THE WITNESS: That is not known to me, but I assume that it was so because it was always done; it was done quite regularly. The defense counsel did that on their own, but the prosecutor had to submit his report concerning the clemency question regardless of any other clemency appeal made.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
JUDGE HARDING: Did the President of the Court make his recommendations upon the matter of clemency and also the Court?
THE WITNESS: The Court, in connection with the deliberations before the sentence, had to concern itself with the clemency question, and that in the following manner. The decision was made about the sentence, and then the opinion concerning the clemency question was discussed.
JUDGE HARDING: Then the Court and the President both give their opinions upon the clemency matter, and also the prosecution? Isn't that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE HARDING: That was done in all death cases?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE HARDING: Later on, part of that report was eliminated; is that not correct?
THE WITNESS: Later on - and I want to be understood quite correctly. At that time I myself was no longer active in the sphere of the Court; I was at the Reich Prosecution. We of the Reich Prosecution submitted the sentence with a very short opinion, but it is possible that it was the intention that these offices - the prosecution and the court should offer their opinion on that question only if there were serious reasons, from their point of view, to speak in favor of clemency being granted.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 21 August 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL: Concerning the decision by the Reich Supreme Court, a question to which the presiding judge of this Court wanted an answer, I would like to point out that in my document book 2 with reference to the Katzenberger case, I shall present a document number 12 which contains a decision by the Reich Supreme Court which deals with the question of the so-called substitute actions. That is one of those decisions which clarify the point that any sexual activity is sufficient to constitute a racial defilement, not only actual sexual intercourse.
THE PRESIDENT: Does it define what sexual activity is?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, it does. It is pointed out that all sexual activity is sufficient to constitute racial defilement. I shall refer to that again when I present my document.
THE PRESIDENT: It amounts to the defining of the unknown by the unknown.
OSWALD ROTHAUG -Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, we came to the question as to what was the wording of Engert's clemency suggestion. Concerning Freisler's attitude, the witness Ferber gave us an account. Did the witness Ferber give you an account of Freisler's attitude and of Freisler's questions when Freisler appeared at the Strassbourg conference, and what was the account that was given to you as to Ferber's attitude at the Strassbourg conference?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Objection, your Honor. That's been discussed fully in days past.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you covered that matter before:
THE WITNESS: I have talked about that matter up to the moment when it was said that I lifted ay finger, and when I had said that, you, your Honor, pointed out that that was not important.
For the rest, I have already made statements about that occurrence.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
Q Ferber says that you had been aware earlier that he harbored certain misgivings. Is that correct?
A What really happened was that during the conference about which I testified this morning, I at that time had already been aware cf certain misgivings which he had had for sane time, so that there had been no further need for him to voice his misgivings during the conference. And by saying that he obviously wants to counter that doubt that the conference had been of a peaceful nature. According to the actual situation, however, what happened was that the judgment may only be based on the subject which was the subject cf the of the trial itself, and not on any thoughts which a person may have had at some time or which he may have put into words at some time or other, quite apart from the fact that such misgivings were never voiced at all.
Q The suggestions for the judgment which you read out after the conference, were those laid down in writing?
A In all cases without exception after we had sat in conference the outcome of that conference was laid down in the so-called judgment text. That contains the legal qualifications and the sentence. Afterwards that document, without exception, was signed by the judges who had taken part in the consultation. That written statement moans that the facts which have been laid down in that text represent the view of the Court with due reference to the majority laid down in the law. That judgment laid down in writing was read out by me word for word at the trial. That verdict however, does not contain the reasons for the judgment, the opinion. These were announced by word of mouth.
Q According to your personal observation what was the element which took the view of the racial problem into the critical phase, and will you tell us briefly how and why that was so?
A In my opinion the decisive element, the decisive factor in Germany, and that in consideration of the national character of the Germans, was not propaganda in word and writing but the fact that the political demands in that sphere had been remolded and laid down in law. In this, the superstitious adoration of the German for the legal form is expressed. His respect for the legal power of the state, for the higher authorities as such, is a strength in him and at the same time it is a weakness with him. It becomes a weakness when the power is based on evil.
