"Frau von Brincken was now interrogated by the Secret State Police. She maintained that she had not been indignant about the way in which the people condemned by the People's Court had died but had considered it very hard on the families and this was rather what she had meant by her remark that she would have thought they would be court-martialled and shot. She maintained that she herself said that everything would have been in a terrible muddle if the plot had succeeded, and she denied that she had said she knew Witzleben and Schulenburg, for that was really not the case.
"In the main she admitted the talk about Heinkel and her remark that they knew what they wanted to hit. However, this had been a purely factual remark. She also admitted her remark to the wickerchair man Dau, though she added that she had said:
"Maybe the Kommissars will wit there next year." Besides, the whole remark had been a pleasantry and had been understood as such by DAU. Frau von BRINCKEN further admitted that she had made a remark to the effect that she did not consider girls' working in the country to be right and she said she had made the remark with reference to her daughter who was extremely delicate and weak. She also admitted wondering whether the tankbarriers in the East were of any use. However, this was only an expression of her anxiety about the military situation. She also admitted having talked about the letter from her sister-in-law, Frau KLAUSING, but she denied having said: "If I bore that name, then it would be just opposite." Frau von BRINCKEN's chief argument in her defense was that the remarks she had admitted were not the only topic of her conversation with Frau KOESTER but that she had made them quite casually in the course of along and absolutely harmless conversations and that they were by no means meant to be the expressio of a negative attitude, but they naturally produce such an effect if they were taken but of their context and quoted alone. When Frau von BRINCKEN was confronted with her accuser Frau KOESTER, the latter stuck to her allegation and Frau von BRINCKEN stuck to hers. The witness ROENNAU exonerated her to a certain extent by saying that Frau KOESTER had merely told him that Frau von BRINCKEN had replied to the question about the consequences of the Fuehrer - plot by (well-). To the question whether she felt concerned at the shame brought on the name of KLAUSING she said that she did not bear that name and if she had done she could not help it. This statement bounded almost if she meant: "Well, if I do and so forth."
Frau von BRINCKEN tried to shake our belief in the witness by pointing out that though Frau KOESTER was not yet divorced she had already had a child by ROENNAU.
The chair-man Albert DAU exonerated Frau von BRINCKEN by saying that the remark she made to him was a harmless pleasantry which he had understood as such.
The neighbours living in Frau von BRINCKEN's house, gave very favorable reports about her, though it is true that the persons questioned were not familiar with her political attitude as she had not had political conversations with them.
The final report of the Secret State Police reveals that Mrs. V. BRINCKEN made a favorable impression on them but they said she appeared to be a talkative nature in her lively south German way. They did not, however, consider her malicious or hostile to the state.
Frau von BRINCKEN was arrested on 29 August 1944. At her interrogation by the judge at tho Amtsgericht she repeated the Statements she had made during the police interrogation. The Chief Prosecutor at the Special Court forwarded the case to the Chief Prosecutor at the People's Court only referring to her remarks on the beach chairs, the hanging of the condemned men and the tank trenches. A file was also attached from the year 1941. At that time the mother of Frau von BRINCKEN's domestic help, who also assisted with washing sometimes, informed against her, but she had had to withdrew her allegations as Frau von BRINCKEN denied them and as the daughter of the woman denouncing her did not confirm them. Moreover, in her native town the latter had been described as a woman who enjoyed telling stories in a convincing tone and after when they were examined it was found that there was not a word of truth in them. This file also contains the opinion of the Kreisleiter of the NSDAP in which the latter says - though without giving his reasons in detail - that from what had been seen of her behavior up till not it could be supposed that Frau von BRINCKEN would over stand up whole heartedly for the party.
Colonel von BRINCKEN has sent a letter to the Chief Prosecutor submitting the names of a number of people who are ready to vouch for his wife. He points out the attitude of the whole family to national socialism and proves this by letters from his son who is at the front. He maintains that his wife's attitude to the movement is a definitely positive no too, and that it was only at his request that she did not enter the NSDAP, since they had only got married in 1937 and he did not wish her to be considered as a "straggler." There is no decision Of the Chief Prosecutor on this case in the file.
