Further reading of documents
On today’s first trial day after the summer break, the court read out several documents concerning various aspects of the trial.
Victims’ counsel Hardy Langer made a motion for evidence concerning an attack by Neonazis from Jena in 1998/1999 which accused Schultze had reported on his statement in court (see the report of 21 July 2016). Langer provided an article from a local newspaper discussing this crime.
Zschäpe defense attorneys Heer, Stahl and Sturm once again commented on the questions by victims’ counsel they had objected to (see the reports of 1 August and 2 August 2016), dropping some objections and maintaining others – again without given any detailed reasoning. Continue reading
Once more on Ralf Wohlleben’s ideology.
Two former detectives from the political division of the Jena criminal police who had investigated members of the “Comradeship Jena” and the Thuringia Home Guard had been summoned as witnesses today. Only one of them testified, however, as the other one was ill.
His testimony again turned into a tiring show by defense attorney Klemke after the witness had not testified the way the defense expected him to. Instead of stating that Wohlleben had not committed any xenophobic political acts, the witness reported that Wohlleben had from 1996 on organized the activities of the Nazi party NPD and the “Comradeships” in a way allowing him to remain in the background, and also gave examples of xenophobic acts. Accordingly, Klemke once again had to try to present the witness as unbelievable. Continue reading
More shenanigans from the Zschäpe defense, and on Wohlleben’s ideology.
Today the court had summoned a witness of the attack committed in Jena in the early 1990s which had already been subject of the testimony of several witnesses. The witness did not appear, however.
The court then planned to give the floor to Zschäpe’s counsel of choice Borchert, who planned to read out a statement on behalf of his client. Before he could begin, however, assigned counsel Heer took the microphone and began to read out a document objecting to several of the questions posed by victims’ counsel on 6 July. Borchert asked for a break, after which he allowed Heer to read out his objections and then stated that Zschäpe’s statement would only be read out after the court had made its decision. It seems that, even in the face of diverging strategies, the Zschäpe defense is united in trying to further delay the trial. Continue reading