Then on account of some manipulation which was not aboveboard, he called him Alf Frenssen. He instituted proceedings in which it was established that his father, Friedlaender was not his own father, but that his father had been an Aryan. So, he was able to keep his practice; naturally he was a thousand percent Nazi. He examined my hand and said he would report his findings to the Health Office.
Q Now, Doctor, let me ask you at this state: Did you know at that time a Dr. Bluoher and a Professor Nuernberger, and did you consult them about giving testimony as to whether or not your hand condition was a heriditary thing or not?
A Yes, when I received the official report that I was not going to get a certificate for marriage and when I heard that the sterilization was supposed to be instituted against me, I was, naturally, very excited and immediately went to our old family doctor, a Dr. Blueher, at Erfurt. He told me that he thought nothing of all the heriditary laws, and sent mo to see a Professor Nuernberger, the director of the Gynaecological Institute in Halle.
Q And, what did Professor Nuernberger say with referonce to his ability to testify for you?
Professor Nuernberger was very friendly, he was the first doctor who calmed me down, and he said that heriditary disease was out of the question, and I did not need to worry. At his clinic several eases of that kind occurred every week. Then, I asked Professor Nuernberger to give me his opinion in writing. Professor Nuernberger regretted he could not do so because he was forbidden to do so.
Q And, did you ask a Dr. Blueher also to give his opinion in writing, and what did he say?
A No, I did not ask Dr. Blueher to do so because he had sent me to Professor Nuernberger.
Q From your understanding of the law, in your experience, did you learn whether or not any doctor could testify other than tho official doctor who was a part of the Heriditary Court proceedings?
A No, a doctor was not allowed to give testimony r officially. Only an official doctor could do so because one was afraid that a doctor who was not an official doctor might give a favorable opinion on somebody who was to be sterilized.
Q Let me ask you, do you remember a Dr. Loeffler, and did you have any correspondence with him when your proceedings were pending, and what did he say or do to you?
A. May I say something? I was an assessor with an attorney at law in Magdeburg, and a doctor there x-rayed my hand. That doctor also told me that heriditary disease was out of the question, and he also told me that he could not give me a written statement, he was not allowed to do so. Professor Nuernberger, with whom I talked in great detail, I asked by chance about an old school friend of mine whether he knew Professor Loeffler. Professor Nuernberger told me that Professor Loeffler was at Koenigsberg University where he was the Director of the Racial Biological Institute. Then, I immediately contacted my school friend, Dr. Loeffler, and sent him an x-ray of my hand; two weeks later I received a detailed letter from him, in which he gave an opinion on my hand and told me that heriditary disease was out of the question. That letter, through my attorney at that time in Erfurt, I submitted to the Heriditary Court in the assumption that the proceedings against me would now be terminated.
Q. I ask you now whether or not this Dr. Loeffler was an important figure in the National Socialist Party?
A Yes, he held a rather loading position. Later on he was Professor at Vienna University and Director of the Racial Biological Institute there.
Q Now, at the time he wrote you, do you recall, did he advise you that notwithstanding his position in the Party, ho could not officially present any evidence in your case?
A Yes, that was expressed in the letter. He said that he was not allowed to give an official opinion; ho used the form of a personal letter to me.
Q Yes, now, what intervened to prevent your sterilization, what fact?
A In 1940 I had to apply for membership in the Party because , then, I enjoyed certain protection. As an attorney I knew that heriditary health proceedings had not been instituted against members of the Party. I oven know of a case where a doctor had reported on an Am Ortsgruppenleiter of the party, that this doctor had groat difficulties.
Q Yes, but I asked you whether or not in lage August 1939, there was any legislature which prevented or stayed the sterilization proceedings, then pending against you; do you remember that?
A Yes, I had another session before the Heriditary Health Court in Erfurt beginning of August. At this session the medical associates behaved if I may say so in a very impertinent manner, and, I as a lawyer, was surprised that the presiding judge tolerated such behavior. The president judge told my attorney at that time that the medical associates were all together out to bring about my sterilization. Then, an order of 31 August 1939 was promulgated that was one day before the outbreak of the war. In virtue of that order, the proceedings were stopped with the right of resumption at any time.
Q And then, thereafter, in 1940 you joined the Party; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q Now, let me ask you about this Dr. Frenssen Who before 1939 was named Friedlaender; did the proceedings which you described by which he established an Aryan birth, involve a suit against his mother in which he charged her with adultery and, therefore, he was the product of an adulterous association with an Aryan father?
