28 October 2015

Motions for evidence concerning the „exit“ of accused Gerlach from the Nazi scene

The only witness today had also dealt with the NSU notes from their scouting out potential victims. A map of Northern Germany showed a marking concerning an industrial estate in western Mecklenburg. Investigations showed that there was a printer’s shop which had been searched during the investigation into prohibited Nazi music.

Victims’ counsel then brought several motions for evidence concerning the claimed “exit” of accused Gerlach from the Nazi scene. Gerlach had claimed in court that he had begun distancing himself mentally from the Nazi scene since 1999 and had finally “exited” the scene in 2004, but had visited two Nazi demonstrations after that time (on his statement in court, see the report of 3 June 2013). The evidence will show that these claims are untrue: In 2002/2003, Gerlach was still a member of the inner circle surrounding NS multi-functionary Heise – a circle to which only ideologically [gefestigt] “comrades” had access. Gerlach took part in at least one additional Nazi demonstration, Gerlach visited several Nazi websites until 2011, he sent text messages containing horrible racist language in 2011, and he was matter-of-factly invited to a concert of violent Nazi organization Hammerskins in Italy. His computer also shows several deleted image files of the “Pink Panther” – depending on the concrete date they were deleted, which has not so far been established, this could tend to prove his knowledge of the video with which the NSU claimed responsibility for its crimes.

Further motions concerned discussions of Thorsten Heise with “comrades” including Tino Brandt, secretly recorded by Heise. In these discussions, Brandt described the “Kameradschaft Jena” as an “absolute NS-organization” and held the view that the secret service could believe, “concerning the three from Jena who went underground”, that the “Thuringia Home Guard” could be the legal arm of a terrorist organization. Heise talks of “several” armed groups to be found all over Germany.

Victims’ counsel then made a statement concerning their motions for evidence concerning federal secret service informer “tariff” (see the report of 20 October 2015).
The presiding judge then read out further motions denying motions for evidence. It seems unnecessary at this time to list the motions denied since the current approach of the court can be summarized in one sentence: everything will be denied, the court simply refuses any further clearing up of the facts.