The new trial week began with a summary remark and a motion to request evidence by the co-plaintiff’s lawyer Bliwier, who would like to examine the contact between the neo-Nazi scenes in Dortmund and Kassel; primarily a meeting in the course of a right-wing rock concert in Kassel where Office of Constitutional Protection (VS) informants as well as Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt were allegedly present. The ensuing questioning of witnesses to the murder of Abdurrahim Özüdoğru, who was murdered by two shots to the head in his alterations shop on the 13th of June 2001, gives a first insight into the occasionally racist prejudicial thinking of the police.
The session begins at 9:50. The daughter of Abdurrahim Özüdoğru, who was murdered on the 13th of June 2001 in Nurnberg, is present as co-plaintiff. However, before the more precise circumstances of Özüdoğru’s murder are discussed, Thomas Bliwier, a co-plaintiff representative, would like to make a summary remark about Carsten S.’s testimony and also present a motion to request evidence.
According to Bliwier, what is decisive about S.’s testimony is the following: S. confirmed that the information from a VS report from the 8th of December 2011 is true; that S. told a source for the Thüringen VS state office in March of 1999 that he had contact to the three, and also possibly how he maintained contact. As a result, Bliwier motions that this report be read aloud and that Tino Brandt be summoned as witness. Brandt will confirm that the information is correct and that he was the source.
This is significant because it would have been possible for the VS state office to investigate the three and to arrest them. This is important for sentencing because it stands to question if state officials could have prevented the indicted crimes. For Yozgat’s family it is not about the degree of penalty, but rather the why and therefore, what role government agencies played. Beside the information from the accused S. Beate Zschäpe has also, possibly unwillingly, advanced this process in her letter correspondence to Robin Sch.. However, this is not about reading the letters for the court. Bliwier requests first that Robin Sch. be summoned as a witness. This would be in order to prove that he was in letter contact with Zschäpe, that he knew Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe before his imprisonment in 2007 and was by all means a part of the neo-Nazi scene and maintained contact to Sebastian S. and the Kassel Nazi group “Sturm 18.” Bliwier also requested that Sebastian S. be summoned to prove that part of the “Oidoxie Street Fighting Crew” was a protection force for the right-wing rock band “Oidoxie,” that he had maintained contact to Robin Sch., and that in 2006 and 2007 he was active as an informant for the VS state office in North Rhine-Westphalia. Furthermore, it would show to showing that the members of the “Oidoxie Street Fighting Crew” were at a concert from “Oidoxie” in Kassel on the 18th of March 2006, that is, around the time of both the murder of Mehmet Kubaşık and Halit Yozgat on the 4th and 6th of April 2006. Moreover, it would be shown that Robin Sch. and Sebastian S. met with Mundlos and Böhnhardt at the concert. Thirdly, Bliwier requests that Michel F. be summoned as witness, to demonstrate that the he was a co-founder of “Sturm 18,” that he was in contact with Benjamin G., and that he was responsible for security at the March 18th 2006 concert and had also met Uwe Mundlos or Uwe Böhnhardt. Fourth, Bliwier requests that Bernd T. is summoned, to show that he likewise was at the concert and had met Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt, and that contact was arranged to various regions through “Sturm 18.” Finally, Bliwier requests that a memo from the BKA about the further remarks of Benjamin G. as well as his interrogation be presented to the court. This is in order to show that G. maintained close contact to “Sturm 18” and that as informant he had reported to his handler, the previously incriminated Andreas T. [Andreas T. was present in the Halit Yozgat’s internet café at his murder], about “Sturm 18” and the concert.
As additional reason, Bliwier alleges that this will reveal for the first time a connection from Böhnhardt and Mundlos to Kassel. It will be proven that Zschäpe still maintains contact with people, through which the connection between the crimes in Kassel and Dortmund is revealed. This is important for the question of guilt. In contrast to Carsten S., Zschäpe has not publicly distanced herself from the Nazi scene, all the more if she knew Robin Sch. before 2006/2007. Moreover, it will be shown that the VS in Hessen and North Rhine-Westphalia had information about the direct social environment of the NSU. The temporal coincidence of the concert and the crimes in Kassel and Dortmund would suggest that state officials at least knew about the connection between the Kassel and Dortmund scene through the informant handler. When one considers Michel F.’s testimony that Mundlos and Böhnhardt were both at the concert, for whom there were already arrest warrants issued, then the significance of the evidence is clear. Additionally, one can establish a connection between Andreas T. and the NSU for the first time through the witness Benjamin G. Presiding judge Manfred Götzl then complained that this did not or only briefly dealt with summary remarks about Carsten S.’s testimony. Rather, it was about a motion to request evidence.
