Closing arguments to start tomorrow.

After the court had made only slow steps towards an end of the trial in the last few weeks, it picked up all the more pace today: the first thing presiding judge Götzl did after opening the trial was to ask federal prosecutor Dr. Diemer whether the prosecution was prepared for its closing argument. Diemer’s reply was that the prosecution could start tomorrow.

And it looks like it will do just that: the court rejected the two remaining motions for evidence brought by the defense, then read out the criminal records of the accused and ended the taking of evidence.

Victims’ counsel noted that it might prove rather hard for those of their clients who wish to follow the prosecution’s closing arguments – to travel to Munich at a few hours’ notice, to organize vacation days at work etc. The court rather grudgingly took notice of these arguments and finally decided to start the trial day tomorrow at 11 am to give them some additional time for their travels.  Continue reading →

The end of the taking of evidence is drawing closer – very slowly. 

Some parties had forecast shortly before noon today that the court would conclude the taking of evidence this week: as expected, the court had rejected two motions by victims’ counsel on the involvement of the domestic secret service and the NSU support network (see the report of 5 July 2017). As to the challenge for bias against Zschäpe expert witness Prof. Bauer (see the report of 5 July 2017), the court had held that it was well-founded – a decision not even challenged by Zschäpe defense counsel Grasel. As to the conspiracy theory motion brought by the Wohlleben defense (see the report of 29 June 2017) that domestic secret service officer Temme had fired the shots that killed Halit Yozgat in Kassel, the court had done the necessary preparations for rejecting the motion: It had heard the testimony of an expert witness from the Bavarian criminal police, who stated that the gunshot residue found on Temme’s gloves could not only have been years old at the time, but also matched several different types of ammunition. Given that Temme had been a member of a gun club, these traces thus do not have any evidentiary value.  Continue reading →

More blocking and denying. And: Trial day tomorrow canceled.

Today’s trial again did not reveal much of any interest, but once again showed that the focus of the trial is much too narrow:

On the one hand, the federal prosecution remained true to its program of preventing all elucidation of the role of secret services and the Nazi network surrounding the NSU. Referring to press reports according to which an informer of the Hessian domestic secret service had talked about an organization called “National Socialist Underground Fighters” already in 1999, counsel for the Yozgat family had moved that his contact officer (to be named by the service) be heard as a witness and that the service’s files be consulted – after all, there is  a clear possibility that he referred to the organization later known as “National Socialist Underground”, and that this is of significance for the trial. Not so for prosecutor Weingarten, who seemed to have no doubts at all that the largely matching names could only be coincidental and that in any event, informer’s reports on the NSU in 1999 were wholly devoid of significance for the trial. Continue reading →

Another motion for evidence rejected, another challenge for alleged bias brought

The assigned counsel of accused Zschäpe announced today that they did not have any questions for expert witness Prof. Saß. Thus Saß’ expert testimony could finally be concluded, after a period of roughly six months during which he had time and again appeared in the courtroom to give his expert opinion and to answer questions. The defense announced that they would make further comments on their motion for an additional expert witness. They have been given until next week to do so.

The Wohlleben defense again tried its hand at conspiracy theory motions, asking for evidence concerning alleged gunshot residues on gloves found in the house of secret service officer Andreas Temme which allegedly conformed to the ammunition used in the commission of the murders. Of course, the defense neglected to mention that other evidence conclusively proves that Temme could not have been the shooter. Their motion will be rejected, like many before it. Continue reading →

The Wohlleben defense, of all people, tries to depoliticize the racist murders

Today the Wohlleben defense made further comments on their motion to hear a psychiatric expert witness concerning Mundlos and Böhnhardt. The aim of that motion, according to counsel Klemke, was to prove that the Böhnhardt’s and Mundlos’ motive for the murder had not been “xenophobia”, but rather a “lust to kill”, which was based in the two men’s antisocial personality disorder and which thus could not be recognized by third persons. In the NSU videos, Böhnhardt and Mundlos had then tried, according to Klemke, to hide that motivation by claiming to have acted out of “xenophobia”.

Continue reading →

More challenges for alleged bias. And: no trial tomorrow or next week.

The trial could not continue with the closing statements of victims and their counsel today since the judges tasked with deciding on the various defense challenges against several judges for alleged bias had not been able to reach decisions on all challenges.

However, the presiding judge had to hold a trial session today as the trial may only be interrupted for up to three weeks. He therefor ordered that the trial be continued today in order for the court to inform the accused of potential changes in the legal qualification of the alleged facts and similar issues. Such information was then in fact provided by the court, it is in line with the motions brought by the prosecution in its closing statement and is of no particular significance here.

