A I never saw an indictment against an official who had become guilty of mistreatments. As far as I know, such cases never occurred.
Q In your opinion, doctor, whose responsibility was it at that time to see that such action was taken against perpetrators of ill-treatments, beatings and murders in these camps?
A In my opinion it was the task of the general public prosecutor because he was the chief of the prosecution and as such he had to file indictments against every criminal act, against every punishable act and thus also against punishable acts committed in a concentration camp. In practice however, he would not have succeeded.
Q And the public prosecutor was Drescher at that time?
A Yes, that was Drescher.
Q And who was Drescher's superior?
A Until 1935, until the Administration of Justice was centralized, Senator Rothenberger; and after the Administration of Justice was centralized, the Reich Minister of Justice.
MR. KING: The Prosecution has no more Questions at this time to ask the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You may cross examine.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May I begin the cross examination?
CROSS EXAMINATION
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Witness, you told the Prosecutor in answer to his questions, first, about the case from 1936-37 and you stated that you received a telephone call at the instigation of Gauleiter Kauffmann regarding the quashing of the proceeding. First, a technical, legal question: Was this technically a permissable quashing during the pending proceeding? Is that a legal method of the quashing of the proceeding?
A It was a quashing by way of pardon which can also take place before but certainly this happened very seldom.
Q Your misgivings, therefore, referred not to the formal manner in which the matter was handled but they were purely of a substantive nature?
A They were of a purely substantive nature because it was outrageous that these people were not punished.
Q Yes. Was there a telephone call made in any way by Dr. Rothenberger himself or by his deputy or was this a purely official office call by the district court of appeal which was done on order of the Reichsstatthalter?
A The telephone call was made by the secretary in the ante-room of the president of the District Court of Appeal.
Q Can you approximately remember what this lady told you at the time?
A The lady told me that the file had immediately to be sent to the District Court of Appeal to the president's office section since the Reichsstatthalter intended to make an application for quashing to the Reich Minister of Justice.
I know that for certain that she mentioned the Reichsstatthalter because my train of thought was something like this: How come this is any business of the Reichsstatthalter's?
Q Did Dr. Rothenberger technically have anything to do with the quashing?
A I assume that he had to state his opinion, but I don't know how the procedure was regulated between the Ministry of Justice and the District Court of Appeal and the Reichsstatthalter. I had no insight into that and I don't know either how and whether he stated his opinion.
Q Did you get any positive knowledge as to whether a quashing did take place?
A I remained in the penal chamber five for some time after that and the presiding judge told me this file we shall never see again. Then I left Penal Chamber 5 a few moments later and during those months the file was not returned and some time later I met the presiding judge, Dr. Schmeier, in the building and I asked him: "What became of this and that case?" And he answered , "So far I have not heard anything about it." And later on I did not concern myself with that matter any more because I lost interest in it.
Q In regard to the Carotz Case, witness, I would like to address two questions to you. First, is it correct that Letz, with whom you probably discussed this case -
A Yes, I did.
Q -- as such was also of your opinion and said that Rothenberger as well as he, himself, were inclining more toward your opinion? Did Letz tell you that?
A Yes. That is true, but I didn't believe him.
Q To what extent didn't yon believe him?
A Because I was suspicious.
Q I can understand that. Now a question in that connection: In that case were elements lacking which would have justified a different judgment of the case technically? In particular was it correct that Karotz had so far no previous conviction and that, secondly, it was a purely alcoholic affair, as we say? I do not want to doubt the basis of your opinion, bat I only want to ask whether such mitigating points of view played any role in these discussions.
A I consider that impossible. It is true that Karotz had no previous convictions but that it was an alcoholic affair, that was certainly no mitigating reason and if an ordinary citizen hits a police official who takes stops against him with full rights and tries to prevent him from driving, if he hits him to such an extent that he falls on the street, then no judge and no prosecutor in Hamburg in normal times would have ever conceived the idea to let this man get away without punishment.
Q In that connection may I also ask you, Dr. Oehlkers, is it correct that Karotz excused himself expressly because of his behavior that he agreed to pay a fine and that these perhaps might have been elements which in other cases too perhaps sometimes might have caused that the case was settled in that way?
