Q. Even after the central prosecution was dissolved, did Dr. Joel continue the activity which he had practiced in the central prosecution? Did he still have a similar mission after the central prosecution was dissolved? May I show you a sheet from the work distribution chart, a part of Document NG-988. (Witness is offered the sheet.) On the bottom you see as the Referat of Joel -- at least as part of the Referat of Joel -- "Special Tasks."
A. I do not see from this document what the date is.
Q. That is the Geschaeftsverteilungsplan -- the work distribution plan -- of 1943.
A. "1943, Special Tasks." That is when the central prosecution had been dissolved. That may have happened in "37 or '38. Then Guertner directed that Joel should remain for special tasks. But this plan here is dated 1942, you say.
Q. It probably shows that on all distribution plans of the previous years, but those are not available. You, therefore, also assume that these special tasks were identical with the kind of work that he did for the central prosecution?
A. Well, when the central prosecution was dissolved, Minister Guertner directed that Joel should carry on with special tasks which remained from the field of the central prosecution and that he should carry out these tasks.
Q. Yes, your recollection is absolutely correct and we shall submit the directive by Guertner as a document.
Q. Could you remember Joel's actions and attitude in connection with the Jewish program in 1938?
A. According to my recollection he had to carry out the prosecution, that is he had to deal with the referat which ordered the prosecution of transgressions against the Jews in November 1938.
Q. And you remember in fact that ho carried out that task?
A. That I cannot judge; I have no proof; I have no personal knowledge of it.
Q. As far as you know you heard about it.
A. I know that there was one case in the district of Celle that he handled; it was a case of serious illtreatment of Jews in November, 1938.
Q. Did Joel after the beginning of the war become active against party members and demanded their prosecution, and achieved their prosecution against the intentions of high, prominent party officials?
A. After the beginning of the war and in connection with crimes against the war economy?
Q. Yes.
A. That was Joel's field at that time.
Q. Here also you indicated yesterday the word, "patronage"; does that also cover that field?
A. Well, yes; one could apply it to this field in cases where prominent party officials committed offenses or crimes against the war economy, and, even more prominent individuals intervened on their behalf and tried to prevent that they be punished.
Q. What was the reason that high party officials intervened in that direction?
A. They may have had personal reasons.
Q. But what else?
A. Well, the main reason probably was that they had something to do with it themselves.
Q. Could you remember any individual case from that group of cases?
A. Yes, I believe I remember a case that occurred in Hamburg, or Luebeck; it was a question of embezzlement of NSV goods, National Socialist Welfare goods. It lead to proceedings in the end and the connections in this case ran all the way to Berlin, to the supreme chief of the NSV, Hilgenfeld.
Q. Do you still remember what Hilgenfeld's rank was in the SS; or, do you remember that he had a high rank in the SS.
A. Not only in the SS but in the party organization.
Q. First of all in the party organization; and that man Hilgenfeld, do you remember that he had very good connections in the Gauleitung of Berlin; do you remember -
A. The Gauleitung of Berlin? - Probably the Gauamtsleiter of the NSV.
Q. No. I thought of somebody else -- the highest one.
A. The Gauleiter himself -- is that what you wanted?
Q. Yes, but if you don't happen to know. One could say that the struggle against such powerful pillars of the regime at that time was quite a dangerous task personally.
A. Certainly?
Q. And those were the dangers that Dr. Joel had to cope with, just like anybody else?
COURT III CASE III
A. Yes, just like anybody else whose task it was to carry out prosecutions against such individuals.
Q. May I ask you for a few comments concerning the task of Dr. Joel in his referat concerning military penal law; the referat where he had to deal with individual penal cases concerning violations of laws which had been promulgated at the beginning of the war, taking into consideration the specific conditions of war time -- such specific conditions as blackouts, air-raids, the handling of scarcity goods, especially food. What was the task of the referent, the task of the referent in individual cases of that complex of questions?
A. Well, these matters fell under the special referat of Mr. Joel. That referat which first dealt this was handled by Haake, and after Haake had drafted it, it was administered by Joel.
Q. Why was that special referat established for these individual cases; what was the purpose; what was the meaning; why were these cases separated from the special referat? Before you answer, may I interrupt: The translation general referat could lead to a misunderstanding because in the ministry the general referat had quite special tasks, that is to say the task to issue general instructions. District referats were referats which dealt with matters that were locally limited.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If your Honors please, I must object; it is not a question, it is a statement of fact by counsel. I object to the form in which it is made.
THE PRESIDENT: We will disregard statement of counsel; it is not evidence.
