Child abduction: Christina Block revises her testimony again in court
On the 72nd and 73rd days of trial, the defendant Christina Block acknowledges gaps in her earlier statements – but continues to deny any involvement in the abduction of her children.
Christina Block revises her testimony – shortly before trial ends
Shortly before the end of the trial, Hamburg businesswoman Christina Block spoke again on the 72nd and 73rd days of trial and partially revised earlier statements. According to the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Block now described in detail why she claims to have had nothing to do with the abduction of her two youngest children on New Year's Eve 2023 – while acknowledging errors in her previous statements.
Abduction in Denmark, offence committed with violence
The children had been living with their father in Denmark against Block's wishes following a weekend visit in August 2021. On New Year's Eve 2023, they were dragged into a car, bound and gagged, and transported to southern Germany. Block is in dispute with the father, Stephan Hensel, over custody rights.
Several Israeli nationals – including David B., the head of the security firm Cyber Cupula – testified in court as defendants and witnesses, stating they had met Block on 28 December 2023 at the Grand Elysée in Hamburg. There, she is said to have wished them good luck for the imminent operation as the person who commissioned it. Block denies the meeting occurred: "There is not a single piece of evidence." She claims the Israelis probably created the Outlook invitations to this and other appointments retroactively to incriminate her. She may have been at the hotel that day to return dishes after the holidays.
Changing versions, new corrections
Throughout the proceedings, Block has changed her statement multiple times. Before the trial began, she is said to have – apparently on the advice of her former solicitor – implicated her now-deceased mother Christa Block, which she retracted in her first formal statement. She then claimed that David B. and his employees had taken the children of their own accord and without her knowledge.
She now corrected further points. The first meeting with David B. did not take place in a hotel, but in a restaurant, she said. And from the very beginning it was not only about the IT security of the family business, but also about the children. She had "completely forgotten" a chat group named BKH – for "Bring Kids Home" – with the Israelis active over several weeks in spring 2023. "I thought for a long time about how that could happen to me," Block said of these gaps. She had not had it "in mind".
Motive of the Israelis: hoped-for business in Germany
On the question of why the Israelis should have acted without her consent, Block now provided a more concrete explanation. Cyber Cupula had hoped for business in Germany. David B. had confirmed in court that he had already rented business premises and stated that he had assumed the so-called "New Year's Eve operation" was legal – otherwise it would have been harmful to his plans.
The pressure from the Block family to get the children back had been high, B. explained. Block herself said that those responsible in her business group had rejected a larger order from Cyber Cupula. "If B. solved the worry about the children, he could recommend himself," said Block – perhaps her father Eugen Block would then have engaged him out of a sense of connection. B.'s employee Keren T. is said to have travelled to Denmark several times on Block's behalf to gather information about the children.
"I knew nothing" – but hypothetical details
Block maintains her core message: "I knew nothing." While she did commission David B. to gather information about the children for the custody dispute, that was also what the BKH chat was about. But the conversation was always only about how to get the children back safely and in a "gentle manner". "No violence, that was obvious anyway. How could I as a mother want anything else?" Block's voice broke as she spoke about her children.
The Israeli co-defendants had also confirmed that Block did not know exactly when they would act, and that they too had actually wanted to bring the children back without violence.
Nevertheless, Block described to the court in detail how she would have organised the operation – had she known about it. She would have insisted on being present on site. She would not have been inactive preparing a New Year's Eve celebration at the Elysée. She would have informed the Danish police. She would have spoken to those involved beforehand. She would not have allowed anyone to wear a mask. "I would never in my life have been satisfied with just a meeting of a few minutes." An unknown farm near Pforzheim would have been out of the question for the reunion. She would have written an "official order" for the helpers and paid the invoice "officially".
These descriptions consistently relied on the German subjunctive mood of past time – a grammatical form that creates distance in retrospect without making individual statements clearly refutable. Why Block presented this level of detail only shortly before the trial ended remained unclear.
Source: Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung