Transcript for NMT 3: Justice Case

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.

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.

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.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 105 as Exhibit 107.

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.

DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 109 is offered as Exhibit 110.

Document Petersen No. 110 as Exhibit 111.

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. 133 I withdraw.

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.

DR. GRUBE: Document 305 is offered as Exhibit 262.

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.

DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document No. 27, Exhibit 27.

DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document 23, Exhibit No. 28.

DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document 30, Barnickel Exhibit No. 30.

DR. TIPPS: Barnickel document No. 33, Barnickel Exhibit No. 33.

DR. TIPPS: Barnickel Document 34, Barnickel Exhibit 34.

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 No. 40, Barnickel Exhibit No. 40.

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.

That is a general outline of the case. I did not hear it from the public prosecutor at Cleve, who presented the case, but I heard it from a district court counsellor who informed me of the matter.

Thereupon I told the Senior Public Prosecutor in Duesseldorf to deal with the matter and immediately make a report to me. He returned; I ordered that investigations be made, and I myself made investigations too. I interrogated witnesses, for example. I believe the best thing would be for me to tell the Tribunal what the results of my investigations were.

The two Canadian soldiers had been taken prisoner close to the frontier, as I told you. Two customs officials took them back. The Canadian soldiers were disarmed and, as I think it the custom with prisoners of war, they held up their hands as they walked along. The two customs officials took them back like that, until they got to Kranenburg. That is a little place on the German-Dutch frontier. At Kranenbeurg that SA leader was standing in the street -- his name was Kluetgen; next to him stood the district leader, the Kreisleiter of Cleve, whose name was Hartmann. When Kluetgen saw those two prisoners coming alone he told them to halt; he drew his pistol and fired at them. He shot at them and killed them. Kluetgen was so imbued with savoir-faire that when at first his revolver wouldn't fire he put it right, and when he had got it put right again he shot those two soldiers down. As I found out later, at that time or soon after he said, "Now I have got two; I now need another two or three." I can't vouch for the latter figure, I don't know exactly what he meant. However when he said "now I need another two or three", I think it meant this. In an air raid, I believe, Kluetgen had lost five close relatives, and it became evident that that murder was just vengeance for his relatives whom he had lost in that air raid.

That is to say, if I may put it that way, he acted in a modification of the old phrase "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". He just changed it and made the "eye for eye" into one number for another.

That clarified the Kluetgen position, but the part played by the Kreisleiter, the District Leader, who had been standing next to Kluetgen, remained unclear. I believe I can remember that the Kreisleiter had said something that wasn't quite above-board, something like "Oh, just do away with them", or something like that. However, it was possible to interpret the words in various ways. It is just possible that he had meant to say, "Well, Kluetgen had better shoot them down," or he might have meant to say, "You had better take those two people away, just move them on", because, as far as I remember, somebody-said afterwards that after those two people had been killed, the Kreisleiter had said that that was not what he had intended to happen.

That was the outcome of our investigations.

Now, as concerns the proceedings that were instituted:

The Senior Public Prosecutor had requested the police to arrest Kluetgen, but the police regused to carry out the order. Later on, when I was interned, I heard from a Gestapo official that there had been general instructions issued to the police to the effect that men from the Ortsgruppenleiter upward were to be arrested and proceedings instituted against them only if the Party Chancellery approved, and similar instructions had been issued for people in the SA and the SS. Generally speaking, I did not encounter any difficulties when making those investigations. The SA gave its consent for me to interrogate several people. The Kreisleiter, however, refused to testify until the consent had arrived, and it was the Party Chancellery which had to give that consent; that is to say, it was Bormann. Although an application was made for such consent, it never arrived.

I made a report to the Ministry about the case. Naturally, I had to make a report because it was an important case, and reports had to be made to the Ministry about all such important cases.

I told the Ministry, over the telephone, about the fact that proceedings had been instituted, and I believe it was Dr. Mettgenberg to whom I spoke over the telephone. I told him as much as I knew at that time. Afterwards I made a written report, and I told the Ministry that I intended to clear up the matter, and I eventually did clear it up. I also told the Ministry that I needed their support in order to obtain permission for the Kreisleiter to testify.

The Ministry was altogether in agreement with the way I had handled the case. I received written instructions, and that was the way I interpreted the instructions. I understood them to want me to clear up the case completely.

As regards the intention of discontinuing all proceedings, that was never mentioned. Not one word was said of that.

THE PRESIDENT: One moment please, witness. Tell us,please, what did you mean by clearing up the case? Did you mean prosecute and convict? Or what did you mean?

THE WITNESS: What I meant, first, was to establish the facts, and, once, they were established, to suggest to the Ministry that an indictment should be filed against Kluetgen and, if necessary, also against the Kreisleiter. I could not make a final suggestion at that state because I did not yet know what part the Kreisleiter had played. That is to say, the Ministry agreed that I should carry out my plan to clear up the case, but because no approval was received to interrogate the Kreisleiter, we could not continue with the proceedings.

