We skip now to the beginning of the next page in the English text:
"What the defendant has done is very serious. He did not hesitate even to attack the person of the Fuehrer in his statements which were full with seditious ideas. In spite of all objections by the witness, he maintained his assertions making still more defamatory remarks. The effect on the witness who, as he knew, had suffered already a great deal in this war, was such as to cause her to decide to 'escape' to the Reich proper end was induced only by third parties to remain. Moreover, the defendant made another attempt to undermine the morale of the German forces by sending tablets containing caffein to his son. That excludes the possibility of considering this a minor case. The senate has sentenced him to death in accordance with the sole punishment provided for this in Article 5, paragraph I. The defendant has acted in a dishonorable manner and he will therefore be deprived of all civil rights.
"According to Article 465 of the Criminal Procedure the defendant will bear the costs of the proceedings."
It is signed "Duve" and "Koehler".
That is all of this document that we care to read into evidence at this time and we therefore offer the Document NG 357 as Exhibit 158.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Tribunal, in this Document 357, which is supposed to be submitted as an entire exhibit, there is in our document book an application by the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor regarding the re-opening of the case and a decision of the senate of the division of the People's Court regarding the application for re-opening - both of these documents. There is no photostatic copy in the exhibit of these two documents. Since the document is to be introduced in its entirety, we, however, in the exhibit which is to be submitted, do not find all its pants. I do not think that the document can be admitted in evidence in this form. Therefore, I object to the submission of this document.
MR. KING: I think because of an inability to get the sound mechanics working I missed part of the statement by defense counsel. However, as much of it as I got, this is the point which I think I understood him to make - that in the photostatic copy of the Document NG 357 a portion is missing and for that reason he does not feel that it should be admitted at this time.
Now, as to that exact portion, I am in doubt. But, nevertheless, I am quite amenable to the suggestion which he made. We do not want to offer in evidence at this time an original which in any way is incomplete. And we will naturally remedy that defect in the original before we offer it. However, since the document has been read - such portions of it as we would in any event read for the Court - may I suggest that we have it admitted conditionally and at such time as defense counsel can be satisfied that the original which we are offering - which we hand up to the Secretary General - is complete and in agreement with the German text; that the condition can then be removed by the Court
DR. GRUBE: Mr. president, at the beginning of the submission of the documents it was decided that the prosecution is not obligated to read the entire document, but that it has the right to read only parts of the document However, at the time it was stated expressly that the document will be regarded as having been submitted in its entirety. If now the Document 357 will be submitted as evidence as an exhibit then this means in fact actually that it has been entered in the form in which it is in our document book, and as above all as it is in the document book of the Tribunal, contained in the document book. Therefore, I believe that the defense has a right to request that all of the photostatic copies which are required for the entire document have to be introduced at this time. I do not want to wait until the condition has been fulfilled which the Prosecutor would like to offer. I believe that we have the right to demand that all the documents which belong to the original document have to be in it before it is submitted in evidence.
MR. KING: I fail to see the point of the remarks made by the defense counsel since I conceive it makes no difference whether the document, the missing portions are added now or later, but if it will make defense counsel feel better, we will withdraw it and later submit it, as we would in any even when the defect in the photostatic copy is remedied. We therefore withdraw for the present the exhibit which was to have been 158, and will submit it again without further reading when the missing photostatic portions are included in the document.
THE PRESIDENT: I was wondering whether inasmuch as the notations have been made in the record of this exhibit number whether this exhibit might retain its number and then comply with the submission and then have the fin* submission and the final acceptance?
MR. KING: If it is the rule of the Court I would be very happy to have it that way. In fact, that is what I suggested before counsel got up the second time.
THE PRESIDENT: No, it isn't quite the same. It was suggested to admit it conditionally. It isn't admitted even conditionally under the suggestion just made.
MR. KING: All right, we will consider the next document then as 159.
