A No, that is just what I said, counsel. That is just what I said. I also said that these Jews were not at the disposal of the Police Administration of Justice at all while they were under arrest. They were purely police prisoners who did not concern the Administration of Justice at all, as such had nothing to do with the case, but who upon the occasion of the raid of the bunker had apparently been arrested.
Q The prosecution also stated its opinion on the cases of undermining of fighting morale and alleged that to the extent that you decided that a case should be tried before the People's Court, some sort of a preliminary decision on your part existed. May I again ask you to comment on this?
A No. I understood the prosecutor differently than you did. I understood him to say that he wanted to say since it was obviously known that the Reich Public Prosecutor made the selection, this decision of his might under certain circumstances impress the court and influence it. That is how I understood the prosecutor, and that as such doesn't make much sense, because I would have had the right also to appear during the trial and there to explain my position. The thought never would have occurred to me that by doing that I would have exerted an illegal influence on the court. That was my official duty after all.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until Wednesday morning at nine-thirty, the day after tomorrow. Ag previously announced, we will hear the matter concerning Dr. Marx tomorrow morning at nine-thirty, I am sure that the reporters and interpreters and other officials of the Tribunal understand that they should be present tomorrow in connection with the Marx matter.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 30 July 1947 at 0930 hours)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America, against Dr. Hans Marx and Mrs. Karin Nuppertz, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 29 July 1947, The Honorable James T. Brand, presiding.
A P P E A R A N C E S Mr. Charles M. LaFollette, Mr. Alfred Wooleyhan, and Mr. Robert D. King, for the Prosecution Dr. Agnes Nath-Schreiber, for the respondent Mrs.
Karin Huppertz Dr. Hermann Orth, for the respondent Dr. Hans Marx
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal observes that Dr. Marx is present.
Is the respondent Huppertz also present? She appears to be present.
The order of procedure will be for the prosecution to present its evidence, after which the respondents may present their evidence. Before the testimony is presented, the Tribunal desires to make completely clear the limitations which will be imposed both parties and upon the witnesses in connection with the presentation of the case. This is a summary procedure. The Tribunal is not interested in and will not hear extended historical, philosophical, or personal discussions by the witnesses as to their personal feelings. This case is limited to the determination as to whether the specific charges made in the petitions and affidavits filed by the prosecution are or are not true. Both sides will limit their testimony to the specific charges contained in the prosecution's petition and supplemental petition and the affidavits in support thereof.
I hope that we have made this matter clear. This case must be concluded today. The Tribunal has made a brief summary of the actual charges, which, after separating them from irrelevant matter, are exceedingly brief.
The prosecution may direct its evidence to those charges.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution now offers to introduce into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 1, the prosecution's petition filed with the Court on 21 July 1947. The petition is in the possession of the Court, or of the Secretary General, and is sworn to.
THE PRESIDENT: That is the petition signed by yourself?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Signed by myself, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The petition has been delivered by the Secretary General to the Tribunal. Are the respondents in possession of a copy of the petition? They have been served with it?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: They have been served with it, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The original petition will he marked Exhibit 1, and is received in evidence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution now offers to introduce into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 2 the supplemental petition signed by Mr. Wooleyhan on the 21 day of July 1947; and heretofore delivered to the Secretary General and filed with the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: That petition also has been served, is received in evidence, and marked Exhibit 2.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution offers to introduce into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 3, the report of Dr. Kraetzer in answer to the three questions submitted by the Tribunal to all of the doctors heretofore appointed on the 1st day of July 1947 This report is in two pages and is dated July 7, 1947.
The prosecution is advised that this report is in the possession of the Tribunal. That is the original signed report, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you approach the Bench?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: You referred to the report in the German language, signed by Dr. Kraetzer?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor, as Prosecution Exhibit 3.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence and marked Exhibit 3.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution offers to introduce into evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 4 the answer and report in the German language, signed by Dr. Gerstaecker, in two pages, and which is dated July 7, 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: Received in evidence and marked Exhibit 4.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The prosecution calls as its first witness Major Schaefer.
MAJOR ROBERT SCHAEFER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Will you raise your right hand and be sworn?
Do you solemnly swear that your testimony in the issue now pending shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WETNESS: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Be seated, please.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Major, will you state your full name, and your official position to the Tribunal?