The report from which we have just read is signed by Dr. Brandt, and dated Berlin, 7 October 1944.
We now turn to Page 44 in the English text. I begin reading at the top of the page which is Page 41 in the German text.
Mrs. Erika von BRINCKEN, nee HALDENWANG, divorced von SCHELLERER, has been married to my father, Colonel Carl von BRINCKEN, since the fall of 1937. She was found guiltless in the divorce-action and brought into the marriage two children, 10 and 12 years old.
Thanks to her great human warmth of heart and a good sense of justice, Mrs. Erika von BRINCKEN succeeded in the course of the years in uniting the two families. This bond cannot now be broken and it gave us, especially in these hard times, the feeling of having a harmonious "home". Moreover, I got to know and esteem the second wife of my father especially as a loving wife. She was tireless in effectively fighting the frequently strong stomach and billi us troubles of my father.
She looked after the big household in the most perfect way and no work was too much for her. Above all to my father she was the most faithful comrade: tactfully and cleverly she helped him over his heard hearing, a serious trouble he had contracted during the World War. - Beneficient for all of us, but particularly for my rather melancholic father, is her constant great cheerfulness and her sparkling Southgerman temperament. It is true that from many and endless discourse you could only withdraw by way of a disguised escape. Occasionally there were also utterly incalculable fits of anger with uncontrollable turns of phrase. Usually she soon repented and thus everybody was soon reconciled. Within the family the ceaseless flow of talk was really the only thing that provided some friction, but it could not upset the harmonious family life.
In our thinking and acting we were all been educated along national-socialist lines, for my father has been a member of the national-socialistic German Labor party since 1930. In the intimate family - circle we often discussed problems of philosophy of life and I never found that my second Mother's view deviated from ours. However, she is a preponderantly practical person who is less concerned with intellectual problems. Thus, what interested her most in the daily newspaper was, first of all, the novel and the death and birth announcements. To political events she probably dedicated the smaller part of her spare time.
Nevertheless, I know that the conception "Fatherland" meant more to my second mother than anything else, since she is the daughter of an old military family and her ancestors who were all old generals of merit would certainly never have been able to commit such disgraceful treachery as we witnessed a short while ago.
March a6-A-18-5-HD-Fitzgegald-Wartenberg.
In the neighborhood, Mrs. Erika von BRINCKEN is known and esteemed for her always cheerful and communicative nature, above all, however, through her great readiness to help, especially after air attacks when she took care of the families who had suffered and assisted them by work and deed.
We now turn to Page 32 of the English text, the bottom of Page 47 in the German text. This is a letter dated 12 January 1945. It is addressed to Dr. Boden, lawyer, concerning Mrs. von Brincken, Rostock:
"Dear Sir:
"I want to ask you to see Mrs. von BRINCKEN once more in person, in order to warn her, above all, against harming herself by indiscriminate talk or by putting herself forward, after her release. As I think you will have found out yourself the danger of her doing so is considerable, since in my opinion, she is not very intelligent, but knows how to impose on people and dazzle them by ascertain dashing appearance. It must be made perfectly clear to her that, if she should be once more assigned on the grounds of some silly gossip that may be considered as detrimental to the State or to the Party, her head will probably be forfeited. In this case she could no longer count on such help and support as she has hitherto received.
I take a perfectly realistic view of the matter and I am of the opinion that, on the whole, nothing will happen to Mrs. von BRINCKEN after her release if she behaves sensibly. But it is necessary to warn her very soverly and clearly about the possible dangers. I should be greateful of you could handle this matter briefly."
I congratulate you on the complete and satisfactory success which you personally achieved in the v. BRINCKEN case.
It goes without saying that all of us, above all in the interests of the family and the family name, were delighted about the outcome of the case."
It is signed "Hildebrandt, SS-Obergruppenfuehrer and General for the Waffen-SS."
