First witness statements on the nail bomb in the Keupstraße – and on the „bomb after the bomb“.

Today, the court heard the first witness statements of those injured by the nail bomb attack on 9 June 2004 in the Keupstraße in Cologne. Their witness statements were followed by statements from surgeons who had treated their injuries.

First to testify were two young men who had walked directly past the bomb when it exploded. They reported on their experiences in a very composed manner, which could not however mask how much they suffer to this day. Both were hit by several nails which embedded themselves in their legs and backs, they suffered fractures, serious burns, injuries to their ear drums and further injuries, both are still dealing with the aftereffects of these injuries today. Of course, the psychological damages were just as serious: both reported very clearly how long it took them to get back to a normal life; both are still in treatment with therapists.

Their statements affirmed the impression left by the statements of the police bomb experts last week: that none of the two suffered life-threatening injuries is only due to severe luck. One of the surgeons stated that, had his patient stood a bit further away from the bomb, he would have been hit in the torso instead of the legs and lower back – better not to think about the injuries they would have caused then.

The witnesses also reported on what people in Cologne call „the bomb after the bomb”: the suspicions raised against the victims, against the people in the Keupstraße by the police. Thus the two friends were not allowed to talk to each other during the first two weeks of their hospital stay as they were suspected of having planted the bomb. Later, the police took their photos as well as fingerprints and DNA samples.

One of them had, already in his first police interview in the hospital, voiced his suspicion that this bomb had been planted by Nazis in order to kill as many foreigners as possible. Today, he summarized his thoughts as follows: “That’s self-explanatory if I detonate a bomb in the middle of the day in a street where old ladies and kids are passing by – you don’t have to be a detective to see that.” This statement was met with applause from the public gallery, much to displeasure of presiding judge Götzl. As is well-known, the police did not follow up on this rather reasonable suspicion voiced by this witness and many others.

The fate of the next witness, who was a customer in the barber shop in front of which the bomb was placed, was quite similar: He also suffered several injuries due to nails and glass fragments, he still suffers from the psychological aftereffects such as sleep disorders, panic attacks brought about by being in large gatherings of people, etc. The witness, who was self-employed before the attack, is still incapable of working today.

Another victim stated in summary that he had fled from Turkey as a political refugee, only to suffer in Germany what he had managed to avoid in Turkey.

All in all, the day left no doubt that there is no possible explanation for the fact that the police did not investigate possible racist motivations for this attack and instead chose to investigate and criminalize the victims.

Through the day, victims and their supporters held a rally in front of the court building. At the end of the trial day, they held a demonstration from the court building towards Munich’s inner city, which was attended by about 1.500 people. The demonstrators, led and organized by solidarity initiative [link] “Keupstraße is everywhere” from Cologne, thus showed that they will keep up the public pressure to investigate and clear up the NSU’s crimes.

Further testimony of former informer Carsten Szczepanski. And: The end of the common front – motions for evidence brought by the Wohlleben defense

The first witness today was the police bomb expert who finished his testimony on the nail bomb in the Keupstraße in Cologne. The court then continued with the questioning of former secret service informer Carsten Szczepanski (we reported on the first day of his testimony on 3 December 2014).

As was to be expected, his testimony was a rather sluggish affair, his memory of (or his will to remember) former “comrades”, names and dates rather bad. Szcepanski did, at least, report rather openly on the scene’s ideology and propensity towards violence. Victims’ counsel summarized the results of his questioning in an oral statement of which a summary is available (in German) here. One of the conclusions to be drawn is that the Nazi scene in the 1990s was openly calling for racist violence and for “armed struggle”. Shockingly, the witness was able to continue his political activities throughout the period of being an informer for the secret service – inter alia, he continued publishing an extremely violent zine even while being imprisoned, even vetting articles with the service before publishing them.

Szczepanski had told the service that Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt were in Chemnitz and being supported by the local “Blood and Honour” section, but no arrests followed – showing that the secret service was simply not interested in combating Nazism and in arresting them.
Szczepanski had originally been called to testify both today and tomorrow; as his testimony was finished today, presiding judge Götzl simply cancelled tomorrow’s trial day.

