On the dangerousness of the Keupstraße nail bomb – and on the most brazen Nazi witness yet.

The first witness today was Bernd Tödter, leader of neo-Nazi group “Storm 18” from Kassel and just recently released from pre-trial detention after receiving a 30 month sentence for violent crimes. Tödter appeared in the outfit of a classical 1990s Nazi skinhead, with shaved head and a “Storm 18” shirt under a bomber jacket.

During an earlier incarceration, he had told the police that he could report on a meeting with Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt in 2006, shortly before the murder of Halit Yozgat in Kassel. Today Tödter tried to disavow his earlier statements – and achieved to combine perjury and resufal to testify more brazenly than any witness before him. At first he relied on the privilege against self-incrimination. When presiding judge Götzl told him that the privilege did not apply to him, he answered “In that case, I don’t remember anything.” The presiding judge tried very patiently to ask Tödter about his earlier statements to the police, but he remained stubborn in his refusal. His testimony was interrupted and will be continued tomorrow – it remains to be seen whether he will face fines or detention for refusal to testify or “just” a perjury trial.

In the afternoon, the two expert witnesses reported on the functioning and effects of the Keupstraße nail bomb. Their reports showed again that it was a massive stroke of luck that nobody died: bomb expert Dr. Mölle had calculated that even at distances far beyond 25 meters, the nails had a kinetic energy which would have made fatal injuries very likely in case of hits to the head or torso of persons. As to the splinters of the gas bottle itself, coroner Dr. Peschel calculated that its kinetic energy was somewhere between a bullet from a very large-caliber rifle and that from a machine gun. Even in distances of up to 100 metres, Peschel concluded, serious injuries could have been expected.

Peschel’s report concluded with a listing of the various injuries actually incurred, a frightening list comprising inter alia cornea injuries, broken bones, burn injuries and life-threatening injuries due to inhalation of gastric acid. In addition, there are the many psychological injuries suffered, on which Dr. Peschel, not being a psychiatrist, did not report in detail. However, he stated quite clearly that anxiety disorders as a part of post-traumatic stress disorder were a typical reaction in victims of this type of crime and that in some cases these disorders become chronic. However, he added, a courtroom is not the place to try detailed diagnoses of individual cases. Typically, the Zschäpe defense tried to interrupt and rebuke the expert witness during these statements.

One thing became crystal clear once more: all those Keupstraße residents who have testified as witnesses were present in an area in which there was a serious risk of fatal injuries. Upon being asked by victim’s counsel Alexander Hoffmann about the apartment of Hoffmann’s client, Dr. Mölle stated that the front-facing rooms of that apartment were also within that zone. This shows once more what Hoffmann had already stated yesterday: the motion by the Zschäpe defense to exclude his client from the trial is without any legal merit, it seems to be a mere propaganda device. The large number of private accessory prosecutors simply results from the extreme danger emanating from the bomb, which was designed to kill and maim as many Keupstraße residents as possible.

On the motion by the Zschäpe defense and on another witness with memory problems.

The first witness today was another victims of the nail bomb in the Keupstraße in Cologne. He was a customer of the hairdresser’s when the bomb exploded in front of the shop. He was extremely lucky to escape without injuries, but his girl friend who had accompanied him suffered several cuts, burns and damage to the ear drum as well as severe psychological injuries: “In the days after the attack, the telephone ringing would really startle her.” She will testify at a later date.

Parties then commented on the defense motion made last week to revoke the right of counsel Alexander Hoffmann’s client to join proceedings as a private accessory prosecutor. The federal prosecution was of the opinion that she is not victim of an attempted murder, but of attempted battery and as such entitled to join the proceedings. Hoffmann also made another statement showing once more that the defense motion was obviously without merit and that one could not help but feel that it was simply an attempt at propaganda against victims and their counsel. The concluding paragraphs of his statement were as follows:

„The attempt to call into question the right of a victim to join proceedings at this point, before the expert witness report on the explosive effect of the bomb, aims to exclude all but a few severely injured persons from being considered as “real” victims and thus to obscure the murderous dimension of the attack. The idea behind it: if one can claim that a person who was in the immediate vicinity at the time of the blast and who by chance was not injured is not a victim of the bomb, the fact that this attack was directed against all Keupstraße residents is eclipsed.
The nail bomb attack in the Keupstraße aimed at terror in its most immediate form. This fact several incriminates the accused Zschäpe. The motion by her defense can only be aimed at diverting attention from this fact. It must be rejected.”

