Skipping to page 11, Section III, "Thus the defendant has been convicted of having had, as a Jew, extra-marital sexual relations with a German citizen of German blood after the law for the protection of German blood came into force, which according to Paragraph 7 of the law means after 17 September 1935. He acted on a consistent plan from the beginning which aimed at repetition."
Skipping now to the third paragraph: "Together with his offense of racial pollution he is also guilty of an offense under paragraph 4 of the ordinance against peoples' parasites. It should be noted here that the national community is in need of increased legal protection from all crimes attempting to destroy or undermine its inner cohesion."
Skipping to page 14 of this document, we find that this verdict of the Special Court in the Katzenberger case was signed by Rothaug, as presiding judge, Dr. Ferber, and Dr. Hoffmann, certified Nurnberg, 23 March 1942. Attached to this verdict in the same document on page 15 of the document is a letter bearing the letterhead of the "Reich Minister of Justice, Acting on official business; Berlin, 27 March 1942. Addressed to My Fuehere "Concerning the questions put to me by Gruppenfuehrer Staub regarding prosecutions against women who have had sexual relations with Jews, I report:
"Reich Minister Dr. Lammers addressed a letter on 8 February 1939 to the late Reich Minister Dr. Guertner, in which he communicated your decision, my Fuehrer, that the female partner should not be punished. This was to apply to complicity, provocation, aiding and abetting. Equally actions on the part of the women which amounted to her being an accessory after the fact were to go unpunished insofar as they did not constitute an offense independent of the actions of the male partner. Perjury for instance could be punished."
Skipping to the next paragraph: "Accordingly, an ordinance based on this instruction was published in the Reichsgesetzblatt of 16 Feb. 1940 I. p. 33 and is now applicable to Courts. According to a communication from the Reich Fuehrer SS of 21 October 1938, German women who have compromised themselves with Jews will be taken into protective custody only when special circumstances of the case make this necessary.
"Normally the female will be interrogated on oath only when this is the only means of convicting the accused Jew, Perjury on the part of the female may be caused by her desire to help the Jew or by her reluctance to broadcast her shame, possibly by her having to admit adultery or by her fear lest she be taken into protective custody.
"In the case of Katzenberger the Court thought the motive of Seiler's perjury to be her wish to protect the Jew Katzenberger, and that she therefore gave her oath while in an embarrassing situation.
"Heil my Fuehrer!
(Signed) "Schlegelberger" Skipping now to page 17 of this same document, we see a copy of a letter bearing the letterhead of the "Reich Minister and Chief of Reich Chancellory, dated Berlin, 1 April 1942; at present Fuehrer's Headquarters; addressed to SS Gruppenfuehrer Scpaub, Fuehrer Adjutancy," concerning "Sentence against Katzenberger, further to our telephone conversation.
Dear Herr Scpaub: A verdict reached by the Special Court at Nurnberg of 13 March 1942, which was reported by 'Berliner Nachtausgabe' of 18 March 1942, sentenced to death the Jew Katenberger for racial pollution, and the woman Seiler to two years penal servitude for perjury. I have reported to the Fuehrer on this case, basing myself on sentence. The Fuehrer had obviously been misinformed, as he thought Seiler had been sentenced for the part she played in the racial pollution, whereas she was actually sentenced for perjury. On that occasion the Fuehrer repeated to me the view which he communicated to the Reich Minister of Justice in February 1939, namely that actions perpetrated by the female participant in racial pollution which, independently of the action of the male, constitute an offense, should be punished. As this was so in the case of the defendant Seiler, namely perjury, the Fuehrer saw no reason to object to the sentence."
Skipping to the signature, "Heil Hitler!" signed, "Dr. Lammers."
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit No, 152 Document NG 154.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence. We will adjourn at this time until tomorrow morning at 0930.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 26 March 1947 at 0930 hours.)
