THE RUDOLF REPORT

11. HUNTING GERMAR RUDOLFby the Court I was always writing and speaking about actual dealingswith Remer—there was none in connection with the brochure Die Zeitlügt!—it must be asked: who lacks credibility here?A large number of similar cases could be shown in which the courtmade observations on the statements of mine or of witnesses that differfrom the trial report. Since the differing interpretation of the court werealways disadvantageous for me, the question must be raised whetherwe are supposed to believe that these errors were made unintentionally.Hiding the Purpose of EvidenceIt appears possible that in German courts, the written judgmentwill suddenly present evidence as the main proof of guilt which hadremained in the background during the proceedings of the trial, in thatthe court reinterprets it in a way that had not been mentioned duringthe proceedings. In this way, it is impossible for the defense to bring inevidence to refute evidence which at first appears to be harmless sinceno one can tell what evidence the court will use as proof of what fact.When the defense attorney wants to introduce a piece of evidence,he must always provide a reason for it so that the court can decide onthe request. On the other hand, this rule does not seem to apply to thecourt itself.Here is one example of that. The court interpreted certain publicationdetails of the original version of the Rudolf expert report used byRemer in his version as well as of the version without comments publishedby me a few months later as proof that Remer’s distribution activitiesof his version and the subsequent publication of my authorizedversion were one single operation planned in advance. As one of themain proofs for this the court pointed to the fact that in the draft of myexpert report produced in November 1992 (version F2), Prof. R. Faurissonhad not been mentioned in the acknowledgements at the end ofthe report. He had first been expressly thanked in the authorized versionof my expert report published in July 1993 on the inner cover.According to the Court, this allegedly proves that the authorized versionwas planned already in November 1992 (decision, pp. 93, 208ff.and I realized that this would be a bit unrealistic, so we split that person into many. That is thebackground. I think it is both tragic—for the victims of those German kangaroo trials—as wellas funny—for the neutral observer to see the desperate attempts of German judges to keep anyevidence out—, but the reader does, of course, not have to agree with me on that.339