Young man behind the bars

How the German legal system failed Horst Arnold

Editor’s note: This article is also available in Romanian.

Imagine you are accused of a terrible crime against a woman you didn’t commit. One of your co-workers claims you raped her. And not just any rape, but a brutal anal rape that left her bleeding from her rectum. You are arrested by the police and questioned. You are put on trial where your accuser produces not a single shred of evidence. Rape kit? DNA evidence? Examination of physical injuries? No, none of that. Not even any bloodstains on the supposed victim’s clothing. She claims she burned her bloody underwear because she was so ashamed of what had happened. The trial doesn’t last long. It’s your word against hers. She’s seems like a charming woman who could never make up a horrible story like that. The judge believes her.

You are sentenced to five years in prison. Most people don’t have to serve their entire sentence. They are released earlier for good behaviour. But a requirement for that is to show remorse for what you did. You don’t feel remorse. You aren’t guilty and you cannot regret what you didn’t do. You could fake a confession to get out earlier, but you know you are not a rapist. You insist on your innocence. After the full five years, you are finally released. But much more than just five years of your life have been stolen from you. You’ve lost your partner, your friends, your job. Only your family still believes in you. You send out hundreds of applications for new jobs, but no one is willing to hire a convicted rapist. You’re in your late forties and you have two children of your own, but you have to move back in with your parents. The world has betrayed you and you become depressed.

The first timid ray of light comes when a lawyer offers to take up your case pro bono. He discovers that your accuser has a long history of outrageous lying and he gets the case to be retried. You are finally declared innocent, but the damage has already been done. You try to get your old job back, but you are delayed by bureaucratic hurdles. No one is willing to make an exception for you, despite everything you went through. They haven’t even started paying you the reparations you are owed for your wrongful imprisonment. A year later, you suffer a heart-attack and die at age 53.


This is the story of Horst Arnold’s life. He was a school teacher until his life was ruined by his co-worker Heidi Külzer. He went to jail from 2001 to 2006 and was finally exonerated in July of 2011. He died on June 29th 2012. He didn’t live to see his false accuser get sentenced to five years and six months in jail. The only piece of good news in this tragedy is that for once, a false accuser got the punishment she deserved instead of merely a slap on the wrist as happens all too often.

But this doesn’t help Horst Arnold, nor would it help him if he were still alive. Revenge is a poor substitute for justice and the injustice that was committed against Mr Arnold can never be righted. The closest we could have come is monetary compensation. Since Mr Arnold is dead, the next best thing would be for the compensation to go to his children.

To this end, Arnold’s daughter sued Külzer. The regional court in Darmstadt found Külzer guilty and awarded €80,000 in damages.[1] However, Külzer appealed the verdict and Arnold’s daughter has now dropped the case.[2] Her exact reasons are unclear. A plausible explanation is that she does not believe it likely that Külzer will actually be able to pay. In that case, the daughter would have to pay the legal fees out of her own pocket without getting anything in return. Heidi Külzer on the other hand doesn’t have to pay any legal fees. Her lawyer is provided at taxpayer expense, so she doesn’t mind dragging out this legal battle for as long as possible.

This is a central flaw in the German legal system, as in most modern legal systems. Because there are so many laws and navigating the system is so complicated, law suits frequently get dragged out for years and cost obscene amounts of money. As a result, all too often justice is something only the wealthy can afford—or those who are supported by the state and can off-load their legal costs onto the unwilling shoulders of taxpayers. For an ordinary person like Horst Arnold’s daughter, justice is out of reach.

But this flaw pales compared to what happened in the original rape case. In all the justified outrage over Heidi Külzer, it is easy to forget the other villains in this piece: the prosecutors, and most importantly Dr Christoph Trapp, the judge responsible for the case.[3] Without their gross incompetence, laziness, or malice, Arnold would never have been convicted. There are always going to be insane psychopaths like Heidi Külzer who try to ruin an innocent man’s life for no good reason. It is the duty of the legal system to stop this from happening. It failed to live up to this responsibility in spectacular fashion.

