THE RUDOLF REPORT

11. HUNTING GERMAR RUDOLF“The court ruled that the expert report and the preface were a singlework and were to be seen as a ‘common production’ of Rudolf andRemer.This is what the accused chemist vehemently disputed. He is a practicingCatholic, believes in the political order of the Federal Republicand would never have entered into an association with Remer, whom hetook to be a ‘living political fossil’. In the chemist’s words: ‘I would nothave been so stupid—this would have undermined me in the final phaseof my doctoral program’. [627] At the time he was preparing his doctoralthesis at the Max-Planck-Institute in Stuttgart. When his expert reportbecame publicly known, he lost his job.”In a 3-column story on June 14, 1995, the Stuttgarter Nachrichtensummarized the prosecution case. The story gave the defense’s claimsresponding to the prosecution’s points, but not a single argument supportingthese claims. Instead of this, the defense arguments were superficiallyrefuted by the journalist Frank Schwaibold using somewhaterroneous counterarguments.Against the assertion of the prosecution that Rudolf had revealedhimself as a politically motivated criminal by his work under the pseudonymErnst Gauss and therefore deserved no probation, the defenseobjected that the Gauss case could not be applied. It was hidden fromthe reader that in a state under the rule of law an accused can not bedisadvantaged through a court case that had not even started. In responseto the defense counterargument to the prosecution charge thatRudolf cooperated with Remer, journalist Frank Schwaibold assertedfalsely that Rudolf had met and talked with Remer three times. Thetruth is that Rudolf and Remer met only by chance in the course of Rudolf’swork as expert witness for Remer’s defense attorney. Duringthese accidental encounters, there was no conversation between them,which even the court acknowledged. 628Against the defense assertion that the accused was no neo-Nazi,the journalist cited a letter absurdly out of context in which Rudolf “referredto the ‘Jew Republic Germany’ in context with the person IgnatzBubis”. In that letter, 629 Rudolf criticized a proposal made in spring627 Because of the Remer’s commented version, the University of Stuttgart refused to give Rudolfan appointment to take the rigorosum, the final examination for his PhD title.628 Confidential letter of G. Rudolf to H. Herrmann, Dec. 20, 1992, Computer Data File 2, sheet222, in records of the District Court Stuttgart, ref. 17 KLs 83/94, introduced Dec. 6, 1994.629 Letter to K. Philipp on March 1, 1993, Investigation File 1, sheet 351, in records of the Dis-393