'Zschäpe has actually said nothing'

DW: Beate Zschäpe's voice was heard for the first time on the 313th day of her trial. What kind of message was the defendant sending to the court by making a statement at such a late date?

Ernst Fricke: In my view, it was not a statement at all, but instead, a fairly general declaration. A statement would have meant commenting on the charges. She did not do that. 

…but she still may?

I am not a clairvoyant. I just think she deliberately made the declaration. And if she wanted to talk about the offenses, she could have done it today. She had enough time to prepare and think about whether or not she wants to say something. Today, there was no statement regarding the charges.

Today she condemned what Uwe Mundlos and Uwe Böhnhard did to their victims. Does she want to lay all the blame for the 10 murders on those two?

One must be very cautious about that. Even this comment is fairly general. She did not assume any guilt. She did not say, "We did awful things." Instead, she said she condemned Mundlos and Böhnhard for what they did to their victims. In this respect, the question only refers to the two men, her former friends. She did not respond as the accused. She did not respond to the charges against her.

She said she had once agreed with National Socialist ideas, but she added that that is no longer the case. Does that sound like a clarification or tactics?

Both are possible. The question of tactics must remain open. The question of clarification must also remain open. These are words that may sound interesting but they have no depth. 

What kind of strategy are defense lawyers pursuing when they advise their client to remain silent for nearly three and half years?

I do not know what the defense team's strategy is. No one does and that is why one can only speculate. Through the media and Beate Zschäpe's requests to the court it has become known that her three public defenders recommended from the beginning that she say nothing.

The two additional defense lawyers who joined in later are much more communicative. They have read out the questions answered by Zschäpe. But I doubt there is a great change of strategy behind this. She has actually said nothing concrete.

Zschäpe now has five defense lawyers who are apparently are not coordinating their action. What do you think is happening behind the scenes?

I suspect that what one reads in the media is true: the defense lawyers, meaning the first three assigned and then new public defender and his colleague, do not really discuss anything together and have very few common strategies. The defense team is not communicating better behind the scenes - at least that's impression you get in the courtroom

Zschäpe said she regrets "her own misconduct." What does that mean for her legally? That she led a terrorist killer group?

I have thought about it and I believe she stated en passant that she may have had something to do with setting fire to the house. She has been accused of arson that can cause bodily harm. Perhaps the "misconduct" means that it was not right to set a house on fire. But you cannot precisely deduce anything. 

Will this make the massive trial come to an end sooner?

No, in my opinion, there is no hope for a speedy end to the trial. She did not say anything of substance. She read half a page and there was little substance to it.

Professor Ernst Fricke has been a lecturer for media law and court reporting since 1989 at Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt. He is the author of the classic German work "Recht für Journalist" ("Law for journalists"). Fricke is a practicing lawyer and has carried out extensive research on the NSU trial.

Volker Wagener conducted the interview.