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 VII
Pages
945 to 1074
945
CONTENTS
|
Name of
Witness |
Direct |
Cross |
Redirect |
Recross |
|
|
948 |
965 |
968 |
|
|
H. G. Foster |
970 |
974 |
974 |
|
|
Richard L.
Johnson Recalled |
|
976 979 |
978 |
|
|
Norval D.
Wills Recalled |
|
992 |
|
|
EXHIBITS
|
Prosecution |
For
Identification |
In
Evidence |
Read
in Record |
|
151 Statement of Quirin |
|
957 |
957 |
|
152 Bill-Fold |
|
962 |
|
|
153 Registration certificate, Quirin |
|
963 |
|
|
154 Social Security card, Quirin |
|
963 |
|
|
155 Money Belt |
|
964 |
|
|
156 to 171
Photographs |
970 |
973 |
|
|
Defendant’s |
|
|
|
|
A Statement of |
|
1016 |
1027 |
|
C-1,
C-2 Letter and envelope |
980 |
|
|
--ooOoo--
946
STENOGRAPHIC RECORD 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, Hermann Neubauer, Richard Quirin, and Werner
Thiel.
PRESENT: Members of the Military Commission, as follows:
Major
General Frank R. McCoy, President,
Major
General Walter S. Grant,
Major
General Blanton Winship,
Major
General Lorenzo D. Gasser,
Brigadier
General Guy V. Henry,
Brigadier
General John T. Lewis,
Brigadier
General John T. Kennedy.
As Trial Judge Advocates:
Honorable
Francis Biddle,
Attorney
General of the
Major
General Myron Cramer,
The
Judge Advocate General,
Colonel
F. Granville Munson,
Colonel
John M. Weir,
Colonel Erwin M. Treusch,
Major
William T. Thurman,
Officers
of the Judge Advocate General’s Department.
Oscar
Cox,
Assistant
Solicitor General of the
James
H. Rowe, Jr.,
Assistant
to the Attorney General.
As Provost Marshal:
Brigadier
General Albert L. Cox
947
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. May it please the Commission: The personnel of the Commission, of the
prosecution except Colonel Weir and Major Thurman, and of the defense except
Major Stone, all of whom are temporarily absent on official business, all eight
of the accused, and the reporter are present.
The witness who was testifying at the
conclusion of the last session has resumed the stand, and he is warned that he
is still under oath.
The President. The witness is Mr. Wiand.
The Witness. Yes, sir.
The Attorney General. I wish to announce that Mr. Cutler is
temporarily absent from the prosecution.
Colonel Munson. Does the Commission desire to have me read
into the record the names of those who have been sworn to secrecy since the
last session? They are those who are
engaged in work for both sides. I have
so sworn a number of persons.
The President. Yes, I think it would be well.
Colonel Munson. May the record show that this assistant trial
judge advocate swore the following persons to secrecy in the usual course of
the oath, omitting the words as to proceedings
948
in
the courtroom, so they were sworn generally to secrecy:
Miss Virginia Grantham,
Mrs. Louise Mitchell,
They were sworn on the 14th
day of July, 1942, on behalf of the defense.
Miss. Reba Cohan, 1610 Sixteenth
Street, Northwest, Washington, D. C., sworn on behalf of the prosecution on
July 15, 1942.
Miss. Katherine Webb, 3157 Eighteenth
Street, Northwest, Washington, D. C., and Captain Thomas W. Bruton, Specialist,
whose office address is 4D438, Pentagon Building, Arlington, Virginia.
The Attorney General. I wish to announce that Mr. Cutler is now
here.
Colonel Munson. Mr. Cutler has resumed his seat.
the
witness on the stand at the time of adjournment on July 14, resumed the stand,
and having been previously duly sworn, testified further as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION--Resumed
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Will
you please continue reading Exhibit 150?
A (
“We still had on these uniforms that I
have previously mentioned and I left my Army cap in the submarine. We were told by George Dasch when we got of
to take off the clothes
949
and put them in a sack and sailors who
were to accompany us would take them back to the submarine, and then we were to
change into our own clothes.
“We came up on deck of the submarine
and there were about fourteen members of the crew on the deck and I believe the
submarine had about forty crew members.
When we got on deck, there was a rubber boat tied to the side of the
submarine with a line tied on the back of it.
I think the reason for this line was because it was so foggy that they
might not be able to find the submarine when they started back. There were tow sailors in the boat and the
boat had regular oars. The boxes were
already placed in the boat. The Captain
wished us good luck. We stepped into the
boat and started rowing for shore. I
think we rowed for about ten or fifteen minutes. When we got to the surf it was pretty rough
and when we got on the beach, I carried two of the boxes back up on the beach
and then I changed clothes. George said
he was going out to look around. I
forgot to say that when we left the submarine I had on a pair of blue swimming
trunks with a white belt on under my uniform.
After we got up on the beach, Pete came running back and said that
George had met a watchman but that everything was all right - we were supposed
to go ahead so we very hurriedly changed our clothes and I do not know whether
we got all of it in the bag and one of them was supposed to take the bag back
to the sailors to be taken back to the submarine, but I do not know whether
950
they took them or not. We changed clothes and took the boxes a
little further back on the beach and we had two trench shovels we were to use
to bury these boxes which we had gotten from the submarine. These were short shovels about two feet long
with a cross bar on them. I also buried
the boxes and pretty soon George came up and we all left for the road. We all got scared when we heard that George
had run into a watchman.
“After we got together, we went back up
the road and laid down and hid for awhile.
During his time there were searchlights from land shining around and at
one time I heard a noise and we thought this noise was made by a submarine
taking off. On this night, it was very
foggy and you could only see about ten yards ahead of you. At times the fog shifted a little bit and you
could see a little farther. While we
were laying together up near the road, George mentioned that he thought he lost
a note book.
“I have been shown a vest which is
brown gabardine and I have identified it as my vest belonging to the suit that
I brought over with me from
951
when I lost it or that I had lost it
until it was shown to me. I purchased
this suit I think around 1936, at Crawford’s Clothing store which is located on
“We laid in the sand there for a awhile
and then we walked in the sand away from the beach until we came to a road
which I think was a concrete road or asphalt.
When we came to this road, we turned left and along the side of this
road there was some shrubbery and we walked behind the shrubbery to our left
until we came to what looked like a country road and we turned right for just a
little while and then we went into another road which we followed. That led us to the railroad tracks. We followed the railroad tracks until we came
to a station which was Amagansett,
“We arrived in
952
Into the Chesterfield Hotel. They did not tell us where they were going
and we arranged to meet at Grant’s Tomb I think on Saturdays and Wednesdays at
“Henry and I went to some stores near
the railroad station in
“We checked in there in the afternoon
and I registered as Richard Quintas of Schenectady of Albany, New York. We got a double room and it cost us $5.00 a
day. We remained in this hotel for two
days and checked out on Monday because Henry and I found a room at
“On Saturday night, we just fooled
around and on Sunday we met Pete and George at Grant’s Tomb around
953
they were staying at the New Yorker
Hotel but I later learned that this was not true because Pete told me that they
had stayed at the Governor Clinton Hotel all the time. When we met at Grant's Tomb, I walked with
Pete and we talked together and Henry walked with George. When Henry and I got together again he told
me that George had said that on account of the guard, we would leave the
explosives where they were, it was not good to go back for them.
“I met Pete the following day at which
time Henry was with me and I think this was on Tuesday, June 16th
and I gave Pete our new address on
“That day I think we went out to dinner
together and on Wednesday, we met again, June 17th, and we went to
Rogers Peet, a men's clothing store at 41st Street and 5th
Avenue, where Pete bought a jacket and I bought a suit and they told us they
would be ready for us on Saturday, June 20th at three o'clock and we
arranged to meet there at that time to get these clothes. I think Pete gave me his address at the
Governor Clinton Hotel on
954
“We mentioned at times what would
happen if we got caught and we talked about what we would say and we thought it
would be all over in case we were caught.
“I am a citizen of
“I was not forced to come to the
“I have not mentioned that while I was
on the farm they trained us how to write with invisible ink. This was prepared by using aspirin tablets
and alcohol. They told us another way
was by wetting a sheet of paper and placing it on glass; then taking
955
another sheet of paper and putting it
on top of this piece of paper and writing with a pencil. In using alcohol and aspirin, we used a stick
with cotton on the end of it to write with and it disappeared as you
wrote. The reason they told us they were
giving us this training was so that we could write to each other while we were
in the
“I want to explain that they told us
the way to develop this secret writing was for the one where you used a wet
paper with another paper over it and wrote with a pencil. You put it in water and you can read the
message. To bring out the message
written with alcohol and aspirin table, you merely took alcohol and wiped over
it with a piece of cotton and then it would appear and disappear again and when
the writing appeared it was reddish in color.
We tried this with some they furnished us at the farm and it worked all
right.
“I forgot to mention that while we were
in
956
know nothing about any such matches and
they told me nothing about them.
“I have made this statement, consisting
of 21 pages, on June 25th, June 27th, and June 28th,
1942, and I have read this statement aloud in the presence of B. F. Wiand and
H. G. Foster, whom I know to be Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and I state that it is true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief. I have also singed
each page of this statement.
(Signed) “Richard Quirin
(Signed) “B. F. Wiand
(Signed) “H. G. Foster
“Special Agents of the Federal Bureau
of Investigation
“607 U.S. Court House,
“
Q Mr.
Wiand, I show you Exhibit P-151 and ask you if you recognize it.
A Yes,
sir, I do.
Q This
is the third statement made by Quirin?
A That
is right, yes, sir.
Q Is
it signed by him?
A It
is singed by him as Richard Quirin.
Q At
the end?
A Yes,
sir.
Q Did
he sign the first two pages?
A Yes,
as R. Quirin.
Q Was
this taken in your presence?
A It
was.
957
Q When
was it taken?
A On
Q Who
else was present?
A Special
Agent C.B. Airhart.
Q What
time of day was it taken?
A This
statement was taken in the afternoon.
The Attorney General. Does counsel wish to ask any questions?
The President. On what date was it taken, may I ask?
The Attorney General. Exhibit P151 was taken on
Does counsel wish to ask any preliminary questions?
Colonel Royall. No.
The Attorney General. I offer Exhibit P-151 in evidence and ask that the witness read it.
(Exhibit P-151, statement of Richard Quirin dated
The Witness (reading):
EXHIBIT P-151
“
“
“I, Richard Quirin, make the following
statement to B. F. Wiand and C. E. Airhart, who I know are Special Agents of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, to supplement the statement that I gave on
958
“When I got back to Berlin after I had
taken my wife and daughter, Rose Marie, to my wife's folks in Kulmbach, I went
to Walter Kappe's office at Rante 5, and the following fellows were there with
me who had been trained on the farm to do sabotage work in the United
States: George Dasch, Peter Burger,
Henry Heinck, Hermann, Bill, Eddie, Herbie and Jerry. I think Bill or Hermann was using the last
name of Nichols or Nicholas.
“Kappe told us we should report there
every day, and one time he told us we were going to a factory and I think that
day we took a boat ride along the canal.
We went to the railroad yards in
959
was located there and which they showed
us. This repair shop or factory belongs
to the German Railroad Company.
“I think it was before we went to the
factory we were taken on a boat ride through a canal which was located in
“On another day I remember Kappe took
all of us to an aluminum factory located near
960
“Kappe made arrangements so that we
could get past the guard into the aluminum factory. Some fellow in the factory took us around and
showed us the plant itself and we walked through it, looking at this and that,
and then were taken to the power plant.
They showed us the high voltage wires leading into the plant. They explained that if the power line could
be cut off it would disable the factory.
They said the power lines that come in were high voltage. Then they took us to some of the
transformers, which were right there, and showed us these. They told us that if we would drill a hole in
the transformer and let the oil run out it would put them out of order and make
the plant shut down so that they could not get any power. They showed us several of these power
stations, but they were all alike and they told us most all power plants were
like that. They told us that if we
wanted to do serious damage it would be best to cut off the power line
somehow. They said there was no use
trying to blow up a furnace as long as it would not seriously damage the
production.
“When we got through being shown this
factory, we had dinner there and some of the fellows who had come out with us
that day, who I did not know, made speeches.
They were just after dinner speeches and had nothing to do with our
sabotage work. I do not know the name of
the factory that we were shown and I never asked them.
“I also forgot to tell in my other
statement, that after we arrived on the submarine
961
go to see this friend, and I told
him I would go along with him. I think Henry knew his address and we went
out by subway on the
“I have read the above statement,
consisting of three pages, and have signed my name to each page, and I state
that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
“(signed) Richard Quirin
962
“Witnessed:
“B. F. Wiand
“C. E. Airhart
Special Agents, Federal Bureau of
Investigation
U. S. Department of Justice
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q I
show you what has been marked P-152 and ask you what that is?
A This
is a black leather bill-fold.
Q Where
did you get it?
A This
bill-fold was taken from the defendant, Richard Quirin, in my presence, by
Special Agent H. G. Foster. It was
turned over to me and I examined the contents of it.
Q Is
P-152-A a photograph of that bill-fold?
A Yes,
sir; it is.
Q What
did you take out of the bill-fold?
A A
Social Security card and a draft registration card.
Q Anything
else?
A There
was, I believe, a lottery receipt, a card from a salesman of Rogers Peet, and
$63 in cash.
The Attorney General. I offer the bill-fold in evidence and ask that
the photograph P-152-A be spread on the record.
(Bill-fold
marked for identification P-152 was received in evidence.)
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q I
show you exhibit marked for identification P-153 and ask you what it is?
A This
is a draft registration certificate in the
963
name of
Richard Quintas, made out as
Q You took that
from the bill-fold?
A I did; yes.
Q Are these
photographs marked P-153-A and P-153-B photographs of that exhibit?
A Yes, sir.
The Attorney General. I ask that photographs P-153-A and P-153-B be put in the original record and that the registration certificate be received in evidence.
(Registration
certificate marked P-153 for identification was received in evidence.)
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q I show you
exhibit P-154 and ask you what it is?
A This is a
Social Security card that was taken from the bill-fold in the presence of
Special Agent Foster and the defendant Richard Quirin and identified by him.
Q Is this
(indicating) a photograph of it?
A Yes, sir.
The Attorney General.
I offer the Social Security card, P-154, in evidence and ask that the photograph
marked P-154-A be spread in the original record.
(Social Security card marked P-154 for
identification was received in evidence.)
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q I show you
what has been marked P-155 and ask you what it is?
964
A This, I was
told by the defendant Quirin, is a money belt which was given to him, and it
contained $3,850.