A Yes.
Q And, then he became Dr. Frenssen?
A Yes, then he became Dr. Frenssen.
Q This man was the men initially in charge of conducting the investigation on this heriditary law, and this sterilization.
A Yes, as far as ho as an orthopedic doctor was concerned with it.
Q You married, I believe, on 24 September 1939?
A Yes, but I would ask to be permitted to say a little more about Dr. Frenssen. When I returned home after my discussion with Dr. Frenssen, and was informed of the results reached by the Heriditary Health Court, I immediately informed my attorney, who, in turn, told Dr. Frenssen asking him whether it was correct that ho had told me that my disposition was recessive. Dr. Frenssen, in a letter to my attorney, said that he had not said so, but my ailment was heriditary and he advised mo to make an application, myself, for sterilization; that letter is still in my hand. After the German collapse, I showed it to the Landesgerichtspresident in Weimar, who told me that advice from the doctor was the absolute limit.
Q Now, Doctor, you were married, I believe, on 24 September 1939?
A Yes.
Q And toll us whether or not you had. any children, their ages and the condition of their health?
I married on 24 September 1939. My first child was born on 27 July 1940. It is absolutely healthy. My second child was born on 4 January 1943, and it is also absolutely healthy.
Q And, tell us whether or not there arc any physical disabilities or deformities of any kind in either of your daughters?
A. No, my children enjoyed perfect health, and all my relatives, my brothers, my nephews, and my family certainly did enjoy perfect health, and nothing has been known in the entire family.
Q. Incidentally, at some time during these hereditary court proceedings was there an examination made of your older brother and his children?
A. Yes, my mother was to appear before the health Office, my brother was told to appear there, and my two nephews also were examined. And if I may so, that Was done in a very unfair manner. The sure thing happened to me. The doctor treated no in an insolent manner, and I was surprised, because a university man won't treat another university nan in such a way.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think that is all - and thank you, Doctor. The witness is subject to cross examination.
WITNESS: I would like to say something more. A few days ago I road the commentary on the hereditary health law. It was the second edition, of 1946. That explain serious Malformation by saying that a serious clement does exist if the person suffers from such an ailment as not being able to save himself from personal danger, or if he is unsuitable for war service. I should like to say that in 1933 or 1937 the armed forces examined me, and that I was drafted for the socalled replacement reserve, are too. Therefore, my limited suitability must have been recognized at that time.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you, Doctor. I believe that is all the questions I need ask.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any defense counsel desire to cross-examine this witness?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KUBUSCH0K (For defendants von Ammon and Schlegelberger):
Q. Witness, you told us something about your career as a lawyer. You said that you studied from 1921 to 1922; then again iron 1927 to 1926.
What did you do between 1922 and 1927?
A. From 1922 to 1927 I spent some time in insurance business, and some time in my father's mail business at Erfurt.
Q. Apart from your crippled hand, have you had any other illnesses?
A. No.
Q. Formerly you mentioned visits with doctors. Were they all concerned with your hand?
A. Yes, they only concerned the hand, and in the decision it said split hand -- "Spalthand".
Q. You Said that Prof. Loeffler of Magdeburg had net been allowed to send an opinion to be filed with the court. Do you know that under paragraph 7 of the law, opinions can be submitted by the person affected, or by his legal representative?
A. I did know that but I did not find a doctor who world give an opinion. Apparently there was an instruction from the NS-Physicians League saying that a private doctor was not allowed to give an opinion. Later on I experienced similar cases in my own practice.
Q. But X-rays and Loeffler's opinion, were available to the court?
A. Yes.
Q. To clarify Dr. Franssen's activities, was Dr. Frenssen in any way connected with the Hereditary Court?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. As he an associate at your trial?
A. No, he was not an associate at my proceedings. It is very interesting that the defense should ask that question. I should like to said the following: In my own case, and in other hereditary League cases, which I represented as lawyer, I always ascertained that one associate was always an official doctor who, naturally, had to affirm the applications because he wanted to be promoted. The second associate was, as the law said, a person who was particularly experienced in the hereditary research field --- that is to say, in plain German, he had to be a Nazi:
a specialist in the field which was up for trial was never present. For example, in cases of Schizophrenia one associate was never a specialist for that disease, but, for example, a specialist for internal diseases, or some such thing... The fact that the bench was appointed in that manner was, in my view, quite intentional.
