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.
Session
V
Pages
598 to 743
598
CONTENTS
Name
of Witness |
Direct |
Cross |
Redirect |
Recross |
Norval
D. Wills |
|
601 |
664 |
672 |
Thomas
J. Donegan |
674 |
678 |
|
|
Lieut.
John Benjamin Murdock |
690 |
692 |
|
|
Duane
L. Traynor |
693 |
695 |
723 |
741 |
EXHIBITS
Prosecution |
For
Identification |
In
Evidence |
P-99
to P-115 Photographs |
664 |
672 |
P-116,
P-117, P-118 Three Waivers |
722 |
723 |
Defendant’s |
|
|
A Statement of George John Dasch |
602 |
|
B-1
to B-4 Letter, Dasch to Burger |
624 |
|
C-1,
C-2 Letter and paper attached |
627 |
|
--ooOoo--
599
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.
The Military Commission appointed by
the President by order dated July 2, 1942, met, in room 5235 Department of
Justice, at 10 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, Herman Neubauer,
Richard Cuirin 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
600
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.
Colonel Munson. All the personnel of the Commission, the
prosecution, and defense, except Colonel Weir, who were present at the close of
the previous session in this case, are again present; the eight accused, and
the reporters are also present.
We have two new officers of the guard,
sir, to whom the oath of secrecy should be administered. They are First Lieutenant D. J. Churbini and
First Lieutenant Louis W. Berger.
(Addressing the officers referred
to) You understand, gentlemen, that this
is an oath of secrecy, and I am instructed by the Commission to inform you that
violation of this oath may result in contempt proceedings or proceedings by
court martial or perhaps civil proceedings, and that in taking the oath you
render yourselves liable to such penalties.
You understand that?
First Lieutenant Churbini. Yes, sir.
First Lieutenant Berger. Yes, sir.
Colonel Munson. You will each raise your right hand. Do each of you here present solemnly swear
that you will not divulge the proceedings taken in this trial to anyone outside
the court room until released from that obligation
601
by
proper authority or required to do so by such proper authority?
First Lieutenant Churbini. I do.
First Lieutenant Berger. I do.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, we would like to
have Mr. Wills recalled for further cross-examination.
(Mr. Norval D. Wills entered the court
room.)
Lieutenant Page. This witness has been sworn.
NORVAL D. WILLS,
a
witness previously called and sworn for the prosecution, resumed the stand and
testified further as follows:
Colonel Munson. The witness is reminded that he is still
under oath.
The Witness. Yes, sir.
CROSS EXAMINATION – Resumed
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Mr.
Wills, I hand you a 254-page document, on the front page of which is the date
June 25, 1942, with the name of George John Dasch on that page, and I believe
each page is signed by Mr. Dasch, and I wish you would tell us what that
document is, if you know.
A This
is a statement that was signed by Defendant Dasch on
Q Is
that a transcript record of the questions and answers and statements made
between the investigators of the F.B.I and Mr. Dasch between June 19 and the
date it bears signature?
A As
for June 19 to June 21, I cannot say as to that, but from June 21 until June
25, during the time that I was
602
present,
it appears to be a transcript of the statements made by the defendant Dasch.
Q Were
you not furnished, when you first appeared, transcript copies of the preceding
days, and are not the pages that appear in that document the same as the
transcript copies that were furnished to you?
A Yes,
sir; they are.
Colonel Ristine. I think, in order to have the record clear,
we had better have the document marked by the reporter so that you will know
that this is the document that was identified by this witness.
The President. Yes.
Do I understand that you are putting it in evidence, or basing questions
upon it?
Colonel Ristine. I am not offering it in evidence, Mr.
President.
The Attorney General. I have no objection to its being marked for
identification.
(Statement of George John Dasch was
marked Defendant’s A for identification.)
Question by Colonel Ristine:
Q I
take it, Mr. Wills, that the document marked “Defendant’s A” is a full and
complete transcript of the questions and answers or statements made by
Defendant Dasch, which, in so far as the F.B.I agents were able to cover it,
fully covers the facts pertinent to the charges pending today against Mr.
Dasch?
The Attorney General. May it please the Commission, I object, I do
not want to be technical, but I do not see why the cross-examination should not
be related to the examination
603
in
chief. This material has nothing to do
with it. As a matter of courtesy I did
not mind having it identified; but this is not really proper cross-examination,
and of course it will go on into this statement which has not been referred
to. I do not think this is the proper
time for the defendant to put in his own case.
Therefore I think it is proper to object to the question. I do not, as I say, want to be technical
about the matter, but I think the cross-examination should be related to the
direct examination.
The President. Mr. Reporter, will you read the question?
(The reporter read as follows:)
“Q I
take it, Mr. Wills, that the document marked ‘Defendant’s A’ is a full and
complete transcript of the questions and answers or statements made by Defendant
Dasch, which, in so far as the F.B.I, agents were able to cover it, fully
covers the facts pertinent to the charges pending today against Mr. Dasch?”
Colonel Ristine. May I suggest, if the Commission please, that
it is a fundamental rule that if the prosecution elects to go into a part of
the statements made by an accused on the basis that they constitute admissions
and confessions, the defendant on cross-examination is entitled to go into any
matter that transpired in connection with that interrogation and answer that
has been omitted and left out by the prosecution. In other words, they are not permitted to
single out parts of a statement which they claim is a confession and to
deprive, in cross-examination, the other side of going into any other part for
the purpose of explaining or lending greater enlightenment with respect to the
isolated parts which they went into themselves.
604
The Attorney General. May it please the commission, I beg to
differ. This is a statement which
counsel for the defendant Dasch has had and has read and is familiar with. The things that appear in this statement are
not all statements made to this witness.
Of course counsel for defendant is entitled to cross-examine this
witness about anything that Dasch said, anything at all. The doors are wide open for counsel to ask
any questions with respect to what Dasch said to the witness. But the purport of this question is very
obviously for the defendant to try to get in as part of our case a self-serving
statement made by Dasch, without calling him.
As I say, since counsel for the defendant can cross-examine Mr. Wills
about anything on earth that Dasch said to this witness – I have opened myself
to that quite properly – I do not see why he should be permitted to cross-examine
the witness about a self-serving statement made to a number of
individuals. This witness did not take
this statement and was not there while many of the statements in this
confession were made. Therefore I think
I am proper in insisting that this is an inappropriate and improper question,
and in no sense are any of the defendant’s rights kept out, because counsel has
a perfectly open chance to cross-examine Mr. Wills about anything on earth that
the defendant Dasch said to him.
Therefore I must object to an attempt
to introduce as part of the prosecution’s case a statement which is not yet
relevant and which this witness did not take.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, I have not offered
this document in evidence as a part of the prosecution’s case. I have no intention of offering that document
in total as a part of the prosecution’s case.
I merely want
605
to
have the right to interrogate the circumstances under which it was taken, under
which it was made, and then I want to have the right to call attention to
certain things in the document which the prosecution has seen fit to ignore
entirely in connection with their proof of this alleged confession.
In that connection, may I be permitted
to read from page 115 of the Manual for Courts-Martial of the United States
Army, which I think is the last published edition. It is the 1928 edition, and the one that was
distributed here for use, in which the following appears (reading):
“Rules. – The following rules limit the
use of an accused’s confessions, oral or written, made out of court.
“Evidence of a confession or supposed
confession cannot be restricted to evidence of only a part thereof. Where a part only is shown, the defense by
cross-examination or otherwise may show the remainder so that the full and
actual meaning of the confession or supposed confession may appear. For example, if in a trial for the common-law
larceny of a horse the prosecution proves that the accused admitted that he
broke into the stable and ‘stole’ the horse, the defense may show that the
accused added the statement that the horse was taken solely for a temporary
purpose with the intent to return it.”
In this instance the witness was
permitted to refresh his recollection of the statements made by reading this
document or any other document that he saw fit to read. He then attempted to relate from memory
various statements made, but he did not include in those statements everything
that was
606
said. Now, we feel that under the law laid down by
the Manual we have the right to cross-examine this witness with respect to any
other statements that are contained in this alleged confession which they
omitted to ask the witness about or which he omitted to testify about.
The Attorney General. I do not dispute that for a minute. I say that counsel can ask this witness about
anything that was said to him, anything at all that was said to him, I am
objecting to the particular use of this statement. Certainly he can give the witness anything he
wants to refresh his recollection.
Colonel Ristine. I take it, in addition to what the Attorney
General has just stated, that I have the right to read from that document and
to ask the witness if those statements were not made as read and as they appear
in that document, in order that this Commission may have the full story.
The Attorney General. That is my point. He is introducing this confession, which was
not all made to the witness and as to some of which he has absolutely no
knowledge in any way. That is exactly my
point. But the confession of the
defendant, who has not taken the stand, this not being the defendants’ case
yet, is now being put in evidence and counsel is going to read long extracts
from this confession, and then, if the witness says, “No; I know nothing about
that,” the whole thing is already in the record. It is a very simple way of introducing the
confession, the simplest way in the world.
He can start at the beginning and read 254 pages and then end up by
saying, “Is that a correct statement or not?”
And the confession is in. I do
not think that is the appropriate way to try
607
the
case. If he will ask this witness about
anything that the defendant said to him, I of course have no objection. I want it all to come out, but I want to
confine this witness to what he knows.
That is all.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, I am not willing to
trust to the memory of a witness when the life of my client is at stake, with
respect to a 254-page, single-space typewritten document covering a period of
four or five days. The law is laid down
in the Manual for Courts-Martial that if only a part of a confession is
introduced, then by cross-examination anything else that was said in connection
there with that may be in any way explanatory of what they offered in evidence
can be offered in cross-examination.
That is just fundamental. If they
did not want to throw the door open for us to use the document in that manner,
then they had no right to offer any evidence with respect to anything that was
said during that long period of examination.
The President. Colonel Royall, you are representing the
other defendants involved. The
Commission would be glad to hear from you now.
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, it is not our
intention to cross-examine this witness or to participate in the
cross-examination. In the first place,
to do so we consider unnecessary, and, in the second place, it might have the
effect of waiving the objection we have to this confession, so far as it
relates to the other defendants; and of course by stipulation we still have
that objection. The only questions which
we have addressed to this witness were on the determination of the preliminary
facts as to whether
608
the
confession was voluntarily made; and that, of course, does not waive our
rights. But as to any matters involving
the substance of the confession or admissions, we do not desire to participate,
for the reasons stated.
The President. If there is any further comment of
enlightenment the Commission would welcome it. (No response)
The Commission is closed.
(The Commission was then closed. When it reopened the following occurred:)
609
The President. The Commission is open.
The Commission is now ready to rule on the
objection of the defense counsel on which the Commission has heretofore
suspended ruling. The objection of the
defense counsel is not sustained.
In view of this ruling are there any
further remarks on the part of either side regarding the objection of the
Attorney General which is now before the Commission?
The Attorney General. I withdraw my objection, Mr. President.
Colonel Royall. Do I understand that the Commission has ruled
that the confession of Burger is admissible against the other defendants?
The President. Yes, that is right
Colonel Royall. And that the admissions in the confession of
Dasch are admissible against the other defendants?
The President. Yes, up to June 27th.
Colonel Royall. Yes, sir.
We just wanted to make sure of that.
The Attorney General. I Withdraw my objection to this question and
request the reporter to read the question.
Colonel Royall. Excuse me, Mr. Attorney General.
The President. Do I understand that this general ruling also
covers any other objections, motions to strike out, or as to cross-examination
of any other witnesses?
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, in spite of the
fact that the Commission has so ruled, it is still our hope that perhaps we may
be able to prevail on the Commission later to reverse that ruling, which could
be done. I do not intend
610
to
argue it now, because I do not want to take up the time necessary to do so.
With that in view and also because of
our firm conviction that these confessions should not be admitted against the
other defendants, we still want to preserve our rights by objecting to further
testimony along that line, realizing the Commission will be inclined to rule
just as it does now, because we do not want to waive the position we have taken
on the admissibility of these confessions, and for the same reason, in order to
prevent a waiver, it will be our inclination in the case of each of these
defendants for none of the defendants, except the one who is himself confessing
or admitting facts, to cross-examine the witness relative thereto.
Specifically applicable to this case,
it is not the desire of any of the seven defendants other than Dasch to
cross-examine this witness on any matter relating to this confession.
We take that position because we are
still firmly convinced, with all deference to the Commission, that the
confession should not be considered as against a man who did not make it.
The President. You understand your right to call back for
cross-examination any witnesses about whom you made that reservation?
Colonel Royall. I do understand.
Colonel Ristine. May it please the Commission, I believe in
view of the withdrawal of the objection there would not now be any matter
before the Commission for decision.
However, a matter came up Saturday
about which I would
611
like
to clarify the situation.
When I was presenting an argument to
the Commission respecting the best evidence rule, in referring to page 559, I
find I made the following statement, which was my opening statement with
respect to that question. I am reading
now from record page 559:
“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 had 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.”
Now, having made that statement, I did
not repeat that statement in subsequent remarks in which I urged this
Commission to rule that the best evidence rule should be applied, but I want it
to be made clear to this Commission that I would not and never have attempted
to mislead any tribunal, whether it was a police court, a justice of the peace
court, or any other tribunal, much less this Commission, as to what my
understanding of the law might be.
I make that explanation, because
apparently my associate counsel was under the misapprehension Saturday that I
had stated to this Commission that it was the law that the best evidence rule
applied in such an instance. I just want
to make
612
it
clear that that was not my contention then but it was, rather, my contention
that in this particular instance, because of the attendant facts and
circumstances, it should be applied.
Now, if the reporter will read the
question, I understand the witness will be permitted to answer.
The Reporter (reading):
“Question. I take it, Mr. Wills, that the document
marked Defendant A is a full and complete transcript of the questions and
answers or statements made by defendant Dasch which, insofar as the F. B. I.
Agents were able to cover it, fully covers the facts pertinent to the charges
pending today against Mr. Dasch.”
A The
statement that was just shown to me and signed by defendant Dasch is a
transcript of the remarks taken by the stenographer and signed by him, but
whether that includes every word said by him that I cannot say, because I did
not take the stenographic notes.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Insofar
as the Federal Agents were able to develop all the facts and circumstances
surrounding this matter, it does fully cover it, does it not?
A There
were certain or some, rather, explanatory remarks made by defendant Dasch that
are not included in that statement.
Q Would
you tell me why anything was eliminated or deleted or left out of that
statement?
A One
that I have in mind, one particular matter, in describing the submarine he drew
certain charts there. Those
613
are
not put in the statement.
Q Well,
those are in the possession of the F.B.I, are they not?
A That
I could not say. I do not know what
happened to those after they were drawn.
Q Is
that the only thing that you have in mind, the drawings that he made of the
submarine?
A Well,
there was another instance that I recall that is not in the statement. It was
relating to a colonel that had come from
Q Was
there any reason why it should be left out of the statement?
A None
that I know of.
Q I
take it the transcript of what occurred before you joined the group was read by
you in order to bring you up to date, was it not?
A Yes,
sir. I read the transcript from the
period that the stenographic notes were first taken until I appeared and
participated in the questioning of Dasch.
Q And
from the time you appeared and participated, from then on you heard the
questions and answers, did you not?
A Yes,
sir, I did.
Q And
you do know what is in this document marked Defendant A, do you not?
A Yes,
sir, I know what is in that document.
Q Then
would you not say that it was a full and complete
614
document
respecting Dasch’s knowledge of the matters that are now on trial before this
tribunal?
A I
would say that that is a transcript of the remarks made by the defendant Dasch.
Q Well,
you would not contend that your Department asked Dasch to sign this statement
before your Department was satisfied it was full and complete, would you?
A He
was asked to sign that statement after he had stated that all of the facts as
he recalled them had been given by him.
Q And,
I take it, none of those who were interrogating him could think of any other
questions to ask him, is that correct?
A There
were a lot of detail questions that could be asked him.
Q Well,
you did not feel that it was necessary to ask any further questions in order to
develop the matter, did you?
A No,
sir, I never had that feeling. There are
a lot of questions that can be asked him.
Q Did
you have that feeling when you stopped asking him questions, after four or five
days?
A Yes,
sir, I had that feeling when the questioning ceased; when he began reading that
statement, I had the feeling that there were other questions that could be
asked him and should be asked him.
Q Why
didn’t you ask him? There was not
anybody who prevented you from asking him, was there?
A We
had hoped at a later time we would be able to ask those questions.
