text:
Talk:Ramsey Clark

Removed from the article

 * Ramsey also represented Charles M. Taylor, who escaped from a Somerville, Mass., prison in 1985 where is was incarcerated for embezzling $900,000, and went on to become dictator and international war crimnal in Liberia.

Is this silliness? Or can someone verify it? -- sannse 16:03 9 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * The New Yorker and the Somerville Journal agree. Don't know if it's true, though. Also, it seems odd to talk about Taylor's later life in an article on Clark, as if the purpose is to smear Clark through Taylor's later actions.  DanKeshet 17:12 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

 * Humm, yes. It seems a valid addition that Clark represented Taylor, but I'm sure we can do so without the implications.  How about something like: "Ramsey also represented Charles Taylor during his 1985 fight against extradition from the United States to Liberia".  The rest of the story, if true, should be in the Charles Taylor article rather than here. -- sannse 19:26 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Didn't Clark also represent Slobodan Milosevic in his current war crimes trial, at least for awhile? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.244.30.78 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 6 November 2003 (UTC)

The quote at the end is not attributed to anyone or any group. Please add an attribution if it is put back in.128.101.191.246 17:26, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

I removed this:

 * Most Legal professionals agree that Clark uses these high profile trials to draw attention to his causes while neglecting his actual responsibility as a defense attorney.

I don't think we can say that "most" legals professional agree to that; most legal professionals couldn't care less about Ramsey Clark, one way or the other. If the poster, or anyone else, wants to put it back in, it should go something like this:

 * Many prominent legal professionals, including [X], argue that Clark uses high-profile trials to... [etc.]

If you can't fill in anything for X, then it probably shouldn't be in the article. --Chowbok 19:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
Leonard Peltier is certainly considered to be a political prisoner by some; that is indisputible. So is the fact that some of those who claim this are well-known international groups such as Amnesty International. But also indisputible is the fact that he is a convicted killer. Whether this conviction is justifiable or not is the point of contention. However, I think that saying in the article "political prisoner Leonard Peltier" without qualfication is no better than saying "convicted killer Leonard Peltier" without further qualfication would be. In fact, arguably it would be worse, as the conviction is a fact, although its validity is disputed. "Political prisoner" status is merely an allegation, but one that should be noted, especially in the light of the status of the groups alledging it.

Rlquall 12:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Referring to Leonard Peltier as an "American Indian prisoner" without mentioning why he is imprisoned is absolutely pathetic. It is the only instance on Wikipedia that I have seen in which the crime for which the person is imprisoned is not even mentioned.  The notion that Peltier is a political prisoner is highly debatable to say the least, but what is not debatable is the fact he was convicted of a double murder.   Failing to mention that he is a convicted murderer is an absolute joke.  I am adding it to the article.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.159.129 (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I regard JillandJack's category change to be inappropriate. As I stated on the talk page for the Lynne Stewart article, JillandJack is apparently a user whose previous account was banned. This user is apparently moving to have the "Radical lawyers" category removed. Rather than letting the category status depend on that outcome, the user has chosen to empty out several articles in violation of the request on the deletion proposal flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jules7484 (talk • contribs) 09:13, 20 February 2005 (UTC)

"Clark believed since Coffin and Dr. Spock were respected, if controversial, public figures who could afford legal counsel to fight back for them, their cases would take a long time and would “focus attention on the problems of the draft.” Clark says that he hoped to show Johnson that opposition to the war wasn’t limited to "draft-dodging longhairs" but included the most admired pediatrician in America, a prominent and revered patrician minister, and a respected former Kennedy Administration official (Marcus Raskin, who had been a special staff member on the National Security Council)." Can we have a source on this, please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.24.168 (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This addition is inappropriate as it was only publicised after Clark left govrernment service and by sources that are questionable. It appears as a self serving way to rationalize Clark's prosecution of the named anti-Vietnam War activists with his later advocacy of radical causes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsirvine (talk • contribs) 16:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed from the article 2

 * As Attorney General, Clark also opposed the government's use of wiretaps.

This is ridiculously vague and is unsupported by cite or evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsirvine (talk • contribs) 03:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Milosevic at ICTY, not ICC
Milosevic is at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), not at the ICC. I've edited this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnp99999 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

In March 2016 and November 2017, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia concluded in the Karadzic Judgment and the Mladic Judgment that Slobodan Milošević was not guilty of the war crimes he was accused of committing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.122.173 (talk • contribs) 17:59, 24 April 2005 (UTC)

User 209.86.3.233 : Good edit. Gives us good insight into the mind and reasoning of Ramsey Clark. Clark prosecuted the case "to focus attention on the problems of the draft", kinda like that other famous dictum out of the same era: "destroyed the village in order to save it". At least the posting makes clear Clark didn't prosecute them because they violated the law or any such nonsense (like upholding the sworn duties of his office) but to pursue some other ends. How do I nominate you for seeing a good edit in progress? Nobs 18:58, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Gandhi Peace Award
Should the Gandhi Peace Award really be mentioned in the lead paragraph? It doesn't seem to be very notable. I searched for it on Google and there were only 1,550 hits, and many of them seemed to be unrelated to the award described in the Gandhi Peace Award article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 20:09, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Does the reference diminish the significance of the Gandhi Peace Award? Nobs 20:31, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The refererence to a non-notable award diminishes the quality of this article. Taco Deposit | Talk-o to Taco 20:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * While it's no Nobel Peace Prize, it's still pretty notable. Google isn't the be-all and end-all of everything.  (I would imagine that the bulk of your hits were for the official Gandhi Award offered by the Indian govt.)  I say let's leave it.  Rlquall 23:52, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
 * The Gandhi Peace Award is far too easily confused with the much more significant Gandhi Award offered by the Indian goverment. The American Gandhi Peace Award is offered to the most Anti American "Progressive" of the year. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsirvine (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So Eleanor Roosevelt was "anti american"? In any case, it's a fact that Clark received the award, and opinions of how notable it is, what it might be confused with, and what sort of people it is awarded to are irrelevant.  -- Jibal 06:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein
I read somewhere that he currently is involved (as lawyer?) in the trial against Saddam Hussein, anyone who can confirm this? Wouter Lievens 11:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC) duh, nevermind, it's in the article Wouter Lievens 11:27, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

More NPOV
I think I'm going to go ahead and take out "making him a traitor to his country", since it's not even written correctly, let alone a fair assertion in any way, since he's a lawyer. MMZach 19:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Jeez. Very funny about the lawyer remark, but the entry you removed is non NPOV in the extreme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsirvine (talk • contribs) 03:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, he has committed treason, by giving aid and comfort to the enemy (Saddam Hussain, Milosovic). Treason is punishable by death, and he is well deserving. It's not POV, it's just fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.107.242 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

He was a lawyer defending his clients before legitimate international tribunals. Every defendant has a right to the counsel of his/her choosing. Ever read the 6th Amendment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.171.106 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Every American defendent. Radovan Karadžić, Charles Taylor, Saddam Hussein and Slobodan Milošević are foreigners who the U.S. government has the right to declare enemies and thus declare the giving of [legal] aid consitutes treason. —VolatileChemical — Preceding undated comment added 07:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Karadzic, Taylor, Hussein, and Milosevic had already been captured. It's insane to argue that Americans giving legal aid to these defendants in organizations and tribunals the US largely set up is a form of treason. If the US is going to declare giving legal aid to these people treason, why even hold the show trial? Not that the US has declared this to be treason. It's only treason in the minds of some incredibly paranoid and stupid people on the internet, who have zero legal sway.65.0.180.91 (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

This may be rather late, but technically, Clark is guilty of treason as defined under the US Constitution and interpreted by the federal courts. During the Nuremberg trials, military lawyers were under professional obligation to defend the nazi war criminals (as in, they had been ordered to do so by a superior officer). Otherwise, it must be considered aid and comfort to provide any professional services or material support to an enemy of the United States. Practicing law must reasonably be considered a professional service. Ergo, representing the enemies of the United States in foreign courts is by definition treasonous. That the federal government has opted not to act on the fact doesn't change it. *** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.223.241.110 (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I realize this is late and arguing idiocy is pointless, but here goes. First, Clark is not guilty of anything until a court says he is.  Since he's never been tried or convicted for treason, he isn't guilty of it.  Second, treason, in the US, would consist of "making war on the United States, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort".  In the context of the statement, aid and comfort is material aid or assistance to an active enemy of the United States, during war or warlike situations. Clearly Milošević, Hussein, Taylor, etc. were no longer in a position to be enemies of the United States in that way by the time they were captured, imprisoned, and on trial.  They were not then directing any kind of war on the United States, and Clark was not assisting them when they were.  Further, even outside of the US world of jurisprudence, as defendants in an international court they would be entitled to an adequate defense.  Saying that their attorney becomes treasonous merely by assisting with the trial pre-supposes their guilt, and that providing necessary legal advice is somehow a crime. --Wolfram.Tungsten (talk) 17:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Like most of the anti-war liberals from the '60's, he demoralized the troops and cost American lives. Plus, peole like Ramsay Clark never came to terms with the fact that there were evil people in North Vietnam, and they killed more people after we left than we killed while we were there. He is a liberal idealist that doesn't realize the world has evil people in it. The great irony is that in the name of peace, he has repeatedly gone to countries that we in conflict with and said that America is at fault, and by doing so, has ultimately demoralized the US and cost the lives of American troops. Clark will die with blood on his hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.159.239.130 (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

