We are, of course, very much interested in the attitude of the defendant Rothaug. The manner of administering an oath in Court, and all those things should be the subject of inquiry.
INTERPRETER (Frank): Would you mind repeating it again, sir; we didn't get it, I am afraid.
THE PRESIDENT: The laws to which the witness has referred to and which have been, in fact, introduced in evidence, are plain in their language, they speak for themselves. They showed the latitude Rothaug had in imposing a light or heavy sentence or the death sentence, and those are matters that are not the subject of expert opinion. On the other hand, Rothaug's attitude toward the laws the things he said about them, and the manner of administering them, are important to this Tribunal, and those are proper subjects of inquiry.
Q Dr. Feber, as I remember your testimony earlier, you were a prosecutor before the special Court in Nurnberg as late as 1940; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q In 1940, in your capacity as prosecutor do you remember a case before the Nurnberg special court at which case the presiding judge was Rothaug, involving a defendant named Geishauser?
A Yes.
Q Would you describe what you observed in that case?
A That is the case where a considerably aged German had been arrested late one afternoon when he was on the way from his residence to the locality of the local police. When on the way, the policeman had the arrested person following him and when they came to a wooded part, and at that point Geishauser drew a knife and stabbed the policeman, and he went back so that he fell to the ground. That was the case I think we are talking about.
Q In that case, Geishauser, what criminal statute was involved?
A The case, Geishauser, I, myself, served the indictment as a prosecutor. Following the results of the investigation previously made, and based on the point of view that this was an action -- a violation of a law for guaranteeing of legal peace, and in application of the ruling, that he had undertaken to kill a police officer.
Furthermore, the indictment contained a part, according to which there was an attempted manslaughter, and as far as further details are concerned I cannot remember them with regard to the indictment. At any rate, following this action, the indictment was put before the Special Court, and it was on the basis of that indictment that the proceedings of the Geishauser case was started.
Q Would you describe the physical characteristics of the defendant?
A Yes, in the Geishauser -- the thing that was of extraordinary significance was that Geishauser was of considerable ago, approximately 70 years old, and that on the very day when he committed the deed, he had consumed not a large amount of alcohol. The expert medical man who had examined Geishauser, stated that Geishauser was or had been fully in control of his actions, and this falls under paragraph 51 of the Penal Code, so that mitigating circumstances of this alcoholic consumption could not be claimed. This is a borderline case. During the proceedings a woman witness appeared who testified to the Tribunal that Geishauser had swayed when walking along, and that Geishauser, according to her views, and she was the daughter of an inn keeper, had at any rate, been under the influence of alcohol. I can remember very well that the examination of this particular witness, through Rothaug, was the most extraordinary mocking point, characteristic point of the entire proceedings, because it was depending upon this testimony whether the expert testimony of Dr. Schumacher would be used.
Rothaug subjected the witness to considerable pressure upon the point whether she was trying to be sufficiently an expert before the Tribunal regarding the question of who was drunk and who wasn't and what her measures of experience were -- her personal measures of experience were in that respect. Consequently, in the course of this testimony and examination the woman witness departed from the testimony she had previously put on record during the pre-trial investigation so that Rothaug, at a certain point, you can say, triumphed over this witness but with that, the medical officer's, statement -- Dr. Schumacher's statement in the main point was recorded and it is not that the Tribunal -- the Court assumed that the condition -- for the full application of the law of guarantee of legal peace were in existence.
Q You state that Rothaug "triumphed" over this witness through the use of pressure. Can you describe the manner in which Rothaug exerted that pressure?
A This can only be explained by saying that psychologically he over-powered such a simple woman from a rural atmosphere. She had a larger field of vision and quoted against her which were able to shake such a witness. I can recall that Rothaug, for instance, put the question to this witness when, according to her idea, some one was so intoxicated that he no longer knew what he was doing. I think this woman was hardly past here twentieth year and that such a person would become uncertain at such a point and that she will begin to retreat from her previous testimony and from the impression which she had previously stated and when the immediate arrest had taken place, that is certain and Rothaug apparently would not allow matters to be brought to him or come to him but would more or less attack -- assail a witness and scream at them, possibly by putting it to them that it would penetrate quite simply that someone was about to help someone else and lie on some one on his passing on that connection he would use that expression:
"Itsn't my job to have lies told to me especially," and that is how, psychologically speaking, he managed to gain an advantage by which the witness became uncertain and evidently would concede the point that had previously -- that had been the opinion of a simpleton and that's the Tribunal's opinion which is the correct one.