Then the court turned to the examination of the first witness to the murder of Abdurrahim Özüdoğru. The witnesses sit to the left of the judge, next to the court reporter, in front of the federal public prosecutors, and diagonally across from the accused.
Abdurrahim Özüdoğru (49) was murdered in his alterations shop on Gyluaer Street in Nurnberg on the 13th of June 2001.
(Photo: apabiz)
The first witness is the police chief inspector Karlheinz B., who was the first to arrive on the scene with his patrol at the victim’s alterations shop on Gyluaer Street, at the corner of Siemens street in the southern part of Nurnberg. He received the assignment from headquarters at 21:30. Someone had seen someone bleeding in a shop. He was there with his colleagues within five minutes. The shop’s door onto Siemen Street was closed but not locked. To the left of the door, he saw a man siting on the ground that gave the impression he was dead. By feeling his arm, he determined that the person was very cold: “The body temperature was not that of a living person.” Then came the ambulance and later the emergency doctor who confirmed that the person was dead. He then called the overnight police services and closed-off the crime scene. The lights were on. He could not identify evidence of a break in. He identified an entry wound on the right temple. He also saw a trail of blood running vertically down and a pool of blood. The person that informed emergency services said that she did not go into the shop herself. B. said further that emergency services didn’t change anything. People were on the street because of the event made a spectacle. He found out that the victim was the owner of the alterations shop. The name was also on the door. A neighbor pointed out a parked car without a license plate number that belonged to Özüdoğru. He did not enter Özüdoğru’s apartment that was adjacent to the shop.
After a break, the detective chief superintendent Norbert H. was summoned as witness. H. is retired and used to be a member of the criminal investigation department in Nurnberg. He produced the photo slide portfolio from the investigation into Özüdoğru’s murder. He stated that he arrived at the crime scene between 23:10 and 23:30 and namely at the request of the criminal investigation department’s emergency service. Sadly, he found the crime scene had been altered. Colleagues had changed the position of the body. Then the slide photos were examined. The slides were projected onto a canvas for the trial participants to see. First, photos of the “criminal premises” were shown from various perspectives, amongst others, out of the window from an apartment across the street. The shop could only be entered from Siemen Street. The entrance from the Gyluaer Street was “blocked by clothes hangers and all kinds of garbage.” He did not take the pictures with the numbers from 11 to 22 himself. They showed, according to H., how the officials from the overnight criminal investigation services portrayed the scene they found, that was no longer the case when he arrived. The position of the corpse was probably changed because one might have suspected that a gun was underneath the victim, which H. could understand. Regarding the first pictures from Özüdoğru’s workshop and the apartment, H. said in the rooms there was “full-grown chaos.” Similarly, he later said in his testimony regarding the condition of the apartment and workshop conspicuously often, amongst other things in reference to Özüdoğru’s living room, “the so-called living room.” Next were graphic photos of Özüdoğru’s dead body. The pictures show an entry wound underneath Özüdoğru’s right nostril and an entry wound on the right temple. Two shell casings and a bullet were found. The first bullet exited the victim’s skull, and the second did not. According to H. judging by the position in which the shells were found, the shooter must have fired once from a higher position and once from a lower position. Özüdoğru’s corpse leaned against the passageway to his apartment, where nothing was found that was relevant to the crime. When they reached photo number 69, Götzl asks about a name of a person shown in the picture. H. says he doesn’t know the personal, but it was probably “a girlfriend that he got himself after his divorce.” After the crime scene photos were shown, photos of a reconstruction were shown that H. created afterwards with dolls. Özüdoğru must have been standing for the first shot that entered under the nose and followed a straight line from the entrance to the exit wound in the back of the head and to a projectile impact point in the door. Götzl would like to first hear about the exact details from the relevant experts later in the proceedings. Next were sketches of the crime scene and of the portioning of the rooms.
Narin, representative of a co-plaintiff, would like to know if, at the time, anything struck H. about the downspouts of the house. H. answered in the negative. Then Narin points out that in 2012 a sticker made in 2001 from the neo-Nazi group “Fränkische Aktionsfront” (banned in 2004) [Franconia Action Front] was found on the building’s downspout. It is unclear if this sticker was already there at the time, but it would be great to have the exterior photos in a higher resolution. H. says he imagines the photo negatives are in his former station. Attorney Mehmet Daimagüler says that H. also checked the victim for possible participation in the trafficking of narcotics. They even executed a search of the victim’s apartment and car using drug dogs. H. says he can’t remember. If that did happen, it would have been at the insistence of a case handler. He can’t name any possible reason for it.