His father Tom
Could someone please explain WHY Truman said what he said about Clark's father? Without this information what we have up to now is not worth a lot. 84.59.84.81 14:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe because it was true? Anyway, it really didn't belong here; I've moved it to Tom C. Clark. --Chowbok 03:47, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

More recently, Clark has become notorious for his outspoken political views
To some he may be notorious, wouldn't a better word be "controversial"? (This is my first ever Wikipedia post, so I'm not sure of the procedure for changing things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polizeros (talk • contribs) 00:17, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's probably a more neutral way of wording it; I'll go ahead and change it. For future reference, you can usually go ahead and make changes directly.  If they're large, or potentially controversial, it makes sense to also put a note on the talk page explaining why you made the changes.  If they're really controversial or large, or on an issue that has already been debated/argued, it might make sense to put the note first ("I plan to change [x] to [y]; thoughts?"), but for most things you can just go ahead and be bold. --Delirium 13:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Clark's Professionalism
Could someone please reference the claim "There is a near consensus among legal professionals that Clark uses these high profile trials to draw attention to his causes while neglecting his actual responsibility as a defense attorney." Paulleake 14:05, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I generally don't like claims like this as they tend to "pick sides" in controversies are are extremely difficult to prove. If no good reference can be cited, I think the statement needs to be softened. "Legal professionals have claimed Clark uses these high profile trials to draw attention to his causes while neglecting his actual responsibility as a defense attorney." Any objection to this? Taft 18:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It was added about 20 hours ago by User:Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg, without edit comment. I don't doubt that some people have made this allegation (it would be surprising if nobody had, given how controversial his high-profile trials combined with activism have been), but a stronger statement would need to be sourced. --Delirium 19:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

My intention was not to "pick sides", my source was a cnn segment discussing Clark's career, but I suppose it is difficult to reference a television program. Until I can find a written source I have no problem if someone adds wording that downplays the claim, but I still feel somthing should be written about it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:55, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Involvement with Saddam Hussein trial
Could some one please explain why this piece of S**t is involved with the Hussian trial?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.153.153.186 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I asked some people I know the same question, and they answered because another piece of S**t invaded Iraq, and like you, can't even spell Hussein after three years of criminality in the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.163.216 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, although Clark has done many dispicable things, defending Saddam is not one of them. The right to defense counsel is a basic human right, which means that everyone's entitled to it—even somebody as evil as Hussein. --Chowbok 18:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I cannot for the life of me think of anything MORE dispicable than defending Saddam Hussein. Humor us with details here, please. What exactly has Ramsey Clark done that is more dispicable than standing up for a man as purely evil as Saddam Hussein? I know everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense but I should think that any ethical lawyer would steer clear of Hussein as a matter of course unless there is no personal objection to what Hussein did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.225.3.167 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How can "everyone" get a vigorous defense if "ethical" lawyers are to "steer clear" of particularly odious defendants? What exactly does "everyone is entitled to a vigorous defense" even mean, if the people providing said vigorous defense are to be vilified? --Chowbok 06:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

That said, this man clearly goes out of his way to bash the United States. He has said "the worst thing to happen since WWII has been American Foreign Policy". As a Advocate for world freedom and a student of history, i would argue the liberation of Eastern Europe (my ethnic homeland) and other nations almost worldwide makes America a clear force of good. Yes, the United States is not an angelic state, but we should not allow mistakes of the past to cloud the overall trends. For every Chile there is a Poland. In that regard i would easily regester this man as a overt enemy of world freedom, bassed solely on his blind contempt for the foreign policy of the United States. --Brandon Warzybok 23:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything you've said. I'm no fan of Clark. But it's a pet peeve of mine when people argue, or imply, that accused criminals aren't entitled to defense counsel, or that lawyers that provide said counsel are somehow acting dishonorably. --Chowbok 19:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please explain why people are posting their personal opinions about Clark, Hussein, and the ethics of lawyers, opinions that have nothing to do with the purpose of WP talk pages? I suggest [re]reading What Wikipedia is not and the rest of WP policies to get a better idea of what this encyclopedia is about. -- Jibal 06:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"On November 28 in a BBC interview, Clark offered the opinion that the massacre of 148 Iraqi Shi'ite men and boys in 1982 during the Iraq-Iran War was justified, as: 'He [Saddam] had this huge war going on, and you have to act firmly when you have an assassination attempt'[1]".

-As much as I dislike Ramsey Clark's opinions I think the preceding quote is unecessarily specific in light of his entire "career" and "crimes" and also unecessarily inflammatory. Most mainstream readers have already concluded that Clark is a delusional far left extremist, there is no need to rub everyone's nose in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsirvine (talk • contribs) 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I mean, he said it. How can it be unnecessarily inflammatory? I think it's important to show his opinions about the man he's defending, and the argument he's making. Maybe in the long run it should be taken out—it's just one blip in a long history of worshipping tyrants—but for now, it should be left in, since the main reason he's in the news these days is because of his involvement with the Saddam trial. (By the way, you should sign your posts.)--Chowbok 18:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I know exactly what you're talking about, but if we included every wack job quote this washed out delusional far left extremist made this article could run to hundreds of pages. He has made outlandish statements in support of every single one of his causes. --Bsirvine 18:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * How can it be unnecessarily inflammatory? Because the quote above, reporting Clark's statement, is from Christopher Hitchens, a highly opinionated but expert rhetorician.  His expertise can be seen in the way he characterizes what Clark's statement referred to, and then folks accept his characterization without question.  But there's no particular reason to think that Hitchens' (highly inflammatory) characterization is accurate.  In fact, the quote may not even be accurate, since Hitchens seems to be the only person on earth who witnessed this BBC interview; every instance I can find is of someone quoting Hitchens quoting Clark. -- Jibal 06:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but noone else has included _any_ quotes from him, you might have a point. But they haven't, so you don't. It's quite a famous quote by him, so I'm going to reinstate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmoloney (talk • contribs) 22:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for wording change: "He later achieved significant notoriety as an advocate for left-wing political causes." You want wording more neutral here. Left wing causes are only automatically notorious to right wingers. Notoriety does not mean the same as fame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.120.20 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Whatever one thinks or feels about Clark, a Wikipedia article is not the place in which to vent those feelings or views. As for Clark's defense of Saddam Hussein, keep in mind that Nazi war criminals were offered a vigorous defense by reputable and respected lawyers at the Nuremberg trials, none of whom were branded traitors for having done so. In addition, Clarence Darrow defended the notorious and despicable murderers Leopold and Loeb, to his credit. There are many more examples.

As for Clark's criticisms of the USA, he has a right to express whatever views he has. That right, presumably, is one thing that makes our country great. Again, your personal opposition to his opinions does not give you the right to negatively characterize him for having them in a article that purports to be factual and politically neutral. This is Wikipedia, not Stalinpedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.47.37 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Untitled
It seems that this article is being slashed left and right to remove any and all information about Clark's political affiliations and any and all quotes/specific cases, etc... I should say that it is NOT POV to include these cited references, and not doing so excludes information that is germane to the article. It IS POV to whitewash and sanitize this article, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.25.158.112 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ramsey Clark Interview
I've seen a lot of negativity on the guy and this article doesn't really deal with what Clark has to say about why he does these court cases. I found a website that shows an interview that William Morrison did. William Morrison was the guitar player for Skinny Puppy and he made a short documentary found on the latest Skinny Puppy DVD. You can view the video here:  I hope that these details can be added to the article if you find it useful. --69.40.118.240 21:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Specificity with his quote about necessity of Saddam's actions
I've made this a bit more specific - Clark was referring to a retaliatory massacre that followed the assassination attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rostov (talk • contribs) 01:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Please sign your statement. Dogru144 14:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Moment and nature of Clark's transformation from conventional liberal government office-holder to radical
One of the most curious things about Clark is that he was a conventional government lawyer in his early political years. Those of us of a certain age recall hearing his name in the news as an officer in the Johnson administration.

By the late 1980s he reemerged from political obscurity as someone that identified with radical causes.