THE PRESIDENT: We have no question about the interesting quality of the discussion, but it is not relevant.
DR. KOESSL: In the Katzenberger case we do not have the files. Therefore, the statements which the witness made on the witness stand here about the course of that trial cannot be substantiated by documents. What would be of importance would be in particular the question as to the manner in which the witness came to hear about the Katzenberger case, but I have obtained material of the Kreutling case and that was almost exactly the same as the Katzenberger case. The difference is mainly only this; in the Kreutling case arson had been committed, but otherwise by that case I can demonstrate that the description in the Katzenberger case is based altogether on the usual procedure adopted by the special court at Nurnberg. Therefore, I ask permission to give a short description of the Kreutling case. It would emphasize the account given of the Katzenberger case.
THE PRESIDENT: We consider it inadmissible for that purpose.
DR. KOESSL: By demonstrating the Kreutling case I would also like to answer the charge that Rothaug got hold of such cases and that is a charge which has been leveled against him with particular severity in the Katzenberger case.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has ruled on it.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. I am now coming to the Lopata case. The opening statement of the prosecution deals with the Lopata case. I am referring also to Exhibit 186; the Paulus Affidavit Exhibit k80 also the cross examination is of importance in this connection. In the English transcript it appears on Page 3793 through 3806. Exhibit Pfaff, 187 and Engert Exhibit 157; Grueb Exhibit 179; and furthermore the testimony by the witness Ferber, which in the English transcript appears on Page 1400; the testimony by the witness Doebig, which in the English transcript appears on page 1761; the testimony by the witness Dorfmueller, which appears in the English transcript on page 3154 through 3218; and the statement of the testimony by the witness Wilhelm Hoffman, in the English transcript on Page 3942.
Witness, I hand you the files of the Special Court in the Lopata case. Please give us the number and the designation of the files.
A. These are the Penal Files in the Lopata Case, for an offense against Article IV of the Law Against Public Enemies, SG-433, from 1942.
Q. In the opening statement by the prosecution, Lopata is described as a juvenile. Please tell us what was Lopata's age at the time when he committed the offense with which he was charged.
You will find reference to that on pages 12 and 13; on the righthand side in the case of page 12.
A. He was born on the 24th of June 1916. The offense was committed at the beginning of February 1942. A t the time when he committed that offense, the offender, therefore, was not a juvenile but he was a man, age 25½ years.
Q. The Lopata case was first tried by another court and not by the Special Court in Nurnberg. Please tell us what was the first court that tried his case and wherher that court was a Special Court.
A. The case was tried for the first time on the 28th April 1942 before the Local Court at Neumarkt in the Upper Palatinate. The Local Court was not a Special Court.
Q. What wore the facts which were the subject of the proceedings against Lopata during the trial at Neumarkt?
A. The defendant had been charged only with having approached a woman in a way in which it was sexually offensive, although that woman again and again tried to got rid of him. He was also charged with irregular behavior, which, however, in the course of developments played no important part and that charge was dropped.
Q. Please tell us what was the personal description of the defendant which was given by tho Local Court at Neumarkt?
A. In the judgment, it is pointed out that the defendant looked well-groomed, but he was insolent, lazy, and he had been guilty of the offense with which he was charged in a way, and I quote: "Which showed an unheard of extent of shamelessness and insolence of which only a member of the Polish nation would be capable." However, that is a statement made by the Local Court at Neumarkt.
Q. Did the Local Court at Neumarkt have anything to do with the Special Court at Nurnberg?
A. Nothing; no.
Q. Was the judgment by the Local Court at Nurnberg upheld?
A. Tho judgment by the Local Court at Neumarkt was, by decision of tho Reich Supremo Court of 14 July 1942 , annulled by way of a nullity plea, and tho trial was transferred to tho Special Court at Nurnberg.
Q. What was the criticism of the Supreme Reich Court in tho judgment passed by the Neumarkt Local Court?
A. The Reich Supremo Court criticized the fact that tho Local Court at Neumarkt, concerning certain generally known conditions which were connected with war-time conditions, although that had be obvious in the case in question, had not taken such conditions into considerations, and therefore apparently had ignored the fact that the offense with which the defendant had been charged also violated Article IV of the Law against Public Enemies.
