Mundlos senior – desparate denials.

This week’s trial days will focus on the father of Uwe Mundlos. Additionally, the old lady who was present in the house in the Frühlingsstraße when Zschäpe set fire to that house will testify via video-link. The court had originally planned to continue the testimony, started on 22 November, of “Thüringer Heimatschutz”-activist André Kapke, one of the closest confidants of Zschäpe, Mundlos, Böhnhardt, Gerlach and Wohlleben. His testimony has now been pushed to next year.

The questioning of Dr. Mundlos, who had last testified in the parliamentary enquiry in Thuringia, by the court proved very difficult. Early on he clashed quite severely with presiding judge Götzl who wanted him to answer questions, but refrain from monologues. This scene ends with the witness stopping himself just short of calling the presiding judge a “smart ass”.

Mundlos senior desparately tried to deny any guilt or responsibility on the part of his son or his family, claiming that it was only contact with secret service informers and Uwe Böhnhardt which pushed him towards the right and that he had tried all he could to get his son to change his ways. He also claimed that prosecutors had unjustly conducted investigations against “the Three”, which led to their going underground. The same applies for events following their going underground – according to the witness, responsibility lies primarily with state organs. Several times he calls upon the federal prosecutor to make the acts of state organs subject of the proceedings.

After Mundlos senior had stated towards the NSU’s victims that he was interested in “the whole thing” being illuminated and that “the German people” had a right to a full investigation, the presiding judge, quite exasperated at that point, ended his questioning for the day, to be continued tomorrow.

This trial week brought hardly any relevant results.

A police officer reported on her investigations concerning Zschäpe’s whereabouts between leaving the burning house in the Frühlingsstraße in Zwickau and surrendering to the police. The details of this tour will be introduced via more direct witnesses lateron.

One interesting insight was provided by the testimony of a neighbor from the Polenzstraße in Zwickau and her son. The neighbor had apparently found in Zschäpe a friend who was willing to listen to her speak about her worries and who continued to visit her after moving out of the Polenzstraße. Zschäpe had not only listened, but had also helped out with grocery shopping. During her police questioning, the witness had expressed her horror over groceries bought with “blood money”. She made no such statement in court, quite to the contrary, there was an atmosphere closer to solidarity between the witness and her former friend.

Next to testify was her son, who could not speak in detail about everyday life with Zschäpe. However, he claimed, as had his mother before him, that Zschäpe had warned him from drifting into the right-wing scene. However, his reports on that conversation and that of his mother differed very significantly as regards central aspects. It seems likely that mother and son were trying to show their common acquaintance and friend Zschäpe in a positive light.

This is all the more so given that the son, while claiming not to have anything to with “right wing politics”, showed a significant affinity with a neo-Nazi world view and thus had a motive to help Zschäpe. Having been read quotes from an interview he had given anonymously, he stated that he “very honestly hated” asylum seekers who “did not work”. Asked about claims by NSU victims for compensation, he characterized them as “absolutely unsocial. There are other people who have experienced worse things. … They don’t get any compensation.” Finally, he also admitted that his face book page showed approving links to the right-wing campaign against a home for asylum seekers in Schneeberg and for the right wing rock band “Endstufe”. Asked in what way he differed from a “right winger”, he stated that right wingers showed their political opinions openly while he tried to hide his. Given this definition, many of the right wing witnesses in this trial could probably be described as “apolitical”, at least when it comes to their testimony in court.

Finally, some holiday acquaintances of “the Three” repeated what others before them had stated: in the context of rather costly holidays among Germans, Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe were nice neighbors, fond of kids, with whom one could easily spend time. Beate Zschäpe was the motherly type who cared for “her men” and who was in charge of the money.

More on the Hessian domestic secret service – and a challenge for bias lacking any merit.

Today’s trial day began with a motion by victims’ counsel that the witness counsel accompanying Temme’s former informer be disqualified from taking part in the trial. This counsel had been provided to the witness by the Hessian domestic secret service before his first questioning by federal police. In today’s trial, too, he seemed to be more concerned with safeguarding the interest of the secret service than those of the man who was ostensibly his client: He objected to questions concerning a possible influence of the secret service on the testimony of the witness, arguing that the answers to such questions exceeded the scope of the “permission to testify” provided to the witness by the secret service. Earlier, he had not intervened when the witness was asked a number of other questions which arguably also went beyond that permission, but which did not touch the interests of the secret service. If these answers did indeed exceed the scope of the permission, the counsel thus allowed the witness to commit the crime of betrayal of state secrets. This shows that the counsel did not safeguard the interests of the witness, but (also) those of the domestic secret service. The court disagreed and denied the motion.

