First day after the summer break

The first trial day after the summer break was rather uneventful. The first witness was a police officer from the Federal Bureau of Investigations who had been present when Gerlach showed the police the flat where he had handed over the gun to “the Three”. The officer confirmed all this upon questioning by the presiding judge.

In preparation for the testimony of further witnesses concerning several crimes who had seen the likely perpetrators on bikes, several videos and photographs were shown – a video bulletin concerning the search for Zschäpe, Böhnhardt and Mundlos, footage from a surveillance camera in the Keupstraße in Cologne from the day of the bombing attack showing the perpetrators on bikes, as well as a number of pictures of the fire in the Frühlingstrasse in Zwickau.

One witness from Nuremberg confirmed that she had seen two byciclists dressed in black shortly before the murder of İsmail Yaşar and very close to the crime scene. She had become afraid because one of the two men had stared at her. When driving away, she had heard four or five shots, but had pushed that thought aside and explained the noised to herself as noise from playing children.

In her first police examination, she had described one of the perpetrators as “of Southern European origin”, but that she had called the police the next day and described him instead as well-tanned.

“For me personally, by 2005 it was clear that there was a xenophobic background. No one in the investigating group ‘Bosporus’ really had any doubts on this question.”

This clear statement, made during the trial on 6 August by Manfred Hänßler, the chief of the murder unit of Nuremberg police, stands in clear contrast to the way the investigating group ‘Bosporus’ conducted its investigation until 2011. Whether his statement is true, or whether it is an attempt to conceal his mistakes, is a question that will have to be answered by the testimony of further investigators.

Of course, given the evidence heard on the last trial day before the summer break, a racist background to the murder of Nuremberg kebap shop owner Ismail Yasar all but suggested itself. Hänßler reported that the there had been two main leads: one was the so-called bike lead – several witness had seen two bicyclists directly in front of the kebap shop and heard shots very close in time to those sightings. The other was the so-called Cologne lead given similarities between the descriptions of bicyclists in Nuremberg and the two suspects in Cologne – one of the investigators from Cologne had contacted the Nuremberg police. The connection thus arising between the nail bomb attack in the Keupstraße in Cologne, inhabited mostly by Turkish and Kurdish people, and the murder series against migrants left little doubt that there was a xenophobic motive.

Hänßler reported that the Nuremberg police had also investigated the militant Nazi scene. However, the Bavarian “Office for the Protection of the Constitution” hat not provided them with the data requested, but only with a selection of some 600 data sets concerning Nazis from around Nuremberg. The witness was unable to discuss the reason why investigators had not received the material requested or to answer the question whether the Federal “Office for the Protection of the Constitution” or the equivalent offices in other federal Länder had been included at this point. He referred to a colleague who had conducted this aspect of the investigation.

A number of questions are raised by the fact that the police continued to conduct investigations against the victims’ families from 2005 to 2011, and that they failed to conduct adequate investigations concerning the militant Nazi scene, while according to the witness no investigator had any doubts as to a xenophobic motivation of these crimes. It remains to be seen whether these questions will be allowed during the trial.

Another police officer testified that possible targets of attacks, among them the kebap shop of Ismail Yasar, had been marked in city maps and on computers found in the remains of the burned NSU flat in the Frühlingsstraße in Zwickau. Given this evidence as well as the NSU video in which the group claimed responsibility for the murder of Yasar, establishing that this was an NSU murder should prove to be easy enough.

The next trial days after the summer break will take place on 5 and 6 September.

The Nuremberg saw “no concrete clues” for a racist motivation of the murders

Besides a first witness in the Turgut murder case, whose testimony did not bring significant enlightenment, the head detective of the Nuremberg police in the Simsek and Özüdogru murder cases testified today. The investigation headed by him had not at all considered a possible racist motivation for the crime, especially in the Simsek case it had instead focused above all on Simsek’s family and its environment. Accordingly, harsh criticism from victims’ counsel was to be expected. Two family members of Enver Simsek followed the proceedings from the court room.

The witness still seemed to be focussed on the supposed reasons for suspicion against Simsek and his surroundings – it was only upon questioning by the presiding judge that he also said some words on the personality and personal life of the murder victim. The idea that a racist motivation might be behind the murders was not seriously followed over the years – there simply had not been any concrete the leads, the witness claimed in court.

The questions of counsel for the Simsek family focused above all on the determination that all clues and all investigations directed against the family had proven wrong. The witness will be called again to testify on later parts of the investigation; it is to be expected that further questions will follow then.