615
Q Was
there anybody who prevented you from asking those further questions at that
time?
A At
that time we were getting ready to go to
Q And
how long had you and the other F.B.I Agents interrogated Mr. Dasch in order to
develop fully all of the facts connected with this matter?
A As
I have stated before, I first saw the defendant Dasch on June the 21st
and he was questioned here in room 2250 of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
each day until June the 24th, at which time he started reading this
statement.
Q Was
not that at the request of the agents that he started reading it?
A Oh,
yes, sir.
Q And
there was not anything to prevent the agents from asking further questions
before they made that request, if they so desired, was there?
A At
that time we were to leave the next day for New York, it was quite a lengthy
statement and he could not just pick the statement up and read it the last
minute, and we wanted him to read that statement, to be sure that it was
correct.
Q Was
there any reason why he should sign it then, as distinguished form a subsequent
date?
A No
particular reason.
Q At
the time these interrogations occurred and as recorded in the document
Defendant A, Mr. Dasch was in what king of custody of the F.B.I? Did I understand the Attorney
616
General
to describe it as protective custody?
A What
was that period of time, may I ask?
Q During
the interrogation of Dasch as recorded in this document.
A From
the time that I first saw him and during the period that he was giving that
information, until the time that he signed the statement. He was in protective custody.
Q You
know that at the time the others interrogated his preceding your entry that he
was also in protective custody, do you not?
A That
would be an assumption on my part, yes, sir.
Q You
know it to be true, that there was no change made in the nature of his
protective custody from the time he first appeared until after this document
was signed?
A Well,
as I say, I would assume that, yes, sir.
Q Now,
protective custody, I take it, is a voluntary custody on the part of Mr. Dasch,
that is correct, is it not?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
that kind of a custody springs from the fact that somebody thinks it is
necessary for the protection of Mr. Dasch.
Is that correct?
A That
is correct.
Q Now,
Mr. Dasch did give in his statements and answers to your interrogations
valuable evidence which helped the F.B.I. in the apprehension of the other
seven defendants in this case, did he not?
The Attorney General. May I -
-
A Yes,
sir.
The Attorney General. Well, that is all right, but I
617
don’t
see why this statement should be made and the witness should be asked to make a
conclusion of that kind.
618
Question by Colonel Ristine:
Q Your
answer was “Yes, sir”?
Colonel Royall. As to that item, which does not involve a
matter of confession, the other defendants object on an additional ground that any
conclusion the witness might make as to the examination of the others on the
information would not be admissible as against the other defendants.
The Attorney General. Since I did not get my objection in in time,
I now move to strike.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, it seems obvious to
me that by the calling of numerous witnesses from the F.B.I., whose names I do
not even now know, I can develop that fact.
Of course, if the Attorney General and the other counsel desire to be
technical about the matter and require me to call in some ten or twelve or
fifteen F.B.I. agents in order to find the right man who knows the answer to
the right question, there is nothing I can do about it; but I should think that
it would be a matter about which there should not be any controversy among
ourselves. I do feel that it is
essential to have it in the record in order to present the true picture of this
situation to this Commission, so far as my client is concerned.
Here is a man who was in the protective
custody of the F.B.I., and for days he gave them information, gave them facts,
told them all about these two groups and anything else that they interrogated
him about, and was in every way possible cooperating with them. Of course, if the Commission please, those
are matters about which you should be fully informed in order to place the
proper interpretation on the part or participation which this defendant may
have taken in this matter.
619
The Attorney General. I should very strongly object to it. Colonel Ristine seems to have misapprehended
the basis of my objection. This witness
knows as much about the matter as any other witness and is as capable of
answering the question as he did answer it – as anybody else in the F.B.I.
My objection is that it is hardly
proper for Colonel Ristine to ask the opinion of one of our witnesses about a
matter that is not a fact but is a conclusion, which, of course, the Commission
will make itself. I do feel very
strongly about it, and I move to strike it out.
Colonel Royall. We have our motion on behalf of the other
defendants to strike that conclusion of the witness.
The President. The Commission sustains the objection of the
Attorney General and of the defense counsel representing the other defendants.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Following
the information which Mr. Dasch gave respecting the other members of those now
on trial, what action was taken by you or by any other member of the F.B.I.,
that you know about, toward the apprehension of the other seven members now
being tried?
A I
took no action. The other action I do
not know.
Q Was
any action taken in your presence?
A No
action was taken in my presence.
Q Do
you know whether following that information the F.B.I. agents went to
The Attorney General. He said he did not know what action was
taken. Is not that enough? He said he
did not know.
Colonel Ristine. My question was specific.
A Member. That will not make a difference.
620
The Attorney General. All right
A Member. If he knows, all right; if he does not know,
all right.
The President. That is the ruling on this particular
question. In other words, develop your
question as you wish.
Colonel Ristine. Will the reporter read the question?
The Reporter (reading);
“Question. Do you know whether following that
information the F.B.I. agents went to
The Witness. I was told –
The Attorney General. I object to anything you were told; just
answer of your own knowledge.
Questions by the President:
Q Answer
the question as to your own knowledge, please.
A Well,
sir, I never saw the defendant Burger until after June 25, and any information
I have concerning the defendant Burger was told to me.
Q In
other words, hearsay?
A Yes,
sir.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Were
any of the other seven in custody at the time Mr. Dasch appeared the first time
at the offices of the F.B.I.?
A Do
you mean in
Q Anywhere. Was not the appearance of Mr. Dasch the first
knowledge the F.B.I. had respecting the whereabouts of any of the group of
eight?
A Any
information I would have on that, sir, would be hearsay.
621
Q Would
you tell me who in the F.B.I. would have that information and the other
information I have asked you about heretofore?
The Attorney General. Perhaps I can save time. It was spread on the record Saturday and a
copy given to counsel as to exactly the day on which each defendant was
apprehended. It is all in the record
now.
The President. Is that in the record?
The Attorney General. It is already in the record, and we are
looking for the page. We will admit
exactly when each one was apprehended.
Colonel Royall. Page 476.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, this memorandum is
headed “ Re time of apprehension of subjects,” and under “No. 1,” there is:
“George John Dasch,
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q May
I inquire of this witness if any notice or statement was made to Mr. Dasch on
A At
that time I was not present in the room.
Q Well,
you know from conversations that you had with him later that he had no
knowledge or information about any change in custody, do you not?
A Well,
the next day, sir, the property he had was taken by us.
Q The
next day?
A Yes,
sir; the next morning.
Q By
“the property,” what do you mean?
A His
personal property – his money.
622
Q Did
you participate in the taking of that personal property?
A Yes,
sir, I did.
Q Did
you or anybody in your presence make any statement to him as to why you were
taking it?
A Not
that I recall.
Q There
was no statement made that there was any change in the status of his custody at
that time, was there?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Made
by whom?
A He
knew at that time that he was going to
Q Well,
obviously; he had signed a waiver, had he not?
A I
was not present at the signing of that waiver.
Q But
there was no statement made by you or any other F.B.I. man in your presence
before the trip to
A I
made no such statement. I do not recall
any such statement.
Q Do
you not know, as a matter of fact, that Dasch requested that he be placed in
the cells with the other defendants who had been apprehended up to that
time? You know that, do you not?
A Yes,
sir; that was on Thursday, I believe.
Q What
was the date?
A June
25.
Q Then,
you do know that at that time he did not know that there had been any change
whatever in his custodial status do you not?
A Well,
at that time, as I recall, it was pointed out
623
to
him that he could not be turned loose.
Q What
was the language used, if you recall?
A Special
Agent Traynor was talking, and he at that time told the defendant Dasch that we
had two things to consider: first, defensive; that is, to take care of the
saboteurs, espions, and others who were here to hinder the war effort; and to
protect this country from additional persons coming over.
With that thought in mind, and I think
also at that time he brought up the family of Dasch that was in
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, so much of the
witness’ answer up to this point as embraces statement made by the F.B.I.
agent, which I do not think is quite responsive to the question – but whether
it is or not, it was not anticipated when the question was asked and could not
have been so anticipated – the other seven defendants move to strike so far as
it concerns them.
A Member. I think counsel might as well go ahead with
his questions and answers.
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, may I say this
further; I do not want to be interrupting this examination and I have sought
not to do so, because it is not conducive to a clear understanding of what is
going on –
The President. On the contrary, I think it is.
Colonel Royall. I was going to suggest that in connection
with any statements made by Dasch, it is the intention and purpose of the other
defendants to object, so far as it relates to the other defendants. That is consistent with the position we have
taken, and it will be necessary for us to con-
624
tinue
those objections. In view of the present
ruling of the Commission, some question might arise as to whether our former
stipulation would apply to those objections.
We would be perfectly willing to have it do so, or we would be willing
to object to each question asked this witness with reference to Dasch’s
statement and would follow the wishes of the Commission in that connection.
The President. I think that Colonel Ristine, representing
Dasch, may go ahead with his questions.
When he finishes, you may, if you wish, make a covering stipulation that
will be considered.
The Attorney General. I agree to that suggestion.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q I
hand you a photostatic copy of a document dated
Colonel Ristine. First, I shall have it marked.
(photostatic
copy of letter written by defendant Dasch to defendant Burger and photostatic
pages attached were marked as Defendants’ Exhibits B-1 to B-4, inclusive, for
identification.)
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q I
now hand you a document marked as Defendants’ exhibits B-1 to B-4, inclusive,
and will ask you to state, if you can, what that document is.
A This
appears to be a photostat of a letter written by the defendant Dasch and
directed to Peter Ernest Burger, Room 1421 Governor Clinton Hotel, New York
City.
Q That
letter was delivered to whom for mailing?
A It
was turned over to Special Agent Johnstone.
Q You
and Johnstone at that time, I believe, were
625
engaged
in the interrogation of Mr. Dasch?
A On
that date, yes, sir.
Colonel Ristine. May I have the original, so as to clear up
whether there is any doubt about its being a photostat of the original?
(The Attorney General handed papers to
Colonel Ristine.)
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q I
hand you the original document and ask you to compare it and ascertain if it is
a correct photostat of the original.
The Attorney General. This is conceded.
The Witness. This appears to be.
Colonel Ristine. I just did not like to leave it in that
indefinite form. If the prosecution will agree that that is a photostatic copy
–
The Attorney General. Yes, we gave it to you.
Colonel Ristine. All right, then; that was not in the record.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Did
Mr. Dasch request of you, or of anyone in your presence, permission to write
this letter to Burger?
A On,
no, he didn’t request permission to write the letter, no, sir—not of me. Did you ask “in my presence”?
Q Yes,
or in your presence.
A Prior
to the time we left the office, he made mention of the fact that he wanted to
write a letter.
The President. There is a request by the Commission to give
the date, please.
Colonel Ristine.
626
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Was
that the date of the letter?
A That
is correct. That was on a Monday.
Special Agent Traynor told him it would
be all right to write a letter provided we read the – that is, Johnstone would
read the letter to see that nothing of any import was in the letter.
Q Was
the letter delivered in an envelope addressed to Burger and sealed for mailing?
A At
the time I saw the letter there was not envelope with it.
Q Did
you know that later it was delivered in an envelope addressed to Mr. Peter
Ernest Burger, Room 1421 Hotel Governor Clinton, New York City?
A The
defendant Dasch never sealed that letter.
Q Did
he deliver it to you or to someone in your presence for the purpose of reading
it and then sealing and mailing it?
A Yes,
sir, he did.
Q Was
it ever mailed?
A No,
sir.
Q Is
that customary where a person is in protective custody?
The Attorney General. I object.
I do not think custom has anything to do with this. The question was simply, was the letter
mailed? And the answer was, No. I object to what is usual or customary about
mailing letters.
Colonel Ristine. I will withdraw the question, if the
Commission please.
627
I will ask to have these documents
marked.
(A
letter and paper attached were marked as Defendants’ Exhibits C-1 and C-2,
respectively, for identification.)
628
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q I
now hand you documents marked Defendant C, Defendant C-1 and Defendant C-2;
Defendant C-1 consisting of two pages stapled together, and Defendant C-2,
consisting of the same number of pages, stapled together, and I will ask you to
state what that is.
The President. May I ask, on bejalf of the Commission,
whether the other letter which you had reference to has bee put in the record?
The Attorney General. No; it has not been offered, and could not be
offered now by counsel for the defense.
It has not been offered by me.
Colonel Ristine. As I understand it, Mr. President, it would
be inappropriate now for me to offer in evidence the documents I am exhibiting.
The President. It is being exhibited simply as an
aide-memoire to the witness, is it?
Colonel Ristine. I am having it identified now so that later,
when we offer evidence for the defense, it will not require recalling of the
witness.
The President. I see.
A It
appears to be a photograph of a letter directed by George Dasch—
The Attorney General. Now, may I just say this. We know that it is a photograph of a
letter. Will you simply say whether or
not you have any personal knowledge of it?
The Witness. I never saw this letter before.
Colonel Ristine. In view of your admission that this is a
photostatic copy--
629
The Attorney General. That is a correct photostatic copy of what it
purports to represent.
Colonel Ristine. By that do I understand that you would like
to have me recall or place upon the stand some other F.B.I. agent in order to
identify it?
The Attorney General. No. I
do not wish to make any suggestion to you in trying your case. I simply agree that it is a photograph of a
letter which this witness knows nothing about.
I hope that we can go on with this witness.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q I
just discovered that the document marked Defendant B-3 seems to have the notation
on the back of the envelope of something written in longhand. Will you tell me whose initials and, if you
know the handwriting, who wrote the notation on there?
A Yes,
sir. The initials “F. G. J.” with the
date “
Those are the initials of Special Agent
Frank G. Johnstone.
Q Was
that writing placed on there in your presence?
A No,
sir. That was discovery to me, also,
that writing.
Q Was
there any trial on the date
A I
don’t know how he arrived at that date, sir.
As I say, that is the first time I have seen that writing.
Q In
the course of the interrogation of Dasch he went into great and minute detail
respecting the construction,
630
workings,
and operation of the submarine that he came over on, did he not, in answering
questions asked him?
A Not
knowing anything about a submarine, sir, I could not say how much detail he
went into the matter. But he did discuss
it at some length.
Q Did
he make drawings of the various floors of the submarine?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Did
he tell you that he had managed to get into the control room and the radio room
and other restricted parts of the submarine?
A Well,
I recall the radio room and the control room; yes, sir.
Q And
he gave you, in so far as he could, all the details and the information that he
learned in those restricted places, did he not?
A I
could not say that he gave all that he learned, but he stated that he would
give what he could about it.
Q He
appeared, at least, to give everything that he had any knowledge about, did he
not?
A If
you mean by that that he answered all the questions that were asked him; yes,
sir.
Q As
a matter of fact, during this entire interrogation from June 19 to June25,
inclusive, Dasch was doing everything he could to aid and assist the Government
of this country, was he not?
The Attorney General. No, I object, may it please the
Commission. I think the objection is so
obvious that I will not even state the reason for it.
The President. Objection sustained.
631
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q He
promptly and without reservation, and cheerfully, answered all questions
propounded to him respecting any subject that had to do with the safety and
welfare of the
The Attorney General. That is exactly the same thing – putting
words into the mouth of the witness, “without reservation.” What does he know about Dasch’s reservation?
The President. Objection sustained.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Do
you remember that he told you about a supposed third group that was due to come
over from
A Yes,
sir; he did mention a third group that was to come over.
Q Did
the agents ask him in particular about the matter, and did he freely answer
about it?
A He
answered all questions that were asked him concerning this third group.
Q Did
he give information respecting proposed sabotage of the
A Yes,
sir. I recall a mention of the
Q Did
he give information which he had learned in
A As
I recall it, that was a conclusion on his part.
Q Did
he state, in the course of that interrogation, that “For the last 15 years I
have been opposed to the Nazi movement in principle, in 1920 as well as in
1931. When I
632
was
in
633
that
my mother who had been before the rise of Hitler active as a social worker of
the Socialist Party would have a thorough understanding of the real facts. To my surprise, my own mother even praised
the work of Hitler. She told me that the
workers and the farmers were protected under new laws and that living
conditions in general had risen and that the country and the people in general
were very happy.
“After my mother had told me all these
facts, which I had to believe because my mother told them to me, I took stock
of my own way of reasoning. I said to myself that perhaps I had been wrong all
along about Hitler. Perhaps I had a
prejudiced mind that had closed to the truth.
