THE PRESIDENT: I take it that you invoked the sound sentiment of the people as being important relative to the sentence which should be pronounced under the circumstances of the case, is that correct?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor, in view of the especially serious circumstances of the case.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q May I again refer to what Judge Brand just said, Judge Brand wanted to emphasize the following, if I understood it correctly, and I believe you didn't make it clear enough yet. Did you base yourself only on the law or beyond that on the sound sentiment of the people in order to find out at all whether it was a crime? Please answer yes or no.
A The law alone regarded it as a crime, serious embezzlement and breach of trust.
Q In other words, if I understand you correctly you did not make the sound sentiment of the people part of the law?
A No.
Q Thus, if I understood you correctly, tho sound sentiment of the people was decisive for you only, or was only a guidance in order to find out the extent of the punishment?
A Yes, and he was sentenced as a thief because of serious embezzlement and because of breach of trust.
Q Would you assume that you passed such a judgment for the first time in Germany, or whether otherwise in Germany, too, sentences that serious were pronounced in other countries? I should assume that embezzlement of welfare funds during the war happened not for the first time in Germany, if I think of the entire German Reich.
A Such cases were known to have been tried by other courts for some time at that time. The Staudenmeier case happened in 1944 and was the only and first case of that nature in Wurtemburg.
Q Can you say anything as to the manner in which the funds were collected? Were they gathered in a box, that is to say, in small coins?
A They were funds from the street collections, usually in small amounts.
Q Thus you would say that everybody was asked, the moral feeling of every person was appealed to, and the smallest man contributed just as well as everybody else?
A Yes.
Q Therefore the further question seems important to me. Do you recall what amounts he embezzled.
A It was 6,500 RM.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess at this time for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Court, may I continue with my examination?
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witness, before I go over to the next case, may I use this opportunity to ask you whether, in connection with the Staudenmeier case, you yourself wrote the judgment, and did it happen occasionally or did it happen frequently that you wrote judgments yourself? I suppose I may assume that as a rule, just as it was customary all over Germany, it was the judge who actually wrote the sentence, and that the presiding judge only occasionally made some corrections. Please comment on that.
A. I, myself, wrote the judgment only in a very few cases, and I did that in order to relieve the judge who was supposed to write the judgment, as those judges were overworked. I can only remember two or three judgments which I, myself, wrote.
Q. If I understand you correctly, you mean to say that the only motive by which you were guided when you wrote the judgment yourself was that the other judges were overworked and that it was only a friendly act on your part that you wrote the judgments, is that correct?
A. Yes, that was my only motive.
Q. Witness, I am now coming to a case which has been discussed here a great many times. That is a case which the prosecution has discussed here in great detail. I ask you to go into it in a very detailed way yourself. I am referring to Case 13, which is the Untermarchtal case. I assume that you have the document before you. I am concerned with the judgment. I have just been told that I have the judgment here. The exhibit number is 497; the NG number is 907 in the Supplementary Volume III-B. I have just been told by my secretary that it is 709.
THE PRESIDENT: It's NG-706 on your memorandum.
DR. BRIEGER: That is right, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Which is right?
DR. BRIEGER: 706. I am now handing you these documents. I am handing you the judgment which the prosecution submitted and also the indictment in the Untermarchtal case.
Witness, I would ask you, first of all, to tell us how you got hold of the indictment. Before you begin -just a moment, please.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't see why we should be concerned as to how he got hold of the indictment. Let him go ahead and discuss the case.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. May I ask you to start now.
A. I have before me the judgment which was presented here by the prosecution, and the indictment which was in the possession of one of the defense counsel. I have the original of that indictment. This was a case of violating the war economic provisions and involved were 90,000 eggs, 145 liters of milk, 13,600 kilograms of flour and grain, 7,000 kilograms of processed foods, 3,500 kilograms of sugar. Too much had been consumed, or rather had not been delivered.
Q. May I just interrupt you, witness? As a rough estimate, if I assume that this happened in war time and that food was rationed, would you say that several dozens, several hundreds, or several thousands of people suffered because these amounts of food went to the black market?
