Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
Columbine High School Massacre Discussion Forum
A place to discuss the Columbine High School Massacre along with other school shootings and crimes. Anyone interested in researching, learning, discussing and debating with us, please come join our community!
Posts : 61 Contribution Points : 5910 Forum Reputation : 279 Join date : 2023-10-21 Age : 28
Subject: The Stephan Balliet Masterpost Thread Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:58 pm
THREAD LAST UPDATED: 11/02/24
General Update log: - cut down the terrorist attack explanation - removed incorrect information about stephan's cameras (sorry) - in the translation section: cut out quote associated to kevin at 16:27
---
The Stephan Balliet Masterpost Thread is currently a massive WIP. It is intended to become an infopost central, including about his life; his photos; translations of the livestream, court hearings, and reposting paywalled articles. However, I will not personally be including his manifesto (note: it contains illegal content in cucked gun law countries) or post/link to the stream, with the exception of when he's lying on the ground after being shot to aid any potential translators.
As this thread is still in an early development stage, I'm not looking for additional info as there's much more info unwritten that I have yet to add. When I'm close to finished (I'm aiming by mid-March), I'll confirm so and only then ask for more info. But there are a few things I am looking for help finding sources on, scroll to the bottom of this OP to see them. Everything else I've written has its source known, I just have to update the thread with it. Very open to suggestions, especially on how to make this more organised and easier to read.
Special thanks to (You) for the archiving + info help, you know who you are.
If you have any questions, ask away!
Familial names + quick summary:
Claudia is the mother of Stephan and his half-sister.
Roland is Stephan's father. Stephan's parents divorced when he was 14 or 15.
Anne is Stephan's half-sister. She is 3 years older than him.
Mario is Anne's ex. They were together until 2018. They have one child together, a son, who was born in 2016. I've censored his name.
Stephan's crimes (including those he was not charged with):
Summary:
Pre-attack crimes:
Stephan allegedly got into an argument with Max (one of Mario's friends) at a birthday party, eventually pulling out a knife and threatening Max with it. Not much detail is given about this event, except that no charges were pressed. Stephan claims he doesn't remember this ever happening.
He used meth and cannabis, both illegal in Germany. His cannabis use started no later than his time at Magdeburg university. According to his mother, the meth use started in his early 20's. It's unclear how much and how often he used either drug, but we know he stopped when he became almost entirely (if not 100%) sober after his illness, even avoiding going to social groups where people would be drinking to help keep him on track. He was never caught or arrested - despite the meth use perforating his stomach, prompting a life-saving surgery.
He had "opened sections for CP content" on the darknet. Not much detail is given about this event, including no further info on exactly how much content was opened or if he was fully aware that he was about to open and view CP; nor do we know the ages of the victims.
Stephan explained that he had "looked for everything" on the site, which offered more than CP.
From 2016-2019, Stephan slowly began working on his homemade weapons He would later be charged for this after his terrorist attack. Worth noting: out of X illegal homemade guns, he owned gun legally from his service in Bundeswehr.
Click here for sources (WIP):
In order written:
More details of the knife event are given in day 4, first trial. Denial from Stephan comes up in Day 1, first trial.
Day X. Regarding meth use, Regarding cannabis: day 4, both first trial
Day 3, first trial
October 9th, 2019 - the terrorist attack:
(wip)
If you would like a visual summary of the terrorist attack, Sarin Gas Attack's video on the event is excellent, providing a step-by-step commentary on what happens. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Against the wishes of affected victims, Balliet was either given a lesser charge or not charged (more details to come).
Click here for sources (WIP):
--
--
Post-attack and imprisonment crimes:
Stephan had two previous escape attempts, which are not being counted as a crime as escape attempts are themselves not a crime by German law. On his third attempt, Stephan had created a gun from inside his prison cell and took two guards hostage with it. This third escape attempt is why he's currently on trial again in 2024 as I'm writing this.
As Stephan is already serving the harshest sentence Germany can give, making any additional time to serve useless; this new trial's motivations are most likely to seek compensation for the guards, one of which has PTSD from the event.
This section will be updated once the trial is concluded.
Click here for sources (WIP):
Summarising his manifesto (including his unpublished Q&A section) (WIP SECTION, very messy):
Summary:
There were multiple files released.
DoKumentation READ_THIS_FIRST マニフェスト
March 26, 2019, he made his first draft of his manifesto (https://sherloc.unodc.org/cld/uploads/res/case-law-doc/terrorismcrimetype/deu/2020/olg_naumburg_urteil_vom_21_12_2020_1_st_120_html/DEU_1_-_Halle_terrorism_case.pdf) (will insert date said in trial)
There is an unpublished Q&A section. That file is named Your F&A Guide. It was written on April 15 and June 24, 2019. "He then worked on a later one until October 6, 2019 published document called the “Pre-Action Report”." In unknown order.
From: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] "Balliet’s self-interview consisted of 23 questions, with a couple of them being identical to Tarrant’s: “Who are you?” and “Are you a Racist?” Six of Balliet’s interrogatives seem to be unique, whilst the remaining 74% corresponded to previously raised questions by Breivik, Tarrant and Earnest."
Balliet's questions in the Q&A: Do you think you are crazy? Are you a white supremacist? Are you a Lone wolf? “Is there anyone you want to thank?" which is the only question we know he answered: "Yes, Brenton Tarrant.”
Facts about the stream:
Summary:
Two months before the attack, he signed up for twitch under the name spilljuice, the account he would later stream his attack on. [Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (https://archive.is/evq3P)]
2 brothers in Germany reuploaded and distributed the twitch livestream video, confirmed in Day 6 of the first trial, and mentioned again in Day 16. They were charged. Ultimately, (update)
there was a second streaming device, to my knowledge, this footage has not been released; it may not even have livestreamed, but instead saved locally to the device. (will update with image)
This camera is quite possibly what Stephan fusses over in the first few minutes of his livestream, talking as if there's a livestream that's not working properly. This second device and stream is talked about and shown in Day 11 of the first trial. They describe that it's a "slightly different angle" from the livestream publicly known.
On Day 2 of his first trial, Stephan confirms that the "song titles" (potentially translation miscommunication, likely just referring to the songs themselves) were pre-planned and deliberately chosen. As confirmed in Day 17 of his first trial, there were 12 songs, all specifically chosen for the attack. On stream, we can hear only 7 of them. The other 5 aren't known. 8 of the songs were described as "non-ideological anime music" by a BKA officer (this description was challenged by plaintiff lawyers).
As shown by the toxicology report on Day 18 of his first trial, Stephan was stone cold sober during the attack.
Allegedly, he had migraine with aura on the day of the attack. This is talked about on Day 20 and Day 21 of his first trial, apparently in an attempt to explain why he'd fatally shot Jana (Stephan described that he "saw red").
Stephan announced his attack in this (god awful) screencap of a meguca thread. I censored the instructions and links. I know there's a cleaner screencap out there without the background, but this will have to make do for now. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
The livestreamed songs are (in order):
Power Level by Mr. Bond
(Second song is missing)
Mousou Express by Monogatari series
SuicidePrototype by Lucid [UtsuP]
Alek Minassian by Egg White
Still In Love by A-ONE
Promise the Moonlight by (? Tohou song)
I still don't know the name of the second song, but I compiled all songs here for easy audible reference: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Stephan's life prior to his terrorist attack:
Summary:
Childhood:
Stephan was born in January 1992. Sources vary on whether he was born on Jan 10th or Jan 11th.
When he was 12, he competed in a chess tournament. He came second. Pictures + more info of this day are in the pre-attack photos section.
Stephan was a smart child and excelled in mathematics. He was ambitious, wanting to be the best.
[Sources WIP]:
---
---
Day 4, first trial
Adulthood:
In 2010-2011, Balliet completed basic training with a mechanized infantry division in Hagenow, near Schwerin, in northern Germany [Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (doublecheck day in trial). He himself says he was a Panzergrenadier for six months
In 2013, he had two different hospital stays due to his stomach perforation. "He was there for about two weeks" (unclear if 2 weeks on one occasion or both total).
Due to his drug use, he became seriously ill for several years. He was mostly unable to move for a year [source: Day 1 in first trial]. Doctors had discovered "a large blood clot just in time," and he had to go through an operation, (Currently I'm unsure just how many operations there were) [Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] but afterwards, they believed he was faking the severity of his illness and rejected requests for help. Stephan says that stomach perforation causes him pain to this day.[Day 4 first trial]
Mario revealed that Stephan has a potential psychological problem that causes him pain when the weather is bad. Not much more info is given.
He confirms his social life outside of his small family is "virtually nil" on Day 1 of his first trial.
While Mario, Anne, and Stephan were out in Klostermansfeld to run a shopping errand for Claudia, the three walked past two men standing outside of a pizzeria, speaking in a foreign language. Stephan aggressively shouted at them that they should be speaking German in Germany.
He has most likely never had a girlfriend. He confirms he wanted to have one, including children of his own, but any attempts to form romantic relationships with women didn't lead anywhere. He does not identify himself as an incel, because incels make it their identity where he does not. He instead considers his interest in weapons the most important part of his identity. [Sources: Day 1, Day 4 both first trial]
Claudia was afraid that evicting her long-term NEET son from her home would end in him committing suicide, so she didn't - and broke up with a friend who'd suggested this idea to her. [Day 4 of first trial]
Click here for sources (WIP):
Day 1, first trial
Other details:
His bed has a drawer where he stored his weaponry, including ready-made bombs. One time, his nephew was jumping on the bed. Stephan angrily told him to stop. Now we know why. [Sources: Day X of first trial]
Mario described the atmosphere at the table to be tense. Stephan never seemed to smile - unless he was interacting with nephew [Source: Day X of first trial]
Most of the time, he was alone in his bedroom, and kept the door locked.
On Day 4 in Stephan's first trial, Mario claims that Claudia had preferred Stephan; she would give unfair treatment between her children, for example: scolding Anne and sparing Stephan the same treatment.
The night before his terrorist attack, Stephan helped his mother with ironing clothes because she had injured her hand.
He had left notes around his room for the police to find, with words such as "Try again!" in empty drawers.
All known usernames, profiles and online activity of Stephan:
His steam ID: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (https://archive.is/lFHIY) (aside from his avatar, there are no images/reviews or known comments found)
As confirmed in Day 2 of first trial (most info is rewritten here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
komissar1337 (commissioner1337)
Psycho mit Speer (Psycho with Spear)
Pharaszai (meaning not known)
Der Ostpreuße (The East Prussian)
Antag (google translation says "day"; possibly referring to himself as antagonist?)
Note: plaintiff accuses Stephan of being "fag0t" on kiwifarms. This is not possible, as fag0t has kept on posting after the attack. Stephan also denies using kiwifarms.
