Report 5: Trial day June 4, 2013


The new trial week again begins with motions by the defense for a stay or suspension in the proceedings for various reasons—they were all rejected. In the afternoon the anticipated testimony by the accused Carsten S. follows, he primarily discusses his biography and the details of his entrance and exit into the Extreme Right Scene especially as it was connected to his sexual identity. He describes the handover of the Ceska to the NSU-trio, but in regards to the reasons and consequences of this action, he doesn’t say much. It is still unclear how someone hands over a gun with a silencer on it to other Neo-Nazis and believes that “nothing bad will happen.”


Around 9:45 the defendants enter the room. Carsten S. and Holger G. hide, as usual, from the cameras. Shortly afterwards the Judge comes into the hall. After the attendance—there is one change, for the defense of André E. Attorney Hendrich will be the present representative until Friday—the presiding judge reads the decision of the Senate.

The motion of the defense of Beate Zschäpte for a stay of the proceedings or alternatively a suspension is rejected. The reasons for the motion were an alleged lack of access to the reports of the NSU-Investigation Committee. In regards for a motion for the suspension of the trail, this reason was found to be “not a just cause” according to Götzl. The defense, he claims, had plenty of time to inspect the logs.
Additionally, the motion of the defense of Zschäpe in regards to the assistance with the transfer of the files of the State Public Prosecutors Office to the trial of the NSU-complex was also denied. The files are accessible with the Federal Attorney General, also the defense of Beate Zschäpe have not utilized these files, in contrast to the co-plaintiff representatives. Also, these were not explicitly created for the local proceeding, and these records relate to the rights of other people and are only to be consulted when they are relevant to the ongoing proceedings. If further documents were considered relevant then the defense could claim them, this has not yet happened.

The motion of Nicole Schneiders, defense attorney of Ralf Wohlleben, for a suspension of the trial due to incomplete access of the records is then also denied. The files are completely accessible. The missing document components relevant to the situation that in Jena, these are the documents that were falsely claimed to be missing by the defense of Beate Zschäpe. Also, if in doubt, photographs and exhibits are accessible in their original form. The defense is also concerned with the lack of files concerning a “Mehmet,” who according to the press before the exposure of the NSU, could have lead investigators to the murder weapon, namely the Ceska and to Mevlüt Kar, who the press claimed was at the scene of the murder of police officer Michèle Kiesewetter in Heilbronn. According the defense there are no references to these by the Attorney General. The defense claims that these documents were doubtless seen by the Attorney General. Here Schneiders is referring false evidence that was circulated in conspiracy theory circles.

After this, the motion by Attorney Schneiders, defendant of Ralf Wohlleben, for a stay of the proceedings against her client due to alleged “media and political prejudice” was then also denied. Götzl states: “There is no evidence that the implementation of a fair and constitutional process has not been given.” The argument of the defendant Wohlleben is and remains an abstract “theoretical considerations of the arrested” and offers no verifiable evidence that the Senate was influenced in any way.

Finally the motion from attorney Stahl, defense of Zschäpe, regarding the replacement of the representatives of the Attorney General, namely Diemer and Greger, is also declined. A replacement of the state prosecutors is not provided with such reasoning. Objections concerning the conduct of the prosecutor must be so severe that a fair trial can’t be given. The fact that the files of the States Prosecution office were not consulted paired with the “subjective” statements of the Chief Prosecutor to the Federal Supreme Court on the appearance of Beate Zschäpe are not instances of any “severe and sustainable violation of objectivity.”
Additionally, Götzl indicates that he has written the Investigation Committee it ask if better access to the documents is possible. Following these decisions, attorney Sturm, defense of Zschäpe read a motion for a stay of the trial claiming it was an “incurable hindrance to the proceedings” that occurred. She then raises three points.

