Internet Statement 2009-20


About circumstances and background of Hartmut Dicke's death

One year ago - “Fate” or foul play ?

 26th August, 2009      

About one year ago, on 18th April 2008, our long-standing chairman, comrade Hartmut Dicke (Klaus Sender), died at the age of only 60 in the hospital of Berlin Neukölln, his heart quit after the doctors there, according to the customs of this country after having assertedly constituted the so-called brain-death, turned off the life-saving machines against our expressed will. Hartmut had not awoken any more from his sudden unconsciousness since 15th April.

The past history and circumstances of his very sudden death produce a whole lot of questions which  will make necessary a very careful investigation in the following.

For us it is indispensable to publish these facts, on the hand in order to cast light onto the circumstances of this sudden and unexpected passing away, as far as possible to date, and on the other hand also to gain further explanations for it.

This is not only an immeasurable personal loss for me as his partner and our two children, Janina and Sebastian, but also above all for the Group Neue Einheit. This loss has a political connection and will get the according answer.

The political contradiction had been intensifying dramatically since the summer/autumn of 2006 and then especially in the course of the year 2007/beginning 2008, not only in this country, but also on international scale. The international crisis of the imperialistic-capitalistic system was and is still increasing considerably. And it turned out that our organisation was able to face this crisis-like intensification with according public statements. The inner fragility and depravity of the ruling system here showed itself very drastically at various points, e.g. when one of its supporting pillars, the law, experienced an increasing resistance. There was quite a lot of pressure on the corrupt, absolutely criminal and mass hostile methods and their uncovering was worked on. There was a whole lot of events expressing the very hollowness of this ruling system and provoked turmoil among large parts of the population. We managed to express this more politically with various public statements. Since the beginning of 2008 the inner crisis intensified increasingly, too. Therefore it is not all absurd to assume, that there was the question for the reaction: how to face this? What is the best strategy in order to eliminate – and very effectively- representatives of the masses who are able to deal with this situation and express the resistance (partly existing subliminally) among the masses.  And as it seems, they have answered themselves in a very brutal way.

In spite of several efforts to explain Hartmut Dicke's death with supposedly “normal” causes as being “fate” or “this happens sometimes”, as came up from the doctoral part repeatedly, trying to appease, there is a series of indications and coincidences which give reason to suspect a capital crime which has to be uncovered and will be. And even if we don't succeed in doing this now, we will definitely do so in the future.

Hartmut Dicke had been a person of very good health and mostly free of complaints for decades until the February of 2008. For many years he was a very active sportsman, had a healthy life-style and you might say, not to be put down by anything. He took part in several marathon races and had been very successful in many other long-runs in Berlin and other cities during the last 10 or 15 years. His results were nearly always among the upper third of his age class. This person, as it appears, was ruined in his health step by step within less than three months, in such a way, that in the end very suddenly and under circumstances not yet completely uncovered he lost his life. This being a “coincidence” or “fate” is not very likely. However, it is very likely that there was an interest of the reaction in getting rid of this person very quickly at a certain point, so that he could not tread on their toes any longer; e.g. by bringing up essential questions of class fight and national question, with his article “Proletarian Revolution and National Question – The Double Situation at the End of the First World War”, which was ready for publication since the end of 2007, as well as by intervening heavily into criminal doings of certain parts of the law and state administration and their corruption in the sector of estates. The complete uncovering of this will be our pursuit in the following and the initiators of these crimes will be called to account. They can be sure of that.

Next, we will give an overview of what happened in the days from 15th April to 18th April.



Tuesday, the 15th April, 2008

I enter Hartmut's  flat at about 15.20 h. Hartmut is not in the front part, he had not reacted to my ringing. I unlock the door and go inside. I go right to the back part and find him in his working room lying on the bed. He lies on his back, crosswise on the bed. The eyes are closed, the mouth slightly open. Breathing is there. As he does not react to my calling, I try to turn him to the side. He still does not react, does not awake. Yet he breathes regularly, I can make out a slight snoring. I test his pulse, it is about 60 beats per minute. He still does not react to my repeated calling “Hartmut”, “Hartmut”, not even to my shaking. I try to push his legs on the bed, but it does not work as they slide down again and again. His pulse is still regular, I also push up his eyelids, he stares right ahead, the pupils are relatively wide. He does not react.

I call the emergency. After my description they tell me this is a “case for the 112” (fire department).

The fire department men came very quickly after about 15 min. They “stormed” the flat with about 6, 8 or more people,  among them a doctor called Dr. Ph.  (from the near neighbourhood as he told me). I show them the way to the back part of the flat. As they enter the room, one of them shouts loudly “Mr. Dicke”, but Hartmut does not react. There were no further efforts to awake him.
I was sent out of the room because else there was no room for the emergency staff. (Yet this was not correct as apparently there was enough room for 6 or 8 fire department members insisting on staying inside.) There came up more sanitarians with equipment, artificial respiration, pulse measurer etc.  I was not let in the room any more. They use their bodily superiority to block my way. Suddenly, I heard some kind of loud gasping or yelling. As my immediate thought was it was Hartmut, I wanted to get back in. Immediately there were two men standing in my way and saying: “There is nothing, he is still unconscious.”
Apparently, they were installing the respiration machine with the remark that the blood pressure was too low.
In the meantime one of the fire workers was urging me to write down name and address on piece of paper, they would have to know whom to send the bill. That was the only thing he was interested in.

The doctor came out of the room and asked what kind of occupancy Hartmut had had. Asking it, he looked around exaggeratedly, scrutinized all those books and remarked “nice collection”, “nowadays you would do all that with your PC”. I said Mr Dicke was a publicist. Quickly the doctor asked: “What does he publish?” I answered: “Own things.” There was also a homepage. The doctor: “Which?” I: “Neue Einheit.” He: “I see.”

Then I asked where he would be taken. He: “To the Urban hospital.” I asked him if he worked there. He: “No!”. I told him Hartmut had been very sports active, a marathon participant, several times. He: “Well, it always stops at one point or another.” He himself had quit jogging ten years ago.

Then followed the transport downstairs, which proved to be quite difficult as the corridor was quite narrow and a flexible carriage was necessary. They had undressed Hartmut down to his sleeping trousers so he lay half-naked on the carriage, without a blanket. On the way downstairs I asked if it was not too cold and that he might catch something this way. Finally, someone was “good” enough to order a blanket with which he was covered a bit.

Some of the firemen started to look around in the flat, assertedly if there “lay pills” anywhere. I said that he did not take any pills, drugs neither (as this was also one of their assumptions) and neither had any alcoholic addiction. They just said: “You never know.”

Then one of them said: “Your husband is a case for the neurosurgery.” No one told me where they would go now. The doctor had already vanished somewhere at the front. When I wanted to make sure that they would drive him to the Urban hospital, one of them replied: “No, we go to Neukölln.”

My repeated pleadings to be allowed to go with them in the emergency vehicle, was categorically denied, there was no room in there and I would only disturb the doctor's actions.

At last, with much effort, I managed one of them to tell me the name and address of the mentioned Neukölln hospital at least. Additionally, I was told: “They are specialised on such cases there.”

In front of the house stood – as I recall – three blinking emergency and fire engines.

When I returned into the house, after the van with Hartmut had gone away, and I climbed up the stairs, a neighbour opened her door. She wanted to know what had happened and gave me her telephone number, I should keep her informed. She also mentioned she had worked in that hospital herself for many years and they were very good there, they would know what to do. He was taken care for there, better than in the Urban, she said.

What was unusual was that there were three emergency engines in the street. Normally, there would be one or maybe two. No wonder that there were temporarily up to eight or ten firemen in the flat, so it was that full I could not stay in the room! The bill of the emergency actually denotes one vehicle only.

Back in the flat I phoned Janina, asking her to come as quickly as possible, maybe by taxi, so we could go to the hospital together. I had already phoned her once before the emergency came, so she was now on her way.

She arrived within a short time and we immediately drove to the hospital of Neukölln. We arrived there at about 17.30.


In the hospital of Neukölln

At first, in the reception we were told a CT (computer tomography) was being conducted. Then, a few minutes later: “He is being operated, by Dr M.” We go up to the OP (operation room/area).

At about 18.00 Dr M. came out of the OP. We nearly had to run after him as he seemed to be in a great hurry, heading for the elevator. After we had told him who we are, life partner and daughter of Hartmut Dicke, he said with a stern face: “Then we have to talk.”

Having sat down, Dr M. first asked us for the pre-story without telling us anything about Hartmut's current state.

In our shock we shortly told him that Hartmut had complained about a flue at the end of January, which he had not quite recovered from since. During that time Hartmut had also complained about strong headaches. Yet, he had been absolutely fit til December (marathon runner).

Then, on our explicit question, what was going on now, he slowly revealed:
As we had described things to him, there must have been a massive excess pressure in Harmut's brain because of room demand in there, probably because a bleeding or a tumor had obstructed the path of brain water in the ventricles (hollow spaces within the brain).

They had installed a drainage on the head, so to let the brain water out  (there had come a lot), this had not been able to flow before, so there must have been a huge pressure (“water-head”). They had not operated, one would have to wait if the brain “recovers”. He would have a chance of 30 to 70.

On the other hand, he then said, it could also be that the brain had been damaged so dramatically, especially because of the “long time-span” of unconsciousness (where he knew that, he did not say), that maybe brain death had already set in. He could not exclude that completely. What they had just done, were only “life saving measures”. Now we would have to wait. On the question how the brain can recover: spontaneously! It would rely on the generally condition of the body. Yet, the non-existing reaction, the widened pupils would indicate brain death already being there, but the missing reflexes could also be a result of the narcotics, so one could just wait for the brain to recover by itself. The possible tumor could not be displaced at this point as the brain would not survive such an operation.
He told us that Hartmut would soon be transferred to the intensive care unit, we would see as he is driven out of the OP  and then we could also go to him.

However, this did not happen, we had to ask several times until, finally, at about 20.00 we were informed that Hartmut had already been transferred to the intensive are unit on a different way and had already been on station 15 (anaesthetics) since 19.00 (!). At last we were let in there and Hartmut was still not conscious. He lay there being connected to various tubes and artificial breathing. It was a double room where another man lay also connected to various tubes. Yet, he was conscious.

