After temporary employment with the city administration, which dismissed him in October 1933, because of his insufficient knowledge of the Polish language, the defendant opened a notions store and later a grocery store, which he ran until March 1940. On 1 April 1940 he was employed by the Social Insurance Society in Lodz. There he was last employed as a Sub-section Chief."
MR. KING: We now skip down to the fourth paragraph from the one I have just finished reading. It is on the same page in the English text.
"In fact, however, the defendant did not abandon his Marxist attitude, which is a complete rejection of National Socialism. For he misused his position as Sub-section Chief with the Social Insurance Society in Lodz to influence his female German subordinates, by malicious and defeatist statements, against the state and to destroy their faith in ultimate German victory. This was especially the case with the employees Maria Muenzger, Edith Reigel, Irma Gietzel, Ursula Wolf and Else Jede. From the beginning of 1943 on he carried on such violent propaganda in his office against the National Socialist state, the German soldiers and our conduct of the war, that finally the office employee Maria MUENZGER, Obviously under his influence, followed in his footsteps.
"One of the phrases often used by the defendant, when he was indulging in some criticism of our circumstances, was:
"'That could happen only in the Third Reich!"' "When small fish were distributed to the population at the beginning of 1943:
"'This is the paradise food in the Third Reich!'" "Concerning the occupation of southern France by German troops after Darlan's treachery, the defendant said:
"'What does it matter, now ROMMEL will get what's coming to him.'
"When Wehrmacht communiques transmitted the news that a large number of Bolshevik tanks had been put out of action, he would say to his associates:
"'Even if this should be true - so what? Mostly the German soldiers run as soon as they see the Russians coming."' "Once he asked the employee Ursula WOLF whether she believed everything that was shown her in the German newsreel.
When she answered that she did, he told her that all the pictures shewn were taken on maneuvers, as one never saw a dead German soldier.
"The defendant also repeatedly expressed his annoyance at the fact that the employee REIGEL was engaged to a German officer. About the end of July or the beginning of August 1943, he made the following remarks concerning REIGEL's fiance who was at that time in Lodz, wounded:
"'He will get it, no matter how the war ends. The officers will be brought back in chains just as they were in 1918.'
"At about the same time the defendant, in the presence of his employees, compared World War I with this war, declaring:
"'The soldiers of this war will not fare better than cur soldiers in the first World War.'
"At the end of July 1943 shortly after the capture of the Duce, the employee MUENZGER told the defendant at their place of work:
"'You are working very hard; are you afraid of being responsible for our defeat?'
"The defendant answered:
"'I wouldn't mind being responsible for that.'
"When the employee MUENZGER asked him whether he thought it would be pleasant if the Russians or the English were to invade the country, the defendant answered that that would not be at all bad.
"When the employee WOLF once pointed out in the section that the National Socialist state had done a lot for the workers, the defendant countered that the Communists had also cared for the workers, but that German propaganda did not allow these facts to become known.
"At the end of August 1943, plans for a birthday party for the fellow worker REIGEL were discussed. Edith REIGEL suggested that this was not the right time for any celebrations and that one ought to wait for the victorious ending of the war first.
"The defendant then said:
"'You won't feel like going in for any celebrations at that time. You can be glad if you have time to pack your bundle and clear out - that is, if you are still alive.'
"When, on 2 September 1943, the announcement that men born in 1884 and after would be called up was being discussed, the defendant said:
"'Yes, Germany already has to draw upon her ole men, while Russia has still rot plenty of young ones. I can not see why many people are still blinc enough to believe in victory. I wish other people were as clearsighted as I am.'
"The defendant admits only that he has occasionally made this remark:
"'A thing like this could happen only in the Third Reich'; but he firmly denies having made the other statements. He claims to have been misunderstood. Nevertheless he is unable to repeat his actual words or state how he was misunderstood by the witnesses. This alone shows that his assertion is untrue. The clear and credible testimony of the witnesses Edith REIGEL, Irma GIETZEL, Ursula WOLF, and Else JEDE prove beyond doubt that the defendant made these statements. These witnesses made an excellent impression when examined. Their testimony at the trial was identical with their earlier statements made to the State Police. No reason whatever could be found - or suggested even by the defendant - why the witnesses should have wrongly incriminated him. They made their statements clearly and firmly, so that there is no possibility of a misunderstanding. The witnesses also reported that the defendant made use of every opportunity which presented itself to emphasize his anti-German attitude."
