In the so-called Fretterode proceedings before the Mühlhausen regional court (ref.: 3 KLs 101 Js 47753/18 jug), the court sent a fatal signal for the protection of journalists who research right-wing extremism with an apparently mild verdict. With the verdict handed down today in the so-called Fretterode trial, the two defendants Gianluca B. were sentenced to a prison sentence of one year, suspended on probation, and Nordulf H. was sentenced to a work requirement of 200 hours of work in accordance with youth law. The verdict is one of a number of extraordinarily lenient sentences that the Thuringian judiciary has made in recent years in cases involving violent acts by neo-Nazis.
“ The court expressed, contrary to what we perceived as the results of the extensive taking of evidence, that it did not believe the co-plaintiffs at crucial points. They are the only ones who were significantly injured that day, they are the ones who presented evidence of the crime, they are the ones whose statements were confirmed by uninvolved witnesses and experts and who refuted the statements of the defendants . The oral justification of the verdict is a slap in the face to the two co-plaintiffs, who are apparently given as much or little credence as the extensively refuted statements of the accused neo-Nazis, ” says attorney Sven Adam, who represents one of the co-plaintiffs, indignant about the lenient verdict and especially the oral reasons for the judgment. “ The court turned an intentional no-go area for political opponents and specialist journalists in Fretterode into an emotional reaction to alleged actions by anti-fascists in Fretterode that had no temporal connection and were not discussed in the taking of evidence. The last bus trip by anti-fascists to Fretterode to publicly criticize the neo-Nazi center was 20 years ago. The evidence did not reveal any other events that could have posed a threat to the Heise family. The oral justification for the verdict is characterized by a great deal of understanding, which can no longer be explained, for the thoughts of violent neo-Nazis. ” continues Adam.
“ The verdict is a scandal and a fatal sign to the militant Nazi scene, which, especially in Thuringia, is apparently allowed to do almost anything largely unpunished. ” adds lawyer Rasmus Kahlen, who also represents one of the co-plaintiffs. “ The court even refers to “adversaries” several times in the oral reasons for the judgment. As if a “fight” had taken place on both sides. An infamous trivialization of the crime. The co-plaintiffs fled, were chased, did not attack anyone, and were seriously injured in a life-threatening manner. Against this background, the verdict can only be judged as a blatant misunderstanding of the facts.” so does Kahlen.
If you have any questions, the lawyers Sven Adam and Rasmus Kahlen are available using the contact details provided.
