filled fountain pen, and the third line, "Sven Hedin Plantz 8" a Swedish explorer, seems to have been written with a common pen holder which had not much ink for the last letters. Moreover, the entries of the 23rd of October 42 and 27th of October 42 seem to be somewhat pale for having been made ten months after the two entries of December 1941. However I must say that I limit myself to a statement of probability in accordance with the actual date of these entries. This kind of an expert opinion chiefly concerns a chemical expert. The nature and quality of ink may have been altered during the war. Substitutes may have been used, and I do not consider myself as an expert, I mean a chemical expert, in this fields and in this case there is only a presumption of probability for the actual date of the entries. the entry opposite the printed word "Telephone", "Sven Hedin Platz" and the number -- I do not recall the number -
Q -- was made by her in January 1948. Would you say from the nature of the handwriting and from the quality of the ink that the entry of 7 February was made approximately at the same time?
A In all probability these two entires, "Sven Hedin Plat_ 8" and "7 February Pol" have been made by one and the same person at the same time.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Thank you very much, Commander, Your Honors, I have no further questions. BY THE COURT: probably made more recently that the on of January 42, you don't mean merely the sequence of a month,
Q Because naturally it would be more recent in chronology? month's space of time.
A Yes. Yes, your Honor, but it is indeed very hard to fix even an approximate date, an approximate length of time.
Q Well, we wanted to make clear that you didn't merely mean that it was subsequent,-itself it would have to be one month later.
A I don't think it is possible to see a difference of one or two or three months in an ink, in the color of an ink which has been used six years ago. I do not think that it could be possible to point out a difference of such a short distance of one or two or even three months between two handwritings written six years ago. I don't think so. That is all I meant. I meant a much, much longer time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Does defense counsel desire to cross-examine? BY DR. KRAUSE. Writings is based on medical interest mainly. You said here you were particularly interested for diagnostic reasons. As an expert are you in a position to determine a handwriting from a technical point of view concerning the letters and the manner of writing on the basis of your experience?
A You mean the identification of a given handwriting? mainly on the basis of their exterior impression and on the basis of the technical event which took place when the writing was actually done?
able, like many handwriting experts, to determine the actual number of different species of a given handwriting. I think it is out of the question to say that it is a more question of impression, and the eleven species I have indicated for the violet ink and the fifteen other species I have indicated for the blue-black ink, indicate clearly that it is not a mere impression but these reserves are based on an objective and, let's say, scientific study.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution is not advised that defense counsel for the defendant Haensch has offered in evidence any expert opinion on the exhibit. If he did or if he wanted to be may do so, but he cannot question the witness on expert opinions which are not in evidence before this Tribunal.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor, it is my opinion that I should be permitted to put questions which concern the ability of the witness to give an expert opinion.
MR. HORLICH-HOCHWALD: Defense counsel for the defendant Haensch cannot cite and not quote evidence which is not before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he has the right to test the capacity and competence of the expert witness.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Your Honor, he certainly has, and there is no objection to that, but I do not think that it is possible that he may question the witness on documents which are non-existent in this courtroom.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor, I am not operating with any documents or any other papers which have not been submitted to the Tribunal. I merely put questions with no regard to such basic material in order to find out how the expert was interested in handwritings and to what extent and how his opinion should be considered here.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. The objection is overruled.
Q (By Dr. Krause) Commandant, in your opinion you are speaking about special characteristics, about the speed and the pressure, the form, the size, the direction, etc., and you draw certain conclusions from this, in particular also pertaining to the temperament and the psychological state of the person who wrote. Is this not rather a graphological way of judging a handwriting? But I understand scientific graphology to be, the opinion on a handwriting to the effect that from the handwriting and from the entire impression one gains from the handwriting one can draw conclusions asto the personality of the writer, in particular to his psychological state of mind, his inclinations, etc., but has this anything to do with a comparison of handwriting? word "graphology" it wasonly as far as I have quoted the works of the two French masters who wrote specialized books about handwriting, but I have entirely and definitely limited myself to the word "handwriting" and I did not use in any way the word "graphology". Handwriting and graphology are two different things. I think handwriting is recognized the world over as an objective applied science. and whatever could be my opinion on the possibility of investigating character and temperament through handwriting, -- I do not mean to bring in this court anything else but my experience and knowledge of the objective and scientific study of handwriting. I did not say, for instance, that the person who wrote with the violet ink had such character or such temperament. I did not say that the person who wrote with the blue and black ink had such and such character.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand What you have in mind. You are merely indicating objectively what your study of the handwriting shows only for the purpose of comparison as to the possible author of the handwriting, -
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Not the characteristics which went into that person who Wrote.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I limit myself to an identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: And this identification has been a part, an official part of my training as an expert on neuropsychiatry.
