These theoretical reflections are confronted by the following facts; departments were under the personal command of the Kommando Chief. The latter issued the orders in person, and reports were made to him personally. There was neither a common file keeping between administration and the executive branch nor did the Kommando maintain a business office. In particular, Department IV, which was engaged in executive measures, worked wholly independently and even in rooms separated from the rest of the Kommando, so that only those who were working there in the immediate place had an insight into these tasks. Moreover, it must be added, that the Kommando was on the advance as long as Ruehl was a member, and that thus it was split up into individual groups, which established different local headquarters independently. Thereby it became more than ever impossible for a Kommando member to get a survey of events with which he was not occupied in line of duty.
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't necessary that you read those, Dr. Link.
DR. LINK: Yes, Your Honor.
(Cf. Statement Ruehl as witness Record page 4463 German.)
the Kommando membersof officers rank, did not know that their unit had been designated by the Fuehrer Decree or by other orders from the highest quarters to practice a so-called extermination policy. Felix Ruehl. and suddenly to the SK 10b, and with what conceptions he approached the tasks which awaited him there. At first it was not even clear whether the marshalling of the most different kind of units, which pointed to use in battle, would turn to the West or to the East. When after the outbreak of the War with the Soviet Union there was no longer any doubt on this point, the whole group was sent off to the (Einsatz) the assignment with an address by the chief of the Sipo and of the SD in the customary military manner, without any special instructions.
Ruehl has neither taken part in the conversation with Gruppenfuehrer Streckenbach, which has several times been mentioned in this trial, nor did he learn about it. Nor did his unit commander instruct him in the sense of the presentation of charges. He explained the tasks merely to the effect, that certain actions of the enemy were to be prosecuted and punished with the application of the severest standards. Neither on this occasion nor subsequently was there any talk of liquidating individually guiltless persons without trial because of their race, their political convictions or similar reasons. (Compare Record of Session page 4373/77 English, page 4456/59 German and page 4382/85 English, page 4464/66 German.) drawn appropriate conclusions as to a general execution decree, at least through the knowledge of such events, even if gained only from hearsay, and whether he could not have helped but do so. which the Prosecution considers itself justified to reproach all those in whose case the evidence is negative in its opinion. What he heard in a roundabout way and by chance from his comrades he stated frankly.
This concerns three executions. In one case it was a measure against civilians who had perpetrated a treacherous firing-attack on Roumanian troops and members of the Kommando in Czernovitz. This measure was carried through upon orders by the Roumanian General in authority on Roumanian sovereign territory as far as Ruehl can remember, some 12 - 15 persons were said to have been shot on the basis of drumhead court-martial. This took place after many more suspects had been investigated and the guilty ones identified in due course. In another instance German fliers having made forced landings and got into Russian captivity, when forcibly dragged out of the prison by the population, abused and finally beaten to death in a bestial manner.
Also here, detailed investigations were made and the persons found guilty were shot in the end. about a third execution, by which at still another location agents and saboteurs were said to have been punished.
(See testimony Ruehl, Transcript page 4471/79 English page 4579 German.)
individual criminal acts, which everywhere are characterized as such. It is clear that from a knowledge of these actions, gained from hearsay, no conclusion of a general order for the execution of Jews, gypsies and communists could be drawn. part which Ruehl played, or could have played, during the three months of his membership in Sonderkommando 10b, and also his position and his activities, his considerations and possibilities without finding, a responsibility of his in the sense of the indictment. Prosecution has tried to connect with Ruehl, are commented upon below, this must not be misconstrued. It is done upon the risk of exposing Ruehl to the reproach by the Tribunal, why he should deal with matters which are no concern of his, as has already happened once during his hearing if on the stand. Since he has been accused and had to see this trial through, he also wants as I already emphasized in my opening statement, to contribute his part which necessarily is very modest - to the solution of the various contradictions and to the establishment of the plain truth by the Tribunal. He therefore insists on maintaining this line, already followed during the examination on the witness stand, also in these concluding statements.
DR. LINK: This would be a good time to recess.
DR. FRITZ: Pardon me, your Honor
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Fritz?
DR. FRITZ: Dr. Fritz as a representative for Dr. Lummert for the defendant, Blume. Your Honor, Dr. Lummert has asked for the defendant, Blume, in order to speak to him this evening, and I, therefore, ask that the defendant, Blume, may he excused from the session this evening after 4:30.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant, Blume, will be excused from attendance in court this evening.
