IT DID NOT happen during the war, nor in the so-called Third World. It happened in the middle of Europe, in one of its most civilized countries. In 2005 a small girl by the name of Jessica was starved to death by her parents in the German city of Hamburg. They looked on impassively as the child attempted to stave off the pangs of hunger by eating her own hair or bits of material she had bitten out of the mattress. At the same time, they indulged themselves to the hilt, washed their food down with lashings of alcohol, enjoyed their meals, and did nothing to save their daughter’s life.
Understandably, most people believe that there can be no explanation for this fathomless hatred for a child of one’s own. Such extreme cruelty is regarded by the public at large as entirely incomprehensible. Journalists are at a loss to identify the motives behind such an “unprecedented” crime. But the really astonishing thing is that the so-called experts, medical and psychological, agree that this case is unprecedented, although almost every day there are reports of perverted child abuse in the newspapers. Inquiries into the causes of such behavior, however, are rare. One can hardly avoid the impression that there is some tacit agreement preventing people from asking the simple question “Why?”
This taboo manifests itself clearly in the expert opinions on such cases. Their authors make no mention of something that they must be fully aware of, namely that the cruelty displayed by such criminals is produced in their childhood, at a time before their brains are fully formed. Is it conceivable that they may not in fact know this? In Jessica’s case, it is quite clear, and it indicates the consequences that everyday mistreatment like slaps and childhood neglect can have at a later stage.
A woman who went to school with Jessica’s mother, Marlies, described her as highly disturbed in her childhood. She stuttered, dribbled, trembled, and invariably came to school in a state of fear and distress. Marlies herself mentioned a number of significant details, for example that her mother had watched her being sexually molested by her great-uncle and had never intervened. A female relative reported that the six-year-old child had been forced to watch pornographic movies with her parents in their bed. There can be no doubt that Marlies had not only experienced a major trauma that the experts had allegedly been unable to identify; but throughout her childhood she had been subjected to extreme cruelty, the memories of which she attempted to keep at bay with an unfeeling attitude. Ultimately, however, she avenged herself on her little daughter Jessica for the hell she had been through as a child. In saying this I am not denying that she committed a crime. The crime is heinous in the extreme. Like all children, Marlies loved her mother. But she had never been able to defend herself against her, and all the pent-up rage at her mother that she never consciously felt was discharged on the little girl, whose slow death she enjoyed with the same sadism that her own mother had displayed in the face of her sufferings. She quite simply tormented Jessica for what her mother had done to her. Marlies’s partner reported that she had regarded Jessica’s neglect as a “defense measure.” This term outlines the situation very accurately. Many mothers only hit back at their own children for the wrongs done to them when they were young. However, Marlies is of course guilty, and she must be punished.
The confusing statements made by experts camouflaging or even denying the causes of such crimes suggest that they are hardly aware of the huge responsibility they bear. A psychiatrist, professor, or medical expert is an authority. What effect will his statements have if he calmly and confidently declares that he does not believe in any traumatic causes of such crimes, as if he were stating his own personal creed rather than facing up to the unassailable evidence?
All we need to do is distinguish between the facts and causes on the one hand, and the question of guilt on the other. A mother who kills her child is definitely guilty because she had a choice. As a child, she was a helpless victim; as an adult this is no longer the case. Here an expert could cast light on the subject, providing enlightenment and helping to prevent future crimes of a similar nature. He could inform the court and the public of how such extreme cruelty repeatedly comes about. While neglecting to provide the courts, the media, and the public with such information and thoroughly confusing them in the process is not a punishable crime, it is certainly a serious failure.
The cruelty of individuals is not something imposed on them by some mysterious agency but by their parents and other people involved in their upbringing. It takes shape in the brain of a child exposed to cruelty. This is an established fact from which we cannot avert our eyes, and it should be part of the ABCs of forensic psychiatry. It must no longer be concealed or played down if we want to prevent infanticide and other crimes in future.
The tragedy of Jessica can help parents who believe that slapping their children is justified and harmless to understand their behavior and do something to change it. For that, they require the assistance of courageous, responsible experts, psychiatrists, and reporters.
The horror caused by Jessica’s appalling death might have opened some people’s eyes and prompted them to ask what it is that so often makes parents hate and abuse their children. As far as I know, little has been done in public debates to confront young parents with these issues. But perhaps it is not too late. Young parents still have the chance to learn a great deal about the production of violence if they are assisted in this process by serious and well-informed experts. This is urgently necessary. The tragedy of Jessica is not an isolated case; it is merely the tip of the iceberg.