We stayed with him for some time, tried to speak to him. There was no visible reaction, neither on touch. His exterior state did not have any sign of an ill person though, e.g. the skin, he looked like he was sleeping. There was no apparent breathing independent from the machine. They told us the machine would breathe “for him”, but with his own breathing coming back he would be able to breathe “with it”. The pupils were checked by and by, I thought they were not as wide as when I had found him on his bed. We stayed there all night. In between, the nurse said we should take a break and eat something. As we were quite exhausted, we followed her recommendation, yet which proved to be a fatal mistake because we were not present when there were certain signs of awaking like coughing and which the doctors said had made necessary the second CT.

At about 22.45 we re-entered the clinic and waited on the downstairs floor for a comrade, Kl.-D., we had called meanwhile and who wanted to come as quickly as possible. As we sat on a bench in the lobby, suddenly we saw a bed being pushed in great hurry along the floor, on which, as Janina thought, daddy was lying. A whole lot of doctors, among them the station's doctor J. shoved the bed quickly to the door beyond which the lifts were.
A short time after that we were told that a second CT had been done while we had been away because -as they said – a slight coughing or sighing noise had been observed.

At about 23.15 Kl.-D. arrived and we went up to station 15 together. When we rang the bell, we were told he had just been in the CT and we would have to wait for a quarter of an hour. The doctor would come out and talk to us. (Apparently, it had indeed been Hartmut being pushed past us down in the lobby.)

After some time Dr M. came out and spoke with us on the floor before the station. Because of snoring or coughing noises they had done a second CT. Yet, the situation was now worse than before. They had found a huge edema in this CT, water had entered the cells because of the pressure, so that there were water deposits now. The brain was probably damaged to a great extend. And – what we should consider: If he was to awake at all, he would be a 100 % invalide.

When we could finally go back in to the room at about 0.00, Harmut was still not awake. All those tubes and medicine bottles were connected again.

At about 0.30 the nurse said we should start “saying goodbye” now. If we went on sitting there, we would “obstruct her work”. Of course, we did not do so. Finally, chairs were brought and water offered to us.

The three of us stayed there at the bed all night.


Wednesday, the 16th April, 2008

At about 0.30 the anesthesist joint in saying that we should prepare for saying goodbye now. Before that he had shown us pictures where water deposits could be seen and the possible tumor (as a kind of densification) could been. There were two of them, one big on the side and a smaller one in the front part of the head (later it turned out to be the back part).

Sometime between 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning there came up movements, at first at Hartmut's feet, then also from the hip. At that time there were at least two doctors (one doctor) standing nearby, who urgently took any effort to assure that these movements were not a reaction to any stimuli (Janina had conducted a little foot massage just before), but so-called “spinal” reflexes (which would not contradict their assumed brain death). Our son Basti, who was there at that time, too, said he would know such things from his practical experience at the DRK [Deutsches Rotes Kreuz] and in this case it could also be something like that. I did not think so and had the impression that there was going on a movement of each feet corresponding to my respective touches of them and even had the temporary impression that the eyelids stirred slightly. As I mentioned something of the sort, one of the doctors said it was very understandable that I wished something like that, but it was just not the case.

Janina said there was a very direct connection between the toes and the brain. If you massage the toes, there is an influence on the brain. And apparently there was feedback coming here! Why was it not even considered?

At around 6 o'clock nurse K. introduced herself very friendly first. Yet, soon it turned out that Hartmut was to be transferred to another room, a single room because of “ethic reasons”, so the other patient in the room was not disturbed. We were all to leave the room for that. We refused to do that as we did not see why Hartmut should be moved in this critical situation. In response there was nearly an uprising of nurse K., nearly throwing us out. At first there were considerations of transferring the other patient instead, she wanted to ask for that. However, this was soon negated. When Janina intreated on that possibility suggested by that nurse herself, she was half-way blamed by that nurse, how she could consider that at all, the other patient was not our matter of a affairs. Nurse K. then tried to calm us down and said she would “prepare everything nicely” for us, so we could “say goodbye” in peace and quiet. On our outrage, this was nothing else then a death room, she responded: “Yes, exactly that!” When we refused to leave the room, she went to the doctors. There followed talk with them, which C.K. (another comrade who had arrived in the meantime), Kl-D. and Basti took part in. Meanwhile the brain pressure had increased dramatically, up to nearly 120 mmHg, Hartmut's head went very red. None of the caretakers or doctors reacted to this. It appeared to us as if they had cut off the brain pressure diminishing medicine. When we asked, a doctor, now being in the room, calmed us down, no, they would not cut off the brain pressure diminishing medicine, the sedative drugs only. We then had to watch how the brain pressure, being visible in the deep red tan of the face, increased massively up to double the original value within the following hour.

Referring to the change of value indication, from 40 mmHg up to 100mmHg, I asked the nurse if they had given him a different medicine or why there was such a drastic change. Upon that she answered very angrily, it was just a different concentration and that would cause the different value. And furthermore, we should not watch the displays all the time, we would not understand them anyway. And above all, the displays were for the hospital personnel and not for visitors.

After that, in the course of Wednesday morning, the transfer to the single room followed, or better as nurse K. had confirmed, to the “death room”. They then started talking about the first so-called brain death test which was to take place on the Wednesday originally, but then was postponed to Thursday morning without any reason.

During transfer for which we – as mentioned before -were sent out again, a talk with doctors took place in the personnel room of station 15.  Taking part on our side: Janina, Sebastian and me, Kl.-D. and C.K.. The doctors: senior physician Dr. V. and Dr. M., who had done the first OP, the mentioned drainage.

The chief doctor spoke with very low voice, so I could hardly understand him from my seat, repeating the so-called pre-story again, the time before the admission to the hospital, in long and detailed sentences, so from the description of the doctors you could get the impression (and this might have been intended) that Hartmut's states had been without hope from the beginning, so in principle you not do anything any more.

A description of Dr V., which repeated all the information we had already got from Dr M, was added with further explanations about the structure of the brain. The brain was surrounded by brain water and had so-called ventricles with water, the liquor. Into these ventricles (by a brain bleeding) blood had entered at a “strategically very unfavourable” position as he called it. Because of the increased volume of the ventricle brain pressure had increased dramatically, so the brain cells were squeezed. At the first operation they had observed a correspondingly high brain pressure at the drainage tubes. The brain had soaked the water because of the increased pressure and thus extended considerably, so pressure increased again. Again and again they put in the argument of Hartmut having “lain unconsciously for a very long time” (the actual time of his unconsciousness being unknown though), so that the brain had not been fed with oxygen which lets the cells die very quickly. The assumed long lying without conscience was the very argument for the formation of this edema probably having caused an irreversible brain damage. Yet, this edema had been discovered only in the second CT. Before that, after the first CT, Dr M. (the operating doctor) had announced a 30:70 chance of the brain not being damaged irreversibly and still being able to regenerate by itself. The edema had come up in the meantime because of the (assumed) long unconsciousness. That was just “fate”. “Normally brain bleedings are nothing serious.”, “The brain copes with them.”- as he said, but here it was at a “strategically unfavourable position”. (Dr V.) On the question why they had not operated in order to remove the “space demand” in the ventricles immediately or why the skull top had not been opened for pressure release they put in that the brain would have burst because of the great pressure. (As we were to know later this happened to the inside now.)

The following procedure was outlined: 12 hours after cut off from the medicine they would conduct the brain death test. The “life saving measures” would be kept up for that time. We were offered to consult him if we had any questions. They did not want anything to be unclear. We just acknowledged the report  for the first.


Wednesday afternoon in the so-called “death room”

There was no change in the exterior, the feet reflexes did not appear any more though. Hartmut's artificial breathing was continued.

The continuation of the artifical nutrition had to be pushed through by us in between as one of the caretakers had stopped it “on order of the doctors”.

Apart from lunch in the cafeteria we, or at least some of us, were present in the room all the time. The afternoon went by without any incidents, we were with Hartmut nearly all the time. Yet, there were no stirrings or anything the like.


Thursday the 17th April, 2009

Sebastian and I left at about 0.00 in order to sleep at home at least for a few hours. When Janina wanted to come with us to the [station's] door, the caretaker sent out all persons present in order to “take care” of the patient as he put it. It would be “ethically” not permitted if family or friends were present then. It would just take 10 min. Kl.-D., G.W. (another comrade having arrived some time before) and Janina waited in the pre-room of the station. After half an hour they were let back into the room, meanwhile C.K. had returned.

Hartmut is continuously treated intensively during the night, the caretaker comes every half hour to check the values, pupils' reaction etc. Some of the supply bottles were exchanged, we could not make out which.
Some time in between Janina thought she heard a slight noise accompanying the artificial breathing pump, an even sighing, but very weak,  Kl.-D. thought he had heard it as well. Yet, the caretaker did not take notice of it. The noise was absolutely synchronically to the pump and could be hardly discerned from it, but Janina was not sure if it had been there before. (This fact is important as when we asked how to know when the patient “is breathing with the pump”, they said it would not matter, it was important only that the patient could breathe with it unhindered. Now here is the question how to pay enough attention to this factor under these conditions.)

Between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning Sebastian and I returned. Now the brain death tests were on the agenda as was the information from the doctors. At about 9.30 a first pre test was conducted by Dr B. where we asked some questions. The doctor checked the eye reflex, stroked along the feet and supplied air to the lungs with a hose in order to check the breathing reflex. He said: as it seems, the brain death test will have a positive result. Then at about 10.15 until 10.45 the actual first brain death test followed where we not allowed to be present. (The doctor wanted to tell us the reason for that later, but this never happened.)
We could see the brain death result immediately: positive.
A second test with EEG was to be conducted later, where the brain currents are measured.

We left the station shortly after that. On midday in front of the station we met the doctor who were to receive the EEG test's results. She said she would get them soon. However: “God has already left him, so it's about time you leave him, too.” The results were clear anyway. That was about 14.00.

Later, around 16.00, the station's doctor, Dr J., told us Mr Dr Jö. would want to talk to us about the second test result. I insisted on getting the written test result first. A copy was handed to us then. Test result: The result of the EEG test was “in agreement” with the first as far as “the other criteria” (?) were met.

At about 18.00 discussions with Dr Jö., chief doctor of the neurosurgery: We ask what about that condition of the second brain death test. He explains to us the rules of the Bundesärztekammer [Federal chamber of doctors], brain death test etc.  It was tested if the brain damages were irreversible. A first clinical test would be conducted, then either a further clinical test after 12 hours or alternatively an EEG test. Everything was “in accordance”.
Another test was authorized by Dr Jö. on our pushing, that means a second so-called clinical test.

