The questioning of the BKA officer Sch., who had interrogated the defendant Holger G., was completed. It was revealed that the BKA had apparently neglected to ask a lot of questions that potentially could have brought new leads. It was remarkable how Sch. had come to the conclusion that Holger G. had nothing to fear from the well-known militant neo-Nazi Thorsten Heise after he had mentioned him in his testimonies. The following questioning of the arson investigators in Frühlingsstraße will be continued in September.
The session began at 9.44 a.m. The first witness was the BKA officer Sch., who had interrogated Holger G. and whose questioning had been discontinued once again the day before. It was Ralf Wohlleben’s defending attorneys’ turn to ask questions. Attorney Klemke asked Sch. whether he had dealt with Thorsten Heise professionally. Sch. confirmed this; he had been present during a search of his residence, had initiated proceedings regarding the illegal possession of firearms which had been discontinued, had taken a DNA-sample and had evaluated a telecommunication surveillance procedure. He had also known of the tape-recordings that Heise had made. Altogether, he had contacted Heise several times since 2007, and had therefore been able to put G.’s mind to rest regarding his fear of Heise. Klemke wanted to know whether the DNA-sample had been blood or saliva. Sch. replied that it had been saliva. Klemke asked whether this had had anything to do with the proceedings regarding the illegal possession of firearms. Senior Prosecutor Greger objected to the question; that was a different lawsuit. Moreover she wanted to remind the witness of his permission to give evidence. The witness had to leave the court room briefly, while Klemke explained that this was about the interrogation of G. and his fear of Heise; all questions that addressed issues of the trial were allowed, even if they did so only indirectly. This was about a weapon and a possible violent offence, which seemed likely due to the DNA-sample. Senior Prosecutor Greger continued to object, yet Götzl allowed Klemke’s question. Klemke asked Sch. whether the saliva sample had had anything to do with the proceedings regarding the illegal possession of firearms. Sch. confirmed this, but stated that if the subject of Heise was to be addressed, he would have to prepare for this, as this had not been the issue he had been called for. Klemke said that this was about G.’s statement. Sch. continued to assert that G. had had nothing to fear. He had come to this conclusion due to personal experience and investigative results.
Klemke asked whether Sch. knew Heise’s tape recordings. Sch. replied that he knew them; they had been addressed in the investigative committee. He had only written reports about Heise in connection with other cases. He knew Heise’s background. Klemke: “And?” Götzl pointed out that this wasn’t a question. Klemke asked whether Sch. knew if Heise had had any previous convictions. Sch. confirmed this. Klemke wanted to know whether there had been any violent offences. Sch. stated that he thought this was the case. Klemke pointed out that Heise had been previously convicted for assault and disruption of traffic among other things, and had attempted to run over a Lebanese refugee. Klemke asked whether Sch. had nonetheless tried to calm G. down. Sch. conformed this. Klemke: “Interesting.” Sch. stated that wasn’t really interesting, those had more or less been juvenile offences. Heise had often had a calming influence. Moreover, he owned a store and stood to lose a lot, and it didn’t matter what he was selling. Every person had the right to change. In any case, he had thought Heise was of no danger to G. Klemke wanted to know whether Heise’s previous offences had indeed been juvenile offences. Sch. stated that he didn’t want to be pinned down to this, but that he would adhere to his evaluation of Heise’s dangerousness. Klemke asked whether the confidential conversation between G. and Sch. had taken place in the same room as the interrogation, so in a room with a partition. Sch. confirmed this.
