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.
Q. So you said the Nurnberg laws did not cause you any worry?
A. No, the Nurnberg laws did not apply in this case, after all.
Q. You said you were not at all acquainted with the Nurnberg laws in detail?
A. I know what everyone in general knew about the Nurnberg laws. That is, that racial defilement was limited to a sexual relationship between the Jews and Aryans.
Q. Did you know that in Nurnberg the Jew-hater Streicher happened to be in Nurnberg?
A. Yes, I know that.
Q. Did you know that just in Nurnberg and Nurnberg in particular, not only the sexual relationship with Jews was viewed with disdain but every relationship -- every social contact with Jews?
A. No, I did not know that and if I had know that it would not have disturbed me in this case because a friendship cannot be interrupted from day until toworrow -it cannot be discarded because that person is a Jew. I would have regarded that as inhumane -- would not have done it.
Q. That is another question. What you have just said is another question. I asked whether in Nurnberg one was reproached if one had any of the sexual relationship. You say no? Can you remember that, for example, in the restaurants there were proclamations: "Jews are not allowed here?-"
A, Yes, that's correct.
Q. Can you then maintain that at that time any racial defilement as such was regarded as despicable?
A. Yes.
Q. From those advertisements in the restaurants at that time did you not conclude that the social contact between the Jews and Aryans in general was undesirable?
A. No, I do not conclude that because I could not imagine a large number of business people would have continued to work with the Jews after all, and Herr Katzenberger was still my landlord at that time so I was forced to be together with Herr Katzenberger.
Q. Witness, that is another question. I am asking you -
A. I could not as a human being imagine such a thing as punishable.
Q. That is another question whether it is liable to punishment. I am only asking you whether according to the conditions at the time you could -
A. No, I could not.
Q. That disagreeable event would occur -- that you would be in a disagreeable position?
A. No.
Q. Did you then believe that the advertisements -billboards in the restaurant had-
A. I did not concern myself with that.
Q. Perhaps you concerned yourself with the question when in the air-raid shelters such posters were put up.
A. That was in the year 1941 and at that time I was not together any more with Mr. Katzenberger because since March 1940 I saw Mr. Katzenberger and spoke to him for the last time.
Q. You said that at that time during the trial the judges were not known to you?
A. No, they were not known to me. Only Herr Rothenberger was known to me.
Q. Since when did you know the defendant Rothenberger?
A. Since the day when I saw him in the court. Not before.
Q. But you made inquiry only about the president? Not about the associate judges?
A. I did not ask any questions about either of them. I only heard later it was Mr. Rothenberger.
Q. Thus, actually only after the trial you found out that this president was Mr. Rothenberger?
A. Yes, as Herr Rothenberger or from the Indictment. I can't remember it exactly but before that I certainly did not know it.
Q. Can you still remember the associate judges?
A. Yes, today I know how they looked.
Q. I submit to you a picture here -- a photograph. Please tell me which of these gentlemen were taking part in the trial at the time? (indicating to photograph exhibited to witness)
A. This (indicating to photograph) is Herr Rothenberger, isn't it? This one (indicating) I don't know. This must be Herr Ferger but I don't know exactly this picture. It is very difficult to recognize. One must be Prosecutor Markl. Is that possible? The others I don't know.
Q. From the submitted picture you recognize only Herr Rothenberger and Herr Ferber?
A. Yes.
Q. You said that about your guilt there was no evidence material submitted outside the testimony of the witnesses?
A. Yes.
Q. Has nothing at all submitted?
A. No.
Q. Can you not remember any document at all?
A. No, there was no document submitted.
Q. For example, can you remember a document showing the descent of Mr. Katzenberger?
A. Yes, and my testimony for my defense. That was evidence of the racial defilement.
Q. Did you know all of the witnesses?
A. Yes.
Q. You said that you always denied any kind of guilt?
A. Of course. There was no guilt.
Q. If you remember exactly, what did you admit?
A. That Mr. Katzenberger was kind to me. That he paid small favors to me; that he brought me some flowers sometimes, chocolate, cigarettes.
