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.
Q How long have you been attending this patient? put to him?
THE PRESIDENT: Anything else, Dr. Surholt?
Dr. Grahmann, we thank you very much for giving us of your time and attention. That will be all.
Dr. Surholt, do you h ave anything else to present in the Rasch case?
DR. SURHOLT: Nothing to present, Your Honor, But I would like to take up once more my motion about severance of the case and to ask the Tribunal for a ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we believe that you have indicated your position very clearly. You have made your motion. We now have the reports of various doctors. We H ave seen the demonstration in court so that the Tribunal will be able to rule upon this motion without any further argument.
DR. SURHOLT: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: So -
DR. SURHOLT: Your Honor, only one further remark. The facts as they have been characterized by you is clear, also my reasons given so far need no further addition, but there is something that I haven't submitted yet. That's the general difficulties for the defense. It isn't merely that the defendant could not stand the examination as a witness in his own case here in court, but the preparation of the entire defense material under the effects of this disease has suffered badly. This morning already I have explained that despite innumerable visits It's probably the same there as it is here in court, insofar as I found him in good shape and if I extended my discussion somewhat the result was so much the more negative on the following day.
Because of exhaustion and because of his entire condition which he called bad he rejected the questioning giving the reason that he could not stand it.
I merely wanted to say by this that in the decision of the court, not only the incident here in court but the entire difficulties of the total defense should be considered.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be considered. We merely want to add one further expression on this particular episode and it is this, that the defendant Otto Rasch was brought into court because it was his right to be heard. That is a constitutional privilege which the Court gave to him and insisted upon for his own benefit.
DR. SURHOLT: The defendant Rasch told me expressly that he wanted to make an attempt considering the importance for his defense but from the beginning he was skeptical about this attempt.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Now, Dr. Aschenauer, I had thought perhaps we could reach you earlier in the day and then you would be able to give us your various document books.
DR. SURHOLT: One question, Your Honor. Dr. Grahmann can be eased, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes, indeed. Dr. Grahmann, that is sufficient.
(The witness was dismissed)
THE PRESIDENT: Before we consider the presentation of your document book, Dr. Aschenauer, we will make the general announcement to all counsel that the program is now pretty well established as to what will transpire in the remaining few days of this trial. When we recess this week after having heard the other defendant, rebuttal, and whatever surrebuttal there is, the Tribunal will adjourn. Does anyone have a calendar here? Is "Montag", Monday? Very well. The Tribunal will adjourn until "Januar 26, Montag". Is that right? Very well. Until - I had better be my own interpreter here - until Monday, January 26. At that time we will hear the closing arguments on the part of defense and prosecution. It is assumed that an hour's argument on the part of each defendant through his counsel will be adequate to cover the points involved, with the exception of the Ohlendorf case because Dr. Aschenauer has undertaken the burden to generally argue the international law and the common defenses and we will take that up later.
If any of the defense counsel believes that one hour is not adequate for him in the presentation of his summation he will then please make application to the Tribunal. He does not need to make it formally, he can see anyone of the three judges, so that we can determine whether he should be allowed a little more than the hour's time. Dr. Aschenauer will be allowed such time as he considers reasonable and I would appreciate it if he would let us know just about how much time he thinks he will need. He doesn't need to tell us that now but rather soon. The summation, of course, should be prepared as quickly as possible because we have the translation difficulties always with us and you know if we get too many documents to the translation room at one time there is bound to be a congestion. We do not know whether any of defense counsel intend to submit in addition to the final closing arguments trail briefs. May the Tribunal be enlightened on that point. Do defense counsel intend to submit what we call a brief? Well, counsel, are privileged to do so if they desire. It is not asked for.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, you indicated you would take perhaps an hour and a half approximately to present your documents and in view of the lateness of the hour, and in view of the fact that tomorrow morning we intend to take the defendant Strauch, I am afraid it would not be desirable to divide up the presentation, so if you don't mind we will have you present your documents immediately after the Strauch case is finished. Is that satisfactory to you?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much.
DR. ASCHENAUER: That is all right will me, but I would just like to announce that after my documentary presentation I would ask that the defendant Ohlendorf be excused for one and a half days from the session because I want to discuss several questions about the final arguments with him.
THE PRESIDENT: That is entirely in order, and when you have finished with your presentation of the documents your request will be fulfilled.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 13 January 1948, at 0930 hours) Otto Ohlendorf, et al.
, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg,
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal 11 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
Dr. GIGK: Defense counsel Dr. Gick, for the defendant Strauch. Your Honor, the Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Roeder von Bayer is present in this room. I received the permission yesterday for the Chief Medical Officer von Bayer to be present during the direct examination of the Defendant Strauch. I would like to be permitted, Your Honor, to have Dr. Bayer sitting at this table here in order to be able to follow the direct examination of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: You may have Dr. Bayer sit whereever you think it will best serve your purpose.
DR. GICK: Your Honor, before I begin with the direct examination of the defendant in the witness box, I would like to make the following statement. On the 23 October 1947, I submitted a motion of severence to the Tribunal stating the frequency of the epileptic fits, and the consequence thereof. The American Board of Medical Officers examined Strauch on 11 December 1947, and the result wasthat under given conditions he would not be able to be responsible for his own acts, Strauch's condition has become considerably worse after this.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gick, it is not necessary to go into a discussion of this. You have made your motion, andthe motion is now pending. The defendant is in the courtroom, and I would suggest we immediately proceed to the examination, because the longer time that we expand in discussion, the more energy is being used by the defendants, merely in waiting. So that unless you have something specific to present to the Tribunal to rule upon, it would not be necessary to review the entire history of what has happened up to now.