We turn now to one further brief note in this document. It is to be found on Page 52 of the English and Page 59 of the German text. It is again addressed to Dr. Boden.
"Dear Herr Boden, "With reference to our consultation of 16 February 1945 I beg to inform you that according to Obergruppenfuehrer Hildebrandt, Frau von Brincken was already released from detention a few days ago.
A further request is therefore unnecessary."
That is all we care to read from this document at this time, and the document is therefore offered in evidence as Exhibit Number 160.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
It is so near the usual time for the recess, that we will take it at this time.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Tribunal No. 3 is again in session.
MR. KING: May I first say in way of introducing the rest of the Prosecution's program for this afternoon that it will probably be necessary before we adjourn to shift our reading to Document Book III-D. I will repeat: To introduce the afternoon program, the balance of the afternoon's program by the Prosecution, it may be necessary to shift in our reading to Document Book III-E because of certain mechanical difficulties we have had in supplying missing pages from Document Book III-D. I say that so that the Court and the Defense Counsel may have III-E ready for later use this afternoon.
As Exhibit 16l, the Prosecution at this time would desire to offer in evidence, without reading, the Document NG-336 which appears in Document Book III-D, beginning on page 57; in the German text beginning on page 86. The document in the English text is on page 75. This document is a collection of letters which refer to the Leopold Felsen case, and because of the length nature of the letters, and the impossibility of presenting the story without almost the entire reading, or rather reading the entire set of documents contained in this exhibit, we pass over the reading and offer it in evidence without.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As Exhibit 162, we invite the Court to turn to Document NG-382, which is to be found on page 76 of the English text. This is the case of Geor Englbauer, which was heard before the Special Court with the District Court of Appeal, Nurnberg, at the public trial held on the 16th February, 1940. The presiding justice was the present defendant Rothaug, and the public prosecuting counsel, among the present defendants, being Oeschey.
JUDGE BRAND: Just a minute, we do not have your book identified.
MR. KING: III-D, on page 78. It has been pointed out to me, and I accept the correction, that Oeschey, instead of a public prosecutor, was assistant judge in this case, and that is as it appears from the introduction on page 78 of the English text, and is entirely correct.
We will begin reading from the verdict of the court, which begins on page 78: "Sentence in the name of the German People; The Special Court for the District of the Court of Appeal, Nurnberg, at the County Court Nurnberg-Fuerth, has found in law in the case against Georg Englbauer, unskilled worker, Neumarkt, Upper Palatin, because of the violation of Article 2 of the Order concerning Public Enemies at a public trial held on 16 February 1940;" we will omit reading the names of the justices since we have already reviewed that, and skip down to the line which begins:
"Englbauer, Georg, born 5 October 1920 in Neumarkt, Upper Palatinate, single, unskilled worker, Neumarkt, Upper Palatinate, in custody: is sentenced to death, loss of his civil rights for life-time and to pay costs of this trial, because an offense against paragraph 2 of the Order against Public Enemies of 5 September 1939 in connection with an offense of robbery with violence."
We now ask the Court to turn to page 82 in the English text; in the German text which is page 107, beginning under the heading Roman numeral II: "The accused II "The accused denies the crime.
His main defense is: "On the evening in question, after he had left the inn "Zur Goldenen Gans" he was at home until past 19 1/2 hours. The only reason for waiting at the Unteren Ter was, to meet Maria KNIPFER who worked at the inn "Ludwigskanal." Though he had not arranged to meet KNIPFER he had however been out with her several times previously. At 19 3/4 hours he entered this inn to buy some cigarettes. He remained there for about 5 to 10 minutes. But he did not go beyond the Leitgraben. He did not go as far as the place of crime nor could he have been in the vicinity at the time of the crime. As he neither saw nor met KNIPFER, he left and went to the cinema. On his way there the three women passed him and went into the Unteres Tor. One of the women was sobbing and cried that money had been stolen. This is how he knew about the attack. He did not trouble about the woman, as he had no occasion to do so, seeing that she was already accompanied by two women. Neither did he hear any screams while he was walking up and down near the inn "Zum Ludwigskanal".
