THE PRESIDENT: That is Document 29? You say it is an affidavit for the purpose of correcting a previous affidavit? I don't understand. If Counsel Aschenauer took the affidavit, I presume he can fill in a certificate if it was taken before.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is not a sufficient preamble, your Honor. That is what we are objecting to.
THE PRESIDENT: In its present from it is not admissible under the rule.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I shall introduce this affidavit later on, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT; We will reserve the Exhibit No. 32 for it.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 30; I am offering as Exhibit No. 33.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 31 I offer as Exhibit No. 34.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I withdraw 32. I moan Peterson Document No. 32 is the one I am withdrawing. That brings me to Petersen Document No. 33 which I offer as Exhibit No. 36.
THE PRESIDENT: It would be 35; would it not?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, yes; it's 35.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 34 becomes Exhibit 36.
THE PRESIDENT: It's received. We anticipate the receipt of the next exhibit which we trust has no relation to the fairy tales by the same author.
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, no. This one deals with an explanation of the term "extermination". (Ausmerzen). No. 35.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document 36 as Exhibit 38.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I do not intend to introduce Document No. 37.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. You offered Document 36 as Exhibit 38; did you not?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes; your Honor.
TIE PRESIDENT: And you're not offering 37?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Peterson Document 37 I am not offering. Petersen Document No. 38 I offer as Exhibit 40.
THE PRESIDENT: 39.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object to 39. I object to 39 for the reason it does not consist of any evidence that is relevant or pertinent to any issue in this case. It refers to a visit of Lord Londonderry to Germaty.
It has to do with the internal condition of Germany as Lord Londonderry viewed it. I cannot see that it's pertinent to this case. I may take this occasion to say that I shall come to the microphone and make similar objections to the next seven or eight documents.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I should like to give my reasons. It deals width the legality of the German state from the point of view of the lay judge, and he laid doom a subjective view of the document. The lay judge could not know that there had been continuous sessions, continuous legal negotiations, international congresses, etc., concerning law, international university congresses; and from all that, he could not realize that any illegal activities were going on at that period, that the legality of the State could be doubted.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, the Prosecution has not charged that the illegality of the State per se was involved. It is the acts under which the Defendant Petersen judged and the procedure by which he judged which are the issue. The fact that Lord Lendonderry appeared and said "One must recognize that Hitler is doing his utmost to regain for a great country with a population of sixty-five millions a place in the world" -- we can see has no relevance will the issue in this case even under the theory of Behl.
DR. ASCHENAUER: May I point out that the interrogation of Behl has shown the contrary.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal cannot pass upon the probative value of documents which it has net examined. If you will state the exhibits to which you make objection on the ground that they have no probative value the Tribunal will examine them and pass upon their admissability.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, if they have no probative value we will disregard them. In any event, whether they are received in evidence or not it's a purely technical matter. We cannot pass upon them on the basis of Counsel's statement as to what is not in them.
Court III Case III You object to 39?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: 38, 39, and 40.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean document?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, your Honor.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I never introduced 37.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: 40, 41.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: 42, 43, 44,45, 47, 48, 49 and 53.
THE PRESIDENT: 48, 49, and 53?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will realize that this objection is of a different nature than the others. It geos to the more question of probative value. We can't pass upon that question until we examine the document.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is quite right, your Honor, but I can't stand here and lot it go by without making any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: We will observe our ruling upon your documents. I think you'd better give them exhibit numbers, if you will. Document 38 was Exhibit 39?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, I think it was 40.
THE PRESIDENT: I think not.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, 38 is Exhibit 39. Document 39 is Exhibit No. 40. Document No. 4O is Exhibit 41. Document No. 41 is Exhibit No. 42. Peterson Document No. 42 is Exhibit No. 43. Peterson Document No. 43 is Exhibit 44. Petersen Document 44 is Exhibit 45. Peterson Document 45 is Exhibit 46. Peterson Document 46 is Exhibit 47.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No objection, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 47 is received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document 47 is Exhibit 48.
THE PRESIDENT: It's Exhibit 45, isn't it?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document 47 is Exhibit 48, your Honor. Document 47 which is Exhibit 48 is received.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 47, Exhibit 48 is right.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document 48 is Exhibit 49. Petersen Document 49 is Exhibit 50. Petersen Document 50 is Exhibit 51.