We go to a pizzeria shortly thinking about what can be done still, especially when the result of the third test is there. Also talk about possibilities of making a report to the police. After that Janina and I go home in order to have short time of sleep, Janina had not slept for two days. The third test is scheduled for 23.00.

At home after a short nap research in the internet: In Google brain death test immediately appears in connection with organic transplant. The regulation was introduced for this very purpose, in order to remove organs of patients being “brain” dead, but being artificially kept up with machines. The brain death test authorizes organic transplant with the permission of relatives. In this case only support is kept up after the tests, else the machines are turned off.

The test scheduled for 23.00 had already been conducted at 22.00 when we were not present.

When we come back, I give a few comments about the origin of the so-called “brain death test” and its medical determination referring to organic transplantation and explain some extraordinary and contradictory facts in connection with Hartmut's treatment. After that C.K., in accordance with the other comrades present, says that “the organisation will give us any support necessary in the case of a judicial approach in this case”.

The station's doctor comes in and announces the test result: “Naturally positive, as expected!” The machines would be turned off in a minute. She affirms that we would get a copy of the test result. I ask her questions: When did natural breathing stop? Answer: This could not be found out in the aftermath. An artificial breathing machine had been installed for support.

Dr J. on my question: The brain pressure diminishing medicine had been cut off on the 16th April (Wednesday) at 8 o'clock ( the hospital file says it was given at 8 o'clock for the last time though) as at that point they were already convinced that brain death had already occurred.  At that point of time the concentration of sodium was that high, that a continuation of this medication (Osmofundin) would have been incompatible. (Why was – at that point when they testified to assume brain death- the blood concentration of any importance at all?)

Towards Janina it had been declared before that “only the sedative medicine and painkillers had been broken off”. I tell them that I will make an investigation of the whole affair. Dr J.: “You can do that” and asks grabbing her mobile if we wish her to call the police, the corpse would be confiscated by the police then. We negate that. Dr J.: They have nothing to blame themselves for. And (upon my reproach of them with the contradictory declarations about the brain pressure diminishing medicine): “We have not told you everything.” Yet, after that the doctor refuses to give us the written test result in contrast to her previous promise. Dr J. asks if we wish an autopsy for investigation of the causes.

The cut-off of the machines on the 18/04 at  about 1 o'clock had already been prepared before the declaration of brain death was made to us.

I declare that at present we do not agree with a dissection of the brain.

They wait with the cut-off for my son, Sebastian, to arrive. At about 1.00 the machines are turned off. (Artificial breathing, heart-blood-circulation support) Present: Janina and I, Kl.-D. and C.K., Sebastian and Werner waiting outside. The heart beat slowly reduces. At 1.15 cardiac arrest.

The presentation of the hospital file was refused now. We would have to sue it out “by an attorney”. That would be the usual proceeding as there was allegedly “a professional secretion beyond the patient's death”, even towards relatives. This information is not only wrong as a fact. Thus an immediate investigation by us was prevented for the first.



About the two autopsies

(After long considerations we finally decided on two autopsies- the first conducted by Vivantes hospital Berlin-Neukölln, the second, more specialised brain autopsy in the Charité.)

The pathologist of Vivantes told us on the phone that it had been a renal cell carcinoma (grade 2), and it would be typical for these carcinomae to grow very slowly (“something like that develops in twenty years” literally) and a certain point when the vein was broken in the relevant kidney the cancer cells would have reached the blood path, so that a metastasis in the brain could form which very suddenly and very quickly led to those crass effects.

What was shown to us in the institute of pathology of the Vivantes clinic Neukölln was a photo on a PC screen, which was not specified (like a file or similar). There was no name or anything on it, neither a number nor date. It was a picture of a kidney where a carcinoma had formed, in the middle you get see a piece of vein, which was broken at some point as the professor said so that the cancer cells could get into the blood path. “The classical case”, was added – indeed, it looked very classical, nearly like taken from a lecture book, but there was just no label on it.

The written autopsy results sent to us was slightly different to the expected report. It contained no photos at all and was just a text report (two versions); the final version had the following results:
Several, large bleedings had been found in the brain, in the ventricle area as well as in the brain stem. The origin of these bleedings could not be found out though.

In the concluding pathological-anatomic report of Vivantes Neukölln it says about the state of the brain:

“Blooded mestasis of the renal cell carcinoma in the cranial part of the pons. Coming from there a brain mass bleeding with centre in the parieto-occipital section of the left hemisphere (65x50x45 mm).”

While giving a specific size of the metastases in the lungs (diameter 15 mm) and in certain lymph nodes (diameter from 8 up to 35 mm) and also the size of the brain mass bleeding in exact mm, it is remarkable that there is no information at all about the size of the brain metastasis in the pons.

Necroses were found and a heavy graded brain edema.

We had to make an extra order the photos of the conducted autopsy. What we finally received after several requests were not the same pictures as those shown to us on the screen at the above meeting with the professor. We only got a small selection of the pictures of the kidney and the brain, although he had told us about several other metastases, in the lungs and other organs, and on these finally delivered pictures there was again no specification whose organs they belonged to. Those could be anybody's pictures.

After that we decided on a further, more specific investigation of the brain by the Charité.

Again, there was just a text report. A detailed, specific documentation with pictures and microscopic takings is missing.

Macroscopically they detected several old bleedings, tissue damages, blood coagals as well as a massively developed brain edema. The brain basis vessels were not remarkable.

The autopsy report says very clearly that from the material they had received from Vivantes, the prepared and sliced brain, they could not detect any tumor.

They only talk about some remarkable cells, about “epithelial impressing cells” which “form trabecular [bar shaped] structures at some points”. These cells were of “plant like character”, which the report concludes to “most probably correspond to a metastasis of a renal cell carcinoma.” At the same time it says: “In the pons preparations made by us tumor cells cannot be established for sure. Yet, it was in the pons that Vivantes had declared a blooded metastasis. Well, in order to enforce this diagnosis, additionally the Charité ordered two microscopic preparations of the pons from Vivantes. Here they found “many epithelial cells with plant like character.”

From this the report concludes:
“The diagnosis of a cerebral metastasation of a carcinoma with secondary bleeding could be confirmed.”

And it says furthermore:
“From our point of view the death of the patient set in in the first place because of a tumor-caused bleeding within the brain stem and the cerebrum with succeeding collapse of the ventricle and tamponade on the ground of a heavy global brain edema.”

One cannot ignore the impression here that there were efforts to confirm the diagnosis of Vivantes in any case to a certain degree.

With all those assumptions in the report, this strict conclusion seems to be a bit strange. In principle, there is still no certainty what the origins of those bleedings were because there is no definite evidence for these bleedings being “of tumor origin”. As there is no information on the age of the bleedings, the break in of the ventricle cannot be explained clearly either.

The only thing certain is that there was no brain tumor. While Vivantes speaks of two, the Charité of one metastasis as origin of the bleeding, both owe a certain evidence for them. They only speak of cells which can neither be clearly assigned to a renal cell carcinom.

It cannot be ruled out at all that a completely different kind of destruction might have taken place in that brain, which might have been caused by something different, of completely different origin. It is a fact that a considerable destruction must have taken place in Hartmut's brain, otherwise there would not have been massive bleedings detected at several different points. Where they came from, what caused them, cannot really be explained in the end. The brain basis vessels were called unremarkable, so they could not have come from these.

Despite two autopsies there several questions open about the causes:

  • ·  Where did the bleedings come from, what caused them? Which vessels did they come from? How old were the bleedings?
  •    What exactly are the plant like epethelial cells and how large was their extent?
  •       How could such sporadic cells being quite different to an actual tumor or metastasis produce such bleedings to such an extent?


Let us assume that this diagnosis presented by the doctors is actually “according” (as they often said themselves), meaning that the illness had progressed to such a point that nothing could be done anymore. Then there is still the question: where does it come from? There is no genetic predisposition for such an illness in Hartmut's family. And his life style did not favour the outbreak of such an illness either, e.g. by smoking or other extensive consumption orientated life styles. The question where it came from remains open.


Connection with Electromagnetic Radiation (“Microwaves”) ?

Today it is well known that the influence of electromagnetic radiation on the human organism [can] cause cancer diseases. And it is manifestated by doctors that the kidney is an organ especially sensitive to radiation. Furthermore there are a lot of hints on the internet about the effect of such radiation on the brain combined with offers of various companies of protection installations as well as precautions towards interception. And it is well known since long that secret services use such methods. It is a fact that there has gone on an intensive research on this field for decades and it is very unlikely that these things are promoted for research's sake only, but naturally also in order to apply them (not only in open war times) for the purpose of fighting a political opponent.

It should not be left out here that the diagnosed, allegedly seldom occurring illness of Hartmut, bound to lead to this sudden death, is accompanied by circumstances being extraordinary eloquent. There is a whole set of indications that we have had a “treatment” with electromagnetic radiation (microwave radiation) for decades and partly even still.[1] This already showed itself in the second half of the seventies when we could feel the effects of such a phenomenon in our flats, while we actually succeeded in protecting ourselves from it quite effectively for some time, to some extent. Back then, in the spring of 1976, there suddenly appeared reports in the public newspapers, saying that the American embassy in Moscow was being targeted with microwaves and the inhabitants getting ill from it.[2]   The descriptions of the symptoms occurring there strikingly showed the same characteristics of health effects we had observed with ourselves in those years and had had first-hand experience of, and against which we could act with relatively simple methods. Yet, one has to assume that the methods have been refined considerably since then and new ones been added and thus long-term massive effects on health cannot be excluded, but were on the contrary intended.  It is not at all absurd to make a hypothesis about possibilities, e.g. like some sort of “time bomb” causing long-term damage in a creepy manner with such methods, which then, when it is opportune, by sudden drastic increase of the effects lead to a complete and rapid ruin of health. In other countries there is already open debate about this, but in our country not mentioned at all or even attempts to make fun of it. In the past few years there have been publications, e.g. in 2003, which have not been denied, about the USA having tortured people, e.g. in Iraq, with such measures, in order to weaken the resistance of the Iraqi population (see document "Microwaving Iraq"). Who says that such things have been conducted only there or are still?