The article ought to address this change in his political personality. Dogru144 14:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

POV
The entire section describing Clark's activities after leaving government carries a political bias against those activities. I edited the caption of this section, which previously had been "Controversial activities", but the entire section needs to be rewritten from a neutral point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberterubin (talk • contribs) 17:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Expanded International Activism section
I am trying to fix some of the POV in this article. I expanded the Activism section to provide more context for the Hitchens allegation and expulsion by the Iraqi judge. It is POV to stick in these criticisms without providing context. I also added several citations. And I changed the lawyer to one much better known who also has taken very controversial cases (Dershowitz has more than five times the google hits of the French lawyer). I also marked some quotes to fact check that I couldn't find. I notably couldn't find the Hitchens quote reportedly from the BBC, so I couldn't find context for that and left it as is. It is not in the BBC article from this date - does anyone know how to find BBC audio interviews or transcripts? Thanks, Jgui 20:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
It seems to me the neutrality of only one paragraph is in dispute, the International Activism section. It seems to me that instead of labeling the whole article as disputed why not just the one section? Xtrump 23:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph needs to be fixed
The following paragraph needs to be fixed or deleted:

"Former Attorney General and peace and social justice activist for his commitment to civil rights, his opposition to war and military spending and his dedication to providing legal representation to the peace movement, particularly, his efforts to free Leonard Peltier. He was awarded the Peace Abbey Courage of Conscience on October 15, 1992."

The first sentence is not gramatically correct. And it contains opinion. Notably:

"...peace and social justice activist for his commitment to civil rights, his opposition to war and military spending and his dedication to providing legal representation to the peace movement..."

contains opinion. It is dubious, to put it mildly, to claim that Clark is a "peace and social justice activist" "providing legal representation to the peace movement" as a vocal supporter of Slobodan Milosovik, Saddam Hussein, and Omar al-Bashir, indicted president of Sudan, and other tyrants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.44.230 (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Echoing and supporting Al Qaeda - removed
"Echoing and supporting Al-Qaeda and Taliban propaganda claims,..."

There is no proof in the statement or in the quoted news article that the point of view taken by Clark is in support or because of the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Therefore the statement can not be upheld. One can have a similar or the same position than somebody else but on totally different grounds and without agreeing with the other person or group of persons.

To give an example, Walt and Mearsheimer claim in The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy that the "Israel Lobby" is excessively controlling USA politics. They were almost immediately acclaimed and quoted by anti-Semitic groups, among others. This, however, cannot be construed as proof that Walt and Mearsheimer are anti-Semitic. They made their point on the basis not of anti-Semitic feelings, but a socio-political study of the importance of the Jewish population in the USA and their influence on the politics of the country compared to other religious or ethnic groups. Even if somebody does not agree with their conclusion, or the data they used, their position does still not qualify as anti-Semitic.

The same applies here with Clark, at least from the evidence presented. If the author wants to maintain the deleted passage, he should provide concrete evidence of Clark not only having the same point of view but actively supporting the Taliban and Al Qaeda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.117.63.103 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Most people would be suspicious of anyone just having the same point of view as Al Queada while not actively supporting them. Providing support, at least matterial, would land him in prison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.148.2 (talk) 03:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

NPOV 2
"Clark drew criticism for defending some of the worst dictators of the last 25 years, such as Saddam Hussein, Radovan Karadzic and Bernard Coard.[5] He has called for war crimes against American, British, and other world leaders for human rights abuses, while ignoring and even justifying the murders and war crimes his clients have committed."

CALLED for WAR CRIMES? changed to war crimes trials, added fact, anyway clearly POV, no cites, just slander, edit it or it's removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.43.236 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

"Clark drew criticism for defending some of the worst dictators" I'm sorry, this whole article is so terrible, I'm going to clean a lot of it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.43.236 (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is an absolute joke, to say the least. It is akin to a biography with about half the chapters ripped out. There are so many glaring omissions, one wonders why someone even bothered to write an article about Clark. For instance, there is no mention of Clark's International Action Center, its involvement with ANSWER, its so-called fact-finding missions in North Korea and its predictable praise of the Kim Jong Il and the living conditions present in North Korea. Clark is a modern day Walter Duranty with a law degree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.141.159.129 (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Missing Milošević info?
The lead paragraph mentions that he was a defense attorney for Slobodan Milosevic, but the International activism section only mentions his remarks at Milošević's funeral. Was he more involved than that, or is the lead a gross exaggeration? 58.147.58.28 (talk) 02:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

17 US "major aggressions"

 * ''In June, 2006, Clark wrote an article criticizing US foreign policy in general, containing a list of 17 US "major aggressions" introduced by "Both branches of our One Party system, Democrat and Republican, favor the use of force to have their way." (the list includes the Clinton years) and followed by "The United States government may have been able to outspend the Soviet Union into economic collapse in the Cold War arms race, injuring the entire planet in the process. Now Bush has entered a new arms race and is provoking a Second Cold War..."
 * The People vs. George Bush : Iraq War Crimes Tribunal

Where was this article published? It looks more like an email than an article. The website that hosts it, http://www.goodworksonearth.org/, does not look reliable. I'm also concerned that we include a large chunk of the "article" in a collapsed section. Unless we can find a better source for this I propose it be removed.  Will Beback   talk    02:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support removal. It appears to be a fundraising letter or e-mail. If his list was picked-up and reported on by reliable, non-biased sources, then I would likely be OK with it. Location (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Efforts to impeach George W. Bush
Someone wrote, "For the duration of Bush's terms in office, Clark sought, unsuccessfully, to bring Bush to stand trial for impeachment." What an appalling display of ignorance. An official does not "stand trial for impeachment." I changed it to "For the duration of Bush's terms in office, Clark sought, unsuccessfully, for the House of Representatives to bring articles of impeachment against Bush." Jonball52 (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 03:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Ramsey Clark. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/17/stories/2007121754781100.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070903114253/http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=86051 to http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view_article.php?article_id=86051
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115083651/http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0124-26.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0124-26.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090901002813/http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Anniversary/Ramsey-Clark-bio.html to http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Anniversary/Ramsey-Clark-bio.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226073556/http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html to http://www.thesunmagazine.org/bully.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060101133842/http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/624/profile.htm to http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/624/profile.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051220094929/http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/11388BFC-9290-4141-B0E1-BEA75A1B20F8.htm to http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/11388BFC-9290-4141-B0E1-BEA75A1B20F8.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051226074741/http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/ to http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/1999/06/21/clark/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050303201853/http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/ClarkR/ClarkR.asp to http://www.lbjlib.utexas.edu/johnson/archives.hom/oralhistory.hom/ClarkR/ClarkR.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.names-search.org/people/Ramsey-Clark.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070115083651/http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0124-26.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0124-26.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070718110133/http://shadow.autono.net/sin001/clark.htm to http://shadow.autono.net/sin001/clark.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Reports of his death
On Friday, 09-April-2021, some reports appeared on Twitter that Mr. Clark had died. I noticed that this had been added to the Wikipedia article, and then removed due to lack of citations.

Here's _one_, but clearly it's limited. My Spanish is about as solid as ethics in government so I can't use this as a jumping board to look for others, but maybe it'll help someone else.

http://www.cubadebate.cu/noticias/2021/04/09/fallecio-ramsey-clark-ex-fiscal-general-de-eeuu-y-amigo-de-cuba/

wiki-ny-2007 (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I saw that link in the Recent Deaths section, and went looking for an English-language link; but haven't found one that would be reliable so far (my other tab at the moment was from a site called InsideEko; but definitely am not considering them reliable due to links claiming the deaths of Tom Hanks and Goldie Hawn as well as a link for an obituary of Prince Philip dating to February (whereas Prince Philip had passed away only yesterday). Still on the lookout for anything definite. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 13:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And I see a definite confirmation has been added per the New York Times. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

First, I am a personal friend and collaborator with Ramsey, who died yesterday and I admit I am mourning and hope someone will read this and consider what I am saying. The section of this article on Clark's international activism and analysis by sociologists is obviously biased again him and follows the reasoning and characterizations of those who opposed the U.S. attempts at taking away a nation's sovereignty. The "evil dictators" touted by the U.S. state department is repeated with no regard to facts. I'm surprised this article doesn't also include the lies about the babies being thrown from incubators - the justification for the Iraq war - and the media and government officials who said those lies are still used as legitimate sources for the people like Milosovich who is thrown in as an example of Clark's mistakes for defending him. Does anyone know that Milosovich was exonerated in the criminal court - after his death? But this article still cites him to take away from Clark's legacy.