Confirmed games that he played:
Company of Heroes 2 (https://www.coh2.org/ladders/playercard/steamid/76561198044012078 confirmed via steam ID lookup)
EVE Online (https://evewho.com/character/93144091)
World of Guns – Gun Assembly | 82 hours (https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/sachsen-anhalt/magdeburg/magdeburg/reportage-siebzehnter-tag-prozess-halle-100.html) (https://archive.is/nfe98)
His EVE Online avatar looks like he may have been attempting to recreate himself. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
His one-man EVE corporation was called "Flotten von Mutanten," which translates to "Fleet of Mutants."
sources WIP:
--
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] [https://archive.is/iykNx]
Stephan's life post-arrest: (TBA)
Summary:
TBA
All currently known photos and video of Stephan pre-attack:
Visual Content:
Due to his isolation, there's not many photos available.
These next 3 photos are of 12 year old Stephan at a chess tournament. He came 2nd place. The "TWZ" (German abbreviation; unsure what this means) was Balliet's 820 vs the girl's 944. I'm unsure if I can post the archived link as it contains full names + faces of innocent minors.
Google translated site description of the tournament:
Quote :
An exciting blitz chess duel had to decide whether the gold medal was awarded in the AK U13, because (fivefourteam note: girl's name and location removed) and Stephan Balliet (Helbra) were at the top with the same points and ranking at the end of the regular rounds. In blitz chess - with only five minutes of consideration time for the entire game - (girl's name) had better nerve and won.
On March 15th, 2010, a video was uploaded to Mario's youtube channel MegaPredi.
Stephan is this video at 0:24 (screencapped below), then again at 1:30. For some reason, they're calling Stephan "Axel."
Note: There is a mistake written elsewhere on the forum that he was in a different video humping his brother-in-law. That's a different person. This is due to the government questioning Mario on his "OMG" video in the democ transcripts, where someone is getting dry-humped. I believe this is just a poorly edited down transcript; they may have been showing it to portray the group of people as right wing due to their racial slurs (Mario confirms he himself used to be right wing).
Various pictures of Stephan being transported: (will possibly put this in a different spoiler to explain the timeline of these photos better)
All known videos of Stephan being transported:
October 10th 2019: Stephan arrives via helicopter: ----
October 10th 2019: First time he is seen ducking from the cameras. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
October 11th 2019: Stephan is being forced to walk awkwardly. Second and perhaps the last time he ducks from cameras. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (will update with better source/shorter vid)
Various photos of Stephan in his first trial: Not comprehensive. If you want to see more photos, I recommend dpa, getty, -----
All known videos of Stephan in his first trial:
December 21st 2020: Stephan is recorded in court. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
All known photos of Stephan in his second trial as of Feb 5th:
All known videos of Stephan in his second trial as of Feb 5th:
Various content regarding the victims and aftermath (including photos of the door) (TBA):
Summary:
To be written.
To do (not comprehensive):
wip list:
upload mugshot pics, including those reposted in public areas from police asking for info
detail more games; avatars; his username changes throughout the years
upload vids of stephan in court
reupload "axel" vid to archive it
all photos have been reuploaded to imgbox to help preserve the photos. I still need to archive them when I'm done posting everything
include archive links to links posted just in case
compile all democ + other articles about the trial in an easier but fully comprehensive format (this will take a while)
eventually buy the halle court process book and translate all parts involving balliet (this will take months and will only be finished after the first democ etc comprehensive hearing section; afterwards the hearing section will be updated with any new info)
clean up writings
Eventually, masterpost threads will be made about Payton and Juraj, so please let me know tips on how to improve readability - and of course, let me know if there are any mistakes. Mods please say if you want me to remove anything. Thank you!
HELP NEEDED:
exactly how many operations did Stephan have? (it's unclear to me if the blood clot and stomach perforations are two different operations)
exactly what day is his birthday? (either 10th or 11th of January 1992, news sources vary; any official reports from govt on this?)
german translation needed - does anyone know what he's saying here or is it too muffled? [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Last edited by fivefourteam on Sun Feb 11, 2024 8:16 am; edited 5 times in total
ANOMIC, NEXT STEP UP, proshooter, tellecat, war criminal, SuperspooksteR and ravenwood like this post
fivefourteam
Posts : 61 Contribution Points : 5910 Forum Reputation : 279 Join date : 2023-10-21 Age : 28
Subject: Re: The Stephan Balliet Masterpost Thread Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:59 pm
ANOMIC, NEXT STEP UP, proshooter and war criminal like this post
fivefourteam
Posts : 61 Contribution Points : 5910 Forum Reputation : 279 Join date : 2023-10-21 Age : 28
Subject: Re: The Stephan Balliet Masterpost Thread Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:00 pm
last edited: 11/02/24
update log:
- removed quote associated with kevin at 16:27; this is possibly not kevin
Comprehensive Livestream Translation
All other translations I've seen miss Stephan panicking when he sees police a second time 3 minutes after he has been shot - you can even hear the police pass him! - so I'm very happy to be able to present this translation, adding info others have missed. Since I'm not a German speaker, I'm mainly using AFX’s translations as a basis for the great majority of what you see written below, occasionally switching to Metalock and crediting them when I do.
I am asking any German speakers reading this for help in translating the missing parts - especially the part where Stephan has been shot and is lying on the ground at 23:18 onwards. here is a clip: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Notes:
I was inconsistent on including sounds that weren’t words.
The English-spoken parts are coloured green.
Parts spoken by others are in purple.
Parts not translated are in red.
This will not include a description of what is happening in the stream; it's the translation of what is being said only.
Very open to feedback on transcript readability, translation errors and general improvements.
If anyone wants to make a fully translated video (which may or may not be legal in your country, so be careful), feel free to use this without crediting me – but please credit the real translators. 90% of this is AFX's work.
Almost 100% Complete Translation of the Livestream:
0:00:(He's mid-sentence here. Not translated by anybody.)
0:16: Did I just log this thing out?
0:29: Fuck it.
0:32: Good..
0:33: ..the stream is running.
0:38: Gotta press it. (..according to AFX. However, this sounds like “zu streamen” to me, which apparently would just mean “to stream”?) 0:43:(Too quiet. Possibly “fuck it”)
0:54: Good..
01:01: It takes too long.
01:04:(Too quiet. Possibly “come on” in English)
01:21: Yeah, of course you don’t have signal.
01:23:(AFX: incomprehensible/not translated)
01:31: Good, (incomprehensible)
01:58:(Not translated by anyone)
02:12: Come on.
02:17: Open up!
02:24: I could’ve typed it in, then.. damn it, well, now it’s empty.
03:57: Hi, my name is Anon, and I think the holocaust never happened. Human race is a (stutters) species. Feminism is the cause of decline of birth rates in west, which acts as a scapegoat for mass immigration. And the root of all these problems is the jew. Would you like to be friends?
04:22: Ah, music!
04:23:(Possibly saying “bekomme,” meaning “to get?” Or just “come”)
04:25: Where is the speaker?
04:49:(Not translated by anyone.)
04:57: God, how long have I been waiting for this.
05:32: Fuck you.
05:42: Nobody expects the internet S.S.. hehehehe.
05:58: Ah, fuck it. If it doesn’t work, then it doesn’t work.
06:25: Please let the door be open!
06:33:(AFX: “It’s leaned on (closed), yeah?” | Metalock: “The door is slightly open, right?”)
06:35: No – fuck, fuck!
06:37: Fuck it.
06:40: I’ll just bomb my way inside, then.
07:08: FUCK!
07:16: Ah, fuck it. Maybe they’ll come out.
07:37:(Quiet. Not translated by anyone. To me, it sounds like “versaga,” literally meaning “fail”)
07:43: We’ll blow this up!
08:19:(AFX: “Fucking thing.”)
8:59: Is that necessary when I’m walking here?! Man, ey..
9:14: Jammed.
9:23: Didn’t work. Fuck it.
9:26: I can’t get in anyways.
09:31: Pig.
09:45: (Stuttering) I shot my own tire – fuck.
09:50: Oh, well..
10:23: There’s no way in, either.
10:25: Such garbage..
10:27: Let’s burn ’em now.
10:39: 100% fail, that’s pretty rare here..
10:45: What are you doing here?
10:47: Come again?
10:48: The woman is.. (AFX: unintelligble)
11:00:(Not translated by anybody. Possibly "fick"?)
11:21: What is going on with this?
11:56: SHIT, man!
13:13: Failed. Oh, well..
13:15: What else could you expect from a NEET..
13:19: of *unintelligible*kanacken.(paraphrasing AFX's note: kanacken is a slur) (fivefourteam note: given the situational context, I first believed he was calling himself a "kanacken" as an insult. But democ's reporting of day 2 of the first trial implies that he said "then now the kanaks," meaning he had decided to switch his target to arabs instead.)
13:26: Pig..
13:39: Fuck it..
14:06: Shot my own tire flat..
14:08: I’m such a FAILURE, man!
14:24:(unintelligible) – sorry, guys.
14:28: I’m fucking NEET, I can’t.. I can’t shit..
14:34: I killed someone..
14:36: Or I tried to kill some -- not why I’m here..
14:41: And then I die..
14:45: ..like the loser I am – fuck.
15:00: Yeah, well.. one time loser always loser..
15:04: Döner, we’ll take it!
15:08:(AFX: unintelligible) a grenade.
15:14: Is it still in here or did I lose it? No, I’ve lost it. Fuck it.
16:03:(Margit says something unintelligible)
16:10:(man shouts something)
16:12:(Stephan says something in frustration, not translated by anyone)
16:27: (repeated pleadings of ‘please’)
16:47: (Kevin repeatedly pleads “please, don’t,” – he also may or may not be saying that he has children in an effort to be spared. This is potential quote is talked about on Day 11 of the first trial. Kevin does not have children.)
16:57: Shut the fuck up, man.
16:59: No-! 17:11: (Kevin makes a noise)
17:13:(Not translated by anyone)
17:28: Shit!
18:10:(Man says something)
18:18: Ah, fuck.
18:22: I don’t need it anymore.
18:41:(Not translated by anyone.)
18:59: Well, sorry, guys.
19:01: The fucking luty – shit! Shit, man! 19:06: Where is the grip? Where is the grip?
19:19: I think this is a stupid idea.
19:24: I can’t do anything right, man..
19:30: Ow, ow!
19:34: You may laugh.. you can, cause I’m-a fucking atrocious.
19:56: Where is my (AFX: unintelligible)?
20:14:(Man says something, possibly “hey?”)
20:19:(Man yells something)
20:37: Fuck.
20:55:(Something), man.
21:07: (Stephan says something under his breath)
21:13: He’s still alive!
21:49: Shit.
21:54: Well!
21:58: In any case, I’ve certainly proven..
22:01: how worthless.. improvised weapons are.
22:09: Oh, police. Okay, now I’m gonna die.
23:01: Where is my lighter? Fuck.
23:04: Ah, right..
23:18:(Not translated by anyone. I humbly request any German speakers to attempt to translate everything while he’s on the ground. here is a clip: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
23:21:(Not translated by anyone.)
23:23: Fuck.
24:59: Sorry, guys.
25:09: I did my best.
