The question was immaterial.
Q Yesterday you said that Frau Landsberger was not a Jewess; but her name is Jewish, isn't it?
A Well, that name Landsberger can be a Jewish name, but it can be the name of an Aryan. There are all sorts of Landsbergers in this world. But perhaps the man was a Jew. Well, I can't tell you that offhand.
Q In that Landsberger case, was that transfer to Holz effected in connection with all the other transfers?
A The transfer was made on the 4th of December 1938. That means that that transfer was effected together with the others.
Q And was the cancellation of that transfer effected in the same manner in which the other transfers were made; that is to say, in virtue of the consent to effect rectification which you read out?
A I can't tell you. Frau Landsberger as far as I know was an Aryan; and as to whether the property in her case was re-transferred I just can't tell you.
Q Well, then in column 6 of your Number 9, under the heading "Entry of the Name of the former Owner," in connection with general consent of Holz to make re-transfer, what makes you put the same entry there as in column 3?
A 24/1/40, that's the date on which the entry was made in the real estate register, and the entry was made just the same as in Column 3. That is to say, the same owners are shown as in Column 3 in connection with directives in virtue of the consent to effect rectification.
THE PRESIDENT: That's 41, isn't it?
A Yes, 24 January 1941.
Q The date of 24 January 1941, is that the date on which the entry was made, or is that the date of the instrument which gave consent for making another entry?
A Well, it says "Entry of the name of the former owner in virtue of a consent to make a general rectification," dated the 24th of January 1941. Therefore, that is bound to be the date such as it was entered in the real estate register.
Q Well, if you read out anything at all, will you please read it out correctly? Will you read out again what it says in your list in the heading above Column 6?
A Yes, "Entry of the name of the former owner, in virtue of the general consent for rectification given by Karl Holz on the 24th of April 1940."
Q All right. And below that it says 24 January 1941. I'm asking you again whether that entry of the 24th of January 1941 was made in virtue of the same consent to make rectifications of the 24th of April 1940 in virtue of which all other entries were effected.
A I can't tell you that for every individual case; but one should be able to see that from the files. I can't remember all those files. I can't tell you all those things offhand. How could I?
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question, Witness?
A Yes, please.
EXAMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q In that sixth column at the top of the column it shows the date of the authority for the re-transfer of the property, doesn't it, namely Holz's agreement of 24 April 1940? Then in the column under that, the same column but lower down, is it a fact that those dates arc the dates when the actual re-transfers were recorded pursuant to the authority of 24 April 1940? Is that the situation?
A Well, that is the date on which the entry was made in the real estate register in virtue of the authority dated 24 April 1940.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Let me ask another question, please. Perhaps it will shorten matters. Is this exhibit which we have here a copy of the register? I mean does it set for the the items which do appear in the register? Is it taken from the register?
A. Yes, it is an extract from the real estate register.
Q. Then the things which appear here indicate what appear on the register, doe they not?
A. Yes, this is an extract. It is an extract, a partial copy, an extract.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Witness, now we'll go into the matter briefly again. Column 1 is contained in the real estate register?
A. Yes, Column 1 is contained in the real estate register?
Q. Column 2 is contained in the real estate register?
A. Yes.
Q. Is Column 3 in the real estate register?
A. Yes.
Q. Is Column 4 in the real estate register?
A. Yes.
Q. Is Column 5 in the register?
A. No. No, it isn't.
Q. The purchase price?
A. No.
Q. Is Column 6 in the register?
A. Column 6 is in the register.
Q. Is Column 7 in the register?
A. The date of the new owner, that is, the transfer to the new owner, yes, that is contained in the register.
Q. Is Column 8 in the register, the new owner?
A. Yes, that's entered, too.
Q. And Columns 9 and 10, the purchase prices; are they in the register?
A. No.
Q. Well, then the answer is, if I understand you correctly, the compilations you have made and which we have before us in a photostat do not constitute an extract from the real estate register?
A. No, not alone, not solely.
Q. But with the exception of the purchase price, the other dates and the other names are contained in the real estate register, are they?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. Is this correct, that in practice a difference is made between a scrutiny of the real estate register and a scrutiny of the real estate files together with the register? For example, if a person quickly wants to get some idea of what has happened he would have a look at the real estate register and not at the real estate files as well?