What appears as an advance to the conductors of these daylight escaping and absolutely criminal methods (and actually is for the first), is that evidence of this cannot be immediately and easily obtained (without appropriate apparatus, which is quite expensive). Yet, this does not mean at all that it does not exist and neither that one day a direct proof can be given.

In the field of the effects of such radiation experience has been gathered for decades worldwide. And there is quite a whole lot of literature on it, especially from the former Soviet Union and the USA, but which is not spread in our country and has to be brought together with much effort from the library or the internet.

E.g. the book “Mikrowellen – die verheimtlichte Gefahr” [original title “Zapping America”] appeared in Germany in 1989, the translation of the American version having been published there already in 1976. This book contains numerous facts about which we can say: that applies exactly, that matches our own experiences. That book did not appear in German language back then, in the seventies, and it was neither present in other languages on the federal republican market. The whole topic practically did not exist on the German literarian market as far as we know. That is very probably not a coincidence.

The first time we had a certain suspicion of influence of electromagnetic radiation was in a flat in 1976, in a flat in the Ruhr area, where we resided temporarily, where we put aluminium foil as protection to the walls, yet which had only a very slight protection effect. There were symptoms similar to the ones described in the literature: skin irritations, sudden outbreaks of sleepiness, sleeping disorders connected with more or less strong heart beat acceleration, fluctuations of blood circulation etc. It was not seldom that other comrades temporarily being in our living rooms or trying to sleep there could confirm these symptoms at them themselves. If we had seen such books like the one above or others, this would not have been without consequences. But there was nothing like it on the German market. This book also contains a chapter about the Moscow microwave affair at the American embassy. [2] That was the only incidence that was reported over here at that time because this affair was mentioned in some newspapers and let us stumble on the matter going on with ourselves, too, and gave us the ideas for the basic protection installation.

What the book deals with, is very interesting. This whole field of technics was developed systematically, beginning in the communications engineering, but then especially in the intelligence area. There has also been research on the effects of this radiation on the human organism, and finally also how to calculatedly apply and defend against this. This kind of research has been promoted in the USA and the Soviet Union. In the USA there has been public discussion about the effects of radiation on the human organism already at that time (sixties), naturally beginning in the relevant affected fields of industry and military. Organisations of affected persons formed, at first above all of affected technicians, who felt these effects (damages of organs, cancer diseases etc.) and refused to accept them. There were numerous judicial trials about these questions in the USA, there were falsifications of expert reports by doctors as well as public refutations by other doctors, who did not give in to pressure.

Of all this you never got to know anything in the public in the Federal Republic of Germany at that time – no single report about these things being applied in this country as well, not a single book about these things while there had been a whole lot of literature in the USA and Soviet Union all the time.

Meanwhile, they put it into practice over here and tried to obstruct progressive and revolutionary people from their work and damage them with such treatments to their flats [3]  – secretly and on the quiet! Public silence about this was perfect.


On the patient's file

We received this finally and at last after much effort. Without any attorney, having shown them the relevant paragraphs ourselves, station 15 of the Vivantes hospital Neukölln finally decided to hand it out to us after the second ultimate request.

The proceeding was that Dr M, a doctor specialised on this, shortly after introduction and first CT  installed two external ventricle drainages at the front part of the head in order to enable a possible pouring out of the brain water, for brain pressure release. After the doctor had done this measure, he wrote into the patient's file: “Please, let awake”, which means concretely: do not give any narcotics any more. Apparently, this was done so for the first, at least there is no note about any giving of sedative drug immediately after the OP (drainage).
However then, as the patient's file says, after the second “control CT” a few hours later, sedative drugs were given, namely atropine, propofol and fentanyl. All three of them are extremely strong narcotics and paralysing drugs with considerable side effects. We will deal with the special qualities and the given dosis a bit later.

According to the doctors' information this second CT was done because Hartmut had shown a coughing reaction and sighing. Yet, here comes the question: Why did they do another CT immediately after this coughing reaction – denoted also in the patient's file – at all? At such a moment this is not so sensible because a possibly starting process of awaking might be obstructed or complicated by it. They could have waited for this process to continue and for him to regain conscience.

And immediately after this second CT, namely around 23.00 or 23.30, this cannot be exactly determined from the handwriting in the file, atropine was given. Afterwards propofol, then again propofol and above that fentanyl. Why was that done?

The takings of the second CT show the massive destructions that were occurring in the brain at that point of time. Why was the dosis “overdone” in such a way? Especially as spontaneous breathing restarted after the second CT as the file says.

This proceeding seems to be very contradictious.

The medication itself is very interesting, too. Not before 1.00 osmofundine was given (brain pressure diminishing medication), 1.25 ml, at 3.00 fortecortine (strengthening heart and cycle), 40 g, and at 4.00 atropine again: 0.5 g (as denoted in the file).

According to the doctoral instruction after the first op basocef was to be given (an anti-bacterial), which was actually done. Why then was after the second CT, in addition to the atropine having been already given by the emergency doctor, the mentioned propofol given, a stuff that slows down the process of awakening, if not stops as a whole. It is also given as a narcotic during operations. There is no remark in the file why this was done. But not only that. Now a high dosis of atropine, namely 0.5 g (this dosis is denoted as even “lethal” in internet sources) was given in addition!!! There has not been any  (written or oral) explanation by the responsible persons for that so far, although it was demanded by us several times! Instead of explaining and maybe correcting this data from the file if it was a writing error or (handwriting caused) unclearity in the data, it was sweepingly dismissed with the assertion that we would recite data from the file incorrectly, but it says so black and white in their “documentation” (see appended photocopy of the relevant input) If what is written there is wrong, why do they just not clarify this to us?

The emergency doctor, Dr Ph. had already given atropine as he himself stated in his report. It says there: 1 ampoule, without any more detail about the dosis. Yet, it is know that this substance has a paralysing and widening effect on the pupils. However, the strong widening of the pupils and non-existent light reaction of Hartmut's pupils were permanently given as a sign for a probably already occurred brain death. Considering that there is a lot to be clarified.

Summarising the following important questions remain:

  • ·        What was the purpose of the giving of sedative medication after the second CT at all after an “operative therapy option” had been excluded?
  • ·        What about the dosis of 0.5 g atropine denoted in the patient's file?
  • ·       Why was propofol given, and especially twice within a short sequence?


A further question that comes up:

Why was the method of installing a drainage chosen at all?
What if this method of an abrupt and very quick brain pressure release had under the very “contra-effect” under the given conditions?

In the result of the second, so-called control CT, it says:

“After introduction of ventricle drainages nearly completely collapsed ventricle system.” And furthermore: “Newly set-in SAB (subarachnoideal bleeding).” (By the way this was not confirmed by the sectioning conducted by Vivantes.) And finally: “Newly set-in displacement of the middle line to the right for about 13 mm.”

In the anatomic students' book by A. Faller “Der Körper des Menschen” (“The human's body”), 12th edition, it says at the bottom page 413 (German version):

“Major contra-indication for a lumbal punction [4] is an increased brain pressure, as because of a liquor pressure decrease this can lead to dangerous trapping/quenching of brain parts, especially the brain stem in the back main hole.”

What if this important hint can also be applied to the method used for the ventricle drainage applied to Hartmut? In that case the following question arises:

 Maybe the later desaster described above that happened in Hartmut's brain and could then be seen on the second CT, the trapping or quenching, the falling together of the cells and displacement of the middle line a result of this very drastic and very sudden brain pressure decrease caused by the drainage?
Why was this drainage installed anyway by the specialist Dr M.? Maybe it happened before that the whole brain was smashed by such a measure, so that in reality nothing makes sense anymore and you can only state the brain death diagnosis.

In the clinic they always described things to us as if this measure had been inevitable because of the highly over pressured brain, in order to release the liquor obstructed in its path (“water head”, “life saving measure” as they said). Yet, this is the question, if there had not been alternatives in order to prevent this very effect described above. It may be assumed that this effect or a similar one has occurred before and this procedure is also doubtful, e.g. if and when this risk may be taken.

Maybe here is the real problem, in the questioning of this very first measure, this drainage?

For example, when they said that there was a liquor column of about 50 cm (in the patient's file it says 40 cm) during the operation, then this signifies a certain brutality being applied here. The question is: could they not have acted more cautiously when leading back (releasing) this accumulated liquor?

The above cited remark from the medical book indicates that such a procedure bears such dangers and risks even with a brain not pre-damaged. And such a danger is specially high with an increased brain pressure. There is the question if by a different procedure maybe a different leading back of the liquor could have been achieved.

And there are more questions: Maybe this was the reason for the (sudden) diversion to the Vivantes hospital as exactly here such a specialist can regulate the matter in this way. That is why the detailed description of every detail, as happens here, is also of great use in order to get a better trace of things.

Maybe this procedure is risky in any case and connected with dangers. Maybe it was neither so accidental that the in time presence of one of us in order to speak with the doctors and maybe intervene was prevented. It began with my unawareness of the whereabouts, then I was not allowed to go with the emergency vehicle and this resulted in our arriving there far too late when everything had happened more or less. Then we were confronted with a fait accompli. And all this talking that occurred to me about the alleged long time of Hartmut's unconsciousness was actually used to defend of their procedure or this development. And the theory of the kidney and the metastasis, which -mind you!- was not proven or given clear evidence, is used to support all this from the sides. At least it is conditioned in a way as to work in such a direction that supports this whole procedure.

So a chain link is to question this very first measure in the hospital, the so-called “life saving” measure of this drainage.

This could also explain how it could come this rapid deterioration of the state of Hartmut's brain, after the first operation. This is not really explained fully, neither in the patient's file neither by the later conducted dissection. And neither where the bleedings, these further bleedings came from. None of this is explained. Neither by the doctors themselves, nor in the patient's file nor in the two autopsy reports.

Especially this squeezing effect that is mentioned in the above quote is a very important hint because this very effect were always attempts of explanations by the doctors that the brain cells were too damaged because of the long time of unconsciousness. Yet, this does not have to be right. This can also be a consequence of the very first fairly brutal appearing method, this operation, it can be related to that.
If you imagine this pictorially, a water column of 50 cm, that must have burst out with an enormous pressure very abruptly. That is the question, if this could not have been done in an alternative way.