“In 1938 I had a chance to study the
tactics”--
The Attorney General. May I interrupt just a moment? This is so long that perhaps you would be
willing to ask the witness at the end of each paragraph whether he heard him
say this. It is a little bit different
for him to remember all this long statement.
Colonel Ristine. I do not object to that.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Would
you state, in so far as I have read, whether Mr. Dasch did make those
statements to the F.B.I in the course of this interrogation?
A In
my presence?
Q Well,
in your presence or in the presence of those who were interrogating him.
The Attorney General. I object to that. It must be confined to the presence of the
witness. The question is whether the
statement was made in the presence of other
634
persons
when he was not there. Of course I
object to that.
The President. Possibly you can reframe your question to cover
the particular suggestion as regards the length of the reading.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, in view of the fact
that this document has been identified by this witness as containing the
transcribed questions and answers and statements during the course of this
examination, five days of interrogation, I believe, under the rules laid down
in the Manual for Courts-Martial, we would have the privilege of reading to the
Commission such parts as have not been previously testified to by this witness,
as throwing light upon the subject. I
would offer it in that form, and if the witness could not verify the fact that
it is a part of this statement with which he was familiar and which contains
the signature of Mr. Dasch on each page, I would offer it just as an
authenticated, correct transcript of a transaction of which only a part has
been given evidence.
The Attorney General. We are not concerned now with the offer. You asked this witness what he heard Dasch
say to persons when he was not present.
If you confine it first at least to what this witness heard, then we can
discover if he heard it. If he heard it,
I have no objection, of course
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Were
you present when that statement was made by Mr. Dasch?
A No,
sir; I was not present.
635
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, we offer it,
notwithstanding, as being a correct reading of the document which has been
identified by this witness as containing the transcript of the questions and
answers asked both before the time he entered the picture as well as following
the time he entered the picture.
The Attorney General. I do not understand. Are you making an offer or asking a
question? I was not clear as to what you
said.
Colonel Ristine. I am offering it.
The Attorney General. You are now making an offer?
Colonel Ristine. I am offering it in evidence as a statement
made by Dasch contemporaneously and as a part of the various matters which this
witness previously testified he said, but in addition to what this witness has
previously testified Mr. Dasch said.
The Attorney General. Of course, this is not the appropriate time
for defendant counsel to make any offer.
He is cross-examining my witness now, in the midst of which cross-examination
he proposes to interrupt it and begin the introduction of his case by offering
one of these exhibits. I object to
that. It is not his case. When the time comes for him to introduce
evidence, the question of what should go in will arise, and the Commission will
then rule on it.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, we should not be
required to permit the prosecution to introduce isolated statements made in the
course of four or five days of interrogation and then wait for four or five
days before we furnish to this Commission the explanatory statements that were
made
636
simultaneously
therewith and which it is necessary for the Commission to be familiar with in
order to properly evaluate and understand the other statements about which the
prosecution has brought out evidence.
The Manual of Courts-Martial under the
heading “Rules.- The following rules limit the use of an accused’s confessions,
oral or written, made out of court,” has a rule that limits their right to use
a confession at all, and here is what it says:
“Evidence of a confession or supposed
confession cannot be restricted to evidence of only a part thereof.”
Now, that is a rule laid down against
their side.
“Where a part only is shown, the
defense by cross-examination or otherwise may show the remainder so that the
full and actual meaning of the confession or supposed confession may appear.”
I submit that if I am unable to show it
by cross-examination of the witness, then I am authorized to read it from a
document which has previously been identified by the witness and which has
previously been signed by Dasch. That is
what the rule says, that we may put in the rest where a part only is shown:
“Where a part only is shown, the
defense by cross-examination or otherwise may show the remainder so that the full
and actual meaning of the confession or supposed confession may appear.”
It
would be obviously unfair to this defendant to only
637
introduce
segregated parts of the document and at the same time not give the Commission
the benefit of the other parts which are explanatory and which are necessary in
order to have a correct interpretation of that part only that was introduced by
the prosecution.
It just puts an undue burden, it just
does away with the presumption of evidence, it does away with the rule that if
you only introduce a part of a confession that the other side at that time may
introduce the rest of it. It says “by
cross-examination or otherwise.” It does
not contemplate that we later have to come in as a part of the defense and
offer it. It can be done right
then. The reason is obvious.
Now, they say here further that
confessions are received with great caution.
They are received by all tribunals with great caution.
We just feel, obviously, that it would
be unfair to leave the impression as painted by the prosecution in their
limited introduction of evidence without our at the same time having an
opportunity to put in the rest of it that is necessary to a proper
understanding.
The Attorney General. Now, the answer is very simple to this, it
seems to me, and I think I can state it fairly clearly.
Two things have been suggested by
Colonel Ristine. On one of them the
Commission has already ruled. That was
when the Commission permitted this witness to testify what he heard Dasch say
to him up to June 27th, irrespective of the existence of this long
confession. That has been ruled on. That is out of the way.
638
Now then, having ruled on that, the
witness is now asked to testify what the defendant Dasch said to someone else
when he was not there, under cross-examination, on the theory that it is part
of a confession not now in evidence.
Of course, what a court-martial –
leaving out the distinction between an oral and written confession – is that it
means that when someone hears a confession, that person must give the whole
thing.
I have no objection to this witness’
giving the whole confession that came to him.
That is the only confession he knows anything about. He is, of course, permitted to say anything
about what Dasch said to him, because that is Dasch’s confession to him, and he
knows about it. I think it is
preposterous to ask this witness about something that he has absolutely no
knowledge of.
It is now
The President. The Commission will adjourn until
The Attorney General. The last time you suggested we might adjourn
for one hour. Would you consider the
possibility of adjourning for only an hour instead of an hour and a half at
this time?
The President. Yes, unless there is some reason, as sated
before, by the defense, why they desired more time.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, there are some
witnesses who appeared this morning for the first time that I would like very
much to talk to. We would like to work
it in during the recess, but I will not insist on it, if the Commission
639
desires
to take a shorter time. I will see them
after adjournment this evening in that event.
The President. I would like to not waste any time, but I am
conscious of the fact that the defense possibly has not had the opportunity up
to now to have quite the time they may need.
The Attorney General. That is true, and I --
The President (interposing). I was hoping that we just would not waste any
time, and for that reason I was accepting the hour’s adjournment.
Colonel Ristine. If it please the Commission, let us go for an
hour and I will make arrangements to see the witnesses later this evening.
The President. Very well.
The adjournment will be until
(At
640
AFTER RECESS
(The Commission reconvened at
The President. The Commission is open.
Colonel Munson. The personnel of the Commission, of the
prosecution except Mr. Rowe, and of the defense; all eight of the accused; and
also the reporter are present as they were at the close of the last session.
The witness is reminded that he is
still under oath.
The Witness. Yes, sir.
NORVAL D. WILLS
the
witness on the stand at the time of the court recess, resumed the stand, and
having been previously duly sworn, testified further as follows:
The President. Do I understand that there is an objection
before the Commission?
Colonel Ristine. Yes, sir, there is an objection.
The President. You have asked a question, I believe, and it
was objected to by the Attorney General?
Colonel Ristine. I think it did not come up in that form.
The President. Will you please state your recollection?
Colonel Ristine. After reading, I think, three paragraphs from
page 8 and 9 of defendants’ exhibit A, which was identified as the signed
statement of Dasch, the question was asked the witness if those statements were
made in his presence. He said that they
were not but that they were made before he appeared as one of the
interrogators.
I then offered that as statements made
by Dasch in connection with the testimony that this witness had previously
641
given
and in which he related parts such as he had selected himself, on the theory
that it would be explanatory of and would be necessary for the Commission to
have a proper understanding of the witness’ previous testimony.
The President. Yes, I remember the discussion now.
Colonel Ristine. I may say, if the Commission would permit me,
that I do not contemplate reading any large part of these 254 pages in the
presentation, but only just such limited parts as I think would be helpful to
the Commission in properly interpreting the previous testimony.
The President. I take it, then, that the witness has
answered the question?
Colonel Ristine. Yes, sir, he answered the first question, but
the matter is still before the Commission on my offer of that as being a part
of the questions, answers, and statements that took place at the same time.
The President. Have you anything further, Mr. Attorney
General?
The Attorney General. Nothing further, Mr. President.
The President. Subject to an objection on the part of any member
of the Commission, the ruling is that the objection is sustained.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Mr.
Wills, I will now ask you to state if Mr. Dasch did not make the following
statement in your presence and hearing.
I am reading from page 82, and it runs over onto page 83.
The President. Is it your intention to show that to the
witness or to read it to him?
642
The Attorney General. I should prefer to have counsel show it to
the witness.
Colonel Ristine. As a preliminary to reading it?
The Attorney General. Yes.
Colonel Ristine. I think the witness understands that it is
what occurred after he was present. He
had previously advised me of the page number.
The Attorney General. I think you are mistaken. Ask him.
(Colonel Ristine handed a document to
the witness.)
Question by Colonel Ristine:
Q You
were present when those statements were made?
The Attorney General. On what page?
Colonel Ristine. Pages 82 and 83, or whatever pages I
mentioned.
The President. Will you show the witness what you have
reference to?
Colonel Ristine. Yes.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q I
believe you told me that you appeared from page 81 and thereafter?
A That
is correct.
Q I
was starting to read from page 82.
Continuing again:
“When I approached Kappe I told him that
I was not satisfied with my job as it did not satisfy my ideals. I told him I came to
643
something big. He told me I could become a soldier, and I
suggested I would like to be used against
“This was not in August because at that
time I was with the little
644
already been taken off the job there
and had previously gone through the school because when he came to the school
he said that he had been through it before and had been on the way over to
645
Did he make that statement in your
presence?
A I
recall the gist of that statement, but word for word, of course, I do not
recall.
Q Assuming
that it read it correctly from this document, you would say that it was made in
your presence, would you not?
A Yes,
sir.
Q I
wish you would state if during the course of that interrogation Mr. Dasch was
asked the following questions and made the following answers. I am starting to read from the bottom of page
188, continuing over to page 189:
“Question. Did you ever know or meet anyone in the
German High Command whose duties dealt with espionage?
“Answer. Yes, sir.
“Question. Who were they?
“Answer. I met in January, when I sat in the office,
Room 1025, with Lieutenant Kappe, I was introduced to one person who was, to my
way of reasoning, an engineer. He was in
civilian clothes and had just returned from
646
nothing about electricity or radio but
I gathered that the Russian control that whole setup by radio. He said when those buildings and sections in
647
woman away was shooting her right there
in the place.”
“Question. Do you know the name of this individual?
“Answer. No, I don’t but I was introduced. After this fellow had left, he went to the
next room, I said to Lieutenant Kappe, ‘Christ sake this is an awful war and
this is an awful way to kill people.’
And he said to me, ‘What kind of a Dutchman are you? We Germans have one thing to kill all of the
Jews and don’t you get so chicken hearted.’
I made a mistake that day. I
couldn’t help myself.”
Did he make that statement?
A The
gist of that statement I recall.
Q If
I correctly read it from the exhibit, he made it in that language, did he not?
A Word
for word, I couldn’t say.
(Mr. Rowe entered the hearing room.)
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q I
will ask you to state if in the course of that examination the following
questions and answers occurred. I am not
reading from page 213.
“Question. George, maybe I can help you with this by
asking a few questions and getting responses to them. What programs have you listened to
continuously in the past six months?
“Answer. I did not listen to any specific program one
way or the other. I listened to numerous
programs coming out of
648
“Question. Next, let us get in here a little bit about
your specific job. Were you supposed to
work certain hours and listen to certain radio programs?
“Answer. That is right. I did over there.
“Question. Were these all propaganda?
“Answer. Everything – yes.
“Question. Let us get just your job. Tell us when you started to work, when you
quit work, what you were supposed to do during that time?
“Answer. I worked on three different shifts six days a
week, alternating every week on a new shift.
The morning shift began at seven in the morning until two in the
afternoon. The afternoon shift was from
649
NBC as well as CBS and the New York
times, and all the transmission coming out of Ankara and from Martin Agransky
(?) and Sultsberger (?) who were the usual commentators. My job consisted of translating only points
which had political, economic, propaganda, and military value into German.”
Were those questions asked and those
answers made in your presence during the course of the interrogation?
650
A The
gist of the reading I recall, but the exact wording of course I do not recall.
Q Did
the defendant tell you and make the statement in your presence that –
“After it became clear to me that this
whole set-up of Naziism had to be fought, I had to find a way to do it” and
that in
A Just
in the words you have put it, I do not recall any such statement.
Q Well,
in sum and substance did he make that statement in your presence?
A In
sum and substance he made that statement; yes.
Q I
am now reading from page 140, and I will ask you to state if this question and
answer was made during the course of interrogations when you were present
(reading):
“Q I
think it might be well to go into more detail on how they acquainted you with
the Seibold case.
“A In
February when I was officially assigned or became officially connected with the
German High Command, I was asked to prepare all the groundwork for this under
taking. I in turn asked them to supply
me with all possible records of success or failure of similar undertakings so I
could study the ways and methods of this kind of undertaking. I argued that I was not a professional
saboteur so would need to know what methods to use. I was furnished two files, all of them
covering the Seibold matter. I concluded
after having established what it was all about that a man came over here to
this
651
country after having been hired by the
German high Command to establish a radio communications station which he in
turn turned over to the F.B.I. and was hired by them to work there, making the
Germans believe that he was still loyal to the undertaking, and then finally he
turned yellow. All these reports were in
there. How they exactly read I do not
recollect. I gathered from the reports
that this man had done what I was planning to do. I found myself in a very ticklish
situation. I asked myself why they
entrusted those reports to me. On top of
every report there was marked with a red stamp the word “Geheim,’ meaning in
English ‘Secret.’
I thought it advisable not to mention
the case of Seibold, but after a couple of days or a day or two, Lieutenant
Kappe came to Der Kaukakus where the files were all located. They were locked away in a desk, the key of
which I always hung behind a mirror. He
asked me if I had read the case of Seibold and I told him I had. He asked me what I thought of it. I said the guy must have been a dirty
so-and-so, but they had men trailing and gunning for him until they got
him. He said that no matter where he
went they would get him. I naturally
took the first opportunity to change the subject. The records were of sabotage done by foreign
agents or by alien workers in Germany and in the upper countries for the months
of October, November and December, and the other file consisted of records of
sabotage acts in January, February and March.
The second file came into
652
my hands some time between the 1st
and 3rd of March. Each set of
sabotage was explained thoroughly as to how it was done, what they attacked,
whether the men were caught, and what happened to the subjects. The sabotage acts were filed by separate
countries such as Occupied France, Occupied Belgium,
Was that question asked and that answer
made in the course of the interrogation in your presence?
A I
recall the gist of that, but word for word I do not recall it.
Q Do
you recall specifically that he said that this other man about whom he was
talking had done, it appeared, just what he, Dasch, was planning on doing? You do recall that definitely, do you not?
A I
recall a similar statement. Word for
word, as I say, I do not recall it.
Q Do
you remember discussing with Dasch matters relating to Kerling and
Neubauer? I might give you a little
further information to aid in your recollection. It seems that Kerling and Neubauer had tried
to leave the United States in 1939 in a sail boat, and they were held up for
some time, and the F.B.I. for that reason seemed to have records of them and
photographs of them, and they were presented to Dasch.
Colonel Royall. If the Commission please, the other
653
defendants
object to the statement of counsel. That
was not a question; that was a statement involving other defendants.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, it was explanatory
of the question put to refresh the recollection of the witness as to the
incident. I certainly have no objection
to the other defendants objecting to it.
Colonel Royall. We move that the statement of counsel, -- and
I am not impugning any wrong motives to counsel with reference to it – be
stricken from the record, so far as it relates to those other defendants.
A Member. You have a general objection to any of these
statements, have you not?
Colonel Royall. We have a general objection, may it please
the Commission, to anything that Dasch said or that anyone else said to this
witness. We have not a general objection
which covers statements by counsel; and that is the reason I make a special
objection to that.
The President. If there is no objection on the part of any
member of the Commission, the objection of counsel for the other defendants is
sustained.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Do
you remember being present when any photographs from the F.B.I records were
present to Dasch to see if he could identify them?
A Yes,
sir; I was present.
Q Could
you give me the names of the persons the photographs were made of?
The Attorney General. To save time I am going to introduce all the
photographs and have them identified. I
did not have them on Saturday.