A. Yes, that does happen.
Q. In other words, if somebody is faces with the difficult task of choosing some characteristic example for Jewish transfers, when he has thousands of cases to choose from, do you think it is possible that such a person might have a look at only the register?
A. Yes. Yes, first of all we would have a look at the register of people. We would look for Jewish owners. Here that's Fleischmann, Meuller, Meyer. Those are not the sort of names which we would recognize as Jews from the register.
Q. Now, if in the case of Landsberger you found, to begin with, that the woman's name was Landsberger and that on the 4th of December 1938 her property was transferred to Holz and if in such a case you did not have the files available, would you then arrive at the conclusion that that woman was Jewish?
Q. Does the register show anything to refute such a conclusion?
A. The register does not show anything to refute such a conclusion. No, it doesn't.
Q. Concerning those eight cases -
THE PRESIDENT: If I may interrupt you, would the fact that the name of the owner was Landsberger coupled with the fact shown on the register that the transferee was Holz lead you to any inference as to whether Landsberger was a Jew or not?
A. Well, one would have to assume some cause. After all, as a rule Holz only took over such Jewish properties.
Q. You were not dealing with other evidence which might show on the other hand that Landsberger was not a Jew; in other words, you made no investigation as to the facts outside of the record?
A. No, I didn't. Well, as far as I know in the notary's instruments it says that Frau Landsberger was not a Jewess. It says that she was a Protestant, I think.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. I think I'd better repeat my question. Does the real estate register such as we have discussed it and such as the Tribunal asked you, does it show that she is a Jewess or that she isn't a Jewess?
A. The register itself shows only the name, and from that name one cannot conclude definitely whether she is a Jewess or not.
Q. Well, and the Tribunal asked you whether the fact that the property was transferred to Holz allows of the same conclusion.
A. Yes, that certainly does point to the same conclusion.
Q. Well, that settles my question.
Q. In connection with those transfers of the 4th of December, did your superior or a commission interrogate you?
A. No, I wasn't interrogated in connection with that.
Q. You emphasize the word "I". Were your colleagues interrogated?
A. Well, interrogated, I wouldn't know. All I know is that there were frequent meetings, but as to whether that was in any way an interrogation, that I don't know.
Q. Do you know whether any disciplinary proceedings were instituted on account of those transfers? Do you know whether such proceedings were instituted against real estate officials and notaries?
A. I don't know.
Q. Witness, just think the matter over. Do you mean to say you don't know of any disciplinary proceedings?
A. Disciplinary proceedings instituted against officials - I don't know anything about that. I just don't know.
Q. Do you know Denzler?
A. Denzler? Who was he? Who was that man? No, I don't.
Q. Do you know Herr Hoesch?
A. You mean the president of the district court?
Q. I am asking you whether you knew him.
A. I know somebody by the name of Hoesch.
Q. And Denzler you don't know?
A. Denzler? Well, the name sounds familiar to me, but I don't know whether this is the Denzler you are referring to.
Q. Do you know Reinfried and Nettlek - the notaries?
A. Yes, I know them.
Q. Do you know Amtsgerichtsrat Dr. Leist?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you know the director of the district court Greiner?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you know whether those men in connection with those trans fers had disciplinary proceedings instituted against them?
A. Nobody ever told me about that and therefore I can't know.
Q. And you were not interrogated about those matters, were you?
A. No, I wasn't.
Q. I heard you say no.
A. No is what I said.
Q. Concerning these accounts which you have described in the last column, for example, a special account, special accounts of such and such a name, special account of another name, etc., and then property forfeited. Do you know how those accounts were started and who was the person who had the responsibility for the disposal of them?
A. I never saw those accounts and I don't know. All I know is that what has been entered in the files and as a rule it says special account of the Gestapo, and then the name of the former owner is also given.
Q. Do you know that in the case of people who emigrated payments were made from these accounts to the emigrant after a special tax had been deducted?
A. I don't know. We never heard about any such payments being made. In our work we had nothing to do with that.
Q. On the 4th of December 1940 were you very much over-burdened with work? After all, there were about four hundred pieces of property which you had to transfer.
