Lies and Trivialization, Part XII – Continued Questioning of Michael Probst

Today the court continued the questioning of Michael Probst, ex-husband of Antje Probst, then member of “Blood & Honour” Saxony. When first questioned, Probst had stated that he refused to answer questions concerning his ex-wife so as not to incriminate her – “after all it is possible that she had something to with it” (see the report of 3 December 2012). Today Probst appeared again with a witness counsel – and answered questions concerning his wife, but tried hard to downplay her role. He claimed that she had played a “female role”, had only been member of “B&H” out of “romantic enthusiasm” and had not had much to say. Probst was confronted with reports of informer Szczepanski who reported otherwise, who stated that Antje Probst had tried to push the “B&H” scene in the direction of attacks – but he repeated his trivializing claims. He was, however, forced to walk these views back somewhat and to admit that his ex-wife had at least once made sure that collected money reached the recipients, that she had acted very close-mouthed around him as far as internal “B&H” matters were concerned, and that the group had acted in a very conspirative manner.

Probst claimed on the one hand that he had not shared the views of “B&H” and other organizations, but on the other hand also tried to trivialize these views: According to him, the goal of “B&H” had been “patriotism, maybe a sort of increased national pride”, the “88ers” from Chemnitz had simply been a “youth movement” trying to show “a common bond of those coming from a city”. Again, he had to walk back such claims when confronted with evidence to the contrary: one main reason why he had not become “B&H” member was that he was under police surveillance. He was also able to state certain details concerning the production of “B&H” magazine “White Supremacy”, showing that he had a good overview of “B&H” activities even though he claimed not to be able to remember any names. Upon repeated questioning, he did not even exclude that he might have been present at a meeting where “B&H” Saxony had decided to split from “B&H” Germany.

All in all, it is likely that this witness too is facing a criminal investigation for perjury. He even denied having known accused André Eminger – and this despite witness testimony of his ex-wife relating concrete business contacts between the two, despite his phone number having been found in the contacts of Eminger’s mobile phone. In any event, Probst’s statement cannot call into question the statement of informer Szczepanski regarding support provided by „B&H“ Saxony and Antje Probst. According to Probst’s own statements, such support could have been provided without his knowing about it. That Szczepanski described Probst as “B&H” member can be based on his important position as music producer, shop owner, band member, husband of Antje Probst and close friend of Jan Werner – all details which placed him close to the organization “B&H” as not even the witness himself tried to deny.

The court also heard as witness a judge of the Federal Court of Justice concerning a “weapons identification” conducted with Carsten Schultze shortly after Schultze had been arrested.