Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III)
Q. Do you know whether Freisler had been active as a judge before?
A. Freisler was a counsel before, and I remember from the time I was in the Vorstand of the Bar Association in Berlin until 1933, that at that time already he was known for his violent statements and above all for his fanatical and unlimited inhumane anti-Semetic statements. And, at that time we of the Bar - Association -- in 1932 we decided to intervene against him as a group, and he was at that time. I believe, a lawyer in Kassel.
Q. Was it known to you that Freisler before he went to Kassel was a food Commissioner in Russia?
A. I only heard that from hearsay, that during the war of 1914 he became a prisoner of war in Russia, and was alleged to have had a certain position in the camp, but I do not know anything definite about it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, I object to any further questioning on one Freisler as being irrelevant to any of the defendants in the case.
DR. ASCHENAUER: May I answer. In all these questions we are concerned with an attempt to characterize the features of Freisler, the personality of Freisler, who was quite different from all the judges of the People's Court; for that reason his character and his past are important.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you nay limit yourself to his career as a judge without going into his past.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Also in tins connection, I do not have to put any more questions.
Q. How many sessions of Freisler's did you attend?
A. I attended four or five sessions in the People's Court when Freisler was the presiding judge.
Q. Can one consider the cases of the 20th of July as exaggerated cases?
A. I, myself, did not defend in the cases of the 20th of July because Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III) in three cases in which I had volunteered to defend, I had been rejected by the People's Court; therefore, I am not in a position to say anything about the trials in the cases of the 20th of July, except for reports which one may have received from colleagues who were defense counsel, and after the war from some reports received from sources and archives which had only then become accessible.
Q. Did you observe during your work as defense counsel that the lay-judges showed a very active political attitude during the trial and tried to steer the procedure into a definite course?
A. No, any specific observations in that direction, I did not make.
Q. Can you think of any definite examples where the professional judges had been outvoted by the lay-judges?
A. That is a question which is very difficult to answer if it is put to me as witness because we did not take pert in the deliberations; since, if I am not mistaken, a two-thirds majority was required in the consultation, theoretically it would not be possible for them to be out-voted.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR. GRUBE (for the defendant Lautz): May it please the Commission, I ask to be permitted to continue to cross examine concerning the same affidavit.
Q. Witness, in your affidavit, you mentioned the admissibility of appointed and selected defense counsel. May I ask you did the Chief Reich Prosecutor have any influence in that matter; that is to say, concerning the appointments or selection of defense counsel?
A. I said before that immediately after the beginning of the National Socialist regime I was forced to have the Vorstand of the Bar Association at Berlin. The discussion which were conducted before the list of appointed counsel was published is not known to me.
Q. Witness, who according to German procedure determines the time limit for the main trial?
Court 3 Case (COMMISSION III)
A. The presiding judge of the court.
Q. Not the Chief Reich Prosecutor?
A. No, the presiding judge.
Q. According to paragraph 217 of the Legal Code of Procedure, originally, was it not so, that a time limit of at least one week had to be given?
A. Yes.
Q. Is it correct that that regulation during the course of that war, that is to say, in 1943, was amended to the effect that the time limit, in certain cases, could be reduced to 24 hours?
A. Yes, a modification of that regulation took place during the war.
Q. And, who had to make that decision as to whether the time limit should be reduced to 24 hours?
A. I assume that was also the presiding judge, but I have no knowledge of that.
Q. Witness, may I ask you whether you received permission from the Chief Reich Prosecutor to speak to the defendants?
A. As Defense Counsel, one received permission to speak to the defendants.
Q. You were permitted to discuss with the defendants what they were charged with?
A. We did have full possibility to talk to them. Frequently we were worried as to whether there were any gadgets built in which would make it possible to pisten to cur conversation, but experience has shown that this could not have been the case, because the conversation between the defendant and defense counsel would have caused new and extended procedures.
Q. Witness, did a representative of the Reich Prosecution ever exert a decisive influence in a session of the People's Court, on the manner in which the trial was conducted?
A. A noticeable influence on the part of a representative of the Reich Prosecution at the People's Court, as far as the trial procedure Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III) itself was concerned, was not exerted.
