Inside the Alaa M. Trial #97: Forensic Assessment Reveals Sadistic Tendencies
TRIAL OF ALAA M.
Higher Regional Court – Frankfurt, Germany
Trial Monitoring Summary #97
Hearing Date: February 11 & 13, 2025
CAUTION: Some testimony includes descriptions of torture.
Note that this summary is not a verbatim transcript of the trial; it is merely an unofficial summary of the proceedings.
Throughout this summary, [information located in brackets are notes from our trial monitor] and “information placed in quotes are statements made by the witness, judges or counsel.” The names and identifying information of witnesses have been redacted.
[Note: SJAC continues to provide a summary of the proceedings while redacting certain details to protect witness privacy and to preserve the integrity of the trial.]
SJAC’s 97th trial monitoring report details days 175 and 176 of the trial of Alaa M. in Frankfurt, Germany. On the first trial day, the session focused on the forensic-psychiatric evaluation of the Accused, presented by expert witness Professor Hartmut Berger, medical director at Vitos Philippshospital and lecturer at Goethe University Frankfurt. Based on two expert reports, Berger identified strong indications of sadistic tendencies in the Accused, highlighting alleged acts such as setting detainees’ genitals on fire, physical abuse, and fatal mistreatment. He emphasized that these acts went far beyond political obedience and suggested that the Accused’s medical role provided subtle opportunities to act out violent impulses. Berger's analysis drew on chat messages, psychometric testing, and interviews, revealing a mix of superficial charm, loyalty to the Assad regime, and domination behaviors. While statistical risk tools placed the Accused in a low-risk category, Berger stressed that these instruments were ill-suited for sadistic crimes, warning that untreated sadistic tendencies could be reactivated at any time. Emotional moments occurred during discussions of the Accused’s psychological profile, offering deep insights into his biography, motivations, and inner defense mechanisms.
On the second day, the session focused on Defense Counsel Endres’ sharp critique of the forensic-psychiatric report by Professor Berger, arguing that outdated methods, speculative assumptions, and methodological flaws rendered the report unreliable for assessing the Accused. The Court denied a Defense motion to collect fingerprint evidence from witness P4 and addressed administrative discrepancies regarding the address of [redacted name]. The session continued with a review of chat messages between [redacted name] and P52, which contained serious allegations against the Accused, describing Homs Military Hospital as an "epicenter of elimination" and detailing acts of severe abuse, including setting detainees’ genitals on fire. Additional chats indicated coordinated efforts to gather witnesses. Toward the end of the session, the Defense announced that the Accused had decided to surrender his medical license.
Day 175 – February 11, 2025
The first session of the week focused on the forensic-psychiatric evaluation of the Accused, presented by expert witness Professor Hartmut Berger, medical director at Vitos Philippshospital in Riedstadt and lecturer at Goethe University Frankfurt am Main. The expert witness had prepared an initial expert report dated February 24, 2024, and a supplementary report dated December 5, 2024.
The purpose of the evaluation was to assess whether the Accused displayed a behavioral tendency towards violent actions, particularly under favorable circumstances. Specific acts from the indictment — including burning detainees’ genitals, physical abuse, and fatal mistreatment — formed the basis of the forensic hypothesis. These acts were grouped under counts 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, and 18.
The indictment detailed:
- Burning of a young detainee's genitals, causing him to scream and cry in pain
- Burning the genitals of a man from [redacted location] with alcohol and a lighter
- Physical assaults including beating prisoners with a catheter tube, grabbing genitals, and operating on a fracture without anesthesia
- The fatal mistreatment of a detainee after assaulting him with a plastic tube and kicking his head, witnessed by [redacted name], P11 [name according to monitor’s comprehension].
- The prolonged beating and burning of detainee [redacted name], P1.
- Setting wounds of detainee [redacted name], on fire and causing dental injuries [Note: P4 and his nephew P47 share the same last name and were allegedly detained together. However, the expert witness did not mention the first name. Based on the facts, Prof. Berger referred to P4.]
- The torture and killing of detainee Obayda عبيدة, after promising to "send him to heaven with the virgins" and administering a fatal injection
In his forensic analysis, Professor Berger reviewed private chats by the Accused from August 2011 until June 2012, categorizing them into friendships, career plans abroad, flirtations with women, and loyalty to President Bashar al-Assad.
The chats revealed superficial boasting about medical work and sexual exploits among friends, as well as flirtatious exchanges with women. Regarding political loyalty, the Accused made extreme statements, referring to opposition members as "donkeys and pigs who should burn in the oven" and "cockroaches." Professor Berger described the Accused's behavior as "almost pubescent," citing a message that read: "Marihuana tastes better than a vagina."
Regarding his background, the Accused was born in 1986 in Homs into a Greek Orthodox family. He excelled academically, earning 232 out of 240 points in his Bakalorya [En: High school certificate; Gr: Abitur] and studied medicine at the University of Aleppo, graduating in 2009. He later worked at military hospitals during the conflict and, following an injury in 2012, emigrated to Germany in 2015 where he continued his medical career.