Then G.’s description of the transported weapon was addressed (“straight barrel, straight down”). Klemke wanted to know whether G. had thus attempted to express a distinction of different kinds of guns. After being presented with his statement from Tuesday, Sch. stated that the distinction between pistol and revolver had been their evaluation, not G.’s. G. had made no further remarks. Klemke then asked about the role of G.’s defending attorney Hachmeister in the interrogations and the counselling breaks. He wanted to know whether G. had sometimes also leant over to Hachmeister without a formal interruption. Sch. replied that Hachmeister and G. had been able to consult at any time. When certain issues were addressed, they had been able to consult in a different room. They had not been coerced to speak in the officers’ presence. Klemke said that this wasn’t about coercion. He wanted to know whether there had been a whispered conversation between Hachmeister and G. Sch. replied that he couldn’t remember any whispered conversation. Klemke asked how the interruption had come about after the mention of the cloth bag. Sch. replied that interruptions had usually been made at Hachmeister’s behest. Klemke said that this wasn’t about what had usually happened. Sch.: “If I remember correctly, the interruption occurred the way they usually came about.” Klemke wanted to know whether the officers had advised colleague Hachmeister to consult with G. After a short quarrel concerning the term colleague, which Sch. thought had referred to him, Sch. stated that he hadn’t advised anything, he would never presume to do anything like that.
Klemke then asked whether there had been any questions concerning the fund-raisers for those in hiding, for example what kind of events had been organized and how many. Sch. replied that if the report was not specific, then G. had not been specific about these things. When asked by Klemke if G. had been asked how he had known about these events, Sch. replied that G. had stated to have been informed by André K. about their flight. Sch. said he thought that this question had not been in the report. Klemke stated that he wanted to know whether the question had been asked. Sch. replied that he couldn’t say so for sure if it hadn’t been noted in the report. Klemke wanted to know if G. had been asked whether he had participated in one of the fund-raising events. Federal Prosecutor Diemer asked how often this particular question would be repeated. Götzl stated that there was something in the report; he would have asked the question himself. Sch. asked Klemke to read out the relevant passage from the report. Klemke replied that the presiding judge could do so later, and that he assumed this to mean that Sch. did not remember anything about this issue. He then asked whether the ferry ride to Usedom during one of the vacations had been addressed. Sch. replied that the he believed there had been further questions, but that G. had not been able to give any answers. Another group of investigators had looked into the vacations. Klemke said that Sch. had been in charge of G.’s case, hadn’t he, which was confirmed by Sch. Sch. stated that they had been in contact with the respective investigative group, that was how he had received the photograph from Lübeck. Yet: “If it’s not noted in the report, it’s not in there.” Klemke asked whether Sch. had checked during the interrogation if the instructions on the obligation to tell the truth on his laptop had been correct. Sch. replied that he had assumed as much, but asked for the corresponding passage to be read out. Klemke answered: “The presiding judge can do that later.” Götzl pointed out that Klemke should not distinguish himself at his, Götzl’s, expense. Klemke then asked about the sightseeing flight over Usedom, and whether it had been asked what kind of aircrafts had been used. Sch. replied that he couldn’t say so for sure. Klemke asked where the airfield had been. Sch. replied that there had been investigations into this matter; it hadn’t been so relevant to his group. It hadn’t been of interest to him whether it had been a “Ceska” [He presumably meant the aircraft company ‘Cessna’].