Maybe you should consider this point of view that I wrote about Clark's life:

Today a dear friend and inspiration of mine died. I traveled with him to the many targets of U.S. imperialism and met heads of state with this person who had the clout to go anywhere and who didn't mind being vilified by the corporate media that slavishly toed the line of the U.S. state department regarding his integrity, simply because he refused to go along with the lies of U.S. imperialism when they wanted to go to war, either overtly or covertly, against countries that insisted on their sovereignty and their usage of varying aspects of socialism. This person was, and will be remembered throughout human history, as a person of principle who turned his back on his privilege and connections to the ruling class when, during the Johnson Administration he refused to go along with the bombing of Cambodia and the Vietnam War. He turned his back on Johnson's cabinet position and instead put his body in harms way to stop the U.S. war drive whether it was in Sudan or in Vietnam or Syria or Iraq or anywhere he felt he could use his status to stop his country, which he quoted Martin Luther King Jr as saying, was the greatest purveyor of violence today. And he wanted to save children's lives. He assisted and led legal battles that were instrumental in helping to expose and hamper the FBI, CIA and State Department in their attacks against the democratic rights of workers and oppressed people here and abroad. And, still remained approachable, comforting and gentle to me and anyone he deemed working for the good of the planet. On our trips, in spite of his notoriety, he refused to fly first class and carried with him one outfit only, a modest jacket and tie and pants to match. Two week ago I gave him a call, probably one of the best decisions I made in life. I needed to see about an endorsement for an anti-imperialist webinar but mainly wanted to touch base and make sure he knew how important and loved he was to our movement even while he was 93 years old. He mainly wanted to talk about the right wing riot at the Capitol so I didn't want to bring up the endorsement and just enjoyed hearing his reflections on it. When the call ended I made damn sure he knew how important he was to all of us in the movement and to human history - one of the best decisions i made in life. Ramsey Clark - presente! John Thompson Parker - Harriet Tubman Center for Social Justice and Socialist Unity Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnp99999 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Father and son attorneys general
According to the article, his father was also U.S. attorney general some twenty years earlier. Would that make them the first and/or only father and son attorneys general? Editrite! (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I could not find anything specific that says they are the only father and son attorneys general. The NY Times article cited this (https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/10/us/politics/ramsey-clark-dead.html) but did not say they were the only ones. That being said, I could find no reference of any other father/son combos in U.S. history. Jurisdicta (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As he was only the 66th U.S. Attorney General (infobox), the chances of there being any other father/son combos appear to be very slim. Editrite! (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ramsey Clark


text:
Ion C. Brătianu

Ion Constantin Brătianu (June 2, 1821 – May 16, 1891) was one of the major political figures of 19th-century Romania. He was the son of Dincă Brătianu and the younger brother of Dimitrie, as well as the father of Ionel, Dinu, and Vintilă Brătianu. He also was the grandfather of poet Ion Pillat.

Early life
Born to wealthy Argeș boyars in Pitești, Principality of Wallachia, he entered the Wallachian Army in 1838, and in 1841 started studying in Paris. Returning to his native land, Brătianu took part, with his friend C. A. Rosetti and other young politicians (including his brother), in the 1848 Wallachian Revolution, and acted as prefect of the police in the provisional government formed in that year.

The restoration of Imperial Russian and Ottoman authority shortly afterwards drove him into exile. He took refuge to Paris, and endeavoured to influence French opinion in favor of the proposed union and autonomy of the Romanian Danubian Principalities. In 1854, however, he was sentenced to a fine and three months' imprisonment for sedition, and later confined in a lunatic asylum; in 1856, he returned to Wallachia with his brother – afterwards one of his foremost political opponents.

Under Cuza and in the opposition

He was in favor of the Danubian Principalities' (Wallachia's and Moldavia) union, as a member of Partida Națională. During the reign of Alexander Ioan Cuza (1859–1866), Brătianu founded (in 1875) the National Liberal Party (PNL), until today a major political formation. Opposition to the land reform united the emerging Liberals and Conservatives against the Domnitor and his inner circle. Both parties comprised mainly landowners, and allied to block legislation in the Chamber – causing Cuza to impose his authoritarian government in May 1864. The two-party coalition, remembered as the monstrous coalition, opted for the removal of Cuza. Brătianu took part in the deposition of 1866 and in the subsequent election of Prince Carol of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, under whom he held several ministerial appointments throughout the next four years.

Nonetheless, his very sinuous relationship with the new Prince was the source of several crisis situations. Notably, Brătianu would point to the benefits of a Republican project (which Rosetti and his left wing of the Liberal Party had never ceased advocating). Thus, when the experimental Republic of Ploiești was created in 1870 around a Liberal group, Ion Brătianu was arrested as the inspirational figure, but was soon released.

In 1871, the Liberals organized protests in favor of France – just defeated in the Franco-Prussian War – and implicitly against German Empire, the Conservatives, and Prince Carol himself. The weight of the moment showed the weaknesses of the Liberals, as well as Carol's resolution: the Prince called on Lascăr Catargiu to form a stable and reliable government. The change in tactics forced the Liberals to form their loose tendency as a real Party in 1875. Alongside several liberal tenets, the new formation took a further step towards advocating protectionism and persecution of Jewish Romanians (see History of the Jews in Romania). In 1876, aided by C. A. Rosetti, Brătianu formed a Liberal cabinet, which remained in power until 1888 - this marked his coming to terms with Carol.

Prominence

The government took steps at taking the country out of its Ottoman vassalage; however, it differed from Conservatives in that they saw the main threat posed to Romania in Austria-Hungary. Liberals were of the generation that had truly brought Romanians in Transylvania to the country's attention; on the other hand, Catargiu had signed an agreement with the Austrian Monarchy that awarded it commercial privilege in Romania – while quieting its suspicion towards Romanian irredentism. Brătianu's government did not disturb this climate after the Russian alliance proved unsatisfactory, and the two parties resorted to assisting Romanian cultural ventures in Transylvania (until World War I).

He aligned the country with Russia as soon as the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–1878 began – with its chapter, the Romanian War of Independence. While Romania did emancipate itself from Ottoman tutelage, Brătianu had to accommodate a prolonged Russian occupation, and the Congress of Berlin saw Russia seizing Southern Bessarabia, the only part of Bessarabia still under Romanian control (Romania was awarded Northern Dobruja in return). After the war, the Principality of Bulgaria appeared and began a search for a prince. According to Nikolay Pavlovich Ignatyev, Brătianu supported the election of Prince Carol I as monarch of Bulgaria. Ignatyev said the intention of the Romanian officials was to establish a personal union with Bulgaria. In 1881, Romania proclaimed itself a Kingdom.

The Congress also pressured the Liberals to discard the discrimination policies, and the government agreed to allow Jews and Dobrujan Muslims to apply for citizenship (with a 10-year probation), but continued forbidding foreign-born people or non-citizens from owning land. However, he had anti-Semitic views, publishing a lot of discriminatory laws, being responsible for the exile of various Jewish Romanian intellectuals. The most famous Jewish intellectual exiled by Brătianu was Moses Gaster, at the initiative of Dimitrie A. Sturdza.

The Brătianu government introduced most modern reforms in the administrative, educational, economical, and military fields. It celebrated its main success in 1883, when the Liberals managed to have the 1866 Constitution of Romania amended – enlarging the number of electors and establishing a third electoral college, one that gave some representation to peasants and the urban employees. The move was not radical, and it served to obtain the Liberals political ascendancy: the very first elections under the new law brought them an overwhelming majority.

In 1886, after a meeting with Carol I and the Bulgarian prince Alexander of Battenberg, Brătianu informed the Bulgarian diplomat Grigor Nachovich that Alexander had requested a Balkan confederation under the leadership of Carol I. This turned out to be a misunderstanding.

After 1883 Brătianu acted as sole leader of the party, owing to a quarrel with Rosetti, his friend and political ally for nearly forty years. His long tenure of office, without parallel in Romanian history, rendered Brătianu extremely unpopular, and at its close his impeachment appeared inevitable. But any proceedings taken against the minister would have involved charges against the king, who was largely responsible for his policy, and the impeachment was averted by a vote of parliament in February 1890.

Other activities
Besides being the leading statesman of Romania during the critical years 1876–1888, Brătianu attained some eminence as a writer. His French language political pamphlets, Mémoire sur l'empire d'Autriche dans la question d'Orient ("Account of the Austrian Empire in the Oriental Issue", 1855), Réflexions sur la situation ("Musings on the Situation", 1856), Mémoire sur la situation de la Moldavie depuis le traité de Paris ("Account on Moldavia's Situation After the Treaty of Paris", 1857), and La Question religieuse en Roumanie ("The Religious Issue in Romania", 1866), were all published in Paris.

