11-M-MJ-6-2-Gross (Lea) all he taught me the moral principles of hunting. He taught me that hunting was not just shooting and killing of game but it was also the care of and respect for the Creator and his creatures.
Q. How long were you at home, Dr. Rasch?
A. I lived in this atmosphere until the 10th year of my life.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, just what did you mean by the moral principles os hunting? What morality was involved?
A. Hunting in the German sense demanded that the individual, even if he is completely unobserved in his area, realises his obligations toward the creatures, and that he is to refrain from everything which violates these, for example, shooting during the time it is prohibited that is, during the time the animals are protected, shooting of the mother as long as her young ones need her and only shooting on careful deliberation, not to satisfy one's passion for it.
Q. Thus, until the tenth year of your life you were back home, Dr. Rasch? How did you development proceed further, briefly?
A. When I was 10 years old I entered the Royal High School in Luck.
Q. Thus from the 6th to 10th year you visited grammar school in Friedrichsruhr and when 10 years old came to high school in Luck?
A. Yes, that is right. There I lived with an aunt.
Q. How far did you get in high school?
A. Until two years before graduation.
Q. You left after 10 years of school then?
A. I did not want to go to the university at that time and the grade I attained was considered as sufficient education.
Q. Do you have any special memories from this time which are important in your life?
A. I was a good student and I was on friendly terms with most of my teachers. I enjoyed a relationship of confidence with them. This lasted during my entire life.
11-M-MJ-6-3-Gross (Lea)
Q. Then you volunteered for the Agriculture Department in Luck to receive training?
A. No, with the Landrat, government counsellor.
Q. And you stayed there six months?
A. Yes, approximately.
Q. And then you went to the bank of the East Prussian Agriculture?
A. Yes.
Q. You remained there about one year?
A. Yes, one year.
Q. Do you still understand me, Dr. Rasch?
A. Well it's getting worse again.
Q. Then you became the private secretary of a count zu Dona? You still hear me?
A. Yes.
Q. And then your life took a different course from then on. Can you briefly explain why?
A. The Count zu Dona took me along on some of his trips. The Court is beginning to shake. Well, he took me along on some of his trips. He took me to Paris.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. You may suspend just a moment, witness.
The witness will be removed from the courtroom. The Tribunal will take its morning recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. LUMMERT (Attorney for the defendant Blume): Your Honor, I would like to have the defendant Blume excused this afternoon in order to be able to prepare his defense With him.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Blume will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon.
DR. RATZ (Attorney for the defendant von Radetzky): Your Honor, I have a short but urgent request to make. On the 6th of January, I requested of the Secretary-General that I be permitted to speak to the Witness Hartl; the witness Hartl was granted to me according to a ruling of the court of the 3rd of October, 1917. The prosecution objected to my request, giving the reason that the Witness Hartl had already been examined in a direct examination and had been questioned by me.
I, however, would like to say this: that I think it is absolutely necessary to speak to the witness Hartl again concerning the document which the prosecution submitted from the personal files of the defendant von Radetzky Subsequently. This document was only submitted by the prosecution after the examination of the witness Hartl, namely on the the 17th of December and it contains completely new points about which I want to question the Witness Hartl. speak to the witness. If I am not permitted to do this, I am at a disadvantage in presenting the defense in this case, because this very point, which has been submitted by the prosecution subsequently, is a new aspect on which I have to obtain and submit new evidence.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, it is the position of the prosecution that Dr. Ratz is mistaken by saying that by the introduction of the document to which Dr. Ratz refers a new aspect was opened in the case.
We have asserted and also offered proof that the defendant von Radetzky was a leader of a Teilkommando. I merely remind the Tribunal of the affidavit of the witness Kroege which we have introduced in our case in chief in Document Book III-C. I haven't got the document book with me and I can't give the document numb er, but this dooument was already introduced in the case in chief. The document which we have introduced in cross-examination is nothing else than a corroborative document to this statement of Kroege. As the witness Hartl was on the stand after the case in chief of the prosecution had been presented, Dr. Ratz had full opportunity to ask the Witness Hartl questions in connection with the position of the defendant von Radetzky. Dr. Ratz has cross-examined the Witness Hartle at great length and I do think he should have exhausted all information which can be elicited from this Witness. That is the reason why the prosecution did object against further examination of the witness Hartl. I might add in passing that the Tribunal has excused the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, we have always adhered to the principle that a trial is not a gladiatorial combat between attorneys and no defendant or client should be made to suffer because of the lapse of his attorney, if there is a lapse. Now Dr. Ratz did have an opportunity to cross-examine this witness. He now tells us, and We certainly must accept that he tells us in good faith, that he wishes to put another question to him and we will not deny him that opportunity merely because of the procedure usually accepted that once a witness has taken the stand that finishes that Witness.
