Report 24: Trial day July 17, 2013


Concerning the fire in Frühlingsstraße in Zwickau, an arson investigator once again described the fire’s sources, places where weapons, computers and mock-up bombs had been found, as well as the room layout, using a vast amount of photographs. Following this the BKA officer Sch. provided interesting details from the interrogations of Holger G., while Zschäpe’s defending attorneys were concerned whether all procedures had been carried out correctly. The statement brought forward at the end of the day by co-plaintiff attorney Dierbach was also noteworthy, as she argued – in opposition to the Federal Prosecution – that “legal peace had to be created” within the trial. The co-plaintiffs had to be rehabilitated here and the requirement of swiftness could not impede the process of clarification.

[deutsch]   [türkçe]

The session began at 9.40 a.m. The first witness to be called was the arson investigator L. from Zwickau. Just as in his last hearing, L. meticulously went through folders of images. Again, he began by giving an overview; the first pictures had been taken from the fire brigade’s aerial ladder. Once again, images were shown from before, during and after the clearance of the scene. Some pictures were shown repeatedly, with arrows and numbers pointing out particular details. L. started with fire area E, which he referred to as the living room. In this room there had been a loft bed, sleeping spot 3, under which there had been a computer work space. Further images showed a red sofa, an armchair, a wardrobe, a small chest of drawers, a table with a television and video recorders, as well as a swivel chair. The pieces of furniture had been “thermally impaired” to varying degrees. The exposure to fire had been greater in the upper area than in the lower. L. had detected two centres of the fire, one above the loft bed and the other above the sofa. He pointed out the collapsed interior wall that had separated the living room and the fire area F, the so called sports room. This had collapsed as a whole into fire area E. An image showed the wall in direction of the other part of the semi-detached house, Frühlingsstraße 26a. The plaster on the wall had mostly come off. L. said the wall here had been moved slightly to the left, towards the other part of the house. Images of the ceiling construction were shown. L. said there had already been a breach in direction of the flat that was being renovated. On one image L. pointed out candles on a rug, whose wicks had still been alright.

The computer and a hard-drive lying on it had been taken to the police department in Zwickau, just as all the other objects found, and had been handed over to the BKA for analysis. Documents had been found in the chest of drawers. One image showed a vaccination card for a male cat, issued to “Mandy S.”. A yellow spout of a petrol canister had been found beneath the swivel chair. L. stated that this must have lain there at the time the fire started. Some pictures showed a table with some magazines that were still in good condition. L. then went on to folder number 6, showing fire area F. The first images to be shown gave an overview before a digger had been brought in. The pictures showed the extent of destruction, the front section had been torn out. L. pointed out a treadmill and later a weight bench beneath the rubble. Moreover, he drew attention to a desk with a computer and in the middle a loft bed, sleeping spot 3. This could only be documented from the outside, as it had no longer been possible to enter and search the area. L. said that one could see the damage caused by the explosion on one image, after the flat above had already been cleared. The materials had been transported outside with the digger. It had been discernable that a conflagration had taken place here. The interior wall to the right had not been removed by the fire, but by the digger. After a break, he continued with fire area G, the corridor in the left part of the flat, which had only been accessible from the hallway in front of it. On the left there had been a floor unit. Moreover, the remains of a fan, a cat tree, a rotary clothesline and some tools had been found here. The floor unit had contained newspaper articles and stacked maps, which had been in relatively good condition. L. then moved on to fire area H, the so-called bedroom, again beginning with an overview. The room had contained a computer. The first weapon had been found in a former floor unit. An image showed a small opened safe, mounted on one of the walls. The room contained sleeping spot 2. Pictures showed the remains of a flat-screen TV. Image 587 showed a box with two wires connected to a battery. L. said the bomb disposal team had X-rayed the box. The wires had been connected, yet there had only been a mock-up bomb in the box. Other pictures showed the battery, the opened box and a black object, which hadn’t been identified. This had been the only object to be examined on site. After about 200 images Götzl said that the hearing would continue the next day.

After the lunch break, the questioning of the BKA officer Sch. was continued, which had been interrupted the day before. Götzl began by asking several questions about the hearing on March 13, 2012. After a presentation of images without result, the already mentioned meeting of comrades in Nuremberg was addressed, which had been attended by G. and others from Jena. This meeting had been intended to build friendship, yet had ended in a brawl. According to G., Mundlos had set up the connection, having known somebody in Nuremberg from Jena. The person had been fat; G. hadn’t been able to say more than that. The police had arrived at the end of the meeting. G. hadn’t been able to make any statements concerning the time, and had only known that it had taken place in an inn.