Next was the lunch break. At 13:10 court proceeded with the witness KHK Jürgen K.. His testimony is about follow-up investigations he executed in 2007 into the murder of Özüdoğru in the course of his work for the “BAO Bosporus” (BAO = Besondere Aufbauorganisation [special task force]), who were responsible for investigating the Ceska murder series. Initially, his testimony was about the time sequence. He described how he followed the path of the next witness G. to the bank and back. According to the reconstruction, the witness G., who had also presented a bank receipt according to which the witness had deposited money in the bank around 15:51, needed about five minutes to return to her Lotto shop. He likewise participated in the questioning of the witness M. in 2007. In order to clear up potential inconsistencies, the witness [K.] is not yet dismissed.
Because the other witnesses are not yet present, Götzl uses the time to hear positions on the motion from attorney Bliwier. Attorney Sturm, Zschäpe’s lawyer, points out that Tino Brandt is already summoned. Moreover, Bliwier’s motion is not a request for evidence. The application contains “findings from the blue” and contradicts the case files. Rather it concerns solely a request to investigate for evidence. One cannot expect to acquire any knowledge because Zschäpe wrote Robin Sch. first, and he did not know her beforehand. In regard to the meeting with Böhnhardt and Mundlos, this likewise concerns merely a request to investigate for evidence. There is no reason to pursue the requests. Co-plaintiff representative Scharmer joins in Bliwier’s motion and demands above all follow-up investigations by the federal prosecutor’s office. Scharmer explains they would speak to this at a later point in time. Attorney Bliwier speaks to Sturm’s remarks: the relevant facts are revealed in the investigation files and furthermore he has hitherto understood “that the role of certain ministries can also be interesting for the defense.” Federal prosecutor Diemer rejects a co-plaintiff representative’s question about the investigation into the telephone number on Carsten S.’s hard drive by saying that this was in the case files given to all participants in the proceedings and furthermore, “this, here, is not ‘question hour’ for the federal public prosecutor.”
Next, judge Götzl allows the propaganda video to be played for the court that was sent around after the NSU exposed itself, as well as the two previous versions. He would like, however, to first address questions at a later point in the trial.
Next up is the witness G. She confirmed the information given by police officer K regarding her trip to the bank and its reconstruction. Moreover, she reported that after her trip to the bank Özüdoğru had, as he did every day, picked up his newspaper die Hürriyet. She repeatedly pointed out that Özüdoğru was, in her opinion, a very nice and friendly person, and a good customer. Some time after Özüdoğru another man came into the shop and bought a pack of Marlboro cigarettes from her employee, who was working at the time. She recognized the man later from a composite sketch. According to G., she didn’t remember the language or dialect the man spoke. When asked by the co-plaintiff representative Erdal, Frau G. was shown a composite sketch from the murder investigation. Götzl wants to know if that is the composite sketch from which she recognized the man. G.: “That was a long time ago, like I said, but I think that was it. It fades over time.” Attorney Schneiders, Wohlleben’s lawyer, attempted to confuse the witness later by claiming the witness had said she recognized the man in the composite sketch before the day of the murder. The witness says that she saw the sketch in the Nurnberg news.