Questions by the defence did not contribute much to the proceedings. The Wohlleben defence asked the witness what percentage of murders were committed by relatives or partners of the victim – roughly 60 to 70 per cent, according to the witness. Victim’s counsel Narin proved the absurdity of this question by asking the witness what percentage of serial murders were committed by relatives or partners – none that he knew of, the witness answered. Of course, it was directly after the Özüdogro murder, and thus at the beginning of an investigation lasting years, that the police considered the crimes as serial murders.

On the murder of Habil Kilic – and on the media hype surrounding the change of office of Zschäpe defence counsel Anja Sturm

Several witnesses and expert witnesses testified on the murder of Habil Kilic today.

The trial day began with the testimony of a pathologist on the post mortem and of a weapons expert on a reconstruction of the crime. According to their testimony, the murder of Habil Kilic – the fourth in the series of NSU murders – also had the appearance of a professional assassination: one shot to the victim’s head, a second shot to the back of the head from a short distance to ensure his death. In contrast to the first three murders, no shell casings were found at the scene – apparently the killers had put a plastic bag over the gun.

Three witnesses also testified – a lady who had seen two suspicious bicyclists close to the crime scene, followed by a neighbor and a postman who found the dying Kilic in his shop and called the police. The testimony again afforded glimpses into the way these crimes were investigated: The first witness had stated at the crime scene that the cyclists had looked “Eastern European” to her. In the notes of the police officer who questioned her, this became “foreign, possibly Turks” – something she never said to the police, the witness testified today. How this “possibly Turks” found its way into the notes of the policeman is something that will have to be cleared up by calling the police officer as a witness, as was indeed suggested by the defence.

Some of the media see a big scandal relating to the trial after it became known that Zschäpe’s defence counsel Anja Sturm was leaving her law offices in Berlin and moving into the law offices of co-defence counsel Heer in Cologne. Sturm had stated in an interview with Berlin daily Tagesspiegel that the Zschäpe defence was seen as a “killer case” and that this was the reason why her law office colleagues wished to end their cooperation and why no other law office was willing to offer her a place. The move to Cologne with her husband and two kids is described by daily newspaper “Die Welt” with the heading “Beate Zschäpe’s counsel loses job and home (Heimat)”.

That the defence of Zschäpe is a well-paid job, one that many lawyers in Germany would compete for, is ignored in such reports. Part of the media rather prefers to see discrimination on the part of fellow lawyers against Sturm, who they claim is being mobbed for defending a Nazi. This is seen as an attack on the rule of law. A further fact cited in evidence of this theory is that Sturm, after having just moved from Munich to Berlin in 2012, had applied for the position of deputy chair of the Berlin association of defence lawyers, had not been elected. The association had issued a press release (in German) regarding this issue today.

It is certainly awkward for Anja Sturm to be disappointed like this by her office colleagues in Berlin. However, that she was unable to immediately find a new office willing to act as a full-in is hardly worth a press report. Criticism concerning the defence of actual or assumed criminals is a daily occurrence for defence counsel. The circumstances under which Sturm changed office do not show any peculiarities which would call into question the possibility of an optimal defence in this or other cases. An attack on the rule of law, on the fair trial principle, as imagined by some of the media, is nowhere to be seen.

The old lady from the Frühlingsstraße

The court heard three witnesses concerning the Frühlingsstraße fire today. All three are relatives of the old lady who lived wall-to-wall with “the Three”. One of the witnesses brought her into safety after the fire had started.

Their testimony showed clearly that the trio’s neighbor was not in very good health, in particular that she was not able to walk well or far and that she was hearing-imparied, and that Beate Zschäpe was aware of this. The indictment charges her with attempted murder of her neighbor. Today’s testimonies show that there was indeed a very serious danger to the old lady’s life. They also showed that the old lady had trouble coming to terms with the fire and the loss of her apartment.

One of the witnesses also reported – just as several witnesses last week had – that she saw Zschäpe carrying cat baskets shortly after the fire broke out. Where she differed from the other witnesses was in how Zschäpe was dressed at the time.

The Zschäpe defence tried to raise doubts concerning their testimony, but accomplished the opposite: one of the old lady’s nieces had stated in her police examination that Zschäpe had set the fire knowing that it could well lead to the death of her aunt. Asked how she arrived at that thought, she was quick on the comeback and summarized how this charge against Zschäpe will be proven: Zschäpe had run from the house directly before the explosion, the two men had already been dead – who else should have set this fire? The questioning also revealed that the old lady’s three nieces met with their aunt for coffee in her apartment every Friday afternoon and that on the day of the fire, they were a little later than usual. It remains to be seen whether the court will now announce that there is a suspicion of not only three counts, but six counts of attempted murder.

