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.
Q Dr. Wentzensen, before you proceed with a discussion of the Jansen case, may I put before you the record in that case?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King.
MR. KING: Yes?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it likely that the transcript shows the answer to my question, but I should like, if I may, for our convenience, to have stated at this time just what the position of Letz was when this conversation occurred with the witness. Will you inquire about that matter, please?
BY MR. KING:
Q . Dr. Wentzensen, did you hear the question addressed to us by the Bench?
A Yes, I understand the question.
Q Can you give us an answer, please?
AAt that time Hamburg still had its own Administration of Justice. Its Chief was Dr. Rothenberger, and at that time the Personnel Referent was Dr. Letz, whose name I have just mentioned.
MR. KING: Before we proceed with your discussion of the Jansen case, Dr. Wentzensen, may I say that the Jansen case is identified by the number NG-2410, and the original of that is before the witness at this time. I do no, unfortunately, have German copies for distribution of that. We do have them in English, and I should be glad to furnish copies to the Bench, although, at the same time, I am sorry that I cannot supply copies to the Defense, unless perhaps they can read English.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number, 2410?
MR. KING: No. 2410, and the next exhibit number will be reserved for that -
THE PRESIDENT: No. 596.
MR. KING: No. 596.
BY MR. KING:
Q Dr. Wentzensen, you have before you-
A Yes, I have the files before me.
Q Do you concur in my summary of it that it is the record of the Jansen case?
A Yes, I agree with you.
Q Now, I do intend to offer this case in evidence, Dr. Wentzensen, but I would like to have you tell the Court in your own words, as briefly as possible, the facts of the case and how you were involved in it.
AAt that time I also acted as a judge at the Summary Court. As a Summary Court Judge I had to deal with all those cases where no formal indictment was filed, which were brought before my court without such indictment. One day the prosecution brought the Jansen case to the attention of my court. It was also called the Schlueter case, and the prosecution asked me to deal with it in summary proceeding. I thereupon fixed the final date, and the case turned out to be a very comprehensive one. As far as I remember, the facts of the case were as follows:
Jansen had had previous convictions. In 1332 he vfas sentenced to seven years in a penitentiary for having, together with some accomplices, who wore fellow members of the SA murdered a member of the City Council, Henning, in a bus near Hamburg. Jansen had only served two years of that sentence; he was released after the so-called seizure of power; the amnesty probably also applied to him. He became an SA Sturmfuehrer.
That much about the previous history and personality of this man Jansen. On New Year's eve -- that was on the turn of 1934-1335-- a restaurant to celebrate the new year. He there met a man called Gralka. In former days he and that man had worked together for the police in Hamburg. Jansen had been thrown out of the police force because of his drunkenness, and ever since that time he hated the other man, Gralka. On that New Year's eve he told his SA men to assault Gralka. They hit him in the face, they hit his eyes, and they injured him.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Further ill treatments were not inflicted on Gralka only because he managed to escape. The trial lasted for four days, I don't think I need describe the details. The outcome, as one can see from this document, was that Jansen was Convicted for dangerous bodily injury committed together with other people and inciting other people to inflict such injuries and he was sentenced to a prison term of six months and two weeks. Another two co-defendants were sentenced to three weeks and two months imprisonment.
Q Now, taking up from there, after the sentence against Jansen and his colleagues was handed down, did Dr. Rothenberger get in touch with you about the case?
A Dr. Rothenberger asked for me. He reproached me gravely on account of this matter, and particularly he charged me with having, not only by this trial, but by the way I conducted trials, wrecked the good relationship which were just beginning to develop between the Reichstatthalter and the administration of justice. We had a very unpleasant argument and in the course of that argument I made reference to the fact that the independence of the judge was guaranteed in the constitution, but Dr. Rothenberger thereupon told me that I was speaking in favor of legal positivism. He also said that I was not the right person to administer National Socialist penal law and that there he would order my transfer to the civil cases. That happened; however, it was only done when business was redistributed and as I said already at the beginning of this examination, at the end of 1935 I left the administration of penal justice where I was not employed again, until the beginning of the war.
Q Now, Dr. Wentzensen, the subsequent happening in the Jansen case is another story which other witnesses are going to refer to but can you tell us just briefly what you know of the subsequent course of the case Jansen?
A I heard of it at the time, only through conversations -- that is to say, I didn't hear of it officially. In the second instance, at Court No. III, Case No. 3.the second hearing, the case was dropped because the offense was only a trifle, and the main defendant Jansen paid a fine, -- I believe it was a hundred marks, -- which he gave it to a charitable fund.