For that reason, it was necessary to refer the case to another court so that tho case be examined from that point of view, and if that should be found right, so that Article IV of tho Law Against Public Enemies could be applied if that wore found applicable. Further reasons for the decision which are given are that tho application of Article IV of the Law Against Public Enemies would mean that a considerably higher penalty could be pronounced, and that for that reason the case would have to be tried again.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask a question. Does either tho prosecution or the defense propose to put in the Lopata file?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The have, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All of it?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Tho portion of it that tho witness is using is in evidence?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: It's unnecessary to read from it then.
DR. KOESSL: I have to present some portions which have not yet been presented by tho prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Are they in evidence?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, Your Honor. I have collected them in a separate document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Additional documents in tho Lopata case?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the meaning of these documents, if they are now in evidence or are to be put in evidence, would be a matter for argument.
That is your final argument.
DR. KOESSL: Unfortunately, I can't present them now because the English translations haven't been done yet.
THE PRESIDENT: You can offer them later.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, the English translations have been distributed to us. We have them here.
THE PRESIDENT: My point, of course, is very simple and very obvious, and that is, that it is unnecessary to read portions of a case file if it now is or will be in evidence.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. To what extent was the Special Court bound by the decision of the Supreme Court?
THE PRESIDENT: The witness covered that question this morning in answer to a question by the present speaker.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Did the Supreme Reich Court order that the Law Against Public Enemies should be applied against a Pole? In Exhibit 224, the witness Groben says that there had been a difference of opinion as to whether the Law Against Public Enemies could be applied against Poles. Please toll us as to whether the Reich Supreme Court ordered the application?
A. Yes, that is quite evident.
Q. Will you have a look at the order which Dorfmueller, who appeared as a witness here on the 12 of August 1942, made.
A He passed the files on to me and asked me to fix a date, after he had received them from the Supreme Reich Court.
Q What criticism could be leveled against that procedure by Dorfmueller?
A He should have submitted an indictment as was demanded by law.
Q Did Public Prosecutor Dorfmueller frequently make such mistakes?
A Yes, he did so quite frequently, but I believe that I have already made detailed statements on this point, and this is one of those instances.
Q And what orders did you give in consequence?
A I refused to set a date for the trial and I made a request that on the basis of the legal point of view which had been evolved by the Supreme Reich Court, the indictment was to be filed and the trial was to be prepared so that the trial could be held without any difficulty.
Q Did Dorfmueller comply with your request?
A Yes. He then filed an indictment on the 18 of August 1342.
Q Would you please take a look at the indictment which Dorfmueller filed. What is the note entered there in handwriting which strikes you?
A I know Dorfmueller's handwriting very well, and that document at the right-hand side at the bottom also shows his initials Do, and there is a remark added in handwriting reading "appointment of a defense counsel by the court." In connection with this form, that application was made.
Q That handwritten note by Dorfmueller: "appointment of a defense counsel by the court," has played a part in the discussion of this case in connection with the question as to who was the first person who considered that a death sentence might be passed. Please also take a look at the copy of the indictment where the sentence for which the prosecutor would ask is mentioned. What changes have been made in the copy?
AA copy of the copy was put to me some time as a document. It differed from this original copy insofar as the words "six years in a more severe penal camp" had not been crossed off, and the words "death sentence" were there--but a long way away from it--and so I had to assume that the words "death sentence" was a note which had been entered by the prosecutor and which he had entered as a result of the session. According to the original note, that was not so. It rather looks as if the original not in the altered part "six years in a more severe penal camp" had been replaced by the words "death sentence." When that alteration was made, cannot be seen from this note, as there is no date entered as to when that alteration is made, and that is against the rule.
Q Dorfmueller has voiced the assumption that the change of mind on the part of the prosecution was due to you. What is it that proves that you had nothing to do with the fact that the prosecution changed its mind about the sentence it was going to ask for?
