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.
Q Where?
AAt Augsburg.
Q Since When have you been active in that profession?
A Since the 9th of July, 1945.
Q Were you examined and admitted by Military Government?
A Yes.
Q Witness, do you know a man by the name of Guenther Otto, alias Johann Torsten?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us in what connection you met this man for the first time?
AAgainst Torsten, at Miesbach, a warrant for arrest was issued for murder. The reason for his arrest was probably another one. As far as I can recall, because he did not have any identification papers with him. I have to correct myself. He did not have any clear identification papers. At Miesbach he alleged, before the judge there, that at Augsburg, at the Lech bridge, where the Autobahn passes across the bridge, in the year 1941 until 1943, he had shot an SS-man and undressed the corpse because there was a very definite resemblance to him. He and his two companions had thrown the corpse into the water. He claimed that he had dressed himself in the uniform and had taken over the identification papers also. Those identification papers of the deceased SS-man, had been in the name of Hans Guenther Otto.
He then stated that he had returned to Augsburg; that he stayed there overnight, and that, on the following day, he had proceeded to Dachau.
There he entered the SS unit, he had reported back to the orderly Room, and then he had gone to the enlisted men's barracks. The unit was about to do some close-order drill. Then the other men returned and they did not see that he was not really Hans Guenther Otto - but they thought this was the real man. I made a mistake here: they did not realize that he was not Torsten, but they took him to be Hans Guenther Otto. He then performed duty for some time with this unit, and then he had gone to the East with the unit.
Q According to the description which Otto gave to you at the time, his real name, therefore, is Torsten?
A The description was not given to me by Guenther Otto in person. He gave his description to the police official, and also to the judge.
Q And you only know this description from the files?
A Yes.
Q And these are official files?
A Yes.
Q And, according to this, one would assume that he is not Hans Guenther Otto at all -- but Hans Torsten?
A Well, he admitted that to me personally. He told me that he was Hans Guenther Otto; that was at the end.
Q Therefore, according to his first description which you have given us just now, his name should actually be Johann Torsten?
A Yes.
Q And he killed Hans Guenther Otto? And then he took his place in the SS guard unit at Dachau?
A Yes.
Q In the guard unit?
A I didn't say that. I don't think so, because he spoke about the fact the he had been sent to the East together with the unit.
Q And then he repudiated the fact that he was Torsten, but he stated that in reality he was Otto?
A Only after several months had passed, he told the police that everything he had said up to that time was untrue. He told them that he really was Hans Guenther Otto.
Q And what he said before -- did that sound credible and was it explained in a credible manner?
A Yes, beyond any doubt.
Q It was explained very clearly -- and then he repudiated it after several months passed?
A Yes.
Q And what happened with regard to the trial against Guenther Otto?
A On the 17th of January, 1947, according to paragraph 51 of the Penal Code, I withdrew the trial because the person was not mentally competent.
Q Paragraph 51; Article I or II?
A It must have been paragraph 1. He was fully mentally incompetent because, according to paragraph II, the punishment under mitigating conditions is considered.
Q Therefore, if you had used paragraph II, then the trial would not have been continued?
A Yes.
Q Therefore, the fact that this procedure was discontinued according to paragraph 51 justifies the conclusion that this was done according to Paragraph 51 (1)?
A Yes. I asked my secretary, and she knows for certain that proceedings were discontinued according to Paragraph 1. She can still recall that.
Q Do you know the text by heart of Paragraph 1 and Article 51?
A "If the perpetrator of the deed is in a mentally incompetent condition at the time he perpetrates a crime --" I don't know the rest of it.
Q Aren't insane people listed there?
A No, that is in the civil -
Q Was your decision based on a medical diagnosis?
A I can't recall that anymore. I can't recall that for certain, I want to say. However, there must have been some diagnosis there. I think from MunichStadlheim -
DR. VON STAKELBERG: In order to explain the matter to the Tribunal, may I say that it is not simple to follow the traces of this matter because Otto was arrested at Stadlheim by the name of Otto while the District Attorney looked for him under the name of Torsten. Stadlheim is one of the largest penal institutions, near Munich. I called up Stadlheim, and I was only able to find out from there that a Guenther Otto had been there, but the files do not exist anymore about him because the District Attorney's office released him as Torsten and the Torsten files were sent back because no man was there by the name of Torsten. Therefore, there is a terrible confusion here.
THE PRESIDENT: It is like sending the prisoner back to Dachau from here -- same kind of confusion.
BY DR. STAKELBERG:
Q You therefore assume that the witness Otto was examined in Stadlheim?
A Yes, I assume that.
Q In any case, it has been determined that you discontinued proceedings against him under paragraph 51 (1)?
A Yes, that is an official document.
Q Where are the files in this matter?
A Because this has been the case of an SS-man here, at the end, after the proceedings were discontinued I believe, I passed the files on to the special branch at Augsburg. There they were only sent back in March, and from the files which consisted of approximately 80 to 100 pages, only three pages were still in existence. I tried to find out what happened to the remainder of the files -
THE PRESIDENT: Probably in the Defense Information Center.
DR. STAKELBERG: I am afraid not, Your Honor.
BY DR. STAKELBERG:
Q Well, for the time being I have no further questions.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. FULKERSON:
Q Witness, do you know what happened down at Miesbach before you saw Otto?
