On earlier statements of accused Gerlach

Contrary to the original plans, only two witnesses testified during the week of 16 to 18 July. An officer of the Federal Bureau of Criminal Investigations who had interrogated Gerlach several times during the investigation testified on all three trial days. His testimony showed once again that Gerlach only disclosed his knowledge bit by bit over the course of several interrogations.

Gerlach told the witness on several occasions that Beate Zschäpe was on an equal footing with Böhnhardt and Mundlos, in particular that she had handled the group’s finances. It also became apparent several times that Mundlos und Böhnhardt had blabbed details of crimes several times – for example, Mundlos had proudly shown Gerlach a pumpgun he had bought. These details will be building blocks for the court convicting Zschäpe as co-perpetrator, but also show that the supporters of the NSU had knowledge of the group’s crimes.

The officer stressed that Gerlachs statements had furthered the investigations quite a bit – an announcement which will likely earn Gerlach a sentence reduction under the crown witness rule. However, the testimony also raises serious doubts concerning whether Gerlach’s own role is in fact limited to those acts he has so far admitted. For example, the witness entertained serious doubts whether it is true, as claimed by Gerlach, that he had only been in the NSU flat in Zwickau twice overall. Finally, the officer’s testimony showed again that Gerlach must have known more about the crimes of the NSU than he has admitted.

The witness was also questioned by the defence, above all the Zschäpe and Wohlleben defence teams. Their questions concerned mostly aspects where they felt that the officers should have asked specific follow-up questions concerning Gerlachs statements. And indeed the testimony showed a certain disinterest of the police in conducting a thorough investigation – however, any clues that Gerlach’s statements incriminating Zschäpe and Wohlleben are untrue did not arise.

On 17 and 18 July, the arson investigator from Zwickau continued to testify on the effects of the fire in the Frühlingsstraße apartment, showing a large number of photos of the house after the fire. The investigator’s testimony will continue on a later trial day, next time he will also report on several items (inter alia guns as well as the handcuffs of murdered police officer Kiesewetter) found in the wreckage of the house.

Another police officer from Nuremberg who was originally summoned as a witness for 16 July will now likely testify on 1 August.

Beside the testimony of these witnesses, the trial day also saw debates concerning the way the trial is conducted. Victims’ counsel for the Yozgat family moved that in the future, witnesses again be summoned according to the chronology of the crimes concerning which they are to testify. Recent weeks had often seen several murders being considered in the same week alongside witnesses concerning statements of the accused and the Frühlingsstraße fire. The presiding judge reacted in a quite exasperated manner and explained that, in planning the summoning of witnesses, he had to take into account inter alia vacations of witnesses and private prosecutors.

Counsel for the Yozgat family also gave a statement on the announcement by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office that they would object to any question not directly concerning the crimes charged. Counsel Dierbach stated that she would of course ask such questions since an investigation of racist methods of investigation was simply part of the investigation concerning the NSU as a whole. Meanwhile, federal prosecutors began to put into action their announcement by objecting to several questions asked of the witness by the Wohlleben defence, despite the fact that these questions did in fact have a connection with the case at hand. The presiding judge held all these questions to be admissible.

Testimony concerning the Şimşek, Özüdoğru and Kiliç murder cases

In the morning of 10 July, the court informed the parties of further dates for the continuation of the trial. The court has announced dates until the end of 2014 and thus seems to foresee a much longer duration than originally, when the last trial date announced had been in early 2014.

Both trial days were mostly concerned with testimony concerning the murders of Şimşek, Özüdoğru and Kiliç, particularly as concerns the situations in which their bodies were found.

Police officers reported that Şimşek had been shot several times from two guns. Two witnesses who had passed Şimşek’s delivery van had heard “metallic sounds” and had seen two young men in bicyclist’s clothing run away from the scene. However, they were not able anymore to precisely describe the situation.

Clues concerning two young male cyclists dressed like bike couriers, who had been seen driving towards and then away from the murder scene, also came up early in the Habil Kiliç murder case. This murder was described as “professional” – Habil Kiliç was first shot in the head while standing behind the shop counter, then another shot was fired at his head while he was lying on the ground to make sure he would die.

One officer leading the investigation took particular care to state that the police had investigated “in all directions”. However, police had simply not thought possible that the two cyclists might be the killers.

