A No. That is the same tiling with that name. I cannot remember that name. I can't recall it. I don't know what sort of a case that was.
Q All right; did you ever hear of the case Machalski?
A Kelski?
Q Machalski: M-A-C-H-A-L-S-K-I?
A Maybe, but I don't know.
Q Did you ever hear of the case Magritai?
A No, I haven't. No, I can't recall that name.
Q Did you ever hear of the case Goudy: G-O-U-D-Y?
A No. That is the same thing again: no.
Q Did you ever hear of the case Cabor: C-A-B-O-R?
A No. I don't know that name either. Maybe I heard of it and maybe I didn't but I don't recall the name.
Q Did you ever hear of the case of a Pole, Cisalski: C-I-S-A-L-S-K-I?
A I can't recall that name either.
Q Now on the question of the Law Against Poles and Jews, I would like for you to assume with me the existence of certain facts, which I will state to you. Assume that a Polish man, approximately 19, had sexual intercourse with a German woman over 16 years of age; and assume that this Pole was tried by the Special Court Stuttgart and sentenced to death. Now I ask you, assuming those facts, to tell me under what law--criminal law -- that sentence could have been given in the year 1942 in Germany at Stuttgart?
AAssuming those facts, it is possible -- well, that case could only be sentenced under the Law against Poles.
Q And assuming that instead of a death sentence, a prison term of either 8 or 10 years had been given to the same man, under what criminal law in the same year would that sentence have been valid?
A That too only under that law-- the Law Against Poles.
Q Do you remember in the Stiegler case whether or not the whole profit was 700 Reichsmarks?
A No. I cannot remember those details. I was not the judge in charge of reporting.
Q May I ask you, during the time that the defendant Cuhorst sat in the Special Court and the Criminal Senate of the Court of Appeals Stuttgart, No. 1, did or did he not set all the trial dates and appoint the judges in each case?
A Yes. Cuhorst received all the cases that came in and he set all the dates for the trials accordingly. He decided the time, the place, the court, the judge in charge of reporting, and the associate judges.
Q And he did that also for trials in Stuttgart when he was away too on trips, did he not, in advance?
A Concerning official trips, oh, yes, Cuhorst also set the time for the trials for those cases. Yes, he did.
Q And he then had the power to appoint himself as the presiding judge in any case that he chose to preside over?
A Cuhorst, as the presiding judge of the Special Court, had the right to decide who was to be the presiding judge and to appoint himself to be the presiding judge.
Q Did you act as a judge in Poland during the war, and if so, what years?
A In 1941.
Q I will ask you whether or not during the time that you sat as presiding judge in Poland that you sentenced six Jews to death in Warsaw for leaving the Ghetto?
A Yes, I did.
Q That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: In what court were you sitting at the time?
THE WITNESS: That was at the Special Court in Warsaw. May I add a little to that? May I make a few remarks in addition to that?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may.
THE WITNESS: I wanted to point out that death sentence had to be pronounced on account of a mandatory law which did not allow any extenuating circumstances. May I also point out that law was passed, as we were told at the time, so as to stop the spreading of typhus in the town of Warsaw.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you recall the date of enactment or the title of that law?
THE WITNESS: That was in October, 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean that the law was passed then?
THE WITNESS: In the year 1941
THE PRESIDENT: You don't have the citation to that law, or the title of it?
THE WITNESS: No, I can't tell that with accuracy. The point was that one wanted to prevent typhus from spreading in the town of Warsaw.
THE PRESIDENT: I'm just asking you if you can identify the statute under which you acted.
THE WITNESS: It must have been dated October, 1941, but I don't remember the title of the law.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, that's all.
BY DR. KUBUSCHOK (Defense Counsel for defendant Schlegelberger)
Q Concerning the last question which the prosecution asked you, witness, I would like to ask you this in supplementation. Was that law, a law in the Government General and had it been promulgated by the Governor General at Krakau and did that law, by any chance, have nothing to do with the law issued by the Reich Ministry of Justice? Was it a law enacted by the Governor General which was only enforced there?
A It was a law enacted by the Governor General and was only valid for the Government General.
