. NMT03-T0941
Volume III · Page 941
| VI. FINAL STATEMENTS OF
THE DEFENDANTS* |
| PRESIDING JUDGE BRAND: The record will show
that the defendants have already had the opportunity to testify at length under
oath, and they are now accorded the privilege, in each instance, of making an
unsworn statement for the benefit of the Tribunal. We will hear the first defendant, Dr. Schlegelberger. DEFENDANT SCHLEGELBERGER: These words of Pope Gregor VII are world-famous: "I loved justice and hated arbitrariness; therefore, I die in exile." I feel confident that your judgment will save me from that fate. But I, too, in imprisonment, could not overcome the bitterness of being rewarded for my hard struggle for justice by this period of shame and misery. The charges and insults of the prosecutor do not apply to me. My life is not compatible with the intention of crime. The attempt to destroy the alleged myth around my person by showering abuse at a man who has aged honorably was bound to fail. The Goering affair has been cleared up as completely unexceptionable. The connection between it, my draft of a law, and my resignation is based on a freely invented malicious construction which lacks all foundation. In spite of my advanced age my defense was easy for me. All I had to do was to tell the Tribunal the truth. I have done so in the firm conviction that truth will be victorious and with the undaunted pride of a clear conscience. PRESIDING JUDGE BRAND: The defendant Klemm may address the Court. DEFENDANT KLEMM: The prosecution has endeavored to show that I am not worthy of credibility. In long winded arguments it endeavors to connect a very few apparently positive points by combinations which lack all foundation, both in factual and political respect. Distortions and arbitrary additions have to serve this purpose. In the case of Sonnenburg it is said that Hecker had stated that Hansen had said that Klemm did not feel comfortable in connection with this matter. Not a word to this effect is to be found in the transcript of Hecker's testimony. Although, in cross-examination, Hecker clearly could not maintain the agreement as he described it in his affidavit, the prosecution maintains the agreement, although its own witness, Eggensperger, denied it as well. And now another final example. Heydrich's directives to |
* Tr. pp. 10587-10604, 18 October 1947.
