At that time I not only had the rights but I definitely was under and obligation to examine the question as town whether Schosser, in his sermon, had made remarks which were derogatory to the State. Within the limited extent of the judgment that fact was established, and, in favor of the defendant, we assumed that only those few passages had malicious intent and that the defendant in his sermon did not mean to go out for aims of high treason. In other words, it did not take me thirteen months to find that out.
Q. Why did the Kreisleiter write directly to the Nurnberg Special Court seeking an arrest warrant for Father Schosser when the normal procedure would have been for him to request the same of his local investigating judge in Amberg?
A, The Kreisleiter in Nurnberg did not write to the Special Court of Nurnberg-
Q. Dr. Rothaug, one moment, please. I didn't say the Kreisleiter in Nurnberg, I said the Kreisleiter of the area wherein this case arose.
A. In Amberg.
Q. Right you are. Why didn't he write to the investigating judge in Amberg, which is ho normal procedure, instead of writing directly to your court for an arrest warrant?
A. That is right; it was not he Kreisleiter of Nurnberg, it was the Kreisleiter of Amberg who wrote that letter. However, the Kreisleiter of Amberg did not write to my court, he wrote to the office which was competent to deal with that question, and that was the prosecution at Nurnberg. That was the normal office to contact. The investigating judge in Amberg had nothing to do with the matter, because this was a malicious acts case, where the public prosecutor at the Special Court in Nurnberg was competent.
Q, Dr. Rothaug, after you received notification from the pro secution in Nurnberg about this case and you made up your mind that an arrest warrant was justified, did you ask any other judge to issue the arrest warrant?
A. I remember the case vaguely. When that case came to me I simply assumed the following, according to the description that had been given to me, because I know the conditions in general, and also because I assumed that other persons too knew those conditions, particularly if, like Schosser, they were living under those conditions. On account of all that, I assumed that he suspicions were such as we had concluded from our legal specifications.
Q. Dr. Rothaug, one moment please. I don't like to interrupt, but my question was simply whether you requested another judge at the Nurnberg Special Court to issue a warrant of arrest for Father Schosser.
A. Therefore, because I happened to be in court that day, I asked my deputy Ferber to deal with the ease in my place.
Q, Did Ferber refuse to issue he warrant of arrest?
A. Ferber did not refuse to issue the arrest warrant, but, as was frequently the case with my people, they did not quite know what to do or they had certain misgivings. Because of that, he waited until I came out of the courtroom. Then he said to me that he would rather discuss he matter with me and, as I was then free to deal with the matter, I told him he had better leave the files and I would deal with them. I did deal with them myself, and I dealt with them according to my best knowledge within the meaning of the law, and according to my conviction concerning what law was to be applied as well as concerning the facts which had to be assumed.
It is obvious that Ferber did not oppose my attitude to a great extent because an appeal was made against the arrest warrant, and that was done after the defendant--and I didn't know that at the time-had made detailed statements. Ferber also rejeted that appeal a gainst the warrant, which he rejected with me at the time, although today he charges me with having rejected it.
When I decided on that appeal Feber know, but I didn't know, about some facts which soon gave cause for suspending tho trial.
Q. Dr. Rothaug, one moment, again. The question still is simply that Ferber did not issue the arrest order after you asked him to. Is that correct?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. And then thereafter you did issue an arrest order, did you not?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And thereafter was that arrest order that you issued later revoked and the prisoner released by Dr. Ferber?
THE PRESIDENT: Just answer the question.
A. No, the defendant was not released by Ferber, but the prosecution suspended the case because the defense had shown that the defendant had been with the armed forces for some time and therefore had not been properly informed about matters concerning tho Polish problem. The prosecution then, under Article 126 of the Code of Procedure, made an application; and as to that application, I have already said that it forces the judge to revoke the warrant.
So as to leave no doubt about his competency, I remember that, in the files, Ferber expressly incorporated Article 126 in his order. BY HR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Now, Dr. Rothaug, after Ferber, by his order, revoked your arrest warrant based on the fact of a speech from the pulpit made by Father Schesser thirteen months before?
THE PRESIDENT: That question can be answered yes or no.