Q. You believe that it would have been more suitable to appoint an innumerable number of doctors, who according to their various specialized field would have been sent to the various sessions -- whereas, as we know, different cases could be heard at one session, that is on one day of sessions?
A. Yes, that is what should have been done.
Q. I Can't argue that point with you. One thing more: Was it not possible that the attorney could have nominated a specialist and could have had him appear at the trial according to article 7 of the law?
A. No, that was refused.
Q. How do you know that?
A. Because my attorney tried to have Prof. Nuernberger and Prof. Dr. Loeffler called as witnesses. These two gentlemen never received any information about my case.
Q. Did your attorney protest about that decision of the Hereditary Health Court?
A. No, because he did not receive an official decision.
Q. And he mentioned during the trial that a decision was made on that point?
A. No, he made the application in writing before the trial started, during the trial, this point was not raised at all.
Q. Did the attorney give you a reason as to why he did not make use of his privilege to ask for an official decision on that question of evidence?
A. No, he thought there was no point in doing so. I, myself, as a lawyer, had that same impression.
Q. Do you realize that the attorney, and you, if you knew of a negative decision, would have had a right to complain to a second instance?
A. Yes, to a higher Hereditary Health Court at Neuenburg, we could have complained to them, but I myself know how those higher instances did decide. They always on principle took the same view and made the same decision as the lower instance, and we very rarely saw a change made.
Q. Please tell me in virtue of what personal knowledge you judge this practice? How many courts did you know -- I mean, the judges who set in those courts and their jurisdiction?
A. I know the Jena Hereditary Health Court, which sat at Weimar.
Q. It is the only hereditary health court you know?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. You make your statement, and draw your conclusions, an account of your knowledge of that court?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. One more question. Who was the president? was a verdict made against you?
A. No, there was no verdict against me.
Q. What did happen at the trial of which you spoke earlier? What was the result of that trial?
A. I was never told about the result, but my attorney told me that the presiding judge told him that the two associates had absolutely wanted me to be sterilized; that no decision was made because the order of 21 august had been promulgated in the meantime.
Q. When were the proceedings?
A. Unfortunately, I have not the documents here. It must have been about the middle of august.
Q. Do you think that, legally, the fact that no decision was made at the session -- the decision would have had to be made at the session Don't you think that means, of necessity, that the trial was adjourned because there was still some doubt to be cleared up?
A. I cannot say anything about that. It is possible that another opinion was to be called for. That is possible.
Q. Was your case finally decided by the Hereditary Health Court?
A. It was decided up to this point, that the medical associates said I would have to be sterilized.
Q. But definitely -- the vote had not been taken, and no decision had been reached?
A. I don't know, because the vote is secret.
Q. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Do any other of defense counsel desire to crossexamine this witness?
(No answer)
MR. LAFOLLETTE: No redirect, Your Honor. The witness may be excused.
THE PRESIDENT: I should like to know a little more about the order of August 21st which you have referred to, out which I do not clearly understand.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I think the data was August 31st, your Honor. I don't know whether the translation was correct. But I think it was the 31st.
THE PRESIDENT: Whatever the date was -- the 21st or the 31st -can you tell us more about that order?
WITNESS: I received a letter saying that the proceedings had been stopped because of a cert in order of August 31st, but I do not clearly understand what was that order of August 31st?
A. The order was, as far as I remember, an executory order referring to the law for the prevention of hereditary diseases. It only came into effect one day before the outbreak of war. It was intended to draft people with lesser hereditary diseases. Later on I saw persons who had already been sterilized, drafted into the armed forces.
Q. It may be that you do not understand my question, but you have not told us anything about the meaning of the order of August 3lst.
A. That order of 31 august said that proceedings against me had boon stopped, with the right of resuming than at any time, and that now I was allowed to marry. There were two proceedings against me, one proceeding for not granting me a marriage certificate, and also the proceedings at the hereditary Health Court. Both proceedings were then amalgamated into one.
THE PRESIDENT: No further question.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is all. Thank you very much doctor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
(Witness excused)
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, Mr. Wooleyhan will proceed with the presentation of further documentary evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, we turn now to Book III-B Supplement.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I wonder if I may address the Tribunal a minute and ascertain their wishes as to the further proceedings.