In memoriam
Many places, schools, streets, etc. in Romania are named after him, including:
 * The commune I. C. Brătianu in Tulcea County.
 * The Ion C. Brătianu National College in Pitești.
 * The I.C. Brătianu National College in Hațeg.
 * The Ion C. Brătianu Boulevard in downtown Bucharest.
 * I. C. Brătianu Plaza (Timișoara) in Timișoara.
 * The Mihail Kogălniceanu-class river monitor, Ion C. Brătianu (F-46).

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ion C. Brătianu


text:
Karl von Hohenzollern

Karl von Hohenzollern or Charles of Hohenzollern may refer to:

 * Karl I, Count of Hohenzollern (1516–1576), imperial chamberlain and president of the Imperial Court Council of the Holy Roman Empire
 * Charles II, Count of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (1547–1606)
 * Karl, Count of Hohenzollern-Haigerloch (1588–1634)
 * Karl Friedrich, Prince of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (1724–1785)
 * Karl von Hohenzollern-Hechingen (1732–1803), Prince-Bishop of Warmia and Bishop of Chełmno
 * Karl, Prince of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (1785–1853)
 * Karl Anton, Prince of Hohenzollern (1811–1885), Prussian prime minister
 * Prince Karl Anton of Hohenzollern (1868–1919), Prussian general
 * Karl Friedrich von Hohenzollern (born 1952), German entrepreneur and head of the House of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen

title: Karl von Hohenzollern


text:
Neile Graham

Neile Graham (born October 8, 1958) is a poet and scholar. She was born in Winnipeg, Manitoba, and currently lives in Seattle in the United States.

Graham serves as the program administrator for both the PhD in the Built Environment and the interdisciplinary certificates in Urban Design and Historic Preservation in the College of Built Environments (formerly the College of Architecture and Urban Planning) at the University of Washington. She also administers the Clarion West Writers Workshop.

Awards

 * 2017 World Fantasy Award for Special Award, Non-Professional for excellence in the genre as Workshop Director, Clarion West (winner)

title: Neile Graham


text:
Peter Kürten

Peter Kürten (26 May 1883 – 2 July 1931) was a German serial killer, known as "The Vampire of Düsseldorf" and the "Düsseldorf Monster", who committed a series of murders and sexual assaults between February and November 1929 in the city of Düsseldorf. In the years before these assaults and murders, Kürten had amassed a lengthy criminal record for offences including arson and attempted murder. He also confessed to the 1913 murder of a nine-year-old girl in Mülheim am Rhein and the attempted murder of a 17-year-old girl in Düsseldorf.

Described by Karl Berg (forensic scientist) as "the king of the sexual perverts", Kürten was found guilty of nine counts of murder and seven counts of attempted murder for which he was sentenced to death by beheading in April 1931. He was executed in July 1931 at age 48.

Kürten became known as the "Vampire of Düsseldorf" because he occasionally made attempts to drink the blood from his victims' wounds, and the "Düsseldorf Monster" both because the majority of his murders were committed in and around the city of Düsseldorf, and due to the savagery he inflicted upon his victims' bodies.

Childhood
Peter Kürten was born into a poverty-stricken, abusive family in Mülheim am Rhein on 26 May 1883, the oldest of thirteen children (two of whom died at an early age). Kürten's parents were both alcoholics who lived in a one-bedroom apartment, and Kürten's father frequently beat his wife and children, particularly when he was drunk. When intoxicated, Kürten's father often forced his wife and children to assemble before him before ordering his wife to strip naked and have sex with him as his children watched. He was jailed for eighteen months in 1897 for repeatedly raping his eldest daughter, who was aged 13. Shortly thereafter, Kürten's mother obtained a separation order, and later remarried and relocated to Düsseldorf.

In 1888, Kürten attempted to drown one of his playmates. Four years later, he befriended a local dog-catcher who lived in the same building as his family and began accompanying him on his rounds. This individual often tortured and killed the animals he caught, and Kürten soon became an active and willing participant in torturing the animals.

Being the eldest surviving son, Kürten was the target of much of his father's physical abuse and frequently refused to return home from school as a result. Although he was a good student, he later recollected his academic performance suffered due to the extensive physical violence he endured. From an early age, Kürten often ran away from home for periods of time ranging from days to weeks. Much of the time Kürten spent on the streets was in the company of petty criminals and social misfits. Via these acquaintances, Kürten was introduced to various forms of petty crime, which he initially committed as a means of feeding and clothing himself when living on the streets.

Kürten later claimed to have committed his first murders at the age of nine, when he pushed a school friend whom he knew was unable to swim off a log raft. When a second boy attempted to save the drowning youngster, Kürten held his head under the water, so that both boys drowned. Both deaths were ruled by authorities as being accidental.

Adolescence
At the age of 13, Kürten formed a relationship with a girl his age and, although she allowed Kürten to undress and fondle her, she would resist any attempts he made to engage in intercourse. To relieve his sexual urges, Kürten resorted to acts of bestiality with the sheep, pigs and goats in local stables, but later claimed he obtained his greatest sense of elation if he stabbed the animals just before achieving orgasm. Thus, he began stabbing and slashing animals with increasing frequency to achieve orgasms, although he was adamant this behaviour ended when he was observed stabbing a pig. He also attempted to rape the same sister his father had earlier molested.

In 1897, Kürten left school. At his father's insistence, he obtained employment as an apprentice moulder. This apprenticeship lasted for two years before Kürten stole all the money he could find in his household, plus approximately 300 marks from his employer, and ran away from home. He relocated to Koblenz, where he began a brief relationship with a prostitute two years his senior who, he claimed, willingly submitted to every form of sexual perversion he demanded of her. He was apprehended four weeks later and charged with both breaking and entering and theft, and subsequently sentenced to one month's imprisonment. He was released from prison in August 1899, and reverted to a life of petty crime.

First attempted murder
Kürten claimed to have committed his first murder in November 1899. In his 1930 confessions to investigators, Kürten claimed to have "picked up an 18-year-old girl at the Alleestraße", and persuaded her to accompany him to the Hofgarten. There, he claimed to have engaged in sex with the girl before strangling her into unconsciousness with his bare hands before leaving the scene, believing her to be dead.

No contemporaneous records exist to corroborate Kürten's claims. If this attack did take place, the victim likely survived this assault. Nonetheless, Kürten later stated that, via his committing this act, he had proven to himself that the greatest heights of sexual ecstasy could only be achieved in this manner.

First convictions
Shortly thereafter, in 1900, Kürten was arrested for fraud. He would be rearrested later the same year on the same charge, although on this second occasion, charges pertaining to his 1899 Düsseldorf thefts, plus the attempted murder of a girl with a firearm, were added to the indictment. Consequently, Kürten was sentenced to four years' imprisonment in October 1900. He served this sentence in Derendorf, a borough of Düsseldorf.

Released in the summer of 1904, Kürten was drafted into the Imperial German Army; he was deployed to the city of Metz in Lorraine to serve in the 98th Infantry Regiment, although he soon deserted. That autumn, Kürten began committing acts of arson, which he would discreetly watch from a distance as emergency services attempted to extinguish the fires. The majority of these fires were in barns and haylofts, and Kürten would admit to police he had committed around 24 acts of arson upon his arrest that New Year's Eve. He also freely admitted these fires had been committed both for his sexual excitement and in the hope of burning sleeping tramps alive.

As a result of his desertion, Kürten was tried by the military court and convicted of desertion in addition to multiple counts of arson, robbery and attempted robbery (the latter charges pertaining to acts he had also committed that year), and was subsequently imprisoned from 1905 to 1913. Kürten served his sentence in Münster, with much of his time spent in solitary confinement for repeated instances of insubordination. He would later claim to investigators and psychologists this period of incarceration was that in which he first encountered severe forms of discipline, and as such, the erotic fantasies he had earlier developed while incarcerated in Derendorf expanded to include graphic fantasies of his striking out at society and killing masses of people; these fantasies became ever more paramount and overbearing in his mind, and Kürten later claimed that he derived the "sort of pleasures from these visions that other people would get from thinking about a naked woman", adding that he occasionally spontaneously ejaculated while preoccupied with such thoughts.

First murder
The first murder Kürten definitively committed occurred on 25 May 1913. During the course of a burglary at a tavern in Mülheim am Rhein, he encountered a nine-year-old girl named Christine Klein asleep in her bed. Kürten strangled the child, then slashed her twice across the throat with a pocket knife, ejaculating as he heard the blood dripping from her wounds onto the floor by her bed and on his hand.

The following day, Kürten specifically returned to Köln to drink in a tavern located directly opposite that in which he had murdered Klein, so that he could listen to the locals' reactions to the child's murder. He later recollected to investigators that he derived an extreme sense of gratification from the general disgust, repulsion, and outrage he had heard in the patrons' conversations. Moreover, in the weeks following Klein's funeral, Kürten occasionally travelled to Mülheim am Rhein to visit the child's grave, adding that when he handled the soil covering the grave, he spontaneously ejaculated.

