20 October 2015

Videos from the Frühlingsstraße apartment, evidence of another supporter, and signs that the court will once more refuse to clear up the facts.

Today the court dealt with videos from security cameras put up in the NSU apartment in the Frühlingsstraße in Zwickau. The trio had put cameras on all entrances to the lot as well as on their apartment door and had recorded their output. These videos were played today. Apart from inconspicuous, square everyday activities of the trio (bringing out the trash, hanging up clothing etc.), they show two visits by Susan Eminger, wife of accused André Eminger, with her children and by Matthias Dienelt, who had rented the apartment for the NSU. Both are suspects in separate investigations for supporting the NSU. The court also read out a DNA report on the identification of the dead body of Uwe Böhnhardt. Inter alia, DNA experts had examined a pink children’s shoe found in the mobile home where Böhnhardt and Mundlos had killed themselves and had found the DNA of an unidentified female person. Given witness testimony that the man picking up the caravan from the rental agency had been accompanied by a woman and her daughter, this points towards the existence of at least one further, as yet unidentified supporter.

Finally, the court also read out the minutes of the questioning of informer “tariff”, Michael See, with federal prosecutors. However, it did not read it out as evidence stricto sensu, i.e. as evidence of what See had said regarding the facts at issue in the trial, but as evidence of procedural facts and thus as a preparatory step towards a decision on the motion by victims’ counsel to summon See as a witness. Given this procedure, it seems likely that the court is planning to deny this motion – which would again be a very clear refusal to clear up relevant facts concerning the NSU: After all, See had stated that he had been asked by André Kapke whether he could find a hiding spot for Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe, and that he had immediately told his contact officer with the secret service. The service could easily have used that chance to have the trio arrested. Instead, it had told him to tell Brandt that he could not help him.

Victims’ counsel announced a further statement on the motion.