Next was the witness M.’s testimony. M. lived across the street from the alterations shop at the time of the murder. She testified today that she heard two shots, and then looked out the window. She saw two men, one of who came directly out of the shop. The men then left and then she saw Özüdoğru through the shop’s window lying on the ground. She refers to Özüdoğru in the course of her examination several times as “das Schneiderle” [approx. ‘little tailor’] and “das tapfere Schneiderlein” [ref. to the fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm, apprx: ‘the valiant little tailor’]. She saw both men together with a blond woman on the street standing and talking with each other a few days before the day of the crime. She worked with the police to produce a composite sketch of one of the men. She placed the time of the aforementioned activity in the afternoon, because her kids had to go to bed very early on that day, and they were still playing Nintendo when the shots were fired. The witness proceeds to contradict her first testimony in 2001 and the testimony she provided in the course of questioning during the follow-up investigation in 2007. Frau M. appears very unsure and partially confused. For that reason, the examination is interrupted. Judge Götzl refers M. to several of her old statements, according to which she testified that she had only seen one man or that she had seen Özüdoğru fighting in the street with a “mixture of Turkish Germans and east-block Germans” a few days before the murder. He points out to her that she did not say at the time that she saw Özüdoğru laying in his shop. Frau M. answers: “Yeah, I swear to you, I saw him laying there at the time. (…) I didn’t make anything up or spin it.” She indicated, amongst other things, that the police had also taken photos of Özüdoğru’s shop from her living room window. Moreover, she wasn’t asked about it. Götzl asks why she didn’t call the police. The emergency call that led to the finding of the body was first made hours later. M. claimed she could perhaps be mixing up the times, she doesn’t know anymore. Several co-plaintiff representatives ask questions. Amongst other things, a memo from the old murder case file is referred to, according to which it would have been impossible to see Abdurrahim Özüdoğru’s corpse from M.’s apartment. Attorney Scharmer asks M. if she could have seen the body when she was on the street. Frau M. says she doesn’t know. To attorney Erdal’s question, if the women she saw on the street shared any similarity with the present Beate Zschäpe, she didn’t have an answer. Attorney Clemm pointed out to M a statement from the questioning in 2012, according to which she was certain she saw Beate Zschäpe on the day of the crime. M. says she doesn’t know. Finally Clemm asks: “Are you afraid to testify today? Would you like to not testify?” M.: “I am dreadfully afraid.” Clemm: “What is causing you to not trust yourself to say what you remember.” M.: “I don’t trust myself… stupid to hear that from a grown up woman.” Clemm: “So, you could testify more, but you don’t want to risk it?” M.: “Yes.” Then Clemm asks judge Götzl: “What do we do now?” Judge Götzl considers discontinuing the examination and to invite the witness again and have an assistant sit with her. While M. is absent, opinions on this question were offered. The defenses of André E., Zschäpe and Wohlleben are against it. Attorney Klemke, Wohleben’s defense attorney, requests that it is first clarified what is causing the witness’s fear. The majority of the co-plaintiff representatives state that they have no more questions. Attorney Erdal says he still has questions. Attorney Bliwier says nothing can be supported on the information from the witness anyway. Attorney Clemm assert that the co-plaintiff minutes from the questioning aren’t available, and they first need to be presented, and then they will, in the event they need to, request to hear the witness once again.
After Mrs. M. is in the hall again, Götzl asks what is the cause of her fear. M. answers: “One doesn’t know what might happen out there: I’m alone, my husband is abroad, working.” Götzl asks once again about the concrete fear. M.: “Yeah, that someone will get rid of me. We made that composite sketch at the time, and weren’t yet thinking about which group or part of society these people belong. Nurnberg is a hot spot.” Afterwards, attorney Erdal would like to know from M. if she lied to him when he asked her about Zschäpe. M. answers: “I said I don’t know.” That’s what she remembers. At this point, M.’s questioning is discontinued, but she will not be dismissed as a witness. Götzl announces he will summon the officer that interviewed M. Attorney Scharmer points out to Götzl that the witness said, “I’m sorry” several times in the direction of the co-plaintiffs as she was going.
The witness K., who was also not yet dismissed, is once again asked about the interviewing of M., at which he was present. He states however that it would be better to ask the lead officer. Attorney Clemm asks K. about a memo that he wrote. In it, it says that in the course of his investigation he examined Nurnberg newspapers regarding right wing extremism. In the memo it says: “the author finds the clustering of these reports interesting.” K. says he can’t remember anymore; he also doesn’t know if further investigations into right-wing extremism were performed.
The final witnesses are L., the son of witness M., who was twelve at the time, and the witness Mi., who lived in the immediate vicinity of Özüdoğru’s shop. Their information is about the number of gunshots they heard. Both say they heard a gunshot. This contradicts Mi.’s earlier testimony. Neither wants to give a specific time. The approximate time is between 15:00 and 18:00. The witness L. is further asked if his mother spoke with him about seeing Özüdoğru lying in his shop. L. answers in the negative, he also hasn’t spoken with his mother about the statement.
Co-plaintiff attorney Narin suggests the table be turned in the direction of the senate; it could help the witnesses and prevent them from feeling intimidated.
The session ends around 18:00.
Co-plaintiff representative Hoffmann offers a remark to the witness questioning in the case of Özüdoğru’s murder:
“The interrogation of the investigating officers gave a first insight into the attitude that made it possible to call the neo-Nazi NSU serial murders the “Döner Murders” and allowed investigations to proceed against the victim and his environment: While the neighbors all described the murder victim as a very friendly neighbor, for the forensic officer that photographed the body and the crime scene it was very important to emphasize at several points that the alteration shop and the apartment of the murder victim were ruled by a “full-grown chaos.” In his slide report in the investigation file there are further degrading comments about Turkish people.”
