But Minister Guertner thought that Joel was just the right appointee and Joel thought that he should comply with the order of his minister. In order to do so he had to accept the offered rank . Of certain, although not decisive importance were also the discussions Joel had with Under Secretary Freisler and officials of the Party everywhere. In his official activities ageinst members of the Party and its organization it was to be expected that Joel, since he had a rank, would have a stronger position (Note 177). The old sentence has to be applied here: "By their fruits, ye shall know them". The character is shown by the actions. The attitude of Dr. Joel is shown by the successful help he offered people who were persecuted for political reasons, with regard to measures of the State Police. He offered this help in connection with his official position, but not in connection with his real sphere of official acquaintances. There were not at all favors which Dr. Joel did to acquaintances; he helped innumerable people he had never met, but who had heard of him, because he took the point of view that no human being should be deprived of his liberty, if his guilt under criminal law has not been established by a court.
As proof for this, I was able to furnish in addition to numerous affidavits, two witnesses, both of them were lawyers and have never been Party members, but were actively opposed to National Socialism, the witnesses Lenz and Schulz. Lenz had been sentenced to a prison term in connection with the proceedings for the attempted murder of Hitler on 20 July 1944. The court will remember the statements of the witness Dr. Lenz, attorney-at-law in Berlin, made on 6 August 1947, which describe Dr. Joel's successful intervention in favor of the persecuted Catholic clergy, as well as the same statements of the witness Schulz, 10524-OO Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel attorney-at-law in Berlin, who was heard on 25 august 1947.
Also the statements of the former Ministerial Councillor Schoetensack deal with this question. (Note 177).
He describes Dr. Joel's intervention in behalf of attorneys in protective custody and his action in favor of approximately two hundred Jewish legal consultants, who had been arrested in 1938 after the pegram and were released following representations on the part of Dr. Joel. In this connection I may mention the following examples: Affidavits of Dr. Roethe (Note 178) , who recognizes Dr. Joel's measures in favor of his clients against illegal interference on the part of the Gestapo and of Party agencies; of Frau Boesel of Hannover (Note 179); whose brother was freed in 1943 from the hands of the State police by Dr. Joel after he had been acquitted by the People's Court; of Frau Kurowski-Schmitz (Note 180), whose husband was an attorney and Austrian Counsul General at Danzig and was freed in 1940 by Dr. Joel from confinement by the Gestapo; certificated engineer Roth of Prague, who was of mixed Czech origin and whose release from a labor camp was ordered by Dr. Joel in 1944 (Note 181); the affidavits of the former Ministerial Councillor Tees, at whose request Dr. Joel liberated the Rev. Praetorius from imprisonment by the Gestapo (Note 182); of Frau Kolbe of Hamburg, whose reputation was vindicated by Dr. Joel after her defamation in the "Schwarze Korps" (Note 183); of Dr. Joel's collaborator, Holler, at whose request he prevented the expulsion of a Lorrainer from Metz and obtained the release of a friend, who was to be put in a concentration camp at the instigation of a political functionary of the NSDAP (Note 184). These few examples cut of numbers of similar cases speak for themselves.
Can the assumption be upheld that illegal measures were approved or even supported and promoted by a man who served the cause of persecuted people in a manner which becomes apparent from his entire official activity and which is described in the affidavits to which 10524PP Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel reference is made?
We can obtain a complete picture of Dr. Joel's personality only by looking also at his private associations. Already while he was assessor at Kassel (February 1931 - August 1933) he had associated with people of all classes and occupations, none of whom was a Nazi sympathizer. At that time he worked in the political Department of the Public Prosecutor's Office, which had mainly to deal with criminal proceedings aainst members of the NSDAP . Dr. Joel never broke off his relations with his friends in Kassel after he had been transferred to Berlin. A dentist, a businessman, and a hotel proprietor today testify to the fact that he never worked for the NSDAP either before or after 1933 and that he was called into the Ministry of Justice at the suggestion of a colleague and not for any services for the Party, since all prerequisites for that were lacking (Note 185).
This friendship with the future government Councillor Herpell dates from this time at Kassel; this man left the public service before 1933. Herpell also knew Dr. Joel for more than twenty years. He knows from his own experience that Dr. Joel always stepped in wherever wrongs had been committed through arbitrary Party methods. He remembers that every time he met him, Joel had to conduct an investigation, at Minister Guertner's order, during which Party resistance had to be overcome. He is convinced that it would have been easy for Dr. Joel to associate with men of rank and reputation in the Party. He never noticed any such associations.