A. Yes, we all had to work together and stick to it.
Q. Were you at work day and night?
A. Yes. On the first day, that was Sunday, we were all called together and we worked until late at night.
Q. And did you get special pay for it?
A. As far as I remember, we were not.
Q. I asked you whether you got special pay for it?
A. Well, I didn't get anything extra.
Q. You mean to say no?
A. Yes. No, I didn't.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, in the last -- I think the tenth column -
A. Yes.
Q. These numbers appear, many of which start with seventy thousand, and then various numbers follow. Were all of those seventy thousand numbers indications of the Gestapo special account to which you referred -- this 70,315, 70,276, and so on?
A. You mean the column before the last?
Q. No, the last column.
A. The last column on what page, please?
Q. The first page, if you please, or any of the pages. Take case one on the first page. The last column shows 70,315--
A. Yes, yes. That is the number of the special account. Special account No. 70,315.
Q. Yes.
A. It is the number of the account, the number of that special account.
Q. And were all of those accounts which ran in the seventy thousands--
A. Yes.
Q. --- numbers which represented these special Gestapo accounts?
A. Whether all those numbers indicate that they were the Gestapo special account, well, I don't know. I never saw those accounts. I mean I never saw those registers, the registers that were kept by the Sonderkonto (savings bank). We never saw those savings accounts.
Q. Well, what leads you to the belief that this 70,315 was the number of a special Gestapo account?
A. Well, I can only gather so because the next entry says special account No. 70,276, and that is why I think the line above, where the number has been left out -- see, in the first one it doesn't say number, it says simply 70,315, and the next, 70,276, must be the number of the account
Q. What I am getting at is where did you get the knowledge that those numbers do represent police accounts?
A. It says so in the notary instruments.
Q. I see. That is all. Thank you.
A. Not at all.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Witness, just one or two short questions, again referring to the Landsberger case.
A. Yes.
Q. Yesterday you said you had seen an excerpt from the transcript of the record in which the defendant Joel had discussed the Landsberger case. Now, there was a photostatic copy of the Landsberger case--
A. Yes.
Q. ---which the defendant Joel had in his hand. That didn't come out of the property register, did it? It couldn't have come out of the property register.
A. I can't remember that it came from the real estate register. I don't know. I haven't come across the name of Joel.
Q. If you don't know, witness, I certainly don't expect you to answer.
A. Well, I just don't know.
Q. Yes, all right. Now, in regard to the mistake which occurred in the seizure by Holz of the Landsberger property. You said that Mrs. Landsberger was an Aryan, did you not?
THE PRESIDENT: He said that.
A. Well, I said that the files showed that she was.
Q. Yes, and her husband was a Jew?
A. Yes.
Q. Which accounts for her name, of course. And when the property was confiscated, her's being a Jewish name, it was taken along with all the rest, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. Yes. And then in September 1939 she complained to Holz, pointing out the fact that she was an Aryan. Do you find that letter in the files?
A. Yes.
Q. And later, so far as you know, as a result of this letter the property was returned to her because as an Aryan it could not under the present laws have been taken away from her.
A. Yes.
Q. Is that right?
A. Yes, I assume so. I assume that is right.
Q. And when she--
A. She lodged a complaint.
Q. Yes, and when she eventually sold the property, she got the money for it, is that right?
A. Yes, one is bound to assume so on account of the files, for she was an Aryan, but I don't actually know it for everything may happen in this world. All I can say is that I assume that she received that money. I wasn't there when she received the money and I didn't see it with my own eyes, and therefore I can't tell you. I can only speak for what I can see in these files.
Q. Yes -- I have no more questions--
A. I consider it a matter of fact that she did, but--
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
A. All right.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Your Honor, may I call the defendant Rothenberger to the witness stand? Do you wish me to do so before the recess or after? Perhaps you would like to take the recess now.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take our recess now, and then you may call the defendant Rothenberger. We will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I neglected to offer Exhibit 639, which is the Property Record Compilation - I do so now.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received. You had offered 638 before the discussion.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, I think so, Your Honor. In any event I offer it again if there has been that deficiency.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is received. I think it was received before. Counsel understands, I an sure, the limitation on the sur-rebuttal evidence, it is restricted to the specific matters shown in the rebuttal of the Prosecution.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, Hr. President, I ask to be permitted to begin the examination of Dr. Rothenberger.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
SUR-REBUTTAL EXAMINATION DR. ROTHENBERGER BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q First, I should like you to comment on the case Buhk which has been presented by the Prosecution in rebuttal. What did you have to do with the case and what is your knowledge of the case?