Further questioning of the witness again proved to be a rather slow and cumbersome process. It seems that the witness did not understand many questions, and where he did, he either could not or would not remember anything. He did make one interesting statement, namely that he worked as an informer for the military secret service before the domestic secret service.

Questioning by victim’s counsel Antonia von der Behrens again showed the problems arising from the court’s refusal to make the case file against Temme part of the current case file: She had looked at that case file in the office of the federal prosecutor and now quoted to the witness from her noted. The Wohlleben defence claimed that this procedure was not admissible – the court disagreed and allowed Ms. von der Behrens to quote from her notes.

This decision than moved the Wohlleben defence to challenge presiding judge Götzl for bias, claiming that in all earlier questionings, those quoting from documents not contained in the case file had been required to provide the court with a copy. This challenge seems quite silly – it is generally accepted that quotes from one’s own notes are acceptable, and it seems rather sensible that a questioner cannot be required to provide a copy of a document she simply does not have.

The court postponed the decision in order to finish the testimony of the witness. However, he was not finally dismissed, but will probably have to appear before the court once more.

The domestic secret service remembers nothing

All trials days of this week concern the murder of Halit Yozgat in Kassel, in particular what former domestic secret service agent Andreas Temme, who was present at the crime scene, had seen. Both in the criminal investigation against him as well as in the current trial, Temme claims not to remember much of anything. His testimony was far from convincing. On Tuesday he continued with his confused stories. His questioning, which is far from being finished, so far did not advance the trial at all.

Before his testimony, the court had again decided that the case files against Temme would not become part of the court’s case file – victims’ counsel had asked the court to reconsider its earlier decision to that effect. The court remains steadfast in its opinion that all material contained in those case files is without relevance to the present proceedings – probably because it is not strictly necessary for convicting the present accused.

That this decision does not make much sense and that it leads to a cumbersome procedure became clear during the testimony of Temme’s former informer. Counsel for the Yozgat family had used quotes from the case files against Temme, which they had received a while ago from the federal prosecution, to refresh the memory of the witness. The presiding judge demanded that they provide printouts of these pages to the court – an absurd situation given that the court had just previously declined to take these pages into account. Counsel for the Yozgat family offered to provide the court with copies of all those parts of the case file which they had received, but the presiding judge instead ordered that each document from the case file so used would have to be printed out and provided to the court.

Both witnesses are supposed to testify further on Thursday. If the presiding judge continues to rely on the current cumbersome procedure, this testimony will take quite a while. It seems that presiding judge Götzl has problems getting unwilling witnesses to talk, which leads to a quite severe lengthening of the trial.

Continued testimony of Zschäpe’s cousin

The testimony of Zschäpe’s cousin Stefan A. continued today. A. was shown a picture of the cross-burning which shows several persons giving the “Kühnen salute”, a variant of the “Nazi salute”. He recognized, among others, accused Wohlleben and Gerlach, André Kapke and Uwe Böhnhardt.

The witness had claimed to have left his rightist ideology behind, a claim which was proved untrue by victim’s counsel Yavuz Narin. Narin showed pictures from A.’s facebook page with slogans such as “Money for Grandma, not for Sinti and Roma” – the same slogan was used by the neo-fascist NPD in the last election.

Zschäpe defence attorneys Heer and Sturm asked a series of questions concerning A.‘s testimony before German federal police as well as two TV interviews. However, the intention behind their line of questioning remained unclear, and accordingly they did not yield and results.

The court also issued a decision on a motion by victims’ counsel that the case file against domestic secret service officer Andreas Temme be made part of the present file. With the exception of a few documents, the motion was denied. Temme, along with one of the informers led by him, will testify next week.

Zschäpe’s family: her mother does not testify, her cousin „does not remember“

Two family members of Beate Zschäpe were called to testify today and to afford the court a glimpse of the personality and development of the main accused. Her mother, however, refused to testify, as is her right as mother of the accused. She only spent three minutes in the courtroom.