Dr. Joel had no private contacts with the officials of the Ministry apart from his personal collaborators. These were up to the beginning of the war, Public Prosecutor von Haacke, and later, after the latter's induction, District Court Judge Hoeller. After Thierack had removed Dr. Joel from the Reich Ministry of Justice, Hoeller tried to get his discharge and left the service at the beginning of 1944 (Note 186). Von Haacke knew Dr. Joel's Berlin circle of friends, which consisted of merchants, manufacturers, and artists, and knows that Dr. 10524-QQ Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel Joel did not move in Party, SS, SD, or Stapo circles (Note 187).In his opposition to arbitrary methods of the Farty and police, Dr. Joel was supported by Minister Guertner's personal Referent, Herr von Dohnanyi, a man who shared his view . Both cooperated closely while von Dohnanyi was in the Reich Ministry of Justice.
After von Dohnanyi had left , relations between the two were not broken off. Dr. Joel also intervened with the Gestapo in behalf of von Dohnanyi when the latter was arrested in 1943. Immediately before the end of the war, von Dohnanyi was liquidated by the Gestapo in the Lehrter Strasse prison.
Two of his personal friends offered to testify in his behalf and have appeared before this Tribunal: The above-mentioned attorneys Dr. Lenz and Schulz. They never regarded Dr. Joel as a "Nazi jurist" but found him to be one of the few men who proved by their actions that they consistently stood up for the law. Attorney Dr. Lenz, who had been the personal Referent of the former Prussian Minister of Justice Schmidt and of his State Secretary Hoelscher and had , up to 1933; been a member of the Center Party to which also his two superiors had belonged, had remained in the Ministry of Justice after 1933 up to 1938. From the beginning he wasopposed to National Socialism. Dr. Joel caught Dr. Lenz' attention because he was one of the few who did something to have criminal acts committed by Party members prosecuted. This applies to the time before and after an SS rank in the SD was conferred on him. Just since the time when Joel held his office of SS and police liaison officer, Dr. Lenz could always count on Dr. Joel's help against measures of the State police. Attorney Lenz, who remained Joel's friend and had full confidence in Joel's secrecy and personal reliability, made the defendant Dr. Joel acquainted with men who were determined to do away with all forcible and arbitrary measures. This happened already before the beginning of the war. Thus, Dr. Joel got in touch with Dr. Wirmer, a Berlin attorney, a member of the former Center Party 10524RR Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel who discussed with him many cases of politically persecuted people and found his support, Wirmer had been chosen for the office of Minister of Justice by Goerdeler's resistance movement.
After the attempt of 20 July 1944 he was sentenced to death and executed. Witness Lenz also got the defendant Dr. Joel in touch with Attorney Etscheit, which resulted in friendly relations of these two men. Etscheit, who was my partner for almost a decade, was known as a radical adversary of National Socialism. He was the friend of ex-Chancellor Bruening and legal advisor to the Papal Nunzio. Dr. Joel frequented his house and in many cases successfully assisted him in his care for political persecutees. When Etscheit was arrested in 1943; the witness Lenz informed Dr. Joel at Hamm. Dr. Joel at once made vigorous remonstrances to the Reich Main Security Office to obtain Etscheit's release. In this he was unsuccessful; on the contrary, Joel himself became gravely suspected on account of his intervention in Etscheit's behalf. Attorney Etscheit died in Flossenbuerg concentration camp (Note 188).
Attorney Dr. Lenz was himself charged with having been implicated in the events leading up to the attempt on Hitler on 20 July 1944. Dr. Joel heard about it and arranged a meeting with witness Dr. Lenz' wife, in order to warn his friend through her (Note 189).
Dr. Joel's friendship with attorney Schulz dates from an intervention in 1933 in behalf of a political persecutee. Schulz classes Dr. Joel among the small circle of officials who resisted Party and Gestapo methods. Through Schulz, Dr. Joel had met Attorney Langbuhn as well as others mentioned by me, had often seen Joel in the Ministry to request and obtain his help for political persecutees. Langbuhn was sentenced to death and executed after 20 July 1944.
In the last years of the war Schulz was attached to the office of General Thomas in the OKW. Thomas had, since 1938, attempted to get rid of the system. In the course of the events after the attempt on Hitler, he was put in a concentration camp and liberated only after 10524SS Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel the collapse.
In conversations between General Thomas and the former Under Secretary Blank, one of Goerdeler's associates, Blank stated his conviction that Joel must be regarded as reliable from the standpoint of those who intended to restore order in Germany. Blank and Joel knew each other.
The circles who wanted to over throw the National Socialist system regarded Dr. Joel as their "protector in the Ministry of Justice" --as Schulz said -- and when it discussed where objective and reliable people were to be found, Joel's name was mentioned for the Department of Justice (Note 190 ).
