Presiding judge Götzl complains about criticism of the police investigation

Today’s trial day saw many attempts by presiding judge Götzl to choke off critical questions by victims’ counsel directed at police officers. Again and again, he objected to such questions, arguing that they were without relevance to the judgment in this case. Victims’ counsel were nonetheless able to get most relevant questions in by repeating, rewording questions and generally being persistent.

First to testify was the former head of the Gotha police. He had headed the investigation after the bank robbery in Eisenach on 4 November 2011, and he had also linked that case with the fire in the Frühlingsstraße which had apparently been set by Zschäpe. He stated that he had been investigating a series of bank robberies and had suspected that another was planned for that Friday. He had therefore had police officers at the ready in Gotha and had set up checkpoints at certain strategically relevant positions. That was why the mobile home with Böhnhardt und Mundlos could be found. The witness had driven to the scene, had been the first to enter the mobile home and had seen the two dead bodies. The weapon stolen in Heilbronn during the murder of police officer Kiesewetter had been found and had provided the link to that crime. Inquiries with the car rental agency had led to Holger Gerlach and thus provided a link to the Nazi scene, accordingly he had been certain that this was not just a bank robbery.

The witness gave contradictory answer, however, when asked about the time he had identified Uwe Mundlos. After repeated questioning he stated that he had, already on 4 November, given the order that a missing person file on Mundlos be requisitioned. In the night of 4 November, the dead man had been identified as Uwe Mundlos by means of finger prints taken by pathologists. The witness was unable to explain why he had asked for the missing persons file already before the identification of Mundlos and in the absence of further clues leading to “the Three”. The suspicion thus remains that the police knew earlier than officially acknowledged that they were on the heels of Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt. The presiding judge continuously objected to questions on this issue – apparently he is trying to preserve the positive presentation of the investigation after 4 November 2011.

Two police detectives from Dortmund again proved a perfect example of the prejudiced way many German police officers think. Asked why the police had not investigated possible leads to Nazi perpetrators in the Kubaşik murder case – after all, this was the eighth in a series of what were clearly racist murders –, one of them answered that “the only connection that we could find was the Ceska pistol”. That all victims had been “foreigners” and that this could be a connection in providing a racist motive apparently had not even entered their mind – the sort of thinking that led to victims in all cases were considered in no other role than potentially somehow suspicious persons. Questions aiming at uncovering these inner prejudices were also objected to by the presiding judge, who apparently aims at keeping that issue out of the trial.

On the Kubaşik murder case

The testimony of Mehmet Kubaşik’s widow and daughter, Elif and Gamze Kubaşik, showed once again that police officers investigating these crimes not only dealt with families of the victims in an insensitive and inappropriate manner, but also that they did not even consider the possibility of a racist motivation. The day after the murder of Mehmet Kubaşik, the family apartment was searched using police dogs, and his daughter Gamze, 20 years old at the time, was asked about possible contacts to the PKK and furthermore about alleged affairs her father had had as well as other insulting suspicions against the murder victim that did nothing to further the investigation.

Olaf Klemke, defense attorney for Ralf Wohlleben, did everything he could to further his dislikeable image by trying to shift responsibility for the family’s traumatization to their Turkish neighbors.

A witness from Dortmund reported that shortly before the murder, she had seen two men next to Kubaşiks shop, one of them on bike, one on foot. She had been afraid of the men, whom she had described to the police as “Junkies or Nazis”.

A pathologist reported on a blood splatter analysis according to which the killers had first fired two shots at Mehmet Kubaşik, one of which had hit him in the eye. He went to his knees and two further shots were fired, one of which hit him.

Parties are eagerly awaiting the testimony, on Wednesday and Thursday, of persons from the surroundings of the Eastern German Nazi Scene who are suspected of having been involved in the acquisition of the murder weapon, the Ceska pistol. Some of them may refuse to testify since investigations against them are ongoing.

Also of interest will be the testimony of a high-ranking police officer called Menzel, concerning the “connection between the events on 4 November 2011 in Eisenach (mobile home [the site where the dead bodies of Mundlos and Böhnhardt were found]) and Zwickau (Brand Frühlingsstraße).” He will inter alia be asked which secret services were present shortly after the bank robbery in Eisenach.