Daily Archives: 25. November 2014

25 November 2014

Once more: on the pedigree of the Ceska 83 pistol and on the value of informer’s statements.

Today, the presiding judge first read out the minutes of the questioning of Hans-Ulrich Müller conducted by Swiss prosecutors on 24 June 2014. During that questioning, i.e. under oath, Müller had not made any claims that his ex-girlfriend or other persons had been involved in procuring the weapon. He had, however, also denied having bought the gun with papers provided by his acquaintance –something that his acquaintance had again related in his own interview.

Next up was accused Carsten Schultze, who was questioned about the statements of informer Tino Brandt and Brandt’s contact officer Wießner. The presiding judge obviously wanted to check the reliability of Brandt’s statements. Inter alia, according to Brandt, Schultze had told him that he had procured money for the Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe who had gone underground – a statement which would show Schultze to be even closer to those three and which Schultze denied. As far as other statements by Brandt were concerned, Schultze stated that he did not remember, and that Brandt’s statements could be true.

The final witness was prosecutor Weingarten, who also represents the federal prosecution in the proceedings in Munich. He was asked about the questioning of witness Enrico Theile in which Theile had inter alia stated that “all the guns” had come from Müller. Police officers present at the interview had stated that Weingarten had once raised his voice vis-à-vis the witness, which had led the Wohlleben defense to claim that prohibited methods of examination had been used. Today, Weingarten related the questioning as it was represented in the minutes. Theile is very experienced when it comes to dealing with the police – it would be more than surprising if even a shouting prosecutor were able to influence him in any way. This can also be seen from the minutes – which, incidentally, Theile had refused to sign.

At the end of the trial day, defence and victims’ counsel made statements on the questioning of secret service informer Kai Dalek. Victims’ counsel stressed what Dalek’s statements meant for the work of the domestic secret service agencies:

„Dalek obviously identified fully with his work as de facto full time secret service agent. Had he admitted that he and the Bavarian secret service knew of the existence of guns and explosives, of a militarization and radicalization of the Nazi scene in Thuringia and above all of the “Thuringia Home Guard”, but had not done anything to counter those threats, this would have shown his work and that of the Bavarian secret service in a rather bad light. It is this background against which Dalek’s behavior in court must be considered, above all his attempts to evade questions and downplay his earlier statements to the police concerning the build-up of an armed wing of the “Thuringia Home Guard”, concerning gun training, the existence of guns and explosives.

Dalek did, however, confirm the statements by Brandt that the various secret service agencies protected their informers against criminal investigations, as the Bavarian service had promised to do for Brandt – adding only that they could influence criminal investigations only in Bavaria, not also in Thuringia.

The witness has also reported that his activities in the Nazi scene were closely coordinated with his contact officer in Bavaria. Inter alia, he was tasked to ensure that the “Thuringia Home Guard” did not spread to Franconia, a task he had fulfilled. He also stated that he had assumed that Brandt had also coordinated his political activities and the militarization of the “Thuringia Home Guard” with the service in Thuringia.

Against the background of this witness statement, it is evident that the Bavarian secret service must have a host of reports on the activities of the “Thuringia Home Guard” and on debates within that organization concerning violence, militarization, political activities etc. “