I am advised by Mr. Wooleyhan that after further studying this book, Supplement Book III-B, he reached the conclusion that quite a few of the documents were purely cumulative, and we will not present them. The other loose documents have not been distributed to permit as to put them in today and possibly tomorrow. The witness Franke, who was due in here today -- the MP's truck, or whatever they are coming in, broke down at Kassel.
I am advised that he was at Kassel this. morning and should get in here sometime tonight. That will hardly give us an opportunity to interview the witness and get him in. We may have a dozen documents that we could, put in, in the coming. I am inclined to think that the Tribunal would have a day, and we would have more time if, after we complete this, we recess until Friday. I think we would have a very choppy day tomorrow. I regret it, but it is another one of those things I think we have done everything to avoid, and nobody is responsible for. If we hold Court on Friday, there nay be a few documents that will be available on Monday, and certainly on Monday or Tuesday we can close. I can tell the Tribunal better on Friday. I see no reason for holding a session tomorrow, because I don't think we can have anything to present to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have anything further to offer this afternoon?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, we have these documents in Book III-3, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In the supplementary book III-3, on the Index, the following documents will not be offered in evidence:
NG-853, on page 2.
NG-954, on page 53.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 53?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, page 53.
THE PRESIDENT: That is No. 954?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
NG-982, on page 56.
NG--1002, on page 64.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't find those numbers in the index. However, you might proceed with offering them.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It concerns me, Your Honor, if your index is not complete; it should be.
THE PRESIDENT: Maybe if you would indicate again which ones you desire to offer, it would be more to the point.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: To avoid any confusion, I will just go ahead and offer the evidence, and anything I omit will not be offered.
On page 7 of this book is found NG-877. This document comprises an indictment by the Reich Chief Prosecutor at the People's Court, and a sentence of the People's Court in 1941 against a stateless Belgian defendant. This stateless Belgian resident was indicted for collecting funds for Communistic activities in Prague, Brussels, Belgium, and Antwerp, and also for distributing something less than one thousand Reichsmarks among the relatives of political prisoners as Charity. The indictment is personally signed by the defendant Lautz and referred by him for trial to the Second Senate of the People's Court.
The last page of the document contains the People's Court opinion, findings, and sentence of this stateless Belgian resident, an opinion and sentence in which the defendant Petersen took part as a judge. The defendant was given five years of hard labor, on the 25th of September 1941.
Of chief interest in this document, other than the defendants involved therein, is the fact that the great bulk of the defendant's activity in collecting and distributing these charitable funds for the Communist Party was done in Prague and various cities of Belgium, and the defendant had in fact emigrated to Belgium in 1937, four years before the trial, and had never returned until brought to Germany for trial.
The prosecution offers this document
DR. GRUBE (Counsel for the defendant Lautz): May it please the Court, in our document book the indictment is only contained in fragments., In the photostatic copy we also see that only a very small part of the indictment is available. The indictment stops at page 2, and then continues at page 16. In other words, in the original of the document s well as in our document book, fourteen pages of the indictment are missing.
Therefore, I do not consider this document to be complete, and I object to the use and to the admission of this document as evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court will notice, a number of pages--the same pages that Dr. Grube mentions--are missing from the English document book too, but they are not missing in the true sense. Those pages were not captured. The prosecution docs not have them. We offer the document as found, and ask for whatever probative weight the Court desires to give it.
THE PRESIDENT: This is all of the document that was captured?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: It is, Your Honor. The omissions are not intentional, and the same omissions occur in our books as in the German because we did not have the original.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Court, I believe that this document cannot have any probative value; all the facts are missing in this indictment. Of an indictment of sixteen pages, fourteen pages are mi sing. Whether these fourteen pages are missing accidentally can play no part here, in my opinion. At any rate, an assessment of the case is impossible with these fragments only.
Furthermore, I would like to point out that the statements by the representative of the prosecution, according to which Friedrichs is a Belgian, are not correct. As is evident from the fragments of the indictment, Friedrichs had emigrated and was stateless. He was not a Belgian.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I clearly stated, Your Honor, that the defendant was a Belgian resident, stateless. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, they are repeated in essence in the Court's opinion attached to this document. We think it is clear.
