I know who should play him in the made for TV movie
acquascutum
Feb 2 2004, 11:28 am
just proves crime pays.
who would would eat someone, sit in a cell for 4 years and then sell the story for a fortune? worth thinking about...look at it as 4 years work and then off to the sunshine never to work again. must beat a 9-5 for 30 odd years.
Showem
Feb 6 2004, 12:36 pm
QUOTE
BERLIN (Reuters) - The German cannibal convicted of manslaughter last week for killing and eating a willing victim has received several inquiries from film companies about making a movie of the sensational case, his lawyer said on Wednesday.
But the lawyer dismissed reports British actor Hugh Grant, famous for his romantic comedies, had expressed an interest in buying the film rights and playing the lead role. Grant's spokeswoman, Karin Smith, called the reports "absolute rubbish."
The cannibal, 42-year-old computer repair man Armin Meiwes, filmed the fetish-induced killing on video tape and the gory details of the case have caused shock and fascination worldwide.
"We've had inquiries from Germany and the rest of Europe," said Harald Ermel, who defended Meiwes in the two-month trial in Kassel, central Germany. He did not name any film companies.
"There is also interest from media wanting interviews and from book publishers," said Ermel, adding that Meiwes was likely to require a ghost writer for the memoirs he plans to write.
Ermel rejected media reports in Britain and Germany that Grant, who looks nothing like the stark-featured Meiwes, was trying to secure the film rights.
"There has been no contact on this between Hugh Grant and Herr Meiwes or his defense... This is evidently an erroneous report," Ermel said.
Meiwes was sentenced to eight and a half years in prison last Friday but could be out in less than five years if he gets parole for good behavior.
Meiwes is popular with fellow inmates because he helps them write letters, Ermel has said.
I find that last line intriguing somehow.
profundo
Feb 7 2004, 11:31 am
Since people profit from the sensational stories their crimes create, didn't the US ban all profit making from selling of books, movie scripts/rights or stories by anyone behind bars (or something like that?) Not that this is the US or that this man won't be out on his own recognisance in a few years.
Keydeck
Feb 19 2004, 10:11 am
So it's not just the Germans...
QUOTE
A CANNIBAL has been caught by cops as he cooked his victim’s brain in a pan on the hob.
Horrified officers found the dismembered body of the dead man after they were called to a flat in East London.
Blood was splattered on the walls and floor — and the maniac was frying the brain in the kitchen.
The sickening discovery came after neighbours made frantic 999 calls about a “terrible attack”.
The body, believed to be that of the 45-year-old bachelor tenant of the flat, had suffered multiple injuries including dismemberment.
One police officer leaving the scene on Tuesday evening was reported to have told a neighbour: “It’s horrible. It’s terrible in there.”
A man was arrested at the flat in Walthamstow, East London.
Two women — aged 29 and 19 — were held in nearby Chingford but were both later freed.
Last night it was revealed that the murder suspect had been released hours earlier from a mental home. The victim, named by neighbours as Brian Cherry, is also believed to have received psychiatric treatment.
One neighbour said: “His mother died a few weeks ago. Brian didn’t work. He lived on his own.”
A number of weapons, believed to include knives, were seized at the scene and sent to forensic labs for examination.
A senior police source said: “One real possibility is that the body was being cut up and prepared for a meal.
“The brain was being fried in a pan on the hob when officers raided the flat. There are aspects of the Mental Health Act which are being addressed. Cannibalism is a motive that cannot be overlooked at this time.”
The crime has chilling echoes of the Hollywood movie Hannibal in which cannibal Hannibal Lecter, left, played by Anthony Hopkins, fried his victim’s brain.
It also comes after computer technician Armin Meiwes, 42, was jailed for 8½ years after he ate a man he befriended over the internet in Germany.
A 34-YEAR-OLD man was last night charged with murder and will appear before Waltham Forest Magistrates today.
parnell
Feb 19 2004, 2:33 pm
Keydeck , I cant find a link for that story , can u post a source please ?
The NHS launched an inquiry today after a psychiatric patient released from hospital was found in a flat in which a man had been hacked to death.
East London and the City mental health trust is looking into how the patient came to be discharged.
The victim was a man in his forties also believed to be a former psychiatric patient. Police said he had suffered "multiple injuries, including some dismemberment". One leg had been hacked from his body and his head cracked open with a blunt instrument.
parnell
Feb 19 2004, 4:28 pm
unreal stuff guys , thanks for that
Keydeck
Feb 20 2004, 12:16 pm
From Ananova.
QUOTE
Channel 4 says there will be no shots of pretend penises in a documentary about a German cannibal killer who fried his victim's member in garlic before eating it.