True, ordinarily that is the situation, but if Dr. Ratz, indicates that in order to properly present his case it is necessary to talk again to Hartl the Tribunal will not deny him that opportunity, because our policy has been from the very beginning to give defense counsel every opportunity to examine, cross-examine, investigate, interrogate, and to bring in anything which they believe is relevant, up to the social life of the penguins, as we explained before.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWAID: Very well, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: So that you may interrogate the witness Hartl, Dr. Ratz.
DR. RATZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
Did you want to say something, Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No .
THE PRESIDENT: The Witness Rasch will be brought into the courtroom.
)The witness was brought into the courtroom)
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, we want you to understand that this hardship to which you are being subjected is not intended as a hardship. According to the Anglo-American procedure, every defendant is presumed innocent until proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. You therefore stand before the court as an innocent man. You Were charged with crime, very serious crime, and the Tribunal is required to give you every opportunity to answer these charges. Thus, you are brought into court, not with the thought of subjecting you to an unpleasant and uncomfortable experience, but rather to a pleasant and comforting one in that at last you will have the opportunity to speak to the world. If you don't wish to speak, you are not required to do so and if you would indicate at any time that you do not wish to be brought into the courtroom you will not be brought into the courtroom. It was because we were assured that you had no objections to coming into court, namely in taking the stand in your behalf, that you were brought in.
We have medical attendants here. You need have no fear about your physical condition, so we again put to you that if, for any reason, you would rather not testify in court, you need merely indicate that through your counsel or directly and you will not be called upon to answer any of the questions, and we do want the record to show very clearly that you come into court voluntarily and that you are not being subjected to any hardship and are not being compelled to testify.
DR. SURHOLT: Your Honor, as the defensecounsel of the defendant, may I make just one remark? It is the express desire of the defendant obviously to express his opinion and to comment upon the counts of prosecution, by presenting himself in court, but there is no possibility for the defendant to cope with this and to testify beyond his physical ability at the moment to do so. The defense itself is of the opinion that the further examination will result in an exhaustion which will gradually increase and that such examination is not a proper examination of the Witness. The defendant therefore is here voluntarily, but his defense, however, is of the opinion that the actual examination of the witness no longer conforms with the prupose of a proper examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Surholt, the witness demonstrated an amazing clarity and lucidity of mind this morning on the two occasions that he was questioned. The Tribunal is not aware that he is having any difficulty whatsoever in understanding and comprehension. The only thing we are concerned with is whether his physical condition is such that he may not be able to continue with the examination for any extended period of time. However, all this is a medical question and not a legal one, and so we have in attendance a competent physician and defense counsel is permitted to have in the courtroom any physician that he chooses to call to assist in the determination of the final question as to whether physically this witness is able to continue With the examination which is being put to him sympathetically, because only defense counsel will question, the prosecution having waived cross-examination. with the fact that the prosecution has already submittef its case and, as is true in every instance defense counsel may be willing to accept what has been submitted against a client as true, but yet denying the legal implications sought for by the prosecution, in which event it would be a question of law as to whether the documents establish a prima facie Case.
testify and at any time, he or you, Dr. Surholt, indicates that he would rather not testify, the proceedings, of course, will be immediately halted and he will be taken back to his cell or to the hospital, or wherever he happens to be presently lodged and, of course, your motion, Dr. Surholt, will always be before the Tribunal for determination and eventual decision as to whether he is physically and mentally capable of being heard at all.
DR. SURHOLT: Your Honor, the last decision--
Your Honor, I am not in the shoes of my client and Dr. Rasch himself must know about the borders of his physical ability. He had expressed the Wish to testify and I shall try to continue.
THE PRESIDIENT: Very Well. You may proceed.
