(The witness was excused and withdrew from the courtroom.)
(The Tribunal then adjourned until 0930 hours, 23 May 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 23 May, 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Marshall presiding
THE MARSHALL: Tho Honorable the Judges of Military Tribunal 3.
Military Tribunal 3 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, you will please ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the court room with the exception of defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Defendant Engert has been excused temporarily at his own request, and proper notation will be made.
DR. KOWSSL: (Counsel for Defendant Rothaug): May it please the Court, I have been informed that the first witness who will be summoned is the witness Mr. Karl Mayer. This witness has given an affidavit which is in document book 3-1, Document NG 469, Exhibit No.231.
DR. KARL MAYER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Will you raise your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak tho pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE BRAND: You may be seated.
DR. KOESSL: May I begin my cross examination?
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Please state your full name and your profession.
A Dr. Karl Mayer, Lawyer.
Q. Witness, in your affidavit you are speaking of the con duct of a trial by Roghaug.
A. I did not understand the question, counsel.
Q. Witness, in your affidavit you are speaking about the conduct of a trial by Rothaug. Would you please tell the Tribunal what you think of the conduct of a trial by Rothaug? What is your opinion of it?
A. Landgericht director Rothaug, District Court Director Rothaug was a judge who applied the National Socialist laws in the National Socialist manner. I got to know his manner of conducting a trial during numerous cases where I was defense counsel before the Special Court in Nurenberg, and I personally, during the first time about 1934 or 1935 once had a very serious clash with him when I got my point of view through. During the succeeding years I had the impression that he treated me with a certain amount of respect and that it was possible for me to conduct the defense in such a way as under the special political circumstances of the Reich during the Third Reich it was possible at all to conduct it. That is, it was limited in any case. That District Court Director Rothaug during that conduct of trials actually acted contrary to the law, I could not find. But I believe that the decisions which he made were according to the National Socialist laws as they happened to be and could be justified as such. That is what I want to say about the decisions. In regard to the conduct of the trial itself, it is my opinion that as far as the defendant and the defense counsel are concerned, he should have left more leeway for them and that frequently he was too strict in the conduct of a trial, but I do not want to say that he actually violated the code of procedure as it was at the time. And in order to give an opinion on the whole, if I are permitted to do so, I would like to say that in my opinion the special hatred which District Court Director Rothaug caused among the German people and here in Nurenburg in particular, was based less perhaps on the fact that he applied the Nazi laws in tho Nazi manner or Nazi sense, but that it was based rather upon the form in which he treated the defendants and sometimes also the defense counsel.
Q. Witness-
A. For other judges, too pronounced similar sentences in similar cases and one could not find out that these other judges were hated equally as much as District Court Director Rothaug.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, I don't want to be critical of your examination, of course, but it would be desirable if you would direct those questions more specifically than to just ask the general question which would call for a lenghty answer, if you can.
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, did Rothaug cut off an explanation that you wanted to offer which was obviously legal, and did he do so unjustly, over?
A. I believe that he tried to do so once, in the case which I mentioned already before at the beginning of the Third Reich. During later years I cannot remember such a case any more and I don't believe that it happened, either.
Q. Did Rothaug let the defendants make necessary statements?
A. I cannot remember such a case.
Q. You mean a case in which he limited the defendants' statements?
A. A case in which such a thing happened within the meaning of a behavior contrary to the legal code of procedure I don't know. I am only saying that speaking from a purely human point of view he should perhaps have given the defendant more leeway to make his statements.
Q. Did you have occasion to reopen a case?
A. In no case.
Q. Did you observe that Roghaug distorted the facts and stated them incorrectly?
A. That I did not observe either.
Q. Did Rothaug, because of your political opinion, make it difficult for you to perform your duty?
A. I believe that Rothaug knew that I was of a different political opinion and conviction than he and National Socialism altogether. People know me, after all, in this building. But I have to say that personally he never put difficulties in my way. I believe in one case he even wanted to help me once when he was of the erroneous opinion that I myself was in danger of being politically persecuted.
Q. Did you set to know a case in which Rothaug brought about political disadvantages for others because of their political opinions?