Q. Otherwise, you did not admit anything anywhere?
A. Well, what should I admit?
Q. I only wanted to know what else you admitted?
A. That I kissed Mr. Katzenberger.
Q. That you kissed him?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you admit anything else?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, the prosecution strenously objects to the line of questioning at the moment. It has no relation for any discernible length in the manner in which the witness was tried.
DR. KOESSE: May it please the Tribunal, may I say something in respect to this?
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't necessary to say anything; in the absence of Rothenberger we will not at this time interfere in the cross examination.
DR. KOESSE: Thank you, very much.
"26-March-M-JP-6-l-Schwab (Int. Wartenberg) You have just told the prosecutor that the defendant Rothaug, who was at that time president of the court, always started from the supposition that, according to his experiences of a lifetime, in his judgment of the case, that his experiences of his lifetime were decisive for his judgment?
A. Yes,his own experiences.
Q. Did you, yourself, not initiate this? That the judge came to the opinion that his experiences of his lifetime would not allow any other conclusion?
A. I don't know how.
Q. You just said that you admit one kiss....
A. I admitted that I kissed Mr. Katzenberger, yes.
Q. Did you not admit that you kissed him, frequently?
A. It is a long time friendship from 1932 to 1942, or 1940; and, in addition, I made these statements on the transcript, and I made them under oath, and if they are in the transcript they will be correct, and I admitted that before the Court at that time . It is, however, no proof at all that there was any racial defilement.
Q. That is the second question; you are always going further than I want you to go.
At that time you admitted that you kissed Mr. Katzenberger frequently?
Yes; and a person who thinks in a decent manner doesn't think that it is indecent or unusual.
Q. Did he sit on your lap?
A. No, he did not sit on my lap. I sat on his lap. And if you would know the conditions at our home you would not consider that awful or ugly or something that can be objected against; and at the same time and in the same way which I did it at home with my father, And, as I considered Mr. Katzenberger a fatherly, friendly man, I did it the same way, yes.
Q. But in the direct examination you did not tell the prosecutor about it.
A. But it was all in the transcript. I said it under oath.
Q. No. You took an oath and you did not give complete testimony that the things that you admit to now.
A. I don't think that the prosecutor asked me about the details of this.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, the Prosecution objects to the imputation that the witness did not give complete testimony or withheld anything. The Prosecution did ask this - the questions - or desire to elicit the answer that are now being pursued by the Defense.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal recalls it the same way, but we think it would not affect the situation. At this time, however, we will take the usual morning recess of fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
DR. KOESSE: I would ask you to permit me to continue with the crossexamination.
Q. Witness, you said that in June or July, 1942 you were heard on the 19th of July 1941?
A. I was heard by the investigating jude, Croben, and I then swore to my statement.
Q. You say that the investigating judge at that time made you swear to your statement?
A. Yes.
Q. That means to say that you were sworn after you had been heard?
A. Yes.
Q. The trial before the special court lasted two days?
A. Yes, it was a sure trial.
Q. You said high-party functionaries were present?
A. Yes.
Q. Were they all in uniform?
A. Some of them were in uniform, some not. That is as far as I could say just from looking at them.
Q. Some were in uniform and. some were not in uniform, you say?
A. Yes.
Q. How did you recognize that these who were not in uniform were highparty functionaries?
A. Because I knew some of them.
Q. Who, for example, did you know?
A. Haberkern.
Q. Haberkern in civilian clothes?
A. I don't remember that today.
Q. But according to your statement today you did know these high-party functionaries, if they were not in uniform, so that you could recognize them even though they were in civilian clothes?
A. I could only say what I could tell by looking at the audience at the time.
I don't remember that in detail today because afterwards I did not look much at the audience but only looked at Holz.
Q. You don't remember those details?
A. No.
Q. Then I am surprised that you said just now that high-party functionaries were present, some of them in uniform and some in civilian clothes.