Regarding Carsten S., Sch. repeated that G. had stated that S. had been Wohlleben’s right hand; he had recognized S. from a photograph. He hadn’t been able to say anything about contact between S. and the Three. He had also stated that he could not provide any information concerning a conspirative meeting of Wohlleben, G. and S. He had not been able to say anything about S.’s transport of the weapon with certainty. Then another presentation of images followed. Götzl stated that G. had claimed to have known one of the people shown. Sch. said he couldn’t say who this had been. Götzl pointed out that G. had been asked whether he knew Matthias F. Sch. replied that there had been a catalogue of questions he had gone through on behalf of another department. Götzl said that G. had answered with “No”. Sch. stated that Matthias F. was the person who had been present at the meeting of comrades. Götzl asked about “Hamburger Sturm”. Sch. replied that from the magazines, G. had known a skinhead-magazine, which had been “Hamburger Sturm”. Götzl pointed out that G. had stated that it had initially been a skinhead and later a politics magazine, which he had bought at concerts. Then the magazine “White Supremacy”, the pseudonym “Uwe Unwohl” and the article “Die Farbe des Rassismus” [the colour of racism]were addressed. Sch. stated that G. hadn’t been able to provide any information about this. Götzl pointed out that several names had been read out to G., who had reported to have known a Torben from “Torstedt” [phon.]; Thorsten Heise and this Torben had organized busses. Sch. confirmed this. Concerning G.’s behaviour, Sch. stated that he had been relaxed. The statement most relevant to the trial had been about the thing with Andreas S., which then had led them to Carsten S. and the suspected murder weapon. Then further investigations carried out by Sch. were addressed. At first the ADAC membership card was addressed, which G. had allegedly passed on. The card had been found in the campervan, but hadn’t been used for rentals; breakdowns and damages had been attributed to the defendant G. and were therefor not relevant.

Next, the reconstruction of the route from Zwickau’s station to Polenzstraße 2 was addressed. For this, images were presented showing the route G. had taken. As G. had purposefully found the route, Sch. doubted whether he been to the flat only twice. At Götzl’s behest, Sch. confirmed that G. had been very sure that there hadn’t been an Aldi supermarket on the way at the time.

Then the trial’s other participants were allowed to ask questions. The Federal Prosecution had none. Co-plaintiff attorney Lunnebach wanted to know regarding the statement about ‘five people’, whether it had been mentioned who the other two had been. Sch. replied that it had not, G. had said that this had slipped out, and had not been meant as a classification. Attorney Narin asked what kind of reprisals G. had feared of Heise. Sch. reported that this had only been discussed in general terms, not as if “Heise had wanted to break his bones or anything like that, no”. He had also been able to convince G. that he needn’t be afraid. Sch. stated that a lot was said of Heise, but that he had not witnessed that something bad had happened. Heise had also been interrogated. Narin wanted to know whether the phone number that had been passed on had belonged to Claus Nordbruch. Sch. said that this seemed to be the case, but that in the right-wing scene there was actually only one person with a farm in South Africa. Two people related to the trial had been there [on the farm], but this had not been relevant to G.’s trial. Attorney Thiel then asked about the magazines and Torben K. Sch. pointed out that this had been a catalogue of questions on behalf of another department. If any other leads had resulted from G.’s questioning, the respective colleagues would have been involved. He could not remember which department had provided the catalogue; this would have to be inquired from the investigation’s management. Thiel wanted to know whether the region referred to in connection to Torben K. could have been Tostedt in the vicinity of Hamburg. Sch. couldn’t say anything to this.
Thiel asked about the intelligence service’s information concerning the conversation with Böhnhardt’s parents, he wanted to know who had passed on this information and when. Sch. reported that he had received this only as an extract and included it in the interrogation. This had occurred in the context of the usual exchange of information; he couldn’t provide further details about this. It seemed to have come from a confidential informant; he didn’t know how the processing of information worked in the regional authorities of the intelligence service.