Q You say that Rothaug screamed at witnesses?
A Yes.
Q Did he do that often?
A It would be seen that the form which was used against the witnesses who were made to talk by Streicher might be used even to keep them silent and that happened frequently which wasn't exactly fitting, the idea, according to which Mr. Rothaug was about to say a case, namely, the doctor.
Q Did Rothaug in your presence in Court abuse witnesses?
AAt this point I should like to quote a case as being particularly not worthy because it entailed insults of a defendant of that particular instance in the presence of Gaulieter Streicher where political abuses of a defendant took place. A defendant who at that time was a clergyman. This was early as 1937. That was the first large case and was prosecuted in Hall No. 600 when there were prosecuted against two Catholic priests supposedly because of moral crimes and in the presence of the Gaulieter Rothaug Take No 10 page 3, - M - 31 March 1947 - Burns - GJ yelled at one defendant, "Shut up, you son of a bitch."
Q What was the name of that case? Who were the manes of the defendants?
A The case of the defendant priests were Schmidt and Fasel was the name of the other one. Schmidt's trial was in 1935 in the Jury Court No. 600.
Q Returning to the Geishauer case -- had Geishauer any previous convictions?
AAccording to my recollection proceedings were pending against Geishauer which had been previously penalized on the penal register because of a sexual crime against a girl under the age of twelve. I am not at this moment absolutely certain in my recollection but there had either been a report from the lover of his wife or had been from his wife herself, who reported that sexual crime of Gieshauer against this child, at any rate, this apply to a part of the proceedings we had talked about.
Q What was the extent of the injury inflicted upon the policeman by the defendant Gieshauer?
A The wound inflicted upon the policeman amounted to a stab about as deep as a finger is long -- a stab in the back which was not fatal and the policeman recovered completely. He appeared as a witness during the trial.
Q You say, that the policeman for whom Gieshauer was indicted as stabbing later recovered completely and attended his trial; is that correct?
A Yes
Q Now, what sentence in that trial did Gieshauer received?
QA Gieshauer was sentenced to death upon application of the decree against violent crimes and the decree for violations against the law of the grantee for legal peace and was based up NO 3Take No 10, page 4 - M - 31 March 1947 - Burns - GJ on other regulations or attempted murder or attempted manslaughter I think it was manslaughter.
Q Was Geishauer in fact executed?
A Yes, the Ministry refused to grant mercy and he was executed in January 1940 or 41. I think it was 1940. January 1940. In January 1940 Geushauer was executed.
Q In the same year 1939 do you remember another case at the Nuernberg Special Trial Court during the trial of which Rothaug presided in which the defendant was named Englbauer?
A Yes.
Q Would you describe that case and the officials connections with it.
A The case Englbauer was indicted as an assault upon a woman worker who, after having received her wages at the end of the week was on her way form the railway station to her residence of at Neumarkt and as she said herself was attacked by an unknown person who tore her handbag out of her hand and robbed of one week's wages. The policeman directed the investigation against Englbauer. He was a person of very bad repute who lived in Neumarkt and proceedings against Englbauer were actually carried out in the town of Neumarkt in an atmosphere externally which I imagine it was, let's say, sensational.
There is an estate outside Neumarkt. There is a large hall set aside for public meetings and for sports meetings, indoor sports meeting. In this building was the hall in which the proceedings were carried out after Rothaug, together with the Police Chief, Birk, of this town, agreed upon the place and time for the trial. This was particularly necessary, because the prison at Neumarkt was situated next to the court building in the center of the town. Since Englbauer had to be escorted by a policeman and taken into the sessions in the morning and in the afternoon respectively had to be taken back, this was a walk of torture because this was through the middle of the town of Neumarkt.
If I may continue, the other peculiarity of this case was that there were only indications on a very broad basis as to his guilt, because neither the moneybag nor the purse of the attacked person had been found in his possession. That Englbauer, only Englbauer, and no other person could be the perpetrator, was comparatively far-fetched.
Q Dr. Feber, you say you served the indictment on Englbauer in that case?
A I prepared the indictment and represented the Prosecution during the proceedings.
Q Under what statute was Englbauer indicted?
A I indicted Englbauer from the point of view of perpetration against property of others, under paragraph 2 of the Public Enemy decree. According to the report from the police authorities, the location where the assault took places, was subject to influences, the blackout influences of the hospital at Neumarkt.
