Subsequent to Strauch's first appearance in Court, another examination was conducted by two Doctors, Captain Joseph S. Jacobs, and, Lt. William L. Bedwell. They submitted a document on January 17th with an opinion which reads: "That the defendant Edward Strauch, except for brief periods preceding, during and succeeding epileptic seizure, is capable of understanding the proceedings against him, and of taking an adequate part in the direction and presentation of his own defense." in court, and gave every indication of thoroughly understanding the questions and of responding to them, with the exception of some hesitation occasionally due to perhaps physical exhaustion or otherwise of the defendant himself and during the entire time he was on the stand he was under observation by Lt. William L. Bedwell, who on January 20th, made this finding: "It is my opinion that the defendant Herr Eduard Strauch during the periods when I had observed him, including the court sessions in the afternoon of 19 January 1948, and the morning of 20 January 1948, has been mentally competent and so free from mental defect, derangement or disease, as to be able to participate adequately in his own defense." severance, but you should be informed at once and you are now informed that the motion is refused and that you should proceed with the defense, that is to say, in the submission of any document books that you have to submit, trial briefs, and eventually the closing arguments. will sit to hear whatever further documents there are to present, and, the reason we have not decided is that we do not know when the documents will physically be ready for presentation in Court, and we believe it is better to leave the date open rather than to give a date now which later on would have to be changed.
med at least twenty-four hours ahead of the day on which the Tribunal will sit, and on that day the remaining documents can be presented, and if there are any stray witnesses to be heard they will be heard. of the document books, the Tribunal rules, the motions made by defense counsel to the documents presented by the Prosecution during the rebuttal are overruled. The documents will be accepted for whatever probative value the Tribunal gives to them. This ruling in no way effects whatever ruling was made as to individual documents presented during the entire presentation. submitted by all defense counsel, the Tribunal rules that those objections are overruled; the probative value of each document being left to the Tribunal when it studies individually each document. This ruling in no way effects what was stated by the Tribunal as to any individual documents present at the time. The Tribunal will now.....yes, you have something.....
DR. LUMMERT: Dr. Lummert for the defendant Blume. Your Honor, before you adjourn, will you permit me to ask one brief question. The Tribunal will recall that the Prosecution at the beginning of this trial had issued a so-called basic information which the defense counsel also received in translation. This basic information has the heading: "Basic facts about the SS, about the SD, about the Gestapo, the RSHA and the Einsatzgruppen." My question is this, does this basic information have any probative value?
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, we have compiled this basic information to the best of our knowledge and belief, and we are absolutely clear in our minds that something which is not in evidence before the Tribunal has no probative value.
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, may I then assume that this basic information will not be considered at all.
THE PRESIDENT: You may assume that.
DR. LUMMERT: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: It is understood that the Tribunal will reconvene on the morning of January 31st, to hear Dr. Aschenauer's final statement in the case. It will also reconvene for one day prior to January 31st upon call. We are unable to state the exact date today, but defense counsel will be notified through the Defense Information Center, and the Prosecution will be notified in an appropriate manner. Therefore, with that understanding the Tribunal will meet upon call. It is now in provisional recess until January 31st.
(The Tribunal adjourned subject to intervening date until 31 January 1948)
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. HANS DIETRICH MAENNEL, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat after me: pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SPEIGHT: You may be seated now.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Riediger.
DR. RIEDIGER (Attorney for the defendant Haensch): May I examine the witness, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed. BY DR. RIEDIGER (Attorney for the defendant Haensch):
Q Witness, please give your personal data. When and where were you born?
INTERPRETER: I cannot hear the witness speaking.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't have the witness' name on the record, Dr. Riediger. Will you put that on the record? BY DR. RIEDIGER: What is your name?
A Dr. Maennel, Hans Dietrich.
Q Do you know the defendant, Dr. Haensch?
Q When did you have anything to do with him?
Q Can you give us a more exact date?
AAccording to the personnel files, Dr. Haensch was treated by me on the 16th of November, 1941.
Q And how long did this treatment take?
Q Was he during this time with you at regular intervals? Can you get this from any kind of documents?
