Q And, of the seven, who were you?
A I was the referent.
Q And, when did you cast your vote?
A I don't know.
Q I am asking you whether you had already cast your vote when the matter was reported to the Minister? I mean your personal vote?
A Certainly. I do not understand your question.
Q I will try to express myself quite clearly. This case has been described as clear here; you have read out the headlines here it says general death sentences, then in parenthesis, Ministerial Director Altmeyer, and then it says, clear. How is it that word clear was put on the list; was that word contained in the list before the report was made to the Minister or was it entered there during the course of the report?
A That was put there when the list was submitted to the Minister.
Q Who caused that word clear to be entered in the report list?
A The referent who dealt with it, that is, myself.
Q And, who was the referent who dealt with it?
AAccording to this list, I.
Q You, yourself?
A Yes.
Q You, yourself, therefore, reported to the Minister on cases which previously you had described as clear?
A No, whom the ministerial director had described as clear; a case was only described as clear within this moaning if everybody had described it as clear.
Q When all unanimously said that the death sentence was justified?
A Yes.
Q You just said, and I do not know whether you wanted to correct yourself, you said that the Referent said that there were so many clear cases on which he wanted to report; is that correct?
A No, the things were handed over to the secretary and she was told that so many things were to be reported on -Q (Interposing) Who told the Secretary so and so many clear cases will be reported on?
A The Referent; in every case.
Q And, in this case, you were the Referent, and you said that those were clear cases?
A Yes, according to this document.
Q May I ask you now on page 92, may I repeat in the English text it is Pages 104 and 105, and I ask you to look at numeral 24. I would ask you to read out to the Tribunal the text of number 24?
A It says Mattei first reported no lightning execution.
Q Would you tell the Tribunal what that remark means?
A Yes, this is the explanation: On that day there were reports being made and then there was a call or letter or telephone message was handed by the Referent on duty to the Referent, which said that the public Prosecutor had reported that a death sentence had been pronounced for robbery, probably and that the public prosecutor asked the Ministry to inform it, the prosecution immediately about the decision. I frequently used to do so when that remark was not clear enough to base one's decision on it; that is to say, one could not get the Minister to decide on it, on the basis of that remark. Therefore, it happened very often that the Minister as well as the Under-Secretary in reply to such a telephone report said, no, first of all we must see the opinion on which the sentence is based. That is probably what happened in this case here.
Q Herr Altmeyer, I am now going back. You, yourself, had said that, that is, your report list, you were the Referent. It is headed clear and then 24 cases are listed which, in your opinion, were clear before they were ever reported on. But evidently this Mattei, No. 24, was rejected by the Minister. Contrary to you, he said, therefore, no lightning execution is to take place, we want to hear a report first?
A No, that addition was properly entered because the list already existed; it was just amended afterwards. However, it was certainly as follows:
that I said on the basis of that telephone report without a submission of the opinion of the court, and because the remarks were not full enough to give a clear indication of all details, for that reason we had to wait until we could see the opinion, or, at least, we had to wait for a further telephone report. I consider it out of the question that the request would have been made on the part of the Minister or the Under-Secretary without the Referent having made the suggestion, that lightning executions should be put off. I am firmly convinced that if that order had been made by the Minister or the Under-Secretary it was due to the Referent, that is to me, in this case.
Q May I point out to you, that in my conviction, that is a contradiction? Why did you describe the case as clear, then?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, I object to this form of questioning because he is continually arguing with the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
Q Do you remember the Mattei case altogether?
A No, I do not. However, I do know that in no case did the Minister of the Under-Secretary give such an order. I do know that I, myself, went down to see the Minister and the Under-Secretary with such a telephone report, and told them that the telephone report was not precise enough to come to a decision as to whether the sentence was to be carried out.
Q To clarify the matter, you are referring to a telephone conversation; did that telephone report come in after you had already entered the word clear, or not?
A I do not know. The name which appears last was added because it happened to be a day on which the reports were being made and on that occasion, that case was to be dealt with as one of the cases of that day -- although, no decision on that question was to be made on that day.
Q That is enough, thank you. I would now like to ask you to turn your attention to your affidavit once again. The next paragraph contains a general opinion of the clemency practice on Thierack's part. You say here Thierack said, that if a court decided to pronounce a death sentence it also assumes responsibility for the execution, and that only in very unusual cases he would use his right of clemency; did you hear that from Thierack, yourself, and when did you hear that?
