Those who expected that the NSU-Process wouldn’t bring anything new to light, were proved wrong on the eight day of the trial: the Federal Prosecutor had to admit that the is an actual list of people from the environment of the NSU, but the so called 129-er list is comprised of some 500 people. The Federal Prosecutors Office plays down the meaning the list. The accused Carsten S. continues his statement announcing that he wants to make a “clean sweep.” He reported that Mundlos and Böhnhardt had insinuated to him a further as-of-yet unknown attack of the NSU. As was discovered after the day’s proceedings, these hints fit a bombing attack in Nuremberg in 1999, one that the police and the federal prosecutor’s office had not until now attributed to the NSU.
At the subsequent press conference representatives of the Federal Prosecutor’s office could not even say if this had been treated as a so-called “test case,” or an unsolved attack that was reviewed after the self-exposure of the NSU in 2011.
Again today Steffen R is in the hall, a Neo-Nazi from Thuringia, who works in sympathy with Ralf Wohlleben and already was in the room on the previous day of the trial. He tries to make visual contact with Wohlleben. Around 9:45 the accused enter the room followed at 9:50 by the court. Götzl notes during attendance that the psychological experts Prof. Leygraf and Prof. Saß were present. For the first time in these proceedings no co-plaintiffs were personally present.
On last Thursday Attorney Sebastian Scharmer, representative of co-plaintiff Gamze Kubaşık, had filed a motion requesting that people who were on the 129-er list would be refused entrance to the hall because the could be called as witnesses. The motion today was declined because this type of exclusion is contrary to public policy. On that point Scharmer takes the position again and says that he can give his motion better justification, however he would first like to know from the attorney general if the version that was ordered to be given to the court is completely current. Federal Prosecutor with the BGH Greger says to that there is an updated version but that this does not change the evaluation of the Federal Prosecutors Office. It is merely concerned with a list of people whose roles have been “clarified.” Those people who are relevant to the proceedings have been named in the files. From the point of view of the BAW relevant witnesses have already been named or will not be named. Also other parties of the proceedings could call witnesses. To the question of Scharmer, Greger says that the actual list encompasses 400 people. Attorney for the co-plaintiff Lunnebach asks again if every person on this list could not be called as a witness. Greger rejects that every person on the list could be considered as a witness, and in her response she gives yet another number, “we can not exclude all 500 people who are on the list” from the courtroom. Scharmer questions if it could not be that the BAW has an information advantage over the other parties, “Why do we all get a list of 129 people, even if there is an updated list?” Federal Prosecutor Diemer answers, “ Because it was that list which was requested by the Senate.” Scharmer points out that it was not, for the co-plaintiffs, about the number 129, but rather about the people who were in the environment of the NSU. Various attorneys for the co-plaintiffs and the representatives of defendant Zschäpe, Sturm and Stahl, then address this point.
After Diemer stipulated a recess Greger explained her version of how the lists managed to come to be. The starting point was a request from the Investigation Committee of the Bundestag in the summer 2012. It was concerning relevant people that the BKA had considered in their investigation. The relevance to the criminal proceedings is problematic. Therefore the following approach was taken. Already in December 2011 it was, 38 of the GBA and later 41 people with the Intelligence Services were questioned by name, and who were of interest at this early time in the investigation. Until the request of the Investigation Committee in the summer of 2012 there were, because of the advanced stage of the investigation, already then 129 people. A presentation of this list does not automatically have a connection with this trial. For example, people involved with the Right Extremist scene who were living near the crime scenes were named. In terms of the appearance of the earnings from the local lawsuits, these were incorporated into the trial files. In the interim due to the changed requirements of the Investigation Committee some contact people from the time before the disappearance, from the “Garage List” (during the search of a garage used by the “trio” in 1998 they found a list of Mundlos that listed contacts associated with the Neo-Nazi scene), or people who where added to the investigation who were in the scope of PMK Right (politically motivated criminals). The lists have had a purely adminitstrative function to the inquiry of the Investigation Committee at different points in time. They serve no purpose in this criminal case and because of this function the BAW has come in contact with the list.
