Q. Did I understand you correctly that the defense counsel who appeared in your behalf at the trial on December 15 was approached by your parents prior to the trial but he was a defense counsel on the approved list? Is that correct?
A. Yes, I know that Dr. Kunz was among the lawyers --those jurists, who regularly was selected defense counsel and were active before the Peoples Court.
Q. Do you happen to recall after the indictment was placed in your hands between 8 and 9 o'clock in the evening before the trial any of these following facts concerning the indictment? How long a document was it?
A. The indictment was about 30 pages long. I remember that it was written on the 20 November and signed by Chief Reich Prosecutor Lautz and that on the 13 of December it had been received in the Peoples Court.
Q. You say the indictment was dated November 20 but it wasn't served on you until the evening of December 14 but it had been delivered to the Peoples Court on December 13? Is that a correct interpretation of what you said?
A. Yes, the indictment was dated as of the 20 November but the stamp of the Peoples Court showed that it was received -- it became to the Peoples Court or the 14 December and I was given a chance to look at it on the evening of the 14 December.
Q. Now, on the 20 December where were you? You had not yet been transferred to Brandenburg prison? Is that correct?
A. Yes. On the 20 November I was transferred about five days earlier as a so-called prisoner for the purpose of investigation at the prison in Brandenburg without, however, receiving an arrest warrant or without an arrest warrant having been issued against me.
Q. I see. Can you give me a very brief summary of the charges made against you in the indictment?
A. The main count of the indictment was on preparation for high treason and apart from that we were charged that by our activities during the war we had given aid and comfort to the enemy of the Reich. I cannot remember the terminology, the specific terminology of it any more. Apart from that we were charged that we had aided several Jews who were in danger by supporting them in various ways.
Q. On the day of December 15 when you were tried before the Peoples Court do you recall at this time the names of the judges of the Court who heard your case?
A. Yes, the judges were Freisler, Kammergerichtsrat Reese, NSKK Obergruppenfuehrer Offerman, Gau Office Leader Amels, Kreis Leader Reinecke and as Deputy of the Chief Reich Prosecutor and as Prosecutor for the case there was the local court counsellor Stark.
Q. You said earlier did you not that Chief Prosecutor Lautz had signed the indictment which was served on you?
A. As far as I remember that was the signature on the indictment.
Q. How long did the trial before the Peoples Court continue?
A. The main trial lasted until the early afternoon of the 15 December and on that day it was concluded.
Q. Did it begin in the morning at what time on the 15 December?
A. It began at about eight o'clock -- half -past eight in the morning.
Q. And how many others were tried with you at that time?
A. At the same time together with me three others were tried -Dr. Georg Grosskurt, Gerbert Richter and Paul Rentsch.
Q. The trial then of the four of you consumed at the most not more that five hours. Is that correct?
A. Yes, that trial did not last much longer than that.
Q. Can you describe briefly the manner in which the trial was conducted before Judge Freisler?
A. Almost the entire proceeding were conducted by Freisler. The four associate judges of the Court did not take any part in the proceedings at all. Likewise, defense counsel hardly said a word during the trial.
My counsel during the day only asked the following question: When my personal data was ascertained by the Court he requested of the bench to ask me about my ancestors and that was rejected by Freisler. The balance of the proceedings were conducted by Freisler on the basis of a small piece of paper on which he had made some notations following some system of some kind. Apparently that was all the evidence which existed as a result of the interrogation by the Secret State Police.
you
Q. From that questions that Freisler asked, do/ have any idea as to where the background for the questions may have come -- of the information which Freisler asked upon which he based his questions, so far as you know?
A. Friesler based his questions on the results of the interrogations by the Gestapo and the purpose of his questions was for one to establish the facts on the basis of these questions that he tried. Primarily, to utilize every possibility of insulting the defendants. He did this in a very dramatic manner, frequently changed his temper and assumed a hypocritical attitude of an understanding judge for one moment and then again in the most atrocious manner use his bitter irony on the defendant.
We did not attempt in any way to justify ourselves before that court because what the court used as a basis for its judgment did not constitute any crime in our opinion and after the facts had become known to the court we saw no reason to deny these facts.
