The court has already dismissed the witness. But Björn S. wants to get rid of something else. "If some shit has been built here, then they have to be punished, if not, then not," says the 39-year-old. A very level-headed sentence. But he does not get on well with one of the eleven defendants. Despite foot restraints, Alaa A. jumps up from the dock. "We are not rapists!" He yells at the witness. "She wanted that! She wanted that!"
Björn S. works as a bouncer in a disco on the outskirts of Freiburg. On the night of 14 October 2018, he was on duty - the night when several men in a shrubbery in front of the club allegedly raped an 18-year-old woman. Björn S. was mainly in the disco, his colleague Fuat Y. controlled the entrance outside. Both protest before the district court of Freiburg that they had noticed nothing unusual. Fuat Y. only separated a few meters and a wooden wall from what was happening in the bushes.
"You must tell the truth in court, otherwise you make yourself liable to prosecution," said the chairman Judge Stefan Bürgelin first Fuat Y. He teaches the 36-year-old in addition to Article 55 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, according to which a witness may refuse the answer then, if he risk is going to burden yourself. "With you, the question is in the room, whether you have noticed something, if you could have helped." For talking Fuat Y. do not motivate the words of the judge. The questioning is tough, the doorman taciturn.
"Do you have a reminder of the evening?" Asks the judge. "Zero," says the witness. "When did you notice that something happened?" Only after a few days, Fuat Y answers. "It was actually an evening like any other."
The court tries again and again. But the witness remains. He did not notice, even though he was only 10, maybe 15 meters away from the alleged crime scene.
Fuat Y. says the noise level has been very high. Surely 70 people would have stood around him, drunk, laughing, noisy. He also had headphones in his ear to communicate with his colleague Björn S. Björn S. will present this very differently later.
A WhatsApp chat sounds treacherous
Other witnesses, a judge says, have quite reported hearing cries from a woman in the entrance hall asking for sex. "Can you explain that?" "There's a lot of talk," says Fuat Y. He did not notice. The prosecutor tries again: "You really can not remember any cries, either for help or for those who sounded like unrestrained sex?" Fuat Y. stays with his answer. "No."
Several defendants claim that the 18-year-old had wanted sex and demanded vehemently. The prosecution assumes that the young woman was defenseless. She had been drinking something that might have contained co-drops. Sound recordings and the testimony of a friend speak for the fact that the young woman was emotionally deeply shaken that night.
The court faces a WhatsApp communication between bouncer Fuat Y. and his colleague Björn S., which sounds treacherous. It dates from 30 October 2018, two and a half weeks after the alleged rape.
"Tell me," writes Björn S .: "What is the name of the one who - where we worked together last time - said that a buddy came to him who said, 'There's a bird out there'?" The answer from Fuat Y. comes two minutes later: "I do not know about that." Björn S. reacts gruffly: "God, he stood before us last time." Fuat Y .: "I do not know anything about that, I do not know."
At the request of the judge, Fuat Y. now gives his standard answer: "I can not remember it." He generally has problems with his memory. If what he says is true, the extent of his memory gaps would be worrying. "If you ask me now what I did yesterday: no memory, zero."
The next witness is Björn S. Bürgelin also instructs him as a precautionary act under Paragraph 55. "If you have noticed anything, then you better say nothing, because you have a right to refuse information."
He contradicts his bouncer colleague
Björn S. also says that he did not hear anything of the events that night, "nothing at all". He spent most of his time in the disco and occasionally brought a coke to his colleague Fuat Y. The judge asks how loud it was outside with his colleague. "In my opinion, it has been quiet," he says - and thus contradicts the statement of Fuat Y. There had been only a handful of guests in the vicinity of his colleague that night, "maybe five people", not 70, like Fuat Y. had claimed. They also had no earphones in their ears, says Björn S., because of the loud music he would not have heard a word in the club anyway.
Björn S. expresses himself as carefully as possible. He does not want to cause his colleague any difficulties.
"If the rape was loud, Fuat might have heard it," he says. "Then you have to hear it?", Judge Bürgelin asks. "Normally, if it's 15 meters away, you'd have to hear it," the witness says more clearly. But Fuat Y. would certainly have done something if he had heard screams and informed him.
And how does Björn S. explain his WhatsApp messages to Fuat Y.? That's all a big misunderstanding, says the witness. Nobody had come to them that night and told them about the young woman. Only a week later, Björn S. snapped "conversation fragments" of other people. "I just thought Fuat heard the conversation." But Fuat Y. did not hear the sentences.
Defender Jan-Georg Wennekers makes no secret of his doubts. "Tell me, what's the name of 'and' God, that was before us' - you do not write that, if it is unclear whether the Fuat has even noticed!" But the witness remains. "I try nothing there to disguise, "asserted Björn S.