As Exhibit 159 the Prosecution will now introduce Document N.G. 381 to be found in Document Book 3-D, at page 17 in the English text and at page 22 in the German text. We be in reading from this document on page 17 of the English text which is a letter dated Vienna, 3 April 1943 from the Ortsgruppenleiter, whose signature is illegible on the photostatic copy which is included with the original exhibit. The letter bears the notation:
"Subject: Oskar Beck, of mixed race, Vienna, 2., Obere Donaustrasse 12, "I enclose a report from the competent block leader on Oskar Beck.
Beck is of mixed race, 1st degree, but he behaves like a 100% Jew and is a malicious enemy of Party and State, who unfortunately could not be caught up to now, I have already raised objections against the man when, at approximately 11 o'clock at night, he removed wireless sets from his shop to install them in his flat. I reported to you personally in this matter at the time, but there was then no means of initiating proceedings against him.
"The present report may make it possible to apprehend Beck."
We desire to read next from the bottom of page 18 in the English text which I believe is the beginning at the top of page 23 in the German. It is a note dated Vienna, 29 June, 1943, labeled confidential, and refers to the man Beck.
"The above-mentioned was a member of the social democratic party and while it was banned, he was a voluntary member of the Fatherland Front. He was at that time an adversary of the movement.
"There has been no change in his opinion up to the present. He does not belong to any of the affiliated associations of the NSDAP and gives very small sums to collections.
"On political grounds exception must be taken to Beck, who is of mixed race, 1st degree. Heil Hitler! " Signed Volkmer.
We now turn to the indictment which begins on page 19 of the English text and I believe it is near the top of 24 in the German text. The indictment is signed by Dr. Barnickel, Berlin, 30 July, 1943, the Chief public Prosecutor at the People's Court.
"The radio engineer and radio dealer Oskar Beck, born on 21 July 1899 in Vienna, from Vienna II, Obere Donaustrasse 15, bechelor, no previous convict provisionally arrested on 3 June 1943, from that day on under detention pending judicial investigation in virtue of the warrant issued by the examining magistrate at the District Court, so far without defense counsel, is charged by me in Vienna in March or April 1943 to have undermined the fighting moral by malicious incitement against war work for women. - Crime according to article 5 paragraph 1 No. 1 of the Extraordinary War Penal Ordinance.
"The defendant who attended the elementary school and a four years' high school course in Vienna and for five years attended a trade school for electr** technicians was employed until 1924 in a number of places; since then he has had a shop of his own with a net income of 200 Reichs marks per month. He is of mixed race, first degree, his mother was a Jewess. From 1919 until March 1922 he was a member of the Social Democrat Party. He is now a malicious adversary of the National Socialist State.
"In March or April 1943 he repaired the wireless-set of Theresia Draxler retired post office secretary. When leaving her apartment he saw application form for joining the total war effort on the kitchen table. He asked the witness Draxler whether she had already filled in the form and added;
'Do you know that every woman, who goes to work, sends one soldier to his death?'
The witness Draxler did not answer him. Then the accused left the apartment.
"He denies, but has been convicted by the trustworthy statement of the witness.
"The remark of the accused aims at preventing a person from duty register for the total effort. This attempt to burden the conscience of a woman, who is willing to work, by seeking to make her responsible for the hero's death of soldiers, jeopardises the devotion to work of women and has an adverse efi on the nation's fighting morale and its will to self-preservation in total war.
The accused could not count on Mrs. Drxler keeping his remark to herself, but had to reckon with the fact that she would speak of the incident to other people and that his utterance would become known to wider circles."
There follows some other notations which we will not read and is signed as previously indicated, by the defendant Barnickel.
We call attention now to the fact that on page 25 of the English text, 26 in the German, there appears a statement signed by Dr. Barnickel which should precede page 21 in the English text. It makes no difference in the orderly presentation of the case except there apparently is an error in assembly. We read now from the opinion verdict which begins on page 21. He begin reading from page 22, the second full paragraph. That is page 28 in the German.