THE PRESIDENT: That exhibit is received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document 51 is Exhibit 52.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
It will be necessary for us to take our recess at this time.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we received your Document 51 as Exhibit 52.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, your Honor. Document Petersen No. 52 I offer as Exhibit 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 53 I offer as Exhibit 54.
THE PRESIDENT: An objection has been made to that and the ruling is reserved.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 54 I offer as Exhibit No. 55.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I should like to point out that Exhibit No. 54 and 55 belong together, according to their context. Then Peterson Document No. 54 is offered as Exhibit No. 56.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 56 is offered as Exhibit No. 57.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 57 is offered as Exhibit No. 58.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen 58 is offered as Exhibit 59.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Peterson Document No. 59 is offered as Exhibit No. 60.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Peterson Document No. 60 is offered as Exhibit No. 61.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Peterson Document No. 61 is offered as Exhibit No. 62.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen 62 is offered as Exhibit No. 63.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Peterson Document No. 63 is offered as Exhibit No. 64.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Now I come to Document Book No. II. Peterson Document 64 is offered as Exhibit 65.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 65 I offer as Exhibit No. 66.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 66 is offered as Exhibit No. 67.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 67 is offered as Exhibit No. 68.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 69 is offered as Exhibit No. 70.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. The Exhibits are received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: The next few documents I submit for the general defense.
THE PRESIDENT: It is document number what?
DR. ASCHENAUER: The next few, that is, beginning with Document Petersen No. 70, I offer as Exhibit 71.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Peterson No. 71 as Exhibit 72.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 72 as Exhibit No. 73.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I would like to state an objection, Your Honor The prosecution objects to the introduction of Document No. 72, Exhibit No. 73, for the reason that it shows that it deals with the reestablishment of private property in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which cannot be material nor relevant to the proof of any issue in this case. While I am still at the podium, I would like to point out that Documents 76 through 90, inclusive, deal with the, apparently as far as I can tell, with the penal code and acts in the Soviet Union, and when they are offered, I shall object on the ground that they are not relevant or type to prove any issue in this cause. The Tribunal will -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will reserve its ruling.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Note the objection.
DR. ASCHENAUER: In answering the statements Mr. LaFollette has made, I would like to say the following: The Tribunal will remember that the witness Behl was asked to comment about the development of law during the so-called Third Reich. He has tried to describe a typical Nazi development, as he called it; he also quoted examples. By doing that, the Prosecution ins tried to describe the legal system which existed in the Reich an a typical Nazi system. Therefore, I cannot be stopped from submitting commentaries about laws which are applied in foreign countries, and if I prove that what existed here was not typical National Socialist Law, I believe I cannot be stopped from drawing a parallel with foreign countries. The Prosecution, through General Taylor, has contended there is a uniform international law; that there is such a thing as a uniform system of law throughout the world. Therefore, I believe that I can also offer and must be permitted to present the proof that there is a. distinction between legal thought in the east and in the west, and that in the middle, in between the German Reich is cited with its legal systems.
Dr. Wandahneider according to the German transcript from pages 710 to 712, has tried to establish a comparison between the National Socialist, British and Soviet law. The Prosecution has objected against that, giving the sane reasons that it gives today. The Court at that tine ruled that the comparison was not applicable in the course of cross examination, but at a later date it could be made, and that is the comparison which I an trying to draw now; and into this comparison belong all these documents. For that reason, I believe, that these documents are relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve our ruling until we examine the documents. You may proceed with the offering of them.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 72 is offered as Exhibit No. 73. Document Petersen No. 73 is offered as Exhibit 74.
Document Petersen No. 74 is offered as Exhibit No. 75.
Document Petersen No. 75, as Exhibit No. 76 Document Petersen No. 76 is offered as Exhibit No. 77.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honors, Numbers from 76 through 90, the objection which; I have made, apply. I understand the Court reserved its ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: It is 73.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Exhibit 73; yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: And then Exhibit 77 through to what I assume will be Exhibit 91, Document 76 through Document 90.
TEE PRESIDENT: 90
MR. LA FOLLETTE: 90, which I assume will be probably Exhibit 91.
