The testimony of Max-Florian B. incriminates Zschäpe and Eminger

Today’s trial day was entirely devoted to introducing the testimony of NSU supporter Max-Florian B. via the police officers who had questioned him – B himself refused to testify in court.

Max-Florian B. is an important witness for the prosecution because he was involved in an important part of the NSU’s development after Zschäpe, Böhnhardt and Mundlos had gone underground. The importance to the court can be measured by the fact that presiding judge Götzl not only had both officers testify at length on their own, but also read out practically the entire minutes of his earlier questionings and had them confirm their content.

In the beginning, „the Three“ lived in B.‘s apartment and he lived with his girlfriend Mandy Struck, after the end of his relationship to Struck, all four lived in his apartment. But even after they had moved out, and even until 2009/2010, long after B. had apparently left the Nazi scene, B continued to occasionally meet with them or talk on the phone. In these calls and meetings, “the Three” casually asked about developments in his life, likely in order to be able to continue his identity – Mundlos had used a passport in B.’s name. B. also provided them with documents, such as letters from a bank where Mundlos had opened an account using the passport in B.’s name.

In several meetings with the police, B. has shown quite vividly that Beate Zschäpe was a member of the group on an equal footing with the two men, as can be seen with regard to her statements concerning a propaganda crime in 1996 consisting of the hanging of a puppet with the word “Jew” on its chest from a highway bridge and the dropping of a mock bomb: Zschäpe had stated that she had not been involved in the actual [Durchführung] as she lacked the necessary strength, but that she had been fully involved in the planning of this and other actions. After B.’s statement, it can be seen as established that Zschäpe was a full-fledged member of the group – not least because the first band robbery took place while the Three were still living in Chemnitz, showing that the group took the step towards armed actions in the situation described by B.

B. had also stated to the police that Thomas Starke, the Fiedler brothers and the group around them had been some of the main supporters in that phase. Starke had already provided the Three with explosives earlier, using his “Blood and Honour” contacts. Interestingly, Starke was an informer of the Berlin criminal police from 2000 to 2005. He will testify next week.

However, B.‘s testimony incriminates not only Zschäpe, but also his co-accused André Eminger. B. had stated that Eminger had visitied „The Three“ at least three times in his apartment. They had discussed the possibility of his providing an identity document, but had decided against doing so for reasons B. could not relate. Eminger had been a topic of conversation whenever B. had spoken with Böhnhardt and Mundlos, they had given him information regarding André Eminger, his kids, his job and his Tattoo of the words “Die Jew Die”. B had had assumed that Eminger had lived close to the “Three” as he had often visited them. In 2011, Eminger had called B. and had known information regarding B. which he could only have gotten from “the Three”.

All in all, Max-Florian B.‘s statements leave the obvious impression that Eminger had been closely connected to “the Three” after they had gone underground and had supported them early on.

Another important aspect of B’s testimony concerned the end of the stay of Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe in Chemnitz. Apparently there had been a number of discussions concerning the fact that their presence in Chemnitz was well-known in the “scene” and they thus had to move. Given the number of informers in the scene at that time, this cannot have escaped the notice of the domestic secret service.

Kapke reveals his true colors

The third day of questioning of André Kapke, co-founder of the “Thuringia Home Guard” and NSU-supporter from the early days, finally brought clarity concerning the ideological background of the THS, both before and after Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe went underground. The deadly hatred against non-Germans, the enthusiasm for the mass murder of the European Jews which became apparent in the activities of the THS was also shared by Zschäpe and Wohlleben, as Kapke’s answers in court show.

Kapke’s testimony also showed that Wohlleben has not changed into a “moderate nationalist”, as his defence is trying to imply, but that he had been involved in National Socialist propaganda until shortly before his arrest.

What finally made it impossible for Kapke to play down his ideology was a series of photos of the “Fest der Völker” (“Festival of Peoples”), a political festical with music bands, political talks and visitors from all over Europe which Kapke and Wohlleben had organized together over several years. He was unable to lie away pictures of the main stage with a banner showing Waffen SS men marching under the flags of several nations, even though he rambled on about “peace in Europe.”