A It was like this: The excuse which Karotz expressed was, in my opinion, not quite voluntary, but the police president said: "Well, that's the least that you have to do and this fine was something which I, as well as other judges, always fought against because I and others were of the opinion either the deed is one that has to be punished or is is of such little importance that a mere warning is enough; that only because it is trifling; but this atonement with money to the National Socialist Welfare is something that happened quite frequently; but that for mo and to others it seemed like bargaining for the punishment and I always rejected it.
Q I come to the Vatje case. In this case you testified that during the proceeding, that is, before the sentence was pronounced, Dr. Rothenberger did not discuss the case with you.
A No, he didn't.
Q When, later on, you discussed this case, did he first act properly and correctly towards you, first of all quite informally?
A Yes, he did.
Q. During these discussions did he in any way try to influence you?
A He couldn't do that any more because my activity with that case was completed.
Q Did he subsequently make any reproaches to you or give you any hints because of your completed activity which led you to conclude that he disliked it?
A No, no.
Q Did he ever let you recognize his own attitude during those two conversations you had?
AActually not?
Q In the Reimer Case which you also described to the Prosecutor is it correct that in this case, I didn't quite understand you, in your opinion Dr. Rothenberger had no personal knowledge?
A That is my opinion. My opinion is that this case was not submitted to him.
Q. You then mentioned that General Public Prosecutor Drescher would have bad to interfere in one of the cases and to this testimony you added that in practice he would not have succeeded. Why did you think so?
A. Because the power relationships were of such a nature that where there was a conflict between the Party or the Gestapo on the one side and the Administration of Justice on the other side, which is a conflict of a very serious nature, the Administration of Justice in Hamburg in my opinion was always the weaker party.
Q. Witness, you furthermore described the situation which existed in the relationship between the Administration of Justice and the Gestapo and you elucidated it with your own experience and you said that you were surprised that nothing had happened to you.
A. Yes, I can only say I am still wondering about it. I am still surprised about it today.
Q. Do you know of any cases or can you imagine why and to what extent the behavior of your superiors, especially of Dr. Rothenberger, toward the Gestapo on such interference by the Gestapo against officials was prevented?
A. No, I don't know that. Those were matters which were not within the sphere of my knowledge and my judgment. Only once -I have to correct myself here -- I have to come back to the Vatje Case. This was after the Vatje Case when my dealing with the case was completed. There was a personal complaint by Police President Kaehl about me personally: official supervisory complaint because I had attacked Police President Kaehl very severely in the opinion to the sentence and this official complaint was forwarded to me for explanation by the local court president and then Dr. Rothenberger took this matter into his hands and nothing happened to me. So apparently Senator Rothenberger covered up for me toward the police president in this case.
Q. Is it known to you that your colleague, Dr. Buhl, was also protected by Dr. Rothenberger against attacks of radical Party circles who were asking that Dr. Buhl be moved from the job of a judge and asked him to move from his apartment; that he protected him too?
A. No. I know that a certain judge at that time, who was a National Socialist, attempted to remove Dr. Buhl from his position, but I did not hear what he accomplished and what Dr. Rothenberger's attitude was I don't know. I don't know the case. I know that Dr. Buhl, who was well known for not being a National Socialist, had a very different position in the time after 1933, but the details which existed I don't know anything about.
Q. Thank you. But you know in any case that Dr. Buhl remained a judge in Hamburg until 1945?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Thank you. A final question, witness, You stated that you entered the civil service as an assessor because there is no other choice open to you than to enter the Party?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was the result of your fear. Did you mean to express that only a forced condition existed or was it really fear?
A. Extraordinary pressure was exerted not only on me but on all assessors in Hamburg in 1933. Pressure was not exerted directly by Rothenberger on the assessors. Normally they did not have any contact with him, but each office chief exerted this pressure and, of course, they differed too, these office chiefs, and in my case this pressure, I can say without exaggeration, was exercised by the general public prosecutor Drescher to an extraordinary extent. It went so far that he yelled at me when he met me on the suburban train why I wasn't a member of the SA.
Q. Witness, may I ask you for once to not think of your personal experience and to think over whether there wasn't a large number, yes even an overwhelming number of young jurists who liked to join the party or one of its affiliated organizations without any pressure and who wanted to do so. Please do not refer to your own fate in answering this question.