A I did not hear that once but several times from Thierack. He said if the court pronounces a death sentence -- in particular, if it is a case where the death sentence is not mandatory -- in such a case the court also assumes responsibility for the execution. He even rejected the old principle that normally sentences are not carried out in the case of circumstantial evidence because that creates a completed deed; such cases too, he said, in spite of our contradiction and in spite of the fact that we held an opposing view, that the court must bear the responsibility, if on the basis of circumstantial evidence it pronounces a death sentence. Circumstantial evidence, in his opinion, provided better proof than a statement by a witness. In any case, Minister Thierack said, more than once, that the court in such a case has to bear also the responsibility for the execution and that only if unusual circumstances obtained, he would make use of the clemency provisions.
Q Herr Altmeyer, did you have a complete insight into Thierack's clemency practice?
A Generally speaking, yes, as far as non-political death sentences are concerned.
Q Only in general or only as far as non-political death sentences are concerned?
A Yes, I said as far as non-political cases are concerned. In respect to political cases, I am not in a position to give a definite opinion. I can only base my opinion on what I heard every now and then during reports. In my opinion, these cases went very far.
Q Were you present when political cases were reported on, when a death sentence had been passed; we agree that political cases means cases of high treason, treason, undermining of fighting strength, etc. Were you present when a report was made to the Minister on such sentences, and when the question was whether the sentence was to be carried out?
A Yes, occasionally I was present. I was present sometimes when the next person on that report had already entered the room, or when those who reported before me were still in the room.
Q Do you mean to say, however, that you only got an insight into non-political penal cases?
A Yes, mainly.
Q The document which you have before you, that report list, would you turn to it again. This has been looked through and it has been found that 2390 were issued for the execution of death sentences. In 230 cases, the sentences were commuted. Do you mean to say that this was in accordance with Thierack's statement; that only in very rare cases clemency ought to be exercised -- that would only be ten percent.
AAs far as I know in times of peace the cases where the death sentences were commuted amounted to about 20 percent.
Q I only want to make sure what you meant by quite unusual circumstances -- you mean about ten per cent, do you?
A That is a considerably less than in peace times, anyhow.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The last remark of Counsel, I object to. If Counsel is trying to elicit answers, that is all right, but to put answers into his mouth is something the Prosecution objects to. Either the witness says ten percent or he does not.
THE PRESIDENT: This is cross examination. The objection is overruled. You may proceed.
Q Dr., only one more question. I shall ask you now on the reports which, according to the Prosecution, are complete; they have been examined, and it has been seen that the total of 361 cases were reported which were doubtful cases. Will you tell the Tribunal, please, briefly what constituted doubtful cases within the meaning of the report list. Please turn to page 47 of the German text; in the English text it is pages 52 and 53; at the beginning, after the heading, you will find the small letter "a", and then it says, "Doubtful"; then you will find the letter "b"; where it says "clear". Would you tell the Tribunal what your own view is on the meaning of the word doubtful?
A I said, that cases where were described as "clear" which were sent up to the Ministry with a report attached, that is to say, cases which concerned a death sentence, which by the presiding judge, the court, the senior public prosecutor, and the general public prosecutor, had been described as in order, and which, by the collaborator, the referent, the head of the Department, and the Ministerial Director in the Ministry of Justice had also been described as in order, and where execution was considered advisable. That concerned, above all, a category of cases which recording to repeated statements by Thierack, could be considered only in very unusual circumstances for clemency. I mean a category in respect of both the offender and the offense. In speaking of offenders, I mean habitual criminals, with many previous convictions, and speaking of the offense, referring to robberies committed immediately during an air raid --
Q Let me interrupt you. I would like to know only what doubtful is?
A I am telling you what clear is. Doubtful is the opposite. Furthermore, serious sexual crimes committed by a person who exploited the black-out. He also ordered on the basis of this statement that only in very unusual cases would he exercise clemency; therefore, only those cases were listed in the category of doubtful where one of the authorities I mentioned just now, said that the sentence was not in accordance with the law, or where a case of lesser gravity was concerned, where even on the basis of this order by Thierack clemency could be considered.