Q Yes. As I said, Dr. Wentzensen, we are going to have further evidence on this and I shall not ask you to go into detail about which you personally do not know about; with the exception of introducing two documents, 595 and 596 in evidence, the prosecution has no more questions to put at this time.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Your Honor, may I first ask a question? Mr. King intends to produce further evidence in connection with the Jansen case. For my cross-examination, I must know more about this document. We don't have it yet in the German language. My question therefore is whether I could postpone my cross-examination so that I can first read this document in the German translation, and in order not to waste time we could first examine Dr. Waldow. I believe he is outside. Anyhow, before I conduct my cross-examination, I should like to see the German translation of this document and, therefore, I would ask Mr. King whether he has any objections?
THE PRESIDENT: When can you have the German translation?
MR. KING: I think it will be some little time even though it is in a state of processing now. I would suggest that Dr. Wandschneider take the original which I think for bis purposes would be even better then the mimeographed copy. There is, however, a very practical reason why I think we should not ask the witness to remain indefinitely in Nurnberg pending a cross-examination. The witness is a judge, an active judge in a court in Hamburg, has come here leaving his cases and naturally is anxious to return. We should like to do all we can to help him in that objective.
THE PRESIDENT: I suggest, if it meets with the approval of Counsel, that all of the cross-examination be had this afternoon with the exception of this untranslated document and that Dr. Wandschneider be accorded the privilege of examining after Court has recessed the Court No. III, Case No. 3.original this evening -- I am sure that the original will be in safe hands -- and that the cross-examination as to that document proceed tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
MR. KING: I am certainly agreeable to that suggestion, your Honor, if Dr. Wandschneider is.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you very much, your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q Witness, in connection with the Buhk case, you told us that it was by mistake that that case or rather those files reached the prosecution. How was it that they reached the prosecution by mistake?
Q Counsel, what I said was that Senior Public Prosecutor Reuter told me that it was evidently a mistake that those files had come to him. Obviously, they hadn't been meant for him. He didn't tell me why and I didn't ask him why.
Q Is it correct that at that time the position of the Gestapo was such that it didn't want to hand such events over to the jurisdiction of the German administration of justice?
A May I ask you to repeat that question, please.
Q Witness, I asked you if it is correct that at that time it was the custom of the Gestapo normally not to allow the administration of justice to get possession of such files, because already at that time the Gestapo had arrogated to itself a special position?
A The only way I can answer the question is that these were the first files of that type which were passed on to me. Whether other departments received such files I naturally cannot tell you.
Q You were present when the autopsy was performed, were you?
A Yes, I thought it was right for me to attend the autopsy myself although I could have passed on those files to another department, but the case seemed so significant to me that once I had started it and once I had come to know how difficult it was to get hold of that corpse at all, I didn't want to pass the case onto another department.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q The facts that were established beyond all doubt at the autopsy -- that is, according to your opinion and testimony today -- that there had been serious ill treatment?
A Yes, that is certain, but as I see from the files -- that is to say, from the expert opinion of official physician -- it was found that probably death had occurred due to handing. On page 218 it says in the expert opinion, figure 1, "the autopsy revealed that probably Buhk died as the result of hanging".
Q Well, it was that very passage which I wish to discuss with you, witness. If one reads that with quite an open mind, do you think that one then has to assume that this was a case of suicide or how else could you interpret the wording?
A This phrase quite definitely leaves open both possibilities. I mean the possibility of suicide and the possibility of murder.
Q Did the physician Dr. Koppmann quite intentionally wish to leave open both alternatives?
A No, he definitely didn't want to do that. That was not his job.
Q I believe you misunderstood my question. What I asked you was whether Dr. Koppmann quite intentionally left open both possibilities -that is to say the possibility that suicide had been committed by hanging or that this was a simulated suicide?
A I am so sorry I misunderstood your question the first time. Dr. Koppmann, as official physician, merely had to determine what was the cause of death. As to further evaluation of the cause, that was not his job, and that in itself should answer the question whether he intentionally left open both alternatives.
Q. You discussed the case with Dr. Letz and you told us that Dr. Letz found the discussion of that case highly embarrassing. Can you tell us why you think Dr. Letz found it embarassing or do you merely have a general impression?
A. As I told this Court before in detail, that definitely was my concrete impression. I told this Court that both from the point of view of the actual facts and from the personal point of view he found that conversation embarrassing.
Q. Then I understand, you to mean that actually he shared your view both from the personal point of view and from the facts. Is that not correct?
A. I almost thought so.
Q. If, formally and from the point of view of the actual facts, he almost shared your opinion, what then was the criticism he made of your attitude?