25:11: My best weren’t enough.
25:40: Fuck, man.
25:56: All weapons failed, man!
26:40: So, guys.. I’m trying – ah..
26:44:(Not translated by anyone. Something about police.)
27:17: I don’t know if I’m gonna die from it, but I don’t really think so. It also doesn’t hurt that much, but that’s probably the adrenaline.
27:26: Sorry guys,
27:28: (AFX: but it doesn’t matter, nevermind. Cheap equipment doesn’t last long. | Metalock: I try to strap you onto me, cheap equipment isn’t holding.)
27:42:(for the next 15 seconds, Balliet intermittently moans in pain)
28:09: So, guys, that’s it!
28:11: There’s no more action.
28:14: I’m a complete.. loser. 28:18: I will discard..
28:22: I will discard the smartphone.
Last edited by fivefourteam on Sun Feb 11, 2024 8:15 am; edited 2 times in total
ANOMIC, NEXT STEP UP, proshooter, war criminal and ravenwood like this post
fivefourteam
Posts : 61 Contribution Points : 5910 Forum Reputation : 279 Join date : 2023-10-21 Age : 28
Subject: Re: The Stephan Balliet Masterpost Thread Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:01 pm
LAST EDITED: xx.xx.xx
1st Day Of The Trial (Part 1/2)
(part 2 in post below)
Please feel free to suggest updates from different articles for the most complete information of the trial. I realise this is a barrage of text most won't read, which is why the summarisations are there. LMK how to present this part better while still being transparent about changes.
For future me:
To Do List:
- check mr. t’s name and update this post - recheck the part about mandy, potential poor translation moment or stephan attempting to spin reality - check more sites for more info for day 1 - separate spoiler category for short description of each person at the top of each thread as there are multiple names involved in these long transcripts - use comparison sites to check what changed in democ's reporting
Introduction:
After this note comes the first day’s summary from democ, and after that comes the compiled transcript.
To my knowledge, no complete transcript publicly exists. I’ve put together what what is publicly available from different news sites in an effort to show the most information without individual journalists picking and choosing what to mention. It’s unclear when we will be able to see a full transcript, if ever. This is google translated and will contain errors. Most of this transcript comes from democ. Other sources will be listed as they appear.
I’ve edited certain words with good intent; here’s all changes that were made for Day 1:
Edits:
replaced “B.” with “Balliet”
replaced “Stanislaw G.” with just “Stanislaw.” Stanislaw is the man who stopped next to Jana and was almost shot if not for Stephan’s jammed gun.
replaced “Conrad R.” with just “Conrad”
replaced “Bernd H.” with just “Bernd”
replaced “Wolfgang B.” with just “Wolfgang”
democ censored Mrs. Margit W.’s name on Day 1. I replaced the censor with just “Margit." She is the elderly woman who gets hit by the bomb Stephan drops at Kiez-Keber.
replaced “Jens Z.” and “Z.” with just “Jens” or “Mr. Jens”
replaced “Dagmar M.” and “M.” with just “Dagmar”
replaced “Christian W.” with just “Christian.” Christian W. is Daniel W.’s brother, who were both at the car repair shop where Stephan stole the taxi.
replaced “Daniel W.” with just “Daniel.”
replaced “Ms L.”, “Mrs. L.” and “Jana L.” with just “Jana” or “Ms. Jana,” as she was not married
replaced “Mr S.” and “Kevin S.” with just “Kevin”
replaced “Abdi I.” with just “Abdi”
replaced “Mandy R.” with just “Mandy.” This is the woman who is seen running away at 09:08, right after Balliet has shot Jana for the first time and realises that his gun is jammed. She is not to be confused with Kevin’s mother, who is also called Mandy (“Mandy S.”).
replaced google translated word for “Exchange” with “Replacement” when it’s clearly referring to Tarrant’s pdf title
replaced “Asleben” with “Eisleben” (Stephan’s birthplace)
sometimes there are gender pronouns which are clearly incorrect, which I edited, but I can’t guarantee that I got all of them right.
unsure what happens if I post uncensored racial slurs on this site, so I’ve put a “é” in “ Négroes.” The specific word used was an e without the ´ on top.
for better readability, I’ve broken up the long paragraphs into smaller ones.
I have not edited the inconsistent use of capitalisation on religious and racial groups by journalists
some journalists have put in their own [notes]. Therefore my personal notes are distinguished with “[fivefourteam note: xxx]”.
If you want to see all days at once, I’ll be publishing a link here after I’m done posting all days.
Main source for Day 1: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] from [https://archive.ph/VUpr0]
Democ’s publication claims to be last edited on August 13th 2020, however if you compare [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (Sept 26th 2023) to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] (6th March 2021) you will see that the wourd count has changed. Therefore their last “updated” date cannot be trusted, and it’s currently unknown to me if anything has been censored from their first publishing.
Quick overview of details by fivefourteam from Day 1:
Summary:
open to suggestions on what to put on this list
Stephan’s crimes and some charges are read out to court. A summary of the timeline of events are given
some details are given about both his childhood and adult life, including his own perception of his familial relationships, school, personal interests, (lack of) social contacts, income, and his illness
details about when he started arming himself (summer 2015). in 2016, he started building his weapons himself. “It took him three years with a break, says Balliet. He could only work if his father wasn't there and he had motivation.”
events on oct 9th, both before in the hours before, during, and after the livestream
Stephan talking about his mistakes and regrets of his failed attack, including some description of events with his victims (like the old couple)
talking about getting shot
Stephan demands his weapons back for his family to sell
democ’s own summary of Day 1:
Short report:
Right-wing extremist tirades in court
The main trial against the Halle assassin begins before the Naumburg Higher Regional Court. The indictment accuses him of, among other things, two counts of murder and 68 counts of attempted murder. The defendant admits to the crimes and expresses openly racist and anti-Semitic comments.
Almost two hours late, Ursula Mertens, presiding judge at the Naumburg Higher Regional Court, opened the main hearing against the alleged Halle attacker on Tuesday, July 21, 2020. Due to increased security precautions and capacity reasons, the proceedings will be heard in the Magdeburg Regional Court building.
Federal prosecutor Kai Lohse read out the indictment, which accuses Stephan Balliet of a total of 13 “legally independent acts”. Among other things, he is accused of having killed two people – the victims Jana and Kevin – “for base motives and insidiously.” In addition to 52 attempted murders of those present in the synagogue at the time of the crime and multiple physical abuse, he is accused of “denying an act committed under National Socialist rule in a manner that was likely to disturb public peace.” (Holocaust denial). In addition, there is, among other things, the attempt to kill a person using “means dangerous to the public […] in order to make another crime possible,” as well as attempted predatory blackmail.
According to the Federal Prosecutor's Office, the defendant approached the synagogue shortly before 12 p.m. on October 9, 2019, armed with eight weapons and numerous explosive devices, "in order to carry out an assassination attempt on the visitors to the synagogue" - with the intention of "killing as many people as possible to kill". According to Lohse, he acted out of an “anti-Semitic, racist and misanthropic attitude”.
Based on the attack in Christchurch, New Zealand, he planned the attack months in advance and built firearms and explosive devices himself. He filmed the crime with two cameras and published a link to a live stream as well as links to three self-written documents shortly before the synagogue. The Federal Prosecutor's Office referred to the instruction contained therein in English to kill all Jews (“Kill all Jews”). He wanted to encourage imitators to do the same things. At the beginning of the stream he denied the Holocaust and described Jews as rats* and the root of supposed problems.
[fivefourteam note: unless my livestream translation section is incorrect, he did not use this word once in the whole stream. He described them as rats in DoKumentation, in context of using bombs to “lure the rats out” in case the doors were locked.]
He assumed that because of the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur there would be a particularly large number of people in the synagogue whom he intended to kill.
After the charges were read out, the defendant began his statement. He blocked personal questions, such as those about his family history, or answered them taciturnly. To justify his monosyllables, he stated that such questions were aimed at preventing acts like his in the future, which was not in his interest.
Instead, he openly spread his right-wing extremist worldview in court - and in the presence of many survivors of the attack. He said that in 2015 he decided not to do anything for this society anymore because this society had done nothing for him and had replaced him “with Muslims and négroes”. The presiding judge then warned the defendant. She made it clear that she did not want to hear such inhumane statements in the courtroom and threatened the defendant with exclusion from the trial. It didn't take long before the defendant openly displayed his anti-Semitic worldview: "The Jews are the main perpetrators of the white genocide," claimed Ballliet, drawing on the conspiracy ideology of the "Great Replacement", which is also widespread in the New Right. He also stated that he deliberately chose the Jewish holiday Yom Kippur. According to the defendant's anti-Semitic imagination, on this day Jews would "pray so that they don't have to stick to contracts next year either."
The importance of the “gamification” of right-wing terror also became clear: Balliet stated that he shot the passerby Jana in order not to “embarrass” himself in front of his online audience. In his statement he also referred to the Christchurch attack, which inspired him. The defendant later said: “The broadcast [the livestream] was much more important than the act itself.”
Overall, the defendant was characterized by a high need for self-promotion. He proudly repeatedly provided information about the number, type and nature of the weapons, ammunition and explosives he had made himself and explained why they did not have the lethal effect he intended. He showed no remorse, but stated that he regretted having attacked what he saw as the “wrong people” – white people. He openly admitted his anti-Semitic and racist intention to kill the visitors to the synagogue and the kebab shop several times. He also spoke about not killing a black man with his car while escaping so as not to endanger himself.
In her questions, the presiding judge revealed a blatant lack of understanding of how anti-Semitic ideas work. So she said to the defendant that it was a shame that he didn't even visit the synagogue on the open day. Such a statement suggests that an anti-Semite would be irritated by “positive” experiences and would question his murderous ideology. In addition, the judge's comment seems highly cynical, in the context of the fact that the defendant previously stated that he would have committed the crime differently - and thus possibly with murderous "success" - if he had known about the structure of the synagogue.
THE HEARING (1/2):
Day 1, part 1 (WARNING: long!):
Main hearing against Stephan Balliet before the State Security Senate of the Naumburg Higher Regional Court
1st day of negotiations (July 21, 2020)
CN: The following protocol explicitly contains statements and expressions that glorify violence, are racist, anti-Semitic and inhumane.
We are recording the entire main trial against the suspected Halle assassin. We try to stay as close to the wording of the negotiation as possible; direct quotations are marked with quotation marks. Since it is not permitted to record the hearing, our minutes are based on our notes from the court. We deliberately shortened some passages. For example, content that could violate the personal rights of those involved in the process or third parties will not be published. In addition, we are deleting those passages from the publicly accessible version of the minutes that contain details of the crime and the planning of the crime and whose publication could pose a danger, for example from imitators. The corresponding sections are marked with “[XXX]”. In justified exceptional cases, scientists or journalists can request the deleted passages from us.
Last names may be abbreviated. In places where our protocol was not precise enough for us, for example because speeches were presented incomprehensibly, we indicated omissions in the usual way “[…]”.
