Citation and Use
All persons are granted a limited license to use and distribute this transcript, subject to the following conditions: No fee may be charged for use or distribution.
Publications and research reports based on this transcription must cite it appropriately. The citation should include the following:
We request that users send us a copy of any publications, research reports, or educational material making use of the data or documentation. Printed matter should be sent to:
Joel Samaha
Department of History
University of Minnesota
614 Social Sciences
267 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Send all electronic material to samaha@umn.edu
COVER SHEET
STENOGRAPHIC
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Before the
MILITARY
COMMISSION TO TRY PERSONS CHARGED WITH
OFFENSES
AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR AND THE
ARTICLES OF
WAR
_________________
Washington,
D. C.
Saturday,
July 11, 1942.
Volume
IV
Pages
458 to 597
458
CONTENTS.
Saturday, July 11, 1942.
|
Name of
Witness |
Direct |
Cross |
Redirect |
Recross |
|
Charles F.
Lanman |
|
|
474 |
|
|
By Col. Royall |
|
461 |
|
492 |
|
By Col. Ristine |
|
488,493 |
|
|
|
Norval D.
Wills |
497 |
|
|
|
|
Recalled |
531 |
583 |
|
|
|
Lt. Col.
Marshall O. Potter |
524 |
530 |
|
|
EXHIBITS
|
Prosecution |
For
Identification |
In Evidence |
|
87 Letter June 19, 1942, George to Pete |
|
476, 475 |
|
88 to
91 Four photographs |
477 |
477 |
|
92 Brief case |
499 |
499 |
|
93 Statement of Dasch |
502 |
|
|
94 Agenda to statement of Dasch |
502 |
|
|
95 Order |
525 |
526 |
|
96 Order |
525 |
|
|
97 Order |
525 |
|
|
98 Handkerchief |
582 |
|
STIPULATION AS TO TIME OF ARRESTS - - - - - - - - 476
459
STENOGRAPHIC TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
Before the
MILITARY COMMISSION TO TRY PERSONS
CHARGED WITH
OFFENSES AGAINST THE LAW OF WAR AND THE
ARTICLES OF WAR.
__________________
Washington, D. C.
Saturday, July 11, 1942.
The Military Commission appointed by
the President by order dated July 2, 1942, met, in room 5235 Department of
Building, at 10:05 o’clock a. m., to try for offenses against the Law of War
and Articles of War, the following persons:
Ernest Peter Burger, George John Dasch, Herbert Haupt, Heinrich Harm
Heinck, Edward John Kerling, Hermann Neubauer, Richard Quirin and Werner Thiel.
PRESENT: Members of the Military Commission, as
follows:
Major General Frank R. McCoy,
President,
Major General Walter S. Grant,
Major General Blanton Winship,
Major General Lorenzo D. Gasser,
Brigadier General Guy V. Henry,
Brigadier General John T. Lewis,
Brigadier General John T. Kennedy.
As Trial Judge Advocates:
Honorable Francis Biddle, Attorney General of the
Major General Myron Cramer, The Judge Advocate General,
Colonel F. Granville Munson,
Colonel John M. Weir,
Colonel Erwin M. Treusch,
Major William T. Thurman, Officers of the Judge Advocate General’s
Department.
Oscar Cox, Assistant Solicitor General
of the
James H. Rowe, Jr., Assistant to the
Attorney General
As Provost Marshal:
Brigadier General Albert L. Cox
460
As Counsel for the Accused except
George John Dasch:
Colonel Cassius M. Dowell,
Colonel Kenneth Royall,
Major Lauson H. Stone,
Captain William O. Hummell.
As Counsel for the Accused George John
Dasch:
Colonel Carl L. Ristine.
- - -
PROCEEDINGS
The President. The Commission is open.
While you gentlemen are in the process
of getting started, I should like to have a moment’s talk with the Attorney
General and with General Cramer.
Colonel Munson. Shall we proceed, sir, with the technical
part?
The President. Yes, please.
(The Attorney General and the Judge
Advocate General conversed privately with the President. The following occurred:)
Colonel Munson. Mr. Golding, will you hold up your right
have, please? Do you solemnly swear that
you will not divulge the proceedings taken in this trial to anyone outside the
courtroom until released from your obligations by proper authority or required
so to do by such proper authority?
Mr. Golding. I do.
Colonel Munson. All the personnel of the Commission, of the
prosecution except Colonel Weir, and of the defense who were present at the
close of the previous session in this case are again present, and all eight of
the accused and the
461
reporter
are also present.
The new reporter has already been sworn
as to secrecy, sir.
The Attorney General. Mr. Lanman.
Lieutenant Page. This witness has been sworn to secrecy.
Colonel Munson. The witness is reminded that he is under
oath.
Mr. Lanman. Yes, sir.
CHARLES F. LANMAN
was
recalled as a witness for the prosecution and, having been previously duly
sworn, testified further as follows:
Colonel Royall. Mr. Attorney General, had you finished with
Mr. Lanman? I did not understand.
Attorney General. Yes, I had, Colonel Royall.
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission,
cross-examination of this witness by myself will be solely on behalf of the
defendant Burger, the other defendants at this time not electing to
cross-examine. That decision may be
changed by subsequent developments. By
so stating, I do not seek again to raise the question as to whether the
testimony is competent as to the others, because we have a stipulation that I
may later make a motion to strike and that the Court will dispose of that at
the time you determine whether this confession itself and the other statements
are admissible as to the other defendants.
But the other defendants are not at this time cross-examining this
witness.
CROSS EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Royall:
Mr. Lanman, as I recall your testimony,
you discussed with the defendant Burger facts which were later
462
embodied
in the confession or instrument which has been offered, such discussion taking
place beginning with the 20th and continuing for several days
thereafter?
A Yes,
sir, that is correct.
Q When
was the paper introduced in evidence yesterday actually prepared?
A It
was prepared over a period of several days.
Q Do
you without necessarily being exactly specific about it recall what days were
taken up with its preparation?
A There
was a period of about four or four and a half days there taken up with its
preparation.
Q I
believe it is dated the 25th.
Does that represent the date on which its preparation was actually
completed?
A The
date of the statement represents the day on which the statement was commenced—was
begun. I think you will find that date
was not the 25th.
Q I
may be in error about that. The 23rd
it is, I believe.
Do you know what date its preparation
was actually completed? Was that the
date it was signed?
The Attorney General. Would you care to look at the original?
Colonel Royall. Yes.
The Witness. Perhaps if I could refer to that just a
moment to see that—
Colonel Royall. It would be entirely satisfactory to us to
have the witness refer to the original.
(The statement was handed to the
witness.)
The Witness. The statement was taken between the 23rd
463
and
the 26th, and then it was gone over with the defendant for errors
and corrections. The corrections were
made, as I believe I stated yesterday in the Court here. It was signed on the 28th, on
Sunday.
Questions by Colonel Royall:
Q Mr.
Lanman, was that statement dictated by a representative of the F.B.I. as the
defendant Burger was talking, or what method did you follow in actually
dictating it?
A As
much as possible, the defendant Burger was allowed to dictate in his own
words—his own phrases. There were times
in there when both Mr. Fellner and myself would dictate because of the
defendant’s inability to express himself clearly in just exactly what he wanted
to say, and we would have to have a discussion on that, and then it would be
dictated.
Q But
that instrument was later gone over by the defendant Burger and carefully
examined, was it not, sir?
A Yes,
sir, it was.
Q Before
you started the preparation of that on the 23rd day of June, you had
orally discussed the matter with him for two or three days before that, had you
not?
A Yes,
for part of that time there had been discussion.
Q These
discussions were not reduced to any definite memorandum signed by him, were
they?
A No,
they were not.
Q The
matters embraced in the discussions from the 20th to the 23rd
are included in the matters also embraced in the statement which he finally
signed in general, are they not?
A Yes,
sir, they are.
Q Is
it a fact that a considerable part of the statement as finally was the result
of specific questions
464
and
inquiries which you addressed to Burger?
A That
is the basis of the entire statement.
Q Of
the entire statement. It is not a fact,
Mr. Lanman, that during your entire course of inquiry the defendant Burger
freely and fully answered the questions which you addressed to him?
A Yes,
he did.
Q Of
course, the length of the statement, at least in part, is due to the fact that you
sought to get as broad a cover, as broad a field, in your inquiry as you
thought material and relevant; is that right, sir?
A That
is correct; yes, sir.
Q Mr.
Lanman, I may have asked you about this, but do you recall whether Burger’s
door was unlocked when you entered his room?
A I
am sorry, sir; I couldn’t testify to that; I don’t know.
The Attorney General. May it please the Commission, we now have one
set of the photographs, and we shall have more very shortly (handing
photographs to the President.)
Colonel Royall. These are photographs of the defendants?
The Attorney General. Yes.
Colonel Royall. That is all right.
Questions by Colonel Royall:
Q It
was a fact, was it not, Mr. Lanman, that Mr. Burger stated that he had been
expecting the F.B.I. to come and had received a communication which so
indicated, was it not?
A I
recall very definitely that he stated that he was expecting the F.B.I. to come.
465
Q Did
he tell you of having received a communication from one of the other defendants
to that effect?
A I
recall an instance about a note that was left at the hotel for him.
Q Did
he tell you that he had remained at the hotel room constantly or almost
constantly from the time he received the note until your arrival?
A I
don’t recall his exact words, but in substance that is what he told me.
Q In
giving this statement or those statements which were given from time to time by
the defendant Burger, he made no request for any reward or any other material
consideration of any kind, did he?
A No,
he didn’t.
Q In
other words, they were given freely and voluntarily and fully?
A Yes,
sir.
Q He
did not indicate in giving those statements that he was acting under any stress
or fear, did he?
A No,
he didn’t.
Q This
information was given to you by Burger on the 20th, before any of
the other defendants were apprehended, was it not, sir?
A Well,
I can’t answer that about any of the other defendants, sir.
Q Well,
of course, the defendant Dasch was there in your custody, or you had him with
you in some way, but aside from Dasch is it not a fact Burger made those
statements before any of the other defendants had been apprehended?
466
A There
had been, I believe, two other defendants apprehended.
Q On
the 20th?
A If
I am correct in that, I believe so; that was the date.
Q On
the same day?
A On
the same day.
Q But
none had been apprehended before that time?
A No,
sir, not that I knew of.
Q Do
you recall whether Burger knew anything about their apprehension when you first
saw him?
A No,
he didn’t.
Q No,
as far as he knew, none had been apprehended, and he still talked with you
freely and fully?
A Yes,
he did.
Q I
notice in the confession which was offered in evidence a very full and accurate
description of these various other defendants.
Do you recall at what stage of your inquiry that information was first
given you by the defendant Burger?
A I
would say it was about midway of the work in connection with the preparation of
this statement.
Q Do
you recall when Burger first told you of his method of entering the
A Why,
I believe the information of that sort was given probably the first evening we
talked with him, although I wouldn’t want to be confident on that point.
Q I
understand, Mr. Lanman, that in some instances you
467
will
have to give me your best impression or recollection of what occurred.
A Surely.
Q Do
you recall when he first told you that he left
A Probably
the first or second day, maybe the third day, of the questioning; along in that
period.
Q With
reference to the description which he gave you of the other defendants, did you
find when you later saw those defendants that that description was an accurate
one in most particulars?
A I
have not had any opportunity to look over the other subjects in the case except
here in the courtroom, and I can’t tell exactly from where I am sitting here
just exactly how well that fits.
Q You
have not given any study to that?
A I
have not given any study to that at all.
Q Do
you recall when he, the defendant Burger, first told you of the treatment which
he had been given by the Nazis in
A Yes,
that was very shortly after the start of the questioning of Burger, the first
or second day. We went over considerable
of this in that time.
Q Was
it at approximately the same time that he told you that he had formulated a
plan to escape from
468
A Approximately,
yes, sir.
Q He
told you that at that time. Was it at
that time that he further told you that that desire to escape from
A If
I am correct in that, sir, it was several days later that that particular point
was brought out.
Q Of
course, you had to cover the situation hurriedly at first and then elaborate
later; that is true, is it not?
A That
is right, yes.
Q Did
he tell you at that time or about the time of your first conversation of his
various efforts or plans to get out of
A At
the beginning he briefly covered that, as I recall it, and later on, when this
statement was being prepared, he elaborated a little more in detail, which he
included in the statement.
Q Did
he from the outset and during your entire course of conversation state that it
was never his intention in entering
A Yes,
he did.
Q He
said that from the outset and continued it throughout your entire conversation
with him?
A Yes,
he did.
Q Did
he also tell you of his plan to expose this plot and make possible the
apprehension of its participants? Did he
tell you that at first and then elaborate on it further?
A During
the course of the questioning at the start he explained something of that and
elaborated on it later.
469
Q Did
he at that time tell you of his insistence upon using his own name instead of
some alias throughout this matter?
A Yes,
he did.
Q At
what stage in the questioning did he learn, if ever, that you had found the
material and boxes and things? Was that
about the latter part of it?
A I
don’t recall exactly when that was, sir, but it was sometime after we started
questioning him before he knew that.
Q Before
he obtained that information, he had told you of the traces he had left on the
beach to enable its discovery, had he not?
A Yes,
he had.
Q He
told you of the various articles which he had left on the beach, did he not?
A Yes,
he did.
470
Q And
he told you that in burying the sack he had left it slightly exposed?
A Yes.
Q And
he told you of dragging the sack across the beach so as to leave a visible
trace?
A Yes.
Q And
told you of leaving certain articles of clothing and other articles along the
beach as he went off the beach, did he not?
A Yes.
Q Did
you have occasion at any time to go on the beach and observe the situation
there, or is your information there solely from the Coast Guard?
A My
information about the beach is solely from the Coast Guard; or, I might say,
solely hearsay.
Q The
bag was of such a size that a person could have carried it without dragging it,
if he so desired?
A I
imagine so.
Q Among
the articles that he told you he had left along the beach in order to make
detection easy, he told you of the cigarettes and a partially filled-bottle of
Schnapps?
A Yes.
Q Of
the coat?
A Yes.
Q And
the cap?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
one or two other matters, if you recall.
I do not recall them right now.
A I
believe he stated that the other things he left
471
there
were some small objects which he himself could not recall.
Q With
reference to the information which he gave you about the details of the plan
and the method of preventing sabotage, did he give you that information from
the outset, from time to time, and elaborate on it later?
A He
gave us, after we arrived at the office on the evening of Saturday, any of
these details that we asked him; and we asked him that evening the exact
quantity of the material we talked about.
I do not recall what it covered that particular evening.
Q Just
as an illustration, I believe he told you a method of preventing sabotage of
certain manufacturing plants and called to your attention a method that could
be used by a saboteur in entering a plant.
Do you recall when he first gave you that information?
A I
do not recall having been told that information, sir.
Q I
may be in error. It is hard to recall
all these things. I know I have
difficulty. I made reference to this
statement in the first paragraph on your page 40, about the air openings and
the method of preventing sabotage.
A If
I may read it. (After referring to
document) This has reference to plants
in
Q I
see. It was not clear to me whether it
meant plants here or whether the plants he told you about were of similar type.
A This
particular paragraph has reference to air vents in plants in
Q But
I believe he gave that information, as stated
472
in
the instrument itself, in order that you might use it to prevent possible
sabotage of industries here, did he not?
A That
may have been his intention.
Q Does
it not so state in the first of that paragraph?
A (Reading) “George and I also noticed numerous other
means of easy entrance into the plant, and my purpose in stating these at this
time is that if any means are found to sabotage any of the industries, this
information I am furnishing may be of some help.”
My information was that had reference to
plants in
Q He
would not be giving you information to help to prevent sabotage in
A I
believe you will find, if you look through the statement further, that there is
reference to something about that in the statement.
Q Mr.
Lanman, he also drew these diagrams as to the various types of explosives
and detonators, did he not?
A Yes,
sir; he did.
Q Did
you recall when he first gave you information about that, in general, before he
became specific?
A I
believe that was after the statement itself was actually begun.
Q I
see. Had he indicated previously to you
that he would give you any details about that if you requested?
A As
I recall it, he had; yes, sir.
Q Do
you remember at what stage he gave you information about the possibility that
German aircrafts may have come up, and told you here they probably would land?
A I
cannot recall definitely, sir, just exactly when that was.
473
Q Do
you recall when he described to you the method of refueling submarines?
A It
would be very hard to state very closely, because this covers a good deal of
time.
Q That
type of information was given by him freely, was it not?
A Yes,
sir; it was.
Q And
it was given by him to you as a result of your inquiries to obtain information
that might prevent sabotage and espionage?
The Attorney General. I do not want to object, but it does seem
that counsel is asking a pretty conclusive question.
Colonel Royall. I think I am, sir.
The Attorney General. I do not mind your leading him to bring our
ordinary information, but I do not think you should lead in that manner.
Questions by Colonel Royall:
Q You
did question Mr. Burger considerably about matters connected with possible
sabotage and espionage in this country, did you not?
A The
questioning was for the purpose of finding out what he knew and what he had
engaged in and the method of his entry into the
Q Did
you not make some additional inquiries to find out what might happen in the
future?
A Naturally
that was the object in mind, of course, when we were questioning him.
Q When
you make those requests he gave you the information fully and frankly?
474
A Yes;
he did.
Q As
a matter of curiosity, have you ever taken advantage of his offer to plot the
course of the submarine, which he stated he would be glad to do?
A Briefly,
one day at the office when we looked at a map, and it was a very sketchy
outline.
Colonel Royall. That is all.
The President. Are there any questions by the
Commission? (No response) There seem to be none.
The Attorney General. I am going to ask a few additional questions,
with the Commission’s permission.
The President. Do you wish to ask questions on this
cross-examination?
The Attorney General. Yes, sir, but I think they will not be
objected to. They are more or less
matters to be admitted.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Mr.
Lanman, I show you an exhibit marked P-87 for identification, and ask you
whether this was one of the objects you found in Burger’s room when you
searched it. If you do not remember, say
no. If you do remember, say yes.
A Yes. That was found among Burger’s effects.
Q Did
Burger identify it? Did you show it to
him?
