As Exhibit Number 4 I offer Document Number 4, which is on page 32 of the English document book. This is an affidavit by Max Schubert. It bears the date of the 27th of June 1947, signed by the affiant on that date and was certified by me. This affidavit also refers to the granite works at Flossenburg; and in general it deals with the same subject which Ronge had already mentioned in detail. In Particular in Paragraph 4 instates that the plant did not employ any inmates he were unfit for work and that members of the staff of the plant never maltreated any inmates. This affiant also refutes the claim of the prosecution that working conditions in the plant had been such that the inmates had worked themselves to death; and he refutes this statement as being incorrect.
In Paragraph 5-b this affiant confirms the fact that Mummenthey fully appreciated all suggestions which were made by the works management in this direction in order to alleviate the conditions of the inmates and says that he also added a few valuable suggestions of his own. He then mentions the individual privileges in detail here; and he fully confirms the statements made her by Mummenthey. He, futhermore, speaks of the difficulties in Paragraph 5-e which Mummenthey encountered from the camp commanders. They even went so far as to forbid the supply of additional items of food which Mummenthey wanted to obtain for the inmates.
Paragraph 6 deals with the fact that the Dest on its own initiative and with the consent of Mummenthey in the fall of 1939 and in 1940 procured winter gloves for the inmates after Mummenthey had previously received the permission of the camp commander.
As Exhibit Number 5 I want to offer Mummenthey Document Number 5 on page 38 of the my English Document Book. This is an affidavit by Hermann Franz Josef Pister of the 27th of June 1947, signed by the affiant and that date and certified by me. This affidavit refers to the conditions at Berlstedt. I want to ask the Tribunal for special consideration of Paragraph 1-c according to which the witness goes into detail with regard to the clay pit which was located next to the brick works and from which the clay was obtained.
For the brick works. He describes the conditions there in detail and emphasizes that here also technical measures were takein in order to drain the water from the lower levels in the clay pit. He also mentions the fat the a Dest issued high rubber boots to the inmates while they were working in the pit so that they could have some protection against the weather.
This witness also states in Paragraph 4 that he got to know Mummenthey to be a very social progressive and decent man. In Paragraph 5 the affiant points out that from conversations with Mummenthey he gained the impression that Mummenthey tried to have a first-rate output in the matter of quality which could only be accomplished with healthy and contented prisoner inmates in good state of nutrition.
In Paragraph 5-b the witness point out the social care of the inmates, which was very close to the heart of Mummenthey. Then in the following paragraphs he mentions the individual privileges, the procurement of fresh vegetables, meat, and so on. Then I have considered it appropriate the I have the witness give us information about the punitive company in Paragraph 7. I need not go into detail here. However the statement in Paragraph 7 seems of importance to me, according to which the Buchenwald quarry had nothing whatsoever to do with the plant or the management of Berlstedt. This quarry did not belong to the Dest and it was not located in the area of the Dest. This seems to be of importance to me in view of the testimony of the witness Morgen, who recently has mentioned this stone quarry at Berlstedt.
As my next exhibit, Number 6, I offer Document Number 6 on Page 44 of my Document Book, which is the affidavit of Otto Walther. It is dated the 10th of July 1947 and signed by him on that date and certified by me. This very extensive affidavit gives the Tribunal an insight into the conditions which the plant manager of Mauthuasen observed during his activity in that position.
I do not have to go into detail here with regard to the preliminary work which the witness describes in Paragraph 4 and 6 of his affidavit; I what to state that in Paragraph 11 the witness mentions the fact that since conditions had to be improved at Mauthausen, in order to stop these bad conditions the Dest had made efforts to organize a separate labor camp which was to be under the control and administration of the Dest. This was done in order to show the inspectorate of the concentration camps that it would be best to take the working inmates out of the concentration camps and put them into a labor camp which would be subordinated in the industrial enterprise.
In the following paragraphs the affiant points out that all attempts of the plant administration had contrary effect, that difficulties were placed in their path whenever it was possible and that Mummenthey's attempt met an enormous amount of resistance. I Paragraph 14 the witness deals with the allocation of the inmates, He mentions the punitive company. In Paragraph 17 the affiant refers to the various measures which Mummenthey made in order to improve the condition of the inmates working in the plants. He also points out Mummenthey's social of the strict administration of the WVHA and the manner in which the directives were issued from higher agencies.
Paragraph 18 deals with the danger of epidemics and the epidemic which actually broke out are Mauthausen. He mentions the measures which Mummenthey took as soon as the fact became known that as epidemic prevailed.