Professor Berger emphasized that the Accused displayed either an exceptional memory or had extensively prepared for the evaluations, recalling dates from over a decade ago with striking precision. Throughout the evaluations, Alaa M. was polite, highly controlled, and consistently emphasized his innocence. However, emotional breakdowns, including tearfulness, emerged when the conversations approached the topic of the allegations.
***
[12-minute break]
***
Upon resuming, the expert witness reported no findings of neurological disorders, psychosis, PTSD, or cognitive impairments. The Accused demonstrated dominant, perfectionist traits with occasional impulsivity but maintained good self-control.
Personality tests revealed no pathological traits but indicated a personality accentuation with sadistic tendencies. Professor Berger stressed that structured diagnostic tools for non-sexual sadism were lacking, but behaviors like control, domination, humiliation, and mutilation were significant indicators. He explained: "If four or more out of twelve criteria are met, it indicates sadistic tendencies."
Defense Counsel Bonn challenged this, but Professor Berger replied: “He is a doctor. Therefore, sadistic tendencies cannot be excluded.” The Presiding Judge asked if a non-sadistic person would have committed the alleged acts, and Prof. Berger confirmed that this assumption underpinned his evaluation.
***
[75-minute break]
***
After the break, the Judges and Professor Berger discussed the Accused's alleged behavior compared to cases of sadistic doctors who practiced for years undetected. Professor Berger emphasized: "As a physician, one has very subtle means to act out sadistic impulses."
Regarding the broader cultural setting, the expert witness cited the Geneva Declaration: "Even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge to harm others." He explained that sadistic behavior differed qualitatively from group violence, explaining: "There is a qualitative difference between beating someone and kicking a person lying on the ground in the head or setting people on fire."
On the question of whether lethal injections fit sadistic behavior, Berger clarified that sadism required deriving pleasure from witnessing suffering, which was absent in mere killings.
When Defense Counsel Endres asked whether cultural differences might affect the evaluation, Professor Berger responded: "This [Alaa M.’s case] is a different context entirely. He was raised in a Christian household."
Upon judicial inquiry, noting the Judges’ experience with cases involving religious fanatics (such as IS members), Berger explained: "Sadism is found in about one-fifth of the male population. It is not a rarity." He concluded that "the sadistic inclination," not political fanaticism, was the primary motivator in this case.
***
[11-minute break]
***
The discussion then turned to the risk prognosis. Professor Berger used actuarial and idiographic methods but acknowledged their limitations, as they were not designed for sadistic crimes. He found that Alaa M. showed superficial charm, high self-esteem, and mild impulsivity but did not meet criteria for psychopathy. Thus, he was classified in a lower risk category overall.
The expert witness noted: "Sexual offenses have a scientifically proven recidivism rate of around 60%," but added that no specific studies exist for sadistic offenders.
Defense Counsel Endres questioned the reliability of the actual risk tables and criticized the classification of the Accused as low-risk. Referring to ChatGPT, he claimed that “20% of people in Germany have sadistic tendencies.” In response, Professor Berger emphasized that such figures lack solid scientific backing and should not be considered reliable data.
Berger further clarified, “There are no explicit studies on recidivism rates specifically for sadists or for sexual sadism as a distinct diagnosis.” He underscored that, although general data on sexual offense recidivism exists, there remains a significant research gap regarding sadistic tendencies. This, he argued, makes it difficult to draw valid conclusions from such estimates or to apply general risk assessment tools reliably in such cases.
The Presiding Judge humorously intervened: "I asked Gemini about my doctoral dissertation the other day, and it came back with complete nonsense. But not because I had written nonsense myself."
Professor Berger defended his methodology, emphasizing scientific rigor despite imperfect tools. Ultimately, he concluded that "the sadistic inclination and the Accused's position as a practicing surgeon create a significant residual risk." He warned that untreated sadistic tendencies are "reactivable at any time."
The proceedings were adjourned at 4:23 PM.
The next trial day will be on February 13, 2025, at 10:00 AM.
Day 176 – February 13, 2025
The second session of the week opened with a statement by Defense Counsel Endres under Section 257 German Code of Criminal Procedure concerning the forensic-psychiatric report prepared by Professor Berger. Invited by the Presiding Judge to comment, he firmly criticized the report, stating that "it’s not worth the paper it’s written on." Also, he argued that the expert witness had used parameters unsuitable for this case, a point the Court itself had highlighted during earlier sessions. In his view, the assumption of a sadistic tendency in the Accused was baseless and inapplicable.
