Report 26: Trial day July 23, 2013

0

Concerning the murder of Enver Şimşek, a forensic pathologist and a weapons expert were questioned. The latter had needed more than two years for a report of seven pages, as other cases had been seen as of “higher priority”. This trial day focused especially on several statements with regard to the utilisation of ’s interrogations.

[deutsch]   [türkçe]

The session began at 9.34 a.m. The gallery for press and visitors was unusually crowded.
The first to be questioned was expert witness Prof Dr Seidl, who had carried out the autopsy of the victim Enver Şimşek on September 12, 2000, together with a colleague. Seidl described eight wounds in total. The wound with the number 1, a bullet lodged in the skull, had ultimately been deadly. Seidl stated that the other wounds could in fact have been survived. Wound number 6, a bullet lodged in the torso that had entered on the right side of the chest, could have potentially been life-threating due to a pneumothorax. However, wound number 1 had been the deadly one. It was a question of time as to how threatening the other wounds had been, as the overall blood loss could have been considerable. Wound number 8 had been a lesion of the skin on the left arm with a black discolouration on the margin. This part of the skin had been given to the police, so it could be checked whether this had been a close-range gunshot. Five projectiles had been found during the autopsy which had been passed on to the police. Presiding judge Götzl wanted to know whether any other wounds had been found. Seidl said they hadn’t found any others, and no pre-existing illnesses had been found that could have contributed to the victim’s death.

Next to be questioned was weapons expert Stiefel of the Bavarian Office of Criminal Investigations, who had carried out a technological examination of the weapon and a reconstruction of the crime-scene in the Şimşek case. Stiefel began by stating that when he had examined a part of skin, he had found no traces of a close-range gunshot. He then said that he had carried out examinations of the vehicle and had also written a report on a penetrating gunshot in the vehicle. He spoke of two weapons, a Česká 83 with a 7.65 calibre, and a weapon with a 6.35 calibre. The question had arisen as to how the Česká 83 discharges the shell casings. Stiefel said that principally, it wasn’t possible to draw any conclusions from the location of the casings. The reconstruction had then been carried out with a Mercedes Sprinter. Through the penetration of the vehicle’s roof, they had roughly been able to reconstruct the direction of the shot, from which the shooter’s position could be estimated. The following considerations had simply been working hypotheses, as most of the bullets had been lodged in the body. Other courses of events were also possible; the last shot could have also been the first, for instance. When a body fell, the bullet channels also changed. In the case of Şimşek’s murder there had been quite a few different shot directions. There also had been a reconstruction with probes in 2000. However, they had chosen a different path, said Stiefel. They had marked the entry wounds on the protective clothing of an officer of the BKA, and then shot at him with paint bullets. A video had been made of this procedure, yet he did not have it. From this they had then deduced a likely course of events. Steifel: “We assume that the shooter was standing in front of the vehicle.” The vehicle’s floor level had been at a height of 35 cm; this had to be added to the height of the wounds’ entrance points. Therefore, there had been rising bullet channels, such as in the shot to the right side of the chest and also the horizontal shot to the left cheek, which indicated that the head had already been at a slight tilt. These two shots seemed to have been the first two. The next shot had probably been the shot to the left of the jaw, the body must have already been leaning forward a lot. The victim then must have collapsed. The grazing shots on the arm had been difficult to evaluate; these had presumably come from the weapon with the 6.35 calibre. He said a projectile had been found in the victim’s clothing. With regard to the shot to the mouth it could not be excluded that the shooter had climbed into the vehicle, yet other courses of events were also possible. The whole attack had lasted ten to fifteen seconds; the shots had been fired from a distance of sixty to eighty cm. Stiefel said one had to assume that one shooter had used two weapons one after the other, or that two shooters had fired one after the other. Götzl asked how many shots had been fired. Stiefel responded that five shells of the calibre 7.65 and two shells of the calibre 6.35 had been found, ammunition could get lost during the transport of casualties. There had been six shots with the calibre 7.65. If the shot that had penetrated the skull could be matched with the one penetrating the vehicle’s roof, the shots would be reduced to five. Moreover, there had been two shots with the calibre 6.35. If the grazing shot on the arm had also been calibre 6.35, then there would have been nine shots. The grazing shot however could have also resulted from another shot. Therefore there could have been seven to nine shots in total. Stiefel said they assumed that the shot penetrating the roof had been a misfired shot.
Co-plaintiff attorney Basay asked Stiefel why the report had only been written in 2002, even though the request had already been made in September, 2000. Stiefel replied that he couldn’t remember why this had been the case, their team was understaffed: “The investigation was postponed, as other cases were of higher priority.” Co-plaintiff attorney Wierig asked whether it was possible that the shooter had held a gun in each hand. Stiefel replied that this couldn’t be excluded. Wierig wanted to know whether any conclusions could be drawn concerning the shooter’s skills. Stiefel replied that the reconstruction had been carried out with inexperienced shooters, who had also been able to fire the weapon, lengthened by the silencer, very precisely at a close range. Attorney Lucas asked where the video that had been made of the reconstruction could be found. Stiefel replied that the police in Nuremberg should know. Lucas then wanted to know which other cases had been of higher priority than the murder of Şimşek. Stiefel replied that this could no longer be reconstructed, but that it was not unusual that reports were written at a later time. Attorney Narin asked if it was possible to determine whether the shooter had been right- or left-handed. Stiefel replied that this had remained unclear, just as the question whether there had been one or two shooters. Presiding Judge Götzl pointed out that Stiefel had been occupied with the last report in 2006. Attorney Kolloge asked whether parts of the ammunition had led to the conclusion that a silencer had been used. Stiefel stated that the BKA had established this. Wohlleben’s defending attorney asked Stiefel to go into detail. Stiefel said the BKA had come to this conclusion and that he and his team had then been told that a silencer had to be considered in case of the Česká. Stiefel wanted to know if Stiefel was sure that this had referred to the Şimşek murder case. Stiefel said he did not know if a silencer had been used during the initial inspection, this had been concluded. Klemke then confronted Stiefel with the report of a colleague, stating that a silencer would make it harder to aim. Stiefel said he had had a different impression. ’s defending attorney Pausch asked if there had been any indications that the weapon with the calibre 6.35 had also had a silencer. Stiefel replied that according to his knowledge, the weapon type with the calibre 6.35 had stayed unclear. Klemke once again addressed the topic of the inexperienced shooters. Stiefel said that there had been at least one forensic pathologist. He himself had had the impression that a silencer improved the shooters’ accuracy.