A I an referring to Exhibit 595. It cannot be seen from the document whether I was informed about the case. I do remember, however, after looking through the document that one of my referents reported the case to me in 1934. He told me that a communistic official by the name of Bunk, was at the town house in Hamburg, that is at the office of the President of the Police of Hamburg, hit while being interrogated, he was beaten, that he was brought to Fuhlsbuettel the next day and that at Fuhlsbuettel in his cell he was found hanged the next morning. The handkerchiefs which had been tied together were attached to the file as the basis of evidence.
Then a post mortem took place and the statement made by the official doctor at the post mortem showed that Buhk had died as a result of hanging himself, that no internal injuries had been found, and that the question as to whether on account of violence, injuries to the lungs had occurred, still depended on further examination of the lung tissues. Then this subsequent examination took place and with the result that no internal injuries to the lungs had occurred. The General Public Prosecutor, I was told, had instituted the investigation against unknown individuals with the result that the investigation was stopped for the reason that according to the statements made by the Medical Expert death had occurred as a result of his suicide action. Also the proceedings for ill treatment were discontinued because no culprit could be found.
Q. What do you happen to know about what your personal referent discussed with Judge Wenzensen?
A What my personal referent discussed with Judge Wenzensen I do not happen to know. If he made reproaches to him as Judge Wenzensen has stated, then I wouldn't have considered it right at the tine because Judge Wenzensen acted absolutely correctly. A suspicion, such as is being raised today, to the effect that the Communist Buhk had been hanged, at that time there was no suspicion, and only at this trial have I heard of any such suspicion.
Q You were asked about the case Buhk in your cross examination. Why have you said at that time you could not remember the case, and in this connection I refer to the transcript, pages 5405 and 5408. Would you comment on this, please, Dr.Rothenberger?
A I was washed at that time about a case Buhk. The name Buhk I remembered neither at that time nor today. I wouldn't recall it at all if it weren't in the file and at the time I asked the Prosecutor, in order to refresh my memory, during what year the Buhk case was supposed to have occurred and he told me the years 1941 or 1942.
JUDGE HARDING: I have a question.
Q Assuming that the report as to this man's death showed it was suicide and there was also evidence he had been mistreated, why was that dropped, that wasn't involved in the suicide, that was independent of how he killed himself.
A Yes, my referent reported to me and it can also be seen from the file that these proceedings, too, also were stopped by the General Public Prosecutor because one could not find the culprit. There are two decisions for stopping the investigation to be found in the file, and one is on account of ill treatment.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Then the case Kosa - Dr. Elkan - was put to you, Dr. Rothenberger This is Exhibit 598. Did you know anything about that case at the time?
A Yes, of that case I knew. It occurred in June 1933. A criminal proceeding was pending for professional abortion against Dr. Elkan and that Dr. Elkan during his interrogation was said to have been ill treated and to have broken an arm. The General Public Prosecutor made the suggestion to institute penal proceedings against the police official Kosa. who was responsible for that. In that case the Reich Statthalter called me to his office, and, therefore, first, before I had a decision on the part of the Reich Statthalter, I sent an intermediary decision to the General Public Prosecutor, to the effect that for the time being he should not institute an investigation against Kosa, and that further instructions would be sent to him, The conversation with the Reich Statthalter took place in the presence of his then Gaufuehrer and Gau legal adviser Dr. Reker, who was of the opinion that these matters were incidental to a revolutionary period and, therefore, should not be prosecuted. He suggested to the Reich Statthalter that the proceedings should be quashed. Until the year 1935 the Reich Statthalter had that authority in Hamburg. My objection against that concept did not succeed at that time.
I was only for three months in office and had me influence on the decisions of the Reich Statthalter, and, therefore, I had to carry cut the instructions received by the Reich Statthalter to quash these proceedings. That is the reason why it was not prosecuted.
Q Dr. Rothenberger, it is claimed that if Kaufman had the formal authority to quash it, that it still wasn't substantively right, wasn't that your opinion at that time, and isn't it today?