Q You mean, he
told you that it contained that?
A No, sir; I
counted the money.
Q Where was the
belt?
A On a desk in
the office in
Q And it contained
how much?
A $3,850.
Q In what
denominations?
A Fifty-dollar
bills.
Q Is this a
photograph of that exhibit?
A Yes, sir; it
is.
The Attorney General.
I offer P-155 in evidence and ask that the photograph, P-155-A, be made
a part of the original record.
(Money
belt marked P-155 for identification in evidence.)
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q What did the
defendant say to you with respect to these two cards, if anything?
A He told me,
first, that they were furnished to him in
Q Did he say
who made them up?
A He said they
were already made up in the name of Richard Quintas, and he signed his name as
Richard Quintas.
Q Did he sign
both, or only one of them.
A I recall
only the draft registration card.
965
Q Did the
defendant Quirin say anything to you with respect to the money that was
furnished to him?
A Yes. He first said that the money was given to him
by Walter Kappe in
Q What money is
that?
A The
$3,850. He subsequently said that this
money was given to him by the defendant George Dasch on the submarine when he
was coming to the
The Attorney General.
You may cross-examine.
Colonel Royall.
This cross-examination is on behalf of the defendant Quirin.
CROSS EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Royall:
Q Mr. Wiand,
the defendant Quirin gave you fully and freely information about the industrial
and social conditions in
A Yes, he did;
he gave me some information concerning that.
Q Did you
obtain any similar information from anyone else?
A I do not
recall that I did personally.
Q In connection
with this third statement which was received in evidence, that was given at the
request and suggestion of Quirin himself, was it not, he stating that he wished
to clear up some further matters?
A No,
sir. I will tell you how that
arose. I told the defendant Quirin that
I had ascertained that when he went
966
back to
Q Did you take
statements from any of the other defendants?
A No, sir; I
took no statements. I was present during
one time the defendant Heinck was being questioned.
Q So far as you
know, was this statement made by Quirin the first statement that was obtained,
or do you know of your own knowledge of any others that were obtained before
this?
A Which
statement are you referring to?
Q The first
statement.
A That was the
first statement that was obtained. As I
explained yesterday on that statement, he first gave a statement which was
typed up and brought back to him, at which time he said, “I didn’t tell you the
truth; I want to change it.” So he would
not sign it as it was. So we rewrote the
statement according to his wishes.
Q I think
possibly my question was not clear. Was
the first statement of Quirin, so far as you know, the first statement that was
obtained from any of the defendants?
A No, sir; I
don’t know that.
967
Q Did you ask
any other defendants except Quirin specifically what his intent was in coming
to this country?
A No, sir; I
don’t believe I did.
Q You did not
ask Heinck that?
A I was
present in the room when Heinck was being questioned, but I don’t believe I
asked Heinck any questions in that respect.
Q Did Quirin
tell you that when he went to that school, while he wished to serve his
country, Germany, he did not fully realize the nature of the undertaking he was
getting into, did he?
A No. I recall his statement in that regard, that
at the time he went there he wanted to come back to the
Q Did he not
tell you that he did not fully realize and know just what was contemplated in
the way of sabotage or as to the method of entrance to this country, and that
after he learned the full facts it was too late for him to get out of it?
A No, sir; he
didn’t say that.
Q I believe it
appears from this examination that the descriptive word which was used by both
Quirin and by your questioning as to the work that was to be done in
A That is
correct; yes.
Colonel Royall.
That is all.
968
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Did you show
the defendant Quirin certain articles of clothing?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you
show him?
A The clothing
that was found on the beach at Amagansett,
Q Did you show
him the shovels?
A Yes, sir;
and he said they were similar to those used by him when they buried the
explosives on the beach.
Q Did you show
him the vest that is in evidence?
A Yes.
Q What did he
say about that?
A He
identified it as being his vest; yes.
Q Was that the
brown vest?
A The brown
gabardine vest; yes.
The Attorney General.
May it please the Commission, to save time, if agreeable to counsel, I
shall not bring back the original articles of clothing, but the next witness
will introduce photographs of it.
Colonel Royall. I
see no necessity to bring it back.
(At this point Major Stone, of defense
counsel, resumed his seat in the court room.)
969
The President. Are
there any further questions?
(No
response) There seem to be none.
(The witness left the stand.)
The Attorney General.
We will call Mr. Foster.
Lieutenant Page.
This witness has not been sworn.
Colonel Munson. Mr.
Foster, two oaths will be taken. In
addition to the usual oath as a witness, there is an oath of secrecy, and I am
directed by the Commission to inform you that violation of that oath may result
in proceedings of a penal nature, in contempt or otherwise. In taking that oath, do you understand that?
Mr. Foster. Yes.
Colonel Munson. You
solemnly swear that you will not divulge the proceedings to anyone outside of
this court room until released from your obligation by proper authority or
required so to do by such proper authority?
Mr. Foster. I do.
Colonel Munson. You
swear that the evidence you shall give in the case on hearing will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Foster. I do.
H. G. FOSTER
was
called as a witness for the prosecution and testified as follows:
Colonel Munson.
Will you please state your name, residence or office address, and
occupation?
Mr. Foster. H. G.
Foster, Special Agent, Federal Bureau of Investigation, located at
970
The Attorney General.
I will ask the reporter to mark these photographs for identification.
(Photographs handed to the reporter
were marked P-156 to P-171, inclusive, for identification.)
971
DIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Mr. Foster, I
show you some photographs which have been already marked for identification
P-156 to 171, both inclusive, and ask you if you can identify them and will you
tell the Commission what they are?
A Yes, sir, I
can identify these. These are
photographs of material worn by or material brought in by the agents who landed
on
Q Did he
endorse each photograph?
A Yes, he did.
Q In his
writing?
A That is
right.
Q And signed
the endorsement?
A That is
right.
Q Will you turn
to each photograph, identify it by number and state what Quirin endorsed on the
back of each photograph?
A The first
one is P-156. This is a photograph of a
box, and Quirin stated on the back thereof, in his own handwriting: "These look like the boxes which we
brought over on submarine." This is
dated. His statement on the back of that
is dated
Q You need not
reread the date if the dates are all the same.
A The dates
are all the same, yes.
Q All right.
A P-157 is a
photograph of three boxes and some
972
smaller
items there. Quirin wrote on the back of
this: "These boxes look like the
ones we brought over and the packages seem to be the explosives we were told
would be in it."
Question by the President:
Q Who are they
signed by?
A Each of them
is signed by Mr. Quirin. He wrote on the
back of each one of them his comment relative to that picture. They are also witnessed by myself and another
agent.
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Supposing you
just in each instance read what he wrote on the photograph.
A That is what
I am doing.
Q Yes.
A P-158: "These look like the fuses and
explosives with which we practiced in Germany and which we were told would be
in the boxes we brought." Also
signed by Quirin in his own handwriting.
P-159: "I have
marked an X under the picture which I believe are caps to use to set off
explosives." He marked the
particular item on this photograph which he could identify as a particular item.
P-160: "I
believe these are caps to set off explosives."
P-161: "These
look like the incendiary pencils which we saw in
P-162: "These
look like the time clocks which were shown to us in
P-163: "These
look like the shovels we used to bury the
973
boxes
on the beach."
P-164: "This
looks like the bag we used to bring our clothes in to this country."
P-165: "This
looks like the clothes we wore in landing on the beach."
P-166: "This
is a picture of the German Army cap given to us to wear in the submarine and
while landing in the
P-167: "This
is a picture of the German Army cap given to us to wear in the submarine and
while landing in the
P-168: "This
looks like the buttons we had on our coats which we wore while landing."
P-169: "I have
marked an X under the shoe that I identify as mine. I think that I recognize the other shoes as
belonging to the other fellows in my group."
P-170: "These
look like the coat and pants that we wore when landing here."
P-171: "These
look like the clothes we wore when landing here."
That is the last one.
The Attorney General.
I offer in evidence P-156 to 171, inclusive, and ask that they be spread
in the original record.
(Photographs of various articles of
clothing and material as described above were thereupon received in evidence as
Prosecution Exhibits P-156 to 171, inclusive.)
The Attorney General.
Cross-examine.
Colonel Royall: No
cross-examination. I retract that.
974
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Royall:
Q Did you talk
with any of the other defendants?
A With any of
the other defendants?
Q Yes.
A I spoke to
some of the others, yes, sir.
Q Did you take
any statement from any of them?
A I did not
take any statements from any of the others, no, sir.
Colonel Royall: No
further questions.
The Attorney General:
I would just like to ask one question.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Can you
identify the defendant Quirin in court?
A Yes, sir,
right here (indicating).
Q Sitting next
to Colonel Royall?
A Yes.
The President. What
is the witness' name?
The Witness.
Richard Quirin.
The President. No,
your name.
The Witness. My
name is H. G. Foster.
The President. This
is the special agent that Mr. Wiand said was with him while he was taking the
statements read heretofore?
The Attorney General.
The first two statements, if I remember correctly. The witness was not present at the third
statement
Colonel Royall. May
it please the Commission, this cross-
975
examination,
of course, as in the case of the other witnesses, is on behalf of the
defendant.
The Witness. Is that
all?
Colonel Royall.
That is all.
The Attorney General.
That is all, Mr. Foster.
(The witness left the stand.)
The Attorney General.
Mr. President, Colonel Royall and Colonel Ristine have requested me to
recall four of the agents who have already testified. I at this time will now call them, so as to
give counsel a further chance to cross-examine.
The President. In
anticipation of that, are there any other statements that you care to make, in
view of the fact that heretofore, I believe, counsel has declined to
cross-examine and gave the reason?
The Attorney General.
No, I do not want to give any statement and I want it understood that
they preserve any rights they have in cross-examining them. I do not want in any way to limit their
right. So I will ask the first one, Mr.
Rice, to come in. These witnesses have
all been sworn.
Colonel Royall. We
would like to have Mr. Johnson first.
The Attorney General.
Very good. I will change the
order. Will you give us the order
now? Johnson first?
Colonel Royall.
Yes. Then Rice.
The Attorney General.
Who third?
Colonel Royall.
Wills.
The Attorney General.
Wills third?
Colonel Royall.
Yes.
The Attorney General.
That is satisfactory.
Mr. Johnson, then, please.
976
Lieutenant
Page. Richard L. Johnson. This
witness has already been sworn to secrecy.
The Attorney General.
For your convenience, in order that you may more easily follow the
evidence, the prosecution has now finished the evidence with relation to the
landing in
Colonel Munson. The
witness is reminded he is still under oath.
Colonel
Royall. This cross-examination is
solely on behalf of the defendant Heinck.
RICHARD L. JOHNSON
was
recalled as a witness for the prosecution and, having been previously duly
sworn, testified further as follows:
CROSS-EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Royall:
Q Mr. Johnson, I
will ask you if it is not a fact that when you were talking with the defendant
Heinck he told you that he had shaken hands with George Dasch that they were
going to forget all about the boxes on the beach and were going to devise a
method to give themselves up?
A That is not
true, no.
Q Well, did he
make any similar statement about discussing giving himself up?
A He never at
any time made any statement with references to give himself up, no.
Q Did he tell
you about a discussion with George Dasch about leaving the boxes on the beach?
977
A He mentioned
shaking hands with George Dasch. He said
that after Dasch disposed of this Coast Guardsman on the beach he shook hands
with him and congratulated him and said there was no question now as to his
being the leader of the group, but he never at any time mentioned any agreement
with George Dasch to give himself up or for the group to give themselves up.
Q Did he
mention any discussion with him?
A Not at any
time with reference to the matter of giving himself up.
Q Did he
discuss in any way that he did not intend to go ahead any further with it or do
anything about the boxes?
A We discussed
that matter with Heinck on two or three different occasions and his first
statement was that he believed that he did intend to carry out this matter when
he landed on the beach. He said that he
and Quirin later had a discussion with reference to this matter and there was
some doubt in their minds as to whether or not they would. After he had completed his written statement,
that is, after the dictation of the statement had been completed, that question
was again brought up, and Heinck made the statement that he would not have
known anything else to have done but carry it out. He said that otherwise he felt like he would
have been ratting on his country. I
believe that is the word he used.
Q That is all
you recall, as the only statement he made along that line?
A Those
statements are the only ones that I recall.
Q I mean those
statements.
A Yes.
Colonel Royall.
That is all.
978
The Attorney General.
May I ask a question?
The President. Yes.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
Questions by the Attorney General:
Q Heinck said
to you that he and Quirin had, I think you said, later discussed the
possibility of giving it up. Did he tell
you when he discussed such a possibility with Quirin?
A I believe he
said that conversation was at Grant's Tomb and that was some time after the
landing. I do not recall the date and I
do not believe he recalled the date when he told us of that conversation.
The Attorney General.
That is all.
The President. Any
questions, Colonel Ristine?
Colonel Ristine. No
questions.
The President. Any
question by the Commission? There seems
to be none.
The Attorney General.
That is all.
(The witness left the stand).
The Attorney General.
Mr. Rice.
Lieutenant
Page. B. D. Rice. This
witness already has been sworn to secrecy.
Colonel Munson. Mr.
Rice, you are reminded that you are still under oath.
Mr. Rice. Yes, sir.
The Attorney General.
Note that Mr. Rice is recalled.
B.
was
recalled as a witness for the prosecution and, having been previously duly
sworn, testified further as follows:
979
CROSS EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q Mr. Rice, I
now hand you a document marked "Defendant's C-1," which appears to be
two pages stapled together, and another document marked "Defendant's
C-2," which also appears to be two pages stapled together, and get you to
tell us, if you can, what those documents are.
The Attorney General.
May I say this. Mr. Rice, if you
will identify the document without reading it.
I object to the witness reading the document. Will that be satisfactory, if he first
identifies it?
Colonel Ristine.
That is all my question called for, to state what the documents were.
The Attorney General.
That is right. State what it is.
A With respect
to Defendant's C-2, it appears to be similar to an envelope that I received in
the Governor Clinton Hotel. This other
one I have never seen.
Colonel Ristine. Do
you have the original? That is, as I
understand it, a photostatic copy of the original.
The Attorney General.
Here is the original.
Colonel Ristine.
Apparently he is not able to identify it. Has this ever been marked?
The Attorney General.
I think we will assume it has the same marking.
Colonel Ristine. I
do not know how to refer to this, if it has not been marked.
The Attorney General.
Yes.
Colonel Ristine.
Possibly it should be marked.
The Attorney General.
I will have the reporter mark them
980
Defendant’s
C-1 original and Defendant’s C-2 original.
