6 August 2014. On the murder of Halit Yozgat: massive obstruction of the police investigation by the domestic secret service. And: Temme knows more than he admits.

This last trial day before the summer break was taken up by the testimony of two police detectives from Kassel who had been summoned based on a request by victims’ counsel for the Yozgat family.

Their testimony showed, on the one hand, that the domestic secret service massively obstructed the police investigation. This was especially the case as concerns the informers working for secret service agent Temme, who was present at the murder scene and a murder suspect. The police now wished to interview his informers. The secret service denied this, but offered that the informers could be interview by the secret service, with police officers present under the guise of working for the service as well. The police did not take them up in that offer since such such an interview would be totally worthless in a court of law. The secret service also stated that there was no reason to dismiss Temme, but rather reason to believe that he would soon be working for the service again – this at a point in time when Temme was accused in a murder investigation and when it was clear that he had lied about what he had seen at the murder scene. The secret service obviously cared more about protecting its agent and a few informers than it cared about solving a series of murders.

The detectives‘ testimony also showed that Temme had seen more of the murder of Halit Yozgat than he admitted to the police or later in court. One officer reported on a “cognitive interview” a psychologist had conducted with Temme in order to uncover “buried” memories. This interview had not let to anything, however, and the psychologist had felt that Temme had not really cooperated.

Most importantly, however, it became clear that Temme had, already on Monday morning after the murder, told a colleague that the murder weapon had already been used in several other murders. This, however, is a fact which he could not have gotten from the press – which only reported on the Ceska pistol Monday afternoon – or from police officers – to whom he had talked only after talking to his colleague. As summarized by counsel for the Yozgat family, there are only two possible explanations for his behavior: either he witnessed the murder and saw more than he is willing to admit – or he has inside knowledge because he was involved in the crime. The court will have no choice but to investigate this issue more deeply in the coming weeks.

The trial will continue on 4 September.