THE PRESIDENT: We can make our own estimate from that. You don't need to reduce it to the number of meals.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, Your Honor.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
A. The offense occurred in the canonic congregation of the sisterhood in Untermarchtal. This was not a convent but it was a canonic congregation; that is to say, it was a sisterhood. Among the defendants there was the Mother Superior, the sister in charge of household affairs, the sister in charge of purchases, and a number of other sisters and also firms that supplied the sisterhood, and also the mayor. The offenses were made possible because, as is clearly evident from the judgment, the administrative authorities had failed completely. The sisters exploited that fact. The indictment was made out in great detail. It goes over 150 pages and there were several thousand pages and supplementary files.
The prosecution spent six months in writing the indictment. When the proceedings were instituted, the court did not play any part in the matter. The court, as well as I myself, had no idea that the Gestapo had confiscated the sisterhood. That can be seen quite clearly from the files.
Q. Witness, I want to interpolate a question. When did you hear for the first time that proceedings were to be instituted against Untermarchtal?
A. I heard of that for the first time - and then I only obtained some information - that was approximately in November 1941. That was when the prosecution asked that some arrest warrants were to be issued on account of the danger that otherwise essential testimony would get lost. It asked for such warrants to be issued against the mayor, and as far as I know, also the sister in charge of household matters, When the warrants had been issued, we no longer saw the indictment for several months.
On the 10th of March 1942, the indictment was filed. The trial was held three months later; that is to say, it was fixed for the 1st of June 1942. There were 28 defendants and 9 defense counsel. The trial lasted ten days without Sundays and without counting a Catholic holiday on which no session was held. The trial was conducted in great detail. Innumerable witnesses and experts were called. The result, the judgment, was not quite in accordance with the extent of the indictment. In particular, the Mother Superior, Agnes Burger, who was responsible before the law, was not sentenced for a crime against the war economy, as had been charged in the indictment, because the court had doubts as to whether the Mother Superior had known everything about the very many offenses that had been committed.
As to the sentences, the main defendants among the sisters were given a great deal of consideration, and only now in the peace of my cell, I have discovered that the Special Court, concerning the defendant Sister Caroline Mueller, allowed several days more for the time spent in detention that she had actually spent. The reasons given for the sentences, too - and I do not wish to repeat then here - show quite clearly that the Special Court did emphasize the merits of the sisters to a very large extent.
There are several passages where it is emphasized that the sisters could not possibly be held responsible for all the failings of the authorities who had been responsible for the administration.
Q Witness, a little while age you said that it wasn't a convent. May I ask you whether these sisters were only looking after themselves in that place or whether they had guests--paying guests, perhaps, in large numbers, and whether they had these paying guests net only temporarily but permanently.
A The congregation of Untermarchtal runs a number of hospitals in Wuertemberg--sick bays, spas, etc. The original home, if I may call it that, is in Untermarchtal on the Danube. In that original home, every now and then spiritual exercises are held, which are to a great deal attended by people from the rural surroundings. Affiliated to the original home, there is a home, where sisters live who are no longer able to work. There is also a home for children and for crippled and a home for fallen girls. At Untermarchtal itself, a place with a population of only 300 persons who do not belong to the convent, there are at the convent an average of 600 to 700 people. The convent was the biggest agricultural producer of the district of Ehingen on the Danube, which is largely agricultural. Above all, it had the biggest chicken farm in Southern Wuertemberg, and also their livestock department was exemplary. The size of this enterprise explains the amount of food that was not delivered or consumed in excess respectively. Consideration was duly paid to that in the judgment.
Q Witness, if I remember correctly, the sisters, in particular the Mother Superior, at least in one case or another said that she had not known that the agricultural products were subject to official control Would you assume that the size of the enterprise was such that commercial principles were to be applied, and that therefore the administration considered itself an obligation to keep these newspaper which published instructions concerning rationing and control?
AAs far as I remember, we pointed out in the judgment that the assets of the convent by far exceeded ten million Reichsmarks.
The enterprise had an exemplary modern bookkeeping by machine. The sisters who dealt with the administration--all of them had the Reich Law Gazette--Reichsgezetsblatt--as well as the publications of the Catholic Charitas organization.
Concerning the legal state of affairs, as far as we found, they were far better informed than the competent highest administrative official in the district, Landrat Dr. Bodnerin Ehingen on the Danube.