DR. MAYER: Dr. Mayer, representing Dr. Schwarz for the defendant, Jost. My colleague, Dr. Schwarz, requests the Tribunal to excuse the defendant, Jost, from the tomorrow morning session in order to go over the final plea.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant, Jost, will be excused from a attendance in court tomorrow morning. The Tribunal will be in recess 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
THE TRIBUNAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FICHT: Representing Defense Counsel Ulmer. Your Honors, I would like the Defendant Six to be excused tomorrow afternoon so that he cah confer with his counsel for a reply to a closing brief, and I have a similar request to make, representing Defense Counsel Dr. Hoffman, to the effect that the Defendant Nosske should be excused this evening, because he had arranged for a conference with him this evening.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Nosske will be excused from attendance in Court this evening and the Defendant Six will be excused from attendance in court tomorrow afternoon.
DR. LINK (ATTORNEY FOR THE DEFENDANT RUEHL): In detail I would like to make the following statement:
PERSTERER's report to Army Group South, (Document Book II-D English, page 45, German page 48, Prosecution Exhibit 92) in the first place admits of certain doubts in the truth of the facts reported in it. was bound to report immediately to the latter. It is therefore surprising that Sturmbannfuehrer PERSTERER, without any official reason, should make such a report to the distant Army Group South, yet neglect this very same duty towards his superior. (Compare letters of 11 July 1941 and 14 July 1941, with the statements from the witness box of the Defendant Ohlendorf on 9 October 1947.) of the Einsatzgruppe, in contrast to the far distant Army Group, would have found out the untruth of this report, in other words, PERSTERER wanted to feign a particular activity of his unit. in Czernowitz at all, because he only arrived there in the evening of the 9 or 10 July.
RUEHL-Exh. # 3, 4 and 6 and then the statement of Ruhl. PERSTERER's report was incorrect.
Court No. II, Case No. IX.
RUEHL for reasons of time. had been sent to Chotin. On 11 July this report was supplemented to the effect that the Teilkommando had been forced to withdraw again by the Russian occupation. The alleged measures of that Teilkommando, reported on 14 July, cannot be connected with RUEHL according to the time of their taking place, because he only arrived in Czernovitz after the dispatch of that Group and did not leave this town during the period in question. That is shown in Ruehl Exh. 3, 4, and 6. RUEHL himself testified under oath that he never was in Chotin and never gained knowledge of alleged actions on the part of a Teilkommando sent there. Einsatzgruppe gave instructions to the Kommando 10 b to influence Roumanian authorities to take action in regard to the Jewish problem. OHLENDORF himself, who gave this order, expressed himself in detail on this subject in the witness stand. This concerns an order, which the Sturmbannfuehrer PERSTERER received personally and orally on the occasion of an inspection. It is obvious that in the case of RUEHL all assumptions are lacking for his participating in the execution of this order. During his interrogation he even denied expressly the more knowledge of it. No. 90 states in regard to the activity of the Kommando 10 b in the area of Czernowitz that up to then 16 persons out of 1200 arrested Jews arrested Communist functionaries had been shot. In this connection, one is struck by the following facts: ings by the Kommando in Czernovitz. On the other hand, the report Of 14 July states expressly that Kommando 10b was scheduled to complete its assignments in Czernovitz in 3 - 5 days. Afterwards, the Kommando Court No. II, Case No. IX.
was to stay there, ready to join the advancing Army Corps. These assignments, however, as is evident from the reports of 11 and 14. July, did not consist in the liquidation of Jaws in Czernovitz. The contrary is the case. As shown by the statement of the Defendant OHLENDORF in the witness box, the commander of Kommando 10b was explicitly prohibited to carry out such a measure in territory under Rumanian sovereignty. That Czernovitz was regarded as territory under Rumania sovereignty is demonstrated conclusively by the report of 11 July which states that:
"The Rumanians have taken over the civil administra tion in Czernovitz", as well as from the report of 14 July stating:
"the Rumanians declare Northern Bukovina as territ ory under Rumanian sovereignty."