A Yes;
he did. He identified that.
Q What
did he say it was?
A He
stated it was a letter left for him by George Dasch.
The Attorney General. If there is no objection, I will
475
offer
this letter in evidence.
Colonel Royall. There is no objection on behalf of the
defendant Burger—still reserving the objection of other defendants.
The Attorney General. I will hand the letter up for the Commission
to read. It really comes up a little
later.
The President. May I ask if this is the letter to which you
referred yesterday and which was objected to at that time?
The Attorney General. Yes, sir.
I do not think that at this time there is any objection to its going in.
I think I will read this aloud, General
McCoy, if I may. I think there is no
objection to it. It is written on the
letterhead of the Hotel Governor Clinton, and is dated June 19, 1942 (reading):
EXHIBIT P-87
“Dear Pete:
“Sorry for not have been able to see
you before I left. I came to the
realization to go to
“I’m leaving you, believing that you
take good care of yourself and also of the other boys. You may rest assured, that I shall try to
straighten everything out to the very best possibility. My bag and clothes I’ll put into your room. Your hotel Bill is paid by me, including this
day. If anything extra ordinary should
happen, I’ll get in touch with you directly.
“Until later,
“I’m your sincere friend,
“George.
It is initialed by the witness.
476
(Letter dated June 19, 1942, from “George” to “Pete”, was marked P-87 and received in evidence.)
The Attorney General. May it please the Commission, it has been
stipulated by counsel that the defendants were apprehended at the following
times:
George John Dasch was taken into
protective custody on the 19th of June, 1942, at 10:30 a. m. He was actually arrested at 8 p. m. on the 24th
of June, 1942.
Richard Quirin was arrested on June 20,
1942, at 5 p. m.
Heinrich Harm Heinck was arrested on
June 20, 1942, at 5:15 p. m.
Ernest Peter Burger was arrested on
June 20, 1942, at 5:30 p. m.
Edward John Kerling was arrested on
June 23, 1942, at 10 p. m.
Werner Thiel was arrested on June 23,
1942, at 11:30 p. m.
Herbert Haupt was arrested on June 27,
1942, at 9:08 a. m.
Hermann Neubauer was arrested on June
27, 1942, at 6:45 p. m.
(At this point Colonel Weir, Assistant
Trial Judge Advocate, entered the court room.)
Counsel have agreed to the introduction
of some photographs which I will now have marked.
Colonel Royall. Are you putting that memorandum of
apprehension in as an exhibit, or merely reading it?
The Attorney General. I am merely reading it.
The President. May I ask if there is any indication on that
paper as to where those arrests were made?
The Attorney General. No, sir; there is not. That will
477
develop
as each one comes up. I was slightly
inaccurate in my statement yesterday, and I did not want any inaccuracy to go
into the record.
(Photographs
handed to the reporter were marked P-88 to P-91, inclusive, for
identification.)
The President. Colonel Ristine, I find that I sometimes
overlook inquiring of you whether or not you wish to cross-examine. If I should fail to ask you, will you assert
yourself?
Colonel Ristine. Yes, sir.
The Attorney General. I offer in evidence photographs marked P-88
to P-91, inclusive. They are
photographs, first, the United States Coast Guard observation tower, taken from
a spot on the beach east of the tower, at which point it was necessary to turn
inland to reach the spot where the materials were buried.
Exhibit P-89 is an eastern panorama
taken from the top of the United States Coast Guard observation tower at
Amagansett,
P-90 shows the actual location of the
spot where the material was buried subsequent to its removal. The road shown in the foreground terminates
directly at the left-hand border of the picture.
P-91—I will not read all the
description—is a scene depicting a wooden cross located at the edge of the sand
dune fronting on the beach between the Coast Guard observation tower and the
spot at which the buried material was recovered.
(Photographs
marked P-88 to P-91 inclusive, were received in evidence.)
478
Colonel Royall. May we have an opportunity, when the
Commission is through with them, to examine those photographs? There is no objection to their admission, but
we want an opportunity to see them.
The President. Yes, sir.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Mr.
Lanman, do you remember at what part of the questioning of Burger it developed
that he and Dasch were working together toward this common end of communicating
these matters?
A As
I recall it, it was not very long after the questioning started. The exact period of time I could not possibly
recall.
Q Did
he advise you that Dasch had gone to
A Yes,
subsequently, after the questioning started, he did.
Q And
did he advise you also that before coming to
A He
stated that Dasch had talked over the telephone.
Q That
is what I meant.
A Yes.
Q And
he also, I believe, explained that he and Dasch thought it was better to
communicate directly with the
A Yes. That is explained in the statement.
Q And
what was that explanation, if you recall?
A That
the local offices of the Federal Bureau of
479
Investigation—he
had been told, rather, at the school in Germany that the local offices of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation were watched by Gestapo agents and that they
did not want to be seen going into the local office.
Q He
did disclose to you that he and Dasch had an understanding before they left
The Attorney General. Now, wait.
I object to that. It is a
conclusion from the evidence. There is
no evidence of any understanding. If the
question is directed specifically to what was said I have no objection, but I
have no recollection of any such understanding as that.
The President. I will sustain the objection, unless you have
any comment to make or unless you want to reframe the question, Colonel
Ristine.
Colonel Ristine. It just seemed to me to be proper
cross-examination.
The Attorney General. It is not improper, but there is no evidence
to show any such understanding, and the question indicates that there is
evidence of that. If you refer to any
part of the confession or any specific evidence, it would be permissible, but
this seems to me to be a conclusion as contained in the question not warranted
by the evidence.
Colonel Ristine. My question is directed at this long
interrogation of Burger, that during the time he was interrogated and
questioned did he disclose that he had this understanding before they arrived
in this country.
Now, I would like to have an
understanding. I do not understand that
I am precluded in my cross-examination to just
480
such
portions as were reduced to writing in this statement as offered. When we consider that the interrogations were
conducted over a period of several days, obviously everything that was asked
and answered was not included in the written document.
Am I correct in that remise?
The Attorney General. I have no objection to your asking about
anything that took place. I have objection
to your concluding results which do not seem to be warranted by the
evidence. Perhaps if the reporter will
repeat the question you will see what I mean.
The President. Will you reframe your question and then we
will see if the Attorney General objects to it.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Could
you tell me at what time in the interrogations of Burger it was disclosed to
you that Burger and Dasch had an understanding as between themselves that upon
arrival in the
A May
I refer to this statement, sir?
Q Yes,
sir. On page 48 there is some reference—
Colonel Royall. It is on 49.
Colonel Ristine. There is some reference to it on page 48.
Colonel Royall. It is actually on 49.
Colonel Ristine. Actually on 49, I think, there is some
reference to it there.
A The
only information furnished by Burger in connection with any understandings are
contained in this statement.
Colonel Ristine. Suppose you read the first paragraph on
481
49.
The Witness (reading):
“The cause of this argument was that
George Dasch had stated that he saw no reason why the group should engage in
any activities whatsoever in the
Do you want me to continue, sir?
Colonel Ristine. Yes, that paragraph.
The Witness (continuing reading):
“Kappe had instructed that I should go
with Henry Heinck and that George should go with Richard Quirien. However, George told Kappe that he had no
confidence in me, and did not believe that I should be allowed to go with
Henry. This caused another argument
between Kappe and George, but George won, and it was agreed that I was to
accompany George. I was to travel with
George when we arrived in the
482
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Now,
I take it there was no effort made to reduce to writing everything that was
said with respect to the subject matter dealt with in that paragraph, is that
correct?
A As
much as possible, sir; we got everything in there that we could.
Q Yes,
but you did not attempt to reduce to writing everything that was said?
A That
would be obviously impossible. It would
make too long a statement.
Q Yes.
A With
a lot of irrelevant matter.
Q At
what time in the interrogation did Mr. Burger tell you that Dasch had confided
in and advised some person in
A I
do not recall exactly what period of time during the questioning that was.
Q But
that disclosure was made during the interrogation of Burger?
A It
is contained in the statement.
Q Yes.
A It
is a statement that Burger made concerning Dasch.
Q Could
you give us the statement that was made respecting what Dasch had done in
regard to disclosing his intentions in
A It
is in the statement here and I would have to look for it.
Q I
realize there is a statement with respect to that subject. I thought maybe you could give us your
recollection
483
of
it.
The President. Can you hasten the proceeding to the extent
of giving him the reference in the statement?
The Witness. I have it right here, Mr. President.
Colonel Ristine. I do not have it.
The President. All right, sir.
Colonel Ristine. I did not have a copy of the statement to
work with last night.
The Witness. Do you wish me to read this portion?
Colonel Ristine. Yes.
The Witness. It is right here on page 47 of the statement.
Colonel Ristine. Yes, that is the reference I had in mind.
The Witness (reading):
“George Dasch had an engagement with a
man he pointed out to me and told me was an American journalist who was to be
exchanged with German newspapermen and who was to come to the
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Does
not that, in connection with what was on page 49, disclose to you that Dasch and
Burger had an understanding
484
in
A I
think if you read the statement further on in here, this was told by Dasch to
Burger after their arrival in the
Q You
think that is disclosed in the entire statement?
A I
cannot recall exactly where in here, but I recall this, that the statement
definitely says that there was no discussion concerning their plans until after
their arrival in the
Q You
have reference to the detailed method of carrying the matter out rather than
the intention to carry it out, do you not?
A I
have reference to any discussion at all between the two men concerning what
they intended to do when they arrived in the
The Attorney General. May it please the Commission, I do not see
where we get anywhere with disputes as to where the confession took place. We can look at the confession we have, and of
course counsel can ask any questions he wants which do not appear, but here we
have a dispute between counsel and the witness as to what is in the statement,
when he can refer to any part he wants and be sure about it.
Colonel Ristine. I think the Attorney General is confused
about the purpose of my question.
Obviously, everything that was said was not reduced to writing. There are frequent references in this
statement to conversations between Dasch and Burger in
485
who
conducted these interrogations that it was clearly shown collectively that they
formulated the plan before they came to the
The President. Proceed, Colonel Ristine.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Would
not you say that from the interrogations you made and taking into consideration
all the reference in the statement respecting the conversations that Dasch and
Burger had, together with all of the statements insofar as they are set out in
the written statement, that they had formulated the plan before they came to
the United States that they would not carry out the mission?
The Attorney General. I object.
The question is so obviously objectionable. He is asked practically as a juror to decide
his conclusion on certain evidence. Now,
the sole question is what did Burger say to you. He has asked as if he were a member of the
Commission what his opinion is with respect to what was said to him. I think it is most inappropriate, and I
object to it.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, I might make a
suggestion here. If I could be furnished
a copy of this statement and given an opportunity to study it carefully, I
could detail what I wish to inquire into more specifically if the cross-examination
could be deferred until, we might say, Monday.
486
The Attorney General. I am exceedingly sorry you did not have a
copy. There are plenty of them
available, Colonel Ristine. I will give
you one at any time. I do not like
deferring these matters too long, but anything that is convenient.
Colonel Ristine. I would be glad to defer it.
The President. The Commission feels that if you can continue
your questions along what might be called proper lines it would be unwise to
defer this questioning. You might reframe
your question so a conclusion would not be called for. However, I do not want in any way to
interfere with your being able to properly present your side of the case, but
this is cross-examination on a statement which has been read and which we have
all heard.
Colonel Ristine. Yes, sir.
The President. And which you can take the time now to cover
in the presence of the Commission, if you wish, or we will give you a
five-minute recess, if you prefer, but I think that you can properly reach your
objectives step by step at the same time making your point as to full and free
evidence on cross-examination.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Do
you now recall what Burger told you about some of the walks he had with Dasch
in which they discussed what they would do, provided they left
A I
do not recall any details about any discussion of that nature at all, sir.
Q Do
you recall what was said that gave rise to the references to those
conversations that are contained in this
487
report?
The President. Will you refer to the page of the report, if
you can, please?
Colonel Ristine. I cannot.
I am conducting the examination from my memory of what was read.
The President. If you wish, we will defer it, but I think we
can give you a recess of a few minutes until you get a copy. We have heard it and you have heard it and it
seems to me that this question you ask is one that you can find if you have a
copy, and I think you might request the Attorney General to furnish you with a
copy now.
The Attorney General. Certainly I will.
The President. The Commission will take a recess of five
minutes.
The Commission will be closed.
(The Commission was then closed. When it reopened, the following occurred:)
489
Q On
page 33—it is page 32 here, but I believe it was said that this was
misnumbered—the second full paragraph on the page starts out:
“It was during one of these tests
conducted by George Dasch.”
Do you have that paragraph?
A Yes,
sir.
The President. Pardon me.
May I ask the Attorney General if the confession as spread on the record
is misnumbered?
The Attorney General. No.
Colonel Ristine. This copy, I understood, was misnumbered, Mr.
President.
The President. I just wasn’t to make sure that we do not
have any further misunderstandings about the numbered pages.
Colonel Royall. May I clarify that?
The President. Please do.
Colonel Royall. The copy given us bore no numbers at all, and
in running through it hurriedly, in numbering it, I personally made a mistake in
one number, and we have been using our memoranda based on this. The one introduced in evidence is correctly
numbered.
The President. I wonder if that could be made available to
the counsel.
The Attorney General. The witness has it.
The Witness. The original is right here, sir.
The President. Possibly that could be used by the counsel
and then handed to the witness, just to avoid this constant series of
corrections as to numbered pages.
The Attorney General. I now have a correctly numbered copy for counsel
and the witness.
490
The Witness. Thank you, sir.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q I
refer to page 33, the second full paragraph.
A Yes,
sir.
Q Could
you read that paragraph and refresh your recollection?
A Do
you wish me to read it aloud?
Q Yes,
I think it would be well to read it aloud.
A “It
was during one of these tests conducted by George Dasch that I first got
together with him and began to get some idea that he was not the absolute Nazi
which he pretended to be. This
particular incident was during the first week in school—some time between April
13th and 17th. I also noticed
that from this time on, Dasch had difficulty with the course and had
considerable difficulty with the instructions.
He frequently came to classes late, and insulted the instructors by his
behavior. He would keep his hands in his
pocket when it was necessary to stand at attention and ‘Heil Hitler.’ As a result of this, everyone became suspicious
of Dasch. It appeared to me that he was
attempting to find out just how far he could go against the authorities at the
school without being fired. Dasch later
explained the situation to me as being caused by the fact that his nerves were
beginning to upset him and that he couldn’t force himself to go through with
something that he really hated and despised.”
Q Did
that in connection with the other matters we have referred to disclose to you
an intention on Burger’s and
491
Dasch’s
part not to carry out the program when they arrived in this country?
The Attorney General. I object to that most vigorously. The witness was asked what was disclosed to
him, what was told to him. This witness
cannot be asked what his conclusion was; that is a matter for the Commission of
decide.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, I will withdraw
that question, and with the Commission’s permission I will withdraw the
objection heretofore made on behalf of Mr. Dasch to the competency of this
statement or confession of Mr. Burger.
Was there more than one letter found in
Mr. Burger’s possession or in his room at the time of the search? There were two letters, were there not?
The Attorney General. One was found in the room.
The President. I think you may ask the question.
Colonel Ristine. There was a second letter?
The President. Ask the witness.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q There
was a second letter addressed to Mr. Burger from Mr. Dasch, was there not?
A Not
to my knowledge, sir.
Colonel Ristine. May I be permitted to ask the Attorney
General? I think there is no question.
The President. I think you may confer informally with the
Attorney General and then ask your question.
Is there any objection to that, Colonel Royall?
Colonel Royall. None whatsoever.
(Colonel Ristine conferred privately
with the Attorney General.)
Colonel Ristine. That is all the cross-examination.
492
Colonel Royall. I should like to ask one question.
The President. Colonel Royall.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Royall:
Q Mr.
Lanman, you were asked by Colonel Ristine a number of questions as to exactly
what transpired or what Burger said transpired at various stages of his
activities. I believe Burger did state
definitely—
The President. On what page, Colonel?
Colonel Royall. On page 49 and, I believe, elsewhere.
Questions by Colonel Royall:
Q (Continuing) –that he, Burger, had definitely decided in
Germany that he did not intend to carry this plan out and that, without openly
confiding in each other, there was some understanding between Dasch and himself
as to their attitude toward Germany?
A Yes,
sir; just as we have in the statement right here.
Q And
Burger made entirely definite in his statement the fact that he had no
intention of carrying out this plan, did he not?
A Have
you any reference to a particular page in the statement here?
Q I
believe we covered that before. If you
do not recall it, it is unnecessary to do so again.
A I
don’t recall any exact phraseology. I
would like to find it in the statement here.
Q Well,
it is in the statement, if it would be of any service to you.
Colonel Royall. I do not want to delay the Commission
493
with
this, because I covered it in previous examination. I merely asked about it again in order to
relate it to the questions that had been asked here.
At the Commission’s request, at any
time, we can give or point out those pages in the statement.
The President. I think it would be well, since you are
taking reference to the pages in question, that it be definitely stated what
page number you have reference to.
Colonel Royall. The Commission does not desire to call
attention to those pages now?
The President. You can have it looked up and inform us at
the proper time.
Colonel Royall. All right, sir.
Colonel Ristine. May I ask one or two other questions?
The President. Colonel Ristine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q It
is a fact that Mr. Dasch had communicated with and was in the protective
custody of the F.B.I. in
The Attorney General. If you know.
The Witness. Of my own personal knowledge, I do not know,
sir.
The Attorney General. Is there anything else?
Colonel Royall. I might find these pages and clear the
record, in order to save the witness from coming back. However, I think I had better defer that.
The Attorney General. All right, Mr. Lanman. Leave the original statement with the
reporter.
Counsel for the defendant Dasch has
talked as to recall
494
the
witness Cullen. With the Commission’s
permission, I shall now do that.
The Lieutenant Page. This witness has been sworn as to
secrecy.
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, I find that the
reference in the statement to the intention of Burger appears in one or two
places, but specifically it appears on the last page of the statement, to the
effect:
“I never had any intention of carrying
out the orders given me by officials of the German Government.”
That is the statement about which I was
questioning the witness Lanman.