Dr M writing into the patient's file after four hours: “no operative therapy option”, this may have been a consequence of his first “therapy”. This would also shed light on why the anaesthesist, who had assisted in that operation, mentioned to us that during the operation there had been differences about the proceeding – opening the skull top or installing a drainage -  why when we asked them about this point in the above mentioned conversation with the doctors in the pre-room of the station they kept a low profile on it and tried to divert from it as much as possible.

There are other examples where a sudden strong pressure release is somehow endangering existence. You can see this in other areas. Let us consider the plain example of releasing the air from a balloon: there are two versions for doing this. The one being pricking into it with a needle thereby letting the balloon burst. Another would be cautiously tearing apart the opening and letting the air escape slowly, in this case the balloon stays intact. Of course, this example cannot be projected one to one to our case. Yet, one is thing is for sure: one cannot completely wave aside the assumption that with a more cautious release of the accumulated liquor the cells would have been saved from destruction far better.

Another question coming up would be how the giving of noradrenaline (a vessel contracting stuff) took effect. As they said it was given to increase the blood circulation in the brain by increasing the blood pressure with it. Here the same question: did they not effect the very contrary?  What if the vessels had already been obstructed in their flow, e.g. by narrowing already having taken place, squeezing by so-called “space demands” mentioned by the doctors or maybe other influence, maybe because of a genetical predisposition?

I think the questioning of this giving of noradrenaline is very important. There is actually some kind of predisposition for vessel narrowing in Hartmut's family, from his father's side. Of course, the knowledge of this factor can be used to effect the contrary.

In this context our earlier experience with doctors is of interest, experience with their proceeding of not investigating the concrete conditions, but proceeding with a certain given scheme. The experience of 1977, when the prescription of cortisone against a skin irritation (reddening) of Hartmut by a doctor in Bochum effected the very opposite, namely an explosion like outbreak of this irritation on nearly the whole body, should be mentioned here as well.


About the whole proceeding (summary)

The first strange thing appeared at the point when we tried to speak with this doctor who had done the operation. They told us to wait in front of the operation area, Hartmut would be shoved out and put to station 15 (so-called awakening station). Yet, he did not come that way. Afterwards they told us he had been shoved around another way – why? Maybe that we could not see him? After some time some doctor came out and hastened for the lift. When I called him, he came over to us reluctantly. It was Dr. M who had just done the operation. Apparently, he seemed rather keen on avoiding a conversation with us.
Then he changed his tactics by asking us first about the so-called pre-history in detail. And in the following they put together these things that we had to say about it, in a shock situation, into some sort of “pre-history” later and it was repeated to us again and again quasi as part of their own diagnosis! At every asking after the state of affairs, about Hartmut's state and so on, every time they came up with a detailed and broad description of what we had told Dr M before the operation hall on that first evening.

This is written down with slight changes in the patient's file as well, not as it was, but it says there, e.g. that there had been unstable walking and vomiting since January, which we have surely not told them in this way as it was not the case, and this as part of their own diagnosis. This cannot be, that a questioning of relatives, non-doctors, who can have only a limited knowledge about such symptoms and developments, is being presented as part of the expert's diagnosis, transformed to expert style so to say. This was, among others, given as a reason why the Hartmut's state was so catastrophic and without hope basically and why they allegedly could not have done anything any more.

All the time they said that there had been no reactions by Hartmut at all. Even the emergency had said so and written that into their report, although I am pretty sure that already during the first treatment by the emergency doctor in Hartmut's flat I had heard some sort of loud coughing or similar – I could not really make it out as I had been urged out of the room before. Also, as an argument for there being no hope any more, they said from the beginning: “He has already lain like that for 18 hours”, which is an assumption only because no one could say this for sure really. It might just as likely have happened shortly before I came, about 14.00 or 15.00 h, no one can tell. What makes the doctor write down something like 18 hours as a definite fact in his report? (see the photocopy of the relevant input)


The affair about the second CT

We were told all the time that there were no reflexes by Hartmut at all. Yet, obviously this was not true since there was a maintained cornea reflex as well as coughing reflex. On the 15th April repeated coughing led to a second control CT, as described by the doctors, after which there was said to be no therapy option left. However, he was given propofol, atropine and another drug called fentanyl (a synthetic opioide being about 80 times as strong as morphine and having similar effects as the other narcotics with much shorter time of action though), which they told us nothing about. And at the same time they said again and again: “no reactions” - “no pupil reflexes” etc. pp.

Other methods, e.g. the audio method (coma treatment) were absolutely denied, although the connection between the ear and the brain should be very direct. I asked them about it several times, they always answered that this was “very complicated”. Instead, they wanted to get rid of us. At half to one they said we should “go about saying goodbye now”! This was out of the question, of course.

Towards Wednesday morning something seemed to change. He had been given a brain pressure diminishing medicine during all night of the 15th to the 16th. Apparently, this had taken effect. On the displays you could see that pressure was declining (considerably) in the course of the night, went down to 40 mmHg. (In the file it says 50, but several of us can confirm having seen 40 on the displays). Yet, they said it would not matter, the pressure was still double the normal value referring to the 40 observed by us. Normal brain pressure is between 10 and 20.

At about 5 o'clock there were movements at Hartmut's feet as well as the upper thighs after Janina had conducted a short feet massage. Yet, the doctors as well as the nurses present immediately said this was “nothing”, it was just so-called “spinal reflexes” coming from the spinal cord, this meant nothing. I did not have this impression, even thought there to be some sort of feedback. I had the impression that there was a reaction of the eyelid as well as the feet on my direct calling at Hartmut.  All the present personnel of the hospital immediately tried to talk this definitely out of me though, in the sense that my hopes were very understandable, but unfortunately they were simply not reasonable.
After six o'clock several of the supply bottles were exchanged.  After some time I observed the pressure display value rise massively, even doubled and finally trebled (from 40 to 120). On my question what this was about, the nurse simply answered the “mixture had been changed only”, that is why the display had changed now. As the patient's file says the brain pressure diminishing medicine had been given at 8 o'clock for the last time. Anyway, this was the occasion to make clear to us that we were not entitled to watch and observe the displays, we would not understand anything of it and it was the hospital personnel’s matter.

Shortly after that we were told their decision that Hartmut was to be transferred to a single room (death room) because it was not acceptable for the room neighbour, firstly our continuous presence and generally Hartmut's state itself.  In a single room we all could “quietly say goodbye”! As it was, the brain death test would just have to be waited for! If you consider that meanwhile propofol and atropine were still given, what chance did he have “to awake” at all?

Yet, we were not able to intervene here more decisively, especially because of our state of shock. When at about 8 o'clock we asked a doctor being present in the room then because of the development of the brain pressure, he said: “No, of course, the sedative medicine is cut-off only.” In fact by this time they had also cut-off the brain pressure diminishing medicine as well.



Station 15 (anaesthesia) is a station where presumably also organ transplantation is prepared.  They are specialised on this and do this as a routine, you could get this impression there. If they proceed like this in other cases, you cannot allege without further knowledge, of course. In any case here it looked like it was “very convenient”.

Normally, in this country the proceeding is regulated by law in a way that after stating the brain death the relatives are asked for their agreement to organ transplantation. The medical measurements before as well as after stating brain death are mainly purposed to keep the organism in a state, so that when the death case has occurred later organs can be removed in a “ready for use state”. There was some sort of change in therapy they did not tell us about, yet which we could observe. They simply declared to us that certain preparations were given influencing the cell metabolism.

The way the regulations for organic transfer are laid out, according to the written law and the explanations of the responsible persons the situation is thus, so that in any case no material motive for organic transplant and organ trade is permitted (trade of organ is explicably forbidden). It is prohibited by law to make profit with removing organs. Allegedly, it is regulated by medical necessities and humanitarian principles only. Yet, no official organ trade has to take place. There has to be just networks of doctors and care units wanting organs for certain operations in order to make money with them. There is supposed to be an actual need for donated organs. Let us assume such institutions or personalities have friends or relatives etc. or even such networks in an intensive station, then you can imagine that such deals are made quite informally, so to say on the quiet. That means it is very likely that in intensive care units patients, who are already “death candidates”, but may be recovered on the other hand, are helped in their way to death a little in this or that case because thus you can receive the necessary organs.

Now we do not want to impute such an intention to anyone here. Yet, there were certain remarks by doctors at some point when they said: “Well, if he wakes up at all, then he will be a 100 % nursing case.” (Dr M) These remarks have some macabre sound in them under these conditions.

In this context one should also remember the debate in the so-called “death room” about the question raised by me about when you can say that death has set in and until what point not. I said, for me it is the case when the heart has stopped beating. This was (Dr J) a “completely old-fashioned” opinion because of the medical advance, this was not applicable any more because of the advance of the medical devices.
It was also doubted by this doctor that a severely damaged brain might recover some time, more concretely that cells already dead might renew themselves. That such a possibility exists is confirmed by research today. There is a debate about such things on the internet. Here the so-called brain death tests are not at all undoubtful. And not in all countries of Europe things are viewed like this and dealt with.

Yet, this is the question, in what direction the treatment goes, if it goes just in the one direction (brain death test and that was it), then the result is according to that.



It is remarkable how several things tie into each other here. It is a whole chain of things which have taken place in such a way that they have led to this final outcome. That partly unusual behaviour of the emergency, that doctor, who told me first that he would be taken to the Urban hospital (being just a few kilometres away, sort of round the corner) having a neurosurgery station as well and then suddenly the change without telling me anything that he would be taken to the Neukölln hospital, there would be the right station for him. That I was not allowed to be there during the rescue measures and also to go by the emergency van, which is totally unusual.

In such a case it is also about not losing time. The Urban is around the corner, the Neukölln much farther, and it took the according time until they arrived with him there. And afterwards they justified it by repeating permanently that he had been lying there for such a long time, the emergency doctor also noted in the file that he had been lying there for 18 hours, what they were simply not able to tell. My account alone of having seen him for the last time 18 hours ago does not imply at all that it happened exactly 18 hours ago. Yet, here this was taken as justification from the very beginning, that nothing would help any more.

In the patient's file they also wrote down the final argument between me and Dr J at the end. Here I am presented as someone very critical and suspicious (the equalisation of these two already tells a lot). Her offer of calling the police was taken down as well (this would have had the disadvantage of everything being kept under cover, also from us). 

If you consider that the destruction of Hartmut's health, of his body state by who or what ever had been forced massively before or taken place before, you are forced to suppose that on the basis of this destruction that this “finished him off” now so to say.