-
Start of negotiations
The defendant Stephan Balliet is led into the hall with ankle and handcuffs. The handcuffs are removed from him. The presiding judge Ursula Mertens opens the main hearing in the criminal case against Stephan Balliet before the State Security Senate of the OLG Naumburg. She notes the presence of interpreters into Russian, Turkish, Polish and English and explains the special conditions of the procedure: With regard to the corona pandemic, she assumes that everyone present has no symptoms of illness.
She herself has never conducted a procedure with so many people involved. The break regulations and regulations for the use of microphones are explained. A maximum of three microphones can be used simultaneously by those involved in the process.
Mertens then notes the presence of the representatives of the Federal Public Prosecutor's Office: This is represented by Federal Prosecutor Kai Lohse and Senior Public Prosecutor Schmidt. The defendant Stephan Balliet is represented by attorney Hans-Dieter Weber and attorney Rutkowski.
Mertens reads out the names of the representatives of the co-plaintiffs and experts present. The subject of the main hearing is the GBA's indictment dated April 3, 2020, which was admitted by decision of June 11, 2020. The chairperson states that there were no prior agreements between those involved in the proceedings and informs the defendant Balliet about his rights, in particular his right to refuse to testify.
The defendant's personal details are then established:
Stephan Balliet, born on [x].[x].1992* in Eisleben, German citizen, most recently living in Benndorf.
*[fivefourteam note: he is definitely born in January 1992, but media sources vary if he was born on the 10th or 11th. I will update when I have better confirmation eventually]
Balliet's previous prison time is also determined:
The defendant was provisionally arrested on October 9, 2019 and has been in custody continuously since October 10, 2019.
Balliet states that he would like to comment on the matter.
Reading of the indictment
Federal prosecutor Kai Lohse reads out the indictment. According to the indictment, Balliet committed a criminal offense on October 9, 2019 in Halle an der Saale through 13 “legally independent acts”. These are listed individually. […]
Stephan Balliet is accused of having murdered two people “for base motives and insidiously” and in nine cases of attempting to kill people to the detriment of 68 people, including insidiously, for base motives and to make another crime possible. In addition to multiple physical abuse and predatory blackmail, he is accused of “denying an act committed under National Socialist rule in a manner that was likely to disturb public peace.” In addition, there is, among other things, attempted predatory blackmail. He also drove too fast intentionally and in a gross traffic violation and negligently endangered the life and limb of another person.
Federal Prosecutor Lohse describes the events from the perspective of the Federal Prosecutor's Office:
First and second crime: The defendant Balliet drove to the synagogue of the Jewish Community of Halle (Saale) on October 9, 2019, shortly before 12 p.m., armed with eight weapons and explosive devices, in order to carry out an assassination attempt on the visitors to the synagogue and, if possible killing large numbers of people.
He acted out of anti-Semitic, racist and misanthropic sentiments. Balliet felt pushed out of social life and planned the crime months before. He built the firearms and explosive devices himself. He committed his crime in imitation of the right-wing extremist Christchurch attacker Brenton Tarrant. He would have wanted to take a stand against the repression of Germans. He filmed his crime with a camera on his protective vest. The camera was connected to a smartphone in order to broadcast the recording of the crime via live stream. Immediately before arriving at the synagogue, he published a link with three self-written documents containing information about the crime, the weapons and his motivation. In one of the English-language documents he called for all Jews to be killed with the words “Kill all Jews” .
He broadcast his crime via live stream on the “Twitch” platform. He wanted to encourage imitators to do similar things. In his introductory comment on the stream he “denied” the Holocaust by saying “I think the Holocaust never happened” . He described Jews as the root of supposed problems and as rats*.
[fivefourteam note: once again, he never once called them rats on stream. Only in in the pdf document.]
Following this comment, he turned to the crime. He assumed that there would be a particularly large number of people in the synagogue due to the Yom Kippur holiday, which was celebrated that day, and wanted to kill as many of the visitors as possible.
52 people were in the synagogue at the time of the crime.
At around 12 p.m. Balliet walked towards the front door with a shotgun, an explosive grenade and […]. He had the idea that he could now start killing. His plan failed because the door was locked. He put down the shotgun and threw the grenade. He acted with the intention that people who were in the open space (in the yard) would be fatally hit or that he could shoot people who were escaping.
He then went on to the gate of the synagogue. He placed another explosive device in the crack in the door and detonated it.
A little later he tried to push the gate open again - this attempt also failed. He ran along the wall. A short time later the third attempt followed - he shot at the door with the shotgun.
At first his weapon jammed, then he fired three shots.
The door wouldn't open. He kicked the door three times without success. Stephan Balliet then went back to his car and got three Molotov cocktails and […]. He acted in the idea that he could hurt or kill people. He then tried to set the synagogue on fire.
Ultimately, he viewed his project as a failure due to the resources available to him. He left the crime scene in a rental vehicle at around 12:07 p.m.
Third crime: Shortly before the door was blown up*, Jana passed the defendant without realizing that Balliet was armed.
[fivefourteam note: an explosive noise from a homemade bomb placed in the door is what triggered the comment from Jana, so “blown up” may be a mistranslation, possibly referring to the door being shot by Stephan’s shotgun. However, it may just be a correct translation of a wrong order of events.]
Out of anger at not being able to enter the synagogue, he fired four shots from the submachine gun with the intent to kill. He considered Jana to be inferior because of her appearance and “denied her worthiness of life.” He fired another 11 shots at Jana's body when she was already on the ground. He accidentally shot a tire. He called Jana a “pig”. Jana died on the spot from the gunshot wounds.
Fourth crime: Immediately after Jana was shot, Balliet returned to the synagogue. He noticed Mandy there. He cocked his submachine gun and realized that the weapon had jammed. Mandy moved away from the field of fire. Balliet was aware of the risk to him if he pursued Mandy.
Fifth act: Shortly after meeting Mandy, Balliet tried to get to the synagogue grounds via neighboring property. Meanwhile, Stanislaw, noticed Jana's body without having noticed what was happening beforehand. He stopped to provide help. The defendant pointed his submachine gun at him to kill him. No shot was fired due to loading jams. After he tried it a second time, he stopped trying to kill with a submachine gun. Balliet then grabbed the shotgun to shoot Stanislaw with it. Stanislaw used the time to escape. A fatal shot was no longer possible, which Balliet was aware of.
Sixth offense: The defendant then drove away from the synagogue in a car and approached the “Kiez-Keber” at 12:09 p.m. Due to the “frustration of not having killed a large number of people,” he spontaneously decided to attack another population group that he blamed for his misery. He suspected that he would find them there because of the name of the restaurant. […]
Balliet threw a grenade at the restaurant and took cover in the courtyard entrance. He missed the front door. A nail hit Margit, which caused her to suffer a hematoma.* [fivefourteam note: referring to the elderly woman who was walking past the kiez-keber; a nail hit her foot, as we find out later in the trial. I edited in the name and correct pronoun.]
Balliet then entered the store, met Kevin and fired two shots because he mistook him for a Muslim. He missed Kevin for the time being. He then fled and Balliet followed him. Conrad fled into the toilet room.
Balliet noticed Bernd and pointed the submachine gun. He tried twice to shoot with intent to kill, but failed due to jamming. Bernd used the time delay to escape. The third shot attempt also failed due to jamming.
Balliet assumed that he could not kill Bernd.
At the same time he found Kevin huddled together. He again aimed and tried to shoot. Once again, no shot was fired due to jamming.
He fired again, but the shot failed again.
Another shot at Wolfgang also failed. Wolfgang fled. Balliet realized that the persecution was pointless. Balliet invested in Kevin again. Two more attempts failed. The defendant now aimed with a single-shot pistol. A shot hit Kevin.
Balliet left the snack bar and went to the rental car. He then returned and shot the living Kevin with a shotgun. He walked away, turned around again and fired two more shots. He then left the restaurant at 12:15 p.m. Kevin died from multiple gunshot wounds, including shots to the heart and lungs.
Seventh crime: On Schillerstrasse, Balliet aimed a shotgun at a Tunisian national. Balliet had the intention to kill him because of his recognizable ancestry. However, he was able to escape. Balliet fired a shot and missed. Balliet realized that there was no longer any chance of catching up with him.
Eighth offense: The defendant drove the rental vehicle up and down for a few meters and then stopped. He got out with the shotgun. He saw Abdul […] and an unknown person and thought they were Muslims based on their external appearance. Balliet followed them a few meters and shot at them. He wanted to kill him “because of his origins”. The attacked sought cover and another shot missed them. Balliet realized that he could not catch up with the injured party's advantage.
Ninth crime: Balliet drove a few meters on Ludwig-Wucherer-Straße and came across a police radio patrol. […] The police officers had already known about the use of firearms over the radio. Balliet saw himself hindered in his plan to kill people. He got out of his car and positioned himself behind his driver's door with the shotgun. He then went behind the rear of the vehicle and fired three more shots. […] Balliet tried to ignite a smoke grenade, but was hit by a police officer with a shot from a submachine gun. He fell to the ground and was dazed for a few seconds. […]
Balliet realized that he was inferior to the police and drove on in his car.
Tenth crime: Balliet tried to drive as fast as possible to avoid being pursued by the police. He collided with a taxi and moved into the opposite lane at high speed. Balliet hit Abdi with his side mirror while driving. Balliet then continued his journey.
Eleventh and twelfth offense: The defendant parked his car in Landsberg shortly before 1 p.m. in order to continue his escape with another vehicle. He took the self-made single-shot pistol and submachine gun with him. In the courtyard entrance, [XXX, address, note democ.], he demanded that Jens hand over the keys to his car. He stated that he had no keys. Balliet shot Jens out of anger because he said he didn't have any keys. He accepted his death with approval and acted condescendingly because he viewed him as “belonging to the lower class”. The defendant then shot at Dagmar's legs. The shot hit the left buttock area and Dagmar suffered an abrasion as a result of the fall. […]
Balliet also acted towards Dagmar “out of a contemptuous attitude” and with his act he also tried to get a car into his possession. Both continued to refuse keys. Balliet thought it was possible that both were so injured that they would die.
Thirteenth crime: At around 1 p.m. Balliet went to the car repair shop, [XXX, address, note democ.], to get a car. There he demanded that Christian hand over a taxi vehicle. He threatened his brother Daniel W. with a gun, whereupon he gave him the ignition keys to a taxi. Balliet then threw two 50 euro notes on the floor. […]
Balliet was arrested on federal highway 91 after a collision with a truck. Federal Prosecutor Lohse summarizes the facts. Balliet is charged with murder, attempted murder, attempted predatory extortion resulting in death, particularly serious predatory extortion, sedition, and grievous bodily harm. […]
According to Lohse, the injured Abdi filed a criminal complaint.
There is a particular public interest in prosecuting the crimes.
The placement of Balliet in preventive detention is being considered.