We learn from the former District Governor Diels that he had requested Joel to attend two meetings, at which the untenable situation was discussed (Note 191). Among those present were the above-mentioned Under Secretary Blank, who worked in the Otto Wolff Firm at Cologne, and the Police President of Berlin, Count Helldorf. Both were members of the Goerdeler group. Evan at the beginning of the war, Helldorf had changed from an ardent Nazi to a prominent adversary of the system. Dr. Joel, who had had official contacts with him, was informed by him of criminal proceedings which minister Goebbels in Berlin wanted to quash.
At these meetings the defendant Dr. Joel reported Hitler's, Himmler's, and Bormann's illegal terror measures and Thierack's new policy in the Administration of Justice. All were agreed that all lovers cf order must now join forces. Blank, Count Helldorf, and Diels were arrested. A chauffeur had listened to the conversations and had denounced the participants. Blank and Count Helldorff were sentenced to death and executed in the trial on the events of 20 July 1944. Diels was released as he could prove his innocence. Defendant Dr. Joel was not arrested because apparently the denouncer did not know his name (Note 192).
The witness Hans Bernd Gisevius, who was examined in the trial 10524TT Dr. Carl Haensel Final Plea Guenther Joel of the main war criminals and who was one of the leading opponents of Hitler, Himmler, and Bermann, tells us that among his political friends Joel's name was often mentioned, since he was considered one of the few public prosecutors who showed civil courage in their dealings with the Party and Gestapo (Note 193).I have named to the Tribunal a few men whom Dr. Joel often met.
All of them were active opponents of the Hitler regime and many of them became its victims. They can no more testify in his favor. Those who survived the time of persecution know about him and recognized from Dr. Joel's words and actions that he was opposed to a system of arbitrary methods. They counted him among their confidential friends.
It is probably of particular importance that the first Minister of Justice of the State of Nordrhein-Westfalen, to which the district of the Hamm District Court of Appeal now belongs, who has been confined by the British Military Government for Germany, made an affidavit in Dr. Joel's behalf. I am of the opinion that the official representative of the judicial authorities, whose task it was to eradicate the Nazi methods of justice, must have a specially delicate ear for National Socialist undertones. But he could not ascertain these in Dr. Joel's case; on the contrary, he was convinced of the opposite (Note 194).
I request that the defendant Dr. Joel be acquitted.
10524UU Note 1 English Transcript (Tr.) p. 136 " 2 Tr. p. 137 " 3 A. Hensel "Die Rangordnung der Rechtsquellen" in "Handbuch des deutschen Staatsrechts" 1932, Vol.
II, p. 324 " 4 United Nations Information Office, "War and Peace Aims", 1946, p. 116 " 5 Roosevelt "Amerika und Deutschland", p. 95 " 6 Mezger, "Strafrecht", 1931, p. 411 " 7 Sayre, Harvard Law Review 1935, p. 399 " 8 Tr. of the Joint Session of Military Tribunals I, II, III, IV and on 9 July 1947, p. 30 " 9 Kenny, "Outlines of Criminal Law", 1904, p. 79 " 10 JNT Judgment, American Journal of International Law, VI, 41, p. 266 " 11 Tr. of the Joint Session on 9 July 1947, p, 2, decision of Tribunal No. II on 18 July 1947 and decision of Tribunal No. II on 11 July 1947 " 12 Doelle-Zweigert, Kommentar zum Gesetz Nr. 52, Stuttgart 1947, p. 25 " 13 Mezger, "Strafrecht", 1931, p. 442 " 14 Vol.
55, p. 60, vol. 56, p. 329, vol. 57, p. 144, vol. 58, p. 279 a.o.
" 15 Frank, Kommentar 1926, p. 116 " 16 Kenny, "Outlines of Criminal Law", 1904, p. 79 " 17 The Law of the Charter, Par.
6 " 18 Exhibit 510 - NG 988, Interrogation of Altmeyer 15/16 July, Tr. p. 5287 " 19 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, Book V, under No. 4, Interrogation of Altmeyer 15/16 July, Tr. p. 5295 " 20 Joel-Exh.
30, Doc. 1, I, p. 2 " 21 Exh.
410, - NG 587, p. 6 Note 22 Examination of the witness Schulz, Tr. p. 9546 " 23 Affidavit von Haacke, Joel-Exh.
1, Doc. 4, I, p. 15 a/16 " Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V. p. 12 " 24 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V. p. 16 under No. 25 c " 26 Exh.
