Read the video transcript here
One of the most successful German comedians, Luke Mockridge, is accused of raping her by his ex-girlfriend Ines Anioli.
In the mirror, other women accused him of sexually harassing them.
Editor Ann-Katrin Müller was involved in the research and answers questions from readers.
This research took a long time. Even after the podcast came out, we kind of tried to find out what was behind it. But then we noticed that there was a complaint and that an investigation was in progress and then first said: Okay, then we want to wait and see and then we really didn't make it easy for us and really had very, very, very many women spoken and just looked at what is correct and how and what is not. Before we decided, even after Luke Mockridge's statement publicly in August, that we want to and can report about it.
So we found these women in very many different ways. On the one hand, there were those who actively reported to Ines Anioli or the activist Jorinde Wiese and their campaign, who were then asked: Would you also speak to the mirror and only who we spoke to ourselves would also dive into it Text on. And then we looked for comments on social media ourselves. Who says that he has experienced something himself? Who says he knows someone who has experienced something? Can you make contact there? And then we just checked: do these women know each other? Do they have an agenda somehow? And when we were able to rule that out, we decided who to report on and how.
The way in which we get to documents or chat histories or the like is actually different for each research. So I can now say without damaging the protection of informants, not just in case. But in principle it is the case that different parties always have access, of course. It is not the case that, for example, only two people have access to the investigation files, but also law firms, public prosecutors and police forces. In this respect, there are various possibilities and contacts for how to get hold of such documents. And that only works if you say: We protect the protection of informants and will not say where they come from.
So, of course, we asked Luke Mockridge about all these matters before publication and sent our questions to him and his lawyer and asked him to take a position and just wrote in that we would of course be happy to speak about it. Unfortunately, this was not accepted, but the questions were then gradually answered with an extension of the deadline. And we then wrote in the text, which the lawyer then commented on on behalf of his client Luke Mockridge.
Prosecutors have closed the investigation because they say that based on the evidence available, the suspect is unlikely to be convicted. And they justify that for a very long time. On the one hand, they say that Ines Anioli's statement is consistent, but that there are also a few inconsistencies, for example that the report was not made directly. Or also that putting aside the code word that is also about, i.e. that Luke Mockridge did not stop tickling after the word honey, that there has been something like this in the past and that that is why it is not decisive, that he obviously didn't ask this.
So in the run-up to the publication, there were several letters from the media law firm of Luke Mockridge, which informed various editors, including us, that we were not allowed to report on this matter because there was no suspicion reporting what was going on.
And then we also received a very specific letter stating that we were not allowed to report at the expense of the client.
We see it differently and have checked everything so carefully that we assume that we should be able to report
We have to reckon with such a lawsuit in many texts and also in this case during this research and it is quite possible that it will come.
So far this has not been the case.