Apart from written statements -
Q. One moment, then when you used the word "transcript" you mean "affidavit"; do you? "Yes" or "No" will answer that.
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That answers it. Now, go ahead with your narrative.
A. Concerning the question as to how Cuhorst behaved during the trial of the Fritz case, I said, that, for example, in the case of Wagner he barked at her several tines because she was talking in such a soft voice that at the best one could hardly hear what she was saying. From that arose the sentence which is not my own, and that Frau Wagner was made the particular aim of his humiliation. I an of the view that his behavior toward Frau Wagner was too severe.
Concerning the question of the death sentences which were passed, I pointed out the following fact in favor of Cuhorst. When I had finished my plea, following the instructions from the Reich ministry of Justice, I had demanded the death sentence for all defendants and after defense counsel had spoken the session was ended and the sentences were to be announced the following day. It was very late when evidence was taken, when the taking of evidence was finished. As far as I remember, it was late in the evening. I told the interrogator that after the end, when evidence had been taken, I wont to Cuhorst, to his room, and that Cuhorst reproached me severely because of the sentences which I had demanded which, in his view, were impossible. I told Cuhorst that I shared his view; that I myself did not consider the sentences justified, but I had to follow the instructions from the public Prosecutor and the Reich ministry of Justice which demanded the death sentences. Cuhorst spoke to me in a way which I had never heard from him before. He was actually furious with me and said the prosecution had got around shouldering the responsibility to differentiate among the various defendants concerning their sentences and had shifted the entire responsibility on to the court.
My only reply was that that was correct; that I approved them-correction, showed them the decrees from the Reich Ministry of Justice, which I remember for certain were signed by the Department Head Krone, and that we had to wait which made it impossible for me to avoid following the instructions. I also told cuhorst that in my view, only in a few cases the death sentence could be considered at all; and, that I was prepared, if the People's Senate would refrain from passing the death sentence, in every single case, to defend, in my report to Berlin--in every single case the fact that the death sentence was not to be pronounced. I did so in my report on the sentences to Berlin, and nullity plea was not made. When the Penal Senate passed only five death sentences instead of the eleven which had been demanded, personally I was of the view that in three cases the death sentence should not have been passed; that, at least, a pardon was necessary and that I had persuaded the Public Prosecutor Wagner to support such a pardon. That I said earlier, under those circumstances, the sentence of page 5 is not essentially correct.
THE PRESIDENT: The time has come for our usual morning recess, and we will, therefore, adjourn at this time for fifteen minutes.
(The Tribunal then took a recess.)
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the court room will find seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. witness, you may proceed with your testimony.
A ( Continued)- I stopped at the case Fritz, and by pondering on page 5 of the affidavit, I should like to say the following new: That I here refuse sentences which also are not my own, and I quote these sen tences on the bottom of page 5, " That RJM was satisfait with the sentences could be seen from the fact that they were not death sentences in the case of six defendants or that there were no decisions against that." That sentence could be my own, but the following sentence is not: Therefore, the fact that the death sentence against any defendant was a purely arbitrary measure, that proves that CUhorst had a chance to refrain from a death sentence in all cases. " As far as I can remember, I argued about that question with the interrogator. That concept could not be mine just because as it is expressed here -- it is not a logical concept. I agreed that it be put in here when I had to sign the affidavit because I was of the opinion that since it is not logical, it is useless. Because cf the fact that Cuhorst had pronounced five death sentences might have sufficed to the Reich Ministry of Justice, and the fact in the case of ether defendants no nullity plea was made does not prove that the Reich Ministry of Justice did not or could not have directed through individual cases, that it was an arbitrary matter. And then, " It proves that Cuhorst could have refrained from pronouncing the death sentence in all cases:" I have to add the following: That the decree of the Reich Ministry of Justice was not directed to Cuhorst but to the Chief Public. Prosecutor, and that Cuhorst, therefore only, indirectly could be influenced by that decree. In no way was any judge bound of it. And I know I have explained to the interrogating official that CUhorst very frequently rejected such decrees and opposed them rather vegerously.
As concerns the case Peitra on page 6, I have told the interrogator also that in this case, that I remember a case where Cuhorst had a Pole in front of him, and in spite of directives from Berlin, which I believe I remember, he did not sentence him to death, but if I remember correctly, he gave him a prison tern of five or six years.