Her cousin, Stefan A., did testify. He describes himself as a fun-oriented member of the skinhead part of the Jena Nazi scene, someone who did not have much to do with politics. “One gets incited by the music, it describes what many thought back then – against the state, against foreigners, against leftists, against communism”, he describes the atmosphere in Jena in the 1990s. Beate Zschäpe was part of that scene. The witness describes her as confident. Her first serious boyfriend had tried to dress the part, but had not been accepted by the scene. Zschäpe later hung out with Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt, who were very interested in Nazi music and politics.

When it comes to his own role, however, he denies having had a relevant position in the Nazi scene of Jena. Asked about police dossiers and other documents describing him as one of eight members of the “Kameradschaft Jena”, he tries to downplay his role. From this point on, he answers nearly every question by claiming memory gaps – hardly any memories of concerts attended, of trips to Nuremberg, of conversations. He does at least relate that Uwe Mundlos was in charge of upholding the contact to Thomas Starke, imprisoned Nazi and later informer for the domestic secret service – Mundlos also delivered greetings from the witness to Starke. However, A. claimed not to remember that Starke, as well as another acquaintance, were likely leading members of “Blood and Honour” Chemnitz. A. obviously follows the parole passed out to witness from the Nazi scene – “forget everything”. He only admits having taken part in a KKK-style cross burning and having shown the “Kühnen salute”, a variant of the Nazi salute, after pictures of these events have been shown in court and there is no use denying. Again, he claims not to have known what that signal meant.

The court does not pressure him – after all he has already said what was needed to confirm the indictment: Beate Zschäpe was self-confident, had her men under control, was a member of equal standing of the Nazi scene surrounding her, Mundlos, Böhnhardt, Kapke, Gerlach and Wohlleben.

A.’s testimony will continue tomorrow. Other witnesses originally called for tomorrow have been postponed, with the exception of a former girlfriend of accused André Eminger.

Holiday acquaintances

Today the court heard several holiday acquaintances of Beate Zschäpe, Uwe Böhnhardt and Uwe Mundlos. In the years 2007 to 2011, the witnesses had met “the Three” every year on a caravan park on the island of Fehmarn and had formed a rather close relationship with them. Two families whose children were teenagers at the time described Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe as pleasant and very sportive caravan neighbors, always open for group activities like sports or barbecues. In the case of one family, the contact evolved into an invitation to the daughter’s birthday party and a visit.

They described Beate Zschäpe as responsible for the money, as “caring”. She was responsible for laundry and cooking while the two men cared for the sports equipment, cars and handyman work.

With the exception of a tattoo showing a death head and a Stahlhelm helmet, which Uwe Böhnhardt, known to them as Gerry, described as a “youthful indiscretion”, and the fact that the Three never gave their home address, none of the witnesses noticed anything negative about them. In sportive clothing and without their brainless political slogans, the NSU was able to fly under the radar.

The witnesses’ testimony shows that Beate Zschäpe was a member of the group on the same level as Böhnhardt and Mundlos who in their division of labor was inter alia responsible for money matters. What’s more, it showed the professionalism with which “the Three” upheld their assumed identities, over a period of four years and vis-à-vis people whom they had befriended and formed some sort of relationship of trust with. Today’s testimonies thus again provided several pieces of proof showing that Beate Zschäpe was an equal and full member of the NSU and played an important role in full knowledge of the NSU’s crimes.

Lies and Trivialization, Part 2 – Testimony of André Kapke

Today’s witness war André Kapke, an extremely violent-prone neo-Nazi as shown already by his criminal record. From the mid-1990s, Kapke was one of the closest confidants of Ralf Wohlleben, Holger Gerlach and “the Three”. He was accompanied by his lawyer Waldschmidt, a functionary of the neo-fascist NPD from Hesse.

Kapke did everything he could to spare Zschäpe and Wohlleben – when asked about Zschäpe’s political positions, he claimed to only remember discussions concerning nuclear power and the nuclear waste disposal site in Gorleben. Reactions in the courtroom showed that nobody believed this claim –not victims’ counsel, not members of the court. The same reaction was engendered by his attempts to describe Ralf Wohlleben as “angel of peace” of the Nazi scene in Jena.