First she claimed that there was prejudice towards her client, that the presumption of innocence has been violated. They explained it was about statements from the media, rather to statements of law enforcement authorities and law politicians in their capacity as representatives of State organs. With this motion they were probably trying to demarcate themselves from the already denied motion of the defense of Wohlleben,
According to the defense of Zschäpe, the Federal Public Prosecutors Office and also the President of the Federal Criminal Police Office, Ziercke had made statements before the main trail where it was already clear that Zschäpe was a member of the of the NSU or a “terrorist.” The word “alleged” was missing. It was a result of prejudice, which came through police officers, for instance if witnesses were to be asked, “are these the people or the members of the terrorist cell known by sight from the media?” It is followed by several further quotations from politicians who have also used prejudicial language, for example, when they spoke of the “members of the terror trio” and again left out the word “alleged.” In connection with these prejudices are witnesses, especially criminal officers, where were under pressure to contribute something to the condemnation of the clients. Therefore she relates among other things to the statements of the chairman of the German Police Union Rainer Went, who claimed that there was a pressure for the officials to perform the confirmed the hypotheses stated by a supervisor in a conversation of hers on Rande, a TV program.
Second, there were the many informants in the environment of the accused that had been introduced. In addition, yet, there was only information that documents are subject to secret service restriction. The defense could not paint a picture of the informants that were involved for example in the organization and the development of the Thuringian Homeland Security, which handled Beate Zschäpe, Uwe Böhnhardt and Uwe Mundlos.

Finally they indicated there was document destruction of some authorities. Making it is no longer possible to understand if these files could have been relevant for the trial.  She also calls out a “suppression” of further possibly relevant documents. She thereby refers to some documents of the State Office for the Protection of the Constitution of Baden-Württemberg regarding the informant “Krokus” which had recently been made available to the Investigation Committee of the Bundestag.
Again the defense offers up the possibility of actual involvement of intelligence agencies and the authorities in the NSU-Komplex, as a way to try to help their client.

Around 11:30 a lunch break follows, in which the other parties are to prepare their statements.

Around 1:20 the trial continues with statements from the representative of the State Prosecutor Herbert Diemer. This establishment of a violation of a fair trail does not automatically require a suspension of the trail is only in extreme cases. Even manipulative behavior of the investigators the so-called “tampering” with documents does not automatically require a suspension. Moreover those who have seen the documents actually know that the GBA always has observed a presumption of innocence. There has never been unnecessary exposure given to the accused. Terms like “terror trio” were slogan-like abbreviations from complex matters of the situation that in the short run, were justifiable as long as a presumption of innocence is respected. In regards to the informants he says, at the center of the investigation of the GBA were the charged criminal acts and the accused, nothing else. If people were relevant to the question of guilt then the information would have become known. Everything further is just mere speculation. In terms of the destroyed documents: There will be no evidence called that was in the corresponding documents, they were not relevant for the trial.

Several representatives of the co-plaintiffs express themselves and request the motion be rejected. The accounts of Sturm are rather a demand for evidence. The allegations will be resolved in the main trail. The pressure to perform was merely in the nature of the thing. The question according to Attorney Lunnebach is rather, if the NSU was more than a trio, this question of if it is “something much larger and perhaps more dangerous” needs to be explained in the main trial.
Attorney Olaf Klemke joins the motion of attorney Sturm for the defense of Wohlleben.
This is followed by a motion from Attorney Kienzle, co-plaintiff representative of the familiy of Halit Yzgat, who was killed in Kassel on April 6, 2006. He motioned, that the courts should determine whether any officials from the regional criminal police or the supreme court are in the room and whether the command regarding the content of the transfer of information can be traced back to the administrators, which would then give reason to dismiss this administrator.

These backgrounds are statements for the BKA, they will send such observers, in agreement with the federal prosecutors. These could lead to witness manipulation by the current authorities, like those still belonging to the forensic office, it is this manipulation that is to be avoided. Götzl states: “I am willing to establish that no such observers have registered with me.” Kienzle asked after if he is the one that gave the decision, if this happens. Götzl states: “they received it all in my statements” The defenders of Zschäpe and of Wohlleben join together in the motion. Götzl asks in the direction of the visitor’s area if such trial observers were present. No one answered.

Around 1:50 there was another recess, the trail began again at 2:20.

