A. I have.
A. May I then ask you what kind this knowledge is? Professional training in this line?
A. I have a Specialist's Rating in the Army as a Neuropsychiatrist. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Lieut, Bedwill, suppose that we get your qualifications in the record. Now, let us have your full name,
A. William L. Bedwill.
Q. And what rank do you hold in the United States Army?
A. First Lieutenant.
A. What is your professional training? Give us a list of the schools you attended and what was the nature of the instruction which you received?
A. Well, four years of pre-medical training, of course, at two schools; Occidental College in Los Angles and the University of South California at Los Angles. Two years at each and then four academic years of medical training at the University of Southern California also located in Los Angeles. Then, thirteen months of internship at the Los Angeles County General Hospital where my training laid an emphasis upon psychiatry and then in the army a special training course.
Q. In what?
A. Psychiatry; Neuro-psychiatry.
THE PRESIDENT: At the present time where are you stationed?
A. At the 385th Station Hospital, Nurnberg,
THE PRESIDENT: And That specialty, if any, do you have at this hospital?
A. The Neuro-psychiatric specialty.
THE PRESIDENT: A nd are you engaged daily in that particular type of work?
A. I am, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you see and examine patients regularly along psychiatric lines?
A. I do,
THE PRESIDENT: you may proceed, Dr. Gick. BY DR. GICK:
Q. witness, did you see and examine the defendant Strauch before the sessions which you attended?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. May I then ask you, at what date and for how long?
A. I examined Herr Strauch first on 13 January for about 20 minutes at the dispensary in this building, about eleven o'clock in the morning. I next examined Herr Strauch on the -- that was Friday, I believe, 17th of January, between the hours of eleven and two, for three hours at the Krankenhaus, and then I next examined him with another doctor, who made a joint statement with me to this Court, also at the Krankenhaus. For a period of about two hours between 11:30 and 13:30 on the next day, the 18th on Saturday morning. On that day we made the statement which was submitted jointly to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the name of the other officer, Lieutenant
A. Capt. Joseph S. Jacob who is stationed at the 3L 7th Station Hospital at Wiesbaden.
THE PRESIDENT: And what is his field?
A. He is also a specialist in Neuro-psychiatry.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. GICK:
Q. What kind of observations were made at the time?
A. I examined Herr Strauch both physically and mentally, I made neurological tests upon him and I questioned him from a psychiatric point of view.
Q. And what did you establish?
A. That to the best of my knowledge Herr Strauch was mentally competent.
Q. Did Herr Strauch answer your questions absolutely reasonably?
A. He did, in most cases, yes.
Q. Did it not happen that he mixed up incidents?
A. His references at times were irrelevant and his speech at times was rambling.
Q. Could he remember dates and figures if you submitted them to him?
A. I don't believe I could remember dates that he refferred to. He told a rambling, but, as far as I could tell though the interpreter, a consistent story but he never gave dates to us because we did not ask for them. That was not our purpose.
Q. Witness, are you aware that Mr. Strauch suffered from epileptic fits?
A. I am.
Q. Did you make any observations to the effect that there was any connection with the epileptic fits? Were there any breaks in the continuity of his mental thinking? Was there anything that was due to these epiletic fits?
A. There were no breaks in his thinking, which were consistent with epilepsy, or epileptic equivalents.
Q. Is it basic possible that an epileptic his psychogenous, especially?
A. I do not understand,
Q. I meant to ask you wehther it is possible in the case of epileptics that their mental functions suffer because of these epileptic fits?
A. I do not hold to this view, except as it pertains to the period of the epileptic seizure.
Q. Are there no consequences and no symptoms which happen after the epileptic seizure, which mean consistency in the mental capacity of the patient?
A. My training holds that there is no mental deterioration due to epileptic fits, even in a patient who has had a great number of these seizures.
Q. Witness, the Chief of the local Psychiatric Clinic in Oberministerialrat, Dr. von Bayer, who treated Defendant Strauch and treats him now and has been treating him, for the last three months, in an expert opinion, which he made out, confirms that Strauch since the middle of December, 1947, has been, in a state of a trance. He called it the Ganser state. Are you of the same opinion?