From the start, Külzer’s story should have given anyone pause. [4] She claims that the rape took place during recess in a well-lit biology classroom with open windows. Anyone passing by could have seen the supposed crime happen, anyone could have come into the room. Supposedly, Arnold pressed up behind her, held her mouth closed with his left hand and used the right hand to take off his trousers and pull aside her skirt and then anally raped her while she lay across a counter. This course of events is quite implausible. According to Horst Plefka, detective chief superintendent in charge of the case, anal rapes are rare and when they do happen, the victims are defenceless, tied down, or drugged. Immediately following this supposed traumatic event, Külzer taught a class without showing any signs of distress or injury.

Detective Plefka searched long and hard for evidence to corroborate Külzer’s story. He found none. All he found were contradictions in Külzer’s account. For example, she claimed that Horst Arnold threatened her days after the rape had allegedly occurred—at a time when Arnold was already in custody. Research into Külzer’s background would have revealed her to be a compulsive liar. She invented the most far-fetched stories. A few years earlier, she had told her then-husband that she had a fatal illness and would die soon. She claimed that her co-workers at one school had tried to poison her. Her marriages never lasted long and she never stayed long at a school. Eventually people always began to sniff out her bullshit, and then it was time for her to move on. But the police didn’t research her background. It would have been rude and improper to impose that on a “victim” of rape. Still, Detective Plefka had grave doubts about Külzer’s story. However, he was not allowed to appear in court to testify in favour of Arnold.

In the absence of evidence, the persecution rested entirely on character and prejudice. Horst Arnold was a big man with a loud and boisterous attitude. He was known to have a drinking problem. He was the sort of person who one could plausibly think of as a rapist. Heidi Külzer appeared to be charming and innocent: the perfect victim. She didn’t look like someone who would invent an outrageous story like this. And if her account of events occasionally contradicted itself, this was only seen as a normal reaction to the trauma she had undergone. After all, as feminists like to remind us, women don’t lie about rape.

Christoph Trapp presided over this travesty.[5] He decided that Horst Arnold was guilty, based on nothing but the alleged victim’s incoherent account and his own worthless intuition. In his unbridled arrogance, Trapp even now claims that he acted rightly and made no mistake in sentencing Arnold to five years in jail. “Our judgement back then had been carefully reviewed.” When there is any reasonable doubt, a criminal court is supposed to rule in favour of the accused. Trapp must have forgot this elementary principle.

Judges are only human and they do make mistakes. That is to be expected. But this is more than a simple mistake. Christoph Trapp ruined an innocent man’s life, based on nothing more than a hunch. For this crime, he will never have to spend a single day jail. Nor will he have to pay any damages. Horst Arnold’s daughter should have also sued Trapp, though of course she didn’t. That would be a hopeless prospect. Trapp is part of the legal system and protected by it. He won’t even lose his job over this.

This is the real tragedy in all this. Because Horst Arnold’s case is unique only in how much media attention it received. For every Horst Arnold, who knows how many innocent people are in jail who are never exonerated? Many of them are men falsely convicted of rape. Rape is the most problematic crime in this respect because it is very difficult to prove. The only difference between regular sex and rape is consent. Even rough sex leading to injuries may have been consensual. Compare that to a crime like murder: “He wanted me to stab him in the gut!” is not a very convincing defence. Moreover, due to the private nature of sex, there usually aren’t any witnesses or recordings. This makes it much more difficult to prove rape in court. Given the usual standard of in dubio pro reo (“when in doubt, for the accused”), many rapists would get off scot-free. Under the influence of feminist lobbyists, this principle has been undermined for rape cases and many judges are now willing to convict based on less conclusive evidence—or as in the present case, based on just a hunch. And while it is good that this has led to more rapists being convicted, the unacceptable side-effect is that many innocent men have been caught in the crossfire.

When offered to have their sentence reduced by one third for “admitting” their guilt and showing remorse, how many innocent people lie? Once an innocent man has taken that road, he will forever be marked guilty. And even for those who stick to their guns and refuse this offer, the hurdles to get an old case re-opened are high. Most cases are not nearly as clear-cut as Arnold’s. And in those rare cases where a false verdict is overturned, the judge responsible still has to suffer no consequences. This is a system that cannot possibly work. It is guaranteed to lead to abuse. Holding judges personally responsible for such glaring errors would not eliminate the problem altogether, but would at least ameliorate it. Judges would have to be more careful before throwing a man in jail.

