the COPENHAGEN city COURT (Ekstra Bladet): Krammeterapeut and an expert in health Per Brændgaard had even on Facebook urged people to appear in court, where he is accused of rape by a woman he had in krammeterapi.
And there were so many that did, that had to be downloaded extra chairs for courtroom 27 in the Copenhagen city Court, before the trial started. About twenty spectators had turned up.
The 47-year-old defendants is wearing a dark shirt and a dark blazer. The hair is put in a small ponytail.
According to the indictment, made Per Brændgaard out sexual intercourse and other sexual relation than intercourse with a woman, as he was krammeterapeut for, under the pretence that they should have a krammeterapi-session 31. last may, in the period 20 to 22.20 in his apartment on Østerbro, where he also operates his therapy.
There is also an allegation that he in a prescribed period should be deprived of the right to practice krammeterapi.
Per Brændgaard refuses guilty and says that there was a sexual relationship in private, and that he never has been the woman’s therapist.
the Case started with a dispute about the two female witnesses, as the prosecutor two days ago asked to lead in court.
– the Reason that the prosecution has called the two female witnesses, is that they can explain to that Per Brændgaard as part of krammeterapien exhibit a seksualiserende and cross-border behavior, said the prosecutor and told that the sole witness has been in the krammeterapi at Per Brændgaard 3-5 years ago, while the second witness was to explain that in connection with her employment as a nutritionist at Per Brændgaard for three-four years back also had to be made kramning.
– Their statements have a direct relevance for krammeterapien and the way, Per Brændgaard is engaged in the at the, said the prosecutor.
Per Brændgaards defender protested in relation to both, that the request had come so late, and that in consequence her opinion was karaktervidner.
– It is, in my opinion, karaktervidner, and then one must also give Per the opportunity to examine whether he can find others that can say anything else, she said, and added that both witnesses also, in her view, was irrelevant to the case. In relation to the first witness, because it happened a long time ago, and because it happened in a setting where there were 8-10 people present and not during an intimate therapy session.
the Prosecutor denied, however, that there is talk about karaktervidner.
– They must not tell about Per Brændgaard as a person. They must tell how he uses krammeterapi, replicerede he.
Domsmandsretten then went out to settle the dispute and took a unanimous decision, that the witnesses had not crucial and essential to the decision and was too far back and should not therefore be called as a witness.