"The Drakler couple were among his customers in Vienna whom he had sold a radio several years ago. At Mrs. Draxler's request he had repaired it several times. In March 1943 Mrs. Drakler called him in again to overhaul the radio. As he left the apartment, he happened to see lying on the kitchen table an application form for employment in the total war effort. Believing this to be Mr. Draxler's form, he asked Mrs. Draxler whether she too had filled in such a farm. When she informed him that she had got the form for herself, he said: "You realize of course, that every woman who goes cut to work, sends a soldier to his death?" Mrs. Draxler who was very indignant about this remark, refused to answer and he left very soon afterwards. Later on she spoke of this incident to some of her acquaintances, among others to the wife of a political leader in the NSDAP who reported it to the Ortsgruppe (local division of the NSDAP).
"The Senate considers these facts to be correct on account of the trustworthy statements made under oath by Mrs. Draxler. The defendant admits that he was in the apartment of the witness in the spring of 1943 to test the radio and to have left it through the kitchen; he denied emphatically, however, during the preliminary proceedings as well as at the trial to have made the remarks with which he is charged or any similar remark. He maintains to have only discussed business matters with Mrs. Draxler as with his other clients. The woman might have been annoyed that the radio had been out of order several times and had therefore reported him. The witness might have heard the remark from somebody else and mixed it up. His attitude was not hostile to the Third Reich. He had advised a National Socialist, Walter Pinder, who during the Schuschnigg period had supplied him with cardboard out of which swastikas had been out, to be careful. The party member senior customs inspector Schmidt and Scerences would be in a position to testify to it that he has not been an enemy of Nationalsocialism. An inquiry at the Rembrantstrasse Ortsgruppe would show that he had done repair work for them free of charge.
"The defendant cannot have any success with defense. The witness Draxler firmly maintained her statements in the face of all his objections and the Senate from her bearing at the trial gained the conviction that the witness did not wrongfully accuse the defendant out of annoyance because her radio did not work.
Furthermore, she denied to have been annoyed at all and pointed out quite rightly that she had not made the report. The Senate is convinced that by his denials the defendant is only trying to avoid the serious consequences of his offense. To interrogate the iwitnesses Pindur, Schmidt and Scerences and to obtain a statement from the Ortsgruppe Rembrandtstrasse in Vienna is superfluous in view of the facts, especially if one considers that for ulterior motives the defendant would not have disclosed his true opinion to these witnesses nor to the Ortsgruppe.
The way in which the accused spoke calmly and deliberately, and without any apparent cause, only an enemy of the state can think and speak.
"The utterance which the accused is known for certain to have made to the witness Draxler, was liable to impair her as well as other people's willingness to work for the total war effort. By his remark he attacked therefore the fighting morale and the will for self-preservation of the German people and this he did "publicly" within the meaning cf article 5, number 1 of the Extraordinary War Penal Ordinance, as he had to count on the fact, and he actually did count on it, that the witness, whom he did not know well would spread his remarks, as actually did happen. The Senate is furthermore cf the opinion that the accused was fully aware of the defeatist nature of his remark and the publicity in the above sense. Thus, the conditions under article 3, paragraph 1, number 1 of the Extraordinary War Penal Ordinance of 17 August 1938 apply. The fact that the intention cf the accused was without any result as regards the witness does net affect this state cf affairs: the purpose of the above ordinance is not merely to prevent any undermining of the people's will to self-preservation, but to prevent all possibility of undermining it.
"It is out of the question to assume a less serious offense because the accused acted with the intention to undermine morale and because the appeal to the emotions of a woman prepared to join the war effort represents a well calculated and particularly mean and dangerous attack on the German nation's will to self-preservation. Accordingly, the death-sentence, which is the only penalty provided for the crime of undermining the defense morale, was passed on the accused."
The verdict opinion is signed by Millendorf, That is all of that document which we will read at this time. We therefore offer formally into evidence as Exhibit 159, the Document NG-381.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: I ask the Court to note at this time that Exhibit 158, or which will become 158 when introduced, is now complete and has been submitted to defense counsel for examination. Perhaps we should permit more time for that. I understand, and let the record so show, that defense counsel has no further objections to the admission of NG-357. We therefore reoffer it as Exhibit 158.
