A. I don't know. I was not present. I cannot answer that.
Q. Does his record give a diagnosis of his mental condition?
A. The records, yes. In the records he is called a psychopath.
Q. It does not say that he was suffering with any particular mental disease?
A. The diagnosis has been supplemented by an additional remark of the Pseudologists, that is to say, he is the kind of man who invents, or has imagination, a pseudological-psychopath.
Q. You do not say though that he is suffering with a known mental disease, such as paranoid, dementia-praecox, or some other known mental disease?
A. No, no, he is a psychopath and he has nothing psychotic. The psychopath is deviating from the norm. And psychosis is something of a disease. Something new is added which can not be explained by the actual state of mind. It is either a permanent feature, or only a temporary, but in this case not the psychopath. He simply deviates from the average norm.
Q. Is it or is it not a fact that a psychopathic patient can tell the truth?
A. Certainly.
Q. That just because they are psychopathic ***, that does not of itself mean that they are liars, does it?
A. No. There are a number of different psychopathic patients; there are liars, people with high imagination (phanta), swindlers, people without any hold over themselves, and so on, and his case is simply one of the many categories.
Q. In other words, you do not consider him an insane person, but an abnormal person?
A. Insane in that sense he certainly is not, but he is abnormal.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: May I just put one more question in this connection to the witness?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. The disease, we shall not call it a disease as has been diagnosed, the abnormal state, is that known as "Pseudologia Phantastica." You would not call it a social disease?
A. Well the psychopathic cases you have to differentiate according to the degree.
Q. The degree, you say?
A. Yes, the degree, the psychopathical patient can be described as an insane person if the degree becomes so acute.
Q. Can you exclude with certainty that Otto has already reached the borderline of abnormality?
A. No, I am afraid I cannot say that.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Thank you very much.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Dr. Stakelberg, please find out the date when the diagnosis was made as to the patient's abnormality.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q. When was the diagnosis made, namely, on the witness Otto, as to being an abnormal person.
A. Well, when the patient concerned has been examined and observed for sometime, then the diagnosis is made, and as the release the diagnosis is reviewed, whether or not it still applies.
Q. I see.
A In the case of Otto after he escaped the diagnosis had ended, and his file read that he was a pseudological psychopathic patient.
Q Was that stated for the first time, a certain period of time after he had been committed?
A Yes
Q And then it was confirmed after he had disappeared.
A Yes, the official physician of Wesserburg had also taken than position on account of his talking nonsense, by his boasting. He had given cause for the suspicion that this might apply.
Q That this suspicion had been reached, you mean to say in your institution. He was under suspicion of being a "pseudologia fantastica" patient and that suspicion was then confirmed?
A Yes, that suspicion by the official physician was directly confirmed by our observation and diagnosis.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: While it is naturally obvious that this diagnosis was made before -- while it is apparent that this diagnosis must have been made before Otto ever appeared in this courtroom, yet, I would like as a matter of record to have it shown that psychologically it did precede the diagnosis, preceded his appearance in a court of law to tell the story which he did here relate.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q The diagnosis was decided upon from the point of your statement, when?
A Well, he arrived in August 1945, and by the end of August the diagnosis was made.
Q By the end of August 1945?
A Yes, but it was confirmed now, you see.
Q The diagnosis was made by the end of August 1945?
A Yes.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: It was before the witness gave evidence here.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Let me ask you one more question.
Q Doctor, in your experience with psychopathic patients, haven't you had the experience that a number of patients, such as Otto, who would tell all kinds of fanatastic stories about their own life, about their own exploits, experiences that they had which were fantastic, but would not tell falsehoods about some one else?
A If I have followed your question, namely, that these fantastic imaginations are being produced, but otherwise, you mean, these speak the truth?
Q No, nothing like that. Will you repeat my question.
(Whereupon the question was read in German to the witness)
A Yes, as I said before, in the case of a psychopathical liar, it does not occur that they tell lies both about themselves and about others to a quite an abnormal extent.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Do you wish me to continue?
JUDGE PHILLIPS: If you will, please.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q His Honor's question was as follows: Is it your experience that a psychopathic patient of the type of the witness Otto, that they tell untruth stories about themselves, bragging about themselves, but sofar as other people are concerned, they do speak the truth?
A They might about others.
Q That is to say, a difference could be made between the stories they tell about themselves, or the stories they tell about each other?
A No, they lie about themselves, and invent things just as easily about strangers.