654
Colonel Ristine. The purpose of this examination, so far as
the defendant Dasch is concerned, is to show that he formulated a plan.
The Attorney General. I have no objection, you understand, to the
question.
Colonel Ristine. In explanation of the question, it is for the
purpose of showing that before he left Germany he formulated definite plans to leave
that country to get to any other country where he could fight the ruling power
of Germany, and that this was the only method that was available by which he
could leave Germany, and therefore he adopted it, and immediately after
arriving here he carried out the plan.
This is just one of the things he did in carrying out that plan, and
that is the reason for going into that character of testimony.
The President. There is no objection to your proceeding.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Would
you give the names of the persons involved in the photographs that were
presented to see if he could identify them, and state whether or not any were
presented to him in which any of the present defendants were involved and, if
so, whom?
A The
photograph of Edward Kerling was presented, and also the photograph of
Neubauer.
Q What
was said respecting those photographs?
A The
defendant Dasch just stated, “That is Kerling” and “That is Neubauer.”
Q In
the course of the questions and answers was he asked, and did he give all of
the details that he could, with respect to the other seven defendants now
before he Commis-
655
sion?
A As
for all the details that he could give, I of course do not know. He did give some details.
Q Were
the details he gave sufficiently explicit to be of aid to the F.B.I.?
A Were
the details sufficiently explicit to be of aid?
Q Yes;
to the F.B.I.
A Well,
they consisted of a description; and that is of assistance.
Colonel Ristine. We would like at this time to request the
Attorney General to produce a statement written by the defendant Dasch which he
requested be attached to and made a part or the document which is Defendant’s
Exhibit A.
The Attorney General. I would like to know the purpose of the
request.
Colonel Ristine. I request that the document be turned over to
me for the purpose of cross-examining this witness.
The Attorney General. Does the witness know anything about it?
Colonel Ristine. And for the purpose of identification, and
for the further reason that the document, together with a copy of the charges
which have been served on the defendant Dasch, were taken away from him and
apparently not attached to the original document, Defendant’s Exhibit A and, I
understand, is still in the possession of the prosecution.
The Attorney General. With the Commission’s permission I will
answer counsel for the defendant Dasch after I have asked a question of this
witness, and then the Commission can rule on it.
656
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Mr.
Wills, do you know anything about a statement made by the defendant Dasch while
he was under apprehension, while he was confined in jail? id he make any statement to you in writing as
to what he would testify to, on the third of July?
A On
the third of July, a written statement?
Q Any
kind of a letter or statement.
A He
has never given me any written material, if that is what you have reference to,
sir.
The Attorney General. Then I shall not produce it. The witness knows nothing about it, and I
want to get through with this whole witness and take up the other matters in
due course, unless the Commission thinks I should produce it. Then of course I will.
Colonel Ristine. I will state to the Commission that I have
served a written notice upon the other side requesting them to produce the
document for my inspection and examination and for me to use; and we feel that
from the very nature of things it is such a document that we are entitled to
have. Or at least to have a copy of. I now request that a copy or the document
itself be turned over to me in compliance with that written request.
The Attorney General. This is not the defendants’ case. It is a self-serving statement made by the
defendant Dasch. He asked under cross-examination
of this witness to have it produced. I
do not think that is appropriate. I want
to get through with this witness and then take up the next witness. This self-serving statement made in jail by
the defendant Dasch I do not think is relevant in any way, and unless the
Commis-
657
sion
says that I should give it to counsel for the defendant at this time I do not
propose to do so. But I shall be
entirely guided by whatever the Commission directs, of course.
658
The President. As I understand it, the witness has said he
knows nothing about it himself.
Colonel Ristine. I hardly think the witness intended to go
that far. I think he said that he had
not given to him any written document. I
believe the witness has some knowledge respecting the original document, and I
might for clarification ask a few questions along those lines, if I may be
permitted, before you rule on it.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Did
Mr. Dasch request permission of you or in your presence to be furnished with
paper and pencil?
The Attorney General. Will you specify the date?
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q So
that he could write out a full account of what transpired when you and
Johnstone endeavored to induce him to enter a plea of guilty, and did you, or
Johnstone in your presence, state that it would be all right for him to make or
write out such a statement, and furnish him with the material with which to
write it out, and did he also request that it be made a part of the document
identified as Defendant’s A?
The Attorney General. Will you specify the date when the request
was made?
Colonel Ristine. I think the date was on July 3rd,
that it was obviously on or about July 3rd and was limited, as I
understand it, in the subject matter thereof to the incidents surrounding the
efforts to get him to plead guilty and secure a subsequent pardon.
The Attorney General. At counsel’s request, the Commission has
ruled everything that has taken place since
659
this
oral confession cannot be gone into, so I think it is obviously improper for
counsel to now try to get certain admissions made after the 27th. For counsel to be now permitted to have
certain alleged confessions put in, after that date, he having requested that
they be ruled out, it seems to me improper.
I believe the same ruling is applicable.
Therefore, I object to it.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, I intended by no
stretch of the imagination to let the recording of what transpired in
connection with their efforts to get him to plead guilty in connection with the
promise of a Presidential pardon to be construed by anybody as a confession by
Mr. Dasch. It is, however, a recorded
detail of what happened almost simultaneously with the happening of the event
and it was written out by Dasch, so I am informed, with the understanding that
it would be attached to and made a part of the document marked Defendant A, not
on the theory that it was a confession, but that it is explanatory of what had
happened while he was in this protective custody, as he thought he was, even at
that time. And when he was removed from
New York to Washington, that document, together with a copy of the charges
which had been served upon him, was taken out of his possession, and when he
got to Washington the copy of the charges was returned to him but the other
document was not returned to him and was not attached to this exhibit.
We feel that we are entitled to see it,
inspect it, examine it, and only if and provided we offer it in evidence would
any objection be proper on the other side as to what we intend to do with it.
660
The Attorney General. I have nothing further to add.
The President. I might ask the Attorney General for the
information of the Commission, before I make any ruling, this question. For the moment it seems to me a reasonable
request on the part of defense counsel to make, to see this document.
The Attorney General. I will show it to him.
The President. It is not in evidence, but if it is true that
it is part of the examination of the defendant Dasch at which the witness was present,
it seems to me it is the fair thing for you to show it to counsel.
The Attorney General. I will be very glad to do so, you having
expressed that opinion. Perhaps then the
question will be withdrawn.
The President. Yes
The Attorney General. I will show it to counsel.
The President. If you please.
Colonel Ristine. I would like an opportunity to read it before
concluding the cross-examination of this witness. However, if I might be permitted to recall
the witness, if I should desire, for further cross-examination after I read it,
it will not be necessary to take the time to read it now.
The Attorney General. Why don’t you ask him if he knows anything
about it, first? Won’t you ask him if he
knows anything about it?
Colonel Ristine. Yes.
The President. That is a question that might be asked.
Question by Colonel Ristine:
Q Did
Mr. Dasch request stationery of you or anyone in your presence in order to
write out a statement?
661
A No,
sir.
The President. Possibly you can show the witness this paper,
to help you in your questioning.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q This
is, I take it, a photostatic copy (handing document to the witness). Now, were you present when Mr. Dasch was
moved from
A From
Q Yes.
A Yes,
sir, I was present.
Q Were
you present when he was taken out of the jail or cell in which he was then
incarcerated?
A Enroute
to
Q Yes.
A Yes,
sir, I was present.
Q Were
the papers and effects which he then had in his possession taken from him at
the time?
A At
no time during that removal were any papers taken from his possession in my
presence.
Q Do
you know whether as a matter of fact the documents in his possession were taken
from his possession at that time?
The Attorney General. He just said they were not, in his presence.
Colonel Ristine. I realize he said they were not, in his
presence.
The Attorney General. I object.
The President. The Commission sustains the objection.
662
Colonel Ristine. I withdraw it. I think it strictly might be better to ask
somebody else.
The President. Yes.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Who
else was present when Dasch was moved from the cell in
A Special
Agent Frank B. Johnstone and -- there was one other agent with us. I am just trying to recall his name.
Q We
will find out.
A Member. You might suggest a name.
The President. Does the defense counsel know the name of any
other agent himself?
Colonel Ristine. No, if the Commission please. I would cheerfully suggest it if I knew the
name. I think it would be perfectly
satisfactory for them to supply the name later.
The Attorney General. We will try to get it for you.
Colonel Ristine. Yes.
We don’t need to delay this matter for that.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Then
you have no knowledge whatever respecting a request from Dasch to be permitted
to write this document, or his having written it, or its having gotten out of
his possession into the possession of the F.B.I.?
A No,
sir, I did not say that.
Q Well,
then, will you in your own way tell us what you know about this document?
The Attorney General. Now, wait a minute. He said it was not taken at the time he was
there. He was not there when it was
taken. He knows nothing about it. It is the same attempt
663
by
hearsay to introduce this. It is again
trying to get in by hearsay something the witness knows nothing about.
Colonel Ristine. I beg the Commission’s pardon. I never intended to --
The President (interposing). I don’t think this is so vital that it cannot
be answered. It will enlighten the
Commission and dispatch the case.
The Attorney General. Very well.
The President. I think that you can pose that question and
expect an answer.
The Attorney General. Answer the question.
A I
believe that it was Monday, June the 29th, that I went in to see the
defendant Dasch and at that time he had pencil and paper and he was
writing. It was about two pages of
written material that he had at that time.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q And
do you know whether that was a part and parcel of the document I now hold in my
hand?
A Let
me see it. (The document was handed to
the witness.) Yes, sir.
Colonel Ristine. I think that is all for the present.
The Attorney General. May I be permitted to ask two or three
questions? Had you finished?
Colonel Ristine. Just one other question.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Did
Mr. Dasch ask you personally how to word it, phrase it?
A No,
sir, he did not ask me how to phrase it.
Q Did
you tell him that you would investigate the ten-
664
page
statement as a supplementary statement given in
A I
don’t know what you have in mind there, sir, that I would investigate it.
Q With
a view to having it made as a supplement to Defendant’s Exhibit A.
A Did
I tell Dasch that I would investigate that with a view of making that a
supplement?
Q That
is right.
A No,
sir, I never made any such statement to Dasch.
Colonel Ristine. That is all.
The Attorney General. I will ask the reporter to mark these
photographs.
(A
number of photographs were thereupon marked for identification P-99 to P-115,
both inclusive.)
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Mr.
Wills, when you were testifying on Saturday you were asked, “Did anybody
promise him anything?” in a question referring to Dasch, and your answer was:
“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, 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.” Do you remember the
words Mr. Donegan used to Mr. Dasch when he made that statement, as nearly as
you can recollect?
A As
nearly as I can recollect that, when we came down-
665
666
stairs
there were present Mr. Donegan, Mr. Traynor, and Mr. Johnstone, Special Agent
Johnstone, and myself, and there was some discussion about the family of Dasch
being in Germany and were it known that he had given information his family
might be in danger and it was said if he appeared in open court and made
remarks and testified then, of course, it would endanger his family in Germany,
or he could come into court or be indicted with the others and enter his plea
of guilty and after a sentence and being committed to prison and after -- not
interest, but the news, that the public had more or less forgotten about the
matter, then the F.B.I. would recommend that he receive a Presidential pardon.
Q Now,
was Edward Brekke the name of the other agent who came down with Johnstone and
you?
A Yes,
sir.
Q From
A Yes,
Special Agent Edward Brekke.
Q I
show you marked for identification Exhibits P-99 to P-115, inclusive. Will you look at those photographs? You need not read each one. Just look at them generally.
A Yes,
sir.
Q Did
you show those photographs to the defendant Dasch?
A Yes,
sir, I did.
Q Did
you show him the objects represented by the photographs?
A No,
sir, I did not.
Q Did
any agent in your presence show him those objects?
667
A No,
sir, not in my presence.
Q Did
Dasch endorse the photographs that you hold in your hand?
A Yes,
sir, he did.
Q And
does his writing appear on each photograph?
A Yes,
sir, it does.
Q And
his signature?
A Yes,
sir.
Q And
the date?
A And
the date, yes, sir.
The Attorney General. Any objection to the photographs?
Colonel Royall. What was the date?
The Attorney General. The date is July 3rd.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please --
The Attorney General. Any objections?
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Would
you take each photograph -- I show you, first, P-99. Did you show Dasch this photograph?
A Yes,
sir, this photograph was shown to Dasch.
Q On
what day?
A
Q And
what did he endorse on the back?
Colonel Ristine. Just a minute, if the Commission please. We object to any statement that he may have
endorsed on the back as being contrary to the previous ruling of this
Commission. This is July the 3rd,
long after June the 27th. As
I understand it, the Commission ruled that nothing that was said in the nature
of a confession or statement on the part of the defendant Dasch would be used,
subsequent to June 27th, on
668
account
of the promise of the Presidential pardon.
The President. That is not my remembrance of our
ruling. Our ruling was in a positive
sense, as I remember it. First we ruled
or we made a statement and then we ruled that he could give evidence up to that
date. We did not say he could not give
evidence after that date. That is a new
question which you now bring up at this point.
I believe, however, you have already asked certain questions of this
same witness after that date yourself.
Colonel Ristine. Not, if the Commission please, respecting any
statements made by Dasch or any answers he made in response to an interrogation
by an agent. It was merely with respect
to a paper which he himself wrote and the details of which were not even
inquired into.
669
Obviously, this could only be
constructed as a statement against interest made by Dasch subsequent to June 27,
when they made these promises to him, which I thought we went into very fully
on Saturday.
The Attorney General. In order to clarify the matter a little more,
I shall with your permission ask one more question of the witness before you
rule.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Did
you hear Agent Donegan’s suggestion to Dasch as to what might occur if he
decided to plead?
A Yes,
sir.
Q What
was Dasch’s answer to that? Did he
accept it?
A Dasch
at that time stated that that was the only thing to do.
Q Did
he subsequently make any other decision on it?
A Yes,
sir, he did.
Q What
did he do then?
A Well,
the next day, Sunday, June 28, I went to see Dasch, and at that time he told me
that he had changed his mind; that he didn’t want to enter a plea of guilty.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Would
you give the reasons he gave you for changing his mind?
A At
that time he said that he had -- before he left
The Attorney General. I should like the Commission to rule. I have no particular argument. I do not see what these photographs have to
do with any confession, particularly where
670
the
plea of guilty has not been entered.
Colonel Ristine. We have not objected, if the Commission
please, to the photographs.
The Attorney General. I say, with Dasch’s identification.
Colonel Ristine. If they eliminate the written part on the
back thereof, we have no objection to the photographs being introduced in
evidence.
The President. Is that satisfactory?
The Attorney General. No, it is not satisfactory -- definitely
not. I think that the identification on
the photographs are very important, of course.
I am not clear as to the basis of the objection.
The President. We are not clear either on it.
The Attorney General. I am not at all clear on it. May I ask counsel to state the reason for the
objection? Personally I do not follow
it.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, I have not had time
to read the written portions on the backs of these photographs.
The President. I think that we might settle the question by giving
you a five-minute recess to enable you to look at them; you might then possibly
be better advised.
Colonel Ristine. That might be better.
The Attorney General. In each case the identification is a
statement of what the photographs represents.
Colonel Ristine. I should like an opportunity to read them.
The President. We will declare a recess for five minutes for
the purpose of giving defense counsel time to look at these
671
exhibits.
(At this time a short recess was
taken. The following then occurred:)
The President. The Commission is open.
Colonel Munson. The personnel of the Commission and of the
prosecution and the defense, except Major Thurman of the prosecution and
Captain Hummell of the defense, who are absent on official business; all eight
of the accused; and the reporter are in their seats as prior to the recess.
The witness is reminded that he is
still under oath.
The Witness. Yes, sir.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please. I withdraw the objection to these photographs
and the parts on the backs thereof in the handwriting of Mr. Dasch.
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, I think our
stipulation and general objection covers this, but I do want to say to the
Commission that this is a particularly good illustration, it seems to us, of
the danger of admitting the confession of one defendant as against the others.
It appears from the evidence that these
statements were made by the defendant Dasch after circumstances occurred which
might well have coerced him and probably did.
Yet without any opportunity to cross-examine Dasch, which the
introduction of the confession does not give us, these statements are being
received as against the other defendants.
I do not seek to re-argue the question at this time; I merely want to restate
my specific objection, which is, if possible, stronger than ever in the case of
this evidence.