THE PRESIDENT: We hear no objection. It will therefore be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: We invite the Court to turn now to page 26 in the English document book 3-D, which is the beginning of the case against the Frau van Brincken. We ask the Court in that document to turn first to page 38 of the English text. This will became, when offered in evidence, Exhibit 160* The portion -
THE PRESIDENT: Did I understand counsel to say page 38?
MR. KING: Page 38 of the English text, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That seems to bear a different number.
MR. KING: It will be Exhibit 160. That is 274.
THE PRESIDENT: 274; that's correct, sir.
MR. KING: We ask the Court's indulgence as we move from place to place within this document in an effort to present the story in as coherent a fashion as possible.
The portion from which we are now about to read is styled, "Copy of Filenotice dated 7 October 1944."
"The records of the Chief Public Prosecutor at the People's Court in the case against Frau Erika von Brincken for undermining the morale of the fighting forces, file number 4 J 1868/44, have been submitted. They begin with a report of the Kreisleiter of the Kreis of Rostocktown of the NSDAP to the Secret State Police based on records of the NSDAP, Ortsgruppe Warnemuende, Alter Strom, concerning the statements of Frau Kaete Koestner and Adolf Rcennau.
Frau Kcestner deposed as follows: " -- the extract being -
"On 9 August 1944 the woman who had the beach chair beside mine and who had occasionally talked to me asked whether I had heard that the Officers had been hanged. She seemed to feel indignant about it and went on to say, they should have been shot according to martial law. I asked her what would have happened if the plot had succeeded. Thereupon she merely replied: 'Well, that is a question.' In the course of conversation she also said that she knew Witzleben and Schulenburg personally.
"On 13 August the woman again took the chair next to me and Herr Roennau and in the course of conversation asked to what extent the Heinkel Works had been destroyed. In her opinion 90 per cent had been. Then she told us how she had said to Dau the chair man when he got angry about the bad way in which his chairs were treated: 'Well, don't worry, the Russian Kommissars will be sitting in them next year." She was also indignant because her 17 year old daughter had just been drafted for labor assignment in the country, and said it would do the farmers no good, they would only get more work and more worries. The girl could not do anything but eat.
"Then she came to speak about the construction of fortifications in the cast and said that a few trenches like that could not hold up the Russians. Last week's events had shown how the German tanks overran everything and the Russian tanks were at least as good, if not better. There was no use making any pretense about it, we must be honest. Finally she mentioned that she had received a letter from her sister-in-law, Frau Klausing, in which the latter expressed her anger because their name was ruined forever. Since I assumed that she had the same name I asked her whether she thought that it was meant for her. Thereupon she looked all around her, as she had often done during our talk, and finally said: 'One can't say everything. I do not bear that name, and if I did, then it would be just the opposite.'
'The witness Roennau confirmed Frau Koestner's statements and added that during the Heinkel conversation he had said himself that in his estimation only 50 per cent had been destroyed, whereupon she asked quite indignantly how he had got this percentage, they knew pretty well what they wanted to hit.
"Frau von Brincken was now interrogated by the Secret State Police. She maintained that she had not been indignant about the way in which the people condemned by the People's Court had died but had considered it very hard on the families and this was rather what she had meant by her remark that she would have thought they would be court-martialled and shot. She maintained that she herself said that everything would have been in a terrible muddle if the plot had succeeded, and she denied that she had said she knew Witzleben and Schulenburg, for that was really not the case.
