9 December 2015

Much ado about nothing – on Beate Zschäpe’s statement.

Today, Zschäpe’s defense attorney read out a statement of Beate Zschäpe’s according to which she had nothing to do with the crimes of the NSU. This statement is totally unbelievable and will turn out to have been “procedural suicide”, as prognosticated by her old counsel Heer, Stahl and Sturm. This is clear from the face of the statement and will become even clearer in the next weeks.

We therefore want to concentrate on two aspects:

“I do not accept the so-called apology for the crimes of Mundlos and Böhnhardt – it is an affront, particularly when it comes with the announcement that none of our questions will be answered.”

Thus the reaction of Gamze Kubaşik, daughter of Mehmet Kubaşik, whom the NSU killed in Dortmund in 2004, to Zschäpe’s statement. After all, this statement – and the way in which it has been brought about – is a severe affront to the victims of the NSU crimes.

First of all, Zschäpe and her defense counsel tried to keep the date for the statement secret until the end, which would have meant that none of the victims would have been able to come to Munich (see the blog post of [link] 10 November 2015). Today, she had Grasel give copies of the statement to the court, prosecution and other defense teams, but not to the victims and their counsel. And she has announced that she will answer not only the court’s questions, but also those of other defense teams – but not questions posed by victims’ counsel or indeed by the victims themselves.

Following these announcements, she has her counsel read out a fully unbelievable, fabricated statement dripping with self-pity, in which she gives the precise address and date of each bank robbery, but does not even find it necessary to name most of the murder victims. And at the end of this statement, she had the audacity to issue an „apology“ for her „moral responsibility“. It is not surprising that this attempt is rejected by the victims.

“If all brothers remain silent”

This is even more so since Zschäpe does not draw any consequences from the responsibility she claims to feel. Of course victims want to know, among other questions, who was part of the NSU’s network, who supported the NSU in its crimes. However, Zschäpe hardly mentioned such issues at all.

She continues to cover for all NSU supporters, refused to say one word concerning the role of accused Eminger, who was close to Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt until the end, refused to name the various Nazis surrounding the “Comradeship Jena” and “Blood and Honour” Chemnitz who helped them go underground – all issues she would be well-equipped to elucidate if she chose to do so. Two examples that prove the rule: She named Tino Brandt as a leading member of the “Thuringia Home Guard” – but then of course Brandt has meantime been exposed as a secret service informer and had made incriminating statements against “those from Jena” in court. And she related that Thomas Starke had provided the explosives used for the pipe bombs found in the Jena garage – as Starke had already himself told the police.

It is apparent that Zschäpe, too, still follows that line from the SS “song of faithfulness“according to which “all brothers (and sisters) remain silent” – even where they have lengthy statements read out. The Wohlleben defense had stated, when announcing their client’s statement, that Wohlleben had “remained true to his ideals and political convictions and will continue to do so.” With her statement today, Zschäpe has shown that much the same is true for her, that for her too the connection to her Nazi “comrades” is more important than her so-called “apologies” to the NSU’s victims.