Such a proceeding would be basically the most “convenient” way for those forces who had been working on the elimination of Hartmut Dicke: It seems you cannot prove anything. You have a shock, you have to cope with it and nothing stands out, for the first. There is no great turmoil. If someone is shot dead or murdered in another way, there is a great risk of the matter causing quite a stir. Here – that was all the tenor - “fate”- that was it. It is presented like that or in other words, the possibility of presenting it in that way would be ideal for the actual operators in the background – who ever that may be – seemingly ideal. I say seemingly because if you follow the traces of things  - and we will do that – there is also the risk of blowing up.

Sometimes it is very difficult to find out something like this. In other cases, too. I do not want to mention the following in context here, just as a measure for methods. There is a book, published in 2007, about the death of Alexander Litvinenko. There are presented a lot of facts, which appear not to be totally unfounded and which are very interesting. Yet, you have to consider that who is facing each other there, that it is about various groupings of bourgeoisie, then it is very clear that this does not have anything to do with our case. Yet, referring to the methods it is very interesting what is revealed there. For example, it was not at all easy to find out by medical methods what was the direct cause of the death of Alexander Litvinenko. It took many efforts for that. These people have a lot more possibilities than we do, though, e.g. making certain professors or experts deal with it and find out then that it was polonium. This was not clear from the beginning at all. At first they talked about thallium and everything was very strange. Until the point when someone found out that it could be polonium only that caused such effects and not others and caused exactly these symptoms. This is given just as an example, that it can take a long time sometimes to come out. And that the opponent might rely on this.
Because in our case not everything is clear, not at all. Finding out what had caused these bleedings in the brain, what had caused this massive destruction, will surely demand further investigation. Although no visible injuries of the head or the spine had been documented at the registration in the hospital, a mechanical influence cannot be excluded completely at all.

Concerning the estimation by Vivantes pathology that this renal cell carcinoma had developed in “twenty years”, there is no further evidence from their side. “This occurs sometimes” they said. These are speculations, experience values or so as the pathologist of Vivantes expressed himself.
These are alleged experiences with this kind of kidney cancer, which is by the way a cancer which can emerge from the influence of radiation. Especially men, who are very sensitive in this part of the body. 
Referring to the allegation of the Vivantes pathologist that the healthy kidney had taken up the whole function of the other, this may very well be, but the question is how does the urine production by the kidneys work generally? Normally, if both kidneys work, the produced urine is conducted by the ureter to the bladder. If one of the kidneys is ill, it will still even though it has lost its ability to a certain percentage, maybe even a 100 percent, give certain remnants like blood or similar things to the ureter. This should be added to the urine produced by the healthy kidney in the ureter or mix with it, so you can have evidence in some way. Or you can see it, e.g. by the colour of the urine. Yet, this was not the case, you could not recognize anything like that with the urine produced in unconscious state in the hospital.  Neither blood nor any unusual change of colour nor any other remnants could be seen. How can that be?

Indeed, it is very remarkable that there was no change in the urine. It was said that because of the impairment of the one kidney by the cancer the other one would take up the complete function of the urine production. Yet, this certainly does not mean that ill kidney has quit its function completely, meaning quit in a way that none of these substances reach the ureter no more. This is very unlikely.

Symptoms of illness were exteriorally not apparent until February 2008. This has to be manifested once again.


Some considerations on the political context

It must have been the interest of certain forces, at some certain point, at the beginning of 2008, to intervene massively, so to say. This can be seen very clearly. And there must be a reason.


The delay in the publication of the “Doppellage” [=”Double Situation”]

One should remember, what was the situation at the beginning of 2008? During the whole year of 2007, especially in the autumn, everything worked pretty good. There were new articles appearing, there was an increasing activity from various sides. And above all there was the completion of Hartmut's article on the Doppellage [referring to the article “Proletarian Revolution and National Question – On the Double Situation at the End of the First World War”, translator's remark] which he had been working on for many months of 2007.
Yet, how to evaluate the hazard in this work, referring to the publication of the latter?
The article had been finished since November 2007. Yet, the publication did not happen. I received the draft for check up, went about it immediately and sent my corrections to Hartmut a few days later.  He had also given it to another editor as it was not unusual in the editorial work that at least two editors were asked to make a check through such important and foundational scripts, for complicated and extensive works anyway. And with the latter Hartmut was not satisfied at all, which led to several points of critique, technical disadvantages being among them. Anyway, there was one delay after the other. In the end there was also the mess about the revision of the contents on the part of this editor. I finally took a look at it and found that it was not important at all. He made several, extensive rearrangements of sentences at the beginning of the document, yet, which were not relevant to the content, but irritated the author. I told Hartmut my opinion about that. Some time in between, maybe December, he had already told me: “If I had used your suggestions only, the article would be out since long.” Yet, this did not happen. And this was because of these irritating and unnecessary rearrangements in the text that had been done there and Hartmut did not want to ignore simply. At the same time he did not see why another editor just and simply had bustled about in his article, so to say, without any relevance to the content. Especially one remark of the same on the telephone when he said: “If that is published like it is now, then everyone starting to read it will set it aside immediately.” was considered as pretty arrogant by him.

Even during the phase of publication of the article, which happened as a result of enormous pressure from the middle of March on, he spoke about crucial points of the article and from these explanations you could not get the impression that he had the slightest doubt in the content of his work. On the contrary, he made very clear, e.g.  what is meant by “Doppellage” (double situation). That was even at the end of March 2008.

In the introductory article of 5th March, 2007 (IS-2007-22) a lot is already sketched in advance and condensedly raised what is underpinned by the detailed analysis. The article was on the webpage by March 2007 and with it the announcement of further important things to come. Any it was clear that Hartmut was working on it. E.g. it said in the introductory article:

“Today further revolutions and breakdowns are on the agenda in the newly industrialised territories of the earth, nonetheless the questions of  European history are still of fundamental importance to us all. The development of the new capitalistic economy in China or the other 'Emerging Economies' was partly  achieved at the price of transferring production and also science from the European countries to these states. The internationalisation of all production and the necessarily following internationalisation of resistance does not annul the questions of the former European development. The tasks of clarification why here it could come to such an extended paralysis of labour movement and lack of resistance of society remain. Therefore information, documentation and discussion is necessary in this field of the questions mentioned.”

And thus the contrahend was warned in some way. Revisionists like of the sort of the DKP [German Communist Party] and people surrounding them were warned by this. They had approached the national question themselves, in their own way, and been stirring in it since 2005, had held conferences and made contributions on that topic, all of them appearing promptly in the “Marxistische Blätter” [Marxist Papers] in January 2008. (The edition being run out immediately.) What did not appear was Hartmut's article on that topic!

It is not clear yet what exactly led to this delay of the publication of this important foundational article, being very disadvantages to us and favouring to the revisionists. Yet, one thing can be said: there must have been a massive interest in preventing the publication of Hartmut's article at the end of 2007, maybe even the publication as a whole. And above all in preventing the discussion with him about this article. And this is finally the case now!


The cut-off of the chairman of our organisation from the internet by the Alice [5] gang in combination with the German Telecom

In parallel to the above described massive break down of Hartmut's state of health since the February of 2008 there was the cut-off from the communication means that finally extended to a complete cut-off. Both of them started at about the same point of time.  On the 8th February, 2008, promptly on the day the investigation of the expert in the matter of the heating bill was to take place (see following chapter) and did actually take place. Exactly from this day on the internet access was not there any more. When I wanted to send the written version of his summarising dictation of the events of the expert investigation in the evening of the 08/02, it did not reach him. This did and was supposed to take its effects. One has to ask: what would have happened if this cut-off had not been? Something like this means an obstruction of the whole flow of communication as everything is coordinated to this email traffic. The telephone cut-off followed at the beginning of March so that only the mobile phone was left.

The publication of the article on the double situation was delayed and made difficult by this cut-off as well.

At the end of January 2008 the internet statement still appeared:  Die ökonomische Krise und die Abwiegelei der Revisionisten [The economic crisis and the playing down of the revisionists.] This also points at this direction, it attacks these forces very much. Directly after this publication there is this massive break down of health and simultaneous cut-off from the connection.


The confrontation with justice, state administration and corruption
– the aggravation since 2006

One more outstanding connection can be drawn to the dispute with the flat owners' association about the flat in Moabit Hartmut had owned since the end of April 2000. This flat was supposed to secure his old-age pension in some way.

This dispute, which had aggravated increasingly since the end of 2001, was mainly about heating bills and consecutively also about water bills. Here the following macabre situation had evolved: an increasing part of the flat owners had when checking their values of the heating consumption measurers so-called non-consumer values, that means values being in the range of 0 and 2 on the measurer's scale, leaving their heating bill extremely low while extremely high values were noted for the rest of the flat owners (tenants), so that their heating bills reached dizzying heights. This developed during several years and in such a way that suggested an increasing part of the owners gathered around Mrs S (temporary head of advisory board) were getting their energy costs paid by another part of the owners, the so-called non-insiders. Because the extremely low values supported the suspicion of definite manipulation as it was completely doubtful that flats permanently inhabited during the cold season did not make use of their heating at minus degrees as their values suggested. In the course of time law suits took place about these things that Hartmut Dicke, who did not want to accept this cheating on others' expense, made lots of efforts for, which brought him open anger if not even hatred of various flat owners. Sometimes there took place a real hunt for him showing also on the various meetings of the association and which was intended to poison his life permanently by new intrigues and it actually did. Above all it took a lot of strength to face this and to defeat the continuously revived intrigues.

The dispute aggravated dramatically in the autumn of 2006 when at the beginning of September there was a sudden attack like attempt by a certain clique around the owner Mrs S heading for taking away Hartmut's ownership under pretext and wrong allegations. The owner Mrs S had apparently for many years, using the information she had access to as head of the advisory board, added up payments that the property management were not or only doubtfully entitled to get and claimed this sum to be still paid by Hartmut and based on this induced a suit for withdrawal of the flat from him.

In order to immediately take away the cause of this affair, Hartmut paid a sum of 5000 Euro from his private budget to the property management, a huge sum, a certain part of it having had to be already paid back to him in the aftermath though, or still has to be as he was given partly right with his suit. Further decisions are to still be made. [6]

In the summer of 2007, exactly on the 25/06/07 (first day of trial before the Landgericht Berlin concerning heating bills) the heart of this dispute about the heating bills (water bills) was already described in a public internet statement by Hartmut Dicke on the webpage of our organisation, especially in connection with state corruption.

