During such "exhibitions", ROTHAUG delivered eloquent speeches to "educate the people politically", so that, in actual fact, the court procedure was more like a propaganda meeting. These statements contain the whole truth and were recorded under no compulsion whatsoever. I have read it, signed and have sworn to it under oath.
(signed Robert RAUH)
Before Henry Einstein.
Nuremberg, 16 December 1946 The prosecution offers document NG 526 as Exhibit 225 THE PRESIDENT:
The document will be admitted.
MR. KING: We invite the Court to turn now to page 68 in the English, page 72 in the German text. We introduce this document, NG 662, which when formally offered will become Prosecution's exhibit 226. This is the affidavit of Dr. Josef Mayer.
"I, Dr. jr. Josef Mayer, former Amtsgerichtsrat in Nuernberg, Brucknerstr. 26, declare the following under oath:
"In the spring of 1943 I was appointed to the Public Prosecuting Authority in Nuernberg. Counter to my express wishes put before the President of the Appellate Court Deebig, the General Prosecutor Dr. Bems and the Chief Public Prosecutor Dr. Schroeder, I was transferred to Department I of the Public Prosecuting Authority as Referent, where the Special Court cases were dealt with . I served there from spring 1943 to the end of the war. In February 1944 I became ill with recurring severe haemorrhage which prevented me from working, with one interruption, until August 1944. In August 1945 I was discharged from the Legal Service by the Military Government, Nuernberg."
We turn non to the top of page 69 in the English test which is on page 73 in the German. This paragraph begins immediately with:
"My immediate superior at the Public Prosecuting Authority was Chief Public Prosecutor Dr. Schroeder, a friend of Rothaug, with whom I had many differences of opinion and arguments in the course of my work. On occasions this went so far, that Dr. Schroeder gave to other advisers cases on the treatment of which we could come to no agreement.
"The President of the Special Court at the time was Landgerichtsdirektor Dr. Faerber, who was succeeded by Direktor of the Country Oeschey towards the end of the year 1943. The latter was obviously of Rothaug's school. Outwardly he gave the impression of being morose and unrelenting. I cannot remember ever having had a personal conversation with him. As a rule he began the proceedings with a preconceived opinion to which he adhered. Anyone who tried to oppose this opinion was overridden by him in the most brutal way. He insulted the defendants all the time in a most offensive manner, informing them repeatedly all the way through, what he intended to do with them. He had an extensive vocabulary of invectives for that purpose, the use of which he developed to a fine art. According to whether the evidence suited him, he also used this method on the witnesses. He scarcely gave the lawyers an opportunity to take part in the proceedings and interrogations, and if they attempted to do so ho not infrequently worked himself up into a state of animosity against them.
"It was literally tormenting if one had to listen to this tirade often for hours at a time. When his face became distorted into a repulsive mask by his continual scolding and abusive language.
Faust's words to Mephistopheles would often quite involuntarily come to my mind: "The assistant judges merely played the role of lay-figures. They scarcely ever put any questions, and so did not show their participation in the proceedings.
"Whenever Oeschey became particularly excited, he not infrequently interrupted the proceedings at the end of the hearing of witnesses in order to summon the representative of the Public Prosecuting Authority to the consultation room and inform him in commanding tones of his opinion on the case and the sentence they should ask for. His wishes had then to be complied with.
"Of course, the extraordinary conditions of war stood Oeschey in good stead, as a fanatical National Socialist so that he could pronounce verdicts with statistical severity which were unsupportable from a purely human point of view. It was obvious that ho never allowed himself to be dissuaded from doing what he wished from any legal considerations. He was known, as a fanatical exponent of the extermination idea, which applied mainly to foreigners? In order, to illustrate his severity matters of punishment more particularly, I would like to quote the following cases:" Some of the following cases we do not wish to refer to.
