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.
A No. I was not afraid of that.
Q Do you know the reason the objection of defense counsel was rejected?
A No. The Court did not consider it important enough.
Q You were asked whether you made your statements before Rothaug under oath.
A Yes.
Q Did the defense tell you you should have been sworn.
A I had already been sworn.
Q Did defense counsel make the motion to examine you under oath before the special court?
AAs far as I remember, no.
Q Can you imagine why you were not sworn before the Special Court?
A No. I cannot imagine why. I never thought about it at all because I made my statements under oath.
Q In what capacity did you appear for the Special Court as a witness or as a defendant?
AAs a defendant.
Q Have you ever heard that in Germany, a defendant is sworn?
A I never occupied myself with court matters. I did not know about it. I did not know about it.
Q You referred to Mr. Katzenberger's age?
A Yes.
Q For what purpose did you do that?
A I was asked how old Herr Katzenberger was, at that time, and I gave my answer.
Q Can you remember that Mr. Katzenberger admitted that in spite of his age, he was still able to have sexual intercourse?
A He was asked that question by the court, and he gave his answer.
Q How did he answer?
AAs far as I remember, he said yes.
Q During the direct examination, the prosecutor asked you the following question: "You and Katzenberger, under oath, denied that those relations existed?"
Is that correct? You answered this question with "Yes."
A Whether those questions were put, I do not remember.
Q It was during the direct examination.
A Yes. That is correct.
Q You answered that question with "Yes."
A Yes.
Q Will you tell me when Mr. Katzenberger took his oath?
A I do not know.
Q I just read to you a question asked by the Prosecution as to whether you and Herr Katzenberger denied your relationship under oath. You answered that with yes.
A Yes. I said yes, as far as I am concerned.
Q Only as far as you are concerned. Furthermore, you stated that your defense said in pleading, that you had not intentionally committed perjury. He asked for a lenient sentence.
A I said the defense counsel said if I committed perjury, I did not do that intentionally. He asked, therefore, for a lenient sentence.
Q That is to say, he did not ask that you be acquitted.
A I cannot say. That day I was much too excited.
Q You said the Defendant Rothaug, at that time, in reply to that motion by the defense counsel, took no measures as far as you remember? Yes? Do you want to say yes to that?
AAs far as I remember, there was nothing like that.
Q That is to say, after that motion, the sentence was passed?
A Yes.
Q Did you expect anything beside the motion by your defense counsel?
A I really don't know what sort of sophistry this is.
Q At that time, did the Defendant Rothaugh read out the sentence?
A He pronounced it. I should imagine he had notes, so he could read from them.
Q He did not read the sentence? Do you remember that?
A No. I do not remember that.
Q You said in the statements of the Defendant Rothaug, there were word addressed to the audience concerning the Jews?
A Yes. He spoke of the Jews. He said the Jews are guilty of this war. He said those who deal with the Jews will be ruined by them.
Q Did you ever read "Die Sturmer"?
A Yes. I have a copy of that paper which reported my trial. I therefore have a judgment on that matter.
Q You read in "Die Sturmer" the statements which just now described as statements by the Defendant Rothaug?
AAnd I also know that he did say that.
Q Were you not too excited and because of that, you cannot remember?
A But I can remember, I can.
Q Can you remember in detail what was said during the sentence?
A Yes. For example, it was said that racial pollution is worse than murder and poisons the blood for generations to come. It can only be made good by the physical destruction of those who committed it. That is what Rothaug said. I know it exactly, physical destruction of the defendant, that I remember exactly.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you. I have no further questions to ask.
May I ask Your Honor to return the photograph to me which I previously submitted to the witness?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Witness, you have said on cross-examination by defense, that at your trial before the Special Court, Nuernberg, at which the presiding judge was Rothaug, a witness testified that you had been in a cafe on the Ring in company with Mr. Katzenberger. Is that true?
A Yes.
Q The witness did say that?
A Yes. Yes.
Q After the witness said that, as you have described, your defense counsel sought to introduce evidence to the contrary. Is that true.
A Yes.
Q The evidence which your defense counsel sought to introduce, so you have said, was designed to show that your presence in that cafe with Katzenberger was impossible. Is that true?
A Yes.
Q And then you testified here that that evidence was rejected; is that true?
A Yes.
