- 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
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
It is announced that the applications for partiality are rejected, same
for two applications to hear further witnesses about the situation at
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
Prosecutor Geimer does as usually demand to reject all applications,
first one 'cos there is no relevance to the trial and the other one
it it too late.
After the judges retreated for consultation both application are
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
The chamber wants to close the taking of evidences. Following that
lawyer Ruppert makes an application to interrupt the trial 'cos today
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
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
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
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
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
All statements of the defendants were read after the taking of
was done already that is why the statements must be seen as
Concerning the points of the accusation he sees all of them as
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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,
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:
Complex 1 (bank hold-up Karlsruhe): 5 years; Complex 2 (collusion to a
crime): acquittal; Complex 3 and 4 (resisting authority, intervention
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
Complex 2: (collusion to a crime); acquittal; Complex 3 and 4
authority, intervention of road traffic, mayhem, attempted armed
roberry, taking hostages, attempting murder): 12 years; Complex 5
robbery, attempted murder): 10 years
Overall duration of sentence: 14 years, 9 months, without the chance to
get released earlier
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.