Which fact enraged Cuhorst?
A It was particularly the attitude of the women. The women, some cf them were older women, some of them were younger women who were married, and some were unmarried, some were married to soldiers, behaved abominably in their homeland. It was awful to see. They had sexual relations with the Polish prisoners of war who worked in that village. In individual cases, they even stated that they were prepared to marry the Poles and divorce their husbands. There was entertainment in some cases -
Q Witness, one moment please. If the men involved had been Frenchmen, from Paris, would Cuhorst have been so enraged?
A I am quite convinced of that because the attitude of the women, as I may say frankly was quite without shame.
Q One more thing, you remember the case of Lawyer Diesem? He got into trouble with the Special Court in Stuttgart. Some suspension proceedings were started against him. Your affidavit does not indicate that that unfortunate Dr. Diessem was suspended, but your oral testimony on direct examination Friday morning, indicated that he was suspended. Correct me if I misstate this briefly. What was it that defense counsel Diessem disagreed with the Court about? That case was presided over by Cuhorst. Was it not that Diessem disagreed on a point of law?
A Diessem agreed with the Tribunal in that there was a case of a public enemy. He only tried to deal with the basic misdemeanor as if it were a trifle, and there he was in disagreement with the Tribunal and also with me. But it was not only that which enraged Cuhorst, but also the rest of his statements. They, above all, irritated Cuhorst.
Q Is it your opinion, Witness, that irritating a judge so far as you personally are concerned, is reason for disbarment?
A On the basis of that plea about which Cuhorst was angry, he had written a complaint to Glueck. I do not know what the purpose of the complaint was.
I have corrected my affidavit where it reads that Cuhorst demanded and achieved the suspension of Diessem. I could not know whether Cuhorst demanded that Diessem be suspended.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If it please the Court, that concludes the redirect examination except for one small detail. We have again withdrawn the affidavit cf the witness. Before we re-submit it, we are going to count the changes and ask him if he has any more he cares to say about it if that fits in with you.
A Yes. And that is the following: I was asked before whether it was known to me that Cuhorst sentenced a Pole to death. I have stated time and time again that I believe my recollection is correct, that the name is Pietra. He was a Pole. I knew for certain that he was sentenced to death. I believe that Cuhorst was presiding judge at the time. I have always denied that Cuhorst was the man. If I remember correctly, I stated it was one of Cuhorst's cases. I have reasons why I cannot be sure of it. I do not remember having any objective connection with the case myself.
Q Dr. Schwarz, that is quite clear from what you have already said. Before we re-submit that affidavit, will you simply count the changes you made therein?
THE PRESIDENT: One moment please. The changes that were made in the original draft of that affidavit appear on the face cf it. The Tribunal has seen the notations. They have seen his initials. They have seen the signature at the bottom of each page. This Tribunal is able to count the number of changes, and the Tribunal will examine these changes. If the Prosecutor merely desires to introduce that original document in evidence, we will be glad to receive it.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, it is in evidence. These changes don't show on the mimeographed copy.
THE PRESIDENT: It shows on the original draft. That is where the changes appear.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We cannot confine the whole case to the testimony of a witness who contradicts himself. We must go to something else.
MR. WOQLEYHAN: The witness may be excused.
THE PRESIDENT: The time has now come for the usual noon adjournment; we will therefore adjourn until 1:30 this afternoon.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess until 1330 hours.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 14 April 1947)
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I call the witness Remelin please.
RENATUS RIMELIN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Will you raise your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Ominscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLETTE:
Q. You will state your name to the court, please.
A. Renatus Rimelin.
Q. And where do you live Dr. Rimelin?
A. At Stuttgart - Bad Cannstatt.
Q. You have given two affidavits in this case, I believe?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. One on November 3, 1946?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. You will find that on Page 21 and 22 of the book that I just gave you.
A. Yes.
Q. The other was given on the 10th of January 1947, and you will find that on Page 38 and 39.
A. Yes.
Q. Will you relate to the Court your professional training and the positions which you had at the courts having criminal jurisdiction in Stuttgart, please.
A. In 1931, I passed my first legal examination. Following that, I worked in the preparatory service. In 1934, I passed my second examination for the legal service. Then as an assistant judge assessor, I was appointed to the local court and I was also used as an assistant public prosecutor by the prosecution. In 1937, I became a permanent judge. I was in that position until January 1940. In that month, I was transferred to the prosecution at Stuttgart to replace a colleague who had been called up. From 1940 until 1945, I was with the public prosecution in Stuttgart.