On the Özüdogru murder case, on the Frühlingsstraße fire – and on whether Gerlach will testify further

The trial first dealt with the Özüdogru murder case. Two expert witnesses, a weapons expert from the Bavarian Office of Criminal Investigations as well as a pathologist, reported: Özüdogru was shot in the head twice, the second shot being fired from a very close distance when Özüdogru was already lying on the ground. Abdurrahim Özüdogru was dead after a few minutes. In contrast to the first crime, the murder of Enver Simsek, this murder had the outward appearance of a professional execution.

Given that the last trial days had seen the testimony of several witnesses who had interrogated Gerlach during the investigation, the presiding judge asked whether Gerlach planned to make further statements. His defence counsel answered for him. Apparently the defence is seriously considering making further statements, but in any event, this will not happen before the summer break. It thus remains to be seen whether Gerlach will be able to bring himself to stop playing down his role in connection with the NSU.

The afternoon was again devoted to the Frühlingsstraße fire. A couple from the neighborhood confirmed the testimony of yesterday’s witness: they too had seen Zschäpe in the vicinity of the house directly after the explosion; they too had been struck by her calm demeanor. Thus the body of evidence that it was Zschäpe who set the house on fire continues to grow.

More on the Frühlingsstraße – and an “entirely normal” Hitler portrait.

Today the court again heard several witnesses on the flat “the Three” inhabited in the Frühlingsstraße in Zwickau. First to testify was a neighbor of “the Three” who had hosted get-togethers in his basement, some of which included Beate Zschäpe. Zschäpe had given her name as Susanne Dienelt and had told him that she was living with her boyfriend and his brother. The witness remembered that cars and caravans would often be parked in front of the house, a fact which Zschäpe explained by stating that the two men made a living by transferring cars. The witness denies having had political discussion with Zschäpe, but claims to only have talked about “everyday stuff”. According to the witness, he was not annoyed at all that the two men had not participated in the social life of the neighbors, but was instead happy to have an attractive woman amongst them.

There were a number of questions concerning his political leanings given that the witness, who claims to be entirely apolitical, had a portrait of Adolf Hitler prominently displayed in his party basement. According to him, this was simply a remembrance for a neighbor who passed away and who had had the portrait displayed on top of his TV. Accordingly, he claims that there had never been any complaints from visitors. Of course, this testimony provides clear evidence for the witness having severe right-wing leanings – which may also explain why he does not want to remember much.

One interesting statement of his concerned regular visits from the so-called sister of Zschäpe, who, along with her boyfriend and their kids, had regularly visited “the Three”. The witness was shown photographs, on which he identified the wife of accused André Eminger as well as the accused himself or his twin brother respectively as having been the visitors.

A computer expert from Zwickau police reported on the contents of a computer used by Zschäpe which had been found in the apartment after the fire. According to the data, she was online until about 30 minutes before the fire started, searching for news about the two Uwes and afterwards for a place to leave her cats – apparently in preparation for setting the apartment in flames within half an hour of shutting down the computer. The case file also contains the entire Internet history of Zschäpe, which will have to be considered in detail at some point during the trial.

An expert witness from the Saxonian Office of Criminal Investigation gave an expert opinion on the danger emanating from the explosion and the fire. According to him, both events had been uncontrollable and had endangered the lives of all persons present in the house. The expert had a slight disagreement with the expert from the Bavarian Office of Criminal Investigation, who was also present, about the precise method used to light on fire the gas that had been poured out in the apartment.

Finally, a witness who was present by accident shortly after the outbreak of the fire reported that she had seen Beate Zschäpe approach from the direction of the house, two cat carriers under her arms. Having had the fire pointed out to her, she had left the cats with a neighbor and had run into the opposite direction on a pretext. The witness reported that Zschäpe had appeared remarkably calm during this meeting.

Once more on Gerlach’s testimony – and on “higher priority assignments” in Nuremberg

Today the court first considered the Simsek murder case. A pathologist detailed the wounds suffered by the murder victim. Enver Simsek was hit by eight bullets, one of the five shots to the head led to his death. A weapons expert from the Bavarian Office of Criminal Investigations reported on a reconstruction of the crime, which showed that it was committed either by two perpetrators or by one perpetrator who switched weapons in the middle of the killing.

One victim’s counsel asked the expert witness why it had taken him roughly two years to finish his first report on the reconstruction. He gave an evasive answer, stating that he was part of a small team and that they had probably been busy with “higher priority assignments”. He did not give any indication which case took priority over a series of murders of people with Turkish origin.