III "1) That LIEBL was attacked in the manner described above, has been proved by the deposition of LIEBL.
Her depositions which she made under oath are entirely trustworthy.
In 1939 LIEBL spent about 9 months in the nursing mental home at Regensburg. It was found that she suffered from schizophrenia at that time. According to the report of Dr. BERLENER, who was consulted, it is probable that the illness at the time was no more than climacterial psychosis. In any event, LIEBL's present mental condition must now be regarded as absolute normal. Since that time she has carried out quite satisfactorily her job as a worker. The fact that she is mentally slightly deficient is of no importance. The possibility that the depositions of LIEBL might be the result of delusions is therefore completely out of the question. In addition LIEBL's handbag was found neither at the place cf crime or in the vicinity, nor in the train used by her, from Feucht to Neumarkt, despite a thorough search. When the police inspector BIRK, in order to put LIEBL to the test.
told her that her statements were untrue because her bag had new been found in the train, she still firmly and calmly maintained her statements saying that this could not be so, as her bag had forcibly been seized from her on the way to Holzheim. LIEBL also repeated the same version at all her interrogations and in no way contradicted herself. The fact that no footprints and no sign of a struggle could be found at the place of crime, also does not discredit LIEBL's story, as the place of crime was a worn and trampled down hard lawn. Also, on the day of the crime it was dry. The meadow through which the culprit fled was very wet so that footprints were easily effaced. Against this, the depositions of WIESECKL and WERNER proved, that when they met LIEBL she was trembling with excitement, that her coat was torn open, her belt and her hair undone. LIEBL also screamed for help so loudly that the landlord, aAnton THUMANN who was standing outside his public house "Ludwigskanal" heard her, and the two woman WIESECKL and WERNER at once left their route and ran across the fields to meet her, to her aid. The court is therefore convinced that the depositions of LIEBL are true.
"2) LIEBL did not recognize the culprit. She only knows that he wore a light gray overcoat and wore no hat. During the preliminary investigations, when confronted with the culprit, she declared, that as far as his height and his figure and the overcoat were concerned they resembled the culprit, and that she thought the accused was the culprit. Also during the trial she declared that according to the height and the coat, the accused may have been the culprit.
"If, therefore, the accused could not be convicted solely on the statement made by LIEBL, this could nevertheless be used in evidence in view of the other facts of the case.
"a) At the time of the crime the accused was in the immediate neighborhood of the scene of the crime.
"The assault on LIEBL was made at about 19.45 hours. The witness KNIPFER saw the accused while he was still standing at the "Unteres Tor" before 19.30 hours. Again, before 19.30 hours the accused, according to the evidence given by the witnesses Wally and Anton Thumann, bought cigarettes at the inn "Ludwigskanal". Anton THUMANN observed that the accused, after leaving the inn, first went a little way towards the town centre in the direction of the "Unteres Tor", then turned and went along the Nuernbergerstrasse in the direction of the slaughter house.
The witness THUMANN, who was standing outside his inn and well able to survey the road, did not see the accused again. After about 10 minutes the witness heard fro the direction of the canal bridge the cries: 'Help me, help me, he has taken all my money.' which came from LIEBL. Soon after he saw LIEBL return to the town together with the two women. The witness THUMANN did not, however, see the accused return.
"Against this the parents Johann and Anna ENGLBAUER stated as witnesses that their son was still at home at 19.45 hours, at which time Johann ENGLBAUER returned home from the station, and that he had left only after that. These statements have, however, been refuted. The witness GRAF testified under oath that Johann ENGLBAUER had told her on the day after the assault on LIEBL, 18 November 1939, that, when he returned home from work, his son had already left."