Before another witness is sworn, I have
another matter. I want to make certain
that our stipulation as to the objection and motion to strike on behalf of
other defendants applies to the testimony given on both the cross-examination
by Burger and the cross-examination by Dasch of the witness Lanman and that the
Court is still reserving its decision on the matter of competency as to the
other defendants.
The President. That lies, as I take it, for the defendants
excepting—
Colonel Royall. Burger and Dasch.
The President. Is that agreed to? I understand that Colonel Ristine made
another reservation that is not included in the statement of Colonel Royall
with regard to the defendants whom he is representing.
Colonel Ristine. Yes, sir.
The President. You withdraw the stipulation, as I
understood?
Colonel Ristine. I withdrew the objection as to the state-
495
ment
or confession of Burger.
The President. As relating to your client, Dasch.
(The witness Cullen was recalled.)
Colonel Munson. The witness is reminded that he is still
under oath.
The Witness. Yes, sir.
The Attorney General. Colonel Ristine says that he had not had a
chance to confer with this witness. This
is a Government witness. I do not know
why the Colonel should have a chance to confer with him. The witness is now here, and Colonel Ristine
can ask him any question he wants to ask.
If the Commission would prefer to have him confer with the witness, I
see no objection, but I think it is a little unusual.
Colonel Ristine. This witness was subpoenaed by the defendant
whom I represent. On two occasions I
attempted to confer with this witness, but my conference was interrupted
because of objections to my conferring with the witness, who had been used by
the prosecution.
After I have had an opportunity to
confer with the witness, I may desire to put him on the stand again; but I do
not desire at this time to ask any further questions.
The Attorney General. Did you not confer with him yesterday?
Colonel Ristine. Mr. Attorney General, I started a conference
twice, but in the midst of each conference I was advised and informed that I
could not go further with the conference; and after the matter was straightened
out, I did not have another opportunity to talk to the witness.
The Attorney General. I will do whatever the Commission
496
wants;
it makes no difference to me.
The President. Is that statement accepted by you?
The Attorney General. Why, of course, if Colonel Ristine says so.
The President. Do you have any objection to his conferring
with the witness at this time?
The Attorney General. No.
The President. We will give you an opportunity. How long do you wish? Can you do it at this time?
Colonel Ristine. Oh, certainly. I would say fifteen minutes would be ample
time.
The President. All right.
The Commission will recess for that purpose.
The Attorney General. I do not want to raise difficulties, but time
is precious. Would it be appropriate for
Colonel Ristine to have the conference at recess?
The President. Have you another witness whom you could call?
The Attorney General. Oh, yes; we have a number of witnesses whom
we can call.
Colonel Ristine. That would be satisfactory; and I should like
to confer with the witness with my client, Mr. Dasch.
The President. All right.
We will give you an opportunity.
The witness will be excused for that purpose and will remain as the
disposition of the Commission.
The Attorney General. All right.
May if please the Commission, Colonel
Royall, representing Burger, and the prosecution stipulate that the knife
referred to by the witness B. Downey Rice was not the knife of the defendant
Burger but the knife—
497
Colonel Royall (interposing). We will not stipulate whose it was; just that
it was not the knife of Burger.
The Attorney General. All right; it was not the knife of Burger and
was not found in Burger’s room.
We will call Mr. Wills.
Lieutenant Page. Mr. N. D.Wills. This witness has not been sworn as to
secrecy.
Colonel Munson. Two oaths are administered to each
witness. The first is an oath of
secrecy. You understand, before taking
that oath, that violation of the oath of secrecy may subject you to severe
penalties?
Mr. Wills. Yes, sir.
Colonel Munson. Do you solemnly swear that you will not
divulge the proceedings taken in this trial to anyone outside the courtroom
until released from your obligation by proper authority or required as to do by
proper authority?
Mr. Wills. I do.
Colonel Munson. Do you swear that the evidence you shall give
in the case now on hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Wills. I do.
NORVAL D. WILLS
was
called as a witness for the prosecution and testified as follows:
Colonel Munson. Will you please state you name, residence or
office address, and occupation?
The Witness. My name is Norval D. Wills. I am a special agent of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, assigned to the
498
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Mr.
Wills, can you identify the defendant Dasch?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Please
do so.
(The defendant Dasch walked toward the
witness.)
Q Is
that Dasch?
A That
is Dasch, yes, sir.
Q Mr.
Wills, were you in
A Yes,
sir, I was.
Q At
the office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A Yes,
sir, I was.
Q Do
you remember seeing Dasch at that time?
A Yes,
sir, I did.
Q What
did Dasch have with him when you saw him?
A One
the morning of June 25, 1942, at the time we came into room number 2250 of the
Department of Justice Building, the defendant Dasch had at that time with him a
brief bag containing $82,550.
Q Wait
just a moment. Who else was present when
Dasch came in?
A At
that time Special Agent Duane L. Traynor and Special Agent Frank G. Johnstone
were present.
Q Who
brought Dasch in?
A Special
Agent Frank G. Johnstone and myself.
Q Where
had you brought him from?
A From
room 351 of the Mayflower Hotel.
Q Was
that as a result of a communication made by Dasch to one of the agents by
telephone?
499
A I
beg your pardon?
Q Why
did you go to the Mayflower Hotel?
A We
were with Dasch all during that evening.
Q Oh,
I see.
A That
night. In the morning, when we left the
Mayflower Hotel, we accompanied Dasch to the Department of Justice Building.
The Attorney General. I will ask to have this brief case marked.
(A
Brief Case was marked as Exhibit P-92 for identification.)
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Dasch,
you say, had a brief case with him?
A Yes,
sir.
Q I
show you Exhibit P-92 and ask you if it is the brief case that Dasch had with
him.
A Yes,
sir, this is the brief case.
Q This
is a photostat of the brief case, also marked P-92?
A Yes,
sir.
The Attorney General. I offer this photograph in evidence.
(Photograph of Exhibit P-92 was offered
in evidence.)
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Did
you examine the brief case?
A Yes,
sir, I did.
Q What
did you find it contained?
A At
the time he brought it into room 2250, it was locked, and he was asked to
unlock the brief case, which he did and at that time it was opened, and it was
observed to contain
500
several
manila envelopes and one white letter-sized envelope.
Q Did
you open the envelopes?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
did the envelopes contain?
A The
envelopes contained a total of $82,550.
Q In
what denominations?
A Fifty-dollar
bills.
Q In
American money?
A In
American money.
Q What
did you do with the money?
A That
was counted right in the office, and it was--the original binders were left on
the money, and it was initiated at that time by special agent Johnstone and me,
who had counted the money. It was placed
back in the envelopes and sealed with a sticker barring the initials of Dasch,
Johnstone, and myself.
Q Did
you take any other money from Dasch?
A Yes,
sir.
Q How
much?
A He
had on his person at that time a total of $160.17, which he turned over to me.
Q What
did you do with that?
A That
was likewise placed in an envelope and carried with us to
Q Did
Dasch say to you where he got the money contained in the brief case?
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, I think I had
better have a stipulation again here. We
desire to object to any statements made by Dasch, so far as they relate to any
of the other seven defendants. This, of
course, is in line with
501
the
objection previously made, and I should like it understood that the same
stipulation applies throughout and that the Commission will, when it deems it
advisable, pass upon the admission of that as to the other defendants.
The Attorney General. All right.
The President. That is accepted and will be made a matter of
record.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Will
you answer the question?
A May
I have the question repeated?
The Attorney General. Will you please read the question, Mr.
Reporter?
The Reporter (reading):
“Question. Did Dasch say to you where he got the money contained
in the brief case?
The Witness. He did.
Dasch stated that the money was part of the money that had been given to
him by Lieutenant Kappe.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Who
was Lieutenant Kappe?
A Lieutenant
Kappe was associated with the German high command and was the one who had
interested Dasch in this sabotage school.
Q Did
Dasch make a statement to you of various matters that had occurred?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
date was that? I will show you a
statement.
The Attorney General. I will ask to have this statement and the
addenda to the statement marked as separate exhibits.
502
(Statement
of defendant Dasch was marked as Exhibit P-93 for identification.)
(Addenda
to statement of defendant Dasch was marked as Exhibit P-94 for identification.)
503
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q I
show you an exhibit marked for identification P-93 and ask you what it is.
A This
is a statement dated July 2nd, 1942, which was shown to Dasch on
that date and which he refused to sign.
Q Mr.
Wills, will you tell the Commission on under what circumstances that statement
was taken?
A This
statement records the admissions made by the defendant Dasch during the time
that Special Agent Johnstone and I were with him.
Q Was
it taken in his presence?
A No,
sir.
Q Just
describe how it was taken.
A This
statement was prepared—
Q If
counsel will let me lead a little: There
were three agents present when he made the statement, or two?
A Only
two.
Q Who
were they?
A Special
Agent Frank G. Johnstone and myself.
Q Did
you then dictate what he had said?
A Special
Agent Johnstone dictated that Defendant Dasch had stated to us.
Q That
dictation was not in the same room where Dasch was present?
A No,
sir.
Q Was
the dictation brought back?
A Yes,
sir; it was.
Q Did
Dasch then read it?
A Yes,
sir; he did.
504
Q Did
you read it?
A Yes,
sir; I have.
Q And
Dasch said he did not wish to sign it?
A That
is correct.
Q Did
he give any reason for not wishing to sign it?
A Yes,
sir; he did.
Q What
was the reason?
A There
were several reasons.
Q Give
the reasons. I do not mean, in
detail. Why did he not want to sign it?
A He
had stated that he would sign nothing; that he wanted to appear before the
court, and that he would sign nothing.
Q Did
he write anything on the end of the statement?
A No,
sir; he did not.
Q Whose
writing is this (indicating)?
A That
is Special Agent Frank G. Johstone’s writing.
Q Did
Dasch say whether or not and to what extent the writing that was shown him was
correct?
A No;
he did not make any mention concerning corrections. However, he did point out his objections to
the statement.
Q I
show you Exhibit P-94 and ask you what that is.
A This
is a summary of the objections made to the statement by Dasch.
Q Then
Dasch did make objections to the statement?
A Yes;
he did.
Q What
objections were they? Are the objections
shown on Exhibit P-94 which I have just shown you?
505
A Yes,
sir; they are shown on this exhibit.
Q Did
Dasch say whether or not the original statement and the objections which he
stated to you, shown in P-94—that those two documents correctly expressed what
he had said to you?
A No,
sir; he did not.
Q He
did not say that?
A No,
sir.
Q Have
you read both of these exhibits?
A Yes,
sir; I have.
Q Does
the first exhibit, P-93, with the second exhibit correctly express what Dasch
said to you?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Using
these two documents to refresh your recollection, will you tell the Commission
what Dasch said to you?
A Shall
I just read the statement?
The Attorney General. Do you object to his reading it?
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, I understand there
was an elaborate statement prepared and signed by Dasch, and I suggest that it
would be much better, in my opinion, to offer that in evidence, rather than to
attempt to elicit statements from the witness respecting statements made and a
long, lengthy explanation as to what the various objections were to the signing
of that document.
The Attorney General. Colonel Ristine, I am afraid that I will have
to be permitted to try my case in my own way.
Colonel Ristine. I am objecting to this manner, in view of the
fact that there is a statement signed by the defendant Dasch, prepared by the
F.B.I. in the same particularity that the previous statement of Burger was
prepared.
506
The Attorney General. I think it is fair to the Commission to say
that the reason that I am not putting in that statement is that it is 254
pages, and most of it is highly irrelevant.
Most of it has nothing to do with this trial at all. It would probably take four or five days to
read that to the Commission. We are
trying our case, and I believe that I can put in all the evidence that I wish
to put in with respect to what Dasch said by asking this witness to tell the
Commission what Dasch said. Therefore, I
will now ask the witness again, refreshing his recollection with this paper, to
say to the Commission what the witness Dasch said to him in that room.
Colonel Ristine. We object, of course, to the witness
refreshing his recollection from reading the paper, because, in effect, it
would amount to the reading of the document prepared after the conversation was
taken. It is an unsigned statement, a
statement which the witness refused to sign because it did not contain many of
the matters which were discussed in the conversation. Obviously it would not be proper to permit
them to just relate a part of the conversation.
The Attorney General. I will withdraw the question. I will offer both exhibits in evidence.
Colonel Ristine. And we object, if the Commission please,
because it is perfectly apparent from Exhibit P-94 that many matters were left
out of the statement which were part and parcel of the same conversation, the
details of which are not contained in either document; and therefore it would
be an attempt to single out certain matters and defi-
507
nitely
delete other matters explanatory of these matters and would be very misleading
and unfair to the defendant.
The Attorney General. Counsel can cross-examine the witness to his
heart’s content and go over all this material.
These are admissions by Dasch, a defendant in this case; and I am asking
the witness to say what they are. To
simplify it, I am offering these documents in evidence, the witness having
stated that this document (indicating) correctly shows, with the addenda
suggested by Dasch himself as to a word here and a word there, what Dasch told,
and I am now offering these in evidence.
I cannot conceive that there should be any objection to that.
Colonel Ristine. May I make the further objection, if the
Commission please, that no stenographer was present; no one attempted to take
down the conversation as is occurred.
The document P-93 is merely a summary of what this witness says were
damaging admissions or admissions against interest in the conversation, that
did not include and did not purport to include those things which he said in
his own behalf and in his own favor as part of the same conversation. The objections are merely generalities, and
it would be impossible if the testimony were offered in that way to get the
true picture of the conversation. I
think it would be both unfair to the Commission and unfair to the accused to
receive the documents in evidence.
The President. Have you any further comment, Mr. Attorney
General?
The Attorney General. No, except that the Commission may want to
consider this in ruling. I offer this
because it is the simplest and quickest way of getting it into one record.
508
I
think there can be no doubt that it should be introduced. If not, I will ask the witness, first, to
read to himself, refreshing his recollection, such page; then turn the page
down and testify to the Commission after refreshing his recollect. That seems to me to be a rather silly
procedure; and to simplify and expedite it I am offering the statement which
was made by Dasch and which the witness says is correct, with the addenda. I renew my offer.
The President. The Commission will close.
(The Commission was then closed. When it reopened the following occurred:)
509
The President. The Commission is open.
We
will be seated and await the return of counsel for the defense.
Colonel Royall. I beg the Commission’s pardon for the delay.
Colonel Ristine. I do likewise.
The President. Let me see.
There is a motion and an objection before the Commission. Have you anything further to state before I
make a ruling?
Colonel Ristine. No, sir, I think not, sir.
The President. The objection of the defense counsel Colonel
Ristine representing the defendant Dasch is sustained.
The Attorney General. Very good.
I now renew my question.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Will
you look at the Exhibits 93 and 94, to refresh your recollection, unless you
have done so already, and state to the Commission—
The President. I understand they are not in evidence.
The Attorney General. I offered them in evidence, the objection was
made, the objection was sustained, so they are not in evidence.
The President. They are not in evidence, but, I take it,
they are in the hands of the witness and you are referring to them as not in
evidence.
The Attorney General. That is correct, Mr. President.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Will
you look at the two exhibits and state to the Commission what Dasch said to
you?
510
The President. Just one moment, Mr. Attorney General. I thought I had made it plain that they were
not part of the record in any sense.
The Attorney General. That is perfectly plain.
The President. Either in the record or as exhibits. They are simply—
The Attorney General. They simply have been identified for purposes
of reference and are in no way part of the record, is that correct?
The President. That is accepted.
The Attorney General. Thank you.
The President. Do you understand the status now, Colonel
Ristine?
Colonel Ristine. I think so, Mr. President. I do not think, however, that it is
appropriate or proper for the witness now to read that page by page.
The Attorney General. I have not asked him to do that.
The President. He did not ask that question.
The Attorney General. I did not ask that question.
The President. As I understand it, you hand these papers
that are not in evidence to the witness in case you wish him to refresh his
memory, is that my understanding?
The Attorney General. That is correct.
The President. Is there any objection to that on your part,
Colonel Ristine?
Colonel Ristine. Not as stated in that form.
The Attorney General. All right.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please—
The President. Who made those notes?
511
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Who
made the notes?
A This
statement—these notes were dictated by Special Agent Frank G. Johnstone.
The Attorney General. May I renew the question? So it will by very clear, I will put it in
this form.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Have
you refreshed your recollection by looking at those notes?
A I
have.
Q Will
you now testify to the Commission what Dasch said to you?
A The
defendant—
Colonel Ristine (interposing). Mr. President, pardon me, but might I be
permitted to ask a question?
The President. Yes.
Colonel Ristine. Will you relate—
The President (interposing). I will just warn the witness that time,
before he answers the questions, will be given for consideration of your
questions by the Commission.
Colonel Ristine (addressing the
witness). Will you attempt, insofar as
you can, to relate the conversation which you had with Mr. Dasch, giving as
near as possible everything which you or our associates said and everything in
reply which Mr. Dasch said, disregarding the summarized paper which you said
you had looked at to refresh your recollection.
The Attorney General. I asked the witness—
The President (interposing). Is there any objection on your part?
512
The Attorney General. Yes. I
asked the witness a very simple question.
If there is an objection to that, I think it should be made. I will renew the question, if there is no
objection.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, I object to this
witness’ being permitted to testify as to recollections which he has refreshed
his mind about by reading a statement which was dictated by a different person.
The Attorney General. Would the Commission wish to hear me on that
line?
The President. I did not understand that.
The Attorney General. Would the Commission wish to hear me on that
objection?
The President. I doubt if we will.
The Attorney General. Yes.
The President. Will you please state your question
again? I will have the reporter read the
question. Will you read the question put
by the Attorney General, please, to the witness.
The Attorney General. The last two, if he may.
The President. The last two, yes.
The Reporter (reading): “Have you refreshed your recollection by
looking at those notes?”
“Answer. I have.
“Question. Will you now testify to the Commission what
Dasch said to you?”
The President. Do you object to those questions?
Colonel Ristine. If the witness will attempt to relate the
conversation—
513
The President (interposing). I just asked you if you object to the
Attorney General’s question.