A The intervals were regular. There was only a longer interval in the treatment between the 10th of December and 14th of January.
Q Did you register the treatment exactly? disposal?
Q Can you hand this over?
Q Did you, yourself, make the entries in this index? can keep up. Who made these entries?
Q How long did this lady work for you?
Q Is she still with you? did you ask this lady about her entries recently? found it. possible that a mistake was made in the entry about the name of the person, or is that completely impossible?
on e patient by the name of Dr. Haensch.
Q And how long were these index cards kept by you?
A I cannot tell you exactly. I still have index cards from the beginning of my practice.
Q And when did you begin your practice? that Dr. Haensch started treatment with you in November, 1941, and remained under treatment with you until February, 1942, in regular intervals?
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I have no further questions of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. RIEDIGER: May I offer this index card at this point as an exhibit to the Court. I have just been given it. I think the Prosecution -
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: There are of course no objections on the part of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_3_1_Gallagher (Lea)
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, the number of the exhibit will be submitted afterwards. I can not determine that at the moment. I don't know which number it will be.
MR. HOCHWALD: Number five, but I am not sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the number may be supplied later. Mr. Hochwald. BY MR. HOCHWALD: recollection of your own about these treatments of Haensch by you, did you? that the patient was being treated by me.
Q Will you tell the Tribunal now how this record was found? old boxes this particular card was picked out by my secretary.
Q When?
Q Can you tell us who requested your secretary to find this record? I could not make out a medical certificate to the effect that her husband was being treated by me in the year of 1941.
Q When was that, witness, when Frau Haensch came to your place?
Q And what did you do then, afterwards? made out a medical certificate, giving the various data and statement about the treatment. find this record? my secretary.
Q Will you tell me something. You have here an entry on the 14th January, and an entry on the 7th February. Will you be good enough to 2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_3 _2_Gallagher(Lea) explain to the Tribunal what these two entries mean?
was filled. On the 7th February this filling was polished off.
Q What was polished off?
Q On 7 February?
Q Will you please look at the card, Doctor. Do you see a difference in the writing between the entry on 14 January and the entry on 7 February?
A Yes, of course. The entries were made with different ink, and with a different type of handwritings.
Q Who made these entries?
Q Why, if it was done by one person is the writing different? me whether you do not see a difference between the entry on 7th February, and all the other entries during other dates?
A yes, there are differences here. For example, between that of 23 October and the 14th of February, and between that of the 27 October and that of 23 September 1943.
Q That was not my question, witness. Please answer this one very simple question. Do you see between the entry of 7 February 1942 and the other entries in this same record a difference in the handwriting?
DR. HOCHWALD: I have no further questions, our Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: No one has as yet asked you, or told the Tribunal just what is your profession?
MR. HOCHWALD: I am sorry, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I am a dentist.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I don't know why it was kept such a secret. I would like to see the exhibit, please. (The court is given the exhibit).
2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_ 3_3_Gallagher (Lea) Did you want to ask another question, Dr. Riediger.
DR. RIEDIGER: Yes. BY DR. RIEDIGER: the witness once more whether she made that entry, or did you refrain from asking that question, because you recognized this handwriting as that of my assistant?
A No, I didn't. I recognized it as the handwriting of my assistant, and I never paid any more attention to it. to the effect that she actually did write it? these entries, and that she listed the dates of treatments, of those dates.
Q Do you have this affidavit of the witness?
Q Will you please hand it over?
(Mr. Hochwald looks at the paper.)
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, would you please permit me to read this affidavit here. I quote:
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, if Dr. Riediger submits this affidavit, the Prosecution must insist on cross examination of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: That observation of the Prosecution is approved by the Tribunal.
DR. RIEDIGER: I have no further question to put to the witness, and I ask that the right be reserved to me to offer this affidavit of the witness. I merely have to have it translated.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the statement made by the Prosecution, Dr. Riediger, that affidavit may not be accepted unless you have the affiant ready here for cross examination.
DR. RIEDIGER: Actually, the defense would saive the calling of this 2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_3_4_Gallagher (Lea) witness -- of this affiant, because in my opinion the testimony of this witness here is so clear that this witness does not seem to be required for the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean then, that you will not present the affidavit.