Then the statements were addressed that had been made regarding the persons that had provided the Three with accommodation after their flight; these had been members of “Blood & Honour” in Saxony. Sch. said that G. had stated this more precisely, that he had assumed as much as “Blood & Honour” members weren’t just drunks, but political supporters of the scene. Klemke wanted to know whether it had been asked if all political activities in Saxony were related to “Blood & Honour”, as G.’s conclusion was not exactly cogent. Sch. replied that further questions had been asked about this, but that G. had not been able to provide any more information. Concerning the issue of the “Pogromly”-game and who had developed it, Klemke wanted to know if it had been asked where G. had received his information. Sch. replied that Mundlos seemed to have been in charge; they must have asked further, but if there was nothing in the report, then there hadn’t been any specific answer; and that he had now said this several times. Klemke asked whether they had asked for a description of Thomas Starke prior to the presentation of his image. Sch. said they had not. Klemke pointed out that G. had not been given several images to select from, but had only been shown a single picture; he wanted to know why this had been the case. Sch. replied that G. had stated to know Starke, so he hadn’t been given a selection of images. Klemke wanted to know why Sch. had preferred to have Hachmeister present during the interrogations. Sch. replied that he always felt this to be more appropriate; the defendant could consult with his lawyer and everything proceeded faster; he did not see the attorney as a disadvantage to the interrogation. Klemke asked whether G. had mentioned at any point how often he had contacted the Three between their disappearance and the delivery of the weapon. Sch. replied that he believed there had been contact via telephone, vacations and visits, yet he could not say how and how often this had been the case. Klemke asked whether it had been resolved whether G.’s first vacations with Böhnhardt, Mundlos and Zschäpe had been prior to or after the weapon delivery. Sch. stated that according to G.’s time specifications, the first vacation had taken place prior to the weapon delivery, the others afterwards. Then the issue was addressed that G. had begun the statements regarding the weapon delivery by saying that Wohlleben had “persuaded” him to deliver a cloth bag. Sch. stated that the exact account could be found in the report. Klemke pointed out that this was what had been noted in the report. Klemke then pointed out that Sch. had stated that G. had not looked to see what was in the cloth bag until he was on the train, and asked why G. then had to be persuaded in the first place. Sch. stated that if this was not written in the report, he didn’t know either. Senior Prosecutor Weingarten objected that this quote was not correct; the term “to persuade” had not yet been used in reference to the cloth bag. Klemke pointed out that his statement had been summarizing, and that he strongly objected to the Federal Prosecutor’s allegations. Klemke asked Sch. if this meant that he hadn’t confronted the witness with the question as to why he had had to be persuaded. Once again, Weingarten objected. Götzl read out the passage from the report, which stated that G. had been persuaded to carry out a delivery. Klemke asked what G. had then said about the thing he was supposed to transport. Sch. in turn referred to the report. Klemke stated that this meant that the issue had first concerned a delivery, then a travel bag, and then a cloth bag within a travel bag. Zschäpe’s defending attorney Sturm said that the report from the interrogation seemed to state that persuading had taken place with regard to a delivery, but that the witness at hand had said that G. had been persuaded to deliver a cloth bag. Götzl pointed out that the witness had however referred to the report as definitive. Klemke once again asked Sch. He answered that he seemed to remember that G. had said he had been persuaded to deliver a cloth bag. Sch. seemed not to have asked why he had had to be persuaded. After another objection from the Federal Prosecution, Klemke started to raise his voice, and then asked Sch. if he had had no reason to ask G. why he had used the term ‘persuade’. Sch.: “If it’s not in the report, then I don’t know if I saw any reason to ask:”
Klemke then asked about the various driving licences. G. had reported the licence with the number AX51 as lost, had then received licence AX52, and had then exchanged the damaged licence AX51 and received licence AX53. Klemke wanted to know whether the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency had asked any questions, say if the information about the loss of licence AX51 had been incorrect. Sch. replied that he couldn’t remember. Klemke asked whether the investigators had contacted the Licensing Agency. Sch. replied that as far as he knew, the Licensing Agency had been contacted. Yet he couldn’t remember for sure; for him it had only been important that a driving license had shown up in an attempt to rent, and that G. had reported one as lost.