Q That is clear enough. I will ask you now to have a lock at page 47. It states at the top there, "A doubtful." Three cases are shown there, and by the side of each of those cases the word "collaborator" appears. I am referring to page 47.
A Page 47? What are you referring to, counsel?
Q On top cf the first page which says "Report on death sentences," and then the date, and then capital 'A' high treason cases, and then the small "a", doubtful, and then the figures 1,2,3 and opposite these three numerals the word "collaborator" appears three times. What does that mean?
A That refers to the collaborator who in every case was in fact the collaborator.
Q When you look at B on the same page, it states, "clear", but there it does not show the collaborator.
A Concerning; the report. But the collaborator dealt with it. He was not present when the report was made.
Q I am now asking you to have another look at it. In the list there is a difference. Under small "a", doubtful cases, the collaborators name occurs, but under small "b" clear cases, the name is not there.
A The collaborator went into action every time. He was merely not present when the report was made in clear bases.
Q That is what I mean.
A When the cases were reported on, it was the referent who made the report on the clear cases, and, in doubtful cases it was the collaborator himself who made the report, and, therefore, the name of the collaborator only appears in doubtful cases.
Q That is what I wanted to hear from you. You said the collaborator reported on the doubtful cases, but what was the position of the referent in doubtful cases, I mean?
A In doubtful cases, the referent was present, and he also cast his vote just as the Ministerial Director, the head of the Department; and the Under-Secretary.
Q In doubtful cases then, there were discussions; if I understood you rightly. You said a vote was taken.
A Well, there were discussions in all cases.
Q That is in clear cases too?
A With clear cases too, unless the case was so clear in the actual meaning of the word that discussion was not necessary, since the person to whom the report was made said, that was sufficient.
Q Herr Atmeyer; according to my information, you personally when you reported on clear cases are supposed to have introduced the socalled "telegram style". Will you toll us about it?
A Naturally when those reports were made, sofar as the personalities and the particulars were concerned; naturally as far as possible one had to be brief; telegram style in that meaning that would be going a little too far.
Q Now according to the list through which we have gone, we find that during one year and three months, 361 doubtful cases were listed; that is to say, they were in the category of doubtful, and then we found that in the document there were 391 such cases. Can you tell us whether that was right?
A 391 cases?
Q 361.
A 361 doubtful cases. That may be right.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If Your Honor please; these compilations and totals which have been put to the witness by counsel do not appear on the face of the document. Those are additions and subtractions made by counsel; he had just stated them as a fact. I object to those totals; if not elicited by the witness as answers, they are inadmissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may state as a hypothetical question the statistics to which he refers, to have the opinion of the witness on the basis of the hypothesis. The Court will consider the answer; if upon examination of the statistics the hypothetical question is found to comform to the fact.
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor, I have declared myself prepared to make my cross-examination as brief as possible. If Mr. Wooleyhan Remands that the witness is to re-examine the figures, which are put to him, then I would have to ask you to allow me to interrupt the crossexamination, because I would have to hand the document to him.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor I am not demanding any such thing. I merely state that the question would be phrased hypothetically according to the totals because they do not appear on the face of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understood the totals do not appear. However, we can determine the totals by examining the document, and, on the assumption that your compilation is correct, for the purposes of asking the question, you may have the answer of the witness.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q If I understand your answer correctly, you said that might be correct?
A You said that in one year and three months, 361 doubtful cases had been decided. I did not count them. I did not check up. It may be right.
Q We furthermore found out that of these 361 cases, 191 had their sentences commuted. That is to say, more than half were commuted to a lower sentence. Do you think that figure likely to be correct?
A It may be.
Q It may be. Now I will ask you again, you stated that only in higher unusual cases Thierack exercised clemency. Will you maintain your assertion if I put it to you, that of 391 doubtful cases, more than half, that is to say, 191, had their sentences commuted?
A Yes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, I trust the witness understands the question, which was, that he had put to him a hypothetical question.
DR. SCHILF: I did not hear the ruling of the Court?
THE PRESIDENT: The Court made no ruling.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Would you answer that please. I asked you whether you wished to maintain the statement made in your affidavit to the effect that Thierack only exercised clemency in very rare cases, if you say yourself that more than half of the sentences in doubtful cases were commuted?
