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.
Q. Well, what pen did you use to enter the address on the card in January 1948?
A. Well, either I had another fountain pen which was broken or just an ordinary pen--I don't know.
Q. Well, that was comparatively recently and we have discussed it a great deal, so, therefore, you must have the incident very vividly in your memory now. Which pen did you use when you wrote in the address opposete the word "telephone"?
A. Well, I cannot say that. There were two pens there. I don't know which one I used that day.
Q. Well, it was only Dr. Maennel's pen that has the violet ink, is that right, his fountain pen?
A. We still have the ink. I have never bought any new ink. That must be a coincidence or something. I don't know that the same ink was used again now.
Q. Well, the ink which you use ordinarily is black and blue? That is right, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Maennel's pen had violet ink?
A. Yes, but now I use the ink from that bottle to write with. This is fountain pen ink and was kept for fountain pens because it is very hard to get ink in Berlin now and therefore we are now using this ink as well every day.
Q. This violet ink?
A. Yes.
Q. And is this the same bottle you used back in 1942?
A. Yes, it must be that bottle then which was already used at that time and which was used to fill the fountain pen at that time. It could not be different.
Q. So then the ink which you used in 1942 still exists, that is, that ink bottle?
A. Yes, we still use it to write with.
Q. And do you use it now generally in all your writings, this violet ink?
A. Yes.
Q. Are you making your entries now in violet ink?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you using Dr. Maennel's pen or your own pen?
A. No, the pens which are lying on the desk in the doctor's office.
Q. How many pens do you have lying around in the doctor's office?
A. Two.
Q. Well, how is it that all these entries are written with a pen that has a broad point, but only this one of February 7 is written with a fine point? Now, you have given your explanation that this is due to the fact that on February 7, 1942 you used Dr. Maennel's pen?
A. Yes.
Q. Now how does it happen that in January 1948, six years later, you happened to pick up the same pen which was used on 7 February 1942, and that is the only time, as far as this card is concerned, that you used this thin, this fine pointed pen; is that just a coincidence?
A. Well, surely I wrote that with the thin pen now. Now, that is the ordinary pen, I used that to enter that address with.
Q. But it happens to be exactly the same kind of a pen point that you used six years before?
A. That is not the same pen.
Q. Well, it is the same result, isn't it-- it gives the same result?
A. I don't know.
Q. Well, just look at it and tell us if in your opinion the handwriting which appears in the address and the handwriting which appears in the February 7 entry don't agree, so far as fineness of writing is concerned?
A. The other one was written with pencil first. Most of then have first been written with pencil and therefore the writing looks broader.
Q. You didn't answer my question. I am asking you whether the hand writing in the telephone address and the handwriting in the February 7 entry are not similar so far as fineness of writing is concerned?
A. Yes, there is a similarity.
Q. Yes. Now, you say it is merely a coincidence that six years later you happened to use the same kind of a pen point?
A. That must be a coincidence then.
Q. Because you tell us that you did not use Dr. Maennel's pen when you wrote the address?
A. I said I have a fountain pen now and one ordinary pen which is very thin -- very fine, and I used that now because the fountain pen is not working properly. I mostly use this thin pen to write with, now.
Q. So it is merely a coincidence that the handwriting in the address bear a similarity to the handwriting in the February 7 entry so far as fineness of writing is concerned in spite of the fact that every other entry on the card is written with a heavy pen?
A. Yes, that is a mere coincidence.
Q. Very well, all right. You usually gave one line to an item -usually, that is correct, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. But occasionally you would put two items on a line, wouldn't you?
A. Yes, but no treatment; that is, no work that Dr. Maennel did.
Q. You would never put on the same line two treatments?
A. No. That hardly happened.
Q. Tell us what those last two items are on the last line-- those two entries, each one preceded with an angle, what are those?
A. Those were two fillings.
Q. So they were two jobs, weren't they?
A. Yes, but the same filling. There were two teeth, but the same filling was put into the two teeth.
Q. Oh, but they were two different teeth?
A. Yes.
Q. Why didn't you enter the polishing item of February 7 on the line above, since it did not require any charge?
A. That was done on another day. That was done at a different day and the dates are always written below each other.
Q. Well, the day isn't so important, especially since you didn't care whether they came back for the polishing or not and you didn't charge for it. If you were so concerned about conserving space on that card, why didn't you enter that polishing item against the item of the actual work of filling the tooth?
