Where did the Ceska come from?

Today’s trial day was to uncover the provenance of the silenced Ceska pistol used by the NSU. However, the only witness to testify today was a gun shop owner from Switzerland who had sold the gun in 1996. He testified that he had sold one silenced Ceska and one Ceska without silence via mail. The buyer had provided him with an official permit to buy a gun and a copy of his identification. The witness stated that the silenced Ceska was a relatively rare model, but that he had sold a number of such guns.

Two additional witnesses, the original buyer of the NSU Ceska and the person presumed to have sold it on to Germany, did not appear in court. The court will now try to have them testify via video-link. The second of the two men has already announced that he will invoke the privilege against self-incrimination and refuse to testify.

Parties also watched a video from a surveillance camera in the Keupstraße in Cologne, this time with somewhat enhanced picture quality, in order to check whether a woman seen on that video shortly before the bombing attack was Beate Zschäpe. The police officers who had worked on the video stated that the woman was not Zschäpe, and in fact there was no resemblance of Zschäpe to the woman in the video.

Angelika Lex, victim’s counsel for the widow of Theodoros Boulgarides, made a statement commenting on yesterday’s testimony of the police officer who had led the investigations in the Boulgarides murder case. Her statement is documented (in German) here.

„You were saying that your sister’s husband was not of pure German blood?“ (Olaf Klemke, Defence Attorney of Ralf Wohlleben)

All parties had been intently awaiting the questioning of accused Carsten Schultze, this time by the defence of accused Ralf Wohlleben, which took up most of this trial day. Schultze had originally refused to answer questions of the Wohlleben defence, finding it unfair that he had “made himself nude” by testifying in detail while Wohlleben did not testify at all. In the meantime, Schultze has realized that it would be good for the credibility of his statement, and would likely lead to a less lengthy sentence for himself, if he also answers these questions.

Schultze has massively incriminated Wohlleben, stating that it was Wohlleben who had upheld the contact to the three undercover Nazis, that it was Wohlleben who had told him to buy the Ceska pistol and give it to “the Three”. Schultze’s testimony is particularly credible given that it has already led to the uncovering of an additional NSU bombing attack.

Accordingly, parties were expecting a particularly intensive questioning. But the Wohlleben defence did not live up to the situation: hours upon hours of questions which tested Schultze’s memory, but never left him hard-pressed to answer. However, Wohlleben’s defence attorney Klemke showed his true colors by asking Schultze “„You were saying that your sister’s husband was not of pure German blood?“, showing his own closeness to his client’s ideology.

The questioning of Schultze took about five hours. The end of the trial day was marked by a motion from victim’s counsel Stolle from Berlin. Stolle moved that a “birthday newspaper” which had been found in the apartment of André Kapke, also suspected of NSU involvement, be admitted into evidence. This paper had been prepared by Ralf Wohlleben and a mutual friend on the occasion of André Kapke’s birthday on 24 August 1998, following the style of the “Bild-Zeitung”, Germany’s (in-)famous yellow press newspaper. It contains “funny” articles such about the Buchenwald death camp being “converted into a ‘gas station’” and the like, but above all a number of homages to Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe who had gone undercover shortly before.

Wohlleben’s self-descriptions in that paper show him as someone who had been deeply racist even as a small child and who was willing to kill in furtherance of his hatred against anyone not fitting into his extreme right-wing world view.

Wohlleben knew what he was writing about. Mundlos, Zschäpe, Böhnhardt, Gerlach and Kapke were his closest confidants, with whom he shared both a friendship lasting years and a common political organization. Wohlleben knew that in laying down his racist murder fantasies, he was not only describing himself, but also speaking on behalf of the entire “Kameradschaft Jena”. It is apparent that he hit the nail on the head – after all Kapke had held on to the paper for many years.

Clues from the wreckage of the Frühlingsstraße flat incriminate Zschäpe and Eminger

The first witness on Tuesday was the neighbor of the witness from Dortmund who had testified last week that she had seen a brawny skin head together with Zschäpe, Böhnhardt and Mundlos at the neighboring lot. The witness today denied having any contacts to the Nazi scene – of course, anything else would have made him a suspect. However, his denial is hardly credible: the names of his children invite a link to Nazi ideology, at soccer games he has no problem sharing a fan section with leading Nazis from Germany, and he stated that he did not feel that the slogan “Zick Zack Kanackenpack” was in any way right-wing – “Kanacke”, of course, is a clearly xenophobic slur referring to foreigners, particularly of Turkish origin.