The list of speakers and bands which appeared at the “Fest der Völker” between 2005 and 2009, also speaks for itself: the main stage was filled with everybody who was somebody in the fascist and National Socialist movement in Europe, including a large number of “Blood and Honour” bands. The “Fest der Völker” – the title is based in a film of Hitler’s favorite director Leni Riefenstahl on the 1936 Berlin Olympics – brings together those groups whose members are involved in spreading hatred against migrants, Jews and supposed or actual political opponents and often also in attacks and murders perpetrated against these groups. In addition, it should be noted that many of the known supporters of the NSU also come from a “Blood and Honour”-background.

This trial day thus clearly refuted Kapke’s attempts to depict the THS as a group of youths concerned about the environment and generally “opposed to the system”.

Press Release of several victims’ counsel in the NSU trial.

Munich, 20 March 2014

“We are not the court of last judgment!”
Federal prosecution again prevents victims’ counsel from questioning a Nazi witness

During yesterday’s questioning of witness Carsten R., who had rented a flat for Mundlos, Böhnhardt and Zschäpe after they had gone underground, and who was obviously lying to the court, the federal prosecution torpedoed critical questioning by victims’ counsel.

Questioned by victim’s counsel whether he had not cared at all why “the Three” had gone underground in 1998, the witness stated that he had not cared at all whether they had stolen chocolate bars or killed someone. He was then asked about his thoughts when he found out via the media in 2011 that “the Three” had in fact committed several murders. At this crucial point, the federal prosecution interrupted questioning by the victims’ counsel, in violation of the rules of criminal procedure, and stated that „We are not the court of last judgment, it is not the duty of a witness to justify himself for his attitudes, but rather to testify on his factual experiences.“
The prosecution thus kept the witness from answering the question. They have shown that they are trying to prevent a critical examination of his truthfulness and of his motivation to make false statements in court. A worthwhile examination of the witness by victims’ counsel was thus factually prevented.

The federal prosecution has shown similar behavior several times previously when victims’ counsel questioned witnesses who were part of the right wing scene. The undersigned counsel cannot help but gain the impression that the federal prosecution is actively opposing an actual elucidation of the structures which have led to the NSU coming into being and continuing to exist and which have supported the NSU in the crimes attributed to it. Now that several witnesses from the Nazi scene have been questioned, the news has apparently spread among them that they can lie or feign memory gaps with impunity and even be supported by the federal prosecution in doing so.

Victims’ counsel, Attorneys at Law
Alkan, Basay, von der Behrens, Bogazkaya, Clemm, Daimagüler, Dr. Elberling, Hoffmann, Ilius, Kaniuka, Kara, Kienzle, Kolloge, Kuhn, Lex, Lunnebach, Narin, Parlayan, Pinar, Reinecke, Scharmer, Sariyar, Sfatkidis, Sidiropoulos, Stolle, Top, Ünlücay, Wierig

Federal prosecution again hinders victims’ counsel from questioning a Nazi witness – “We are not the court of last judgment!”

Today’s trial day led to a showdown during the questioning of a witness who had rented a flat for Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe in Chemnitz in 1998. Like many, the witness prevaricated and claimed not to remember anything. Like many Nazi witnesses, he was not pressured by the court to quit lying: Presiding judge Goetzl questioned the witness until the few facts the prosecution based on this witness were “taken care of” and then lost all interest. Like many Nazi witnesses, he was questioned critically by victims’ counsel. And like many Nazi witnesses, he was protected by the federal prosecution who intervened and interrupted such questioning.

The following is a statement by several victims’ counsel which was read out in open court in reaction to these interruptions:

„In the criminal case against Beate Zschäpe et al.

the undersigned victims’ counsel make the following statement in reaction to the objections of federal prosecutor Dr. Diemer:

Questioned by victim’s counsel whether he had not cared at all why “the Three” had gone underground in 1998, the witness had stated that he had not cared at all whether they had stolen chocolate bars or killed someone. The witness was then asked about his thoughts when he found out via the media in 2011 that “the Three” had in fact committed several murders.