Continue reading →

Challenge for alleged bias and begin of the break over Pentecost

Today the Wohlleben defense brought their challenge for alleged bias against all judges, based on yesterday’s decisions rejecting their motions for evidence.

The court will have a lot of time to reject this challenge as unfounded – the trial day tomorrow has been canceled, the trial will continue, after a two-week break over Pentecost, on Tuesday, 20 June. The court has not yet announced a program for the week of 20-22 June.

Last steps before the end of the taking of evidence.

Beate Zschäpe’s mother again refused to testify in court, but gave her consent that her earlier police statement from 2011 be considered by the court. This statement was then introduced by one of the police officers who had interviewed her. It contained above all information on Zschäpe’s childhood and youth and on the rift between mother and daughter – one important reason for which, the witness had told the police, had been Beate Zschäpe’s political ideology.

Victims’ counsel for the Yozgat family brought a challenge for bias against defense expert Prof. Bauer – Bauer had topped his embarrassing appearance in court (see our report of 18 May 2017) with an email to German daily “Die Welt”: reacting to the critical reports on his testimony, he had sent the newspaper his expert opinion and had complained about a “burning of witches” being conducted against Zschäpe. There is no need for further comment, Bauer’s derailment speaks for itself. Defense counsel Heer seemed rather amused by the challenge against the other defense counsels’ expert.

The Wohlleben defense, meanwhile, brought a motion for evidence tying in to a diagnosis Bauer had made “in passing” on Uwe Böhnhardt and Uwe Mundlos: Bauer had claimed that both had without a doubt been severely psychopathic perpetrators. Picking up this depoliticization of the NSU’s racist series of murders, the defense moved that a psychiatric expert be heard to prove that the two men had suffered from a psychopathic personality disorder and that this had not been visible for third persons as psychopaths are capable of manipulative behavior to disguise their disorder. This motion will remain without success.

The federal prosecution responded to the motions for evidence of last week. The head of the prosecution team Dr. Diemer himself responded to the victims’ counsel motion concerning Stefan Lange (see the report of 17 May 2017) and used the opportunity to whitewash the German secret services: he claimed that there was no reason to believe that the secret services had ever failed to pass on information to the police – quite to the contrary, he went on, information provided by these services had significantly furthered the trial in Munich. This statement obviously results from the self-image of the federal prosecution as a political office tasked above all with protecting the state and its agencies. Anyone who has followed the developments concerning the NSU complex in the last few years – the destruction of case files, the scandalous appearances by contact officers in court, the sheer number of informers in the Nazi scene surrounding the NSU core trio – can see that his statement his nothing but propaganda.

The court then considered how to deal with the critique of methodology presented by Prof Faustmann and the response announced by Prof. Saß. It decided – contrary to a defense motion – not to summon Faustmann for next Tuesday, the day on which Saß will present his response.

As to what will happen on the other two trial days next week, the presiding judge refused any comment.  It seems unlikely that the court will be able to finish the taking of evidence by next week – inter alia, it will have to deal with a number of motions for evidence and will have to again consider the personal details of the accused. This last aspect will likely include a recent judgment (which is not yet final) of the Local Court in Chemnitz which last week convicted him of criminal assault and coercion for beating and kicking a teenager in Chemnitz.

Expert witness Prof. Bauer: „a character witness in the guise of a professor”

Today the court and parties questioned expert witness Prof. Bauer (on his expert opinion see the report of 3 May 2017). What was already clear after his first appearance in court became even more clear today: Bauer’s opinion is not worth the paper it is printed on.

Bauer related that he first visited Zschäpe in his capacity as a physician, only after Zschäpe had told him about alleged violent attacks by Uwe Böhnhardt and he had informed her counsel of these claims had he been tasked with presenting an expert opinion. He was of the firm opinion that he could nonetheless present an objective, neutral opinion – even after being informed that most courts consider an earlier physician-patient relationship, which is after all based on trust and partiality, an obstacle to tasking the same physician with presenting an expert opinion. Continue reading →

Final motions for evidence

Today marked the final day of the deadline set by the court for motions for evidence – and several such motions were in deed made.

Zschäpe counsel Grasel moved that the court consider the minutes of the statement Zschäpe’s mother had made to the police. On her first appearance in court, her mother had refused to testify in court and had also withheld her content to the court using her earlier statement. However, after expert witness Bauer had referred to that statement in his opinion, she has now given that consent. As it was not made quite explicit whether she still refuses to testify in person, the court has summoned her as a witness for next week – it does seem likely, though, that she will refuse to testify and only confirm that she consents to her police statement being used. The court has also summoned one of the police officers who had questioned her so that he may introduce that statement.  Continue reading →