"In the main she admitted the talk about Heinkel and her remark that they knew what they wanted to hit. However, this had been a purely factual remark. She also admitted her remark to the wickerchair man Dau, though she added that she had said:
"Maybe the Kommissars will wit there next year." Besides, the whole remark had been a pleasantry and had been understood as such by DAU. Frau von BRINCKEN further admitted that she had made a remark to the effect that she did not consider girls' working in the country to be right and she said she had made the remark with reference to her daughter who was extremely delicate and weak. She also admitted wondering whether the tankbarriers in the East were of any use. However, this was only an expression of her anxiety about the military situation. She also admitted having talked about the letter from her sister-in-law, Frau KLAUSING, but she denied having said: "If I bore that name, then it would be just opposite." Frau von BRINCKEN's chief argument in her defense was that the remarks she had admitted were not the only topic of her conversation with Frau KOESTER but that she had made them quite casually in the course of along and absolutely harmless conversations and that they were by no means meant to be the expressio of a negative attitude, but they naturally produce such an effect if they were taken but of their context and quoted alone. When Frau von BRINCKEN was confronted with her accuser Frau KOESTER, the latter stuck to her allegation and Frau von BRINCKEN stuck to hers. The witness ROENNAU exonerated her to a certain extent by saying that Frau KOESTER had merely told him that Frau von BRINCKEN had replied to the question about the consequences of the Fuehrer - plot by (well-). To the question whether she felt concerned at the shame brought on the name of KLAUSING she said that she did not bear that name and if she had done she could not help it. This statement bounded almost if she meant: "Well, if I do and so forth."
Frau von BRINCKEN tried to shake our belief in the witness by pointing out that though Frau KOESTER was not yet divorced she had already had a child by ROENNAU.
The chair-man Albert DAU exonerated Frau von BRINCKEN by saying that the remark she made to him was a harmless pleasantry which he had understood as such.
The neighbours living in Frau von BRINCKEN's house, gave very favorable reports about her, though it is true that the persons questioned were not familiar with her political attitude as she had not had political conversations with them.
The final report of the Secret State Police reveals that Mrs. V. BRINCKEN made a favorable impression on them but they said she appeared to be a talkative nature in her lively south German way. They did not, however, consider her malicious or hostile to the state.
Frau von BRINCKEN was arrested on 29 August 1944. At her interrogation by the judge at tho Amtsgericht she repeated the Statements she had made during the police interrogation. The Chief Prosecutor at the Special Court forwarded the case to the Chief Prosecutor at the People's Court only referring to her remarks on the beach chairs, the hanging of the condemned men and the tank trenches. A file was also attached from the year 1941. At that time the mother of Frau von BRINCKEN's domestic help, who also assisted with washing sometimes, informed against her, but she had had to withdrew her allegations as Frau von BRINCKEN denied them and as the daughter of the woman denouncing her did not confirm them. Moreover, in her native town the latter had been described as a woman who enjoyed telling stories in a convincing tone and after when they were examined it was found that there was not a word of truth in them. This file also contains the opinion of the Kreisleiter of the NSDAP in which the latter says - though without giving his reasons in detail - that from what had been seen of her behavior up till not it could be supposed that Frau von BRINCKEN would over stand up whole heartedly for the party.
Colonel von BRINCKEN has sent a letter to the Chief Prosecutor submitting the names of a number of people who are ready to vouch for his wife. He points out the attitude of the whole family to national socialism and proves this by letters from his son who is at the front. He maintains that his wife's attitude to the movement is a definitely positive no too, and that it was only at his request that she did not enter the NSDAP, since they had only got married in 1937 and he did not wish her to be considered as a "straggler." There is no decision Of the Chief Prosecutor on this case in the file.
The report from which we have just read is signed by Dr. Brandt, and dated Berlin, 7 October 1944.
We now turn to Page 44 in the English text. I begin reading at the top of the page which is Page 41 in the German text.
Mrs. Erika von BRINCKEN, nee HALDENWANG, divorced von SCHELLERER, has been married to my father, Colonel Carl von BRINCKEN, since the fall of 1937. She was found guiltless in the divorce-action and brought into the marriage two children, 10 and 12 years old.
Thanks to her great human warmth of heart and a good sense of justice, Mrs. Erika von BRINCKEN succeeded in the course of the years in uniting the two families. This bond cannot now be broken and it gave us, especially in these hard times, the feeling of having a harmonious "home". Moreover, I got to know and esteem the second wife of my father especially as a loving wife. She was tireless in effectively fighting the frequently strong stomach and billi us troubles of my father.
