Q. Witness, continue please.
A. I have only to add that regarding details of the expertizing procedures at the Reich Committee I know nothing, because I was not concerned in that. I know, however, through Bouhler and through Linden that in Reich Committee matters, only first class specialists were used as psychiatric experts.
Q. Witness, I may no doubt conclude from your statements that the correctness of the document submitted by the Prosecution concerning the registry of children you do not deny, and I am referring to the following four documents to which I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal: No.1139, exhibit 346, English Document Book 14, page 149; then No. 1142, Exhibit 347, English Document Book 14, page 150; third, No. 1145, Exhibit 352, English Document Book 14, page 157; and, No. 1146, English Document Book 14, page 172, and with this I conclude the affair of the questionnaires and I shall now deal briefly with the documents which the prosecution have submitted as evidence, that in spite of your statement made today, in spite of Brandt's testimony Jewish insane persons were subjected to euthanasia. By way of Introduction I should like to say that there is a total of seven documents which I should like to touch upon briefly, and then indicate in each case where they were found. Witness, I shall discuss the following documents: please get them ready. No. 1131, No. 1133, No. 1135, No. 1141, No. 1143, No. 1144, No. 1310. Now, will you please comment on the transfer of Jewish insane persons indicated by these documents?
A. First of all I should like to say that document 1136 and No. 720 may have to be mentioned also.
Q. I had intended to deal with that later witness.
A. At the time I did not learn about these transfers. I knew about them in general, just as everyone knew that Jewish patients were to be brought together. All I can say about these documents is not my knowledge from this time, but the result of my examination of these documents. This is all I can say about the various documents. No. 1310, Exhibit 337, this is in Document Vook 17, the German, on page 6.
Q In the English, it is also on page 6.
A This Document shows that the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior on 4 September 1940 reached a decision on the transfer of Jewish mental cases. They were to be transferred from various Bavarian insane asylums and assembled in the Haar Eglfing between 4 and 20 December 1940. On that day the head of the institution reported that these patients had been assembled at Eglfing, they were full-blooded Jews of Polish or German nationalities or stateless Jews. At the same time he reported to the Bavarian State Ministry of the Interior on 20 November 1940 that the patient transport corporation transferred them to a collecting center in Berlin. The list of these Jews was given in Document No. 1135, Exhibit 334.
Q Please give this document to the witness. This is in English document book 14, page 25. We received only a photostat. There on page 17, you will find a list of the Jewish patients and also on page 41 of the document book. Now, does the fact that these patients were transferred by the transfer company indicate that this was also within the frame-work of euthanasia; what do you have to say about that?
A First of all, I can say basically that the patient transport company carried out transports not only for the purpose of euthanasia, but also other transports of patients. I recall the rescue work in the east for wounded, who were transferred from hospitals in danger of air-raids, etc. This transport company, when such transports were to be carried out, received an assignment from the Ministry of the Interior and assigned a transport leader. This man had to be an experienced official, because all kinds of things could happen to such a transport during war time. He might be stuck somewhere for a considerable period of time and the patients would have to be taken care of. He also was given the local assignment by the local agency, such as for example the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior.
Q Now when the transport company took over Germans, was there any certificate, any receipt given?
A Yes, these receipts we have here in Document NO-1135. The official of the transport company gave a certificate, such as we have here with the institute by way of a receipt and thereby he assumed the responsibility for the patients.
Q Witness, I don't have the document here, but is it true that the document says these patients are to be transferred to a Reichs institution?
A Yes, that is what it says. It says that the patients are to be transferred to a Reichs Institution.
Q Mr. President: I should like to point out that not only in Document NO-1135, which the witness is speaking about, but also the document which I mentioned earlier, NO-1133, Exhibit 335, English Document Book 14, page 86 and Document NO-1131, Exhibit 340, English Document Book 14, page 91, contains such certificates.
A Now, there is one note-worthy thing about this document. The names of the insane persons were always listed on a printed form in a numbered transport list, these lists contained the first name, the next name, the place of birth and the date of birth. It contains no reference, however, to nationalities. I pointed out earlier that the benefit of euthanasia was to be given only to German citizens. These documents, NO-1131, Exhibit .....
Q We have already been through that, we don't have to repeat the numbers.