Following this, the previously announced statement in accordance with § 257 of the code of criminal procedure was made with regard to the hearing of the witness Sch., who as an officer of the BKA had interrogated the defendant Holger G. five times [cf. reports #23-25]. Defending attorney Klemke was first to begin. During the testimony of Carsten S., Wohlleben’s attorneys had already pointed out a problem with the European Convention on Human Rights. This applied even more to Holger G., as he wasn’t answering any questions. Sch.’s statement had not improved the situation in any way. A whole range of likely questions had not been asked. The opportunity to pose critical questions had not been used. The reasons for this could only be speculated about. The fact was that no conclusions could be drawn from G.’s statements at the expense of Wohlleben. Every defendant had the right to confront an incriminating witness. It was not necessary that this happen during the main trial, but at some point there had to be the opportunity to do so. As a defendant himself, G. did not have to testify, so this problem could not be solved. Even though this could not be seen as a judiciary mistake, the European Court of Human Rights had repeatedly explained that his could be seen as a procedural violation. Only if the evidence was treated with special care and the statements were supported by other pieces of substantial evidence did this violation not apply. If there already were significant deficiencies in the gathering of evidence, the question had to be asked how this could be compensated in the consideration of evidence. There was no other evidence regarding the transport of weapons that Wohlleben had allegedly persuaded G. to carry out. Based on this, no conclusions could be drawn against Wohlleben without violating the European Convention on Human Rights.