Q. We had come to the question why these individual penal cases were taken out of the district referat.
A. In order to achieve a more uniform handling of these matters; that may have been the reason, a more uniform handling of this new field, since it was a new field.
Q. When the more uniform application of the laws had become routine, then, part of that complex of questions was returned to the district referats wasn't it?
A. If I remember correctly, it was in 1942 when again the district referats handled cases of that kind.
Q. Did Dr. Joel in individual penal cases, or otherwise, in the Ministry have anything to do with penal cases concerning high treason, treason, under mining of military strength; aiding and abetting the enemy; offenses against the law concerning malicious attacks, offenses against the prohibition of listening to foreign broadcasts. Did he have anything to do with that?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: Excuse me, your Honor, I object; it is so leading; if he will ask the witness what Dr. Joel handled and what he did not handle, I will not object.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled.
Q. Do you remember the question?
A. Yes, but may I ask you to repeat.
Q. Can you
THE PRESIDENT: He does not indicate the answer, then it is not leading. The question was did he have anything to do with certain matters; it can be answered by yes or no.
Q. Can you tell us whether Dr. Joel in handling individual penal cases in the military penal referat had anything to do with high treason, treason, undermining of military strength, espionage, violations against: malicious attacks, violations of the prohibition of listening to foreign broadcasts -- whether he had anything to do with those.
A. In that referat, no. There were other special referats for those cases.
Q. You mean to say for these individual penal cases there were special referats with which Joel had nothing to do?
A. Yes. He had nothing to do with them because he had a different field. But, I don't remember when the general prosecution was dissolved -- in 1937 or 1938. Joel was district referent for a short time, just temporarily. Whether at this time he did not have anything to do with cases concerning the law against malicious attacks -- that possibility exists.
Q. That would be possible, but you don't know anything for certain about that; do you?
A. No.
Q. Dr. Joel had another field; that was liaison between the Ministry of Justice and the police. Do you remember who gave him that mission?
A. As far as I know it was Minister Guertner.
Q. And why did Minister Guertner entrust a young yellow, a young man in that low position for that job?
A. That I could not tell; I don't know. I don't know why he picked Joel for that mission.
Q. Then, I should like to put my question somewhat different. What was the type of man needed for such a job; what qualities, what temper was he supposed to possess?
A. He had to be an energetic fellow at least.
Q. Was Dr. Joel that energetic type so that he was the right man for such a job?
A. Joel was certainly energetic and aggressive in the cases he handled; that was my impression.
Q. What, to your knowledge and recollection was the main task of Dr. Joel in that job as liaison man. What were the interests of the Administration of Justice that he had to maintain?
A. He was put in action by the minister when there were any transgressions on the part of the police that had to be discussed.
Q. Do you have any definite impressions whether and how Joel performed that task?
A. Well, I can't very well judge that personally. I had the impression that in some individual cases which I knew, he was very aggressive and successful.
Q. Did Joel approach the police when he had a special instruction by Guertner or later the under secretary Schlegelberger?
A. Well, there were also lawyers, counsel, who approached him, who were representatives of the parties concerned, the individual accused, and in cases of such requests he acted.
Q. Did he also in cases interfere -- become active?
A. I am not in a position to make a general statement in answering that.
Q. Can you remember an example?
A. Yes, I know the case of the lawyer Lenz, who handled cases of protective custody, and who once stated it was useless to go to the department chief because there he wouldn't achieve anything as defense counsel in such cases, but that the only possibility was to turn to Joel who repeatedly had respected him and assisted him in this respect.
Q. Who was lawyer Lenz?
A. Attorney Lenz had been a member of the Prussian Ministry of Justice; then the Reich Ministry for Justice; and then retired.
Q. What had been his party?
A. The Central Party.
Q. As a lawyer, did he have any contacts with the church authorities in Berlin?
A. Lenz was a lawyer for the Bishopship in Berlin.
Q. And that is the reason why he had to do with cases of protective custody?
A. Yes, that is a consequence of that.
Q. And he told you that the only thing to do was to turn to Joel of one wanted to achieve anything in that direction?
A. Yes, if one wanted to achieve anything in that direction.
Q Can you tell us what the position, the attitude and statements on the part of Joel were concerning interference by the party, the police or any elements outside of the administration of Justice with the matters of the administration of justice, that is, statements, made to you or to -
A That question cannot be answered in general terms either. I can only say what he told me personally.
Q Yes, that is what I mean.
A Of course, that was in opposition to the interference. Had a great deal of confidence in you when he made these statements or did you gain the impression that he didn't mind making these statements at all?
