“The accused could not have foreseen such a course of events”
Today the court first heard the prosecution’s response to the motions for evidence brought by the Wohlleben defence in the week before the Easter break. Also discussed was the announcement by victims’ counsel for the Yozgat family to summon an expert witness on what secret service officer Temme must have observed of the murder of Halit Yozgat (see the report of 5 April 2017). The federal prosecutors had stated their opinion that victims’ counsel generally did not have a right to summon expert witnesses themselves, victims’ counsel had replied in detail. The court has not yet made a determination on this issue.
The court rejected further motions for evidence brought by victims’ counsel, above all the motion concerning state responsibility for the “attack after the attack”, the investigations and publicly voiced suspicions against the victims of the NSU bombing attack in the Keupstraße in Cologne (see the report of 7 March 2017). Interestingly, the decision can be read as showing that the court agreed with the applicants’ contention that the state was responsible for this “attack after the attack”: “It cannot be assumed that several German state agencies, partly against better judgment, do not consider findings in their investigations and statements and rather inflict further damage on the victims of the attack through their actions, partly against their own better knowledge. The accused [if convicted] could not have foreseen such a course of events.”
The court also rejected conspiracy theory-motions by the Wohlleben defense concerning the alleged presence of FBI agents or other persons near the scene of the murder of Michèle Kiesewetter in Heilbronn (see the report of 9 March 2017).
The court then gave parties a deadline for further motions for evidence until Wednesday, 17 May 2017.
Zschäpe’s original counsel Heer, Stahl and Sturm made a motion for the court to hear expert witness Prof. Faustmann, who they had summoned themselves, tomorrow on the issue of alleged shortcomings in the expert opinion of Prof. Saß. However, the so-called shortcomings in Saß’ opinion mainly concern incidental formal aspects, therefore it is not likely that Faustmann’s statements tomorrow will cause Saß much grief.