DR. PRABILLA: Dr. Pribilla for the defendant Tschentscher.
BY DR. PRIBILLA:
Q Doctor, you said that the witness Otto's state of mind was abnormal, psychopathic, of these special types of the highly psychopathic-pseudological variety.
When you were asked whether or not Otto was insane, you said, if I understood you correctly, you could not say with certainty, that he was a borderline case?
A Yes -
Q Excuse me, I have not quite finished as yet. Then you said after he had been committed, a conference of doctors had decided the diagnosis, and I must state that Otto then continued to remain in the lunatic asylum; that it seems to me is a self-contradiction of your statement that he was not with any certainty insane. Then one might or can say, that is, I take it, that you said that his state of mind was sufficiently serious for a conference of doctors to decide to keep him in a lunatic asylum.
A Well, the actual reason was that these inferior psychopathic cases are very frequently anti-social in character. That was the reason why we kept him in the Institution, because he represented a danger to mankind, and they must be kept under observation in an institution. Article 82 applies.
Q Anyway, he was sufficiently abnormal that it was necessary to keep him there in order to make him harmless?
A (no answer)
Q And another point in your testimony by which I was startled, was the fact that you said that very frequently these people had other special gifts. The fact the term "pseudology" is based on the Greek word "Logos". I want to know how does a psychopathic patient behave towards other human beings; is he, for instance in a position to influence other people, to have an influence on them, and what effect does that influence have to be considered on other people's mind?
A Yes, these psychopathic patients are highly unpopular in an institution, because they always have bad influence on their surroundings.
Q I mean, quite concretely, would he, for instance, be able to persuade others with his own imaginative inventions?
A Yes, sofar as they share his, disposition. What I mean not everybody can differentiate between truth and liars, this is simply believed. I mean, by only to listen to him.
Q I once heard that people like that have an hypnotic power sofar as others are concerned. They can tell their tales in a highly convincing manner?
A Yes, certainly that fact exists.
DR. PRIBILLA: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: You would not think that was hypnotic, would you, Doctor?
A Please. Up to a point, yes, certainly.
Q This patient could not fool you, could he, with his tall stories?
A Not, of course, with a usual hypnotic power, in a large sense of the word.
Q That is what I mean. They tell a convincing story to a person who is not smart enough to catch them at it?
A Yes, quite.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we all do that, of course. Never mind. Any cross examination?
MR. FULKERSON: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Quarter to two.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 1345 hours.
(A recess was taken until 1345 hours, same date.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 25 August, 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
KARL STEIGELE - Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q May it please the Tribunal, Doctor, I have a few questions I would like to put to you, if you please. It is true, is it not, that there are many people in the common walks of life who would be considered psychopathic if examined by a psychiatrist?
THE INTERPRETER: Just a moment.
MR. ROBBINS: Can you hear me?
THE WITNESS: I can hear you somewhat better now.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q It is true, is it not, that there are many people in the common walks of life who would be considered psychopathic if examined by a psychiatrist?
A Oh, you mean psychopathic cases?
Q I beg your pardon. Yes, would be psychopathic cases.
A Yes.
Q A good many professional people, doctors and lawyers, would be considered psychopathic cases if they were examined by a psychiatrist?
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to put the judges in?
A That depends.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q What percentage of the population would you say, Doctor, what percentage of the population would you estimate to be psychopathics?
A Well, it is impossible to answer that.
Q Isn't it true, Doctor, that in Germany that a man can be sent to a mental institution by the police for a check-up, and if the police do not request his return that he stays there for a long period of time?
AArticle 80
Q Excuse me, I am not asking you about the law, I am asking you about what happens as a matter of fact. If the police send a man to a mental institution for a check-up, isn't it true that if often happens that he stays there for a year or more?
A Well, first of all there has to be a certificate from a physician that the person who is sent to the institution actually is mentally insane, or the court may send him to an institution for observation. However, a person isn't just sent to an institution without any other procedure being followed. The prerequisite is always a certificate by the physician.
Q Doctor, it isn't true that every patient in the institution has a certificate that he is insane?
AA certificate?
Q Yes. It is not true in every case, is it?
A Well, either he is sent there for observation, or it is possible that he has been sent in from the outside, that he has been insane there, but he isn't sent to the institution just without any procedure.
Q Doesn't it often happen that a man is sent to an institution for observation and remains there for a long period of time, and until someone requests his release, and isn't that particularly true where the patient is a good worker?
A No. If it is discovered later on that the ill person can be released, then he is released.