At the trial (in June 2007) the owner Mrs S appearing there personally as well as representative of the flat owners' association presented a picture of ridiculousness as she involved herself in such contradictions by her far-fetched testaments, so that the judge saw the necessity to order an expert  (having been wished for by Hartmut as plaintiff as well), who was to investigate especially those flats (among them being the one of Mrs S) which showed the most unbelievable heating values (or rather zero values).
In the following time (September 2007) the trial was withdrawn from this judge, for one month there was no judge responsible for this and in the following a judge who changed the list of questions being created to pose at the expert, so that it gave a possibility of escape to the persons under investigation. The matter was prolonged for months until the date for the expert investigation was scheduled to the 8th February, 2008 where the heating behaviour of certain flats chosen by the judge was to be investigated, i.e. the heating measurers to be checked. For this date the presence of the plaintiff (Hartmut) had been explicably permitted, there was even an invitation by the expert.

On this 8th February, 2008 we could see a sudden, very definite break down in Hartmut's health, which obviously was the reason for his not being punctual at the expert's investigation, about one hour late when the expert had already started going in various flats. When Hartmut arrived he was just in the flat of Mrs S, the major suspect in this trial. And what happened: She denied Hartmut the entrance to her flat with a whole mess of abuses being audible in all the house. That means she was apparently seeking refuge in attack by abusing the investigator person himself as “spy” and “nark” who was to be denied entrance thereby confusing the facts in an absurd way. The protest of the expert was fairly limited considering this very obvious breach of law, to be precise, there was none, just the hint that maybe the investigation might have to be repeated if Mrs S did not let Mr Dicke participate. Hartmut under pressure did without participation in the investigation of the very flat of the main suspect, the participation was not denied him by any other of the flat owners.

As an example for the sort of booming and chicanery that came from the ranks of the mentioned association of flat owners, I would like to mention the following little episodes:
At that time it was not even possible to dispose of your waste in the yard unmolestedly, without being abused by the mentioned flat owner. This is not explained by normal behaviour.

The entire behaviour of several flat owners of this so-called flat owner association suggests that a ultra-right and gloomy circle is at the bottom of it.

In this country there are numerous people who try daily to defend their right and enforce it against the mendacity and corruption not only of single representatives, but also especially of authorities and companies promoted by state and who were confronted with the according resistance.

Hartmut Dicke's publications and his entire behaviour reflected such toughness and perseverance in a way – and that was the very thing which must not be, from their view, this had to be “cut-off”. And it was.


Reactions on the Death of Hartmut Dicke

The sudden death of Rolf Martens on the 22nd April, 2008

The following should also be remarked in this context. Rolf Martens (former member of our organisation, yet, who was excluded in the year of 1990), who has certainly not appeared as a loyal joint fighter of our aims in the last decades and on the contrary has been unmasked by us thoroughly during all those years, published this very article (see above) and exposed it as “worth reading” on his webpage and thus contributed to its propagation, especially on international scale. He spoke very positively of this article.
His permanent talking about Hartmut Dicke (Klaus Sender) - “earlier important Marxist”, calling him an allegedly “bourgeois degenerated” in one breath is not necessarily plausible to people who question things in a critical way and read up-to-date publications of Hartmut Dicke. This kind of scheme was repeated by Rolf Martens for years. On the other hand by posting certain articles by us on his page as well as on the so-called Modern Marxism List he contributed to the spreading of these writings of us, especially internationally, despite this contradictory and slandering scheme.  These two sides of Rolf Martens have always been seen, also by Hartmut. And it is a very drastic contradiction that he contributed to the propagation of the Neue Einheit politics internationally to some extent, but other so-called left wings did not at all. Here the channel is absolutely shut and nothing of that sort happens. This is a very interesting fact concerning the intentions of certain forces. Rolf Martens also spread the news of Harmut's death on the 20th April, 2008 and even put the above mentioned economical writing in context, that certain ultra-reactionary forces are trampled on by it and that was why a “foul play” -as he put it- might play a role in Hartmut's death. This is even more remarkable as nearly all the leftists, national as well as international, kept silence about this event.

Two days later, on the 22/04/2008 Rolf Martens was dead himself!

Nothing more detailed could be found out about his also very abrupt seeming death up to now, unfortunately, relevant mails to his brother, Tore Martens, have remained unanswered so far. 


The silence among the so-called leftists

in retrospect:
The aggravation in the year of 1970 – the novel emergence of the antagonism towards pseudo Marxism and revisionism
– The (first) attempted murder of Hartmut Dicke in the autumn of 1970

In the year of 1970 there was some kind of a starting situation in the Federal Republic of Germany, already having emerged since the sixties with the revolutionary youth and students movement, out of which new communist, Marxist-Leninist organisations crystallised or started to crystallise. Back then there was a vehement (ideological) dispute on the question how a communist party should be,  what principles it must follow. There were then quite a few organisations or attempts of such, who claimed to be acting according to Marxist-Leninist principles. And within these organisations there were mighty disputes on how it was right and how it could be put into action and on how the mass line, the relation between praxis and theory must be.  In this situation Hartmut wrote his first, larger work, which was published then under the title “Die linkssektiererische Linie in der KPD/ML” [The left sectarian line of the KPD/ML=communist party of Germany/Marxists Leninists], at the end of September 1970.

On the 1st October, 1970 there was an attempted murder of Hartmut Dicke by a police man.[7]  A police man waylaid him after a meeting in Neukölln in the evening, when Hartmut was looking for his briefcase he thought he had forgotten there, and threatened him with his pistol. As it was already dark and there was nobody else in the street, who might have helped him, he gave in to the pressure of the police man first, who urged him towards a dark corner. Then as this man directed his pistol towards him and fired a shot, in the last moment Hartmut could prevent the shot from hitting him by a movement of the hand.

This incident, actually an outrageous matter, Hartmut was then still a student of mathematics and physics at the FU Berlin, yet politically extremely active and very famous. Of course, this occurrence was made known to the public, unfortunately his name was not mentioned then, allegedly because of safety reasons, yet, which was not logic, in that situation. Hartmut went to an attorney afterwards – Otto Schily (known for his defence of left or those calling themselves left persecutees by the German state) – in order to go to court for this obviously attempted murder, but this attorney rejected his defence on pretexts.

What were the essentials of this writing? It was the critique on the bourgeois line, which precisely consists of admitting a divergence between word and action, while the proletarian line as it was developed by comrade Hartmut, naturally in connection with others, consists of the demand that the organisation has to start immediately with the direct revolutionary mass work and at the same time has to develop theory further and not as several other forces (e.g. Roter Morgen) took the position that one has to develop theory first and not before that one could start with practical agitation and organisation.

The attack on our First May Demonstration in 1972 and the dead silence of the pseudo Marxists

From the part of the KJVD Neue Einheit [=Communist Youth Association of Germany], that being the part of the KPD/ML that named itself Neue Einheit, followed then an untiring and vivid agitation in and in front of companies/factories, by means of a newspaper founded then called Revolutionäre Stimme [=Revolutionary Voice]. This had considerable effects and in contrast to what the reactionaries had hoped for stimulated discussion also among colleagues a lot.
This development intensified in the course of the year 1971 until the spring of 1972, when because of the isolation tactics of certain other, so-called Marxist-Leninist organisations like the KPD/ML (Roter Morgen), the so-called KPD/AO [=outside of parliament] (created mainly by a certain academic mob of the upper stages of bourgeoisie as some kind of “counterweight”) and others and after attempts of us to achieve a joint way of action with the others had failed, it became inevitable to start off with an own demonstration on the 1st May. And what happened? This demonstration was the (only!) one to be raided by police and attacked heavily. However, they had obviously not calculated the following: the massive resistance by the demonstrators, who defended themselves vehemently against the attacks.

What was strange already back then, was that none of the other organisations having a Marxist-Leninist objective or appearing as such mentioned the attack at our organisation at the demonstration of 1st May with any syllable afterwards, that no word was heard at all, although on that 1st May, 1972, it was strangely the only demonstration that produced such a quarrel with the police.

The politics of our organisation developed further considerably under the direction of comrade Hartmut Dicke (Klaus Sender) during the course of the decades, always in argument with the bourgeoisie and their helping assets, the revisionists, on international as well as on national level.

As cornerstones should be mentioned among others the Große Maiaufruf (=Great May Appeal) of 1972, the writing of 1973 “Die internationale Lage, Europa und die Stellung der marxistisch-leninistischen Parteien” (=The international situation, Europe and the position of the Marxist-Leninist parties), a valuable political guideline also in consideration of the possibility of exploiting the contradictions among the imperialists by the communists of all countries the related possibility of bringing the whole movement to success, also under temporary adverse conditions of a declining class basis within individual countries.  The exposure of the anti atomic energy generation demagogy and the economic analysis of the warping, of the decline of industry and the production shifting, which had been developed by Hartmut Dicke are also a factor leading to unrest among the reactionary circles of the “old bourgeoisie” as well as, temporarily even dominating, among the revisionists and pseudo leftists and still does. The proceeding development of Marxist theory especially by such articles as “Leninismus und Zivilisation” (=Leninism and civilisation) and many other writings as well as cultural-historical investigations as “Über die Herkunft des Judentums” (“About the Origin of Judaism”) play a significant role here, too.

The entire role of the revisionists in their chain link to the bourgeois reactionary state apparatus as well as with the ultra-right elements and hegemonism plays a role in all the critique, espeically their perfidious betraying and their holding down of any possibilities of development for the broad masses, at times even bourgeois possibilities of development if conditioned by the initial constellation.
What characterises all of Hartmut's writings is the concrete analysis of the concrete situation, that mostly does without any general formulas or paroles as very often occur with pseudo Marxist publications, but works out the situation out of the relevant material conditions, naturally supported by the theoretical and practical knowledge of Marxism and Leninism and the lectures of Mao Zedong. However, there is, of course, an internal connection between the writings like “Großer Maiaufruf” (1972), “Die internationale Lage” (1973), the “Notizen zum Sozialimperialismus” (=Notes on Social Imperialism) (1975) etc. and later writings and especially his last writing “Die Doppellage...”(“The Double Situation at the End of the First World War”). (This would have to be discussed in another chapter). There exists a direct, natural context, some kind of “curve” from his early writings to todays like “The Double Situation...” and others. Analysing this more concretely and in detail will have to be reserved for further expositions.

