The questioning of expert witness Prof. Sa\u00df by Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s various defense attorneys took up all day on Tuesday. Counsel Stahl tried and failed to attack the expert\u2019s methodology as non-scientific. Counsel Sturm asked Sa\u00df why had failed to ask questions to Zsch\u00e4pe using the court as an intermediary \u2013 a quite presumptuous question given that Zsch\u00e4pe had refused to talk to Sa\u00df in person or to answer any of his questions. Sa\u00df accordingly stated that having his questions answered in writing by counsel, as was done with regard to the court\u2019s questions, was without any value for his expert opinion.<\/p>\n
Counsel Borchert and Grasel also attempted to question Sa\u00df. Borchert\u2019s questions torpedoed some of what the assigned counsel had attempted to build up. He asked Sa\u00df for his opinion on the expert opinion by Prof. Nedopil, who had examined Zsch\u00e4pe at the height of her fight with her assigned counsel. Nedopil\u2019s opinion had so far not been made part of the case file to protect Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s personal rights \u2013 after Borchert had read out parts of the opinion in court, copies of it were passed out to all parties in the trial. In the end, Nedopil\u2019s opinion confirmed Sa\u00df\u2019 evaluation of Zsch\u00e4pe as someone who had taken a very active and controlling role vis-\u00e0-vis her defense counsel. Thus Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s self-representation as a weak woman who had only done as she had been told first by Mundlos and B\u00f6hnhardt, later by her counsel, was once again massively called into question.<\/p>\n
Borchert announced that he would present a motion for evidence on Wednesday to show that there had been no complaints concerning Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s behavior in detention.
\nOn Wednesday, the defense counsel did not have any questions for the expert witness. As concerns the motion for evidence, Borchert announced that it would only be brought next week. Upon questions by victim\u2019s counsel Scharmer, Sa\u00df already announced that if Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s behavior in detention had in fact not led to any complaints, this would have to be seen in connection with her established ability, gained in years of living underground, of behaving in a very inconspicuous manner.<\/p>\n
The court then read out documents concerning the search, on 26 January 1998, of the garage containing the bomb workshop. Six cigarette butts found therein contained DNA material which very likely came from Zsch\u00e4pe \u2013 clearly showing that she had been in the bomb workshop before.<\/p>\n