What has Der Spiegel publicly said in response to Till Lindemann’s criminal complaint and injunction rulings?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Der Spiegel has, in available reporting, largely stood by the substance of its investigative reporting while defending the credibility of the affidavits it relied upon, even as courts imposed interim injunctions limiting specific allegations and Till Lindemann filed criminal complaints alleging forgery and attempted trial fraud [1] [2] [3]. Public coverage and secondary reporting show Der Spiegel arguing that affidavits carry weight, but the provided sources do not include a full, direct Der Spiegel press release responding to Lindemann’s August 2024 criminal complaint, and that absence is material to any definitive account [1] [2].
1. The legal backdrop: injunctions constrained Spiegel’s wording but did not exonerate reporting in public debate
Multiple reports detail that the Hamburg Regional Court issued an interim injunction in July 2023 that prohibited Der Spiegel from suggesting Till Lindemann drugged women or had them drugged to enable sexual acts, a restriction later confirmed in appeal rulings — a limitation on specific formulations rather than a blanket nullification of all of Spiegel’s reporting [4] [5] [3]. Coverage emphasizes that courts found the minimum evidence for that specific serious suspicion lacking for the purposes of public allegation, which is the legal basis for the publication ban and the wording constraints imposed on SPIEGEL [6] [7].
2. Spiegel’s published defense — affidavits and journalistic credibility
In accounts of the dispute, Der Spiegel defended its use of affidavits and asserted the credibility of those sworn statements, arguing affidavits carry a high degree of probative value because they are given under criminal penalty; that defense is reported repeatedly in secondary sources summarizing Spiegel’s position in the injunction proceedings [1] [2]. Those reports indicate Spiegel’s legal posture in court was to uphold its sourcing and to treat the witness statements as sufficiently reliable to support its investigative narrative, even as Lindemann’s lawyers challenged inconsistencies in versions of affidavits [1] [2].
3. Lindemann’s criminal complaint and Spiegel’s contested documentary record
Till Lindemann filed a criminal complaint with the Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office in August 2024 alleging Der Spiegel executives falsified documents and attempted trial fraud by submitting inconsistent or altered affidavits in injunction proceedings, a complaint publicized by Lindemann’s legal team and widely reported [8] [2] [9]. Secondary reporting records Spiegel had previously submitted affidavits in the injunction hearings and that Lindemann’s lawyers claim significant differences among versions — reporting that frames the complaint but does not, in the available sources, contain a contemporaneous, detailed rebuttal from Der Spiegel responding to the new criminal allegations [2] [9].
4. What Spiegel has (and has not) publicly said, according to available reporting
The sources show Spiegel defended the reliability of the sworn statements when litigating the injunction, but they do not include a direct, quoted full public statement from Der Spiegel addressing Lindemann’s August 2024 criminal complaint accusing forgery and attempted trial fraud; reporting instead summarizes Spiegel’s courtroom defense and notes the publication’s prior insistence on affidavit credibility [1] [2]. Therefore, while Spiegel’s position in legal proceedings — to treat affidavits as credible and to stand by its reporting approach — is documented in multiple outlets, the provided reporting lacks a clear, primary-source Spiegel press release or editor’s note that explicitly answers the specific criminal-fraud allegations made later by Lindemann’s team [8] [2] [9].
5. Competing narratives and what remains to be clarified
Coverage available to this analysis presents two competing narratives: Lindemann’s camp asserts falsification and seeks criminal inquiry, while Spiegel has historically defended its investigative methods and affidavit reliance in court [8] [1]. The critical missing piece in the sourced material is a publicly archived, verbatim statement from Der Spiegel that directly addresses the August 2024 criminal complaint and the allegation that pages were removed or replaced, so any account must acknowledge that gap rather than infer an unrecorded response [2] [9].