More discussions about the expert’s handwritten notes

Today the court first heard a federal police detective on further investigations concerning a builder who had been fired at in Chemnitz (see the report of 13 December 2016). These investigations did not uncover anything new – then again, it seems that they had not been conducted very intensively either, as shown by the fact that the witness was unable to state the precise location of the construction site.

The court then rejected the motion by the Zschäpe defense concerning expert witness Saß’ handwritten notes (see yesterday’s report). The rest of the trial day mostly consisted of breaks – one so the defense could discuss its reaction to the decision, one so it could draft a motion for reconsideration, and one so that other partys could take cognizance of the motion and comment on it.

The court will decide on the motion for reconsideration tomorrow. The trial tomorrow will begin at 10.30.

Further questions to Prof. Saß – defense tries, but fails to gain access to his notes

The assigned counsel of accused Zschäpe today tried, but failed to have the handwritten notes of expert witness Prof. Saß introduced into the trial. The trial day began with some questions to the expert by the presiding judge. Counsel pronounced themselves surprised that Saß had not simply brought with him his notes – some 700 pages. Two weeks ago, after Saß had stated that he did not have his notes with him and the defense had answered that in that case they did not have any questions at the moment, the presiding judge had asked Saß some questions of his own and then asked him to come back to Munich this week – Heer, Stahl and Sturm had apparently believed that this included a statement that Saß was to bring his notes. Saß, however, had left them at home and stated that he had included all relevant observations of Zschäpe’s behavior in the courtroom in his expert opinion – indeed, he had made reported on these observations in some detail last time as well as today. Continue reading →

The court enters further documents into evidence, and it continues its strategy of denying all further elucidation of facts surrounding the NSU.

Today the court read out several documents contained in the case file. These included a short memo authored by a policeman who, in the summer of 1997, had seen Beate Zschäpe on the way to a meeting at the compound of Neo-Nazi and attorney Jürgen Rieger in Hetendorf.

Another document read out was a list, compiled after victims counsels’ motions on the possible scouting out of the synagogue in Berlin by members of the NSU (see the report of 26 October 2016), of Jewish institutions contained in the collection of addresses compiled by the NSU. This list contains more than 200 addresses of Jewish institutions. Given the well-known anti-Semitism of the NSU’s members, this is another document which tends to show that the NSU had made at least general plans to commit attacks against Jewish institutions, even if, according to what is known, such plans were not in fact carried out. Continue reading →

Further questioning of expert witness Prof. Dr. Saß

Today the court first heard another police officer from Jena. This witness seemed a bit more awake than his colleagues who had testified earlier this week, but had only been with the political division of the criminal police for a short time and was thus unable to say much about Wohlleben’s ideology and activities. Interestingly, he reported that Wohlleben had been “a matter for the boss” and that investigations concerning Wohlleben had only been conducted by the head of the division.

The court then continued the questioning of expert witness Prof. Dr. Saß. As the Zschäpe defense did not have further questions at the moment, the presiding judge asked further questions. Continue reading →

Wohlleben defense once more conducts Nazi propaganda in the NSU trial in Munich – racist motion by counsel Klemke concerning a „danger of the death of the Volk“

Olaf Klemke, defense counsel of accused Ralf Wohlleben in the NSU trial in Munich, today brought a motion which aims to “prove” the neo-Nazi claim of a danger of the “death of the Volk”. The motion, co-signed by co-counsel Nicole Schneiders and Wolfram Nahrath, claims that anybody could “speak of the ‘danger of the death of the Volk’” since inter alia the “mass immigration of non-Germans” leads to “the German Volk in its current identity becoming a minority vis-à-vis non-Germans” – the motion continues: “if these developments continue and are not stopped.” Continue reading →

The political criminal police in Jena: “he is here to makes sure nothing happens to us.” And: racist motion by the Wohlleben defense