Q. Are you acquainted with the contents of these two affidavits which you have given?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. Do you recall the dates on which you gave each of them?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Have you got anything to say now before I start examining you whether you were in any way forced to sign this affidavit -- or either of them, rather -- or whether you are not satisfied with the contents of them?
A. I was not coerced to depose this affidavit. It is possible that one sentence or the other during the dictation did not completely express my intentions.
Q. Were you threatened in any way to sign these affidavits in the shape that you find them now?
A. No.
Q. Thank you. In the prosecutor's office daring the years 1940 to 1945, what special cases or what special branch of the office did you handle?
A. First of all, I had to deal with cases of a general criminal nature, that is to say, thefts and fraud. Side by side with that, I was the export for economic matters, that is to say, for a census of the price regulations, for infringements against the goods regulations. Then I dealt with war economy matters, public enemy cases, sexual crimes and murders.
Q. Did you know anything about the political position which the defendant Cuhorst occupied in the Nazi Party in and around Stuttgart?
A. I think that Cuhorst was a speaker for the Party.
Q. What were his relationships with the Gauleiter or the Kreisleiter or the Party leaders in that territory?
A. Concerning his relations with the Gauleiter and Kreisleiter--Districtleiter--I can make no statements; but I do know that concerning the head of the state police office, he did entertain relations with him.
Q. And what were those relations?
A. I have no actual facts in my knowledge concerning these relations. I did know that he was friendly with Muskey.
Q. And who was Muskey?
A. Muskey was the head of the state police office at Stuttgart.
Q. Was the Cuhorst family--Cuhorst and his brother and father--were they prominent in the Party?
A. Cuhorst's brother was the expert on cultural matters for the town of Stuttgart.
Q. As such was he the head of the political life and public office life of Stuttgart?
A. As expert on cultural matters, he was in charge of the cultural life in Stuttgart, which naturally was closely connected with the Party.
Q. In your affidavit of January 10, 1947, you state in general that you were afraid of Cuhorst, that owing to his high position in the Party he could have been extremely dangerous to you as a devout Catholic, and that he submitted a complaint against you. Will you tell the court some facts with reference to that statement?
A. I represented the prosecution in the case of several persons who at a printer's office had stolen ration cards. Cuhorst was not the presiding judge. At the end of the trial, the defendants, together with the audience, left the court room. Thus the danger that one or the other among the audience could get away. The responsibility for moving the defendants away was nine. Therefore, I told the head of the office of the District Court, I suggested to him in good intentions, that he should have a barrier out up between the audience part of the room and that part of the court room where the defendants were. Cuhorst heard of my conversation; he then did not raise a complaint with me; he did make a complaint to the prosecution in which he reproached me with having allocated to myself rights which were not my rights, of having disturbed the good relations between the prosecution and the court and he protested energetically against a young republic prosecutor giving orders in his court room. That complaint was through the prosecution, that is to say, the head of the prosecution authorities; he took up that complaint; he dealt with it. It was indicated to me that under all circumstances I was to apologize to Cuhorst, so that no further consequences would arise for me. I did so; Cuhorst accepted my apology, but the relations between him and myself from that moment onwards were disturbed.
Q. Were you in Stuttgart at the time of the big air raids in September, 1944?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Were you there afterwards?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Describe to the Court what happened to the court building and the places where the records of the Special Court and the criminal senate at the District Court were kept.
A. The court building in Stuttgart is a square; the prosecution and the Special Court were housed on the southern side of the building; the southern side of the building was burned out completely.
Q. I will ask you whether or not the records were destroyed.
A. I should assume so, or I even know it for certain; for the criminal record department was housed in the rooms of the prosecution. All those rooms are completely burned out, and that part of the building is broken, or collapsed.
Q. When did the Special Court leave Stuttgart?
A. About one month before the arrival of the allies; before the allies arrived, and that was on the 21st of April; correction, on the 22nd of April.
Q. What became of the records that accumulated after the air raid and until the time they left?
A. The files were destroyed.
Q. Do you know; tell the court what you know with reference to the period of time which Cuhorst set for the trial of cases.
A. The indictments were submitted by the prosecution to the Special Court. Cuhorst, as the presiding judge of the Special Court, decided the date on which the trial was to be held; and besides, he appointed the judges who were to work on the case. It happened that the trial was held two days after the files were received by the Special Court, but as a rule trials were fixed for a term of fourteen days to three weeks after receipt of the files. That was true in particular of trials held outside the town, where according to the trip, those dates were fixed according to the route of the journey.