At this crucial point of the questioning, Dr. Diemer interrupted, without being granted the floor, and stated that he would object to the question unless victims’ counsel could explain its relevance. He stated verbatim:

„We are not the court of last judgment, it is not the duty of a witness to justify himself for his attitudes, but rather to testify on his factual experiences.“

Dr. Diemer thus showed that the elucidation of the truth plays no role for him. It is quite obvious that the question aimed at testing the truthfulness of the witness overall, given that he had shown that he still does not care at all about the series of NSU murders.

It is precisely this examination of the truthfulness of the witness which the prosecution is trying to prevent. The witness was made aware by the prosecution that his behavior on the stand is being backed by state organs.

The question speaks for itself and is obviously permissible. However, given the statement of Dr. Diemer, a further questioning of the witness is nonetheless useless.

Attorneys at law Kienzle, Pinar, Top, Hoffmann, Ilius, von der Behrens”

Today’s trial did not bring much news beyond two motions for evidence by victims‘ counsel. The only witness for today, Enrico Theile, was sent home again and asked to appear again at a later time, accompanied by counsel. The court had followed Bavarian custom and refused Theile’s motion that counsel be assigned to him, as it had earlier done with other witnesses who are under suspicion. Rather than leading to Theile testifying, as the court may have hoped, this tactic led to further delays. Theile is suspected of having been part of the chain of custody of the silenced Ceska 83 pistol from its origins in Switzerland to the proprietors of Nazi store “Madley” in Jena. One interesting tidbit is that one of the two proprietors had given him the name of a lawyer – the same lawyer who will now accompany him in court. It seems that the Nazi scene is preparing for the trial in its own way.

Victims‘ counsel moved, first of all, that former secret service informer „Tariff“, Michael von Dolsperg née See, be heard as a witness. Von Dolsperg, who currently lives in Sweden, had recently stated in an interview with weekly “Der Spiegel” that André Kapke had asked him, shortly after “the Three” had gone underground in 1998, whether he could provide an apartment for them. He had discussed this with his secret service contact officer and had declined – the secret service had felt the danger of his being uncovered as an informer to be more important than a chance to arrest the three who had gone underground. In his time as “Tariff”, von Dolsperg had inter alia published a monthly magazine in which he called upon Nazis to form “cells” and to prepare for life underground.

The second motion aims at witness testimony of Thomas Gerlach, a member of the “Thuringia Home Guard” and former boyfriend of Beate Zschäpe. Gerlach is a multiple functionary of the militant Nazi scene and as such has often worked together with accused Wohlleben and Eminger during the last fifteen years. One of his projects is the buildup of leaderless cells. He knows practically all known supporters of the NSU. It seems that Gerlach has already been questioned by the police, but the minutes of that interview are not part of the case file known to the court and the parties.

Statement by Halit Yozgat’s father; “birthday newspaper” filled with hate speech just “teenage nonsense”?

Today’s trial day began with a statement by the father of Halit Yozgat, the murder victim from Kassel. His statement was interrupted once by Zschäpe defence attorney Heer, who claimed that Yozgat had misrepresented his client in calling her a murderer and had not kept to an evaluation of the evidence. After this cynical interruption, Mr. Yozgat was able to finish his statement without further disturbances.

The Yozgat family still feels left alone by the German society and its representatives. Despite a statement of the German chancellor last year promising to do everything it takes to clear up the NSU crimes, hardly any progress has been made. The Court still has not taken into its case file all relevant files, including those from the investigation of domestic secret service agent Temme. Neither has anybody really acknowledged the suffering caused to the family by the police investigation, which had focused on the Yozgat family.

Mr. Yozgat’s has the heartfelt wish that the street Holländische Straße in Kassel, where his son was not only killed, but also born, be renamed Halit-Street – a wish which so far has not been fulfilled. The city of Kassel has named a square after Halit Yozgat, but this is not what the family had wished. In his despair, Mr. Yozgat ended his statement with a plea to the court that it make possible this renaming of the street.

“If you decide that the Holländische Straße be renamed Halit-Street, I will invite the fathers of Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt to the renaming ceremony and we will release white Doves as a symbol of peace.”

If anybody in a position of authority is actually interested in reconciliation concerning the NSU murders, they will ensure that this plea, albeit directed at the wrong authority, be considered.

