THE RUDOLF REPORT

11. HUNTING GERMAR RUDOLFproceedings are prepared.The anti-justice consequences of the present German system caneasily be imagined, and I will briefly illustrate it with three examplesfrom my own trial.1. The issue in this trial was whether or not I had participated inthe distribution of a version of my expert report with added commentaryby Generalmajor O.E. Remer in April 1993. The court was interestedin, among other things, how Remer had come into possession ofthat particular version of my report which he used for producing hisprinted version. In the trial I had stated that Remer had probably receivedit from his attorney Hajo Herrmann. The court was more thaneager to nail me as a liar, so they were trying to make Hajo Herrmannconcede that he never sent a copy of this particular version to his client.Remer had reproduced the “second version of the 3rd edition” ofmy report, which the court called version “F2”. 566 In the trial reportmade by an observer, the questioning of Herrmann on December 6,1994, ran somewhat as follows:“Then the witness Hajo Herrmann, year-of-birth 1913, was questioned.He confirmed that in the summer of 1991 he had assigned thepreparation of the expert report to the defendant (Germar Rudolf). Thewitness states that he had received every version of the expert reportfrom the defendant and had sent a copy of each to his client Remer. Laterthe witness stated that he did not know whether he had received anotherexpert report in November or December 1992. When the judge inquiredabout it further he said that he could almost exclude this. He also did notbelieve that he had provided Remer with a new version of the expert reportduring the appeal to the Federal Supreme Court. Later, Herrmannsaid that the first version of the 3rd edition sent in November 1992 wasthe last that he had received. When the defendant (Germar Rudolf) interrogatedHerrmann (which the judge at first objected to) whether the witnessthought that the arrangement of the chapters of the first version ofthe 3rd edition was correct, the witness remembered that he had requesteda change by telephone. At that point the witness decided that hemust have received the second version of the 3rd edition that had beenchanged due to his request [this was the version called “F2” by the court,which Remer used to produce his published version]. Herrmann couldalso not exclude that Remer might have obtained documentation with566 The first edition was mailed out in some 15 copies in January 1992, the second in February1992, the first version of the third edition in November 1992, and a slightly revised version ofthis edition (second version) in December 1992.333