21th day of trial, Aachen, monday, september 5th 2005

- Begonia is advocated by a new lawyer

- Taking of evidence finished

- Summing up speeches of the prosecutor

- Demanded sentences: Jose-15 years, Gabriel-14 years, 9 months, Bart-7

years, Begonia-13 months on probation 

(all sentences without a chance for get out of jail earlier)

- Summing up speech of the 

Today the trial began as sharp as it never did before and 'cos the 

judge

didn't wait for all visitors to make it through the controls there was

no friendly and loud "Hello"

for the three this time.

There was more police present then usually and in the neigboring street

8 police cars instead one could be found.

Begonia had the chance to change the lawyer. Today lawyer Schaefer is

present as substitution and from next time on the lawyer of her choice

will there.

It is announced that the applications for partiality are rejected, same

for two applications to hear further witnesses about the situation at

Halifaxstreet.

Lawyer Poell makes a statement about the cleaning of the audience space

during the last day of trial. One person who left the court room right

before this happened was

banned to not enter the house anymore, too. After this statement

Gabriels lawyer made an application with reading a text Gabriel wrote.

This text deals with results of his 

imprisonment and the torture in spanish prisons.

Lawyer Franke makes an application to hear the officer who interviewed

the witness Sommer whose car was the second one used for escape. He

should confirm that Mr. 

Sommer testified when he escaped he lost any sense of what happened

around him. (This testimony refers to that part of Barts accusation

which accuses him to have been actively involved of the stealing of the

car).

Prosecutor Geimer does as usually demand to reject all applications, 

the

first one 'cos there is no relevance to the trial and the other one 

'cos

it it too late.

After the judges retreated for consultation both application are

dismissed.

After a debate about lawyer Poells statement on the cleaning of the

audience space it is applied to hear the person who was banned from

entering the house without

any reason. The lawyer of Jose and Begonia join that application. The

chamber rejects it 'cos of the missing relevance to the taking of

evidences.

The chamber wants to close the taking of evidences. Following that

lawyer Ruppert makes an application to interrupt the trial 'cos today 

he

can only be present till 12:00

and wants to be present when the accuser does his final speech.

Begonias substitute lawyer declares that today he doesn't want to do 

the

pleading today. Judge Nohl assures him of that. When Nohl asks Begonia

she says the lawyer

of her choice from cologne will do the final speech.

The application of lawyer Ruppert is dismissed with the hint he could

obtain all details from lawyer Poell and this is the reason why there

are lawyers present.

What follows are the final speeches

At first: Prosecutor Geimer.

(comment: We tried to reproduce the final speeches of the prosecutor 

and

the joint plaintiff with the words they used. That we could not quote

everything is 'cos

we had no chance to write down excatly every word they used.

It is a pain to hear how they use the suffering of Mr. and Mrs. Schulz

and discredit Gabriels letter. And it is such a poor act that

"anarchists" "help" a prosecutor 

with his final speech. It hurts us to reproduce this so relaxed 'cos 

all

of the statements one has to question. These are final speeches of

lawyers who are aiming

at the maximum penalty...)

Final speech of the prosector:

Before he begins with his speech he declares that something like this

never happened before in his 25 year longing career as advocate for the

interests of the state.

On the one hand the behavior of the defendants, their behavior in court

and the intention to do this trial as a political one. On the other 

hand

the audience whose 

behavior was unbearable and who did a report after every day of the

trial one could read online. He rejects the political motives

vehemently. Regarding this he reads

a text where he quotes anarchists who declare that taking hostages has

nothing in common with anarchism, that a free society works without

violence (force) and

the defendants from Aachen are nothing but criminals. He uses this as

proof the trial is not a political one. It is blind solidarity and no

excuse.

All statements of the defendants were read after the taking of 

evidences

was done already that is why the statements must be seen as

constructions.

Concerning the points of the accusation he sees all of them as 

approved.

Accusation of Jose and Begonia about the bank robbery in Karlsruhe:

To him Jose is the for sure the committer of the bank hold-up 'cos he

was in Karlsruhe at this time the surveillance camera material convicts

him. He can't say for

sure that Begonia was his complice but she helped him on logistical

aspects since she lives in Karlsruhe and speaks german.

The fact of handling of stolen goods he sees as proved 'cos she was on

welfare, but bought a car for her brother and payed some debts.

Accusation of collusion for heist:

Two maps were found, wigs and walky talkies what indicates that they

were planning robberies. Nevertheless there are not enough proofs for

sentence on that.

Complex 3 and 4 of the accusation (control situation and chase)

Federal Frontier Guards testified the accused Jose and Gabriel had 

faked

papers with them, but they didn't realize this when checking it. The

situation escalated when they

said Jose should open the backpack what resulted in Jose and Gabriel

pulling their guns at the same time - this indicates they had an

arrangement on this.

Joint plaintill Schulz leaves the court room crying.

Geimer declares this is a proof he is still suffering from what

happened.

The hostages were forced to get into the car, Jose was driving and

witness Schulz sat right next to him. Bart was sitting in the back of

the car and so hindered Mrs. Schulz

to leave the car what makes him a complice. During the mad drive Jose

drove to the center of the city and 'cos of his life-threatening way of

driving Mrs. Weiss was slightly

injured when the first accident occured.