A I didn't have any close relations to Joel.
Q Doesn't that mean that you want to say that he didn't mind talking openly about these things?
A Yes, that is my opinion.
DR. THIELE_FREDERSDORF: I should like to put to the witness a certified copy of a document which will be in the document book for the defendant Dr. Joel which has not been finished. It is a document which had been submitted before the I.M.T., No. PS-3751, a letter from the Reich Minister of Justice, a personal letter to the Reich Minister and Prussian Minister of the Interior, which bears the file note ZFG-10.
(Document handed to witness.)
BY DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF:
Q Mr. Altmeyer, will you please look at the heading in particular to see whether you can identify by the letterhead from where that letter had to come, according to the file note?
A Well, the No. 10 would indicate that it is a secret matter which was handled in Agency GC, and ZF that, I think, is the file note of the central prosecution.
Q And if you look through the letter now could you conclude also from the contents that that letter must have belonged within the come petency of the central prosecution?
A It deals with ill-treatment of Communist prisoners by police officials.
That is what it deals with.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I thought the witness was simply asked to see whether he knew what section it came from. I believe he had answered that.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness has answered. Ask him another question.
BY DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF:
Q Could you, after the impression you just gained of this document, answer the question?
A Well, according to the file note it is another document from the central prosecution.
Q And could you say that the contents contradicts that assumption?
A No, it does not contradict that assumption. In fact, they cover it entirely.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defense counsel desire to examine this witness in chief? There appears to be none. You may proceed, Mr. Prosecutor.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, at the beginning I would like to have marked for identification NG-797 as Prosecution's Exhibit 534.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be marked for identification Prosecution's Exhibit 534.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I would like to use this exhibit, if your Honors please, and under the practice we are conducting here, if possible, both as redirect of this witness as against his cross-examination yesterday and his cross-examination in connection with the witness whose testimony was given for the defendant Joel.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Mr. Altmeyer, who was Suchomel?
A Suchomel was the sub-department chief of the department which dealt with Austrian penal cases.
Q Now, in an affidavit made by Suchomel on the 18 of February 1947, Suchomel, in discussing the policy towards death sentences of Thierack and his under-secretary, which you discussed yesterday, said this:
"Death sentences were passed in such great numbers that I felt induced to go and see THIERACK and to declare that we had lost all proportions concerning penalties. I pointed out that the number of death sentences kept on rising and that this state of affairs was hardly bearable any longer. His standpoint, however, was that in war no weakness could be shown. Thus, during the last year there were 8000 executions in the civil jurisdiction alone. A really alarming figure. Dr. FREISLER actually bragged in my presence that if he compared working hours in the People's Court with the number of death sentences it would amount to one head every twenty minutes. This was exactly as incomprehensible to as Dr. Thierack's quasi birthday present for the Fuehrer when he laid before him the figures of death sentences carried out."
Do you agree with that analysis of the situation by Hugo Suchomel from the time that Klemm became under-secretary?
A May I ask you to put that question again? I didn't understand the final question, just the final question.
Q Yes. I said do you agree generally with that statement of Suchomel's as representing the condition after the defendant Klemm became under-secretary?
A Yes.
Q Now, Suchomel also said: "One of the most severe Sub-Department Chiefs was JOEL functioned on offenses against War-Economy and in cases against Public Enemies (including Austria) and who was the liaison-man between the Reich Ministry of Justice and the Reich Main Security Office. He received at least 100 documents per day. It was said of him, and I have seen it with my own eyes, that a file after he had screened it looked something like this:
Name:
30 pigs, 4 cows (illicit slaughtering) Motion:
Death Penalty.
"At the bottom was the word: 'Einlegen' meaning: 'agreed'. I know that on one occasion in Austria father and son were executed for slaughtering a number of oxen, pigs and calves. Honestly, I must say that I cannot conceive how a man can take it on his conscience to exterminate a whole family on that, for it was the matter of an only son and only the mother was left."
Now, is that a correct or an incorrect statement of judgment the way in which the defendant Joel handled the cases within his referat?
A: I did not have that much insight into the Referat.
Q: Yes, but you have testified about Joel's attitude, I believe, toward these matters, or did I misunderstand you?
A. That was the impression we got from Joel, in our contacts with him. I was not his superior, so of course I cannot make any definite statement about that.
Q: That is right, so you could be mistaken, and Dr. Suchomel could be correct; that is right, isn't it?
A: I am surprised at that statement; I cannot imagine that that was the way Joel worked.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes. The Prosecution offers to introduce as Prosecution Exhibit 534 the affidavit of Hugo Suchomel, and we will distribute the English and German copies now.
