 |
An incredibly vast amount of evidence on the activities of one of the
biggest concerns in human history has been introduced by the prosecution.
Although the defense since the beginning of this trial was and still is of the
opinion that most of this evidence is irrelevant, nevertheless the defense had
to cope with it and was compelled to introduce in its turn numerous documents,
and to call quite a considerable number of witnesses.
It is now the
responsibility of this Tribunal, as we respectfully submit, to scrutinize all
this evidence put before it both as to its relevance and probative value. It is
now up to Your Honors to divest the testimony of witnesses and affiants of all
such human deficiencies as bias, prejudice, and fear, which quite naturally to
some extent affect such testimony when feelings of political antagonism clash
in a trial of such importance, and when a public opinion still conscious of the
horrors of the last war exerts its pressure on all of those who are giving
evidence relating to those terrible years which, for long, as we all do hope,
will stand out as a warning to the living and future generations.
Counsel for both sides have been engaged in these past months in a
bitter struggle tending to make out their cases. It is now up to Your Honors
later on in closed court to take control of the scales of justice, and if in
any particular case they should swing anything like even, to throw into them
some grains of mercy so as to give the defendants the benefit of a reasonable
doubt.
In an effort to limit under the aspect of relevancy the vast
amount of evidence produced by the prosecution, the defense has filed on 17
December 1947 a motion in which it asked for a finding of not guilty under
counts one and five of the indictment and with regard to the alleged acts of
spoliation in Austria and Czechoslovakia, on the grounds of the irrelevancy of
said evidence. So far this motion was successful only with respect to the
alleged acts of spoliation in Austria and Czechoslovakia.
With Your
Honors’ permission, and upon instruction from all defense counsel, I
therefore shall state now, once more briefly, the position of the defense as to
the relevancy of said evidence under counts one and five. I am speaking now for
all defendants, and not only for the defendants Gajewski and Haefliger.
To make myself quite clear, I do not propose to deal with the probative
value of the vast evidence put before Your honors under count One of the
indictment both by the prosecution and by the defense. I, therefore will not
embark on a detailed scrutiny of said evidence. For, as we respectfully submit,
it is time firm conviction of the defense that from a legal point of view, and
on the basis of the principles developed by the IMT, all of this evidence is
irrelevant and does not bear out the charges under counts one and five. For
this reason, in my humble |
953 |
. 