Attorney Sturm additionally requests that the information is requested formally from the relevant authorities. Attorney Heer would like also that the question regarding the presence of such observers is asked of the public at the beginning of every trial day. Götzl reckons that the motions have settled for today. Attorney Heer asks for an immediate decision regarding the question to the public, claiming it is is not sufficient. There is a further pause for 20 minutes. Götzl then announces that the motions are declined. Attorney Heer objects this decision of the court. This is followed by another recess for a reconsideration of the decision. The order of Götzl will stand. A public trial does not permit this action. There is no evidence of witness tampering, the details of the behavior of these so-called observers are pure conjecture.
Now they slowly begin to initiate the statement of the first accused. Carsten S will speak. First however is the motion from attorney Heer that the testimony of Carsten S. and Hogler G. be transcribed word for word, since they are particularly important statements in regards to the question of the guilt of his client. It concerns not only content but also wording. Götzl rejects the motion claiming it the wording is irrelevant. The representatives of Zschäpe request a Senate resolution. So does the defense of Wohlleben. It is followed by a ten-minute recess at 3:30. After it follows with the statement of accused Carsten S. the first testimony in this trial. S. Initially reports independently. Judge Götzl merely enquires.
It begins with the biography of S. and his circumstances. S was born in 1980 in New Delhi, where is father worked occasionally he lived now and then in Belgrade and then came to Jena after four years, first in the neighborhood Lobeda, then Winzerla. After a moderate school career that ended in 1996 with his GED, he first began to teach as a pastry chef in Springe near Hannover, but after three months this already ended. After this he was an apprentice until l999 in Thuringia to an auto painter. After the end of that he worked in Jena initially with a temp agency. Then he got his vocational degree and in 2003 went back to Nordrhine Westfalen to study social work. He initially lived in Hürth near Cologne and then in Düsseldorf where he also studied. There he volunteered in the Gay and Lesbian department at the University and the College and later he volunteered with AIDS-Help. While working with AIDS-Help he also began to work with a gay and lesbian youth center. In 2009 he graduated from school.

In his testimony he goes on to compare the relationship he had to his parents with that to his sister, especially about his initially unacknowledged homosexuality. From the age of 13 he had noticed, “something was not correct.” He then had perceived his homosexuality at first as wrong and suppressed it. After his parents forced him to return from Springe, where he had found friends, to Jena, he had the issue of coming out taken away. He had thought about coming-out in Springe. His coming out was in the summer of 2000, initially only to his sister and a few friends, and no one in the Nazi-scene. He then begins to explain his entry into the Nazi scene. He had met someone in the home of his apprentice in Eisenach who was a part of the scene. One has heard of the “Zillertal Turk Hunters” there, in Eisenach. This was his earliest contact. Further contact was after his return to Springe, here he met Christian K, a former classmate, and his brother, one of the others accused as having connections with the NSU, André K. After this he was called to take part in Nazi marches including the big march against the exhibition “War of Extermination: Crimes of the Wehrmacht” in March 1997 in Munich. They were very impressed with him. However his contact in the scene was then not that strong. At the end of 1997 he then had again meet Christian K and also André K, as well as other Neo Nazis. He can remember a congress of the Young National Democrats (JN) in Fürth am Wald on October 18, 1997. He had found affiliation and also appropriate clothing in Madley store in Jena. He then quite quickly ascended the ranks. Initially in 1999 to the Deputy Chairman of the NPD Local Division in Jena under Ralf Wohlleben, then through the networks of the JN, in February 2000, he was in the presiding JN network in Thuringia. After that he resisted becoming the Deputy Chairman.

His exist from the Neo-Nazi scene he placed in connection with his possible coming-out. Doubts had arisen for him already in 1999. Stronger were his doubts in August 2000, when he was taken into preventative custody for 10 days because of the upcoming Rudolf-Hess Action week. He describes that he left he was released to Wohlleben, who had then mocked him and this is why he snapped. The “last milestone” was another of the comments of Wohllebens. He had said: “I would throw up if anyone was to say that I was gay.” That was perhaps a lucky fluke. In any even S had then noticed, “These are not my people.” In September 2000 he announced his resignation from the JN to Wohlleben and K. Afterwards he was still attended two meetings of the Neo-Nazi scene from a sense of duty towards “his boys.” He reconstructs the JN Regional Conference in Sachsen-Anhalt from a document that he reads to the court.

