The 200th trial day – lies, trivialization and simply staying home

The 200th trial day showed once more that Nazi witnesses do not take the trial before the Munich Higher Regional Court seriously – and that the court allows them to do so. Witness Bernt Tödter wrote an email in the morning informing the court that, first, he was suffering from a gastric disease and, second, he did not have anything to tell the court anyway. Instead of simply having the police bring him to court, as many other courts would have done, he was first ordered to provide a doctor’s note concerning his claimed illness.

The next witness was a former member of the “Blood & Honour” scene in Chemnitz, nicknamed “Mappe” back then. She remembered that Mundlos and Zschäpe had once spent the night at her place and had been a lot friendlier than other Skinhead “comrades” from comrades. Other than that, she, like many others before her, did not have much of any substance to tell the court. One reason could be that she is still friends with the relevant “B&H” members in Chemnitz up to this day.

On the occasion of the 200th trial day, 22 victims’ counsel issued a press release, which we document (in German) here.

Remembering little, taking no responsibility – a secret service career.

A witness statement that was awaited with great interest was that of Gordian Meyer-Plath, today president of the domestic secret service of Saxony. He had been contact officer of informer Carsten Szczepanski from 1996 to 1998. Szczepanski had reported in the second half of 1998 that Zschäpe, Böhnhardt and Mundlos were in contact with Blood & Honour Chemnitz/Saxony, that they had received money from them, that B&H members Antje Probst and Jan Werner had offered to help in procuring false identity papers and guns (on the testimony of Szczepanski, see the reports of 3 December 2014 and 13 January 2015). He had also reported that “the Three” had already committed one robbery and were planning further robberies.

Meyer-Plath claimed not to remember anything concrete regarding these facts. What few memories he had had come back to him when he read the case file in preparing for the parliamentary inquest and the trial in Munich. At the time in question, he had worked for the domestic secret service in Brandenburg, first in “analysis”, then in “procurement”, he had been second contact officer for Szczepanski. He remembered Szczepanski’s reports, but was unable to provide details. He also reported that there had been a meeting of the secret service agencies of Thuringia, Saxony and Brandenburg, but he had not been present at that meeting and thus could not relate why the police was not informed immediately. Of course, it would have been an obvious step to tell the police to look at Jan Werner, Antje Probst and their surroundings in Chemnitz in trying to catch the three who had gone underground – this could have prevented all the crimes forming the subject of the Munich trial.

Besides the memory problems, an issue well known to participants in the proceedings, this testimony showed once more how secret service officers avoid taking any responsibility and answering questions: somehow who worked in “procurement” claims not to know anything about what happened with the information he procured, while someone working in “analysis” of course has no knowledge of how the service came upon the material he is analyzing.

The witness was able, at least, to report that in the late 1990s, several discussion papers on “armed struggle” were circulating in the scene and that this had not been a regional or national, but an international discussion.

The next witness, whose testimony proved entirely useless, was a former secret service agent Wiessner from Thuringia. He claimed not to have had any knowledge of “the Three” having guns or planning bank robberies. As to the report by informer Degner that they did not need any more money since they were “doing jobs”, Wiessner claimed that he had taken Degner to mean they were working “cash in hand” – this despite the fact that “to do jobs” (“jobben”) is a well-known term in the scene for robbing banks, i.e. the actual way in which the NSU members procured money.

On the bank robberies in Stralsund, another „forgetful“ Nazi witness, and on the ideology of Mundlos and Böhnhardt

Today, the court first heard another witness of the bank robbery in Stralsund on 18 January 2007. A police officer related that the combined loot of this robbery and that of 7 November 2006 amounted to more than 250,000 Euros. A detective of the federal police reported on correlations between surveillance camera footage of the robberies and pictures of items seized in the burned-out mobile home in Eisenach and the apartment in the Frühlingsstraße in Zwickau. He had found a number of corresponding items, including guns used, masks and gloves as well as bank notes still contained in the banderoles from the bank. Along with DNA tests, as well as maps found in the Frühlingsstraße which contained markings for the location of the bank as well as a plan of the layout of the building, these items clearly showed that the robbery had been committed by Mundlos and Böhnhardt.