Victim’s counsel Gül Pinar subscribed to this statement and added remarks on the fact that this was a clear example of a hate crime, of an attack against migrants based on their being migrants. The Wohlleben and Zschäpe defense interrupted since they obviously did not want to have this fact discussed in court. Other victims’ counsel also joined in Hoffmann’s statements.
In the afternoon, the court continued to question the Nazi witness who had already testified on 3 February 2015. As during his earlier questioning, the witness claimed not to remember much, but was also cautious not to clearly deny things which might be proven in other ways, instead constantly repeating “I can’t exclude that that happened”, “that’s possible” or “it may have been that way”. What became clear once more is that contacts between Böhnhardt, Mundlos, Zschäpe and their “comrades” from Jena on the one hand and neo-Nazis in Chemnitz on the other dated back to the early 1990s. Importantly, the Wohlleben defense again failed to prove the claims contained in its motion to hear the witness, namely that the scene in Chemnitz did not know Wohlleben, that “the Three” had become radicalized only in Chemnitz and without influence by the rest of the scene. Quite to the contrary, the witness confirmed that he had identified Wohlleben as “Wolle from Thuringia” in an earlier police interview.

Still no exculpatory evidence for Wohlleben.
And: the Zschäpe defense tries to get rid of a victim’s counsel

The trial day began with the report of a member of the Jugendgerichtshilfe, a division of the agency responsible for children and youths tasked with reporting to the court on the development of young offenders, in Düsseldorf. He reported on his conversations with accused Schultze. He could not tell the court and the parties much news since Schultze himself had made quite extensive statements in court. In one of the following trial weeks, an expert witness will present his report on whether Schultze, who was a young adult (between 18 and 20) at the time, should be treated as an adult or as a youthful offender.

Next was the questioning of Andreas Graupner, one of the more important members of “Blood & Honour” Saxony. The Wohlleben defense had requested that he be questioned, stating that he would testify inter alia that Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt were present at a “B&H” meeting in the town of Wilsdruff on 8 October 1998 during which “B&H” Saxony decided to provide assistance to the NSU.

Graupner, who has been living in the state of Baden-Württemberg since 2001, is well-known all over Germany as a member of the band “Noie Werte” (“New Values”), which is closely connected to “B&H”. Two earlier versions of the NSU video found on a computer in the NSU’s Frühlingsstraße apartment were scored with “Noie Werte” songs. Another band member, by the way, is an attorney and formerly member of the same law office as Wohlleben defense attorney Schneiders.

However, Graupner did not even try to exonerate Wohlleben, but rather behaved like many Nazi witnesses before: brash, feigning memory gaps, lying. Having twice been clearly caught perjuring himself, he nonetheless continued in the same vein. Presiding judge Götzl rather quickly gave up his attempts to question Graupner. The Wohlleben defense was just as unsuccessful. Victims’ counsel Edith Lunnebach was the only one who was able to get to the witness somewhat when she caught him lying and openly discussed his Nazi worldview. The Wohlleben defense strategy of trying to push the responsibility of “radicalizing the Three” to “B&H” Saxony once again proved unsuccessful.

At the end of the trial day, the Zschäpe defense, as announced last week, presented its motion to rescind the right of Alexander Hoffmann, one of the two authors of this blog, and of his client to take part in the proceedings as part of the private accessory prosecution. This motion is without any legal merit.

The right of a victim to take part in proceedings can be rescinded when it turns out that the victim was, from the outset, not entitled to take part, e.g. because the victim did not press charges and a prosecution is thus barred. The Zschäpe defense, on the other hand, claims that the evidence of the last weeks showed that Hoffmann’s client was not a victim of assault and attempted murder in the context of the bomb which exploded roughly 22 meters from her apartment.

