The further presentation of the expert opinion by Prof. Sa\u00df was delayed once more, again due to motions for reconsideration by Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s assigned counsel. However, the expert witness was able to continue after the lunch break.<\/p>\n
In addition to the facts he had presented yesterday, he stressed Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s ability to conduct camouflage and to convcingly portray alias roles.<\/p>\n
In conclusion, he found that Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s personality contained dissocial or antisocial, as well as histrionic tendencies, but that there was nothing pointing towards a psychiatric disorder which could call into doubt Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s competency.\u00a0<\/p>\n
As a psychiatrist, it was not his role to decide whether Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s statement in court was true or not, therefore he considered two alternative scenarios in deciding whether Zsch\u00e4pe was dangerous to an extent calling for her placement in preventive detention: If Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s statements proved to be wrong and the indictment proved to be true, he found that there exist significant reasons to believe that Zschpe\u2019s involvement in the NSU\u2019s crimes are an expression of a deep-seated internal state of mind and that the preconditions for preventive detention were present. Prof. Sa\u00df made an interesting comment when he said that he thought it quite possible that Zsch\u00e4pe would once more find persons willing to commit similar crimes in cooperation with her \u2013 an assessment which is sadly all too realistic particularly in light of the recent massive spike in violent racist crimes, particularly directed against refugees.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, Sa\u00df stated, if Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s statements proved true the question of her dangerousness would have to be answered differently. However, he also added that there were a number of indicators calling into question the believability of her statement overall: Her statements were always prepared over a long period of time and read out by her counsel, Zsch\u00e4pe only read out one short statement in a rather distant manner. After Zsch\u00e4pe had ended her defense strategy based on silence, a strategy which had suggested itself instead would have been to actually openly comment on the charges. In addition, Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s assertiveness against her counsel in the trial and corresponding descriptions by many witnesses stood in total contrast to Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s self-characterization. Finally, there were no indicators for the authenticity of Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s statement, inter alia no indicators at all that she had been emotionally influenced by any of the witness statements.<\/p>\n
As a preliminary conclusion, it can be said that Sa\u00df\u2019 is sharing the assessment of many participants in the trial, namely that Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s statements are far from convincing, and that he finds a continuing dangerousness of Zsch\u00e4pe in case of a conviction \u2013 which is called for by the evidence heard in the trial.<\/p>\n