The next witness was another Nazi witness of the brazen forgetful variety. It is known from several police interviews with him that he had lived in Chemnitz and in Ludwigsburg in Baden-Württemberg and had been a contact for Nazis from Baden-Württemberg to Saxony. Today, he simply denied all of this. In his case, like in many others before, it remains to be seen how exactly this brazen perjury will be punished. In the meantime, court and prosecution seem to allow the Nazi witnesses to conduct their campaign of “forgetfulness” without any visible repercussions.

The final witness was a childhood friend of Uwe Mundlos’ who had been in contact with Mundlos up to his going underground. Mundlos had confided in him that he was involved in placing a suitcase with a mock bomb in Jena, that he did not want to go to jail for that and therefore planned to go underground. After Mundlos had gone underground, accused Wohlleben had brought him Mundlos’ mountain bike and asked him to sell it.
The witness confirmed once more that Mundlos as well as Böhnhardt had been fanatical National Socialists. Mundlos had advocated for the ideas of Rudolf Hess. Those groups which had also been the target of crimes in historical National Socialism would not have had a place in a “clean Germany” as imagined by him. The same had been true for Uwe Böhnhardt, who had also been a fan of guns, Mundlos had told the witness that Böhnhardt was well prepared to use those guns.

On the right to a speedy trial, and: the bank robbers spoke „Saxon”

Today’s trial day started extremely late and ended with the court sprinting through several witness testimonies – sadly without and real results.

Accused Gerlach had forgotten the trial day and was just on his was to Munich, leading the court to postpone the beginning of the trial to 3:30 in the afternoon – the court felt obligated to still have a trial day at that time because of the right to a speedy trial. The hearing finally started at 4:30 in the afternoon with the testimony of a police officer who had investigated the NSU’s car and mobile home rentals, followed by that of several witnesses of two bank robberies in Stralsund on 7 November 2006 and 18 January 2007.

These testimonies could be conducted very speedily. Their result: two masked men entered the bank, fired shots into the ceiling, took the money and fled. They spoke “Saxon”. It is likely that, for people from Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, every South-Eastern dialect would be considered “Saxon”, the presiding did not seem to have the time to ask for more details.

One bank teller did describe the banderoles used in the bank with sufficient detail to allow a comparison to those banderoles found with Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt.

More on the Keupstraße bomb, and first evidence concerning the bank robberies in Stralsund

On this last trial day before the Easter break, the court first heard another victim of the Keupstraße nail bomb – two more victims had been summoned, but could not appear in court today.

The witness heard today was the owner of a travel office in the Keupstraße. When the bomb exploded, he was standing on the sidewalk a few meters away and was lucky to be injured “only” as to his hearing. His son and daughter were in the travel office and were saved from serious injuries by a transporter which stood in the street and caught many nails which otherwise would have hit their shop. However, the financial repercussions of the attack – mostly due to customers not coming to the Keupstraße anymore – were so severe that he had to close his shop a few years later.

The court then hears the first witness concerning the bank robberies in Stralsund in November of 2006 and January of 2007. However, several of the witnesses summoned for today were sick, the court could only hear two bank tellers today.

The first witness did not remember many details, what’s more, she was on the periphery of both robberies and only confronted with one of the perpetrators for a short moment. He spoke with a slight accent which the witness – herself clearly hailing from the Northeast of Germany – placed towards Saxony/Saxony-Anhalt. After the robberies, she tried to continue working normally, but she is still suffering from psychological injuries today.

The second witness was also present at both robberies, witnessed shots (fired into the ceiling). Interestingly, during the second robbery the perpetrators went directly towards the teller who had opened the safe during the first one. One of the two perpetrators announced that he would shoot and kill her if the money turned out to contain a dye bomb. She described the perpetrators as 25 to 30 years old, between 180 and 190 cm tall, slim, with a Southeastern accent (she placed it towards the Magdeburg/Halle region) – a description which matches Uwe Böhnhardt and Uwe Mundlos rather well. She was visibly still suffering from psychological injuries incurred, which were among the reasons for her early retirement.

Over the next few weeks, the court will hear several more witness concerning these two robberies, which netted the two a quarter million Euros.

First evidence concerning the bank robberies

Today the court heard the first witnesses concerning the NSU’s bank robberies, beginning with that in Arnstadt on 7 September 2011, eight weeks before the robbery in Eisenach on 4 November 2011 which ended in the suicide of Böhnhardt and Mundlos.