A. Robert G. Schaefer, Major, FA, Defense Center Administrator.
Q. Is there a record kept in your office of the accredited assistant counsel and secretaries of attorneys practicing before the Tribunal?
A. Yes, sir, there is.
Q. Do you have with you the records showing the listed secretaries of Dr. Hans Marx on April 18, 1947?
A. Yes, sir, I do.
Q. Will you tell the Court the names of those secretaries as shown by that record?
A. The names are Gunda Wiedman and Rose Pleigler.
Q. Now, do you have another record of July 17, 1947?
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q And what are the names listed as secretaries on that date?
A Rose Pleigler and Ruth Weber.
Q Thank you, Major. Do you know Frau Karin Huppertz by sight?
A Yes, sir, I do.
Q Have you seen her in your office or in that part of the court house which is given over for the defense and their defense attorneys and their secretaries and assistants?
A Yes, sir, I have.
Q Would you tell the Tribunal where you have seen her and upon what occasions you have seen her?
A I have seen the lady about the halls and I have seen her in my office on, I believe, two occasions.
Q What were the occasions of her visit to your office on those two occasions? What were the reasons? Do you remember?
A Periodically I check the records of the witness procurement. At that time I noticed that this witness was here an undue long time.
Q About what time was it you are speaking of? Can you fix the date?
A I cannot fix the date accurately, but I believe it was in April.
Q Thank you. Go ahead.
AAt that time the lady came in and I inquired from her and Dr. Marx why she was still here. I was told that time that although she came here as a witness, due to the fact that she conversant in medical matters and also due to the fact that she had a knowledge of English, that Dr. Marx wanted to keep her here.
Q Did Dr. Marx tell you that, or Karin Huppertz or both of them? Who made that statement?
A Dr. Marx made that statement at that time. The other occasion was when Miss Huppertz came in the office and stated that she had to find new quarters. It seems that she was told to vacate her present quarters.
Q Was this her living quarters or her place in the building?
A I understood it to mean living quarters, and at that time I told her that due to the fact that she has no official status we could not furnish her quarters.
Q Were those the two occasions upon which you saw her and talked to either Karin Huppertz or Dr. Marx about which you have just referred? Those were the occasions?
A Yes, sir.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is all You may be cross-examined.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there cross-examination of this witness? There is no cross examination. The witness is excused. Call your next witness.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: CAl Capt. Rice.
CAPT. L. O. RICE, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your right hand and be sworn.
Do you solemnly swear that your testimony in this case shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q You will state your name to the Tribunal and your position.
A L. O. Rice, Captain, Infantry, administrative officer, Defense Administrative Section.
Q As such officer, Captain, do you handle the requests of defendants or their counsel for witnesses?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you keep records of the occasions upon which those requests are made, or that the witnesses come in.
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you have those records with you in the matter of Karin Huppertz?
A Yes, sir.
Q Referring to your records will you tell the Tribunal what was the first occasion that there was a request for the witness Huppertz and who requested her?
A The record dated 21 February 1947 by Dr. Marx shows that he intended to call Frau Karin Huppertz, a German civilian, chief sister of the professional committee for sisterhood whose residence is at Berlin to testify on the testimony that witness knows defendant Prof. Schroeder's religious attitude, principally his cure for --
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is unimportant, Capt. Rice. It was in the medical case?
THE WITNESS: Yes sir.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Did she come?
A The records further show that on 8 March she was authorized billets and messing facilities in the witness house for the defense.
Q Do you know, did she take up her billets in the witness house?
A I have been informed by the mess officer and billeting officer that she did not receive billets furnished by the army but did receive a mess card.
Q Did you have any record of when she left after being called as a witness in that case?
A No, sir, I do not.
Q Was there a subsequent occasion in which she was requested as a witness by Dr. Marx, and if so about what time?
A Yes sir. She was in the building for several weeks and I with Maj, Schaefer contacted Dr. Marx to see why she was remaining here as a witness, was she still needed. We were informed that he desired her as an assistant.
Q Dr. Marx told you that?
A Yes, sir, that he desired to keep her as an assistant. A record was made that she would be paid for only two weeks as a voluntary witness.
Q What date was that, Captain? Can you fix the date?
A No, sir I cannot fix the date.