THE WITNESS: In the further course of the proceedings I issued the new warrant
THE PRESIDENT: Will you answer the question yes or no?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, the prosecution offers the two arrest warrants signed by the defendant Rothaug, the release order signed by the witness Ferber, and the facts for each arrest warrant as contained in the Special Court files, which is document NG-1808, as Prosecution Exhibit 557.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. In connection with this matter of arrest warrants issued by the President of tho Nurnberg Special Court for his deputies, you have frequently repeated here, Dr. Rothaug, that on your own initiative you could not under take prosecution or ask anybody else to institute proceedings, but that your work in that respect always depended upon tho prosecution. I ask you how you explain Article 125 of the German Code of the Criminal Procedure, which I am sure is known to you and which reads as follows:
"In case of emergency the President of the Special Court can have issued a warrant of arrest on his own initiative without any motion of the prosecution."
Is that compatible with your view of your own initiative in that matter?
A. This is what happens. Before the indictment is filed, the investigating judge, on his own initiative--that is, without the prosecution having made an application-can issue a warrant for arrest if there is any danger. That provision is the basis for all so-called arrest warrants in the big cities. People who are arrested by the police, for the sake of simplicity, are frequently brought before the investigating judge so that he may issue an arrest warrant and not under that provision, but under the competency ordinance.
I believe it is Article 22, but I don't know that by heart. It was under that provision that, instead of the investigating magistrate, it was the presiding judge of the Special Court who could also make that decision. However, as far as I know, such cases did not occur actually. What happened was always that tho prosecutor made the application with us. That was not compatible with our usual procedure.
THE PRESIDENT: Our recess time has arrived. We will recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (for the defendant Dr. Rothenberger): May it please the Court, as concerns the absence of the defendant Dr. Rothenberger from the session today, I just got in touch with the prison officer and asked him for the reasons. He did not give me any further explanation but to say that Dr. Rothenberger was ill -- probably for a period of two weeks -- but he could not at this time give any further information; he would be able to do so in a few days. Therefore, I ask that Dr. Rothenberger be excused from the sessions until further information and that I be permitted to postpone the submission of documents, which was intended, until he is well again, because under these circumstances I certainly would not like to submit any evidence in his absence.
THE PRESIDENT: The request of counsel for Dr. Rothenberger that he be excused will be allowed temporarily and provisionally only until such time as the Tribunal is informed as to the cause of his absence, and we will not prejudge the matter as to whether he should, be excused at this time, nor will we make any order with reference to the time at which you should proceed with the case in his favor.
DR. WANDSCHEIDER: Yes, and I will be able to do that at any time, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: We will expect a report as to the cause of his absence at the earliest possible moment.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q: Dr. Rothaug, in connection with the Nazi confiscatio of Jewish property by forced sale, which was described, here at some length during your direct testimony, did you aid or abet such activity in your capacity either as a judge in Nurnberg or a prosecutor in Berlin?
A: No.
Q: Don't you remember a very short time ago really -- in March of 1945, your going from Berlin to Landshut to initiate the People's Court prosecution of one, Baron von Opennheim, for daring to file legal protest against the forced sale of his castle to the local Gauleiter? Don't you remember that?
A: I remember that case, but I do not remember that event which is put to me here. I had nothing to do with it. But as far as I was concerned, it was all only because it was alleged that statements were made in the nature of undermining of military strength by that man.
Q: I hand you a paper, Dr. Rothaug.
(Witness is offered a paper).
Does it appear that that paper is a letter written to the Palace of Justice, Nurnberg, on 24 July 1947, and signed: Baron von Oppenheim?
A: Yes, that is correct.
Q: Does the letter read -- halfway down the page -the following, and I am quoting:
"By taking advantage of my forced, position, the Gauleiter Ritter von Epp, bought my castle on 1 December 1944. Beginning 1 March 1945 I filed protest against the bill of sale and obtained a temporary decision."
Skipping to the next paragraph:
"On 23 March 1945, the former Chief Reich Prosecutor Rothaug of Berlin, appeared at the District Court prison Landshut, had me summoned, and stated as follows: 'I want to see what such a Jewish bastard looks like who dares in his present condition, to ask for a temporary decision against the Gauleiter von Epp. Your wagon will be fixed very soon, and in fact in the very next weeks!"
Do you remember that, Dr. Rothaug?
A: I remember that.