"In addition to undermining the military potential, the defendant is also guilty of giving aid to the enemy. For anyone who tried to destroy cur home front and paralyze cur will to hold out firmly until final victory, in so doing helps our enemies and weakens our own fighting strength. Considering the intelligence and the previous political activity cf the defendant, as well as his consequent insight, he was aware of all these facts. By the insidious agitation described above, the defendant proved himself to be a dangerous, defeatist, subversive agitator. The fact that he most infamously misused his position as Sub-section Chief for his criminal activity is of special weight.
He directed his dirty attacks against young Germans, and they did not remain without influence on one of his subordinates (MUENZGER). To him nothing was sacred, neither the glory of a Field Marshal ROMMEL nor the honor of the German soldier.
He who - like the defendant - undermines the home front in 1943, i.e. at a time when the German nation is fighting a severe battle for its existence deserves death. This sentence, with which undermining the military potential is threatened by law, is therefore pronounced by the People's Court against the defendant.
MR. KING: be call attention to the fact that the opinion, portions of which we have just read was signed and initialed by the following of our present defendants: Lautz, Barnickel and Rothaug. This appears on pare 93 of the English document book. We also call your attention to the matter on page 94 of the English text, signed by Dr. Mettgenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat those names again.
MR. KING: Yes, on page 93. "To the Reich Chief Prosecutor, Lautz."
THE PRESIDENT: Lautz's name does not appear thereon.
MR. KING: No, it is not spelled cut. However Lautz was the Reich Chief Prosecutor at that time. Further on down is Barnickel and Rothaug. And the letter on page 94 which I have already referred to, is a letter signed by Dr. Mettgenberg, regarding the execution of the accused.
We, at this time, offer as Exhibit 140, Document NG-377.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
Unless the next document will be a short one we will not continue further this afternoon.
MR. KING: I had been considering that, Your Honor; the next document is a short one consisting of one page. I think we can get it under the dead-line.
As Exhibit 141, the Prosecution desires to introduce, at this time, Document NG-564 which appears on page 96 in the English text and 125 in the German text, document book 3-C. I also with to point out in this connection, with this document, that the initial of Dr. Rothenberger, defendant Rothenberger, appears on that document, although it does not show on the English mimeographed copy, and I am not sure it shows on the German, but it is revealed upon examination of the original photostat.
Reich Minister of Justice Leader information bulletin 1943 No.On 18 October 1943 Guenter Paschen, retired navy captain from Flensburg, was sentenced to death by the People's Court for assisting the enemy and for undermining the morale of the Army.
Paschen, whose family on his mother's side comes from Denmark and who is married to an English girl, has taken part during the World War in the Skagerrak and later on in the Finland Battles. Last, he was liaison officer with General von der Goltz. Having retired after the collapse, he was a naval training officer from 1926 - 1936.
Paschen, who since receiving his pension is a resident of Flensburg, and who moves in the circles of the Danish minority had a political discussion at the end of August 1943 with two Danes unknown to him, who wanted to rent a furnished room in his house. He then expressed the view that he did not believe in a German victory and that he thought that the secret weapons were a propaganda bluff. Furthermore, he stated that Denmark had been treated unjustly in 1864 and that the Reich must give Schleswig back to Denmark.
One of the Danes adopted these views as his own and tried to shake the confidence in victory cf a woman naval auxiliary, with whom he was connected.
The sentence will be executed.
MR. KING: Signed "Dr. Franke" and dated November 1943. As Exhibit 141 the prosecution desires to offer formally the document NG 546.
DR. DOETZER: Dr. Doetzer for the defendant Dr. Rothenberger. I am sorry that at this time I have to protest against the submission of this document. I should like to point to the fact that this document does not bear any signature nor any date. The heading is only the Reich Minister of Justice, Fuehrer information, information for the Fuehrer, and it cannot be seen therefore to whom of the present defendants this refers.
According to the statements of the prosecutor allegedly this document carries an initial of Dr. Rothenberger. There is on the left-hand side cf the document an initial which, however, is not at all Dr. Rothenberger as can be seen by comparing it with the list of initials which have been submitted by the prosecution and may I summarize, therefore, that I challenge the relevancy of this document according to the regulations and that I feel compelled to furthermore point out that this document does not have any signature and that the date is missing and one cannot see whether it ever loft the ministry.
