The blonde woman is Silke Fussinger the prosecutor

_
@SucharitBhakdi
@WeForHumanityCampaigns

_
@SucharitBhakdi
@WeForHumanityCampaigns

Press is taking photos the court room is full and people are outside. Prof. Bhakdi

_
@SucharitBhakdi
@WeForHumanityCampaigns

Prof.Bhakdi receives outpour of support when approaching the courthouse.

_
@SucharitBhakdi
@WeForHumanityCampaigns

Prozessauftagt Bhakdi

https://t.iss.one/sprachrohrdereifel

@WeForHumanityCampaigns

Court has adjourned for at least 45 minutes. Professor Bhakdi receives support from the crowd outside and waves to them.

_
@SucharitBhakdi
@WeForHumanityCampaigns

Court has adjourned for at least 45 min. Prof. Bhakdi’s lawyers argued three reasons for the court to drop the case. 1) the prosecution didn’t have the full video at the time when it opened the court proceedings 2) they didn’t make an effort to receive the entire video (which contained the alleged anti-Semitic statements) 3) concerns over the indictment containing Prof. Bhakdi a private info. The judge adjourned court for a break to consider these arguments.

Lawyers Tobias Weissenborn and Martin Schwab arrive at the court house. This is from earlier.

_
@SucharitBhakdi
@WeForHumanityCampaigns

The police officer defense witness testified. The officer answered questions about his report. It was a very brief testimony. He answered factual questions surrounding the campaign speech from Sept. 24, 2021. He said it was a peaceful and lawful event. We are on a five minute break now. During the next session, we will watch the 90 minute interview Prof. Bhakdi did with Kai Stuht, which contains the statements in question.

_
@SucharitBhakdi
@WeForHumanityCampaigns

Court is back in session.

The defense mentioned that Prosecutor Fussinger should have watched both of the videos a long time ago. And that as a result of not watching it, she did not see the important context - namely that he was citing a Holocaust survivor saying the statements in question.

Prosecutor Fussinger then questions Prof. Bhakdi directly to ask him if he knows how the video was shared. Prof. Bhakdi begins to speak a little and then the defense team stops him. The defense instructs Prosecutor Fussinger to address the defense council about addressing Bhakdi directly in the future.

_
@SucharitBhakdi
@WeForHumanityCampaigns

Court will reconvene at 3:30pm CET. Both the defense and prosecution will deliver their final plea.

Prosecutor Silke Fussinger completed her final argument. For the first charge she asked for 90 Euros paid daily for 150 days and for the second charge, she asked for 90 Euros paid daily for 70 days. She summed it up and came to 90 Euros paid daily for 180 days. We are now on a 10 minute break. The defense will deliver its final arguments when court reconvenes.

_
@SucharitBhakdi
@WeForHumanityCampaigns

Court is resuming. The defense will present final arguments.

_
@SucharitBhakdi
@WeForHumanityCampaigns

All three of Prof. Bhakdi's lawyers spoke as part of the final argument to the court. Martin Schwab, Prof. Bhakdi's main lawyer, spoke about Sucharit's conviction in the media before the hearing. He then focused on the two charges. Regarding the charge stemming from Sucharit's interview with Kai Stuht, Schwab stated that Sucharit did not insult Israeli people according to a specific German law. He provided more context to Sucharit's statements in the interview stating that the Israeli people were the first to be injected under the emergency authorization. Schwab reiterated Sucharit was not insulting the Israeli people but expressing concern and worry for them. He said the interpretation of Sucharit's words was completely wrong. Schwab asked for a not guilty verdict. Lawyer Tobias Weissenborn pointed out that Sucharit was not addressing the Israeli people but rather the Israeli government. He mentioned that Sucharit is a Buddhist who advocates for peace and unity. Weissenborn mentioned the prosecutor's shortcomings (not watching the full videos or investigating properly).

_
@SucharitBhakdi
@WeForHumanityCampaigns

Sven Lausen argued that the prosecution misunderstood that Sucharit was speaking at the campaign event as a candidate and that, of course, politicians should have a broader range in what they speak about. Lausen says the prosecutor is dividing people by bringing forth these charges and that she has a duty to evaluate and investigate the evidence, and she did not do so properly. Lausen argued that the prosecutor has the wrong impression because she only watched a portions of the video. He said her 6 page long indictment lacks knowledge. Lausen also said she was requesting access when also saying her investigation was closed on the same day. Prosecutor never said anything about the letter written by the Holocaust victims to the EMA in the indictment and that the indictment was evil and that the prosecutor wanted it make Sucharit an example.

_
@SucharitBhakdi
@WeForHumanityCampaigns

Now let’s pray, dear friends. Imagine the light you send amplifying others’ light. Just hope and trust. Pause to unite in the light, hope and trust.

Court is about to resume shortly. Both the defense and prosecution delivered final arguments. The judge then adjourned court for 30 minutes.

_
@SucharitBhakdi
@WeForHumanityCampaigns

NOT GUILTY!!!