seemingly damaging recitals as having questionable evidentiary value. Some of his later statements change and purport to correct former ones. His eagerness to tell his interrogators what he thought they wanted to know and hear is apparent throughout; as for instance, this statement which has been emphasized by the prosecution: In June or July 1939, I.G. Farben and all heavy industries well knew that Hitler had decided to invade Poland if Poland would not accept his demands.

“Von Schnitzler did not take the witness stand. Pursuant to a ruling of this Tribunal during the course of the trial, his statements are evidence only as to the maker, and are excluded from consideration in determining the guilt or innocence of other defendants. Aside from these statements, the evidence against von Schnitzler does not approach that required to establish guilty knowledge.”*

"The defendant von Schnitzler's pretrial affidavits and interrogations contain some of the most damaging evidence on the subject of state of mind of the defendants. Under a ruling of the Tribunal, in which the undersigned did not concur, the effect of von Schnitzler's statements is limited to von Schntizler himself, as he did not take the stand to testify.

“The majority opinion concludes that von Schnitzler's affidavits are not entitled to great weight because he was mentally upset and after numerous interrogations, in the view of the majority, was saying what his interrogators obviously wanted to hear. The case was tried on the theory that von Schnitzler's affidavits would be evidence only against him if he should refuse to testify in his own behalf. The ruling of the Tribunal in this regard was tantamount to an open invitation to him to exercise his privilege of not testifying in the interest of his codefendants. Its result was to deprive the Tribunal of the opportunity through the examination of von Schnitzler in open court to determine his credibility and to judge more intelligently what weight should be attached to these pretrial statements. I disagree with this erroneous procedural ruling of the Tri- […bunal]