 |
The report expressed conclusions as to the future value of these
plants to the German economy and for military purposes, recommending in some
instances continued operation and in other cases dismantling of certain plant
facilities. But it is not established that this report was the basis of
official action taken either by the Reich authorities in the East or by Farben
with respect to these properties. We are unable to say that this action,
standing alone, supports a finding of guilty under count two in regard to the
Polish properties.
With reference to Alsace-Lorraine, the evidence does
establish that Wurster had conferences with various persons concerning the
utilization of plant facilities in Alsace-Lorraine. Some of these plants were
closed down and abandoned. The evidence is by no means clear that any
activities of Wurster resulted in effecting the transfer of property to IG
control or ownership. The evidence fails to prove that Wurster himself ever
dealt with any of the authorities to promote Farben's acquisition of these
plants. Here a reasonable doubt enters, and we cannot find that Wurster's
approach to the authorities was with a view to purchasing those plants for
Farben.
We find that Wurster is not substantially involved in any of
the acts charged in this count.
The defendant Wurster is, therefore,
Not Guilty under count two of the indictment.
Duerrfeld, Gattineau
and von der Heyde. Four of the defendants — namely, Duerrfeld,
Gattineau, von der Heyde, and Kugler — were not members of the Vorstand of
I. G. Farben.
The evidence does not establish any connection between
the activities of the defendant Duerrfeld and the offenses against property
charged in this count. We, therefore, find that the defendant Duerrfeld is Not
Guilty under count two of the indictment.
The defendant Gattineau is
likewise Not Guilty. The acts of alleged spoliation with which he was
intimately connected all related to his activities in the Austrian and
Czechoslovakian acquisitions which, under time ruling of the Tribunal above
referred to, were held not to constitute crimes against humanity or war crimes
within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. Gattineau’s mere presence at
Commercial Committee meetings, at which reports were made concerning the
Rhône-Poulenc negotiations, and his other general activities in the
commercial field as an employee of Farben’s, are insufficient
participation upon which to predicate a finding that he is guilty under the
spoliation count.
In its final brief, the prosecution concedes that the
evidence has not established beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of the
defendant von der Heyde under the charges in count two. We fail to find any
substantial evidence of connecting von der Heyde with the charges. He is
acquitted under count two. |
1166 |
. 