MR. KING: In view of the hour, I wonder if it would not be a good idea to continue the discussion cf this document at the opening of the session tomorrow morning. Then we will knock off introducing it in evidence tonight and reserve it to offer tomorrow morning.
MR. PRESIDENT: We will, therefore, recess at this time until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(A recess was taken until 0930 hours, 25 March 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al., Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 25 March 1947, 0930-1630, Judge Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 3.
Military Tribunal 3 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 present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the court room with the exception of defendants Rothaug and Engert, who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: proper notation will be made. The Prosecution may proceed.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, yesterday upon the introduction of NG-385, which was Exhibit No. 139, the Court, it seemed to the Prosecution, expressed some surprise that the opinion, the verdict in that case, was not signed by the defendant Rothaug although, as the Prosecution stated, Rothaug was highly responsible for the decision reached in that case. The Court noted that at the end of the opinion, on page 25 of tho copy as circulated, there was a note which indicated that director Rothaug of the District Court is prevented by being out of town on official business.
We want at this time to present a snort paragraph from the Penal Code, which has just such a contingency in mind and is so worded that the absence of the judge who presided at the trial is not necessary at the time -- or rather, the signature of the judge who presided at tho trial who may be absent at the time the verdict is announced is not necessary. I would like to read from Article 275 of the Penal Code. It is just a short section. It reads as follows:
"1. The verdict and the reasons are to be included in the case file within one week after sentence is pronounced unless they are already completely taken down in the transcript.
"2. -- and this is the one which is directly apropos to the situation which arose in Document NG-385 -- "it, the opinion, is to be signed by the judges who have participated on the decision. If a judge is prevented to affix his signature, the presiding justice; and if he is prevented, the associate justice with the highest seniority will remark this under the verdict while mentioning the reasons for the absence."
That is what happened in the Grasser case, which is Exhibit 139. Rothaug was absent temporarily from the city and it was signed by another mentioning Rothaug's absence and the reason therefor. That was pursuant to the statute which we have just read.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand that Rothaug later signed this decree, this sentence?
MR. KING: No. As we understand it, he did not later sign the verdict or the opinion, since under the statute he is excused from signing it if ho for a legitimate reason away from the court. However, we wish to point out that we will draw the conclusion as stated yesterday from that case, that Rothaug as the presiding judge in the case is as fully responsible for the results reached as though he had been present and signed the verdict himself We think that is a permissible conclusion in view of Article 275.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, it is just such matters as have now been developed that were in my mind, calling attention to the fact that he was expressly stated to be absent at that time. No further comment will be mad by the Court.
MR. KING: I wonder if at this time we may not turn to Document Book 1-P I believe the representative of the Secretary General has copies in English and German of the Document NG 558.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Only English.
MR. KING: Only English?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Only English; yes, sir.
MR. KING: I observe that the translators do not have copies of the German, and while we are procuring those, I will go on to something else.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. Prosecutor, may I ask what happened to Exhibit 141 which I think you did not finally offer?
MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor, I am going to come to that as the next matter of business. While we are getting the German of 558 let us turn to Document 3-C, Document Book 3-C, and take up the question of the document NG-546 which was introduced but not formally offered as Exhibit 141. That if to be found in Document Book 3-C at Page 96. The Court will recall the facts The document was introduced and it was stated by the Prosecution that while it did not appear on the mimeographed English copy, that the initial of Rothenberger appeared on the photostatic copy. We might have also pointed out, had we felt it was significant at the time, that Vollmer's signature or initial also appears on that document. The counsel for the defendant Rothenberger then objected to the introduction of the document on two grounds, fir** it was his position that the initial which we maintain is Rothenberger's was in fact, not Rothenberger's, as could be determined, he thought, by consulting Exhibit 57, which is NG 886, a document containing the initials of certain members of the Reichsministry of Justice. His second objection was based on the fact that the document was a draft, with no indication of the persons for whom it was intended. And for those reasons he felt that the Court should not admit the document in evidence.
