. NMT04-T0579
Volume IV · Page 579
| May 1941 while attending the Leadership
School in Berlin he was summoned to Pretzsch, assigned to Sonderkommando 10b of
Einsatzgruppe D, left for the field on June 27 or 28 and arrived in Romanian
territory about 30 July. On 1 October 1941, having been called back to Berlin
to continue his studies, he left the Kommando. The prosecution introduced in evidence the affidavit of one Robert Barth, supposedly a former enlisted man in the Kommando in which he stated that during the "temporary duty trips" of the Kommando leader which usually took two or three days, the unit was commanded by Ruehl. If it were established that Ruehl really served as commander of the unit even for brief periods during such times as the Kommando was engaged in liquidating operations, guilt under counts one and two would be conclusive. The prosecution maintains that it has proved that very thing. But if this proposition is to be upheld it must rest on the one pedestal of Barth's affidavit. Ruehl could not come into the leadership automatically as the result of rank or seniority because they were such as to place him only in the fourth position. Thus the proof of leadership must rest on the Barth column which, probatively speaking, is a rather shaky one. While the rules of procedure permit the introduction of affidavits and indeed this innovation in trial routine has accomplished much good in the saving of time, an affidavit can never take the place of a flesh and blood witness in court when the affiant is available and the issue raised by the affidavit is a vital one. Had Barth appeared in court, not only would defense counsel have had the opportunity to cross-examine him, but the Tribunal itself could have appraised with more discernment than it can now his otherwise unsupported statement of Ruehl's supposed leadership. The pedestal of Barth's assertion with regard to upholding the hypothesis of Ruehl's leadership must withstand the successive hammer blows of, first, the unexplained absence of the affiant, second, Ruehl's low rank in the hierarchy of the unit and, third, the fact that normally an administrative officer would not have executive functions. Under a multiple attack of that character the Tribunal cannot ascribe to this lone piece of evidence the strength needed to sustain so momentous a weight as the leadership of a Kommando with its concomitant responsibility for executions. And then there is also the direct testimony of Schubert, given from the witness stand, that Ruehl never functioned as a deputy commander of Sonderkommando 10b. The prosecution submits document NOKW-587 as evidence against Ruehl. Ruehl denies that the action reported therein took |
