Icon: enlarge
Defense Counsel Kaplan, Defendant Ernst (December 1): "This terrible act and this immeasurable suffering cannot be made good"
Photo: Kai Pfaffenbach / dpa
Defense attorney Mustafa Kaplan leans over to his client Stephan Ernst.
You can see the tension.
Today, on the 35th day of the negotiation, he is supposed to keep his promise: to answer all questions from the Lübcke family, whose husband, father and grandfather he shot with a black Rossi .38 caliber revolver.
Ernst wanted to contribute to the clarification and "consistently continue down this path", Kaplan had announced.
Ernst wears a black suit and white shirt, as he does every day, his face gray, his gaze fixed.
Mrs. Walter Lübckes had addressed the alleged murderer of her husband directly in the courtroom and asked to tell her and her sons the "full truth".
Much has not been clarified by the various confessions that Ernst made during the proceedings.
Ernst took notes, says his lawyer.
At 11:14 am Ernst takes a deep breath and reads: "I would like to say that this terrible deed and this immeasurable suffering cannot be made good." His participation in the Ikarus dropout program should therefore not be seen as an attempt to make amends.
Rather, he is more concerned with breaking free from the right-wing extremist environment that shaped him and in which he found support and recognition.
He also wanted to counter what had triggered the act in right-wing extremist circles.
Could Walter Lübcke have left?
Ernst then answered the eight questions that Irmgard Braun-Lübcke had called out to him in court: Yes, Walter Lübcke looked the defendant Markus H. in the face three times.
When he stepped out onto the terrace, where Walter Lübcke was sitting in a garden chair and smoking;
when H. spoke to him and when the politician shouted that H. and Ernst should go.
Yes, he also saw him, Stephan Ernst, when he threatened Walter Lübcke with a gun, pushed him into the garden chair and spoke to him.
Yes, there was an exchange of words: H. called "Time to emigrate", Walter Lübcke called "Get out of here!" And he, Ernst, called: "I go to work every day for someone like you".
Could Walter Lübcke have left?
“The way we found him sitting, he had no more opportunity.
It should be quick. ”No, Walter Lübcke could not defend himself.
He only started a confrontation when he screamed and tried to sit up.
Ernst describes in detail who, and how, touched Lübcke and when.
There was a brief verbal argument because Kaplan asked to be allowed to hear all questions before answering
Ernst cries when he answers the questions, it seems staged.
Or is the fatal attack on the evening of June 1, 2019 in Wolfhagen-Istha happening again in his mind's eye?
After a break, Irmgard Braun-Lübcke turns to Stephan Ernst again.
You have more questions.
“If you really want to help us, I beg you to tell the truth very sincerely, precisely and clearly.
As it really was. "
There was a brief verbal argument because Kaplan asked to be allowed to hear all questions before answering.
If "the ruthless honesty" is announced, there is no need for it, says chairman Thomas Sagebiel.
This is followed by 24 questions which the Lübcke family's lawyer, Holger Matt, asks one after the other and which Stephan Ernst answers one by one.
It is about planning in advance of the crime, when, how often and with whom the crime scene was serious;
how often he saw Walter Lübcke sitting in his regular seat on the terrace;
what he discussed and planned with Markus H. and which of his three defense lawyers he told which version of the crime.
The 25th question is again asked by Irmgard Braun-Lübcke: "Is it really true that my husband looked into H.'s face at the last second of his life?" Silence.
"Yes." - "Really?" - "Yes."
Hannig's hand file is not dated
The Senate and Chief Public Prosecutor Dieter Killmer still have questions.
It is about the hand file of the now relieved defense attorney Frank Hannig.
Holger Matt had applied for their confiscation in the hope of finding evidence of possible complicity of co-defendant Markus H.
He was arrested shortly after Ernst last year but released from custody in October.
The Senate no longer regards Markus H. as urgently suspicious of being guilty of complicity in murder.
The hope of the Lübcke family to find concrete evidence of the presence of Markus H. at the crime scene in Hannig's notes and memory logs burst on that day.
Hannig noted that, according to Ernst, H. should always have been at the crime scene - unlike what he had claimed during an interrogation in June 2019.
However, it remains unclear when Hannig recorded these comments.
Judge Sagebiel says that a hand file can be "tweaked".
In this respect, such a document has a "very reduced probative value".
H.'s defense feels confirmed: The accessory prosecution is leading a campaign against H., lawyer Björn Clemens emphasized on Tuesday and spoke of an "extraordinary zeal for hunting" which only served to put H. "against all previous knowledge at the center of the trial Done to move «.
After all, the Federal Court of Justice confirmed the court's detention decision.
Memorable appearance at the BGH
On that day in court, however, a judge at the Federal Court of Justice remembers how he announced the arrest warrant to Markus H. on June 27th last year.
It sounds like a memorable gig.
Markus H. completed the demonstration, including arrival in a helicopter and accompanied by martially dressed SEK officers in balaclavas and riot gear, with a surprising "coldness and serenity".
"I've never seen that before," said the judge.
Markus H. was also "on the ball" legally.
He asked him, the judge, why he was being accused of "only complicity in murder" and asked: "What about membership in a terrorist organization?" Since then, he has wondered how H. got the idea, says the BGH judge.
It takes three people to form a terrorist organization under Section 129a of the Criminal Code.
A fact that, according to the judge, H. should have known.
Clemens, H's defense attorney, attributes his client's inquiry to the fact that the arrest warrant mentioned three accused.
The last question that Irmgard Braun-Lübcke asks Stephan Ernst on that day fits in with this: "Were you there alone or as a couple or were other people involved in the planning?" Stephan Ernst exhales audibly.
He was there alone or with H.
No other person was involved in the planning.
There will be no judgment in 2020
How the criminal proceedings against co-defendant Markus H. end is of no importance either for Ernst or for his defense, his lawyer Mustafa Kaplan told SPIEGEL.
It is all about providing "truthful information on how to prepare and carry out the crime together" for the murder of Walter Lübcke.
"So that the Lübcke family can perhaps end the loss of their husband and father at some point. Today, Mr. Ernst again made his contribution."
For the Senate, on the other hand, »considerable questions« about the course of events arose, judge Sagebiel stated after the questioning.
One now has to confront Ernst with new "contradictions and inconsistencies".
"The process will not end in December," said Sagebiel.
Originally, the court had planned to deliver the verdict on the 35th day.
Icon: The mirror