In the new main hearing against gustl mollath, the 2006 verdict continues to crumble – defense attorneys resign and are appointed as public defenders
"Objectively, i can’t say that they (the tires) were punctured. It can be, but there are alternative causes." this statement comes from an expert witness heard today, wednesday, before the regensburg regional court in the gustl mollath case, the mittelbayerische zeitung reports.
The reason for his assessment is also given by the expert: "i had no tires to examine, which should have been damaged at that time." in addition, he did not have access to a complete documentation, in which more detailed information about the different tires and the type of damage could be seen.
With these statements, one of the supporting pillars of the controversial 2006 verdict ordering mollath’s committal to forensic psychiatric care breaks down. In the verdict of the regional court of nurnberg-furth at that time:
In the period between 31.12.2004 and 01.02.In 2005, the defendant slashed the tires of various people’s vehicles or otherwise damaged those vehicles, the respective victims having been chosen by him as targets by his wife because of their involvement in divorce or separation situations….Also, the victims got into dangerous situations because the damage was not visible immediately, but became noticeable only after some time of driving.
And elsewhere the court writes:
The police inspection nurnberg-east was involved in the investigation of the damaged motor vehicles…The damaged tires were punctured by means of a fine tool, so that the damage was partially invisible to the naked eye and the air escaped only slowly after the vehicles were put into operation, which is why dangerous situations arose when operating the car in traffic. According to the police, this method of damage indicated that the perpetrator knew something about the construction of tires.
From the way in which mollath was said to have damaged the tires at the time, the court then deduced a common danger, from which – with the support of a corresponding psychiatric report – mollath was ordered to be placed in a psychiatric ward.
The expert witness made it clear time and again what a solid foundation the court’s conclusions were based on: "i do not know what was with the tires, but we have no dangerous situations", reports the mittelbayerische zeitung, which has set up a lifeticker for the trial. There it is further stated that the expert could not recognize a danger from a single situation in the context. The files did not reveal such an evaluation. The expert went on to say: "to prick a tire in such a way that it breaks during the journey, i consider very theoretical."
And so, from testimony to testimony, the expert further deconstructs the court’s reasoning. The screwdriver, with which mollath allegedly caused the damage and which a witness claims to have seen, could not have done it: "it was too rough."
The expert also did not want to follow the court’s view that mollath, as someone who professionally deals with vehicles and tires, must have known how to damage tires in a dangerous way: "the conclusion – tires, car dealer, he has damaged these tires -, you must not make that."
Although the course of the trial for mollath is developing favorably, there was an explosion of civilians this 11. The first day of the trial still led to a dispute between the defendant and his two defense attorneys. According to a report on sueddeutsche.Mollath expressed his dissatisfaction with the selection of witnesses, which he also reiterated in the courtroom. Sueddeutsche.De ames that mollath’s remarks during the trial and a discussion between him and one of his defense attorneys during the lunch break led to the defeat of the mandate. However, after a brief deliberation, the district court decided to appoint both defense attorneys as public defenders. It is still unclear what mollath’s position is on the matter.