Unfortunately, this is wishful thinking. In the foreseeable future, there is no chance to get any sort of legal accountability for judges. The best we can hope for is harsher punishments for false accusers. In this case, Heidi Külzer was convicted to a prison sentence because her false testimony lead to Arnold’s imprisonment. If her story had been discovered from the start to be a lie, most likely she would have gotten off with just a warning or a slap on the wrist. This needs to change. If we want to stop cases like Horst Arnold’s in the future, we need to start treating false accusations as the serious crimes they are.








About Jon Gunnarsson

Jon Gunnarsson is a student and writer living in Germany. Because he's fed up with the lies and propaganda of feminists, politicians, the politically correct media and other enemies of truth, he wants to make his own contribution to FTSU.

View All Posts
  • Duke

    Yes I know what its like to be falsely accused of a rape that simply never happened, that’s what brought me to the Mens rights movement.
    Fortunately for me, she just could not keep her lies straight, even after being coached by the ladies at the women rape crisis center.
    After uncovering concrete proof that she was lying, I demanded my false rape accuser be charged, but instead law enforcement basically threatened me, that if i did not just go away, that they would prosecute of me.
    Well folks…Im not just going to…. “Go away”.

    • Duke

      Another perversity concerning my false rape accuser, I found out that i was the second guy she falsely accused that year of rape, and the pervert pork bloaters still refused to charge her.
      Am i angry, Sure…Am i doing something constructive with my anger…Sure, Im passing out thousands of handouts with mens rights activist web sites on them in my college town.

      • Duke

        I could have just walked away after the false rape case against me fell apart, and rebuilt my life like a fucking coward, running from the world for the rest of my cowardly shamefull life .
        .but then i think about all the innocent guys like this who are living a living hell, in prison on a false rape accusation.
        Statistically, Most guys even after being cleared of a false rape accusation live the life of a fucking coward, and that why the perversions and manufactured statistics Alliances in American law enforcement maintain there tower of babylon,

        • Robert St. Estephe

          You are not a community-oriented person, obviously. Community-oriented persons are ashamed not to fit in; they are controlled by peer pressure, and they know how to quietly march into the gas chamber at the social justice concentration camp.


          A reply to Duke’s reply my words directly above: —

          I use the term “social justice” because it means group justice (and group guilt). It is assiciated with the socialist collectivist philosophy of justice that denies individual merit and individual guilt. The idea of social justice is what stood behing the mass murders of people with “bourgeois” values in Communist China, people who were educated (spoke French, wore glasses) in Khymer Rouge Communist Cambodia and the Kulaks in Soviet Russia (and anybody else falsely denounced as being a “kulak).” There are different conceptions of justice. Due process is based in indivudual justice. Denouncing people who work hard or who have high creative and intellectual abilities as possessing “unearned privilege” is consistent with social justice.

          I am adamantly opposed to social justice. I adhere to a conception of a objective, common law, natural law, notion of individual justice for each and every separate person, even if a person is deemed to be a member of a despised class by such social justice-based regimes/opertatives as communist socialists, national socialists, by progressive collectivists, by Fascists, or by gender feminists.

          • Duke

            :Rob, you say “social justice concentration camp”, when in reality ita a social INJUSTICE concentration camp.. Persecuting the guilty is justice , persecuting the innocent is “injustice”.

    • http://Yahoo lugger2010

      I’m curious- What did they threaten to charge you with? Demanding justice? Harrassing a “poor little” false accuser? Or worse, did they threaten to go ahead with the false rape charges ?
      And good for you for not “just going away !!!

      • Duke

        They threatened me with continuing with the false rape charges. They can do that now with absolutely no evidence…..what-so-ever!!!

    • crydiego

      >”Well folks…Im not just going to…. “Go away”.”<

      Nor I Duke!
      Thousands a day, -men and women, come to this site. It will grow to tens of thousands soon and no one will have the audacity to tell us to, Go Away.
      Go Away? When everything is ours, -Everything we built, everything our fathers and mothers died for. No, we aren't going away and those that appose us aren’t going to get away! Not without being publicly shamed by the truth.

