. NMT05-T1188
Volume V · Page 1188
| entire unanimity in the findings
of separate Tribunals. Disparity in conclusions, or findings of fact, may
result from the disparity in emphasis which separate Tribunals may accord to
the evidence. A single document may in the opinion of one Tribunal assume
controlling force, and in the opinion of another Tribunal be given lesser
weight. One Tribunal may find the testimony of one witness true, and another
Tribunal may discredit it. In appraising the preponderance of the proof for and
against the defendant, one Tribunal may find the scales to be tipped in one
direction and another Tribunal in the other. This factor is inherent in any
judicial proceeding in which human beings are involved. It has always been
true, and doubtless, always will be. It is the only system we have, and we must
use it as best we can. It is necessary in any judicial system that there be
some place where factual determination becomes final and incontrovertible, even
in the face of an apparently contradictory determination by some other judicial
agency. In the instant case, however, there are sufficient factual distinctions between this case and the Schwarzenberger case to make reconciliation between the judgments unnecessary. It is apparent from the record in this case that Loerner operated in a far wider field than Schwarzenberger (Case No. 8), said in its judgment rendered 4 months after the judgment in the instant case: |
"His duties consisted almost entirely of paying out funds on lump-sum requisitions submitted to him by various organizations, and that, as chief of finance, he had no power to approve or disapprove requisitions for funds, which was a duty resting solely with the Reich Minister of Finance. He contends, furthermore, that not even in the requisitions and bills submitted to his office was there anything indicating the purpose for which the funds were to be used or had been used, and he never had knowledge of the purpose for which these funds were being disbursed. Schwarzenberger's contentions are supported by an abundance of evidence. It would appear from the evidence that Schwarzenberger's principal task was to submit to the Reich Minister of Finance a budget containing the estimated operational needs of the various departments; and upon approval by the Reich Minister of Finance, the funds were deposited with Schwarzenberger's office for payment to the various organizations. Volumes of documents have been introduced by the prosecution in this case-hundreds pertaining to the various organizations involved — and Schwarzenberger's name is conspicuous in its absence among these documents. No documentary evidence of an incriminatory nature has been offered against this defendant." |