His testimony can thus not refute the testimony of his neighbor. That testimony is, however, problematic in that the observations were made seven years ago and the neighbor only recognized the three NSU members in late 2011 after having seen their pictures on TV. Her identification alone will not suffice for a conviction. The importance of her testimony will become apparent as the trial goes on. If further clues are found as to Zschäpe’s presence at the crime scenes, the testimony of the Dortmund witness will come to the foreground again. Until then, it needs to be stressed that Zschäpe’s presence at the crime scenes is not a necessary condition for her being convicted of murder as a co-perpetrator.

A police officer testified as to the contents of a hard drive found in the burnt down Frühlingsstraße apartment. It contained inter alia the video the NSU used to claim responsibility for its murders, two earlier versions of that video and work product of their being prepared. The video was ready to be burned on disc, a list of addresses of recipients was also prepared. It seems that the distribution of the video had been prepared well in advance.

Another folder on the same hard drive contained a number of files belonging to accused Eminger, such as Christmas letters containing Swastika symbols send to his parents, in-laws and other family members, templates for tattoos and pictures of his wife and children. This argues for Eminger, who is after all a self-employed professional in image editing, worked on the NSU’s videos.

On Wednesday further clues were discussed which again incriminated accused Zschäpe: The Frühlingsstraße wreckage also contained an archive of 68 newspaper articles concerning the NSU’s murders. Although it is rather hard to locate finger prints on paper, Zschäpe’s prints were found on two papers.

The afternoon was devoted to the testimony of a police officer who had taken the rental agreements for cars and caravans and had ascertained, from his desk, which routes had been driven with these vehicles.

According to his testimony, vehicles had been rented from four rental agencies, first under the name of André Eminger and using his ID card, later under the name of Holger Gerlach. However, according to the testimony of agency employees who had been shown photos, the vehicles were apparently in fact rented by Uwe Böhnhardt. Zschäpe, too, had been recognized by employees. In one instance of a car being rented unter the name of Eminger, a telephone number had been used which belonged to a cell phone actually used by him personally, which tends to show that he had not only provided his ID, but was in direct contact with “the Three”.

The witness reported that there had been a total of 65 vehicle rentals, 15 of which overlapped with 17 of the NSU’s crimes. The kilometers driven were also in line with the vehicles being used to drive to and from the crime scenes. Other rentals had been in the context of vacations. According to police calculations, the total amount spent on vehicle rentals and gas money from 2000 to 2011 was about € 27,622.62. One of the vehicles had been sighted after the murder of police officer Kiesewetter in Heilbronn.

An appeal by Ayse Yozgat

Today’s trial day began with a deeply touching appeal by the mother of murder victim Halit Yozgat, Ayse Yozgat:

“My appeal is directed to Ms. Zschäpe. You are also a lady. I speak to you as mother of Halit Yozgat. I ask you to clear up all that has happened. Since you are a woman I believe that women understand each other. For the last seven years, I can only ever sleep two hours per night. …

I ask for elucidation. Please free me from these feelings. I often feel very affected. I don’t want you to take on others’ sins. Please always think of me when you go to bed. Think of the fact that I cannot sleep. Thank you.”

The rest of the trial day consisted of several reports by federal police officers on the investigations which severely incriminated accused Beate Zschäpe.

According to these reports, the videos claiming responsibility for the NSU’s murders contained photos which were taken immediately after the murders of Enver Şimşek, Süleyman Taşköprü and Abdurrahim Özüdoğru, before police, EMTs or other persons arrived at the crime scenes. This shows that the pictures were taken by the killers and later entered into the videos which Zschäpe sent to various addresses.

In the debris of the burnt down flat in the Frühlingsstraße, police found part of a map of Nuremberg in which the crime scene in the Scharrerstraße was marked, as well as a slip of paper with the address of the crime scene in Kassel and of radio frequencies used by police in Northern Hesse, i.e. the area around Kassel. This shows that the NSU murderers had the technical means to eavesdrop on police radio.

