Malmedy Hearings US Senate - Volume I 1949

-MALMEDY
-- MASSACRE lNVESTlGATlCIN
HEARINGS
"
I
,L - S-A
I , SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COM~ITTEEON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-FIRST CONGRESS
F I R S T SESSION
P U R S U A N T TO
S. Res. 42
INVESTIGATION O F ACTION O F ARMY W I T H R E S P E C T TO
T R I A L O F PERSONS RESPONSIBLE F O R 'THE MASSACRE
O F AMERICAN SOLDIERS, BATTLE O F T H E BULGE,
NEAR MALMEDY, BELGIUM, DECEMBER 1944
APRIL 18, 20, 22, 29, MAY 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13,
16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, JUNE 1, 2, 3, 6, 1949
Printed f o r t h e use of t h e Committee on Armed Services
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT P R I N T I N G O F F I C E
WASHINGTON : 1949
COMMITTEE 'ON ARMED S E R V I C E S

MILLARD E . TYDINGS, Maryland, Chairman.
RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Georgia STYLES BRIDGES, New Hampshire
HARRY FLOOD BYRD, Virginia CHAN GURNEY, South Dakota
VIRGIL CHAPMAN, Kentucky L E V E R E T T SALTONSTALL, Massachusette
LYNDON B. JOHNSON, Texas WAYNE MORSE, Oregon
E S T E S KEFAUVER, Tennessee RAYMOND E . BALDWIN, Connecticut
L E S T E R C. H U N T Wyoming WILLIAM F. KNOWLAND, California
J. NELSON TRIBBY, Ckrk
RAYMOND E . BALDWIN, Connectiuut, Sz~bcommitteeChairman
E S T E S KEFAUVER, Tennessee
L E S T E R C. HUNT, Wyoming
CONTENTS
LIST OF WITNESSES
Page
Ahens, Kenneth F - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 102
Bailey, James J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 154
Byme, Maj. Robert E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
Carpenter, Lt. Col. Edwin J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883
Dwinnell, Lt. Col. John S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403,441
Ellis, Lt. Col. Burton F - - - - - - - _ - - _ - -. - - _ 28,171,382.

_ 409,514,603,713, 715,
745, 754,764, 768, 795,834
Ellowita, morris-----^------------------------- 131
Evans, John T e m p l e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 322
Fanton, Maj. Dwight F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270,473,508
Pinucane, J a m e s _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 949,1102
Fitzgerald, William T. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
Guth Paul C - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 939
h r b & u g h , Brig. Gen. James L. J r _ - - _ - - - _ - - _ - - - _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1146 -
Karan, Dr. M a x - _ ~ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - - _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 844 -
King, John Wyckliffe- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- 555
Lary, Virgil P., J r _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1028 --
Micklewaite, Col. Claude B - - - _ - _ _ - - _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 909
Owens, Jack A _ - _ - _ _ - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 350
Perl, Dr. William R _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -6 09,658, 695,731,1125
Perry, Lt. Col. Charles J - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -927 ---
Raymond, Col. John M . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Ricker, Dr. john-----^_----------------------------- 862
Hoyall, Hon. Kenneth C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.
Scalise, D. A _ ~ _ _ _ - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 112
Shumacker, Paul-------------------------------------------------- 803
Simpson, Judge G o r d o n - - - - - - _ _ - - ~ . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 190
Sloane, Herbert J - _ ~ - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 897
Straight, Lt. Col. Clio E------- - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - 925,1047
Strong, Herbert J ----- - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - 571 '
Sutton, Granger G - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1169

Teil, B u r t - - - ~ _ - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ,543
Unterseher, Calvin George. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 640
Van Roden, Judge Edward LeRoy ------..--------------..------- 225,301,1073
CONTENTS
BY DATES
April 18. Statement of Hon. Kenneth C. Royal], Secretary of the Army- - _ .

April 20:
Testimony of Lt. Col. Burton F. Ellis, JAGD, Headquarters, Sixth
Armv-___-_--_---_------------------------------------.----
~nsertibn:S tatement of Lt. Col. Burton F. Ellis _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ -__--
Insertion: Statement of Lt. Col. Charles J. Perry, AGD, dated March
16 1 9 4 7 _ . _ - _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1nse;tion: Letter from James J . Bailey, court reporter, Pittsburgh,
Pa., t o Senator Joseph R. McCarthy - _ - _ - - - _ _ - _ - - - - - - -
April 22:
Testimony of Col. John M. Raymond, USA (retired) Chairman of the
Administration of Justice Review Board____ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - -
Insertion: Lctter from Senator Joseph R. McCarthy t o Senator Ray-
mond E. Baldwin, dat,ed April 31, 1949- - - - - - _ _ -_- - _ _ - - _ _ - - - - . . - -
Testimony of Kenneth F. Ahrens_-,- - _ _ _ .------------
Testimony of D. A. Scalise__l__ - - - - _ _- - - - > - - - - - - - - --.- - --l----- -
Insertion: Let,ter from Karl Kronmuller of Stuttgart, Germany, to
D. A.
Testimony of Morris Ellowitz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
N CONTENTS
April 29: Page
Testimony of James J . Bailejr _ _ _ _ _ . - 154
Insertion: Evcerat from a letter written bv Herbert J. Strone of New
Yorlr t o Senator Joseph R. McCarthy _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ..

- 170
Insertion: Affidavit of Dietrich Schnell relating t o medical treatment
given Rlalmedy suspects a t Schwabisch Hall (from Report of -4d-
ministration of Justice Review Board) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - __ . _ - _ _ - - - - - 184
Insertion: Letter from a veteran living in Santa Monica t o Senator
Joseph R. McCarthy _ 185
Insertion: Letlm from Bernard Schuelingkamp, a former interpreter a t
Rchwabisch Hall. t o James J. Bailey - - _ _ _ _ - __ ----- 189
Testimony of Judge Gordon Simpson - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ 190_

_
Insertion: Copy of cablegram dated July 16, 1948, from Secretary of
t h e Army Royal1 t o Gen. Lucius D. Clay arranging for the Simpson
survey of Dachau war crimes trials program _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - - - - - - - 192
May 4: Testimonj. of Judge Edward LeRoy Van Roden _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ - - - - -225
May 5:
Statement and testimony of Maj. Dwight F. Fanton _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - -270
Insertion : Excerpt from Wigmore on Evidence (Exhibit A ) - _ _ _ - - - - - 282
Insertion: Memorandum dated February 9, 1946, from Maj. Dwight F.
Fanton t o Lt. Col. Burton F. Ellis _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ 288_

_-
Testimony of Judge Edward LeRoy Van Roden (resumed) - - _ - - - - - - 301
May 6:
Testimony and statement of John Temple Evans - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - -322 - -
Insertion: Letter dated March 29, 1949, from Lt. Col. Burton F. Ellis
t o John Temple E v a n s _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 343
Testimony of Jack A. Owens _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - 350 --

-.
-
Testimonv of William T. Fitzgerald _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - _
M a y 9:
362
Testimony of Maj. Robert E. Byrne, JAGD _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - 374 - . . -

- - - -
Insertion: Affidavit of Father Louis Desire Bloclrian, L a Gleize, Bel-
gium, dated June 18, 1 9 4 6 - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - L401 - -

- - - -
Testimony of Lt. Col. John S. Dwinnell, JAGC, Headquarters, First
403
417
441
May 11:
Testimony of Maj. Dwight F. Fanton (resumed) . - - - - - - - - - - - - . . -473

---
Letter from German Bishop A. G. Mentz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530
Testimonv of K u r t T e i L - - - - _ . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -543
---
May 12:
Testimony of John Wyckliffe King _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -555 - -
Testimony of Herbert J . Strong (including prepared statement) - _ - _ 571
Insertion: Let,ter from Maj. Gen. Thomas H . Green, Judge Advocate
General of the Army, with tabulation on disposition of sentences
regarding reviews of record of trial i n Malmedy cases- _ _ - _ - - - _ - - - 586, 588
Affidavit of German dentist, Dr. Edward Knorr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 601.
M a y 16:
Insertion: Letter dated May 10, 1949, from V i r ~ i lP. 1,ary t o Senator
Raymond E. Baldwin and reply of Senator Baldwin dated May 14,
656,657
Testimony of Dr. William R. Perl (resumed) _ _ . . - _ _...---..------- _-- 658
May 17:
Testimony of Dr. William R. Perl (resumed) - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - ._ - - - - - - - ..-- 695
Insertion: Statements of Otto TVichniann and Dr. K u r t Sickel
(translated) together with sketehes of commander's room, German
Command Post a t Petit Thiers and scenes of shooting of American
prisoner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 700
Insertion: Affidavit of Dr. H u s h hledak relative t o Austrian judicial
p r o c e d u r e s _ _ - _ _ _ ~ - _ . - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~786 ~ -
- ~
May 18: Testimony of D?. William R. Perl (resumed)_ _ _. -_ _ _ -_ _ -_ _ _ ---- 731
May 19: Testiniony and statement of Ralph Shumacker__ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _- _ - _ - .- 803
CONTENTS
iviaj i;i;
Statement t o the chairman (Senator Raymond E. Raldwin) from
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy announcing his retirement from t h e
hearings- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - - .. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Insertion: Press releasc dated i\1aj7 20, 1949, issued by Senator Joseph
R. R'lcCarthy on the same sul~ject-- _ _ _ _ - _ - __ _ - - _ _ _- __- _ - _ _ _----
Statement of Senator Raymond E. Baldwin in reply t o Senator
ICl ccarthy's statement withdrawing from the hearings___ - _ - _ - _ - - - -
Insertion: Letter dated April 21, 1940, from Senator i\tcCarthy t o
Senator Baldwn--. - - - - _- - - - - _- - - - - - - - - _ - _ - - --_-

- - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Testimony of Dr. Max Karan_-- - - - _ - - - _- _- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - __ _ - _ - _- _- _ -
Insertion: Letter t o Senator Joseph R. McCarthy dated Map 6, 1949,
from the Bishop of Fargo, Apostolic Visitator in Germany (Stuttgart)
referring to alleged brutalit,ies occurring a t Landsberg Prison- _ _ _ -_ .
Insertion: Article from New York Herald Tribune of May 5, 1949,
entitled."German clergy accuse United States of brutality in Lands-
berg J a l l v - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Insertion: Letter from t h e Department of t h e Army dated May 19,

1949, commenting on charges made by Bishop of Fargo- - - - - - - - - -
Testimonv of Dr. John Ricker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
May 23:
Testimony of Lt. Col. Edwin J. Carpenter, Headquarters, First Cav-
alry Division, Tokyo _ - - - - - - - - - - _ - _ - - - _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - -
Testimony of Herbert K. Sloane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
June 1:
Testimony of Col. Claude B. Mickelwaite, Office of t h e Judge Advocate
General of t h e Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Testimony of Lt. Col. Clio E. Straight, Office of t h e Judge Advocate
General of t h e Army - - - - . . - - . . - - - - - - - - - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Testimony of Lt. Col. Charles J. Perry, AGD, Army Service Unit
4202, Western Recruiting District, E l Paso, Tex - _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - -
~ e s t i m o n yof James Finucane, associate secretary, National Council
for the Prevention of mTar- - - . . - - . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . - - - -
Insertion: Letter date January 5, 1949, from editor Morris H. Rubin,
t h e Progressive,
- t o Mr. Finucane - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ - - - _ - - - - - - - . . - - - -
June 2:
Testimony of James Finucane (resumed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Insertion: From German attorney von, Schlabrendorff dated January
14, 1949, t o t h e National Council for t h e Prevention of War sub-
mitting case record of Willi Schaeffer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Insertion: Letter dated January 14, 1949, from Bishop Neuhaeusler
of Munich t o the National Council for t h e Prevention of War-- - -
Insertion: Letter dated March 2, 1949, from Bisho Wurm of Stuttgart
t o t h e National Council for the Prevention of b a r - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Insertion: Memorandum concerning war crimes trials by Oberkirchen-
r a t Dr. Weeber of Stuttgart _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Insertion: Letter dated April 27, 1949, t o t h e National Council for
the Prevention of War from Fritz IGaemer, Hans Gruhle, and
Arndt Fischer (Malmedy accused) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - - -
Testimony of Virgil T. Lary, J r - - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
J- -i --m- ~3- ..
Testimony of Lt. Col. Clio E. Straight, Office of Judge Advocate
General of t h e Army (resumed)--_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047,
Statement and testimony of Judge Edward Le Roy Van Roden
(resumed)_----_-..-_-_..-----..----_____-_-_------__---____---
Insertion: Excerpt from Simpson commission report- - - - - - - - _ _- - _ _ _
Testimony of James Finucane (resumed) - -
Insertion: Letter dated March 11, 1949, from Judge Van Roden t o
James
Testimony of Dr. Wil!iam R. Per1 (resumed) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
NALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
MONDAY, APRIL 18, 1949
UNITEDSTATESSENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ARMED
OF THE COMMITTEE SERVICES,
Wmhingtolz,D.0.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, a t 10 a. m., i n the commit-
tee room, room 212, Senate Office Building, Senator Raymond E. Bald-
win (chairman) presiding.
Present :Senators Baldwin (chairman) and Hunt.
Also present: Senator McCarthy (member of Senate Committee on
Expenditures i n Executive Departments present by invitation of the
subcommittee), and Mr. J. M. Chambers (on the staff of the com-
mittee).
Senator BALDWIN.This subcon~mitteeof the Committee on Armed
Services of the United States Senate has been appointed by the chair-
man of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Tydings, with
the approval of the committee, to consider certain charges that have
been made concerning - the conduct of the prosecution
- in the Malmedy
atrocity cases.
I might say here, for the benefit of the record, that the other tmo
members. Senator Russell of Georgia. and Senator Hefauver. of Ten-
nessee, aGe not with us this morniig. ' Senator Russell, I l e a k e d from
a letter this morning, has asked the chairman and the committee, that
he be relieved as a member of the.subcommittee, because of the tre-
mendous pressure of work he has on his other committee assignments
of the Senate; and, I have asked the chairman of the full committee
to appoint another member of this subcommittee in his place.
I am very sorry to report that Senator Icefauver cannot be here
today because of the untimely death of a close intimate personal friend
of his, as a consequence of which he has had to leave the city.
Since we had already scheduled this hearing, and had as our first
and, I think most important witness, the Secretary of the Army, who
is a very busy man, I deem it advisable to go forward with the hearin
because there will be a transcript made of all of the testimony whic
will be available, not only to the members of the subcommittee, but to
f
the whole committee, and to the Senate as well.
Before any sound decision can be made on these charges, I feel that
it is imperative that the subcommittee inform itself to the maximum
practicable extent of all of the circumstances surrounding these mat-
ters. It is my intention to introduce into the record certain docu-
ments which have focused attention on the points in issue. We will
then hear todsty from representatives of the Department of the Army
who will give us the general background and current status of these
cases.
1
2 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
We will then proceed to hear such persons as desire to be heard and

to make such other investigations as will permit us to develop all the
available facts. At this point, I wish to place in the record :
As exhibit A, a copy of a petition filed in the Supreme Court of
the United Stztes by Mr. Willis M. Everett, Jr., on behalf of Valentin
Bersin and others, the defendants, as I understand, in the Malmedy
prosecution, in order that they may be noted, and appended as a part
of the record.
(Exhibit A, as filed, will be found in the appendix at the conclusion
of the record.)
Senator BALDWIN.AS exhibit B, we have a copy of a brief, and the
supporting documents filed by Dr. Eugene Leer, attorney with the
Post Trial Section, War Crimes Group, on February 1,1949, on be-
half of Valentin Bersin, and others, defendants in the case.
(Because this exhibit is deemed too voluminous to reprint it, is
ordered filed in the records of the committee in connection wlth
S. Res. 42.)
Senator BALDWIN.As exhibit C, a copy of a memorandum to the
Secretary of the Army, dated September 14, 1948, from Col. Gordon
Simpson, Judge Advocate General's Department, and Col. Edward L.
Van Roden, Judge Advocate General's Department, rendering their
opinions and recommendations on the war crimes trials, held at
Dachau, Germany.
(Exhibit C, as filed, will be found in the appendix at the conclusion
of the record.)
Senator BALDWIN.As exhibit D, we have a copy of a report prepared
in the Headquarters, European Command, entitled "Final Report of
Proceedings of Administration of Justice Review Board" dated Febru-
ary 14,1949, and signed by Col. John M. Raymond, G. S. C., chairman
of the Board.
(Exhibit D, as filed, will be found in the appendix at the conclusion
of the record.)
Senator BALDWIN.I feel that the question raised here is a funda-
mental one not only to our position as champions of right and justice,
hut to the reputations of the men who mere the servants of this Nation
during the prosecution of the peTsons responsible for the shocking
massacre of our soldiers during the Battle of the Bulge.
The officerswho are charged with the conduct of this in vestigation
and the prosecution were acting on behalf of the United States Gov-
ernment. It is essential that their conduct should be examined and
if it was improper, appropriate remedial action should and will be
taken. On the other hand, if they committed no wrong, it is equally
imperative that the records should be cleared once and for all.
I have asked the Secretary of the Army, Mr. Royall, to appear as our
first witness, and I may say to him that I am glad to see him here this
morning, and appreciate his willingness to come and help us out with
this matter, when I know he is working under tremendous pressure
with many other matters.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 3
STATEMENT BY KENNETH C. ROYALL, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,
ACCONPANPED EY COL. C. C. FENM, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON DIVI-
SION, DEPARTMENT 03' THE ARMY
Secretary ROYALL.Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to be here, and
have an opportunity to discuss in general the Malmedy situation, pri-
marily, as it relates to the death sentences which have been imposed,
which are the ones about which there has been the principal publicity.
After I have completed my discussion, if there are any other features
of the case t o be discussed, I will be glad to cover them all, although
of course detailed testimony and evidence could more accurately be
presented by documents, many of which your committee already has.
I think, for the sake of clarification, some dates and figures might
be of interest, certainly as a backgrouncl. This matter originated
approximately four and a half years ago. The Malmedy massacre
was committed in December 1944 and January of 1945, a t the time of
and immediately after the Battle of the Bulge.
The investigation of these offenses and of those persons thought to
be responsible was beg~mapproximately 4 years ago, immediately after
VE-day. This investigation, together with the preparation of trial
of the cases, continued until charges were preferred, approximately a
year later, or about 3 years ago, in April 1946.
The confessions which, according to the press accounts and other
statements, seem to represent the real issue in this case, were largely
obtained before April, and this is b2tween 3 a n d 4 years ago.
The trial of the cases was completed in July 1946. The record
of the trial was reviewed under our regular War Crimes Board of
Heview, the theater judge aclvocate, and finally by General Clay.
These reviews extended about a year and a half or more, through
March 1948, and during these reviews, the questions as to the con-
fessions were raised and passed on by one or more of these various
reviewing authorities.
I n the trial which ended in July 1946, all 7'3 of the Malmedy de.
fendants were convicted by the trial conrt. Of those, 43 were given
death sentences. During the process of these various reviews up
through the final one, 13 of the convictions, that is, of the 73 con-
victions were totally disapproved, and the sentences were changed so
that the defendants were given prison sentences ranging from 7 to 25
years; 14 were given life sentences and 12, death sentences which were
approved, which indicated of course that these matters were carefully
considered by the reviewing authorities.
I n May 1948, petitions were filed with the Supreme Court of the
United States on behalf of all of the defendants. These petitions were
denied by a 4-to-4 vote on jurisclictional grounds.
Senator BALDWIN.That is the only question that the Supreme Conrt
decided in connection with these petitions, whether or not the Supreme
Court of the United States had jurisdiction over the matter?
Secretary ROYALL.That is right. They didn't consider the confes-

sions or the merits of the matter as they had in previous occasions,
both in this case and a number of others. Four-to-four of course
does not permit the Court to intervene, or take cognizance of the case.
This decision was rendered, and this 4 t o 4 vote was announced on
the 18th of May last year.
At about this time Mr. Willis M. Everett, Jr., an attorney of Atlanta,
Ga., approached me about a further administrative review of these
cases. That is the first time they had come to my attention, because
of the number of war crimes trials, that was the first time it had come
to my personal attention.
Under our procedure, if I may interject, which was established
long before I came into office, the war crimes trial was left to the
theater commanders, trials of this charncter-
Senator BALDWIN. Who was the theater commander?
Secretary ROYALL.General Clay.
Senator BALDWIN. A t all times, during this Malmedy trial?
Secretary ROYALL.NO, sir. At one time General Eisenhower was
there for a while after the war; and General McNarney was there;
and General Clay. I would have to divide this thing up into seg-
ments to see which did what function, but we can s ~ ~ p pthatl y infor-
mation if you want it.
Senator BALDWIN.My point was that a t all times while the discus-
sion was going on and while the trials were being conducted, there
was a reputable wel17known senior o6cer of the United States Army
in general supervision of the whole works?
Secretary ROYALL.That is right, sir.
When Mr. Everett approached me about an administrative review,
and when his request was supplemented by that of Senator George
and Representative Davis and others, I modified our general policy
to the extent that I looked into these cases, and I may say that the
contention made in those petitions were serious contentions ; and for
the first time I personally looked into the facts to the extent of saying
that there was enough there which, in my opinion, justified some
further investigation.
So I stayed the executions on the day Mr. Everett saw me, or the
day afterward, and directed General Clay to investigate the charges
alleged in the petitions filed by Mr. Everett, and then shortly there-
after I appointed a commission, consisting of Justice Gordon Simp-
son, of the Supreme Court of the State of Texas, and Judge Edward
L. Van Roden, of the orphans court of Delaware County, Pa., asking
thein to go to Germany and investigate these cases, as well as other
war c~imes,such as the trials at Dachau, with particular reference
to the death sentences.
This Commission principally investigated 139 death sentences, in-
cluding the 12 Malmedy death sentences. Out of these 139 cases, the
Commission recommended a commutation of 29 death sentences, which
included the 12 Malmedy death sentences now under consideration
by your committee. That was our recommendation.
The report of the Commission was submitted on October 6, 1948,
and was forwarded to General Clay for consideration and action, with
the stipulation that before any death sentences were executed that I
would be further advised.
Senator BALDWIN.Mav I interrupt there, Mr. Secretary?
Do I understand that as a result of this Simpson-Van Roden com-
mittee, all of the death sentences at Malmedy were commuted?
Secretar ROYALL. They recommended that they be commuted.
Senator 3;ALDWIN. Every one?
Secretary ROYALL. All 12. There mere only 12 left. They origi-
nally started with a larger number, and as I ontlined before, but by
various reviews, i t had gotten down to 12.
I believe the report you already put in the record, Mr. Chairman,
the record of Justice Simpson gives the details on that.
General Clay, under instructions I had given, was at the same
time making an investigation of his own, and that was through a
board of his own, the report of which has been given to this com-
mittee and both reports released to the public.
Senator MC~ARTI-IY. Could you get me a copy of the Army report?
Mr. CHAMBERS. There is only one here. I have sent for yours,
Senator.
Senator MCCARTHY. Thank yon.
Secretary ROYALL.General Clay personally considered the Simpson
Board report, as well as the report of his own board, and again re-
viewed the cases.
This consideration was completed week before last. General Clay
has reafimed six of the death sentences and has commuted to life
imprisonment the other six. I n each instance he gave the reasons
for his actions, and released those reasons to the press.
I believe we have also furnished those to the committee.
You also have General Clay's reasons in each of the 12 cases.
Senator BALDWIN.SO,UP until now, it is fair to say, is it not, Mr.
Secretary, in an effortto lean over backward to be just and considerate
to these people, not a single German who took part in the perpetra-
tion of the Malrnedy massacre, where some 250 of our boys were lined
up and shot down, not a single German has yet been executed?
Secretary KOYALL. Not a single German has been executed. I don't
believe the figure of 250 is correct now, but nevertheless, no one has
been executed for the massacre, and only six now can be executed
because under our procedure, I cannot increase a sentence above what
General Clay has decided. I do have authority to recommend to the
President, or I suppose to myself, as the Secretary, to reduce the
sentence of those six which now have been approved for execution.
Senator BALDWIN. NO date has been set for their execution?
Senator ROYALL. NO. I stayed these executions in May 1948, and
that stay remains in effect until this time. It has not been removed by
me. The stay was to last until the review was completed, and General
Clay fully understood that at all times. There was something in the
press that I recently stayed the executions, but it has been stayed
since May 1948.
I will not consider any cases in my ofice, any of the death cases,
except those six, because there is no use to consider those thct have
been commuted. I have not yet gone over the complete record, wait-
ing to narrow my review to those matters on ~ h i c Ih could take action,
and that action can only be in the six cases, and any matters relating
to them.
I am now in the process of looking over those cases. I have had a
summary made of the evidence and if that summary indicates that
the death sentence should be imposed, then it would be my intention

t o go into the full record.
Senator BALDWIN.Right on that point, so that we have the record
clear, as I understand it, the sole power to further commute those six
death sentences still pending is in your hands, is i t not, and not in the
hands of Congress in any way, shape, or form?
Secretary ROYALL.Not in the hands of Congress, as I say later in
my talk.
However, if any committee of Congress, or Representative of Con-
gress, wants t o go on record and give me recommendations as to what
to do with these cases, I, of course, will be glad to give it careful :on-
sideration, if you will bring any facts to my attention.
I am engaged in the consideration of those six cases, and before any
decision is made, it would be my intention to go over them carefully,
and so I say, I will be glad to receive any views from the Congress.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
I n going over those cases, let us assume, if you will, that you are
going over the case of John Jones. Let us assume that you flnd that
two things have occurred : No. 1,you are convinced the evidence shows
the man is guilty without any d o ~ ~abt tall, you are convinced of that;
No. 2, let us assume you are convincecl that in order to get the evi-
dence, that mock trials mere conducted, such as were found by the
board General Clay appointed. Let us assume it found that physical
violence was used in getting the confession. I n other words, let us
assume that they used force, used mock trials, used conPessors, and
such like. Assume you are coilvillced beyond a reasonable doubt that
the man wr,s guilty-on a death case, what would you do then? Rec-
oimnend that he bs hung, or that his seiitence be colnmutecl?
Secretary ROYALL.I will be glad to answer now, but if 3ou will
indulge me, I think I answer that later on. I f I do not, I will be glad
to come back to it.
Senator MCCARTNY. Certainly.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator McCarthy, of course, represents the
Committee on Expenditures in Executive Departments that also has
this matter und-er consideration, and is here a t our invitation.
Senator MCCARTHY. I might say that I an1 here informally, I can-
not say that I represent the Expenditures Committee, but I intend to
report back to them, of course, in view of the fact that they were
considering conducting such an investigation.
Secretary ROYALL.The Malniedy cases present sharply conflicting
considerations, in view of the allegations that have been made. The
situation is the type which always presents difficulty to any court, or
t o any executive authority which must act on the life or death of
persons charged v i t h crime. It is one of the most unwelcome respon-
sibilities that my office has, to pass on death sentences.
There are rarely any in which there is not a sharp contention m a d e
I do not know anybody charged with a crime in which the death
penalty can be inflicted, who doesn't make sharp contentions of inno-
cence or misconduct on the part of the court, or something. On t l ~ e
other hand, there is the undisputed fact that in these cases, approxi-
mately 80 American soldiers, as well as a number of innocent civilians,
were slaughtered in cold blood, in total violation of all accepted rules
of civilized warfare.
There is nothing i n the record to indicate any controversy about
that fact.
Most of those so killed were young men called into the service of their
country, young men who hacl proven their courage and fitness, who
had served honorably and faithfully and bravely, and who were
entitled to expect that if they fell into the hands of a n enemy, they
would be properly treated as prisoners of war.
It is one of the most atrocious crimes that H know of in all of the
war-crime annals. It is a crime that ought to be punished by death,
if the right person can be apprehended and properly convicted and no
guilty persolls should escape just punishment, either through techni-
calities or legal refinements or overdrawn theories.
O n the other hand, the contention is made that the convictions were
obtained by involuntary confessions extorted by promises of immunity
and by threats and force, in disregard of established rules of American
justice. T h a t is the contention of the defendants and their counsel
but as to this feature of the case, those American officers and enlisted
men and civilians who were charged with the preparation of these
trials deny that there mas any improper conduct i n obtaining these
confessions. I f their statements are correct, then the procedures fol-
lowed were proper, the confessions IT-erevoluntary, and those who were
convicted have been proven guilty and should be punished.
Tlies3 coilflicting considerations, i t seems to me, must be continually
borne in niincl, whatever aspects of the Malmecly cases are to be studied.
And, I admit that I am not entirely clear just what features of this
case interest your committee. T h a t has not been made clear either
through the press or i n the statements made from time to time.
I f i t is desired by this committee to go into the facts relating to this
horrible massacre of American soldiers i n the winter of 1944-45, the
Department mill be glad to obtain for the committee all the available
information relative thereto.
Senator MCCARTHY. F o r the benefit of the Secretary, can I just
briefly tell him, in answer to the question he raised, there is the ques-
tion of the extent of mhiCh a t least our committee was considering this
case-I think every member of our committee has lost either a son or
someone very close to him i n the service. Every member of the com-
mittee realizes the gruesomeness of the crime perpetrated over there.
I think every member of our committee feels that when the guilty
are found and properly tried, they should be either hung or what-
ever sentence happens to be meted out to them. There is no desire
on the part, I believe, of any Member of the Congress to see anyolle
who is guilty, go free.
Howex~er,in view of the exceptionally good record over i n the Pacific
where every war criminal was triel honestly and fairly, and executed
as quickly as they were over i n Europe-in all the unusual reports
coming out of the European theater, some of us were very much con-
cerned in checking to see exactly what type of justice we are meting
out i n Germany, especially i n view of the report of the Clay committee.
As I recall, General Clay appointed the judge advocate general, plus
some of the other members of the prosecution, to ~nalcean investlga-
tion over i n the European theater and find out how confessions or con-
victions were obtained, so that the extent to which we are concerned
in going into this, you might say we start out with a report that ClayqB
own men make which they say there were mock trials, we did use
physical force, that in some instances we took ration cards away from
families of prisoners and in view of that we feel that we should go
into the whole matter to find out whether or not the men who were
prosecuting in that area were conipetent to know what is meant by
"American justice.,'
As I say, that is doubly important, in view of the fact that over
in the Pacific theater, where the crimes mere just as bad, and the
persons were just as hard to apprehend, we apparently dealt out a good
clean brand of justice. I don't know how it was in Germany. I think
that is what our committee at least wants to go into.
As to the gruesomeness, there is nothing that any of us can recall
in recorded history that approaches the unwarranted type of mass
slaughter that occurred at Malmedy, and we always like to see the
men responsible brought to justice.
To repeat, we are concerned with finding out how the convictions
were obtained, how confessions were obtained, and how the prosecu-
tion staff worked. I f they worked improperly, we want to h o w .
I f they did not follow the American concept of justice, then we think
that those individual men should be br6ught up before your court-
martial board to determine whether or not they should be left in
charge of that kind of work, so that when we go into $he next war, if
there is a next war, we will know that the trials were properly con-
ducted, and if these same men are in charge, we want to know that
they conduct those matters properly.
I am giving that in answer to your question of what we are going
into.
I believe there are three committees interested in this, the Judi-
clary-
Secretary ROYALL.I was asking what feature you wanted stressed,
or explained most clearly, and you have answered, in part. I have
other inquiries to make, but I would like to say this, Mr. Chairman:
I agree with the point of view the Senator has expressed-
Senator MCCARTHY. I n short, we both fully agree-
Secretary ROYALL.However, I want to correct some impressions.
When you say this situation did not arise in the Pacific, you are
wrong. There have been few death sentences presented for considera-
tion where a contention was not made that the confessions were im-
properly obtained. I practiced law, and I am sure others here have
done so, and in civil life I cannot recall many murder cases where the
defendant did not contend that any confession he gave was extorted
or obtained by promises of one sort or another, in practically every
murder trial I have heard tried.
Senator BALDWIN. I think, Mr. Secretary, that the popular con-
ception of the use of a confession is wrong, and it might be good, here,
for the benefit of the record, to give some indication of how a confes-
sion is used.
I t is very rare, in my experience as an attorney, that I have ever
seen a confession actually introduced in evidence, as the confession
of the defendant. What happens in connection with the confession
is usually this : The man makes a confession and then the prosecuting
authorities check up on the items of the confession. For example,
the disposal of the body, the disposal of the weapon used, a n d all
~ i m ts o n o i ~iling,alld as a r e s u i ~UP ASLL,hey grilciuaiiy i~cliid
together a case which might otherwise. have been impossible to
reconstruct.
The effect of the confession is that the defendant has made available
to the State, the different items that are important in the prosecution.
It is not necessarily the effect of the actual confession read in court.
1 don't know what the situation was in these particular cases.
Secretary ROYALL.There were confessions in most of these cases,
and in my experience, it has been such that in a great many cases
~onfessionsa re ~ntroduced,but wherever they are attacked-I might
almost say they were attacked in every instance by the defendants
in the several courts, civil or otherwise.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUunderstand, I am just giving you this
because of your inquiry. The thing that originally disturbed our
committee was this report made by, I guess you would call it the Clay
committee.
Secretar ROYALL.That is right, I agree with you.
if
Senator CCARTHY. And some of the things that seemed to disturb
us are unusual to say the least. You are a liwyer, Senator Baldwin,
and Mr. Secretary, and I happened to be a judge for some time.
For example, the Judge Advocate General who is investigating,
over there, himself seemed to think that there was something wrong
with using stool pigeons. H e confused that with the use of physical
force. Any lawyer knows that it is perfectly proper to use a stool
igeon; they have used them since time began in order to get a con-
Lssion.
The Judge Advocate General seems to think there was something
wrong with asking minor criminals to turn state's evidence, in effect.
We know that is a perfectly proper procedure.
Secretary ROYALL.YOUwouldn't get very many convictions, if that
didn't apply.
Senator MCCARTHY. AS long as you honor your agreement with the
minor criminal, if he turns state's evidence, there is certainly nothing
improper there.
The Judge Advocate General, as I understand it, seems to confuse
those things that are recognized procedure in every criminal court
in the country, with taking the ration cards away from the family of
the accused, using mock trials, physical force, and doesn't seem to be
able to distinguish between the two, what is proper and what is
improper.
Secretary ROYALL.The mock trial is questionable, the law is not
clear as to whether they are proper or improper. Some States permit
them, and some do not.
Senator BALDWIN.Returning to that question of the resolution,
Senate Resolution 42, to answer the question of the Secretar? of the
Army, the resolution reads that the purpose of the investigation is to
seeure a full and complete study and investigation of the Army with
respect to the trial of those persons responsible for the massacre of
American soldiers, which occurred during the Battle of Malmedy in
December 1944, with. particular reference to (1) conduct of the in-
vestigation by the Army preliminary to the trial ; (2) conduct of the
trial of the alleged perpetrators of the massacre; and (3) action taken
by the Army officials subsequent to the trial which resulted in a
commutation of the sentences of many of the defendants convicted
at the trial.
10 MALMEDY MASSACRE LNVESTIGATION
So, I might say that as I understand this investigation, it is merely

a n investigation into the methods, so that we might correct any abuses
that have arisen and avoid these abuses if we ever have to go through
anything like this in the future.
Secretary ROYALL.I don't believe Senator McCarthy was here when
I called attention to the fact that these confessions were obtained be-
tween 3 and 4 years ago, between VE-day ancl April 1946. I am
coming to that feature in a minute, but I assume that, from what
has been said here, you do not desire to go into the question of the
massacre, though some of the press accounts I read indicate t h a t some
people want that investigated.
Senator MCCARTHY.I think a11 of US realize how gruesome that
crime was, and I don't think we need to go into the question of
whether or not there were more crimes perpetrated.
Senator BALDWIN.The Secretary has already said i n his state-
ment that it seemed to be an undisputed fact that 80 American sol-
diers who were entitled to the privileges of a prisoner of war, were
massacred i n cold blood.
Senator MCCARTHY.And some civilians also.
Senator BALDWIN.And I do not think we need to go into those
gruesome details.
Secretary ROYALL.Therefore, I v i l l assume yon do not want any
eye witnesses either, into that.
Senator MCCARTHY.I think, Mr. Chairman, that you and I will
agree that if you think these men were guilty, they certainly should
be punished. I think there is no doubt about t h a t w h e t h e r or not
the trials were properly conducted, whether or not we fqllowed
American procedure and i n the American system of justice-
Secretary ROYALL.T h a t is the second aspect of the case. You
might desire, and apparently do desire to go into the circumstances
connected with the confessions. I f so, the papers which have already
been furnished you will give you p a r t of the information, but only
part. The emphasis i n the petitions filed, as well as a good deal of
the press discussions, is on the German prisoner version of what
happened, and the statements made after the trials ; but their version
attacked violently the conduct of loyal American soldiers and civil'~ians
of respected character, carefully selected, who obtainecl these con-
fessions from the accused. Before this committee would make any
adverse findings as to any Americans who conducted the inquiries, I
am sure you would see that these Americans have a n cpportnuity t o
defend themselves against charges made, in substance, by former
enemies of this Nation, and I understand--
Senator BALDWIN.I might say, Mr. Secretary, we have a long list
of witnesses: The men who took part in the prosecution and secured
the evidence, and these confessions, and thcse who guarded the pris-
oners and concluctecl the prosecution and the trial. Only this morn-
ing, I have here a letter from Senator Knowland, in which he encloses
a copy of a letter from a man named Nobel Johnson, who describes
l ~ i n ~ s eas
l f the "Prison Commander of Internee Prison No. 2," located
in Schwabisch Hall, Germany, from November of 1945 to December of
1945. H e is typical of the kind of witness we have listed.
Senator MCCARTHY.I can safely say also that the Secretary need
not be concerned that the prosecution will not be adequately protected
by the committee.
Secretary ROYALL.I am sure I said in my statement, I didn't raise
the question, I am sure the committee will do that.
Senator BALDWIN.W e are here to get the facts, but I think i t is
true that, as the Secretary indicated, these men who condncted the
prosecution, and guarded the prisoners, our om1 soldiers and officers
have never been personally called upon to testify i n any great num-
bers, if a t all.
Secretary ROYALL.And the publicity that has risen out of this
thing is all on the side of the version given by the German defendants
and their counsel-a large part of it has been.
Senator MCCARTHY.I don't like t o get into an argument a t this
time, but I think the publicity that has arisen has been bad publicity,
as f a r as the Army is concerned, and arose largely by reason of the
report rendered by Colonel Harbaugh, who was Judge Advocate Gen-
eral, i n which he set forth what was done in getting these confessions,
and i t is a most unusual document and I hope you keep that i n mind
when you are testifying. I would like to know what p a r t of that
document is true and what part is not, after reciting the use of physi-
cal force, mock trials, taking ration cards away, aitd, I find this in the
Army report :
That the condjtions obtained a t the prison and the methods employed in the
interrogations had a definite psychological effect on the defendants and resulted
in their being more amenable to giving statements.
I doubt very much if Mr. Harbaugh intended to say that the use of
mock trials and those things are all r i h t because it has a good psy-
f
chological effect and brought forth con essions-
Senator BALDWIN.May I interrupt-
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask this ?
The reason that we are concerned with this, our committee, is that
m-e have been accusing the Russians of using force, physical violence,
and have accused them of using mock trials i n cells i n the dark of
night and now we have an Army report that comes out and says we
have clone all the things that the Russians were ever accused of doing,
but they are all right, because i t created the right psychological effect
to get the necessary confessions.
I f this Army report is true, then I think your duty principally, and
I take i t you are as much concerned as we are, I know-I t l ~ i n kthe
duty of the Army is to run this down and find O U w ~ ho, over in that
area, has been guilty of this sort of thing and take them out of that
kind of work. They might be all right i n a mess hall, but they appar-
ently know nothing of the conduct of a trial.
I f , on the othe? hand, this report of Mr. Harbaugh's is false, I think
that should be cleared up so that the press of this Nation knows that
the trials i n Europe were properly conducted, as I think they were i n
the Pacific.
I don't want to take a11 your time, though.
Secretary ROYALL.I don't think, Senator McCarthy, that really
while this report of Colonel Harbaugh has been given so much pub-
licity, most of the official publicity, and the great quantity of publicity
came from the petitions filed in the Supreme Court and the statements
made by the German prisoners. T h a t is what got people excited about
it, without hearing the other side.
91765-49-2
I would be less than frank if I did not say that I find it difficult,
myself, to follow some of the conclusions made i n this report in the
theater.
Senator MCCARTHY.It is an unusual document, surely.
Secretary ROYALL.I don't believe that it is intended to condone the
items enumerated before, but certainly it is subject to that construc-
-
tion, and i t is not clear a t all.
I agree with you entirely that we mnst insist that our methods of
obtaining confessions are entirley i n accord with the American con-
cept of justice. There'is no doubt about that, and if there is anyone
in that work who does not appreciate that, they ought to be removed.
Senator BALDWIN.T h a t is one thing me are particularly anxious
to find out about, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary ROYALL.AS to the reduction of the six death sentences,
3s I said before, I would recommencl and welcome any recommenda-
tions the committee n i g h t want to make. I want to say that I am
confident that under all the circumstances, i n view of the discussion,
that no decision that I or my successor may announce as to these six
death sentences-no such decision will meet with universal approval.
Senator MCCARTHY.T h a t is true.
Secretary ROYALL.I f the sentences are commuted, there will be
criticism that the deaths of young American soldiers are going un-
punished. I f the sentences are affirmed and the men executed, then
no matter what is produced before this committee, or elsewhere, there
d l be some that will accept the German version of the mistreatment
and i t will be asserted that no single man has been convicted properly,
and that all the principles of American jurisprudence have been vio-
lated. T h a t will be the-
Senator MCCARTHY.May I interrupt again? T h a t is one of the
reasons why we feel t h a t any man who is responsible for using unusual
proceedings to get convictions should be subject to great caution
because i t is entirely possible that some incompetent prosecutor by
~xsingillegal methods, may be responsible for some of these guilty
men going free.
Secretary ROYALL.AS a matter of fact, in investigating that, we
have the problem complicated by the probable fact that none of those
people who made this investigation are now el;gaged in that work.
This happened immediately after VE-clay, which niay account for
some of the measures that may have been used, and certainly makes it
difficult to investigate, because that was a period of demobiliza t ion'
and flux, and therefore we are not investig,zting what is clone now, but
what was done immediately after VE-day while the war was still
going on in Japan, or f o r a t least a portion of the time.
Senator MCCARTHY.Would you know offhand where Clay and the
Simpson committee differed on the execution of the six that are
schecluled t o die ?
Senator BALDWIN.Senator McCarthy, I wonder if you would let
the Secretary finish his statement, because I think yon will find that
if you and I step into this thina now and t r y to compare this sentence
here and that sentence there i n another matter, we will have this thing
pretty thoroughly disorganized, and I would like to hear the Secre-
tary, or get the Secretary's statement in the record, if you clo not mind.
Secretary ROYALL.Perhaps you woald like to know, a i d I think
it covers pretty much what yon said, Senator McCarthy, the principles
ASALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 13
.which I think these cases ought to be reviewed on; I want the guilty
person punished, if their guilt has been established by proper evi-
dence; but I do not want to a p p r o ~ ethe sentence of the Gerinans,
'based on confessioiis obtained by any promises of immunity, or con-
fessions otherwise i l l e d l y or improperly obtained.
Senator B A L D ~ I6Nr. by confessions that cannot be substantiated
bv a further independent investigation of the particnlar ,'acts claimed
,oE admitted.
Secretary ROYAIL X confession which does not find any - support
-- at
all in the eGidence.
It is the application of these principles, and not the principles them-
selves which present difficulties. This does not inean all confessions
would be disregarded merely because trickery or deception has been
p ~ c t i c e din obtaining them. As perhaps every member of the com-
mittee of Congress knows, confessions are rarely obtained without
some tactics of that kind, stool-pigeons, and so forth, being used. I f
all confessions of this type were excluded, or all obtained by decep-
tion or trickery-a large proportion of our serious crimes would go
unpunished.
To illustrate one problem that may airse: It is certainly common
practice in civil courts, as well as elsewhere, and not one frowned on
by the courts, to obtain confession of one defendant by stating to him
that the other defendants have confessed, when the other defendants
have not. I don't suppose there is a police department i n the country
that hasn't used that device, and it is also a common practice t o use
moral and even religious suasion, sometimes to a n extreme degree, i n
an effort to induce prisoners to confess. I n theory, the effect of moral
and religious pressure to make a man tell the truth ancl not tell a lie-
if we didn't believe in religion i n America, x e inigl~tthinli: that re-
ligioas pressure could make him tell a lie, if we believe in it and we
believe that moral and religious pressure has a tendency to make a
man tell the truth.
While I don't want to go to a discourse or a full discussion of the
legal l~recedents,i t is d e a r that even confessions rendered while
prisoners are subjected to considerable discomfort are not always
excluded by the courts.
There is, of course, a good deal of feeling among layinen ancl law-
yers that many of OLW courts have become too technical ia excluding
confessions ancl that this tendency has reduced convictions of persons
who are clearly guilty. I t is not my purpose to argue f o r or against
Lhis considerable body of opinion, but I do want to say that I would
not extend the scope of technical refinements in a case of this character.
Here the evidence clearly shows that all of the defendants were
members of the SS a i d were under strict orders not to talk a t all. I f
all legal means had not been used to induce these prisoners t o talk
about these occurrences, there would have been no chance a t all to ap-
prehend or convict any of those guilty of the massacre.
There is one other consideratloll t h a t is entitled to considerable
weight. I t is a natural tendency of every defendant who confesses
to claim that his confession was procured by improper means. I11
early experience in the trial of criminal cases, and I am sure i n the
experience of inany of you gentlemen, it is rare in a murder case
mihere there is a confession, rare indeed f o r the clefenclant not to seek
to repitdiate his confession.
It then becomes a question of veracity between the defendant, and

possibly his associates, on the one hand, and the law-enforcement
officer authorities on the other hand. These issues arise in many,
many murder cases, and civil court.s and, as we all know, in civil life.
The testimony of the law enforcement officers, on the average, is.
more credible and therefore is usually accepted.
If this were not true, there would be mighty few convictions for
murder.
Despite all this discussion, I am still of the opinion that if any of
the confessions relating to the guilt of the six under death sentence
were obtained by force or improper inducements or brutality, or any
other improper means, and if there is not sufficient other cogent
evidence to support the death sentences, then they should be com-
muted.
Senator MCCARTHY. That means, in effect, I'm not criticizing your
position, but that means that an incompetent prosecutor would cause
some guilty man to go free, am I right, if there is an incon~petent
prosecutor who gets a conviction improperly? As I say, I agree
with your position, and I want to make that clear in the record-
it means that the incompetent prosecutors who were guilty of using
illegal methods of getting a confession of a man clearly guilty, mould
be responsible for that man going free?
Secretary ROYALL. It is certainly true, sir, and I would say in this
case, that it is perfectly possible that investigations begun while the
war in Japan was still going on, and in the days of temper imme-
diately following the war when these confessions were obtained, it is
perfectly possible that some people may have gone too far in their
efforts to apprehend those guilty of this atrocious crime, and that may
have had the effect eventually of freeing people that should have
been executed.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUadded one other condition that Senator Mc-
Carthy didn't include in his question, and that was-where the facts
alleged in the confession cannot be supported by other cogent testi-
mony which, after all, is the important thing, we want to see no man
convicted or imprisoned or put to death on the basis of his own con-
fession alone, particularly if i t is obtained by force and violence, or
threats or anything of the kind. We insist in American jurisprudence
that a confession of that kind be supported independently by other
cogent believable testimony, and I think that is what the committee
wants to be convinced of in this particular case.
Secretary ROTALL.I agree entirely with you, and want to say this,
that the danger of people escaping punishnlent by the fact of the
psychology of the time, may have led to some excesses, which must be
minimized by just the facts you stated, because in some of these cases,
those confessions, no matter how obtained, may have been responsible
for other facts being discovered which would justify conviction.
Now, I am not prepared today to discuss each of these six cases,
because I am going to pass on them after I go into them very thor-
oughly, the six that General Clay has recommended the death sentence
be imposed on, and at least in some of those, there is evidence totally
aside from the confessions which indicates to me that at least i t may
prove their guilt----
Senator BALDWIN. May I say this, Mr. Secretary-I think that this
committee wants in no way to interfere with your prerogative. You
may think it wise to hold up any further decision in these six cases .
until this committee has completed its hearings, o r you may not. That
is entirely your responsibility. What we are primarily concerned here
in this committee with, is the methods that were used. God grant we
do not have to go through this again, but we may have to, and this
whole procedure was something entirely new in warfare, was i t not?
Secretary ROYALL.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. We never had this sort of thing before.
Secretary ROYALL. That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. Before you have that subject, may I ask this
question? Let us assume now, in your review of these cases, say you
are reviewing the case of Mr. X and ou feel the confession is im-
9
properly obtained, but feel, however, t lat the man is guilty without
any doubt. You feel that if the prosecuior had been competent and
done his work efliciently, that you would have had a good valid con-
viction that would stand up, but under the circumstances you feel that
you have got to recommend that the conviction be set aside. Let me
ask this: I s it your thought that you intend to run the matter down
and get the name of the officer who was responsible for the guilty going
free, and if he is in the Army bring him up before court martial? Do
YOU have that in mind?
Secretary ROYALL. I don't know. We haven't reached that far.
Senator MCCARTHY. That is a very important matter.
Secretary ROYALL. I would think that that would require consid-
erable consicleration. Certainly, no officer or civilian or enlisted man,

and there were all three classes in this, who may have gone beyond
the proper limits did so with any other idea than trying to convict
people of a very serious crime. I would bear in mind that that was
clone under an entirely diff erent backgrouncl than exists today, a period
of hostility toward an enemy, and of natural animosity ; and, when the
entire Military Establishment was clisorganizecl, so to speak, by the
rapid demobilization.
Now, I would not want to say that in the scales of what would happen
today, i t would be ~mjnstt o do so, and I am not sure what action
should be taken against those men, most of them I clo~~bt if you will
find in the service in any appreciable number. I f we did find it,
I am not sure we woulcl want to pursue it to the court-martial stage
without knowing a good deal more about it. I would want to find
out who was responsible, weigh the facts and give him an opportunity
to explain if he wanted to, but as to court martialing anyone who, in
a very normal and natural human emotion, wanted to convict those
who were guilty of this atrocious crime-I would hesitate. It would
have to be a pretty clear case before I recommend it.
Senator MCCARTHY. This is rather important. It is a rather unusual
statement you make. I was in the Marine Corps and as you know
feeling ran high in all quarters for the duration of the war, in most
combat areas during the war, and you felt that under the circum-
stances it was much more important to protect the rights of the pris-
oners of that time, than during the normal peacetime.
Secretary ROYALL. These were not prisoners of war in that sense.
Senator MCCARTHY. Not prisoners of war?
Secretary ROYALL.NO. These defendants were not. The war was
over. They were not captured. They were criminals who had been
apprehended.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdon't know whether they are criminaIs

or not until they are convicted.
Secretary ROYALL.They were charged with these war crimes. They
were not taken as prisoners of war, these defendants who were being
tried.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsag they are charged with a crime.
Secretary ROYALL.Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you and I will agree, I assume, that when
a man is charged with an atrocious crime and when feeling runs high,
that is the time when we must have strict rules and regulations t o
protect the rights of someone who may have need of the law.
Secretary ROYALL.I agree.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO I understand you to sap, Mr. Secretary,
that in view of the fact that these men were overeager to convict the
criminals, even though you find that they indulged in practices which
were wrong, practices which now might result in freeing a man who
is guilty, that you would not take any action against those persons?
Secretary ROYALL.I did not say that. I said I would hesitate
greatly to court martial a man who was investigating a case, trying
to secure a conviction, for the mnrder of his comrade, with a war still
going on, fresh in his mind.
They didn't commit the atrocities. Our investigators didn't commit
any atrocities in the sense you normally use the term. They were
merely seeking to establish a fact, perhaps a little too eager. The
question is pretty near moot, because I think the statute of limitations
would bar every one of these things. I don't thinli we c o ~ ~ courtld
martial them, anyhow, in all probability, unless i t happened more
recently.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n view of the fact that we may be, for all we
h o w , in the nest day or in the next week a t war again, we don't
know-let us assume that in checking case No. X. you find that all
these things that Mr. Harbaugh or the Clay committee, or call it
what you may, what the Army committee said existed, assume you
find them all true, find that o6cer Jones who was assigned to prose-
cute, that No. 1, he takes a ration card away from the accused's
family; assume you find that out, and that is part of the findings in
the Army committee's report; No. 2, that he took the wife of the
accused up to the officws' c l ~ ~and
b brought her there and bought her
drinks during the t i n e of the prosecution, or took a man's family,
I am simply repeating things that the Army committee found-
assume that you beliere that m the dead of night they took this man
down and put a black hood over his head and stood him before a table
with a black cloth on it, and a crncifix in the middle of it with a phony
prosecutor sitting behind the table and assigned a member of the
prosecuting staff to act as his defense counsel, and they convicted him
and sentenced him to hang in the morning; assume that you find that
d o n g about 2 or 3 hours before he is allegedly to hang, the phony
defense counsel comes in and snys, "If you a-ill s i p this confessioa.
your family will get their ration card restored to them, you won't
hang, you will get off with 5 or 10 years." Whatever the case may
be, assume yon find as the Army committee states, that physical vio-
lence was used on these men to get a confession; assume you find that
physical violence was used on other witnesses to make them testify
along a certain line; assume that you feel that had these things been
MALMEDT MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 17
properly conducted that this man, Mr. X, would have been found
gnilty, but because of this complete departure- from the American
system of justice that you must let this guilty man free-do I under-
stand you to say that you will not bring the Army man up for court
martial, but will let his name come before the Senate year after year
for promotion, from colonel to general or on down the line? We are
concerned with that phase of it.
Secretary ROYALL.YOUhave answered my question, Senator, by
describing a most atrocious set of circumstances which I do not think
even the nearness of the war was justified. If a case of that kind
were found, as you have described, and if it was not barred by the
statute of limitations, I should certainly favor disciplinary action,
but I am saying-
Senator MCCARTHY. May I interrupt?
Senator BALDWIN.Let the Secretary complete his answer, Senator.
Secretary ROYALL.I am merely saying, that in weighing these
matters that mere overeagerness or stepping reasonably beyond the
bounds, in view of the psychology then esistmg, would require very
close scrutiny by me before I would court-martial a man, even if
the statute of limitations had not run.
But you have described a case that may exist-I am not stating
that it does not-but you have gotten together all the bad features
against one individual.
Senator MCCARTHY. Just the bad features from the Army report.
Secretary ROYALL.I am not criticizing your summary, but if that
set of facts should be established against an individual I would agree
entirely that some disciplinary actlon would be proper.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUunderstand, for the record, that I recited
nothing that is not in the Army report.
Secretary ROYALL.Except that the Army's report does not ascribe
all those things to one single person.
Senator MCCARTHY. That is right.
Secretary ROYALL.YOUhave just got an accumulation of all of
them, and I agree with you ; but I do not want to leave any impres-
sion that I thmk we can weigh conduct to the enemy prisoners-
that is a different matter. We have to be very cautious there, becatme
it applies on both sides, but as to the prosecution for crime, I am
positive, for example, that a criminal, many war criminals tried imme-
diately after the war were convicted who would not have been con-
victed 2 years later ; and that is human nature.
Therefore, I say that in weighing the conduct of our soldiers and
enlisted men overseas, and civilians, that we must give weight to that
factor.
Now, gentlemen, I have stated the principles that I would like to
apply and will apply, unless this committee or some other representa-
tive group of Congress mould like to suggest other criteria. I think
the criteria as to the guilt in these six cases, and the sentence to be
imposed are the proper criteria, and while I do not say I envision
a decision which will meet with universal approval, we want to do
the fair thing about it.
Now, Senator Baldwin, yon raised a question of whether I wanted
to wait until Congress, or this committee, or any other, should con-
sider the matter before I acted on these six death sentences. It has
been a difficult question for me to decide.
I n the first place, I hesitate to run the risk of this thing being so
prolonged that my successor might have the responsibility of passing
on it. I do not mind taking that responsibility. Of course, per-
sonally, I would hate it. I wish I didn't have to do so. I do not
want to pass the buck to anyone else. I am not suggesting how soon
that would be, but say there will be a successor sometime, I don't
want to run the risk of passing the buck to him; nor do I want to
seem to put the Congress in a position, or any congressional commit-
tee, in a position unless they want to get in that position, of taking
the responsibility for the execution. My executive action in this
matter is a responsibility put on this Department and not on the
Congress.
Senator MCCARTHY. I might say that Senator Hoey, chairman of
the Senate Special Investigating Committee wired the President, and
I believe that your office has a copy of the wire, requesting that the
President himself take action to hold up any executions in cases in
which the Simpson-Van Roden committee disagreed with General Clay.
Secretary ROYALL.Let me finish. I was going to s?y? despite those
considerations on the other side, I have reached n decision that if the
committees considering this matter will act promptly, any committee
who wants to consider it, that I would be inclined to defer a clecision
on the matter of the six sentences until I hear son~ethingfrom'the
committees.
Senator BALDWIN.May I say this, Mr. Secretary: We do not want
to be acting in any way as a court of appeals here. That is not our
function. What we are doing is investigating the methods and poli-
cies and means used in these cases.
On the other hand, I am glad to have you say that if we will expe-
dite these hearings, you woulcl postpone final decision, because I
believe me may be able to develop something in this investigation that
mill be helpful to you.
Secretary ROYALL.That is the reason I reached that decision.
Senator BALDWIN.And, it will be helpful to justice all along the
line, and it might be wise under those circumstances to p o s t p o ~ eyour
final decision, although me are not asking you do do so, because we,
as a legislative branch of the Government, do not want to trespass
upon what is obviously a prerogative and responsibility of the execu-
tive branch of the Government.
Secretary ROYALL.AS a matter of fact, Senator, I had decided be-
fore Senator Hoey's request, and advised a number of Senators, that
1 would wait until I heard further from Congress, before passing on
the matter.
Senator BALDWIN.There is iust one other goint that I wanted t o
bring out while you are still here. We don't want to go into any
testimony as to this massacre itself, I mean, the things everybody in
the country knows about it. There is just one possible exception t o
that.
Some of these confessions contained descriptions of how this mas-
sacre was perpetrated. There are some eyewitnesses, and where the
veracity of a confession may be an issue, it may be necessary to cor-
roborate or disprove the statement in the confession, with an eye-
witness. To that extent, we may have to go.
Do you have anything further?
Senator MCCARTHY. I have a number of questions, but first let me
say this: Apparently our Expenditures Committee does not take the
same position you do, Mr. Chairman, on the question of holding up
executions.
We have felt that in any case in which the Simpson committee,
or the Simpson-Van Roden committee, recommended that the man
be freed, or that his sentence be commuted, that in those cases it would
be a great mistake to have any execution take place while the Senate
committee is investigating this particular matter.
For that reason, Senator Hoey sent a wire to the President asking
him to hold up all executions in which the Simpson-Van Roden com-
mittee, the committee appointed by the Secretary-that those be held
up until we finished our investigation because we felt that if the
committee were to come back with a report to the effect that the con-
victions were improperly obtained, that you violated every concept of
American procedure to get convictions, and there were serious ques-
tion of the guilt of a man, we think it mould be a tragedy to have
had-
Senator BALDWIN.That isn't the question a t this time. That isn't
the point we are inquiring into--
Senator MCCARTHY.I mmted to make our position clear in the
record. We feel that in a situation, if i t did arise, and it could arise,
and if the execution took place, that it would do American prestige
over in Europe infinite damage.
I might say that the reason why our committee was concerned about
that was the constant stream of reports, apparently valid, from the
,Irmy7s own report, from the Simpson-Van Roden committee, and
others that we have been getting from .k3urope7as to unusual things-
I think that Mr. Royall, our top brass, would not approve of a lot of
those things done by some incompetent officer over in that area, and,
in effect, doing everything we ever accused the Russians of doing, and
for that reason i t hurts the American prestige over in Europe and
may be driving more to communism in that area than anything else ;
for that reason I feel that it would be entirely proper to ask the Secre-
tary to hold his decision up until after we have completed our iaves-
tigation.
Secretary ROYALL.The President never made any such request, and
I assume is leaving the matter to our judgment; but, we had already
decided before that request was made to the President that we would
wait a reasonable time for these matters to be investigated, so that is
a moot question.
I do not want to leave unchallenged the statement that we are fol-
lowing in Europe today procedures that are analogous to those in
Russia. That is not a fact.
Senator B~CCARTEIY. I f the Army's report is true-
Secretary ROYALL.That report relates something that happened
long ago, and, as I said at the outset, before any conclusion is reached
that an American officer or officersand enlisted men and civilians have
done the things charged against them, I want them to have an oppor-
tunity to be heard.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask one or two more questions, Mr.
Secretary ?
20 M A L M E D Y MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
I n reviewing, let us say, case No. "X," if you find that the convic-
tion was improperly obtained, then what will the procedure be?
Would you recommend that the sentence be commuted to life impris-
onment, or the man go scot free, or what would your recommenda-
tion be ?
Secretary ROYALL.The immediate question is the death sentence.
That would be the first thing to be passed on.
I f , as a result of this entire situation and stndy of it which we are
still engaged in, and as a result of committee hearings, I am convinced
that the guilt itself is in doubt in these cases, because of improper
confessions, it would be my intention to have every one of these cases
considered again, not only as to the Malmedy cases, but as to the
question if any sentence should be imposed on them, but we have not
gotten t o that stage yet; because the attention has been focused pri-
marily on the death sentences a t this time.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator McCarthy brought out an excellent
point. We don't want to have it said, with any justification what-
soever, that we are using methods similar to those for which we con-
demn the Russians. On the other hand, I think that it is whole-
some to have the world understand that American justice is fair and
honest, but swift and final. I think that is an important thing, too.
I think that we can err by going either to one side or the other of
this thing, and it is that phase of the matter, too, that is of consider-
able importance, to the committee, because we are dealing, in many
instances, with people who have been pretty hard and cruel, and while
me want to show Christian charity in every single case, we don't want
to have our methods or purposes charged with being weak and pusil-
lanimous, either.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask another question? First, I might
say, to make the record absolutely clear, I disagree with that. I f we
find someone to be guilty of these things, I think he should be imme-
diately executed. I am not concerned with Christian charity. I am
only concerned with having applied to all those cases what we have
worked out here as the best method of getting conr~ictions,the methods
most honest to the people as a whole, and the defendants. Once we
have done that, I am not concerned with extending any Christian
charity to anyone guilty of those crimes.
Senator BALDWIN.I am not, either; I want you to understand that
me are not granting any Christian charity to those people found guilty,
properly.
Senator MCCARTHY. I don't believe in charity for any of those
actually found guilty in Malmedy.
Senator BALDWIN.Neither do I, and that is why I am perfectly
willing to say that it is up to you, Mr. Secretary of the Army, to decide
whether or not the execution shall go through.
It might be worth your while, Mr. Secretary, to wait until we have
fkished our investigation, because it misht be that something might
be developed that vould help you in making the final decision because
at all times that would be an extremely difficult decision to have to
make.
Senator R~CCARTHY. I would like to ask the Secretary several
questions.
You stated you thought it was all right to use religious pressure
Secretary ROYALL.I said the courts have decided that. The courts
decided, not I.
Senator MCCARTHY. A number of charges have been made, and I
am afraid I have confused the report of the Simpson committee and
the Army Committee, but as I recall, there was a claim made that
phony priests were used in order to go in and get a man's confession
before he was alleged to be executed after a mock trial. That is, of
course, the use of religious pressure there. Would you consider that
a satisfactor method of taklng a confession?
Secretary ~ O Y A L L . I would say that is a sacrilegious thing, instead
of being religious, and I condemn utterly that sort of tactics.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f you find from your investigation that that
has been done, would you be interested in finding out the name of the
officer,where he is stationed, what he is now doing, and who is respon-
sible for that sort of a thing?
Secretary ROYALL.I certainly would. That injects an entirely new
concept. I don't think-or, I might put it this way: I think the
reason it is important to this country is that me are religious and we
inust not become sacrilegious in an effort to apprehend a criminal.
That thing you have described as being referred to in some of these
papers is clearly sacrilegious.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,in determining whether or not a confes-
sion was properly obtained, it is necessary that you first determine
in your own mind whether you feel that the use of a mock trial is
proper or improper. And let me ask you whether you would consider
this a proper method of getting a confession, and I am reading from
the Army report on mock trials, and skipping the preliminaries :
Those trials were held a t Schwabisch Hall in one of the cells, sometimes a
small cell about 6 by S feet, sometimes in a larger room two or three times t h a t
size. There mould be a table covered with a black cloth on which stood a cruci-
fix and burning candles and behind which s a t one or more people impersonating
judges.
The defendant would be brought from his cell hooded. The practice of using
black hoods whenever a defendant w a s taken from his cell was universally
employed a t Schmabisch Hall to prevent communication with other prisoners
and to prevent knowledge of where he mas going. Allegations t h a t these hoods
were blood-stained were not supported by any testimony before the board, other
than affidavits of the petitioners.
Assume that you found that those conditions to have existed, that
there was such a mock trial, with the use of black hoods and the lighted
candles and that the person was sentenced to hang at dawn, in the
morning; assume that between the time of the mock trial and the sched-
uled execution that a confession is obtained-would you consider that
improper? What would you do in that situation?
Secretary ROYALL.Well, I will tell you, I don't think it is quite fair,
Senator, to put me on cross-examination as to a specific state of facts
because there are always so many other considerations. I don't believe
I want to answer to every set of facts. It is hard to follow them in
my mind, just exactly what has been said, and there may be other cir-
cumstances that offset it, so I don't think you can quite put it in that
narrow a packet.
I would say this, that the test of a confession is first, whether it was
obtained by any promise of immunity or protection, and what you have
described certainly indicates that between the time of the trial and the
execution that there would be a sort of immunity, and also there would
be the question of whether it was obtained by force, or through force

o r fear. That is a question of degree.
I say again that what you describe there is purely improper, aside
from the other features of it, it is manifestly sacrilegious, and I would
weigh those circumstances very carefully. I f what you said there were
the only facts that existed, probably the thing would be simple, but if
there were others, that might militate one way or the other.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you, I am not going to press yon
for an answer if you prefer not to-
Secretary ROYALL.I just don't want to answer on a hypothesis,
unless I know it is an actual one in a particular case. I don't believe
we ought to decide this matter on theoretical states of fact, and I am
not prepared to know whether those are the facts, or all of the facts in
any particular instance.
Senator MCCARTHY. Don't get under the impression that I am trying
t o cross-examine you. I think the attitude you have shown since we
brought the matter to your attention is excellent. You have consented
to hold up all action since the start of our investigation. This is not
intended as a criticism.
Secretary ROYALL.Don't say "since you brought i t to my attention."
I started this investigation in May of 1948 and held it up since then.
Senator MCCARTHY. I should say, we have no complaint about your
actions since we have been commun'icating with you on this, but in view
of the fact that you hold this very important position, I do think it is
important to know what attitude you take toward certain things in
such a critical case. The No. 1question is how you view the use of a
mock trial.
Now, in my State, where I sat for some time as a judge, I passed
and tried murder cases in which I sentenced a man to life, and, under-
stand, there are very definite rules that we follow in this country, rules
that come clown from the old British law where, if a prosecutor took
i t upon himself to hold a mock trial in a cell at night, sach as the Army
says was held in Germany, we would promptly disbar him, he would
never practice law in the State of Wisconsin again.
Secretary ROYALL.I would agree, over here.
Senator MCCARTHY. I want to ask you this: Do you consider the
use of a mock trial, and as I say, if you had rather not answer, I think
it is very important that we know how you look a t this procedure-
do you consider the use of a mock trial as a proper method of getting
a confession-or do you consider it improper?
Secretary ROY ALL..^^ W O L I ~ Cdepend
~ largely on what you mean by
"mock trial." I have already said if those were the sole facts, there
would be no question about it.
Senator BICCARTHT.Forget then about the "sole facts."
I f this is one of the facts. if this mock trial was used, would you
consider that highly improper 8
Secretary ROYALL. I nlreEdy said I vould consider what you said
as improper, but I cannot say whether, when the confession was made,
it might have been repeated and it might have been later, the influence
might have been removed, any number of circumstances might occur
and therefore I do not believe I want to confine myself to a theoretical
state of facts. I want to take the facts in a particular case and weigh
them. And, I have stated the principles, which I think are that if
MALLMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 23
the confession is induced by force, fear or promise of immunity, then
it should not be accepted in evidence, should not be considered on
the question of guilt.
Senator MCCAKTHY. One further question : I would like to get your
iho~zght,if you care to give it today-I have been personally very much
disturbed by the attitude demonstrated on the port of the Judge Advo-
cate General, both when he was down here before the Expenditures
Committee last week on the Ilse Koch case, in the report and in the
conduct I have had with some of the underlings, there seems to be
attitude, if you go over the case and if there is doubt whether
the man is guilty or not, then the situation can be taken care of by
cutting down his sentence.
That is a fantastic attitude to take. Either a man is guilty or he
is innocent. If he has been proven guilty of a crime charged, he should
suffer, and if not, he should not. I cannot understand the system
of compromise with justice by saying, "Well, it doesn't look like he
mas fully guilty and, on the other hand, he may be; therefore, instead
of giving him 20 years or so-
Becretary ROYALL.I never heard that suggestion by the Judge
Advocate General and I have dealt with him a long time. If he ever
suggested that, it must have been to someone other than me and I
am the man that has to pass on them.
I never heard of that principle.
Senator MCCARTHY. From going over this report the Judge Ad-
vocate General signed-
Secreary ROYALL. Are you talking about the Judge Advocate
General here, or-
Senator MCCARTHY. I n the area.
Secreary ROYALL. I n the area? I have never talked to Mr. Har-
baugh, I don't know him.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am not speaking of the Judge Advocate
General here in Washington. I am speaking of the one abroad.
May I ask one further question-
Secretary ROYALL.Let me ask this, sir: I n the question of death
sentences, I don't know, I have not been a governor, but I guess the
job of passing on death sentences in the Department of the Army
is probably a little harder than that in the case of a governor, because
we had certainly more of them in the early stages of my tenure.
I n all frankness, a very slight and perhaps dubious doubt will
justify a cornnlutation of a death sentence. Tn other words, the hunran
mind will apply a stricter test because everyone wants to avoid the
execution, the final execution of a man, if there is anything that
casts doubt on it. So, that is one exception to the theoretically sound
rule you state.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think that is where you can play a somewhat
more generous role with the Christian charity referred to.
Secretary ROYALL.YOUhave to clo that when yon are talking of a
man's life and shutting off all possibility of future review-a decent
huinan being will apply a little stricter test.
Sellator 'R~cCART~HY. One closing question, Mr. Secreary : Let me
ask-I assume you have read the report of February 14, 1949.
Secreary ROYALL.Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Signed by the Judge Advocate General in that
area of Europe to which we are referring.
Secretary ROYALL.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.May it appear for the benefit of the record that
Senator Hunt, of Wyoming, has come to the hearing and that he is
here to serve as a member of the subcommittee in place of Senator
Russell of Georgia.
Thank you very much for coming, Senator. We are glad to wel-
come you to this rather difficult and trying job, but I am sure you
bring fine qualifications to aid in the solution of the problem.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask you this question, Mr. Secretary?
Can you and I agree, from going over this report signed by the judge
advocate general, meaning the man who is charged with the trials in
that area, the man who decides what is correct and incorrect-in
checking over his report you find that he completely confuses things
that are entirely proper in criminal cases, such as the use of stool
pigeons, which we all know is proper ; the attempts to get minor crim-
inals to turn State's evidence, which we all know is proper; he has con-
fused things that are so definitely proper, with things that are equally
definitely improper, such as, for example, the taking of ration cards
away from the accused's family, the use of mock trials, and the use of
physical force. You find him saying that, in effect, these things are
all right because they created the right psychological background in
order to get a confession; you find, in subsection (c) on page 9, that
the use of physical force is really not too bad, because it wasn't system-
atically used. You find him in effect saying that all of these devia-
tions from our concept of justice really were not too bad because there
was an order on the wall saying that you couldn't do it.
Couldn't you and I pretty much agree that that man was incom-
petent for that job and that he should be immediately removed and
put some man in charge who had some conception of what is right
and what is wrong, it may be a little late, but shouldn't that be done?
Secretary ROYAU. Senator, I probably wouldn't go as f a r as you
state. I have already said that earlier in that report, it certainly
lacks in clarity and I think maybe you have unintentionally overdrawn
it a little, in your description; but I agree with you entirely, that it
lends itself to much confusion, and many of the conclusions you have
drawn.
I n connection with the investigation of this case, it is my intention
to find out just who wrote that report and why it does leave a very
confused impression of the whole situation. It does on me, and did
on me when I read it, and I would not want to prejudge Colonel
Harbaugh, I don't know him, and certainly would want an oppor-
tunity to discuss the matter with him before I decided, but I agree
that the report is not a good one.
Senator MCCARTHY. I hope that Colonel Harbaugh is to be brought
before the committee.
Senator BALDWIN.I think we can arrange to have hint here.
Senator MCCARTHY. I have no further questions.
Secretary ROYALL.May I say this: For example, in that report,
frankly I don't believe from a phrtial reading of the record in this
case we are going to find any such mock trial as that report describes.
I don't believe they occurred and I don't believe there is evidence that
they did occur. A t least I have tried to find some evidence and I
have not completed my investigation, but I have found no evidence
that they did.
Colonel Fenn, did you find any such evidence?

Colonel FENN. I didn't see any evidence of anybody being sentenced
or anything.
Secretary ROYALL.I have seen nothing like that.
Senator BALDWIN.Nothing indicating-
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid you found no evidence.
Colonel F'ENN. They' had mock trials, I think so, but never went as
far as you indicated in their trials-as you indicated in your ques-
tioning of the Secretary.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdid find that mock trials were used, but
there is a question of how f a r they went 2
Colonel FENN. I don't even know that they held them at night.
Senator BALDWIN.May I say that we plan to have witnesses to just
exactly what did take place and how many mock trials there were, if
such there were.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask, are you going to have Judge
VanRoden and Judge Simpson here ?
Senator BALDWIN.Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. They are very important.
Secretary ROYALL.Their report was a very thorough one, and, as
I said earlier, Senator, my job as t o the sentences is narrowed to six
cases, because they recomnlended that 12, which was all of the death
sentences, be commuted. They did not recommend that the sentences
be entirely set aside, but recomnlended they be commuted to life im-
prisonment; and that, I suppose-the cases must have fallen in the
area I described a minute ago, heye is a man's life a t stake, and General
Clay reviewed the sentences, this is repetitious but you were not here
when I went over this originally, and he says that 6 of the 12 ought
to be executed and 6 sentences commuted.
Now, I can review those sentences if I think i t is proper, but I
cannot raise General Clay's sentence, I can only reduce and therefore
I am now engaged in a full review of those six cases to reach a decision
as to whether I think they ought to be commuted or whether the death
sentence should stand.
Senator BALDWIN.Just one question, Mr. Secretary.
These men that were tried and convicted in the Malmedy massacre
were all S S troopers, were they not 8
Secretary ROYALL.That is right.
Senator BALDWIN. And they were supposed to be the toughest and
hardest of the whole German Army ?
Senator BALDWIN.And I understood that they were the men also
who were committed not to say a word at the German capitulation-
they were given instructions that they were not to talk under any
circumstances 1
Secretary ROYALL.That is correct.
Senator BALDWIN.SOthat they were difficult people to deal with in
every sense of the word.
Secretary ROYALL.They were hard and hardened.
Senator MCCARTHY. I might say, Mr. Chairman, if you apply that
rule, you might lose your chief clerk of the committee who was in
the Marine Corps prior to this time. The marines were told not to talk
but to give your rank and serial number, but we didn't think that
would justify some of the things that were done to our marines in the
Pacific.
Secretary ROYALL.Don't confuse those matters. That was a ques-
tion of being prisoners of war. These men are not prisoners of mar.
These are different and that is the difference. They were under orders,
not as prisoners of war, not to talk-they were under orders as enemies,
if accused of crime, not to talk under any circumstances.
Senator MCCAFWHY. I might say one reason why this sort of thing
is disturbing. Over in the Pacific we had this particular thing done to
our marines oftentimes when they mere taken prisoners and all the
things that the Van Roden-Simpson committee says that our people
did to the Germans in Europe are the same that we accused others of
doing to us, and for the same purposes, for the purpose of getting in-
formation and creating the right psychological atmosphere so that
our marines would talk. Sometimes they did, sometimes they didn't;
they were killed before they talked. We felt so strongly about that
sort of thing being clone, so very strongly that we cannot help but feel
strongly about i t over there, when we hear that that sort of accusation
is being hurled a t our men, in their treatment of an enemy we de-
feated.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me ask a question in connection with that,
because I think there is one point we should clarify in the record, as
it is fundamental?
When the 80 American soldiers were shot down in cold blood, they
were prisoners of war and mere entitled to the treatment and respect
that is customarily accorded prisoners of war by conventions that go
back into the centuries-
Secretary ROYALL.That is correct, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Particularly the Geneva conventions.
On the other hand, these SS troopers that were apprehended and
tried in this case were apprehended and tried after Germany had sur-
rendered, after the war was over, and they were apprehended and
tried not as prisoners of war, but as men who, at the bar of justice
and decency, were being tried for what they had clone during the war
in violation of the rules of war, isn't that correct?
Senator BALDWIN.SO,they are in a little different status than the
man who has been captured and from whom they are trying to get
information.
Are there any further questions?
Senator MCCARTHY. Not a t the present time.
, Senator BALDWIN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
We appreciate the time and effort that you have given us on this
thing.
Is Colonel Ellis here 8
Colonel ELLIS. Yes, sir, right here.
Senator BALDWIN. I might say for the benefit of the record, Senator
Hunt and Senator McCarthy, I think it would be wise, since we are
asking witnesses to testify as to facts, if they were to be administered
on oath, and we will follow that policy in connection with the other
witnesses in the future.
Senator ~ ~ ~ C A R TIYclicln't
I Y . hear that.
MALMEDY M A S S A C R E I N V E S T I G A T I O N
Sellator 1 B A ~ r n wSince
~ ~ . we are aslnng the witnesses to testify as
to facts t1l;~tcollie to their knowledge, I think it woulcl be proper for
us to administer an oath to the ~ ~ i t n e s s as
e s tLey appear.
I ill ask you to hold up your right hand, Colonel.
Do yon swear that the testimony yon are going to give i n the matter
lloqr ill question shall be the trnth, the whole truth, ancl nothing but
the truth to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, so
help yon God?
(:olonel ELLIS.1do.
Sellator MCCARTEIY. Mr. Chairman, so the record may be clear, I
woulcl like to make it clew that in referring to whether or not these
prisoilers were prisoners of war, if I am correct i n my mind, they were
all war prisoners, and during the interrog,ztion and procedure up to
a point about a week before the trial, a t ~ h l c time
h I don't know what
actioil was taken, but some action was taken to declare that they were
no longer prisoners of war, but civilian prisioners of the Army, SO that
during all the interrogation, all were prisoners of war, I think.
Seilator BALDWIN.I think that is a fact me will have to get some
information on.
Personally, I mould think that there might be :L considerable dif-
ference between the status of a man m~hois caught bearing arms while
the hostilities are still on, and one who is apprehended after the war,
from among civilian population, and is no longer a meinber of any
military unit; ~vhetl-lerthese men fell into that class or not, I don't
know. That is a fact we will have to develop.
Senator MCCARTJIY. I dcubt if we could clistinguish between the
rights of a mail who is technically a war prisoner, or a prisoner of war,
for example, ancl the other kind. F o r example, in our theater of oper-
ations, if we picked up a J a p 'ivho was accused of the conlmission of
some atrocities, he was given a fair and speedy trial and, if found
guilty, executed. T h a t was during the war.
I f we picked him up after the war, say, I don't believe the conduct
of the trial should be any different than during wartime. That is
where I disagree so heartily with the Secretary when he says he thinks
some of these things are justified because under the heat of the mo-
ment you may be entitlecl to violate the rights of a defendant. There
can be no difference between a man's rights the day before war ends
and the clay after the war ends. I f he is a criminal, and many of these
there was no doubt abottt, he shoulcl be tried, but properly tried and
executed. 1just cannot find any fine line of distinction between the
treatment of a man while you say he was a prisoner of war, and now
he is 110 longer a prisoner, but a civilian prisoner of the Army.
I don't want to get into an argument over the matter, but want to
clarify my feelings on the matter.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, I thinlr this is one of the most important
illvestigations this Chair will have the opportunity of conclucting f o r
some time. I think upon the completeness of this investig,ztion, the
?lltcome will determine to a great extent the method of administering
~usticefrom now on, after the next war, if there is one, win or lose.
Senator B a r , ~ w ~ xThat
. is why I think this particular point we were
just discussing here is very important. These men were not tried as
28 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGBTION
captured prisoners i n a strictly military court. They were appre-

hended, as I understand, after hostilities ceased, and they were tried
before an entirely new type of tribunal, a war-crime tribunal, f o r
which we have not much, ?f any, precedent in the whole history of
humankind. T h a t is why I think this investigation is important.
Have we used the right procedures here and, if not, what should be
done and how should i t have been done?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Chairman, I think you have already stated this,
but we have definitely planned on trying to have the record show
clearly the status of these 73 people while they were a t Schmabiscl~
Hall.
Senator McCarthy is correct i n that a t some place along the line
their status changed from prisoner of war to that of persons being
charged under this new plan of trying people for war crimes.
Now, what precedent will be built up under the war crimes, I don't
know; but i n any event I think it is very pertinent to this study, the
recbrd, and perhaps Colonel Ellis, one who can give his part of that
background, should show clearly their status, because prisoners of
war do have certain specific protections under r ~ ~ l of e s warfare, most
of which were fixed by the Geneva treaties, of which we were one of the
cosigners.
The war-crimes investigation, however, mas rather a new field and
I think the gist, sir, of thls record we are building up, and the p a r t
i t will play i n future war criminal trials, as Senator McCarthy pointed
out, could well be one of the most important nature.
Colonel Ellis will have a few words to say along that line, I am sure.
TESTIMONY OF LT. COL. BURTON I?. ELLIS, JUDGE ADVOCATE GEB-
ERAL'S DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE, HEAD-
QUARTERS, SIXTH ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Colonel ELLIS.I would like to say that there is a rule regarding hon-
orable prisoners of war, and they have a certain status and have cer-
tain rights, but these people that we had, had c h a n g ~ dover into a
different category. They were charged with mar crnnes and were
treated as war criminals, not treated as prisoners of war. They were
not considered as prisoners of war.
Senator MCCARTHY.Treated as war criminals?
Colonel ELLIS.F o r war crimes, from the time they had a label put
on them as suspects for war crimes.
I am telling you what the record is, and the way it was done.
Some of these people were captured a t the time of the Bulge, some
on surrendering the 8th and 9th of May ; some m7ere additionally ap-
prehended sometime later. They were in many categories.
Senator MCCARTHY.SOthere can be no question about the man's
testimony, Mr. Chairman, if i t is true, and I certainly give you credit
for being truthful, sir, you say from the minute one was apprehended,
you placed upon them the stamp of being accused of being a war
criminal, and from that time on they were treated as war criminals?
Senator BALDWIN.J u s t a minute-
Senator MCCARTHY.Let him answer.
Colonel ELLIS. H e may not h a r e been segregated ancl put in a war
criminal's cage, but soinetinie during the process he ~ ~ c u lcome
c l to the
war-crimes e n c l o s ~ ~and
r e would be considered as a war-crimes Persoil
and guided toward the central war-crimes enclosure, whether he
mas suspected of being in the Malmedy massacre, or some of the others,
he mas treated as a war criminal for all administrative purposes. I
don't
.. say that he was fed any different or given less exercise or any-
thing else.
Senator MCCARTHY. Just SO you don't put something in the record
you don't mean, you made a statement that I think is the most phenom-
enal I ever heard from an Army officer.
What was your assignmei~t?
Colonel ELLIS.Chief prosecutor and v a s charged with the investi-
g at'ion-
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, from the time the man got the
label of being accused, he was treated as a criminal; is that correct!
I s that what you mean to say?
Colonel ELLIS. What do you mean by "treated as a criminal"?
Maybe what I am talking about and what you are talking about are
altogether different.
Senator MCCARTHY. That is what I think should be cleared, in all
fairness. You should be entitled to clear it up.
Senator BALDWIN.Let us go at this matter with ,alittle bit of order
here.
You malie your statement and then let Senator McCarthy or Sen-
ator Hunt or the rest of us ask any questions me want.
First, let us get your name on the record.
Colon1 ELLIS. I am Burton F. Ellis, lieutenant colonel, Judge
Advocate General's Cor s.
Senator MGCARTHY. Ebief prosecutor P
Colonel ELLIS. Chief prosecutor, and chief of the investigation sec-
tion.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOthe record will be clear, you were in charge
then of all the prosecutions in that area ?
Colonel ELLIS.NO, sir. I was not in charge of the prosecutions,
other than this case. That was the only case I prosecuted.
Senator MCCARTHY. Pardon me for interrupting, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BALDWIN.That's all right.
Tell us your status, please, during and in connectioll with this war
crimes trial.
Colonel ELLIS.I n April 1945 I was assigned to the War Crimes
Branch in Washington and sent overseas to Europe and arrived in
Europe on the 2d of May 1945 ; sent by the War Crimes Branch, FUS,
United States forces, European theatre.
A t that time I was put in the investigation section as executive
officer.
Early in September 1945 I was made cliief of the investigation sec-
tion of war crimes, which position I held until approximately the 1st
of May 1946, at ,which time I was directly in charge of preparing the
Malinecly case for trial, and held that position-
Senator MCCARTHY. What was that date?
Colonel ELLIS. Approximately the 1st of March 1946.
I went to Schwabisch Hall, as I recall, actually on the 5th of March
1946 and had charge of the final preparation of the case for trial.
I was chief prosecutor, and the trial started on the 16th of May
1946 and was concluded on the 16th of July 1946.
30 MALLMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
I went t o the United States, returned on T D Y and leave. A t the

conclusion of the trial I returned to the European theater on the 19th
of October 1946; for a space of 2 or 3 weeks, I was executive oGcer of
what they called the evidence branch, which includecl the investigation
of the war-crimes case, and apprehension of individuals and the
gathering of evidence. Approximately in late November I was made
chief of the evidence branch. On the 1st of J u l y 1947 I was made
Deputy Chief of Operations, which included charge of all trials, all
investigations, and all apprehensions aild I held that position up until
the 14th of Jan~zary1948, a t the conclusion and closing ont of tha
Dachau operation. A t that time I was returned to the ZI.
Senator BALDWIN.How long have you been in the Army?
Colonel ELLIS. I went in a first l i e ~ ~ t e n a the
n t 25th of June 1942.
Prior to that time I was tax attorney for the Texas Corp., in Eos
Angeles and New York City.
Senator BALDWIN.And prior to your duties in connection with these
trials, did you serve with any combat units ? .
Colonel ELLIS.Well, I was with the Air Force in India for approxi-
mately 2 years, first with the Tenth Air Force, later with headquarters,
Army Air Forces, CBI, and then I was on T D Y with the Fourteenth
Air Force and with the Air Transport Command, and I don't know,
I had several TDY's but I don't recall the name of some of the
commands.
Senator BALDWIN.YOU have already give us the date that you
undertook this task in connection with these war-crimes trials?
Colonel ELLIS. Yes.
Xr. CHAMBERS. Colol~el Ellis, I believe you said you went to
Schwabisch Hall to finish up the case for the prosecution about the
1st of March 1946.
Prior to that time, in your capacity as first executive officer in the
investigation section and later as chief investigator, did you have any
contact with developing the case?
Colonel ELLIS.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What was it?
Colonel ELLIS.F irst our headquarters in May and June was located
in Paris, and a t that time Major Fanton reported to us. Whether i t
was May or June, I no longer recall. Shortly after he reported we
placed him in charge of starting the preparation of the Malmedy case
f o r trial. H e worked on it, as I recall, mostly alone u p nntil late
August when he then started to work with Colonel Otto, and I think
a Lieutenant Higginbotham, and maybe two or three others who I
don't recall any longer, that js, as to their names-they went to Ba-
varia, and Austria, through the prison camps trying to find the First
SS Panzer Regiment.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Roughly, what time was that-just roughly?
Colonel ELLIS. AS I recall, the last of August. I place that date on
it because Colonel Otto was redeployed the 1st of September 1945,
but he went on this trip. Colonel Otto was chief of the investigation
section. I mas executive officer.
Senator MCCARTHY.J u s t for my information, which of you four
gentleinen had previously been a resident of Germany, if any?
Colonel ELLIS. None of us; none of the men I have mentioned,
at all.
MALRIEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 31
Senator MCCARTHY. I don't like to interrupt, but to get the picture
clear, was anyone of your staff a former resident of Germany?
Colonel ELLIS. Later on, Lieutenant Perl, as I recall, was from
Vienna and Mr. Thon, I don't recall whether he was born in the United
States or born in Germany, but as.a youth went back to Germany, if
he was born in the United States-there was a period there I am not
sure about that. because he knows. I don't. H e told me once, but I
have forgotten.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Thon ?
Colonel ELLIS. Mr. Harry Thon, and there may have been some
translator on the staff, too, but I don't know as to whether they were
born in Europe or not. I don't know their records now.
Senator MCCARTHY. So I will have the picture clearer, what posi-
tion did Mr. Perl and Mr. Thon have on your staff ?
Colonel ELLIS. Originally Thon was an interpreter and then be-
came an investigator. Perl was always an investigator.
Senator BALDWIN.How many officers were there, and civilians-
enlployees connected with this whole operation ?
Colonel ELLIS. It varied from time to time, beginning originally
with Major Panton all alone, and grew until I would say there were
probably 12 to 16 officers, civilians and GI's that composed the in-
formal investigation team a t Schwabisch Hall. Actually there was
never more than four investigators working on the case, but they were
supported by secretaries and the necessary translators and inter-
preters.
Senator BALDWIN.They were a t all times under your direction?
Colonel ELLIS. I was chief of the investigation section, and it would
be the same as in any other department. When I went to Schwabisch
Hall, I took personal direction.
Senator BALDWIN.And you dictated policy and the general way in
which the investigation proceeded ?
Colonel ELLIS. Major Panton suggested things to me, and I either
approved or disapproved, and that, was the way ~tworked.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, are we going to continue on?
Senator BALDWIN.I thought if we could stay here another half
an hour.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I notify my office ?
Senator BALDWIN. Would you rather recess now ?
How about you, Senator H u n t ?
Senator MCCARTHY. HOW about the housing legislation coming up
on the floor today ?
Senator HUNT.I would like, Mr. Chairman, to be on the floor, at;
least within 15 minutes, if I could.
Senator BALDWIN.Perhaps then we had better recess until later,
because yo11 are interested in the housing legislat'lon.
\!'e ~ 3 non.
1 recess and meet agml at 10 o'clock Wednesday
niorning.
(Thereupon, a t 12 noon, the subcommittee stood in recess until
Wednesclay, April 20, 1949, at 10 a. in.)
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 20, 1949
UNITED
STATES
SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
Washington, D. c.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, a t 10 a. m., in the
committee room, room 212, Senate Office Building, Senator Lester C .
Hunt (acting chairman) presiding.
Present : Senators Hunt (acting chairman) and Kefauver.
Also present: Senators Tydings and McCarthy; and Mr. J. M.
Chambers, on the staff of the committee.
Senator HUNT. Those in the committee room will now please cease
their conversation. We will proceed with this hearing.
I think the record should show that Senator Bddwin who is chair-
man of this subcommittee, has had an emergency call from his home
State of Connecticut and finds it impossible to be present here this
morning.
At the close of our last hearing Colonel Ellis. who was chief prose-
cutor in these cases, was testifyi&
I s that not correct, Colonel Ellis?
. Colonel ELLIS. That is right.
Senator HUNT. H e is here with us now, and if you will proceed,
Colonel, with your statement, we will appreciate it.
FURTHER TESTIMONY OF LT. COL. BURTON F. ELLIS, JUDGE ADVO-
CATE GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT, OFFICE OF T H E JUDGE ADVO-
CATE, HEADQUARTERS OF THE SIXTH ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF
THE ARMY
Colonel ELLIS. I would like to read this prepared statement which
is in affidavit form. I n part it may be repetitious of the testimony I
gave on Monday, but if I may, I would like to read it in its entirety.
Senator HUNT.Colonel, were you sworn?
Colonel ELLIS. I was, sir. [Reading :]
That references herein made to "the petitioner" refer to t h e chief defense
counsel, former Colonel Willis M. Everett, J r . ; t h a t references to petitioner's
writ of habeas corpus referred to herein is the unnumbered petition in the
Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus entitled "Willis M.
Everett, Jr., on behalf of Valentin Bersen et al., petitioner, v. H a r r y S. Truman,
Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, and other re-
spondents," which was sworn to by the petitioner, Willis M. Everett, Jr., May
11, 1948.
That all the following statements, are, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
true and correct, except a s to the matters herein which a r e on information and
belief, and a s to those matters I believe them to be true.
33
34 MALMEDP MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
That I reported for duty with W a r Crimes Branch, ETOUSA, May 6, 1945, in
Paris, France, and was assigned to the Investigation Section a s assistant to the
Chief; t h a t shortly thereafter Maj. Dwight Fanton (then Captain) was assigned
to work on the i\lalmedy case, file No. WCB 6-24; t h a t I personally took a keen
interest in the development of the case in my official capacity and carefully
watched and aided in i t s development; t h a t early i n September 1945 I became
Chief of the Investigation Section, and in t h a t capacity I was charged with the
gathering of the evidence for war crimes cases, which included the Malmedy
case; t h a t I personally took more than ordinary interest in the development of
this case and carefully selected the personnel t h a t I assigned to it, that I inspected
the detachment a s often a s conditions permitted and personally aided them in
obtaining a suitable prison, living quarters, transportation, and i n formulating
plans for the investigation; t h a t i n late February 1926 I was relieved a s Chief
of the Investigation Section a n d assigned a s chief prosecutbr on the case, with
instructions to bring it to trial by March 25, 1946; t h a t on March 1946 I was
ordered to Schwabische Hall, Germany, where the investigation detachment was
located that was developing the case, and personally took over aud supervised the
investigation, preparation of t h e case for trial, and the apprehension of the
accused ; that when the t r i a l date was postponed until May 16, 1946, I continued
the development of the case; t h a t on April 16, all but six of the accused and
possible witnesses were moved to Dachau; t h a t on April 19, 1946, I completed
the movement of the prisoners and investigation staff to Dachau, Germany, where
the trial was held.
That I was the chief prosecutor during the trial, which began May 16, 1946,
and was concluded July 16, 1946; t h a t I personally supervised and inspected the
evidence adduced, including pretrial interrogation of the witnesses ; t h a t I per-
sonally conducted a t least 50 percent of t h e trial work and was in court with the
possible exception of not more than 3 or 4 hours during the entire t r i a l ; that I
planned and directed the trial tactics and methods and saw to i t that they were
carried out.
T h a t in the early stages of the investigation the personnel of the First SS
Panzer Regiment were scattered throughout the prison camps, hospitals, and
labor detachments of Germany, Austria, the liberated countries, and the United
States ; that whenever any of them were located, they were interrogated, but
conditions in the prison camps were such t h a t they were able to rejoin their
conlrades inlinediately after interrogation and soon they knew exactly what the
investigators knew and by their exchange of information gleaned from the
interrogations, they were able to effectively block the development of the case;
that I believe t h a t i t mas during this period i t became known t h a t prior to the
beginning of the Ardennes offensive the SS troops were sworn to secrecy by their
cornnlanders not to divulge the orders to kill prisoners of w a r ; t h a t in November
1946 mhen all the known members of t h e First SS Paneer Regiment were
assembled a t the internment camp, Zuffenhausen, they were housed in a single
barracks ; t h a t here it was impossible to maintain any security of communication
between the accused; t h a t while here the Regimental Commander Peiper, al-
though i n close confinement, gave instructions to blame the Malmedy massacre
onto a Major Poetchke (commanding officer of the First Tank Battalion, who
had fallen i n Anstria in the last days of the W a r ) , and t h a t these orders were
c ~ r r i e dout by the accused ; t h a t from these experiences i t became apparent t h a t
if the perpetrators of the Malmedy massacre were to be brought to justice, a
place where absolnte security of communication could be maintained woulcl have
to be found ; t h a t after several conferences with the then judge advocate (Colonel
B a r d ) ancl the then provost marshal of the Seventh A m y , and the inspection
of several prisons, t h e Internment Prison No. 2, Schwabische Hall, Germany, was
selected and made available to W a r Crimes Branch, USFET, by the Seventh
.4rmy for the purpose of investigating the Malmedy case; t h a t early in December
1045 approsiiuately 500 of t h e suspects were moved there. (See exhibit 1,
~unclatecl, entitled "Investigation of t h e Malmedy massacre by War Crimes
Branch, USFET" prepared by the affiant for and delivered to Col. C. B. Mickel-
wait, theater judge advocate, prior to the conclusion of the trial July 16, 1946.)
I believe I will read that exhibit later on mhen I finish the state-
ment, if I may. [Reading :]
That Internment Prison No. 2 was a large German penitentiary and consisted
of several buildings, all of stone and concrete ; t h a t the investigating detachment
maintained offices ancl interrogation rooms in the administration building; that
part of the prisoners were kept i n the administration building and the balance
in other buildings of the prison; that the administration of the prison mas
under the Fiftyeighth Armored Field Artillery Battalion, Seventh Army, and
was separate and a p a r t from the investigation cletatchment.
I might add there, when they first moved in, i t was the Sixty-third
Tank Destroyer Battalion which was either inactivated or sent home,
while the personae1 for the administration v a s retained, and was
assigned to the Fifty-eighth Armored Bnttalion. [Reading :]
That the investigation detachment had nothing to do with the adininistration
of the prison or prisoners; t h a t to the best of my recollection, sometime during
March 1046, the Fifty-eighth Armored Field Artillery Battalion was replaced
by another organization, whose name I no longer remember; that t h e guards
for a few weeks were American troops which were later supplanted by Poles.
That because of a shortage of American personnel, only two American en-
listed men were available to move prisoners; t h a t many of the accused had to
be moved between buildings; t h a t in order to move more than one accusecl a t
a time and still maintain absolute secnrlty of communication between prisoners,
a hood was placecl over their heads, thus preventing then1 from knowing who
else from the regiment was also confined there or who was i n the group being
moved, and colnn~unicatingwith them.
I have a picture of that, that has been marlred "Exhibit No. 2."
[Reading :]
That by this means it was also possible to keep thein from learning the lay-out
of the prison and finding out from one another how much was known about
them individually; that when once interrogated they were kept in close confine-
ment until i t was decided that no more information could be obtained from them.
That throughout t h e interrogation period a t Schwabische Hall of approxi-
mately 4% months, additional accusecl were being located, apprehended, and
brought in ; t h a t a s a matter of fact, additional accusecl arrived within 24 hours
of the time of the last movement to Dachau.
Senator MCCARTHY.May I interrupt? Were you i n charge during
all of the investigation?
Colonel ELLIS. AS chief of section, but I was not present right
- where
the teams were working a t the moment.
Senator MCCARTHY. All right.
Colonel Ellis (reading) :
That during the investigation period a t Schwabische Hall approximately 700
accused were interrogated, many of them several times, and a t no time were
there more than four interrogators working, and then not continnously.
That the petitioner alleges i n paragraph Sa of his petition for writ of habeas
corpus t h a t he had less than 2 weeks to prepare the defense; t h a t I know of
my own knowledge t h a t Chief Defense Counsel Willis M. Everett, Jr., was ap-
pointed defense counsel sometime prior to April 11, 1948, or a t least 5 weeks
prior to the t r i a l ; that this statement is based upon a n entry in my diary dated
April 11, 1948, which reads a s follows :
"Got back to Schwabische Hall about 1930 hours and found Colonel Everett
of defense counsel here. Served 67 defendants tonight in Everett's presence.
Got back to billets ancl found five more defense counsel-Lieutenant Colonel
Dwinell, Captain Marvid, and Second Lieutenant Waller. H a d to find them
billets a t transit hotel and i t was 0100 before I retired."
That petitioner, in paragraph S of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
generally alleges t h a t he was not afforded sufficient time to prepare the defense ;
that the record of trial in the case discloses t h a t defendants failed to ask for a
continuance, ancl when aslied on the opening day of the trial by the President,
"Are yon now ready for trial in this case?" defense counsel replied, "May i t please
the court, on behalf of the accnsed they desire to answer in the affirmatice except
a t the propert time a n~otionfor severance will be made" (R-71).
'That prtitioner i n paragraph 11 of his petition for 'mrit of habeas corpus
alleges t h a t the accused were confined in Schwabische Hall for varying lengths
of time but generally in excess of 10 months prior to being served on April 11,
1046 ; t h a t this allegation by petitioner is not a true statement of fact ; t h a t the
first accnsed, with other suspects in t h e Malmedy massacre were transferred
from I C No. 78 a t Zuffenhausen, Germany, to I P No. 2, Schwabische Hall, Ger-