Two months later—again in the course of committing a burglary with the aid of a skeleton key—Kürten broke into a home in Düsseldorf. Discovering a 17-year-old girl named Gertrud Franken asleep in her bed, Kürten manually strangled the girl, ejaculating at the sight of blood spouting from her mouth, before leaving the crime scene. Kürten managed to escape from the scene of this attempted murder and the earlier murder of Klein undetected.

Imprisonment and release
Just days after the attempted murder of Franken, on 14 July, Kürten was arrested for a series of arson attacks and burglaries. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment, although his repeated instances of insubordination, while imprisoned, saw his incarceration extended by a further two years. Kürten served this sentence in a military prison in the town of Brieg (then part of the German Empire).

Released in April 1921, Kürten relocated to Altenburg, where he initially lived with his sister. Through his sister, Kürten became acquainted with a woman three years his senior named Auguste Scharf, a sweet shop proprietor and former prostitute who had previously been convicted of shooting her fiancé to death, and to whom Kürten initially posed as a former prisoner of war. Two years later, Kürten and Scharf married, and although the couple regularly engaged in sex, Kürten later admitted he could consummate his marriage only by fantasising about committing violence against another individual, and that, after their wedding night, he engaged in intercourse with his wife only at her invitation.

For the first time in his life, Kürten obtained regular employment, also becoming an active trades union official, although, with the exception of his wife, he formed no close friendships. In 1925, he returned with Scharf to Düsseldorf, where he soon began affairs with a servant girl named Tiede and a housemaid named Mech. Both women were frequently subjected to partial strangulation when they submitted to intercourse, with Tiede once being informed by Kürten, "That's what love means." When his wife discovered his infidelity, Tiede reported Kürten to police, claiming he had seduced her; Mech alleged Kürten had raped her. The more serious charge was later dropped, although Tiede's allegations were pursued, thus earning Kürten an eight-month prison sentence for seduction and threatening behaviour. Kürten served six months of this sentence, with his early release being upon the condition he left Düsseldorf. He later successfully appealed the ruling that he relocate from the city.

1929
On 3 February 1929, Kürten stalked a middle-aged woman named Apollonia Kühn. Waiting until Kühn was shielded from the view of potential witnesses by bushes, Kürten pounced upon her, grabbing her by the lapels of her coat and shouting the words, "No row! Don't scream!" before dragging her into nearby undergrowth, where he proceeded to stab her 24 times with a sharpened pair of scissors. Although many of the blows were inflicted so deeply that the scissors struck her bones, Kühn survived her injuries. On 8 February, Kürten strangled a nine-year-old girl named Rosa Ohliger into unconsciousness before stabbing her in the stomach, temple, genitals and heart with a pair of scissors, spontaneously ejaculating as he knifed the child. He then inserted his semen into her vagina with his fingers. Kürten then made a rudimentary effort to hide Ohliger's body by dragging it beneath a hedge before returning to the scene with a bottle of kerosene several hours later and setting the child's body alight, achieving an orgasm at the sight of the flames. Ohliger's body was found beneath a hedge the following day.

Five days later, on 13 February, Kürten murdered a 45-year-old mechanic named Rudolf Scheer in the suburb of Flingen Nord, stabbing him twenty times, particularly about the head, back and eyes. Following the discovery of Scheer's body, Kürten returned to the scene of the murder to converse with police, falsely informing one detective he had heard about the murder via telephone.

Despite the differences in age and sex of these three victims, the fact that all three crimes had been committed in the Flingern district of Düsseldorf at dusk, that each victim had received a multitude of stab wounds likely inflicted in rapid succession and invariably involving at least one wound to the temple, plus the absence of a common motive such as robbery, led investigators to conclude the same perpetrator had committed all three attacks. Furthermore, the seemingly random selection of these victims led criminologists to remark as to the abnormal nature of the perpetrator.

Although Kürten did attempt to strangle four women between March and July 1929, one of whom he claimed to have thrown into the Rhine River, he is not known to have killed any further victims until 11 August when he raped, strangled, then repeatedly stabbed a young woman named Maria Hahn. Kürten had first encountered Hahn—whom he described as "a girl looking for marriage"—on 8 August, and had arranged to take her on a date to the Neandertal district of Düsseldorf the following Sunday. After several hours in Hahn's company, Kürten lured her into a meadow in order that he could kill her; he later admitted Hahn had repeatedly pleaded with him to spare her life as he alternately strangled her, stabbed her in the chest and head, or sat astride her body, waiting for her to die. Hahn died approximately one hour after Kürten had begun attacking her. Fearful his wife might connect the bloodstains she had noted on his clothes with Hahn's murder, Kürten later buried her body in a cornfield, only to return to her body several weeks later with the intention of nailing her decomposing remains to a tree in a mock crucifixion to shock and disgust the public; however, Hahn's remains proved too heavy for Kürten to complete this act, and he simply returned her corpse to her grave before embracing and caressing the decomposing body as he lay beneath her remains. He then reburied Hahn's body. According to Kürten's later confession, both before and after he had attempted to impale Hahn's corpse to a tree, he "went to the grave many times and kept improving on it; and every time I thought of what was lying there and was filled with satisfaction."

Three months after Kürten had murdered Hahn, he posted an anonymous letter to the police in which he confessed to the murder, adding that her remains had been buried in a field. In this letter, Kürten also drew a crude map describing the location of the remains. This letter would prove sufficiently detailed to enable investigators to locate Hahn's remains on 15 November.

Following the Hahn murder, Kürten changed his choice of weapon from scissors to a knife in an apparent effort to convince police more than one perpetrator was responsible for the unfolding crime spree. In the early morning of 21 August, he randomly stabbed an 18-year-old girl, a 30-year-old man, and a 37-year-old woman in separate attacks. All three were seriously wounded, and all stated to police their assailant had not spoken a word to them before he had attacked them. Three days later, at a fairground in the suburb of Flehe, Kürten observed two foster sisters (aged 5 and 14) walking from the fairground, through adjoining allotments, en route to their home. Sending the older girl, Luise Lenzen, on an errand to purchase cigarettes for him upon the promise of being given 20 pfennig, Kürten lifted the younger child, Gertrude Hamacher, off the ground by her neck and strangled her into unconsciousness before cutting her throat and discarding her body in a patch of runner beans. When Lenzen returned to the scene, Kürten partially strangled her before stabbing her about the torso, with one wound piercing her aorta. He also bit and twice cut her throat before sucking blood from the wounds. Neither girl had been sexually assaulted, and the fact only Lenzen's footprints were found within seven meters of her body suggests she may have attempted to flee from her attacker before collapsing.

The following day, Kürten accosted a 27-year-old housemaid named Gertrude Schulte, whom he openly asked to engage in sex with him. Upon being rebuffed, Kürten shouted, "Well, die then!" before repeatedly stabbing the woman in the head, neck, shoulder, and back. Schulte survived her injuries, although she was unable to provide investigators with a clear description of her assailant, beyond assuming his age to be around 40.

Kürten attempted to murder two further victims—one by strangulation; another by stabbing—in September, before opting to predominantly use a hammer in his murders.

Hammer attacks
On the evening of 30 September, Kürten encountered a 31-year-old servant girl named Ida Reuter at Düsseldorf station. He successfully persuaded Reuter to accompany him to a café, and then for a walk through the local Hofgarten close to the Rhine River. At this location, he repeatedly struck her about the head with a hammer both before and after he had raped her. At one stage in this assault, Reuter regained consciousness and began pleading with Kürten to spare her life. In response, Kürten simply "gave her other hammer blows on the head and misused her".

Eleven days later, on 11 October, he encountered a 22-year-old servant girl named Elizabeth Dörrier outside a theatre. As had been the case with Reuter, Dörrier agreed to accompany Kürten for a drink at a café before the pair took a train to Grafenberg, to walk alongside the Kleine Düssel river. Here she was struck once across her right temple with a hammer, then raped. Kürten struck her repeatedly about the head and both temples with his hammer and left her for dead. Dörrier was found in a coma at 6:30 a.m. the following morning; she died from her injuries the following day. On 25 October, Kürten attacked two women with a hammer; both survived, although in the second instance, this may have been because Kürten's hammer broke in the attack.

On 7 November 1929, Kürten encountered a 5-year-old girl named Gertrude Albermann in the Flingern district of Düsseldorf; he persuaded the child to accompany him to a section of deserted allotments, where he seized her by the throat and strangled her, stabbing her once in the left temple with a pair of scissors as per his modus operandi. When Albermann "collapsed to the ground without a sound", Kürten stabbed the child 34 further times in the temple and chest before placing her body in a pile of nettles close to a factory wall.