She looked after the big household in the most perfect way and no work was too much for her. Above all to my father she was the most faithful comrade: tactfully and cleverly she helped him over his heard hearing, a serious trouble he had contracted during the World War. - Beneficient for all of us, but particularly for my rather melancholic father, is her constant great cheerfulness and her sparkling Southgerman temperament. It is true that from many and endless discourse you could only withdraw by way of a disguised escape. Occasionally there were also utterly incalculable fits of anger with uncontrollable turns of phrase. Usually she soon repented and thus everybody was soon reconciled. Within the family the ceaseless flow of talk was really the only thing that provided some friction, but it could not upset the harmonious family life.
In our thinking and acting we were all been educated along national-socialist lines, for my father has been a member of the national-socialistic German Labor party since 1930. In the intimate family - circle we often discussed problems of philosophy of life and I never found that my second Mother's view deviated from ours. However, she is a preponderantly practical person who is less concerned with intellectual problems. Thus, what interested her most in the daily newspaper was, first of all, the novel and the death and birth announcements. To political events she probably dedicated the smaller part of her spare time.
Nevertheless, I know that the conception "Fatherland" meant more to my second mother than anything else, since she is the daughter of an old military family and her ancestors who were all old generals of merit would certainly never have been able to commit such disgraceful treachery as we witnessed a short while ago.
March a6-A-18-5-HD-Fitzgegald-Wartenberg.
In the neighborhood, Mrs. Erika von BRINCKEN is known and esteemed for her always cheerful and communicative nature, above all, however, through her great readiness to help, especially after air attacks when she took care of the families who had suffered and assisted them by work and deed.
We now turn to Page 32 of the English text, the bottom of Page 47 in the German text. This is a letter dated 12 January 1945. It is addressed to Dr. Boden, lawyer, concerning Mrs. von Brincken, Rostock:
"Dear Sir:
"I want to ask you to see Mrs. von BRINCKEN once more in person, in order to warn her, above all, against harming herself by indiscriminate talk or by putting herself forward, after her release. As I think you will have found out yourself the danger of her doing so is considerable, since in my opinion, she is not very intelligent, but knows how to impose on people and dazzle them by ascertain dashing appearance. It must be made perfectly clear to her that, if she should be once more assigned on the grounds of some silly gossip that may be considered as detrimental to the State or to the Party, her head will probably be forfeited. In this case she could no longer count on such help and support as she has hitherto received.
I take a perfectly realistic view of the matter and I am of the opinion that, on the whole, nothing will happen to Mrs. von BRINCKEN after her release if she behaves sensibly. But it is necessary to warn her very soverly and clearly about the possible dangers. I should be greateful of you could handle this matter briefly."
I congratulate you on the complete and satisfactory success which you personally achieved in the v. BRINCKEN case.
It goes without saying that all of us, above all in the interests of the family and the family name, were delighted about the outcome of the case."
It is signed "Hildebrandt, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer and General for the Waffen-SS."
We turn now to one further brief note in this document. It is to be found on Page 52 of the English and Page 59 of the German text. It is again addressed to Dr. Boden.
"Dear Herr Boden, "With reference to our consultation of 16 February 1945 I beg to inform you that according to Obergruppenfuehrer Hildebrandt, Frau von Brincken was already released from detention a few days ago.
A further request is therefore unnecessary."
That is all we care to read from this document at this time, and the document is therefore offered in evidence as Exhibit Number 160.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
It is so near the usual time for the recess, that we will take it at this time.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 3 is again in session.
MR. KING: May I first say in way of introducing the rest of the Prosecution's program for this afternoon that it will probably be necessary before we adjourn to shift our reading to Document Book III-D. I will repeat: To introduce the afternoon program, the balance of the afternoon's program by the Prosecution, it may be necessary to shift in our reading to Document Book III-E because of certain mechanical difficulties we have had in supplying missing pages from Document Book III-D. I say that so that the Court and the Defense Counsel may have III-E ready for later use this afternoon.
