Are these statements referring to your data correct, so far as you remember?
A: Yes, those statements are correct.
Q : I am now starting with my examination. When and in what capacity did you enter the Ministry of Justice?
A: I came as a court assessor and an auxiliary assistant for penal matters to the Ministry of Justice, in August 1933. I stayed at the Ministry of Justice of ten years until August 1 43. In 1941 I became Ministerial Counsellor.
JUDGE BLAIR: I am trying to get the correct exhibit number of his affidavit.
DR. HAENSEL: Exhibit 56, NG-915.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: During the existence of the central prosecuting office you worked there?
A: Yes.
Q: What was the character of the central prosecuting office as an agency? Was it an independent agency?
A: No. The central prosecution was not an independent agency. It was a section of the Ministry. It had two experts and two or more assistants. It was subordinate to the head of the penal division.
DR. HAENSEL: I am submitting affidavit of von Haacke Document 4 from my document book No. 1, as Exhibit 1 in the Joel Case, Concerning the central public prosecution and its tasks, I am now going to read from Pages 9 and 10 of the German text and the pagination is the same as in the English text.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, the prosecution has not as yet seen any traces of the English document book concerning the defendant Joel and it is very difficult to follow what is being said when we do not have the document books before us.
I wonder if it would be appropriate to inquire whether we could not have them some time tonight so that we wouldn't have to delay proceedings tomorrow morning?
THE PRESIDENT: Have you a copy of the English book for the Prosecution?
DR. HAENSEL: I have a copy. Perhaps I can lead it to the Prosecutor while this session goes on.
THE PRESIDENT: You will have copies for the Prosecution, will you not?
DR. HAENSEL: I hope that by tomorrow morning those copies will be there. Th ere is only a little time left for this session. Perhaps we can manage today.
I have submitted the von Haacke affidavit as Exhibit 1 and I am now going to read from this exhibit, on Page 9 and 10, the passages which deal with the tasks of the Central Public Prosecution:
"The branch 'Central Public Prosecution' was set up on 1 August 1933, in order to support the local criminal prosecution authorities in the regular carrying out of such criminal proceedings which were impeded by offices of the Party or their affiliations. In the intoxication created by their 'seizure of power', namely, a number of Party members with little discipline and particularly members of its affiliations considered themselves to be beyond the scope of power of general penal justice and tried to oppose the carrying out of criminal proceedings against old members of the Party or its affiliations by an administration of justice which they termed 'reactionary', and its officials, whereby it occasionally came to personal attacks on the officials of justice.
As such elements were here and there protected by immature local Party leaders, the removal of these difficulties simply by issuing ministerial instructions seemed all the more inadequate to the Prussian Minister of Justice of that time in that a few chiefs of authorities of justice in the provinces obviously were lacking in the necessary energy and resoluteness vis-a-vis the Party offices concerned. For this reason a special branch was created the special character of which consisted in the fact that the 2 Referent en of this branch received authorization to assume themselves the functions of a public prosecutor there and then in cases where local justice could not prevail, and thereby secure the regular carrying out of the proceedings.
"In less difficult cases the branch was to supervise the carrying out of proceedings and eliminate any difficulties which might occur by taking suitable steps at the competent central and provincial offices.
"Joel, who was an old Party Member (P.G.) just as little as I myself, was called into the Ministry because he was described by his superior as being a particularly energetic, versatile, accurate and quick working public prosecutor."
Further particulars about the task of this Central Prosecution office will be found in the Grauert affidavit which I am submitting as Exhibit 2, Document 5 in Document Book one, Page 22.
The Schnoering affidavit, Document 6, Document Book 1, Page 24 I am offering as Exhibit 5. And from the Diels affidavit, Document 7 -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, I am afraid you are going a little too fast for us. Exhibit 1 is the affidavit von Haacke?
DR. HAENSEL: Exhibit 1 is Haacke from which I read some passages. Exhibit 2, from which I am not going to read now, is Document 5 in Book 1.
THE PRESIDENT: What page?
DR. HAENSEL: Page 22. .This is the Grauert affidavit on Page 22. I am offering it as Exhibit 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 19 of the English?
DR. HAENSEL: It starts on Page 19.
MR. KING: Naturally the Prosecution objects to the offering of these in evidence at this time on the principle that we at least ought to see them before they are offered.