Carsten S.’ defending attorney Pausch stated that officer Sch. had described himself as a “rightist-investigator”, which could be interpreted to mean that he had profound knowledge of the right-wing scene. Sch. had been able to largely confirm Holger G.’s statements. What had to be asserted was that Carsten S. had not been the only right-winger with contact to those in hiding and that he had not participated in discussions of violence and not been present at a confidential conversation between G., Wohlleben and a third person, during which G. had allegedly said “they’re more likely to kill themselves than to give up.” And finally it had become clear regarding the individual Thorsten Heise that the BKA, despite some evidence, had not seen a real danger of the use of weapons. It was being assumed that the defendant S. had to have been aware of the danger of the use of the weapon he had passed on to Mundlos and Böhnhardt. The statements of the witness Sch. had shown that S. by no means had to have had these suspicions, as even the BKA had not considered this likely.

A break followed, after which ’s defending attorney read out a statement. The interrogation carried out by Sch. had not been “lege artis”. Only certain phrases that the investigators had deemed important had been written down, otherwise things had been summarised and occasionally corrected by defending attorney Hachmeister. It was no longer possible to reconstruct what G. had actually said. With phrases such as “not noteworthy”, Sch. had admitted to have undertaken a selection of topics. In combination with the fact that G. was refusing to be questioned, the defending attorneys had no possibility of questioning the credibility of G.’s statements. The interrogating officers had neglected to question G.’s credibility. In many points important to the charges, G. had not differentiated between the individuals Mundlos, Böhnhardt and Zschäpe. The interrogating officers had even been misled to adopt the generalisation by asking about “the Three”. Sch. had known that G. had said in a different interrogation that Zschäpe had come after the two Uwes, yet had refrained from making further enquiries when G. had said that Zschäpe had been an equal. Heer stated that Sch. should have also asked about the circumstances surrounding the showing of the pump-action shotgun, as G. had stated to have refused another transport of weapons and being armed in general. Sch. had repeatedly spoken of conclusions he had drawn, without being able to reference G.’s exact statements. What had become clear from Sch.’s hearing was that G. had contradicted himself in crucial points. This applied in particular to the transport of the weapon. The statements regarding Wohlleben’s acquisition of a weapon also had to be examined in relation to the statements concerning Carsten S.’s weapon acquisition. S. had testified to have procured a weapon in the year 2000. G. had claimed that an acquisition of a weapon had taken place in 2001 or 20002. Carsten S. had reported that Wohlleben had sent him directly to According to the interrogation reports, G. had claimed that Wohlleben, when he himself allegedly obtained a weapon, had first contacted Frank L., the other manager of the “Madley”, who had then referred him to Andreas S. This was not accessible. In general, all statements made by G. had to be viewed in terms of the defendant’s application for leniency. This had already been indicated during the hearings prior to January 12, 2012, when it had first been mentioned in a report. This also included the statement that Zschäpe had been an equal member. G. had been aware of the fact that he could only profit from leniency if he also incriminated Zschäpe.
Following this, co-plaintiff attorney Elberling read out a statement on behalf of the attorneys Scharmer, von der Behrens, Ilius and Stolle. The statement can be found in full length on www.-nebenklage.de and http://www.hummel-kaleck.org/mitteilung30.html