Q. (By Dr. Surholt;) Herr Dr. Rasch, before the recess, you spoke about being in the service of the Count zu Dohna, and as Such, you went for trips into foreign countries.
A. Defense Counsel, I am desparately ill.
THE PRESIDENT: Captain Carpenter, will you please look at the defendant and report to the Tribunal?
( Captain Carpenter conferred with the court.)
THE PRESIDENT.: The proceedings will be suspended and the Tribunal will be in recessuntil One forty-five. and, if defense Counsel desires to call in a physician of his own also to examine the defendat, and then the doctors Will report to the Tribunal. At any rate at the present time, we are now to be in recess until one forty-five.
( A recess s was taken until 1345 hours, 12 January 1948.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: For Dr. Riediger for the Defendant Haensch, I ask that the Defendant Haensch be excused from the remainder of today's session and for all of tomorrow's session in order to prepare his defense and to instruct that he be immediately taken to Room 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Haensch will be immediately excused this afternoon and will be taken to Room 57 and he will also be excused from attendance in court tomorrow.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there no way of adjusting the position of the defendant to that the Tribunal may actually see his face?
Witness Rasch, do you hear the Tribunal speaking? Witness Rasch, do you hear the Tribunal speaking?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I hear. I hear something, but very indistinctly.
THE PRESIDENT: We Shall make another attempt to continue with the examination, so you will please endeavor to cooperate in the best way that you can. The only reason that you find yourself exposed to this rather uncomfortable situation is that in this trial an indictment has been returned against you and co-defendants. This indictment, insofar as you are concerned, charges you -- and evidence has been submitted to support the charges -- that during the time you were in command of Einsatzgruppe C killed more than 75.000 people. There is quite a list of charges, each one of which indicates that illegally you caused the death of thousands of defenseless and helpless people. It is because of the enormity of these charges that you have been brought into the court so that you may have an opportunity to explain whatever you want to explain in answer to these grave charges.
Is that all very clear to you?
THE WITNESS: No, I heard a few words, but I did not comprehend them. I am so terribly tired.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Surholt, would you attempt to ask him the substance of what the Tribunal has just said?
DR. SURHOLT: Your Honor, what has just been said is, of course, the nucleus of what happened and which is the substance of the indictment. But this morning already I pointed out that the defense does not see its most important task in this fact that one, two, or three more executions are discussed here, but that it be clarified what the defendant's inner attitude was to the facts in the case and what his attitude is today and this proof can only be produced from the connections of the most important dates in his life, and, of course, above all, the most important dates of his political life.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Surholt, you will admit that any person charged with 75.000 murders should be given every opportunity to exculpate himself even at the expense of physical discomfort?
DR. SURHOLT: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: We want to make this very clear so that no one may get the impression that the defendant is being treated with but little compassion. There is the greatest of sympathy for his physical condition, but in his own behalf it must be uttered that with a crime of this appalling nature charged against him that he be given an opportunity to explain why he finds himself in this legal situation and that that of itself might even offer a comfort to him in that he had his chance in court to speak.
DR. SURHOLT: Your Honor, there is no disagreement Of opinion about that, but at the moment it was not clear to me when I was supposed to start my examination after the words of the President, at what point I was supposed to start. This morning, we briefly described the education of the defendant at home and his first schooling; that that he left school -
THE PRESIDENT: You need not repeat it, Doctor. Just begin Where you left Off. BY DR. SURHOLT:
Q Dr. Rasch, during your examination this morning, you Stopped at the point when you reported that while in then service of Count Dona you made trips abroad. Would you briefly tell us what trips you made at that time. Where did you go, and what decisions they induced in you?
A I hear your voice, but I don't know what you want. I am very tired.
Q (Dr. Surholt standing close to the witness) Herr Rasch, We want to try to continue with the examination, if at all possible. This morning you spoke of your first glimpse of the World. Do you have the physical possibility of answering?
A I don't understand you. I just don't understand you. Everything is of no consequence, and I am SO exhausted. I made all efforts, but I just can not go on.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kretzer, Will you please question the Witness yourself, professionally, and then come here to the Bensch. Remove the microphone, please. (Whereupon Dr. Kretzer - later identified as Dr. Grahmann - bends over the witness and holds his wrists.) Captain Carpenter will you please also stand by. (Consultation between Dr. Grahmann and Captain Carpenter while near the witness. Captain Carpenter is before the Bench consulting with the Judges in a discussion Outside the record. The Captain returns to his chair.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal is directed to transport the defendant Otto Rasch from the courtroom to the dispensary, or such other place designated by the medical authorities.