Paragraph 19 mentions the privileges which were obtained for the inmates by Mummenthey's intervention. Paragraph 20 mentions the difficulties which Mummenthey encountered in his attempts to have inmates released. This statement is especially interesting in view of the fact because in the affidavit of the witness Sanner the fact was mentioned, that from Berlin a directive had been issued, stating that inmates were not be released. This is a claim which apparently is based on a misunderstanding of the witness because the plant manager here must be best informed, and he has stated exactly the contrary of what the witness Sanner has testified to.
As my next exhibit I offer Exhibit Number 7. This is Document Number 7 on page 57 of the English text, and this is an affidavit of the merchant Adolf Riemer. It is dated the 11th of July 1947, signed by him on that date, and certified by me. This affidavit refers to the concentration camp Stutthef or the work near Stutthef. May I ask the Tribunal to pay particular attention in this affidavit to Paragraph 5? In the previous paragraphs the witness mentioned the fact that the works there were very old fashioned and that consequently when the works were taken over the works were first of all mechanized and industrialized so that the work for the inmates would be easier. However, it was necessary that in the place of one worker who worked up to that time, now for the same working process three or four inmates were occupied, form which it became evident on the one had that the work of each one of these inmates only amountes to one fourth of what this one civilian worker had to work before. On the other hand, we have the fact that the value of inmate labor only amounted at one fourth of the work a civilian worker carried out. From this it can be concluded that Mummenthey tried to convert these inmates to free workers when they were released for the concentration camp.
In paragraph 8 the conditions are described in detail; and it is also pointed out that Mummenthey procured again additional food for the inmates. In Paragraph 9 the witness mentions the fact that he did not hear anything about any maltreatment of inmates by the guards or by the workers at the plant and that the plant management also tried to treat the inmates will from the humane point of view. The witness gives us truthfully one exception here Paragraph 11 describes again in detail the authority which the camp commanders took upon themselves towards the plant management and the difficulties which Mummenthey encountered in the administration of his on terprise.
He concludes his affidavit with the words: Mummenthey was clean to the core and never had any thought of enriching himself. Aside from the fulfillment of the tasks of the works, he had at heart the welfare of the inmates whom he wanted to lead a free life with work after the war."
My next exhibit will be No. 8. This will be Mummenthey's Document No. 8, page 64 of my document book. This is an affidavit of Otto Georges, and it is dated 11 July 1947. It was signed on that day by the affiant and certified by me. This refers to concentration at Neuengamme. The witness describes in detail the conditions which prevailed there, and I don't need to go into detail here, because the witness Pickle did already describe it in detail, on the point of the bonus system, that point he points out of the treatment, and he also mentions the fact that he did not hear that during working hours at the plant mortality cases of inmates had occurred, and, that, however, the camp commanders had tried repeatedly to detail sick inmates for work but in view of their physical condition were rejected by the plant management, and sent back. He also confirms the witness Bickel's statement, that as result of this there were constant disputes between the plant management and the concentration camp commanders, and that Mummenthey intervened in order to alleviate the conditions of the inmates.
In paragraph 9 the affiant states that Mummenthey had a social attitude and he wanted to change the inmates into free civilian workers after the war, and he tried to do that by giving them training, which had been mentioned before. The social attitude and social consciousness of Mummenthey the witness said in paragraph 9 also was very evident at the annual discussions which took place at the plant. Mummenthey here particularly stressed the social expenses which were incurred by the plants in the interest of the inmates, and he again and again stressed the fact this expense should be increased for the benefit of the inmates. In the course of his activities, he learned to appreciate only the most correct of his superiors he ever had. He never boasted of his authority, and he always advised his colleagues in kind words, and he was not only popular in his own plant, because he was always ready to help but he was always highly respected by the way he carried out his work. This does not only apply to detailed workers, but also of prisoners. This will be also confirmed by the witness Bickel.
My next exhibit No. 9 is Mummenthey's document No. 10. It is the affidavit of Josef Opperbeck, which is dated 15 July 1947. It was signed by the affiant on the date indicated and certified by me. This affidavit refers to the taking over of the business management by Mummenthey as Deputy in the Fall of 1941. It described the manner and just what groups included in paragraph 6, and he again mentioned the fact that Mummenthey always insisted on decent and humane treatment of the inmates. The witness said that Mummenthey also procured tobacco constantly for the inmates, and aside from the he always gave the inmates privileges by having fresh vegetables and things of that sort.
