Many in Munich, above all members of the press, were anxiously awaiting the opinion of psychiatric expert Prof. Dr. Sa\u00df on the accused Zsch\u00e4pe. However, that opinion was not \u2013 yet \u2013 presented today.<\/p>\n
Sa\u00df had, already in 2013, been tasked with an expert opinion on whether Zsch\u00e4pe fulfilled the preconditions for preventive detention. Zsch\u00e4pe had refused all cooperation with the expert, who had in turn spent the majority of trial days in the courtroom watching the proceedings. This had lead discussions with Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s counsel several times, inter alia when they protested that Sa\u00df was not to be allowed to watch Zsch\u00e4pe during breaks in the trial.<\/p>\n
Sa\u00df had presented his preliminary written opinion a few weeks ago. The Zsch\u00e4pe defense had tried to push his oral opinion to January in order to give them more time to prepare. However, the presiding judge had insisted on hearing Sa\u00df in December (see the report of\u00a08 December 2016<\/a>).<\/p>\n The trial day began, however, with necessary preparations for his opinion. Victims\u2019 counsel had already on 14 September 2016 moved that a letter sent by Zsch\u00e4pe to another incarcerated neo-Nazi in 2013 be introduced into evidence, inter alia since her self-representation in the letter, which stands in stark contrast to that in her statement to the court, was helpful for the expert witness (see the report of 14 September 2016<\/a>). The court has now introduced the letter into evidence by way of a procedure in which parties read the document on their own between trial days. Victims\u2019 counsel now wanted to comment on the evidence, reading out a few lines from the letter to present in context. Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s counsel again tried to block this, but when it became clear that Heer, Stahl and Sturm were only using the issue in order to further delay Sa\u00df\u2019 hearing, victims\u2019 counsel decided not to make a comment at this time.<\/p>\n The Zsch\u00e4pe defense then read out a 33 page-motion asking that Sa\u00df be relieved of his duties based on alleged methodological failings in his preliminary written opinion. Attached to the motion is a \u201ccritical evaluation of methodology\u201d presented by the defense\u2019s own expert, a neurologist and professor at the Ruhr-University in Bochum \u2013 which however is not all that convincing.<\/p>\n The presiding judge apparently did not feel up to denying the motion this afternoon, accordingly he ended the trial day at 3.26 pm. The trial will continue tomorrow, likely with Sa\u00df\u2019 expert opinion.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defense tries to block psychiatric expert opinion on Zsch\u00e4pe Many in Munich, above all members of the press, were anxiously awaiting the opinion of psychiatric expert Prof. Dr. Sa\u00df on the accused Zsch\u00e4pe. However, that opinion was not \u2013 yet \u2013 presented today. Sa\u00df had, already in 2013, been tasked with an expert opinion on […]<\/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-1319","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1319","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=1319"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1319\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1320,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1319\/revisions\/1320"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1319"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1319"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1319"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}