THE PRESIDENT: The Court will not rule on them at this time. I am just trying to get them marked.
DR. HAENSEL: The Grauert Document No. 5 had the Exhibit No. 2. The next exhibit which I am offering is the following document; Document 6, Exhibit 3. It is the Schnoering affidavit, Page 24. It is the next one. And as Exhibit 4, I offer the Document 7 which follows as the next one in the Document Book and which is to be found on Page 33.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will reserve its rulings on these affidavits until counsel has had opportunity to examine them and we will now recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 5 August 1947, at 0930 hours.).
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al. defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 5 August, 1947, 0930-1630, Justice 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: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all of the defendants are present in the court room with the exception of the defendant Barnickel, who has been excused by the prison physician, and the defendant Engert who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused and the defendant Barnickel is excused on the report of the prison physician and the Tribunal will request the Marshal to ascertain the condition of the defendant Barnickel. We regret his absence.
You may proceed.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, we have been advised that the document books 2 and 3 for the defendant Joel will probably be presented today, in addition to document book I, the presentation of which started last evening. The Prosecution has yet to receive books 2 and 3. We received book I yesterday afternoon between three and three-thirty. We do not believe that counsel for defendant Joel is in any way responsible for the delay since he has pointed out the distribution of the books is made by the information center. However, it does place the Prosecution under a considerable handicap., to be faced with the presentation of these documents without having seen the hook. We feel, however, that because of the wish that the proceedings go on in an expeditious way that the document should be presented and marked for identification and the Court reserve the question of whether or not they should be admitted in evidence until after the Prosecution has had time to examine them.
That time, I think, should be a minimum of twentyfour hours. Now in the event that the defense counsel for Joel wish to cross examine - complete their direct examination, and the Prosecution is asked to cross examine. I will state at this time, and since all of the whole of the documents apparently are going in before, we will have an opportunity to cross examine, that we will request that our cross examination be delayed until we have had an opportunity to examine the books, because I believe we will have an opportunity to recall the defendant Joel to the stand. We have no objection, as I have already said to the case proceeding, but it is only that we do want the opportunity to examine them before the cross examination and before they are admitted in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please, doctor. It is obvious that the Prosecution should have the opportunity to examine the documents before they are finally received in evidence and you, Dr. Haensel may proceed having your documents marked for identification and carrying on in all respects as if they were received in evidence and the Court will simply reserve its ruling until counsel has an opportunity to examine the documents.
One other matter was brought to our attention this morning. We have no personal knowledge concerning it, but the defense information center advises that it is not in all cases receiving the forty-eight hour notice which should precede the calling of a witness to the stand, and it is desired that defense counsel observe that rule so that the Secretary General and the Court and Prosecution may be advised as to when a witness is to be called pursuant to the rule which the defense information center is following.
DR. HAENSEL: May I state two things with reference to these proceedings? As witnesses are concerned. I hope that in the course of this afternoon the witness, Otto Lenz, from Berlin will arrive, but he has not yet arrived at this moment. I have been allowed to call that witness and I would suggest that if the Prosecution wants anniinterval between direct examination and cross examination to give it the opportunity to examine the documents, that I call him during that interval if he arrives.
THE PRESIDENT: I should think counsel might agree upon some such procedure.
MR. KING: It is somewhat difficult to examine document books and at the same time pay attention to what a witness is saying and prepare to cross examine the witness. However, it may be that the witness will appear at a time during the day when it will give us another night for examination of the books. Unfortunately, I will have to be the one to examine the books and similarly I will have to be here during the cross examination of the witness, so perhaps we can wait until the witness appears, and I am sure that Dr. Haensel and the Prosecution can work out some satisfactory arrangement.
THE PRESIDENT: I hope you can. The Court has been requested by the requirements for an expeditious trial to press on with numerous defense counsels when they would have been happy to have had more time and we feel we should also press on with the Prosecution in like manner. You may proceed.
Defendant Joel - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Yesterday, we interrupted the examination when vac had reached the point when the Central Office of Prosecution was under discussion, I would ask you now to give us an account of the work you did at the Central Prosecution office. Would you do th t by giving us a few examples by way of explanation.
A The work of the Central Prosecution office consisted in supporting the local prosecution when third parties made difficulties and these difficulties always and exclusively were made by party authorities. That fact had caused the minister to appoint two referents of the ministry of justice as public prosecutors who at the request of the ministry all over the Reich territory were entitled to exercise functions of public prosecutors.