Q (By Dr. Krause) I can leave this point, Commandant, but my misgivings originated when you described your career and your training for this job. You quoted a number of works which in my opinion are purely scientific graphological works and do not concern the usual comparison of handwritings which we know normally.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, this is entirely a matter of argument and not the subject of cross-examination.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor, I am not arguing at the moment but I merely took the liberty of explaining my questions.
Q (By Dr. Krause) Commandant, the female witness who has been questioned here, said among other things that the entries on the card were often made in a hurry. Is that your opinion and did you consider that in your opinion? when she made the entries. Did you consider that too, because she didn't have time to sit down? far as I can be sure -- I am sure that several words which would appear to a, let's say, amateur handwriting expert as written by two different persons have in all probability been written by the same person standing up, for instance, or being obliged to write without a support or in a bad physical condition, but I think it is quite easy to consider and to see on this chart -- Yes, but that does not keep me from believing that main question resides in the fact that at least two different persons have written entries on these charts so far.
addition was made this was done in the evening and sometimes even on Sundays. I believe that she had more time to work then than in the hurry during the day. Do you still stick to your statement that the differences, which you also find concerning speed, oblige you to draw the conclusion that two different persons have made entries on this card?
A Well, I do not understand very Well the question. I do not want you to repeat it counsel. I just want to say that, do you mean the entries which have been written with the exception of the violet 1 ink, that is to say the blue and black ink, or do you mean that there is a possibility of identity between the violet ink and the blue and black ink?
blue-black ink, as far as I know, which refer to the prices and the addition of the prices, in my opinion were written by the same person. Therefore no two persons took part in writing those figures.
A In all probability. I agree.
DR. KRAUSE: Yes, thank you.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I have only two questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. BY MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD. on the handwriting of the so-called Ding Diary an exhibit before Tribunal No. I, in Case No. I? accepted by the Tribunal and whether in the judgment this Tribunal has accepted your view on the genuineness of this document?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, do you know whether you will need the other witness again?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, in view of the testimony of the witness, who has herself testified that she has added something on the exhibit at a later date, and with the view that she herself has admitted that somebody else than herself has made entries on the chart, in view of the expert opinion given by Commander Bayle now, I respectfully move that the exhibit may be rule out and not accepted in evidence. Furthermore, I respectfully move that the witness may be warned by the Tribunal as, according to her own admission, she has made statements in this affidavit under oath, which could not be upheld by her on the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: We have just been informed that the sound tape is about to run out this evening, so that the ruling will be made tomorrow morning.
The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 12 February 1948 at 0930 hours.)
Michael A. Musmanno, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I would like to ask that for today, too, the defendant Ohlendorf should be excused for this afternoon and, if there should be a session, also this evening, and be brought to room 57 in order to continue our discussion.
THE PRESIDENT: That, of course, will be entirely agreeable, Dr. Aschenauer but we wanted to make an announcement so that all defense counsel will be informed, and the defendants, Prosecution, of course. Tomorrow the defendants will have the opportunity to make their final statements which procedure is provided in the ordinance under which the court operates. So, that the program for the remaining period will be as follows:
Today we will hear the four remaining closing speeches. Then tomorrow morning we will convene in Courtroom #, the large courtroom. The Prosecution will make its final statement. Defense counsel will be permitted extemporaneously to reply to any completely new matter which could by any chance appear in the Prosecution's final statement. And, then following that the defendants will individually make their statements. In order that the defendants will know the approximate length of their remarks we would suggest that 10 minutes would be ample for each defendant, a maximum of 10 minutes. He, of course, does not need to use all that time if he doesn't desire. The defendant Ohlendorf, of course, will be allowed more time - whatever time is required, whatever time he feels is in order burden of outlining the general defense, the law, and so on. Amd, so with that in mind he would not be limited within reasonable bounds, of course.
If any defendant should feel he would require more than ten minutes then the Tribunal should be informed today of that fact so the necessary arrangements can be made. Then, we will add, the defendant Ohlendorf will be excused from attendance in court - you want him all day today?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Only this afternoon and evening, if there is a session.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Ohlendorf will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon and, also, this evening if there should be an evening session.
