Following up on a motion by victims’ counsel (see our reports of 8 January and 14 January 2014), the court today heard a former partner in crime of a man detained in Poland. The latter states that in 2004, he had provided accused Ralf Wohlleben with a tool to overcome anti-theft devices for VW vans and had received a pistol in exchange.

Since it will not be all that easy to have the witness detained in Poland appear before the court in Munich, the court is now trying to check the plausibility of his statement by first hearing today’s witness as well as another witness who is also a former partner.

The witness heard today did state that his former partner was “looking for a way to come to Germany”. However, he also confirmed several key points in his former partner’s statement. Among others, he stated that they had had the need for a number of guns, that they had continually bought and sometimes sold guns, that they had worked with tools for car theft, and that there had once been some sort of “deal” involving a gun or a technical tool the details of which he had not been privy to. He had thought at the time that a third partner had tried to make a deal with a group of Russion criminals in Thuringia.

The trial day tomorrow was canceled as the witness has called in sick. On Wednesday, the trial day will take place as scheduled.

On the death of Böhnhardt and Mundlos, and on a provocation by accused Eminger wearing a Nazi shirt

Testimony today was to focus again on the bank robbery and subsequent discovery of Mundlos and Böhnhardt in Eisenach. Called as witnesses were a pathologist who had performed the post-mortems, two police officers who had been first on the scene as well as weapons expert Nennstiel concerning the pistols Bruni and Ceska used by the NSU.
However, the early parts of the trial day focused on a hooded sweat shirt worn by accused Eminger, showing a masked person holding two assault rifles. Victims’ counsel moved that the shirt be confiscated since his wearing a shirt with that motive, in connection with his appearance as an accused in the NSU trial, must be considered a speech act which shows him glamorizing armed attacks. That Eminger presents himself this way in the trial shows that he endorses the NSU murders and still believes in murder as a method in political struggles. The motive comes from an album cover a Finnish black metal band whose song texts consist in no small part of Nazi propaganda.

The federal prosecution did not feel the same way and did not find it necessary to confiscate the shirt. The presiding judge did, however, at least order that photos of the shirt be taken into evidence. Whether Eminger’s appearance also constitutes a criminal act remains to be checked.
The pathologist described the post-mortems he had performed on Mundlos and Böhnhardt. He stated that there had been no smoke in their lungs or evidence that they had breathed in smoke. Such evidence would likely have been present had they still been breathing once the mobile home had gone up in flames.

The two police officers stated that they had approached the mobile home when they had heard two cracks in short order followed by a third one a few seconds later. They had then seen a darting flame in the inside of the mobile home. Both were adamant that no third person had left the mobile home. This is very likely true as there is absolutely no indication that a third person had been present. On the other hand, it also became obvious that both police officers had been subject to intense witness preparation in their questioning by federal police.
Weapons expert Nennstiel again confirmed that it had been discovered already before the uncovering of the NSU that the same silenced Ceska pistol had been used in the string of NSU murders.

On the bank robbery in Eisenach, and a motion by victims’ counsel to hear secret service informers

Today’s trial day focused on the bank robbery in Eisenach on 4 November 2011, after which Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt were found by the police in a residential street in Eisenach. Witnesses heard include employees and customers of the savings bank as well as a passerby.
Their testimony confirmed what was already known so far: two men entered the bank, forced the employees at gunpoint to hand over 70,000 Euros, struck down one employee, and fled on bikes. A passerby saw them arrive at a mobile home, put their bikes in the mobile home and drive away at high speed. He quickly told two police officers searching for bicyclists. He stated today that he had looked at press photos and recognized Uwe Mundlos as one of the bicyclists.
At the end of the trial day, victims’ counsel moved that former secret service informer Szczepanski be summoned as a witness. They announced that they will bring similar motions for other informers known to have been close to the NSU.

