Indictment after Ballermann Fire: A Reality Check for the Case of the 'Kegel Brothers'

Indictment after Ballermann Fire: A Reality Check for the Case of the 'Kegel Brothers'

Clear question: Is the indictment enough to create certainty — or will the case remain trapped in rumours?

On January 26, the public prosecutor in Mallorca brought charges against eight men from the Münsterland. The defendants are accused of intentional arson and minor bodily harm; the prosecution is seeking a sentence of seven years in prison and around €100,000 in damages. The core allegation states that on the night of May 20, 2022 burning cigarettes and alcoholic liquids were thrown from a hotel balcony in El Arenal onto the thatched roof of the beach bar 'Why not Mallorca'. The venue on Calle Berga burned out; adjacent rooms were also damaged, and several people suffered minor injuries.

The accused deny the allegations and point to exculpatory indications in the files. One defence lawyer has made this public. Parts of the defence also emphasize that some of the men are active members of volunteer fire brigades and that they helped guests leave the building at the time — a circumstance that, according to them, also led to smoke inhalation among the accused.

In short: what is missing here is a clear, shared narrative supported by verifiable traces. The indictment is a statement by the public prosecutor. The defence claims gaps. Who is right will be decided by the court. But before judges and jurors can convene, questions remain that on the island quickly turn into speculation; similar post-incident speculation has been visible in coverage of the trial in Essen.

Critical analysis: parts of the factual record appear diffuse. Public reports speak of "thrown burning cigarettes and alcohol", but the integration of forensic findings into a coherent sequence of events is not transparent. Were there clear burn marks on the balcony in question? Were hotel surveillance recordings systematically secured? When and how were witnesses interviewed — independently or in groups? Such details determine the strength of an indictment; the public has so far only fragmentary information.

What is rarely discussed publicly is the work of forensic teams and the documentation of rescue operations. Many debates focus on the guilt or innocence of the travellers — not on whether hotel practices, nearby development and safety standards increased the risk. The perspective of those affected on site is also given too little attention: the waiters, hotel staff and neighbours on Calle Berga who had to deal in the weeks after with reconstruction, insurance questions and psychological stress. Similar concerns about institutional gaps have been raised in other Palma cases, for example the Palma real estate fraud trial.

Everyday life in El Arenal can be sketched like this: on sunny days Calle Berga smells of grilled fish and brake dust stirred up by buses; voices mingle with the cries of seagulls. In front of the former 'Why not' display there is no longer a fire truck, but cleaning staff still occasionally wipe soot from the façade. In the evenings, when the lights come on, residents sometimes hear distant fire sirens — a sound many no longer hear without concern.

Concrete measures that would help not only the courts but the island as a whole: first, standardized protocols for securing fire scenes in tourist areas — including quick preservation of surveillance videos and separate witness statements. Second, hotels and restaurants should be required to provide smoke-free areas and fixed ashtrays on balconies; small, simple measures reduce ignition sources. Third, more support for victims: emergency financial aid and easier access to psychological help for business owners and residents. Fourth, accelerated proceedings: clear deadlines for summonses and evidence collection so that cases do not hang in limbo for years and all involved do not suffer.

About the justice system itself: the public needs more transparent information about the state of evidence and the trial schedule, without violating the presumption of innocence. Both defence and victims are entitled to prompt, fair proceedings. Debates over transparency have also featured in other proceedings, such as the trial of Matthias Kühn in Palma. And someone active in a volunteer fire brigade can be both a helper and an accused — public debate should treat that sensitively rather than resort to simple blame.

Conclusion: the indictment moves the case into the next phase, but it is not a full stop. Anyone who walks past the ruins on Calle Berga sees not only charred floorboards but also a complex web of safety shortfalls, unanswered forensic questions and human suffering. Mallorca needs clean procedures — in investigation, prevention and victim support. A fair, swift trial would be the next step toward greater clarity. Until then the case remains brittle, uncomfortable and for many on the island not fully told.