The trial day began with the testimony of another police officer from Jena, asked to testify on accused Wohlleben’s ideology as well as activities by Wohlleben and the Nazi-“comradeship Jena” concerning “foreigners”. Again, the officer was unable to report anything important – very few questions by victims’ counsel were enough to show why he and his colleagues in Jena only had knowledge “assaults left wing – right ring and propaganda offences”: Asked whether he had any knowledge of bands at the concerts organized by Wohlleben performing songs with racist lyrics, the witness answered that he had not. Further asked whether the lyrics had been checked for illegal content, he replied that this had “not been usual back then”. Continue reading →

“The accused could not have foreseen such a course of events”

Today the court first heard the prosecution’s response to the motions for evidence brought by the Wohlleben defence in the week before the Easter break. Also discussed was the announcement by victims’ counsel for the Yozgat family to summon an expert witness on what secret service officer Temme must have observed of the murder of Halit Yozgat (see the report of 5 April 2017). The federal prosecutors had stated their opinion that victims’ counsel generally did not have a right to summon expert witnesses themselves, victims’ counsel had replied in detail. The court has not yet made a determination on this issue.

The court rejected further motions for evidence brought by victims’ counsel, above all the motion concerning state responsibility for the “attack after the attack”, the investigations and publicly voiced suspicions against the victims of the NSU bombing attack in the Keupstraße in Cologne (see the report of 7 March 2017). Interestingly, the decision can be read as showing that the court agreed with the applicants’ contention that the state was responsible for this “attack after the attack”: “It cannot be assumed that several German state agencies, partly against better judgment, do not consider findings in their investigations and statements and rather inflict further damage on the victims of the attack through their actions, partly against their own better knowledge. The accused [if convicted] could not have foreseen such a course of events.”

The court also rejected conspiracy theory-motions by the Wohlleben defense concerning the alleged presence of FBI agents or other persons near the scene of the murder of Michèle Kiesewetter in Heilbronn (see the report of 9 March 2017).

The court then gave parties a deadline for further motions for evidence until Wednesday, 17 May 2017.

Zschäpe’s original counsel Heer, Stahl and Sturm made a motion for the court to hear expert witness Prof. Faustmann, who they had summoned themselves, tomorrow on the issue of alleged shortcomings in the expert opinion of Prof. Saß. However, the so-called shortcomings in Saß’ opinion mainly concern incidental formal aspects, therefore it is not likely that Faustmann’s statements tomorrow will cause Saß much grief.

Another day which did not move the trial forward in any way.

Today the court had once again summoned expert witness Prof. Leygraf (see the report of 11 January 2017). Based on a motion by the Wohlleben defense, the presiding judge spent about two hours summarizing for Leygraf the statements by accused and witnesses in court on Carsten Schultze and on the crimes he is charged with. The Wohlleben defense stated that it was planning to add to the information given to the expert, but needed additional time to prepare. Accordingly Leygraf will have to come to Munich again next week.

It cannot be claimed that this trial day has moved the trial forward in any way – above all since the statements by accused and witnesses on Schultze conformed very largely to the information Leygraf had already based his report on. It seems that the expert shared this assessment as he made hardly any notes of what he was told. Continue reading →

Prof. Saß continues presenting his expert opinion

The further presentation of the expert opinion by Prof. Saß was delayed once more, again due to motions for reconsideration by Zschäpe’s assigned counsel. However, the expert witness was able to continue after the lunch break.

In addition to the facts he had presented yesterday, he stressed Zschäpe’s ability to conduct camouflage and to convcingly portray alias roles.

In conclusion, he found that Zschäpe’s personality contained dissocial or antisocial, as well as histrionic tendencies, but that there was nothing pointing towards a psychiatric disorder which could call into doubt Zschäpe’s competency.  Continue reading →

Beginning of Prof. Saß’ expert opinion – „egocentric, lacking empathy, externalizing responsibility”

After the many delays during the last trial days, the plan was that expert witness Prof. Saß would finally give his expert opinion this week. Zschäpe’s assigned counsel – today only counsel Sturm and Heer – brought about a final delay by way of a motion for reconsideration against a court decision. After the lunch break, the expert was finally able to begin giving his oral opinion.

Today, Prof. Saß, one of the most renowned forensic psychiatrists in Germany, reported above all on the relevant findings arising from the court proceedings. Continue reading →