From the perspective of the already applied-for private prosecution in a possible criminal trial against a 17-year-old suspect for a life-threatening stab wound inflicted on a 23-year-old from Göttingen on the night of June 20, 2026 to June 21, 2026 in Göttingen, the investigations currently appear as follows:
- On Sunday, June 28, 2026, immediately after the 23-year-old victim became fit to be questioned, the Göttingen Public Prosecutor's Office was informed that the victim was willing to give a statement. It was also communicated that he would, of course, voluntarily consent to a DNA sample being taken and a forensic examination. On Monday, June 29, 2026, a date was set with the investigating authorities for the questioning and further procedures at the University Medical Center Göttingen (UMG) on Wednesday, July 1, 2026.
- Due to a significant deterioration in the state of health during the night of June 29, 2026 to June 30, 2026, the hearing had to be postponed in consultation with the senior physician.
- On Thursday, July 2, 2026, a companion and first responder testified as a witness in the premises of the police station.
- On Tuesday, July 7, 2026, the injured person was interviewed and DNA was taken at the University Medical Center Göttingen (UMG). Subsequently, a written statement was submitted, among others, to the Göttingen Public Prosecutor's Office, confirming that the hospital staff had been released from their duty of medical confidentiality for the purposes of these proceedings.
- On Wednesday, July 8, 2026, attorney Sven Adam discussed the current state of the evidence with the Göttingen public prosecutor's office and, in that respect, the existence of the prerequisites for applying for an arrest warrant against the 17-year-old suspect. Attorney Adam assured that a public statement would only be issued after a decision had been made regarding the arrest warrant, in order not to jeopardize any potential investigative progress.
- Today, Thursday, July 9, 2026, the public prosecutor's office announced by telephone that it did not intend to apply for an arrest warrant against the 17-year-old suspect.
From the perspective of the co-plaintiff, the increased requirements for the application for an arrest warrant, which are justified under Section 72 of the Juvenile Courts Act (JGG) due to the suspect's minority, are also met with regard to the urgent suspicion of attempted homicide (Section 112 Paragraph 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO)) and the risk of reoffending (Section 112a Paragraph 1 No. 2 StPO), all of which had been discussed with the public prosecutor's office
- According to the injured party's companion and the injured party himself, there was no attack on the 17-year-old suspect. Neither the injured party nor his companions had any physical contact with the 17-year-old suspect before or after the incident. Nor was there any "surrounding" of the suspect.
- According to these statements, the 17-year-old suspect ran towards the 23-year-old, who was initially standing at a considerable distance from the suspect and other persons (!), and presumably stabbed him in the chest with a knife, inflicting life-threatening injuries.
- The 23-year-old victim sustained no defensive wounds. The act that caused the injury was swift and unexpected. The victim had no opportunity to defend himself. There was no warning and no indication of a knife or other stabbing weapon.
- An acquaintance of the 17-year-old suspect on the night of the crime stated in a ZEIT interview for an article published on June 24, 2026, that he and the 17-year-old suspect trained in martial arts. He also stated for the article that the 17-year-old had the knife because he had felt he was being watched the day before. The prosecution therefore assumes that the knife was deliberately carried in anticipation of a potential confrontation and that the suspect used it intentionally due to his martial arts experience.
- The companion of the 17-year-old stated in a now-deleted TikTok video that the 17-year-old was entitled to defend himself: "No matter what, no matter how." From the perspective of the victim's family, it is likely that this erroneous legal assumption still exists among both the companion and the suspect.
- According to the victim's legal representatives, the suspect continues to exercise his right to remain silent. He did not contact the police on the night of the attack to report an assault. Instead, he was arrested on the afternoon of June 21, 2026, following a tip found online. The victim's legal representatives also learned that the weapon used in the attack was seized during a search of the 17-year-old's home later that evening, June 21, 2026.
- In the Göttinger Tageblatt of June 23, 2026, the public prosecutor's office stated that the suspect had no prior criminal record. To the best of our knowledge, this statement is incorrect. The press office of the public prosecutor's office has been asked to correct this.
“I do not share the public prosecutor’s assessment that the prerequisites for applying for an arrest warrant are not met. I consider it a fatal signal that, under the given circumstances, a stab wound to the chest in Göttingen would go unpunished,” said attorney Sven Adam, who represents the legal interests of the 23-year-old victim.
Despite this, the co-plaintiffs will continue to cooperate with the investigating authorities in the proceedings.
For further questions, please contact attorney Sven Adam using the contact details provided.
