Onzième jour du procès à Aix-la-chapelle, 29 avril 05


The 11th day of trial began 10:15 on 29.04.2005.
Biologist Dr. West of the Land Nordrheinwestfalen presented the 200 pages extra for the DNA-opinion which hasn't been complete last time. Some diagrams and other stuff was missing. The opinion was done by Prof. Dr. Brinkmann he is part of the forensic people at the Landeskriminalamt of Nordrheinwestfalen.
It was asked if the defense has any question in addition to this which was answered with the remark that it might be of importance to see the supplement first. Following West explained the supplement of the DNA-opinion to the judges and lawyers. After several arguments the court decided the results of the supplementary opinion match up with the previous results.
The supplements don't go for the record. Lawyer Poell replied that without seeing the papers he can't formulate questions regarding the supplement, too.

Up next the witness who was as a customer together with the motor mechanic at the workshop was heard. He testified in the back of the yard people were present. Thereupon the motor mechanic spoke to 'em and realized that they are armed. He and the motor mechanic were allegedly forced to get in a car of a customer, but they couldn’t handle the parking brake. After the accused persons could have been convinced to come with them into the shop and hide there. He explained: "that the motor mechanic disappeared soon after and he remained as the only captive". The motor mechanic came back for a minute to watch out and said he would get rid off the police. Further the witness testified the accused got more and more nervous and "gesticulated violently with their guns". The witness heared an helicopter and said to all of them: "No one is getting out of here alive." In his testimony he repeated various times that he said to the accused again and again this situation can turn out deadly. After one of them (Bart) was gone he gave the others the advise to give up and leave their guns in the shop. After they agreed he would come with 'em they did so. The witness was speaking with Gabriel in the shop for a minute who addressed reproaches to himself. To him Jose appeared to be pretty nervous, "I thought, he's going mad." Further he declared to have seen 2 guns, one revolver and one automatic. Then the judge asked him about the difference of an automatic and a revolver. When the judge asked if there was a leader in the group he said it was Gabriel for sure. Number two was Jose and then Bart. He was sorry about the younger one (Bart), "getting shot at such a young age." He testified Bart seemed to be overcharged with the situation and was happy to be allowed to leave after a discussion with Gabriel. He gave him some money before he left. The witness stated to have given the younger one the advise to leave instead of giving up, "so he would have a chance to not get shot." The judge asked if he asked when speaking with 'em where they come from. Quote: "From the northern part of spain, after that i asked no more questions 'cos everyone know this is where the ETA is." Later on he read in a newspaper that it was something similar, something political. The accused didn't speak to him about a bank hold-up, just about a control of their ID cards. Further he said how happy he is the police had been so thoughtful and that he can repress what happened pretty good. Lawyer Ulf Israel said at the first questioning he testified no gun was pointed at him. He answered the memory he has today dictates him that guns were pointed him respectively the "gesticulated violently" with the guns. Lawyer Poell asked if he told what happened to a lot of people. But he was speaking about it only with a few close ones 'cos it was not a pleasant experience.

After the hearing of the witness the court announced that the following accusations will be dropped:

Bart - Resistance against executive power
Jose and Gabriel - Grave intervention in road traffic and mayhem are dropped, but still

will be consider in finding the measure of punishment.

Following that Bart read a writting statement by him.
In his statement he said that he has known Gabriel and Jose only superficial and by their first names only. He met 'em during a political discussion and knew they were anarchists. Begonia he just got to know right before they left, they wanted to drop her off in cologne. He wanted to visit his girlfriend in Bremen and wanted to go with 'em till cologne, too. He declared that he didn't know about the guns, otherwise he would have never gone with 'em. Further that he was never thinking about a bank hold-up 'cos unemployment benefit was enough since his standard is pretty low. After the check and the shots in ceiling he was anxious & afraid and didn't know what to do. He hardly remembers details of the ride and the escape. He was just following the others and since he couldn't think clearly anymore he did what Gabriel told him. In the shop Gabriel tried to calm him down and gave him some money in the end, so he could get away by himself. Further questions concerning the case he won't answer, he just declared that statements about his personal conditions will be made (school, family, previous convictions in belgium (graffiti and theft of gasoline) etc.).The experts asked about psychical diseases of him respectively his family what he negated.

