Bug\u00fcn\u00fcn tek tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 eski \u201cTh\u00fcringen Vatan Koruma\u201d y\u00f6neticisi ve muhbir Tino Brandt’t\u0131. Brandt hen\u00fcz 2014 y\u0131l\u0131nda M\u00fcnih’te g\u00fcnlerce ifade vermi\u015fti (bkz. 15.07.2014<\/a>, 16.07.2014<\/a>, 23.09.2014<\/a> ve 24.09.2014<\/a>). Bug\u00fcn Wohlleben’in savunmas\u0131n\u0131n verdi\u011fi dilek\u00e7e \u00fczerine cinayet silah\u0131 Ceska’n\u0131n \u00f6demesiyle ilgili olarak bir kez daha mahkemeye \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131ld\u0131.<\/p>\n Savunma bu \u015fekilde san\u0131k Carsten Schultze’nin silah\u0131n paras\u0131n\u0131 Ralf Wohlleben’den ald\u0131\u011f\u0131na dair verdi\u011fi ifadeler hakk\u0131nda \u015f\u00fcphe uyand\u0131rmak istiyordu. Hi\u00e7bir inand\u0131r\u0131c\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 olmayan Brandt’\u0131n verdi\u011fi ifadelerin buna nas\u0131l yard\u0131mc\u0131 olaca\u011f\u0131 bir muamma. Ve Brandt’\u0131n ifadesi ger\u00e7ekten de hi\u00e7bir \u00f6nemli bilgi i\u00e7ermiyordu:<\/p>\n Brandt -yeniden- Th\u00fcringen Vatan Koruma’dan b\u00fcy\u00fck miktarda para ald\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve bunu Th\u00fcringen’deki Naz\u0131 yap\u0131lanmalar\u0131na iletti\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a s\u00f6yledi. Bunlar\u0131n bir k\u0131sm\u0131 kesin \u201cGen\u00e7lik Grubu\u201d i\u00e7in (yani NPD’nin gen\u00e7lik kolu olan JN i\u00e7in) Carsten Schultze’ye gitmi\u015f olmal\u0131yd\u0131. Ama Brandt’\u0131n inand\u0131r\u0131c\u0131l\u0131ktan uzak \u015fekilde ifade etti\u011fi \u00fczere ne kendisi ne de \u00e7evresinin silahlarla bir ilgili olmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131.<\/p>\n Bu durumda Schultze’nin Wohlleben’in silah\u0131 kendisiyle birlikte tedarik etmi\u015f oldu\u011fu ve bunun paras\u0131n\u0131 da vermi\u015f oldu\u011funa (muhakkak kendi cebinden de\u011fil, Zsch\u00e4pe, Mundlos ve B\u00f6hnhardt i\u00e7in toplanan ba\u011f\u0131\u015flardan) dair verdi\u011fi bilgilerden \u015f\u00fcphe etmek i\u00e7in bir sebep yok. Avukat Scharmer tam da Federal Savc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n bu tavr\u0131n\u0131n, \u00f6zellikle de NSU’nun izole ve sadece \u00fc\u00e7 ki\u015fiden olu\u015fan bir grup oldu\u011funa dair saptanm\u0131\u015f olan ve bug\u00fcn hala savunulan pozisyonun, ama ayn\u0131 zamanda grubun destek\u00e7ilerine ve do\u011frudan \u00e7evrelerindeki muhbirlere y\u00f6nelik soru\u015fturmalarla ilgili s\u0131rlar\u0131n, m\u00fcdahil davac\u0131lar\u0131n olaylar\u0131n ayd\u0131nlat\u0131lmas\u0131 i\u00e7in m\u00fcmk\u00fcn olan her f\u0131rsat\u0131 kullanmalar\u0131na ve kullanmalar\u0131 gerekti\u011fine neden oldu\u011funu g\u00f6sterdi. Anayasay\u0131 Koruma Dairesi \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan\u0131 Temme’nin Kassel’deki olay yerde bulunmas\u0131n\u0131n bu davada rol oynamad\u0131\u011f\u0131, Zsch\u00e4pe, Mundlos ve B\u00f6hnhardt’\u0131n muhtemelen NSU’nun i\u015fledi\u011fi bir cinayet i\u00e7in ara\u00e7 kiralam\u0131\u015f