Waiting for Zschäpe’s explanation

After the trial was cut short yesterday, speculation has been rife, newspapers that used to praise Zschäpe’s defense attorney to the skies are now tearing them down.

Fact is that there are lots of possible reasons why a defense lawyer would advise Zschäpe to use her right to remain silent, as hers have done. Fact is also that at this point in time, more than a year after the beginning of the trial and after the court ordered the continued detention of Ralf Wohlleben, Zschäpe’s disposition may well have reached a low point: it becomes clearer and clearer that the likely result of the trial is a conviction on all charges; Zschäpe must realize that she will spend a very long time behind bars.

Against this background, it is likely that the double betrayal of her former “comrade” Brandt once more showed her quite plainly how hopeless her situation is. After all, it was Brandt who built up the THS and thus also the “Comradeship Jena”, it was Brandt who radicalized the scene, who developed militant and violent strategies against political enemies and clandestine modes of behavior, who militated in favor of armed struggle – all working for and being paid for by the domestic secret service. Brandt – who was more than a friend, but rather a “comrade” of Zschäpe and her co-perpetrators – now answers the court’s questions and describes himself as a “National Socialist” who always kept within the law, who would have liked to win elections for the Nazi party NPD. It was certainly Zschäpe’s expectation that her defense attorneys would attack this witness, would expose him and the secret service. That they did not do so may be for good reasons – maybe Brandt knows more about Zschäpe than he has told the court so far. Or it may simply be due to inaptitude or a lack of understanding what Zschäpe wants and needs from them.

Zschäpe’s wish to be provided totally different defense attorney will not be fulfilled. Maybe one of her lawyers will voluntarily give u his spot to make room for a new attorney who will join the defense quite unprepared. Another option would be for the court to simply appoint an additional lawyer. In any event, it is far from clear whether this would lead to big changes in the trial or to Zschäpe deciding to testify.

The court has given Zschäpe until late on Friday to motivate her motion to dismiss her current attorneys. It is extremely unlikely that the court will accept a serious delay in the trial. The trial day next Tuesday stands.

Further speculation is uncalled for at this moment.

Zschäpe wants new defence lawyers

The trial was interrupted today and will not continue until next week. The accused Zschäpe has informed the court that there is no relationship of trust with her defence attorneys and has requested that new defence lawyers be assigned.

The presiding judge has stated that he will give her an opportunity to explain her decision in writing

Tino Brandt – Nazi leader working for the secret service, Part I.

The entire trial week is dedicated to the testimony of Tino Brandt, former Nazi leader, co-founder of the “Thuringia Home Guard” (Thüringer Heimatschutz, THS) and longtime informer for the Thuringia domestic secret service. Brandt was recently detained, he is charged inter alia with having forced young men to engage in prostitution.

Until being uncovered in 2001, he was by far the most important source of information for the Thuringia secret service. As he stated today, he was first active in the “Anti-Antifa Eastern Thuringia”, which later formed the basis for the THS being formed as a common organization of the Nazi “comradeships” in Thuringia. Brandt was very reluctant when it came to describing his work as informer as well as his Nazi activities. He openly stated that he still adhered to a Nazi ideology, but tried to downplay the violent character of the THS.

He was recruited as an informer for the domestic secret service in a simply conversation. His two contact persons told him that he would not be asked to discuss crimes committed by his “comrades”, after all the secret service was not tasked with enforcing criminal laws. The service simply wanted to know who was cooperating with whom. Given this basis, Brandt claimed to have always reported truthfully. When the service wanted to tell him not to take over certain political functions or not to engage in certain activities, he simply refused – the service threatened to end his work for them, but never in fact did so. In other words, the secret service knowingly accepted that Brandt used the money given to him by the state to build up the THS, but that he did not at all report on Nazi crimes, instead providing only general information concerning demonstrations, publications and Nazi functionaries.

All in all, Brandt stated, he had probably received between 100,000 and 140,000 € from the secret service, money which he had used for political activities, transport and telephone costs, leaflets, but also to pay criminal fines for André

Thomas Gerlach: flat-out refusal to testify

Today the court first heard several witnesses regarding the claim by Mundlos’ father that without the radicalizing influence of Ralph Wohlleben and André Kapke, his son would never have become a member of a “murderous gang”. Furthermore, a staff member of the federal criminal police testified on comparisons between surveillance camera footage from several bank robberies and the items and clothing found among Böhnhardt’s and Mundlos’ belongings – he had found quite a number of matches.

The federal prosecution stated that it was “not opposed” to the motion by victims’ counsel for the hearing of evidence regarding the ideology of accused Eminger.