A The names of the Jewish patients, however, which we are talking about here are not on the usual transport list of the transport company, but on usual typing paper. It does not list any place of birth or date of birth either, merely nationalities. One can conclude therefrom that in this case nationalities of the persons to be transferred seemed to be more important to the authorities than the date and place of birth.
Q Just a minute, witness, in this list there are 33 Germans and 2 Poles?
Q And then under 13 there is a Czech citizen, whose name has been crossed out again.
A It has been crossed out here on the original document.
Q Yes, it has been crossed out.
A It says Bohemia and Moravia as citizenship and in the accompanying letter for this transport, sent to the Ministry of the Interior by the Institute Eglfing-Haar, the suggestion was made that this man Bunsel is a citizen of the Protectorate and should be sent to an institute in the Protectorate.
Q Mr. President, this covering letter is in book 17, page 6.
A In other words, the authority of the institute did not consider it permissible for a citizen of the Protectorate to be sent to the same institute as Germans and Polish Jews as this institute was simply not in the Protectorate and the institution must have received corresponding instructions. I should like also to refer to the following on the certificates given to the institution by the heads of the transports, it says expressly upon order of the Reichs Association of Mental institutions. In this letter NO-1310, the institution does not refer to an assignment of the Reichs Association, but simply to the decree of the Bavarian State Ministry of the Interior. In this case of the Jews, who were transferred, the Prosecution has not submitted any certificate by the transfer company. I assume that if such a document were in existance, it would be among the documents here.
Q Now, where did this Jewish transport go?
A That cannot be seen from this document, but from another document. I have been able to assume that Document NO-1141, Exhibit 348, Document Book 14 .........
Q It is in the English document book on page 150.
A From this document one can see that the name Bertha Wertheimer was listed there and she died in Chelm on 3 December 1940.
This Bertha Wertheimer, according to the file-note, was transferred there by the patient transport company. One can therefore conclude that the entire transport went to Chelm.
Q Was Bertha Wertheimer in this transport of 20 December 1940.
A I am sure that it says that. Yes, it is shown that she was also transferred on 20 December.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 o'clock.
(A recess was taken until 1330 Hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 15 May 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
VIKTOR BRACK - Resumed
DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. FROESCHMANN (Counsel for the Defendant Brack):
Q Witness, I remind you that you are still under oath. Let us hurry and try to conclude. Witness, before the noon recess we stopped in the discussion of Document NO1141, Exhibit 348. I asked you where the transport of September 18 - 20 went. You said that from this document NO-1141 you concluded that the transport went to Chelm. Do you have any further comment on this question?
A From the documents 1144, Exhibit 342, Document Book 14, part I, page 57 in the German we see Q In the English that is page 110.
A - that Bertha Weiland frau, NO-1143, Exhibit 343, Document Book 14, part 2, page 65 Q In the English Document Book 14, part I, page 126.
A - that Wilhelm Neumann, Albert Tillmann, Gertrud Oppehheimer, Bertha Heimann, Sophie Wiesengrund and Albert Froehlich, were sent according to the before mentioned decree of the Bavarian Ministry of the Interior, on the 20th of September 1940, from the institution Eglfing. Of these, Gertrud Oppenheimer is contained in the list on page 17 of Document NO-1135, number 9. And the list of the Document Book 12, part III, NO-720, Exhibit 366, page 163.
Q This document NO-720 is in the English Document Book 14 on page 243.
A The other names are not contained in this list, but are in the lists previously mentioned. I do not know, but I conclude it from these documents, that on the 20th of September 1940 there were other transports leaving EglfingHaar.
We have no lists of them, at least they have not been submitted. I must conclude that a transport went to Chelm on this day; that in Chelm there was an observation or euthanasia institution is completely unknown to me and I certainly would have learned it, because I knew the names of the six euthanasia institutions. The assumption of the prosecution, that the persons who were removed from Eglfing-Haar on 20 September 1940, the 191 Jewish men and women were subjected to euthanasia, is incorrect and is refuted by what I just explained.
Q Witness, you remember that the witness, Dr. Pfannmueller said that he learned later that these Jewish insane patients were sent to Lublin. You have already said that you knew nothing whatever about all these matters, that only now from examining the documents you have reached these conclusions. It is almost superfluous to ask, did you know then the name Lublin. Do you know that Jewish insane patients were sent there?