Q And another question. Was there, in the law against Poles, any provision which said that sexual intercourse between a Pole and a German or vice versa was punishable?
A I don't know.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor, for the reason that it calls for an opinion of the witness as to the construction of a statute.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he said he didn't know.
Your answer was that you didn't know, wasn't it?
THE WITNESS: I don't recall that.
THE PRESIDENT: Redirect examination.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is executed.
DR. BRIEGER: May I now call my next witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
(DR. JUR. MAX STUBER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:)
JUDGE HARDING: Raise your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
You may be seated.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the court, may I beg to examine my witness for the defendant Cuhorst? His name is Dr. Stuber.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BRIEGER (Defense Counsel for defendant Cuhorst):
Q Witness, please tell the court your full name.
A Dr. jur. Max Stuber.
Q And when and where were you born?
A I was born on the 16th of August, 1891 at Lautheim, Kreisbiberach.
Q Are you a free man? What is your address?
A Yes, I'm a free man and my address is Stuttgart S, Hohenheimerstrasse 52.
Q Now, I want to ask you, for how long were you with the penal senate at the district court of appeal?
A It was at the beginning of 1937 - in fact, it was on the 1st of February, 1937 - that I was assigned to work with the district court of appeals. Then I was assigned to work at the penal senate.
Q For how long did you work at the special court at Stuttgart as a judge?
A I think it was at the end of 1939, it may have been at the beginning of 1940, when I was also assigned for work in a secondary senate as a judge at the special court.
Q Were you a member of the Nazi Party and since when?
A Since the 1st of May 1933 I was a member of the Nazi Party.
Q Did Herr Cuhorst try to exert any political influence on the judges who worked with him?
AAccording to my experience, never. He never tried with me and I never heard of him trying it with other people.
Q Did he try to make any judges join the Party?
A No, he didn't. I do not know anything about it.
Q Was the special court an independent court from the point of view of organization?
A The special court Stuttgart was set up with the district court of Stuttgart. It was a division of the district court just as the penal chamber and the civil chamber.
Q Did the special court deal more with general criminal cases or did it deal more with political criminal cases?
A To begin with, at the time when I was not yet with the special court, I think mainly political cases were dealt with and, later on, as the war progressed, the special court more and more took over the dealing with general cases and therefore political cases were no longer in the majority.
Q Was it like this -- that since the outbreak of war, dealing with political cases took over secondary importance?
A Yes, according to my experience, that was so.
Q Did the jurisdiction of the penal senate become more stringent or milder with the appointment of Herr Cuhorst as presiding judge of the penal senate?
A Well, before Herr Cuhorst was the presiding judge of the penal chamber, generally speaking, the penal senate dealt, in the first instance, only with the preparation of cases of high treason. If I am to make a comparison with cases were the circumstances were more or less similar, I am bound to say that since the time when Cuhorst became presiding judge, jurisdiction in cases of that type definitely became milder than it had been before.
Q Were you in a position to make observations concerning the jurisdiction of the first penal senate under Cuhorst and the second senate?
A Yes.
Q Please tell us something about that.
AApproximately at the middle of 1943 - I can't tell you the exact date--I began to work for the second penal senate too and at the very first sessions there and as long as I worked there I found that the second penal senate, in cases of undermining military morale - and those were the cases which the second senate tried mainly - it didn't deal with any cases of preparation of cases for high treason - in those cases the sentences of the second senate were much more severe than the sentences of the first penal senate. The second penal senate adhered more to the severe jurisdiction.
Q Can you give us a few examples?
A It is difficult to name any examples because there were so many cases. All I can say is that I was opposed to those severe sentences, particularly in cases of underlining military morale. I was opposed to sentences to that severe extent. At the first session I attended, I found that at the second penal senate, facts which were more serious than they had been in the cases with which I had dealt at the special court - sometimes when I was presiding judge or sometimes when somebody else was presiding judge - I found in such cases that the second senate assumed that it was a case of undermining military morale when, with the same facts, the special court had assumed that it was only an offense under the malicious acts law.
THE PRESIDENT: At the special court, you mean?
THE WITNESS: No, I was speaking of the penal senate.
