04.10.2001: 25th court day
"Declaration of war" by the Federal Prosecuting Office
The decision on the request by the defence for a stay of proceedings
will probably be taken tomorrow. Meanwhile the BAW declared "war"
against the defence, because they had aimed at the "total destruction
of the civil existence ("bürgerliche Existenz") of
the Crown Witness". However, Federal Prosecutor Bruns had to
immediately revoke the only relevant accusation against the two
defending lawyers in his declaration. The trial day ended before
lunch time already, with a brief interrogation of a witness to the
Hollenberg case, the then investigating officer of the Regional
Office of Criminal Investigation (LKA).
Contrary to expectations, the presiding judge did not make a decision
on the defence's request for a stay of proceedings today. The reason
for this was an addition to the request made by defending lawyers
Würdinger and Studzinsky, read out by defending lawyer König
in representation of defending lawyer Euler (Frankfurt/M.), who
was absent today.
Euler declared in his request that he would not have the time to
examine the evidence, which only appeared recently, parallel to
the present proceedings. A refusal of the request for a stay of
proceedings (altogether over 1,400 recordings have to be examined)
would therefore parallel an obstruction of the work of the defence.
In this context, Euler also pointed to the fact that himself and
his colleague König had initially agreed to a shortened familiarisation
period with the proceedings only because they had assumed the evidence
was complete. König followed the request, as did defending
lawyer Eisenberg. After a one hour break, the presiding judge Hennig
therefore delayed the decision on the stay of proceedings until
the next trial day.
In a presented declaration, public prosecutor Bruns talked of "incidents"
of the past week and declared "war" to the defence. He
was referring to the lawyers Studzinsky and Würdinger presenting
material which proved the relevance of telephone interception tapes
in the truth finding process of this trial and which also pointed
to Mousli's personal circumstances in this respect. Bruns however
interpreted the evidence as "dirty tales from the life of a
fairy tale prince" which lacked conclusiveness. He further
claimed that the lawyers were not capable of even examining audit
tapes correctly. An accusation which obviously lacked any basis
because it had been, as the presiding judge Hennig immediately informed,
her and associate judge Hanschke who had claimed that a conversation
between Tarek Mousli and his then girlfriend Janette O. was missing
from the tapes. The BAW, so Bruns, still sees "no basis for
a common conduct of the case any more".