A Yes, the fact that a case was described as doubtful in itself shows that clemency was being aimed at. If you take off half, that constitutes a considerable curtailment, and I am of the view that that represents a very low figure.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(Recess)
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Mr. Altmeyer, we discussed the 361 cases and the fact that in 191 cases sentence was commuted. I believe you said that only in unusual cases clemency was granted, or would you like to modify the statement you have made in your affidavit concerning this point?
A In my opinion one has to consider the total number of sentences, not only those that were considered doubtful, because the so-called clear cases, if one deducts these, a number of 161 is left. That is very little, isn't it?
Q We don't have to discuss that figure in detail. I come now to your own reports to the Minister, and as I have told you already, I didn't quote all page numbers because that would take too much time. Oh 32 days you reported, and on these 32 days you reported 786 death sentences. Is that possible? Could that be right?
A I suggested death sentences? I reported in the matter of clemency.
Q In what sense did you report?
A That depends. As far as clear cases were concerned, the rejection of clemency was proposed. In doubtful cases and in some clear cases a suggestion was made for clemency to be granted.
Q I asked you that according to the lists, 786 clear cases were reported by you, 786 clear cases. Can that be correct?
A I assume so, if they were on a list.
Q We have furthermore found out that of these 786 cases which you reported, 92 were designated as doubtful cases. Can that figure be correct?
A That may be.
Q Now I ask you, Mr. Altmeyer, as for the 92 doubtful cases, can you remember that you were in favor of execution, but that somebody else who was present was against execution?
A Whether I remember that? I didn't quite understand what you said.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Whether you can remember that you, in reporting the doubtful cases, were for the execution but somebody else among the gentlemen present was against it.
A That varied. In a doubtful case the referent may have been for execution, his assistant for clemency, the Ministerial Counsellor for execution, the Under-Secretary for clemency, and that sequence could be different. That was the reason why several individuals had to deal with it. That was what led to the difference in suggestions. Normally there was unanimity among the assistants or referents, uniformity of opinion, that is.
Q Now I ask you whether you remember personally that you suggested execution once and another one, your assistant or the Under-Secretary, was against the execution.
A Yes, of course. Those things happened. Yes, of course.
Q You mean cases where you said, yes, that there were differences of opinion?
THE PRESIDENT: I think we understood the question and the answer. Let's pass along to something else. He made that perfectly clear.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q I should like to put to you Page 79 of the lists, the report lists. Would you please look at it. Would you please tell the Tribunal whether your name appears on that page?
A Page 79, yes.
Q And how many cases did you report?
A Six cases.
Q Were those clear cases or doubtful cases?
A They were clear cases.
Q Thank you. Please look at Page 92 now.
THE PRESIDENT: Doesn't the record show whether the cases were clear or doubtful on the face of the document?
DR. SCHILF: No, Mr. President. It is not to be seen from the document itself that they were clear cases. That word is omitted.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: In many instances it was there.
THE WITNESS: No, I only speak of Page 79, and as I can sec, that is omitted from the entire report list, apparently by mistake, because neither in the case of my report nor in the case of the report of other gentlemen a distinction was made between clear and doubtful cases, at least on this list of reports.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q May that mean that on that day only clear cases were reported?
A Well, that is one possibility.
Q Will you please look at Page 92 now?
A 92, yes.
Q We have seen that before. How many cases did you submit there as clear cases?
A That I don't know any longer. I couldn't tell that now after more than a year, after two years, whether I submitted them as clear cases.
Q But it says clear, doesn't it?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is unnecessary to ask him what appears in the document. The Tribunal has examined that document and will do so again.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Now may I ask you to look at Page 123, that is the English pages 141 to 142. How many clear cases did you submit in that case?
THE PRESIDENT: Does the record show? Does the document show that?
DR. SCHILF: No, in that case, in this document there is a special condition and about that special condition I should like to ask the witness. The document shows 11 clear cases, but, and would you please explain to the Tribunal, now Figure 10? It says, "Clemency for Bartels, 8 years in a penitentiary." That case, "Clemency for Bartels, 8 years in a penitentiary", did you submit that case as a clear case?