We would like to address ourselves to both of those points at this time. In the first place, as counsel for defendant Rothenberger can determine upon examination of Exhibit 57, which is the document containing the initials, Rothenberger's initial and signature does not appear there. That docs not contain all of the signatures and initials of the Reichsministry of Justice officials. It contained all at the time it was compiled, but apparently at the time it was compiled Rothenberger was not an official of the Ministry of Justice. So when we try to compare the signature on the document attempted to be introduced yesterday, Exhibit 141, we find that at least by comparing it with Exhibit 57, we get nowhere.
We therefore have to go to other documents in which Rothenberger's initials appear. And we are prepared to do that this morning if counsel still feels that that initial is not the defendant Rothenberger's. But we will come back to this point later.
As to the second point, just a word as to what this document purports to be. It is a well-known fact that the Reich Ministry of Justice prepared on a regular basis information in outline form, or at least telegram form, the happenings of importance which they thought would be of importance to Hitler and forwarded these reports to him, as I say, at regular intervals.
Exhibit 141, on the face of it, is such a document as will be seen from the heading. It is "Fuehrer Information Bulletin" or "Leader Information Bulletin." That is seen more clearly in the original. "Fuehrer" in the original has not, of course, be translated so it bears the original title, "Fuehrer Information Bulletin." Therefore, the purpose of the document appears. It was a copy prepared for issuance as a part of the regular Fuehrer information service. It contains the initial of Vollmer, and according to our context, it contains the initial of Rothenberger. The document itself is covered by the various paragraphs of the Coogan affidavit, The original of it is now in the Reich Patent Amt in Berlin. We feel quite apart from whether this is Rothenberger's initial or not, the document should be admitted as all the other documents arc or have been.
It is a document which came to us in the official course of document search. We feel that it is in no way incompetent. Now may we return to the first point?
Does counsel for the Defendant Rothenberger have a word at this time?
JUDGE BRAND: May I interrupt you once more?
MR. KING: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: This exhibit is presumably in Book C.
MR. KING: That is right.
JUDGE BRAND: It is not in my book. I wonder if you could lend me a copy. There is nothing in here. My book runs from 94 to 98.
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It is in my book, and it may be due to my unfamiliarity with such matters, but I am unable to find the initial on my page.
MR. KING: Your Honor, I pointed out, or I certainly meant to, that on the mimeographed copy, the initials of both Rothenberger and Vollmer do not appear. That is a typographical emission. I have here the original which we will submit as an exhibit, or a copy of the criminal. It might be helpful if the court glanced at that. I will send it to you.
May it please the Court: The signature in the upper left-hand corner, we contend, is identical to other signatures in our possession which we know were made by the defendant Rothenberger.
I believe there will be no argument from defense counsel that the signature in the lower right-hand corner is that of Vollmer.
DR. DOETZER: Dr. Doetzer, for the Defendant Rothenberger. May it please the Tribunal: I should like to point out that this Fuehrer Information Bulletin does not bear any date. It can not be seen, therefore, when this Fuehrer Information Bulletin was dispatched. Furthermore, this Fuehrer Information Bulletin is not signed. Therefore, one can not see from that, whether this Fuehrer Information Bulletin was dispatched at all. On the side cf this copy, you can sec some letter. The Prosecutor explains that it comes from the Defendant Rothenberger. Up to now, he has been unable to submit any document to me which would prove how he came to such a conclusion. Therefore, I contest the accuracy of the opinion of the Prosecutor concerning this initial.
MR. KING: Regarding what counsel for Rothenberger has just said, I think we have said all we intend to about every point except one which he raised. That was the fact that there was no date. It is true that the day of the month is not included. But it is true that the month, November, and the year, 1943, does appear in this draft. This further fact is abundantly clear: Vollmer, and to our mind, Rothenberger, initialed it apparently with the intention of passing it on for final processing so it would be included in the Fuehrer Information Bulletin. It seems to us that it is entirely clear that once they initialed it, they took responsibility for its contents. It seems to us that the burden of proof that that is not the case rests on the Defense and not the Prosecution.
Do I understand that counsel for the Defendant Rothenberger still denies that, in his opinion, that initial is Rothenberger's. What he said was not quite clear. Is that still his position? May I ask him that?
THE PRESIDENT: I do not understand that he contends that that is not his initial. If I am wrong about that, we will give counsel an opportunity to correct it.