Q If I am correctly informed, all the same the sisters had said that they had been ignorant of these matters, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Witness, who of the convicted persons received the heaviest sentence? Please have a look at the judgment.
A It was the mayor who received the heaviest sentence--the mayor of the village of Untermarchtal--and the defendant Stuetzelberger.
Q I am sorry, but I have to interrupt you here. Was the mayor a member of the convent?
A No, he was the mayor of the Parish, and he was an old Party member. He was a mayor in a honorary capacity. He was the only defendant to have a penitentiary sentence.
Q What was that penitentiary sentence?
A That was three years.
Q What was the maximum sentence which was passed on a member of the convent, and on whom was it?
A It was the defendant Landerer, and Mueller.
Q Were they sentenced to a penitentiary?
A No, they were sentenced to be imprisoned and the time which she had spent in detention pending trial was decuted in the Mueller case. It was seven days.
Q Were you under an obligation to deduct all time spent in detention awaiting trial from the penitentiary sentence?
A No, such an obligation did not exist.
Q Witness, please have a look at the judgment and have a look at the opinion and the reasons for the sentence, Please look for the passage which shows that in the case of the Mother Superior, a heaviest sentence was not pronounced. I am referring now to the extenuating circumstances, and I am particularly thinking of the fact that you took into consideration the unisial merits of this siter from the days of the First World War; that is to say, from a time which was a long time ago, further, to the fact that you made reference to her blindness.
A Those extenuating circumstances are mentioned a great many times in the judgment. They occur again and again in the judgment like a red thread. Concerning the last part of your question, may I refer you briefly to the fact that concerning the two main defendants among the sisters, it says in the judgment that the character of the two defendants indicate that the merits of their work and welfare should not be ignored; in particular, the defendant Caroline Mueller distinguished herself in nursing, particularly during the World War.
She sacrificed her health for her work and she was in danger of losing her eyesight completely. Similar phrases can he found in other passages in the judgment.
Q. Was it of importance that without always mentioning the particular extenuating circumstances you ha.d thought the sentence might be revoked by a nullity plea?
A. Before the trial opened we feared that there might be a threat of a nullity plea. Therefore, I suggested that an observer from the Reich Ministry of Justice should be sent to the trial, for I knew from the very beginning that the authorities in the district of Ehingen had failed and I knew Wuerttemberg sufficiently well to know that. I also knew that for that reason only relatively light sentences could be expected in this case. However, no official from the Ministry came. As for the nullity plea, the prosecution is said to have discussed that matter for a long time, but I never heard any details.
Q. Witness, were those sisters party members or not?
A. No.
Q. I had assumed that they were not. Now, I ask you as a party member did you not have any misgivings, or did you not have a struggle with your conscience when you sentenced a party member to the heaviest sentence, and contrary to the sentences that were passed on the other defendant, you passed a penitentiary sentence on him.
A. No, I didn't have any misgivings because the mayor had previous convictions, and the sisters knew about that; his superior in the Landrat did not know that. Without the mayor , the convent could never have gotten into this whole affair. Therefore, he had to be considered the main defendant.
Q. If I understood you correctly, you have already indicated that you had nothing to do with it when later on the property was confiscated.
A. No, I had nothing to do with that. The property was confiscated during the pre-trial period, and at the time when the indictment was filed with the court as far as I knew, that confiscation had already occurred.
Furthermore that confiscation, to begin with, had no practical significance for the entire convent was used by the armed forces as a military hospital.
Q. Do you know what the witness Ersing said about the results of the confiscation?
A. No, no; neither do I know the witness Ersing.
Q. Now, a short question which I wish to be interpolated and which may have importance in another context. Is it correct that duo to the strain of the trial which went on for ten days, you suffered so much that it was very difficult for you to continue conducting the trial until the very end; and at the end you did have a nervous breakdown?
A. On account of the extremely hot weather of June, 1942, the conduct of the trial involved a great physical strain, and on Thursday we had no session on that Catholic holiday. I had broken down completely physically, and the following Friday I was only able to conduct the trial with a very great effort.