Attorney Wierig wanted to know whether it had been asked if G. had been surprised that Wohlleben had given him the weapon, even though he had been the one who was against taking up arms. Sch. said that G. had reacted by ending the friendship with Wohlleben. Attorney Kuhn asked whether the phrasing in the report that G. had said to the Three during the delivery of the weapon that this was “the last time” he would do something like that had occurred verbatim. Sch. confirmed this. Kuhn wanted to know what G. could have meant with “the last time”. Sch. stated that G. didn’t want to have any more to do with weapons. Kuhn asked why G. had assumed that there was a possibility of further weapon deliveries. Sch. reported that due to the pump-action shotgun, G. had known that there were other weapons. He had not asked him why he had assumed that there potentially could be further deliveries.

Attorney Narin asked whether Sch. knew that at the time of the hearing, the BKA had found certain items at Heise’s place. Sch. said he had been there, it had been about cassettes with conversations, but this had not changed anything about the statement that Heise wasn’t as dangerous as G. had assumed. Concerning the cassettes he reported that the respective authorities would have to be asked. Attorney Ilius asked whether there was any knowledge of other vacations after 2004. Sch. stated that this had been investigated by another department. Ilius referred to a note written by Sch. in June 2012, concerning a “DVD Frühlingsstraße”. Sch. replied that this had referred to a picture from Lübeck. Ilius said that this had been from a directory compiled in 2006. However it had been stated that the last vacation had taken place in 2004. Sch. stated that G. had had problems with estimating times. Sch. believed that G. had confused the dates. Ilius said that he had asked this as G. had referred to the year 2005 as a break. Then Holger G.’s defending attorney Hachmeister began to ask questions. He wanted to know where the term ‘system checks’ had originated. Sch. answered that he remembered this very well. G. had mentioned the term system checks, and Prosecutor Moldenhauer had insisted that this term was noted in the report. G. had justified the use of the term as he had had to answer questions whether his personal details had been of use to Böhnhardt. Hachmeister asked whether the term had been used in hindsight, or if it had been used at the time. Sch. replied that he thought it had been used in hindsight. Concerning the motivation to attain an AOK [insurance]card, Sch. reported that G. had said that Zschäpe had not been well. A break followed, and the hearing was continued at 2.25 p.m.

