Back to Startpage  
Other Languages

Short reports: March 2002

22.03.2002: 64th day in court

Today: money talk(s)

The financial dealings of the crown witness were at the centre of attention today. It remained unclear exactly which payments were made under what circumstances. The alleged transfer of money to the RZ, the involvement in the sports centre, the alleged involvement in the administration of money and Mousli' private interests were not clearly separated.

The short trial day ended with two applications by the defence in relation to the alleged explosives arsenal in the Mehringhof.

On Thursday, 28.3. the play is continued at the usual time.

21.03.2002: 63rd day in court

A clumsy attempt by the public prosecution to prompt

The trial day ended soon and loud today. The morning went by at its usual pace. The crown witness was questioned on the building of the detonator which was used in the attack on the Central Social Security Office for Asylum Seekers (ZSA). Another theme was the security concept of the RZ and the organisation's principle of having separate cells with no contact between members of different cells (Abschottungsprinzip). After the lunch break the defence started to question the witness on a sum of 60,000 DM, which Mousli claims to have given to "Siggi" for the support of illegals in the RZ. After some questioning, Mousli was confronted with contradictions in statements he made during his inerrogation by police and during the trial.

The dispute between the defence, the public prosecution and the court escalated at the point when the defence wanted to know which statements had been correct. Or rather, if the witness had given truthful evidence at the earlier interrogations. The fight erupted because the court thought the matter had been clarified enough. At this point the public prosecution saw its chance to help the crown witness out of the dilemma, by attempting to prompt him with details from files which have not been admitted to court yet. In order to prevent this, the defence strongly intervened. One word followed the other. Annoyed, presiding judge Hennig then interrupted proceedings, which will be continued tomorrow at 9.15 am.

15.03.2002: 62nd day in court

Explosives arsenal in Mehringhof, a lie of Mousli

Today the court room was cleared by presiding judge Hennig because visitors unfolded two banners ("Harald has to be freed!" and "End the coercive detention!") and shouted slogans demanding the release of Harald Glöde, the last of the accused to remain prisoner on remand. According to one of Mousli's bodyguards, one court usher broke one his fingers whilst removing people from the court, the bodyguard talked of "collateral damage".

After a twenty minute interruption, the original video footage of the second Mehringhof search of 30.5.2000 was shown. The following interrogation of Mousli by the defence could only lead to the conclusion that "we were witnesses to a lie of Mr. Mousli", as defence lawyer Euler put it at the end of the trial day. It became evident that Mousli had no knowledge of an alleged explosives and arms arsenal in the Mehringhof, but that he tells tales.

With two more themes it was attempted to establish Mousli's membership in the magazine "radikal" as well as his knowledge of the literature of the RZ, in particular from the early 1980's, that is the time of his alleged membership. Further, the defence wanted to know from Mousli in how far he could remember the building of the detonator used in the attack on the Central Social Security Office for Asylum Seekers (ZSA). Mousli had claimed to have been involved in building it.

Here also, Mousli remained, similar to his reaction to being confronted with his fable about an explosives and arms arsenal in the Mehrinhof, pale.

14.03.2002: 61st day in court

The court also starts to doubt

For the first time, presiding judge Hennig today voiced clear doubts about the truth content of the statements given by the crown witness. She said Tarek Mousli's evidence on the finding of explosives in the trench near the sea and on the alleged arms and explosives arsenal in the Mehringhof were difficult to follow. Before that, all trial visitors were presented a worthwhile and undubbed video which documents the second search of the social centre "Mehringhof" on 30.5.2000 by the public prosecution (BAW) and Federal Crime Police Authority (BKA). Via radio connection, the crown witness had led the investigating officers to several alleged places of discovery in the search of a shaft, hidden by a heavy iron lid. Inbetween he had several moments where he was convinced to recognise the place that was shown to him by "Sebastian" as one of the storage places. The witness was only insecure for a short moment when confronted with his contradictory presentations. But this time even the court did not support him. And more: it even questioned his earlier statements on the finding of explosives in the trench.

08.03.2001: 60th day in court

Court and public prosecution (BAW): "The witness has already answered this question"

Heavy disputes between the defence on one side and the public prosecution and the court on the other marked today's trial day. The reason was the contradiction in Mousli's statements in relation to the attack on the Social Security Office for Asylum Seekers (ZSA) and the court's violation of the right of the defence to pose questions to the witness in court. Before, Harald G.'s defence lawyers had lodged three more applications. The first two intend to prove that contrary to Mousli's assertions, the explosives could not have lied in a water trench for 4,5 years. The third wants to clarify that the Federal Crime Police Authority (BKA), contrary to their assertions, had already made a link between the explosive found in Berlin in 1995 and attacks which were seen as conducted by the RZ.

07.03.2002: 59th day in court

Clear words on the question of imprisonment

The 59th trial day started with words that left no doubt. On the one hand, the presiding judge Hennig welcomed the counsel of the witness as a representative of the accessary prosecutor - another faux pas on her part, which, however, aptly portrays the siutation in this court. On the other hand, Harald G.'s defence lawyers lodged an application for bias against the presiding judge Hennig as well as judges Hanschke, Alban, Genthe and Lechner. The background to this application is the continuous refusal by the court to end their client's imprisonment on remand with the justification that suspicions had corroborated since the declarations of the other accused.

The continuing remand period of Harald G., lawyer Studzinsky said, could only be understood as coercive detention with the aim of forcing him to give evidence, thereby violating the right of the accused to remain silent.

It was not logical that the Senate had only held those points of the declarations of Rudolf Sch. and Axel H. as believable, which incriminated them, as well as assuming that the statements "confirm the statements given by the crown during the preliminary investigations and during the trial" (citation of court statement).

Except for Mr. Euler, the remaining defence lawyers did not join the application, but strongly condemned the court's procedure with a joint declaration.

The day continued with the interrogation of the crown witness in relation to the handing over of explosives and the burglary of his cellar in 1995, when the explosive had allegedly been stolen by a third party. Afer that, the witness Daniel S. (26) was heard, he had burgled the cellar in the Schönhauser Allee together with a friend at the time.

01.03.2002: 58th day in court

The crown witness did not feel well today

Today, the crown witness suffered from stomach problems, diarrhoea and headache, which led to a very short trial day of merely two hours. Before, defence lawyer Euler wanted to know from him the origin and genesis of the code names of Rudolf Sch. ('Jon') and Sabine E. ('Judith'). Today also, Mousli could not remember the ealier code name, which Mrs. E. is supposed to have used in the first two years of their cooperation. Similarly weak were his attempts to remember his involvement in the attack on the Central Social Security Office for Asylum Seekers (ZSA) which he was questioned about by the defence of Harald G. On grounds of his ill health the proceedings were interrupted. If he feels better, the trial will continue on Thursday, 7.3. at 9.15 am.