This rather depressing statement was followed by the testimony of Jana J., a former close friend of André Kapke and thus closely connected to the Jena Nazi scene, including the NSU members, in the years 1996 to 2000. In 1998, J. and Wohlleben had given to Kapke a self-made “birthday paper”, modeled on the boulevard paper “Bild”. Kapke had traveled to South Africa, where he had tried to find a hiding place for “the Three”, and was given this paper upon his return.

The paper is full of anti-Semitic and racist paroles, incitement to murder and other disgusting content. The witness stated that she had produced this paper, but did not remember details. Looking back today, she classifies this paper as despicable and is ashamed of it, but from the point of view of an eighteen year old who was part of the right wing scene, it was simply “teenage nonsense” in reaction to what she felt was an unjunst criminalization of the Nazi scene.

The witness stated that at that time, everybody in Jena was right wing and xenophobic, the younger people had just been more extreme in this regard. There had been a big Nazi scene in Jena, those that had felt part of it had been able to fit in well, “that was the general atmosphere in Eastern Germany back then”. She described her then-boyfriend André Kapke as being clearly nationalistic, xenophobic and racist. She also stated that she does not have bad memories of anyone from back then.

The witness also recalled a “girls’ night” with Beate Zschäpe in Zschäpe’s apartment in 1997. Zschäpe had shown her a pistol, which she lovingly called Walli. The witness could not recall exactly what type of pistol Zschäpe had shown her, but did recall that Zschäpe had had a shoulder holster so as to be able to carry it around under her clothing.

After Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt had gone underground, the witness stated, they had become more important than before for those in the scene. Everybody had talked about “the Three”, albeit not openly, and there had been a game of cat and mouse with the police. André Kapke’s brother had given a concert in order to collect money for the three who had gone underground.

The case of Jana J. shows quite clearly that a strong and dynamic Nazi movement which is accepted, or in any event not openly opposed, by large parts of society is able to integrate large parts of the country’s youth. Apparently it was largely for opportunistic reasons that Jana J. became part of the Nazi scene, took over its ideology, lifestyle etc. and thus fit into her surrounding. Today, living in Berlin and working in the social field, her surroundings have changed and she is opposed to what she used to believe.

J.‘s testimony will be continued on 16 April.

The Hessian domestic secret service – where protecting the office is job number one.

Today saw the testimony of Lutz Irrgang, former director of the Hessian “Office for the Protection of the Constitution”, i.e. the domestic secret service, as well as that of former agent Andreas Temme. After the murder of Halit Yozgat, the secret service had done all it could to cover for Temme, who had been at the crime scene, and his sources. The Hessian interior ministry had severely hampered the work of the police and influenced the investigations.

Irrgang claims not to have noticed any of this, a claim that can be explained in two ways: either he perjured himself today or his rather small office in fact succeeded in keeping important information from its director and sabotaging the work of police and prosecution behind his back. Irrgang stated that he had been on vacation at the time of the murder, that he had only been informed of Temme’s presence at the crime scene a week later, and that he had promised the police chief that his office would “retreat from the case”.

When Temme was taken into detention and his involvement became public, the witness went on, the agency’s most important task was to keep up the work of its Kassel office and ensure its security. This task had been made tougher by the fact that the police had “accompanied” the work of the office with “technical measures” – in other words, the police had tapped the secret service’s phones. It seems that the entire focus of the secret service at that time was to safeguard its own work and protect it informers from being publicly identified.

There were no changes to the structure or personnel of the agency in the aftermath of this case – the office simply suspended Temme and decided that this solved all problems.

One statement made by the former director showed that he had indeed understood the importance of what had happened in Kassel: he stated that he was convinced that clearing up this crime would become harder once it became public that an officer of the secret service was present at the crime scene, as this would force the perpetrators to “re-position” themselves. He presented this as a reason why Temme’s involvement should have been kept from the public.