Szepanski spent many years in the militant Nazi scene and committed a serious of grave politically motivated crimes. He was aware of the discussions within Blood and Honour Saxonia concerning support for Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt after they had gone underground, of how one member was asked to procure weapons for them paid with “Blood and Honour”-money. Szepanski was himself a member of “Blood and Honour” and also participated in discussions concerning armed violence.

The participation of secret service informers in criminal activities led to a complaint by the federal office of criminal investigations in 1997 that, “in order to safeguard its sources”, the federal domestic secret service often told police of planned Nazi activities only at the last minute and thus too late for them to be preventable, that it often informed its informers of planned searches of apartments, allowing them to remove evidence of any wrongdoing, that many informers found to have committed criminal acts could neither be indicted nor convicted, and all this in spite of the fact that the vast majority of informers were “staunch right wing extremists” who believed that “under the protection of the secret service, they could act with impunity in furtherance of their ideology and without having to take the executive organs seriously.”

The federal prosecution has not named many of these informers as witnesses, despite the fact that they could provide valuable information regarding the way the NSU was set up and its cooperation with various networks of militant neo-Nazis. It is trying to uphold its thesis on an isolated group of just three persons. The testimony of various informers provides at least a small chance to gain information on these important issues despite the federal prosecution’s tactics.

Lies and Trivialization, Part VIII – Jürgen Helbig

Today’s witness was Jürgen Helbig, a childhood friend of Uwe Böhnhardt’s, member of the Nazi party NPD from 1998 on and active in the Jena Nazi scene at the material time. Helbig’s reactions to questions asked alternated between stammering and silence. Just like he had when questioned by military intelligence, the Thuringia office of criminal investigations, the federal office of criminal investigations and the federal prosecution, Helbig related only those facts which could be proven anyway: for a period of over one year, he was the go-between of accused Schultze and Wohlleben on the one hand and on the other Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt, who had just gone underground. He made phone calls, provided materials and sold the “Pogromly” board game in order to raise money for the “comrades” underground.
Once Helbig transported a packet which he now believes may have contained a weapon. As other Nazi witnesses before him, he denies remembering anything which could incriminate others: he claims to never have recognized any person he talked to, he claims to never have talked about the plans of “the Three”, he claims to never have taken part in a discussion concerning guns or violence.

When questioned by military intelligence in 1999, Helbig had stated that he considered Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe to be on the same level as right wing terrorists. He described Böhnhardt as a gun nut who hates foreigners. This statement by a person who was already then known as a supporter should have been enough for German intelligence and police services to know that “the Three” were more than likely to conduct deadly attacks on foreigners. The claims by agencies that they had no reason to suspect anything are thus – again – shown to be transparently untrue.

Zschäpe is still ill

Today’s trial day was cancelled as a doctor has diagnosed Beate Zschäpe as suffering from a „beginning infection with unclear circulatory reaction”.

Zschäpes “Infection” endured the 8 May.

One year anniversary of the NSU trial – Zschäpe has fallen ill

Today’s trial was interrupted several times, no concrete evidence was taken. After about 20 minutes of witness testimony, the Zschäpe defence asked for an interruption, which was soon followed by further interruptions. In the early afternoon, it was revealed that in the morning, Zschäpe had received a document which had caused her “nausea.” She refused to tell the examining physician the nature of that document.

It seems plausible that the document in question is a notice that the court is planning to confiscate three letters sent by Zschäpe to Neonazi Robin Schmiemann, detained at another prison. These letters are to be used for a linguistic expert opinion, requested by victims’ counsel, on whether there are similiarities between NSU publications and Zschäpe’s writing. It would presumably be tough on Zschäpe if her rather emotional letters to her “comrade” were made subject to public discussions.

The trial day ended with a challenge for bias brought by the Zschäpe defence against the court physician. The court will decide on that challenge outside of the courtroom.

Going underground with „Blood and Honour“, Part III

Today saw the continued testimony of a police officer who had questioned „Blood & Honour“ activist Thomas Starke (see the report of 2 April 2014). By the end of today, three of six statements of Starke’s have been introduced into evidence in this way.