A Thorsten -- or rather Hans Guenther Otto -apparently must have told CIC at Miesbach about this murder of the SS-man, and the CIC apparently made notification of this matter to the court there.
Q Is this part of this mysterious lost file that we are now trying to reconstruct?
A Yes, that was contained in the files. I can still remember that. As far as I can recall, however, the CIC did not believe him.
Q. Well, what did the CIC have to do with the mixed-up identification papers?
A I don't know that any more.
Q Well, it is your impression that he was originally apprehended because of confused identification Papers?
A That was my impression. In any case, already at the very beginning of the proceedings, the identification papers played a major part.
Q And do you know who originally arrested him? Was that the German police or was that the CIC -- or who was it?
A The warrant for his arrest was issued by the local court at Miesbach. Some police authority in that court district carried out the actual arrest. On whose orders this was done I can't tell you any more.
Q You don't know what lead up to that warrant's being issued?
A No, I can't give you the actual reason for it. I must differentiate here between the arrest, between the temporary arrest, and the warrant for arrest. The warrant for the arrest is still included in the three papers. I turned them over to an investigator on Saturday, and this warrant for arrest has already been issued because of murder.
Q And that was at Miesbach?
A That was at Miesbach, yes.
Q Was that the second warrant?
A No, I don't think so. In any case, I didn't see any other warrant for arrest.
MR. ROBBINS: Witness, are you positive that the case against Otto was discontinued on the basis of a medical examination and not on orders of the C.I.C, the Special Branch Agency of C.I.C.?
THE WITNESS: No, I certainly would still remember it if this C.I.C. or Special Branch, had interfered in that matter.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. VON STAKELBERG: (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT FANSLAU):
Q Witness, I nave one more question. The description which Otto gave you about the murder, did it contain all the details?
A Yes, he had even the most minute details in that. The description actually was quite credible. However, there were certain points in it which could not be true: for example, the fact that a sentry should return after three days and nothing would happen to him, as far as his unit is concerned, Or that all the other comrades who were in the room would not recognize him, although he was new.
Q However, these are just conclusions. His description contained minute details?
A Yes.
Q And they were quite credibly presented?
A Yes.
Q And he refuted this description?
A Yes.
Q Immediately?
A No, very much later. He admitted to me that this description was untrue.
Q And what does he say today?
A I didn't hear anything further from Guenther Otto, until on the 19th of August.
Q The 19th of August?
A I received a letter from him from the Witness Building in Nurnberg. This letter bears the date of the 17th of August, 1947. In this letter he states amongst other things, "the deed which I have described so precisely has happened, and it happened at a bridge across the Weichsel."
Q First he described the deed in all its details?
A Yes.
Q And then he claims that this had happened at the Lech Autobahn Bridge at Augsburg and then after some time has passed he refuted this description altogether?
A Yes.
Q And now he claims that he had carried out such a deed, but at a bridge across the Weichsel, in Poland, apparently?
A Yes, apparently.
Q Did you give us the date when you ordered the proceedings be discontinued by virtue of Paragraph 51?
A That was on the 17th of January, 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the deed that he refers to as happening in Poland has nothing to do with the shooting of the SS officer.
THE WITNESS: The deed which he alleged to have committed at the Weichsel Bridge at Poland was-supposed to be the same about which he has given us a description in Augsburg. May I read this letter?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please. Just a moment. Will you look over his shoulder just a moment.
THE WITNESS: "The deed happened in the struggle against the Nazi Regime. In the vehicle young people were sitting. They had realized one thing, namely, that the rights of human beings were being stepped upon by the person who were in power. They shot down the SD man and Torsten, that was his name in reality, fired the shot also." Do you want me to continue?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: "However, one thing was not true, that what you have told me. It was not murder in this villanous act." I want to add one thing here. That is not correct either. I have never believed that this was murder. I have never claimed that and when he came to see me on one occasion I only told him, now that he had make a confession that the deed had not happened. Then I told him that in the future he should not engage in such villanous acts.
Of course the letter is much longer.
DR. VON STAKELBERG: I don't know whether the Tribunal would like to hear this entire letter.
MR. ROBBINS: May I ask that this letter be turned over also to the prison psychiatrist, along with the other files, after the prosecution has -
THE PRESIDENT: This letter might be very illuminating. I think it ought to be translated carefully for both the defense and the prosecution. No, not now. Not now.
THE WITNESS: To whom shall I give this letter?
THE PRESIDENT: If the Major will wake up -
DR. VON STAKELBERG: Your Honor, I would like to add one thing. I did not intend to prove with this witness here directly that the witness Otto has refuted himself in the description of alleged execution of the Jews, but this testimony here was to serve in shaking the credibility of the Witness Otto altogether. The shooting of Jews at the time -- he hasn't mentioned that at all elsewhere. So far as I have been able to determine, they now appear here for the first time in his description of curriculum vitae.
THE WITNESS: May I say something? He included a very extensive curriculum vitae in the files. However, he did not mention any other incidents there.
Q Although he wrote his curriculum vitae in detail, he did not make any statements about atrocities he observed in Poland or in Russia?
A No.
DR. VON STAKELBERT: I have no further questions, Your Honor.