One piece of evidence that should prove particularly incriminating for Zschäpe is a cell phone with SIM card found in the Frühlingsstraße. A few hours before the murder of Theodoros Boulgarides in Munich, this phone was used by someone in the immediate vicinity to make a phone call to a public phone box in Zwickau. The phone was not used for everyday calls. In other words, Zschäpe called a dedicated phone from a phone box in order not to leave any traces – behavior which clearly shows that she was directly involved in the murders. Finally, police found Zschäpe’s finger prints on newspaper articles from the “Cologne Express” of 11 June 2004 regarding the Keupstraße bombing attack and of the “Tageszeitung” from Munich of 30 August 2001 regarding the murder of Habil Kılıç.

Finally, the court heard testimony from the husband of the witness from Dortmund who had stated that in April of 2006, she had seen Zschäpe together with Mundlos and Böhnhardt on a lot neighboring her house. The witness could not explain why his wife had only disclosed her knowledge to a victim’s counsel this year. He did, however, remember that he was sure to have recognized all three persons. In the end, his wife had felt that observations and conjectures were not enough to contact the police or go public. “There was no objective evidence, no proof. I was afraid to make a fool of myself.” This assessment may be considered peculiar, but his testimony seemed very authentic. It is not likely, however, to influence the credibility of his wife’s testimony.

The desperation of Ismail Yozgat

Today was a trial day filled with extreme emotions. The father of murder victim Halit Yozgat, Ismail Yozgat, testified on the death of his son. But Ismail Yozgat detailed not only how he found his murdered son under dramatic circumstances, but how his trust in the German justice system has been damaged by the way the system has dealt with, inter alia, Andreas Temme, an officer of the domestic secret service who was present at the crime scene.

Mr. Yozgat’s testimony injected into the court proceedings a hint of the desperation and hopelessness caused by the Nazi murders – this after the court room had become a largely emotion free zone under the matter-of-fact administration of Presiding Judge Götzl.

In the afternoon, the testimony of Andreas Temme, whose tasks at the domestic secret service included being liaison-officer for informants from the Nazi scene. Although this very dubious witness had been present in Halit Yozgat’s internet café at the time of the murder, he had not come forward to the police. The Hessian Ministry of the Interior had interfered with attempts by the police to interrogate him and had for some time even succeeded in preventing such interrogation. A criminal investigation against Temme has been discontinued in the meantime.

The way the justice system has dealt with this witness again led to conflict today: the office of the federal prosecutor has not integrated the case file of the investigation against Temme into the court file of the case against Zschäpe et al. and refuses to do so to this day. One victim’s counsel moved today that the case file be integrated – this is an issue that will likely be the subject of intense litigation in the weeks to come.

As to Temme’s statement in court, it became very apparent that presiding judge Götzl was not convinced by his explanations as to why he had not come forward after hearing of Halit Yozgat’s murder. Götzl made more than clear that he did not believe Temme and finally ended today’s testimony, but not without signalizing that further intensive interrogation of Temme will take place in the future.

Today’s testimony has again shown that the involvement of the secret service in the Halit Yozgat murder case will play an important role in this trial.

Witness remains steadfast: Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt were in Dortmund in 2006

Today saw the testimony, on rather short notice, of a witness who had contact a victim’s counsel this summer. The witness testified that in March/April 2006, she had seen Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt together with a brawny skinhead on the property neighboring hers in Dortmund. She also testified that significant excavation had taken place on that property. She had recognized Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt in the press after the NSU had been uncovered.

She had not directly gone to the police because at first she had thought that her knowledge would not be decisive. Upon being asked today, she also stated that she had been afraid of retaliation by Nazis should she testify.

Some media outlets, who apparently had had access to her earlier statements even before the trial date today, have speculated about the possibility of a mix-up. They refer to a statement by the janitor of the neighboring property, who had stated that he had been on the property with his wife and some friends and had done some work there. He claims that his girl friend looks like Beate Zschäpe. According to his statement, he had built a pond on the lot, but had later filled it up again.

Of course, it is hard to assess the witness’ statement, seven years after the fact, concerning the identification of perpetrators based on press coverage of the NSU’s crimes. This identification alone surely cannot suffice as basis for a conviction. On the other hand, the witness has today shown great consistency in her statement vis-à-vis her earlier statement to the federal prosecution and has testified in a very plausible, vivid and self-reflective manner.

