THE RUDOLF REPORT

11. HUNTING GERMAR RUDOLFjustification for the horrendous crimes and ethnic cleansing which theycommitted against Germany, and the Jews would lose their identityformingprinciple. This might endanger the existence of the state ofIsrael. Are there parallels between Remer’s ‘death sentence’ and thedeath of Marianne and F. J. Strauß?11.4.2. The Second Crime: A Scientific AnthologyGerman Court Order: Scientific Work Must Burn!Since the 7th of May 1995, Judge Burkhardt Stein of the CountyCourt of Tübingen held court on the fates of the publisher, editor, andsome of the authors of the fundamental revisionist work Grundlagenzur Zeitgeschichte (ref. 4 Gs 173/95). 570 First, the proceedings againstthe authors were separated on various grounds. Next, the trial againstthe editor Ernst Gauss alias Germar Rudolf was separated since theaccused was not present at the proceedings. For that reason, JudgeStein issued an arrest warrant against Rudolf.During the trial, the public attorney and the judge accused the publisherWigbert Grabert that the incriminated book would meet the testfor the crime of inciting to racial hatred in that it used a number ofHolocaust denying adjectives such as “supposed”, “presumed” and“so-called”. In order to show that the book had scientific merits, thedefense attorney insisted that while reading certain passages from thebook, one needed to consult the comprehensive and detailed footnotesthat it contained, which made reference mostly to books of establishmentsources. The judge merely turned toward Susanne Teschner, thepublic attorney, and answered that the court would not think out loudduring the trial. The court denied numerous motions of the defense forrecourse to relevant expert reports or for access to court records thatmight show that the words “supposed”, and so forth, did not per seconstitute an intentional denying.The court also denied two motions of the defense to suspend thetrial on grounds that in this trial there was theoretically no possibilitythat the judge would acquit the accused, because in such a case thejudge himself might encounter social harassment or even criminal reprisalfrom the judicial system, as the case of Judge Orlet in the trial369