Q. Did a representative of the Reich Prosecution, ever use profane language during sessions?
A. No, I never heard any profane language on the part of the Reich Prosecution.
Q. Did a representative of the Reich Prosecution ever interrupt a defendant or a witness?
A. That is difficult to answer. In the course of an excited discussion in the proceedings, that may have occurred; that is not impossible, but it is not typical of the way in which the trials took place, as far as the Reich Prosecution was concerned.
Q. Were you ever present when the defendant Lautz, as a representtative of the Reich Prosecution, attended a session of the People's Court?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever heard that the defendant Lautz treated defendants or witnesses incorrectly?
A. I have herd nothing about that either.
Q. Another question. Is anything known to you as to the attitude, the political attitude of Lautz?
A. I do not know anything about that. During the course of discussions ft the end of 1944 the name was mentioned once in connection with a case, that was the case against the brothers Bonn Hoefer. The Clergyman Bonn Hoefer, Dietrich Bonn Hoefer was before the Reich Military Court, Kreigsgericht, in 1943 and 1944, and was defended by me. His brother the lawyer, Klaus Bonn Hoefer, at that time Chief Legal Advisor of the German Lufthansa, was also closely connected with the circle of the 20th of July, and both brothers, in April 1945, immediately before the arrival of Allied troops were killed by the State Police, Gestapo. I conducted the defense of Dietrich Bonn Hoefer until about the time of the 20th of July; after that time, the trial was transferred from the Reich Military Court, and was taken over Court 3 Case 3 (COMMISSION III) exclusively by the Secret State Police, so that, of course, any connection and contact with the Clergyman Dietrich Bonn Hoefer had been active during the war in the office of Admiral Canaris had been cut off.
I had intervened for Dr. Klaus Bonn Hoefer, who was an old friend of nine, by volunteering as defense counsel for him before the People's Court, but the People's Court did not grant us the permission. On the 2nd of February 1945, that was the last sentence pronounced by Freisler, Dr. Klaus Bonn Hoefer was sentenced to death. I then tried together with his wife, to gain time until the end of the war to postpone the execution. We tried repeatedly to obtain an approval for me to take over as defense counsel and to start a re-trial procedure. Mrs. Bonn Hoefer at that time, repeatedly approached the Vice-President of the People's Court. Crohne, who had promised that the approval for me to take over the defense would be given. That promise was never kept. I, of course, discussed that with Frau Bonn Hoefer later, as to what the attitude of the Chief Reich Prosecutor Lautz might he in the matter. Brothers Bonn Hoefer. Frau Bonn Hoefer told me that she believed that his attitude would be a positive one because she believed she had received certain information that the then Chief Reich Prosecutor, Lautz was very much in sympathy with circles of 20th of July. That was the only utterance which I have heard in any concrete about Lautz; whether it is true, I do not know cut of my own knowledge.
Q. Witness, do you know that the family Bonn Hoefer had close contact with Dr. Sack?
A. Yes, Dr. Sack was the Chief of the Army, Legal Department, and I was soon informed that Dr. Sack belonged to those circles Within the Army who prepared the overthrow of Hitler through German initiative.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. The hour for our noon recess has arrived. We will recess now until 1:30 this afternoon. The witness will return at 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was then taken until 1330 hours, 3 June 1947.)
Commission 111 Court 111 AFTERNOON SESSION.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their scats.
The commission is again in session.
DR. GRUBE ( for the defendant Lautz): May it please the Court, I would ask you to permit me to continue with cross examination.
DR. KURT WEGRIN - Resumed EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. GRUBE:
Q Witness, before the interval you had stopped at describing the close relations between the family of the defendant Bonhoeffer on the one hand, and the chief of the Army Legal Office Dr. Sack on the ether hand.
A Yes.
Q Unless I am wrong, you told us that Dr. Sack was involved on the 20th of July --
A Yes.
Q Will you tell the Court, please, what was Dr. Sack's fate.