As Exhibit 16l, the Prosecution at this time would desire to offer in evidence, without reading, the Document NG-336 which appears in Document Book III-D, beginning on page 57; in the German text beginning on page 86. The document in the English text is on page 75. This document is a collection of letters which refer to the Leopold Felsen case, and because of the length nature of the letters, and the impossibility of presenting the story without almost the entire reading, or rather reading the entire set of documents contained in this exhibit, we pass over the reading and offer it in evidence without.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As Exhibit 162, we invite the Court to turn to Document NG-382, which is to be found on page 76 of the English text. This is the case of Geor Englbauer, which was heard before the Special Court with the District Court of Appeal, Nurnberg, at the public trial held on the 16th February, 1940. The presiding justice was the present defendant Rothaug, and the public prosecuting counsel, among the present defendants, being Oeschey.
JUDGE BRAND: Just a minute, we do not have your book identified.
MR. KING: III-D, on page 78. It has been pointed out to me, and I accept the correction, that Oeschey, instead of a public prosecutor, was assistant judge in this case, and that is as it appears from the introduction on page 78 of the English text, and is entirely correct.
We will begin reading from the verdict of the court, which begins on page 78: "Sentence in the name of the German People; The Special Court for the District of the Court of Appeal, Nurnberg, at the County Court Nurnberg-Fuerth, has found in law in the case against Georg Englbauer, unskilled worker, Neumarkt, Upper Palatin, because of the violation of Article 2 of the Order concerning Public Enemies at a public trial held on 16 February 1940;" we will omit reading the names of the justices since we have already reviewed that, and skip down to the line which begins:
"Englbauer, Georg, born 5 October 1920 in Neumarkt, Upper Palatinate, single, unskilled worker, Neumarkt, Upper Palatinate, in custody: is sentenced to death, loss of his civil rights for life-time and to pay costs of this trial, because an offense against paragraph 2 of the Order against Public Enemies of 5 September 1939 in connection with an offense of robbery with violence."
We now ask the Court to turn to page 82 in the English text; in the German text which is page 107, beginning under the heading Roman numeral II: "The accused II "The accused denies the crime.
His main defense is: "On the evening in question, after he had left the inn "Zur Goldenen Gans" he was at home until past 19 1/2 hours. The only reason for waiting at the Unteren Ter was, to meet Maria KNIPFER who worked at the inn "Ludwigskanal." Though he had not arranged to meet KNIPFER he had however been out with her several times previously. At 19 3/4 hours he entered this inn to buy some cigarettes. He remained there for about 5 to 10 minutes. But he did not go beyond the Leitgraben. He did not go as far as the place of crime nor could he have been in the vicinity at the time of the crime. As he neither saw nor met KNIPFER, he left and went to the cinema. On his way there the three women passed him and went into the Unteres Tor. One of the women was sobbing and cried that money had been stolen. This is how he knew about the attack. He did not trouble about the woman, as he had no occasion to do so, seeing that she was already accompanied by two women. Neither did he hear any screams while he was walking up and down near the inn "Zum Ludwigskanal".
III "1) That LIEBL was attacked in the manner described above, has been proved by the deposition of LIEBL.
Her depositions which she made under oath are entirely trustworthy.
In 1939 LIEBL spent about 9 months in the nursing mental home at Regensburg. It was found that she suffered from schizophrenia at that time. According to the report of Dr. BERLENER, who was consulted, it is probable that the illness at the time was no more than climacterial psychosis. In any event, LIEBL's present mental condition must now be regarded as absolute normal. Since that time she has carried out quite satisfactorily her job as a worker. The fact that she is mentally slightly deficient is of no importance. The possibility that the depositions of LIEBL might be the result of delusions is therefore completely out of the question. In addition LIEBL's handbag was found neither at the place cf crime or in the vicinity, nor in the train used by her, from Feucht to Neumarkt, despite a thorough search. When the police inspector BIRK, in order to put LIEBL to the test.