Again and again he supports himself with documents, trying to refresh his memory thorough photos or videos from the Internet. He shows he is trying to secure or ground his memories. This seems believable. At the same time he appeals, noticeably often, to his memory gaps, or rather, inaccuracies, when it comes to his own roll. His career in the NPD and JN was depicted as the offices being largely closed to him. He can neither remember having been a speaker somewhere, nor if he himself had been recommended for office. In terms of activities he barely remembers at all. His roll as a functionary remains nebulous.

He had been in contact with Uwe Böhnhardt, Uwe Mundlos and Beate Zschäpe three times before they went underground. One time in the apartment of Beate Zschäpe, where the two Uwes were also present. Then in a youth club and finally at his own house. Additionally one of the Uwes was at the demonstration in Munich. And he himself was apparently at a march in Erfurt on January 17, 1998 where Beate Zschäpe was present. This he reconstructed by means of news vides on the Internet where he was seen to be present in pictures from this march.
The contact after the three went underground came through Wohlleben. Here S. together with André K. had been asked if they could help. He was told he should make contact with Mudlos, Böhnhardt and Zschäpe. The contact was by telephone. The three in hiding left messages on the voicemail of a cell phone where they instructed him on which telephone booth and at what time they would call him back. If nothing was in the voicemail then everything was in order. With the first telephone call Wohlleben was present, in subsequent calls he had to inform Wohlleben every time about the contents of the conversation and the information. His memories of Mundlos and Böhnhardt were always on the phone. Both were heard, but once Zschäpe was on the device. In terms of time, he classifies the beginning of his support of the three at the end of 1998.

He reported a burglary in Zschäpes apartment that he together with Jürgen H. had committed, the assignment from the three in hiding was the destruction of stolen documents and together with Wohlleben they also tried, but failed, to steal a motorcycle for the three. Finally there was also the murder weapon that nine out of the ten victims were killed with, the Ceska 83. Around March 2000 the two Uwes wanted a handgun, if possible of German manufacture and ammunition. He then went to Wohlleben who said that he should go to Andreas S the owner of Madley store, and that he could provide something. About a week later Andreas S. already had a weapon, indeed it was the Ceska with a silencer. Wohlleben gave the OK and he provided the weapon. He was not certain of the price in his head. In any event he had already temporarily stored it because he had been given instructions to bring it to the three in hiding in Chemnitz. He had however previously brought it to Wohlleben who had examined it and attached the silencer. He could remember exactly the leather gloves that he had worn. The weapon he brought by train to Chemniz. Mundlos and Böhnhardt had picked him up at the train station. One of the two of them had told him that he should wear an ACAB sweatshirt (ACAB= All Cops are Bastards). That was too obvious. After they went together to a café. There Zschäpe also came along. She was concerned with the signature of juridical power, which S. was supposed to accept. After the signature she was again gone. After Mundlos and Böhnhardt had taken him into a sort of condemned building, the transfer of the weapon took place. One of the two screwed in the silencer. Then someone disturbed them and they were were gone. He could not remember any concrete discussion about the weapon. Mr. Weingarten (state prosecutor) also asked me that, but I had only said it was totally normal.”

Questions were again repeated about the silencer of the weapon, and if such a thing was demanded by the three in hiding. S. can’t remember. He goes back to this, that the creator of the weapon could not supply others. Mundlos and Böhnhardt had been surprised about his memory. Because he had not thought about what the three might do with the weapon, asked Götzl? S. responded, “I am trying to remember something, but I somehow I just remember that nothing bad will happen. I had a positive feeling about the three, that everything would be fine, and was in the right direction.”

At the end it comes around again to the background and if S. had known why the three were in hiding. Had he heard from the press and the TV, or perhaps also from Wohlleben. About this he is uncertain.

At 6:36 Judge Götzl called an end to the session.

Protokoll auf Deutsch