Motion for evidence by the Wohlleben defense – desperate attempts to present alternative perpetrators
Today the Wohlleben defense, as announced last trial week, brought its motion for evidence, asking that Jug Puskaric and Sven Rosemann, both active in the neo-Nazi scene as well as the red-light milieu, be heard as witnesses and claiming that they would confirm that they, not Wohlleben and Schultze, had procured the Ceska murder weapon. Of course, it is hard to believe that the two named as witnesses will actually confirm this – and indeed there is nothing which points towards the veracity of the defense claims.
Accordingly, the federal prosecution moved that the defense motion be denied – its motion, however, was as verbose as it was devoid of actual subject-matter arguments, mostly focusing instead on formal arguments. Accordingly, it was once again up to victim’s counsel Hardy Langer to help out the investigators. He referred to the known facts about Puskaric and Rosemann and showed why there is nothing at all that points to them having procured the murder weapon. To give one example: the defense had based its motion largely on the fact that another witness had seen a Ceska 83 in Rosemann’s possession – but had failed to mention that based on technical details, above all a shortened barrel, could not possibly have been the murder weapon of the Ceska murders.
The trial day ended shortly after 11.30 AM to give the defense time to prepare a response to these comments. As the defense felt the need for more time to respond, the beginning of the trial day tomorrow has been postponed to 12.00 noon.