Q In other words, you said, have you not, that Englbauer was indicted for violating a Public Enemy decree and taking advantage of the black-out conditions? Is that correct?
A That is correct, yes.
Q Was there any evidence introduced in the defense of Englbauer to show that the conditions under which he snatched the purse were not black-out conditions?
A Yes. Englbauer's defense claimed that the attack took place on a small road going off the Nuernberg-Neumarkt main road, where under normal conditions, let us say in peace time, darkness would have existed in any case. Therefore, the question of a blacking out of the scene of the crime was out.
Q Was the evidence you have just described, namely, evidence indicating that there were no black-out conditions at the place where the defendant was charged with snatching the purse? Was that evidence, in fact, introduced and admitted into court?
A The president of the Court, Rothaug, together with the Chief of the Police at Neumarkt, had convinced himself where the assault had taken place. And, he, himself, with his own eyes had been in a position to measure the distance, and circumstances of the lighting conditions of the road.
The acception or non-acception of a black-out was the decisive defense question in Englbauer's case. This evasive possibility was reduced by Rothaug. It was, in fact, blocked by Rothaug because he introduced the argument that residents in a building adjoining the hospital at Neumarkt had not by any means been in a condition to open the window and to give any type of help to the woman who was screaming for help because of the anxiety connected with penetrating into the darkness from the open window. They remained from doing so. This was possibly -- no I do not know because I was not the judge in this case -the final argument quoted by Rothaug which would lead to the acceptance of the blackout argument.
Q Dr. Feber, was any evidence submitted by the defense in the Englbauer case to show that the scene of the crime had nothing, whatever, to do with a blackout condition? Was such evidence accepted and admitted by the Court?
A The Defense counsel did not submit anything other than photographs which the police had previously submitted. The defense counsel pointed out the local conditions which existed.
So far as that direction was concerned, defense counsel did what he could have done as far as that was concerned. Rothaug, as presiding judge, did not, in any way, restrict him.
Q At the time the Englbauer case was tried, what was the maximum penty that man could get for snatching a purse in broad daylight?
A If you are not basing your question on the Public Enemy Decree, street robbery according to the German Penal Code, can be punished with a penitentiary sentence. A minimum penalty is described, but not a maximum penty. The minimum penalty is 15 years.
Q What sentence did Englbauer receive?
A Englbauer was sentenced to death. An extraordinary fact, was the legal administration had him transferred to Berlin where the sentence was executed.
Q Did you read Rothaug's legal opinion in that case, or did you hear him read his reasons for the sentence?
A I know the findings which were filed in the Englbauer case because I had to concern myself with the reprive which was applied for when the sentence was submitted.
Q According to the record of the case to which you have just referred was the condition of a blackout at the time Englbauer is alleged to have stole the purse proved beyond a reasonable doubt?
A Upon the assumption that this assault was carried out, when black conditions did exist? There were objections against assuming a blackout condition, and they were considerable.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, the Prosecution suggests, respectfully, that this is a good time to break off.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, The Court will recess at this time until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION "The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 31 March 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. FEBER - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, Dr. Brieger has asked for a few moments at this time to discuss the committee's functions of which he is a member with regard to matters of translation, etc. If that is agreeable -
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honors, due to the confidence and good-will of my colleagues. I have been appointed as spokesman for the defense counsel of Tribunal III. This morning I was unfortunately not able to appear for the session on time although I was in the building since eight-thirty a.m. since, I had to discuss important matters with Mr. Wartena. I have now been informed that the Tribunal discussed this morning the suggestion which was made here by the prosecution regarding the examination of witnesses, and, as far as we are concerned with witnesses who are in the Voluntary Witness House, I would like to point out in this respect that I have been informed such a suggestion by the prosecution had been submitted. Since Saturday I have made efforts to procure one copy of the text of the number of copies which have been made avail by the prosecution. Only a few minutes ago did I succeed in procuring such a copy. My colleagues of the Defense and I are in agreement that we are concerned with such an important suggestion that it seems to be absolutely necessary for us that every Defense Counsel should be furnished with one copy of this suggestion, and that thereupon it will be necessary for us to confer in detail which will be our final attitude in this matter. I hope to be in conformity with the desires of the Prosecution and that they agree that there is no special rush in this matter. Nevertheless, I shall make every effort to accomplish these matters as quickly as possible. However, considering the entire situation, especially in view of the holidays this week, and furthermore in of the fact that one or the other of our colleagues has to go home probably during the holiday, I would like to ask that we will be allowed a time of about two weeks before we have to make our statement...state our attitude.