We turn to Page 71 in the English text, which comes close to the top of Page 76 in the German:
"Frieda Bayer, a female pedlar from the Noumarkt district, had succecded after the air raid on Nuremberg on 11 August 1943 in getting parents amounting to 1000 RM from the office for war damage on false pretences, although she had only lost a few brushes. She had provided herself with an identity card, saying she had lost everything, and had obtained under false pretences payments in advance from several agencies of the office for war damage. In doing so she had continuously increased the figures given in the statement about the damage she had suffered. At first she asserted that she had lost the furniture of one room, labor on the furniture of a 2-room flat and of a 4-room flat, until she finally finished up with an 8-room flat, the lost value of which she gave as 40-50,000 RM. In this fashion, as far as I remember she obtained 4-5,000 RM on false pretences. I had worked out the indictment and had proposed in it a sentence of 3-4 years penal servitude. She caused Oeschey to have wild outbreaks of temper, to which he gave vent in long outbursts of abusive language. This ended with Oeschey's remark that the Bayer woman n was a "Gipsy-type" without value and she therefore had to be "exterminated". With this statement, her fate was scaled and Bayer was sentenced to death.
"Adam Pirner of Nuremberg, in 1943 had committed a series of thefts in and outside Nuremberg. In doing so, he had partly taken advantage of the blackout measures. The smaller part of his criminal actions were committed before he reached the ago of 18; most of them afterwards. Pirner had been ruder corrective education from October 1939 to January 1943, but he had not been previously convicted. He was in a reformatory for two years of that time. In his written statement, on 30 August 1943 the court's physician Dr. Baur had declared, that on the available evidence he was not prepared to affirm that Pirner was incapable of improvement. The court declined to discuss the question of Pirner's ability to improve. It maintained that for criminals of his sort there could be no more room in the community.
In view of Pirner's youth there should have been sufficient reason to grant him an opportunity of improvement and probation. Obviously, Pirner fell prey to Oeschey's fanatical desire for extermination."
We skip the next paragraph and begin with the following one, which reads:
"In the case of Fuschsbauer, an automobile thief w s concerned, who stole cars and used them as long as there was gasoline in them, merely to abandon them later at random. The medical export Dr. Kunz summed up in his written judgment of 11 March 1943, as follows: according to his opinion, it could be considered as justified to accept a decreased responsibility for criminal actions as envisaged by art. 51, para II penal code. This opinion, however, was refused as evidence by the court. His presumption is not justified by the facts. For Fuchsbauer, already prior to this trial, had been previously convicted throe times on charges of using cars without authorization. As can be seen from the expert's statement, all these actions were connected with his "feeble minded, extravagant hobby". Apparently Fuchsbauer suffered from some sort of kleptomania as far as cars were concerned, originating from his feeble-mindedness. Obviously Oeschey overlooked this fact on purpose, to be able to pass the death sentence upon Fuchsbauer, because he did not consider him any more as "worthy to live". This is one of those cases in which he distorted the decreased responsibility for a person's criminal actions into a reason for imposing severer punishment".
That statement is signed by Dr. Joseph Mayer, dated 21 January, 1947. The Prosecution offers the document NG 662 as Exhibit 226.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: May we turn to page 79 in the English text or to 84 in the German text. We introduce at this time Document NG 561 which when formally offered will become Prosecution Exhibit 227. Phis is the sworn affidavit of Joseph Eichinger.
"I, Joseph EICHINGER, Nuremberg, Erhardstrasse 15, hereby delare under oath:
"I have been an attorney since 1917, was formerly active in Landau, and since 1934, in Nuremberg. I joined the NSDAP in 1937. In my position as a defense counsel at the Special Court, Nuremberg, I had the opportunity to observe District Court President Oeschey's inhuman manner of conducting proceedings.
"When sometime during 1943 Oeschey became the Presiding Judge of the Special Court of Nuremberg, replacing Rothaug, oven greater severity was introduced in the administration of Justice; the number of death sentences increased. Evidently he adhered to tho rather well-known, though at that time unofficial, instruction of Hitler in which tho courts were advised not to use death sentences sparingly. He applied the severe war measures with particular inhumanity and lack of consideration.
"It was my impression that ho usually entered the court room with the sentence already settled in his mind. His prejudice was so strong that he did not consider seriously the statements of the defense, and dismissed them rudely or ironically. Even during tho trial he reportedly addressed the defendant thus: "People such as you deserve to be exterminated," "You will be convicted", or he called the defendant insulting and humiliating names such as "criminal", "scoundrel", "enemy of the people". In his relations with Oeschey, tho defense counsel was practically powerless. If the party in general was already prejudiced "contra advocates", ho was particularly so. At that time, I hoard about a secret decree of the Reich minister of Justice, but had not seen it, however, which supposedly instructed the judges to supervise the attorneys and to report their "slips" to the proper authorities. As leader of the Gau legal Office and, after the latter's disbanding, as member in the Gau Staff, he enjoyed a special position of power which enabled him to hold tho defense strongly in chock; it was well known that a sign from the Gau authorities, instigated by Oeschey, was sufficient to have a lawyer turned over to the Gestapo.