The testimony of police officers was subject of disputes between victims’ counsel on the one hand and federal prosecutors and the court on the other. Above all prosecutors objected to all questions concerning the faulty police investigations. Some private prosecutors reacted with a statement in which they stressed that one question to be answered in the trial is whether or not the police would uphold their suspicions against their families and if not, for what reasons. Questions concerning this issue are thus pertinent for the trial. Prosecutor Diemer on the other hand stated that he would continue to object to all questions not directly concerning the guilt or innocence of the accused.

One examination that proved particularly difficult was that of Habil Kiliç’s widow, who had been in Turkey at the time of his murder. In the particular situation of an examination in court, she was not ready to describe her life circumstances then and now. She referred to several documents her counsel had sent to several agencies. Of course, the examination was already started in an insensitive manner by Presiding Judge Götzl. He asked the witness to state her current residence and it took specific protest from the witness for him to instead allow her to show her id card only to the court. One would have expected the presiding judge to consider beforehand potential fears of murder victims’ families and to take them into account. What’s more, the presiding judge only called in a translator after the witness stated that she was unable to continue. Given these difficulties, the testimony of Kiliç’s widow proved quite dissatisfactory.

Habil Kilic’s mother in law reported on how the murder had impacted on her family. Among other issues, her granddaughter’s school wanted her to switch to another school, claiming a danger of attacks on the school. It took considerable efforts to ensure that the granddaughter could stay in her school. The witness also reported how she had been interrogated by the police, against her wished, directly after having been informed of her son in law’s death.

A lack of sensitivity on the part of the presiding judge also showed when crime scene photos were shown as evidence and a photo of the naked body of Mr. Kiliç was projected onto the court room wall in the absence of any necessity of doing so – hardly a sensitive and dignified approach to communicating with the crime victims.

As expected, the motion by André Emingers defense to be allowed to remain absent from certain trial days was rejected by the court.

The Gerlach defense as well as victims’ counsel Kuhn and Hoffmann commented on the testimony of witnesses concerning statements of accused Gerlach. According to his defense, Gerlach had, from the very start, cooperated in an open and believable manner and without holding anything back and was thus eligible for a sentence reduction under the crown witness rule. What’s more, according to them Gerlach had never thought that the documents he had provided to “the Three” could be used for any wrongful means, let alone for crimes. By contrast, victims’ counsel stressed that the testimonies showed Gerlach to have reckoned with the weapon he had transported being used for politically motivated crimes. In addition, it has become clear that when providing his passport in 2011, Gerlach had anticipated that it would be used for further crimes.

Not discussed in open court, but nonetheless of considerable interest for private prosecutors were reports on a series of house searches in connection with the violent neo-Nazi network “Freies Netz Süd” (“Free Network South”). Reportedly, one of the apartments searched was the apartment where accused Andrè Eminger resides when in Munich during trial days.

On earlier interrogations of Holger Gerlach

This morning was devoted to the testimony of prosecutor Dr. Moldenhauer of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office. He testified on earlier interrogations of accused Holger Gerlach before the investigating judge of the Federal Court of Justice. Gerlach had provided “the Three” with several identity papers which were then used to rent mobile home for the NSU’s murders and bank robberies. Inter alia, Gerlach had provided, in 2011, a passport in his name and with a picture in which he closely resembled Uwe Böhnhardt, having changed his apperance before taking the photo.

In his interrogation, Gerlach had stated that he did not then think that there was an arrest warrant against “the Three” – he had read in a newspaper that the crimes they were originally accused of were time-barred by then. What’s more, “the Three” had told him that they owned a computer store, and they had arrived to meetings in new and expensive cars.

If Gerlach assumes that “the Three” were not subject to arrest warrants and that they had enough money, it must have been clear to him that they would use his identity papers to commit crimes based on ideology. This is all the more so given that he had, as he related to the witness, already told them ten years earlier that one could not “rescue the world with five people.”

As far as his interrogation concerned the delivery to “the Three” of a pistol he had been given by Wohlleben, Gerlach had tried to talk his way out by claiming that he had not looked into the bag containing that pistol and/or that he had not seen any way to safely “get rid” of the weapon without endangering others.

Somewhat surprisingly, the defence of accused Eminger moved to be allowed to remain absent on all trial days not concerning crimes Eminger is directly charged with. Given that all crimes concerned here were committed by a terrorist organization which Eminger is charged with supporting, this motion does not seem destined for success.

At the end of the trial day, two police officers testified on the initial discovery of the body of Enver Şimşek, who had been shot dead in his flower van.