DR. ASCHNAUER: That means tonight he needn't come either?
THE PRESIDENT: That's right, should there be an evening session.
Not all the lawyers are here this morning. Will those who are present please take it upon themselves to acquaint their colleagues with what the Tribunal has stated? Thank you. BY DR. HOCHWALD:
Q. May it please the Tribunal, I have only a very few questions to the witness. Witness, yesterday after you had testified the Tribunal heard the testimony of an expert witness on the file card which you ---
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. BY DR. HOCHWALD:
Q. Witness, yesterday after you had testified the Tribunal heard testimony from an expert witness on the file card which you have allegedly filled out. This expert witness has declared that the two entries, the one opposite the word telephone "Seven Hedinplatz 8" and the entry of 7 February 1942, both written in violet ink, can not possibly be written by the same person who made the other entries. When I asked this witness whether it is his opinion that if one of these two entries was made as late as January 1948, that also the other was made at the same time, the expert witness said that it is his expert opinion that both entries were made at the same time. Will you tell the Tribunal now, and that's the last time I am asking you this question, who made these two entries?
A. I made those entries.
Q. When did you make these two entries?
A. The address I added now in January. The other one at the time when the patient came to us.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal the date when allegedly the other entry was made?
A. Well, I cannot tell you the date but it was in January, after Frau Haensch had visited us.
Q. Both entries were made at that time after Mrs. Haensch had been present?
A. No, I only entered the address on the card in January.
Q. Witness, will you look at the card once more? Is it not patently clear that the handwriting of these two entries is completely different from all otherhandwriting and is written in different ink, but the ink of these two entries is identical. Are you still remaining with your ....
A. Yes, I only made that one entry up here.
Q. When did you make the entry which allegedly was made on 7 February 1942?
A. That was written at the time when the patient came for treatment.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal the date please?
A. On 7 February 1942 when the patient came to us as it has been entered here.
Q. I have no further questions, Your Honor. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, how long did Mrs. Haensch have this card in her possession?
A. Frau Haensch never had the card.
Q. She never saw the card?
A. No, she just glanced at it when the note was written by the doctor. It was attached to the card but she didn't look at it very closely.
Q. Which note was written by the doctor?
A. The certificate which was attached to the card. Frau Haensch asked for a certificate for a trial, she said, and this certificate was attached to the card by the doctor and when Frau Haensch called for it I took the certificate of the doctor off the card.
Q. When did Mrs. Haensch call to see you the first time?
A. I cannot tell you the exact date.
Q. How long ago?
A. It must have been the beginning of January.
Q. And what did she say to you?
A. Whether it would be possible that Dr. Maennel could write a doctor's certificate to testify that Dr. Haensch was treated by him in 1942. She said she required this for her husband for a trial which was supposed to be very important.
BY THE PRESIDENT: (Continued)
Q. Then what did you do after she said this?
A. I said, "Yes the doctor will do that if the file card still exists."
Q. And what did you tell her to do, to come back? Did you tell her to come back?
A. Well, I said "We will either send on the certificate or you can call for it." And then she said they had changed their address and lived in another place now.
Q. Well you weren't certain that you would find the card then, were you?
A. No, I did not know that the card still existed.
Q. And then you went to look for the card?
A. Only the following day, I went to look for it.
Q. And how long did you have to look before you found it?
A. Half an hour, or 40 minutes, or 3/4 hour, approximately.
Q. Do you keep the cards according to year?
A. No.
Q. How do you catalog the cards, alphabetically?
A. Yes, alphabetically.
Q. Why should it take you forty minutes to find a card if you have them arranged alphabetically?
A. Well, they were no longer in alphabetical order quite correctly, only approximately. Not all the cards were in it any more because they were needed for the new file index.
Q. About how many cards did you find in this depository?
A. There are several hundred.
Q. Well why would it take 40 minutes to go through several hundred cards?
A. Well, I said the cards were not in proper order because several had been taken out; they were not packed away in boxes properly.
Q. Did you use these cards for kindling fires?
A. No. Yes. After the Russians had been there, some cards were burned that had become soiled but those up in the attic were not used.
