1 September 2016

On the investigative methods of the federal criminal police, and once more on the attack in 1998/1999

The first witness today, a federal criminal police detective, once again provided a glimpse into the investigative methods of his office: Accused Carsten Schultze had reported that Wohlleben told him about a telephone conversation with Mundlos and Böhnhardt, who had claimed to have shot and injured someone. The federal criminal police were asked to investigate – after all this was a clue hinting at another crime which had not yet been linked to the NSU.

The witness simply asked the criminal police in the various Länder for reports on unsolved crimes involving guns and summarized their answers and then considered his job finished. He did not bother to anything else, e.g. to ask further questions of his colleagues or to do any investigations on his own – this in spite of the fact that his various colleagues had obviously not fully understood his request, with one office reporting on various robberies, another only reporting murders and a third reporting several attacks with air rifles.

Accordingly, it is hardly surprising that this possible additional NSU crime has so far not been cleared up. For the Wohlleben defense, upon whose motion the witness had been called, this means that their attempt to disprove Schultze’s statement has once again failed – given the deficient investigation, this negative result does not mean that the crime has not in fact incurred and that Schultze is lying.

Second witness today was another member of the Nazi scene in Jena in the 1990s, whom Schultze had named as a member of the group of Nazis who had attacked two men in 1998/1999 (see the report of 21 July 2016). He too claimed not to remember this attack. On the other hand, neither did he seem very interested in remembering – quite to the contrary, he revealed himself as rather close to accused Eminger and Wohlleben as well as tp “Hammerskin” Thomas Gerlach, who had accompanied him to Munich today.