Colonel Ristine. I did object, Mr. President, because of the
previous effort to have him use that statement to refresh his recollection,
when it appears that he did not even write the statement and when it also appears
that much of the conversation which occurred is absent from the statement.
The Attorney General. Mr. President, it seems to me there is some
confusion here. A witness, clearly, can
refresh his recollection from anything on earth, a newspaper or anything else,
and then can testify, and that is all I have asked this witness to do.
A Member. Is it not the rule, Mr. Attorney General,
that when notes are taken, at that time they shall be transcribed accurately,
at the same time, and then that those notes could be used for the purpose of
refreshing his recollection? Now, you
state, or it has been stated here in evidence that these notes were made by an
entirely different person from this witness on the stand. Why should he refresh his memory form that,
unless you can show a connection between the two as to what he had to do in
connection with the preparation of that?
The Attorney General. With due deference, General Winship, first,
it has been stated that Dasch talked to this witness and that then another
person went out and made notes. This
witness has stated that he has read the notes as shown in the exhibit and the
addendum and they correctly show what Dasch said to him. But, aside from that, it seems to me hornbook
law that a witness, if he does not read the material with which he refreshes
his recollection, can testify as to anything that the
514
defendant
said. The refreshing of recollection is
simply that and nothing more. It is used
to bring back to his memory what a witness said to him, what Dasch said to him,
and therefore I have suggested that he look at this and having been refreshed
with these two exhibits that he then turn them down and testify not what they
contain but what he remembers Dasch said to him. If you will note the question, I asked him
whether he would tell the Commission what Dasch said to him, after having
refreshed his recollection, and that is all I have asked him.
A Member. I think that is all right.
The Attorney General. You think that is all right?
A Member. Yes.
If he assisted in the preparation of those notes at that time, that is a
different proposition than having someone else come in and keep dictating them
at the same time, and then you offer them in evidence.
The Attorney General. I did not mean to give the impression that he
assisted in any way in the dictating of the notes, I wanted to give the
impression that the witness said that the notes correctly stated what Dasch
told him. But my main point is that I am
not asking him anything about this statement.
It is not in the record and I am not asking him anything about it at
all.
A Member. We think you have a perfect right, as we have
stated already, to have him consult those notes, if those notes were made by
him in consultation or by reading them over at the time that they were made by
the other party who dictated them.
The Attorney General. He did read them over after they
515
were
brought in, as he testified.
A Member. If that is in evidence. I do not recall that that is in evidence at
all.
The Attorney General. May I ask the witness more questions?
A Member. You might ask him some more questions on
that, yes.
The Attorney General. So as to clear up precisely what you have in
mind, General Winship.
A Member. Yes.
The Attorney General. The question is addressed as to just how the
notes were made and used.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q As
I understand, you testified that Dasch came in and told you certain things, is
that correct?
A That
is correct.
Q And
who were then present when he told you those things?
A That
was over a period of time, and those present were Special Agent Duane L.
Traynor, and Special Agent Frank G. Johnstone, and myself.
Q Then
they were set down in this statement by somebody dictating, is that correct?
A As
I may, this was over a period of time. A
portion of this time there was a stenographer present, and these particular
notes were dictated by Special Agent Johnstone, a portion of which was dictated
in my presence.
Q And
then they were brought in to you and you and Johnstone read them over with
Dasch present, is that correct?
516
A He
read them over in our presence.
Q He
read them over in your presence?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
having then looked at the notes taken under those circumstances you have now
been asked to state what Dasch actually said to you.
A Yes,
sir.
The President. Is there any objection?
A Member. I think that ought to satisfy the Colonel.
Colonel Ristine. I think, Mr. President, please, he should
just relate what the conversation was.
The President. You heard the question that the Attorney
General asked him. If there is no
objection in respect to that particular question, it might be read again by the
reporter, without the background.
The Reporter (reading):
“Question. And having then looked at the notes taken
under those circumstances you have now been asked to state what Dasch actually
said to you.”
Colonel Ristine. I think it would be better if the Attorney
General will eliminate the notes and merely ask him for the conversation.
The Attorney General. All right, I will do it any way you wish.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q What
did Dasch say to you?
A During
the time that I was in company with Dasch he told me that he was born on
February 7th, 1903, at
517
the
German Army in northern
Q Did
you say legal or illegal?
A It
should be illegal. He wanted to clear up
his illegal entry. So he contacted the
Immigration and Naturalization Service, who afforded him or gave him a card, a
seaman’s certificate, and he went to Germany on the S.S. Montelay, and he
returned, making a legal entry into the United States.
Q How
long was he in Germany on that trip?
A I
think from the time that he left the United States until he returned a period
of thirty days elapsed.
Q Go
ahead.
A He
remained in the United States until the spring of 1930, at which time he—or
prior to that time—I beg your pardon—he enlisted in the United States Army,
during 1927, and he went to Honolulu. He
was in the Aviation Corps, and not seeing any future or advancement, he was
discharged. He had been in the Army for
a period of one year, one month and ten days.
In 1930 he returned to Germany and was there, as I recall, a couple of
months, and returned to the United States.
He later returned to Germany during the same year. He remained for a period of three or four
months and returned to the United States in the spring of 1931.
Q Now,
Mr. Wills, you say he remained for three or four months. Did he tell you the purpose of his visit to
Germany and what he did in Germany during those three or four
518
months?
A Yes,
sir, he did. He moved during September,
September the 18th, 1930, and I believe it was November of 1930 that
he returned to Germany with his wife for the purpose of visiting. While there he went to Switzerland, Italy,
and other countries in Europe. He
returned during the spring of 1931 and remained in the United States ever
since, until March, 1941. During the
time he was in the United States he was a waiter and a salesman for Sanctuary
Supplies. In March 1939 his mother came
over, and during August or September of 1939 she returned to Germany, after she
had heard that Germany and Russia had signed a pact.
At that time the defendant Dasch had
pending naturalization papers. Since
Germany was at war and he was a German national he said he did not want to feel
like a rat, so he made efforts to return to Germany. He contacted the German Consulate.
Q Where?
A In
New York City. He contacted German
Consulate in New York City, and after a lapse of time the Consulate notified
him that he was able to return to Germany.
On March 27, 1941, he sailed from San Francisco on a Japanese boat, the
Tatuta Maru.
Q Did
he say at that time whether or not the German Consulate paid for his passage or
made arrangements for his sailing?
A The
German Consulate in New York City gave him transportation tickets from New York
City to San Francisco
519
and
from San Francisco steamship tickets to Japan.
While in Japan he was given transportation money. He was indefinite as to the amount of money
he received in Tokyo, whether it was 621 yen, 621 dollars, 641 dollars, or 450
dollars, or 451 dollars. However, the
German Consulate did furnish him with transportation, and in Japan with some
money.
Q Whom
did he go to see in Tokyo? The German
Consul?
A The
embassy, as I recall.
Q The
German Embassy in Tokyo?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
the German Embassy made the arrangements for the further trip?
A Yes,
sir, to Germany.
Q I
am not quite clear what you said. Did
they give him the tickets or money or both?
A They
gave him money?
Q Money
for what purpose?
A To
travel to Germany.
Q To
travel to Germany?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
did he then do?
A He
left Tokyo on April the 22nd and proceeded through Russia.
Q Before
he left Tokyo did he say whether or not he signed any document?
A Yes,
sir, he did. He signed a document
showing the indebtedness to the German Government.
Q You
have not yet stated whether or not he told you
520
the
object of his visit to Germany. Are you
going to state that now, or later, or did he state that to you?
A The
defendant Dasch stated that the reason he wanted to return to Germany was that
if he remained in the United States with Germany at war and he being a German
national, it would make him look like a rat, and he wanted to return to Germany
for that reason. Furthermore, his mother
at the time she was here had told him that Hitler had done well in Germany and
he wanted to go over to see for himself.
Q Did
he state whether or not he knew at that time any of the other defendants in
this case?
A Going
over on the Tatuta Maru there was one passenger that defendant Dasch mentioned,
Werner Thiel, who is presently before the Commission. On leaving Tokyo—
Q Was
Thiel with him when he left Tokyo?
A That
I do not know, sir.
Q All
right.
A On
leaving Tokyo he went through Russia and entered occupied Poland at Malkinia on
May 13, 1941. From there he went to
Berlin, and then, I think, registered with the foreign association, the
Auschland Association.
Q Before
you continue, did he state whether while he was in America he belonged to any
German associations?
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission
please, I think it is a highly leading question. I do not see much difference
between the witness’ refreshing his recollection and going along through this
statement that was dictated by somebody else and the Attorney General’s
suggesting from time to time in sequence
521
what
the statement has. I don’t think that is
proper examination of the witness.
The Attorney General. I would like to have an objection made, if
there is one to be made.
Colonel Ristine. It is leading.
The Attorney General. Of course, I do not want to lead, but I would
like an objection made to the specific question. I did not know that I had led him in any
sense. Do you object to this question?
Colonel Ristine. I had not objected to several that were
leading, but I do object to the last one, which was very decidedly leading.
The President. Will you read the question, Mr. Reporter?
The Reporter (reading): “Before you continue, did he state whether
while he was in America he belonged to any German Associations?”
The Attorney General. I will withdraw the question.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Proceed.
A He
was in Berlin and he had to go to Stuttgart.
That was where the American branch of the Auschland Association was
located.
The President. Mr. Attorney General, in view of the time and
our probable reserve as to adjournment, I take it this witness will be on the
stand some time.
The Attorney General. Yes, sir.
The President. It is the purpose of the Commission to
permit, after adjournment, some accredited representatives from the newspapers
to come in to the rear of the courtroom, while
522
we
are still seated here, as though we were in session, to permit the accredited
newspaper men to get a picture of the Commission as it functions, a mental
picture, having already permitted the other pictures to be taken. So I will adjourn the Commission—for an hour
or an hour and a half?
The Attorney General. And hour would please me better.
The President. How about the defense counsel, do they want
more time than an hour?
Colonel Ristine. I have several matters I would like to confer
about, if we could have the additional thirty minutes.
The Attorney General. They have got all Sunday.
The President. If the defense counsel wish the extra half
hour, it will be given them. We will
probably sit an extra half hour later this afternoon. Anyway, we are sitting without regard to
hours and we will consult both sides as to that point.
The Attorney General. I understand, then, that you will reconvene
at 2 o’clock?
The President. We will reconvene at 2:00 and we will take
about five minutes to permit these newspaper men to look around.
The Commission is adjourned formally.
(At 12:35 p.m., a recess was taken
until 2 o’clock p.m. of the same date.)
523
AFTER RECESS
(The Commission reconvened at 2:30
o’clock p. m., upon the expiration of the recess.)
The President. The Commission is open.
The reporter will please note that the
Commission extended its recess at lunch time upon request of the defense
counsel Colonel Ristine so that he could have time to confer with the defendant
whom he represents.
Colonel Munson. Let the record show that the personnel of the
Commission, of the prosecution, and of the defense are present as at the close
of the previous session; also that all eight of the accused and the reporter
are present.
The witness is reminded that he still
under oath.
The Witness. Yes, sir.
The Attorney General. With the permission of the Commission and by
agreement of the counsel for the defense, we should like to withdraw this
witness for a very few minutes and to put on Lieutenant Colonel Potter with
reference to the Florida situation, so that Colonel Potter may report back to
his duties as promptly as possible.
The Judge Advocate General. Is there any objection to this witness
staying in the back of the room?
The Attorney General. No.
Just let him take a seat in the back of the room.
Lieutenant Page. This witness has not been sworn, sir.
The President. Mr. Attorney General, if you have no
objection, I should prefer to have Mr. Wills remain outside until recalled.
The Attorney General. Will Mr. Wills withdraw, please?
(The witness Wills withdrew from the
hearing room.)
524
Colonel Munson. Lieutenant Colonel Potter, will you step up,
please?
You will take two oaths. One is the oath of secrecy. You understand that a violation of that oath
might subject you to punishment for contempt proceeding or otherwise as a penal
offense, since the Commission has power to punish for violation of this oath of
secrecy? Do you understand that?
Lieutenant Colonel Potter. Yes, sir.
Colonel Munson. Will you please raise your right hand? You do solemnly swear that you will not
divulge the proceedings taken in this trial to anyone outside the courtroom
until released from your obligation by proper authority or required so to do by
proper authority?
Lieutenant Colonel Potter. I do.
Colonel Munson. Now the oath as a witness:
Do you swear that the evidence you
shall give in the case now on hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Lieutenant Colonel Potter. I do.
LIEUTENANT COLONEL MARSHALL C. POTTER
was
called as a witness for the prosecution and testified as follows:
Colonel Munson. What is your name, rank, organization, and
station?
The Witness. Marshall C. Potter, Lieutenant Colonel, 104th
Infantry, Atlantic Beach, Florida.
The Attorney General. I will ask the reporter to mark these three
orders.
525
(3
orders were marked as Exhibits P-95, P-96, and P-97, for identification.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Lieutenant
Colonel Potter, where did you say you were located?
A At
Atlantic Beach, Florida, sir.
Q Are
you the executive officer?
A I
am, sir.
Q Attached
to what?
A The
104th Infantry.
Q Who
is your immediate superior?
A Colonel
John J. Higgins.
Q Is
that the Southern Sector?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Where
is the headquarters of the Southern Sector?
A Jacksonville,
Florida.
Q Who
is in command of the Southern Sector?
A General
Loomis now commands the Southern Sector.
Q I
show you exhibit P-95, which is dated April 10, 1942, and ask you what it is.
A That
is a field order that was issued by the Commanding General of the Southern
Sector at that time, General Blood.
Q Issued
to whom?
A To
the commanding officer of the troops that were then stationed in the Southern
Sector.
Q Who
was the commanding officer at that time?
A That
was the 8th Division—troops from the 8th Division, sir.
526
Q Was
that issued to you by the commanding officer?
Not issued to you but given to you by the commanding officer?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Is
that still in effect?
A Yes,
sir.
The Attorney General. I offer Exhibit P-95 in evidence.
(Exhibit P-95 was offered in evidence.)
Colonel Royall. The defendants object but not on the grounds
of identification or authentication. We
object on the same ground as we objected to the other orders, relating to the
Eastern Sector, I think the Court has ruled adversely, but we want to reserve
our right.
The President. Do you mean the ruling we made as to the
suspension?
The Attorney General. No, General McCoy.
Colonel Royall. At the outset or the early part of the
hearing there were introduced certain orders and proclamations relative to the
Eastern Sector of the country.
The President. Oh, yes, I remember,
Colonel Royall. At the time we objected, but Commission did
not sustain our objection. We make the
same objection here in order to preserve our position.
The President. The objection of the defense is not sustained
with reference to this particular point.
Colonel Royall. I think there are two more documents, so I
think it would be a convenience to have the record show that we object to them
on similar grounds.
The President. Exactly; and the record will show that the
objection of the defense counsel is overruled.
527
The Attorney General. I now offer Exhibits P-96 and P-97, which are
two documents.
Colonel Royall. How are they designated?
The Attorney General. P-96 is dated June 3, 1942, and the subject
is “Accomplishment of Southern Sector Mission.”
Exhibit P-97 is dated June 4, 1942.
I do not want to read all of these, but
I should like to read a paragraph from the first and then hand up the
rest. They are already in evidence.
2 a of Exhibit P-95, to which
the witness has already referred, reads as follows:
“2 a. The Southern Sector, with units attached from
the 8th division, will protect the coastline within its boundaries
against attacks from land and sea, and against paratroops and airborne troop
attack along the beaches.
“(1) Liaison will be established with
Army Combat Forces, Navy and Air Force units within the Sector and with
adjacent Army units without the Sector.
“(2) Sub-Sector Commanders will
establish contact with the nearest AWS Information Center for air alert
information.
“(3) A continual reconnaissance will be
made by all units.
“(4) Warning systems will be continued
as outlined in _OP, Southern Sector, S. C. F. and letter SDC and First Army
dated 4/2/42, file 324.5/227, Subject:
‘Observation for security of Coastline.’
Patrols will be established in areas not adequately covered
528
by the warning system. Every effort will be exerted to detect
possible landing of enemy agents from sub-marines.”
The President. May I ask if you have read the complete title
of that? You spoke of the Southern
Sector.
The Attorney General. I will read it completely as it is headed:
“Headquarters Southern Sector, Southern
Coastal Frontier, 3rd Floor, Walton Building, Atlanta, Georgia. Field Order No. 6. 12:00 Noon, 10, April. ’42.”
I do not think there is any further
heading.
The President. That is sufficient. I just wanted to get the full name of the
authority issuing the order.
The Attorney General. Exhibit P-96 is headed:
“Headquarters Southern Sector, Office
of the Commanding General, Realty Building, Jacksonville, Florida. June 3, 1942.
“Subject: Accomplishment of Southern Sector Mission.”
It is addressed to:
“Commanding Officer, GT 104, Atlantic
Beach, Florida.”
Question by the Attorney General:
Q Who
is the Commanding Officer, GT 104, Atlantic Beach, Florida?
A That
is Colonel Higgins, sir.
The Attorney General. (Reading):
“1.
Elements of GT 104 stationed at Jacksonville Beach will be prepared to
execute the mission of the
529
Southern Sector. Plans will be prepared for the following
objectives:
“a. Readiness at all times to furnish a striking force
to operate in the area Jacksonville; Mayport Section Base; Jacksonville Beach;
St. Augustine, in the event of attack on vital military and naval
installations.
“b. Maintenance of motor patrol along the
inhabited area of the beach road to detect signaling to enemy agents, landing
of enemy agents from sub-marines, subversive activities.
“c. Coordination with Commanding Officer, Mayport
Section Base in defense of Beach area.
“By command of Brigadier General
Loomis:
“/s/ Ralph E. Hill,
“Colonel, C.A.C.,
“Executive.”
The President. What is the date of that order?
The Attorney General. That date is June 3, 1942.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Have
you yet stated whether or not the orders of June 3 and 4 are still effective?
A They
are still in effect, sir.
Q And
were in effect June 17, 1942?
A That
is correct, sir.
Q Did
the area covered in the paragraph which I have just read, which refers to
Jacksonville, Jacksonville Beach, at cetera, cover Ponte Medra Beach?