MR. KING: I might add, before he speaks, that we are prepared, this morning, to put on expert testimony, and shall do that if the denial persists.
DR. DOETZER: The Prosecutor has admitted that the document does not show any date. I further want to point out that the document has no signature. According to usage in German Ministries, that means that the document has not left that office, but possibly was a suggestion or draft within the Ministry.
As far as the letter on the side of the pare is concerned, the Prosecutor has only assumed and said that it was the name and the initial of Rothenberger. Thereupon, I took the liberty to point out that this letter on the side of the page is not covered by the document which was once submitted and which consists of all the signatures of the officials of the Ministry. Therefore, we are missing proof on the part of the prosecutor that these are actually the initials of Rothenberger.
THE PRESIDENT: We will regard this as at least prima facie evidence of an authentic document. If defense counsel wishes to make any further protest they may do so as part cf their case. The document will be admitted.
MR. KING: Do I understand the Court to say that the document will be admitted as indicating that it bears the initials of the Defendant Rothenberger?
THE PRESIDENT: It is at least prima facie that it is the initial of Rothenberger.
MR. KING: There is one further thing we would like to point cut. In the lower left-hand corcer of the document, opposite the initial or signature of Vollmer, there appears a symbol which is characteristically Vollmer's method of indicating the date, the number "12" and a straight line under which is the number "11". Since the document bears November date, it is quite clear that this date indicates the 12th cf November. Since this is a reduced photostatic copy, it appears to be very very small on the document. but they are the two figures that appear on the photostat.
At this time, in view of the Court's statement, I offer the Exhibit 141. I understand that Court has already accepted that.
JUDGE BRAND: May I suggest that if Counsel thinks that it is desirable for the Prosecution to do more than to show what has be designated as a prima facie case, they are at liberty to satisfy us more fully as to the identity of a signature which is quite difficult to read.
MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor, that might be desirable at this time. We have a man here who is eminently capable of identifying that. It might be well to offer the Court more evidence at this time. I wonder, therefore, if we might have the Witness Box arranged?
I ask, at this time, that Mr. Lorenz Eitner, be sworn.
JUDGE BRAND: Take the witness box, please.
This witness is to testify in German?
MR. KING: In English.
LORENZ EITNER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Do you solemnly and sincerely swear that the evidence you shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? You so swear?
THE WITNESS: I so swear.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q. Will you state your name and the capacity in which you are employed?
A. Lorenz Eitner, Chief Analyst, Ministries Division.
Q. In the course of your duties as Chief Analyst, you have the duty and the opportunity to examine nearly all of the photostat copies that are processed for use in this trial"
A. I do.
Q. And do you find, among these, a great number of signatures and initials by the defendant Rothenberger?
A. I have found many such initials.
Q. You are familiar with the controversy which has arisen over the identity of the initial in Exhibit 141?
A. I am.
Q. In your opinion, is the initial which shows on the-
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit the paper to him.
(Witness is offered the Exhibit No. 141.)
BY MR. KING:
Q. I show you now the Exhibit 141 and ask you if the initial in the upper left-hand corner of that document is not, in your opinion, the initial of the defendant Rothenberger?
A. In my opinion, the initial that appears in the upper left-hand corner of Document NG-546 is the characteristic initial of Rothenberger, which is familiar to me from many original documents and photostats f documents that I have seen.
Q. Now, in reaching that conclusion, do you have in mind other documents in which the defendant Rothenberger's initials also appear?
A. Yes, I have in mind the numerous documents initialed by Rothenberger, both in his capacity as UnderState Secretary and head of the H*****tic Court of Appeals, that bear his initial.
Q. I have in my hand, a document which is NG-632. There appears on Page 9 of that document, an initial which appears to be that of the defendant Rothenberger. I show you that document and ask you further if, in your opinion, the initial which appears there is not that of the defendant Rothenberger, and I may ask in connection with that, for the education of the Court, if you will not identify and describe the document so that we may get a clearer idea as to why and how it was possible that the letter was in the defendant Rothenberger's possession at the time we assume the initial was placed there.
(Witness is offered the Document NG-632.)