AAccording to my recollection, Dorfmueller gave as a reason for his opinion, the fact that the files had been submitted to me and together with the indictment which he had filed at my request. He thought that in this case I had certainly studied the files thoroughly and therefore had come to a decision as to want was to be done, because generally speaking I had been a clever person. I did not, in the files, give clear evidence of my intention to impose a more severe penalty. That view is incorrect--for if it is correct--and I believe it is true--that on the 27th of August 1943 when I received the indictment, I arrived at the conclusion that this was a case where the death sentence might be considered, there was no need for me to take a secret way. But according to the quite clear legal provisions of Article--I believe it's Article 32--of the Competency Order, I was under an obligation, without making an application and officially, to appoint a defense counsel for the defendant. But I did not appoint a defense counsel as can be seen from the order of 27 August 1942.
Q In such cases, did you have to appoint a defense counsel if the prosecution had not made an application?
A Naturally. That is evident from my statements. I have already pointed out that I was under an official obligation to appoint a defense counsel. By appointing a defense counsel, it is obvious for anybody who is connected with the case that in my view it is possible that the death sentence may be considered. Therefore, there was absolutely no reason for secrecy. I did not issue such and order, and that means that that question had not yet been so clear to me as to make it seem necessary to me at that moment to appoint a defense counsel; for in effect, the case had not yet been properly prepared, and that is obvious from the further order issued. Together with that order of the 27th of August 1942, the files were returned to the prosecution. They were received there at the 28th of August 1942. On the 28th of August 1942, Dorfmueller decided that the files should be resubmitted on the 21st of September. That is important because we are now getting close to the date where apparently the decision was altered.
Q Witness, I now want to interpolate something. Dorfmueller says, "During the interval between the filing of the indictment and my application, the circumstances demanded that the files had been sent to the presiding judge Rothaug." When was the indictment filed? At what time?
A On the 24th of August 1942 when the files were received by me. But I should like to say that the Senior Public Prosecutor signed the indictment on the 18th of August 1942, and it took six days for the files to reach me--or rather they must have been laying around with the prosecution for six days.
Q That is to say, the indictment had not yet been filed when the files were sent to you as Dorfmueller wants to make it appear on his account. Dorfmueller says, "During the interval between the filing of the indictment and my application, the circumstances demanded that the files had been passed on to the presiding judge Rothaug." Therefore the indictment was only concluded when the files were sent off.
A The filing of the indictment was concluded at the moment when the indictment was submitted to me together with the files. That means that the indictment has been filed.
During the interval, that is to say, from 24 August 1942 until the 27 August 1942, the indictment was in my possession and, as Dorfmueller says, I was able to examine it so that, as he assumes quite rightly, I was informed about the case.
Now, I want to say if I had been of the opinion at that time that the death sentence might be passed I, in the order of 27 August 1942, as would have been my duty, without the prosecutor having made an application, would have appointed a defense counsel.
Q You had mentioned Dorfmueller's order of the first of September. What is the significance of that order?
AAs for an order of the first of September, 1942, I never said any such thing. I mentioned an order of the 28 of August. That meant that the files were to be put aside until the 21 of September.
Q You said just now that the files had been put aside. What constitutes the importance of the fact that the files were put aside, from our point of view?
A Not on the 21 of September, but on the first of September, 1942 Dorfmueller had asked for the files to be returned to him and he ordered that photographs were to be taken of the defendant. That is the definite proof that between the 28 of August and the first of September, 1942, it was decided to consider the case where possibly the death sentence might have to be passed and it was the prosecution that had come to that conclusion.
Q Would you please read Number 6 of Dorfmueller's Order dated 12 September 1942?
THE PRESIDENT: Is it in evidence or will it be in evidence? I want you to understand our position that we do not require the reading of a transcript in which we are interested and which we will study. It should not be necessary to repeat it every time.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Did you comply with Dorfmueller's application?
A On the 12 September, 1942, I appointed a defense counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you gaining that information by examining the file there?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We are able to read it. You are simply encumbering the record when you do that. We have instructed you not to do it.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q The prosecution asked the witness Paulus whether it wasn't possible that Dorfmueller made the change in the sentence for which he was going to ask during the session. Please tell us why that account concerning the change of the penalty to be asked for was not possible?