Catastrophically bad investigation leads to catastrophically bad trial days

The first half of this trial day saw the low quality of police investigations reflected into the courtroom.

Carsten Schultze has stated that he provided a silenced pistol to Böhnhardt and Mundlos and that he believes this pistol to have been the Ceska. He stated that when first interrogated, he had been shown grainy black-and-white copies of several weapons. In a later interrogation he had been shown several weapons. He was not able definitely to identify one of those as the weapon he had bought and given to “the Three”.

A police witness who was present during an interrogation of accused Gerlach, during which Gerlach was shown several weapons, brought a box full of weapons with him into the courtroom. It turned out during the course of his testimony that these weapons were of the same make as those weapons which had been shown to Gerlach – but they were not the same weapons; in fact the weapons shown to Gerlach may well have had differently-colored barrels or grips. Accordingly, this testimony was rather useless.

However, this negligent investigation will not have an influence on the result of the trial, as one thing did become quite clear: Schultze distinctly remembered a pistol whose barrel was threaded for a silencer – the only pistol so threaded among the NSU’s weapons was exactly the Ceska used in the group’s murders. This should suffice to identify the weapon provided by Schultze and Wohlleben as the murder weapon.

Another police officer testifed about the content of the first interrogations of Gerlach. His testimony showed quite clearly that Gerlach only ever admitted facts which he had to assume the police knew anyway. Gerlach would later make long statements to the investigating judge of the Federal Court of Justice, which will be read out in court. These will show how he divulged further details step by step after he realized that his identity papers had been crucial in allowing the NSU to commit several murders.

Zschäpe’s conversations with police officers

Beate Zschäpe has so far remained silent in all formal interrogations. However, in other contexts she has talked, sometimes for several hours, with police officers. Law enforcement have thus tried to bring about situations in which officers had the opportunity to have informal talks with her. Several such talks were subject of witness testimony on 2 and 3 July 2013. The officers’ testimony proved to be very incriminating for Beate Zschäpe. Her defence argued tat evidence concerning these conversations must be suppressed, but was not able to show that the police had used illegal methods of interrogation.

The first witness was a police officer who talked to Zschäpe after she had been brought from Jena to Zwickau. He stated that Zschäpe told him that she had not surrendered to the police in order to remain silent. However, there was no formal statement at that time as her counsel was not present. Asked whether further crimes were planned or underway, she had answered in the negative. Later on she had stressed that she had never been forced to do anything.

Zschäpe also had several conversations with a young officer from the BKA, the Federal Criminal Police Office, who had already accompanied her on the flight from Zwickau to Karlsruhe, the seat of the Federal Court of Justice. He stated that during a waiting period, she noted that Mundlos, Böhnhardt and Zschäpe had always known that their cover would be blown one day. It was easier to sleep now that this had happened. Furthermore, she had promised Böhnhardt and Mundlos a long time ago that she would inform their parents in the event of their deaths, and she had done so before surrendering to the police. Asked about items in the basement of the burned house in Zwickau, she had answered in a surprised tone that she did not feel entitled to dispose of items paid with money stemming from crimes.

On 25 June 2012 Zschäpe was allowed to meet her mother and grandmother in the prison in Gera. Accordingly, she was transported from the prison in Cologne, where she was detained, to Gera. On the four hour drive to and from Gera, she was accompanied by a high-ranking BKA officer who brought up several details from the case files. Again, Zschäpe proved talkative. The officers recalled that one issue discussed was her unhappiness with the work of her defence counsel Heer. She had accused him of working together closely with the press, something she did not agree with.

According to Zschäpe, her counsel had advised her to remain silent. She had added, however, that if she testified, she would give a long, detailed statement, as she was a person who took responsibility for what she had done. The witness seemed to recall that, in answer to the possible mitigating effect of her testifying, she had said that she did not believe her testimony would have a positive effect on her sentence.

She had also stated, however, that she was on the one hand annoyed about the ugly mug shot of her that had been published everywhere, but that she was also happy about it as it would keep people from recognizing her after her release from prison. After that release, she planned to take on a different name and live a normal life.

It thus appears that a year ago, Zschäpe was rather optimistic in assessing the sentence awaiting her. However, given the testimony of police officers that she was informed of the crimes of Mundlos and Böhnhardt, that all three anticipated death at any moment and had made arrangements concerning that case, and that she considered herself personally responsible, a life sentence seems a much more realistic outcome.