A I don't know anything about that.
q Did you find that Dr. Rothaug just respected you because of your behavior?
A I have already stated that I made my point with him, and I believe that in individual cases I was also successful with my defense when he was presiding judge. I remember especially the case of the Protestant pastor Nothnagel in Nurnberg who because of his defeatist statements during the war was indicted here and I defended him and I succeeded after a very difficult trial of three days. I succeeded in having this Protestant Minister Nothnagel acquitted by the Special Court under Rothaug.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, speak a little more slowly. It's hard for the translator to keep up with you. Just a little more slowly, if you can.
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q How did Rothaug treat you, witness, when as defense counsel you went to his office for official reasons outside of the session?
A I can only say that when I personally came to his office, he could be surprisingly friendly and conciliatory, quite contrary to the manner in which he behaved during the court sessions.
Q Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
DR. SCHUBERT: Schubert for the defendant Oeschey. May I continue the cross examination, Your Honor?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q Witness, you mention in your affidavit two cases in which you were defense counsel before the defendant Oeschey. One of these two cases is the case of Praun, a man who was tried because of his remarks which he made against the Third Reich, and whose case later went to the People's Court because it was regarded as undermining of military morale.
Witness, do you still remember what remarks Herr Von Praun made?
A I still remember the following remark by Herr von Praun. The first one I remember with certainty; the rest of the remarks I have to reserve to say that I may be in error. Herr von Praun lived in Ansbach near Nurnberg, and during a very heavy air attack on the city of Nurnberg in August 1943, he, together with other persons, were in the air raid shelter of his house. Herr von Praun is from a very prominent Nurnberg patrician family who still owned houses in Nurnberg which were very old and valuable, and he was particularly affected by the sight of burning Nurnberg. And now in sight of this burning city of Nurnberg he said, "Herr Goering too can no longer help us. Only God can help now." That was his first remark. Then he was reproached with having said "The so-called new weapons which were being discussed all the time in Germany were merely propaganda." Finally, he mentioned that between Hitler on the one hand, and I believe Goering on the other hand, very great difference of opinion existed. I believe that I am not mistaken in regard to the last two remarks either, but in view of the great number of cases which I had to defend it is not quite impossible that I am a little bit mixed up with another case, but I don't believe so.
Q Dr. Mayer, did I understand you correctly that you said that the airraid was directed not at Ansbach where Herr von Praun was, but was made on Nurnberg?
A The air attack was concentrated on Nurnberg, and as far as I know, not a single bomb fell in Ansbach.
Q Dr. Mayer, was Herr von Praun at the time known as an enemy of the then government?
A I believe that I can answer that question with "Yes." I can briefly state the reasons for my answer. Herr von Praun was a man who never in his life said, "Heil Hitler." Therefore, when he had even been summoned to the Regierungs President in order to justify this, and when this man because of the remarks for which he was charged was summoned to the Gestapo, he entered the office of the Gestapo with the words, "Von Praun reporting as ordered". The Gestapo officials were of course surprised about this, and at the conclusion of the interrogation, when Herr von Praun was again discharged, they greeted him with "Heil Hitler, Herr von Praun."
Herr von Praun replied, "May God keep you." Thus from this story, which I heard from him, I believe that I am justified in saying that this man really not one single time said "Heil Hitler," and that he was known for this.
Q Witness, were these remarks made in the air raid shelter?
A Partly in the air raid shelter and partly outside.
Q Herr von Praun, after the case had been referred to the People's Court, then in the prison committed suicide, is that correct?
A I know that Herr von Praun, after the case had been turned over to the People's Court, met his death in prison. I was told that he hanged himself; I believe, on the end of his bed.
Q After the trial, did you speak to Herr von Praun again?
A In this trial in which District Court Director Oeschey was presiding judge, there were some very unpleasant incidents.
Q Witness, excuse me if I interrupt you. I did not ask you about the trial, but I asked you whether after the trial, that is, after this decision had been made, this referral to the other court, did you again speak to Herr von Praun?