A It
did.
Q Where
is the Ponte Medra Beach?
A Just
South of Jacksonville Beach, adjoining it.
530
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, do I understand
that my objection also applies to the oral testimony relating to these orders?
The President. Yes, sir, as far as it affects these papers
which have been introduced.
Colonel Royall. That is correct.
Question by the Attorney General:
Q It
forms a part of the area covered by patrols under you?
A Yes,
sir.
The Attorney General. Cross-Examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Royall:
Q Do
you know how many areas or sectors the United States is divided into?
The President. Please repeat the question.
Q How
many areas or sectors is the United States divided into?
A Does
the Colonel mean defense sectors?
Q What
was your sector called?
A This
is the Southern Defense Sector.
Q How
many defense sectors is the country divided onto?
A I
am not familiar with the entire country; I am familiar only with the Eastern
Seaboard, sir.
Colonel Royall. That is all.
The Attorney General. That is all.
We shall not need this witness any
further, unless counsel for the defense should desire him, so with the
permission of the Commission I should like to send him back. May he be
531
excused?
Colonel Royall. You are excused, Colonel.
The President. You are excused, Colonel.
The Attorney General. Counsel for Dasch informs me that he does not
now wish to recall Coast Guardsman Cullen, whom we kept here. Will it be satisfactory to let him go?
Colonel Ristine. Yes.
The President. Colonel Royall, have you any objection to the
departure of the witness stated?
Colonel Royall. No, sir; we had not indicated any desire to
examine him further.
The Attorney General. We will recall Mr. Wills.
Colonel Munson. The witness is reminded that he is still
under oath.
The Witness. Yes, sir.
NORVAL D. WILLS
was
recalled as a witness for the prosecution and, having been previously duly
sworn, testified further as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION—Resumed
Question by the Attorney General:
Q Mr.
Wills, I do not remember just where we were when we recessed.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, in view of some new
facts which came to light during the noon recess, I should like to be permitted
to ask a few additional questions of this witness with a view to making another
notion respecting his testimony.
The Attorney General. I respectfully suggest that the action be
made without questioning. I do not see
why counsel
532
should
question the witness any further. If he
wants to make a motion, I should be glad to have him make the motion now.
Colonel Ristine. The motion, if the Commission pleases, will
be based upon facts which I was informed of during the noon recess and which I
wish to verify by the testimony of this witness. The facts are not now in the record.
The Attorney General. I object and should like, with the permission
of the Commission, to proceed with my witness in due course. The Commission having ruled, I should like to
go ahead.
The President. You will have a chance to cross-examine the
witness, I take it, after the Attorney General has finished his direct
examination.
Colonel Ristine. With the understanding, then, that is these
things are corroborated, I may then have the privilege of moving to strike out
the testimony of this witness? It seems
to me that the appropriate thing to do would be to permit me to ask a few
questions, and then if this witness testifies as I think he will, I believe the
Commission would sustain a motion to strike now, thus saving the taking up of
time for the further testimony of this witness.
The President. No objection has been made; it is purely a
statement that has been made.
Colonel Ristine. I do not mind disclosing to the Commission
that during the noon recess I was informed—
The Attorney General. Wait a minute, I object. I do not think it is appropriate for counsel
to give testimony.
Colonel Ristine. I am not giving testimony. I asked for permission to ask the witness a
few questions.
The President. I take it you have a right to ask the wit-
533
ness
anything subject to the objection of the Attorney General, but is it not proper
procedure, since the witness has been introduced by the Attorney General or by
the prosecution, to give the prosecution an opportunity to question its own
witness subject to your objection? I
should be glad to be informed by the honorable counsel on both sides.
Colonel Ristine. If I may suggest it, I believe the proper
procedure, where either sides desires to make a motion requesting that the
witness be permitted to be heard with respect to the matter about which he
intends to give testimony, to be that they are always permitted as a
preliminary matter to interrogate the witness respecting those matters which
would make his testimony incompetent; and if the facts appear from his
testimony—that is, in answer to those particular questions—that his testimony
with respect to the alleged confession is incompetent, then the Court would
sustain the objection, and we would not have the long testimony of the witness.
The Attorney General. May it please the Commission, all I am
interested in is expedition, not in any technical objections. If I am to be continually interrupted in the
examination of my own witness after questions have been addressed to him and we
are to take a good deal of time in going over his questions to see whether or
not his evidence would be admissible, I have no objection, but it does keep
interrupting the thing, and I just do not know when I am going to finish.
This witness was put on and examined at
great length. Now here, in the middle of
the evidence, counsel again wishes to ask him questions. I have no objection if the Commission thinks
that is proper procedure. I do not want
to be technical
534
about
it, but I want to get on with my case.
The President. Are there any further remarks from Colonel
Ristine or from the other defense counsel?
Colonel Royall. After Colonel Ristine has finished, I should
like to say a word.
Colonel Ristine. You may.
I have finished my statement.
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, I think Colonel
Ristine desires, and I believe under the circumstances it would be appropriate
to give him an opportunity, to examine this witness to determine whether the
confession or alleged confession of Dasch would be admissible. Ordinarily, of course, those facts should be
determined before the testimony begins.
However, as Colonel Ristine explained to the Commission before, when the
Commission took the matter under advisement, he had not been prepared for the
contingency that did arise. He did not
know that this unsigned statement or any testimony using it as a basis of
recollection would be offered. He had
assumed that the signed statement of the defendant Dasch would be offered. Therefore, he has not had an opportunity
either to look into the contents of this or to confer with his client as to the
circumstances under which these statements now being testified to were made.
It seems to me that it is highly
appropriate for Colonel Ristine to present to the Commission, for whatever they
may be worth, facts which have just come to his attention. If those facts require the exclusion of any
further declarations of the defendant Dasch, why, they ought to be
excluded. It would not be just not to
exclude them. Therefore, I think he
should have opportunity.
The question may arise in the mind of
the Commission why
535
I
am addressing myself to this when I do not represent Dasch. I should like to clear that up. We have objected to these declarations on the
ground that the confession is not admissible against the other defendants. However, the Commission still has that under
advisement. I must, therefore, protect
my client from a contingency which I hope will not arise but which may possibly
arise if this should be considered against the other defendants.
With that in view, I have myself, for
the first time, read during the noon recess the paper which this witness has
used to refresh his recollection, and I think that this examination may elicit
matter that would be prejudicial certainly to the defendant Dasch, and if
admitted as to our clients, prejudicial to them.
I think the Commission could and should
properly permit Colonel Ristine to develop facts which have just come to his
attention. I do not believe it is going
to serve to delay very long, because as between the two courses, to determine
it now might shorten it.
536
The President. It would not be a question with the
Commission as to the time. We will give
you all the time you want.
Colonel Royall. It might shorten it. I was replying largely to what the Attorney
General said about expediting it. It
certainly could not take any longer to follow that course than to wait until
the evidence is introduced and then move to strike it out.
The President. Before you sit down, Colonel Royall, I would
like to ask a little information on the subject of the procedure in a like
case, just for information on the subject of the procedure in a like case, just
for information. Assuming for the moment
that the accused can introduce any witness they please, without any explanation
of what they intend to bring out, and to put certain questions to the assumed
witness on the stand without reference to any development involved, it would be
a proper procedure, I take it, for the prosecution to go ahead with the
questions and objections to the questions, if there are such, to be posed. In other words, the procedure would be to
allow either side, when they introduce a witness to ask a certain series of questions. I take it the issue that is involved is that
instead of asking questions, certain papers have been attempted to be
introduced into evidence, which have not been introduced, but which the defense
feels might even prejudice their case, now that it has been attempted in open
court.
Colonel Royall. No, sir; I do not think that is quite the
problem, though I see very clearly why the Commission would think that it the
problem, because the whole picture has not been given. But I do not want to state anything to the
537
Commission
that might in any way transgress the proprieties, and I do not think I
shall. But here is the situation, as I
understand it—and I hope my associate or semi-associate, Colonel Ristine, can
understand it. I think that the Commission’s ruling made prior to the recess,
to the effect that this witness could refresh his recollection and then testify
as to the statements made, was entirely a correct ruling. I do not understand that Colonel Ristine
intends to reopen that question. But
there is another question which arises; whether it was in writing or whether it
was orally given, a confession must first have been given voluntarily and
without any promise or inducement.
On that preliminary question, which I
think is the one that Colonel Ristine intends to raise, if I correctly
understand his remarks, if the prosecution introduces a witness to prove a
confession, the law is—and I do not think this can be seriously contested by
anyone—that the defendant, before the witness testifies to the confession,
whether it be oral or in writing, has the right to examine the witness as the
circumstances under which the confession was made.
As a matter of fact, I think that is
expressly covered, if I recall correctly, in the Court-Martial Manual. It certainly is the general rule in civil
practice. That is what should have been
disposed of before the witness started to give the substance of what Dasch told
him. A failure to raise the question at
that time might have been a waiver on the part of Colonel Ristine. However, the Commission in its discretion can
permit that to be done during the testimony, under various circumstances, and
it can permit it to be done in a case like
538
this
where Colonel Ristine has just for the first time learned these facts, I think
if it were an ordinary court there would be no doubt about permitting him to do
so, where he states to the court that he has just learned the facts. I see no reason why this Commission should
not follow that, because it is palpably in the interests of justice.
If the confession was obtained, whether
orally or in writing, under circumstances either duress or promise—and I do not
know what the facts will be; I have no idea—if it was obtained under either of
those circumstances, the confession should not be given to the Commission,
whether it is written or oral.
Do I make myself clear?
The President. I think that clarifies certain preliminaries
for me as an individual.
Are there any further remarks on the
part of the prosecution?
The Attorney General. I will make some brief remarks.
There is no confession before you at
all. I asked this witness to testify to
what Dasch told him. The document from
which he has refreshed his recollection has been in the possession of counsel
for the defendants for five days.
As to the law on the subject, let me
read from one of the leading cases in the Circuit Court of Appeals (reading):
“It is the rule in the Federal courts
that the fact that a confession is made by an accused person, even while under
arrest or when drawn out by questions by the officer, does not necessarily
render it involuntary.
539
There is no presumption against a
confession and no burden upon the government to establish its voluntary
character.”
I am simply asking this witness to say
what Dasch told him. On
cross-examination counsel for Dasch can bring out anything he wants.
So I renew my objection. I do not want to take up any further time.
The President. Are there any further remarks, Colonel
Ristine?
Colonel Ristine. Yes, if the Commission please. The matter about which I wish to interrogate
the witness is not involved in the case which has been cited to the Commission
by the Attorney General, but it raises an entirely different issue.
Colonel Royall. I do not want to be mixing in something which
only indirectly or contingently concerns me—
The President. I am very glad to have you develop it. The more light we get the better.
Colonel Royall. The Court-Martial Manual states the rule
rather clearly, and it is not inconsistent with what the Attorney General read
to you, but he did not cover the case which I think will be presented by this
testimony. The word “confession”—and the
Court-Martial Manual is clear on that—and the word “admission” are treated
alike. In other words, any statement
that a defendant makes which may tend to incriminate him to the slightest
degree is a partial confession. It does
not have to be written. That does not
make any difference. It is an admission
which follows, according to the Court-Martial Manual, the same rule. That is made clear at
540
the
bottom of the page, where it says that it follows the same rule, in paragraph
114-b.
So that distinction is not a sound one,
as we conceive it. If this witness
testifies to anything Dasch said that is adverse to his interest in this trial,
that is treated under the Court-Martial Manual and under the statutes as a
confession. The law says that the fact
that the confession was made to a superior military authority or to a
representative and agent or such superior—and the same thing applies to an
officer of the law—it will ordinarily be regarded as requiring further inquiry
into the circumstances. In other words,
the mere fact that he does not admit it—that is the civil law, and it is true
of military law—requires a further inquiry into it.
That is the sort of inquiry which we
are seeking to make. (Reading):
“Facts indicating that a confession was
induced by hope of benefit or fear of punishment or injury inspired by a person
competent (or believed by the party confessing to be competent) to effectuate
the hope or fear is, subject to the following observations, evidence that the
confession was involuntary. Much depends
on the nature of the benefit,” and so forth.
As I understand it, that is the feature
of the case upon which Colonel Ristine desires to examine this witness, and it
seems to me he ought to be permitted to do so.
It cannot do any harm if it does not develop that this rule is
violated. It can do a great deal of good
if it should develop that this rule is violated.
The President. Are there any further
remarks?
541
The Attorney General. No further observations.
The President. Subject to objection by any member of the
Commission, the contention of the defense is sustained, and counsel will be
permitted to ask a question and other questions if he so desires, and no
objection will be made to them.
PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Mr.
Wills, were you present on Saturday, June 27, 1942, in the evening, with Mr.
Donegan, Mr. Johnstone, Mr. Traynor and Mr. Dasch, when a proposal was made
that he should plead guilty?
A I
was.
Q And
was it stated as a part of that proposal that after his plea of guilty he
should be sentenced and that during the trial he should not divulge anything
with respect to the agreement that was made, and that after the case had died
down and for about, say, three to six months, the F.B.I. would get a
Presidential pardon for him?
A That,
in substance, is true.
Q And
was the statement also made to Mr. Dasch that that would be the best procedure
for him to follow in order to protect his father and mother in Germany?
The Attorney General. Wait just a minute. I think the witness ought to be asked what
took place, instead of having words put into his mouth, and then asking yes or
no. It does not seem to me that that is
a proper question. It is not really
cross-examination at all. I think that
this witness should be asked what was suggested to Dasch with respect to those
things. I do not think it is appropriate
to have a
542
long
leading question propounded.
Colonel Ristine. I am perfectly willing to phrase the question
the other way.
The President. Develop the question.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Would
you tell the Commission what was said in favor of the proposal, if anything,
respecting his father and mother?
A The
proposal was given to protect the father and mother and relatives in Germany or
in German-occupied countries.
The Attorney General. To protect them from what?
The Witness. From harm.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Following
Dasch’s statement that he would not go through with that proposal, did you, in
company with Mr. Johnstone, make any efforts to persuade him to agree to go
through with it?
A Yes,
sir.
The Attorney General. Ask him what they were.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Could
you tell us what statements were made to Dasch by you and Mr. Johnstone in
asking him to agree to that proposal?
A The
exact wording I do not recall; but he was told that he should have some
consideration for his father and mother and relatives over in Germany and
occupied countries.
Q I
believe questions were propounded to Dasch from June 19, about 11 a. m.—
The President. I would sense that you are making a statement
yourself. I should prefer you to put it
in the
543
form
of a question to the witness.
Colonel Ristine. I shall be glad to do so, Mr. President.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Could
you tell the Commission when the questioning of Dasch started?
A I
can only state as far as I know. I first
saw the defendant Dasch on Sunday, June 21, 1942, about noon-time.
Q At
that time had he been interrogated for some time previously?
A I
understand that he had been.
Q Were
you furnished with any copy of the interrogations up to that time?
A Yes,
sir; I was.
Q From
that time forward and prior to the time when the 254-page statement was signed
by him and initialed by him, how long was he interrogated?
A He
was interrogated—that Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday morning. That was a portion of the day. I think we began two days about 11 o’clock in
the morning, and we would stop around 9 o’clock, after having dinner. Then on Wednesday, as I recall, he began
reading the statement, and he was there until rather late at night, and we went
back Thursday morning and he read the statement.
Q And
when was it signed?
A On
the 25th day of June, in the morning.
544
Q Now,
will you give us the date of the proposal that was made respecting the plea?
A Let
me see. That was on Saturday, June the
27th.
Q The
questions propounded by you and Mr. Johnstone and about which controversy arose
over the summary contained in the document which was offered here, of date July
2, 1942, occurred at what time with respect to the signing of the original
confession and the proposal that he enter a plea?
A That
was presented to the defendant Dasch on July 2, 1942.
Q And
that was subsequent, I take it, to the happening of those other two events?
A That
is correct.
Colonel Ristine. Now, if the Commission please, in the light
of what the witness has said, we submit that his testimony with respect to any
conversation subsequent to that proposal, particularly in the light of the reason
urged for the proposal, is not admissible or competent for any purpose. We not only object to his giving testimony
further about the matter, but move to strike out the testimony already given.
The Attorney General. Before you rule on that may I take the
witness for a while?
The President. Yes.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Mr.
Wills, Dasch came down voluntarily to the F.B.I. office, didn’t he?
A That
is my understanding.
Q And
did you, so far as you know yourself, when you were present, make him any
promise of any kind?
545
A No, sir.
Q With respect to what was to be done with
him?
A No, sir.
Q Who indicated to him that he might wish
to plead guilty?
A Mr. Donegan.
Q Mr. Donegan?
A He talked to the defendant.
Q Plead guilty in a court of law. Where was he to plead?
Colonel
Ristine. If the Commission please, we
object to the leading form of the question.
The
Attorney General. All right, I will
change it.
Questions
by the Attorney General:
Q Where was it proposed that he should
plead?
A At that time it was believed that this
matter would appear before the Federal court and he was to appear before a
Federal judge, and at that time enter his plea.
Q And he said he would not, is that right?
A He said that he would.
Q He said that he would at that time?
A Yes, sir.
Q And when did he say he would not?
A The next day, so far as I know.
Q And what did you say to him with
reference to if he would plead what would happen, what was told him exactly?
A As I recall the substance, he was told
that if he appeared in Federal court and entered his plea of guilty and be
sentenced along with the other defendants, that after a
546
period of about six
months efforts would be made to get a Presidential warrant, or that he would
get a Presidential warrant—a Presidential pardon.
Q This was the basis of these
recommendations that you made at that time?
A The recommendations for the Presidential
pardon?
Q Just what did you say to him that you
would do if he did certain things? Did
you promise him anything?
A I promised him nothing.
Q Did anybody promise him anything?
A Yes, sir. Mr. Donegan, on the afternoon of Saturday,
June the 27th, told defendant Dasch that he would be indicted and
appear before a Federal court, that at that time he should enter his plea of
guilty, or if he entered his plea of guilty and he was sentenced to prison
along with the others that through the F.B.I. a Presidential pardon would be
obtained for him.