A. The criticism he offered was on the one hand that he said the courts, were on principle not to deal with events that occurred in the concentration camps, and on the other hand, he said to me that it was necessary for us to have understanding for the great events of the time. As one says in German, just for once you will have to let five by an even number.
Q. That is not the words he used, is it?
A. No, that was my version, but I felt that he really was not talking according to his true inner conviction, and when I testified here before I gave my reasons for gaining that impression.
Q. Did you find in your contacts with Letz that he was servile to the Gestapo, the SS?
A. Dr. Letz's character, his person, I think one must describe as tragic. He was very much interested in cultural activities. He belonged to the circle around Judge Russ who unfortunately died during the war. That is to say, he was killed in active service. Judge Russ was a Social Democrat.
He was the son of the mayor, the Social Democratic mayor, and through Russ, with whom I shared my office, I heard a great deal about Letz and I also discussed Letz with him. And, as I said here before, I had known Dr. Letz for many years. We first met at school, In 1922 I was a Referendar under him. He was an untiring worker, but he was unfree and he was subject to torturing himself.
Q. And you think that the situation of that time increased that with him?
A. Yes, one can put it that way.
Q. Now I am coming to my last question. You said that had been an entirely novel occurrence in the Hamburg Administration of Justice, that you were asked to call at the offices of the Administration of Justice. Am I correct in assuming that you want to say that up until that time you had had almost none or no personal experience of judges being called before the Administration of Justice to account for their sentences or for the actions they had taken as judges?
A. That was my conviction at that time. As far as I know, that was the first time that the Chief or his Deputy asked judges to see him on account of their actions as a judge, and Dr. Letz was the Deputy, of course.
Q. Do you know that relations between Dr. Letz and Dr. Rothenberger were extremely friendly and that Dr. Rothenberger tried very hard to get Dr. Letz into the Administration of Justice?
A. I cannot tell you for certain, but perhaps I can answer your question to this effect: On the basis of my friendship with Dr. Letz, later on, after that incident, I once asked him how he was and I meant how he was from the professional point of view, and I remember his very depressed answer very well. He said, "Do you think it is nice to be an adjutant?"
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Did Letz----no, that is beyond the scope of my question. I think I will finish this subject but, of course, I'd like to reserve the right to discuss the Jansen case later.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so tomorrow morning and you may examine the original this afternoon.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. KING: No redirect, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will be excused until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty. Return at nine-thirty tomorrow morning, witness.
(Witness excused)
MR. KING: The Prosecution calls at this time Judge Waldow of Hamburg.
ERICH LOTHAR CHRISTIAN WALDOW, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE HARDING:
Q. 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.)
JUDGE HARDING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:Q. Will you state for the Court your full name and your present position in Hamburg?
A. My name is Erich Lothar Christian Waldow. I was born on the 26 of March 1887 in Hamburg. I am Oberlandgerichtsrat for the District Court of Appeal in Hamburg.
Q. Can you give us a brief summary of your official duties, I mean your official positions held throughout your career in Hamburg?
A. I graduated in 1905. From 1906 to 1909 I studied Law. In 1909 I passed my Referendar examination. In 1913 I passed my assessor examination. In 1917 I was appointed Landreichter District Court Judge in Hamvurg, and until the Autumn of 1945 I remained Landrichter or Landgerishtsrat; District Court Judge.
Since the Autumn of 1945 I have been an Oberlandgerichtsrat counsellor at the District Court of Appeal. I work at the Penal Senate of the Hanseatic Court of Appeals.
Q. You were at one time presiding judge of Chamber 4, were you not?
A. I was the presiding judge of the small Penal Chamber No. 4.
Q. And do you recall while you were presiding judge at this Chamber; that the Jansen case came on for further proceedings before you? This was a case which had been decided in the lower courts by Judge Wentzensen. Do you recall that that case came before you for assignment for further proceedings?
A. I remember that I dealt with the Jansen case because it came before my chamber for appeal.
Q. Yes. Now, when this case came before you for appeal, did you assign a date for hearing?
A. I set a trial date, yes.
Q. And to participate in the trial were; of course; the defendants and certain other high Party officials; is that right?
A. No. The defendants would have had to attend; but the presence of high Party functionaries would no have been necessary.
Q. Yes. Well, in any event, when the date for the firsts trial which you set came, what happened? Was the trial actually held?
A. No. The defense counsel told us that he and the defendant would not be able to appear because they were prevented. I believe the reason why they wore prevented was because they had to attend the Reich Party rally.