Human faces in the prison system; video: Ignacio Rosaslanda
(For my previous report covering the Ulm5 trial up to May 22, see here.)
Unfortunately, there is still no regular media coverage of what is unfolding in the Stammheim courthouse— —a trial that resembles a chamber theatre more than a show trial. The trial, which is scheduled for a few days a week at most and thus is stretched out artificially over 8.5 months, has been reported on only very sporadically in the mainstream media, with coverage limited to brief snapshots. The critical and solidarity-driven scholarship featured here on this platform cannot truly compensate for this media failure. In my view it should, rather than providing updates, be developing research and ideas for contextualizing and gaining a deeper understanding of both the trial and the real events that the trial seeks to obscure and punish.
In that context, here are just a few key points based on what I’ve been able to gather from observers about the progress of the trial —without guaranteed accuracy:
- The proceedings continue to move at a snail’s pace. Court days often last only a few hours. Much of this time is spent on motions filed by the attorneys—which are rejected by the presiding judge—as well as on long recesses. Members of the audience have started working on an “Ulm5 Bingo” game, but – due to the judge’s most frequent utterances – have barely gotten past the two terms “motion denied” and “recess.”
- The fundamental violations of rights by the court have still not been remedied: The attorneys are fighting for the defendants’ right not to be forced to sit in the glass cage and to be able to communicate with their attorneys without a microphone, as well as for the right to a trial that is genuinely open to the public. As noted previously, only the few press representatives are allowed to bring writing implements into the court. The absurd reason given is that pens could be used as weapons to stab and slash others; even wax crayons and bendable children’s pencils remain banned. The defense attorneys must repeatedly file motions—even if they have no chance of success—so that they cannot later be accused of having acquiesced to the court’s rules.
- Then there are multiple motions for recusal, for which the presiding judge constantly creates new reasons. The most recent example, from a few days ago, was the “sergeant-major” episode; —the audience could remember this exchange even without recourse to pen and paper: The presiding judge ordered, “Quiet at the back!”; Attorney Schuster replied, “Excuse me, but this is a courtroom, not a barracks parade ground, and you are not a sergeant-major!” Presiding Judge: “Yes, I am!” Attorney Schuster then complained about the judge’s “insolent tone” and filed a motion for recusal . At the request of the defence, the presiding judge dictated the minutes.
- The next day, it turned out that the defendants were not informed—as was their right—of the outcome of this motion, namely that it had been rejected. So more motions followed. It also turned out that the wording reported by the judge as well as the prosecutor did not match what everyone present had heard. There is suspicion that the presiding judge altered the transcript retroactively and is lying. So, yet another motion for recusal.
- On the eighth day of the trial, when the heat wave was at its worst, the defendants were permitted to drink water. Previous motions to be allowed to drink water had been denied.
- At least there was one moment when the court was confronted with reality: Attorney Nina Onèr succeeded in her motion to present a recently published report—“What the Wounds Are Telling Us” by the Dutch newspaper *de Volkskrant*, which won the 2026 European Press Prize—which, based on hundreds of photos, videos, X-rays, diary entries, and interviews with doctors and nurses in Gaza, horrifically documents that children—including very young children—are being deliberately murdered in large numbers and are dying under the most appalling circumstances. (The Ulm5 had spray-painted “Babykiller Israel” on the wall, referring, they and their defence lawyers said in court, to a contemporary reality that had nothing to do with the antisemitic medieval blood libel legend.) As the language of the court is German, the English translators had to translate this text on the spot. Both struggled with this text; the second is reported by those attending to have struggled to keep her voice from breaking. Once again, the defense attorneys managed—as it were, through the back door—to present arguments or materials that, contrary to the prosecution’s narrative, hinted at the defendants’ true motivation.
- The presentation of evidence in this trial has begun at last, however, it did not begin with the presentation of evidence from the ground up, but—as was feared—with its manipulation. A video was shown that the police had compiled from footage that Ulm5 had filmed themselves. The police video, the court was later to hear from one of the defendants, omitted segments that would show that the defendants were NOT violent offenders or terrorist-minded extremists, but rather went to great lengths to ensure that no people—and indeed no living beings at all—would come to harm. One of the defendants, Crow, was able to point this out, though it appeared that the presiding judge did not take note of the criticism regarding the video’s editing.
- Another defendant, Vi, said that their motivation should be clear, and that it should also be clear that pretrial detention was not justified. Zo also spoke up and made a statement about the relationship between “force” and “violence,” which the translation failed spectacularly to convey accurately, to the consternation of those in the public gallery who could hear Zo’s original in English from within the glass cage.