Taking of Testimony without any System

Today’s sixteenth day of the NSU trial saw witness testimony concerning the NSU apartment in the Frühlingsstraße in Zwickau. Beate Zschäpe, Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt had lived there, under assumed names, from 2008 on. After the death of the two men, the apartment had been set on fire, presumably by Zschäpe. Witnesses today were the real estate manager as well as two craftsmen who had worked in the house and were only absent by chance when the house caught fire.

It became apparent that the presiding judge’s plan concerning the timing of testimony will not work out. Four witnesses had been summoned today in half-hour intervals, but after more than six hours, not even the testimony of the third of those witnesses had concluded. This delay is not caused by victims’ counsel either – these counsel had asked some questions, but the vast majority of the time was spent on questioning by the presiding judge.

What’s more, there is no visible structure in the taking of evidence. For example, this week the trial started with testimony on the murder of Mr. Özüdoğru (Nuremberg), days 2 and 3 concerning the fire in the Frühlingsstraße (Zwickau). Both cases were only dealt with fragmentarily. The arson investigator from Zwickau police will continue his testimony a few weeks from now, a date for further witness testimony in the Frühlingsstraße case is not clear. Equally unclear is when testimony on the Özüdoğru murder will continue. Next week the trial will deal with neither, but will focus on testimony by police officers who interrogated the accused during the investigation. On Tuesday, Götzl showed the NSU propaganda videos without any preliminary announcement, as akin to a “stopgap”.

As presiding judge, Götzl may specify the planning of evidence at his discretion. By acting the way he does, he makes more than clear that he is not interested in a systematic gathering of evidence. He deals with the evidence contained in the indictment somehow and apparently believes that this will be enough for a conviction according to the indictment. The defence will not be opposed – especially the Zschäpe defence is hoping that the evidence, much of it circumstantial, brought together by the prosecution will simply prove insufficient. The defence therefore has no interest in a structured taking of evidence and questioning of witnesses, which may after all also uncover further incriminating facts.

An actual clarification of facts concerning the NSU, which may potentially also lead to new discoveries, is impossible under such circumstances. For interested members of the public as well as for private prosecutors interested in watching the proceedings, it becomes extremely difficult to continuously follow the proceedings or to plan which trial days to attend. If the taking of evidence continues the way it started, the trial will very quickly become largely incomprehensible and thus inaccessible to the public.

The fire in the NSU apartment in the Frühlingsstraße in Zwickau

Today’s fifteenth trial day saw the testimony of two police officers concerning the fire in the NSU’s apartment in the Frühlingsstraße in Zwickau. The apartment had been set on fire after the death of Uwe Böhnhardt and Uwe Mundlos; the indictment charges Beate Zschäpe with aggravated arson and attempted murder of three persons who would normally have been present in the same building, but who by happy coincidence either were not present of were able to leave the house in time.

The testimony of an arson investigator from the Zwickau criminal investigation department in particular lasted several hours, aided by many photos from the crime scene. His testimony is far from over and will be resumed in three weeks’ time. However, it has already become clear today that the fire was deliberately started with gasoline.
There were also some interesting details not concerning the fire itself. For one, the apartment and the basement room belonging to it contained security measures such as several locks, security cameras and radio signal devices. Interestingly, one of the cameras is not present on a photo taken a few weeks before the fire – the significance, if any, of this fact will still have to be determined.

Among the rubble, police officers found a total of 11 guns as well as handcuffs that had belonged to Michèle Kiesewetter, a police officer murdered by the NSU. These findings as well will be subject of further witness testimony.

A first glance into the Özüdoğru murder investigation

After the testimony of accused Schultze ended last week, this week saw the testimony of the first witnesses concerning the murder of Abdurrahim Özüdoğru, who was killed by shots to the head in his Nuremberg tailor shop on 13 June 2001. The questioning of police officers involved in the investigation afforded the parties a first glimpse into the mindset that made it possible for the serial murders of the Nazi NSU to be considered “kebap murders” and for investigations to be directed only against the victims and their environment: While neighbors who testified all described the victim as a very friendly neighbor, the most important detail for a crime scene officer seems to have been the “grown disorder” in the shop and the adjoining apartment. His report in the case file also contains some derogatory statements concerning Turkish people.

A neighbor who in 2012 had testified to the police that she had seen Beate Zschäpe at the crime scene now stated that she was afraid to testify for fear that someone might kill her. Whether her 2012 statement is reliable, or whether the witness fails to differentiate between her recollection of events and information she learned after the fact, can only be determined after looking at the protocol of her 2012 statement. Accordingly, one victim’s counsel moved that it be added to the case file.

