Today a medical expert gave his expert opinion on the blood alcohol level of accused Zsch\u00e4pe on 4\u00a0November 2011, the day she set fire to the house in the Fr\u00fchlingsstra\u00dfe. The expert based his opinion on the amounts of alcohol that Zsch\u00e4pe had claimed to have consumed \u2013 a statement that is far from believable and was obviously made in the hopes of a finding of diminished responsibility. Basing his calculations on these claims, the expert witness arrived at potentially very high levels of intoxication. On the other hand, Zsch\u00e4pe had also stated that she did not feel any disturbed functions on that day, a statement confirmed by reports of neighbors who had seen her on that day. Accordingly, the expert witness came to a clear conclusion: \u201cmedically speaking, there were no relevant limitations of the physical or mental ability to function.\u201d It is likely that, in her attempt to on the one hand claim to have done everything to preclude a danger to others from the fire, on the other hand invent an alcohol level which might diminish her responsibility, Zsch\u00e4pe tripped herself up. <\/p>\n
The presiding judge caused some irritation when he asked the defense whether they wished to bring more motions for evidence before psychiatric expert Prof. Sass provided his provisional written opinion on Zsch\u00e4pe. Defense counsel Stahl asked whether this meant that the court was contemplating closing the taking of evidence shortly. The presiding judge quickly stressed that he was only talking about evidence directly relevant to Sass\u2019 expert opinion. Accordingly, there is currently no reason to believe that the court will close the taking of evidence any time soon. The last four hours of the trial were wasted on an entirely meritless challenge for alleged bias brought by the Wohlleben defense. The defense had challenged expert witness Prof. Leygraf \u2013 who had given an expert opinion not on Wohlleben, but on Schultze, and only on the narrow question of whether Schultze should be tried as a juvenile or an adult \u2013 because Leygraf had dared ask Schultze about xenophobic statements made in the Nazi scene. Today the court rejected this challenge as meritless \u2013 which of course led the Wohlleben defense to conclude that the judges must themselves be biased. The Wohlleben defense has thus gained the lead on the Zsch\u00e4pe defense as far as totally meritless challenges for alleged bias are concerned. The challenge today forms part of a general tendency on their part, faced with catastrophic evidence against their client, to switch to meritless motions and statements straying far from the matter at hand.<\/p>\n At the end of the trial day, the presiding judge announced the cancellation of the trial days on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week so as to allow Zsch\u00e4pe defense counsel Grasel to discuss the court\u2019s questions with his client. The court then hopes to have the defense\u2019s answers to these questions next Thursday.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" On Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s claimed blood alcohol level on 4 November 2011. And: the trial will wrap up soon. Today a medical expert gave his expert opinion on the blood alcohol level of accused Zsch\u00e4pe on 4\u00a0November 2011, the day she set fire to the house in the Fr\u00fchlingsstra\u00dfe. The expert based his opinion on the amounts […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1268","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1268","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1268"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1268\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1269,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1268\/revisions\/1269"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1268"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1268"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1268"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nThe court then asked for further statements on the letter written by Zsch\u00e4pe (see the report of 14 September 2016<\/a>). It still has not made its decision on the issue.<\/p>\n