From my document book No. 2 I now would like to come to Document 28 for reasons of better survey. It is on page 38 of my document book. This is a copy of the report of the president of the district court at Leipsig on 31 May 1937, which I want to submit as Exhibit No. 10. I shall point out its contents insofar as at that time the president of the district court there confirms Mummenthey's social consciousness.
As my next exhibit, which will be Exhibit No. 11, it will be document No. 29 on page 40 of my Document Book No. II. This is the affidavit of an inmate August Skladal. It bears the date of 15 July 1947, and Skaldal signed it on that date and I certified to it. Skaldal was, as becomes evident from paragraph 1, arrested by the Gestapo on suspicion for treason, and without any trial he was sent to the concentration camp Reichenau. Later on he came to Dachau and Flossenburg, and finally he came to Neurohlau; In paragraph 3 in the affidavit the affiant describes the activity of Bohemia at Neurohlau, its production, and the facilities which were established there for civilian employees as well as for the inmates. It deals with the food questions there, the work hours and the quite humane treatment of the inmates. It is in paragraph 5. He says he never heard of members or workers in the plant carrying out immoral treatments of inmates." However, I can recall several incidents when punitive measures ordered by the camp commander had to be prematurely discontinued as a result of intercession by the works management."
It would be interesting for the Tribunal to know the incidents which the affiant described in paragraph 7, according to which a camp commander wanted to strike inmates and to assault them, and accordint to which Mummenthey through his intervention prevented this. Furthermore, according to which he told the inmate in almost harsh tones that he was not to be saluted by them in a military manner. In paragraph 8 the witness mentions the fact that Mummenthey on this occasion asked for the name, the profession and the reason why Skaldal was in confinement and he made a statement that he was shocked at the fact of why so many people should be confined in concentration camps because of their political convictions; and were confined with criminals without having committed any crimes. At the time he asked him for his personal state of affairs, and he could in his own way tell him that he was doing well here when compared to the camp at Flossenburg. In this affidavit the witness also described also that the DEST still intervened on behalf of inmates during the last days of the war. I must have made a mistake here. The witness stated here, as the Tribunal can also determine, that he was doing well at Neurohlau compared to the camp at Flossenburg.
My next exhibit will be Exhibit No. 12, which is document No. 30 on page 46 of my Document Book II. This is an affidavit by Gerhard Schrameck, of 18 July 1947, and it was signed on that date by Schramack, and certified by me. This affidavit refers to conditions at Prambachkirchen, and to the foundry at Linz. That was the slack work at Linz. I want to draw the attention of the Tribunal particularly to paragraph it of this affidavit, in which working process is described in detail and to paragraph 6 in which this affiant states that in the other plants, or other industries, conditions were the same which prevailed at Linz, the only difference was here that in the free industry, as I have mentioned before, one civilian worker had to take care of one part of the work, while in the same working process the plant at Linz was carried out by several inmates.
In paragraph 7 the affiant deals with the working hours, and in paragraph 9 states that no abusive treatment much loss inhuman treatment occurred, so far as working employees and working management were concerned. In Linz among the working inmates, intelligent cooperation existed.
Of course, the witness already stated that his relations with the camp commander was very bad, this was the well known Zierreis, and, of course, he did not show any sympathic attitude towards the inmates, and enormous difficulties arose from this condition for the plant managers, and these incidents may have led to the fact that the architect Fischer, who came to the Tribunal and can still recall the fact a DEST employee in his plant was severely attacked by the camp administration, and that he was sent back to the concentration camp.
The next document which I will submit is Exhibit No. 1e, Document 31. This is the affidavit of a certain Sturm Kegel. It is on page 56 of the document book.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Exhibit No. 13 I think it is, instead of 31.
DR. FREOSCHMANN: Yes, Your Honor, it is Exhibit No. 13. This affidavit refers to the clearing up of the debris at Essen carried out by DEST at war time, and it is not of importance to the trial, because actually we did not deal with that subject during the trial. However, it also proves that it was at Essen that DEST also tried to alleviate the conditions of the inmates, so far as DEST was able to do so. Mummenthey constantly tried to be successful here in this respect. Especially through the air attacks at the main works during the end of the war, which certainly was not easy. The witness confirms that the city officials who decided on the construction sites, reported that there were never any violation of laws of humanity, which might have been the source of complaints.
The next exhibit will be No. 14. This is document No. 32. It is an affidavit of Paul Zimmerman on 19 July 1947. It was signed on that date by the affiant, and certified by me. I included this affidavit in my document book because Salpeter, as the Tribunal will recall, had succeeded in being transferred to the front for one year from the DEST. It has been mentioned several times during the presentation of evidence that members of the DEST and the WVHA usually were not able to fight their way out.