Q. Did the prosecution call any witnesses to support the charges based on the Gestapo interrogations?
A. Yes. There appeared two witnesses for the prosecution. Both of them were co-defendants. One was a certain Dr. Hatschek. The other one was a Russian by the name of Jatkewitsch. Jatkewitsch was the delegate of a large group of Ukrainian foreign workers in Germany. Hatschek was a man who was an inventor with the Russian Commercial Delegation in Prague. He was in contact with then until the beginning of the war with Russia. He tried on the basis of a secret word to get in contact with the Russian Secret Service. Dr. Hatschek did not belong to our group but I found out that an alleged agent of the Russian Secret Service approached him by using the secret password. It was interesting to know that Hatschek himself was not sure whether the man was truly a Russian agent or an informer of the Gestapo. For that reason we had to be extremely careful. We were greatly interested in finding out for sure whether he was a Gestapo agent or, in fact, a Russian secret agent. I personally was concerned with the clarification of that case. It was intended that Hatschek should confirm that I talked to him about the agent and that I asked Hatschek whether he was the aid of the Russian agent. In all details concerning this matter Hatschek testified before a court. I had no reason to deny or argue about the statements Hatschek made.
Q. When were you sentenced?
A. I was sentenced on 16 December 1943 together with three other defendants.
Q. What was your sentence?
A. I was sentenced to death.
Q. Following your sentence, where were you imprisoned?
A. After the sentence, for three days, we remained in the prison in Moabit and then we were brought to the penitentiary at Brandenburg. There everyone of us was put into individual cells. We were shackled day and night and there was a light in our cell all night and all day.
Q. Can you explain briefly why your sentence was not immediately carried out?
A. Upon the application of a doctor of the Army Ordnance, Professor Doctor Wolfgang Wirth. the High Command of the Armed Forces got the permission for the Army Ordnance Office at the penitentiary of Brandenburg to establish a physio-chemical laboratory in order to afford me the opportunity to conduct research important for the war. For that reason the execution of the sentence was delayed from the 1st of May until the 1st of November, 1944.
Q. Can you tell us just very briefly what the nature of your experiments was, and were they conducted under the auspices of the German army so far as you know?
A. It was my assignment to develop the procedure to trace very small amounts of the element fluor. I received that assignment because prior to that time I had developed various chemical methods for the tracing of small amounts of chemicals. The work was supervised by a man who had been sent there for that purpose by the Army Ordnance Office. The officials of the penitentiary for reasons of secrecy were not permitted to inspect my laboratory.
Q. You say that your first reprieve, shall we say, from the death sentence was from the 1st of May, 1944, until November of 1944. Can you tell us how long each succeeding period of reprieve extended after the 1st of November, 1944?
A. After the 1st of November, 1944, from two to three months, a special report had to be sent from the Army Ordnance Office to the Ministry of Justice about the progress of my work. Thereupon, the reprieve was extended for another two months.
Q. As the end of the war approached, while you were still in Branden burg, did you ever hear of mass executions of political prisoners held in German prisons other than Brandenburg?
A. Yes. In the penitentiary in Brandenburg we heard about mass executions of 750 political prisoners at the penitentiary at Sonnenburg. The officials of that penitentiary, in January or February, 1945, came to Brandenburg. They were strictly prohibited from divulging any details about the happenings of the penitentiary at Sonnenburg. However, in spite of this very soon essential details became known also to the inmates of the penitentiary of Brandenburg. On the basis of these reports we had to expect that similar events could occur in Brandenburg. It did not happen, in fact, due primarily to the activity of an illegal group and organization of political prisoners at the penitentiary of Brandenburg.
Q. As the last days of Berlin developed, were there any executions in the Brandenburg prison of political prisoners being held?
A. Yes. On 20 April 1945 - that was Hitler's birthday - more than 33 political prisoners who were there prior to the execution were actually executed. I still remember all the details very clearly. It was during the serious air attack on Brandenburg. When the prosecutor at the People's Court together with his henchmen arrived at Brandenburg -
Q. Excuse me just a moment, witness. You said a prosecutor from the Ministry of Justice came out to Brandenburg to order the executions. How do you know that that person was from the Ministry of Justice or a prosecutor?
A. The prosecutor could be distinguished by the fact that in the car he had the red robe of the People's Court which had been generally noticed and was, therefore, generally known.
Q If I interrupted you, please continue.
