The left party leader Janine Wissler testified on Thursday before the district court in Frankfurt in the process of the "NSU 2.0" series of threatening letters as a witness and stated that she was only informed after the letters addressed to her became public knowledge from the State Criminal Police Office (LKA). that there had been a query of their private data from a police computer.

She only found out from the press that this happened in the 3rd police station in Wiesbaden.

In response to a question from the defense, she specified that the query was said to have been made a few days before she received the first threatening letter in February 2020.

Anna Sophia Lang

Editor in the Rhein-Main-Zeitung.

  • Follow I follow

Wissler also said she was not responsible for the threats against her becoming public knowledge.

"It wasn't me, it was the state police chief." A journalist spoke to her about it in early summer 2020.

He said that the then President Udo Münch - who resigned in July 2020 in the wake of the scandal surrounding right-wing extremist chat groups in the police - named the events in a background conversation.

"I admit that I was stunned," said Wissler before the district court.

You have complied with the request of the LKA not to make anything public.

On the one hand, in order not to endanger the investigations, on the other hand, out of concern for their relatives and to give the author no platform.

From the time it became known, she successively received a large number of further threatening letters,

“Especially those who are supposed to protect us”

As her party colleague Martina Renner and the lawyer Seda Basay-Yildiz had already done as witnesses in the trial, Wissler formulated the question on Thursday that hung over the trial like no other: Where did the author get private data from, such as the names and dates of birth of relatives, Cell phone numbers and addresses?

"That's the question that worries us all." That, as she said, police officers could have something to do with it, "of all people who are supposed to protect us," the politician described as enormously unsettling.

When the Frankfurt police later recommended to her in another letter with insulting and threatening content to fill out the online form for the report, she said she didn't want to: out of concern about making her private address, which has since been blocked, accessible to them,

Wissler, who, like the other witnesses heard so far, was classified by the authorities as not in acute danger, also took her own security measures after appropriate advice from the LKA.

She also stated that she was used to receiving threatening letters in every conceivable way.

However, the naming of her private cell phone number and address and the signing with "NSU 2.0" were new.

She also understood the mention of the murder of Walter Lübcke as a clear indication of the author.

Other witnesses said so too.

The accused argues with the judge

Following Wissler, the court on Thursday questioned the vice president of the Itzehoe district court, which had received a bomb threat from the "NSU 2.0" in February 2021.

It stated that explosive devices had been deposited on the building and that large-caliber weapons would be fired on "to prevent the main hearing".

The Vice-President assumes that this meant the proceedings against the former secretary of the Stutthof concentration camp manager, Irmgard F., for which only the indictment had been received at the time.

In 2018, the district court had already received a bomb threat.

The investigating authorities assigned it to André M., who sent threatening letters under the name "National Socialist Offensive", for which the Berlin Regional Court sentenced him in 2020.

The threatening letters from "NSU 2.0" repeatedly refer to André M.

Alexander M., who was accused in Frankfurt, fought again on Thursday with the presiding judge.

He repeatedly interrupted her, ignored her conduct of the procedure and complained that they wanted to incapacitate him.

Even his defenders could hardly stop him.

During a break, the judge sought a personal conversation with him to calm him down.

The Trial Chamber rejected his application to invite a journalist as a witness: the evidence was "completely unsuitable".

Finally, the defendant made further applications that he had written by hand and which then had to be copied for his defense counsel.

In it he requested that the joint plaintiffs be excluded from the proceedings because the alleged crimes were only "petty crimes",

about "anonymous rumblings on the Internet" with the aim of press reporting, which is "riddled with silly jokes".

There was never any real danger.

In addition, M. is applying for a judicial laptop with the investigation files on it.

In the application he again etched against the public prosecutor.

He writes that he has "two excellent lawyers" who have his "complete trust".

Nevertheless, he must "not just sit there dejectedly" and, in the event of a conviction, also declare the waiver of appeal, "as some here would like to have".

The argument allegedly put forward by the public prosecutor's office that M. would gain unjustified advantages over other detainees on remand by using a judicial laptop was countered by the accused with the statement that there were mainly foreigners with little knowledge of German in detention.

A laptop wouldn't do them any good, he said, anyway.

Saying this is not xenophobic, "but a fact".

The press accused M.

in the motion to defame him.

The trial will continue in two weeks.