Investigation Committee No. 2 of the Bundestag lays out his results – to take them seriously bats to take the federal prosecutor’s procedure – only, who should do that? – A comment
"We do not know how it was. But we know that it was not the way it represents the federal prosecutor." The unostated Ratsel NSU can be brought to this formula. And in this way, it also sees the Inquiry Committee of the Bundestag, which now ended his work.
The value of this committee is in political. With his view of the murder complex of the NSU, he has contradicted the Supreme Investigation Instance, the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, and thus nothing less done than to attack the insulation of the executive. That says: all 28 actions – ten murders, three explosives, 15 predator trap – were committed by Uwe Bohnhardt and Uwe Fundlos alone, without help of local third parties, support only from Beate Zschape.
It had to have been more taders
No, replied the Federal Tag’s Investigation Committee, the two- or. Three-tader theory is not durable. It had to have been more taders. It must have given helpers in the acts. And it is also conceivable that Bohnhardt, mouthless, Zschape, the so-called NSU-nuclear trio, was not involved in all offenses.
Three times sowing representative of the Federal Prosecutor in front of this committee. Three times it came to the direct meeting of the antagonists in terms of NSU declaration. No times the proclaimers from Karlsruhe were able to assert their two-tader theory against the doubts of the parliamentarians. Although it knows all the files, all determination steps determined, these authorities can not answer many questions about the NSU. Once you can see that there are also questions you do not want to answer. The Federal Prosecutor’s Office has failed on the Bundestag committee, one could say.
However, the committee has failed – in turn, by the Federal Prosecutor’s Office like the federal letter protection. Expression of a stalemation between enema and cover-up, which has been anhalt for five years.
But reason enough to reinstate an NSU examination committee in the next legislative period.
"We do not know how it was"
Two sets that are suitable to change the entire investigative factory of the criminal traces in terms of NSU: "We do not know how it was." This sentence is an incorporation of failure after five years of apprenticeship. He documents the knowledge about his own ignorance. But he also means: everything is open.
The second sentence – "We know that it was not the way it represents the federal prosecutor" – Ends an assertion. The official NSU version. He accuses the investigation apparatus in the best case of influence, in the worst of manipulation.
You can not go over to the agenda.