Short reports: January 2002
25.01.2002: 54th day in court
Trial interrupted until 15 February/ Accused still
on remand
Originally there was no reason to expect any surprises in today's
trial day. Everything spoke for yet another 'alibi' court day, in
order to avert the violation of the criminal procedural provision
that a trial cannot be interrupted for more than 10 days.
At 9.20 am presiding judge Hennig started the day by reciting the
RZ declaration on the attack on the Berlin Siegessäule, dated
15.2.1991 and entitled "ELSE KÄMPFT - HERR-MANN DENK-MAL".
A few minutes later, it seemed that the programme for today was
over, but then it didn't' only rain, it starting pouring: Mrs Hennig
declared that one member of the Senate was ill. The court therefore
had to interrupt the proceedings until 15 February. Although the
Senate had also thought about introducing another judge for the
time span, it had rejected the idea on grounds of the circumstances:
the sick judge happenes to be the referee judge Hanschke.
In particular Harald Glöde and Matthias Borgmann, supported
by their defence lawyers, queried if this renewed interruption of
the proceedings would not pose the question of ending the imprisonment
on remand. After all, today's spectacle, together with yesterday's
missing trial day, came up to four weeks during which, again, nothing
had happened. Further, an immediate confrontation of the crown witness
with the statement of Rudolf Schindler would thereby be made impossible.
"It is not very nice. We don't think that's great either",
presiding judge Hennig conceded, but kept her position on the matter.
It is questionable if in the face of the illness of referee judge
Hanschke, the Senate will lift the continuing imprisonment on remand
of Matthias Borgmann, Harald Glöde and Axel Haug. Definite
on the other hand, is that the crown witness will use this interruption
to consult his friends from crime police department (BKA) and study
his response
18.01.2002: 53rd day in court
Rudolf Schindler's admission to court undermines
crown witness
The 53rd trial day started an hour late and with an
admission to court by the accused Rudolf Schindler, on the accusations
against him and his wife Sabine Eckle by the crown witness Tarek
Mousli.
Just like the past year's proceedings, his admission, which was
not uncontested amongst the accused and the defence lawyers, made
clear that crown witness Mousi is at best a master of lies, but
that he cannot be seen as contributing to the establishment of truth
in this trial.
Schindler, whose admission was read out by his lawyer Hans Wolfgang
Euler, was able to invalidate Mousli's claims on the alleged structure
of the "Revolutionary Cells" in Berlin as well as outlining
and proving substantial corrections to Mousli's statements on the
leg shootings of Harald Hollenberg and Günther Korbmacher and
the bomb attack on the Central Social Security Office for Asylum
Seekers (ZSA). It became clear that Mousli, far from remaining in
his alleged supporting role, was noted for his, so Schindler, "idiotic
tough guy" demeanor.
Why the public prosecution (BAW) could agree on the position that
Schindler was telling the truth, whilst at the same time claiming,
so public prosecutor Bruns, that they still held their crown witness
to be believable, will have to be deciphered during the next court
days.
In any case, consultation between Schindler's lawyers, the BAW
and the court on how a possible admission would be treated by the
court have already taken place since last November. In today's proceedings,
the following agreements were made public:
Rudolf Schindler will not receive a sentence higher than 3 years
and nine monhts, and will be released from remand immediately. A
possible remaining penal sentence (after consideration of the remand
period) will be put on probation, meaning that Schindler does not
have to go back to prison.
The defence of Sabine Eckle, in the name of their client, joined
the admission. She is also released from imprisonment on remand.
The hearing of evidence however, has thereby not ended. The next
trial day for example will see Mousli questioned on Schindler's
admission, amongst others.
Because it is know to the court (and to us) that Mousli is a regular
visitor of this homepage, and because we do no want to give the
crown witness the opportunity to prepare a detailed response to
Schindler's statement - or rather, we think the BAW should and probably
will provide him with the statement itself - we will only publish
the full version of the admission after the crown witness has been
confronted with the same.
The coming weeks will show if the defence lawyers of Harald Glöde
will decide to lodge another application for bias against the court,
because the latter failed to inform them of the consultations which
have been going on since last November, a clear violation of the
court's trial duties.'
17.01.2002: 52th day in court
Much room for interpretation through unsystematic
systematics
Today, the defence continued its interrogation of Tarek Mousli.
Three main themes were under discussion:
What happened in the time span after Mousli's arrest, during which
Mousli decided to give evidence? Why are there contradictions between
Mousli's statements from the first interrogations and his later
statements, with regards to the structure of the RZ? What happened
at the end of 1985, when he and his former 'friend' Lothar E. were
allegedly recruited to the RZ, at the same time but by different
people?
Today the crown witness offered a new variation on his sudden loss
of memory when confronted with contradictions in his statements.