Q Do you know from the case history of Otto about his political leanings, whether or not he had socialist and pacifist views?
A From his case history we only know that he was with the resistance movement. However, beyond that we don't know anything, we can't find anything about it.
Q Would you say that his attitudes are anti-Nazi?
A Yes. I personally did not make his acquaintance. I can't give you any information about that.
Q I understand that. You say that your conclusions about his state of mind are based on what the other doctors at Haar-Eglfing told you about Otto, is that correct, and what they wrote, put in the file?
A Yes.
Q That is correct.
A Well, the case histories are written down in an objective sense and opinions are not put into the case histories, but only facts.
Q Just answer my question, please. Is it true that your conclusions that you have testified here today are based upon your conversations with the doctors and nurses and what you have seen in Otto's files?
A Yes, whether I gained my impression there, yes.
Q Now, tell me, Doctor, how many patients you have at HaarEglfing; how many are there in the entire mental institution?
A Well, more than three thousand.
Q And there are about eight attendants and nurses, are there not, eight attendants and nurses?
A Oh, nurses. I didn't hear the last word.
Q How many attendants and nurses are there in the institution?
A Nurses? Well, approximately four hundred.
Q Four hundred nurses?
A Yes, nurses, nursing personnel. I can't give you the exact figure today. Some of them are constantly dismissed and some new people begin to work there. I can't give you the exact figure.
Q How many doctors do you have there, psychiatrists?
AAbout twelve.
Q And these nurses that you have, are they mostly male nurses?
A Yes, for the male patients we have male nurses, and for the female patients we have female nurses.
Q Have they had any psychiatric education, any training in school?
A Yes, they have to pass an examination and take training courses. They have to pass a state examination. They have to pass the state nursing examination.
Q How often would a doctor in the ordinary course of affairs have a conversation with a patient such as Otto?
A Well, every time they paid a visit to him.
Q How often would that be?
AAt least twice a day, and in a special case he would go to see him more often.
Q Can you say how many times doctors examined Otto?
A I did not examine him at all.
Q How many times was he examined by doctors?
A That escapes my knowledge. I can't give you any information about that.
Q You have told us that the nurses and doctors were quite experienced. By that do you mean that they have been in your institution quite a long time?
A I didn't understand the question.
Q Have your doctors and nurses been in Haar-Eglfing for some period of time?
A Yes, certainly. They were all experienced nurses. I mean they had spent many years in the service.
Q And had they spent many years in Haar-Eglfing?
A Most of them, yes.
Q And most of them were there during the war, weren't they?
A Yes, even before that.
Q And you have been there since 1914 yourself?
A I beg your pardon?
(The question was repeated by the interpreter)
A No, I came to Eglfing in 1941. Before that I was at the institution at Gabelsee.
Q And Dr. Wegel or Weigel was the doctor who examined Otto, was he not?
A. What doctor?
Q Dr. Weigel.
A Weigel, and a certain Dr. Breidinger.
Q Did Dr. Breidinger examine him?
A Breidinger accepted him, admitted him to the institution.
Q How long was Breidinger at Haar-Eglfing?
A Since when? Oh, since 1945.
Q How long was Weigel at Haar-Eglfing?
A Just as long approximately.
Q When did Weigel first come to Haar-Eglfing?
A When he came? Oh, I don't know the exact date.
Q He was there during the war, wasn't he?
A Well, after the war, after the war.
Q Wasn't he there before the war or during the war?
A No. He was a very young physician.
Q How long was Dr. Vanmueller at Haar-Eglfing?
A Since 1935.
Q And you say that most of the nurses were there during the war most of the doctors and nurses?
A Yes.
Q It is true, isn't it, that Haar-Eglfing, during the war, was a screening station for the euthanasia program?
A Yes, certainly.
Q That was true, isn't it?
A However, not all the physicians agreed with that method.
Q It is true, isn't it, that a good many political opponents and anti-Nazis and Jews were killed there during the course of the program?
A Well, I don't think that this is relevant to the case here.
Q Just answer my question. We will decide that. It is true, isn't it?
A Just what question are you referring to?
Q It is true that a good many anti-Nazis were killed, and screened at Haar-Eglfing and later sent on?
A I don't know that, because I only came to that place in 1941.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, I object to the question because the question is not relevant.