"In one particular case which I will discuss more fully below, ho hah also restricted my presentation of tho defense. His intentions were entirely political and extremely cruel. I had the impression that no supported, knowingly and willingly, the policy of Hitler to "decimate" aliens, especially Poles, by increasing the number of death sentences against them, regardless of the existence of any lawful obligation. As further indication of Oeschey's attitude I noted that he attempted by means of his sentences to rectify previous sentences against the defendants before him if ho considered these too lenient. This was certainly not legal. At times I had the impression that a defendant would be condemned to death not so much on the basis of his last crime, but on the basis of his previous deeds.
"With reference to particular cases, I would like to mention briefly that the case of Montgelas has already been discussed in another affidavit."
We turn to tho next page, Page 81 in the English text, which comes close to the bottom of Page 86 in tho German, to tho paragraph which begins with the sentence:
"The eases of RIEGELBAUER and FRIEDCHEN arc similar, insofar as both had been sterilized and that in itself was already an extenuating circumstance. RIEGELBAUER was declared (by medical experts) to be a subnormal mental deficient while FRIEDCHEN was declared to be suffering from hereditary feeble-mindedness. These extenuating circumstances were not taken into consideration by OESCHEY either and, accordingly, the death penalty was decreed.
"I also remember the case of a young Pole, although I have forgotten his name. He had been employed in Germany as an agricultural worker for the past two or three years and had been praised by his employer. Once he had had an argument with the maid which was nothing but a verbal battle. During the dispute, however, the Pole had raised a hatchet threateningly, and had put it down again, almost immediately. Nothing further occurred. The Special Court, under the Presidency of OESCHEY, condemned him to death, some time during 1943. I was quite indignant for I considered the sentence ruthless.
"I remember, furthermore, the case of a young Frenchman, the son of a baker from Caen, but I can not recall his name. This youth, with several others, had broken into a summer-resort community several times and had stolon rabbits, geese and similar articles, which ho and his comrades afterwards consumed. He had never been previously convicted. The Special Court, under the Presidency of OESCHEY, condemned him to death some time during the years of 1943-44. At that time, I considered it a cruel sentence and still consider it so today.
"In the case of ZIPPELIUS, I an convinced that OESCHEY restrained no in tho presentation of the defense.
It was my last appearance as defense counsel and tho trial took place on Saturday 14 April 1945 before the Court Martial (Standgericht) of Nuremberg. OESCHEY conducted the proceedings; associate justices wore Gauinspektor HABERKERN and a Wehrmacht officer. A woman witness for the prosecution was heard whoso name I no longer remember. During the main trial, this witness revised the testimony she had made in the course of the preliminary proceedings. This fact was extremely important for me as defense counsel. This witness spoke so quiet that I, at my table, could not understand her, or could hear her with the greatest difficulty only. Therefore I stood up, which, in tho past had always been my custom in such cases; I had frequently done so before and it had never occasioned any objections. Slowly and respectfully, I advanced a few steps, OESCHEY in severe tone ordered me to go back. I explained that from my table, the witness could not be understood. Then he said something of this nature: "I understand the witness well and will repeat loudly what she says." I objected on the grounds of my legal rights to hear tho witness myself, directly. Then he commanded in still harsher tones "Go to your seat." I returned to my place. I considered that, at the time, and still consider it to be an unjust restriction of the defense. I was so filled with anxiety during those days, that I did not dare to voice my opinion further, especially since, just a few days before, I had experienced such unpleasantness with OESCHEY concerning the MONTGELAS case. I believed him capable of anything."
That statement is signed by Joseph Eichinger on 19 December 1946. The prosecution now offers as Exhibit 227 the Document NG-561.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: We turn now to page 84 in the English text or 89 in the German. This is an affidavit of Herbert Lipps.
"I, Dr. Herbert Lipps, domiciled in Neustadt/Aisch, Bambergerstrasse 1, born on 30 July 1911, being duly sworn, depose and state:" "We skip the next two paragraphs.