A No. Since two years have passed, on the basis of this document alone I cannot tell. There may be various circumstances connected with that.
THE PRESIDENT: The answer is that you don't know, is it not? You say you don't know.
THE WITNESS: I say I can't answer that question because there are various possibilities.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand. Make your answer brief.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q It says here, "Bartels clemency, 8 years penitentiary", and on the top where we see the figures 1 to 11 it says, "(b) Clear." Does that mean that you have submitted all these cases as clear cases?
A No, I mentioned before that in the course of the report of these so-called clear cases, suggestions may have lead to it and did lead to it that clemency was granted; that at least it was tried to be achieved at clemency.
Q Does that mean that here clemency was granted in a clear case?
A That I don't know. It says here under 10, "Clemency, 8 years penitentiary."
Q Does that mean clemency was granted or that it wasn't?
AAccording to the contents of this document, yes, if that has that meaning.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q That is all I ask you. That is all I wanted to know.
A Yes, if that is the meaning of this notation. It may have another meaning. It may, if-I may be permitted to point that out, also mean that a case of that nature had already been reported on before; for instance, one has asked for the approval of the Gauleiter or that the Chancellery of the Fuehrer-
Q Mr. Altmeyer, my question was very simple. I only want to know whether in this case of Bartels, clemency was granted or whether it wasn't?
A I can only say that it says here in the document after the name Bartels, "Eight years penitentiary; clemency granted."
Q And what does that mean?
A It means that here clemency was considered.
Q Now may I ask you to look at Page 127, but you have to go back to 126 first, and on 126 you will find your name--on the bottom of Page 126.
A Yes.
Q Then there are figures which pass on to the next page, figures 1 to 121. Would yon please look at Figure 13.
A It says postpone.
Q I ask you concerning the case Demarest, did you submit that as a clear case?
A I don't know. There again there may be various circumstances connected with it. That it is listed here as a clear case doesn't mean a thing in this connection, counsel.
Q Would you please go back to Page 111 now. There the name Demarest appears again. Here under "(a) Doubtful, Figure 4," will you please tell the Tribunal what that number means?
A Yes. It says here: No. 4, the name, and 10 years penitentiary.
Q Here it says 12 years.
A Yes, 12 years penitentiary. And on the report list of the 5th of April, and the other one was-
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Page 127.
A The 29th of February, and from that we can see that at that time An February the case was to be reviewed again, and that later, on the 5th of April, the decision was made that 13 years penitentiary was being considered.
Q I think you are mistaken.
A Yes. Twelve years penitentiary should be the sentence.
Q All right. May I ask you now to look at your affidavit again. On Page 3, about the last third of the page; after you stated what your opinion was of the practice of clemency of Thierack, you stated, "Klemm's practice was the same as that of Thierack's." Now I ask you how many times did you report to Under-Secretary Klemm at that time?
A We reported to Under-Secretary Klemm once each month.
Q In matters of death sentences?
A In matters of death sentences. To a certain extent he was only competent for reports on clear cases and the doubtful cases were decided by the Minister. But I am convinced that that was once a month.
Q That is to say, Klemm alone?
A Yes, without the Minister.
Q Mr. Altmeyer, then of course I have to ask you, if you believe that you have to maintain that assertion to go through the lists once more with me. Mr. President, I am awfully sorry, but the statement which the witness has just made is clearly to be refuted on the basis of these lists.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the refutation appear on the face of the lists?
DR. SCHILF: I don't know whether it can be seen from the lists alone. Possibly the witness will say that the lists are not complete.
THE WITNESS: I can only repeat, counsel, that according to my recollection we certainly reported once a month to Klemm on death sentences. There may have been a month when that did not happen, but then of course the next month there would have been two reports. At least the effect would be that one report would come to one month.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Would you please look at Page 79, and then two pages before that, Page 77. The heading.
A 79 and 77?
Q Yes, 77 first.
A I have here only 77, "Reports to the Under-Secretary. Wednesday, the 21st June."
Q Yes. Then I should like to ask you to look at Page 92.
A 92?
Q Yes. There you will find your name. Was that a report to the Under-Secretary or the Minister?
A I don't know. That can't be seen from the document.
Q Would you look at the previous page, Page 91? please. The heading.
A Page 91, yes. The number of department reports?