This statement shows the cynicism of an agency concerned only with its own interests. In order to protect its own personnel and for a vague hope of an accelerated clearing of the crime, the office wanted to keep the involvement of Temme secret. The witness claims today that the press reports on Temme led the perpetrators to believe that the secret service was on to them and therefore to change their strategy. In fact, the murder in Kassel was the last of the NSU’s murders of migrant men, the NSU switched targets and in 2007 killed a police officer and attempted to kill her partner. According to Irrgang’s theory, then, the press reports on Temme led to the series of NSU murders being interrupted – but until today, the witness wishes that Temme’s identity had been kept secret and would have accepted further murders. His hope that this would have led to a quicker solution of the murders has been debunked – after all, the secret service, like the police and other agencies, followed the theory that they had been committed by migrants, Turks or islamists. It should be noted, however, that Irrgang’s thesis only makes sense if he was convinced of a political background to the murders back then.

Temme himself was unable to clear up the many contradictions to his own statement. He continues to claim that he does not remember anything. His questioning could, again, not be completed today. He will have to appear in court at least one more time.

The Hessian Domestic Secret Service – Lots of questions remain unanswered

Today and tomorrow, the court is concerned above all with the Hessian Domestic Secret Service. Today, a supervisor of former secret service agent Temme was questioned in court. Tomorrow the former head of the office will testify, as will Temme himself once more. Temme’s direct supervisor is currently ill and will testify at a later date.

The first piece of evidence, however, was a video from 2006 in which the police the police tried to reconstruct Temme’s movement in the Internet café in Kassel where Halit Yozgat was killed. Most importantly, the video showed him turning to leave the store, then returning and putting some money on the counter, leaning over the counter due to his height. Accordingly, this film again shows that Temme must have seen the dead or dying Halit Yozgat lying behind the counter. His claims not to have seen anything thus become ever less believable.

That Temme’s statements simply make no sense also became clear when his supervisor testified. According to her, she had asked Temme a few days after the murder to ask the state security branch of the criminal police whether they had any clues regarding that crime – the domestic secret service had tried to find out whether there was an Islamist background to the murder given that the murder victim had been a “Turkish cohabitant.” She claimed that Temme had stated that the murder could be part of a killing spree, but that she did not remember when he had said so and what he had based that statement on – in any event, she had not asked him any questions.

According to the witness, Temme had not told her that he had been in the Internet café –secret service officers were generally barred from using such cafés since they were usually situated “in areas where there were many foreigners”. Her testimony again showed the low standards of intelligence and the amount of racism that was common in the Hessian domestic secret service.

Her testimony also runs directly counter to some of Temme’s claims – he had claimed that, while he had visited the criminal police shortly after the murder, he had only talked about the murder in passing. He had also stated that he was only barred from using the specific internet café where the murder later took place, for the rather more concrete reason that it was close to a mosque that was frequented by persons who were under observation.

At the same time, the testimony today also contradicts written memos of other secret service personnel concerning their discussions with Temme. The Hessian secret service has thus been a guarantor of confusion rather than of elucidation of the facts.

One aspect of her testimony which was quite remarkable and which can probably serve as benchmark for the quality of the entire office concerns the way that Temme – the witness who lied to the police and led them astray over a period of months and who claims until this day that he “saw nothing” – was seen by his supervisors and colleagues: to them he was ambitious, hardworking, some had even seen him as a role model. Enough said.

Lies and Trivialization, Part 4.5: Mandy Struck continues to evade – and receives some pressure from the court.

Witness Mandy Struck continued to testify today, first answering the presiding judge’s questions on her vita, the Nazi scene in Chemnitz and other issues. It was again apparent that she tried to play down her own role in the scene, claiming that she had no idea of the identity or background of her “guests”, that she had never seen them again and that she had not even identified them as Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt after the NSU had been uncovered in 2011/2012.

Struck had been questioned, first by police detectives and later by a judge, in 2003 after investigations uncovered clues that she was in contact with “the Three”. Today, she claimed that back then, she had had no knowledge at all who was the subject of the investigation. Presiding judge Götzl warned her several times that her testimony was far from believable – after all, the minutes from 2003 contain both names and photos of all three persons being investigated and also refer to issues Struck had been involved in, such as the provision of fake identity papers. Struck nonetheless remained steadfast in her denials.

