The true-crime documentary series consists of 4 episodes. The first episode shows the facts surrounding the assassination of the West German Rohwedder in 1991 who was head of the Treuhand Agency responsible for the privatization of East German companies. The remaining three episodes each investigate one possible scenario for the murder.
1) 3rd generation of RAF (Red Army Faction) - a far-left terrorist organization responsible for a lot of assassinations in the 70s-90s.
The evidence: Even before the assassination Rohwedder was identified as the most likely next target of RAF (but completely failed to protect); A letter of confession of the RAF judged authentic by labs (same print) found at the crime scene; more evidence is left out and only partly mentioned later in the documentary; It is then stated that the style of the assassination was too clean to match previous RAF attacks. Maybe it wasn't a 3rd generation RAF at all but someone using them as scapegoat?
2) Leftovers from the GDR State Security apparatus.
The evidence: Only a professional sniper could have shot Rohwedder - this was not the "style" of the RAF; Motive: State Security and Socialist ideas were abolished with reunification; possible prevention of an "investigation" Rohwedder's into missing millions derived from certain secretely weapon-dealing companies in the GDR
3) A West-German deep-state conspiracy.
The evidence: Again the style of the murder; Motive: Damping the protest-movements in the East and cover-up of own corruption of West German politicians; The attempted arrest 1993 of two 3rd generation RAF terrorists (Wolfgang Grams and Birgit Hogefeld) by the Federal Crimial Agency gone bad (Grams was shot) could have been a cover-up as a lot of evidence got lost in the investigation of the shooting of Grams which is suspicious. A hair originally found at the Rohwedder crime scene years later with DNA-analysis available was identified as belonging to Grams but could have been planted. (The other RAF-member Hogefeld who survived is somehow not even mentioned anymore in the documentary; Despite the hair it doesn't really go on to discuss whether Grams was responsible for the assassination of Rohwedder)
As a West German born after reunification myself I find this time very interesting, but the criminal investigation part of the documentary was quite disappointing. Some of the interviews and newspaper clips were interesting at least and gave a good general impression of the time, also from lots of different perspectives.
However about the investigated crime in the end there were just more speculations and dramatic music than actual facts. Three scenarios were presented for the viewer to decide although only the first was supported by any real evidence. WHY was the hair not mentioned earlier? Yes, in the investigation timeline it comes last but the episodes are structured in scenarios not as timeline. Also in the second episode they stated the crime was so clean and they didn't leave any evidence and it therefore didn't look like typical RAF attacks. And in the last episode you suddenly hear they had a HAIR in evidence all along and the DNA was actually MATCHED with someone from the RAF and somehow this feels completely irrelevant for the series. Sure they couldn't analyze the DNA in 1991 but from today's standpoint the hair - assuming it wasn't planted - makes Grams the assassin or at least present during the assassination. How is it then possible I know basically nothing about him after watching the four episodes? He seems pretty central to the solution of the crime to me.. Was he a good enough sniper? Also his partner Hogefeld who survived would know if he was involved - did she ever comment on this? Aren't they at least the proof that the 3rd generation RAF existed and wasn't a false-flag operation? These are some of the obvious questions I had.
So overall the documentary could have been done a lot better giving less space to the conspiracy theories and more to the facts. This series is better suited if you are more interested in the time than the crime - in this sense I understand some of the positive reviews.
1) 3rd generation of RAF (Red Army Faction) - a far-left terrorist organization responsible for a lot of assassinations in the 70s-90s.
The evidence: Even before the assassination Rohwedder was identified as the most likely next target of RAF (but completely failed to protect); A letter of confession of the RAF judged authentic by labs (same print) found at the crime scene; more evidence is left out and only partly mentioned later in the documentary; It is then stated that the style of the assassination was too clean to match previous RAF attacks. Maybe it wasn't a 3rd generation RAF at all but someone using them as scapegoat?
2) Leftovers from the GDR State Security apparatus.
The evidence: Only a professional sniper could have shot Rohwedder - this was not the "style" of the RAF; Motive: State Security and Socialist ideas were abolished with reunification; possible prevention of an "investigation" Rohwedder's into missing millions derived from certain secretely weapon-dealing companies in the GDR
3) A West-German deep-state conspiracy.
The evidence: Again the style of the murder; Motive: Damping the protest-movements in the East and cover-up of own corruption of West German politicians; The attempted arrest 1993 of two 3rd generation RAF terrorists (Wolfgang Grams and Birgit Hogefeld) by the Federal Crimial Agency gone bad (Grams was shot) could have been a cover-up as a lot of evidence got lost in the investigation of the shooting of Grams which is suspicious. A hair originally found at the Rohwedder crime scene years later with DNA-analysis available was identified as belonging to Grams but could have been planted. (The other RAF-member Hogefeld who survived is somehow not even mentioned anymore in the documentary; Despite the hair it doesn't really go on to discuss whether Grams was responsible for the assassination of Rohwedder)
As a West German born after reunification myself I find this time very interesting, but the criminal investigation part of the documentary was quite disappointing. Some of the interviews and newspaper clips were interesting at least and gave a good general impression of the time, also from lots of different perspectives.
However about the investigated crime in the end there were just more speculations and dramatic music than actual facts. Three scenarios were presented for the viewer to decide although only the first was supported by any real evidence. WHY was the hair not mentioned earlier? Yes, in the investigation timeline it comes last but the episodes are structured in scenarios not as timeline. Also in the second episode they stated the crime was so clean and they didn't leave any evidence and it therefore didn't look like typical RAF attacks. And in the last episode you suddenly hear they had a HAIR in evidence all along and the DNA was actually MATCHED with someone from the RAF and somehow this feels completely irrelevant for the series. Sure they couldn't analyze the DNA in 1991 but from today's standpoint the hair - assuming it wasn't planted - makes Grams the assassin or at least present during the assassination. How is it then possible I know basically nothing about him after watching the four episodes? He seems pretty central to the solution of the crime to me.. Was he a good enough sniper? Also his partner Hogefeld who survived would know if he was involved - did she ever comment on this? Aren't they at least the proof that the 3rd generation RAF existed and wasn't a false-flag operation? These are some of the obvious questions I had.
So overall the documentary could have been done a lot better giving less space to the conspiracy theories and more to the facts. This series is better suited if you are more interested in the time than the crime - in this sense I understand some of the positive reviews.