THE PRESIDENT: You were comparing the severity of the second senate of the district court of appeals, were you not; with what court? You were comparing the second senate of the court of appeals with what other court? Were you comparing it with the........
THE WITNESS: With the first penal senate and also with the special court, to a certain extent because the borderline between undermining military morale and the malicious acts law was very vague, and there were some cases which could been regarded as undermining military morale and the special court sometimes regarded those as if they had been malicious acts. Some were indicted with the special court and sometimes with the district court of appeals with the penal senate there.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q May I assume that you are familiar with the decree of the Reich Ministry of Justice of the 5th of July 1944 which was addressed to the District Court of Appeals at Stuttgart?
A Yes. We judges received that decree at the time. I believe that I received it from the president of the district court of appeals. It was circulated. I read it and, to me, it seemed that was a very important document. I immediately had several copies made and I kept various copies in different places and saved the decree from destruction by putting these copies in different places. Later on, I gave a copy of that decree to one of my colleagues just before the American troops arrived in Stuttgart.
Q What effect did that decree have on the judges concerned at Stuttgart? What effect did it have on them in general and particularly on Cuhorst?
A Well, I told myself "It's just another decree from Berlin and Berlin, of course, is not satisfied with the sentences we have passed on cases of undermining military morale.
The First penal senate is too mild." I personally didn't waste any time on it. I didn't worry about it. I already knew the opinion of people in Berlin. It didn't make much impression on me personally. It was just another decree. I thought definitely that the first penal senate and my work was being criticized and were being criticized pretty sharply.
Q If, in this decree, the jurisdiction of the first penal senate was criticized as being much too mild, was that right, in particular if I refer to your earlier statements?
A Yes, the sentences passed by the first penal senate were mild. The first penal senate always, whenever possible, whenever the facts allowed it, tried not to assume that undermining of military morale had been committed but tried to assume the milder case - tried to apply other laws and, paragraph 134-A, if possible, tried to acquit people.
Q That is enough for me on that point.
Did Cuhorst, during the last few years of the war at Stuttgart preside on Saturdays?
A I can't say with absolute certainty but, as far as I know, during the last few years of the war, Cuhorst on Saturdays, as a rule, went for the weekend to Habrecht House where his wife and child were, and as far as I remember, did not much try cases on Saturday. Perhaps he didn't try any cases on Saturday. I can't tell you for certain.
Q What is the distance from Cuhorst's office to the judges' chamber at the special court?
A I must just try and estimate.
Q Just tell us how many steps?
A Well, I think it is a rough estimate in 1945......
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you please, shorten up your answers. Give us an estimate in feet or miles and then stop.
THE WITNESS: Well, I estimate about fifteen to twenty meters, but the distance might have been shorter. I really can't tell you for certain. Maybe it was more than twenty meters.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have answered sufficiently.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Was it a habit with Cuhorst to talk to third persons on the way from one room to another, and did he ever have discussions about people? In particular, did he ever talk loudly about pending cases or sentences he intended to pass?
A. I didn't quite understand your question.
Q. Well, I'll split up the question.
On that way, was it Cuhorst' habit to discuss official matters with other judges or public prosecutors?
A. I can't really answer that question and the reason is that quite seldom, I hardly ever walked that distance with Cuhorst because my office was in a quite different part of the building.
THE PRESIDENT: That is sufficient.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Did you have any opportunity to notice whether Cuhorst talked to other people on that way or whether he talked about official matters?
A. I didn't hear it. Therefore, I cannot tell you.
Q. Was it a habit with Cuhorst to discuss such matters in the lavoratory?
A. That I can't state, either.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't know because you weren't always with him in the lavatory, were you, and, therefore, you don't know? Isn't that your answer?
THE WITNESS: No, I never was. I really can't tell you that. I just can't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course not. That's all.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Do you know of a case where the police within the area of the district court of appeals of Stuttgart concerning a defendant who had been indicted before the special court --- that they said that the person who had been acquitted would be shot or otherwise killed?