The witness Zimmerman said that Selpeter was only able to go to the front because Salpeter had very close personal contact with Zimmerman, and Zimmerman had close relations to Pohl, and only through the intervention of Zimmerman did Salpeter succeed in being transferred from the DEST. This is an exceptional case which did not occur anywhere else.
A. I am now coming to Supplement No. I of my document book. From this Supplement No. I, I want to submit as Exhibit No. 15 Document No. 48. This is an affidavit of a certain Otto Georges.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, Dr. Froeschmann.
DR. FROESCHMANN: This is in the supplement, Your Honor. It is Supplement No. I.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: This is the one that is supposed to have the photographs in it, isn't it, Dr. Freoschmann?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, Your Honor. The photographs which the witness Georges mentioned in this affidavit, which he turned over to me I have with me here, and since it was not possible to include them in the document book, I want to turn them over to the Tribunal now. I have heard just now that the Tribunal has already obtained these photographs which the witness presented, the seven pictures about the works at Neuengamme. From this department in the plant, which I say here I want to name in detail those things because they are contained in the affidavit. It is document No. 48, which becomes Exhibit No. 15. The next exhibit will become exhibit No. 16. This will be Mummenthey's Document No. 49. on page 3 of this supplement. This is an affidavit of an inmate by the name of Earl Adolf Gross. He is an author of a well known book, and his affidavit is dated 29 July 1947, and his signature has been certified. The witness confirms in this affidavit that he saw a circular letter which Mummenthey had signed, and which contained an order, that inmates in supplementation of food in the camp were to be offered as much food as possible by the enterprises. The witness worked in the Porcelain Manufacturing Company, Allach and he said that the Porcelain Manufacturing Company, Allach, complied with this directive, and besides milk and also additional meat will be furnished for the inmates.
This inmate confirmed in particular that the inmates were very decently treated in the Porcelain Manufacturing Company.
Now we are coming back to my document book No. II. This document book No. II includes the legal basis and regulations, about the regulations of the labor allocations in Germany before and during the war, insofar as documents of this kind have not been presented by me or by my other colleagues. I can be very brief on this subject, and I ask the Tribunal to take judicial notice of the contents of these documents. I shall give the documents the following exhibit numbers: Document No. 11 in Document Book No. II, on page 1, will become Exhibit No. 17. This document contains the first order for execution of the Four-Year Plan, about the securing of a rising generation of skilled workers, on 7 November 1936. Document No. 12 on page 3 will become Exhibit No. 18. It deals with the decree of 13 February 1939, the securing of labor wanted for special tasks of state-political importance of 13 February 1938. Document No. 13 is important. I shall give it the Exhibit No. 19. It is on page 4 in the document book No. II. It refers to the foundation of the Reich Office for stones and earth, dated 15 September 1939. Document No. 14 follows, which is on page 6 of the document book, and this will become Exhibit No. 20. It contains the decree about a general building inspector for the Reich Capital, of 30 January 1937, and it is a, basis for the allocations which have been made, or during the presentation of evidence that the DEST had to cover in the requirement of stones in order to reconstruct German cities. Then in connection with this document we have document No. 15, on page 7 of the document book No. II. It is a law about the re-designing of German cities, of 4 October 1937. This will become Exhibit No. 21. Document No. 16 in my document book II deals with the working hours order of 30 April 1938. It will become Exhibit No. 22.
Of special importance is document No. 17. It deals with the working hours on building sites, and it is dated 15 February 1939, and will be Exhibit No. 23. Document No. 18 is an order of 14 January 1940, for the execution of a decree for the protection of labor. This is from document book No. 2, and it will become Exhibit No. 24. Document No. 19 contains a decree of 1 September 1939, changing and amending requirements concerning the labor law. It is on page 12 in my document book, and it will become Exhibit 25. Document No. 20 in Document Book II deals with an order of 25 April 1942, a regulation establishing minimum working time for civil servants during wartime. It is on page 13 in Document Book No. II and it becomes Exhibit No. 26. This document will show the Tribunal just how at the time the so-called total war working hours now were regulated in general in the public service. Then in connection with Document No. 20, we have document No. 21, which contains an order about the sixty hours a week of 31 August 1944. This document is contained on page 15 and 16 of my document book, and it will become Exhibit No. 27.