DR. KOESSL: One moment, witness. May it please the Court, I want to state that I myself, do not know the nature of the letter is that has just been put to question. I assume it's just a letter and not an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: It's not been offered in evidence. This is cross examination. It's not necessary that you know what it is at this time. The witness may answer.
THE WITNESS: I have to state that the affair, such as it is described here, is absolutely incorrect and untrue. One has to take into consideration that the sale of that estate Ast has no connection whatever with Aryanizations. Moreover, the following was the case: Baron von Oppenheim had sold his Studdary to the Waffen-SS for breeding purposes and for purposes of the Waffen-SS. As a compensation for that, he and his brother were permitted to purchase one estate each. He at that time purchased that estate at Ast. Apart from that, he, as far as I know, had a certificate in hand which was signed by hammers, according to which though there was a certain mixture in his descent -- he was supposed to have been half or quarter Jew --should not incur any disadvantages. But I had absolutely nothing to do with that entire matter. It was so that the denouncement against Oppenheim, who had not been arrested by us, was received in Berlin, and because I had serious misgivings whether in consideration of the background of the whole story in connection with the estate, it might have been possible that wrong statements had been made, I went personally to Landshut in order to investigate matters myself and asked to gain a direct impression of the people who had their hands in that affair.
I made extensive investigations, particularly concerning the character of the incriminating witnesses.
After I returned to Berlin, I reported to my superior that I considered the whole affair not clear at all; and that I considered further investigations at Toelz or some other place very necessary in order to examine thoroughly the statements made by the incriminating witnesses. That was where the files were sent to subsequently. My motive in that entire affair, therefore, was quite contrary to what is intended to be put against me here.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, we offer as Exhibit 558, for identification only, the letter just discussed. We will subsequently offer it in affidavit form.
THE PRESIDENT: If it's not in affidavit form, I think it would be advisable for the Secretary to refrain from marking it for identification unless it is in some form which we could recognize.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Very well, Your Honor.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q: Dr. Rothaug, you have repeatedly affirmed here that in your court the defense was never denied access to relevant evidence or witnesses on the defendant's behalf. You have also repeatedly denied that Gauleiter Streicher ever had any influence on Special Court trials which you conducted. I snow you a paper. (Witness is offered a paper). Does it appear at the top of that paper that it is a sworn affidavit by the former attorney-at-law Ludwig of Berlin?
A: The introductory statement is --- and I don't know whether that is in accordance with the rules of the Court;
"I, the former attorney and notary, Fritz Ludwig of Berlin-Wilmersdorf, Siegburgerstrasse 14, born 8 July 1899 at Bad Harzburg, after having been warned that I may become punishable for making false statements, state under oath voluntarily and without compulsion the following:
"And there is a statement.
Q: I believe that is sufficient, Dr. Rothaug. On page 5 of that document, in the second paragraph, does it appear that in a trial over which you presided as President of the Nurnberg Penal Chamber, in which the lawyer Ludwig was defense counsel, that you refused to hear any and all of the defense witnesses he called because permission for them to testify had not yet been granted by Gauleiter Streicher? Docs that appear in the second paragraph of Page 3?
A Page 3? Where is that supposed to begin?
Q In the middle of the second paragraph. Can you explain that?
A Mention is made of Stegmann, Sosnowski -- I had nothing to do with that. That is on page 2.
Q. I am referring to page 3.
A Oh, here it is. The paragraph begins with the words, "In the years 1936-1937 -- " Do you want me to read that?
Q No, I am merely asking you if in the middle of that paragraph it appears that you denied the defense any witnesses because they had not been approved by Gauleiter Streicher? Does that appear here?
A Well, I have to read that first if I am to affirm that. I want to say the following in connection with this. The way the facts are described here does not constitute that in this letter. When that trial had started, I had started to work in Nurnberg hardly four weeks before. I had not the least relations with anybody in the Party, and that case Stegmann, which was not tried by the Special Court but by the Penal Chamber, was conducted by me with an extraordinary care and thoroughness, which was also expressed to me by Ludwig at that time. I remember very well that Ludwig made the attempt, which was considered among attorneys to be somewhat clumsy, with the purpose of giving sufficient reasons from the outset for a revision of the sentence, to submit to me 20 to 30 pages of a motion for evidence containing a long list of names of witnesses. The files were very extensive but I had studied them so carefully that I had sufficient knowledge to be in a position, when I received that motion for evidence with the large number of witnesses, to refuse the witnesses, giving the reasons which satisfied the Reich Supreme Court.
