The first witness today was another victims of the nail bomb in the Keupstra\u00dfe in Cologne. He was a customer of the hairdresser\u2019s when the bomb exploded in front of the shop. He was extremely lucky to escape without injuries, but his girl friend who had accompanied him suffered several cuts, burns and damage to the ear drum as well as severe psychological injuries: \u201cIn the days after the attack, the telephone ringing would really startle her.\u201d She will testify at a later date.<\/p>\n
Parties then commented on the defense motion made last week to revoke the right of counsel Alexander Hoffmann\u2019s client to join proceedings as a private accessory prosecutor. The federal prosecution was of the opinion that she is not victim of an attempted murder, but of attempted battery and as such entitled to join the proceedings. Hoffmann also made another statement showing once more that the defense motion was obviously without merit and that one could not help but feel that it was simply an attempt at propaganda against victims and their counsel. The concluding paragraphs of his statement were as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201eThe attempt to call into question the right of a victim to join proceedings at this point, before the expert witness report on the explosive effect of the bomb, aims to exclude all but a few severely injured persons from being considered as \u201creal\u201d victims and thus to obscure the murderous dimension of the attack. The idea behind it: if one can claim that a person who was in the immediate vicinity at the time of the blast and who by chance was not injured is not a victim of the bomb, the fact that this attack was directed against all Keupstra\u00dfe residents is eclipsed.
\nThe nail bomb attack in the Keupstra\u00dfe aimed at terror in its most immediate form. This fact several incriminates the accused Zsch\u00e4pe. The motion by her defense can only be aimed at diverting attention from this fact. It must be rejected.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\nVictim\u2019s counsel G\u00fcl Pinar subscribed to this statement and added remarks on the fact that this was a clear example of a hate crime, of an attack against migrants based on their being migrants. The Wohlleben and Zsch\u00e4pe defense interrupted since they obviously did not want to have this fact discussed in court. Other victims\u2019 counsel also joined in Hoffmann\u2019s statements.
\nIn the afternoon, the court continued to question the Nazi witness who had already testified on 3 February 2015. As during his earlier questioning, the witness claimed not to remember much, but was also cautious not to clearly deny things which might be proven in other ways, instead constantly repeating \u201cI can\u2019t exclude that that happened\u201d, \u201cthat\u2019s possible\u201d or \u201cit may have been that way\u201d. What became clear once more is that contacts between B\u00f6hnhardt, Mundlos, Zsch\u00e4pe and their \u201ccomrades\u201d from Jena on the one hand and neo-Nazis in Chemnitz on the other dated back to the early 1990s. Importantly, the Wohlleben defense again failed to prove the claims contained in its motion to hear the witness, namely that the scene in Chemnitz did not know Wohlleben, that \u201cthe Three\u201d had become radicalized only in Chemnitz and without influence by the rest of the scene. Quite to the contrary, the witness confirmed that he had identified Wohlleben as \u201cWolle from Thuringia\u201d in an earlier police interview.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"On the motion by the Zsch\u00e4pe defense and on another witness with memory problems. The first witness today was another victims of the nail bomb in the Keupstra\u00dfe in Cologne. He was a customer of the hairdresser\u2019s when the bomb exploded in front of the shop. He was extremely lucky to escape without injuries, but […]<\/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-856","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/856","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=856"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/856\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=856"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=856"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=856"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}