Document No. 22 will show to the Tribunal the decree on the registration of men and women for Reich Defense Tasks, which is the decree of 27 January 1943. It is on page 17 of my document book and will become Exhibit 28.
Then in connection with this document we have Document No. 23; which is the second decree of 10 June 1944 about the registration of men and women for Reich Defense Tasks. It is located on pages 19 and 20 of my document book -- I beg your pardon. On page 21 of my document book, I submit an extract from the Ministerial Information Sheet of the Prussian Ministry of the Interior about the use of prisoners of war at labor sites, and this document will become Exhibit No. 30.
My next document, which also deals with prisoners of war, will be Document No. 27. I am not going to follow the sequence of the documents here. It will be Document No. 27. This is also an extract from the Informational Sheet of the Prussian Ministry of the Interior that also concerns the work of prisoners of war. This document will become Exhibit No. 31.
Then, as my last document in this sequence, I want to submit Document No. 33, on pages 59 and 60 of my document book. This is the third order of 7 November 1936 for the execution of a four year plan, about the re-direction of metal workers and skilled building workers into their trades. It will show what importance was placed on the re-direction of metal and building workers, and this document will become Exhibit No. 32.
Then we have left Document No. 25, on page 25 of my document book number 2, which includes a number of extracts from the well-known book of the inmate K.A. Gross, whom I have mentioned before today. The title of this book is "Five Minutes to Twelve", and it describes the conditions at Allach. This document, No. 25, will become Exhibit No. 33.
Document No. 26 also contains extracts from Gross' book, "Two thousand Days at Dachau". It is on page 29 of my document book, and it will become Exhibit No. 34.
Your Honor, I thought I could present my Document Book Number 3 now. However, I have just been informed by my collaborator that the translation has been completed but that the reproduction of these documents was done in such a manner that a number of pages were torn and the stencils were destroyed. I don't know whether the Tribunal has Document Book Number 3 in its possession at the present time?
THE PRESIDENT: No.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Then, unfortunately, I am not able to continue in my presentation of documents, because Document Book Number 3 contains a number of important affidavits, which I naturally want to submit to the Tribunal in the English translation.
THE PRESIDENT: You can present them, Dr. Froeshcmann, when they are ready.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Your Honor, then I must interrupt my presentation of documents for the time being.
I left out Document No. 9 in my Document Book 1. I do not want to read it here because the witness Bickel in the meantime has been personally examined before this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have another English copy of your Supplement Book to No. 1?
DR. FROESCHMANN: Your Honor, I have only the German version of it here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, all right; never mind then. Is any other Counsel ready to proceed with documents. Then, much as we regret it, we will have to recess then ten minutes early. Someone will be ready tomorrow morning. Dr. Von Stakelberg will be here with his witness in the morning. We'll proceed at 9:30 in the morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 0930 tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 1620 hours, 26 August 1947, the Tribunal recessed until 0930 hours 27 August 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on August 22, 1947, 9930-1630, Justice Robert M. Toms, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal No. 2.
Military Tribunal 2 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will indicate that the Defendant Mummenthey is absent from this session of court because of illness. The Tribunal has the certificate of the prison physician. He will be excused and the trial will continue in his absence.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, I should like first to call the prison psychiatrist to the witness stand, Dr. Wiedenfeldt.
**** **** **** DR. KARL SIEGFRIED WIEDENFELDT, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Will you raise your right hand and repeat the oath after me:
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.)
THE PRESIDENT: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. ROBBINS:
Q. Herr Doctor, will you give the Tribunal your name and date and place of birth, please?
A. I was born on the 8th of April, 1919, in Dortmund.
Q. And what is your full name, please?
A. Karl Siegfried Wiedenfeldt.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal, Doctor, your educational background and your experience in psychiatry?
A. I began my studios in 1938 in Munich and on the 1st of April 1940, I passed my first examination in Munich. I then went to study for one term in Innsbruck and in October of that year I was called up and went to Vienna to a Reserve Unit of the Luftwaffe concerned with intelligence which went to France and on the 27th of May, 1941, I was attached to a students company at Prague where I continued my studies. During that period of time I studied at Prague and I took the opportunity of visiting the psychiatric and neurological clinic in Prague where I practiced. I remained in Prague until December, 1942, and from there I was transferred to a students' company in Gerlin. There, apart from my studies, I worked in the Institution for psychological research and psychotherapy until the end of 1943. There I had the opportunity to observe neuroses on young members of the Wehrmacht, deserters, and such young people who had become guilty of lack of discipline or other offenses within the Wehrmacht and who to the ordinary medical officer of their unit gave the impression as though there were some conflicts because of the exceptional sensitiveness, which had caused these offenses and for that reason they could not be dealt with by a severe disciplinary punishment. These people reached me through the medical officer and medical offices of the Luftgau, because I was still with the Luftwaffe. They came to me constantly in Berlin where they were first of all given a certificate by the clinic and then treated by one of the doctors concerned. Apart from deserters, we had men with writing cramps, whose reactions were abnormal, but who after a proper treatment were brought back to normal within a short period of time. The symptoms disappeared and they were reunited with the community and brought back to their unit in the Wehrmacht.