A I spoke the last time with Dr. Sach, who was the chief cf the Army Legal Department shortly before 20th July 1944. As there was an agreement between us concerning the movement in the Army against Hitler, it had become customary for me to make all my applications too the Reich Military Court first by submitting them to Dr. Sack, the chief cf the Legal Office of the Army, and asking him to state his opinion as to whether he agreed with this version. An occurrence which was only possible because Dr. Sack also belonged to the circle around the 20th of July and because there was an agreement about the necessity incoming the pending trials to follow a policy which was bound to avoid all rec very cf circles which participated. Together with parson Bonhoeffer in the indictment General Oster was indicted - the general who for many years had been on the side cf the enemies of the Hitler regime.
Commission 111 Court 111
Q Witness, do you know that defendant Lautz was a close friend of Dr. Sack?
A From my own knowledge I do not know anything about that friend ship but I dc know from remarks made by members cf the Bonhoeffer family in particular by Dr. Klaus Bonhoeffer, that a contact-- in how far it was a contact of friendship I cannot say--did exist between Lautz and Dr. Sack.
Q I am not going to another point. Witness in your affidavit you stated that the trials before the People's Court varied a great deal according to the person cf the presiding judge.
A Yes, yes.
Q I ask you, did the Reich prosecutors have any influence on the Senate before a trial was heard?
A Concerning internal matters of the Peoples Court at the Reich prosecution and the Ministry I can not give any information because I lack the necessary documents. According to what one could establish from actually looking at the files, an influence by the Reich prosecution on appointing the Senate before whom the case was to be heard, did not exist.
Q I am now coming to another p int. On page 5 of your affidavit you say, literally, and I quote: "The concept of high treason to as far reaching extension was to correspond to the concept such as literature and jurisdiction in a former period had applied." End of quotation
A Yes.
Q Do you know that during the conferences of the Reichstag Committee in 1928, the same facts of high treason and of preparation for high treason and of preparation for high treason were fixed and decided upon, which later on in the legislation of the Third Reich were ordered?
A I do not know about that.
Q Witness, may I ask you... dc you know that the Chief Reich Prosecutor, Oberreichsanwalt - that is to say, the Reich Prosecution, had the possibility to pass on cases, so-called less grave cases, to Commission 111 Court 111 the prosecution?
A Yes ... I do know about that.
Q What happened in a number of cases?
A Yes... In a number of cases that right was made use of in cases where I conducted the defense, and the cases were transferred to a special Penal Senate, at the Kammergaiht, which specialized in political eases. In a few very rare cases, as far as I remember, they were also transferred to a Special Court.
Q That was, wasn't it before the indictment was filed?
A Yes, that was before the indictment was filed, and it concerned cases of very young people, women, or persons who obviously, politically speaking, were uninteresting, for the authorities who were concerned in these cases.
Q Witness, if you achieve that in many cases was only possible, because you were precisely informed about the facts that the particular defendant was char ed with.
A That is not correct, but frequently the case only reached me at a phase when it had already been transferred to the other court. That is to say--I only became appointed defense counsel after the Penal Senate of the Kammergericht or the Prosecutor General of the Kammergericht had taken over the case.
Q Did you yourself never achieve a case being regarded as a less severe case, and being handed over to a law authority?
A No.
DR. GRUBE: Thank you. I have no further questions.
DR. DOETZER( for defendant Nebelung): Your Honors, may I put a few questions on the same affidavit.
BY DR. DOETZER:
Q Witness, did you ever conduct a defense before a Senate of the Peoples Court where the defendant Nebelung was the presiding judge?
A No.
Commission 111 Court 111
Q Did the defendant Nebelung as a presiding judge of the Fourth Senate ever, for any reason, refuse to accept, an application by you to conduct a defense, or not?
A No.
Q During the time when you acted as defense counsel before the Peoples Court, or in your capacity as president of the Lawyers Union, Rechtsanwaltskammer, did you ever hear from any colleague of yours that they acted as defense counsel with Nebelung as presiding judge, and that they had cause to criticize the sentence?
A No.
DR. DOETZER: Thank you.
BY DR. SCHILF ( for defendant Klemm):
Q Witness, just now spoke cf transferring cases of lesser gravity to the prosecutor general at the Oberlandsgericht, in your case the Kammergericht, and you said that with the Prosecutor General at the Kammergericht an indictment was submitted perhaps only for an offense against the Malicious Acts law.
