Victims’ counsel demand that the court clear up of the facts – Protest against its rejection of motions for evidence “at all costs”
Today’s trial day was marked above all by several motions for reconsideration against the court’s rejection of central motions for evidence throughout the last months.
But first, the court heard two police detectives concerning the financial situation of Ralf Wohlleben as well as early police interviews of accused Schultze – their testimony did not uncover any relevant new issues.
Thereafter, victims’ counsel presented several extensive motions for reconsideration against the rejection of central motions for evidence. These concern text messages sent from NSU supporter Thomas Starke’s phone number, several case files at the federal domestic secret service which had been destroyed on 11 November 2011 and later reconstructed (see the report of 3 August 2015), informer Ralf Marschner from Zwickau (see the reports of 20 April 2016 and 11 May 2016) as well as files concerning former informer Szczepanski, who had reported on plans by Blood and Honour Chemnitz to provide weapons to the NSU (see the report of 2 March 2016 on the latest appearance of his contact officer in court).
Motions for reconsideration (German: Gegenvorstellungen) are somewhat informal measures against court decisions, a type of “procedural protest”. With the motions today, victims’ counsel state that the NSU victims consider the rejection of several central motions for evidence, and the court’s general course as shown in these decisions, a refusal to clear up the relevant facts, contrary to earlier promises, which they will simply not accept.
Among others, victims’ counsel took issue with the court’s reasoning in one of its decisions, according to which it did not have to consider whether then-informer Marschner had aided and abetted NSU murders simply because such acts were not named in the indictment. Similarly, they sharply criticized the court’s refusal to clear up possible responsibility of state organs for the NSU’s crimes by failing to use opportunities to arrest Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe – the court had claimed that this was irrelevant because the three could still have fled successfully. Victims’ counsel stated clearly that the reasoning used in these decisions shows the court rejecting their motions “at all costs”.