many, on or about December 5, 1945, a s evidence by SOP No. 1 dated December
5, 1945 (see exhibit No. 3 ) ; t h a t from time to time thereafter additional accused
were located or apprehended and transferred to Schwabische Hall; that my
diary indicates the date of arrival of 22 of the accused a t Schwabische Hall to be
a s follows :
Hillig, March 5, 1946. Rauh, April 4, 1946.
Klinkelhoefer, March 14, 1946. Kraemer, April 5 , 1946.
Kies, March 14, 1946. Sickel, April 7, 1946.
Bruhle, March 15, 1946. Bode, April 7, 1946.
Boltz, March 16, 1946. Schaefer, April 7, 1946.
Pon Chamier, March 20, 1946. Weiss, April 12, 1946.
Dietrich, March 21, 1946. Priess, April 12, 1946.
Briesemeister, April 1, 1946. Braun, April 16, 1946.
Mickelaschek, April 2, 1946. Richter, April 16, 1946
Werner, April 2, 1946. Sebauer, April 16, 1946.
Siegmund, April 2, 1946. Wassenberger, April 16, 1946.
That to the best of my recollection t h e following three accused were trans-

ferred t o Schwabische Hall from France on t h e dates a s indicated:
Schwambach, on or about April 10.
Hammerer, on or about April 10.
Stickel, on or about April 18.
That the policy for handling prisoners was to keep them confined separately
only while they were being worked with ; t h a t a s soon a s they had confessed they
were confined together, for company and a s a precaution against suicides; t h a t
t o the best of my knowledge and belief, none of the accused mere confined alone
after they had confessed; t h a t while being interrogated they were usually
confined alone for security of communication purposes, but the food and accomo-
dations were the same a s f o r all other prisoners.
That to the best of my knowledge and belief none of t h e accused or other
prisoners were ever abused or mistreated in any manner; t h a t the only inci-
dents of maltreatment of prisoners ever reported to me were several days after
t h e completion of the interrogation of Dietrich-either he tclld me this, or one
of the staff told me that Dietrich had told them t h a t he was kicked in the rear
by a guard, and I heard also t h a t Peiper was kicked by a guard, but whether I
first heard of i t before the trial or during the trial I am no longer able to recall;
that I never witnessed any maltreatment of prisoners; t h a t the procedure for
interrogation did not permit or countenance any threats, duress in any form,
physical violence, or promises of immunity or mitigation of punishment ; that this
was always the standard operation procedure in the investigation of the Mal-
medy massacre and i t was reduced to writing by BIaj. Dwight F. Fanton (see
par. 4, SOP No. 4, War Crimes Branch, USFET, Detachment a t I P No. 2, February
7,1946, exhibit 4 ) and was never revoked.
That the principal defense of the accused was to attack their own confessions ;
t h a t in preparing the defense each accused filled out a questionnaire (see exhibit
5 ) , prepared by petitioner or his staff, which was directed primarily against the
confessions. See particularly questions Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36,
37, and 35 of exhibit 5 ; t h a t a few days after the accused arrived a t Dachan the
petitioner officially complained about the alleged improprieties in the manner in
which the confessions were obtained; that on or abont April 24, 1946, the then
deputy theater judge advocate for war crimes ordered a n investigation made of
the matter by Lt. Col. (then Col.) Edward J. Carpenter (now judge advocate of
First Cavalry Division in J a p a n ) ; that he came to Dachau on or about April
24, 1946, and made such investigation and talked with several of the accused;
t h a t on Sunday April 28,1946, I was in Wiesbaden and was called into conference
with Lt. Col. (then Col.) C. E. Straight, the petitioner, Col. Willis PI. Everett, Jr.,
and Lt. Col. (then Col.) Edward J. Carpenter; that I was ordered to return to
Dachau and inqnire of my staff if any such alleged improprieties had talren
p!ace; t h a t I returned to Dachan on April 29, 1946, and held the conference
with my staff a s directecl, and upon informing them of the allegations of Colonel
Everett I was assured t h a t none of the alleged improprieties had talren place;
that I have subsequen'tly discussed the matter with Colonel Carpenter and he
told me t h a t four of the accused had admitted to him that their accusations of
violence and beatings were only made "to net out from under" their confessions
and mere not t r u e ; t h a t on April 30 the petitioner, Willis M. Everett, Jr., stated
to me t h a t Sprenger, Neve, Hoffman, J., and Jackel admitted fabrication of their
story of beatings; that in connection with the above my diary recites t h e
following :
WEISBADEN, April 28, 1946.
Two-hour conference today with Colonel Straight, Colonel Carpenter, a n d
Colonel Everett (defense counsel). Defendants claim they were beaten. Or-
dered to make inquiry of my staff and to withdraw a l l statements gotten under
compulsion.
Senator MCCARTHY. Who ordered that?
Colonel ELLIS. Colonel Straight. H e was the executive for the
deputy judge advocate for war crimes a t that time. I believe Colonel
Mickelwait was judge advocate for-
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU say Colonel Straight was from the
Pacific ?
Colonel ELLIS.NO, sir. That is Colonel Carpenter. Colonel Car-
penter is now in the Pacific theater. A t that time he was in ETO.
'[Reading :]
DACHAU,April 29, 1946.
Flew back to Dachau today. H a d immediate conference of staff and they
assured me none of the defendants were beaten. I so advised Straight, Corbin,
and Everett. &' * *
DACHAU,A pril SO, 1946.
Colonel Everett said today that Sprenger, Neve, Hoffman, J., and Jaskel admit
fabrication of story of beating. * * *
Senator MCCARTHY.Who told you that?
Colonel ELLIS.
Colonel Everett, himself. [Reading :]
That a s further evidence t h a t the allegations of maltreatment a r e without
foundation and were probably born i n the minds of the defense council, there is
attached hereto the affidavit of Lt. Col. Charles J. Perry dated March 6, 1947,
covering his conversation on February 6,1947, with the accused First Lieutenant
Junker and Colonel Peiper, both of whom received death sentences.
I would like to read that affidavit at this place.
Senator HUNT. Which is that?
Colonel ELLIS. NO.6, I am going to read now.
STATEMENT
OF CHARLESJ. PERRY,
0240597, LIEUTENANTCOLONEL,
AGD
On February 6,1947, I visited Landsberg Prison for the purpose of being pres-
ent during the interrogation of former SS personnel who mere awaiting esecu-
tion for their part in commission of atrocities committed in vicinity of Malmedy,
Belgium, and for nhich tliey mere found guilty by a military court and given t h e
death sentence. While a t Landsberg Prison I interviewed Joachim Peiper and
Benoni Junker, i n connection with their interrogation and treatment prior t o
their trial before the military court which heard their case.
Junker, who spoke excellent English. informed me t h a t during t h e development
of the Malmedy case a t Sn7abish Halle, Germany, he, a t no time, was struck
by anyone connected with the investigation of the case. H e stated t h a t the
treatment he received during his confinement a t Swabish Halle was better t h a n
the treatment he received a t Dachan and the physical conditions a t Swabish
Halle mere much better than those a t Landsberg. I again asked specifically
whrther h r had a t any time bqfore or during his trixl been struck or threatened
with bodlly harm by any interrogator. He answered specifically t h a t h e had
never a t any time been struck or threatened with bodily harm by any American
captor, interrogator, or jailor. I aqlied whether he had been treated in any
manner which might tend to humiliate him or degrade him in the eyes of his
former subordinates or superiors. He stated t h a t he was intensely interrogated
a t Swabish Halle and t h a t frequently his answers to direct questions were dis-
torted and colored to suit the ideas of his interrogators in a n effort t o elicit
further information, but t h a t such methods were not unusual and were probably
a great deal milder than the methods which would have been used by German
interrogators had t h e circumstances been reversed. H e further stated t h a t t h e
interrogation was not believed by him to be a n effort to degrade him before his
German comrades and actually did not so degrade him. I asked whether he had
. at any time seen or had been placed in cells which contained bullet holes or
pieces of flesh, human or other. H e answered that the story about pieces of
flesh was the figment of someone's imagination and without basis in fact, also,
t h a t since the prison a t Swabish Halle was a n old prison there may have been
holes i n t h e cell walls but he was certain t h a t if there weFe such holes he had
not seen them. H e further stated t h a t the story reference pieces of flesh and
bullet holes i n the walls was so fantastic to him that he wrote a humorous
limerick about that subject and addressed the limerick to the chief of the prose-
cutioll staff during the trial a t Dachau. Junker volunteered the information
t h a t he held no malice toward any individual connected with the prosecution of
his case, and t h a t he particularly esteemed and respected the chief of the prose-
cution staff, Lt. ,Col. Burton Ellis, JAGD. I asked whether he had heard stories
of mistreatment of prisoners a t Swabish Halle during the development of t h e
Malmedy case. Junlrer replied t h a t he had heard such stories from many of
t h e defendants i n t h a t case but t h a t he believed none of them to be true. H e
further volunteered t h e statement t h a t the origin of these stories was based on
a desire to "wiggle out of" damaging testimony voluntarily given by some of the
defendants; t h a t when they realized t h a t such testinlony n-as to their clisad- ,
vantage they attempted to negative such testimony with the false claim that it
w a s beaten out of them.
Senator MCCARTHY. May 1 interrupt again? I s this a conversa-
tion you had ?
Colonel ELLIS.NO,this is the inan who made that affidavit, Colonel
Perry.
Senator MCCARTHY.. Mr.

Chairman, I think that if Perry wmts to
testify, or anyone else, we should have them here. I believe me should
restrict ourselves to the testimony of this particular witness.
I think it is just a great waste of time for him to come and read
affidavits of other men who may or may not be witnesses. I f he
wants to present affidavits to the committee and wants them made a
part of the record, or wants to call witnesses, that is one thing, but I
think it is a great waste of time for him to come here and read an
affidavit given to him by the men who worked under him.
I frankly am not interested in them at all, unless they are here

so I can talk with them.
Colonel ELLIS. I understand he is to be called.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That

is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f he is to be called, let's have him testify
himself.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Senator McCarthy, this particular affidavit is part
of the record of the Clay Board and it has been accepted by the Ray-
mond-Harbaugh Board.
Senator MCCARTHY. I have no serious objection to it. It is merely
a question of wasting time, but if here is a man that is going to be a
witness a t this hearmg, there is no conceivable reason why Colonel
Ellis should read that man's affidavit.
Senator HUNT. I aFree with YOU thoroughly on the conservation
of time, which we all llke to accomplish.
However, in this particular case the colonel is attempting to col-
laborate his own statement and is well along with this particular
affidavit--
Senator MCCARTHY. I have no serious objection, it just seems to
be an unusual procedure for the witness to come in in this manner.
I am very anxious to talk, and attempt to find out what he knows.
Time is short. I f he is going to spend all of his time reading state-

ments by men who are accused of improper conduct over there, he may
well never get down t o getting information that we need here.
As I say, however, I have no serious objection t o it.
Senator HUNT.I f you don't mind, let him finish this and then
Colonel, do you have any other affidavits i n mind that you intend
reading ?
Colonel ELLIS.I have other affidavits that I have secured within
the last 2 or 3 weeks from administrative and medical personnel,
American people who were there present a t the prison, but if i t is not
your desire that they be read, it is all right with me.
I understand that some of these people are to be called as witnesses.
Senator MCCARTHY.Mr. Chairman, so that my position will be
clear, I think if we are going to call someone as a witness, and he is
going to come and testify under oath, there is no reason a t all why t h e
colonel should read this man's affidavit.
I f he is not important enough to be called as a witness, I think the
colonel should give your staff any, information he has, the names of
any individnals that he thinks can shed light on this subject. I think
we should go into this i n complete detail so that when we finish our
investigation, we either can once and for all do away with these claims
that there has been unusual procedure followed. Or, if the claims
have been correct, me will find out who is responsible for any un-
usual things that have been done.
I think it is so f a r from any procedure I h a ~ seeen, to have the wit-
ness come i n and read the affidavits of six or seven individuals, when
he himself is the important witness on many many things, and I know
I want to spend several hours with this man getting information.
Senator HUNT. D O you not think, Senator, that since Colonel Ellis
was the prosecutor i n these cases, that it is rather necessary that he
present the statements that were made to him as the chief prosecutor
in presenting his statement to us?
I agree too, if i t is not absolutely necessary, I don7tlike to sit here
and listen to affidavits about other men, but I can understand the
colonel's position. H e was chief prosecutor and he feels he needs this
supporting data a t this time, to support his position.
Senator KEFAUVER.Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt?
Why cannot Colonel Ellis summarize the affidavits he is going to
depend upon, and tell us i n one-tenth of the time it would take to read ,
them, what is in the affidavits, and then file them as a p a r t of the

record ?
Senator MCCARTHY.Also, the thing that occurs to me, this is part of
an unusual picture: You see, to begin with, there are very serious
accusations made by the Simpson-VaaRoden committee, as you know,
the two judges sent over to investigate. What happens? The com-
nlander of the theater appoints the Judge Aclvicate General to conduct
an investigation of himself, and we have a report of a man investi-
gating himself.
NOW,we have Colonel Ellis, who was i n charge during the time of
all of the investigations, and during the time of the trlal-and you
~ulderstanci,the Colonel may be entirely right, perhaps everything he
claims is absolutely true, but we will know that when we get through.
But, I don't think the proper way to proceed is to quote what his
subordinates, who allegedly were responsible for these atrocities said,
o r f o r us to say "Now, investigate yourself and tell me what hap-

pened"; and, then, he reads to us the report of the individuals whom
he is responsible for.
I think i t is a great waste of time.
I think if he has affidavits, they should be presented to the comrnit-
tee. I f he wants to make them available to the press, good; there is
no objection to that whatsoever; and then, this committee can deter-
mine whether or not the individuals whose affidavits are presented,
are important enough to be called, but 1don7twant to go any further
on this, Mr. Chairman, and perhaps waste more time arguing than I
have.
Colonel ELLIS. Senator, I believe you are misinformed.
Colonel Perry was not even i n the theater a t the time of the investi-
gation of Malmedy. H e was on the Skorzey case and trial, and
arrived there-
Senator MCCARTHY. Was he on your staff? '
Colonel ELLIS.H e was i n charge of the investigation and trial a t

this time, in the Skorzey case, and he had to talk with these people
who mere possible witnesses i n the Skorzey case.
Senator HUNT.Colonel Ellis, apparently you have 8 or 10 minutes
more of this particular brief. Would you care to summarize it, if
you could i n less time, or the chairinan is inclined to allow you t o
proceed to read the full a.ffidavit if you wish; but, I am in harmony
with the thinking of the Senator, if we can conserve time.
Colonel ELLIS.If it is the committee's desire that I not finish that
affidavit, i t is satisfactory with me. I do not want to waste your
time, either.
Senator UEPAUVER. Could you summarize it 2
Colonel ELLIS.Both Junker and Pieper, who were defendants in
t h e case, both received death sentences and claimed that these personnel
received no mistreatment, that all that they knew was just based on
hearsay; and, I think both of them go on further and say that it was
not brought to their attention until after the defense took charge of
t h e case, when they heard anything about it. T h a t is practically what
they say. I have not read this affidavit. for some time, but that is as
near as I can recall the sitbstance of their testimony. Both of them,
I think, state that their treatment a t Schwabisch Hall mas better than
, they received prior to, or subsequent to their confinement in other
prisons.
Senator HUNT.T hen, if you will proceed, Colonel.
Colonel ELLIS(reading) :
That petitioner, in paragraph 13 of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
describes a so-called mock trial used in the investigation of this case, which is
erroneous and misleading and not based upon f a c t ; t h a t an accurate description
of t h e so-called mock trial, which is based upon knowledge gained from once a s
a n unnoticed observer and not a s a participant, once a s a lmown observer, and
from discussions v i t h investigators, is a s follows-
Senator M~CARTEIY. This is your own statement now?
Colonel ELLIS.This is my own statement; yes. [Reading :]
The regular interrogation cells were used. They were about S feet square,
with a full normal-sized window, and in one corner was a toilet bowl. The
furniture consisted of three or four chairs and a small table. The table was COT-
.ered with black-out cloth and held two lighted candles and a crucifix. (The
.crucifix was nearly always used when taking sworn statements, a s it was my
M A L M E D Y MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 41
understanding that it was continental practice to use t h e crucifix instead o f the
Bible for this purpose.) ! h o or three members of the s t a f f were usually seated
behind the table, posing as officers,and two German-speaking interrogators were
present. This was known as the schnell procedure by the s t a f f . T h e accused
was brought i n and told that this was the schnell procedure. Witnesses would
be brought in and the accused was confronted by them. T o the best o f m y
recollection only bona fide ones were used and they were sworn. This was all
done very rapidly, with considerable lack o f decorum and noise. Everything
was in German, and I do not understand it, but I was told that one investigator
kept telling t h e various crimes the accused had committed and the 0the.r inves-
tigator kept insisting that the other investigator let the accused tell his story
and called the lritnesses liars. By the time the witnesses finished telling about
the shootings the arcnsed had participated in, the accused was whispering to the
investigator. About that time the whole thing dissolved, the witnesses being
talcen away and the s t a f f departilg to other duties. Tu'o announcement o f any
kind was made. I do not recall that the people sitting behind the table ever
said anything. T h e instructions given to all concerned were to scrupulously
avoid stating that a trial was being conducted, that no one should holcl himself
out as being the defense counsel, and that no findings or sentences would be.
pronounced.
Senator RLCCAKTHY. May I interrupt ?
Colonel ELLIS.Yes.
S-nator MCCARTHY.You mean, your thought is that the defendant
did not thinlr he was being tried a t this time?
Colonel ELLIS.I don't Imow what the thought was that was created
in the inincl of the inclividual.
Senator MCCARTHY.That is very important. You mere charged
with the conduct of an investigatioa. You have decided i n your own
1ni:lcI whether a t these mock trials the accused thought he was being
tried or not. You n7ere in charge of the whole area procedure.
Colonel ELLIS. That would be a most difficult question for me to
decide, whether he thought he was being tried or not.
I just woulcl not know whether he thought he was being tried or not.
We were trying t o get them t o talk, if t h a t is what you mean.
Senator MCCARTHY.I understand that, wholly. The question is
whether he used the proper methods or not. I want to find out whether,
in your opinion, a t these mock trials, the accused thought he was being
tried by a legitimate American.court, an Army court.
Colonel ELLIS.I don't think he did ;no, sir.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. YOUdon't think so?
Colonel ELLIS. NO.
Senator MCCARTFIY. YOUthink he knew this was a fake trial?
Colonel ELLIS. Well, to me i t was certainly a fake.
Senator MCCARTHY.Of course it mas.
Colonel ELLIS.111 fact all the rest of us, I don't snppose-I don't
just know what mas in his mind, I couldn't tell. It wasa't very effective,
1can tell you that.
Senator M~CARTIIY.Wasn't the whole purpose of this trial, the
whole purpose of this mock trial, and the only purpose to convince
the clefendant that he was being tried by a legitimate court? Wasn't
that the whole purpose of it, or what other explanation could you
give ?
Colonel ELLIS.T he purpose was to get him to t a l k It was not con-
gutted in the way that any trial I ever saw was conducted.
Senator HUNT.Colonel Ellis, let me ask you to elaborate on what
tool< place. . ,
Colonel ELLIS. .I only saw this one throt&h the peephole of a door.
T o my knowledge, that mas the only one that was ever condncted other
than another one that I will mention and describe later, in which there
were not even any witnesses there.
I
11 this particular instance, there was as I say, two or three of these
civilians, as soldiers, sitting behind the table, dressed as oflicers-
Senator HUNT.G ermans or Americans?
Colonel ELLIS. Americans.
Senator RSCCARTHY. Are you aware of the fact that the Harbaugh
committee, appointed by General Clay, has a report on file which has
been made public, i n which they state that when the so-called retrial
was commenced, that oftentinles it took 2 or 3 days i n effect to convince
the defendants that i t mas not another mock trial?
Colonel ELLIS.I am aware that that allegation was made.
Senator MCCARTHY.AS the man in charge of it, you know that we
can't find out, unless you come here and tell us the truth.
Colonel ELLIS.I am trying to-
Senator MCCARTHY.I f you do any twisting or clistorting of the
facts, i t makes i t impossible f o r us to determine whether your actions
were proper or improper.
I f these ere mock trials, you were a lawyer, you practiced law, you
know it is, of course, entirely improper to bring a defendant in and try
to convince him that he is being tried by a proper court, tried and
convicted, in an attempt to get a confession.
When you heard the charge that mock trials were being conducted,
I assume that, being i n charge, you knew whether they were true, and
you would take the trouble to find out. I assume you would find out
whether they were convinced that they were being tried legitimately.
I assume you would t r y to find out whether you should call off the
mock trials. F o r you to say you knew i t was a mock trial and there-
fore the defendant knew it was, doesn't impress me.
Colonel ELLIS.I don't think you should use the words ' 6 m o ~ trial."
k
It was a ceremony. We thought of i t as that. W e thought of the
hearings, being conducted with a lot of noise and lack of decorum, not
as a matter of whether i t was legal or not. I think Secretary Royal1
said on Btonday that the law was not decided on it, that i t was divided,
some States holding i t v a s legal and others that it was not.
Senator MCCARTI-IY.AS the lawyer i n charge, did you think it was
proper to use a mock trial, assuming, if I may use that term, use the
mock trial a t which the defendant or accused was convinced he was
being actually tried? Do you think that i t proper or improper?
Colonel ELLIS.I f it went on with all the various elements of the
trial, and sentence and the findings, I would say it was improper.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let's forget the elements such as you have
mentionecl. The accused knew he mas being tried by a court. Do you
think that proper or improper? I think i t is important.
Colonel ELLIS.I f he thought he was being tried by an American
court, I would answer the question this way-that the law books say
that artifices and deceptions may be used. I don't think there is a
treatise on criminal law any - -place that would not substantiate me i n
that.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let me ask you this. I think you can answer
"Yes" or LLNo'7--I am going to ask the chariman to insist that you do :
You were holding a very important position. Unless we know how
you felt i n this, what your thought was, as to what is right and what
is wrong, ~t1s lmposslble -tor us to iieterlniile jusc w h a ~a c ~ i v i ~ i ewwe
s
indulged in.
Let me ask, refer back to the Harbaugh report. I f a man were
brought in a t night, and sat before a table, or stood before a table
with a crncifix on i t and two candles, and assigned a phony defense
counsel-of course one of your prosecution staff, some of your prosecu-
tion staff posed as the defense counsel, and if that man is convinced
he is being tried, and witnesses are presented, do you think that is
proper or improper ?
Keep in mind a t this time-defense counsel is not present, knows
nothing about it. I11 your opinion, is that a proper or improper arti-
fice to get a confession?
Colonel ELLIS.Y OUdon't have all of the elements that are necessary.
Senator MCCARTHY.Assume those elements are there. You add
what other elements you want. The one important element in the
llliilcl of any competent lawyer is whether or not the accused thought
he IT-as being tried, No. 1; No. 2, whether or not his onrn defense
colmsel Tas present.
Let us assume those two elements existed, the accused thought he
m~asbeing tried, you had phony judges, your prosecution staff, y?u
assigned to him a phony defense counsel, and yon proceed with a trial
regardless of the lack of decorum in that situation-do yon think that
is proper or improper 17
Colonel ELLIS. T h a t did not happen in the Malmedy case.
Senator MCCARTHY.I don't care whether i t happened o r not, I
waiit to know whether you think that procedure would be proper or
improper. I am not arguing whether it is proper or not. I want
to know what you thought as the prosecutor in charge.
Colonel ELLIS. Will you read back the question?
Senator BIGCARTHY. I will repeat it.
I will ask you this : Whether this procedure is proper in your opin-
ion: Bringing an accused into a room, having a table in which there
is a black cloth, with a crucifix in the center and candles on both ends ;
behind that table having some prosecution staff posing as judges
assigned to the case, and a phony defense lawyer, in other words,
one of your prosecution staff as the defense attorney, not have his de-
fense attorney present a t the time; then, proceed t o take evidence, call
witnesses, during all of which time the accused thinks he is being
tried. Do you think that is a proper or improper procedure ?
Colonel ELLIS.I would say, where you assign the defense counsel,
and that you then lead him to believe he is being defended, properly
defended, but when there is no assignment of defense counsel, no one
says "I am your defense counsel" to him, then I think that would be
a proper procedure.
Senator MCCARTHY.You say it is improper if they say "You have
a defense lawyer" ? I t is improper then 'l
Colonel ELLIS.Yes, I'll tell you why.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUcan, later on. You say, however, if the
prosecution dicl not assign him a defense counsel, if he were made to
clefend himself, that then it would be perfectly proper-you can't
mean that.
Colonel ELLIS.Y OUare putting things in there. I would like to

answer on the basis of what we did. W e can go on this forever, on
theoretical and hypothetical questions.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let me ask you this question: How long have
you practiced law ?
Colonel ELLIS.S ince 1929.
Senator MCCARTHY.And where did you practice?
Colonel ELLIS. I practiced in California and in New York.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n New York, and you were a tax lawyer?
Colonel ELLIS.W ith the Texas Co.
Senator MCCARTHY.The Texas Corp. ?
Colonel ELLIS.T h a t is right.
Senator MCCARTHY.Were you a tax consultant; is that right?
Colonel ELLIS.O ne of their tax consultants. I wasn't the head
of the department; no, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.One of the men in the tax department?
Colonel ELLIS. That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did you ever appear in court?
Colonel ELLIS.During the time that I was with-
Senator MCCARTHY.Be very careful and give us the facts.
Colonel ELLIS. I am going to give them to you.
During the time I was with the Texas Co. I never appeared in
court, but the Texas Co., as f a r as I know in the place where I was
assigned, never had a tax case that went to court.
Senator MCCARTHY. You never appeared in court while you were
with the Texas Co. ?
Colonel ELLIS.T hat is right.
Senator MCCARTHY.After you left the Texas Co., where did you go ?
Colonel ELLIS.I n the service.
Senator MCCARTHY.SOthat prior to entering the service you never
appeared in a court.
Colonel ELLIS.I didn't say that-as a tax lawyer.
Senator MCCARTEIY.Did you ever appear in court?
Colonel ELLIS. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.Prior to going with the Texas Co. ?
Colonel ELLIS. NO. sir: while I was with the Texas Co.
Senator MCCARTEIY. asked you awhile ago, while you were with
the Texas Co. whether you ever appeared in cpurt.
Colonel ELLIS.Y OUunderstand, not as a tax attorney.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let's get the proper understanding.
Did you ever appear in court while you were with the Texas Co. ?
Colonel ELLIS.Yes; but not represent in^ the Texas Co., however.
Senator RICCARTHY. Not representing the Texas Co. All right.
Roughly, how many times did you appear in court?
Colonel ELLIS. Well, over a period of years, 1would say 10 or 15
times.
Senator MCCARTHY.That is, from 1929; when did you go into the
service ?
Colonel ELLIS.I n 1942.
S-nxtor MCCARTHY.SOTYXI appeared in c o ~ r at bout once a year?
Colonel ELLIS. Aplmoximately.
Senator AICCARTEIY. Approxi~natelyonce a year.
Colonel ELLIS. Most of those cases were in the forepart of my prac-
tice, however, and were not when I went to New York. I never ap-
peared there.
Senator MCCARTHY. When did you go to New Yorlr ?
Colonel ELLIS. I n 1935, as I recall.
Senator MCCARTHY. From 1029 to 1938 you appeared in court maybe
10 or 15 times, and after that you were never in court.
Colonel ELLIS.That is right.
Senator MCCARTIIY.What type of cases did you try ill court?
Colonel ELLIS. Divorces and probates.
Senator MCCARTHY.So, you had no experience whatsoever in crim-
inal law ?
Colonel ELLIS. Absolutely none.
Senator MCCARTHY.And knew nothing about it-and in the Ai*iny,
the Army put you in charge of the criininal prosecution?
Colonel ELLIS. I n 1945-
Senator MCCARTHY.I might say-
Colonel ELLIS. I was in charge of this prosecntion.
Senator MCCARTHY. I might say, 1111.. Chairinan, it is unfortunate
that we have got to cross-examine this defendant as vigorously as me
have to, who has as complete a lack o i knowledge of our procedure i n
this country as he has. I don't think i t is his fault, if it proves that he
did such a bad job as the two judges sent out claim he did, if i t is proven
that the Army report, the Harbaugh report, is correct. I don't think
this is the inan that should be conclen~necl. I think the Army put a
man in charge of the criminal trials who had had no experience in that
line whatsoever, and told him to try the cases. Perhaps he is a very
competent tax attorney, no doubt he is. I think I should say i t is
expecting entirely too much to take a man who had never appeared
in court in a criminal trial and put him in charge of the most impor-
tant criminal trials we have ever had to conduct.
Colonel ELLIS. Senator, may I interrupt? I was put in chnrqe of
this case in 1946. I had been in the Army 4 years at that time. I mas
put in charge, I think my reputation as a trial attorney in the Army
will stand on the record. I have no apologies to make about it.
Senator MCCARTHY. I frankly think yon should, Colonel, n7hen yon
tell us i t vould be proper to have a inocli trial, with no defense connsel
present, a i d the prisoners have to defend themselves, and you think
that is proper. I t is improper.
Colonel ELLIS. That is a play on words, Senator.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Then tell us, and this is very, very important:
I v h a t clo yon coilsider proper or improper? Am I correct-this is
going into the record, if you want to correct it-am I correct that yon
say i t would be improper to have a mock trial if you assign the de-
fendant a phony defense counsel, that mould be improper. However,
~f you made him defend himself-
Colonel Emis. You added that.
Senator MCCARTHY. Made hiin defend himself before this court,
then i t would be proper?
Colonel ELLIS. YOUadded that conclusioll t o it. I didn't say that,
.sir.
Senat,or JIGCARTHY.
Now, you tell us, will you?
Colonel ELLIS.T his was a n interrogation and i t was for that pur-
pose i t was conducted. Many times I am sure, in civil practice, the
accused are interrogated by more than one person a t a time. I have
never participated i n any, but I understand that is true.
You are a jndge and you probably have handled more criininal
cases, and probably know better than I do, but I nnclerstalid that t o
be the truth.
Senator MCCAR'THY. I have been a judge so long, and have tried
enough criminal cases that i t makes me rather sick down inside t o
hear you testify what you think is proper or iinproper.
May I ask you this, again, and I don't want to take d l day, Mr.
Chairman, but I think this is a very important matter, to discover his
attitude, to find out what he lrnows about criminal procedure.
Let nie ask you this: Do you thiiik it is proper to conduct a mock
trial as a trial i n mhicli the accused tl~ii-tkshe is actnally being tried,
using your prosecution staff as phony judges, no defense attorney
present, assigning him, we say, a phony defense counsel, somebody
that is not even a defense counsel, do you think that is proper or
improper ?
Colonel ELLIS.I answered that.
Senator MCCARTHY. 111 orcler to get i t straiglit-
Colonel ELLIS.I a~iswere~l that quescion oncr.
Senator MCCBRTHP.SOt h t -ire are sure of your answer, do you
think that is improper?
Colonel ELLIS.I certainly do. I think tlie law will bear that out.
Senator MCCARTHY.You think it is improper, and if however he
were not asigned any defense counsel, if you get your pholly judges
behind the bench, you have your witnesses appearing, and not as-
signed a defense counsel, but. he does feel he is being trled, mould you
say that is proper or improper ?
Colonel ELLIS.I f he felt that h e was being tried, I presume that
the conclusion would be that it would be improper. I don't know
they thonght they were being tried. It was an entirely diflerent
thing; it wasn't for that purpose; i t was not to pronounce any sen-
tence, or give any findings, but it was trying to get evidence-
Senator MCCARTHY.W e will give you a chance to talk as much as
you want.
So, you think it would be iinproper, i n either event, either with de-
fense attorney, or without defense attorney, as long as he tlioukht he
was being tried, is that right 1
Colonel ELLIS. I presume it would be so.
Senator MCCARTI-IY.YOLI presume it to be so? As the man i n
charge of that iinportant trial, is i t your opinion that it was proper
or improper ?
That is a most elementary question. Can you answer? T h a t is a
simple qnestion to ask a criminal lawyer.
Colonel ELLIS. I will come back to this : T h e law says in some States
it is proper to have mock trials and i n others, i t says it is not.
Senator MCCARTHY.Forgetting about tlie different States, do you
thinlc i t was proper, over in that area of Germany in which you were
in charge-do you think i t was proper or iinproper ?
Colonel ELLIS.S ir, the evidence under which-the rules of evidence
under which the war crimes were tried were most liberal.
Senator IVICCARTEIY. I n your opinion.
MALMED Y MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 47
Colonel ELLIS.N O; not i n my opinion. I can show you the record,
the law.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I have a simple question I am asking you.
Let me ask, forget about what happens back home, but in Europe, you
were i n charge of a very important criminal trial and I want to ask
you some very simple questions.
Do you think that type of mock trial is proper or improper? Are
you willing to allow that type of mock trial to be used ?
Colonel ELLIS.I think the answer to that question would be-so
long as I let the court who weighs the evidence h o w how I obtained
that confession, that is the important thing. Then, the duty is on
them.
I want to point out to you, sir, that the prosecntion, when they are
laying the foundation for the introduction of those confessions, they
told the court how they were obtained, and the court weighed the
evidence.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words you say i t mould be proper t o
get a confession in any may yon saw fit, so long as you let the court
know how you got the confession?
Colonel ELLIS. I think under the rules of evidence, i t woulcl be per-
fectly proper. There were some things that would be repulsive t o
one individual that would not be to another. I certainly would not
allow a confession to be used where a man was beaten o r forced under
threats or colnpulsion to make a confession, I am definitely opposed
to that.
Senator MCCARTHY.I am glad to know that.
Now, getting back to the mock trials, you mould allow then-
Colonel ELLIS.Where the law is conflicting on it, I think I would
have a right to let the court decide, itself.
Senator MCCARTHY.When I am talking, if yon won't talk, then I
won't talk when you are talking.
Colonel ELLIS.I f you will go along with me.
Senator HUNT. You might consult the chairman occasionally.
Colonel ELLIS. Pardon.
Senator MCCARTHY.I am sure the chairman does not object t o my
asking a few simple questions.
You say you thinli that is proper 8
Colonel ELLIS. I enjoy having- you ask me these questions.
Senator MCCARTHY.See if I have your position correctly i n mind.
You think it is proper then, to use the mock trial if the court were
informed, that is, the final legitimate honest court were informed that
you used this phony court previously?
Colonel ELLIS.Under the rules of evidence which we were practicing
under over there, I thinli i t would be.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUthinli i t would be proper.
Colonel ELLIS. Yes.
Senator MCCARTT~Y. DO you feel! yourself, using different rules of
evidence i n that area than we use 111 the criminal procedure here a t
home, that that is proper?
Colonel ELLIS.M ost certainly ;they adn~ittedhearsay there, ancl you
don't here.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, you clicln't feel that you were
bound by the same rules of evidence that we follow here-
Colonel ELLIS. Definitely-
48 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOX
Senator MCCARTIIY.Let me finish.

You don't feel bound by the same rules that our Federal and State
courts follow in this country?
Colonel ELLIS. NO,sir. That is laid down to us by SHAEF. They
set the rules of evidence, not I.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou have copies of those rules of evidence?
Colonel ELLIS. Yes, sir, I have; and that is what I wanted to show
yon. Here it is right here. This is my copy, and the only one I have,
please.
Senator MCCARTHY. S H A E F has approved the use of hearsay?
Colonel ELLIS. They sure did.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, the use of having a witness
testify as to what someone else has said-correct ?
Colonel ELLIS. That is mv understanding..
Senator MCCARTHY. ISthYat your underzanding?
Colonel ELLIS.Yes.
Senator &CARTHY. That is the rule you followed?
Colonel ELLIS. That is the rule we foilowed, and that is the rule all
those courts followed.
Senator MCCARTHY. What other deviations were there?
I assume the chairman doesn't mind?
Senator HUNT. The Chairman has no objection, Senator, excepting
I would like for the Colonel to finish his statement before we adjourn,
if possible.
I mould like, too, Senator, to suggest this situation: That after
all, this hearing is not a prosecution of the witnesses before us. What
we are attemptmg to do is just get the witnesses' statements, and then
we will be the judge of whether they did things in the right manner or
not. That is my interpretation of the hearings.
Senator I~~ICCARTHY. 1entirely disagree. If that is the purpose of
this hearing, to merely get the witnesses' statements and let it drop
a t that, I am wasting my time sitting in. I think when we have a
witness who was in charge in that area, we should have not only the
right but the responsibility to go into complete details as to the whole
methocls that they employed over there, what his ideas are on criminal
law, mhat he felt was right, what he felt could be done, and unless we
do that, this is a completely useless hearing.
Unless we do that, in fact, I would definitely return to my Expendi-
tures Committee and ask them to immediately commence an investiga-
tion. I f we are just going to hear the statements of these witnesses
and let i t rest at that, i t is a waste of time and money.
A t this time, I don't lrnow-I don't know whether the report of the
Army is true or not. I f it is true, something should be done about it.
I don't lmow ~vhetherthe report made by the Van Roclen-Sin~pson
committee is true or false. I f their reports are true, t h w the prosecu-
tion was conducted in such a nlnnner as to do inore damage to American
prestige than anything we coulcl conceive of.
If a.man is put in charge of the investigation and trials such as
thls, who has never been in court in a criminal case before, and ap-
parently hasn't the first conception of w h a t f r o m what he testified
to-as to what coi~stitutesproper criminal procedures, we want to
know it. Then, when me get a11 that information we should be able
to recoinmencl to the Army and Congress mhat steps should be taken
to make sure that in the future the trials are properly conducted.
As I say, it is not a criticism of this man. You take a young fellow
who is a tax attorney-not the head of the staff, but a tax attorney
for a large corporation-who had never appeared in court before
except in divorce cases, the Army takes him, puts him in charge, and
I say, in charge of one of the most important criminal trials ever
conducted anywhere.
Senator KEFAUVER. Could me ask the witness how much longer his
statement is?
Colonel ELLIS. Not too much longer.
Senator KEFAWER.Wouldn't it be the solution to let him finish his
statement and then-
Colonel ELLIS. I am on page 7, and it goes to 15.
Senator MCCARTHY. I have no objection.
Senator HUNT. If that is agreeable.
Senator MC~SRTHY. The reason 1 interrupted was to get an im-
portant point. I felt that it was more important to pin that down
at the time, rather than try to later on.
Colonel ELLIS(reading) :
No annonncement of any kind was made. I do not recall t h a t the people
sitiing behind the table ever said anything. The instructions given to all con-
cerned were to scrupulously avoid stating t h a t a trial was being conducted,
that no one should hold liilnself out a s being t h e defense counsel, and that no
findings or sentences woulcl be pronounced; t h a t it would be referred t o a s t h e
"schnell procedure"; t h a t I only have personal knowledge of two of these cere-
monies being held, but I have been tolcl that there were a s man)- a s six or seven,
all of which were not snccessful; t h a t the accused Hennecke, one of the two
whom I saw undergo the "schnell proceclure," was 23 years of age a t the time
of the t r i a l ; that my diary indicates t h a t his "schnell procednre" was held
March 8,1946, and that the date of his sworn statement taken subsequent thereto
and used a t the trial is March 13, 1948 ; that the other "schnell procedure" which
I witnessed was i n the case of Von Chamier, and occurred on the night of March
20, 1946; this accused arrived from the United States by plane and was de-
livered to the prison a t Schwabische Hall, Germany, a t about 2100 hours on the
20th of March; t h a t about 2300 hours t h a t evening he was interrogated in my
presence; that I s a t behind a table in semidarkness-due to the fact t h a t there
mas no ceiling light, a wall light was used; a s f a r as I can recall I never spoke
a word; t h a t Corporal Cain brought t h e accused into the room; t h a t Captain
Shumaker and Mr. Thon did the interrogating; t h a t no witnesses were used:
that after about 10 minutes of Von Chamier stating "Nein, nein," he admitted
his participation in t h e Malmedy illassacre; t h a t the statement he made and
which was used in the trial was sworn to on March 21, 1946; t h a t a t the time
of the trial Von Chamier was 30 years of age.
I might say at that time-now I have no recollection of whether
there were candles or a crucifix on the table in this particular so-
called schnell procedure. I only referred to it because I referred
to it in my diary as a matter of procedure. Otherwise, I would not
have even mentioned it. [Reading :]
That I do not know of a n occasion, even for cliscipli~~ary reasons, where any
of the accused were ever deprived of their food for a s mnch a s even 1 day,
nor were any blankets withdrawn in minter or i n spring t h a t I ever heard
about; t h a t I do recall asking the officer in charge of the prison for t h e Fifty-
Eighth Armored Field Artillery to give Peiper more blankets, a s he com-
plained to me of sleeping cold; t h a t the so-called death cells which were on the
same floor and opposite the intetrogation cells were used a s a matter of con-
venience to hold prisoners while they were being interrogated; t h a t they were
never held there more than a few days a t a time; t h a t these cells were ap-
Proximately the same a s the others except that the window was higher and i t
had a n additional door; the bed may have been closer to the floor, but a s to
this I am no longer certain; t h a t if there were beatings or any corporal punish-
ments administered to either the accused or witnesses, I did not hear of them,
50 MXLMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
and I cannot beliere this would have happened without in^ knowing of i t ; t h a t
the only tricks and ruses and so-called stratagems employed which I know
about were those the prosecution told to the court during the presentation of t h e
evidence ; t h a t I linow of no instance where promises of immunity or light sen-
tences were ever made to any of the accused or where any hopes of reward were
ever held out to them.
That petitioner, i n paragraph 16 of his petition for writ of habeas corpus,
gives a completely incorrect account of the suicide of Freimuth; t h a t my
knowledge of this erent is a s follows: That Freimuth committed suicide t h e
night of-March G 7 , 1946; t h a t a t the time he mas confined alone in a cell
in the building used exclusively for accused and witnesses of the Rfalmedy
Massacre case; t h a t if Freimuth was ever given the "scl~nell procedure" i t
never came t o my attention, and if i t had happened I'm sure I would have
known of i t ; t h a t the entries i n my cliary in connection with this event a r e
a s follows :
"filarch 6, 1946: Harry Tone got Hans Hillig's confession today. Perl took
Freiinuth's confession. * " * Per1 went with Captain - , M. D., to
Stuttgart to get his car. * * *
"March 7, 1946: * :: * Arviecl Freimuth h n ~ ghiinself last night (had
lined ~ m e r i c a n PW's up a t LaGlaise and engag% in target practice on
them). * * *"; that my recollection i s not clear on all the details, but i t
is my belief t h a t Perl and the Medical Corps captain left rather early in the
afternoon of March G for Stnttgart-
I might add that later I found out i t was Captain Richter, and I
understand he is t o be called as a witness-
and left Freimuth to finish writing h i s confession without supervision, and
that he mas given paper, pen, and ink to take to his cell to finish the job and
that the confession was found i n the cell the next morning by myself a s I mas
called a s soon a s the body was found by the guards; t h a t I have no reason to
believe t h a t Freimuth was ever mistreated i n any way by any of the personnel
under my command and supervision, nor by any of the guards or other admin-
istrative personnel of IP KO. 2, a t Schwabische Hall.
T h a t I never was apprised of any occasion where forged confessions were
ever used i u ' a n effort to persuade accused t o sign confessions; t h a t the death
chamber with bullet holes in the wall i n which hnlnan flesh was imbedded was
pure imagination and was a subject of ridicule even among the accused them-
selves (see exhibit 7, a limerick which mas sent to me during the trial by
the accused J'unker) ; that to the best of my lmowledge and belief no accused
was ever taken to the so-called hangman's room and there unhooded, placed ,
on a high stool, and a hangman's rope placed around his neck; nor did t h e
prosecution team suggest and allow the accused to write farewell letters to
their parents before they would be hanged; nor did members of the prosecution
team offer the accused the privilege of seeing a priest before death; nor were .
any threats of violence and torture ever directed toward the mothers, fathers,
sisters, wives, and children of the accused unless they signed confessions.
That to the best of my knowledge and belief stool pigeons mere not used
a s described by petitioner i n paragraph 18 of his petition for a writ of habeas
corpns.
I might add we did use some stool pigeons.
Senator MCGARTHY. It is perfectly proper to use stool pigeons.
Colonel E m s (reading) :
Eshibit C referred to by petitioner in paragraph 19 of his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus does not correctly recite the testimony of the record
of trial, which it purports to d o ; that said exhibit C purports to be testimony
which was elicited in chronological order, whereas a s a matter of fact i t is
excerpts taken from over 25 pages of record, beginning on page 675 and ending
on page 701.
That exhibit D referred to by petitioner i n paragraph 21 of his petition for
a writ of habeas corpus is not t h e correct and true order appointing the court,
a s hc alleges; t h a t I, the alzant, TWS the appointed trial jndge advocate and
did try the case, whereas exhibit D referred to by pelitioner sshon-s a Lt. Col.
Granger C. Sutton a s the trial judge advocate..
T h a t I do not know to what the petitioner refers in paragraph 22 of his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, by the statement "questionable actions of
the chief prosecutor and his staff"; that I do lmow t h a t the petitioner was a p
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATlON 51
poillted chief clefense counsel prior to April 11, 1046; t h a t on t h a t date he arid
members of his s t a g arrived a t Schwabische H a l l ; t h a t he did not make a
request to interview a single accused while he was there but shortly left for
Dachan; t h a t on April 15, 1946, I went to Uncl~anto 1nal;e arrangements for
the arrival of the accused and witnesses, secure office space ancl billets for my
staff, and to complete other arrangenients for the trial ; t h a t I found the petitioner
in Dachau had made no arrangments for billets, office space, transportation, nor
any other necessary arrangements for his staff; that I personally secured billets
for his staff, a s well a s office space, typewriters, etc., and on April 20, 1946,
turned orer to him half the transportation I had assigned to me for the use of
my staff; that I repeatedly urged him to get busy on the preparation of his
defense, a s we were anxious to get started, a s my staff were looking forward
to early recleployment.
That the reference by petitioner, in paragraph 23 of his petition for a writ of
habeas corpns, to a woman allegedly murclered in Wanne, Belgium, i s false and
misleading, a s there is no reference i n the record of trial t o any woman being
killed a t this place; t h a t there was a n unknown, womsn murdered in Eullingen,
and to rebut this the petitioner produced a statement by a man whose wife had
been killed by artillery fire, not sworn to before a priest a s the petitioner
alleges, but before one of the petitioner's own investigators, Miles W. Rulien, P-5.
That the alleged tampering with witnesses of the clefense by t h e prosecution,
as stated by petitioner in paragraph 24 in his petition for a writ of habeas corpns,
is not t r u e ; t h a t the facts a r e t h a t a t that time innny war criminals i n other
cases, from other places of confinement throughout Europe, were being brought
to Dachau ; some of these were coming a s a result of TWX's sent out in the fall
of 1948 for all members of the First SS IJanzer Regiment to be sent to Zuffen-
hausen; others from this regiment were being sent by F r a n c e ; t h a t i t was t h e
policy of the prosecution to interrogate all members of the First SS Panzer Regi-
ment when they arrived; that the defense clicl not notify the prosecution who
their witnesses were, and i t did happen t h a t the prosecxtion interrogated some
defense witnesses before the defense had a n opportunity to do s o ; t h a t I have
no personal knowledge of any tampering with defense witnesses by the prosecn-
tion; t h a t if there was any tampering with witnesses i t was on the p a r t of t h e
defense and not the prosecution. See R-2966, re here accused Georg Preuss tried
to influence the testimony of prosecution witness Kohles.
That the incident recited by petitioner in the first paragraph of paragraph 26
of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is incorrect i n t h a t it i s a complete
distortion of the f a c t s ; that what actually happened was t h a t the accused had
been searched by the black guards and all prohibited writings and communica-
tions taken from them; t h a t these writings were turned over to Lieutenant
Per1 by the block commander of the guard ancl I instructed Lieutenant Per1 t o
translate them for me.
That a s to the allegations in the second paragraph of paragraph 26, it should
be said t h a t the wires of the accused were permitted to and did attend the
trial; t h a t members of the prosecution staff were sitting a t the prosecution table
and could be easily identified a s the ~ ~ r o s e c i ~ t;i ot hn a t i n n ~ a u yinstances wives
of the accused came to the prosecution staff requesting special privileges, but
that to my knowledge no one on the prosecution staff ever represented himself
to be defense counsel of t h e accnsed.
That the allegations of petitioner in paragraph 2s of his petition for a writ
of habeas corpus may represent the petitioner's state of mind when he made the
announcement in court about "the f e a r of the prosecutors lingers on"; that,
however, a clay or so before this fateful announcement he asked to see me pri-
vately, either one morning before court started or a t recess; t h a t a t t h a t time
he evidenced concern about the unfarorable showing ancl impression the accused
were making on the court and asked my advice as a friend and fellow attorney
a s to whether or not he should continue putting them on the s t a n d ; t h a t to this
I replied in substance and effect: "Willis, a s f a r a s I know, none of the defense
counsel i n previous cases have kept the accused off the witness stand. I t seems to
me that if I were defending one of these cases and felt my accused were guilty,
they would only take the witness stand over my dead body, for the reason most
of them get mixed up i n their a t t e i n ~ t sa t explanations ancl wind up giving
credence to their confessions"; that following this conrersation, three more of
the accused took the witness stand, all with disastrous results ; t h a t then followed
the petitioner's announcement t h a t he mas not putting any more of t h e accused
on the stand.
52 MALMEDY MASSACRE INYESTIGATION
That petitioner in paragraph 23 of his petition for a writ of habeas corpns

states t h a t when the prosecution rested, only a few days were allowed the
defense staff to interview witnesses and plan the defense for their 74 defendants ;
that the record of trial on page 15'79 recites the following:
"PRESIDENT.The German counsel have requested a lapse of fire working days
before the defense opens its case, which request i s endorsed by chief counsel for
the defense. I n order to fully serve the interests of justice, this request i s
granted by the court. Accordingly, the court is now adjourned to meet again a t
0830 hours, Monday, June 17th."
That the prosecution rested its case a t 1555 hours June 7, 1946; t h a t i t is
pointed out t h a t the petitioner a s chief defense counsel did not ask i n open
court for more than the five working days requested by German counsel; t h a t
a s an actual fact the defense had 9 days between the time the prosecution rested
on Friday, J u n e 7, 1946, and the time the trial commenced again on Monday,
June 17,1946.
T h a t the aspersions cast by the petitioner upon the character, integrity, up-
rightness, and professional ethics of my suborclinates in the investigation and
trial of the Malmedy massacre is a matter of grave concern to m e ; that with the
exception of one War Department civilian investigator, Harry Thon, all the
principal investigators and counsel were members of the bar of some State or
Austria; t h a t I personally hold them i n high esteem and am pround of them
for their accomplishments i n this case; t h a t they participated throughout with
a strong sense of responsibility and a n exhibition of devotion to duty, loyalty
and sincerity of purpose never before nor since witnessed by me; that without
the great spirit, enthusiasm, diligence, industry, thoroughness, intelligence, and
team play exhibited by each and every one of the detachment, including officers,
enlisted men, United States and Allied civilian employees, male and female,
the announcement made by the W a r Department early in 1945 "that the per-
petrators of the Malmedy massacre would be brought to justice" i n my opinion
never would have been accomplished.
Senator MCCARTHY. Read that last sentence again.
Colonel ELLIS. That is a long sentence, going back to the previous
p e. Do you want to look a t it?
Tenator MCCARTHY. If I may.
Mr. Chairman, I have a suggestion I would like to make. I think in
view of the tremendous import of the findings of this committee, it
might be an excellent idea for the committee to invite some representa-
tives of the American Bar Association to sit in as spectators, in other
words, as amicus curiae.
I also think it would be an excellent idea, if this Technical Manual
for Legal and Prison Officers, Second Edition, which contains some
rather unusual deviations from American rules of evidence and rules
of evidence of the British law, be submitted to the American Bar
Association with the request that they go over this and give this com-
mittee the benefit of their thoughts on the necessity, if any, for these
deviations from our rules of evidence.
Senator HUNT.I see no objection a t all to your request, Senator.
The staff will attend to that, of course this volume belongs tn
Colonel Ellis.
How many copies of that are available, Colonel?
Colonel ELLIS. That is the only one I have. I brought that back
from Europe, and i t may be that the Judge Advocate General, War
Crimes, or maybe the Civil Affairs Division has a copy, but that is the
only copy I have.
Senator MCCARTHY. I assume you have no objection to the commit-
tee keeping this for the time being?
Colonel ELLIS. Absolutely not, but I would like to have it back at
the conclusion of the hearings.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I hate to have it lost. If possible, I would like
very much to get a copy of that.
MALMEDY lMASSACRE INVESTIGATION 53
Mr. Chairman, I have a letter I would like to read.
Do vou know one of the official reporters,

- James J. Bailey, from
pittsb;rgh, Pa. 1
Colonel ELLIS.T he name is a little bit familiar, and that is, if you
give me some dates and other connections.
Senator MCCARTHY. I will give you those. His name is James J.
Bailey, official court reporter, 536 Court House, Pittsburgh, Pa., hone
number, Atlantic 4900.
Here is the letter I got from him this morning, and I know nothing
&out this gentleman's background, except that I have phoned and
found that he is an official court reporter, and I had my office get in
touch with him and ask him if he would be available in case he were
called upon to substantiate the things he sets forth in this letter.
I will read the letter to you.
HON.SENATOR MCCARTHY:An article in today's Pittsburgh Press concerning
your demand for a stay of execution of six Nazi stormtroopers, sentenced to

death for their part in the Malmedy massacre, prompts me, in the interests of
American jnstice and fair play, to write you this letter.
I was one of a "team" of nine, consisting of three lawyers, four so-called in-
terpreters, another shorthand reporter ancl myself, who u-ere sent from the W a r
Crimes Branch, Wiesbaden, Germany, to Schwabisch Hall, Germany, where t h e
SS troops were imprisoned. We arrived i n Schwabisch Hall on or about Decem-
ber 27, 1945, and I remained there until the early p a r t of March 1946. The
purpose of our being sent there was to obtain confessions from the prisoners
and prepare pretrial data. During my stay a t Schwabisch Hall, the entire team
spent a n average of about 8 hours per day in the prison. During my 10-weeks
stay, I took in shorthand, through the interpreters, practically a l l of the so-called
verbatim confessions of the prisoners, ancl typewrote a t least half of the trans-
lated long-hand statements t h a t had been purported made by the prisoners. I
still retain a considerable portion of my original shorthand notes.
The methods used by these so-called interpreters to obtain these "confessions"
were such t h a t after a period of 10 weeks, I could stomach i t no longer and re-
quested my return to t h e United States. After these interpreters had "worked
out" on these prisoners (some of whom were kids of 16 and 17 years of age),
and softened them up and scared them into a condition where they would con-
fess to anything, the prisoner then had a long multicolorecl robe thrown over
him, and black hood pulled clown over his head, and rope knotted about his
neck, and he was marched into a cell to be interrogated by cne of the lawyers.
1 have been present in cells where there mas only a small table with a black
cloth over the top, and containing a crucifix and two candles, and when t h e
Prisoner was marched in, and the black hood suddenly jerked from his head,
he fainted dead away, his nose striking the concrete cell floor, flattening his
nose and making his face a bloody mass, and I have then seen the interpreter
take his foot and push the prisoner over on his back, jerk him t o his feet, and
tell the American lawyer t h a t t h e prisoner w a s faking. The lawyer would then
proceed to interrogate him and obtain his confession, which I took down in
shorthand and then reduced to typewriting for the prisoner's signature, but I
am definitely certain t h a t the statement which the prisoner ultimately signed
and which was later used to help convict him a t the Malmedy trial in no wag
remotely resembled the original "confession" given i n the cell. I have wit-
nessed the use of physical force, threats of bodily harm, and even death used t o
obtain these so-called confessions.
I have been a n official court reporter f o r the past 28 years, i n both civil and
criminal courts, and feel t h a t I have some linomledge of the way American
justice is dispensed in our American courts, and the methods used by the pre-trial
War Crimes Branch, which was presided over by Lieutenant Colonel Ellis, who
later, I understand was t h e chief prosecuting attorney a t the Malmedy trials,
were so brutal a s to be repnlsive to any American with a sense of decency and
fair play. I have no sympathy for the Germans; I have no German connections
of any kind; my ancestors a r e all Irish-Americans. The massacre of those 80
American soldiers a t Malmedy was a dastardly crime, and the guilty I feel should
have received the death sentence, but why make a nlockery of American justice
and pretend a f a i r trial, when the evidence w a s obtained i n a manner most
54 AIALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
repugnant to any true American, obtained by starvation, brutality, threats of

bodily harm and even death, yes, and a lot of the evidence even manufactured.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMESJ. BAILEY.
Colonel ELLIS. H e may have been there. I don't recall. I will
check this if you want, but I don't recall the name.
Senator MCCARTEIY.Let me ask yon this: When yon stood behind
a table, or in tlle comer of a room t h a t you saicl was in semi-clarkness,
and watched one of these schnell procedures, as you called it, the Army
board refers to i t as a mock trial, did you feel that that was being
properly conclucted ?
Colonel ELLIS.Yes, sir ; I sure did.
Senator M C ~ A I ~ T H Y .
when you say you saw the mock trial
And
through the cell door, I believe you said-did you feel that was prop-
erly conducted ?
Colonel ELLIS. It certainly was.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let me ask you this, so we won't misquote in
any way: Do you feel that the Harbaugh. Coinn~itteeis giving us a
true picture when they describe the mock trial on page 3 of the report?
They say :
Mock trials: At the trial the prosecution admitted and the board finds in the
evidence before it, that in certain instances, probablr about S or 10-
You saicl two or three.
Colonel ELLIS.TWO is a11 I personally know about. I understand
there were as many as six or seven.
Senator MCCARTHY.And the board says 8 or 10, do they not?
Colonel ELLIS. I believe my own figures are more approximately
correct.
Senator MCCARTHY(continuing) :
The use of a so-called mock trial was resorted to in a n attempt to "soften up" a
witness who was thought to be susceptible to such procedure. Those trials were
held a t Swabisch Hall in one of the cells, sometimes a small cell about 6 by 8 feet,
sometimes in a larger room two or three times that size. There would be a table
covered with a black cloth on which stood a crucifix and burning candles and
behind which sat one or more people impersonating judges.
So far, that is correct?
Colonel ELLIS. I don't like the use of the word "impersonate," but I
presume that could be taken that way.
Senator MCCARTHY.ISthere any doubt in your mind whatsoever but
what the accused thought the men behind the table were judges?
Colonel ELLIS.I thlnli he could reasonably come t o a different con-
clusion, but he might have come to that conclusion.
Senator MCCARTHY(continuing) :
The defendant would be brought from his cell hooded. The practice of using
black hoods whenever a defendant was taken from his cell was nniversally
employed a t Swabisch Hall to prevent comluunication with other prisoners and
to prevent knowledge of where he was going. Allegations that these hoods were
blood-stained were not supported by any testimony before t h e board, other than
affidavits of the petitioners.
It that substantially true?
Senator MCCARTHY(continning) :
When the prisoner was brought into the mock-trial room sometimes other people
were brought in who purported t o testify against him.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATlON
1s that correct?
Colonel ELLIS.T here were witnesses brought in, accusers.
Senator MCCAK~IIY.Page 4, a t the top of the page :
There is no evidence on which the board can find that the prisoner himself was
forced to testify a t such trial.
I call your attention to the next sentence particularly.
One member of the prosecution team would play the part of prosecutor, and
another would act a s a friend of the defendant.
I s that correct ?
Colonel ELLIS.S ubstantially, t h a t is correct. They would intercede
with the prosecution, when the prosecution so-called would be accus-
ing him and stating the crime that he had allegedly participated in alld
the other party would then intervene and say, ' L Y ohave ~ ~ got t o give
him a chance to tell his story."
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Mr. Chairman, 1 wonder what fraternity the
ca tain is from l
g o the accused had a defense attorney o r represeiltative-a phony
froin the prosecution staff; is that right?
Senator MCCARTIIY.Do you think that n as proper?
Colonel ELLIS.U nder our rules of evidence, I t l ~ i n kthat mas all
right.
Senator MCCARTIIY.That was?
Colonel ELLIS. I mean, there is a clktinction between "I am your
defense counsel," and when somebody just spol~tai~eo~zsly gets up and
starts intervening.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Do you think he was led to believe that was
his defense co~ulsel?
Colonel ELLIS.I don't know.
Senator MCCARTIIY.1s that your thought ?
Colonel ELLIS. I presume I could have, or-he could have come t o
that conclusion.
Senator HUNT.M ay I--
Senator MC~BRTIIY. Let me ask: While he may not have beell ac-
tually told that that was the case, he had every reason to believe that
he mas taking that part-pardon me, Mr. Chairman, sorry.
I s that correct?
Colonel ELLIS.I n my opinion, 1W O L I ~not ~ say he would be given
*everyreason to believe so ; no.
S ~ n a t oM
r CCARTIIY.YOUtllinli the Army report is wrong on that?
Colonel ELLIS.I think i t is a misstatement,.
Senator HUNT.I mas going to ask Coloiiel Ellis : Was i t the inten-
tion of the prosecution that the prisoner would feel that this party
was solicitous for him and was attempting to clefend hiin? Was i t
pour intention to have the prisoner believe that ?
Colonel ELLIS. Well, what we were trying t o do was get into his
conficleilce nncl get hiin to talk.
henator HUXT. Then, it mas your intention.
Colonel ELLIS. Yes.
Senator JPCCARTIIY.No doubt it was your intei~tionto have him
believe the defense attorney was his friend?
Colonel ELLIS. Not a defense attorney in the true sense. There was
somebody there who would intercede and say, "Well, you have got to
give this man an opportunity."
I can't understand German, all this was in German, but that is what
I nnderstoocl mas said.
Senator MCCBRTHY. YOUnever tried a criminal case-
Colonel ELI,IS. I have tried criminal cases. You are drawing the
conclusions.
Senator MCCARTHY. Don't interrupt, please.
Colonel ELLIS.0. I<.
Senator MCCARTHY. .The defense attorney in a criminal case is the
man who does that, intercedes for you and protects your rights. That
is a defense attorney, understand?
Colonel ELLIS. I understand.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. When I say this man was led to believe this
man was his defense attorney, I mean this was some man who mas
his friend in court, protecting his rights, looking after his rights, and
was it your intention to have the accused believe that one of the mem-
bers of your prosecution, one of the prosecution's staff was his attor-
ney and was protecting his rights?
Colonel ELLIS. NO,sir; not to that extent.
Senator MCCARTHY. NO. I, this friend of his, the defense attorney,
call him what you may, was a nieniber of your prosecution staff, am
I right ?
Colonel ELLIS. Certainly.
Senator MCCARTHY. And, he was to play tlie part of a friend of the
defendant, is that right ?
Senator MCCARTHY. I t was your purpose to convince him that this
man was his friend and was protecting his rights?
Colonel ELLIS. Not protecting his rights, no. The only thing that
this-as I understand, they mould say "You have got to give him a
chance to tell his story."
Senator MCCARTHY. Protecting one, or some of his rights, would
you say tliat is correct?
Colonel ELLIS. All right.
Senator MCCARTHY. This man was his friend and was going to pro-
tect some of his rights in court.
Colonel ELLIS. Right.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU concede he was completely phony, he
was one of your prosecution staff?
Senator MCCARTHY. DO yo11 think that was proper procedure, for-
getting whether the accused was guilty or innocent ?
Colonel ELLIS. I think tliat was proper procedure.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUthink it was proper.
Colonel ELLIS. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUthink the whole procedure of conduct a t
tlie mock trial-
Colonel ELLIS.As a mock trial, no. I have told you, I think this is
three times, mock trials-I don't think so.
Senator MCCARTHY. Give it a different name-why clo they call it
a "schnell procedure"?
I
Colonel ELLIS. I n German "schnell" means fast or quick. I don't
know what the German name for "procedure" is.
Sellator MCCARTI-IY. This is the name for "quick treatment"?
Colonel ELLIS. Whatever yo11 want to call it. I don't h o w . I
know "schnell" means fast.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know whether or not the defendant
jn these cases understood, or a defendant understood that he was con-
victed after this mock trial?
Colonel ELLIS. I am certain he understood he was not convicted.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUare certain of that?
Colonel ELLIS. Yes.
Senator &PAWER. May I ask a question.
Why is he certain?
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask you, there is only one in examining
the man, may I ask these two or three more questions?
Senator KEFAUVER. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay you only knew two or three cases-you
witnessed two cases. How are you certain that there were six or eight
cases ?
Colonel ELLIS. Only from what I have been told.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me read you the Army report from the
Judge Advocate General, if I may, appointed to investigate the situa-
tion.
I will ask you to refer to page 4, if you will. The part you yourself
underlined in red.
Colonel ELLIS.Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY (reading) :
The accused was made to understand that i t was his last chance to talk-
Colonel ELLIS. I don't see where you are reading from.
Senator MCCARTHY. Page 4.
Colonel ELLIS. DOI have the same copy?
The accused was made to understand that i t was his last chance to talk and
undoubtedly in some cases understood he had been convicted.
Colonel ELLIS.I don't see that, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou have a different report 2
Colonel ELLIS. I don't think so.
Senator MCCARTHY. Here, underlined in red :
The accused was made to understand that i t was his last chance to talk and un-
doubtedly in some cases understood that he had been convicted.
I f that is true, do you think that is proper?
Colonel ELLIS.I f he had been made to understand he was convicted,
I don't think it was proper. To my knowledge, in these cases, there
was never any findings or sentences, there was no reason-I know of
n? reason why the accused would ever believe he was convicted-cer-
talnly not in the two I witnessed.
Senator MCCARTHY. I understand you never raised your voice
against these mock trials.
No. 2, the Army report says that the ration tickets, ration allowances
were taken from the families of the accused, I assume until they con-
fessed.
Colonel ELLIS. That is definitely not true.
Senator MCCARTHY.You are sure of that, sure the Army report is

wrong on that ?
Colonel ELLIS.P ositive.
I have never heard of such a thing, or never had until I read this.
1cannot recall; that mas never mentioned. I f it came up in the trial,
I have completely forgotten about it.
Senator MCCARTHY.Now, referring also to the wives of the accused,
the report also points out that the prosecution staff would take the
wives to the officers7club; it cloesn't mention b ~ y i i i gthem liquor, but
will you tell me what happened after they got there?
Colonel ELLIS.1 wasn't present. I know what happened on one
occasion, between the finclings ancl sentences, where two of my staff
took three or four wives of the accused clown to the officers' club and
were there for, I don't know, I wasn't there, i t was 2 or 3 hours, and I
was a t Wiesbaden when it mas reported to me, rather, i t mas reported
to me when I came back.
Senator MCCARTHY.The Army report doesn't refer to one time,
does i t ?
Colonel ELLIS. That is the only time I ever heard anything of it.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did you ever check into it?
Colonel ELLIS.I never had occasion to have i t come to my attention
tinti1 then. One mas one of the men who took part i n it, and was with
another man, who was with the wives, one mas returned to the States,
and the other was given some disciplinary punishment. I don't know,
both were civilians.
Senator AICCARTIIY.You do consider it highly improper!
Colonel ELLIS.Reprehensible.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let me finish.
You consider it highly improper for the prosecution to take the
wives of the accused out ?
Colonel ELLIS.C ertainly, bnt I want it understood that this hap-
pened between the fiaclings and the sentence. There was a period of
4 or 5 clays in which the c o ~ i r ~
t v a rsecessed and this happened during
that time.
Senator MCCARTHY.Does i t make any difference when it happened?
Colonel ELLIS.I t makes a lot of difference, if they mere taken to get
evidence to use in the trial, I would say that would be terrible, most
reprehensible conduct; but this happened a t a different time, the trial
part was over and the evidence was in.
Senator R'ICCARTHY.The Army report says that physical force was
used; is that ccriect?
Colonel ELLIS.I clon't tllinlc SO.
Senator AECCARTIIY.You clon't think so?
Colonel ELLIS.I n e ~ saw~ ~any r instance of it.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I lmom you didn't-nc matter about what you
say-
Colsnel ELLIS. I never saw any accused who ever told me that
they Bad been injured, beaten, mistreated i11 any way while I was a t
Schwabisch Hall, and p i o r to the time that I was called to the meet-
ing in Wiesbaclen, I never hacl any information that there was even
any allegation as to that.
Senator M C C A R T ~ YM7l1ell
. the Van Roden-Simpson committee
made the report, you were aware of this whole allegation?
Colonel EILIS. That w:is in 1048.
Senator MCCARTHY.I may not be correctly quoting from the Van
Roden report, because I don't have it with me, but as I recall that report
was to the effect that inany accused came into court with their teeth
broken out.
Colonel EI,LIS.Utterly ridiculons.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUunderstand that Simpson and Van Roden
were two men picked, I believe, by Secretary Royall-
Colonel ELLIS.I do.
Senator MCCARTEIY.Let me finish. T h e President was the one
that signed the order and considered that they were getting the
two most competent judges in the country.
Colonel ELLIS.I ~mderstandthat perfectly.
Senator MCCARTIIT.YOUsay that they were lying when they say
the accused had teeth kicked out?
Colonel ELLIS.I don't say that they were lying, but whoever told
that to them was.
Senator MCCARTHY.They didn't repeat that as hearsay.
Colonel ELLIS. Senator McCarthj~,have yon seen the list of wit-
nesses attached to that report?
Senator MCCARTEIY.I am asking you whether or not that p a r t of
the report is true.
Colonel ELLIS.I am telling you it is not true.
Senator MCCARTHY.All right.
Colonel ELLIS.But, I would like to ask if you have seen the list of
witnesses attached to that repcrt.
Senator M C ~ A R T I ~1Y .
know there is a list.
Colonel ELLIS. DO you know that not one of those is anyone that
would know, other than hearsay knowledge ?
Senator MCCARTHY.I don't know that.
Colonel ELLIS.T hat is the truth.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUdon't think t h a t Mr. Van Roden and Mr.
Simpson would issue a report based on hearsay ? They are competent
judges, to the best of my knowledge, and I think they were picked
by Secretarg Royall becanse they were competent.
Let me ask you this: To your knowledge, do yon know t h a t the
defense attorney who was finally appointed had difficulty i11 persuad-
ing the accused that he was not another phony defense attorney in the
actual trial? I n other words, after the accused had had the expe-
rience of having one of your staff doublecross him, say "I am your
friend, your pal, and defending you in this mock trial," after it was
over, say "Ha ha, that's a big: joke, you are not to hang."
Colonel ELLIS.I don't believe that.
Senator MCCARTEIY. I n the real trial, are you aware of the fact that
the defense attorney then said to the accused-then had difficulty in
convincing the accusecl that he was a bona fide defense attorney?
Colonel ELLIS.I understand he made that allegation.
Senator MCCARTHY.DO yo11 understand that?
Colonel ELLIS.I understand he made that allegation.
Senator MCCARTHY.Forget about the allegation. What is your
opinion? You were in charge.
Colonel ELLIS. I wasn't present when he interviewed the accused, I
don't know what he told them.
91765-49-5
60. MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Senator MCCARTHY. Your job was to see that the guilty were con-
victed, that the accused did have a fair trial. I s it your opinion that .
the defense attorney who was appointed had difficulty often in per-
suading the accused that he was actually an attorney for him?
Colonel ELLIS. I have no basis on mhich to base the opinion, other
than the allegation.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdon't know, either way "yes" or "1107'?
Colonel ELLIS.I don't know, either way, "yes" or ''no."
Senator MCCARTHY. The Army report says that is the situation, you
can't question it, is that right?
Cobnel ELLIS. A t this time I caa't. I might later.
Senator MCCARTHY. If I may read from the Army defense counsel,
a whole paragraph on page 4 :
This procedure has a further bearing on the preparation of the case when i t
really came to trial.
Colonel ELLIS. Just a moment.
Senator MCCARTHY. Page 4.
Colonel ELLIS.Where abouts ?
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Numbered 16.'
This procedure-
referring back to the defense attorney-
h a s a further bearing on the preparation of the case when i t really came to trial.
Defense counsel appointed for the accused found difficulty i n getting t h e confi-
dence of the defendants because of their experience with the mock trials, but it
appeared that such difficulty was overcome after the first 2 or 3 days.
You cannot question that statement, I assume?
Colonel ELLIS. I had no question on it at that time. I have no idea.
Senator MCCARTHY. When you were in charge of that matter, realiz-
ing that you were dealing with not only the life and death of a number
of men, that is not the poor Americans that were killed, but you real-
ized that you were representing Amerians. And American prestige
woulcl suffer tremendously if they didn't get a trial and were not
properly convicted, as they were over in the Pacific-didn't yon think
lt mas important that yon check these matters and see what effect the
mock trials had on the defense attorney later? Didn't you go into that?
Colonel ELLIS. I had no occasion to ever question that particular
phase of it.
Senator MCCARTHY. Are you in the Reserves?
Colonel ELLIS. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWlong have you been in the Army ?
Colonel ELLIS. Since June 25,1942.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUare a Regular?
Colonel ELLIS. I am. I was integrated in 1946.
Senator MCCARTHY. What kind of work do you do?
Colonel ELLIS.Assistant staff, Judge Advocate General.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n the Judge Advocate's office, yet ?
Colonel ELLIS. I am, sir; and I would like to put on the record,
if you will permit me to, I have tried a great many general courts
martial, both on the prosecution and defense, and all of them
snccessfully.
Senator MCCARTHY. Successful in getting convictions.
Colonel ELLIS. Yes, and in an honorable way, sir.
Senator McC-~RTHY. 1 would say you had been eminently success-

ful. I understand you have 73 defendants in the Malmedy cases,
and that you convicted 72. The only reason you didn't convict the
seventy-third is because he couldn't be convicted, he was dead.
Colonel ELLIS. That is a misstatement of fact.
Senator MCCARTHY. How niany of them were tliere?
Colonel ELLIS. Seventy-four. One was withdrawn at the time of
the final argnment, on the direction of headquarters USFET, and
turned over to the French, because he was an Alsatian, and the
other-
Senator MCCARTHY. That left '731
Colonel ELLIS. The other 73 were convicted.
Senator MCCARTHY. One was not convicted.
Colonel ELLIS. He wasn't ever tried.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOall you charged with the crime, and put the
tag on, you convicted except the one turned back to France, and one
who committed suicide ?
Colonel ELLIS. He wasn't tried, the one you are talking about who
committed suicide, the one you interrogated me about-
Senator MCCARTHY. I don't want to spoil your record at all.
Colonel ELLIS. YOUare trying pretty hard to.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you didn't lose one. You won
all of them and thjnk you could have convicted the other chap if he
hadn't died, if you had continued ?
Colonel ELLIS.I don't Bno~v. I don't lmow if we could have con-
victed on that because his case was not complete.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to take all of the
committee's time.
Senator HUNT.I want to ask a few questions.
Senator KEFAUVER. Go on, go ahead.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you one other thing. Do you know
who preparcl the rules of evidence that were sent to you?
Colonel ELLIS. NO, sir. It states in the book-I don't know what it
says. This was approved, as I recall, from SHAEF.
Senator MCCARTHY. And can you tell me in what way they dif-
ferred from the rules of evidence-you have tried no criminal cases
here ?
Colonel ELLIS. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. Tried none in this country?
Colonel ELLIS. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. You told me a minute ago--
Colonel ELLIS. I didn't.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhaven't tried a single criminal case in civil
life ?
Colonel ELLIS. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Never, tried a criminal case?
Colonel ELLIS. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. SO then you cannot tell us in what way the
rules of evidence you followed there, differed from the rules in this
country ?
Colonel ELLIS. I might be able to. I don't believe it's appropriate
in this hearing.
Senator MCCARTHY. Yes, that is one of the things we want, in what

way your rules of evidence differ, if you know, that is one of the im-
portant things. You may not understand the purpose. It is to try
to recommend to whoever made those rules, any changes we think are
necessary in the court procedure you followed-if you followed an
improper procedure, we want to make sure it is never done again.
I f you have rules of evidence that differ from our rules of evidence
that we have, tested for a long time, that come down today from the
old English law-understand, if you made a radical departure, I would
like to h o w to what extent.
Colonel ELLIS. They are in the book, that is all I can tell you,
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know enough about our rules of evi-
dence in Federal courts and the State courts covering criminal cases
so that you have any idea as to how they differ?
Colonel ELLIS.Generally, I presume. I haven't made any study
of it.
Senator MCCARTHY. I don't want to ask you any questions-I know
you were a tax attorney and never tried criminal cases, so I don't want
to embarrass you, but I would like to know if you know sufficient
about the rules of evidence in criminal cases in this country so that
you can give us some idea as to the difference-
Colonel ELLIS. Am I taking a bar examination?
Senator MCCARTHY. Pardon ?
Colonel ELLIS. Am I taking a bar examination ?
Senator MCCARTHY. It is much more important than the bar exam-
ination. You are the one man who can give things a fairly clear
picture, if you want to, as to how we meted out justice.
Colonel ELLIS. I followed the rules as laid down in the handbook.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know-
Colonel ELLIS. What?
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know to what extent those rules of
evidence differ from the rules of evidence here?
Colonel ELLIS. My understanding is they differed to a considerable
degree.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n what particular specification?
Colonel ELLIS. Hearsay-primarily as to hearsay evidence, is my
recollection now; but I have not looked into the matter definitely for
some time time.
Senator MCCARTHY.SOnow then, one final question-your testi-
mony is today that as f a r as you know there was no physical violence
used whatsoever on these defendants?
Colonel ELLIS. None came to my attention up to the time I came
i o Wiesbaden, I think on about the 26th or 27th or 28th of April 1946.
Senator MCCARTHY. AS pf today can you tell us whether in your
opinion there was any physical violence of any kind used upon any of
the accused ?
Colonel ELLIS. I n my opinion-none.
Senator MCCARTHY. NO physical violence whatsoever ?
Colonel ELLIS. None whatsoever.
Senator MCCARTHY. The only thing that you agree with, insofar
as the Army report is concerned,. the Van Roden-Simpson commit-
tee's report, is in the use of mock trials.
Colonel ELLIS.T he way I answered i t ; yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU knew they were being conducted and
took no steps to have that knocked out?
Senator MCCARTHY. I have no further questions.
Colonel ELLIS. I would like to answer that in that case, though,
they were not successful so we just didn't proceed with it.
Senator MCCARTHY. Thank you.
Senator HUNT.Senator Kefauver, do you have any questions?
Senator KEFAWER.I would like to ask unanimous consent of the
subcommittee to have page 3 of the preface or foreword of Technical
Manna1 for L e g d and Prison Officers, second edition, printed as a
part of the record in the appendix, and also I think i t would be use-
ful, Mr. Chairman, to have the Rules of Procedure in Military Gov-
ernment Courts, beginning on page 33 and ending on page 48, printed
in the appendix. This shows the difference in rules of procedure and
evidence.
(Exhibit E, the preface referred to, and the Rules of Procedure in
Military Government Courts, exhibit F, will be found in the ap-
pendix attached hereinafter.)
Senator K E F A ~ RAS . I understand, Colonel Ellis, all of this pro-
cedure was under your jurisdiction?
Colonel ELLIS. The trials, you mean, and the investigations?
Senator I ~ F A Yes. ~ R
.
Colonel ELLIS. Yes, sir.
Senator KEFAUVER.
HOWmany members of the staff did you have?
Colonel ELLIS. Well, the trials had six counsel for the prosecu-
tion-this is at the trial I am speaking of.
And there were three who were referred to as check interpreters,
and then there was a clerical staff of translators of two or three more.
Now, at Schwabish Hall-
Senator I ~ A W EThat R . is sufficient.
Did you receive any special orders for the conduct of these pro-
ceedings, from SHEAF, or-
Colonel ELLIS. YOUare referring to the investigation?
Senator K E F A ~ X R Yes.
.
Colonel ELLIS. Just normal proceclure, for which there mas a printed
instruction to investigating officers.
Senator I<EFAUTER. I n view of the publicity, and the awfulness of
the massacre, at that time did you receive any special orders in addi-
tion to your regular instructions?
Colonel ELLIS. Well, I can't answer that in a "yes" or "no" way. I n
this case, the only special instructions I can recall now is that there
was considerable urgency to bring this case to trial. We started out
with only the First Arniy I G report on it, which referred to the
probability, as I recall, of certain units that might have been in that
area, and there was a slip of paper with the name of Briesemeister on
it! which he had given to some Belgian there a t the crossroads. H e
fired a couple of roullcls into the house and the Belgian came out and
protested, and he wrote his name on a piece of paper and said, "Take
this to my colonel and he will pay you.7'
That was the only indication we had of who might have been there.
That was after the crossroads-in the afternoon. And that was the
first real definite lead as to who was there. That is the definite instruc-
tions, we had no written ones, other than it was just staff talk in war
crimes that this case was urgent, that we should bring it to trial as soon
as possible, and me gave it priority.
Senator I~FAUTTCR. T o correlate the time, what was the time of the
investigation, March-
Colonel ELLIS. Sir, the investigation originally started by Major
Panton, was in May o r June 1945. Onr headqnarters mere still a t
Paris. Of course, it was a matter of reading-
Senator MEFAUVER. What was VE-day ?
Colonel ELLIS.May 8, '45. I carried on to the best of my recollec-
tion until August.
Lieutenant Higgenbotham, who had been capturecl by Phifer, went
down to the prison camps around M~lnicH,and in Bavaria a i d Austria,
where this division's remnants were in captivity, to see whether he
coulcl identify any of these SS people. There was a driver and maybe
an interpreter or two that went along on that trip, but I don't recall
t h e details.
Senator KEFAUT'ER. B u t a t the time we were still in active war-be-
fore VG-day, when these interrogations took place, inquisitions took
place ?
Colonel ELLIS.I don't recall-
Senator I < E F A UYou ~ R .read a note as to the time you sar.
Colonel ELLIS.It is my recollection that all the confessions that
were taken, other tlian maybe one or two, or perhaps three, from
Phifer or Dietrich were taken beginning late in December '45 u p
through January, February, and the bulk of them in March and April
1946, that is, to the best of my recollection. I think the trial record
would be the best place to get that.
Senator KEPAUVER.And what time intervened between the time of
the taking of the confessions and the presentation of the cases to court?
Colonel ELLIS. Well, let's see. I would say we concluded the investi-
gation, when we left Swabisch Hall, which was in-the last prisoners
were moved out, as I recall, the 19th of April 1946, the trial started
t h e 16th of May 1946 and there was a space of four or five-
Senator K E F A U ~ R What
. judges sat on the court?
Colonel ELLIS. General Dalby was present, Colonel Rosenfeld was
law member, Colonel Condor, and if I may refer or refresh my
memory, I think the order appointing the court is attached here
[indicating].
Well, I don't seem to have an order here appointing the court.
Senator I<EPAUVER. F o r the record, VE-day, I am informed, was
May 7,1945.
Colonel ELLIS.I thought that was a copy of the order attached here.
Senator K E ~ U V EThatR . is all right, Colonel Ellis.
J u s t one further question :When Judges Simpson, of Texas, and Van
Roden, of Pennsyl~~ania, made their investigations, did they call you?
Colonel ELLIS. No.
Senator K E F A ~ Z RDo. you h o w why?
Colonel ELLIS.. NO, sir.
Senator I ~ P A O VWere E R .you in communication with them ?
Colonel ELLIS. NO,sir..
Senator I~FAUVER.
D O you know if they interrogated the judges
that held the hearings ?
Colonel ELLIS. I believe they interrogated Colonel Rosenfeld. I
believe his name appears on the list of witnesses. H e was the law
member.
Senator KEFATTVER. DO you know why they didn't ask for your
statement 8
Colonel ELLIS.K O, sir.
Senator KEFAUVER.Did you have this file available a t that tinle?
Colonel ELLIS.T his was prepared and the original was ~ ~ i tor h ,is
with the Clay - report, and filed i n October or early November 1948,
1believe.
I -cvantto clear something up for the record. I have written a letter
to Judge Simpson, after I got this newspaper clipping out of the
press.
Senator KEFXUVER. What is it? W h a t is the date of your letter?
Colonel ELLIS.Well, about March 23,1949.
Senator KEFAWER.ISthe letter conficlential?
Colonel ELLIS.NO; i t is not. I don't believe I have a copy, but I
have i t in my hotel room.
Senator KEFAUVER.C o ~ ~yl de ask the witness to file it?
Senator HUNT.Yes.
Senator I ~ F A ~And ER .
the reply you received from h i m ?
also
Colonel ELLIS. I certainly mould.
Senator I ~ F A What ~ R did . he say, generally I!
Colonel ELLIS.Substantially, i t is in the Dallas Morning News here
[indicating]. H e here says that Van Roden is doing us a disservice
by those inordinate statements. H e cited the report saying that the
investigation showed no evidence of any systematic or widespread
methods to get confessions. The Commission reported that essentially
fair trials mere conducted, and he goes on here and says-I think
that is about all he said, i n the letter that-
Senator KEFAUVER. Colonel Ellis, you said a few minutes ago that
Judge Simpson, his committee, interrogated 110 one or filed no state-
ments of people who had any first-hand information.
Colonel ELLIS.B ased on the list of witnesses that is attached t o
their report. I went over that, and I can find no name that I know
of that has any evidence, or any information, other than hearsay.
Senator KEFAWER.YOUmean none of your staff?
Colonel ELLIS.None of my staff; that is right.
Senator KEFAUVER.T h a t is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MCCARTHY.Just one question, i n connection with the Simp-
son matter.
As to the defense attorney, was he kept under guard?
Colonel ELLIS.T h e defense attorney?
Senator MCCARTHY.Yes.
Colonel ELLIS.NO.
Senator MCCARTHY.Was there any case where two MP's were
assigned to a defense attorney?
Colonel ELLIS.Not to my knowledge. I think Colonel Corbin could
answer that better than I could.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n the courtroom, where the trial was being
held, were the defense attorneys allowed to sit and discuss the matters
with the accused and the witnesses?
Colonel ELLIS.B y all means.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n all cases ?

