There is not much to say about the continued closing statement of Wohlleben defense counsel Klemke that we have not already said yesterday. Klemke, like Schneiders before him, tried to defend the \u201cdeath of the Volk\u201d motion for evidence brought by the defense. However, apart from some attempts at humor such as the claim that he would have like to read out the motion again in order to see victims\u2019 counsel \u201cmigrate\u201d from the courtroom \u2013 it\u2019s funny because that would make them migrants! \u2013, this excursion too did not contain anything new.<\/p>\n
One aspect that should be noted is the clear expression of homophobia by Klemke \u2013 even its expression can almost be called subtle in comparison to his other outbursts of right-wing hatred, lying as it did mostly in the disdainful emphasis with which he discussed Carsten Schultze\u2019s \u201cbeautiful new life\u201d in which Schultze could \u201clive out his homosexual urges without restraint.\u201d<\/p>\n
Klemke thus showed once more that he is not concerned anymore with presenting himself as a capable and forceful defense counsel, an image which he seems to feel he has secured. Instead, he seems to focus on sharpening his image by way of right-wing provocations. Maybe he knows that he will never have an audience as big as this ever again.<\/p>\n
His legal arguments today focused on attacking the evidence concerning the delivery of the Ceska pistol, largely by carping on details of the prosecution\u2019s consideration of evidence, but also with some actual legal arguments. Above all, he claimed that the statement of witness Andreas Schultz, who worked in the scene shop \u201cMadley\u201d and who has testified that he had sold the pistol to accused Carsten Schultze, must be excluded from the evidence. Since Schultz\u2019 name had been found on a list in the garage in Jena, and since the provision of a silenced pistol alone raised the suspicion of aiding and abetting murder, Klemke claimed, Schultz should have been made aware of his right to refuse to give any testimony at all \u2013 which, however, prosecutor Weingarten, who had been present during Schultz\u2019 police interview, had not done. However, contrary to Klemke\u2019s claims, it is highly doubtful whether Schultz enjoyed such a right \u2013 after all, at the time of his interview, there was no evidence of his having had any knowledge of who the gun had been meant for, of the fact that it was meant for persons who had been discussing \u201carmed struggle\u201d for years and had been working extensively with explosives \u2013 quite in contrast to accused Wohlleben, who had been aware of all these facts and more.<\/p>\n
Today\u2019s entry in the series \u201caccused claims to suffer from headaches in the early afternoon\u201d was presented by Andr\u00e9 Eminger. Accordingly, the trial day ended shortly after 2 PM and Klemke could not finish his statement today.<\/p>\n
He announced that he will focus on the question of mens rea tomorrow. In other words, he will likely present a further collection of \u201cethnopluralist\u201d phrases before ceding the floor to the last leader of the National Socialist \u201cViking Youth\u201d, who will conclude the defense closing statement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Further closing statement of the Wohlleben defense There is not much to say about the continued closing statement of Wohlleben defense counsel Klemke that we have not already said yesterday. Klemke, like Schneiders before him, tried to defend the \u201cdeath of the Volk\u201d motion for evidence brought by the defense. However, apart from some attempts […]<\/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-1603","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1603","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=1603"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1603\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1604,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1603\/revisions\/1604"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1603"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1603"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1603"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}