Q. Did you ever use these cards to start a fire with?
A. No.
Q. Well, do you know your boss so testified?
A. I don't know that.
Q. Well, you would know if they were used to start a fire with, wouldn't you?
A. Well, I did not use any.
Q. Which entry was made by your sister on this cart?
A. That was the third line from the top I believe.
Q. Well, I don't know your sister, you will have to tell me.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal, please, I do think it is the entry of 26 November 1941. BY THE PRESIDENT: Yes, that is thethird one. Will someone please come here. Hand the witness a sheet of paper. Now, please write on that paper before you "Zehlendorf, Hartmannsweiler Weg 16".
A. I wrote that in German though on the card.
Q. Well, you can write it in German now.
Now underneath that write "Sven Hedinplatz 8". Let us have that. That's all. Does defense counsel desire to put any further questions to the witness? BY DR. KRAUSE:
Q. Witness, do you have the card in front of you still?
A. No.
Q. May I ask you to have a look at the card again, closely. You will find entries on it which were first written with pencil, is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And these pencil entries were then written over with ink?
A. Yes.
Q. Who wrote them with ink?
A. I did that, that is my handwriting.
Q. When was it written in ink? Was that done the same day the entries were made with pencil?
A. No, that was made in the evening when there was spare time, we wrote over it with ink.
Q. How often was this done, perhaps you can tell us by looking at the card?
A. You mean here on the card?
Q. Yes.
A. Three times.
Q. Was the original writing in pencil and writing over with ink done with the entry of 7 February 1942?
A. No.
Q. Can you see this only from the card or do you consider that impossible altotether?
A. I beg your pardon.
Q. As you tell me now, on 7 February 1942, that is, the entry of 7 February 1942, was not first made with pencil and then written over with ink.
A. No.
Q. Do you draw this conclusion merely from what you see on the card now or are you saying this because you recollect that this did not take place in this case?
A. No, I only see this from the card.
Q. You only see that from the card, do you? Witness, you have heard that an expert yesterday made two important statements here. The first one was, if I may repeat this here, that the entries in violet ink behind the word telephone and the entry which refers to 7 February 1942 were allegedly made by another person than the other entries on the card. And, secondly, that the entries in violet ink "Sven Hedinplatz 8" and "7 February 1942 for polishing" were probably made at the same time. I would like to ask you to tell me now who asked you about this matter, who approached you to find the card and make statements concerning it.
A. Frau Haensch came and asked.
Q. Was it only Frau Haensch?
A. Yes, only Frau Haensch.
Q. What did Dr. Kirsch, the attorney, tell you when you made your affidavit there?
A. Attorney Kirsch merely wrote it down.
Q. Have you an explanation for the fact how the attorney Kirsch happened to think of the first name Walter Haensch?
A. Well, Dr. Maennel had made an affidavit previously and I know that Dr. Maennel received a letter and probably Dr. Haensch's first name was mentioned on its top. I am not certain but I assume so.
Q. You said yesterday as far as you recollect you imagined the Dr. Haensch who is entered on your file record to be a tall man. Who told you that Dr. Haensch is a tall man?
A. Well, one vaguely recollects a person when one looks at the file card. Sometimes when patients are treated for a long time one recollects something immediately and one still remembers the person himself vaguely.
Q. I asked you purposely this way - who told you? You said you merely have some recollection. Will you tell the Tribunal that nobody told you?
A. Nobody told me.
Q. You then say again that you vaguely recollect that?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, according to the result of the testimony of the expert I have to say now a certain suspicion arises concerning the defendant.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, this is direct examination or redirect examination. Explanations to the witness are entirely leading and I do think not admissible.
THE PRESIDENT: You can ask direct questions, but you may not draw conclusions and argue them out with the witness.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor, at that moment I was merely aiming at making a statement in order to put a very important question to the witness.
MR. HOCHWALD: If this question is so important it is necessary that the witness answers unbiased by an explanation to the witness, the witness might be influenced by the explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: And we assume further more that every question put in a trial is important. It isn't always true. BY DR. KRAUSE:
Q. Witness, I would like to ask you now and for the last time even for my part to tell me the full truth to the following question. Did anyone approach you as far as the entry of 7 February 1942 is concerned, that the card should be falsified and that you only made that entry now in January concerning the 7th of February 1942?
A. No. The entry was made on 7 February 1942.
Q. Therefore, if I understand you correctly, you still say that this was done on the 7th of February 1942?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you realize that you would be doing a poor service to the defendant?