In November, 1933, I, for the first time was commissioned by the Minister and I went to Ayen in the District of Koblenz where an offense had been committed. There SS member after the election of 12 November, 1933, had ill treated political opponents, because evidently they had fought against the Nazi party. Neither the interrogation nor the arrest of the accused could be instituted by the competent Prosecution at Koblenz. Together with a Berlin police detachment I went to the place where the offense had occurred and I myself arrested the offenders and I saw to it that proceedings were instituted against them at the Cologne Court; all of them were sentenced to prison terms.
Q Yes, I now quote from the affidavit of Grauert which was submitted yesterday. It is on page 21, document Book I, volume I, page 21, figure 3:
"At the end of 1933, according to a report to the Ministry of Justice, members of the Social democratic and Roman Catholic parties were illegally arrested in Meyen, Government District of Coblenz, Rhineland, by local SS members. The interference of the local communal Police authorities were lacking in exercising power. After a personal report to me, Joel immediately placed himself at disposal in order to drive up in lorries, with a division of the Field Constabulary, to the place of action, in spite of partially iced roads. He released the arrested persons, transferred the culprits he had caught and arrested to Cologne where he handed them over to the local authority of justice for the purpose of instituting a criminal procedure. They were all condemned to imprisonment." This is from the files of the office of Koblenz, which I have asked for but I have not received them.
Please continue, witness.
A The main functions of the Public Prosecutors of the Prosecuting office in those days was action against so-called wild concentration camps which had been instituted by the SA and SS and where political opponents of the Nazi party were kept under arrest and were ill treated.
I first went into action on account of a report from the Fredo camp near Stettin and Esterwegen in the Northwest of Germany. I went there at the instructions of Minister Guertner.
The Gauleiter was opposed to instituting criminal proceedings against the guards of the Bredow Camp near Stettin, and the Police President, the SS Oberfuehrer, took the same attitude, My assistant, von Haacke, and I, called on both of these men and we told them that proceedings would be instituted.
To begin with, it was impossible to institute investigations at Stettin. With the aid of the Chief, Diels, who was then Chief of the Prussian Police, Goering was personally told about this state of affairs. A report was made to him, and Goering was told that the camp must be dissolved. Goering complied, and we did carry out investigations. The Gaulieter and the Police President were removed from their office; the culprits were sentenced to long terms in the penitentiaries up to ten years.
I am now going to speak of Esterwegen Camp. The dissolution and proceedings on account of the Esterwegen Camp were opposed by SS Obergruppenfuhrer, Duesseldorf. The competent senior public prosecutor at Osnabrueck was unable to take action. I asked the Undersecretary at the Ministry of the Interior, to whom the police were subordinated, to let me have a police detachment. I went to Esterwegen and, although we were threatened by armed resistance, we started investigations. I saw to it that the Security police disbanded the guards. The camp was dissolved; investigations were carried out against the culprits, and the matter was handed over to the competent prosecution office.
DR. HAENSEL: An allover picture of the difficulties in taking action against these wild concentration camps, and Joel's activity therein, is obtained from the Grauert affidavit, which I have already introduced as Exhibit 2. It is contained in document book I, at pages 19 to 21. I shall now quote from page 19:
"On the 14 April 1933, when I was nominated State Secretary in the Prussian Ministry of Interior, Guenther Joel was occupied as Public Prosecutor for special tasks in the Prussian Ministry of Justice.
Here, together with my advisers, especially Ministerial Dirigent Fischer and by ruthlessly putting his own person at stake, he decisively contirbuted in carrying through in Prussia, during the year 1933 until the middle of 1934, the successful central fight against the wild concentration camps, where political enemies were arbitrarily arrested and, in some cases, brutally ill treated by the SA and SS members. This task was all the more difficult as the subordinate Police and Justice authorities which were occupied throughout with officials from the Weimar time were not able to previal sufficiently over the National Socialist Revolutionary elements. This difficulty was, however, considerably eliminated in 1933 by nominating SA and SS leaders to Police Presidents as far as the 24 State Police administrating offices in Prussia were concerned. In two cases, however, the effective cooperation between the local police and the Administration of Justice was endangered because the two newly appointed Police Presidents did not oppose the illegal activity of their friends in the Party with the necessary energy. Joel, therefore, frequently and personally had to intervene on the spot, often accompanied by an armed police detachment which had been formed at the Prussian Ministry of Interior with competency for the whole of Prussia as Field Constabulary, in order to arrange for the arresting of the guilty SA or SS members on the basis of the investigations made at the place of action, and to institute a penal procedure against them in the competent courts."