At this point the court was ready to continue the questioning of witness Thomas Gerlach. However, Gerlach stated in response to the very first question asked that he was not ready to answer questions concerning the “Hammerskin” organization. Wohlleben defence attorney Klemke immediately supported Gerlach: to his knowledge there had been a criminal investigation into the Hammerskin-Chapter Saxonia in 2003, charging its members with membership in a criminal organization. He did not know how that investigation had ended. Klemke implied that Gerlach might have a right to refuse all questions regarding the Hammerskins if there was an ongoing investigation against him based on his membership in or activities for the Hammerskins. The witness replied that, while he had been in prison at that time, he knew that his house had been searched as well; he did not know the result of the investigation.

The presiding judge did not ask any further questions at that point and invited questions by other parties.

Gerlach continued to refuse to answer any question concerning the Hammerskins and all relevant persons associated with them. Victims’ counsel moved that sanctions be imposed to force him to answer. The presiding judge stated that he would first check whether there was still an ongoing investigation against the witness – shockingly, the federal prosecution had not checked before today, despite Gerlach’s announcement at his earlier appearance in court.

Gerlach’s questioning will be continued on 24 July. It is to be expected that by then he will have further refined his strategy concerning his refusal to testify.

If Gerlach’s strategy of openly refusing to testify is successful, this will send a clear symbol to all other Nazi witnesses that the court is willing to forego an investigation of the political and organizational structures surrounding the NSU. The breadth of the right to silence claimed here would clearly be a special rule for militant Nazis.

Cumbersome questioning regarding Böhnhardt

The first witness today was Matthias Dienelt, who over a period of seven years had rented apartments for the NSU in Zwickau, first in the Polenzstraße, then in the Frühlingsstraße. Dienelt is subject of a criminal investigation charging him with providing support to the NSU; it was no surprise that he relied on his privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify.

Accordingly, the court instead heard a police officer from Chemnitz who had questioned Dienelt shortly after the fire in the Frühlingsstraße. Back then, Dienelt had stated that his friend André Eminger had introduced him to a Max Florian B and that the latter had asked him to rent the apartments for him, stating that he was unable to sign the leases due to old debts. He has also stated that he had had a room in both of the apartments, but had seldom used that room, having last spent the night in the Frühlingsstraße apartment months earlier.

Dienelt had described Mundlos, Zschäpe and Böhnhardt as “Lise, Mac and Gerry”. Apart from this aspect, his testimony is hardly believable, making his refusing to testify a smart move. It rather seems more than plausible that Dienelt knew quite well why and for whom he had rented the apartments. Dienelt had been an active part of the Nazi scene in his hometown of Johanngeorgenstadt, together with André Eminger.

The next witness was Uwe Böhnhardt’s brother. He described his relationship to his brother Uwe, which apparently had not been all that close, his brother’s identification with the Nazi scene and his going underground. It seemed that, to the extent the two had had a somewhat close relationship at all, this had been the case during their childhoods. Lateron, the witness had apparently seen his Nazi brother wearing the SA uniform mostly as a strain on his own life.

At the end of the trial day, victims’ counsel brought an extensive motion for the taking of evidence regarding the connections of accused André Eminger to the “Hammerskins”, an organization which, similarly to “Blood and Honour”, used music and concerts to propagate Nazi ideologoy and terror concepts. Together with his brother Maik, Eminger had built up a group called “White Brotherhood Ore Mountains” which had close personal and ideological ties to the Hammerskins and for whom the “14 words” established by American Nazi terrorists (“We must secure the existence of our people and a future for White children.”) served as a quasi-religious motto.

Right wing lawyer Jauch: (former) lawyer to all those involved in the trial?

Today, the court first heard three witness who had rented the mobile home used by the NSU for the attack on two police officers after the NSU had rented it. Their rental period had started on the day after the attack and they had received the vehicle later than planned since it had only been returned after 10 pm the day of the attack.

Another witness reported that, on the Saturday or Sunday after the bank robbery in Eisenach and the death of Mundlos and Böhnhardt, she had seen Zschäpe running around in Eisenach seeming like she was in shock.

The federal prosecution continued in its strategy of trying to torpedo any and all motions which could lead to further elucidation of the facts. This time, they had to comment on a motion for evidence by counsel for the victims of the bombing attack in the Probsteigasse in Cologne. That motion concerned a Neonazis from Cologne who shows a striking resemblance to the photofit picture which was drawn up based on the statements of the shop owner who had been attacked. As it has done many times before, the prosecution moved that the motion be denied.
The prosecution reacted in the same way to a motion by victims’ counsel that the court ask agencies in Thuringia to downgrade files from the parliamentary enquiry in Thuringia currently classed as “secret”. Counsel had so moved in order to be able to quote from the files in questioning witnesses. The attempts by the prosecution to ensure that even material which is already in the files not be made subject of the trial hearing show a strong uncertainty on their part. The prosecution even refuses to hand out the written text of their statements in court, forcing other trial participants to rely on their handwritten notes and thus making it harder to deal with the prosecution’s arguments. It seems that the prosecution does not even want to be held to its own arguments.

