So now he wants to say how it really was. After three interrogation videos of Stephan Ernst, the alleged murderer of Kassel government president Walter Lübcke, had already been played in the Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt am Main, Ernst now wants to testify himself. This week it could be that the court blocked Friday for “submission” of the main accused. Ernst defender Frank Hannig had doubted in one of his YouTube videos at the beginning of July whether there was enough time to prepare a statement for July 30. It is still unclear whether he actually testifies orally or lets one of his lawyers speak for himself, whether he speaks freely or reads a text. Attorney Hannig did not answer a request from “nd.DerTag”.
But in the third week of negotiations in the trial of the murder of Lübcke and the attempted murder of Ahmad I, there is initially something else on the agenda: On Monday, the attorney Alexander Hoffmann wants to make his statement on Stephan Ernst’s interrogation videos. It is to be expected that, unlike the prosecution’s indictment, he will not consider the first confession to be correct and true and dismiss the second as untrustworthy, but will work out which parts of the two confessions can be completed to form a coherent picture. In addition, it will probably be about embedding Ernst’s statements – and his deed – in a context that shows that Ernst did not act in a vacuum, but embedded in a right-wing scene that encouraged him to do so. The defense also wants to comment on the interrogation videos.
The first witness is invited for Tuesday: Jan-Hendrik Lübcke, the son of the dead, is to testify. He had found his father on the terrace of his house on the night of June 1-2, 2019.
Why Ernst wants to testify again in court despite the three interrogation videos shown is probably due to the fact that both previous confessions give reason to doubt that he said the whole truth. In the first confession that Ernst made in July 2019 and revoked shortly afterwards – with a new defense attorney – he played down the role of co-accused Markus H. conspicuously. In the second confession, there were many contradictions that Ernst could not resolve even when asked. “How should I explain that?” Was a frequent phrase used by Ernst in the interrogation videos. So he could not make it plausible why he had initially committed a murder if it was merely an accident. Ernst said that his lawyer at the time had persuaded him to admit that in return he had agreed to support his family financially. Upon request, he called the “Prisoner Aid”, a far-right successor to the Aid Organization for National Political Prisoners (HNG), which was banned in 2011. Ernst also said that he wanted to be considered a martyr in the scene. At the same time, he claimed that he wanted to paint the picture of himself as a “psychonazi.”
Also, it was not clear why H. and he drove the wrong number plates on June 1, 2019 and left the cell phones at home in order not to be able to locate them – but none for the supposedly planned “abrasion” of the CDU politician Lübcke Put on masks to remain undetected. “We didn’t think about that,” Ernst said simply, succinctly.
His announced further statement is expected to reveal some illuminating details about the past. As long as Ernst stays with it that H. and he were together at the crime scene, but only wanted to threaten Lübcke and a shot from the – loaded gun – in H.’s hand probably accidentally released, you will hardly get closer to the truth.
It could be interesting if Markus H., accused of “psychological support”, testifies. However, his defender Björn Clemens did not want to confirm or deny that he would ever do so after the fifth day of the trial in early July. He still insists on the innocence of his client and at the beginning of the process asked for his release and waiver of the arrest warrant. His cards are not as bad as Ernst’s. While Ernst’s DNA was found at the scene, there does not seem to be any evidence that Markus H., the co-accused, was also on the scene on the day of the crime.