MR. KING: May it please the Court, it has occurred to the Prosecution that the method of procedure now being employed may lead to certain difficulties. The documents which have not been received in evidence are being quoted from extensively. Now, it is possible-
THE PRESIDENT: This document was received, I believe, was it not? It was offered last night.
MR. KING: I was not aware that it had been received; I was under the impression that none of the documents had been received, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps not. I think we are ready to rule upon these documents now.
MR. KING: The 24 hours will not have elapsed until this afternoon at about 3:30.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel insist upon the 24-hour rule, having examined the documents already?
MR. KING: Well, I wasn't aware, Your Honor, that the Court was ready to rule upon them. If you are ready to rule upon the document from which the defense counsel has just been quoting, I have an objection.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I was in error; they were marked only for Identification last night.
MR. KING: Yes, that is right. Ag to some of those documents which were read yesterday, we are certainly in a position to state our objections. The one from which he just read is one such to which we have objections.
Now, having proceeded to read portions of a document into the record which is later, let us say, not admitted in evidence, a problem is raised. At this time we would only say that such documents as are not received in evidence but from which excerpts in considerable portion have been read into the record, we reserve the right to ask the Court to strike such portions from the record.
THE PRESIDENT: If counsel has objection to the four exhibits which have already been marked for identification, the Tribunal would like to hear the objections now.
DR. HAENSEL: May I say the following? The documents to which I am referring here have. I may say for weeks, been in the possession of the Secretary General. All of us know how difficult it is at the moment to have the documents translated in time. That, however, is neither our fault, nor that of the Prosecution, nor that of the Court. Consequently, I believe that we will only make progress here if we do not stick to the letter of the law but if we try to carry out our proceedings sensibly.
The idea of the 24-hour limitations for such documents as I am submitting here--that is to say, for affidavits--is no really required, because what I am reading here is in no way a surprise to the prosecution. However, as to the substantive replies which the Prosecution may wish to make here, or the formal objections which it may wish to make, well, the Prosecution may reserve.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, the suggestion you have just made is quite similar to what the Court has just said. Counsel for the prosecution has stated that as to these four exhibits which were marked yesterday, he has some objections and is ready to make them now. He thereby waives the 24-hour rule to that extent. And since you are proposing to read from those exhibits, we think it advisable to hear his objections at this time and pass upon them. We will hear the objections now.
MR. KING: Before we make the objections, it might be to the interest of expeditious proceedings if we first saw the originals . It may possibly be that our objections really as translation matters and not a fundamental defect in the document. The originals ha e not been shown to us, and therefore we are not entirely sure that it is not a translation error.
THE PRESIDENT: The originals have been in the possession of the Secretary General. I assume, since last evening.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Submit them to counsel.
MR. KING: Specifically, with regard to document No. 5 which appears on page 19 of the English document book, the affidavit of Grauert, now the affiant Grauert is available, or at least was at the time this affidavit was made here in Nurnberg. The affidavit is faulty in that first paragraph does not conform with the rules laid down by the Court for defense affidavits. I don't believe it is sufficiently clear so that we can say that it in any sense meets the requirements. And since the affiant is available, the Prosecution suggests that he be called in order to save the affidavit for the defense.
We have no desire to raise a technical objection merely to keep the affidavit from being admitted in evidence. However, we think that when it is admitted in evidence thought to be done according to the prescribed rules.
As to the others, as to 1, 2, 3, and 4, the Prosecution has no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 2 is the one you just spoke of?
MR. KING: No. 5 is the one I just spoke of. It is document 5, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 5, but Exhibit 2? You see saying you have no objection to documents 1, 2, 3, and 4?
MR. KING: But to document 5 we do, yes.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Documents I, II and III have not been offered as yet. Document IV is Exhibit 1. There being no objection, it is received. What about Exhibits for Identification 3 and 4 which are Documents VI and VII?
MR. KING: We have no objection to Document VI.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received too as Exhibit 3. Document VII is Exhibit 4.