Bodyshock: The Man Who Ate His Lover, to be shown on March 1, will show how Armin Meiwes, who was jailed for eight years in January, killed Bernd Brandes and ate 20kg of his flesh over the next two years.
A Channel 4 spokesman told TV Plus: "The programme will not be graphic, there are no shots of pretend penises being cut off or anything like that."
It tells the story of how Meiwes, 42, contacted fellow German Brandes on the web. They met to indulge in extreme erotic cannibalistic fantasies which led to Brandes's death after his penis was severed, cooked and eaten.
The spokesman said: "It's a very intelligent look at the story with interviews with friends and neighbours of the men and psychologists."
Channel 4 is unlikely to screen a warning before the programme, reports TV Plus.
The spokesman said: "I don't think a warning will be required as there's nothing graphic in the film."
spud, you really have a lot of time on your hands!
acquascutum
Mar 4 2004, 1:57 pm
QUOTE
Bodyshock: The Man Who Ate His Lover
wasn't bad. quite interesting. one down side to the documentary was when they showed footage of the house i think they used the cameras from the blair witch project. overdone for effect. scariest part of the show was when they showed a video of his mum. scary lady indeed.
parnell
Mar 4 2004, 10:48 pm
QUOTE (acquascutum @ Mar 4 2004, 01:57 PM)
scary lady indeed.
Like are you surprised , wasnt she supposed to have fucked him up in the first place ?
A cannibal who killed his lover before eating some of his organs and giving others to his cats has been jailed for 13 years.
The killer, identified only as Ralf M, met his partner through a gay website and agreed to satisfy their lust for sadomasochism, heard a court in Berlin, Germany.
QUOTE
In his online advert, he said he was looking for a "svelte man, around 30, for a holiday roast dinner".
FRANKFURT, Germany (Reuters) -- A German cannibal who killed a man who wanted to be eaten told a court on Monday that he had only been carrying out his victim's wishes and had not expressly sought to kill him.
"I wanted to eat him, but I didn't want to kill him," Armin Meiwes, 44, told judges in three hours of testimony at his retrial.
Meiwes was sentenced in January 2004 to 8-1/2 years for manslaughter, but the Supreme Court ruled last April that the judges had been too lenient and ordered a retrial.
crusoe
Jan 18 2006, 5:34 pm
Noticed a tiny paragraph in the AZ today about Meiwes - he stated in court that he didn't know butchering (in the literal sense) a human being was a criminal offence, and when asked why he didn't eat specific body parts, he replied that he was revolted by some and afraid of getting diseases.
Trying to discourage my ghoulish alter ego from googling to find out which body parts he *didn't* eat...
mothbola
Mar 3 2006, 1:37 pm
The film based on this case has been banned in Germany.
A state court in Kassel has ruled that "Meiwes' rights as an individual outweighed artistic freedom and that he should not become the object of a horror film."
A verdict is expected in the retrial of a German man who killed and ate an apparently willing victim. Not only did he kill and eat Mr Brandes, a 43-year-old engineer, but he did it apparently with his victim's permission. Mr Brandes had agreed to the idea after making contact with his killer on an internet chatroom
Mmmm anyone for Cock-a-Leekie Soup
or can you think of a different recipe?
Maybe this should be in the cooking section.
EDIT: btw to any cannibals out there this is a joke, please don’t eat me
Topics merged by admin
Uncle Nick
May 9 2006, 8:50 am
Aw, and I was just thinking of a recipe for Boy From Bozlem stew!
Cuz the one willing to be killed was not of 'sound mind' ie was a looper. so it's moyder cuz legally he did not consent!
Eleanor Rigby
May 9 2006, 3:10 pm
Ah ok, I didn't see that they determined he wasn't sound of mind.
the Boy From Bozlem
May 9 2006, 3:16 pm
"sure, i dont mind if you can kill me and eat me, what a great idea"
hard to argue that he was of sound mind really.
anyone for fish-fingers?
home made i just need some breadcrumbs.
Eleanor Rigby
May 9 2006, 3:18 pm
QUOTE (the Boy From Bozlem @ May 9 2006, 4:16 pm)
"sure, i dont mind if you can kill me and eat me, what a great idea"
hard to argue that he was of sound mind really.
If it was that easy to determine that someone isn't of sound mind than the cannibal could just as easily gotten off with an insanity plea, couldn't he?
the Boy From Bozlem
May 9 2006, 3:22 pm
i guess so.
Anyone for balmongeblamoblam strawberry Angel Delight?