Q. How did the defense counsel, paid for and retained by the defendant, obtain access to the files; to whom did he have to petition for that right?
A. The defense counsel had the right to look at the files under the criminal code of procedure from the moment when the files arrived at the Special Court.
Q. Did I understand you incorrectly yesterday afternoon then? I thought you said that the presiding judge had the right to determine whether he wanted to continue to look at the files, and that he had the right to refuse a defense counsel the right to look at the files until he was completed with them. I thought I understood you to tell me that yesterday.
A. Certainly, if the presiding judge did not hand the files to the lawyers, then it could not be done because the head of the office was not empowered under the code of procedure to do so. We could do a favor to the defense counsel, if he did so, but concerning the right to look at these files, the judge decided about that.
Q. That, of course, applies; that, of course, applied also to the case of defense counsel appointed by the court or by the presiding judge; is that right?
A. Certainly; that also applied to those cases.
Q. Now, you stated in your affidavit of November 3rd, on what is probably the first page certainly of the English document; you find that on page 22 of your German book; that the defendant Cuhorst was severe in proceedings against foreigners; I am stating this in substance; that he had an especial aversion against Poles; that he passed death sentences for murders, but also in case of less important crimes in order to intimidate the foreign workers. Generally, will you expand on that and tell the court what you know about that?
A. Besides the other cases which I dealt with, I also had to deal with criminal cases against Poles, but Cuhorst, as far as I am able to remember and also correspondence with what I think I can remember for certain after a great deal of reflection, against Poles only such trials were held which considered, or concerned murders. I remember for certain that the trials against the two Poles was con ducted by him, against the two Poles who had murdered a gardener at Bad Cannstatt.
Furthermore, I believe I know for certain that the trial against a woman called Helene Polek was also conducted by him, who had murdered a farmer's wife who was her employer. Furthermore, I know that he conducted the trial against the Pole who had stabbed to death his mistress in the street. That Cuhorst conducted also other trials of Poles, I don't think.
Q. Then, you believe that you were mistaken when you stated also in your affidavit, or the affidavit states that you signed, that in case of less important crimes Cuhorst passed death sentences in order to intimidate foreign workers. Was that a mistake in your affidavit, or is that correct?
A. Yes, that was an error in my affidavit. At that time I based my statements on the fact that a certain Case of which I was thinking at the time had been conducted by Cuhorst, but in the course of the interrogation my attention was drawn to the fact that a case of Skovernon had been conducted by Cuhorst at Ehingen; that Skovernon had left his place of work with a farmer, had committed a great many theft; and had resisted arrest by the policemen by biting his hand. I wrote out the indictment against him, but I did not attend the trial myself because it was not held at Stuttgart, but in Ehingen; Skoveron was sentenced to death.
Q. How old was he?
A. The offenses were committed over a period of time of about three months. Skoveron at the beginning was seventeen years of age; when he had completed his crimes, he was eighteen.
Q. Was the prosecuted under the law against Poles and Jews?
A. He was indicted on the basis of the law against Poles, in conjunction with the public enemy law, and the law against violent criminals, that is to say in virtue of the laws against Poles, as a virtue of the other German laws against which he had infringed.
Q. Is it your memory now that that sentence was given in the court over which Cuhorst presided?
A. Originally I could not remember the Skoveron case; during my interrogation, however, the defense counsel whom I met informed me that Cuhorst had been the presiding judge.
Q. Are you satisfied that is correct?
A. I did not see Skoboron myself during the trial therefore I cannot express a definite opinion as to how I would have decided it if I had been the judge.
Q. No. I am sorry. I didn't make you understand me. Are you satisfied now clearly in your own mind from the information that you have obtained that the defendant Cuhorst tried this case?
A. I believe that I can say for certain that according to the information I obtained Cuhorst was the presiding judge but I can only relay on hearsay. I do remember, however, that the files were submitted to the Reich Ministry of Justice passed through my hands and that I saw the name of Cuhorst on the verdict but as it was that the report on the pardon plea in such cases in which the expert had not himself attended the report was written by his deputy who had attended the session but if I understood the defense counsel Witzigmann properly Cuhorst was the presiding judge.
Q. Now, you didn't try the Ochlbach case?
A. No.
Q. Did you see the prosecutor who tried it after the trial?
A. The public prosecutor returned from that journey and told his colleagues in general that Cuhorst had sentenced the man to death who had been carried into the courtroom on a stretcher. I did not hear any more about that case.