DR. RIEDIGER: The affidavit is such I don't have to offer it.
THE PRESIDENT: We have told you, Dr. Riediger, that you may not offer this affidavit, that the Tribunal will not accept it unless you have the affiant here who may he cross examined.
DR. RIEDIGER: Well, then,I would have to insist upon the witness being called, and, of course, it is clear to me that this witness can hardly be called because of the time element. The affiant is also in Belin, but since the Prosecution objects to the submission of this affidavit, I have to insist on the appearance of the witness.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, certainly you will remember that Dr. Riediger asked the assistance of the Tribunal in order to procure a witness who will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Haensch was in Berlin and not in the East. If Dr. Riediger after having had three witness on the same subject brings into court with the assistance of the Tribunal on the last day, the fourth witness who is not able to testify on his own, to these facts, and then requests an affidavit of the fifth witness now --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the affidavit is out, Mr. Hochwald, you need not argue that.
MR. HOCHWALD: --- so I think it is unnecessary to call at this late stage of the trial a fifth witness to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, do you know the defendant Haensch?
THE WITNESS: No.
Q Do you recognize him there in the defendants' dock?
Q Do you remember his having come to see you?
Q Do you remember having treated him at all?
2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_3_5_Gallagher (Lea) man --.
THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, will you please repeat?
THE PRESIDENT: Is the defendant who is here in the courtroom the same man whose name appears on this exhibit?
THE WITNESS: First of all, I would have to see the defendant to tell that.
Q Well, do you know who Haensch is?
A Who he is?
Q Do you know him? Do you recognize him? that mean to you? Suppose I said that he was Haensch (pointing to Dr. von Stein, German Counsel) would that mean anything to you?
Q Well, then, look in the defendants' dock and see if you can recognize him?
Q Then you have no independent recollection of Haensch at all? of indicating whether Haensch came to you for treatment, or not? Walter Haensch living at Hartmannsweiler weg 19 was treated by me in 1941 and '42.
Q Let's suppose that you didn't have this memorandum, this card. Can you of your own recollection recall that a Walter Haensch had come to you for treatment? about ninety to one-hundred patients a day, and I can not remember such a small case as this one, and I could not recognize the patient, either.
THE PRESIDENT: I must congratulate you on your big business, ninety to one-hundred patients a day is quite a thriving dental business.
THE PRESIDENT: Where were these cards kept?
THE WITNESS: In large file boxes.
Q How far back did they go? How far back in dates do these records go? that these old file indexes were still available, because when I came home from the war, I didn't assume that all these old papers were still there, and, only now because of this particular card that I was convinced they were still there.
Q Did you go to get this card yourself?
A No. This card was on my desk, and my assistant told me that this Mrs. Haensch had been to see me, and that at her request she had looked for the card.
Q You didn't see where the cards were kept?
Q And you didn't see attic with these cards yourself before you came down to testify? boxes?
Q You don't remember seeing a box with the indication of 19411942, you don't know what boxes you do have up there, sofar as these records are concerned?
A The boxes are not numbered according to the years. They are only the files and they were just there ih order to start a fire with them.
Q How is it you never started a fire with this one. What was so precious about this one that you didn't start a fire.
Q You yourself have no recollection of this particular card?
instead of this card? After the war I started colored file cards, but this file card is of a white color, and therefore, it is a file which was used before the war or during the war.
Q Of course, I know that you immediately see that my "chickenscratching" would be different from what appears upon this card, but let's suppose that some one got a card similar to this, and wrote various itmes on the card, and wrinkled it up, and soiled it a little bit, and put it on your desk, you would have no way of knowing yourself whether it was the original card, or not? entries are concerned, for example, the accounts, these are entries made by the medical office which made up the bills, who listed the numbers, it is impossible that any human being can falsify the making up of these numbers, or fabricate to just to envent them.
Q Was this hill paid for? ting office, or clearing office, and as the files show, the bills were then paid to this clearing office.
Q Was the treatment for the 7th of February paid for?