Colonel ELLIS.I never saw any attempt a t anything of that nature
whatsoever.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUare sure of that ?
Colonel ELLIS.I f it happened, I had not knowledge of it. I saw
nothing that would indicate it.
Senator MCCARTHY.Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that this
court reporter be subpenaed to come down and testify. I know noth-
ing about him except that apparently he is one official court reporter
of the courts of Pittsburgh. H e took the shorthand notes of all the
confessions that were made. H e makes some rather serious charges
and says the later confessions signed differ from the confessions he
took down in his shorthand notes, and things like that.
This need not be on the record.
(Discussion off the record for a short period of time.)
Senator MCCARTHY.H e was one of the boys who was there. I
would like to ask the Chair to either send for him, by subpena. or
request him to come down.
Senator HUNT. T h e staff will be asked to do that.
I would like to get your wishes, Senator, with reference to further
questioning a t this time, o r recessing and asking Colonel Ellis to
come back for questioning a t the next session.
Senator KEFAUVER. DO we have other witnesses who are here to
testify today ?
Senator HUNT.Yes; but if I may answer my ow11 question for
you, I would like to be on the floor today.
Senator KEFAUVER. 1want to be on the floor, too.
Senator HUNT.P do to take 3 or 4 minutes to ask Colonel
Ellis some questions, if I may, a t this point.
Colonel, what school did you graduate from?
Colonel ELLIS. I took law a t the University of Idaho; and took
graduate work a t the University of Southern California.
I had some other courses, too; but not in law. I don't think they
are particularly important.
Senator HUNT.I f you care to state to the committee-were you
well u p near the top of your class, or not?
Colonel ELLIS.S ir, I do not know.
Senator HUNT.You do not know about your grades.
How many States do you have a license to practice i n ?
Colonel ELLIS.T hree.
Senator HUNT.What are they?
Colonel ELLIS.I daho, California, and New York.
Senator HUNT.Y ou were with the Texas Co. Bow long?
Colonel ELLIS.Thirteen years.
Senator HUNT. Did you progress to any degree with your work
while yon were with them?
Colonel ELLIS.I started out as a shi ping clerk and became tax
f
attorney and they moved me from Cali ornia, Los Angeles, to New
York i n 1938.
Senator HUNT.Let me ask you a question with reference to the
average age of those who were tried in this case.
Did the age of 15 or 16 predominate, or were the ages mixed?
Colonel ELLIS.A S I recall, a t the time of the commission of the
offenses, alleged offenses, there was one who was 16 years of age. They
ranged on u p from there, u p to Dietrich, who I believe was 54. Of
course, he was commanding general of the Sixth Army. Most of
them were, I mould say, between the ages of 20 and 30. T h a t is prob-
ably just a shade younger than our ordinary unit,, in the American
Army, because the large losses that Germany had sustained-that
is all i n the record of the trial and can be readily ascertained.
Senator HUNT.There is no question but what they mere members
of the SS troops?
Colonel ELLIS.E veryone, I am sure, admitted a t the beginning of
the trial, when questioned by the court-admitted they were members
of the SS.
Senator HUNT. AS I understand, these mar crimes had no procednre
guidance of any kind by any precedents. I t mas the first time that
we in the United States ever had such a thing as a mar crimes trial;
is that correct?
Colonel ELLIS.T h a t is my understanding.
Senator HUNT.Y OUtherefore had no rules of procednre to go by,
that you may have gotten familiar with during your law practice?
Colonel ELLIS. Absolutely none, sir. This was the-not the first
war crimes case tried, though.
Senator RUNT. B L I following
~ this war, i t mas the first time.
Colonel ELLIS.When there had been probably 15 or 20 prior trials
by the W a r Crimes Branch a t that time.
Senator HUNT.W ere you conscio~~s of a great public opinion i n
the Unitecl States f o r this prosecution to proceed?
Colonel ELLIS. I most certainly was; yes, sir.
Senator HUXT.Let me ask you one more question. I n event you
were faced with the same situation again, mould your procedure be
likewise ?
Colonel ELLIS.W ith one exception.
Senator HUNT. And that is what?
Colonel ELLIS.Due to the criticism on the Schnell procedings, I
certainly would not have them again; but otherwise I have not one
thing to apologize for. I think that our procedures were fair, and they
were just and according to the standards that were set up.
Senator RUNT.Anything else, Senator?
Senator KEFAUVER. I want to ask this question : TT7hat do you think
the outcome of the trials would have been without the Schnell
proceedings ?
Colonel ELLIS. I t would not have made any difference on them a t
all.
Senator XEFAUWR. Why ?
Colonel ELLIS.W e didn't get any evidence, practically none from
them. I f I recall correctly, i n the case of this one fellow HennecBe,
his statement was not even taken-or his confession-until several
days later; and i n the case of this Von Chamier I told you about, we
already had the evidence on him. It was just a matter of his con-
fession-getting his confession. H e could have been tried without
his confession.
Senator I Z E F A ~ T R .S o your opinion is, the confessions ~ O L Igot
through these preliminary trials, or mock trials, or whatever they
may have been called, didn't really affect the outcome of the cases?
Colonel ELLIS.Not one bit.
Senator KEFAUVER. Well, the confessions, some of them, were ad-

mitted, neverthe~less.
Colonel ELLIS.There was evidence. You have disregarded any-
thing we have obtained, and still convicted them.
Senator KEFAUVER.Did you finally get---
Colonel ELLIS.Also, we were allowed to use the statements of co-
accuseds.
Senator IJE'FAuvER. One identified the other as having participated?
Senator MGCARTHY. That is the most important part of the whole
matter, I believe, Senator Kefauver. It is a question of whether or
not-not so much a matter of the confession; but if the report of the
Van Roden-Simpson Committee is true, and I frankly don't know
whether it is or not, then they would use the Schnell procedure in
varying forms on the different accuseds and not only get them to
sign a confession but also sign the desired statement implicating the
others accussed, that it was then a cross-proceclure.
I n other words, if you had six mock trials, and you got confessions
from all six, and also statements implicating the other five, it isn't
merely a question of him improperly getting a confession, but im-
properly getting a statement, so that does become, P think, extremely
important.
Senator KEFAUVER. Yes, it does. I appreciate that.
So, then, does the record shorn who formulated the Code for Mili-
tary Trials?
Senator HUNT.Not to my knowledge.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I t does not, sir.
Senator KEFAWER.DO you know, Colonel Ellis?
Colonel ELLIS. I would say not. I would have to look a t the
record.
Senator KEFAUVER. I notice the explanation of the forevord here
is by Et. Gen. A. E. Grasett.
I s he still in the service?
Colonel ELLIS. NO, sir; he is just a name to me.
Senator MEFAUVER. Where did you take your military justice course,
a t Chicago, or-
Colonel ELLIS.Well, I went in the service as an Air Forces lieuten-
ant, and went to OTS a t Miami Beach. I remained there and taught
milltary law and justice, and international law, for 6 or 7 months.
From there I went to the staff of the Judge Advocate's office, basic
training center No. 7' a t Atlantic City, for 2% months.
From there I was shipped to India and was with the-I think that
was the Tenth Air Force Judge Advocate's Office, and then there was
a split-up of command and I am not definitely sure, but I was then
either with the Air Service Command or headquarters, Army Air
Force. Anyway, our office had the court-martial jurisdiction before us
of both the Army Air Forces and the Air Service Command.
Then there was another shift in there, and I think I was assigned
definitely to headquarters, Army Air Forces.
I n 1945 I was returned home. No ; it was in December 1944, I was
returned home, and sent to the Judge Advocate's School at Ann Arbor
which, as I recall, must have been for only about a 2-month course.
Then I went out to the west coast and was with the Ninth Service
Command-No; I didn't go to the Ninth Service Command, but to Szln
M A L M E D Y MASSACRE I N V E S T I G A T I O N 69
Francisco P o r t of Embarkation, came back, and was sent to Europe
for 3 years, when I was i n war crimes.
Senator KEFAUVER.Mr. Chairman, I assume we will have testimony
to show how these rules were constituted and whether there is any
basis for sin~ilnrrules i n force by. any
. other countries-the British or
French.
Senator HUNT.W e will ask the staff to get the information f o r us.
Senator K E F A U ~ RFrom
. a summary examination of the rules of
evidence and procedure, i t is entirely different.
Senator MCCARTHY.It is rather unusual.
Senator K E P A ~ RI .notice article 11,subsection 5-1 think this is
a case of unusual court-martial proceedings where it says :
Every issue shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the members
of the court a s the11 constituted, except t h a t a two-thirds vote shall be required
for a sentence of death.
I think the committee could do a good service, as Senator McCarthy
has said, in examining this.
Senator MCCARTHY.I would like to ask just this one question so
the record will be complete in this.
How long were you a shipping clerk after you left law school, be-
fore you started practicing as a tax attorney?
Colonel ELLIS.I didn't stay over 2 days as a shipping clerk. I think
I left lam school i n rather straitened circnmstances and I needed
money to eat on, and I was right happy to get the clerk's job f o r 2
days there.
Senator MCCARTHY.I merely wanted to know for how long before
you started to practice law.
Colonel ELLIS.W ell, I think inside of a year o r 18 months, or within
2 years, I am certain-well, I can tell you : When did the Federal gaso-
line and lubricating oil tax become effective? Whatever that date
was-I was u t in charge of that.
Senator ~ C C A R T H Y . I think that was i n 1931.
I n the meantime you worked for the same company, but worked in a
capacity other than that of attorney?
Colonel ELLIS.T h a t is right.
Senator MCCARTHY.I wasn't criticizing-I just wanted to h o w
how long you had practiced law.
The CHAIRMAN.The subcommittee will stand in recess until Friday
morning a t 10 o'clock.
(Whereupon, a t 1 2 o'clock noon, the committee stood in recess until
Friday, April 22,1949, a t 10 o'clock a. m.)
FRIDAY, APRIL 22, 1949
TJNITEDSTATES'SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE COMMITTEE
ON ARMEDSERVICES,
Washington, D.6'.
The subcommittee'met, pursuant to call, a t 10 a. m., in the commit-
tee room, room 212, Senate Office Building, Senator Raymond E. Bald-
win (chairman) presiding.
Present : Senators Baldwin (chairman) and Hunt.
Also present :Senators Tydings and McCarthy, and Mr. J. M. Cham-
bers, on the staff of the committee.
Senator BALDWIN.The meeting will come to order. Please see
that the doors are closed.
The first jvitness that we have today is Col. John M. Raymond.
Colonel Raymond, will you give us your full name and address,
please ?
Colonel RAYIVIOND. John

M. Raymond, 4533 Lowell Street NW.,
here in Washington.
Senator BALDWIN.Are you presently an officer in the Army?
Colonel RAYMOND. NO.

I retired from the Army.
Senator BALDWIN.And were you one of the men who made an in-
vestigation into the Malmedy trials?
Colonel RAY~IOND. That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.And a t that time were you an officer in the Army ?
Colonel RAYMOND. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. I n mhat department?
Colonel RAY~IOND. I was

a colonel on the General Staff Corps, and
at that time I was Director of the Legal Division of the Office of Mili-
tary Government in Germany, and legal adviser to General Clay.
Senator BALDWIN. HOW long had you been in the Army?
Colonel RAYX~OND. I had

been in, on this tour of active duty, since
1940. 1had been a reserve officer for a good many years.
Senator BALDWIN.Are you a veteran of \vorlcl w a r I?
Colonel RAYMOND. Yes,

sir.
Senator BALDWIN.What was your business or profession before
YOLI went into the Arnzy?
Colonel R A ~ M O NIDwas . a practicing attorney in Boston. I prac-
ticed there for about 20 years.
Senator BALDWIN.All right, sir.
Now, before you testify, may I administer an oath?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in the mat-
ter now in q~lestionshall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief,
so help you God ?
Colonel RAYMOND. I do.
71
TESTIMONY OF COL. JOHN M. RAYMO'ND, UNITED STATES ARMY

(RETIRED)
Senator BALDWIN.DO you have a prepared statement ?
Colonel XAYMOND. There is one point I would like to clear up.
Apparently there has been some mistake here as to the nature of our
investigation.
I say "our investigation," the investigation of the board of which
I was the chairman.
May I see the exhibits of our report for a moment ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. These are all [passing documents to the witness].
Colonel RAYMOND. This is what I want.
On the 18th of August in 1947, by command of General Clay, a
board was set up in the Earopean cominand known as the Adminis-
tration of Justice Review Board. That was established by general
order headquarters, European command. It consisted of the Director
of the Legal Division of OMGUS, Judge Advocate of European Com-
mand, and the Adviser to the Military Governor for Governmental
Affairs; and, it was set up to investigate and report on any compIaints
received regarding administration of justice in the European
Command.
Now, from time to time after that, various matters weer referred to
that board, in this particular matter of the Malmedy case was referred
t o the board by order of General Clay dated May 28,1948, so that the
board was not established particularly for this case, but was a stand-
ing board in the theater, and this case was merely referred to it as
being within its sphere.
A t that time, the board consisted of myself as chairman and General
Harbaugh, then Colonel Harbaugh, who was the judge advocate of the
European command; and Dr. Carl Freiderich, who mas the adviser
on governmental affairs, and who is now back at Harvard University,
where he is a professor.
Senator BALDWIN.May I ask, is he a professor of law, or was he?
Colonel RAYMOND. H e is not a professor of law, but he is a lawyer.
Senator BALDWIN.I see. Thank you.
Colonel RAYMOND. And that board met on several occasions, called
witnesses who were available in the European command, received a
number of affidavits, and prepared a t that time a preliminary report,
but we felt that we wanted to get the statements from certain people
i n the United States who were not available to us.
Following that, affidavits were taken in the United States from a
number of people and forwarded to the board, and the board con-
sidered those affidavits.
By that time Dr. Freiderich had returned to the United States and
his officewas vacant, so that the final report was signed only by General
Marbaugh and myself, although in substance there was very little
change from the original report which had been signed by the three
of us.
Senator BALDWIN.May I ask you this, Colonel: A t the time you
started this investig,ation, or a t the time the matter was referred to you,
was there any formal complaint-and by that I mean mas there any
formal written petition or document or anything of that kind-or
were you merely commissioned generally to look into the Malmedy
prosecution and trials?
Colonel RAYMOND. There had been a petition for habeas corpus i n
the Supreme Conrt of the United States by Mr. Everett, on behalf of
some of the accused in this Malmedy case, and that petition was not
taken by the Supreme Court; but the allegations i n that petition were
such that the Secretary of the Army desired to have an investigation
of them, and asked General Clay to have an investigation of those
allegations, a i d that was what was referred to us, the question of the
allegations in that petition.
Now, admittedly, we did not have access to all the people who knew
about this. Many of them, in fact the great majority of the Americans
who had had anything to clo with the case, were redeployed to the
United States.
We did have before us Mr. Kirchbaum and Mr. Thon, two of the
interrogators. Those were the two principal people that we had.
Senator BALDWIN.Were they Army personnel or civilians attached
to the Gorernment ?
Colonel RAYMOND. They were civilians.
Senator BALDWIN.Were they lawyers?
Colonel RAYMOKD. I don't recall that either of them was a lawyer,
but they might have been. They were people who had been trained i n
investigation work, and had extensive interrogation of prisoners of
war for various Army commands during the fighting; and, were
called in on this Malmecly case a t the time the prisoners were assembled
at Schwabisch Hall.
Now, we also had a number of other people. A s to the stories of the
German accusecl i n the Malmedy case, we had a number of affidavits
which had been forwarded from one of the bishops, I forget just where
they came from no-w, but they came through some such source, came to
Washington and were sent to the E T O i n that connection. Also, there
were a number of other affidavits and commui~icationsof one sort or
another received later.
We found that Kirchbaum and Thon, the two men we had who
seemed to have first-hand knowledge of the matter, were two of the
men who were accused in these affidavits of having done some of the
things that Mr. Everett was complaining of i n his petition; and, we
were confronted by a situation where, on the one side we had the
affidavits of these Germans, which said these things were done in a n
astouncling degree, some of the things were absolutely unbelieveable;
on the other hand-
Senator HUNT.May I ask a question?
You say "absolutely unbelievable." Colonel, do you mean you don't
believe them or they were of such a nature that i t was simply impos-
sible to believe them?
Colonel RAYNOKD. I think some of those affidavits went so f a r as to
be of a character that nobody woulcl really believe the story in them.
I certainly didn't believe some of them.
Senator BALDWIN.One further ~ o r c lColonel , : When you speak of
thexe affidavits, you mean afidavits complaining of the prosecution
and investigation ?
Colonel RAYMOND. T h a t is right.
Now, on the other hand, as I ~ a y both , Mr. Tho11 and Mr. Kirch-
lsauin cleniecl substantially e ~ e r y t h i n gin the way of any physical mis-
treatment. The 111ocl< trials, as they lmve been referred to, or the
Schnell procedures were, of course, admitted. Everybody always has
74 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGBTIOY
admitted that those proceedings took place, w l i a t e ~ e rtliey may have

been. My understanding is, they were aclmitted a t the trial by the
prosecution and were related a t that time to the Court before the state-
ments were introduced.
We therefore tried to see r h a t we could find in the wag of corrobo-
ration, and there was very, very little.
W e did have one or t ~ witnesses
o who were translators, or inter-
preters, or something of that sort a t Schwabiscl~Hall, and against
whom there were n o complaints.
We had some affidavits from one or two Germans who said they
were a t Schwabiscli Hall. W e hacl certain documentary evicleiice sub-
mitted by some of the prosecution staff, and perhaps obtained from
other sources; and after consicleration of the whole case, we derived
our conclusion on the basis of all of the evidence.
I believe the report whjch we signed is in evidence before your
committee.
S'enator BALDWIN.Yes ; i t has been made a part of the record.
Now, Colonel, I mould like to ask you a few questions with reference
to that report on page 4 of the report.
Do you have a copy of that before you?
Colonel RAYMOND. I an1 afraid my- copy- - is not the same as the one
you have.
Senator BALDWIN.Paragraph 10, could you find paragraph l o ?
Colonel R~.;-~\IOND.
Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUsaid there ;
The allegations a s to misconduct fall into two principal categories :
( a ) The use of mock trials, threats, inducements, and stratagems to procure

sworn statements against other nccnsecl and to obtain confesslons-
Pausing on that a nion~ent-
Senator MCCARTHY.What page?
Senator BALDWIN.Subsection 10, 1 clon't think your page is the
same as this one.
Senator BALDWIN.What were the complaints niade with reference
to the mock trials? Could you just describe t h a t ?
Colonel BAPMOND.Veil, they said tliey were taken into a room
nlhere there was a tzble with black cloth over it, a crucifix on the table,
burning canclles, one or more people seated behincl the table, and one
or two other people i n the room, one of whoni took the part of a prose-
cutor ; the other one assumed to argue for the individunl defendant, and
witnesses were sometimes brought in who testified against this fellow.
Tlicn, quite an argument mould take place between the prosecutor
ancl the fellow who was acting as friencl of th'kclefenclant, and finally
the proceedings wonlcl break up.
Senator MCCARTIIY.YOUsay finally the defendant, your lawyer,
yo11 mean a defense co~~nsel ?
Colonel RAYMOND. It was universally testified that these men did
not hold theniselves out as defense counsel.
Senator MCCARTI-IY.AS EL lawyer, will you tell me the difference
bctween a man who represents yon i n court as a friencl of the de-
fendant and defense couasel? I am a little hazy on that, I am afraid.
Colonel RAYMOND. Well, I suppose counsel would be somebody who
was in a confidential relation with the individual defendant, and who
n-ould represent him i n that capacity.
This was an anomalous proceeding-
Sellator MC~ARTHY. 1 still don't get your thought. You say he
djdn't hold himself out as defense counsel, held himself out as friend
of the defendant. You have been a lawyer, I gather, for 20 ears. I
hare been a jodge. I don't llrnow of a n difference between "giend of
the defendant" and defense counsel. Zould you tell me i n what way
it cliff ers ?
Colonel RAYMOND. I don't think you would find a situation of this
sort in an ordinary court, Senator.
Senator I\ICCARTHY. I am sure you wouldn't; but, you wouldn't in
my court, I know.
Colonel RAYMOND. And, I am simply giving you the testimony that
was before the Board, that these people were not represented as de-
fense counsel. I n fact, there was no representation to show they were?
or what they were doing. They simply started arguing on behalf of-
this fellow.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, they sort of appeared to assume
the role of being friendly to the defendant, is that what you mean?
Colonel RAYNOND.T h a t is rigllt, and that was the testimony
of all of the witnesses that we heard.
Senator MCCARTHY.May I pursue this further, Mr. Chairman?
I n other words, there was a mock trial, and the accused thinks he is
being tried, right? That is the purpose of the mock. trial?
Colonel RAYMOND. Well, I don't know. I assume he thought he
was being tried in some of these cases, and some of the cases from the
description, I would doubt very much if he did.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let's take the case i n which he thought he was
being tried. I assume that was the purpose of the mock trial, to
convince him he was being tried, otherwise it would have no purpose
whatsoever.
Colonel RAYMOND. I think the urpose, the real ultimate purpose
f
in every case was to t r y to get the de endant to talk.
Senator MCCARTHY.T h a t is the purpose i n all this procedure, I
gather.
Colonel RAYMOND. T h a t is the purpose of the entire interrogation.
Senator M C C A ~ E I YI .understand that. Now, some men sat behind
the bench and they held themselves out as judges, is that right?
Colonel RAYNONIX Well, I assume that is what they would be repre-
senting the~nselvesas.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUinvestigated this, you were appointed for
the purpose of investig,zting it ?
Senator MCCARTIIY.I assume Clay had some confidence i n you when
he asked you to investigate it, right ?
Colonel ~ a r a f o I~ assume
~ . he did.
Senator C CAR THY. Now, when you started checking into these
nlock trials and reported back to Qenersl Clay, did you determine
whether or not the prosecution staff held themselves out as judges
trying the man ?
Colonel EAYX~ND. Yes. The members of the prosecution were the
people nillo sat behincl the table.
Senator MCCARTHT.I f me are to get anywhere lye have to be abso-
lutely frank with each other, I am afraid.
91765-49--6
Colonel RAYMOND. Well-

Senator MCCARTHY.NOW,tell me this, will you? I s there any doubt
in your mind but what the prosecution staff took over the position as
judges and tried to convince the accused t h a t they were judges trying
h i m ? There is no doubt about that, is there?
Colonel RAYMOND. Well, i n those cases where, as I say, the fellow
had a-was led to believe he was being tried, that is true.
Senator MCCARTIIY. And now, then, there as, according to your
report, a man who took over the job of defending him, right?
Colonel RAY~KOND. T h a t is right. .
Senator MCCARTHY.And after the trial was over, then this defense
eounsel, or friend of the defendant, mould give him advice on what to
do, as a friend or as his counsel-right?
Colonel RAYMOND. My understanding is that it wasn't quite t h a t ;
that there was an effort, i n a good many cases, to get the defendant to
talk right then and there, i n the room where this proceecling was tak-
ing place. I n other cases the man that we referred to as the friend
of the defendant ~vouldgo out with him and go back to his cell with
him and say, "IVell, now, I think you had better talk and tell what
you knov."
How f a r they went i n their representations on that it is very difficult
to say.
Senator MCCARTIIY. Let's get-
Colonel RAYMOND. T h a t was the general fact of the-
Senator MCCARTHY.May I get back and get the record straight?
Can you now tell me any difference between a defense counsel and
friend of the defendant? I s there any technical difference that you
know of ?
Colonel RAYMOND. Well, as I say-
Senator MCCARTHY.SOwe can-
Colonel RAYMOND. These men were certainly not defense counsel.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did the defendant think that he was being
represented by that man in a court ?
Colonel RAYMOND. I don't know what he thought, but he might well
have thought that.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, that was the purpose of the
mock trial, have him think that judges were sitting behind the table,
that he k a s being represented by defense counsel, or friend, or call it
what you may-someone to represent him i n that court-there is no
doubt about t h a t ?
Colonel RAYMOND. T h a t was the effect of it.
Senator MCCARTHY.NOW, may I ask you-&/Ir. Chairman, if I
may-may I ask you one other question? I n these mock trials there
was a claim, I understand, in the affidavits which you received,
claimed by some of the reporters that after the mock trial, a man
would be sentenced to death, sentenced to be hung. Did you run
down those allegations ?
Colonel RAYMOND. W e did. W e asked practically every witness
who might know about it, and came to the conclusion that i n no case
was any sentence pronounced in the court or the trial-whatever you
call it.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did ;YOU find that the accused was led to believe
that he had been convicted?
Colollel RAYMOND. H e certainly, in some cases, I think, came t o
the conclusion he had had a trial ; and, whether he thought the actual
conviction or sentence or finding of the trial board had taken place
at the time he was in the room, I don't know, but he certainly, I a m
satisfied, in some cases, felt that h e was being tried.
Senator R/ICCARTHY. I n other words, he felt that he had been tried,
and this was his trial, this was the final court; right?
Colonel R-~YMOND. I think t h a t is true.
Senator MCCARTHY.DO you know whether or not h e was led t o
believe that he had been convicted?
Colonel RAYM~ND. Well--
Senator MCCARTHY.T h a t was a very important thing f o r you t o
determine, I assume, when you were trying to find out whether or not
the trials were properly conducted.
Colonel RAYMOND. I think he undoubtedly, i n some cases, felt that
a decision had been made.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, that he had been convicted?
Colonel RAYMOND. Well, he might have suspected that. I don't
know.
Senator MCCARTHY.Then, when the phony defense counsel, or the
phony friend of the accused, came back to his cell, do you know
whether or not this defense counsel would tell him that if he would
sign a confession that instead of being hung, he would be let off much
easier? Do you follow me now ? So there will be no misunderstanding.
Colonel RAYMOND. I know'that claim was made, but I don't think
we were satisfied; I certainly was not satisfied that t h a t had ever
been done.
Senator MCCARTHY.Were you satisfied then of this-were you
satisfied that i n some cases the accused was brought in, he believed
that the prosecutors sitting behind the table were jndges, he believed
that the man prosecuting him was the prosecuting attorney, he
believed that the man who was fighting for his rights i n that so-called
court, was his friend, he believed that when this was over that, a s
you say, a decision had been reached, and that he had reason t o believe
that he was convicted? So, you found the facts u p t o that point
t o be right?
Senator MCCARTHY.Then, you found that the phony defense coun-
sel went back to his cell and made certain representations and came
back with a confession, you found that, didn't you-is that right?
Colonel RAYMOND. Not quite; because the testimony was that the
procedure was not very successful, but some of them undoubtedly did
make some statement following the trial.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let's take this, if you will. Assume the phony
defense counsel went back to him, take the successful one, when he
~ o u l dcome back with a confession, in those cases I understand the
accused claimed to you that he had been told that he was convicted,
that he was to be hmlg in the morning, and if h e would sign that con-
fession that his friend, the defense counsel, or call i t what you may,
gave him, he would be let off with 5 or 10 years. Now, I know you
were not i n the cell there; there is no way you could run that down;
you would have to take the word of the phony defense connsel as
against the word of the accused-right?
Colonel RAY~IOND. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.But, in view of what went on before that, the

fact that you had the stage set, you had the mock trials, you had the con-
viction or the impression of a conviction-I assume that any man who
can add two and two would then realize the purpose of that was to
have the phony defense counsel go back and get this confession; is that
right? I am speaking of the successful cases now.
Colonel R A Y ~ K ~ NWell,
D . the purpose of the whole proceeding was
to get the defendant to talk, whether he talked in the court or after-
ward, or where he talked.
Senator MCCARTEIY. DOyou have any reason to believe that after he
went through this phony procedure, that the defense counsel didn't
represent to the accused that he was to be hung i n the morning, a n d
if he would sign a confession, h e would succeed in getting him
clemency, as his friend ?
Colonel RAYMOND. I certainly was not convinced of that. I think
that the most that I was satisfied of was-and I am speaking simply
i o r myself, I don't think-I forget what we say in our report on this,
Senator MCCARTHY.I f YOU wlll refer to page 4.
Colonel RAYMOND. W e say :
Undoubtedly some defendants would confess a t least part of their crimes under
the influence of such procedures.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let me ask you this fnrther, if 1 may : I gather,
you have been a lawyer fcr a long timc-right?
Colonel RAYMOND. Right.
Senator MCCARTHY.And i n active pFactice?
Colonel RAYMOND. Right.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I n Boston ?
Senator MCCARTHY.A good place to practice. Did you do any
criminal work ? I assume you did.
Colonel RAYMOND. Very little.
Senator MCCARTHY.Very little?
Colonel RAYMOND. Most of my work mas civil.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Now, Mr. Ellis, who incidentally never tried
a criminal case i n his life until h e got in the Army, bnt he did t r y
some default divorces, told us the other day that he unclerstoocl that
some States had laws, or statutes, or rules that recognized the validity
of a mock trial such as you have outlined. I might sag, in my State,
if a lawyer conducted a mock trial such as that, he wonld never prac-
tice law again. I h a r e tried to malie a check to find out where a court
ever said that type of procednre was proper in this country. Do you
knon- of any place i n this country where the criminal courts allow
1 he type of procedures that yon have described?
Colonel RAYMOND. Well, I never looked the point up, Senator. I
just don't know.
Senator MCCARTEIY.Let me ask you this. You understand, we are
not talking about letting off any of the men who were responsible for
this gruesome crime-I think they shonld have been hung long before
this time, if they were the guilty men-but are concerned with con-
ducting reasonable, sensible trials, you know, of the type we conducted
over i n the Pacific where they hung them just as quickly and they were
just as dead as those in the European theater.
Do you think it is a t all proper to go through the procedure you
have described here?
Colonel RAYMOND. Well, there is certainly one vice in it. I say
"vice" ;it strikes me as a vice. I have never looked the point up. You
do have a confidential relationship between attorney and client, and
if a man is held out in such a way that an individual feels he is his
attorney, I think the individual should be able to talk with him con-
fidentially and not have the statements then thrown up in an effort
to convict him.
Senator BALDWIN.Was there any evidence that a t any time these
men who represented themselves to be, or acted as though they were,
in these mock trials, a friend of the defendant, had ever talked with
the defendants before any confidential relationship of attorney and
client ?
Colonel RAYMOND. NO; they had never, as f a r as I know, talked
with them in such relationship, before the trial. Whatever talk they
may have had in that connection-and it wasn't true in every case, in
some cases they did talk with them after this proceeding, and that
was the talk that they had.
Now, as I say, I don't know whether that is recognized by some
jurisdictions or not, but all I can say is that personally, if I had any-
thing to do with i t I don't think I would follow those tactics. Whether
I am right or wrong on this as a matter of law is something I don't
know.
Senator MCCARTW.One of your prosecution staff made the state-
ment, which I think is very pertinent. H e said "You know, it is an
odd thing, but a man that is innocent will scream just as loud when
he is being put to torture as the man that is guilty. The man that is
innocent, if tortured enough, will sign the same confession as the man
who is guilty. There is no doubt, if you torture a man enough, regard-
less of whether he is guilty or innocent, he will do the same type of
screaming and most likely sign the same confession."
Colonel RAYMOND. Well, that may be so, but I don't know what that
has to do with this problem.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this. Let us say that YOU are
brought before a court, a mock court, a phony court; you can't under-
stand the language of the members of the court; yon are being tried,
let's say, over in Russia, and you have three Russian officers behind
the table; you are being tried, you know that if you are found guilty
you will be hung. The court assigns to you a defense counsel or a
friend, a man who will fight for your rights in that court, and tell
you what is going on. After this trial is over, you know you have been
convicted, so your friend, this phony defense counsel, one of the
Russian officers who actually is one of the prosecuting staff, comes
back t o your cell and says, "Now, John, if you sign this confession
instead of being hung tomorrow morning at sunrise, I will get you o d
with 5 years. I can do it. I am your frlend. You have seen me fight
for you. We are going to give the ration cards back to your family
SO they will be able to eat. Here is a confession. I n it is set forth
what 10 of the other defendants have done. We want you to sign this,
implicating the other fellows, and confessing your own guilt. Then,
YOU will get off with 5 years."
You know you are innocent. You are now niiles from where the
Inassacre occurred. The possibility is rather great that you would.
sign that confession, isn't it ?
Colonel RAYMOND. I can see where there mould be a tremendous

pressure to make you sign the.confession.
However, let me say one thmg-
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask-
Senator BALDWIN. Let the witness answer the question.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am not mistreating the witness, am I ?
Colonel RAYMOND. Let me explain one thing there, Senator.
I n the first place these trials, these Schnell proceedings, were con-
ducted in German. They were conducted in the language of the ac-
cused. And, in the second place, I don't believe, from anything I have
heard, from all the evidence I have heard in this case that those repre-
sentations were made in tliat may to these people after the proceed-
ings were over, so I don't think--
Senator MCCARTHY. At the time you lost contact with the cases-
after you find the accnsed thought he was convicted, then the friend
of the court goes back to his cell and comes back with a confession-
I am asking you this question-let us assume that situation did occur,
and there are many, as far as we lcnow, completely disinterested par-
ties, the court reporter taliiilg the notes says this is a fact, I understand
we are going to have some of the members of yonr prosecution staff,
men who were taking part in the prosecution who d l come in and
tell us what happened, and their claims are considerably different
from the way yon recited tliem, and I wasn't there, of course, all P
can do is take the stories of these people who bring tliem in, assume
that situation, tliat is the type of situation that has been represented
to us over and over, n-lien you decide whether or not you are going to
sign a confession, you are up to the point now of signing the confes-
sion, a confession brought to you by your friend, or a fellow who
fought for you, it doesn't make ninch difference whether you are
guilty or iniiocent. ~ o n l c it.
l in your decision to sign the confession,
if he said that by helping him he coulcl get you off with a 5- or 10-
year sentence, see tliat yonr family got their ration cards back-
Colonel RAYDIOND. That is rigpt. That sort of thing is certainly
not countenanced in any jnrisdictlon I know of.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this: If you were in charge of
the prosecution, would you have countenanced this type of mock trial,
in which the accused may be made to believe he was convicted, and
assigned a phony defense counsel; would you have countenanced
that?
Colonel RAYMOND. AS I said before, I never looked the point up
as a matter of law, but I would not have employed it if I had been
iil charge of it. Whether I am right as a matter of law, I don't know.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words yon consider i t improper?
Colonel RAYMOND. Well, the vice in it, as I say, that I see is the
relationship between supposed attorney and the individual who is
being charged.
Senator MCCARTHY. Isn't it an even greater \.ice, isn't the really
great vice in this fact that you tell a man he is convicted, that is
obviously the purpose of the mock trial, and his friend goes back and
says, "I can get you off. You won't hang if you sign the confession."
Isn't your investigator likely to get the same type of confession from
an innocent man as from a guilty man? Isn't that the bad thing?
Colonel RAYMOND. I think actually the way these proceedings were
conducted, the whole emphasis was on the point that this is your
chance to tell your story. Now, some of them may have talked right
illen and there. Some of them may have talked after they went, or
lvrittei~out their statement after they went, back to their cells, and
I am sure that these people who were acting as friends of the defend-
ants advised them to tell what they knew, and so on, when they went
back to their cells.
Senator MCCARTEIY.After the conviction?
Colonel RAYMOND. After the proceeding mas over.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me interrupt there, Colonel. Was there any
evidence in those affidavits or from any witnesses you interviewed
that a t any of those mock trials there mas any so-called purported
decision made of conyiction? W h a t was the fact on t h a t ?
Colonel RAYXOND.Well, some of the affidavits oi" the defendants,
I believe, made that claim, when asked. W e decided after talking
with a number of witiiesses and going into the matter further, that
there mere no decisions niade by these Schnell proceedings.
Senator BALDWIN.You say in your report here-
Colonel RAYMOND. I tliink we SO state, don't we?
Senator MCCARTEIY.YOUstate the opposite.
Senator BALDWIN.You say that-
i n certain instances, probably S or 10, the use of a so-called mock trial was
resorted to i n a n attempt to "soften up" a witness nrho mas thought to be
susceptible to such procedure. Those trials were held a t Schmabisch Hall i n
one of t h e cells, sometimes a small cell about 6 by S feet, sometimes i n a larger
room two or three times t h a t size.
Now, from these affidavits, and from the witnesses that you inter-
viewed, is your conclusion that this happened i n 8 or 10 cases, that the
most or the least, or is that a fair number?
Colonel RAYMOXD. T h a t is the maximum. Some said a smaller
number. I believe Colonel Ellis said not over six or seven, but the
number given by different people varied, and this is certainly the
maximum number of cases.
Senator BALDWIN.You are speaking of, here i n your report, you
say something about softening u p the witnesses, what clo you mean
by that ?
Colonel RAYXOND.These Germans mere S S men who had been or-
dered not t o talk, and they had been trained and grown up i n the
tradition of obeying their orders, and it was extremely difficult f o r
this interrogation team to get them to talk, and yet the team mas
faced with a situation where they knew that this massacre had taken
place, but they did not know who mas responsible for it and they had
to depend on this group of Germans to get the evidence. There were
no eyewitnesses. just one eyewitnessj ancl he was only able, I believe, t o
identify one of the people.
Senator MCCARTHY.May I interrupt? T h e eyewitness mas able
to identify only 1of the 72 convicted?
Colonel RAYMOND. I may be wrong on that, Senator, but I think that
is so.
Senator BALDWIN.W e have a n eyewitness here, you may ask him.
Senator MCCARTHY.I understand we are going to prove t h a t the
Malniedy massacre did occur.
Colonel RAYMOND. NOW,these fellows were rounded u p late in the
fall of '45, if I am not mistaken, and early '46; but it was a long time
before they could get any of them to talk, and they did resort to var-
ious devices to try to get them to talk. They had to, in order to get
anywhere on the case.
Now, that is what I mean by "softening up" the witness, to get
him to the point where he would talk.
Senator BALDWIN.I think the important point Senator McCarthy
brought out is the claim apparently made by the accused here that they
were purportedly, or in a phony way, told that they were convicted
and that that was their one chance, afterward, to talk and get a
lighter sentence.
What was the evidence on that-
Colonel RAYMOND. I think our report states--
Senator MCCARTHY. SOyou won't make any mistakes-
Colonel RAYMOND. NO sentence was pronounced, but the accused
was made to understand that it was his last chance to talk, and un-
do~~btedly in some cases understood he had been convicted.
That was our conclusion on all the evidence, that certainly no sen-
tence was pronounced.
Senator HUNT. I would like to inquire, if I might.
Senator BALDMN.Senator Hunt.
Senator HUNT.Colonel Raymond, mere the facts of these mock
trials made known by the prosecution to the court at the time of the
trial ?
Colonel RAYMOND. Oh, yes; in fact before, I believe, in the opening
statement of the prosecution there was reference made to them, and
certainly the information was brought out at the trial, at the time these
statements were being inroduced.
Senator HUNT.What action did the court take with reference to the
information they received from the prosecution that these mock trials
had been used ?
Colonel RAYMOND. I believe I am right, that they accepted the state-
ments and said they would give them such weight as they thought
the o ~ g hto t have, that they would consider all the circumstances.
L n a t o r HUNT. Did any member of the court make any statement
to the effect that they were improper, that that method should not have
been used ?
Colonel RAYMOND. I can3 answer that, I don't know.
Senator BALDWIN.May I interject a question there? When you
refer to the court that Senator Hunt refers to, do you refer to the crim-
inal conrt that actually tried the prisoners and imposed the sentence?
Colonel RAYMOND. That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.That is the real court as distinguished from the
so-called mock trial ?
Senator HUNT. One other question: Were these mock trials con-
ducted before or after counsel had been announced for the accused?
Colonel RAYMOND. Oh, that was long before.
Senator HUNT. I have no other questions.
Senator BALDWIN.Going down to paragraph 12 of your report, you
say the defendant would be brought from his cell hooded. What
can you tell us about that?
Senator MCCARTHY. Before you leave this point here he is on, Mr.
Chairman, in regard to getting of convictions, would you mind much
if I complete my interrogation on the point?
Senator BALDWIN. No ;go ahead. That is all right.
-.
MALMEDP MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 83
Seiiator MCCARTIIY.Getting back to this confession tliat was gotten
in his cell, you said that in some cases he understood he had been con-
victed. Let us stick to those cases, and you say after the trial was
over, he was given to understand this was his last chance t o talk-
right-af ter his conviction ?
Colonel RAYMOND. Yes [nodding].
Senator BALDWIN.Could you answer so we will have it on the
record ?
Coloilel RAYMOND. Yes; go ahead. I thought you hadn't finished.
Senator MCCARTHY.After his conviction, or alleged conviction, he
was led to believe lie was convicted, he was given to understand t h a t
he had one last chance to talk, according to your report, is that right?
Senator MCCARTEIY.Now, if he had already been convicted do you
know what argument then was made to him that he should talk? I n
c~therwords, why should he talk after he was convicted? Was he told
that he would get off easier, in other words, what inducement-
why talk .when you are already convicted?
Colonel RAYM~XD. Well, a good many criminals who have been
convicted, particularly those who were sentenced to death, do make a
final statement before going to the gallows.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other 13-ords, they were led to believe that
they were about to go to the gallows, this was their final statement?
C~loneE l AYJIOND. I don't know that they were led to believe that
they were going to a gallows, but after conviction, you are asking about
what inducement there ~ o u l c be l to malie a statenient, sometimes the
man's conscience or his religions beliefs, or other things may enter into
it, I don't know.
But, at any time there were attempts made t o get him to talk, that is
as far as I know.
Senator MCCARTIIP.NO doubt-so the record v i l l be completely
straight, he was led to believe he mas convicted in some case, after
that his friend went back to the cell ancl induced him to talk, is that
right 2
Senator MCCARTHY.NOW,some of the court reporters who will ap-
pear here, some of the witnesses not accusecl, you anderstancl, will
testify that the inducement' then was that instead of being hung, in-
stead of going to the gallows, lie would be let off with 5 or 10 years if
he would sign a certain confession, and that the accused signed that
confession regardless of whether i t mas true or untrue.
Do yon know anything about that situation!
Colonel RAYMOND. None of the witnesses who testified before us
made any such statement.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Did any of the witnesses make the statement
in their affidavit, or otherwise?
Colonel RAYMOND. Some of the Germans in their affidavits talked
about having been convicted and there was a good deal of talk in
those affidavits, in various places, about the gallows, and noose that
was put around their necks, and so forth. All the people who testified
before us, and they were cross-examined a t some length on the point,
all of them insisted that there was no means of execution anywhere
around the prison, and that there was no rope used in any way, in
connection with the interrogation- of these prisoners, and we believe

that.
Senator MCCARTHY, Did you find that some confessions mere ob-
tained when the n ~ a hada this noose around his neck 1
Colonel RAYMOND. No ;we found that the noose was not used. That
is on the basis of all the testimony we heard.
Now, you may have something that we didn't hear, I don't h o w .
Senator MCCARTEIY. I assume not. I assume you heard it all.
Here is one of the conrt reporters, who says this, he says-
Senator BALDWIN. P L Ihis
~ name in, please.
Senator MCCARTHY. It is the same inan we had the letter from,
which was read. His name was James J. Bailey, and here is what
the court reporter said :
The prisoner then had a long multicolored robe thrown over him, and black
hood pulled down over his head, and rope knotted about his neck, and he was
marched into a cell to be interrogated by one of the lawyers.
I gather this is a disinterested witness. I don't know anything
about him except the letter I have gotten.
Did you run any of those claims down ?
Colonel RAYMOND. All I can say is, Senator, I don't recall that we
ever heard the name of Mr. Bailey. We certainly had no affidavit or
statement from him.
Senator MCCARTIXY. Did you have a statement from any of the so-
called disinterested parties, not referring to the accused-so-called
disinterested parties to the effect that this sort of procedure was
used ?
Colonel RAYMOND. They all said i t was not used, those that were of
the prosecution staff and those that were disinterested.
Senator MCCARTHY. And the defense staff, what did they tell you?
Colonel RAYMOND. We had one of the defense counsel who testified,
and he had no such knowledge. H e had no knowledge of any such
procedure.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you interrogate Mr. Everett, Chief De-
f ense counsel ?
Colonel RAYMOND. NO; Mr. Everett we did not have a statement
from, except as stated in sworn petitions for habeas corpus.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you try to run down his claim that this
procedure was used ?
Colonel RAYMOND. That was the purpose of our hearing, was to
investigate the allegations in his petition.
Senator MCCARTHY. That is all.
Senator BALDWIN. YOUspoke of the evidence, I assume, of the
complaining witnesses and disinterested persons. Did you have any
of them personnally before the Commission to examine them per-
sonally on their oath?
Colonel RAYMOND. Yes, sir. I f I may refer to the report, I can tell
you exactly who we heard.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Here it is.
Senator MCCARTHY. Where i t said seven witnesses ?
Colonel RAYMOND. We
had before us Lt. Col. C. E. Straight, he was
the officer who had reviewed this case and under whose general juris-
diction the trial had been conducted.
We heard Joseph Kirchbaum, who was one of the interrogators
against whom certain of the complaints were made.
MALME'DF MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 85
IVe heard H a r r y TV. Thon, another investigator against whom coin-
plaints had been made.
We heard Lt. Col. James B. Costello. Costello was involved i n sub-
sequent views on the case, and in subsequent proceedings. H e was
quite familiar with the record, and he furnished us with certain
information from the record. We heard F i r s t Lt. Robert Byrne.
Byrne was a member of the prosecution staff, but had not participated
to any extent, if a t all, in interrogations. H i s statement was of very
minor character.
We heard Benjamin M. Narvid, who was one of the defense counsel,
the only one of the defense staff then i n the European theater.
We heard Frank Steiner. I believe he was officially called a trans-
lator, I can get that. Anyway, he was a translator and interpreter
for the investigators ;ancl, we heard Bruno F. Jacob, who x a s also an
interpreter, if I a111 not mistaken. I might check that. I don't believe
he had any official position with the prosecution staff. H e said he was
temporarily assigned there to help them out for a short time.
Then, we had affidavits from a number of people, too.
Senator BALDWIN.I was thinking particularly of the complainants.
Did you have any of the complainants belore you individually ?
Colonel RAYNOND.You mean the Germans?
Senator BAWWIN. The Germans; yes.
Colonel RaYafo~D.No; we had a batch of affidavits from them
which we assumed wonld be what they moulcl testify; just as we had
affidavits from the prosecution staff who mere i n this country.
Senator BALDWIN.And j7ou examined the personnel that had con-
ducted the investigation and prosecution on the basis of the affidavits
and the complaints set forth i n those, and in the petition filed i n the
Supreme Court ?
Colonel RAYMOND. T h a t is right. There was a rather detailed
statement prepared, all of the allegations made against Thon and
Kirchbaum, I believe that is one of the exhibits annexed to my r e ort,
K
and we went rather carefully into each of those allegations with t ose
men.
Senator BAWWIN. They were under oath, were they, a t that time?
Colonel RAYMOND. Yes, sir ; these proceedings were all under oath.
Senator BAWWIN.But, yon never did cross-examine the complain-
ing witnesses, the Germans, on the basis of their affidavits?
Colonel RAYMOND. No; F e did not.
Senator BAWWIN. Now, do you have any further questions on that
point, Senator?
Senator MCCARTHY.J u s t one: Am I correct, then, that you in-
terrogated six of the members of the prosecution staff and one of the
defense staff-in other words, seven witnesses came before you?
'Colonel RAYMOND. I didn't-
Senator &$&AETHY.As 1followed you, 1 gathered as much.
Colonel RAYMOND. I didn't check the number of them.
Senator MCCARTHY.Roughly that, anyway?
Colonel RAYMOND. Thon, Costello, and Byrne, Steiner and Jacob
were all connected with the prosecution; Narvid was connected with
the defense; Straight and Costello were on the reviewing end.
Senator MCCARTRY.There is a question t h a t occurs to me, Mr.
Chairman. I a m wondering why the court didn't take the trouble t o
find out what Mr. Everett and the men who took the opposite posi-
tion from Tho11 and I understand Thon-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Kirchbaum.
Senator MCCARTIXY. And Kirchbaum were alleged to be the two
men most responsible for the alleged kicking and beating and that sort
of thing. I can't understand at this point why the Army didn't bring
in who made the claims, such as Everett, and the inen vitally con-
cerned with it. Why you didn't make some effort to bring in just the
court reporters, men who were connected neither with the defense or
prosecution, the so-called disinterested people.
Colonel RAYMOND. They were all in the United States and not
available to us.
Senator MCCARTHY. I see.
Senator BAWWIN.Further pursuing the point that Senator Mc-
Carthy raises, you mentioned particularly Kirchbaum and Thon.
Are those the two men against whom all or most all of the allegat'1011s
of mistreatment contained in the affidavits were nlacle ?
Senator M ~ C A R T HI~think
. it is physical mistreatment.
Senator BALDWIN. Physical mistreatment.
Colonel RAYMOND. NO,

sir; there were, as I recall it, fire, in addi-
tion to those two. There were allegations against a Lieutenant Paul,
Mr. Ellowitz, Captain Shoemaker, ancl they were all in the United
States, but we did have affidavits from them.
Senator BALDWIN. Those were the men against whom the particular
complaints were made in these affidavits by complaining witnesses?
Colonel RAYMOND. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. And in the petition filed in the Supreme Conrt,
an1 I correct in that ?
Colonel RAYBIOND. Yes, sir.
Senator BALT.VIN.Now, going down to the point in paragraph 12,
you say the defendant would be brought from his cell hooded. What
can you tell us about that, as you found it 1
Colonel RAYMOND. I t was testified that in n ~ o r i n pdefendants from
one place to another, they always used a hood. This hood was placed
over the head of the clefenclant to prevent his communicating with
others, knowing who else was i11 prison, who else was, there, who might
be asked to testlfy against him, and prevent his learning the lay-out
of the prison in case, I imagine, as a security measure.
Senator BALDWIN. Now, in connection with these mock trials, was
there any claiin nzacle, or did you investigate any claim or investigate
the situation that might pertain to the use of physical abuse? What
Colonel RAYMOND. We did. We went into that at considerable
length, because that was the most serious claim made, and it was the
most difficult one to unravel.
Now, to begin with we found that there n7as an order issued on
February 7,1946, by the commanding ollicer of the interrogators, and
I will read one paragraph of it :
Any ruse or deception may be used in the course of interrogation but threats,
duress in any form, physical violence or promises of immunity or mitigation of
punishment should be scrupulously avoided.
That order mas in effect from that time on, during the entire investi-
gation of the case.
Senator BALDWIN.DOyou have the date of that order?
Colonel R A ~ M O NFebruary
D. 7,1946. That was shortly after Major
Fallton came to Schwabisch Hall and Ere was the commanding officer
who issued that, and it was after that period, if I am not mistaken,
when most of the statements were obtained.
I n fact, I don't recall offhand that any statement that was used in
was obtained before that date, although there mag have been
one or two ; I don't know.
Senator M C C A R T I ~I n. that connection-
Colonel RAYMOND. Pardon

me.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me pursue that point further.
What evidence was there, as you found from this investigation or
from the affidavits, of any physical abuse or intimidation? I mean
by that, beating or cuffing, or withholding of rations or threats of any
hnd.
Colonel RAYMOND. We asked all of the witnesses, pressed them on
that point. Thon and Kirchbaum both denied i t in every detail. On
the other hand, the affidavits that we have and with which we were
confronted at the start of the case, and the petition filed by Mr. Everett,
both alleged serious physical mistreatment.
I cannot speak for the other members of the Board as to their per-
sonal reaction; but I know I felt that we got much nearer to the truth
in the testiinony of Mr. Steiner, who was not accused of any mistreat-
ment, whose knowledge admittedly was very limited, but he did have
some knowledge because he had been in on some interrogation as in-
terpreter or translator or whatever you call them, and if I may do SO,
I mill read one or two questions and answers from his testimony.
Senator BALDWIN.Yes; if you would like to.
Colonel RAYMOND. This is from testimony before the Administra-
tion of Justice Review Board, taken on July 26, 1948, Mr. Steiner
testifying, questions 26, 27, and 28. The first two questions were by
me :
Did you ever witness any physical violence being used on these suspects by
the interrogators or by their translator?
Answer. Real physical violence, I never witnessed i t myself; probably push-
ing, something like that. I wouldn't deny that. I have seen i t two or three
times. I don't remember exactly who did it b u t I mean what you would probably
Call beaten up, I personally never witnessed anything of that kind.
Question. When you say "pushing" will you tell us a little bit more what you
mean?
Answer. That is where I say a man stands there and then probably after
2 or 3 hours of interrogation in the face of real evidence the man still defies, he
would probably be pushed against the wall. That is all I remember.
Question (by Colonel Harbaugh). How hard was he pushed against the wall?
Answer. How hard can you push with your open hand a man who stands here
and force him up to the wall? Not very hard. Those men I know are rough
guys. A11 of the interrogators a r e men like you and me.
Now, I personally have no doubt that these interrogators got ex-
asperated with these fellows being confronted by evidence, and still
refusing to talk, and I believe that incidents similar to that occurred
from time to time, quite possibly pushing them up against the wall,
possibly one or two other things a little more exaggerated, but nothing
like the story these people tell.
May I now take the case of Goldschmiclt? Goldschmidt testified
a t the actual trial before the military conrt.
Senator BALDWIN. ISGoldschinidt one of the interrogators?
Colonel RAYMOND. NO; Goldschmidt is one of the defendants, one

of the Germans who was accused, and he has been sentenced to life
imprisonment.
He testified at the trial, took the stand and made absolutely no
claim of improper treatment by any of the interrogators. That was
in April or May of 1946.
On February 11, 1948, he executed an affidavit, one of the batch
that was before our Board. I n that affidavit he says that on February
12, 1946, that he was kicked and beaten in the face, and after a hood
was put over his head.
I was taken t o a cell opposite where I w a s beaten i n t h e abdomen, fell t o t h e
ground and screamed, and thereafter w a s made t o stand between t w o objects
which were placed together strongly and beaten several times over t h e head
with a hard object. T w o days later I was kicked twice i n m y lower body and
later was beaten i n t h e face and kicked i n t h e leg.
Now, I just don't believe anything of that sort ever occurred. I
think that sort of physical abuse, if there was any, or physical han-
dling of these people, was the type of thing that Steiner testified to,
when these interrogators, in the heat of the moment, after long hours
of interrogation, got pretty exasperated and took hold of a man and
said, "Now, damn you, yon come through and talk." .Something of
that sort.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator Hunt, do you have any questions 011 this
point ?
Senator HUNT.I have some, when the colonel has completed his
testimony ; but, I don't care to interrupt now.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you have any, Senator?
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUthink they didn't get exasperated enough
to really get rough, just shoved him against the wall, is that your
thought ?
Colonel RAYNOND. It goes against all reason, it seems to me, for a
man trying to get a man to talk, to take the kind of measures that this
fellow Goldschmidt alleges.
Senator MCCARTHY. I might say that you talk about what tough
fellows these S S troopers were. One of the reasons why this gets
rather close to me, when we were O L I ~in the Pacific, we used to pick up
J a p diaries, it was common practice for the Japanese soldiers to keep
diaries, and in it he told exactly what happened to your men who were
held by the Japs, who used to try the same thing, and there were
threats of running tractors over people, and we thought our marines
were pretty tough in this war, and through reading these diaries and
things, we found out what had happened, and what the Japs did to
our boys and we were very eager to pick up the Japs responsibie for
that. That is one of the reasons I feel we should be very careful that
they don't do the same thing. It is true, if you are trying to get a
confession from someone, questioning him for a couple of hours, you
might get exasperated and shove him around. What we want to
know is the extent of that shoving around.
I n your affidavit here, your report differs very materially from
what you just told. You say :
Corroborating t h e claims o f t h e various accused as t o physical violence-
this is on page 5-
there is the affidavit of Dr. Knorr, the dentist a t Schwabisch Hall, that he
treated 15 or 20 of the suspects for injuries to the mouth and jaw, apparently
inflicted b ~ b' lows.
Did you feel that their mouths were injured, their teeth were
kllocked out by being gently shoved against the wall? This is your
own report.
Colonel RAYMOND. I understand that. That is what the affidavit
said. I just don't believe that any physical violence by these interro-
gators went to m y such extent.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhave the dentist's affidavit. The dentist
was over there. Didn't you think it was important that you call in
that dentist to find out the name of the prisoner that had his teeth
knocked out, or prisoners, keeping in mind that prior to that, the
Siliipson-Van Roclen report stated that practically every defendent
that came into court was missing some teeth, that is in the 139 death
cases they checked on.
Colonel RAYMOND. Senator, we discussed interviewing this dentist.
We had a hard time locating. him. This affidavit was received only a
matter of clays, I would say, before this report was finally conipleted.
Senator MCCARTEIY. YOUwere not in any great hurry. You were
snpposed to give General Clay an honest report..
Colonel RAYNOKD. I understand, but me checked on him and finally
located him and found he was sick, he had just had a leg amputated
and couldn't be interviewed.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhave no reason to believe his affidavit was
not true, have you ?
Colonel RAYMOND. I think that many of the statements in all the
affidavits submitted by these Germans are grossly exaggerated.
Senator MCCARTHY. Don't you think it was your job, Colonel, don't
you think it was your job to run these matters clown? You see, a
half investigation is worse than no investigation a t all. You have the
nffidavit of a dentist, the man who treated them and said he treated 15
having their teeth kicked out; a prisoner of war who worked in the
hospital said he observed a number of prisoners-your own report says
it-treated for bruises and you just dismiss this by saying the camp
commander said he didn't personally see any of these things, but he had
heard a lot of rumors about them. That doesn't give us the complete
picture. From that, we don't know what happened.
Colonel RAY~LOND. I don't think that paragraph is intended to be
argumentative-simply stating the type of thing that we have before
us from people who are not members of the prosecution or defense.
Senator MCCARTHY. WOWdo you think General Clay can determine
from this what happened to those men? You say you have a dentist's
affidavit that 15 of them had their teeth kicked out?
Colonel RAYMOND. Well, I don't know that you can determine
exactly what happened to any of these people without getting every-
body who was connected with the case, and bringing them in and
examining tliein. That was not possible for us to do.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this: It is alleged that repre-
sentatives of the prosecutioii threatened to harm relatives of the ac-
cnsed if they did not confess, such as deprivation of ration cards-in

other words, unless a man signed a confession, his family woulcl starve.
There was, you say, evidence that this did occur. The Board found
that it is probable in certain instances such threats may have been
made, but the Board is unable t o identify the. particular instances
involved.
Frankly, if I had appointed you to conduct an investigation and
you brought that back to me and said "Yes; we feel that they did
threaten to starve the relatives of the accused if he didn't sign a con-
fession, we think it happened, but we can't identify the instances in-
volved," I would send you back to find out.
Wouldn7tyou do that ? I n other words, tlie thing is completely in-
complete.
You say "Sure, these things occurred, but we are not going to go
further into it."
Colonel RAYMOND. YOUsee the difficulty in it, Senator; but, quite a
number of the affidavits submitted by the Germans made that allega-
tion.
The nearest thing we had to corroboration was again the testimony
of Steiner, who said that he recalled one incident where some such-
there was some such talk.
Senator MOCARTHY. I n other words, where they told the accused,
unless he signed a confession-
Colonel RAYMOND. Therefore, he couldn't identify the fellow it was.
Now, I believe that something of the sort did occur, at least in one
ease, and perhaps in more than one ;but he couldn't identify the person
and here you have got a half a dozen, or maybe 20 people claiming it.
I don't know.
Senator MCCARTHY. Well, you know-
Colonel RAYMOND. I don't know how you can answer that.
Senator MCCARTHY. One of the things that concerns me is the name
of the officer in the Army who has threatened to starve the families
of an accused if the accused didn't sign the confession. I would like
to know his name, when he comes up for promotion. I imagine you
and I both consider that entirely improper ; don't we ?
Colonel RAYBIOND.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I t is treatment we cktainly wouldn't want
to get. You wouldn't want t o be told that unless you signed a con-
fession, your family woulcl starve?
Colonel RAYMOND. I quite agree with you, but when the witness
won't give it to you, what can you do ?
Senator MCCARTHY. It further qppears that during the trial certain
members of the prosecution staff invlted the relatives of the accused
to a party a t the officers' club.
I assume you mean the wives of the accused?
Colonel RAYMOND. That allegation was made in the rather broad
language in Mr. Everett's' petition, and consequently we asked every
witness what lie knew about it. The oaly witness who knew anything
scbout it was Harry Thon, and he told his story as to what happened.
Now, I haven't looked at that recently, but my recollection is, I don't
know whether you care to go into it, but it was after the evidence
was in, and tlie wives were there, wives of some of these accused were
there a t the trial, had been attending the session, and I3arry Thon said
that he, and I think he was the only one of the prosecution staff, but
he solne other people had taken these people up to the officers' club
because they, the wives, apparently didn t have any place to go, and
he to take them up there and they spent an evening up a t the
club, nothing further than that happened, as f a r as me could determine
froin any witness that appeared before us.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you think that was proper or not?
Colonel RAYMOND. I see nothing proper in that.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know that Colonel Ellis testified that
he thought it was so improper that they were disciplined and one was
sent back t o the States? Did yon check into that matter?
Colonel RAYMOND. When you say "improper," as far as affecting
the justice and propriety of the proceedings, I see nothing improper.
As to Colonel Ellis, if it was against his orders, I don't blame him for
disciplining them.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, yon think if you are accused
of some crime, you are in a foreign nation; your wife is there watch-
ing the trial; you think there is nothing improper, let's say you are
in Russia-nothing improper about the Russian officers taking your
wife over to the officers' club, while you are being tried for your life,
and serve her refreshments?
Colonel RAYMOND. That was after all the evidence was in.
Senator M C ~ ~ R T HYOU Y . don't

say so in your statement.
C !one! R A ~ I O N The D . t
ial 1 ::d not- been concluded, because judg-
ment had not been pronounced, as I understand-that in my recollec-
tion of the testimony. Everything was in, by Harry Thon7stestimony.
Senator MCCARTKY. One final question: Am I correct in this, re-
ferring to your report: No. 1, you found evidence, and you found
it probably, using yonr language, that in certain instances threats to
take the ration cards from the family were used to get a man to sign
a confessioa, No. 1;No. 2, that you had affidavits from the dentist that
he treated 15 or 20 of the suspects for injuries to the mouth and jaws,
apparently inflicted by blows; and, taking yonr summary, that there
was physical force used but not systematically used in order to obtain
statements; and that the conditions that were created at the prison,
and the methods employed in interrogation did have a psychological
effect for the purpose of making the defendants amenable to giving
satements-is that pretty much a summary of your findings in regard
to the charges of abuse and improper conduct, plus mock trials?
Colonel RAYNOXD. Well, those statements are in the report. There
is a lot more in this-
Senator MCCARTEIY. NOfurther questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BALDWIN. That statement with reference to the teeth made
by this German dentist, Senator McCarthy made some reference to
that being in some report. Do you know where that is?
Colonel RAYNOND. The statement of the dentist ? Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I wonder if me could get that affidavit.
Colonel RAYNOND. Yes, sir, I think it is in this batch.
I t is exhibit 39, attached to our report, Dr. I h o r r .
Senator BALDWIN(reading) :
In my capacity a s official doctor of t h e former prison a t Schwabisch Hall, I
czme there twice a week, generally on Tuesday and Thursday, to attend also
to the dental needs of the interned people. These duties several times involved
the treatment of members of t h e Waffen-SS, all of them very young men, who
91765-49-7
were to be heard in t h e Malmedy trial. Unfortunately, I cannot give any

names, a s i t was forbidden to ask for names or other particulars. There may
have been about 15 or 20 patients who had to be treated for injuries of the mouth
and the jaw. Maltreatments by blows could be clearly traced with nearly all
of them. Once when I asked a young man how he was, he replied: "What can
you expect if you a r e beaten so much almost daily, a t any rate on t h e occasion
of every hearing; look a t my head." And indeed, he was beaten blue all over
t h e head which was bloodshot. Moreover I can definitely remember 2 cases in
t h e one of which 1 tooth, and in the other one 4 teetli were linocked out of the
upper jaw quite recently. Besides, there was one presented to m e a man with
a rnpture of the lower jaw which I mas allowed to put i n a provisional splint
only because he was transferred to a n American hospital a t once.
I t is known to me t h a t people residing i n t h e vicinity of the prison could
definitely hear the cries of pain of the tortured men. T h a t i s why there was
much agitation and indignation among the population.
And it is signed by Dr. Knorr.
What investigation did you make of that charge, Colonel?
Colonel RAY~IOND. We were unable to check with any of the Ameri-
can doctors because none of them were still in the European theater,
and we only had very vague information as to who they were, and
practically no information as to where they were.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you discuss these allegations with the men
whom you did interrogate?
Colonel RAYMOND. Yes, sir, yes, indeed. We asked all the people
we interrogated about physical blows. We picked up from the affi-
davits specific statements, where there was anything specific, and i11
every case the people that we were questioning said they linew nothing
about it, nothing of the sort ever occurred, as f a r as they were
concerned.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ask them whether or not they had ever
seen any injuries of these alleged kinds on the men involved ?
Colonel RAYMOND. We asked, inquired a t some length.
I might refer, in that connection, to the testimony of Mr. Narvid,
who was the counsel for the defendants, that we examined, and whose
statement seemed to be of some significance.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let me ask-Mr. Narvid was in the Army at
the time?
Colonel RAYMOND. No-well, he was then a civilian working with
the military government.
Senator M C C A R ~ Y Working
. with the military government?
Colonel RAYMOND. I believe he had been an officer at the time of the
trial, but he was a civilian working with the military government.
Senator MCCARTHY. And was Colonel Ellis a t that time his superior
officer, boss a t that time?
Colonel RAYXOND. NO, this was defense counsel, Mr. Everett had
been his superior.
Senator MCCARTHY.Who was his boss at the time he was interro-
gated by you, working for the Army-who was his superior, im-
mediate superior ?
Colonel RAYMOND. Maybe I can tell, if I look and see what he says.
I don't know. I think-now, I'll have to refresh my recollection
on that.
He was then, at the time he testified, employed as Director of Mili-
tary Government for Unter-Franklin, in Wurzberg, so that his chief
would be Governor Von Waggoner, of Bavaria.
NOW,Narvid said, regarding this matter of physical violence-you
see, lie was defense counsel :
Question. Were there any reports you had of violence such a s would leave a
bruise or scar of any kind?
Answer. I inquired and asked about it, and none of the accused t h a t I de-
fended were able to show specific evidence of scars or bruises. Of course they
all claimed t h a t t h e duress or mistreatment occurred about 6 months or more
&!fore the trial.
YOLIcan start reading with question 738 of his testimony.
Senator ~\IcC-~RTIIY.D O yon k n o v ~ v h e nhe came in the case, how
long after the alleged mistreatinent ?
Colonel RAY~IOND. H e was appointed counsel, 1believe, a t the same
time Mr. Everett was.
Senator MCCARTIXY. How long after the alleged mistreatment?
Colonel RAYXOND.H e tells t h a t right here, i n his testimony:
Of course they all claiined that duress and nlistreatu~ent occurred about 6
months or more before the t r ~ a l .
Senator BALDWTN. I t might be wise a t this point in the record, t o
put the date of Dr. IG~orr'sstatement in. It was made apparently
on the first of June, 1048, a t least that is the certificate of the notary.
Senator MCCARTHY. Does i t refer to the time of the treatment?
Senator BALDWIN. NO, this is a sworn statement. The only date Z
find is June 1, 1948. That is the o n l j date that is on this statement, s o
it dresn't appe:ir from Dr. Rnoi*i,'sstatement when he observed these
a t all. I mean, I had just assumed that he ubsen-ecl them during the
time that he was the doctor there, but i t doesn't appear just mhen he
was a doctor.
Do you think t h a t is an important date we ought to find out?
Senator MCCARTXIY. T h a t would be, I think.
Senator BALD%-IS. The date on the head of Dr. Knorr's statement
is this :
Dentist Dr. Knorr, Schwabisch Hall, Max 29, 1945.
That is apparently the date that the affidavit mas drawn up, and
was sworn to on the first of June, 1948.
Excuse me, Colonel ; go ahead.
Colonel RAYMOND. Narvid made one or two more statements about
this matter of mistreatment. Question 741 :
Didn't you say t h a t of the 40 men you defended none complained of having been
beaten or otherwise mistreated?
Answer. Most claimed they were beaten, but uoue of them could show evidence
Of bruises or marBs. They say i t occurred 6 months before the trial, and what-
ever they had had T-anislied,but the majority complained of mistreatment.
Qu~stion. R u t couldn't show any visible signs?
Answer. That is nght.
Now, question by Colonel Raymond :
Six months before the trial was before the^ got to Sch~vabiscliHall?
Answer. Yes, sir.
I f that is true, the mistreatment that they mere talking about
didn't occur in connection with their interrogation which took place
a t Schwabisch Hall.
Senator BALDWIN.I want to ask you this question, i t pertains to
all the mistreatment that is complained of of every kind, because I
want to go into some of the other details with yon, further-later.
Did you examine the record of the trial to determine whether or

not these men who complained of mistreatment at Schmabisch Hall,
while they were held as prisoners there, and while they were being
interrogated, while the prosecution was being prepared-did any
of those men testify on their trial as to mistreatment or abnses or
anything of that kind ? Did they make any such claim, and if they
did, what was the claim, if you know?
Colonel RAYMOND. We did go into that. We didn't personally have
the trial record before us. It 1s quite an extensive record and we saw
no point in cumbering up the report, but we asked Colonel Costello,
who was thoroughly familiar with it, to get that inforination for us.
Senator BALDWIN. Was he one of the prosecutors?
Colonel RAYMOND. NO,sir, he was not. H e had no connection with
the trial whatsoever, but he had worked on the record, and in another
connection, and his statement is, I think, the very last of the exhibits
connected to our report, 41, I believe it is, and what we found was
recited in paragraph 28 of our report, which I might read:
I t is to be noted that the chief counsel for the defense, shortly after he was
appointed and before the trial, submitted forms to be filled out by each of the
accused. These forms called for information a s to any mistreatment that they
had suffered. Presumably these forms were completed and in the hands of the
chief defense counsel prior to the trial. Nevertheless only 9 of the 73 defendants
who were convicted took the stand in their own behalf, and of these 9, only 3,
Motzheim, Sievers, and Tomhardt, then claimed any physical mistreatment in
connection with their interrogation.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me stop you there, colonel, to get my mind
straightened out on this thing.
When you sap these 73 that you referred to in paragraph 28-are
these 73 in connection with the Malmedy matter?
Colonel RAYMOND. All Malmedy defendants.
Senator BALDWIN.And you say of those 73, only 9 took the stand in
their own behalf ?
Senator BALDWIN. Go ahead, from there.
Colonel RAYMOND (reading)

:
I n January or February 1948, when these same individuals prepared affidavits
they advanced new and greatly expanded claims of mistreatment. For example,
Goldschmidt, testifying a t the trial, made no claim whatsoever that he was sub-
jected to duress or improper treatment. Yet, in his affidavit of February 11,
1948, he claims that on February 12, 194G, he was "kicked and beaten in the
face" and after a hood was put over his head "I was taken to a cell opposite
where I mas beaten in the abdomen, fell to the ground and screamed"; that
thereafter he was made to stand between two objects which mere pressed to-
gether strongly "and was beaten several times over the head with a hard ob-
ject." Two days later "I was kicked twice in my lower body" and later "was
beaten in the face and kicked in the legs." An example of a greatly elaborated
claim of mistreatment being made for the first time long after the trial is the
case of Motzheim. At the trial he mentioned beatings administered by Mr. Thon
and Lieutenant Perl but without giving any details. I n his affidavit of Febru-
a r y 11,1948, he stated "I was beaten by Mr. Harry Thon and Lieutenant Perl in
the face, in the abdomen, and in the genitals." Later "Thon kept pushing my
head against the wall of the cell and Lieutenant Perl kicked me in the gen-
itals. " * * I was kept on being beaten until I collapsed." I n his next
interrogation he says the same methods were used, and he was hit in the face
and in the abdomen and his interrogation "continued till late a t night with
constant beatings by Mr. Harry Thon and Lieutenant Perl." On his third inter-
rogation he says "After a half hour, two United States guards appeared and
beat me with their clubs when I was wearing the hood and when I lay on the
ground kicked me with their feet. Then Mr. Thon and Lieutenant Perl con-
tinued the interrogation till noon by means of beatings and other mistreatments."
Certainly if any such actions had taken place i t was within the knowledge of
the defendant a t the time of the trial and presumably within the knowledge of
their counsel. No reason appears to explain the fact that the matter was not
brought out a t that time, or if brought out was not developecl to the fullest
extent.
I might say, in some qualification of that wliich appears further
over in our report, that there was some statement from Lieutenant
Narvid as to why they did not put these men on the stand. There
was no explanation as to why, having put them on the stand, they
didn't bring out to the fullest extent tliis alleged mistreatment, if they
knew of i t ; and I know of no reason why they could not have put
these people on the stand when the statements mere offered, and con-
fined their testimony simply to the question of admissibility of the
statements and bringing O L I ~any mistreatment that was alleged.
Senator BBLDWIN.Of course, it appears from this report that of
these 73, only 9 took the stand. That may have been because they
themselves didn't want to go on the stand, or because they were ad-
vised by defense counsel. You don't know. That is within the realm
of the professional and confidential advice of counsel.
Colonel RAYMOND. Well, Narvid's testimony is the only thing we
have on that. He did say-
Senator MCCARTHY. Everett ?
Colonel &YMoND. The only thing we had was Narvid's statement.
Senator BALDWIN. What did he say ?
Colonel RAYMOND. H e said that the defendants wanted to take the
stand, not on tliis point, but to tell their story about the massacre,
and that they advised then1 against it, counsel advised against it, but
no explanation was given as to why they didn't bring out these alleged
mistreatments, except the fact that there was no such claim made a t
any time. That is the only thing I can infer, and Nand's testimony
which I read a moment ago, in which he said that they didn't make
an snch claim at that time, seems to me bears that out.
genator MCCARTHY.Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the colonel would
go into a little more detail as to the complaints, where the defendants
were not put on the stand? There were serious charges made in con-
nection with that, which I am sure you are aware of.
Colonel RAYMOND. TWO reasons were given. Well, there was quite.
a little in our report about that. I might read what we found on that.
Senator MCCARTHY. What page of the report are you reading from
now ?
Colonel RAYMOND. Paragraph 37, the paging is different. [Read-
ing :]
A second point not to be overlooked is the fact that only 9 of the 73 accused
who were convicted took the stand. Whatever may be said about the method
used in obtaining statements, had the defendants given completely false state-
' ments in their signed confessions i t is difficult to understand why they did not
want to take the stand and repudiate them.
Senator MC~SRTHY. May 1interrupt?
Colonel RAYJIOND.Yes.
Senator MCCARTHT.Are you aware of the claim made by the chief
defense counsel, by Mr. Everett, as to the situation existing as to why
they were denied to take the stand? Why the treatment they got on
the stand-
Colonel RAYMOND. Well, I think you will find that we deal with
that.
(96 MALLMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Senator MCCARTHY. Not covering whether the claim was true or

not, but wondering whether you were aware of the situation as claimed
by Mr. Everett; apparently, from reading this, you are not.
Colonel RAYMOND. I think it comes out in thls next section I was
going to read. I f it does not come out fully, I will be glad to bring it
out by going into it further.
Colonel RAYMOND (reading) :
The witness Narvid, the only member of the defense staff who testified before
'the Board, stated that the defense staff felt t h a t a p r m a facie case had not been
made by the prosecution, but he further stated :
"We felt t h a t the prosecution still had a considerable amount of other evidence
i n the formal statements involving these accused which they were utilizing for
rebuttal, or intended to use for rebuttal * ' ' They gaxe r l ~ emql,.e\zlon
;hat they were hoping the accused would take the stand so that they could
really give i t to him' * * 4 They would involve themselves more than they
were already involved. Colonel Everett, chief defense counsel, 1s reported to have
stated t h a t if he put the accused on the stand they would probably Laug them-
selves. Lieutenant Colonel Ellis, in his affidavit, states that during the trial Colo-
nel Everett was concerned about the unfavorable showing the accused were mak-
ing on the court by their testimony, and discussed t h e matter with Lieutenant Col-
onel Ellis who told him t h a t if he were acting for the defense and believed t h e
accnsed were guilty, he would not put them on the stand. Thereafter only three
more of the accused took the stand. Although the findings-
The rest of i t is merely the conclusion of the Board.
Senator BALDWIN.GO ahead.
Colonel RAYMOND (reading) :
Although the findings i n this paragraph have only a remote bearing on the
issues before the Board, there was testimony on this point which was felt im-
portant enough to report. I t does tend to discredit the idea advanced in the
petition for habeas corpus t h a t the methods used by the interrogators were so
be\-ere a s to cause the accused to sign false confessions.
Senator BAWWIN.Your board examined the whole matter of the
trial and the treatment of the prisoners to determine whether or not
these sentences should be carried out, wasn't that correct?
Colonel RAYMOND. It was determined, as far as we could, the truth
,of the allegations in the petition for habeas corpus.
Senator EALDWIN.Yes; and in connection with that, did you go
into the question of whether or not these 73 Germans accused in the
Malmedy matter had adequate and competent counsel to defend them
i11 the trial? What is the situation there, because I think that is
important, if we ever have a trial like that again, and God grant we
don't have to, but if we ever do, I think we ought to certainly see to it
that-the men charged with serious offenses such as these are adequately
and competently defended. What is the situation you found with
reference to that?
Colonel RAYMOND.The defense staff included seven American
lawyers, headed by Colonel Everett, two of whom had command of the b
German language. There was no limit placed on the number of

Qernian counsel the defense could employ.
Senator BALDWIN. Did they employ German counsel?
Colonel RAYMOND. Actually, about a half a dozen German defense
counsel were used, at least one of whom spoke fluent English. The
defense were permitted complete access to their clients. Every de-
fense counsel had a secretary, and in addition an interpreter, and
other interpreters were available if needed. American vehicles and
prsonnel were made available to counsel to go out and look for wit-
nesses and evidence. S o f a r as the defense went, i t was open to these
Germans to hire any defense counsel they wanted. They would have
been accepted and they did actually have some Germans there, a
half dozen or so, and in addition to the appointed defense staff.
Senator BALDWIN.SOwhat was the conclusion of your board on
that, then ?
Colonel RAYMOND. W e concluded that there was no unfairness i n
that aspect of the case.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator Hunt, do you have any questions on
these points thus f a r ?
Senator HUNT.M ight I ask the chairman, what are your inten-
tions-
Senator BALDWIN. I thought, Senator, that I would ask permission
of the Senate to resume a t 1: 30, so we could continue for a t least 2%
hours this afternoon, if that meets with your convenience. W e have
one witness here particularly who has got to leave on a train a t 5
o'cloclc, and I would like to get to him, get his testimony down so
he won't have to come again-and, what 1s your situation, Colonel?
Can you give us some time this afternoon ?
Colonel RAYMOND.I am a t your disposal, Senator, and if you pre-
ter-
The CHAIRMAN.Would ~OLI-
Senator HUNT.I mas just going to say, if the colonel was available
this afternoon, then I should suggest that we adjourn now. I f not,
my questions will only take a few minutes. I don't want the colonel
to have to come back again.
Smator BALDWIN.Would you have time now?
Senator HUNT.I think so.
Colonel, I am going to ask you some matters of opinion. Answer
them o r not, as you hke.
I n your first conclnsion, that there was a limited use of mock trials,
do you think the terrific crimes t h a t had been committed-that mock
trials were justified in orcler to secure evidence?
Colonel RAYMOND. Well, as I said before, I think the real vice in
mock trials mas the purported establishment of the relationship of
attorney and client, which was then later used in some cases, not all,
but i n some cases to try- to get
- the man t o make a statement to be used
against him.
T o that extent, I think i t m7asimproper, even i n this case.
Senator HUNT. I n your second iondusion, that there was a general
use of the practice of persuading underlings to talk, by telling them
the prosecution wanted to get their superiors, and was not SO much
interested in t h e ~ nclo
, you think anything was wrong with t h a t ?
Colonel R A Y B K ~ No;D . not i n that particular statement, as you
read it.
Senator HVNT.I11 ]-our third conclusion that physical force was not
systematically applied in orcler to obtain statements, but that un-
doubtedly i n the heat of the n~oinent,on occasions, interrogators did
use some physical force on the suspect-clo you think that there was any
great difference in the physical force that might have been used there,
and the physical force as me know i t is used, in some of our local law-
enforcement agencies today?
Colonel RAYNOND. NO;I do not.

Senator HUNT. I am going to skip this, it is not jniportant.
I n (e) you say :
That the practices referretl to in ( a ) , ( b ) . ( c ) , and ( d ) above, in certain
instances exceeded the bounds of propriety but the board has been u~lableto
identify such cases.
I n other words, you are assuming there, or you are implying, b~ you
were not able to definitely fix the responsibility ?
Colonel RAYMOND. That is perfectly true.
Senator HUNT. I n ( f ) :
That there was a general use of other ruses, strategems, stool pigeons, and
similar practices justified by the difficulty of "cracking the case."
I s that justified, i11 your conclusion?
Colonel KAYMOND. That is our conclusion, and I think I see nothing
improper in the "other ruses and strategems" that were employed.
Senator HUNT. Mr. Chairman, I think that is all the questions I
have.
Senator BALDWIN.Thank yon, Senator.
I think now, me had better adjourn or recess until 1:30.
Senator MCCARTHY. Before you recess, Mr. Chairman, I have got a
letter here I would like to read into the record, if I may, unless the
Chair wonld prefer that I just insert it in the record.
Senator BALDWIN.Whatever you like.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think in fairness to the chairinan of the sub-
committee, this should be read into the record.
I t is a letter to Hon. Raymond E. Baldwin, United States Senate,
Washington, D. C.
APRE 21, 1949.
DEARSENATOR BALDWIN:After yesterday's hearing on the Malmedy cases, I
read some accounts of statements I made which would appear to do you a great
injustice. None of the accounts I read misquoted me, but I fear that statements
I made with regard to the attitude of the Armed Services Committee in this case
may have very easily been misinterpreted to mean that I was critical of your
personal handling of this matter.
As you know, our Expenditures Investigating Committee became concerned with
reports of the Van Roden-Simpson committee and the Army committee, regarding
the methods used by the American Army staff in obtaining confessions, convic-
tions, etc., in the war-crimes cases. When the Armed Services Committee sud-
denly appointed your subcommittee to investigate this matter after our special
investigating committee of the Expenditures Committee had announced its inten-
tion of conducting this investigation, I frankly was very much disturbed by what
I thought was an attempt to head off a complete investigation by our committee
and provide a whitewash of the Army's prosecution staff.
However, I am convinced that a t least since you have taken over, this situation
does not exist and the efforts of the committee will be directed toward assembling
and clearly presenting all of the facts. I want you to know that I have no criti-
cism whatsoever of your handling of this investigation. I think you have been
eminently fair and certainly have accorded every opportunity to the Expendi-
tures Committee and the Judiciary Committee to participate in this investigation.
I might add that I think this is one of the most important investigations which
the Senate has conducted for some years. I think i t is doubly important in view
of the billions of dollars we are spending in Europe to create good will toward
this Nation and the amount of money and effort we are expending to sell to the
peoples of the world democracy and American concepts of justice.
I thought, in fairness to the chairman, that that letter should be made
a part of the record, because I fear that the comments I made regarding
the authority of the Armed Services Committee, and its attitude, have
been misinterpreted. I was not misquoted in any way; I think there
was in some quarters misinterpretation to mean personal criticism of
. a
yourself.
Senator BALDWIN. I f I may say, for the benefit of the record, that
the chairman of the subcomnlittee appreciates the Senator's letter and
statement, and I'm sure the whole subcommittee does, and the whole
Armed Services Committee does.
We seek here only to find the truth and the light, and to benefit by
our experience, so that if we ever have to go through any such circum-
stance and procedure again-God grant we don't-we will better know
how to deal with them, i11 the interest of justice and fairness.
Senator MCCARTHY. I w o ~ l dlike to make a suggestion. Apparently
this is going to be a very lengthy hearing a i d consume many days'
time. I think that, and I realize I am sitting here as a n adviser, not
as a part of the subcommittee, I know the chairman is open-minded
on anything that may expedite matters ancl make the hearing more
profitable. I clo think if we would bring i n some of the men like
Van Roden or Simpson, some of the court reporters, and have them get
their stories in the record so that when we call, the prosecution wit-
nesses will have something to question them on, I believe me will
progress a lot more rapidly and efficiently.
I think i t is a mistake to spend so much time putting i n the prosecu-
tion's defense, in effect, before we know what-I don't know all the
claims Judge Van Eoclen or Jndgr: Siinpson are going to make, and I
can't intelligently question many of the witnesses until I know what
this apparently competent body have fonnd, what their statements
will be. I f me hear all the prosecntion staff, and then bring i n V a n
Roden and Siinpson, I know me will want to call back all the prose-
cution witnesses.
As P say, I am just offering that as a suggestion.
Senator BALDWIN. I may say the reason me didn't start off with the
two you mentioned, who mill be here later to testify, is because they
coulcli~~t come. W e tried to proceed in this whole hearing, on the
basis of taking the reports and affidavits and putting them in evidence,
as to the charges that were made here, ancl then to give these other
people an opportunity to appear and be heard with reference t o the
charges, and the colonel, this morning, very consciously tried to direct
his testimony in that way, t o what the charges mere in the affidavit
and then to bring out from the hearings and from his study of it,
. the stady of his commission, what they fonnd with reference to those
particular charges.
Senator B~CCARTHY. I may state, Mr. Chairman, that the affidavits,
as f a r as I am concerned, inany of them have no value whatsoever.
1have sat as a judge in many criminal cases, and I am familiar with
the a6davits of convicted persons-
Senator BALDTVIX. AS a lawyer, you know they lack many essential
things in the cletermjnation of j~zstice, in an American court, and
one is that these witnesses never appeared, have nerer been confronted
by those they are charging with serious offenses, have never been
subjected to cross-examination and those two latter things are con-
sidered, in American j~~rispruclence, vitally essential i n the cletermi-
nation of a judgment or a verdict.
It may Ice that before this is over, we will want to call some of those
men. I think our first effort will be to explore the situation and find
whether or not there is sufficient corroboration of their affidavits to

warrant going into the thing further.
Senator MCCARTHP.I am afraid the chairman didn't get my point.
Senator BALDWIN.I think, SO f a r as we are concerned, as a matter
of policy, since there have been none of these executions carried into
effect it certainly indicates that the military government i n Germany
and the military command i n Germany has been very careful to see
t o i t that no executions have been carried out, no death sentences have
been carried out until all of the facts are determined here.
Senator MCCARTEIY.I don't think the chairman got my thought at
all. W e have before us a great mass of affidavits, many completely
worthless, many, as I say, typical affidavits which a n accused will
sign after convicted a i d sentenced. However, we have as you h o w
I think, a very competent committee of two outstailcling judges who
went over and made a very thorough investigation. Eather than our
trying to interrogate the witnesses, based upon some affidavits which
the Van Roden-Slmpson committee may have found, I don't know of
the basis, i n fact I know i t mould be much easier f o r me and I think
f o r the chairman, if we first had the story of the disinterested people,
and we know that the prosecution is very interested in that.
Senator BALDWIN.May I say that we have gotten an answer to a
couple of our letters, and Judge Van Roden and Judge Siinpson will
be witnesses next Friday, so we are going to get their testimony then.
I will ask the staff t o clear the room so that we can leare our papers
right here.
(Whereupon, a t 12 : 15 p. m., the committee stood in recess until
1: 30 p. m. of that same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
(Following the taking of a luncheon recess, the hearing i n the

above-entitled matter was resumed a t 1: 30 p. m.)
Senator BALDTVIN. The meeting will be i n order. Will the doorman
close the door.
Senator MCCARTHY.Mr. Chairman, before you call any witnesses
there is son~ethingthat puzzles me very much about these cases and
I thought one of these gentlemen might possibly have the answer.
We were meting out the death sentences on the theory that the shoot-
ing of those American boys called f o r the death penalty-which is
right. However, I find on going over the case that the generals who
ordered the shooting-the generals who sent the boys out and said,
"I want you t o kill all prisoners," got either 10 or 15 years, I forget
which, and the privates who carried out the orclers are being hung.
I am just wondering why a general who orclers a private to do some-
thing which we find warrants a death penalty is let off with such a light
sentence, when the private who carries out the orders assigned hlm
under penalty of court martial if he would not perform them, is to be
hung. It seems to me if the private who carries out the orclers is to
be hung, the general should get the same treatment, if not worse. Do
you get my thought? I just wondered if any of the witnesses here
can tell us the why of such a thing.
Senator BALDWIN.I do not know whether that is so in that par-
ticular case.
Senator MCCARTIIY.T h a t is true, isn't it?
Colonel ELLIS. That is true. General Dietrich, the commander of
the 6th S. S. Panzer Army, was sentenced to life imprisonment; his
chief of staff, who was Kramer, 10 years; and the commander of the
corps-that is, of the 1st S. S. Panzer Corps, Priess, 20 years.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Could me recall Colonel Ellis for just a minute 1
Senator B L ~ ~ ~ rColonel
n ~ x . Ellis is going to be here right along and
we have two gentlemen here whom we are taking away from their jobs.
They are working people and they have to be at work a t a certain time
and q ~ iatt a certain time. So if you could defer that-
Senator MCCARTIIY.Could I ask the witness who just left the stand
one question so that it follows through with the balance of his testi-
mony, if the chairman does not mind?
Senator BALDWIN.GO ahead. H e is going to be recalled.
Senator RICCARTIIY.This forenoon you made the statement that
during yonr investigation of this matter you felt that there mas noth-
ing definite proven in regard to the American prosecution staff taking
out the wives of the accnsed, and that you thought there was nothing
wrong about it.
I vould like to refresh yonr memory and ask if this is correct.
This is from the testimony of Thon, taken before yon, with you per-
sonally presiding. Starting out with an answer :
ANSWER.I was there. I made a mistake and I know it blackened my name
and I feel bad about it.
QUESTION.There has been some discipline?
ANSWER.No ; Colonel-
and I do not have the name of the colonel filled in-
was very nice about i t to me. However, I feel bad about i t every time I
hear it.
Then there is further qnestioning :
I knew some of the accused and the wives asked t h a t we bring some cigarettes
in to the accused, which happened quite often during the trial. Well, drinking
went on and we took them to the Officers' Club. There were four of them.
QUESTION.Were they the 'wives?
ANSWER.That is right. We took them to the Club one Saturday evening.
QUESTION.How did they happen to be there?
ANSWER.They came and asked u s to deliver some cigai.ettes and cigars to,
Some of the accused.
And going on with it: You are aware of the situation? The wives
came in and asked the prosecution staff to get them to hand some cig-
arettes to the accused-
Colonel RAYMOND. That is-
Senator MCCARTHY. And they took the wives down on different oc-
casions to the Officers' Club and furnished them with liquor?
Colonel RAYMOND. They took them down there one night, I believe.
Senator MCCARTHY. One night only?
Colonel R A Y N ~ N D I think
. so. That is all.
Senator BALDWIN. Mr. Ahrens, will you stand and raise your right
hand.
Do yon solemnly swear that the testimony you are going to give in
this matter now in question shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth to the best of your knowledge, information, and
belief, so help you God ?
Mr. AHRENS.I do.
TESTIMONY OF KENNETH F.AHRENS, OF ERIE, PA.

