If i understand the whole affair properly, cannibal Armin Meiwes being found guilty of murder (overturning a previous court's decision to find him guilty of manslaughter) seems to be based on the argument that Meiwes "should have known that Brandes was disturbed and should have questioned his motives for wanting to be killed." As i'm not privy to the exact details of how the two individuals interacted, i couldn't say one way or the other whether Herr Meiwes should have decided Brandes was incompetent to make his own decisions. But i'm certain i don't understand a legal system that allows a conviction to be effectively upgraded to a more serious offense; wouldn't the hearing that resulted in the change of the charge/conviction from manslaughter to murder be a form of double jeopardy?