It was a case, which I believe, was dealt with at Urach, and from Berlin it was suggested that the death sentence should be pronounced. That can be seen from the fact that I attended that meeting, as the nan who had to deal with the elemency plea. The sane as the case Schmidt where Diesem was the defense counsel. The case, as I believe, I can recall, was tried before Cuhorst. I believe I remember this correctly, out, of course, an error is still possible because many years have passed since then. However, I believe it was Cuhorst. The Prosecutor was Prosecutor Rimelin, and Rimelin during the recess before his plea approached me and asked me what he should do. It was the case of a young Pole who had committed a six crime on a young girl. And, I believe in several cases I explained to Rimelin that considering the fact of the youth of this Pole, it seemed quite impossible to plea -- to request the death sentence, and that I would take the responsibility to tell him in the name of the generous court or for him, whom I deputized, when I told him that aside from the fact that a death sentence was normally required, he should plead for a prison term, And, we all agreed with Rimelin to plead for seven years, which for the case, as I have to admit was still a considerably severe sentence which I could net quite approve, but we took into consideration if the sentence would be still more lenient we had to expect a nullity plea, and the Pole, in a retrial would have been sentenced to death. Therefore, we were under some sort of duress. The Special Court agreed, and as much as I am remember, even reduced it by one or two years. I mention this case as an example for the fact that Cuhorst did not have the death sentence as his aim, but he was also accessible on other considerations.
In the case of Neins Niemiz on the bottom of page 6 and the top of page 7, I have to admit that I made pencil notations on the written sentences which have already been discussed, but I also emphasize that after the sentence:
"According to which the Special Court, that is, to say, Cuhorst, had added one year in the penitentiary because the case had happened in his residential district", after that sentence, by my own hand, a question nark was put in parenthesis, and that by doing so, I wanted to underline that I did not consider it sufficient reason -- I considered it possible to use that reason, but I did not consider it sufficient reason to increase the measure of the punishment. I do not remember any more whether it Was on my own initiative that I wrote that sentence, that additional phrase on the sentence or whether the senior Chief Prosecutor Bogen Reider with whom I got in contact with at that time, whether it was how who had told me that.
In the Case of Priest Fussen, I emphasized in favor of Cuhorst that the sentence was contrary to my own plea, which was for five years penitentiary; that sentence was pronounced for only three years prison. That the Special Court disregarded the attempt at violation which was mentioned in the indictment. On the other hand, I also described how that entire file proceeded, took place quite dramatically as far as the bench was concerned, how the various pieces of evidence wore piled up, that Fussen had celebrated a sort of mythical wedding with Margarethe Wagner, and that the evidence pointed --- such as a ton hat, a deaths-head, Were piled up on the bench, also a whip which Was allegedly used to beath Wagner. I also emphasized that the sentence Was nullified later on the Oasis of a nullity plea, and that Fussen received a prison sentence of eight years. Originally I believed that the sentence had been pronounced by the Special Court of Nurnberg where the proceeding had been transferred by the chief prosecutor, but I later had to be corrected to the extent that it was the Special Court in Frankfurt.
I have also pointed out that the proceedings were not public; at least, not in the technical sense, although the affidavit reads that the case had been tried before the public. I believe I can remember that I pleaded for exclusion of the public for moral reasons, and that Cuhorst agreed to that. I base my recollection on the fact that in cases of that kind, as a matter of course I used to plead to exclude the public, and I cannot believe that I made an exception in this case; furthermore, the fact that Cuhorst, on principle, refused to admit a representative of the clergy of Rothenburg to the session. When the public is excluded before German courts it is still possible that individual listeners who have a technical interest, that is, students of law, could be admitted to the session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Again I am not clear on what I hear. Is this statement the witness is now making, an accounting of his memory, of things he said to the examiner at the time he was examined? I cannot tell exactly from the translation. I think the character of this proceeding makes a good deal of difference as to whether he is now remembering something, or whether he is professing to testify to something he wanted inserted in the affidavit. I cannot tell.
THE PRESIDENT: Because of the peculiar situation that was created Friday afternoon, it was the intention, and it is still the purpose, of the Tribunal to permit this witness to tell anything of a favorable nature concerning the defendant Cuhorst, and so we are not limiting him.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor, I think perhaps you are misunderstanding. I am not asking that he be limited. I am asking that he make clear whether he is now testifying as to what he remembers as of this moment, in the box, whether he is new testifying as to something that he thought of when he was being examined, and was not included in his affidavit. I have no objection to his testifying. I cannot tell, I cannot hear what is going on. I would like to have him say that definitely.