Q. Have you finished?
A. Yes.
Q. Witness, in this one case we are in the fortunate position to have both the judgment and the indictment available, and it is a very extensive indictment. You have already mentioned the number of pages. Therefore, I should like to use this example to discuss a few matters with which the prosecution has charged you, that is to say the prosecution has charged you with having conducted your trial only on the basis of the indictment. May I assume that you are altogether familiar with the contents of the indictment; is that correct?
A. Yes, you are right.
Q. May I ask you now whether in that indictment only the incriminating factors are mentioned and the evidence as well; or, whether facts which are supposed to be in favor of the defendant are also mentioned -
THE PRESIDENT: Is the indictment in evidence?
DR. BRIEGER: No, your Honor, it is not in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not in evidence.
DR. BRIEGER: For a long time-
THE PRESIDENT: I just wanted to know; if it is, we don't want him to read what is in the written document. Go ahead.
A. Both the incriminating factors as well as the elements in favor of the defendant are contained, are compiled with great care in this indictment. I have here the working files of one of the defense counsel and I can see from this copy that the defense counsel, too, worked mainly on the basis of the indictment, for his copy contains all his notes and some of them are on the margin. Unfortunately, most of his notes have come off, but there was outside a reference to that effect, that is to say, the way the defense counsel worked, and essentially that was always the way the court worked. The indictment is three times the size of the judgment, but I add that nothing like all the punishable offense are mentioned in the judgment as punishable offenses which were mentioned as charges in the indictment.
Q. You mean to say that although the indictment was very extensive, matters were discussed in detail, and you have also explained that by telling us that the trial went on for ten days. May I ask you now, did you only know the indictment, or did you also know some or possibly all the files?
A. I knew all the files; the magistrate, who worked on the files, worked on the files for a fortnight, and then I had the files.
Q. Who was the magistrate who made the report?
A. That was Dr. Azesdorfer, who was Landgerichtsdirector, district court counselor.
Q. Well, then, I needn't ask you any further questions regarding that because I can ask a great many questions of the witness Dr. Azesdorfer May I take it that you have finished with this case?
A. Yes.
Q. I now am going over to the next case, Case 14, the Wirbel case, and. I assume that you have the judgment in the Wirbel case before you, witness.
A. Yes.
Q. I am referring to Exhibit 166, NG-655, in Document Book III-F, page 1, and I should like to tell the Tribunal that my document 69 will have the Exhibit No. 7. This document contains statements which are extracts from an important German publication on penal procedure, penal proceedings. Later on I shall present this document. Witness, the prosecution, I assume, charges you with this: Charges your judgment with violating the principle of ne bis in idem, double jeopardy. A great deal has been said about this. I need only remind you of the testimony of the witness Behl concerning the principle of double jeopardy. To begin with, I would ask you to tell us what that principle of double jeopardy means and I would like also for you to tell us did that judgment violate the principle of double jeopardy. Now, my first question is: Did you, from the threatened point of view, agree with the views which the prosecution witness Behl voiced here?
A. The principle of double jeopardy means that nobody can be legally sentenced twice for the same offense. In the Wirbel case, according to the thorough investigations, no so-called identical offense had been committed. Everything else, as can be seen from the judgment which was presented by the prosecution, the legal view of the special court Stuttgart and which the special court laid down in the judgment are altogether in accordance with the text book by Herr Henkel to which the prosecution itself referred. In this text book a case is mentioned as an example which is similar to the Wirbel case down to the very details.
Q.- I should like to say that in the document which I am going to present, my extracts from Henkel's text book, I should like to say that my extracts begin exactly at the same point where the quotation of the prosecution stops. Witness, I am going over to the next case; that is Case 15, Wolf and others. May I assume that you are familiar with this case which has been discussed here repeatedly.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. I would like to ask a question concerning the Wirbel case. I read from the opinion in that case the following sentence which I should be glad to have you explain. I quote: "It is true that from a legal point of view the same act is concerned."
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking the witness to explain, if you please.
A.- Your Honor, it is not a case of the same legal -
THE PRESIDENT: I am asking you what you meant by what you said in what I quoted.
A.- Your Honor, I can't find that quotation.
THE PRESIDENT: It is there.