A No, I knew nothing of that.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I have covered the documents submitted by the prosecution dealing with what persons were effected by euthanasia. Now I come to the final subject of the so-called euthanasia program and I shall deal in outline only with the course and the stopping of euthanasia.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Witness, you have already said that the questionnaires received were sent to T-4 and that they separated those referring to foreigners. These questionnaires were not photostated and were not sent to the experts, that only the remaining questionnaires, that is, those which did not refer to foreigners and Jews, were photostated and sent to the exports.
I need not go into the details that were given by the witness Pfannmueller concerning the filling out and the judging of the questionnaires. I had originally intended, as in the case of Pfannmueller, to show you one or two questionnaires, not for you to judge them from the medical point of view but from the purely administrative point of view. I believe, however, that this matter has been cleared up so thoroughly that the prosecution will see no cause in cross examination to deal with the subject, and, consequently, I shall not need to show you the questionnaires which I have filled out by Dr. Pfannmueller. I shall merely ask, you heard the testimony of Doctor Pfannmueller concerning the judging of the questionnaires, the plus or minus sign, or question mark. Do you have anything to add to this testimony?
A No, I have nothing to add. The explanation of the witness Pfannmueller was quite thorough.
Q And is it correct that the cases designated as positive, that is by a "plus" by the chief expert, were sent to Linden's office, and that Linden's office ordered the transfer of these patients to an observation institution by orders to the transport company?
A Yes, that is true.
Q Do you know whether the doctor in charge after the period of observation submitted a report?
A I don't know how that was managed I only know that the Chief Experts were in constant contact with authorized doctors in the observation institutions concerning the selection of the patients under observation there.
Q Is it true again that after the period of observation Linden's office again issued instructions to the transport company and thus arranged for the transfer of the patients to a euthanasia institution?
A Yes, I mentioned that briefly yesterday.
Q Is it true that at the same time a photostat of the opinion of the chief expert was sent to the euthanasia institution?
A In each case a photostat was sent to the euthanasia institution because when the people arrived the photostat had to be compared with the personal data and the case history.
Q I can conclude then that the case history and personal files were also sent to the euthanasia doctor?
A Yes, of course, he needed them for the final opinion of the patient. He would not have been able to see that from the condition of the patient alone. He needed the case history.
Q And now to conclude this subject, I ask you whether you can confirm what the witness, Dr. Pfannmueller has said, that the euthanasia doctor who united everything in his hands, who had the patient, the case history, the personal records, and the final medical decision as to whether this patient was to be subjected to euthanasia, or whether he was to be returned to an observation institution or to his original institution, is that correct?
A The final responsibility lay with the executing doctor who had an absolutely unlimited veto right.
Q Now, Mr. Brack, since I have dealt with this chapter thoroughly with you, I can assume that as this morning you did not doubt the report on children contained in the documents, you will also not wish to deny the correctness of the documents submitted by the Prosecution concerning the transfer of insane persons from the fall of 1939 until August 1941?
A I cannot deny the accuracy of these documents.
Q For the information of the Tribunal and of the Prosecution I remark that the documents which the defendant does not wish to contest are the following seven documents which I shall read briefly:
NO. 1133, Exhibit 335, English Document Book 14, page 86: NO1131, Exhibit 340, document book 14, page 93; NO. 1132, Exhibit 341, English Document Book 14, page 100; NO-1134, Exhibit 344, English document book 14, page 136; NO. 817, Exhibit 368, English document book 14, page 254; NO. 827, Exhibit 375, English document book 14, page 269, and the final document is NO. 826, Exhibit No. 346, English document book No. 14, page 208. Mr. Brack, the same answer which you have just given me concerning the transfer of insane no doubt applies also to the documents concerning the sending of questionnaires to the experts and sending them back to the Reich Working Union?
A Yes, I do not deny their accuracy.
Q I am speaking here only of two documents which I should like to bring to the attention of the Tribunal. These are NO. 1129, Exhibit 354, English Document Book 14, page 179, and No. 1130, Exhibit 344, English document book 14, page 188, witness, concerning document NO. 1136, Exhibit 345, of which the defense counsel has only a photostatic copy and which I was unable to find in the English document book. Do you wish to make any modification? Do you have the document?
