A new lying Nazi witness every day.

The first witness today was a friend of Carsten Schultze’s from the early days in the Jena Nazi scene, who had also left the scene together with him. It was quite apparent that she tried to exonerate Schultze, who is still a good friend of hers. Above all, she attempted to present him as someone who did not have play an independent role in the scene, but who was only “sent” by others – mostly André Kapke and Ralf Wohlleben – and cared for the scene’s youth. Like Schultze himself, the witness tried to give the impression that Schultze and herself had not had their own political opinions, but had only gotten involved with the scene due to personal problems.

It was obvious that her statement was as extremely subjective as Schultze’s self-presentation: It is certainly true, as she said, that Wohlleben and Kapke played the leading roles in Jena’s Nazi Scene. But to deduce from this fact that the others had simply been blind followers may be true for the witness herself, who had joined the scene at 12 or 13 years old. But it is transparent nonsense when it comes to Carsten Schultze, who had a leading role in the JN, the NPD youth organization, and whom Wohlleben chose not without reason as his “right hand” in supporting “the Three”.

The witness seemed quite touched when she reported on her first meeting with Schultze – which consisted of their chancing upon a homeless man on their way to the youth club and “stealing his beer”.

The Wohlleben defense tried to present the witness as unreliable, but achieved the opposite: In answering their questions, she related how Wohlleben had forced her to confront the entire group when she did not want to participate in weekend seminars anymore. He had also harassed a boy who had eaten a kebap by forcing him to do pushups in front of the group and threatening to whip him if ever did that again. André Kapke too had always harassed younger “comrades”, only Schultze had once dared tell Kapke to leave her alone – which once again shows that Schultze was not as low in the hierarchy as the witness tried to depict him.
The witness said that she had seen Zschäpe only once, Böhnhardt and Mundlos never. But those three had been depicted like martyrs by the scene, which had heaped praise on them for “standing up”.

After the NSU had uncovered itself, Schultze had told her that he had brought “them” a gun. Now he was afraid that this gun had been used for the murders. He had not related details and she had not asked.

The next witness was Armin Fiedler from Chemnitz, brother of yesterday’s witness Gunter Fiedler. His questioning was one of those typical questionings of (former?) members of the Nazi scene, who hinder an elucidation of the facts by “not remembering anything” and thus seem to show themselves still sharing a bond with the accused. Armin Fiedler too only admitted those facts which have already been proven: Thomas Starke had asked him and his brother to find a “refuge” for three people who had “screwed up”. They had asked Mandy Struck, who helped them by providing her boyfriend’s apartment to Zschäpe, Böhnhardt und Mundlos. From early 1998 to the fall of 1998, they had visited two or three times. His brother had provided his ID card and other documents so that Uwe Böhnhardt could apply for and receive a passport in his name. However, he too claimed, his brother had asked for the passport back when it became clear that the fugitives were not in fact planning to go abroad. Apart from these details, the witness claimed not to remember anything.

What remains is the fact that the attempt by the Wohlleben defense to exculpate their client by pointing to the involvement of “Blood & Honour” Saxony in building up the NSU failed again. There is a lot of evidence that “B&H” Saxony did in fact decide in the summer of 1998 to support the three, leading to a network of groups for armed activities – but the evidence so far presented has clearly shown not only that Wohlleben was responsible for procuring the Ceska pistol, but also that he had been a central figure in supporting Zschäpe, Böhnhardt and Mundlos in going and staying underground.

Finally, victims’ counsel for the Yozgat family presented their motions concerning the murder in of Halit Yozgat and the role of secret service officer Andreas Temme. Inter alia, they moved that the court hear several further officers of the service, listen to phone calls between them on line which were tapped by the police, and summon Hessian Prime Minister Volker Bouffier as a witness. Their central claims are that Temme had known of the murder beforehand and had therefore been present in the internet café, that he and his colleagues had lied in their testimony in court and that the secret service had colluded to deflect the police investigations (two German language articles on these motions are available [links] here and here). The federal prosecution requested that these motions be denied, giving a long juridical-technocratic statement, the political background of which was quite transparent, under the motto “that which must not, cannot be.” Victims’ counsel replied and stated once more that every possibility, even a remote one, of secret service involvement in the murder in Kassel must obviously be followed up by all means possible. The Zschäpe defense, meanwhile, was mostly indignant that it had not received the motions beforehand so as to be able to comment at once.