"When Mrs. ENGLBAUER was questioned immediately after the crime in the presence of Hauptwachtmeister KUNTZ (Sergeant of Police), she put it as if her son had gone away again already at 19 hours or shortly afterwards. Johann ENGLBAUER declared at that time not to be in a position to make any statements, as he did not knew where his son had been at that time. It is therefore obvious that the parents of the accused attempted to clear the accused by their subsequent statements. That is unequivocally apparent from the fact that about 8 days the assault the father of the accused, Johann ENGLBAUER, suddenly changed his story to the witness GRAF and told her that his son had stood in front of the mirror at 20 hours adjusting his tie."
We now ask the Court to turn to page 99 in the English text which is 116 in the German text. Starting with paragraph 2.
"2) The accused committed the crime, under cover of the black-out.
"The turning-off of the streetlights facilitated the accused to lie in wait for LIEBL near the "Unteres Tor", to follow her along the Nuernbergerstrasse and to time the arrival at the turning to the Holzheimer weg. Had the streetlights, which are installed as far as this turning, been switched on, the danger of recognition for the accused near the "Unteres Tor" and in the Nuernbergerstrasse would have been greater. Because of the black-out of this section of the street, which otherwise can be fully overlooked, the accused would dare to overtake LIEBL in the street and also be overtaken by other pedestrians and cyclists.
"Had the economics building of the hospital been very close to the place of the crime, and the mere distant other buildings of the hospital grounds not been blacked-out, the cries for help of LIEBL must have caused the defendant a greater fear that the inhabitants of these buildings would look out of the windows for the cause of these cries for help, and render assistance. The danger for the accused to be observed and caught while fleeing from the peace of crime would also have been a greater one; for the accused ran from the place cf crime very close to those buildings towards the Nuernbergerstrasse.
"It is therefore of decisive importance that the place of crime was not within the immediate sector of the black-out measures and which therefore did not facilitate the robbery.
"It is sufficient, if, because of the black-out, the culprit was favored by the black-out, on his way to the scene cf the crime if, through the black-out assistance by a third was rendered more difficult and the escape made easier for the culprit. The accused was aware of all these circumstances. This is proved alone by the fact that he dared to place himself near the "Unteres Tor", there to lie in wait for LIEBL, to follow her along the street and to overtake her and then, after the crime, to return to the city through the "Unteres Tor". The accused, who is well familiar with the conditions in Neumarkt, knew that he could not have dared do this had the streets been illuminated, especially because in view of his reputation, he was easily suspected to have participated in criminal action.
The accused, therefore, has committed a crime against property by making use of the measures created for the defense of aerial attacks. He is therefore guilty of a crime according to article 2 of the decree against parasites of society, dated 5 September 1939."
We ask the Court to turn now to page 91 in the English text which is at the top of the page 118 in the German text, and beginning with the second paragraph on that page.
"The crime therefore distinguishes itself considerably from the usual type of crime of this kind by the personality and previous life of the accused as well as by the way it was committed. The court therefore affirmed the existence of an especially serious case.
"Therefore, the accused is to be sentenced to death according to article 2 of the decree against parasites of society dated 5 September 1939.
"Taking advantage of the black-out and the meanness of the crime show the accused to be lacking in honor. He was therefore deprived of all civil rights for life according to article 32, of the criminal code."
The opinion or verdict is signed by the defendant ROTHAUG.
The prosecution realized that in the presentation of this case that certain parts of indisputed importance has been left out. We have presented this case as a case in the series of cases in the so-called black-out category which has been summarized in the final three paragraphs of the opinion which I have read. I believe it expedient not to read other portions of the opinion and at this time offer the Exhibit 162, which is document NG-382 in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received in evidence.
MR. KING: It is not possible to present further documents from Document book C because certain parts which were missing in the original assembly have not, we understand, reached the Defense Counsel. We hesitate to ask them to waive the 24 hour ruling and ask the Court's indulgence for several minutes until Mr. Wooleyhan arrives to continue reading from document Book E.
THE PRESIDENT: We will, therefore, leave the bench for a period of five minutes.