284 - NG 190, Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6538 Interrogation of Schlegelberger, Tr. p. 4459 " of Meissner, Tr. p. 4622 " of Gramm, Tr. p. 4737 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V, p. 14/15/16/17 under No. 24/27 Affidavit Gired, Joel-Exh.
27, Doc. 33, II, p. 58/59 " 26 Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6539 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V, p. 16 under No. 26 " 27 Interrogation of Lammers, Tr. p, 5618 " 28 Exh.
284 - NG 190, p. 11/12 " 29 Exh.
444 - NG 812 " 29a Exh.
444- NG 812, p. 4 (on the top of the page) " 29b Exh.
40 - NG 673 " 30 Exh.
51C - NG 988 " 31 Exh-. 510 - NG 988, Interrogation Altmeyer, Tr. p. 5246 and Interrogation Suchomel, Tr. p. 7765 " 32 Exh.
444 - NG 812, p. 5 under No. 12 " 33 Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V.p. 11 under No. 18 " 34 NG 211 - Exh.
353, p. 12 " 35 Exh.
280 - NG 698 " 36 Exh.
356 - NG 126, Exh. 351 - NG 309, Exh. 352 - NG 305 " 37 JMT-Transcript 17.
1,47, Speech of the french chief prosecutor de Mentbon " 38 Lautz-Doc.
No. 70 " 39 Exh.
480 - NG 699, Exh. 558 - NG 2335, Exh. 374 - NG 081 " 40 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V, p. 17 under no. 28 Interrogation Lautz, Tr. p. 5857 " 41 Exh.
444 - NG 812, p. 3 under No. 6c Note 42 Exh.
255 - NG 640 " 43 Interrogation Joel, Tr. p. 6556, Affidavit Hoeller, Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V, p. 6 under No. 9 " 44 Exh.
191 - NG 719 " 45 Exh.
28 - Doc. 28, II, p.27 " 46 Joel- Interrogation, Tr. p. 6548 " 47 Exh.
366 - NG 318, Exh. 367 - NG 329 " 49 Exh.
410 - NG 587, p. 6 " 50 Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6560 " 51 Exh.
376 - NG 767 " 52 Exh.
377 - NG 766 " 53 Affidavit Hoeller II, Joel-Exh.
97, Doc. 99, VI " 54 Exh.
464 - NG 1103 " 55 Research Studies of the State College of Washington, Vol.
XIII, No. 2, June 1945, P. 120 " 56 Affidavit Grauert, Joel-Exh.
2 - Doc. 5, I, p. 20 under No. 1 " von Haacke, Joel-Exh.
1 - Doc. 4, I, p. 12 " Diels, Joel-Exh.
4 - Doc. 7, I, p. 34 under No. 1 Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6484 " 57 Affidavit von Haacke, Exh.
1 - Doc. 41 I, p. 12.
" Grauert, Joel-Exh. 2, Doc. 5. I, p. 21 under No. 4 " Diels, Joel-Exh.
4, Doc. 7, I, p. 36 under No. 4 " Jaeckel, Joel-Exh.
5, Doc. 30, II, p. 35 under No. 3 Interrogation Schulz, Tr. p. 9538 " 58 Exh.
120 - NG 249 " 59 Affidavit Winckler I, Joel-Exh.
7, Doc. 11, I, p. 55 " " III, Joel-Exh.
8, Doc. 13, I, p. 60 " Kreisel, Joel-Exh.
6, Doc. 9, I, p. 51 " Pamous, Joel-Exh.
55, Doc, 14, 1. p. 66 " Drels, Joel-Exh, 4, Doc.
7, I.
" Grauert, Joel-Exh. 2, Doc. 5, I, p. 21 under No. 2 " Schnoering, Joel-Exh.
3, Doc 6, I, p. 26 " Winckler II, Joel-Exh.
9, Doc. 12, I, p. 58 Joel- Exh. 10, Doc. 10, I, p. 54 " " 30, Doc.
1, 1. p. 2 " 60 Exh.
120 - NG. 249, p. 15 - 19 " 61 Klemm-Exh.
19, 20 and 21 in Klemm-Doc. Book III Affidavit von Haacke II, Joel-Exh. 86, Doc. 88, V, p. 51 Note 62 Affidavit von Haake, Joel-Exh.
1, Doc. 4, I, p. 13 and " 63 Joel-Exh.
11, Doc. 8, I, p. 45 " Kettner, Joel-Exh.
12, Doc. 17, I, p. 86 a Interrogation of Altmeyer, Tr. p. 5302/5303 " 64 Affidavit von Haacke, Joel-Exh.