Q No, only the heading.
A Yes, the heading: "The report to the Under-Secretary on Wednesday the 31st May." From that we can see that on the 31st May the reports were made to Under-Secretary Klemm. From the document itself, that cannot be seen, only from the date. Well, 92 does not shew anything concerning the fact that that was reported to Klemm, but in connection with 91 it is probable.
Q All other lists are reports to the Minister then? Are you surprised?
A Pardon?
Q All other lists are reports to the Minister?
A Yes, but that does not change anything about the fact that frequently we were instructed that the reports which were to be made to the Minister would be made to the Under-Secretary. When that list was made, the person who wrote the list did not know whether the report was to be made to the Minister or the Under-Secretary. Normally it was to be made to the Minister; therefore, normally the heading on the docu Court No. III, Case No. 3.ment would be "to the Minister."
Q Would you then, please, look at sheet No. 6. That is a report of the 17th of January 1944.
A Page 6, "Report to the Under-Secretary on Wednesday, the 17th January."
Q All right. May I ask you then, you mean to say where it says here on the lists, "Report to the Minister," there is the possibility that that report was made to the Under-Secretary?
A Yes, yes, that possibility exists quite well.
Q The possibility? Now I have to ask you to refer back to your affidavit. You listed four individual cases here and you said, "Definite cases where Klemm made a decision: of those, I remember the following:" And then you list individual cases. I understood you to say before that doubtful cases were decided only by the Minister.
A No, no.
Q How was that?
A I have stated that it frequently occurred that the Under-Secretary took care only of clear gases and the Minister of doubtful cases. But it also happened that the Under-Secretary took care of both, the clear ones as well as the doubtful ones. That is what I said.
Q In these four cases which you mention in your affidavit, according to your recollection were these clear cases or doubtful cases?
A: They were both clear and doubtful cases. I should like to say the first ones were doubtful and the two others were at least designated as clear cases. I cannot say for sure, however, what was designated clear or doubtful.
Q: Well then, when you mentioned these four cases in your affidavit, did you write down that purely from memory; or, when you wrote that affidavit were any files submitted to you by the gentlemen from the Prosecution?
A: No, I remembered these cases very well, and, if I may mention, What it was that refreshed my memory in four cases because-
Q: That is not necessary. I only asked you whether the files were submitted to you and you said no.
A: No.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be permitted to explain if he desires.
Q: You are to explain in What way your memory was refreshed concerning these four cases.
A: The first case was particularly significant. I recall it well because about two years previously we had a parallel case before Under-Secretary Schlegelberger. At that time it was also an attack on a hospital train which lead to looting, that is looting of the hospital train; and Under--Secretary Schlegelberger approached Meissner to try to get a clemancy decision. Meissner answered -- I think it was orally or by telephone -- that it was impossible, it was quite impossible at a time like that to grant clemancy because Hitler shortly before that in an especially drastic case had ordered the transfer of individuals, who in his opinion were sentenced too leniently, to the police in cases which were of less importance than these cases of looting of hospital trains; that is a very clear recollection I had.
And that case was submitted to Under-Secretary Klemm also by referring to the previous decision by Under-Secretary Schlegelberger.
Q: You said you could no longer remember whether these four cases were clear or doubtful. Do you remember now that that might have been a clear case?
A: A clear case, no. We discussed it and finally the decision which he made was that the execution had to take place. He mentioned particularly -- that previous convictions made clemency impossible.
Q: Were you in favor of clemency?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you remember that clearly?
A: Yes, I remember that clearly.
Q: The second case is a so-called looting case.
A: The second case, that is the matter of the case of Charlottenburg. I cannot say with certainty it was that case of the pump or whether it was another case which we knew very well, which was an example for looting cases; a cast-iron stove was one case and the other one was the question of a pump. The one case was submitted to Thierack; he made the decision that the execution would take place. The other case was submitted to Klemm and he decided that the convict had to be executed. The previous case, whether it was the case of the cast iron stove or the pump, was also submitted to him and he had an opportunity to compare the two.
Q: Mr. Altmeyer, concerning the looting case, do you remember the Judges Letters?
A: The Judges' Letters? Yes.
Q: In one Judge's Letter, No. 17, of the 1st April, 1944, only cases of looting are discussed.