A Yes.
Q Do you know such a case, and can you describe such a case to us?
A It is not altogether easy from memory to reconstruct the case in detail. I remember two cases at this moment where, on the part of the Oberreichsanwalt at the People's Court, the case was transferred to the Prosecutor General at the Kammergericht. Those were cases concerning statements by people who had exercised very serious criticism against the Hitler regime and who, in conversations had said that the war had to be lost in all circumstances. In one case it was a young girl, of about twenty to twenty-two years, and the other case was that of an engineer cf the age of about sixty, who had had a professional discussion with business friends from outside Berlin, and who at lunch , while the discussion had been interrupted, had made such remarks and had been denounced by one of his business friends.
Commission 111 Court 111
A I can not say for certain whether the indictment was restricted to the malicious acts Law. I only remember that in the first case a penitentiary sentence of two to three years, and in the latter case a prison sentence of about three years, were pronounced by the Penal Senate cf the Kammergericht.
Q. Witness, do you remember, did any case occur in your practice where a case had been transferred from the Oberreichsanwalt, via the Prosecutor General -- to the Oberstaatsanwalt at the Special Court in Berlin from the Oberreichsanwalt to the Oberstaatsanwalt directly, for trial before the Special Court?
A. I cannot answer that question with certainty. In one case I believe I can remember correctly that the case, first of all, had been heard by another prosecution authority, but I no longer remember whether it was with the Prosecutor General at the Kammergericht or with the Oberreichsanwalt. The case was then transferred to the prosecution at the Special Court.
Q. Witness, in your affidavit, as well as today, you have made statements about the opportunities of defense before the People's Court, and, if I understood you correctly, it was essentially concerning the motions and the motions for evidence; you restricted yourself to those two points.
Now, I would like to ask you whether you had the possibility to make sufficient pleas before the People's Court, that is to say, to make your final plea, in accordance with your duty and your personal inclination as an attorney.
A. I personally, and other colleagues too, made very extensive pleas before the People's Court.
Q. A witness was heard before this Tribunal -- it was Professor Dr. Havemann; perhaps you know that name?
A. I know him personally.
Q. Herr Havemann complained at great length here that at his trial before the People's Court he was defended by an attorney who, during the whole of the trial, only spoke two sentences, one sentence during questioning by the presiding judge, and a second sentence was supposed to have represented the plea of that colleague. I am asking you, witness, was such procedure on the part of a defense counsel at the People's Court an extraordinary occurrence, was it something that was outside the scope of the customary defense?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One moment, please.
Your Honor, unless that question is phrased a s a hypothetical question, I object to it on the ground that it is not an accurate statement of what the witness Havemann said, and I object to it on the ground that it is a misrepresentation, not theoretically I would have no objection, but otherwise in this form I do object.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the witness may answer as to whether it was or was not an extraordinary circumstance for a defense counsel to be limited in the manner described in Dr. Schilf's question. That in effect makes it a hypothetical question, Mr. Wooleyhan.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, sir.
THE WITNESS: It was possible, before the People's Court, to plead and to plead extensively. We know it was a regrettable event that a number of defense counsel, concerning their offices as defense counsel before the People's Court and before other political courts, did not carry out their function with that intensity which is the duty of defense counsel. That is how it happened that in effect cases did occur where, after lengthy hearings, following the demand for the death sentence, pleas consisting of one of a few sentences were made. However, I am bound to add that even though that method of handling the duties of a defense counsel must be criticized most severely, one must realize that in all those cases where an actual attempt manifested itself to take effective action against the regime, or where really verbal criticism of one cf the leading personages of the Nazi regime was voiced--and that concept was very wide-the result could not, in effect, be changed.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q: Colleague Wergin, I have a. last question to put to you on that point. Concerning the habit of some colleagues of making insufficient pleas, do you know that the Reich Ministry of Justice criticized that expressly?
A. No.
Q. Do you know that in October 1944 the Reich Ministry of Justice issued the so-called Lawyer's Letters in which such a case, where defense counsel had made their pleas too short, was expressly mentioned and was criticized?