A It was found out later that the hangman was present, but that the assistants usually needed for execution -- the assistants of the hangman -- were not present. Various officials of the penitentiary who were on good terms with the prisoners hoped in that moment that executions for technical reasons could be delayed. In fact, however, the director of the penitentiary, Oberregierungsrat Tuemmler, asked his officials to volunteer as assistants for the hangmen against a paying of a considerable fee, and an increase in their cigarette ration. There were two among the officials of the penitentiary. They were just normal employees of the justice administration who assumed the rule of assistants to the hangmen so that the executions could take place.
Q You say this was on April 20th, Hitler's birthday, in 1945? When were you freed from the Brandenburg prison?
A On the 27th of April, we were liberated by the Russians.
Q May it please the Court, that is all of the direct examination of the witness Havemann.
DR. GRUBE: Dr. Grube for the defendant Lutz. May it please the Tribunal, I ask to be permitted to start my cross examination.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. GRUBE:
Q Witness, you have stated the European Union Consisted of a group of Germans and apart from that had maintained contacts with foreigners, and these contacts primarily existed with large groups of foreign civilian workers --about 50 to 60 thousand, is that correct?
AAnother there were exactly that many, I don't know. I said before that there were at least 20, but perhaps even 50 thousand of them.
Q From what nations did these civilian workers come?
A I can remember quite accurately that there were Frenchmen, Belgians, Czechs, Danes and Russians in these groups.
Q Did the European union seek connections or did foreign intellectuals belong to the union?
A The representatives of the various national groups of foreign workers were frequently skilled workers or engineers.
Q Can you remember, for instance, whether there was a Ukranian woman doctor who was a member of that European Union?
A I know that a Ukranian woman doctor was among the members of the Ukranian group.
Q Is it correct that there were French engineers who were members of the French group of the European Union?
A Yes.
Q Is it correct that there were Czech chemists among the members of the European Union?
A That I cannot remember.
Q You have mentioned before that there was a certain connection with the Russian Secret service. Now was that connection taken up by the European Union itself?
A No. I have to say the following: in fact, there never existed a real connection with the Russian Secret service. It was rather so that the Gestapo tried to utilize the circumstances; that Dr. Hatschek who did not belong to that group had an arrangement with the Russian secret service-- that he wanted to take up this connection himself-- and he believed that I and other members of the group whom he know personally would be interested in such connection. Hatschek, himself, had no knowledge of the existence of our group and we only for security reasons were interested in clarification of that connection on the part of Hatschek to the alleged agent of the Russian secret service. It may be that we might have been interested if we could have found out that in fact there was a representative of the Russian Secret Service who was in contact with Hatchek. Our interest, however, would have consisted of trying to get connections through this agent with other groups of the illegal resistance movement in Germany and in that manner to try to expand the basis for our activities. In fact, however, it never came to that because it was found out that the alleged agent was in fact an informer of the Gestapo, whose victims we also became later on.
And what actually was of importance in the course of that period were my attempts in order to clarify the facts, that is to say, my attempts to find out what kind of an agent that was in the case of Hatscek. When we had ample reason, on the basis of our observation to assume that it was a Gestapo agent, the Gestapo on its part had become cautious, grabbed us and arrested all people of whom they know that they had contacts with each other.
Q Witness, is it true that Hatschek himself was sentenced to death by the People's Court?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Is it true that he was sentenced to death because he was a member of the European Union?
A No, that I could not say for sure, but I know that his indictment was based on capital treason.
Q Can you consider it possible?
A No. In fact, the decisive charge against Hatschek was capital treason. However, the Court could not even prove treason in the case of Hatschek. But the following fact was the reason for that charge: the alleged agent, that is to say the man who really was a Gestapo informer, requested Hatschek to give him various information as to what armament establishments, inventions and other secret matters he knew about. Hatschek actually gave in to these questions and told the Gestapo informer several details and various information. The Gestapo and the People's Court argued that it was not within Hatschek's power that it did not become real treason, but that it was just an unfortunate fact in the interest of the Reich that that man was not really a Russian agent but an informer of the Gestapo.
Q Witness, you just said that Hatschek had delivered secrecies of armament to this informer?
A Yes.
Q How did Hatschek get to know these things?
A That I don't know.
Q Isn't it true that you, witness, were dealing with secret search since 1938?
A Yes.
Q Had you anything to do with the development of the V.-weapons?
A No.
Q But you worked for the German armed Forces on secret research for armament?