Q When you say a record was made, that was by agreement with Dr. Marx?
A Yes, sir.
Q Now I ask you, did you some time in June again have any request for this woman, either as a witness or otherwise, from Dr. Marx?
A Yes, sir. It was shortly after this occasion that we talked with Dr. Marx. I was informed by the Berlin authorities that Frau Huppertz was in Berlin and wanted to return to Nurnberg and they wished know if we desired her presence in Nurnberg.
Q What did you do after you got that request?
A I informed the Berlin authorities that she had been requested as an assistant and they requested I send a TWX verifying this telephone conversation. This TWX was dated 11 June and was registered in the Office of Chief of Counsel message center June 12.
Q Was that TWX sent at the request of Dr. Marx or because Dr. Marx had previously asked for her as an assistant? Is that the reason you sent it?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is the copy of the TWX the only one which you have in your records there, or do you have an extra copy?
A I have an extra copy, one, the confirmation copy and my file copy.
Q May we have the confirmation copy? Would that leave you with a file copy, Captain?
A Yes, sir.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The Prosecution offers the confirmation copy of the TWX registered June 12 just identified by Capt. Rice as Prosecution Exh. No. 5. It offers to introduce it in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: These exhibits will later be marked by the Secretary General. For the time being the Tribunal is marking them. The exhibit is received as Exh. No. 5.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Have you seen Frau Huppertz subsequent to that date in June in or around the court house, Capt. Rice?
A Yes, sir.
Q Where have you seen her and upon what occasions have you seen her?
A I have seen her in the hall numerous times in the building in the past two weeks.
Q Have you ever seen her with Dr. Marx?
A Yes.
Q I beg your pardon?
A Yes sir.
Q Can you identify Frau Hupperts? Is she in the room now?
A Yes, sir.
Q Is she the woman which of the two women is she sitting in front?
A There.
Q At the end?
A Yes, sir.
Q You say you have seen her with Dr. Marx?
A Yes, sir, I have.
Q Do you know where Dr. Marx' offices are in the defense part of the building?
A Yes, sir.
Q Have you seen her in there?
A I can't say that, sir.
Q Did she ever make any request to you for any quarters or any place to be located in the building or living quarters in Nurnberg?
A Since June 11, Sir?
Q Yes.
A No, sir.
Q Did she ever make any before that time?
A Not to me directly, because I came into the job that I now hold around March 15.
Q So that anything you know about this is what you heard. She didn't make the request to you?
A No, sir.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is all
THE PRESIDENT: Is there cross-examination of this witness? The witness is excused. Call your next witness.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Call Dr. Gerstaecker.
DR. WILHEIM GERSTAECKER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE HARDING: Hold up your right hand and repeat after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated, Doctor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q Doctor, you will state your name and profession to the Tribunal, where you are presently working or employed.
A DR. Wilhelm Gerstaecker, specialist for neurology and psychiatry, doctor at the Neurological Clinic of the Hospital at Nurnberg, of the City Hospital at Nurnberg.
Q Are you the same Dr. Gerstaecker who was appointed by this Tribunal to examine and report on the mental condition of Karl Engert, the defendant in this case?
A Yes.
Q I ask you whether....When were you advised of that appointment? ******** A On the 27th of June, in the evening, at five o'clock, through Miss Kraetzer.
Q Miss Kraetzer.... did she have something to do with the examination of Engert also?
A Yes.
Q She was to examine his physical condition, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q After the evening of 27 June 1947, when and where did you first see Dr. Hans Marx, an attorney for Engert?
A I saw Dr. Marx on the 28 of June, in the morning. That was at our clinic.
Q Did you have a conversation with Dr. Marx there, at the clinic, that morning?
A Yes.
Q Was anyone present in addition to you and Dr. Marx, during that conversation?
A Dr. Stern, who is also a doctor at the City Hospital, came to me together with Dr. Marx. He introduced me to Dr. Marx and Dr. Marx to me, and then we discussed the question of the expert opinion to he given.
Q I will ask you whether anything Dr. Marx said in that conversation with you with reference to the importance or lack of importance of the defendant Engert, and with reference to the attitude of the American authorities in the case in which Engert was a defendant, towards retaining him as a defendant in that case. Did he discuss that with you?
A Yes.
Q What did he say?