However, this claim cannot lead to the rescission of her right to take part already for the simple reasons that the factual question of the extent to which she was endangered by the bomb, of how her concrete injuries relate to the bomb etc. is a question to be answered in the final judgment. And the legal question concerning her admission has already been answered in the court’s decision allowing the indictment to proceed to trial, in which it has characterized the bombing attack as attempted murder also of several persons who were not bodily injured, but who were present in the Keupstraße.
Victims’ counsel Edith Lunnebach made a statement on the defence motion in which she criticized that the defense would do well to focus on trying to find exculpatory material for their client instead of attacking victims’ counsel.

Measuring the Keupstraße

The witness due to testify in the evening, a childhood friend of Uwe Mundlos‘, did not appear. The trial day consisted mostly of the testimony of a police detective who was asked to state the distance of the nail bomb to several housed in the Keupstraße. The witness had both a diagram from the land register and an image developed with the aid of a specialized computer program from several aerial photographs. However, the latter image apparently caused some problems as the expert needed several interruptions before he was able to give the distance between the bicycle with the nail bomb and several neighboring houses.

As to the defense motions announced last week, the defense did not follow through on its announcements.

Witnesses for the Wohlleben defense – no exculpatory statements in sight.

Today the court heard the first two of the witnesses connected to “Blood & Honour” Saxony whose testimony has been requested by the Wohlleben defense in its 13 January 2015 motions. The defense aims to prove that it was only under the influence of “B&H” Saxony that Zschäpe, Böhnhardt and Mundlos were radicalized into starting the NSU and that Wohlleben had no contacts to “B&H” Saxony and thus did not play a central role among NSU supporters.
Of course, even if all that were to be proven true, the evidence already heard so far suffices to convict Wohlleben of the charges against him because he did in fact provide the NSU with the murder weapon. But even leaving that all aside, the two witnesses heard today did not actually confirm these defense claims, quite to the contrary:

The first witness is the owner of a facebook profile which amply demonstrates his political leanings, containing the slogan “Saufen macht frei” or “drinking makes one free”, a “wordplay” on the “Arbeit macht frei” or “work makes one free” placed at the entry gate of the Auschwitz concentration camp. The witness stated that he had first met Zschäpe in the 1990s and that he had met her several times in Chemnitz. This was pretty much the extent of the factual statements to be heard from him as, like other Nazis witnesses before him, he feigned extensive memory gaps. He will have to appear once more as the minutes of two police interviews with him have not yet been provided for the case file.

The second witness, who had already left the Nazi scene in 1994, stated that after the withdrawal of the Red Army from Eastern Germany, it was quite easy to buy guns; he himself had taken part in target practice sessions. He had also been involved, together with several “B&H” members, in an attempted attack by about 250 persons on a refugee home, an attack during which Molotov cocktails were thrown. What the witness did not relate, however, was anything which could support the factual claims by the Wohlleben defense.

Zschäpe defense tries to get rid of victim’s counsel – and thus to divert attention from evidence concerning a “documented confession” by Zschäpe.

The taking of evidence today was overshadowed by arguments concerning the right of several Keupstraße victims to join the trial as private accessory prosecutors. This had already started yesterday when it became clear that certain victims’ counsel had courted potential clients rather aggressively and had apparently brought motions to join the proceedings without having cleared up details with the victims and had claimed injuries which were somewhat unclear. The Zschäpe defense apparently saw its chance not only to divert attention from the evidence heard today, which was dramatically incriminating for their client, but also to attack victims’ counsel whom they had frequently quarreled with.