A.- The legal question on it deals with the German text on pages 18 and 19. May be the translation is inaccurate, In the German text of the judgment it says: Therefore, first of all the question had to be examined whether the objection might not be; whether there might not objection against another judgment of legal force because the same had occurred before.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
A.- The special court considering the latest, the most modern legal views denied that from the purely legal point of view it was truly the same offense.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what I asked you about. I merely asked you to explain what you meant by that.
A.- By using those words the judgment means to say that from a purely legal point of view, without referring to the actual extent of the matter, there was an identity of the offense, but -
THE PRESIDENT: Then you mean just what you said there. I think there is no other explanation. Go ahead.
DR. BRIEGER: Before I go over to the next case, may I say this: To point out to the interpreters that I consider their work particularly important. I should like to say now that concerning the Untermarchtal case I noticed a translation error which I considered unpleasant. The witness spoke of the danger of blackouts, and I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal and of the interpreters to the fact that these matters were in no way concerned with air raids and such matters. This was a legal idea, a legal concept from the German penal code which , I believe, had been customary long before there were any airplanes. It means: danger of covering up.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you may go along to another case.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q.- I now am going over to the next case, Case 15, that is to say the case of Wolf and others. I have already told you the Exhibit No. is 168, Document NG-714, Volume III-E, page 27. I assume, witness, that you have the judgment before you. Would you please comment on it?
A.- The main defendants, the Wolf people, were business men, who in the spring of 1939 had acquired a number of Jewish businesses; and they had enriched themselves tremendously. According to the judgment, the defendant Wilhelm Wolf, by the so-called Aryanization had obtained an annual income of 90,000 RM; Karl Wolf 27,000 RM; whereas neither of them possessed anything before. The main defendants, as can be seen from the indictment, black marketed in textiles and. textiles ration coupons of points on a vaste scale.
Q.- Could you tell us how many points were involved?
A.- More than a million and it is mentioned in the judgment.
Q.- How many people could have been supplied for one year with those points?
A.- Oh, people -- the population of a town of ten thousand inhabitants could have been supplied for one year. The judgment here -- I have to photostats before me, comes from the files of the execution of penalty, concerning Fullinger, who was sentenced to eight years in the penitentiary. It is of interest; that in the original I found the costs set out for that sentence of eight years in the penitentiary, and also the costs for transport and executing of the sentence, which on the 29th of June, 1946 came to an end. The costs were a total of 872 RM and 90 pfennigs; and the official in charge, from this judgment of the special court, on the 9th of July, 1946 worked out the costs, that is to say, he worked them out long after the catastrophe and the collapse of Germany. That was not signed, the commutations were not signed evidently because there were two mistakes in the calculations.
Q.- Do you mean to say by that that these sentences which you ordered were executed after the arrival of American troops?
A.- Yes. The sentence was not executed until the end of June, 1946.
Q.- How many years of his term did he spend in prison?
A.- Just about -
Q.- Just approximately -
A.- Approximately three years; the two defendants Wolf were both executed.
Q.- Witness, you mentioned Aryanization. What do you mean by Aryanizations, and do you happen to remember how Aryanizations were carried out.
A.- The two defendants Wolf, in a way of which I know no details, together acquired three Jewish business properties cheaply; I do not know the prices they paid. Apparently party circles were bribed by the two defendants Wolf, for at the trial it was found that the black market goods had in part gone to time party functionaries. As the defendants wolf would not name the people who had been at the back of them, and as the criminal police had instructions from higher authorities to leave the court in doubts, there was an instance at the trial which caused me to make a very unfriendly remark towards the party circles; well, whereupon the Gauleiter for his party and the party disciplinary court in Stuttgart instituted proceedings against me for me to be excluded from the party because they believed I had been injuring the party.
The proceedings against me took place in the presence of the president of the district court of appeal and the matter was tried before the party disciplinary court. For eight hours I defended myself; the proceedings were stopped; and a few weeks later I received a reprimand, with a written statement, the verdict passed by the disciplinary court was placed in my personnel file which has been presented by the prosecution. The pages in question, however, were not submitted by the prosecution.
Q.- Just a moment, an interruption. I therefore asked the prosecution to let me have that verdict from the party disciplinary court, but they told me that they hadn't gotten it. Continue, please, witness.