Q Repeat again the charge for which you were tried before the Judge Rothaug. I believe you stated it was perjury; is that true?
A Yes.
Q Is it also true from what you have said recently, that your alleged untrue statement, your perjured statement, was that sexual relations between and Katzenberger were impossible? Is that true?
A Yes.
Q Witness, you mentioned during cross examination that a man named Holz was in the audience during your trial, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q Who was this man Holz?
A Holz was deputy Gauleiter for Franconia in Nurnberg.
Q Is it correct to say that Holz then, as Gauleiter of Franconia, was leading party official of the NSDAP in Franconia; is that true?
AAs far as I know, yes.
Q Witness, you also mentioned that in the audience during your trial was a person named Haberkorn, did you not?
A Yes.
Q Who was this person, Haberkorn?
A He was a leading personality in the NSDAP in Nurnberg. I am not sure whether he was the Kreisleiter, but as far as I remember, he was.
Q Witness, can you describe what a Kreisleiter is?
A I can't do that.
Q However, you do know, do you not, that a Kreisleiter is a Party official of some rank?
A Yes.
DR. KOESSL: I want to make an objection to that question because the witness just said she did not know what a Kreisleiter is.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I withdraw the question, your Honor.
Q Witness, you mentioned at various times this morning that as you first began your trial you looked about the audience in the courtroom, did you not?
A I looked at the audience when I entered the courtroom, and then I saw only those who were sitting opposite to the witness stand.
Q Yes, and you also said that although you can remember no particular details, that you saw uniforms in the audience, did you not?
A Yes.
Q Witness, do you know what an SD uniform looks like?
A No.
Q You have said that Holz and Haberkorn were in the audience, have you not?
A Yes.
Q You have also said that you knew who Holz and Haberkorn were?
A Yes.
Q You have further said that Holz was Gauleiter of Franconia?
A Deputy, I said.
Q Deputy Gauleiter of Franconia, and that Haberkorn was Kreisleiter in the Nurnberg area of the NSDAP -- that is true?
A Yes.
Q You further indicated that repeatedly during your trial the Judge Rothaug addressed himself specifically to the audience, did you not?
A Yes.
Q Can you elaborate on what the Judge Rothaug said to the audience?
A One witness, for example, said that I bought cigarets from her. It was the tobacco store at the Plaerrer, and Rothaug used that opportunity to criticize sharply my inclination for smoking and to tell the audience that in that way too I was undisciplined towards the Party, because at that time it was the custom for a German woman not to smoke.
Q During the times that the Judge Rothaug, as you have described, addressed the audience, did he at any time discuss the policy of racial pollution or the problem of Jewry?
A Yes. For example, he said -
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Wooleyhan, those questions were covered and the Court remembers those answers.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Very well, your Honor. We have finished with redirect.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there anything further from this witness? Do any of the defense counsel care to further examine this witness? If not, the prosecution will proceed. The witness may be excused, I take it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes sir.
(Witness excused.)
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We turn now to Document Book 3-C at page 82, page 76 in the German book. There is found Document NG--554, which is a sworn affidavit reading as follows:
"I, Hans Groben, County Court Counsellor, Nuremberg, Solgerstrasse 8, hereby give the following affidavit under oath?
"I was judge for preliminary investigations at the local court in Nuernberg from 1 September 1939 until October 1941. In 1941, probably still in the first half of the year, Katzenberger was brought before me. In the absent of my colleague Dr. Ankenbrand I had to issue the warrant of arrest. Katzenberger was accused of having had intimate relations with the photographer Seiler. According to the results of the police inquiry which was submitted to me, actual intercourse had not been proven. The police had, however, collect a number of facts provided by neighbors, which did not allow them to discard this accusation altogether. Katzenberger denied the charges against him and explained the incriminating facts as expressions of childish affection by the Seiler girl, whose family he had known for a long time. In view of this, Katzenberger had to be taken into custody. I gave him detailed advice and explained to him the legal situation. He agreed that at present there was much which seemed to speak against him. I assured him that I would keep this matter in mind and would certainly set him free at once as soon as further inquiries proved the accuracy of his side of the story. Katzenberger understood this, a did not raise objection against the warrant of arrest, so as not to hold up proceedings unnecessarily.
