South Africa’s state prosecutors will appeal the culpable homicide conviction and five-year jail sentence handed down last week on Olympic and Paralympic track star Oscar Pistorius, the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) said on Monday.
“Oscar Pistorius judgement, NPA will be appealing both the conviction and sentence,” NPA spokesman Nathi Mncube said on his Twitter feed.
Pistorius, whose lower legs were amputated as a baby but who ran on carbon fibre prosthetic limbs, was convicted of culpable homicide last month for the shooting of Reeva Steenkamp, a 29-year-old law graduate and model, at his luxury Pretoria home.
Prosecutors failed to prove murder after the athlete said he fired in the mistaken belief an intruder was hiding behind the door, a defence that struck a chord with many people in a country with one of the world’s highest rates of violent crime.
However, Judge Thokozile Masipa’s decision drew criticism from some legal experts who said she had made an error in her interpretation of the legal concept of ‘dolus eventualis’, whereby a person is held accountable for the foreseeable consequences of their actions.
Other lawyers said her verdict was sound.
In South Africa, an appeal by the state against a verdict can only be made on a matter of law, and does not involve a retrial or the submission of any new evidence.
Most of us are aware of the ongoing saga of the Waterkloof 4 (Tiedt, van Schalkwyk, Becker & Du Preez), four underage white boys convicted of having assaulted and killed a homeless black man. Apart from the Oscar Pistorius murder, the trial has elicited more publicity than any other in recent South African history and has led to endless denunciations of “white racism” and psycho-babble about “Afrikaner brutality”.
I have been lucky enough to read through the witness and accuseds’ testimonies, crime-scene photos and specialist statements and found all of the evidence to be extremely interesting. Unlike the Oscar Pistorius case, where many details were disclosed in the media, journalists never gave much away when reporting on the Waterkloof 4 case. Maybe it was because it appeared to be open and shut, especially judging by the public and the mainstream media who presumed them guilty before proven innocent. Nevertheless, a guilty verdict was handed down to four of the boys. I’ve decided to lay out the facts about this case by sharing my findings, which come directly from court evidence.
The so-called ‘Waterkloof 4’, from L to R: Gert van Schalkwyk, Christoff Becker, Reinach Tiedt and Frikkie du Preez
Background
August 2003: three boys who had knowledge of the crime decided to come clean regarding the incidents which took place in December 2001. These three identify the “Waterkloof 4”, aged 15 and 16 at the time of the crime, who are subsequently arrested.
July 2004: they plead not guilty
June 2005: they are found guilty
January 2007: they are sentenced to 12 years imprisonment each
April 2008: they appeal to the High Court
May 2008: their appeal is denied
June 2008: they take their case to the Supreme Court of Appeal
August 2008: their application to the Supreme Court of Appeal is turned down and they start their 12 year sentences
December 2011: two of the four have their sentences converted to correctional supervision after a successful parole hearing
June 2013: the two return to jail after their parole is appealed by Correctional Services
February 2014: the four are released on parole but two are rearrested days later after a video shows them violating prison regulations a day before their release.
The trial
In summary, the State’s case was based mostly on witness testimony that the Waterkloof 4 had assaulted an unknown black man in Constantia Park and later that night brutally assaulted and killed another unknown black man in Moreleta Park. The Waterkloof 4 denied the first assault but admitted to the second assault, with exception that they killed the man or intended to kill him. The only evidence other than witness testimony was the second victim’s body.
Constantia Park assault (alleged first assault according to witness testimony)
The accused vehemently denied this assault took place and thus the State had to prove this event occurred. As mentioned, the only evidence was that of the State’s witnesses as there was no case of assault reported to police and the unknown man was never seen or heard from again.
The Defence accused the witnesses of fabricating the story and this accusation is given some credibility when the State’s witnesses left gaps in their testimony. The judge dismissed these gaps and other anomalies due to “traumatic memory issues on behalf of the witnesses” and accepted their testimony as fact. The defence also brought up the possibility of collusion which the judge dismissed, even though the State’s witnesses had more than a year to collude.