A Yes, I just wanted to start to tell you about this. Herr von Praun , when this decision had been announced that the case would be referred to the People's Court, was under the impression that his case had taken a turn for the worse. He came toward me and said, "Counsel, this means death. Please give my regards to my wife." I said, "Herr von Praun, please calm yourself. I shall visit you in prison and we shall discuss the case." I did visit him and I tried to encourage him and I told him, "Worse than you were treated here by the Special Court in Nurnberg, you can not be treated by the People's Court either.
On the contrary, I am convinced that your case will not even remain at the People's Court, but as a so-called less serious case, will be handed over to the District Court of Appeals in Munich. And in Munich, there is quite a different atmosphere than in Nurnberg." I knew that the former Reich Minister of Justice, if I am not mistaken, Emminger, who was a prominent member of the Bavarian People's Party - Volkspartei - that he belonged to the court there in Munich, and in Munich you can expect a more calm and better treatment in the trial.
Q Witness, did the defendant on that occasion tell you of a clash which he had with a prison official?
A That was not on this occasion. But I then visited Herr von Praun once more and while after the first visit I had the impression that I succeeded in calming von Praun, now when I visited him for the second time I found him again without composure. And I said, "Well, Herr von Praun, what happened now again?" He told me that he had addressed himself to Regierungsrat Schaumann, who was in charge or was the second man in charge of this investigating prison, with the request that he should be permitted to obtain the documents necessary for certain tax declarations which he was in the habit of doing already for years; that they should be given to him in jail. These were the tax statements of several old ladies from his circle of relatives who could not do it themselves, and of some family foundations of the family von Praun.
Herr von Praun made this request to the Regierungsrat Schaumann, whom I mentioned, and according to what Herr von Praun told me, this request was refused with the words -- you are a criminal, and you are not allowed to make any tax declarations at all any more, but at that time Herr von Praun had not been sentenced yet. The wife of von Praun who visited him also at about the same time told me the same story; also Herr von Praun had told her this same instance, only with the difference that Regierungsrat Schaumann, government counselor Schaumann, said -- not only was supposed to have said -- you are not only a criminal, but you are a penitentiary jail-bird and a criminal. About this despicable treatment, Herr von Praun was of course excited, aroused, and I had great difficulty calming him again. I told him -- Herr von Praun, you will get your documents for the tax statements. I shall see to it that you get them, and I also made, a written application immediately to the Prison Administration and asked to grant von Praun's request.
Q Dr. Mayer, when did von Praun commit suicide -- immediately after this argument; can you state that still; do you remember it still?
A Unfortunately I cannot state it exactly any more, but as far as I remember, at least eight days that expired before he did.
Q Just a moment, eight days expired between what?
A Between my last visit and the death of Herr von Praun.
Q And the death of Herr von Praun-
A But I will have to emphasize again I cannot make any exact dates because I do not know now.
Q How many days expired between the trial and his death?
A That was even longer.
Q Was Herr Von Praun nervous; was he neurotic?
A Whether he was neurotic, I cannot say, but I only know that Herr von Praun was in delicate health; for instance, from the time of his birth, he was suffering from deformations of his vocal cords, or he was lacking a vocal cord, and, therefore, he could only talk with a rough, hoarse and toneless voice; and moreover, on his entire body he had insufficient skin.
I believe that part of his skin, which the healthy person has, was lacking in his case, and this led again and again to circulation difficulties and disturbances of his general well being. I also spoke recently with his former prison chaplain, Reinhold, who came to my office and that was when we eventually happened to discuss the case of von Praun, and Mr. Reinhold knew Herr von Praun: as his chaplain he could visit Herr von Praun, and the chaplain did visit him much more often than I, and he stated that Herr von Praun had very weak nerves.
Q Witness, a final question. Here you criticize quite generally the harshness of the presiding judges of the special court; the two presiding judges. Do you know of any case of the defendant Oeschey in which you were defense counsel, and in which the sentence was, by way of the nullity plea, changed because it was too lenient?
A Would you please repeat this question; I didn't understand it very well.
Q I pointed out, witness, that in your affidavit you criticized the harshness of the sentences pronounced by Rothaug and Oeschey, and they I asked you whether you defended a case before Oeschey in which the sentence which Oeschey pronounced was regarded as too lenient by the Reich Court and it was cancelled?