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: The affidavit of Suchomel has not been made available to the defense until now, therefore, I object to the acceptance of the affidavit as an exhibit because the required 24-hour rule has not been adhered to.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will make its ruling 24 hours from now. It will request counsel to call it to our attention tomorrow morning.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q: Now, you testified about a matter involving the war economy and a man who stole money from the NS Welfare Fund, who was supported, as I understand, by a prominent SS official named Hildebrand -- what was the name?
A: Yes, it may be that the name was Hildebrand, at Luebeck or Hamburg.
Q: I thought you said at Berlin, but it may have been at Hamburg. Do you recall?
A: Hamburg or Luebeck. I thought the contacts that man had went all the way to Berlin in that matter, and these contacts went to Hilgenfeld in Berlin.
Q: Yes. All I am interested in is, what year was that? Do you remember, Mr. Altmeyer?
A: It was during the war, as far as I know; it was a matter of food stores which were held in reserve for people who were bombed out.
Q: Can you place it any better as to what year? If you can't, you can't, but I just wanted to know.
A: It was the middle of the war, or I assume that it was about the middle of the war.
Q: Now, the defendant Joel was made chief prosecutor at Hamm, was he not, in August of 1943?
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: May it please the Tribunal, I want to object to this question. The activity of the defendant Joel during his time as general Prosecutor in Hamm was not touched upon in the direct examination and therefore it cannot be a proper question in cross-examination.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor, I simply asked to fix the time when he was. I haven't asked him any questions about what he did there.
THE PRESIDENT: We haven't yet heard the question. Go ahead and state your question.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I asked him if he knew whether Joel was appointed general prosecutor at Hamm in August 1943.
THE PRESIDENT: He may answer. Answer the question, Mr. Altmeyer.
THE WITNESS: Yes; yes, that date may be correct.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q: Were you there when Dr. Thierack made his speech on the occasion of the installation of the defendant Joel?
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: I want to object to this detailed question, particularly because it can be seen from the documents which the prosecution submitted that it was not Minister Thierack who made the speech on that occasion.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I thought it was Mr. Thierack. Will you advise me whether Dr. Rothenberger made the speech?
I beg your pardon, I withdraw the question. Dr. Rothenberger made the speech. I am very sorry, I was mistaken.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q: So far as you know, at any time, from the time you knew Joel until the end of the war, was he ever disciplined by being discharged or released without pay for any specific period of time, or was he ever in any form of concentration camp?
A: No.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I think that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any redirect examination?
DR. THIELE-FREDERSDORF: I have no questions, Your Honor, on redirect.
THE PRESIDENT: There appears to be no redirect examination; the witness is excused.
(Witness excuses)
EUGEN EGGENSPERGER, a witness, having been duly sworn, took the stand and testified further as follows:
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, may I point out that the witness Dr. Eggensperger was here once before and has already been sworn in.
JUDGE BLAIR: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF:
Q: Witness, will you please give the Tribunal your name, the place and date of your birth?
A: Eggensperger, Eugen, born 31 August 1901, in Stuttgart.
Q: It is correct, isn't it, that you have already been heard as a witness before this Tribunal?
A: Yes.
Q: Can you still remember the day?
A: I believe it was the 9th of May.
Q: At that time I cross-examined you, you were a witness for the prosecution. I put a question to you at that time which could not be answered, however, because it was not within the scope of the cross-examination, since it had not been discussed in the direct examination.
I should like to ask you a question now concerning General Prosecutor Hanssen. In January and February 1945, General Prosecutor Hanssen was the superior of the penal institution which was in his district, and he was also in charge of the penal institution Sonnenberg. Will you please tell the Tribunal to what extent you, as an official of the Ministry of Justice, had any official contacts with the then General Prosecutor Hanssen?
A: I was the only official, apart from Hecker, in Division V, who had remained in Berlin, and in that capacity I maintained contact between the Ministry -- that is, the Reich Ministry of Justice -- and the evacuated divisions.
If Hanssen was given any instructions, then it was I who passed them on to him. That brought about the fact that I had frequent contact with him, particularly over the telephone.
Q: You knew Hanssen. personally?
A: Only through our official business.
Q: Could you tell us what your opinion was of Hanssen?
A: Hanssen appeared to be an unscrupulous official who did not know any restraint, and, one may well say, who stopped at nothing.
Q: From your official contact with Hanssen, did you find that Hanssen was inclined to threaten the Referents and counsellors at the Ministry that he would approach the Minister or the Undersecretary immediately if any one of the counsellors or Referents did not do what he wanted?
