aktuellen Kommentierungen auf beck-blog ist eine Bearbeitung des Artikels Oury Jalloh überhaupt nicht möglich.
Ich denke, dass es sich bei dem Fall Oury Jalloh um einen der größten Justizskandale der bundesdeutschen Nachkriegsgeschichte handelt: Zwei deutsche Polizisten bringen einen Schwarzen um, und der Fall wird noch nicht einmal gerichtlich untersucht, es wird noch nicht einmal der Versuch unternommen, den beiden beschuldigten Polizisten den Mordvorwurf nachzuweisen. An dieser Stelle kommt mein Aufsatz Die Zeitenwende im Klageerzwingungsverfahren ins Spiel: Ich will erreichen, dass die Hinterbliebenen eines Mordopfers eine faire Chance erhalten, das Vertuschen und Verschleiern, das staatliche Behörden betreiben, zu durchbrechen. Denn in Deutschland besteht für die Hinterbliebenen von Mordopfern durchaus die Möglichkeit, bei Gericht einen Antrag zu stellen, dass das Gericht die Strafverfolgungsbehörde, die Staatsanwaltschaft, dazu anhält, Mordanklage zu erheben. Dieses Verfahren steht aber praktisch nur auf dem Papier, in der forensischen Realität haben die Hinterbliebenen von Mordopfern nicht wirklich eine Aussicht, mit ihrem Klagebegehren Erfolg zu haben.   
Aktuell ist das Verfahren beim Bundesverfassungsgericht unter dem Aktenzeichen 2 BvR 378/20 anhängig. Gelingt es, das BVerfG davon zu überzeugen, dass die Hinterbliebenen von Mordopfern eine realistische Chance erhalten müssen, eine strafrechtliche Anklage zu erzwingen, ist auch im Fall Oury Jalloh der Weg zur Aufklärung der Mordvorwürfe gegen die beiden beschuldigten Polizisten geebnet.--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Helmut Hoppenstedt is infinit banned in the German Wikipedia for all his different User-Names since 2019, cf. . --95.130.162.46 (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  <-  --Johannnes89 (talk) -> Aber zurück zur Sache: Mittlerweile hat die Initiative zur Aufklärung des Mordes an Oury Jalloh Strafanzeige wegen Strafvereitelung im Amt gem. § 258a StGB erstattet. Ich gehe davon aus, dass die deutschen Behörden ihre Politik der Vertuschung und Verschleierung fortsetzen werden. Deswegen halte ich es für ausgeschlossen, dass die deutschen Behörden die strafrechtlichen Vorwürfe in irgendeiner Weise aufklären werden.--Helmut Hoppenstedt (talk) 11:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bundesverfassungsgericht, Verfahren 2 BvR 378/20, [[Oury Jalloh]]