. NMT05-T1197
Volume V · Page 1197
| merely attempts to point out
errors committed by the Tribunal in its judgment, together with arguments as to
the reasons why the Tribunal should not have so adjudicated. Even though the defendant has not filed his brief in conformity with the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal will reconsider its judgment and sentence as to this defendant and make such additional adjudication as justice may demand. The opinion of the Tribunal has ruled on the consideration to be given of affidavits and to the documents and matters attached to defense briefs which were not a part of the record when the case was concluded and it is not necessary to again discuss the point here. Therefore the Tribunal will not consider affidavits, documents and other matters attached to defense briefs which were not a part of the record of the case when it was concluded. Defense counsel, in his brief, alleged many errors in translation. In the preparation of its judgment the Tribunal relied upon an expert corps of translators, fully qualified and experienced. The translations were furnished to the defendant's counsel each day in the German language. No objection was made at any time during the trial as to any of these alleged errors in translation. The Tribunal will now consider the main objections stressed by the defendant in his brief. At the beginning of page 3 of his brief he states the following: |
"Other evidence discloses that while the defendant Eirenschmalz was in the Main Office, Budget and Buildings, he ordered the erection of a crematory in Dachau in the summer of 1940 (NO-2256, Pros. Ex. 541) and that at approximately the same time he ordered the construction of a crematory in Buchenwald." (NO-4400 and NO-4401, Pros. Ex. 649 and 650.) |
| In connection with this passage of the judgment he avers the following: |
"In contradiction to this, the Tribunal on page 98 established that at that time the defendant was no longer in that office. It says there: |