Scharmer then asks in regards to the conveyance of the documents in these situations if the co-plaintiffs could see them. Diemer answered, “For now we are holding them back. These lists have no meaning. You could have the lists. If we are faced with the appropriate evidentiary motions, at that time we will see.” Following this the discussion went on about how the co-plaintiffs can see the records of the investigation of individual people. Diemar answers, inspection of the files is possible with a request of the GBA. The timing of the possible delivery of the 500-person list is approached; Diemer speaks of the next week. A co-plaintiff representative suggests, that it could be concluded possibly as already a part of the evidence, and therefore actually the fault of the trial. Greger replied the fact they blame the BAW for not having produced documents is outrageous.
What follows is about if the accused Holger G, who in the last session had read a statement, was still going to answer further questions. The attorney of G. denies this saying G. will not even answer personal questions. Judge Götzl points out again that the statement of G. left some questions open. Attorney for the co-plaintiff Bliwier asks if G. will answer questions in reference to possible contacts of Gs in the intelligence service or to “otherwise comment.” This too is declined. Bliwier then announces that he wants to read a statement. Also Attorney Stahl, defense of Zschäpe, requests to read a statement on the testimony of G, but that he had not finished yet because he had assumed that G was still going to be answering questions about his person. Appart from that he has not done what is right and not admitted to certain things, this is “highly regrettable.” But you will have to recognize the analogy.” G. is refusing a complete resolution of the facts of the case. Also the families recognize that he has apologized but that is too little. It is not enough because our main concern is not the Yozgat family, or which punishment the accused will receive, but rather about a clarification of the deeds. Therefore his regret was half hearted. If it was like he described then he should not fear an interrogation and the chance that he was wrong in his share and rather make amends. The representative of the co-plaintiff Semiya Simşek daughter of the murdered Enver Simşek on September 11, 2000, says on their behalf, G. had unfortunately “stopped halfway” and appeals on all questions and all involved to reply.
Following was a brief confrontation between Götzl and Stahl about the outstanding clarification and about if the trial is to be suspended for their completion. Then they should continue with the testimony of Carsten S. that was suspended last Wednesday. Attorney Heer, defense for Zschäpe, however first claims that the psychological expert Prof. Leygraf should be informed in advance about the course of the previous testimony so that he can evaluate the upcoming testimony correctly. After another recess, Götzl announces the decision that the expert will be appraised later.
The testimony of Carsten S. follows. S. announces first he wants to make a further statement before he answers questions.
He had arrived at a point where he wanted to make a clean sweep. He had previously wanted to make it right, but he had worried about what his mother and his friends thought of him. Therefore he had withheld things. He will answer questions, like how is memories were. He reports in what follows honestly from several things he did not say in the last testimony an he discusses in some detail his time in the Neo-Nazi scene.
First he tries to show where his fascination with the Scene came from. He already enjoyed with the Young Pioneers the documents, certificates, and badges, “I had always been keen on it.” He had learned about the Nazi’s in class and he was impressed with the Hitler Youth and the SS. Even when he was a stamp collector, of which he operated for a short time, the Nazi period was always his most targeted time period. When he was introduced to the Rights and the Hooligans through the cousin of a friend he was at less of a risk that something would happen to him. After his return from Hannover-Springe, where he had started his apprenticeship, he had with many a friend, with whom he become “crazy about” to run around the city. With another buddy he had approached the Far Right Scene. They had both wanted to go to a Nazi March in Munich (see previous minutes). He had taken the bus but his friend had chickened out. He had also early on been interested in weapons. “The dark fascinated me.”
Weapons were also a theme of the Scene. He himself had possessed a telescopic baton, animal repellent spray and a stun gun. He explained to them that he had been attacked because of a black-and-white patch after a visit to McDonalds by some Autonome. There he had pulled the stun gun. This incident had taken place some two weeks after a visit to a JN event in Furth im Wald with Christian K. where he had bought the patch. The weapon he only really used once, on New Year’s Eve 2000/2001 at midnight. He had thrown it into he Rhine after because he did not want a stun gun to be found on a social worker.
Over and over again in the Scene were moments where one had to turn to violence. Like with the NPD-booth in the Jena inner city, where they had to discontinue because of an attack by Autonome members. When they came, André K. had the group give a warning through yelling. Also he, Carsten S., was prepared with a mouth guard and was armed with two stones, he said he had “almost wet himself.” Because the police came nothing happened. Also the beatings that he discussed were mostly fair events. Like, they had gone to Stadtroda and provoked fights with others in the scene because one of them wanted a hat with the inscription “88” (88 = Nazi Scene code for Heil Hitler), which someone from the other group wore.