THE PRESIDENT: It is difficult to understand how a Belgian could be stateless. I could understand how a German national might be declared stateless, but it is a little confusing to my mind how a Belgian could be declared stateless.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The facts, Your Honor, as they appear on the first page of the indictment trace the following history: In 1937 this defendant emigrated from Hamburg, Germany, to Belgium and remained there until 1941 when he was arrested and brought back to Germany for trial. It appears that he never became a citizen of Belgium and that he had been deprived of his German citizenship by some means, because the opinion of the People's Court in declaring the sentence states on Page 9 of the Document Book that the defendant, whose last residence was Antwerp, was stateless, So it appears that he was deprived of his German citizenship when he moved to Belgium and did not acquire Belgian citizenship.
THE PRESIDENT: That is where the confusion arose when you talked about him being a stateless Belgian. But anyway, we understand it now.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The document, while imperfect, if it is all that has been captured, is certainly admissible for what probative value it may have. The amount of that value is another matter, but for such as it may have, it is admissible as a captured document.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We offer NG 877 as Exhibit 490.
THE PRESIDENT: The document may be admitted in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On Page 11 of the English book is found NG 879. This is an opinion, findings, and sentence of the second senate of the People's Court sitting in trial on 6 June 1941, at which trial the de Court No. III, Case No. 3.fendant Engert, Vice President of the People's Court at that time, presided.
The defendants in this criminal case were three Poles and one German national. All four were indicated, tried, and sentenced for having conspired to join the Polish Legion and thereby to separate a portion of the Reich by force, which constituted, under certain statutes appearing in Book 2, preparation of high treason. We don't wish to go into this case at any length in presenting it. The facts are clear. The Court's reasoning is spelled out in full. We merely wish to call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that none of the defendants in this case had previous criminal records, that three of the defendants were Polish citizens, and that the intention of none of the defendants to join the Polish Legion was proved by any evidence appearing in the opinion but was established by certain subjective assumptions of the Tribunal. To illustrate what I have just said, I wish to read from Page 16, the middle of the first paragraph. This is Page 221 of the German.
"Kopton, one of the defendants, after denying it at first, has stated during the interrogation by the police, that he and Kolodziej, another one of the defendants, wanted to go to Hungary to join the Polish legion and that he also told this to Schweda and Goldamer. During the legal interrogation he softened this statement. In the main trial he stated that he had not intended to join the Polish legion; that he had only mentioned that he had heard about this legion; that his statement to the police had been given under pressure; that he had been afraid in front of the police and then had made the same statement before the court which he had made before the police."
On that and other evidence the Tribunal concludes on Page 17, which is Page 223 in the German:
"In summary, the chamber appraises the statements made in the main trial and arrives at the conclusion that Kolodziej and Kopton did not go to look for work, but intended to join the Polish legion in Court No. III, Case No. 3.Hungary and that Schweda and Goldamer were aware of that.
Kopton also confirmed this during his interrogation by the Secret Police, that is the Gestapo, in Kattowice. His declaration that his statement was made under pressure has been disproved by the testimony of the interrogating official."
Other reasoning of the Court appears in later pages. The entire opinion and sentence is signed by order of the defendant Engert as presiding judge. The three Polish defendants and the one German defendant got sentences of imprisonment at hard labor varying from six years to four years to three years. Without further description the Prosecution offers in its entirety this document, NG 879, as Exhibit 491.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 24 of the English book, which is Page 232 of the German, is found NG 923. This is an opinion, findings, and sentence of the second senate of the People's Court sitting on 24 June 1942, in a trial at which the defendant Engert, then Vice President of the People's Court, presided. The defendants were four German nationals, all living at residences in and around Frankfurt am Main, and all four of them were sentenced to death for distributing two or three types of communistic leaflets and attempting to recruit sympathizers to the Communistic way of thinking during the war. This was said to have constituted preparations for high treason under the existing laws. All that appears from the findings of the Court by way of overt acts of the defendants was that they distributed Communist Leaflets, of which the following is a sample. I am reading now from the bottom of Page 26, which is Page 238 in the German:
"Compatriots, men and women: We address you at the present time because HITLER and his capitalist clique has failed to fulfill any of its promises. Hunger is rampant in the country. The overlords are still drawing high salaries and make profits from the war. Capitalism is being choked by its own contradictions and is Court No. III, Case No. 3.therefore engaged in war.
Wages have been discontinued and cut. You are enslaved and no one worries about you. Capitalism with its contradictions is at the end of its tether and is unable to help you."
