Epilogue 6.2.2011

The 27th of October 2010 Dr. med. Dagmar Schäfer writes a hallucinating 6 pages long sentimental letter to the Judge Marcel Dué. This letter shows to be a Greek tragedy worthy. Here it appears that Schäfer still lives in the illusion that the bird belongs to her and that she can convince judge Dué, that even though she has lost this case, she is of such an importance for society that she can overrule the court’s prior decision and keep Lord B. The veterinary documents delivered to the court shows that her last visit at the veterinary clinic with Lord B was the 10th of September 2009. 13 month after visiting the veterinary for the last time Schäfer once again shows off her purchasing power, this time proposing a five digit amount to buy Lord B. Her offer was off course refused. As the legal net closed around Schäfer and she couldn’t buy Lord B, the bird suddenly dies under mysteriously circumstances the 10th of November 2010?

Now according to the specialist in diseases Dr. med. Dagmar Schäfer, Lord B was suddenly once  again suffering from a deadly disease, whereas her letter to Judge Dué the 27th of October 2010 shows that she was still living in the hope that she could keep the bird.

Veterinary Gerlach who has earlier testimonied in court during this case was aware that the bird might not belong to Dagmar Schäfer, but didn't neither take off the ring on the dead bird's leg, make an autopsy examination to determine the cause of death, nor was a photo taken of the dead bird?

As no autopsy examination was made the 10th of November 2010, can we be sure that Lord B didn't die from a deliberately poisoning which had nothing to do with the unnamed fungus, which according to Schäfer’s written statement of 9.th of june 2009 was successfully cured over a year before? This hypothetical explanation could be a logical reason for Schäfer not wishing to document a natural death and was in such a hurry to burn and spread the ashes of Lord B. 

Both Lord B's ring with his registered CITES number and the ashes has disappeared, so another hypothesis is that Lord B can still be alive? 

Frau Schäfer and her solicitor has been handling and colouring this case, in an unethical way. A collapse of integrity and ethical behaviour which I find very symbolic concerning the issue of mankind, sustainability and the "animal martyr" caught up in the drama of human stupidities and European bureaucracy. This situation also raises moral questions about trust in authorities, such as a German doctor clinic in a wealthy neighbourhood, where the retired Police officer Mr. Emmerling by coincidence stands 60 cm from the doctors consulting room (not waiting in the waiting area several meters away from the closed door) listening to what could eventually be a patient conversation?!  I have never seen this man, and as we already know the court didn't believe his storytelling to help his friend.

It is worth remembering that part of Schäfers dishonest arguments for not delivering back Lord B was her financial claims for destroyed furniture’s in her private home and medical clinic. Dagmar Schäfer was early in 2009 delivered a large cage for the parrot. In the above mentioned letter she explains Judge Dué that she could never dream of keeping an exotic bird such as Lord B in a cage. Such a bird should be free and allowed to fly free wherever and when he wanted. Nevertheless Schäfer and her solicitor wasn’t shy to methodically claim a high financial damage for the destructed items which was caused by her own irresponsible decision. One could conclude that this tactic of systematically claiming financial compensation for destroyed furniture, were with the explicit intent to make Schäfers defense in court look legitimate. These financial claims were rejected by the court. 

Here in the times of the financial crisis we hear a lot in the international Medias about “white-collar crimes” which refers to persons of respectability and high social status in the course of their occupation. In the Danish Medias breaking news these days, we can currently follow a similar but different sort of crime; “the white-Smock crime”.

History has often shown us that some individuals do not understand the juridical reality and real life reality, which is not always the same. Especially not for someone who has enough financial resources to hire a solicitor to drag out time and live out their fantasies until reality catches up on such an individual. 

To get a better insight into what went on in Dagmar Schäfer’s head a few days before Lord B’s proclaimed death; see an extract of her letter to Judge Marcel Dué the 27th of October 2010. 

When you have read this real time soap opera, some might question the mental health of such an individual, but it seems that certain rules of society protect the names of individuals in trusted professions which are not shown in the Medias, whereas as the names of students/environmental activists are available entertainment to a large audience reading the German yellow press.

Read more here: http://bit.ly/hvkG8N