A. That is, in the state of trance?
Q. I mean a semi-conscious state, meaning that his conceptions are not clear and that he is not capable of thinking, capable of answering clearly.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, if the witness is supposed to give his opinion on an expert opinion, made by someone else, it seems to me correct if he gets the opinion itself, not the transcription by the defense counsel.
DR. GICK: Your Honor, may I just make a short remark. It is an expert term which could be expressed in two letters and I do not have to circumscribe this particular state. This is "Ganser", the state of semi-consciousness, "Ganser" being the name. If I make this remark to the witness, then, of course, he knows what it is all about so that the knowledge of the exact expert opinion would not be absolutely necessary.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I only can repeat what I have said, Your Honor, without pressing the point. I do think it would only be fair, if the witness is asked about the contents of a certain opinion that he may see the opinion itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gick, if you have the opinion to which you are referring, you might either show it to the witness or read from it to him.
DR. GICK: I have the expert opinions here, Your Honor, but I only have a German copy of it. I don't know whether the Tribunal has received the opinion in English.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please tell me which one it is?
DR. GICK: It is one of the 7th of January, 1948.
THE PRESIDENT: I have one here dated January 14. I have one dated January 15. You say this is dated January 7?
DR. GICK: Yes, it is a letter to me in the nature of an expert opinion and it is dated the 7th of January, 1948. I think I have submitted it to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Suppose you read it very slowly and, if you come to a technical term, please hesitate so that the interpreter can be certain as to just what is intended.
DR. GICK: "In accordance with your wish" -- as I have I said, the made and my examination of the patient, I comment again concerning the possibility of being tried of your client, Edward Strauch.
Since about the middle of December, 1947, the mental state of Strauch has deteriorated through addition of certain states of mental inconsistencies, which are similar to a so-called Ganswer mental twilight. Strauch since that time is mentally unclear, gives senseless answers to questions, and does not absorb the questions which are put to him or, at least, only to a small extent. It is very rare that one would get a sensible answer out of him. He has not had epileptic fits for the last few weeks. The Ganser mental twilight means a certain reaction due to custody which is psychologically continues, but in the opinion of most psychiatrists is not intentionally simulated in the way of a simulation where he pretends. We do not assume a simulation in the case of Strauch it has had the reaction on the basis of epilepsy or an organically affected mental capacity." the 25th of December. 1) The state of health of the defendant has deteriorated so much during the last few days that he can only at times follow the indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: Well Dr. Gick, you are supposed to put a question to the witness. What are you doing now?
DR. GICK: Well, this is the contents of the expert opinion and in brief the physician says here that the defendant is in a state of mental twilight.
Q. (By Dr. Gick) I would like you, Mr. Witness, to comment on this attitude.
A. I do not agree with this attitude. I believe that the mental twilight, as the doctor has called it, is not consistent. The psychic symptoms of this patient have been very transient. During my examinations I was able to extract a large marjority of logical answers, the answers which did suggest mental confusion are taken together with neurological, that is physical symptons, and other data such as one, one rather, desire, alleged hallucination, a combination of these symptons, in other words, in my opinion, did not conform to any neurological psychiatric or medical condition known to me and could on the other hand be sufficiently explained by the anxiety of the patient's situation.
Q. Is it then not possible that the situation in which the defendant finds himself leads to certain changes in the mental picture of the defendant, I mean, changes in the way, that he is no longer in a position to express himself and to answer questions, as he was used to in former times?
A. I do not agree to this term, "mental". I would rather say, "emotional". There are emotional changes, I suppose.
Q. That you mean you give an affirmative answer to the changes, if I understood you correctly, that is?
A. There are emotional changes in any patient faced with such a charge this patient, but I do not believe that that precludes the mental competency to participate adequately in his own defense.
Q. Witness, did you, owing to your observations during those last two days in the session here, gain the impression that the defendant answered all the questions that were put to him sensibly and consistently, or were their sometimes clear moments and then again unclear moments in the testimony he gave which prove a certain deterioration of his mental system?