Consequently, the commander of Kommando 10b would have been acting in contravention to the explicit instructions of his direct superior, the chief of the Einsatzgruppe D, if he had taken part with his Kommando in the liquidation of the Jews in Czernovitz. As the Defendant OHLENDORF stated in the witness box during a tour of inspection in Czernovitz he found the commander of Kommando 10b in a state of great excitement, because the Rumanians had carried out liquidations in an unimaginable and unspeakable manner. PERSTERER had launched a most vigorous protest against these liquidations and, by this very protest, again rejected the invitation of the Rumanians to participate in liquidations. As a matter of fact, neither the Defendant RUEHL nor the signers of the affidavits HANSEN, KAUFMANN, NISPEL and WERNER had any knowledge of liquidations of Jews in Czernovitz. Consequently, the passage in the report of 1 August 1941 "in Czernovitz, 658 out of an approximate total with the Rumanian Police" was probably a deliberate misstatement inasmuch as the shootings were carried out by the Rumanians alone.
These comments, too, are made only for clarification, having regard to the documents presented in the course of this trial. The fact that RUEHL himself had been informed Court No. II, Case No. IX.
of only 3 executions which, however, were carried out, not for political or racial reasons, but as punishment for criminal acts and after due investigations had been made in each case, has bean mentioned by me in another context before. inasmuch as they concern that retransfer of Jews. I am going to demonstrate that there, too, RUEHL held not commanding function, as the Prosecution assumed, but was involved in that matter only in part and incidentally owing to purely external circumstances unrelated to the events themselves. several documents presented by the Prosecution itself; furthermore from statements of the Defendant OHLENDORF in the witness box, from the interrogation of the witness HARSCH and, finally from the exhaustive account which RUEHL gave as witness and which served as supplement and commentary to his affidavit presented in court by the Prosecution.
According to all that, what actually took place was this;
tion. There he was to commandeer billets for the other administrative tasks.
Already several in advance to Mogilev-Podolsk.
That the Kom Court No. II, Case No. IX.
the Kommando. Consequently RUEHL could not possibly took a marching column, consisting, as it appeared, for the most part of Jews and escorted by Rumanian soldiers. There were men, woman and children in it, obviously a whole population on the trek; it was a proper procession of misery. On arrival in Mogilev-Podolsk, RUEHL talked with the leader of the local unit about his observations and learned that this procession consisted of Jews who had been compelled by the Rumanians to leave their homes in territory under Rumanian sovereignty to be shifted to German-held territory. RUEHL learned furthermore that a large number of these Jews, expelled by the Rumanians and utterly destitute were already in the German-held Mogilev area. According to what the local leader told, these Jews were without shelter, food and medical attention and, therefore, in a desperate plight. Their presence there also constituted a danger for the command of the German Wehrmacht, as they resorted to theft and looting and, moreover, were a potential source of epidemics. Finally, RUEHL also learned that the local leader had already notified the commander and endeavoured to prevent a further influx of Jews from the Rumanian sphere of sovereignty and interests. in Mogilev-Podolsk are borne out by Prosecution Exhibit No. 39 which mentions the prevention of an influx of Jews into the German sphere of interests. cumstances was there an occasion or even only a possibility for RUEHL to take any action. find out how the misleading statement of RUEHL in the affidavit taken Court No. II, Case No. IX.
down by Mr. WARTENBERG came to be made (Prosecution Exhibit No. 169) subsection 3. RUEHL himself never attempted to concentrate the Jews near Mogilev-Podolsk in order to return them as a body. came ever more untenable, Sturmbannfuehrer PERSTERER, in his capacity as Kommando leader, took occasion to report to Group Leader OHLENDORF and to ask for his orders. PERSTERER ordered RUEHL to accompany him on this trip and to bring the Group Leader's decision back to Mogilev, as PERSTERER himself would not return there immediately. OHLENDORF decided that the Rumanian Jews were to be sent back to their homes across the Dnjestr, RUEHL transmitted the Group Leader's order to the local leader and that was the end of his part as courier which he had had in this matter.
