Further questioning of accused Carsten Schultze

After the questioning of accused Carsten Schultze on Tuesday had unearthed new information concerning at least one further NSU attack, but also concerning accused Wohlleben and the way Uwe Böhnhardt und Uwe Mundlos dealt with information concerning the attacks, the further questioning on 12 and 13 June 2013 did not lead to any concrete results. However, his refusal to answer questions posed by the Wohlleben defence led to some excitement. Schultze explained his refusal in quite emotional terms: the Wohlleben defence had demanded “equality of arms” from the court, now he demanded the same from them. He had “bared all”. He demanded that Wohlleben also testify fully, only then would he answer questions by Wohlleben’s defence.

To what extent Schultze has indeed “bared all” is still debatable after three days of questioning. It was apparently quite hard for him to detail having known about a bombing attack by Böhnhardt and Mundlos before he provided the Ceska pistol to them. Similary, it must have been hard to confess that the two already had access to firearm and thus did not need the silenced Ceska for bank robberies – after all, this made the character of the Ceska as a murder weapon all the more apparent.

However, when it comes to other issues Schultze clams up entirely. He claims not to have been a racist, notwithstanding that they had shouted “africa to the apes”. He claims not to have had a hostile attitude towards Turkish people. He admits to having been part of violent attacks on left-wingers (called “ticks” in the language of German Nazis), and in one case having seen Wohlleben kick one victim in the face repeatedly – but he leaves everybody in the dark about his motivations. He claims to have forgotten or blocked out all questions of ideology, all political discussions. When Schultze claims that there must probably have been some sort of theory concerning armed struggle, but that he does not remember any of it, only minutes after having described having bought and delivered a silenced murder weapon, it becomes evident that he is still holding back quite a lot.

Schultze’s questioning by victims’ counsel will continue on Tuesday, 18 June.

Accused Schultze provides evidence concerning a further bombing attack carried out by the NSU

Today, accused Carsten Schultze provided concrete evidence concerning an as-yet unknown bombing attack carried out by the NSU in a shop in Nuremberg. In his testimony on 5 June 2013, he had pretended to remember very few details of what had happened in 1999/2000. Now he revealed details that he had never spoken about before. Of particular relevance is his statement that, during his meeting with Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe in the fist half of 2000, the two men had told him that they had placed a “flashlight” in a shop in Nuremberg, making insinutations he had not understood at the time. He claims that the conversation on this topic stopped when Beate Zschäpe joined the three men. Directly after this conversation, he had given the silenced Ceska pistol and 50 rounds of ammunition to “the Three”. Afterwards, he had been afraid that the two men could have told him about a concrete bombing attack.

As German weekly “Der Stern” has reported on the basis of information from local daily “Nürnberger Nachrichten”, a bombing attack did in fact take place in Nuremberg in June of 1999. A cleaner in a Turkish pub found an object shaped like a flashlight which exploded in his hands, causing burn wounds. In a press conference, the federal prosecutor’s office stated that there was currently no information on this attack. A number of attacks had been “checked” as to possible connections to the NSU, but there was currently no concrete information concerning this specific attack. If it turns out that the attack in Nuremberg has not been “checked”, this would again cast the investigation by German police and prosecutors in a very bad light.

If Schultze’s testimony checks out, it would certainly be a massive boost to his credibility and a sign that the pressure of the punishment awaiting him leads him to give a thorough testimony and to close any “memory gaps”.

Schultze’s testimony that Böhnhardt and Mundlos had stopped the conversation concerning the Nuremberg attack when Zschäpe arrived does not exonerate Zschäpe. The fact that the two had talked to a supporter like Schultze about a concrete attack in a crowded restaurant was a violation of every security protocol an underground group would have agreed on, which is reason alone for the two men to try and hide their boasting from Zschäpe. And even if Zschäpe had not known about this attack in 1999, this would not change the fact that she played a vital role in the group in the following years, a role without which their further crimes would not have been possible. The indictment charging Zschäpe with co-perpetration is based on her actions from 2000 on.