In 1999, he drew, and continuously changed, a map of his knowledge
of organisational and communication structures and codenames within
the RZ, which consisted of separate cells without direct contact
to each other. The aim was the representation of all contacts through
lines. On questioning, it became clear that some contacts he later
claimed had existed, were missing ("I must have forgotten them")
and that people had been allocated to certain positions in the map
in which they could not have fallen, according to his own systematic
ordering of the map ("that's just a coincidence").
The later claimed unsystematic nature of his systematics thereby
opened more room for interpretation, which then could be filled
with a foggy remembrance, if necessary.
11.01.2002. 51st day in court
Another attempt to make contradictory nature of Mousli's
evidence clear to court
During today's court day, which ended early at 12 o'clock, Axel
H.'s defence lawyers tried to confront Mousli with the contradictions
in his evidence to the attack on the ZSA in 1987. Mousli was supposed
to clarify the mystery of how it was possible that the attack was
planned by members of two different RZ cells, if the first meeting
of the same groups only took place in 1989, during the ominous walk
through the forest near Berlin. As was to be expected he could not
remember. Today it went as far as the public prosecution feeling
obliged to publicly support the crown witness.
10.01.2002: 50th day in court
RZ family day out to 'Loretta" at the Berlin
Wannsee
The crown witness was today questioned with regards to the identification
of RZ member "Heiner" and the famous forest walk. This
walk through the forest can be seen as a key experience for T.M.,
without which he could not identify several persons as RZ members.
The outing in the summer of '89 (meeting place was apparently the
pub Loretta at the Wannsee) is claimed by Mousli to have been a
conspiratorial meeting, during which he got to know RZ members from
other RZ cells. Various contradictions in Mousli's statements became
evident - the presiding judge however called for a break twice,
just in time for the witness to catch breath inbetween.
Because Sabine E. is suffering from migraine, the trial was interrupted
until the next day.
04.01.2002: 49th day in court
"I don't have an explanation for this"
How come that RZ actions always took place differently from how
the witness claims to have known from the preprational meetings?
For this, Tarek Mousli has, in his own words, "no explanation".
Today therefore, the differences between Tarek Mousli's version
and actions as they actually happened were under discussion.
In the attack on Hollenberg, the flight car was not standing at
the place that Mousli claimed it stood. It was also not stolen as
Mousli insisted, but it was bought. The alleged 'Unkraut-Ex' (name
of explosive) bomb for the ZSA, which was rebuilt by explosives
experts according to Mousli's description, would have only created
a pretty fire. Also absolutely mysterious: the origin of the "sleeper"
story and concepts thereof. Mousli had presented various versions
during his interrogations, today he didn't want to exactly remember.
03.01.2002: 48th day in court
"I can't remember that today"
Today's programme: questioning of the crown witness with regards
to events surrounding the attacks on Hollenberg and ZSA, the alleged
explosives arsenal in the Mehringhof and the finding of explosives
in the trench near the lake. "I can't remember that today",
was Mousli's stereotypical answer to most questions about details
which are not listed in the protocols of the interrogations. Even
if the memory is very faint, there were clear statements: Tarek
Mousli had never held a gun, had never actually seen the arsenal
being used and he can definitely name members of attacks. Also very
differenciated were his statements on the finding of explosives
in the trench. Mousli's statements, despite ardent attempts not
to enter slippery fields, were too obvious: the contradictions surrounding
the finding of explosives are becoming ever more evident. Shortly
before the trial was interrupted until 9.15 am tommorow, it became
clear: somebody is lying - why?
02.01.2002: 47th day in court
12 minutes of recitation in court/ Mousli back in
court tomorrow
As presiding judge Hennig declared today, Tarek Mousli, the principal
witness to this trial, will appear in court again after more than
three months.
Today's court day started at 8.27 am and ended at 8.49 am. Judge
Hanschke recited the expert opinion of the Crime Technical Institute
of the Federal Crime Police Authority (BKA), the death certificate
and the protocol of the interrogation of Otto G.
In the expert opinion from 3.2.2000, the Crime Technical Institute
of the BKA took position on the pistol and the 16 bullets that were
found in Axel H.'s flat. The pistol is of the make Röhm, type
RG3s, 6mm calibre Flobert Knall. The functional pistol "is
oldand shows signs of use", says the BKA in its report. The
bullets do not fit the pistol. Details of the makers of the bullets
"9mm Luger" originate from the time of WWII.
After the recitation of the death certificate of Otto G. from 25.9.1995,
the protocol of the witness interrogation of the pensioner from
15.4.1988 was read out. Otto G. from Zehlendorf had told the police
about the VW Passat, the possible flight car for the attack on Dr.
Korbmacher. According to the witness, the car was standing in the
Ihnestrasse in Dahlem for months. He though the car was left there
in Fall 1987 and not moved until it was found by police. He also
noticed the car because one window and the cover were slightly open.
He did not "consciously" notice any objects in the car.
|