Q: Was Frau Huppertz ever your assistant?
A: No, Frau Huppertz tried to become my assistant and almost as we say in German, I would have come to it "Ich haette mich breitschlagen lassen" but Dr. Link advised me against it and it never came to it. Frau Huppertz is quite independent as far as I am concerned. She may do whatever she pleases. She comes and goes as she pleases and of course she is not paid by me, does not receive any remunderation of any kind from me: "Therefore that night and I should like you to state that again - you did not give any orders to Frau Huppertz to go to the hospital?
A: No, under no circumstances at all.
Q: What would you have done had you known that Frau Huppertz did go to see Dr. Gerstacker?
A: Then I would have become violent.
Q: Witness, after this matter had already been submitted to the Court you called Dr. Stern by telephone in the hospital and asked him for an intermediate report. Would you please explain how it came to that telephone call and that request?
A: That was after the affidavit was submitted. That is the affidavit by Gerstacker against me which was submitted here in open Court. I believe it is fair to say that if I did not want to say it that I am insane, that, of course I would never have tried to influence a doctor. The purpose of my telephone call was merely to find out whether the renewed medical examinations which had come to my knowledge after the questionnaires were filled out, together with the urologists, to determine the condition of Engert, had been completed, I always based my actions on the thought that it was my duty as defense counsel to keep the Court informed about the most recent condition and the most recent facts of the medical case history of Engert and it is peculiar that the questionnaires were filled out without having carried out an additional examination immediately before that, one used the basis for these expert opinions the last examinations.
However, during the time after answering these questionnaires all of a sudden the most extensive medical examinations were made and so far as I know have not even been completed up to this day. Reverting back now to the telephone conversation, I believe that Dr. Stern here is subject to an error because on that occasion nothing was said at all about an intermediate report. He says in fact in his affidavit only Dr. Marx proposed to me to consider an intermediate report, but that is not the same thing as a definite request for one. But it was not so that I immediately the next morning called Dr. Duerbeck, but I went to Mr. Wartena first and said: "Now, I really am under the impression that my assumption here is correct and that the condition of the patient must have deteriorated because otherwise they could not make all of these extensive examinations they are making now or something to that effect.
Then Mr. Wartena said, "request an intermediate report". I am convinced that Mr. Wartena meant that I should request an intermediate report through the General Secretariat.
Particularly in connection with this I want to point out that the conversation took place partly in German and partly in English, and only on that occasion the phrase "intermediate report" (Zwischenbericht) was mentioned at all. I don't even know what English phrase be used, "intermediate report" or something like that. Therefore, Mr. Wartena could be of the opinion that I was asking for an intermediate report through the -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing): The Tribunal will take a few minutes' recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: His Honor, Judge Blair, is temporarily indisposed and the Tribunal desires not to continue in his absence. For that reason, this hearing will be continued until tomorrow morning at 9:30. The main case, the United States against Alstoetter, will be again postponed until Thursday morning. We regret this unfortunate circumstances; but consider it our duty to take a recess at this time until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(At 1445 hours, 29 July 1947, a recess was taken until 0930 hours, 30 July 1947.)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Dr. Hans Marx and. Mrs. Karin Kuppertz, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 30 July 1947, The Honorable James T. Brand, presiding.
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: You may proceed with the examination of the Respondent Marx in the matter of the citation which has been filed against Respondent Marx and Respondent Huppertz.
DR. HANNS MARX (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. ORTH:
Q. Dr. Marx, the witness Dr. Stern alleges that not only in the discussion with Dr. Gerstacker did you express the opinion that this case was unimportant and that the Tribunal was searching for a reason to sever the case from the trial, but that you had already previously made such remarks to Dr. Stern. Please comment.
A. I cannot imagine at all that I ever expressed the opinion that I considered the Engert case as insignificant or relatively unimportant. On the contrary, I considered this case in particular a very important case within the scope of the entire Case No. III, and I took it very seriously. Dr. Stern was, in my opinion, a young physician who, as he says himself, could not be considered for giving an expert opinion at all. On the other hand, however, I did know that Dr. Stern was in continuous contact with an American physician and that he was working at an American office. This circumstance alone would have prevented me from making such a silly remark, because I had to count upon it that in one way or other this remark would be spread. On this occasion I would like to remark that Dr. Stern in his testimony yesterday furthermore stated -- I cannot give the exact wording, but he said "that Dr. Marx said, and this was the meaning of what Dr. Marx said, that he considered the case unimportant and that the court was looking for a reason to sever the case."
