THE RUDOLF REPORT

11. HUNTING GERMAR RUDOLFevidence of my lack of credibility, as follows (p. 148ff.):“For one thing he [the accused] took part in the closed revisionistproceedings called by Remer on 29.6.1991 [in Roding], in which Remergave the welcoming address (p. 49). The copy of the filled out applicationform that was found at his house shows that. The accused has notcontested this. [...]In addition, he finally admitted to have stopped by Remer’s place inBad Kissingen on May 2, 1993, together with Philipp in connection withthe completion of the declaration of injunction (p. 124). The accused atfirst attempted to disguise this contact. In his first response during thetrial, when talking about how this declaration evolved, he said he hadcommunicated with Remer ‘through an intermediary’ after the latter hadnot responded to his written warnings. This intermediary had worked outthe text of the declaration with Remer and had given it to him. As reasonfor having made use of an intermediary he said he did not want to havedirect contact with Remer.The accused attempted to deliberately misrepresent his attitude toRemer in other cases as well. The above-mentioned letter of the accusedto attorney Herrmann on Dec. 20, 1993, shows this. [...] At the same timethe accused described [in this letter] the supposedly only three meetingswith Remer. [...]It is noteworthy that his letter to attorney Herrmann deliberatelydescribes his relation to Remer incompletely by leaving out both of theseevents [revisionist gathering in Roding and arranging publication of thebrochure Die Zeit lügt!, 567 ]. The chamber is convinced from this that itdoes not reflect the true relations and the actual opinion of the accusedon Remer, but was written expressly for the purpose of misleading the investigationprocess.”Since the original of the application form to the revisionist gatheringin Roding had been introduced as evidence during the trial and nota copy, as the court falsely claims in its written verdict, it is easy to seethat I was not present at the gathering in Roding. In a later publication,my defense lawyer confirmed the report of the independent observerand criticized the court harshly for this rather odd mistake. 568 One cansee even further that the report of the independent observer is correctwith respect to my responses. If one considers that Remer was abso-567 (The (German weekly) Time lies!), edited by O.E. Remer, Verlag Remer Heipke, Bad Kissingen1992 (online: www.vho.org/D/Beitraege/Zeit.html).568 G. Herzogenrath-Amelung, op. cit. (note 560), pp. 186f.337