(Today's) Reaction of the pseudo Marxists - as it were !    

Concerning the reaction of the revisionist so-called leftists here on the death of Hartmut Dicke, it was basically zero apart from a few exceptions. This is the continuation of the death silence that has taken place before, like in the May of '72, and that has survived more or less for many years. This is also a statement about these forces. Yet, what has been there were “incognito” insults or rather sullying on some dirty WebPages, a hideous insulting roaming, below the belt, by people some of whom bore the name of known leading functionaries of the so-called MLPD or these possibly even presented that themselves. We do not know that. The reader will be spared the details of that dirt.

However, the following fact might be of interest in connection with these “incognito” insults: only at the end of May 2008 our organisation or one comrade took the effort of a report to the police because of slander and disparaging of a dead person against the relevant Wolfgang Göller. Apart from having taken four months before finally an official reply by the police came, which forwarded the matter to the court in the end, it was only then that we were told by the responsible judge that a political report was possible only to be made by a relative in such a case. Yet, it should be mentioned in this context that a certain Wolfgang Göller, federal secretary of the MLPD – at least he was at that time when two days after Hartmut Dicke's death the dirty insults appeared on the internet, suddenly, shortly after our police report, vanished from the row of the “known MLPD members” on the main page of this organisation. There was a gaping vacuum. Just a coincidence as well? Or simply embarrassing?

The events described above (of the time 1970 to 72) now date back to 30 years ago and one asks oneself: What is still so highly explosive  that it could come to such an aggravation like at the end of 2007, beginning 2008 that it finally ended in the ultimate elimination of comrade Hartmut Dicke?



What is shown here is crucial. Once Hartmut expressed it like this:

“What is class struggle? It is a lethal threat.”

This means that those who take up class struggle have to calculate that the question of violence is posed by bourgeoisie and that there can be losses and will be. Revisionists always try to water down things, always to make it appear not that dramatic as if you would just imagine the severity of class struggle etc.pp. This is alienated from reality all together. It is just like it has presented itself here as well as multiplically in the past and it can be no different to that. You have to be prepared for such a possibility and consider it in all its consequences. And surely this immensely painful experience will contribute to that. 

Written in the summer/autumn of 2008, April/May 2009
by Maria Weiss

Members of the permanent board of Group New Unity (Gruppe Neue Einheit)

[translation from the German original]       



[1]  You could see, e.g. at the beginning of this year, how the Israelian Zionists conducted things in Gaza. This is actually very characteristic for a certain method of the reaction. You do not go for  immediate elimination of the political opponent only, but  damages also his entire environment  (family, co-fighters, friends etc.) with it and liquidate in the extreme case, so that a continuation of the fight is made difficult. This is because if the fight has to develop completely from the start, you have won time again – they believe.

[2]  On the 12/02/1976 the daily newspaper “Die Welt” wrote under the title: “Interception Ray of the KGB makes Americans ill in Moscow”  by Werner Karl the following:

“Upon the invasion of overdosed microwaves into the skin the tissue heats and the heat formation can affect the blood vessels detrimentally. If a laser beam hits a certain point in the brain, a light flash occurs.”

An on the 24/07/76 it says in the same newspaper:

“....the effect of two guided beams was eliminated to 90 percent by the recent installation of aluminium blinds.” (!)

A day later in “Die Welt” of the 28/04/76 it could be read:

“The news about the illnesses of the US ambassador in Moscow, the 50 years old John Stoessel, are contradictory. Radiation experts had already in the spring of 1975 detected strong radiation in the upper floors of the nine floor embassy in Tschaykowsky Street. Ambassador Stoessel then: 'Suddenly I would not get rid of the feeling that something was in the air.'  The state department lifted the veil of secrecy a bit: ' Sometimes it is two pencils of rays at once. However, only on weekdays. The intensity increased steadily from November 1975 until February of this year.' Today you know: Microwaves are electromagnetic waves with wave lengths between a meter and a millimetres. They are shorter than  radio waves, with which broadcasts reach us, and they are longer than infra-red radiation, which emerges as heat radiation from hot bodies. They are applied mainly in radar and directional radio technics. They can be focused well and are excellently applicable  for fixing/plotting purposes. Directed at the window panes of distant buildings they can test the acoustic vibrations and take this information in the reflected beam back to the sender. In this way conversation in the radiated building can be intercepted. Experts are not in agreement about the health implications of microwaves. Yet, it is manifest that microwaves do not like ultra-violet, x- or gamma rays have 'ionising', that means directly damaging effects on organic molecules. It is just as certain that microwaves of appropriate wavelength and intensity can  excite water molecules in organic cell associations  to heat vibrations strong enough, so that it is not advisable to put your hand into a microwave oven. The encountering of a pencil microwave ray in the direct neighbourhood of a very strong radar caster can even end deathly...install metal blinds at their windows, which reflect radar...Final clarity if soviet rays can incite skin reactions or even cancer...”     (Quoted from my hand-written copies of that time.M.W.)

Of course, such news were paid attention to by us back then. Not only that they delivered an important practical clue on how to protect oneself against it, but also considering that it showed the interception methods, which then were not massively applied at leftists only, having an additional “side effect”, namely not only observing the political opponent, but also at the same time trying actively to keep him in check by damage of health.

[3]  “Apart from that there were permanent attempts at damaging the party materially or even the party's leadership, especially the chairman Klaus Sender, by permanently taking away the possibilities of working and e.g. making the flats unusable by most perfidious and criminal methods.”      Neue Einheit Nr 1/77/78, page 11

[4]  Lumbal punction (?) is a method for the release of brain water (liquor) out of the spinal cord of the lumbar vertebra area/loin area.

[5]  Alice is a German telephone and internet company that has taken over the German AOL (translator's remark)

[6]  To what extent the death of Hartmut Dicke has helped certain forces within the state and law apparatus as well as the above mentioned association of flat owners out of their tight spot objectively for some time is made clear especially by the way the district court (Berlin) of second instance has justified its denial of his sue relating to the heating bill in December 2008. The newly installed judge has performed a turn of 180 degree and declared that a “flat owner can do what he wants in his flat”, heat it or leave it cold, this is basically his own business.  And above it a possible manipulation cannot be manifestated any way after such a long time (since 2005) as the measuring tubes of that time were not accessible any more and thus cannot be examined! Then why was the expert called any way and even 1200 Euro charged from the plaintiff Hartmut Dicke by the former judge? Why was the heating behaviour in the relevant flats checked or was to be checked? If now the court annuls the own conditions of the judicial investigation? This would actually have to be checked in a procedure of judicial proceedings.

[7]  Publication of the KJVD on the attempt of murder:

“Attempt of Murder at member of the Communist Youth Association

In the late evening hours of 2nd October, 1970 in the Niemetzstr.of Neukölln an attempt of murder at a member of the KJVD has taken place.
The following, unbelievable event has taken place:
A member of the West Berlin police in plain clothes suddenly stepped out of a house entrance and addressed the comrade, who after a KJVD gathering was looking for his lost briefcase in front of the house. He accused him of being a bank robber and ordered him to come with him – allegedly to the police. The KJVD member demanded his identity disc. Instead of showing it the police man suddenly drew a loaded pistol and directed it at him. Then he forced him to go into the direction of a dark, deserted place. In order to divert the danger from him, the comrade had the presence of mind to turn the gun away from him. It came to a fierce wrestling where the attacker squeezed in the eye of the comrade and prevented him from screaming for help. Finally the police man shot at him. Yet, fortunately the shot missed its target.
Meanwhile, people of the surrounding houses had run up in reaction to the screaming for help. The officer was impudent enough to even accuse the unarmed of being the attacker. He forced to him to stand before a house wall with raised hands and threatened again to shoot him. In presence of the alarmed police unit he acted as a hero and had the KJVD member taken away.
At the police station the interrogating officer denied to take protocol of the statements. Although our comrade was severely injured at the eye, he was denied doctoral aid. As his absolute innocence became obvious, the officer advised him to rather forget the case and to do without a report to the police. He remarked that nothing further had happened.
The totally unfounded accusation of being a bank robber served just as an excuse to the police man incited by parts of the senate, Neubauer's police leadership and the press to shoot at the KJVD member.
We as communists – and this was not kept away from the senate either – have always been against attacks from anarchist groups. We condemn every attack of recent times and dissociate ourselves clearly from anarchist groups interspersed with criminals and agents. The rulers have always put the blame for such attacks on the communists. The reactionaries of West Berlin increasingly extend their smear campaign against the progressive and revolutionary forces among the West Berlin population. They have already won parts of the police, especially of the section I (Political Police) for fascism. The facts speak for themselves:
A few months ago during an anti-imperialistic demonstration several persons have been severely injured by shots of an officer of section I, at the attack on the arts academy students and docents were threatened with raised pistol and a member of the KJVD was shot at.

These cowardous attempts of murder have to raise the determined protest of all democratic forces!
That is why we demand the immediate dismissal of the officer Dietrich Ebert and jointly responsibles in the police!

Communist Youth Association of Germany
contacts: 1 Berlin 120, Postlagerkarte A 051 356”     
(facsimile of the German original)

An additional epilogue on that:

“On our flyer (see middle pages):

Meanwhile it has been found out that the shooter Ebert also was the finder of the briefcase and thus knew its contents, which let a communist be assumed. Then he was laying in wait in his flat located directly at the scene of events and waited for the return of our comrade. And he actually came some time later...
That it was one of our comrades nearly having been torn away from our side is probably rooted in the extreme advancing of a single officer. Because the ruling class does not yet dare to murder us down one by the other, e.g. as happens with the Black Panthers in the USA. Yet, this should not divert us in any case from the fact that bourgeoisie arms itself for it and prepares the public to knock down, as soon as possible the working movement growing stronger and their avant-garde, the Communist Party, massively and brutally.
Therefore all democratic forces have to support the progressive force of society, the Communist Party, in its fight against the terror measures of bourgeoisie and for the maintenance and extension of the democratic rights.

Neue Einheit
Organ of the KJVD/Wb. (Neue Einheit) Nr 3 06/11/1970
address of editorial office: 1 Berlin 120, Postlagerkarte A 051 356”
    (facsimile of the German original)