(The Marshal and three assistants carry the defendant out of the courtroom on a stretcher) Captain Carpenter, will you please take the witness stand. testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear by God to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God?
THE WITNESS: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, you may be seated.
Q Please give us your full name?
Q What is your rank?
Q Where are you stationed?
Q Please, indicate your professional qualifications? is chief of Medical Service. I was trained at Northwestern University Medical School; graduated from that University; served an internship at Evanston Hospital, and Residential at Mayos.
Q Not so rapidly, Captain. All of this must be interpreted as you go along, please. You may now proceed.
A I was graduated from Northwestern Medical School: served internship at Evanston Hospital, and Residential at Mayo Clinic in Rochester. from this Tribunal examine the defendant Otto Rasch, with two other physicians, and submit a report on his physical and mental conditions?
brought into the courtroom? occasions that the Trib unal recessed? your findings were at that time, what they are at the present time, and what your conclusions are with regard to continuing the examination in court of Otto Rasch? examined the defendant in the hospital that he was suffering from a disease known as Parkinism; that his case is a purely advanced case of this disease. There was the further opinion into court, but that in so doing he would be subjected to emotional and mental trauma, which tends to exaggerate the signs and the symptoms of this disease.
Q A little slower,please, captain. Very well. the courtroom, it was apparent that these conclusions were borne out; under the stress of questioning, and in the emotional trauma of being in court, the manifestations of the disease -and the red means to stop.
AAll right. The manifestations of the disease were certainly exaggerated. It was apparent at that time that the defendant was becoming exhausted by the continued questioning. It was apparent that perhaps by questioning him for short periods of time, and then permitting him to rest for an interval, that we might be able to proceed.
However, the exhaustion of the patient was such that it has become evident that it is apparently impossible to proceed. It is my opinion that the defendant Rasch should not be subjected to further questioning.
Q At this time. You mean at this time? didn't mean with regard to today, but for the future. You are not indicating what the future would bring? this particular case, but it certainly is typical of this disease that the patients do not improve but continue to pursue a downhill course; so I don't anticipate that in this particular case that the condition of the defendant will improve. defendant should be brought into the courtroom to testify any time during the next two weeks? that the defendant Rasch should not be brought into the courtroom within the next two weeks.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel on either side desire to put any questions to Captain Carpenter? BY DR. SURHOLT: have to count on a quicker down hill course of the disease? of the symptoms and signs whenever the patient is subjected to any emotional stress or strain. The ideal treatment for such a case is to keep the patient quiet in every way possible.
Therefore, by subjecting any such patient to emotional stress of the courtroom, we probably should say that the deterioration would be more rapid,under such conditions.
Q One more question. According to the effect which the examination of today has had on the defendant, cannot it be assumed that if such a thing is repeated within the next few days that one might get a better result? point of view, is that right? stand it better, that he would use his mental capacity better than that he was able to do today? the defendant was brought in on the first occasion this morning, he was more mentally alert than he was this afternoon, for instance, or later in the morning. I anticipate that the patient, if he were permitted to rest for twenty-four hours, or thirty-six hours, again we might expect a short period during which he would be able to answer your questions, but I further anticipate that the performance we saw today will be repeated.
DR. SURHOLT: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz. BY MR. FERENCZ: examination of the defendant, Otto Rasch, would you say that after a rest period, the defendant is able to understand the nature of the charges brought against him? question that was asked the Board of Officers that examined the defendant, and that question was answered in the reply of that Board of Officers, where it was stated at that time that it was the opinion of the Board that the defendant could understand the charges brought against him.
that the defendant is able to answer questions within a limited time period concerning those charges?
A I believe I answered that question a moment ago. I believe if he were brought into the courtroom again -courtroom altogether? future time, doubtlessly, for the first few minutes, perhaps, a shorter period than was that of this morning, he would be able to answer the questions, but again he would become exhausted and tired as he did today.
defense counsel a coherent statement constituting the basis of his defense, either outside of the courthouse, or in the courthouse?