(The original letter and envelope were
marked for identification Defendant’s C-1 original and Defendant’s C-2
original, respectively.)
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q I now hand
you two documents marked “Defendant’s C-1 original” and “Defendant’s C-2
original” and ask you to tell us if you can, what those documents are.
A As I said
before, Defendant’s C-2 original appears to be similar to an envelope which I
received in the Governor Clinton Hotel on July 20th--or
Q Would you
tell us the circumstances under which you received the document which you say
you did not see?
A Yes,
sir. The envelope was given to us by the
manager of the Governor Clinton Hotel on that date.
Q To whom was
the envelope addressed?
A The envelope
is addressed to Mr. Ernest Peter Burger, Room 1421,
Q And written
on—I mean, does the envelope have any return address?
A It is an
envelope of the Mayflower,
Q At the time
you received the envelope was it signed and did it contain any documents or
letters?
981
A The envelope
was sealed; I don’t know whether it contained anything or not.
Q You could not
tell whether it contained any paper or document?
A No way of my
telling.
Q Do you know
what agent opened the letter?
A No,
sir. I don’t know that an agent did open
it.
Colonel Ristine. Is
there any doubt whether this letter was contained in that envelope?
The Attorney General.
I do not think there is any doubt at all.
Colonel Ristine.
Could we stipulate that that letter was in that envelope when it was
recovered by this agent?
The Attorney General. Certainly.
Colonel Ristine. It
just saves putting on the other witness.
The Attorney General.
Certainly.
Colonel Ristine. If
the Commission please, we should like to offer in evidence as a part of the
cross-examination these two documents, because it appears that the letter is
signed by Mr. Dasch and it has to do with the subject matter which the
prosecution has gone into at considerable length with respect to questions and
answers of the defendant Mr. Dasch. I
think it is necessary, or at least essential, that the Commission know the
contents thereof in order properly to interpret and construe the questions and
answers of Mr. Dasch.
The Attorney General.
May it please the Commission, I object not for any technical reason, as
the Commission will take notice. I have
agreed that the letter was in the envelope.
982
It has
been identified, and I think that he ought to offer it as part of his
case. He is trying to make me offer as
part of the prosecution’s evidence a letter—a self-serving letter—signed by
Dasch. I have never before heard of any
defendants offering any evidence during the prosecution’s case.
It is not, as I say, that I have any objection at this
time to the technical proof of the letter; I brush that aside. It is a self-serving letter by Dasch which I
think is not relevant. I do not think a
man can prove his case by what he writes.
However, my main objection is that it is inappropriate for Colonel
Ristine to put in his defense at this time.
I think the appropriate thing to do would be to do it when the time
comes as part of his defense for Mr. Dasch.
Of course, it is irrelevant, because I cannot see how a
self-serving letter of Dasch’s would prove his case. But I am not now coming to that objection; I
am coming to the objection that I do not think it is really proper for counsel
to put in his case now. He is actually
making an offer of his evidence during my case.
The President. As I
understand it, the letter has heretofore been referred to as an exhibit and was
numbered.
The Attorney General.
It has never been offered; it has simply been marked for the purpose of
identification. It has been numbered so
that we would know what we were talking about when we referred to the letter.
The President. It
has been acknowledged by this witness that it was found in the room of Burger
in the Hotel Governor Clinton at the time they arrested him?
The Attorney General.
Yes, sir.
983
A Member. I believe
not in the room, but it was given to the witness by the clerk of the hotel.
Colonel Ristine.
That is correct.
The Attorney General.
Yes, given to the witness by the clerk of the hotel.
Colonel Ristine.
May I make this observation: Here
is a letter written by Mr. Dasch. It was
written at a time when he was only in protective custody, and it was mailed in
the
I think I would have difficulty in just entirely agreeing
with the lawfulness of the seizure of a letter written by Mr. Dasch at a time
when he was only in protective custody, but that is immaterial, and I do not
care to press or argue a point of that kind.
It was seized by the F.B.I. because they thought—and I
agree—that it would probably portray the intentions of the writer thereof, Mr.
Dasch.
In order that this Commission might have all the facts
surrounding the alleged admissions of the defendant Dasch which he made
voluntarily to the Bureau, it seems to me, in view of the fact that the F.B.I.
seized this letter for that purpose, that this Commission should now be
informed of its contents in order that there may be removed any danger on the
part of the Commission of misconstruing the other statements which are
984
already
in evidence, and I see no reason why it should not be read to the Commission in
connection with the cross-examination of the witness who identifies the
document.
It is certainly always the privilege of a tribunal trying
a case to listen to any facts in whatever order it sees fit to listen to them. I admit that if you say this is testimony for
the defense, technically you could say, “We will not listen to that now, but we
will listen to it later.” On the other
hand, it seems to me the better practice, since this throws light on what has
already been before the Commission, and you could probably better understand
that which has heretofore been introduced, would be for you to have the benefit
of this simultaneously.
The statement has just been made that when we finish with
these witnesses, the prosecution will move into the case of the group which had
to do with the
The Attorney General.
I am not sure if I made this perfectly clear. When the time comes, I do not mind its being
offered; but I do not think I should be asked to introduce their case as part
of mine. Let us see where it leads.
Suppose Dasch sat down in jail last night and wrote a
25-page statement saying that from the beginning he was perfectly innocent, had
never intended to do anything, had never meant harm by this, and had talked to
a dozen men in
985
suppose
counsel brought that in to us. That
would be a self-serving statement of Dasch’s.
It would not even be admissible in Dasch’s own case.
Now they ask me to put in as part of my case—my case being
to show that Dasch was guilty of certain things—a self-serving statement of
Dasch’s simply stating that he is not guilty.
When you have it in that light, it becomes apparent how
extraordinarily irrelevant the letter is, aside from the fact that that
irrelevancy must be put in as part of my case.
I am trying to prove guilt. Now
counsel wishes to insist that a hearsay statement about innocence be made a
part of the proof of guilt. I think
that, looked at in that light, the Commission will readily see how irrelevant
this is.
Colonel Ristine.
May I make the following observation:
This letter was seized obviously in the hope that it might disclose
something detrimental to the writer thereof, and if it had so shown, there is
no doubt that it would have been introduced in evidence.
The defendant Dasch voluntarily appeared and gave to the
Department all the information, and at that time he wrote a letter—he wrote two
letters, as a matter of fact, this being the first of two. Each of those letters came into the
possession of the F.B.I.
Let us get the true picture. Dasch was only in protective custody, with no
charges pending against him. He was
cooperating with the F.B.I. to divulge everything he knew about this
thing. According to the records already put
in, he was the first man who was taken into protective custody.
It seems to me very unfair for the Government to take
986
that
which was said by this man under those circumstances, which the Government
thinks is detrimental, and at the same time say, “We will not listen to
anything which was said which is not detrimental.”
In other words, in order to be fair, we must take all of
it. It seems to me to be so
interconnected with all the questions, answers, and statements that Dasch made
that in order that this Commission may put a proper interpretation upon the
intentions of Dasch, it is necessary that the Commission know the contents of
that letter. I just feel that at this
time in connection with the cross-examination the Commission—
The President. (Interposing)
Are you making a motion to have this put in evidence?
Colonel Ristine. I
have offered it in evidence, if the Commission please, in connection with the
cross-examination of this witness and as part and parcel of the general
questions, answers, and information that was volunteered by Mr. Dasch.
(The Judge Advocate General rose.)
The President.
General Cramer.
The Judge Advocate General. Since the question of fairness has been
brought up, I want to say this to the Commission; that along with the Attorney
General I agree that we are putting in our case now. Our duty as trial judge advocates, as is
stated in the Manual, is not to suppress any evidence. We have not suppressed evidence; we have
furnished it to the defendants. They
have the perfect right when their time comes to put on this evidence in their
defense the same as they have the right to put on the defendants or anybody
else they wish in their defense. To
follow out logically the argument of
987
counsel,
he could now insist on putting on his witnesses and evidence before we get into
the other side of our case. That is not
the situation at all. The question
whether or not this is admissible is a question to be decided when they put in
their evidence. It is not a question of
merit; it is a question of procedure.
Colonel Ristine. If
the Commission please, I want to make it perfectly clear that I was not
intending to impugn any unfairness on the part of the prosecution. My thought was only to express to this
Commission that in fairness to the Commission, who will have to decide what the
purport of these statements of Dasch really was, the Commission should now have
in connection with those statements the benefit of the letters that were
written by Dasch during the time that the statement were being made. I say in all fairness that the Commission
should have the benefit of this in order properly to deal with the defendant
Dasch and with what his intentions may have been.
(Colonel Dowell rose.)
The President.
Colonel Dowell.
Colonel Dowell.
Speaking for and in behalf of the defendant Burger, I wish to make this
observation; that it is not my understanding that this Commission is bound by
any such inexorable rule as was advanced by the prosecution. The Commission may call for this itself if it
so desires, at any time it so desires, and it seems to me to be perfectly
proper that this paper should not be delayed until a later time, when it may
very properly and appropriately be introduced at this time.
988
The President. The
Commission will close. We shall take
this opportunity to have a short recess, also; say until eleven-thirty.
(At this time the Commission was
closed, and a short recess was taken.
When the Commission reopened, the following occurred:)
989
The President. The
Commission is open.
The Commission takes cognizance of this letter as having
been identified for reference purposes and rules that it should not be offered
by the defendants at this time.
Colonel Ristine. If
the Commission please, it is agreed by the prosecution that the letters and
envelopes marked Defendants’ B-1, B-2, B-3 and B-4, and the exhibits marked
Defendants’ C-1 and C-2 are letters written by the defendant Dasch.
We will have no further cross-examination.
The President. I
think it is important to make sure that these are offered either as exhibits or
as having been identified for reference.
So, if you will convince yourselves of that, I will be glad to give you
time to do that. There should be no dispute
in the sense of whether they are identified as exhibits for reference or
whether they are considered in evidence.
Colonel Ristine. On
page 475 and page 476 of the record we are dealing with prosecution Exhibit
P-87 which is a letter from Dasch to Burger and it was offered in evidence and
is in evidence. In view of the fact that
the first letter written by Dasch to Burger was, by the prosecution, offered in
evidence, it seems that it would be appropriate at this time for the other two
letters written by Dasch to Burger to be also offered in evidence as
constituting the entire correspondence between Dasch and Burger, if the
Commission would like to reconsider the ruling which it has announced in the
light of this letter having heretofore been offered by the prosecution.
990
Colonel Royall. May
it please the Commission, I understand that your ruling has been that the
defendant Dasch cannot at this time offer the second letter. Speaking on behalf of the defendant Burger
and supplementing merely by reading the Manual the argument so ably made by
Colonel Dowell, we now suggest to the Commission, in view of the fact that it
appears that the first letter was offered by the prosecution, the fact that the
second letter was written—and I believe I am quoting the evidence correctly—as
a part of the same course of dealing between Dasch and Burger—as I say, I am
suggesting to the Commission that of its own motion, without regard to whether
wither party had the strict right to offer it, it would have authority to put
the second letter in in order to complete the picture. And I am suggesting that not as a matter of
right, but as a matter of the course that the Commission could pursue. I am sure you are familiar with the provision
of the Court-Martial Manual that the Commission is not obliged to concern
itself with the evidence adduced by the parties, and that—
“Where such evidence appears to be
insufficient for a proper determination, the court may and ordinarily should
take appropriate action.”
Of course that does not answer the argument that may be
made by the prosecution that Dasch can later offer it. However, the fact that he can later offer it
does not prevent the Commission of its own motion from putting it in evidence now. This is a long case, with many ramifications,
and we are trying to leave, certainly for the time being, that portion
991
which
dealt with the
The Judge Advocate General. Of course, if the Commission please, the
Commission has discretion to do anything it pleases; there is no dispute about
that. But it seems that in the matter of
ordinary procedure and good procedure it should be left to the defense to put
in when they put in the rest of their defense.
The President. If
there is no objection on the part of any member the ruling heretofore made will
continue to stand on this motion of the defense.
Colonel Ristine. We
have no further questions of this witness.
Colonel Royall. The
other defendants do not desire to cross-examine.
The President. Are
there any questions by the Commission?
(No response) There seem to be
none. The witness is excused.
(The witness left the stand.)
The Attorney General.
We will recall Mr. Wills.
Lieutenant Page.
This witness has been sworn to secrecy.
Colonel Munson. You
are reminded that you are still under oath.
NORVAL D. WILLS
was
recalled as a witness for the prosecution and, having
992
been
previously sworn, testified further as follows:
The President. I
believe Mr. Wills has been recalled for cross-examination by the defense.
Colonel Ristine. That
is correct, sir.
CROSS EXAMINATION
Questions by Colonel Ristine:
Q I wish you
would look at page 129 of defendants’ Exhibit A and see if the last question on
that page and the answer contained on page 130 was asked and answered in your
presence by Mr. Dasch.
A The first
paragraph on page 130?
Q That is
correct.
A I recall the
substance of that reply made by Dasch, but whether Traynor was in the room or
not at that time I do not have any recollection.
Q I did not ask
you whether Traynor was in the room or not.
I asked you whether that question was asked and that answer given while
you were present.
A The
substance of it. Whether it was word for
word, I do not recall.
Colonel Ristine. I
desire to read that question and answer, if the Commission please.
Colonel Royall. The
defendant Burger does not object.
Colonel Ristine (reading):
“Q (by
“A He
said five or six words once, one sentence he said, in which I see the whole
other part of this boy. Namely, in
Quentz on the first Saturday we were in
993
Quentz at the school, after I had known him four
days. When we walked over to the
restaurant, he said, ‘Those dirty bastards certainly beat me up bad and I like
to ----.’ ‘Keep your trap shut,’ I
said. I didn’t even let him finish that
sentence. I said, ‘Pete, do me one
favor. The time will come and the place
will come when I shall ask you to reopen what you just had on your mind. Now don’t say nothing.’ I reasoned at that time, any boy who spent 17
months in a concentration camp and was given a chance to participate in this
undertaking for the purpose of making good again, that boy had only one chance
and choice, either to take part in it or you die. Understand?
It doesn’t take very much reasoning to come to that conclusion.”
Question by Colonel Ristine:
Q I hand you
page 22 of Defense Exhibit A and ask you to state if you were present when the
statements that are contained on that page were made by Mr. Dasch?
Colonel Royall. If the
Commission please, all of the other defendants object to this testimony.
The President.
Including Burger?
Colonel Royall.
Yes, sir.
Colonel Ristine. I
merely asked the question if he was present.