Elberling began by pointing out that Sch.’s reports on G.’s statements regarding external events had been credible and consistent. G. may have answered somewhat reluctantly; however, once he had revealed incriminating information concerning external circumstances, he had not changed his statements when questioned at different times. The defendant G. had at best corrected details if he believed to have been misunderstood. His statements showed no particular tendencies of incriminating the other defendants; he had revealed some of the incriminating evidence only when confronted with contradictions. The questioning of the witness Sch. by Zschäpe’s and Wohlleben’s defending attorneys had not changed anything about this; the external facts had not been compromised by the questioning. However, G.’s questioning had shown a certain disinterest of the BKA in conducting an in-depth investigation concerning some of G.’s statements – this was inexplicable. The impression had arisen that the BKA had all too willingly accepted G.’s role as an unsuspecting friend. Secondly, Sch.’s report showed that G.’s statements concerning his personal attitude were elusive and contradictory, and that there were indications that he was making light of it. G. had not wanted know some things and had been clever enough to not always ask questions. The fact that he had provided “the Three” with a weapon loaded with live ammunition indicated G.’s criminal intent. An impressive example of how G. downplayed his knowledge of and affiliation to the right-wing scene could be seen among other things in his untruthful account of the last vacation with the Three. Only through the handwritten backdating of the last vacation to 2004 could G.’s claim to have dropped out of the right-wing scene in 2004 be validated. Thirdly, G.’s assertion not to have known of or suspected “the Three’s” crimes was hardly comprehensible, if only for the fact that G. had depicted Mundlos and Böhnhardt as rather talkative and that they had allegedly spoken very openly about their own criminal behaviour and that of others. Mundlos and Böhnhardt had apparently often felt the urge to talk about the topics weapons and explosives and had not been too guarded about it. This also matched Carsten S.’s statement that one of the Uwes had told Wohlleben over the phone that they had shot someone. Against this backdrop, the issue related by S., that Mundlos and Böhnhardt had told him of an attack in Nuremburg when he delivered the weapon, but had become silent when the defendant Zschäpe had joined them, was also consistent. This did not indicate that Zschäpe had only had limited knowledge, but precisely the opposite, that she had had a controlling role. Both men had known well that Zschäpe would not approve of their talkativeness, and had therefore become silent. The overall very open approach to criminal behaviour also indicated that at least the inner circle of supporters had heard accounts of the deeds. Fourth, Sch. described signs that G. still had not reported everything he knew, and that he was still asserting that he had been a lot less involved with the NSU than had actually been the case. It still had to be determined in the course of the trial which aspects G. was still withholding.

Co-plaintiff attorney Lunnebach then made some additional statements. The fact that defending attorney Klemke referred to the European Convention on Human Rights deserved credit, yet the charges were not based on G.’s delivery of the weapon. Directed at G. she said that what concerned her clients was that G. had allegedly passed on a gun in 2000/2001, so how could one say that one had continued to receive the friends as guests from 2004 until the end. Lunnebach stated that she felt that G. still had to earn the benefits of being out of prison and receiving witness protection.