A. The Document NG-632 just submitted to me is a report concerning a conference of the judges of various local courts within the area of the Hamburg Court of Appeals. The cover letter addressed this document to the President of the H*ns**tic Court of Appeals of Hamburg, who was at that time--the date is 23 February 1942--Rothenberger. On Page 9, in the margin near the last paragraph on that page appears the same initial as on NG-546. It has the same characteristic: a sharp upward stroke and the small loop, and a stroke to the right and a line trailing down.
Q. Witness, I show you another document. This document is identified by tho letters NG-542. In your opinion, was that letter initialed by the defendant Rothenberger, and if so, does the initial appearing there appear to be similar to the initial on Exhibit 141?
(Witness is offered tho Document NG-542)
A. This Document NG-542 is a letter signed "Crohne," and addressed to Under-State Secretary Rothenberger. It bears an initial which is identical, in my opinion, with that on NG-632 and NG-546. There are, of course, small variations between all these initials, but the salient characteristics are clear in each case.
Q. Witness, I show you a still further document, identified as NG-410, which is a letter addressed to the State Secretary Rothenberger, which bears on Page 1 an initial, apparently placed there by the recipient of the letter. I show you that document and ask you if, in your opinion, it has similar stylistic characteristics of the previous Rothenberger initials which you have identified.
(Witness is offered the Document NG-410)
A. The initial which appears on NG-410 immediately below the typed name of Rothenberger is again identical with the three previously exhibited initials.
Q. Now, I finally would like to show you an additional document which is identified as NG-279. It is a letter which, because it's written in German, I would rather have you identify, but it does bear, opposite the typed signature of Dr. Rothenberger, an initial apparently placed there by Dr. Rothenberger. That appears on the last page. I show you this document and ask you whether or not, in your opinion, that initial is also not similar to the *nes you have previously identified. Will you also for the education of the Court, further identify that document.
(Witness is offered the Document NG-279)
A. Document NG-270 just handed me is the draft of a letter by the Ministry of Justice to the Party Chancery, and it concerns the treatment of trials against juveniles of foreign nationality.
Its date is 5 August 1943. On Page 4, at the end of this letter, there appear the initials of the Minister Thierack, of the various Ministry of Justice department chiefs, among them Vollmer, and the initial of State Secretary Dr. Rothenberger, which in this case is further identified by the full title and name which appear in type script besides the initial itself. The initial in this case again is the same as on the documents previously submitted to me.
Q. I ask you once again, now that you have four additional specimens of the defendant Rothenberger's initials if in your opinion, they were written by the same hand that placed the initial in the upper left-hand corner of Exhibit 141.
A. In my opinion, the initial in the upper left-hand corner of NG-546 is identical with the initials that appear on Documents NG-410, NG-279, NG-632 and NG-542.
Q. When you say similar to the document NG-546, you are giving the NG numbers of Exhibit 141. That is correct.
A. I see.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel for Dr. Rothenberger desire to further cross-examine this witness?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. DOETZER:
Q. May it please the Tribunal; witness, if I have understood you correctly, you have only considered the similarity and not the identity?
A. Since the initials, of course, appear on separate documents, they cannot be identical.
Q. Are you of the opinion that these initials were written by the same hand?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. What was your training in comparing hand writings; what is your background?
A. Among other facts concerning my previous training, I might point out my training in polygraphics, that is as a student of ancient writings and scripts which is part of my training as an art historian.
Q. Have you even been called before an American court as an expert?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever published scientific studies about comparison of handwritings?
A. I have published art historical polygraphics in which the study of script plays a certain role.
Q. That is no comparison of existing languages.
A. No.
Q. Did you just arrive at the opinion about these initials or did you have opportunity for considerably time to think so.
A. The initials of Dr. Rothenberger has been familiar to me since I began to work on the documents of the Ministry of Justice; this characteristic initials appear on countless documents that I have had the opportunity to examine during the last few months.
Q. Have you yourself ever seen Dr. Rothenberger when he wrote that initial?
A. I have not personally seen Dr. Rothenberger writing this initial. I have, however, seen initials written by him at Burnberg.
Q. In other words, you have not seen him personally write it, but you have gotten that knowledge from other sources?
A. I have never seen the writing myself, but I have seen documents unquestionably written by him before American officials here in Nurnberg.
Q. Do you know that in the study of comparison of handwritings from a criminology point of view that it is extremely difficult in case of similar initials to affirm that they came from the same hand?