She has also stated that it is quite possible that a pond was built in the back part of the lot. On the other hand, she had wondered that a significant part of that work was conducted at nighttime. The witness also testified that she had observed the group including Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhardt for a period of three to five minutes, most of that time using binoculars.

In any normal court trial, such a witness would be a dream witness for a presiding judge and a nightmare for a defense attorney, notwithstanding that a long time has passed since her observations.

The importance of her testimony can only be fully weighed once the other persons who play a role in this context, including the janitor, his girlfriend and the witness’ spouse, have testified. Their testimony is scheduled next week. In any event, her testimony will have to lead to further investigations, particularly into the Nazi scene in Dortmund.

Besides that witness, the court today heard two police officers from Kassel, who reported on the crime scene of the Halit Yozgat murder and the way the deceased had found, showing pictures of the crime scene. They also testified on first investigations concerning the fact that Andreas Temme, an employee of the domestic secret service and contact for informers of that agency, had been present at the crime scene when the murder happened. Witness testimony by Halit Yozgat’s father was moved to tomorrow.

Testimony concerning the murder of Theodoros Boulgarides was as expected – many photos of the crime scene and the apartment, a thorough explanation of the fatal wounds inflicted, an explanation by a weapons expert that the three shots had been fired from the by now well-known Ceska pistol.

By contrast, the questioning of a police officer who had investigated the Yozgat murder case in Kassel showed quite clearly why Nazis were able to kill ten persons without the police even considering a racist or Nazi motive:
In September 2013, more than seven years after the murder of Halit Yozgat, a police officer sits in court and explains in a chipper tone that the relationship of his investigation group to the victim’s family had been just great, that the family had always been very open towards them. That the investigation was conducted primarily against the family, that the telephones of all family members were tapped, that even an undercover investigator was used – all this does not seem, in the mind of this witness, to contradict his story in any way, nor does it seem to be a reason for him to feel regret for the inadequate way he handled the investigation.

A victim’s counsel representing the family relates that the victim’s father had complained to a police officer of Turkish descent, asking that the police stop treating the family as suspects and stating his conviction that his son as well as the other victims had been killed for xenophobic motives. He had stated that he was unable to see any other possibility, that it could only be a madman randomly killing foreigners.

The witness replies that he cannot recall any memo written by that colleague. Also, he claims that Mr. Yozgat had never said something to that effect to him. “Why don’t you ask Mr. Yozgat”, he asks the attorney, after all the relationship of the police and Mr. Yozgat had always been very good.

And what’s more, the witness claims, of course the police had investigated in all possible directions. Upon being asked what investigations had been conducted into a possible racist motive, he stammers: well, they had asked about brawls at the victim’s school that could have been due to racist motives, and they had even talked to a friend of the victim’s. There had also been some clue concerning Iraqi Kurds. But they had not found any reason to consider a religious/political motive for the crime.

It is apparent that until this day, the officer has not realized that his investigative group “Café” has hindered rather than helped in elucidating the background to this crime.

It is likely that his insolent explanation may only serve as a taste of what is to come next week. After all, next week’s trial will see the testimony of Andreas Temme, an officer of the domestic secret service (“Office for the Protection of the Constitution”) who was present at the crime scene at the time of the murder.

On the Frühlingsstraße fire and on the Boulgarides murder case

Today, more photos of the fire in the Frühlingsstraße in Zwickau were shown in court and explained by the arson investigator of the Zwickau police. A total of 11 weapons – 10 handguns and a machine pistol – had been found in the remains of the house, along with 2.5 kilograms of an explosive, most likely gun powder, and some DVDs labeled “NSU”. Presumably these were meant to be sent out along as well.

Marks of spilled gasoline were found not only in the flat, but also in the entry of the house itself. In one of the staircases, the fire was just about to spread to the upper floor.

Investigators also found a number of tea candles standing on the ground with the wicks turned upright. Presumably Zschäpe had spilled the gasoline in the flat and the staircase and had left the tea candles as “detonators” in order to effect an explosion.

As the lead investigator in the Boulgarides case has fallen ill, the witness testimonies of crime scene witnesses in that case were rather inconsequential. Of some interest, however, was the testimony of the murder victim’s former business partner, who described being repeatedly questioned by the police over a period of months, a treatment he described as harassment.