"During my activities at the Special Court of Nuremberg , I was subordinate to Landesgerichtsdirektor OESCHEY. When, during a hearing I was nominated as assistant judge, the documents were not available to me and I was loft to arrive at my own conclusion during the trial. OESCHEY was of the opinion that only he had to be acquainted with the case from the documents and he considered the assistant judges as a necessary evil. He directed the session in an autocratic manner and would not tolerate nay contradiction no matter from where it came. He treated defense counsels haughtily during the trial and considered their evidence as unnecessarily delaying the trial and as contempt of his person. Defendants were insulted by OESCHEY in the most abusive manner and death candidates were told by OESCHEY right at the beginning of the session that they had forfeited the life. I considered it a humiliation of one's jurisdicial character to have to assist at a trial presided over by OESCHEY.
"STROBEL was indicted for a political utterance under Par. 2. The first trial was discontinued because no defense counsel had been assigned to the defendant. The president, however, deemed capital punishment necessary for the man with serious previous convictions. During the deliberations with the prosecutor, OESCHEY expressed this opinion.
In the course of the second trial OESCHEY pointed out to the defendant that he really ought to have been sentenced to death already after a previous case and that for such men as he there was no longer a place in the community."
We now skip the next three paragraphs and begin with the last paragraph on page 85 which is on page 90 of the German text. The paragraph reads:
"Towards foreigners, particularly Poles, Oeschey was especially rigorous and here upheld the National Socialist theory of liquidating where nationals of the occupied territories were concerned. I remember a case in which a Polish farmhand was ill treated by his employer and defended himself. Oeschey told the defendant that a Pole was not allowed to oppose a German. He further pointed nut that the country people must be fried from such terrorizing individuals and that capital punishment would be required for the protection of the community. I considered the sentence a monstrous one which was unjustifiable."
This statement is signed by Dr. Herbert Lipps, Landesgerichtsrat. We now offer as Exhibit 228 the Document NG-577.
Your Honor, do I remember incorrectly or has not the last exhibit been received into evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: I am not sure. I will receive it now. Document may be received in evidence.
MR. KING: Thank you. We turn to page 87 in the English text, page 91 in the German. The prosecution at this time introduces the Document NG-650 which will become when formally offered, Exhibit 229. This is a sworn affidavit of Dr. Franz Gros.
"I, Dr. Franz Gros, formerly Landesgerichtsrat, here by declare under oath:
"Soon after ROTHAUG's transfer, in April 1943, OESCHEY became the presiding judge of the Special Court in Nuernberg In general OESCHEY followed ROTHAUG's traces. He was rude and vulgar in his conduct of trials. He even went so far as to shout "you swine" at a defendant who was accused of having had forbidden relationship with a prisoner of war. But this was not the only case of that kind. OESCHEY's jurisdiction followed the political line which ROTHAUG had initialed. In fundamental questions, he would not permit even us, the assistant judges, to divert him from his prejudice. When he was contradicted, he became at once rude. I am convinced , that in case of an open broach with one of the assistant judges, he would not have hesitated to make use of all his political connections. Due to his prominent position in the National Socialist Jurists' League he was constantly in contact with high political officials. OESCHEY almost put into a concentration camp the attorney MUELLER of Nuernberg, because of a statement in his plea, which did not suit him or which appeared to him to be politically derogative. The attorney MUELLER told me so himself. It may be worth mentioning that OESCHEY never, or only very rarely, used to inform us, the assistant judges, about the results of the "guidance" conferences with the public prosecution, as he should have done. Thus one can see, that ho regarded assistant judges more or loss as fillers. In the severity of his sentences he did not differ from ROTHAUG and in this respect he was a deserving representative of the bloody justice administration of the Nazi regime.
"I should like to mention the following cases in order to illustrate his sadistic severity:
The case against KAMINSKA and WDOWEN, concerned two foreigners, who had been working in Germany as farm laborers. KAMINSKA, a 40-year old woman, was accused of having beaten a German soldier and of having threatened his life. The last accusation was founded on the allegation that the Polish woman had intended to kill the soldier with a stone weighing half a pound. In order to be able to justify this opinion legally, OESCHEY had to display considerable imagination. The Polish woman, who had slapped the soldier after a heated discussion, had later, when she unexpectedly met him, thrown a stone at him, without, however, actually hitting him. The following day KAMINSKA had already forgotten about it; she was arrested while working in the fields. Her friend WDOWEN now followed the police official, who was taking the arrested KAMINSKA with him, to the prison cell. There he threw himself on both of them and embraced KAMINSKA with both arms, so that at first the police official could not imprison her; he only succeeded in this with the help of more persons. These relatively harmless circumstances were described by OESCHEY , in the case of KAMINSKA, as a crime of violence and, in the case of WDOWEN, as an act on behalf of a "public enemy" in the sense of paragraph 4 of tho decree against "public enemies" in connection with resistance to the state authority and the attempt to liberate a prisoner.