THE PRESIDENT: When you speak of "copies" you refer to copies of the rules, I take it?
DR. BRIEGER: No, Your Honor, I do not mean copies of the rules. I mean copies of a certain suggestion, a certain motion made by the Prosecution: a more detailed description of this motion I can unfortunately not make at this moment -- give at this moment -- since only ten minutes ago I heard it was necessary to hear the essentials about this motion -- only in a few minutes shall I receive the motion at all, a copy of this motion altogether.
THE PRESIDENT: We agree with counsel that no immediate action shall be taken in this matter. We will direct the Secretary-General to make enough mimeographed copies of this motion so that the defense counsel can be fully advised of it, and we shall also direct the Secretary-General to serve upon defendant's counsel copies of the rules so we will all be in agreement about these matters. All we ask is that this matter be attended to as speedily as possible -- but not too speedily -- in order to give defense counsel every opportunity to take such action as they are entitled to take.
We shall take no further action in this matter until we are advised that copies have been made of this motion, and also of the rules -- at which time it may be taken up with the Tribunal again.
DR. BRIEGER: If I may add briefly, Your Honors... Mr. Wartena this morning was kind enough to assure me that inasfar as the rules are concerned made by Tribunal No. III -- he will see to it as quickly as possible that these rules will be translated and every defense counsel will be given one copy of these rules.
THE PRESIDENT: We have no doubt they will do just that.
BY MR. WOLLEYHAN:
Q Dr. Feber, you told us this morning that in 1940 you became associate judge on the Nurnberg Special Court; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Did you want or desire that position?
A This transfer from the Prosecution into the position of being a judge of the District Court -- this transfer, as such, I was striving for -- yes. However, it was surprising for me when I was told that as judge I was to be transferred as judge to the Special Court.
Normally, it was a usage and pra** of many years that a prosecutor who had been appointed to be a judge -- to ** him in civil cases and not in criminal cases. After I, myself -- also during the war for a year -- still worked as prosecutor, I could expect the more to appointed for a position in civil matters. The appointment as associate judge at the Special Court could be made only by the competent president of the District Court of Appeals -- Oberlandesgerichtspresident -- who also was in charge directly of the office. The Oberpresident Doebig, and the president of the District Court Hoesch, at the time -- with them I discussed my activity as legal counsel to the District Court -- associate judge of the District Court -- and that was in the Spring, in November 1940. Oberpresident Doebig me at that time that he considered that to be of the best use that could be made of my ability, I should go to the Special Court as judge -- and would put up with Mr. Rothaug, too -- with Rothaug, too. On the contrary, he believed that I, to a certain extent, would be in a position to exercise a somewhat modifying influence on the generally known rough manner of Rothaug. There was also a regulation of the ministerial counsellor for the Reichdefense which was promulgated shortly after the outbreak of war, according to which, for the duration of the war, a civil servant had to serve in general wherever the administration told him to.
Q. Dr. Feber, you state that Doebig, president of the District Court of Appeals in Nurnberg, told you that you would be a modifying influence on Rothaug by your sitting on the same bench with him; is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. Dr. Feber, after you became an associate judge on the Nurnberg Special Court, did you personally approve all of the decisions pronounced by that court?
A. No, no; all of them approved? -- no.
Q. You did not approve of some of them; is that right
A. A number cf sentences I did not approve of, and I also expressed my lack of approval.
Q. If you did not approve of some of the sentences of the court on which you sat, why did you continue to sit as a judge on that court?
A. The question has to be answered by me in the same way as the question as to why I entered the special court at all. The administration again and again pointed out that according to the regulation of the ministerial council for the Reich defense, avoiding the tasks which had been ordered was not up to the individual. We were even forbidden to volunteer for the Wehrmacht, for the armed forces.
Q. Dr. Feber, could you have resigned from the bench?
A. I believe that an application for resignation from the service of a judge with the state would not have been heard at all during the war -- would not have been received at all. One prosecutor tried to change into another prosecution; that is, from the service with the justice department into the Reich Service, Berlin, and his application was not listened to either.
Q Dr. feber, in your personal opinion where did you think, in 1940 or thereafter, that you could best exercise the modifying influence on Rothaug that you have suggested previously? In your opinion could you best have done that by remaining on the court or by resigning?