A He has a moderately severe gastritis subsequent to a duodenal ulcer, which is now healed.
Q You say this duodenal ulcer has healed?
A Yes, by evidence at the hospital.
Q Would you say that tine man Rothaug is convalescing?
A Yes, he is convalescing at the present time.
Q Convalescing. How many days or weeks would it be before he could appear in Court with no undue hardship on his personal being?
AAbout three or four weeks.
Q About three or four weeks. And this three or four weeks period of his convalescence is due to what physical factors?
A Well, it's due to his moderately severe gastritis at the present time, and he is somewhat weakened as a result of his condition more than we expected In three or four weeks, he should be well enough to appear here.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Doctor, when did you see the defendant Rothaug for the last time?
AAbout three or four days ago.
Q Can you tell me, Doctor, whether the defendant Rothaug during the last few days was in a worse physical condition than at the time he was delivered into the hospital?
A The last time that I saw him, he was a little bit better, but not too much better.
Q Yesterday, the defendant Rothaug told me that he had an acute gastritis Can you affirm this?
A That I cannot affirm, but in a disease such as he has, he is likely to have an occasional exacerbation of his present illness. It's nothing unusual.
Q Thank you.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will make no decision for the future, but for the present, there is no problem, as we understand it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution calls Irene Seiler.
IRENE SEILER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BRAND:
Q Will you raise your right hand and be sworn in?
(The witness raises her right hand.)
Will you repeat this oath after me?
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the the truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Witness, will you please tell the Court your full name?
A Irene Seilers, nee Scheffler.
Q Where is your present place of residence?
A I am a person living in Guben Street. No. 34.
Q When were you born?
AApril 26, 1904.
Q Where?
A In Guben.
Q Is that in Germany?
A Yes.
Q Would you describe briefly your education and career since that time?
A I went to the Lyzeum -- to the high school in Guben and to the Academy of Art. Then I took care of the business of my sister. In 1937, I took my examination as an apprentice in Kettbus and later in Weimar in 1938 -- my final examination. In 1939, I got married to a businessman, Hans Seiler, in Nurnberg.
Q Witness, will you please speak a little slower and talk into the microphone. Witness - it wasn't quite clear what sort of business you mentioned. What business did you take over?
A I became a photographer and took over the photographic store of my sister here in Nurnberg. At that time, it was in Nurnberg, in Splitterter grab 19. -1025
Q. When did you say you were married?
A. Yes, in 1939. My husband was drafted into the Wehrmacht and in October 1944 he fell in action in France.
Q. Were you ever arrested, witness.
A. In 1941 I was arrested on the third of December of the year, under suspicion of perjury; that was in connection with a trial against Leo Katzenberger, and -
Q. One moment, witness, if we may go back for a moment; it is still not clear the date when you were married.
A. On the 31st of July, 1939.
Q And subsequent to that, namely, in 1944 your husband was killed in the war; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Would you please repeat the circumstances under which you were arrested, and when?
A. On the 3rd of December, in the afternoon, the Teuscher's assistant came to my apartment and told me that I should come to the local court in order to make a statement; and there I found the order to arrest me.
Q. In what connection was this arrest?
A. This arrest was in connection with the trial against Mr. Katzenberger, in the spring of 1941, who was arrested in the spring of 1941 under suspicial of racial defilement and relationship with me; he was suspected of relationships with me.
Q. Who was this Mr. Katzenberger that you mentioned?
A. Mr. Katzenberger was my former landlord and in 1932 I made his acquaintance and in 1939 when I took over the business here in Nurnberg I made his acquaintance.
Q. What work did he do; what was his occupation?
A. Mr. Katzenberger had a wholesale business, and the storage house was in the same house as my business; it was in Nurnberg, that is at Splitterter Graben 19. He had many stores in Nurnberg and France and in 1939 his store was dissolved by Mr. Katzenberger.