At the end of the trial day, the Wohlleben defense brought a number of motions for evidence, which all contain one core claim, namely that it was not Ralf Wohlleben who was the central figure among those supporting the three who had gone underground, but that the support was provided mainly by “Blood & Honour” Saxony, who were responsible for the radicalization of Zschäpe, Böhnhardt and Mundlos which ended in the NSU murders and who also provided them with the guns used. In order to prove this claim, the defense moved that all relevant members of B&H Saxony as well as the former leaders of B&H Thuringia and B&H Germany be called to testify.

As clearly visibly in the expressions of Zschäpe defense attorneys Heer and Stahl, this is a serious distancing of the Wohlleben defense from that of co-accused Zschäpe. Interestingly, the witnesses the defense wishes to question are party of the very scene on which the court has focused, largely based on motions by victims’ counsel, in the last weeks and months – a focus criticized not only by the federal prosecution and the Zschäpe defense, but also by the defense of Ralf Wohlleben. Victims’ counsel, who were criticized for allegedly delaying the trial, can take these motions as a sign that they were on the right track – particularly as some of the defense motions were based on insider knowledge, e.g. a claim that Böhnhardt and Mundlos were present at the meeting in which B&H Saxony decided on its own dissolution.

At the same time, it is more than unlikely that the Wohlleben defense will succeed in its attempt to present their client as rather harmless and clueless (compared to B&H Saxony) and thus as innocent. Both the objective evidence and the statement by co-accused Schultze clearly show that Schultze and Wohlleben had provided “the Three” with a silenced pistol, a weapon which could only have been needed for acts of political assassination.

The Wohlleben defense has obviously read the signs inherent in the court’s denial of its last motion to release Wohlleben from pre-trial detention: Wohlleben faces a very long prison term because the evidence shows he provided the silenced Ceska pistol, because it is clear from his involvement, next to Zschäpe, Böhnhardt and Mundlos, in the so-called “Volkstod”-campaign, from his knowledge of the extreme aggression and propensity for violence of Uwe Böhnhardt, that he knew exactly whom he provided with that murder weapon. The motions brought today are an attempt to use the recently uncovered facts concerning Chemnitz supporters in order to pass the buck to them. Of course, Böhnhardt and Mundlos had already received material for building bombs from B&H in Chemnitz, had already set up a bomb workshop in Jena, had in other words had the tools for conducting bombing attacks, the requisite mens rea as well as connections to B&H, already at a time when they were still in Jena and thus still very close to Wohlleben both politically and personally – a fact which the defense motions omit to mention. The absence of proof of contact between Wohlleben and B&H Saxony in the period between 1998 and the early 2000s is likely to be explained by the fact that the police were conducting investigations against him for the explosives crimes in Jena, which led him as the central supporter of “the Three” to try to keep a low profile.

First evidence concerning the bombing attack in the Keupstraße in Cologne

Today the court heard the first witnesses concerning the NSU’s nail bomb
attack in the Keupstraße in Cologne. The first two witnesses, two arson
and explosives detectives, vividly described the extreme danger
emanating from the bomb, which contained more than 5 kilograms of black
powder and more than 700 large nails and which led to burst windows up
to 150 meters from the site of the explosion. The bomb was triggered
remotely with components used in building model airplanes.

That the NSU murderers did not succeed in their plan to kill people with
this bomb was a very lucky coincidence. The injuries – including life
threatening injuries – of several people in the Keupstraße will be
considered in the following weeks; those injured in the attack will
testify in court on 20 January 2015 and the following trial days.

On what was likely the NSU’s first attack in Nuremberg – and on the theoretical foundation for its crimes

Today the court heard a detective of the Bavarian criminal police concerning a bombing attack in Nuremberg in June of 1999. The proprietor of a pub in Nuremberg, a man with Turkish roots, had found a flashlight in the men’s room. Upon testing it out, it had exploded in his hands. Within the flashlight, there was a metal pipe filled with gunpowder; the pipe had been weakened with a saw in order to blow apart when the gunpowder exploded and to lead to severe injuries. That the victim had not been severely injured was likely only due to the fact that the end pieces had been blown off when the bomb exploded.

From the first report on this attack, the police had committed itself to the claim that there was no reason to suspect a political background. The witness today stated that the political police had been asked to help with the investigations, but was unable to report any concrete investigative steps undertaken in that regard. The investigations were carried out under the heading of negligently causing injury – how one goes about negligently putting a pipe bomb into a flashlight and negligently leaving it in a restaurant was not discussed in detail today. It was only the statement of accused Carsten Schultze in the courtroom in Munich which led to this crime being linked to the NSU. This of course also strengthens the other statements, incriminating to the other accused, made by Schultze on issues such as the support provided to the NSU, the provisions of guns to the organizations, political discussions concerning violence within the “Thuringia Homeguard” (“THS”), etc.