A We, after all, merely concerned with the problem as to whether I suggested to the prosecution that it was to deal with the case in such a way as if the death sentence might have to be passed and I deny that and it is quite clearly evident from the files that that was not so. The files themselves show that quite clearly.
Q What probability, according to your knowledge, is there in favor of the statement as to why the death sentence might have to be pronounced?
A That is a perfectly staple solution of a perfectly simple question. The prosecution had written out the indictment for me and had to pass on a copy of the indictment to its superior, -- that was the general public prosecutor -- and finally, to the Reich Ministry of Justice. I received the indictment about a week later but for about six days it had been lying around with the prosecution until all the routine work that had to be done on it had been finished. But in the meantime the superiors of the senior public prosecutor had been informed about the case. I received the indictment. I studied the files and evidently I did not yet think that the matter was critical, but other people apparently thought it was critical and some quarters or other had rung up the senior public prosecutor of had issued instructions to him in some way or other. And we can prove from a number of files that between the 28 of August and the first of September the senior public prosecutor received instructions to regard the case as a particularly serious case and to deal with it by application of the law against public enemies in case those facts were to be proved.
On the first of September the files were asked for and the public prosecutor applied to me because I had not yet appointed an official defense counsel. So now he asked me to appoint one. That was how the whole case was dealt with at Neumarkt in the Upper Palatinate. I should like to know what the part is supposed to have been that I played in the Lopata case and that was how that case was dealt with at Neumarkt.
Q The witness, Wilhelm Hoffman, says Zimmermann, a nonentity, had been appointed to be defense counsel or Kucher. Now, who really was defense counsel for Lopata? Who was appointed?
A I have been charged with having influenced the defense counsel who was neither Zimmermann nor Kuehn. The statement by the witness Hoffmann in this point is wrong. It was Loma who was the defense counsel, Loma from Neumarkt.
Q In its opening statement the prosecution quoted the following sentence from the judgment: "The inferiority of the defendant lies in his character and the reason for it evidently is that he belongs to the subhuman race of the Poles." Is that quotation correct?
A Well, there is a typing error here which rather distorts matters because actually it says in the judgment -- it doesn't say "the subhuman race," but it means the subhumanity of, and that is something essentially different. We have subhumanity in Germany and we have developed our own laws against that and when we speak of Polish subhumanity we do not mean the Polish people as such; that is what we would have meant if we had spoken of the subhuman Polish race, and for that idea and opinion there is a concrete reason.
In many cases we had found that among the Poles who had been brought to Germany there was a considerable number of highly criminal types from Poland. The agencies which dealt with getting labor from Poland did not select properly and thereby did create a great danger. We had discovered people who had been previously convicted for murder and had been sentenced to penitentiary for life, but who, on account of the outbreak of war, had been set free and who had now come to Germany. That point of view played a part in considering all these questions. That is to say, we did not speak of the subhuman Polish race but we spoke of the subhumanity in Poland.
THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt, please? The question of translation has arisen. The Tribunal would be glad to have a check made by the Prosecution as to the original document and the proper translation of it. That will dispose of this entire natter.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, your Honor.
DR. KOESSL: The originals of the files here -- I don't know -probably the Prosecution has the copy and perhaps that copy also has the mistake.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a question of what the document says and it should be able to be ascertained with definiteness. The suggestion that the document may have used the wrong word is not satisfactory to us. We want to know what word was used in the original document. Go ahead to something else and straighten that out afterwards.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, at the trial before the Special Court at Nurnberg, were any facts brought to light which were not mentioned by the judgment passed at Neumarkt?
A That is clearly evident from the judgment. In addition to the facts which had originally been established, a further fact had been established, according to which the defendant had attacked the old people, who were living on a lonely farm, with a dung fork and had exerted so much pressure on them that the only way for them to save themselves was to unleash the dog.
When evaluating the character as a whole of the defendant, as the judgment shows, that fact was taken into account. That fact, in the last analysis, was decisive.
Q Can you show that that point in particular was very decisive? Can you show us that by quoting a passage from the original file?
