35th day of trial against the 6 accused anti-fascists in the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court

The summer slump doesn't stop at the courtroom: for the first time there was only a single-digit number of spectators on site.

Policewoman Rückert was invited at 11 a.m. In the files she is listed under her former name Käster (there is confusion: another woman Rückert had investigated the Erfurt case (see below)).

The police officer had viewed videos that the Budapest police had sent. On the one hand, she was supposed to investigate the attacks on Toth and Fischer/Brinkmann and, on the other hand, identify Luca on various recordings. She herself explained that she was primarily referring to clothing. She saw the trousers and shoes as particularly striking. Luca is said to have worn black Nike shoes with white trim. A truly unmistakable unique selling point.

The witness was unable to identify Luca in the actual videos of the crime, on the contrary: she claims to have recognized Luca on the way to the scene of the attack on Toth. At the time of the attack, she was said to have been identified from the camera in the peephole in the AirBnB she was supposedly renting.

The defense wanted to know what software was used to work with the videos. This witness responded that this was not covered by her permission to testify. Her approval comes from the LKA Thuringia, even though she carried out the evaluations as an official at the LKA Saxony. The presiding judge explains that this is usual.

In addition, however, the approval to testify is from 2018. Signed by a police chief who is no longer in office and at a time when the witness herself had not yet worked in the LKA Thuringia. The defense points out that it is impossible to determine what the witness can and cannot be questioned about.

The question of the software used was a frequent topic in the proceedings. There have been repeated indications that AI-supported software could have been used to edit the enormous amount of video material. This would not be permissible for criminal proceedings. Whether the presiding judge cannot or does not want to understand this question remains an open question. Instead of clarifying the possible use of unauthorized AI, he simply suggests that the defense is implying that the videos could have been manipulated by pointing to AI. However, this has little to do with the actual question of defense. The discussion leads nowhere; the witness insists that she is either not allowed or able to make any statements about the software. A central question about the basis of the investigative work remains unanswered and the court seems to be able to come to terms with this lack of clarity surprisingly well.

A few applications follow before the lunch break. Among other things, it was about a possible co-prosecution by the attacked German Nazi Fischer and the question of whether he would not be questioned in the trial for medical reasons, but whether interrogation protocols would be read out instead.

This is followed by a request for evidence from the defense: Ms. Hoppe from the LKA Thuringia should testify about her communication with the KHK Bauerfeind, which we already know well. Hoppe is said to testify that Bauerfeind commissioned her to provide an expert opinion on the clothing used in the attack on the Thor-Steinar store in Erfurt. He is said to have told her that he was “absolutely sure” that Emmi was the perpetrator, but that the objective evidence was thin. Hoppe described the existing video as “not even remotely usable” and was then instructed not to prepare a report. When later applying for an arrest warrant against Emmi, Bauerfeind nevertheless referred to identification based on clothing. The expert allegedly rejected a report on the jacket because she had to have the original. One can ask oneself why the communication that contains the actual agreement did not find its way into the file. This even seems to convince the public prosecutor, who doesn't object.

In addition, Ms. Rücker from the LKA Thuringia is supposed to testify. In the complex, she had carried out the height measurement of the attacked saleswoman in the Thor Steinar store. It is again about discrepancies in the size of the person in the video with Emmi, determined using 3D measuring methods, who, according to the prosecution, is said to have attacked. The public prosecutor considers the measurement result to be meaningless. The height measured on the video does not match that of the accused, but the public prosecutor's office believes that this is irrelevant for identification. Body size and identity apparently have little to do with each other.

The public prosecutor's office also rejects the summons of the first responders in the Dudog case. These could testify that he was not unconscious when they arrived, but not whether he was unconscious at another time. The public prosecutor does not seem to believe that this would contradict the statements of the two alleged victims.

Nele's defense then suggests that the proceedings against her regarding the attack on Liptak at Budapest's West Station be discontinued. According to the files, the consequences of the crime were minor. Since Liptak also does not want to testify, his interest in the proceedings appears to be limited.

The lunch break follows.

Bull Streichert from KPI Erfurt is then invited. He had questioned witness J. after the attack on Beuthe and Raßbach and is supposed to testify about details of this interrogation. He brought printed copies of the minutes with him. His statements actually only reflect what is already known from the interview protocols and which he had apparently read through again before making his statement.

The witness J. herself was then also questioned (for the second time). It was about contradictions between their statements and the statements of other witnesses. Details are relevant: which side of the street which group of people was on and which of the two Nazis they attacked. The witness cannot remember these details. She points out that her memories of the crime were even clearer.

The testimonies of the students interviewed do not allow for a reliable identification of the accused. Many details cannot be remembered, others are described fundamentally differently by different witnesses. This does not result in a clear, consistent picture of the crime from which it could be reliably deduced who the attackers were.

This ends the day of the hearing, Wednesday is canceled, so it starts next week, September 1st. further.

web address: http://www.bsg-nrw.org...License of article and all embedded media:  Creative Commons by-sa: Share Alike