A Yes, I have it. Yes, the Prosecutor apparently by mistake said that 1857 patients were removed from the Eglfing-Haar institution on one day and that report is an error on the part of the prosecution, because this number 1857 appearing in column 4 of the document is the total of all patients removed from Eglfing-Haar. This is from the document itself and this column 4 contains the total of the individual figures given in column 3.
Q Mr. President, I consider this statement important only because the Prosecution and the Tribunal might come to the mistaken impression that on one day from one institution nearly 2000 insane persons were transferred. That would, of course, throw a very peculiar light on the testimony of the witness Pfannmueller, which otherwise at least in my opinion is quite credible. The Prosecution has just kindly brought to my attention that document No. 1136 is in the English document book 14, on page 147. Witness, I conclude the questions about the documents of Pfannmueller. Now in the execution of euthanasia a number of abuses arose which lead to applications and complaints from various private persons and authorities. Will you please comment on how these complaints were dealt with and also tell us about what complaints you learned of, especially the ones which were submitted by the Prosecution.
Q It is a matter of course that when a number like fifty to sixty thousand persons were subjected to euthanasia, a new cause of death could not be invented for each individual. There aren't that many causes of death, but because of the secrecy the true cause of death could not be given to the relatives and it was unavoidable that in certain areas such as in Wurttemberg where the population are very much inter-related, announcements with the same cause of death might be received more than once by the same family. These things, regrettable as they were, were the necessary consequence of the secrecy, which we disliked, and the relatives in part were able to check up on these things immediately. I remember the very regrettable case when the cause of death was given as appendicitis although the appendix had been removed long before that. I cannot doubt the accuracy of the documents submitted by the Prosecution in this respect.
Q Mr. President, there are three documents concerned here, No. 828, Exhibit 361, English document book 14, page 228, also PS 628, Exhibit 362, English document book 14, page 233 and No.840, Exhibit 363 in the English document book 14, page 235, Please continue witness.
A I cannot deny that euthanasia under the execution of euthanasia gradually became an open secret, and thus, many parts of the population developed a feeling of legal insecurity. This is especially clear, in the matter of the Head of the Institution Statta, that is No. 520, exhibit 347, in document book 14, part 3 page 199, in the German. In this letter to the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Schleich speaks of this feeling of legal insecurity.
Q Mr. President, the document which the defendant just mentioned is in the English document book 14, page 267.
A It is equally regrettable that expedient measures were often taken -- purely technical measures, such as in transport, transfers, as shown by document D 906, exhibit 376, in document book 14, part 3 page 192.
Q English document book 14, page 271.
AAnd from document NO. 665, exhibit 378, document book 14, part 3 page 218.
Q English document book 14 page 296-
A But one must not forget that is as is generally the case, with such matters, secrecy caused wild rumors that those rumors continued to grow. One of these documents, for example, contains the completely untrue assertion that two urns were sent to some relatives--that is only not true, but this case which created a great sensation at the time, had to be investigated very carefully at the time on order of Bouhler, and it was found that it was absolutely untrue and that the relatives concerned had considered the package of values which were sent to them after death as urn, and was not unpacked, and when the urn arrived the rumor spread that they had received two urns.
Q Witness, I should like to interrupt for a moment. We need not go into great detail on the individual shortcomings with the documents now. You have stated that these things were as disagreeable to you and Bouhler, and others concerned as to any one, and that wild rumors arose which gave rise to assertion that people were being murdered, indescrimi nately, But now, I should like to know from you what position Bouhler took to these complaints caused by these unfortunates circumstances?
A Bouhler wanted all such complaints shown to himself, personally, as far as possible. That was not always possible, but in general that happened. To see how carefully these things were dealt with can be seen by the fact that Dr. Schumann, who, as head of euthanasia institution at that time, asked, for instructions as to what he was to say to a complaint he had in regard to two sisters who had died. This letter is not in the German document book. It was asked on 13 January 1947, to No. 906, exhibit 367, document book 1e, part 3, pages 191 - 216- in the English document book 14, page 271. This letter shows that Hevelmann, one of my associates, was interested in this complaints, that was on Bouhler's instructions and that is also shown by the same document, that Dr. Linden answered this letter and took care of the matter.
Q How were those complaints dealt with? Please distinguish between complaints from Government agencies and complaints from Church authorities?