Klemke then wanted to know whether G. had stated to have said anything to Wohlleben when he had placed the cloth bag into the travel bag. It seemed obvious that a question could arise such as: “Are you looking for something?” Sch. replied that it had been enough for him that G. had been persuaded to deliver something. Klemke asked if this could be interpreted to mean that there hadn’t been further questions concerning this issue. Sch.: “Yes, you can interpret it that way.” Klemke pointed out that G. had stated that he had concluded from the cocking of the gun that it had been a weapon with live ammunition. Sch. confirmed this. Klemke wanted to know whether Sch. had also considered that it might also be possible to cock a gas pistol. Sch. said he didn’t remember if this had been asked; he was not an expert on weapons. Sch. stated that G. had not been asked to provide a description of the weapon, there had been a presentation of weapons. Klemke wanted to know on which basis this presentation had been carried out. The Federal Prosecution objected to the question, and Klemke rejected the objection as nonsense; Götzl then permitted the question. Klemke asked why Sch. had not asked for a description of the weapon. Sch. replied that he hadn’t asked this as they had wanted to conduct a presentation of weapons. They had had a special unit for this, and the federal prosecutor had seen it as adequate. Klemke then addressed the interrogation on December 1; the respective report had included short questions and short answers, so he wanted to know whether the method of recording had been different. Sch. replied that his colleague had phrased the answers; there must have also been short questions and answers. Klemke referred to the report, which at one point referenced ‘the Three’ in quotation marks. He wanted to know whether G. had verbally used quotation marks in reference to ‘the Three’. Sch. replied that if this had been noted in the report in such a way, then this must have been the case; G. also had had the opportunity to read the report. Klemke asked whether G. might have had trouble following this particular interrogation. Sch. pointed out that if he had had any reason to believe this, he would have discontinued the interrogation. Klemke wanted to know whether it had seemed strange to Sch. that Wohlleben, even though he had been under observation according to G., had supposedly obtained a weapon and had kept it in his own flat. Sch. replied that this statement had only been of interest to him in so far as that it had offered a reason as to why G. was supposed to deliver the weapon. Klemke pointed out that G. had said that Wohlleben had also asked him to carry out the delivery as he would pass through Zwickau anyway. Had it been asked where G. had been travelling? Sch. replied that he thought it had been to his sister. Klemke wanted to know where she lived. Sch. thought that she lived in Jena or so, but wasn’t completely sure. He had felt that G.’s explanation had been sufficient. Klemke asked where Wohlleben had lived. Sch. replied that Wohlleben had lived in Jena. So both had lived in the same area, pointed out Klemke. Sch. said that he had made an error. When asked, Sch. was not able to say where G. had lived at the time of the transport; he reckoned that G. had moved in 2004; the town name Großloebichau didn’t mean anything to him.
In between, Klemke asked whether Sch. knew the statements of Andreas S., the operator of the “Madley” shop, whom G. had named as the possible supplier of the weapon. Sch. confirmed this. Klemke wanted to know whether he had confirmed to have given a weapon to Wohlleben. Sch. said that Andreas S. had stated to have passed on a weapon to the defendant Carsten S. As far as Sch. knew, Andreas S. had only admitted to this single weapon handover. Klemke then wanted to know if it would surprise Sch. to find out that G. had already moved to Hannover in 1997. Sch. replied that this must then be the case. Klemke wanted to know if Sch. had then not asked G. if Zwickau was on the way from Jena to Hannover. Once again Sch. referred to G.’s sister. Klemke pointed out that she lived close to Jena. Sch. stated that they hadn’t questioned this; he also didn’t know how G. had travelled to Wohlleben’s place. Just as defending attorney Sturm had done the day before, Klemke asked about the pipe bombs’ readiness for use. Sch. said that it could be that he had used the term ready for use, but not in order to reinforce the issue. G.’s statement had been addressed, and the term had crossed Sch.’s mind.
It was then defending attorney Schneiders’ turn to ask questions. She wanted to know if it had been asked why Wohlleben had stopped collecting money for those in hiding in 2000, as G. had alleged. Sch. replied that as far as he remembered, Wohlleben had been concerned with his career in the NPD. Schneiders pointed out that G. had stated that the Three had exerted pressure on him; she wanted to know if it also had been asked whether they had also exerted pressure on Wohlleben. Sch. replied that as far as he knew, this hadn’t been the case; only once had G. been told to enquire with Wohlleben, which had also been noted. Sch. said it seemed not have been asked whether Wohlleben knew of G.’s consumption of drugs and his gambling addiction. Schneiders pointed out that, in connection with the Three’s visit in 2005, there had been references to G.’s withdrawal from the right-wing scene. In this context a certain Basti had been mentioned; Schneiders asked whether Sch. knew who this was. Sch. said he thought this could have been Sebastian S. or so. Schneiders wanted to know if it also could have been Sebastian W. Sch. said he didn’t know that; a Sebastian W. had been identified, but was of no relevance to the trial. Schneiders then referred to a text message from the assessment of Holger G.’s phone, in which a Basti G. had invited to a Hammerskins-Festival in Italy. Sch. said they hadn’t asked G. about the contradiction to the alleged withdrawal from the scene. Moreover, G. had admitted to have resumed contact with the right-wing scene, for example to Oliver M. from Hannover. Schneiders then addressed G.’s statement once again that one couldn’t save the world with five people, where he hadn’t wanted to be pinned down on the number five. It had also been asked whether there had been more than the Three, G. and Wohlleben. Schneiders wanted to know whether they had also asked about Tino Brandt. Sch. said that the report stated that G. had mentioned Brandt. Schneiders wanted to know whether it had been asked which position Brandt had assumed in the discussions about violence. Sch. replied that they had assumed that Brandt had been for violence, as G. had stated that Wohlleben and he himself had been against violence and André K. had been neutral. Sch. stated that he assumed now that Tino Brandt had spoken out for violence. G. had not said anything that had would lead to this, Sch.’s, conclusion.