Schultze also incriminated co-accused Wohlleben, noting that it was Wohlleben who had ordered him to buy a semi-automatic weapon, preferably from a German manufacturer, and sufficient ammunition. When he had met Böhnhardt and Mundlos, the two had told him that they were always armed and had access to a machine pistol/Uzi. The money he had been given for the gun had still been wrapped in a bank banderole, showing that it came come from a bank robbery. Schultzes also stated that Wohlleben had reported after a telephone conversation with “the Three” that they had talked about having shot and wounded someone. Finally, he also noted that after a violent attack on two men by a group of Nazis, Wohlleben had boasted about having “jumped on the face” of one of the victims.

Of course, this further evidence will have to scrutinized futher, but the incriminating nature vis-a-vis Wohlleben is evident. Much more than is the case in the indictment, Schultze has described Wohlleben as akin to a co-perpetrator of “the Three”. But Schultze also incrimated himself – after all, according to his evidence, when he gave the Ceska pistol to “the Three”, he already knew that they had carried out a bombing attack. Compared to his cagey testimony of last week, this week’s makes it much more likely that he will benefit from the crown witness rule and a significant reduction of his penalty. At the same time, Schultze has also given the court the evidence needed to convict him of aiding and abetting the nine murders committed using the Ceska pistol.

Earlier in the day, there had been a dispute between victims’ counsel and the federal prosecutor’s office when the latter stated out of the blue that the “list of 129”, containing other NSU accused as well as contact persons of the NSU, had grown to about 500 persons. In the end, trial attorney Diemer of the federal prosecutor’s office had to promise to provice the entire list next week.

Accused Gerlach apologizes to the victims, but claims to have known nothing.

At the request of accused Carsten Schultze, the rest of his testimony was moved to next week, when expert witness Prof. Leygraf will be back in the courtroom. This trial day was instead devoted to the testimony of co-accused Holger Gerlach. He is charged with having provided the members of the NSU who had gone underground with his driver’s licence and passport as well as other documents. In addition, he is accused of having transported a pistol to “the Three” in 2001 at the behest of co-accused Ralf Wohlleben. However, since the investigation did not resolve the question whether this pistol was used in the NSU’s crimes, this crime is statute-bared.
Gerlach admitted having committed all these acts and apologized to the victims of the NSU for the suffering which Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe had caused them. However, he stressed that these had solely been acts in support of friends. He claims to not have had any idea that the three would commit violent crimes. He stressed several times that he was just as clueless as all German police and secret service agencies had been at the time. Gerlach read a pre-written statement and was not willing to answer questions.
Earlier, he had made statements on his curriculum vitae and had also answered the presiding judge’s questions on that topic. In contrast to co-accused Schultze, he freely admitted to having been a neo-Nazi and to having harbored xenophobic views. He also stressed that he and his friends had not been Skinheads who “run around beating people up”, but had tried to achieve real political change. He claims to have exited the scene in 2004, but admits to still being friends with some of his old political allies.
His apology and his claim of having known nothing about the murders of “the Three” are not very believable. Gerlach acknowledged again today that he had provided “the Three” with a gun in 2001. In an earlier statement during the investigation, he claimed to have said that one could not “presume to try and save the world with five people”. Today, he claimed not to have used those exact words. Nonetheless, it seems likely that he saw himself, Wohlleben and “the Three” as a coherent group of three illegal members and two legal members who could provide support for their deeds. This obviously stands in clear contradiction to his claim to not have had any idea that the NSU would commit violent crimes. Another reason not to believe his claim is that he was active for many years in the Nazi scenes of Jena and Hannover, scenes which were particularly militant and openly propagated violence against different-minded people and “Nongermans.”
His claims of having “exited” the Nazi scene will also have to be thoroughly scrutinized – for example, he has admitted to having participated in several Nazi marches in 2005, but had claimed that this was simply a friendly turn.
One of the NSU victims asked for the opportunity to comment on Gerlach’s statement, but the presiding judge did not give him the floor.

Carsten Schultze’s Memory Gaps

“Yesterday you kept bringing up your exit from the scene. I’m just wondering what exactly it is you were exiting” – this comment by presiding judge Götzl on accused Carsten Schultze’s testimony can easily stand as a summary of that testimony during the sixth day of the NSU trial.

Yesterday, Schultze had confessed to having provided, together with co-accused Wohlleben, the silenced Ceska pistol which the NSU had used to kill nine immigrants. Today Schultze, who was active in the neo-Nazi scene of Jena until 2001, reported on other crimes he had committed during that time. Among others, he and some fellow Nazis (“Kameraden” in the language of German Nazis) had turned over a kebap stand, smashed the windows of another kebap stand several times, and one time beat up and kicked two people without any specific reason, leaving them severely injured.

As far as his mental state during that time is concerned, Schultze could not – or more likely: would not – make any concrete statements. He claimed that the motive for smashing the kebap stands was “thrill and action” combined with alcohol. It took several critical questions for him to admit that he would not have done the same if this had been a (“German”) hot dog stand and that maybe a “certain concept of the enemy” (“Feindbild”) had played a role. Schultze, who claims to have overcome his racist past, would not use words such as racism or xenophobia to characterize his past deeds. The same tendency towards trivialization also characterized the rest of his statement on his Nazi past. This tendency to pretend to not have had any thoughts of his own, any political ideology led not only to appreciable displeasure among the ranks of victims and victims counsel, but also left the presiding judge visibly impatient.

This tendency increased even more once his testimony reached the central question, the Ceska pistol. Schultze was asked what thoughts had gone through his head when he procured the weapon – a live gun complete with silencer and ammunition –, what he had thought would happen with that gun. Again, even in the face of several critical questions, he denied any recollection of what his thoughts were at the time.

In the afternoon, the testimony was interrupted upon motion by the accused. Whether his testimony will continue tomorrow, or whether co-accused Holger Gerlach will first begin his testimony and Schultze will continue at a later date, remains to be seen – Schultze’s defence counsel had voiced concerns since Prof. Leygraf, the expert witness who will have to give his opinion concerning Schultze, was not present.

Beside Schultze’s testimony, the issue of trial observers was also raised again. Yesterday, the presiding judge, upon a motion by victims’ counsel, had at least asked whether such observers were present in the public gallery. A motion was brought that he do so again today. This motion, and that to formally ask the agencies in question what tasks their observers are given, were denied by the court. It claimed that there was no reason to fear that observers would influence trial witnesses. This explanation is not very convincing given that, as reported, several victims’ counsel had noted that concrete examples of exactly this type of influence had arisen in other trials.

Statement by Accused Carsten Schultze

Like the previous trial days, the fifth day of the NSU trial started with a number of procedural motions and many interruptions while the court was in deliberations. After the court had denied several earlier defence motions for discontinuance or suspension of the trial, the Zschäpe defence brought another motion for discontinuance, based on three aspects: a “prejudgement” of their client through statements by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office and several politicians; the still highly unsolved question of what role secret service informers played in the context of the NSU and its crimes, and the fact that several “Offices for the Protection of the Constitution” – the German secret service of the interior which is divided into a federal office and offices in the various Länder – had destroyed files concerning the NSU or its surroundings. Victims counsel, just like the prosecutor’s office, moved that the defence motion be denied. However, they noted that evidence on the role of informers in the NSU will of course have to be heard during the trial. The court’s decision on the motion is expected within the next few days.

The following motion was one on which victims’ counsel and defence counsel were largely in agreement: counsel for one private prosecutor had applied that trial observers from the federal police and the federal “Office for the Protection of the Constitution” be banned from the visitor’s gallery. The Federal Police had announced its intention to send observers with the goal of, inter alia, generating new information for investigation. The “Office for the Protection of the Constitution” had also stated its interest. There is an obvious danger that these observers will brief colleagues slated to appear as witnesses before the court so as to influence the proceedings in the interests of their office. Defence counsel for Zschäpe and Wohlleben joined the motion to exclude such observers. The court denied the motion, seeing no reason to believe that a concrete danger existed of witnesses being influenced – this despite the fact that such reasons are clearly contained in the federal police statement and that examples for similar influence had been uncovered in parliamentary investigation committees on the NSU.

After a motion by the Zschäpe defence that a verbatim record be made of the statements of co-accused had also been denied, accused Carsten Schultze could finally begin his statement in the afternoon. He started with an extensive report on his curriculum vitae, inter alia his entrance into the neo-Nazi scene in Jena at age 16/17 and his “exit” from that scene at age 20. He also noted the various positions he had had in the neo-Nazi party NPD (“National Democratic Party of Germany”) and its youth organization JN (“Young National Democrats”). Inter alia, he had been vice executive secretary of the German JN. However, he maintained that he had never wanted any of these offices, but had been “assigned” them by others.

Court decides not to sever Keupstraße attack from the trial

After deliberation, the Court has decided that for the time being, the count of the indictment concerning the bombing attack in the Keupstraße will not be severed from the trial.
In-depth reporting on the trial day will follow later today.

NSU Trial: Severance of the counts concerning the Keupstraße bombing attack threatened

The following is a common press release of victims counsel Carsten Ilius, Antonia von der Behrens, Sebastian Scharmer, Peer Stolle, Christina Clemm, Edith Lunnebach, Alexander Hoffmann, Berthold Fresenius, Stephan Kuhn and Angelika Lex.

During the trial hearing of 15 May 2013, presiding judge Götzl announced that he was contemplating a severance of those counts of the indictment relating to the Keupstraße bombing attack in Cologne. This would mean that a trial concerning the Keupstraße bombing attack would only be conducted in two or three years’ time or, far more likely, that there would simply be no trial at all on these counts: A conviction of Beate Zschäpe for the remaining counts, resulting in a sentence of life imprisonment and a finding of “particular seriousness of the convicted person’s guilt” (under German criminal law, this would mean that a first parole hearing would not be held after fifteen years, but after a significantly longer period of incarceration), would mean that the Keupstraße proceedings could simply be continued, under Sect. 154 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure, as a conviction in that case would be incapable of leading to a material change in the sentence.

The idea of a potential severance seems to have been inspired by a defence complaint about the size of the courtroom, particularly given that further persons affected by the Keupstraße bombing attack may join the proceedings as private prosecutors.

The only conceivable reason for a severance would be the wish of the court to get rid of the Keupstraße victims and private prosecutors currently taking part in the trial. Most importantly, a severance would not obviate the need to hear evidence on the Keupstraße bombing atack. As stated by Carsten Ilius, counsel for Elif Kubaşık, the widow of Mehmet Kubaşık who was murdered by the NSU in Dortmund: “The bombing attack is also of particular relevance for the other counts of the indictment, above all the 10 counts of murder. The character of the NSU’s deeds as racist crimes finds prominent expression in the Keupstraße bombing attack.”

What’s more, the courtroom is of quite sufficient size. There were a number of free seats on the private prosecution bench today. The presiding judge’s idea that the court room is too small for potential additional private prosecutors from the Keupstraße is pure speculation at this point. And finally: should the court room actually turn out to be too small, it would simply be the court’s task to find a larger courtroom instead of ousting victims from the proceedings.

For the victims and private prosecutors, a severance of these counts would be nothing less than a further slap in the face. It would be a clear signal to all victims of Nazi terror that the Munich Higher Regional Court is prepared to run roughshod over their interests.

The attack took place on 9 June 2004, when a nail bomb was detonated in the Keupstraße in Cologne, a street inhabited predominantly by people with Turkish roots. 22 people were injured, several of them severely. 70 people were present in the bomb’s blast radius. The Keupstraße attack was the biggest of the NSU crimes from a propaganda perspective. It was intended to, and it did, instill fear and terror in the German population of Turkish origin. The many Keupstraße residents affected by the attack knew quite well, and despite the many denials of law enforcement agencies and politician over several years, that this could have been nothing other than a racist terror attack. The law enforcement agencies, on the other hand, directed their investigations against the Keupstraße residents. The victims had to wait almost a decade before the likely perpetrators were found and a trial against them began – having to wait another several years or having the proceedings simply discontinued would be simply unbearable for them.

The court proceedings this afternoon will be devoted inter alia to statements by the federal prosecutor’s office and by victims’ counsel on the questions of severance.

Antonia von der Behrens, Sebastian Scharmer, Peer Stolle, Christina Clemm, Edith Lunnebach, Alexander Hoffmann, Berthold Fresenius, Stephan Kuhn, Angelika Lex.

Finally: The indictment is read out in court
Presiding judge threatens that counts concerning the Cologne bombing attack in the Keupstraße could be severed

The trial hearing, which as reported had been interrupted again last week, today began with several defence motions for interruption or suspension of the hearing. Among the issues raised were the size of the courtroom and resulting cramped conditions, insufficient access of the public and the claim that the defence had not been given access to all documents pertaining to the second round of media accreditation. All but one of these motions were rejected, a decision on the last one will be issued lateron.

Then, finally, the indictment was read out in court. It took Federal Prosecutor Diemer slightly more than an hour, from 3:37 to 4:41 pm, to read out the operative part of the indictment, some 35 pages. The remaining part of the 488 page indictment, containining the “relevant results of the investigation”, is not read out in open court.

Finally, the defence also brought two challenges to the composition of the court. A decision on these will be issued tomorrow.

And again, the bombshell was dropped towards the end of the hearing. Almost in passing, the presiding judge referred to an argument the defence had picked up from a motion by a victim’s counsel: There have been several motions by residents of the Keupstraße in Cologne to join the proceedings as private accessory prosecutors, more are to be expected. Adding to the number of private prosecutors may exacerbate the problems concerning the size of the courtroom. One possible consequence entertained by the court is the severance of those counts of the indictment dealing with the 2004 bombing attack in the Keupstraße. This would mean that separate proceedings would have to be conducted concerning solely this attack. It is evident that the earliest a trial on these charges could be held would be after the end of the trial in Munich – in all probability, there would be no separate trial and these proceedings would simply be “buried” by way of discontinuance after the end of the Munich trial.

Therefore, a severance would not only be a slap in the face of the victims in Cologne, but also a clear signal to all victims of Nazi terror that the Munich Higher Regional Court is prepared to run roughshod over their interests.

The trial hearing will continue tomorrow, 15 May. The possible severance of the Keupstraße bombing attack will be one issue discussed during that hearing and will thus be the focal point of our reporting.

Beginning of the trial – and another week-long interruption

As expected, the beginning of the criminal trial before the Munich Higher Regional Court was a rather sluggish affair. However, it ended with a surprise: presiding judge Götzl ordered that the trial be interrupted until Tuesday, 14 May 2013. The trial dates planned for 7 and 8 May 2013 were cancelled.

This decision came as a surprise to the private prosecutors and was not necessary under German criminal procedure. For the more than thirty private prosecutors who had appeared for the beginning of the trial, having yet more trial dates cancelled is quite hard to bear.

After all, nothing of what had happened during this first day of the trial could have been a surprise or a particular challenge to the court and its presiding judge. The motions brought by the defence were the apex of correspondence between the defence and the court that had been going on for quite some time. The defence of main accused Zschäpe had already on Saturday sent a submission to the court challenging the impartiality of the presiding judge. They challenge the presiding judge’s so-called security order according to which, inter alia, all defence counsel and counsel of private prosecutors are to be searched upon entering the courtroom, while the fderal prosecutors and members of the court are not to be searched. This order, the defence claims, give the impression that particular dangers emanate from defence counsel. Defence counsel as well as some counsel of private prosecutors had already protested against this order before the beginning of the trial. It was to be expected that the defence would base a claim of bias on this order, as is often done in similar trials. The court at first decided to postpone the decision on this claim of bias and to continue with the trial.

Another submission claiming bias was brought by the defence of Ralf Wohlleben. His counsel Klemke spent more than 40 minutes reading out a rambling submission in which he tried to show why his client held that presiding judge Götzl as well as members of the bench Lang und Kuchenbauer were biased against him: For one, certain renovations and alterations to the courtroom had been ordered already before the indictment had formally been admitted to trial by the court. The three judges claimed to be biased had also confirmed the seizure of letters sent by Wohlleben in which he had ordered certain letters in the form of a swastika (which under German law raises the suspicion of the crime of “using symbols of unconstitutional organisations”). Finally, Wohlleben felt that he was being treated unfairly vis-a-vis his co-accused Zschäpe in that she had been assigned three legal aid counsel in contrast to his two. Previously, he had unsuccesfully tried to have the court assign Wolfram Nahrath as his third counsel. Nahrath is a German attorny and a former functionary of the “Viking youth”, a neo-Nazi youth organization modelled after the Hitler Youth. Besides presenting their own claim of bias, the Wohlleben defence also joined the submission of the Zschäpe defence.

Counsel Klemke announced that he would also challenge the composition of the court, in particular the choice of judges taking part in the trial.

However, he did not have a chance to actually bring this challenge. Shortly before 5 pm, presiding judge Götzl ordered that the trial be interrupted until next Tuesday. According to Götzl, the official statements to be given by the judges claimed to be biased, as well as the decision on those claims, necessitated an interruption of one week.

This decision came as a surprise to all parties, both the defence and the private prosecution. Not only is it an entirely normal and established procedure that decisions on claims of bias are postponed for a trial day or two so that the trial can go on, at least until challenges to the composition of the court have been dealt with and the indictment has been read out in open court. What’s more, the date for the first trial date was known well in advance and it was to be expected that the defence would raise claims of bias. The judges charged with deciding on these claims could well have stood by to decide on these issues as quickly as possible. Some of them were present in the courtroom anyway as they are also members of the trial bench, most of the others were at least present in the court building. Nothing would have prevented the court from issuing a decision on the claims of bias by mid-day Tuesday, at the latest on the morning of Wedndesday. This would have allowed the trial to continue this week and the private prosecutors would not have been sent away once more and without need.

One consequence of this further interruption will be that fewer members of the press, particularly the international press, will be present for the next trial date. The attendance of private prosecutors, i.e. of victims and family members of victims of the NSU crimes, will also surely diminish. Many private prosecutors had already made time for the originally planned first trial date, and had overcome considerable anxiety, in order to be present. Now those present in the courtroom once again had their plans thrown in array without any need. Their willingness to expose themselves to such such an ordeal once more will certainly diminish. For the court, this means that the moral pressure exerted by the presence of crime victims will also wane.

This raises the question of the real motives behind the presiding judge’s decision. The suspicion arises that one aim of the multiple interruptions – the postponement of the first trial date after a faulty process of media accreditation had already been subject of some criticism – is to have the interest of the media and the private prosecutors wane in order to be able to continue the trial “in peace” and without public and moral pressure. Already before today’s decision, the time table set up by the presiding judge was reason for distrust on the part of the private prosecutors. The time foreseen for the questioning of witnesses and expert witnesses indicates that the presiding judge does not envision them being questioned by all parties to the proceedings, but rather only by the court. After all, 45 minutes or less per witness do not allow for more than that. The question is thus raised whether this further delay of the trial is part of a strategy to edge the media and the private prosecutors out of the trial in order to be able to conduct the trial “smoothly” and according to the conception of the court. From our point of view, there is no alternative explanation for the way in which the presiding judge conducted the first trial date.

Beginning of the trial against Beate Zschäpe and other NSU accused moved to 6 May 2013.

After a faulty process of media accreditation, the Presiding Judge of the Munich Higher Regional Court’s state security division has surprised observers by moving the start of the trial back three weeks. This decision was preceded by weeks of wrangling over the accreditation of media observers.

The Presiding Judge had ordered a process in which interested media were admitted to the trial in the order in which their applications were received by the court. This so-called “grey hound principle” led to no Turkish media being guaranteed a place in the courtroom. The Presiding Judge had not reserved any places for Turkish, Greek or Iranian media, i.e. media representing the countries of origin of the majority of NSU victims.

This process had led not only to vociferous protests, but also to a motion to the German Federal Constitutional Court for an interim order brought by Turkish-language newspaper Sabah. This motion was succesful. On 12 April 2013, the Constitutional Court ordered the Presiding Judge to assign an adequate number of seats to foreign media with a special connection to the NSU victims. (Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court (in German), Press Release (in English)).

The Presiding Judge reacted by ordering a completely new accreditation procedure and moving the beginning of the trial to 6 May. He did not choose the faster option of simply assigning three to five of the seats reserved for the general public to Turkish, Greek and Iranian media, possibly because of fears that the entire original process of accreditation had been faulty. This process had been marred by several faults, above all by the fact that not all interested media personnel had been informed of the start of the procedure at the same time.

Moving the start of the trial back by three weeks is a step which puts enormous stress on the private prosecutors, not only because meeting the accused is already an enormous emotional strain which is now being prolonged by three weeks, but also because of the costs and efforts involved in planning the trip to Munich. It is not easy to understand why the Presiding Judge chose this rather incisive course of action – after all, under German criminal procedural, a criminal judgment may not be overturned on appeal because of faults concerning media accreditation. It is to be feared that this is a first sign that the coming trial will be conducted with a focus on observing certain formal procedural provisions, rather than on the best possible illumination of the facts.