 |
violated the law in those contracts. Contracts of that nature outside
of the dyestuffs field were all drawn up also in close contact with the
competent legal departments. I would have opposed or rejected any contract if
the competent authorities had pointed out to me that such contracts might
possibly violate existing international law. Nobody told me that at the time.
DR. BERNDT: Mr. President, I have one more very brief question to do
with plunder, and then I shall have finished. Would you permit me to ask that
question before the recess?
PRESIDING JUDGE SHAKE: Go ahead. Ask your
question.
DR. BERNDT. Mr. ter Meer, the last question: Did you get any
profit or advantages of a personal nature from those acquisitions and
participations abroad?
A. No. My contract of employment provided that
any income from commission that came to me from the Aufsichtsraete and other
boards, would have to be counted against my salary, and that was always done in
these cases.
DR. BERNDT : Mr. President, I have no further
questions. |
| |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| |
| CROSS-EXAMINATION |
| |
| MR. SPRECHER: Mr. President, just so we can make our plans, and
defense counsel can also act accordingly, perhaps to help you in supervising
the situation, I can state that we will have no questions on Poland.
|
| |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| |
| D. The Francolor Case In France |
| |
| 1. INTRODUCTION |
| |
| |
Paragraph 103 through 110 of count two of the indictment contain the
specifications of the charges concerning the Francolor case. Four of the
defendants were convicted under these charges — -Schmitz, von Schnitzler,
ter Meer, and Kugler.
The evidence concerning these charges selected
for the present sub-section begins with some twenty contemporaneous documents
written between August 1940 and October 1942 (2 below). The selections from the
evidence of the defense have been taken from the testimony of three of the
defendants; ter Meer, Ambros, and Kugler (two of the defendants convicted upon
these charges, Schmitz and von Schnitzler, did not elect to testify on their
own behalf). The arrangement of the testimony by the three defendants is
unusual for the reason that the order of the examination of the defendant ter
Meer concerning spoliation was unusual. During ter Meer's direct examination,
his counsel |
97 |
. 