Nevertheless, the Defence had to counter the State’s witnesses’ testimony and did so by looking at phone calls which were used to identify a time line and locations of individuals, with the help of cellular phone towers. Although the calls placed the accused in the vicinity of the second assault (Moreleta Park), they placed significant doubt on whether the Constantia Park assault was possible as it gave the accused (and witnesses which drove with the accused) a maximum of 14 minutes to drive in a fully loaded small Toyota Tazz from Hatfield, look for a shop to buy milk, assault the unknown man in Constantia, wait “5 minutes” for the other accused to meet up with them and then get to Moreleta Park. To make the State’s case worse, the State’s witnesses testified that they were not speeding but the judge corrected this and stated that they were probably speeding, overriding State’s witness testimony and again raising doubts over the credibility of their testimony. The Defence also questioned why the accused had driven through Constantia Park, as this was a longer route to where they were heading.
Although the accuseds’ testimony represented a more reasonable and logical explanation of events as it more reasonably fits the timing of the calls and the logical route to their destination, their testimony was dismissed as lies as it contradicted the testimony of the State’s witnesses. In the end there was no reliable evidence to put the accused at this crime scene other than the State’s witnesses’ testimony which was accepted as reliable.
Near the end of the examination of the Constantia Park assault, the State prosecutor went on to say that the witnesses might have mistaken this event with something that happened on another day:
“Edelagbare, oor hulle getuienis daar op kan hulle verwar het met ‘n ander dag. Dit is hoekom ek nie hard wil betoog oor hierdie klagte nie”
This was ignored by the judge.
Moreleta Park assault
The accused admitted to brutally assaulting an unknown man in Moreleta Park, who they claim was a burglar who had just robbed a residence. This was backed up by the State’s main witness. The Defence however questioned whether the man found in the park was actually the man they assaulted, an outrageous claim, but appears to be supported by the physical evidence (see below). Again the State relied heavily on the State’s witness testimony that the man found in the park was the man the accused assaulted as the man was found in “exactly” the same place the next day after the assault. It must be noted that the main State’s witness, who is not one of the Waterkloof 4, was also involved in the assault but was given immunity for turning State’s witness.
One of the State’s witnesses had disclosed to a teacher that the motive for the attack was purely racial while the accused say that they had gone after a man who had run across the road with a television. They suspected the man of being involved in a burglary. On the day of discovering the victim in the park, a car radio was found next to the victim and this was later found to be stolen as a case of robbery had been reported to the SAPS. The victim was also found with a wallet (money inside), watch, and a ring and was well dressed with new shoes, smart cap and had four tattoos, which appears contrary to the claims that this man was homeless. The State’s witness confession to the teacher prior to the arrests was that the accused never knew of the stolen goods during the attack and only used this as an excuse to do commit their foul deed. Contradicting stories meant that it was up to the State to prove murder.
Besides the State’s witness testimony, the State had very little evidence:
No physical evidence linking the accused to the victim (no DNA, no trace evidence)
No murder weapon (no knives, no hammer)
No time of death (due to “refrigeration”)
By all accounts the assault was described as brutal. Besides the melee of punching and kicking, one of the accused had demonstrated his “Naas Botha” kicks on the victim. A State’s witness testified that this accused had kicked the victim twice in the face with steel tipped shoes, one of which was later found to be dented in. This was confirmed by the aforementioned accused. The entire group had jumped with full weight on the victim like in a “loose rugby scrum”. Another of the accused had hit the victim twice on the crane of the head with a hammer, the first blow bringing the victim to his knees while the second blow floored the victim completely. All of this was admitted by the accused and agrees with State witness testimony. The State’s witness also testified that the accused had made stabbing motions towards the victim (admitted by the accused) but cannot confirm whether the accused had stabbed the victim.
The post mortem indicated that the unknown man had died of severe blood loss cause by one deep cut in his thigh. Besides this cut, the medical experts made the following findings:
There were no bruises or fractures to the skull
There was minor subdural hematoma but no swelling on the brain or any other change to structure of the brain. The fact of whether the hematoma was caused by the assault could not be determined.
Three small scars on the head, two of which had scabbed before the assault, the other one showed no signs of significant bleeding
Face, nose, tongue, throat showed no bruising, discolouration, bleeding, lacerations or scarring
There were no broken teeth
There was no bruising or trauma to the neck
There was no bruising or trauma to the chest and diaphragm
There was no bruising or trauma to the abdomen
Internal organs showed no trauma but some were bleak due to blood loss
No bruises or fracturing on the back
No noticeable bruising, fractures or trauma to the rest of the body
With regards to the cut in the thigh (cause of death), the medical experts made the following conclusions:
The victim had lost between 4 – 5 litres of blood, which meant he would have bled to death over a 24 – 48 hour period as no major arteries were penetrated.
