By you saying “aware” I’m assuming you’re insinuating “Wir habben das nicht gewusst” ?

No, I’m not ok with pretending not to know someone can’t consent.

But I’ll Devil’s Advocate this one: There was alcohol & drugs present and being used consensually. I’m going to assume Lindemann did so as well. If at some point someone looks inebriated, are you gonna think it was involuntary? If two people go to a bar, meet eachother and agree have sex, is that abuse? And what if they both willingly got drunk first?

Imho, the key factor is intent, trying to make somebody do something against their (sober) will is always wrong. Spiking someone’s drink is coercion, because you force them into another state of mind without their consent. But if a stranger at a party at a bar acts drunk, would you immediately think they got drugged? Or does one’s informed consent to get inebriated also include the common consequences? And would you think differently if that person was drunk at a work party vs a dive bar?

I don’t know enough specifics to be certain what happened either way, but as someone who has willingly opted to get inebriated in the past, I always considered the consequences as part of that choice. (As long as the inebriation occurred voluntary) I’m aware that some people may see that as a “blaming the victim” argument, but I do draw the line at knowingly abusing someone’s state of mind vs both parties being inebriated and trying to have fun.

The main logical discrepancy I see is Lynn’s account of Lindemann running off angry. If he was a serial rapist, he probably wouldn’t do that, he’ld coax her into having more of her spiked drink until she was too inebriated to say no. I think Makeeva got those women just high enough to agree to try some (more) drugs to get them going, to make her look like she knew how to pick the party animals.

But that’s just my opinion based on the evidence I’ve seen. YMMV