THE MARSHAL: All persons in the Courtroom will please take their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, we turn now to Document Book 3-E. The first document, which is NG 547. In effort to present this document in chronological order and therefore more clearly I will skip around in a manner not in conformance with the paging. This document really begins on page 2, which is a court opinion:
"In the Name of the German People!
"Case against the Reich pensioner Kasimir PETROLINAS of Essen, born on 4 March 1874 at Koslin, Lithuania, stateless person, at present in confinement.
"The Special Court Essen in its session on 8 March 1943."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Thereafter follows a list of judges which we will not read.
passed the following sentence:
"That the defendant is sentenced to death as a plunderer.
Reasons I."The defendant, 69 years of age, allegedly without previous convictions, stateless, is the son of an agricultural worker.
After the death of his parents, while he was still a juvenile he moved from Lithuania to western Germany. Here he was wording as a miner, and for some time also as unskilled worker, up to the year 1937. Since 1937 he has been a Reich pensioner and is drawing a monthly pension of RM 50. He is living in a furnished room in Essen, for which he pays RM 12.- monthly. The defendant is single, and according to his statements does not have any next of kin.
II.
"In the evening hours of 5 March 1943 English bombers attacked the city of Essen. By the dropping of explosive and incendiary bombs a large part of the center of the city was laid in ruins and rubbish.
The largest part of the center of the city thereby is depopulated, there are only a few shops still existing. The traffic is at a standstill. The streets are covered with rubbish to a large extent. On them there are many objects lying around, coming out of destroyed houses and shops.
"Also at the Pferdemarkt the houses have been mainly destroyed the described conditions exist. At the Pferdemarkt the back of the big household and iron appliances store Dellbruegger Klingen is located. Among and on top of the rubbish of this house numerous articles of the shop are lying, among others a large number of mess kits, which consist of white, shining light metal. The Special Court esteemed the price of one of these mess kits to be approximately RM 1.-.
"During the air raid the defendant stayed in a public air raid shelter, inasmuch as his apartment too had been destroyed by bombs, during the following days he stayed overnight in a school house which had been put at disposal for such purposes. He also was fed there. At about noon of 8 March 1943 he started out for the Opera House, where he intended to report as bombed-out person. On his way he came across the Pferdemarkt and saw there, behind the damaged Dellbruegger Klingen business, the above mentioned mess kits lying around. He got the idea to take possession of a few of then and to use then for himself when food was distributed. Out of the mass of the partly badly battered bowls he selected three bowls in new condition, wrapped then up in paper and took them along. Then he headed through Hagen towards the Opera House. In Hagen he saw among the rubbish a glass milk bottle and picked it up to use it as drinking-vessel. But then, when he saw that the bottle was dirty, he put it back where he had taken it from. When doing this, he had been watched by a policeman, who thereupon stopped him and found the above mentioned mess kits on his person.
"These facts have been established by the confession of the defendant which is credible.
III.
"According to the established facts the defendant took possession of other people's property in the "evacuated zone", thus he plundered. (Art. 1 of the Decree against Public Enemies.) The trifling value of his loot has no bearing on this statement. The complete destruction of large parts of the city brings about an extremely great danger for the safety of the numerous articles lying around on the rubbish heaps. If many persons would take advantage of this advantageous opportunity, and everybody would take possession of trifling things, large values would get lost as a whole and the public safety would be most severely endangered. This especially dangerous situation after an especially heavy raid of the enemy makes every theft, even of trifling things, lock especially dangerous and particularly blameworthy and according to the sound sentiment of the people it is plundering. Therefore, according to Art. 1 of the Decree against Public Enemies, the defendant had to be sentenced to death".
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Skip to the signature and certification: "Essen, 10 March 1943", and it's signed by the presiding judges.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Attached to this opinion that has just been read was the following note which is found on page 5 of the Document book. This note is dated Berlin, 8 March 1943:
"In its session of 8 march 1943 the Special Court Essen sentenced to death because of plundering the Reich pensioner Kashmir PETROLINAS of Essen, born on 4 March 1874 at Koslin, Lithuania, stateless person. Upon telephone call from the Public Prosecution in Essen I decided that the death sentence be carried out, and granted that the condemned man be shot instead of being hanged."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If I may interpolate for a moment, the document book states that there are certain illegible initials on this note. Upon glancing at the original document, the Prosecution submits that the initials, far from being illegible, are those of the defendant, Rothenberger.