A Complaints from private persons were not sent to the Tiergartenstrasse 4, which was not known, but they were sent to Euthanasia Institutions. If the director and personnel of these Institutions could not settled the matter satisfactorily, then it was sent on to T-4 with a request for a decision; then it was a simple matter, they took care of it or if it was something complicated or basic, it was reported to the Reichsleiter Bouhler. Complaints from official agencies, for example authorities of justice, no matter where they were sent, were always passed on to the Reichsleiter Bouhler, we took care of them or gave the necessary instructions. For example, complaints sent to the Reich Ministry of Justice, as we learned later, were sent first to the Reich Chancellory and from there to the Ministry of Interior, And only form there the Ministry of Interior, did Bouhler learn about them. That was changed when Bouhler concluded and agreement with Guertner, that these matters were to be turned over to him directly.
Q Mr. President, the complaints by the Justice officials are summed up in eight documents. I shall again list them for the information of the Tribunal. They are:
PS 626, exhibit 381, English Document book 15, page 8 PS 622, exhibit 384, English document bock 15, page 12, No. 836, exhibit 385, English document book 15, page 17 PS 6l8, exhibit 386, English document book 15 page 20, No 838, exhibit 388, English document book, 15, page 28, No, 844, exhibit 389, English document book 15 page 31, No, 845, exhibit 390, English document book 15, page 34, and PS 681, exhibit 397, English document book 15, page 51.
A Complaints from the church, Protestant as well as the Catholic church could not be dealt with because of a basic instruction of Hitler 's but had to be turned over to the Reich Chancellory. These complaints of Catholic Church leaders led to a detailed discussion between the representative of the Catholic Church, Bishop Vinken and because of the opposing view of Hitler in this question, no agreement was reached at that time between the Ministry of Interior and the Catholic Church. Bouhler tried very hard to reach some adjustments and took advantages of this turn to speak to Hitler and tried to have the law passed, but again, Hitler refused. And I personally believe that the failure of these attempsts to reach an agreement with the Catholic Church was the reason why Hitler ordered the stop in August 1941.
Q Mr. President: the complainst of the Church authorities are contained in six documents, which I shall list for the information of the Tribunal, No. 189, exhibit 398, English document book 15, page 56 second No 115 exhibit 407, English document book 15, page 157; third No. 623, exhibit 400, English document book 15, page 157, No. 846, exhibit 401, English document book 15, page 158, PS 615, exhibit 402, English document book 15, page 166, and PS 616, exhibit 403, English document book 15, page 168.
Witness, what happened in August 1941, when Euthanasia was stopped?
A The news of the order of Hitler to stop was transmittal by Brandt. In response to this order I informed Tiergartenstrasse, 4, immediately, probably Prof. Nietsche and Allers in this case, and I saw to it that all euthanasia institutions, and all euthanasia doctors learned of this order of Hitler. As sooned as the order was received Euthanasia stopped completely. After some time Bouhler learned that no early resumption of Euthanasia was to be expected and he retuned to euthanasia institutions to their owners, and the superfluous personnel were either to their former positions, or were dismissed.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I have completed the evidence in regard to the so-called Euthanasia program by examining the defendant Brack. In this connection, the documents, which I have sofar, all that remains is to submit one document that I forgot to submit this morning when I was speaking of the legality of Hitler's decree. That is Document 35, in my Document Book 12, on page 52, which I offer as Brack Exhibit No. 38. This is the affidavit of Dr. Werner Best, of the 18th of February, 1947, which is certified by me. The witness Best in this affidavit states, on the base of his superior knowledge that a Fuehrer decree or a Fuehrer order was regarded at all times as law, and that he had the power, to change, or to repeal any law, he pointed out that the Reich Cabinet had not been meeting for a long time, and that a law had developed this way so that, not only the government people, but the general population, were convinced that Hitler had the right to issue such decrees.
Now I come to the final chapter of my case. That is, the Euthanasia problem as seen from the point of view of the defendant toward this problem-because it is my opinion that the motives of the defendant may have decisive influence on the question of whether he actually committed some offense, in the judgment of the tribunal - I believe that this evidence which I shall attempt to make very brief cannot be denied the defendant.
Q Witness, you have, very thoroughly, discussed with me all points, of the Euthanasia program.
