The Trial of Germar Rudolf in Mannheim District Court
Day 8, January 29, 2007

Reported by Günter Deckert
Translated by J. M. Damon

Only a few uniformed policemen were present. Most of the time there were just five of them, and the routine security check was rather haphazard. Germar was not brought into court in chains today. Proceedings took place in the main courtroom. Scheduled for 9 O’clock, they began at 9:16.

The following were present:

The usual members of the Court, Judge Schwab presiding;
District Attorney Grossmann;
The two attorneys for the defense, Bock and Stolz;
Three Staschu (Staatschutz) or state police agents, including an Anlernling (trainee). They did not remain in the courtroom the entire time. In addition, there was one bailiff and one court policeman, both armed.
Continuing their boycott of the Rudolf trial, the “Establishment” media sent no one to cover the proceedings. A retired former reporter for FAZ (Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) was there. We became acquainted and exchanged addresses.
Visitors: 43, including Dr. Kosiek of Grabert Publishing House and several observers who had traveled long distances, some from Berlin.

Judge Schwab called the court to order and asked the attorneys for the Defense if they had read the 1995 verdict of Stuttgart District Court in its entirety (Germar was tried in absentia and given a sentence of 14 months). Attorney Stolz replied that she had been unable to read it because the copy given her was illegible. Judge Schwab ordered that she be given a legible copy.

The first witness was then called: Agent Brockmüller of the BKA (Bundeskriminalamt the German Gedankenpolizei or “Thought Police.”) This BKA agent had headed the Rudolf investigation at the behest of the Mannheim District Attorney. He described the course of the investigation, from the BKA’s having found Germar in the US to his abduction and arrival in Frankfurt, Germany. The BKA agent stated that during Germar’s first interrogation on 16 November 2005, Germar was still somewhat shaken on account of his sudden abduction and separation from his wife and child.

In a rather transparent effort to sow discord within Revisionist ranks, the BKA agent alleged that Germar requested an “informal discussion” in which he offered to collaborate with the government. The agent said that Germar offered to give up all rights to his website, turning over intact all subscription lists. The agent said Germar offered to assist the government in compiling Multiplikatorendaten (replication data) that would be helpful in its war against thought crime, if only the government would allow him to return to his wife and child in the USA.

(Germar’s associates say that his offer was to vacate an empty domain from which all data had been removed. They doubt that Germar used the expression Multiplikatorendaten, which is a term and concept favored by the bureaucracy of repression.)

The BKA agent claimed that Germar said that if the German government did not accept his terms, his supporters would “flood the market” with revisionist literature and that he, Germar, was the only person who could stop such a thing. (Germar’s associates point out that he is not in the habit of making threats.)

The BKA agent told the court that the government rejected Germar’s offer but he did not say why. The agent said that after seizure of the bank account of Germar’s publishing firm at Heidenheimer Volksbank, another BKA agent had taken charge of all data concerning sales, subscriptions and circulation. Agent Brockmüller said that this new BKA agent is a specialist in Hochrechnen der Umsätze (projecting turnover.)

Judge Schwab then asked who was responsible for the homepage of Germar’s website (www.vho.org). Agent Brockmüller said that Germar had accepted full responsibility from the beginning. District Attorney Grossmann then asked questions about the results of the BKA search of the home of Germar’s colleague Dr. G., who had managed the firm’s account. The BKA agent said they had seized a large list of subscribers, 75% of whom were citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany. The BKA agent said that they had analyzed the list in order to estimate Meinungsvervielfältigern (opinion replicators).

Grossmann then asked what role Germar played in the worldwide movement to revise contemporary historiography. The BKA agent said that Germar’s role had been a key one. The BKA agent claimed that since seizure of Germar’s bank account and his extradition from the United States, which was a separate operation, Revisionist opinion in Germany had greatly diminished.

Defense Attorney Bock then asked the agent when the BKA had first become involved in Germar’s case. The BKA agent replied that the Mannheim District Attorney first approached BKA in 2001. Bock then asked what is meant by Meinungsvervielfältiger (opinion replicators).

The BKA agent replied that every reader of illicit literature is a Meinungsvervielfältiger since he discusses what he has read with third parties. Attorney Bock then questioned the BKA agent about his mission as it concerned Germar. The BKA agent replied that it had been to clarify Germar’s residential status in the United States through BKA’s Washington contacts. He said the BKA had originally learned of Germar’s home address through wiretaps. They “bugged” the telephone of Dr. G., who immediately called Germar to inform him of the house search and seizure of the bank account in Germany.

Attorney Bock asked Agent Brockmüller more questions about his initial interrogation of Germar. Suddenly unable to recall details, the BKA agent replied only that Germar had been agitated. The agent went on to say that he had explained to Germar that he could make no promises concerning the proposed Kuhhandel. He said he told Germar that the two German jurisdictions (Stuttgart and Mannheim) were not the only ones involved in the matter, the Americans were involved as well. He said he told Germar that he would inquire into the matter. The BKA agent said that Germar then told him the government could not have it both ways: they could not expect his cooperation if they kept him in prison.

