 |
forced laborers, to a Farben plant and every one of them is involved.
It's no question of a collateral issue or anything else.
PRESIDING
JUDGE SHAKE: I think it's enough to say now that it was developed by counsel
for the defendant ter Meer that he spent some time in Italy from a certain date
on until a certain other date. There was some showing about what his activities
were. That undoubtedly is true, and that would entitle the prosecution, if it
wishes, to go into further detail with reference to his activities, and the
only question, the last question that was propounded to the witness, was just
what cities he visited in connection with his duties there. Now, that would not
infringe on any doubtful rule so far as this examination is concerned.
Certainly the prosecution is entitled to that information after it has been
shown that the defendant did perform duties in Italy for some considerable
time. So the objection is overruled. There is no question now before the
Tribunal.
MR. SPRECHER: I am only waiting, Your honor, for the
translation to come through for Dr. Berndt.
MR. SPRECHER: Did you visit
Rome?
A. I was not in Rome.
Q. At the time that you were in
Italy did you see, hear, or read about the influx of thousands of Jews from
northern and eastern Europe into northern Italy — Jews who were attempting
to escape from Hitler and Nazi racial policies?
A. No, I do not know of
this.
Q. At any time when you were in Italy, did you read or hear about
the position taken by the Holy See or the Vatican newspapers with respect to
the German program in Poland and the treatment of the Jews?
A. I don't
remember anything about that either.
Q. Now that will be all the
questions I have on count three, Dr. ter Meer. |
| |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| |
| REDIRECT EXAMINATION |
| |
| * * * * * * * * * * |
| |
DR. BERNDT (counsel for defendant ter Meer): Dr. ter Meer,
furthermore, you have been shown a letter of 7 March 1944,* which you had sent
to Dr. Struss from Milan, Italy. The prosecution pointed out the first
paragraph of that letter in particular. In my opinion, you have not answered
their question exhaustively. Have you still got the excerpt before you?
A. No, but I still remember it.
Q. Let me give it to you just
the same. |
__________
* Document
NI-14169. Prosecution Exhibit 1877, is reproduced
in part in subsection D above.
717 |
. 