Statement by Stephan Balliet
First, the presiding judge Mertens instructs the defendant Balliet about his right to refuse to testify. When asked whether he wanted to testify, Balliet answered “Yes”. Judge Mertens explains that it will first be about his CV, the history of the crimes and then the general nature of the crime. Details would be discussed after viewing the video. If necessary, this will be repeated. Those involved in the proceedings have the right to ask questions.
[BILD: “An hour-long exchange of blows begins. When judge Ursula Mertens (57) asks what his childhood was like (no friends, no girlfriend, his biggest hobby was the computer), the defendant answers in a clipped voice: “It's unimportant. I don’t want to talk about my private matters, that has nothing to do with the crime.” Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | https://archive.is/fLkTJ )
When Mertens asked what his childhood was like, Balliet replied that it was unimportant. The chairwoman replies that she wouldn't ask if she didn't know that his parents were divorced and asks about Balliet's age at the time of the divorce.
Balliet replied he was around 14 or 15 years old.
The chairwoman asked whether he found the separation stressful. Balliet answers “No”, they have a good relationship.
When asked to tell more about it, Balliet states that the crime had no connection to the family. The chairwoman explains that one naturally wonders how people develop.
Balliet answers: “Of course you ask yourself how you can prevent these actions. I have no interest in that.”
Chairwoman Mertens asks about Balliet's sister. He replies that she is three years older and that he has a good relationship with his sister and parents. The questions as to whether he had received visits from other people and whether he had permission to telephone were both answered with “no”. Balliet answered that he found his school career to be unremarkable with “Yes, unremarkable”.
When asked whether he started school at the age of six, Balliet replied that it had to be that way. Balliet answered in the affirmative whether he had attended primary school up to the sixth grade.
When asked how many years of school he received a high school diploma, he says “at the age of 12.” When asked, the chairperson, for example, stated that he had never repeated a class, that he had a preference for biology and a weakness in English.
When asked whether he had any good friends, Balliet answered in the negative. When asked about his interests, he said “Internet”. He got access to it sometime as a teenager.
The chairwoman asked whether it was his “main hobby”. He says: “Among many others, yes.” Balliet explains that he doesn't want to talk about private matters. The chairwoman asked whether he was fascinated by the Internet. He replies, “in a way, yes.” When asked what was particularly fascinating about it, Balliet says: “the opportunity to converse freely.”
The chairwoman asked whether this option also existed elsewhere. Balliet answers: “Not in Germany!”.
As to whether he had contact with other people, he answered “Yes, rarely”. […] He confirms that his sister sometimes took him with her. The judge asks how he felt about this. Very nice, replies Balliet.
The chairwoman wants to know whether anything has developed from this. Balliet replies that you just have a few acquaintances. When asked whether it had been like this until the end or if it had ended, Balliet stated that it had gradually decreased.
The chairwoman asked Balliet if he knew what the cause was. He replies that they were different things and that it is unimportant. His sister still made an effort, asks chairwoman Mertens, which Balliet confirms: “Absolutely.”
Did he see his sister? Yes. Balliet does not want to respond to questions about his sister's child. Balliet confirms whether the sister runs her own household.
The chairwoman asks about Balliet's military service. He states that he completed a shortened military service of six months in the Panzergrenadier Unit 4012 in Hagenow, Lower Saxony. If possible, he went home. Military service was strenuous because it was unsportsmanlike. The Bundeswehr is “not a real army”, but just “citizens in uniform”.
The chairwoman asked whether he had ever considered refusing. “Never!” replies Balliet.
When asked about friendly contacts, Balliet stated that he only had one circle of acquaintances and that there were only a few in it. The chairwoman asked what his plans were after military service.
Balliet answers that he wanted to start studying “Molecular and Structural Product Design”. He rented a one-room apartment in Magdeburg. The chairwoman asked when he moved there. The defendant replies that she has the data. He lived in one of the poorest areas and had to tape off the ventilation in the apartment because insects would come out “because the tenants” above him were “dirty pigs”. This was a former prefabricated building that has since been demolished. He didn't feel very comfortable there.
When asked whether he had a driving license, he answered “yes”, but he did not have a car. According to Balliet, his studies went well. There were subjects that he enjoyed, but also some that he was really bad at.
The chairwoman asked whether studying was the right choice. He answers “No”. He then switched to chemistry in the second semester because that suited him more. When asked by the chair, he said that would have been better.
[MDR: The defendant explains his path to his own isolation. After an operation, he had health problems that accelerated his isolation. His statements also make it clear: The isolation was largely self-imposed. What is particularly noticeable is that he often only gives very brief answers to questions about his social life. | Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | Archive: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The chairwoman asks whether the illness came then and asks for a description. He says he doesn't want to describe the illness, she has the files. […] He hasn't been able to move properly for over a year, says Balliet, and he still has problems today. The chairwoman asks when things went well or better. Balliet answers that that was 3 to 4 years later. The chairwoman asked whether he had lived with his mother again during that time. He says, yes, he did, for money reasons. The Chairperson asked what his plans were at that point. He laughs and says he didn't have any more. She asks him if he “lived the day” like that. He says, yes, you could say that.
He didn't do any rehabilitation sports. The chairwoman wants to know whether he has had any therapy. “No,” says Balliet. A spa stay? He thinks he rejected that. "Why?", the chair wants to know. This is for old people, explains Balliet. The chairwoman contradicts this and points out that it is also suitable for young men who are sick. At least that was the reason, replies Balliet. He didn't feel like it.
The chairwoman says that she imagines that there is suffering. Balliet agrees and replies that it isn't nice.
The chairwoman explains that she is trying to understand why he hasn't taken some action. Balliet replies that none of that is important. The chairwoman says she doesn't know if it's unimportant. Balliet says he knows it and doesn't want to answer.
The chairwoman wants to know whether he was mostly at home and on the internet. “Yes,” and he played sports. At first I just walked, then did push-ups, sit-ups and running. The chairwoman asks whether he has been to the gym, which Balliet says no. The chairwoman asked when he started feeling “really good” again. The defendant laughs and says he can't give an answer. Balliet says: “After 2015, I decided to do nothing more for a society that no longer does anything for me and replaces me with Muslims and Négroes.”
[BILD: “Judge Ursula Mertens reacted resolutely to the racist attacks: “I won't be one here in the courtroom To tolerate insults from people and have the option to exclude you from the process. I will not tolerate you committing crimes and insulting people in the hall!” [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The chairwoman instructs the defendant that she does not want any insults and that she can exclude him because of such behavior. She will not tolerate him committing crimes in the courtroom. Balliet answers that this word used to be a normal name. The chairwoman says it's not about what happened before, it's about what is offensive: “I don’t want to hear these inhumane statements from you here.” […] The chairwoman tells him that he has decided not to do anything for society. He also decided not to do anything for himself.
The defendant replies that he tried to improve himself. The chairwoman noted that an outside third party who was told that they still lived in the children's room would think that they did not place much value on quality of life. Balliet laughs and says: “No answer”.
When asked about his income, the defendant stated that his parents supported him. He never received social assistance and never inherited - only received small presents for his birthday. The chairwoman talks about his internet activity and asks Balliet whether he had people he chatted with and whether they were (not) with their real names. Balliet laughs. Of course he communicated with people, but he didn't know these people. The chairwoman asks whether he has ever exchanged telephone numbers, which he says no. She continues to ask if anyone has tried to get in touch. Balliet laughs again and says that it didn't happen like that.
The chairwoman asked whether, apart from his family, his acquaintances outside the network were virtually nil, which he answered in the affirmative. When asked whether there was anyone else besides the small family, he said yes, there were others, but he didn't want to talk about it and rarely had contact. He went to family celebrations.
The chairwoman asked whether there had been a dispute with the parents. The defendant laughs and says: “Of course.” […]
Balliet says his parents were very worried. The chairwoman asked whether they had articulated that, to which Balliet replied in the affirmative. […] The chairwoman asks what his parents' profession is, Balliet answers that his mother is a teacher and his father works as a service provider for radio/television. […] The mother teaches at primary school, says Balliet. When asked which subjects she would teach, Balliet answers: Ethics.
The chairwoman asked whether he had ethics and, if so, for how long. Balliet replies that he doesn't know that off the top of his head, but it must have been from the 7th grade onwards. The chairwoman returned to the fact that his parents were worried and supported him. She asks what amounts. Balliet states that they paid for his living expenses and his health insurance.
When asked what he needed during the month, he replied: “I have no idea.” He used as little as possible. When asked by the chairman whether he was modest, he replied in the affirmative.
The chairwoman asked whether the Internet had not also caused costs. […] He uses technical devices for a very long time until they break, says Balliet. The chairwoman asks where he got his basic technical understanding from and whether he got it from his father. Balliet says yes, but says that he learned most of it himself.
The chair asks how his life was and whether it was the same from year to year or there was some kind of cut. Balliet states that there was the refugee crisis in 2015. The chairwoman asks what the problem was.
Millions of Arabs streamed into Germany and were allowed in, says Balliet.
The chairwoman asked how many refugees were in his home village. Suddenly they were there, says the defendant. The chairwoman wants to know whether this has affected him. Balliet hesitantly answers: “I think, yes.” […] The chairwoman had “perhaps never been fooled by a Muslim,” says the defendant – he has. The chairwoman asks whether he has never been hit on* before. Not to that extent, says Balliet.
*[fivefourteam note: the exact German sentences here are “Ob er zuvor denn noch nie angemacht worden sei, fragt die Vorsitzende. Nicht in dem Umfang, sagt B.” I can only assume that this is referring to being bullied specifically by muslims – not being flirted with by muslims as the google translation implies.]
The chair asks what it was like at school. The defendant replies that he was not a popular student. The chairwoman asked whether there had been any teasing, to which Balliet replied: “A few”. The chairwoman wants to know what the motivation was. The defendant replies that he thinks the reason was his “low social status”. Why he assumes this social position asks the chairwoman and refers to the parents' professions. Balliet laughs and refers to group dynamics.
The chairwoman asked whether he was unpopular. “Right,” replies Balliet. He should explain why he was unpopular. Balliet laughs. […]
The chairwoman asked whether he had told anyone that he felt unwell. No, he didn't, says the defendant. The chairwoman wants to know whether he is someone who doesn't talk about his problems. Balliet answers: “Probably no”. He has no interest in it.
The chairwoman refers back to 2015. She does not understand how people who come from other countries would have affected the defendant in his place of residence at the time. Balliet laughs. […] How many refugees were added then, asks the chairwoman. The defendant asks irritably how he should know that.
The chairwoman asked whether there was a refugee home in his area, to which Balliet replied in the negative. The refugees were accommodated decentrally; in “communist houses,” he adds. The defendant says they are “conquerors from the Muslim culture”.
The chairwoman wants to know whether he was made to feel stupid.
He was “pushed to the side by three Négroes” on the train three days before the crime, says Balliet angrily. Of three “dark-skinned people?” asks the chairwoman. “Yes,” says Balliet.