C. What religion was Mr. Katzenberger?
A. Mr. Katzenberger was of Jewish religion.
Q. At the time, when you first knew him, I believe that was in 19 -
A. 1932.
Q. How old was Mr. Katzenberger then?
A. I believe fifty-six years old.
Q. In 1932 he was fifty-six years old?
A. Yes -- no, he must have been fifty-nine.
Q. I didn't understand your last statement, witness.
A. I think he must have been fifty-nine because when he was sentenced in 1942 he was sixty-nine years old.
Q. You say that in 1942 he was sixty nine.
A. Yes.
Q. At the time that you knew Mr. Katzenberger in Nurnberg, was your family here?
A. No, my family was not here.
Q. Did this Mr. Katzenberger ever meet your family?
A. Yes, Mr. Katzenberger met my father when he visited me in Nurnberg and he also visited my family in Guben, and when my parents were in Nurnberg they always met Mr. Katzenberger.
Q. After you first met Mr. Katzenberger, as you say in 1932, did you continue to see him?
A. Yes.
Q. What were the circumstances in the years following your first making his acquaintance that gave rise to your seeing him?
A. Mr. Katzenberger was my landlord; the business was in the back part of my apartment, and since he also owned the house, it was obvious that I saw him quite often.
Q. So far as you remember, in 1935, did you ever hear of the passage of certain laws called the "Nurnberg Laws"?
A. Yes, I heard about it, but I did not apply these laws to me at all for there was nothing that made me liable for punishment.
Q. One moment, witness, would you please tell the Court briefly, insofar as you know, what those Nurnberg laws meant so far as you were concerned; what were they?
A. I did not concern myself with these laws; I can't tell you; I only knew that intercourse between Jews and Aryans was forbidden.
Q. Did the existence of these laws in 1935 and thereafter cause you to have any fear about your friendship with Mr. Katzenberger?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever incur any debts from Mr. Katzenberger?
A. Yes, it was indebted in rent, and my father always paid these debts to Mr. Katzenberger.
DR. KOESSL: (Attorney for Defendant Rothaug) May it please the Tribunal, I object against the questions of the Prosecution since the obviously comprise the entire subject of the trial. According to my opinion in this trial only the treatment in trial is the subject that the judges are concerned with; bringing up of the questions which were just raised by the Prosecution now would result in again bringing up for discussion the entire trials about which the Prosecution has submitted a sentence or an indictment.
That is, in my opinion, neither possible according to the terms under discussion in this trial, nor is it possible to because the picture which the trials of so many years ago have given can never again be reproduced in its entirety. Therefore, I start from the supposition that here in this trial the question is not about the material correctness of the sentences and the entire living conditions and events which lead to the sentences that those things should again be brought up, but rather the manner of the method in the trial by the courts is under discuss on. Of course, it is obvious that the witness would testify in an entirely different manner than she would have done about ten years ago, when an entirely different doctrine of theory of the state was prevalent in Germany; and when the witnesses themselves were thinking differently then they are thinking today. This circumstance and the fact that the material used in the trial is so tremendous, so large, and extensive, leads me to form the opinion that only the manner of treatment of the case by the court or before the court can be discussed here; and, therefore, I ask are Tribunal to decide about the admissibility and probative value of these questions which were put by the prosecution, regarding the facts in the case which were put by the prosecution to the witness.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One brief word, if the Court please. Courts do not operate in vacuo. The business of courts both in Germany, in the last decade, and here, is facts. The Prosecution's intention was to put before this Tribunal some of the vital facts on which the special Court of Nuernberg in the Katzenberger case operated. I do not see how you can divorce the method of courts as the defense intends, and the facts upon which these courts' methods operated.
THE PRESIDENT: Manifestly, the issue to be determined with relation to the Defendant Rothaug, is the conduct of the judge who tried this case. So far the questions which have been asked are only preliminary. With that admonition, we have the issue here of the conduct of the judge. We will let the interrogation proceed and see if this witness can throw any light upon that subject.