With regards to the object that made the stab wound, the medical specialist found that: “Hierdie gat kon nie veroorsaak gewees het deur ‘n mes, of selfs ‘n dun yesterstaaf nie” or in English, this could not have been made by a knife or even a thin iron rod. The object appeared similar to a spike on a palisade fence which backs up the Defence’s claims that the victim had cut himself on a palisade fence while fleeing from a residence he had burgled.
As you can see this posed serious questions against the State’s argument that the victim found in the park was the man that the accused claim they assaulted. Some of these questions raised by the Defence were:
Physical evidence on the victim shows no correlation to the assault as described by the accused and the witnesses. There is no evidence that suggests a knife or hammer was used in the attack even though a State’s witness had testified that he had seen blood on the hammer after the attack. There was also no evidence that the boys had jumped on the victim or kicked the victim in the face. When the pathologist was asked by the Defence whether it was obvious that the body brought before her was not the body of the man as described in the assault, she answered: “Yes that is correct.” A second pathologist replied with the same answer.
The crime scene inspector found no evidence of blood on the ground near or beneath the victim, or anywhere else in the park for that matter. Where did 4 – 5 litres of blood go? The State contested that the light rain that night may have washed away any evidence of blood or that the victim’s clothing had absorbed all of the blood but this was disputed by the Defence.
The flow of blood on the victim suggests the possibility the body was moved after death and moved to the spot where the body was eventually found.
If the only injury the victim sustained was the cut to the thigh and the victim took between 24 and 48 hours to bleed to death, why did the man remain in the same spot for this lengthy period of time? Why didn’t he seek medical treatment or at least crawl/limp away from the scene?
The victim’s shoes were removed while there had been no mention of this by the accused or State’s witnesses.
In the end however the judge ruled, after quoting a previous case “the State vs. Bernardus 1965”, that the body is full of anomalies and that sometimes death can be caused by the slightest of assaults. Although this judgement contradicts all witness accounts and the physical evidence, this ultimately leads to the guilty verdict for the Waterkloof 4.
Sentencing
The Waterkloof 4 were sentenced to 12 years imprisonment each, five years after the crime was committed (13 years ago). Because of the extreme brutality of the assault, there was much public and media outcry for a harsh sentence. However the law differentiates between adults and minors for sentencing purposes. Taking into account that the perpetrators were juvenile (also first-time offenders), different sentencing laws had to be followed.
Quoting an article by Zita Hansungule, who works at UP’s Centre for Child Law: “In 2009 the Centre for Child Law had challenged the constitutionality of the Criminal Law (Sentencing) Amendment Act which provided that minimum sentences should apply to 16 and 17 year-old offenders.
The High Court found that applying minimum sentences to these offenders was not in line with the Constitution which provides that children have the right not to be detained except as a measure of last resort, and then, if detention is unavoidable, only for the shortest appropriate period of time. The High Court held that in cases pertaining to minors, the courts must consider all available sentencing options, especially non-custodial sentences, before considering detention.
The Constitutional Court was approached to confirm the decision of the High Court. It confirmed the decision and held that the Constitution envisages that detention of young offenders may be possible, but it mitigates the circumstances of detention. It confirmed that for minors, detention is not a first or intermediate resort but a last resort. The Court held that each individual case needs to be examined on an individualised basis so that an appropriate sentence can be found. It stated that ‘legislation cannot take away the right of 16 and 17–year olds to be detained only as a last resort, and for the shortest appropriate period of time, without reasons being provided that specifically relate to this group and explain the need to change the constitutional disposition applying to them’.
These judgements confirmed that children should be treated differently to adults in sentencing, no matter how old they are. Both courts were of the view that children are less physically and psychologically mature than adults, more susceptible to pressure from others and more receptive to rehabilitation than adults.”
Taking this into account the Waterkloof 4 appeared to be sentenced fairly as this is about the maximum that a juvenile will face for a single murder charge.
Parole
As with the case of sentencing, parole is also a thorny issue. In accordance with the law, the Waterkloof 4 were released on parole last week. The law allows for this if the offenders have served 50% of their sentences and have completed internal correctional programmes and have been well-behaved. According to parole documents the four were all but exemplary during their stay. I’ve looked through parole documents and found that they interacted well with other inmates and also took part in social activities. Study courses were also completed during this time. It is thus reasonable to concede that their release on parole is in accordance with the law. Subsequently however, two members of the Waterkloof 4 have been ordered to return to prison after a video showed them “living it up” in their cell a day before release.