THE PRESIDENT: It is quite true that this last statement of the witness is now pertaining to something which he says indep endently of anything that occurred in the course of that examination, and we are permitting him to do that on the theory that if he has anything to say in favor of Cuhorst, this Tribunal wants to hear it.
WITNESS: (Continuing.) It is correct that at the time when I was interrogated, in February, I remembered these points, and that at that time I explained to the interrogator that according to my recollection I suggested that the public be excluded. I also stated that my recollection is based on the fact, and that is rather implicating for Cuhorst, that Cuhorst at that time refused to admit a representative of the clergy. Mr. Paler, who reported about the case, as much as I can remember tried to change Cuhorst's mind, and I explained to Paler, I told Paier that he should insist that a representative of the clergy of Rothenberg should be approved by Cuhorst because I considered it very reasonable that a, representative from the clergy should listen to tho trial and show a technical interest, an objective interest, since the defendant Fussen still had to expect a disciplinary proceeding on the part of the clergy. The trial, therefore, as far as I can remember, was not before the public, as one could assume from this text here, but there was a limited admission of the public where, at least in the beginning of the trial, a large number of persons were admitted. And this is how one has to understand the phrase that the case, in spite of the fact of a sex crime, was tried before the public. The interrogator explained to me at the time that one should not understand it any different, because before American courts if the public was not admitted then there was nobody present but the Bench, the prosecutor, the defense counsel, defendant, and witnesses. Sc that the moment no other people were present, as was the case in the trial against Fussen, that one can already speak about the public being admitted, and so the phrase remains in this text.
In the case of Wassner-Plattmann, on page 7: To this case I have to say today that it is possible that the penitentiary term of four years of Plattmann may have included a punishment, a penalty, to which Plattmann had been sentenced by the Special Court of Freiburg for economic transgressions. I came to think about this only by a statement made by the ,defense on last Friday; but I still insist that the penalty; especially for Plattmann; was especially on account of his age. In the meantime; Plattmann had a part of his sentence reduced; I believe that I spoke in favor of this.
Concerning the case on page 7; on the bottom of page 7, which is a trial against a German woman for relations with Polish prisoners of war, I have explained to the interrogator that I, at the time, pleaded for severe penalty because I considered the attitude of these women very undignified.
It is correct that the illegal contact with Polish prisoners of war was mere severely punished than, for instance; relations with French prisoners of war; but today I have to state that penalty for illegal relations with prisoners of war, also when Cuhorst was presiding; lost much of their severity, and that primarily; because prisoners of war were no mere collected in camps but distributed to individual places of work in the country; and were more or less treated like agricultural, workers. The fact of working together with German women, therefore, led to much more intimate contact; and for that reason Special. Court, as well as the other courts, later; in spite of decrees calling for more severity by the Reich Ministry of Justice; reduced the extent of the sentences.
I believe that there is no more to say about this affidavit. I would be grateful, however, if any point should be cf specific interest for the defense or the prosecution, I would be reminded of it because I have the intention, and the firm desire; to speak the whole truth, and I am ready to answer any question according to the truth.
If I should be permitted to make more statements concerning Cuhorst, then I should like to say the following: The thesis, the assumption, that Cuhorst intentionally limited the defense, or intimidated witnesses in order to render the basis of the sentence more severe against the interest of the defendants, that, according to my own observation in proceedings in which he presided, and which I attended, is not correct. If in many cases he did not treat defendants, witnesses, and defense counsel, as he should have done, then that was more the result of his robust and somewhat distorted nature; but the purpose was not to cause incorrect and unjust sentences.
That was impossible, because the associate judges of the Special Court was definitely sound jurists and would not have stood for a treatment of that kind.
Furthermore, I should like to state the following.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Witness, you are permitted to state any facts, but it is not your province to argue the case. Now if you have any facts to state concerning Cuhorst, in his favor, pertaining to his conduct and his attitude as a judge, we will hear them; but refrain from these arguments in which you are now indulging.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
Concerning his attitude toward decrees in Berlin, I am say that there were many indictments regarding crimes against the law concerning malicious attacks which were not considered by Cuhorst, and therefore ho was often in contradiction with Berlin, specifically by stating that any statement that the defendant was alleged to have made was not sufficient to undermine the confidence in political leadership such as is stated in Paragraph 2 of the law against malicious attacks. That was even written into the sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, witness, you are now stating conclusions. The Court will draw conclusions, we hope sound conclusions, and it is not your province as a witness to draw conclusions. Either confine yourself to the facts, or we will have to stop the examination.