In the afternoon, the therapist of a private accessory prosecutor who had already testified as a witness last week took the stand. The Zschäpe defense started to question him very intensely in the apparent hope of having him state that the witness had not suffered psychological damage as a result of the bombing attack but that her panic attacks – the existence of which no one doubts – stemmed from childhood events. The therapist did not agree – the childhood events had led to a depression, but this manifested in totally different symptoms than the panic attacks. His client had told him that the attacks had started to appear after the bombing attack and had grown more severe over time. In 2011 she was in a movie theatre when a war scene in the movie caused a severe panic attack necessitating emergency medical help and a trip to the hospital; in fact the ambulance had to stop on the way to the hospital in order for her to be given emergency medical attention right on the spot. He concluded that the events in the movie, which were similar to those of the bombing attack, had caused the panic attack at that time. Today he would consider changing his diagnosis to “post traumatic stress syndrome” caused by the bombing attack.

After his testimony, the woman’s counsel, Alexander Hoffmann, one of the two authors of this blog, made a statement in which he stressed that the defense actions – the intensive and protracted questioning of the therapist and the attempt to accuse his client of false statements concerning her psychological injuries – was inappropriate. In response, Zschäpe defense attorney Wolfgang Heer announced that the defense was preparing a motion to be brought next week that the court rescind her right, as well as that of two others, to join the proceedings as private accessory prosecutors.

Such a motion is bound to fail as it could only succeed in this case if there had been false statements in the motion to join the proceedings. The witness discussed here was not physically injured in the attack and has never claimed to have been injured. The Higher Regional Court of Munich has allowed her, as well as other persons not physically injured, to join the proceedings because they were close enough to the nail bomb that it must be assumed that the perpetrators also wanted to kill them. In connection with the nail bomb, Zschäpe thus stands accused of attempted murder of 21 persons and of causing grave bodily injury to 17 of them. The set of facts before the court after the testimony of this witness, of her physician and of her therapists, is exactly the same as that on which the court based its decision to allow her to join the proceedings.

In other words: these people have been allowed as private accessory prosecutors not because of any actual physical injuries caused by the bomb, but because the bomb targeted them as well, because the NSU killers tried to kill all people in the vicinity of the bomb, including these witnesses. Trying to differentiate between these victims of attempted murder and „real victims“, on the basis that the killers‘ plans did not come to fruition with regard to them, is not only cynical. Moreover, it is another attempt – after the investigations of the police and the statements in the press directed against the Keupstraße from 2004 to 2011 – to spread discord among the people in the Keupstraße and to make some of them from victims to perpetrators (in this case of alleged false statements to the court).

What’s most grating about this whole discussion – or rather sham discussion – is that it diverts attention from the important evidence heard today – and this evidence was quite spectacular:
First, two residents of the house opposite the explosion site – who, by the way, were not of Turkish origin – testified on what they had witnessed. A man had just turned onto the property in his car when the bomb exploded. The entire roof of the car was caved in, nails were stuck in the facade of the house two stories high. Next witness was his mother in law, who had the same difficulties as other witnesses before her to explain her psychological injuries to the satisfaction of presiding judge Götzl. She reported that she often wakes up at night from the sound of car doors being thrown shut and remembers the events, that she generally has trouble sleeping. What did raise some attention was her statement that, within six to twelve months, she had lost over 30 pounds of weight. It became apparent that the life of this witness, too, is still influenced by the bomb eleven years after the explosion.

The most important witness today was a police officer who had analyzed a DVD found in the remains of the NSU flat in the Frühlingsstraße. It is likely that other police officers who have dealt with this DVD will also have to testify. The DVD contained two folders named “killer” and “for the action-dvd”. The folder “killer” contained inter alia lists of names and addresses, apparently of potential targets for NSU crimes. Among those were several in Cologne, two of which, including a daycare for children, were situated in the Keupstraße. Other entries include refugee residences, gun shops, but also the address of a prosecutor in Siegen. The folder also contained three designs for member or personnel IDs of two tennis clubs and a hotel in Nürnberg, Burgdorf and Frankfurt, all showing a picture of Zschäpe and under the name of Mandy Struck.

