05.10.2001: 26th court day
Lawyers respond to accusations of public prosecution
As announced yesterday, lawyers Silke Studzinsky and Andrea Würdinger
responded to the declaration by the Federal Public Prosecutor's
Office (BAW) that had been read out by chief public prosecutor Bruns
the previous trial day.
In the face of the polemic and undifferentiated attack by the BAW,
the lawyers corrected the four aspects the BAW had criticised (see
Response) in a highly factual manner.
The lawyers were not interested in the "financial morality"
(in reference to the witnesses failure to repay debts) of the Crown
Witness Mousli, but concerned with the "exposition of his financial
situation" and his statements with regards to the same.
The lawyers were also not interested in the "moral integrity"
(with regards to the witnesses sexual history) of the witness Mousli,
but occupied with proving, with the use of specific examples, that
the evidence so far produced by the Federal Office of Criminal Investigation
(BKA) as well as the BAW, is simply incomplete. Further, the claim
by the BAW that the lawyers were "slandering" the witness
was unfounded, because already the lawyers choice of words in their
previous statements had shown that their main concern was the problem
of incomplete evidence, not the defamation of the Crown Witness.
Neither had they, the defence lawyers Studzinsky and Würdinger,
ever claimed that the conversation between Janet O. and Tarek Mousli
was missing from the tapes, nor had they ever taken position with
regards to this matter in their request for stay of proceedings.
The accusations by the BAW were therefore also invalid in relation
to this matter.
Another misguided statement by the BAW was the latter's opinion
that in relation to a public trial, the public should not be informed
about findings and declarations, even if this took place through
the internet. Further, there was no reason as to why the defence
should distance itself from these publications. Even in relation
to trials that excluded the public, the publication of such findings
was entirely legitimate.
Finally, both defence lawyers emphasised that they would not be
obstructed by the BAW's "polemic, defamation and threat towards
[their] legal defence work". In the name of their client Harald
Glöde they asked the presiding judge Gisela Hennig to "forestall
this attempt by the BAW" in the future.
After this response, the witness Peter G. (62) was called to the
witness stand and heard in relation to his observation of the area
around the place of attack on the judge Hollenberg. His physical
description of the suspects did not correspond to any of those persons
currently charged and in custody. Also the reading out of statements
given by the by now deceased victim Harald Hollenberg and his also
deceased neighbour Helga R., did not shed light on the identity
of the perpetrators.
On instruction of the presiding judge Hennig, public prosecutor
Bruns promised to provide the defence with five copies of the 955
interception tapes as well as ascertaining in form of a letter to
the Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA), that all evidence
was now available to the court and the defence. Michael Bruns verbally
admitted that "instructions" had been "lost"
and sometimes things had been "botched", but rejected
any responsibility of his authority (BAW), despite the BKA being
subject to directions by the BAW: although the past conduct could
be described as a "mishap, we are not responsible for the sloppinnes
of certain authorities".
|