A. No.
Q. Would you tell us something about the case of Louisa Toni, please?
A. I was the reporting judge in that case. The case was tried before the special court and was tried at Friederichshafen. Louisa Toni was a young girl. She was somewhere between twenty-one and twentyfive. She was an Italian girl and she was charged with plundering. The facts which came out at the trial, as far as I remember .... Of course, I can only tell you from my recollection because, unfortunately, all my documents have been lost during the air-raids. Well, it was like this. Louisa Toni at Friedrichshafen had lived in a girls hostel. During the air raid, the girls' hostel and several other houses around it, among them a shop, were damaged. Some residential houses were also damaged. Houses were set afire and Louisa Toni helped in the rescue work and she worked pretty hard. While still engaged in that work, however, she had made up her mind to take a few things which she needed. I can't remember now whether her own things had been lost luring that attack or whether she simply expected to lose them during that air raid. At any rate, while she was working there, salvaging these things, she had already made this plan and, in fact, she carried it out. All the houses were afire and immediately after the alarm, or perhaps it was during a lull. During that lull, people had put the things removed from the houses in a garden opposite. Louisa Toni, during that time -that is to say, on the very same night and without any reason, took a few things from the garden. I don't really know what things they were, and she put them in a house next door.
I don't know whether the things were from this shop. One of the things she had taken was a trunk, and in that trunk, were clothes, underclothes, some of the things belonged to the girls who had been living in the girls' hostel and some of them were clothes. Well, I don't remember whether they were clothes at all. Some were just pieces of fabric. They may have come from that shop, some of the clothes belonged to other people. She put all these clothes, to whomever they belonged, into a trunk and wrapped some paper around which showed the white-green red Italian flag on it. She put it on the trunk to show it was her's. And she put the trunk ready in a certain place to carry it off with her the next morning. Those were the facts of the case. There was no doubt that they were the facts. Next morning when the refugees and those damaged by the air raid were moved off, she took that trunk with her. Ravensbruck, as a fact. That's where it was found later on. The question was, did the defendant, in the circumstances such as they were, did she commit a crime, or didn't she? When I examined the files, it was my view that girl who was still very young and still inexperienced, after the way she had at first helped in the rescue work, I came to the conclusion that the death sentence was very severe, and for cases of plundering, the mandatory sentence was death. Then I examined the jurisdiction of the Reich Supreme Court because I wanted to find out whether there was some way of getting around the death sentence. And after I had examined all the sentences and practices of the Reich Supreme Court, unfortunately I did not see any possibility to get out of that and, as far as the facts were concerned and as far as the jurisdiction of the days were concerned, I believe I examined the documents carefully.
Q. Please talk a little more loudly. Nobody can hear.
A. I didn't find any decisions by the Reich Supreme Court that gave me any possibility of getting out of the death sentence. As the facts were found out at the trial, the court was unable to find that any other fact existed but plundering, and therefore the law compelled me to pass the death sentence, but as the punishment seemed too hard for me, I, being, the reporting judge, immediately suggested that although we were compelled under law to pass the death sentence, that was too severe and that, therefore, we were bound officially to make a clemency plea.
Herr Cuhorst, as the presiding judge, and the other associate judge were immediately in agreement with me and he asked me to draft the clemency plea. I did that. In that clemency plea I stated why we thought the death sentence, which was mandatory too severe and, in other words, officially I suggested a clemency plea. I can no longer recall the text of that clemency plea.
Q. Do you know anything about the outcome of that clemency plea?
A. When the clemency plea had been made I heard no more about the matter. Nor did I ever see the clemency files and, therefore, I cannot say what was the outcome of it all, but I believe that clemency was granted. Anyhow, as far as I know, she was not executed.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question, please? Your study of the case was after the indictment had been filed, was it?
THE WITNESS: I didn't quite understand your first question. Would you mind repeating?
THE PRESIDENT: Was your study of the case made after the indictment was filed?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor. In the indictment the charge was plundering.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Did you play any part in the trial of a young Dutchman at Waldshut? Was that a case that was tried by the special court or by the Senate? Please tell us something about it.
A. I did work on a case before the senate, but it was not the case of one Dutchman but it was the case of twelve Dutchmen. They were young Dutchmen who were indicted by the general public prosecutor and, as far as I remember, the charge was under Article 91B, for sabotage and aiding and abetting the enemy, and also for crimes under the law for the protection of the armed forces.
