Victory for mother as inquest quashed
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A mother who has fought a seven-year campaign to discover why her Jewish son died after attending a conference of far-right extremists in Germany has won the right to have a second inquest into his death.
Two judges at the High Court yesterday decided that there was enough evidence of foul play to warrant a new inquest into how Jeremiah Duggan died on a dual carriageway in Wiesbaden in March 2003. His mother, Erica, believes the evidence points to her 22-year-old son being murdered and says new evidence has come to light since an initial inquest, which recorded an open verdict.
Duggan was studying at the Sorbonne in Paris. He had travelled to Wiesbaden to attend an anti-Iraq war conference. It was organised by the La Rouche movement, a far-right group with anti-Semitic streaks that has been described by the Metropolitan Police as "a political cult with sinister and dangerous connections".
Lord Justice Elias said yesterday that fresh evidence suggested that Duggan's death may have occurred somewhere other than on the B455 highway near Wiesbaden. He said: "It is necessary that this fresh inquest is held if for no other reason than to seek to allay the suspicions raised by the evidence which has now been produced. We are not saying what the outcome will be, but merely it is in the interests of justice to quash the [first] inquest."
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments