Today the court first heard another witness concerning an attack on two victims committed by several Neonazis in Jena in the late 1990s \u2013 this attack had been reported on by accused Schultze (see the reports of 21 July 2016<\/a> and 1 September 2016<\/a>). This witness, like those before him, did not remember the incident, but also did not exclude that it had taken place \u2013 there had simply been too many such attacks involving him, and he had also drunk a lot of alcohol back then. Thus Schultze\u2019s statement has again been neither bolstered nor disproven, the attempt by the Wohlleben defense to present Schultze as unreliable has once again failed.<\/p>\n Victims\u2019 counsel for the Yozgat family brought another motion for evidence concerning secret service officer Temme, who had been present at the scene of the murder of Halit Yozgat in Kassel, but had claimed not to have noticed anything. The court had recently stated that it believes Temme\u2019s claims, thus trying to close this line of questioning (see the report of 12 July 2016<\/a>). Counsel now moved that an expert witness be heard to show that the fatal shots were loud enough that Temme must have heard them. Counsel Dierbach and Bliwier had experimented on themselves by visiting a shooting range and listening to shots fired from a similar gun \u2013 which they found impossible to overhear even through a closed door.<\/p>\n Finally, the court asked Beate Zsch\u00e4pe several questions \u2013 some questions concerning her relationship with B\u00f6hnhardt and Mundlos, some questions for clarification concerning Zsch\u00e4pe\u2019s statements so far. Whether these are all the questions the court wishes to ask or whether it will have additional ones, including more questions originally posed by victims\u2019 counsel, remains to be seen. Defense counsel Grasel announced that these questions will again by answered in writing.<\/p>\n