What happens is that you get hit on, says the chairwoman.*
*[fivefourteam note: the original sentence in German here is “Das passiere, dass man angemacht wird, sagt die Vorsitzende.” On its own, “angemacht” translates to “turned on.” After some searching, this appears to be referring to him getting turned on in reference to his anger, not sexual arousal (or getting flirted with as the translation in its full sentence implies). This is the only explanation that makes sense regarding Stephan’s comments.]
They would behave “like the conquerors that they are,” says Balliet. […]
The chairwoman says that the defendant doesn't have that much experience with many people and asks whether a lot would scare him. Balliet replies that he is angry. People have “defended their country” for centuries. Now “the enemies are being allowed into the country without resistance.” The chairwoman interrupts the defendant and asks where his name comes from. From Alsace-Lorraine, answers Balliet. The name has a “Huguenot background,” suspects the chairwoman. He is French. It would mean “red hair,” which is a “racist term,” says Balliet.
[BILD: "Your last name has a Huguenot background. The Huguenots were settled in Germany because they were persecuted in France. Many people have a refugee fate. If you do some research, a refugee fate like that could come up!” And then she makes it clear: “There are many problems in your area. But very few of them can be traced back to refugees.” Balliet answers angrily: “Such audacity!” | Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ]
If you were to research the defendant, you could probably find an escape story, says the chairwoman. […] The chairwoman interrupts the defendant and says that the defendant can read this in peace. […] The chairwoman had previously forbidden him from saying the word “Négro,” says Balliet. […] The chairwoman noted that she should unload the defendant’s parents and his sister because they did not want to make a statement. She asks the defendant whether they would be burdened by his crime.
Yes, they are very burdened by his actions, says Balliet. The defendant says he is “a person at the bottom of society.” When “strangers come, [he] slips out.” The chairwoman replied that he had already “slipped out” due to his illness. He had no plans and no goals. That had nothing to do with refugees, she says.
“Yes, very much,” says the defendant. […] The defendant says “Muslims and Arabs” were “pushed into all the villages”. The chairwoman said she understood that the defendant had a problem with them. […]
He first started arming himself in 2015 – “for reasons of self-protection,” says the defendant. In “summer 2015,” he adds.
[…] He bought a rifle on the Internet, says Balliet. The chairwoman asks whether he had it with him when he committed the crime. “Yes, but not used,” replies the defendant.
[MDR: Stephan Balliet reported that he started buying weapons in 2015. In 2016 he started building weapons himself. He found out about weapon construction on the Internet. He did not join a group. | Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | Archive: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Certain things are “subject to confiscation,” says the chairwoman. He wouldn't give up anything voluntarily, says Balliet. These are now guaranteed, says the chairwoman. The presiding judge asks what the defendant imagines should happen to things. He would give them to his family so that they could sell them, “as a little compensation,” says Balliet.
[BILD: Balliet did not make it into the synagogue, the actual main target of the attack. He himself filmed live how he failed at the wooden door. “The camera was rolling the whole time. The transference is more important than the act itself.” Then he continues his madness. Balliet declares that he wants his assassination weapons back! “I do not voluntarily give up anything, neither my weapons nor other items.” Why? “Because they’re mine!”
What should happen to the weapons? “If I got them back, I would give them to my family. So they can sell them as a little recompense.” | Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ]
[XXX, It's about procuring weapons on the Internet, Democ's note].
The defendant says he had to save a lot and sell a lot. The defendant says he gradually sold everything he didn't need.
The chairwoman asks what he sold. “All sorts of things,” including toys and electronics, answers Balliet. […]
[TAGESSPIEGEL: “Balliet sells collected toy figures for 4,000 euros* on eBay.”| Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ]
*[fivefourteam note: losing my mind here. 4,000 EUR is worth 4,300~ USD today. I can understand if the “toy figures” (which I’m assuming are weeb/nerdy figurines) made up a majority of profit, as it’s an expensive hobby, but the number is absurdly high, especially from someone who was so frugal otherwise. If anyone has more details on what exactly he was selling, as well as what else he sold/what electronics he’s referring to, please let me know.]
Last edited by fivefourteam on Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:16 pm; edited 3 times in total
ANOMIC, NEXT STEP UP, proshooter, war criminal and ravenwood like this post
fivefourteam
Posts : 61 Contribution Points : 5910 Forum Reputation : 279 Join date : 2023-10-21 Age : 28
Subject: Re: The Stephan Balliet Masterpost Thread Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:02 pm
1st Day Of The Trial (Part 2/2)
THE HEARING:
Day 1, part 2 (WARNING: long!):
The chairwoman asked whether the defendant's mother had cleaned his room. The defendant says that his room was always locked. The mother didn't have a key. The chairwoman asked whether there were other rooms that the defendant used alone and to which only he had access. Balliet answers his former childhood bedroom in his father's house. He used it to “originally” store furniture.
The chairwoman asks whether he was the only one who had a key. The defendant denies it. It was empty, but his father wouldn't go in there. He doesn’t want anything there, says Balliet. […] “A few things of mine” were still in the basement and the tools he used were left in his father’s shed. The chairwoman asked whether this could be used to make a connection to the production of weapons, which Balliet. replied in the negative.
The chairwoman asks where the 3D printer was. He was standing with his father in what was once his childhood room. The chairwoman asked whether the father had asked Balliet why he needed these devices. The defendant's father saw it as a toy, says Balliet. The chairwoman asks whether the father never got around to it, which the defendant denies. […] The chairwoman addresses the weapons.
[XXX, the defendant describes which weapons he owned, note democ.]
The chairman asks what he was thinking when he bought the weapon. The defendant answers: “as a self-defense weapon.” “Against?” asks the chairwoman, to which the defendant replies “Muslims and blacks”.
[XXX, it's about the construction and procurement of weapons, note democ.]
The chairwoman asked when he realized he couldn't buy weapons.
It was “autumn to winter 2015,” i.e. “after the big refugee crisis, after the footage in the Tagesschau,” answers Balliet. […] He found plans on the Internet on how he could build a weapon, says the defendant. He then wanted to try this out. […]
The defendant says his father has a lot of tools that he can use when his father is not there. Balliet says he didn't have to buy much himself, which was practical. The defendant says his grandfather died and he took all the tools that worked. […] He took his first plans from the internet, says Balliet. Then he started designing himself. The chairwoman asked whether he had discussed this with others and on which platform. He “talked to people about it anonymously,” replies Balliet.
So there are like-minded people, asks the chairwoman, to which Balliet says yes. “Of course it would not be said that you are building an illegal weapon,” says the defendant.
The Chairperson asked whether this was the “Darknet”. “Even on the Darknet,” but there is “little traffic there,” says Balliet. He started building weapons in 2016, the chair asks, to which Balliet answers in the affirmative. Eight weapons were seized, says the chairwoman. The defendant answers in the affirmative. The chairman asks how long he built the weapons. It took him three years with a break, says Balliet. He could only work if his father wasn't there and he had motivation.
[XXX, information on weapons, equipment and ammunition, democ. Note]
The chairman asked whether he had bought these items on the Internet, to which the defendant replied in the affirmative. The chairwoman asked whether he had left his place of residence. “Yes,” but he had to borrow his mother’s car or take the bus or train, says Balliet. He had little money and rarely drove.
[XXX, information on sources of supply for weapons, note democ.]
The chairwoman asked whether he had done anything else. Balliet says he ran through the forest. He didn't do anything else. […]
Would you describe yourself as a lonely person, asked the chairwoman. Balliet answers in the affirmative and says, “he thinks so.” The chairwoman asked how he was doing. After a short pause, Balliet replies: “suboptimal”. The chairwoman asked whether he had wished for a more social environment, to which Balliet replied in the affirmative.
The chairwoman asks whether he didn't see any possibility. That is correct, replies Balliet. The chairwoman says he could have joined a group.
“No,” says Balliet energetically, they are “all people from the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution.” He says he is not afraid that groups have been infiltrated by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution. Almost every group that advocates “that Europe remains white” has been “infiltrated by the Office for the Protection of the Constitution”. […]
The chairwoman asked when he decided to carry out his act. After the attack in Christchurch in New Zealand, Balliet says. The chair asks what he found exciting about it. Balliet says that a “white man” fought back, even though he knew he “couldn’t win”. The man took matters into his own hands. The man didn't care what others said about him. You can also ask yourself what “the white man” is doing in New Zealand, says the chairwoman.
Balliet says that the most powerful and strongest group populates the region. The most important thing is to equip yourself and fight.
[XXX, information on the weapons, note democ.]
The chairwoman said the defendant had been talking about Muslims the whole time. Why did he choose the synagogue, she asks. Balliet sighs, takes a breath and says that the Jews are the “main causes of the white genocide”. They would want to “establish a new world order.”
The chairwoman interrupts the defendant: “Mr. Balliet.” Balliet continues: “[incomprehensible] in a cosmopolitan city [incomprehensible] protocols [incomprehensible].” The chairwoman interrupts and says: “I’ll stop that now.”
She asks when the defendant came up with the idea of directing his aggression “not only against Muslims, but also against Jews.” Balliet says that the Jews are the organizers and were so in 2015. The chairwoman asked whether it was already an issue back then. It came gradually, says Balliet. At that time, only the image of the Muslims conquering the country was present. […] The chairwoman asks what it is like with Christians. Balliet says that “this Semitic worldview, this religion,” based on the idea that all people are equal under God, is “one of the main reasons” why “the Muslims and the blacks” could settle.
The chairwoman asked whether he meant that their or our Christian world order was the “cause of all evil”. Balliet says this is not his worldview, but hers, which the chairwoman affirms. He says it is “not the cause of all evil,” but that it would lead to “multicultural development.”
The chairperson refers to the Huguenots and the possible refugee background of the defendant's great-grandparents. Balliet laughs. […] He doesn’t have a problem with religion, he has a problem with “Semitism,” says Balliet. […] The defendant says that Judaism is both “a faith and a lineage.” The chairwoman asked why he chose a synagogue and not a mosque. Balliet says that the question is whether you want to “fight the symptom or the cause”.
The chairwoman asked when the decision was made to attack the synagogue. April to May last year [2019], says Balliet. The chairwoman asks whether he had spoken to anyone about it. “No, of course not,” says the defendant. The chairwoman asked if he had chatted with anyone on the internet about this. He never announced it, says Balliet. [XXX, evaluates own approach, note democ.] It was Yom Kippur, the highest Jewish holiday. This is the day “when the Jews pray for the next year that they don’t have to stick to contracts,” says the defendant. [XXX, details of the crime planning, note democ.]
[MDR: According to Stephan Balliet, he had already visited the Halle synagogue in the summer before the attack. He walked past the building like a normal passer-by. He drove to Halle twice in his mother's car. | Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | Archive: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The defendant says that he already had the weapons and equipment because he had previously had the idea of attacking a mosque.
[XXX, Balliet prepares and selects his attack target, note democ.]