Colonel Ristine. There is no question raised about the
672
defendant
Dasch being shown the original objects in connection with the photographs, and
he informs me that the statements on the backs are correct, accurate
statements.
Colonel Royall. The defendants specifically object to that
statement of counsel as to what the defendant Dasch has told counsel, and we
move that it be stricken.
The Attorney General. I agree that that should be stricken.
A Member. The only matter before us is that there is no
objection to the introduction of these pictures; that is all.
The President. The explanatory statement of counsel will be
stricken.
The Attorney General. I introduce exhibits P-107 to P-115,
inclusive.
(The
pictures Exhibits P-107 to P-115, inclusive, were offered in evidence.)
The Attorney General. May it please the Commission, I should now
like to call upon Agent Donegan.
Colonel Ristine. I should like to ask this witness one further
question. It seems that I incorrectly
read the note that my client handed me, and I asked the wrong question.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q I
should now like to ask you, Mr. Wills, if Mr. Dasch did not ask you how he
should designate this new statement which he was writing, the first two pages
of which you saw, and that you told him to designate it as a supplementary
statement to the statement given at
A That
latter portion I do not recall. I
believe that it was a supplementary statement.
673
Q That
is, that he asked you how to designate it, and you said as a supplementary
statement?
A Yes,
sir.
Colonel Ristine. That is all.
Colonel Royall. The defendants other than the defendant Dasch
do not desire to cross-examine this witness.
If I may be permitted to do so, I should like to explain to the Court
whey we do not desire to do so.
In the first place, we are still
relying on the motion, which we shall again present to the Commission, to
exclude these confessions as to the other defendants. In the second place, it is perfectly apparent
that cross-examination of this witness would in no way serve as a substitute
for the cross-examination of Dasch himself, the man who is alleged to have made
the statements.
Next I desire to be certain that our
objection and motion to strike all the statements of this witness as to what
Dasch told him applies also to what this witness has stated the other agents
told him, or the statements of this witness as to what Dasch said that somebody
else said to Dasch, all of which is in this testimony. I understand that our objection does cover
that, as far as these other defendants are concerned.
The President. Have you any comment on that, sir?
The Attorney General. No, sir.
All right, Mr. Wills.
May it please the Commission, I should
now like to call Agent Donegan, Agent Wills having said that Donegan had made
the statement with respect to pleading the defendant Dasch; but before calling
him, I want to point out to the Commission that
674
Agent
Donegan was present before the Commission while Wills was testifying. I see no objection to calling Agent Donegan,
but I want to have the Commission and counsel, in case they wish to object to
it, to have that information. Is there
any objection from the defendants to my calling Agent Donegan?
(There was no objection.)
Lieutenant Page. This witness has been sworn as to secrecy.
Colonel Munson. You do solemnly swear that the testimony you
shall give in this hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Donegan. I do.
THOMAS J. DONEGAN
was
called as a witness for the prosecution and testified as follows:
Colonel Munson. Please state your name, residence or office
address, and occupation.
The Witness. My name is Thomas J. Donegan --
D-o-n-e-g-a-n. I am Assistant Agent in
Charge, assigned to the
The President. May I ask the Attorney General if there are
any other persons now present in the room whom he might call as witnesses who
would be influenced by their colleagues on the witness stand?
The Attorney General. There are not, Mr. President, and I had not
expected to call this witness. He was in
charge of certain of the material and exhibits, and that was why I made the
statement to the Court. There are no
others now. The other F.B.I. agents are
simply agents in control of the exhibit and the testimony.
675
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, I understand
from the Attorney General’s explanation that this is an unexpected situation
that has presented itself. I am further
to understand, am I not, that the Commission is not relaxing its policy of
keeping the witnesses separate?
The President. That is the case.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Mr.
Donegan, were you present with the defendant Dasch and Agent Wills, as Agent
Wills testified, and what was said by you and others as to what would be
recommended in case the defendant Dasch did certain things?
A On
the afternoon of June 27 the defendant Dasch was brought to my office in
I had previously talked to the
defendant Dasch on June 25, the evening he was brought from
On June 27 I told Dasch that the
investigation was coming to a conclusion, and the question presented itself as
to what course of action he wanted to pursue.
He had previously, on the evening of
June 25, expressed concern for his parents in
I told Dasch that we were considering
his position, and the way I saw it at that time there were two possible courses
of action open. One was that he go into
Court, and the District Attorney -- the United States Attorney -- and, of
course, the
676
Attorney
General would be familiar with the part he played in this investigation, so
that he could be given appropriate consideration at that time. I told him that I would only be familiar with
the procedure that would be followed in civil court; that it had not definitely
been decided at that time what course of procedure would be followed with
him. I was offering those suggestions.
I told him, of course, that our method
of procedure was such that it would immediately become public knowledge that he
had played the part, to some degree, of an informer in this matter.
Q What
would become public knowledge?
A His
part that he had played in this case in giving us information as to part of the
activities of some of the subjects.
Q I
do not quite understand. You mean if he
went into court?
A Yes.
Q Make
that plain.
A In
other words, if he went into court and was shown consideration. I told him that the other course of
procedure, if he desired to follow it, would be to go into court and to plead
guilty, inasmuch as he had stated he did land from a submarine, and let the
course of events follow the natural course which they would in a district court
--Federal district court. At that time
the Director would call to the attention of the Attorney General for the
purpose of the Attorney General’s considering the recommendation to the
President of a Presidential pardon.
677
I talked to Dasch for a period of about
an hour and a half. I told him it was
entirely up to himself what course of action he wanted to take; we were not
concerned with that; but we did feel that we wanted to point out the various
possibilities as we saw them at that time, so that he could protect his folks
in
He was very much concerned over the
welfare of his father and mother, and, I believe, a sister in
At the conclusion of that interview, he
definitely stated that he wanted to follow the course of procedure wherein it
would not become public knowledge that he contacted the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, and he stated that he desired to follow the course of procedure
wherein he would go through the court and plead guilty with the other
defendants.
That was, in substance, my
conversation.
Q Did
you talk to him with respect to this after that date? That was, I think you said, on the 27th.
A On
the morning of the 28th Dasch asked [illegible]o see me, and I
stopped in a moment to see him, and he stated that he desired to change his
course of procedure.
Q In
what respect?
A That
he didn’t wish to plead guilty; that he wished to go into court and make a full
explanation.
Q Did
you say anything further to him at that time?
A No. I had a long distance call at that time, and
I excused myself.
The Attorney General. Cross-examine.
678
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, I assume that
my general objection, without repetition to each one of these statements,
applies to the statement Dasch made?
That is, we object as to the other defendants and move to strike it out.
The Attorney General. For my part, I agreed that that objection may
go right through the record without your having to repeat it.
Colonel Royall. That simplifies it greatly.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Mr.
Donegan, on Sunday morning did not Mr. Dasch tell you that he had changed his
mind and would not enter a plea of guilty, and then did you not tell him, “It
is too late; it is already in the papers”?
A No,
I didn’t. I told him I was disappointed
in the idea; that we had gone over the matter so completely with him the
evening before; but I didn’t take time at that time to discuss it with him.
Q Well,
was it already in the papers?
A On
Sunday morning?
Q Yes,
sir.
A Yes,
it was. It was in the papers.
Q When
the proposal that he enter a plea was first made, he said that he couldn’t do
that because it would not be the truth, did he not?
A I
don’t recall that. I recall the
discussion you are referring to -- afternoon of June 27, I take it?
Q Well,
whatever the date was when the matter was
679
first
broached to him?
A That
is right.
Q That
he would protect his parents better by entering a plea of guilty?
A That
is right. The discussion was for the
purpose of considering the position his parents would be in
Q Would
you answer the specific question I asked you?
A I
am endeavoring to explain exactly how the discussion occurred.
Q Will
you answer the specific question that I asked you?
The President. We will ask the reporter to read the
question. It is possible that the
witness may not have remembered it.
The Reporter (reading)
“Question. When the proposal that he enter a plea was
first made, he said that he couldn’t do that because it would not be the truth,
did he not?
“Answer. I don’t recall that I recall the discussion
you are referring to -- the afternoon of June 27, I take it?
“Question. Well, whatever the date was when the matter
was first broached to him?
“Answer. That is right.
“Question. That he would protect his parents better by
entering a plea of guilty?
“Answer. That is right. The discussion was for the purpose of
considering the position his
680
parents would be in
The President. I think the defense counsel might possibly
pose the explicit question he now wishes answered.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q When
it was first proposed to Mr. Dasch that he enter a plea of guilty, he did state
that he could not do that because that would not be the truth or that he was
not guilty or, in sum and substance, to that effect?
A I
don’t recall Mr. Dasch making statements along the lines that you have
expressed yourself just then. I recall
Mr. Dasch saying that he was concerned about what procedure the courts would
follow, and he did state that he felt that he was not guilty.
681
Q After
urgings that it would protect his mother and father and possibly other
relatives from harm if he entered a plea of Guilty, he agreed to do it; is that
correct?
A I
will have, with due respect, to object to the phrase “After urgings.” There was no urging whatsoever. It was a discussion, with the various
possibilities being pointed out to him, and the purpose of the discussion was
entirely for the purpose of his deciding what course he wanted to take. He was not urged to follow either course.
Q The
F.B.I. agents who talked to him did not suggest to him that it would be a
better method to protect his father and mother for him to plead Guilty?
A I
talked to him. I told him if he wanted
to protect his father and mother, that appeared to me at that time to be the
logical course to follow, if the proceedings went into civil court; and I also
told him that I did not know what course the proceedings would follow.
Q What
did you mean when you said he should plead Guilty because he had landed from a
submarine in this country?
A When
I said that I meant from what I know of what he had told the other agents; but
I did not talk to him about the happenings myself, personally, that he had
landed at Amagansett with three other subjects that landed from a German
submarine at that time. That was my
understanding of the facts.
Q You
did not hold the position, then, that if he made up his mind before leaving
682
here,
that he would be guilty of it, did you?
A I
did not hold any purpose. I was just endeavoring
to explain to him the possible courses of procedure which he could follow to
achieve his end of keeping it secret, so it would not become publicly known and
become known in
Q I
believe you heard Mr. Wills’ testimony here in the court room in which he
related that a promise of Presidential pardon would be made. I am looking at page 545. You heard that testimony, did you not?
A I
did. I was in the court room.
Q Are
you taking the stand for the purpose of contradicting and impeaching that
testimony?
A No,
I am not; not by any means. It is for
the purpose of explaining.
Q Was
a period of six months mentioned to Mr. Dasch as to when he would get this pardon?
A Mr.
Dasch asked me how much time I thought he would have to pass in prison. I said I did not know; maybe six months,
maybe a shorter period, maybe a longer period.
I told him that the recommendation would go to the Attorney General, and
that it was entirely a matter between the Attorney General and the President of
the
Q How
many days did Mr. Wills and, I believe, Mr. Johnstone, talk to Mr. Dasch
following the decision which he made not to enter a plea, in an endeavor to get
him to reconsider and go through with it?
A I
am sorry; but in answering that question, if you will pardon me, I am trying to
make as clear-cut an answer
683
as
possible, and I would like it divided, if you will do it. I think there are two questions in there. In other words, how many days did Agent Wills
and Agent Johnstone talk to Dasch? I
believe they saw him each day until he was transported to Washington, D. C.
Q I
did not intend to ask that question. I
intended to ask how many days they talked to him in an effort to induce him to
change the decision which he had made not to plead guilty.
A I
cannot answer that question.
Q Did
they not spend two days and nights in an endeavor to get him to reconsider and
permit a plea to be entered?
A I
was not present.
Q You
then, as I understand it, left immediately after he advised you that he would
not?
A That
is right.
Q Did
he tell you that he would not plead guilty because it would not be the truth,
or because he was not guilty and he just could not enter a plea on that
account?
A As
I recall it, he said that he could not plead guilty because he felt that he was
not guilty. Now, that those were the
exact words I could not say; but that is the substance of it; and that was a
very brief conversation I had with him.
Q Were
there two alternatives that were proposed to him, or more that two proposed, to
him?
A My
recollection is, two possibilities.
Q And
those were what?
A One,
to go into court and plead guilty; the other
684
to
let his position become known at the time he went into court so that
appropriate consideration could be given.
Q As
I understand it, he, in order to save his mother and father from harm, agreed
to enter a plea of guilty. Is that
correct?
A He
stated that he wanted to follow that course of procedure on the afternoon of
June 27.
Q That
was the reason he agreed to follow that procedure, was it not?
A I
do not know what his reason was. He said
he wanted to follow that course of procedure.
Q Had
not that course been recommended to him as the best course, to protect his
father and mother?
A I
told him that it appeared to me that if the case went into the District Court,
that would appear to be the way to protect his father and mother; that the
information would not become known to Germany, because if he was shown
consideration in the District Court it would be made a matter of public record
and naturally the information would be available in Germany.
Q After
he promised to plead guilty to protect his mother and father the news was
released to the press, giving the full story, so that the Germans could know as
much about it as if he had gone in and taken the stand; is that correct?
A No;
I would not say that was true.
Q Was
not the information contained in the press release that he had confessed and
would plead guilty?
A I
do not recall any such.
The Attorney General. Certainly not.
685
Colonel Ristine. I never read it; I do not know.
The Attorney General. Then why do you make such suggestions?
Colonel Ristine. Because I am acting on suggestions of my client;
and I believe the witness stated that it was in the newspapers that Sunday
morning. Wasn’t it?
The Witness. On Sunday morning the information was in the
newspapers of the apprehension of eight subjects.
Colonel Ristine. I think that is all.
Colonel Royall. The other seven defendants do not desire to
cross examine, in line with the policy they have announced.
The President. There seem to be no questions by the court.
(The witness left the stand.)
The Attorney General. If there is no objection from the defense,
may it please the Commission, may I have permission to keep the witness Donegan
in court? He is sworn to secrecy. He is not expected to be called again, and he
is in charge of a great deal of vital evidence, and unless the Commission feels
that he ought to leave the court room, it would be much easier for us in
presenting the case for him to stay here.
But I do not want to do anything that is inappropriate.
Colonel Royall. There is no objection on our part.
Colonel Ristine. I have no objection.
The President. He will be permitted to remain in the court
room.
686
The President. May the Commission consult the legal
authorities together in open court. I
would like to ask you something to see what your understanding of the point at
issue is in the sense of your objection and the stipulation of the Attorney
General.
I was hoping that there might be some
statement on the side of the prosecution that would possibly clear it up, so
that these witnesses would not have to be recalled, that is, so the defense
counsel might be free while they are on the stand to cross-examine them. I am not conscious of the Attorney General
having replied to these various objections made by the counsel as to protecting
the interests of his other defendants in case the evidence of these agents of
your Department should continue on the line of the present testimony and on
your line of questioning.
I am just seeking a little
clarification for either satisfying the defense in some way or at least putting
before the Commission an opportunity to come to a definite ruling which would
clear up the whole matter, if it were practical to do so, having in mind the
concern of the Government and the natural concern on the part of defense
counsel.
Colonel Royall. Your remarks are primarily to the prosecution
counsel?
The President. Yes.
Of course, we are not familiar with the line of development of the case.
The Attorney General. I am not absolutely clear, Mr. President,
what you are asking me. I have agreed
that the objections goes to every confession of any defendant as affecting the
other defendants. I understand that
perfectly. I am
687
not
quite clear what you are asking me with respect to that. I am clear that you had ruled with respect to
a specific confession, that that affects the others. What is it you are asking me to do?
A Member. It was ruled about the Burger
confession. Now the proposition is that
the defense counsel for all of the others is objecting each time to the fact
that that would not apply to the other defendants in this case. Is it your contention that it does apply to
the other defendants in this case?
The Attorney General. Yes, it is, clearly, that it does.
A Member. That is the question.
The Attorney General. And I assumed that counsel took it that you
had ruled and was putting his objection in the record and at some future date
if he wanted to again argue it he could do so.
Colonel Royall. Yes, that is right. The view we are taking of this matter,
without seeking to reargue it at this time, is that the question is absolutely
fundamental and perhaps determinative of this case as to certain of the
defendants.
Now, with all due deference to the
Attorney General, we are so confident that we are absolutely correct on that
that we do not want to take any action in this matter which would make it
impossible for the Commission to go back and reverse its ruling, if we were
able to convince the Commission that that should be done.
In case we should cross-examine any of these
witnesses we would run into two difficulties.