Conclusion
It has been more than 10 years of trials, appeals, paroles and controversy, a kind of soap opera that will be remembered by most of us for many decades to come. As I’ve described, there are many questions left unanswered regarding the crimes committed in 2001, those which surfaced during trial. There are also questions we need to ask regarding our criminal justice system. I’d like others’ thoughts on this matter…
Kevin King is a professional DJ and freelance columnist
Another former president of Egypt is going on trial. Mohammed Morsi, the Islamist leader who became the country’s first freely elected president only to be ousted by the military after a year in office, faces charges he incited his followers to kill protesters.
The trial is a new landmark in Egypt’s 2 ½ years of turmoil since autocrat Hosni Mubarak was toppled. Morsi’s supporters have been protesting since he was removed on July 3. Hundreds have been killed in clashes, and authorities have arrested more than 2,000 members from his Muslim Brotherhood. Officials, the media and a broad swath of the public contend the Brotherhood have proven themselves a threat to the country, while the group says the military is crushing democracy.
Here is a look at the case against Morsi and 14 Brotherhood members on trial with him – and the politics around the case.
Q: What are the charges based on?
A: The charges are rooted in violence that erupted during one of the first major protests against Morsi during his year in office. On Dec. 4, some 100,000 people protested outside the presidential palace against Morsi’s decree granting himself sweeping immunity from judicial oversight. The decree allowed his Islamist allies to push a disputed draft of the constitution toward adoption without court challenge.
The protesters demanded he call off a referendum on the draft scheduled days later. Some scuffled with police outside the palace gates. Morsi left the palace from a backdoor, and his convoy was heckled. He later said one of his drivers was injured. A few thousand protesters set up a camp outside the palace while the Muslim Brotherhood called for a “general mobilization” of members.
The next day, Islamists attacked the camp, tearing up tents and beating protesters. Videos at the time showed them marching in military-style lines and chanting, “God is great” and “Morsi’s men are everywhere.”
More anti-Morsi protesters streamed to the scene, and street battles lasted into the early hours of the next day, each side throwing stones and firebombs.
Amid the melee, Brotherhood members abducted protesters and held them in a makeshift room at the palace gates, beating them to confess they were paid thugs, according to later statements by those who were held. The next day, they handed the detainees to the police. A prosecutor later freed them, saying there was no evidence against them but that his Morsi-appointed boss had pressured him to implicate them.
At least 10 people were killed in the battle. One was a journalist who wrote articles critical of Morsi. The Brotherhood claimed all the dead were its members, but the families later said the group pressured them to say their slain relatives belonged to the Brotherhood.
A: Isn’t this just a political show trial?
Q: That’s complicated. Human rights lawyers say on the face of it, this is possibly the strongest case against Morsi. Laywers tried to raise a case against Morsi over the Dec. 5 violence soon after it happened, giving some credibility to arguments it is not purely based on post-coup vengeance. (Under the Morsi-appointed chief prosecutor and justice minister at the time, the attempt went nowhere.)
However, this trial comes as part of the wide crackdown against the Muslim Brotherhood aimed at crushing it as a political force as the new military-backed government moves ahead with its own transition plan.
The Brotherhood says the charges are baseless and the planned trial a sham, aimed at giving legal cover to the coup.
There are concerns over how fair the trial will be. Morsi has been held in secret military detention undergoing questioning since his ouster, virtually incommunicado except for two calls with his family and visits by the EU foreign policy chief and an African Union delegation. He has not spoken to his legal team, which says it hasn’t been given documentation on the prosecution’s case.
Another issue reflecting the politics: Trials are selective. No one is prosecuting the military or police over deaths of protesters. Human rights lawyers say officials in office are almost never held to account.
Q: What is the evidence against Morsi?
A: The prosecution’s case has not been made public. Morsi at the time accused the protesters of starting the violence.
In parts of the investigation leaked to the Egyptian press, the head of the police force at the time said he refused to use force to break up the unarmed protesters outside the palace, so Morsi called out his supporters to do so. According to the press reports, the head of the Republican Guards – which protect the palace – said Morsi gave him a one-hour ultimatum to forcefully break up the sit-in. The Guards chief said he asked for more time to disperse it peacefully, and one of Morsi’s aides told him “our men” will take care of it.