Over the course of the afternoon, Thuringian Nazi lawyer Thomas Jauch testified in court. He had represented all accused at some point in the past and therefore refused to testify based on attorney-client privilege. When accused Gerlach and Schultze waived that privilege as far as they were concerned, Jauch claimed – unsurprisingly – that he could not remember anything. Similary, he claimed not to be able to recall who had rented his property in the years from 1998 to 2002 – in those years, there had been several Nazi concerts on that property, some claim that at least some of them money had been collected for “the Three” after they had gone underground.

Asked about an interview in the weekly “Focus” in which he had stated that Zschäpe had asked him to represent her and paid an advance, Jauch refused to answer. At least one answer given by him was obviously untrue – he claimed that he had first heard of the “Thuringia Home Guard” in 2006 or 2007. In fact, according to documents from the Thuringia secret service, “Home Guard” leaders Kapke and Brehme had already in 2000 wanted to discuss with Jauch the possibility of the “Home Guard” being banned and dissolved by the authorities.

No doubts concerning the guilt of Ralf Wohlleben

Today, the court refused the challenge for alleged bias brought by the Wohlleben defence. Its decision underscores what the decision by presiding judge Götzl and his colleagues on the continued detention of Wohlleben already showed: the three judges who had to decide on the challenge found that there was no bias if the court, after a preliminary examination of the evidence presented so far, found that there was no reason to doubt the guilt of Wohlleben, and if the court stated so in its decision. Now, the court of course had no doubts that Wohlleben, when procuring the Ceska for “the Three”, did so in the knowledge that it would be used to commit murders. And if this is the case for Wohlleben, there can be even less doubt that Zschäpe also acted with the same intent.

Wohlleben’s wife, who had been called as a witness, refused to testify.

The court then heard another police officer who had questioned Blood and Honour-activist and informer Starke. A concluding evaluation of Starke’s testimony will be possible after the final police officer has testified on 30 July.

The final witness today was a police detective from the political crimes unit of the Dortmund police who had questioned a witness to the Dortmund murder. That witness had, in her somewhat confusing statement, pointed to Nazis as possible suspects. However, since she had described them as “Nazis or junkies” and since nobody, including the officer who testified today, went into the details on this point, her statement was not followed up on. The detective testifying today, whose usual tasks are in “the area of Turks/Kurds”, thus proved less than helpful.

„Can’t recall“ – continued questioning of Enrico Theile

Today, the court continued hearing police officers who had questions Blood and Honour activist and informer Thomas Starke of Chemnitz, who himself refuses to testify in court. The detective testifying today had questioned Starke on 11 April 2011. Again it became clear that “the Three” had considerable support from “Blood and Honour” and that, during their contact with Starke, they always presented themselves as a close-knit unit.
The court then continued the questioning of Enrico Theile, who is suspected of having been involved in the provision of the Ceska pistol from Switzerland to Thuringia. Theile was and still is a close friend of Swiss Hans Peter Müller, who had testified the week before in Switzerland. Theile was apparently a part of the criminal milieu in Thuringia and twice found guilty of weapons offences. He had already been questioned by the presiding judge Götzl. Today, neither Götzl nor the federal prosecution showed much interest in his questioning. Theile was asked a number of questions by victims’ counsel, his answer in almost all cases was simply “can’t recall” – it was obvious that he simply did not want to answer.

The presiding judge as well as the prosecution put up with this form of refusal until Theile’s questioning by victims’ counsel was completed. Then, however, they used their chance to make sure that perjury proceedings be started against Theile. The prosecution moved that the most unbelievable of Theile’s answers to various questions be recored verbatim. From the point of view of victims’ counsel, it is more than probable that Theile will be convicted – and given his previews convictions, it would be very surprising indeed if that conviction did not result in a prison term.

Court finds that the evidence presented so far has confirmed the charges against Ralf Wohlleben

The trial day began with several interruptions and a challenge for alleged bias brought by the Wohlleben defence against all five judges. This challenge was a somewhat desperate reaction to a decision of 25 June in which the court rejected the defence’s challenge of Wohlleben’s detention. In that decision the court states very clearly that, after a preliminary evaluation of the evidence so far, the charges against Wohlleben – aiding and abetting nine counts of murder – have been fully confirmed. The court also stated that there had been no violations of the right to a speedy nor other reasons to lift or vary the detention order.

