THE RUDOLF REPORT

GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORTbefore Easter 1993, which is clearly incorrect—all copies of Remer’sversion were mailed to their recipients only after April 15, 1993. Thisproves that my sister’s memory was wrong regarding the chronology,which is also supported by her own statements under intensive inquiryboth by the judges and by me that she simply could not rememberwhen she had heard what from me. The fact that the witness could nolonger remember the exact chronology was duly omitted by the courtfor obvious reasons. Who of us can remember, down to the exact day,what we heard from our siblings two years ago? But for the court, thiswas a major stepping stone to its verdict.3. Another way to prove me a liar was the court’s attempt to provethat my statements regarding contacts with the Remer couple were alie. By showing that I was hiding my contacts to Remers, they soughtto prove that I was in fact involved in their plot to hide the truth fromthe court. On my contacts with O.E. Remer, the independent observerwrote the following on the trial day November 11, 1994:“At that point he [the accused] mentioned among other things hisfour meetings with O. E. Remer, of which the last took place at the beginningof May 1993. At this time, he had negotiated a declaration of injunctionwith Remer through an intermediary. The intermediary had rephrasedit and given it to him, the accused. Shortly thereafter, Remer hadsigned it in the presence of the intermediary and himself. When asked,why he had not handled the declaration of injunction himself, the accusedexplained he had not had any contact with Remer and did not desireto do so.”For January 24, 1995, one reads there:“Next was introduced an application form to participate at a revisionistgathering in Roding in summer 1991, organized by O. E. Remer,which had been filled out by the accused but not sent in. The accusedsaid he had been interested in the proceedings because of the announcedparticipants Prof. R. Faurisson and Dr. W. Stäglich. In any case, he wasnot there, which is also proved by the fact that he had not sent in the applicationform. He had not noticed at the time that Remer directed theproceedings.The defense attorney said that he had himself participated in thisgathering but could not remember that he had seen his present clientthere.”But the court portrayed both happenings, which it interpreted as336