(Compare also deposition OHLENDORF Session Record.) thwarted by the stubborn resistance of the Rumanians. It turned out to be necessary to inform the Group Leader of the New development, and to ask for his further orders. It was only natural that RUEHL who already had accompanied PERSTERER on his trip to OHLENDORF once before should be charged with the job, the more so as PERSTERER had not returned yet and the leader of the sub-unit stationed in Mogilev was bound in his station. which was still in German hands. As this bridge was in the area of the neighboring Kommando 12 under NOSSKE, NOSSKE was instructed directly by OHLENDORF to take charge of that transport. OHLENDORF, when on the witness stand, remembered all these events in detail and confirmed that RUEHL acted as a mere messenger transmitting that order. given to anybody and that from the interpolation of RUEHL neither an authority of command with respect to the leader of the Teilkommando nor the capacity of deputy with respect to the leader of the Commando could be inferred. The locally competent leader had to see to it that also Court No. II, Case No. IX.
this second order was carried out. That is why RUEHL paid no attention to the moving of the Jews and did not accompany, indeed not even see, the column when it left. territory was effected smoothly and that nothing happened to them, has been unequivocally confirmed apart from NOSSKE's testimony by the witness HARSCH who was in charge of that bridge at that time. hibits No. 3 to 6 got to know of the shootings. Indeed, the Jews themselves did not consider their removal as a coercive measure; they expressed their joy and gratitude on being allowed to return home by enthusiastically cheering Adolf HITLER. had passed on their way back, Jews kept passing the bridge individually or in small groups, on their own volition and without escort. Upon explicit questions posed during the cross-examination, the witness stated that those Jews were not in flight and that at that time he had not heard of any executions or coercive measures, but, had there been any, he should have got to know of them. phase of that action, it is evident that he cannot give any detailed data on the number of Jews that were affected by it. He can only recall that altogether 12 - 15,000 of homeless Jews were mentioned. Mogilev, as ordered by OHLENDORF, with two Reports of Events of 26 and 29 august 1941, introduced as Exhibits No. 154 and 158, The first report mentions 4,000 Jews as part of the population of Mogilev, and another 7,000 who had been shipped to that region by the time the Roumanians took over the administration from the Germans. Finally, it mentions a transport of about 6,000 Jews who, in spite of considerable protest by the Roumanian in charge of the bridge, were transferred to the other side of the river Dniestr. Accordingly, the total number of Court No. II, Case No. IX.
Jaws who were not natives of the region around Mogilev amounted to 13,000. Thus it is possible that that report refers to the events in which RUEHL took part as transmitter of orders. Of the other measures described in Document Exhibit No. 154 (concentration of the Jews in a ghetto and three camps respectively, their assignment for work clearing the town of the rubble and collecting the harvest) RUEHL could have no knowledge, as he arrived there only at a later date. Anyway, the prosecution has never claimed that such measures would have been war crimes or crimes against humanity. mentioned transport of Jews from the region of Mogilev, at the time the Sonderkommando 10 b was stationed there, and the contents of the report of 29 August 1941 (prosecution Exhibit No. 58). In the first place, so much time elapsed between this report and this actual transport of Jews which took place, according to the statements of all witnesses already about the middle of the month, that the report cannot possibly refer to it. remotely with the figures which RUEHL learned in Mogilev. If 1265 Jaws in excess thereof had been shot in the area of SK 10 b, the members of the commando most certainly would have received information about such a drastic measure at least afterwards. I have already stressed the fact that this was not the case, and, in this respect, I have referred to the RUEHL Exh. No. 3, 4, 5, 6 and to the testimony of OHLENDORF. The credibility of the statements as made by RUEHL is fully confirmed, particularly by the testimony of the witness HARSCH who was interrogated while completely unprepared. of Svanzia played a part in the district of the Sonderkommando 10 b. that the report which is the basis of Pros. Exh. No. 58, was erroneously attributed in Berlin to Einsatzgruppe D, because it came from an area Court No. II, Case No. IX.
where the group had been stationed before. In effect, the Einsatzgruppe D had long left the district of Mogilev on 29 august 1941, and at that date was already stationed in Ananjev. In the beginning, the prosecution seems to have been of this opinion also, since, at first, this exhibit No. 58 had not been submitted as an incriminating document. But all these meditations are irrelevant as far as the defendant RUEHL is concerned. His share in that evacuation action consisted in the transmission of two orders by the group chief to the competent local leader of the Teilkommando. This did not have anything to do with his general official tasks, nor can any conclusion be drawn from it, in the specific case, as to even a single instance of his deputizing for the Kommando leader or as to any authority of command over the leader of the Teilkommando. the result could not be a different one. This would at least have to be conceded from RUEHL's point of view, who did not perceive the events, which were hardly objectionable in themselves, in their further course. The idea of the indictment surmising that those Jews had been, evidently driven to death as a result of the evacuation, is without any real foundation and, according to the evidence, contradicts the very opinion of the persons who were directly affected by that action. endeavored to treat and elucidate the case of my client RUEHL from all conceivable angles. because of his being a member of an Einsatzkommando, was connected with plans and enterprises for the commission of crimes and/or took a consenting part therein.