There are no direct witnesses for the murder of Abdurrahim Özüdoğru. The killing will however be attributable to the NSU based on the weapon used as well as NSU videos celebrating their deeds.

These claims of responsibility in video form – the infamous “Pink Panther”-Video as well as two earlier versions – were shown today between two witness statements. Reactions among accused ranged from demonstrative disinterest on the part of Beate Zschäpe and her defence to shocked consternation on the part of accused Schultze.

Early during the trial day, victims’ counsel had made a motion to take evidence based on a revelation last week that Zschäpe was in contact via letter with Robin Schmiemann, a violent Nazi. Counsel moved that Schmiemann and a contact person of his be questioned as witnesses. The motion aims at showing concrete contacts between the Nazi scenes in Dortmund and Kassel, two locations of NSU murders, in particular a meeting between on the one hand Nazis from Dortmund and Kassel, including secret service informers, and on the other hand Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt during a Nazi rock concert on 18 March 2006, only weeks before the murders in Dortmund and Kassel.

Carsten Schultze – more questions, few answers and an insufficient apology

The questioning of accused Carsten Schultze went on for the entire trial day Wednesday. On Thursday, 20 June, the parties will make statements commenting on his testimony as a whole. Next week will see the beginning of testimony concerning the earliest murders in Nuremberg. The testimony of police officers who had questioned the accused during the investigation, which was originally planned for this week, was pushed back due to delays in the trial so far.

Just like yesterday, the questioning of Schultze was a rather labored process and largely informed by incomprehensible memory gaps. Schultze did at least describe, upon questioning, how he visited illegal Nazi concerts, one of which drew a crowd of over 1,000. He also described parties during which Nazi songs were sung. Schultze, who had always stressed that he had never been a racist, now admits to having joined in singing, e.g., a song celebrating the murder of Turkish people. In the years between 1997 and 2001, that had just been a normal part of life.

In the afternoon, Schultze tried to apologize to the NSU victims and their families. This apology seems to be honest, but it still focuses only on the provision of the Ceska pistol to the NSU. Schultze still seems to see his responsibility as limited to this one act. Accordingly, he has concentrated entirely on remembering his precise actions in ordering, retrieving and delivering the pistol. He continues to block out all his other acts in support of the three Nazis who had gone underground, his daily cooperation with Wohlleben, and his other political activities – after all, he led and trained a group of 20 to 30 members of the “Young National Democrats”.

Schultze has still not realized the actual extent of his responsibility, the importance of his support for the existence of the NSU and for their crimes. This severely devalues his apology.

Schultzes testimony incriminates co-accused Wohlleben, who according to Schultze’s recent testimony knew early on that the group had shot and wounded a person and who nonetheless continued to act as their support. However, Schultzes testimony also incriminates the other accused – if even Schultze, who acted solely as an aide and who was at the furthest remove from Zschäpe, Mundlos and Böhnhard in age and political experience, was nonetheless told of the “flash light bomb”, it is very likely that accused Gerlach and Eminger were also informed of this plan.

Contacts between German secret service and the direct NSU support network already in 2000

The further questioning of accused Carsten Schultze was a rather labored process. Schultze claims to remember hardly anything. He insists on never having been biased against Turks – a claim which becomes absurd when he also reports on an incident in which he and some others had destroyed a kebap stand and now claims not to know the ethnicity of the owner. As far as his political activities in the “Thuringia home guard”, the nazi party NPD and its youth organisation “Young National Democrats” are concerned, Schultze downplays everything.

However, there is one aspect of his testimony that is quite interesting: He reports that already in 2000, he had told the leader of the “Thuringia home guard”, Tino Brandt, about his contact to the three Nazis who had gone underground. Accordingly, Brandt had known of these contacts in 2000 at the latest. Tino Brandt was an informer for the “office for the protection of the constitution”, the German secret service, during the entire time in question.

Schultze also reports that in 2000, another former Nazi who had contacts to the secret service had asked him directly about “the Three”, but that he had denied any knowledge.

Schultze claims that when it became clear shortly thereafter that Brandt was an informer for the secret service, he had not given any thoughts to the issue – and this in spite of the fact that Brandt knew of his actions in support of Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe.

It has thus become clear that the three Nazis who had gone underground and their supporters were in the focus of the German secret service already at this early moment in time.