A. There certainly were such jurists, assessors, but they belonged, if I may say so, in my opinion more to those age groups who were younger. The age groups who graduated around the late twenties and. early thirties to which I belonged, the majority of them had either a strong negative attitude toward National Socialism or at least they rejected it strongly or at least they were very skeptical toward it and some considerable influence was necessary in order to have all them join the Party.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
MR. KING: No redirect, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
MR. KING: Hay the record show that I am now handing to the Secretary-General Exhibit No. 590 which has previously been offered and accepted in evidence? I have now ready for distribution and offer into evidence the Document NG-2251 for which the Exhibit No.591 was reserved yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 591 is received.
MR. KING: We also have Document NG-2221 for which the Exhibit No. 592 was reserved yesterday. We offer that document into evidence at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: 592 is received.
MR. KING: We also have available the Document NG-22247 for which the Exhibit No. $93 was reserved yesterday. We offer that document into evidence at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
MR. KING: The Prosecution calls at this time Judge Edmund Wentzensen.
THE PRESIDENT: We have not received 593, have we? You offered it, did you not?
MR. KING: Yes, I offered it, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We would like to receive the document so that we don't get behind. 593 is received.
MR. KING: The Prosecution at this time calls Judge Edmund Wentzensen of Hamburg. I am informed by the Marshal that the witness is not in the immediate vicinity of the courtroom and it will probably be a matter of two or three minutes before he is brought up. May I say that the delay in producing the witness must not in any way be attributed to the Marshal.
Rather, it is the result of a misunderstanding apparently between the witness and the Prosecution. The Marshal was told that we assumed the responsibility of having the witness here. So we would not like to have it reflect on him.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't have another witness immediately available, do you?
MR. KING: Unfortunately, I told the other witnesses that they needn't come until three o'clock so we do have several more ready and available at three. Your Honors, may I make a suggestion. I realize it is somewhat before the usual time for recess, but it might be expeditious use of the time to take a recess early and reconvene at a. quarter of three, at which time I can assure you that the witness will be available.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for fifteen minutes. Are we informed that the witness is here?
MR. KING: Yes, that is right.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. We will take our recess at the usual tine.
EDMUND WENTZENSEN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:Before I begin the direct examination of this witness, may I have marked for identification the document identified as NG-2489. Copies are available for distribution, both the German and English.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it to be marked for identification 595?
MR. KING: Your Honors, I intend to introduce this as the next exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Should it be marked 595?
MR. KING: You may if you wish that number reserved for it.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
BY MR. KING:
Q Dr. Wentzensen, will you kindly state your full name, present address and position, please?
A My name is Edmund Wentzensen; I am living in Hamburg, Kralsteg Bernerstrasse 44; my age is forty-eight; I was born in Hamburg, I am District Court Director in Hamburg; Protestant Lutheran.
Q What judicial position did you hold in Hamburg during the war up until the capitulation?
A During the war time up until the capitulation I was not in Hamburg. I was with the armed forces until the end of 1942; then, because of illness, because of heart trouble, I was discharged and was living from that tine on with my family in Passau, Bavaria. At the beginning of 1941 I had sent my family there. Only from the 1st of February 1947 I was again employed as a judge in Hamburg.
Q Dr. Wentzensen, when did you leave Hamburg as a, judge before the war?
A I left Hamburg on the 24th of August, 1939.
Q You were appointed a judge in criminal matters in Hamburg in April, 1934, were you not?
A Yes.
Q And you continued to hold that position for some time; is that right?
A I held that position until the 31st of December, 1935.
Q Now, in your position as judge, did there ever come to your attention in your official capacity any case involving the abuse of an inmate or inmates of a concentration camp or camps in the Hamburg area?
A In the fall of 1934 I handled the Buhk case, that reached my hands. Now, I here have this case before me while I am in the witness stand.
Q Let me ask you, Dr. Wentzensen, is the case to which you refer the Document 2489, is that the identifying number at the top of it - NG2489?
A Without doubt it is a copy.
Q And you have a photostat of the original also before you?
A May I please check up on that by looking at it right now?
Q Yes.
A Thank you. In this document I find my signatures again; also ordinances and memoranda, office memoranda, which I recall, so that there is no doubt in my mind that it is a photostat of the original file.
Q Yes. Now, proceeding with the explanation of how the Buhk case came to your official attention, will you please tell us how it first came to your notice?
AAt that time I was a judge in arrest cases, and on the day apparently from the file that is 13 September, 1934, I believe - I correct myself. It was the 18th of September 1934, I was the judge of the day. The senior public prosecutor Dr. Reuter came to see me with the file. He told me something like this: This file concerns an incident in a concentration camp. Apparently only by accident, by mistake, did it come to the prosecution. According to the contents of the file an innate of the concentration camp had taken his own life by hanging - committed suicide by hanging. In his opinion the matter had to be examined.