A If I may reserve the possibility that perhaps my memory is mistaken, but with this reservation I can speak about a case in which as man was living here, or in Furth, and I can't remember his name any more was charged, because to have stolen a considerable extent of food, tobacco and luxury goods -- from an office of the Wehrmacht, he was working in this office himself. This man was first of all sentenced by the Special Court here to a long term prison sentence, and I believe that I am not mistaken if I say that the District Court Director Oeschey was presiding judge in this sentence.
Q Witness, may I interrupt you once? May not that have been the case named Bosch?
A That was the case Bosch. Now, I remember the name. Well, one can find out from the files in that case whether I am mistaken, and I believe that in this case District Court Director Oeschey, during the first trial which ended with a prison sentence, was presiding judge.
Q The sentence was then canceled?
A Yes. Then the so-called nullity plea was filed by the Oberreichsanwalt of the Reich Supreme Court; the Reich Supreme Court revoked the sentence because it was too lenient, it was said to be too lenient, and the case had to be tried again at the Special Court here; and in this trial, when I was defense counsel for this man, this man was sentenced to death; and, as far as I know, the sentence was executed.
Q Who was the presiding judge in this second trial?
A Unfortunately I cannot remember that any more, but it wasn't Oeschey. I don't believe so.
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect examination of this witness?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, there is not.
BY JUDGE BRAND: May I ask one question of the witness? This question comes from the bench; I realize it is hard for you to tell.
Q As I understood you, the case von Praun was one in which the trial was commenced in the Special Court, and was then transferred by an order of the People's Court. Did I understand that correctly?
AAre you addressing this question to me?
Q Yes.
AAnd may I ask you to repeat this question? I didn't understand it very well.
Q Von Praun was first put on trial in the Special Court; was he not?
A Yes.
Q And the case was transferred before a sentence was pronounced to a People's Court?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell me what the reason -- the legal reason -- was for that transfer? I am merely trying to understand the procedure.
A Yes.
Q Not the facts -- but just the legal theory on which the transfer was made.
A Yes, I understand. There were two laws according to which the same remarks could be punished, according to their seriousness. The one law was the so-called malicious acts law, and the other law was for punishment of the so-called undermining of the military morale -- defensive strength. In the case of von Praun the question was from the very beginning whether he would be indicted because of the malicious attacks, malicious acts, or because of undermining of the German defensive strength. In all of these cases the files had first to be sent to the Reich Ministry of Justice in Berlin, and there it was decreed whether any indictment should be filed altogether. There were cases of violations of the malicious acts law which were not indicted at all upon orders of the Ministry of Justice; that was a breaking of the official principles. Because I that the matter was dangerous for von Praun, I went to Berlin and discussed the case in the Reich Ministry of Justice with a competent specialist or expert working in that field, a Landgerichtsdirector whose name I don't remember any more, and I tried to achieve that von Praun would not be indicted because of undermining of the defensive strength in from of the People's Court, but only because of malicious acts crimes would be indicted before the Special Court.
Q I see.
A The Landgerichtsdirector led me to understand that he wanted to have the file returned to the Special Court in Nurnberg with the order to prosecute according to the Ministry's malicious acts law; or more correctly, that he would return it to the prosecution with the order to file an indictment before the Special Court because of crimes against the malicious acts laws; that the court, however, in accordance with the result of the trial, if it should be convinced that it was not a malicious act, but undermining of defensive strength, the court should turn it over to the People's Court, and that is what happened during the trial.
JUDGE BRAND: That is my only question, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further direct examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I have one question, your Honor and that is:
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Dr. Mayer, in view of the question that the Tribunal just asked you, would you care to recount briefly what your reasons were for thinking that Oeschey transferred the case to the People's Court on religious grounds, as you stated in your affidavit?
A I did not understand the last words of your question.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Court, I object to this question. The question has nothing to do with the cross examination. I merely asked the witness about the case von Praun. I merely asked him about the relation which von Praun made, and about what happened after the conclusion of the trial, but nothing about the trial itself, and about the reasons which lead to the transfer to the People's Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
The witness may be excused.
(The witness was excused and withdrew from the courtroom.)
Dr. Kunz, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Q Will you hold up your right hand and repeat this 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 repeated the oath.)