If somebody was looking for a reason to sever the case, then it was the defense, but never the court or the prosecution.
Q. Dr. Marx you have just stated that the defense might have been looking for a reason to sever the case. Why were you looking for such a reason?
THE PRESIDENT: That is entirely unimportant in this case. This Tribunal knows that the defense filed a motion for the severance of the case. They were entirely entitled to file such a motion, and the matter remains still undecided. Limit yourself to the question as to the conduct of the respondent in connection with the alleged attempt to influence the doctor's opinion. The merits of the case Engert or of his health are not in issue at this time.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q. Dr. Marx, the witness Dr. Stern stated that in the discussion with Dr. Gerstacker and you at your request to clarify the facts, he did so; is that correct.
A. I myself did not become aware of Dr. Stern having given such an explanation to that effect. However, it is possible that in view of the extraordinarily excited manner in which Dr. Gerstacker addressed me, this did not reach my consciousness. However, I did make in particular the observation that Dr. Gerstacker under no circumstances in any way accepted or became conscious that Dr. Stern made, such an attempt, because this would have released the tension that was in the atmosphere according to -- this must have brought about a release of the tension in Dr. Gerstacker, according to all medical and human experience. But on the contrary I could only find out that he became increasingly excited.
DR. ORTH: I have no further questions.
BY DR. NATH-SCHREIBER:
Q. Dr. Marx, may I address a few questions to you. You remember the evening of the 9th of July when you had the discussion in the secretaries' room. Is it correct that in the morning of the same day you entered the secretaries' room and made the following statement: I am just coming from Engert. His condition has become extraordinarily worse. I told this to Dr. Kraetzer, too, and Dr. Kraetzer replied to me, you observe that very well, Doctor, is that correct?
A. I cannot say with certainty whether it was the 9th or the 10th of July, but it was the day on which in the evening I was told about the filling out of the questionnaire.
Q. In the discussion in the evening in the secretaries' room excuse me, do you want to add anything?
A. No, I understood your question to mean that you wanted to say it was in the morning of that day.
Q. Yes that is right. It was in the morning of that day?
A. Well, may I now answer the question -- I believe that I remember with certainty that was the course of events, and I know quite certainly that a few days before I had repeatedly observed the increasingly worse condition of Engert and remarked about it.
Q. Was that in the room of the secretaries where the respondent Frau Huppertz was also sitting?
A. I can only tell you that it was in the secretaries' office. I did not observe Frau Huppertz' presence.
Q. In the evening in the secretaries' room during the discussion when you came with the questionnaire was the name Dr. Gerstacker mentioned?
A. I know for certain that it was not mentioned.
Q. You reported yesterday that the respondent Frau Huppertz told you on that particular evening, "I always intended to visit the head nurse, and this would afford me an opportunity to be introduced to Dr. Kraetzer and to speak with her once." Did you when the Respondent made this remark to you become aware of this and absorb this remark so that you came to the conviction that Frau Huppertz was actually going to see Dr. Kraetzer?
A. I can answer this question as follows: The remark which Frau Huppertz made and which you just quoted I did not take seriously at all, but I considered it a momentary spontaneous expression of an idea, and I was absolutely not convinced by it as to whether Frau Huppertz would follow this remark up by action.
I merely thought, well, perhaps Frau Huppertz will visit the head nurse some day, hut whether the other steps will he taken, I am not so sure of at all. Those were my considerations and this can be seen from the fact that I considered the whole thing only a momentary expression of an idea on Frau Huppertz' part.
Q. Did you observe that on that evening Frau Huppertz took the questionnaires from the table of the secretary, Frau Wieber?
A. I did not observe it al all. May I remark in addition, I was absolutely occupied by the dictation of my final plea in the medical trial. I already was short of time since the final pleas had to be submitted for translation at a certain time. Since, however, the seawater experiments--
THE PRESIDENT: No, no. Counsel and the defendant must observe the rule which we have laid down here. We are not in the seawater case. Keep right down to the issue in this case and you will get along much better.
BY DR. NATH-SCHREIBER:
Q. Dr. Marx, would you have protested against it if you had observed that Frau Huppertz took the questionnaires from the table?
A. Certainly.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor. It is a leading question and calls for a self-serving declaration. He has already stated it in his direct examination. He said he would have become violent.
DR. NATH-SCHREIBER: May it please the Tribunal, I may perhaps call to your attention that this remark by Dr. Marx referred to the question as to what he would have done if he had known that she would have gone to Dr. Gerstacker. May I now put the next question?