A Yes, absolutely.
Q Then Kaufman did not act correctly. Did you have any further difficulties of that nature with Kaufman at the beginning?
A In my first direct examination, as well as in my situation reports I refer to Exhibit 76 - I have pointed out that during the first years after the seizure of power it was extremely difficult to safe-guard the interests of the administration of justice against the Reich Statthalter, and he was not at all friendly to the administration of justice.
Q In this Exhibit 76 which you have mentioned we are concerned with the report of the then President of the district Court of Appeals to Dr. Rothenberger of the administration of justice, and one sentence states there that the Gauleiter in 1933 was not at all friendly to the administration of justice and in a later report of 1942, the defendant points out -
THE PRESIDENT: Aren't you referring to exhibits which are already in evidence?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I refer to an exhibit which has been submitted as Exhibit 76.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not a part of the sur-rebuttal.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q We come now to the case of Reuter. Dr. Rothenberger, the rebuttal document for the Prosecution is Exhibit 599. May it please the Tribunal I found put from the transcript that that exhibit which is 25 pages long was received a few days ago, whereas I thought it had only been submitted for identification.
When on that day a large number of exhibits were received I had no opportunity to find out, that this is a letter of the former Senior Public Prosecutor of Hamburg Reuter, of July 1945, that is to say after the war. Therefore, obviously it is not a captured document. Therefore, it is of course of importance on principle for me to know that the document can not be used as evidence on the basis of the rules of this Court, quite apart from the formal question, I have a few factual questions I should like to discuss with the defendant in connection with the documents, and since at that time I couldn't look through a document of 30 pages, it would have been too much, I should like for the Tribunal to decide on the admissibility of the document as an exhibit. Recording to Ordinance 7 the defense ought to have an opportunity to be heard in connection with the question of admissibility and at that time I did not have the opportunity to look through it.
THE PRESIDENT: You may discuss the probative value of it with the witness. It was received without objection and many days have passed by.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, Your Honor.
Q Dr. Rothenberger, the essential point contained in this letter by Dr. Router of July 1945, is that a four-men conference between him and the Reich Statthalter Kaufman and the General Public Prosecutor and the Chief of the Gestapo had taken place, and at that conference observations concerning ill treatment were discussed; would you like to speak about that?
A Such an "agreement among the four of us" as Reuter mentioned has never been made between the persons concerned. Never did a conference take place of these four people about that subject, nor did I receive any instructions from the Reich Statthalter in this connection at any time, as it could have been possible.
Q I refer to the notation made on the file by the Senate President Von Der Degen on Page 25, Exhibit 599. That file note reproduces a conversation between Reuter who at that time was still living, and Von Der Degen and in a few lines it is said here that "the existence of the secret agreements mentioned on page 11, an agreement between the Reich Statthalter, Dr. Rothenberger, Dr. Drescher and- Streckenbach, is known to me only by the report from Judge Wenzensen. He knew about that agreement, having been told by a Kommissar of the Gestapo. That was as far as I know, on the occasion of a discussion of the case Buhk; as I remember the name of that Kommissar was Kraus. In other words, these facts stated by Reuter were third hand knowledge.
Q How did Dr. Reuter come to make these charges against you in his report in your opinion, Dr. Rothenberger?
A I cannot evaluate that off hand, only indirectly on the basis of my thorough knowledge of Dr. Reuter's character. Dr. Reuter had been Prosecutor in Hamburg, I knew him since 1921. Since I was in the administration of justice for a long time, I happened to know that already in 1923 he made a similar report, only with an opposite text, to the Chief of the Administration of Justice, Dr. Noeldecke, that can be seen from page 20, Exhibit 599. In that report the main problem was that he wanted to become Senior Public Prosecutor in Hamburg, and raised serious charges against the other candidates for that position. Personally in 1933, I had the following experiences with him. A few days after I assumed office, that is to say in March 1933, he came to see me, submitted an extensive memo to me, several poems and speeches by him which he had made in a nationalistic organization. That organization is mentioned in the document on page 22 under the name Deutsche Bund.
Q You can read that sentence by which Reuter characterized himself and his political attitude at that time.
A It says in my -
Q Will you take the next sentence?