THE WITNESS: Yes. Furthermore, I have to emphasize that Cuhorst, also and particularly in cases of Party members, could be very severe. I remember a case against an old fighter by the name of Oesele who, for crimes against the war economy, was sentenced to death, a penalty which I myself considered very severe.
I also remember one case against a leather manufacturer Hepting, who was indicted for crimes against the war economy, and whore the Office of the Reich Criminal Police and the German Labor Front tried to achieve a very severe sentence against Hepting.
The German Labor Front even had the intention of turning over the plant of Hepting to one of their people. I know that Cuhorst at the time was very strongly against such witnesses, even if they came from the Party, and treated them rather roughly, witnesses whom ho thought might have rather insincere and indecent reasons. I know also from other trials that he treated witnesses rather badly who spoke against the defendant for reasons which were not objective reasons, and for that he had a very fine ear. He found that out rather quickly.
I also know that Cuhorst complained about the continuous stream of nullity pleas from the Ministry, nullity pleas which had for their purpose the bringing about of more severe penalties. As a rule these nullity pleas were decided against the defendants.
As far as the question of evidence in concerned, I know from my own experience that Cuhorst and the Special Court, and also the Penal Chamber in many cases, rejected evidence because the facts in tho case were considered true facts. I do not believe that by bad treatment of defense counsel, of witnesses, and of defendants, a situation had been brought about according to which one could have contested the sentences.
I am of the conviction that the actual reasons and opinions were incontestible. Also, under the presiding Judge Cuhorst, as far as the extent of the punishment was concerned, I did not always agree with Cuhorst, but that I have already explained.
Now I do not have any more statements to make about Cuhorst, but I am quite ready to answer questions from both sides according to the truth.
THE PRESIDENT: You say you have nothing more to say. That being true, you should not say anything more. You have been given an opportunity, that has boon going on now for hours, to tell anything that you could tell favorable to Mr. Cuhorst, and you new say you have told all that you can think of. Is that true.
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is true.
THE PRESIDENT: "The cross-examination now having closed, the prosecution may proceed with any redirect examination, confining itself, of course, to the cross-examination.
DR. SCHILF: (Counsel for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg): Mr. President, the cross-examination, if I remember correctly, was not concluded. May I ask for a decision of the Tribunal as to whether I may be permitted to conduct a cross-examination which does not concern the defendant Cuhorst?
THE PRESIDENT: In answer to your question, you will not be permitted to further cross-examine. Surely when the Tribunal gives this witness, carte blanche, the opportunity to tell anything he knows, that is going further that a cross-examiner would be permitted to go. We did this because of the situation that was created on Friday afternoon. I think it is undoubtedly t rue that Dr. Mandry had completed his cross-examination, and if he had not, the Tribunal has certainly finished it for him. No cross-examiner can go further than the Tribunal has gone in opening the way for additional testimony on cross-examination.
The answer to your question is that the cross-examination of this witness has closed, and the prosecution may now proceed.
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, may I just say one thing? In my opinion it has become quite clear that the witness Dr. Schwarz, as far as he was concerned, in all details, was permitted to say anything concerning the defendant Cuhorst. However, neither on the cross-examination by Dr. Mandry nor by the interrogation of the witness through the Bench was anything mentioned that concerns the relationship of the Ministry of Justice to the activities of Cuhorst. The witness only emphasized that, from the Ministry of Justice, directives had come down.
The witness, however, in my opinion, has not sufficiently explained in what manner the directives from the Ministry of Justice, for instance, concerning the Special Court or the Penal Senat, or in what relation, they were standing. Therefore, I have made quite a number of notations concerning his statement in the direct examination. The facts which were mentioned by the witness in direct examination have neither been mentioned in the cross-examination by Dr. Mandry for the defendant Cuhorst, nor by his own further statements when he spoke about Cuhorst in great detail.
Therefore, may I be permitted to ask for a decision from the High Tribunal and to ask for a revision of its decision because, in fact, it would mean a limitation of the defense as it would make it impossible to speak for my clients, who were members of the Ministry of Justice?
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Schiff, we will now make this very definite. Howhere, either in the direct or the cross-examination, have your clients become involved. What you have just now been discussing, and which you want to further discuss through this witness, is the relationship between the Ministry of Justice and the trials. That is defensive matter. You will not be limited in showing that relation. The Court is just as much interested in knowing to what extent the Ministry of Justice directed those trials as any defense counsel can be. You will have your opportunity for that. That is defensive matter; it has nothing to do with this witness. The opinion of this witness on those points is not any more valuable than the opinion of witnesses that you may introduce when the time comes. That is final.