It is of importance in that connection to note that against that sentence by the Penal Chamber, a review was ordered, in fact, that the deadline set for reasons to be given for the review was extended. I remember very precisely today that Ludwig wrote to Stegmann that the opinion together with the transcript were submitted by him to a lawyer in Berlin who had a great deal of experience in that field, but he had to inform Stegmann that unfortunately it was not possible to find the least evidence in the sentence or in the opinion which would justify attacking it for the purpose of review.
As for the witnesses which Ludwig mentioned here as not having been heard because some sort of permission had not been given, I have to say that I had nothing to do with these witnesses and did not have to make any decision about them. If Ludwig at the time believed that he had to have these witnesses, then he should have gotten in touch with the officials who had to make these decisions -- but not I. Moreover, the verdict against Stegmann shows beyond doubt that all of these witnesses could not possibly be of any importance and that the sentence was based on very simple facts, and anything beyond that would just have been the usual political ballyhoo. At any rate, in the case Stegmann, concerning the matter of witnesses, I had nothing at all to do with Streicher. I wish that the files of the Stegmann case be submitted and everything else will be seen from the files.
Q The prosecution offers as Exhibit 558, for identification only, the Ludwig affidavit, which has just been discussed.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the NG number?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We will notify you of that, Your Honor, when it's assigned. The number has not been assigned.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification only at this time.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q. Dr. Rothaug, in connection with your judicial activity in combatting Anti-Semitism, you gratuitously cited the case Deeg. Deeg had been the author of this Anti-Semitism book appearing shortly before the war and had been a protege of Stretcher.
You described your conducting the trial of Deeg as having been given the broadest publicity. I hand you a file.
(Witness is offered the file.)
DR. KOESSL: One moment, please. May it please the Court, I object to these files being used here. They were approved for me on the 8th of July by the Tribunal. The prosecution refused to give me the files, stating as the reason that they didn't have them. Therefore, the witness could only make his statements concerning the case from memory. At any rate, the files were refused to me and the reason stated was that they were not there, although they were approved for me.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, my analyst tells me that this file was found last Thursday afternoon, to his best knowledge and belief In' any event, the case was mentioned on direct testimony and not in the prosecution's case in chief.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may examine the file. Thereafter, his counsel may examine it.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Will you describe, Dr. Rothaug, the way you tried Deeg. You said that he, in his trial, had been given the broadest publicity. I ask you to turn to the reverse side of page 85 in that file -85 on the reverse side. Do you find there a declaration that the public was excluded from that trial with the exception of certain high party officials; for example, Kreisleiter Zimmerman, and Elkar, Chief of the Nurnberg SD? Is that true?
A Yes.
Q Then I assume by Kreisleiter Zimmerman and SD man Elkar, with all the rest of the public excluded, you conceive that to be the broadest publicity of trial, do you?
A Yes, that was an error on my part. That is correct. I see it here, from the decision, that the public was excluded at that time. I had stated that the public was admitted and was present, and based myself -- many years have passed since that case -- on the assumption that we had no reason why Deep or the people around "The Stuermar", in any way, should be protected. In fact, that in itself was not the reason why the public was excluded, but as I remember now after having had a look at the files, we were concerned to protect the interests of the Red Cross as can be seen clearly from the judgment....
Q (Interrupting) Yes, Dr. Rothaug, let's not go over that again. You explained that in detail last week.
I merely asked you if you found the material in the file, and you said that you did. Now.....
A (interrupting) But that was a new element.
Q If that was a new element, Dr. Rothaug, I'm sure your defense counsel can bring it out. Will you please answer my questions.
You further said that Deeg had been sentenced, for fraud, to a considerable prison term of one and a half to two years of prison and that nothing was done later to alter the sentence. Please turn to page 95 and the reverse side of 95 in the file. Do you find there that fraud was not prov en and that Deeg was sentenced to five months of prison, with the deduction of one month of detention and that he was fined 10,000 Reichsmarks of which installments were granted later by way of clemency? Do you find that there?
A Yes.
Q All right, that's all.