I can tell you about it only from my memory. The Dutchmen were housed at a camp near Waldshut. They were fairly young people. In fact, I think there were students among them and I think, generally, they were between twenty and thirty years of age. As far as I remember, they had come to Germany because a labor exchange -- I don't know whether it was a German labor exchange or a Dutch labor exchange in the place where they lived -- asked them to apply voluntarily for work in Germany and they did apply. That was how they came to Waldshut and they were accommodated in a camp.
and one night, -- I don't remember for certain what night it was-those young men --- I must emphasize that they confessed their crime afterwards --- one night they came to an understanding that one night they would blow up the power plant where they worked. They decided they would throw the machinery of that plant into the Rhine and before doing so they were going to over power the other staff.
Somebody or other overheard their talk -- I don't remember who it was -- and anyhow later on the defendants confessed and the case looked so serious that we had to ask ourselves what are we going to do in this case? On the other hand, these young men made a very good impression and they did confess to their crime.
During the whole of the trial I was thinking the matter over and I was wondering how and whether one could help them and then I had the idea that perhaps one could help them by leaving the question open whether these young people actually were serious with that plan of theirs and other people shared my view and Cuhorst shared my view and Cuhorst suggested that one should have an inspection on the spot where the crime was to be committed to see whether, according to the local conditions, it would have been possible at all to carry out the plan. The court decided to make an inspection and it did make an inspection and as a result of that inspection and as a result of all our further negotiations, we were able to gain the conviction that act wasn't meant seriously and anyhow that was how it came to an acquittal. I can remember that one of the defendant's, further, some time later wrote to Amtsgerichtsrat Krebs, who was the prosecutor in the case-told him in a letter that he thanked him very much for the tolerance and for the mild treatment he had meted out to his son during the war.
Q. The setting of the inspection on the spot, was that due merely to the initiative of Cuhorst or was there an obligation under the law for cause to do so?
A. There was no obligation under the law, as far as I remember. It was Cuhorst's own initiative at which that inspection was undertaken.
DR. BRIEGER: Thank you. That is all I want to know about this case. For the information of the Tribunal, this was Case 38 on the Cuhorst list.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witness, did you play any part in the conviction of the people who were involved in the so-called Penitentiary revolt? I am referring to the Mattes Case.
Please describe that case.
A. That Mattes Case, well, the last phase of that case I was the reporting judge. This case too I can only describe from my memory, and I have to go back to the very beginning of the case. The defendant Woessner had been in Schramberg and in Wuerrtemberg before 1933 a Communist member of the Paris council. After 1933, after the seizure of power, as far as I remember he was temporarily in protective custody. He was released from protective custody after having made the usual loyalty statement in which he promised that he would not commit any illicit acts and that he would be loyal towards the National Socialist State.
For several years in Schramberg and surroundings he set up Communist cells. He did engage in illegal Communist activities and I think he also distributed pamphlets. He had something to do with the seeing of courriers of or seeing other functionaries or something with meetings. Anyway, that went on for years and he was indicted. As far as I remember, he was indicted in 1937 or 1938 and the indictment was for preparation for high treason and he was sentenced to a penitentiary term which was moderate at that time. I think it was something between three and four years, but I can't tell you for certain because I don't have the files now. I have no documentary evidence nor do I remember exactly whether, in that first case, it was Cuhorst who was the presiding judge and whether I was the reporting judge. It is just possible that that first offense I simply know from memory because later on I dealt with the files of that case.
When Woessner had finished his term in the penitentiary, I believe at the beginning of 1940, that is, during the war, he was discharged. Probably there was a clemency plea made too, but I don't remember that for certain. At any rate, I think that his conduct was good in the penitentiary . Anyhow, it is striking that at the beginning of the war anyway, while the war was still on at all, he was discharged. He had hardly been discharged when Woessner again engaged in illegal Communistic activities in Schronberg.
As for details of the second offense, I just don't remember them; but I believe that again he held conversations -- I think he again set up cells, Communistic cells and distributed pamphlets. At any rate, he was again indicted for preparation for high treason and he came before the first penal senate. And now I think I can remember for certain that Cuhorst was the presiding judge and I was the report judge.