They also contained written “bets” between Zschäpe and Böhnhardt on weight loss goals. Among the wagers was “200 video cuts”. Since none of the computers contained any other videos which could require that amount of editing, it is clear what this was about: the wager concerned the editing of the video in which the NSU claimed responsibility for its crimes. This shows that Zschäpe too worked on that video, an important evidence for her being a co-perpetrator of the NSU crimes. In these written bets, Mundlos goes by the name of “killer”, Zschäpe by “Liese” and Böhnhardt by “cleaner”. This could be a clue as to the division of tasks when committing the murders, with Mundlos firing the lethal shots, Böhnhardt shooting “for safety” and being responsible for avoiding evidence such as cartridges. The DVD also shows that Zschäpe was a full member of the group and directly involved in foundational activities such as the editing of the NSU video. The three even made “jokes” about the murders. Victim’s counsel Sebastian Scharmer, in a statement after the detective’s testimony, rightly called the DVD a “documented confession” by Beate Zschäpe.

Keupstraße: who was in danger?
And: how serious can one take Schultze’s “distancing” himself from the Nazi scene?

The first witnesses today were three members of a family who testified on how they witnessed the Keupstraße bomb. The mother had been less than 30 meters from the bomb and had been lucky to mostly suffer a severe fright as well as injuries to her ear drums. She reported that loud noises such as fireworks still led to her recalling her experiences of the explosion and that is still only able to sleep soundly maybe two nights per week.

The testimony of her son led to irritation and to some indignation particularly among reporters present when he reported he first stated that at the moment of the explosion, he had been in his car in the Schanzenstraße, a cross street to the Keupstraße. Presiding judge Götzl told him in a quite severe tone that his counsel had told the court in his motion for permission to join the case that he had been in the area of explosion of the bomb. This confusion was cleared up during the testimony of his sister: her brother had in fact been in his car at the intersection of the Schanzenstraße and the Keupstraße, about 25 meters from the bomb and thus in an area where severe injuries might well have occurred.

The Wohlleben defense asked for a short interruption in order to discuss whether to bring a motion. Apparently they had hoped to use the inconsistencies in order to attack the legitimacy of victims’ counsel. In the end, they did not bring a motion, likely because they did not see any angle. Wohlleben is not charged in connection with the Keupstraße attack – there is evidence that he had bought and sold electronics very similar to those used in the bomb, but this is not enough to charge him with concrete acts of aiding and abetting.

The final witness today was a former co-worker of accused Schultze with an AIDS support group in Düsseldorf. Schultze had told him in November of 2011 that he had provided Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt with a gun. The witness did not remember any relevant details with regard to the gun. What was interesting, however, was what had told him about his Nazi activities: He had stated that he had been active in the “Thuringia Home Guard” and had been proud that “his youth group” was the only one whose members had not fought with each other, making his activities in the Nazi scene appear almost like “social work”.

The witness stated that in November of 2011, after the death of Böhnhardt and Mundlos and the uncovering of the NSU, Schultze had been very nervous. He had then told him about the gun. Asked what he had thought back then what would happen with that gun, he had answered “nothing at all.” The witness did not believe him, but also stated that such an answer was quite typical for Schultze.

Apparently, Schultze’s coming out and his entry into the gay scene in Düsseldorf happened without any actual break or concrete distancing from his Nazi past. If Schultze had given up his knowledge early on – after all, antifascist groups had uncovered his Nazi past in Jena –, this might not only have led to an early uncovering of the NSU, but also to a considerable sentence reduction for Schultze – something which is hard to imagine today. This was far from a commendable “exit” and distancing from the Nazi scene.

Keupstraße victims: how does one prove fear and mental anguish?

Today the court heard several witnesses who were in the range of the explosion, but who did not suffer serious bodily injury. Accordingly, their statements were much less spectacular than those of the witnesses last week, many of whom were severely injured. Sadly this also led to presiding judge Götzl rushing through the taking of evidence. Despite the fact that some of these witnesses have been allowed to join the proceedings as private accessory prosecutors as they are victims of attempted murder, the court has troubles in taking seriously the anxiety and other psychological damages suffered by these victims.

Interestingly, while these witnesses differed in the way they reported on these events, the core of their statements was very similar. All of them had heard and felt the explosion, some of them had suffered inner ear injuries, and they all reported on their ongoing anxiety triggered most of all by the nails some of which hit a shop 100 meters from the explosion.