Then the tape recordings that had been found with Thorsten Heise were addressed. Sch. said he believed to have first received information regarding the tapes in 2008; the legal proceedings regarding the illegal possession of firearms had been a by-product of a lawsuit regarding CDs; the weapon had been found in Heise’s bedroom by coincidence. Schneiders pointed out that a weapon had been found, but that Sch. had nonetheless viewed Heise as not dangerous; was this correct? Sch. said that Heise had stated that the weapon had been planted on him, and had also been successful in court. Schneiders wanted to know whether weapons had been mentioned on the tape recordings. Sch. said that this seemed to be referring to a recording made during a car journey; the quality wasn’t great and he only roughly knew the contents; there seemed to have been talk about money and Heise had shouted a lot. Schneiders read out a transcription, in which some passages were marked as unintelligible. Among other things it was addressed what the other person thought would happen with “the money”; there were people throughout Germany who had obtained plenty of weapons. Sch. stated that Heise was making a lot of threats, but that these were empty. Heise had been cheated out of a large amount of money, and if he had indeed been so dangerous, then he probably would have harmed the other person. Sch. stated this was “blah blah blah”. Schneiders asked if Sch. was aware that the interlocutor was no longer alive. Sch. said he knew this; he thought it had been an accident; in any case, this had been a lot later, and Heise had had nothing to do with it. When asked once more, he still stuck to his assessment that G. had nothing to fear from Heise. Schneiders then addressed a question from one of the interrogations, in which the “88s” from Chemnitz had been concentrated on. The individuals “Ma.” and “Be.” had been asked about. Sch. replied that they had received these names and then asked about them. He still remembered “Ma.”, as G. had described her as a large woman that even the men were scared of.
Carsten S.’s defending attorney Pausch was then given the opportunity to ask questions. He addressed the alleged conspirative meetings between Wohlleben, G. and Carsten S. Pausch wanted to know whether the question concerning this issue had been part of a catalogue of questions. Sch. said he thought he had received a document regarding the matter. Pausch stated that it had been reported: “Questions concerning G.’s remark to Böhnhardt’s parents, ‘they’re more likely to shoot themselves than to surrender’” Pausch pointed out that this was more of a headline, wasn’t it? Sch. said that this seemed to have originated from a catalogue of questions. Pausch then read out a note made by the domestic intelligence service, according to which an informer had gained new insights regarding the Three from a conversation with Ralf Wohlleben. Götzl asked what Pausch was getting at. Pausch stated that this was about the fact that Carsten S. had not been present at the meeting. Sch. replied that this was not the note that he had read, yet that he wasn’t sure whether S. had been present. Pausch continued reading from the note. Finally, Sch. said that the passage seemed familiar, that he seemed to have been mistaken and had to correct that. They had not asked G. any further questions concerning the claim that Carsten S. had been Wohlleben’s right hand. Then court-appointed psychiatrist Saß asked questions. Among other things he wanted to know between which of the group’s three members there had been tensions. Sch. replied that they had assumed that the tensions had been between Böhnhardt and Mundlos, otherwise Mundlos would not have picked