DR. GICK: It is not my intention, Your Honor to review the entire history. It is merely my intention to explain to the Tribunal that I am still as I always had been of the opinion, as I expressed in my written application that --
THE PRESIDENT: That is just it, you have explained it all in your written application. It isnot necessary to tell us what you told us in the application.
DR. GICK: Your Honor ---- I know ---
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you realize, Dr. Gick, that the longer you talk now, the more of a tension you are developing in the defendant. He is here. The examination has been made. It has been determined that he iscapable of testifying. Let usproceed to the testimony, unless, of course, something comes up which requires a decision. Don't you agree with me?
DR. GICK: Yes, I now agree, Your Honor, to begin with the direct examination, and if the situation should come up. I will put in my comment, which I meant to make before I was stopped.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we don't mean to curtail your statement, but in view of what we are confronted, let's save time. The witness does not need to stand up to take the oath. testify as follows:
JUDGE DIXON: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat the oath 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 while sitting.) BY DR. GICK:
Q. Herr Strauch, are you in the physical condition concerning your health to give an account for yourself today?
A. Yes, I hope that I am able to do it. I have a few difficulties, and I have difficulty in expressing myself, but I hope and any way I shal l try very hard to do so.
Q. Do you know why you are here?
A. Yes, I am here as a defendant in atrial so that -- in a political trial -- against especially which involves a number of especially large number of former people who are former political inmates.
Q. Herr Strauch, I want to start with the direct examination with you as the witness. I wouldlike you to concentrate as well as possible, and I want you to give corresponding answers to the questions so far as it is possible. Do you understand me?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, will you give us your personal particulars?
A. I was born on 17 August 1906.
Q. Where.
A. In Essen.
Q. How old are you then, today?
A. I beg your pardon.
Q. How old are you today?
A. I am today forty-one years old.
Q. What was your last civilian occupation?
A. My last civilian occupation was SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer -I mean, SS-Oberregierungsrat, that is, Senior Government Councillor.
Q. You mean, Senior Government Councillor?
A. Yes.
Q. Oberregierungsrat?
A. Yes.
Q. Please give us a short review concerning your education, and your professional training?
A. I beg your pardon.
Q. I would like you to give me a short description concerning the way you were educated at home, and what professional training and education you have had?
A. I am the son of my father, a worker, and during the war -shortly after the First War, my father became unemployed, and my brother and myself, we did any old work that came along. For instance, myself, I gave coaching-lessons, and, thus, I earned a little money, and I was able to increase my parents! income. I thus was able to support with earnings and to increase a little the earning of my father and brothers. I worked myself, and my brother also worked. My parents worked very hard, and didn't bother about anything else. They always worked very hard, and the work was pretty hard, and they worked pretty hard so I could attend Gymnasium, which isa high school.
Q. Do you mean to say, Herr Strauch, that you always had to work very hard because your parents were not in a position to contribute anything towards your education, is that right?
A. Yes.
Q. What schools did you attend?
A. I first attended Police School -- that is, not Police School, but the elementary school -- that is, the elementary school until the year of nineteen .... I must have to think it over -- I must think it over very hard, until I was nineteen. Until 1906.
Q. 1906?
A. 1906, yes.
Q. I thought you were born in 1906?
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gick, in order to save nervous energy, I don't think that I would tax the witness with questions on precise features of his early education. It isenough that he was educated. He can say in one year what hislast unit of education was, and then we must assume that he participated in all that went before that. BY DR. GICK:
Q. Herr Gick, when did you conclude your studies?
A. I can not put it in that way. May I just give a few details concerning thisfeature.
I was born in 1906, and sofar as I remember, 1906 I went to school, and 1910 I went to high school, the gymnasium; that means that for four years of my training I had four years training of elementary studies, and 1906 until I went to high school.
Q. You mean to say you finished your studies at high school? Did you graduate?
A. Yes, I graduated privately.
Q. You mean up to your graduation examination - you mean to say you earned your living for your studies yourself, is that right? Were you not prevented doing so through your epileptic fits which have become apparent today?
A. No, not at that time. When I studied - when I was partly going to elementary school or high school or to the university, I also worked.
Q. What I mean, did you have any epileptic fits at that time?
A. No, the first epileptic fits I had when I was a child and then in the British Camp that I was in, I think, in Dendorf.
Q. When was that?
A. That was the time --- I must work it out. I joined the forces in 1931 and I was under tremendous nervous strain as conditions were most unfavorable and I was released - and then I was completely released because it was not possible any longer.....
Q. What were you released from?
A. From the hospital.
Q. you mean the hospital of the Prisoner of War Camp?
A. Yes, I was taken to the hospital and I was then released.
Q. I asked you when was that?
A. Yes, I am just trying to recollect.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gick, just a moment, please. I don't think it is necessary to go into the medical history because that history has been thoroughly examined by the medical authorities and that is a part of the record. I would suggest that you immediately proceed to ask him when he entered the SS, if he did, and get right down to the issue. Later on, if we find that it is necessary, then we can go into these other collateral matters.
DR. GICK: Your Honor, I only attach particular value to the witness testifying as to what he remembers in order to clarify the point of his COURT II CASE IX condition.