Afterwards, the trial dealt with police officers from the Federal Office of Criminal Investigations (BKA) who had interrogated accused Gerlach during the investigation. First, the parties gave statements on the testimony of the main interrogator who had testified the previous week.

The Zschäpe defence lamented that the officer had not asked necessary questions arising out of Gerlach’s testimony. The defence also claimed contradictions in Gerlach’s statements. A number of victims’ counsel, on the other hand, showed that Gerlach had indeed been somewhat hesitant in disclosing what he knew, but that there is no reason to disbelieve the facts he did in fact disclose. On the other hand, his testimony also showed that Gerlach is still playing down his role and his knowledge concerning the NSU’s crimes. The statement by victims’ counsel is available, in the original German version, here.

The Wohlleben referred to the right to a contradictory questioning of witnesses under the European Convention on Human Rights, claiming that since Gerlach refused to answer questions and since necessary questions had not been asked during the investigation either, his statement could not be used in evidence against Wohlleben.

After these statements, the court heard the testimony of a further BKA officer. He had been the first BKA officer to question Gerlach, on 13 November 2011. This interrogation took place at the point in time when Gerlach was still rather reluctant to disclose what he knew. One interesting detail: this officer was the first to officially charge Gerlach with providing aid to a terrorist organization. He also formally notified Gerlach at the beginning of the interrogation that an investigation was also conducted against him in connection with the then so-called “kebap killings”: Asked whether he remembered any sign of Gerlach being surprised by this statement, the witness could not recall any such sign.

The final witness was a police officer who had questioned a witness of the murder of Abdurrahim Özüdogru. The witness had claimed in court that she had seen the victim lying in his tailor shop, had seen a man run out of the shop, and that she had seen Beate Zschäpe at the crime scene. She had also stated that she was afraid to continue to testify for fear of being killed (see the report on 24 June 2013). Back then, many participants had already had the impression that the witness was mashing up her own memories and news reports she had since then seen. This impression was reinforced by the police officer’s testimony today. The testimony of the original witness will not be a serious factor in the judgment.

On earlier statements of accused Gerlach

Contrary to the original plans, only two witnesses testified during the week of 16 to 18 July. An officer of the Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigations who had interrogated Gerlach several times during the investigation testified on all three trial days. His testimony showed once again that Gerlach only disclosed his knowledge bit by bit over the course of several interrogations.

Gerlach told the witness on several occasions that Beate Zschäpe was on an equal footing with Böhnhardt and Mundlos, in particular that she had handled the group’s finances. It also became apparent several times that Mundlos und Böhnhardt had blabbed details of crimes several times – for example, Mundlos had proudly shown Gerlach a pumpgun he had bought. These details will be building blocks for the court convicting Zschäpe as co-perpetrator, but also show that the supporters of the NSU had knowledge of the group’s crimes.

The officer stressed that Gerlachs statements had furthered the investigations quite a bit – an announcement which will likely earn Gerlach a sentence reduction under the crown witness rule. However, the testimony also raises serious doubts concerning whether Gerlach’s own role is in fact limited to those acts he has so far admitted. For example, the witness entertained serious doubts whether it is true, as claimed by Gerlach, that he had only been in the NSU flat in Zwickau twice overall. Finally, the officer’s testimony showed again that Gerlach must have known more about the crimes of the NSU than he has admitted.

The witness was also questioned by the defence, above all the Zschäpe and Wohlleben defence teams. Their questions concerned mostly aspects where they felt that the officers should have asked specific follow-up questions concerning Gerlachs statements. And indeed the testimony showed a certain disinterest of the police in conducting a thorough investigation – however, any clues that Gerlach’s statements incriminating Zschäpe and Wohlleben are untrue did not arise.

On 17 and 18 July, the arson investigator from Zwickau continued to testify on the effects of the fire in the Frühlingsstraße apartment, showing a large number of photos of the house after the fire. The investigator’s testimony will continue on a later trial day, next time he will also report on several items (inter alia guns as well as the handcuffs of murdered police officer Kiesewetter) found in the wreckage of the house.

Another police officer from Nuremberg who was originally summoned as a witness for 16 July will now likely testify on 1 August.

Beside the testimony of these witnesses, the trial day also saw debates concerning the way the trial is conducted. Victims’ counsel for the Yozgat family moved that in the future, witnesses again be summoned according to the chronology of the crimes concerning which they are to testify. Recent weeks had often seen several murders being considered in the same week alongside witnesses concerning statements of the accused and the Frühlingsstraße fire. The presiding judge reacted in a quite exasperated manner and explained that, in planning the summoning of witnesses, he had to take into account inter alia vacations of witnesses and private prosecutors.