Q. Do you remember the case of Luise Togni?
A. Luise Togni? Yes, I do. I myself wrote the indictment against Luise Togni for plundering. Luise Togni was an Italian woman who had only been in Germany for a short while. Immediately after an air-raid, she took from a burning building two suit cases with plunder. The indictment was made because of plundering. I did not attend the trial itself. A colleague who attended that particular trip of the Special Court presented the prosecution at the trial Luise Togni who sentenced to death.
He reported to me about the trial and added that there were doubts as to whether Luise Togni had been fully aware of the wrongfulness of her action. She had only been in Germany for a short while and concerning conditions in Germany particularly heavy punishment for plunder, she had not been accustomed to those. Therefore, before I saw the verdict I suggested that Togni should be pardoned and took up the matter and Luise Togni was pardoned. In the same sense the defense counsel -- the defense counsel made statements to the same effect. He, too, had submitted a pardon plea for Togni. The Special Court did not consider the pardon plea.
Q. What happened eventually?
A. If I remember, the Reich Ministry of Justice instructed to the effect that the death sentence had been commuted to a penitentiary sentence. I do not remember the term of the penitentiary sentence. Togni was in the Ravensbruck Court Prison and I, myself, drafted the report to the head of the prison by width he had to tell Togni that she had been pardoned.
Q. Could she speak or write the German language?
A. The language was in broken German. She did not speak colloquial German by any means.
Q. Had she come from Italy as a factory worker?
A. Yes. As far as I remember she worked with the Dornier works or the Maybach works in Friedrichshafen.
Q. How long had she been in Germany when this death sentence was given?
A. For about sic to nine months.
Q. That's all.
BY DR. MANDRY: May I ask whether a translation occurred just now? What did the witness say about the attitude of the Special Court concerning the pardon plea which he had drafted and which defense counsel had also submitted?
THE WITNESS: I said that the Special Court did not oppose the pardon plea but I stated that the Special Court did not oppose the pardon plea.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I am finished.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may cross examine the witness.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: In the interest of orderly procedure I would like to say that if this cross examination doesn't continue through the afternoon we will put in documents thereafter which will be in three books, as I recall, and practically all from possibly G or H on down through the end of the book so if you want to get, your Honor, the books -
THE PRESIDENT: In any even it will last until the recess. At that time if you will notify us which books you want brought --?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes.
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY DR. MANDRY: May it please the Court, now I begin with the cross examination. Witness, you have spoken of trials of young Poles -- of one yound Pole. Do you remember the trial at Urach of a young Pole?
A. I think that the proceedings took place at Ulm. I only know that at Urach the case of that Pole was tried who had stabbed his mistress but if the facts are stated to me I may also remember the case where the trial was held.
Q. Did you not as a public prosecutor appear at Urach where a young Pole was tried who had committed a sexual crime and don't you know whether a plea of nullity had preceded that trial?
A. I know that a young Pole was tried for sexual crimes but I do not know whether a nullity plea had preceded that trial
Q. What went with the files of those cases? Was there a photograph of the offender?
A. Yes, there was. Cuhorst had the photograph made.
Q. What was the purpose of that photograph?
MR. LHFOLLETTE: Wait a minute; if your Honor please, as I recall, on direct examination this witness testified that he could not testify that Cuhorst had generally passed sentences against Poles. He testified about one case and in view of the fact that he did not affirmatively testify on direct examination covering the cases of Poles generally I object to the question as being outside of the scope of the direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems that the witness did say he didn't know about others and if he doesn't know about others how could he testify about others?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If I asked only about one case and whether there were proceedings against any others, when he said he knew nothing about any others is certainly not relevant to cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The cross examination can enquire about anything he knows about the prosecution of Poles but he said he didn't know about any others. That's the difficulty, as I am able to remember it, if he doesn't know he shouldn't take our time or take yours.
Q. Don't you know perhaps something more about a case of such a Pole? A case where there was a photograph filed?
A. I believe there was a case -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Just a minute. If your Honor please, I object to any questions about Poles other than the case about which the witness testified. The witness testified on direct examination that he knew nothing about cases generally. He names three murder cases less than murder where the death sentence was given and the witness said "no". I am bound by that. I can see no purpose in this examination nor do I think it's pertinent. I am bound by the answer that he knows nothing about any other Poles and then he voluntarily testified about a specific case. If there are any facts about that specific case, Your Honor, then I think it is in the purview of cross examination but this goes outside of the purview of cross examination and is improper cross examination for that reason.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has ruled.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I don't think counsel understood he is not to ask any more questions on this.