A I worked for the Pharmacological Institute at the University of Berlin for the Army Ordnance Offices, especially for the chief doctor, Dr. Wirth, on an assignment which was put to the Pharmacological Institute. It was research on gas--poison gas and artificial fog.
Q Witness, you said before that you tried to get in contact with the Russian politic 1 agent through Hatschek. Is that true?
A That is based on the following: when Hatschek for the first time told me about that alleged agent, I found out that that must be a man who was interested in military secrets. A man of that type of no interest to my group for various reasons. We were interested in contact with the Russian agent who within Germany could aid us to get contact with other groups of the resistance movement, who might work in a similar manner as we aid. Therefore, I told Hatschek that I was not interested in an espionage agent of that type, but was only interested in contact with a political agent. I have to say that in doing so, I followed a method which is quite common, that is to say, that the very moment when one has started on a dangerous contact of that kind, that one tries to eliminate one's one person.
Q Witness, you said before you did not make any propaganda with the masses of the people. Isn't it correct that you did exert propaganda in the groups of intellectuals?
A We did not work in the open propaganda direction at a aprtilar group pf people but we selected a number of individuals after we received information about these people, and it required a great deal of negotiations among the members of the group until the resolution was accepted to bring individuals into the inner circle and have him become active in the group. We therefore dod not base the requirement for working in this group on the fact wether the person was willing to do so, but on the qualifications of the individual for that type of work and assistance. Therefore one cannot say, one cannot mean propaganda in that connection; it would be better to say a selection of suitable individuals on the basis of information and personal knowledge of them.
Q But, witness your organization was strickly secret. therefore, outsiders could not even know about the existence of your organization.
A No.
Q But it would have been possible, for instance, in a semi-offficial way for them to know about it by distribution of pamphlets; did you do that?
A We did make these pamphets, but they were never distributed or in any way dealt with as you with pamphlets normally. That was even found out and confirmed by the secret State Police of their investigations. Again following an old practice od resistance work, we always stated that we are only the subordinate representatives of a superior organization and that we could identify ourselves as such by the position of writings where the principles of that organization had been laid down; at any moment we got in close contact with any one of the individuals whom we had selected, and finally decided to try and recruit that person as a collaborator we used at that moment, we used the pamphlets of which about thirty or fifty had been made in order to explain to the individual, to show the individual how the organization existed.
Q IN other words you approached people on the outside, you approached outsiders on your part after careful selection.
A I am surprised about this question, because there is no possibility to confirm that portion.
Q No, I only wanted to' ascertain whether it is true, that your group made these efforts to get outsiders into their organization.
A No, that is not true.
Q But in that manner that would be propaganda if one approached any individual, any intellectuals of the intelligentia.
A If you consider it propaganda if I inform my friends about my political opinions, the you are right, then it may have been propaganda, but I believe that in the common language of a freeer contry thatn Germany it would never had been considered propaganda.
Q Witness, you repeatedly used the term you followed the old practive of resistance work. May I ask you since when you were active in the resistance movement.
A From 1933 until 1936. I was in a group of the German resistance movement which was known quite well the name of the new start, the new beginning.
Q The experiences which you have gained and which you have utilized on the basis of the work with the resistance groups, did that come from the Russian time?
A If you knew the group, the new beginning, you would not have asked that question.
Q You have stated repeatedly your group, just as all other resistance movement groups had maintained the theory or rather stated its action was a collecting on in case of the collapse of Germany. Isn't it true that this cloaking comes from Russian sources?
A That is not so at all; that is out of the question.
Q Do you know the writing on the "Creation Horse" which was distributed on the part of the Russians?
A No, that is not known to me.
Q Witness, you have said before the arrest warrant was signed by chief Reich Prosecutor. Can you remember accurately who signed -
MR KING: If the Court please, I think there is a slight confusion on the part of the Defense Counsel. I don't believe the witness said that the arrest warrant was signed by the Reich Prosecutor. It seems to me the witness said that the indictment was signed by the Reich Minister.
A I wont to explain this. I have not said before that the arrest warrant was signed by the Chief Reich Prosecutor, but that the indictment was.
Q I see, Before what senate was the trial?
A Before the first Senate.
Q It is correct that the date was set by the first senate for the Main trial?
A I don't know about that.
Q You got the beginning indictment through the first senate, did you?
A I assumed it must have been like that.
