Once more on the Ceska murder weapon
Swiss Hans-Ulrich Müller, who according to the evidence heard so far bought the murder weapon Ceska and sold it to contacts in Germany, had stated to a victim’s counsel that his ex-girlfriend S.I. and an acquaintance from Thuringian town Apolda, Dieter S., had been the real sellers of the Ceska (see the blog post of 22 October 2014).
This claim was likely meant to divert attention from Müller and his friend Theile – and it was partly successful. Today, the court heard a former investigative judge from Switzerland as well as the supposed partner of Müller’s ex-girlfriend. Müller himself was also again summoned to testify in Munich and was even given “safe passage”, i.e. assured that he would not be arrested in connection with the sale of the Ceska. It is likely, however, that Müller will not come to Munich. A detective from the federal criminal police testified that he had contacted Müller several times over the last few weeks – Müller had at first stated that he would come to Munich to testify, but had later changed his mind. Maybe he is aware that the safe passage he was given does not cover perjury.
The Swiss judge who testified did not have any memory of the questioning of Müller’s acquaintance who had provided Müller with the paperwork for buying the gun.
Dieter S., who Müller claims was the partner of his ex-girlfriend, is a seventy year-old men and a former owner of an ice cream parlor who seems to have conducted dubious dealings – inter alia, he stated that he had hired “Russian men” to guard his villa. He told many tales, but nothing which is of much relevance. What became obvious was that he earned a lot of money in the 1990s, lost most of it again and had a dalliance with Müller’s ex-girlfriend. He claims not to have had anything to do with guns, when confronted with investigations against him for gun crimes, he reacted by berating the witnesses in that case. S was not a particularly believable witness, but his testimony nonetheless has not helped strengthen Müller’s diversionary tactic.