BY DR. NATH-SCHREIBER:
Q. How did Frau Huppertz' leaving of the secretaries' room take place on that particular evening?
Do you recall that?
A. I would not have paid any attention to that event at all because I was completely occupied by my other work. I can only remember that I again saw Frau Huppertz when she was ready to leave and that she then made a remark to me which, however, was in a completely different context and which caused me to give her a rather brusque answer. Thus, if I may say so, in a Bavarian way we left in a huff.
Q. What did Frau Huppertz reply?
A. She reprimanded me seriously and considered her feminine pride injured. I can say what she said but, however, it is somewhat indecent and I don't want to say that before the Tribunal.
Q. The following day did Frau Huppertz, after she had spoken to Dr. Gerstacker and Dr. Kraetzer, inform you about the discussion and did she further inform you about the exchange of questionnaires which she had meanwhile found out about?
A. I can answer no to this question. At the most it could have been that Frau Huppertz made a brief, offhand remark to me which, however, I did not take notice of; but under no circumstances did she, in any way, explain to me what happened at the hospital -it must have been on that morning -- for if I had heard from her that she had been Dr. Gerstacker, then I would have immediately thought to myself, a big misunderstanding will arise out of this and I would immediately have told her that I would, under no circumstances, have agreed to that.
DR. NATH-SCHREIBER: I have no further questions of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Cross examination.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors, please, I would like also to have the witness Wieber recalled. I want to question her in rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: Make your arrangements with defendant's counsel.
She may be recalled. Do you want to cross examine?
MR. LA FOLLETTE; Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Be seated. Dr. Marx.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Dr. Marx, you stated in your written answer to the Tribunal-
THE PRESIDENT: I think you witness just left the gallery a moment ago.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Well, it is all right.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. (Continuing)-- that you did not know what the answer of the American doctor was. I would like to ask you, if you did not know why then did you say in your answer and in your testimony that you would come to the court and ask them to accept the medical report of the American doctors?
A. From the attitude of Mr. Wartena and from my own point of view I drew the conclusion that there was a difference of opinion here between the answers of the German physicians and the answers of the American physicians which might exist. These earlier expert opinions were, after all, known to me and on that basis of my experience I can draw expert conclusions.
I also expressed that if it is correct that the American answers to the questionnaires denied that the defendant was able to appear at the trial, than I would draw that conclusion.
Q. How did you acquire the original answers of Dr. Kraetzer and Dr. Gerstacker to the three questions to which they answered yes and no, with their signatures on it? Were they sent back to you?
A. No. These questionnaires with the answers I saw for the first time in Mr. Wartena's office, who submitted them to me.
Q. Do you mean he loaned them to you?
A. (No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, do you mean that he delivered them to you? Did he deliver the papers to you?
THE WITNESS: He first of all showed them to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Just answer my question. Did he give you the papers?
THE WITNESS: Yes, he gave them to me.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Did he show you the American answers at the same time, Dr. Marx?
A. No, he did not show the American answers to me. As far as I could see he didn't have them there either.
Q. So it was the originals that you got from Mr. Wartena that you took back to your secretaries' office?
A. Mr. Wartena told me -
THE PRESIDENT: Answer the question, Dr. Marx.
A. Yes. I took them along to the room of the secretaries.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. So that when you took than to your secretaries' office the answers were there and they were stapled together, both Dr. Kraetzer's and Dr. Gerstacker's; is that right?
A. Of course. I took the papers into my hand in one grasp and then put them on the table.
Q. How, isn't it a fact that after Miss Wieber had made the copies that you told her to make, that she put them back on your desk that evening?
A. No; that is absolutely impossible. At that time I did not even leave the office of the secretaries because I was dictating there and I did not even go into my own office.
Q. Does your own office adjoin that of your secretaries?
A. It is opposite?
Q. What did you tell her to do with these copies, when you told her to make them, after she had finished?
A. I told Frau Wieber quite clearly, "Copy their questionnaires."
Q. Yesterday I understood you to say in your testimony that you wanted them for your files, to have copies; is that correct?
A. Mr. Wartena gave me the questionnaires so that I could make copies for me -- for my files.
Q. And why did you not return the original then the next morning as soon as you had made your copies that night?
A. Well I did not know at all what had taken place. The first thing I again heard of this whole affair was one individual sheet that I saw again. It was a sheet of the original questionnaire. I thought to myself, well, what happened here that one single sheet remained?