The Witness. At the
time this statement was made I was not present.
Colonel Ristine. If
the Commission please, in order that there be no misunderstanding about the
position of the defendant Dasch, we now offer in evidence the entire document
994
marked
Defense Exhibit A which contains a stenographic transcript of the statements
made by Dasch and all of the questions asked and the answers given by him from
This is offered because the Court-Martial Manual states
that if the prosecution only elects to go into part of what is said, the
defense may offer the entire document itself.
I do not offer it with any desire to read it, but merely that it may be
in the record, so that this Commission or anybody else who cares to read this
record will have the entire story of defendant Dasch.
The Attorney General.
If the Commission please, I object.
I take it that the Commission does not wish me to argue the point, since
you have already ruled that the defense should put in their evidence when the
time comes. I do not think I need to
labor the case. Of course you have
complete latitude to do anything you want; I do not dispute that for a
moment. But it would seem to me that
your ruling on the matter would cover this.
I hardly think I could add anything more to what I have said, for that
reason.
Colonel Ristine. I
suggest, if the Commission please, it is my understanding that this document,
or any part that we saw fit to read in evidence, is competent at this time; and
in line with the ruling, we have called attention to and read various parts of
the document in evidence, which we
995
thought
was necessary and essential for a proper understanding of those parts that the
prosecution went into. Now, in order
that we may be perfectly fair with the Commission, and because we may have
failed to read certain parts that we should have read, and because it is the
law that if the prosecution goes into a part of a written, signed statement,
which they denominate a confession, we may bring it all out in
cross-examination or otherwise, we are now offering it all in evidence. We feel that under the authority of the
Manual of Courts-Martial we are not offering it as part of our case, because we
have not reached our case. We are
offering it as being the complete confession, only a part of which the
prosecution went into; and it was only by virtue of the manner in which they
went into it in part that they themselves were not compelled to put the entire
document in.
996
Now, we offer the entire document in connection with our
cross-examination of the witnesses who identified the document and who gave
testimony as to only parts of the statements made by Dasch in the course of the
direct examination on the part of the prosecution.
The Judge Advocate General. May it please the Commission.
The President. The
Judge Advocate General.
The Judge Advocate General. The prosecution, as I recall it, never
referred to that document at all. The
testimony was given by the witness on the stand as to his conversation with
this defendant and the defense counsel were allowed to use that statement for
the purposes of cross-examination. As
far as the principle is concerned, it seems to me that the ruling of the
Commission applies to this just as well as the other.
The President. Mr.
Attorney General, is it your remembrance that this has not been used by the
prosecution, as was stated by the defense?
The Attorney General.
My recollection is just what the Judge Advocate General said, and that
is this: that this and other witnesses were
called and asked by the prosecution what the defendants said to them and then
objection was made to that because this confession had not been offered. Then the Commission ruled that our witnesses
who had been called to testify with respect to statements made by Dasch would
be cross-examined by counsel for the defendants using this confession to
cross-examine him. We have never, I
think I am correct in saying—the Judge Advocate General has said it already—we
have never offered any part of the statement and we simply say it seems to us
appropriate that the defendant
997
should
offer this evidence when he is putting in his case.
I think that is the situation.
The President. That
was my remembrance, Colonel Ristine, of the previous action of the prosecution
with reference to this document in question.
Colonel Ristine.
May it please the Commission, under the present rules of the Commission
I would be entitled to read every question, every statement, and every answer
in that document and thereby get the entire document before the
Commission. The only thing I would be
required to do, under the previous rulings, would be to get one of the agents
who was personally present when the various statements in that document were
made to state that he was present when the statement was made.
Now, I have no desire to take up the Commission’s time in
order to do that. I have no desire to do
that. It would take several days’ time
to do it. However, one of the agents
while on the witness stand testified, in identifying this document, that it
contained a stenographic transcription of all the statements and questions and
answers covering those five or six days that were made and asked the defendant
Dasch.
It is true the prosecution did not refer to this
confession or offer it in evidence, but the questions they asked their
witnesses related to the isolated parts contained in this document. There was not but one interrogation of Dasch
during that period of time. And the
testimony they gave orally from the stand is contained, in my opinion, more
accurately in this document. Certainly
it is all contained in the document, because there is no showing here that
there
998
were
separate questions and answers, one for this confession and another one that
they testified to orally.
So that in line with the Courts-Martial Manual—I believe
that number was page 115—here are the rules that are promulgated against the
prosecution in the use of confessions.
“Rules.- The following rules limit the
use of an accused’s confessions, oral or written, made out of court.”
That is a rule that is made against the prosecution.
Then immediately following that statement is:
“Evidence of a confession or supposed
confession cannot be restricted to evidence of only a part thereof.”
Cannot be restricted.
Now, when the prosecution elected to go into a part of the
statements made by Dasch in his confession but did not offer the signed written
confession that was transcribed by the stenographer, they violated that
rule. I will read it again:
“Evidence of a confession or supposed
confession cannot be restricted to evidence of only a part thereof.”
Now, the next sentence covers, I think, the situation, if
and provided there is an attempt to do that.
I will read that:
“Where a part only is shown, the defense
by cross-examination or otherwise”—
And I take it when I offer this document which has been
identified that I am pursuing that course “or otherwise.”
999
“—may show the remainder so that the full and actual
meaning of the confession or supposed confession may appear.”
I am now following the “or otherwise”, rather than putting
two or three agents on the stand who were present, telling them to look at
various pages and after identifying the pages, reading the pages into record.
I feel that it is the only proper way to deal with the
situation, in view of the course pursued by the prosecution.
The Judge Advocate General. May it please the Commission, “by
cross-examination or otherwise” means he may bring it out by cross-examination
or otherwise as a part of his defense.
That is what that means.
Colonel Ristine. I
do not like to be tedious, if the Commission please—
The President. We
would like to have it fully presented.
Colonel Ristine.
This is the rule, a rule that is promulgated against the side that is
attempting to use a confession and the rule is written because of the dangers
involved.
The President. My
remembrance was, though—and I will state it to you—that the prosecution had not
attempted to use this confession, that it was the defense that used it.
Colonel Ristine. If
the Commission please, how can you make a distinction between the transcribed
record and questions and answers and statements of Dasch made over a period of
five days, which is in written form, and a witness taking the stand who was
present when those statements were made by Dasch and giving his mental
recollection of what Dasch said?
1000
The President. The
Commission is not making that distinction which you mention.
Colonel Ristine. My
thought is this, Mr. President: Just as
soon as they asked the witness “What did Mr. Dasch say?” and the witness made a
statement that Dasch said, he thereby gave testimony of matters contained in
Defendant’s Exhibit A, and unless he went further and testified to every
statement that is contained in Defendant’s Exhibit A he violated this rule
which says they shall not be permitted to give only a part.
“Evidence of a confession or supposed
confession cannot be restricted to evidence of only a part thereof.”
Now, he violated that rule.
And, if the Commission please, why do we have such a
rule? We all realize that the mind is a
tricky institution. We all recognize
that if we listen to testimony unfavorable to a person in the process of a long
trial we may formulate some fixed opinion about the matter, and, if we do, then
a week later, when we hear some other testimony that was related to the same
subject matter but not unfavorable, it requires at that time greater proof to
remove that consciously or unconsciously formed opinion than it would if it all
came in at the same time. That is the
reason for the rule and that is the reason the suggestion of the Judge Advocate
General could not be correct, namely, that we offer it as a part of our
evidence. We do not offer it at all.
Suppose the prosecution had not asked any questions at
all. Suppose they had not asked any
questions at all about the statements made by the defendant, and then as a part
of our
1001
case we
had said, “Here is a written document containing questions and answers. We offer it in evidence.” The prosecution would immediately get up and
say, “If the Commission please, we object.
We object. No witness can put in
his evidence in that form. If he wants
those facts in evidence let him take the stand, testify, and submit himself to
cross-examination with respect to those matters.”
That is what would happen to this document if I offered it
as a part of my defense and not related to the fact that they had previously
offered part of it by their own testimony.
Now, when they offer part of it—and when I say part of it
I do not mean that they read from it, because they did not, but they offered
testimony respecting the same answers and statements made by Dasch that are
contained in that statement, but they only went into a small part of it, and we
say that when they fail to go into the whole of it then we are entitled to go
into the rest.
Let us see if there is anything here about our offering it
as a part of our case.
“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.”
Why, if we were obliged to wait until the defense put on
its testimony in order to put in the rest of the confession, we could not have
any full or proper meaning involved there, because of my previous remarks, that
the Commission or Court may have formed an opinion, a definite opinion from the
part that was
1002
offered
before we had an opportunity, if we wait until the defense to put in the
rest. And that is not the rule. The rule is that it should all be taken
together at one time, in order that a proper evaluation and a proper
interpretation may be placed upon it.
The President. Any
further remarks on the part of either side?
In considering this point, it being so near the time for the mid-day
recess, the Commission will close until
Colonel Ristine.
No.
The Attorney General.
None at all.
The President. The
Commission is closed.
(At
1003
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 except Captain Hummell, the eight accused, and the reporters are all
present.
The President. Is
there anything further to be said on the part of either side? If there is no objection on the part of any
member of the Commission, I will first ask the question, do I understand that
this is a signed confession?
Colonel Ristine.
Yes, sir. Each page is signed,
and the document as a whole is signed.
It is in every respect a signed confession.
The President. The
ruling is that the confession will be introduced at this time in connection
with the cross-examination.
The Attorney General.
I am not quite clear as to how to proceed under the ruling of the Court. Is this exhibit of 254 pages now introduced
as a part of the record? The
difficulties, I might explain, which I have in mind would then be whether or
not this should now be read in total.
Colonel Royall tells me he has not had an opportunity to read it
yet. I just want to be instructed on
some of those things which will arise.
Or was the ruling that this would be introduced for purposes of
cross-examination? I was not totally
clear in my mind about that.
The President. What
do you understand the difference in those rulings to be?
1004
The Attorney General.
The difference in the rulings was that heretofore you have permitted the
document to be used for cross-examination.
I thought conceivably you might wish to make it a part of the record for
that purpose. As I have said right
along, of course, I have no objection to counsel’s taking any portion of it and
reading it or asking the witness about it; but we are not very clear. Are you, Colonel Royall?
Colonel Royall. I
thought that the Commission meant that it was introduced in evidence and was a
part of the record.
A Member. Could we
have the ruling read?
The President. Mr.
Reporter, will you please read the ruling?
The Reporter (reading):
“The President. The ruling is that the confession will be
introduced at this time in connection with the cross-examination.”
The President. What I asked the Attorney General, in reply
to his question as to what I meant, was what distinction he sees between the
way I put it and just failing to sustain his objection. What effect would it have in the procedure?
The
Attorney General. I am not quite clear
about the phrase “In connection with the cross-examination.” What does that mean? I am not sure what that means.
The President. That
is just the point I was asking you about—if it did mean a difference to you
from a direct ruling that your objection was not sustained.
The Attorney General.
I do not really know; I would not have a conclusion.
A Member. Could we
have read by the reporter the purpose for which this was introduced by the
defense counsel?
1005
The President. I
first wanted all the facts.
The Attorney General.
With due deference, I think counsel for the defendant offered it as part
of the record. Am I correct?
Colonel Ristine.
That is correct.
A Member. I should
like to have read the purpose for which he offered it.
The President. Just
pardon me a moment until we get a little further along with this thing.
Colonel Royall states that he has not read it, and he has
heretofore, when any evidence was submitted, made certain stipulations and
certain objections. I was just
wondering, since he in his discussion before the Commission was closed was, I
take it, arguing completely along the line of Colonel Ristine, whether he agreed
with him. Do I understand that?
Colonel Royall. No,
sir; we were not offering it. I do not
recall what we said about it, because our position is just this: We were furnished by the prosecution
statements and confessions signed by the other defendants. I believe there was an inadvertent omission
to give us one or two copies of statements, but we were not furnished with a
copy of the Dasch examination. We were
told that since it did not concern our defendants, we were not entitled to a
copy of it. If it were introduced, we
would have to object, because we do not know what it is.
The President. That
is the reason why I was somewhat concerned and made a very careful ruling to
bring out what you meant, because you held forth very decidedly here in argument
with Colonel Ristine and Colonel Dowell as though there was complete
concurrence of the defense side in this matter.
I now
1006
understand
that you wish to make certain reservations?
Colonel Royall. No,
sir. Of course, my recollection in this
long case is not very accurate, but I do not think that either Colonel Dowell
or myself said anything to indicate that we wanted to waive our objection to
this confession. I do not recall it.
Do you recall it, Mr. Attorney General?
The Attorney General.
No, I do not think so. I think
their objection would go to this admission and to all other admissions of
Dasch.
Colonel Royall. If
I left that impression, it was not my intention to do so. I think possibly the Commission may have in
mind what I said about the letter written from Dasch to Burger. On that matter we were, for Burger, standing
with Colonel Ristine, but it was not our intention to waive our objection to
this.
The President. That
is what I wanted to have made plain.
The Attorney.
First, I think we would like to have clarified the ruling as to whether
it goes in as part of the record; then after that perhaps counsel could make
some suggestions which might be approved by the Commission as to whether all of
it or portions of it by agreement should be read.
The first question, it seems to me, is, does it go into
the record? The second question, subject
to the Commission’s approval, is, what portions of it should be read? Because I think we will all agree that large
portions of it are irrelevant and that all of us want to preserve the
Commission’s time and get to the relevant material.
The President. Will
the reporter read the remarks of
1007
both
sides on this point as they occurred just before lunch, so that defense counsel
may be sure of his memory?
The Reporter (reading):
“Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, in order that there
be no misunderstanding about the position of the defendant Dasch, we now offer
in evidence the entire document marked Defense Exhibit A which contains a stenographic
transcript of the statements made by Dasch and all of the questions asked and
the answers given by him from June 19, 1942, to and including, I believe, June
25, 1942, at which time Mr. Dasch signed each page thereof and the certificate,
so to speak, which is attached. The
document, I believe, contains, in all, 254 pages, without including in that
numbering the certificate which is in the opening part.
“This is offered because the
Court-Martial Manual states that if the prosecution only elects to go into part
of what is said, the defense may offer the entire document itself. I do not offer it with any desire to read it,
but merely that it may be in the record, so that this Commission or anybody
else who cares to read this record will have the entire story of defendant
Dasch.
“The Attorney General. If the Commission please, I object. I take it that the Commission does not wish
me to argue the point, since you have already ruled that the defense should put
in their evidence when the time comes. I
do not think I need to labor the case.