In the first place, we would make it almost impossible to return the
case to the status it
688
would
have been if the Commission decided to reverse its ruling, because our
cross-examination would be interrupted.
In the second place, regardless of any stipulation, it might be a waiver
of our rights if we inquired into a matter which we said was not a subject of
inquiry as to the other defendants.
The Attorney General. I want to make it perfectly clear now and
here that I agree that it would not be a waiver of their rights. I do not want to put them in any position
where they are caught in any way. I want
them to preserve all of their rights, whether they cross-examine or not, to
reserve all of their objections on the whole record. It comes down not to striking the confession
itself, because likely that would be against the confessant, but without going
back into the testimony, should you by any possibility change your ruling in
that respect, in that the evidence of the other defendants be stricken and
remain on the record with respect to the confessant, although I do not think
there is anything involved or difficult in this form of procedure, I just do
not want to have anything in this record that would at any time put Colonel
Royall in any position of waiving any rights he has. They will always be preserved on this record
so far as I am concerned.
Colonel Royall. I appreciate that sentiment by the Attorney
General and that certainly removes one of the objections I had to the
cross-examination. I have to differ with
him as to removing the other, however.
As an illustration, if I took the
witness and picked out one defendant, X, we will say, and examined that witness
in detail as to what Dasch or Burger or anyone else said as to X,
689
the
record would be in a shape where I do not think human minds are capable of
separating it and segregating it, because I would be going into the matter from
a different angle and with a different objective, and I do not think it could
be segregated.
Now, we think this: In this case there are statements made by the
defendants and we admit that the physical facts, as they relate to any
defendant, are competent, but we think it is fundamental and we think the interests
of the defendants make us willing to take any risk of lack of cross-examination
that may arise, to be thoroughly consistent with the proposition we do think is
correct and fundamental, that you cannot convict one of these men on the
hearsay of another.
That is just our position.
The President. That clarifies the case. I would be glad to hear anything further,
Colonel Ristine.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, if I understand the
proposition of the Attorney General, and the position he has heretofore taken,
the objections which were urged for and on behalf of the other defendants,
including Dasch, have been and are now being preserved so far as he is
concerned, notwithstanding I have cross-examined witnesses.
The Attorney General. Certainly.
Colonel Ristine. And I do not feel that with that
understanding I have waived any rights on cross-examination.
The Attorney General. That is right.
Lieutenant
Murdock.
Lieutenant
Page. Lieutenant John B. Murdock. This
witness has not been sworn to secrecy.
690
Colonel Munson. Lieutenant, you first take an oath as to
secrecy. I am instructed by the
Commission to inform you that violation of that oath may result in contempt
proceedings or in other proper proceedings either of a military or civil
nature. With that understanding, are you
willing to take the oath?
Lieutenant
Murdock. Yes, sir.
Colonel
Munson. Put up your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that you will not
divulge the proceedings taken in this trial to anyone outside of this courtroom
until released from your obligation by proper authority or required so to do by
such proper authority?
Lieutenant Murdock. I do.
Colonel Munson. You will also take the oath as a witness.
You swear that the evidence you shall
now give in the case on hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Lieutenant Murdock. I do.
LIEUTENANT JOHN BENJAMIN MURDOCK
was
called as a witness for the prosecution and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Munson:
Q Will
you please state your name, rank, organization, and station?
A John
Benjamin Murdock, First Lieutenant, Signal Corps. I am with the 3rd Reporting
Platoon of the 651st Signal Reporting Company, Air Corps Warning
Frontier.
Q Stationed
where?
A Stationed
on
691
Q
A Yes.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Are
you in command of a platoon?
A I
am, sir.
Q What
area do you cover?
A We
man a station which covers a certain sector of the sea off
Q Along
the beach?
A No,
sir. We do not cover any particular area
on foot.
Q Does
the area include the beach?
A Sir?
Q Does
the area that you cover include the beach?
A No,
sir. The word “cover” is confusing
there. Our work is at a radio locator
station. We do not have any work such as
patrolling beaches at all.
Q Where
is your work?
A We
are stationed on the top of Prospect Hill and we are an airplane radio locator.
Q How
close to the Amagansett Beach Coast Guard Station?
A We
are about 10 miles from it, sir.
Q Do
you work in cooperation with the Coast Guard at
A Yes,
sir, we do. When they run into trouble
we go over to help them out.
The Attorney General. That is all.
I beg your pardon. The Commission
may have some questions?
The President. Any questions by the Commission? There
692
seem
to be none. You are excused.
Colonel Royall. May I be permitted to ask him one question?
The President. Lieutenant, will you return to the witness
stand, please.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Royall:
Q You
say you help the Coast Guard when they need assistance?
A Yes.
Q You
help any other unit of the armed forces if they need assistance?
A Yes,
sir.
Colonel Royall. That is the answer. That is all.
(The witness left the stand.)
The Attorney General. Agent Traynor.
Lieutenant Page. Agent Traynor. This witness has not been sworn as to
secrecy.
Colonel Munson. Mr. Traynor, two oaths are administered to
you. The first is the oath of
secrecy. I am instructed by the
Commission to inform you that violation of that oath may result in contempt
proceedings or in other proper proceedings of a criminal nature. You understand by taking that oath you of
course subject yourself to those penalties.
Mr. Traynor. Yes.
Colonel Munson. Hold up your right hand.
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 are required so to
do by such proper authority?
693
Mr. Traynor. I do.
Colonel Munson. I will now administer the oath to you 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?
Mr. Traynor. I do.
DUANE L. TRAYNOR
was
called as a witness for the prosecution and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Munson:
Q Will
you please state your name, residence or office address, and occupation?
A My
name is Duane Traynor. I am with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation as a special agent, assigned to the Bureau
headquarters in Washington, D. C.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Mr.
Duane, do you know the defendant Dasch?
A I
do.
Q I
show you P-98 already marked and ask you what this is, whether you recognize
it.
A I
recognize that as a handkerchief taken from George Dasch.
Q On
what day?
A On
Q And
what did Dasch say the handkerchief was?
A Member. Just a minute. The defendant Dasch wants to talk to his
attorney there. Let him move over.
694
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q What
did Dasch say the handkerchief was?
A Dasch
informed me that this handkerchief contained the names of certain persons
written on it in secret ink.
Q That
was what date?
A
Q Did
he then give you the reagent of the handkerchief to produce the writing?
A He
did not. He stated that he could not
remember what it was that was necessary to produce the writing so one could
read it.
Q Did
he tell when and where the ink was put on the handkerchief?
A He
advised me that this handkerchief was written on in
Q Did
he tell you who wrote on it?
A He
advised me that it was written on by himself in the presence of Lieutenant
Kappe of the High Command and in the presence of Edward Kerling.
Q What
did you do with the handkerchief?
A I
kept it in my possession that day and until such time as I was able to
ascertain what reagent might bring out the secret writing.
Q Whom
did you give it to?
A I
gave it to our bureau laboratory when we were able to --
Q What
individual did you give it to?
A Mr.
McGee of our bureau laboratory.
695
Q On
what date did you give it to him?
A I
believe it was June 22nd.
Q At
that time had Dasch given you the formula or re-agent for bringing out the
writing?
A At
that time -- it was on that day that Dasch in discussing the handkerchief said
that it would or it could be brought out by a certain smelly fume, he could not
recall the name of it. I suggested the
name of ammonia and on hearing the name ammonia he advised me that it was the
material which would bring out this secret writing.
CROSS EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Mr.
Traynor, I believe on
A He
did.
Q And
he called you from what place?
A He
said he was calling from the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, D. C.
Q And
previous to that call you had no information whatever about his presence in
A I
did not.
Q And
would you tell the Commission what conversation you then had over the phone
with Mr. Dasch, as near as you can recall it?
A As
near as I can recall, the conversation in substance was that he identified
himself first as George Davis, calling from the Mayflower Hotel. He stated he was a leader of
696
a
group of eight men who had just come over from
He indicated to me that he had placed a
call to several other agencies in Washington, one of them being a Colonel
Cramer of the Provost Marshal General’s office, but he had not been able to
reach Colonel Cramer and had left word for him to call. He wanted to know if it would be all right
for him to come to see me first and I advised him that if he so desired it
would be perfectly agreeable with me.
He expressed some doubt as to whether
or not he could find my office when I gave him the office number, and thereon I
told him that we would have an agent call for him at the Mayflower Hotel and
bring him directly to my office.
Q That
was done?
A Yes,
sir, that was done.
Q Do
you know whether Colonel Cramer was in the Military Intelligence or Provost
Marshal General’s?
A I
have only the word of Mr. Dasch when he said he had called the Provost Marshal
General’s office, as I recall it.
Q Now,
when he reported to you in answer to that call, he was the first one of the
group of eight now being on trial that you had seen, was he not?
A Yes,
sir.
697
Q And
he was the first one to appear before the F.B.I. in any place or in any
capacity, is that right?
Colonel Royall. I express an objection, just on the general
ground that there is no evidence to show that this witness could possibly know
that.
Colonel Ristine. I can develop the fact, I think, and show it.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q The
other offices are in teletype communication with the
A Yes,
sir, they are.
Q And
they report immediately if anybody of the nature of a member of this group was
taken into custody, they would report that fact immediately to the
A I
don’t think I am able to answer that question in that form. If I might be allowed to explain?
698
Q Yes,
that is all right.
A It
is possible that one of our offices would immediately notify the Bureau
headquarters by telephone, and most likely would, but it would not necessarily
mean that I would know about it. The
word might not get to my particular desk for some considerable period of time,
as someone else might know about it before I would see the incoming
communication.
Colonel Ristine. The Attorney General has suggested to me that
he has already stipulated in the record the dates upon which the various ones
appeared or became --
The President (interposing). That is now in the record.
The Attorney General. As I have already stated twice, the date and
time when each man was apprehended is already in the record. There is no doubt about it at all.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission will permit me, I shall
call attention to those specific dates, because I think it will be helpful in
future interrogation.
The Attorney General. This is on page 476 of the record.
Colonel Ristine. Yes.
George John Dasch appeared on
Richard Quirin, Heinrich Harm Heinck,
and Ernest Peter Burger were taken into custody on the 20th day of
June.
Edward John Kerling and Werner Thiel on
the 23rd of June.
Herbert J. Haupt and Hermann Neubauer
on the 27th of June.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q From
the time of the appearance of the defendant at the office and for four or five
days following, you or some of the other agents listened to or interrogated,
and the defendant
699
answered
questions respecting this whole matter and other subjects, did he not?
A For
the first day and three-quarters he refused to answer any questions but wanted
to give the story in his own form; thereafter he answered questions that were
put to him.
Q His
appearance was voluntary on his part and of his own free will and accord; that
is correct, is it not?
A That
is correct.
Q The
voluntary statement he made for the period of time which you have specified was
a voluntary statement on his part; that is correct, is it not?
A That
is correct.
Q His
answering of questions for the next several days was all voluntarily and
cheerfully done on his part; that is correct, is it not?
A That
is correct.
Q He
did give you detailed information with respect to the landing of his group and
their activities after coming into the
A He
did.
Q I
believe he gave you the hotel room number and address or the hotel name and the
room number where Burger was staying in
A At
the very end of the first day he furnished that information.
Q He
gave you information with respect to the other two of that same group, did he
not?
A He
gave me some information but no information as to where they might be located.
Q Did
he know where they might be located?
700
A He
said he didn’t know.
Q Did
he tell you where you could get the information; that Burger would know where
the other two were?
A He
stated he thought Burger would know, as it was Burger’s job to keep track of
them, and that he would get the information when he got to
Q Did
you appear at the hotel where Burger was staying, with the other agents who
appeared there?
A I
did not.
Q I
take it that that information was teletyped to the
A My
knowledge of how it was handled is one which I cannot testify to; I merely
furnished the information to Mr. Ladd, and I believe he phoned to
Q Would
that phone message carry with it the request that they be apprehended?
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, we shall have
to object to what the phone message would carry with it; that is going a long
way.
Colonel Ristine. Possibly the question was not very aptly
phrased.
Colonel Royall. He said he did not give the phone message.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q You
were in charge of the office here at that time?
A I
was merely in charge of interrogating Dasch.
Q Were
you responsible for giving instructions that
701
this
information be forwarded to
A I
was not.
Q Who
handled that?
A Mr.
Ladd made the telephone message.
Q Could
you tell the Commission what the defendant stated to you as to the reason why
he wanted to tell the whole story to you in his own way?
A He
on coming to my office advised me that he had gone through considerable mental
strain and hardship for the past several months; that he had a long story to
tell; and that he wanted to tell it beginning at the very beginning and tell it
in his own way.
Q I
believe in the course of that story which he told, he told you, among other
things, about his experience in
A That
is correct.
Q And
about his dissatisfaction with the ruling powers in
A That
is correct.
Q And
that he had formulated a desire on his part to fight those powers in every way
that he could?
A That
is correct.
Q And
that he could not fight those powers in
A That
is correct.
Q And
that he, therefore, had to get out of Germany by some process in order to carry
out his desire to fight the ruling powers of Germany; that is correct, is it
not?
A That
is correct.
Q And
that this method by which he entered the United
702
States
was the only method that had offered itself to him to accomplish that desire to
get away from
A That
is correct.
Q He
related the circumstances of his entry and that nothing had been done after the
entry to carry out any of the purposes for which the group was sent over here,
did he not?
A That
is correct, with the exception that they did bury the explosives, which was
part of their instructions on landing, and came into the country, changed
clothes, and mixed with the people.
Q Did he tell you about meeting the Coast Guardsman?
A He
did.
Q And
that his instructions had been, if such a contingency arose, that that person
was to be overpowered and sent back to the submarine?
A He
did.
Q And
that he did not carry out those instructions?
A He
did.
Q Did
he tell you about having telephoned to the F.B.I. in
A He
did.
Q Would
you tell the Commission what he said about that telephone call?
A He
advised me that on Sunday night, June 14, at, I believe, around
He stated that he told this agent that
he had just come
703
from
He told this agent that his name was
Franz Daniel Pastorius and that he wanted the New York office to notify them in
Washington that he would be in Washington on Thursday or Friday next to give
this information.
Q Did
the
A I
have never seen such a communication.
Q Would
that mean that it had not been sent down or that you just had not checked in on
it to see?
A May
I explain in answer to that question, please?
Q Yes,
that is all right.
A As
I said before, communication -- teletype and written communications -- come
into the Bureau on certain matters. They
arrive at my desk for certain action.
Certain other Bureau officials see them in the interim. Sometimes they would handle them. It is not possible for me to know what all
comes into the Bureau headquarters.
Colonel Ristine. Mr. Attorney General, would the Bureau be
willing to check in on that matter and furnish me with a copy of whatever
communication was sent from
The Attorney General. We admit that he made a call to
Colonel Ristine. As related by the witness?
The Attorney General. Well, get through with the witness,
704
and
then we can look into this.
Colonel Ristine. I just do not like to be hurried along on a
vital matter like this.
The Attorney General. I am not hurrying you at all. I shall look this up and discuss it with you
later. I do not know anything about it. Take whatever time you need. I did not mean to hurry you, Colonel.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Did
the defendant Dasch tell you of the difficulties which he went through in
A He
told me of some difficulties, yes.
Q Did
he tell you how dangerous it would have been if he had made a slip in his
efforts to get out of
A He
gave me the impression that if they had learned of those intentions, he would
have been killed.
Q Summarily
executed?
A That
is right, sir.
Q Was
the information which he furnished you and others of the F.B.I. in your
presence valuable and helpful in apprehending the other seven of the group that
are now here before the Commission?
A Some
of the information furnished by Dasch was helpful in locating some of the
defendants.
Q I
believe you had previously received a report from the Coast Guard where the
landing occurred with respect to what they found there; is that correct?
705
A That
is correct.
Q Insofar
as Dasch related those facts, it was a duplication of information you already
had?
A Generally
that is true.
Q However,
I wish you would tell the Commission whether you advised and informed the
defendant Dasch that you had any other information, or just permitted him to
give freely what information he would give.
A On
Thursday, June 25, I told him the information we had received from the Coast
Guard.
Q But
that was the first information, as I understand it, that you divulged to him
with respect to the other activities of your Department?
A That
is correct.
Q So
he did not know when or by what method the various ones were apprehended?
A That
is correct.
Q Did
he appear to you to be sincere in wanting to aid this country in giving this
information to you?
The Attorney General. I object to that.
The President. Will the reporter please read the question?