Gabriel was leaning out of the window and aimed at the car of the

Federal Frontier Police behind them. This was life-threatening to the

officers just as to the passersby 'cos

of possible richocets. Another life-threatening situation occured when

Jose was driving right through a group a passersby without using the

brakes. Only the prompt reaction of the passersby prevented harm. 

During

the escape Gabriel short various times at the car of the Federal

Frontier Police and again it was luck nothing happened. Because it was

not possible to go on with this car they had to change it. Before they

left with this new car Gabriel went to the car of Federal Frontier

Police and shot three times. A proof for this are the bullet casings. 

At

this time Bart had the chance to leave, but he remained inside the new

car and helped convincing witness Sommer to get into the car. But Mr.

Sommer could escape and the accused persons went to a shop and did dig

themselves in.

Begonia was resisting her arrestment, so the arrestment was rather

difficult just as the skilled officers affirmed. During the trial she

attracted attention by her arrogant behavior.

The guilt of Bart during the change of the car used for escape can be

determined.

The attempted murder the prosecutor derives from the firing off several

shots by Gabriel in combination with the valuation of the officers. He

points out that even the officers were old hands to them the situation

was very dangerous.

The missing criminal liabilty or reduced criminal liabilty - there is 

no

hint on that, the experts did clearly point it out.

Moral valuation: "What can be interceded for the defendants? NOTHING."

Begonia wasn't involved in the further deeds, that must be considered.

"What opposes the defendants? Massive use of force, brutality,

criminality."

The defense and the supporters show clear traits of belittlement. Mr.

Schulz is a proof for the heaviness of what happened 'cos even after a

year he can't stand staying inside the court room. A political

motivation of Gabriel and Jose can't be detected.

Concluding he states the citizens and the police must be protected by

court and justice as well: Only an insistent penalty can assure this.

The society needs to react on such a behavior to show that no one will

get away unpunished. Officers must be able to feel save. Political

motivations are just pleaded.

He demands the following sentence:

Jose:

Complex 1 (bank hold-up Karlsruhe): 5 years; Complex 2 (collusion to a

crime): acquittal; Complex 3 and 4 (resisting authority, intervention 

of

road traffic, mayhem, attempted armed roberry, taking hostages,

attempting murder): 12 years; Complex 5 (armed robbery, attempted

murder): 8 years

Overall duration of sentence: 15 years, without a chance to get 

released

earlier.

Gabriel:

Complex 2: (collusion to a crime); acquittal; Complex 3 and 4 

(resisting

authority, intervention of road traffic, mayhem, attempted armed

roberry, taking hostages, attempting murder): 12 years; Complex 5 

(armed

robbery, attempted murder): 10 years

Overall duration of sentence: 14 years, 9 months, without the chance to

get released earlier

Bart:

Complex 2: (collusion to a crime): 1 year, Complex 3 and 4 (resisting

authority, intervention of road traffic, mayhem, attempted armed

robbery, taking hostages, attempted murder): 4 years; Complex 5 (armed

robbery, attempted murder): 6 years

Overall duration of sentence: 7 years, without a chance to get released

earlier

Begonia:

Complex 1 (bank hold-up Karlsruhe): 1year, Complex 6 (resisting

authority): fine of 1200 Euro, 10 Euro a day

Overall duration of sentence: 13 months on probation

The wigs, weapons and the alleged money from the bank hold-up should be

confiscated.

Lawyer Poell declares the judges did already dismiss the accusation for

attempted murder. If the prosecutor now

comes up with this again he knows two applications he could make that

confute this. The first one would be the 

hearing of an officer who testified he saw the muzzle flash that means

the gun was pointed right at him what is

technically not possible. And the other application would deal with the

testimony three bullet casings were found 

what is not true as well 'cos the revolver couldn`t carry enough 

bullets

for that.

Final speech of the joint plaintiff:

The lawyer of the joint plaintiff just made some additions to what the

prosecutor already said. He pointed out the

hostages were not released, they escaped, still with panic another shot

could follow. Mrs. Schulz can`t participate

in the trial anymore, she just can`t stand it. What happened in court 

is

no tolerable treating of the court. The 

therapeutical method to handle what happened via being present in the

court room during the room was no

success. The traumata increased. It got so bad the marriage is in 

danger

now.

The apology Gabriel made to the former hostages with his letter doesn`t

deserve the label apology. Every

approach for excuse is followed by a "if" or "but". Not a single time 

he

says: I want to apologize. The worst

thing is the sentence: "I took away 5 minutes of your freedom, for me

this means years." Even if it had been

only 5 minutes (it was a lot longer, by the way), he didn't want to be

be the defendants on a mad drive, the

gun pointed at him. Regarding Mr. Schulz leaving the court room crying

he states: "Here it is no woman

that run away, a young man, but a man."

The judge asks the defense to do the final speech. The defense asks for

a five minute break. After

the break they declare to do the final speech all together which is

better than doing it in parts and lawyer

Ruppert isn`t present anymore and for Begonia only the

substitute-lawyer.

When asked Begonia says she wants the lawyer of her choice, Schulz, to

do the final speech which

is okay to the judge and the hint is made that her trial can be

separated from the one of the others.

The final speeches of the defense will be done during the next day of

trial on september 21th, 2005.