AAccording to my knowledge of affairs I can say without conviction that in number of cases in which I alone, without Mr. Rothaug's participation was allowed to act as presiding judge, or when I had to deal with administrative matters, I could exercise a sufficiently modifying influence, and in some cases it was even possible to a very modest extent to modify one or the other, to soften one or the other sharp edge of Mr. Rothaug's.
Q Dr. Feber, if you had resigned from the bench in the Nuernberg special Court at any time after you became judge in 1940, if you had resigned and withdrawn form the bench, could you then have exercised any modifying control or effect ever Rothaug in his activities as judge?
A No, no, no -- without present in Rothaug's sphere of activity-- without being personally present, one could not exert any influence at all upon that man. That can be seen form the fact that the gentlemen of the administration of justice who were not active in the immediate sphere of activity of Rothaug could not at all exert any influence on Rothaug.
Q Will you describe now, as you remember having observed it in the day to day conduct of the court's business, the relationship between you as an associate judge on the special court, your other associate judges on that court, and the president, Rothaug?
A On the 1st of November, 1940, when I entered upon this office, I was at first only associate judge without any special duties as deputy. I had an office which also was rather a long distance from the office of Rothaug physically speaking.
The rest of the gentlemen who at that time were serving with the special court, I knew them insofar as I knew them from my period of activity as a prosecutor -
Q. Dr. Feber, let me call your attention to the question once again please confine your statements to the relationship of you and the other associate judges on the special court to Rothaug.
A. Rothaug exercised a rather dominant regime for he let nobody interfere in business matters in any way. He decided which sessions were to take place here in Nurnberg, which sessions were to be outside of Nurnberg. He did not allow any appointments for the individual cases in the sense that among ourselves we could make an agreement who should take part in what sessions, but rather, at the end of the week it could always be seen from the calendar of the sessions, and every individual had to read it on this calendar because after each case registered on this calendar, Rothaug made a remark who had to take part in the sessions of the coming week as an associate judge and the reporter; that is to say, the person who had to write down the sentence, he was also noted down.
Q. Dr. Feber, pardon me. Would, you describe the method by which you and the other judges, including Rothaug, voted on a particular verdict in a particular case?
A. Well, we have to differentiate here the following: Decisions and regulations outside of the main trial Rothaug made almost regularly himself alone. Insofar as further signatures were required a remark was made in pencil who had to affix his signature also, and thus the documents were distributed in the Chancellery by him. In this respect we are concerned with decisions regarding refusal of submission of evidence which had been made before the session or with denial of the complaint which had been made, although it was not permissible for decisions of the special court could not be appealed from; or it was a question that Mr. Rothaug had given a document to the prosecution. There were no discussions among the judges at all to the prosecution with some opinion stated on it which was contrary to the opinion of the prosecution.
There were no discussions among the judges at all before hand in order to make a decision but, as I said, Rothaug wrote down his expression of opinion and distributed it. That was outside of the session.
Q. Dr. Feber, could you or any other associate judge discuss and argue verdicts in criminal cases with the presiding judge Rothaug?
A. This question I understand as follows: We were concerned with the following: If a session was discussed, or in a session a special case was discussed, whether it was then possible to express an opinion beforehand. The expression of opinion as such was a very difficult matter. If Rothaug asked the prosecution; that is, the prosecution in a particular session if they were with him, and a judge also was there, one of the judges who had been appointed for this particular session, then Rothaug used to express his own opinion regarding the value of the crime and regularly to disagree with the prosecution. The laws which were important here in particular were not the malicious act law or any political law from the time before the outbreak of the war. These crimes were relegated into the background.
Q. Dr. Feber, may I interrupt for a moment. Could yon or your associate judges on the Nurnberg Special Court, when you differed or argued with the presiding judge, Rothaug, on a point of law or a question of guilt, how would he answer you?
A. These discussions, that is what I want to say now in conclusion of my remarks on this point, and that is that they usually ended with defiling remarks. I remember that one colleague once opposed or discussed the question whether a Pole could be regarded, or could be sentenced as a public enemy according to the decree regarding public enemies; whether it was not so that the decree about public enemies was only for Germans; whether it wasn't applicable for Germans only. This colleague, Amtsgerichtsrat Groben, Counsel Groben, was in the most harsh language told how inexperienced and legally absolutely faulty he was with such remarks; that he didn't understand anything; and that it happened to be a political question or event, that of political undermining of the foundation, and that the opinion and reasons just would have to be found in the law. This and similar lectures by the same judge brought him the ironically meant designation that he was a theoretical minded man and an absent minded professor; that he had a professorial opinion and was of no use for actual practice.