Following the lunch break, the witness H. was called, an officer of the BKA Meckenheim, who had interrogated Holger G. on November 13, 2011. H. began by referring to the personal details that G. had given. He then reported that G. had stated to have been a member of the “National Resistance Jena”, a group of about 10 to 20 members. He had met Böhnhardt after 1990 and they had become friends; they had been the only right-wingers of a group. They had then established their own group, which had later been joined by Mundlos and Zschäpe. They had put up stickers and created and handed out leaflets. This had gone on until 1996. G. had stated that with time he had lost touch with the group due to his time in a boarding school in Seelingstädt. G. had stated to have been moderate; others had been more committed than him. H. reported to have asked G. about the crimes that Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe had been accused of at the end of the nineties. G. had said that he had not been involved and had not known anything. The deeds had been talked about, but those who committed them had not. He had been told at a later point that Böhnhardt and Mundlos had been involved, when he had already moved to Hannover. The next question had concerned the documents surrendered to Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe, and when they had seen each other again after the Three had gone into hiding. G. had told him that the Three had visited him in Hannover in 2006/2007. Böhnhardt had known his address, as he had helped him move there and then also stayed there for a few days. They had talked about old times, and that they had left the right-wing scene. Their appearance had also been rather civil. Subsequently, there had been yearly visits in July/August: twice in Hannover, once on a motorway service area in Lauenau, and in G.’s flat in Lauenau in 2010 and 2011. G. had stated he had thought highly of Böhnhardt and Mundlos, he had seen them as men of action. H. said that G. had stated to have said to the Three: “The things one hears about you”, and they had said: “We could also tell you a thing or two.” However, he had more or less let these matters rest and had asked no further. G. had then been urged to comment on the fact that, after the Three had gone into hiding, he had concerned himself with their whereabouts and had told Böhnhardt’s parents that the Three were more likely to kill themselves than to give up. This was why the contact between Böhnhardt’s parents and the group, Wohlleben as well, had been discontinued. Regarding the documents, G. had said that Böhnhardt had asked him whether he could leave them his driving licence. So as not to lose their esteem, he had handed over the driving license. And nothing had happened in the following period anyway. H. then reported that G. had been confronted with the fact that, in connection with the murder of Michèle Kiesewetter, a campervan a with Chemnitz number plate had been seen, and that the person letting the campervan had identified him to have rented it. There had been yearly leasings made in his name. G. had said the witness had not recognized him personally, but the picture on the passport card. G. had attributed the handover of the passport to the last visit in 2011, when Mundlos and Böhnhardt had come alone with a large, fancy vehicle. Böhnhardt had seen the newly issued passport in G.’s vehicle and had shown his interest. G. had stated to have finally consented and had handed over the passport. G. had then been confronted with the fact that a campervan that had been rented in his name had been used for the robbery on November 4, 2011. G. had referred to the questioning carried out by the criminal investigation department Eisenach on November 5. No further questions had been asked on that day, as further questionings had been foreseeable. Götzl asked about G.’s behaviour. H. stated that G. had made a disrupted impression. On the one hand, the friendship with the Three had meant a lot to him; on the other hand, he had been aware that by handing over his documents he had supported the deeds, which had also been described in the press. This had been conveyed by the fact that he had become upset and teary-eyed during some passages of the hearing, and had then again been upright and had not allowed anything to be said against his friendship with the three. After this, Götzl wanted to know during which passages these differences in behaviour had been detectable; he urged H. not to interpret. When H.’s answers did not satisfy him, he addressed the hearing’s individual topics. For example, he wanted to know if the defendant Wohlleben had been mentioned. Wohlleben had been mentioned in connection with the group “National Resistance Jena”; apart from him and the Three, André K. had been mentioned. G. had stated not to remember any other names. H. reported that G. had said that they had met up in a locality called “Winzerstube” or “Winzerverein”. Götzl helped out and offered the name “Winzerclub”. G. had stated that it had been a waste of time. Götzl referred to the report, according to which G. had stated that it had been a waste of time and the first breaking points had developed when he had been in the vocational promotion centre from 1994 to 1997. H. confirmed this. Then the group’s activities were addressed. H. stated that G. had once said that they called themselves nationalists, another time he had spoken of neo-Nazis. The name “National Resistance Jena” had been conceived to sign flyers with. Götzl referred to an action mentioned in the report: the posting of bills regarding May 8, claiming that Germany had not been liberated, but had capitulated. H. confirmed this. Götzl then referred to a flyer on which the “National Resistance” wished “all citizens” a merry Christmas and wanted to know how G. himself had seen the group. H.: “Apparently, the ideology and togetherness offered a certain kind of stability”. A statement followed, enumerating the crimes that Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe were accused of at the end of the nineties. H. said that G. had stated to have not been involved. Götzl addressed one of G.’s statements, in which he had claimed to have only realised at the end of 1997 during a visit from André K. to Hannover that the Three had been responsible for the crimes. H. stated that this had been G.’s temporal estimate; the discovery however had only taken place in January of 1998. Then the Three’s visits to Hannover were addressed. H. reported that G. had stated that the request for his driving licence had been made during the second visit. Later it had been discovered that the first visit must have already taken place in 2005, as the driving licence was already used for the rental of the campervan for the attack in . That was why G. had changed his statement, saying that the first visit had taken place in 2005, and the second in 2006. Götzl wanted to know if G. had mentioned whether Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe had made any remarks on politics during their visits. H. said he could not remember. Götzl pointed out that G. had claimed that the Three had insinuated to have left the scene. H.: “That is what I believe to have stated.” Götzl remarked that H. had confronted G. with information concerning a confidential conversation about those in hiding and the fact that G. had mentioned towards Böhnhardt’s parents that the Three were more likely to kill themselves than to give up. He wanted to know where this information had come from. H. said these were pieces of information he had been given on the day of the hearing, he believed them to have come from the domestic intelligence service in Thuringia. G. had stated not to have known where the Three had staid.