Skipping now to page one of the document book, we find a letter dated Essen, 10 March 1943. The letterhead: The Chief Public Prosecutor at the Special Court. Stamped: General Public Prosecutor at Hamm. Addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice in Berlin, through the General Public Prosecutor in Hamm. This letter is stated to concern the case of Kasimer Petrolinas, Reich pensioner, sentenced to death for plundering. Telephone decree of the Secretary of State, Dr. Rothenberger of 8 March 1943. If we may again interrupt a moment -- this it ter where it states the telephone decree of the Secretary of State, Dr. Rothenberger of 8 March 1943, we submit is the same telephone decree as that referred to in the note on page five, which, as we further submit is initialed by Rothenberger. The letter states as follows; reading again from page one: "As I already indicated by a telephone call the death sentence of the Special Court Essen of 8 March 1943 has been carried cut by shooting on 9 March 1943 at 0920 hours without any incidents or special occurrences at the rifle range of the Police barracks in Essen. The official in charge of the case, Prosecutor Gaertner, in the presence of Inspector of Justice Pollmann as official reporter was in charge of the execution."
Skipping back to page five in the document book, we find another letter dated 7 March 1943, addressed to the Chief Public Prosecutor of the District Court in Essen. "Dear Chief Public Prosecutor: In its session of 8 March 1943, the Special Court Essen sentenced the stateless pensioner Kasimir Petrolinas of Essen, born on 4 March 1874, at Koslin, Lithuania, to death because of plundering. At the same day State Secretary Dr. Rothenberger has been informed as to the proceedings and their end by an official of the Public Prosecution there, and basing himself on the report decided that the sentence be carried out.
In the verbal report it has not been mentioned that with Petrolinas himself it is a question of a bombed out person. Tho State Secretary requests to clarify as to why this essential fact has not been covered by the report by causing the official concerned to make a statement. I ask you, Chief Public Prosecutor, to submit your statement, together with the statement of the official concerned, to me personally, classified as "Secret" and to treat the whole affair absolutely confidentially.. Heil Hitler !"
Skipping now to page six, we find the apparent answer to the request I have just read. This is a letter stamped "Secret" and dated Essen, 22 March 1943, addressed to the Chief Public Prosecutor in Essen:
"Concerning the criminal proceedings against Petrolinas for looting, I make the following statement:
Immediately after the sentence of capital punishment had been pronounced at 19:25 on 8 March 1943, I telephoned by long distance call the Reich Ministry of Justice and asked for the official on duty in order to inform him of the death sentence, suggesting to him an application to the Reich Minister for a decision on the question of pardon as well as on the question of execution of the sentence by shooting as suggested by the Reich Defense Commissioner and the Police president of Essen. Dr. Kuemmerlein answered the call and I informed him of the facts. I believe to have mentioned on this occasion that the condemned person was himself a bombed-out person. Dr. KUEMMERLEIN declared that he would at once endeavor to obtain the Reich Minister's decision. Shortly afterwards the State Secretary Dr. ROTHENBERGER called me up and asked me for a report on this matter. On this occasion I mentioned that although the loot (3 mess kits) was trifling, the execution of the sentence by shooting was deemed fitting as a measure of intimidation in view of the extensive damage caused by air raids. During this conversation the State Secretary asked me several questions which I answered to the best of my knowledge. In particular the perso nality of the culprit, concerning whom no adverse in formation was available so far, was consider, I cannot state with certainty but it seems reasonable, that at that time I mentioned that the condemned was himself a bombed out person, since it seemed to be an important fact for the decision of the State Secretary and I was anxious to bring the mitigating circumstances to the attention of the State Secretary as well."