Back to Startpage  
Other Languages

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".