He changed his clothes in his father's house, says Balliet. His father was not there. The defendant said he thought he left at 11 a.m. and arrived in Halle shortly before 12 p.m. He “stupidly” drove through the city center. […] The defendant says he was focused on the doors and hoped there would be a break at 12 p.m. [XXX, Balliet explains his thoughts on the crime, note democ.]
The chairwoman asked whether he thought he would be seen. It wouldn't have mattered to him, says Balliet. He got out in “full gear”. […]
[XXX, details of the execution of the crime, note democ.]
The chairwoman asked whether he could have done this with a second person as assistant. Balliet laughs and says he “doesn’t know anyone well enough to carry out a terrorist attack with.” […] The chairwoman says that you can see on the video that the defendant doesn't come into the synagogue and you can see that he is frustrated. Balliet says yes and says the “stress level” has started. He filmed it and then he failed. […]
The chairwoman asked why he streamed the act live. Because the transmission, the recording, is more important than the act itself, says Balliet. […]
It's about showing others that they are not alone, said the defendant. You have to show that there are other people who are willing to fight. […]
The chairwoman asked when he noticed Ms. Jana.
[BILD: He speaks about the murder of passer-by Jana (40) almost squeaking with pleasure: “I pointed it and pulled the trigger.” About the murder of Kevin (20) in the kebab shop: “I spontaneously decided to throw away the submachine gun and to take the pistol. I saw that he had black curly hair, that was enough, the pistol was pulled and the trigger was fired.” | Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] ]
He only knows that someone “spoke” to him from the side, “screamed” at him, says Balliet. The chairwoman asked whether he could remember the words. Balliet says he can't remember exactly. I heard something like, “when I walk past here”. The chairwoman asked what he had identified the voice as and whether it was Hallish, High German or a dialect. Balliet laughs and says he didn't notice that at that moment. He put the gun on and pulled the trigger. […]
The chairwoman said that in the video you would see that the woman had already turned her back to him. Balliet laughs. […] It wasn't his fault that she insulted him and then turned away. “Well, shouted at me,” says Balliet. The chairwoman says that this is understandable for a bystander who hears the noise. The defendant says no and says that he usually doesn't snap at people who aren't involved. […] The woman moved on, says the chairwoman. She asked herself why the defendant shot Ms. Jana. Balliet says briefly: “Short-circuit reaction”. That is a big problem. The defendant says: “If I hadn’t done it, everyone would have laughed at me.” The chairwoman asked who would laugh at him. Anything that would be enough to stop a right-winger is a stupid comment, says Balliet. The chairwoman asked whether the defendant would describe himself as a right-winger. He wouldn't necessarily do this, but others would see it that way, says Balliet. […]
The chairwoman accuses Balliet of not knowing what Ms. Jana was like. She may have had a similar attitude. Balliet says it was a short-circuit reaction. […]
The chairwoman asked why he shot Ms. Jana again. “To be on the safe side,” says Balliet. You have to go through with it, says the defendant.
The chairwoman asks whether the defendant wanted to kill Ms. Jana. She was lying right in front of his car door, says Balliet. The defendant says that the woman could have “grabbed” him or disarmed him when he got in. The chairwoman asked whether Ms. Jana looked as if she could have “grabbed” the defendant.
Balliet stammers: There was a “white warrior” who attacked a synagogue in Norway and was disarmed by a 70-year-old.* […] *[fivefourteam note: anyone know which case this is referring to?]
If she hadn't said anything, he wouldn't have cared. Balliet says that if you start something, you have to finish it.
The chairwoman asked whether he had checked Ms. Jana's vital signs, to which Balliet replied in the negative.
“Put another magazine in,” then it’s safe, says the defendant. The chairwoman asks whether the defendant can remember insulting the woman, to which Balliet says yes and says he called her a “pig”. […] It was the first thing that came to his mind and happened “subconsciously”. There was no plan to shoot her, says Balliet.
The chairman asks whether the defendant has no pity. He is very sorry that he shot her, says Balliet and pauses. It wasn't planned or wanted.
Ms. Jana’s mother could have appeared as a co-plaintiff, says the chairwoman. However, she separated from her lawyer. She assumes that she is “incredibly bad”.
The defendant should think about how his mother would feel if he had been shot like that. It would have been “incredibly bad” for his mother, says Balliet. The chairwoman agrees. Ms. Jana's mother feels the same way. Her daughter went there and just said something. The chairwoman would have said something in this situation, she says. Then she would lie there too.
That's called compassion or empathy, says the chairwoman. Whether the defendant sees it that way in retrospect. Balliet says he would regret that. He “shot a lot of white people.” He didn't want that. It is not known what background Ms. Jana has.
Balliet and the chair speak at once. History is being actively rewritten, says Balliet. He was not given a modern history book in prison. The defendant says he has studied a lot of history. […] [XXX, after a corresponding question from the chairwoman, Balliet explains his attempt to break into the synagogue, note democ.]
Balliet says there was a person in front of the synagogue. He hoped that this person was from the synagogue. He tried to shoot him twice. However, there were loading jams, says the defendant. The person then drove away.
The chairman asks why he shot the person. He suspected that he was “a Jew from the synagogue,” says Balliet. The chairwoman asks whether he wanted to kill the man. The defendant answers briefly: “Yes.” […]
The chairwoman asked whether the defendant had noticed another woman, Mandy. He looked around but didn't pull the trigger, says Balliet. He jammed again. The chairwoman says the defendant aimed at the woman. Balliet says he aimed because “it could have been a black man”. Then you could have pulled the trigger, says the defendant. The chairwoman asks whether he wanted to persecute the woman, to which Balliet says no and says he wanted to go to the synagogue.
[XXX, Balliet answers questions about his weapons in detail, note democ.]
The chairwoman asks what Balliet wanted to do in the synagogue. “Against my enemies, the Jews,” says the defendant. The chairwoman asks how exactly that should have happened.
[XXX, Balliet answers questions about the course of the crime and preparation, note democ.]
The chairwoman asked whether he knew how many people would be in the synagogue. Balliet denied. He didn't know whether the synagogue was in use. It could also have been a monument. It is a shame that the defendant did not visit the synagogue, for example. Balliet visited the synagogue on the day of the open monument, says the chairwoman. Balliet says he didn't have time for that. Then he could have dealt with things and not with killing people, says the chairwoman. […] The chairwoman asked when it became clear that Balliet wouldn't make it.
[XXX, Balliet speaks in detail about his weapons, note democ.]
The chairwoman asks what he was thinking and what was going on in his mind. The defendant says he made himself “globally ridiculous” to an “unbelievable extent.” The chairwoman asked whether he felt like a failure. Balliet laughs and asks: “Feel?”. This is “obviously” the case, says the defendant.
The chairwoman asks whether he was thinking about the dead Ms. Jana, which Balliet says no. When you think of adrenaline, you don’t think of complex thought processes. It works “subconsciously,” says Balliet. Balliet says he shot a person who was not one of his enemies. He failed at the synagogue and the police were informed. In addition, his vehicle was destroyed. He had hoped to be able to roll down the street to get to the city center, “which is always full of Muslims and Négroes,” says Balliet. [...] He wanted to take action against his enemies there - against the symptom and not the cause, says the defendant.
The chairwoman asked when he realized it was a kebab shop.
Shortly before, answers Balliet. The chairman asks whether the defendant himself had ever been to a kebab shop. Balliet answers in the affirmative and says he was in one when he was 18. The chairwoman asks what kind of people go there. The defendant replies that they are mostly people who have no problem with Muslims. The chairwoman asked whether the defendant's sister had no problem with Muslims. He's afraid of it, says Balliet. The chairwoman asks whether he knows from his sister that there are a lot of people in a kebab shop. That has changed since the “refugee crisis”, says Balliet. […]
The employee, Mr. T., and visitors were in the snack bar, says the chairwoman.
Balliet says yes and says “of course”, he asks what she is trying to get at. She answers that she wants to find out how it came about that he wanted to kill Muslims and that he killed Kevin, says the chairwoman.
[XXX, Balliet provides information about the course of the crime, note democ.]
The chairwoman says that Ms. W. was in the immediate vicinity. The woman got a nail, says Balliet. He is “very sorry”. He was “too stupid” to throw the grenade. The chairwoman says it is “not normal” for an “uninvolved lady” to be out and about and then something like this happens. Of course something like that could happen, says Balliet. […]
Attorney Hoffmann, representative of the co-plaintiff, asks for a break. Chairwoman Mertens interrupted the meeting for 45 minutes. The meeting resumes after about an hour.
The presiding judge establishes the presence of those involved and continues the questioning of Balliet. The chairwoman asked how many people he noticed. Balliet says a person was standing at the door. This one looked “muselig”* [difficult to understand].
*[fivefourteam note: “muselig” is the word written in German on democ and was not able to be translated. I believe Stephan is saying he initially believed Kevin to look “muslim-like” in appearance.]
He shot him. […] The defendant says the gun jammed. There was a person sitting on the left. He pulled the trigger “two, three, four” times. He doesn't know how often. The man ran backwards, says Balliet. […] The defendant says the man on the left fled over the stairs.
[XXX, Balliet provides information about his weapons, note democ.]
The defendant says he saw one or two people by the refrigerators. Balliet says he was mostly busy “clarifying the situation”. The defendant speaks of “black, frizzy hair” and says he assumed that the person in the kebab shop was a Muslim. […]
The chairman asked whether the defendant had seen that a person was quite young.
Balliet says he was the age of “most Muslims here”. The chairwoman expresses her incomprehension. The defendant says that when you only have milliseconds, you have to make decisions - “is this one or not?”. He assumed that it was “probably one,” says Balliet. […] Balliet says he would like to point out that no one had the idea of “tackle” him [in order to push]. He would have “stacked away” in the place of the attacked. […]
The chairwoman says that Mr. B.* is unable to work and is doing very poorly.
*[fivefourteam note: I believe this is referring to Wolfgang B., who was inside the kebab shop when Stephan entered]
[…] The problem is that the defendant was not around people that much, says the chairwoman. […]
Balliet says he believes the chairwoman has “never been in a situation like this.” Those present in the courtroom laugh. With “an action like that” you can’t hear any accents, says Balliet.
The chairwoman asked whether the defendant was intoxicated.
He was in a typical adrenaline rush, but he had never experienced it like that, says Balliet. The presiding judge says that the defendant had not experienced much when he lived in seclusion. […] Balliet says no one would do anything. […] The defendant says that the Identitarian Movement was “explicitly founded” on the basis “not to use violence”. These have already been assessed as extremist. That means there is no peaceful way. […] He already lives in a village in East Germany and doesn't know where else to go.
She has condemned many people, says the chairwoman. Many Muslims were not there. […]
[XXX, Balliet provides information about weapons, note democ.]
Balliet says he shot someone. It had to be a Muslim. This was “relatively dark” and probably from the Maghreb countries.
[XXX, Balliet describes his actions in technical and detailed terms, note democ.]