Senator BALDWIN.W h a t is your full name?
Mr. AHRENS.Kenneth F. Ahrens. --
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,will you give us your address?
Mr. AHRENS.241 East F i f t h Street, Erie, Pa.
Senator BALDWIN.You are no longer i n the armed forces?
Mr. AHRENS.NO, I am not.
Senator BALDWIN.Where do you work?
Mr. AHRENS.I work in the G. E., i n Erie, Pa.
Senator BALDWIN.I n Erie, Pa. ?
Mr. AHRENS.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.During the war were you i n the armed forces!
Mr. AHRENS.I was.
Senator BALDWIN.What outfit were you with?
Mr. AHRENS.I was i n the Two Hundred and Eighty-fifth Field
Artillery Observation Battalion.
Senator BALDWIN.And were you in the so-called Battle of the
Bulge ?
Mr. AHRENS.I was.
Senator BALDWIN.And that was in December 19442
Mr. AHRENS.T h a t is right.
Senator BALDWIN.Can you relate to us what happened in connec-
tion wj t h the Malmedy matter ?
And may I preface any statelneut by saying that I feel that the
conmittee neecls this type of testimony from an eyewitness in order
that we may have in the record the testimony of an eyewitness of
what he did see and linom about it, i n order that we may compare that
with some of the stateinents aud confessions, to test whether or not
there was something exacted in the confessions that clicl not occur.
Senator MCCARTHY.May I make a statement, and I very reluc-
tantly make this. I n view ,of the fact that every member of the com-
mittee has agreed, both privately and publicly, that the Malmedy
massacre mas one of the most atrocious mar crimes that was witnessecl,
a n d i n view of the fact that we are all agreed that those who are guilty
of perpetrating such a n atrocity should be shot or hung, mhen appre-
hended, and that that is very gentle punishment for them. I might
sag that I seriously wonder why this committee is going about this
task of trying to-instead of investigating the thing we are concerned
with, and that is whether or not we have the right men, whether we
are hanging the guilty or whether we are hanging the innocent-I just
wonder why the chairinan thinks that he must prove that there was a
Malmecly massacre and that these young inell were shot. There is no
question about that.
I say that very reluctantly. On the face of it, this would appear to
be an attempt to p u t those of us who feel this thing should be in-
vestigated into the position of appearing to defend the actions of those
Gernlan storm troopers-which we don't.
It seems to me a n attempt to again t r y to inflame the public and
t r y to create the same situation i n this coinmittee which apparently
existed over i n Germany a t the time of the trials, and get us away
froin looking a t the cold facts of what our Briny mas doing, and
trying to induce this committee to say that there was a treinenclous
crime, a n atrocious crime, and some one must hang for it.
I say this reluctantly, but I think it is completely inexcusable.
I know I am sincerely interested in hearing the story of this young
mail-a young man who was patently very lucky to survive, a youllg
ma11 with an excellent war recorcl-I an1 interested in hearing his
story; but t o present this a t this time, during this type of investiga-
tion, I think it is just entirely improper.
That is all, Mr. Chairman
Senator BALDWIN.Senator, may I say this : W e all know there was
a massacre a t Malmecly, and i t certainly is not the purpose of the
committee to inflame anybody.
However, these confessions which, it is claimed, were obtained by
threats and intinlidation and other improper means, contained certain
staiements of what happened a t Malmedy.
The only way we can ever determine that those statements are pure
fiction a i d something that was made up by the prosecution, or by the
investigators, and put before these defendants to sign, the only way
we can determine whether or not there was soinethiilg in those state-
ments that was pure fiction, is to find out from an eyewitness what
aetnally did happen.
I have not talked with this y o ~ ~ nman.g I don't lmow what he
is going to say about it. B u t certainly if he is going to testify to*
facts that also appear i n these confessions, it would be a t least some
evidence, ancl I think very convincing evidence, that these confes-
sions were not nlacle up out of whole cloth if hat these Germans
maj- have said as haring h:~ppened,or described ns having happened
at Malmecly, is corroborated by what men who mere there ancl observed
as eyewitnesses have observed, what some of our own troops have
observed. T h a t would give credence to the fact that after all these
confessions did contain statements that were true. T h a t is the only
purpose in calling a n eyewitness t o the atrocity itself; and it is t h e
only purpose that this committee has.
Senator MCCARTHY.I might say, Mr. Chairman, i n view of the
fact that I happen not t o be a member of this committee, and am,
in effect, just n spectator, I certainly do not want to question the
chairman's method of presenting i t any further; and I am very
interested i n hearing this young man reconnt what I think we all agree
is one of the most atrocious war crimes perpetrated i n this perlod.
Senator BALDWIN.All right, sir.
Will yon describe to us where you were, and how you came upon
the scene, and, as briefly as you can, what happened, as you observed i t ?
Mr. AHRENS.Well, my entire company of approximately 150 men
was sent out to a town by the name of St. Vith; that is i n Bel,'alum.
Senator BALDWIN.V-i-t-h?
We had been up north a t this particular time and they pulled us
ont of there ancl we were being sent on down to St. Vith, and we were
traveling i n convoy ; I would say 40 or 50 trucks and jeeps.
Early In the afternoon of this particular day, we approached this
crossroacls above Malmedy and there was more or less of a straight
stretch of road as you go through the crossroads. You hit a straight
stretch of road for approximately a mile or two. And a t that poiat,
when we got out on that road, was the first we liney of a break-through
a t all, because we were trapped right i n the middle of it, and our
vehicles and men were pinned right down on the road from tank fire
and small arms fire, a t which time I got out of my jeep and hit the
side of the road nntil I kind of found out what was going on.
Senator BALDWIN. When you say "hit the side of the road," do you
mean you got down on the road.
Mr. AHIIENS.The road was more or less built up level with the
ground, and I crawled out of my vehicle and went down more or less
of a field outside the road, which practically all of the men did, be-
muse if we had stayed in the jeeps we would have been killed right
there.
Senator BALDTVIN. I n other words, you mean by that, while travel-
ing along the road you were suddenly subjected to terrific gunfire of all
kinds ?
Mr. AHRENS.That is right.
Senator BALDWIN. GO ahead and describe what happened after
fhat.
Mr. AHRENS.A t that time, not knowing-it was a colnplete sur-
prise-not knowing what was going on, I made a break for some sort
of a farmhouse across the road for reasons of shelter a i d SO forth, and
I laid there when I was captured. They kept us pinned clown until
we were captured.
Senator BALDWIN. Do yon know how many were captured?
Mr. AHRENS.Well, my entire company, as I said before, was spread
out along this r o d , and I would say all of them, pretty close to 150,
were involved, plus some strap vehicles that had gone by or come by
a t the same time. I mean the road is a through road, and therefore
our troops used it to get back and forth on, and naturally there ~ o u l d
be different companies who had men going through there, and this
also was some way back of the front line. It was probably 5 or 6 miles
in the rear of what we thought was a front line, so I would say it was
a complete surprise being cut down that fast, not knowing what it was.
So as I laid alongside of t1Gs farmhouse, we could see these tanks
rolling up the road, and the German troops all spread out through
the fields and woods. They more or less had been waiting for some-
body to come through there because they were that far advanced
through our lines at the time this happened.
So about the only thing we could do was give up. I mean we just
could not fight against tank fire. We had nothing but sinall arms
and they were using a lot more than that to keep us down. We had
no choice but to throw our arms up and give up.
At that time I got up on the road with my hands LIPin the air, the
same as the rest of the boys-I could see them lined out all the way
down the road, the road that we came up on. And they proceeded to
get us all in some sort of file and told us to walk back the way we came,
which is what we did during the course of that time. During the
course of that walk back toward the crossroads where we just passed,
which was about half a mile above that, I seen numerous men that had
already been killed and wounded. Some of them were laying along-
side the road. Some of them were being beat up. Some of them
were being pulled out of the woods-they had gotten into the woods
and were. hiding in there, trying to get away from this gunfire, nat-
urally. And they marched us back down this road, in more or less
of a column of men.
1;Vhen they got us back to the crossroads, they searched us and took
whatever they wanted to. I mean they went through our pockets and
took watches, rings, and wallets-whatever we had on us.
Senator BALDWIN. H a d they taken your arms amay from you a t
that time 1
Mr. AHRBNS.We had already thrown our arms up. I f we had not,
they would have killed us a t that time. W e definitely had no choice
of holding our arms, at the time I crawled u p on the road. I was
hiding clown there a t the farmhouse. I was alongside of the farm-
house. I threw my gun amay domm there. I f I had come u p on the
road with my g ~ uIl would have been shot right there.
I take i t that is what happened to the men I saw lying along the
road. They still had their guns in their hands when they were caught.
So when they marched us back down to this cmssroads, they, as I
say, they searched us and pushed us all into a field which was a more
or less enclosed cow pasture. I believe i t belonged to a farm. There
seemed to be a small farm right there, a couple of buildings off to the
side of the field, and the field ran parallel with the road. I t sat right
alongside the road. The fence was no more than 10 or 15 feet away
from us. S o we all crawled, or we all were pnshed down into the
field, into more or less of a group.
By the time I had got clown there, there was practically my entire
com!mny lined ilp in that fbld, a1.d everything was i n quite a turmoil,
and there was a lot of our boys had h e n hurt then; I mean h i t by
shellfire and gunfire, and a few of our aid men were running around
trying to help this man and that man, either tying up the arm or the
leg or something, and stop the pain. And we stood there, not know-
ing just what was going to happen. I mean we had no idea what they
were going to do with us, and I figwed i t was pretty close to Christmas
and I was thinking about spending Christmas i n some camp over i n
Germany.
I mean that is what I had i n my mind a t that time, a terrible thought,
anyway.
But we stood there for about half an hour, I would say, and a t the
same time they had lined u p probably two or three tanks on the edge
of the field, np on the road, and there was probably five o r six troops
on each tank, and they mingled around up there on the road. They
watched us, and they told us to keep our hands u p in the air. Every
time somebody would drop their hands down a bit we would get a
gun pulled out and they would aim it a little bit and they would tell
us to get our hands up in the air, and that is the way we stood there,
not knowing what was going to happen.
But a t the same time this one tank, that had finally straightened
around up there in the road alongside of the field, one of their men
stood up on top of it-it was either a half track or a tank, I am not
sure what now.
Well, he pulled out his pistol while 1was standing facing him, like
all of the boys were; we were just massed i n a group there, and he
waved his gun i n the air a little hjt and aimed down into the front of
our group.
Senator BALDWIN. HOWf a r were the tanks away from the road
then ?
106 M'ALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Mr. AHRENS.Well, I mould say 20 feet, 15 to 20 feet a t the most,

and h e aimed down into our group and he fired once, ailcl'I noticed
one of the boys drop ; and he fired again and one more of the fellows
dropped standing right alongside of me; a i d about that same time,
well, I mould say all hell broke loose. They just started opening u p
their machine guns and they really sprayed us.
Senator BALDWIN.YOLIsay the ~~lachiiie guns opened n p ?
Mr. AHRENS.Yes. They had guns. They mountecl thein right on
their tanks. And a t that -particular time I turned round ancl fell flat
on my face.
Well, I thiak I was probably hit in the first burst or two, because
I can recall being hit i n the back the first time as 1 lay there. Well,
naturally that shooting went on f o r quite a little while, until they
thought they had killed just about all of the fellows.
I know I didn't look around. I coulcln't see. I mean I clicliz't dare
look arouad. Just more or less fear, I guess, and numbness.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUwere hit by the gunfire I
Mr. AIIRENS. Yes. One of the first bursts hit me and then I was hit
again. I was hit during the course of the afternoon as I lay there.
And after that happened, I clon't lmow how long they firecl into
us like that, i t was quite a little while, they sprayed that group back
and forth. I could tell the way the guns woulcl get close to me and
then back and forth across the group.
Well, after that ceased, I could hear them walking clown amongst
the boys that were lying there. Aiid naturally there was a lot of
moaning a i d groaning, and some of the boys weren't dead yet. I mean
they were still alive. They had been shot up pretty bad.
SOwhat they done, I fig~wecln-hat they were doing, you would
hear a stray shot here and a stray shot there, they were TT allring aronild
making sure that there was nobody left. Each time they woulcl hear
somebody moan, they would shoot hiin ; and there was one particular
time when I could feel, I could almost feel, a, footstep right along-
side of me, where one of the boys laid across the back of me, or this
side of me [indicating] a i d they shot him. But why he didn't shoot
me, I clon't know. H e must have thought I was dead because I had
been h i t in the back and naturally looked like I mas dead.
T h a t went on for a little while. I don't know how long. I mean
time was like years then. I could not calculate very well. Bnt they
must have moved on, and there was troops going back and forth on
the road. This was their spearhead, more or less; it must have been
their spearhead in this drive. hid of course they were rushing troops
u p as fast as they could on this road, ancl they were heacling to St.
Vith too. T h a t was the same road we were using. And every once
i n a while a tank or a half-track would roll by and turn their guns on
ns, just for a good time; I mean they were laughing, they were hav-
ing a good time. T h a t is the way it was all during the course of the
afternoon.
The first quiet spell that we had, I don't know how long it was after,
after I lay there, I heard somebody whisper i n the group that lay
there with me, so I knew there was somebody else st111 alive, and I
was trying to see if I could feel anything and see if I was alive, which
I wasn't sure of. And as I say, we could hear them talking u p on the
road; there must have been a few of them left up there; but somebody
said, "Let's go !" and a t that time I got up and started running towards
the way I laid. I laid facing away from the road. And I got u p
and started running, and they opened up on us again. They must
have had a machine gun u p there. I would say there was a rearguard
left a t the fork in the road. They had probably three or four men
up there with small arms and a gun and they started to cut us down
again. B u t somehow I got into the moods, which was probably a
couple of hundred yards or more away, and from then on until some-
time that night, before I got onto my own lines, a i d I got picked up, I
had two boys with me that had been shot u p pretty bad. We must
]lave gone probably 5 or 6 miles that eveiling before F e bumped into
a11 American captain who was out more or less on a patrol. W e had
to take a chance, We didn't know whether it was our troops o r their
troops. They had got all of our equipment, vehicles and clothing, and
we weren't sure whether we were bumping into our own men or who.
But we had t o take a chance. W e were all pretty much shot u p and
weak. So we let out a yell when he came by in a jeep on the road, and
we stuck to the woods by the road, as near as we could, a i d he finally
picked us up.
H e didn't know whether he wanted to o r not. H e stoppecl the jeep
and turned round and was going to heacl back; but he took a chance
and picked the three of us up, and we tolcl him all three of us were
wounded pretty bad.
Senator BALDTVIN. Was that some of your troops?
Mr. AHRENS.T h a t was two boys that were with me i n m y own
company.
Senator BALDWIN.Who were the people that picked you up ? Were
they An~ericans?
Mr. AHRENS.Yes. They were Americans. I don't know what
outfit they were attached to or anything. B u t I know they were out
trying to find out just how f a r advanced the Krauts had gone.
Senator BALDTVIN. About what time of the day did this happen?
110 you recall t h a t ?
Mr. AHRENS.This happened about 1o'clock i n the afternoon.
Senator BALDWIN.And what time was i t when you finally got u p
a i d r a n ? Have you any idea about the passing of time? I would
not be surprised if you did not have, but I wonder if you could give us
any information as to that.
Mr. AHRENS.Well, I don't have-I would say probably around
4 o'clock. I mean just guessing, because i t was after dark when we
got picked up.
Senator BALDWIN. And who were these other two American boys
who were with you?
Mr. AHRENS.O ne fellow was a corporal from Pittsburgh. His
name is Velanzi-V-e-1-a-n-z-i.
Senator BALDWIN. H e was i n your outfit?
Mr. AHRENS. H e was in my squad.
Senator BALDWIN.D O you remember the name of the other boy?
Mr. AHRENS.I can't tell you offhand. I don't know who he was. I
know he mas in my company but I didn't just know his name.
Senator BALDTVIN. A t the time that they opened up on you with
machine guns, were your hands in the air ?
Mr. AHRENS.Oh, yes. We had no arms a ~ l dwe had been captured

for all of an hour before this happenecl.
Senator BALDWIN.Was anything said to you that you could under-
stand? I mean, were there any iastructions given to you?
Mr. AHRENS.Well, they made a lot of movements. I nzean, when
they were marching me down the road they wanted to know if I could
drive these trucks of ours, which were still up on the road. They
waated to get them moved because-so they could get the t m k s
through. I shook n ~ yhead, "No, I couldn't drive at all." Different
t,hings they wanted, that is the way they would ask. They would
motion and shove you arouild a little bit, if they didn't like the way
vou looked or the may you were stalldillg or the way you had your
h n d s up in the air.
Sellator BALDWIN. Was this nlan that brandished or waived his
pistol-was he standing in a jeep or tank, or was he standing on the
ground ?
Mr. AHRENS.He was standing; i t was more or less of a half track;
it was an open-top track vehicle. They have a name for it over there.
I don't know the name of those vehicles. Bnt they have got a name
for them. It was more or less of a squad car with tracks.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you know whether any other American boys
got away from that as you did ?
Mr. AITRENS.Well, 'I know of these two that were with me, and I
know of one fellow that was captured again t11:~l got away the same
as I did. I mean, he got away that night, but he was picked up again
during the night.
H e spent the rest of the war in some camp over in Germany. I
don't know which one it was.
And there were four boys who went back to Europe on these war
trials with me that got away similar to the way I did.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you testify in the war crimes trial?
Mr. AHRENS.Yes; I did.
Senator BALDWIN.And previous to that time, the time that you
testified, did you give a statement about what happened?
Mr. AHRENS.Oh, yes ; more than once.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW long before the time that you testified?
Mr. A I ~ E N SWell,
. the day that-or the night that I had escaped,
during the night I gave a statement to one of the inspector general's
aides who was a captain-and I don't know his name. H e approached
me in one of the aid stations where they had se~ltus for the time being.
Senator BALDWIN.Where were you wonnded?
Mr. AHRENS.I was wounded in the back.
Senator BALDWIN.Through your shoulder or through your lung?
Mr. AHRENS.NO. Right next to my spine, about halfway down
my back.
Senator BALDWIN.I mean, did the projectile go right through you?
Mr. ARRENS.NO. It came in here [indicating] and,came out over
here [indicating].
Senator BALDWIN.Then you said you were wounded in another
place.
Mr. AHRENS.Well, they were both in about the same place. O ~ l e
was right alongside the other one. I n fact, they cut the whole thing
open from one end to the other and sewed it up again.
Senator BALDWIN.Were you ever able ,to identify any of these
Germans ?
Mr. AI-IRENS.NO, I wasn't, because it was over a year since that
happened before I went back to the trials. Naturally they didn't
look the same men they did when they captured us.
Senator BALDWIN.Could you tell what German outfit they were
attached to ?
Mr. AIIRENS.The only thing we could tell, they were SS men. They
wore some kind of a lapel bntton, sort of a-well, I can't describe it.
It has got more or less of a, streak in it.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, it is the SS insignia?
Mr. AHRENS.Yes. Some yon could see i t on and some you couldn't.
Some had different clothes on. They weren't all dressed alike.
Senator BALDWIN.Have you anything further you want to say
about it, that you can recall ?
Mr. AHRENS.I would imagine-there is a boy from my home town
with me that got killed, and his dad was talking to nie, and I know
very much he would like to be here hearing this. H e is taking it all
pretty hard, and a lot of people have written to ine in the past couple
of years to ask me if I ever heard anything of their husbands or sons.
Some of the boys weren't found. Some of them are still missing.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW many would you say, to the best of your
knowledge, that were on the ground after they had finished with the
first burst of machine gun fire as you described it.
Mr. AHRENS.Well, I would say there was all of 150 men lying there.
Senator BALDWIN.All of 150 men?
Mr. AHRENS.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Whether they were all killed or not, you don't
know.
Mr. AHRENS.I don't know. And not all, like I say, were from my
company. There were some that were thrown down with us, I saw
so many faces when we were pushed down into the field; they were
pushed down on the same basis when we were in the field, strange
people that I hadn't seen before.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator Hunt, have you any questions?
Senator HUNT. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the witness: As
I understood your statement, during the killing the SS troops seemed
to be in a hilarious mood and seemed to be enjoying their work?
Mr. AHRENS.Oh, yes ; very much so.
Senator HUNT.Let me ask you if any of those S S troops were, dur-
ing the trial,.pushed up against a mall, would you consider that they
were being mistreated, after what they did to your boys?
Mr. AHRENS.NO; I certainly would not. I often wish I wodd
have a chance to push them up against a wall.
Senator HUNT.DO you think that a trial of men of that type, that
character, for committing acts such as they had committed, should
be shown all of the rights that we expect today in a civil trial?
Mr. AHRENS. NO; I don't.
Senator RUNT.DOyou think that the fact that now 6 out of the 73
that have been convicted may be hung for killing-how many of your
boys? One hundred and fifty, wasn't i t ?
Mr. AHRENS.Yes.
Senator HUNT.DOyouthink that seems to be a v e r j severe penalty

for the rice that American boys paid?
2'
Mr. HRENS. I certainly do not.
Senator HUNT.I haven't any more questions.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator, have you any questions?
Senator MCCARTHY.Not a t all.
But I might say that the prosecution has informed n ~ that e not only
this boy, but any of tlie American boys that liave come back to testify
were absolutely truthful. And that despite the inclination they might
have to identily some of those that the prosecution staff said were
guilty, these boys were very careful and did not t r y t o identify any-
one they co~lldnot absolutely identify, regardless of the fact they must
have felt very strongly about this; and I think they should be com-
plimented for that. I could conceive that under certain circumstances
they would have gone i n and identified anyone whom the prosecution
said was guilty. And for that reason I want to compliment these
young men-this young man and the others-for being as t r ~ ~ t h f u l
as they were under stress.
I imagine that this young man mould heartily agree with nie that
if there were to be executions, the generals who ordered the privates
t o do the killing should not be let off wit11 10 years while the private
who carried out the order was hung.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, while this is interesting and provides
p a r t of a Roman lioliday here, and is a bit difficult for those of us who
did lose a lot of good friends under cjr~cumstnnce~ that \\-ere aidogous
to this, I think l t is so entirely improper. We are not here to deter-
mine whether or not there was a gruesome crime committed t h a t day.
W e know there was.
The questions that liave been asked here-the aclmissio~iswhich
tlie young man has been asked to make-point up the thing that is
tlie whole purpose of this part of the investigation : I t is an attempt to
inflame the public and to intimidate the members of this committee,
if you please, to the end that we cannot honestly and intelligently
and fairly determine dletlier or not the guilty liave been convicted,
or whether or not some of tlie guilty liave gotten away because of some
bungling in that area, or how many of the innocent we have got.
Take, f o r example, the question asked by my good friend from
Wyoming, tlie question of whether or not the men should be hung if
guilty of this crime. Why, obvionsly they should be. Likewise the
mere fact that there was a gruesome crinie committed does not say
that we are going to run out and grab everyone in sight.
As I say, the prosecution as a whole, every one of them, have been
very generous in their praise of these young men who went back and
who ~voulclbe inclined, more than the prosecution, to t r y to get con-
victions and see that some men were shot or hung for this crime. They
tell me these young men were painstaking in making sure they would
not identify the wrong men, and it seems to me that this committee
coulcl be a t least as honest and fair as these young men who had
that gruesome experience there, in the position that i t takes.
As I say, I reluctantly make this statement, Mr. Chairman, but I
do so because I think what we are doing is so entirely improper.
Senator BALDWIN.I have already made a statement on my pur-
pose in asking for this type of testimony. There are just one or two
details that I p a n t to ask this .vvitness, because they pertain t o
facts that I have heard in one or two of the confessioas.
How many different times after the first bursts mas i t that tanks
went by and fired into the group-do you recall that a t all?
Mr. AHRENS.I would say probably three or four times.
Senator BALDWIN.T h e i ~ y o umentioned the fact that wlien you got
up and ran for tlie woods, you ancl these two other boys, there was a
detail a t tlie cross roads. Were they German troops?
Mr. AIIRENS. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.And they fired at you. I thiiik you described
them as a sort of rear guard.
Mr. AEIRENS.That is right.
Senator BAI,DWIN.Were they down a t the crossroads?
Mr. AHRENS.I didn't see them. I mean, I didn't take tlie time
to turn around and look to see them, but from the sound of the
guns, that is where I would say they were.
Senator BALDWIN.The fire came from that direction?
Senator BALDWIN.Are there any further questions?
Senator HUNT.I ,would like to ask one more question, Mr. Chair-
man. May I ask the witness : You testified at the trial, if I understood
you correctly; and then did you have the opportunity, or did you
spend any other time within the courtroon~while tlie trials mere i n
progress 'l Did you watch them closely a t all-the progress?
Mr. AHRENS.Well,. yes; I did. I had been there approximately
2 months before tlle trlals began.
Senator HUNT.Y ou have been very straightforward in your state-
ments, as has been brought out by the distinguished Senator from
Wisconsin.
Did you see any evidence of viciousness displayed on the part of the
prosecution ? Did you see any improper acts on the part of the prose-
cution in these cases? T o put i t into one question, Do you think the
men had a fair trial ?
Mr. AHRENS.I wo~lldsay they did.
Senator HUNT.T h a t is all.
Senator BALDWIN.Just one further questiod. Before you mere
herded into this field and fired upon, as you were being brought down
toward the field, was there any abuse offered you by the SS troops-
were you pushed or shoved or kicked or threatened oc intimidated,
or anything of that kind ?
Mr. A I ~ E X SI. believe P said in the first part of this tall< that there
was quite a bit of i t all the v a y , all through the march that they
marched us back clown this road again. I noticed one of the first
things, when I ITRS captured ancl brought up onto the road, they mere
taking our carbines off of the boys, or up off the ground. ancl i n more
than one case I had seen them beat them across the back or across
the chest or across the head, or break then1 up against trees. ancl that
gives you an idea of tlie treatment that TTe had gotten when we were
captured.
Senator B A L D ~ I N A.t that time there n-as no doubt in your mind
but what you m r e a prisoner of war?
Mr. AIIRENS. There was not any doubt n-hatsoever.
Senator BALD~VIN. And pour hands mere up os7er your head?
Mr. A H F ~ N SThat
. is right.
Senator BALDWIW. And you had thrown away your weapons?
Mr. AIIRENS.That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.SOyou were unarmed ?
Mr. A H ~ N SThat
. is right.
We had no choice, Senator; we had to throw them away or else
we would have been killed right there. Like I said, I had seen prob-
ably 10 or 15 men who had been killed that were laying alongside
the road.
Senator BALDWIN. AS I understand you, you were traveling along
the road with this artillery unit and this break-through came that
took you by complete surprise. There was not any chance of snccess-
ful resistance, or any chance of any resistance at a l l ?
Mr. AHRENS.None whatsoever.
Senator BALDWIN. I think that is all.
Have you any further questions, Senator?
Senator MCCARTHY. NO.
Senator BA4~~1lr1iv.I n the light of what has been said here, I would
like to say for the benefit of the record that in investigating a matter
of this kind it is the province of the committee to keep a cool head
and keep as cool a head as this young man kept, and I am sure the
committee will do that.
On the other hand, I cannot believe that in an investigation of
the Malmedy massacre, when we are trying to discover what kind
of treatment was given to these Germans and what the background
was behind it, what the details were that had been related here, and
what the details were that appeared in the confessions, I cannot
imagine that you would find any more competent witness for an
investigation of this kind than a man who was right there and saw
it all happen.
I want to thenk you, sir, very much, and I want to commend you
for your fine Americanism and your fine display of courage.
Mr. AHRENS.Thank yon.
Senator BALDWIN. We will hear the next witness.
Mr. Scalise, will you stand up? Hold up your right hand.
Do you solemly swear that the testimony you shall give i n the matter
now in question shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
Mr. SCALISE. I do.
TESTIMONY OF D. A. SCALISE
Senator BALDWIN.Give us your fidl name.
Mr. SCALISE. Dominic A. Scalise.
Senator BALDWIN.And where do you live?
Mr. SCALISE.
104 Orchard Street, Warren, Pa.
Senator BALDWIN. What do you do? What is your business?
Mr. SCALISE. Oil worker in the United Refining Co.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUhave coma down here at the request of the
committee to testify ?
Mr. SCALTSE. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. What is your connection with this war crimes
investigation? When did you first have any contact with i t ?
Mr. SCALISE. Well, it was in the fall of 1945. I was a provost ser-
geant at this prison a t Schwabisch Hall. That is the first I had con-
tact with the Malmedy case.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUwere in the Army a t that time?
Mr. SCALISE.Yes, sir; I was.
Senator BFLDWIN.What was your outfit?
Mr. SCALISE. Six hundred and thirtieth T D Battalion.
- Senator BALDWIN.And what were you?
Mr. SCALISE.Provost sergeant.
Senator BALDWIN. Provost sergeant ?
Mr. SCALISE.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.What mere your duties in connection with your
position there ?
Mr. SCALISE.I was to oversee incoming prisoners, prisoners going '
out, and the clothing of the prisoners ;supervise the feeding and check-
ing the guards, and so forth.
Senator BALDWIN.You had the rank of sergeant, you say?
Mr. SCALISE. Technical sergeant.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, Sergeant, do you remember what the date
was that you first came there? You say in the fall of 1945.
Mr. SCALISE. That is when I first had contact with these S S trooper
boys.
Senator BALDWIN.Oh, yes.
Mr. SCALISE. I had come in there, September '45, about.
Senator BALDWIN.September of '45 ; and you were a t Schwabisch
Hall then ?
Mr. SCALISE. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. A t that particular time were you guarding
prisoners there?
Mr. SCALISE. At that p a r t i c ~ ~ l atime
r we had nothing but civilian
internee prisoners.
Senator BALDWIN.Civilian internee prisoners?
Mr. SCALISE.That is all we had then.
Senator BALDWIN.When did these SS troopers - first come in as
prisoners ?
Mr. SCALISE. I think it was about October. It was getting kind of
cool weather then.
Senator BALDWIN.Was this a prison for military personnel, o r
civilian personnel, or both?
Mr. SCALISE. Well, we had a few prisoners of war among the group
of civilian internees. A very few when I first came there. We had 17
generals in there. They were transferred to another place.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, then, these S S troopers came, you say, along
in October ?
Mr. SCALISE.That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.What was the most number-the greatest num-
ber that you ever had ?
Mr. SCALISE.Well, we must have had around 600, all together.
Senator BALDWIN.Were they all SS troopers?
Mr. SCALISE. All SS.
Senator BALDWIN.And how long were they there?
Mr. SCALISE.Well, as the interrogations proceeded, and they found
somebody that had no connection ~ v i t hthis case, they would transfer
them to another prison, and we would get more in, keep getting some
.every other day. And then they would kind of weed them out.
Senator BALDWIN.When you first came there, did yon see Colonel
Ellis ?
Mr. SCALISE. Not when I first came there.
Senator BALDWIN. HOW long had you been there when he came?
Mi. SCALISE.Well, shortly after the other groups were there, Colonel
Ellis came down to check the situation over. That is when I first met.
him. I don't remember how long it was.
Senator BALDWIN.Then, after he came, did there come a number of
military and civilian personnel to interview these witnesses?
Mr. SCALISE. Well, they all seemed to arrive about the same time.
, Senator BALDWIN.The whole group?
Mr. SCALISE. The interrogation group and the investigators and all-
(quite a staff-came in a t once.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,in guarding these German SS troops-
in the first place, let me ask you what kind of a place is Schwabisch
H a l l ? Give us a little description of it?
Mr. SCALISE. The town, you mean?
Senator BALDWIN.That is the name of the town, is i t ?
Mr. SCALISE.
That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.This was not a hall, as such, but a conlpound;
internnzent camp?
Mr. SCALISE. Well, Schwabisch Hall is the town, and the prison
m-as in Schwabisch Hall.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, what was tlie nature of the prison? Just
describe it to us briefly.
Mr. SCALISE. It was a fairly modern prison, had cement-block walls,
I'd say, about 18 feet high all around it, with these electric doors in
frost, double doors.
Senator BALDWIN. A regular penal institution?
Mr. SCALISE. Yes, sir.
'Senator BALDWIN. Built by the Germans?
Mr. SCALISE.
Yes, sir.
Senator BALDTVIN. And how many prisoners did you say you had
there ? At any one time.
Mr. SCALISE. Well, we must have had about 1,200; around that
number. I am not just exactly sure.
Senator BALDWIN. During tlie time that you were there, what was
the condition of the food? What kind of food was given to these
prisoners ?
Mr. SCALISE. The food mas always very good. It was American
rations, the same as we were getting.
Senator BALDWIN. Would you say it was American rations, just the
same as were issued to American military personnel?
Mr. SCALISE. Not exactly the same as the GI's were getting, but it
was stuff that the Americans furnished, like dehydrated potatoes, de-
hydrated rice-all American food.
Senator MCCARTITP. That is the first time I ever heard an Army
sergeant say that the Army rations were good.
Senator BALDWIN. H e isn't talking to a commanding officer now.
Were they ample? Was there ever a shortage?
Mr. SCALISE. NO;we had plenty to eat.
Senator BALDWIN.And the prisoners had, as you observed it-
Mr. SCALISE. Yes; they had plenty.
Senator BALDWIN.Now, d ~ ~ r i nthat g time-was there any time
t.hat the prisoners were deprived of food, or pnt on short rations o r
anything of that kind, that you observed ?
Mr. SCALISE. Not to my knowledge, there wasn't.
Senator MCCARTUY. I missed part of the testimony.
Were you in charge of the messing of the prisoners ?
Mr. SCALISE.I Bad detailed a group of civilian internees under the
supervision of the American soldiers, to feed the prisoners.
Senator MCCARTEIY. YOUwere in charge of the messing?
Mr. SCALISE. I mas to make sure they were fed.
Senator BALDWIN. P a r t of your duties mas to see that they got fed?
Senator BALDWIK. And did any of the Gerinall prisoners, S S troop-
ers, ever con~plaiiito you or to anybody, to your knowledge, that they
didn't get their food, or were not being fed, or were put on short
rations, or anything like that?
Mr. SCALISE.I never beard any complaint about food.
Senator BALDWIN. Were there any complaints about anything?
Mr. SCALISE. Once in a while we would get a complaint. Maybe a
fellow was cold and would want an extra blanket, and we would see
to it that he got an extra blanket.
Senator BALDWIN.Were they kept under cover and indoors, these
prisoners ?
Mr. SCALISE. Yes, they were.
Senator BALDWIN.Were they heavily guarded?
Mr. SCALISE. We had guards for all cell blocks; two guards for each
cell block.
Senator BALDWIN.So the prisoners were locked up in cell blocks?
Mr. SCALISE. Yes ;they were.
Senator BALDWIN. T'Vhat can you tell us, if anything, about the
treatnient ? Was there any abuse, any beating or pushing or tripping,
or any physical violence of any kind?
Mr. SCAEISE.I didn't see anything of that abuse that they were
talking about. I had quite a bit of access to the prison, and I never
had any report of anything.
Senator BALDWIN.HOWlong were you there, Sergeant?
Mr, SCALISE. I left in March of 1946.
Senator BALDWIN. And were you there from September 1945 to
March 19461
Senator BALDWIN.DO you know of your own knowledge whether
or not in that period of time these prisoners who were tried for the
Malmedy affair were actually in the prison ?
Mr. SCALISE. Well-
Senator BALDWIN.DOYOU nnclerstand my question?
Mr. SCALISE.Will you repeat it ?
Senator BALDWIN. They were not all Malmedy cases that were
there ?
Mr. SCALISE. We had two different groups. We had some civilian
internees, and this Malmedy group.
Senator BALDWIN.You had a civilian group, and you had the Mal-
medy group ?
- Mr. SOALISE. NO; they were in separate sections of the prison.

Senator BALDWIN. Now, during that time, tell us as frankly as you
can, about their treatment. I f there was any abuse we would like to
,know it.
Mr. SCALISE. There was no abuse. I had nothing ever reported to
me ;and generally, I naturally hear about those things, floating around
the prison like I did. I had quite a bit of contact personally with the
S S men. They never mentioned anything about anv abuses.
Senator BALDWIN.Was there any occasion when any of the guards
might have beaten any of these prisoners, or mistreated them in any
- -
w..n Jv 2
Mr. SCALISE. A t one time, when we first brought prisoners in there,
we did have one of our guards that did rough up a prisoner a little bit.
Senator BALDWIN.What was that about! Can you tell us about
that ?
Mr. SCALISE. Well, they were supposed to be quiet after the lights
were out in the cells, and they wouldn't keep quiet, so I guess he got
into a scrape with one of them, and we found out about i t and had the
guard removed.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUhad the guard removed?
Mr. SCALISE.
We put him on as as a prison chaser.
Senator BALDWIN.A prison chaser ?
Mr. SCALISE.
That was another job we had in the prison.
Senator BALDWIN.What kind of a job was that?
Mr. SCALISE.
The civilian internees, they had access to the prisoners ;
they were under constant guard, and they could go out and do electrical
work or carpentry work, and they had a guard for every five or six
men to watch them.
Senator BALDWIN.There has been some claims made that men there
had teeth knocked out, were pushed up against the wall, and were
abused in various ways.
Mr. SCALISE.Well, I listened to that this morning, and when those
men first came into the camp, a lot of the men had bad teeth then, and
were coinplaining about toothache. Then we had to go in a t night
and try to quiet them down, and we used to take them to Stuttgart for
'dental work. That was before they even had the first interrogation
started.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. YOUunderstand the interrogations had been
started before they came to Schwabisch Hall? Yon know they were?
Mr. SCALISE. I didn't know that.
Senator MCCARTHY. That has been the testimony. The interroga-
tions started before they mere ever brought to Schwabisch Hall.
Senator BALDWIN.I don't recall any testimony here to that effect.
M y recollection is sometimes faulty. The record will show that,
whether it be so or not.
Do you have a letter froinkhe German dentist?
Did you ever know, while you were at the prison there, a Dr. Knorr?
Mr. SCSLISE.Yes ; I did.
Senator BALDWIN.When did he come there?
Mr. SCALISE.I am not exactly sure. I think he came about twice a
week to take care of the dental work.

Senator BALDWIN. About twice a week?
Mr. SCALISE.I think so.
Senator BALDWIN.Was he coming there about twice a week wlwn
you first arrived?
Mr. SCALISE.Yes, he was.
Senator BALDWIN.So that he was there during the time that you
were there?
Mr. SCALISE. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. DO you know anything about him at all? Did
B you ever meet him or talk with him?
Mr. SCALISE. I have talked with him. H e used t o bring the nurse
right with him. H e used to have a nurse that came right along with
hih.
Senator BALDWIN.How many different times did you talk with
him, would you say ?
Mr. SCALISE.I would say three or four ti1i:es.
Senator BAWWIN.Did he ever a t any time make any complaint to
to you about the prisoners having their teeth knocked out, and jaws
hroken, that he had fixed?
Mr. SCALISE.NO.
Senator BAIBWIN.YOUare quite sure about that?
Mr. S~ALISE. Positive.
Senator BALDWIN.Were you in such a position of authority that
a complaint of that kind would norinally have been made to you?
Mr. SCALISE. It could have been.
Senator BALDWIN. I mean, you were there-the provost guard in
charge, were you not, part of the time?
Mr. SCALISE.
Senator BALDWIN. And when he came to the prison with his nurse,
did you let him in or go with him or anything of that kind?
Mr. SCALISE. He had a regular pass to come in, and he h e w where
to go. He went right to the hospital ward.
Senator BALDWIN. And you have talked with him, you say?
Senator BALDWIN. HOW n1any different times?
Mr. SCALISE.Probably three or four times.
Senator BALDWIN.Did he ever personally make any complaint to
you about witnessing any physical abuses on the prisoners?
Mr. SCALISE. NO; he never did.
- Mr. BALDWIN.He never said anything to you about having seen
any broken jams, or teeth knoclced out, or anything of that kind?
. Mr. SCALISE.No, no.
Senator BALDWIN. Of your own knowledge?
Mr. SCALISE.
Yes.
Senator B A W ~ I NAnd
. did you ever hear-this is pure hearsay-
did you ever k1101~of his making any complain to anybody else?
Mr. SCALISE.The first time I heard about it was this morning, when
it was brought up in this case.
Senator BALDWIN. And do you know anything about so-called mock
trials that were conducted?
Mr. SCALISE.Well, I had seen the paraphernalia that they used, but
I never witnessed one.
Senator BALDWIN.What was the paraphernalia that they used?
Mr. SCALISE.Well, they had a black cloth, and a couple of candles
118 WALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
and a crucifix, but that is all I ever did see. I spent my time in different
sections of the prison, taking prisoners back and forth.
Senator BALDWIN.There was a mention made of a black hood that
they put over the prisoners' heads. Was that used?
Mr. SCALISE. Yes, sir; me used them all the time.
Senator BALDWIN. Why did you use that?
Mr. SCALISE.Well, we were told that they wanted to keep them from
coming in contact with the other prisoners so couldn't see any other
prisoners-more or less a matter of security. We used to help hold
them by the arm to walk with them to see that they wouldn't walk-
so they wouldn't get hurt or anything.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you ever see any rope or nooses? You said
you saw some of the parapheraalia they used. What was that
paraphernalia 1
Mr. SCALISE.I mentioned these candles and this black cloth and the
crucifix. That is all I had seen of the mock trial things.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever see any nooses, ropes, or anything
of that kind?
Mr. SCAUSE.No ;I did not.
Senator BALDWIN. Any clubs?
Mr. SCALISE.Well, the guards were equipped with little clubs.
Senator BALDWIN.The guards carried clubs?
Did our guards carry arms ?
~r..8cAnSE.They were unarmed in the prison.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,were there cells for solitary confinement
in the prison ?
Mr. SCALISE.Well-by "solitary confklement," you mean-
Senator BALDWIN. Where they put one prisoner in, all by himself.
Mr. SCALISE. We had a lot of those cells.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever put any of these prisoners in soli-
tary confinement ?
Mr. SCALISE.When we first got these SS-men, we put them by thern-
selves, and some we put with two, some with three and some with
four-they were sort of put in different groups.
Senator BALDWIN.Were you ever given any instructions by any-
body that so far as the treatment of these SS troopers was concerned,
it was to be any different than any other prisoner ?
Mr. SCALISE. Well, they ,were supposed to eat all of their meals in
their cells. They weren't allowed to go out around the prison yard,
like the rest of them. They were more or less confined to their cells.
They had the same rations that the other ones had, though.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, were they ever permitted to get together
in a group 8
Mr. SCALISE.Yes, they were ;at their interrogations-they had quite
a large room, and I would get notice to take them to a certain place-
the number, you know-and I would put them in this room and when
we got the room full, then we would ship them out.
Senator BALDWIN. I see.
Before they were interrogated, they were kept in solitary confine-
ment, mostly?
Mr. SCALISE. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.And afterward-
Mr. SCALISE.
They were sort of put in different sections.
MALMEDY LMASSACRE I N V E S T I G A T I O N 119
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever hear any screaming or shouting
or crying or n~oaning,or anything of that kind, from the prisoners?
Mr. SCALISE. Only one case. We had a young boy there-must
have been about 17 or 18 years old-that was crylng and hollering;
and I went to his cell and opened up, and he was kind of afraid. H e
had been there alone for a week or so, and he got a little scared, and
he wanted to know what the trouble was, why he mas brought there;
so I got one of the war crimes men to talk to him and kind of quieted
him down, and he was all right.
Senator BALDWIN.Was he one of these SS-troopers?
Mr. SCALISE. Yes; he was.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUdon't recall his name; do you?
Mr. SCALISE.NO;I don't. H e was a nice-looking boy, about 18years
old, I'd say. H e was just afraid.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,did you ever attend any of these mock
trials? I think you said you didn't. I am not sure if I asked you that
question.
Mr. SCALISE. NO. I used to see these rooms where they were held,
and I was too busy with the other parts of the prison.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, you saw these rooms. What were the
rooms like?
Mr. SCALISE. Well, they w e r e t h e war-crimes branch had a special
part of the prison to themselves. The rooms were different sizes.
Some were maybe 10 feet by 6 feet, some small rooms; some were a little
bigger.
Senator BALDWIN.There was a statement here this morning, I think
from Colonel Raymond, to the effect that a Major Banton issued some
order concerning the treatment of these prisoners. Do you recall what
that was, Colonel?
Do you have that order there?
Colonel RAYMOND. Yes; it is in my report.
Mr. CHAMBERS. ISthat NO. %your regulation No. 2?
Senator MCCABTHY.Page 6 of your report.
Senator BALDWIN.DOyou have it there?
Senator MCCARTHY. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.These rules governing interrogation-1 don't
suppose you would know anything about that?
Mr. SCALISE. Not too much ; no.
Senator BALDWIN.Were there any instructions issued by the com-
manding officers, as to the treatment of these prisoners?
Mr. SCALISE. When the SS-men first came in we were briefed very
shortly by Major Banton as to how to treat the prisoners, and who they
Were supposed to come in contact with, and so forth.
Senator BALDWIN.What'did he tell you when he briefed you?
Mr. SCALISE. That they were not supposed to come in contact with
other groups of civilian internees. They were not authorized-see, the
German civilian internees were always available a t feeding time, and
we didn't want to have any communication between the two-that is
one thing; and then also, about these black hoods we were supposed to
use.
Senator BALDWIN.Were there any other instructions given, other
than that?
Mr. SCALISE. I believe that is all I can remember.
120 IWALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Senator BALDWIN.Just one final question :

This, Sergeant, is a pretty serious business, because in a sense the
reputation of the Army and the reputation of the country is a t stake.
I want an absolutely trut,hful answer, and I think you have tried to be
absolutely truthful.
A t the time that you were there, do you know of any case that you
haven't told us about, now, where there was any abuse of any kind,
physical violence, threats, intimidation, withholding of food, or any-
thing of that kind, that you mould consider cruel and inhuman in
any way, shape, or manner?
Mr. SCALISE. No ;I do not know of any case.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUhave told us all you know about i t ?
Mr. SCALISE.
Yes, I have.
Senator BALDWIN.Any questions, Senator Hunt 2
Senator HUNT. I would like to ask a few, Mr. Chairman.
Generally speaking, Sergeant, you were quite familiar with what
was going on around Schwabisch Hall, were you, in the prison ?
Mr. SCALISE.Yes, sir.
Senator HUNT.Did you have any personal contact with these SS
troops in the prison?
Mr. SCALISE. Oh, yes.
Senator HUNT.Y OUsaw them from day to day ?
Mr. SCALISE.Saw then1 and talked with them.
Senator HUNT. From day to day P
Mr. SCALISE.
Yes.
Senator HUNT.Did you attend any sessions of the t ~ i a?l
Mr. SCALISE.
No ; I did not.
Senator HUNT. NOW,around an Army camp of that type, no doubt
your groups got together and discussed inf ormdly, among yourselves,
what was takmg place and what mas going on, didn't you?
Mr. SCALISE. Well, more or less ;yes.
Senator HUNT.During those conversations and discussions, do you
remember any of your men under you, telling of any of these acts
of torture that supposedly were being committed on these prisoners?
Mr. SCALISE. NO; I never heard that subject discussed.
Senator HUNT.From your general knowledge of the situation
there, would you say that there was or there wasn't any systematic
physical torture applied, to get confessions P
Mr. SCALISE. I think those prisoners were treated pretty good. I
mean they were treated-well, better than they should have been
treated.
Senator HUNT.YOU,yourself, don't know of any threat made to the
prisoners by the interrogators ?
Mr. SCALISE. NO; I do not.
Senator HUNT.I assume you were not present a t the interrogations?
Mr. SCALISE. NO; I just dropped in once in a while.
Senator HUNT.NOW,when these hoods were applied, were they ap-
plied viciously or gently, or applied normally? Did the prisoners
suffer any physical torture while the hoods were in place?
Mr. SCALISE.NO;they would throw the hoods over their heads, and,
that was about all there was to it.
Senator HUNT. NOW,this is a question of your opinion, and you can!
answer it, or not, just as you wish :
Do yon think from your knowledge, the interrogators were justi-
fied-within your knowledge of what took place--of having the mock
trials and things of that nature to get these confessions ? Do you think
they were justified?
Mr. Scar,rs~.I think they mere.
Senator HUNT. NOW,this boy that you speak of, that was crying out,
do you think that was a result of some threats or some tortures, or was
the boy jnst in a condition of hysteria and afraid?
Mr. SCALISE. The boy had never been interrogated yet. H e had
been waiting for several weeks, and he was a little bit afraid, and he
wanted some consolation, wanted to know why he was there, and so
forth, and we did straighten him out. H e had never been talked ta
before-jnst brought in there and-
Senator HUNT. Would you say, in talking with this boy, that you
were sympathetic with him ?
Mr. SCALISE.I kind of felt sorry for that kid, because he didn't look
like the type t h a t h e was an awful young kid, and he was a little bit
scared.
Senator HUNT.Now, when you were briefed by your commanding
officers,when these S S troops came in, did your commanding officers
say anything to you about not using.physica1 torture of any kind?
Mr. SCALISE.Well. they told us, just mentioned how they wanted
the guards set up, and mentioned about the feeding of the prisoners,
and things like that; dicln't mention anything about physical vio-
lence. We didn't bothel- with that anyway. I told yon of the one
case we had.
Senator HUNT.Mr. Chairman, the Senator from T;l'isconsin made
a statement awhile ago that I a'm interested in also, and I wonder if
the staff cannot find out for us why it mas that the general got some-
thing like 10 years, while these other prisoners, some of them, are get-
ting the death sentence? I would like to have just a brief statement
on that situation.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, I think, Senator, that is a good paint, and
that is one of the things very definitely that this committee
ought to go into, because, of course, one of the claims made in all of
these criminal trials was by the officers, as I recall reading a b o ~ it,
~t
was that they simply were obeying military orders. Obviously, these
men may have been only obeying military orders, too. That is one of
the things I think we will, before this hearing is over, have to go into.
pretty thoroughly.
Senator MCCARTHY. I have some questions.
Senator BALDWIN.Are you all through?
Senator HUNT.Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.I don't clearly have in mind what your duties
were at Schwabisch Hall. Your title was what?
Mr. SCALISE. Provost Sergeant.
Senator MCCARTHY. Now, what were your duties? This may be
repetitious, but I want to get it clearly in mind.
Mr. SCALISE. Taking care of the incoming prisoners-
Senator MCCARTHY. Taking care of issuing--
Mr. SCALISE.Issuing things, put them in certain cells and taking
their papers into the office, that they had with them.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you processed incoming pris-

oners ?
Mr. SCALISE. That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you processed outgoing?
Mr. SCALISE.Outgoing.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you had an office for that, I assume?
Mr. SCALISE.
Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOW many enlisted men were helping you in
that work?
Mr. SCALISE.I had two assistants with me, and there were two other
American boys in the office, doing. the typing and clerical work, plus
two German women doing typing in German.
Senator MCCARTHY.Then, did you have a mess sergeant to take
care of messing ?
Mr. SCALISE. We had a regular man in the kitchen, head cook.
Senator MCCARTHY. Who mas the mess sergeant?
Mr. SCALISE.
It was a German civilian.
Senator MCCARTHY. And how many attendants did you have in
Bchwabisch Hall-how many people ?
Mr. SCALISE. We had roughly-I would say a t the most probably
1,200.
Senator MCCARTEIY. One thousand and two hundred prisoners, and
how many calls u7ere'there, just roughly ?
Mr. SCALISE.Well, there weren't enough cells for those prisoners.
We had to put some of them in two or four to a cell. We were too
crowded.
Senator MCCARTHY. I understand all the Malmedy cases were kept
in solitary until after their interrogation was completed?
Mr. SCALISE. Not all.
Senator MCCARTHY. Not a112
Mr. SCALISE.
What ones we would be able to.
Senator MCCARTHP.Was it any part of your job to visit the-how
many cells did you say there were?
Mr. SCALISE. I don' know, exactly.
Senator MCCARTHY. Roughly three or four hundred?
Mr. SCALISE.
There must have been 600, at least.
Senator MCCARTHY. But it wasn't one of your jobs to go around
personally and inspect the cells for the prisoners, I assume?
Mr. SCALISE. I have done it.
Senator MCCARTHY. But during the course of the day that wasn't
your job, to go around and make a personal inspection?
Mr. SOALISE. No ; it wasn't.
Senator MCCARTHY. You had a camp con~mander,whose function
that was ?
Mr. SCALISE. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Who was the camp commander?
Mr. SCALISE.A t the time I left ?
Senator MCCARTHY. Yes. Who was he?
Mr. SCALISE.Captain Evans.
Senator MCCARTHY. And who was, when you first came?
Mr. SCALISE.
Captain Torme?
Senator MCCARTHY. Was there a camp commander by the name of
Karl Diebitsch?
Mr. ,SCALISE. H e 11-as the German man. the civiliai~int6rnee.
Seiiator MCCARTHY.How many inen clicl you have working under
you ?
Mr. SCALISE. We had possibly four or five hunclrecl civilian intern-
ees we had access to for ally kind of work.
Senator MCCBRTHY.Who was in direct chaige of the guard? Who
.was the officer of the guard ?
Mr'. SCALISE. Lieutenant Owens mas i n charge of the guard.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUwere not in charge of posting or remov-
ing the guard, were you ?
Mr. SCALISE.NO; that was taken care of by the first sergeant a t
headquarters.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOthen, ns I understand it. your principal
function v-as in charge of the office work, of processing ii?coming ancl
outgoing prisoners ?
Senator MCCARTHY. You never took any part i n the interrogations?
Mr. SCAIJSE.No; I did not.
Senator RICCARTHY. And you had no function at all connected with
that ?
Mr. SCALISE. No. I just cooperated with them. as f a r as moving
prisoners back a i d forth. ancl seeing that they 1-i-ere,when they were
mored to cliffelm--
Senator BALDWIN.May I interrupt just a minute right there?
Senator R'ICCARTHY.I woulcl. like to finish, if I may. I would
appreciate being allowed to examine without interruption. I hare
not interrupted the chairman or Mr. Hunt. I think this is tremen-
dously important. I f the chairman thinks--
Senator BALDWIN.Not a t all; but there is just one point right in
connection with that thing that I wanted to ask this witness, since
1have given you the privilege of doing so on every occasion.
The question is this: I am going to ask this question if you don't
mind-
Senator MCCARTHY. May I make the record clear? May I ask this
consideration of the chair, with the exception of this question I am
going to ask now, unless the Chair thinks I ail1 not being fair t o the
witness. that you clo allow me to continue my examination, because
some of these witnesses 11-ho will appear here will be interested in
either-in favor of the prosecution or the defense. I think in those
cases it is very important 'chat the Senator who is doing the qnestioa-
ing be allowed to continue uninterruptedly until he finishes. I would
very much appreciate that consideration from the Chair.
Senator BALDWIN.I have given you every consideration, and intend
to show yau every courtesy, and there is no reason for having an argu-
ment about this a t all; but I have permitted you to interrupt me when
1 was questioning, and I certainly shall not interrupt these witnesses
or interrupt your questions in any may t o try to help the ~ ~ i t n e sifs ,
that is the inference.
This is simply a question-
Senator MCCARTHY.I wanted to make the record-
Senator BALDWIN. The question now is this: Was it up to you to
move these prisoners around from one place to another '?
Mr. SGALISE. T o see that they were moved.

Senator BALDWIN. And along the line of questions that Senator
McCarthy has asked, was it part of your job to take these prisoners t o
and from the places where they were being interrogated?
Mr. SCALISE. That was part of the job.
Senator BALDWIN. How often did you do that?
Mr. SCALISE. Whenever they-we had a special phone in my office.
When they wanted a man moved from a certain cell, we would look
in our records, find out where he was located, and we would move him.
Senator BAWWIN.I n connection with the mock trials, did you take
the witnesses to and from there?
Mr. SGALISE. Well, we took them to certain rooms all the time, and
then the guards that were stationed there would move them where the
investigators wanted them. They always went to a certain room first.
Senator BALDWIN. The point was, when they were through interro-
gating the witnesses, did you bring them back to the cells ?
Mr. SOALISE. Well, when they were ready to be removed, they did.
Senator BALDWIN.What was their condition under those circu-
stances? Did you ever observe anything with reference to their con-
dition after they had been interrogated?
Mr. SOALISE.They looked just the same to me, when I brought them
back, as when I brought them over.
Senator BALDWIN.That is all I wanted to ask; so it seems to me a
perfect logical question came in mind while yon were making that very
point.
Senator MGCARTHY. So that I will have this correctly in mind, you
would be asked by the War Crimes Branch, if I have the informat~on
correctly in mind, to have certain witnesses moved to a certain room ;
right ?
Mr. SCALISE.That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. From that point, the guards would take over?
Mr. SCALISE. They would move them around wherever the War
Crimes wanted them.
Now, how many of the SS troops did you have in the prison, roughly,
at one time?
Mr. SCALISE.I n the whole prison?
Mr. SCALISE. We started out with between 400 and 500 coming in
there at certain intervals. They came in by convoy.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,when one of the prosecution staff would
want a man moved, the request would come to you; office in writing?
Mr. SCALISE.Or by telephone.
Senator MC~ARTHY. And you would phone some of the men and
tell them to make them move?
Mr. SCALISE.I had my assistants; if I didn't go, one of the other
boys would make the move.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,you understand that at the time you
were in charge of these men-I understand, rather-you had no way
of knowing which were guilty or which were innocent ; right?
Mr. SCALISE.AS things went on, I could get an idea who was kind
of guilty, there.
Senator MCCAR~WY. b u t , SO f a r as you were concerned, until their
trial, you were not in position to decide ?
Mr. SCALISE.NO; I couldn't decide.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUmade a statement that interested me very
mnch. You said you thought these men were treated too well.
Now, if you were in charge, how mould you have treated them?
Mr. SCALISE. Well, I was more or less in charge.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid you thought they were treated too
well. I assume you are referring to both the men that were guilty,
and the innocent-anyone accused of war crimes-you think were
treated too well, fed too well, given too much clothing, should not
have been kept in solitary long-in what way would you have made
the treatment worse?
Mr. SCALISE. I didn't say "make it worse.''
Senator MCCARTHY. You said they were treated too well. I n what
way? Too much food, too much clothing? I n what way were they
treated too well?
Mr. SCALISE.After considering what they did, I was using that
as the basis for my statement; what they did a t Malmedy. That is
the reason I mentioned that.
Senator RIGCARTHY. I n other words? you are working under the
assumption that anyone brought in, accused of being at Malmedy,
n7asthere, and should have been treated as though they were guilty?
T1:at is the thought; that is the thing that disturbs me.
We all agree with yon, when you get the men that are guilty, whrther
the man signed the order which said "Kill all American prisoners~'
or whether the men pulled the trigger should be hanged or shot. We
are very much concerned about the attitude, that once a inan has been
tagged, the sergeant, PFC7s,and second lieutenants can take it upon
then~selvesto mete out the punishment. You say they were treated
too well. I was just wondering in what may.
Take the boy that was in solitary for 3 weeks, who started to scream;
an 18-vear-old kid. in the middle of the night. You had no wav of
knowi& whether he was guilty or innocent."
Mr. SCALISE. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. -
NO way of knowing whether he was at Mal-
medy or a hundred miles away:
Nr. SCALISE. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you think his treatment mas too good?
Mr. SCALISE. He was like the rest of the prisoners.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU didn't think he was being treated too
well ?
Mr. SCALISE.He was treated the same as the rest of them. All
were the same, except he was a boy t,hat was a little bit afraid.
Senator MCCARTHY. I don't want to badger you here too niuch,
but this is an important point: You don't think that kid was treated
too well, that mas put in solitary? You don't think he was treated
too badly ?
Mr. SCALISE. NO;he was treated all right.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,is there anything you would have done
if you think he was treated too well-I am trying to find out why
or in what way you think the defenclants were treated too well, if
you know of any way-strike that question.
126 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOx
How long-first, let me ask yon: What was tlre average age of the
defendants In the war crimes cases?
Senator BALDWIN.May I interrupt? We hare a schedule of all the
ages. It would help you.
Senator MCCARTHY. I will look a t it after a bit.
Do you have any idea what the average age was ?
Mr. SCALISE. I would say the average was about 27.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you attend any of the interrogations
there ?
Mr. SCALISE. NO; I didn't.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did YOU attend any mock trials?
Mr. SCALISE.
NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Did YOU know the mock trials were going on?
Mr. SCALISE. Well, I had seen those candles and things, and I knew
they were there for some purpose ; but I didn't pay any attention to it.
Senator MCCARTHY. Were you in charge the night one af the
men committed suicide?
Mr. SCALISE.Yes. Well, I was i11 the barracks a t the time.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n the barracks a t the time 2
And are you aware of the fact that the claim was made by the other
inmates of the prison that he did considerable screaming and shout-
ing and making statements before he coninlitted suicide? Are you
amare of that ?
Mr. SCALISE.Well-
Senator MC~ARTI-IY. The next morning did yon hear that ?
Mr. SCALTSE. This man that committed suicide v a s not an S S man.
Senator MCCARTHY. H e was one of the Malmedy defendants. I am
asking you this question : Were you aware of the fact-you were stiIl
in charge-that this man did a lot of shouting, along in the morning,
before he hung himself? Were you aware of that?
Mr. SCALISE. No, I wasn't aware of tliat.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Did you-hear anything to that effect the next
morning ?
Mr. SCALISE.
. -
I just heard that soineone killed himself dnring the
night.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Did YOU go back to the cell in which he had
killed himself?
Mr. SCALISE.It seems to me, the officer, Captain Evans, and all of
us, went back there.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Wasn't one of your jobs to make an investiga-
tion of that case?
Mr. SCALISE.No. It was up to the camp commander.
Senator MCCARTIXY. You said you never heard any screaming. Did
you knov that there was a lot of screaming that night 1
Mr. SCALISE. No ; I didn't.
Senator MCCARTIIY.So then, if I have this picture correctly in
mind, you were simply the sergeant in charge of processing incoming
and outgoing prisoners. You had no connection 1%-hatsoeverwith the
confession team, with.the prosecution; your job was merely to move,
have men moved, from one section to another when they asked you to,
a i d -your men did not move them to the interrogation room or mock-
trial room, you moved them to a ~ o o mat which the guards took over?
i\/Ir.SCBLISE.That is right.
Senator RIICCARTIIY.From then on the guards made the moves?
h l A L M E D Y MASSACRE 1 ~ V E S l 1 1 G A T 1 O N , 127
Mr. SCALISE. The regular guards did that part of the work.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I have no further questions of this witness,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator BALDWIN.We might put in the record a t this point, that
there were 73 accused, ranging in age from 18 to 54; three were 18 years
old; all of their sentences were disapproved by General Clay. Six
were 19 years old; all of whose sentences were reduced by General
Clay. Forty-two were 20 to 25 years old ; 12 were 28 to 30 years ; and
10 were over 30 years. Twelve death sentences were originally ap-
proved by General Clay, with ages, from 23 to 37, averaging 27; six
death sentences xere fillally approved by General Clay, ages from 2 3
to 37, average 28.
Senator M~CARTIIP.Mr. Chairman, may I ask this-I know this i s
one thing apparently you and I and Senator H u n t see eye to eye on:
Am I correct in this, that those boys of 18 and 19 had sentences t h a t
averaged much higher than the general who was found guilty origi-
nally of signing the death order to the effect that they n7ereto take no
American prisoners; that they were to shoot all prisoners, whether
they 11-ere disarniecl or had their hands i n the air, or not?
Senator BALDWIS.I don't know.
Senator MCCXRTHT.Does your staff?
Senator BALDTVIX. TVeIl-
Mr. CHARIBERS. ITe n-ill make a complete study and give i t to you
and put i t in the record. T h a t is, a copy of the schedule of punish-
ments for all 78: but to iny knoviledg-e now, yonr statement is abso-
lutely correct. I do not know whether we have yet developed whether
there were any ~ ~ r i t t eorders
n saying "Rill all Americans," but the
people responsible, tlie coi~~mancling general, dicl not receive a death
sentence in these cases.
Senator BICCARTHI-.Am 'Icorrect-I may be wrong, but I am ask-
ing-am I correct that the crime which those commanding generals
were tried for, the crjnies for which they were found guilty, was giv-
ing the order to kill these Americans?
RIr, C~aiurmis.That I d l have to check in detail and report later.
Colonel ELLIS. They were all tried under the same specifications;
all joined.
Senator BALDWIS.ISthis n copy of the specificatio~is?
. I ask, Colonel Ellis : Am I correct that
Senator M c C a n ~ r r ~34av
the crime for which the t ~ 6 g e n e r a l were
s found g u i l t j ~mas giving the
order that culminated in the shooting of tlie Aniericans?
Colonel ELLIS. General participation, n7as what it was. There was
one specification in which it was alleged that acting with comnlunity
and with common intent 74 people had murdered 750 Americans and
150 civilians.
Senator MCCARTHT.A m I correct, if the generals were not there to
take part physically. but m-ere f o ~ u l dguilty of having issued tlie
order-
Colonel ELLIS. I am not sure of the exact ~~-0rc1s; but the coullt was
to- that
. effect, lwcanse they were not physically present a t any of the
shooting.
Senator BIGCARTTIT. ISthat what you yere prosecuting them f o r ?
Colonel ELLIS. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Were there any executions carried out at the
prison, of an37 kind ?
128 , IWALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Mr. SCALISE. NO, there were not.

Senator BALDWIN.Some reference mas made by affidavits by the
Germans that they were put in death cells. Were there some death
cells ?
Mr. SCALISE. They had a solitary cell that they never used. It was
in a basement of the prison, in one of the cell blocks. They used to
use it years ago for prisoners, but we never used it.
Senator BALDWIN.Did they ever use i t while you were there?
Mr. SCALISE. NO, we didn't.
Senator BALDWIN.There was also a claim made that these German
prisoners couldn't get any drinking water except from the toilets.
What can you say about that?
Mr. SCALISE. NOJ they were served water. They had no running
water, but they were given water by the guard when they wanted any
to drink.
Senator BALDWIN.What orders were issued about drinking water
for them, can you tell us that?
Mr. SCALISE. There was no strict order issued, but they could have
it whenever they wanted.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you have a detail whose duty it was to get
them water ?
Mr. SCALISE. A patrol, all the time, with the water available.
Senator BALDWIN.Was there a toilet in each cell?
Mr. SCALISE.
Yes, there was.
Senator BALDWIN.There is also the charge made that some of these
hoods had blood and hair on them, and things of that kind. What
Mr. SCALISE. I never saw any.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever handle any of these hoods?
Mr. SCALISE.
Yes; I handled quite a few of them.
Senator BALDWIN.I n what condition were they kept?
Mr. SCALISE.
When we finished using them, we put them on a bench,
and when we would take a prisoner, we would take a hood or two, o r
how many we would have to take.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever wash or clean them ?
Mr. SCALISE. Well, I think they were cleaned once in the laundry.
Part of them were; while we used half, they used to clean the other
half up. We had our own laundry there.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever see any blood ?
Mr. SCALISE. I never did.
Senator BALDWIN.How about the clothing of the prisoners?
Mr. SCALISE.
They had a complete change of chthing every week,
clean clothes.
Senator BALDWIN.What kind of clothing was i t ?
Mr. SCALISE. It mas regular German Army clothes.
Senator BALDWIN.DOyou have any further questions?
Senator RIGCARTHY. I have one or two. I don't think they will mat-
ter too much.
Now, there was what you referred to as a death cell; is that right?
Mr. SCALISE. There mas. It was in the basement of the one, one
of the cell blocks.
Senator MCCARTHY. And that term was used because of the history
of it, you say. rather than because any men about to be executed
were put in that cell?
Mr. SCALISE.I t must have been. It was shown to me by one of tne
civilian internees. I never even knew it was there.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know whether or not any of the de-
fendants in this case were quartered in that particular cell?
Mr. SCALISE.NO, nobody was ever quartered in there.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUare sure of that?
Mr. SCALISE. I am positive.
Senator MCCARTHY. I wonder what this term in the Army report
means, when i t says "There is no evidence, apart from the use of the
term, that the accused was threatened with death by being placed in
that cell."
The Army report apparently finds that this death cell was used,
but that the individual was not threatened with death when he was
put in there. You tell me this cell was never used, and you didn't
know it was there; is that right, until a civilian told you?
Mr. SCBLISE. That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. SO you wouldn't be in a position to know if it
was used or not ?
Mr. SCALXSE. It was a secluded place beneath the cell block. I am
sure it was never used.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you think that report of the Army is
wrmg ?
Mr. SCALISE.I n respect to that cell, it must have been, because in the
cell they had a machine shop and machinery and equipment.
Senator MCCARTHY. One other question: You had nothing to do
with the medical end of the operation a t this camp, had you?
Mr. SCALISE. Well, in a m-ay.
Senator MCCARTHY. You had a doctor there, did you?
Mr. S~ALISE.
We had a German doctor and American doctors.
Senator MCCARTHY.And who did you say was the commander?
Mr. SCALISE. Captain Evans.
Senator MCCARTHY. And was there a regular doctor at the prison?
Mr. SCALISE.There was one-two different doctors; one was there
and he left, and we had a Captain Karen, who was a medical doctor.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did the doctors ever report to you personally
as to how they treated their patients? That wasn't their job, to report
to yon ?
Mr. SCALISE.They used to make reports to us and tell us if they
needed medical attention at Stottgart, of what should be done.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f a man was to be transferred, or needed
treatment, you got that word?
Senator MCCARTHY. I f a dentist came in and fixed a man's tooth,
or pulled a tooth, he didn't report that to you?
Mr. SCALISE.NO, the dentist, see, he only took care of the civilian
internees in the prison. We had our dental work done in Stuttgart.
Senator n/lcCam~r-.How about the dentist named Knorr?
Mr. SCALISE. He was a civilian in the town of Schwabisch Hall.
Senator MCCARTHY.He would come down and treat a man's mouth,
yon sag ; he woulcl come in twice a week?
Mr. SCALISE. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. And he wo~ddcome back and report to you the
number of prisoners he treated?
Mr. SCALISE. I never had any report from him.
130 MALMEDY iMASSACRE INVESTIGBTIOW
Senator MCCARTHY.I t n ~ ~ s nhis ' t f~ulctionto report to you?

Mr. SCSLISE. No, sir.
Senator BALDWIK.Did you have a hospital in connection with the
prison ?
Senator BXLDWIK.Was the health of the prisoners watched?
Mr. SCALISE.Very closely.
Senator &LDWIX. Are there any further q~~estions of this

witness?
Mr. CHAJZBERS. Sergeant, were tlie S S prisoners treated in the prison
hospital 1
Mr. SCALISE. NO; they were treated i n Stuttgart, at the generd
hospital.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Who was treated in the prison hospital?
Mr. SCALISE.Just the civilian internees. They n-ere not allo~~ecl to
come in contact with the German doctors.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Wasn't it true that some of the medical personnel of
the prison hospital on occasion treated the SS prisoners ?
Mr. SCALISE.We had one case. It was a case of emergency. One
of the S S boys was having some severe pains, and we couldn't locate
the American doctor. H e was out some place, so the guard took it upon
themselves to get this German doctor to treat him, and then we finally
sent the boy to the hospital in Stuttgart. That T T ~ Stlie only case we
had. It mas a case of emergency.
Mr. CHAMBERS. With that one exception, then, the niedical personnel
of the prison hospital had no contact with your S S prisoners?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Thank you.
Senator BALDWIN.What about cigarettes for the men when they
were confined? Did they have smokes ?
Mr. SCALISE.We had a ration for them. They had Bull D ~ ~ r l i a i n
tobacco and this canned tobacco.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you give them inany cigarettes?
Mr. SCALISE. No cigarettes. These roll-your-own type.
Senator BALDWIN.Any further questions, Senator?
Senator MCCARTHY. I would like to clarify this testimony. I would
like to ask the colonel : I s i t your opinion that all of these S S men were
kept in solitary from the time they arrived at Schwabisch Hall until
yon coinpleted your interrogation?
Colonel ELLIS.Unless me brought them in first. I think that sclied-
ule that can be found some place mould show who were allocated.
Some were put in individual cells, and some mere put in with others;
two, three, or four. I think he described it pretty well. Major Fanton
would be able to give you the rigllt information, better information
thxn Icould, because he mas there when I arrived.
Senator BALDWIN.Thank you very much, Sergeant.
Mr. SCALISE. Would this letter be of interest in the case?
Senator BALDWIK.Here is a letter from Karl Kronn~uller,Stutt-
gart-S. My German isn't as good as i t was in 1912.
Who is this letter from?
Mr. SCALISE.H e vas one of the civilian internees that mas dis-
charged while I TTRS there, and me became very close friends, and he
wanted my address and I gave it to him.
Senator MCCARTHY. What does it say?
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 13.1
DEAIPMR. SCALISE:I hope you a r e in good health enjoying civilian life. How
you remember, I was the first helper from Mr. Diebitsch in Schwabisch Hall.
Sometimes if I see friends we speak abont old times in Schwabisch Hall. I t was
a difficult time for us, and we remember, how you were always human and good
to us. How is business going there? Are you content? As to us, there are still
many difficulties, of course. The last ones of u s returned to liberty in 1948;
some ones a r e in their old professions, other, as I myself for instance, live in
business.
Diebitsch paints and sells, RheinWald is an insurance agent. I hope to receive
good news from you.
With many regards,
Sincerely yours,
KARLKRONMULI,~.
And he was a risoner?
Mr. SCALISE.
h e was s prisoner.
Senator BALDWIN.Who is Diebitsch?
Mr. SCALISE.
H e was camp commander.
Senator BALDTVIN. The general?
Mr. SCALISE.
h full colonel.
Senator BALDWIN.And Rheinwald ?
Mr. SCALISE.
H e was an interpreter.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, that shows the spirit upon n~hichthe future
of the world and world peace has to eventually rest.
Mr. SCALISE.I thought it might be of interest.
Senator BALDWIN. It is of interest.
Thank you very much for coming. -
I mould like to call Mr. Ellowitz now, because he is anotlier civilian
witness brought here from New York.
Mr. Ellowitz, will you raise your right hand and be sworn, please?
Do you sear that the testimony that you are going to give 111 the
matter now in question shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, to the best of your knowledge, information and belief,
so help you God?
Mr. ELLOTI-ITZ. I do.
TESTIMONY OF MORRIS ELLOWITZ, NEW YORK CITY
Senator BALDWIN.What is y m ~ rfull name, please, Mr. Ellowtiz?
. Mr. ELLOWITZ.
Morris Ellowitz.
Senator BBLDTVIN. Where do you live ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.
New York City.
Senator BALDTVIN.What is your ad'dress?
Mr. ELLOTVITZ.
483 West E n d Avenue.
Senator BALDIYIN.w h a t is your business ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.Lawyer.
Senator BALDWIK.And h o ~ vlong have you been an attorney?
Mr. ELLOTVITZ.
Since 1935.
Senator BM,DWIS. Were you in the Army of the United States!
Mr. ELLOTVITZ.
Yes: I was.
Senator BALDTVIW.And when did you go in the S r m y ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.I was inducted i n February or March 1941.
Senator BALDWIN.Where did you serve?
Mr. ELLOIVITZ.I served in the United States and i n the European
theater.
132 MALMEDY MASSACRE INF'ESTIGATION
Senator BALDWIN.Were you in a combat unit?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.
NO,I was assigned to the 6900th Replacement Depot.
Senator BALDWIN.And were you later sent to Schwabisch Hall, in
connection with the Malmedy investigation ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Not as a member of the armed forces.
Senator BALDWIN.As a civilian?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.
That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.When were you discharged from the armed
forces ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. I n October 1945.
Senator BALDWIN.And then where did you go?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.
I was first assigned to investigate a case in which a
pilot had been murdered when he parachuted into a river in Frankfurt.
I worked on that 2 weeks and mas resigned to Zeupffenhausen to pro-
ceed with the screening of Malmedy suspects.
Senator BALDWIN.And when did you come to Schwabisch Hall?
Mr. ELLOW-ITZ. When the detachment came to Schwabisch Hall.
Senator BALDWIN.About when mas that ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. The early part of December, about 1945.
Senator BALDWIN.First, I am going to ask you to tell your own
story, about your experiences there, and I want to ask you some
questions.
Will you go ahead and relate to us what happened and what you
observed ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Well, at Zeupffenhausen, it was a situation where
members of the SS units that were purportedly from the Task Force
Pieper were collected. I think there were about 900 men there.
Senator BALDWIN.When you say "Task Force Pieper," that was the
Nazi or German General that controlled this spearhead of SS troops?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. That was Colonel Pieper in charge of the spear-
head, and when they were not confined. They always were allowed
to roam a ~ o u n dwithin the limits of the confine, and our task there
was to screen out the people that we were not interested in, as we had
many German soldiers sent there who were part of the First Panzer
Division, but we hew-but who were not members of the Task Force
Pieper outfit, but in the course of the screening it became apparent
that no purposeful interrogation could ever take place of the Pieper
men because they had heard over the radio at the time the bodies of
the men were found, that the United States Government would us&.
all the resources at its command to track down the perpetrators and
bring them to justice, and they had over a year to figure out their
reaction, between the time they would be called for questioning. Some
of the men who were not involved in the crime, we were told-told
us that Pieper had instructed the entire group to keep quiet about the
crime; the Americans had no eyewitnesses to the crime, and that it
would be impossible to prove anything against the perpetrators. I n
fact one of the men-ceveral of the mea-stated that from their view-
point the Americans mould probably end up by taking a like number
of Germans, as Americans that were killed. and take them out and
execute them.
Senator BALDWIN.That is what they were told ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.
A t least in that case, and they figured they had only
a 1 in 10 chance of being executed for the crime.
Then, as a result of that screening and the information we received
there, the prison of Schwabisch Hall was made available SO that the
snspects could be kept in confinement and not allowed to discuss the
q~~estioning or interrogation with each other.
A t first there was practically im lead as to who was responsible.
Every man that was interrogated admitted to being there a t the cross-
roads, admitted seeing the bodies, but when it came to the actual ques-
tion of who did the shooting, they knew nothing about it.
Finally, I believe i t was, one of them-I believe i t was Richman, an
accused, who stated to one of the interrogators that he finally decided
to tell his story about it. H e knew that he would probably, or probably
r u i ~ hbe
t executed for it.
benator BALDWIN.YOUsay he finally decided to'tell his story. Do
you know what made him decide to tell?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.AS f a r as Richman was concerned, he volunteered it.
Senator BALDWIN.Was he abused in any -my, to your knowledge?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Any special promises held out to him !
Mr. E ~ W I TNO, Z . sir.

Senator BALDWIN.What kind of a fellow was he?

Did you ever talk with him yourself?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. I talked to him briefly, but I believe Lieutenant Per1
interrogated him, and I don't know what his background was. I be-
lieve he was a machinist. But he made the statement that he realized
that he might be executed for what he is about to say, but he cer-
tainly hopes that Pieper and men of his type are executed, because
some day, if German rearmament occurs again, a n d there is a like
government of Nazis, Pieper will be one of the leaders.
Senator BALDWIN.Well-
Mr. Emowrrz. That is what he stated.
(Senator McCarthy entered the committee room and assumed his
seat.)
Senator BALDWIN.Senator, t o bring you briefly up t o the moment:
Mr. Ellowitz was in the Army from 1941 to 1945 when he was re-
leased, and he stayed over in connection with the work of the investi-
gation of these war crimes. H e has told us that he first investigated
the murder of a parachutist, and then came up to this camp where
these men were first brought in and screened, and he has described
that these men were separated, and the ones that they thought were
to give testimony about the Malmedy matter weFe sent down t o
Schwabisch Hall.
He said that the difficulty they had, at first, was that many of these
S S troops were or would admit that they were a t the Malmedy cross-
roads, and that they saw the Americans in the field after they were shot
down; but none of them knew anything about the shooting.
We were just about a t that point, and he was telling about the
name of one German who made the first confession.
Now, go ahead from there.
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Then, a short time after two privates confessed.
They didn't confess to participation-they testified that they observed
an American soldier who was captured a short time after the Mal-
medy massacre and brought to Pieper7sheadquarters for questioning,
and that the soldier refused to give anything but his name, rank,
134 MALMEDY LMASSACRE INVESTIGATION
and serial number, and that Colonel Pieper in disgust called for
his sergeant-a man by the name of Hillig-and ordered them to take
the American prisoner out and have him shot.
We didn't have Hillig in custody, but we had other people who
had observed it.
That i d the way the case first started to break.
However, there was also a snag. We could never get beyond the
privates or the corporals who did make the statements, so the strategem
was adopted to build the case from one rank to another, and that was
successf~~lly followed. That is, to first interrogate all of the privates
and have them incriminate the people above them in rank, their
immediate superiors, and from then on up, right up to the generals.
Now, in the course of that interrogation, in the course of the inter-
rogations along those lines, I have heard-the last t ~ sessions
o that I
have been here, that I have sat here-reference to these mock trials.
I would like to say the first time I ever heard that procedure
referred to as a mock trial, was at the trial in Dachau. It was re-
ferred to by the staff at Schwabisch Hall as the schnell proceeding.
As far as the Germans were concerned, it was the same term-
Senator BALDWIN. What was the name?
Mr. E ~ W I T"Schnell."
Z. That means fast procedure.
From my observation of it, it was nothing more or less than sc
continuation of the interrogation, and after a man was brought in
for interrogation two or three times, at first appearance, he was rather
nervous and upset; but after being in several interrogations he sort
of fell into the groove of informal questioning, and it was thought by
one or two of the interrogators that we would have to create a sort
of soleinn background to interrogate them, to give this a different 'kind
of interrogation, and that is .when he was brought up to these so-
called mock trial rooms.
I only know of several cases where it was done, but I know that in
-at least two I know of, the suspect has been interrogated some time
previously, many times previously, by the same people who after this
schnell procedure, posed as the prosecutor, and that the interrogator,
who is outlining all of the evidence that the interrogation team had
against him, and the person who posed as his friend, or the man who
interceded for him, was also known to him as being a member of the
interrogation team.
At none of these proceedings was a sentence ever passed.
Senator BALDWIN.Just describe to us what yon would do. Give us
a word picture of what you did there.
J4r. ELLOWITZ. I, myself, never conclucted that in the many I in-
terrogated. I observed it. I clidn't think it was very effective and
didn't have much value.
Senator BALDWIN. AS a interrogator, you interrogated men indi-
vidually ?
Mr. ELJ,OWITZ. That is correct.
Senator BALDWIX. What was the schnell procedure? You said you
had seen it.
HOWdid it work?
Mr. EI~LOWITZ. I observed it in one instance. At this time, I saw no
light or crucifix at the table. It was a larger room. The suspect was
brought in for his interrogation, for this procedure, and immediately
one of the interrogators would begin to outline the evidence, the testi-
MALMEDY MASSPCRE IRXESTIGATION 135,
mony that we had already acquired against this man. It was the sus-
pect who usually would deny everything, ever having been in the vi-
cinity of the crossroads, or whatever particular site of the case we were
working on; but we did have several witnesses, members of the com-
niand, who would give a narrative story of exactly what occurred,
how the men were killed, and the participation of this particular sus-
pect in the crime; but the suspect would just r e f ~ ~ to s e talk about it.
H e would talk about everything from the day he was born until the
day of the trial, but he mould cut out that 2 hours of the crime, and
he was brought into the room, as this person who outlined, one of the
interrogators I saw, he was known to the suspect as being one of the
interrogators, outline^ all of the evidence. The two S S members who
had previonslg given us the statement concerning the co-crime, in-
volving themselves and the snspect, were brought in, and it wasn't the
first time that he had faced them-and told them exactly what had
occurred, and another interrogator wonld intercede in this respect
for him : He would make a statement to the effect that "This man can't
he as bad as he was painted."
I n effect it was just a strategem that I understand is normally used
by law-enforcement agencies, by facing the suspect with a top in-
terrogator and an easy one, and give him a choice, when he is under
psychological pressure of telling the truth to the man that he con-
siders is inuch easier to deal with 'than the tough guy.
Senator BALDWIN. At that particnlar time, would he appear to pass
any sentelice, or ang.tlling of thnt kind ?
Mr. ELLOWI'I'Z.There n as no sentence eyer passed.
Senator BALDWIW. YOUsay this procedure was used on those who
you assume had taken part, but who would not talk a t all ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Or who would not discuss that particular phase of
their record or experience.
Senator BALDTVIN. How often wonld you say that sort of prdcedure
was used ?
Do you have an idea how often or frequent it was used?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Well, I observed it used twice. I couldn't say. I
don't think it was used very often, because probably if it was cus-
tomary procedure, I certainly wonld have known about it, and gen-
erally I was too busy myself to go around observing; but I saw it used
twice in the manner I described and I think it was about three or four
other instances.
Senator B A L D ~ ~ IM7as
N . there ever any of these interrogations-was
there ever any physical violence used?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. NO,sir.
Senator BALDWI~~. I t has been stated here that one witness said that
there were some of the snspects pushed up against the wall, I should
judge rather violently. Did you ever see anything like that?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. I never observed i t ; no sir. I had heard rumors
around the prison that some of the prisoners were being badly mis-
treated, but I never saw any of it, and in fact wherever I went in the
Army, there were always rumors. Everybody has a rumor.
Senator BALDWIN. What can you say about the physical appearance
of these men that were being investig,zted? Did you ever see a 1 1 ~
evidence of blows or wouncls or anything like that on them?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. NO,sir ; they were all 111 good physical shape.
Senator BALDWIN. HOW about their teeth?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. I never noticed anything wrong with them.
Senator BALDWIN.
It is claimed that there were some broken jaws.
What can you tell us about that?
Mr. E ~ ~ o w r r I
z .never observed any of it, and I certainly never
submitted any person to that treatment; and if it was done, I probably
would have known about it, because I was in the interrogation hall
every day.
We iahrrogated, at Schwabisch Hall, I believe over 500 men, and
we just did not have much time to spend the proper amount of time
with each man. I would say most of them were shipped out, of
the 500, finally-the case was built around 73 or 74. There were other
cases we should have built that were a matter of Army record where
groups of 8 or 10 Americans were lined up and shot, and which a
man escaped and reported, but we never did have the time to go into
those and report thoroughly.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you want to ask any questions about that
phase of it ?
I want to call your attention, Mr. Ellowitz, to the cnse of Fritz
Eckman.
He says on January 27-
a t about 1600 I was interrogated by the prosecutor Ellowitz and a n interpreter
I was beaten in the face by the inlerpreter and nly head was beaten against the
wall. When r d i d not say anything, Mr. Ellowitz turned away and nodded to the
interpreter, mhereup he, the interpreter, beat me with his fists, in my face again.
I then fell to the ground. Following this I had to stand a t attention against
the wall and when the interpreter said "I am told t h a t you a r e a hard nut
to crack but I mill soften you up," I received some nlore slapping by fists i n the
face and then they left the cell. I then once again was taken into a death
cell. I was kept there over 14 days. The windows were open day and night.
There were no blankets and mattresses a t all. I had to lie on the wooden
bed day and night. There was no sleeping due to the cold. On or about February
Mr. Thon and Lieutenant Perl came to my cell a n d wanted me to make a state-
ment.
Then he goes on and makes'claims against Mr. Thon.
This affidavit is submitted-well, the acknowledgement was taken
on the 21st of January 1946. That is 234 years after he was apparently
at Schwabisch Hall. What do you want to say about that? Do you
remember this particular German ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. I remember who he was, but I can say that that por-
tion of the affidavit is entirely false. I remember I interrogated him
several times, and he did make the statement that he mas at the cross-
roads and saw the Americans who were killed, but he did not partici-
pate in them; and I dropped the interrogation of him after it was im-
possible to get anything from him, and I wasn't able to find out any
other witnesses of the cornrnand-of the company that he was in-that
could tie him up with any of the shooting, and he was interrogated
later by Thon and Perl.
Senator MCCARTHY. This man Eckman, you say at that time told
you-Eckman, was that his name?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. That is ri ht.
Senator MCCARTHY. To1ifyou at that time that he was a t the cross-
roads in that area, but that he did not take part in the shooting; is
that right ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. That is correct.
Senator MCCARTIIY.And you say you had no other members of the
company, or no witnesses to tie him down to this, to the actual
shooting?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Later on, he signed a confessi~nsaying he took
part in the shooting.
Mr. ELLOWITZ. I didn't work on i t exactly that way. Later he did
make a statement; later, after further interrogation not by me.
Senator MCCARTHY.Who conducted the further interrogation; do
you know ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. I believe it was Thon or Perl.
Then, of course, I developed i t after he had made the statement that
his gun crew, his tank crew, had been stationed in the4eld a few miles
from Malmedy, and that they had received orders from their tank
sergeant to shoot a group of about five American prisoners of war who
were stationed a t the edge of the field nearest the woods, and I re-
member when he made that statement, when he finally did make that
statement, he did say he felt much better now that he got that off his
mind, that he could tell us some more information about the crossroads
now.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did he finally admit that he did some shooting,
that he did kill some Americans?
Mr. EI,I,OIVITZ.I don't think he admitted that he participated in
:my shooting of those A~nericans;but I think he did admit that he
fired a machine gun a t the crossroads.
Senator MCCARTHY.Aad signed a confession to that effect?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Yes.
Senator MCCARTIIY.DO SOU know that he m7assentenced to hang?
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW.I will ask you to tell ns this: What
occurred to make him change his attitude d t e r he said he was there
and had no part in the shooting, from the day he told you that to the
day he signed the confession upon which he was sentenced to hang?
What made him soften or change his mind, to later sign a confes-
sion saying he did kill some American boys?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. AS I recall at this time, I believe that he was shown,
or it was read to h i n ~ the
, affidavits of many other suspects who had
described the whole incident that had occurred at Malinedy ; and it
was pointed out to him that "We have the whole picture now, we don't
need your statement if you don't want to give it. If you want to give
it, we will take it."
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know whether he had a mock trial
or not 1
Mr. ELLOWITZ.H e definitely did not.
Senator MCCARTHY.This witness has been sworn, too, has he not?
Senator MCCARTHY.I might say this not only for the benefit of
this witness but for all the witnesses to come, we know that some-
that the fellow was beaten, kicked, his teeth knocked out; and the
deliberate perjury. We have two diametrically opposed stories. One,
that the fellow was beaten, kicked, his teenth knocked out; and the
other, that they were treated gently. We Inlo~vthere have come before
the committee witnesses that have ooininitted deliberate perjury. , I

have no way of linovi-ing which now. I f the trials mere properly
arranged and conducted, if the clefendallts were conricted properly,
all right; if on the other hand the story Mr. Bailey tells, the way
it was apparently told to the Simpson committee so that they be-
lieved i t was true, then it is one of the most shameful perforlnances
that we ever witnessed. As to the handling of the trial. vie have tmo
diametrioally opposed statements, and I sincerely hope that before we
finish we will be able to pin clown and find O L J ~who is committillg
perjury before this committee, and make sure he is properly punished.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me get the issue about perjury before this
committee straightened.
The testimony tliat we have had concerning hhe abuses here has
been read from statements given by Germans. The Germans them-
selves hare not testified. T h e other allegations of mistreatment and
so forth h a r e come from conclusions drawn by investigators who have
examined these statements of the witnesses and also interrogated the
prosecutors and the investigators.
So, I might say for the benefit of the record i n connection with
your statement here that such evidence as we have now, as to the na-
ture and extent of these abuses, is exclusively hearsay because i t
comes from these affidavits of these Germans.
This one in particular was given in January 1948, long after the
affair, and after this man apparently bad been convicted and ordered
executed.
Now, I don't say that to indicate any conviction of my own in the
case. I merely say i t to keep the record straight because I don't think
until we have heard all of this, -re can come to any conclusion as to
who the liars are, and so I think that if we were to atteinpt to do that
n0.w. i t is jumping to a conclusion rather hastily.
Senator WIGCARTHI-.Mr. Chairn~an,I don't thinlc what I said can
possibly be misunderstood. I stated there is obviously perjury. The
Army report is based upon aEdavits, I unclerstand, unless I ain en-
tirely mistaken, affidavits SIT-ornto. I, a t this time, h a r e no w ~ y
of knowing at all who is cominittin~perjury. I think this is important
enough so that me do not close this case until we run the facts clown
and anyone that conlnlits perjury before this coininittee, in a case as
important as this, I think shoulcl be definitely prosecnted.
As I say, I don't have the slightest thought but what that gentle-
man is telling the absolute truth, a t this time, or not. I hope, before
we are through, me can determine that. H i s story is so clia~netrically
opposed to the other story, I B110n7either this inan is lying or the other
man is a liar.
Senator BALDWIK.This man is either telling the truth or the Ger-
mans who ride the afidavits are not telling the truth. .
Senator MGCARTIIY.I think the con~mitteeshoulcl notify all ,wit-
nesses that they are under oath, and their stories mill be run clown and
if i t is f o ~ m dthat they have committed perjury, they will be prose-
cuted.
I am not intimating that you are lying, you may be one of the most
outstanding investigators we had. I don't lcnon--
Mr. ELLOWI'I'Z.Well, I ~ o u l dlike to point ont in connection
. . TX-it11
the statement yon just made that the testimony I am g r i n s you is a.
direct contradiction to that of Mr. Bailev. I remember MI.. I-laiirv
MALMEDY MASSSCRE INVESTIGATION 139
quite well over.there. I don't see how he was in a position to even
observe what was going on in that connection. H e .was assigned as
a typist in the llcli~~inistratio~lOfice. That mas the bone of his con-
tention, that he had taken emplo~-merit as a court reporter at Nurem-
burg-
, :Senator MCCARTHT.You say he was not present a t any of the
interrogations ?
Z . recollect him erer being. I don't see how
Mr. E ~ ~ W I IT clon't
he could hare been, because no shorthand notes were taken of the
interrogation.
Senator MCCARTHI-.\Then the interpreter took the story from the
accused, in other words the a'ccusecl started to talk, we will say-
Mr. ELLOWITZ.T h a t is right.
Senator MCCARTHY.And started to give you a story, then the
interpreter tells you what he is saying----
R4r. ELLOWITZ. Right.
Senator MCCARTHY.Then, dicln%you have a court reporter t o make
notes on t h a t ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. NO, sir. W e started out with t h a t system, the ques-
tion-and-answer niethod with the court reporter taking notes, but then
we received a target date for trial sometime i n March, and the inter-
rog,ation of 500 men in that way monlcl have taken a t least 2 years, so
the system we used after that was, the statements were given i n
narrative form and the interrogator took notes and then when the
statement was completed, the oral statement, then from the notes and
story, the story was refreshed in the mind of the suspect and they
wrote i t in German ancl from the German i t was translated into
English and both typed, ancl Mr. Bailey was one of the typists who
typed those statements.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let me see if we have this straight.
Let's say that you are examining Pete Smith who is the accused-
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.And you are the interrogator. Did all inter-
rogators speak German?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did you speak German?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.I understancl German, but spoke very little.
Senator MCCARTHY.Say yon are one that clon't nnderstand, you
are interrogating J o l y ~Jones, the accused, and you have an interpreter.
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Right.
Senator MCGARTHY. And you are asking the prisoner questions.
Mr. ELLOWITZ.That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n any of the cases did you have a shorthand
reporter, or anyone take notes so that when the interpreter said t o
yon "His answer is thus and so," the shorthand reporter could make
notes on it ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. NO, sir. Whenever-
Senator MCCARTHY.I want to get this pinned down. T h a t is i n
direct conflict with Bailey's story.
Do you know if any of the other interrogators followed that practice ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. They might have occasionally, but the practice they
followxl was the same as mine.
91765--49-10
Senator MCCARTHY.Your story is that you never did have a short-