Now, with regard to your going to Berlin as a member of the Defendant Lautz' office in the prosecution at the People's Court, you stated that you first took office in Berlin on the 1st of May, 1943, and that, as the defendant Lautz has already stated, you were placed in charge of the prosecution section for high treason.
You further said that your territory was extended to the Altreich, together with Austria. I assume then that you investigated and prepared indictments for the prosecution of Austrians who were charged with high treason against the German Reich. Is that correct?
A Yes, if Austria was part of my department. Yes, if that was so. I can't say that with absolute certainty.
Q Now, on the 19th of August you stated that the foreigners working here in Germany were, to the German state, not in any relationship of loyalty. Moreover, you stated, as far as those foreigners' views were concerned, they came from another world and. were subject to an opposite propaganda. May I ask you if you felt the same way as I have just stated about Austrians? Does that statement of yours about loyalty, in your opinion, apply equally to Austrians?
A The Austrian was a German, and not a foreigner. One also has to take into consideration the period when these cases were pending. As far as we were concerned, at the Special Court, at any rate, it was an accepted principle that all Foreigners, and an Austrian was not a foreigner after Austria had been reincorporated, had to be dealt with more leniently than citizens because that relation of loyalty did not exist and the man came from another world. However, there was no cause to assume that same point of view toward, the Austrian who, if one considered the time of 1943, had already been inside the Reich for five years.
Q May it please the Court, I invite the Tribunal's attention, by way of judicial notice, to pages 16831 and 16832 of the Final Judgment of the International Military Tribunal which finds, in substance, that Austria was added to the Reich pursuant to open acts of aggression?
Now, on the 1st of January, 1944, Dr. Rothaug, you transferred, as you say, to the division in Lautz' office concerned with undermining defensive morale (Wehrkraftzersetzung). You were entrusted with these cases from 1944, in January, until the end of the war.
Did those cases likewise include prosecution of Austrian nationals for undermining the power of the German people to fight?
A Yes.
Q Now, Dr. Rothaug, in discussing the affidavit and testimony of the witness Kern, Exhibit 232. Kern had charged that you rejected notions of the defense for evidence and often relied solely upon Gestapo interrogations pre-trial. You repudiated that, and you denied that, in your court, Gestapo or police reports were used to the exclusion of testimony. I am quoting from your statement the other day when you said that "Only testimony of witnesses and experts was used by the Special Court to support a decision."
I show you a file. Does it appear that that is the official case file of the Nurnberg Special Court involving the defendant Rose Heubeck and her son?
THE PRESIDENT: How do you spell that?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: H E U B E C K, Your Honor.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
A This is the file against Heubeck, yes. That came to us. It has the file mark SG 224/41.
Q Does it appear on the first page that a seventy-year old former nurse denounced Mrs. Heubeck to the Gestapo for having said the following: "That her son, on his arrival at Dachau concentration camp, received twenty--five strokes with a sharpened cudgel at the buttocks so that he had lost blood. Once he had also been hanged on a pole. In the camp yard, a machine gun was placed from which he had received a shot in the leg while passing by. Further, his teeth had been knocked out. Frequently, he had received so hard blows that he had lost blood and his whole body had been bruised.
That the two hundred Jews, located, in the Camp, had to stand in the open in great cold until their feet had turned rotten."?
A Yes, yes, that is so.
Q Does it further appear, on page 13v, that, before indicting the mother and her son for spreading this story, that the prosecutor a.t the Nurnberg Special Court requested the Gestapo to secure more evidence on this matter?
A Yes, there is an order to the Secret State Police, the Gestapo, of the 23rd of May, 1941, to the effect: "Since, for the conviction of the defendant, the proof of the incorrectness of these statements is required, I ask for thorough investigations concerning the question as to whether the statements made by the defendant are untrue."
Q And does it further appear from that, Dr. Rothaug, that, aside from an interrogation of the boy Heubeck in Mauthausen concentration camp by the Gestapo, that, up until the time that this prosecutor made that request, there was no other evidence?
A No. What I have here, on page 14, says that the Gestapo had transferred, the files to the management of the concentration camp Dachau for the purpose of receiving a report from there, and on 16 June 1941 it is reported that the statements made by Keubeck are untrue as far as they concerned the concentration camp of Dachau and that was proved by the statements he had made during the interrogation in Mauthausen. Now, the files are passed on to the concentration camp Mauthausen on the 16th of June 1941.
