Icon: enlarge
Defendant Markus H. with his lawyer Nicole Schneiders (l.) And his lawyer Björn Clemens (r.)
Photo: Thomas Lohnes / dpa
His facial expressions were repeatedly an issue in the trial of the murder of Walter Lübcke.
It was discussed in room 165 of the Frankfurt am Main Higher Regional Court, in the auditorium and on the gallery where the journalists are sitting.
Markus H. sat in the dock and grinned with blushed cheeks at the most inopportune moments.
It looked sneaky, presumptuous, arrogant.
At a particularly despicable moment, Chief Public Prosecutor Dieter Killmer intervened and asked H. to refrain from his obvious mockery.
On this day, H. wears his slightly mocking expression as if cemented.
His defense lawyers hold their closing lectures and demand that he be acquitted of the charge of having assisted the murder of the Kassel district president Walter Lübcke.
In addition, H. should be compensated "for the pre-trial detention suffered."
With lawyers like the two of them, pleadings are a popular occasion for völkisch battle speeches or propaganda slogans.
Björn Clemens, once the federal chairman of the "Republicans" and briefly defender of supporter André E. in the NSU trial, this time focuses on the "fight against the right".
The state is not blind in the right eye, the opposite is the case, he says.
For many years, trials against the right had been "conducted, scandalized and cannibalized" with a particular "frequency and intensity".
Unlike the main defendant Stephan Ernst, who admits the shooting of Walter Lübcke, his client Markus H. will not show any remorse, says Clemens.
"He has nothing to regret."
»Deep-rooted xenophobia«
Markus H. is neither an arsonist nor an agitator, not an agitator and not a demagogue who radicalized and incited Ernst.
What Clemens wants to say: Ernst didn't need that.
Just as Chief Public Prosecutor Killmer stated at the end of the evidence: Ernst is characterized by “deep-rooted xenophobia” and “racism that has been ingrained for years”.
Clemens asks: How can one then make H. responsible for Ernst's radicalization?
"What is so deeply rooted and ingrained cannot be radicalized."
As evidence, he also cites Ernst's relationships with the scene - especially the contact with Thorsten Heise, a militant right-wing extremist and member of the NPD federal executive committee.
Clemens describes Heise as a "central figure".
Ernst admitted in the process that Heise had invited him over.
That only happens if one is not "insignificant," says Clemens.
So Ernst never needed H. to reunite after an alleged departure from the scene;
he just never got out.
During this process, H. was called a "Nazi" every day, Clemens is angry.
In fact, H. has not been politically active since 2009 and his weapons are legal.
Clemens speaks of a "prime example of a completely legal lifestyle", including a custody dispute with the mother of his daughter in court.
And: "Mr. H. lived with a Turkish landlord, was friends with him, who visited him in custody."
Driven by thirst for revenge
H. nods.
To his right sits Nicole Schneiders, who represented the former NPD functionary Ralf Wohlleben in the NSU trial, who was sentenced to ten years in prison for aiding and abetting murder.
Their relationship already existed before the mandate: Schneiders got to know Wohlleben while studying in Jena and was his deputy when Wohlleben was NPD district chairman.
In her plea, Schneiders also tries to classify her client's worldview.
She tries to play down the delusions of both defendants, alleged by Attorney General Killmer, of exterminating the Germans.
Schneider also says that H. has nothing to do with Ernst's radicalization.
Ernst developed »plans for revenge and attack scenarios« during his detention in the early 2000s.
There is no evidence that H. influenced Ernst or even knew what Ernst was capable of.
Rather, Ernst had "his dark side" and lived it - driven by a thirst for revenge.
With a conviction of Hs for aiding and abetting murder, the prosecutor should set an example.
At the end of this 44th day of the trial, both defendants have the right to the so-called last word.
Markus H., who did not provide any information during the trial and the preliminary investigation, joins his defense and says that not everything that was said in the process contributed to the clarification.
Ernst turns to the Lübcke family, who are sitting across from him, and repeats the promise made by his lawyer Mustafa Kaplan: He is still ready to answer any open questions.
He is very sorry for what he did to them.
“I very much regret using violence against someone.
I very much regret that I have opened myself up to right-wing extremist sentiments again.
And I deeply regret what I said to your husband and father, Dr.
Walter Lübcke, have done. "
The wife and the two sons of Walter Lübcke quietly take note of both statements.
Your spokesman Dirk Metz said at the end of the hearing that the day was "difficult and painful".
Defense H.'s pleadings were "inadequate and flawed on the merits."
And also depressing because H. in the proceedings "also did not contribute anything to the establishment of the truth."
The family regards his "indecent grinning behavior in court" as a provocation towards them, the bereaved, but also towards the other parties involved in the process.
On Thursday the 5th criminal senate wants to announce the verdict against Stephan Ernst and Markus H.
Icon: The mirror