A Yes, it is stated that Adolf Hitler himself was for moderation in dealing with the Jewish question at times. He also pointed out that I, as well as my organization, the Deutsche Bund, were always primarily against transgressions committed by Jews and their encroaching on German ways of life and aside from that I had the attitude of pure objectivity as far as individual Jews were concerned.
Q Thank you. That is sufficient, Dr. Rothenberger.
A When he handed the memorandum to me in March 1933, he made the specific claim he was a protagonist of the National Socialist movement and that the injustices committed against him during the time of the Weimar Democracy, because he had not been promoted, had to be made good, and that he wanted to become Public Prosecutor in Hamburg. When I refused, he turned to Rudolf Hess. That can all be seen from that document, page 19, and Rudolf Hess sent all of these reports and articles and poems and speeches to me again. They were the same matters that had been submitted to me before directly.
Q That is sufficient, Dr. Rothenberger. Now to summarize the characterization of Reuters, what else did he deal with in that document in order to put himself in the foreground?
A From that document, which by the way, has neither a beginning nor an end which I am unable to evaluate as a whole, it can be seen that he once stated a request to be appointed Defense Counsel for Schacht in the IMT Trial and that he also asked - he was retired at that time - to be reappointed as Judge or Prosecutor in Hamburg.
Q These two passages are on pages 23 and 24 of Exhibit 599. From that letter, about which one does not know to whom it was addressed, the first two pages are missing. Dr. Rothenberger, then this report states you had some connection with the case Dusenschoen.
Do you know anything about that case?
A I do not remember ever having had anything to do with a penal case against Dusenschoen. Reuter does not assert in his memo at all that I had quashed the Dusenschoen case but on page 11 he states that I had mode a statement against the quashing, but that in the end the Reich Statthalter had quashed the case. I don't know anything about that and when Reuter was questioned about that matter by the today President of the District Court of Appeals, he said: "How this case has come to Dr. Rothenberger, I don't know. Apparently discussions took place about the matter between Dr. Rothenberger and Dr. Drescher and the Reich Statthalter."
Q This again refers to the file note by Senate President Von Der Degen and at the end of the exhibit, page 3, there is a passage which Dr. Rothenberger has just quoted. Mention is also made about a report made by the Public Prosecutor about the ill treatment in concentration camps. Do you happen to know about that?
A I do not remember at all that any such report ever reached me.
Q What did you do in other cases when the perpetrations were committed by the Gestapo, Dr. Rothenberger?
A I intervened in each case in which the Gestapo had interfered, I intervened in Hamburg as well as in the Reich administration of justice. As far as Hamburg was concerned I endeavored to straighten out these matters locally by discussing it with the Reich Statthalter. I did not always succeed, particularly after 1935 when a decision about these interferences was to be made in Berlin. From that time on, therefore, I considered it my duty in each case of any such interference to report orally and usually at the same time in writing to the Reich Minister of Justice about it. For that reason I had an accurate list compiled in Hamburg about any such interference which became know to the District Court of Appeals in Hamburg.
Q You mean the file which I offered to the Court for identification the other day from the District Court of appeals in Hamburg?
A Yes.
Q And that is the investigation from the Hanseatic District Court of Appeals at Hamburg. I received an affidavit to testify where that list came from and which I shall submit tomorrow. It will show that it was a list which was compiled by a referent at the Hanseatic District Court of Appeals.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the exhibit number?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: 78, I am just told, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Rothenberger Exhibit No. 78?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, Your Honor.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Now, Dr. Rothenberger, on the basis of that document, will you please discuss two or three examples of cases where you have made objections and sent reports to Berlin and tell us first please why you approached Berlin?
A In my bi-monthly reports on the situation I had to contact the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, because decisions about these interferences had to be made by the RSHA, that is to say, by Berlin. The local offices in Hamburg did not have any authority for that. I have asked for these situation reports on the 20th of May of this year by formal application because that would illustrate the individual cases which are contained in this exhibit but up to now I have not received them.
Q May I ask you now to discuss a few individual cases from that tile of the District Court of Appeals.
Q That file contains material from the District Court of Appeals, referring for one thing to the perpetrations committed by the SS through newspaper articles of all sorts, by criticizing sentences, this being primarily the so-called correction of sentences, that is to say, the revision by the Gestapo of sentences handed down by the courts.