hand reporter in the cell to take notes.
Mr. E L ~ w INo. ~ .
Senator MOCARTHY. What would you do; did you make notes
yourself?
Mr. ELL OW IT.^. Yes, sir; where that part of the statemem+ became
vital, and it was very slow, I took all notes of everything that was
mid a t that particular time.
Senator MCCARTHY. And did you take verbatim notes?
Mr. ELLOMTZ. On the vital matters, practically verbatim.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou know Bai1,ey ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.
I just know him from my association with hi111
over there.
Senator MOCARTHY. HOW well do you know him?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Very well.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUknow him very well?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.We xere good friends.
Senator MCCARTHY. Working together ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.
Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. And finally he quit ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Well, he didn't quit. H e couldn't very well quit.
H e had a 2-year contract, and in order to go home and not pay his
passage, he had to be released. and several times I remember he coin-
plained to Major Fanton that he wasn't doing the wol-k that he Ilad
agreed to perform for the Army, and unless he received-
Senator MCCARTHY. Speak louder.
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Unless he received a new assignment, he wanted
Fanton to intercede for him to have the Army release him from the
contract, and Fanton went to Wiesbaden one time to see Colonel
Ellis to have him released, but they were so short of typists that it
was 2 or 3 months after that before he was released.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWmany of these shorthand reporters or
typists did you have?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. We didn't have many; I think four. I believe we
had four.
Senator MCCARTHY. Four typists.
Mr. ELLOWITZ. They were all court reporters.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did any of those court reporters go into the
cells at the time of the interrogation and take shorthand notes?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.The interrogations I took-I think I can state cate-
gorically-never.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOW many did i t ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.Thon and Perl-generally they followed the same
practice I did. Whether they did on occasions use a court reporter,
I couldn't say.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwere there during all of the interroga-
tions ?
Mr. ELIAIWITZ.Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.NOW,do you know anything about the threats
to take the ration cards from the accused, or allything like that?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY.
The report made by the Army group has this
to say:
It is alleged that representatives of the prosecution threatened harm to rela-
tives of the accused if they did not confess, such as deprivation of ration cards.
There was evidence that this did occur. The board flnds it probable in certain
instances such threats may have been made, but the board is unable to identify
the particular instances involved.
Now, do you know whether that is true, or whether the Army board
is mistaken. bn't%at ? .'
Mr. E m w m z . I don't know if the Army board is mistaken, but I
know in my case that I never used those threats and I never heard of
them being used.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay that you never laid a hand on a de-
fondant a t a11?
Mr. ELMWITZ.That is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou know anything about the claim that-
I will read from the Army report:
Corroborating the claims of the various accused as to physical violence, there
is the affidavit of Dr. Knorr, the dentist at Schwabisch Hall, that he treated 15
or 20 of the suspects for injuries of the mouth and jaw, apparently inflicted by
blows.
Had you heard about that claim?
Senator MCCARTHY. When did you first know that there was a claim
that some of the men had suffered injuries to their mouths ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. That particular claim, the first time I heard it was
when I read it at the Army board's hearing.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwere in court during the trial?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Tell me this, then. Did anyone ever tell the
court that any physical violence was ever used on the defendants?
I n other words, was the court ever informed that any physical vio-
lence was used?
Mr. EUOWITZ. The court was informed at the time a few of the ac-
cused took the stand on direct examination, by their counsel.
Senator MCCARTHY.Informed by the accused?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. By the accused.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWabout the prosecution staff? Did the
prosecution staff ever tell the court that any physical violence was
ever used?
Mr. E ~ W I T Z No,. sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did the prosecution staff ever.admit that there
was a threat to take the ration cards away from the families in order
to get the confession?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. They did not.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did the prosecution staff ever tell the court
whether or not mock trials or schnell procedures were used?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. And did the prosecution-I assume this is all
in the record, isn't it?
Mr. E ~ ~ o w r r Yes,
z . sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And did the prosecution tell the court that the
defendant was led to believe that he was being actually tried, and that
in at least some instances he believed that he had been convicted? Was
the cpurt ever told t h a t ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. NO; the court was told by witnesses of the prosecu-
tion exactly what occurred at the Schnell procedure, without elabo-
rating on what the defendants thought was happening.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n view of the conflict as to what did occur,
how f a r the mock trials went, there is a claim, as you probably know,
that after the mock trials a man was convicted and he was sentenced
to be hung a t sunrise-these were in the affidavits which I am sure
you have seen-that then the friend of the accused, or defense attor-
ney, whatever you might call him, would go to his cell and say, in ef-
fect, "I will get you 08with 5 or 10 years if you will sign a confession
showina ou are guilty and also implicating other men we want t o
eonvict.977
This is the claim-at this time I don't know whether it is true o r
n o t b u t that is the claim that is made, but they came back with a
signed confession, whether he was guilty or innocent. Also, he was
told that his family would get their ration cards back.
Was the court told-in that respect, how f a r did you tell them you
went in the mock trials?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Well, as far as I know, the accused was never told
that it was a mock trial, and the court was told just what we knew
and what we observed, ourselves.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was the court told that the accused was taken
into a room at night, and that there would be a table with a crucifix
with candles on the table; so far, was the court told that?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. There are two or three different questions there.
Can I answer each separately?
Senator MCCARTHY. I wish you would.
Mr. ELLOWITZ. They were never told, there wasn't a man brought in
at night, so the court wasn't told that.
Senator MCCARTEIY. I am not speaking of that. I am asking what
the court was told.
Let me take it piece by piece.
Was the court told that in the room in which the defendant would
be tried, where he mould be subjected to the schnell proceedings, that
there was a table with religious articles, and a black cloth on i t ; was
the court told that?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. I can't remember exactly the trial record, but I
am quite sure the court was told that.
Senator MCCARTHY. And was the court told that behind the table
would sit men who were posing as judges?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. They were told men were sitting there, but the men
e
did not actual1 pose as judges.
Senator Mc 'IARTI-IY. Was the court told that they were posing as
judges?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. The court was not told that they were.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Was the court told that the accused was led
to believe that he was actually being tried?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. NO; the court was not told that. The court was told
exactly what occurred.
WIALMEDY MASSACRE IXVESTIGATION 143
Senator MCCARTHY.Was the court told that in some instances the
accused uaderstood he had been convictecl Was the court told t h a t ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. NO; the court was not.
Senator MCCARTHT.Let me read you this, and if this is an incorrect
~ t a t e m e n tof how the mock trials were conducted, I wish you would
tell me in what respect i t is incorrect, this is the Army's report, you
unclerstand. Paragraph 11:
Mock trials: After the trial the prosecution admitted and the board finds in
t h e evidence before i t , t h a t in certain instances, probably about 8 or 10, the use
of a so-called mock trial was resorted to in a n attempt to "soften up" a witness
who was thought to be susceptible to such procedure. Those trials were held at
Schwab~schHall i n one of the cells, sometimes a small cell about 6 by 8 feet,
somrtimes in a larger room two or three tirnes t h a t size. There would be a
table COT ered with a black cloth 011 which -toad a cruclfir and burning candles
a n d behind which sat one or more people impersonating jndges.
NOW,is that correct?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. That is not correct ; no.
Senator MCCARTIIY.This statement says :
The prosecution admitted and the board finds-
You are not part of the prosecution that admitted t h a t ?
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUsay if the prosecutioil admitted that, they
a r e i n error and not telling the t r u t h ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.I don't recall the prosecution admitting that people
were impersonating judges.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUsay no one ever impersonated a judge i n
this case. I n other words. did or did not one sit behind the table and
impersonate a judge? I wish you would weigh your answer very
carefnlly. I don't want you to have something go on the record you
d l have to correct later.
M r . ELLOWITZ. In the case I observed, the procedure I observed, I
believe there r e r e two men sitting behind the table.
Mr. ELLOWITZ. They certainly didn't act as any judges.
Senator MCCARTHY.They may not have acted as judges, I concede
that ; but did they attempt to impersonate judges?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.I don't know. T h a t is very difficult to answer. I
don't knom what you mean by impersonating judges.
Senator M C ~ I ~ R T HIS T .i t your opinion that there is a n attempt, or
was an attempt to make the accused believe that he mas actually being
tried. in other words, this was his trial?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. I n my opinion, the accnsecl didn't think h e was being
tried.
Senator MCCARTIZY. D Oyou lmow whether or not that was the pur-
pose of the mock trial? Was that the purpose 'of the crucifix and
t h e canclles and the men iinpersonating judges; was i t their purpose
t o make the accused believe that he was being actually tried?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.The purpose was not to make him actually believe h e
was on trial for the crime he cominitted. The purpose .was to have
him believe that he was a t a rery, very formal and solemn hearing, a
further interrogation, that i t Tvas something higher than the informal
interrogation that he had been accustomecl to.
Senator MCCARTHY.
Let me read this, to see if this is correct :
When the prisoner was brought into the mock trial room sometimes other
people were brought in who purported to testify against him. There i s no evi-
dence on which the board can find t h a t the prisoner himself mas forced to testify
a t such trial. One member of the prosecution team would play t h e part of
prosecutor and another would act a s a friend of t h e defendant. While this
latter may have been not held out affirmatively a s defense counsel the accused
had every reason to believe he was taking t h a t part.
I n your opinion, is that correct or incorrect, i t specifies there "that
part"?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. That part is correct, where witnesses mere purported
to appear against him.
Senator MCCARTHY. I mill read that one sentence, see if this is
correct :
While this latter may have been not held out affirmatively a s defense counsel
the accused had every reason to believe he was taking t h a t part.
I s that correct ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.Well, in the one case I was an observer at, to me it
didn't seem possible for an accused to believe that the man that was
taking his part had been-
Senator BALDWIN.I am willing to have you conduct as long an ex-
amination as you want, but in the lilterest of time it should appear for
the benefit of the record that this witness never said at any time he took
any part in these mock trials, and I think he said he observed one, and
you are questioning him on the basis of a report made by the Army,
which apparently is a summation of the testimony of a lot of wit-
nesses who saw all of the details of this thing. I don%want to protect
the witness. H e doesn't need my protection. He is testifying and
the gentleman is telling the truth as much as he can, but I am wonder-
ing if we are helping the case any by trying to interrogate him on
the basis of something that he obviously testified he doesn't know
about, because he hasn't said that.
You are reading to him the full purport of this whole report, and
he says that he only observed this thing once or twice a t the most,
and never took any part in it.
Senator MCCARTHY. There is only one thing which I claim to have,
an unimpeachable memory when I am examining a witness. I will
buy the chairman the best steak dinner he can order if I am not correct
that this witness told us that the court was told exactly how the mock
trials were condncted, given the details of how mock trials were
conducted. I f he knows, if that isn't true, if this witness doesn't
know how a mock trial was condnctecl, then he can't tell me that the
court was given the information, he was making a mistake-
Senator BALDWIN.YOUare asking the question whether or not this
witness-you are asking of the witness whether or not the court was
told how the mock trial was conducted, and he said that the court
was so told. Now, you are questioning him as to whether or not all
of these details were part of a mock trial or part of t,hings told the
court.
Senator MGCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, if the accused tells me the
court was told how a mock trial was conducted, then I want to know
whether or not he knows how i t was. For example, one of the im-
portant things in a mock trial was whether or not, No. 1,whether the
accused was led to believe he was actually being tried ; No. 2, whether
there was a conviction; No. 3-
The CHAIRMAN. TOget my point across, suppose you were down in
the courthouse, and a witness was on the witness stand and describ-
ing an automobile accident which yo11 had never seen. Wouldn't you
be able to say that the witness described the automobile accident, even
though you had never seen it ?
As I understand it, that is what this witness said, these mock trials
were described to the conrt, but his personal knowledge of how they
were conducted is limited to one or two times that he happened to
observe it.
I want to give you every latitude I can, but it does seem to me that
we are wasting time here on this thing.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask the witness then-do you know
whether or not the court mas actually and trnthfully told how the
mock trials were conducted?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. ,4s I recall the record now, at this time, the court
was told.
Senator MCCARTHY. Well, nox-, let me ask you this: Do you know
of your own knowledge how any of the other six or eight mock trials
were conducted, how any in which yc~udid not take part-
Mr. ELLOWITZ. I can't say, of my own knowledge.
Senator MCCSRTHY.DOyou have any way of knowing whether the
conrt was properly informed as to how those mock t r i d s were con-
ducted ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. I was there at one and took part in discussions wibh
the other interrogators, the way in which they were done.
Senator MCCARTHY. Yon claim to know how the mock trials were
conducted ?
Mr. Euowrrz. Not from my own personal observation.
Senator &CARTHY.I n view of the fact that you don't know from
from your own personal observation how they were conducted, I would
like to know what the court was told about the mock trial? Can you
tell me that? Can you tell me what the court was told?
Mr. E L L O ~ TI Z . tell you exactly.
can
Senator MCCARTHY. I am going to ask yo11 this question: Do you
know whether or not the court was told that a friend of the d e f e n d a n t
using the language of the report-do you know ~ d ~ e t h or e r not the
he had a defense counsel ?
Mr. ELLOTV~TZ.
.
accused was given every reason to believe that at the mock trials that
I don't think the court was told that.
Senator MCCARTHY. You don't think the court was told that?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. NO.
Senator MCCARTIIY. DOyou know whether or not the court was told
that behind a table would sit men impersonating judges?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.I am sure that the court was told that there wero
. - sitting behind tables, but I don't recall that they were acting as
men
judges.
Senator MCCARTIIY.DOyou h o w whether or not the court was told
that in some cases the defendant understood he had been convicted?
Mr. E m w r r z . The court was not told that.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was not ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. I am quite sure.
146 M'ALMEDY MASSACRE IXVESTIGATION
-- Senator
. MCCARTHY. I don't think I have any f u ~ t h cpestions,
e~ Mr.
Chairman.
Senator BALDWIN.I want to read to you, Mr. Ellowitz, from the
affidavit of Heinz Hofman, which appears to be signed February 11,
1948.
Do you remember Heinz Hofman?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. I recall, if he is the person I have i n mind.
M y first interrogation by Mr. Ellowitz and Mr. K~rchbaum,a t 0900 honrs on
March 14 went like this: A black hood coreling 1 1 1 ~head I was talien from my
solitary ceIl to an interrogation cell. Haviug take!i inr personal data I was
promised that I would be taken back to Heilbronn, iinmediately, if I would say
who had given me the order a t Stoumont, Belgium, to fire a t prisoners of war.
Since I am not aware of any guilt, I clenied this accusation. I n spite of various
promises and threats which I had to undergo, I could not be moved to deviate
from actual facts which were there. Never in my life have I shot a prisoner or
mistreated any one. A short time later First Lieutenant Per1 entered the inter-
rogation cell and indentified hlmself as mg defense counsel. When good words
on his part did not help him to gain a n 1 confession fiwm me regarding the
accusations, he slapped me in the face three or four times \ n t h his fist and when
I put my hands in front of my face, he ordered me to stand a t attention. While
h e was beating me with his fists in the abdomen, just as many times.. When this
did not help, he tried promises and threats again. H e said literally a democracy
such as the United States represents does not care to deprive us innocent men of
our lives but i t desires the big shots such as Pieper and Sepp Dietrich. I!€ I
would not admit ever having shot and killed then I would be hanged ; this could
be done without trouble since none of my relatives knew where I was a t the
time and furthermore, my relatives mould lose all their food ration cards and
thus die of hunger. I then had to state under oath that I had never lweived
a n order to fire a t prisoners of war but I could not add that never in my life had
I fired a t any, et cetera. .The interrogation encled a t 1200 honrs noon, under all
sorts of name-calling and threats.
The lunch I received was taken away by Mr. Ellowitz and I was locked into the
death cell. I had to put all of my clothes, except my trousers and socks and
underwear, outside of the door so that I onlg possessed one thin blanliet during
the night with which to cover myself on the cold wooden bunk. At 1400 hours,
Mr. ICirchbanm returned, called me names, and threatened me with hanging if I
would not admit. H e pushed me into a corner and once more beat me in the
abdomen with his fists several times. Subsequently Mr. Ellowitz appeared and
asked me for my last wish because I would be hanged within 24 hours. After a
night most frightful to me I was taken out next to be interrogated for the second
time. hut there I remained steadfast in spite of name calling and thrdats, com-
rades of my company were confronted with me who wanted to have seen that
I had fired.
,4fter a few questions, however, which I was allowed to ask them, it became
obvious to me that they were only saying these things for the sake of improving
their present existence. When I was taken back to the death cell after about a n
hour I beseeched Mr. Ellowitz, while moaning loudly, to take me out of here,
saying that I %yould sign everything he would request of me. Immediately
cigarettes were offered to me and I wrote the statement which was being dictated
to me by Mr. Ellowitz and which masjntroduced a s proof in the trial but which
never corresponds with the truth.
I felt myself humiliated physically and mentally to such a n extent that I was
capable of doinrr anything onlg to h d peace; my statement came into being in
that fashion. This sworn statement is to serve before courts and authorities.
And that is signed by Heinz Hofman.
Can you tell us about that 1
Mr. ELLOWITZ. I believe I remember that man.
That is not true. Heinz Hofman was not with the original group
brought t o Schwabisch Hall. We obtained statements from two mem-
bers of his tank crew who had involved themselves with the mnrders of
M A L A ~ E D ? MASS.%CRE INVESTIGATION 147
some Americans, and they stated that they did so under the instigation
of Heinz Hofman who also fired upon the group.
A search was made for Heinz Hofman, and he was finally located
several weeks later. When he was brought into the prison a t Schwa-
bisch Hall, lie was immediately confronted personally, by two of the
men of his tank crew, who told the story to him substantially as they
had written it.
I t was only a very short time after that, that Heinz Hofman agreed
that the facts were substantially correct i n their statements, and he
made his statement.
Senator BALDWIX.Was he one of the men that was convicted, d o
yon recall ?
Mr. ELWWITZ.Yes ; lie mas convicted. They were, all.
Senator BALDWIN.And ordered executed?
a h . ELLOWITZ. 1don't know if he was.
Senator BALDWIN.H e got life imprisonmeiit ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. H e got life.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you have anything further you want to say
with reference to that ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.I don't recall much more about that particular man,
because I know I didn't spend much time with him a t all.
Senator BALDWIN.Did YOU see Mr. Kirchbaum hit him, or clicl yo11
a t any time hit him ?
Senator BALDWIN.Let me reacl yon one more.
This is from Hails Pletz.
How would you say that 8
Mr. ELLOWITZ. It is prono~~nceclP-1-e-t-x.
Senator BALDWIN.This statement is signed here, on the 22d of

January 1948.
I was taken to the prison a t Schwabisch Hallvon December 5, 1945. My first
interrogation took place on December 16, 1045, and was carried out by Mr.
Ellowitz and an interpreter who is unknown to me. This interrogation lasted
approximately 10 minutes. From December 18, 1945, to March 5, 1946, I stayed
a t ICronwestheim Internment Camp, and a t the 137 camp of Heilbronn 0 1 1
March 5, 1946, I was again returned to Schwabisch Hall and there I was in-
terrogated anew on March 14. The interrogating officer was Mr. Ellowitz,
together with Mr. Kirchbauin a s interpreter. Rlght away during the first few
1111nntesI mas called a mean liar and murderer by Nr. Kirchbaum, braten i n
the face and abdomen by him, and kicked with his knee into the genitals aud
spat into the face several times by him. When I gave the assurance that I
would answer a s f a r a s my power everything I was being asked, the) wanted to
know what I knew in the way of criminal orders a n a deeds, i s regards my com-
pang. Since I knew nothing of this I was supposed t o write down under oath
t h a t I knew of no criminal orders. I did so after I had been told several times
t h a t United States law calls for a death penalty upon committing a perjury.
After I had written this down I was shown a written statement of my company
conlinancler which said among other things t h a t he had held a speech to his
company before the beginning of the offensive in which he had said t h a t our
attack was to be preceded by a wal-e of terror and horror and t h a t no pric-oilers
mere to be talien. I was then renlmded t h a t my life rested solely within the
hands of Mr. Ellowitz but t h a t he had no intention a t all of saving me from
the gallows by tearing up my statement if I would continue to lie in such a hard-
boiled manner. On the other hancl I was definitely prolnisecl t h a t I would be
released immediately if I should tell them of only one case in which a United
States prisoner of mar had been shot, even if I had shot them myself and on
orders. Since I could not do this I was told t h a t my parents would no longer
receive their food-ration cards because of my being so hard-boiled. Mr. Thon

then entered the room and hit me with his fist on my left eye so h a r d t h a t i t
kept on watering for hours. H e then told me if I would not answer his questions
b y saying "Yes" I would die without recourse.
senator MCCARTHY. I wonder how you would "die without re-
course"?
Senator BALDWIN
( continuing) :
This question a s well a s which concerned another accused, I could only answer
in the negative whereupon Lieutenant Perl declared t h a t he would have to refuse
taking orer my defense while I was continuing to lie to United States otficials
and officers, after the interrogation which lasted about 2 hours.
That section right there doesn't pertain to Mr. Ellowitz, so I will go
further on down.
Whenever Mr. Ellowitz and Mr. Kirchbaum happened to be in my cell while
t h e food was being issued, they would take my food away from me. The latter
said to me: "When you will hardly be able to stand up on your legs because of
hunger and weakness then you will be just strong enough to climb the steps to
t h e gallows." At that time men were being shown to me, several times, who had
already written statements of some soft and who described t o me how well they
were faring since then. I was about to invent some kind of a story only to get
out of this terrible position. Due to my lack of experience in trial and judicial
affairs, I believe a t every approaching step t h a t the frightful threats would now
be realized and t h a t the hour had come. It is impossible to tlescribe these
psychic conditions after Lieutenant Per1 had come to my cell one night----
That doesn't pertain to you, either.
That is all that is mentioned in this affidavit about you.
Do you remember this man a t all?
Mr. EL LO^. I do.
Senator BAWWIN.What can you tell us about him, in connection
with this claim ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. I can only state that those statements in the affidavit
are not true. I don't think Pletz ever made a cclnfession or statement
of any kind. L
Pletz, I recall now, he was a very intelligent boy, and I think it mas
Pletz who at one time during the interrogation did state that he was
not going to say a word because he h e w in a democracy, in a demo-
cratic procedure you must be tried before a jury and you must have
clef ense counsel.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever strike him?
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever take his food away?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.
NO, sir.
We had no charge of food there at all.
Senator BALDWIN.What?
Mr. E ~ m w r r z .We had no charge of the food at all. The German
internees served the food to the prisoners.
Senator BALDWIN.I think that is all.
Do you have any questions, Senator Hunt?
Senator HUNT.I will ask three, it will only take a minute, Mr.
Chairman.
I will ask the witness if he noticed any show of remorse or regret
among the SS troops over the act that had taken place, and what
they were being tried for, the crime they were being tried f o r ?
Mr. ELLOWITZ. For the most part, they did not; and some of them,
I recall in the beginning, when the case first began to break did state,
or words to this effect: that thev did not take part in anv shooting and
rhey did, or were sworn to secrecy about a, but they were damned if
they were going to stay in jail until the case was broken, to protect
other people.
And, I recall, they told us stories of one fellow who a t the Malmedy
Crossroads was ordered to shoot and refused to do it, and he was
threatened with court-martial procedings for failure to obey orders.
Senator HUNT.These affidavits apparently have been made from
2 to 3 years following the massacre, and quite some time following
the end of the trial.
Are you of the opinion that these affidavits now are made primarily
to attempt to save their necks, so to speak?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.Definitely ; I am convinced as to that.
Senator HUNT. Did YOU think that these affidavits are of their own
wording, of their own initiative, or do you think that they had been
coached in preparing these affidavits to some extent 1
Mr. ELLOWITZ. It w o ~ l dbe very difficult for me to answer that be-
cause I have only read several of them.
Senator HONT.That is all I have.
Senator BALDWIN. Any questions?
Senator MCCARTHY. 1 have one that I would like to ask this man,
or some subsequent witness.
I will ask you the question, and if you don't have the information,
we mill save it until we get someone on the stand that can answer.
Am I correct that after conviction and after the sentencing of the
73 defendants that a review board of 2 officers went over the cases and
made recommendations, found that in some cases there should not be
a finding of guilt, that the evidence wasn't such; that then those 2
officers were dlscllarged and a new board was appointed of 4 officers?
Let me ask you are you aware of that situation?
Mr. E ~ W I T ZI .am aware of the reviews of the case.
Senator AICCARTHY. Then. I will follow up-then that the four
officers were appointed, and that they made further recommendations
cutting down sentences and inserting in some cases a recommendation
for a certain number of years in lieu of the death penalt and the
J'
recomnlendations as to guilt of or innocence of the defen ants were
such that those four were then discharged and that then one of the
reporters, a lady reporter who had a legal background, was asked to
review the cases and she refused and asked to be relieved of duty?
Do you know anything about that, and finally Colonel Dustan re-
viewed them.
Mr. ELLOWITZ.NO; I am not aware of that.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdon't know that?
Mr. ELLOTYITZ. NO; I just know that there was a review.
Senator MCCARTHY. Who was the man who would give the infor-
mation?
Colonel ELLIS. Colonel Straight, or General Harbaugh will give
you the details.
Senator RIGCARTHY. Mav I ask, Colonel Ellis, whether or not that
is substantially true?
Colonel ELLIS. I am not familiar with the reviews whatsoever.
They stayed away from me,.
Senator MGCARTHY. After the conviction, that ended your connec-
tion ?
Colonel ELLIS.That is right; I had no more interest in it.
Senator MCCARTHP.I wonder if 7'011, Colonel. over here could tell.
Colonel RAYMOND. There was a reviev by Colonel Straight and
some other officers; I thinli i t is an exhibit to our report. There mas a
further review later on, by a boarcl in Colonel Harbaug1;ll's office. T h a t
is all in our recorcl and, in Harbaugli's filial report to Clay.
Senator MCCARTHY.An1 I correct-I may be incorrect: I don't
have any staff of investigators; all I do is get reports mostly from in-
terested parties, so all I can do is ask questions of you gentlemen
about tlienl-am I correct that first there was a review by two officers,
and they made a recoi~liiieiiclatioiinot in line with the action of the
trial boarcl. No action was taken upon tliose recomnlendations but
those two officers were disinissed and a new board of four officers was
appointed; that those four officers also niacle recommendation^ tliat
x-ere conipletely out of line with the action taken by the court ; a i d ,
that tliose four officers were then clisnlissed; and then, there ~ a a s
request that a l m y e r who was a reporter, a lady, conduct the reviews
and she refused and aslcecl to be clischarged and was cliscliarged ancl
came hoine ancl Colonel Dunstan ( 2 ) , 1~110had been in charge of the
prosecution, a t one of the other cases, colducted the review.
Coloilel Rarnro~D.I never heard that before.
Senator MCCARTHY.His revien- was made a part of the-
Colonel RAYMOND. The only review we had was signed by Colonel
Straight, and I believe Mr. R e p o l d s , a i d a couple of others.
Senator MCCARTHY.Could yo11 check on tliat matter for u s ?
Senator BALDWIS. T4Toulclyon be satisfied with a checlc b e t ~ ~ e enow
ii
and tlie next hearing? We ant to close this hearing toclay.
Colonel RAYMOND. The review was signed by Reynolds, aid ap-
proved by Straiglit. That is hat this one has.
Senator BALDWIN.Are there any further questions?
Senator McCartliy, do you have further?
Senator MCCARTHY.I w o ~ l c llike to sap this to this witness. aiicl
this applies tc- a l l of the men who were coilcluctiilg this case out there:
I hope you clon't iilisunclerstand our questions as an indication you
tliiiik you are guilty of any charge that has been made. These are
very, very serious charges, some of them, and we have no choice what-
s o e ~ ~ except
er to run thein down. I certainly hope it is proven that
you fellows aln-ays conducted yourselres properly and we meted out
a good brand of American justice.
A t this time I have very serious reason to doubt that that is tlie sit-
uation, in view of the report, the unbiased group report of the Simp-
son-Van Roden committee.
Let me repeat, I seriously hope tliat none of you consiclers the clues-
tioiling as an indication that TT-ethiiili you are guilty or innocent in
the affair.
For all I know, yon ma!- 1lal-e clone an o~~tstancling job, and I hope
tlie proof is ultiniately to that effect.
Mr. ELLOWITZ. You understand. I n-onlcl like to sag that we bent
over backward in inany cases, spent lots of time traclcing down false
accusations nlade by some SS liien ; gaiu ,: othcr SS inen. 1.1 fact
that took most of our time.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me ask a question there. Yon raised a point,
Mr. Ellowitz, that I think is significant or iiiiportant. When yo^ got
a statement from one SS trooper that involved another SS trooper's
participation in this thing-
M A L ~ I E D T MASSACRE 1x1-ESTIGATION 151
Mr. ELLOWITZ.Tes.
Senator BALDWIN.Dicl you seek corroborative testimony of that
statelllent?
Mr. ELLOWITZ.W e certain1)- did. W e not only sought i t froin the
other SS men, but we sought i t froni Army files, to cliscorer if any
bodies n-ere fouiid in that particular area: sought to iincl the oorpus
clelicti of the crime.
I know of sel-era1 cases that I interrogatecl, i n 11-hicli inen had volnn-
tarily made statements t h a t they had shot Americans a t Malinecly.
and there was no other testiiiioliy except their on-n statement, and
after a good deal of interrogation they would finally admit that they
lilacle the statement t h a t way became they were told by other prisoners
t h a t if they made a statement. they could go home.
Senator BALDWIN.I11 other worcls, when stateilients were macle, you
clieckecl up to determine n-hether or not the soldier was shot a t that
articular place.
Mr. ELLOWITZ. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIX.And finding none. m-oulcl you again confront the
fellon- :and he would admit that he inncle tlle statelllent i n order to
get out. ?
,Mr. ELLOWITZ.T h a t is riglit.
Senator BALDWIX.I n ot6er worcls, i n an hlnerican court, a con-
f ession is used t o check up .on the accusecl.
Mrt ELLOWITZ. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.A n d you so~zglitto corroborate the acliilissioi~s
that were made i n the confessions. Was that proceclnre follomecl i n
this case?
Mr. ELWWITZ. Ires, sir.
I don't think there were any accused 117110 were iilclicted merely oil
his ow11 unsupported statement.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask Colonel Ellis to do something, not
todax. but to brmg ~t i n and aiiswer tomorrow, o r some other time-I
would like to have the colonel. preferably a t the nest hearing, tell us
if he can under 11-11at terms and conditions if anv American serrices
held it W:LS proper to destrov prisoners. llToulcl$oli follow m e ?
Colonel ELLI~. TVhat ?
Senator MCCARTHY. I n7ant to li110~-from 3 ou 11hetlier uilcler any
cwcmnstances tlle Army, Kaj-y. or Marine Corps has held that it is
proper to lzill prisoners, m c l if so. I 117a11t to know lmlder v h a t con-
ditions tlle services feel that is proper.
D o you follow me-under tlie rilles of warfare.
Colonel ELLIS. I believe so.
Senator B A L D ~ SDo . you INT-en11y further questions.
Senator MCCARTHT.No.
Senator BALDWIS.Mr. Ellowitz, we thank you for coming.
We will adjourn for a week, because of the pressure of other t h i i i ~ s
rhat we have to attend to; so. the nest meeting of this c o i i ~ m i t t ~~7111
e
)re a week from today, in this room at 10 o'clock.
Senator McC IRTHY. Will you surnnloiis Mr. Bailey.
Mr. CEIAMBFRS. 311.. Bailev d l not be here until tlie second hfoil-
clap. The next meeting mill be on the seconcl, but Judge S i m ~ s o nand
Judge Van Roclen are the witnes>es for nest Friday.
(Wlierenl~on.a t 4 : 30 p. ni.. tlie hearing in the abore-entitled n ~ a t t e r
stood in recess until 10 a. 111.. Friclay. April 29, 1949.)
MALMEUY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
FRIDAY, APRIL 29, 1949
UNITEDSTATES
SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE SERVICES,
ON SRMED
O F THE COMMITTEE
Washington,D.0.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, a t 10 : 20 a. m., i n
room 212, Sentlte Office Building, Senator Raymond E. Baldwin,
presiding.
Present : Senators Baldwin (presiding) and Hunt.
Also present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, and J. M. Chambers of
the committee staff.
Senator BALDWIN.Will the meeting be in order.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Mr. Chairman,"before you call any witnesses,
I have a letter here which I would like to read into the record-one
paragra h of this letter.
k
My o ce got a call from Mr. Teil, who is a student over a t the
Washington and Jefferson College, and he said he had information
which he thought would be of value to the committee, and when asked
what it was he said he was one of the investigators in the area, that
the first day he came on duty Mr. Ellis did tell him not to beat any of
the prisoners. But when he was being shown around by Mr. Thon
he was shown one of the death cells and one of the men was lying
unconscious on the floor with a black bloody hood over his head and
he asked Mr. Thon who this man was and Mr. Thon said he was one
of the men who had just finished his interrogation; and he said he
would be glad to come down and testify.
So that there is no mistake, he said Mr. Ellis had told him not to
beat anybody up.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you know about what the date of that was,
Senator ?
Senator MCCARTHY. I do not know.
Senator BALDWIN.The date of that occasion. Would you like to
call him as a witness?
Senator BALDWIN.Why do we not qall him as a witness?
Senator MCCARTHY. Also, Mr. Chairman, I have been getting a tre-
mendous flood of mail on this from men in that area. The two men
who are mentioned most and referred to as sadistic, were accused of
most of the beatings, are a man named Per1 and Thon.
I think both those men should definitely be here, regardless of how
far we have got to go for them.
Senator BAWWIN.We have them, Senator, on the list of witnesses
to be called now.
153
Mr. CHAMBERS. Dr. Per1 is scheclulecl to appear on AIay 4. I will

have to check, but I believe Tho11 is in Germany, but he is definitely
on the list of witnesses we will have.
Senator MCCARTHY.They seem to be, from all the inforination I
get, the prime offenders.
Senator BALDWIX.Now, in connection with Mr. Bailey's testimony,
have 37011 the letter, the original letter, because that was put in the
record ?
Senator MCCARTHY.I do not know if I have it.
Senator BALDWIN.I w0~11cllike to have hi111 iclentifiecl.
Senator MCCARTHY.I do not think I ha\-e the original letter.
Senator BALDWIN. Mr. Bailey, will you stand up. - Do you solenlnly
swear that the testimony you are about to gire in the matter now
i n question shall be the truth, the w11ole truth, and nothing but the
trnth, so help you God?
Mr. BAILEY. I do.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. BAILEY, PITTSBURGH, PA.
Senator B A L D ~ I NW. h a t is your full name, Mr. Bailey?
Mr. BAILEY.James .J. Bailey.
Senator BALDWIN.Where do yon live 8
Mr. BAILEY. 3573 Shadelancl Avenue, Northside, Pittshnrgh.
Senator MCCARTHY.Before Mr. Bailey starts to testify, 1 wot~ld
like t o tell yon that I appreciate very much your writing me and giving
me the information.
Mr. BAILEY. Are you Senator McCarthy?
Senator MCCARTHY.And f o r your willingness to come over here
to a pear.
3 81. BAILEY.I an1 glad to do it. I also want it unclerstoocl that
when I sent the letter to you.
" , I sent the exact letter t o the Secretary
of the Army.
Senator ~ICCARTHY. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.What is your business, Mr. Bailey?
Mr. BAILEY.I am a n official court reporter in the Allegheny County
court.
Senator BALDWIN.How long hare yon been a court reporter?
Mr. BAILEY. 28 years.
Senator BALDWIN.During the invest&ation of Malineclp illassacre
affair, were you attached to the Government, and, if not, would you tell
us what your capacity then was?
Mr. BAILEY.I was employed originally by the State Department.
That is with whom my contract was, and I reported in Wiesbaclen.
Germany, to the W a r Crimes, ancl I was assignecl as one of a team of
10 to-a team coasisting of three lawyers and four interpreters, an-
other reporter, and mvself.
Senator BALDWIN.Can you give us about the date of t h a t ? Not
the exact date, but the approximate date.
Mr. BAILEY.I think I can give you the exact date. We left Wies-
baden on December 26, 1945, and we reported a t Sch\\-abisch Hall the
next clay, December 27. T h a t ~ ~ o u lbe- cl
Senator BALDWIN.1945 ?
Mr. BAILEY.That is right.
Senator BALDWLN. m e n you reported a t Schwabisch Hall who was
the,officer to whom you reported? ,
Mr. BAILEY.Well, the team of nine of us left W a r Crimes head-
quarters in Wiesbaden together. We left in two vehicles. The man
supposedly in charge was a Maj. Dwight W. Fanton. H e was under
the jurisdiction of Lieutenant Colonel Ellis. Colonel Ellis at that
time was in charge of the pretrial work of the War Crimes Branch.
I believe that is correct.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,Mr. Bailey, do you see Colonel Ellis here?
Senator BALDWIN.That is the Colonel Ellis who testified?
Mr. BAIEEY.I have spoken to the colonel; when I came in.
Senator BALDWIN.Anc],you reported to Major Fanton, and Fan-
ton-
Mr. BAILEY.Fanton accompanied us. We all went down together.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUa11 went down together in a group.
Now, after you had reported to him, you were assigned to quarters,
I assume?
Mr. BAILEY.We all lived in the same quarters. I t was a very nice
building-the quarters were very nice-one of the finest houses in this
small town, I guess.
Senator BALDWIN. It was not within the confines of the prison?
Mr. BAILEY.NO; we reported a t the prison every morning approxi-
mately at 9 o'clock and left there abont 5 : 30 in the evening. We came
home for lunch every day.
Senator BALDWIN.And your duties in connection with this matter
mere what, Mr. Bailey?
Mr. BAILEY.Well, Imas employed as a shorthand reporter, but there
was not much of what I would call reporting done in Scliwabisch Hall.
Senator BALDWIN. I show you a copy of a letter, and I ask if you
can identify it.
Mr. BAILEY.I can, a n d that is a carbon copy of a letter I wrote to
the Honorable Joseph R. McCarthy, and an exact duplicate sent to
Iienneth L. Roya11, Secretary of the Army.
Senator BALDWIN, You sent a duplicate to the Secretary of the
Army ?
Mr. BAILEY.Well, I sent an original to both.
Senator BALDWIN.I see.
Mr. BAILEY.But the wording is exactly alike.
Senator BALDWIN. Was the one that you sent to the Secretary of -
Army-not that it matters particularly-was it one that was addressed
to him, or was it a copy?
Mr. BAILEY.I have a copy of both if you care to see them, a carbon
COPY.
Senator BALDWIN.It does not matter. This is the letter. I f you
&ant a copy to consult-
Mr. BAILEY.I have got a copy of tlqe letter in my pocket.
Senator BALDWIN. I was going to ask you some questions in connec-
tion-with it.
You say in the middle of the secoud paragraph of your letter :
The purpose of our being sent there-
91768-49-11
This is after you tell about going to Schwabisch Hall-

was to obtain confessions from prisoners and prepare pretrial data.
Do you want to enlarge upon that a little bit? Were those your
specific instructions ?
Mr. BAILEY.Well, that is the information I received. That was
the impression I got from Major Banton, who was, supposedly, in
charge of the team when we went down there.
Senator BALDWIN.Then, you say :
During my stay a t Schwabisch Hall t h e entire team spent %n arerage of about
8 hours per day in prison.
Senator BAWWIN.Then, you say :
During my 10-week stay I took in shorthand through the interpreters prac-
tically all of the so-called verbatim confessions of the prisoners and typewrote
a t least half of t h e translated longhand statements t h a t had been purportedly
made out by the prisoners. I still retain a considerable portion of my short-
hand notes.
Will you enlarge upon that a little bit? Tell us what the proced-
ures were, Mr. Bailey, and how you did it.
Mr. BAILEY. The procedure was: There were only two reporters on
a team, a Mr. Berg and myself. His first name was Signor, I believe.
H e had been in the United States Army, and, I understand, got his dis-
charge in Germany or at least in the'European srea and signed up as
a civilian employee.
He had a rating of a CA-8, and mine was CA-9; but Mr. Berg did
not want to go into the cells. As a matter of fact, he was perfectly
willing to do my typewriting if I would go into the cells, and that is
about how it worked out.
Senator BALDWIN.That is, you went iiito the cells and took the sten-
ography and he did the typing.
Mr. BAILEY.The arrangement was this: The interpreters or inves-
tigators, those who could talk German and translate it, they would
go in and interrogate the prisoners, and when they arrived at the point
where they felt the prisoner was ready to give a statement or a con-
fession they would come into the office where we were and would get
one of the lawyers and myself and we would go into a cell, probably
be in there a couple of minutes when an M P would walk in with the
prisoner who mas going to be interrogated, and he had a long gro-
tesque wrapper over him.
Senator BALDWIN. What is that?
Mr. B A ~ E YThere
. was a long grotesque wrapper-I do not know
how else to explain it.
Senator BALDWIN. A wrapper ?
Mr. BAILEY.I would call ~ta woman's wrapper, a sleeveless wrap-
per. It was tied around his neck, and there were no sleeves to it. It
hung down loose. I do not know how else to describe it.
Senator BALDWIN.Who would have that, the interpreter :l
Mr. BAILEY.The M P would bring the prisoner into the cell where
the lawyer and the interpreter and I were waiting for him. The M P
would simply deliver him into the cell. The interpreter would pull
a black hood off him and start interrogating him.
Senator BALDWIN.could you tell. us a little bit how the cell looked
and what the arrangements were i n the cell a t the time, if you remem-
A
hor 2
"
,, .
Mr. BAILEY.Well, the cells in this particular prison, the only one I
mas in, were )different from any cells in any prison I have seen in the
United States. There were no bars where the prisoners could look
throu h ;there was a solid door in front and solid on both sides ;small,
f
proba l y about 15 by 15, square inches, of window with bars in the
back; concrete floor, small table, and three or four wooden chairs.
Senator BALDWIN. On these occasions, would they have anything
on the table, the black cloth, or anything of that kind?
Mr. BAILEY.Not on all occasions. AS %matter of fact, if you are
referring to the crucifixion candles, if that is what you have in mind,
Senator=
Senator BALDWIN.Yes; that has been testified to before.
Mr. BAILEY. I f YOU care to see what I said in the letter on that. if
you want me to elakorate on it, I would be glad to do it.
Senator BALDWIN.Yes; I would like to have you do so, Mr. Bailey.
Mr. BAILEY.Well, on one occasion, after I had been there ~obably
d
3 or 4 weeks, there was a new man sent down; his name was teiner-
his first name was Frank. H e came down there as an interpreter,
and on this-I might, incidentally before I forget it, say that he
worked almost exclusively with this Lieutenant Per1 whom I heard
Senator McCarthy mention.
Well, on this particular occasion, Capt. Raphael Shumacker, who,
in my opinion, was the only experieneed lawyer on the team and the
only man who conducted a so-called faic investigation, but on this occa-
sion Captain Shumacker called me out and he called this Steiner out,
and we went into Major Fanton's offce, and he first administered an
oath to me, which was unusual, that I would well and truthfully tran-
scribe, and then he swore in Steiner as an interpreter, and then he
qualified him, as you would in any court in the United States as to his
ability to talk English; and I took his qualifications down in short-
hand.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me ask you a question right there.
You say before you started to transcribe any notes they administered
an oath to you that you would well and truly-
Mr. BAILEY.That is right. Before we ever saw who was going to
be interrogated.
Senator BALDWTN. Did they do that each time?
Mr. BAILEY.This was the first time, to my knowledge.
Senator BALDWIN. Did they do it after that?
Mr. BAILEY.Not to my knowledg! ; at least, I do not recollect them
ever doing it. They did administer ~tto the prisoners.
Senator BALDWIN.Did they administer an oath to the interpreter,
too ? 3
Mr. BAILEY.On this particular occasion. I had been there a t this

time probably 4 or 5 weeks-that is just more or less a guess-and when
!le swore the interpreter in and swore me in, and then interrogated the
~nterpretera s to his qualifications, I thought it was something a little
out of the ordinary, and that is the first time t h a t , J believe, it was-
the first time at Schwabisch Hall that they used a table with a black
cloth over it with a crucifix and two candles.
Senator BALDWIN.DO ,you know about what time this was, what
month ?
Mr. BAIILEY.I would say that was the v e v first week-the first 'of
February 1946.
Senator BALDWIN.And that was the first case that you dealt with?
Mr. BAILEY.That was not the first statement I had taken, by any
means. You see, it was a dail occurrence to bring every prisoner in
!i
with his black hood on him an a rope around his neck, and this cloak
around him. They were all brought in that way. I t was a regular
prpcedure. But that was the first time I had seen a table with a black
cloth over it and a crucifix with two candles, which would give you an
impression of a small altar in a church.
Senator BALDWIN.,Well; go on and describe to us how this confes-
sion, so-called, was taken.
Mr. BAILEY.On this particular occasion, we walked in the cell, and
when I saw that I said to Captain Shumacker, I said, "What the hell
is this?" I thought it was something out of the ordinwy coming off,
and he said, "That's 0. K.; wait a minute." So, in a matter of a
couple of minutes, one of the MP's brings the prisoner in with his reg-
ular dress, black hood, cloak, and a rope.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me ask you there-
Mr. BAILEY.Maybe I am talking too fast.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUcannot talk faster than a Senator, I do not
think. [Laughter.] But what I meant was: You said he had a black
hood on and a black wrapper you called it.
Mr. BAILEY.It was not black. This wrapper was mostly all colors.
It was white and red and green and everything else. If you have seen
a camouflaged battleship in the First World War, that is what this
wrapper mas like.
Senator BALDWIN.And you say it was sleeveless?
Mr. BAILEY.Yes ; sleeveless.
Senator BALDWIN.Tlzen, you spoke of the hood the prisoner had on,
a, black hood.
Mr. BAILEY.A black hood with no eyeholes in it at all. That was
the regular garb that they brought every prisoner in the cell with.
Senator BALDWIN.Tlzen, you mentioned a rope around the neck.
Tell us about the rope. What kind of a rope was it?
Mr. BAILEY.I would s?y a rope twice as thick as the ordinary clothes-
line, probably three-quarters of an inch in diameter. It was not tied
tight. It was not put around to choke him, or anything like that.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, m~o~dd you say that i t was like a hangman's
rope or would you say-
Mr. BAILEY.Exactly. .
Senator BALDWIN(continuing). Or would you say it was a rope to
tie the hood down so that it c o ~ ~not
l d be pulled off the head?
Mr. BAILEY.I tl~iillithe vhole garb was to have a psychological
effect on the prisoner; and outside of mental brutality, there was no
physical brutality attached to it.
Senator BALDWIN.How long would the rope be? Would i t hang
down-
Mr. B.AILEY.Oh, the M P who would bring him in would have hold
of the other end, probabl 3 feet in back of him. That would be
8
around his neck. The M would have to steer him in; he could not,
see where he mas going.
Senator BALDWIN.All right. Go on and tell us what happened
from then on.
Mr. BAILEY.I n this particular occasion when this prisoner came in,
Steiner, he jerked the hood off, and to my mind it looked like a kid
of about 15 or 16 years of age. The kid immediately-a boy-fell
flat on his face and his nose hit the concrete and it was bleeding. It
looked pretty flak t o me.
Senator BALDWIN.H e fell flat on his face?
Mr. BAILEY. Yes. I
Senator BALDWIN.You say he fell. Was he pushed - or shoved or

what?
Mr. BAILEY.NO; a t that time he was not touched. It looked to me
as if he took a look a t that crucifix and candles and just lost control
of himself and just fell. He was not pushed a t that time. But when
he fell and lay there, Steiner took his f o o t 1 won't say he kicked him,
but he pushed him over on his back and he pulled him up to his feet
and he said to Captain Shumacker, "He's faking." Well, they gave
him a couple of minutes to get his breath and get his bearings and
then Captain Shumacker interrogated him.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW, let me ask you this question: A t that
particular time, when you saw this prisonez, you said he fell on his
nose. Did he have a bloody nose?
Mr. BAILEY.Yes; very bloody, just like---
Senator BALDWIN.Other than that,, were there any bruises or marks
or anything of that kind on him ? ,
Mr. BAILEY.Well, all you could see was his face.
Mr. BAILEY.And-
Senator BSLDWIN.All right; go ahead, Mr. Bailey.
Mr. BAILEY.The only bruise or mark on his face was when his
nose contacted the concrete floor, and I took his statement, and I said,
"The hell with this stuff; I'm going to get out of here."
Senator BALDWIN. Well, tell us about taking the statement. How
did he give it? Was he questioned or how did he give it?
Mr. BAILEY. He was questioned and he was not touched. Captain
Shumacker handled him no differently than the average prosecuting
attorney would handle a witness on cross-examination. I will say
that for Captain Shumacker for any occasion I was with him. I
won't say that for any of the others.
H e took a statement-I can tell you this fellow's name. I think
his name was Gustav Neve, and he had been interrogated previously,
as Captain Shurnacker asked him if he had been in some other prison
by a gray-haired captain and he admitted he had, and they were try-
ing to get a confession from-this kid on which t o convict the com-
manding officer. I believe his name was Stivers.
Senator BALDWIN.Steiber-S-t-e-i-b-e-r ?
Mr. BAILEY.Stivers. H e was the commanding officer.
Senator BALDWIN.It was not Peiper, was it ?
31:. BAI: EY. Oh, 110; I can come to Peiper.
Senator BALDWIN.All right.
Mr. BAILEY.But that was the extent of it. The worst that Captain
Shumacker accused the kid of was lying, but there was no physical
abuse to him, outside of his falling on the floor and smashing his nose.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did I understand yon to say that Shumacker

was the one man who treated the men decently ?
Mr. BAILEY.I n mv " o~inion.I would sav he treated them better
A
than anybody else.

Senator BALDWIN.GO ahead and tell us what happened -- after that,
with this particular prisoner.
Mr. BAILEY.Well, they just took his statementoh, yes; and, nat-
urally, we got back to the office, and Fanton heard about the occasion;
Major Fanton heard about the occasion, and there was a Dr. Karen
from Brooklyn there waiting to get back to the States, and Major
Fanton asked him to go and take a look at this boy, and he did, and he
came back and reported to Major Fanton, he said, "The kid has got a
bad tickerv--meaning a weak heart. Butbe did not say there was any
immediate danger of him dying or he did not say that he had been
beaten up or anything.
Senator BALDWIN. Did Fanton ask him whether he had, in your
presence ?
Mr. BAILEY.Not in my presence, but the natural assumption was
that Captain Shumacker had mentioned it to Fanton.
Mr. BAILEY.And when the doctor came in, why, Fanton asked the
doctor to take a look at him.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, a t that particular time, Mr. Bailey, was
there any other thing, other than you have described-I mean about
the hood and being led in with a hood over his head and a rope around
his neck, which you have described, and the other part of the rope in
the hand of the MP-was there any 'physical abuse or threats or
violence of any kind ? I f there was, I wonld like to have you describe it.
Mr. BAILEY.The only physical abuse that I saw was by this Lieu-
tenant Perl.
Senator BALDTVIN. Well, now, speaking about this particular case-
and then I mas going to ask you about others. I n this particular case.
Mr. BAILEY.SOfar as I know, this was the end of thaf, particular
case. I never saw-I transcribed the statement.
Senator BALDTVIN. I n this particular case when the confession was
written out, was it in your presence read to the prisoner ?
Mr. BAILEY.NO; it never was.
Senator BALDWIN.How did the prisoner give it? Did he write
it himself, or did he answer questions, or how did he do i t ?
Mr. BAILEY.Well, I would say that in probably 60 percent of the
cases the confessions mere taken down in longhand by these inter-
preters. How they were gotten by them, I do not know. But when
they were translated into English by them, or one or the others, and
I typewrote them, I know there were additions and deleations and
alterations made in them.
Senator BALDWIN.This particular thing that you describe, was that
an occasion when they asked the prisoner to sign a confession or was
that an occasion when they got the statement or confession from the
prisoner ?
Mr. BAILEY. I do not know. That was the first time that I saw the
interpreter sworn, the first time I was sworn, the first time I heard
an interpreter interrogated by the lawyer as to his qualifications to
interpret properly; and I thought a t the time i t mas something un-
usual; that they were rnqking $his in Peiper or-I think it was going
to be an important case, but it was only this kid that they brought in.
Senator BALDWIN.I n this testimony that you are giving you say
he was only about 15 years old ;you say in your letter :
After these 5ntergreters had worked out on this kid, some of these kids were
16 and 17 years of age, and sbftened bhem up and scared them into a condition
where they would confess to anything, the prisoner then had a long multicolored
robe thrown over him, and black hood pulled down over his head, and rope
knotted about his neck, and he was marched into a cell to be interrogated by one
of the lawyers.
Mr. BAILEY.Well, he was interrogated by a lawyer through an
interpreter.
Mr. BAILEY.I n the presence of-
Senator BALDWIN.Well, now, you have described this particular
occasion, Mr. Bailey. Will you go on and tell us, to the best of your
recollection, whether or not you saw any occasion of abuse or intimida-
tion or threats or violence, and if you can, recall the name of the
prisoner and the Americans who might be involved. We would like
to have their names, and if you can give us the approximate time we
would like to have that.
Mr. BAILEY. Everything I testified to would have to be between
December 27,1945, and the middle of February or the first 3 weeks i n
February 1946, I would say.
I saw prisoners come into cells 'shaky and nervous and with a few
scratches or bruises on them, but nothing serious ;that is the condition
I have seen them in, in the cells. I have seen Lieutenant Perl slap
them, and I have seen them knee a couple of them in the groin.
Senator BALDWIN.You have seen Lieutenant Perl slap them with
his open hand or with his first, or how ?
Mr. BAILEY.Well, I would say it was with his open hand, but it
was a pretty violent slap.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ev'er see him hit them with any clubs or
+nything, or sticks, or ropes, or any implement of any kind?
Mr. BAILEY.NO; I never did. I have seen-well, it was an oversize
blackjack, about three times as big as an ordinary blackjack, lying
on the table. But I think it was done for effect on the prisoner. I
never saw him hit anyone with it.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUnever saw them hit any prisoner with a
blackjack?
Mr. BAILEY.Nothing.
Senator BALDWIN.You say they had scratches or bruises but nothing
serious.
Mr. BAILEY.Nothing serious.
senator BAWWIN.Have you ever noticed this hood? There have
heen some statements here that the hood was bloody. What can you
tell us about that?
Mr. BAILEY.Well, on the outside the hood was coal black, and you
could not tell whether there was any blood on it. On the inside, I
think I have seen a few splotches
'
of blood. That was a bright yellow
on the inside of the hood.
Senator BALDWIN. Bright yellow?
Mr. BAILEY.That is my recollection. I t was coal black on the out-
side and yellow on the inside is my recollection.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me ask you this question: There have been

described here occasions when a table would be covered with a black
cloth, and there would be a couple of candles on it and a crucifix. Did
you see that set-up, so-called, used?
Mr. BAILEY.Oh, I think I have described that, Senator, in detail.
Senator BALDWIN.Yes ; you have. The thing we wanted to ask you
was whether or not that was used on every occasion. What can you tell
us about that ?
Mr. BAILEY.It had never been used np to that time, to my knowl-
edge. That was the first time I had ever seen it, and that was close
to the 1st of February 1946.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW many times after that did you see it used?
Mr. BAILEY.That was the only occasion that I saw it used, because
I quit after that; a t least, I tendered my resignation.
benator BALDWIN.Was that the only confession you ever took, or
statement, that ou can recall to mind?
Mr. BAILEY.Go; I took dozens of them, but that was the only one
where I took it with the crucifix-where that took place. I took dozens
of them where they were brought in with the black cloak and the hood
around it. That was the ordinary garb for every prisoner.
Senakor BALDWIN. YOUmean this cloak?
Mr. BAILEY.YOUunderstand, Senator, when a prisoner-when the
MP7swould be sent to the prison, they would go to the cell, and when
the M P would bring them down, that was the dress they had on-bring
them down to the cell. They used the same cell for interrogating
them all; at least, it was the same cell I took them in, and they would
bring them in, in that garb.
Senator BALDWIN. NOW,can you recall, and will you tell us, if you
can recall, about any other specific case of abuse of any kind, physical
prisoners, as I say ? .
violence, threats, intimidation, or anything concerning any other
Mr. BAILEY.The only two men that I saw use any rough tactics-
I will qualify i t ; I will say three-were Steiner and Per1 and Thon.
I believe the Senator referred to him as "Tone." I imagine it is the
same fellow that he had reference to. I believe you spell his name
"T-h-O-n."
Senator BALDWIN.Can you tell us about those occasions, Mr. Bailey,
when, and who was the prisoner, if you recall 2,
Mr. BAILEY.I c o ~ l dnot recall the name of the prisoner, and I have
seen Lientenant Perl-to my mind, he was the only man, I would say,
who had a really sadistic, brutal streak in him, and I do not think he
had any business on that team, and I will tell you why: He was down
there in the garb of a first lieutenant of the American Army. H e has
his wife along, dressed as a United States Wac. She had never been
in this country; she had spent, as I understand it, 4 or 5 years i n
German concentration camps. He had escaped from one after being
sentenced to death.
Senator BALDWIN.Was he a German himself ?
Mr. BAILEY.He was an Austrian.
Senator BALDWIN. Was he in the American Army ?
Mr. BATLEY. He wore a first lieutenant's uniform; so, apparently,
he was. Somehow he got in-I do not-
Senator BALDWIN. DO you know whether or not he had ever lived
in the United States?
. ,
Mr. BAILEY.My impression is that he had not. I do not say that

for certain.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,again, I ask you if you can recall any other
instances of violence and buse.
Mr. BAIEZY.The other incidents would be pure hearsay on my
part.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUdid not see them?
Mr. BAILEY.I heard this Steiner mention them and gloat and laugh
about them, about things that he and Perl had pulled, but I was not
an eyewitness to it.
Senator BALDWIN. What did Steiner say, for example, because obvi-
ously that could be competent testimony, if he said anything?
Mr. BAILEY.Well-by the way, I would like to put this in the
record: This fellow Steiner-I fqund this out when Captain Shu-
macker was interrogating him as to his qualifications as an inter-
preter-said he had been born in Austria ; he had come to the United
States in 1941; he enlisted in the United States as a French inter-
preter in 1942-and, by the way, before I forget it, this Steiner went
into the cells, which all the interpreters did, and took statements or
confessions, whatever you want to call them, from prisoners, not in
my presence, see, and then come out and translated them into English.
Well, some of the translations of this fellow Steiner which he had
and were submitted to Major Fanton were so contrary to the known
facts of the Malmedy case that I think-Colonel Ellis, who will verify
it-that Steiner was taken off the job iri about 3 weeks.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW long was Steiner there, 3 weeks, you say?
Mr. BAILEY.Three or four weeks. He was impossible.
Senator BALDWIN.They took him off the job?
Mr. BAILEY.That is right. Major Fanton sent him back to Weis-
Eaden. H e came up on the 17th7as I did.
Senator MCCARTHY. There was one word you said that I did not
get. You said he was what? I do not get what you said he was.
Senator BALDWIN. H e said he was impossible.
Tell us about any other cases that you observed yourself.
. Mx*:;-BAILEY. I cannot recall any. I will say this, that who I did
most of my work with was Captain Shumacker, and he did not subject,
in my presence, any prisoner to any brutality. He might have threat-
ened and scared him, but I do not think Shumacker did. But one bad
-feature, one bad arrangement I would say, this Lieutenant Perl got
probably 75 percent of the confessions during my stay there and I
would say every time he went into a cell he was accompanied Ly this
fellow Steiner.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUspoke about this prisoner Neve. Did any-
body put his knee in his groin?
Mr. BAILEY.NO.
Senator BALDWIN.Then, you spoke of one case where they did.
You said somebody did. Did you see that ?
Mr. BAILEY.Yes; I saw this Lieutenant Perl knee a fellow and saw
him slap a couple.
Senator BALDWIN. We have here, Mr. Bailey, the affidavit which
Gustav Neve-
Mr. BAILEY.That is it.
Senator BALDWIN. Gave to, I assume, defense counsel. Is that
correct ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. That was one of the affidavits that supported the
defense counsel's petition before the Supreme Cpurt.
Senator BALDWIN. This affidavit accompanied the petition; this
was one of the affidavits that accompanied the petition to the Supreme
Court of the United States that was filed in behalf of these prisoners,
and I just wanted to read back to you one or two of the statements
that Neve apparently himseIf made. This is not the confession, you
understand.
Mr. BAILEY. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.This is another statement. He said :
I, Gustav Neve, took part in the Eifel offensive in December 1944 as a codriver
of an armored personnel carrier. I w a s taken to the investigation prison a t
Schwabisch Hall for the purpose of interrogation on December 2, 1945. There I
was locked into a cell and had to spend 2 days without blankets. On January 8,
1946, I was taken to be interrogated and a hood was pulled over my head which
was completely smeared with blood. I had to undress completely in a n inter-
rogation cell in the presence of two interrogating officials.
Now, did you witness anything like that?
Mr. BAILEY.That did not occur in my presence. I f that happened,
it happened prior to his being brought into the cell where he was
interrogated.
Senator BALDWIN.When you saw him he had his clothes on?
Mr. BAILEY.H e had this-I do not know what was under this big
robe or what it was that they had on him.. He had shoes on.
Senator BALDWIN.H e had shoes on?
Mr. BAILEY. Yes.
I n February 1946 I was taken into a cell where, a hood draped over my head,
I was put standing against a wall and beaten by a guard with a club into the
abdomen and into the genitals.
Mr. BAILEY.It did not happen in my presence, and I might say
that could have been a t the time I was in the cell. Does he mention
anything about the crucifix?
Senator BAWWIN.Just a minute. I will read the whole thing to
jrou. [Reading :]
a f t e r half a n hour had gone by I was taken into a dark room where I had to
stand with my face toward the wall and my hands lifted up. I n so doing I was
treated to kickings and beatings of the fists until I collapsed. After this treatment
I was carried into a larger cell where there were three interrogating officials sit-
ting around a table, of whom I recognized Captain Shumacker and Lieutenant
Perl.
Now, was Lieutenant Perl present in this interview you spoke of ?
Mr. BAILEY.NO, sir; it was Steiner and Shumacker and myself.
Lieutenant Perl stepped toward me immediately and told me that I was facing
a summary court and if I could not say everything I would be hanged the nest
day.
Did you ever hear anything like that?
Mr. BAILEY.NO; that did not occur in my presence.
Senator MCCARTRY.Were you present when Perl conducted an
interrogation a t all ?
Mr. BAILEY.Not with Neve.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you were not there a t any time
Perl interrogated, and obviously you could not see it.
Mr. BAIL~Y. No, sir ;I worked mostly with Shumacker,' Perl could
not talk sufficient English.
During this trial three false witnesses were confronted with me who gave
testimony the like of which I had never heard nor seen.
Were there any witnesses who testified at the time you talked with
him ?
Mr. BAILEY.NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN (reading) :
Whenever I wanted to break in I was quieted down by Lieutenant Perl by
means of a kick with his foot or a slap with his fists. During this trial I was
twice threatened with hanging whereby a rope was put around my neck and I
was pulled up. A few days later a fairy-tale-like statement of crimes was dic-
tated to me which I never heard nor saw anything. Whenever I refused t o write
beatings were administered until I continued to write out of fear.
That is signed by Gustav Neve.
Now, on this particular occasion that you described with Neve, did
he sign the confession then in your p, esence?
H
Mr. BAILEY.NO. I typewrote it nd put on the bottom "Sworn t6
and subscribed before me this (blank) day of (so-and-so) ," and I saw
the statement later with a signature--at least Neve's name on it and
witnessed by Captain Shumacker.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, on this pa&icular-
Mr. BAILEY.The one thing in it-excuse me, Senator.
'
Senator BALDWIN.Yes; go ahezid.
Mr. BAILEY.The one thing in there that you mention on January
22, where you say a rope was put -
around his neck and he was pulled
up or something-
1Mr.BAILEY.Well, I heard Steiner describe an exact incident to me,
but I do not recall that he and Perl had done it on the prisoner ;but I
do not recall that he mentioned Neve's name, although it could be
done by having him walk up a few steps and making him think he was
on a platform and Perl 'erking a rope over a board; he did not say he
4
was pullin him off his eet, or anything like that.
~ e n a t o r % u m v m . Did he not say anything about pulling him off
his feet? H e did say that? ,
Mr. B ~ E YSteiner . told me that it was a good joke.
Steiner seemed to get pleasure out of it. Steiner told me that the
Germans were responsible for killing his mother.
Senator BALDWIN. NOW,on this particular occasion with this wit-
ness Neve, how long were you engaged in this business of writing
down his confession ?
Mr. BAILEY.It was-
Senator BALDWIN. I n the cell, I mean, Mr. Bailey.
Mr. BAILEY.It was a rather lengthy confession. I would say Cap-
tain Shumacker interrogated him very thoroughly and asked him if
he had not said thus and so when he was interrogated by a gray-
haired captain at another prison prior to his coming to Schwabisch
Hall, and he examined him and reexamined him and accused him of
lying in one place from the other: But the two stories did not detail
at all.
Now, whether it was because Neve was frightened and could not
think, or what it was, I do not know. 'i
Senator BALDWIN. I n other words, on this particular occasion they

went into it a t great length with questioning, and you took it down;
you took it down in shorthand?
Mr. BAILEY.I bwk i t down in sharthand, and. I believe I still have
my notes.
Senator BALDWIN.Now, a t the time they interrogated this prisoner
Neve, did they have any other statement from him that you saw or any
other material to question him on 2
Mr. BAILEY.I am not certain Captain Shumacker was reading from
a prior statement or from his recollection but I remember distinctly
he was saying to Neve, "You're lying to me." H e said, "No." "Weren't
you," he said, L'Weren7tyou interrogated at some other prison by a
gray-haired American captain?" H e said, "Yes." He said, "Didn't
you say thus and so?" And the kid either said, 'T don't remember," or
something. H e did not give a satisfactory answer, but he was inter-
rogated. What they were trying t o do was apparently to convict this
Neve's conlmanding officer. They had knowledge that Neve was fa-
miliar with some shooting or orders to shoot a t Mahnedy by, I think.
the name was Stivers.
Senator MCCARTHY. Incidentally, for the record, Neve was sen-
tenced to death, and his sentence was then commuted to 20 years.
Mr. BAILEY.Yes. I do not know who was convicted or who was not.
Senator BALDWIN.Mr. Bailey, yon are here to tell us anything you
know about it in your own mhy. Can you tell us of any other cases?
Mr. BAILEY.I want i t understood that I have no sympathy for the
Germans. I think if the investigation had been properly handled
there by experienced police officers, by a few attorneys who knew
how to conduct an investigation, they could have found who the
guilty ones were and convicted them on credible, reputable testimony.
But it was conducted haphazardly, and there was no sense or
reason to it the way it was conducted; and they had what they called
their prisoners-they would be xeferred ko as stoolpigeons here. They
would cooperate-they were doin favors for war-crimes teams. For
P
instance, one of these German o cers--I do not know how guilty he
was in Malmedy-but a t least he w a s i n there as a German &cer,
and had been an artist in public life. He drew a life-sized oil painting
of one of the lawyers on the team.
Another fellow made skis, made fancy skis for them. Another one
made a pair of fancy boots.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you see these things or did you hear about
them ?
Mr. BAILEY.I saw them.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUsaw them?
Mr. BAILEY.Absolutely. I saw them shipping the skis home, and I
saw the portrait exhibited.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me ask you this : Do you speak or understand
German ?
Mr. BAILEY.Not a word of it.
Senator BAL~WIN. Well now, can you recall to mind any other
incident that you personally saw where a prisoner was abused in any
way, or can you recall any prisoners whom you saw there who ap-
peared-who had bruises and black eyes or anything of that kind, that
you saw ?
Mr. BAILEY.NO;I cannot. They received black eyes, but they could
have gotten it any way ;they could have bumped their heads against
the wall. I never saw anybody actually beaten by anybody, exicept
with the possible exception of one or two occasions by this fellow Perl.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUsaw him beat a prisoner?
Mr. BAILEY.I saw him slap a prisoner pretty hard with his hands.
Senator BALDWIN.What else did you see?
Mr. BAILEY.And knee him once or twice.
Senator BALDTTTN. YOUcame there on December 27,1945, according .,
to your letter?
Mr. BAILEY.TOSchwabisch Hall: that is right.
Senator BALDWIN.And you staykd there &ti1 the early part of
March 19462
Senator BALDWIN.During tliat time, how many different men did
yon take confessions from or transcribe confessions for?
Mr. BAILEY.Well, I transcribed a lot more than that which had
been taken by the investigators-yon see, Perl could also talk German,
: ~ n dhe could take them through an interpreter or he could take them
direct himself. He mas quite a linguist, and talked several languages,
and I &ranscribedmaybe 40 or 50. There was only the two of us that
did all the transcribinr?., tliat was Bsrg and I.
Senator BALDWIN.Have you got anything further that you want to
say, Mr. Bailey?
M -. RAV EY. Well, I rcrd an rrtide in the Ne~t- Times v-here
Colonel Ellis flatly denied everything in my letter. I would like to
.say that Colonel Ellis conlcl neither deny nor aflirm anything in that
letter because lie was never at Sdlyabisch Hall on any occasion I
was there.
Another thing, Colonel Ellis said that--
Senator BALDWIN.Let me ask you this: Did you understand that
he specifically denied the detaik that yon described in the letter or
was his denial a general denial?
Mr. BAILEY.The article was in the New York Times, and i t said
that Colonel Ellis flatly denied,the statement made by Mr. Bailey.
Somebody mailed me the article ; I do not know who it was.
Senator BALDWIN.You say YOU never saw Colonel Ellis there?
Mr. BAILEY.He was never at Sclrwabisch Hall during the time I
was there. Colonel Ellis, I saw him the d i y I left-in fact, he was
the man that sent us there, and I saw him when I came back. I saw
him both times at Weisbaden' when I worked a t headquarters.
Senator BALDWIN.At Weisbaden?
Mr. BAILEY.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.All right. ISthere anything else you want to
say ?
Mr. BAILEY.Nothing else unless you have some questions.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator Hunt, do you have any questions 08
this witness?
Senator HUNT. Mr. Bailey, woulcJ you tell us how you happened t o
become a court reporter on this work? Did you make application
for the position or the Government approach you and offer you the
work ?
Mr. BAII~EY. No, the Government approached the National Short-

hand Reporters' Association, of which I am a member. They asked
if they know of any members that might be interested in going over
there, and my name was apparently given in, and then someone wrote
me from the Pentagon Building and asked me if I was interested,
and I told him I was; then I got a teletype message to go down to
the Federal Building in Pittsburgh and take an examination, and
then I went to Washington.
Senator HUNT.NOW,was that examination for typing, for the
taking of shorthand or an examination as to a court reporter?
Mr. BAILEY.It was an examination-the examination was for a
court reporter, and that is what my application reads. I mean, that
was what my contract read, for court reporter; and when they esam-
ined me, they gave me three tests of 200 words per minute. But 1:
understand when we got there we would have to do at least the
greater part of our own typing, but when every court reporter over
there, expecting to do court reporting-
Senator HUNT.TOwhom did you report when you arrived in Ger-
many, Mr. Bailey?
Mr. BAILEY.My orders called for me to report to headquarters a t
Prankfort. I went there, and a Captain Patterson there told me that
I had been assigned to war crimes at Weisbaden. U p there I met, I
think it was, a Colonel Carpenter. I think Carpenter mas in com-
plete charge. H e turned me over to a colonel in the personnel depart-
ment, and he brought me up to Colonel Ellis.
Senator HUNT.W hat would you say was your ultimate assignment,
your final assignment? Was it-
Mr. BAILEY.The only assignment I worked on was the Malmedy
case from the beginning to the end. My ultimate assignment was
Berlin, but I did not go there.
Senator HUNT.T hen, during your stay in Germany yon did not
have the opportunity to do any real court reporting for what you
were really employed?
Mr. BAILEY.That is right, and that was the reason I gave in my
resignation to Colonel Ellis, and he took me up to Colonel Straight,
and said that the duties to which I have been assigned are not remotely
connected with what was under my contract, and they wanted to send
me to Berlin to do court-martial work.
Senator HUNT.I n view of that situation, you certainly had a right
to be, and were quite a little disappointed and discouraged over the
type of work that you had been assigned to, were you not?
Mr. BAILEY.Very much, sir, but I will say this: The treatment we
got was excellent; me lived well, and were not worked hard.
Senator HUNT.YOUwould not say, or would you, that you had been
not exactly double-crossed, bnt misled in the promises made to you in
reference to the work you were going to have?
Mr. BAILEY.I think that is almost the words I told Colonel Ellis,
and he took me up to Colonel Straight; I think that is the reason I
gave. But I was not disappointed. I was homesick and was darned
glad to get back to the United States, and I told him that.
Senator HUNT.D id you ever discuss with any of the members of
.the team, with Mr. Fanton, Major Fanton, or Mr. Ellowitz, the face
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION I69
that you were disappointed in the work they had assigned to you, and
that-you did not anticipate doing that kind of work?
Mr. BAILEY. I do not think I did, Senator, up until the time I handed
my resignation. I took it down and wrote it out and'handed it t o
Major Fanton, and Major Fanton said he was going up to Weisbaden
the next week, and he would take it up and give it to Major Ellis.
Fanton came back three or four weeks later, and he said, "I believe
you want to talk to Colonel Ellis yourself," and I went up there.
Senator HUNT.Were you over there under a contract or did you sign
a contract to stay?
Mr. BAILEY. No ; I did not. The contracts read that you had to stay
for 1 year, but mine did not. There was no time specified in mine
whatsoever, and that may be one of the reasons I got back as soon as
I did.
Senator HUNT. And you never signed a contract? '
Mr. BAILEY. I definitely signed a contract, but not for any specific
length of time.
Senator HUNT. Not for' any stipulated length of time?
Mr. BAILEY. That is right.
Senator HUNT.Did you ever ask any of the men with whom you
were associated to intercede in your behalf to get the type of work that
you thought you were entitled to ?
Mr. BAILEY. What could they do? What could they do if I did ask
for i t ? It would be foolish to ask for it.
Senator HUNT. Did Major Fanton ever make any special trips for
the purpose of trying to help you'to be relieved from your work so
that you might return to the United States ?
Mr. BAILEY. Never. I never complained to Major Fanton or any-
body else until I went in there and laid my resignation on Fanton's
desk, and when I went up and talked to Colonel Ellis, he took us u p
there and talked to Colonel Straight. There was a fellow named Hecht
there from Washington, who wanted to get back here, and I told
Colonel Straight, in the presence of Colonel Ellis, what my position
was, and my feelings in the matter.
He said: "I can sympathize with you, Bailey, but we have no war crimes
coming up, and we have no jurisdiction over Nuremburg, that special tribunal."
Senator HUNT.NOW,by virtue of the fact that you signed no con-
tract, then you did not have to pay your own fare back, did you?
Mr. BALLEY. I offeredto, and I expected to, but they treated me very
good ;they aid for it.
Senator &NT. While you were over there, did you ever report t o
any of your superior officers any criticism of what yon had observed?
Mr. BAILEY. Always. There was no superior officers there. Fanton
was in charge of this team, but the dominant figure of the whole
outfit was this Lieutenant Perl.
Senator HUNT.Did YOU ever make any approach to Lieutenant Perl
that you were disgusted with the way the investigations were being
conducted ?
Mr. BAILEY. Most of that team did. not care to have much contact
with Perl. He was more or less of a lone wolf.
Senator HUNT. YOUdid not, as a-matter of record then, make any
statements similar to the one that you wrote to Senator McCarthy?
Mr. BAILEY. You mean over there?
Senator HUNT. Yes.

Mr. BAILEY.A t no time. No-what the hell; I would be crazy if I
did. I certainly did not expect this publicity was going to develop.
The letter I wrote to Senator McCarthy, I sent the same to the Secre-
tary of the Army in the same mail. I thought I might be called here
as a witness.
Senator HUNT.Excepting what you saw with your own eyes during
the interrogation with Captain Shumacker, you actually yourself did
not observe any of these cruelties that were supposedly practiced.
Mr. BAILEY.NO;I did not. All I could testify to would be hearsay,
and heard it talked over, and mostly by those two men, that was
Steiner and Perl, particularly Perl. On maybe one or two occasions
Thon would come up there and laugh and joke about how he had got-
ten a confession, but that was hearsay; I did not see it.
Senator HUNT. Reading from one of the statements, our investiga-
tors :
would put a black hood over the accused's head and then punch him i n the face
with brass knuckles, kick him and beat him with a rubber hose.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask what statement you are reading
from, Senator ?
Senator HUNT.I am reading from an address by Judge Edward L.
Van Roden.
Mr. BAILEY.I never saw such a thing happen. I saw the black hood
and I saw the robe and a rope, but I have3een the M P boot him in the
rear end in a cell, but not enough to hurt him.
Senator HUNT. YOU did not see ally broken jaws or any teeth
knocked out or anything like that ?
Mr. BAILEY.NO; I did not.
Senator HUNT. Were your relations with Steiner and Fanton and
Perl and Thon, and your team, as you call them, were they pleasant,
most of the time 1
Mr. BAILEY.Yes ; always pleasant.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Are you tl-irough?
Senator HUNT. Yes.
Senator MCCARTIXY. Before I commence qnestioning this witness,
I wonld like to read from this letter. I want to request the chairman
t o call this man-this is a letter from Herbert J . Strong, a Jewish
refugee from Hitlerian Germany, and for that reason he had every
reason to feel vinclictive, and his letter certainly indicates that he felt
strongly that me should have some decency over there in the conduct
of the trials.
I want to read from another letter here and also I would like to have
this man subpoenaed. I read from his letter:
I took active part i n the war-crime trials from approximately early March
1946 to the early part of Angust 1946. Prior to my assignment to Dachan, I
actecl a s defense counsel in various mar-crimes trials before military government
courts in Ludwigsbnrg.
I had already, before I ever reached Dacllan, heard about the methods used by
the prosecution team a t Schwabisch Hall in the preparation of its case. The
source of this information and the circumstances under which I obtainecl the
same might be of interest to the committee, and is, to me, proof of the accnracy
of the accusations.
When we later, a t Dachau, prepared the case for the d ~ f e n s e me
, encoiii~tered
a cleep-seated suspicion on the pnrt of all of the accusecl, which, a s we later were
told by them, was due to the treatment they had previously esperienced on the
hands of the prosecution. Every one of the accused was i n detail interrogated
by the w r t i c u l a r member of the defense team to whom the defense of the
individual had been assigned, and we encountered i n almost every
case, the same story of mistreatment, mock trials, etc., which a r e now the subject
matter of the pending investigation.
I wish to stress, i n this connection, t h a t I had a t no previous occasion, ever
received similar complaints from other defendants whom I had represented.
For obvious reasons we did not in the beginning take the accused's stories a t
face value. However, our continuous daily contact with them which extended
over several months, convinced u s that, on the whole, their stories were correct.
They were supported by the stories of witnesses whom we also interrogated prior
t o and during the trial, who made similar complaints and who were obviously
in terror of tke prosecution team.
Of course neither of u s was a n eyewitness, a s presumably all the acts com-
plained of occurred in Schwabisch Hall and a s we saw the accused f o r the first
time i n Dachau.
E v e ~ yone of us share, unnecessary to say, in the indignation about and con-
demnation of the acts of which the defendants were accused and every one of u s
felt t h a t if their guilt could be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, death sentences
would constitute their only just punishment. However, we were, a s to qulte a
few of the accused, i n doubt whether they had actually committed the crimes in
question and were skeptical about the ralue and accuracy of statements either of
the accused or witnesses which were obtained by duress or fraud.
Mr. Chairman, this is a letter from a lawyer in New York, who is a
Jewish refugee from Hitler.
Senator BALDWIN.We mill put that in the record, Senator.
Senator MCCARTI-IY.I would like to do that, and I would also like
to say at this p a r t of the record that I am receiring a tremendous
amount of mail i n regard to this since vre are getting publicity on it,
and I am very happy to find that so f a r I have not found a single
combat soldier who condemned our going into this to find out whether
we were decent and honest in our handling of the enemy after we
defeated them.
I have received mail, and 111a.t.e ta!:en the trouble to check it from
some of the so-called soldiers who spent, their time fighting the war
slow-rolling clov-11bars. Also, and I think this is of particular interest,
in view of the fact that the Jewish people suffered so heavily a t the
hands of Hitler, H ha\-e not received a single letter from any Jewish
person coi~demningour going into this rfiatter.
I have received a number of them praising the committee very
h i d l l y for going into this matter.
%ow, Mr. Bailey, yon testified that one of the principal investignto~s
had spent time in a concentration camp ;the other one had his mother
killed by the Gerinans ; is that correct ?
Mr. BAILEY.I said that Lieutenant Perl's wife, who was with hiin in
Schwabisch Hall, had spent years i n a coilcentration camp i n Germany.
Senator MCCARTHY.HOW about P e r l ?
Mr. BAILEY.Perl himself had been sentenced-this is only hearsay,
but the general common knowledge amongst the team-he had been a
German prisoner, but had been sentenced to death, and had escaped.
Senator MCCARTHY.DO you know wlietl~eerhe was a n American
citizen or not?
Mr. BAILEY. I do not Imow. My opinion is that he was not.
Smator MCCARTHY.Mr. Cl~nirman,I would like to ask permission
to ask Mr. Ellis whether this man Per1 and his wife had been in the
concentration camp, whether they were American citizens or not.
Colonel ELLIS.P er1 is an American citizen. As I recall, he came
to the United States in 1936 or 1939. H e was apprehended at the
9176540---I2
172 MXLMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
time of the Anschluss, and was held in prison a short time. I do

not know how long. H e was supposed to have been taken to Dachau,
but for some reason he was not, and was released.
Now, if he was ever sentenced to death, I never heard of it. He
then escaped and came to America, and became an American citizen,
and I think went into the Army in 1941and 1942, and was commissioned
as an officer in military intelligence, and he served on the Chief of
Staff's intelligence center in London, interrogating high-ranking Ger-
man officers before he came to War Crimes. His wife was an Aryan,
and because of her befriending Jews, this is only hearsay, you under-
stand, she was picked up some time during the war and held at some
camp for 2 years, is my recollection. This is hearsay. Lieutenant Perl
will be here, and he can give you the story. This is just hearsay.
Senator MCCARTHY. With the chairman's permission, how many
other refugees did ou have on the prosecution staff?
Colonel ELLIS. d h , there were several. Kirschbaum-
Senator MCCARTHY. Kirschbaum.
Colonel ELLIS. Steiner.
Senator MCCARTHY.Steiner was a refugee also?
Colonel ELLIS. Well, I think he was. I am not certain on that, but
it is my recollection that he was.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know whether they were American
citizens or not?
Colonel ELLIS. I think all of them that have been in the service were.
I know Kirschbaum was a combat soldier, and I believe Steiner was.
They all come into the service from the States that is, they had gotten
to the States. There were several interpreters or translators, I should
say, who never had any contact with the prisoners, who were refugees,
those-I am not sure which ones-there was a boy from England, a
boy with the name of Hart, and a Rosentl~al,I believe his name was,
who also came from England, but they were civilian employees.
Senator MCCARTHY. Eosentl~alwas also a refugee?
Colonel ELLIS. Well, he was a refugee either from Austria or Ger-
many, but he had gotten to England, and the War Department had
hired then1 in England and brought them over as translators'.
Senator MCCARTHY. And he was what you would call the "legal" on
the court ?
Colonel ELLIS. NO; that is a different individual.
Senator MCCARTIXY. I see.
Colonel ELLIS. The law member was Colonel Rosenfelcl up here from
Philadelphia, who has been an American citizen by birth.
Senator MCCARTHY. Just one further question: This man Kirsch-
baum, you say he was a combat soldier. Am I correct in this, that he
was never in combat; he was in a combat area?
Colonel ELLIS. Well, I cannot say directly as to that; I just do not
know.
Senator MCCARTHY. None of these refugees that you had 011 this
team ever did any shooting; Perl never carried a gun, did he?
Colonel ELLIS. I doubt i t very much if he did.
Senator MCCARTHY. That is what I thought.
Senator BALDWIN. I f you will pardon me, Senator, let me ask the
colonel a question there, because it pertains to what lie has just said.
You say that there were some refugees that you used in these inter-
rogation- teams, and in the prosecution teams. Why did you use
refugees '1
Colonel ELLIS.Because they were the only available p~rsonnelthat
we' could get who could speak the German language.
Senator BALDWIN.Was there any other reason?
Colonel ELLIB. SO f a r as I know that was the only reason; that is
we could not get Americans; they all wanted t o go home; they wanted
to be redeployed, and we had to take the best people available, and
those were the only ones we could get.
Senator BALDWIN.Mr. Bailey has said that Steiner was released
from his duties thereafter, as I recall it, Mr. Bailey.
Mr. B ~ Y Three . or four weeks.
Senator BALDWIN. Three or four weeks. Does that jibe?
Colonel ELLIS. That is my recollection. Major Fanton came to me
and said that Steiner was just not competent, and he would like t o
have him relieved, and Fanton was in charge; if he wanted any changes
made I always made them.
Senator BALDWIN. Was Fanton down there a t the time, that is,
from December through the period that Mr. Bailey said he was there?
Was he there all the time, to your knowledge ?
Colonel ELLIS. Fanton left the middle of February, and it is my
recollection that Mr. Bailey left prior to that, but that is only a
recollection.
Mr. BAILEY.I would say we got a boat the same day.
Colonel ELLIS.They may have gone home together.
Mr. BAILEY.Practically the same day.
Senator BALDWIN.Just one question, Mr. Bailey, on that point.
You are speaking-I was asking about who was in charge. Was
Fanton in charge while you were there?
Mr. BAILEY.All the time. H e was in charge. Fanton did not do
any ,interrogating; the bulk of the interrogating and the important
part of the interrogating and any rough handling that I had,any
knowledge of was all done-Per1 was looked up t o as the big shot
in that investigating team.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. chairman-
Senator BALDWIN.May I ask just one question to complete this line
of interrogation ?
Senator MCCARTHY. I have sat here for an hour and a half and did
not interrupt under any circumstances while the Senator was interro-
gating this witness, and the Senator from Wyoming was interrogating
the witness. I mould appreciate it very much if I could have the
same courtesy to complete my interrogation of this witness, and if the
chairman believes there is anythin left untouched, he can continue
P
the interrogations. But it certain y interrupts my questioning if I
do not get the same courtesv from the Chair that the Senator from
wyomigg gets.
Senator BALDWIN.After all, Senator, I think it is the duty of the
chairman to try to conduct this thing and get the record in such shape
so that it is best readable and understandable. and when there are
questions that involve something that we have' already discussed, it
seems to me that it is in the interests of clarity and fairness to put it
in then and there.
The only other questions-
174 M'ALMEDY MASSACRE. INVESTIGATION
Senator MOCARTHY.I an1 SUIT the chair can coniplete his record
~:rithoutinsisting upon interrupting me when I am conducting ,an
examination.
Senator BALDWIN.I do n0.t want to interrupt you, Sellator, in ally
way, shape or manner, but the thought occurred to me that when
you are on a particular point i t is a good plan when you are on cross-
examination, to t r y t o exhaust that particular subject then and there
mcl have it all i11 one place in the record.
The only further question I wanted to ask Mr. Bailey was whether or
not Fanton was actually present a t Scliwabisch Hall all the time that
you were there, actually physically present.
Mr. BAILEY.There is possibly every other week that Major Fanton-
usually Ellowitz and Shuinacker made a trip, I would say, every other
week up to Weisbaden. During that time Per1 was i11 complete
charge.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW long would they be gone?
Mr. BAILEY. U s ~ ~ a l lthey

y would go a t noon on Saturday and
come back the following Wednesclay.

