The Curious Case of the Murder of Walter Lübcke

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:

00:03   In mid-June, Stephan E. (45) from Kassel was arrested by special police units as being “under urgent suspicion”
00:12   in the Walter Lübcke murder case. He has been in custody ever since. The accusation against Stephan E.
00:17   is apparently based solely on one flake of his skin found on Lübcke’s clothes.
00:22   However, several people have voiced their doubts about this crime being committed by the radical right or Stephan E.
00:29   “I can’t imagine that it was Stephan. There must be higher powers in the game,” ex-undercover agent
00:35   Benjamin G. said to the Bild Newspaper. Between 2003 and 2006, Benjamin G. was an undercover agent for
00:42   the Hessian Office of Domestic Intelligence. Even Rainer Hahne, Lübcke’s best friend, also expresses his concerns in
00:47   an interview with “Die Welt” that Stephan E. was the perpetrator. Hahne, is quoted saying, “the culprit was
00:53   someone who knew Walter. He would have never let a stranger come that close,
00:59   up onto his porch in the middle of the night.” The paramedic Florian A. was arrested one week after the crime
01:04   by SEK at the North Sea port of Harlesiel. However, he was released a short time later, according to other media reports.
01:12   But why was Florian A. arrested a week after the crime? Lübcke’s neighbours told Die Welt
01:18   that the paramedic, Florian A., was wiping away the blood from the terrace.
01:23   The “Welt” article states that this was done in order to spare the family the sight.
01:28   However, important evidence may have been removed. Florian A., who has Bosnian roots and is said to be friends
01:35   With Lübcke’s son, and the buyer of a “scrap property” that originally belonged to Lübcke.
01:41   So in many respects there is the possibility that this crime may not have a right-wing radical motive.
01:46   Instead the perpetrator could come from Lübcke’s private sphere, and a private motive
01:49   must also be considered in Lübcke’s murder case.

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.
02:25   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.
06:20   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
07:49   to see, namely extra-parliamentary violence.

2 thoughts on “The Curious Case of the Murder of Walter Lübcke

  1. No nitpicking intended, but Lübcke was not a politician in its own rights but a highranked civil servant appointed( with the help of his political affiliation) to lead a structure within a Land of about the size of 7-10 counties ,thus commanding ca. 1500 employees. So he was not a publically probable target.
    My compassion was limited however: in a public assembly at a town he explained that people who do not share common values (topic context here: lodging of 400 culture enrichers in town) might better leave the country.To wit: he said this to a german audience!He was booed!

  2. Breivik (who wanter to kill Gro Harlem Brundtland), Jo Cox and Lübcke. Is a pattern forming againt multi-kulti politicians ?

Comments are closed.