On the murder of Süleyman Taşköprü – „God help us“

The trial day began with the testimony of a Hamburg police detective. The victim’s father had described to him two German men whom he had seen exiting the shop. The day after the murder, a Nuremberg police detective had called the witness and reported on the murders in Nuremberg. One day later, it had been established that the murder in Hamburg was committed using the same murder weapon that had been used in Nuremberg. The witness stated that during the entire investigation, he had not heard from the police State Security Division (the police division investigating crimes with a political background) or the Hamburg “Office for the Protection of the Constitution” (domestic secret service). He claimed that despite the connection to Nuremberg, there had been no leads towards the extreme right, that there had been no basis for investigations in that direction given the lack of a clear description of the suspects.

This is a clear example of the type of institutional racism that has marred the investigations from the get-go. On the one hand, the police spent considerable energy investigating vague hints concerning alleged involvement of the murder victims with “foreign” criminal groups; on the other hand it did not even begin an investigation into the possibility of Nazi perpetrators even though a racist motive was a likely explanation given a series of murders against immigrant men. This was clearly no mere glitch, but a conscious decision. Trying to explain this decision by referring to the lack of an exact description of the perpetrators does, to put it mildly, show a lack of awareness of the problem – does that mean that in case of crimes possibly motivated by racist bias, the German police only investigates against neo-Nazis if they are presented on a silver platter?

A pathologist testifying as an expert witness described the gunshot wounds – the victim was shot in the head once from a caliber 7.65 weapon, the caliber of the Ceska pistol, two shots of the smaller caliber 6.35 had been fired into the back of his head.

Süleyman Taşköprü’s father described the dramatic consequences of the murder for the entire family, above all for the victim’s daughter. He had found his gravely injured son in his shop.

An additional witness corroborated his statement. She had heard Taşköprü’s father call out “God help us” and had entered the shop. A reporter had arrived at the same time as the police; medics had been the last to arrive. The reporter took photographs and behaved in such a disrespectful manner that the witness had thrown eggs at him. The result was that the witness – not the intrusive journalist – was sent home by the police.

On the Mehmet Kubaşik murder case

After the challenges against all judges had been denied as unfounded, the presiding judge quickly returned to the task at hand. The trial day was devoted to the murder of Mehmet Kubaşik on 4 April 2006 in Dortmund, with several police officers testifying as witnesses. Kubaşik’s widow and two of his children, all of whom have joined the proceedings as private prosecutors, were in attendance.

An in-depth questioning of these witnesses proved difficult, however, as the testimony of another witness of central importance for the case, who had originally been called to testify yesterday, had been postponed. The witness had seen two likely suspects “either Junkies or Nazis“, directly before the murder. Thus the police officers testifying today could not be asked questions concerning the treatment of this witness and her testimony. The officers will have to appear in court again, victims‘ counsel for the Kubaşik family have already announced that they will have a number of questions.

Witness counsel for the Yozgat family moved that a witness be called to testify regarding the Kubaşik murder case: according to the motion, the witness had seen Uwe Mundlos, Uwe Böhnhardt and Beate Zschäpe a few days bevore the murder being shown something on a plot of land by a brawny Skinhead. If she testifies the same way in court, this could prove quite important for the further proceedings. On the one hand, her testimony will then show quite clearly what victims‘ counsel and antifascist groups had long suspected, namely that „the Three“ had support from local Nazi scenes in carrying out their murders and bombing attacks. On the other hand, her testimony will show that Zschäpe personally appeared at one of the crime scenes, which again shows her to be a member of the NSU on an equal footing with the two men.

The questioning of police officers showed a significant change on the behavior of the presiding judge, who showed a lot more empathy with the family members of the victim than he had at the beginning of the trial.

Two neighbors of the NSU flat in the Frühlingsstraße in Zwickau also testified. Like others who hasd testified earlier, they had seen Beate Zschäpe come running from the direction of the burning house shortly after the start of the fire on 4 November 2011.

At the end of the trial day, Carsten Schultze surprised the parties by announcing that he will answer questions of the Wohlleben defense after all. The court will fix a date for when this is to happen. By contrast, Holger Gerlach has not yet announced whether or not he is also willing to answer questions – his defense counsel had intimated that this was a possibility shortly before the summer break.