"Soon after Katzenberger's imprisonment, the attorney Dr. Herz presented himself as his defense counsel. I discussed with him the situation and its legal aspect. He, too, thought it was right to await the result of further investigations and not to act against the warrant. But unfortunately, those further inquiries by the police were very lengthy. Again and again, both personally and over the telephone, I pressed the public prosecution for speed, and asked them to hand over to me the dossiers for a verification of the necessity for further detention. As the public prosecution opposed the usual arrangement that would have permitted Katzenberger to receive visitors during his confinement, I frequently made it possible for him to receive visits during the long months of his imprisonment, by letting him come into my office, after previous agreement with his counsel and (through him) with his wife. There an undisturbed discussion could take place with which I would not interfere in any way.
"The investigations, as I was able to ascertain from the files later on, were drawn out so long because the police tried desperately but without success to get the necessary conclusive evidence. According to paragraph 66, Section 3, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the only thing left for the Public Prosecution to obtain as a final means of clarification was a sworn affidavit by the witness, as Seiler herself had denied any intimate relationship. As investigating judge, I had to obtain this sworn affidavit. The result was that Seiler, after the most thorough instruction of a warning against perjury, I insisted that she had never had any intimate relationship with Katzenberger; according to my recollection she confirmed, in principle, Katzenberger's presentation of the story.
"As I had no reason to doubt the truth of Seiler's sworn statement, it was clear to me that I could not keep Katzenberger in custody any longer. Therefore I informed his counsel, Dr. Herz, about the issue of this interrogation and gave him to understand that now was the right time to act against the warrant. Dr. Herz naturally understood this hint and at once he filed an appeal against the warrant.
According to the regulation I put the appeal before the Public Prosecution adding in this report, that I had the intention to comply with this complaint i. e. to set Katzenberger free again. I thus clearly expressed with this additional remark that I believed Katzenberger not to be guilty. Such an attitude called the Jew-hater Rothaug to the scene; it was a signal for him to take this case over himself. As was explained to me, the accusation already filed with the Criminal District Court was withdrawn and replaced by one filed with the Special Court. As judge for preliminary investigations, I had became incompetent for the preparatory proceedings, due to Rothaug's order to continue the confinement for investigation and thus I was no longer in a position to put into effect my decision to set Katzenberger at liberty.
I did not take part in the final judgment against Datzenberger at the special court in Nuernberg. I was called to the proceedings as a witness, but I was not questioned as everybody renounced to do so. According to the German Code of Criminal Procedure, it is not customary for a witness to be in court during the trial and therefore I am not in the position to give details about the proceedings.
I was shocked when I heard of the result of the trial. The fact that Rothaug combined the trial against Seiler, a case of perjury, with the trial against Katzenberger shows clearly that he took over the case of katzenberger with definite prejudice and that ho was determined to exclude Seiler as a witness for the defendant. According to normal procedures, Seiler should have been a witness in Katzenberger's trial and should have testified for him, stating that the accusation against Katzenberger was not true. This normally should have lead to the acquittal of Katzenberger as there was nothing decisive against him.
Rothaug's verdict, in my opinion, was based solely on blind hatred for Jews. As there were no reasons for Katzenberger's condemnation on the ground of socalled race-defilement, there was still less reason to reply Paragraph 4 of the "Decree against Public Enemies"; because, if it were altogether impossible to ascertain when Katzenberger and Seiler had the alleged intimate relations, it was still less possible to explain that this had happened "in exploitation of war conditions." To arrive at Katzenberger's condemnation on the grounds of so-called "race defilement" and to sentence him in connection with Paragraph 4 of the "Decree against Public Enemies", it was necessary to violate all the facts of the case.
It has always depressed me that this verdict which cannot be designated as anything but judicial murder, was pronounced by Rothaug. How dangerous it was to take the part of a Jew as openly as I had done is shown by the fact that they suggested, before sending Katzenberger to Berlin for a decision in the question of clemency - that I should eliminate from the records my statement concerning the intended acquittal of katzenberger, so as not to expose myself to unpleasant official reprecussions from Berlin; But I refused to do this.
I declare that this statements correspond to the truth and were made without any coercion. I have read, signed and sworn to them.
(signed) Hans Grobin.
The prosecution offers as Exhibit 153, the Document NG-554.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to Page 73 of the same book, which is Page 71 in the German, we find Document NG-681.
JUDGE BRAND: What page?