Q Is it known to you that in all those cases where the First Senate had to decide the arrest warrant was generally sent out by the First Senate?
A I have no experience with the People's Court before that time/
Q Witness, before you were served an indictment , were you informed, were you thoroughly informed about the charges against you?
A On the basis of the interrogation at the Gestapo it was quite clear to me what they might charges me with. However, I was the opinion that there was a possibility for my defense, and also in dealing with the Gestapo I have explained that I did not consider it correct that a charge be made of preparation of treason, for treason, for the simple reason that our work never headed in a direction of a violent change of government, and of course the thorough knowledge of the indictment and the possibility of conferring with defense counsel in time was of greater importance; in connection with that possibility, information on our defense so that it could possibly be utilized for our defense.
Q. You did not have this possibility simply because until 14 December 1943 you had no possibility to get in contact with the outside world; didn't you say that?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, do you still maintain that to be true if I put to you that in your affidavit which you have given before Mr. Dreier you -
MR. KINGS: If the Court please, I object to that question on the grounds that the affidavit referred to has not been admitted in evidence, and for that reason I object to any reference to it.
THE PRESIDENT: It is quite true that no affidavit has been introduced into evidence made by this witness, but if he has made at any time, either under oath, or otherwise any statement that is not consistent with the statements he made on the witness stand, that becomes proper subject matter for cross examination.
MR. KING: I ask that we may reserve the right to introduce this affidavit in evidence following the dismissal of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: I suppose it would be better to show the contrary of what they may introduce on their part. We would have a right to have tho witness support himself.
MR. KING: I am aware of a ruling by this Court to the effect that an affidavit of a witness who has already appeared could not be introduced following his dismissal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defense has possession of this affidavit, is that correct?
MR. KING: That is correct; it has been referred to, but not introduced.
THE PRESIDENT: If the Defense use this affidavit in any way, that makes it proper for re-direct examination.
MR. KING: And it opens the possibility to offering this is evidence at a later time if we so desire?
THE PRESIDENT: We'd better decide that when the time comes; at the moment I see no objection.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Tribunal, the translation did not come through quite clearly. Am I permitted to use the affidavit?
THE PRESIDENT: I have already stated that if you have a copy of an affidavit that he has made, even though it has not been introduced in evidence, that it is your purpose to question the consistency between the statements of that affidavit and the statements he has made on the witness stand, that you are right; you may proceed.
BY DR. GRUBE:
Q. Witness, I repeat my question, therefore. Do you still maintain your position according to which you had no possibility before the 14th December to get in contact with the outside world, if I put to you the following sentence from your affidavit before Mr. Dreier, of October 1946?
I quote: "In the meantime between time of your arrest in September and the submission of the indictment, did you have any possibility at all to get in contact with the outside world. Answer: Yes, I could write to my parents, to my wifoe, and while at the Secret State Police I could receive visits." May I ask you now to clarify that contradiction.
A. While I was at the Secret State police, and since I did not knew how long the proceedings, that is the investigation would take, I state I had an opportunity to write letters to my parents and receive letters from them. I also at various times had the visit of my wife and I received mail from the Director of the Pharmacological Institute. That possibility, however, did not exist any more from the moment when I , a prisoner for investigation, was brought to the penitentiary at Brandenburg, and by that was transferred from the hands of the Secret State Police into the hands of the Justice Administration.
Q. When was that?
A. That was on the 15th of November , 1943
Q Witness, is it known to you that the penitentiary at Brandenburg where you were brought at that time, was also used as as the Gestapo jail because there was not enough room in Berlin?
A That is not known to me. And, that I was kept in the prison as a prisoner for investigation I gathered from the fact that there was a large sign in my cell during the entire period, a sign which the words UG, which means Untersuchungsgefangener, prisoner for investigation. Also the treatment I experienced did not change in any way from the day on which the sergeant gave me the red arrest warrant. When I demanded to know why I was refused to speak or to get in contact with my defense counsel or any lawyer or my parents; that request was rejected just as before. And, thus, I had to maintain what I said before to the fullest extent, that I believe by this explanation I have cleared up the misunderstanding existing -- concerning the statement in my affidavit.
Q Witness, you say now that during the period while you were in the hands of the Gestapo you had the opportunity to get in contact with the outside world?
A Correct, in that it would have been until the 15th of November, until the day I was brought to Brandenburg.