1, Doc. 4, I, p. 11 " 65 Joel-Exh.
90, Doc. 92, V. (Files of the public prosecutor in Stade) p. 67 Affidavit Piesker, Joel-Exh.
15, Doc. 19, I, p. 95 " Meyer, Joel-Exh.
13, Doc. 16, I, p. 84 " Grosser, Joel-Exh.
89, Doc. 91, V. p. 64 " von Haacke, Joel-Exh.
1, Doc. 4, I, p. 13 a/14 " Jaeckel, Joel-Exh.
5, Doc. 30, II, p. 35 under No. 4 Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6510 " 66 Affidavit Marotzke, Joel-Exh.
19, Doc. 25, II, p. 14 " Jaeckel, Joel-Exh.
5, Doc. 30, II, p. 37 under No. 9 " 67 Joel-Exh.
20, Doc. 15, I, p. 70 (Excerpt from the Files in cases against von Steinmeister) " 68 Exh.
557, NG 1566 " 69 Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6521 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V, p. 20 under No. 35 " von Haacke, Joel-Exh.
1, Doc. 4, I, 16 a " 79 Interrogation of the Witness Doebig, Tr. p. 1801 " 71 Exh.
639, NG 2533 " 72 Exh.
639, NG 2533 under No. 9 Joel-Exh.
23, Doc. 50, III, p. 15 " 73 Interrogation of the Witness Rottner, Tr. p. 9409 Exh.
370, NG 616 Affidavit Dr. Martin, Exh.
22, Doc, 48, III, p. 3 Joel-Exh.
23, Doc. 50, III, p. 13 - 19 Joel-Exh.
65, Doc. 49, III, Interrogation of Schlegelherger, Tr. p. 4522 " 75 Joel-Exh.
18. Doc. 3, I, p. 8 " 76 Affidavit Schnoering, Joel-Exh.
3, Doc. 6, I, p. 24 " Hasselberger, Joel-Exh.
56, Doc. 21, I, p. 97 " Hagemann, Joel-Exh.
57, Doc. 22, II, p. 6 " Wilms, Joel-Exh.
59, Doc. 24, II, p. 12 " 77 Affidavit Hattangen, Joel Exh.
74, Doc. 69, IV, p. 1 " 78 " Hoeller.
Joel-Exh, 21, Doc. 74, V, p. 4 under No. 6 " 79 Affidavit Kramberg, Joel-Exh.
32, Doc. 54, III. p. 31 " Riel I, Joel-Exh.
33, Doc. 34, II, p. 64 " Riel II, Joel-Exh.
87, Doc. 89, V, p. 54 Note 80 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V, p. 5 under No. 5 " Ried I, Joel-Exh.
33, Doc. 34, II, p. 63 " Ried II, Joel-Exh.
87, Doc. 89, V, p. 54 " 81 Exh.
534, NG 797 " 82 Interrogation of Suchomel, Tr. p. 7766 " 83 Exh.
444, NG 812, p. 3 under No. 6 d " 84 Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6557 " 85 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V, p. 8 under No. 13 " 86 Interrogation of Suchomel, Tr. p. 7763 " 87 Interrogation of Wentzensen, Tr. p. 9138 " of Skok, Tr. p. 9181 " 88 Affidavit Jaeckel, Joel-Exh.
5, Doc. 30, II, p. 34 under No. 1 " 89 Affidavit von Haacke, Joel-Exh.
1, Doc. 4, I, p. 12 a " 90 Affidavit Schoering.
Joel-Exh. 3, Doc. 6, I, p. 27 " 91 Affidavit Meyer, Joel-Exh.
13, Doc. 16, I, p. 85, line 4 " 92 Affidavit Jaeckel, Exh.
5, Doc. 30, II, p. 35, under No. 2 " 93 Affidavit Hattingen, Joel-Exh.
74, Doc. 69, IV, p. 2 under No. 3 " 94 Affidavit Wilms, Joel-Exh, 59, Doc.
24, II, p. 12 " 95 Affidavit Wilms, Joel-Exh.
59, Doc. 24, II, p. 12 at the bottom " 96 Affidavit Hasselberger, Joel-Exh.
56, Doc. 20, I, p. 97 " Grosser, Joel-Exh.
89, Doc. 91, V, p. 65 " 97 Affidavit Hennecke, Joel-Exh.
58, Doc. 23, II, p. 10 " 98 Interrogation of Lenz, Tr. p. 6649 " 99 Affidavit von Haacke, Joel-Exh.
I, Doc, 4, I, p. 14/15 " 100 Joel-Exh.