Finally he discusses once more the attack in Winzerla of two people that he himself had participated in. The attack had happened on the same day as the brawl in Stadtroda. He named the other participants (Sven K, Wohlleben, “Schmaler”, Mirko Z.) and admits to coming at the victim from behind and having hit him in the back. One of the attackers had stayed behind and the others ran away. The first one of the group, named Schmaler, (whose real name he could not remember anymore) lead them into the hut, there they had beat him and kicked him and turned over the hut.
After they fled. The second attacker was Ralf Wohlleben who ran up from behind. In the aftermath he had the following experience: Wohlleben had said that he was “jumping up on the face” of this person. In a later inquiry of Judge Götzl, he said he can not specifically remember if Wohlleben himself had told him about it or if it was in a conversation with another of the members who had escaped. Although he finishes saying that Wohlleben had himself actually told him, because he could remember the word “I.”
Then follows a very surprising statement from S about the topic of the weapons hand-over in Chemnitz. It was to have occurred to him, that Böhnhardt and Mundlos had said about their order of the weapon, that they wanted a semi-automatic, not a revolver. They had also said that they needed sufficient ammunition. He can’t remember the exact number but it was more than 50 shots that had been demanded by Böhnhardt and Mundlos. He had received less ammunition from the weapons dealer Andreas S. Normally he had always got an OK from Wohlleben for all decisions, but not in this case. But he knew that he received money from Wohlleben for the weapon (500 to 1000 or 600 to 800 DM). In the café in Chemnitz the two Uwes had made him understand that they had more weapons in their backpacks, like a machine gun or also an “Uzi,” but he could have also dreamed that up. He had found it strange because he had just brought the Uwes a weapon and therefore he assumed that they did not already have weapons. Böhnhardt had taken S’s cell phone and left a fingerprint on the display screen. Then he asked him “what do to you think the value is.” With this he alluded to the search for the three. Carsten then tearfully recounts that the two Uwes had told him that they had in Nuremburg “parked a flashlight in a store.” He had not known what the two had meant but they had “explained it was spectacular.” And then Zschäpe had arrived and the Uwes had said to him “shhh” so that Zschäpe did not witness the conversation— what remained unclear was if they wanted him to be quiet about the content of the conversation or the bag that the two Uwes had explained to S. As he was lying in bed later the idea had come to him “that they had installed explosives or something.” He could not imagine it and said to himself that it was an exception. Only in 2011 did it become somewhat clear. But the Uwe’s had then not said that it had been “for Turks” or “an Iranian grocery store.” They had only said “a flashlight in a store.” “I had kept it to myself I didn’t tell anyone. I quickly put it away.”
At a later questioning through Judge Götzl he will say that he had treated the weapon exchange first as a “pointless action,” like the break-in at Zschäpes’ apartment or the theft of the motorcycle. It was as Andreas S had said to him, that he had a gun there that he first truly realized that it was a hot weapon. S. tells of a phone call that Wohlleben and he had made with the people in hiding. Wholleben had hung up, laughed and said, “we shot someone.” S. had thought in his mind “hopefully not with the gun.” When he received the money from the three there were bands around it and he had thought, “In small bills, these must have been from a bank robbery and I thought, they must have shot a security guard, so the division that I had gripped was pure.”
S. explains he had gotten home and looked at the gun and then screwed in the silencer, he had found it cool to have a real gun. He had not loaded it and then unscrewed the silencer. He had considered doing away with the silencer, but he was afraid that the Uwes would say because of the connection point for a silencer on the gun that there was a fault with what they had received and that he was deceiving them. Also, he had then shown the weapon to Wohlleben in his office. There the silencer was unscrewed and the gun was pointed at S. He was shocked and he thought “you don’t point that at people.”
After the confession he wanted to “clear his spirit” he tells briefly of a meeting in Jena with Hemut Roewer, the then President of Constitutional Protection in Jena, Jörg Fischer and Anetta Kahande, who he visited as a Nazi. Then he tells of anti-fascist events in Düsseldorf that he had visited as someone who had exited the Neo-Nazi scene. Additionaly, there had been a meeting with Jörg Fischer. He had, in installments after the even with Jörg Fischer, told him that he was right and gay and discussed this with people in the Student Council and Düsseldorf Antifascists. They had requested of him, as an exit criteron, that he surrender his knowledge of the Right. However he had decided not to make a public position against the right out of fear for the lives of his parents and relatives in Jena. At another event, or perhaps at the same, there was a presentation given on right wing terrorism, and this had also mentioned the three and that their deeds were in the past, it also mentioned the appeal for a search. Carsten S. claims that the speaker had mentioned that Steffen Hupka (…) burned down the house and the whole room laughed. It was the same laugh as in the bus of the Nazis to Munich, when someone called it was “a leftist that fell off the light.”