THE PRESIDENT: We have noted your objection.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Peterson Document No. 77 is offered as Exhibit 78.
Document Petersen No. 78 is offered as Exhibit 79.
Document Peterson No. 79 is offered as Exhibit No. 80.
Document Peterson No. 80 is offered as Exhibit No. 81.
Document Petersen No. 81 is offered as Exhibit 82.
Document Petersen No. 82 is offered as Exhibit No. 83.
Document Petersen No. 83 is offered as Exhibit No. 84.
Document Petersen No. 84 as Exhibit No. 85.
Document Petersen No. -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. What is your next one?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 85, which is offered as Exhibit 86.
Document Petersen No. 86 is offered as Exhibit 87.
Document Peterson No. 87 as Exhibit 88 Document Petersen No. 88 as Exhibit 89 Document Petersen No. 89 as Exhibit 90 Document Peterson No. 90 as Exhibit 91.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection of counsel goes to Exhibit 73 to 91, inclusive.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: 73 and from 77 to 91, inclusive. Counsel stated no objection to Exhibit 74, 75 and 76.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. The objection gees down to and including 91. which is your Document 90.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 91 I am offering as Exhibit 92.
TEE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 92 a,s Exhibit 93.
THE PRESIDENT: Received. Just a moment -- sorry. Your next document is 93, Exhibit 94.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, which is Exhibit 94, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 94 as Exhibit No. 95.
THE PRESIDENT: These two are received -- 94 and 95.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 95 is offered as Exhibit No. 96.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 96 is offered as Exhibit 97.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHNAUER: Document Petersen No. 97 is offered as Exhibit 98.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 97-A is offered as Exhibit 99.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: And. Document Petersen No. 98 as Exhibit 99.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document 98 is what exhibit number? It is one hundred, isn't it?
DR. ASCHENAUER: One hundred, yes, Your Honor.
Document Petersen No. 99 is offered as Exhibit 101.
THE PRESIDENT: They arc received -- 99, 100, 101 -- all of them.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 100 is offered as Exhibit No. 102.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 101 is offered as Exhibit No. 103.
Document Petersen No. 101-A is offered as Exhibit No. 104.
THE PRESIDENT: We have no 101-A. After 101 we have 102. The same is true in the body of the book ; you run from 101 direct to 102 document numbers.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes. By a mistake made in the production department, the two documents 101 and 101 A were put together. They are two decisions made by the Reich Supreme Court. Therefore, I offer this still as Document 101, and put both together, offering them as Exhibit No. 103.
THE PRESIDENT: They are received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 102 is offered as Exhibit 104.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 103 is offered as Exhibit No. 105.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 104 is offered as Exhibit No. 106.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 105 as Exhibit 107.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 106 as Exhibit 108.
THE PRESIDENT: Received. All those exhibits in this hook have been recieved as exhibits, except those to which objections were made and ruling reserved.
DR. ASCHEMAUER: Coming now to the third document book volume, Document 107, which I withdraw.
TEE PRESIDENT: We haven't the hook yet. All right.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Then Document Petersen No. 108 I am offering as Exhibit 109.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 109 is offered as Exhibit 110.
Document Petersen No. 110 as Exhibit 111.
Document Petersen No. 111 is offered as Exhibit 112.
Document Petersen No. 112 as Exhibit 113.
Document Petersen No. 113 is offered as Exhibit 114.
Document Petersen No. 114 is offered as Exhibit 115.
Document Petersen No. 115 as Exhibit 116.
Document Petersen No. 116 as Exhibit 117.
Document Petersen No. 117 as Exhibit 118.
Document Petersen No. 118 as Exhibit 119.
Document Petersen No. 119 is offered as Exhibit 120.
Document Petersen No. 120 as Exhibit 121.
Document Petersen No. 121 as Exhibit 122.
Document Petersen No. 122 as Exhibit 123.
Document Petersen No. 123 as Exhibit 124.
Document Peterson No. 124 as Exhibit 125.
Document Petersen No. 124-A as Exhibit 126.
Document Petersen No. 125 as Exhibit No. 127 Document Petersen No. 126 as Exhibit No. 128 Document Petersen No. 127 as Exhibit No. 129 Document Petersen No. 128 as Exhibit No. 130 Document Petersen No. 129 as Exhibit No. 131 Document Petersen No. 130 as Exhibit 132.