Some of them had not gone to doctors or therapists with their problems, some had done so grudgingly, either because they did not want to admit their problems to themselves or due to unspecified fears. It became clear once again that the Keupstraße victims would have needed a program of psycho-social support, which however nobody offered to them.

Pretty much all of them also reported that the police had treated them “like perpetrators”, had asked them time again about their contacts to “mafia”, PKK or Hizbullah even though they told detectives clearly that this bombing attack could only have come from racists and Nazis. One witness even reported that one detective had made shushing gestures and noised and had ordered him to never again talk about racists and Nazis.

One witness had seen Böhnhardt carefully push the bicycle with the bomb towards the Keupstraße. She reported that she had been shown the video footage from the Viva building, but that she had not been shown pictures of German suspects from the Nazi scene – such pictures would have included Böhnhardt and Mundlos who were wanted for explosives offenses in Jena, allowing an uncovering of the entire NSU at this point in time.

Another witness, who was on his motorcycle, had almost been hit by a bicyclist cycling away from the scene of the explosion at very high speed. He had told the police about this the same day and had also later connected the pictures from the video camera with that bicyclist, but he had never been seriously interviewed by the police. He also described the way the police had treated the victims of the attack, some of which were still covered in blood. One of them had told him “this is not normal, they are trying to tell us that we did this to ourselves!”

More testimony by Keupstraße victims.

Today several more Keupstraße victims testified as witnesses. The first witness was the restaurateur from the Keupstraße who was in the barber shop as a customer when the bomb exploded. He showed up in court wearing a T-shirt of the solidarity initiative “Keupstraße is everywhere”.

The witness was comparatively luck to “only” sustain an injury to the ear-drum, he also managed to leave the psychological after-effects behind rather quickly. However, he reported on the enormous economic damage suffered due to the suspicions voiced against the Keupstraße by the police and in the press – many of the former customers of shops and restaurants, particularly those of German origin, simply did not dare go there anymore.
Like many, the witness had immediately realized that this was a racist attack and had told the police that he did not believe that “the bouncers” were responsible: “I think that this has a radical right background. They are trying to disrupt the coexistence of the Turks in the street.” Today, he referred to that statement and expressed his hope that people of Turkish and of German origin are able to return to a coexistence based on trusting each other.

The next witness was a young woman who was advanced in pregnancy and lying down in her flat on the opposite side of the street when the bomb exploded. When she looked out of her window, she saw scenes of destruction, the many injured persons with bloody wounds – a picture, the witness reported today, which is still in her head today. Seeing the nails on the ground, the witness imagined what would have happened if her seven year old son had played on the street as he often does. It is far from surprising that the witness still suffers immensely from the psychological damage inflicted on that day.

Further witnesses reported similar details. Several of them stressed once more that they were very disappointed by the police investigation, which was directed mostly against them and the others in the Keupstraße. Even a former officer of the Turkish army – hardly a natural ally of those suspected by the police, namely the “red light district milieu” and the PKK – was questioned rather intensively and asked at first not to leave Germany.

At the end of the trial day, the court heard the report of a bomb expert on experiments with bombs built to function like the Keupstraße nail bomb. These showed that many of the nails were easily able to penetrate metal sheets of 1.5 mm thickness in a distance of 5 meters – a human being hit in the head or the torso by such a nail would likely suffer fatal injuries. However, the area in which fatal injuries could be expected was likely much larger – many of the nails had more than 2.5 times the kinetic energy required for fatal wounds, i.e. being hit would have been fatal even over much larger distances. Many witnesses today related that it was only due to luck that they had not been hit by the nails, e.g. because a car was parked between them and the bomb.