Q Yes. Now, Dr. Rothaug, on that 16th of June, 1941, the statement you just read to the effect that the boy's allegations were untrue about camp conditions because they were proven otherwise by his interrogation at Mauthausen, it appears therefrom that there was no other evidence in the case thus far, doesn't it?
A Yes, on the 21st of June, 1941, the statement is made, as we see here:
"My interrogation on the 17th of June 1941 is according to the truth of the statements made during that interrogation, and I stand today to the statements which I have made. Neither today, nor at the time I was first interrogated, I was put under any duress and I have said everything which I said according to the truth and on my own free will."
Q And that interrogation was made by the Gestapo, is that correct?
A Yes, that was carried out by the Gestapo because it says here: "Krininaloderassistent (Senior Criminal Inspector) Lauenstein."
Q Now, Dr. Rothaug, on the back side of page 15 of the file do you find an answering letter to the prosecution at the Nurnberg Special Count from the concentration camp Dachau, dated 5 July 1941?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A There is a communication of the 5th of July, 1941.
Q What does it say?
AAnd it says that "the files were returned to the Gestapo at Nurnberg as Heubeck says himself that during the first stay in this camp he was punished for violating the rules of the camp and he was punished twice. Further statements about mistreatments are untrue. Such ill treatments did not occur in this camp."
Q Does it appear, on page 60 to 62, that you, as presiding judge, convicted this woman and sentenced her to two years' imprisonment?
A On what Page is that supposed to be found?
Q 60 to 62.
A I want to state that not I was the presiding judge in that case, but Director of the District Court Oeschey, on the 24th........
Q (Interrupting) On the 26th of January, 1942, on page 62........
A (interrupting) That is a transcript of the 24th of September, 1941. A session took place then which ended with the sentencing of Heubeck, George. There is a sentence here and an opinion and you wanted to refer to another........
Q (interrupting) Which one did you sentence? The son or the mother?
A That's what I'm looking for. Maybe you could tell me the page again. Oh, yes, here it is, here it is. That is the second sentence on the 26th of January, 1942, when I was presiding judge, and that was two years in prison.
Q Now, can you show or find anything in that file, other than the self-serving letter from Dachau concentration camp and the Gestapo interrogation, which contradicts the truth of the brutalities alleged by the defendant and his mother?
A Well, without studying that file carefully, today, years after the affair, I could not answer that so easily. That is quite impossible.
Q Do you find, on page 65, twelfth line from the bottom, the following excerpt from your opinion: "With her tales, the defendant stated Court No, III, Case No. 3.untrue facts.
She wanted, with them, to impair the concentration camp as an institution of the National Socialist Reich by stating then would be carried out cruel and sadistic maltreatments."? Do you find that sentence in there?
A "With her tales the defendant made untrue statements of facts."
Q Yes, I see you find that there apparently. Now, so far as you remember, was any evidence introduced to convict that woman or her sen ether than the Gestapo interrogation and the letter from the commandant at the concentration camp?
A You are overlooking that the case against the son had been before that, and that the findings of that case against the son, of course, could be and were permitted to be taken into consideration in this case.
Q Did you think, at the time, that the case against the son was founded on any more evidence than we have just described?
A I am telling you that the case against the son had been before this case and that it was possible to come to these conclusions. I don't know what the son stated in the previous case. Maybe he admitted that his first statements were wrong. Then, I don't have to put any weight on the Gestapo report in matters of that kind. Quite apart from that - but that is only a theoretical statement on my part by which I do not want to state anything by way of facts - these camp commands were considered establishments of the state from which information could be received just as one would make inquiries to the personnel administration or the ........
Q (Interrupting) May I ask you a hypothetical question? If you assume that you are trying a man for making malicious remarks about the state and Party and for having spread stories of how he was mistreated in a concentration camp, if you were trying such a man, would you consider it competent evidence alone to convict him that the camp commander had told you, by letter, that no abuses occurred in his camp?
A In general, and that, I believe, is what really counts, we that is, the people in our sphere of work - never even thought it possible Court No. III, Cese No. 3.that, in these camps, sadistic acts or tortures were carried out.