DR. SCHILF: I beg your pardon, but I want to say just just one word more.
The witness, from the year 1936 until the year 1944, was prosecutor at the Penal Sonat, the District Court of appeals, in Stuttgart. Apart from that, he worked with the General Prosecutor on clemency pleas. He has explained in great detail that, on the one hand, the sentence by Cuhorst were, very severe and, on the other hand, they were very lenient; and that the Reich Ministry of Justice, on the one hand, did not disagree with Cuhorst because he was too lenient, and, on the other hand, disagreed with him because he was too severe.
And now this witness is particularly valuable. For years he also dealt with clemency pleas with the Chief Prosecutor in Stuttgart and could give us some clarification about this contradiction, a contradiction which was very clear from his statements and from his affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, Dr. Schilf, if you think this witness is peculiarly able to throw light upon that subject, call him as your witness when you come to your defense.
DR. SCHILF: I am quite satisfied with that, Fr. President. Thank your.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honor please, as I understand it, the Court's ruling is that this witness has offered no material evidence concerning the relationship to the defendants in the Ministry of Justice, so that everyone understands.
JUDGE BRAND: I think we understand that he has discussed conduct of the Ministry of Justice, but his testimony has not related to any specific defendant.
MR. LA FOLLITTE: Exactly. Exactly, and so that the Tribunal -if I may state the Prosecution's position, we understand that situation I think Dr. Schilf has lost nothing, because we understand there has been no relationship to any defendant.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Dr. Schwarz, in your affidavit which you have been discussing at some length this morning you stated that in the Pietra case that a death sentence was passed by the defendant Cuhorst. Now last Friday during your direct examination you further state on Page 1952 of the transcript of the trial again that the Pole, which from the context appears to be Pietra, was tried with Cuhorst as presiding judge and was sentenced to death. Now, Dr. Schwarz, in your narrative this morning you have said that Pietra was not sentenced to death but was given some term of imprisonment. May I inquire how on two previous occasions under solemn oath, which you as a lawyer are quite aware of the implications thereof, you can unequivocally state that a man was sentenced to death, and this morning deny it completely?
How is that, Dr. Schwarz?
A. I can give ample clarification for that. I have stated in the case Pietra that as I remember, it was a young Pole who, with Cuhorst as presiding judge, was sentenced to death. I have always told the officials of the Prosecution that I remember the case under the name. Pietra, but I do not know quite for sure whether that was the man's name. I have also explained that if I remember correctly I had no close contact with the case and that in particular I do not believe that I had anything to do with the plea for clemency for Pietra, but that that was the prosecutor Wendling. In my statement of this morning I did not mention, or only briefly mentioned, the case Pietra, and the case Pietra reminded me of another case which is not identical with the case Pietra. In the case Pietra there was the relationship of a young Pole with a German woman. In the case which I have mentioned -
Q. Dr. Schwarz, one minute. There seems to be some confusion as to the name of the case. But in any event regardless of the name of the defendant, on those facts some Pole was sentenced to death by Cuhorst; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, with regard to the writing by you on a verdict in the case of Heinz Nimiz, that writing placed by you on the verdict at the time, as you have said, made some notation of your feeling that the added year of the sentence was in some way related to the fa.ct that the crime occurred in the neighborhood where Cuhorst lived. That is correct, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Dr. Schwarz, surely it is obvious to you that at the time you made that notation the Prosecution here could have had nothing to do with it. That is rather obvious, isn't it? We didn't ask you to write that on the verdict, did we?
A. No, that was my own intention, of course.
Q. Yes. That was your own intention. Now, leaving that case, think back if you will to last Thursday afternoon. Do you remember where you were last Thursday afternoon? Perhaps the time would help.
A. Yes, I believe I was interrogated by Mr. LaFollette, but I do not remember whether that was Thursday afternoon. I only know that during the two days I was with Mr. LaFollette and that during one conversation you yourself were present.
Q. Yes. I am speaking of the occasion at which I was also present and that, as you suggest, was with Mr. LaFollette in his office. Now during the occasion that you now remember, what was the subject of conversation?
A. The subject of conversation was the affidavit.
Q. Yes. Now during the course of that afternoon's discussion did you have anything to eat there in Fr. LaFollette's office?