Counsel for the Yozgat family also gave a statement on the announcement by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office that they would object to any question not directly concerning the crimes charged. Counsel Dierbach stated that she would of course ask such questions since an investigation of racist methods of investigation was simply part of the investigation concerning the NSU as a whole. Meanwhile, federal prosecutors began to put into action their announcement by objecting to several questions asked of the witness by the Wohlleben defence, despite the fact that these questions did in fact have a connection with the case at hand. The presiding judge held all these questions to be admissible.

Testimony concerning the Şimşek, Özüdoğru and Kiliç murder cases

In the morning of 10 July, the court informed the parties of further dates for the continuation of the trial. The court has announced dates until the end of 2014 and thus seems to foresee a much longer duration than originally, when the last trial date announced had been in early 2014.

Both trial days were mostly concerned with testimony concerning the murders of Şimşek, Özüdoğru and Kiliç, particularly as concerns the situations in which their bodies were found.

Police officers reported that Şimşek had been shot several times from two guns. Two witnesses who had passed Şimşek’s delivery van had heard “metallic sounds” and had seen two young men in bicyclist’s clothing run away from the scene. However, they were not able anymore to precisely describe the situation.

Clues concerning two young male cyclists dressed like bike couriers, who had been seen driving towards and then away from the murder scene, also came up early in the Habil Kiliç murder case. This murder was described as “professional” – Habil Kiliç was first shot in the head while standing behind the shop counter, then another shot was fired at his head while he was lying on the ground to make sure he would die.

One officer leading the investigation took particular care to state that the police had investigated “in all directions”. However, police had simply not thought possible that the two cyclists might be the killers.

The testimony of police officers was subject of disputes between victims’ counsel on the one hand and federal prosecutors and the court on the other. Above all prosecutors objected to all questions concerning the faulty police investigations. Some private prosecutors reacted with a statement in which they stressed that one question to be answered in the trial is whether or not the police would uphold their suspicions against their families and if not, for what reasons. Questions concerning this issue are thus pertinent for the trial. Prosecutor Diemer on the other hand stated that he would continue to object to all questions not directly concerning the guilt or innocence of the accused.

One examination that proved particularly difficult was that of Habil Kiliç’s widow, who had been in Turkey at the time of his murder. In the particular situation of an examination in court, she was not ready to describe her life circumstances then and now. She referred to several documents her counsel had sent to several agencies. Of course, the examination was already started in an insensitive manner by Presiding Judge Götzl. He asked the witness to state her current residence and it took specific protest from the witness for him to instead allow her to show her id card only to the court. One would have expected the presiding judge to consider beforehand potential fears of murder victims’ families and to take them into account. What’s more, the presiding judge only called in a translator after the witness stated that she was unable to continue. Given these difficulties, the testimony of Kiliç’s widow proved quite dissatisfactory.

Habil Kilic’s mother in law reported on how the murder had impacted on her family. Among other issues, her granddaughter’s school wanted her to switch to another school, claiming a danger of attacks on the school. It took considerable efforts to ensure that the granddaughter could stay in her school. The witness also reported how she had been interrogated by the police, against her wished, directly after having been informed of her son in law’s death.

A lack of sensitivity on the part of the presiding judge also showed when crime scene photos were shown as evidence and a photo of the naked body of Mr. Kiliç was projected onto the court room wall in the absence of any necessity of doing so – hardly a sensitive and dignified approach to communicating with the crime victims.

As expected, the motion by André Emingers defense to be allowed to remain absent from certain trial days was rejected by the court.

The Gerlach defense as well as victims’ counsel Kuhn and Hoffmann commented on the testimony of witnesses concerning statements of accused Gerlach. According to his defense, Gerlach had, from the very start, cooperated in an open and believable manner and without holding anything back and was thus eligible for a sentence reduction under the crown witness rule. What’s more, according to them Gerlach had never thought that the documents he had provided to “the Three” could be used for any wrongful means, let alone for crimes. By contrast, victims’ counsel stressed that the testimonies showed Gerlach to have reckoned with the weapon he had transported being used for politically motivated crimes. In addition, it has become clear that when providing his passport in 2011, Gerlach had anticipated that it would be used for further crimes.

Not discussed in open court, but nonetheless of considerable interest for private prosecutors were reports on a series of house searches in connection with the violent neo-Nazi network “Freies Netz Süd” (“Free Network South”). Reportedly, one of the apartments searched was the apartment where accused Andrè Eminger resides when in Munich during trial days.