The first witness today was a psychiatrist who had issued an expert opinion on one of the young men who had been severely injured by the Keupstra\u00dfe nail bomb (on his testimony see the report of 20 January 2015<\/a>). Today\u2019s witness showed once again the extent of the psychological damage wreaked by the bomb. Still in 2012, the young man had still suffered from a full-blown post-traumatic stress disorder with trouble concentrating, irritability, recurring nightmares and flashbacks, still in 2012, everyday occurrences like bikes with packs on them led to severe anxiety.<\/p>\n The next witness was Hendrik Lasch, another member of the Nazi scene in Chemnitz and a friend of Uwe Mundlos\u2019 beginning in the mid-1990s. He too tried very hard not to give up anything relevant. Presiding judge G\u00f6tzl reacted by repeating his questions again and again \u2013 but not by at least threatening fines or detention for contempt of court, despite the fact that Lasch\u2019s answers quite constituted an obvious refusal to testify.<\/p>\n Lasch stated that he had \u201cnothing negative to say\u201d about Mundlos, whom he described as quite humorous \u2013 and as \u201cpolitically active\u201d, upon questioning: as \u201crightwing conservative\u201d. It took several repeated questions by the presiding judge for Lasch to admit that one could maybe speak of a \u201chardline rightwing\u201d view.<\/p>\n The rest of his testimony was similarly cagey and fruitless: He claimed not to have heard anything about explosives, guns or the like, that he had known \u201cBlood & Honour\u201d only via acquaintances. Once, Lasch accidentally made a relevant statement in trying to evade a question: he claimed not to remember how he had kept in contact with \u201cthe Three\u201d in Chemnitz \u2013 after all, the contact had not changed at all after they had gone on the run from the police. He thus confirmed the evidence heard so far, which shows that Zsch\u00e4pe, Mundlos and B\u00f6hnhardt had moved openly within the Nazi scene in Chemnitz.<\/p>\n Lasch also claimed not to have known Ralf Wohlleben. This is one of the evidentiary claims of the Wohlleben defense. However, given the obvious and total stonewalling by Lasch, his statement too will not help exculpate Wohlleben.<\/p>\n Victims\u2019 counsel were able to catch Lasch in an obvious lie: at first, he claimed not to have known who the supporters of Zsch\u00e4pe, Mundlos and B\u00f6hnhardt in Chemnitz had been. Confronted with testimony of other witnesses, he had to admit to having met Mundlos at least once in the apartment of \u201cBlood and Honour\u201c activist Thomas Rothe.<\/p>\n At the end of the trial day, presiding judge G\u00f6tzl stated that psychiatrist Prof. Nedopil had examined accused Zsch\u00e4pe and had not found any reason to doubt her capacity to stand trial, but had suggested a lighter trial load to help her recuperate. Accordingly, the court will only sit for two days a week in the next three weeks, the trial days of Tuesday, 10, 17 and 24 March have been canceled. After 26 March, there will be a two week Easter vacation; it remains to be seen whether the court will again sit for three days weekly afterwards.<\/p>\n The \u201cInitiative for clearing up the murder of Burak B\u201d held a demonstration in front of the court today. On 5 April 2012, Burak Bekta\u015f was shot and killed at close range by an unknown gunman in the streets of Berlin, two of his friends were severely injured. Drawing upon the lessons of the NSU murders, the initiative finds that a racist motive is rather likely and calls for an active investigation \u2013 for more see (in German) www.burak.blogsport.de<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Lies and Trivialization Deluxe \u2013 Hendrik Lasch and his \u201crightwing conservative\u201d friend Mundlos. The first witness today was a psychiatrist who had issued an expert opinion on one of the young men who had been severely injured by the Keupstra\u00dfe nail bomb (on his testimony see the report of 20 January 2015). Today\u2019s witness showed […]<\/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-876","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/876","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=876"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/876\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=876"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=876"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=876"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}