IIn his last word in court, Peter Feldmann once again protested his innocence and accused the public prosecutor’s office of wanting to make an example of him. He had been prejudiced by the public and the press and had “already received the maximum sentence” because he had been tortured and showered with sheer malice and had lost his “great job”.
Feldmann, whose voice faltered at this point, also apologized to his daughter and his estranged wife for his statements. “That went too far.” He consciously chose his role as a father and “for life”. “For your life,” he addressed his daughter, using her name. Referring to his wife, he said his words certainly hurt her. “It wasn’t necessary and eventually, yes, I wanted to marry her.”
The former mayor began and finished the last word with the sentence: “I didn’t reach into any cash register, I’m not corrupt.” It was in the process of a job for his wife with a net salary of just over 2000 euros and a Ford gone as a service car. “Many who have been writing about it so aggressively for years would not leave the house in the morning.” It was not about services for him at all. His wife contributed 50 euros a month to the household account and paid for half of the wedding, nothing more.
He had assumed that the employment relationship with Arbeiterwohlfahrt (AWO) had come about correctly and that his wife was properly qualified. With stories about his mother’s career, Feldmann then explained why career changers were something completely normal for him. He has also hired career changers several times. He asked why he of all people should assume that his wife was unsuitable and that she would not be granted any advantages, especially since her intercultural competence with regard to the German-Turkish AWO day-care center was undisputed.
“Is there evidence? No nothing”
Feldmann said he never assumed that Hannelore Richter wanted to influence his office. The opening of the day-care center was publicly celebrated in front of everyone, and nothing happened in a non-transparent manner. According to the calendar entries read out in the process, he only had one appointment with the Richter couple a year. That is much less than with other associations and institutions. He also never exerted any undue influence on specialist departments in favor of the AWO.
“But there are things I regret,” said Feldmann. He should have “taken a closer look” at what was happening around him. If he had noticed or suspected that attempts were being made to exert influence, “I would have reacted with harshness”. “I will blame myself for that all my life.” Instead, he had to deal with “national media polemics”. He now asks again, said Feldmann: “Is there evidence? No, nothing, it’s all hearsay. ”There is no document, no email, no message that says that he had influenced the city for the judges. He also did not respond to inquiries from the two.
Fear for the professional future
“I expect an acquittal after this manageable evidence,” said Feldmann. He was punished enough, had experienced hate, swastikas on his door and calls from “lateral thinkers” to demonstrate in front of his house. He answered “a thousand questions” from the city councillors, lost his job, and in the event of a “negative verdict” he could lose his pension. He asked the court to consider the “prior conviction”. He also appealed to the chamber not to set more than 90 daily rates in the event of a conviction, because this is “in the middle” compared to the 180 daily rates requested by the public prosecutor. In addition, it enables him to have a professional future. Convictions of up to 90 daily rates are not entered in the certificate of good conduct if there is no previous conviction.
Feldmann said he had transferred 13,500 euros to his wife because of the bogus mini-job and given 6,000 euros in cash because of the company car, he had transferred 3,500 euros to the AWO himself “for moral reasons because I wanted to show my attitude”. It was important for him to show that he didn’t want to profit from it.
The district court plans to announce the verdict this Friday. The defendant, who plans to go on vacation on Thursday, said he didn’t know if he was going to appear in court. His defense lawyers said that this had yet to be discussed with him. In principle, a verdict cannot be pronounced without the accused. The Code of Criminal Procedure provides for this only under strict conditions in exceptional cases. At least the tenor, i.e. the sentence, must be heard by the accused.