I withdraw Document 131.
Document Petersen No. 132 as Exhibit 133.
Document Petersen No. 133 I withdraw.
Document Petersen No. 134 as Exhibit 134.
Document Petersen No. 135 is offered as Exhibit 135.
Document Petersen No. 136 is offered as Exhibit No. 136.
And Document Petersen No. 137 is offered as Exhibit No. 137.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibits 109 to 137, inclusive, are each received.
Does that complete the offer of document books for Petersen? That completes your offer of document books, does it, Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: There is one supplement which I have not yet received from the translation department, Your Honor. Apart from that, everything is complete, and the certification for Reinecke I still have to submit.
THE PRESIDENT: When did you submit your supplementary book?
DR. ASCHENAUER: The supplement book -- it's an affidavit -- was submitted about six weeks ago, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. GRUBE: I ask to be permitted to submit my second volume, consisting of four documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. GRUBE: May I say by way of introduction that the translation department by mistake designated that as Volume IV; in fact, it should be called Document Book VI.
THE PRESIDENT: It is marked IV-B; you want to change it?
DR. GRUBE: It should really be VI, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Change it to VI.
DR. GRUBE: The first document from the supplement volume which I offer is Document No. 307, which is offered as Exhibit 260.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit what?
DR. GRUBE: 206, your Honor.
TEE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: The next document is Document Lautz No. 308 -- offered as Exhibit 261.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: Document 305 is offered as Exhibit 262.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. GRUBE: And finally, Document 309 is offered as Exhibit 263.
THE PRESIDENT: Received, The exhibits are all received, Book VI.
DR. TIPP (For the Defendant Barnickel) Mr. President, if it please the Court, I would like to submit my Document Book No. II at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Conditions, over which we have no control, require us to recess fifteen minutes early today. We will proceed at the usual time of 1:30. That will be your Book II -- your Book II?
DR. TIPP: Yes, Your Honor, Book II.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours, 22 September 1947.)
Court No. III, Case No. III.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal re-convened at 1330 hours September 22, 1947).
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. TIPPS (For Dr. Barnickel): Your Honor, with the permission of the Tribunal, I shall now introduce my remaining documents. My first book is document Book II. The first document I want to offer is Barnickel document 24. The Exhibit Number is 24.
The next document is document 25, exhibit is also No. 25.
THE PRESIDENT: They are received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel document No. 26, Exhibit No. 26.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document No. 27, Exhibit 27.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document 23, Exhibit No. 28.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document No. 29, Exhibit 29.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document 30, Barnickel Exhibit No. 30.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document No. 31, Exhibit 31.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document 32, Barnickel Exhibit No. 32.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel document No. 33, Barnickel Exhibit No. 33.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document 34, Barnickel Exhibit 34.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document 35, Barnickel Exhibit 35.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document 36, Barnickel Exhibit 36.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document 37, Exhibit No. 37. Barnickel Document No. 38, Barnickel Exhibit No. 38.
THE PRESIDENT: 37 and 38 are received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document 39, Barnickel Exhibit No. 39.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document No. 40, Barnickel Exhibit No. 40.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document 41, Barnickel Exhibit No. 41.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. TIPPS: Barnickel document No. 42 is my next document, and the next documents are Documents 43-a and 43-b, Exhibits 43-a and 43-b.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I must object to exhibits 43-a and 43-b for the reason that they are, as far as I can ascertain, unsworn to statements.
DR. TIPPS: Your honor, may I just say briefly it is right. Actually Barnickel document 43-a is merely a letter. This is the original letter dated 1 November, 1945, the signature is that of Dr. Karl Nagel. Dr. Karl Nagel was the former Deputy of the Oberreichsanwalt with the Peoples' Court. We tried concerning the statements made by the witness in his letter to obtain an affidavit by Dr. Nagel, but we have been told that Dr. Nagel in the summer of 1946, was arrested by the Russian occupation authorities.