Q Witness, you state that in 1941, you were arrested for perjury. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q At the time you were arrested, had your acquaintance, Mr. Katzenberger been arrested?
A. Mr. Katzenberger was arrested in March, 1941.
Q Would you please repeat that?
A Mr. Katzenberger was arrested in March, 1941.
Q Would you please repeat that?
A Mr. Katzenberger was arrested in March, 1941.
Q I am sorry to ask you to repeat again, Witness, but would you please tell me your answer as to whether at the time you were arrested in 1941 for purjury, your acquaintance, Mr. Katenberger was arrested?
A Mr. Katzenberger was arrested in March, 1941.
Q That is, Mr. Katzenberger had been arrested some eight or nine months before you were arrested, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Did you hear from Mr. Katzenberger or the police, the reason Mr. Katzenberger had been arrested?
A Yes. I heard it from the criminal police who called me to take my testimony. That was two or three days after the arrest of Mr. Katzenberger.
WWhat did the criminal police tell you was the reason for Mr. Katzenberger's arrest?
A His relationship with me.
Q Was Mr. Katzenberger, within your knowledge , ordered to appear before a court after his arrest?
A I could not judge that. I do not know it.
Q Witness, after your arrest for perjury, were you ordered to appear before a court?
A Yes, for a trial before the Special Court in March.
Q In March of what year?
A 1942.
Q 1942? At your trial, were you the only defendant?
A I and Mr. Katzenberger.
Q Who were the judges on the bench who tried the case in which you and Mr. Katzenberger appeared?
AAt that time, I knew only the name of the President of the Special Court, Herr Rothaug. I did not know the associate justices by name at the time.
Q What evidence, so far as you remember was introduced by the Prosecution against you?
A They were the statements which Herr Katzenberger and I made. These statements were in agreement with the statements of the other witnesses.
Q You say there were other witnesses?
A Yes.
Q How many were there?
A Seven.
Q Did you know any of those seven witnesses?
A Yes. I knew all of them because they lived in the house or were employees of Katzenberger.
Q You say that all of the witnesses who testified against you either lived in Katzenberger's house or were employed by him.
Is that true?
A Yes. That is true.
Q You stated that you and Mr. Katzenberger had made statements which were used against you. Where did you make these statements?
A I made them during the first interrogation in March, 1941, by the criminal police.
Q When the criminal police investigated and questioned you, and you made your statement, what did you say in that statement, about the intimate relation with Mr. Katzenberger of which you had been accused.
A I denied the relationship emphatically. Mr. Katzenberger did the same. We both said that the relationship did not exist. The relationship between us was one of friendship. Mr. Katzenberger was a good, fatherly friend of mine.
DR. KOESSE: May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution seems, after all, to enter into the entire material of the trial. A question concerning guilt was just now put to the witness. I therefore ask for a decision as to whether the question of guilt has to be clarified or whether only the method of the trial will be the subject of this hearing.
THE PRESIDENT: It is impossible for the Tribunal to know where the interrogation is leading. We can only assure counsel that we will consider the evidence only so far as it relates to the conduct of the judge. If anything other than that appears in the course of the examination, it will have no weight whatever with us.
Q Witness, were these statements that you made to the criminal police before your trial, under oath?
A No. In July, 1941, the local court Justice Kolen called me to testify again. I made this testimony under oath.
Q You state, witness, that you and Mr. Katzenberger appeared before the special court in Nuernberg. Was that right?
A Yes.
Q You also stated that the presiding judge of that special court, at that time, was Rothaug, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q You also stated that the presiding judge of that special court, at that time, was Rothau, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q How long did your trial last?
A Two days, the 13th, and 14th of March, 1942.
Q Other than the seven witnesses you have described, and your statement and that of Mr. Katzenberger, would you have likewise described, did the prosecution offer any other evidence to the court?
A No.