Rebecca
May 9 2006, 5:01 pm
I always thought the manslaughter verdict was a bit odd as Meiwes knew exactly what he was doing.
Ami in Berlin
May 10 2006, 10:44 am
I don't understand the press trying to make this into a complicated decision. It really couldn't be easier.
Legal Argument: So the man consented. So what, I don't have the right to consent to being killed in such a case. Under narrow circumstances can I consent to being killed if am terminally ill and the it is to a doctor or if I am a mortally wounded soldier on the battlefield. If I hand you a gun and ask you to shoot me, my consent is not valid and you are still guilty of murder.
Moral Arrgument: In order to give consent, as has already been stated here, you must be of sound mind. This is the restriction put on both euthenasia for the terminally ill and the writing of a 'living will' in case one becomes incapasitated. It's not a difficult argument to make that someone who consents to being eaten cannot be of sound mind, and cannot therefore morally consent. By the same token, I cannot drug a woman to get her to consent to sleeping with me. That is still rape. If you morally aquit the canibal, you open the door for anyone who is strong willed to eat anyone who is of weaker mental status. Instead of eating the poor, as Swift would have it, we could eat the retarded, instead.
This case could not have been more simple. The original decision was a disgrace, and this man should never again see the light of day.
Eleanor Rigby
May 10 2006, 10:51 am
What I still haven't seen and perhaps only because I haven't read the case fully is how they determined that the victim was not of sound mind?
Having strange ideas or desires is not enough to make such a determination. If it was then as I stated previously both parties could be ruled as not of sound mind.
Ami in Berlin
May 10 2006, 12:04 pm
Legally, the point is irrelevent because the man did not have the right to consent in the first place.
Morally, is the burden on the state to demonstrate that the eaten was not of sound mind, or is the burden on the cannibal and/or the eaten to prove that he was of sound mind? I'd argue the latter. In what way is the cannibal qualified to asess his victim's mental capacity? Is the cannibal not biased in his decision? The only way this moral argument can be made is if the eaten had been asessed by an independant third party and ajudged to be of sound mind. As far as I know, he was not.
Rebecca
May 10 2006, 12:22 pm
As far as I can see it was murder because it was premeditated and the perpetrator knew and understood what he was doing.
The victim's state of mind and consent is irrelevant. The perpetrator's state of mind is relevant, and if it were proved that he didn't fully understand his actions then his responsibility for them would be diminshed.
brokenm
May 10 2006, 1:00 pm
QUOTE (Eleanor Rigby @ May 10 2006, 11:51 am)
What I still haven't seen and perhaps only because I haven't read the case fully is how they determined that the victim was not of sound mind?
Having strange ideas or desires is not enough to make such a determination. If it was then as I stated previously both parties could be ruled as not of sound mind.
ER, anyone who chooses to have their penis chopped off and eats it with the person who chopped it off and also wants to be killed in eaten is not of sound mind. There is no exception. In addition he not only had ideas and desires, but he went through with them. But you cannot justify that he was of sound mind in any sense of the meaning.
Eleanor Rigby
May 10 2006, 1:07 pm
You can't make a diagnosis like that based on that information alone. We don't know what his motivation was. Maybe he was suicidal and just didn't have the guts to do it himself or didn't want to risk eternal damnation.
brokenm
May 10 2006, 1:11 pm
It doesn't matter what his motivation is. And yes you can make an assumption based on the information available. He did this willingly and participated in this. He was not of a sound mind. Give me an example where there can be any justification for his action with a sane person.
Eleanor Rigby
May 10 2006, 1:13 pm
Maybe he had a beneficiary that would have benefitted financially from the action. Maybe he was coerced or threatened by the other party involved.
I'm not saying that he was sound of mind or even that it's likely that he was sound of mind, I just can't see that based on this information alone you can make such a diagnosis.
katz
May 10 2006, 2:59 pm
He now has to spend the rest of his life in prison, so if he ate one fellow prisoner every month ,the prisons would empty and they would save a lot of money!
brokenm
May 10 2006, 3:24 pm
ER, I understand your point for most crimes and the sometimes willing partcipants can be a bit coerced into the position. But in this case, it is as clear cut as it gets that the person was not of sound mind, in fact Miewes himself stated that it was a bit off in flavour.
Armin Meiwes, known as the "Kannibale von Rotenburg," has joined an environmental group (run by the Green Party) in jail. The Green Party denies that he's a proper member, though. The Hessen CDU is outraged (surprise, surprise).
According to The Register the film Rohtenburg, has been banned in Germany as the courts decided it was clearly about Meiwes and apparantly infringes his personality rights.