39th day of trial against the 6 accused anti-fascists in the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court

The police officer KOK Fritz (he refused to provide further information such as first name and place of residence, which the Senate accepted) from the LKA Saxony initially reported on investigations into an apartment at Kazinczy Utca 8 in Budapest. The police became aware of the property after people who were connected to the case were found there. The apartment was rented through Airbnb by a woman. After comparing the registration data, the police assumed that the woman's name was a real name. The Dresden District Court then obtained a search warrant for her apartment. During the search, among other things, the question arose as to whether an “Emmi” mentioned in chats could be identical to the defendant Emmi D.. Fritz reported that he had evaluated chat histories and concluded that the person named could be the defendant.

The investigators then tried to trace the people's movements using video recordings of the area. It was noticed that not everyone returned to the apartment on Kazinczy utca every evening. The investigators concluded that additional accommodation could have been used. Fritz then reported on another Airbnb booking that was made on August 30, 2022. The apartment was about ten minutes away from the first accommodation. In his opinion, the tourist registration forms filled out by the guests had false names on them. Video recordings of the period in question were no longer available because the period of time had now passed.

The presiding judge Bachler then asked about possible previous stays of the defendants Nele and Emmi in Budapest. He confirmed a possible stay from February 7th to 13th, 2022, but could not remember the details. When asked by the chairman, the topic was also about possible crimes against right-wing extremists during this stay. Fritz vaguely remembered an attack in front of an ATM. When asked whether this could have taken place on February 12th, he answered yes. Moritz's defense attorney Erkan Zünbül criticized that the question was very broad and that the witness would probably have answered yes to any other date.

The Federal Prosecutor General then questioned the witness about identification notes. In pictures, unmasked people were matched with people from videos of attacks based on various external characteristics - KOK Fritz confirms this.

At the request of the Federal Prosecutor's Office, a corresponding note was projected for those involved. Among other things, it dealt with the alleged identification of Johann, Paula, Clara and Emmi as well as their assignment to various crime complexes. Johann was identified, among other things, by his clothing.

Fritz also reported that he recognized Maja T.'s voice in recordings from a seized night vision device. He explained this by saying that he had often heard Maja's voice during visits to the Dresden correctional facility, where he was involved in monitoring Maja. Good to know that, in addition to his work at SOKO LINX, Fritz apparently also wants to have acquired expertise in forensic voice identification.

After a short break, the defense continued the questioning. Alexander Hoffmann asked Fritz about his role in the extradition of Maja T. The witness explained that he had occupied the so-called staff on the day of the extradition because he was responsible for relevant inquiries due to his expertise. The Federal Prosecutor's Office objected to the question. Hoffmann argued the question was relevant because it could involve state officials' willingness to circumvent legislation related to extradition. The presiding judge finally allowed the question, but significantly restricted further questioning.

Fritz did not provide any information about specific internal processes. Even when asked several times, he was unable or unwilling to say when and from whom he had found out about the impending extradition. The presiding judge ultimately did not allow any further questions about the circumstances of the extradition, such as the question of who was responsible for the extradition. The vehement silence of Fritz and the GBA once again shows the unwillingness and inability of the constitutional state to investigate the authorities' incomprehensible actions in Maja's illegal kidnapping to Hungary. Fritz seems to have played a big role in this.

Defense attorney Lukas Bastisch then asked the witness about a note he made about Paula in November 2023. The topic was, among other things, a later change to existing arrest warrants. According to the witness, investigator Kästner found that certain people were initially blamed for Gazdagrét Square, while they were seen in other videos in a different location. Fritz explained that he assumed that the relevant findings would have subsequently led to a change in the arrest warrant.

Fritz was also unable to provide any informative information about the video recordings he himself evaluated. The witness was dismissed.

Before the lunch break, the Senate received several statements from the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office on the defense's requests for evidence: Moritz's defense had, among other things, requested the translation of various articles and a contribution from ARTE on the “Day of Honor” in Hungary. The Federal Prosecutor's Office rejected this. The character of the “Day of Honor” as a right-wing event has already been proven. According to the Federal Prosecutor's Office, state financial or organizational support for the event and connections of the organizer in political government circles did not allow any conclusions to be drawn about an undemocratic form of government in Hungary.

The defense clearly contradicted this classification. Scharmer emphasized that the Hungarian government's support of the “Day of Honor” was relevant precisely because it affected the political nature of the event's environment. Hoffmann also pointed out that state support was relevant for the assessment of the circumstances under which the defendants moved in Budapest, precisely because the GBA mentioned in the indictment that the punishment was aggravated by the fact that in a democratic state like Hungary there are other ways to political debate than violence.

Another application, which refers to the expert Dr. Klos (head of the public security department at the Federal Ministry of the Interior), the Federal Prosecutor's Office also assessed as unfounded. It is not clear which specific data should have been passed on by the authorities. From the Federal Prosecutor's Office's point of view, the allegation of such a transfer is not sufficiently proven. Other comments concerned, among other things, body size measurements and the question of when a corresponding measurement was taken at Emmi.

The defense then critically assessed the police interrogation of the Erfurt witness G. The latter was not “pretty sure” about the identification, as was sometimes stated, but had simply spoken of similarities. Given a photo template with eight images shown at the same time, she inevitably had to select the person whose appearance most closely matched the description she had previously given. The defense therefore fundamentally questioned the evidentiary value of the identification.

After the lunch break, M. Hoppe was heard as a witness. The 59-year-old chemist works at the LKA Thuringia in the area of ​​forensic textile science. She first explained her general work. Their tasks include, among other things, examining micro-marks and textile damage and, under certain conditions, comparing textiles on video recordings. Then it was an investigation into a robbery at a Thor Steinar store. In this context, Hoppe had received pictures showing, among other things, shoes. However, she did not receive a specific order to investigate. Hoppe explained that she looked at the images and first explained the general requirements and limitations of such an investigation. The particular problem was that she did not have the shoes in question. Comparing images could be useful as part of an investigation in order to rule out certain possibilities. However, it is not possible to make a reliable statement about individual agreement based on images alone. The images would therefore only have limited informative value. This also corresponds to the usual nationwide procedure in the forensic examination of shoes. For a concrete individual assignment, the actual objects would have to be available.

When asked by defense attorney Dietrich, Hoppe explained that she had discussed this with Mr. Bauerfeind (LKA Thuringia). The communication probably took place by telephone. Pictures were also sent to her once, but she did not keep them. She could not say whether Bauerfeind subsequently recorded her assessment in writing in an investigative note.

Several documents and images were then examined. First, an already known article from Antifa-info.net about the alleged victims in the Budapest trial was briefly looked through. This was followed by various surveillance images, maps of Budapest and movement profiles drawn on them. Further documents concerned investigative notes on the Polish victims and various personal identifications. The relevant documents were mostly reviewed quickly. In addition, two notes from the investigating authorities were read out.

At the end, the defense announced another request for evidence. An Adidas employee will be heard as a witness and will confirm once again that the signs of wear described in the indictment as an identifying feature are, on the contrary, completely normal for the model.

The main hearing ended at 2:30 p.m. A shortened hearing day is planned for Wednesday, September 30th from 10:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. at the latest. The date scheduled for Tuesday, September 29th has been cancelled.

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