MR. KING: Your Honor, as to Document VII, Exhibit 4, we have the same objections. Yes, No. 7 is all right.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 4 is received. Then all of the four exhibits which were marked for identification yesterday, with the exception of Exhibit 2 which is Joel's Document V, are received in evidence.
Dr. Haensel, is the affiant Grauert in Nurnberg?
DR. HAENSEL: No, As far as I know Grauert is no longer here. The reason for my affidavit was the fact I heard that Grauert would not only leave Nurnberg but was going to leave the American Zone and therefore the American Zone of Competence. As far as I know Grauert is now in the British Zone of Occupation. Therefore, there is now no opportunity to examine him here. This is a typical example for the case where one must try to get an affidavit from a witness of whom one knows that he is going to leave Nurnberg and in that way to get him to play a part in this trial, From a purely formal point of view I can not find anything wrong with the affidavit.
It has the introductory clause that the affidavit is to be submitted here and it says that Grauert, who is accustomed to act as a witness, knows the significance of an affidavit. In his case one can assume that anyhow, without mentioning it. The signatures and everything else are in order.
I would ask you, therefore, to admit this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: The only objection which remains, in view of the statement of counsel, is that this is not in the strict form required for a statement in lieu of oath. It appears to be taken before Court No. III, Case No. 3.Dr. Haensel.
DR. HAENSEL: Would you please take into account the date? On the 21 of March there were no other limitations. On the 21 of March the only point was that an affidavit had to be taken at all and it was in accordance with those rulings. The only rulings were made after that date. But this affidavit does in effect contain what, according to the rules which were made subsequently, you did wish an affidavit to contain, that is to say, it mentions what the affiant has to say. It points out the significance and it says that this affidavit will be introduced in evidence .
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Haensel, and we will rule on Exhibit 2 after the recess. Go ahead.
DR. HAENSEL: May I add one more thing about the method of quoting from documents? If I quote from an affidavit I am not wasting time, but I am gaining time for otherwise the same material would be read out twice, and in this manner the witness Joel can comment and can corroborate or correct the contents of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made no strict rule with reference to the reading of documents which are introduced in evidence. It has suggested to both sides that since the Tribunal reads these documents in any event, the reading into the transcript of documents which are in evidence should be reduced to the minimum. You may proceed.
DR. HAENSEL: Grauert goes on to say: "Thereby JOEL, as results from the description below of some individual cases which I remember from the reports of Ministerial Director FISCHER and the documents, tackled this task with a personal initiative which far exceeds the normal degree of a Ministerial Official. As in the case of "Esterwege", he did not shrink back even when his life was threatened and at the same time he became an energetic help in the endeavor to maintain the idea of a constitutional state in those revolutionary times.
"In the summer of 1933, political enemies were arbitrarily arrested by inmates of the SS-Camp Esterwege where unemployed SS members from the Ruhr district were gathered for the cultivation of the East Court No. III, Case No. 3.Frisien moor regions; they were imprisoned in one part of the camp and, in many cases, physically ill-treated.
As a result of a denunciation at the Prussian Ministry of Interior, JOEL was ordered to carry through the investigations in the camp accompanied by a division of 50 men of the Field Constabulary, since the competent police authority was not able to prevail over the revolutionarily behaving camp garrison due to lack of political importance. SS-Gruppenfuehrer WEITZEL who was present in the camp first tried to oppose the investigation to be made by JOEL and he threatened with armed resistance. JOEL did not let himself be influenced by that; on the contrary, according to instruction received by the Ministry of Interior, he made the Field Constabulary draw up with loaded rifle ordering it to make use of the weapon at the slightest resistance. Under the protection of the police troop JOEL then made his investigations which, thanks to his energetic proceeding, were no longer opposed by SS-Gruppenfuehrer WEITZEL. The result of the investigation was the immediate clearing of the camp by the SS, as ordered by the Ministry of Interior, and the taking over of the camp by the Security Police."
I shall now introduce a new exhibit. It is Exhibit 5. This is Document 30 and it is contained in Document Book II on Page 35. No, it is not Page 35; it is 31, and in accordance with the rulings of the Court I am first of all offering it for identification until the Prosecution has seen it. It is my document 30 contained in Document Book II on Page 31. I only want to refer to a very short sentence. On Page 35, Number 3 of the Document it says:
"Joel took especially severe measures in the case of ill-treatment which occurred in the concentration camps in 1933-34. As far as I remember, Herr von Haacke and Dr. Joel made representations to Goering personally to ask that the infamous concentration camp Bredow near Stettin be cleaned out. Their efforts were successful. The camp commandant Hoffman, an SS leader from Stettin, received a sentence of five or seven years hard labor, I believe, for ordering ill-treatment of prisoners."
