Further evidence on the NSU’s robberies.

Today the court began with the consideration of the evidence on a robbery in a credit union in Chemnitz in October 2006. Contrary to the other robberies, this one was carried out by only one perpetrator, according to the indictment by Uwe Böhnhardt. As with other robberies, he was very brutal, taking a portable ventilator and hitting a bank teller on the head with it and shooting a trainee teller, who had tried to stop the attack, in the stomach.

The first witness was that trainee, who reported in a very matter-of-fact manner on the way the crime unfolded and on the results for himself: He suffered from both physical and mental health problems, was unable to continue his traineeship in the credit union, was on sick leave for a long time. He then began a different traineeship, but is still limited in his ability to work in his new job.

A family doctor who happened to be in the credit union and who provided first aid to the trainee teller reported on his severe injuries. Another teller confirmed his statements on the way the attack unfolded.

The court will hear several more bank tellers as witnesses tomorrow, more witnesses concerning the other robberies will testify in the following weeks.

Today the court rejected several motions for evidence brought by victims’ counsel, in this case concerning the bombing attack in the Probsteigasse in Cologne in 2000/20001 and on investigations (or failures to investigate) after a secret service officer had stated that neo-Nazi and informer Johann H. looked similar to the photofit picture of the perpetrator: according to the court, these issues were without relevance to the court’s judgment. The same was true, in the court’s view, for the motions to consider the reconstructed case files concerning secret service informers, which had been destroyed by the secret service shortly after the self-uncovering of the NSU, as well as for further evidence concerning informer Michael See (“tariff”) and other informers.

The court thus proved once again that it is not willing (anymore) to clear up the facts concerning the NSU’s crimes beyond the very narrow framework drawn up by the indictment.