Q Did the presiding judge, Rothaug, have anything to say about the evidence in this case? Did he comment on it from the bench on your hearing?
A Yes. From the very beginning he assumed that the act had been commi. He told Mr. Katzenberger that he could tell somebody else, but not him, what he was saying. He said nobody would believe Katzenberger,least of all Rothaug. He did not believe our relationship was only friendly, and of a fatherly type. He just assumed the other thing.
Q Witness, by saying that judge Rothaug assumed these things, what do you mean by that? Do you mean that he refused to hear anything to the contrary?
A Yes.
Q During the course cf the trial, was there an audience?
A Yes, there were high party functionaries and representatives of the Wehrmacht, the Armed Forces.
Q During the trial, did the judge Rothaug say anything that did not have a direct bearing on the case?
A I do not understand your question. I do not quite understand it.
Q Did he, that is the judge Rothaug, address himself, from the bench, to any one other than you and Mr. Katzenberger?
A Yes, he spoke to the audience.
Q He spoke to the audience?
A Yes.
Q What did he say to the audience, as far as you remember?
A He clarified to the audience how far a woman could deteriorate if she surrendered to the influence of a Jew, and if she behaved undisciplined toward the party as I was supposed to have done; and, he quoted from the Stuermer, and spoke about the influence of Jewery in the World and of the influence of Jewery in the war, in a like manner.
Q And, you say those remarks of Rothaug, that you have just described, were addressed to the audience in the court room; is that right?
A Yes.
Q How much did the judge Rothaug have to say on the subject matter you have just described; did he talk for five minutes, ten minutes, to the audience -- for how long a period did he talk to the audience?
A It differed; he used every opportunity in order to shine before the audience and to present himself in a good light toward then.
Q Did either you or Mr. Katzenberger, at the trial, make any statements on your own behalf?
A Yes, we also emphasized, again and again, that we did not have any sexual relationship, and that our friendship was really in the nature of a friendship.
Q Did you make the statements to the Court under oath?
A These statements were made by me under oath before the investigating judge, Koben.
Q But, that was not during the trial was it?
A No.
Q During the trial, before this judge Rothaug, did you make any statements in your own behalf?
A Yes, I said again and again, I have told you what happened, and I cannot say anything else.
Q Were those statements made during the trial before the judge Rothaug; that you made, were they under oath?
A No.
Q You mean that before the Judge Rothaug, you were not **rn in as a witness?
A No, I was not.
Q Was the defendant Katzenberger sworn in as a witness at that trial?
AAs far as I know he was not either.
Q But, you both made statements before the Court; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Did the judge Rothaug gave anything to say to you at the time you made these statements in Court?
A Yes, he told me that he would not believe me; that somebody younger than he would have to be found, and that nobody would believe us. He again and again made this statement during the course of the trial. He represents the fact so from the very beginning that our statement of facts were untrue, and that he just did not believe us.
Q During this trial you have described, did the judge Rothaug have anything to do is far as you could see, in the court room, with the prosecution; did he notice the prosecution during the course of the trial?
A I do not remember that any more.
Q You state that the trial lasted two days?
A Yes.
Q Was the sentence passed at the end of the second day?
A Yes, the sentence was passed and proclaimed on the second day of the trial.
Q Which judge read the sentence or spoke it?
A Herr Rothaug spoke the sentence, road the sentence.
Q What do you remember about the manner or the contents of the sentence that he read, either in the way he read it or the subject natter which he read?
A The entire manner in which he read the sentence, and how he conducted the trial was in a very hateful manner. He did not let any objections on our part come up, and he emphasized again and again that our guilt had been prevent, and that according to his experience, it would not be possible that a friendship of this kind could have lasted for those years. He emphasized that it was racial defilement and that it would poison the blood for generations, and this action could only be pardoned by milling the person. He said that I had protected the Jew, and, therefore, because I had committed purjury, I, in order to save the Jew, had to be punished too.