The testimony of several bank employees and video prints show the following picture: shortly before 9 am, Böhnhardt and Mundlos, armed with several guns and a hand grenade, entered the bank, hit one bank employee over the head with a telephone several times in order to force her colleague to open the cashier’s box, and took some 15,000 Euros. They demanded that the chief teller open the safe, threatening to shoot him, but then fled since the safe was secured by a time lock. One witness saw them riding away on bicycles. They then continued their flight with a mobile home which Böhnhardt had rented under the name of „Holger Gerlach”.

The chief teller felt that the robbers acted rather amateurish – this could be because there had been a gap of four and a half years since the last robbery in Stralsund in early 2007. His colleague who was hit over the head is still suffering from psychological injuries and is unable to work in the customer are of the bank.

In contrast to the murder investigations, the chief investigator quickly saw the parallels to the other bank robberies, talked to the chief investigators there and had already begun to talk to profilers when his case was solved otherwise by the events of 4 November 2011. On that day, he was informed of the Eisenach robbery early on and called his colleagues there, informing them of the possibility of a flight by bike and mobile home and towards Saxony (the center of the series of robberies).

Further investigations showed that “Holger Gerlach” and another person had spent several days on a camp site close to Arnstadt two weeks before the robbery – likely in order to scout out the bank. During that time, there were several phone calls from a mobile phone which police assigned to Beate Zschäpe to the Frühlingsstraße apartment – which means that either Zschäpe was part of this trip or that this was conducted by the two Uwes, who called her in Zwickau several times.

Early in the day, the Eminger defense brought about a court decision concerning the right of victims’ counsel to ask questions of witness: the defense felt that, since none of the victims had been injured by the bank robberies, their counsel were not allowed to ask questions concerning these crimes. However, the court decided that such questions were allowed since the evidence on the bank robberies could influence the court’s findings concerning the murders and bombing attacks.

At the end of the trial day, the presiding announced that the court would continue to sit only on two days per week throughout the month of April – presumably with respect to the state of health of accused Zschäpe. Whether this is to be continued in May and the following months remains to be seen.

Neighbors of the Polenzstraße apartment: Zschäpe’s camouflage worked perfectly.

The first two witnesses today were neighbors of the NSU apartment in the Polenzstraße in Zwickau. The first witness had lived there from 2006 to 2008, Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt moved out before her. Her testimony showed once again that Zschäpe’s camouflage worked perfectly. The witness, a single mother at the time, had apparently be on the lookout for a friend in Zschäpe, who could not and did not want to give her a deeper glimpse into her live and her apartment and told her that “her boyfriend” was opposed. Given the charges against her former neighbor, the witness tried to present her as innocent victim of her boyfriend (Uwe Mundlos), interpreting what she thought were glances, gestures and asides of the woman known to her as Lisa Dienelt: Lisa had not given her her phone number because her boyfriend did not want to be disturbed, Lisa had hinted that she had had sex with both her boyfriend and his brother (Uwe Böhnhardt) although she did not really want to. All these conclusions were not based on any real facts, however, and upon being questioned by the presiding judge turned out to be nothing more than vague suppositions.

What the witness had actually witnessed was that Zschäpe had told her that one man (Uwe Mundlos) was her boyfriend and that he had very often been away, often accompanied by his brother (Uwe Böhnhardt). He had mostly driven a station wagon, sometimes a mobile home. The three had gone on holiday together, about one weekend per month. Other than that, she had seldom seen the men – not surprising given that she had lived on the top floor, “the Three” on the ground floor.

The second witness had lived in the house from 2006 to 2009 and also had occasional contact with Zschäpe. She, too, could only confirm that Mundlos and Böhnhardt were often away and that she had often seen a mobile home in front of the house, used mostly be the two men.

The third witness was a men who used to run in the same circles as the “Skinheads 88” and “Blood & Honour” Chemnitz and who in 1997 had a relationship with NSU-supporter Mandy Struck. The witness had a severe work injury ten years ago, had inter alia suffered brain hemorrhages, he had visible problems trying to remember details from back then. Nonetheless, he did provide more detailed testimony than almost all (former) Nazi witnesses before him. Above all, he confirmed that there had been regular contact between Nazis from Chemnitz and Jena. He had met Mundlos and Böhnhardt via Thomas Starke, later of “B&H”. Common pal Friedel had lived in Heilbronn and had contacts to the Nazi scene there. This potential clue concerning the murder and attempted murder of police officers Kiesewetter and Arnold is prominent in the case file, but so far neither prosecution nor court seem much inclined to follow it up.