18. Doc. 3, I, p. 8 (Decree concerning the Removal of the Central Public-Prosecuting Authorities) " 101 Joel-Exh.
54, Doc, 2, I, p. 4 (Par. 152 StPO) " 102 Exh.
410, NG 587, p. 6 " 103 Affidavit Best I, Joel-Exh 61, Doc.
33, II, p. 70 " 104 Affidavit von Haacke, Joel-Exh.
1, Doc. 4, I, p. 15, line 2 "105 Affidavit Grosser, Joel-Exh.
89, Doc. 91, V, p. 64 Note 106 Affidavit Jaeckel, Joel-Exh.
5, Doc. 30, II, p. 39 under No " 107 Exh.
466, NG 610, Affidavit von Haacke Joel-Exh. 1, Doc. 4, I, p. 9 " 108 Affidavit Tondock, Joel Exh.
81, Doc. 83, V, p. 40 " 109 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V.p. 20 under No.34 " 110 Affidavit Schellenberg, Joel-Exh.
26 Doc. 37, II, p. 69 " 111 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V, p.17 under No.28 " 112 Affidavit Ohlendorf I, Joel-Exh.
23, Doc. 35, II, p.66, under No. 3 " 113 Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6564.
" 114 Interrogation of Rothenberger, Tr. p. 5483 " 113 Affidavit Best II, Joel Exh.
43, Doc. 62, III, p. 53 " 116 Affidavit Thissen, Joel Exh.
17, Doc, 27, II, p. 22 " 117 Affidavit Diels, Joel Exh.
4, Doc. 7, I, p. 41 " 118 Affidavit Gritzbach, Joel Exh.
44, Doc. 75, V, p. 25 " 119 Exh.
423, NG 747, p. 11 " 120 Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6569 " 121 Exh.
541, NG 2122 " 122 Interrogation of Behl, Tr. p. 790 Joel-Exh, 91, Doc.
93, V, p. 73 (Par. 3 of the Reich Civil Service Law) " 123 Compair the prosecution documents contained in Vol.
VI " 124 Exh.
54, NG 605 " 123 Affidavit Kesselboehmer, Joel-Exh.
67, Doc. 57, III, p.40 " Kogel, Joel-Exh.
45, Doc. 51, III, p. 21 " 126 Exh.
504, NG 1046 " 127 Exh.
308, NG 232 " " 128 Affidavit Randenbergh,-Joel-Exh.
66, Doc. 56, III, p.38 " Engelmann, Joel-Exh.
46, Doc. 52, III, p.26 Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6572 " 129 Exh.
638, NG 1018 " 130 Exh.
328, NG 205 " 131 Affidavit Albrecht, Joel-Exh.
78, Doc. 80, V, p.33 Note 132 Affidavit Albrecht, Joel-Exh.
78, Doc. 80, V, p.33 " 133 Exh.
330, NG 240 " 134 Point 14 and point 26 of the indictment " 135 Interrogation of Hecker, Tr. p. 4838 Exh.
510, NG 988 (organizational sceme of the ministry of justice " 136 Affidavit Moebuss; Joel-Exh.
51, Doc. 61, III; p.50 " 137 Affidavit Moebuss, Joel-Exh.
51, Doc 61, III; p. 50 " 138 Affidavit Faber I Joel-Exh.
51, Doc. 59, III, p.44 Affidavit Faber, II Joel-Exh.
79 Doc, 81, V, p. 35 " 139 Joel-Exh.
48, Doc. 71, IV; p. 16 ( Objections interposed by the district Leitung against excessive housing privileges provided for prison inmates) " 140 Exh.
171; NG 544 " 141 Joel-Exh.
83, Doc. 85, V, p. 44 " 142 Exh.
410, NG 587, p. 7 " 143 Joel-Exh.
85, Doc. 87, V, p. 50 " 144 Affidavit Ohlendorf II, Joel-Exh.
24, Doc. 36, II, p. 68 " 145 Affidavit Martin II, Joel-Exh.
82, Doc. 84 V, p. 42 " 146 Affidavit Joel, Exh.
56, NG 915, Interrogation of Joel, Tr.p.65 " 147 Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6592 " 148 Exh.
630; NG 2123 Exh.
410, NG 587, p. 10 " 149 Exh.
410, NG 587, p. 10 " " 150 Exh.
410, NG 584, p. 8 and Exh.
423, NG 423, NG 747, p. 15/16 " 152 Affidavit Hattingen, Joel-Exh.
74, Doc. 69, IV, p. 14 and Interrogation of Joes, Tr.p. 6532 " 153 Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6532 " 154 Affidavit Tondock, Joel-Exh.