  • Duke

    In the case of this German guy, even a cursory investigation would have concluded his false rape accuser had serious mental issues…But I have learned that massive perversions in law enforcement now demand that any evidence officers find that could clear a guy on rape charges are dismissed as… “irrelevant”.
    How fucked up is that folks???
    welcome to massive federally funded rape hysteria, manufactured statistics Alliances, and massive organised perversions to the course of justice!!!

    • Andres

      As far as I have read, there even was an assessor at his court hearing who, well, assessed that the way Heidi Külzer described the anal rape was physically improbable if not outright impossible. Overall, there were so many holes and contradictions in her story that Mr Arnold should never have been imprisoned in the first place. I mean, this was more or less the reason a lawyer took over the case pro bono: He could not believe that this man had actually been convicted.

      But it is a sign that the “Opferabo” (“subscription to the role of victim”) of women is alive and well because simply the claim of rape is enough to award the alleged victim total immunity from scrutiny. Saying “I have been raped” to anyone in our society is like typing iddqd in Doom.

      Just as telling is that, even after her conviction and the exoneration of Horst Arnold, his name is mentioned in full (no anonymity),while hers is still anonymised in most media outlets as “Heidi K.”

      • Fredrik

        That’s fucked up. Someone should remind them that she’s in prison because she’s a perp, not a victim.

      • Duke

        A defense attorney did a piece a few months ago, and he said The louder the Rape Klan is during a high media false rape accusation, The more pressure is put on law enforcement to pervert the course of justice just to placate the mob.

        • Andres

          This reminds me of the case of prominent weatherman Jörg Kachelmann (also from Germany). He was very publicly accused of rape, and not few media outlets pre-judged the weatherman as guilty as hell. Before reviewing any of the evidence. One of those crying rapist, perhaps unsurprisingly, was then-feminist-icon Alice Schwarzer. She even held fast to her claim of “rapist!” after Kachelmann was exonerated.

          Needless to say, Kachelmann lost his job on national (state-endorsed) television and coined the term “Opferabo” following his trial.
          It is surmised that if he hadn’t been so well-known, the case would have ended just as Mr Arnold’s: No scrutiny of the available evidence, just believe the accusatrix. You know, like most of our media did anyhow. In this case, the court did its due diligence, however. If only because the public eye was watching.

  • nawotsme

    I am fascinated as to why the police did not “verbal” Mr Arnold.

    Where I live it is common practice where evidence is lacking for police to fabricate a confession using the practice of “verballing”. One such case was that of Andrew Mallard who served 11 years of a life sentence before being released when it was found that the confession was manufactured.

    The practice has been largely stopped in major crimes due to confessions only being admissible if they are videotaped. The practice does however continue where not required for lesser crimes. A group of activists attempting to bring attention to the practice where shut down with threats of jail if they continued to inform the public of its use.

    Is this practice unique to Australia, or does it occur elsewhere?

    • The Real Peterman

      It happens in the US too. I just read an article about how American police get people to confess. Something like 25% of people who have been proven innocent by the Innocence Project confessed under police pressure!

      • nawotsme

        Hi the real peterman

        Police here use all the usual methods for extracting connsessions. Beatings with hoses, cattle prods, dunking people’s heads in water, buckets over the head, left naked in cold cells etc. See the Royal Commissions mentioned below.

        The practice of verballing involves making up a confession. Usually two police get a person alone and one claims that the suspect has said something they haven’t and the other says that they heard it also. In court it becomes the word of two police against the suspect, and the judge’s take the word of the police most times.

        The Wood, Fitzgerald, and Kennedy Royal Commissions found the practice to be widespread. Funnily enough i met a college lecturer some years ago who taught creative writing. He told me that he had a number of police who were not good at the practice take his course. Learning how to “throw in a handful of blue metal” as it was describe by one officer at the Kennedy R C.

        Is this practice also used in the US?

        • Porquemada

          For a little bit about how the “interview” process works in the US, watch the video below. According to this video’s authors (a law professor and an experienced police investigator), Americans have absolutely nothing to gain by waiving their Miranda rights and should never talk to the police without their attorney present.

          • Theseus

            Yeah. My sister used to work for the Public Defenders office in Las Vegas. Damn does she have some horror stories.