Q How long before that had Dasch begun to
discuss his implication with any of the
members of the F.B.I.?
A As I stated a while ago, I first saw
Dasch on June 21st, which was Sunday. It is my understanding that he first appeared
on June the 19th, 1942.
Q He first refused? At first he said he would not plead?
A Yes, sir.
Q And then what did he say the next day?
A The next day he said he changed his
mind. I might go back. On this Saturday afternoon there was an
alternative that he could not appear in open and take the
other—
547
Q Appear in what?
A Appear in open and come right out and
say that he was the man who came in and turned in the other defendants.
Q Then how soon after that or before that
was this statement which has not been offered, but which has been identified,
taken?
A That was two days before.
Q What was two days?
A The statement that Dasch signed was two
days before.
Q Now wait.
I do not want to confuse you. I
am not talking about the statement that Dasch signed. I am referring to the statement that was dictated
and not signed. What was the relation of
that in time to the time that he said he would not plead?
A The statement that was presented to
Dasch and he refused to sign was offered—I believe it was four or five days
later; the difference between June the 27th, 1942, and July the 2nd,
1942.
Q So that four or five days after he had
refused to plead and after interrogation, he was given this statement?
A Yes, sir.
Q And refused to sign it?
A Yes, sir.
Q So that the statement was not in any
sense induced by a suggestion that he should plead guilty, on the acceptance of
it?
The
President. I think, Mr. Attorney
General, that I prefer you ask questions rather than make statements.
The
Attorney General. I beg your pardon.
548
Questions
by the Attorney General:
Q Was the statement which was not signed
induced by any decision on Dasch’s part to plead or not to plead?
Colonel
Ristine. If the Commission please, that
calls for a conclusion. The facts should
determine the answer to that question.
The witness certainly is not qualified to answer that question. That is the ultimate fact that this
Commission must pass upon.
The
Attorney General. It seems to me—
The
President (interposing). I will hear the
defense first on this.
Colonel
Royall. May it please the Commission, to
ask this witness what induced Dasch to sign is about the barest conclusion that
you could have in the law. You cannot
prove a state of mind by the testimony of an opinion of another person. You have to prove it by the facts and deduce
what must have induced him to do so. He
cannot testify to that.
The
President. Colonel Ristine.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, a confession was
started on June 24, 254 pages long, the result of
five or six days of interrogation.
Following that three days, on June 27th, is when this
proposal was made to Dasch that in order to protect his father and mother in
Germany from harm he appear in court and plead guilty, and if he would do that,
at the end of a period of six months the F. B. I. would procure for him a
Presidential pardon, and that that was for the purpose of protecting his father
and mother in Germany.
Now,
the testimony is that he first agreed to that and then the following day said
no, he would not do that, and that
549
further questions and
answers took place, about which this witness is now attempting to give
evidence.
It
seems to me perfectly obvious that no one could tell, and particularly not any
witness who was interrogating Dasch, what actuated Dasch in his future talks
with these agents.
The
Attorney General. May I interrupt just a
moment at this time?
Colonel
Ristine. Having who made that proposal—
The
President (interposing). Let the defense
counsel finish, please.
The
Attorney General. I was just going to
withdraw the question. If this is an objection
to my question, I now withdraw the question.
The
President. All right.
The
Attorney General. If that will satisfy
you.
The
President. Very well.
The
Attorney General. I now withdraw the
question.
Questions
by the Attorney General:
Q Mr. Wills, when did this witness Dasch
first begin to make admissions and tell his story to you?
A On June the 21st, 1942.
Q And did he continue on June the 22nd?
A He did.
Q Was anything on June 21st or
22nd said about a plea?
A No, sir.
Q Did he continue on June 24th
with his statements to you and others?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was anything on that day said about a
plea?
550
A No, sir.
Q Did he continue on June 25th
with the statements and admissions to you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Was anything said about a plea?
A No, sir.
Q Did he continue on June 26th
with his reference to his implication in this matter?
A On June the 26th I do not
have a recollection of talking to him specifically on this matter.
Q So it was from the 21st to the
25th, the period when you were taking his statements and confession?
A Yes, sir.
Q And what day was it that the question of
the plea first came up?
A June the 27th, 1942.
The
Attorney General. Those are all the
preliminary questions I would choose to ask.
I would now like to continue with the witness.
The
President. You would what?
The
Attorney General. I would like to
continue with my examination of the
witness.
Have
you a motion, Colonel Ristine?
Colonel
Ristine. I think I have a motion before
the Commission.
The
Attorney General. I lost track of it.
The
President. Will you please restate it?
Colonel
Ristine. Yes, sir.
In
view of the fact that the proposal of the plea and
551
Presidential pardon
was made on June 27th, in view of the fact that this witness and Mr.
Johnstone continued thereafter to interrogate the witness and that this witness
is now relating the occurrences that occurred following June 27th,
we ask that he not be permitted to testify further and that the testimony
heretofore given be stricken out; and for the further reason, if the Commission
please, it appears that on June 24th a 254-page statement, covering
four or five days, by these F.B.I. Agents, was prepared and signed by Dasch,
and that the statement is not contaminated or illegalized by the proposal of a
plea and a Presidential pardon, because it occurred prior to the Presidential
pardon.
The
Attorney General. May I ask one question
more of the witness, so as to make it perfectly clear?
The
President. The question you have
reference to is to the days before the 27th?
The
Attorney General. Yes.
Questions
by the Attorney General:
Q The answers you gave this morning with
reference to what Dasch told you related to what period of time? When did you interrogate him and when did he
talk to you? What days did he talk to
you? You have been testifying what Dasch
told you. Now, when did he tell you
this?
A A portion of that was told subsequent to
June the 27th, 1942.
Q When?
A And a portion was told prior to June 27th.
Q What was told subsequent to June 27th?
A As I recall, the portion that was told
subsequent to
552
June the 27th,
1942, deals with his attempts at being naturalized, his service in the United
States Army, the Air Corps, and the marriage to his present wife on September
the 18th,and his birth February the 7th, 1903.
The
Attorney General. Addressing myself to
the motion to strike, I cannot see how in any way it can be said it was induced
by a promise of leniency, when it was suggested to him that he might plead
guilty, and then I understand he said he would not do that. The material part of his confession—I think I
am right in saying this—the material part of it in connection with the actual
crimes charged was all told by him before the 27th. Subsequently other material was told by him
also, after the 27th, but I cannot see how that was affected,
because I cannot see that any inducement influenced him, he having turned down
the plea, this sort of a plea, and said he would not do it, and then he went on
and told the rest of his story. There is
no suggestion of any impropriety in this case at all.
Colonel
Royall. May it please the Commission,
may I ask the witness a preliminary question touching on the matter of the
admissibility of this evidence?
The
President. Yes.
Questions
by Colonel Royall:
Q All statements made by Dasch on June 25th
were reduced to writing and signed by him, were they not?
A There was a stenographer present during
the time the defendant Dasch was being interrogated.
Q Therefore the most complete and most
accurate and only complete and accurate record of what Dasch said before the 27th
553
is embodied in this
254-page paper, is it not?
A There were some sidelines that he had
made; one that I recall was the Umlege.
Q But that document is by far the most
accurate statement of what he said before the 27th, is it not?
A Before the 27th?
Q Yes.
A I would think so.
Q It is considerably more accurate than
your memory of what he said could possibly be, is it not?
The
Attorney General. Now, I object.
Colonel
Royall. No.
The
Attorney General. I object. Counsel is not even sure that he took this
statement. You have not asked him if he
took it.
Colonel
Royall. I am asking him to say—
The
Attorney General (interposing). You are
asking him about a conclusion as to whether one thing is more accurate than another. Anybody can conclude.
Colonel
Royall. I will ask him again. I think the question is proper.
Questions
by Colonel Royall:
Q Is not that stenographic report of what
he said much more accurate than your own recollection can possibly be as to
what was said during those four days?
The
Attorney General. I object. It is a mere conclusion. How can the witness say whether or not one
thing is more accurate than another.
That is for the Commission to decide.
Colonel
Royall. If I asked him whether what somebody
else
554
said
was accurate, yes, but this witness certainly ought to know whether his
recollection is accurate. That is what I
am asking him about.
The
Attorney General. Ask him whether his
recollection is accurate.
Colonel
Royall. I am asking him if it is as
accurate as the stenographic report.
The
Attorney General. I object to that.
Colonel
Royall. Well, I don’t think the question
is material. We will withdraw that for
the moment.
Questions
by Colonel Royall:
Q Now, Mr.—what is his name?
The
Attorney General. Wills.
Q Mr. Willis, in your testimony that you
started to give before lunch you were not purporting to give the entire
substance of his statements made through the 25th, were you?
A The details. There were some irrelevant details in that
statement.
Q But you were determining which you
thought were relevant and which you
thought were not, were
you not?
A Pertaining to the defense, I am giving
the admissions made by defendant Dasch.
Q And those that you thought were relevant,
is that right?
A Those that I thought were relevant, yes,
sir.
Q And you were leaving out those that in
your opinion were irrelevant, is that right?
A Well, I could not remember—
555
The
President (interposing). To what
questions does this pertain? Does it
pertain to questions that were put by the Attorney General?
Colonel
Royall. There was a general
question. He was just going ahead and
narrating—
The
President. Whose questions was he
answering?
Colonel
Royall. The Attorney General’s. He said, “Just tell the story,” and now and
then he interjected a specific question, but usually he said, “Go ahead with
your story.”
The Attorney General. I do not understand the purpose of this. This is just cross-examination of my
witness. We have not come to the period of
cross-examination. He has been simply
cross-examining my witness about his evidence.
I think he ought to do it in the due time and place. I will never get anywhere if I am not
permitted to proceed.
Colonel
Royall. May it please the Commission, I
would like to be permitted to say
this about that. I am seeking to do
this, in reply to what the Attorney General says: Here is a man who over four days of
questioning by the F.B.I. has given a statement and signed what he says is a
complete transaction. Instead of
introducing that in evidence, which regardless of whether the witness says so
or not is necessarily the most accurate and the most complete statement the
witness has made—instead of doing that they put an F.B.I. man on, who assumes,
I am sure in good faith—
The
President (interposing). That is not the
question.
Colonel
Royall. Yes, but I mean he assumes to
select, sir, what part of that is relevant and what is irrelevant.
556
That is the point I am
making.
The
President. Yes, but could not you bring
out that point on cross-examination?
557
Colonel
Royall. Possibly so, but the confession
was in writing. It was reduced to a
written instrument and was signed.
I
do not know that the best-evidence rule applies, but it is certainly the most
logical and satisfactory evidence for the Commission to consider. What we are really arguing is whether we are
going to put in this accurate, complete stenographic record or let the witness
select what he testifies about.
On
that question there are only two considerations. One is the consideration of time, and that
might be a very important consideration in some cases. But in this case it should not be a
consideration when the charges are as serious as they are and when the length
of that statement was undoubtedly the result of the F.B.I.’s own queries and
questions. That is one possible
motive—to save time.
The
only other possible motive—and I am sure I am not saying this with any
reflection upon the eminent Attorney General or upon the F.B.I., because it would
be to bring out those things that are most damaging and to get them before the
Commission, leaving it for the cross-examination to go into the substance of
the entire 254 pages. That might be a
technical advantage for the prosecution, but if it is, it certainly does not
command itself to a sense of justice, it seems to me.
Why
should not this case be tried upon that confession, just like every other case
that I think any of us have ever seen tried where there was a written
confession? I have never seen this
written confession; I do not know what is in it. It is
558
not my clients’, but
it may be incidentally affect us, depending upon the ruling of the Commission.
Why
should we follow the extraordinary course of putting on a witness and letting
him select certain
portions, just what he thinks is material, from what the man said in the case,
and involving possibly his life and health, and not put into the record the
complete facts when there is a signed and written confession made at the
instance of the Government?
I
think it is fundamental when you couple with that this fact. I want the Commission to consider this
carefully. The evidence shows that after
he signed that instrument, for several days they tried to get him to sign a
much shorter one, which undoubtedly just selected only certain facts. I do not know whether it is consistent, even,
and thus I haven’t any opinion on that.
But certainly the instrument which he refused to sign, and with
promises, which I have never heard the equal of in a court in all my practice—I
have never heard of any such promises made to anybody in all the cases I have
ever tried—and then they were unsuccessful in getting him to sign it, and they
give the witness the very paper that the defendant refused to sign in spite of
those promises, and ask the witness to read it to refresh his recollection, and
the witness says that that embraces things said before in the promises and
things said after the promises—we have just started into it. Of course, he just mentioned a few matters,
but he was going pretty well along with it.
We had covered less than twenty percent of it before the noon recess, so
some confusion as to what was said before the promises and what was said after
them will undoubtedly run through the course of the entire testimony.
559
All that Colonel Ristine wants and all
that I want is, to the extent that this may affect these other clients,
regardless of whether it takes a little time or not, is to put in evidence the
stenographic, accurate report of what the man said and signed and try this case
just as you would any other case where a man’s life is at stake.
Colonel
Ristine. If the Commission please, I
would not say that there was an established law that where a conversation
respecting a matter of this kind has been taken down stenographically and
transcribed and signed the best-evidence rule would apply in that instance, but
I say that our sense of justice would dictate that the best-evidence rule in
that case should be applied, because it is perfectly obvious that the
stenographic report of the questions and answers and of what was said would be
far more accurate than the recollection of any witness, particularly since it
covered a period of several days.
I
think that the Commission should apply that rule in this case, even if it does
take time—and I understand that that is the only objection of the Attorney
General to offering the signed statement.
The
Attorney General. I have not made any
objection.
Colonel
Ristine. Even if it does take time to
read it—and I think he said it would take several days to read it—I sincerely
say that if it does take several days to read it, it should be done in this
case.
The
Attorney General. I think we have got
very much aside from the issue. This is
a motion to strike certain admissions made by the defendant; it has absolutely
nothing to do with a long signed statement which has not yet been offered and
which
560
has simply been
referred to not in the record but by counsel.
Colonel
Royall wants me to try my case according to the way he wants it to be
done. He wants me to put on this long
signed statement. I propose, with the
Commission’s permission, to try the case in exactly the way I think it ought to
be tried. I have now asked this witness
whether or not Dasch made certain admissions to him, and he is answering that
question.
This
is a motion to strike. It has nothing to
do with the confession, which is not in evidence at all. It is simply a narrow ruling as to whether or
not there is anything objectionable to this witness saying what Dasch told him
under the circumstances you have heard.
I
think that that is all I have to say about it, and I should prefer to be
permitted to continue the case in my own way and not as Colonel Royall or
anyone else except the Commission suggests.
Colonel
Royall. I am not trying to tell the
Attorney General how to try his case, but that remark does not deter me from
objecting to testimony that I think is clearly incompetent, and his desire to
try the case as he wants to does not give him blanket authority to violate the
rules of evidence any more than it would give me the authority.
I
think the Attorney General also misconceived the objection, as I understood it,
of Colonel Ristine. He was not only
moving to strike what had already been said by this witness, but he was also
objecting to further testimony from this witness.
The
Attorney General. I understood all
that. If you dig below the surface of
this case, it is perfectly obvious what the defendants are trying to get this
situation into. They can
561
put Dasch on as their
witness, and he can talk all he wants and refer to anything he wants. But they are trying to force us to put in a
confession of Dasch’s and keep Dasch off the stand. That is the obvious tactics behind this. When that is clear, it seems to me that the
nature of the objection can be more easily understood, and it seems to me that
all those admissions are completely appropriate under the circumstances.
The
President. Is there anything further
from either side? Does any member of the
Commission care to be informed further on any other subject?
A
Member. I think it has been discussed
completely.
The
President. The Commission will close.
(At
this time the Commission was closed.
When it reopened, the following occurred:)
562
The
President. The Commission is open. The Commission will make a statement and then
will ask definite questions of the counsel.
From
the evidence it would appear that there were two periods: one, prior to June 27, and the other after
June 27, the date the hope of the reward was alleged to have been given to the
defendant. Do the counsels object to the
witness answering questions based on statements made to the witness by Dasch
during the first period as stated above; and in counsel’s opinion, is there a
difference in the rule to be applied between the two periods?
The
Commission is anxious to be informed by the distinguished counsel on both
sides.
Colonel
Ristine. With respect to the latter
period, subsequent to June 27, the rule which would bar conversations during
that period is governed by the hope of leniency, or reward, and should be
excluded on that ground.
With
respect to the period prior to June 27, there was a stenographer present during
the interrogation, who took down in entirety the questions and answers, and
they were transcribed and approved; each page of 254 pages was initialed by the
accused and signed by the accused, as being a correct transcription of the
questions and answers asked and made; and oral testimony, in our opinion,
should be excluded with respect to those matters, because the best evidence is
the transcribed, written, and signed statement as to what transpired, and we
think the best evidence rule should be applied, and if the prosecution desires
to avail itself of what was said during what period, it should offer the
transcript of the stenographic notes which was approved and signed.
563
Does
that answer the Presidents questions?
The
President. I am very glad to have your
opinion, but I should also like to have the opinion of the Attorney General and
of the other defense counsel if they care to reinforce or supplement or
complement the opinion given.
Colonel
Royall. May it please the
Commission. I do not particularly care
to answer that question, unless you want me to, because, although I have an
idea about it and would be glad to give it if the Commission wants it, I
believe I would rather, for the present at least, let the Attorney General
speak.
The
Attorney General. May it please the
Commission, with the respect to the question whether the counsel has any
objection to the witness testifying as to what was told him before the 27th
of June, I will answer it in this way. I
have an objection, because I think the witness is entitled to answer on
admissions or statements made to him at any time; but I will also say, as a
practical matter, that should the Commission sustain the motion to strike I
will then, of course, ask the witness to testify what he heard before the 27th,
and then I will call another witness and ask him to testify as to what he heard
before the 27th.
My
view is very clear, that all of the admissions or statements or conversation or
talk by Dasch in the presence of this witness, whenever made, under the
circumstances testified to, are so clearly admissible that I will press my
point on that.