From the point of view of victims’ counsel, it is to be welcomed that the presiding judge does not accept memory gaps claimed by witnesses from the Nazi scene, instead asking critical questions. It is interesting that it is Mandy Struck, who has the right to refuse any testimony and who was accompanied by her lawyer, who is apparently talking her way into a perjury investigation.

After intense questioning by the presiding judge, victims’ counsel started their questions in the afternoon. However, they did not get to ask very many questions, on the one hand because Struck kept blocking everything, on the other hand because the prosecution and the Zschäpe defence kept interrupting and claiming that questions concerning, e.g., Struck’s position in the Nazi scene had no bearing on the case. This is transparently untrue, but these interruptions nonetheless lead to the testimony of Struck being stopped for the day at around 4.30 in the afternoon. Struck will have to continue her testimony on a later date.

Lies and Trivialization, Part IV – Mandy Struck

Today’s trial day began with the report of weapons expert Nennstiel of the federal criminal police. He had already identified the Ceska and Bruni pistols found in the Frühlingsstraße apartment as those used in the NSU’s murders of migrant men. Today he reported on the two guns used in the murder of Michèle Kiesewetter and attempted murder of Michael Arnold in Heilbronn. Again, the expert witness identified two guns found in the Frühlingsstraße as those used in the crime.

Nennstiel was also asked to once again detail the identification of the Ceska and Bruni pistols found in the Frühlingsstraße as those used in the series of NSU murders – a few weeks ago, expert witness Pfoser, who had presented a convincing written report, had caused some confusion due to an unclear oral report (see the report of 4 February 2014). Nennstiel showed painstakingly detailed the accordance of the tracks in the ammunition which led him to conclusively identify the two weapons found as the murder weapons, thus clearing up any confusion.

Victims‘ counsel moved that several documents concerning witness Tino Brandt, which are part of the files of the parliamentary enquiry of the Thuringian parliament, be made part of the Munich files. Brandt, who was leader of the “Thuringia Homeguard” and informer for the domestic secret service, will testify in court in the next few weeks. Further motions concern evidence for the involvement of Zschäpe both in the surveillance of potential targets of NSU attacks and in the production of the “Pink Panther”-video with which the NSU claimed responsibility for its crimes.

In the afternoon, witness Mandy Struck began her testimony. There is an ongoing investigation against Struck who is suspected of supporting the terrorist organization NSU. Accordingly Struck would be allowed to refuse to testify. However, Struck has decided to testify, apparently she wants to tell her story. She testified for about three hours, to be continued tomorrow. What became apparent already today is that Mandy Struck systematically tries to downplay her own role, claims memory gaps and tells obviously unbelievable stories.

According to Struck, she had been introduced into the Nazi scene via her boyfriend beginning in 1994, first into the somewhat apolitical Nazi-Skinhead scene. Lateron, the entire scene had become politicized, inter alia because only those who attended demonstrations were told the locations of concerts. However, she claims to have started attending demonstrations only in 1999/2000.

One evening, a “comrade” had come to her apartment and had asked whether three “comrades” could stay there for a while. Those three, two men and a woman, were “in trouble”, there was no need for her to know more. Struck related that she allowed them to stay in Max Florian B.’s apartment, feeling that this was “aid among comrades.” However, she also claimed to have never been given the names of the three persons and to not have recognized Zschäpe, Böhnhardt und Mundlos as those persons later on.

As „aid among comrades“, then, she did not hesitate to help with finding them a place to stay, with requesting and picking up a new identity card for one of the two men and someone else’s personal details, and gave Zschäpe her health insurance card for a doctor’s visit.

Despite several rumors circulating in the Chemnitz scene that Nazis from Jena were in hiding in Chemnitz, and despite even asking the woman to intervene in her relationship troubles with B., Struck claims to never have been given the names of her “guests”. A few weeks after their arrival, she had ended her relationship with B. and, according to her, had never heard from the three guests until the police started questioning her.

Struck is obviously attempting to portray herself in as unimportant a role as possible. The case file, however, shows her playing quite an important role in the scene in Chemnitz. It was quite clear that presiding judge Götzl did not believe everything Struck said. It will be interesting to see how her testimony continues tomorrow.