81, Doc. 83, V, p. 41 " 155 JMT Transcript p. 1638 " 156 Exh.
423, NG 747, " 157 Altstoetter-Documents No. 55 and 56, Vol 2 " 158 Altstoetter-Document No. 52, Vol.
2 Note 158 a Exh.
264, PS 638 " 159 Interrogation of Joel, Tr. p. 6560 " 160 Interrogation of Becker, Tr. p. 4838 " 161 Affidavit Meindl, Joel-Exh.
76, Doc. 77, V, p. 27 " von Brauchitsch, Joel-Exh.
75, Doc. 78, V, p.29 " 162 Exh.
412, NO 2176 " 163 Exh.
413, 2309 PS " 164 Exh.
414, 2605 PS " 165 Affidavit von Haacke, Joel-Exh, 1, Doc.
4, I, p. 13 " 166 Exh.
600, NG 2411 " 167 Affidavit Hoeller.
Joel-Exh. 21, Doc. 74, V, p. 20, under No. 38 " 168 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V, p. 17, No. under 30 " 169 Affidavit Ohlendorf, Joel-Exh.
24, Doc. 35, II, p. 67, under No. 5, Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V, p. 20 under No. 38 " 170 Schelgelberger-Document No. 92, Vol.
4, p. 70 - 75 " 171 Exh.
38 - NG 059, Exh. 39 - 654 PS " 172 Exh.
410, NO 587 " 173 Exh.
410, NG 587 " 174 Affidavit Faber, Joel-Exh.
79, Doc. 81, V, p. 39 " 175 Affidavit Hattingen, Joel-Exh.
74, Doc. 69, IV, p. 13, under No. 12/13 " 176 Affidavit Ohlendorf I, Joel-Exh.
25, Doc. 35, II, p. 66, under No. 2 " 177 Affidavit Hattingen, Joel-Exh, 74, Doc.
69, IV, p. 11 " 177a Affidavit Schoetensank, Joel-Exh.
35, Doc. 42, II, p. 75 " 178 Affidavit Roethe, Joel-Exh.
42, Doc. 64, III, p. 62 " 179 Affidavit Boesel, Joel-Exh.
94, Doc. 96, III, p. 66 " 180 Affidavit Kurowski-Schmitz, Joel-Exh.
36, Doc. 43, II, p.82 " 181 Affidavit Roth, Joel-Exh.
39, Doc. 46, II, p. 95 Affidavit Koeper, Joel-Exh.
38, Doc. 45, II, p. 92 Note 182 Affidavit These, Joel-Exh.
92, Doc. 94, V, p. 73 " 183 Affidavit Kolbe, Joel-Exh.
37, Doc. 44, II, p. 88 " 184 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc. 74, V, p. 17/18 under No. 31/32 " 185 Affidavit Lange, Joel-Exh.
70, Doc. 65, III, p. 64 " Barchfeld, Joel-Exh.
72, Doc. 72, IV, p. 18 " Hafer, Joel-Exh.
94, Doc. 97, V, p. 65 " 186 Affidavit Hoeller, Joel-Exh.
21, Doc, 74, V, p. 21 under No. 40 " 187 Affidavit von Haacke, Joel-Exh.
1, Doc. 4, I, p. 17 " 188 Interrogation of Lenz, Tr. p. 6648 " 189 " of Lenz, Tr. p. 6649 " 190 Interrogation of Schulz, Tr. p. 9534 " 191 Affidavit Diels, Joel-Exh.
4, Doc. 7, I, p. 41 " 192 Affidavit Diels, Joel-Exh.
4, Doc. 7, 1.
" 193 Affidavit Gisevius not accepted " 194 Affidavit Straeter, Joel-Exh 88, Doc.
90, V.
Particularly the case of Skowron shows that participation and guilt of the participants was just a carefully investigated when foreigners were concerned as was the case with Germans and that the so-called laws referring to Polish nationals were only of minor importance. If the sentence would still be available it would show the missing evidence without difficulties.
I believe it is sufficient to confront the Skowron indictment with the Dobosz indictment Exh. C 8, Doc. No. 2; the latter indictment was based by the witness Rimelin in its entirety upon the law against Polish nationals. The result was that both defendants were acquitted and immediately released from custody, because neither the actual facts could be proven nor did the remainder suffice to violate the law.
The affidavits of the mechanic Schultes Exh. C No. 9, Doc. No. 60 show how unjustified my client considered the detention pending the trial of the two Polish defendants. To confront those two cases says more than long theoretical elaborations. In addition, both cases show in detail that my client was far away from applying different legal principles or disadvantageous treatment to foreigners.
