Today the court continued the questioning of Michael Probst, ex-husband of Antje Probst, then member of \u201cBlood & Honour\u201d Saxony. When first questioned, Probst had stated that he refused to answer questions concerning his ex-wife so as not to incriminate her \u2013 \u201cafter all it is possible that she had something to with it\u201d (see the report of 3 December 2012). Today Probst appeared again with a witness counsel \u2013 and answered questions concerning his wife, but tried hard to downplay her role. He claimed that she had played a \u201cfemale role\u201d, had only been member of \u201cB&H\u201d out of \u201cromantic enthusiasm\u201d and had not had much to say. Probst was confronted with reports of informer Szczepanski who reported otherwise, who stated that Antje Probst had tried to push the \u201cB&H\u201d scene in the direction of attacks \u2013 but he repeated his trivializing claims. He was, however, forced to walk these views back somewhat and to admit that his ex-wife had at least once made sure that collected money reached the recipients, that she had acted very close-mouthed around him as far as internal \u201cB&H\u201d matters were concerned, and that the group had acted in a very conspirative manner.<\/p>\n
Probst claimed on the one hand that he had not shared the views of \u201cB&H\u201d and other organizations, but on the other hand also tried to trivialize these views: According to him, the goal of \u201cB&H\u201d had been \u201cpatriotism, maybe a sort of increased national pride\u201d, the \u201c88ers\u201d from Chemnitz had simply been a \u201cyouth movement\u201d trying to show \u201ca common bond of those coming from a city\u201d. Again, he had to walk back such claims when confronted with evidence to the contrary: one main reason why he had not become \u201cB&H\u201d member was that he was under police surveillance. He was also able to state certain details concerning the production of \u201cB&H\u201d magazine \u201cWhite Supremacy\u201d, showing that he had a good overview of \u201cB&H\u201d activities even though he claimed not to be able to remember any names. Upon repeated questioning, he did not even exclude that he might have been present at a meeting where \u201cB&H\u201d Saxony had decided to split from \u201cB&H\u201d Germany.<\/p>\n
All in all, it is likely that this witness too is facing a criminal investigation for perjury. He even denied having known accused Andr\u00e9 Eminger \u2013 and this despite witness testimony of his ex-wife relating concrete business contacts between the two, despite his phone number having been found in the contacts of Eminger\u2019s mobile phone. In any event, Probst\u2019s statement cannot call into question the statement of informer Szczepanski regarding support provided by \u201eB&H\u201c Saxony and Antje Probst. According to Probst\u2019s own statements, such support could have been provided without his knowing about it. That Szczepanski described Probst as \u201cB&H\u201d member can be based on his important position as music producer, shop owner, band member, husband of Antje Probst and close friend of Jan Werner \u2013 all details which placed him close to the organization \u201cB&H\u201d as not even the witness himself tried to deny.<\/p>\n
The court also heard as witness a judge of the Federal Court of Justice concerning a \u201cweapons identification\u201d conducted with Carsten Schultze shortly after Schultze had been arrested.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Lies and Trivialization, Part XII \u2013 Continued Questioning of Michael Probst Today the court continued the questioning of Michael Probst, ex-husband of Antje Probst, then member of \u201cBlood & Honour\u201d Saxony. When first questioned, Probst had stated that he refused to answer questions concerning his ex-wife so as not to incriminate her \u2013 \u201cafter all […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-816","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/816","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=816"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/816\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=816"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=816"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=816"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}