16 May 2018

Further closing statement of the Wohlleben defense

There is not much to say about the continued closing statement of Wohlleben defense counsel Klemke that we have not already said yesterday. Klemke, like Schneiders before him, tried to defend the “death of the Volk” motion for evidence brought by the defense. However, apart from some attempts at humor such as the claim that he would have like to read out the motion again in order to see victims’ counsel “migrate” from the courtroom – it’s funny because that would make them migrants! –, this excursion too did not contain anything new.

One aspect that should be noted is the clear expression of homophobia by Klemke – even its expression can almost be called subtle in comparison to his other outbursts of right-wing hatred, lying as it did mostly in the disdainful emphasis with which he discussed Carsten Schultze’s “beautiful new life” in which Schultze could “live out his homosexual urges without restraint.”

Klemke thus showed once more that he is not concerned anymore with presenting himself as a capable and forceful defense counsel, an image which he seems to feel he has secured. Instead, he seems to focus on sharpening his image by way of right-wing provocations. Maybe he knows that he will never have an audience as big as this ever again.

His legal arguments today focused on attacking the evidence concerning the delivery of the Ceska pistol, largely by carping on details of the prosecution’s consideration of evidence, but also with some actual legal arguments. Above all, he claimed that the statement of witness Andreas Schultz, who worked in the scene shop “Madley” and who has testified that he had sold the pistol to accused Carsten Schultze, must be excluded from the evidence. Since Schultz’ name had been found on a list in the garage in Jena, and since the provision of a silenced pistol alone raised the suspicion of aiding and abetting murder, Klemke claimed, Schultz should have been made aware of his right to refuse to give any testimony at all – which, however, prosecutor Weingarten, who had been present during Schultz’ police interview, had not done. However, contrary to Klemke’s claims, it is highly doubtful whether Schultz enjoyed such a right – after all, at the time of his interview, there was no evidence of his having had any knowledge of who the gun had been meant for, of the fact that it was meant for persons who had been discussing “armed struggle” for years and had been working extensively with explosives – quite in contrast to accused Wohlleben, who had been aware of all these facts and more.

Today’s entry in the series “accused claims to suffer from headaches in the early afternoon” was presented by André Eminger. Accordingly, the trial day ended shortly after 2 PM and Klemke could not finish his statement today.

He announced that he will focus on the question of mens rea tomorrow. In other words, he will likely present a further collection of “ethnopluralist” phrases before ceding the floor to the last leader of the National Socialist “Viking Youth”, who will conclude the defense closing statement.