Kapke generally tried to depict his comrades and himself as victims of leftist activists and the police. Asked about the ideology of the “Kameradschaft Jena” or the ““Thuringia home guard” or about his own role, both before and after „the Three“ went underground, he claimed not to be able to recall much of anything. Later, a sentence slipped out which showed his true ideology: asked about the “foreigner politics” of the Nazi scene in Jena, he answered “if you try to get rid of pest plants, you don’t just plug two or three leaves, you attack the root.”

This was followed by further gaps in his memory. Presiding judge Götzl became more and more exasperated – as were most of the others present in the courtroom. The presiding judge finally interrupted Kapke’s testimony at 4 in the afternoon. Kapke will continue to testify on the last day before the Christmas break.

Further testimony of Uwe Böhnhardt’s mother

The further testimony of Uwe Böhnhardt’s mother took up all of today’s trial day. She continued to present a world view according to which „the Three“ appear either as „right-leaning young folks“ or as victims of arbitrary actions by state organs. To her, she explained, Beate Zschäpe was still today a “nice young woman” – the witness even addressed Zschäpe in open court to thank her for contacting the family after the two Uwes had committed suicide. Ms. Böhnhardt did, finally, find some compassionate words towards the victims’ families. On the other hand, she did so in a way which tried to equate her position to their suffering. She claimed to be in a position where she “understood these families better than anyone else” – a claim that many victims’ counsel found rather offputting.

Asked about crimes committed by her son before he went underground, she reacted defensively. As to investigations for torture-like abuse of another prisoner, she claimed to have no knowledge. As to his earlier crimes (inter alia car theft), she blamed them entirely on his older co-perpetrators. Asked about descriptions of Böhnhardt by former friends as “aggressive, dominant and prone to violence”, she claimed that these descriptions were false and only given because they “reflected the mood of the present times”.

Her intention became clear in a sentence she uttered towards the end of her testimony: “You know, the prosecution is trying to find proof that those three committed all these crimes. As a mother, I am grasping at straws to say that it could not have been that way.” Her testimony therefore does not have much worth in gauging Uwe Böhnhardt’s personality.

Towards the end of her testimony, the presiding judge posed critical questions after it became apparent that the witness had neglected to mention a meeting in which she had given her son’s clothes and other items to a supporter. The suspicion remains that the witness had additional meetings with supporters of “the Three” she does not wish to talk about.

The testimony of André Kapke was pushed to tomorrow, Christian Kapke’s to a later week.

On the NSU as victims of arbitrary decisions by state organs – the testimony of Uwe Böhnhardt’s mother.

The only witness today was Uwe Böhnhardt’s mother. She mostly reported on her son’s vita, on the day he went underground and on contacts – phone calls and three personal meetings – thereafter.

The domestic secret service had contacted the family and asked them to convince the three who had gone underground to turn themselves in. “The three” were wanted for several propaganda and explosives offences, state agencies offered concession regarding the sentence. These offers – which “the Three” never took seriously anyway – were later rescinded. This meant that Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe would have to face a trial for these offences just like any other defendant – for Böhnhardt’s mother, this was nothing short of “fraud”.

This shows an aspect which was present in her entire testimony and which made it hard to listen to her – Ms. Böhnhardt has construed her own view of events in which her son, Beate Zschäpe and Uwe Mundlos appear solely as victims of arbitrary actions by state organs. That she, as a mother who did not share her son’s ideology, finds it hard to imagine that he killed ten people and committed several bombing attacks is understandable. However, this does not at all excuse, e.g., a statement that she was sorry for “the five adolescents here” – meaning the five accused – who according to her are only sitting in the dock because the secret service did not keep its promises and “the Three” therefore did not surrender. While she sees the three NSU members and the other accused only as victims of state agencies, her testimony contained not even a hint of compassion for the victims of her son’s crimes – or in her words, of the crimes he is claimed to have committed.

Her testimony will continue tomorrow, followed by André Kapke in the afternoon.

Towards the end of the trial day, the court dealt with several motions: a motion by victims‘ counsel that the case file against André Kapke be made part of the case file was denied, the court was of the opinion that there was no evidence that it would be of relevance. The defense of Carsten Schultze moved that an officer of the federal domestic secret service be heard as a witness in order to show that Schultze had played a minor role in the Nazi scene. However, that officer had never observed Schultze firsthand, but had only summarized reports by others. Accordingly, he is not suitable as witness for such questions, as stated by victim’s counsel Thomas Bliwier.