THE RUDOLF REPORT

GERMAR RUDOLF · THE RUDOLF REPORTDon’t try to find logic in it. There is none.). It did not enter the judges’minds that I had deleted the acknowledgement to Faurisson from theNovember 1992 version simply because I feared to be rejected as anexpert witness, should any court recognize that I had been in contactand on good terms with the world’s leading revisionist, and not becauseI already planned to thank Faurisson later in a prominent place inthe authorized version. The whole argument spun around this pointabout the acknowledgement, which first surfaced in the decision andwas based on different versions of the expert report that had been introducedas evidence, had never been mentioned even peripherally inthe 29 days of the trial proceedings, so that the defense was unable tobring in any evidence to counter this supposed evidence proving theguilt of the accused.Introduction of Evidence After the Verbal DecisionIt is doubtful whether the introduction of evidence following thetrial is admissible. Nevertheless, the District Court of Stuttgart usedexactly this method in order to portray me as untrustworthy. As supposedproof that I had manipulated witnesses, on page 170f. of its decisionthe court stated:“Further, during a search of his living quarters on March 27, 1995,which took place in the context of an investigation conducted by the StateAttorney of Tübingen on the book “Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte”, anothercomputer belonging to the accused was found on which there wasan answer list that concerned the interrogation of the witness Dill by thecourt, as the accused himself declared in the trial.”First, the description of the court is misleading, since I had onlydeclared that my computer had been seized, but not that an answer listhad been found on it. This document had been mentioned by the courtin the trial but it had not been introduced as evidence in the trial. Forthis reason, the defense attorney did not think it necessary to produceevidence to oppose this imputation, which might have explained thatthe item was not an answer list intended for use in an upcoming questioningof a witness. In fact, it was a detailed record I had preparedabout what Dill was asked and what he answered when he appeared forthe first time in front of the court, and this list was prepared after thisinterrogation, hence could not be used to manipulate this witness at all.340