The court then read out several publications found in the garage in Jena which had been used to build the first bombs. Most important of those was the magazine “Sonnenbanner” (“Sun banner”), issued by informer and THS contact person Michael See. The magazine contains an article with instructions regarding organizing in cells, acting from underground, etc. and showing an elitist view of such activities which is particularly interesting, particularly as it was most likely read and discussed by the THS group in Jena, comprised inter alia of Beate Zschäpe, Ralph Wohlleben, Holger Gerlach and Carsten Schultze.

The article itself refers to a book with instructions for underground fighters by a certain “Major von Dach”, of which Tino Brandt had been sent several issued. The issue of cell structures is also dealt with in several other publications found in the garage. The methodology of “the Three” as seen in the evidence presented in court exactly conforms to that given in the article, especially as concerns Beate Zschäpe and her attempts to present a “normal” front in public and avoid all openly political statements and activities. What is not yet clear is when the magazine was made and therefore how long it was discussed in the group in Jena. Publisher Michael See would be able to answer the first question at least, victims’ counsel have already moved that he be called as a witness.

The court also read out the first issue of Nazi magazine “Der weiße Wolf” (The White Wolf) and other documents. “Der weiße Wolf” is of particular interest because its publishers had contacts to the scene in Jena, were later sent a “donation” from the NSU and published a thank you note and the statement “It has borne fruit”. Parties also viewed a drawing of a skeleton wearing a Wehrmacht uniform, which was later used in the “Pogromly” board game, and other drawings.
Finally, the court issued several decisions denying motions for evidence brought by victims’ counsel. We will consider these decisions in more detail in the next few days. It seems that the court issued these decisions in order to show that it will not allow an alleged “broadening of the evidence-taking by victims’ counsel” as claimed by federal prosecution, defense and certain members of the press.

The trial day tomorrow has been canceled as the police officer who was to testify is still sick.

Lies and Trivialization, Part XII – Continued Questioning of Michael Probst

Today the court continued the questioning of Michael Probst, ex-husband of Antje Probst, then member of “Blood & Honour” Saxony. When first questioned, Probst had stated that he refused to answer questions concerning his ex-wife so as not to incriminate her – “after all it is possible that she had something to with it” (see the report of 3 December 2012). Today Probst appeared again with a witness counsel – and answered questions concerning his wife, but tried hard to downplay her role. He claimed that she had played a “female role”, had only been member of “B&H” out of “romantic enthusiasm” and had not had much to say. Probst was confronted with reports of informer Szczepanski who reported otherwise, who stated that Antje Probst had tried to push the “B&H” scene in the direction of attacks – but he repeated his trivializing claims. He was, however, forced to walk these views back somewhat and to admit that his ex-wife had at least once made sure that collected money reached the recipients, that she had acted very close-mouthed around him as far as internal “B&H” matters were concerned, and that the group had acted in a very conspirative manner.

Probst claimed on the one hand that he had not shared the views of “B&H” and other organizations, but on the other hand also tried to trivialize these views: According to him, the goal of “B&H” had been “patriotism, maybe a sort of increased national pride”, the “88ers” from Chemnitz had simply been a “youth movement” trying to show “a common bond of those coming from a city”. Again, he had to walk back such claims when confronted with evidence to the contrary: one main reason why he had not become “B&H” member was that he was under police surveillance. He was also able to state certain details concerning the production of “B&H” magazine “White Supremacy”, showing that he had a good overview of “B&H” activities even though he claimed not to be able to remember any names. Upon repeated questioning, he did not even exclude that he might have been present at a meeting where “B&H” Saxony had decided to split from “B&H” Germany.

All in all, it is likely that this witness too is facing a criminal investigation for perjury. He even denied having known accused André Eminger – and this despite witness testimony of his ex-wife relating concrete business contacts between the two, despite his phone number having been found in the contacts of Eminger’s mobile phone. In any event, Probst’s statement cannot call into question the statement of informer Szczepanski regarding support provided by „B&H“ Saxony and Antje Probst. According to Probst’s own statements, such support could have been provided without his knowing about it. That Szczepanski described Probst as “B&H” member can be based on his important position as music producer, shop owner, band member, husband of Antje Probst and close friend of Jan Werner – all details which placed him close to the organization “B&H” as not even the witness himself tried to deny.