At the height of the fighting, leading Brotherhood member Essam el-Erian went on the group’s TV station and called for Morsi supporters to go to the scene “in the tens of thousands to besiege those thugs because now is the moment to arrest them.” El-Erian is now a co-defendant in Morsi’s trial, though he is currently on the run and in hiding, so would be tried in absentia unless caught.
At the time, the organized nature of the attack on the camp fueled accusations by opponents that the Brotherhood runs “militias” to crack down on opponents, a claim the group denies.
Q: Any other trials coming up?
A: The Brotherhood’s top leader, Mohammed Badie, and several other members are already on trial on incitement charges over a separate incident of violence. Prosecutors are preparing cases against some 2,000 Brotherhood members currently in prison, including on allegations of including inciting violence in clashes outside the Brotherhood headquarters in Cairo and holding and torturing policemen during a pro-Morsi sit-in.
Morsi could also face more trials. He is being investigated on charges of insulting judges when, during a presidential speech, he accused specific judges of helping rig elections under Mubarak. Another case concerns allegations he colluded with Hamas to carry out attacks on prisons that broke free Morsi and other Brotherhood leaders during the 2011 anti-Mubarak uprising.
Q: Speaking of Mubarak, he’s still on trial?
A: Yes. In June 2012, he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for failing to stop the killings of the around 900 protesters who died in 2011 uprising But an appeals court overturned the conviction, saying the prosecution failed to provide concrete evidence. Mubarak’s retrial began last spring. – AP
Boeremag member Dr Lets Pretorius told the High Court in Pretoria on Monday he was not a racist and had never been in favour of using violence to achieve change.
Testifying in mitigation of sentence, he said he had not raised his sons to be racist or to be fanatical extremists.
“We were a happy, loving, God fearing and close family. I raised my sons as patriotic Afrikaners,” he said.
Pretorius, his three sons and 16 other Boeremag members were convicted last year on a charge of high treason.
This arose from a rightwing coup plot to overthrow the African National Congress government.
His sons, and Herman van Rooyen and Rudi Gouws, were also found guilty on charges of attempting to murder former president Nelson Mandela with a homemade bomb.
They were furthermore convicted of murdering Soweto mother Claudia Mokone with a bomb placed on a railway line in October 2002.
Pretorius said that as a medical doctor he worked with black patients at a missionary hospital for three years.
He ran several rural clinics in the former Lebowa for 16 years and treated both black and white patients at his private clinic.
His sons often accompanied him and did not have any problems with black people, he said.
“The day before my arrest, I received a command from the Holy Spirit to level the road for the Boer nation in the desert, and to raise a banner for the new nation that would be formed.
“There was no element of violence anywhere in this command.
“I’ve kept myself busy with this since my release on bail. I know the State has watched every word and step I take, and I am sure that if there was even a hint of illegality anywhere my bail would have been cancelled.
“I am still involved in the website Boerevryheid that is used as a debate forum to build the Boer nation as an entity.”
He denied playing a leading role in the Boeremag.
He said his role would have been to provide medical support services when a large scale black-on-white attack (the so-called Night of Terror) predicted by Boer prophet Siener van Rensburg came to pass.
He claimed the coup plot was exclusively the brainchild of fellow accused Tom Vorster and that he had not been privy to all of Vorster’s plans.
“Vorster assured me we were busy with plans that would come into effect after the Night of Terror.
“I never had the impression that we were busy with an offensive action. I was very effectively bluffed.
“I am prepared to admit attending meetings and to admit my lack of insight.
“I was always on the sidelines and never helped to make plans, except to ensure there was medical equipment available.
“I can say in all honesty that I was never at any stage busy planning a coup.
“If people had enough trust in me to link my name without my knowledge to ranks and posts, I should not be punished for it.
“I never had the impression that my sons were going to plant bombs.
“I knew absolutely nothing about the planting of bombs. If I had not been arrested, I would have done everything within my power to ensure than no bomb ever went off.
“I confronted my sons in jail about the bombs and was told Tom Vorster and Hanekom had convinced them they would be in a situation of war and would be protected by the Geneva Convention.
“I’ve never been in favour of violence to achieve change.
“I had always treated the victims of violence, but the first time I personally came into contact with violence was when a gun was pushed against my head and I was shoved around during my arrest.
“I’ve had a good relationship with black people all of my life. My record [as a medical doctor] speaks for itself,” he said.
Pretorius testified that he and his son Johan, also a medical doctor, had according to his calculations each lost about R20 million as a result of the case.