Q. Dr. Feber, did Rothaug ever state to you that he had sources of information, conclusive to a given case at bar, which were unknown and unavailable to you or any other of your associate judges; did he ever so state to you?
A. Yes, if we on our part, especially in one case which I was in charge of: Rothaug, if we disobeyed with Rothaug and contradicted him, especially in a manner regarding foreigners, of what I am thinking of at the moment -I would like to describe it briefly. A pole in Oberpfal, which is near Roding, had died. He was buried there by a Catholic priest on a Sunday afternoon at three o'clock.
Rothaug was holding a session of the Special Court here in Nurnberg. I, myself, did not have to attend this session. During a recess of the session Rothaug put a document into my hand which had come to him from the Kreisleadership from Foding with a police report of this event, and Rothaug asked me, against this priest, give an order of arrest for this priest; issue one, I looked at Mr. Rothaug and stated: What punishable act did the priest commit? How shall I give any reason for an order of arrest here? The answer of Rothaug was: Give this thing back to me; I shall show you how this will be done; and as he was going away, he expressed that I obviously did not concern myself with the regulations of the Polish question. Rothaug did indeed issue an arrest order against the priest; as far as I know his name was Froehlich, and he was a priest in Roding; and it was based upon the malicious act law, because it was a demonstration on the part of the priest with part of the native population who took part in the funeral after the Sunday afternoon service, against an idea of the RSHA, which was not very clear to us, but which had been issued by Hitler's order, according to which the Pole was legally inferior, and the funeral conducted by the priest was against this legal regulation. The ministry itself then defeated this by refusing to prosecute this priest. I have to add in regard to this case that Rothaug at that time received information also of a party nature, and about the service of the RSHA; that he talked about these; and they gave a completely different view of the Polish question than we can imagine. These sources of information were closed to us.
Rothaug referred to these sources. In this connection he spoke of political immaturity; of opposition; he put the person who contradicted him into a politically bad situation.
Q. Did Rothaug hold a position in the SD?
A. During the course of my activities as judge at the Special Court, I got to know more and more; I found out that Rothaug was a leading member of the SD. In this office here, in this building, Room 138, he received visits from the SD. When I, myself, became his neighbor, office neighbor, in Room 139, since August, 1941, I could get much further inside details in his connection with the service of the so-called Sicherbeitsdierst of the Reichssicherheitshaumptamtes, the SD of the RSHA.
Q. Dr. Feber, did you ever near of the so-called guidance conferences between the Special Courts and the Ministry of Justice in Berlin?
A. Yes, in that connection I know the following: I was in 1941, daring the first three months of the year; I sat as judge in a case, that is a judge who writes out the sentence, and Rothaug was not the presiding judge in this case, but the oldest in service at that time, but Landgerichtsrat Engert; the man was given a penitentiary term of three years. After two weeks I read in the morning newspaper the Reichsfuehrer SD announces Haeffner, and his first name I don't remember it, has been shot because of resistance. At that time, as can easily be understood in my excitement, I went to the authorities which execute the sentences of the prosecution, and I wanted to know, first, when Haeffner had been handed over to them, and secondly, why. I did not get anywhere with my inquiries in either direction; the man was shot in Flossenbuerg. Herr Rothaug was at that time our presiding judge at the Special Court. On the same day I told him about this occurrence, and expected that in some way he would be surprised about this; since the case was in his sphere of activity, I thought he would have some interest in it even though he had not been judge in the case himself.
In this connection Rothaug only said as follows: Don't pass any impossible sentences; then such things will not happen. His other expression was: Look, because he did not speak--Adolph Hitler, like I wanted to say, but, now look at the Fuehrer and then you will know how you shall judge. In this connection I said that the prosecution itself had only asked for arrest and imprisonment, so that the Ministry did not initiate this shooting; it could not have initiated this shooting at all. What was the guidance in this connection, after the request of the prosecution must have been reported and returned again. Herr Rothaug in this connection denied that the Ministry of Justice exerted or executed any guidance at that time; he said that he was not considering to receive any guidance from, for instance, a priest over in Roding. If one guides in Nurnberg, then I am doomed too; that is what he said.