The Reporter (reading):
“Question. Did he appear to you to be sincere in wanting
to aid this country in giving this information to you?”
The Attorney General. I object to that. It seems to me to be objectionable. I think he should ask what Dasch said and
what happened. The witness could not
read Dasch’s mind
706
very
well.
Colonel Ristine. There was so much that was said and that
happened that it would cover a multitude of territory.
The Attorney General. How can this witness possibly know whether
Dasch was sincere or not sincere?
A Member. I think the question is all right.
The President. The question may be asked.
The Witness. At the time I was talking with him, he
appeared to be sincere.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Did
you in the course of the questioning and the information he gave tell him that
you believed in him and believed him?
A I
did.
707
Q I
believe you were present during the interrogation on the 19th and
the 20th?
A I
was.
Q Do
you recall whether you were present after the 20th?
A I
was.
Q And
were you present during the entire time that he was interrogated, in so far as
the document marked Defendant’s A, which seems to be a document signed by
Dasch, is concerned?
A With
very few exceptions in the latter half of the document, I was present at all
times.
Q Is
that document Defendant’s–A a transcript of stenographic notes that were taken
at the time of the statements and interrogations, by stenographers in the F. B.
I.?
A It
is.
Q Are
those stenographers that you used reasonably accurate in their work?
A I
would like to explain that rather than to answer just yes or no, if I might.
Q You
may.
A Dasch,
in starting out this statement, requested the stenographers to use their own
judgment in rewording and rephrasing it to make a little better English, in
that he was having trouble in properly constructing the English sentences,
after using German for the period of time which he had been, almost
exclusively. This statement consists of
a reasonable transcription of what the stenographers, who are very good
stenographers, took down and transposed in order to make it in better English,
wherever they thought it was desirable.
708
He
thereafter read it and approved it, initialing it.
Q I
believe he signed every page as well as the concluding page, did he not?
A He
did.
Q I
wish you would state if you were personally present when the statements
contained on pages 8 and 9 were made by Mr. Dasch (handing document to the
witness). I believe that was a part of
the first day’s session?
A I
was.
Q Does
this document and those pages correctly set out the statements which he made on
those pages?
A It
does.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, I would like to
read those pages (reading):
“For the last fifteen years I have been
opposed to the Nazi movement in principle.”
It might be, since I read four
paragraphs of this --
The President. Is this the same question that you have
already asked the former witness?
Colonel Ristine. I read four paragraphs to the other witness,
so that those four are in the record; but since he was not personally present,
that was stricken out. If I might
consider that that portion is read now, I can read three more paragraphs and
not duplicate the matter.
The President. In order to identify it to the witness?
Colonel Ristine. Yes, sir.
The witness had already identified these statements as having been made
in his presence and as being correctly transcribed. I do not like to be tedious.
The President. I do not see any objection to that. The
709
members
of the Commission are cognizant of the other reading; and if there is no
objection on the part of the members of the Commission or of counsel, you may
go ahead on a shorter line.
Colonel Royall. We do not object to that form of procedure,
but we still have our objection.
Colonel Ristine (reading):
“In 1938 I had a chance to study the
tactics of the Bund in the City of
“I reasoned that the whole Nazi set-up
was first contrary to the Constitution of the United States for it bred race
hatred; second, it professed to be a political organization although the
majority of its members were non-citizens of this country and as such did not
have the right of political participation; third, indications were that it was
under the control or direction of the Nazi regime in Germany. I argued at that time that this organization
was destroying and undermining the splendid record the German immigrants, ever
since the
710
first one landed, have established in
this country, and at the same time laying the basis for successful English
propaganda.
“Before the creation of the Bund in
this country we had numerous societies for German-Americans such as the Steuben
Society, the furner Bund and various others, but they were in fact Americans
first. They were in most part benevolent
organizations with also the purpose of ‘keeping the home fires burning.’ When the Bund was created, they forced those
organizations either to join the new friends of Germany or dissolve.
“It was the intention of my mother to
remain in this country for six months.
At that time when I had been with her, she told me of the possibility of
a non-aggression pact between Germany and Russia. I argued that such a thing was impossible for
Hitler attacked Russia and Communism as his arch-enemy. When sometime in August the news came over
the radio that this non-aggression pact between Russia and Germany was signed,
I told my mother about it. She became
very excited and told us to get her papers ready and book her passage to return
to Germany because, to use her words, ‘this means war.’ To our sorrow she sailed on or about the 24th
of August, 1939, on board the Hamburg-American line steamer at New York. She arrived in Germany three days after the
war. The boat was forced to take the
most northern route along the Norwegian coast.”
Q Would
you tell us whether page 95 was stated in your presence? You might look at the bottom of page 94 also.
711
The paragraph that I am particularly
interested in is the first full paragraph, which is just four lines at the top
of page 95 which deals with Neil Stebbins.
Was that statement made by Dasch in
your presence?
A It
was.
Colonel Ristine. I would like to read that four-line
statement, if the Commission please.
(Reading):
“Neil Stebbins was his name, from San
Francisco. That is the guy I told in Tokyo
last year, ‘If I come to Germany and I find out that Hitler and his gang are
not carrying on for the benefits of the majority of the people, I shall fight
him and I will find a way to do it.’”
Q I
show you the last paragraph, particularly, on page 32. Was that statement made in your presence?
A It
was.
Colonel Ristine (reading):
“The school ended on the 30th
of April. All of us were given 12 days
vacation with the exception of Kelly and myself. We had to report back to Berlin on May 11,
the purpose of which was to go to the Chemical department of the High Command
to receive additional instructions on secret ink writing. On the second day we jotted down different
addresses on handkerchiefs, one of which is in my possession now. Lieutenant Kappe bothered the hell out of me
to give him some reliable address in the United States through which he could
always reach me. In my life story I put
down that I had a brother in America. My
brother, Ernst Dasch, came to the United States in August, 1930, and had
resided in New York City ever since. He
is married to an American girl and has
712
been a citizen since 1936. To my best recollection he is employed at
present as a machinist at some dock yard in the City of New York. In my fictitious story to Lieutenant Kappe I
stated that my little brother was a Civil Service employee at present employed
at the submarine base in New London, Connecticut, and that his address would be
Pelham Road (I cannot recall the exact
number now), New London, Connecticut.
This is one address at which Kelly could always find me in case we
should lose contact.
Q Did
he explain to you that he had purposely given a false address to Kappe, as
stated here?
A He
did.
Q Do
you know the correct address of his brother?
A I
do not.
Q Do
you know whether this address as given here as incorrect was in fact incorrect?
A I
do not.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, I have to refer to
the copy which I had, which was an uncorrected copy, and it takes a little
time. I am sorry that it takes that
length of time.
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Will
you look at page 35 and page 36, beginning “I found that the majority,” and so
forth, and see if that statement was made in your presence?
A
It was.
Colonel Ristine (reading):
“I found that the majority of the
workers employed at all plants were either prisoners of war or German
713
military prisoners or Russians who came
to
714
make it. The same working conditions I also had a
chance to witness on the visit to the railroad yards. There I asked a foreman, ‘How are those poor
people keeping alive? They appear to me
to be starved.’ He said, ‘To hell with
them. They drop down just like
flies.’ I noticed a bunch of young
people who could not have been older than 15 or 16 years, also the weather was
not cold, and all of them were wearing heavy fur pieces and when I asked why they
were doing it, I was told by a German, ‘Well, them dirty bums, they wear
everything they possess. They go to bed
with it and they go to work with it.’”
715
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q On
page 51, the last paragraph, and the following page.
A The
whole page, sir?
Q Yes. It is just part of the page, but it is all
that is on it. State whether those
statements were made in your presence.
A It
was.
(At this point the Attorney General
left the room, with the permission of the Commission, requesting that the
examination be continued in his absence.)
Colonel Ristine (reading).
“On Sunday night I told Pete Burger
that it was absolutely necessary for me to get in touch with the F.B.I. because
I reasoned that in case any one of the other seven boys or even myself should
happen to fall into the hands of the police, it would be very difficult for me
to prove the real reason why I came here.
Therefore I called up the F.B.I. after I had gotten the telephone number
out of the telephone book. I went to a
hotel lobby between Fifty-Second or
716
word name, which incorporated the whole
idea, namely, Franz Daniel Posterious. I
spelled by name slowly to the officer, whereafter he asked me to get in contact
with him at his office. I told him that
I believed my case was so big that only
“Pete Burger in the meantime had been
waiting for me outside and when I came out and told him what I had done, he was
very much satisfied because he understood the magnitude of this
undertaking. It was a check and
recheck.”
(At this point the Attorney General
returned to the courtroom.)
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Page
22, the first three sentences of that top paragraph; state if that statement
was made to you on that occasion.
A It
was.
Colonel Ristine (reading):
717
“After it became clear to me that this
whole set-up of Nazism has to be fought, I had to find a way to do it. In the country itself I was unable to do any
effective work. So therefore I had to
find a way to leave the country.”
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Now,
I believe Mr. Dasch also told you that when he arrived at the station the
morning immediately following the entry, he looked at a restaurant sign and
debated on whether he should go immediately into the restaurant and call the
F.B.I. or whether he should defer it, and he decided, for fear the other might
learn of his intentions if he made that call, not to make it at that time.
A He
did.
Q Now,
the last question on page 129 and the answer on the following page. State if that question was asked and that
answer given in the interrogation.
A I
was not present when this question was asked.
Q Does
it give the names of the officers who were present? Mr. Johnstone asked that question.
A Mr.
Johnstone asked that question. There is
a notation there that I had left the room just prior to that time.
Q Was
there any other agent present at that time, or do you know?
A I
believe that Special Agent Willis was present at that time.
The President. Will the counsel pause a moment while I
consult both sides as to their wishes as to the adjournment?
The Commission is ready to continue
sitting. However,
718
we
know that there might be possibilities of needful time on either side, possibly
outside of the courtroom. Have either of
you any recommendation? You remember, it
was considered routine to adjourn at
General Cox. It is all right, sir. It is all right to go right ahead.
The Attorney General. Colonel Ristine says he thinks he could
finish with this witness at least by
Colonel Royall. Any arrangement that is made is satisfactory
to us.
Colonel Ristine. I think I could finish by 5.
The President. Suppose we conclude for the present that we
will sit until this present witness is finished or at least until
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Mr.
Traynor, with respect to the names and addresses on the handkerchief, I believe
Mr. Dasch told you that he did not remember the names and addresses on the
handkerchief, is that correct?
A That
is correct.
Q And
that at least as to one of the addresses it was a false address, an incorrect
address; that was the address with respect to his brother?
A May
I explain my answer to that question, sir?
Q Oh,
yes.
719
A He
told me that on his handkerchief all of the addresses were correct, but that on
Kerling’s handkerchief there was a phony address of his brother.
Q Then
I take it his brother’s name did not appear on his handkerchief.
A That
is correct.
Q And
I believe he was not interested enough in those addresses to even be able to
tell you for sure how to even bring them out, is that correct?
A That
is what he said.
Colonel Ristine. I believe that
concludes the cross-examination, if it please the Commission. Wait just one moment
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q I
hand you Defendant’s Exhibit C-1. consisting of two photostatic pages, and C-2,
consisting of two photostatic pages, which seem to be stapled together, and ask
you to tell me, if you will, what those are.
A I
have no knowledge of these exhibits.
Q Now,
do you recall spending the first night with Mr. Dasch at the hotel where he was
living?
A I
do.
Q And
do you recall his showing you any money, and, if so, what?
A On
that evening he showed me a brief bag or briefcase containing what he said was
eighty thousand dollars in money in fifty-dollar denominations. He exhibited to me three large
720
something
like $82,350, according to his figures.
He also showed me one small envelope, white, in which he had marked on
the outside that this envelope contained a thousand dollars.
Q And
was there another envelope in the briefcase?
A My
recollection at the present time is that there were three large ones and one
small envelope.
Q Was
there another envelope with writing on it or over it?
A I
do not recall such an envelope at the present time.
721
Q Just
to refresh your recollection, was there a memorandum in there setting forth the
various amounts that had been given to him with a statement that this money he
had taken in order to fight them?
A There
was written on something—I am not certain as to what it was—a statement of
similar content.
Q The
defendant Dasch was taken into protective custody and remained in protective
custody, I believe, for some days thereafter?
A That
is correct.
Q That
was for his protection?
A It
was
Q Was
the waiver which the defendant Dasch was requested to sign respecting the
transfer to
A A
waiver of removal and custody was drawn up and shown to Mr. Dasch, and he
objected to the wording of it. I don’t
know that I can give the exact wording that he objected to from memory, but it
had something to the effect “to be held in connection with any Federal crime,”
or some similar words. He objected to
that phraseology, and it was changed with his consent and agreement to
read: “Held in connection with any crime
in connection with my landing in this country.”
Q Do
you think that probably it was just changed to “held in connection with his
landing in
A It
is my recollection that the word “crime” is mentioned.
Colonel Ristine. I assume that that document is in the
722
possession
of the F.B.I. and can be produced?
The Attorney General. We have it here and will produce it at
anytime you want it.
Colonel Ristine. If it is handy, we might like to look at it
right now.
The Attorney General. We will send for it.
(The Attorney General handed papers to
Colonel Ristine)
Colonel Ristine. If you want to offer these as part of your
evidence, I have no objections; but at the present time I would not want to
offer anything as part of my evidence, because it would not be appropriate to do
so.
The Attorney General. If you desire, I shall have them marked as
prosecution exhibits and introduced now.
Will that be all right?
The President. They are, I suppose, not offered in evidence?
The Attorney General. We are just marking them. They are waivers.
(3
waivers were marked as Exhibits P-116, P-117, and P-118 for identification)
Colonel Royall. May I see them first?
(The papers were handed to Colonel
Royall.)
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q I
hand you the one which apparently was corrected, Exhibit P-118, and ask you to
state if it is not corrected so that the word “criminal” is eliminated.
A I
have no knowledge of this exhibit. It
was dated in
723
The Attorney General. I will offer these now, if you like, to get
them in. May I do that?
Colonel Ristine. That is all right.
The Attorney General. I will offer the three exhibits, P-116, P-117
and P-118, in evidence. They all speak
for themselves.
(Exhibits
P-116, P-117, and P-118 were offered in evidence.)
Colonel Ristine. I just want to call the Commission’s
attention to the fact with respect to Exhibit P-118 that the word “criminal”
has been eliminated. Also, if the
Commission would like to see the other two, I will hand them up.
The President. Please do.
The Attorney General. May I point out to the Commission that in one
of them the words “criminal charge” are deleted and that they appear in the
other two exhibits?
Colonel Ristine. That is all.
Colonel Royall. The other defendants do not desire to
cross-examine this witness.
The Attorney General. Would the Commission permit me to ask one or
two other questions?
The President. Yes.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Please
turn to page 166, about three quarters of the way down the page.
“Question. The tours are finished?”
Do you see that?
A Yes,
sir.
Q From
that question, continues through that page and
724
through
pages 167 and 168 to a point halfway down page 168:
“Question. Do you think if he goes to
Were those questions and answers made
in your presence?
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, we object to the
prosecution’s using this document in that manner, because they declined to use
the document in the first instance and elected to prove their case by the
recollection of a witness who was present.
If they had offered this document, they would have been obliged to have
the whole of the document in. They
cannot now offer it piecemeal because in the original instance they could not
have offered it except as a total document.
We insist, as the saying is, that “They can’t eat their cake and have it
too.” Having elected to put their case
in on the recollection of the witness as to what was said, that of necessity
permitted us to refer to such matters as we thought were necessary in
explanation of them. But that does not
permit them now to do something which originally they could not do, namely,
offer a part of this entire document as their evidence.
The Attorney General. Let us just see what the situation is. This witness was asked to identify a
handkerchief. That was the only direct
question I asked him. Then counsel for
the defendant opened up the whole question of whether he recollected certain
specific things out of a statement. I did
not object to that, though it did not seem to me to be appropriate
cross-examination on the matter of the handkerchief. Clearly the cross-examination now permits me
to ask whether or not the defendant in the presence of this witness did
725
not
say certain things bearing on the exhibit which counsel for the defendant has
referred to and has opened up as part of his cross-examination. He has opened it up; I have not opened it
up. He has opened up the whole thing.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, I insist that they
cannot cross-examine their own witness.