Q Not after?
A Not after that, no.
Q May I again put this passage to you. It reads in the affidavit and I quote: In the meantime between your arrest in September and the submission -- presentation of the indictment, did you have any opportunity to get in contact with the outside world?" And, your answer: "I could write to my parents, and my wife, and I could have visitors at the secret state police." Witness, when were you handed the indictment?
A On the evening of the 14th of December.
Q And, you maintain that only until the 15th of November you could receive visitors and remain in contact with the outside world?
A Correct.
Q But, isn't there a contradiction between the time of 15 November and 14 December?
A Yes, during that period from 15 November and 14 December, I was at the penitentiary in Brandenburg. As I said before during that period I had no possibility whatever on my part to get in contact with the outside world. The only thing I received was my arrest warrant, and a short time after the carbon copy of the letter in which the jurist Kunz asked my approval to be my defense counsel. I never before heard his name and I had no opportunity to sign that document because it was not again taken from me, and I did not give any signature at that time.
Q Witness, how can you explain the contradiction between the time period between - - from 15 November until 14 December. Here you write that until you received the indictment -
A (Interposing) There is no contradiction, the contradiction is given by the fact that the statement concerned the entire period from my arrest until I received the indictment, and, of course, within that period, this was also the period from 15 September to the 15th of November, so that this question was to be answered with, yes, because within that entire period from 15 September to 15 November I had the possibility, but the question would have been more specific as to whether it was possible in an equal manner over the entire period, only part of the entire period, then it would be possible to explain it more clearly and my answer therefore explains that by meaning there were visits at the Gestapo office, the special meaning of that fact, that there were letters and visitors at the Gestapo, that shows that it can only concern the time between the 15th of September and 15 November.
Q Witness, you have just mentioned the name of your defense counsel Kunz.
A Kunz was my selected defense counsel.
Q Who selected him?
A My parents.
Q When did Kunz get in touch with you for the first time?
AAs I have stated, I received a letter in Brandenburg from a lawyer by the name of Kunz, in which he informed me that he would be my selected counsel. That was the first time I heard of his existence.
Q Did you, yourself, make any pleas or applications while you were in Brandenburg?
A I tried several times to get in touch with a lawyer. Since I am not very well informed about legal questions that was the only way in order for me to undertake the thing. I tried but I had no possibility to succeed.
Q Did you make any application that witnesses be called on your part?
A No.
Q Why didn't you make an application of that kind?
AAny person who would have been a witness for me would have put himself into the gravest danger.
Q You did not call any witness then; that was not the fault of the court but because of you?
A Even if I wanted to call witnesses for the reasons that I have mentioned, that would not have been possible because until the opening of the trial I had no possibility to talk to any other person about the trial. Only when I entered the court room I had the chance to talk to my father for a very short time and that for such a short time. There was no possibility to make any preparations in the way of making any application to the tribunal.
Q Witness, you mean to say there was no possibility at all in Brandenburg to make any application to call witnesses, if you had any witnesses.
A I have made applications in various instances to be brought before the police inspector at the time I was in the prison in Brandenburg, and these applications were always rejected.
A May I ask you witness what reasons were given for the rejections?
A No reasons.
Q Witness, in your affidavit, you stated later and I quote: "All interrogations, statements, and facts, themselves are no proof the the preparation for prison because our work was designated for the proper time after the war. We considered it our duty to prepare ourselves for a period after the war." I refer again to the question which I have put to you before. In that affidavit you chose that expression: then you want to say beyond a doubt that in the trial you have not told the true facts?
A I want to state the following: I never considered that court, a court which would do justice and where I could find justice. However, I was of the opinion that my defense was obliged to try anything possible in favor of the defense, anything that was still possible according to the justice of that court. For that reason I have made statements of which I assumed or could assume that my defense counsel would use them in my favor and in favor of the other defendants. That the judgment -- any sentence passed by that tribunal was not legal in the usual sense, and of that I was convinced in advance, and I personally had no hope at all that I might leave the court room as a free man or considered innocent. Although it was quite clear to me that those who were truly guilty were not in the defendants dock but at the judges bench.
Q You admit, therefore, the fact that you did not present the facts as they really were?
A I only have to explain that the court had to judge on the basis of whether they got in the alleged indictment of whether that knowledge was correct, complete, or wrong.