Thus both defendants had to be condemned to death. Just like ROTHAUG, CESCHEY demanded the severest countermeasures by tho state in such and similar cases, and ho justified this demand by saying that in war time the public security had to be guaranteed under any circumstances. Ho accociate judges were powerless towards such an attitude. It must be mentioned that none of tho defendants had criminal records and that they were eliminated in a most objectionable way by OESCHEY for racial and political reasons Both were executed."
We turn now to the top of page 90 in the English text whch is on tho bottom of page 93 in the German:
"RIEGELBAUER, who had a criminal record, was sentenced to death on OESCHEY's insistence as "public enemy" and as a dangerous habitual criminal. He had pilfered some pieces of a driving-bolt and other things from a bomb damaged factory and some clothes from the unoccupied apartment of his landlady who had moved out. This time OESCHEY again insisted upon the highest penalty although there were extenuating circumstances in favor of tho defendant because of his innate feeble-mindedness. OESCHEY w as of the opinion, that just because of this mental defect, the defendant could not serve tho community and therefore had to be eliminated. RIEGELBAUER was sentenced to death and executed."
"Tho case regarding FRIEDCHEN deals to a certain extent with a similar personality. He too, had a criminal record and had boon sterilized because of feeble-mindedness. But it must be mentioned as, as special fact, that FRIEDCHEN's last offense was still smaller than RIEGELBAUER's. FRIEDCHEN was sentenced to death and executed for pilfering old clothes worth 30.
-RM."
We turn now to the middle of page 91 in tho English, which comes near the top cf page 95 in the German:
"The ease of GIANI SALA concerned foreigners who were accused cf three burglaries. It should be mentioned, that tho main defendant, BERTRAND, was shot during his capture. Altogether 6 persons were accused. One of them was BERTRAND'S German girl friend LEIGEBER. The defendants were convicted as accomplices to a theft committed by BERTRAND. Evidence cf an unambiguous nature, proving the guilt cf tho defendants in the two other thefts could not be obtained. OESCHEY took two objects found in the apartment of the defendants as evidence that both burglaries had been committed by GIANT and SALA. It must be considered, that, while both robberies were extensive , only a linen bag and a towel, things of a very small value, had been recognized by the owners. It must be mentioned in this connection that, tho two main defendants occupied an apartment together with BERTRAND and that tho suspicion at least should have fallen on BERTRAND, especially since ho was known as a burglar. For OESCHEY it was sufficient that GIANI and SALA were friends cf Bertrand, and the fact that they were foreigners particularly induced Oeschey to cast aside all objections serviced by no, and to condemn them both to death. Both were executed."
The statement is signed by Dr. Franz Gros.
We at this time introduce tho Document NG 650 as Prosecution Exhibit 229.
THE PRESIDENT: Tho document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: We turn now to page 97 in tho English text, or to page 101 in tho German text. This document, NG 664 which we will introduce at this time will become, when formally offerod into evidence, the Prosecution's Exhibit 230.
This is a sworn affidavit of Dr. Hermann Kroher.
"I, Dr. Hermann KROHER, lawyer in Nuremberg, Koenigstrasse 2, hereby declare under oath:"
"Being an attorney in Nuremberg, I often acted as a defense counsel at tho Special Court during tho years 19391944, under the presiding judges ROTHAUG and OESCHEY. I have to state at the onset that the position cf defense counsel was a very difficult and delicate one. A counsel could not plead freely. He even had to be afraid cf getting into trouble with the Gestapo, should he express his views freely without considering the State. He was hampered in the execution of his functions. A defense counsel was often appointed such a short time before the trial that ho could not study the case seriously; a thorough interview with the defendants was not feasible either."