Q Dr. Wentzensen, may I interrupt you just a moment to straighten out two questions. Dr. Reuter was the prosecutor before the court in which were a judge?
A He was senior Public prosecutor at the district court Hamburg.
Q Yes, and the concentration camp in which this incident allegedly occurred was Fuhlsbuettel?
A. The concentration camp Fuhlsbuettel.
A Yes. I am sorry. Will you proceed?
A Dr. Reuter requested me to examine the contents of the file and to tell him after I had done so whether I would agree to oppose application for confiscation of the corpse and post mortem. He again pointed out to me that it was a very unpleasant affair, and asked me whether I was willing to assume responsibility for it to order the confiscation of the corpse and post mortem.
I examined the contents of the file and I gained the conviction that there were reasons for believing Buhk, who is named in this file, did not die of natural causes. Do you want to have a detailed explanation why I had come to this conclusion - to this supposition?
Q Your explanation so far has been entirely in accordance with what I think you. should say about the preliminary facts. Now, tell me, Dr. Wentzensen, in coming to you as a prosecutor to do something about this case of questionable suicide, Dr. Reuter undoubtedly had in mind some particular statute or section of the criminal code pursuant to which you. could act. Now, can you tell me what section of the criminal code this was and how you had authority to proceed with the investigation which Dr. Reuter was asking you to make?
A Perhaps I may first say in conclusion that after I had examined the files, I ordered that the corpse be confiscated and a post mortem be carried out. With that I come to the answer to your question. This order was issued on the basis of Articles 87 and 88, in connection with Article 159 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. I then participated in the post mortem. It took place the next day. Difficulties were put in my path to the extent that the police agency, who had been informed of the confiscation by the court of the corpse, refused to give up the corpse, to hand the corpse over. Only after I conducted a telephone conversation in a very energetic manner, in which I threatened to arrest those who were responsible for this refusal, the corpse was handed over. Efforts were made to deceive me by telling me that the corpse had already been cremated. Only after I asked for details of the place and the hour of the cremation, I received the assurance that the corpse would be sent to the Harbor Hospital; that ha.d been designated for that purpose in Hamburg for the autopsy, and this is what happened.
Q Now, did you attend the autopsy?
A I attended this autopsy.
Q Yes. Let me ask you another question. It was reported by Dr. Reuter as a case of suicide. Will you explain the condition in which the body was found?
A From my own findings I cannot say anything about it because I did not find the corpse myself. Of course I only know about this from the report of the criminal secretary Rode of 14th September, 1934 to the Gestapo in Hamburg. May I refer to that report?
Q Please do.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the report to be in evidence?
MR. KING: In part, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: If the report is to be in evidence, if it is only a source of information as to the condition of the corpse from the report, then it should be unnecessary for him to read it to us.
MR. KING: Yes, I think it is unnecessary for the witness to read in detail from the report since it will be in evidence.
Q I will ask the question and you can give the answer in the shortest possible form. What reasons based upon - what reasons did you conclude as a result of your personal investigation that is was not a suicide? You may refer to the report if you wish, but don't quote from it extensively because it is going to be in evidence.
A The reason for believing that possibly an unnatural cause for death existed in this case was for me that the person Buhk's hands were shackled and moreover, he is alleged to have hanged himself with a handkerchief according to the contents of the file. For me this was the decisive reason in order to find out through an autopsy what really was the cause for death. The post mortem and the autopsy then showed that the body of Bunk showed evidence of serious mistreatment on the back by beatings. These mistreatments were so, if I may say so, horrible that even the official physician, Dr. Koppmann was obviously impressed and considered it to be necessary to take a piece of the Buhk back out of the corpse in order to use it for evidence. The handkerchief, as my decree of 17th September, 1934 shows, orders to have it attached to the file.
Q Yes. So on the basis of what the report said, and your observa tions, did you conclude that this was not a case of suicide but a case of murder, an act of murder covered up to appear a suicide; was that your personal conclusion?
A No, that is not quite correct. I only as it is expressed in Article 159 had some reasons to believe that unnatural causes of death might exist in this case. The result of the autopsy was that death by hanging existed; that this was a case of death by hanging. The question that remained open and was not decided, and was not to be examined neither by me nor by the local physician was how this hanging had occurred.