up the knife. Götzl then read out a passage to Sch. concerning information that G. had received mainly from Wohlleben, until he had spoken to them on the phone himself; there had been charity concerts; André K. had been in charge of the money and was supposed to pass it on; there had been some kind of trouble, but G. didn’t know that. Was Sch. able to differentiate who had provided the information regarding the concerts? Sch. said he couldn’t remember. Attorney Narin wanted to know if questions had been asked as to why Heise had been out of G.’s league. Sch. said he didn’t think so. Narin wanted to know whether Sch. had known during the interrogation that G. had previously been in contact with Heise. Sch. said he wasn’t sure about that. Narin asked if Sch. had asked G. why he had contacted Heise, as there had already been connections between André K. and Claus Nordbruch among others; had there possibly been another motive for the exchange with Heise? Sch. stated that G. had provided this information and that it had seemed coherent, so they hadn’t asked any more questions. Götzl then pointed out that the report from December 1 referred to the suspicion of complicity to murder, not the charge of complicity. Sch. replied that this had then been the way it had been phrased; the phrasing had also been provided by Dr Moldenhauer. Yet he couldn’t rule out completely that he might have spoken of ‘charge’; in any case, G. had immediately had the opportunity to call his lawyer. Once again, defending attorney Sturm asked questions. She addressed G.’s remark that the weapon delivery would be “the last time” he did such a thing. Sch. had said the day before that, due to the pump action shotgun, G. had known of further weapons. Sturm was getting at the temporal difference, as the weapon delivery had been dated to 2001, but the presentation of the shotgun had been dated to 2002/2003. This meant that during the delivery G. couldn’t have known of the shotgun. Sch. stated that he had misunderstood this the day before. G. had made no further statements indicating that he had known of other transports at the time; he had said he would no longer do such things. Strum pointed out that Sch. had said to attorney Klemke that the interruption of the interrogation on January 25, 2011, had been made at the behest of Hachmeister; the day before, however, he had said that G. had asked for an interruption. Sch. said that G. must have spoken to Hachmeister who had then asked for the interruption. Sturm wanted to know whether it had been asked if G. himself had been present in the situation that he had recounted as an example for Zschäpe’s violence. Sch. replied that due to the way that G. had spoken of the situation, he had assumed that G. had been present. Attorney Schneiders addressed the issue of the reconstruction of the route from Zwickau’s central station to Polenzstraße, during which G. had stated that the Aldi-market hadn’t existed at the time. Schneiders asked whether it had been checked when the supermarket had been built. Sch. replied that, as far as he knew, it had not. Co-plaintiff attorney Kuhn said that G. had stated he would surrender “a part” of his information on Heise. Kuhn wanted to know whether they had ever asked what the other part was. Sch. said that after they had been able to calm G. down, they had assumed that G. had reported everything.
Co-plaintiff attorney Elberling announced a statement in accordance with § 257 of the code of criminal procedure regarding Sch.’s statements, as did attorney Schneiders. Heer announced that he wanted to issue a lengthy statement regarding the matter of Holger G. Götzl asked the attorneys to bring forward their statements the coming Tuesday.