MR. ROBBINS: May I say to the Tribunal that there were two, almost two complete document books introduced into evidence in the medical case that show that Haar-Eglfing was one of the most notorious euthanasia stations during the course of the war. They were signed by Viktor Brack, defendant in the medical case, and show it was in the center of the program, and it is also established that it was one of the places where the Jews and anti-Nazis were screened for later gassing. Now, it is the contention of the Prosecution that the testimony of this witness has been colored by the fact that Otto is strongly anti-Nazi, and that the political complexion of the institution is quite notorious all over Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the euthanasia program included in the indictment?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, I think it is, Your Honor. It is in the indictment in this case. The reason for my asking the question, however, is to impeach the veracity of this witness. Otto himself testified that one of the reasons why he was kept there as long as he was, was that he was not permitted to face an American officer and make the claims that he found there, and this witness himself says that two people were later arrested by the CIC through Otto's so-called denunciations.
DR. PRIBILLA: Your Honor, the witness has stated that this has happened at Wasserburg before the witness Otto was taken to Eglfing. Your Honor, in spite of everything I still want to object to the question because the witness has already replied to the question whether the anti-National Socialist attitude of the witness Otto was known to him, and he has stated that he didn't know anything about it. If he didn't know anything about the anti-Nazi attitude of the witness Otto, then it is not important any more to decide the question here whether the institute is anti-Nazi or not.
MR. ROBBINS: I think it is important because this doctor testified that he gained most of his impressions from talking to nurses and doctors, most of whom where there during the time that the euthanasia program was being carried on. This doctor himself was there during the same period of time.
I might say that the Prosecution is in possession of a sworn statement of the Director of the Institution, Dr. Vanmueller, where he admits that Jews were sent from his institution to Lublin to be liquidated.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, the witness is an employee of a public institution. This institution, I assume, has been checked by the Military Government and even today it is a state institution.
MR. ROBBINS: That is exactly right, and Dr. Vanmueller is today under arrest and will be tried, I understand, by the British for his participation in this notorious program.
THE PRESIDENT: The euthanasia is specifically mentioned in Paragraph 3 of Count I of the indictment.
DR. PRIBILLA: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: To carry out the so-called euthanasia program of the German Reich.
DR. PRIBILLA: Your Honor, the witness has been called by me to appear here as a rebuttal witness against the witness Otto. He has only appeared here as an expert for this question. The crossexamination, therefore, must be confined to what I have mentioned in my examination. I cannot agree that the Prosecution should take my limited witness here and that they should change him here into a witness for the Prosecution. That changes the designation of the witness completely.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, in the first place the credibility of this witness is before the Court, and if it could, be shown, for instance, that he was a bigamist or a thief or that he had murdered his wife or anything of that kind, that could all be shown as affecting his credibility.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, if that is presented before the Court in order to doubt the credibility of the witness, then it is another question. However, up to now it has only been stated here that these questions are being asked in view of the fact that this has been mentioned in the indictment so that this is to become additional material for the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Robbin's point is that if Otto was shown to be anti-Nazi that the conclusion of the doctors as to his mental condition might be different because of that fact. I think we will let the examination continue, and keep it within proper bounds.
BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, did you ever read the report of the United States Army Intelligence Service on the Euthanasia program at Haar-Eglfing?
A No, but I would like to add something with regard to the previous question. Now we have reached the year 1947; in the year 1941 the Euthanasia program was discontinued; and Herr Otto was sent to our institution in 1945. Furthermore, we have a different government now.
Q It is true, isn't it, that it has been recently established that you still have, until very recently, some ex-Gestapo agents on your staff at Haar-Eglfing?
A I don't know anything about it. Furthermore, I would like to point out once more that I only came to Haar-Eglfing in 1941, after all these programs were stopped. I couldn't know anything about the matter because we did not carry it out.
Q I think the documents will show that it was not discontinued in 1941 -- but let me ask you: do you know the nurse Schrottl -- Schrottl, a male nurse?
A I don't know him.
Q S-c-h-r-o-t-t-l?
A Schrottl -- I don't know him. I can't recall him at the moment.
Q You don't remember that such a person was found by the Spruchkammer in a denazification proceeding to be an ex-Gestapo agent?
A Well, that may have been the case at a time when I was not there. I can't give you any information about it because I don't know it.
Q Well, Doctor, haven't you recently lost several nurses -- several male nurses -- at Haar-Eglfing as a result of the denazification proceedings?
A I didn't understand your question. (Question repeated) Yes; some of them were dismissed and new ones were hired.
Q When did Weigel leave your institution?
A Two months ago.