Protocol for the 14th trial day – 24 June 2013
The new trial week began with a summary remark and a motion to request evidence by the co-plaintiff’s lawyer Bliwier, who would like to examine the contact between the neo-Nazi scenes in Dortmund and Kassel; primarily a meeting in the course of a right-wing rock concert in Kassel where Office of Constitutional Protection (VS) informants as well as Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt were allegedly present. The ensuing questioning of witnesses to the murder of Abdurrahim Özüdoğru, who was murdered by two shots to the head in his alterations shop on the 13th of June 2001, gives a first insight into the occasionally racist prejudicial thinking of the police.
The session begins at 9:50. The daughter of Abdurrahim Özüdoğru, who was murdered on the 13th of June 2001 in Nurnberg, is present as co-plaintiff. However, before the more precise circumstances of Özüdoğru’s murder are discussed, Thomas Bliwier, a co-plaintiff representative, would like to make a summary remark about Carsten S.’s testimony and also present a motion to request evidence.
According to Bliwier, what is decisive about S.’s testimony is the following: S. confirmed that the information from a VS report from the 8th of December 2011 is true; that S. told a source for the Thüringen VS state office in March of 1999 that he had contact to the three, and also possibly how he maintained contact. As a result, Bliwier motions that this report be read aloud and that Tino Brandt be summoned as witness. Brandt will confirm that the information is correct and that he was the source.
This is significant because it would have been possible for the VS state office to investigate the three and to arrest them. This is important for sentencing because it stands to question if state officials could have prevented the indicted crimes. For Yozgat’s family it is not about the degree of penalty, but rather the why and therefore, what role government agencies played. Beside the information from the accused S. Beate Zschäpe has also, possibly unwillingly, advanced this process in her letter correspondence to Robin Sch.. However, this is not about reading the letters for the court. Bliwier requests first that Robin Sch. be summoned as a witness. This would be in order to prove that he was in letter contact with Zschäpe, that he knew Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe before his imprisonment in 2007 and was by all means a part of the neo-Nazi scene and maintained contact to Sebastian S. and the Kassel Nazi group “Sturm 18.” Bliwier also requested that Sebastian S. be summoned to prove that part of the “Oidoxie Street Fighting Crew” was a protection force for the right-wing rock band “Oidoxie,” that he had maintained contact to Robin Sch., and that in 2006 and 2007 he was active as an informant for the VS state office in North Rhine-Westphalia. Furthermore, it would show to showing that the members of the “Oidoxie Street Fighting Crew” were at a concert from “Oidoxie” in Kassel on the 18th of March 2006, that is, around the time of both the murder of Mehmet Kubaşık and Halit Yozgat on the 4th and 6th of April 2006. Moreover, it would be shown that Robin Sch. and Sebastian S. met with Mundlos and Böhnhardt at the concert. Thirdly, Bliwier requests that Michel F. be summoned as witness, to demonstrate that the he was a co-founder of “Sturm 18,” that he was in contact with Benjamin G., and that he was responsible for security at the March 18th 2006 concert and had also met Uwe Mundlos or Uwe Böhnhardt. Fourth, Bliwier requests that Bernd T. is summoned, to show that he likewise was at the concert and had met Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhardt, and that contact was arranged to various regions through “Sturm 18.” Finally, Bliwier requests that a memo from the BKA about the further remarks of Benjamin G. as well as his interrogation be presented to the court. This is in order to show that G. maintained close contact to “Sturm 18” and that as informant he had reported to his handler, the previously incriminated Andreas T. [Andreas T. was present in the Halit Yozgat’s internet café at his murder], about “Sturm 18” and the concert.
As additional reason, Bliwier alleges that this will reveal for the first time a connection from Böhnhardt and Mundlos to Kassel. It will be proven that Zschäpe still maintains contact with people, through which the connection between the crimes in Kassel and Dortmund is revealed. This is important for the question of guilt. In contrast to Carsten S., Zschäpe has not publicly distanced herself from the Nazi scene, all the more if she knew Robin Sch. before 2006/2007. Moreover, it will be shown that the VS in Hessen and North Rhine-Westphalia had information about the direct social environment of the NSU. The temporal coincidence of the concert and the crimes in Kassel and Dortmund would suggest that state officials at least knew about the connection between the Kassel and Dortmund scene through the informant handler. When one considers Michel F.’s testimony that Mundlos and Böhnhardt were both at the concert, for whom there were already arrest warrants issued, then the significance of the evidence is clear. Additionally, one can establish a connection between Andreas T. and the NSU for the first time through the witness Benjamin G. Presiding judge Manfred Götzl then complained that this did not or only briefly dealt with summary remarks about Carsten S.’s testimony. Rather, it was about a motion to request evidence.