Furthermore, Endres recalled that when asked how a practicing surgeon could secretly commit such offenses, Professor Berger had replied that a surgeon might secretly cause pain while administering injections — an explanation Defense Counsel Endres considered completely insufficient to support allegations of sadistic behavior. He further pointed out that the expert witness himself had acknowledged during the February 11, 2025 session that some of the questionnaires used for evaluation had already been outdated for ten years. Thus, Defense Counsel Endres concluded that the report was fundamentally flawed.
Additionally, he criticized the structure of Professor Berger’s conclusions, noting that instead of evaluating lower and medium risk categories separately, Berger had blurred the two into one general statement. When asked by the Presiding Judge for a final conclusion, Berger had reportedly "stammered in an almost embarrassing manner," according to Defense Counsel Endres. The Defense argued that the expert witness had aimed to force a particular outcome: branding the Accused a sadist who would require preventive detention unless he confessed and sought therapy.
Following the Defense’s statement, the Presiding Judge read out the Court’s decision on the Defense motion dated January 23, 2025, regarding fingerprint evidence. The motion was denied on two grounds: first, it did not qualify as a formal request for evidence; and second, even if it had, was not sufficiently justified for its approval. The Defense had sought to collect fingerprints from witness [redacted name], P4, in an attempt to undermine his testimony. However, according to Plaintiff’s Counsel Bessler, P4 refused to provide fingerprints, citing Section 81c German Code of Criminal Procedure, which restricts the collection of biological samples to criminal suspects when necessary for investigation. As these conditions did not apply, the request was deemed unnecessary.
The Court then addressed discrepancies regarding the recorded address of [redacted name]. Due to an administrative error, the Senate had been in contact with [redacted information] authorities to clarify the matter. The correct address, as confirmed on November 12, 2024, differed slightly from earlier records.
The session continued with a review of certified translations of chat messages between [redacted name] and P52. Audio recordings of voice messages were played in court:
In a voice message dated October 27, 2024, [redacted name] introduced himself as a specialist in urological surgery from the village of [redacted location], west of [redacted location]. He noted that he started his medical training one year after the Accused, who worked at Homs Military Hospital from early 2011 until June 2012. [Redacted name] described the hospital as an "epicenter of elimination" and claimed that the Accused had been one of the doctors committing serious crimes. He specifically alleged that "Alaa poured alcohol on the penis of a detained demonstrator who had severe injuries in the perineal and genital area." [Redacted name] added that he never saw the detainee again and presumed that he had died from his injuries.
Further chat messages were reviewed:
On November 4, 2024, the chat detailed a description of an incident involving Alaa M. during intense fighting in Ar-Rastan. According to the account, a wounded demonstrator was brought to the emergency room. "Alaa M. pulled down the man's clothes and set his genitals on fire," with several nurses present, while a military police sergeant stood guard outside the room.
In another message from November 6, 2024, P52 discussed the ongoing legal process, stating: "I believe this trial will become part of an international process that will bring down the Syrian regime." He mentioned that Alaa M. appeared humiliated and tearful during the proceedings.
Additional chats suggested ongoing efforts to coordinate testimonies and gather witnesses. P52 encouraged [redacted name] to name further witnesses to strengthen his statement. [Redacted name] agreed, saying: "It would be an honor." Discussions also mentioned a traumatized patient (referred to as "the shepherd") who screamed and protested when forcibly brought into an operating room at Homs Military Hospital.
The review of chats continued, listing names of several doctors allegedly involved in torture and killings, including [redacted name] and [redacted name]. [Redacted name] described an incident in February 2012, when multiple injured soldiers and civilians arrived at Homs Military Hospital. Among them was an uninjured shepherd, brought in under suspicious circumstances. The shepherd was taken into a private room by the [redacted name] cousins under military police supervision. [Redacted name] noted that shortly afterward, he was informed that the shepherd had died from uncontrolled bleeding, speculating it could have been the result of a potassium injection.
***
[13-minutes break]
***
Upon resuming, Senior Federal Prosecutor Zabeck presented a statement asserting that [redacted name] was not required to appear in court in Germany, as his statements and corroborating evidence were sufficient. The Defense expressed dissatisfaction, criticizing the length and conduct of the investigation.
***
[15-minutes break]
***
Following another break, additional voice messages were played. P52 and [redacted name] discussed the timeline of events, with [redacted name] affirming that the crimes he mentioned occurred during the battles in AR-Rastan.
Additionally, [redacted name] described the layout of Homs Military Hospital: a flat building marked by a statue of Hafez al-Assad at the entrance, with the emergency ward located on the right-hand side and a general examination hall to the left.
At the end of the session, Defense Counsel Bonn informed the Court that the Accused had decided to surrender his medical license. The Court inquired whether the original document was part of the evidence archive, but neither the Senate nor the Defense could confirm its presence.
The proceedings were adjourned at 12:08 PM.
The next trial day will be on February 20, 2025, at 10:00 AM.
___________________________
For more information or to provide feedback, please contact SJAC at [email protected] and follow us on Facebook and Twitter. Subscribe to SJAC’s newsletter for updates on our work