Investigation
By the late summer of 1929, the murders committed by the individual the press had dubbed "The Vampire of Düsseldorf" were receiving considerable national and international attention. Due to the sheer savagery of the murders, the diverse backgrounds of the victims, and the differing methods in which they had been assaulted and/or murdered, both the police and the press theorized the spate of assaults and murders were the work of more than one perpetrator. By the end of 1929, Düsseldorf police had received more than 13,000 letters from the public. With assistance from surrounding police forces, each lead was painstakingly pursued. As a result of this collective investigation into the killings, more than 9,000 individuals were interviewed, 2,650 other clues painstakingly pursued and a list of 900,000 different names were compiled upon an official potential suspect list.

Correspondence
Two days after the murder of Gertrude Albermann, a local communist newspaper received a map revealing the location of the grave of Maria Hahn. In this drawing, Kürten also revealed precisely where he had left Albermann's body (which had been found earlier that day), describing the exact position of her corpse, which he stated could be found face-down among bricks and rubble. An analysis of the handwriting revealed the author was the same individual who had anonymously informed police in a letter dated 14 October that he had killed Hahn and buried her body "at the edge of the woods". Each of the three letters Kürten had thus far sent to newspapers and police describing his exploits and threatening further assaults and murders were examined by a graphologist, who confirmed the same individual had written each letter, thus leading Ernst Gennat, chief inspector of the Berlin Police, to conclude that one man was responsible for most or all of the spate of assaults and murders.

1930
The murder of Gertrude Albermann proved to be Kürten's final fatal attack, although he did engage in a spate of non-fatal hammer attacks and attempted strangulations between February and May 1930, maiming ten victims in these assaults. All the victims survived and many were able to describe their attacker to the police.

On 14 May 1930, an unknown man approached a 20-year-old woman named Maria Budlick at Düsseldorf station. Discovering Budlick had travelled to Düsseldorf from Köln in search of lodgings and employment, he offered to direct her towards a local hostel. Budlick agreed to follow the man, although she became apprehensive when he attempted to lead her through a scarcely populated park. The pair began to argue, whereupon another man approached the two, asking whether Budlick was being pestered by her companion. When Budlick nodded, the man with whom she had been arguing simply walked away. The identity of the man who reportedly came to Budlick's aid was Peter Kürten.

Kürten invited the distressed young woman to his apartment on Mettmanner Straße to eat and drink before Budlick—correctly deducing the underlying motive for Kürten's hospitality—stated she was uninterested in engaging in sex with him. Kürten calmly agreed and offered to lead Budlick to a hotel, although he instead lured her into the Grafenburg Woods, where he seized her by the throat and attempted to strangle her as he raped her. When Budlick began to scream, Kürten released his grasp on her throat, before allowing her to leave.

Budlick did not report this assault to police, but described her ordeal in a letter to a friend, although she addressed the letter incorrectly. As such, the letter was opened at the post office by a clerk on 19 May. Upon reading the contents of the letter, this clerk forwarded the letter to the Düsseldorf police. This letter was read by Chief Inspector Gennat, who assumed there was a slim chance Budlick's assailant might be the Düsseldorf murderer. Gennat interviewed Budlick, who recounted her ordeal, further divulging one of the reasons Kürten had spared her was because she had falsely informed him she could not remember his address. She agreed to lead the police to Kürten's home, on Mettmanner Straße. When the landlady of the property let Budlick into the room of 71 Mettmanner Straße, Budlick confirmed to Gennat that this was the address of her assailant. The landlady confirmed to the chief inspector the tenant's name was Peter Kürten.

Arrest and confession
Although Kürten was not at home when Budlick and Gennat searched his property, he spotted the pair in the communal hallway and promptly left. Knowing that his identity was now known to the police and suspecting they may also have connected him to the crimes committed by the Vampire of Düsseldorf, Kürten confessed to his wife he had raped Budlick and that because of his previous convictions, he may receive fifteen years penal labour. With his wife's consent, he found lodgings in the Adlerstraße district of Düsseldorf, and did not return to his own home until 23 May. Upon returning home, Kürten confessed to his wife he was the Vampire of Düsseldorf. He urged his wife to collect the substantial reward offered for his capture. Auguste Kürten contacted the police the following day. In the information provided to detectives, Kürten's wife explained that although she had known her husband had been repeatedly imprisoned in the past, she was unaware of his culpability in any murders. She then added that her husband had confessed to her his culpability in the Düsseldorf murders and that he was willing to likewise confess to the police. Furthermore, he was to meet her outside St. Rochus church later that day. That afternoon, Kürten was arrested at gunpoint.

Kürten freely admitted his guilt in all the crimes police had attributed to the Vampire of Düsseldorf, and further confessed he had committed the unsolved murder of Christine Klein and the attempted murder of Gertrud Franken in 1913. In total, Kürten admitted to 68 crimes including nine murders and 31 attempted murders. He made no attempt to excuse his crimes but justified them on the basis of what he saw as the injustices he had endured throughout his life. Nonetheless, he was adamant he had not tortured any of his child victims. Kürten also admitted to both investigators and psychiatrists that the sight of his victim's blood was, on many occasions, sufficient to bring him to orgasm, and that, on occasion, if he experienced ejaculation in the act of strangling a woman, he would immediately become apologetic to his victim, proclaiming, "That's what love is all about". He further claimed to have drunk the blood from the throat of one victim, from the temple of another, and to have licked the blood from a third victim's hands. In the Hahn murder, he had drunk so much blood from the neck wound that he had vomited. Kürten also admitted to having decapitated a swan in the spring of 1930 in order that he could drink the blood from the animal's neck, achieving ejaculation in the process.

Psychological study
As Kürten awaited his trial, then later as he awaited his execution, he was extensively interviewed by Karl Berg. In these interviews, Kürten stated to Berg that his primary motive in committing any form of criminal activity was one of sexual pleasure, and that he had begun to associate sexual excitement with violent acts and the sight of blood via indulging in both day-dreams and masturbation fantasies — particularly when he had been isolated from human contact. The majority of his assaults and murders had been committed when his wife had been working evenings, and the number of stab or bludgeoning wounds Kürten inflicted upon each victim had varied depending upon the length of time it had taken him to achieve an orgasm. Furthermore, the sight of his victim's blood had been integral to his sexual stimulation. Kürten further elaborated to Berg that once he had committed an attack or murder, the feeling of tension he experienced before the commission of the crime would be superseded by one of relief.

In reference to the choice of weapon used in his attacks, Kürten stressed that although he had changed his method of attack to deceive investigators into believing they were seeking more than one perpetrator, the weapon he used was inconsequential to his ultimate objective of seeing his victim's blood. Elaborating, Kürten stated: "Whether I took a knife or a pair of scissors or a hammer in order to see blood was a matter of indifference to me or mere chance. Often after the hammer blows the bleeding victims moved and struggled, just as they did when they were throttled." Kürten further confided that although he had occasionally penetrated his female victims, he had only done so to feign the act of coitus as a motive for his crimes. He also confessed that many of his later strangulation victims had only survived his attacks because he had achieved an orgasm in the early throes of the assault.

However, Kürten contradicted these claims by proclaiming to both Berg and legal examiners that his primary motive in all his criminal activities was to both "strike back at [an] oppressive society" for what he considered the injustice of his being repeatedly incarcerated throughout his life, and as a form of revenge for the neglect and abuse he had endured as a child. These desires had fomented in his mind throughout the long periods he had been in solitary confinement for various forms of insubordination, and Kürten explained that he deliberately broke minor prison rules as a means of guaranteeing that he would be sentenced to solitary confinement in order that he could indulge in these psychosexual fantasies. To Berg and the legal examiners, Kürten did not deny that he had sexually molested his female victims, or to have stroked or digitally penetrated their genitals as he stabbed, slashed, strangled or bludgeoned their bodies, although throughout his trial Kürten consistently claimed the sexual assault of his victims was not his primary motive.

Both Berg and other psychologists concluded Kürten was not insane, was fully able to control his actions, and appreciated the criminality of his conduct. Each ruled Kürten was legally sane and competent to stand trial.

Trial
On 13 April 1931, Kürten stood trial in Düsseldorf. He was charged with nine counts of murder and seven of attempted murder, and was tried before Presiding Judge Rose. Kürten pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity to each of the charges. Aside from when delivering testimony, Kürten would spend the duration of his trial surrounded by a heavily guarded shoulder-high iron cage specifically constructed to protect him from attack by the enraged relatives of his victims, and his feet were shackled whenever he was inside this cage.