After the lunch break, arson investigator L. was called once more. He continued to go through folders of pictures of the fire in Frühlingsstraße. He first addressed fire area A, the so-called cat-room. This area also included a bed, sleeping spot 1, as well as a flat screen TV. The former location of the surveillance camera was also viewable. L. located a central spot of the fire in this room. Pictures were shown of the remnants of a floor unit from which objects had been secured, such as a video camera. L. stated that the room had contained an alcove with objects. The wall facing Veilchenweg had been blown up. The fire had also spread to the apartment above in this area. Then the report moved on to the area J, the bathroom to the left. All of the tiles in the bathroom had fallen off. L. pointed out that the fire had spread to the upper apartment here as well. He continued with area L., a long passageway confined by built-in plaster walls. L. stated that the walls had been pulled out by the digger, but the burn marks had made it possible to reconstruct where they had stood. One picture showed a key lying on the floor. L. then moved on to the storage area, also confined by plaster walls, which had been thus labelled due to the fact that various items had been stored here. Images showed opened cupboards. L. showed an image of a red marking on the floor which he had not been able to allocate. Then the area N was addressed, which meant the rubble that had been removed from the house with the digger, and had been searched by several police officers the following Monday. Two areas had been set up where everything had been searched and sorted according to usability and non-usability. The weapons that were found had always been put into boxes immediately, as the press had surrounded the property. The presentation then moved on to the attic and the roof framework. L. stated that in the left apartment there had been large areas in which the fire had burnt through; the side of the gable had been heavily exposed to fire. Some images showed tools. In the apartment on the right there had been no areas where the fire had burnt through; some soot had partially emerged through utility shafts. The roof framework had also already been on fire on the side of the gable. The next sketch depicted the various blast waves in the apartment. There had been three in total; the largest in the sports room, another in the bedroom and the third in the cat room; however, the numbering didn’t say anything about the sequence of blasts. L. stated that he assumed that the blast waves had been connected. He then depicted the locations of the items used to set the fire. L. pointed out that the property had been searched with tracking dogs for two days. Then the areas where the dogs had shown a reaction had been examined, and samples taken and sent to the LKA for further analysis. The first trace had been found under the inn’s entrance on the ground floor. However, no burn marks were to be found here. An image showed a ten-litre petrol canister in the apartment’s entrance area, which had however been put there by the fire brigade, and had previously been located on the landing in front of the apartment. On one of the images showing burn marks in the living room, books were to be seen, among others “The Revenge of the Dwarves”. After images of fuse boxes, electronic devices and gas systems, the locations of weapons found in the house were addressed. The weapon with the number W01, a Radom, had been found in the bedroom. The clip had been inserted and the bullets had been triggered by the fire; the weapon had been handed over to the BKA. Weapon W02, an Erma, had been found in the opened strongbox in the wall, together with a pair of handcuffs. Close-ups of the handcuffs presented later showed a numeration which, according to L., was used by the police to identify handcuffs. Weapon W03, a Walther PP, had been found in the debris in front of a floor unit in the fire area G. Further images showed the locations of bank notes in the area L, which had been found in parts on the floor and on a shelf. Then the apartment’s cellar was addressed, which had been secured with steel doors and contact detectors. One image showed a shelf stacked with plastic bottles of mineral water and milk cartons. Moreover, a child’s bike could be seen. Other images showed further bikes and a boat engine. A workbench, a circular saw and different tools were also viewable. Moreover, there were images of a wooden plank with holes. According to L., these were bullet holes. Some images showed a box made of plywood with openings. A similar box had also been found in the area N, the debris removed from the house, which hadn’t been quite as wide. The next images showed the opened box, which had been lined with polystyrene. Another picture showed Kilometre, minute and diameter details written on a wall. The next images showed the successive demolition of the part of the house that was Frühlingsstraße 26, which had been carried out to see whether there were any concealed or hollow spaces. L. pointed out that the other part of the house had only been pulled down at the behest of the city Zwickau. Images were then shown from the police department in Zwickau. The garages there had been cleared, cleaned and lined with white paper. Then all pieces of evidence had been sorted according to their location in the house. The pieces had still been wet from the water used to put out the fire, and were laid out to dry so that fingerprints or DNA samples could still be taken. Then a few images were shown of spread out items of clothing, shoes and roadmaps. Then the presentation of the tenth folder of images was completed.
Presiding judge Götzl interrupted the questioning of L. once more and asked him to return in September. The day’s hearing ended at 4.13 p.m.
Attorney Peer Stolle made the following statement regarding the interrogation of Holger G. carried out by the officer of the BKA:
“The insights gained from today’s hearing about Holger G. are not new. That he was still tied to the right-wing scene was obvious from the records. When he tries to make light of his own involvement in the crimes, this matches the behaviour in his previous testimonies. The partially existent contradictions in his statements do not mean that one cannot trust the details he provided regarding the weapon delivery and further supporting actions. Thus, Holger G. has not only incriminated Zschäpe and Wohlleben, but also to a large extent himself, providing information that the investigating authorities had not had at that point. However, it does not reflect well on the BKA’s interrogating officers that obvious questions were not asked.”