Inter alia on accused Carsten Schultze

The trial day began with the report of expert witness Prof. Leygraf, who was asked to answer whether Carsten Schultze, who at the time of the crimes he is accused of was 19 or 20 years old, should be considered as akin to a minor, according to the German law on youth criminality. In his written report, the expert had said that Schultze should be so considered, and today he confirmed this report: Schultze’s Coming Out and his leaving the Nazi scene were significant developments of his personality which happened later, showing that at the time of the crimes he was still more akin to a minor. The presiding judge asked a number of questions; inter alia, he referred to the fact that there was not much time between Schultze’s leaving the Nazi scene and the crimes he is accused of.

Nonetheless, from the perspective of German criminal law, it would not be surprising if the court decided to treat Schultze like a minor at the time of his acts. Of course, this will not be easy how to do that given that he is now in his Mid-Thirties, the court will have to balance the “educational” character of the law on youth criminality with the fact that Schultze has admitted to a serious political crime.

The expert witness also described the way Schultze had behaved in conversations with him. His description closely mirrored Schultze’s behavior in court – above all, Schultze did not say anything concrete concerning his ideology at the time, but again tried to explain his activities in the Nazi scene as akin to “common youthful recreational activities.”

The next witness was Giso Tschirner, another former member of the “Blood & Honour” scene in Chemnitz. Like many before him, he pretended to be dumb and not know anything. He admitted having been member of “B&H”, but claimed to have only been responsible for “security” at concerts. “B&H” leader Starke had stated that Tschirner had transported the TNT meant for “the Three” from Jörg Winter to Starke – Tschirner claimed that this was not true, as had Winter before him, and with very similar wording. Generally, Tschirner claimed not to have noticed anything relevant. Accordingly, there is no need to dedicate more space to his testimony.

The final witness was another former school acquaintance of Beate Zschäpe’s. However, his testimony did not bring anything new, and most of what he said was rather confused – it is very unlikely that it will be relevant for the further proceedings.

In the meantime, the Federal Court of Justice has denied the bail application of the Wohlleben defense. The decision is very clear: according to the evidence so far, there was still a “strong suspicion” of his having aided and abetted nine murders, there was also still a risk of flight. Finally, the court in Munich had conducted the proceedings with due diligence, and the prison sentence in case of conviction was much longer than even prolonged detention (3 years and 2 months as of now).

Once more on the Keupstraße, and on the ideology of Uwe Mundlos

The first witness today was another victim of the nail bomb attack of 9 June 20004 in the Keupstraße in Cologne. He worked in the hairdresser’s in front of which the bomb was placed. He suffered several injuries to his head, arm and leg as well as damage to his eardrums – he was spared from even more serious injuries by the fact that someone was standing between him and the bomb. He still suffers from psychological injuries, is still brought back to the explosion every time there is a loud noise like a door falling shut. Like many others, he related that German agencies had not done anything to help him cope with the consequences of the attack.

The next witness was a good friend of Uwe Mundlos‘ from school who witnessed how Mundlos developed into an open Nazi. Former favorite music act Udo Lindenberg was replaced by the “Böhsen Onkelz” and other “right rock”, such as the “Kanak song” spreading hatred against Turks (including lyrics such as “Put them in the dungeon or put them in a concentration camp, send them into the desert, but finally get rid of them. Kill their children, rape their women, destroy their race, instill dread in them”), Mundlos wore the usual bomber jacket and combat boots, later clothing reminiscent of an SS uniform. Beginning in the seventh or eighth grade, he began to talk positively about the Third Reich. In his room, he hung Nazi flags and played recordings of speeches by Hitler and Goebbels.

According to the witness, Mundlos was, already in his youth, an agitator, “almost immovable” in his opinions, cold and without any mercy. Roughly in the tenth grade, he had programmed a computer game in which the player could “shoot down” Jews.