A He said that the case Engert was as such not of great importance for the Court, and that the Court, the Tribunal --I that is, he didn't say Tribunal, he said the -Americans, but as far as I was concerned that had to mean the same to me in that connection -- that the Americans with the aid of expert opinions would like to sever his case from the trial.
Q Was Dr. Stern present during that conversation on the 28th of June?
A Yes, from the beginning to the end of the conversation.
Q Did you prepare a written expert opinion originally, or not, on the mental condition of Dr. Engert pursuant to your appointment by the Court, and after this conversation with Dr. Marx?
A Yes.
Q To whom did you deliver that report?
A To Dr. Stern.
Q Can you tell the Tribunal why you delivered it to Dr. Stem?
A Dr. Marx had told me to do so.
Q Will you tell the Tribunal just briefly what you know of Dr. Stern.... he works in the Krankenhaus, and also does he work elsewhere around the courthouse? Where does he....what is his position?
A He is an assistant doctor, Assistenz--Arzt, at the Medical Department of the City Hospital. As for his activity here with the Court jail. I don't know anything for certain.
Q But you did know that he worked in connection with the Justice Palace and in the jail, is that right?
A Yes, I do.
Q I ask you whether or not Dr. Stern speaks English, and did you know whether or not he was to translate this report of yours?
A He does speak English, that is known to me; and he was to translate that expert opinion, and I have seen myself when I brought the expert opinion on Monday that he was already working on the translation of the expert opinion by Dr. Kraetzer.
Q Now, then - subsequent to the 30th of June 1947, Aid you receive a questionnaire in this matter, of the mental condition of Karl Engert, and if so, what was the form of the questionnaire? Just describe it to the Court, will you please?
A The questionnaire consisted of two sheets: On the first page there were the questions put by the Tribunal, the questions which had to be answered by yes or no; on the second page, the text continued for a few lines, but no longer medical questions. There was room for my signature, and there was already a signature on it by an official of the Court.
Q Did you fill out the questions...how many questions were there?
A There were three questions.
Q Did you answer them?
A Yes, I did.
Q And you answered each of the, "yes"?
A I answered every question with "yes".
Q Then what did you do with the questionnaire? What did you do with that after you signed it and answered the questions?
A The questionnaire, as far as I remember, I gave it to Miss Kraetzer, Dr. Kraetzer.
Q Now, you hold in your possession the Prosecution's Exhibit No. 4; the second sheet, bears your signature.
A Yes.
Q Will you tell the Tribunal whether or not that is in the form in which you signed it, whether that is the original which you turned over to Dr. Kraetzer, or can you tell?
A The signature is the one and only signature that I gave in connection with that questionnaire. That is my signature all right. Whether the first sheet here is still the original. I do not know; it could be the second one that I filled out.
Q Now, then, will you tell the Tribunal - after you filled out your report of yes and no, and gave it to Dr. Kraetzer, did any one within the next few days call on you with reference to the subject matter of that report and discuss your report with you?
A During the next few days a woman called on me....
Q Excuse me....Do you sec the woman here in the courtroom?
A Yes, he is sitting opposite me, on the right.
Q Yes, thank you. Now go ahead. Just tell the Court about the time when she came, the circumstances of her visit, what she said, and what took place there when she called on you?
A The lady came to me together with the sister, the chief nurse of our hospital, whom I had known throughout my activity at the hospital. And she brought a questionnaire to me, a similar one, similar to the one which I have just discussed. It consisted of two sheets, two loose sheets, whereas the first one had been stapled together. The second sheet was the one from the first questionnaire, with the signature I had affixed on that. The first page, as far as I could sec, was quite similar to the one that was submitted to me first, but it was not filled out, that is to say, without my entries.
Q Did this woman, whom you have identified as Miss Huppertz, say anything to you about why she brought the first sheet blank without your signature, and what she wanted you to do anything about it, if anything?
A She told me.... Now, I have to withdraw that. I expressed my surprise that the document I had originally filled out was separated, and that my first entries, written with my own hand, were no longer together with my signature. She explained to me that this would afford an opportunity to consider once more the answers to these questions, and possibly to fill it out in a different way, for Dr. Marx had been ordered to see an important person in the Court, who told him in a rather severe tone that the expert opinion given by the American doctors were quite different from the expert opinions given by the German doctors. In that connection I had to assume that I was expected to change my answers to the effect that they should be more similar to the opinions which I did not know, rendered by the American doctors.