The chairwoman says that the defendant went back to the kebab shop with a pistol to shoot Kevin, the “imagined Muslim.” The defendant says he shot him and thought he shot him in the face. The chairwoman says that in the video you can hear Balliet saying, “He’s still not dead.” Balliet says this happened “subconsciously”. “You just have to decide quickly,” says Balliet and laughs. [XXX, Balliet provides information about the crime, note democ.]
The presiding judge asks what the defendant's plan was when he left the kebab shop. The defendant replies that he wanted to kill “as many Muslims and blacks on the street as possible” and then wanted to shoot himself. […]
The chairwoman says that Balliet saw a police car and perceived this as a threat. Balliet says he made a “big mistake” by not rolling closer. The chairwoman asks whether Balliet was afraid. Balliet laughs and says that it makes you “slightly uneasy”. […] Either he will win or die, says Balliet.
The judge asks whether he was afraid of dying. He doesn’t “like” it, says Balliet. He’s not suicidal. […] He wanted to fight his enemy, says the defendant. […]
The chairwoman asked if he was frustrated. Balliet says he “failed relatively badly”. He had “no suicidal intentions” because he saw the possibility of “turning the situation around,” says Balliet. [XXX, The defendant provides details of the crime planning and technical implementation, note democ.]
The chairwoman asks how Balliet was shot by the police: It turned black, says Balliet. He thought he was dead now. After a few seconds it became light again. His brain wasn't functioning properly. Balliet says he had severe pain in his neck. He feared he would be hit in the neck. “A lot of things went subconsciously” from there, says Balliet. He took the weapons and drove away. He couldn't remember whether he turned on the ignition. […] He drove past the synagogue again. He wouldn't have done this if he had known where he was going.
He undertook several overtaking maneuvers, says Balliet. Everything was relatively strenuous. He felt vague. […] Balliet says he “also hit a black guy” and laughs. He would have “no problem at first” if he had “caught him straight away”. This would have met his goal. The problem was that he was “completely lost in his thoughts,” says the defendant. The Chairperson mentioned a collision with a taxi. Balliet says that two men were standing there. One – the one in front – was black. […] The defendant says that he saw “that it was a black man”. The chairwoman asked whether the defendant had approached him. Balliet says that the curb was very high and he didn't want to "pull over it". If it had been lower, “I would have moved over,” says Balliet. But he didn't want to endanger himself. He continued driving and got into the traffic normally, says Balliet.
The chairwoman asked whether he had noticed any traffic signs. Balliet denied. The car was broken and therefore drove more erratically, says Balliet. At the beginning and when he drove past the synagogue again, he noticed sirens. He drove out of Halle onto the country road. The second tire probably burst there, says the defendant.
[Balliet describes in detail how fast he drove and when.]
He saw a police car in front of a building. “Luckily no one was there”.
[XXX, Balliet provides information about the course of the escape, note democ.] Balliet says he looked on the way there and saw that the stream was blocked. That is “bad”. “The transmission was much more important than the act itself,” says the defendant. The chair asks whether Balliet wanted the video to be distributed. Balliet affirmed. […]
Balliet says he saw a taxi. This is good. He saw a second person.
[MDR: The defendant then describes his escape to Wiedersdorf near Landsberg. He reports that he rang the doorbells of several houses. A man opened the door for him. He threatened him with a pistol and asked him to give him the car keys. The man, Jens, refused. Stephan Balliet then shot him. When the man's partner arrived, he shot her too. He feels sorry for both of them. Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[fivefourteam note: democ suddenly switches from the taxi to talking about the shooting of the couple: Jens and his wife, Dagmar. The shooting of this couple happened BEFORE he steals the taxi.]
The defendant speaks increasingly animatedly. […] He approached an older man. He asked the man whether it was his car. He said he should give him the key, says Balliet. The man said no. Balliet says he shouted: “It’s a gun!” and asked for the key again. Balliet laughs and says he said again: “That’s a gun!” and again asked the man to hand over the key. He said he didn't have time. The chairwoman says she thinks the man didn't care that the defendant didn't have time. Balliet giggles. […] Balliet says he wanted to get onto the man’s property and away from the street. The defendant says: “If someone doesn't take you seriously, you are on the verge of being disarmed. Then I pulled the trigger.” […]
Balliet says he is left-handed. The chairwoman says “shot” sounds harmless and asks if he meant to hit him in the head. Balliet says he wanted the man to understand that he should give the key.
[XXX, Balliet provides information about the weapon used, note democ.]
The chairwoman says that in her professional career she has noticed that very few people target the body. […] Holding the gun to your neck or towards your head is “another matter again”.
[XXX, Balliet provides information about the weapon used, note democ.]
The chairwoman says that Mr. Jens fell to the ground. She asks whether the defendant noticed his partner. Balliet says a second person suddenly appeared. [XXX, Balliet provides information about the weapon used, note democ.] He shot her in the legs, says the chairwoman. The woman also fell to the ground. The woman asked the man what he wanted, says Balliet. He said he wanted the car keys. […] He didn't want to shoot these people, says the defendant. “Well,” he did, says the chairwoman. Balliet says it “affected him greatly” that he “shot white people.” The chairwoman asked whether he was ashamed. Balliet answers yes and says “a little”. […]
The chairwoman asked whether he had thought about the fact that they both needed help. Balliet says they could have still talked. They had a gunshot wound, but were still able to talk. He thought about what he was going to do now. The fact that they were shot was “pretty bad,” but that doesn’t get him out of it. The chairwoman asked if he felt sorry. Balliet affirmed. He just wanted the car key.
The chairwoman says that Balliet has now gone to the workshop and asks what weapon he had with him. Balliet says the same gun, half in his pocket. [XXX, Balliet gives information about the weapon, note democ.] He ran there and was pretty distraught that he had shot her. He had a whining voice, which was “pretty bad” because “nobody could hear him like that “take it seriously,” says the defendant. The chairwoman asks whether Balliet pointed the gun at the people. Balliet says he can't quite remember. He just wanted a car to get away. The chairwoman asked whether he had communicated this. He doesn't really know that, says Balliet.
[XXX, Balliet provides information about the weapon, note democ.]
Balliet says he doesn’t know whether he “fumbled”. He assumes so. All he had in his head was “how wrong it was all going.” The chairwoman asks what went wrong. He “shot two white people,” says Balliet. He didn’t know that the person in the kebab shop was “a white guy.” Balliet says he was “pretty exhausted”. The backpack was heavy and one arm no longer worked. […]
[XXX, Balliet provides information about escaping with the appropriated car]
The defendant describes the chase. Balliet says he felt dizzy. […]
Balliet giggles and says a police car came from the front and he thought: “What are you going to do now?!”. […] He was no longer able to resist the arrest.
[MDR note: After attempting to escape on foot, “it was over.” The weapons were in the car and he was no longer able to resist. | Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] | Archive: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[fivefourteam note: democ switches back to talking about the stealing of the taxi at the car repair shop.]
[…] Balliet says he left two 50 euro notes. He didn't want to damage the taxi. The judge asks what the 100 euros should be. Balliet says he originally had the idea of forcing a taxi ride. The chairwoman asked whether that was supposed to be compensation for use. Balliet laughs and says yes. The chairwoman says that unfortunately this is not enough now. Balliet says that he had 500 to 600 euros with him “for the time afterwards”. The chairwoman asked whether the defendant had any hope of returning home. “Absolutely not,” says Balliet. […]
Not seeing each other again is one thing – what he is doing to his parents is much worse, says Balliet. The chairwoman asked whether this had been clear beforehand, to which Balliet replied in the affirmative. […] Balliet speaks of “struggle” and “multicultural state”. He decided that there was “no other way than to fight, otherwise it would turn brown here.” The influx of refugees leads to “the browning of society.”
The chairwoman asks whether he feels comfortable in the correctional facility. Balliet laughs and says no. He gets food and is taken care of, says the chairwoman. It feels like you are in captivity in the Federal Republic of Germany, says Balliet. […] According to his rules, you have to “do everything not to be wiped out”.
The presiding judge opens the question and answer session. This should continue the following day. RA P.,* representative of the co-plaintiff, says he does not feel able to ask questions without having seen the video.
*[fivefourteam note: this is almost certainly co-plaintiff attorney Pietrzyk, who was named in subsequent days by democ.]
The Chairperson says the video will be shown the next day. Then the people who don't want to see the video could come later.
Judge Scholz says the defendant made “disrespectful” comments about his military service. He is said to have tried to apply to the Bundeswehr again. Balliet stammers and says that he made bad comments about the Bundeswehr system. It is “absurd” “how a state would “manage” its most important people who would maintain and protect it. […] Judge Scholz asks why he withdrew this application. He withdrew it for medical reasons, says Balliet. His condition was relatively bad. The judge asks what the cause of the illness was and whether it had anything to do with drugs. Balliet says no and says it has nothing to do with it. The judge says that according to a report, drugs were the cause of the injury. […]
The presiding judge Mertens ends the hearing for the day. She asks representatives of the press to be quicker at the entrance control the next day.
Last edited by fivefourteam on Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
ANOMIC, NEXT STEP UP, proshooter and war criminal like this post
fivefourteam
Posts : 61 Contribution Points : 5910 Forum Reputation : 279 Join date : 2023-10-21 Age : 28
Subject: Re: The Stephan Balliet Masterpost Thread Sat Feb 10, 2024 9:05 pm
(placeholder post -- will be posting paywalled articles here in the next week or so)
that's it. those are all the posts planned.
looking at everything i've posted so far and holy shit i was insane for this
ANOMIC, NEXT STEP UP, proshooter, war criminal and ravenwood like this post
Guest Guest
Subject: Re: The Stephan Balliet Masterpost Thread Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:04 pm
Last edited by SpeciesTraitor on Sat Mar 23, 2024 1:06 pm; edited 1 time in total
fivefourteam
Posts : 61 Contribution Points : 5910 Forum Reputation : 279 Join date : 2023-10-21 Age : 28
Subject: Re: The Stephan Balliet Masterpost Thread Sat Feb 10, 2024 10:06 pm
"FUCK."
- Stephan Balliet
NEXT STEP UP, war criminal, SuperspooksteR, Ilikesharks, Arano and ravenwood like this post
ANOMIC
Posts : 1562 Contribution Points : 43478 Forum Reputation : 1149 Join date : 2022-02-22
Subject: Re: The Stephan Balliet Masterpost Thread Sun Feb 11, 2024 10:30 am
fivefourteam wrote:
Balliet stammers: There was a “white warrior” who attacked a synagogue in Norway and was disarmed by a 70-year-old.* […]
*[fivefourteam note: anyone know which case this is referring to?]
I'm 99.7% sure that Balliet is referring to the Bærum mosque shooting but, in typical doorcuck fashion, got the information wrong. The fucking tweaker thought the mosque was a synagogue. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
NEXT STEP UP, Ilikesharks, fivefourteam and EclipseSun like this post
Sponsored content
Subject: Re: The Stephan Balliet Masterpost Thread
Subject: The Stephan Balliet Masterpost Thread 
Sat Feb 10, 2024 8:58 pm