Then the court turned to the examination of the first witness to the murder of Abdurrahim Özüdoğru. The witnesses sit to the left of the judge, next to the court reporter, in front of the federal public prosecutors, and diagonally across from the accused.
Abdurrahim Özüdoğru (49) was murdered in his alterations shop on Gyluaer Street in Nurnberg on the 13th of June 2001.
(Photo: apabiz)
The first witness is the police chief inspector Karlheinz B., who was the first to arrive on the scene with his patrol at the victim’s alterations shop on Gyluaer Street, at the corner of Siemens street in the southern part of Nurnberg. He received the assignment from headquarters at 21:30. Someone had seen someone bleeding in a shop. He was there with his colleagues within five minutes. The shop’s door onto Siemen Street was closed but not locked. To the left of the door, he saw a man siting on the ground that gave the impression he was dead. By feeling his arm, he determined that the person was very cold: “The body temperature was not that of a living person.” Then came the ambulance and later the emergency doctor who confirmed that the person was dead. He then called the overnight police services and closed-off the crime scene. The lights were on. He could not identify evidence of a break in. He identified an entry wound on the right temple. He also saw a trail of blood running vertically down and a pool of blood. The person that informed emergency services said that she did not go into the shop herself. B. said further that emergency services didn’t change anything. People were on the street because of the event made a spectacle. He found out that the victim was the owner of the alterations shop. The name was also on the door. A neighbor pointed out a parked car without a license plate number that belonged to Özüdoğru. He did not enter Özüdoğru’s apartment that was adjacent to the shop.
After a break, the detective chief superintendent Norbert H. was summoned as witness. H. is retired and used to be a member of the criminal investigation department in Nurnberg. He produced the photo slide portfolio from the investigation into Özüdoğru’s murder. He stated that he arrived at the crime scene between 23:10 and 23:30 and namely at the request of the criminal investigation department’s emergency service. Sadly, he found the crime scene had been altered. Colleagues had changed the position of the body. Then the slide photos were examined. The slides were projected onto a canvas for the trial participants to see. First, photos of the “criminal premises” were shown from various perspectives, amongst others, out of the window from an apartment across the street. The shop could only be entered from Siemen Street. The entrance from the Gyluaer Street was “blocked by clothes hangers and all kinds of garbage.” He did not take the pictures with the numbers from 11 to 22 himself. They showed, according to H., how the officials from the overnight criminal investigation services portrayed the scene they found, that was no longer the case when he arrived. The position of the corpse was probably changed because one might have suspected that a gun was underneath the victim, which H. could understand. Regarding the first pictures from Özüdoğru’s workshop and the apartment, H. said in the rooms there was “full-grown chaos.” Similarly, he later said in his testimony regarding the condition of the apartment and workshop conspicuously often, amongst other things in reference to Özüdoğru’s living room, “the so-called living room.” Next were graphic photos of Özüdoğru’s dead body. The pictures show an entry wound underneath Özüdoğru’s right nostril and an entry wound on the right temple. Two shell casings and a bullet were found. The first bullet exited the victim’s skull, and the second did not. According to H. judging by the position in which the shells were found, the shooter must have fired once from a higher position and once from a lower position. Özüdoğru’s corpse leaned against the passageway to his apartment, where nothing was found that was relevant to the crime. When they reached photo number 69, Götzl asks about a name of a person shown in the picture. H. says he doesn’t know the personal, but it was probably “a girlfriend that he got himself after his divorce.” After the crime scene photos were shown, photos of a reconstruction were shown that H. created afterwards with dolls. Özüdoğru must have been standing for the first shot that entered under the nose and followed a straight line from the entrance to the exit wound in the back of the head and to a projectile impact point in the door. Götzl would like to first hear about the exact details from the relevant experts later in the proceedings. Next were sketches of the crime scene and of the portioning of the rooms.
Narin, representative of a co-plaintiff, would like to know if, at the time, anything struck H. about the downspouts of the house. H. answered in the negative. Then Narin points out that in 2012 a sticker made in 2001 from the neo-Nazi group “Fränkische Aktionsfront” (banned in 2004) [Franconia Action Front] was found on the building’s downspout. It is unclear if this sticker was already there at the time, but it would be great to have the exterior photos in a higher resolution. H. says he imagines the photo negatives are in his former station. Attorney Mehmet Daimagüler says that H. also checked the victim for possible participation in the trafficking of narcotics. They even executed a search of the victim’s apartment and car using drug dogs. H. says he can’t remember. If that did happen, it would have been at the insistence of a case handler. He can’t name any possible reason for it.