Of
1008
course you have complete latitude to do anything you want;
I do not dispute that for a moment. But
it would seem to me that your ruling on the matter would cover this. I hardly think I could add anything more to
what I have said, for that reason.
“Colonel Ristine. I suggest, if the Commission please, it is my
understanding that this document, or any part that we saw fit to read in
evidence, is competent at this time; and in line with the ruling, we have called
attention to and read various parts of the document in evidence, which we
thought was necessary and essential for a proper understanding of those parts
that the prosecution went into. Now, in
order that we may be perfectly fair with the Commission, and because we may
have failed to read certain parts that we should have read, and because it is
the law that if the prosecution goes into a part of a written, signed
statement, which they denominate a confession, we may bring it all out in
cross-examination or otherwise, we are now offering it all in evidence. We feel that under the authority of the
Manual of Courts-Martial we are not offering it as part of our case, because we
have not reached our case. We are
offering it as being the complete confession, only a part of which the
prosecution went into; and it was only by virtue of the manner in which they
went into it in part that they themselves were not compelled to put the entire
document in.
“Now, we offer the entire document in
connection with out cross-examination of the witnesses who identified the
document and who gave testimony as to only
1009
parts of the statements made by Dasch in the course of the
direct examination on the part of the prosecution.
“The Judge Advocate General. May it please the Commission.
“The President. The Judge Advocate General.
“The Judge Advocate General. The prosecution, as I recall it, never
referred to that document at all. The
testimony was given by the witness on the stand as to his conversation with
this defendant and the defense counsel were allowed to use that statement for
the purposes of cross-examination. As
far as the principle is concerned, it seems to me that the ruling of the
Commission applies to this just as well as the other.
“The President. Mr. Attorney General, is it your remembrance
that this has not been used by the prosecution, as was stated by the defense?
“The Attorney General. My recollection is just what the Judge
Advocate General said, and that is this:
that this and other witnesses were called and asked by the prosecution
what the defendants said to them and then objection was made to that because
this confession had not been offered.
Then the Commission ruled that our witnesses who had been called to
testify with respect to statements made by Dasch would be cross-examined by
counsel for the defendants using this confession to cross-examine him. We have never, I think I am correct in
saying—the Judge Advocate General has said it already—we have never offered any
part of the statement and we simply say it seems to us appropriate that the
1010
defendant should offer this evidence when he is putting in
his case.
“I think that is the situation.
“The President. That was my remembrance, Colonel Ristine, of
the previous action of the prosecution with reference to this document in
question.
“Colonel Ristine. May it please the Commission, under the
present rules of the Commission I would be entitled to read every question,
every statement, and every answer in that document and thereby get the entire
document before the Commission. The only
thing I would be required to do, under the previous rulings, would be to get
one of the agents who was personally present when the various statements in
that document were made to state that he was present when the statement was
made.
“Now, I have no desire to take up the
Commission’s time in order to do that. I
have no desire to do that. It would take
several days’ time to do it. However,
one of the agents while on the witness stand testified, in identifying this
document, that it contained a stenographic transcription of all the statements
and questions and answers covering those five or six days that were made and
asked the defendant Dasch.
“It is true the prosecution did not refer
to this confession or offer it in evidence, but the questions they asked their
witnesses related to the isolated parts contained in this document. There was not but one interrogation of Dasch
during that period of time.
1011
And the testimony they gave orally from the stand is
contained, in my opinion, more accurately in this document. Certainly it is all contained in the
document, because there is no showing here that there were separate questions
and answers, one for this confession and another one that they testified to
orally.
“So that in line with the
Courts-Martial Manual—I believe that number was page 115—here are the rules
that are promulgated against the prosecution in the use of confessions.
“’Rules.- The following rules limit the
use of an accused’s confessions, oral or written, made out of court.’
“That is a rule that is made against the prosecution.
“Then immediately following that statement is:
“’Evidence of a confession or supposed
confession cannot be restricted to evidence of only a part thereof.’
“Cannot be restricted.
“Now, when the prosecution elected to
go into a part of the statements made by Dasch in his confession but did not
offer the signed written confession that was transcribed by the stenographer,
they violated that rule. I will read it
again:
“’Evidence of a confession or supposed
confession cannot be restricted to evidence of only a part thereof.”
“Now, the next sentence covers, I
think, the situation, if and provided there is an attempt to do that. I will read that:
“’Where a part only is shown, the
defense by cross-examination or otherwise”—
1012
“And I take it when I offer this
document which has been identified that I am pursuing that course ‘or
otherwise.’
“’—may show the remainder so that the
full and actual meaning of the confession or supposed confession may appear.’
“I am now following the ‘or otherwise’,
rather than putting two or three agents on the stand who were present, telling
them to look at various pages and after identifying the pages, reading the
pages into record.
“I feel that it is the only proper way
to deal with the situation, in view of the course pursued by the prosecution.
“The Judge Advocate General. May it please the Commission, ‘by
cross-examination or otherwise’ means he may bring it out by cross-examination
or otherwise as a part of his defense.
That is what that means.
“Colonel Ristine. I do not like to be tedious, if the
Commission please—
“The President. We would like to have it fully presented.
“Colonel Ristine. This is the rule, a rule that is promulgated
against the side that is attempting to use a confession and the rule is written
because of the dangers involved.
“The President. My remembrance was, though—and I will state it
to you—that the prosecution had not attempted to use this confession, that it
was the
1013
defense that used it.
“Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, how can you make a
distinction between the transcribed record and questions and answers and statements
of Dasch made over a period of five days, which is in written form, and a
witness taking the stand who was present when those statements were made by
Dasch and giving his mental recollection of what Dasch said?
“The President. The Commission is not making that distinction
which you mention.
“Colonel Ristine. My thought is this, Mr. President: Just as soon as they asked the witness ‘What
did Mr. Dasch say?’ and the witness made a statement that Dasch said, he thereby
gave testimony of matters contained in Defendant’s Exhibit A, and unless he
went further and testified to every statement that is contained in Defendant’s
Exhibit A he violated this rule which says they shall not be permitted to give
only a part.
“’Evidence of a confession or supposed
confession cannot be restricted to evidence of only a part thereof.’
“Now, he violated that rule.
“And, if the Commission please, why do
we have such a rule? We all realize that
the mind is a tricky institution. We all
recognize that if we listen to testimony unfavorable to a person in the process
of a long trial we may formulate some fixed opinion about the matter, and, if
we do, then a week later, when we
1014
hear some other testimony that was related to the same
subject matter but not unfavorable, it requires at that time greater proof to
remove that consciously or unconsciously formed opinion than it would if it all
came in at the same time. That is the
reason for the rule and that is the reason the suggestion of the Judge Advocate
General could not be correct, namely, that we offer it as a part of our
evidence. We do not offer it at all.
“Suppose the prosecution had not asked
any questions at all. Suppose they had
not asked any questions at all about the statements made by the defendant, and
then as a part of our case we had said, ‘Here is a written document containing
questions and answers. We offer it in
evidence.’ The prosecution would
immediately get up and say, ‘If the Commission please, we object. We object.
No witness can put in his evidence in that form. If he wants those facts in evidence let him
take the stand, testify, and submit himself to cross-examination with respect
to those matters.’
“That is what would happen to this
document if I offered it as a part of my defense and not related to the fact
that they had previously offered part of it by their own testimony.
“Now, when they offer part of it—and
when I say part of it I do not mean that they read from it, because they did
not, but they offered testimony respecting the same answers and statements made
by Dasch that are contained in that statement, but they only went into a
1015
small part of it, and we say that when they fail to go
into the whole of it then we are entitled to go into the rest.
“Let us see if there is anything here
about our offering it as a part of our case.
“’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.’
“Why, if we were obliged to wait until
the defense put on its testimony in order to put in the rest of the confession,
we could not have any full or proper meaning involved there, because of my
previous remarks, that the Commission or Court may have formed an opinion, a
definite opinion from the part that was offered before we had an opportunity,
if we wait until the defense to put in the rest. And that is not the rule. The rule is that it should all be taken
together at one time, in order that a proper evaluation and a proper
interpretation may be placed upon it.
“The President. Any further remarks on the part of either
side? In considering this point, it
being so near the time for the mid-day recess, the Commission will close until
“Colonel Ristine. No.”
1016
Colonel Royall. The
stipulation now carries forward into the statements as they relate to any of
the other defendants, the parts specifically in the record.
The President. If there
is no objection on the part of any member present, the objection of the
Attorney General is not sustained.
The Attorney General.
I did not realize that I had made an objection, may it please the
Commission. I was not just clear as to
what the ruling of the Commission was.
The President. You
made an objection, I believe, before lunch, to this.
The Attorney General.
Oh, yes. I am sorry. I did not understand.
(Statement of June 19, 1942, of
Defendant Dasch, marked for identification as Defense Exhibit A, was received
in evidence.)
Colonel Munson. The
witness Wills is on the stand again, and he is warned that he is still under
oath.
The Witness. Yes,
sir.
NORVAL D. WILLS,
having
been previously duly sworn, resumed the witness stand.
Colonel Ristine.
May I inquire if it is the desire of the Commission that the entire
document as a whole be read to the Commission?
The President. What
is the comment of all concerned on that?
Colonel Ristine. If
the Commission please, Mr. Dasch, my client, would like to have the statement
as a whole read to the Commission in order that they may have everything that
was said and every question and every answer may be collectively before you in
order to interpret what transpired.
The President. Is
there any comment on either side?
1017
The Judge Advocate General. May it please the Commission, I think it is
my duty to advise the Commission to this affect, now that they have admitted
this document into evidence, that they should become acquainted with the whole document. It has been the endeavor of the prosecution,
because the statement contains so many extraneous matters that it would require
probably two and a half days to read, to touch only on those parts material to
this trial, and the defense counsel to be furnished a copy of it to examine and
bring out those points that are material to this trial. But now that it has been introduced into
evidence the Commission is responsible for information as to everything it contains;
and unless that is brought to the Commission’s attention there might be some
things in it that were not brought to your attention and for which you would be
responsible.
Colonel Royall. May I address a question to the Judge
Advocate?
The President. Yes.
Colonel Royall. When you said that the defense had been
furnished a copy, you referred to Colonel Ristine, and not to counsel for the
other defendants?
The Judge Advocate General. That is correct.
The President. The Commission will take a recess until I can
look at the portion of the record that is not yet here.
Mr. Reporter, will you send for the
portion of the record that embodies the remarks of Colonel Royall and Colonel
Dowell prior to this discussion:
(The Commission was then closed. When it reopened the following occurred:)
1018
The President. The Commission is open.
Colonel Ristine. If the Commission please, my client, Mr.
Dasch, is placed in this position. The
burden is upon him to introduce enough evidence to convince this Commission as to
what his mental intentions were when he left Germany, or at least before he
landed in the United States.
Now, in order to prove the man’s mental
condition, particularly when he came from a country where, if he expressed
openly such intentions, it would probably have meant his prompt summary execution,
it is a difficult matter to offer evidence to satisfy a reasonable man of what
his intentions were. It is not difficult
to offer evidence as to his intentions after he landed, because we can prove
the physical facts as well as the statements he made after he landed: the fact that they did not dispose of the
Coast Guard man when they landed, when they had about six as against one; the
fact that he immediately got in touch with the F.B.I. in New York City; the
fact that he debated on whether to call from that first little station where
they got on the train; the fact that when he came to Washington he called not
only the Army intelligence, or Colonel Cramer, at least, in the Army, as
directed by the Bureau of Information, but also communicated with the
F.B.I. Those are physical facts and
statements from which a court could draw a conclusion as to a man’s mental
intentions.
After he appeared before the F.B.I., if
the Commission hears everything that transpired it should be helpful to the
Commission in determining what his intentions were. To me it is self–evident that he thought he
was aiding and assisting
1019
this
country as against the ruling power of
The Attorney General. May I just say one word. The question, which is obviously matter for
the Commission’s discretion, as to whether now this long document should be
read aloud, prompts me to say that I prefer, and I suggest to the Commission
that this be done, that I shall tonight furnish to
1020
Colonel
Royall, so that he will have it for the other defendants, Photostat copies of
this long document. We have them. That then I be permitted to proceed with my
case now, rather than to have it interrupted by the reading of a long piece of
evidence which is not part of the prosecution’s case; then at the appropriate
time, when Mr. Dasch’s case is put on by his counsel, that the request be
renewed to read this statement orally in open court; Colonel Royall then having
had copies and being then familiar with its contents, as well as the
defendants.
I suggest this because, as a matter of
substance, it is part of the defendants’ case.
It is a self–serving document which the defendant wrote, and I think it
becomes appropriately a part of his case.
I am perfectly clear on the law that
there is no obligation to have any exhibit read aloud; that that is in the
discretion of the Commission. I am also
perfectly clear that our obligation is to furnish copies to all the defendants
in ample time so that they will know exactly what is on the record.
I merely suggest that as matter of
orderly procedure and convenience to the prosecution that course be followed.
The President. Has the defense any remarks to make?
Colonel Royall. I merely desire to say that if this
confession is not received against the other seven defendants we of course have
no concern with it, and any method of procedure that the Commission may
determine upon would be a matter for the Commission, after hearing from the
Attorney General and Colonel Ristine.
But if this confession is to
1021
be
received against the other defendants, or if there is uncertainty as to whether
it is to be received against the other defendants, we are entitled to be
advised at once before other evidence is put on, because it might affect the
future conduct of the case; and there is no way in the world of telling,
without hearing it, whether it would or not.
Neither we nor our clients have read one word of it or heard one word of
it, except the portions that have already been read into the record, and we
have no information except as gathered vaguely from remarks relative thereto as
to what the statement contains. These
defendants would be entitled to hear it.
Now I have a suggestion to make about
it that is not seeking to beg or plead for a decision that the Commission does
not want to make or is not ready to make.
If the Commission will admit this confession only as it relates to the
defendant Dasch, then that would save the situation so far as we are concerned;
and it might be that counsel for both sides might agree that it be so limited,
and if that were done, no other question would arise. But I am sure that the Commission must
realize that what I say about having it read otherwise is reasonable. We did not offer it or urge it to be offered,
but if it is to be considered or if it might be considered against our clients,
we are entitled to hear it.
The President. Have you any remarks, Colonel Dowell?
Colonel Dowell. The suggestion has been made that copies of
this confession by Dasch be furnished to defense counsel so that they may read
the statement or confession out of court.