A That is shown by our attitude to the clemency question. In our opinion on the clemency question we, without exception, repeated those facts which had been decisive for us in deciding on the sentence. We did not state other general points of view concerning the clemency plea because we didn't know them and, secondly, because we were of the view that they didn't affect us in any way. That brief opinion on the clemency question says:
"The character of the defendant has been clearly described at the trial, in particular also the fact that the defendant, apart from the offense which in its execution was very grave, has also made himself guilty of violent behavior towards his employer."
In other words, it is made perfectly clear here that the last point of view was decisive for us.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question to which the answer, I think, could be brief? My notes show that the defendant was sentenced to death for violation of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the law or decree concerning Poles and Jews. Is there such a provision in your judgment?
Court No, III, Case No. 3.
You needn't read it. Just tell me if that is in there:
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q The witness Doebig said that the offense in his view was not designed to prove that the offender was a public enemy. Would you, therefore, please briefly summarize the points which lead you to assume that a very serious offense had been committed?
A The justification for our sentence can be seen from the opinion given by the court and that is before this Tribunal. I cannot say any more. All I can add is that specifically for this case, that is to say, for the original case that had to be dealt with, that is to say, for molesting the woman in a sexual way, there was a decision from the Supreme Reich Court which stated an opinion specifically in regard to this question and discussed it from its basic angles, and that decision evidently was the cause for considering the death sentence at all.
With us a further point of view was added and it was that decision that was made available to the court.
THE PRESIDENT: You have said that the reasons which you had are the reasons which you stated in the opinion. You just stated that. I think that is a sufficient answer.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q The Supreme Reich Court decision I don't think is referred to in the judgment. Had Lopata come to Germany voluntarily or had he been forced to come?
AAccording to his own statements both before the police and during the trial, he was a man who had come voluntarily to Germany and that is pointed out in the judgment, although at the time naturally we didn't know that that fact might gain importance later, for it says here -
THE PRESIDENT: When you have answered the question stop talking.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q The place which the judgment describes as having been the place where the offense was committed, is that within the borders of the Reich territory, the Reich such as it was in 1939?
A Yes, naturally; yes, it was quite close to Nurnberg.
Q What do the reports about the clemency plea by the prosecution say concerning the question of executing the sentence?
THF PRESIDENT: Are the reports in the document there?
THE WITNESS: As far as I know, in the document of the Prosecution, there is only one of those reports on the clemency question. I can answer that in one sentence.
THF PRESIDENT: All right. Take the one sentence. If the document is not in evidence and is not to be put into evidence you may take your one sentence and state what the clemency orders were, or pleas.
A The prosecution was against asking for clemency and the general public prosecutor, after he had found that there was no legal criticism of the judgment, also said that he was against asking for clemency; he made particular reference to the additional fact that had been brought out at Neumarkt.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q What happened at the trial and at the conference of the judges?
A The trial was quite uneventful. I remember the case very well and one must bear in mind, above all, that I do not know Polish and even if anybody should have aroused my anger, it would have been quite useless to tell the Pole so because he wouldn't have understood me.
The conference itself, too, was quite uneventful and I do not believe that any doubts arose which might have caused the debate to go on for any length of time. But one thing I still know for certain today is that the fact that that additional circumstance had been discovered which, as the decision by the Reich Supreme Court shows, was Court No. III, Case No. 3.considered very grave and was decisive.
Q Was the judgment written down and signed?
AAs in all other cases -
THE PRESIDENT: Just answer yes or no.
THE WITNESS: Yes, yes.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q In connection with the presentation of the Lopata case and the treatment of all Polish cases, you have been charged with never having believed anything the Poles said and with having attributed less weight to the statements made by four Poles than to the statement made by one single German.
So as to refute that charge I will hand you the criminal files in the Zudchick case which has been mentioned before.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you, Dr. Koessl, is the case the files of which you have just handed to the witness one of the cases which the Prosecution has claimed involved improper conduct by the defendant?
DR. KOESSL: No, that is not a case with which the defendant has been charged; but during the cross-examination, without the name being mentioned, that case was mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes?
DR. KOESSL: At that time the files were not at our disposal and we couldn't say for certain what case was being referred to.