. NMT03-T0910
Volume III · Page 910
| DR. KOESSL: Witness, at the trial before the
Special Court at Nuernberg, were any facts brought to light which were not
mentioned by the judgment passed at Neumarkt? DEFENDANT ROTHAUG: That is clearly evident from the judgment. In addition to the facts which had originally been established, a further fact had been established according to which the defendant had attacked the old people who were living on a lonely farm with a dung fork and had exerted so much pressure on them that the only way for them to save themselves was to unleash the dog. When evaluating the character as a whole of the defendant, as the judgment shows, that fact was taken into account. That fact in the last analysis was decisive. Q. Can you show that that point in particular was very decisive? Can you show us that by quoting a passage from the original file? A. That is shown by our attitude to the clemency question. In our opinion on the clemency question we, without exception, repeated those facts which had been decisive for us in deciding on the sentence. We did not state other general points of view concerning the clemency plea because we didn't know them, and secondly, because we were of the view that they didn't affect us in any way. That brief opinion on the clemency question says — |
"The character of the defendant has been clearly described at the trial, in particular also the fact that the defendant, apart from the offense which in its execution was very grave, has also made himself guilty of violent behavior toward his employer." |
| In other words, it is made perfectly clear
here that the last point of view was decisive for us. PRESIDING JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question to which the answer, I think, could be brief? My notes show that the defendant was sentenced to death for violation of articles 2, 3, and 4 of the law or decree concerning Poles and Jews. Is there such a provision in your judgment? You needn't read it. Just tell me if that is in there. DEFENDANT ROTHAUG: Yes. PRESIDING JUDGE BRAND: Thank you. DR. KOESSL: The witness Doebig said that the offense in his view was not designed to prove that the offender was a public enemy. Would you, therefore, please briefly summarize the points |
