Short reports: November 2001
30.11.2001: 40th day
What the BKA understands as investigation
In front of a rather meagre visitor's presence, BKA officers today
had to answer questions in front of the court. The three officers
were Helmut Hause, the leading officer during the raid and arrest
of Axel H. on 19.12.1999, his colleague Boris Bischoff as well as
Sven van Elkan, who was responsible for the examination of the confiscated
items found during the search.
Central to the interrogation of Hause and Bischoff was the clarification
of which items were found in which rooms. At the time, not only
Axel H.'s flat was searched but also one storage room and common
rooms which were on the same floor. The investigating officers found
a type machine in the storage room on which letters by Axel were
typed and one letter, signed "Anton" (according to Mousli
this is Axel H.'s code name) was written, such was the result of
a carbon strip analysis. Both could not explain why the BKA searched
the room at the time, and what indications there were for the room
to be allocated to Axel H. However, they had to admit that the storage
room was open for general access and they found the room open at
the time of the search.
The criminal police examination of the confiscated items which
were found during the searches of the flat from 23.11 and 19.11.1999,
took place under BKA officer van Elkan. He ordered the crime technical
examination of the carbon strip. He was also responsible for the
examination of the confiscated notebooks and other personal notes.
The fact that neither comparative analyses of handwriting, nor time
specific allocations, which could have shed light on the date of
the notes, took place, reflects on the quality of the investigations.
The BKA merely compared the notes and address books with with names
and happenings known to them from the investigations into the RZ.
The names of all the accused as well as Lothar E., who is currently
facing extradition proceedings initiated by the BAW, are found in
the address books. In how far the examination and assessment relied
on the statements by the crown witness, or vice versa, i.e. if the
evidence was used by the BKA during the interrogation of the crown
witness, could not be verified. It was also not possible to find
out the relevance of a particular note which Mousli claims refers
to a meting between Axel H. and Rudolf Sch. The interrogation of
BKA officer van Elkan on this and other points will be continued
29.11.2001: 39th day in court
Searches and a birthday song
At the beginning of today's court day, most of the 25 trial visitors
did not want to refrain from singing a little birthday song for
the accused Axel H.
This was followed by an application for evidence by Harald G.'s
defence lawyers. With the introduction of further BKA files they
want to prove that crown witness Mousli was known to the investigating
authorities already in 1995 and not only since the end of October
1997, as the files open to the defence claim.
Further, three more witnesses were questioned on various matters.
The motorbike which belonged to the first witness Ulrich B. had
served as an example for a double used for the attack on Korbmacher
in 1987. The witness described and identified his motorbike from
pictures presented to him.
Next witness was a BKA officer who reported on the second unsuccessful
search of the Mehringhof on 30.5.2000. During the search, the crown
witness had led the search for an arms and explosives depot he claimed
was there, via a live video and phone line. Today it turned out
that the BKA is in possession of a video clip of this search. The
court wants to think about introducing this material into the proceedings.
After that, three BKA officers more or less gave evidence on a
search that took place in the flat of the accused Axel H., during
which a pistol and some bullets were found.
In principle the questions referred to who found which objects
where and according to which procedure they were listed. Despite
the existence of a list that was made, the officers could not exactly
remember the exact events surrounding the findings. It could not
be clarified for example, where the munition was found, which was
obviously very old and also did not fit the pistol. It only became
clear that the pistol was not hidden but lying "somewhere inbetween"
on a shelf.
23.11.2001: 38th day in court
Police reports on the Mehringhof raid
The main theme of today was the raid of the Berlin cultural centre
Mehringhof on 19.12.1999.
The witnesses, federal crime police officers Horst Kröschel
and Kurt Schmitz, confirmed that neither the four dogs trained in
spotting explosives, nor the nine search teams could find weapons
or explosive. According to Tarek Mousli, several kilos of the explosive
Gelamon which was stolen in Salzhemmendorf as well as pistols were
supposed to be hidden in the shaft of a lift in the Mehringhof.
Investigating officer Kröschel as well as Schmitz, who was
responsible for the searching of the cellar, said they had finished
the search with the certainty that there had definitely not been
any explosive in the Mehringhof. They also did not get the impression
that members of the centre had known about the planned raid.
Apart from these officers, three more witnesses were asked to give
The first was released immediately as he was wrongly ordered to
court on grounds of the same name.
The second witness, Thomas K., who together with his sister had
been the owner of a red Estate VW Passat from 1986 onwards, gave
evidence on this vehicle. Himself and his sister were interrogated
in 1987 because a double of their car was found in the Ihnestrasse
The third witness, Manuela K., former police officer, was involved
in the examination of the RZ declaration to the attack on judge
Korbmacher, but could hardly remember anything about it.
22.11.2001: 37th day in court
Deliberate tampering during BKA investigation into
finding of explosives?
