THE RUDOLF REPORT

GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORTnew versions of the expert report during the appeal to the Federal SupremeCourt. He said he had submitted the expert report both during theappeal to the District Court and during the appeal to the Federal SupremeCourt. At this moment, the Presiding Judge interjected that theexpert report was not to be found in the records of either of these proceedings.Made aware of the error of his statement, the witness said thatdue to the voluminous material in the numerous trials in which he wasinvolved he was not able to pay such particular attention to any onedocument, hence he could not remember every single one. In the courseof time he had been involved in 12 to 15 trials in which he used Rudolf’sexpert report, in addition to all his other trials. For him, the witness, theexpert report of the accused was just one document among many othersand so he was not able to remember details.”What can be seen from this is that the witness Herrmann was basicallyconfused and could not remember details about which version hehad sent to whom and when. But at least Herrmann rememberedclearly that he had requested changes to the expert report, so he concludedlogically that I must have sent him copies of this rearrangedversion; after all, I had prepared this version on his request. The court,however, described the statements of the witness on page 199 as follows:“The taking of evidence has shown on the other hand that attorneyHerrmann never, and in any case not during 1992 nor in the first quarterof 1993, had come into possession of draft ‘F2’ and that he did not sendit to Remer. The witness Herrmann affirmed that the draft ‘F1’ was thelast version of the ‘expert report’ that had come to him, and in additionhe could not say when he came into possession of this version. In therest, he believably reported that he had had no further contact withRemer after the trial in Schweinfurt on Oct. 22, 1992, due to the ‘expertreport’. He could not remember having sent a copy of the ‘expert report’to Remer in December 1992.”The difference between the two texts is obvious: The independentobserver reported that Herrmann did revise his initial statement after Imade him remember that it was Herrmann himself who made me preparethis particular version “F2”, which leads to the logical conclusionthat he did, of course, receive at least one copy of this version he hadspecifically demanded. But the court simply ‘forgot’ about this detail.From its own faulty reasoning, the court concluded on page 202f.:“The fact that the accused knowingly spread an untrue account of334