. NMT04-T0502
Volume IV · Page 502
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face, |
| One of the defense counsel, a highly respected member of the local bar apparently would seem, unwittingly, to have given an explanation. From the constant association with the case, he found himself arguing in his summation speech, "What did Schubert actually do which was criminal?" And then he outlined Schubert's actions — |
"Schubert first goes to the gypsy quarter of Simferopol and sees them being loaded aboard and shipped off. Then he drives to the place of execution, sees the rerouting of traffic, the roads blocked off, persons being unloaded, valuables handed over, and the shooting. Finally he drives back once more along the way to the gypsy quarter and there again sees them being loaded aboard and carried off, and then returns to his office. That is what he did." |
| SS Obersturmfuehrer Schubert oversees an
execution of human beings who happen to be gypsies, there is no assertion
anywhere that these gypsies were guilty of anything but being gypsies. He sees
that the roads are blocked off, that the victims are loaded on trucks and taken
to the scene of execution, that their valuables are taken from them and then he
watches the shooting. This is what Schubert did, and the question is asked:
What is wrong about that? There is no indication of any realization here that
Schubert was taking an active part in mass murder. Counsel even goes
further and says that when Schubert reported to Ohlendorf what had happened, he
stated that he saw "nothing unusual". The reference to counsel, when it occurs, is not intended as any criticism of professional conduct. It is the function of a lawyer to represent to the best of his ability his client's cause and it must now be apparent what difficulties confronted the attorneys in this case. Nonetheless, with industry and skill, with patience and perseverance they made their presentations so that the Tribunal was not denied any fact or argument which could be submitted in behalf of the accused. Regardless of the results of the judgment, it cannot be said that the accused did not have the utmost and fullest defense. Many of the affidavits introduced in behalf of defendants spoke of religion. One related how Seibert often accompanied his mother to church. While he was in the Crimea, did he recall these visits to the house of God with his mother, and if he did, could he reconcile his activities there with the teachings of religion and of his mother? This is a court of law, and the presence or absence of religion on the part of any defendant is not an issue in this trial. The fact, |