Now Zschäpe’s attorneys asked questions, beginning with attorney Heer. Heer asked in particular about the situation of the interrogation. He was surprised that the interrogation had taken so long, but that the protocols had been rather short, and referred to March 13, 2012. Sch. said that G.’s lawyer had also been present at the time, so it shouldn’t be assumed that they had done anything to G. They had had to prepare, there had been short preliminary talks, it had been a normal interrogation. A minute taker had done the writing. The general tenor had been that G. wanted to testify so he could be admitted to the leniency program. When asked about this, Sch. reported that the possibility of leniency had first been noted in the report in January 12, 2012. Heer, however, wanted to know when this issue had first been addressed. Sch. said that this must have been during the first interrogation by the BKA. Heer wanted to know why this hadn’t been written down. Sch. stated that attorney Hachmeister had expressed that G. wanted to testify. Sch. felt that this was connected to the possibility of leniency: “When somebody wants to give an extensive testimony, then they are aiming at the leniency program.” Heer asked about the course of the interrogation. Sch. stated that generally, interrogations began with an instruction to tell the truth and that the accused were then given the chance to make a statement. This was too vague for Heer, so he began to address individual hearings. On November 25 Dr Moldenhauer had read out the instructions, Sch. reported, yet he couldn’t remember the exact words, everybody had their own standard text. Sch.: “He was instructed in presence of his lawyer, so that was that.” He himself had the catalogue of questions on his laptop, which included the instruction that he always read out at the beginning. Heer asked about the on-site circumstances and asked Sch. to describe the rooms in the various cities. He then asked how the reports had been compiled. Sch. replied that things had been summarized. When Dr Moldenhauer had been present, he had been the one to summarize. Individual passages such as the ‘system checks’ that seemed important had been noted directly in the report. G. had only rarely been interrupted when they had felt they were missing something like the ‘system checks’. Otherwise, G. had spoken freely, as they had wanted to know what he had to say. Heer wanted to know if G. had given short answers. Sch.: “Now you’re asking me something. What do you mean by short?” Götzl urged Heer not to ask suggestive questions. Heer wanted to know why the statements hadn’t been noted verbatim. Sch. replied that that wasn’t his method of working, a word-for-word report was unreadable. Interruptions had not been noted. Questions had usually been asked spontaneously if the statements weren’t clear or extensive enough. Heer asked if there hadn’t been a system. Sch. replied that this was a system. Heer said that some parts had been recorded, others hadn’t. Sch.: “I didn’t say that.” Heer asked about a questioning concept regarding the content, as G. had been described as erratic. Sch.: “Of course we discussed beforehand what we wanted to ask.” Sch. said that they had asked questions; whenever G. had moved to another topic, they had listened to that. Interrogations were always erratic. Heer wanted to know from Sch. whether he had had the impression that G. was erratic. Sch. said he had not. Heer asked whether all the topics addressed by G. had been reported, or if there had been a selection. Slightly exasperated, Sch. replied: “We did not make a selection.” Heer stated he did not want to imply anything. Sch. said that Hachmeister would have intervened had anything been left out; the interrogations had taken place the way they had: “The results prove us right.” Heer asked what this was supposed to mean. Sch. replied: “That everything took its course in a correct manner.” Heer asked what he meant by result, did he mean that this trial had come to be? Sch. said no, he meant that everything had been legally correct, so that nobody could imply that something may have been unlawful. Heer replied that he had not wanted to imply anything, and asked whether Hachmeister had played an active part in the interrogation. Sch. stated that G. had regularly had the opportunity to discuss matters with his attorney. As far as he knew, Hachmeister had intervened when he felt that things were not being reported correctly. He had then objected to these matters and had made suggestions regarding the wording, which had usually been complied to, yet Sch. was not absolutely sure about this. Then an employee of Hachmeister’s was addressed who had been present during one of the hearings. Sch. stated that she had not said anything during the interrogation. Heer asked about an interruption of the hearing on November 25. Sch. replied that that must have been the thing about the cloth bag. G. had previously stated that he hadn’t known what was in the cloth bag. He had then wanted to consult his attorney and had corrected his statement. Sch. stated that he had usually been in charge of the interrogations; other colleagues had been in charge of particular topics. On November 25, Dr Moldenhauer had asked the first questions, otherwise he himself had led the questioning. He could no longer say who had asked which questions. Heer then asked about the phrase “the Three” and referred to several passages form the reports. Sch. said that, as far as he could remember, they had always urged G. to specify who had for example spoken on the phone, but G. had not been able to do so. When G. had spoken of ‘the Three’, then this had been noted. Yet he could not speak for every situation throughout the hearing. He could neither assign questions using the phrase ‘the Three’ to individual officers. Heer then wanted to know how the topic of the ‘alleged weapon delivery’ had arisen during the interrogation. Sch. replied that, as far as he knew, G. had said from the start that he still wanted to address something, and G. had mentioned the transport to Zwickau at some earlier point, yet he could not remember when this had been. Sch. specified that G. had addressed the topic of his own accord. Sch. himself hadn’t known anything about this at the time, as this had been in November and the investigation had only been a few days old. Sch. stated that surely there had been further questions, but when G. had not been able to answer they had not been noted in the report.

Heer asked how long G. had been in the flat in the course of the weapon delivery. Sch. replied that G. had not had a precise recollection of the situation. Heer asked whether G. had reported that he had smoked in the flat during the delivery. Sch. replied that, as far as he knew, G. didn’t smoke; he hadn’t said anything about this. Heer asked if G. had said anything about the duration of the stay in the flat. Sch.: “If it’s not in the report, then no, or he didn’t say enough for us to write it down.” Asked about other topics during the interrogation, Sch. said that they had been general topics; he could not remember specific questions. He couldn’t say how long they had talked about the weapon delivery during the interrogation: “If questions couldn’t be answered, this wasn’t noted down.” Sch. said that he didn’t look at his watch during questionings, but concentrated on the topics. He had been surprised about the weapon delivery, as Heer could surely imagine, but couldn’t say any more about this. Heer asked if G. had mentioned whether Zschäpe had shown interest in the weapon. Sch. said that G. had stated that Zschäpe had been present, but not whether she had been especially interested. Attorney Sturm asked a question regarding the wording of a passage in the report, where it had been noted that an issue would be added in the further stages of the investigation. She wanted to know how this comment had become part of the report. Sch. stated that this must have been added by Prosecutor Moldenhauer; he could not say whether this had been added at a later point. Sturm wanted to know whether changes or corrections had been made to the reports in other interrogations. Sch. said: “Am I correct in assuming that you are implying that we retroactively changed the reports?” Sturm replied this wasn’t about retroactive changes, but changes during the course of the interrogation. Sch. said this had not been the case. Sturm stated that these questions were not supposed to imply anything.