Senator BALDWIN.All right, t h a t answers my question. I think
it is a n iniportant point.
Senator MCCARTRY.I might say, if there is some doubt i11 the
cliaimian's mind, I have not accused Fanton of any misconduct. I
do not have any inforinatioii a t this time that Fanton was guilty
of any misconduct. I lmow he Is the chairman's law partner, and I
am not attempting to go illto th::t and pro\ e t h e ~ eis allything wrong
with what Fanton elid, udess-
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,Sen:ltor, go ahead if you will. I would
jupt like to say this : I am not, jn any \my, shape or manner here
interested in Fnnton. Fanton d l probably later be a witl:ess, and
I thinl; it is important for the benefit of this record to have this wit-
ness testify as to when ancl how long Fantoll was there. because I think
that has a very direct bearing upon what Fanton nliglit say \illen
11c testifies.
Senator BIGCARTHY. NOW,Mr. Bailey, Elston or something like
that-what was his name-testified the other day.
Mr. CIIAMRERS.Ellomitz.
Senator MCCARTHY.Testified that you attendeel very fe-w of the
interrogations; that your work was principally to take the notes

from the interpreter after he left the interrogation cell, and then
rcduce that to typewriting.
Mr. BAILEY.Well, I would say any time a court reporter or a
stenographer went into a cell, I was the only one that did go in.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Well, now, roughly how many times were yon
in the cell and got the confessions? How inany times did you get
the confessions in the cells ?
Mr. BAILEY.I w0111ci say approximately 20 times.
Senator MCCPRTHY.About 20 times out of the 73 ?
Mr. BAILEY.Wlii~tdo you mean, the 73?
Senator MCC.UWIIY.Twenty of the 73 men were convicted.
Mr. B.wm-. You unclerstancl, Senator, that this investigation con-
tinued on, I believe, under the direct c h a q e of Colonel Ellis, C o l o ~ e l

Ellis, 1unclerstancl, went to Sclimbiscli H ~ l or l was getti!q ready to
go, the clay 1left Weisbaden. I do not know what occurred there.
That would be from a t least the midd!e of February 011.
Senator MCCASTHY.NOWYOU testified that this man Perl a num-
ber of times kneed the accused in the groin.
Mr. BAILEY.Yes.
Senator MCCARTIIY.There will be testimony here to the effectthat
139 men who were sentenced to die, about 138 were irreparably
damaged, being crippled for life, from being kicked or kneed in the
g o i n . Can you tell us whether or not you saw any of that?
Mr. BAILEY.I could not tell you. I would say, in my opinion, that
is a gross exaggeration. That is just my opinion.
Senator MCCARTHY. i Did you claim you attended all the interroga-
tions ?
Mr. BAILEY.During my stay in Schwabisch Hall, Mr. Berg, the
other reporter. I do not think ever went into the cell. He did not want
t o go into the cell.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay it is a gross exaggeration when I say
someone said that they were crippled for life because of having been
h e e d in the groin. Do you mean this man Perl generally did i t In the
groin ?
Mr. BAILEY.NO,I do not think he did it out of a 138 of the 139.
Senator MCCARTIIY. When you got through kneeing them in the
groin, do you t h h k they were in good health from what you say?
Mr. BAILEY.I would not say they were in good health, but I think
they could be repaired.
Senator MCCARTHY. From the time you wrote this letter to me until
today, how many people have contacted you in regard to your hearing,
and with respect to what testimony you were going to give?
Mr. BAILEY.Not a single person.
Senator MCCARTRY. NO one at all? *
Mr. BAILEY.A few newspapermen-by the way, Senator, I under-
stood you a t the beginning to o f f x a letter from a. man Teil or
something ? '
Senator MCCARTHY. GO ahead.
A h . BAILEY.I got a letter from him ;he said he had met me in Weis-
baden in a room-next t o me, and gave the address, and it was an
address 1 never lived at, and I do not know the fellow. He asked me
if I was in Pittsburgh every week end, and he wanted to know where
he could contact me. I do not know the fellow and I do not know
where he is. He says he is attending W. and J. ; he was ~omplimelltiil~
me on a letter. 'I told the truth ; I do not know him.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will YOU do something for me? Just try to
stick to my questions, and when I am all through you can give me
all of the conversation.
Mr. BAILEY.I am sorry.
Senator MCCARTHY. Who did you talk to this morning?
Mr. BAILEY.Not a sod.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you talk to Colonel Ellis?
Mr. BAILEY.Not a soul. I talked to the colonel when. I came in.
Senator MCCARTHY. NO one else? The only people you talked to
were newsmen ?
Mr. BAILEY.Not a soul.
Senator MCCARTHY. I thought you said two or three men contacted
you.
Mr. BAILEY.Not a soul; I refused to give them any information.
Senator MCCARTHY. I just wanted to get what happened since the

time you wrote-
Mr. BAILEY.Freddie Wertenbaugh, who covers the courthouse u p
there and writes for the Pittsburgh, he came to see me e-very day, and
I said, "Freddie, I would rather you would not publish it until I got
down there," and he said he wonld not, and he did not.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, the only man to contact you
to get your story was a newspaperman?.
Mr. BAILEY.That is right. The Associated Press called me up,
and I told them-
Senator MCCARTHP.I do not care what you told them.
Mr. BAILEY.I can tell you.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me get you straight; the only man who
contacted you in regard to this from the time you wrote the letter until
today was the newspaperman?
Mr. BAILEY.Not a soul.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,how many of Perl's interrogations did
you attend?
Mr. BAILEY.Very few. I transcribed a lot of Perl's statements or-
confessions that he had gotten, either alone or accompanied by Steiner,
but I was not present with him except on probably tn-o or three
occasions.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then, of the 20 that you attended personally,
of those 20, Shumacker was in charge?
Mr. BAILEY.Yes; I did most of Captain Shumacker's work. W e
roomed together; we had a room together; and I have no criticism
whatsoever of Captain Shumacker.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU said that you heard Steiner and Perl
discussing the interrogation ; right ?
Mr. BAILEY.Perl did very little discussing. He was very reticent.
Steiner was much more talkative, but he told us generally-n~ostly
when Perl was not present-Per1 was pery seldom there in the eve-
nings; he had his wife and lived up the street; but Steiner did all
the talking about what he and Perl had done. Perl never talked.
Senator MCCARTHY. One of the things you said they did was to
march a man up some steps, make him believe he was on a scaffold,
and tie a rope around his neck, and then jerk him.
Senator MCCARTHY. That was for the purpose of getting a con-
f ession ?
Mr. BAILEY.It couldn't have been for any other purpose.
Senator MOCARTHY. DO YOU know whether or not that was done
after these mock trials at which a man would be found guilty or was
that before a mock trial?
Mr. BAILEY.Well, I wonld say it would have to be before the mock
trials.
Senator MCCARTHY. Why would you say i t would hare to be before
the mock trials?
Mr. BAILEY.Because I did not wintess any mock trials when I was
there, unless you call the confessions mock trials.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUmean because you did not witness them
they did not have them?
Mr. BAILEY.I would not know, Senator.
senator1 MCGA~THY. '1n othdr'wo~dsiyou do not know whethkr this
was after. or before the ~ o c trials,
k if.you did not witness them.
!Mr. BAILEY."DO not get me wrong, I am just-Steiner left there be-
fore I did, and I think lf there mere any mock trials conducted while
I was there, I would have been present. I think one of the requisites
of a mock trial is a court reporter.
- Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay that is necessary in a mock trial, a
court reporter ?
Mr. BAILEY.Well,-I think it is riecessary in every trial. I do not
think it would be different in a mock trial.
Senator MCCARTHY.The reason you - ,say you do not think there were
mock trials- '
Mr. BAILEY.NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. Wait until I get through, will you please?
Mr. BAILEY.Excuse me.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO I understafid that the reason you do not
feel there were mock trials is because you were not there as a court
reporter ?
. Mr. BAILEY.I do not feel there was not any mock trial, Senator;
there probably was. I said I had not knowledge of them.
Senator MCCARTHY. I wan6 to know whether or not you know
whether the mock hanging was after a mock trial o r not. If you do
not know, don't try to tell me. I f you do know, tell me.
Mr. BAILEY.I do not know.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWabout theseconfessions that were dictated
to you by Perl or Thon? Do they, sound like the confession that a
15- or 16- or 17- or 18-year-014 boy would give, or were they very
literary ?
Mr. BAILEY.They sounded to me like a farce. Fifty percent of them
were either made up by Perl or Thon, and they were altered and
changed and deleted.
Senator MCCARTHY. I read over these confessions, and some of them
by the 17- or 18-year-old boys with no edu~ationa t all apparently
sound like literary masterpieces, and I am wondering if you got the
same impression or not.
Mr. BAILEY.I did. I got the impression that they were not a
verbatim report of what they learned from the prisoner in the cell.
Senator M C ~ T H YNOW, . when this boy would sign a confession,
was the confession in German or English?
Mr: BAILEY.I n a lot of cases, we got the confession in the prisoner's
own handwriting, signed by him. It was brought into the room where
we all worked, with the exception of Major Fanton, and given to an
interpreter who could also translate. I do not think Perl did any of
the translatin he had Steiner translateL ,
B
Senator Mc ARTHY,And when this was brought in in the prisoner's
own handwriting, who would interpret it for you ;Per]?
Mr. BAILEY.NO,he usually turned it over to Steiner or Thon. They
had one very intelligent interpreter, but he was, I think, p~o-German,
I think he was German, myself-I think it was the opin~onof most
of them-and he was a very well-read fellow. His name was Hecht;
and he had studied in Switzerland and in Germany, and his transla-
tions were put in perfect literary style; but Thon was uneducated,
178 M A L M E D Y MASSACRE INVESTIGAll-ION
and certainly Steiner was. They could scarcely-I do not think that
he went in the sixth grade in school.
Senator MCCARTHY. Incidentally, so that the record is straight, have
you evecaseen,me until today 2
Mr. BAILEY. Never before in my life.
Senator MCCARTHY. And this letter was in your own-
Mr. BAILEY.I happened to read a statement in the Pittsburgh Press,
and I said, "What the hell ; I might as well get this off my chest."
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me read this, where you say :
I took down in shorthand, and then reduced to typewriting for t h e prisoner's
signature, but I a m definitely certain that t h e statement which the prisoner
ultimately signed and which was later used to help convict him of the hlalmedy
trial in no way even remotely resembled the original confession given in the cell.
Senator MCCARTHY. ISthat correct?
Mr. BAILEY.That is right. I will say this: This Lieutenant Perl
w,ould bring out in German what he had otten in a cell, either in his
f
own writing or in the prisoner's own han writing. He turned it over
to, Thon or Steiner or to Schnelingkanip-he was another one there,
and had them make a copy of it in English_and longhand or ttanslate it,
and then they would give me the longhand and I would typewrite it,
and give it to Perl.
Well, any typist was supposed to copy-I know of no occasion-
there was not one occasion that Perl did not change every one of them
and say it was not a proper translation. Either he was changing them
o r the translater there could not translate German into English, one
o r the other.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, there was some writing that
would come from a cell in the aecused's handwriting?
Senator MCCARTHY.And the interpreter would interpret in
English ?
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwouldtype it out and give it to Perl?
Senator MCCARTHY. And then he would change i t ?
Mr. BAILEY.Never satisfied; he said this is not what, he would
say, he would have to have.
Senator MCCARTHY. Typewritten in English?
Mr. BAILEY.Typewriting i t over half a dozen times to meet .satis-
faction.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwould typewrite it over and over until
i t met his satisfaction ?
Senator MCCARTHY. Then, take it over to the man who could not
read English, and he would sign it?
Mr. BAILEY.Only conclusion you could arrive at.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n view of thebragging that you heard Xteiner
do in regard to these mock hangings, and viewing Lieutenant Perl
kneeing these men in the testicles, is there any reason to believe that
he told them what was in the confessions? I s there any reason to
believe that he told them what was in the confession to be signed?
Mr. BAILEY.My honest opinion is this, Senator. that probably, just
as a rough guess, with a possible exception of Peiper, who wanted
to admit everything and take the rap for all of them, the evidence
adduced and presented against those six-and I do not know who
they are-is not any more credible than the evidence against the rest
of them in the prison.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, can we safely say that a t this
time that we do know that it is impossible to determine from the
methods of interrogation, from the mock hangings, from the kneeing
in the groin, whether we are actually going to hang guilty men, or
innocent men? Do we have any may of knowing, in view of the
way in which these statements and confessions were gotten ?
Mr. BAILEY.Those confessions and statements were taken in a most
haphazard manner. There was no systematic plan or procedure in
examining witnesses, and the people sent there were absolutely in-
competent to be on an interrogating team, as lawyers or interpreters.
Senator McC-IRTHY.Let me ask you this also : You recited that both
Steiner and Perl were refugees and, of course, I understand Perl's
wife was in a concentration camp. -
Mr. BAILEY.I did not use the word "refugee," Senator, but it is
all right.
Senator MCCARTHY. Well, use .whatever word you want to.
Senator MCCARTHY. They, of course, had very many good valid
reasons to very intensely hate those who were guilty of their predica-
ment. Do you feel that there was intense hatred on the part of Perl
and Steiner, on the part of those two,'against the Germans, as a race?
Mr. BAILEY. Steiner had admitted it openly. Perl-but from the
background and the actions you could not arrive at any other conclu-
sion that they had a terrible hatred. Justifiably so, maybe, but I
do not think they were the proper people to be on such a team.
Senator MCCARTNY. I n other words, maybe they were kneeing the
wrong man ?
Mr. BAILEY.It did not make any difference to them; they did not
know. They had no way of knowing.
Senator MCCARTHY. AS of today, as we look over that trial, we do
know this, that the men who are getting confessions upon which the
convictions were based did intensely hate the German people as a
race. I am not trying to put words in your mouth, but I just want
to get this fully into the record.
Mr: BAILEY.NO, but I want Wget m y honest feelings and conclu-
sions in this.
Mr. BAILEY.My honest opinion is that a much larger number than
six were guilty of that Malmedy massacre-
Senator MCCARTHY. I f they were guilty.
Mr. B A I ~ YI.f they would properly get-
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUand I would assume that a man who is
being tortured would scream just as loudly if he was guilty as if he
were innocent.
MPYBAILEY.WeIl, &hatwas my-natural reaction to tht&young fel-
low Neve.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then, as you watched this boy being mis-
treated, you say, a kid of 16 or 17 or 18, you feel if he were beaten u p
enough he would sign a confession regardless of whether he was
guilty or innocent?
Mr. BAILEY.I did not know what that Neve got until you told me
he got 20 years or life.
Senator MCCARTHY.H e was sentenced to death originally, and
that was cut down to 20 years.
Mr. BAILEY.Well, I think that was an overly severe sentence unless
they got a lot of additional evidence which they did not receive from
this ex parte deposition which we took in his cell.
Senator MCCARTHY. Were you present during the course of the
actual trial ?
Mr. BAILEY.No, I was back home.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you tell me-and I know that you may
dislike to do so, but this is very i m p o r t a n t w i l l you tell me which of
the officers got oil paintings from some of the prisoners who were
treated especially well ?
Mr. BAILEY. Well, I do not like to put his name into the record.
Senator MCCARTHY.I linow you do not.
Mr. BAILEY.I am hurting that fellow, and possibly if the majority
of that team had the same opportunity they would have accepted it.
Senator MCCARTHY. From the picture I have gotten of the team
that is entirely possible. But we are dealing here not only with the
life and death of men who may be guilty and innocent, but we are
also dealing with something infinitely more important, and that is
just to what extent we are discrediting the United States over in that
part of Europe; to what extent we are selling coinn~unisminstead of
democracy, and it is important to us to know what type of officers were
in charge, and if the officers were taking gifts from some of the pris-
oners and then treating them well after they had gifts, giving them
special treatment, we must know the names of those officers.
Senator BALDWIN.May I concur in what the Senator says? You
are here under oath.
Mr. BAILEY.I have no reticence in telling it.
Senator BALDWIN.YOU_have the protection of this oath. What
you say here cannot be used against you, because you are saying it
in testifying before a congressional committee.
Mr. BAILEY.Any officer-
Senator BALDWIN.I f you know the names of any officers or officer
or anybody who got gifts from these prisoners, 1 1 think it is your duty,
Mr. Bailey, to tell us so.
Mr. BAILEY.I mould not call it a gift. The officer who accepted it,
I do not think he accepted i t as in the form of a bribe, by any means.
I think my opinion was that he mas outsmarted by this German
officer.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let us have the comn~itteedecide. We want
LO lmow the names of the officers who got the gifts.
Mr. BAILEY.The officer who got an oil painting of him was Major
Fanton.
Senator MCCARTHY. How about the skis?
Mr. BAILEY.The skis mere given to two or three, I cannot recall
the names, but I saw them examining them, and they were a beautiful
job.
Senator MCCARTHY. Who else got oil paintings, do you h o w ?
Mr. BAILEY.That is the only one to my knowledge.
Senator MCCARTITY. A t the time you were over there, were you in-
formed that one of the officers was a candidate for office back in this
MALXEDY MASSACRE- INVESTIGATION 181
country, and that -convictions.had. to be obtained before the :election
because he needed that as campaign material, and for that season the,
defense would be given very little time t o defend the cases, and for
that reason also your interrogation had to be speeded up ?
Mr. BAILEY.NO, I never had knowledge of that, Senator.
Did you take notes of Ellowitz's interrogations?
Mr. BAILEY.Well, yes, I took some of Ellowitz7s-what little he
did. Ellowitz was more or less a playboy; he came and went as he
pleased.
Senator MCCARTHY. Played rather rough. Did you take any in
the cells or were thes-
Mr. BAILEY.I think possibly I did on one or two occasions for Ello-
witz, but Ellowitz was not the type, the brutal type. H e was just the
opposite. He was just going through the motions there. H e was
just drawing his pay, more or less.
Senator MCCARHY.I have had statements from two different men
whom I assume will be witnesses here, to the effect that Colonel Ellis
did tell them not to beat up these men.
Now, will you give me a picture as to whether Ellis was available,
whether he knew i t was going on or what the situation was.
Mr. BAILEY.Well, I think, in fact I know, that Major Fanton and
Colonel Ellis were in daily telephonic communication. I think Colonel
Ellis got a daily report from Major Panton.
Senator MCCARTHY. Who was in charge of the Schwabisch Hall at
the time that you were there? _ .
Mr. BAILEY.Major Fanton.
Senator MCCARTHY. Ellis was not there then?
Mr. BAILEY.A t no time.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am sorry, T thought that Ellis was there.
Mr. BAILEY.No, I think I have said that.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,this man Thon-
Senator MCCARTHY(continung). Was he an American citizen?
Mr. BAILEY.I think he must have been. R e was a chef or a cook in
vew York City, so he told me. H e had been a professional soccer
laver.
Efenator MCCARTHY.Yes.
Mr. BAILEY.And incidentally he was a German by birth, but never-
theless he was one of the three brutal men on that team.
, Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,YOU said, in answer to Senator Hunt's
question that there are many things that you could recite, but that it
was all hearsay, and for that reason you do not know whether we
wanted to hear i t or not. I n view of the fact that the Army or Military'
Government in charge of this trial issued orders saying that hearsay
was competent evidence in a matter involving the death of these men,
I think we will hear the hearsay also, with the chairman's permission,
so I would like to hear about that. I n other words, I would like to
hear everything you heard in regard to the treatment.
Mr. BAILEY.Before we go into that, Senator McCarthy, there was
pne mention I made in my letter there about starvation, nobody has
asked me about it. Maybe i t is not of importance, but I was going to
clear it up.
Senator MCCARTHY. I was going to ask you about that.
Mr. BAILEY. DO you want me to answer any one-which one would

you like t o have me answer?
Senator MCCARTHY.Give any one. Tell me about the hearsay first.
Mr. BAILEY.AS f a r as hearsay was concerned, i t was a general
topic-Per1 would come u p there, he was uncommunicative; he would
come u p there a t 12 o'clock and dance a jig, "I have got another con-
fession." H e had been there by himself in that prison.
Senator MCCARTHY.GO ahead. Would he tell you how he got i t ?
Mr. BAILEY. NO, a s to how he got them-my information came
from Steiner. Perl did not talk much.
Senator MCCARTHY.Then tell us, i t is very important that we hear
everything that Steiner said, everything you can remember.
Mr. BAILEY. I cannot remember, Senator.
Senator MCCARTHY.Give us everything you can remember.
Mr. BAILEY.I think I have told you the high lights of it.
I f you can think of something you have heard from prior testimony
and tell me it, i t may refresh my testimony.
Senator MCCARTHY.Well, I have an Army report which says
they have an affidavit from the dentist t o the effect that-I do not
want to misquote the Army on this, and maybe I had better read from
their report. On page 525 :
Corroborating the claim of the various accused a s to physical violence, there is
the affidavit of Dr. Knorr, the dentist a t Schwabisch Hall, that h e treated 15
or 20 of the suspects for injuries of the mouth and jaw, apparently inflicted by
blows.
Now, would you shed any light on that that you can?
Mr. BAILEY.TOmy knowledge there was never a dentist a t Schwab-
isch Ha11 ; whether they got their teeth knocked out or did not, there
mas no dentist to take care of them; as for a'great portion of the time
there was never a doctor there.
Senator MCCARTHY.NOW,will you continue and tell us anything
that that yon heard Steiner say. It might be repetitious, but I would
like to get the whole picture.
Mr. BAILEY.I do not know, outside of the fact that when he men-
tioned-yes, I told him about the rope around the neck, and Perl
pulling the prisoner off his feet, and he laughed about i t ; and we were
sitting there in the room, and I said, L'Whatthe hell is so funny about
that?" And he said, "I hate those bastards. They are responsible for
murdering my mother."
Senator MCCARTHY.Just one further question. Now, i n these
statements that the accused ultimately si ned, the ones that you said
you had to type and retype over before S e r l would accept them, do
you know whether those statements were later used to convict not
only the man making the confession but also the other codefendants?
Mr. BAILEY.I think that was the primary purpose of most of them.
The primary purpose was to convict the other fellow, not that particu-
lar person. You see, my impression, a t least, of the whole set-up was
to get-interrogate one man to get evidence against another.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, let us say the three of us, Sen-
, and I are three codefendants, and statements would be
ator H ~ m tyou
gotten from all of us by the methods which you have described; and
my statement would be used not only--
Mr. BAILEY.TOconvict me.
Senator M C ~ A R T H But
Y . also to convict you and Senator Hunt.
Mr. BAWEY.T h a t is right.
Senator MCCA~TBY. Your statement would be used to convict not
only yourself, but Senator Hunt.
Mr. BAILEY. T h a t is right.
Senator 'MCCARTHY.SOthat when the prosecution says that the
confessions were corroborated by other evidence, the corroboration
consisted of other confessions gotten in the same manncr.
Mr. BAILEY.Gotten prior to the confession of the particular person
that was convicted on it. They confronted him with statements of
others.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let me ask you this.
Mr. BAILEY.I do not think there is anything wrong i n that. I am
not criticizing that method. I think i t is used, in our courts here,
but that was the procedure followed. They got the dope from me
to convict you, and from me before they interrogated you.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOU say you are a court reporter over in
Pennsylvania? You do not mean that the courts over there use this
process of mock hangings and kneeings?
Mr. BAILEY.I had no reference to that.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUmean you were referring to the fact that
they got the statement pf one man to convict another.
Mr. BAILEY.T h e courts do not do that, but I think the detective
bureau does that.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUhave been a court reporter for some time
and have seen a lot of civil and criminal actions tried. Do you think
that you can at all rely upon statements or confessions or convictions
that are gotten as a result of this type of beating and mock hanging
and the breaking of a man's teeth. I n other words, is there any way
of knowing whether yon have a guilty man or an innocent man?
Mr. BAILEY.NO, I think i t was absolutely improper i n the methods
use, but I think i t ruined the purpose of the investigation. I think
fellows probably went scot free who were just as guilty as those five
or six.
Senator MCCARTHY.J u s t one final question: Do you think that
Steiner and Per1 much cared whether the man they were getting a
confession from was guilty or innocent?
Mr. BAILEY.I think they were of the opinion that every German in
that prison was guilty and should have been hanged.
Senrtor MCCARTHY.And they would work them over ulitil they
got a confession from them?
Mr. BAILEY.T h a t is illy opinion.
Senator MCCARTHY.And they actually worked all 73 over until
they got confessions, with the exception of the seventy-third man, who
coininittecl suicide during the interrogation?
Mr. BAILEY.My honest opinion is that a lot of those fellows were
guilty, were guilty of atrocious crimes, and should have been con-
victed and exect~ted. My criticism was as to the methods used to
arrive a t that. My question was, Did they arrive a t a proper con-
clusion by the methods they used?
Senator MCCARTHY.Thank you very much, Mr. Bailey.
Senator BALDWIN.Do you have any qnestions, Colonel?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Senator, with your permission, and the permission
of the committee, I wonld like to place in the record a copy of the
standing operating procedures insofar as medical health is concerned,
and how they were to be handled. I think it is an important thing to

be in the record.
Senator BALDWIN.Very well, i t will be printed.
(The document referred to follows :)
APRIL28,1949.
R E:DIETRICHSCHNELL'S
AFFIDAVITDATEDJAUNARY10,1948, RELATING
TO MEDICAL
TREATMENT OF MALMEDYSUSPECTSAT SCHWABISCHHALL(PARTOF
EXHIEIT23,
REPORTOF ADMINISTRATION REVIEW BOARD)
OF JUSTICE
1. Particulars requested of EUCOM have not been received a s yet.

2. See SOP #2, W a r Crimes Branch, USFET, February 7, 1946, attached to
Dwight Fanton's affidavit, October 20,1948, Exhibit 29, Proceedings before Admin-
istration of Justice Review Board, which states in p a r t :
"8. There will be a n American medical technician (NCO) on duty a t I. P. #2
from 0800 until 1700 daily except Sunday. Between 1700 and 0800 daily and on
Sundays, the medical technician (NCO) will be on call and will be available within
t h e limits of SCHWABISCH HALL. An American medical officer will be assigned
t o this prison. This officer will be responsible for the health of t h e prisoners i n
this group and will serve a s prison surgeon, assisting German overhead medical
personnel in medical matters pertaining to the prison a s a whole. Under no cir-
cumstances will any of the prisoners in this group have any contact with German
medical personnel. Minor surgical procedures may be accomplished a t the prison
iniirmary, but adequate security must be provided to insure t h a t no communica-
tion between the prisoner being treated and German personnel in the prison occurs.
Prisoners in this group who require hospitalization for surgical, diagnostic, or
other treatment beyond the capacity of the prison infirmary will be evacuated t o
the 216th General Hospital in Stuttgart. The military unit charged with respon-
sibility for providing security a t this prison will supply guards for maximum
security of prisoners evacuated to this hospital in accordance with the provisions
of this SOP. Prisoners will receive dental treatment for emergencies only.
Dental cases will be taken t o the 6th Dental Laboratory in BACKNANG. Ade-
quate guards will be provided t o insure t h a t all security requirements set out i n
this SOP a r e satisfied. The medical officer will be responsible for reporting all
medical and dental cases treated. The report submitted will state patient's full
name and grade, the cell i n which he is confined, and diagnosis of his ailment
with recommended disposition. I n case transfer to t h e prison infirmary or
evacuation to the hospital is required, the matter will be cleared with the Com-
manding Officer of this Detachment prior to such transfer. I n case of evacuation
to the hospital, the aforementioned medical officer's report will also contain a
statement of probable length of hospitalization. The medical officer will be
responsible t o see t h a t daily records a r e kept of all cases treated to show t h e
patient's full name, cell number, diagnosis, and treatment rendered."
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I ask one question of this witness if we are
going to finish with him?
Senator BALDWIN. I do not know whether he should come back here.
Senator HUNT.I want to ask one question. Mr. Bailey, you spoke
of the portrait and the skis, and things of that kind as gifts. Do you
know whether or not any. payment of any kind was made to the men
who did the painting or made the skis ?
Mr. BAILEY.I am practically certain it was not. He was anxious to
do it. H e was ingratiating himself into the graces of the person whose
portrait he was painting.
Senator HUNT. DOyou think it had any influence on the trend of the
trials or convictions or generally on the whole picture?
Mr. BAILEY.I do not think i t would as f a r as Major Fanton is con-
cerned. I do not think it was the proper thing for the officer in charge
of a team to do, but I do not think it would influence Fanton in any
way. I had a lot of respect for Major Fanton as a man. He took no
part in it, but I refer to him simply as nothing more than a figurehead
there over the whoie'thing. I do not think he ever went into a cell. 1
,
do not think he ever took a statement or a, donfession, just sat in the

little office and,got reports from Ellowitz and Shumacker and Perl,
and he was uided and influenced by Perl.
Senator ~ U N T .One more question, Mr. Chairman. You '
spoke,
Mr. Bailey, of having been present at 20 interrogibions.
Mr. BAILEY.That is just a rough guess. It may have been 15;
it may have been 25. I
Senator HHNT.Could you tell us what proportion or percentage of

the interrogations would it be? Would i t be one-half or two-thirds?
Mr. BAILEY.You mean as to the total number?
Senator HUNT.Yes.
Mr. BAILEY. I would say it would be a hundred percent of the
interrogations that a reporter was present a t and took verbatim
report of during the time I was there, because i t was Berg who was
the only other one there.
Senator BALDWIN.We will take a recess until 2:15 because I have
to meet a group of newsboys from Connecticut at 2 o'clock, and
that will not take long. We will reconvene again a t 2 :15. I will
get permission from the Sei~ate.
(Whereupon, at 12:05 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at
2 :15 o'clock -p. m. the same afternoon.)
ALFTERNOON SESSION
Senator BALDWIN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Bailey,
will you come forward, please?
TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. BAILEY-Resumed

Senator BALDWIN. Do you have some further questions 2
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think Senator Hunt had finished.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I don't like to clutter up the
record with a lot of letters, but I would like to read one paragraph
of a letter received from a young veteran in Santa Monica, Calif.,
because it is typical of the way the combat veterans, I think, feel
about this sort of thing.
Senator BALDWIN.Would it save time if we put it in the record?
Senator MCCARTHY. It is only two paragraphs :
DEARSIR: I am writing to you for two definite reasons. First, to express t o
you from the bottom of my heart, not only for myself but also for all my buddies
who died in the last war, fighting for ideals that so many people, especially the
brass hats, had so soon forgotten. I t is gratifying to know that you and a few
other men in Washington remember that so many American boys gave their
lives in the idea that under democracy a man is innocent until proven guilty.
Yes, even a German SS-man. And i t isn't necessary to use the Hitler or Stalin
method of getting someone to say he did whether he did or not.
That is the pertinent part of it. He served for 2 years and asked
that we not make a record of his name, but in case the Chair would like
to see the entire letter, I will show it to him.
I have one or two questions. Mr. Bailey, in going over the record
of the court martial-and I wouldn't ask you this question except
that you have had long experience as a court reporter, so you have
seen courts operate, otherwise I would consider this question normally
only to be asked of a judge or of a lawyer. Here is the question.

One of the defendants isbeing examined :
Question. Now, how often would you say you were approximately interrogated
a t Schwabisch Hall?
The PROSECUTION. I object.
Colonel ROSENFELD. Objection sustained.
Mr. STRONG. May I respectfully point out to the court, with due deference,
t h a t this is cross-examination.
Colonel ROSENFELD. It is not cross-examination because it is without the
scope of the direct examination. The court has ruled. The objection is sustained.
Question (KRAMM). Isn't i t a fact t h a t you, during t h e time you were i n
Schwabisch Hall, signed a statement for the prosecution in question-and-answer
form, consisting of approximately 20 pages?
The PROSECUTION. I object again.
Colonel ROSENFELD. T h a t is not cross-examination. This is the last time the
court will notify yon.
Let me ask you if you ever heard of anything that could compare
with that in a court trying a defendant.
Mr. BAILEY.I have not.
Senator MCCARTHY.Will you agree with me that that is the most
distorted and the most tortured interpretation of the law that you have
ever heard, to tell a man that you will not allow a nlan to testify as
t o how a confession was obained, not allow hini to testify as to how
many different confessions he was forced t o sign?
Mr. BAILEY.I have talcen thousancls of rulings by courts, and my
honest opinion is that moulcl be overrulecl instead of sustainecl.
Senator M C ~ A R T H IYt . is elementary in a court that when a de-
fenclant's confession is presented, that he be allowed t o a t least tell
the court all the fucts and circumstances surrounding it. Otherwise,
the court is insisting that they work in the dark and must rule on
the confession without kno.cving how i t was obtained.
Mr. BAILEY.I would certainly think so, speaking as a court
reporter, not as a lawyer.
Senator MCCARTHY.Thank you. No further questions, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. BAILEY.Would you care to ask about starvation!
Senator MCCARTHY.Yes. Tell me about the starvation you
mentionecl.
Mr. BAILEY.I don't know if i t is of much importance, but since it
was in my letter, I might as vi-ell bring i t out.
The day we arrived at Sch\~abischHall Prison, which was about
noon of December 27, as soon as we got in there one of the Gernlan
prisoners, who was appareatly more or less a fluuky around there,
brings a couple of t m pai1s that they feed the prisoners in over to
Major Fanton, s l i o ~ ~ esome
d scratches that loolzed like a couple of
X's in rows or someilling, anc! 1 got from his interpretatjon that he
suspected it was some code the German prisoners mere trying to use.
The pan wouldn't be given to the same men. None of the interpreters
on the team could make any sense out of the marks and neither could
the Gerinan prisoners who were cooperating with them.
So Major Fanton said, "We will put thein all on bread and water
until they confess." That was December 2'7. T h a t continued. I clicln't
pay any attention to it, it was none of n-~ybusiness, up until New
Year's Eve when a sergeant major who had c h a r ~ eof the clay MP's
guarding the prisoners, came to me and said, '"These prisoners have
~ L M E D YMASSACRE INVESTIGATION 187
been on b ~ e a dand water going on the fifth day now. I don't want the
responsibi#ty for it." ,
I don't think I made any comment, but that was New Year's Eve
day, and that night Major Banton took me and Captain Shumacker and
Thon, he said Captain Johnson, who happened to be in charge of the
military police, is having a party tonight. H e said, "Let's gobver."
So we did. ,,
I n the course of the conversation that evening I mentioned the fact
that the prisoners-told Major Panton and also Captain Johnson i
what the sergeant major had told me, and Captain Johnson said that
under the rules they were working under they weren't permitted to
keep them on bread and water over 3 days. Major Panton answered
him that he had nothing to do with that, that the war crimes had charge
of those prisoners.
Captain Johnson commented that, with all due respect to Major
Fanton, the feeding of those prisoners was his duty, and they would
be taken off bread and water the next day.
The next day was New Year's and we didn't work. But the day
following New Year's there was a all came in from Weisbaden to
I
Major Fanton, I presume it came from Colonel Ellis, and they were
immediately taken off bread and water.
Senator MCCARTHY.I didn't quite get it. They had scratched the
bottom of the mess plates?
Mr. BAILEY.That is right, and the~suspectedthat that was a code,
exchanging from one prisoner to another. Somebody else would get
that pan to eat off of next day.
Senator MCCARTHY. What kind of scratches were they?

Mr. BAILEY.1t.looked to me like X's and 07s,as I recall, but they
never found out whether it meant anything or nothing, as f a r as
I know.
Senator MCCARTHY. I would like t o say for the purpose of the
kecord, so there will be no misunderstanding as to the importance
01what I just read, which is from page 64 and page 65, that here is
9, ruling which indicates that no one could conceivably have gotten a
fair trial before that court. This man Rosenfeld was the only attor-
ney on the court; he made this ruling and apparently made it con-
stantly, so you can understand why more defendants weren't put on
the stand.
He held that unless he went into the question on direct examination,
the question of how a confession was obtained, what beatings were
administered, what physical punishment, what type of mock trials
the witness was subjected to in order to get him to sign this statement,
unless Rosenfeld or the prosecution went into that on direct exami-
hation, he ruled that then the defense .could under no circumstances
go into that on cross-examination, which was in effect a statement by
the court to the fact that they wanted to rule in the dark. They had
to rule upon the value of this testimony and they in effect said, "Upon
the advice of Rosenfeld, we don't want the facts, we don't want to know
how much of a beating these men have taken, because the prosecution
didn't go into it on direct examination," which obviously he wouldn't.
They said, "We want to hear nothing about it." Under that alone it
makes it completely impossible to conduct an intelligent trial, and I
18s MALMEDY -MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
might say I think i f any of tkiose men are in the Army yet who ma&
such a ruling, made rulings of this kind, they should be promptly
retired to civilian life.
I would like to say something further so there will be no question
about my position in this. I think we should find out who is respon-
sible for hiring refugees from Hitler, men whose wives were in con-
centration camps, men who had every reason to dislike the German,
race and disIike them intensely, and the prosecution goes out and
?iires those individuals and gives them complete charge of the job of
getting confessions. The prosecution or whoever was responsible for
doing that should be asked to resign from the Army immediately.
Mr. Chairman, as we go along this picture becomes more and more
gruesome. That is worse than anything we have ever accused the
Russians of doing.
Senator BALDWIN.May I ask a question ? You mentioned the man's
name, Kramm.
Senator MCCARTHY. A witness. H e was the prosecution's witness.
He was one of the original accused.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me say in answer to your statement that it
is the purpose of this committee to go into this thing thoroughly and
produce every witness that we think can be helpful in bringing us to
a satisfactory recommendation to the main committee, because I per-
sonally firmly believe that if we ought to conduct war crimes trials,
it is very essential in the interest of democratic institutions and democ-
racy generally that we give a demonstration of utter justice and fair-
ness in our administration of justice, because that is vitally essential
as a part of our whole system.
So that is the direction and that is the purpose of this whole inves-
tigation. Did yon have any further questions?
Senator MCCARTHY.Yes ; I have.
Senator BALDWIN.I might say we have Judge Simpson here and
Jndge VanRoden. I don't want to hurry, but we are anxious to hear
them.
Senator MCCARTHY. I had some questions in regard to rules of evi-
dence, but I would rather ask those questions of the judges.
Mr. BAILEY.I have a letter here received from Mr. Schuelingkamp.
H e was one of the interpreters. H e speaks very favorably of Colonel
Ellis, and maybe it should be offered in evidence.
Senator BALDWIN.This is from Mr. Bernard Schuelingkamp. Who
was he?
Mr. BAILEY.One of the interpreters of the team of nine down at
Schwabisch Hall a t the same time as I.
Senator BALDWIN. This letter was written to you personally?
Mr. BAILEY.Yes; I hadn't heard from him for a period of two or
three years until I got that from him by air mail the other day.
Senator BALDWIN.H e was one of the interpreters?
Senator BALDWIN.DOwe have him as a witness?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I don't believe that we have.
Senator MCCARTHY. I might say regardless of whether that is
favorable or unfavorable to Mr. Ellis, I seriously would question the
propriety of putting in a letter of anyone who is not going to testify.
I have read in parts of letters with the request that those men be
brought here. The purpose of reading those parts of letters was t o
let the chairman know the views of the writers and how they would
testify if they were brought here. I would like to cross-examine and
talk to everyone who can shed light on this case.
Senator BALDWIN.This witness lives in Los Angeles and we can
get him here.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f he is important, I think we should, and if he
is an interpreter, I think he is important.
Senator BALDWIN.H e writes :
MY DEARFRIEND BAILEY: I am sorry for the long delay in answerin.,: your
letter. I was really glad to hear from you again and I often think of tl e t r i p
when I drove you from Wiesbaden to this awful place "Schwabisch Hall." How
time flies. This morning I read your name in the papers, concerning the Ma medy
case, and I thought back and realized that i t is now 3 years since you and J ex-
changed our feelings about the things which ybu once told me come to light une of
these days. I am sure that Colonel Ellis has nothing to do with forcing questions
out of the prisoners. I think you and I remember too well what went on. O f
course, I, a German by birth, could not open my mouth. You found out what they
had done to me and I am suffering from it to this date. That's what I got with my
four battle stars. Well, my friend, once your character gets smeared, it stays
that way. I can't even find, I mean get a job on this account. Once you put down
in your application form that you had been discharged, that's all brother. Nobodg
cares to know the true story or help you find it: Colonel Ellis was the only person
that wanted to help me, but this Captain Bouton a t the personnel office in Frank-
furt, together with his gang, fixed i t so that nothing could be done.
It is about 2 years now since I wrote to you and that letter came back to me.
I hope this one will reach you and don't take my example in answering. Please
inform me if there should be anything of interest. If you meet Colonel Ellis, please
give him my best ~egards. I have great respect for him, he never lets an Army
man down. He went with me to Frankfurt and personally dictated a letter t o
Washington to help me. Of course, t h a t letter was never sent, the boys in t h e
Frankfurt office took care of that. This is my idea.
Bailey, if there is anything I can do for you, I'll take the first train-you gave m e
great comfort once upon a time.
SCHULY.
H e was one of the interwreters?
Mr. BAILEY.That is riiht.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, I think we can probably get Mr. Schueling-
kamp here as a witness. A t least, we will make every effort to do so.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask a question? H e refers to what was
done to him. What was done to him?
Mr. BAILEY.Senator, Colonel Ellis could probably tell you more
about that than I. I know he got in some difficulties over there, and
his friends thought he was framed. I thought he was, and some of
the others did. The details of it I am not familiar with. I left them
in Germany.
Mr. CHAMBERS.I would like to ask a question to clarify the gift
situation. You mentioned that these gifts were given to the prosecu-
tion staff by the prisoners. Now, as I understand it, there were two
group of prisoners at Schwabisch Hall. One group were those who
were there for interrogation for the Malmedy cases and the other
were a group of civilian internees there for confinement with ;L German
camp commander.
Were these skis made and the paintings made by the Ma11I edy pris-
oners or were they these internees a t Schwabisch Hall havii g nothing
to do with the Malmedy cases?
Mr. BAILEY.I don't know.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Do you know the German officer's name who painted
the picture ?
Mr. BAILEY.I don't know. I heard it, but I have forgotten it. My
recollection is that that oil painting is autographed by the painter. I
am not certain about that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you know the name of the German officer who
painted the picture or what his job was around there?
Mr. BAILEY.NO; I don't. I know that for a couple of hours a day
for several days or longer Major Panton sat there and posed for him
while he was working, maybe a couple of hours a day for weeks. I
didn't keep track of it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUare not certain they were Malmedy ?
Mr. BAILEY.NO;I don't think I said so, and I don't think I said they
were gifts.
Senator BALDWIN. What did you mean by two groups?
Mr. BAILEY.They were all prisoners as far as I knew.
Mr. CHAMBERS. However, one group were being interrogated by
the interrogation staff under Major Fanton. Those were all Mal-
medy people. I understand there was another group of people who
were civilian internees, and I was trying to find out which group had
done this work for Major Panton.
Mr. BAILEY.I don7t h o w .
Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Bailey, for your public service
i n coming down here. We appreciate it.
Judge Simpson, will you take the stand.
I might say for the record that Senator McCarthy has spoken to
me about a physical condition and an operation he has had which
has caused him considerable pain, and I don't want to keep him here
an longer than we have to.
genator MCCARTHY. I am supposed to be a t the hospital and have a
sinus drained at 5 o'clock.
Senator BALDWIN.Suppose we go on with Judge Simpson and we
will get you through in time to go out there.
Senator MCCARTHY. I would appreciate it an awful lot.
Senator BALDWI~~. Judge Simpson, will you stand and hold up your
right hand, please.
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in the case
Mr. SIMPSON.I do.
Senator BALDWIN. Thank you, sir.
TESTIMONY OF GORDON SIMPSON
Senator BALDWIN. Will you give US your full name.
Mr. SIMPSON. Gordon Simpson.
Senator BALDWIN.And where do you live, sir?
Mr. SIMPSON.I would say at Dallas. I am in the process of moving
from Austin, Tex., to Dallas, Tex. I practice law in Dallas.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUare a practicing attorney there?
Mr. SIMPSON. I am.
Senator BALDWIN. And a member of the Texas Bar?
Mr. SIMPSON.
I am.
Senator BALDWIN.How long have you been a member of the Texas
Bar?
Mr. SIMPSON. Since 1919.
Senator BALDWIN.And you are a graduate, I assume, of a university
and a law school.
Mr. SIMPSON. I am.
Senator BALDWIN.Have you ever been a justice of any court
before ?
Mr. SIMPSON. Of the Supreme Court of Texas.
Senator BALDWIN. For how long a term?
Mr. SIMPSON.A little over 4 years.
Senator BALDWIN.Are you presently a justice of the Supreme
Court of Texas ?
Mr. SIMPSON. NO; I have resigned to enter the law practice again.
Senator BALDWIN.Now, were you asked to undertake an investi-
gation of these Malmedy convictions?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.And when was that 8
Mr. SIMPSON.
It was in July of 1948.
Senator BALDWIN.I will ask Colonel Chambers to go ahead with
the direct examination-and I will get back in a few minutes. I have
to leave for a short time.
Senator MCCARTHY. I may want to do some questionin
Senator BALDWIN.Yes. I would suggest that Colonel hambers
continue. Could you go on?
8
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would not like to be put in the position of ruling
on Senator McCarthy.
Senator B A ~ NDon't . have a disagreement among you. I f you
reach an impasse, both of you stop and call for me. I will be back
in 10 minutes. ,
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe, Judge Simpson, that the question was
asked: Were you asked to investigate the Malmedy cases? Who
asked you to make this investigation?
Mr. SIMPSON. The Secretary of the Army, Mr. Royall.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did he appoint you as chairman of a board or
commission to make this study? ,
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Who

were the other members, sir?
Mr. SIMPSON.
Judge E. L. Van Roden, of Media, Pa., and Charles
W. Lawrence, Jr., a lieutenant colonel i n the Judge Advocate Gen-
eral's Corps of the Regular Army.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was your assignment just the Malmedy cases,
Judge Simpson, or did it have a broader scope?
Mr. SIMPSON. NO; it did not include the Malmedy cases alone, but
extended to an investigation into the fairness of the trials of 139
German nationals who were condicted, given the death sentence, and
awaited execution.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Of these 139, how many of them were as a result
of the so-called Malmedy atrocities?
Mr. SIMPSON. Twelve.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Twelve

8
Mr. SIMPSON.Yes. There were 67 records of trial altogether involv-
ar.
in these 139 death sentences.
CHAMBERS. However, of nehssity in studying those 12 you had
to make a study of other aspects of the Malmedy cases, going beyond
just the record of trial in the 12 death sentences; is that correct?
igz MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, we made a rather extensive investigation and

inquiry.
Mr. C H A M B ~ SWe. have as a part of the record of these committee
hearings your report. Do you have a copy there, sir ?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, I do.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I wonder if perhaps the best way to proceed would
not be for you to tell us what you would like to about the background,
the way you operated, and such other information as you think would
be pertinent.
Mr. SIMPSON. The commission which we were to execute can best be
understood if I refer again to the cablegram from Secretary of the
Army Royall to the commander in chief of the European Command,
General Clay, outlining the scope of the inquiry we were to make.
Secretary Royall wired General Clay :
Have arranged to have Judge Gordon Simpsou, Texas Supreme Court, make
survey of Dachau war crimes program with a view to makiug recommendations
as to advisability of clemency or of further review or consideration. H e is now
engaged i n a preliminary examination of records available here and will arrive
by air probably within a week. Request that you issue theater clearance for
traveling to Germany of Judge Simpson and two assistants, whose names will be
furnished later.
That cablegram was dated July 16,1948. Pursuant to that mission
and its accomplishment, Judge Van Roden and Colonel Lawrence and
I, after conferences with those in charge of the war-crimes program
here in Washington, including Colonel Young and some of his as-
sistants, and after inspection of such records as were available here,
the three of us departed for Germany and spent approximately 6 weeks,
the most of which was a t Munich where these records of trials were
on file, pursuing an inquiry into these trials with a view t o making
recommendations such as Secretary Royall desired.
We were given adequate clerical help a t Munich, satisfactory office
space, and we set about the examination in the face of these 67 separate
records of trial. I might say that each of the three of us during the
war had had rather extensive experience in military justice, and the
matter of investigating those records was greatly facilitated by our
familiarity with the general way in which those records were compiled.
I would say had we not been familiar with it, i t would have taken a
much longer time and possibly would have been impossible of ac-
complishment in less than 6 months rather than 6 weeks.
We went through those records and in every case where there was
any claim made that any improper methods were used by the prosecu-
tion to obtain evidence to support its claim that the accused was guilty,
we looked carefully into the matter. The claims were not numerous
or general. They were indeed infrequent. I would say not over 2
or 3 claims of the kind appear in the 63 records of trial outside of the
Malmedy case, and the court in each case, we were happy to observe,
looked with very careful scrutiny upon the testimony to make sure
no injustice had resulted to the accused in consequence of the claim
that improper methods were employed to obtain prosecution evidence.
The trials, I am glad to report, were to my personal way of viewing
them essentially fair, and the courts, it occurred to me-
Senator M C ~ A R T HYo11
Y . are speaking of the Malmedy cases?
Mr. SINPSON. I am coming to that specially. The courts on the
average, it occurred to me, were meticulous in seeing to it that those
German nationals who were on trial were accorded a fair trial without,
regard to the reprehensible nature of the crimes with which they were
charged.
I must say of the 139 who were convicted and awaiting execution,
they were all-convicted of murder or complicity in murder, as it is
deno'unoed under the statutes of our country and the international
conventions.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOas to make the record clear, are you speak-
ing now of the Malmedy cases?
Mr. SIMPSON. I include that J yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am gomg to ask you to confine your testimony
to the Malmedy cases, if you will.
Mr. SIMPSON. All right.
Senator MCCARTHY. Otherwise, we don't know which ones you are
talking about.
' Mr. SIMPSON. AS to the Malmedy case, and I will come t o that now,
Col. Willis M. Everett, Jr., of Atlanta, is known to you gentlemen and
had filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Supreme Court of
the United States, making certain claims that excesses and abuses oc-
curred in procuring evidence upon which the accused in the Malmedy
trials were convicted, and the claims were of such nature that General
Royall was greatly, concerned about the entire war crimes program,
and that is the reason I mention the general inquiry, t o see whether
or not the other trials were fair, too. Particnlarly General Royall
charged us to make inquiry into the Malmedy case to see if the alle-
gations made by Colonel Everett were substantiated and also to see
whether or not the records of trials fairly demonstrated the guilt
of the accused who were under sentence of death.
- With those general considerations in mind, we went forward with
the inquiry and arrived a t the conclusions with which you gentlemen
are familiar. The abuses which Colonel Everett claimed to have oc-
cnrred in obtaining that prosecution evidence were verified insofar as
the claims extended to the mock trials. I n fact, the prosecution ad-
mitted a t the trial that mock trials were employed to obtain that evi-
dence, and you are familiar with the general nature of those.
Our report reflects that we couldn't condone the use of those triaIs
in our opinion. The record, so far as anything I can remember, the
record failed, however, to show any beatings or threats other than
Colonel Raymond's commission found. that m one or two instances
some of the accused or one or more of the accused were threatened
with members of their families being deprived of ration tickets.
Senator MCCLRTHY.May I interrupt? Are you aware of the fact
that the prosecution would object and the court would sustain any
objection to a recitation of the details of the beatings?
Mr. SIMPSON.Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Under the circumstances, the record couldn't
show those beatings, could it ?
Mr. S ~ a w s o ~
Yes.
.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am speaking of the court records.
Mr. SIMPSON.The court record could. I n fact, I would say I agree
with you that the court erred in the ruling, certainly. There was no
reasonable support in law for the rnling made, and it was an unfor-
tunate occurrence. But Colonel Everett started to putting his
clients-they were his clients, he was appointed to defend them, and
he did a magnificent job of it, and is to be complimented highly for
the sincerity with which he devoted himself to his duty. Colonel
Everett started proving these claimed abuses during the trial, but
he discontinued putting his clients on the stand because of reasons
satisfactory to himself. I believe that Colonel Everett would not
object if I told you that he said he did not think those accused were
making very good witnesses under all the circumstances.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let me ask you this, if I may-
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think, since you are on the supreme court,
you and I won't have any argument about the law. I think we both
heartily agree that an attorney has the right to question a witness
as to whether he is being paid for his testimony or what he is being
offered to testify, what he is getting in the way of a reward for testify-
ing-in other words, his interest in the case.
Likewise, you can ask whether he is testifying because he was beaten
up and threatened with prosecution if he wouldn't testify. I n view of
the fact that Colonel Rosenfeld erred so grievously in cases that were
so important, I am just wondering how the record could show any-
thing about these beatings. I n other words, if you get my question
in mind, let's say there are a hundred of us accused of murder, and
the prosecution says to 25 of us, "We will let you off'-after they beat
us up-"if you will sign this confession implicating the other 75."
So the 25 of us testify that the other 75 are guilty.
I f the defense attorney doesn't have a chance to examine us and
show why we are testifying, then i t is impossible for any man looking
a t the cold record to evaluate the testimony. Looking a t the cold
record, you can't ossibly evaluate the testimony, then, could you?
Mr. SIMPSON.I? was a difficult matter, I agree with you entirely,
as is demonstrated by what happened. To begin with, there were 44
of these accused who were given the death sentence and General Clay
through his subordinates, particularly through Colonel Straight, to
begin with, and then later reviewed by Colonel Harbaugh, now Gen-
eral Harbaugh, concluded that only 12 of those death sentences ought
to be confirmed; and some of those given death sentences were by
General Clay's order absolutely acquitted.
A critical analysis was made of the record which had been made.
The review shows, I think, Colonel Rosenfeld erred.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO YOLI recall this? The facts were brought
out as to the case of a man being sentenced to hang for having par-
ticipated in the operations of a certain ofice in the year 1941 on the
theory that having been in that office, he knew what orders were issned
fr,om the office, and therefore, was guilty and sliould be hung, and the
defense counsel before the court didn't even argue the point that
this man was never even working in that office, defense counsel merely
argued there is no evidence to show that he knew what was in these
various orders and that after the conviction, after the sentence to hang,
then it was brought up to the reviewing authority and they were
informed that the uncontested evidence showed this man was I don't
know how many miles away, two or three hundred miles away, and
hadn't been in that town since 1939.
Were yon aware of that particular case?
Mr. SIMPSON.What was the name of the accused?
WLMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 195
Senator MCCARTHY. 1don't know. I was given that information,
and we intend to bring in the details of the case. They may have
been set aside before you entered the picture.
Mr. SIMPSON. That doesn't impress me. I don7t recognize imme-
d&ly the situation you describe.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO I understand the only cases you reviewed
were those in which death sentences were pending at the time?
Mr. SIMPSON. Exactly.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n some of those cases General Clay set the con-
viction aside entirely ?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, indeed. If you gentlemen wouldn't mind, I
would prefer to answer the questions you propound because I may
go afield if I talk other than in response to questioning.
Mr. CHAMBERS. We do have a series of questions we would like to
ask, and I am sure that then Senator McCarthjr will have additional
questions.
Senator MCCARTHY.I have a sizable number. There is one ques-
tion I would like to ask before you go further.
You recommended in a certain number of cases the men should not
be hanged ?
Mr. SIMPSON.That is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY. Have some of those men since been hanged?
Mr. SIMPSON.I think that is true. I observed it in the newspapers.
Senator MCCARTHY. I believe five of the men you said should not
be hung have already been executed.
Mr. SIMPSON. That is correct.
Senator BALDWIN.Was that the Maln~edyaffair?
Senator MCCARTHY. NO. They investigated 139 cases.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Senator McCarthy asked that we confine the testi-

mony to the Malmedy cases, and I was going to point out that those
five that were hung were outside the Malmedy cases.
Senator BALDWIN. GO ahead.
Mr. CHAMBERS. We have had primarily as a result, I believe, of
Colonel Everett's petition and then in charges that have come in in
many ways-part of them are based on the affidavits of the accused,
many very serious charges concerning brutalities, beatings, and mat-
ter$ which I believe can be grouped under the heading of inhuman
treatment.
As differentiated from those, we had a series of charges involving
mock trials, solitary confinement, et cetera.
I would like to ask you if the evidence that you discovered estab-
lished that there is reasonable grounds to believe that these inhumane
and brutal methods were carried out by the prosecution staff a t Mal-
medy. I guess we should sag a t Schwabisch Hall.
Mr. SIMPSON. NO. We found no evidence of that. Today the
lestin~onythat was given before you gentlemen is the first direct and
dependable evidence I have heard of it outside of these circumstances.
The affidavits made by the accused, after convictions, which must
obviously be received with a great deal of caution, and next there
mas an affidavit by a dentist named Knorr, I believe; who lived at the
town of Schwabisch Hall, and we didn't have an opportunity to inter-
view him, and I left that affidavit with Colonel Harbaugh and told
him, "This is your responsibility," and I see his group and Colonel
Raymond did look into the matter.
Senator BALDWIN. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Colonel Harbaugh and Colonel Raymond were
the two men who were in-charge of this whole area, so that when you
left this work to them, you were saying in effect, "Gentlemen, you go
ahead and investigate yourselves, and if you find you have done some-
thing wrong, tell me."
Mr. SIMPSON.NO. Colonel Raymond wasn't. Colonel Harbaugh
was in responsible charge of the legal work in that area. including the
war crimes.
However, I never left but one thing with them, and that was that
Dr. Knorr affidavit. -1asked them to follow that np. I hadn't had
time to talk to the dentist.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SO that the Knorr affidavit was the only evidence
you had that would support charges of knocking out of teeth and
breaking jams, and so on?
Mr. SIRIPSON. Yes, and i n q ~ ~ i from
r y such people as we conld inter-
view in Munich failed to substantiate the claims of beatings and
brutality.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were those inquiries made of people who were in
position to know what went on at Schwabisch Hall ?
Mr. SIMPSON. We talked to as many who had been prosecutors and
defense counsel as we could find, both in the United States and in
Germany.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask: Are you referring to the Malmedy
cases again?
Mr. SIMPSON. Again I see what you mean.
Senator MCCARTHY. Ultimately I want to know which of the de-
fense counsel in the Malmedy cases you talked to and which of the
prosecution staff, and it is very important that we keep these two
things separated. I know you were there on a much bigger job and
important job.
Mr. SIMPSON. We reviewed every record and affidavit that pointed
toward this claim of abuse and mistreatment, and we weren't able
to locate any tangible support to the claim outside of what I have
told you gentlemen.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,there mas a charge made. sir, of posturing
as priests. Did you find any evidence to support that?
Mr. SIMPSON. I did not and i t shocked me so to think that that
might have been done that I looked for it, and I did not find it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There have also been charges made of solitary con-
finement, and we have had marry witnesses here who admit freely that
they were kept in separate cells, b ~ now, ~ t generally speaking, the
term "solitary confinement" carries a connotation to us that is a little
mol-e severe than being placed as a single prisoner in a cell.
How were these people treated insofar as their confinement was
concerned ?
Mr. SIMPSON. They were kept in solitary ~onfinement. I n fact, you
will find in the record that they mere kept in cells which for some
reason or other got to be called death cells.
But the records shows that those who were being investigated for
the inassacre at the Malmedv cross roads of these surrendered Amer-
ican prisoners of war belonged to Combat Group F'eiper, and they
wouldn't talk, and the officers had such control over them, as the
record indicates, that these investigators had to separate them in
order to keep them from telling the same story.
'
It didn't shock me at all that they put them in individual cells for
the purpose of keeping them from correlatirlg information and for
the purpose of getting at the truth of the matter, but that was done.
Mr. CJIAMBERS. Did the records that you all examined show that
there were conlplaints made indicating the fact that they were kept
in solitary confinement or did they complain of suffering from cold
or not being properly fed or other complaints you might have run
across in the record of trials?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes; Colonel Raymond's board reflects they took
blankets away from some of those prisoners. The man who testified to
the fact that blankets were taken away said that cells were steam
heated, but still that didn't set very well with us. Others did have
blankets in steam-heated cells and that, of course, didn't rest very well,
Also there was some testimony about overcoats being taken away
from one or two of the accused, but so far as inadequate food being
given them, I didn't observe any claim to that effect.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Today in the examination of other witnesses and in
some of the printed stories based on the Simpson report, there is refer-
ence made to the fact that a rather surprising percentage-I think out
of 139 cases all but 2 of the Germans had had their testicles damaged
beyond repair. Where did you find the evidence on that?
Mr. SIMPSON. None at all.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were there charges made to that effect?
Mr. SIMPSON.
NO; no claim was made to that effect in any of the
records we inspected, and we diligently tried to find them.
Senator MCCARTHY.Just a second. Did you read Colonel Everett's
affidavit, Judge ?
Mr. SIMPSON.Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay there was no claim made. You read
that before you conducted your investigation?
Mr. SIMPSON. I suppose you are correct. When I say no claim was
made, I am too broad in that. I like to separate between the realm of
allegation and the realm of proof.
I want to say I found no proof of that.
Senator MCCARTHY. The best proof would be to say to a doctor,
"Examine the man." Here is an affidavit that says they are crippled
for life. Your best proof would be to say to a doctor, "Examine the
man." Did you do that?
Mr. SIMPSON. No.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then the proof wouldn't show through their
clothing; would i t ?
Mr. SIMPSON. No.
Senator MCCARTHY. What proof would you expect to find?
Mr. SIMPSON.
I think that' is an ,absurd claim, the. claim that they
were damaged for life.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUmay think so. This is an important mat-
ter you were sent to investigate. There is one simple way to do it.
You could have picked three orfour men a t random and have said to
a doctor, "Examine these men," say all except one is crippled for life.
198 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGAI'ION
I f you picked out two or three, you would know whether the claims are '
correct or not.
Mr. SIMPSON.If you gentlemen think that-is a proper procedure, I
take it i t can be done now, and I take it you so recommend.
Mr. CHAMBERS. If I may say, Senator McCarthy, my question was:
What direct evidence was secured to justify that particular claim?
Apparent1 the answer is-
&
Senator CCARTHY.SOthat this record is clear, I think it is absurd
to ask a man whether he found evidence and he says, "Now, I didn't
find any claim made.''
We know that the affidavit which started this machinery in motion
to get these investigations, those affidavits were replete with claims that
the men were crippled for life. If the judge says he didn't find any
evidence, in order to make that clear he must say, "I didn't look for
evidence."
I f you want to find whether a man has a wooden leg, you pull up
his trousers leg and look at the leg: I f you want to determine whether
138 out of 139 were crippled for life-and their affidavit is important
here-the only way to determine that is to say to a doctor, "Examine 2
or 3 or 10 of these men."
Pardon me, judge, but just so the record is clear, I understand you
didn't look for evidence of that kind.
Mr. SIMPSON.We did not conduct any physical examination.
Senator BALDWIN. You made no physical examination of the
$risoners ?
Mr. SIMPSON.We did not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Directly along that same line and so that we can
know the degree to which a check was made into these things, in one of
the reports again, which came out concerning-I believe i t was made
by Judge Van Roden, and we will speak to him directly, but you
probably have some knowledge of it-in further reference to these 139
people, the claim that they were ruined for life, the other statement
was that this was standard operating procedure with American inves-
t i ators. Did you look for any direct evidence on that point?
%r. SIMPSON.We found in regard to that, in regard to that being
standard practice, the one and only time we found these questionable
procedures occurred in any substantial degree at all was in the Mal-
medy case. '
Senator BALDWIN. Could you tell us, judge, at that point what you
found in the Malmedy case with reference to the abuses of any pris-
oners or anything that was complained of?
Mr. SIMPSON.We found no proof of physical abuse. We found
proof enough of these improper methods to which I have referred, to
satisfy me personally, that even though I was convinced that the record
warranted the findings of guilty, I didn't want to see anybody hung
in a procedure which had the blemish in it of that improper investiga-
tion; and so clemency was recommended, not because we didn't think
the men were guilty, but because we didn't approve the procedures by
which the cases were investigated.
Senator BALDWIN. Was it your opinion that the evidence you ex-
amined was legally competent evidence to establish their guilt, but that
the methods that were used in connection with the prosecution and the
investigation were such that the men ought not to be executed because
of the methods used ?
M A L M E D Y MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
199
Mr. SIMPSON. That is substantially it.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask a question? You were on the su-
preme court, right?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. The Appellate Court in Texas?
Mr. SIMFSON.
Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. A record comes up to your Appellate Court.
You, of course, don't have a chance to see the witnesses.
Mr.. SIMPSON.That is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUreview on the record.
Senator MCCARTBY.Then let us say that John Jones here is con-
victed of murder and he is sentenced to hang. He appeals to your
court, and you find, No. 1, that a mock trial was conducted and a rope
tied around his neck, thrown up over a beam, and he was jerked with
a black hood over his head to make believe he was being hanged.
Assume he signs a confession and in court the defense counsel tries
to question witnesses to show how this statement was obtained, whether
obtained under duress, promises, and so on, and the court says, "Ob-
iection overruled." The court won't even hear how these statements
were obtained..
You are sitting in the Appellate Court. What would you do with a
case like that?
M~.\SIMPSON. It would be remanded. I agree with you about that.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwouldn't let a conviction stand ?
Mr. SIMPSON.YOUwould remand it for a new trial. I agree it pre-
sents a very difficult problem here.
Senator MCCARTIIY. I am not trying to browbeat you, but this oc-
curs to me: You are a judge, and I assume a good one. I f a record
comes before you and the only evidence convicting a man-and he was
sentenced to death-is his own statement and three or four other
statements all gotten under duress, or at least the prosecution wouldn't
allow the defense to state what the duress was, and the court said, L'We
don't want to know whether you were beaten ; we don't want to know
the details." Under those circumstances I wonder if you agree with
me that you would not only remand the case for a new trial, but you
would recommend to the Bar Association that they check into the
matter to see what type of prosecution was handling it and see what
type of judge was handling the case. Am I substantially correct in
-----t.8-
t,h
Mr. SIMPSON. I n general and in principle I agree with you, yes.
The upshot of this, however, is different and peculiar in that first, at
least to my satisfaction, this record of trial sufficiently demonstrated
that these 12 accused participated in the murder of these American
boys, and that they, therefore, were properly convicted even though
there were errors in the trial.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this: I f that is true that the
records shows that, I don't think any of us have any quarrel with the
sentence. I am wondering how you can determine that when you
have no evidence before you as to how the statements were obtained,
when the defense counsel says, "I want this man to tell under what
circumstances and under what conditions his statement was obtained,"
and the prosecution says, "I-object," and says, "I don't want the court
to know how his statement was obtained,'' and the court says, 'LThat
objection is sustained, we don't want to know how that statement was

obtained."
Let's say you have 3,4, or 5 men all testifying as to his guilt. Finally
the defense gives up. You will find in the record here that Mr. Rosen-
feld warned the defense counsel that he wouldn't rule on that again.
I n other words, he would find him in contem$t of court if he tried to
prove how the statements were obtained.
Under those circumstances is there any conceivable way how you
and I can tell whether a man was properly convicted, whether he was
guilty, not knowing how he was forced to make the statement, how far
they went? I can't conceive how you would say the evidence shows he
was guilty unless you are referring to evidence which is not altogether
clarified.
Mr. SLMPSON. Senator, I would hazard this guess: that you would
agree with me upon reading the records in connection with this
Malmedy case that these particular men did participate in the murder.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f you read the records and the affidavits, you
will agree they weren't written by illiterate boys of 16 or 17, I agree
they were dictated and written by a very smart prosecutor, that the
language was his, the language wasn't the language of the boys, I will
agree that if you read them and believe what is in the affidavits, that
then hanging was too good for those men.
But any man with just common horse sense, such as you and I have,
reading those affidavits, we would say those affidavits were never
written by young 15 or 16-year-old boys, many of whom never even
went through grade school, having. gone into the Army. I would want
to know whether these men are guilty.
Let me ask you this question, if I may : The testimony this morning
was-and apparently it is unquestioned-that the chief investigator,
one of them had been sentenced to death by Hitler's gang, he had
escaped, his wife had been held in a German concentration camp for
4 years and I assume not treated too well, Another of the investigators
had his mother killed. These are people from Germany, men who
had to get out from under Hitler or they would have been killed most
likely. You have heard the court reporter state they disliked the whole
German race and thought they all should hang.
Don't you think it is improper beyond words to those men in
charge of the interrogation, in charge of getting the confessions, in
charge of getting the statements upon which men are going to be
ha11 ed?
I& SIMPSON.
. Senator, I wish they hadn't used that team. I will
say, however, that those gentlemen claim they couldn't get anybody
else to do that investigating. The war was over, all our reliable per-
sonnel over there wanted to get home. They said they just had to get
these men because that is all they conld find.
They called for volunteers and, of course, these people would volun-
teer. They would be perfectly willing to volunteer because of animus.
They didn't know these people wouldn't fairly conduct the hearings.
Senator MCCARTHY. There were three or four million men there in
the Army. Many of them could speak German. They didn't have to
call for valunteers. They could go through the statements these men
filled out in the beginning and find those who were qualified. They
would say, "YOUcome here."
&fAWEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 201
; No. 2, is there any reason why they believe they.can get a vengeance
t ~ a mand put them in chafge,of interrogation and get a fair trial?
Mr. SIMPSON. I don't know why that couldn't have been pursued,
and I agree with you I wish they hadn't used this particular team,
but I believe that the authorities over there acted in good faith about it.
I must say a kind word for our ~ersonnelover there. So few people
seem to be standing up for them. I found an honorable and devoted
group of officers when I went over there to investigate these things,
peo le who wanted to do what was right.
d n a t o r BALDWIN.One thing that may be indicated out of all this
is, as I see it now, as chairman of the subcommittee, as far as we have
gone, it is that if we are ever to conduct a trial of this kind agein,
one of the considerations that we willhave to give great weight to is
the competency and the adequacy of the personnel with which to do it.
Would you say that is correct?
" Mr. SIMPSON. Absolutely.
, Senator BALDWIN. I would like to say this for the benefit of the
record : My pbsition here as chairman osthe subcommittee is one that
makes it necessary for me to try to preside over these hearings just -
as impartially as I can. whereas Senator McCarthy can cross-examine
these witnesses.- I don3t intend to take that role in the thing at all. I
want to develop insofar as I can through direct questioning the facts
presented here as fully as we can get them.
Going back to the question of the injuries to the privates of these
'prisoners, these Malmedy prisoners, you said yon made no physical
examination to determine whether or not their affidavits were correct;
is that right ?
'
Mr. SIMPSON. We did not.
Senator BALDWIN. Was there any medical testimony to the effect
that they bad been permanently injured in any way, or what was the
medical testimony on that?
Mr. SIMPSON.There was none produced.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you look for any?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. We looked for all evidence which would sub-
stantiate the claims .which had been made, and we found no evidence
to that effect.
Senator BALDWIN.I n connection with these so-called confessions,
Senator McCarthy has brought out, I think, a very good point, and
that is that they are written in ordinary English style, not as a literal
translation of what a German might say.
I might also point out for the benefit of the record-and, of course,
it is part of the record-that the affidavits which they filed in the
Supreme Court of the United States to accompany their petition are
likewise written in that same style. They are not what might appear
to be the verbatim testimony literally translated of a German, w h , ~
usually puts the verb, as I remember it, at the end of the sentence, so
that you were aware of all those facts, were you, Judge?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. I think you said a moment ago that after an ex-
amination of this record, you ha4 no question in your mind, at least,
as to the actual guilt of the men who were convicted?
Mr. SIMPSON. That is true. , '
Senator BALDWIN. But you did have some question in your mind as
to the manner in which the testimony and their confessions were ob-
tained. I n an examination of this record, was any man convicted who,
in your judgment, was convicted q o n his confession alone?
Mr. SIMPSON. I lost my memorandum on that, and I prepared it.
I analyzed the record particularly from that viewpoiat, and I don't
believe that there was one man convicted or possibly one man, con-
victed on his uncorroborated statement.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, his only statement was cor-
roborated by other competent testimony ?
Mr. SIMPSON. Competent under the rules that were obtained, and
there we bring up another controversial question.
Senafor BALDWIN.That was the next question I was going to ask you.
-What was the degree of competency? Was it the degree of com-
petency that would be required in an American court to secure a
criminal conviction or what was its nature?
Mr. SIMPSON. NO,it wasn't. The rules of evidence-and I am sure
you gentlemen have been over this before-which were followed were
- the rules which had been substantially adopted for the Nuremberg
trials, and that is to say any evidence which had any probative value
which the trier of facts might think should be admitted.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, hearsay was admitted and its
weight depended upon its credibility ?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes; that was the system, and we didn't question the
system. It had been adopted, and that is quite another question.
It is one that is debated at great length to this day, whether this is
proper procedure. But that was the procedure agreed upon and fol-
lowed in the British, French, and American trials, as I understand it,
and a t Nuremberg.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, before these trials began there
was a sort of code made up of rules of evidence and rules of procedures
that death with this particular trial?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes. Colonel Chambers has a copy of i t there.
Senator BALDWIN.I think that has been introduced in evidence.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.It will be part of the record. This question
asks you for a piece of expert testimony that maybe you might not
feel competent to answer.
Mr. SIMPSON. If it is expert, I am not competent.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me ask you this as a lawyer: Do you know
whether or not in France and in Germany in the trial of cases they
have different rules as to the admissibility of evidence than we have?
I n other words, in a French court and in a German court is hearsay
testimony admissible?
Mr. SIMPSON.
Senator, I wouldn't be able to answer that.
I have
heard that it is, but what I have heard is of little value.
Senator BALDWIN.I think that is an important point here to deter-

nline. I think we should look that question up. Of course, in an
American court, as you well know, it is not. I would be interested in
knowing whether or not they adopted any of t,he rules that pertain
to the courts of the country of which these men mere citizens.
Mr. SI~~PSON. The rules mere adopted as a compromise among the
four powers a t London as to how the Nuremberg trials were to pro-
ceed, and finally these rules came out, whether good or bad, and they
have been followed. The regularity of the proceedings, so f a r as
of evidence were concerned, was accepted by us.
Senator BALDWIN.I think that is one of the questions this committee
has to decide in connection with its recommendation : Whether or not
in a trial of this kind we should proceed by our own criminal code and
procedure or whether we would be warranted in setting u p rules of
evidence and procedure different from what pertained in the civil
courts of our own country. I think that is a very important thing for
us to decide.
Mr. SIMPSON.YOUare eminently correct.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you find, Judge Simpson, any deviation from
the rules laid down for procedure as to evidence and procedure in this
invesbigation and in the trials.! Did ygu find that the American
personnel who conducted the investigation and the prosecution devi-
ated from the rules laid down for their guidance and, if so, could you
tell us about that?
Mr. SIMPSON. AS I construed the record, the rules were followed
rather faithfully. There may have been some errors such as Senator
McCarthy mentioned that were committed in admitting testimony.
For instance, Colonel Rosenfeld's ruling, which he and I agree was
in error.
However, on the whole the courts tried their best, it semed to me to
follow the rules laid down in the manual.
Senator BALDWIN.I n your investigation what competent evidence
did you find of beatings of the Malmedy prisoners ?
Mr. SIMPSON. I did not observe any.
Senator BALDWIN.What evidence, if any, did you find of shortened
rations and starvation and anythi~igof that kind?
Mr. SIMPSON. I found no, evidence of that.
Senator BAWWIN.What evidence did you find of men being put
into so-called death cells and held there indefinitely?
Mr. SIMPSON. They were kept in solitary confinement, and some of
the cells where they were confined were known-and nobody seemed
to explain the reason why they were kndwn-as death cells. That was
before the trial and during the investigation. That did occur.
Senator BALDWIN.Did your investigation disclose the manner in
which these confessions were obtained?
Mr. SIMPSON. The mock-trial procedures were disclosed rather
fully.
Senator BALDWIN.Could you describe them as you found it from
your investigation ?
Mr. SIMPSON.The accused would be taken out of his solitary con-
finement and a hood would be placed over his head before he left his
cell and he would be led through the corridors necessary to get to the
room where the interrogation would proceed.
Upon his arrival there, the hood would be removed from his head.
and here is what he would see. He would see a table covered wit11
a black cloth and two candles on the table with a crucifix in between
and the crucifix is the conventional method of administering the oath
in judicial proceedings on the Contirieni.
Senator BALDWIN.You say the crucifix is the conventional method
of administering the oath?
91'765-49-14
Mr. SIMPSON. On the Continent. I t is used instead of the Bible.

It is a symbol of the sanctity of the oath being administered.
Behind the table would be seatedkwo or three men attired as Ameri-
can Army officers, whether they were or not, ostensibly judges.
On this side would be a man attired as an Army officer, who would
pose as prosecution counsel, and on the other side there would be a
man attired as an American Army officer who would pose as the defense
counsel.
The rosec cut ion would reel out a t the accused and the defense
counselkould come to his rescue, ostensibly.
That sort of proceeding was carried along in an effort to get the
accused to make an extra judicial statement which later would be
used against him. I f they couldn't get the statement from the ac-
cused, they would tell him, "That is all a t this time," and they would
lead him back to the cell with a hood placed back over his head.
Senator BALDTVIN. I n connection with those mock trials, was there
evidence that came before you of beatings, physical abuse of any kind?
Mr. SIMPSON. I found none.
Senator BALDTVIN. Was there any evidence of men being slapped '
in the face or were kneed in the groin or anything of that kind?

Mr. SINPSON. I found no evidence of that.
Senator BAWWIN.Did you go to Schwabisch Hall?
Mr. SIMPSON.
NO,I didn't go to Schwabisch Hall.
Senator BALDWIN.What witnesses did you talk with about this
trial ?
Mr. SIMPSON. There was such a host of them and I didn't keep my
notes as to their names.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUsay there was a host of them. We have
here attached to your report the names of 33 witnesses.
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Which apparently includes officers in our own
Army. \
Mr. S ~ P S OYes.N.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you recall a Dr. Rudolf Aschenauer?
Mr. SIMPSON. I don't remember him individually. His name ap-
pears there. We would listen to those people as long as they wanted
to talk. We tried to give them all the time they re uired.
9,
Senator BALDWIN.Here is a name of Dr. Eugen eer and Dr. Ru-
dolf Aschenauer and Lt. Col. John S. Dwinell, and Colonel Ellis ad-
vises me that Dwinell and Leer were defense counsel. Do you remem-
ber talking to them?
Mr. S ~ P S O Yes.
N . Dr. Leen was a lawyer ;apparently the German
lawyers are called doctors.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. These men, I understand, were not M. D.'s.
Mr. SINPSON. Yes, sir; that is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. They were lawyers and in Germany you use
the term "doctor" for a lawyer ?
Mr. SIMPSON. That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.There is a Dr. Ring and a Dr. Spoerlein who
are listed. Do you recall whether they were physicians?
Mr. SIMPSON. There may have been a doctor or two there. I do
not remember offhand.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVEST~GATION 205
- Senator BALDWIN.Then there 'appear the representatives of the
Evangelical Bisho of Wurms and they are Dr. Weeber, Dr. Becker,
and Dr. Tischer. g o you remember that?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Also a Father Echardt. Could you tell us who
those witnesses were ?
Mr. SIMPSON. Those gentlemen, Dr. Weeber being the leader of the
group, as I remember it, those men were representing the Evangelical
Bishop of Wurms and they appeared before us on one occasion a full
afternoon and returned, I believe, for another interview together over
this entire situation.
The burden of the claim which was made by those gentlemen was
not that there was beating and abuse of the prisoners, but in general
it was that the war-crimes program was wrong. That, in general,
was the claim those gentlemen advanced, that it was inhumane for us
to try these people for offenses on ex post facto proceedings and like
matters.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUare speaking now of the discussion of the
Malmedy cases ?
Mr. SIMPSON. They were talking about it and all the rest of the
cases. They weren't exercised especially about one Malmedy case.
They didn't claim it to be distinctive froin the others.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did they know anything about the Malmedy
case? Did they live near Schwabisch Hall? These bishops, ministers,
and priests, did they know anything about the Malmedy trials? Did
they claim to know anything about them?
Mr. SIMPSON. I don't remember.
Senator BALDWIN. I n whose behalf did they come?
Mr. SIMPSON.
Both the Bishop of Wurms and the Catholic Bishop
of Munich and Freising appeared, and they were very fair in their
whole attitude. They were ?imply laying their side of the story
before us, a legal and humane standpoint.
Senator BALDWIN.I take it by that you mean they were speaking
in behalf of the accused? I
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes; that is right.

Senator BALDWIN.Did theymake any cIaims of physical abuse or
violence or anything of that kind?
Mr. SIMPSON. They did not. ,
Senator BALDWIN.I beg your pardon?
Mr. SIMPSON. They did not. 1 will say that Dr. Weeber, as I re-
member it, left me a copy of that affidavit by Dr. Knorr, and he Ieft
some other affidavits, and in some of them there may have been a
claim of physical violence, but I listened to him particularly at length,
and he in his written address to our commission didn't advance any
claim of violence.
Senator BALDWIN.What other witnesses did you examine that you
could say-that is, what other witnesses from this particular group
did you examine that you could say appeared in behalf of the de-
fendants?
Mr. SIMPSON. I n the Malmedy case?9
d
Mr. SIMPSON. I don't remember' that any of these gentlemen ap-

peared especially in that case, outside of Dr. Leer, and in his oral
representations to us Dr. Leer did not claim that there were these
beatings and abuses. He did claim these other irregularities I am
talking about in general, and he claiined that the trial should have
resulted in acquittal.
Dr. Leer is a very fine man, too. But my recollection is that he did
not in his oral presentation state that there was beating or physical
mistreatment of prisoners.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There are two more questions that I would like to
ask, Judge Simpson.
I n your report, it caused a little confusion, I believe, in the minds
of some, and we find the language :
We have found no general conspiracy to obtain evidence improperly.
And there is one thing further :
There was no general or systematic use of improper methods to secure prosecu-
tion evidence for use a t the trials.
This report covers Malmedy and Dachau cases?
Mr. SIMPSON. It covers 67 trials.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This statement doesn't mean, there was no evidence
in the Malmedy cases of general or systematic use of improper meth-
ods, but rather that throughout your entire 67 cases there was no evi-
dence of a pattern that would apply to all prosecutions?
Mr. SIMPSON. YOUare correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
there a difference between the Malmedy cases
Was
and the other cases insofar as your findings were concerned?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, the Malmedy case was the third one tried. It
was one of the first ones tried. I was personally gratified t o find that
the methods that were used in the Malinedy case did not appear t o
have been repeated.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Sir, as a result of some of the information that has
come out in connection with these cases, statements have been made
involving the prosecution staff and various comments have been made
that they should be exposed in the public process and prosecuted, and
SO on.
You reviewed all the Malmedy cases or the great bulk of them.
Did you find evidence to support that belief, that some of this prose-
cution staff had gone so far that they should be charged and tried?
Mr. SIXPSON. Not a t all.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you feel it necessary to call members of the
prosecution staff before you to explain or defend the methods they
had used?
Mr. SIMPSON.NO. We wanted mostly to talk to defense counsel,
although some members of the prosecution did come, and I know
there is here listed Colonel Rosenfeld, the law member of that court,
H e appeared before us.
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOWabout the prosecution staff that conducted the
preliminary investigations at Schwabisch Hall? Did you have any
of them before yon ?
Mr. SIMPSON. None of them were here. Their testimony is, I sup-
pose, before you in the Raymond commission investigation.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is correct. One other questian. Perhaps you
can answer this and clear up a point.
Those confessions that were in the court records, were they written
in English or in German or both? Do you recall?
Mr. SIMPSON. NO,I wouldn't be able to recall that.
Mr. CHANBERS. Thank you, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Just one further question before we ask Sena-
tor McCarthy to go ahead.
I n connection with these trials and the conduct of the investigation
and the prosecution, did you question any of the men who had taken
part in the prosecution and investigation?
Mr. SIMPSON. They had a prosecution team and they had an investi-
gating team. The testimony of the investigating team was available
to us. They had already been interrogated by Colonel Raymond,
Colonel Harbaugh, and Dr. Friedrich and, therefore, it was a part
of the archiv?s that we considered in arriving at our conclusions.
Senator BALDWIN. I n other words, you examined their sworn testi-
money on the records?
Mr. SIMPSON. Exactly.
Senator MCCARTHY. Judge, we seem to have had some confusion in
the record about what cases you were talking about. Looking a t this
list of-32 gitnesses, dq you k,now which of those witnesses knew
anything about the Malrnedy trials ?
Mr. SIMPSON. Colonel Dwinell.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did he tell you about these beatings?
Mr. SIMPSON.
H e told me he wasn't able to find any substantiation
as to the maltreatment of prisoners. I asked him particularly. H e
said, "No, I can't prove that."
Senator MCCARTHY.Who made the claim?
Mr. SIMPSON. Colonel Everett made the claim.
Senator MCCARTHY. A few minutes ago you said nobody had made
that claim.
Mr. SIMPSON. I didn't intend to say that.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid the fi<rstyou had heard was what was
presented here today.
Mr. SIMPSON. This was the first proof of that that I had heard,
the testimony today.
Senator MCCARTHY. Who else in the group knew something about
the Malmedy cases?
Mr. SINPSON. Dr. Leer.
Senator MCCARTHY. H e was one of the defense counsel ?
Mr. SIMPSON.
Yes; he was.
Senator MCCARTHY. What did I;'e tell you?
Mr. SIMPSON.
H e didn't claim there was any beatings of his clients.
Senator MCCARTHY. What did he say was wrong? Did he tell you
about the mock trials?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. H e told you some of the men would be con-
victed and sentenced to death, and after the death sentence had been
passed, that a rope would be put around the neck of the man and he
thought he was going to hang, and then he was promised that if he
signed a confession written in English, that he would not be hung,
his sentence would be cut down, and his family would get their ration
cards back?
Mr. SIMPSON.NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWmuch did he tell you?
Mr. S ~ P S OThe N . only proof about these mock trials I was able
to find-
Senator MCCARTHY. I am speaking of Leer.
Mr. SIMPSON. Dr. Leer or anybody else-it is what I have told YOU
before, the description of the mock trials as far as they went. Leer's
concern was mostly with the legal aspects of this thing.
We didn't have a right to try those men, according to him. They
were only acting pursuant to superior orders and that ought to have
been a complete defense. Those were the things Dr. Leer talked about.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhad Dwinell and Leer who knew some-
thing about the Malmedy cases. Were there any other witnesses be-
sides Rosenf eld ?
Mr. SIMPSON. After we came back to the United States, we invited
Colonel Everett to come to see us, and we talked to him for approxi-
mately half a day, or allowed him to talk.. .
Senator MCCARTHY.HOWabout the ones you interviewed over
there ?What did they tell you about the beatings?
Mr. SIMPSON. Senator, I didn't find any proof over there of any
beatings, and I looked for it.
Senator MCCARTHY. I wonder if you would search your memory.
I understand that Dwinell joined with Everett in making out the
affidavits and appeal-although I may be wrong on that-and that
he does agree that all the things Everett says in his affidavit are true.
This was before you were called to make the investigation.
It is hard for me to believe when Dwinell came before you that he
said Everett's affidavits were not true. I f you are sure, I would like
to know.
Mr. SIMPSON.Senator, I always stand the risk of being mistaken.
My recollection is that is what Dwinell told me.
Senator MCCARTHY. If Dwinell comes in and says he told you there
were beatings and mock trials, you wouldn't question his statements?
Mr. S I M P S ~NO.. H e is a very honorable man.
Senator MCCARTHY. Judge, y?u said you found no evidence of
force being used to obtain confessions ; is that correct?
Mr. SIMPSON. Outside of the testimony that I have given.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid you found no evidence of any physi-
cal punishment.
Mr. SIMPSON. I found no evidence of bludgeoning with clubs or
with kicking in the genitals or that sort of thing. I think i t was prob-
ably physical punishment to keep those men in solitary confinement,
as they did, possibly and take blankets away from them and to con-
duct themto these mock trials. I don3 condone that a t all.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUare convinced that the blankets were taken
away from these men prior to the time they confessed?
Mr. SIMPSON. The evidence didn't show whether i t was before or
after, but it was during the investigation.
Senator MCCARTHY. During the interrogation?
Mr. SIMPSON.Yes.
Senator MCCARTIIY.YOUsay you fund no evidence of physical
beatings like being kicked in the genitals and things like that; is that
right ?
Senator MCCARTHY. ISthat correct?
Mr. SIMPSON.
Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhad heard a lot of reports of that, hadn't
you ?
Mr. S ~ P S OINhadn't
. heard a lot of reports. The extent of the
claim that that had occurred I believe was in the application for writ
. of habeas corpus and supporting papers.
Senator MCCARTHY. And in the dentist's affidavit.
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this: I n view of the fact that
you say the evidence was sufficient to convict them, I assume you are
interested in knowing how that evidence was obtained. Can you
today tell us the evidence was proper_lyobtained in view of the fact that
ou turned this over to Mr. Harbaugh to interview the dentist, he
Kas not done that, the-dentist has not been interviewed. I n view of that,
can you tell us at this time whether that claim is true or #else?
Mr. SIMPSON. The record of the trial demonstrated to my satisfac-
tion that these accused were there and that they were present when
these American boys were being shot down, and there was some evi-
dence to show they participated in it.
Senator, I agree with you that this record of trial doesn't measure
up to what I could wish the trial had been, I agree about that, but still
I believe it does sufficiently demonstrate that these people were present
and took a participating or consenting part in the matter.
Senator MCCARTHY.Take John Jones, one of the defendants. We
will take him for an example. He is convicted on a number of things.
No. 1, his own confession, obtained after a mock trial. No:2, by the
written statement, not the testimony, but the written statement filed,
statements made by other men who also claimed they were subjected
to these beatings, who also claimed they had a rope placed around
their necks, as Mr. Bailey tells us. That is the sole testimony. Do
you follow me ?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. That is correct, isn't it? Maybe I am going
too fast. I n some cases did you find that the only testimony against
a defendant was his own confession plus the confession- of other co-
defendants that implicated him, no other testimony 2
Mr. SIMPSON.I believe that is right, Senator McCarthy, in one o r
more instances. I believe that is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am sure it is. Let's start from there. You
say that evidence was sufficient to convince you they were quilty. You
and I, I assume, will agree that if the claim is made by Everett, if the
story told by Mr. Bailey, if those things are true-in other words, if
they tortured those men enough, then-we can't place any weight what-
soever upon those confessions, can we?
I n other words, there is a point beyond which the human body
can't stand punishment, a point at which it will sign any confession.
Some men can stand more. That is %heonly difference.
-
I f the stories that Bailey kells are tr~ze,if the story Everett tells-
and you say he is an honorable man, and I think he is one of the finest
men I know, he has spent roughly 20 t o 30 thousand dollars of his
own money trying to bring about justice, and if the story he tells us
is true, you have nothing whatsoever to base the conviction on.
Mr. SIMPSON. I wouldn't go t h a t far. The claims that Colonel
Everett made, and he advanced them in good faith, were hearsay t o
him necessarily.
Senator MCCARTHY. Bailey's wasn7thearsay.