Following was a midday pause. Around 2:25 the trial continued.
Carsten S. continues his testimony with a variety of stories from the Nazi Scene in Jena.
Together with Wohlleben, Frank B. and André K. he had hung a banner against a “Rock against the Right” in the youth center. The Rightwing rock band “Retaliation” had always rehearsed on Fridays in the youth center Winzer-Club in Winzeria, in his memory they did this well into 2000. This is contrary to a social worker of the center who had said on TV that they only rehearsed there until 1996/97.
In Lobeda-West there had been “trouble with the Russians.” Once the youth club was to be stormed by ethnic Germans: “I hung with Christian K in the trees and didn’t come.” He was with Christian K. on the shooting ground in Göschwitz, here they played a game somewhere “between military and sports” with their newly-bought camouflage. The camouflage he wore was from the “National Herbstwanderungen.” Most the estate that they walked through was in Kahla. On the route was a Hero’s Memorial in some small village. They had stood for a minute of silence and a civilian man had arrived. This had required badges and he said his name was “Löffler from the LKA.” We headed on again and Christian K said that they come into the woods when they want our passports. And then in the woods appeared a dozen police cars. They scattered, they lost several and later they had explained that they were not properly tracked. “For us it was a kick.” He also talked about private parties, riots and how the Neo Nazi Tibor R had held a gun to a woman’s head. There had been a knife held to his temple “ So, as the motto was, if she was to hurt him he shoots.” In Gorndorf, a part of Saalfeld, which was dominated by the right, they wanted to instead have a concert against the right. S, “We stood like a barricade in front.” But no one from the Left came, there tires had been cut. They were at a discussion group in Saalfeld-Rudolstadt and had to unroll a banner. He had hung NPD signs and sprayed banners and he hung a banner that said, “Rudolf Hess-That was Murder” on the Autobahn. He claims that he wanted to defend himself in fights, and claims that the attacks in Winzerla were a “Right-Left-Conflict” in a part of the city. He was therefore not a racist.
Carsten S. explained in terms of right music and lyrics he was seldom to never at concerts, but he had one time taken part in a concert in Schorba. He had read in the documents that there had been a conversation between a Geraer and a Chemnitzer about those in hiding. But didn’t know that was an accident. S. then gave the court a 30 page Excel spreadsheet on which he had laid out his involvement with the events and the processes.
Götzl asked S. again after the testimony, about his statement the Uwes had put “a flashlight” in a store. S. says, from their bomb workshop he had concluded that there they had dealt with explosives. Zschaepe came because she had been ordered to appear by the attorneys and wasn’t supposed to witness the conversation. He had not yet told that in any interrogation, he had now made the decision to come clean and talk about it for the first time. He had brought up the story probably in conjunction with the attacks in Cologne. He also could not say which of the two Uwe’s told him about the flashlight. But it was probably a discussion of “we.” Götzl asked several times, how he concludes a connection to Nuremberg or to the attack in Cologne Probsteigasse, he implies that both events do not match the time line with the weapon handover in early 2000. S says, “There was probably a previously attempted attack, that I hadn’t spoken of, then I had moved away.” He had not discussed the conversation with Wohlleben. He did not want to place it, but eventually it came to him, “ on the flashlight there is a button, and then it came to me there.”
This is followed by a short discussion about if S. is still concentraited enough to continue with the hearing. After a recess to clear up organizational questions Götzl ends the session at 4:35.
Co-plaintiff representative attorney Peer Stolle says of the day of the trial “the cards of the NSU-Trail are newly shuffled. Carsten S gave evidence of the possibility of other crimes committed by the NSU. The testimony of S. regarding the conversation with Mundlos and Böhnhardt in Chemnitz immediately before the handover of the Ceska gives important evidence that there could have been further support in the Neo-Nazi Scene and more could have been know about already committed acts or the future deeds of the NSU.”