After a break, the hearing continued at 2.53 p.m. H. said G. had stated that the first visit had taken place without, the following visits then with prior notification by telephone. During the meetings they had had coffee and cake and had conversations. G. had stated to have said “The things one hears about you” or words to that effect. The answer had been “We could also tell you a thing or two.” Götzl referred to the protocol, according to which G. had claimed to have answered at the time that he did not want to know anything; the topic had been the period during which they had been in hiding, and he had had the impression that it suited them rather well that he had asked no further questions. H. said that G. had made no further remarks on the topic. Then the passport was addressed. According to G., Mundlos and Böhnhardt had made fun of his car and had doubted whether one could go on vacation with it. They had then found his new passport in the passenger’s door. G. had stated to have had no reasons not to believe the reassurances that nothing would happen to his passport. Then travel documents from the company “Berge & Meer Touristik” concerning a trip to Den Haag were addressed. H said these had been found during the search of G.’s flat and that he had been confronted with them. G. had said that it had been a vacation with his partner and her children. Götzl remarked that the protocol referred to the period from October 10, 2011 to November 22, 2011. H. said that it had only been a week, there must have been a mistake in the protocol, and it should be October 22. After a short squabble, Götzl noticed that the interrogation had taken place on November 13. H. said that this supported his interpretation. Then the campervan with the number plate from Chemnitz was addressed, the one that was used in Heilbronn. Götzl wanted to know how G. had reacted to the confrontation. H. stated that G. had claimed not have rented the campervan, even though he had been recognised on behalf of his photograph. To prove his point, G. had stated not to have been back in Chemnitz since the middle of the nineties. Götzl referred to a passage in the protocol, according to which G. had conferred with Hachmeister. H. said there had been frequent consultations with Hachmeister; the topics had been the correction of the dating of the first visit to 2005 and that the recognition had been a recognition from passport photograph to passport photograph. Götzl pointed out that G. had strongly objected to have had anything to do with the crimes; if the documents had been used, then without his knowledge. This had been G.’s final statement. H. said he could no longer recall how G. had behaved when saying what.

Afterwards, the co-plaintiffs’ attorneys began to ask questions, starting with attorney Lunnebach. She asked whether G. had understood the instruction to tell the truth. H. said he had had the impression that G. had understood, and he had also been able to confer with his lawyer. The protocol’s first person form was not to be understood as if the statements had been recorded literally, but rather that they had been G.’s original statements. Lunnebach wanted to know if the information from the domestic intelligence service had come from the so-called “triplet-file”. After some confusion, the witness was presented with a compilation of findings from November 13, 2011, which another officer of the BKA had received from the “triplet-file”. H. reported that he had not received the information from the domestic intelligence service in Thuringia, but from the managing group in Meckenheim [BKA]. The presented report did not seem familiar, only some of its contents. To his mind there had been individual notes with individual pieces of information. Attorney Scharmer addressed the fact that at the start of the interrogation, H. had confronted G. with the accusation to have supported the terrorist group surrounding Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe. Moreover, G. had been informed that “also the so-called Döner murders”, the murder of a policewoman and bomb attacks were part of the investigation. H. confirmed that he had said that. Scharmer wanted to know whether these different parts had been explained in detail. H. said he had thought G. to have known what was meant: “Today you wouldn’t say that anymore, but rather Česká murders.” Scharmer wanted to know if G. had asked H. where this information from the domestic intelligence service had come from. H. said he had not.