They had to close down their private hospital and Pretorius also had to sell off his farms and livestock.
Oscar Pistorius’s lawyers are trying to negotiate an out-of-court settlement with the parents of his dead girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp, The Times reported on Tuesday.
Pistorius’s lawyer Kenny Oldwage confirmed that they were in discussions with the Steenkamp family.
“You will understand this is a very sensitive situation,” he was quoted as saying.
Steenkamp and her half-brother Adam reportedly helped their pensioner parents Barry and June financially, including with the rent on their home.
Her parents have lodged a multimullion-rand civil claim against Pistorius for loss of income and emotional distress.
Pistorius’s lawyers want to settle the lawsuit before the outcome of the criminal trial.
Advocate Petrus “Dup” de Bruyn, for the Steenkamps, said “nothing has been decided on yet”.
Steenkamp’s mother, June, declined to comment on the civil suit.
“This is just too much… we are grieving… missing our baby… our beautiful, beautiful daughter who should have been celebrating her birthday today [Monday],” June Steenkamp said.
Pistorius appeared briefly in the Pretoria Magistrate’s Court on Monday for shooting Steenkamp on February 14 in his Pretoria home. His trial for alleged murder was set for March 3 2014. – Sapa
A Florida jury on Saturday found George Zimmerman not guilty in the shooting death of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, in a case that sparked a national debate on race and guns.
The panel of six women, which was sequestered, deliberated more than 16 hours over two days until nearly 10 p.m. on Saturday (0200 GMT Sunday).
Zimmerman appeared stoned-faced as the verdict was announced, but then showed a slight smile of relief. His parents embraced each other and his wife was tearful.
Zimmerman, 29, said Martin, 17, attacked him on the night of February 26, 2012, in the central Florida town of Sanford. Prosecutors contend the neighborhood watch coordinator in his gated community was a “wannabe cop” who tracked down the teenager and shot him without justification.
The jury could have convicted him of second-degree murder or manslaughter.
What happened in Sanford that February night may never have gone beyond the back pages of a local newspaper if police had immediately arrested Zimmerman.
But he walked free for more than six weeks after the shooting, because police believed his claim of self-defense, triggering protests and cries of injustice across America.
It also drew comment from President Barack Obama, forced the resignation of Sanford’s police chief, and brought U.S. Justice Department scrutiny to this town of 54,000 residents not far from Disney World in Orlando. – Reuters
George Zimmerman was acquitted of all charges on Saturday for the fatal shooting of unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin in this central Florida town in February of last year.
If he had been convicted, the 29-year-old former neighborhood watch volunteer, who claimed he acted in self-defense, could have been sentenced to life in prison for second-degree murder or up to 30 years for manslaughter.
A panel of six women jurors rendered its verdict in the case, which sparked a national debate on issues including race and profiling, after a trial that began in Seminole County court on June 10. Reuters
The second of the five defendants began testimony Thursday at Germany’s landmark trial over racially inspired murders – the work, according to prosecutors, of a trio of neo-Nazis.
Holger G, who is alleged to have aided the killer cell by lending it his identity documents, was to read out his own statement about the crime spree, but would not answer any questions about it, his lawyer announced as the hearing began.
At the start of the day, the judge asked Holger G standard questions about his vital data and family background. His surname has been withheld under privacy guidelines for the media.
The trial in Munich began May 6, but testimony on the origins of the self-styled National Socialist Underground (NSU) only began this week. Prosecutors say Beate Zschaepe, 38, is the sole survivor of the NSU. She stands accused as an accomplice to murders and bombings.
The other two members, Uwe Boehnhardt and Uwe Mundlos, are dead after an apparent 2011 suicide pact. They are believed to have gunned down nine immigrants and a policewoman from 2000 to 2007 in attacks that chilled Germany’s ethnic Turkish minority and baffled police.
Another accused, 33-year-old Carsten S, this week admitted couriering a gun and silencer to the gang about 13 years ago.
There was an adjournment of the court before 39-year-old Holger G could begin reading out his statement.
“Follow the reading of this declaration, our client will not for the time being answer any further questions,” his lawyer Stefan Hachmeister told the court. He said Holger G might add more testimony later in the trial.
Police have said the trio, who were living with fake identities and supporting themselves by robbing banks, turned to neo-Nazi Holger G to borrow his identity documents because he resembled one of the gang members.Author: Jean-Baptiste Piggin and Jochen Neumeyer – dpa
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Cookie settingsACCEPT
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