The experts asked if Gabriel wants to answer questions about his personal situation as well. Lawyer Martin Poell replied the general information about Gabriel are well known and that Gabriel doesn't have an overlook anymore 'cos of the torture he was going through over the years again and again.
The demanded witness from spain could testify about this.

What followed was the opinion of the psychological experts.
Mrs. Dr. Roth did her opinion about Jose. Because of the conclusions she draw from his behaviour in court and the testimonies of the witnesses she can't detect any indication for a psychic dysfunction with a considerable grave effect on brain-organ, imbecility or intoxication. To her Jose appeares to be relaxed and focused, sometimes nervous. She can't detect any noticeable problems. In her opinion diminishment of guilt is not given. Gabriel remarked if it isn't necessary to ask that question not just in a psychological, but also in a politcal and social way. No reaction by the judge.
Up next expert Mrs. Jankowski spoke about Gabriel. When she considers the testimonies of the witnesses there are noticeable problems and reduced consciouness detectable. She draws the same conclusion, no intoxication or withdrawal syndrome, psychopathy etc. and his criminal responsibility is not diminished.
Sie refrains from the suspicion of the diagnosis that there are posttraumatic psychic strain disorders 'cos of the experience of torture in spain. She concludes that 'cos Gabriel has been described as the boss by the witnesses and his behaviour seems to be confident and independent.
Lawyer Poell asked Mrs. Jankowski if she is working with patients at the moment, she had to negate this. But she did so before. At present she's an advisor at the forensic. Further she had to negate the question if she ever worked with people that experienced torture or if she considers reports about torture of isolation in her work. After that she was asked if she did ever had even a single patient who experienced torture. She affirmed it, it was an survivor of the KZ Buchenwald.
Further lawyer Poell asked her which cognitions she has about Gabriels experiences of torture in the time before his arrest. On that she replied it doesn't require any special experiences to conclude after a comparison with the testimony of the witnesses if a you are dealing with a traumatic person or not. Gabriel appears to be pretty active, during the trial, too. There is nothing like a retreat. Lawyer Poell asked her now if a posttraumatic state and actively doing something are mutually exclusive. She declared that such disorders lead to angst, panic, acts of avoidance. The next question of Poell was if running away is the coercive action or is the opposite possible, too. She admitted it, but in her opinion such behavior can only be the result of a successful treatment. She further doubts that a person who hasn’t been under treatment can actively oppose.
The implementations do mainly refer to his behavior during the stop-and-search operation and the escape afterwards. Further she explained her didactic-methodical approach and how it resulted in the psychological description of the person.

Up next Dr. Christian Bruecker, specialist for psychiatry, revealed his opinion on Bart.
First he declared Bart didn’t want a personal analysis. That’s why he is refereing to the testimony of the witnesses and the behavior of Bart in court.
He has no clues for a mental disorder that could be traced back to his biography. His state of anxiety is something normal in such situations, means that the memory is affected. In his opinion §20 (decreased criminal responsibility) isn’t fulfilled.

Up next applications by lawyer Ulf Israel regarding the bank hold-up on 18.06.04 followed. First application: about the suspect Mr. Mueller who is suspected to be the robber a morphological expert opinion should be delivered that can be compared with the recordings of the surveillance camera. Second application: Hearing of Mr. Mueller. Third application: The witness Kohner who wasn’t present when he was supposed to testify should appear in court. Geimer refused the applications ‘cos of inadmissability. Ulf Israel points out that all applications are legally correct applications.
After that a long break tooks place resulting in the postponement of the decision to the next day of trial

This will be at 04. Mai 2005, 10:00 in room 339.

The statement of Bart as well as Ulf Israels applications can obtained in its entirety at the website www.escapeintorebellion.info