The court also heard as witness a judge of the Federal Court of Justice concerning a “weapons identification” conducted with Carsten Schultze shortly after Schultze had been arrested.

How the NSU spied out potential targets for murderous attacks.

Today two police detectives testified. The first of them had evaluated a piece of evidence found in the ruins of the NSU’s Frühlingsstraße apartment, a CD containing a number of pictures. These showed a man (very likely Uwe Böhnhardt) with a bike in front of two potential targets for attacks in Stuttgart, a Turkish barbecue restaurant and a greengrocer’s. To a casual observer, it must have seemed as if these were tourist photos, but in reality it became apparent that this was an attempt to document these objects, including routes towards them and flight routes. Both objects fit the picture of previous NSU attacks – small business with Turkish-origin proprietors close to railway stations and/or large through-streets.

The next two photos show the door panel of an office of the Socialdemocratic party in Hof/Bavaria, followed by a photo taken roughly two hours later and showing Böhnhardt and Zschäpe in an apartment. As rightly noted by a victim’s counsel, this is another piece of evidence for Zschäpe’s involvement in the preparation of attacks.

The case file also shows the further investigation by the federal criminal police, starting with an inquiry to colleagues whether there were had been any police investigations against the proprietors – and this after the uncovering of the NSU in the fall of 2011! However, today’s witness was not involved in these investigations and thus could not relate any details.
At the end of the trial day, the court continued the questioning of a police detective from Thuringia who had started to testify on 27 November 2014. He had questioned Beate Zschäpe and Ralf Wohlleben as accused in a 1996 investigation, but did not have any memories of having done so.

Lies and Trivialization, Part 11, with support by the Zschäpe defense – further questioning of Antje Probst.

Today the court continued the questioning of former “Blood & Honour” member Antje Probst (on her first questioning see the report of 20 November 2014). She continued her reprehensible strategy of trivialization, claimed not to have been involved at all in the political activities of “B&H”, to have loved Nazi band “Skrewdriver” only for its music and lovely ballads, etc. She did not budge from this position even in the face of several questions and upon being confronted with publications, witness testimonies etc. which contradicted her.

In summary, the witness has worked hard to earn the investigation for perjury which is bound to follow, starting from the very beginning of her testimony: without any specific questions by the court, Probst referred to the question of her acquaintance with the Eminger brother (see report of 20 November 2014) – but did not use the opportunity to correct her false statements from last time.

The Zschäpe defense triggered a rather long discussion by objecting to a question by victim’s counsel Alexander Hoffmann: The witness, who together with her husband had played in the band “AEG”, claimed that that band had had nothing to do with “Blood & Honour”. Hoffmann questioned this statement and asked who had produced “AEG”’s music. The defense claimed that this question had nothing to do with case at hand – despite it being a rather obvious question concerning Probst’s believability. Equally obvious is that Probst’s testimony is of some importance for the proceedings, after all other witnesses had related concrete acts of support provided by her to “the Three” as well as attempts by Probst to militarize the scene. But then again, the Zschäpe defense obviously has no interest in countering the strategy of lies and trivialization employed by all Nazi witnesses from Chemnitz, of uncovering further details concerning the support provided to the NSU by the broader Nazi scene. The same apparently applies for the federal prosecution, which again lent its support to the defense, as well as for a few victims’ counsel who did the same today. The court – naturally – overruled the objection, the witness answered the question. The defense continued its attempts to torpedo the questioning by victims’ counsel of this witness, who could after all relate some interesting details concerning the structure NSU/”Blood & Honour”.

Her testimony has once again shown that the strategy of silence and of a continuing bond with the accused is still followed by all witnesses from the scene. It also became apparent that in the years in question, all aspects of the life of this witness were connected with the Nazi scene: in her “private” life she organized Nazi concerts, her job was to sell Nazi CDS, videos, clothes and magazines, as concerns her family she was afraid that her children might have to play with “non-white” children. The witness and the people around her lived in a “nationally liberated zone” and organized their lives according to the crude ideology of “white supremacy”. That people living in such a world also discuss the option of a “racial war” against immigrants is hardly surprising. Her testimony thus strengthens the testimony of informer Szczepanski, who had related that „B&H“ Saxony had decided to support Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt, that Probst wanted to provide her passport to Zschäpe and that Jan Werner tried to buy guns for them.