I now come to that point where the Public Prosecutor in his final plea makes reproaches on account of a death sentence against a man who had stolen bicycles. A special kind of sympathy has developed here for this man, which should make one inclined to assume that he is actually quite a good fellow, who merely had a weakness for taking a ride through the country on other people's bicycles when he felt like it from time to time. But the facts of this case are different.
I compare the above, somewhat timid statements of the Prosecution re this case Winter Eckstein (Cuhorst case 28) with the exact statements which I take from the indictment No. NG-709 Exh -- I shall give the exhibit number later -- In this case it is undisputedly not a case of foreigners. Besides Eckstein who is not a gipsy, three gipsies were being accused, Robert Winter, Zacharias Winter and Josef Koehler.
According to the Prosecution's own statements, it was undisputed that besides the non-gipsy Eckstein, only Robert Winter was sentenced to death. Two gipsies, namely Zacharias Winter and Josef Koehler remained alive.
This in itself refutes the alleged extermination tendency. I shall refer to this again with a few words later.
I could really already conclude my statement regarding this case here, if it was for me not a question of showing here that the view taken of the matter by the Prosecution is solely based on sympathy and feeling, but not on an evaluation of the facts, The persons in question were not being prosecuted because they wanted to have some fun with other people's bicycles, but because, according to page 12 of that indictment, they lived as members of a gang mainly on the proceeds from burglaries, and this constituted in time of war a threat to the security of the homeland. They stole practically everything that came to hand by burgling premises and at times by making use of the back-out; bicycles, chickens, eggs 100 at a time, gold items, etc. As the places where the deeds were committed have been mentioned in each case, it can easily be ascertained by means of a map that they were for a time making an entire region unsafe.
Regarding Robert Winter - who was the only gipsy over sentenced to death by the Special Court Stuttgard under Cuhorst - (Tr. page 8371) and who should be the sole and solitary support of an entire extermination tendency, the following may be said.
According to NG Exh. 456 he had been sentenced to death by reason of his own confession. His inclination to crimes of violence arose from the fact that he had taken part in an attack on a prison official, and then escaped from the prison. Later on he escaped again and he had intended to make a violent assault during the sitting of the Special Court in the Court Room. If he had not been sentenced to death in Stuttgart he would have been sentenced to death in Saarbrucken. All this is shown in the Affi davit Hartter, Exh, 54, Doc.
No. 46, Doc. Book II. Hartter was the Public Prosecutor in the Main Trial. He has also stated that the death sentences had been demanded against all three gipsies. Cuhorst was extremely sorry for the very young one of the gipsies, and he therefore showed special lenience towards him. Regarding the course of the proceedings on the re-opening of the case my client has already made a statement on page 80, 60, 61 and the witness on page 84, 66, 79, 92.
Among gipsies there may be quite harmless and pleasant people among those who earn a great deal in smart restaurants as musicians and thus amply provide for themselves. Other become easily robbers when they wander about the country as nomads, others became easily robbers when they wander about the country as nomads with dishonest intentions, without any inclination to work, but with a special preference for cattle and bicycles.
This manner of approach has nothing to do with race and is certainly not restricted to Germans either, but is simply a matter of either decent or criminal behavior.
A prosecutor appointed in Texas for the purpose of protecting an industrious farmer from a gang of robbers by means of criminal proceedings would essentially judge the case differently than at present, and as a case not unlike the one that was rightly qualified by the German Prosecutor at the time. Regarding conspiracy, I mean as applied to gypsies, there would be quite a margin for this here.
If it had been a question of extermination tendencies, they would have been carried out in all secrecy, and there would not have been any need for elaborate court proceedings carried out in full publicity. Dr. Kuestner, who, in his capacity as Chief President of his Land Kuerttemberg ought to have known this, if at all a judge of his district, has stated an oath to Protocol, page number to be given later, that he had no knowledge of such tendencies. Besides, I refer in this case to the statements of my client on a page number to be given later.
In the Case Woziniak, the opinion of the Prosecution must be contested that the inflicting of a prison sentence does involve a crime against humanity. There can be no question of this. In the case of Woziniak the death sentence was demanded, and was not pronounced despite a nullity plea. See statements of Berthold, Schwarz, page number to be given later. If one wanted to dispense here with long sentences of imprisonment one would reach the intolerable conclusion that sexual offenses by foreigners against children were permitted.
The same is true in the Moroviec case in which, according to Article I, Paragraph 175a, Section 3 of the Penal Code, a grown-upman inducing minors to unlawful sexual intercourse or using them for such acts is to be sentenced to the penitentiary.