In reference to the entrance in the protocol stating that the Three had had an existence beyond prior activities, Attorney Narin asked what was meant by existence. H. said that G. had not elaborated. Concerning their financial existence, G. had stated in an earlier hearing that Mundlos had worked in the IT-area. Then Zschäpe’s defending attorney Sturm started asking questions. She asked about the narcotics that had been found in G.’s flat during the search on November 13, the day of the interrogation. H. stated that these had been judged as a chance discovery; he had not asked G. about them. Sturm then asked who had cited the names in connection with the National Resistance Jena, G. himself or H. H. said G. had stated the names and that he had then noted them down in the protocol. Sturm wanted to know whether G. had cited the names in the order of the protocol: Böhnhardt, Mundlos, K., Wohlleben, and Zschäpe. H. said he could not remember and did not think the order was relevant. Concerning the political breaking points during G.’s time in Seelingstädt H. said that he seemed not to have asked any further. Sturm asked who had made the appointments by telephone prior to the visits. H. said that Böhnhardt had been G.’s first contact person, yet he could not say whether it had been Böhnhardt in this context. He had not asked about G.’s partner’s objections to the old friends. Regarding the mistake of the vacation period, Sturm then wanted to know if G. had thoroughly read the protocol. H. stated he thought so, G. had also made corrections.
Co-plaintiff attorney Stolle wanted to know if G. had had any thoughts as to why the Three had first visited him at that point of time. H. replied that G. had only mentioned to have felt honoured. This had been in preparation of what was to follow later, but G. had not commented on this during the hearing. Defending attorney Sturm asked whether this was H.’s conclusion. H. confirmed this, as requests had subsequently been made to G. Court-appointed psychiatrist Saß was last to ask questions. He wanted to know if G. had differentiated between the three. H. said he had the impression that G. had had more of a relationship to Böhnhardt.

Last witness of the day’s trial was the police officer Ma., who had questioned the witness M. (murder case Özüdoğru, see report from trial day 21) in 2007 and 2012. During a revision of the case M. had been questioned again, first by telephone in March 2007, and once more personally in April. The topic had been a photospread in which Andreas T. [present at the time of the murder of Halit Yozgat]was to be seen, an officer of the domestic intelligence service. Initially, Ma. and a colleague had questioned the witness M. concerning her memories of the day of the attack. In 2001, M. had stated to have been dusting at the window of her living room and had seen a person getting into a car and driving off. When confronted with this statement, M. had said she could not quite remember if she had been in the living room; she had however confirmed to have witnessed the two shots and the person driving away. In 2001, she had claimed to have known the person from a fight with Özüdoğru. M. had thoroughly prepared for the photospread, and decided on one person after she had been allowed to draw him a three-day stubble. However, this had not been Andreas T., but a comparator. Another lead had been a group of young people with a vehicle, who, according to M.’s statement from 2001, had often visited the tailor’s shop. Yet in 2007, M. had not been able to say anything more. He had then written an assessment note, as he had thought the statements rather doubtful, apart from shots. One of M.’s neighbours had resembled the facial composite. In 2007 M. had been asked again about the young people; she had apparently suspected Özüdoğru to have been involved with drugs. Ma. said he had thought at the time that the young people had nothing to do with the case. In 2012, M. had been visited once again, and she had then said to have seen Zschäpe together with Mundlos in a stationary shop. He had had the impression that M. was trying to “match” this to the reports in the press. The investigations had provided no indications of a man and a woman in the stationary shop. Götzl quoted the report, saying that during a later hearing on March 28, 2012, M. had relativized her statement concerning Zschäpe; she had meant a blonde woman. He went on to quote Ma.’s assessment, stating that M. was not useful as a witness.
Co-plaintiff attorney Erdal wanted to know whether Ma. knew of the hearing from July 25, 2001, when a young woman had been referred to as a “Barbie doll”. Erdal wanted to know what was special about such a doll. Ma. replied that he could not really answer that; a colleague had conducted the hearing; he assumed that M. had compared the young woman in such a way due to her good figure and blond hair. Erdal said there was something noteworthy about Barbie dolls, and asked the witness to look around the courtroom to see which face resembled the face of a Barbie doll. Götzl asked about the question’s context. Erdal asserted that Zschäpe’s face resembled that of a Barbie doll. Götzl asked whether Erdal remembered that M. had also said to have seen the body from her flat. Erdal replied that the witness might have been mistaken in some points, yet there were some similarities with regard to the Barbie doll; he had no further questions. The witness will be questioned again concerning another matter.

The hearing was brought to an end at 4.20 p.m.

Attorney Scharmer made the following statement concerning the hearing of the weapons expert:

“It is symptomatic that it took the expert more than two years to write a report of seven pages. Which case could have been of higher priority in comparison to the first of a series of murders in which Turkish and Greek migrants were the victims?”