Once more on the early statements of Carsten Schultze

Today the court once more dealt with the early statements of Carsten Schultze after the NSU had uncovered itself in 2011.

First expert witness Prof. Leygraf reported once more – he was tasked with psychiatric investigations on which the court will base its decisions whether Schultze – aged 19 or 20 at the time of the acts he is charged with – will be tried as a juvenile under German criminal law. Leygraf reported on the statements Schultze had made vis-à-vis him. His impression of Schultze’s reports on his own activities in the Nazi scene is quite similar to that of many among victims’ counsel: according to Leygraf, Schultze had focused on that time as a time of experiences, leaving out the political content: “he represented that time more as a time of boy scout romanticism.” Continue reading →

Another failed attempt by the Wohlleben defense – further testimony by secret service informer Tino Brandt

The court only heard one witness today, former “Thuringia Homeguard” leader and secret service informer Tino Brandt. Brandt had already testified over several days in 2014 (see the reports of 15 July 2014, 16 July 2014, 23 September 2014 and 24 September 2014). He was recalled as witness upon a motion by the Wohlleben defense in order to testify on where the money for the murder weapon Ceska had come from.

The defense is trying to raise doubts concerning the statement by accused Carsten Schultze that he had received that money from Ralf Wohlleben. How exactly it hoped to achieve this through the testimony of Brandt, who is everything but believable, is unclear. And in fact his testimony did not reveal anything relevant: Continue reading →

Victims’ counsel demand that the court clear up of the facts – Protest against its rejection of motions for evidence “at all costs”

Today’s trial day was marked above all by several motions for reconsideration against the court’s rejection of central motions for evidence throughout the last months.

But first, the court heard two police detectives concerning the financial situation of Ralf Wohlleben as well as early police interviews of accused Schultze – their testimony did not uncover any relevant new issues.

Thereafter, victims’ counsel presented several extensive motions for reconsideration against the rejection of central motions for evidence. These concern text messages sent from NSU supporter Thomas Starke’s phone number, several case files at the federal domestic secret service which had been destroyed on 11 November 2011 and later reconstructed (see the report of 3 August 2015), informer Ralf Marschner from Zwickau (see the reports of 20 April 2016 and 11 May 2016) as well as files concerning former informer Szczepanski, who had reported on plans by Blood and Honour Chemnitz to provide weapons to the NSU (see the report of 2 March 2016 on the latest appearance of his contact officer in court). Continue reading →

On the early statements of Carsten Schultze

Today the court heard only one witness, a federal criminal police detective who had been involved in the first police interview of accused Carsten Schultze. In that interview, Schultze – trying visibly to “dig up” the long-suppressed memories of his activities in the Nazi scene – had already related the purchase of the Ceska pistol in pretty much the same way as he did later in court. Above all, his statements on the role of Wohlleben has always been the same: Wohlleben had sent him to the proprietor of the scene shop “Madley’s”, saying “go to Schultz”, and Schultz had indeed sold him the pistol.

Schultze also tried already in that interview to downplay his own role and his co-responsibility for the NSU’s crimes. Inter alia, he claimed that he had not ordered the silencer and that he had not given any thought on the uses to which the pistol would be put.

Unsurprisingly given that Schultze massively incrimates Wohlleben, the Wohlleben defense tried to question the witness in a confrontational manner and to lead her into contradictory statements. They were, however, unsuccessful – the witness showed an embarrising lapse when she misremembered the legal instruction given to Schultze (she remembered that he had been instructed as a witness, when the minutes of the interview show that he was correctly instructed as an accused), but the defense was unable to raise any doubts on the substantive issues.

On Böhnhardt’s, Zschäpe’s and Mundlos’ vacation after the Keupstraße bombing attack

Today the court heard three witness concerning the vacation in Northern Germany which Böhnhardt, Zschäpe and Mundlos took in the summer of 2004, only weeks after the nail bomb attack in the Keupstraße in Cologne. Zschäpe had claimed in court that things had become frosty between her and the two men after they told her of the attack, but vacation photos found in the Frühlingsstraße apartment show all three in a very relaxed and happy mood. Today the court heard the owner of a camping site and two police officers who had considered the documents concerning this vacation.

On gun deals in Jena, and additional platitudes from Beate Zschäpe

Today the court first heard a federal criminal police officer who had questioned a member of the criminal scene in Jena. That person had, when questioned in Munich, relied on the privilege against self-incrimination (see our reports of 16 February 2016, 13 April 2016 and 28 April 2016). The officer reported that when questioned by him, the witness had stated that “Müller from Apolda” was one of the gun providers for his scene in the early 2000s – it is known that Swiss national Hans-Ulrich Müller, who was identified as the buyer of the Ceska murder weapon, lived in Apolda for some time.

The witness had also reported on the cooperation of those in the criminal scene who saw themselves as Nazis with the political Nazi scene. Continue reading →

The court continues to kill time and to refuse to clear up the facts

Today the court first read out several documents

It then considered pictures of a vacation that Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt had taken in 2004, shortly after the bombing attack in the Keupstraße in Cologne. These show all three in a friendly and relaxed atmosphere – a marked contrast to Zschäpe’s claims that her relationship to the two men had become particularly strained after they told her about the attack in Cologne.

Continue reading →

The court is working hard not to clear up the involvement of secret service informers

The trial day began with a court decision rejecting the motion by the Zschäpe defense for a suspension of the trial. The court then heard a federal criminal police detective who once again testified on radio stations’ reports on the death of Böhnhardt and Mundlos after the robbery in Eisenach on 4 November 2011.

The rest of the rather short trial day was dedicated to the court rejecting several motions for evidence brought by victims’ counsel. These motions had concerned the criminal acquaintances of Böhnhardt, Zschäpe and Mundlos as well as the question why those three were never arrested during their stay in Chemnitz, in spite of reports concerning their presence in the city, robberies they had committed and were planning to commit, as well as their supporters.

Continue reading →

Once more on the witnesses from the criminal scene in Thuringia

The only witness today was a federal criminal police detective who had interviewed the three witnesses from the criminal scene in Thuringia. As all three witnesses have refused to testify in court, the court is now introducing their testimony given to the police. His testimony today did not lead to any relevant new facts, all three witnesses had also refused to answer at least some of the questions of the police, after all.

Zschäpe defense counsel Borchert brought a motion for access to the original case file as well as a suspension of the trial, arguing that he was unable to check whether the electronic copy of the case file he had been given is complete while the trial is ongoing. He will surely be granted access as requested, just as surely as he will not be granted a suspension.

Continue reading →

Witness testimony concerning the Ceska murder weapon

Today the court heard a member of the federal prosecutor’s office who had been present during the questioning of a Swiss witness, the wife of the first buyer of the Ceska murder weapon, by Swiss authorities. The court is planning to read out the minutes of her testimony lateron.

Like her husband, the witness had refused to appear in Munich. In a letter to the court announcing her refusal, her husband had referred to himself as “the straw buyer from Switzerland”.

Her testimony did not reveal much of relevance; she stated that she did not remember much. Her husband had stated in his testimony that he had bought the Ceska for an acquaintance – who, according to the prosecutor’s investigations, then brought it to Thuringia.

At the end of the trial day, the court read out several documents, such as expert opinions, search warrants and police reports.