A.- If I had been excluded from the party, that would in fact have meant that I would have lost my position as a judge.
Q.- Is that the same verdict by the party disciplinary court which is also mentioned in the personnel files of the Reich Ministry of Justice which concerns you?
A.- Yes, that is the same verdict to which reference is made in my personnel file.
Q.- One more question, witness. It is a question which I shall also put to the witness Dr. Azesdorfer. Is it correct that concerning the Wolf prosecution you used or you even coined the term Aryanization, -- hyenas. What do you mean to say by that?
A.- In connection with all such business men, I used that term internally. But that I meant to say that they were people who had acquired property illegally.
Q.- Property that had belonged to Jewish owners, if I understand you correctly.
A.- Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask a question. Was that remark, namely, concerning the Aryanization hyenas, the one to which you referred, which resulted in your trial before the party court?
A.- No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: What was it you said that resulted in the trial before the party court -- in the course of your trial?
A.- I told the defendant wolf that he was to tell me who had been his black market customers, even though they had uniforms with a great deal of glitter.
Q.- What do you mean a great deal of glitter?
A.- I mean rank, insignia also on the party uniforms. The defendant wolf in a whisper gave the name of a Kreisleiter from Ludwigsburg; I then told, him to say or announce the name loudly so that everybody in the courtroom could hear him, for in the special court there was nothing that was to be kept silent.
THE PRESIDENT: One other question please: The trial which you conducted involved roughly what we call black marketing transactions, did it not?
A. Yes, Your Honor. And it was also a case of large-scale bribery.
THE PRESIDENT: But the trial did not involve any charge against these men on account of the manner in which they participated in profiting from the Aryanization proceedings did it?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Were they ever prosecuted for that?
A. No, they were not prosecuted.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witness, in what connection -- another question -- did you as a judge have an opportunity to have the other people who played a part in this matter prosecuted?
A. No.
Q. No, I want to put something right, Witness. You said that this glitter that this brass was also on the Party uniforms, but I assume that you did not refer to the fire department. I assume you meant to say only on Party uniforms. What was it you meant to say?
A. No, there were also some SD officials concerned.
Q. Oh, I see. And now, we will go to the next case: Page 16, App and Kreutle. Concerning the App and Kreutle case, the Witness Berthold Schwarz, on Pages 19456 and 1959 and on Page 2006 made statements. This is a judgment by the Special Court passed when you were the presiding judge on the 5th of May 1943. Do you remember that case? And what are your comments on it?
A. The proceedings against App and Kreutle took place when I was the presiding judge on Wednesday, the 5th of May 1943, at Ulm on the Danube. App and Kreutle and other defendants had carried out robberies in gangs, and they had robbed from goods trucks of the Reichsbahn.
The date for the trial was scheduled after a comparatively short period, for the next Wednesday, the defense counsel were given the indictment, as far as I know, on Monday, the 3rd of May, but the files, on account of disruption of railway traffic, were handed to them only on Tuesday, so that the defense counsel complained to me. As the defense counsel from other places, according to the law, had no claim to have the files brought to them to the place where they lived, and as the indictment was very extensive, the defense counsel did not make any formal complaint, however. The Kreutle case was the first case of robbery on railway property with which I had to deal. About six weeks earlier on an official trial on the railway I myself was robbed. I was called for interrogation by the railway police. At that interrogation the official in charge of the Railway Police Service was present. He complained to me about the railway robberies that were occurring. Only through the information which I received from this old and experienced railway official did I become fully aware of the danger of those robberies which were carried out by gangs in the blackout in Wuerttemberg. Other Special Courts had already pronounced a great many death sentences, and the administrative authorities of the Reichsbahn kept all officials informed about these sentences. The App and Kreutle case seemed to me so serious that at the request of the prosecution I spoke in favor of passing the death sentence. While the clemency proceedings were going on, I was on sick leave. When I returned from my sick leave the judge, who was in charge of reporting on the case, told me that one had decided to favor of supporting the clemency plea; and clemency had been granted to the two defendants. I was quite in agreement with that, for the purpose of a deterrent and the purpose of preventing other crimes had been achieved. And after that case, for a long time, no more serious cases of railway robberies occurred in Wuerttemberg.