In his statements considered today, Starke had inter alia talked about his network of contacts in the Nazi scene. As reported, he had provided Uwe Mundlos with TNT – when Mundlos complained that he was unable to detonate it, Starke connected him with his provider, “B&H” member Jörg Winter. Winter, who had experimented with explosives, related that one needed a detonator of a type he was unable to procure.

Starke had also talked about his contacts with accused André Eminger and his brother Maik, both founding and leading members of the “White Brotherhood Erzgebirge”.
During his third police interview, the police had discussed with Starke several photos found during the search of his apartment – inter alia, these show with “B&H” cadres at meetings of “B&H Germany” or visiting “comrades” in the United States. But these photos also show him, from 1993/1994 on, in frequent contact with the Jena group of Zschäpe, Böhnhardt and Mundlos.

At the end of the trial day, victims’ counsel brought a motion that a recently found CD entitled “NSU NSDAP” be made part of the case file – according to press reports this CD had been produced already in 2006. One potential author of the CD is Thomas Richter, a Nazi cadre since the 1990s, active in the “National Front” until its prohibition in 1992, at the same time an informer of the federal domestic secret service for almost two decades under the name of “Corelli”. Richter was found dead a few weeks ago – according to press reports, he was found by members of a state agency who wished to ask him questions concerning the CD. The federal prosecution announced that it would undertake further investigations regarding the possibility of a connection between the CD and the trial in Munich.

Lies and Trivialization, Part VII – Enrico Theile

Enrico Theile was questioned again today – according to the investigation, he had been involved in the provision on the Ceska pistol used for the NSU murders to the Nazi shop “Madleys” in Jena. Last time Theile was in Munich, there had been discussions on whether or not Theile could refuse to testify. Today Theile, like many witnesses before, decided to testify – and to claim not to remember anything.

Theile denied all connection to the weapons deal. He stated that Jürgen Länger, who according to investigations was also involved in the gun deal, was a pal whom he knew from the neighborhood. Also well known to him was Hans Ulrich Müller, who was involved in the weapons deal on the Swiss side. Theile had inter alia visited Müller in Switzerland. Theile stated that he had discussed the “wanted” poster concerning the “Kebap killings” with Müller, who had also told him that his house had been searched in that connection. He claimed not to remember anything more of that discussion, and he remained steadfast in that claim even after presiding judge Götzl showed quite clearly that he did not believe him, even referring to an earlier perjury conviction of Theile. Theile similarly claimed not to remember discussions with Länger or discussions with Müller concerning Länger.

Theile thus joins the ranks of the “forgetful” witnesses from the Nazi scene and its surroundings who lie more or less believably, claiming not to remember anything even where this is obvious nonsense. To give one example, Theile claimed that he had never had anything to do with guns and neither had Müller – this despite the fact that he was subject of several investigations for armed crimes, that cartridge casings were found with him in 1997 and a “pen gun” in 2004, and despite the fact that he knew of Müller’s arrest in an investigations for weapons crimes.
In 2012, Theile was apparently afraid that he would be arrested in connection with the NSU, also admitted as much in a statement to the police – today, he again claimed not to remember this at all.

Presiding judge Götzl, obviously irritated by Theile’s obstinacy, interrupted his questioning at 4 pm, to be continued at a later date. What is clear is that the witness, if he does not change his testimony, will face an investigation for perjury – but probably only after the end of the trial in Munich.

Lies and Trivialization, Part VI – Jana J.

Today, Jana J., who was a close friend of André Kapke and also friends with Carsten Schultze from 1996 to 2000 and thus closely related to the Jena Nazi scene (see the report of 13 March 2014 on the first part of her testimony).

The witness states that she began to distance herself from the Nazi scene beginning in 2000. However, she mostly kept to her strategy, begun during the first round of questioning, of trivializing her own activities and those of her friends from the Nazi scene and/or of claiming not to remember. She tried to paint a picture of herself as insignificant – despite having been present, together with Kapke, at a number of important meetings. The witness still sees the Jena Nazi scene first and foremost as victim of “persecution” by the government and left wing activists.