"As a defense counsel I was treated stringently, but correctly, by tho presiding justices during sessions. On the other hand, other colleagues repeatedly complained to me about the inadmissible interference and bad treatment on the part of presiding judges. I, myself, once was reprimanded during a session for a remark I had made. I was denounced for this remark at the Public Prosecutor's office; I learned that this donounciation might have oven resulted in my exclusion from the Bar. Thanks to my friend and colleague. Senior Public Prosecutor Dr. Georg ENGERT, this was not carried cut. As far as I know, a report was oven sent to the Ministry of Justice in Berlin on tho matter. Public Prosecutor MARKL started proceedings against me based on the "Heimtueckegesetz" (Law against Malicious Attacks on State and Party). I was ordered to pay a fine cf 500 Hark by our Association of Attorneys."
"All this shows that a lawyer could only plead with extreme caution and restraint and that the interests of tho defendants naturally suffered. It was extremely difficult to make ROTHAUG and OESCHEY accept any evidence for the defense. There was hardly any time to prepare such evidence sufficiently. A typical example of this was the case of BACHHUBER. I was of the opinion that this was a conflict between BACHHUBER and KOHLBAUER which should be dealt with according to Civil Law.
BACHHUBER had allegedly embozzled KOHLBAUER's money and had carelessly handled tho work with which KOHLBAUER had entrusted him."
"It is possible that BACHHUBER did not carry out this work as carefully as he should have done. There exists no proof however, that he had the necessary knowledge for suck work. Regarding the question of embezzlement, BACHHUBER was of the opinion that first, he was entitled to the sun he kept as his salary; secondly, that he was in a position to refund this amount at any time. I offered evidence on this point, furnished by BACHHUBER's wife, but such evidence was not admitted. OESCHEY was of the opinion that a nan who had boon kept in security detention and who had been sentenced once before, was a criminal and had to be sentenced to death. I am of the opinion that suck a verdict should not have boon pronounced and that the evidence which I offered should have been heard."
We now turn to the middle of page 100; that is page 104 in the German text. It begins with the second sentence from the bottom of the last full paragraph on page 100.
"It was particularly surprising that OESCHEY convicted especially foreigners with severe punishments. One had the impression that he saw these foreigners the ring-leaders of an underground movement, cf which nobody else was aware, except for Mr. OESCHEY."
"In this connection I remember that I defended a few foreigners who had brought into circulation some food coupons dropped by allied planes. In this case it could not be proved either that the foreigners know that the food coupons and been dropped by allied planes. They found these coupons and naturally, they exchanged them for goods. OESCHEY considered this natural behavior of the foreigners, who were quite unaware that it was a punishable act, as political sabotage, directed against the Reich. Thus he satisfied his sadistic desire to exterminate foreigners."
"ROTHAUG and OESCHEY wore fanatical exponents cf National Socialist principles, void of any human fooling. They looked upon every deed on trial before them from a political point of view. In court they treated defendants badly, one can cay abominably. Remarks such as "We shall put your head at your feet," or, "we shall show you how to exterminate criminals", or "we shall not tolerate that you should cause another 1918, occurred daily, and during the interrogation cf tho defendants those remarks pointed to the fact that a death sentence had to be expected. An outward criterion for a death sentence which had to be expected was seen in the fact, too, that such trials were scheduled for Jury Court No. 600 by ROTHAUG and OESCHEY."
"Even if Presidents ROTHAUG and OESCHEY wanted to inflict severe penalties because of their National Socialist mentality, it could be expected from an impartial and human Presiding Judge to treat the defendants properly and correctly. There was no human impulse either in ROTHAUG or OESCHEY. They were brutal in their attitude and behavior towards the defendants, as well as in their verdicts.
This statement is signed by Dr. Hermann Kroher.
We offer now in evidence, the document NG 664, as Exhibit 230.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence. And we will have the adjournment for the day at this time until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 3 April 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 3 April 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you will please ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of defendants Rothaug and Engert who are absent through illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The proper notation will be made.
Are we ready to proceed with the cross examination of the witness at this time?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Mr. Marshal, will you please call the witness Ferber at this time.
(The Marshal summoned the witness.)
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Tribunal, I would ask you to allow me to begin this cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL (for defendant Rothaug):
Q. Witness, where do you live in Nuernberg?
A. Hofstrasse 37.
Q. Was there in Nuernberg at the court here a judge or a public prosecutor of the same name?
A. Of the same name as myself or Rothaug?
Q. Between 1937 and 1945?
A. Who was it supposed to be, Rothaug or myself?