Next was the lunch break. At 13:10 court proceeded with the witness KHK Jürgen K.. His testimony is about follow-up investigations he executed in 2007 into the murder of Özüdoğru in the course of his work for the “BAO Bosporus” (BAO = Besondere Aufbauorganisation [special task force]), who were responsible for investigating the Ceska murder series. Initially, his testimony was about the time sequence. He described how he followed the path of the next witness G. to the bank and back. According to the reconstruction, the witness G., who had also presented a bank receipt according to which the witness had deposited money in the bank around 15:51, needed about five minutes to return to her Lotto shop. He likewise participated in the questioning of the witness M. in 2007. In order to clear up potential inconsistencies, the witness [K.] is not yet dismissed.
Because the other witnesses are not yet present, Götzl uses the time to hear positions on the motion from attorney Bliwier. Attorney Sturm, Zschäpe’s lawyer, points out that Tino Brandt is already summoned. Moreover, Bliwier’s motion is not a request for evidence. The application contains “findings from the blue” and contradicts the case files. Rather it concerns solely a request to investigate for evidence. One cannot expect to acquire any knowledge because Zschäpe wrote Robin Sch. first, and he did not know her beforehand. In regard to the meeting with Böhnhardt and Mundlos, this likewise concerns merely a request to investigate for evidence. There is no reason to pursue the requests. Co-plaintiff representative Scharmer joins in Bliwier’s motion and demands above all follow-up investigations by the federal prosecutor’s office. Scharmer explains they would speak to this at a later point in time. Attorney Bliwier speaks to Sturm’s remarks: the relevant facts are revealed in the investigation files and furthermore he has hitherto understood “that the role of certain ministries can also be interesting for the defense.” Federal prosecutor Diemer rejects a co-plaintiff representative’s question about the investigation into the telephone number on Carsten S.’s hard drive by saying that this was in the case files given to all participants in the proceedings and furthermore, “this, here, is not ‘question hour’ for the federal public prosecutor.”
Next, judge Götzl allows the propaganda video to be played for the court that was sent around after the NSU exposed itself, as well as the two previous versions. He would like, however, to first address questions at a later point in the trial.
Next up is the witness G. She confirmed the information given by police officer K regarding her trip to the bank and its reconstruction. Moreover, she reported that after her trip to the bank Özüdoğru had, as he did every day, picked up his newspaper die Hürriyet. She repeatedly pointed out that Özüdoğru was, in her opinion, a very nice and friendly person, and a good customer. Some time after Özüdoğru another man came into the shop and bought a pack of Marlboro cigarettes from her employee, who was working at the time. She recognized the man later from a composite sketch. According to G., she didn’t remember the language or dialect the man spoke. When asked by the co-plaintiff representative Erdal, Frau G. was shown a composite sketch from the murder investigation. Götzl wants to know if that is the composite sketch from which she recognized the man. G.: “That was a long time ago, like I said, but I think that was it. It fades over time.” Attorney Schneiders, Wohlleben’s lawyer, attempted to confuse the witness later by claiming the witness had said she recognized the man in the composite sketch before the day of the murder. The witness says that she saw the sketch in the Nurnberg news.