Mr. SIMPSON. That is the only direct evidence I have heard.
Senator MCCARTHY. I wish you gentlemen had made this investi-
gation and found it out before you rendered your report, but you have
lieard that direct evidence today.
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Bailey is not being paid to come here and
testify. H e is a court reporter and volunteered this. I take it we
agree that some men were sentenced to death, their conviction was
based upon their own confessions and upon the confessions of the co-
conspirators.
Let's take one of those cases. You say there is enough evidence to
uphold the conviction. Let's say we have o t a n d the number isn't
f
important-we have got the man's own con ession. All right. If he
is subjected to a mock trial and tortured enough, he will sign that.
You and I would. The testimony has been that the confessions were
written over and over, five or six times until this man Perl was satisfied
with the statement. It was taken back to the boy, and he signed it.
I f that is true, he was tortured, and his confession is worth nothing; is
that right ?
Mr. SIMPSON. The value of the confession would certaiply be greatly
weakened.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let's put it this way : If he is tortured enough,
he will sign the same confession whether he is guilty or innocent.
Mr. SIMPSON. That is conceivable.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you as a judge wouldn't under any cir-
cumstances convict him upon that confession.
Mr. SIMPSON. Not that alone.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let's take a man, No. 2, another codefendant.
He is also subjected to the same thing, having a rope put around his
neck, told he is to be hung, having had his teeth knocked out, if the
dentist's affidavit was true, and apparently the Army thought i t was
true. The Army's report lists that as a fact. I assume if they thought
that report was not true, they would have investigated that. We
have that.
There is the case of the mock trial, the mock hanging, the kicking
out of the teeth, and he is tortured enongh. So he signs a confession
and implicates your original man. Would you consider that con-
fession worth anything?
Senator BALDWIN.Just a minute before you answer that, Judge
Simpson.
Senator MCCARTHY. This judge is competent to answer the question.
Senator BALDWIN.I think right there for the benefit of the record
it ought to be pointed out that the testimony, as I recall it, that Mr.
Bailey gave on his point was not what he had seen himself but what
he claims Steiner had said or Perl had said that they had done. Isn't
that correct, Senator? I don't recall that Bailey witnessed any such
things.
Senator MCCARTHY. Bailey stated the chief investigator by the
name of Steiner came in and bragged about the way he got a confes-
sion, told that they had marched this man up some steps, told him he
was on a scaffold, put a rope around his neck, threw it over a beam,
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 21%
and jerked him up. He said Steiner said his mother was killed by
Germans, he hated the entire race and thought they should all hang.
There is no doubt about that.
Senator BALDWIN. That is Bailey's statement of what he claims to
have heard Steiner say he claimed to have done.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let's assume in addition to these things that
they were kneed in the genitals-in other words, kicked in the genitals
with your knee, to the end that he signed a confession implicating
No. 1. Under your rules of evidence that would be admissible. That
is, the rules being followed there.
Would you say that would have any probative value at all?
Mr. SIMPSON.It wouldn't have much, Senator, I would say.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this: A man would sign the
same thing regardless of whether he was guilty or innocent, wouldn't
he, except some men would stand more? I am trying to get things
that men with common sense would agree to.
Mr. SIMPSON.AS you say, the things speak for themselves. They
are obvious truisms.
Senator MCCARTHY. That being true, how can you come back here
and tell us that the evidence is sufficient to uphold a conviction? I n
your court you would certainly throw it out.
Mr. SIMPSON. The record demonstrates to my satisfaction that
those accused were at the crossroads and participated in the massacre
of those surrendered prisoners of war.
Senator MCCARTEIY. By the confessions?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes, their confessions corroborated by extrajudicial
statements of other accused.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let's get tha$ We are asking about the con-
fessions and we have the records here, speaking of those records in
which you had a conviction based upon the confession of No. 1plus
the confessions of Nos. 2, 3, and 4 that have implicated No. 1.
Now, if all those confessions are obtained with the same amount of
duress, the same amount of beating, the same amount of kneeing,
same kind of mock trials, the same kind of hanging, if they are all
obtained in the same way, you can't corroborate one bad piece of
evidence with another bad piece of evidence, can you ?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. You can ?
Mr. SIMPSON.
I agree that in the case you suppose, of course, it is
one where there ought not to be a conviction, but we didn't find evi-
dence of those matters which you suppose in your hypothetical ques-
tion.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let's see where you went for your evidence.
Did you see any of the other Malmedy defendants?
Mr. SIMPSON. NO, we did not.
Senator MCCARTHY. You never saw a single one?
Mr. SIMPSON.
NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUnever saw the doctor that treated them?
Mr. SIMPSON.Didn't any doctor treat them, except I saw shortly
before we left this note, unsigned, a copy of an affidavit of this den-
tist, Dr. Knorr.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOthat you never made it a point to see the

doctor that visited the prisoners, never made it a point to see the dentist
that visited the place, never saw any one of the defendants, that is
correct, isn't i t ?
Senator MCCARTHY. And you tell us here there is no evidence of
beating. I f I testified to that in your court, would you allow it to
stand ?
Mr. SIMPSON. Of course, if we had seen those accused, they would
every one have sworn they were beaten to death. It is human nature,
of course, when they have got a death sentence pending, that they will
resort to every expedient to escape execution. It would have done no
good to hear those people try to get out from under the sentences
which had been imposed. This affidavit of Dr. Knorr was a very
unsatisfactory affair, and I repeat that we did not have time to look
into it before we left. He said he didn7tknow the names of any of
the people he treated. He said jaws were broken and teeth knocked
out. Colonel Everett and Colonel Dwinell never claimed they saw
people with broken jaws and teeth knocked out. Neither one of them.
This Dr. Knorr said he was told not to ask the names of these people,
that there was a design on the part of the American-officws for him
not to find out who they were.
But in general the affidavit didn't comport or agree with the other
inquiries we had made or the claims that those representing these ac-
cused had been advancing.
Senator MCCARTHY. You knew it was claimed that these men sen-
tenced to death were crippled for life because they had been kicked
in the genitals. Didn't yon think it was important to send a doctor
to examine two or three of those men?
Mr. SIMPSON.I suppose I saw it and forgot it, since you say it is
there. I never saw a claim that a man had been injured for life
because of a blow in the genitals.
Senator MCCARTHY. Didn't you read over Colonel Everett's
affidavit ?
Mr. SIMPSON. ISit in his affidavit?
Senator MCCARTHY. It is in these documents, I would say, 10 or
15 times in the documents supporting Everett's application. I do
wish you would look these over and discover what you have overlooked.
Mr. SIMPSON.I accept your statement that i t is in there, if it is.
Senator MCCARTW.I W O L I ~like ~ to have you see it.
Let me ask you this : This is not from the book itself, I do not have
the book, this is from one of your lawyers in Dallas, Tex., who sent me
excerpts from Regulations for the Trial of War Crimes and, as I say,
I haven't had a chance to verify whether this is a correct copy or not,
although I assume it is :
Any document purporting to have been siqned or issued officially by any mem-
ber of any allied or enemy force or by anx official or agency of any allird, neutral,
o r enemy government shall be admissible a s evidence without any proof of either
the issuance or of the signature thereof.
What do you think about that?
Mr. SIMPSON. I don't know abont that, Senator. I never heard of
that before.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Forgetting for the time being the Malmedy
cases, don't you think that is a fantastic rule of evidence, that if a
document is purported to have been issued by somebody, you didn't
prove it was issued, you didn't prove it was signed, you introduced
it in evidence to prove the facts in the document.
3 Mr. SIMI?SON.The rules of evidence certainly didn't comport with
our conventional views of admissibility in the United States.
. Senator MCCARTHY. I n view of the fact that this was an American
court under American Military Government, don't you think we should
follow our rules?
Mr. SIMPSON. NO,I don't.
Senator MCCARTHY. Instead of following French rules or Hitler's
rules, the rules we condemn, instead of following Hitler's rules, bring-
ing our idea of justice down to his level, we should try to bring it up
to the level we have found has been effective, having brought i t down
from the old English law, found it to be adequate protection for de-
fendant and society. I s my question too involved? Should we adopt
Hitler's rules of evidence or follow our own?
Mr. SIMPSON. We shouldn't adopt anything Hitler did. You ask
me a political question, I believe, that can best be answered in a polit-
ical forum. It is true, Senator, that many authorities, including
Wigmore On Evidence, thought that hearsay ought to be admitted.
Senator MCCARTHY (reading) : a
Any diary, letter, or other document may be received in evidence a s to the

facts stated.
I s that one of the German rules of evidence?
Mr. SIMPSON. I don't know.
Senator BALDWIN.Read i t again.
Senator MGCARTHY (reading) :
Any diary, letter, or other document may be received in evidence a s to the

facts therein stated.
Do you think you should sentence a man to death under that?
Mr. SIMPSON. I see no reason not to let it in, myself, for whatever
it is worth.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, you think that is a proper
rule of evidence ?
Mr. SIMPSON. Under the procedures that obtained there and the
necessities of the case, I don't see any harm in admitting that for
whatever the trier of facts thought it was worth.
Senator MGCARTHP ( reading) :
Translation of any document will be presumed to be a correct translation
until the contrary is shown.
I n other words, you don't have to prove a translation was correct
to be used as evidence. Do you think that is a sound rule of evidence?
Mr. SIMPSON. I don't know that I would go for that, but I suppose
it wouldn't result i n many abuses.
Senator, you are asking me a good many political questions now
that have to do with those procedures that were settled in the Pour-
Power Conference in London and later set as procedures for the
British, French, and Americans who followed them, and I leave it
to the wisdom of you gentlemen here as to what to recommend in that
respect.
I generally thought that the proceedings were fair, but I might be
mistaken about it. It is a matter I am glad you gentlemen are looking
into.
Senator MOCARTHY. Judge, if you don't want to answer any of

these, it is all right, but you are here to testify, and one of the functions
of this subcommittee is to decide what charges are to be made. One
of the things we have asked the American Bar Association to do is to
make a complete review of the rules of evidence.
I don't know that the four powers adopted these rules of evidence.
I don't think that is true. But let's assume they have. These are
American courts, American prestige to a great extent depends on the
way we mete out justice.
I am asking you *whetheror not you as a jydge think there is any
justification for our abandoning our rules of procedqre in criminal
cases and adopting what you say are the rules of the country-in
other words, Germany, the rules that Hitler had. That is not a polit-
ical question, It is something we must decide. We must make a
recommendation on it. You are a Supreme Court Justice. I would
like to have your thought on that.
Mr. SIMPSON. I wouldn't say to my knowledge the procedures fol-
lowed at Dachau were according to Hitler7s rules of evidence. The
rules were that any evidence with any probative force was admitted
and its weight was to be appraised by the trier of the fact< and if
worth nothing, rejected, and if worth something, accepted.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me go back to this question again. Do you
recall the ruling of Rosenfeld?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. When you were reviewing the record of the
cases, did you know that Rosenfeld had ruled that it was improper
to inquire from the witnesses as to the circumstances under which the
statements and confessions were obtained?
Mr. SIMPSON. I knew of the ruling.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUknew at the time of the review that the
defense counsel could not prove how the statements and how the con-
f essions were obtained.
Mr. SIMPSON.I knew his right of cross-examination had been limited
by that ruling.
Senator MCCARTHY. Don't start hedging on me. I am trying to get
the facts.
Mr. SIMPSON. H e could have proven it by putting his own clients
cm the stand.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,Judge, a man is in a cell alone at night,
and the confession is obtained. There is no one there except the prose-
cution. You say he can put his own clients on the stand. His own
client is in solitary two floors away. How can he put him on the
stand?
Mr. SIMPSON.The accused were sitting in the courtroom.
Senator MCCARTHY. He was to prove the facts and circumstances
nnder which the statement is obtained.
Senator MCCARTHY. According to the evidence, many of them were
obtained in a dark room at night during or after a mock trial. Defense
counsel had not yet been appointed, they were not there, the defendant
himself was not there, the only man who was there was his co-defend-
ant, and now a witness against him, only he and the prosecution staff.
Now, ypu say he can prove how that confession was obtained by
putting 111s own client on the stand.
Mr. SIMPSON.) Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. I call to your attention that his own client is
khree cells away when it happened. There is no way he has of know-
ing. The only way he can prove that is either by calling the prosecu-
tion and making them admit something which they obviously won't
admit or by asking this man who has made the s t a t e m e n t t h a t he
tried to do and Rosenfeld, the law member of the court, said, "You
can't do that."
Now, I ask you :I s there any other way he can prove it, Judge?
Mr. SIMPSON. I misapprehended your question.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am sure you did.
Mr. SIMPSON.
I thought you were talking about the confessions the
accused themeslves made. We have a rule in some jurisdictions in
this country, it is true in Texas-
Senator MCCARTHY.Will you stick to my question, please.
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUunderstand the question. First you didn't,
but now you do. Now, you know under the ruling of Rosenfeld 'the
defense counsel could not question what you call the corroborating
statements because when he tried to question the witness, Rosenfeld
said, "You can't ask him about that and I won't warn you again."
In other words, he said don't try it again.
Now, did you know that a t the time you examined the case?
Mr. SIMPSON. I knew of the ruling, yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUknew of that?
Mr. SIMPSON.
Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask yEouthis : Then you had no way of
knowing and you knew the defendant had no way of letting you know
whether those statements were gotten by physical punishment, duress,
mock trials, or what have you. Doesn't that follow as night follows
day ?
Mr. SIMPSON. YOU,of course, have a situation where the Court er-
roneously limited that cross-examination, and I suppose you couldn't
test the circumstances under which the statement was taken.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUand I agree that the court was in error.
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.We agree that the court should have let the
defendant show in what way these statements were obtained.
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Am I not right in this : That the court was so
grieviously in error that none of us can tell whether they are guilty or
Innocent men.
Mr. SIMPSON. My recollection is that each of those accused, maybe
with the exception of Peiper or one-or two others, made confessions.
Wow, of course, you could prove by your accused himself if the con-
fession was obtamed improperly, what the facts were.
Senator MCCARTHY. If I can point,out to you in the record where
Rosenfeld would not let the accused testify as to the details of the
physical punishment, the extent of it, if I can show you that i n the
record, then would you say that none of those cmvictions should stand ?
Mr. SIMPSON. NO,sir, I won't go that far. I will go back to what I
said: That a bird's-eye view of the entire panorama of this thing,
viewing the entire record, convinced me personally that the record
sufficiently manifested the guilt of these accused.
Senator MCCARTHY. That is the last question, Mr. Chairman. I

might say if this were being tried before me in court and the witness
testified to me that he found the evidence sufficient to uphold a con-
viction, but that he didn't know how the evidence was obtained, he
knew that the court ruled that the defendant could not show how it
was obtained, he knew the court ruled that the accused could not show
how much physical punishment was.administered in order to get his
confession, if a witness testified that may before my court, I would
strike all of his testimony as being of absolutely no value whatsoever-
period.
Senator BALDWIN. Are you all through?
Senator MGCARTHY, Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Mr. Chambers just advises me that an examina-
tion of Colonel Everett's afidavit, which was filed in the Supreme
Court and which was the one which was referred to here, apparently
shows no claim that there was any number of men or any a t all who
were damaged or injured in private parts as the results of the conduct
of the investigators for the prosecution. I s that correct? We can
examine that further.
Mr. SIMPSON. The record will show and my recollection might be
wrong and the Senator's might be wrong.
Senator MCCARTHY.Just SO we don't get Colonel Chambers or
anyone else in a misstatement, the affidavits filed by Colonel Everett
and supporting documents set forth very definitely the physical vio-
lence used in order to get confessions.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is correct.
Senator MOCARTHY. Let's not distort the record.
Senator BALDWEN. The affidavits of the accused themselves-that is,
the German soldiers, the S S troopers.
Senator M C C A R T ~Mr. . Chairman, the point is that Judge Simp-
son and Judge Van Roden at the time they went to Europe to make
this investigation knew that Everett was applying to the Supreme
Court to have that conviction set aside because of the identical type
of beatings that Bailey described here this morning, and that is in the
supporting documents, there is no doubt about it, and I will be glad to
sit down with Colonel Chambers and show it to him and mark it, and
I intend to do that and ask him to come back the next day and read .
into the record this particular evidence.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Chairman, the point that I took a look at this
record, as did Senator McCarthy's counsel, it was to resolve the point
that seemed to be in issue between Judge Simpson and Senator Mc-
Carthy in which Judge Simpson said he did not recall having seen
a charge of 139 or some such number of people being ruined for life
by being kicked in the testicles.
I n an effort to clarify that particular point, I have checked through
here and it is not in the record, and I believe Mr. McCarthy's counsel
will concur in that.
Senator MCCARTHY. All but 2 out of 139. I don't claim that iden-
tical statement was in the record. I say Colonel Everett's affidavit, I
saw it there, and there is no question about the fact that Colonel
Everett's affidavit sets forth in detail the physical beatings and the
type of punishment used in order to get the confessions.
Senator MCCARTHY.Good.
MALMEDY M A ~ S A C R E INVESTIGATION 217

~ ~ ~ ( ~ H A ~ B Colonel
E R s . Everett's petition before the Supreme Court
aUegedc many different types of pressures, amon which were beat-
ings, brutality, mock trials, and thin s of that kin$
f
Senator MCCARTBY.Teeth being icked out, genitals being ruined,
it is all in the affidavits.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There is nothing on the lattkr point. That is the
point 1am,trying to make.
Sehator BALDWIN.For the benefit of the record, and we can check
this later, but as I understand it, Colonel Everett's petition to the Su-
preme Court of the United States was based upon affidavits which ac-
companied the petition, and these affidavits were all affidavits of the
SS troopers who had been convicted, alleging these different atrocities
so claimed. . I s that correct, J u d e ?
'MT.+~IMP*SON. k
That is my recol ection.
Senator BALDWIN.And they were not supported by any other
claims other than the statements of the accused themselves?
Mr. S ~ P S OThat N is my recollection.
Senator MCCARTHY. Judge, why do you say-you just got through
telling us the dentist's affidavit was not supported by any other evi-
dence.
Senator BALDWIN. I don't understand that Dr. Knorr's letter was
attached. We are talking about the petition filed in the Supreme
Court. I don't understand that Dr. Knorr's letter was part of that
document.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think yon are right.
Senator BALDWIN.Were vou all finished?
Senator MCCARTHY. ~ e much6 so.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me ask you this series of questions, Judge:
I should judge from what I have heard of this case so far that there
is no question whatever but that n number of our troops, artillery
men, on their way to St. Vith and after crossing the so-called Mal-
medy crossroads, were put down by heavy gunfire which came from
German troops, SS troops, and that the gunfire was so heavy that
these men were forced out of their vehicles to the side of the road and
some of them took refuge in nearby farmhouses, that they were over-
whelmed by the force of the advance of the Germany Army, sur-
rounded and captured as prisoners, either gave up or threw away
their weapons, and were herded up on the road with their arms above
their heads, and then led into a field nearby the road and that while they
stood there in that field, as orle witness testified here today, some 15
feet away these tanks were drawn up and a t a signal given by an
officer standing in one of the tanks or one of the vehicles and firing
his revolver or pistol at these men who were standing there with
their hands over their heads, these tanks immediately opened gun-
- -
fire on these prisoners.
I s that Tour recollection of the Gaior
" details of this?
Mr. S&PSON. I n general ; yes.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,of course, the question immediately pre-
sents itself: Who were these Germans that did this? That is, gen-
erally, they were S S troopers. Are you convinced from an examma-
tion of the record that the men that were convicted a t Dachau in
connection with the Malmedy affair were actually present and par-
ticipated in one way or another in this affair?
Mr. SIMPSON. That is my conviction.
218 MALMEDY MASSACRE JNVESTIGATION
Senator BALDWIN.That is, everyone who was convicted was present

at Malmedy crossroads and participated in one way or another in this
massacre ?
Mr. SIMPSON. All of these 12 who were sentenced to death.
Senator BALDWIN.A11 of these 12 who were sentenced to death.
Now, let me ask you a question. Of course, the legal question posed is
whether or not that is murder or whether or not it is an act of war
within the rules of warfare and within the rules of humanity, if there
can be such a thing in connection with war. That is another legal
question, isn't it?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUfound nothing in the record to indicate that
these men were not present and participated in this affair?
Mr. SIMPSON. I think they were there and I think they took part in
the massacre.
Senator BALDWIN.So if in Texas a man was to drive up in an auto-
mobile with an accomplice in his automobile and was to go into a
gasoline station and hold up that gasoline station attendant and if in
the process of that hold-up a shooting occurred, the gasoline station
attendant was killed in that shooting, what, if any, crime would be in
the State of Texas?
Mr. SIMPSON. Well, both are principals and equally guilty.
Senator BALDWIN. I n other words, the man who went in and fired
m d shot and killed the attendant would be guilty of murder, would he?
Mr. SIMPSON. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Would the man who sat out in the automobile
and didn't participate in any way in the shooting, but maybe helped
with the get-away, what would be his crime?
Mr. SIMPSON. He is a principal and equally guilty of murder.
Senator BALDWIN.So that in this particular Malinedy thing what
we are concerned with here is there isn't much question but what these
12 men were there, you are convinced of that?
Mr. SIMPSON. That is my conviction.
Senator BALDWIN.The q~~estion we

have to decide is whether or not
in proving that they were there we used the proper processes and pro-
cedures in justice and in fairness to prove those facts.
Mr. SIMPSON. I take it that is true.
Senator BALDWIN.Would you say from your examination of the
record whether or not the evidence was competent evidence? Would
you say it was competent evidence, first, under the rules for the pro-
ceedings as laid down by the convention that set up these trials ? Would
you say that the evidence from your examination of the record was
competent to prove they mere there and participated?
Mr. SIMPSON. It was competent for the rules obtaining for the trials.
Senator BALDWIN. Would you say it mas competent under what you
know as a lawyer as generally accepted rules pertaining to criminal
trials in the United States?
Mr. SIMPSON. NO, it was not.
Senator BALDWIN. It was not.
Mr. SIMPSON. NO. I say that is generally true. I think I could pick
out perhaps one or more of those accused who were convicted npon
evidence which we would call competent, but for the most part, those
people were convicted upon evidence which would not support a con-
viction in this country.
MALMEDY lMASSACRE INVESTIGATION 219
Senator BALDWIN. B L I it
~ would under the rules laid down for the
trial of the cases ?
Senator BALDWIN.That is a very important question to this com-
mittee.
Senator MCCARTHY. It is very important.
Judge, do I understand you to say that the hypothetical situation
which Senator Baldwin just recited to you about the gasoline station
in Texas, that it would be analogous to the situation at the crossroads
of Malmedy ?
Mr. SIMPSON. I n general outline. It isn't, of course-obviously, it
isn't exactly analogous.
Senator MUCARTHY. Let's say Private Jones is with Peiper7stroops,
and let us say Peiper orders his troops to kill an American boy. Pri-
vate Jones doesn't fire a shot, won't kill anybody. The mere fact
that he is there doesn't make him a party, does it?
Mr. SIMPSON. H e is a consenting party.
Senator MCCARTHY. Have you ever been in the Army? I s it your
thought that you are a consenting party when your commanding
officer orders you to go down %road?
Mr. SIMPSON. I don't catch your point.
Senator MCCARTHP.DOyou mean to tell me in reviewing that record
that you were of the opinion that if a private was present with the
troops that day but took no part whatsoever in the shooting, that he
would be equally guilty with the man who pulled the trigger?
Mr. SIMPSON.I didn't say that. I don't think so.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay he is there, he is a consenting party.
Mr. SIMPSON. He must participate in it. H e must either shoot or
- to shoot or abet in the shooting. H e must actively partici-
urge .others
pate in the act.
Senator MUCARTHY. One other question. You said that all of the
men who were convicted were participating. I asurne you
didn't mean that, because there were three generals that were convicted
who were not there.
Mr. SIMPSON.I am talking about these 12 death penalties.
Senator MUCARTHY. Some were sentenced to life imprisonment, were
they not ?
Mr. SIMPSON. We didn't review them with particularity.
Senator MUCARTHY. Some of the 12, as I understand it, and I may
be wrosg, were down as low as The rank of private. At least, they
were not commissioned officers.
Mr. SIM-PSON. Some were enlisted men.
Senator MCCARTHY. You convicted three generals-I say "you,"
but I mean the American military government convicted three gen-
erals because they issued the order to kill these Americans.
The generals who issued the order to kill the Americans, I am not
saying they did, but that is the conviction, so the court had to find
they issued the orders, and those generals got a lighter sentence, as I
understand the record, than any one of the privates who were ordered
to go out and do the shooting.
Do you consider that to be a brand of American justice? Keep-

ing in mind that if some privates didn't follow the general's orders,
they would have been court-n~artialedand most iikely shot themselves.
Mr. SIMPSON. I W O L say~ ~ the generals got too little and the privates
got about what was coming to them. I don't want to say whether
that is a good brand of American justice, if you will excuse me.
Senator MC~ARTHY. Let me ask you this: Do you think it is just,
Judge, even by the farthest stretch of the imagiaation, to say to a
general who has told a private to go out and shoot an American boy,
to say to him, "You get 10 years," and say to the private who went out
and did the shooting, "You must hang"! I s that even an approxi-
mation of justice ?
Mr. SIMPSON. I will agree there is quite an inequality there, and I
wouldn't myself vote for that disparity of sentence. I would give the
general as much as I give the private.
Senator MCCARTHY. NO further questions.
Senator BALDWIN. The one question I had in mind that I didn't ask
you, unless I may have asked it of you before, was this : From a review
of all the records and an examination of all these witnesses, were you
convinced in your own mind that the nzen for whom you recommended
that death sentences be imposed were actually present and took part
in the proceedings and that there was competent evidence upon which
to establish their guilt ?
Mr. SIMPSON.NOW,Senator, we didn't recommend that any of tlzese
death sentences be imposed. We recommended that all 12 death
sentences be conzmuted because for the reasons stated in our report
here, and I will say for the added reason that we were not satisfied
with the regularity of those pretrial investigations and didn't want
to see anybody hung in a l~roceeding which had that particular
blemish.
Senator BALDWIN.AS I remembered, you said before you felt that
on the testimony and on the record tlzese men were guilty, b t ~ tthat
there was a q~~estion in your mind as to whether or not the evidence
against the men had been procured in such a way that it warranted
the lightening of their sentences.
Senator BALDWIN.But you felt convinced in your own mind from
readin the record that they were guilty.
Mr. S IMP SON. That is correct, Senator. .
Senator BALDWIN.I think that is all. Are there any further
questions 2
Senator MCCAI~THY. But that no American court could find them
guilty under American rules of evidence?
Mr. SIMPSON. That is true for the most of them. There may be one
or two.
Senator MCICARTHY. If the conviction came to your court in Texas
on appeal, you would have to set the conviction aside?
Mr. SIMPSON. There would probably be a remand for a new trial.
Senator BALDWIN.Not to carry this thing out indefinitely, but this
is really the nub of one part of this proceeding, but you did come to
the conclusion that under the rules that were laid down for the con-
duct of the prosecution in the trial, there was competent evidence
under those rules to find them guilty
Mr. SIMPSON.Clearly I was of that view.
Senator BAWWIN.Thank you very much, sir.
. Do we need Judge Simpson any further?
Senator MCCARTHY. I don't think so.
Senator BALDWIN. Thank you very much, Judge Simpson.
We will adjourn until Monday morning a t 10 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 4 : 40 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon-
vene at 10 a. m., Monday, May 2, 1949 in the same room.)
WEDNESDAY, HAP 4, 1949
UNITEDSTATESSENATE,
SWCOMMI~EE
OF THE COMMITTEE
ON ARMEDSERVICES,
Washington, D.6.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 : 15 a. m:, in
room 212 Senate Office Building, Senator Lester C. Hunt, presiding.
Present: Senators Hunt and Baldwin.
Also present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy ; J. M. Chambers, of the
committee staff.
Senator HUNT.T he hearing will come to order.
Judge Van Roden, will you kindly stand and be sworn?
Do you swear that the testimony you are going to give in the matter
the truth, to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief, so
he1 you God ?
&dge VANRODEN.I do.
Senator MCCARTHY. Before there is any testimony, there is a matter
which has come to my attention which I think this committee should
go into, and I believe it is of tremendous importance.
On the 14th of April of this year Baron Von Weisszacker, who was
the former state secretary under Hitler, was sentenced to 7 years by
the Nuremburg court. I have not seen the record in the case, but I have
been following newspaper reports carefnlly to see what would be done
in this case.
Apparently the evidence is all uncontradicted, there is no question
about it. It was to the effect that this was the most valuable under-
cover man which the Allies had in Germany, starting in 1936. The
evidence is undisputed that he notified Britain before the invasion of
Poland, that he kept Neville Henderson informed at all times of the
negotiations prior to the signing of the Soviet-Hitler Pact. The
primate of Norway who is the protestant bishop in Norway, testified
that he was notified by Von Weisszacker prior to the invasion of
Norway.
I know the Chair will recall that the primate of Norway was one of
the leaders of the opposition to Hitler in Norway.
So that we have here a man who was our principal undercover man.
The court apparently-and, as I have said, I have not seen the record
or the decision, but from the newspaper records, the court apparently
was firmly convinced-they could not have been otherwise-that this
man was the principal undercover man we had in Germany. There
was no doubt about that a t all.
However, in the process of getting information for us and in the
process of getting this information and passing it on to us, he had to
223
, I
be friendly with some of the Nazis and that, therefore, he should get 7
years.
Now, I cannot conceive of anything quite as imbecilic as that
attitude they have had. It will do tremendous damage. It is in effect
a notification to any persons who might be of assistance to us in Russia
at this time that if they were to act as undercover men for us in Russia,
that after any hostilities ceased, if they escaped the Russian OGPU, as
Baron Weisszacker escaped the German Gestapo, we would see that
they, were punished.
I think this committee should see what type of morons-and I use
that term advisedly-are running the military court over there. There
is something completely beyond conception, and I vbould like to ask
the Chair to go into that matter, and in effect notify the world a t this
time that the American people are not in approval of this complete
imbecility in that area.
Senator BALDWIN. May I say this for the benefit of the record? I
asked Senator Hunt to act as chairman today because it was planned
to call Major Dwight Fanton as a witness, and I thought that it would
be better, certainly, if I were not in the chair at the time, because I
do not want to have it appear in any may that I am at all partial in
this whole situation; and so I have asked Senator Hunt, and he has
kindly consented to take the chair.
So far as the matter that you have mentioned is concerned, I think
the best thing for us to do would be for the subcommittee to consult
about it and then decide whether or not we ought to go into that phase
of it, because the resolution under which the matter was referred to
this subcommittee certainly is not broad enough to cover that par-
ticular situation.
Senator MCCARTHY.I believe the Armed Services Committee cer-
tainly would have jurisdiction to go into that. since it is a matter
being conducted by the military government.
Senator BALDWIN. I think it would be something the subcominittee
ought to consult about and maybe ask the main committee, because our
instructions run to the extent only of going into the Malinedy matter.
I s that the may you recall it?
Senator HUNT.T hat is the purport of the resolution and also that
is the instruction we received from the full cominittee. Most certainly,
I am sure, the subcommittee, Senator, mould have no objection to con-
sidering your request and then presenting it to the full committee.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am inclined to think the Central Intelligence
Agency must be very much disturbed about this activity on the part
of the Army in that area. It is so completely brainless, no reason for
it at all, the activities over there. I f they keep this up, they will make
it absolutely impossible for us to have any kind of intelligence in the
prospective opposition of other nations, potential enemies.
I f we have an undercover man who has done an outstanding job
for us, unquestionably he has, and we proceed when he has escaped
Hitler's Gestapo, we give him 7 years because he had to be friendly
with the Nazis to get this information-if we do that me n-ill be serving
warning on any potential undercover marl in Russia or any potential
enemy.
I personally would like to have this committee, or if not this com-
mittee, at least bring back this court so we can see what type of men
are doing this sort of thing. I am ,sure the chairman will agree with
me in that.
Senator HUNT.Very well, we will proceed.
TESTIMONY OF EDWARD LE ROY VAN EODEN, PRESIDENT-JUDGE
OF THE ORPHANS COURT OF DELAWARE COUNTY, PA.
Senator HUNT.Judge Van Roden, did you have a prepared state-
ment you wished to present ?
Judge VANRODEN.NO, sir; I do not have a prepared statement.
Senator HUNT. Senator McCarthy, do you have any questions you
would like to ask?
Senator MCCARTHY. Yes ; I have quite a number I would like to ask
the judge.
You are a judge of what court 'l
Judge VANRODEN.I am president-judge of the Orphans Court of
Delaware County, Pa.
Senator MCCAR~HY. HOWlong have yoa been practicing law,
Judge ?
Judge VANRODEN.Since 1915.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. And you have had occasion to try criminal
cases, I assume, as a lawyer, and preside over criminal cases as a judge?
Judge VANRODEN.I have.
Senator MCCARTHY. Judge, I am going to call your attention to the
evidence in one of the Malmedy cases and, with the chairman's per-
mission, I am going to read to you the sole evidence against one of
the defendants, and then I have some questions to ask yon on this.
This is in the case of Hans Pletz, and I am going to readthe only
evidence in the case. This man was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Mr. Ellowitz, the prosecution, calls the witness, Otto Lessau.
I heading :]
OTTOLESSAU,called a s a witness for the prosecution, was sworn and testified
through a n interpreter a s follows :
DIRECT E X A M I N A T I O N
(Questions by Mr. ELLOWITZ :)

Q. What i s your name?-A. Lessau, Otto.
Q. Were you ever a member of the German armed forces?-A. Yes; I was.
Q. What was your rank and to what organization did you belong?-A. I was
an SS unterscharfuehrer sergeant, and belonged to the Second Company SS,
Panzer Regiment L. SS. A. H.
Q. What is your present status?-A. I am a n American prisoner of war.
Q. Where a r e you being held a s a prisoner of war?-A. I n Dachau.
Q. Did you belong t o Second Company, First Panzer Regiment, LKKAH dur-
ing the Eifel offensive in December 1944?-A. Yes ; I did.
Q. Who was your company commander?-A. My company commander was
First Lieutenant Christ.
Q. Could you identify Christ if you could see him again?-A. Tes.
Q. Will you please look to your left a t the accused and identify Christ?-
A. Yes.
Q. What number is he wearing?-A. Seven.
Q. What were your duties a t t h a t time i n the company?--A. I was Obersturm-
fuehrer Christ's tank driver.
Q. Who was your tank commander?-A. First Lieutenant Christ himself.
Q. Were you eyer in Stunlont during the period of the Eifel offensive?-
A. Yes ; I was.
226 MALMEDY MASSACRE. INVESTIGATION
Q. When?-A. I first set foot i n Stumont on the morning of December 19,1944.

Q. Were any of t h e tanks of your company knocked out when you were in
Stumont?-A. Yes; before we reached Stumont the tank of Rottenfuehrer Braun
was knocked out outside of the town.
Q. How f a r was your tank from the position of Rottenfuehrer Braun's tank
when it was knocked out?-A. About 80 meters.
Q. Was your tank commander Obersturmfuehrer Christ a t t h a t time i n your
Panzer?-A. Yes ; he was.
Q. Did you continue on into Stumont?-A. Yes, we went to Stumont.
Q. Did you see or hear anything happen?-A. When me reached t h e center of
Stumont, I saw a t t h e right side of the road in front of a grocery store a group
of American PW's standing.
Q. How many prisoners would you estimate wei'e in the group?-A. There n-ere
12 to 18 men.
Q. Describe how they were standing-A. They were standing in front of a
store, facing us, with their hands aboTe their heads.
Q. Did they carry any weapons?-A. No, they were carrying no weapons.
Q. Describe what happened then.-A. Our car stopped in front of these PW's
and while it was stopping it fired three or five shots from the turret machine gun.
Q . Do you know who the turret machine gun operator was a t t h a t time?-
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Who was it?-A. The officer candidate, Hans Pletz.
Q. Could you identify Hans Plete if you were to see him again?--4. Yes.
Q. Look a t the accused on your left and identify Hans P1etz.-A. Yes.
Q . What number is he wearing?-A. Forty-three.
Mr. ELUIWITZ. May I request the court to have Hans Pletz rise.
The PRESIDENT.Number 43, stand up. Sit down.
Q. W a s Hans Pletz a t t h a t time in his position of gunner?-A. Tes.

Q. Do yon know if anyone but the gunner could fire or aim the turret machine
gun?-A. Only officer candidate Pletz can aim it.
Q. At t h a t time you saw the American prisoners pf war and the time you
beard the burst from your turret machine gun, was yonr company engaged in
combat with the enemy?-A. We had already penetrated the village. There wasn't
any more actual fighting.
Q. Was ihere any firing other than the firing from your turret machine gun?-
A. As f a r a s I could hear, no.
Mr. ELLOWITZ.Cross-examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION
(Questions by defense, Lt. Col. D W I N N ~ : )

Q . Lessau, you actually saw the prisoners shot a t Stumont, is t h a t correct?-
A. No, I didn't see that.
Q. What do you base yonr information upon?
Mr. E ~ W I T ZMay .
it please the court, the witness did not testify that he
saw t h e prisoners shot nor did he conclude that prisoners of war were shot.
Lieutenant Colonel DWINNEL.AS I recall the testimony, the witness said he saw
a tank fire upon prisoners.
Mr. E ~ O W I T ZI .don't believe the witness stated that. H e stated that he saw
prisoners of war and then he heard the turret machine gun firing. H e is testi-
fying t o facts which corroborate t h e statement of Erich Werner, which was read
previous to this testimony.
T h a t is the sole testimony given i n regard to this man Pletz. Now,
there was a statement introduced into the record, no one was p u t on
the stand whatsoever, which, of course, would make i t obviously an
incompetent statement, which I will also read so that we will have the
complete picture i n this case i n which a man was sentenced to life
imprisonment.
I will start in that p a r t of the statement which might be remotely
connected with Pletz :
We traveled along the main street of Stumont and reached a point in the center
of the village, which I have shown on my sketch B attached hereto. At point
number 5 on my sketch, I saw a group of about 30 to 38 American prisoners of
war standing sideways. They were standing in single file facing u s a s we
trareled toward them as shown on my sketch. The prisoners had their hands
clasped behind their heads, and had no weapons. When my tank reached the
point shown a s number 3 on my sketch, which was about midway of the column
of prisoners, I saw machine gun tracer bullets firing into that part of the group
of prisoners who were still ahead of us.
I t was clear to me from my past experience in'battle that from the sound
of the shooting and the amount of tracer bullets I saw, that the firing was coming
from two machine guns. From the noise and the tracers I was absolutely positive
that the fire directed a t these prisoners came from two machine guns and not
from a single one. This was obvious from the fact that the tracers showed*
two different but simultaneous trajectories.
I am also positive that this machine gun fire came from two machine guns
mounted on the same vehicle. The trajectories a s shown by the tracers Were
practically parallel and not more than 30 cm. apart and traveled a t approx-
imately the same height above the ground. F o r these reasons I concluded that
the fire had to come from one vehicle.
I could not see who was firing, so I yelled a t Hauptscharfuehrer Knaffich,
"Who is firing?"
Hauptschar. Knaffich yelled down to me, "It is the company commander's
tank." That is how I first knew that Obersturmf. Christ's tank was directly
behind us.
Jndge, this was a statement read into the record. One of the ac-
cused-he was not put on the stand as a witness, you understand, and
the only testimony was what I read to you, in which he said that he
saw the tank stop in front of the store, saw the tank fire four or five
shots, he did not see any prisoners fall, he did not see any killed, the
prosecution did not claim he did.
This man was sentenced to life imprisonment on that testimony.
Would you want to tell us what you think about that as a judge?
Judge VANRODEN.It is a very difficult question to answer. I tried
to absorb all the facts you read to me, Senator. Was there a confession
or statement ?
Senator MCCARTHY. I n this case there is no confession. That is
one of the boys who never did si n a confession. This is the Pletz case.
S
Judge VANRODEN.I see. As get the facts from what you read-
Senator MCCARTHY. The only testimony-we have gone through the
entire record-the on1 testimony in the record is by one boy in a tank
I
who said he knew the our or five shots were fired from his tank, which
was stopped in front of 16 or 18 prisoners. H e testified he did not see
any prisoners shot, he did mt see any fall, he did not see any dead
or dying.
That is the only testimony in the case. On this testimony a man
is sentenced to life imprisonment.
Judge VANRODEN.Did he say who was in the turret of that tank,
who fired the shots?
Judge VANRODEN.Identified the defendant?
Senator MCCBRTHY.I think it was adequately established that the
defendent, Pletz, was in the tank.
Judge VANRODEN.What is your question now-what I would do if
I were judge ?
Senator MCCBRTHY:I am asking if you want to give us an opinion
on that. H e was convicted of having shot American prisoners when
the only testimony was to the effect that four or five shots were fired
from the tank, no testimony that they were fired toward the prisoners,
no testimony that any prisoner fell, no testimony that any prisoner
was wounded, dead, or dying, but that the man was on b p of the
tank, heard some shots, and did not see any risoner hurt a t the time.
P
On this testimony a man is sentenced to li e imprisonment.
Judge VAN RODEN.Your question is now as a civilian judge in
criminal court-
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwere sent to investigate these cases and
make recommendations, to pass on them. I am asking you to pass on
' this case now.
Judge VANRODEN.I t seems to me, Senator, very frankly, there are
circumstances there indicating there was some guilt attributable to
the defendant, I would say. whether it is suffici&t br not, I have not
absorbed all the facts as you read them hastily. There seem to be some
circumstances indicating that the shots came from a certain tank,
vehicle, and the defendant was in the vehicle, and they shot toward
the prisoners. I am not sure 1get the facts.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUspent 8 weeks over there. You got the
facts.
Judge VAN RODEN.I went over there with Judge Simpson and
Colonel Lawrence to investigate only 129 cases of those who had re-
ceived the death penalty and which had been approved by General
Clay. This case is entirely new to me, what you have given.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdid not go into all these cases?
Judge VAN RODEN.NO; we did not have time. There were only
129 cases approved by General Clay. That is the extent of the scope
of our investigation.
Senator MCCARTHY. The same court which sentenced this man
sentenced some of these men to death. What do you think about a
court that will convict a man for shooting American prisoners of war
when the only testimony is that four or five shots were fired from a
tank, no testimony as to what they are being fired at, the man whp
was watching the prisoners did not see any of them fall, he did not see
any of them injured, he did not see that the shots mere fired toward the
prisoners.
Now, is there any indication in that whatsoever upon which you can
base a conviction for any crime, let alone killing American prisoners
o
- -f W R ~ ?
Judge VANRODEN.I say it is very doubtful and very unsatisfactory
testimony. I would not want to go further than that.
Senator BALDWIN. Mr. Chairman, at that point may I suggest -- a
question ?
Senator McCarthy said this is the only testimony in the record on
which this man was convicted. I do not know it to be a fact, but I
assume that there was before the trial court over there othei testi-
mony to the effect that these prisoners standing in front of this particu-
lar store were fired upon and that some of them were killed.
Now, I assume there is testimony of that kind in the case. I f there
is not, I think there is great weight in what the Senator says, but if
there is testimony of that kind, that some of this group were shot
down in front of this store, my point is that you do not have an iden-
tical individual separate case against every one of a number of joint
defendants.
I mean there are certain facts that can be established generally in a
trial of this kind. That is, in this particular case, that some men in
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION -229
this group were actually shot dowil and killed. Now, the fact that
this man testifies that he heard the shots fired and knew the name of
the gunner who fired them may be the extent of the knowledge that he
has pertaining to it. I t might be that from some other independent tes-
timony it appeared that a t this particular time and place some of these
men were shot. Whether or not that is in the record, I do not know,
because this is just one of a great many cases, but, of course, that would
&er the situation very materially.
Senator MCCARTHY.I do not want t o argue the case a t this time,
but I want to show a typical case, the case in which the only testimony
t.hat the prosecution put on would be the type that normally the defense
would put on the stand.
I n other words, you have a gunner in the turret of the tank-and
I know the chairman was in the service, he knows how the turret of a
German tank looks-you have the man in the turret of the tank, he
is watching 16 or 18 prisoners of war. H e is watching them and he
sees them. H e hears four or five shots fired from the tank. H e says
that those shots did not kill any prisoners. They were the only shots
fired from this tank.
Now, on that a man is sentenced to life imprisonn~ent. That is a
typical case. I know the chairman is going on the bench very shortly,
and I am sure he would not find a man guilty of disorderly conduct on
that type of evidence.
Senator HUNT.S enator McCarthy, may I at this time ask that there
be read into the record a reference to this particular case by the Review
Board that you were just discussing. It is only a brief sentence.
Senator MCCARTHY. Excellent.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There are two excerpts from this review of the
trials, which I think should be read into the record. P a r t of the infor-
mation which Senator McCarthy has already read into the record is
repeated here, so in the interest of economy of time, I will not read i t :
According to this record of review, there was apparently separate evidence to
show that a t Stuinont on December 19,1944, there were approsinlately 15 to 20 un-
armed and surrendered American prisoners of war shot and killed by the crew
of a German Nark I V tank a t a point next to a house which was thought to have
been the command post of accused Peiper.
That was in separate testimony, and the reference here is R-631,
1320-13276: P-X 44. 1 have no knowledge as to what those par-
ticular references are, because we do not have the complete record of
trial before this committee. I t is quite voluminous, and we only have
extracts from j t.
Senator MCCARTITY. The only evidence, as you call it, was a state-
ment by a inan who was not put on the stand and not subject to cross-
examination, statement gotten, of course, after these mock trials and
mock hangings.
Mr. CHAMBERS. FOPthe purpose of the record, what is the page ref-
erence on that ?
Senator MOCARTHY. 1,348.
. addition to that, apparently there were two
Mr. C ~ a n m m ~ Is11
other references we have already put in the record. I would like to
repeat again we do not have the complete records of proceedings in
front of us, and I think in order to complete the picture, i t might be
well to examine it.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask you so that this is clear, did you
read everything the reviewing authority said about this case into the
record ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. That particular paragraph is the complete refer-
ence to the instance of December 19. On the case of Pletz, I believe,
Senator, we are putting in the complete thing here on the statements of
Pletz. I think we can put i t in in its entirety. It i s about a page and
a half long, and I would be glad to read it entirely.
Senator MCCARTHY.Could I see i t 2
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think this gives a fairly clear picture of the
type of evidence the court required in order to convict a man. May I
read this one short paragraph ? [Reading :]
Evidence for prosecution ; Stumont : Lessau testified that he was driving the
tank of Company Commander Christ when he reached the center of Stumont on
the morning of December 19, 1944. H e observed a group of unarmed American
prisoners of war, about 12 to 18 in number, standing in front of a grocery store
located on the right side of the street. The prisoners had their hands above their
heads facing the street. As the vehicle stopped i n front of these prisoners of
war, three to five shots were fired by the accused from the turret machine gun
of the tank driven by the witness. There was no fighting going on there a t that
time. The witness did not see the effect of the shots.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would appreciate it, Senator, if you would read the
balance of the thing, o r let me.
Senator MCCARTHY.That is all of it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I f you read on, you will see what Werner says. I
am trying to get into the record what happened to this man Pletz.
Senator MOCARTHY. Very well. It says :
Werner, also a member of the Second Paneer Company, stated in his extrajn-
dicial s w o r n ~ t a t e m e n t h a t the tank he was driving entered Stumont about 0700
hours December 19, 1944. While driving along the main street of Stumont past
a point in the center of the village, he saw a group of 30 to 35 American pris-
oners of war on the right side standing in single file facing him. The prisoners
had their hands clasped behind their heads and they had no weapons. When
Werner's tank reached a point about midway of the column of prisoners, ma-
chine-gun fire from the tank behind him shot into the prisoners who were within
his view. He saw the half of the group which was within his view fall to the
ground. The tank immediately behind him was that of Company Commander
6hrist.
Evidence for defendant ; Stumont: Vollsprecht testified that he arrived out-
side Stumont about 0500 hours on December 19, 1944, and joined i n , t h e attack
about 0800 or 0830. H e further testified that in Stumont he passed a grocery
store on the right-hand side of the road and stopped for about 5 minutes. The
tank of Christ was 10 to 15 meters i n front of the witness, and he had a clear
view of the grocery store. There were no prisoners of war standing in front
of the store, nor did Vollsprecht see any shooting in the direction of the grocery
store coming from Christ's tank.
Sufficiency of evidence: The court apparently concluded that the accused will-
ingly killed surrendered prisoners of war. However, in the absence of positive
evidence that some compulsion did not result from the immediate presence of
the accused's superior, Christ, i t cannot be inferred that some compulsion did
not exist. This circumstance should be considered in mitigation, notwithstand-
ing the accused's rank a s sergeant and position held a s tank commander.
The findings of guilty a r e warranted by the evidence. The sentence is excessive.
This sentence was cut then from life to 15 years.
The reason I go into this case specifically is for the purpose of
showing the tortured reasonin on the part not only of the court, but
of the reviewing authority. If
ere is a man who is convicted of shoot-
ing American prisoners of war. Either he shot them or he did not
shoot them. They do not pass upon them. I n effect, the caurt says
it is questionable. H e perhaps did not shoot them. H e might have
shot them and, therefore, we will not give him life. We will give him
15 years.
Consequently, I say, I think we should bring the members of the
court here and if any of them are still in the Army, after being guilty
of this type of activity, I think the Army should ask them to resign.
Now, Judge Van Roden, when you were over there will you tell
me whether or not you were given the facts concerning confessions
received from some of the Malmedy defendants in the case involving
the killing of a woman over in Belgium, a town called Waimes?
Judge VANRODEN.I do not recal that, Senator. It may be in the
records of the Malmedy case, but I do not recall the name.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me recite the facts as set forth in Colonel
Everett's brief. I have not had a chance to go through the record
yet. A detailed confession was obtained from one of the defendants
to the effect that he went into this Belgian home, shot down the wife
of an old Belgian. As she was lying on the floor, he fired several
further shots into her body. There are several other statements from
the other men in this Malmedy case, I think two or three others; I
think they were giving all the details of this particular shooting, this,
to be used, of course, to convict this man and sentence him to hang.
The confession was obtained, we do not know whether by Per1 or
Thon or Steiner, but it was obtained by part of the interrogation team.
The defense staff did have time to go to the town, check on the story,
visit the husband of the woman who was killed, got his affidavit
taken before either the parish priest or the minister, I forget which,
to the effect that no German soldier ever fired at his wife, that she
was standing out in front of the house at the time the Americans were
shelling the town, that an American artillery shell fell short and burst
and killed her instantly.
I n view of that type of confession, the fact that you can get a de-
tailed confession from a man who obviously was not there, this interro-
gation staff was getting that type of confession, would you as a judge
place any weight whatsoever upon the other 74 confessions obtained?
Judge VANRODEN.The answer to that would be I do recall some
of the facts you just related there. I have forgotten the name of the
accused whose case we examined. We examined 129 cases, some of
whom were the Malmedy defendants. One hundred and twenty-nine,
of course, were the concentration camp cases, fliers' cases, and the
Malmedy massacre cases.
I do remember there was some testimony in the records of the trial
and in the judge advocate's review along the lines you have just
related.
Answering your question, I would say that I have only been a judge
on my fourth year now; I was pi-acticing law since 1915, and was also
a member of the district attorney's office from 1920 to 1925, and dis-
trict attorney for 4 or 5 years after that, so I had some experience in
prosecuting criminal cases.
To give you a little background, I was with G-3 of the Seventh Corps
from the day of the invasion, I got there on D-day, which happened
to be a mistake, but I was there. - Then I was transferred to 2 weeks'
temporary duty in December of 1944 and sent down to the Fifth
232 'MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Armored Division in a little village called Waimes, about 20 kilo-

meters from Malmedy. I know that country rather well. It was a t
the crossroads, I was at St. Vith, and I know a little bit about that
geography.
Also by way of that background, we went into a village called
Sweiful in Germany the Frida before the Germans moved into that
same section of Belgium. I gappened to have had an office in a
barn or stable in Sweiful in Germany and was there when a lieutenant,
a rather bedraggled lieutenant, literally crawled in there and made
a report to G-2 of the Fifth Armored and I heard what he had to say
about what he experienced at the time the shooting took place. The
shooting certainly took place.
Senator BALDWIN. That is the Malmedy shooting?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes. This may be hearsay, but I am telling
you for what it is worth what I heard. I don't remember his aame,
but he was a young lieutenant, a second lieutenant, I believe, a first
lieutenant or second lieutenant, and he reported to Lieutenant
Colonel-I have forgotten his name-of the Fifth Armored Division,
acting as G-2 of that division staff.
As I recall the substance of his statement, it was-he made a report,
he was bedraggled, had walked, tramped, and hitchhiked, and his
vehicles had broken down going across the hills there, and he said his
impression was that some Americans were trying to escape and that
somebody started shooting to prevent the Americans' escaping, and
his impression was that the Germans became trigger-happy, as I
am afraid all soldiers-you will understand as I do because I my-
self was in combat in this war, in active combat-and everybody
started shooting all at once. That is what he reported as to the
Malmedy incident. I do know from that that the Malmedy massacre
took place, and they were killed. It was a horrible thing to have
happen.
Senator MCCARTHY. This chap had just come from Malmedy; is
that right?
Judge VAN RODEN.We left the Fifth Armored, what was left of
it. There had been terrible casualties in Luxemburg. They left at
z7
midnight or early morning on Frida we got up to Sweiful that
same day by vehicles, of course, and t e following Sunday, which is
about 72 hours later, this lieutenant came in there and he then told
us; for the first time I learned myself abont the so-called massacre
a t Malmedy.
Senator MCCARTHY. H e was an eyewitness?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes; he was an eyewitness. I do not remember
his name, I do not remember the name of the lieutenant colonel.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Larry?
Judge VANRODEN.I went back to the Seventh Corps 10 days later.
Answering your question about these confessions, in these records of
trial we examined just as Judge Simpson told you last Friday, when
I was here and heard him testifying before this committee, we exam-
ined, I think, 67 or so records of trial, but we concentrated our efforts
upon these cases of the 129 who had been sentenced to death and whose
sentences had been approved.
Of course, we were bound to read the background insofar as it in-
volved other accused as well as these 129 accused, and specifically in
the Malmedy case the 12 accused.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think I owe you an apology. I thought your
job was to scrutinize the cases of all Malmedy defendants.
Judge VANRODEN.1,was not trying to evade your question. I was
trying to give an intelligent answer.
Answering your question about these confessions, we did find that
in the Malmedy case these chfessions were secured by means which I
could detail if you wish me to, they were secured by methods which
we found, as Judge Simpson said, were unreliable.
I might *go a step.further and say I think they were absolutely
unprecedented in any experience I had in securin these statements.
We have a principle in law in Pennsylvania, and ?guess it is similar r
in all civilized jurisdictions, which is that a confession, if it is
voluntary, is admissible and properly so as evidence against an accused
who makes it. I f a confession is not voluntary, has not been secured
voluntarily, is not the voluntary statement or confession, whatever it
may be called, of the person who makes it, then the court excludes
that as not being properly evidential.
We believe all these statements secured from these Malmedy de-
fendants, including these 12 and also the others who were on trial, 74, as
I recall, originally, 72 of which stood trial, Fieileuth had committed
suicide in his cell because he refused to sign and finish the paper which
the investigator was forcing him to sign. That was a matter we de-
termined was of record, although we also found that that particular
statement, if you call it that, written out, as I recall, in Fieileuth's
handwriting, upon the dictation of one or more of the American in-
vestigators, I think, got ns far as 16 pages.
This is from memory and not from the records I may have here of it,
but he then said he wouldn't sign any more because it wasn't true;
and after some threats had been made, so we learned, of death or
whatever, he had just had a mock trial, about 18 years old at the time
this was taken, a German private soldier, and he said he would not
complete i t and would not sign it because it was not true.
I think you will find in the record of the trial that that same piece of
paper was offered in evidence and admitted in evidence as evidence
against Colonel Peiper because his name was involved, and that cer-
tainly would not take place in any of our civilian courts in which I have
practiced law in Pennsylvania and, I assume, no court in America
would admit a paper, unsigned and uncompleted, if the reason that the
person who wrote it out that far said he would not sign it because it
was not true, that certainly would not only not be a voluntary confes-
sion, but it would be nothing at all, but the court did receive that,
As I recall, the law member made some statement to the effect that
it would be received for what it was worth, as he said in all the cases,
that the members of the court ware of sufficient intelligence to deter-
mine how much credence or weight to give to that along with other
testimony that was received.
Those confessions, I say, gentlemen, in my personal opinion and
shall I say, modestlg, in my professional opinion, were not only not
voluntary confessions, hut thev were confessions or statements involv-
ing not only the accused who signed them, but involving their co- '
defendants, coaccused, as you know from the records, and we Pelt, all
of us feltColone1 Lawrence, Judge Sjmpson, and myself-we felt
they were unreliable as testimony. ,
I made a long speech. I am sorry, but I thought I would give you
the background.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you tell us som$hing about the ph~~sical
force used to get these conlessions?
Judge VAN KODEN.Bear i11 mind that wr were not there when i t
took place. We were sent over there upon, as you know, Army or-
ders by Secretary Royall. H e nominated Colonel Simpson-both of
us are colorlels in the Reserve Corps, still are-and he designated us
and Lieutenant Colonel Lawrence of the Regular Army to investigate
" We cases.
these
did not get there until the 29th or the 30th of July of 1948,
and we stayed there until around the 9th or 10t11,I think, of September.
During that time we had access-maybe you have heard this be-
fore-to all of the records we desired, about 12% tons. We didn't read
all those, but we had all the records there, and I want to say this : That
the records were very well kept by the War Crimes Branch. They
were well indexed, they were available, they were accessible, we had
all that we needed, and the system and the clerical work over there,
may I say in praise of that branch of the Army, was excellently done.
So, therefore, we had before us just the records of the cases. We
had the records of the trial, 67 altogether, we went into every page
of those. We divided the work. Judge Simpson would take a few,
I would take a few, and Colonel Lawrence would take a few, and
we would consult with each other every day or so in regard to cases
about which we had doubt, and then we vould decide whether x e
thought recommendations should be made in those cases, and our con-
clusions were in every case unanimous.
There were a few cases I thought should be considered, and they
felt not, and they convinced me there mas sufficient competent evi-
dence, and they did the same with me in certain cases.
Then we had in the records of trial before us literally thousands
of petitions that had been filed by different persons or organizations,
some filed by counsel, German civilian counsel, American civilian
counsel, and American military counsel. There were some filed, as I
recall, by, I think, the Archbishop of Friesing and Munich, and there
was a group of people who might correspond to our Rotary C h b s
back home. They were not called that there. Some were emotional
or sentimental in appeal, and some of which were more or less nega-
tive in character and many of which had, we thought, meat in them,
in which they made averments that they had not received fair trials,
that soma of the accused had not received fair trials, and they gave
specific reasons for it.
We had literally thousands of those. Some were long and some
were short, and some had, we thought, considerable value. As Jack
Simpson told you, I think, last Friday, we had the report of the den-
tist, Dr. Knorr. We had the report, we did not see him, he was not
available, and we did not see him.
We had a report of a doctor, I have forgotten his name, a medicaI
. doctor, I cannot remember the name, I did not write it down here.
We then interviewed a number of people. You have the list here
under one of the tabs. You have the names of the persons me inter-
viewed. For example, there is the name of Bishop Wunn-that was
his name-he is a Lutheran bishop, and we interviewed him.
Also there JTere groups of men from sport clubs and athletic clubs,
different groups, and we talked to them.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I interrupt? Was this Bishop Wurm one
of the men who alleged that there were acts of misconduct?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes; he is one of those who made accusations.
He was rather reticent, he wasn't very elaborate or very verbose in
his talk. He tried to be very fair. As I recall, he didn't express
conclusions.
May I say to you, in all frankness and fairness, because I want to
be frank and fair in my testimony before this committee, that he said
lhat many of the things he talked about were hearsay as far as he was
concerned. As I recall, he was very frank and fair in his statement.
1 think he spoke through an interpreter. I am not sure. One did and
one did not. I have forgotten. I do recall that he said certain persons
l ~ a dtold him many of the things which he brought to our attention,
as this commission sent over there by the Secretary of the Army.
There were other persons. There was Dr. Leer, I recall, who was
counsel for Peiper. He came before us, he did not testify. They made
ibeir statements. As a result of all that, I am afraid I cannot sort it
out and remember who said what, because we could not do that, I
do not have that sort of a brain, I am afraid, to pigeonhole each per-
son's statement before us or what we read, but as a result of all that,
I heard Gordon Simpson say last Friday, we felt that the evidence of
these confessions was unreliable. .
Senator MCCARTHY. May I interrupt? Judge Simpson last Friday
said he felt that the convictions in most cases should stand because
the confessions were corroborated by other competent evidence.
I have before me--
Judge VANRODEN.I recall that he said that.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me finish this. I have before me the affi-
davit of Colonel Everett and, you understand, I have not had a chance
to check through the tremendous records to determine whether or not
this affidavit is true, but I have talked to the colonel, and I have every
reason to believe this is true.
He sets forth on page 30 of the petition to the Supreme Court the
names of 14 defendants who wer,e convicted upon no evidence other
than their own forced confessions.
Pardon me for interrupting, but I wanted to have the record correct.
Judge VANRODEN.I go one step further than Judge Simpson, be-
cause it was my understanding that not only did we think this evidence
was not sufficient to sustain the sentences of death, which was our sole
duty and the limit of our authority, but it is my distinct impression
and recollection that the three of us-Simpson, Lawrence, and my-
self-had serious, I know I did, serious doubt about the sufficiency of
the evidence to sustain the convictions in these 12 cases.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this, Judge :Was your function
principally to recommend whether or not the death sentence should be
executed, or were you to go into the entire trial?
Judge VANRODEN.The order is here, a copy of the order. I think
it is under one of these tabs. Yoh have it in the confidential report.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It is tab B. .
Judge VANRODEN(reading) :
Each of the following-named officers will proceed from Washington, D. C.-
91765--49-16
Senator MCCARTHY. I do not believe it is necessary.

Judgen VANRODEN.Our duties and our>functionswere to look into
these death-penalty cases and other cases t h a t we might think were
important in connection therewith to ascertain whether these men
had received fair trials. That is the impression I have. I t was
whether they received fair trials. I suppose I am bound to add, on
my own thought, in accordance with American standards. That is
not in the orders, but we reported back to the Secretary in person, and
were to report whether there was accorded to these men, any or all of
them, fair trials, as I understand, in accordance with the American
standard of justice.
We had different rules established, giving in to some of our allies,
but I think that was a mistake, although I should not say it. It was
giving in on the hearsay rule, for instance. One of the rules was there
should be no new trials, and that is the reason, I believe, we recom-
mended commutation of sentences because we were informed we had
no authority to suggest, and the policy of the Army was not to grant
any new trials and, therefore, if me could not recommend new trials,
we did not know, gentlemen, whether thbse men were properly con-
victed or not, we believed these records of trials that we examined did
not tell us, we could not tell from the records of trial whether they
were guilty or not, and if they were guilty, they may have been guilty,
we do not know and we do not know yet, but we all three thought that
if there was guilt attached to any or all of them, that they should not
be let off scot free and, therefore, we recommended that sentence be
commuted from death, so that they mould not be hung and not given
an opportunity and commuted to life imprisonment, one of them to
10 years, and one to 21/2, I think, and another 27 were commuted to
life imprisonment, and I think we recommended also, as you will see
in our report, that the Department set up a board to further investigate
these cases because then they can determine whether or not, for ex-
ample, the policy might be changed to have a new trial.
There is no reason why the policy cannot be changed, as we under-
stand the law.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then your recommendation in those cases was
that these men not be executed?
Judge VANRODEN.That is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY. And that a board be set up to further investi-
gate each individual case?
Judge VANRODEN.And, if possible, to have a retrial for that pur-
pose. We did not recommend that. We recommended that it be com-
muted to life imprisonment-to life imprisonment, except two or three
mere less because we were not sure the men were guilty.
We all believed-I am sure of this-that these records of trial-
I do not recall that Judge Simpson said on Friday that he believed
that, but I certainly think me understood, I did, that this evidence was
not only insufficient to sustain the sentences but insufficient to sustain
findings of guilty, as a cold record.
We made the recommendations, therefore, as I said before, for that
purpose: To give the men a chance to breathe and then have the mat-
ter reinvestigated or retried, if that could be done, and then determine
if they were guilty or if they were innocent; and if they were guilty,
they should be obliged to pay whatever the penalty would be and then,
jf innocent of the entire case, remitted or commuted, as the case may be.
Senator MCCARTHY. AS of now you would say that as far as you
ere concerned, you and I or anyone who looks a t the record, you would
say that some of those men may be guilty. They may be innocent.
We have no way of knowing from the record of the trial.
Judge VANRODEN.That is SO.
Senator MCCARTHY. I understand a little better now your recom-
mendation that the sentence be commuted to life imprisonment. A t
the time I read the account in the paper I could not understand the
recommendation that they be given life imprisonment.
However, in view of your statement that you did feel that a board
should be appointed to go into each individual case and investigate
each case and check the wisdom, for example, of granting a new
trial where a man was entitled to it, I can understand your recom-
mendation much better.
Judge VANRODEN.I hope I have made that clear to the committee
and to the Republic, if that is important.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think it is important that that be made clear.
From the report and from the stories I heard, if I may tell you, this is
the impression I got :
Two competent judges go to Europe to go into these cases, and they
say that, yes, brutal methods were nsed to get confessions, the evi-
dence is insufficient to sustain a conviction, but we are going to recom-
mend that they not be hanged, that they be sentenced t o life imprison-
ment.
Going so far, i t seems like an unusual recommendation.
Judge VANRODEN.Inconsistent.
Senator MCCARTHY. When you clarify and make clear the balance
that you recommended a board be aGpointed to study each of the cases
and that your recon~mendationmerely was to the effect that during
the working of this board that these inen not be killed off in the mean-
time, that they be living so that justice can be don-
Judge VANRODEN.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUare aware that five of the men whom you
and J ~ t d g eSimpson felt should not be hanged because they did not
have a f a x trial have since been hanged by the Army; are you aware
of that?
Judge VANRODEN.I have heard~thatfrom the newspapers, but not
oflicially from the Department of the Army.
Senator BALDWIN.ISthat in the Malmedy cases?
Judge VANRODEN.NO, sir; but we recommended that the sentences
jn 29 cases be commuted, 12 of which were the Malmedy defendants,
and the others-
Senator BALDWIN.None of the Malmedy defendants have been
executed ?
Judge VANRODEN.SOI am informed.
Senator MCCARTIXY. I have checked with the Army and I under-
~ t a n dthat five, not of the Malmedy cases, but five men whom your
committee said did not receive a fair trial and should not be convicted,
rather, should not be hanged, that five of them have since been hanged.
Judge VANRODEN.AS an American citizen, I am very much dis-
turbed about that action, although, of course, I cannot criticize it
except as a citizen.
I think the recommendations we made here were sound, but appar-

ently the Commander in Chief was not of the same opinion. I will
not say anything further than that. 1 fell it is a very great mistake.
Senator MCCARTHY. I do not find anything in the record which
would bring this to General Clay's attention. Would you know from
your experience over there whether or not General Clay knows that
the prosecution hired as an interrogation team refugees from German
concentration camps ?
For example, there was Perl, a man who has been accused of bru-
tality, and who had, according to the testimony we have had here, been
sentenced to death in Germany, had escaped from a concentration
camp. H e was appointed as one of the interrogation team to go in
and get these confessions.
Also his wife had been in a German concentration camp for 4 years.
According to the testimony, she was wearing a WAAC uniform.
Whether she was an American citizen, I have no way, of knowing.
Also that Steiner, another of the triumvirate, who is the man who,
according to Witness Bailey, bragged about the mock hangings they
conducted, where they would lead a man up some steps and tell him
he was on a scaffold and tie a rope around his neck and jerk.it, and
get a confession. Steiner was a refugee from Germany whose mother
had been killed, according to himself, by the Gernlans, and he had
made the statement that he disliked all Germans and would get con-
fessions from any man who was assigned to him.
The third man, Thon, I do not have the exact facts as to Thon. But
do you know whether General Clay knew that the prosecution staff
were hiring these refugees, No. 1, and No. 2, that they were hiring as
guards young men from Poland whose families had suffered very
heavily a t the hands of the Germans? Do you know whether General
Clay knew that or not when he was reviewing these sentences?
Judge VANRODEN.I have no way of knowing what General Clay
knew, but I know with our limited opportunities, which were much
more limited than his, I made a notation when I mas over there, I kept
these memoranda, why I don't know, but I am happy to have them
here, I made a notation of the investigators that we, the three of us,
found had participated in this sort of procedure.
I will read them to you for what they are worth. There was Perl,
Mirschbaum-we called him Thon-Ellowitz, Berkowitz, and I have
a Captain Hisch, although he was not a part. Those five are the names
of investigators that we found from what we read and from what we
saw over there had been instrumental in getting these confessions.
They were on one or more of these teams.
Senator BALDWIN.That is in the Malmedy matter ?
Judge VANRODEN.All these matters.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUdo not know which ones are the Malmedy
ones? As I recall this resolution, i t is directed to the Malmedy sit-
uation.
Judge VAN RODEN.Let me look a t this and see if I can get the
Malmedy people. There was Perl, Kirschbaum, Thon, and Ellowitz
who were working on the Malmedy cases. That is my best recollection.
I am not sure whether Berkowitz was or not.
Then I put down three names of the officers who had charge of these
teams, but to which we found no miscondyct attributing. That in-
cludes Major Fanton, Captain Hirsch, and Major Sternberg. I pat
those names down because they were Army officers, either in charge--
Colonel Ellowitz was in charge of the teams, as we understood. But
there are the names that I found, that we learned were-and we learned
also they were refugees-they called them 39'ers. That is where
I learned that term. I had never heard that term before.
However, in Germany we were told-as a matter of fact, it was com-
mon knowledge, everybody seemed to discuss it around the war crimes
branch, and the boards of review seemed to know about it. There
were two boards of review functioning when we got there, and there
had been three previously. As I recall the two boards, each had one
civilian member and two Army officers, as members reviewing these
cases as post trial boards of review, but all these persons spoke about
the 39ers, and I think Gordon Simpson, with that inimitable smile of
his, asked "What are 39ers?"
We were told the 39ers were Germans who had'escaped the perse-
cution in 1939 and came to America, became American citizens, and
then some of them-these names are included in that l i s t s o we were
informed over there, secured employment with our Government as in-
vestigators and a4 interpreters and went over there to Germany to in-
vestigate these offenses and ascertain, if they could, who were respon-
sible for the war offenses
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, 39ers were in charge of get-
tin confessions?
fudge VANRODEN.Yes, sir. Not all were 39en, but most of them
were 39ers. There were other persons whose names I do not have, but
these were the ones we learned were refugees.
Senator BALDWIN.Will you give the names of the refugees again?
Judge VANRODEN.Perl, Kirschbaum, Thon, Ellowitz, and Berko-
witz.
Senator BALDWIN. Which were the ones, can you say, who were con-
nected with the Malmedy case?
Judge VANRODEN.I think all four were : Perl, Kirschbaum, Thon,
and Ellowitz. That is my best recollection. I have the paper here,
which you can see. I do not have very copious notes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Judge, in going through the record I find that
the law member of the court, Colonel Rosenfeld, consistently refused to
allow the defense to show the conditions under which the statements
Rere gotten. H e would not allow them to show the details of the beat-
ings, the number of interrogations, and such like.
Under those circumstances, is it possible today by going over the
cold record to determine whether or not the confessions were properly
obtained, without going for outside information?
Judge VAN RODEN.I do not believe it is entirely so, Senator, for
this reason: It developed in the record of trial, which you no doubt
have read, the defense first, I think, adopted a policy, if I can call it
a policy, of having one or more of the accused testify as to the cruelty
and the beatings used.
There were 73 persons on trial in that Malmedy case. The court
declined to grant a severance. There were a number of lawyers, I
don't know how many, but a number of lawyers representing these
several accused, and Colonel Eveiett at that time I think, was with
military intelligence. However, he wore the Infantry insignia.
However, he was'chief defense counsel andctherefore, he was uiding

the strategy, if that is the word you use, of the defense in the $lmedy
cases.
I t develo~edfrom the record of trial and also from what Colonel
Everett told the three of us when we interviewed him in Washington
before we made our report to the Secretary, it developed that the
different attorneys, some German civilians and some military Amer-
icans, and some American civilians, were apparently not in accord
with that strategy in some way, and apparently each was trying to
save his own client, and things were said which apparently under
cross-examination in the record seemed to get the defense out of con-
trol. I am quoting Colonel Everett now.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am afraid you did not get my question. I
am going to read to you the ruling of Rosenfeld, which was repeatedly
made, and ask you whether or not a fair trial could conceivably be
given the defendants under this ruling. I will read the ruling. The
witness by the name of Kramm was testifying :
I n what period of time did you take part in t h a t Russian campaign which you
first mentioned?
PROSECUTION. I object.
Colonel ROSENFELD. Objection sustained.

Not cross-examination.
This is not pertinent to the questions I am going to ask you, but
since I have read this by mistake, I will call that to your attention,
that on direct examination, it was the claim of the defense that on
direct exanlination the prosecution would attempt to intimidate the
witnesses by going into different Russian campaigns they were in,
intimating that if they did not confess, if they did not stick by a
statement they had made under duress, they would be sent to Russia
for a trial and, hence, this part of it.
Getting on to the other question, here is the cross-examination :
Question. Now, how often would you say you u-ere approximately interrogated
The PROSECUTION. I object.
Colonel ROSENFELD.
Objection sustained.
Mr. STRONG. May I respectfully point out to the court, with due deference,
Colonel ROSENFELD. I t is not cross-examination because it is without the scope
of the direct examination. The court has ruled. The objection is sustained.
Question. Kramm, isn't i t a fact that you during the time you were in Schwa-
bisch Hall signed a statement for the prosecution in question-and-answer form,
consisting of approximately 20 pages?
The PROSECUTION. I object again.
Colonel ROSENFEI.D. T h a t is not cross-examination. This i s the last time t h e
court will notify you.
113 other words, Rosenfeld here says, "Don't try that again," when
all the defendant is trying to do is show the conditions under which
the statement was obtained. I know you and I both having been
judges and both having practiced law, and I be1ie~-ethe other mem-
bers of the committee are also lawyers, we realize that it is elementary
that you can show what interest a witness has in a case, whether he is
being paid to testify, whether he is related to any of the parties,
whether he was under any duress to testify as he did, just one of the
elementary things you can do.
I cannot conceivably evaluate a witness' testimony.
Judge VANRODEN.I agree.
MALMEDY 'MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 241
Senator MCCARTHY. Rosenfeld says he will not let the court know
these facts, he will not let them know how the confessions or state-
ments were obtained, he will not let the court know how many different
statements were taken or whether any physical violence was used.
Under the circumstances, was it humanly possible to give those men
a fair trial, the type of trial after which you could determine they
were guilty or innocent?
Judge VANRODEN.I n my opinion ;no.
Senator MCCARTHY. Any competent judge would conclude that,
and I certainly thank ou.
Let me ask you this, judge, if I may : When you started this investi-
gation, did the Army inform you that there mere any standards by
whjch you were to go ? I n other words, were there any instructions
given to the prosecution as to the terms and conditions under which a
confession could be obtained, what type of treatment these defendants
were to get 'l
I n other words, did they say that these are the standards by which
we, the Americans, are bound and you will use this in your investiga-
tion of the case? Did they give you that ?
Judge VANRODEW. I am not aware of anything like that.
Senator BALI~VIN. May I interpose a question right here?
One of the very important things that I think the committee has got
to consider is this very point that you have just touched upon. There
is in the record now a booklet of rules and regulations.
Judge VANRODEN.I have that. ,
Senator BALDWIN. Which were apparently agreed upon by the
Allies, who were conducting these tkials.
I n other words, these trials were not solely American affairs. They
were quadripartite or at least tripartite affairs. That is as I under-
stand it, and there were rules of conduct, rules guiding the conduct
of the American personnel dealing with the investigation and the
prosecution and the conduct of the trials.
Those rules, as I have examined them, show several departures from
normal American procedures in criminal matters. However, they
were not promulgated by the American Army alone ;they were promul-
gated by the commission, which consisted of three governments.
Judge VANRODEN.Four governments.
Senator BALDWIN.Yes; four governments. I n other words, this
manual starts off with this provision :
This manual is published for the guidance of legal and prison officers and other
officers concerned. with the discharge of legal and prison cluties. The manual
is divided into four parts, the first of which i s intended for legal officers and
the second for prison officers. P a r t I11 and I V provide a glossary and a n index.
The manual contains rules f o r military government courts and the guide to pro-
cedure. It also contains detailed instructions with respect to the supervision
of German courts, and a n outline of German criminal law. The relevant forms
to be used by legal and prison officers a r e placed a t the end of each section.
I n view of the provisions of ordinance No. 3 making the English language
official for the areas under the control of English-speaking forces and the Freuch
and English languages in the area under French military governuient control,
German translations of the proclamation laws and ordinances have not beer]
included. However, German translations of the forms to be used by military
government courts and directions to German authorities, though they a r e not
official texts, have been included for the conrenience of practitioners.
I n other words, here was a complete booklet, as I ~ulderstandit,

that was issued, and, I assume, as a result of agreement among the
Allied Powers, for the conduct of these trials.
Of course, one of our problems is this : Insofar as these are a depar-
ture from normal American procedure, if we ever have to go through
a thin like this again, what kind of rules of procedure should be set
up? 8hould they be American rules or should they be the result of
International agreement ?
I t seems to me that is a very, a very important thing because if we
are going to establish as a principle that certain things in the conduct
of war do constitute a crime that is punishable after the war is over,
then we must establish the proper rules of procedure to insure justice.
It seems to me that one of the difficulties here under which the
American authorities may labor is the fact that they were guided by
these rules and may in some instances have been required to make
departures from what would be normal American procedures. I do
not say that in any way to justify anything they have done, because
what they have done that was in the way of abuse, we want to know
about and, furthermore, what was done in the way of an abuse and
injustice that this kind of procedure and rules permitted, we really
want to know about because we want to stand before the world as a
Nation that administers justice with equity and humaneness to every-
body.
But you have said that you have considered this whole trial, that is,
your examination was considered from the American standpoint, the
American point of view, what would have been just in that respect,
and I do not say that is not the proper point of view from which to
consider it. I s that correct?
Judge VANRODEN.I am glad to hear what you have said, because
I go along with most of what, you said, especially about the nature
of the trials. I do not recall the booklet has anything in it which
authorizes confessions to be secured by the nzeans by which they were
secured, that they may use force or violence to get confessions. I do
not see it.
Senator BALDWIN.I do not claim it is, but one of the difficulties
under which this committee is laboring: we are judging the thing
under American standards, whereby the thing was conducted not
according to 100-percent American standards ; and I think that is one
thing we have got to have in mind. I t is one of the basic things con-
nected with this investigation.
Judge VAN RODEN.I want to make one comment upon that. It
seemed to us over there, and it seems to me now. that these rules and
regulations which were agreed upon at the conference in London in
August of 1945 were primarily intended for the international court
which began, of course, in Nuremberg. We felt that these courts at
Dachau, including the Malmedy trials, which took place at Dachau,
was exclusively and unquestionably an American military court and
not an international court; and we felt that, because Justice Jackson
had announced that everybody would be equal before the court, that
that certainly applied to American courts, and they would have a fair
trial in accordance with American standards, even though we were
not going to be following the same rules of evidence that we followed
in our American tribunals.
Senator BALDWIN.It seems we have really a United Nations prob-
lem, and eventually it will have to be considered by that body. That
is, what does constitute a war crime?
Judge VANRODEN.That is a very involved to ic.
!A
Senator BALDWIN.What is the proper proce ure for investigating
and prosecuting it? What are the rules of justice that should be
established in administering penalties if guilt is found? That is a
very important field. This is the first time in history that I know
about that anything of this kind has been attempted.
Senator BALDWIN. And I think it is a whole new field of the law.
Judge VANRODEN.Of course, it is.
Senator MCCARTHY. Just so there is no question about this, there is
nothing in the book that you have before you, nothing in the rules
ihat the four powers adopted which would allow or justify the type of
tactics which you found that the Americans engaged in in the prepara-
tion of and in the trial of the Malmedy cases. Am I correct in that?
Judge VANRODEN.My answer to that is "Yes".
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, it was not any Russian stand-
ard, any German standard, any other standard that would justify or
authorize them to beat these men up, have mock hangings, mock trials.
That was the innovation of the American prosecution staff and their
Thirty-niners ?
Judge VANRODEN.Of course, maybe it is done in Russia, too ; but,
as far as we found, that was actually done by the investigators em-
ployed by the American Government, all of whom I believe, were
American citizens.
Senator MCCARTHY. There is notkiing in the rulebook that the Sen-
ator from Connecticut has been talking about that allows that type
of procedure?
Judge VANRODEN.NO.
Senator BALDWIN. Of course, i t ought to appear here that I do not
claim it is.
Senator MCCARTHY. I understand that. Then, regardless of what
standards these men are judged by, the standards of any civilized
nation are that an innocent man shall not be convicted and that the
guilty shall be convicted ;is that right?
Senator MCCARTHY. And, going over these cases at this time, you
are convinced that there is no way that this committee or any man
of reasonable intelligence can tell whether those men who are about
to hang, whether they are guilty or innocent; there is no way of know-
ing from the record ?
Judge VANBODEN.That is my opinion.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not feel that it was the rules of evi-
dence adopted by the four powers, if they did adopt such rules,.you
do not feel that those rules of evidence brought about this situation?
Judge VANRODEN.NO,sir.
Senator MOCARTHY. YOUfeel these men could have been given a
semblance of a fair trial under the rules ?
Judge VANRODEN.They could have been given a fair trial ;yes, sir.
Senator MOCARTHY. SOthat, when you say you are judging this by
American standards, you are j2udging i t by American standards, but
keeping in mind that the prosecution codd follow the rules of evi-
cl~licethat the four powers had laid down ?
Judge VANRODEN.That is what I meant to say ; yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Just oiie other question. There has been con-
sjtlerable in the papers and considerable testimony in regard to cer-
tain very definite acts of brutality. The witness Bailey testified
that he saw a number of men kneed in the groin by this man Lieu-
tenant Perl.
Senator BAWWIN.J u s t a moment, Senator McCarthy. I wonder if
Mr. Bailey did testify exactly to that fact.
Senator MCCARTHY.We were all here.
Judge VAN RODEN.I heard him testify last Friday. I was here
during the entire testimony.
Senator BALDWIN.I do not recall that he testified that he saw it.
He testified there were some who said it had been done, but I do not
recall that he testified he saw it.
Senator MCCARTHY. VITould the chairman like to bet me a good
steak dinner that he did not so testify, that he personally said he saw
several men kneed in the groin? I am sure he said it, and I am sure
it is in the record.
Mr. CHABIBERS. Shall I check that for the steak dinner?
Senator BALDWIN.Don't take the steak dinner away from Mr. Mc-
Carthy.
Senator MCCARTHY.Without making it a bet, I mill buy the chair-
man a good steak clinner if i t is not in the re'cord.
Judge VANRODEX.May I share jn the steak dinner?
Senator MCCARTHT.Yes. Am I correct in saying that you did find
evidence to indicate $hat a sizable number of those men sentenced to
die were crippled to at least some extent becanse of having been
kicked in the testicles ?
Judge VANRODEN.We found that to be so. But I have seen some
of the articles in the papers and some were exaggerated. I read one
the other day saying that all but two of the men had been injured for
life. We did not find that.
Senator MCCARTHY. But YOU found-
Judge VANRODRN.That some of them had been injured in their
testicles. VITecould not find ont how many.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I assume that you and I would agree that an
innocent man will scream about as loudly as a guilty man if you are
kicking him in the testicles, and an innocent man will perhaps sign
the same confession that a guilty man will if you kick him long enough
and hard enough. There is not much doubt about that; is there?
Senator MCCARTIIY. There is one final question 1 think you have
covered adequately before, but just so i t is absolutely clear: You felt
that after your investigation of these cases the record is such that
none of these men should be executed uiltil it has been determined
or until they get a decent, honest, fair trial, and that if we must
depart from the rule which the Army has adopted that yon cannot
order a new trial, if it is necessary to do that in order to avoid having
guilty men go free, that n7edepart from that rule. 110I ~nnkemyself
clear ?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes. I am very much concerned about it per-
sonally. I think human life is a v e ~ !p~x i o n s thing, and whether we
.do it as individuals or whether we do it as a Nation, to take a person's
life without an ibsolutely good reason, I think it is a very wicked
thing to do, and'it is a very dangerous pre'cedent to establish, and
that is why I think these persons should be given further opportunity
or further apportunity should be afforded to examine their cases
before we take their lives, even if they are Germans and we fought
them and they fought us, and I was in combat in this war, and I know
what I am talking about.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Can you see any reason at all for the Army's
ruling to the effect that under no circumstances can you grant a new
trial; that either a man must be punished on the trial record as it is,
no matter how erroneous it is o r be allowed to go free ?
Judge VAN RODEN.I thin& a better way would be to have a new
trial. It would be more fair to the Government, to our country, and
be equally fair to the accused.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWmuch damage do you think we are doing
t o American prestige in that part of the world by this demonstration
of American justice?
Judge VAN RODEN.I could not estimate that. People there are
more bewildered about it than upset. They are bewildered about the
wa we are behaving. That is as f a r as I would go.
ienator MOCARTHY. Do you think the people in that area realize
these are trials being conducted by the Americans? They are not
blaming the Russians or the British for that?
Judge VANRODEN.They are not finding out much about it. Since
that time they have been published in some of the papers. But the
German public a t large is not being told much about it. I worked
hard and perhaps I did not get around to see.
Senator MCCARTHY.Judge, do you feel that this demonstration of
American justice-that is, of all'eged American justice, which cer-
tainly is not our idea of justice, this alleged American justice-by our
Army, is doing a lot to undo the good we may have done by spending
the billions of dollars we are spending in that part of the world?
Judge VANROIIEN.I am afraid it has. I believe it has.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, some of these inoronically
incompetent men who are over there condncting these trials can fritter
away an indefinite amount of good we have done over the past number
of years?
Judge VANRODEN.1am not sure I will adopt your language, but
I agree in substance with what you have said.
Senator MCCARTHY. That is all.
Senator BALDWIN. Just for the benefit of the record, with reference
t o the question that I raised about what Mr. Bailey had testified,
I read from the transcript at page 434 :
Senator MCCARTHY. There will be testimony here to t h e effect that, of 139
men who were sentenced to die, about 138 were irreparably damaged, being
crippled for life, from being kicked o r kneed in the groin. Can you tell u s
whether or not you saw any of t h a t ?
Mr. BAILEY.I could not tell YOU. I would say, in my opinion, t h a t is a gross
exaggeration. That is just my opinion.
Senator MCCARTHY. If you will give me that, I will show you where
Bailey testified he personally saw somebody kneed in the groin.
Senator BALDWIN.Are you through with your questions, Senator?
Senator MCCARTHY. I am. _
Senator BALDWIN.You said that human li$e to you was wry, very
precious, and I am sure it is to every single one of us. Do you not
think that the fact that human life is very, very precious has been
demonstrated by the fact that in these Malmedy cases to date not a
single one of the men who has been convicted has been executed ?
Judge VANRODEN.ISthat accurately true?
Senator BALDWIN.That is accurately true.
Judge VANRODEN.Probably SO.
Senator BALDWIN.That shows the American inclination to be very,
very careful.
Judge VANRODEN.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. These men's cases have been reviewed by two
different commissions, yours and another, and by General Clay, and,
as I observed it, great care has been given to not perpetrate injustice,
Judge VANRODEN.That is SO.
Senator BALDWIN.These men have had every opportunity to appeal.
Senator MCCARTHY. I did not get the chairman's question.
Senator BALDWIN.These men have had every opportunity to be
considered.
Senator MOCARTHY. May I point out to the chairman that the
Supreme Court yesterday, by a split decision, 4 to 4, with Justice
Jackson not participating, held that i t would not hear any petition
for appeal. That is not the Malmedy cases, but a number of other
cases. I n effect that is a ruling that these men will have no appeal
to any court whatsoever.
I n other words, convicted with thGe fake confessions, these fake
hangings, the kneeing and kicking to get confessions-our Supreme
Court has held that under the circumstances of the case there is no.
court to which they can appeal. Originally, I believe, they could have
appealed to the third-
Senator BALDWIN. It remains for the Army to say whether they are
to be finally executed.
Senator MCCARTHY. I beg your pardon?
Senator BALDWIN.It remains for the Army to say whether they
are to be finally executed. I t is a military court.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am wondering now, Mr. Chairman, in con-
nection with this, if this committee, in view of the unusual things
which have developed in the Malmedy cases and the fact that Judge
Van Roden, a perfectly disinterested witness, went over and investi-
gated this matter-was sent over by Secretary Royal1 to investigate-
says that the trials were not properly conducted, and the description
of these thirty-niners conducting these trials, I wonder if this com-
mittee should not expand its investigation and not concern itself solely
with the Malmedy cases, but concern itself with all of the criminal
cases and the entire procedure, insofar as meting out American justice
is concerned.
Senator BALDWIN.AS indicated before when you raised that ques-
tion-
Senator MCCARTHY. If that is not being done, I would like to know
this in view of the fact that I am not a member of this committee, as
the chairman knows. There was some question originally in view of
the fact that our Expenditures Committee went into the Ilse Koch case
and whether or not we should have been investigating it. I f this
committee is not going to go into the entire picture and restrict itself
solely to the Malmedy case, I would like to give that information to the
Expenditures Committee so they can decide whether or not that com-
mittee will go into the entire picture.
I know the chairman, who is chairman of the subcommittee, can-
not answer that question, but I would appreciate i t very mbch if he
would discuss that with the Armed Services Committee and deter-
mine whether or not they will conduct such an investigation and, if
so, whether there will be any request to stay the executions in the
cases in which the Simpson Committee has recommended the exe-
cutions be stayed until such time as the committee has finished its
investigation.
Senator BALDWIN. I think that is a matter to be determined by om
subcommittee, and by reference to the entire committee.
Senator MCCARTHY. I believe it would be a mistake t o continbe exe-
cihing men whom the Simpson-Van Roden committee said should not
die; it would be a mistake to continue executing those men while this
committee is operating, and I assume that will be done now in view
of the Supreme Court's decision of yesterday, unless this committee
takes some action.
Senator BALDWIN.I would like to say for the Army and for the
Americans generally that I think in these particular cases, and I am
not preju&pg it as a member of the committee, and we have no
power of judgment here; that I thiuk we have demonstrated to the
world in our conduct, the Army has by its conduct of this, that we
are trying to live up to the statement of Abraham Lincoln, "with
malice toward none and charity toward all," and I am wondering
what chance for an appeal and review the men had who gave their
l i ~ e sa t Malmedy crossroads and were shot down in cold blood, what
right of appeal and review they had.
I think that one of the things which is bound to appear i n this
whole thing is that this trial was conducted so soon after this happened
that it was extremely difficult not to have feelings run high, and I
think that is regrettable, but, nevertheless, I think it is apparent and
that also is evidence to the point that if this ever happens again and
we have this kind of a trial, it ought to be conducted as dispassionately
as possible under all c@cumstances because, obviously, that is one of
the fundamentals of American justice, too.
Senator MCCARTHY. The chairman just made a statement to the
effect that the men killed over there had no appeal. That is obvious.
I don't know why the chairman makes the statement. It is obvious.
The chairman understands, of course, I am sure, that we all agree
that any men who are guilty of war crimes should be punished, and
these wild statements, if I may term them that, will appeal to the emo-
tions and hatreds of the people, saying they have killed some of our
men, let's do the same thing, let's turn around and kill them off with-
out a fair trial, and I do not think it does justice t o this committee.
When the chairman has said the Army demonstrated that they
worked in this case with malice toward none, with charity to all, I
assume you would have difficulty,persuading those 16- or 17-year-old
boys who were kicked i n the testicles, crippled for life, where the
Thirty-niners exacted their confessions from them, i t would be hard
to convince them that they were operating with malice toward none
and charity toward all.
248 MALMEDY MASSACRE IXVESTIGATIO~:
So there would be no question, I think, that we have one single issue,

and that is not whether or not some Germans were guilty of some
atrocious war crimes. We know that. The men who are guilty should
be punished the same as any Americans who were guilty of war crimes
should be punished.
However, the question here is, Shall those men of the losing nation
have a fair trial? Shall we only execute the guilty or shaIl we pick
them hit or miss and execute both the guilty and the innocent?
Now, we have two judges who went over and studied this matter, sent
over by Secretary Royal1 a t the President's approval. They came
back and the said, "We don't know at this time whether you are
T
executing gui ty men or executing innocent men." I t does not do
any good, Mr. Chairman, to make statements about the atrocious-
ness of the killings and that the American boys who died did not have
any right of appeal. The question is whether or not we as of today are
going to apply the principles of American justice which we have
developed over long years, principles which we have found have been
adequate to convict guilty men and have adequately protected the
innocent.
I would say it would be a tremendous mistake to start killing off
the enemy just because we have the power to do so because some of our
men died without knowing whether they were guilty or innocent.
One thing the Army has proven so far is that they acted with the
utmost malice, not the Army as a whole, I do not think General Clay
can possibly know that we had in charge of the interrogation a team of
refugees who made the statement and bragged about it that they felt
that anyone who bore a German name should be convicted.
Now, before this hearing is over there will be testimony to the
effect that Rosenfelt, the court member, who had so greviously erred
in his rulings, made the statement publicly that anyone who was in
that area that day should hang. That is the American, the man mrho
is representing American just~ce,and you say who is proving we are
operating with malice toward none and charity to all.
Senator BALDWIN.My remarks were directed to the conduct of the
Army since the convictions and the effort on the part of the Army to
see that substantial justice was done. That is where my meaning was.
Senator MCCARTHY. They hung five men, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BALDWIN.We are still investigating here and have not yet
come to any conclusions-at least, I have not in my own mind-as to
what exactly happened and what we should recommend. We are in
ihe process of the hearings. I will be the last one to say we ought to
take a like number of Germans and execute them, and that is the
thing that we want to build up, the proper procedures, both of investi-
gation and trial, for the possibility of the future, so that we might
avoid that very thing.
I do think that the cold-bloodedness of the original act probably
generated in part a hard feeling that certainly has some bearing upon
the case and has bearing upon the fact that if we go ahead in the future
with this sort of procedure, we ought to take every precaution to see
that i t is utterly dispassionate and conducted by people who are
completely impartial.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask a single question of the witness
before we leave?
Judge, may I ask this : Do you think the Army's action in executing
five of the men whon~your committee believes-two Army officers were
part of that committee besides yourself and the other judge-execut-
ilzg five of the men whom your committee stlid should not be executed
in view of the fact that the record was such you did not know whether
they were guilty or innocent ;do you not feel the Army very greviously
erred in doing that and inexcusably erred?
Judge VANRODEN.I am still an Army oficer, but I do not know
for how long after this hearing is over. My answer to that question
-\villhave to be said in two ways. When you realize that we exanlined
139 cases, that only 29 of those cases were found by us to be of such
doubtful validity as to the convictions and sentences, and we found
that 110 of those 139 cases, even though some things we did not like to
see done, such as getting confessions, they were supported by compe-
tent evidence, it is my personal opinion as t o the 29 out of the 139
that those 29 cases should have been commuted with a chance of review
later on, and I was shocked when I heard that that recommendation
was not followed, but it will not be the first time that I have been
shocked when my superior officers have done things I did not ap-
prove of.
But I still feel that the Army and this committee here, gentlemen,
is trying to save-I do not mean to be sensational, but I think if our
Supreme Court did not save the conscience of our country, I hope the
conscience of our Government and our country will be saved by the
Army ar,d by this committee in this Senate, and I hope you will do so
and, therefore, the result of my feeling is that i t was a mistake not to
follow our recommendation.
Senator MCCARTHY. I might sa Secretary Royall, who appeared
P
here, appeared to be very reasonab e and prorr,ised us he was going to
review these cases in detail and that none of the men whom your com-
mittee recon~n~ended not be hung, that none of them would be hung
without first informing this committee a reasonable length of time
before they were executed.
Judge VANRODEN.The remainder?
Senator HUNT.Any further questions, Senator?
Senator HUNT. Senator Baldwin?
Senator BALDWIN.I would like t o ask Judge Van Roden some
questions.
Senator MCCARTHY. I have something for Senator Baldwin. On
page 401 of the record, Senator, Mr. Bailey's testimony, he says:
I saw prisoners come into cells shaky and nervous and with a few scratches
or bruises on them, but nothing serious; that is the condition I have seen them in,
in the cells. I have seen Lieutenant Perl slag them, and I have seen them knee
a couple of them in the groin.
Senator BALDWIN. I asked Mr. Bailey a question as t o whether he
had seen any of the prisoners who had bruises and black eyes or
anything of that kind, and Mr. Bailey said:
No; I cannot. They received black eyes, but they could have gotten it any
way. They could have bumped their heads against the wall. I never saw anybody
actually beaten by anybody except with the possible exception on one or two
Occasions by this fellow Perl.
TOmy mind, that was a very marked qualification of the general

claims made. But we can spend the day here disputing what the
record discloses.
Senator MCCARTHY. Maybe he did not consider kneeing in the groin
to be beating.
Judge VANRODEN.YOUcould probably find medical records over
there and some of the records about the condition of these prisoners.
Senator BALDWTN. A t the time these clergymen appeared before
you, Judge Van Roden, Judge Simpson testified about that, did they
make any claim that time about physical abuses of the prisoners?
Judge VANRODEN.When who appeared?
Senator BALDWIN. Clergymen. You mentioned Bishop Wurm, who
was the Lutheran bishop. I
Judge VANRODEN.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Do you recall those men made any claim about
physical abuses of the risoners ?
8
Judge VANRODEN. ome of them did. I don't recall which ones.
Senator BALDWIN.They made claims?
Judge VAN RODEN. There were petitions filed which also made
claims, posttrial petitions that were filed made those claims.
Senator BALDWIN.When you say posttrial petitions, do you mean
the ones that accompanied the petitions to the Supreme Court?
Judge VANRODEN.NO, sir; those petitions that were filed with the
War Crimes branch over there in Munich, and we were referred to the
various boards of review to investigate to see whether that would
have any bearing upon any recommendation as to the sentence.
Senator BALDWIN.Those petitions were before you?
Judge VANRODEN.Before us, yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you examine any of the petitioners per-
sonally ?
Judge VANRODEN.YOUmean the defendants ?
Judge VANRODEN.NO,sir. We thought we should not do that.
Senator BALDWIN. You just examined the record?
Judge VANRODEN.We spoke to about 50 or 75 people.
Senator BALDWIN.I n your statement sometime ago that was made
in February 1949, you said American investigators of the United
States Court in Dachau, Germany, used the following methods to ob-
tain confessions :Beating and brutal kickings. What evidence can you
tell us there was of that ?
'Jixdge VAN RODEN.The only evidence I can recall was what the
person who came before us talked to us about, and the petitions that
were filed, and I suppose Colonel Everett, of course, spoke to us and
told us what he knew, and he presented, I think, two a5davits he had
while in Washington, either then or before that time. I cannot re-
member the specific stories for each of those various things, but we
learned that in the course of our investigation over there.
Senator BALDWIN.Was there a transcript of these statements, do
you know?
Judge VANRODEN.Statements made to us?
Sengtor BALDWIN.Yes.
Judge VANRODEN.NO, sir. One or two were made, but they came
to the office there sometimes as many as four and five or more people
a day to talk to us. I cannot remember what each of them said.
They spoke to the three of us together, Colonei S~mpson,Coionei Law-
rence, and myself.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUalso mentioned knocking out of teeth and
breaking of jaws. What evidence was there of t h a t ?
Judge VANRODEN.T h a t was the dentist's report with which I think
you are familiar.
Senator BALDWIN. Dr. K n o r r ?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes, and that was also included in the petitions
which were presented to the W a r Crimes Branch, the boards of re-
view, by the accused themselves, by their counsel, by organizations,
and by clergymen of different denominations.
Senator BALDWIN.Were they eyewitnesses to the beatings or not?
Judge VANRODEN.NO, of course not. They vere done i n the cells
by investigators, one a t a time. Nobody was there when it happened.
Nobody could have been there.
Senator BALDWIN.Would you say the actual testimony you heard of
that was the testimony, the claims of the accused themselves?
Judge VAN RODEN.Yes; but also we had access, we read, rather,
the transcript of the testimony given by Lieutenam Perl to a com-
mission-I would guess you would call i t a commission-which was
comprised of Colonel Raymond, who was here last Friday, Colonel,
now General Harbaugh, and Car1 Friedrich, and all of us read the
transcript taken stenogral:hica?ly of Perl's investigation by that group
of three persons, and there was something said in there-I have foi-
gotten the details of it-but he made some coinineat about this being a
tough case to break, couldn't break the Malinedy case on direct evi-
dence, had to get confessions, the Geriuans were stubborn, and they
couldn't get them t o sign these statements without using expedients
and persuasive methods.
Senator BALDWIN. Perl said that ?
Judge VAN RODEN.Yes, to the group who interviewed him. Dr.
Carl Friedrich. W e lived i n the same V I P house i n Munich, and I
met him a t mealtimes, and he told me, I suppose off the record, what
he had talked to Perl about and what Perl had said to him.
Senator BALDWIN.Was there a transcript of t h a t ?
Judge VANRODRN.Yes. You mean what he told me?
Senator BALDWIN.What you are describing.
Judge VAN RODEN:This commission of two officers, General Har-
baugh, General Krauss, judge advocate, whom I know and respect very
highly, Colonel Raynlond, and a civilian American. Dr. Carl Fried-
rich; they were appointed by General Clay, I believe, although I am
not sure who made the appointment, and they had their investigation
or examination of Perl vrhile me were over there, not in line with our
investigation, but a separate investigation of Lieutenant Perl.
There is a transcript of those proceedings. Gordon Simpson said
he had a copy of i t in his files. I do not have a copy.
Senator BALDWIN.It would be good to get that.
Judge VAN RODEN.TI7e read about the investigation of Berl, the
statements he made.
Senator BALDWIN.The reason I am asking these questions is this:
I n considering the methods used and ilze convictions of these people,
me were judging the evidence on American standards of credibility.
91765-49-17
252 MALMEDT MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Likewise, I think you have got to judge the claims of the adducers
on the same standards of credibility.
Judge VANRODEN.Of course.
Senator BALDWIN. D O YOU agree with t h a t ?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes.
Senator HUNT.W h a t is your pleasure, Senator?
Senator BALDWIN.I would suggest that we recess until 2 o'clock.
Senator HUNT.I f that is agreeable, all right.
(Whereupon, a t 12: 05 p. m., the subcommittee recessed, to recon-
vene a t 2 p. m., of the same day.)
A F T E R S O O N SESSION
(Present : Senator Hunt.