Q Now, did a Gestapo official attend the autopsy with you?
AAt this autopsy a Gestapo official also was present. I don't recall his name any more, however.
Q Do you recall
A He asked me for permission to attend the post mortem and I let him do so. After the official act was completed, this Gestapo official then approached me in front of the court building , and requested me, and I may say so by shaking with fright, not to make anything more of this case; not to proceed any further with it. I thereupon replied briefly that the case would take its legal course. I may state here the legal course was the following: The file, together with the record made by the local physician, by the official signatures and my signature, and that of the decoment official of my court now had to be forwarded to the prosecutor for further steps to he taken. What then happened to that file, or to the handling of the case, I not only did not hear any more - I only gathered it now from the document that has been submitted to me here. My activity ended with ordering the confiscation of the corpse and the execution of the autopsy and handing the files over to the prosecution.
Q Did any one from the Hamburg administration of justice, within the next few days after you came hack from the autopsy, get in touch with you concerning the case?
THE PRESIDENT: Our time has arrived for a recess. Just a moment. Fifteen minutes recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. KING:
Q Dr. Wentzensen, I asked you, just before the recess, whether anyone, within the next few days after you returned from the autopsy from the Hamburg Administration of Justice, got in touch with you about the Buhk case.
A Some days later, anyhow a little later, the Personnel Chief of the Administration of Justice, Dr. Letz, called me to him. He discussed the case with me and he reproached me on account of the fact that I had ordered the corpse to be confiscated and an autopsy to be performed. He said that in principle the courts were not to deal with concentration camp occurrences.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you tell us the name of this person again? What was the name of the man you were speaking of?
THE WITNESS: Dr. Letz, Government Counsellor.
He also said he considered that my action had shown that I sadly lacked political understanding. I had an argument with him about the case, and I maintained that I had acted in accordance with my duty and in accordance with the law. However, Dr. Letz stuck to his view, and when we parted we had failed to reach an understanding.
BY MR. KING:
Q Dr. Wentzensen, is it conceivable to you that Dr. Letz called you in for this conference on his own initiative, without urging from his superior, Dr. Rothenberger?
A No, I cannot remember that. I definitely thought that Dr. Letz was talking at the request of his chief. Today, however, when fourteen years have gone by, I cannot repeat to you the actual text of our conversation, and in particular I cannot say whether, at the beginning of our talk, he said that he was speaking on behalf of Dr. H. Rothenberger. At any rate, it was quite a novel thing in the history of the Hamburg Administration of Justice for a judge to be called before the Administration of Justice on account of an action he had taken as a judge, and there to be given a lesson about his actions.
Because of that fact, I had no doubt that Dr. Letz could not have acted on his own initiative.
Moreover, during the whole of my talk with Dr. Letz I felt that he found the whole matter highly embarrassing, and that was for personal reasons as well as for the actual facts themselves. By that I mean to say he was speaking contrary to his own convictions, as far as the facts wore concerned, and it was also embarrassing for him from a personal point of view to have to speak to me, of all people, in that manner, because Dr. Letz had known me for many years. I had been a Referender under him, and the things I had learned from him at that time varied from what he was telling me on the occasion of this conversation.
Q Dr. Wentzensen, will you turn now, please, to page 25 in the original photostat copy of NG-2489 which you have before you? That, in the English version, is on page 12, near the top.
A Would you please repeat the page number in the German text?
Q Yes, that is page 25 in the photostatic copy which you have before you, Dr. Wentzensen.
Do you find, on page 25, the name Baritsch, B-a-r-i-t-s-c-h?
A Yes, I have found the name Baritsch on page 25.
Q Who was Baritsch? What was his position? Do you recall?
A Baritsch was a public prosecutor; maybe he was a senior public prosecutor at that time. I cannot tell you anything about his functions. I believe Dr. Schubert will be able to do that. I had nothing to do with Dr. Baritsch in connection with this matter. As I told you, I dealt with Senior Public Prosecutor Reuter in this matter.
Q Now, just very briefly, Dr. Wentzensen, can you tell me what happened to you personally after this case, your subsequent history? Just briefly, please.
A Nothing happened to me beyond what I told you just now, not in connection with another case, I had a clash with Dr. Rothenberger himself. That was over the matter of the Jansen case.