THE PRESIDENT: Did counsel understand that the objection was sustained? And on the grounds
Q. I shall put no further questions on that point. In your affidavit you mentioned that the Special Court at Stuttgart, I think that it was implied that was under Cuhorst as a Presiding judge, passed one death sentence after another. Was that phrasing chosen by you, yourself, or was it originally from somebody else?
A. Either I chose that phrase myself or whether it was used during the dictation, I don't remember for certain now. At any rate I wanted to say by that many death sentences were passed and that in a relatively short period of time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honor please, I would like to state now that any questions asked this witness with reference to how he phrased something or whether someone else phrased it, I would like the Court to understand that I automatically object to it if asked this witness whether he was coerced in any way or there was anything in his statement that he felt was basically wrong and any further questioning as to whether or not someone wrote a language that he signed without coercion, I think is completely irrelevant and not proper cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: It might be well to test this witness as the other witness was tested as to whether even if the phrase was not his essentially the meaning is the same. If that were put to him we would have a better foundation for your objection and you have the opportunity to make that inquiry now if you desire.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: So we will eliminate going over this thing. Witness, pay particular attention to what I am going to ask you; having regard to the phrasing of every sentence that you find in the two affidavits that may not be exactly in language which you used, do you find anything in any statement which in substance is contrary to your ideas as stated or the fact as you understand them in the affidavit which you made?
A. The affidavit which I deposited is correct as to its contents. It may be that one word or the other or one phrase or the other was weakened or emphasized but at any rate I stand by the affidavit and by the meaning which it guarantees.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That answer coupled with the fact that he said he wasn't coerced is the basis for my objection to that line of questioning.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take care of that line of through without formal objection.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you.
Q. Witness, Can you make a statement to the Court that concerning tne statement in your affidavit that all trials conducted by Cuhorst were tried at the speed of lightning so that the objective conduct of Trials suffered concerning that particular sentence? Will you give us actual details and facts and perhaps if the Court permits you, will you also tell us about the way in which that sentence came about?
A. In the course of my interrogation I was asked how Cuhorst conducted his trials. In reply I stated that he was very quick. The interrogator and myself then dictated the word "very quickly". We discussed whether the trial had been slow enough. I said "no" and I adhere to the word "very quickly". Then I put up with the word "speed of lightning" because I did not consider that a distortion of my own statement but merely a colloquial expression.
I believe, therefore, that the word "affenartig", "speed of lightning", here has the meaning of "very quickly".
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If the Court please, I have no objection to this question up to the last sentence in it, that which the Court had ruled out. That is, "that is not your language but someone else's". Under the ruling of the Court has made he can state the facts if Cuhorst conducted his trials at lightning speed and I will never object but I am not going to have this affidavit, as to its language or inference made that its contents are not correct. This witness didn't want to sign anything wrong and counsel has done this again despite the Court's ruling. I am going to object to it now and ask the Court to directly inform this Couse that the Court will not permit this kind of interrogation any longer. I will go a long ways to be nice to defense counsel out I am not going to be run over.
THE PRESIDENT: It has been clearly stated so that nobody an misunderstand that the language that is implied is not subject to further interpretation. Now, you may deal with facts to demonstrate or illustrate the statements made in his affidavit but not to challenge the language used because he says it's essentially correct.
Q. In your affidavit of 4 November you further said that the defendant was particularly severe in proceedings against foreigners -that Cuhorst was particularly severe in proceedings against foreigners, and that as often as possible he passed the death sentence.
A. Yes, I did use that sentence.
Q. Can you by facts, individual examples and special events, illustrate that sentence?
A. Concerning one sentence, a severe attitude towards foreigners and a ruthless attitude I was thinking of the Polish case where Cuhorst presided over a trial. The two Poles had murdered and Cuhorst ordered that the skull of the person who had been murdered was to be placed on the table in the Courtroom after it had been medically processed.
That struck me as very strange for I did not deem it necessary after a photograph of the person who had been murdered had been filed. That is what I meant to say by the words "ruthless attitude".
Q. Would you please give us individual examples for the fact that the death sentence was passed as frequently as possible that -first of all, put back this question and I ask you about the skull which you mentioned just now. Was that skull submitted by the prosecution as evidence.
A. I, myself, was the expert in that case, and I naturally would have to know if I had submitted that skull. In no single case of murder where I was prosecutor was such an exhibit submitted nor was it necessary for with the files we had photographs in that case. The skull had been inspected by the official and his inspection had revealed that the skull was completely broken. Therefore, I, myself, had no reason to produce further evidence beyond it's pieces of evidence which were already contained in the files.