            She basically said that the moment the cops start questioning you with a typical “We know you did X…” extraction line of questioning, stick your fingers in you ears and repeatedly say “La la la la I want my attorney…I want my attorney” while not even acknowledging anything else that they are saying.

          • Duke

            “Americans must never waive their Miranda rights and must never talk to police”….Its sick and almost perverse that it has come to this, but it has.
            When did American law enforcement become the biggest threat to American civil liberties, and the constitution???
            I believe the point in US history that American law enforcement started accepting the extra federal pork bloating dollars for manufactured statistics…was near the exact point in US history that it started.

  • Krakhen

    I’m really curious, how did he die? Suicide? Some disease contracted in prison? I’m also really sad, not long ago i read a story about a poor guy who was arrested for a rape he never committed, ended up being raped for years and contracted HIV in prison. Society gave little to no sympathy to this man after the truth came out. I believe there’s likely hundreds or thousands like him in my country’s prisons.
    It really is a red pill to see how human nature is, while i appreciate MRA efforts, i believe it’s a lost battle generally speaking. Men are designed to care for women, sometimes even sacrificing themselves. Women don’t have the same basic drive, instead valuing a man almost exclusively for what he have materially and what he represents in society.
    Anything else is discarded, which leads to extreme injustices simply being ignored or even condoned as long as there’s a benefit for women.
    There’s higher powers utilizing human nature for their own agenda for a long time, that’s quite clear to me even though the masses might scream it’s just crazy conspiracies.

    • Jon Gunnarsson

      Horst Arnold died of a heart attack while riding a bicycle about a year after his name had been cleared.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    Heidi Külzer enjoyed having a rape fantasy. The category of rape fantasy she indulged in in the case in question was erotic/aversive. A fantasy high that mixes together pleasure and displeaure to give that thrilling roller-coaster of extremes that provides a dramatic series of emoptions. the invitation of the “rape figure” into a real world situation through extending the fantasy, sharing iit with others (police, etc.) affords the fasntasy addict the change to keep the high going, to repeat the scenario of her thrilling rape fantasy over and over again. Heidi Külzer enjoyed having a rape fantasy and speaking about it repeastedly. It gave her a perverse pleasure. the entire society invites women of this kind to both fantasize and to perform the fantasy publicly, making them into a hyprid of actress performing a script and tabloid news center-of-attention. For many women the combination of perverse self-indulgent fantasy, the chance to perform the fantasy repeatedly — for ever-growing, ever more attentive, excited and loving audiences — is irrestible.

    The rape fantasy “scene” keeps getting bigger sends out casting calls every day all day long.

    Expect more actresses to respond to these ubiquitous casting calls abd do their very histrionic best to perform the part that has been created by the “rape culture fantasy community” (professional rape narrative — “rape culture” — advertisers) for them.

    (These remarks are an extension of ideas I developed in the article “Welcome to my rape fantasy,” published on A Voice for Men on November 5, 2013. The realization that “rape culture” advertising takes the form, among a segment of the population of a “casting call” is a new one that I have for the first time written about in this comment.)

    • JinnBottle

      Yes I was thinking of that previous Post you’d written, Robert, while reading this Comment.

      It is an intriguing observation, and very much helps articulate a problem-with-no-name in our culture. If you haven’t already, you should read the works of Howard S Schwartz. In his “Society Against Itself” he speaks of the problem-with-no-name in slightly different terms – he describes it as a form of hysteria – but many of your ideas overlap.

  • Attila L. Vinczer

    I came damn close to being arrested based on a false allegation by my ill minded ex wife.

  • Robert St. Estephe

    I come back to this article to respectfully point out an important oversight. The opening sentence is a good one: “Imagine you are accused of a terrible crime against a woman you didn’t commit.” This expresses one of the horrifying aspects of such a case os this one. Yet there is a deeper level of horror and injustice to this type of false accusation case.

    “Imageine you are accused of a bank robbery you did not commit.” Pretty bad, hugh? Of course it is. But then imaging you are accused of a bank robbery that never occurred. And not only was there no robbery, but there was no breaking in at the bank in question, and there was no theft of any, sort including imbezzlement, that prompted a false robbery fiction by the perpetrator as a cover-up effort.