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q The files incriminating Hoffman and his comrades I have requested but I did not receive them. The Prosecution charges you, Joel, with having co-signed a report concerning an order for squashing the penal proceedings concerning the Bredow Camp. The Prosecution has submitted Exhibit 120, Document NG-249, Prosecution Book Volume I, Page 23.
I am showing you this document and what are your comments?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A The proceedings against the guards at the Kemna Camp in the Wuppertal Valley I tried to have instituted with the same energy, for about a year, as I did in the case of Esterwege and Bredow. The competent SA Obergruppenfuehrer at Duesburg and the Gauleiter at Duesseldorf opposed the institution of proceedings. The lawyer, who was the Gau legal representative of the Gau leadership, played a particularly nasty past in the matter. The SA Obergruppenfuehrer was finally convinced of the necessity of instituting an investigation and the competent public prosecutor and I started investigations. The Gauleiter at the meeting raised first opposition and had complaints made about me, in writing, by his Gau legal official. The Gauleiter wrote a letter of complaint to Goering, with the request to have me dismissed from my office. At the same time, he approached the Party leadership at Munich and there he saw to it that a Party disciplinary court proceedings was instituted against the guards so as to eliminate proceedings being instituted by the public prosecution. I made a report to Goering. The police president at Wuppertal, who was the chief of the camp guards, was dismissed from his position and the camp was dissolved. The disciplinary court of the Party started proceedings, the result of which were merely disciplinary penalties. The public prosecution continued its proceedings of investigation. I went to Munich with the referent from the Public Prosecution of Wuppertal to see the supreme SA leaders, the Party court and the Party leadership and to convince them that it was necessary to carry out these proceedings. When proceedings had reached the stage of signing the indictment, the chief of the penal department told me that Hitler did not wish proceedings to be carried out. He, Hitler, had asked the Minister of Justice to make an application for proceedings to be quashed. At the instruction of the Minister of Justice, I made a draft. The Minister had ordered me to give a full description of the cases of ill treatment that had occurred in order to prevent proceedings being quashed. In spite of further efforts to prevent proceedings being quashed, Hitler ordered that they be quashed.
Q Concerning the duties as a referent, I shall refer to those Court No. III, Case No. 3.later.
Now, concerning the Kemna Camp I shall have to refer to the following passages from the documents. From exhibit 1, the Haacke Affidavit, Document Volume 1, page 12, which has already been submitted, I want to quote a brief passage.
"I am thinking here particularly of the proceeding against the SA guards of the camp Kemna near Wuppertal. In this case Joel stuck to his goal with all the energy and tenacity he could muster and in particular continually stressed that it was a matter of course that the camp should have been liquidated but that thereby the criminal side of the case could never be settled. Joel's action resulted in a written complaint being sent to Goering by the Gauleiter Florian. In addition, the competent SA Fuehrer and the Gauleiter Florian made representations to Under Secretary Freisler against Joel. The public prosecutor Winkler also, who under Joel's supervision was working on the case in Wuppertal, had so many difficulties in this matter with Gauleiter Florian that after the case was finished he was transferred to Kassel at his own request."
I am now submitting, for identification as Exhibit 6, my document 9 from Document Book 1, Page 51, the Kneisel Affidavit, of which I want to quote a brief sentence which is on Page 52. It says:
"During the time that followed I frequently was with Dr. Joel in Berlin. On these occasions I also visited other agencies. Doing so I found out that Dr. Joel was the only person who emphatically demanded an investigation and legal prosecution of the Wuppertal crimes and who really did something in this direction."
The affidavit of the man Winkler, who has already been mentioned, appears on page 55 of document book 1. This is my Document 11. I am offering it, for identification, as Exhibit 7. I will quote a brief passage from the affidavit on page 56:
"In a specially energetic manner Joel demanded the investigation and complete clearing up of the 'Kemna case'. After I had made the first investigations in this case I reported to Joel in this regard Court No. III, Case No. 3.in his capacity of representative of the Reich Ministry of Justice.