Parents of Woman Killed in Psychiatric Facility Demand Investigation

Following the violent death of a woman in a psychiatric clinic near Munich, her parents are fighting to force an investigation into the facility. "The circumstances surrounding this terrible act and why Kamilla had to die remain unclear to this day," stated Jella von Wiarda, the family’s lawyer. She and the relatives are demanding a "legal, constitutional review" of the case.

To this end, they have filed a request for judicial review with the Higher Regional Court (OLG) in Munich. A justice spokesperson confirmed receipt of the request, and the files have been requested from the State Attorney General’s office. The timing of a decision on the request remains uncertain.

"My child was killed by a monster," said the victim’s mother, Eleonora Nagy. She expressed her "incredulity" that there was an attempt to "simply sweep the matter under the rug." "We want justice."

The 40-year-old patient was killed on May 31, 2022, at the Isar-Amper-Klinikum in Haar by a man who was forcibly admitted there. He later admitted during the trial before the Munich I Regional Court that he tortured her with a metal bar, strangled her with her sweater, and then set her on fire.

The man had only been admitted to the clinic a few hours before the crime because he told police he had killed a dog on God’s orders and intended to kill a human being.

Why was the man able to attack his fellow patient undisturbed? Why did no one intervene? These are the questions that the victim’s parents continue to ask today – and that the Munich I Public Prosecutor’s Office also pondered for a time.

In 2022, it launched an investigation against persons unknown on suspicion of negligent manslaughter by omission – and discontinued it in January 2025. The Munich Public Prosecutor General’s Office did not grant an appeal against the discontinuation. The negative decision came on March 24. The family now intends to take action against this decision at the OLG.

The Isar-Amper-Klinikum declined to comment on the incident upon request – even regarding whether security precautions there may have been tightened in the meantime.

The case has ignited a heated debate regarding the safety and security protocols within psychiatric institutions, particularly those dealing with individuals exhibiting violent tendencies or expressing intentions of causing harm. The parents’ unwavering pursuit of justice underscores the profound grief and frustration they feel, compounded by what they perceive as a lack of transparency and accountability on the part of the authorities and the clinic itself.

The crux of the family’s argument lies in the unanswered questions surrounding the events leading up to Kamilla’s death. How could a newly admitted patient, who had explicitly stated his intention to kill, be allowed to roam freely within the facility, ultimately leading to a fatal attack on a vulnerable fellow patient? What measures, if any, were in place to monitor and manage potentially dangerous individuals? And why did staff members apparently fail to intervene in time to prevent the tragedy from unfolding?

These questions form the foundation of the family’s legal challenge, seeking to overturn the initial decision to discontinue the investigation into potential negligence on the part of the clinic. The request for judicial review filed with the Higher Regional Court represents a significant step in their quest for answers and accountability.

The decision by the Munich I Public Prosecutor’s Office to initially launch an investigation, only to later discontinue it, raises concerns about the thoroughness and impartiality of the investigation process. The family’s subsequent appeal to the State Attorney General’s Office, which was ultimately rejected, further fuels their suspicion that the case is not being given the attention and scrutiny it deserves.

The Isar-Amper-Klinikum’s refusal to comment on the incident, including whether any security measures have been implemented since the tragedy, further exacerbates the family’s concerns and contributes to the perception of a lack of transparency. The absence of any public statement or acknowledgment of responsibility from the clinic only intensifies the family’s grief and anger.

The legal proceedings initiated by the family have the potential to set a precedent for future cases involving allegations of negligence and misconduct within psychiatric facilities. The outcome of the case could have far-reaching implications for the standards of care and safety protocols required in such institutions, as well as the level of accountability expected from them in the event of preventable tragedies.

The family’s unwavering determination to seek justice for Kamilla serves as a poignant reminder of the importance of protecting vulnerable individuals within psychiatric care settings. Their fight for answers and accountability highlights the need for greater transparency, rigorous oversight, and a commitment to ensuring the safety and well-being of all patients entrusted to the care of these facilities. The case also underscores the critical role of families in advocating for their loved ones and demanding answers when they believe that systemic failures have contributed to tragic outcomes.

The Higher Regional Court’s decision on the request for judicial review will be a crucial turning point in this ongoing saga. A favorable ruling would pave the way for a renewed investigation into the circumstances surrounding Kamilla’s death, potentially uncovering evidence of negligence or misconduct on the part of the clinic. Conversely, a rejection of the request would further solidify the family’s perception that the system is failing them and that justice for Kamilla remains elusive.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of the legal proceedings, the family’s unwavering pursuit of justice has already brought attention to the critical issues of patient safety and accountability within psychiatric facilities. Their efforts have sparked a public conversation about the need for greater transparency and oversight, as well as a renewed focus on ensuring that these institutions are held responsible for providing a safe and secure environment for all patients under their care.