Q. When did you find that single sheet?
A. As far as I know that was only Monday morning.
Q. What did you do when you found it; did you notify Mr. Wartena?
A. Yes, I went to Mr. Wartena and showed him or brought to him this sheet and I believe a copy. I did not know yet what was missing. Mr. Wartena told me this is not correct, bring me all the sheets and only then did I examine the questionnaire carefully and then I again recollected all the original questionnaires.
Q. Now, doctor, let us think a little bit - you found one separate sheet; was that the first sheet with the answers on it?
A. I believe it was a sheet that had the answers on it.
Q. And that is all you found at that time? Well, then you did know what else was missing then. Did you know that the second sheet of the original was missing and two sheets of another were missing; you did know what was missing, didn't you?
A. No, I thought some kind of carelessness had occurred and the peculiar thing that is my secretary, Frau Blegler, or somebody else, had even this sheet misplaced. Thus it was absolutely a chain of mistakes.
Q. You thought that was a chain of mistakes?
A. Yes.
Q. How you were going to return the papers that you got from Mr. Wartena yourself, were you not?
A. No, when I saw this one single sheet, I said to myself....
Q. Excuse me, doctor, I did not put my question properly. When you got the sheets from Mr. Wartena, it was your intention, after yon had copies made that you, Dr. Marx, would return them; is that correct?
A. Yes, I hardly think it could have been done any other way.
Q. Well, if you were to return the sheets, how then could you think there could be an accident when you found this loose sheet; you did not think anyone else returned them, did you?
A. Hell, I could not explain how one single sheet could lie on the table.
Q. Do you still have in your office the copies that were made by your secretary, those with Dr. Kraetzer's answers and those of Dr. Gerstacker, the ones she made for you files?
A. Well, I don't have any copies at all of an expert opinion; are you Mr. Senior Prosecutor referring to the copies of the questionnaires?
Q. The ones you took from Mr. Wartena to make copies for your files. Do you still have the copies you had made for your files?
A. I have not seen these copies at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you produce them?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: His Honor wants to know if you will produce them and I want to know if you will produce the copies you had made. Now, will you send somebody for them or when you have time if the court will permit you to search for them.
How, after your conversation on the 28th at the hospital with Dr. Gerstacker in the ward, do you remember that you, Dr. Gerstacker and Dr. Storn walked down stairs together?
THE WITNESS: I did not go down any stairs at all, because Dr. Gerstacker received us down stairs at the entrance to Ward 21.
MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. Did you walk out of the ward with Dr. Gerstacker and Dr. Stern after the conversation in the ward?
A. I only went back together with Dr. Stern and I remember that for certain.
Q. You don't recall that after this, which you call a rather unpleasant and excitable conversation with Dr. Gerstacker that you said to him that if he likes cigars that the next time you saw him, you would try to arrange to get some for him?
A. That is absolutely impossible. First, I don't have any cigars for that man and secondly, he certainly would not have gotten any cigars from me.
Q. I wish the Marshall would make an immediate attempt to get a hold of Dr. Gerstacker and Dr. Stem as soon as possible.
You said that you paid no attention to Frau Huppertz' statement that she might call on Dr. Kraetzer; why was it then, as you have testified, that later on that evening or that night you called Dr. Kraetzer and told her that somebody would possibly be to see her the next day; did you intend to call?
A. As far as I remember, I stated that I personally would again try to see Frau Head Physician Dr. Kraetzer in order to find out whether Engert's condition would not have taken a change for the worse.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Marx, as I remember your testimony, you said, over the phone, that someone would possibly call in the morning;
why did you not say that you would probably call in the morning if that was your intention?
THE WITNESS: I think I can explain the matter. I heard from the mouth of Frau Huppertz that via the head nurse she would try to get in touch with the chief physician, Dr. Kraetzer and to meet her. Then because I did know that Dr. Kraetzer, was just about to go on leave, I called Dr. Kraetzer on the telephone in the evening. I think that I can remember for certain that I said in the course of the conversation "perhaps somebody will come to see you-a nurse and will like to speak to you, but it is better if you do not receive her". I attributed to this statement that the next morning Dr. Frau Kraetzer refused to see Frau Huppertz.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Dr. Marx, if you told Dr. Kraetzer that it was better that she not talk to Frau Huppertz; didn't you know that the purpose for which Frau Huppertz was going to see Dr. Kraetzer, or why did you tell her that?
A. My train of thought was the following. I thought Frau Huppertz is a woman, who would perhaps in that situation not know quite how to behave. I wanted to avoid any mutual discussions taking place there at all.