Next was the witness M.’s testimony. M. lived across the street from the alterations shop at the time of the murder. She testified today that she heard two shots, and then looked out the window. She saw two men, one of who came directly out of the shop. The men then left and then she saw Özüdoğru through the shop’s window lying on the ground. She refers to Özüdoğru in the course of her examination several times as “das Schneiderle” [approx. ‘little tailor’] and “das tapfere Schneiderlein” [ref. to the fairy tale from the Brothers Grimm, apprx: ‘the valiant little tailor’]. She saw both men together with a blond woman on the street standing and talking with each other a few days before the day of the crime. She worked with the police to produce a composite sketch of one of the men. She placed the time of the aforementioned activity in the afternoon, because her kids had to go to bed very early on that day, and they were still playing Nintendo when the shots were fired. The witness proceeds to contradict her first testimony in 2001 and the testimony she provided in the course of questioning during the follow-up investigation in 2007. Frau M. appears very unsure and partially confused. For that reason, the examination is interrupted. Judge Götzl refers M. to several of her old statements, according to which she testified that she had only seen one man or that she had seen Özüdoğru fighting in the street with a “mixture of Turkish Germans and east-block Germans” a few days before the murder. He points out to her that she did not say at the time that she saw Özüdoğru laying in his shop. Frau M. answers: “Yeah, I swear to you, I saw him laying there at the time. (…) I didn’t make anything up or spin it.” She indicated, amongst other things, that the police had also taken photos of Özüdoğru’s shop from her living room window. Moreover, she wasn’t asked about it. Götzl asks why she didn’t call the police. The emergency call that led to the finding of the body was first made hours later. M. claimed she could perhaps be mixing up the times, she doesn’t know anymore. Several co-plaintiff representatives ask questions. Amongst other things, a memo from the old murder case file is referred to, according to which it would have been impossible to see Abdurrahim Özüdoğru’s corpse from M.’s apartment. Attorney Scharmer asks M. if she could have seen the body when she was on the street. Frau M. says she doesn’t know. To attorney Erdal’s question, if the women she saw on the street shared any similarity with the present Beate Zschäpe, she didn’t have an answer. Attorney Clemm pointed out to M a statement from the questioning in 2012, according to which she was certain she saw Beate Zschäpe on the day of the crime. M. says she doesn’t know. Finally Clemm asks: “Are you afraid to testify today? Would you like to not testify?” M.: “I am dreadfully afraid.” Clemm: “What is causing you to not trust yourself to say what you remember.” M.: “I don’t trust myself… stupid to hear that from a grown up woman.” Clemm: “So, you could testify more, but you don’t want to risk it?” M.: “Yes.” Then Clemm asks judge Götzl: “What do we do now?” Judge Götzl considers discontinuing the examination and to invite the witness again and have an assistant sit with her. While M. is absent, opinions on this question were offered. The defenses of André E., Zschäpe and Wohlleben are against it. Attorney Klemke, Wohleben’s defense attorney, requests that it is first clarified what is causing the witness’s fear. The majority of the co-plaintiff representatives state that they have no more questions. Attorney Erdal says he still has questions. Attorney Bliwier says nothing can be supported on the information from the witness anyway. Attorney Clemm assert that the co-plaintiff minutes from the questioning aren’t available, and they first need to be presented, and then they will, in the event they need to, request to hear the witness once again.
After Mrs. M. is in the hall again, Götzl asks what is the cause of her fear. M. answers: “One doesn’t know what might happen out there: I’m alone, my husband is abroad, working.” Götzl asks once again about the concrete fear. M.: “Yeah, that someone will get rid of me. We made that composite sketch at the time, and weren’t yet thinking about which group or part of society these people belong. Nurnberg is a hot spot.” Afterwards, attorney Erdal would like to know from M. if she lied to him when he asked her about Zschäpe. M. answers: “I said I don’t know.” That’s what she remembers. At this point, M.’s questioning is discontinued, but she will not be dismissed as a witness. Götzl announces he will summon the officer that interviewed M. Attorney Scharmer points out to Götzl that the witness said, “I’m sorry” several times in the direction of the co-plaintiffs as she was going.
The witness K., who was also not yet dismissed, is once again asked about the interviewing of M., at which he was present. He states however that it would be better to ask the lead officer. Attorney Clemm asks K. about a memo that he wrote. In it, it says that in the course of his investigation he examined Nurnberg newspapers regarding right wing extremism. In the memo it says: “the author finds the clustering of these reports interesting.” K. says he can’t remember anymore; he also doesn’t know if further investigations into right-wing extremism were performed.
The final witnesses are L., the son of witness M., who was twelve at the time, and the witness Mi., who lived in the immediate vicinity of Özüdoğru’s shop. Their information is about the number of gunshots they heard. Both say they heard a gunshot. This contradicts Mi.’s earlier testimony. Neither wants to give a specific time. The approximate time is between 15:00 and 18:00. The witness L. is further asked if his mother spoke with him about seeing Özüdoğru lying in his shop. L. answers in the negative, he also hasn’t spoken with his mother about the statement.
Co-plaintiff attorney Narin suggests the table be turned in the direction of the senate; it could help the witnesses and prevent them from feeling intimidated.
The session ends around 18:00.
Co-plaintiff representative Hoffmann offers a remark to the witness questioning in the case of Özüdoğru’s murder:
“The interrogation of the investigating officers gave a first insight into the attitude that made it possible to call the neo-Nazi NSU serial murders the “Döner Murders” and allowed investigations to proceed against the victim and his environment: While the neighbors all described the murder victim as a very friendly neighbor, for the forensic officer that photographed the body and the crime scene it was very important to emphasize at several points that the alteration shop and the apartment of the murder victim were ruled by a “full-grown chaos.” In his slide report in the investigation file there are further degrading comments about Turkish people.”