We have been unable to find out what camp he is in. So as to give some probative value to this letter, I asked the President of the District Court at Leipzig for an official assurance that the signature of document 43-a is the original signature of Dr. Nagel, who is personally known to the President of the District Court. I believe that it is entirely in accordance with Rule No. 7. I offer under the circumstances mentioned, document 43-a, and I think it is all right for it to be admitted for whatever probative value it may have. May I correct myself, Your honor, a slip of the tongue, it occurred to me the Nagel was the Deputy of the Chief Reich Prosecutor of the Reich Supreme Court and not of the Peoples' Court as I said before.
THE PRESIDENT: Under what provision of our rules do you contend this is admissible? We understand your difficulty but wherein do you comply with the rule with reference to either a sworn statement, or a statement in lieu of an oath.
DR. TIPPS: Just a simple statement, Your Honor. According to Ordnance No. 7, of which I have the text in memory at the moment, and I think that is to say a statement which has not been sworn will be accepted as evidence and this document is in fact such a letter. The signature as such has been certified by the President of the District Court at Leipzig.
THE PRESIDENT: You are referring to Ordinance No. 7 and the Tribunal is referring to rules which are made pursuant to Ordinance No. 7.
DR. TIPPS: I am referring to Ordinance No. 7 of the American Military Government in Germany and it is Article Roman Numeral VII which I am referring to.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit does not comply with the rules of this Tribunal and all the Tribunals which were uniformly adopted, pursuant to the authority granted by ordinance No. 7. The objection is sustained.
DR. TIPPS: May I say briefly, Your Honor, I should like to reserve the right to introduce some documents later which have not yet been translated. They are included in the supplementary volumes. For the moment I have concluded my introduction of documents.
THE PRESIDENT: What about Exhibit 44?
DR. TIPPS: I am withdrawing No. 44, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: When did you put in your application for the supplemental documents? When did you present your supplemental - proposed supplemental documents?
DR. TIPPS: A fortnight ago, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: If you can get them in before the case is closed, we will permit you to present them.
DR. SCHILF: (For the defendant, Klemm, and for the defendant Mittgenberg): With the permission of the Tribunal I should now like to call the witness Hagemann.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so.
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God the Almighty and Omniscient that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF HANS HAGEMANN.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Witness, will you please state to the Tribunal your full name?
A. Hans Hagemann.
Q. Excuse me, Mr. Hagemann, would you please sit a sittle closer to the mike, Hans Hagemann?
A. Yes, that is right, Hans Hagemann.
Q. What was the last position you held in the administration of Justice?
A. I was General Public Prosecutor at Dusseldorf.
Q. Since when had you been Public Prosecutor at Dusseldorf?
A. Since 1937.
Q. Herr Hagemann, can you remember that in 1944, Reich Minister cf Justice Thierack had issued a so-called circular letter decree to all Public Prosecutors which contained an instruction to the effect that in cases where the German population had exercised lynch justice the Prosecution offices had been instructed to report to the Ministry about such cases?
A. Yes, I remember such an instruction.
Q.- Can you approximately tell the Tribunal what the text was?
A.- No, I cannot tell you that. I can tell you what it said; and what it said was that in such cases a report had to be made to the minister.
Q.- Did it say anything in that decree to the effect that the Minister intended to stop all proceedings?
A.- I don't remember that passage, but it is possible that it did contain such a passage. Generally speaking, all I remember is the fact that a report had to be made on such cases, and if such a case had been pending with me I would have had a look at the decree and I would have read it through. However, as no such case ever pended with me, I don't exactly remember the text because it never became topical for me.
Q.-- Witness, would you kindly make a little longer pause before I finish my question?
A.- Yes, I will.
Q.- Was that circular decree a so-called secret decree?
A.- Yes, it was.
Q.- And how did you keep it? Where did you keep it?
A.- Secret decrees were entered in the register by my chief inspector. He was in charge of the register. After that, they were put in the safe.
Q.- Witness, in your district-- that is to say, within the area of the District Court of Appeal Duesseldorf-- in the autum of 1944, a case is supposed to have occurred where an SA leader shot down two or three Canadien fliers who had been taken prisoners.
A.- Yes, I remember that case perfectly well.
Q.- Would you please give the Tribunal an account of that case?
A.- In September of 1944 parachutists made an attack near Arnheim. In the course of that attack some parachute troopers got drifted away, and came down near the border between Holland and Germany. There two Canadian Soldiers were taken prisoner and the SA leader shot them down and killed them.