A. That is what I saw when I first entered the room. That is when I recognized Holz, but today I can't remember whether Holtz was in civilian clothes or uniform. I also saw that officers were there because I could tell that by their uniform.
Q. Which high-party officials in civilian clothes did you recognize?
A. I can't tell you today, but I can't say whether that is so important today, my giving evidence.
Q. Whether that is of importance or not you have to leave to other people.
A. But I can't give you any further information beyond what I have already told you. Perhaps there is another witness who could make a better statement than I on that question.
Q. Will you leave that to me? You said, that the Wehrmacht, the armed forces were present?
A. Yes, I assumed that because I saw gray on the uniforms of the armed forces.
Q. You assumed that, that they were represented?
A. Yes, because I had to assume that when I saw the gray uniform, that they were members of the Wehrmacht, because I can't think that anybody else would wear those gray uniforms.
Q. You know that at that time there was a war on?
A. Yes.
Q. You know that Germany's youth, as far as it was capable of armed service, was in the gray uniform?
A. Yes.
Q. You know also that innumerable numbers of gray uniforms were in Evidence everywhere?
A. Yes.
Q. What makes you conclude from the fact that gray uniforms were in the court room, what makes you conclude from that that this was a sure trial?
A. I deduce that from the manner of the trial and from the way in which Rothaug was addressing the audience. I had to assume that.
Q. From the manner in which the trial was conducted you thought that it was a sure trial?
a. Rothaug again and again addressed himself to the audience.
Q. When did Rothaug address himself to the audience?
A. In the course of hearing the witnesses.
Q. Did he examine them extensively?
A. Yes, he examined me intensively again and again. He put to me my statement which I made before the investigating judge at my first interrogating by the police. He put that to me again and again.
Q. That is to say he went into the matter with you in detail?
A. Yes.
Q. Therefore you can say now that you could state everything, what you had to say to your case?
A. No, I could not do that, for if I wanted to explain something in a natural way he just shrugged his shoulders or made an ironical remark and just rejected it like that.
Q. What for example, did you state, and what did you state in the way of things that Rothaug at the time did not allow you to say as an objection?
A. That Herr Katzenberger had been asked by my father to protect me and to help me here in Nurnberg and to give me his advice. Rothaug just repudiated that and said, "Oh, well, the goat has been made by the gardner," and he simply wanted to say by that no more unsuitable person could have been found for that job that Herr Katzenberger.
Q. But you were able to make that objection?
A. Yes, but it was immediately interpreted against me.
Q That is a different matter. Were you unable to say anything that was in your favor?
A There was no need for me to say anything in my favor because my statements were not against me.
Q Were you allowed to say everything you wanted to say?
A I answered all the questions in my statement. There was nothing else I could have stated.
Q But you, yourself, said you were examined in detail.
A Yes. I was examined as to the questions I answered at the investigation. There was nothing else I could say.
Q Did your defense counsel see any cause to put further questions to you?
A No. Only once a witness made a mistake. He wanted to present contrary testimony. That was rejected. They just said, "Oh, well, the witness made a mistake."
Q What happened was that the defense, after an examination, cleared up an error.
A No. He did not explain the error. He intended to explain the error. He wanted to bring evidence, but the court rejected that.
Q What portion of evidence was that. Can you remember?
A Yes. The witness Leidner asserted that Katzenberger and I had been at the Cafe on the Ring together. He swore to the statement. My brother-inlaw who was present at the trial, produced evidence that that could not have been true. The owner of the cafe was present in Nuernberg at the time. He was prepared to make a statement before the court to the effect that it could not have been possible, because the cafe, at the time, was barred to Jews. The motion was not allowed. It was simply rejected with the remark, "Oh, well, the witness made a mistake."
Q You see, the question became acute. The cafe was barred to Jews.
A That was 1939, 1940 or 1941.
Q But earlier, you said that you did not fear any reproaches if you had intercourse with Jews.