With
respect to the confession. It has not
been offered in evidence; it is not before you.
No questions have been
564
raised about it, and I
know of no rule that excludes a witness from saying what he heard a defendant
say in his presence, irrespective of whether thereafter a confession was signed
by the defendant. And you will note that
there is no evidence of any confession having been signed at any time.
The
President. May I ask your opinion, for
the information of the Commission, or your comment, if you care to make it, on
the matter of the best evidence? That
is, this so-called stenographic report that has been mentioned by counsel for the
defense.
The
Attorney General. I do not know of any
best evidence rule which requires a confession dealing with certain matters to
exclude statements which may or may not be covered by the confession. Moreover, I think that the very purpose of
the commission which authorized you to sit was to meet precise circumstances of
that kind. If, in each instance where
these matters arise, you are to apply the theoretical best evidence rule, it
seems to me that you disregard the very basis of your commission, which says
(reading):
“Such
evidence shall be admitted as would, in the opinion of the President of the
Commission, have probative value to a reasonable man.”
Under
that authority would this Commission wish to exclude statements made by one of
these defendants on the ground that that would not have probative value to a
reasonable man? I should think not.
The
President. My question was not fully
answered. I did not refer to that. Of course the Commission is not informed
nearly so well as either of the counsels as to what
565
is behind all
this. We are trying to confine ourselves
to what is before the Commission.
Reference has been made to stenographic notes that were taken of these
conferences, in which the witness took part.
He was one of three, I believe, who were present. Defense counsel refers to the stenographic
notes. Is there a difference between
those stenographic notes and a confession of the defendant Dasch which may be
in the possession of the counsel? I am
just trying to see whether there are two papers involved, a signed confession
that has been referred to, and then there are stenographic notes of this
investigation that have been referred to.
Are they the same?
The
Attorney General. They are not. Here (exhibiting) is the signed confession of
Dasch, some 254 pages, which has not been introduced. It has merely been referred to. In addition to that, I think I am correct in
saying—that there are certain stenographic notes of what Dasch said from time
to time, some of which notes cover what the witness has been referring to. But that, it seems to me, may I please the
Commission, is a matter of the weight that should be given to the
evidence. It is not a matter of
admissibility. Why should a man be excluded from testifying as to admissions
made by a defendant? It is a matter of
the weight that you want to give to the evidence. After you hear it, if you do not believe it,
then that affects your decision.
The
President. There are rules of evidence,
however, that govern any like case.
The
Attorney General. Yes. I know of no rule of evi-
566
dence in any court
which excludes a witness from testifying to what he heard a defendant say,
except such rules as to duress and matter of that kind, which we are not
concerned here. I know of no other rules
which exclude that.
There
can be absolutely no question, it seems to me, about the statements made before
the 27th. I am perfectly
clear in my view of the law that the fact that a written confession was signed
does not prevent the witness from saying what the defendant said.
There
is of course a rule of law that you cannot testify as to a portion of a
confession; but that is an entirely different matter. Here, one side, is a confession covering a
number of matters. On the other side are
statements, some of them covered by this confession and some not, which were
made by the defendant Dasch to this witness.
It
seems to me that it is not, therefore, a matter of admissibility, but a matter
only of the weight of the evidence.
The
President. Are there any further remarks
on the part of defense counsel?
Colonel
Ristine. Yes, sir. If the Commission please, it is my
understanding—and I would like to be corrected if I have a wrong
impression—that the written, signed confession was written up from the stenographic
notes of what transpired during several days of interrogation.
Is
that correct, Mr. Witness?
The
Witness. Yes.
Colonel
Ristine. If that be correct, I take it
there can be no dispute in the minds of men that that would be the best
evidence of what was said; and no man and no group
567
of men could recall as
accurately what was stated during those four or five days the written, signed
confession taken at the time of the occurrence of the facts. Therefore I say that the signed confession,
since it is in existence, should be the one, in accordance with the
proclamation and direction of the President, which this court should insist
upon.
The
Attorney General. That is precisely my
point. In other words, that more weight
should be given to a signed confession than should be given to the oral
statements. That is a matter of the
weight and the effect of the evidence.
But to say that you cannot even hear a witness who will testify to what
the defendant said seems to me to be an entirely different problem. I think it clearly should be admitted.
Colonel
Royall. Colonel Ristine has suggested
that I supplement his remarks. I
hesitate to do that, for this reason. As
to the evidence after the 27th I am clear in my opinion what it is
inadmissible in this record. I cannot
truthfully say to the court that as I understand the best evidence rule it
applies to the evidence before the Commission.
I did not want to make that statement, because it is in derogation of
his views—
Colonel
Ristine. I think that concurs with my
view.
Colonel
Royall. I do not think the best evidence
rule applies to a confession. I think
the word “confession” has been used a little inaccurately, maybe by more than
one of us. A confession does not
necessarily mean a written instrument.
The
President. There is a difference still
in my mind about the two papers involved; that is, the stenographic notes of
the investigation and the signed confession that I am told
568
about.
Colonel
Royall. They are apparently the same,
from what the witness has just said. I
think there is no best evidence rule to exclude what happened before the 27th. There was nothing happened on the 26th,
I believe he said. So it is the 25th
and 27th that are involved. I
do think this, however. I think it is
clearly the rule that as to those matters before the 27th, if the
witness is permitted to testify as to these—that question was not raised before
the Commission closed because they had not offered to confine this evidence
before the 27th, and that is the reason I had not expressed that
view before—but if the Commission does permit the witness to be examined as to
the statements before the 27th, then, as I understand the rule on
cross-examination—and this is expressly provided in the Court-Martial Material
Manual—Dasch can be asked about everything else that was said during the days
which his testimony covers, or such parts as you want to inquire about. I think that is clearly the law. As a practical matter it seems to me the
simplest way is to confine the matter to the written confession, the
stenographic notes; but I cannot truthfully tell the court that I do not think
that the witness cannot be asked about those matters before the 27th,
because I think he can, and I think the only disadvantage is that then he will
be open to cross-examination on the other.
I suppose the Attorney General recognizes that as a possibility.
The
President. That helps the
Commission. Has the Attorney General
anything further, after the remarks of counsel?
The
Attorney General. I have nothing
further; thank you.
569
The
President. If there is no objection on
the part of any member of the Commission, the Attorney General will proceed
with the witness, confining himself to that period prior to June 27th.
The
Attorney General. May it please the
Commission, the motion was one to strike all the evidence already given; so I
suggest that you may wish also to rule on the motion to strike all of the
evidence which this witness has given.
Colonel
Royall. May it please the court, may I
suggest to the Attorney General that is a practical matter, the simplest way to
solve the problem, in the light of the Commission’s ruling, would be to start
the witness over?
The
Attorney General. No; I would like to
have the Commission rule on the motion to strike, and then I will proceed.
Colonel
Royall. Of course it will just have to
strike the part before and the part after, and that would complicated.
The
President. Subject to objection on the
part of any member of the Commission, the President of the Commission rules
that the motion of defense counsel to strike is not sustained. The Commission, however, will consider, in so
far as the evidence has already been given, the contention of the defense
counsel in considering the evidence before and after the 27th as
already entered in the record.
The
Attorney General. And I take it, Mr.
President, that you wish me hereafter to confine the witness to testimony
before the 27th?
The
President. If you please; and so far as
it goes
570
naturally, that you
phrase your question so that that will be done.
The Attorney General. Yes, sir.
With the permission of the Commission I would like to let Agents Griffin
and Drayton, who have already testified, go; and counsel for the defendants
have agreed that they need not be kept any further.
571
The President. Proceed, Mr. Attorney General.
Questions
by the Attorney General:
Q The questions which I will now address to
you with respect to Dasch’s statement to you will be confined to such of the
statements as were made before the 28th of June.
A Yes.
Q Bearing that in mind, will you now
continue with the story of what Dasch told you?
Do you remember the last thing to which you testified?
A I was testifying about when he returned to
Germany and he was in Stuttgart.
Going
back to the information that was admitted in my presence prior to June 27th,
1942, the defendant Dasch admitted that he went to a sabotage school at Quentz,
Germany, which is near Brandenburg, Germany.
Present at that school were Werner Thiel, who was known to him as John
Thomas; Heinrich Heinck; Neubauer, who was known to him as Nicholas—Heinek was
known to him as Henry Kaynor—Edward Kerling, who was known to him as Edward
Kelly; Quirin, who was known to him by the name of Quintas; Ernest Peter
Burger, who was known to him by that name, and Herbert Haupt, who also was
known to him by that name and another name known as Bingo.
Q Did Bingo have any other name?
A That was Haupt.
Q I beg your pardon?
A Also at that school were Ernest Zuber
and a man named Scotty and a person named Dempsey, who was also known as Billy
Smith, and Braubander. Smith or
Braubander, Zuber and Scotty did not complete the course. Defendant Dasch was
572
a leader of one group,
which consisted of Ernest Peter Berger, Henry Kaynor, also known as Heinck, and
Richard Quirin or Richard Quintas.
Edward Kerling, known as Edward Kelly, was the leader of the second
group, which consisted of Haupt, Neubauer or Nicholas, and Thiel.
At
this school they were given instructions by Professor Koenig or Dr. Koenig and
Dr. Schultz. They were given
instructions in the use of explosives, high explosives, secret inks, and they
were also given pistol practice.
Q Did Dasch say to you who was in charge of
this school?
A Lieutenant Kappe was the person who
had—if I may say here, that was subsequent to the 27th.
Q I wanted you not to testify with respect
to any evidence given you after June 27th, so I think that answer
should be stricken out.
The
President. That will be stricken out.
The
Witness. About Lieutenant Kappe?
The
Attorney General. Yes.
The
Witness. Following this school they were
given several days’ vacation and had to reconvene May 12, 1942, in Berlin. However, Dasch and Kerling reconvened on May
the 11th at which time they were given instructions, additional
instructions, in the use of secret inks.
While taking this instruction they wrote on a white handkerchief, each
wrote on a separate white handkerchief various addresses in secret ink.
Questions
by the Attorney General:
Q Did Dasch show you the handkerchief; did
he identify it?
A The handkerchief that Dasch had was
shown to me in
573
his presence.
Q And he identified it as the handkerchief
that you describe?
A Yes.
Q All right. Go ahead.
A On May the 12th, 13th,
14th and 15th the group was taken to various points, one
being to railroad shops, where they were given additional instructions as to
points vulnerable to sabotage, among locomotive engines and trains.
Q Where were the railroad shops?
A As I recall, those were in Berlin.
Q Yes.
A They were also taken up the river and
they were shown locks and they were pointed out points vulnerable to sabotage
as to the locks. They went, I think on
May the 14th and 15th, to a plant of the I. G. Farbenindustrie,
and there they were given instruction as to the vulnerable points in the light
metal industry, aluminum and magnesium plants.
They were pointed out that electric power, the source of power, was the
most vulnerable, and should be handicapped, if possible.
Q In that connection do you remember
whether Dasch told you before the 27th of June whether or not they
had instructions with respect to the sabotage of certain objectives and what
those instructions were?
A Yes, sir. They had instruction to sabotage the light
metal industry. Dasch’s group had the
Alcoa plant in Tennessee, one in East St. Louis, and, I believe it was, the C.
& O. Railroad at New York, the bridge.
Q Did you say the C. & O. bridge at New
York?
574
Colonel
Ristine. That is what he said.
Questions
by the Attorney General:
Q What else?
A They were also to dynamite or throw
bombs, rather, in department stores operated by Jews to create consternation
and panic and to do any other acts of sabotage that they thought
advisable. Also the group headed by
Kerling was to attack the cryolite plant in Philadelphia, the Hells Gate
Bridge.
Q That plant of what property?
A That is all I know, just the cryolite
plant.
Q Yes.
A Hells-Gate Bridge. I believe it was the Pennsylvania Railroad
Station in New Jersey, Newark, and they likewise were to practice sabotage
wherever it would crate panic or wherever they thought it would do the most
good.
Following
the tours that they took to Bittefeld, Germany, where the I. G. Farbenindustrie
is located, and also at Aaken, Germany, they returned to Berlin. There they were given a day or two off, and
reconvened. They left Berlin and went to
Paris. From Paris they went to Lorient,
France.
Q Did Dasch tell you what Lorient was?
A I have no recollection that he did say
what it was. At Lorient, France, Kappe,
Lieutenant Kappe, turned over to Dasch some money belts containing some money
for each of the men in the group.
Incidentally, there was one other person who was supposed to come in
Dasch’s group, a man named Swenson.
However, he contracted a venereal disease in Paris and did not come over
with them. Dasch was given by Lieutenant
Kappe a money belt for each of the men in his group and also was given
575
a suitcase that he had
previously furnished to Kappe containing eighty thousand dollars. They were supposed to leave Lorient, France,
on the night of May 26th, 1942.
However, they did not leave until May the 28th, 1942.
Q Now, before you describe the trip, I wish
you would go back to the sabotage school and let me ask you whether or not
Dasch described to you what occurred at the sabotage school.
A They were given instructions in the
preparation of high explosives from ordinary drugstore chemicals. Also they had a proving ground where they
would test out various explosives. They
had a pistol range. They went out and
had pistol practice on that range.
Q What other if any instructions or lessons
were they given in connection with their mission?
A They also had instructions in the use of
secret inks. On the week ends Lieutenant
Kappe, with one Reinhold Barth, would come out, and at that time—
Q You are confining yourself to what took
place or what was told you before the 27th of June?
A Yes, sir.
Q All right.
A Reinhold Barth and Lieutenant Kappe
would instruct the groups to have some fictitious story which they could use to
prevent their being identified as saboteurs, in the event they were picked up
while in the United States.
Q Did Dasch tell you whether or not he had
seen Lieutenant Kappe before going to the school?
A My recollection of that is that he told
me how he
576
met Lieutenant Kappe,
but that was subsequent to June the 27th.
Q I see.
A On the night of May 28th
Dasch, in company with Burger, Quirin, or Quintas, and Heinck or Kaynor, left
Lorient, France, aboard a German submarine.
Q What if anything did they take with them
on the submarine?
A It is my recollection that Kappe had
previously put—Dasch stated that Kappe had previously put four boxes containing
high explosives. They left on the night
of May 28th and proceeded by way of submarine from Lorient, France,
to Long Island, where they landed on the early morning of June the 13th,
near Amagansett, Long Island.
The
submarine while about 400 meters from shore and on the surface put out a rubber
boat. The four boxes of explosives were
put into the boat. Burger, with the
money bags and the clothes, the valise, sat in the boat to the rear, as I
recall; also Quintas or Quirin, and Kaynor or Heinck, and Dasch, and two German
sailors got into the boat. They paddled
ashore and on landing Dasch had a long paddle and he states that when he felt
bottom he rushed from the boat and helped pull it to the beach.
He
went up on a little dune, or approached—went up on the beach to get his
bearings. He stated that he saw
lights. The rest of the boys had taken
the explosives and clothes out of the bag, and put them on the beach, and Dasch
saw a person approaching whom he recognized to be a sailor or Coast Guardsman. He went down and told the—he approached this
Coast Guardsman and told this Coast Guardsman—he asked the Coast Guardsman
577
where he was, whether
it was Southampton, I believe, and the Coast Guardsman stated he should know
where he is. Then Dasch asked him again
where he was and he said somewhere near Amagansett, and someone approached
Dasch and Dasch told him to get back.
At
that time Dasch told the Coast Guardsman, “You have got a mother and a father
and you take this,” and he gave him some money, which he thinks to be or says
to be a total of three hundred dollars.
Dasch then returned to the beach or to
the rest of the group and he stated he had not taken his clothes off, he wanted
to get his clothes. The others had
changed, and he located his clothes by the time they were going out there and
deposited them and left them there, so he and Quintas, I believe, went and got
his clothes and he put those on.
578
Q You
say “his clothes”. What do you mean by
“his clothes”?
A He had brought with him certain clothing
to wear. They wore on the submarine
what they termed as dungarees, and he had with him civilian clothing, and he
went and changed from the dungarees to the civilian clothing.
After
the change of clothing, and the boxes were buried, he went up toward a road,
and they hid there in the bushes until about daybreak. Then they proceeded by foot to
Amagansett. At Amagansett they purchased
a railroad ticket to Jamaica, and at that time Dasch instructed that he and
Burger would go together and that Quintas and Kaynor would remain together.
Also,
before they parted into two groups, it was agreed among them that they would
meet that afternoon at three o’clock in the Kern and Gardart restaurant on the
balcony or in the balcony.
So,
Dasch and Burger at Jamaica—the train arrived there, as I recall, he states
around nine o’clock –they bought civilian clothing and proceeded from there to
New York City, where they registered in the Governor Clinton Hotel, Dasch being
given room 1414, and Burger room 1421.
Q Is that all?
A That afternoon at three o’clock they met
Quintas and Kayner at the Horn and Hardart
restaurant and agreed that they would meet the next day at Grant’s
Tomb—or at this Swiss Chalet restaurant at one o’clock or if not then, at
Grant’s Tomb at six o’clock.
Q What happened then?
A The
made the arrangements to meet the next day.
579
That afternoon Burger
and Dasch went shopping and bought additional clothing. Then, I believe it was that evening—no, the
next day at six o’clock they met Quirin and Heinck at Grant’s Tomb, and that
was at six o’clock in the evening.
Then
they returned—no, they—yes, they rode on the bus a while, and they went to a
restaurant that he knew the owner of, a man by the name of Danny Boyle, and
then they returned to the hotel.
The
next day, Monday, he went shopping, and during that evening he went to a club
of which he had been a member—a waiters’ club—and there he played cards with
another waiter until, I believe it was, Wednesday.
Q What happened on Wednesday?
A Then, Wednesday he left New York, and he
came to Washington, D. C. He registered
at Washington, D. C. in the Mayflower Hotel, and that evening he went to—he had
dinner with someone, or not with someone, but he had dinner at a restaurant and
there saw a waiter whom he thought he recognized. That evening he contacted this person he
found out to be a man by the name of Louis Martin, whom he had previously
known.