    An accusation leveled against one for a crime that never occurred is more horrifying than an accusation for a crime that was indeed committed, but by someone else. And further, being convicted and punished for a crime that did not ever occur, that was committed by no person at all, is yet another, lower, degree of depth in injustice and sheer horror. To be living under the threat of mythologies, fictional drama scenes, psychotic delusions, or fantasies breaking out at any moment unexpectedly and proceeding to consume one’s life, is to be living under a reign of terror — in a world-upside down.

    This state of affairs is not tolerable. All decent people are duty-bound to fight the sort of State-sponsored terrorism that is represented in the case featured in the article above — a reign of terror that continues to grow in intensity, variety, and scope.

    • The Real Peterman

      Good point.

  • Duke

    Folks, we should have drew the line in the sand when American Universities started their extra legal campus rape courts, or when the US dept of education stripped guys due process rights with the dear colleague letter. These were formidable defensive positions. In fact they are even protected by the US constitution.

    • Lucian Vâlsan

      What’s this got to do with this case?
      What’s the US constitution got to do with the German Republic?

      • Duke

        “What this got to do with this case”,…. whoops sorry Lucian, i didn’t mean to stray off topic, are you going to correct others that have strayed????

  • The Real Peterman

    “Horst Arnold was a big man with a loud and boisterous attitude. He was known to have a drinking problem.”

    Does a big German who likes beer really stand out that much?

    • Andres

      Well, beer is something of a staple drink in Germany, but probably not to the extent it is portrayed in movies etc.
      Teaching, however, is one of the professions with the highest rates of alcoholism in Germany.

      Boisterousness is (contrary to most outside portrayals) not something that comes easy to most Germans, and as such: Yes, it does stand out, particularly in a teacher.

      And if you combine the two things you have the perfect villain for your piece: An alcoholic (implies little to no self-control), and a loud one to boot (which implies poor communication skills, and an overbearing personality – which in turn implies that he would not care about other people’s feelings and just take what he wants).
      You see there is much implication, and little to no real, tangible evidence, let alone circumstantial.

      The whole farce played out solely on the perception the two teachers involved evoked in the court: he as a loud, abrasive person with implied poor self-control, and she the sweet, poor little damsel whose motivations nobody even dared question until after the conviction -because she seemed so very pure and innocent, and he so perfect for the role of molester.

  • Blacque

    How do you even begin to make change? The issue is apparently not a ‘right or left’ problem but it’s definitely legal, cultural. We NEED lawyers to defend and help men, we need competent, fair and honorable judges to support our society by not demonizing the very members who established the foundation upon which they stand. Never before in my life have I been motivated to take action but this story bothers me on a very visceral level. This Wednesday I’m going to convene with my family (who very much understands the plight of our society and its hatred toward men) and get into school for law. That judge represents The Enemy to not only men but to justice and there are so few if any that support true equal judgment so I implore every man who can to try their hardest to get involved and please please help me. I already have my course selection planned out, I’m not requesting monetary aid, or a pat on the back but a glimpse, advice, a direction from fellow brothers to help me maintain the fire that’s just been lit under my ass. We need more influence and if there isn’t enough man power in the legal system then I pray to God that I can at least be one representative for men’s rights.

    If anyone has legal experience, thoughts ideas, direction e-mail me I want this badly and I’ve never amounted to much in my life. The sheer hopelessness of such a grand endeavor is daunting and I don’t think I can do this alone nor do I want to. Asking for help is ‘unmanly’ but I think it’s the start to connecting and we (myself included) NEED a voice so if there are any lawyers, or even people who have taken a law course here and there toss me an e-mail at ‘’ and give me all you’ve got. My biggest flaw has always been apathy but I’m angry now and I want to stay angry.

    An Angry Blacque guy.

  • Porquemada

    Kulzer is apparently the first false rape accuser to be tried and sentenced to prison in the German legal system. Ever. She apparently was sentenced to 5.5 years in prison.

    For what that’s worth, it’s something.

    Her motive for falsely accusing him? Apparently, he was a rival for a better position at their place of employment. Since he could no longer find employment after release, he subsisted on welfare at the end of his life.

  • Winstone

    This sad news, a man killed by feminazis, shows how important is that the criminal Heidi Kulzer is appropriately registered on register-her