As I understand the law, that would not cure the right of the defendants
themselves to hear the evidence
1022
introduced
against them or that may be against them, in view of the fact that there is a
decision by the Commission pending which might cause it to be evidence against
the remainder of the defendants. I think,
as matter of law, they must hear it in open court.
The President. Is there any question in your mind, though,
as to the order? The Attorney General, I
believe, has asked to have it deferred so that he can proceed with his case.
Colonel Dowell. May it please the Commission, I think they
should hear it when it is introduced.
All the other confessions have been read at the time they were
introduced. I think they should hear it
in order to enable themselves and defense counsel to proceed with reference to
continuing evidence based upon the document.
Colonel Royall. I might add this further thought, if the
Commission please. It is the serious
purpose of the defense counsel at the close of the prosecution’s case to urge
dismissal of certain of these charges and to urge the dismissal of all of them,
certainly, as against one defendant. It
would be impossible to make that argument with any degree of intelligence
without knowing what is in the record; and to wait and read it afterwards would
not meet that situation at all. That is
a practical argument in addition to the legal right of the defendants to know
what the evidence is as it is introduced.
If it were excluded as to the other defendants it would solve it as far
as this particular statement is concerned.
The Commission will close.
(The Commission was then closed. When it reopened the following occurred.
1023
The President. The Commission is open.
The paper concerned, the so-called
confession of the defendant Dasch, will now be read.
Colonel Ristine. May I request the witness to read it. He is one of the men who—
The Attorney General. We suggest quite respectfully that defense
counsel should read this statement. This
witness heard only a part of it. Do you
think the witness ought to read it?
Colonel Ristine. I will read it, if you wish.
The President. It is a matter of having it read properly and
expeditiously without delaying the Commission as to the mechanics of it. I thought you had probably considered that
while we were considering it. I should
think, as it is introduced by the defense, it should be read by the defense,
and help be given Colonel Ristine in that respect. He can have various others help him read it.
Colonel Ristine. I will be very glad to do it.
The President. It is not a statement of the witness, of
course. He is still under
cross-examination.
The Attorney General. May we excuse the witness?
The President. No.
The witness is still on the stand.
This is yet the cross-examination, I take it. What do you understand as to the position of
the witness now on the stand?
Colonel Ristine. My understanding would be, if the Commission
please, that we would now read the entire document. I take it it would not be necessary for the
witness to remain in the room while it is being read. This witness has previously stated that this
is a transcribed record of the stenographic
1024
notes
that were taken at the time the statements were made and the questions were
asked and answered.
The President. Will you ask him to that effect?
Colonel Ristine. I have previously asked him.
The President. Will you ask him again?
Colonel Ristine. I might read that from the record.
The President. Very well.
Colonel Ristine. To show that those questions were previously
asked.
The President. Please do.
Colonel Ristine (reading): “Questions by Colonel Ristine:
“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.
“Answer. This is a statement that was signed by
defendant Dasch on June 25, 1942.
“Question. Is that a transcript record of the questions
and answers and statements made between the investigators of the F.B.I. and Mr.
Dasch on June 19 and the date it bears signature?
“Answer. 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 present, it
appears to be a transcript of the statements made by the defendant Dasch.
“Question. 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
1025
the transcript copies that were
furnished to you?
“Answer. Yes, sir, they are.”
Now, we consider that that identifies
the entire document.
The President. As I understand it, there were a number of
investigators of the F.B.I. present during the progress of the preparation of
this transcript, and certainly it is not feasible to have a rereading of this
to every witness who is on the stand.
The Attorney General. The prosecution will now stipulate that that
is Dasch’s signed confession. We do not
dispute it for a minute. It is only for
our convenience in using the agents on other matters that we suggest it is not
necessary to keep them here, having conceded the authenticity of the document
from the first page to the last page. We
prefer to use the agents for other matters, if we may.
The President. Is it agreeable to both sides to dispense
with the presence of this witness during the reading of the confession?
Colonel Ristine. It is agreeable so far as my client is
concerned.
Colonel Royall. There is no objection to that method of
procedure, provided, of course, it is definitely understood that our objection
to the substance of the confession and its admissibility as against the other
defendants is preserved.
The Attorney General. Certainly.
The President. The witness will be excused.
(The witness at this point withdrew.)
Colonel Ristine. May I proceed?
The President. Please.
1026
(DEFENDANT’S EXHIBIT A)
Colonel Ristine (reading). “
“I, George John Dasch, hereby certify I
have read the following statement consisting of 254 typewritten pages,”
The President (interposing). Colonel Ristine, you and your assistants who
may be reading that may sit down.
Colonel Ristine. Thank you.
The President. I might suggest that Colonel Ristine have
some help, to preserve himself as he conducts the case. I am not trying to put any obligation
personally on anybody in connection with this reading. Possibly some of your assistants can help
him.
Colonel Ristine. I am in this situation, if the Commission
please. I was detailed to represent Mr.
Dasch and the other counsel are representing the other seven defendants, so,
strictly speaking, I have no assistants.
I might prevail upon some of them to help me, however.
The President. Perhaps General Cox could have someone help
you. I prefer not to use the reporters,
because they can be used in connection with the preparation of the record. I should think that possibly if you will
proceed, then General Cox will plan to have some relief shortly.
Colonel Royall. We will be delighted, if it please the
Commission, to make available to Colonel Ristine any of our assistants that he
desires.
The President. Yes.
Colonel Munson. May I suggest that Colonel Ristine sit in the
witness chair and face the defendants, so they can all
1027
hear
him?
The President. Yes.
Colonel Ristine. I will start over. (
“
“I, George John Dasch, hereby certify
that I have read the following statement consisting of 254 typewritten pages,
and state that this is the material which I have dictated to Ellen E. Harrison,
Rachel M. Bowman, Pauline Fogg, Lucretia McDowell, Wilma Carney, and Donald
Oden, during the days from
“I further state that all corrections
appearing thereon in ink were made by me in my own handwriting.
“(Signed) George John Dasch
Witnesses:
Duane L. Traynor, Special Agent,
F.B.I.,
Norval D. Wills, Special Agent, F.B.I.,
N.Y.C.
Frank G. Johnstone, Special Agent,
F.B.I., N.Y.C.”
“
“The following statement was dictated
by me to Miss Ellen E. Harrison, Federal Bureau of Investigation, before
Special Agent Duane L. Traynor:
“I, George John Dasch, was born in
1028
volunteered in the same capacity with
the German Army, and on the 3rd of January I was sent to
“Although I was educated to dislike the
French people, it did not take me long to realize that they are human beings
like me. We had at that town a large
prisoners’ camp where all the English prisoners which were taken on the front
were billeted. I also had the
opportunity to come in close contact with them and found that the English
people also were human beings and not enemies, that they died for their
country, and that they had fathers and mothers just like us. The very fact that I came in contact with one
of my co-workers, Corporal Fensch, who was thirty-two years of age at that time
and a student of the University of Munich, helped me to broaden my mind in
regard to religious and social viewpoints.
“In November, 1918, the day after the
Armistice, my outfit marched back into Germany where, on the 11th of
December, I was discharged when reaching the left bank of the Rhine. I went home to my mother and found the last
contingent of German soldiers in my home town as well as my mother’s quarters. The following day, December 12, the French
Army of Occupation marched into my home town.
Since I was able to speak French, I was drafted by the City
Administration as an interpreter. The
first soldiers of the French Army I came in contact with were all fighting men
who had seen the sorrows of war. The
1029
majority of them treated not only me
but my poor countrymen in the best possible fashion, but in the spring of 1919,
after these soldiers were relieved by younger troops who had never seen actual
service in the war, the relation between the French Army of Occupation on one
side and the German citizens of my home town became antagonistic. This gave me reasons to fight for the right
of my fellow countrymen. The French were
trying to put me in prison for my activities and I was forced to flee. I went into the unoccupied zone in
“In 1920 I entered the Catholic Convent
of the Sacred Heart at
“In 1921 I was able to go into
1030
tried to get aboard a ship. I was unable to do so and in August, 1922, I
was flat broke again. I was forced to
sleep in the park. Early one morning as
I walked down the waterfront I noticed a large group of workers assembling in
front of a ferry. I had always hoped to
be able to go into the free port of the harbor of Hamburg so I decided to be
there the next morning in order to enter the harbor with those workers. I succeeded in doing so and got off at a pier
with the majority of the workers. I had
to hide at first in a baggage car because each worker went to his place of
employment and I found myself pretty much alone, but after an hour or so work
in general started and I thought it safe to leave my hiding place. I walked along the pier and looked at the
different ships. One of those ships
carried the American flag. It was the SS
Schoharie of the Kerr Line. As I stood
on the pier watching the people work, one boy, evidently a cook, threw
something overboard. I spoke to him and
begged him to get me employment for I was hungry. He could not understand me because I was
unable to speak the English language correctly.
He gave me signs to wait there, and thereafter another cook came and spoke
to me in my own language. I told him my
story that I was hungry and wanted to work.
He told me to stay there until he came off the boat. When he finally reached me, he told me that
there was a guard on board ship and the only way I could get on the ship was by
acting drunk and saying nothing. I
finally got aboard the ship. I washed
dishes and received my first American
1031
meal which consisted of corned beef and
cabbage. Due to the fact that the
Filippino mess boys on that ship were on shore spending some of their money,
they were in dire need of help so I fitted into the picture. The steward of the boat, a naturalized
American of German descent, handed me a pass which gave me the right to enter
the harbor at any time. At night I went
on shore with some of the crew members.
One of them was a young student from Philadelphia of German
parentage. He told me all about America
so I decided that I would do my best to be on board that ship when it left the
harbor, which was supposed to be four or five days after I had succeeded in
getting on board the ship.
“During my free time on the boat I
investigated the ship thoroughly in order to find a hiding place. On the day of the departure of the ship all
the people who did not belong to the crew had to leave the ship at
1032
well out to sea. My hiding place was a store room in a middle
deck which I could leave at free will so that I could find food when
needed. I went out during the night and
got my food at the crew’s mess hall.
“After seventeen days of traveling, the
ship landed at the Government Piers near Snyder Avenue in Philadelphia. I think it was on the 10th or 11th
of October, 1922, for it was Columbus Day when I reached the city. I went to work for a German baker as a
dishwasher, slept in the cellar, and was paid $5.00. When I received my first pay I left and went
to New York City by ‘bumming’ my way. In
New York City I went to the German newspaper office to buy a newspaper. While reading this, a woman clerk approached
me and asked me what I was doing so I told her I was looking for a job. She asked me if I had left a ship and I told
her I had not but that I was ‘broke’.
She promised to give me a help wanted ad on the night before it was
published. She sent me to an apartment
hotel on 38th Street and Park Avenue. I went to work there for a caterer at a
salary of $50.00 a month. I worked along
with the chef who gave me the opportunity to learn the essentials of cooking. During my three months employment on this job
I learned a lot about restaurant business.
Thereafter I went to work as a kitchen man with Hazle’s Restaurant at
“My third job in this country was that
of a fry cook at the Old Crow Restaurant, 26th and Broadway in
1033
“Ever since the day of my landing I had
one thought in my mind and that was to try to rectify the regulation of the
Immigration Law in this country. At the
end of 1923 I had saved $800.00. In
October, 1923, I went to the Barge Office of New York City with the request
that I be instructed as to how I could become a citizen of this country. They told me that I should take my first
papers out. I had previously gone to the
Old Post Office in
1034
name of George John Dasch. The officers also told me that I would have
to make a trip to
“After returning to this country I went
to work as a soda fountain clerk with the 195 Broadway Corporation. This is a subsidiary of the American
Telephone and Telegraph Company, 195 Broadway,
“In 1926 I went to
1035
to secure a position for her as nurse
at the
“After I returned from
“At first I was sent to
1036
“When I was discharged from
“I joined the Army with the belief that
by doing so I would automatically become a citizen of the
“In 1928 I went back to New York where
I had the pleasure of meeting two of my younger sisters who were brought into
this country by my older sister, Clare Dasch.
My sisters whom I met were Johanna Dasch and Lena Dasch. Both were employed at that time with the Horn
and Hardart Cafeteria. After my return
to New York I was employed as a waiter at various places.
1037
“In March, 1930, I sailed with my older
sister, Clare Dasch, on board the North German Lloyd steamer Dresden to Germany
on a re-entry permit. I remained in
Germany for about two months and re-entered the United States via New York.
“On the 18th day of
September, 1930, I married Rosemarie Guilli at the City Hall in New York
City. My wife, Rosemarie Guilli was born
in Walston, Pennsylvania. She claimed
that her parents as well as a brother and sister were dead.
1038
“In November, 1930, I sailed on the
North German Lloyd steamer Columbus with my wife to Charbourg, France, from
where I went home again to my mother. We
traveled all through France, Switzerland, Italy, Austria, and Germany. We returned to this country in March, 1931. My wife’s profession is that of a
hairdresser. I secured employment for us
both at the Greenbrier Hotel in White Sulphur Springs, my wife as a beautician
and I as a waiter. We remained there
three or four months. Thereafter we went
back to New York where my wife found employment in her trade and I went to work
as a waiter at the Glen Island Casino, New Rochelle, New York. The next year I resided with my wife in New
York City at 119 West 88th Street.
“In 1932, or 1933, I went out to
Chicago and found employment through a friend of mine with the Mission of Our
Lady of Mercy, 1160 Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois. I became a route salesman, selling sanctuary
supplies for this
1039
his position. The new manager secured a new crew of
salesmen. I was requested by Monsignor
Quille, who was the Spiritual Head of the
“I went back to
“After my return to
1040
conferences, we agreed to merge, and I
promised to present this matter to our membership. After the matter was explained to the
members, the majority voted for the merger.
“When I came into the union and was introduced
at the first general membership meeting, I was asked to take the floor, and
there I advocated in my own way a union, the principles of which are founded on
decency, and that I and my group of people would right any graft and any
actions which were not according to the law.
I was voted into the Executive Board and at the same time went to the
Labor College of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America Union to acquaint
myself with the parliamentary procedures and the inside of union organization.
“Local 168 in Mt. Vernon, of which I
have been a member, was to my sincere belief in the hands of a bunch of
chiselers and Communists. I made this an
issue at every meeting and fought them at every turn. I ran for office as Business Agent in the
election of 1938. Due to the fact that
the other side of the gang knew that nothing would stop my being elected, they
had to use trickery to stop me. The way
it was done was as follows: They get in
touch with Michael Cariga, who in the President of the Second District of
International Union in New York, and represented me to him as a pro-Nazi. After they investigated the whole setup of
that union they decided to rob the general membership of its firm right to
vote.
