Lies and Trivialization, Part 11, with support by the Zschäpe defense – further questioning of Antje Probst.

Today the court continued the questioning of former “Blood & Honour” member Antje Probst (on her first questioning see the report of 20 November 2014). She continued her reprehensible strategy of trivialization, claimed not to have been involved at all in the political activities of “B&H”, to have loved Nazi band “Skrewdriver” only for its music and lovely ballads, etc. She did not budge from this position even in the face of several questions and upon being confronted with publications, witness testimonies etc. which contradicted her.

In summary, the witness has worked hard to earn the investigation for perjury which is bound to follow, starting from the very beginning of her testimony: without any specific questions by the court, Probst referred to the question of her acquaintance with the Eminger brother (see report of 20 November 2014) – but did not use the opportunity to correct her false statements from last time.

The Zschäpe defense triggered a rather long discussion by objecting to a question by victim’s counsel Alexander Hoffmann: The witness, who together with her husband had played in the band “AEG”, claimed that that band had had nothing to do with “Blood & Honour”. Hoffmann questioned this statement and asked who had produced “AEG”’s music. The defense claimed that this question had nothing to do with case at hand – despite it being a rather obvious question concerning Probst’s believability. Equally obvious is that Probst’s testimony is of some importance for the proceedings, after all other witnesses had related concrete acts of support provided by her to “the Three” as well as attempts by Probst to militarize the scene. But then again, the Zschäpe defense obviously has no interest in countering the strategy of lies and trivialization employed by all Nazi witnesses from Chemnitz, of uncovering further details concerning the support provided to the NSU by the broader Nazi scene. The same apparently applies for the federal prosecution, which again lent its support to the defense, as well as for a few victims’ counsel who did the same today. The court – naturally – overruled the objection, the witness answered the question. The defense continued its attempts to torpedo the questioning by victims’ counsel of this witness, who could after all relate some interesting details concerning the structure NSU/”Blood & Honour”.

Her testimony has once again shown that the strategy of silence and of a continuing bond with the accused is still followed by all witnesses from the scene. It also became apparent that in the years in question, all aspects of the life of this witness were connected with the Nazi scene: in her “private” life she organized Nazi concerts, her job was to sell Nazi CDS, videos, clothes and magazines, as concerns her family she was afraid that her children might have to play with “non-white” children. The witness and the people around her lived in a “nationally liberated zone” and organized their lives according to the crude ideology of “white supremacy”. That people living in such a world also discuss the option of a “racial war” against immigrants is hardly surprising. Her testimony thus strengthens the testimony of informer Szczepanski, who had related that „B&H“ Saxony had decided to support Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt, that Probst wanted to provide her passport to Zschäpe and that Jan Werner tried to buy guns for them.

At the end of the trial, victims’ counsel brought a motion for evidence concerning a neo-Nazi who had told the police that he had met Mundlos and Böhnhardt once in Zwickau when visiting his brother and again at a later date shortly before the murder of Halit Yozgat and that he knew further members of their support network.