Proceedings began with the prosecution formally reciting each of the charges against Kürten before they recited the formal confession he had provided to police following his arrest. When then asked by the presiding judge to describe why he had continued to commit acts of arson throughout 1929 and 1930, Kürten explained: "When my desire for injuring people awoke, the love of setting fire to things awoke as well. The sight of the flames excited me, but above all, it was the excitement of the attempts to extinguish the fire and the agitation of those who saw their property being destroyed."

Having first claimed that his initial confession had been simply to allow his wife to recoup the reward money offered for the capture of the Düsseldorf Vampire, several days into his trial, Kürten instructed his defence attorney that he wished to change his plea to one of guilty. Addressing the court, Kürten proclaimed: "I have no remorse. As to whether recollection of my deeds makes me feel ashamed, I will tell you [that] thinking back to all the details is not at all unpleasant. I rather enjoy it." Further pressed as to whether he considered himself to possess a conscience, Kürten stated he did not. Nonetheless, when pressed as to his motivation in confessing, Kürten reiterated: "Why don't you understand that I am fond of my wife, and that I am still fond of her? I have done many wrongs; have been unfaithful over and over again. My wife has never done any wrong. Even when she heard of the many prison sentences I have served, she said: 'I won't let you down, otherwise you'll be lost altogether.' I wanted to fix for my wife a carefree old age."

To counteract Kürten's insanity defence, the prosecution introduced five eminent doctors and psychiatrists to testify; each testified that Kürten was legally sane and had been in control of his actions and impulses at all times. Typical of the testimony delivered by these experts was that of Franz Sioli, who testified as to Kürten's motivation in his crimes being the desire to achieve the sexual gratification he demanded, and that this satisfaction could only be achieved by acts of brutality, violence and Kürten's knowledge of the pain and misery his actions caused to others. Berg testified that Kürten's motive in committing murder and attempted murder was 90 per cent sadism, and 10 per cent revenge relating to his perceived sense of injustice for both the neglect and abuse he had endured both as a child and the discipline he endured while incarcerated. Moreover, Berg stated that despite Kürten's admission to having embraced and digitally penetrated the corpse of Maria Hahn, and to have spontaneously ejaculated while holding the soil covering the coffin of Christine Klein, his conclusion was that Kürten was not a necrophiliac.

Further evidence of Kürten's awareness was referenced by the premeditated nature of his crimes; his ability to abandon an attack if he sensed a risk of being disturbed; and his acute memory of both his crimes and their chronological detail. Also disclosed in the first week of the trial were the deaths of the two boys whom Kürten had confessed to drowning at the age of nine, with the prosecution suggesting these deaths indicated Kürten had displayed a homicidal propensity dating much earlier than 1913. However, this view was disputed by medical witnesses, who suggested that although indicative of inherent depravity, these two deaths should not be compared to Kürten's later murders as to a child, the death of a friend can be seen as nothing more than an inconsequential passing.

Upon cross-examination, Kürten's defence attorney, Alex Wehner, did challenge these experts' conclusions, arguing the sheer range of perversions his client had engaged in was tantamount to insanity. However, each doctor and psychiatrist remained adamant as to Kürten being legally sane and responsible for his actions.

In a further attempt to discredit the validity of many of the charges recited at the opening stages of the trial, Wehner also questioned whether the occasional physical inaccuracies of the crimes described in his client's confession equated to Kürten having fabricated at least some of the crimes, thus supporting his contention Kürten possessed a diseased mind. In response, Berg conceded that sections of Kürten's confessions were false, but argued that the knowledge he possessed of the murder scenes and the wounds inflicted upon the victims left him in no doubt as to his guilt, and that the minor embellishments in his confessions could be attributed to Kürten's narcissistic personality.

Conviction
The trial lasted ten days. On 22 April, the jury retired to consider their verdict. They deliberated for under two hours before reaching their verdict: Kürten was found guilty and sentenced to death on nine counts of murder. He was also found guilty of seven counts of attempted murder. Kürten displayed no emotion as the sentence was passed, although in his final address to the court, he stated that he now saw his crimes as being "so ghastly that [he did] not want to make any sort of excuse for them".

Kürten did not lodge an appeal of his conviction, although he submitted a petition for pardon to the Minister of Justice, who was a known opponent of capital punishment. The petition was formally rejected on 1 July. Kürten remained composed upon receipt of this news, and asked for permission to see his confessor, to write letters of apology to the relatives of his victims, and a final farewell letter to his wife. All of these requests were granted.

Execution
On the evening of 1 July 1931, Kürten received his last meal. He ordered Wiener schnitzel, a bottle of white wine, and fried potatoes. Kürten ate the entire meal before requesting a second helping. The prison staff decided to grant his request.

At 06:00 on 2 July, Kürten was beheaded via guillotine in the grounds of Klingelputz Prison, Cologne. His executioner was Carl Gröpler. He walked unassisted to the guillotine, flanked by the prison psychiatrist and a priest.

Shortly before his head was placed on the guillotine, Kürten turned to the prison psychiatrist and asked the question: "Tell me... after my head is chopped off, will I still be able to hear, at least for a moment, the sound of my own blood gushing from the stump of my neck? That would be the pleasure to end all pleasures." When asked whether he had any last words to say, Kürten simply smiled and replied, "No".

Aftermath
Following Kürten's 1931 execution, his head was bisected and mummified; the brain was removed and subjected to forensic analysis in an attempt to explain his personality and behaviour. The examinations of Kürten's brain revealed no abnormalities. The autopsy conducted upon Kürten's body revealed that, aside from his having an enlarged thymus gland, Kürten had not been suffering any physical abnormality.

The interviews Kürten granted to Karl Berg in 1930 and 1931 were the first psychological study of a sexual serial killer. The interviews formed the basis of Berg's book, The Sadist.

Shortly after the Second World War, Kürten's head was taken to the United States. It is currently on display at the Ripley's Believe It or Not! museum in Wisconsin Dells, Wisconsin.

Film

 * The first film to draw inspiration from the murders committed by Peter Kürten, M, was released in May 1931. Directed by Fritz Lang, M starred Peter Lorre as a fictional child killer named Hans Beckert. In addition to drawing inspiration from the case of Peter Kürten, M was also inspired by the then-recent and notorious crimes of Fritz Haarmann and Carl Großmann.
 * The 1965 thriller Le Vampire de Düsseldorf (The Vampire of Düsseldorf) is based on the case of Peter Kürten. Directed by Robert Hossein (who also cast himself as Peter Kürten), the film also stars Marie-France Pisier.
 * The 2009 film Normal is based on the crimes of Peter Kürten. Directed by Julius Ševčík, Normal is a film adaptation of playwright Anthony Neilson's Normal: The Düsseldorf Ripper. The film stars Milan Kňažko as Kürten, and is portrayed from the point of view of his defence lawyer.

Books

 * Berg, Karl (1938) The Sadist ISBN 978-9-333-35227-7
 * Berg, Karl; Godwin, George (1937) Monsters of Weimar: Kürten, the Vampire of Düsseldorf ISBN 1-897743-10-6
 * Cawthorne, Nigel; Tibballs, Geoffrey (1993) Killers: The Ruthless Exponents of Murder ISBN 0-7522-0850-0
 * Elder, Sace (2010) Murder Scenes: Normality, Deviance, and Criminal Violence in Weimar Berlin ISBN 978-0-472-11724-6
 * Godwin, George (1938) Peter Kürten: A Study In Sadism ASIN = B00191ENHA
 * Lane, Brian; Gregg, Wilfred (1992) The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers ISBN 978-0-747-23731-0
 * Nash, Jay Robert (2004) The Great Pictorial History of World Crime, Volume 2 ISBN 978-1-461-71215-2
 * Swinney, C.L. (2016) Monster: The True Story of Serial Killer Peter Kürten ISBN 978-1-987-90215-0
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon (2006) The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon; Wilson, Rowan (1993) The Giant Book of World Famous Murders ISBN 978-0-752-50122-2
 * Wynn, Douglas (1996) On Trial For Murder ISBN 978-0-3303-3947-6

Theatre

 * Normal: The Düsseldorf Ripper is a play focusing on the case of Peter Kürten. Scripted by Anthony Neilson, the play was first performed at Edinburgh's Pleasance Theatre in August 1991. Normal: The Düsseldorf Ripper has since become the inspiration for one film.

Television

 * The BBC commissioned a documentary on the murders committed by Peter Kürten. This documentary, Profiles of the Criminal Mind, largely focuses on the forensic profiling of Kürten's crimes, and was first broadcast in 2001.

Cited works and further reading

 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.
 * Wilson, Colin; Wilson, Damon. The World's Most Evil Murderers: Real-Life Stories of Infamous Killers. Paragon Publishing, 2006. pp. 20–24. ISBN 978-1-405-48828-0.

title: Peter Kürten