A I assume so. We had ended the treatment, but I can not say at the moment when the final bill was paid.
Q Why was it that the treatment for February 7th was not paid?
A That is no treatment. That is merely a polishing off of the filling, which is just additional.
Q You do that for nothing?
items as work done. Let me put it in another way. You have here various items of work done?
Q Then you draw a line and you total the amount to be paid? one day.
Q When was this bill paid for, please? I am referring now to the first group of items on the exhibits. in cash. ing line?
A This entry of a bill is made up in one day. In other words, the various individual amounts are filled in and the totaling line is made on the same day on which the bill goes out to the patient.
Q Why did the bill go out before the job was completed? file the last day of treatment was the 7th of February. below the totalling line? February comes before April. Why then wouldn't February 7th appear before April on that card? the 23rd of April, and below the bill she made the totalling line. ruary 7th wasn't written after that card was made up, if it doesn't obviously show an addition to the card. Now, just tell us frankly if that isn't the impression you gained from it?
Q You see that February 7 is in different ink?
Q You see it is a different handwriting? There is no doubt about it as far as that is concerned.
Q Now you say it is the same handwriting. It doesn't appear to be. Why are you so certain it is the same handwriting? fied them or forged them in any manner.
Q Well, that is a conclusion which I am asking you now. Leaving aside the business of fabrication, leaving aside any notions about fabrication, doesn't it appear different to you there?
A No. There is a difference to be sure, but I see this difference between the other entries too.
Q Did you see her handwriting in different forms?
A You mean the handwriting of the assistant? Oh, I think I do know it. always uniform, the same? writing. Once she writes straight, once across, once the other way. It is somewhat unbalanced. Sometimes the entries were quickly made, and those which show the bills were neatly put down, and there the handwriting is more distinct again.
Q Now, Doctor, just please consider this question. On February 7th, according to that card, you had the patient in your office and did something to his teeth, is that right?
Q 23rd. Why wouldn't the item of February 7th be above the item of the sending out of the bill since it preceded it in date?
Q Very well, let's have the exhibit. (The exhibit was handed back to the President). Over what period of time in all did you have Haensch as a dental patient?
1943.
Q Does that sound reasonable to you?
A Yes, absolutely. I can even find an explanation for what was wrong with the tooth. did you polish the patient's teeth? or polished off.
Q You mean in two years he only had one filling?
A May I see the card once more? (The exhibit was handed back to the witness). The treatment time was from the 16th of November until the 7th of May, '43, and the same tooth was always concerned. In the time in between, on the 23rd and 27th of October, a tooth was pulled from the patient.
Q when was that? treated by you in any way, not the extracted one, the one that was filled? and treated once more.
Q Let me have the copy. (The exhibit was handed back to the President.) Was the treatment in 1943 similar to the one that took place in the early part of 1942?
Q Just tell me what you did in January '42 to this tooth, 14th of January '42?
pains, because the tooth was opened up, and then at regular intervals it received temporary fillings. Then finally the root was treated and finally I made one filling which was to last.
Q All right, that was the 14th of January, 1942. Now, what did you do in March of 1943?
A On the 11th of March '43 the patient must have come to me with the same opened up tooth.
Q And did you treat it the same way?
Q And subsequently, that is in May, 1943; he received two fillings? 14 January, 1942?
Q Now, did you polish teeth after filling?
A I advised this to the patient. It isn't obligatory, but the patients have it done so that the filling will last longer.
Q Why didn't you polish the fillings, the two fillings which you gave the patient in May of 1943? ment did not come. fillings; do you regard that as important?
A Well, it isn't absolutely necessary, but in order to keep the filling in place it is advisable.
Q But you didn't polish these teeth in May, did you?
Q And you didn't regard it as of too much importance, desirable, but not too important? when you had only one filling? when the patient appeared. It may be that the patient appeared on his own and at the same time the examination and the polishing off were done.
Q Is the polishing considered part of the treatment? treatment if it was part of the regular treatment?
Q Why didn't she do it that way in May?
Q Well, if you consider it part of the treatment, why didn't you see that the polishing was had? him. in February?