In addition, there was a very significant danger of injury due to fragments of the gas container used as the body of the bomb – during the experiments, these were found up to 55m from the site of the explosion. The leading expert witness on the issue of the bomb will report next week.
The Zschäpe defense again showed itself from its most unpleasant side: when one of the witnesses, who was visibly very nervous, began his statement with a few introductory sentences in order to ease into the topics at hand, defense counsel Heer interrupted him rather quickly and demanded that he immediately get to the point. The presiding judge chose not to play such undignified games and allowed the witness to proceed on his own pace – unsurprisingly, it took just a few more introductory sentences after which he turned to the events of 9 June 2004.
During the entire week, it was refreshing to see that the Keupstraße victims were able, with the support and solidarity of [link] “Keupstraße is everywhere” and other supporters present outside the courtroom, to tell their story. The witnesses took the space they needed to report not only on the crime itself and on their injuries, but also on the way they themselves were considered suspects, on the way the trust among neighbors was destroyed by suspicions voiced by the police – all those things which many from the Keupstraße now call “the attack after the attack.”

Next week, the court will hear several more victims from the Keupstraße as well as the expert witnesses.

„Solidarity was lacking“: More victims of the nail bomb attack in the Keupstraße.

Today more victims of the nail bomb attack in the Keupstraße testified as witnesses.
One thing that was common to all their testimonies was that they are still suffering immensely from the psychological damage inflicted on them. To give only one example, the owner of a shop opposite the barber shop, who was comparatively lucky to be hit by “only” three nails as more were absorbed by a parked car, stated: “Today, when I sit on the Keupstraße and see a bicyclist passing through, I my first thought is that it could happen again.”

The fate of a woman from the shop next to the barber shop again shows that the German authorities did not treat the people from the Keupstraße like “normal” victims: Immediately after the explosion, she had seen one the severely injured young men, had doused the flames still burning around his legs, had lost consciousness shortly thereafter – in other words, she was obviously deeply traumatized. The normal cause of action in case of any larger accident, let alone a large-scale crime, would be to immediately provide such victims with a trauma therapy. Not in the case of this witness: she did start psychotherapy, but was told after a few sessions that further sessions would not be covered. Only after the self-uncovering of the NSU in 2011, she was aided in finding a therapist able to deal with her case – whom she is still seeing as the psychological injuries are still present today.

Another customer of the barber shop, who luckily only suffered minor injuries to his hearing, summarized his feelings thus: “After 2011, my opinion has changed, I would say: solidarity was lacking.” He too was asked by the police what he knew of the red light district milieu, of the PKK, whether he was in contact with them, his DNA and fingerprints were taken – all this, it should be stressed, after the police already had photos showing the perpetrators to be of Western/Central European origin.

A similar fate befell the three men who in the police file are often referred to as customers from the “bouncer scene” – three young family men then in their early Thirties and working in such “suspicious” jobs as electricians and forklift operator. After their wounds had been cared for in the hospital, they too were questioned for several hours by the police and asked what they knew about the red light district milieu, drugs, the PKK. They too were asked to give their fingerprints and DNA samples. It was very touching to listen to those three men, all young and physically strong, tell in a rather open and emotional manner about the psychological injuries they are still suffering from today – sleep disorders, nightmares, fear of large crowds of people etc.

The final witness was the barber who was severely injured in the attack and who is the brother of the barber shop’s owner. He had seen the perpetrator placing the bicycle and had been able to describe him to the police quite well. He had described him as light-skinned and blonde – which did not keep the Cologne police from treating the victim, his family and the other people of Turkish origin in the Keupstraße as suspects, from tailing the victim over a period of several weeks in 2006 (!). He also reported on the severe economic damage suffered by the barber shop, but also by the other shop and restaurant owners in the Keupstraße: due to the many suspicions voiced by the police and the media, the number of people visiting the Keupstraße and the shops in the street declined drastically.

Thus the trial day showed once more that the bombers luckily did not realize their main goal of killing as many people as possible – but that they fully achieved their goal of bringing as much pain as suffering as possible to the Keupstraße. It was therefore a great relief to see that the people from the Keupstraße have not lost their will to fight – as shown in the very powerful rally and demonstration yesterday, but also in the answer of one of the witnesses – who described himself as a “Turkish-German Cologne-bred (“Kölscher” in the regional dialect) boy” – to the question whether he had thought of leaving Cologne and Germany: “No, why should I? I live in Cologne, that’s my home town, Germany is my home country. Why should I leave?”