A. One does not do that. It never happened.
Q. Well, then tell us if you were not concerned about saving time, why you didn't draw the totalling line underneath the February 7 item instead of above it, especially in view of the fact that April 22 naturally follows February 7?
A. One doesn't think anything of it, one just does it. That is the usual practice, and one does not do it in a commercial manner like a proper bookkeeper. Actually, the treatment had been concluded.
Q. But it was still an item of the treatment and then when you came to total up, why didn't that line come under February 7 rather than above?
A. Well, I did not notice this particularly. It usually is added up that way, or I did it that way.
Q. Would you say that it would be more reasonable to draw the line under the February 7 entry?
A. Yes. In my opinion it does not make any difference where this addition line is made.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Any other questions.
DR. KRAUSE: I have no questions, only a request. Your Honor, I would like to ask the witness to give me a short specimen of her handwriting. May I ask that she be given some paper?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, she has already written two items here. If you desire that she write something, do it on that card.
DR. KRAUSE: Please write, "Sven Hedinplatz 8".
THE WITNESS: I have no pencil.
DR. KRAUSE: Oh, you have no pencil. Do you have your fountain pen with you? "Sven Hedinplats 8" and below it "7 February 1942 - polished." Your Honor, may I now ask for the card and the specimen of handwriting in order to be able to get an expert opinion on that.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, there is just one more question. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, in every item on that card the tooth which is to be treated is indicated except the item which refers to the polishing. Do you want to tell us why you didn't indicate which tooth was involved in the polishing process?
A. Yes. I already said yesterday that we know which tooth is to be polished. The doctor will only polish that tooth which he filled himself if the patient does not ask to have another tooth polished because it has a sharp edge. Doctor Maennel will only polish that tooth that has been treated, otherwise.
Q. Well, do you make this entry before or after the work is done?
A. Sometimes while the patient is being treated or else immediately afterwards.
Q. Well, it is never made before the work is done?
A. No, it is never made before.
Q. So, therefore, the entry is not put on the card to acquaint the doctor with the particular work that is to be done because he knows?
A. Yes.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Q These entries are put on the card for two reasons: One, to indicate the price and, the other, so that you will have a record of the precise work done.
Q So that glancing at that card now you couldn't tell whether the polishing was done to the tooth which had been treated several days before or to some other tooth which happened to have A sharp edge, could you? filled by Dr. Maennel, be treated, then, of course, I write down that tooth. I mark it on the card and, then, if A sharp edge is polished off and the patient has nothing else to be done to him, then we charge him. and deduction. It would have been much simpler to have indicated on the card as you did on every other item just which tooth had been polished, wouldn't it?
A Yes, here it would be the left upper, No. 7, which Dr. Maennel had filled.
Q Well, you just have to assume that. It isn't on the card. had been treated, it would be entered and the polishing is entered so that we know the treatment has been concluded.
Q Well, that's only A matter of conclusion. That doesn't appear on the card. on your part. It does not appear on the card. it was that tooth that was polished. I said that Dr. Maennel polished teeth which he filled.
Q Is that the way you always abbreviate "polishing" in German, "p-o-l"?
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. All right.
DR. KRAUSE: Thank you.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution respectfully moves that the witness may be cited for contempt of court for perjury. I do not base this motion on the entirely incredible stories which the witness has told about the pen holders and the sixyear old ink pot. However, I base this motion on the contents of the affidavit and of her own testimony. she knew that at the time when she signed the affidavit it would be used here before this Tribunal -- that she knew Dr. Walter Haensch. The Tribunal certainly will recall that her testimony has clearly shown that she did not know him; that she did not know his Christian name which appears in the affidavit. the chart were made by her. She has testified to this effect before the Tribunal yesterday. She has admitted in cross-examination that at least one of the entries was not made by her own hand and that another one was admittedly made in January 1948. entries in violet ink, which are a falsification of the document, were made by the witness. On the contrary, I do think it is perfectly clear to the Tribunal from the testimony of the expert witness that these two entries were made by somebody else than the witness. However, the witness has testified here in direct examination, and I quote:
"Question of Counsel for Defense: If I understand you correctly then, you testified on oath that whatever it says on this card corresponds to the fact that it is correct.
"The witness: Yes."