The BKA agent went on to say that at the second interrogation in Rottenburg, Germar had been more composed, having adjusted to his new situation. The BKA agent said that Germar now claimed that he could not recall having ever entrusted subscription date to Dr. G. The BKA agent said that the subscription and circulation data, which included lists acquired from Thies Christopherson, Udo Walendy and Siegfried Verbeke, included around 9,000 names, 75% of whom lived in the German countries. The agent said that around 4,000 addresses were “active” and organized according to the customer’s inclination to buy. The judge then dismissed the witness unvereidigt (unsworn.) That is to say, he was not required to take an oath “to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Perhaps it is significant that Agent Brockmüller’s testimony was not given under oath...

The next witness was BKA agent Achilles, who was called into the courtroom at 9:57.He is the BKA’s “financial expert.” He had been responsible for the dinglicher Arrest (material arrest) and attachment of the bank account. This BKA agent said that the government has established gross receipts of 214,000 Euros based on various estimates of sales of forbidden revisionist literature. The agent explained that the BKA’s accounting method for estimating income from sale of banned books is the same as its method of estimating sales of illegal drugs. It is also the method that was used in prosecuting Frank Rennicke, a writer of unlawful songs.

The BKA agent stated that in the autumn of 2005, Germar’s account showed a balance of 9,000 Euros. This BKA agent went on to say that he had also headed the investigation of the banned book Lectures on the Holocaust. He said that in the fall of 2005 he had received a copy of this book from the Mannheim District Attorney. The police agent said he was told that it had been downloaded from the Internet and that the unlawful Lectures are still available cost free on the Internet.

Judge Schwab then invited members of the Court to question the witness. District Attorney Grossmann had no questions. Defense Attorney Bock asked the agent who had done the official evaluation of Lectures on the Holocaust. He asked: what were the professional qualifications of the evaluator? Avoiding his question, the BKA agent responded that “the book” was used as evidence by the Mannheim District Attorney because it had been used in the trial of Ernst Zündel.

The police agent related that there was a specialized department in the BKA for evaluating unlawful books but that he himself had not read the book. Defense Attorney Stolz asked the BKA agent what kind of reading he preferred but she received no reply. Then she asked whether he had read the BKA evaluation of Lectures on the Holocaust. The agent said that he had read the evaluation about a year ago but did not find it interesting and did not remember it. Germar asked who authored the the evaluation but he received no answer from the BKA agent.

At around 10:10 this second BKA witness was also released unvereidigt (unsworn,) that is, without being required to take and oath to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Perhaps it is significant that BKA Agent Achilles’ testimony, like BKA Agent Brockmüller’s testimony, was not given under oath...

Germar then responded to questions about his financial situation, which he had not discussed in his initial presentation. He stated that that until 2004, around 60 – 70% of all payments had been made through the Volksbank, the remainder having been sold either for cash or else through the mail. He himself had kept books and prepared the tax statement. As a rule, around a third of his total income had consisted of donations. He said that sales of titles not published by Germar’s firm (revisionist classics such as Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Arthur R. Butz; The Auschwitz Myth by Judge William Stäglich and Foundations of Contemporary History edited by Gauss/ Rudolf) have been modest because the market is saturated. Most of his firm’s sales have been of newly released titles.

Judge Schwab then asked questions about Germar’s debts in Britain and the USA. Germar said they amounted to around 30,000 Euros. He said that he has been able to pay his debts through donations made by his supporters but is still indebted to attorneys in the US. Judge Schwab asked about support payments for the two children of his first marriage and Germar replied that he had been paying 500 Euros, but this has since been increased to 650 Euros, and his present wife is making the payments. He said that his monthly income in the period before his abduction had been around 1500 US dollars. Neither the District Attorney nor the Defense had any questions for him.

Judge Schwab then took up the verdict against Germar made by the Stuttgart District Court, dated 23 June 1995. This concerned a strategy paper for future efforts to revise contemporary historiography. Germar said that the inspiration for this strategy had been the second, 1988 Zündel trial, in Toronto, in which Zündel was acquitted due to a lack of forensic evidence of the execution gas chambers. The information about that trial had been gleaned from Klaus E.’s German translation of the book, The Holocaust on Trial. Germar said he did not care for the style of the translation. The other members of the Court had no questions on this issue and they did not state their positions.

Judge Schwab then gave a preview of the coming course of events. He read out the verdict of Mannheim County Court dated 18 August 2004 concerning material arrest, as well as the attachment order relating to the Heidenheimer bank account dated 24 August 2004. The County Court’s total amount is 213,927.63 Euros. Referring to Paragraphs 227 and 265 of the Strafprozeßordnung (Rules of Criminal Procedure), he then announced that not only excerpts from the submitted books, brochures, websites and articles would be included in Court records, but also the entire texts, along with the advertisement posted on www.vho.org on 29 June 2006. He noted that, according to the findings of the Court, 700 copies of Lectures on the Holocaust had been sold in Germany as of January 2005. Defense Attorney Stolz requested the above in writing and Judge Schwab agreed. At 10:30 he announced a pause which lasted until 11:13.