In today's interrogation of three federal crime police (BKA) officers,
obvious and serious contradiction came to light with regards to
the investigations that took place in relation to the findings of
explosives. According to the files, the origin of the confiscated
explosive Gelamon 40 which was already found in Berlin in 1995,
was only investigated in 1997. This stands in contradiction to the
usual procedures of the BKA. The police officer Deutesfeld explained
today that in the case of explosives found in Bielefeld in 1988,
the relevant BKA officers were immediately informed and that they
examined the place of finding and the explosive the very next day.
Although in the case of the explosive stolen from Mousli's cellar
and then confiscated in 1995, an "immediate notification of
explosive finding" was made and also sent to various BKA departments
several times, also in 1996, investigations were only initiated
in November 1997, when BKA officer Schulzke ordered his colleague
Möller to write an examination report. On the one hand, Möller
was supposed to examine in how far the explosive stolen in Salzhemmerdorf
in 1987 and the explosive confiscated in Berlin in 1995 were identical.
However, Schulzke, according to the relevant files, had already
told his colleague Möller that the explosive found in Berlin
was identical to that from Salzhemmerdorf, which could be seen through
the numbering of the original packaging.
The producing East German company VEB Schönebeck however,
denied to the BKA that they had traded with the explosives with
that particular numbering at all during the relevant time period
(9.2.1987). Orders with that explosive were only carried out to
the security services NVA or the MfS, with no individual numbering.
16.11.2001: 36th day in court
Document recital so that the trial does not collapse
As the health of the judges is not yet restored, an emergency programme
was laid down for the trial not to be interrupted for more than
10 days: first the recital of a death certificate of the witness
Ernst Heinz W. - then his statement from 25.4.1988. Dr. W. was resident
in the Ihnestrasse, where he saw the flight vehicle. Apart from
the vehicle he did not see anything.
15.11.2001: 35th day in court
Holiday for all - except for the prisoners
Also judges are not saved from illness. Trial interrupted until
tommorow, probably with shortened programme.
09.11.2001: 34th day in court
Vage memories of motorbikers
Today, Olaf and Florence F. were supposed to give evidence on two
men they saw at the border point Drewitz on 30.8.1987, with a "suspicious"
motorbike. Both claimed to have recognised the motorbike when it
was later shown on TV. The vehicle is claimed to have been driven
by RZ members in the attack on the chief of the Aliens Office Harald
Today revealed that the memory of both witnesses had considerably
faded. They could only describe in detail the unusual colouring
of the bike and a light seat which did not belong to the standard
model of that bike.
After they called the police, they were questioned by the BKA and
intelligence authorities several times in 1987 and also in 2000.
Olaf F. claims to have detected "some similarities" between
the driver of the motorbike and a photo presented to him during
the interrogation. One of the pictures showed to them in 2000 apparently
also showed similarities to the driver. Both suggested at the time
that the man on the photo, which showed the accused Axel H., could
be said with a 40% certainty to be identical with the driver. Today
they are not sure anymore if they can see similarities to the man
they saw 14 years ago.
08.11.2001: 33rd day in court
Did the crown witness have contacts to "Arab
The Senate attempted to jolt the memory of several witnesses today.
They were supposed to give evidence on the attack on the then "asylum
judge" Korbmacher in 1987. The day however started with applications
by the defence.
Lawyer Kaleck lodged an application for evidence which is supposed
to uncover possible contacts the crown witness had with "Arab
terrorists". In their arrest warrant for the crown witness
of November 1999, the public prosecution (BAW) had itself referred
to the obviously existing contacts. Also the application for the
interception of Mousli's telephone line (TÜ) in the Snoops
Sports Centre (August 1999) contained remarks on relevant contacts
Mousli had. But the investigation files did not show any findings
on this matter. The application demanded for the relevant files
to be admitted to court.
Kaleck further demanded from the Senate to examine if the non-suspect
related dragnet control (Rasterfahndung) that was initiated after
11 September uncovered any further evidence on Mousli's contacts
to "Arab terror groups".
Following this, lawyer Eisenberg lodged an application for the
hearing of two more witnesses in relation to the investigations
into the Hollenberg case.
During the following day, six witnesses were heard who were supposed
to give evidence on the Korbmacher case. Four of them tested their
memory on the motorbike used in the attack, two crime police officers
were questioned on their investigation work at the time. No statement
shed light on the direct or indirect involvement of the accused.
05.11.2001: 32nd day in court
Twice ten minutes
Today's trial day was short and curious. At 8.37 am the presiding
judge Hennig opened proceedings which weren't really proceedings.
Siting judge Hanschke then read out a police technical opinion of
14.11.1986, which dealt with the physical examination of Harald
Hollenberg's clothing, which he wore at the time of the attack.
It contained details on the point of entry and exit of the bullets
in the different clothes (trousers, coat etc.), further the problematics
of trace analysis were outlined and how the examination of traces
could lead to identifying the distance of the shooting. After the
reading, all trial members were then allowed to look at the pictures
of the clothing which were made during the police technical investigation.
At 8.46 am everything was over, the trial was interrupted and set
for next Thursday. Because Sabine E. could not be brought into the
court room at 8.30 am, the whole procedure was repeated for her
at 10 am. The court achieved this separate hearing by splitting