12 January 2016

The Court does not question the accused today – instead it considers other pieces of evidence which will contribute to finding them guilty.

Those who had hoped that the court would question accused Zschäpe and Wohlleben today were due for a disappointment: Wohlleben’s questioning was pushed to tomorrow on request of his defense attorneys, and as for Zschäpe, who will only answer questions in writing anyway, her defense team still seems to have a need for further discussion concerning the rather few questions posed by the presiding judge. The court instead read out several documents, above all concerning identification of finger print, which will contribute to proving the guilt of these two as well as co-accused André Eminger.

The first document concerned a “birthday newspaper” presented to André Kapke by his Nazi “comrades”, which clearly shows their national Socialist ideology. “Wolle” is named as lead editor in the paper, but Wohlleben had claimed not to have had anything to do with the texts contained therein. Fingerprint evidence proves that, at the very least, he held the finished paper in his hands.

Zschäpe’s fingerprints were found in the mobile home in which Mundlos and Böhnhardt killed themselves after the bank robbery in Eisenach on 4 November 2011. Accordingly, Zschäpe has apparently been inside this getaway vehicle.

Finally, André Eminger’s prints were found on the minutes of the police questioning of André and “Susann Eminger” on 11 January 2007 – the police had questioned witnesses in an unrelated investigation concerning a neighbor accused of theft. All evidence points to the woman calling herself “Susann Eminger” in fact having been Beate Zschäpe, which shows that André Eminger covered for her. Minger’s prints were also found on the contract for a mobile home rented on 22 September 2003 – this fits with the NSU bank robbery on 23 September 2013 on a credit union in Chemnitz.

At the end of the trial day, the presiding judge read out further court decisions denying motions for evidence brought by victims’ counsel, above all the motion that secret service informer Michael von Dolsperg, née See, aka “Tariff”, be summoned as a witness. The court was of the opinion that it was not relevant for its judgment whether “Tariff” had provided the “Thuringia Home Guard” with instructions for armed struggle or whether he had told his contact officer that he had been asked to find a hiding spot for Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt. Of course, for the NSU’s victims it plays a very important role whether the NSU murders could have been prevented by arresting them early on based on the information provided by “Tarriff”. The various institutions charged with finding out the truth about the NSU murders continue to refuse answering them, each institution referring the victims to the others.