COURT NO. II, CASE NO. IX.
This kind of argumentation has already been rejected by the Military Tribunal II in the Pohl-verdict in the case of defendants to whom it believed to be justified in imputing the cognizance and knowledge of crimes committed by others. This Tribunal has emphasized that the expression "to be connected with a crime" signifies more than a mere knowledge or working together in the same building and at the same time with the principle and accessory in the same group or organization. For the assumption of an "assenting participation" the element of positive action is required, exceeding a mere "not objecting". of such considerations were missing already at that time for a variety of reasons, i.e. as regards knowledge of plans and actions to be considered criminal. not made himself liable to punishment neither as principal nor as accessory nor in any other form of participation within the provision of law on which this Trial is based. dictment. member, after 1 September 1939, of organizations which have been declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal, i.e.;
1.) of the Schutzstaffel of the National-Socialis tic Workers' Party (SS of the NSDAP)
2.) Of the Office IV of the RSHA. SS, the following particulars must be of importance: SA to the SS quite spontaneously. On being taken over into the police service on 1 October 1935 he ceased to be an active member of the general SS and from that date on he has done no duty in any SS unit either in Luckenwalde, Berlin or any other place.
Purely formally he continued to be a member of the SS till 1935 or 1936, but that, too, came to an end, when Ruehl was transferred to the RSHA and enrolled in the SS-Special Formation SD. The particular role of this special formation has been explained several times during the presentation of the evidence and especially in the course of the concluding statements. In this connection I refer in particular to the fundamental statements in the Ohlendorf plea. Ruehl himself spoke at great length on this matter when he was in the witness box. In this connection it has been explained, on the basis of his personal documents presented by the prosecution, how and why the SS grades conferred on him were nothing but the logical outcome of the perodical automatic promotions in the service. The fact that Ruehl was a member of the general SS before the beginning of his official career did not have any influence on this. This could be explained by the fact that Ruehl, when he joined the police service, was even demoted because the rank he had then reached in the general SS was higher than the comparative rank (Angleichung Dienstgrad) prescribed for his initial position as an official. my client's membership in the SS, an organization declared criminal by the International Military Tribunal, is "no" at any rate for the period after 1 September 1939. opposite view, then it would have to be checked -- according to the meaning of the IMT verdict and the subsequent decisions of the Military Tribunals, particularly the Pohl verdict, - whether the defendant Ruehl, knowing the criminal aims, consciously collaborated.
This proof, which would have to be brought by the prosecution, could not consist of a mere reference to the fact that Ruehl was a member of an Einsatzkommando. The Einsatzgruppen and Kommandos, as proven by their history of origin, their organizational form, and their assignments, had nothing to do with the SS. They were assigned to the units of the Wehrmacht as mobile military units for police tasks. place the knowledge of the actions which the IMT took as a basis when it declared the SS as criminal. The defendant Ruehl, moreover, worked in Office I of the RSHA from 1 September 1940 until August 1943, in an office which does not fall within the group which has been declared criminal, and during the time of his assignment in Russia, when he was a leader in administrative and economic fields, he fulfilled only the tasks which corresponded to his formal membership in Office I of the RSHA. the meaning of the judgment of the IMT, we must finally investigate whether Ruehl, on 1 September 1939, still was a voluntary member of this organization. We would have to find that the contrary was the case for the following reasons: later, Ruehl took steps for his release for service in the army; supreme authorities finally rejected this petition in both cases. Exhausting all the means at his disposal, Ruehl, moreover, had opposed his assignment to service in the higher ranks and to the compulsory studies which were combined with this assignment, because, if he was not permitted to serve as a soldier, than at least he did not want to be separated from his professional activities in counter-intelligenge.