- Originally, the testimony of the lead police investigator—who wrote the 200-page report on which the indictment is based—was supposed to have been heard on June 29. The defense attorneys filed an objection to his being called as a witness, arguing that he was actually part of the prosecution team. This was used as a pretext for the presiding judge to end the trial day early—although the actual reason can be suspected relates to the embarrassing situation created by the “sergeant-major” episode.
When reflecting more fundamentally on this trial, two themes occupy my thoughts :
First, the significance of life/vitality as a form of resistance, and the diverse strategies of repression aimed at extinguishing that vitality. I am moved by a short video clip showing the arrival of the prisoner transport van—which brought Daniel from Ulm Prison to Stammheim—at the entrance to the Stammheim courthouse. The van stops at the gate for a few seconds. Behind the barred side window in the dark interior, you can see Daniel smiling and forming a heart with their hands. That cheerful, free smile so characteristic of Daniel—a human face! Then its rear window comes into view. On it, the faces of three young people in uniform advertise job openings in the justice system. The contrast between the generic human faces on the rear window and the living human face behind bars is almost unbearable. “Free Daniel” in its dual meaning: freedom for Daniel, and the Daniel who despite all remains free, in captivity. Daniel told the magazine Freitag about the lack of stimulation and the boredom in prison: yard time is only between 8:30 and 9:30, offering a chance to talk with fellow inmates, but there are no trees, no bushes, no nature. “I’m allowed to walk around in a concrete yard—there’s no greenery here.” You’re not even allowed to send the defendant a dried petal: indeed, smuggling a plant into this prison would be an act of resistance.
The ritualized sequence of the trial also strikes me in this light. It is intended to establish legal certainty and predictability. Yet the alienation it creates—of which the lawyers’ war of interpretations is merely one manifestation— also serves another purpose: namely suck vitality and freedom out of those present. In this sterile, oppositional atmosphere, where obedience or defiance seem to be the only available attitudes, an open smile, a heartfelt word, and—in general—honest, unguarded, human, and lively behaviour—which is actually necessary for finding the truth—are made as difficult as possible. That is also why the public gallery claps and cheers when the defendants enter the courtroom, and why, despite the judge’s orders, some can’t help but react with noise when one of the attorneys says something incisive and true. This is also why it is so moving to see how the defendants communicate with one another nonverbally, behind their glass partition, and show concern for one another.
The second theme is the comparison with the Baader-Meinhof gang (RAF), which is constantly being thrust upon us—even by those who are actually critical of the German state’s „Staatsräson“. The only point of comparison I accept is that the Ulm5 trial is also of great historical and public significance and should therefore be documented, just as the RAF trial was, with verbatim transcripts and video/audio recordings. And yes, of course there were also young, vibrant people among the Baader-Meinhof members who found the injustices and genocides of their time morally and politically too unbearable to remain idle. And yes, of course, the state resorts to potentially any means in its fight against everything it perceives as hostile. But otherwise, the comparison falls short. It only serves to justify repression, even when it purports to criticize it.
Unlike the Baader-Meinhof gang, the Ulm5 have clarified their stance on violence. As Crow explained, it was of the utmost importance to the five that no one come to harm. To see themselves as an “Army Faction” of whatever sort, to collect weapons, to kidnap, injure, or kill people, would be completely incompatible with their fundamental motivation. But, Zo noted, even the dichotomy of “violence against property versus violence against people” no longer holds when the very foundations of life are being systematically destroyed and life itself is very real threatened with annihilation. The Ulm5’s action was not directed against people, nor against department stores, police stations, cars, the Springer skyscraper, or the like, but solely against weapons production in the midst of an ongoing genocide. In Gaza, not only are children being slowly and cruelly murdered, but large parts of Gaza have been transformed into death zones where not even a blade of grass grows anymore. Damaging the instruments of death used for this purpose constitutes as much—or as little—“violence against property” as rendering a murder weapon harmless. That is why the lawyers are arguing for the motivation having been on the grounds of a state of emergency and emergency assistance.
If one takes resistance against the destruction of the foundations of life as the criterion, the comparison now is not with the Baader-Meinhof gang (RAF), but rather with the Last Generation. Imagine that—and this is very likely—temperatures in our sealed-off city centers will soon exceed 40 degrees for long periods of time: there is only concrete, no trees, no shrubs—“there is no greenery here.” Would tearing up these sealed surfaces then still count as “property damage,” or rather would it constitute a constructive act that benefits plants, animals, and people—and indeed also property, created by and for people? We face the threat of ever-larger zones where life has been destroyed and life has become nearly impossible. Gaza stands as a horror scenario that is becoming a reality wherever racialized populations, in particular, are deemed entirely superfluous and troublesome; and that is what drives young people to take action, such as the break-in at Elbit.