1041
Michael Carigo came on the night of the
general meeting and dissolved the union and at the same time reorganized the
union under a new reorganization committee.
I and my followers protested to no avail. At first the majority of the membership did
not know how they were cheated. I and a
group of loyal followers decided to make application in the District Court of
the Eighth District in White Plains for the right to operate a union under the
incorporation charter granted by this country.
I was advised to take this step by Mr. William Scott II, Attorney at Law
who lives in Elmsport, New York, but has his office in White Plains. Mr. Scott drew up an application for an
incorporated title and introduced them into the proper channels. After a period of two or three weeks my
lawyer received notice from the Board of Standard and Appeals requesting us to
be present at a public hearing in front of a referee at the State Labor Board,
City of New York. When we went there, we
found not only the leading members of that union but also Mr. Cariga and Mr. Schwartz,
who is lawyer of the International Union, and also a number of other lawyers
representing the International Union as well as the State Federation. The opposition, during this hearing, did not
refrain from slandering not only me as a person but attacked the whole idea
because they realized that this new way of legalized union was contrary to
their way of doing business. They called
upon the Little Wagner Act which was created to end labor strike. They reasoned that with the creation
1042
of a competitive union, labor strike
would flare anew. To my sorrow, their
reasoning was upheld by the Board of Standards and Appeals. My lawyer was notified by this Board that the
title of incorporation requested by us under the name of the Westchester County
Culinary Workers Union had to be denied for it was contrary to the principle of
the existing Wagner Act.
“During the time I carried on this
fight, I spent all my money.
“My mother, Frances Dasch, paid us a
visit in June, 1939. She arrived in
“For the last fifteen years I have been
opposed to the Nazi Movement in principle.
In 1930, as well as in 1931, when I was in
1043
very fact that the German people, after
having given their confidence to various parties with all kinds of political
beliefs, have not been able to bring the German masses out of the morass in
which they found themselves. Hitler not
only impressed upon the basic educated mind of the German people the theory of
military might, but was clever enough to promise them a new era of social
happiness. The very fact that the German
people have suffered, and by suffering are politically educated, proved to be
the success of Hitler’s cause for he had not only a down and out people to work
with, but also a people of political understanding. His job was to direct that political
knowledge of the German people to his advantage, which he was very successful
in doing.
“I discussed my political beliefs about
Hitler while I was here with various people, among them my brother, Ernst
Dasch, who resides today in
“When my mother finally came to this
country to pay us a visit, I had ample opportunity to get some real facts for I
knew that my mother, who had been before the rise of Hitler active as a social
worker with the Socialist Party, would have a thorough under-
1044
standing 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 been closed to the truth.
“In 1938 I had a chance to study the
tactics of the Bund in the City of New York.
The husband of my cousin, Rheinhold Bart, who was at the time employed
at the Long Island Railroad as a technician, was at the same time a leading
member of the Bund. He approached me and
tried to persuade me to become a member of the Bund for he reasoned that I
could be valuable to them. I argued that
I would have to investigate the organization before I reached a decision. I went to two or three different meetings,
one of them at Madison Square Garden and the other one at the Westchester
County Auditorium. During that time I
had ample opportunity to study their tactics.
I expressed myself to Rheinhold Bart in the following way:
“I reasoned that the whole Nazi setup
was first contrary to the Constitution of the United States for it bred race
hatred; second, it professed to be a
1045
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
“Before the creation of the Bund in
this country we had numerous societies for German-American such as the Stauben
Society, the Turner 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 house fires burning.’ When the Bund was created, they forced those
organizations either to join the new friends of
“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
1046
‘this means war.’ To our sorrow she sailed on or about
“During the time I had my fight with
the union, I thought it was high time for me to take time out and become a
citizen of this country, or to secure my final citizenship papers. I made my application for my final
citizenship papers after I was able to prove the citizenship of my wife at the
Federal Court on
“When, on the 3rd day of
September, my country went into the war, I decided to let the application for
citizenship slide for I reasoned that I was to be compared with a rat leaving
the ship if, at the time of war, I would renounce the citizenship of my birth,
because I was partly convinced by my mother that Hitler and Germany were on the
right track. The fact that
1047
“I worked in 1939 and 1940 in
- - -
“The following was dictated by George
John Dasch to Donald Oden, FBI, in the presence of Duane L. Traynor, Special
Agent:
“During the year of 1939 and 1940, I
was very anxious to find a way to go back to my home country and do my share in
this war. I went to the German
Consulate,
“After months and months, I returned to
the Consul with the same plea to be able to go back, but
1048
I always found deaf ears. They told me it was impossible; no one was
going back. Why I wasn’t able to go back
I found out after I made the acquaintance of a woman employed at the Consulate
who happened to be from near my home town.
She explained that the reason I was unable to go back was because I was
politically not sound in a Nazi way.
That got my fighting Dutch up. I
went to Washington to the German Embassy and stated my claim there. I was able to see Dr. Ritter, who, after
prolonged cross examination, proposed that I go back to Germany at the expense
of the German Government. He suggested that
I return to New York and await further developments.
“I believe it was December, 1940, when
I received a notice from the German Consulate in New York to appear at their
office. There I was requested to give
them my life story – my political creed.
This I had to falsify because I could not tell them the fact that only
during the recent past had I happened to believe in their ideas. They also wanted to know about the
nationality of my wife. Due to the
Neutrality Act, it was impossible that my wife sail with me on an American
passport to which she was entitled because of her American citizenship. So the officers of the German Consulate
suggested that if I could prove by marriage certificate that we were legally
married, which I was able to do, she would receive a German passport. This was arranged, and I believe both new
passports were made out about the
1049
middle of January.
“My little wife took sick at that time,
which at the beginning was diagnosed by the doctor as an infection in her
uterus. During the months of January and
February she was a very sick woman so I decided to change doctors and take her
to a hospital. I took her to the Bronx
Hospital where she was admitted about the middle of February, 1941. My wife remained under observation for over
10 days and finally she was operated on.
Her sickness was very severe. Her
left ovary had to be removed. The fact
that she lost a lot of blood, which weakened her condition, created blood clots
in her system and I were to take the doctor’s words, she was a dying
person. But luckily enough she had
sufficient vitality physical strength, and through the application of the
proper medicine, she got well. When I
visited my wife on Friday the 21st, she was on the road to
recovery. I told her at that time that
she was to remain in the hospital for another week or so and that after that we
would finish getting her German papers.
By that I meant to get her a Spanish visa. The Spanish Consulate refused to issue the
visa unless she called for it personally.
I explained that this was impossible for she was sick. This delayed her departure from this country
considerably.
1050
“When I got home to my sister’s house
at College Point that night, 21st of March, 1941, I found a telegram
from the German Consul requesting me to appear at their office
immediately. I got there on Saturday the
22nd at nine o’clock and waited until nine-thirty when the officers
arrived. Then I was told that I could
sail. When I asked when, he said, ‘today
at 6:30.’ I thought of my wife in the
hospital and at the same time I also remembered the hell I had raised with the
Consul for the chance of going home, so, therefore, I reached the quick
decision to sail. I had to get my
sailing permit, go over to the NYK line to get my ticket, and go to the
Japanese Consulate, and that all before twelve o’clock. Thereafter, I sent telegrams to my sisters
and brother to assemble over at College Point at my sister’s house. I took the subway and bus there. When I arrived, I saw my little brother. I took a bath, packed two suitcases, for I
was instructed by the German Consulate to take along exactly 70 pounds of
weight because the Russian Railroad would not allow more personal
belongings. My little brother took me
over to 5th Street and I took a bus which left at 6:30 or 7:00 out
of New York.
“After a five day trip by bus across
the country, I arrived at San Francisco where I reported according to
instructions from the New York German Consulate at the German Consulate in San
Francisco. I went to a hotel which was
located near Perry Street, the exact name of which I do not remember. When I got to this hotel, I noticed a lot of
other young people. I recog-
1051
nized them in the way of appearance and
carriage as Germans. The next morning I
had to go to the NYK Line in San Francisco and went on board the Japanese
Steamer ‘Tatuta Maru.’ This was on the
morning of the 27th of March, 1941, from Pier 25. As I boarded the ship alone, I noticed that
the movement of the Germans were being shadowed by officers of the FBI. When I got downstairs into my cabin to put by
bags on my bunk, I was approached by a person who asked me in a short manner
what my name was. I told him George John
Dasch. He said to me, ‘Let me see your
passport,’ which I showed him. Then he
requested me to go on deck of the ship and I told him that any time he wished
to see me I would be at his service. I
did not go on deck ship but lingered around to observe in way and manner the
Agents of the FBI examined.
“When finally the boat went through the
Golden Gate, I said goodbye not only to San Francisco, Saughties (?) (described
as small town across bay from S. F.), and the Tamalpais Mountains, but also to
a country with its people who had been kind, good, and understanding, but also
on the other side, cold and rude to me.
On the day of arrival in San Francisco, I had to go to the German
Consulate where I was greeted by a gentleman by the name of Loeb. He greeted me in the typical Nazi manner and
gave me instructions how to behave on the trip.
He said I should be very careful, say nothing, and be very much on guard
even among the German travelers because they were coming from all sections of
the country and there-
1052
fore he stated there might even be an
Agent of the FBI among them.
“When the ship got out on the high
seas, after a day or so, I noticed that I was isolated by my fellow German
travelers. I heard as I entered a cabin,
‘Be quite, here he comes.’ ‘Say,’ I said
to myself, ‘By Christ, these think I’m the Agent.’ When we finally reached Honolulu it was on
the 1st of April. I went on
shore by myself and spent a few hours.
We remained there only a short time and I reflected on the memories of
the happy days I had spent in Honolulu and got back on board ship just before
sailing. Some of the Germans who ran
around Honolulu in a group got back on board in a drunken state. A few of them came over to me and said, ‘Why
we are surprised that you are still here.
We all thought you were an Agent.’
That same night we counted the noses.
We were 40 men in second and third class, and one man, wife, and a child
in first class. That same night those
little Germans who were so scared during the voyage from ‘Frisco to Honolulu
came into the room. They formed a Nazi
organization right away and set down a program of entertainment and
singing. I naturally joined them. Their speeches were made in typical Nazi
manner and Nazi songs were sung, which naturally I couldn’t follow because I
didn’t know the words. I made one
mistake when they asked the audience to rise and greet the Fuhrer. When the word ‘heil’ and ‘seig’ were shouted,
I happened to have my left hand in my pocket.
For that I was reprimanded the following morning and brought to
1053
a trial. The trial board, which fixed it up
themselves, decided that a report was to be made on my behavior when we arrived
in Berlin. For truthfully it would have
been a denial of my own self convictions if I had endorsed their way of
reasoning. I believed and acted as a free
man. This, to my sorrow, was contrary to
their conviction. On the same night, I
got a beautiful beating up.
“On the 11th day of April,
we reached Yokohama. That same night we
went to Tokyo where we were split up in two different hotels. One group stayed at the ‘Taiti’ and the other
group at the ‘Ysachima’. I belonged to
the latter group. The next morning we
all had to appear at the German Embassy in Tokyo where we received further
instructions about securing our visas through Manchuria and Russia. I didn’t have any trouble securing my visa
through Manchuria, but the Russian Embassy in Tokyo refused to give us visas to
go through Russia because the 1st of May was near and during this
time no one is allowed to travel through Russia.”
The President. How many pages have been read, please?
Brigadier General Cox. Thirteen, sir. I am starting with the 14th page.
The President. What are the indications of procedure under
the conditions, Mr. Attorney General?
Have you any wishes to express?
The Attorney General. I will conform to any procedure that the
Commission and counsel desire, of course.
Shall we run to 5 o’clock?
The President. We will proceed with the reading until
1054
5
o’clock.
(The reading of the statement of George
John Dasch was resumed as follows:)
“On the 22nd day of April I
left Tokyo with three other boys and went by train to Shimohoseki (city in
lower end of Japan) where we took a ferry boat which brought us, after a
night’s travel, to Fusan on the Manchurian mainland. There we boarded a train which took us over
Mukden to Tingsien. There I took another
train to Harbin. As we came to Harbin,
we found a great number of other German nationals in various hotels who had
come from all centers of the Far East.
Many of them were representatives of German Firms and young followers of
military age who were sent back at the cost of the German Government.
“On or about the 2nd day of
May, we left Harbin on a special train and arrived after a day and a half’s
voyage at the Manchurian-Russian border.
On the 5th day of May we crossed the Russian border at
Manchuli and came to Otpor. After
examination of our papers and luggage, we continued our voyage to Cheetah where
we reached the junction of the Trans-Siberian Railroad, Moscow to
Vladivostok. On the 11th day
of May, we reached
1055
and traveled over
“We left Malkinia at
1056
“At
1057
“We were given 250 marks traveling
expenses, and on the next day, May 14th, I went home to my mother
with instructions that after two weeks time I should report to the office of
returning Germans in Stuttgart. I
remained with my mother for 10 days, during which time I received two letters
from America. Both were sent from my
sister Johanna Nunn of College Point, New York City. The first one told me that my wife would
probably sail from New York in the near future, while the second one told me
definitely that she had left on the 26th of April, 1941, on board
the Spanish Steamer ‘Marquies de Camille.’
At that time it must have been already the 25th of May and my
wife had not arrived yet. That made me
worry. I did not wait for the 15 days to
be over but went to Stuttgart directly to find out whether I could hear
something about my wife and at the same time finish up my business.
“When I got to Stuttgart, I was told in
a snippish way by one of the officers that I was not supposed to have gone to
Stuttgart because my home town does not belong to the District of Stuttgart,
but that I had to go to Saarbrucken. I
could not find out anything about the whereabouts of my wife but at least wanted
to find out why I was supposed to go to Stuttgart. There I was told that I was to get a pass
which would give me the chance to go and get a working book. In other words, it was supposed to be the
beginning of my being regimented into the German system. The fact though that I had to go to Saarbrucken
even and at the same time allow me a
1058
few days to be free, I came to the
following conclusion: First, I was only
registered at the police, I was otherwise a free man. I could move around and I made the following
observation: First, that bureaucracy is
existing in
“While I was in Stuttgart, I paid a
visit to some of my cousins, among them the wife of Rheinhold Barth, the very
same person who up until 1938 resided in the
1059
“When I left Stuttgart, I traveled over
to Osterbugen where the father of my brother-in-law, Adolf Nunn the husband of
my sister Johanna, lives. When I finally
found the father of my brother-in-law, I found a downhearted person. My mother had told me before I left when I
told her of my intentions of paying this man a visit that somehow to her
knowledge this man had some trouble with the Nazi Party. When I gained his confidence after a few
glasses of wine, he broke down in tears and told me because of his religious
belief and fighting heart, he, a man of 73 years of age, spent nine months in a
concentration camp. He is of the
Catholic faith. He is a very devout
Catholic. During this sorrowful time,
his wife died. He was in such a state of
mind that he was begging to die. He was
very much interested in the welfare of his son, and when I told him that he
should not have any fear, he was relieved.