At that trial naturally the defendant Woessner was asked how it happened that he had done it as, after all, he knew perfectly well that under the law high treason was very severely punished. Furthermore, he had only just been discharged from prison. How was it that immediately after his discharge he again started to engage in Communistic illegal activities? I remember for certain that he told us that it happened like this. While he was in a penitentiary for the first time, he had decided quite definitely that never again he would engage in illegal activities. Again and again he told us that during those three or four years in the penitentiary he had only read National socialist Books and in particular Hitler's "Mein Kampf." He had read that from the first to the last page, in fact. He had realized that the teachings of Communism were erroneous and he had come to a stage where he had repudiated those theories completely. He would never again have become involved in Communist activities, unless a former acquaintance, a Communist, had run into him and had given him a pamphlet of some kind or other, and that was how he had become involved in this whole thing again.
How he had become involved I can't tell you for certain. I don't remember.
So as not to be held in contempt by his former acquaintance he again allowed himself to become involved in these matters and that was how he got into it all for a second time and how he was caught again; but he told us that he would never again engage in Communist activity and he promised he never would. And when -- I think it was presiding Judge Cuhorst -- when he asked him what he thought would happen to him if he continued in this way --
THE PRESIDENT: I wish that you could just give us the essence of these cases instead of telling what he said and somebody else said. We are not concerned with what Cuhorst asked him about what he would do if he got out. Make your statements short and concise and cover the facts without so much useless detail.
DR. BRIEGER: I would ask your indulgence for making these detailed questions and for standing up so close to this witness, but that is the only way he will understand me. I am now coming to Case 21 on the Cuhorst list.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witness, what were the previous convictions of Woessner? Do you remember his previous convictions?
A. He had previous convictions of three to four years in the penitentiary for his first offense and for the second offense he was only sentenced to two years in the penitentiary.
Q. If I understand you correctly, both were sentenced together?
A. No, no.
Q. Was it the second or the third offense of Woessner?
A. No, no. In the meantime, just to tell you quite briefly, that was the Mattes Case. Mattes was a Communist functionary who, in Belgium until his arrest, had been involved very seriously in Communist activities until he was arrested after the German troops arrived in Belgium.
He had committed all the facts that make up Paragraph 83, Section 3 of the Criminal Code and he was sentenced to five years in the penitentiary for preparation for high treason and now those two were sent to the penitentiary at Ludwigsburg and there immediately they made contact and all over again at the penitentiary Communist cells were set up. They engaged in Communist activities. They talked to the other Communists and the two, after they had established these cells, also wrote out a pamphlet on account of the fact that at that time Russia had entered into the war. He pinched some paper and he wrote a statement on that paper. I don't know exactly what he said in that statement. I don't know any details but he did say on that bit of paper that now that Russia had entered the war, there was going to be a turn in the history of the war. Germany would collapse and he said that the victory of Bolshevism was now a sure thing and that with that victory Communism for which he was longing, Communism would come and there would be a revolution and there would be a dictatorship of the Proletariat and that would be so not only in Germany but all over Europe and that would eventually mean all over the world.
That pamphlet he passed on to Mattes intending him to pass it on to the other Communists and also to other prisoners, another prisoner saw Woessner passing that pamphlet, or rather giving that pamphlet to Mattes and Mattes, on his part, saw that other prisoners had observed them too and that was why he did not have the courage to pass on that pamphlet.
Therefore, he immediately went to the lavatory. That was where he went with the text of the pamphlet and then he threw it down the lavatory and he pulled the chain and he hoped it would go down with the water, but it didn't happen. The other prisoner who noticed him receiving that pamphlet immediately after him entered the lavatory and there in the water found the bits of paper. He immediately informed the chief warden of the prison and that was how the whole thing was found out.
The two defendants not together --- separately -- the cases were heard separately because different questions were going to be asked of the two people -- now for the third time they came before the Penal Senate. Woessner denied everything. He put other co-defendants under suspicion and Mattes, as a witness, lied and denied although the facts were proved beyond all doubt, and he also maligned other prisoners and he did so in such a way that really it was nasty. Really it was nasty the way he cast suspicion on others.