JUDGE BLAIR: You may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL (For defendant Rothaug): We are concerned with the document NG 531 in document book 3-I, exhibit 233.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not know the name of the witness?
DR. KOESSL: I shall ask for his name immediately. He is the witness Kunz.
Q Witness, please state your full name and tell us your profession.
A Dr. Kunz Gustav, physician in Nurnberg, formally I was physician at the court.
Q Witness, from 1929 until 1945, you were uninterruptedly the leading court physician in Nurnberg; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q What were the names of the other three physicians who were subordinate to you?
AAt the end there was Dr. Schumader, Dr. Baur and Dr. Schneller.
Q What was your official position toward the authorities of the administration of justice and the positions of the other physicians; how was it regulated?
AActually, we were not officials of the administration of the judiciary, but we were not officials of the administration of justice. We were officials of the administration.
Q To whom were you subordinate, officially?
A To the Ministry of Interior.
Q In what official relationship was the rest of the court physicians to you?
A There was not a relationship of subordination with the exception of the physician who was appointed as our assistant, Dr. Baur, who later on, however, also became an official physician. The most of the time when he was with me, however, he was subordinate; he was our assistant. Toward the rest of the gentlemen, I was actually not a superior. I was in charge of the court physicians service.
Q Were there any directives on the part of your superior office or other offices regarding the type cf psychiatric opinions for the court's purpose, and what is the names of the directives, the official names?
A There were no directives. The instructions for the psychiatric experts opinions went generally to the court physicians. I then established a certain scheme, a certain key according to which the cases were divided.
The cases which were more serious, which required a special expert opinion after general observation, were then handed to a Psychiatric Department to a type of clinical institute which was subordinate to me, and where I was working alone. Into this institute -
Q Talk a little more slowly, please.
A Yes. In this department, however, cases not only from Nurnberg, from the court here came, but also cases from the District Court of Appeals, district Bamberg, Wuerzburg, and so on.
Q You have already described that, I believe. In what stage of the trial was the court physician generally called?
A That was different in different cases.
Q Please, as a rule?
AAs a rule, he was called after the conclusion of the pre-trial investigation.
Q Did the expert's written opinions -- were they not regularly asked for by the prosecutor?
A I believe all of them were requested by the public prosecutor.
Q Witness, do you know what significance these expert opinions had for the trial?
A I do not understand the question, quite.
Q I mean, were the written expert opinions made a basis of the sentence directly?
A No, I made these expert opinions. These written expert opinions I regarded as temporary opinions, which in many cases I changed during the trial. Often I stated the opposite entirely after the result of the evidence. It was, as I would like to say, a temporary expert opinion. There were cases in which they waved the oral confirmation of this expert opinion, and in which the written expert opinion was made the basis of the opinion, but these were cases in which it was impossible that I or any other doctor could appear in the trial.
Q The written expert opinion thus had only informational value?
A Certainly.
Q And, could not replace the oral examination of the experts?
A No, not in general. The expert opinion, the written expert opinion, was also not made under oath. The oath was taken merely for the oral opinion, expert opinion.
Q I guess you have known the defendant Rothaug already since 1929?
A I believe I have known him even longer, he was active here first as prosecutor, and then, he was transferred, as far as I remember to Schweinfurt, and he returned again. Thus I -- in any case he had been here, and I believe long before the Nazi government.
Q Witness, do you remember that the method of examination of Rothaug at the jury court and at the Special Court was the same?
A I believe that there was a certain difference which existed; that the general note, that is the experience, if I may use that expression, in the activities of the Special Court was somewhat more sharp one than at the jury court, and the court of assizes.
Q Can you still remember a case from 1930 in which a man, a carpenter, raped his own daughter?
A I do not believe I was present at such a case.
Q Do you still remember a case which happened during the war in which Professor Merkl from Erlangen became active in the trial -during the trial, Professor Merkl from Munich, in the name of all three doctor expert physicians made the statement that experts did not hesitate to say that in view of the results of the trial, the former expert opinion could not be maintained any more, and that the defendant had through simulation misled the expert in the pre-trial investigation?
