{"id":1282,"date":"2016-10-13T20:17:12","date_gmt":"2016-10-13T18:17:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/?p=1282"},"modified":"2016-10-13T20:17:12","modified_gmt":"2016-10-13T18:17:12","slug":"13-october-2016","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/2016\/10\/13\/13-october-2016\/","title":{"rendered":"13 October 2016"},"content":{"rendered":"

Wohlleben defense: Nazi propaganda in the courtroom<\/h4>\n

The evidence considered today was again rather slight, nonetheless the trial day lasted until after 4 pm.<\/p>\n

An expert witness with the Bavarian criminal police needed less than fifteen minutes to explain convincingly that Marcel Degner\u2019s signature on the undertaking to work as an informer for the Thuringia secret service was \u201chighly likely\u201d put there by Degner himself, that there were absolutely no indications of a forgery. Why the court had even called the expert will remain its secret \u2013 after all, Degner had not really said much of relevance in his testimony, accordingly today\u2019s expert opinion seems relevant only for the perjury proceedings instituted against Degner (on Degner\u2019s steadfast denials of having worked for the secret service, see the report of 14 September 2016<\/a>).<\/p>\n

The court then again gave the Zsch\u00e4pe defense an opportunity to make submissions concerning the seizure of Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s letter (see the report of\u00a014 September 2016<\/a>) \u2013 instead of finally deciding on this issue and allowing victims\u2019 counsel to bring their motion for evidence.
\nThe Wohlleben defense brought several motions for evidence, one of which can only be explained as an attempt to spread Nazi propaganda in the courtroom: A few weeks ago, the court had considered as evidence several stickers found in Wohlleben\u2019s apartment, including a sticker claiming that Hitler\u2019s deputy Rudolf Hess had been murdered by the Allies. The defense now aims to \u201cprove\u201d that Hess was indeed murdered by calling as a witness Hess\u2019 former nurse at the Allied prison in Berlin-Spandau. The nurse had published his \u201ctheory\u201d that Hess had been murdered in a book a few years ago, his book was translated into German by Nazi party \u201chistorian\u201d Rose, and he presents that book at one Nazi event after the other. This motion shows the defense ceasing to focus on an actual defense of Wohlleben against the charges \u2013 likely due to the devastating amount of evidence against him \u2013 and instead presenting propaganda motions to please the \u201ccomrades\u201d outside of the courtroom.<\/p>\n

Shortly before noon, the court issued a decision rejecting a motion by the Wohlleben defense for access to the case files of the other investigations being conducted in the context of the NSU.<\/p>\n

In the afternoon, the trial turned into a bit of farce. The Wohlleben defense announced that it was planning to challenge the judges for bias, as allegedly shown in the decision on their motion. However, at that point accused Eminger was defended only by an attorney substituting for her assigned colleague, the other attorney was already on the way to the airport. Instead of simply closing the trial for the day, presiding judge G\u00f6tzl ordered that the absent counsel return from the airport and that the trial continue at 4 pm. More than two hours later, all parties were again present in the courtroom, the Wohlleben defense read out its challenge for alleged bias, and the trial day was over.<\/p>\n

There will be no trial days next week, the trial continues on Tuesday, 25 October 2016 \u2013 enough time for the other judges of the Munich court to reject this defense challenge as unfounded, as they have all the other unfounded challenges brought before.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Wohlleben defense: Nazi propaganda in the courtroom The evidence considered today was again rather slight, nonetheless the trial day lasted until after 4 pm. An expert witness with the Bavarian criminal police needed less than fifteen minutes to explain convincingly that Marcel Degner\u2019s signature on the undertaking to work as an informer for the Thuringia […]<\/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-1282","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1282","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=1282"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1282\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1283,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1282\/revisions\/1283"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1282"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1282"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1282"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}