A. There were unclear moments and mostly clear moments, I remember, for example, one of the unclear moments: The patient asked of whom he was talking and he said,"I am talking about Denmark", but these unclear moments, in my opinion, were not evidence of mental deterioration.
THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant, do you think at any time when his answers were obviously irrelevant answers could be consonant with a conscious desire on the part of the defendant to appear to be, or make himself appear mentally incompetent?
THE WITNESS: I believe that they could be consonant with that desire.
THE PRESIDENT: Very small, Dr, Gick.
Q. (By Dr. Gick) Witness, if I may read very briefly from the record during these days, then just at that morning the defendant for instance, answered questions which were put to him on the 1st of August, 1931, he had entered the SA and at the same day, the 1st of August, 1931, he had joined the party. When thereupon he was asked, "Was that the same day," he said, "No, it was not the same day, it was on the 31st 32nd, the 33rd, on those days I joined," Later on then he said he joined the Party in 1933. Therefore, as I see matters, there was not a clear picture of the question which I put to him.
The questions were, "When did you join the SA, the SS and the Party?"
A. These discrepancies are indeed discrepancies in logic and time, but they are not diagnostic of any known - that is known to no - mental defect, disease or derangement.
Q. May I ask you then what you deduce these inconsistencies from?
A. From my previous testimony, that I could find no syndrome which was diagnostic and that such discrepancies, as well as other symptoms, could be explained by the exigencies of the moment, I was led to the prescription that the situation in which the defendant found himself was sufficient explanation.
Q. You mean the situation in which the defendant found himself confronted, in fact with the charges of the prosecution, and this leads him to lose his memory concerning dates and figures, that he mixes them all up?
A. I say this is possible and it is a sufficient explanation.
Q. If this is thus, Witness, then in some moments he is not clear and he is not in the position to account for his actions.
A. Repeat that please?
Q. If the defendant, due to his position in which he is at the moment, gives unclear answers, then, of course, this means that he is not in the position to give clear answers all the time to what he is being asked and that he is not in a position to a full extent to make use of his right, that is, to defend himself.
A. By situation I meant to say the emotions and feelings in the patient which are concomitant with the situation, with the external physical situation of being in the courtroom. It is possible in that one situation to be both clear and unclear in expression and yet be consistent in motive.
Q. Do you not arrive at the conclusion that this defendant after all is not in the position to defend himself to that extent that he would be able to do if he were in a normal condition?
A. I do not see how that conclusion can be arrived at from the for going.
Q. I did understand you correctly, did I not, when you said that in the testimony of the defendant there were clear and there where unclear moments. Did I understand you correctly?
A. There were clear and unclear moments to the recorders. That is what you meant, I presume.
Q. Yes, for those people who were listening.
A. Yes, I agree.
Q. Now, if the defendant also gives unclear answers, then I am of the opinion that in such moments he is not, to that extent, in the position as every other defendant who normally gives clear answers. Am right, or what is your opinion of that?
A. Repeat that again, please.
Q. I do not know whether I have expressed myself unclearly. I would like to say the following. If the defendant gives unclear answer a fact which we have now established, is the defendant during this time in which, in fact, he gives these unclear answers, in the same in the position to lead his defense as other defendants who always can give the clear answers, or is he not?
A. I do not see that there is mental defect, disease or derangement unless it can be proven by medical - by the medical examinations which the patient has been given.
Q. But this is not the question at the moment, whether there is an organic state which leads to a change of his mental state, but the question, I believe, is whetherany phychological symptons could be seen, of course from the situation he finds himself in as a defendant, which, of course, limit his possibility to defend himself?
A. The way that the defendant answers questions alone is not a sufficient indication of his ability to conduct his own defense. The total medical picture must be examined. Where the inconsistencies of his speech can be explained on the basis of his motives and where they in themselves cannot diagnose a medical condition I am led to the conclusion that he does not have a mental incompetency.
Q. But you do admit the he gave unclear answers?
A. Unclear as I said before, with the qualification that I said before.
Q. Why then are you of the opinion that the judgement of Dr. von Bayer gave that he is in a state of mental twilight, so to speak in a state in fact which makes his thought only come up in a sort of trance, and that he can only express thoughts unclearly. Why then do you think that this ipinion is not quite accurate if you yourself say that he gives unclear answers at times?