“When I got home to my mother, she
wanted to find out how far I had progressed.
I told her that I had to go to Wiesdaden. My mother had in the meanwhile approached a
person who is an officer of the I. G. Farben Industries. This firm sent me a letter with a request
that I pay them
1060
a visit at their office in
“I went to Frankfort but not to the I.
G. Farben Industries but went directly to the station and took the first train
to Berlin. When I got to Berlin I knew
only one office where I could have contact where I was known and that was the
main office of the returning Germans. I
went to the manager, a fellow by the name of Mueller, and made my request known
to him. He told me in short words that
officially he could not help me; that he could not understand what I
wanted. So I told him, ‘I fight my own
way.’ I thereafter went to the Office of
the Ministry of Propaganda where I presented my passport
1061
at request and was directed into the
office of the American Division of the ministry. The officer I spoke to was a Dr. Ullman. I told him that the reason of my coming to
him was that I was able to put my knowledge of the American way of reasoning
into use and furthermore I made the blank statement that their propaganda
towards
“The following morning I went
there. Fortunately it was my luck that
this time I came into the hands of a quiet person who had some form of
understanding of what I wanted because he himself, as he claimed, had lived for
sometime in foreign countries. He
directed me into the office of a Dr. Henn.
This Dr. Henn was a representative of the Secret Military Branch of the
Foreign Organization.
1062
At that time I did not know that this
were true. He requested my life story,
of which I had a number of copies with me.
Thereafter, he stated that he knew exactly where he should put me and
with whom I should get in contact. He
called up the German High Command and asked for a Lieutenant Colonel
Luehrs. He was unable to reach that person
so he asked me to return after luncheon to see him again. When I returned, he gave me a letter
addressed to this Lieutenant Colonel at the headquarters of the General Staff
at the Tirpitz Ufer in
“When I reached that office, I was told
that this officer was not with the General Staff any more and for that reason I
could not have entrance to the building.
I pleaded with the officer with all my might, explaining to him that the
contents of the letter would be of great value to the right person. So after much pleading, he asked one of the
non-commissioned officers to take me to the 4th floor to a certain
room. When we got there, we were told
that the officer we were supposed to see had moved and no one could tell us
where. So this non-commissioned officer
told me that he would take me back downstairs again. So I asked him to kindly give me the letter
for a moment. At this very moment I
stood in front of a door and knocked at the door and walked right in and closed
the door behind me. A staff officer with
red stripes, I think he was a colonel, approached me and asked me what I
wanted. So I told him that I had a
letter to Lieutenant Colonel Luehrs but to my sorrow I
1063
had learned that he was no longer
there; that I had had a great deal of trouble getting in there and that I was
anxious to get the contents of this letter known. I requested him to open the letter, which he
refused for the letter was not addressed to him. I begged him to do so and finally tore the
letter open and handed the letter back to him so that he could read the
contents. After reading it, he merely
said to me, ‘Come right in old man.’
Outside the non-commissioned officer on the door stood shivering. The staff officer advised him to go right
back where he came from and took me into the office to Captain Spies. There I was treated very cordially. After he read the letter, he requested me to
sit down and smoke a cigarette and he cross-examined me as to what I knew about
America. Thereafter, he introduced me to
a Major Hotzel. I was then requested to
return the following day, after I had made sure that this time my entrance into
the building was secure, to meet the person who handled the cases of this
office for the United States. There I
found out that this Captain Spies had Central America.
“The following was dictated by George
John Dasch to Pauline Fogg, Federal Bureau of Investigation, in the presence of
Duane L. Traynor, Special Agent:
“On the next day which was, at my best
recollection, the third day of June, 1941, I had for the first time in my life
the pleasure of meeting Lieutenant Kappe.
He was in uniform. I was at the
same time introduced to another
1064
person in civilian clothes. His name I do not recollect anymore. On the day before I had left my passport and
my life story in the hands of Captain Spies.
Those two gentlemen requested to me to go to another office which had an
appearance of a drawing room. There they
started to cross examine me about my life in the United States; what I did; how
long I had been there; my participation in political sense as well as in
general. I made a request that I would
like to join the German army, to which Lieutenant Kappe replied that I am crazy
because he would give me two weeks and I would be sitting high and dry. He stated further that he’d trust me to be a
person who could be used to much better advantage than that of a soldier. He made me an offer whether I wanted to work
for the German foreign office or whether I would be willing to participate in
some other form of endeavor. What form
he did not make clear. When I asked him
to explain to me what kind of work I was supposed to do at the foreign office,
he stated that he had me in mind to work as a monitor in a listening station
for all foreign broadcasts. I told him
that I was willing to do that. He then
called up a gentleman by the name of Ferra, who was the head of an organization
under the jurisdiction of the German foreign office which was designated the
following name: Sonderdienst
Seehaus. I happened to hear during this
conversation he had with Mr. Ferra that he had previously taken away from this
office two men and that he promised to replace them and that he was convinced
1065
that I was the right person for the
job. I immediately started out to that
office which is located at 24 Grossen Wannse.
“I got into a conference on the same
night with this Dr. Ferra. To my
satisfaction I was able to talk the English language. That night I was officially hired at a salary
of 450 marks monthly. In addition to
that 75 marks, which is an additional pay given to government workers. I was also sworn in that night to secrecy and
was informed of the punishment if I would violate my oath. I asked Mr. Ferra to give me a few days to go
home to my mother to get my belongings.
One other thing, I wish to state that during the time of my travels in
Berlin, I contacted Dr. Kundt of the German foreign office, Branch E. There I was trying to find out the
whereabouts of my wife. I was told that
the German government has already requested of the Spanish government the story
of the whereabouts of the Marquis de Camille.
1066
“I started my employment with the
foreign office officially on the 6th day of June, 1941. I was assigned to the American group, which
at that time stood under the leadership of an American boy out of New Jersey by
the mane of Fred Linge. Also a brother
of his by the name of Bill Linge was employed there. Those two were the only American
citizens. I know it was a fact that they
were born near Newark, New Jersey, and had returned to Germany sometime before
the war with their parents. Linge
claimed that he at one time studied at Alabama University.
“The purpose of this listening post was
to gather all the news, propaganda, and articles which the world’s radio
stations sent out daily for twenty-four hours.
In that office fifty-three different languages were spoken. The monitor’s job was to receive the
transmission word for word and translate them into the German language. Three types of apparatus for the reception
were used; first, the magnetaphone; second, wire reception, and third, by
records. Each room was equipped with
three kinds of radio reception apparatus.
The American and South American group was connected to a specially built
antenna (Rumpus ?). Also attached on
that antenna was a separate office where at least twelve different types of
radios were in, amongst them American-made radios. The purpose of this office was to trace and
keep record of time and station of every radio station in the world, including
secret centers. Through this listening
post the following representatives of
1067
the cabinet were represented: First, foreign office; second, office of
secretary of interior; third, office of propaganda minister; fourth, office of
the press; fifth, the postal service, and sixth, the German High Command. All those offices, including the office of
Foreign Minister Ribbentrop, were directly connected via teletype, any news of
political or any other value could directly be sent to the respective offices.
“When I reached Berlin, I had to experience
a shortage of housing. I was fortunate
to find a room at No. 10 Schoeneberger Street, Staglitz, Berlin. My landlady, Mrs. Christine Stauf, happened
to be a member of the NSDAP and also an active worker of the NSV. To my surprise, I got out of her after a
short while the fact that it was her duty to report what kind of papers I
read. I had the opportunity to meet a
lot of women which assembled at my landlady’s house. All of them were active party members. After a length of time I was able to notice
even amongst them a great amount of dissatisfaction in regards to the food
situation as well of the general war conditions. They all seemed to be very tired of this
war. My landlady invited me one night to
the meeting hall of the party section to which she was assigned to: I found at
least 300 men and women there. But to my
surprise you could feel the sense of fear right amongst them. None of them spoke very much and when they
did speak they mumbled. I walked out of
the place saying, ‘Why, Christ, they are all scared of each other.’ During my stay in Germany, I took ample
opportunities to go
1068
into the general life to investigate
the social conditions as well as the mental attitude of the everyday
people. Workers in the northern section
of Berlin, which has always been the hotbed of the Communists, are easily
seventy per cent against Hitler. I met a
young woman who told me more about the news of the foreign radio stations than
I knew. She told me that in certain
sections there is a good radio and in another section are others. One or two people get together and tell what
they have heard.
“As I came to Mannheim about six weeks
ago, I got in contact with a business man.
I was ushered through a distant relation of mine into a group of businessmen. After I was introduced, that relation of mine
merely said the following words, ‘Go ahead, boys, and talk. He’s one or our boys.’ And there I also got ample evidence that the
German people are listening to the reception not only of American or English
radio stations but also to the news which comes out of Russia. Another widely distributed propaganda line is
that the enemies started and wanted the war.
If you have the opportunity as I had to study the existing conditions
and facts it comes clear to your eyes that this war was painfully developed
many years ago. Hitler boasts in his
propaganda of having given Germany master roads. But after close observation of the road map
you see that those roads are always close to the border of the country which
they are attacking. Five weeks
1069
ago I had been up to Bitterfeldt to
visit for instruction purposes the aluminum works. That factory, which was, according to the
manager’s own words, built under the four-year plan in 1936, was built in such
a fashion that it was immune to airplane attack. That was a statement proved to me again that
the Germans planned this war a long time ago.
In my own home town they built a bridge over the Rhine. They gave the German people the peoples’
radio set with a short reception range.
This was done from a long range viewpoint that in case of war the German
people could only listen to what they wanted them to.
“At Braunenschweig they built a plant
for the people’s cars. They made the
German people sign up as a future buyer and made them, already as far back as
1937, to pay for this car, which, up to today, they have never received. That factory ever since 1938 has built
nothing but tanks. All these facts,
which after a thorough examination came to my mind, convinced me the more so
that Hitler has wanted this war.
Therefore, I, as a little person, made a vow to die to get at him
(Hitler).
- - -
“The following was dictated by George
John Dasch to Rachel M. Bowman, FBI, in the presence of Duane L. Traynor,
Special Agent:
“After it became clear to me that this
whole set up of Naziism has to be fought, I had to find a way to do it. In the country itself I was unable to do
1070
any effective work. So therefore I had to find a way to leave the
country. In my office there was a
co-worker by the name of Misa Leonhardt who was born in
“I spoke to Miss Leonhardt while
working with her during the night. She
told me that she was active in the Bund movement in the
1071
whether he knows Mr. Ritter. I merely said that he is a ‘traitor and a bum
and is no good for
“After I knew Miss Leonhardt for a
short time, she approached me one night and said ‘It is an awful crime that a
man of your intelligence and your knowledge of American life should waste his
time here doing this kind of work where you could be much more to the service
of your country in America.’ I said,
‘What do you mean?’ She said, ‘You know
there are ways where you can be used.’ I
was right away interested. I said, ‘Whom
do you know, who can I see?’ So she
mentioned a First Lieutenant Kolbe, an officer of Espionage No. 3 where she was
recently employed. His office was
supposed to be in Budapest Strasse 24.
The first chance I had I tried to look up this address, and to my sorrow
I found that building a false address. I
went back and told Miss Leonhardt about it and that I was unable to find him
under that address. She promised that
she would take me there at her best time.
One of the women who came to pay a visit quite regularly at my
landlady’s house was a woman whose daughter was employed by the German High
Command, in which capacity or branch she was employed I do not know.
“During the time I was so interested in
finding Lieutenant Kolbe that young lady happened to pay a visit to my landlady
and I merely questioned her whether she could tell me where I could find that
office and the meaning of Intelligence – 3.
She told me that it was censorship and asked me why I was
1072
interested. So I related to her the conversation I had
with Miss Leonhardt out of which she gathered that I was interested in coming
in contact with spy activities. She said
‘If you are interested, kindly give me your life story’ and said if I had any
recommendations I should mention those people.
So I mentioned Lieutenant Kappe whom I had met again at a gathering of
German citizens who had previously resided in the United States. This meeting took place every first Sunday of
the month in a restaurant where Lieutenant Kappe was usually the master of
ceremonies. The time I saw him he merely
approached me by asking how I am doing and at that time I told him that I was
not quite satisfied with my activities that I felt I should do something bigger
and better for my country. He told me
that I should bide my time; in due time he would call on me.
“After, I had given that young lady who
was employed with the German High Command my life story and she had promised me
to present it to her office which was on a Friday night, I received the
following Monday a message from my friend Reinholt Barth, who in the meanwhile,
through the influence of Lieutenant Kappe who is also a personal friend of
Barth’s from America, advanced to the grade of Warrant Officer of the General
Staff of the Army (OKH) where he and his fellow co-workers in that department
were employed to analyze the technical and all enemy airplanes and motors. I received from him a message to report
directly
1073
to the General Headquarters, Room
1025. Lieutenant Kappe he stated further
was very sore at me. Before I went to
the General Headquarters I paid Barth a visit at his office and ask him what it
was all about. He said Walter Kappe was
very sore at me for not having told him of my plans. I should come directly over to his office. I made an appointment from Barth’s office and
called Kappe by a phone, where he requested me to appear directly. When I got there he said, ‘You’re a hell of a
nice guy. Do you realize when you left
this office what I asked you to do?
Whenever you have anything on your mind please come back to this office
and tell me about it.’ So he told me
further that ever since the first time he had seen me and I spoke to him he had
me picked out for a certain job, to which at that time he did not wish to make
a definite statement but explained that it had something to do with Military Espionage. I told him that it was rather odd that he did
not tell me anything a long time ago.
This meeting took placed the end of November of last year.
“He told me that something of very
importance is in the makeup but that the permission to start this undertaking
has not been granted yet by the German High Command because the German foreign
office is opposed to it. I knew right
there and then when I left that office that the mission for which I was
appointed was to be in
1074
offend or raise any issue with the
Government of the
The President. I think we will adjourn now. Before adjournment are there any remarks from
either side? If not, the Commission is adjourned
to 9:30 o’clock tomorrow.
(At 5 o’clock p. m. an adjournment was
taken until Thursday, July 16, at 10 o’clock a.m.)