A. Yes, I received some chocolate.
Q. How much chocolate did you receive?
A. Well, it was probably four square centimeters.
Q. Dr. Schwarz, was there any other chocolate in the room?
A. Certainly.
Q. Dr. Schwarz, how much chocolate was in the room that you saw?
A. You yourself got some chocolate and Mr. LaFollette also ate chocolate. Also, if I remember correctly, Mr. Einstein.
Q. And all of the chocolate that you saw, before any one ate any of it , in quantity how much would you say there was?
A. Altogether perhaps one chocolate bar.
Q. Now to refresh possibly your memory and certainly that of defense counsel and the Tribunal, the Prosecution would like to read only a few lines from an exhibit that was previously admitted into evidence before this court. It is Exhibit No. 120, and it is a recital of some occurrences at the Kemna concentration camp. Following these occurrences it was the recommendation of the senior public prosecutor in that area that no criminal proceedings could be instituted as a result of these occurrences.
I will read them very slowly.
DR. BRIEGER (Counsel for the Defendant Cuhorst) I should like to protest to further questions in this direction because they have nothing to do either with the direct or with the cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Ordinarily, Dr. Brieger's statement might apply. Under the circumstances of this case, as they have developed all the morning they do not apply. This witness has become a hostile witness, and the Prosecution may therefore deal with matters by way of cross examination if it desires.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. I think that it is quite apparent from your description, Dr. Schwarz, of this chocolate bar in Mr. LaFollette's office that there was just one chocolate bar that you saw, and you have also stated that every one in the room had some of it. Now, in your opinion, did you feel in Mr. LaFollette's office last Thursday afternoon as a result of the chocolate that you had and that had been divided from the bar that we all ate, that you were being bribed?
A. No. I considered it just a politeness on the part of Mr. LaFollette, whom I had a great deal of confidence in because he asked me very quietly.
Q. Now, Dr. Schwarz, after you accepted the kind gesture, as you have described, on the part of Mr. LaFollette in giving you some of that chocolate, thereafter did you feel yourself under any particular pressure?
A. I would like to ask, do you mean that I felt under a pressure during that conversation? No, but later on Friday.
Q And on Friday, how did you feel?
A Yes.
Q That was traceable to what?
A To the fact that an interrogator was with me between the morning and afternoon sessions. He made some statements concerning my previous statements.
Q You have described that. On this occasion which you mention, were you beaten over the head?
A No.
Q Were you starved?
A On the contrary. The interrogator took me to lunch with him.
Q Were you tortured?
A Not at all, but the interrogator time and time again explained to me in very strong words that he was not satisfied with my statements, and that it was my duty if a question were put to me by the defense, to not only give one answer, but if possible, a second statement when then would weaken the point the defense was making. I explained that I would answer questions I was asked according to the truth. I had the impression that I was net only supposed to be questioned as a witness here, but that in a manner of speaking, I was considered an auxiliary of the Prosecution. My point of view concerning the Prosecution, is not a hostile point of view at all. I try my best to tell the truth always. I cannot understand the manner in which the interrogations were conducted, which interrogations finally led to my affidavit.
Q And after that rather harrowing experience that you had at luncheon, in the course of afternoon, in response to questions from the Tribunal, you stated that there was nothing that you had already said that was untrue. Is that right?
A Yes. According to my recollection, what I have said was not untrue. Only I was not quite sure about the party membership of the Fellow Member Klautzer.
I asked if there were any point which was questionable? And if there was, I asked that that question be put to me again, because my recollection as far as individual points are concerned, is not quite clear.
Q Witness, you also said to the Court, Friday, and you reaffirmed it this morning, that with regard to your affidavit, there was nothing in there that you regarded on its face as being essentially untrue. Is that correct?
A It is correct with the exception of those points which I have explained this morning.
Q Yes, this morning after maxing the statement that there was nothing in the affidavit which was essentially untrue, you went on at some length to indicate that some sentences, grammatical sentences, were not your own.
I show to the witness, now, his original affidavit which bears on its face some 23 to 25 alterations. Each one, I think, is is his own handwriting, and at the bottom of each page, is his signature.
Now, witness, I am not asking you anything about that other than the will you please affirm for the Court that that is, in fact, the original draft that you signed, and that those initials were put there by you?
A Yes, but I ask to be permitted to say something concerning that fact.
Q No, Witness, I am not going to ask you anything further about that. You have said a great deal about it. I have only one final question. You were mentioned toward the last of your narrative this morning, the matter concerning the illegal intercourse between German women and Poles. On the face of your affidavit is stated the fact that the Defendant Cuhorst was especially enraged at these activities between German women and Poles. What I ask you now, Witness, is this: You must have had basis for that statement. Can you tell us whether the basis was the fact they had intercourse, or the fact that men involved were Poles?