After the pause, Judge Schwab questioned Germar about page 77 of the Stuttgart verdict. This concerned Germar’s attitude toward Jews in general and Ignaz Bubis in particular, as expressed in a personal letter addressed to Karl P. Translator’s note: Bubis, known as the “Jewish Kaiser” and head of the German Judenrat [Jewish Council], had ordered the Max Planck Institute to terminate Germar’s employment as a doctoral candidate chemist, after the release of the Rudolf Expert Report, a chemical analysis of the walls of the alleged homicidal gas chamber at Auschwitz-Birkenau. The report proved definitively that the walls had not been exposed to hydrocyanic acid, therefore the “gas chamber” (actually a morgue) could not have been used as a homicidal gas chamber.

Germar did not mince words in his private correspondence, using the outspoken language of Martin Luther and referring to the present German government as Judenrepublik Deutschland (Jewish Republic of Germany.) The private letter had been written specifically with reference to a speech by the German CDU politician Richard von Weizäcker (subsequently president of the Federal government) in which he urged that Bubis be elected President. Germar apologized for his and Martin Luther’s choice of words but said his opinion of Bubis has not changed.

The judge also addressed the subject of incarceration. Germar had been detained in the US and extradited to Germany on 11 November 2005. The pretext for this was the German Stuttgart verdict against his writing, even though Germar had committed no act that would have been a crime in the United States.

Since Germar has been incarcerated in Germany, the original prison sentence imposed on Germar by the Stuttgart court was completed on 14 January 2007.

Since that time Germar has faced additional criminal charges related to his scientific and historical research. He is being jailed at present on grounds of Untersuchungshaft (investigatory detention.) Since July 2006 he has been held in Überhaft (superior arrest), which entails, under German law, both Strafhaft (punitive incarceration) as well as the aforementioned investigatory detention.

On 14 July 2006 yet another arrest warrant was issued in conjunction with the trial now under way. Judge Schwab announced that the Court would consider the motion for Haftüberprüfung or review of the arrest order, at the request Defense Attorney Bock.

The judge said the investigatory detention continues in effect at any rate, since the warrant was renewed on 29 January 2007. He said the consideration of the defense attorney’s motion would take place in closed session. The judge said he would terminate the day’s session because, according to him, one of the judges, a female, was not feeling well.

He noted that Germar’s record contained the verdict of Stuttgart County Court. Attorney Stolz, responding to Judge Schwab’s question concerning motions for continuation of the Defense, moved introduction of the following books in the trial record:

G. Rudolf: Das Rudolf-Gutachten (The Rudolf Expert Report, newest edition);
E. Gauss: Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (The Foundations of Contemporary History);
H. Verbeke: Auschwitz - Nackte Tatsachen (Auschwitz: Naked Facts);
W. Stäglich: Auschwitz-Mythos (The Auschwitz Myth);
J. Graf / C. Mattogno: Konzentrationlager Stutthoff (Stutthof Concentration Camp);
J. Graf: Riese auf tönernen Füßen (The Giant with Feet of Clay);
A. Butz: Der Jahrhundertbetrug (The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.)

When asked his opinion, District Attorney Grossman expressed no position on the motion. The Court’s decision will come in the next session, which will begin on 12 February 2007 at 9: O’clock. The following session will be one day later, 13 February (the 62nd anniversary of the Allied firebombing holocaust against the civilians of Dresden in 1945.)

Judge Schwab ended the session at 11:00 a.m. and announced that the consideration of the review of Germar’s Haftbefehl (arrest order) would now take place, in secret session. The public had to leave the courtroom. At 12 noon Attorneys Bock and Stolz emerged from the courtroom. Stolz announced that the new arrest order and its stipulation of continuing imprisonment against Germar had been affirmed, Erhärtung des Tatvorwurfs (with an added legal stipulation of aggravation of charges) on the basis of the current indictment as well as the supposed danger of Germar fleeing Germany.

Attorney Stolz pointed out two circumstances:
1) At the time of the first interrogation, Germar had completed two weeks of extradition arrest.
2) The Court’s objections had to do with the findings of another court.
The picture of the accused as described in the Stuttgart verdict caused the Court, especially the lay judges, to exercise great caution. The Stuttgart verdict stressed subjective considerations such as “what kind of person is the accused?”

Günter Deckert
Weinheim/Baden, 30 January 2007

Important notice:
This report is based on my personal observations. It is not based on any literal transcription that I have made and certainly not on the official court transcription. It is a rendition of the course of the proceedings as I observed them. Whoever makes use of this report, in whole or in part, please be so kind as to mention my name as the source.Thanks! G.D.

Ernst Zündel was sentenced at the Mannheim court on February 15th 2007 to five years imprisonment. For more on the Zundel case, click here.