THE RUDOLF REPORT

11. HUNTING GERMAR RUDOLFIncriminating Mitigating EvidenceHaving arrived at a verdict in this way, the tens of pieces of exoneratingevidence—documents and witnesses—that my lawyer had introducedserved the court as evidence of my “criminal energy”, since,according to the court, this exonerating evidence was all partly madeup (decision pp. 13, 22, 65, 118-126, 131, 175, 192) and served only todeceive the court:“The culpability of the accused is even greater when one takes noteof the high criminal energy with which the crime was committed. The accusedacted on the basis of a calculated and highly refined strategy carriedout in a hidden manner that was chosen beforehand with great deliberation,involved numerous deceits and manipulations and was thereforevery difficult to penetrate.” (decision p. 237)Which leads to the Court’s conclusion:“The sentence of imprisonment is not subject to probation, by sec.56 of the Criminal Code (StGB).” (decision p. 238)since:“On the contrary, [the crime of the accused] as described, becauseof the calculated and refined and clandestine manner in which it wascarried out, should be seen as particularly grave.” (decision p. 240)ConclusionsGiven the present circumstances of the criminal justice system inthe Federal Republic of Germany, when a judge or a panel of judgesintend to render an unjust verdict, they will have no difficulty in doingso as long as they are assured there is no organized public resistancefrom the media, academia, the police, or the churches.The statements of witnesses and accused may be manipulated atwill. Evidence may be interpreted any which way in the decision ormay be brought in after the process is over. Submitted evidence maybe passed over without mention and use of foreign witnesses may bedenied arbitrarily.Exculpatory evidence may be discredited as a deceptive maneuverof the accused and serve as evidence that the accused is particularlydeserving of punishment. A second trial instance to try to correct thesemeasures can be denied in case of public necessity. The evaluation ofevidence is bound neither by the evidence introduced nor by logic.343