But this was futile also. His special formation had no fields of work of its own, and if he had renounced the rank which forced him to don the uniform of the SS, this would have meant that he would have been compelled to leave the Security Police And I think that it has been proven to the full satisfaction of the Court in the course of these proceedings that this was not definitely possible, at least while the war lasted.
Ruehl's conviction for membership in the SS would therefore be impossible because of the fact that this membership was not a voluntary one since 1 September 1939. member in an organization which has been declared criminal because he allegedly was a member of Office IV of the RSHA. When questioned under oath, Ruehl has denied that this assertion of the Prosecution corresponds to the facts. cution has submitted not one document nor disclosed anything that would point at such a membership of Ruehl in the Office IV of the RSHA. During the cross-examination of Ruehl which went into details very much in other respects, the Prosecution did not probe any deeper into this question. This assertion has remained unproven therefore, nay, on the contrary, in consideration of Ruehl's statement under oath, it must be considered as refuted. not been guilty in the meaning of the indictment.
concerning Ruehl's personality. that nothing more but also no less would be proved in this case as regards my client, than that his attitude was the clean attitude of a man who did his duties there where he was asked to do them, duties moreover, which were neither dishonorable nor criminal. I believe that I have not been mistaken in this. during his interrogation in his defense, in particular during his cross-examination, will have imparted the conviction not only to myself that his statements are credible to their full extent. political career of my client, I have therefore taken particular pains to disclose his personal opinion as regards the problems which are the nucleus of these proceedings. tified to in a manner commanding respect by his political opponents already prior to 1933. he was a humane and tolerant official later on, an official of a class of police officers against whom no objections can be raised. Finally, the Ruehl Exhibits No. 12, 13 and 26 prove that he was also averse to terror and a policy of constraint when he was a superior, and that he was highly esteemed because of his personally and professionally correct attitude. voices of those to thom Ruehl gave advice and help when they were persecuted in the Third Reich for racial and political reasons.
In an absolutely fundamental manner, they disclose an attitude which is diametrically opposed to the principles and measures which are being judged here. They also prove that the forcible interruption of the studies of Law was not able to shake the basic attitude of Ruehl, neither as regards his ethics nor as concerns his character. proceedings, then it will be the question of why my client has been accused here. He has been the only administrative leader in an Einsatzkommando who has been brought into the limelight in this case. For all those months I could not get rid of the idea that this has been done because there prevailed the assumption - an erroneous assumption, by the way - that it would be impossible to find any other representative of Sonderkommando 10 b. Ruehl not guilty.
DR. GICK: Dr. Gick for the defendant Strauch.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. GICK: May it please Your Honors: have to make on behalf of my client - that I do not consider discussing once more those questions which will have to be decided upon before this Tribunal will be able to pass to individual cases, i.e. fundamental questions with which these trials are dealing. Even that part of each individual case which, according to the view of the defense, applies to all defendants alike, I shall mention only insofar as its importance with reference to my client can be clearly seen. I am convinced that this tribunal will give careful consideration to all those matters which have already been discussed in full by some of my fellow defense counsels, to whose statement I am herewith expecially referring myself, and which I am making my own, on behalf of my client, and also examine their part they have played in the case of my client and will pass judgment with all due consideration of these fundamental objections and protective assertions.
I must also declare: It is still my point of view that the defense of the defendant Strauch has been hampered by his state of health to such a degree that it must be called insufficient. However, one may judge his state of health the following facts will still remain to be considered;
1.) The defendant Dr. Strauch is suffering from epilectic attacks. Such an attack was also the cause of an injury to his health which prevented the defendant from being present in court.
2.) In connection with the state of health following such attacks, a condition of semi-consciousness often ensued which made it impossible for weeks on end to discuss with the defendant the problems with which this tribunal concerns itself, namely the court-proceedings and the line of defense. A great deal of that which I am able to state in favor of the defendant Strauch before this tribunal is solely due to my studies of files and documents. This cannot, however, take the place of personal knowledge of circumstances which the defendant must undoubtedly have but which he could only very incompletely convey to me.
3.) In spite of his illness the defendant always wanted to put in a personal appearance in Court as a witness on his own behalf. He had already started to inform me, according to regulations, of the facts which he would be able to state as a witness, when, about a month and a half before he was supposed to appear on the witness stand, all further information became impossible.