There were, of course, great difficulties. There were transportation difficulties. The further the war was brought into the country, the more difficult it was to have any correspondence with Berlin.

THE PRESIDENT: What was the date of this case?

THE WITNESS: I am afraid I cannot tell you the exact date. I think one should be able to find out from the history of the war. It was that parachute attack near Arnheim. I think I am pretty certain it was in September. May I also say that is the way I remember the case now. The files are in existence.

THE PRESIDENT: It was in 1944?

THE WITNESS: Yes, 1944. I did something which, as far as I know, I never did in any other case. I had two copies made of that file, one original file and a copy of it. I gave the original to my senior inspector, and I told him to keep it, not bo leave it in the courthouse at night but to take it home with him, and to take it with him to the air raid shelter if the alert should go on. I kept the duplicate myself, and whenever the alert went on I took it to the air raid shelter with me, to make sure that if anything happened to either my senior inspector or to myself, one file would always be available, so that there should be no difficulty in prosecuting the case. I was convinced that this was an important case not only from the point of view of guilt and expiation in the individual concrete case, but that it might also be of importance, and it was bound to be of importance, for the German armed forces, for although I have never been a soldier, I could well imagine that if the allied forces should come to hear that the German Administration of Justice had not prosecuted that case, they would take retaliation measures against German soldiers, or at least might do so. In that event, soldiers who were innocent in this connection might have suffered for what Kluetgen, and possibly also the Kreisleiter, Hartmann had done.

What may be of interest and I think is sure to be of interest, is the reaction of the German population in Kranenburg. There were some German civilians standing in the street when this business happened, who quite openly showed their indignation.

THE PRESIDENT: Was any indictment filed against the one who actually did the shooting?

THE WITNESS: No, that was not done, because we had to wait. The role the Kreisleiter played -

THE PRESIDENT: Please answer this question. Did you have any difficulty with the securing of the evidence concerning the actual shooting? As you have told it to us, you apparently had plenty of evidence as to that one person.

THE WITNESS: Yes, for one man I had the evidence, but as it was possible that another man was involved the Kreisleiter -- it was important that we should not just indict one nan and dead- with him alone, but we intended to indict them together. We always did that in principle.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me ask you this. Was that a matter of German law, that when you knew one man had committed a crime you didn't prosecute him because perhaps some one else might have helped him?

THE WITNESS: But we did intend to indict him. We only wanted to await the result of the investigations concerning the other person, so that we could indict then both, because if we couldn't try both people, the trial of only one person would have been confronted with a great many difficulties. That was the way in which we proceeded, I should say, almost always.

THE PRESIDENT: Very interesting.

BY DR. SCHILF:

Q Herr Hanemann, I would like to ask one more question. The President has asked you whether you were confronted with any difficulties in prosecuting one person. I am referring to Kluetgen now.

A Yes.

Q May I ask you to tell us whether you had an opportunity to talk to Kluetgen yourself, or to interrogate him?

A I asked the legal adviser of the SA, if possible to make Kluetgen come to see me. At first he - Kluetgen, I mean, had worked in Kranenburg, but afterwards the SA had sent him to the Aachen district, the Aix district. He had some special transport mission there, and when he came to Duesseldorf on one of those transportation errands, he came to see me in my apartment one Saturday evening. I was ill; that is why I was at home. I had a short talk with him, and I was not favorably impressed by him. He told me that he had killed those two Canadians because he had been afraid that foreign civilian workers who were around in that district might have set those Canadians free. I wanted to refute that statement, and I did refute that statement by the testimony obtained from witnesses. However, that motive would have been quite indifferent for the legal evaluation of the case.

As regards the clearing up of the case, it seemed, important to me to convict the man and prove to him that that motive could not have. been true.

Q Witness, you have said, that the instructions from the senior public prosecutor at Duesseldorf to the police, to arrest Kluetgen, had not been complied with, and now you say Kluetgen came to see you. Did you, as a General Public Prosecutor, not have the possibility to arrest Kluetgen immediately?

A No, I did not have that possibility. It was a Saturday evening, I was alone in my apartment, and I had no weapons.

Q You said that Kluetgen had been transferred to the Aachen district, and you said that the agency for which Kluetgen worked had done that. In carrying out your investigations, did you find any indications that that was done intentionally in order to remove Kluetgen from your area?

A I did not find indications and I certainly did not find any proof, but the possibily exists. However, it is also quite possible that Klueten was transferred from the Kranenburg district because the population was so upset and excited.

Q Could you just tell the Tribunal approximately when the allied troops entered. Duesseldorf or Aachen, or anyway the district where Kluetgen was staying at the time.

A Yes. I can't tell you exactly when the allied troops arrived in Aachen, but they arrived in Ober Kassel, on the left Rhine bank, in March, and as far as I remember, they got to Duesseldorf in April.

Q Up to that time proceedings were continued, were they?

A Yes.

Q And later on, after you had received the support from the Ministry, no instructions to the contrary were issued to you?