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
guilty of contempt of court and the prosecution respectfully moves that the Tribunal may decide so.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honors, I object to the motion by the prosecution. In my opinion, the perjury with which the witness is charged has not yet been proved at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Counselor, I don't think it is necessary to make any argumentation in this matter.
DR. Koessl, are you ready to proceed?
DR. KOESSL (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT SCHUBERT): Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion made by the prosecution is refused. The witness will be excused and we will proceed with the presentation of summation arguments.
(The witness was excused.)
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Court. The opening speech of the Prosecution contains the following sentences to show the obviousness of and give juridical proof for a guilt of the defendants:
"Everyone of the defendants was in a responsible position or assigned as a commander of an extermination unit. By virtue of his position he had the authority to give orders for executions."
"As military commanders these men were bound to laws which are certainly familiar to all who have worn the military uniform. Laws which impose the duty to the commander, as far as it is in his power, to prevent the commission of crimes on the part of those persons who are subordinated to his command."
"They ware lawfully, if not by their conscience, under the obligation to refrain from such activities."
"It is a legal and moral duty to prevent, restrict and condemn the slaughter of innocent persons, a duty which was evidently violated by all defendants." the Einsatzgruppe D. He himself, as well as Ohlendorf, testifying as Court No. II, Case No. IX.
witnesses in their own defense, have described in detail the former's power of authority and there were no contradictions. I refer to the passages on page 583 in the German records, (unfortunately, I never found out the English page) page 4657 ff. German, page 4572 ff., English, pages 4819/20 German and 4729 of the English records. Schubert had come to Russia without that his function had been previously determined. This was customary for the ranks of commanders only and Ohlendorf used him as an Adjutant and office chief at the staff of the Einsatzgruppe. Ohlendorf's statement and Schubert's own testimony give a picture which makes Schubert, as an Adjutant, appear not even responsible to that extent which is customary for an Adjutant all over the world. Ohlendorf has stated literally that he himself did not use an Adjutant, page 583 German records, and that Schubert's assignment as Chief of the office was the most important thing for him. If we hear from Herr Ohlendorf that Schubert could neither exercise a power of command nor was he permitted to give orders, that he had no authority to make decisions in personnel - or technical matters and had no supervisory obligations and not even a general authority to sign, this is fully coinciding with Schubert's description in his testimony (page 4657 ff. of the German records, page 4572 of the English records) and also corresponds with the conditions which evidently existed in the immediate surroundings of such a strong personality as Ohlendorf. Thus, Schubert did not hold a position which would have given him any power of authority let alone a power to decide over life and death. Neither was his position of such a nature to prevent any crimes. This leads me to the incident which the Prosecution has stressed as the strongest proof for its theory of Schubert's penal responsibility, namely: sion of the execution in Sinferopol in December 1941. It has been ascertained that this execution was planned and fixed as to the details of its implementation without that the defendant Schubert was in any way involved in it (page 585 of the German record) (German record, page Court No. II, Case No. IX.
3154, English record, page 3103, German, page 3181, English, page 3130). Once again I shall give a description of the actual role Schubert played in the course of the execution: On a December day in 1941 these shootings were carried out near Sinferopol. The executions have been going on since the forenoon of that day. Ohlendorf himself has seen to it that they are carried out in accordance with his special directives while repeatedly inspecting the course of the action. (page 742 of the German records, German 4706, English 4620 and German 3180, English 3129).
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, it isn't necessary to read those. Those appear in the transcript.
DR. KOESSL: The passages should be entered in the record without my having to read them.
THE PRESIDENT: They will appear in the record. The reporters are so instructed to leave everything as it appears in the written manuscript which is before the Tribunal.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you. latter could then report to him whether his directives would be complied with (page 585 German records). Now what kind of a mission did Schubert have? The Prosecution asserts that Schubert had acted as a deputy of Ohlendorf.
In order to examine the legal aspects of Schubert's acting for Ohlendorf it is necessary to determine the purpose Ohlendorf pursued with his own personal and repeated inspections. Ohlendorf had given special directives for the implementation of executions which were announced in writing (page 4674 of the German record, page 4588 of the English). On the day when the executions took place it was his intention to see to it, by personal inspection, that the executions were carried out in accordance with these directives in order to remedy or correct, through immediate intervention at the place and time in question, any deficiencies or deviations that might occur. Schubert had Court No. II, Case No. IX.