Q You say the judge Rothaug assumed that you were guilty throughout the trial; is that correct?
A Yes, for he used that as a basis for his entire conduct of the trial.
Q And, the reason that you say he made such an assump tion was that he refused to hear anything to the contrary; is that what you mean?
A Yes.
Q Aside from the seven witnesses which you mentioned, you have else said that no other evidence was offered by the prosecution to prove your relationship with Mr. Katzenberger; is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q You further said that you and the defendant Katzenberger at various times denied that relationship under oath; did you not?
A Yes.
Q But, you still say that the judge Rothaug throughout your trial, so far as you remember, refused to admit or consider any evidence to the contrary; is that what you remember
A Yes, there was no material evidence to the contrary.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I believe that is the end of the direct examination.
JUDGE BRAND: Will the Prosecution inquire of the witness for the information of the Court if she was represented by counsel.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Witness, during your trial before the judge Rothaug, that you have just described, were you represented by counsel
A Yes, I was.
Q Was Mr. Katzenberger represented by counsel?
A Yes.
Q What actually happened -- let me withdraw that. So far as you remember, what did your counsel do during the two days of the trial before the judge Rothaug?
A He once made an admission that one of the testimonies by a witness was not true because somebody else had tes tified to something else in the meantime.
He told that to the judge Rothaug, that he could not help me. He only said that during his plea and he emphasized again that I under no circumstances had committed purjury on purpose and if the court really assumed that, they should give us as lenient a sentence as possible.
Q What did the judge Rothaug do with this plea, as you say?
AAs far as I remember he did nothing.
DR. KOESSE: Dr. Koesse for the defendant Rothaug. Witness, did you come here voluntarily? Did you report voluntarily to speak as a witness?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Is it not correct that your brother has asked you to come here?
A. No.
Q. Is it not true that it was very disagreeable for you to come here?
A. Disagreeable to appear here? That is not the correct expression. It is always disagreeable when these difficult days are rolled up or the memories of the difficult days come back.
Q. That would be in agreement with the information that I have that you, yourself, did not want to come.
A. Who told you that? Of course, I wanted to come. I wrote a letter to the American prosecution and reported as a voluntary witness -- offered to be a voluntary witness.
Q. You said that only 6 or 9 months after the defendant, at that time, Katzenberger, was arrested that you were arrested -- only 8 or 9 months later?
A. Yes.
Q. You also said that the order for arrest was given to you in the local court?
A. Yes, in the local court. Mr. Antmann gave me the order for arrest.
Q. At that time did you meet the later judge Rothaug?
A. No, I saw Mr. Rothaug for the first time during the trial on the 13th and 14th of March.
Q. At that time, therefore, the defendant Rothaug did not have anything to do with you? You did not notice that he had anything to do with you -- with you in any way?
A. How could I know that when I was under arrest ending trial.
Q. So you were just for investigation?
A. I was only before the judge for investigation on the 19th of July 1941.
Q. You said that your parents net Mr. Katzenberger?
A. Yes.
Q. When did your parents meet Herr Katzenberger for the first time?
A. My father met Katzenberger the first time in 1928 or 1929 when my sister still had the business here and my father came here to visit my sister.
Q. When was that?
A. That was in 1928 or 1929. I can't remember that exactly.
Q. When was Mr. Katzenberger imprisoned for the first time?
A. On occasion of trips which he made to Berlin. I don't say that exactly. Before 1932 or after 1932.
Q. At that time you know Mr. Katzenberger already?
A. In 1932, yes.
Q. You said that the Nurnberg laws did not cause you any worry?
A. No.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, to be consistent the prosecution is forced to make the same objection at this time as the defense made during the cross examination. We don't see the connection between the factual background in 1932 to the manner or node of trial of the witness in the case under discussion.
THE PRESIDENT: We will not interfere with the cross examination. Overruled.