Earlier this month we reported on the strange death of Walter Lübcke, a local CDU politician in the German city of Kassel. It seemed likely that the murder was a political assassination, but it wasn’t clear who might have been responsible for it, or why it happened.

The German establishment, never one to let a crisis go to waste, has used the killing of Walter Lübcke as an opportunity to target the AfD (Alternative für Deutschland, Alternative for Germany). The two videos below present various aspects of the case as they have appeared in the media in recent days.

Many thanks to MissPiggy for the translations, and to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling. First, a basic account of the murder:

The second video features remarks by Gottfried Curio, a member of the Bundestag for the AfD, about the investigation of the Lübcke murder:

Video transcript #1:

Video transcript #2:

00:02 Yes, ladies and gentlemen, today we had the first briefing by the Federal government

00:05 on preliminary findings in the investigation

00:08 of the Walter Lübcke murder case. Present were the Minister of the Interior,

00:13 the Attorney General and the President of the

00:18 Federal Criminal Agency (BKA) and the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution.

00:22 First, the structure of the investigative commission was explained.

00:25 However, it is important to mention

00:28 this case is more than a few days old. One might have expected perhaps

00:33 to have further investigation results already

00:38 besides the recent confession of the suspect. It can be summarised as follows:

00:44 I differentiated between the facts related to the crime scene

00:48 in the narrower sense and then further facts behind the scenes.

00:53 So, the now-famous second car that drove away from the crime scene. We asked about that.

01:01 There’s a lead that’s being examined due to the unclear witness testimony.

01:06 It isn’t yet quite clear whether this evidence is relevant.

01:11 Then the reports about evidence being destroyed at the crime scene

01:15 by the friend of the son who found the murder victim.

01:19 It was portrayed as though the crime scene did not appear to be

01:23 an act of violence, and thus the changing of the crime scene

01:29 and removing evidence was not perceived as such.

01:33 We had asked whether this is credible. It’s not like a heart attack;

01:38 there was a big puddle of blood which usually suggest something else. That remained obscure.

01:46 The only connection to Stefan E. was found by evaluating biological

01:50 evidence on clothing, DNA evidence.

01:53 Was there any other DNA evidence? As we all know,

01:56 one important question is whether there are other people involved.

01:59 It doesn’t have to be a network. This question was initially

02:03 left unanswered by the responsible BKA representative,

02:08 who made a side glance at the Attorney General. The remaining remarks

02:12 did not bring any further clarification.

02:21

02:25 That’s the best way to formulate it. Any additional connections

02:29 concerning the case remained unclear; for instance,

02:34 whether any connections to Walter Lübcke’s recent fight

02:38 against Mafia structures in his state had been examined.

02:42 Any questions concerning “Combat 18” remained unclear,

02:45 especially concerning the final assessment as to whether

02:48 there were more recent connections. As we all know there is a photograph;

02:52 first there was a positive identification then

02:55 came the retraction. Yes, the alleged person identified as

02:59 Stefan E. in the photo has now come forward and said

03:03 that they were in the photograph, not Stefan E. Nevertheless,

03:08 it is information. Then there’s Andreas T. — as you know,

03:13 this is a person who has already played a dubious role in the NSU

03:17 and has now reappeared here in this case.

03:22 It is already quite difficult to tell who is undercover or an actual supporter

03:28 of the NSU. Now after ten days of investigation,

03:35 even this connection could not be properly explained. So, we dug deeper, asking more questions.

03:40 The minister assured us that he wanted to do everything in his power to bring clarification

03:44 to the case, perhaps releasing the file. We know that the 120-year lock

03:51 on Stephan E.’s file isn’t operationally justifiable as source protection, but

03:58 apparently an attempt to protect something completely different.

04:02 The minister said he would work on it.

04:07 We’ll follow that as it develops. And concerning the question

04:11 of whether people whose names are on the so-called death lists,

04:15 and whether they should be informed or not. In any case,

04:18 up until now that wasn’t always the case, but there are many who believe

04:21 this should be done. Here we also dug deeper. This is seen

04:25 as a worthy initiative and supported in areas where

04:28 Federal responsibility is concerned. That is the current status.

04:32 That is not very much after ten days of investigation.

04:41 Instead we now have speculation about the withdrawal

04:44 of fundamental rights. You don’t need to wonder why

04:47 the police don’t trust the government anymore when

04:51 this is the first idea they come up with to fix vulnerabilities

04:54 in the fight against extremism. Be that as it may,

04:58 I think at the moment this is the investigators’ hour.

05:03 It would be nice if, especially against the background

05:07 of unresolved questions about possible networks

05:10 in the area of right-wing terrorism, one could devote oneself to this with full intensity.

05:16 That is why it is actually regrettable that we have an ever-increasing flow

05:20 of potentially dangerous persons of the Islamist ideological vein and more radicalisation

05:24 in that milieu, which ties up our forces as well.

05:27 Be that as it may, in order to keep up to date, we have agreed

05:31 in the Committee on Internal Affairs

05:35 to meet again in a month’s time to review progress made and

05:41 to shine further light onto the unanswered questions.

05:47 Thank you. The AfD was not the target of criticism about hate postings,

05:51 but what you may be referring to is

05:55 the reposting of the statement from Walter Lübcke,

06:01 that I think is well known: “You could leave the country.”

06:07 A person close to the AfD was told by an ex CDU colleague that they should leave the CDU.

06:16

06:20 Otherwise, what other people commented on under primary posting was a broad rage.

06:27 However, we believe that the undisturbed work

06:33 of an independent opposition parliamentary force is the best reassurance

06:39 that criticism does not result in extra-parliamentary acts of violence or fantasies of violence.

06:47 I believe it’s the best insurance when the parliamentary discourse is intact,

06:56 and if the critical opposition force can do its work unhindered.

07:01 Concerning hate postings, that of course, should be firmly condemned.

07:06 Once again, despite all political differences

07:11 that can occur in a fortified democracy it is absolutely unacceptable that

07:15 this boundary is violated by attacking a person.

07:21 This includes insulting statements about the person or

07:25 the terrible event that has brought us together here today.

07:29 Disputes about political directions must to take place in

07:33 the parliamentary system. That is where they belong and

07:38 that’s the best place for them. I think when that is permitted

07:42 to take place in a genuine and undisturbed manner,

07:45 I think and I hope that we would see less of what we all do not want