 |
[infor...] mation quickly whenever it desires to be instructed
regarding any one point of the views presented by the defense on the individual
questions.
In this closing statement we have dispensed with citing
quotations from the documents and the transcript.
My closing statement
has been submitted in writing; in the course of every problem dealt with
therein, reference has been made in footnotes to the paragraph numbers
(Text-Ziffern, hereafter called TZ) in my final brief, in which — in
accordance with the suggestion of the Tribunal in the session of 13 April 1948
— the incriminating evidence is placed opposite to the exonerating
evidence. The footnotes herein refer to the paragraph numbers of the final
brief, which are to be found on the left-hand margin of the individual pages of
the final brief. |
| |
| [Editor's note: The footnotes in the written copy of this closing
statement have been incorporated throughout this statement even though no part
of the final brief for defendant Krauch is reproduced
herein.] |
| |
| In order that the footnotes may also appear in the record, I request
that my written closing statement be taken into the record. |
| |
I. Count one of the indictment: participation in preparation
for aggressive wars |
| |
1. The IMT judgment forms the basis of the theory of the defense
regarding the question of participation in the preparation for aggressive wars.
According to this judgment, the evidence concerning the state of mind of a
defendant must show that he had knowledge of Hitler's aims. For Krauch this
knowledge could come from a possible participation in the four well-known
secret sessions or from other sources. For neither of these possibilities did
the prosecution submit any proof. That Dr. Krauch had no close connection with
Hitler has been proved. He spoke to him only once, and not until May 1944, on
the occasion of the well-known session I dealt with in the presentation of
evidence.
Moreover, I refer to the statements of Dr. von Metzler, who
treated in detail the application of the principles of the IMT judgment to this
case on behalf of all defense counsel in the brief of 17 December 1947, and who
will once more make a statement regarding this in his final plea.
As a
substitute — poor, like every substitute — for the lack of evidence
of close contact with Hitler and his intimate circle, the prosecution made the
claim that Dr. Krauch was “Goering's right hand,” obviously with the
intention of inferring Dr. Krauch’s confidential knowledge of
Hitler’s plans for aggression from this designation. But even this
interpretation has not been proved; indeed, it has even |
__________
¹ TZ. 1-5, 6.
912 |
. 