There is only one side that can cross-examine a prosecution witness, and
that side is the defense. I did not improperly
cross-examine this witness with respect to any matter; I confined my cross-examination
to matters which pertained to the examination of the prosecution in chief. The prosecution cannot by any process
cross-examine this witness.
The Attorney General. No, I do not propose to cross-examine at
all. I propose to ask him the direct
question whether or not the defendant did not state certain things in his
presence.
Colonel Ristine. I insist that they cannot now use the
document in order to get in an isolated part of it, which they could not have
got in their original examination. If
they had offered any part of this document originally, it would have been
necessary to offer it all; and having elected not to offer it, they have
precluded themselves from using it at all.
The Attorney General. I take it that this is true: I produced the witness solely to testify
about the handkerchief. Technically
speaking, there could have been no cross-examination on other matters. However, I permitted counsel for the
defendant to cross-examine the witness on a great deal of other material. He having opened the examination on that
material, I cannot see how he can now have me excluded from
726
the
same privilege. I am simply asking the
witness whether or not certain statements were made to him by Dasch, on exactly
the same basis Colonel Ristine asked him; there is no difference at all. There is no cross-examination about it.
Colonel Royall. If counsel are finished, the other defendants
would like to say a word.
The President. Colonel Royall.
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, I do not know
of a better illustration of the practical injustice of admitting confessions
against people who are not parties to them.
Not only is that true in this particular case, but it brings up also the
violation of another rule which inures to the benefit of the other defendants.
Under the stipulation which we have
had, we have not objected to each question that was asked this witness as to
declarations of Dasch. Now however, we
find ourselves in a position where the Attorney General wants to use the
conduct of the defendant Dasch in soliciting testimony as a means of bringing
out additional testimony which relates largely to another defendant, when he
could not have brought that out against the other defendant, even if it were
otherwise competent, without putting in the entire instrument. Do I make myself clear?
In the first place, we reiterate our
view that none of those confessions or statements of Dasch is competent against
the other defendants; but even if they were, it would be incumbent upon the
prosecution in offering them to offer the entire confessions as against us.
He now says that he can offer part of
it merely because
727-729
Dasch’s
counsel has put in another part.
Therefore, the offer of the prosection in this case is doubly
objectionable: both because he has got to offer all, if he offers any, and for
the reason, which we have insisted on all along, that a man cannot be convicted
by the hearsay statements of another.
On those two grounds we respectfully
object to this testimony that is attempted to be offered.
The Attorney General. The Manual has been called to my attention in
connection with this matter. I am
reading now from page 127 of the Manual.
It appears to be under sub-heading B of section 121. I read:
“Ordinarily the redirect examination
will be confined to matters brought out on the cross-examination, and the
recross-examination will be confined to matters brought out on the redirect
examination.”
So I think that even ender the Manual
this is clearly admissible.
As to the objection of Colonel Royall,
I think that could be dealt with separately.
If I am right, this is admissible as against Dasch; and if it is
admitted as to Dasch, the Commission can then rule whether it should or should
not affect the other defendants. It
seems to me the rule would be the same.
Colonel Royall. I should like to make this one additional
remark. The very passage the Attorney
General read from the Court-Martial Manual illustrates our position. We have not cross-examined the witness;
therefore, this provision of the Manual cannot be used as a reason for
introducing this evidence as against us.
That is the sole basis upon which it would be competent.
730
It is also an excellent illustration of
the wisdom on our part of not cross-examining on any of these matters.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, I do not now know
whether the testimony the Attorney General is attempting to elicit is against
Dasch or against the other defendant, but I do know that the principle involved
is wrong, that principle being that if the Attorney General wanted that
particular part of that written document in evidence before this Commission,
the only way he could have gotten it before the Commission was to offer the
entire document. He elected not to do
that, although I asked that it be done.
He having elected not to do that but to trust to the recollection of a
witness as to the statement, that opened up the matter, according to the
Court-Martial Manual, and permitted the other side to offer such additional
parts of this alleged conversation or confession or statement as we thought
were necessary to enlighten the Commission.
But because we did that, that does not do away with the fundamental rule
that if they want to offer that document or any part of it, they must offer it
all. That is true whether they do it in
the first instance or in the redirect examination of their witness.
The Attorney General. In other words, the position of Colonel
Ristine is that he can offer any part of the confession without any objection
but that I cannot.
Colonel Ristine. That is correct.
The Attorney General. Colonel Ristine having opened this on
cross-examination, it seems to me to be an elementary law of evidence that
where one counsel open a subject not appropriate to cross-examination and the
other side did not object, clearly that subject is then open to examination by
the
731
first
counsel. That is elementary.
The President. Does that go to the substance or to the
particular point brought up? For
instance, I should like to be enlightened on these things. The defense counsel poses certain questions
and uses the statements in this exhibit to refresh the mind of the
witness. Is that what you propose to do
also?
The Attorney General. Yes.
732
The Attorney General. Yes.
It is that, and that is all.
The President. You are not making any statement of the
nature of the parts?
The Attorney General. My question, subject to ruling, is will you
look at these pages and see whether or not they represent what the defendant
said to you?
That is the first question. If he says, “Yes; that is what Dasch told
me,” I will then say, “Will you read it, or tell us what he told you?” -- just
the way Colonel Ristine did. I do not
propose to do anything different.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, I do not want to be
technical, but I am still insisting that the prosecution cannot do now what,
under the rules of procedure, they could not do with that document in the first
instance. They could not use that
document in the first instance except as an entirety; and I did my best to get
them to so use it, and they declined to do it.
I elected to use it for the purpose of introducing evidence explanatory
of what they elected to stand on as my client’s confession. But they cannot now go back to the same
document and do that which they were forbidden to do with that document in the
first instance.
The President. Is there anything further on this point?
A Member. What the Attorney General wishes to do now is
to ask redirect questions with reference to what was brought out. Is not that the idea?
The Attorney General. I propose to ask the witness, first, if Dasch
told him to ask him what that was.
A Member. Is that redirect examination in the strict
sense of the term?
733
The President. That is what I was trying to determine,
whether it was the substance, or just a mere questioning on something that has
already been used in cross-examination.
The Attorney General. I think it is particularly redirect, Mr.
President, because the witness was called with reference to the handkerchief
made be the defendant Dasch. That is the
very purpose for which we called the witness.
It does not at all go into outside material. It is direct substance and direct
examination.
The President. With that explanation do you still, Colonel
Ristine, object to this questioning?
Colonel Ristine. Yes, if the Commission please. This witness was asked about the
handkerchief. The handkerchief was
exhibited before him, and in the giving of his testimony from his recollection
he ruled out much of the testimony that is in the confession, the written
confession. However, they did not offer
it as a part of that written confession, because, if they had, then it would be
necessary, if they wanted that part in, to put the whole of the document in.
The mere fact that I in
cross-examination of this witness, as well as the other one, read certain parts
which I considered necessary in order for a correct understating of what this
witness originality testified to from his oral recollection, does not open up
this document so that the prosecution can now do that which under the law they
were forbidden to do in the first instance, namely to offer a part of the long
734
complete
document which is written and signed.
The President. Colonel Royall, will you give us your opinion
on this point?
Colonel Royall. Well, sir, the question of whether it is
admissible as against the defendant Dasch is an argument with which the other
defendant is not concerned. The basis
upon which the Attorney General says it is admissible against the defendant
Dasch is that the defendant Dasch is cross-examined about some matter relating
thereto. That considered does not apply
to the other defendant. We have not
cross-examined about anything, and there is no conceivable way in which it
could be made admissible as to us.
The Attorney General, I am sure, would
admit that as an original proposition this question would not have been proper
against any defendant but for the cross-examination of Colonel Ristine. We have not cross-examined. Therefore it certainly is not made competent
as to us.
That ground is in addition to the
general objection we have that these matters are all hearsay as to us. Everything they have got is hearsay as to
us. It is what somebody said that Dasch
said and, in some stances, it is what somebody said Dasch said somebody else
said.
The President. Would it not be possible to interrogate this
witness, Mr. Attorney General, as you have interrogated Mr. Wills, and bring
out the points you wish to make?
The Attorney General. I will try to do that, Mr. President.
The President. Without taking advantage of, say, a
technicality?
735
The Attorney General. I do not think I shall. But may I try it a little differently and see
if it meets the objection?
The President. Proceed.
Questions by The Attorney General:
Q Did
the witness Dasch say anything to you about the writing on the handkerchief?
Colonel Royall. I object.
Q Say
whether he said it or not. Without
answering what he said, did he tell you anything about what was written on the
handkerchief?
A He
did.
Q Do
you remember what he said to you?
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, if this started
out as if it were an original examination the entire matter of what was said,
then we are protected by the rule that he has got to put in the whole
confession, if he puts in anything. So
far as we are concerned, we have not waived anything. We have not cross-examined. As far as the other defendants are concerned,
this witness having testified that he was present substantially all the time
that the statement was taken, with few exceptions which have been noted, and it
having been reduced to writing, and that being the signed confession to which
he refers and to which he has already referred, then as far as we are
concerned, if any of it is competent he has got to introduce every word of it,
because we have not waived anything.
We reiterate again that no part of it
is competent against us, because it is nothing in the world but hearsay.
736
A
statement made by an alleged co-conspirator, after he himself says his
conspiracy had ceased and he was cooperating with the F.B.I. in its detection,
could not be in furtherance of any conspiracy, on the statement of this agent
himself who says he thinks Dasch was sincere in cooperating with the F.B.I.;
and therefore no part of the evidence, however it is asked, could possibly be
competent against the other defendants.
I have said all that I can say about
it. That is our view. Of course we are subject to the Commission’s
ruling.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, on behalf of the my
client I want it made perfectly clear that we do not now object and never have
objected to having every particle of the confession read to the
Commission. That was our desire in the
first instance, because we believed that the transcript of the notes of the
stenographer would give the picture better and more accurately than any
witness, and it would give everything that was said so that you could
understand it intelligently, and if anything was said in favor of the defendant
you would understand how and why.
We do not now object to the whole of it
being offered and read.
The President. Against what does your objection lie? There has been no proposition to introduce
it, I take it.
Colonel Ristine. But there is an effort now, if the Commission
please, to offer in evidence two or three pages of it without offering the
whole.
The Attorney General. I beg your pardon; there is no such
effort. I withdrew the question and
asked another question. The President
suggested that I draw my question in a
737
different
way, which I did.
Colonel Ristine. I beg the Commission’s pardon. I withdraw my objection.
Questions by The Attorney General:
Q What
did the defendant Dasch say to you with respect to what was written on the
handkerchief?
Colonel Royall. I object
The Attorney General. As to colonel Royall’s objection you have
ruled on both aspects of it: first with
respect to the admission of the confession against the other defendants you
have already ruled; secondly, with respect to the objection that a portion of
the confession should not be shown. That
has been ruled on already by permitting the witness Wills to testify with
respect to what Dasch told him, although the confession was not in the
record. So I take it that Colonel Royall
is simply recording his previous objection, which has already been ruled on.
Colonel Royall. There is a distinction between this witness
and the witness Wills. This witness
expressly stated that he was there for part and was not there for the other
part, and there was a very definite dividing line. This gentleman was present, with few
exceptions, throughout the entire confession, as I understood it, and was
participating to a large extent, or to some extent, in the transcription and
reduction to writing and the signature.
So the cases are not alike.
738
The President. Any further discussion?
The Attorney General. No, Mr. President.
A Member. I do not know whether Colonel Ristine has an
objection to that or not.
Colonel Ristine. I announced I have no objections to the
question at present.
The President. Perhaps we should have the question
repeated. I think The Attorney General
has a very good memory, better than I have.
You might repeat it.
The Attorney General. I think the question was: What did the defendant Dasch say to you with
respect to what was written on the handkerchief?
Colonel Royall. The other defendants object.
The President. He may answer the question, as I understand
the present state of affairs.
Colonel Royall. May I say it is not redirect as to us,
because we have not crossed.
A Member. We are not talking about you now. We are talking about Colonel Ristine at the
present time and the question is that several questions have been asked, direct
questions, on cross-examination, and there is a rule with reference to
questions that have been asked in that way and the rule seems to be applicable
here, especially if there is no objection made.
The President. Anything further from the Attorney
General? Were you about to make other
remarks?
The Attorney General. No.
The President. Subject to any objection by the members of
the Commission, the Commission has no objection to the
739
question
being asked and answered.
Questions by The Attorney General:
Q Will
you answer the question?
A Dasch
informed me that on the handkerchief which he had was the name and address of a
person in Lisbon, Portugal, with whom he had been instructed to communicate in
case they needed more money, in case they desired to communicate any
intelligence, information, such as what papers a succeeding groups would need
in order to effect a landing and mix with the populace without detection, in
case they needed more explosive material sent over,- anything of that nature
could be communicated to this address.
In addition, on this handkerchief he
advised me there was the name of a Lutheran minister who, he stated, was either
in
He also had the name and address of an
individual in Chicago who was a relative of Herbert Haupt.
In addition to that, he had an address
on the handkerchief of a person through whom he could always get in contact
with Edward Kerling
He also had on the handkerchief the
name “Franz Daniel Pastorius.”
After the writing on the handkerchief
had been developed a photograph was made of this writing and I then discussed
it—
Colonel Royall. May it please the Commission, he had not been
asked anything about that at all. He was
asked what Dasch
740
said.
The Attorney General. He was going to say he discussed it with
Dasch, I presume.
Colonel Royall. But he is telling other facts about which no
inquiry has been developed.
The Attorney General. I will direct the inquiry then.
Questions by The Attorney General:
Q Did
you discuss the photographs with Dasch?
A I
did.
Q What
did he say about it?
A This
photograph was the photograph of the writing on the handkerchief. The first thing that appeared on the
handkerchief, which he had not mentioned to me, was the name Bingo. I questioned him as to what he meant by
Bingo. He advised that that was the
German Intelligence name of Herbert Haupt, that each man assigned to the German
Intelligence Unit was given a name.
Haupt’s Intelligence name was Bingo.
His own name, he stated, was Strich, which means a short dash.
I then asked him about the other
writing. The writing was not clear. It was not readily discernible from the
photograph and we attempted to figure out the names and addresses. He could not figure out the name and address
correctly of the address in
He also stated that the other name, the
contact in Chicago, Waiter Froehling, was an address, which he stated was a
relative
741
of
Herbert Haupt, who was a member of the German-American Bund, who was an
individual they could use to locate for them a hiding place for their
explosives, a contact, so to speak, a name which was furnished by Haupt.
There was also the name of Helmut
Leiner, who he stated was a friend of Kerling’s, with whom he could always
contact and locate Kerling, this place being up in
Q I
show you a photograph marked for identification P-119 and ask you if this is
the photograph you have been referring to.
A That
is a photograph similar to the one I had.
Q A
photograph of the handkerchief?
A It
is.
The President. Is it introduced in evidence?
The Attorney General. Yes, I introduce it in evidence now.
Colonel Royall. I assume that our stipulation covers that.
The Attorney General. Yes.
Colonel Royall. The defendants other than Dasch specifically
object.
The Attorney General. Those are all the questions I have to ask
this witness.
Colonel Ristine. I would like to ask one or two further
questions.
The President. Proceed.
RECROSS EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Mr.
Traynor, in addition to the information given
742
by
Mr. Dasch with respect to the subject matter that we have already covered, he
did give you a lot of information respecting the construction and operation of
the submarine he came over on, didn’t he?
A He
did.
Q And
a lot of information concerning proposed sabotage of the
A I
recall very little information, merely mostly a mention that there may be an
attempt at the
Q The
other matters of interest to the F.B.I. about which you interrogated him, he
did give you information about, in addition to those that have been detailed?
A I
am not quite sure that I understand that question, sir.
Q With
respect to other matters about which the F.B.I. desired information and about
which they interrogated him, he gave you freely all of the information he had
within his knowledge?
A He
gave us all the information that—that is not the right answer. I cannot answer whether he gave all the
information within his knowledge. He did
give us information on matters on which we interrogated him.
Q I
mean other matters besides those that we have gone into in some detail.
A That
is correct.
Colonel Ristine. I think that is all.
Colonel Royall. The other defendants do not desire to
cross-examine this witness, relying upon the position they have taken.
743
The Attorney General. I have finished with the witness, Mr.
President.
The President. Any questions by the Commission? There seem to be none.
It is now
(At 5:26 o’clock p.m., an adjournment
was taken on Monday, July 13, 1942, to 10 o’clock a.m. Tuesday, July 14, 1942.)