2024-07-23 05:15:06
The journalist and weapons expert Lars Winkelsdorf has been fighting against his conviction for years. He wants the trial to be reopened. Is the public prosecutor afraid of its own mistakes?
For a good two years, Lars Winkelsdorf has been waiting for his application for a retrial to be considered and for the case against him to be reopened. In April 2012, he was convicted of inciting the carrying of weapons. The conviction was based on a television report that he had not even produced. He had merely advised a colleague.
Important documents were missing from the investigation files then and now; a public prosecutor, against his better judgment, portrayed Winkelsdorf as a “pseudo-journalist” and trivialized the arms dealer, who is now in custody. Meanwhile, there are also other witnesses who support Winkelsdorf’s stories.
Why is the public prosecutor’s office reluctant to clarify the open questions? It gives the impression that an innocent person is being sacrificed in order to cover up their own mistakes. One public prosecutor even threatened Winkelsdorf.
The story begins more than 15 years ago. In 2006, Winkelsdorf came into contact with the illegal arms dealer Guido W. At the time, the journalist was working on a Sat.1 film that dealt with illegal arms trading, black market prices and the inertia of the investigative authorities. Winkelsdorf carefully verified that Guido W. was indeed dealing in weapons. They met for preliminary discussions, during which Guido W. showed him weapons and revealed information about their origin and buyers. “Everything was verifiable,” says Winkelsdorf. For the film, he met with Guido W. in a garage near Winkelsdorf’s house. There they conducted an interview in which the illegal weapons were filmed. Since this meeting at the latest, Guido W. was informed about where Winkelsdorf lived.
Winkelsdorf puts other journalists in touch
The report soon attracted a great deal of attention, including from Winkelsdorf’s colleague Mark L., who wanted to produce a similar report for the broadcaster Kabel 1. Mark L. asked Winkelsdorf to put him in touch with Guido W., which he did. From then on, Mark L. had direct contact with the arms dealer. However, on March 12, 2007, Mark L. called Winkelsdorf because Guido W. insisted on meeting in familiar surroundings: Winkelsdorf’s house in Hamburg, which he already knew from the discussions the year before. Winkelsdorf reluctantly agreed, and the filming took place at his house. The film was broadcast under the title “Kabel 1 – Dealer on the Trigger”.
Winkelsdorf was later convicted of incitement to carry weapons for Mark L.’s contribution.
Winkelsdorf was even acquitted of the first charge. But the public prosecutor’s office appealed, peppering its justification with false factual allegations. And based these on incomplete and incorrect investigation files. Winkelsdorf and his lawyer pointed out these errors in the request for a retrial. And even informed the Attorney General of the Hanseatic City of Hamburg, Jörg Fröhlich. So far, without success.
The public prosecutor’s office is trying to paint a bad picture of Winkelsdorf and his journalistic work in the various parts of the investigation file. Despite a search of Winkelsdorf’s house, there is no evidence in the complete files of his work for various editorial offices. However, it is proven that Winkelsdorf worked for specialist magazines on gun law, but also for public broadcasting. He was a frequent author for the format Frontal 21 (now frontal), which is known for its investigative work. t-online has invoices from this period. There are also various articles in the station’s archives and Winkelsdorf was even present at press conferences in the Hamburg police offices as a journalist for Frontal 21.
The public prosecutor in charge at the time ridiculed Winkelsdorf’s investigative work. In an order, he wrote that Winkelsdorf was only “known for good and serious work, according to his own statements.” The public prosecutor could have clarified what kind of journalist he was dealing with and how journalists proceed in such sensitive areas with an expert opinion. The RistBV, the guidelines for criminal proceedings and fine proceedings, actually stipulates this. The German Journalists’ Association (DJV) does this. But no such expert opinion is obtained.
Then the prosecutor might have classified other pieces of evidence correctly. In the files he calls authors’ contributions to specialist magazines “concepts”. Or he interprets a broadcast script from Kabel 1, which is made available to the deaf after each broadcast, as a filming instruction. The prosecutor thus apparently got the false impression that Winkelsdorf had given the illegal arms dealer some kind of direction. In fact, this was only an aid for people with disabilities who wanted to read the report.