Q. You did think enough though of Nurse Huppertz that in the medical case on 30 June, 1947, you took an affidavit from her for the purpose of furnishing an alibi for your client Dr. Schroeder in the medical case and introduced it in evidence as Schroeder Exhibit No. 26? that is correct isn't it?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. Just one other question, Doctor. On 26 June 1947 how many defendants were you representing in the Military Tribunals here in Nurnberg? 6139
A. Well, in the medical case, Generalstabsarzt Dr. Schroeder and Air Force Doctor Becker-Freyseng. In the jurist trial, Engert and now that the General's trial has started, General Dehne.
Q. Yes, but on 26 June had you accepted employment in the General's case for the client you mentioned?
A. I don't believe so. May I say the following in that connection, perhaps it is necessary that I explain to the Tribunal why I took up the defense of Engerat at all.
THE PRESIDENT: No, that is not necessary. It is not relevant to this inquiry.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is all I have, Doctor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further examination of this respondent? If not, he is excused from the witness stand. Call your next witness.
Dr. Orth, do you have any more witnesses to call for the respondent Marx? Just nod your head or shake.it, and I will understand.
DR. ORTH: No.
DR. NATH-SCHREIBER: May I with the permission of the Tribunal now call the respondent Frau Karin Huppertz to the witness stand.
FRAU KARIN HUPPERTZ, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Raise your right hand and repeat after me the following oath: 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.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. NATH-SCHREIBER:
Q. Frau Karin Huppertz, may I ask you to state your personal data to the Tribunal?
A. My name is Karin Huppertz; I was born 24 May , 1894 in Pirmasens.
Q. Please tell the Tribunal -- give the Tribunal a brief survey of your curriculum --
THE PRESIDENT: I think this is unnecessary in this type of case. What her occupation is---she may tell that.
A. Eor more than thirty years I have been a nurse.
Q. Did you live in America for some time?
A. I lived in American for eight years.
Q. From when to when?
A. From 1925 to 1933.
Q. What were your plans in America?
THE PRESIDENT: We are not concerned with that. Your only point is that she speaks English.
DR. NATH-SCHREIBER: May it please the Tribunal, I believe for the motive of the act it is of extraordinary importance that I put a few brief questions on this point. It will serve for the understanding of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Make them very brief.
DR. NATH-SCHREIBER: Yes.
Q. May I repeat. Did you work in America?
A. I worked in the Women's Hospital of New York, and took a post-graduate course there and passed the examination. Then, I mainly worked in hospitals and also took care of private patients.
Q. Did you meet American physicians -- and what is your opinion of them?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. That is not important -- arid if counsel doesn't understand the instructions that we have given her, she will have to get assistance in the trial of this matter. Her opinion of American doctors has no more to do with this case than it has with the trial of Benedict Arnold.
Q. Frau Karin Huppertz, please describe to the Tribunal how you happened to come to Nurnberg.
A. I was called as a witness to Nurnberg. The examination was delayed and for that reason I then was not called into the witness stand. I then assisted in the offices of the defense, especially in Dr. Marx' office.
Q. Did not Dr. Marx employ you; and do you get a salary?
A. I am not employed by Dr. Marx; I never received a salary.
Q. If nobody employed you, how then did you enter the Palace of Justice?
A. During the first times I received a pass every day. Later on I got a five day pass.
Q. Who always signed those daily passes?
A. In the office of Captain Rice.
Q. I know that the witnesses who are called to come to Nurnberg get a room and a ration-free meal which they have to pay fifty cents for. Did you make use of this for yourself?
A. I did not receive a room through the militaries authorities; almost during the whole time, but not always, did I receive a ration free meal; and, perhaps this is important too: I never received money for being a witness -- zeugengeld.
Q. For how long are you no longer getting the noon meal?
A. Since the conclusion of the medical trial, and it is impossible that I can be called to the witness stand any longer, I no longer made use of the privilege to obtain a meal.
Q. Your activity here, which was an unofficial activity, is it known to the American authorities?
A. Yes.
Q. How?
A. About three weeks ago, the Wohnungsamt confiscated the room that I had with some friends. I could not find another room immediately. Therefore, I went to Major Schaeffer in order to ask him to help me in obtaining a room. He told me that he had no authority to do so since I was here unofficially, but I should ask Mr. Wartena whether he could assist me to find a room. Mr. Wartena also refused it.
Q. When you are working near here, in what office do you work -in what room?
A. In the room of the secretaries' office -- Room 515 -- where the secretaries of Dr. Marx also are working.
Q. Did you participate in the sessions of the pending trials here?
A. Only in the medical trial -- not any other one.
Q. What, until the 9th of July, 1947, did you know about the Engert case?