2000 she had moved from Jena and worked as a summer worker on the island of Borkum. While in Borkum, she had received a visit from members of the domestic secret service, who had wanted information on Kapke. She stated that she refused all cooperation and immediately informed Kapke.

The witness was confronted with several secret service documents and witness statements concerning her role back then – in all cases, she either denied everything or claimed not to remember. She denied having spoken to Schultze about his contacts with “the Three”; she denied having distanced herself from Kapke in 1998 after he was accused of pocketing money meant for “the Three”; she claimed not to remember having been visited in Borkum by Kapke and Wohlleben; she claimed not to remember a meeting with “Thuringia Home Guard” leaders Kapke, Tino Brandt and Mario Brehme discussing an interview request concerning “the three fugitives from Jena”; she claims not to remember having stood watch in 1996 when Beate Zschäpe attacked and injured a young woman.

J. was also asked question concerning the “birthday newspaper” for Kapke. On 13 March, she had described it as a satirical reaction to persecution by the state. Today, she had to admit that many of the articles are not even close to being explainable that way. Most importantly, the paper contained an article on the concentration camp memorial Buchenwald being made into a “gas station” and Mundlos, Gerlach and Kapke being presented as the new and “sympathetic” owners of “gas for everyone” – in German, this is a clear reference to the gas chambers of the Holocaust.

The witness was also shown snippets of a BBC interview with THS leaders in 1998, at which she was also present. In that interview, one of her “comrades” explained that multiculturalism was a form of “annihilation of the people” – a statement which she still brings into connection with Kapke. She claimed, however, not to remember that the journalist was given a copy of the “Pogromly” board game at the end of the interview, as shown in the TV excerpt.

More on secret service agent Andreas Temme, and on the first attempts of „the Three“ to build pipe bombs

The first witness today was a bomb expert of the Thuringia criminal police who had disarmed and examined the pipe bombs found in January 1998 – their being found was the occasion of Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt going underground. The witness related that the bomb builders had invested a lot of effort, had built in metal parts in one bomb to increase the potential for injury. They had used gunpowder as well as TNT – the latter having been procured from “Blood and Honour” Chemnitz according to other witnesses. The bombs were not ignitable – apparently at that point in time “the Three” did not yet have sufficient knowledge of explosives. However, it also became clear that – in contrast to earlier propaganda actions of the Nazi scene – these were no mock bombs, but the attempt to build ignitable bombs.

It thus became apparent again that “the Three” had already in 1998 contemplated bombing attacks, including the use of nail bombs – after first bombing attacks in Nuremberg and Cologne, they would later use such a nail bomb in the Keupstraße in Cologne in 2004. What also became clear was that the police did not invest much effort into the investigation in 1998 – the report of the witnesses on the bombs dates from August 1998, almost seven months after they had been found, and at first he did not even bother to measure the amount of TNT used.

The next witness was – once again – domestic secret service agent Andreas Temme. Before he was recalled as a witness once again, victims’ counsel for the Yozgat family brought several motions. Temme had told a colleague in the morning of 10 April 2006 that Halit Yozgat had been killed with a Ceska 83 pistol and that his murder was thus likely part of the series of murders. Counsel for the Yozgat family now named several witnesses and documents to show that Temme could not have known this fact at that time from the press or from talking to the police.

Temme was then questioned further, inter alia about items found in his apartment. Among these were historical SS documents – Temme stated that he had transcribed those from library books in his youth. He was also asked about contradictory statement in his interviews with the police, but could not – or would not – clear those up.

At the end of his testimony, Temme was questioned directly by Ismail Yozgat, father of Halit Yozgat. Mr. Yozgat made a final desperate attempt to get Temme to give up his blockade, to show that it was simply impossible for Temme not to have seen Halit Yozgat in the internet café. Temme showed himself unimpressed and insisted on his claims of not having seen anything. It was obvious that he was certain of being supported in this stance by the secret service.