Today, the court decided to continue the trial proceedings while the other judges called upon to decide on the defence’s challenge of alleged bias are deliberating. Today’s challenge may well prove to be a boomerang for the Wohlleben defence since it may well result in additional judges supporting the evaluation of the evidence made by presiding judge Götzl and his colleagues. Whether the defence will also appeal the detention decision itself and bring about a decision by the Federal Court of Justice remains to be seen – after all, such a move would bring about the risk that Germany’s highest court also supports the Munich court’s evaluation of the evidence.
The decision to uphold the detention order not only shows that the activities of Wohlleben’s defence so far have not shown much effect on the Senate – it also shows that the doubts claimed by the Zschäpe defence concerning the evidence against their client will also remain just words. The court easily dismissed the doubts claimed by the Wohlleben defence, making it easy to imagine that it will find it similarly easy to dismiss claims about doubts concerning Zschäpe’s role in the NSU.

After the lunch break, the court then heard witness Thomas Gerlach, a central figure in the Thuringia Nazi scene and of some importance for the scene in Germany and internationally, above all because of his importance for the “Hammerskin” network.

Gerlach, like many Nazi witnesses before him, tried the strategy of „lies and trivialization.” He claimed not to have been active for at least two years – without however having changed his political persuasions. He claimed that an imprisonment of several years had made him find out that violence was not a method to be used in the political struggle – he also claimed that the entire scene of Nazi “comradeships” and the NPD, including accused Wohlleben, had held similarly. He had worked together with Wohlleben and Kapke since early 2000 in building up supraregional networks such as the “Free Net”, in conducting several Nazi campaigns and in operating the “Festival of Peoples.” This had lead to many international contacts in Switzerland, Portugal and other countries. It was quite apparent that the presiding judge could see through the way in which Gerlach tried to trivialize his efforts in building a nationwide Nazi network.
The real significance of the actions of Thomas Gerlach – who by the way is not related to accused Holger Gerlach – was sometimes reflected in his choice of words. At one time he spoke of “comradeships and actions groups” („Kameradschaften und Aktionsgruppen“) – terms used above all in strategy discussions about „leaderless“ military resistance as propagated by American Nazis and adapted by „Blood and Honour“ and the “Hammerskins”.

When it came to the Hammerskins, Gerlach did not so much lie and trivialize as simply refuse to answer: his former girlfriend Mandy Struck had testified that he was a member of that organization. When asked about that statement today, Gerlach stated that the “value system” he imposed on himself did not allow him to answer questions concerning the Hammerskins. He remained steadfast even when the presiding judge informed him that such refusal could lead to fines and imprisonment for contempt.

Today, the presiding judge did not force the issue, instead interrupting the questioning of Gerlach at about 4 pm. The court still has questions concerning topics that Gerlach has so far been willing to discuss. “Ace” Gerlach will thus have to appear in Munich again and will have to show whether he is ready to risk imprisonment for his “self-imposed value system”.

“Now more than ever” – the bomb in the Probsteigasse and a victim who won’t back down

Today saw the testimony of the young woman who had been severely injured by a bomb placed in a grocery shop in the Probsteigasse in Cologne. A police officer who had seen her in the hospital related, visibly still deeply moved, that he felt unable to put into words what she had looked like at the point, that he had seen a lot of suffering in his professional life as a police detective but that this case had topped all that.

The young woman was put into an artificial coma and was on artificial respiration for weeks. Her eardrums were damaged, several further operations were necessary to remove wooden splinters that the explosion had driven into her face. She still carries the scars in her face today.
The witness left a lasting impression – a very level-headed, straightforward woman who after recovering from her wounds finished her schooling, began studying medicine and qualified as a physician. In very clear words and with great precision, she described what had happened, how she had been injured, but also what she had noticed about the police work both before and after the NSU had uncovered itself. She described that she had been fully conscious during her transport to the hospital and thus had witnesses the explosion as such, but had also quickly realized the full extent of her injuries.

It was only a significant time later that she became aware of the police investigation. The police had excluded a political motivation. The family had thought about Nazis as possible suspects, but the police theory had been that this had been a single perpetrator without an apparent motive. Back then, the witness related, her family had been naïve and had not consulted a lawyer and thus not had access to the case files. She was quite shocked at what those case files not revealed about the police work.

After the NSU had uncovered itself, she was interviewed by police again and stated that she feared reprisals by Nazis – all the police officers answered was that there was “no basis” for such fears. After that statement, she lost all trust and consulted a lawyer.

The witness was quite shocked because the crime had shown her “that there are people out there who will go after you based on where you come from – despite the fact that we all have an academic background – to see what they are willing to do for the ‘preservation of the German nation’”

Asked whether she had thought about leaving Germany, she answered: „When the NSU video was made public and it became clear that they had attacked me because of my national background, the first question I asked myself was ‘what am I still doing here?’ After all, I am a poster child for integration, and if even people like myself are attacked in this way… On the other hand, that would have been exactly what they wanted, and so I thought, ‘now more than ever’ and decided to stay.”