On his I worked until the end of 1943 when I made my final medical State examination at the Berlin University. Following my State examination, I took a short training course in the Medical School of the Luftwaffe in Seksche, near Warsaw, where, after about six weeks, I had to become an assistant in accordance with official regulations and I was transferred to the Luftwaffe Hospital at Graz, again I had the opportunity there to work in the Neurologist Psychiatrist Department for six months. In October of that year, 1944, I was attached to the parachutists and, at first, as a training doctor I joined the school for parachutists at Alton near Bochold, which is on the frontier between Germany and Holland at a distance of 15 kilometres to the nearest town in Westphalia. In that Military school I remained until February, 1945. Then I was on active duty in the west. At the beginning of February I was wounded and I was sent to a hospital at Bochold and there with the hospital train I was taken to the Army Hospital in Appeldoorn, Holland. After my splinter wound had healed on my right buttroh, I was employed in the same hospital as a medical officer and fortunately I again worked in the Neurological Department in that hospital. I fell on the 13th of April, 1945, into Canadian hands, who took me prisoner and by the end of July the whole hospital and I were transferred to Eastern Friesia and again I worked in the hospital which had been transferred en Bloc. I remained until the 15th of October, 1945, which is the date when I was released from the Wehrmacht and went home. Several weeks or months later, which I spent looking for a job as assistant in my own line, I came on the 14th of February, 1946 here to the Nurnberg Clinic for Neurology, where I till work today as an assistant doctor. That is my educational background up to date.
Q. And you are the prison psychologist here in the jail, is that correct?
A. Yes, since the 18th of May of this year.
Q. Doctor, have you examined Hans Guenther Otto?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And did you do that at my request?
A. I did so at the request of the prosecution on the 23rd of this month, last Saturday, in the afternoon, for the first time.
Q. And have you had him under close observation since that time?
A. I saw him for the first time on Saturday, the 23rd, in the afternoon, and I talked in detail about two hours with him. We had lengthly conversations. In these conversations, I put questions to him which showed him that I doubted his somewhat adventurous life story, but I always got the same answer from him; when he told me these stories, he made the impression of a normal mentally clear and orderly man.
Q. Doctor, excuse me. First, I want to establish just how much time altogether you have spent with Otto. You tell us you examined him for two hours on Saturday. Did you examine him again on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday?
A Yes, I wanted to make a conclusive picure in order to show that I did not make up my mind within a short period of time, rather that I, after extensive conversations and observations, I wanted to reach a conclusion. That is why I wanted to remark that after the brief period of the two hours which I had spent with him on Saturday afternoon, in spite of the fact that he gave me the impression of being entirely credible, I still expressed some indications to the abnormal and maintained that before I reached a final conclusion I wanted to have him on our clinic for some days. That is why I advised that he be received in our clinic, which was done on Saturday evening. On Sunday morning having talked to him on Saturday, I saw him for the first time again Sunday morning in the clinic and here again we had an extensive conversation. I went deep into his family history and the history of his childhood, and finally to the last few years. Sunday afternoon, I once again talked to him. On Monday morning I saw him for about two hours in order to introduce him to the physician of the hospital, Obermedizinalrat Dr. Von Bayer, on Monday afternoon, so that Dr. Von Bayer could give his verdict. After that I talked to him Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning and again on Tuesday afternoon.
Q Have you studied the files of Otto from Haar-Egolfing?
A Yes, I have.
Q And have you studied the files of the District Attorney from Augsburg concerning Otto?
A Yes, I studied those files as well.
Q And have you examined the testimony of the psychologist and the district attorney?
A Yes, I studied those too.
Q Doctor, would you give the court your diagnosis of the Witness Otto?
AA final diagnosis of Witness Otto would entail that one goes into his somewhat adventurous life until the earliest beginning and take into consideration all forces outside forces and inner forces, in order to form the correct psychological picture and to arrive at the relevant judgment.