A. In my understanding the statement of Dr. von Bayer was to the effect that the defendant since the middle of December has been in a twilight state. My objection to this statement was upon the ground that the symptoms of the patient have been transient was upon momentary and have not persisted for a long period of time in terms of hours or even minutes during the periods since the middle of December.
Q. How long do you think one of those states can last with the defendant Strauch?
A. One of what states?
Q. This state of which I say, this unclear state, this state of mental derangement, the twilight state. I do not want to use this torn so often because apparently you and I don't agree, but the state in which he gives unclear answers, how long do you think such a period lasts?
actually mentally unclear or not. I have said that his answers are not clear in the record, but I am not convinced that the patient is mentally unlcear. do so intentionally?
A This I am unable to say. This I am unable to prove. from some symtomps is unclear, in an unclear state and gives unclear answers? far as I know, it is unknown to medical science. state exists, which influences the clear thoughts and the clear answers of the defendant, but that medical terminology concerning this particular state does not exists?
PRESIDENT: Dr. Gick, the witness, as I understood him, at no time said that he acknowledged a mental unclearness, he merely said that there were unclear answers, which could or not be symptomatic of something or other, but that his opinion was that these unclear answers did not give an indication of a pathology, which was recognized by medical science. So there is a difference between an unclear state and an unclear answer.
DR. GICK: Your Honor
PRESIDENT: I think that as Judge Speight pointed out, that the witness has indicated this unclear method of testifying at times is not any result of epilepsy, which is one disease everybody agrees that the defendant is occasionally afflicted with.
DR. GICK: That is what I understood from the witness, Your Honor, that it is in no connection whatsoever with epilepsy. However, I did understand the witness to this effect, that he objectively also states that the defendant, Strauch, does give unclear answers.
PRESIDENT: Well, that was obvious to everybody.
DR. GICK: That is, during the first part of his testimony, when he first came into court and he talked about China, and he talked about 1975, and it was very clear that that was unclear.
DR. GICK: In the last two days doubtlessly he was not quite so unclear, Your Honor, but I showed the witness a few passages which to me meant an inconsistency and the witness has stated here that at times one has to confirm this. BY DR. GICK: you could exclude the possibility that Strauch was not fully in the position to arrange his defense in such way as he normally would be able to do?
PRESIDENT: You have no evidence for that possibility, is that what you mean, because the defense counsel put it in an alternative form Do we understand from your answer that you have no evidence of a possibility that he was--that the defendant was incapable of conducting his defense?
THE WITNESS: Yes. BY DR. GICK: fully in the position to defend himself as he would have done in a normal state. statement which I submitted to the Court.
Q And what about the unclearness in this expert opinion? How do you reconcile them? even in those moments when Herr Strauch gave answers which were irrelevant and spoke in a way which was rambling, that even at those times he was mentally competent and able to participate adequately in his own defense in my opinion.
DR. GICK: I have no further questions to the witness, Your Honor.
PRESIDENT: Mr. Glancy, do you have any questions, please?
MR. GLANCY: If it please the Tribunal, I have one question. BY MR. GLANCY:
Q Dr. Gick, started one of his questions by saying, "Is it possible that," I would like to have the same privilege. Is it possible that when he was giving those rambling answers that it was consciously simulated and that he did comprehend everything that was said to him?
MR. GLANCY: Thank you, Sir. No other questions.
PRESIDENT: Anything further?
DR. GICK: Not to the witness, Your Honor. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Now, Doctor, let us predicate a hypothetical question. Let us suppose an individual of complete maturity, who is subject occasionally to epileptic seizures, but during the interval between the epileptic seizures is entirely normal in his mental and physical attributes; let us suppose that in the middle of September he had a seizure in court and is withdrawn from the court room. From that period until the latter part of December of the same year, with the exception of a periodical seizure he is entirely normal and is capable of conferring with his counsel and preparing for his defense in court of charges brought against him in an indictment. In the latter part of December he begins to give evidence of not comprehending, of giving irrelevant answers to questions put to him, of rambling utterances, of confusion of dates, that then he is brought into court two or three weeks later, and in court continues to give irrelevant answers. Then let us suppose that he is given mental and physical examinations and he is instructed in court that this is the one opportunity he will have to defend himself against the serious charges which have been brought against him, that then subsequently he is brought into court and there is a marked difference between his manner of testifying, now he answers logically, he answers relevantly, and with the exception of an occasional unclear answer, gives evidence of being completely conscious of the situation, of understanding questions and answering them.