Q Did Frau Huppertz say anything to you about the..... did she request you, or suggest to you, in any way, that you change your answers?
A I can't recall a definite demand made to me.
Q. She did bring you this blank sheet and said that Dr. Marx had been ordered to complain because the German doctors were not the same as the American; is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. What did you say to her? Did you change your report or did you do anything about it?
A. Of course I did not change my report. First, I refused to make these entries again because the original had to be there. Then, after the lady tried to persuade me and also the head nurse of the hospital, whether it wouldn't be possible for the sake of expediency to do that, I filled in these answers again, but in the same sense, with the same meaning as the first time.
Q. You notice in Exhibit 4 that there are lines crossed on the first page. Did you place those there?
A. Yes.
Q. You put those in ?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, then, when Frau Huppertz came in to see you, what did she say to you about who sent her? Did she say anything about why she came?
A. I cannot remember precisely whether she said that Dr. Marx had sent her directly or that she said she came from Dr. Marx' office; but I had to assume that it had to do with the defense of the defendant in question.
Q. Well, she didn't say to you that she came on her own, did she, just out of a clear sky?
A. Well, she explained what her position was. I asked her whether she was an employee of Dr. Marx and what the connection was with Dr. Marx and she said she was not really a secretary. She was not definitely an employee, but for reasons of personal interest she was working together with Dr. Marx in the interest of the defendants; from that I thought I could see clearly that she came in agreement with Dr. Marx; and the course of the conversation was such that I could not assume anything else.
That was the one reason why I filled out the document once more.
Q. Now, the original first page which you had signed she didn't have with her; she had what appeared to be a complete copy in blank. Is that right?
A. A blank copy. I didn't see the original first page; neither could she tell me where it was.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: You may cross-examine. Just a moment, Doctor, you are appearing as attorney for whom?
DR. ORTH: For Dr. Marx.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you also appear for the other respondent, Huppertz?
DR. ORTH: No. My colleague, Dr. Nath, is going to do that.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. ORTH:
Q. Witness, you have stated that on the 27 of June in the evening, at five o' clock, Dr. Kraetzer notified you that you were to give an expert opinion. What did Dr. Kraetzer tell you at that time?
A. Dr. Kraetzer brought me the copy of a ruling by the Tribunal which appointed me as expert, and told me that on the very same day in the afternoon, rather, at noon, the American doctors who were mentioned in that ruling, had been there and had examined the defendant.
Q. After you received that assignment did you have a conversation with Dr. Stern?
A. I talked to Dr. Stern on the same evening over the telephone.
Q. When you received that assignment to give an expert opinion did you know where that assignment came from?
A. I had to assume that the assignment came from the Military Tribunal. However, I did not see any ruling that was signed by hand;
neither did I receive any copy of such a ruling; nor could Miss Kraetzer show me one.
Q. How was that conversation with Dr. Marx on the 28 of June?
A. On the 28 of June after my visiting round I was called away. Dr. Stern came to see me with Dr. Marx, introduced us, and then we talked about my misgivings, which I had already voiced to Dr. Stern previously and of which Dr. Stern had told Dr. Marx also, that I had been nominated as an expert by the Tribunal without having been asked at all previously by the defense whether I agreed to do so.
Q. Was that all that was discussed during that conversation?
A. No.
Q. What did you discuss ?
A. Dr. Marx tried to explain and said that he had already arranged it with Dr. Stern and that it really would have been up to Dr. Stern to inform me. I said even that would not have been sufficient because Dr. Stern, though I know him as a colleague and I would gladly discuss everything with him, could not approach me as a representative of the defense or the court.
Q. Wasn't it so that first of all you objected to the short period of time within which you were to give your expert opinion? You were quite excited about that?
A. I made a statement to that effect, and I admit that I rather emphasized it, saying that if a deadline of the third of July was given to me I was not in a position to give an expert opinion if I only found out about that on the 27th in the evening at five o'clock, and I am expected to submit a written expert opinion on the 28 at noon, which could play an important part in a trial.
Q. Didn't you also complain about the fact that you did not receive any files to look through?
A. Yes; I also remarked about that.