The
next day he made a telephone call to, I believe it was, the Government
Information Service, and there he was put in touch with—not put in touch but
given the names of the secret service or military authorities, and also the
F.B.I. He tried to get Colonel Cramer,
and being unsuccessful, he called the Federal Bureau of Investigation, at which
time he got in touch with Mr. Traynor.
Q With whom?
A Mr. Traynor.
580
Q You said that Dasch showed you a
handkerchief on which he stated there was secret writing, did you?
A That handkerchief at the time was in the
possession of Mr. Traynor.
Q Well, you had it with Dasch?
A Yes, sir.
Q And you showed that to Dasch. What did he say about the handkerchief?
A He said at that time while they were
studying the use of secret inks that Lieutenant Kappe told them to put down
certain addresses, one address being an address in Lisbon, Portugal—Maria
de—the third name was illegible—Lopez.
That was an address.
Incidentally,
at the time they departed they were given watches, the tip of which bore some
compound—chemical compound—that was a secret ink. They were to take this match and write on a
piece of paper a message. He says the
message was to contain—the original message was to contain—information
concerning the necessary papers that an agent should have in this country—for
example, the alien enemy registration.
One must have that with him at all times. Also, a detective service registration card.
Q Did Dasch have these with him, did he
say?
A I have never seen any card that he
had. He stated that he lost his social
security card on the train between Paris and Lorient, France.
Q What else did he say about the handkerchief?
A Also, the handkerchief contained
addresses whereby he could not get in contact with Edward Kerling, in the event
he
581
and Kerling became
separated from one another here or lost contact with one another. They were to meet on July 4, 1942, in Cincinnati. In the vent the meeting failed in Cincinnati
or they otherwise lost contact with one another, he was given a secret address
whereby he could get in contact with Kerling.
Q Did Dasch tell you what he was instructed
to do when he first got to America?
A I have no recollection of that.
Q Did he tell you whether he had any
instructions other than you have testified to as to what he was to do when he
got over to America?
A This was the first group of saboteurs that
had been sent over by the German high command, and they were to establish a
headquarters for saboteurs in the United States.
Q Do you mean Dasch and his three
companions? When you say “they,” whom do
you mean?
A Well, as I understood it, that included
not only Dasch and his three companions but also the group of which Kerling was
head.
Q What were they to do?
A They were to establish a headquarters
for saboteurs in the United States.
Q Did he say where they were to establish
them?
A That
was left up to his own judgment, so far as I can recall. He mentioned this boy Swenson, the one that
was left behind, indicating that Swenson appeared to be a rural type boy, a
farmer, and that he thought probably they could get a farm operated by Swanson.
Q Did
Dasch state the manner in which he was to establish contact?
582
A Is that as to the headquarters for the
sabotage school?
Q The question was whether Dasch stated the
manner in which he was to make the contacts in this country.
Colonel
Royall. With whom?
The
Attorney General. He has not said.
The
Witness. Dasch stated that it was
suggested that if any likely suspects or friends of these various individuals
appeared to be lively recruits, then to endeavor to recruit them; but no
specific names that I recall were mentioned as recruits.
The Attorney General. I will ask to have this handkerchief marked
for identification.
(A handkerchief was marked as Exhibit
P-98 for identification.)
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Is this the handkerchief similar to the one
that Dasch had. Whether it is the same
one—I would like to see the writing. I
didn’t identify the handkerchief.
A This is a handkerchief similar to the
one that Dasch had. Whether it is the
same one--I would like to see the writing.
I didn’t identify the handkerchief.
Q You did not identify it?
A No, sir, I didn’t.
Q Could you tell, if you took it out,
whether it is the same one?
A It appears to be the initials there.
Q Let us take it out and look at it.
(The
witness is shown a handkerchief that has already been marked.)
Are
there initials on the handkerchief?
583
A Yes, sir.
Q What are they?
A B. S., I believe.
Q Can you identify this?
A This looks to be the same
handkerchief. The initials are the
same—B.S.—or a German S that appears to be—or I was told it was.
Q You were told what was what?
A That the initial is B.S.—the one in the
corner. Other than that, that is the
only marking that is visible at this time.
The
Attorney General. I think that is all.
The
President. We shall continue the
proceeding until six o’clock.
The
Attorney General. Very good, sir.
You
may cross-examine.
CROSS
EXAMINATION
Questions
by Colonel Ristine:
Q Have you attempted to relate the
statements made by Dasch in the language used by Dasch?
A No, sir.
Q Have you attempted to relate all of the
statements that Dasch made respecting the matters about which you have given
testimony?
A He gave me information on the other
topics besides the one that I have related.
Q Well, have you attempted to give all the
statements he made respecting the matters about which you have given testimony?
A No, sir.
584
Q Then, you have given only a short summary
of what you now recall Dasch may have said or which you concluded he said in these
various interrogations?
A It is not conclusion; it is a fact. It is a narrative of the admissions made by
him in my presence.
Q Well, the very question of whether they
were or were not admissions is a conclusion on your part, is it not?
A Well, I think that that is true.
Q You have not attempted to state any of
the language used by Dasch in these statements?
A Well, may I inquire what you mean by
“the language”? Word for word?
Q Yes.
A No, Sir.
Q Then, you did construe what you thought
he intended to convey by the language he used in your giving of testimony here;
is that correct?
A I don’t quite follow. He said that he went to Lorient, France and
sailed on the 28th day of May, 1942.
I may have said he said on the 28th of May, 1942. It is just a narrative of what he told me;
not in the same language that he told me.
Q How did Dasch happen to be in the F.B.I.
office?
A He said that he telephoned the F.B.I.
office and was referred to Mr. Traynor.
Q Did he do that voluntarily and of his own
free will and accord?
A I have no way of knowing that other than
what he said.
Q Well, did he so state to you?
A Yes, sir.
585
Q Did you verify that statement?
A I beg your pardon?
Q Do you know that statement to be true by
any verification on your part?
A Do I know the statement to be true that
he called this office?
Q Yes.
A He was here at the time I first saw him
on June 21.
Q Well, don’t you know as a matter of
verification on your part that Dasch did voluntarily and of his own free will
get in touch with the F.B.I. to give them this information?
A So far as I know, that is true.
Q During the entire interrogation in which
you participated, he did, insofar as he could, answer any questions which the
F.B.I. agents asked him as freely and as fully as he could; isn’t that correct?
A That is correct.
Q He did it under the conviction that he
was aiding and assisting this Government; it that correct?
The
Attorney General. Wait a moment. I object.
How does he know what in the mind of Dasch when he did it? How does he know what his convictions
were? Let him say what Dasch stated and
what he stated. I think that would be a
proper question. I object to this
question.
Colonel
Ristine. If the Commission please, we
might have the witness state it. I think
we do form definite impressions from talking with a person.
The
Attorney General. You did not ask the
witness his impression; and asked him Dasch’s conviction.
586
Colonel
Ristine. Well, if that is this witness’
conviction of the conduct of Dasch.
The
Attorney General. I object.
A
Member. I think you might ask the
question in the other way.
The
President. There is objection to the
question as he put it. The objection is
sustained as to that particular way of asking the question.
Questions
by Colonel Ristine:
Q What impression did you form from
interrogating Dasch about the manner in which he responded as to whether or not
Dasch considered he was aiding and assisting this Government in a very vital
matter?
A Dasch stated that he was, and he
answered questions voluntarily and freely.
Q What conclusion did you form from that as
to whether he was really aiding and assisting?
The
Attorney General. I cannot help but
object.
The
President. I will rule on that. If there is not objection on the part of the
Commission, that question will not be asked in that form.
Questions
by Colonel Ristine:
Q Did Dasch get in contact of his own free
will and accord with the F.B.I. in New York, before coming to Washington by
telephone?
A He says he did.
Q He also explains why he preferred giving
the facts to the F.B.I. office in Washington rather than in New York, where he
first contacted the F.B.I.?
587
A He says that it was too big, that it
should come to Washington.
Q Is that the only reason he gave, that you
recall?
A That is the only one that I recall, yes
sir.
Q Did he state to you or in your presence
that he had been informed in Germany that the secret police of Germany had
constant observations of the F.B.I. office everywhere except in Washington, and
that for that reason he wanted to give this information to the Washington
office?
A I have no recollection that Dasch ever
made such a statement.
Q Do you recall a statement Dasch made
respecting a conversation he had with the Coast Guardsman on the coast?
A Yes, sir.
Q Would you tell us what you recollect of
that statement?
A My recollection of that is that as each
was going up the beach, he saw this figure coming toward him, and he recognized
it to be a Coast GuardSman. He
approached this Coast Guardsman; and they had instructions if they were to see
anyone to take that person and subdue him and turn him over to the German
sailors, who would take him back to the submarine, and this subdued person
would be taken care of by the two sailors and the other members of the German
submarine.
He
saw this boy, and the thought occurred, should he turn him down or take him to
the two sailors to subdue him; and when he talked to the boy, he made inquiry
as to his whereabouts, and the sailor boy or the Coast Guardsman told him he
was near Amagamett.
Then
Dasch asked—told him, rather, “You have a father and a mother, and you haven’t
done anything wrong,” or something to
588
that effect, and at
that time gave him some money and said, “Here, take this,” and he didn’t think
at first that he had given the boy enough, and he went back and gave him enough
to make, so he says, three hundred dollars.
At
that time he asked the boy to turn his flashlight on the money so he could
count it.
Q Was there any further conversations that
he related?
A Oh, yes, sir.
Q Did he say anything about having told the
Coast Guardsman to look at him?
A Yes, sir.
Q Tell us about that.
A He told the Coast Guardsman—he said,
“Take a good look at me. You will hear
from me in Washington.”
Q Did he say how many times he asked the
Coast Guardsman to look at him and what he did when he asked him to look at
him?
A He told the Coast Guardsman to look at
him at the time he was giving that money and they had the flashlight out.
Q Do you remember his stating that he took
his cap off and used the flashlight when the Coast Guardsman looked at him?
A My
particular recollection of that—at first he didn’t mention that. That question was asked him, and then he
says, “Yes, I took my hat off and turned my head down and said, ‘Take a good
look.’”
589
Q And
the flashlight was used in that conversation in looking at him?
A According to Dasch; yes, sir.
Q And he then stated that you would see him
later in Washington?
A “You will hear from me later from
Washington.”
Q Did he tell you at what time in France or
Germany he formulated the idea that he would not go through with this plan when
he got to this country, but would contact some person in authority about the
matter?
A I don’t recall that he mentioned any
exact date.
Q Could you give us some idea of the time?
A Yes, sir. To the best of my recollection, it was some
time during the latter part of November of 1942 or the early part of December
1942.
Q Would you tell us what he said in
connection with that, as you recall it?
A As I recall it, that was all said
subsequent to June 27, the explanation of it.
Colonel
Ristine. I do not have any objections to
his relating it, but I think probably it would be a waiver of the objection
which I made, so I will not press the matter.
The
Attorney General. All right.
Questions
by Colonel Ristine:
Q Did he tell you that he had any
understanding with a member of the group before they came to this country?
A He has never made such a statement.
Q What did you understand my question to
be?
A That he had an understanding with a
member of the group before he came to this country.
590
Q Yes.
What is your idea of what understanding I had in mind?
A A meeting of the minds, that they had
some definite understanding.
Q You do not mean to state that he did not
discuss what the four members of his group and the other group were supposed to
do when they came over here, do you?
A You asked me if he had had an
understanding with a member of his group prior to coming over here, and I
replied that he never made any statement to me to that effect.
Q Did he talk to you or to anybody in your
presence about any conversations he may have had with a member of his group?
A Do you have a particular instance in
mind? He talked with the members of his
group on several occasions.
Q Did he tell you about taking any walk
while he was attending school over in Germany?
I mean, classes.
A Yes, sir. I recall one instance. He said he took a bicycle over to a nearby
aviation plant and wanted to go in, but he could not because it was guarded,
and he walked around.
Q Did he tell you about any walks he had
with any members of the school or any conversations he had with them?
A If I knew that you wanted to find out—he
was with members of his group. They
attended classes there.
Q What did he tell you about the hardships
that he had undergone in Germany?
A The hardships that he had undergone?
Q Yes; that he had been subjected to.
591
A Well, I don’t know that he mentioned any
particular hardship other than the shortage of food there. He could not eat all of the food he wanted to
eat. They had rationing cards. He had some American clothing with him. I believe that he made mention of the fact
that hot water was a bit scarce. But
other than those three or four things, I have no recollection of any other
hardships that he mentioned.
Q Did he tell you that he was very desirous
of getting away from Germany in order to fight the ruling powers of Germany?
A Yes, sir; he made that statement.
Q Did he tell you that he saw in this opportunity
to come over with this group which he did come over with the fulfillment of
that desire on his part?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that he went to this school in order
to carry out that purpose in his mind?
Did he tell you what?
A To carry out the purpose to come over
here?
Q To get away from Germany, so that he
could fight the ruling power of Germany.
A Yes, sir; he made that statement.
Q And did he tell you that because he never
intended to carry out any of the plans of his group he did not pay much attention
to what he was being taught over there?
A Yes, sir; he made that statement.
Q Did he tell you that he realized when he
did not overpower the Coast Guardsman that he was violating orders of his
superiors?
A Yes, sir. Dasch stated a while ago, he had instruc-
592
tions that he was to
subdue anyone and turn him over to the sailors who would take him to the boat.
Q And he would not do that and did not do
that; is that right?
A He would not and did not do it; yes,
sir.
Q Did he tell you who it was he talked to
in the F.B.I. office in New York before coming to Washington?
A No.
He made inquiry. He wanted to
know if I knew or if we knew who it was.
Q Did he not tell you that he had called
the F.B.I. office in New York City and advised them that he had very important
information to give to the F.B.I. and that he was coming to Washington for the
purpose of giving it to them?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did he tell you after arriving in
Washington that he registered at the Mayflower Hotel?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that he called a Colonel in the
Intelligence Department of the United States Army?
A Not immediately.
Q Well, I believe you said he called the
Information Bureau?
A Yes, sir; the next day.
Q He got in late the day of arrival, did he
not? Did he tell you when he got in?
A Yes, sir.
Q What time?
A It was around 7 o’clock.
Q In the evening?
593
A Yes, sir; in the evening.
Q And the next morning he called the
Information Bureau?
A Yes, sir. It is my recollection that he called the
Government Information Service.
594
Q Did
he tell you what he said to the Information Service?
A The exact wording, no. I do not recall, but he indicated that he had
some information and I believe the person who was at the Government Information
Service made inquiry as to its nature and he said that it was military
espionage and at that time he was referred to the various organizations.
Q Did he tell what organizations he was
referred to?
A Well, as I recall, it was the Army, the
Military Intelligence, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Q What did he tell you about what action he
took after he received that information?
A He telephoned, I believe it was, the
Army and made inquiry for Colonel Cramer.
Q Do you know whether he is in the Military
Intelligence?
A No, sir, I do not know Colonel Cramer.
Q Now, go ahead and tell us what he said
about his calls.
A Colonel Cramer was not in, and he then
called the telephone number of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Q Go ahead and tell now what he said
occurred.
A Well, he was referred to Mr. Traynor,
Mr. D. L. Traynor, and told him he had some information and wanted to speak to
someone, and Mr. Traynor said—this I am quoting from Dasch as nearly as I can
quote him—Traynor said that someone would come out and get him and bring him
down to the office.
Q Is that all he said about the telephone
conversation with Mr. Traynor?
A So far as I recall, yes, sir.
Q Do you know who went out to accompany Mr.
Dasch to
595
the F. B. I. office?
A No, sir, I do not.
Q Did he tell you anything about Colonel
Cramer calling him back?
A Yes, sir, he did.
Q Will you tell us what he said about that?
A Shortly after he had contacted the
Federal Bureau of Investigation Colonel Cramer called him, and at that time he told
Colonel Cramer that he had made an appointment or arrangement to see someone at
the F.B.I.
Q Do you know whether he requested
permission to talk directly with Mr. Hoover?
A That I do not know.
Q Did he say he had requested permission to
talk with Mr. Hoover?
A I recall no such statement.
Q Did he have a book with him when he came
over to the F. B. I.?
A I was not here at the time he originally
came to the F. B. I.
Q Did you see a book which he had had in
his possession with some names of important people in Washington in the book,
names and addresses, or at least names?
A Did I see a book that he had at the time
he came over here?
Q Yes, that he had in his possession at the
time he got in contact with the F.B.I.
A I do not know whether he had any book in
his possession at the time he came here, sir.
596
Q Well,
was a book shown to you that was alleged to have been in his possession, with
the names of some prominent Washington people in it?
A I
saw an address book that he had on his person.
Q Did
it have the names of any important persons in Washington in it?
A It
had one name that I recall.
Q And
what name was that?
A Francis
Biddle.
Q That
is the—
A That
is the Attorney General.
Q And
you do not recall that Mr. Hoover’s name was in the book?
A No,
sir, I do not recall that Mr. Hoover’s name was in that book.
Q Did
he tell you that when he came to Washington he desired to get in touch with
some person in authority and mentioned Mr. Biddie as being one of the person’s
recommended to him?
A He
said that he wanted to get in touch with someone in authority in Washington.
Mr. Biddle’s name was given to him, as I recall Dasch’s statement, on the
evening that he appeared in Washington.
Q As
being an appropriate person to get in touch with?
A Yes,
sir.
Q The
Attorney General is interested in whether you know who recommended him.
A Yes,
sir, I do, according to Dasch’s statement.
Q Yes,
Who did Dasch say recommended him?
597
A This
waiter that he recognized, Louis Martin.
Colonel Ristine. There are, Mr. President, quite a few matters
contained in the transcribed written document which I wish to make inquiry
about. However, I think it will expedite
matters if I spend tomorrow and tonight singling out the matters about which I
desire to make inquiry, and I do not think of other matters that I desire to
ask at the present time, before we adjourn.
The President. Anything further on the part of either side
before we adjourn?
The Attorney General. Nothing further, sir.
The President. The Commission will adjourn until Monday
morning at 10 o’clock.
(At 5:57 p.m., an adjournment was taken
until Monday, July 13, 1942, at 10 o’clock a.m.)