At the end of the trial, victims’ counsel brought a motion for evidence concerning a neo-Nazi who had told the police that he had met Mundlos and Böhnhardt once in Zwickau when visiting his brother and again at a later date shortly before the murder of Halit Yozgat and that he knew further members of their support network.

Inter alia more on „Blood & Honour“ Saxony.

Today showed how laborious it can be to consider all the evidence in the NSU trial. The court spent all afternoon reading out reports on fingerprint identification. Of course, all this evidence needs to be formally introduced in the trial if it is to be considered in the judgment. And the content of today’s evidence was quite important.

In the morning, the court heard two detectives from the federal criminal police who had questioned Jan Werner, the head of “Blood & Honour” Saxony. During the interview, Werner had not made any statements concerning the investigation itself – but he had made some remarks during a cigarette break. He stated that everyone knew who had provided guns to the Nazi scene in the 1990s, after all it had later come out that that person had been a secret service informer. He himself had been under constant surveillance at that time. Werner also talked about his acquaintance with Andreas Graupner, another “B&H” Saxony member and member of the Nazi band “Noie Werte” – however, he claimed not to have had any recent contact with Graupner.

The next witness was a staff member of the office of the federal criminal prosecutor who had been present at the questioning of the Swiss witnesses by Swiss prosecutors concerning the Ceska murder weapon. She gave a brief report on the general conduct of the interview.
Finally, the court began considering the several pieces of evidence that had been found in the ruins of the house in the Frühlingsstraße in Zwickau. Today it read out several reports on fingerprint identification. Among others, police had found several documents originating with accused André Eminger, on which were found prints from Eminger and members of two of the “Three.” They had also found a collection of newspaper clippings concerning the NSU’s murders, on which were found Zschäpe’s finger prints – one more piece of evidence showing that Zschäpe was not as claimed by her defense a “housewife in the underground”, but rather actively involved in the NSU’s crimes.

Today´s blogentry is still in translation.

Secret service informers: „people who don’t just report, but people who act and then report on those acts”

The first two witnesses today were two retired police detectives from Switzerland whom the court had summoned upon a motion by the Wohlleben defense. In 1996, the detectives had conducted an investigation against a German national who had made illegal trades with gun bought in Switzerland. The arms dealer from whom Hans-Ulrich Müller had received the murder weapon Ceska played a peripheral role in that investigation. As reported earlier, this is a desperate attempt by the Wohlleben defense to call into question the chain of custody of the Ceska – today, this became even more pointless as the two witnesses had not even dealt directly with the arms dealer in question.

Next up to testify was the ex-husband of Antje Probst, the latter having testified concerning “Blood & Honour” Saxonia and its support to “the Three” two weeks ago (see the report of 20 November 2014).

Probst also tried to present himself as mostly apolitical and his contacts to other cadres, e.g. Jan Werner of “B&H”, as “solely neighborly”, claiming to have always distanced himself from “political wackos.” He said that he had never met Zschäpe, Böhnhardt and Mundlos, that there had been rumors about the Nazis from Thuringia who had gone underground, but that he did not recall who had spread those rumors as he had not been interested anyway. In his police interview, he had recalled a number of additional details – today he tried to explain that due to the enormous pressure on them, the police officers had questioned him in a “highly leading” manner.

Buried within these fairy tales, however, were a number of impression of the scene which are probably closer to the truth than most of what other witnesses from the scene have reported so far: Thus the witness described those secret service informers whose identities are known to him as “active cadres”, as „people who don’t just report, but people who act and then report on those acts” – such as Thomas Starke, about whom he said that “if he was not present, nothing much happened” – something that can probably be said about the early support granted to von Zschäpe, Böhnhardt and Mundlos as well. Another impression that the witness likely shares with others watching the proceedings is that of the public appearances of the “Thuringia Homeguard” as martial, menacing and frightening.

Probst refused to testify on the role of his ex-wife, stating that he had been advised to do so as his testimony could incriminate her – “maybe she had something to do with these things.” The court interrupted his testimony; Probst will have to appear again in two weeks accompanied by a witness counsel.