MR. HOCHWALD: That is the same explanation to which I have objected, and the objection was upheld by the Tribunal, plwase not to admit the question.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you see that is argumentation? A witness comes in supposedly entirely impartially, and unbiased to testify. It isn't a question whether a witness does a good or bad service to any individual in the trial. A witness only is to answer the questions. Just put the questions. Don't argue with her.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor, in that case I have no further questions, but merely want to make the following statement to the Tribunal. I would like to ask that the card and the tests of the handwriting done by the witness should he given to me so that I can get another expert opinion on handwritings about the samples and the card. I consider this necessary because in my opinion the opinion of the expert who testified here yesterday is not absolutely appropriate as a basis for evidence. May I explain that with a few words? The expert who was examined here yesterday is a physician. He judges handwritings, first of all, according to medical points of view for diagnostical purposes. His training, which he described to us here -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, please. Of course, you will be given the opportunity to have the handwriting examined, just as the prosecution had, although you had the same opportunity the prosecution had before. You are waiting now until five minutes to 12 to ask for what amounts to the presentation of further evidence, but as we have indicated before, we won't deny anyone an opportunity to present any evidence which is relevant, regardless of the hour. You will have this opportunity, but we will say to you that the results will be submitted in writing. There will be no further session of court after tomorrow, and whatever argument you desire to present upon the matter will be submitted in writing and it should be in the hands of the Tribunal no later than let us say next Wednesday.
DR. KRAUSE: Yes.
MR. HOCHWALD: May I then respectfully submit that the prosecution should be permitted to get a copy of this expert opinion and be permitted to answer in writing to this export opinion. I only want to point out two things: The card itself was in the hands of Mrs. Haensch in the beginning of January.
This is more than a month. The affidavit was made by the witness on the 27th of January. It is, therefore, by no means a fault from the part of the prosecution that this possibility has been delayed in such a way.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, well, that is very obvious that there is no fault attaching to the prosecution in this respect.
MR. HOCHWALD: I further want to point out that immediately when Dr. Riediger intended to put in the affidavit I have asked the Tribunal's permission to ask an expert witness in handwriting so defense counsel can not be in doubt that we did not recognize the possibility of this charge.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Hochwald did you say that the card was in the hands of Mrs. Haensch?
MR. HOCHWALD: I am sorry, the witness said that it was not actually in the hands of Mrs. Haensch, but Mrs. Haensch knows from the beginning of January on that this card is in existence. I am sorry that it was not clear.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor; hero, too, I did not say anything on purpose. I did not ask for the card to compare handwritings or even wanted to use it for that purpose because I wanted to wait until the witness had been examined and until Dr. Maennel had been examined, too. I considered it unsuitable to take part in examining the card before the witness had testified here. According to the results of this testimony, I could come to a resolution whether such an examination would become necessary or not. May I emphasize here that neither Dr. Riediger nor myself ever had any contact with Mrs. Jauer or Dr. Maennel verbally and with the latter only in writing; we only saw the card here when Dr. Maennel handed it over to the Tribunal here. It was never in our hands. I saw it for the first time yesterday. I intentionally did not do anything.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have stated that and don't keep repeating yourself. You had access to the card and you didn't take it because you wanted to hear the witness first. You have heard the witness, now you will have an opportunity to test the handwriting and, as we indicated before you will need to get your results in immediately.
DR. KRAUSER: Until Wednesday, inclusively.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Very well.
MR. HOCHWALD: I have only one question, sorry, your Honor. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. Will you look at the card again, witness? You have testified that the entries on the card were mostly made first By pencil and afterwards by ink. Will you tell the Tribunal how many times of all entries on the card this was made by pencil before it was made by ink?
A. Three times -- it was made three times.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal further how many entries are on the card?
A. There are 13 entries.
MR. HOCHWALD: I have no further questions, Your Honors, but I have a motion to make.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's have the card, please. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. We understood you to say, Mrs. Jauer, that the entry of February 7 was made with a pen owned by Dr. Maennel, is that correct?
A. Yes, I assume so.
Q. Well, you so stated yesterday that it was made with his fountain pen?
Q. But on other occasions you used another pen?
A. Well, he took his fountain pen away again, of course.
Q. He usually carried his pen in his pocket--his fountain pen?
A. Yes.
Q. How do you explain that six years later you happened again to use this very same pen -- Dr. Maennel's pen to write the address on the card?
A. I did not have Dr. Maennel's pen recently when entering the address.