With that kind of a hypothetical case, Doctor, we ask you whether in your opinion his previous conduct could be consistent with a conscious desire to stimulate a mental condition? of incapacity, or rather we will put it in the laternative sense. In you opinion, is it possible or is it not possible for such an entire situation to evince a desire on the part of the individual involved to simulate a mental incompetence in order not to subject himself to the procedure of court? similation?
PRESIDENT: I there are no other- questions, the witness will be excused, with the thanks of the Tribunal You want another question? By all means, Dr. Gick. Proceed. VY DR. GICK:
Q I have just one question. Witness, you say that it is possible. May I conclude from that that the other alternative is not excluded from you that he does not simulate? what I would consider to be an extremely rare condition of which I have no knowledge. exists, that is what I mean?
the possibility of which I speak, that is -- because I cannot--I have not had sufficient time to observe the patient to be absolutely certain that he is simulating. I doubt whether this is possible to do in a practical period of time. BY THE PRESIDENT: medical science up to this time has not yet discovered or recorded, so far as your recognizance of medical, science is concerned?
DR. GICK: May I just put one more question, Your Honor. BY DR. GICK: Demi condition, that is what it is called?
Q May I ask you what it means this ganzer mental twilight--?
MR. GLANCY: I believe, your Honor, he is a trifle unclear, would he like to know whether it applies to Strauch or as a hypothetical thing, this twilight?
PRESIDENT: I think he is merely asking if he knows what mental twilight is a medical term. Are you fully aware of the intention of the question?
THE WITNESS: Well, I believe he means, what is mental twilight. BY DR. GICK: after whom this particular state of disease is named.
A I am not acquainted with the works of this man, or by "mental twilight", I took to mean the semi-consciousness such as we see in such medical conditions when the patient is perhaps delirious.
obviously suffering from some condition usually toxic in nature.
PRESIDENT: Very well, let us now take stock of what we have before us yet to be disposed of before Dr. Aschenauer can proceed with his summation. Now, who else has documents ready to be presented? Everybody. Well, let's Lieutenant Bedwill, you, of course, are excused. Thank you. Let us indicate please just how many documents are to be presented so we can work out this program. Come with down the line, now, how many, do you have, please?
DR. WIESMATH: Wiesmath for the defendant, Jost. Your Honor, I still have six documents which I want to submit.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Durchholz for Schulz. I have one document to submit.
DR. STEIN: Stein for Sandberger. I still have 36 documents to present.
DR. HELM: Helm for Ruehl - three documents.
DR. KRAUSE: Krause for Haensch - also three documents.
DR. VOGEL: Vogel for von Radetzky - still nine documents, Your Honor.
DR. FRITZ: Fritz for Fendler - four documents, your Honor.
DR. HOFFMANN: Hoffmann for the defendant, Nosske. Your Honor I could start now, I have got about 8 documents
PRESIDENT: Now, just a moment. Yes, Doctor.
DR. GICK: Well, I have about 25 documents.
PRESIDENT: You wont to keep us until twilight, do you?
MR. HOCHWALD: The Prosecution, if Your Honors please, the prosecution has approximately 4 to 5 documents.
PRESIDENT: Well, it would appear that with the exception of Dr. von Stein and I forget the one who had 25--Dr. Gick--you had 25, with the exception of those two, they are not numerous, the documents which have to be presented and I think that if we move right along we ought to be able to get them in tomorrow morning and Dr. Aschenauer ought to be ready to begin immediately after the luncheon recess.
So let us retire with that part in view, with that program in mind, that you will be ready immediately after the lunch hour to present the summation in behalf of your client, Doctor Aschenauer.