A It would depend on the conditions. If the defendant and his counsel were alone or without a group of people around, I think there should be no difficulty at all in his dictating a statement to the counsel.
Mr. FERENCZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Captain Carpenter, in describing the symptoms, you used the word "exaggeration". I presume the word "exaggeration" is used professionally, in a sense somewhat different from its popular connotation. When we speak of "exaggeration" generally we think of a purposeful enlargement of any given situation.
Q Do we understand by your use of the word "exaggeration" perhaps intensification?
THE PRESIDENT: Any other question, Dr. Surholt?
DR. SURHOLT: No, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Captain Carpenter, we are very grateful to you for being in today, and we would like to ask you to be in tomorrow again, if you will. If for any reason you find that is not possible, to notify us immediately.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you, Captain?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
(Witness excused)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. "Kretzer" will you take the stand, please.
DR. HERBERT GRAHMANN, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Raise your right hand, Doctor. Repeat after me: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth, and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeats the oath). You may be seated.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's have your full name, please?
THE WITNESS: Dr. Herbert Grahmann.
THE PRESIDENT: You m ust be a different person from the one I have been talking to.
DR. SURHOLT: Your Honor, yes, it was a different name.
THE PRESIDENT: When he was in my chambers, I addressed him as "Dr. Kretzler" and you didn't correct me.
DR. SURHOLT: Your Honor, I don't believe I heard it in your chambers but at least I introduced him as Dr. Grahmann.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we received from you a statement by Dr. Kretzler, and I m ade repeated reference to this statement, and I assumed all the time that naturally this was the man.
DR. SURHOLT: No, your Honor. The medical opinion of the doctor at the moment was signed by Dr. Kretzer, and the opinions were made out in the city hospital in Professor Maithaler's Department. On the order of Professor Maithaler, Dr. Kretzer and Dr. Grahmann handled the opinion, and the opinion was signed by Dr. Kretzer. It was explained to me that one name is sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: And your name is Grahmann?
THE WITNESS: Grahmann, yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I am glad to know you, Dr. Grahmann, and I hope you will excuse me for having called you "Dr. Kretzer".
" N ow, Dr. Grahmann, you h eard Captain Carpenter's statement from the witness stand, did you?
Q Do you concur in what he said? defendant, Otto Rasch?
patient.
Q You doctors like to talk very rapidly. Please watch these lights, and when this globe is illuminated with a yellow light, you speak slowly, and when it is illuminated with a red,stop.
A Yes, sir. It is possible that the condition of the patient might be deteriorated in such a manner during this session that it might lead to loss of consciousness, or loss of consciousness to chewing cramps. defendant were to be called again to testify within the immediate future, that there would be the possibility that while testifying he might lose consciousness. Is that what I understood you to say?
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed. Anything else?
THE WITNESS: I would like to add that through the constant exaggeration of the mental makeup and emotional makeup, there would be a further alteration or deterioratio n of the patient, and with a onehundred percent certainty, my colleague, Dr. Carpenter, in his point on the one count of the prosecution, has not stated exhaustingly the following point: Were the defense to discuss various points with the defendant alone, considering the extent of the charges, a similar situation as we have seen here would result.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand from that that you take issue with Captain Carpenter's conclusion that the defendant could easily enough and without danger to his health, dictate an answer in the presence of his defense counsel to the charges brought against him?
it doesn't matter whether the charges are answered in the presence of a large auditorium or alone with the counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to question him any further, Dr. Surholt?
DR. SURHOLT: No, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Ferencz, do you have any questions to put to him? BY MR. FERENCZ:
Q Doctor, are you a specialist on Parkinson's disease? beyond that I have a large medical experience with the many diseases in the neurological field - and I think that submitting a certificate of approbation as far as this disease is concerned is not necessary. suffering from Parkinson's disease are able ot discuss matters generally with intelligence? suffering from Parkinson's disease is able to conduct an intelligent conversation on general subjects? that the defendant would be unable to discuss it? matters and especially in all questions which concern his personality so keeply would be very much disturbed. is so deeply involved in these things they h ave a deep impression on him and have a disturbing effect, is that correct?
A I cannot answer these questions; whether here is guilt or no guilt I think that an insult or a charge of this extent would suffice to produce emotional disturbance in a man which strongly effects his personality.