Then the weapon delivery was addressed: Sturm pointed out that, according to the report, G. had initially said that he was supposed to transport a travel bag to Zwickau, and later that it had been a cloth bag in his travel bag. Sch. replied that the travel bag had belonged to G., the matter had not been easy to report; he had understood it to mean that G. was supposed to carry the cloth bag in his travel bag. Sturm pointed out that in his statement the day before, Sch. had said that he had had to tell G. on December 1 of the extension of the “charge” to complicity to murder. Sch. stated that he must have used the term “charge” incorrectly. If the term had been used during the interrogation, this must have been by mistake. Sturm wanted to know how the issue had been addressed during the interrogation that Wohlleben had known in 2003 or 2004 that those in hiding had not been in financial straits. Sch. replied he couldn’t remember. Sturm asked when G. had known this. Sch. said that this must have been due to the delivery of 10,000 Marks; however, he couldn’t remember what G. had said about this. Then a change of topics was addressed, which Sturm wanted explained. It concerned André K. and the accusations of embezzlement. Prior to this topic, the money delivery had apparently already been discussed, so why had this not been recorded? Sch. stated that it must have seemed not noteworthy at that point: “It’s as simple as that.” Sturm asked about a break during which there had been a conversation regarding a possible pledge of trust concerning a statement about Heise. Sch. said that he was pretty sure that G. had wanted to address the topic of his own accord. The note in the report concerning the feared reprisals had come from G. There usually had been no conversation while the reports were being read. Sturm asked about the difference between the five people mentioned by G. who had talked about violence and the statement that there had been about ten members in the “National Resistance Jena”. Sch. reported that G. had surely been asked about this; they had been the hard core of the NRJ and Tino Brandt had apparently also been mentioned, but he wasn’t absolutely sure about that. G. had made the remarks about the discussions of violence of his own accord. It had then been asked who had been present and it had then been mentioned that Zschäpe had always been present.

Sturm then asked about January 12, 2012. First, the issue was addressed that the interrogation had taken place at the request of the defendant, as well as the matter of the appointment. Sch. reported that he had usually made out the appointments with attorney Hachmeister. Sturm asked about the ‘system checks’. Sch. replied that he assumed from the descriptions that all Three had been present; yet he hadn’t asked G. who had questioned him. Sturm referred to an interrogation carried out by the officer L., whose report Sch. had said to have read, citing: The hierarchy had been such that the two Uwes had been at the top, then came Zschäpe, then Wohlleben and then G. Sturm wanted to know whether Sch. remembered anything about this. Sch. stated that this had been addressed; they had talked about the fact that G. had been at the very bottom. Concerning the difference between the statement that Zschäpe had been an equal, but had been below the Uwes in the hierarchy, Sch. said that they had asked specific questions about Zschäpe’s role. G. had then stated that Zschäpe had been an equal.

Then Thomas Starke was addressed, as well as a phrase that Sch. had used in his statement, saying that there was a difference between an ultimate threat and a bomb ready for use. Sturm wanted to know whether this ‘readiness for use’ had been spoken of during the interrogation. Sch. stated that he didn’t think so. It hadn’t been asked how often Zschäpe had made the payments (on vacations and such) that G. had referred to. Sturm pointed out that G. had been asked in one of the hearings whether he had known were Mundlos had lived when there had been a fight between the Three. Sch. stated that G. had not been able to say anything about this. During the hearing, Senior Prosecutor Greger interjected, saying that the defendant André E. was giving the impression that he was sleeping. E. denied this. Sturm wanted to know whether the topic of the statute of limitations concerning the crimes committed by the Three prior to their disappearance had been addressed by G. of his own accord. Sch. confirmed this. Sturm asked whether Sch. had had the impression in the hearings that G. was not telling the truth. The Federal Prosecution pointed out that this was not about the witness’s personal impression of the defendant. Götzl suggested narrowing down the questions. Sturm asked about issues where the interrogators had had to ask further questions. Sch. replied that there had been issues where this was the case. Sturm said that it wasn’t evident from the report where further questions had had to be asked. Sch. replied that this surely had been the case regarding the cloth bag. Sturm asked about their surprise concerning the weapon delivery. Sch. stated that of course they had been surprised, as there had been no prior information about this; without the statement they would have never known about it. Götzl asked Sch. whether he could return once more the following day. Sch. replied: “I had the good sense to make reservations until tomorrow.”