DR. GICK: May I just say something in conclusion of the matter, Strauch? May I ask the Tribunal, to invite Dr. von Bayer, the expert, to come here as a witness, He is, as is well known, the chief of the psychiatric clinic in Nuernberg, and he has observed the defendant for some tine now, in fact, from the beginning of October up to this day, and in my opinion he is able to five an exhaustive picture of the defendant, Strauch.
PRESIDENT: That will be entirely up to the prosecution, s to whether they desire to cross-examine him. Dr. von Bayer has submitted several reports and they are on file and they are available to you, Dr. Gick, in any argument which you desire to make to the Tribunal, so that it is entirely up to the prosecution if the prosecution wishes to cross examine. Of course, they are entitled to that privilege and he will be called. But if they don't, there is no need to call him.
MR. GLANCY: We do not desire, to cross examine, Sir.
PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 3 February, 1948, at 0930 hours.)
3 Feb 1948_M_MSD_1_1_Gallagher (Juelich) against Otto Ohlendorf, et al.
, defendants. sitting at
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.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the Tribunal certainly recalls that the Prosecution has obtained Haensch's Exhibits Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in order to get expert opinion on the handwriting, and on the pictures which were put in. We has received the expert opinion, and they are in the hands of the Tribunal, the originals, and copies were handed to Dr. Riediger, defense counsel for the defendant Haensch. I have here the exhibits, but when these tests were made additional pictures and additional charts of the handwriting were made by the Research Institute. The Prosecution does not intend to offer these items into evidence. I think it appropriate as I do expect that, Dr. Riediger wants to use them to make a short survey of these by saying what was added to each exhibit. Would that be agreeable to the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: What did you specifically request?
MR. HOCHWALD: I only would make a short survey and state what was added by the Research Institute to the different exhibits so that it may be explainable for the archives why the exhibits are more and different from what was originally submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: By all means, not only I approve but it should be done.
THE PRESIDENT: By all means, not only I approve but it should be done.
MR. HOCHWALD: Haensch Exhibit Ho. 4 was one original photograph, and six more negatives were made by the Research Institute and all of them are labeled how they were obtained and from which negatives they 3 Feb 1948_M_MSD_1_2_Gallagher (Juelich) were obtained.
There are no additions in Haensch's Exhibit No. 3. Haensch Exhibit No. 2 were two negatives and an envelope, two positives from these two negatives were made by the Research Institute and added to the exhibit. Haensch Exhibit No. 1 was one appointment pad and one photostatic copy of pad No. 391 on which the name of Haensch appears. Another pad Nos. 210 to 261, was added for comparison of the handwriting, for no other reasons, and finally, Prosecution Exhibit No. 192-B which is a handwritten affidavit of the Witness Reich, Document NO-5718, a chart with different examples of the handwriting was added by the Research Institute to this exhibit. May I inquiring on his behalf -- to introduce the codes of this expert opinion as exhibits, or would that be usable for him in the form I have just given it? As I said, the original expert opinion itself is in the hands of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That is enough that you have presented it.
MR. HOCHWALD: I have not presented it. To be frank, Your Honor, I have not presented the expert opinion in evidence. I have only handed to the Court in partial what I have received from the Research Institue.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you have not presented it, and Dr. Riediger desires to present it, he may present it.
MR. HOCHWALD: All right. Allright, so Dr. Riediger can present it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Who is ready to present documents? I presume you have finished, Mr. Hochwald?
MR. HOCHWALD: May I present a few documents, Your Honor, before the defense -
THE PRESIDENT: All right, you may proceed while you are there.
MR. HOCHWALD: I now offer Document NO-5877. This will be Prosecution's Exhibit No. possibly 250.
MR. KNAPP (Secretary-General): Prosecution's Exhibit No. 250.
MR. HOCHWALD: Prosecution's Exhibit No. 250. This is a letter showing the Defendant Six was the moving party in urging close cooperation between the SD and the Gestapo. Here we see the organized regular 3 Feb 1948_M_MSD_1_3_Gallagher (Juelich) conferences in order to achieve a close and confidential cooperation between the Gestapo.