A. No, I do not remember that case. Perhaps I did not quite understand your question, what this incident was supposed to be, or what the essence of this incident was supposed to be.
Q. I only wanted to have a confirmation that even such well known experts as Professor Merkl, in the pre-trial investigation -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: (Interposing): Excuse me. I object to this question being repeated, and I object to the question being made. It is completely new material, with no basis or relation to the affidavit or the nature of the cross-examination that is being conducted.
THE PRESIDENT: In any event, the witness says he doesn't remember the case, so I don't see any occasion to go into it.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, when Rothaug was in charge, did the experts have an opportunity to find out whether the defendant was not somewhat feebleminded?
A. Certainly.
Q. Could you determine, as to Article 51, Paragraph 1 or 2, that Rothaug did not mention it in a sentence at all?
A. Written sentences I hardly ever read, and at the oral pronouncement of the sentence, I have been present only very exceptionally and during the last years never. Also, I cannot believe that when an export was examined and a transcript was taken of his examination, that his activity was ignored entirely in the sentence. That seems entirely impossible to me.
Q. Did you have the experience that Rothaug refused to apply Article 51, Paragraph 1, even through the expert considered the application of this paragraph necessary?
A. I do not remember such a case; also, I did net hear anything in regard to the activity of the other court physicians in that direction either. The misgivings which I had--and which perhaps the others experts had too-did not concern cases in which the penal irresponsibility was judged, but they were borderline cases, cases which partly came under Article 51, paragraph 1; but much more frequently they were cases which actually lay outside of this Article, where more psychological lines of thought had to be discussed, and those were by far the majority of cases.
Generally, we were summoned to all cases in which the possibility of a death sentence existed. It is obvious that among these there were only very few cases in which actually a penal irresponsibility or limited irresponsibility could be considered. The majority of the cases could not be classified in this way at all, but in general there were, as I have already said, psychological and pathological considerations under discussion.
It was my feeling that as to such statements--which in other courts here in Nurnberg, and also in other places where I had been working, would have found a well-disposed ear-- here in the case of the two, Rothaug and Oeschey, there was no inclination to listen to the experts.
And here I would like to express with a certain force that again and again our statements were limited constantly to "responsible" or "not responsible".
Q. Witness, when did you find out that Rothaug was supposed to have tried not to use you any longer as an expert?
A. I found that out only after the end of my activity in our jurisdiction, and at that time I was informed-
Q. Witness, I didn't ask you any more about that.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One moment, please. I suggest the witness be allowed to answer the question. He was asked it.
THE PRESIDENT: I think his answer is enough to make it fully responsive. There should not be interruption of a witness when he is still answering, but I think his answer was quite responsive to the entire question.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. In regard to the Pole who cut off the fingers of the Farmer's child, was your opinion within the framework of the question which Rothaug had put to you?
A. No. The question which was put to me in that case actually was not so much to the effect as to whether he was responsible for his acts or not, but--I think he was only 15 or 16 years old--whether he had the maturity of an adult. This question had to be put and had to be answered, and the expert had to state his opinion of that. I did that in this case also; I affirmed the fact that the boy was mature. However I had to take that as a starting point for saying: yes, he is mature, to be sure, but in the soul of such a young person--that is, according to the statements which he made to me, that was stupid, a children joke, or a childish trick, that was absolutely believable for one not absolutely mature. That was something in his defense and that was credible.
Q. But you admit, witness, that strictly speaking that was already within the sphere of the evaluation of the judge?
A. Yes; but these statements required the thoughts of a physician, and therefore I considered myself competent, especially since this had a relationship to the evidence of judging his mental capacities.
Q. Witness, I have just been told that this Pole was married.
A. No, no, no.
Q. Could you not be mistaken in this case?
A. That is impossible. He was a boy of 15 or 16 years; it is absolutely impossible, that is impossible.
Q. Perhaps you can still remember his name?
A. No, I can't remember the name, but the case interested me from a human point of view. I would like to say that I remember it especially first, because he really was a nice person whose fate one would have to regret, at least from the human point of view, if he had been condemned to death. And I remember him just because of this very imperative thing, that this passage was not allowed to remain in the expert opinion.
I would like to remark in regard to this, however, that these statements were admitted in the trial.