On the basis of this and similar leaflets which were distributed by the four defendants and for the fact that they had attempted to recruit followers and also collected army postal addresses to create opposition to the war by writing to soldiers, although they never actually wrote any letters, all four defendants were sentenced to death. Engert as presiding judge had the following to say about the serious nature of these crimes. Reading now from the bottom of Page 29, which is Page 245 in the German:
"The action of these defendants constitutes a considerable danger to the safety of the German Reich, especially if one considers that it was committed during the present war up to June 1941, that is, at a time when the German people are compelled to fight for their existence and are therefore engaged in a struggle which can only be won if the entire home front supports the army."
The prosecution offers as Exhibit 492 this document NG 923.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence. We will take our usual fifteen minute recess at this time.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, may I interrupt one moment?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I have three documents remaining to introduce this afternoon. Would you rather reconvene and hear those three or have me finish them now? They may take some fifteen, twenty minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: How long will it probably take to introduce those three documents?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Approximately fifteen minutes, Your Honor. After that we have nothing further to offer this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will hear them now.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 32 of the English book, which is page 249 in the German, is found NG-925. This is a collection of four separate documents found in one dosier , and comprises the following parts: first, a statement signed by one, Parrisius, who is a prosecutor in the People's Court, which was the defendant Lautz' office. The second part of the document, following the indictment, is the opinion, findings, and sentence of the people's Court in the case, signed by the defendant Engert, then vice-president of the people s Court, presiding. The third part of the document is an execution order signed by the Defendant Mettgenberg, pursuant to which it is contemplated that the defendant, having been sentenced to death, was to be executed, and setting forth the manner in which he was to be executed. The last part of the document is a report by the Defendant Barnickel to the Chief Public Prosecutor, namely the defendant Lautz, setting forth the details of the actual execution of the defendant, as he, Barnickel, witnessed it personally. All four of these parts of this document refer to the case against a laborer, Erich Deibel, who was indicted, sentenced to death and executed for scrawling certain phrases on the walls of a lavatory in the factory in which he worked. These phrases that he scrawled on the walls cf the men's lavatory consisted of-
JUDGE BRANDT: Do you mean "laboratory" or "lavatory"?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Washroom, Lavatory, toilet, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it your intention to read those at this time?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor, it was my intention to merely briefly describe what they were. They were certain political slogans, constituting one or two words each, and he also drew a hammer and sicjle here and there on the walls of the washroom. In addition to drawing pictures and printing political slogans on the walls of the washroom there in the factory, the Defendant Deibel also had the gall to listen to his radio at night and turned in on the british Broadcasting system to get the latest news, after which he was charged with having discussed with other factory workers in his place of employment.
For these things, as the various parts of this document will trace, the laborer Deibel was indicted by a prosecutor working in the office of the Defendant Lautz. He was tried at the People's Court by a senate presided over by the defendant Engert. He was sentenced to death at that trial. His execution was ordered by the Defendant Mettgenberg, and his actual execution--the guillotine--was witnessed and reported by the defendant Barnickel.
The prosecution offers as Exhibit 493, Document NG-925.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 50 of the English book, which is page 272 in the German, is found NG-952. This is a sworn affidavit by one, Gottfried, who continuously, during the period 1933-1945, was employed in the judicial service in Nuernberg in charge of personal administration, office supplies, and as certifying official at the execution of death sentences which had been pronounced by the Special Court or later by the emergency civilian courts martial, In other words, this affiant's job was to be officially present when defendants were executed and to report that fact. The affiant Huemmer describes in some detail the familiar case of Count Montgelas who, as appears from material already in evidence, was tried and sentenced to death by the emergency civilian court martial in Nuernberg in 1945, presided over by the defendant Oeschey. In addition to the Montgelas case, we see on Pages 31 and 32 that the affiant describes four additional case which resulted in death sentences imposed by the emergency civilian courts martial in Nuernberg in 1943, presided over by the Defendant Oeschey. In addition to the Montgelas case, Huemmer next refers to the case of one, Gottfried, who was sentenced to death and executed by the courts martial under Oeschey three days before the arrival cf the American troops. His crime had been to induce the residents of this tiny village where he lived to give up without resistance at the approach of American tanks and troops.
The next case before the court martial under Oeschey to which the affiant refers is that of the woman. Wahlrab, who in conversation with her customers in the small store which she operated, expressed her doubt about the certainty of a German victory.