A. I don't know about that.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I request, Your Honors, that that question just asked be stricken from the record on the ground that it is a repetition of something that the witness just previously stated that he knew nothing about.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood him to answer that he didn't know the answer to this question; therefore, it is unnecessary to strike the question.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. A last question.
In your affidavit, on page 12 of the German document book and page 6 of the original version, you mention two cases where you acted as defense counsel, the Detlef von Winterfeld case, and the Bernstorff case. You mention that both, shortly before the end of the war, were in the Lehrter Strasse prison. You go on to say that Count Bernstorff was murdered by the Gestapo shortly before the arrival of the Russian troops.
I am asking you, Dr. Wergin, under what administration the prison in Lehrter Strasse was. Was it administered by the Justice authorities or by the Gestapo?
A. The indictment was made against Herr von Winterfeld and against Count Bernstorff, but I only defended Herr von Winterfeld and not Count Bernstorff. The direction of the prison at 3 Lehrter Strasse--at any rate, as far as the period from a but the beginning of 1944 is concerned-was under the direction of the Gestapo. Whether the administrative side was also in the hands of the Gestapo I do not know. At any rate, when Curt (Commission) III one called on a defendant at Lehrter Strasse prison, first of all one had to contact an office of the Gestapo where SS men were sitting; one had to pass that office before one could talk to the defendant.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other cross examination on the basis of the affidavit?
(No response)
May I ask you a question?
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. I merely wish to be sure that I understood your answer. In discussing the matter of the very brief pleas which were sometimes made by defense counsel, was your explanation in substance this, that defense counsel frequently know that where political considerations were involve against the defendant an extended plea would be unavailing, or would be useless? Was that the substance of your answer?
A. Yes, yes, alt h. ugh I did not, thereby, approve the brief version of the pleas.
Q. And one other question. I understand you to say that you were rejected as a defense counsel in the 20 July 1944 case, Is that correct?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Any redirect?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One question.
EXAMINATION BY DR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Dr. Wergin, perhaps it is a translating error, but I arm not sure. However, when you were speaking about pre-trial investigations I understood you to say the these pre-trial investigations were conducted almost exclusively by the State Police and that was a critical point in the preparation of a case.
A. Yes.
Q. Now, by tho State Police I assume you meant the Gestapo; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the results of these investigations of tho Gestapo, to your knowledge were they used in the preparation of the indictment by the prosecution?
A. The transcripts which were made by members or officials, of the Gestapo were used for tho preparation of the indictment.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(Witness excused.)
Commission III - Case III
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Wooleyhan, I assume that you are now ready for the proceeding witness to return?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I am of the impression that some other members of the defense staff desired to cross examine further before you begin your redirect.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: You mean direct examine or cross examine?
THE PRESIDENT: Only cross. Is that correct?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: His most recent status, I believe, was as a defense witness, was it not?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes. And do I understand that further defense counsel wish to make him their witness or to finish cross examination on the affidavit?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Am I wrong about that? Did Some defense counsel desire to further cross examine upon the affidavit?
DR. SCHILF: I myself did not wish direct examination to take place, and that because it still has to be clarified whether the other defense counsel will submit an affidavit; and if affidavits are submitted for the defense we still will not know whether the prosecution will submit counter-affidavits, nor will we know whether the witness will have to return here.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you misunderstood my question. This witness made an affidavit which was introduced by the prosecution, did he not? My only question was whether some other one of the defense counsel desired to cross examine this witness upon the matters contained in the affidavit, which the prosecution introduced. Apparently Commission III - Case III I was in error and there is no such desire at this time.
DR. SCHILF! But I would like to put one question concerning the affidavit.
HUGO SUCHOMEL,
a witness, resumed the stand and testified further as follows:
EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Witness, I may address you directly. My colleague, Dr. Kuboschok, had already asked you about the conference when a lecture was given on the euthanasia question. You had made a correction concerning the persons who were supposed to have attended that conference.
I am defense counsel for defendant Dr. Mettgenberg, and if I understood you correctly, you stated that you could no longer remember whether Dr. Mettgenberg attended or not.