I have already asked you once, how it happened that you, as a man who had never had anything to do with such things before, and were a simple administrative official of Bouhler, considered yourself justified in collaborating in Euthanasia as a problem. I do not want any repetitions, any points that you have already discussed you may leave them out. I have gathered from your testimony that you realized that the problem was, first of all, a medical problem, and that legal considerations were involved, that complaints count from the churches - objections made from the point of view of religion, and that these complaints concerned the humane point of view. From these four points of view: legal, medical, theological, and humanitarian, ... I want to ask you a very few questions. At that time.. I emphasize "at that time"...did you think about these questions?
A Of course, I thought about these questions at that time. You yourself, in the examination of witnesses, have asked questions designated to illuminate this point of view, - but at the very beginning I would like to say that I, in my way of thinking, and my simple training am in no position to answer questions on the intellectual level of the witness Prof. Leibbrandt. I ask you to take this into consideration.
Q I should be glad to do so and keep my question simple, and on the level that a layman can understand. You have already said that according to the development of the German legal state from 1933 to 1939 you had no doubt of Hitler's authority to issue decrees, orders, with the force of law. Is that correct?
Q In your opinion, can a state issue a law to the effect, that incurably insane persons can be given a mercy death -- that is, that life may be shortened?
A I said this morning that first I had no worries at all about a the legal possibilities. First of all, I am not a lawyer, in the second place I considered the decree perfectly legal. Later, I heard from jurists, and read the writings of Binding-Hoche, and Ebermayer, and I was convinced that a state has the right to pass such a law.
And I remember at that time having read that some states in the United States, were said to have such an Euthanasia law. I remember only the name Nebraska. In England there are several societies trying to have a Euthanasia law passed, and in Switzerland too, such efforts have been going on for about twenty years.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, I offer as evidence of the correctness of the statement just made by the defendant, from my document book, 2, Document 32, on page 16, "Euthanasia in England" - that is an article of the year 1936 concerning the opinion of the british public at that time.
MR. HOCWALD: The prosecution objects to the admission of this document. First of all it is immaterial, What has been spoken, in 1936 in England, has nothing to do with the case before the trial. In the second place, this document is by no means an information from a british source. It is just something which was published in a German official organ; but I cannot see who translated it, who edited it, who gave a personal opinion on it. I do not know whether that is what was said in England, really. Germany was in 1936, under the Hitler regime, The official publications were governed by porpaganda, and I am unable to say that what is said to have happened in England, really happened in England. This is by no means in English publication.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Mr. President, we Germans are of course, dependent on the publications given to us by the competent authorities. I point out that this is a work called, "German Justice-" administration of justice and legal policy, which was also an official paper, issued by the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, not by Schlegelberger. Then on the basis of reports received from English newspapers, this publication points out that in England there were efforts, discussions, meetings, and so forth. Precisely because of its year of publication, 1936, a time when there was yet no idea of Euthanasia in Germany, it seems to me essential to confirm the testimony of the witness Brack, by the fact that three years before there existed similar efforts in other countries.
Therefore, I ask that the objection of the prosecution not be unheld.
JUDGE SEBRING: Witness, your attorney had referred to Brack Exhibit No. 32, appearing on page 16 of the Brack Document Book II, in English. Are you familiar with that exhibit?
JUDGE SEBRING: When is the first time the text matter that appears in Brack Document No. 32 came to your attention?
A This is the first time that I received the document. From my studies of literature which I spoke of at the beginning of my testimony, but from what individual pieces of literature I do not recall, I knew the writings of Lord Moneyham who was the representative of such a movement. I know that in England such bills have got as far as Parliament and in my pre-interrogation I stated, and Prosecution will have to corraborate this, that I brought his attention to the English efforts in the question of Euthanasia. I did that at a time that I have not had the opportunity since then to see this document.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection to this being offered in evidence is sustained. The document will not be received in evidence.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Then, I shall dispense with putting in Document 31 in Document Book II which is an article from the Times.
A I beg your pardon, I thought the President decided the document was accepted in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection was sustained. The document will not be received in evidence.
BY DR. FROESCHMANN:
Q Witness, you just answered in the affirmative the question that, in your opinion, the State has the right to pass laws that incurable mentally ill persons shall be given a mercy death. Did you assume the same in Hitler's case?
A Yes. Hitler was Chief of State in Germany. I spoke about that this morning and I should assume that Hitler knew of this basic work by Binding-Hoche and concurred in their opinion, and arrogated to him self the right to make ethical grounds and reason for this decree.