A No contrary instructions were issued to me. The matter was concluded. All that was missing was to interrogate the Kreisleiter.

Q And, in accordance with your suggestion, they would then have been indicted?

A Well, I couldn't make a suggestion because I didn't really know what was the matter with Hartmann yet, but if I had found out then, I would have suggested the indictment of Kluetgen and possibly the indictment of the Kreisleiter too. However, as regards the Kreisleiter, that depended upon those investigations which had not yet been made.

Q I suppose these facts which you have described to the Tribunal can be gathered from the files which you have mentioned?

A Yes.

Q May I ask you when you saw the files for the last time?

A In the spring of this year.

Q What has been done with the files?

A I have them to the General Public Prosecutor, Dr. Junker, in Duesseldorf, and I gave them to him myself, in person.

Q And presumably they are still there?

A Yes, I am quite sure they must be.

THE PRESIDENT: I would like to ask a question. The case was pending for investigation from September 1944 until March 1945? Is that what you meant to say?

THE WITNESS: Yes, it was.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

BY DR. SCHILF:

Q Herr Hagemann, did you ever hear -

THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. One question.

JUDGE HARDING: What did the Ministry do about it?

THE WITNESS: Well, naturally I don't know what steps the Ministry took, but I assume, or I believe, that the Ministry tried to get the Party Chancellery to give its consent for the Kreisleiter to be interrogated; again and again I requested the Ministry to take such a step.

JUDGE HARDING: But you never heard from the Ministry, is that right?

THE WITNESS: No, no, I heard no more later on, because - well, I, don't really know why they didn't write again. I have already told you that transportation difficulties were great and that it became more and more difficult to keep in touch by letter or by telegram. For example, since the middle of March - or anyway q think it must have been since the middle of March - we were still in a sort of cauldron in Duesseldorf, we were cut off from the outside world.

THE PRESIDENT: In March 1945?

THE WITNESS: Excuse me. What is it you mean? What happened in March 1945? You mean it was then that Duesseldorf became a cauldron? You mean it was then that we became cut off in Duesseldorf?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes.

THE WITNESS: Yes, I think it must have been in March 1945, but naturally the difficulties had been great before that time - I mean the transportation difficulties - and that grew worse and worse.

BY DR. SCHILF:

Q Herr Hagemann, did you ever hear that that man Kluetgen had been sentenced to death by an American Military Tribunal?

A Yes, Dr. Haensel told me that a few days ago. He told me that he had read in the paper that Kluetgen bad been sentenced to death in Dachau by an American Military Tribunal.

Q Now, one more question, which has nothing to do with this case.

As general public prosecutor, I am sure you had to deal with nullity pleas.

A Yes, I had.

Q Did you ever suggest a nullity plea to the Oberreichsanwalt at the Reich Supreme Court in favor of a foreigner?

A Yes.

Q Would you give the Tribunal a brief account of that case?

A A French civilian worker had been sentenced to a penitentiary term by the Special Court in Wuppertal, because he had committed rape on a German girl during the blackout, or at any rate he was alleged to have done so. I received the verdict, just as I received all verdicts passed by the Special Court and as I read through the verdict I found that I had to arrive at the conclusion that that verdict was incorrect. In order to sentence that man it was necessary , as a pre-condition , that that girl had not agreed to the man doing what he was supposed to have done. To me, all the circumstances indicated, beyond all doubt, that the girl had been altogether in agreement with the Frenchman doing what, in effect, he did do to her, although she testified to the contrary.

I don't think you will be interested in the details which caused me to arrive at that conclusion.

I instructed the Senior Public Prosecutor to file a nullity plea in favor of the Frenchman with the Oberreichsanwalt at the Reich Supreme Court. The file, together with that suggestion, was passed on to the Oberreichsanwalt, and I entered a remark on the papers; and I also made a report to the Ministry about the case. I believe there was a general instruction, concerning cases of nullity pleas, that a report had to be made to the Ministry.

The Ministry did not issue instructions to the contrary to me, but consented to the steps which I was taking. I then received an order in connection with this case, and I believe Dr. Mettgenberg had signed it. The Reich Supreme Court then revoked the sentence passed by the Special Court at Wuppertal, but not altogether in accordance with my suggestion. My suggestion had been that the Reich Supreme Court was to acquit the man immediately, but the Reich Supreme Court revoked the verdict and referred the case for retrial to the Special Court at Wuppertal. No trial was held because by that time we were very near the end of the war and. I believe that, as the allied forces arrived, that Frenchman must have been discharged.

In this case too, therefore, the Ministry was altogether in agreement with the steps I wished to take. I considered the verdict unfair, and it appears that the Ministry agreed with me that that unfairness had to be removed, no matter whether the man concerned was a Frenchman or a German.

DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, I have no further questions.

THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other direct examination of this witness?

(No response)

It appears that there is not. You may cross-examine.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:

Q After you communicated with Dr. Mettgenberg about your trouble with the case, did you ever get an answer back from him?

Transcript for NMT 3: Justice Case

Defendants