olan bir muhbirle y\u0131llar boyunca temas i\u00e7inde olmalar\u0131n\u0131n \u00fczerine gidilmesinin gereksiz oldu\u011fu, Federal Anayasay\u0131 Koruma Dairesi’nde muhbirlere y\u00f6nelik dosyalar\u0131n imha edilmesiyle delillerin de imha edilmeye \u00e7al\u0131\u015f\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6ylece kabullenilmesi gereki\u011fi m\u00fcdahil davac\u0131lar i\u00e7in hi\u00e7bir \u015fekilde kabul edilemez noktalar. T\u00fcm bunlar\u0131n M\u00fcnih’teki davayla ilgisi var \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc hepsi Zsch\u00e4pe, B\u00f6hnhardt ve Mundlos’la M\u00fcnih’te san\u0131k olarak bulunan destek\u00e7ilerinin i\u015fledi\u011fi su\u00e7larla do\u011frudan ilgili.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Wohlleben’in savunmas\u0131ndan ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131z bir giri\u015fim daha \u2013 muhbir Tino Brandt yeniden sorguland\u0131 Bug\u00fcn\u00fcn tek tan\u0131\u011f\u0131 eski \u201cTh\u00fcringen Vatan Koruma\u201d y\u00f6neticisi ve muhbir Tino Brandt’t\u0131. Brandt hen\u00fcz 2014 y\u0131l\u0131nda M\u00fcnih’te g\u00fcnlerce ifade vermi\u015fti (bkz. 15.07.2014, 16.07.2014, 23.09.2014 ve 24.09.2014). Bug\u00fcn Wohlleben’in savunmas\u0131n\u0131n verdi\u011fi dilek\u00e7e \u00fczerine cinayet silah\u0131 Ceska’n\u0131n \u00f6demesiyle ilgili olarak bir kez daha mahkemeye \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131ld\u0131. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"yes","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-allgemein"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1152","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1152"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1152\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1153,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1152\/revisions\/1153"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nsu-nebenklage.de\/tr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
\nFederal Ba\u015fsavc\u0131l\u0131k duru\u015fman\u0131n sonunda ge\u00e7en hafta verilen dilek\u00e7eler ve m\u00fcdahil davac\u0131lar\u0131n itirazlar\u0131 (bkz. 02.06.2016<\/a> tarihli blog) hakk\u0131nda g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f bildirerek mahkemenin kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131k\u0131lan kararlar\u0131n\u0131 savundu. Federal Savc\u0131 Dr. Diemer m\u00fcdahil davac\u0131lara kar\u015f\u0131 taarruza ge\u00e7erek onlar\u0131 dilek\u00e7elerde kullan\u0131lan terminolojinin \u201ehukuku koruma organlar\u0131\u201c i\u00e7in uygunsuz olmas\u0131yla su\u00e7lad\u0131. Ayr\u0131ca yine \u201ekimi\u201c m\u00fcdahil davac\u0131lar\u0131, M\u00fcnih Eyalet Y\u00fcksek Mahkemesi’nde t\u00fcm NSU kompleksinin ayd\u0131nlat\u0131lmas\u0131n\u0131 zorla denemekle su\u00e7lad\u0131. \u00d6zellikle de mahkemeyi olaylar\u0131 ayd\u0131nlatmaya y\u00f6nelik isteksizlikle su\u00e7lamak mahkemeye kar\u015f\u0131 yak\u0131\u015f\u0131ks\u0131zd\u0131 ve \u201emesleki a\u00e7\u0131dan da d\u00fczeni bozan\u201c bir davran\u0131\u015ft\u0131.<\/p>\n