Q He was a member of the Party, was he not?
A I don't know that.
Q Was Dr. Vanmueller?
A Certainly.
Q He joined in 1933, didn't he?
A I beg your pardon -- Yes, at the time, of course, I didn't know Director Vanmueller.
Q He was a member of the SA, also, wasn't he?
A I think so.
Q Were you a member of the Party, Doctor?
A Me? Yes.
Q You have been denazified -- gone through the Spruchkammer?
A Yes.
Q Who made the entries in the files that you read, in Otto's files?
A In any case, Dr. Breidinger must have done that, and Dr. Weigel.
Q Doctor, in February, 1942, did you take an oath of secrecy at Haar-Eglfing?
AAt Eglfing? No. Who should have done that?
Q You never heard about oaths of secrecy administered at Haar-Eglfing in connection with the Euthanasia program?
A No, I have just told you that I only came there in 1941. Nothing could have been kept secret at the time because nothing was going on.
Q I show you a document, Doctor, No-1311, and ask you if you ever saw such an oath of secrecy?
A No, No.
Q Well, that was at the direction of Dr. Vanmueller, wasn't it? This oath of secrecy, that you will face prosecution by the Gestapo -
A I am very sorry that I can answer it only in the negative. I don't know anything about the entire matter.
Q What do you suppose -
A I only came there in 1941, and I am glad I only came then.
Q This is 1942 -
A I never saw anything like it -- never saw that.
Q What do you suppose these oaths of secrecy were administered for in February, 1942?
A I don't know that because I wasn't told anything about it.
Q What year, Doctor, did you join the Party?
A In 1937.
Q What category did you come under the Denazification proceedings?
A I was acquitted.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
DR. VON STAKELBERG (Counsel for Defendant Fanslau) Just a moment, please, I have a few questions to ask you.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q Dr. Steichele, was the institution at EglfingHaar checked by Military Government?
A Yes; naturally. The present director is Prof. Dr. von Braunmill and he was appointed by Military Government.
Q He was appointed by the Military Government?
A Yes.
Q And the individual physicians were also approved by Military Government?
A Yes; each of them had to be approved.
Q And you were also acquitted?
A Yes; a long time ago.
Q I have one more factual question to ask you. Does this pseudologia phantastica here, from which this witness Otto is suffering -- does it express itself in the fact that he will only tell his fantastic stories to those people to whom he believes himself mentally superior? Or does he just tell them to anybody?
A He will tell them to anybody. He has an urge to boast and to lie and to tell stories in general; but that is born in him. That is an hereditary trait.
Q And it doesn't make any difference who confronts him?
A No.
Q And therefore, a testimony in a courtroom will also come under the same diagnosis?
A Yes.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I have no further questions.
BY DR. PRIBILLA (Counsel for defendant Tschentscher):
Q Doctor, if the witness Otto tells such fantastic stories, does he then prefer to tell those stories where he, himself, plays a good part?
A Yes, naturally. Well, it is just that he wants to boast. He wants to play the major part in every case. That is the typical symptom of his psychopathic case.
Q Does it, therefore, correspond with his disease that now when it is favorable he tells us that he was an anti-Nazi, and that he had been persecuted because of this anti-Nazi attitude?
A Yes, naturally. He will tell that according to the situation which prevails at present.
Q Thank you.
BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
Q Herr Doctor Steichele, the physicians who were there in 1946, were they also checked by Military Government?
A Yes, naturally; all of them.
Q All physicians? And all of them are dependable physicians?
A Yes.
Q And all these physicians were not directed by the National Socialist directives and ideology?
A No, they were not even members of the Party.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all, Doctor. You may be excused. Thank you. (Witness excused.)
MR. ROBBINS: May I say that we have had a report from the Prison Psychiatrist and from the psychiatrist in the General Hospital, and we should like to call one of those psychiatrists tomorrow to testify.
THE PRESIDENT: Thursday. No, Wednesday.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I hope to be back on Wednesday.
Your Honor, I now have another witness here; that is the District Attorney Freitag. He is here, and I would like him to be brought to the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, will the Marshal bring the District Attorney Freitag in?
FRANZ FREITAG, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Will you please raise your right hand and repeat the 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.)
JUDGE MUSMANNO: You maybe seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. VON STAKELBERG:
A Witness, please give us your full name?
A Freitag, Franz.
Q When were you born?
A On the 12th of February, 1906.
Q What is your profession at present?
A I am the First District Attorney.