A. I made a statement that Dr. Mettgenberg may have been present but is not bound to have been present. It is possible that he, as subdivision head of Division IV had been invited; and I have already said that today I can no longer say under oath as a witness whether he actually did appear or not. He may have been away on an official trip. He may have been away on leave at that time. He may have been ill and it is impossible for me now, when more than five years have passed, to say with certainty who actually was present.
I would ask you to consider that my chief interest was directed to the lecture and not to the persons who were present. I still remember exactly where I sat. I still remember the long table at which about thirty persons could sit had all the seats occupied and I still remember what Commission III - Case III photographs were handed over across the table.
I know that those photographs did not reach me at the end, but I can no longer say with absolute certainty under oath as a witness what persons attended the conference.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions but I would like to reserve the right to myself to examine Dr. Suchomel -- to call Dr. Suchomel as a witness for the defense, either as an affidavit witness or for examination.
EXAMINATION BY DR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. DR. Suchomel, at the time you gave the affidavit, which we are now discussing, was it the prosecution in this case here that secured that affidavit from you? By prosecution here I mean was it any prosecutor involved in the prosecution of this case here in this room?
A. I have not understood that question altogether. I was interrogated by Mr. Meyer and by Mr. Hochwald and I was told at the time that the affidavit was intended for use at the doctors' trial and, as I stated at the time, it was difficult for me to say with absolute certainty who had been present.
I was told at the time that one was anxious to ascertain whether there were other witnesses for that lecture. Consequently, at the time I believed that if I should be wrong on one point or the other concerning the persons whom I mentioned and in that connection I expressed it -- and I expressed it again here this morning -- I stated that if I remember correctly certain persons did attend. At the time I was convinced that one was anxious to establish witnesses and, therefore, I believed that if I made a mistake with one person or the. other the end result would be Commission III - Case III that that man would then not be available as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: He has answered your question.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, he has answered my question.
BY DR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Dr. Suchomel, at the time time affidavit was secured from you, as you say by the prosecution for the doctors' case, were any names suggested to you or did you think these up yourself?
A. No, not at all; not in the least.
Q. Not in the least what? Do you mean no names were suggested to you?
A. No, no. I myself made those statements. The entire interrogation was held in an absolutely blameless manner and again I pointed out I could only give -
Q. We understand that, Doctor. Thank you. Now, your affidavit states, Doctor, that you received orders to attend that conference, whereas today you used the word invited. Now, wore you ordered or were you invited to that conference?
A. Well, an invitation to a conference was naturally an official order, for if one was invited to attend a conference that meant for the official that one had to appear at the conference unless one had good reasons to stay away from such a conference.
Q. Now, can you tell us further, very briefly, the reason why, at the time you gave this affidavit, the names Mettgenberg, Joel and Von Ammon occurred to you?
A. Well, yes, I can tell you that. At the time I made the statement that I could not give the exact date when that lecture was held. I said it must have been after August, 1940, because I only took over individual penal matters in Commission III - Case III August, 1940.
At the time I also mentioned that the latest date could have been the Autumn of 1942, because the conference was held when Crohne was still the head of the division.
I gave some further hint in an effort to determine the date more precisely. At that time the name Brandt was already familiar to me. I could only have learned that name either from Deutsche Justiz or from the Reichs Gazette.
Q. Excuse me. Doctor, excuse me I am only interested at the moment in having you tell the Court why the names Mettgenberg, Joel and Von Ammon occurred to you in your memory in connection with this conference. If no one suggested them to you why did you think of them? What made you think of them?
A. Yes. I mentioned those names because those gentlemen, during the whole period from 1939 until the end, belonged to the penal law division: Mettgenberg, because he was subdivision head in penal legislation; and I was convinced, therefore, that probably he would have been asked to attend the conference.
The names Joel and Von Ammon are also only mentioned because I knew for certain that those gentlemen, during the whole period, belonged to Division IV. Therefore, for example, I mentioned Dr. Hans Heuer, an Austrian, who also, during the period from about 1940, was a member of my subdivision.
At all account, I wished to avoid mentioning as witnesses gentlemen who, during that period, did not belong to Division IV. In doing so, I made the error of mentioning Mr. Grau and Hr. Rietzsch who did at that time belong to the Ministry of Justice.