A: Yes. Hanssen was a headstrong man who, according to his entire past career, did not believe in taking any instructions from Referents. Therefore, I frequently could observe -- partyly from his own statements, but also from information received from his through his Referents -that he would approach the Minister or the Undersecretary directly in order to discuss matters with them personally.
Q.- Dr. Eggensperger, the prosecution here several days ago submitted a document in evidence. It is Exhibit 530, that is NG-746. It is a so-called circular decree of the Reich Minister of Justice of the 17 January 1945. In January or February 1945, there was the case, well known to you, the case in Sonnenburg pending. That circular decree contains under Roman Number II a list of regulations with the heading, "Execution." Then a number of figures are listed. Under Figure 6 in the second paragraph, "The following is directed by the Reich Minister of Justice."
First paragraph, "Death sentences are to be executed on principal by decapitation."
Second paragraph, "Execution by shooting is applicable if decapitation offers difficulties or delay, or if otherwise specific circumstances make it desirable to deviate from the usual manner of execution. Execution by shooting is to be carried out by a squad of the police or the Armed Forces."
I should like to put that circular decree to you and ask you to comment as to whether that circular decree was in any way connected with the murder which occurred in Sonnenburg at the end of January?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object to the question for the reason that it seeks to elicit from the witness an interpretation of the legal effect of this decree. The decree itself speaks for itself.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will arive at its own inferences, but if this witness can state facts to the Tribunal which tend to bring the two events into connection, we are willing to hear them. The witness should limit himself to stating such facts that may tend to indicate that connection, if any.
THE WITNESS: I have only known of that decree since yesterday. Defense counsel showed it to me. It cannot be in any connection with Sonnenburg because it concerns the execution of death sentences, that is to say, measures against prisoners who have been sentenced to death.
As far as I am informed, at Sonnenburg there were only prisoners who had been sentenced to prison terms. In the case of Sonnenburg, in the case in question, it was not a matter of execution of a legal death sentence. Therefore, in my judgment this decree cannot find any application to the occurrences in Sonnenburg because it concerns persons who legally by court action had been sentenced to death but not prisoners who are serving their term and against whom no death sentence has been pronounced by a court.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q.- Dr. Eggensperger, you in Division V knew, didn't you, in what penal institutions, so-called places of execution were established? Do you happen to know whether was such a place of execution was established in Sonnenburg?
A.- Division V dealt only with the administration of punishment, that is to say, with prison terms. The execution of the death sentence was a subject for the work of Division IV. That can also be seen from that circular decree of the 17th January, which according to its file note, emanated from Division IV, Enclosure No. 2 of that circular decree lists the penal institutions where death sentences are executed. In the district of Berlin, they are the institutions of Brandenburg and Ploetzensee.
Q.- Sonnenburg is not listed?
A.- No.
Q.- Concerning that chapter, I have no further questions, Only in conclusion I should like to ask you, when you worked at the Ministry in Berlin, did you over happen to be present several times or frequently when Thierack conferred with Klemm? On these occasions did you happen to hear whether they addressed each other with "Sie" or with the more intimate "Du"?
A.- I frequently listened to conversations between the two gentlemen, but I have never heard that they said "Du" to each other.
Q.- I have no further questions.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR, GRUBE (For the defendant Lautz):Q.- I ask to be permitted to put several questions to the witness.
Witness, was the defendant Lautz, as Chief Reich Prosecutor with the People's Court, competent for matters of penal execution?
A.- No, he was a public prosecutor, and according to our terminology, the public prosecutor only has to do with execution of death sentences and not with the administration of punishment. He has to see to it that the sentenced individuals are transferred to a penal institution. Anything further was not under the competency of the public prosecutor.
Q.- Therefore did the defendant Lautz have any influence concerning the place where and the manner in which these sentenced individuals were imprisoned or transferred or used for work?
A.- He was heard on it and he could state preferences and suggestions, but he had no competency on his own in this matter.
Q.- And that, as you said already, is based upon the fact that the penal institutions were not under the supervision of the Chief Reich Prosecutor?
A.- No, they were not under the supervision of the Chief Reich Prosecutor. He could only, from the point of view of his interests, make suggestions and express preferences.
Q.- Witness, could you tell us what the reputation of the defendant Lautz was?
A.- You mean officially? As for his official capacities and functions?
Q.- Yes.
A.- In comparison with Thierack and Freisler, of course Lautz was a great improvement. He was considered a man who did not belong to the severe fraction, but could not get his views through. That was the general opinion.