As to Beate Zschäpe, the witness stated that he had met her towards the end of his friendship with Mundlos. She had not left a political impression, but he remembered her as “primitive”, stealing lots of stuff and forcibly taking cigarettes from Vietnamese salespeople. Members of the group had also been on the “hunt for left wingers”.

Uwe Mundlos had already known a lot about going underground, about dragnet investigations and the like. One of his favorite TV series had been “Pink Panther” – which the NSU later used as a basis for the repugnant video with which it claimed responsibility for its crimes.
It was apparent that the witness was honestly trying to remember as many details as possible and succeeded in putting himself back into the situations back then. He often related specific details and used those to characterize specific situations – something which makes for a particularly believable witness statement. His statement thus stands in marked contrast to those of Nazi witnesses who, in order to protect themselves and the accused, do not at all try to remember any salient details.

The Zschäpe defense tried above all to attack his statement that Zschäpe had seemed primitive and had stolen a lot – hardly something which will be at the center of the court’s judgment.
The statement has above all shown that the ideology of Mundlos and his friends developed over a period of time. The dreams of annihilation already found early on in music and video games later and later in the self-made “Pogromly” game became reality with the NSU murders. The fact that no one intervened in this development, even though it was obvious for parents, school officials and other agencies, raises further questions.

Destroy, deny, forget – informers do not provide any valuable information. And: on the normality of the „White Brotherhood in the Iron Mountains“

The first witness today was Marcel Degner, co-founder and head of the “Blood & Honour” Section in Thuringia, later “B&H”-head for “middle Germany” (i.e. Eastern Germany) and, according to the findings of the parliamentary inquiry, also an informer, codenamed “Hagel” (Hail), for the Thuringia domestic secret service from 1997 until 2001. Like most informers before him, he did not provide any useful information. Like all Nazi witness before him, Degner of course remembered hardly anything, particularly when it came to information which might incriminate the accused. However, Degner even denied having worked for the secret service in the first place – and remained adamant even after being told that secret service officer Wiessner has already stated in court on 11 November 2014 that “Hagel” was Degner.

What’s more, one event that Degner related today is found identically in one of the meeting reports drawn up by “Hagel”’s contact officer: Degner had asked Thomas Starke of Chemnitz whether the three fugitives – Zschäpe, Böhnhardt and Mundlos – needed money, Starke had told him no, they were “doing jobs”. The other meeting reports concerning “Hagel” have been destroyed, which makes it hard to check the veracity of his statements. Victims’ counsel therefore moved that his testimony be interrupted and that secret service officers Wiessner and Zweigert be called as witnesses on his work as an informer. The presiding judge seemed put out by this request, but did in the end interrupt Degner’s testimony; Degner will have to continue testifying at a later date.

What he did relate today was that he had gotten to know accused Wohlleben in the early 1990s in Gera and had continued to meet him from time to time. Other important contacts, besides his “B&H” friends, had been André Kapke and Tino Brandt. After being uncovered as an informer, he had been attacked at least twice, had then cut most of his ties to the scene. Previously, he had tried to bring a suit against the dissolution of B&H by the German Ministry of the Interior, however, this suit had been unsuccessful because the Northern German section had not allowed him to bring it on behalf of the entire organization. One question to be asked of Wiessner and Zweigert will be whether this law suit was ordered and/or paid for by the secret service.

The next witness was an early member of the „White Brotherhood in the Iron Mountains“ („Weiße Bruderschaft Erzgebirge“, WBE), which was lead by accused André Eminger and his brother and in which NSU supporter Dienelt was also a member. This witness too did not really try to remember much, claimed that the WBE had mainly organized soccer tournaments, scouting games and concerts in order to “act against drugs” and provide opportunities “for the youth.”

The WBE’s ideology became clearer based on the two issues of their fanzine „Aryan Law and Order“, which has already been introduced into the trial by victims’ counsel. This zine is chock full of racist and anti-Semitic propaganda and open calls for “armed resistance” by small cells. The witness confirmed that most of the ideologically important articles were written by André and Maik Eminger.

He did also try to describe Eminger’s ideology in somewhat more detail: asked about Eminger’s stance towards “foreigners” and Jews, he answered: “similar to that of most in the Iron Mountains: all evil, all bad, away with them.”