Then the previously announced statement was read out by co-plaintiff attorney Dierbach. In this statement she objected to that of Federal Prosecutor Diemer from the 23rd day of trial. In this statement he had announced to object to any questions that he felt should be addressed by an investigative committee due to the requirement of swiftness. This concerned in particular questions regarding the shortcomings of the investigative authorities. Dierbach pointed out that this however would unduly restrict the trial’s purpose. The trial’s purpose was specifically not just to convict the defendants, but also to “create legal peace”. This was only possible if the issue was thoroughly resolved. The trial also served to examine the legitimacy of investigations carried out in the preliminary proceedings. This was why the results of these investigations were not just accepted from the records without evaluation, but were introduced into the hearing through oral statements, were challenged and analysed critically. A balance had to be achieved between the interests of the defence and the co-plaintiffs, as well as the state’s punitive right. The victim was not only a means of evidence, but had its own rights as a subject of the trial. The co-plaintiffs had the right to pursue their personal interests of satisfaction. This right was not one of revenge or atonement, but the right to the clarification of the issue, which also meant answering the question whether certain events had been facilitated or enabled by the authorities’ failures. The reference to the investigative committee was missing the point. Co-plaintiffs were not heard and had no rights in such investigative committees. Such committees did not address the infringement of rights of individuals, and they did not rehabilitate the victims. The investigations had in parts caused massive harm to the co-plaintiffs due to unfounded suspicions and inquiries. İsmail Yozgat’s suggestion that the perpetrators could have been right-wing extremists had been ignored; instead, the family had been spied on. A rehabilitation of the co-plaintiffs could only be achieved in the trial. The requirement of swiftness was important, yet it should not be utilized to prevent clarification. After all, the question whether the authorities had prolonged or prevented the clarification of the crimes was relevant to the question of guilt. If the authorities’ actions had thus influenced the defendants’ behaviour by facilitating the crimes, then this could influence the judgment of guilt. This had to be considered, if only to prevent grounds for revision.

Götzl asked whether there were any comments. Diemer stated that the chairperson had understood the statement, and that he, Diemer, would leave the further proceedings to the court.

A statement then followed by co-plaintiff attorney Kienzle. He put forward a motion to return to the system of summons from February 28, 2013. According to this system, the officers who had interrogated the defendants would be questioned first and then the various cases of murder would be addressed in chronological order. At the moment, this structure was endangered, as a lot of different crime complexes were being dealt with simultaneously, but weren’t being brought to a conclusion. Thus, the inner development of the crimes was no longer comprehensible. The trial’s planning was not conforming to the optimal utilisation of evidence required by law; the trial was in jeopardy of losing its clarity and making it impossible for the attorneys to prepare. Moreover, there was the danger of loss of evidence. Some of the crimes had been committed up to 13 years ago; there was the risk that witnesses’ memories could be lost. A chronological procedure would contribute to the best utilisation of evidence that was possible. Götzl complained that in making the schedule, he had to take into consideration a large number of organisational problems, such as the vacation plans of witnesses and attorneys. He accused Kienzle of being on vacation in the first week of September himself. Kienzle denied this; he would not be on vacation in September and would participate in the main trial. Götzl pointed out that in the making of the schedule, the length of the questionings had to be considered due to the great number of concerned parties. Kienzle stated that he saw no disagreement if Götzl oriented himself by the system from February.

The day’s hearing ended at 5.07 p.m.

Attorney Scharmer made the following statement concerning the interrogations of Holger G.:

“The interrogation of Holger G., introduced to the trial by the officer of the BKA, severely incriminates Mr Wohlleben and Ms Zschäpe. The statements were made after the proper instructions in the presence of his lawyer. Ms Zschäpe’s defending attorneys were not successful in their attempt to raise doubts about the means or the contents of Holger G.’s interrogation. Holger G.’s statements can be utilized in their entirety.”