(Also present : Senator McCarthy ; Col. J o h n M. Raymond.)
TESTIMONY OF EDWARD LeEOY VAN RODEN-Resumed
Senator HUNT.The conlnlittee mill come to order.
Senator MCCARTEIP.Judge, I unclerstancl Senator Balclwin has
some further questions to ask of you, but in the 1neai;time we have a
few that we can fill i11 with.
I wonder if you moulcl care to go into the rest of some of these
death penalties jnst a little bit so we can show the type of recommenda-
tions that are made to General Clay and the type of action that he
took on those recommenclations.
Would you mind giving us the picture of the killing of the seven
American fliers and the facts snrrouncling that and the death penalties
that were meted out ancl-
Senator HUNT.S enator. might I ask this: T h a t is not covered by
this particular case, the resolution that we were requested to work
under. Do you think we might be gettin@c., bit Par afield ?
Senator MCCARTHY.Here is iny t h o u g h , Mr. Chairman. I t is not
strictly one of the Ms~lineclycases, and if Mr. Balcln-in mere here or
if you had some questions to ask, I did not care to go into this.
Senator HUFF.I do hare some.
Senator MCCARTEII-.This, I tllink, is inlportant. I tliink when you
hear the ,zns,vTeryou will consider that i t is important. I t 1s inlportant
i n that i t establishes a pattern that is followed over there in the
commutation of sentences and the confimlation of death sentences.
This is the situation which I am sure will interest you a great
deal, and will only take the judge 3 or 4 minutes.
Senator HUNT. All right, go ahead.
Senator MC~ARTIIY. 1 am sure yon will consicler this important
when you hear it.
Do you recall the facts in that case, Juclge?
Judge Vax ROOEN.Well, Senator, me exaininecl three categories of
cases : One, the Malmedy case ; the other called the "fliers' case," where
our American fliers were compelled to land upon German soil, inany
of whom were killecl,' some killed by being shot, mercifully. shall I
say, and some killed by being tortured.
Senator RICCARTIIY.I ain referring to a case in ~ ~ h i cthere ll were
seven fliers going to be liilleci by a Germxn naval captail>.
MALI\IEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION , 253
Judge .VAN RODEN.It has no hearing upon the Malmecly case,
though.
Senator MCCARTHT. I think that i t might be important in that it
,vives us a picture of the pattern that is follo.wecl over there, the type
of judgment nsecl ill commuting sentences and affirming sentences.
Judge VANRODEX.As I recall it, the situation was that there were
seven American fliers or airmen-I do not kiiow n-hether they were
bombardiers or what they mere, bombardiers or fighters, probably a
bomber group-seven Americans lanclecl on a place called Borkuin
Island and they were taken as prisoners of war.
The recorcl of trial showed the political head nian was either a
German captain, or a former German Wavy captain by the name of
Goebbel, I think, and he clirectecl a certain Major Seiler who, as I
remember, mas a German S r m y major, to clispose of these seven Anier-
ican fliers.
Senator MCCARTIIT.K ill them?
Judge VAN RODEN.H a r e thenl killed, ha^-e them put out of t h e
y a y . The major protested against that a d said that he would not
do it, which is rather tlnusual for an inferior officer to speak to a
superior officer that way, but as I reinenlber i t then the record of trial
to be eriallziliecl shomecl that Major Seiler said he would tell a lieuten-
ant somebody, a G e r ~ n a nofficer of course, that Captain Goebbel had
ordered this to be clone, which was to have them marchecl through a
viliape in that same locale at Rorkum Island, a part of Borkunz
Islsiid.
Senator MCC.~RTIIY.AS I ~ ~ n d e l ~ s t it,
a n the
~ l major first lefused to
kill the Americans. Then the Gennan Kal-y captain, the colnlnandant
saicl-
Judge VANRODEK.I beg your pardon. H e said, "I orcler them to
be marched to a prisoner-of-war eiiclosure," ~vhichwould take the111
through a certain thickly settled village. The major said, "No, I will
not do that because they will be killed if they do that, and that should
not be done."
But, after some talk on the telephone, as I remember it, Major
Seiler saicl, "I will tell lieutenant so-ancl-so tliat you, Captain Goebbel,
ordered them marched through this village to this prisoner-of-war
enclosure," worcls something like that.
They were then marclied through this village. I n the meantime
Goebbel got i11 touch with a man by the name of Ackerman who TFns
the burgomaster or mayor, whatever his title may be of that village,
and a t Goebbel's instructions Ackerman callecl out the populace, the
civilians there.
As I recall it, most of them were older people, women and children,
maybe some olcler men. I do not know who they were. Of course,
it did not develop in the recorcl.
H e aroused them to, I suppose you might say, fever heat and told
theni, "Here come these American murclerers, here come the inen who
l l ~ been~ e dropping bombs, destroJ;ing your churches and homes and
I d l i n g your families," ancl so forth. "If the military mill not kill
them, the civilians ca11," and the result was, I think the civilians by
sticks nncl stones, clubs. kicking anel beatings, the German civilians
killed all seven of those American fliers.
264 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIG.4TIBx
That is one of the trials that took place. I have the record here.
YOLIprobably have it, too. There mere several accused, tried for that
~nlawful-it certainly was u n l a ~ ~ f u l - k i l l i iof
~ Ainerictm flyers by
these German civilians.
T h e court sentenced Goebbel-I have i t here'somer~here,the actual
sentence-to death, and Seiler to death. Yes, here it is.
Case No. 12489. Ackeman, the nlayor, got death; Goebbel got
death, sentence of cleath by the court; Schmidt and Seiler were sen-
fenced to death; and a man nailled Eric wenzel mas sentenced to
cleath.
Then when we examined this record, I think about the time we
were actually there in Munich, General Clay commntecl Goebbel's
sentence to life imprisonment.
Senator MCCAKTHY.Let us get the picture in cl~ro~rological order.
I understand when you went over this record pou did not touch
Goebbel's case a t all. Yon felt that his crime was such that lie shoiild
be hung?
Judge VAN RODEN.No; that is partly not true. About the time
we were going over the record of trial we got word that General Clay
had already coinn~utedthe sentence from death to life imprison-
ment.
Senator"MCCARTIIY.I n any e ~ e n t ,you did not reconlmencl that
Goebbel be c o n ~ n ~ u t 8e d
Judge VANRODEN.NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. Yon clicl recommend that Seilel.'s be co1n-
of tlie ftwt he 1.cf11ieclt o kill the men, reiuaed to inarch
inutecl i n ~ i e w
them tbrougll town. A11 he clid was tell x-hat hnd been ordered, so
you reconl~nendedthat Seilcr's be commuted?
Senator MCCARTHY.Am I correct that the ultiinate result was that
Seiler's death sentence was confirmed? The captain. howerer, who
was directly actively responsible for the death of American fliers,
seven of them, his sentence was commuted to life imprisonment ?
J~zdgeVAN RODEN.That is not entirely accurate. The story is
this :
I have just told you what the sentences were. General Clay con-
firmed Ackerman's, that is the mayor, a man nanlecl Schmidt, and
Seiler. A s f a r as Goebbel is concerned, he commuted t h a t to life
imprisonment.
We made a recommendation that Seiler, the only one in that case,
be commuted to life imprisonment. No, I believe that was two and
a half years in that case.
I received a letter from an officer over there-I will not mention
his name because it was a personal letter-who is on duty in that
section in Munich, giving me a list of what General Clay had actually
done, and on that list he sent me, which is not official, I find that Gen-
eral Clay has not followed our recoinmendations. but has recoin-
mended the death penalty. TVhether Seiler has been hung yet or
not, I do not know.
Senator MCCARTHY.Mr. Chairnlan, the reason I brought this out
is that i t seems to follow the same pattern in the Malmerly case. The
top man here, the naval captain Goebbel, who was directly responsible
for setting in motion the machinery that resulted in the death of
MALMEDY MASS.4CRE INVESTIGATION 255.
seven American boys, his sentence, because of high rank, or some-
thing or other, he gets life in prison.
The major who has refused to carry out the order on two different;
occasions, refused to kill the Americans, refused to march them
tl~roughthe town so the civilians could kill them, for some unknown
reason his death sentence is confimed.
We find the same thing in the Malmedy case. We h d that the
privates, the privates who carried out the order are getting death and
life imprisonment. The generals who allegedly made the order, who
said, "We want these American boys killed," they are getting off
with a lighter sentence than the 16- or 17-year-old kids who carried
out the order.
I t seems to be one of those fantastic things, and I think it is part
of the case that you and I heartily agree on, Senator. Am I right?
Judge VANRODEN.I do not agree with that entirely, because as I
recall in the Malmedy case Colonel Peiper was given a death sentence.
He was a superior officer, as I remember.
Senator MCCARTHY. There were three generals who were tried.
Judge VANRODEN.We did not examine their records.
Senator McC-~RTHY. Three generals who were tried got lighter
sentences than any of the privates. I n other words, the generals
who issued the order got a lighter sentence than the private who
followed out the order, and that is the reason I wanted to have you
give us this other case to show that that apparently is the whole pat-
tern in that area.
If your rank is great enough, you did not get the same punish-
ment as the p r i ~ a t ewho followed out the order. That is all on that
point, Senator.
Senator HUKT.Judge Van Roden, this morning, if my memory
serves me correctly, you testified or made a point of the fact that
Lieutenant Perl, I believe it was, appeared before the Raymond
committee.
Judge VANRODEN.That is what I understand; yes, sir.
Senator HUNT.And had testimony directly that these were tough
cases to crack and that unusnal methods had to be used to develop the
testimony.
Judge VAKRODEN.That is the substance of what we saw.
Senator HUNT. Well, it develops, Judge, that Lieutenant Perl did
not appear before them, but he did give them an affidavit. The general
tenor of that affidavit, of the testimony was it was a tough case to
crack, but that strategems and things of that type had to be employed.
Now, I am wondering if you wanted to clear the record or if you
still say, as yon remember it, Perl did appear, or did you just have
his-
Judge VANRODEN.AS I remember it-maybe I am wrong-I read
several pages of testimony before this commission. Colonel Raymond
would know about that. I am certain it was Perl.
S ~ n a t o rHUXT. Colonel Raymond, would you mind telling us did
Lir i l t ~ n q ~Per1
l t appeal- b:.fore the c,ommittse?
Colonel RAYMOND. NO,sir. Lieutellant Perl I have never seen. He
did not appear before us. I think the Judge is mistaken. I do not
know what testimony he saw, but it was not Perl's testimony, anyway.
We had an affidavit from .Perl, but that affidavit was not received
until after your commission, Judge, had left the theater.
256 MALMEDY MASSACRE 1IWES.TIGATIOX
Judge VANRODEN.Well, I read pages 03testimony given by some

investigators. I thought Perl was one of them.
Colonel RAYMOND. YOUmay have read Perl's testimony at the trial.
Judge VANRODEN.NO,I am referring to what Dr. Carl Fredericks
told me when he and you and Colonel Harbaugh were having this in-
vestigation while we were over there, several pages of typewritten
notes which Colonel Siinpson has a copy of. I f it was not Perl, it
was somebody else, Colonel Raymond.
Colonel RAYMOND. That is quite possible.
Judge VANRODEN.Who were the investigators you examined?
Colonel RAYMOND. Kirschba~in,Thon, Steiner, who was an inter-
preter, I believe, Jacobs, who was an interpreter, and other people
connected with the case, but not directly.
Judge VANRODEN.The reason I recall it, gentleman, is this: Dr.
Predericks told me at breakfast time one inorning that as a result of
what you gentlemen had been talkin to him about, that he was
surprised that Colonel Ellis, knowing #erl9s background, let Lieuten-
ant Perl do the work that he did. H e thought Colonel Ellis had made
a mistake in picking Lieutenant Perl for the job.
Now that, of course, is just an expression of Dr. Fredericks' opin-
ion, which is not official, but it is certainly my impression that these
notes I read included Perl's testimony. If I ain wrong, you should
know more than I do.
Colonel RAYMOND. Well, the record is here.
Senator MCCARTNY. YOUdid have Perl's affidavit, clid you not?
Colonel RAYNONI). Perl's affidavit came in in January of this year,
if 1 am not mistaken. December of last year or January of this year.
Senator HUNT. The only discrepancy seems to be then that Lieuten-
ant Perl did not appear personally.
Judge VAN RODEN.Then my recollectioll certainly is faulty, but
that is my honest recollectioa, gentlemen, that we read what he or
some investigators told you-
Colonel RAYMOND. We have testimony, of course, that Perl had
been one of the interrogators and so forth, but he clid not appear
before us. I have never seen the gentleman.
Judge VAN RODEN.Then I am mistaken, but I certainly got that
impression. It is still hard for me to believe.
Senator HUNT.Judge Van Roden, I have here before me a magazine
known as the Progressive, I believe it is callecl.
Judge VANRODEN.I have seen that.
Senator HUNT.Which carries, I presume, a written article by you,
at least it accredits the article to you, and that makes some rather
serious, very serious and direct charges, and I would like to ask you
some questioss with reference to the source of your inforination for
making those charges.
Judge VANRODEN.Before you do so, Senator, I want this to be made
very definitely of record. I did not write that article.
I had made a talk at a Rotary Club meeting in our county and a
gentleman who was there took some notes on the talk. and I understand
that is supposed to be a condensation of the things, some of the things
that I said at that Rotary Club gathering.
The gentleman who actually did write that article, actually is the
author of it, telephoned to me that it mas to have a byline. I did not
h o w what r2 byline was, believe i t or not, gentleinen.
Then I was startled by receiving a copy of that as the author of that
article. I am not the author of. that article.
Senator HUNT.Let me ask you, Judge, after having read the article,
would you like to say that the statements i n tliere are statements made
by you, or are they incorrect statements attributed to yon?
Judge VANRODEN.Well, some are correct and some are not correct.
Senator HUNT.Judge, in your report of January 6, 1949, which
yo!^ signed along with Colonel Simpson and Col. Charles 117. Lawrence,
this paragraph appears :
There was no general or systematic use of improper methods to secure prosecu-
tion evidence for the use a t the trials.
Now, does that statement reflect your position as a member of the
board ?
Judge VANRODEN.I would say so as stated therein.
Senator HUNT.T h a t certainly is in direct conflict. Judge, to my
may of thinking, with the statements made in this article, and perhaps
I sliould get specific and ask you just which statements i n this article
you do say that you made at this address, and which you did not make,
because you could not make those statements in the article and a t the
same time sign this report with the statement i n there, because they
are entirely incompatible.
Judge, might I ask you on other occasions before other clnbs i n sub-
stance have your renlarks been practically the same as i n this article
in the Progressive?
Judge VAN RODEN.I have said "No, sir." I did not write that
article in the Progressive. Some of the things that are tliere I have
said. Some of the things tliat are there I clid not say a t any time.
Senator HUNT.Well, I am glad to know, Judge, and for t.he record
I think it should be noted, that you did not write this article.
Judge VAN RODEN.That is correct.
Senator HUNT. May I ask you, Judge, in your investigation of these
cases clid you talk to any of the Malinedy prisoners yourself?
Judge BANRODEN.NO, sir.
Senator HUNT.Did you interview any of the administrative or espe-
cially any of the medical personnel that were stationed there as
Schwabisch Hall while the Nalmedy prisoners were there?
Judge VAN RODEN.NO, sir.'
Senator HUNT. Would you mind telling us, if you know, why they
were not questioned?
Judge VANRODEN.I do not know as I can tell you except tliat we
had available to us, as I have said before, all of these records. W e
have had reports of different people who were there. We had the
benefit of the records of trial.
We had the petitions, and this Raymond report, if I can call it that,
and we interviewed people who came there to see us, who were listed
in this report that we have, i n one of these tabs tliat we have on our
rsport, and m.e just did not interview any other person than what we
saw here.
Our time was full up as i t was. W e only had 6 weeks to do all this
work in. W e did the best we could in tliat length of time.
Senator HUNT.L et me ask you, Judge, did those who m-ere inter-
viewed make known to you their desire to testify, or did you request
that they appear and testify?
Judae VANRODEX-.NO; I think they came both ways. Many of

them Reard about us being there. It appeared in the Stars and
Stripes, a i d I think other papers in that section of Germany, and most
of the people who came to see ns I would say came voluntarily.
They are listed here. They vi-ere lawyers. They were friends.
They were clergy and other persons who I mentioned this morning.
I say most of them came voluntarily, having heard about our being
there. We a t the same time requested certain people to appear before
us including Colonel Rosenfeld, the law member of the court that
tried the Malmedy case; he was still there on clnty, and some lieu-
tenant-I have forgotten his name. H e is rather a short and stout lit-
tle fellow. I cannot remember his name.
We requested him to be there, and we requested, 1 think, so~nebocly
who had formerly been a major, now a civilian lanTyerover there as a
civilian lawyer in Munich. to visit lls, and I ~ o i i l dsay we reqne ted
several people, but most of them caine voluntarily.
Senator HUNT. Did you think i t was necessary, or did you think of
j't a t all that these stories such as having teeth knocked out during in-
terrogations, broken jaws, having injury to the testicles of the men,
did you think i t was necessary to call in any conipetent medical
authority a t that time a i d make examinations with reference to
X-rays and examination of the mouth a i d things of that kind?
Judge VANRODEN.That was not for us. Zfe were tliere to find out
whether these persons received fair trials and whether we believed
that these convictions were proper
- - and that the sentences of death
should be executecl.
W e heard this evidence here that I have told you about. We read
the records of trial, the records that I have to1d";you about, and that
convinced us that these stateinents were secured in everything but
a voluntary way and method.
Senator HUNT.I11 this voluntary way or method, Judge, as these
various people appeared before you, did they gil-e specific dates,
definite names, and outline each particular situation, or were they
general in their stateinents?
-
Judge VANRODEN.Well, I clo not remember. I think some of them
gave some names. I am s ~ k they e must have given the names. W e clid
not keep any record of them.
Some of them were general. I think that is the best answer I can
give you. Some were general and some were specifically mentioned.
As I recall i t one group canie the~.e,I tliink one man v a s a Ger-
man Lutheran clergyman, as I remember it. H e was a chaplain. He
called himself that, at the prison where these men were, and I think
he had with him a group of some other people. I have forgotten who
they were.
I think it shonld be in onr list of persons who we intervierred, and
he gave us quite consiclerable detail of what he had seen in the prison
and what the persons there had told him, and m-e interviewed him at
some length. I think he spent sereral hours.
Senator HUNT. Did you see any certain person with any physical
marlis on him whatsoever ?
Judge VANRODEX.We saw none of the defenclnnts, s i r ; n o x of
the accused.
Senator HUNT.NOIT, when the testimony mas presented to you of
the improper actions of these interrogators, clicl yon ask the interro-
gators to come before you and defend themselves or give their side
of the situation?
Judge VANRODEN.NO,sir. There were not very many there. We
did not know whether they were there or whether they were not.
Gordon Simpson felt that there was not any point. We should not
see them. We therefore did not see them.
Senator HUNT. Judge, would it be necessary or would you say that
none of the things which you think happened you know of your own
knowledge to have hap ened?
Judge VANRODEN.g i l l you repeat that again ?
Senator HUNT.Of your own knowledge do you know any of the
alleged atrocities here did happen?

Judge VANRODEN.Of course not, I was not there until July of 1948.
Senator HUNT.DOyon think, Judge, that in that intervening time
and after the convictions, that these stories of brutal treatment could
have been manufactured in order to prevent the execution of the
convicts?
Judge VANRODEN.Not when the investigators themselves made
their statements as Colonel Raymond's board has indicated, and filed
a5davits that they had actually done these things. They certainly
could not manufacture them.
We were convinced when the investigators themselves made these
statements that we had access to what I have just described, that cer-
tainly could not be manufactured by anybody but themselves.
Senator HUNT. Well, now, with reference to Lieutenant Perl, it
being claimed that he admitted to the court that their persuasive meth-
ods, so to speak, included various expediencies including some violence,
is there any place in the record of the trial where Lieutenant Perl is
recorded as having made such a statement?
Judge VANRODEN.I think you will find something similar to that.
Do you have the record of trial in the Malmedy case? That was quite
a voluminous record, as you know.
As I recall it, a t the start of the trial-whether it was to disarm the
defense or not, I am not concerned with; I have no opinion to express
about it, but the record shows that at the commencement of the trial
t& prosecutor made a statement to the court-you have it h e r e t h a t
they wanted the court to know that they would have to rely to a great
extent, I believe, or maybe principally upon these pretrial extrajudicial
affidavits, and they had to use some of these methods to get these
statements. The court should know about this.
That is in the record of trial itself, as I recall it.
Senator HUNT.Now, do you think the court took that statement into
consideration in their deliberations, in their findings?
Judge VANRODEN.Took what into consideration, Senator?
Senator HUNT.The statement that you have just made that was
. given by the prosecuting attorney when the trial opened.
Judge VSN RODEN.I have no way of knowing what the court did
except the court found them guilty. The court seemed to find most of
them guilty. Why they found them guilty is beyond me. I do not
know.
I cannot delve into their minds and know what they were thinking
about. They had this evidence before them chiefly in the form of
these affidavits and pretrial statements.
260 M A L M E D P M A S S A C R E IJSVESTlGATION
Senator HUNT.B u t the court was aware of the situation as the trial
got under way ?
Judge VAN RODEN. Apparently they were. Yes, of course. The
court received these papers knowing they were secured that way.
Senator HUNT. Judge, from your review of these cases, would you
care to comment on v h a t you think of the competency of the court?
Was the court made up of men of capacity? Were they qualified mem-
bers of the Court ?
Judge-VANRODEN.YOUmean qualified as to experience and legal
training ?
Senator HUNT.S i l d ability. J u s t generally speaking, clo you think
they were men capable of conclucting such trials c'
Judge VANRODEN.Well, frankly I do not know. I only met two
members of the court. I inet Colonel Rosenfelcl who was the law
member when he came to visit us, and we l i d 111:. interrienr with him
in Munich last summer, and 1think General Dalby was of the court,
was he not? I met General Dalby in the summer of 1046, and these
trials had taken place.
I so happened I was law member of a court in which he mas presi-
dent and we tried that W A C Captain Durant in the jewel case, and I
met General Dalby i n that connection then.
I mill say he was a competent combat general in my opinion. What
competence he had as to legal training, experience, is very little. That
is all I know about the men~bershipcf the court.
Senator HUNT. DOyou have any reason to beliere there nere incom-
petent members of the court ?
Judge VAN RODEN.HOWcan I tell, sir, except the results? Any-
bocly can clraw a conclusion as to the results. I do not know.
Senator HUNT.Y OUcould not jndge after reriewing the records as
you have in great detail IT-hether the court was competent?
Judge VANRODEN.I am afraid your question is a little obscure. I
do not unclerstancl yotur qnestion.
Senator HUNT. What I am trying to ask you, Judge, is do you
tliiillr the members of the court were qualjfiecl to be members of the
court ?
Kow yon can ansv-er i t yes or no. You can qualify it or you can
say you do not n-ant t o a n s ~ ~ e rI. do not care what your aanswer is.
Juclge VANRODEN.I don't object to answering if I lrnow, but I saF
I don't know. I have no means of lrno~vingwhat their respective
cpalifications were.
I would sag Colonel Rosenfelcl impressed us as being a very able
attorney. H e told us he comes from Mount Hollv in S e w Jersey and
in civilian life was a member of the bar there. H e impressed all three
of us. including myself. as being intelligent and alert, and very capable,
ancl I woulcl say he would be in 1 1 1 ~ 7opinion a very able lawyer.
Now he is the only one whom I can express an opinion about. The
rest cf them I do not know one way or the other abol~tthem.
Senator HUNT.J udge. let me ask you again, if I may, a question
which I thinlr I have aslrecl you heretofore. That has to do with those
men who prosecuted the case ancl the interrogators against whom these
charges are made.
I n your capacity in revien-i~:g these czses, do j7ou feel you did or
did not have an obligation to give those gentlemen their day in court
MALMEDY MASSACRE ~NVESTIGATION 261
before your reviewing board? Why did you not ask them to come
in and testify ?
Judge VANRODEN.Well, Senator, we vere giving nobody any day
in cmst. We were sot theipe for that purpose.
The orders of the Secretary of the Army were we were to investi-
gate the trials theinselves, the recarcls of trials themselves and those
facts surrounding the records of trial to asce~tain,as I have said
several times, whether these sentences of death were warranted by the
evidence in all respects, and the may i t was secured.
Senator HUNT.Well, Jndge, if you heard just one side of a case,
your coi~clnsionsmight be somewhat prejudiced, might they not?
Jndge VANRODEN.Senator, if there mas any dispute about these
facts that we heard that these interrogators behaved in that way, that is
true, but there apparently was no denial of the facts that they used
violence. They had mock trials. They told us that.
I t is a known fact they had mock trials, and if they did not have
these inock trials it woultl not have producecl that result because they
admitted they had these mock trials.
Senator HUNT.T here is no difference in your thinking and mine
with reference to the mock trials.
Juclge VANRODEN.Yes, sir.
Senator HUNT.That has been freely admitted, but as I have listened
to these hearings so far, Judge, I have not yet heard any witness say
that he observed a single person having some of these cruelties of
which yon speak enacted upon him.
Jndge VAN RODEN.Of course, we were not trying the case over
there. These accusations that Colonel Everett made in his petition
for writ of habeas corpus in the United States Supreme Court were
- -
very challenging.
I think that is putting it very mildly, and that is the reason the
Secretarv sent us over there. to see whether there was a merit i n these
accusati&s that hehad made, and we went over there.
I have described in detail, I believe, this morning what we found
and how we found it. We made our report to the Secretary, and that
is all we were supposed to do. We were giving nobody trials. We
were not trying the accused. We did not mterview them. We were
not trying the investigators, the interrogators or the interpreters.
We were not trying them, b ~ the ~ trecords that we found disclosed,
may I say, in a very small percentage-that is why we have this para-
graph in our report. "There was no general or systematic use of im-
proper methods," beca~zseout of 139 cases of defendants that we ex-
amined, only a very small percentage, shall I say, only 29 of those did
we recommend any conlmutation of sentences of death, and that is
why we said there was no general systematic use of improper methods
throughout all these cases, but in 29 cases-I have no ulterior motive
except to e v e you the facts. I have nothing to gain or lose by this
except criticism, favorable or otherwise.
We have tried to give you the information that we found had taken
plnw in 29 caxs, and recommended commutation so that the matter
could b:: furthe1 investigated. and if appropriate and proper and
illegal, to have a new trial. That is all our job was. That is all I
am saying to you now, sir.
Senator HUNT.T hen, Judge, do you subscribe to this statement:
P o u r findings were based not on any personal contracts, not on any
262 MALMEDY iMASSACRE IKVESTIG.lTIOiY
personal observations with the prisoners, and further than the men
~ h nowo stand accused before the American public of committing
these atrocities were not given an opportunity to defend themselves.
Judge VAN RODEN.That is a double-barreled question. The an-
swer t o the first part of that question I would say is "Yes,,? we did
not interview the defendants. We did not interview the interrogators.
We have told the Secretary of the Army what we found from the
record, and it seems to me, if I can be bold enough and with due respect
and suggest it to this committee, you have the equal opportunity of
having the investigators here and probably are more of an official body
to ascertain whether these things are so or not. They did not deny
them, as f a r as I understand, unless they have done so in the public
press.
We were not engaged in any trial over there of anyone. We made
our investigation. The sources that we had to use, I say they were
limited to a certain degree, but we found the evidence in these 29 cases
was of so doubtful a nature and these things which had been charged,
many of which I have described to you, they warranted withholding
execution of these 29 men.
I am doing the best I can to give you a complete answer. I am not
trying to evade it or avoid it.
Senator HUNT.Well, I am trying. Judge, for the benefit of the
record, to establish the fact that your findings primarily, using a lay
term, came to you second-hand, not from the parties definitely and
personally involved.
Judge VAN RODEN.Of course not. We did not see any of the de-
fendants. I repeated that many times. We did not see the accused
and did not see the interrogators.
Senator HUNT.DO you have any questions?
Judge, I have a few questions. It has been developed here that
neither the Army board that made an investigation, nor your board-
a n d I realize that your board was not expected to and did not have
the time to interrogzte all of these defendants. You had nothing to
do with any of those except those sentences of death.
I n view of the fact that neither the Army h a r d , nor. anj7 other
lboard has ever gotten down to the point of investigating the details
of the physical force used. Do you not think i t might be a good idea
i f some board mould perform that function now I
Judge VAN RODEN.My answer to that is "Yes," and my answer
may be further amplified by saying I think, I am sure it was the
jn~pressionall three of us had, Colonel Simpson, Colonel Lawrence,
and myself, that when we made this report there would be an investi-
gation made to ascertain the extent and truth of these affirmations
that we made as the result of our investigation.
Who would be the agency to do it, I do not know, but some appro-
priate agency I am sure we thought would take up this matter upon
our recommendation and find out the extent of i t and how much was
true and how much was hearsay and how much was reliable and how
much was unreliable.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, .your committee felt its func-
tion was to go to the point of deternlining whether or not those men
should be executed or whether they should be held up.
Where there is doubt in a case it should be held up and then there
&odd be the type of investigation that the Senator from Wyoming
is questioning you about now.
Judge VANRODEN.Yes, sir ; because when we got over there some
150 were actually hung.
Senator MCCARTHY. Judge, will you answer this question: You
have had some contact with Colonel Rosenfeld, I gather?
Judge VANRODEN.To the extent I told you. We interviewed him
in our office.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you think that he felt friendly or un-
friendly toward the German race as a whole?
Judge VANRODEN. That is a difficult question for me.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did he have an honest, fair judicial attitude
toward the German people? I f you were a German, would you feel
that you would be willing to have a matter of life and death decided by
this man Rosenfeld?
Judge YAN RODEN.I could not answer that question that way,
Senator.
Senator HUNT.We will recess a t this time until 2 p. m. tomorrow
afternoon.
(Whereupon, a t 3 :40 p. in., the hearing was adjourned to reconvene
on Thursday, May 5,1949, a t 2 p. m.)
THURSDAY, MAY 5, 1949
UNITEDSTATESSENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE COMMITTEE
ON ARMEDSERVICES,
Washington. 13. C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2: 15 p. m., in
room 212 Senate Office Building, Senator Lester C. Hunt, presiding.
Present: Senators Hunt (presiding) and Baldwin.
Also present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy ; Colonel Ellis; Colonel
Raymond; Mr. Finucane; and Mr. J . M. Chambers of the committee
staff.
Senator HUNT.T he hearing will come to order.
This may be off the record.
(Discussion was had outside the record.)
Mr. CIIAMBERS. I11 the case of the serea flier; referred to yesterday
by senator McCarthy, Burgomaster Akkerniann was sentenced to
death, and that was approved, and he mas executed. There were sev-
eral other people executed. I am going to read thein off: Albrecht, a
private sentenced to 6 years, and sentence Lapprovedfor 6 years. Geyer,
a lance corporal, sentenced to 4 years; sentence approved. Goebell,
comn~ander,sentenced to death; coinmuted to life. Heinemann. no
rank, sentenced to 18 years, was reduced to 10' years. Krolikorski,
sentenced to life; sentence approved. Mammega, sentenced to 20
pears; sentence approved. Three defendants, Meyer, Gerhards, and
Klass were acquitted. Pointer, an actjng corporal, sentenced to 5
years; sentence approved. Chief of Police Rommel, sentenced to 2
years, and it was approved. Technical Sergeant Smith, sentenced to
death confirnlecl, executed. Jacob Seiler, first lientenant, sentenced to
death; sentence commuted to life on December 27, 1948. Carl Weber,
first lieutenant, 25 years; sentence approved. Wentzel, a naval lieu-
tenant, death; sentence approved, executed in Decen~ber. Witzke,
private, first-class, sentence 11 years; sentence approved.
This was the trial of the United States v. Kirk Goebell.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Would yon give me Lieutenant Seiler's sen-
tence ?
Mr. CIIAXBERS.'JRCO~ Seiler sentenced to death in Xoreinber 1047;
commuted to life.
Senator MCCARTIIY.And Goebell ?
Mr. CIIAMBERS. Sentenced to death ; conlmuted to life.
These are not Blalmedy cases, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Mr. Chairman. the thing I think me should
have cleared up then is nnder what theory of the law, what theory of
justice, the naval captain who was directly res1>onsible for the death
of these seven meil by benting, the inost b r u t ~ ltype of death you
2C5
could find, under what theory of the law he ~ ~ o u lget c l the same sen-
tence as Lieutenant Seiler who apparently opposed the actions of the
naval captain a t every step.
I would like to read into the record this, from the Simpson report.
Senator BALDWIN. I say this, Senator: The only authority
MayLJr'
that this committee has as a subcomn~itteeof the Armed Services
Committee is to investigate the Malmedy prosecution and trial. We
have not any direct authority to go outside of the record in an esamina-
tion of all of these criminal trials.
Now, as I pointed out the other clay, I said that we would confer
among ourselves as a commiitee and would take i t up with the main
committee a t the first opportunity that was offered to determine how
much further this committee might want us to go into i t ; but I do not
think that we have, under our present instructions, autllority to go
into a review of all of these criminal sentences.
I mean our job in the first place was not t o sit as a court of appeals.
That was distinctly understood when the main coininittee authorized
us. W e will take it u p with the main committee and have the com-
mittee determine whether or not i t wants to make an investig at'i on
of all of these war trials. Maybe that is desirable, but all we have
got t o do-and that certainly is a big job in and of itself-is t o take
action with reference to the Malmedy matter. That is all the instrnc-
tion that we have.
Senator MOCARTHY.Mr. Chairman, I do not want to press this un-
duly, but I believe, as a Senator, we not only have the right but the
duty t o check into anything that comes to our attention during the
investigation of the Malmedy case.
I believe we should ask f o r an explanaton of this case so you can
intelligently recommend to the Armed Services Committee either that
yon should go forward further into the matter or that you should
not.
Now, we have an unusual situation here. I f I may read this one
paragraph to show you what I have i n mind, I am sure you will agree
with me in principle, whether or not you do agree me should go into it.
[Reading :]
The deputy judge advocate for the war crimes recommendeJ the death sen-
tence be commuted to life imprisonment and t h a t the report of the W a r Crimes
Board of Review No. 1 dated August 19, 1948, recommended that the sentence
be commuted to confinement for 2 years and 6 months commencing February
6, 1946.
S o that the men on the scene recommended a f a r different sentence
for the junior officer who said, "This is a violation of all the rules
of modern warfare. W e shall not d o it'-a different sentence from
the naval captain who said, "Kill them; we do not care. We are
going t o arrange to have the civilians kill these boys."
I t seems unusual to me that General Clay mould disregard the recom-
mendation of the deputv judge advocate of the review board, the Army
Review Board of the Simpson committee, and give the junior officer
who said, "No, we will not do t h a t ; you cannot kill prisoners of war;
i t is illegal"--give him the same sentence as the man who said. "We
will arrange to have them Idled."
Now, I assume that General Clay, as busy as. he is with all his
various problems, some of which he has certainly done an excellent
job on in Germany, most likely he personally knows nothing whatso-
ever about this case.. Undoubtedly, he has delegated this to someone
else.
I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that you are going beyond your job
given to you when you ask General Clay to explain this, so this com-
mittee will know why they are following this procedure. It does
shed some light on the balance of the war-crime trials.
I think i t will shed some light upon the type of review we have got
i11 the Malmedy case. I f there is a review so inaccurate and, I think
you will agree, so unintelligent to arrive at this conclusion, we should
know why, we should know who is doing it, we should know whether
or not the same man is reviewing the Malmedy cases.
I f the chairman of this committee does not think that he should
do that, certainly someone should do it. I believe you will agree
with me on that, I assume yon will, that someone shoulcl find out from
General Clay as t o the why of this. Perhaps, ~ O L mould
I call it to the
attention of the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Mr.
Tydings. Certainly, he will not be going beyond his functions.
Senator BALDWIN. What I shall say to the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee,' if the other two members of the subcommittee
are agreeable to it, is that in the inrestigation of this Malmedy in-
stance we ran into several extraneous matters that apparently merited
some investigation, and "Do we have the authority to go ahead in
those particular cases ?"
I think that is the most that we can do, but we have got a large
number of witnesses on the Malmedy thing. We have got a man
here tomorrow who came from Texas. Judge Simpson came up from
Texas, and I would like to inconvenience them as little as we can,
although they have manifested their willingness to cooperate to the
full extent, but I think that we ought to confine our investigation
to the purview of this particular investigation and have some order
to the procedure, and then when these extraneous cases arise that merit
being brought to the attention of the Armed Service Committee, we
can do that without going into great detail about them now.
Senator MCCARTHT.Just SO that I will not be surprising the chair-
man of this committee, so he will be fully apprised of what I plan on
doing, unless the chairman intends to call upon General Clay for an
explanation, I will feel it is my duty to take this up on the floor of the
Senate, explain the facts surrounding this case and ask publicly that
General Clay explain why this was done, and, also, at that time I
think that I am in duty bound to ask for an explanation for the Von
Weizsaeker case. As the chairman knows, Von Weizsaeker was our
prime listening pmt in Britain from 1936. H e kept the British
informed of negotiations-
Senator BALDWIN.That is the case we went into in some detail.
Senator MCCARTHY. H e kept the Bishop of Norway informed of
plans for the invasion of Norway. I n other words, he was our No. 1
SPY
The court said "in being that spy you got too friendly with these
Nazis. Therefore, we are going t o give you 7 years to purify you."
I think I am duty bound to take that up on the floor of the Senate
also and call for an explanation of that.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, may I say to the Senator that I personally
objected to the treatment that was given Ilsa Koch. I thought wh(111
91765-40---IS
268 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOK
the Army commuted her sentence i t made a ,gFave mistake. However,

that was a military matter within tlle m ~ l i t a r ya ~ ~ t h o r i t y: u, d my'
recollection is, I was advised a t that time that that was a matter that
had been closed. It had been finally determined and there mas notl~ing
further that the Army purported to do about it.
Whether or not we should go into the question of the whys and
wherefores of the Army doing that particular thing, that is anothei-
subject, too, but I would like, as clmirnlan of this committee, i11 order
to keep this thing on tlle line that we originally started and within the
purview of our authorization, to confine the attention now of the hear-
ings to the Malmedy cases because if we go into a great many extrane-
ous cases me are going to delay this thing and confuse the record to
the extent where i t will not be s meaiiingful as i t ought to be to get
any real result.
Now, as I recall it, this case that you have just referred to was not a
Malmedy matter at all. I t was another criminal trial by another tri-
bunal than those who tried the Malmedy cases.
Senator MCCARTII~. Mr. Chairman, a t the time that our Expendi-
tures Committee started lookjng into the Malmedy cases, as you know
your Armed Services Committee took the position they alone had
jurisdiction i n checlcing anything involving the military government
and the Army over in Europe.
Now, we were priinarily (~oncerned\\.it11 (lie Jlalmetly case because
of the Army report on that. but inany of us, on illy corninittee, are
also wondering. about the entire system of justice over i n Germany,
and I do think within the fairly near future we would like to k1101~-
and I am not speaking ~ i t any h autl~orizationfrom the Expenditures
Committee; I merely report back to them. I do think we would like
to know in the fairly near future whether the Armed Services Com-
mittee intends to restrict its investigation solely to the Malmedy case
or whether you intend to go into the whole picture over there.
As these other matters come up, to that I pointed out showing we
have been following unusual reasoning, I think the American people
inight want to know the n-hy's and wherefore's. I think Generd Clay
might like to have them called to his attention. I would like to get
some explanation from General Clay.
Within the fairly near future, I woulcl like to know whether you
intend to restrict your investigation solely to Malmedy or whether
you, by this time, feel that there are other things which should be in-
vestigated and that the Armed Services Committee should branch out.
I am not asking for an answer to that today a t all. I think the
chairman agrees that is a reasonable request.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, I thinlc I can say t o the Senator that this
subcommittee is just as desirous to see some good results come out of
this thing as is the Senator from V~isconsin,but, on the other hand,
under a direction to g o into the Malmedy things, we would hardly be
justified in branching out into a very wide study of the thing without
direct authorization from the committee itself. As I said, the matter
will be presented to the committee.
Senator MCCARTEIY. I think you are right. I do not think the sub-
committee can go beyond what the full comniittee has instructed i t
to do.
Senator HUNT.S enator McCarthy, I might call to your attention
just for whatever action you \milt to take. this matter. to be helpful.
IVe have just mentioned the Von Weizsaeker case. Yesterday in dis-
cussing that situation when we opened our hearings you made this
remark :
1 think this committee should see what type of morons-and I use t h a t term
advisedly-are running the military court over there.
Now, I have here the names of the men running the court and their
positions in civilian life, and they apparently are three quite out-
standing gentlemen, and I thought you might like the opportunity t o
delete that particular reference from the record.
Senator MCCARTHY.I am not going to delete anything that I have
said. Everything I have said, I have said advisedly. I only judge
the men-I do not know what their names are-by the results.
I think any man who savs that the captain, the 1 ~ ~ n k i nofficer
g 11-110
is responsible for the clubbing to death of seven American boys, any
conrt that says he should get the same punishment as a junior officer
who resists that action, polnts ont to the senior officer that it is con-
trary to all the rrules of modern warfare. i t should not be done, he will
have no part of it, to say that he should get the same punishment, I
think describing them as moronic is doing ~tgently, and I do not have
any desire at all t o delete it. I thank you very much .
I think if you have names of the men who are responsible for that
type of activity, as Senator Baldwin says, this may be beyond the
scope of this subcommittee. I hope that the Armed Services Com-
mittee as a whole decides t o call those men and find out what type of
reasoning dictated that action.
I f you are referring to the court that sentencecl Von Weizsaeker,
I think any conrt that takes our No. 1 spy, the No. 1man ~ 1 1 gave0 us
jnformation, and sentences him to 7 years, admitting that he was the
most valuable man we had, but they say that in getting this informa-
tion in order to be of value to us he had to chum with some of those
nasty Nazis, therefore we are going to give him 7 years to purify
him, I certainly will not retract any statearlelkthat I have to say about
that court, the type of reasoning that clirect'erl that.
Senator Hnm. A t this point in the record insert those iwnes.
(The information above referred to is as follows :)
Re Ernest Von Weizsaeker e t al. : (Judgment April 14, 1949, 7 >-ears sentence.)
William C. Christianson, presiding judge, formerly assoc~atejustice, Supreme
Court of Minnesota ( t e r n ended January 6, 1947).
Leon W. Powers, formerly judge. Supreme Court of the State of Iowa; former
member Iowa Legislature; general counsel. Farm Credit Administration of
Omaha.
Robert F. Magnire, attorney. Oregon ; folmer assistant United States attorney :
assistant chief deputy attorney, Oregon: presently master in chancery, United
States District Court, Oregon.
Senator H r m . ISMajor Fanton present ?
Major FANTON. Yes. sir.
Senator H ~ N TMajor
.
Fanton. i&+yI ask you to be w o r n . Will you
hold u p your right hand, please ?
Do you swear that the testimony your are going to give in the matter
now in question shall be the truth, the whole truth. and nothil?g but
the truth. to the best of your knowledge, infor~nation,ancl helief, so
help you God?
Ma joy FANTON. I do.
TESTINONY OF DWIGHT P. FANTON
Senator HUNT. Major Fanton, do you have a prepared statement

that you would like to make?
Major FANTON. Yes, sir ; I do.
Senator HUNT.All right, will you proceed, please.
I11an effort to conserve our time, we will try to let yon complete your
statement and then we will question you afterward.
Major FANTON. Thank you very much.
I am making a prepared statement due to the fact that there are a
great many details to my story and I believe this will be a saving of
your time and will expedite the hearing as far as I am concerned.
Senator BALDWIN.Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as Mr. Fanton is a
member of the law firm of which I have been a member in Bridgeport,
Conn., and that point has been raised in this case, in the interests
of compIete disinterestedness on my part a t this stage of the pro-
ceedings, I am going to ask you to conduct them and I am going to,
withdraw.
Senator MCCARTHY. I might say I think the chairnlan is absolutely
fair, and I think it would be a good idea for him to sit in and watch this.
I might say that he a t no time during the course of this proceeding
has indicated any desire to shield Major Fanton from rigid exami-
nation, rigid cross-examination, and I personally would like very
much to see the Senator sit down. I am sure he will not in any may
try to protect Mr. Fanton m a t e thin any other witnesses that has
appeared.
Senator HUNT. nTewill be pleased to have you remain as an unofficial
observer.
Senator BALDWIN.If that is what the Senator desires, I will remain.
Senator HUNT. All right, Major, will you proceed, please?
Major FANTON. I was assigned to the investigation of the so-called
Malmedy massacre in June of 1945. The investigation began with
an analysis of the War Crimes Branch File 6-24 in an effort to secure
all possible preliminary information with respect to the details of
this crime and the identity of the units of the German Army impli-
cated in it. Military intelligence maps and reports issued at the
time this tragedy occurred were also examinecl and analyzed to this
end.
The War Crimes Branch File 6-24 should be secured by this com-
mittee from the Department of the Army and examinecl if at all pos-
sible. It is replete with photographs taken at the scene of the crime
immediately after the recapture of thewea by onr Army and contains
the statements of survivors and captured prisoners of war secured
a t the time by the inspector general of the First Army and members of
his staff. It brings home to anyone reading it the extreme brutality
of this crime.
. This preliminary work resnlted in a determination that the Malmedy
massacre had in all probability been perpetrated by units of the First
S S Panzer Regiment Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler. The Army news-
paper, Stars and Stripes, came out with a story in August 1945 about
Col. ,Joachim Peiper, the commanding officer of this regiment, n-hlch
indicated that he was being held in the military intelligence interro-
gation center at Freising, Germany. I interrogated Colonel Peiper
a t Freising on August 25 and 26, 1945.
M A L M E D ~MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 271
Peiper gave me a great deal of valuable information about the com-
position of his march column at the scene of the crime. He also verified
the identity of certain of his officers and men who had been mentioned
by prisoners of war interrogated by the inspector general and sup-
plied information which proved useful in apprehending them. He
admitted knowledge of the Malmedy massacre and stated that his
division commander, General Mohnke, had ordered him to investigate
this crime which the American Government had reported to the Ger-
man Government through Geneva. His investigation proved negative.
Following this interrog?tion a team of interrogator examiners under
m y command screened prisoners of war at various enclosures through-
out Germany and Austria for further information with respect to
persons and units implicated in this crime. During this time indi-
vidual suspects were also being located in various parts of Germany,
Austria, France, England, and this country.
While many key suspects were apprehended as a result of these activ-
ities, it soon became apparent that we could not properly interrogate
suspects until we had facilities where they could be kept from com-
municating with each other before and after their interrogation.
I t was a t this point that we began to plan for the detailed il~terrogat~ion
of the menibbrs of units sUSpd&ed of being implicated in this crime.
The first step was the collection of all members of the First SS
Palmer Regiment in one enclosure. Accordingly theater headquarters
sent out a telegraphic order commanding all subordinate commands
and requesting the Allied Governments to evacuate all members of
this regiment to the war crimes enclosure near Ludwigsburg, Germany,
known as I. C. No. 78. Approximately a thousand prisoners of mar
were evacuated in accordance with this TWX.
At I. C. No. 78 the prisoners formed themselves into their old units
with their former officers in command with the exception of Peiper,
who as the principal suspect was kept under continual individual
guard. Conditions were provided insofar as possible which would
conduce to the free exchange of information and encourage reminiscing
on the part of the prisoners.
Interrogators were instructed to conduct a' most extensive exainina-
tion of prisoners who were not members of implicated units or who
were clearlv not implicated in the crimes being investigated in order
to find out what mqs transpiring within the enclosure. Many of them
divulged valuable information with respect to admissions made by
individuals who were implicated in the crimes and indicated the
nature of rumors circulating within the enclosure and the individuals
most active in instig~ztingcollusion with respect to false accounts of
the facts.
The remaining prisoners were given a quick screening designed to
size them up as individuals and further verify their identification as
t~name, rank, duty, assignment, and organization. The interrogators
were instructed to limit the interrogations to testing procedures. As a
result of these testing procedures it quickly developed that many of
the subjects had collaborated to devise certain types of false stories
concerning the details of the crime, by which they hoped to avoid
jmplication.
There were two or three types of these stories. The subjects either
experienced vehicular break-downs which prevented them from reach-
ing the scene of the crime until after it was committed, or were pro-
272 JIALMEDY MASSACRE IIiVESTIGATIOA-
(teeding in the extreme point of the column anel passecl beyond the
scene before the crime occurred. The order which occasioned t h e
shooting of the American prisoners of war when admitted was always
given by a n officer rho had been Idled subsequently. Aclinissions with
respect to this collusion mere later secured in the course of the detailed
jnterrogation of these vitnesses and suspects.
While this screening was in progress. a large prison in Schwabisch
Hall, Ger~nany,officially designated as Internee P r i s m No. 2, was
taken over to serve as an interrogation center for the detailed inter-
rogation of the witnesses and suspects involvecl in this case.
Cases of inistaken identity ancl prisoners who ~voulclnot be profit-
able subjectb for interrogation were emcuatecl frcm I. C. No. 'is to
Int,ernee Prison No. 1 at Ludwgsbnrg, Germa1:y. A11 the other pris-
oners were evacuated to the interrogation center a t Schwabisch Hall
i n aocordance with a carefully devised plan. There were over 400 of
these prisoners evacuated to the interrogation center.
This evacuation proceeded in ;>ccordance with the provisions of
S . 0. P. No. 1. a certified copy of w1i1c.h is attached hereto. The pris-
oners were closely guarded during the eoacnntion and strictest secu-
rity mas maintained in ortler to prerent escape and coinmnnication
between the eracuees. The movement was planned and coordinated
to ininiinize the k n c ~ ~ l e cof
l ~the
e prisoners with respect to those being
csacaatecl.
The prisoners u-ere assigned a priority in nccorclance with their
~mportanceas \T-itnessesor suspects. Prisoners who were i n the high-
est priority were ~ s s i g n e dto cells >it I. P. Xo. 2 in solitary confine-
ment-used in popular sense to mean close confinenzent.
I n-oulcl like to esplain there. Mr. Chairman, that the term "solitary
confine~nent"as I use i t here does not impute pnnis1:nlent. What it
really means i n the technical sense is close confinement. and that is
where this footnote comes into this statement.
Where mor , 'lian one prisoner I n s assigned to a cell. the assignment
v-xs plannecl in such a r a y that prisoners of clifferent priorities and
belonging to different units occupied the same cell.
Insofar as possible, officers were assigned cells in solitary confine-
men t.
Wherever I have useel that throughont this statement. it means "co11-
finenlent."
Those occupying a cell together were us11~11yof the same grade.
A t the interrog.ation center I. P. No. 2-
Here I will h&e to deviate from my statement, because as I under-
stand it that S. 0. P . has already been introclnced in ericlence. I be-
lieve Mr. Chambers introdwed that, in evidence. An1 1correct in that,
regard ?
Mr. C I ~ A ~ ~ E1 RamS sorry.
. W h a t was the question?
Major FANTON.Excuse me just a mi11nt.e. I will ,get the copy of the
I-ecordthat you made available to me here and see if I can tell you the.
exact page, because I think it- should be identified. This was the tran-
script for April 29. Coloncl Cha!liber. It j:.: p g 45(;.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes.
Major FANTON.ISthat S. 0.P. No. 22 You said :
I would like to place in the record a copy of the S t a n d ~ r dOperating Procedures
insofar a s medical health i s concerned.
BIALBIEDT iM.4SS.4CRE INVESTIGATION 273
Paragraph 8 only of S. 0. P. No. 2 is here. The
Mr. CIIAAIUERS.
peceding paragraph says :
This is part of S. 0.P. No. 2 .
Major FAXTON. I see. Do you have that S. 0. P . in your possessioi~?
You have my only copy, I am afraid.
Mr. CI~AMBERS. I think I have it. I will check our records and see.
Mijor FANTON. Fine. I would like to hare i t to attach to this
statement.
Every possible precaution was taken to prevent co~nlnunication
between prisoners and to keep them from leanling the identity of other
inmates of the prison. They were closely guarded by American Army
personnel assigned to the Six Hundred and Thirtieth Tank Destroyer
Battalion which was the unit responsible f o r the security of the prison.
A set of seclwitr and health regulations mere printed in German and
distributed to all the prisoners. They were a t the same time given
printed notices telling them that they were being held as war criminal
suspects.
Upon receipt of this notice innnj7 of the prisoners who did not feel
that they were implicated reqnested a n opportunity to be heard.
Others in this category asked the guards for paper and pencil. The
detailecl interrogation of the suspects was postponed until these re-
quests could be granted. Some of these ~.ol~mteers proved to be very
cooperative witnesses. The inore intelligent supplied us with many
valuable leads and enabled us to reconstruct nlany in~portantdetails
of the various crimes committed.
The next step in preparation for the detailed interrogation of the
witnesses and suspects was to organize the information we had se-
cured through an, analysis of the material i n W. C. B. File 6-24 and mil-
itary intelligence maps, the screening operations a t I. C. No. 78 and the
testiinony of these vol~mteers,so that this information would be readily
available to all interrogators. Biles were asse~nbledfor each unit
which might be implicated in these crimes containing the names of
the men i n the unit, their dnty assignments, equipment used by the
unit, history of the unit, gossip within the unit and all other informa-
tion indicating the extent of the unit's implication. Personality index
cards were nlacle up on all witnesses ancl suspects detained i n the
interrog,ation center and all persons mentioned by them i n their state-
ments. Any inforination deemed of value in solving these crimes was
entered on these cards. These cards ancl files are considered more i n
cletail in S. 0.P. No. 3, a certified copy of which is also attached t o this
statement.
The detailed interrogation of suspects who were members of iinpli-
cated unitk was carefully planned and controlled t o insure success.
A p a r t i c ~ & ~cell
r block in the interrogat,ion center which was set apart
from the rest of the prison m7as selected for offices and interrogation
cells. My office and the interrogation center office adjonrned the cells
i n which the interrogations were actually conducted.
I t was realized from the outset that any statements or confessions
secured had to be voluntary and that S L ~ Istatements and confessions
mould be subjected to careful scrntiny by the court trying this case to
determine whether or not they were admissable under Anglo-ihmeri-
can rules of evidence. The keg interrogators were all lawyers who
274 MALMEDY MASSACRE IXVESTIGATIOX
fully appreciated the inlportance of employing proper interrogation

techniques which would cause the subjects to give truthful and volun-
tary accounts of what had happened. The other interrogators were
carefully briefed so that they entertained a similar awareness of the
i.mportance of these consiclerations.
I n order that the interrogations might be properly controlled and
coordinated to insure inammuin exploitatioii of the witnesses and
suspects i n this case, I issued S. 0.P. No. 4, a duly certified copy of
which is hereto attached. T h i s S. 0. P. described in detail the pro-
cedures which would be followed in concluctinp these interrogations.
It was discussed with the various interropntors prior to its issuance.
It was read ancl discussed paragraph by l>itrt~gr<tl111 a t a conference
of all the interrogators after its issuance. I tlisc.ussec1 it in detail
with interrogators who joined my team later on in the investigation. I
constantly supervised interrogations in progress to msure strict com-
pliance with all of its provisions.
Paragraph 4a of this S. 0. P.forbidding the use of threats, duress
in any form, physical violelice or promises of iniinunity or mitigation
of punishment was strictly adhered to by all the interrogators in
securing statements and confessions.
The va-1;ious intsercogation techniqi~esused were clesigned to make
the subjects feel that we knew the whole story; that we know what
they had done, where, why and i n whose presence. They were sold
on the idea that they had nothing to lose by telling the truth and that
justice would be done only if they did so. They were conviilced that
this investigation n-as SO searching and thorough that they could not
possibly succeed in hiding the truth. We niade then1 believe that the
plan f o r defeating this in~estigationhad colnpletely failed and that
since others were talking and tellin the truth about the orders that
P
were given and the other details o the various crimes which ere
committed, they should stand with the others and tell all they knew.
While many of the suspects refused to tell the truth, i t was surpris.
ing the number who talked freely. Afany times suspects were left
unattended t o m i t e out their preliminary stxteinents and draw illus-
trative sketches. These statements xere long and contained many
irreievancies but n-ere an indication of the voluntary nature of the
proceedings. As the interrogations progressed these statements ac-
cumulated faster than the translators and reporters could process
them.
Each interrogator was assigned a n implicated unit so that he would
become familiar with all details which n i g h t be useful i n interrogat-
ing the members of that unit. W e then proceeded to interrogate those
in these units who we felt would be most susceptible to our psycholog-
ical approach. Most of these first subjects were younger men, privates
and lowranking noncoms who had not been with the SS very long
ei!d were less well indoctrinated in the traditions and ideology of this
infamous organization. There were some of these subjects who per-
sisted i n matching wits with the interrogators, but many of them
Lecame cooperative witnesses who were able to give us valuable leads.
The interrogation techniques which were used can be developed
from an examination of the trial record of this case and the testimony
of the interrogators themselves. However, from my knowledge of
these techniques, which I believe is considerable, I should like to spe-
cifically refute the vicious charges contained i n the petition f o r writ
MALMEDT MASSACRE IXVESTIGATION 275
of habeas corpus filed in the Supreme Court of the United States
by Defense Counsel Everett on May 11,1948. Most of these techniques
were discussed with nze by the interrogators before being used on par-
ticular subjects. I observed the interrogations frequently while they
a ere in progress and witnessed certain important confessions secured
through the use of such techniques.
I
11 paragraph 12 of his petition Mr. Everett who will be hereimfker
callecl'the petitioner, claimed that the plan of interrogation and tech-
niques used violated the Geneva Convention which prescribed certain
~-ules governing the treatment of prisoners of war. It is rather ironic
that such a defense should be invokecl on behalf of these criminals who
were found guilty of the wanton murder of American prisoners of
war, but a consideration of the facts clearly demonstrates that the
petitioner's claiins in this regard are without substance.
The lam- is not clear regarding what must be done to change a man's
status from that of a prisoner of war to that of a war criminal sus-
pect. I discussed this matter with Colonel Bard, the judge advocate of
the Seventh Army, and with the provost marshal of the Seventh Army.
under hose juriscliction these prisoners fell. They both approved
the methocl of handling these prisoners called for by our interrogation
plan.
As has been previously stated prisoners detained at the interrogation
center were notified before detailed interrogation commenced that they
were no longer prisoners of war but were being held as war criminal
snspects. It is a certainty that long prior to the issuance of such
notice, all those who were members of implicated units knew that
they were being held for interrogation in connection with the investi-
gation of the nznrder of American prisoners of war and Belgian civil-
ians by their units during the Battle of the Bulge. This knowledge
was gained from the screening activities which were necessary in order
to determine the suspects who should be evacuated for detailed inter-
rogation.
Realizing that they might be called to account for their crimes, sev-
eral of those directly implicated escaped and attempted to conceal
their identity during these screening operations. One of the prin-
cipal suspects, a man by the name of Briesemeister who was later con-
victed and sentenced to hang, escaped and was finally apprehended
in the Russian sector of Berlin .
I t would have been utterly impossible to have investigated this case
with any hope of success if the snspects evacuated to the interrogation
center had been treated as ordinaryprisoners of war. This was dem-
onstrated by our experience over a considerable period of time in
screening these suspects at prisoner-of-war enclosures and at I. C.
No. 78. However, as indicated by the provisions of S. 0. P. No. 2 and
S. 0. P. No. 4, those detained at this interrogation center were given
the best treatment possible under the circumstances and were at no
time subject to acts of violence, coercion, or threats in the course of
their interrogation.
It was obviously impossible to determine which of the suspects
evacuated to the interrogation center should be treated as prisoners
of war due to their lack of implication in these crimes. As soon as such
a determination could be made, those who were definitely cleared were
evacuated to a prisoner-of -war enclosure.
276 MALMEDY MASSACRE IiYVESTIGATION
The petitioner gives his version of the so-called mock trials, which
have been the subject of so much discussion, in paragraph 13 of the
petition. The allegations of this paragraph read like the flights of
fancy associated with an Orson Welles dramatization rather than the
carefully considered and solemnly sworn-to stateinelits one would ex-
pect to find i n a petition of this nature acld~essedto our highest Court.
Although a black cloth was thrown over a table and candles were lit
before a crucifix a t the taking of the oath in order to convey the im-
pression of a court, the term "mock trial" used by the petitioner to
describe these proceedings is a misnomer. There were no formal
charges and specifications preferred against the subject. H e v a s not
represented by counsel. No sentences were e m r pron~ulceclby the
three-man "board" or "court" before which the hearing was held.
This 'Lboard"or "court" usually consisted of three persons. Officers,
enhsted men, or civilians were used. When important subjects were
involvecl, I sat i n on the proceedings.
We referred to this interrogation method as "the fast procedure."
It was originally designed as a formality to impress the snbject with
the sancitity of the oath through the use of a ceremony which cus-
tomarily attended the taking of the oath on the continent. This was
true whether sworn testimony was to be taken in court or elsewlwre.
I n this connection some of the interrogators used this cerenlony of
lighting the candles before the crucifix when they were taking the
sworn statements of suspects in routine interrogations.
I n this "fast procedure," when a subject mas brought in, he was given
the oath by the interrogator. It was then explained to him that the
sanctity of the oath was of great imphortanceand that he must tell the
truth. This was follewed by a statement that we knew all the facts of
the case; that other prisoners had testified fully regarding them,
and that, if justice was to be done, all prisoners implicated had to be
given the opportunity of telling their stories under oath. The sub-
ject was then advisecl that this was a fast procedure and that we did
not have time to listen to lies. The interrogator would then recon-
struct the details leacling to his implication in the crime and, having
indicated that we knew what he had done and in ~vhosepresence, would
ask the subject to tell his story. A t the first obvious untruth, he would
be cut short and dismissed.
When a snbject refused to tell the truth and it was plain that he mas
unimpressed by this ceremony, we returned him to his cell. Further
interrogation of such a suspect would be postponed until we could
confront him with a witness to his crime or ~ u l t iwe
l had better knowl-
edge of the exact nature of his participation in one of the crimes in
question.
I f a subject appeared impressed by the ceremony but mas afraid to
tell the truth, he was usually temporarily assignecl to one of the other
interrogation cells. After he had had an opportunity to think about
what had happenecl, he would be visited b,v another interrogator x h o
would talk to him in a friendly fashion and advise him that he might
have another chance to testify in n fast procedure but that it was
doubtful due to the fact that we were so busy. I11 some cases the sub-
ject would ask for a second hearing, a t which time he ~ o u l dtell a
different story from that which he had told a t the first hearing. A
few of these subjects told the truth at their second hearing. Others
persisted in lying. These had to be reserved for other techniques.
MALMEDY M A S S A C R E INVESTIGATION 277
There was nothing about these "fast procednres" which i11 any way
constituted coercion and intimidation or involved inducements. I an1
.absolutely satisfied as was the court that heard this case that the con-
fessions and statements secured through the use of this techaiqne were
i n all respects voluntary and truthful.
I wish to refute specifically the claims concerning these proceedings
made by the petitioner in paragraph 13 of his petition, as follows :
There was never any beating administered t o any of the subjects
being interrogated; this "fast procedure" hearing was conducted in a
large interrogation cell during the daytime; there mas a t least one
full-sized window which was not i n any way covered or obstructed; the
cell was fully lighted and never darkened in any manner; there was
never any defense counsel or other person who represented himself
as such appointed f o r the subjects being interrogated through the use
of this technique; the interrogation was conducted by a single inter-
rogator, although I nnderstand that after my departure two interro-
gators, one friendly and other other hostile to the subject, occasionally
participate'd in the proceedings; this represented to the subjects as
a special procedure ; the scene depicted i n this paragraph of the peti-
tion with respect to the reading of the charges is entirely false; no
attempts were made t o force confessions from the subjects; witnesses
were rarely used in this procedure because they destroyed the effect
which was sought; however, when they were used, they were merely
used to recite facts which they knew of their own knowledge or facts
which they had been able to deduce from the circumstances as related
by witnesses; there was no attempt t o prove beyond a doubt by false-
hoods that the subjects were guilty of many war crimes as claimed i n
this paragraph of the petition; the actions of the defense attorney i n
inducing confessions from these subjects and otherwise is entirely false;
no death penalties or other sentences were ever passell as a result of
these proceedings.
While they achieved outstanding results in one or two cases which
1 remember, I do not recall more than four or five of these controversial
procedures. I am told that they were not used very much after my
departure, I believe the number convicted through the use of this
.teFhnique was small.
Thus even if their use be questioned they \%-ereof limited signifi-
mnce. However. the excerut from Wigmore on Evidence, attached
hereto as exhibii A, fully &pport,s theUpropriety of this method of
mterrogation.
The 13etitioner claims in paragraph 1s of his petition that the
prisoners were placed i n solitary confinement immediately after cap-
ture-he means solitary confinement in the technical sense, I believe,
from the context of the petition-that they were thus held incom-
municado f o r weeks and months, and that after such periods "stool
pigeons" would be put into the cells with them to tell them that they
would be let off with light sentences if they signed dictated statements
whether true or not. The account then goes on to claim that a few
days afer the talk with the "stool pigeon" the prisoner would be
brought before one of these so-called mock trials with the hope and
expectation of a light sentence, sdch as the "stool pigeon" had described,
i f he would sign an American prosecution dictated statement.
From my knowledge of these matters, I am certain that the charges
made i n this paragraph of the petition are entirely untrue. It was
278 M A L M E D ~MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
many months after capture, and only after extensive screening, that
the more important suspects were evacuated to the interrogation center
a t Schwabisch Hall, to be held in solitary confinement pending de-
tailed interrogation. Most of the witnesses and suspects detained at
Schwabisch Hall occupied cells in groups of two or more, with some
of the larger cells accommodating as many as 15 or 20 prisoners. It
was only the more important suspects who were held in solitary con-
finement. I n view of the screening operations necessary to determine
those who should be evacuated, it is a certainty that all the men con-
victed in this case knew why they were being held throughout the
entire time of their stay a t Schwabisch Hall.
As indicated by the provisions of S. 0. P. No. 4, "stool pigeoi~s'~
were sparingly used in connection with the interrogation of dificult
subjects. There were only two or three prisoners who were intelli-
gent enough to serve as "stool pigeons." These had t o be very care-
fully briefed to avoid detection since they were usually employed
in interrogating the older and more hardened members of the SS.
The "stool pigeon" would remain silent for some time after assign-
ment to a particular cell, and he would assume a suspicious and non-
communicative mien. His success depended on getting the subject
to talk to him and securing his confidence to the extent necessary to
enable him to determine the true facts regarding the subject's impli-
cation in the crime.
Any such crude use of a "stool ~ i g e o n "as related in this paragraph
of the petition would have immediately aroused the suspicion of t h e
subject and rendered the "stool pigeon" valueless.
There were only a limited number of "stool pigeons," and they
sometimes had to remain for weeks with a subject before they were
able to report anything of importance. They could only be used with
important suspects. To my knowledge, they were never used in con-
nection with the so-called mock trials which were generally reserved
for the interro:ation of simpler subjects.
The remaining paragraphs of the petition, insofar as they con-
cern the interrogation techniques used, relate a series of melodramatic
episodes which are quite obviously the product of the imagination of
desperate men trying to escape the consequences of heinous crimes.
These accounts of beatings, threats, inducements, starvation, spiritual
deprivation, and a variety of tortures are all untrue. They repre-
sent pure fabrication, and I have been told many of these stories have
been admitted as such by those responsible for them. Knowing this,
the petitioner should have recognized them for what they were and
tested then1 thoro~zghlybefore smearing to their truth in this petition.
Repeated reference is made throughout this petition to dictated
statements and confessions. There were no dictated statements and
confessions in the sense intended by the petitioner.
All statements and confession~jwere taken in accordance with para-
graph 5 of S. 0. P. No. 4. They were discussed by the interrogators
with the subjects so that all essential details woi~ldbe included and
all irrelevances omitted. Tnsoi,:~.as y,;sil;l~.thr lang i q , x b of t l i ~~ u h .
ject was used. Every statement or confession was written by the indi-
vidual giving it.
I t was customary for the interrogator to rephrase the subje:t7c, lan-
guage in the interest of an orderly, logical, and grammatical presen-
tation of the facts. However. in several of the confessions and state-
MALMEDY MASSACRE I-YVESTIGATION 279
nleilts which I myself witnessed, the subject would question the use
of particular language when he did not feel his thoughts were ex-
pressec! as he had expressed them when first telling his story. The
interrogator and the subject would then discuss the matter until they
could agree upon a proper statement of the facts in question.
Before any statement or confession was ever signed. the subject was
asked to read it over and make certain that he was satisfied t h a t it
represented his true recollection of the fncts. T h e signing of state-
nients and confessions was usually attended with suitable formality,
inclncling witnesses and an acknowledgment under oath by the subject
that he was signing the statenlent o r collfession voluntarily, and that
i t represented the truth. Every possible precaution was taken to in-
sure that the statements and confessions represented the true recollec-
tion of the individnals making them. A n examination of the state-
nlents and confessions themselves clearly indicates this fact.
In inaking such sweeping charges as those contained in the petition
the petitioner has ignored the well-known fact that there is n very
strong urge on the p a r t of a person guilty of a serious crime to unbur-
den himself through confession. T h e interrogation techniques em-
ployed were designed to make i t easy for the subjects to satisfy this
urge. They were convinced that i t was useless t o compound their
crimes ~ i t false
h testimony and that justice wonld be done only if they
told the truth.
Violence, threats, and inducements would have caused a wall of
resistance to rise and w0~11dhave thwarted the urge t o seek relief
thrcugh a full telling of the tixth. Such nmtllods would most certainly
have failed.
Instead of a completely successful investigation resulting in the
trial and conviction of all those responsible for these crimes, from the
comm:mding general of the Sixth SS. Panzer Army on d o ~ ~ with n,
the exception of a few individnals who were dead or could not be appre-
hended. there would have been a disgmcefal debacle resulting in false
and erroneons charges, an insufficiency of evidence to convict those
really responsible, and an attempt to sacrifice a few hapless individ-
uals to satisfy the demand for retribution.
I t is inconceivable that the libelous charges contained in this peti-
tion were laughingly or j o k i n g l ~admitted by the American prosecu-
tion team. as claimed by the petitioner in paragraph 19 of the petition.
The claim that responsible Army officers a i d members of the bar
would treat with levity charges that they employed terror tactics and
practiced c r ~ ~ e l to
t y force false confessions from innocent victims is
so patently incredible as to be false on its face.
While I was not present for the trial of this case, the claims made
by the petitioner with respect to this phase of the case are a t complete
variance with the facts as they have been related to me by reliable
informants. I have every reason t o believe that these claims are as
distorted and untrue as those appearing elsewhere i n this petition.
Those charged with the responsibility f o r trying the perpetrators
of these crimes considered this one 0%the most important war-crimes
cases. From what I know of their policies governing the preparation
of this case f o r trial and from what I have learned about what trans-
pired after my departure, I am certain that the accused were given
a fair trial and that the petitioner was given every opportunity to
280 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOS
prepare his case and present all possible defenses on behalf of his
clients.
H a d the many claims contained i n this petition not been completely
false, the petitioner would have been compellecl in the proper exercise
of his duties as defense counsel t,o prove them a t the trial through the
testimony of competent witnesses, or otherwise. The various inter-
rogators who actually secured tlze statements and confessions i n ques-
tion took the stand a t the time of trial and were examined and cross-
examined exhaustively with respect to all pertinent details of most,
if not all, the interrogations resulting in the statements and confes-
sions which were introduced in evidence. I f there were any truth to
the claims of the petitioner, the interrogators should have been required
to affirm or deny such claims so that the court could judge their credi-
bility. The trial is where these matters should have been tested.
Spreading such sensationalism i n the newspapers and induling i n im-
proprieties in a petition of this nature i n a n effort to appeal to emo-
tionalisn~rather than reason is not substitute for a timely and proper
proofs of the facts.
The attempts of tlze petitioner to excuse his delinquency in this re-
gard, appearing in paragraphs 19,25, and 28 of the petition, are most
nnconvincing. The petitioner admits, in paragraph 28 of the petition,
taking full responsibility for-
preventing the remaining defendants from taking the stand i n their own behalf
and further testifring a s t o the force. duress, and so-called tricks of the prosecu-
tion "because the fear of these grosecutors lingers on."
I have been told that the defendants who did take the stand and
testify with respect to these matters were thoroughly discredited. I t is
clear that tlze petitioner and the remaining defendants feared, not the
6L
prosecutors," but tlze truth which they would elicit on cross-exam-
in a t ]on.
'
I am confident that a consideration of the facts as established by the
record, the statements and confessions themselves. and the testimony
of witnesses heard by this committee will effectively give the lie t o
rhe false and unfounded claims set forth with such pathos i n this pe-
tition. Unfortunately those giving these claims currency have been
well placed and supposedly respons~bleindividuals, publications. and
organizations. It mill be most difficult to undo the clamage which has
already been done.
Senator RfcCarthy charged at the outset of this investigation that
because of my association with the law firm of which Senator Baldwin
is a member, this committee mas'ouh t o "whitewash" tlze Army. Tlze
newspapers made i t look as though this mere still another investiga-
tion of the prosecution. The fact of the matter is, of course, that I
asked Senator Baldwin to take action because I was, and remain, highly
critical of the manner i n which tlze Army has handled this case since
its trial and initial review.
I f Senator McCarthy intended his claim of "whitewash" to apply
to the investigation and trial of this case, I can only repeat Senator
Baldwin's reply. The facts will speak for themselves. We who are
testifying for the prosecution do not feel on the defensive. On the
contrary we feel that defense counsel Everett, Judge Van Roden and
all the others who have been hawliing this sensationalism at the ex-
pense of their country and the cause of international law and order
M A L M E D P MASSACRE IKVESTIGATION 281
sl~ouldbe publicly exposed and made to stand before the peoples of
this country and other like-minded nations for proper judgment.
This case was tried 3 years ago. It was promptly reriewed initially.
These claims of mistreatment were made during the trial and iminedi-
ately thereafter. They have grown in enorn~itya s time has passed,
culminating in the fantastic accounts contained in the petition which
I have heretofore discussed. mTith the passage of time has also come
a series of acquittals a i d conmiutatiolls by General Clay, all pre-
sumably based on successive reviews of the record i11 the light of these
claims.
The claims theinselves have been investigated four cliff erent tiines
to lng knowledge. None of these investigations u7asa thorough investi-
gation aimed a t hearing all conipetent testimony on the matters in
issue, and none of them was i11 any way comparable mith the investi-
gation being conducted by this committee.
The Simpson Commission heard only the defense. It made no effort
to secure the testimony of distinterested witnesses such as American
Army personnel assigned to guard the prison, or American medical
and dental personnel charged mith responsibility for the physical well-
being of the prisoners making these claims.
Although the Aclmiilistration of Justice Reviev Board requested
affidavits from the principal members of the prosecutioii staff, i t like-
wise neglected the testimony of these disinterested witnesses. This
boarcl considered the false afficlavit of a German dentist who never
treated these prisoners, but neglected to contact American medical and
'dental personnel x h o would have given
- them a correct statement of
the facts.
The cletailecl findings of this boarcl entirely refute most of the claims
made by Everett, yet the conclusions set forth in its report are vague
and misleacling and clo not properly reflect these detailed findings.
These claims shoulcl have been thoroughly investigated immecliately.
If they were fonncl true the judgments should have been promptly set
aside. I f they were found false the review of the case shonld have
been concluded and proper
- -
sentences fixed for those whose convictions
were sustained.
The prosecution should have been represented ~71ieiithe petition for
~ r i oft habeas corpus was argued before the Supreme C&rt of the
United States. Had the Army investigated these charges thorouglily
at the time and been in a position to present the facts it is extremely
doubtful that Mr. Everett woulcl have had the audacity to file such a
petition. I f Be had done so under these circumstances i t is probable
that the Court would have been unanimous in rejecting this petition.
I f a thorough investigation had been insisted upon by the Army,
Judge Van Roclen would not have written the completely false account
of the use of brutality and other improper inethods to extort confes-
sions which appeared i11 the Progressive and woulcl not have taken
the rostrum so many times to shock uniformed andiences with simi-
lar recitals. The coiiclnct of this man who as a judge must have known
that his charges were based on extravagant allegations unsupported
by proof, and who must have known- that these charges would be seri-
ously received by all who heard them, is indefensible and should have
been denounced long ago. I t is a credit to Mr. Gordon Simpson,
senior member of the co~:~nission011 IT-hicliJudge Van Roclei served,
that he realized the importance of refuting these unfo~uidedclaims

and publicly repudiated Judge Van Roden for making them.
I n conclusion, i t is difficult to suggest effective action to salvage the
situation a t this late date. A s has already been noted a detailed factual
refutation of all these false charges even though given widest publicity
will probably be unable to co~ulteractthe headlines which have cast a
shadow over this case.
I n view of the ineffectual investigations upon which many of the
acquittals and commutations have undoubtedly been based, and the
uncertainty that has characterized the handling of this case by General
Clay's headquarters, it is felt that all action which has been taken with
respect to the sentences originally imposed should be carefully reviewed
so that a consistent policy with respect to relative guilt is adopted.
The aim of the defense has been to obscure the question of innocence or
guilt and con~mensuratepunishment by creating a smoke screen of false
charges designed to raise doubts with respect to the evidence. I do
not know how successful this strategy has been, but I believe it is
important to determine how inuch effect i t has had on the reviewing
authorities t o date.
I f murdering prisoners of war and civillam is a crime sufficient in
importance to warrant the attention of the President of the United
States and the commander in chief of the Allied armies, care should be
taken to insure that this case is clisposetl of in such a manner that i t mill
stand i n international law as a deterrent to military leaders contem-
plating similar transgressions i n the future. I n this connection i t will
be well to bear in mind what happened i n Germany after World War f .'
Where sentences are commuted to terms of inlprisoninent steps should
be taken to prevent these "military heroes" from being released, legally
or otherwise, upon the withdrawal of the occupation forces.
I n my opinion, the final action taken with respect to this case should
have three principal objectives. The first should be to clear the record
of all the false charges which have been made. The second should be
to rectify the mistakes of the reviewing authorities insofar as i t is
possible to do so. The third should be to take such action, legislative
or otherwise, as shall be necessary to prevent a recurrence of the diffi-
culties which have been experienced with respect to this case so that a
clear-cut policy may be in effect governing the investigation, trial, and
review of these war-crimes cases. I f these objectires are achieved, this
case can still be recorded i n history as valuable pricedent for the
enforcement of those rules of international law which in the past have
enabled civilized nations to retain some of the attributes of humanity
while engaged in a life-and-death struggle.
(Exhibit A, above referred to, is as follows :)
The followiug excerpts from the leading authority on the law of evidence indi-
cate that the statements and confessions introduced into evidence i l l this case were
properly received and considered by the Court which tried the case :
( a ) "8ection 832. Advice that " I t zoould be better to tell the truth," 01- it*
equivctlent.
"On principie, the advice by any person whatever that it would be better to tell
the truth cannot possibly vitiate the confession, since by hypothesis the worst that
It can evoke is the truth, and there is thus no risk of accepting a false confession
(ante, Section 822). The confessor is not obliged to choose between silence and
;I false confession having powerful advantages; the advantages are attached t o
the utterance of the t r u t h : and. however tempting we may suppose them to be,
there is nothing in the nature af the temptation to make the statement untrust-
worthy; for if i t has availed a t all, it has availed to bring out the truth." (2
Wigmore on Evidence, 2nd Edition, 156.)
( 6 ) "Section 840. Influence of a Religious or Moral Nature.
"9 * * No exhortations, then, of a moral or a spiritual nature have ever
(since R. v. Radford) been regarded a s vitiating a confession-a result commended
alike by principle and by common sense." ( 2 Wigmore on Evidence, 2nd Edition,
168.)
( c ) "Section 841. Confession induced b v Trick or Fraud: Confession While
Intoxicated.
"(1)Since the exclusion of confessions is not due to any principle of public
faith or of private pledge of secrecy (ante, Section 823), i t follows that the use
of a trick or fraud (however reprehensible in itself) does not of itself exclude a
confession induced by means of it. So f a r a s the trick involved a promise which
would tend to produce an untrue confession, i t would operate to exclude--not,
however, because i t was a trick (i. e., because the representations were false), but
because even if true, its tenor would have stimulated a confession irrespective of
guilt. This principle is and always has been universally conceded." ( 2 Wigmore
on Evidence, 2nd Edition, 169).
(Short recess.)
Senator HUNT.T he committee will come to order.
Major Fanton, had you completed all of your statement?
Major FANTON.
Yes I had, thank you.
Senator HUNT. YOUhave nothing else to say a t this time?
Major F'ANTON. NO,sir; I do not. Excuse me a minute.
I do not know whether this is the time to do it or not, but I have

gone through Mr. Bailey's testimony and there are a few inaccuracies
that I think should be corrected for the record.
Senator HUNT.DOyou have a statement prepared on them?
Major FANTON. I do not have any prepared statement.
Senator HUNT.Would you like to make a statement for the record?
Major FANTON. Well, I can go through them. I made some rough
notes. I can await your pleasure on the matter.
Senator HUNT.Well, I think you might as well get in all your testi-
mony at this time, if you can. We are going to have to recess a t 4
o'clock. Will you go ahead, Major, please?
Major FANTON. There are references to a man by the name of Steiner
in Mr. Bailey's testimony. Senator McCarthy characterized him as
the chief interrogator.
Steiner was a relatively minor figure in our team. His arrival I
believe was somewhere in the latter part of December. His first
assignment was deciphering certain messages on methods that had
been used as a means of communication between the prisoners.
I know there was a pile of them in my office there, and it took Steiner
just about s week to get through them. H e would go through the
messages on the mess equipment and make a note of every message and
every sign, saying or slogan that he found on the kits. H e had two o r
three pages of that.
I t is my recollection it took him about a week or so t o get through it.
He served as an interpreter. To my recollection he interrogated
only one or two suspects. H e worked as an interpreter with Captain
Ehumacker initially, and one of the difficultieswe had with Steiner was
that his English was uncertain, and for that reason we did not feel
that we could use him. H e stayed withps for maybe 2 weeks, 3 weeks,
3 weeks a t the most, I would say, a t which. time I called Colonel Ellis
and asked for his return to Weisbaden. H e was not a figure of any
consequence in the interrogation.
I think that should be made clear. There was a lot of reference to
him.
I remember one instance where.he was marching prisoners in the
hall. While he did not do anything to them, he just let out a bellow,
shouted or something of that nature, and franldy due to his back-
ground-he had lost his mother as I understand it, to the Germans,
i n a concentration camp.
Senator HUNT.S enator McCarthy would like to know if you know
what he said when he let out this bellow.
Major FANTON. No, Semtor, I do not know. It was some ex-
pression he used. I do not think there was any coimectecl sentence
or command. I t was more in the nature of a command. I guess that
would be a proper description of it.
I had some doubts, frankly, and I thinlr this is rery pertinent. I
had some doubts about Steiner, and I did not want to get into any
situation where we had anything that ;ras questionable. I did not
know inst how he handled these prisoners.
H e was quite a different character, I believe, from Dr. Perl, who
has been mentioned many times. TITithillis in mind I called Colonel
Ellis and asked for his return to Weisbaden because we had a limited
team. We had to have the best possible personnel on that team.
I had a small team. It was small purposely even though v e had a
large job to do, because I knew it was going to be difficult to coiltrol
these people, and i t was importnix that I lmve nothing but the best
personnel, the best that me had available, so Steiner was returned
after two or three weeks ~ i t the
h team.
Now, Mr. Bailey has indicated in a letter to Senator McC'arthy,
and also i n the record, particularly in.his letter to Senntor McCarthy,
that he became disgusted with what was going on i n our interrog*t'ion
center, and for that reason he requested a return home. T h a t does
not square with my recollection regarding Mr. Bailey.
H e complained to me quite often abont the fact that he was doina
a mere stenographer's work wllereas he was a court reporter an8
hired as such.
As I understood it, he was given qnite a send-off when he left
Pennsylvania to come to Weisbaclen, ~ n c lhe felt i t was kind of a
minor assignment for hinl. H e had hoped to be a court reporter in
some of the actual trials, and he was homesick, no question about that.
The man was homesick, a t least that was the story he gave me.
I told him that I vould ask for his return to Weisbaden. I did
not want anybody that was dissatisfied on the team because we had
a lot of work to do, the pressure was on, quite contrary to his testi-
mony.
W e worked long hours. W e worked from 8 in the morning or 8 :30
i n the morning until 5 : 30 a t night, and we had nightly critiques,
so that we had our critiques on certain days, and there were certain
davs that were left free, realizing that some recreation was necessary.
Bailey did complain abont the work, the amount of work, the volume
as well as the nature of the work. H e could not understand Lieutenant
Perl. H e was homesick, as I have said, and I told him, to repeat,
that I would have him returned to Weisbaclen as soon as I could
get a replacement for him.
However, he submitted his formal resi.gnation and there was some
misunderstanding between us at the time because he felt that I
was being inconsiderate of his request, and I told him that I had a
job to do and that I was sorry, he would have to stag until we could
get a replacement.
As I recall, I did process his request for return, and shortly there-
after he was returned.
One other thing, Bailey was not too much interested in our interro-
ptions. H e mould sit there and go through the motions of typing
up these statements, but he was not really interested. H e had very
little knowledge of our plan of interrogation. H e had no compre-
hension, so to him it seemed haphazard.
I think before I am through testifying, I will have convinced you,
I hope so, it was anything but haphazard.
He to my knowledge was in the interrogation cells, I believe, once
or twice. H e went in there once to take a question-and-answer affidavit
for Captain Schumacker. By "question and answer" I mean the
interrogator would ask the question and the subject would answer
it. We could not use that procedure very much becanse it was a very
time-consuming procedure.
At the outset of this investigation I discussed this matter with
Colonel Ellis and Colonel Drake, as I recall it, and we agredd that in
view of the volume of work we had to do, we would not use the
question-and-answer form.
We would resort to expediency to keep these statements to a mini-
mum because we mere going toehavea lot of them in the record, and
we wanted to organize the thlng administratively so that it could
he handled with some facility. I do not think he was in the cells other
than that one time when he took an interrogation. He might have
been in there as a member of one of these boards, these fast procedures.
He certainly would have no first-hand knowledge of the mterroga-
tions, the techniques that were used, and what transpired in the course
of the interrogations.
He was pretty much confined to the office typing up these state-
ments because we had a lot of them to do and he was the only stenogra-
pher outside of Berg who I used as my stenographer to get this
Information collated and type up whatever letters and reports I was
responsible for. Berg was also the chief clerk responsible for all the
files and all the filing. Bailey was really the only stenographer we
had.
Now he has made the claim in his testimony that I made trips to
Weisbaden. He says that I started on a Saturday and came back
on a Wednesday. Well, my superiors would never have permitted
me to indulge in that sort of a rather lackadaisical approach to this
investigation, even if I had been so inclined, which of course is
not the case.
To my knowledge I returned to Weisbaden maybe three or four times
during the entire time of the investigation, and then to report to
Colonel Ellis regarding the progress of the investigation, to talk over
problems that had arisen with respect to coordination of our activities
with other commands, and also to co~rdinateour activities with the
apprehension part of our organization charged with the responsibility
of apprehending these criminals or suspects, I should say, that we
286 LMALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
had not been able to locate prior to that time; so the trips to Weisbaden
are somewhat exaggerated.
When I when, I left on a Saturday and returned on a Sunday, the
successive S~ulday. Most of my time was spent right there a t the
interrogation center supervising'the activities of the team.
I had to be there. I was the only officer i n command there a t the
time. Although Captain Shumacker was in command when I left,
still and all I mas primarily responsible for what went on, and I had
to be there.
Now, there was also a claim in Mr. Bailey's s.tatement, that I very
rarely left the office. Well, I do not know how Bailey would have
been competent to testify regarding that fact. H e himself was i n the
office most of the time.
I had quite a job to do, and I had to ride herd on these people. I
had t o see that they were working, and working constantly, especially
in the clerical end of things.
I would say that on an average of two or three or four times in the
course of the morning I would interrupt the editing of these state-
ments that I did constantly as they were translated. I would edit
them, t r y and get out the material facts, the facts that were necessary
in the course of interrogating certain witnesses or suspects that me had
lined up for interrogation, and three or four times during a morning,
more often during the afternoon, I would circulate around and spot-
check on the interrogations.
Very often during the course of a n interrogation, a n interrogator
would come out into my office and discuss the progress he was making,
what he mas finding out.
They were instructed to do that. T h a t was p a r t of our SOP. The
minute a n j t l ~ i n gof importance was developed during the course of
interrogation, they mere to leave and come into my office and tell me
about it because we had four or five interrogations going on simul-
taneously, and very often the facts the one man developed would be
very essential to the interrogation being carried on by another man.
Encli man was assigned a unit and the units, of course, the vehicles
of the various units were in a somewhat confused situation there a t
the scene of the crime, so that very often we would have one man testi-
fying or one man being interrogated from the Seventh Company who
would identify some of the men i n the Third Company, the Third
Pioneer Company, which was a n engineering outfit who had their
S P W which is like one of our reconnaissance vehicles, parked there at
the scene of the crime. H e would identify it through the bridging
equipnient that was on the side of the vehicle.
There was another engineering outfit involved, the Ninth Engineer-
ing outfit, but that did not have this bridging equipment. T h a t is just
typical of this information that wouId develop.
Senator MCCARTHY.Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt? I see Judge
Van Roden is here. I understand he will testify tonight.
I n view of the statements which this witness had to say about Judge
Ban Roden, his committee, his activities, I think that Judge Van Roden
should be given a copy of that statement so that he may know what this
witness has to say about his committee before he gets on the stand and
i estifies. I assume there is no objection to that.
I assume that you will want a copy of that, Judge. I n fact, I am sure
j ou will, after you read it.
MALMEDT IIASSACRE INT'ESTIGATION 287
Major FANTON. Shall I continue?
Senator HUNT. I f you have anything further.
Major FANTON.
This is taking a little longer than I thought i t
would.
I was just elaborating a little bit in answer to this claim made by
Mr. Bailey that I was more or less of a figurehead and did not par-
ticipate too much in what was going on. That of course is not true,
and I am sure you gentlemen will realize that when my testimony
is completed.
I have already in my statement gone into the manner in which the
so-called dictated statements and confessions were handlea. I am not
going over that again. Mr. Bailey made some absolutely untrue
statements regarding that. What I have said in my statement is the
correct version. It is what always occurred.
We would have been most unwise, and I wouId have been subject to
proper criticism if we had permitted anything else but a carefully
written statement containing the material facts involving an implica-
tion in a crime or relating to some material fact to establish the
existence of the crime.
I f I had allowed false accounts to be devised or written by my
interrogators, I would certainly have been subject to correct and
proper criticism.
I have a memo here that I wrote Colonel Ellis a t the time I was re-
deployed dated February 19, and I would like to enter it in the rec-
ord as an exhibit. It is in great detail.
It probably demonstrates more clearly than any other single piece
of evidence that you will have before you the detail that was devel-
oped with respect to these crimes that were committed, the individuals
who were implicated in them, and the manner in which the investiga-
tion was developed.
Senator MCCARTHY. What is the date of this?
Major FANTON. It is February 19, Senator McCarthy.
Senator MCCABTI-IY. Of what year? This is prior to the trial, 1
assume ?
Major FANTON. That is correct, sir; the 19th of February, 1946.
Now I do not know how you are marking your exhibits, but I have
marked in the margins, incidentally, certain parts of this memorandum
which I consider significant.
Senator MCCARTHY. I wonder if I could have a copy of that, Mr.
Chairman, to study tonight. Otherwise I will have no idea of what
is in this memorandum.
Major FANTON. It is long and detailed. I am very sorry, Senator
McCarthy, I do not have an extra copy. It mas attached to my
affidavit submitted to the Raymond Board, the Administration of
Justice Review Board.
Mr. CHAMBERS. ISthere a copy of this attached to the Raymond
report?
Major FANTON. There is.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then

there will be a copy available to you.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will YOU make i t available tonight?
Mr. CIIAMGERS. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Thank yon very much.
(The document above referred to is as follows :)

FEBRUARY 19, 1946.
Memorandum to : Lieutenant Colonel Ellis.
Subject : Malmedy case.
1. I n line with our conversation this morning, the first part of this memorandum
will be devoted to a narrative account of the case, setting forth the phases of the
case and the incidents to be proved, i n chronological sequence, in order to present
a clearer picture of the case a s i t b i l l be tried. In referring to the various indi-
viduals involved, I shall, i n mest cases, use their last names only. If more infor-
mation is desired regarding them, reference should be made to t h e personality
card index file.
2. The first thing to be proved will be the esistence of orders or a policy
throughout Peiper's comiuand, which resulted i n the violations of the rules of
land warfare and the Genera Conrrniion ;viin vhich the iiefenclants iil this case
will be chargecl. Through the testimony of Hennecke, IZramm, awl Messner, we
can show t h a t a meeting of all company comnianders of Peipw's regiment was held
a t Peiper's C. P, on 1 5 December, 1944. Kramm, who was the officer in charge of
messengers in the 1 s t Battalion Headquarters, and who was captured during this
offensive, undoubtedly has the complete story about what occurred in this meet-
ing. H e has been induced to give some information, but he i s a very uncooperative
witness, a s a r e all the o9icers i n Peiper's battle group, and it is believed t h a t he
i s still matching wits with the interrogators and withholding much of what he
knows. H e has stated t h a t he was present a t a meeting held in Bliesheim, Ger-
many, 3 weeks prior to the offensive, in which Poetschke stated t h a t contrary to
practices in the east, the fighting i n the west had been governed by t h e rules of
land warfare, but t h a t a s the coming offensive was a last desperate gamble, all
rules mere to be disregarded, and they shouId fight with utter ruthlessness to
insure its success. Coming away fronl this meeting, everyone took this to mean
t h a t no prisoners of war would be taken, except ICramm, who claims he did not
reach such a conclnsion a t this time. Nessner, who was a t first a very uncoopera-
tive witness, has turned stool pigeon and has been willing to tell us all he knows.
H e stated that he was present in the forest house near Blankenheim, which was
being used a s both a battalion and a regimental C. P., on the afternoon of the 15th
of December, 1944, hen a meeting was held attended by Peiper, Kremser, Christ,
Jnnlrer, IClingelhoefer, Arnflt F i s c h ~ rVor!
, TV~stemhagm(commanding officer of
the Five Hundred a n d First Tank Battalion-King Tiger &!lark VI tanks), Poet-
schks, a n officer from Diefenthal's battalion, possibly IZramm and either Poet-
schke's orderly, U/Scharf, Walter Sc!?aling (now cletainel in I P No. 2 ) , or his
gunner, Rtf. Alexander Kanger. hkssner brought i n n w ~ for l the fire a s the
meeting was in progress, and heard Poetschlie say a s he, Messner, left the room,
"Now, gentIemen, sign." 1Vi:h f i l r t h ~ rrefrreuce to this meeting Krannn admits
having signed the roster of regimental officers made up i n connection with the
meeting. The roster incl~ideclall company commauders and some other officers.
His name was included through error. Arndt Fischer, Poetschke's adjutant,
wanted him to sign the roster because his name appeared 011 it. The writing a t
the top of the roster stated that the officers signing i t were agreeing to, under
no circumstances, divulge the conteuts of the secret orders.
Christ, i n his cc~lfession,states t h a t Poctschlce gave a talk to the company
commanders a t this meeting in the course of ~rilichhr indicated that no grisoners
of n7ar should be taken alld no meJ.eg would be shown civilians. Christ does not
remember whether or not P e i p ~ rwas presen:, but inasinuch ns Poetschke's (2. P.
was located in the same forest house a s Priper's in an adj:)ining room of that
house, i t i s highly probable that Peiper w9.s presrut a t this meeting. I n view
of the fact that we h a r e been able to p r o w that !lie i.onignnies coiniuiui[led by
Junker (Gth Company), Bievrrs (3d Pionem Co~n;:a~l.v)and that tile ~tlatoous
comluanded by Rehagel (1st Pln.toon, 7th Coml~any).I?[imBemer (2d Plntoon, 7th
Company), and Siptrott (3d Platoon, 7th Company) were all given simi!ar talks,
and in view of the fact t h c t me can prow further t h a t mc~nbeisof tliese organ-
izations comnlitted atrocities during this o&nsire, it is hoped t h a t some of
them will break and identify Peiper more drfnitely this meeting of company
comman(1ers t h a t took pl:~co just bcfore the offensive. Iicnnecke gives a rery
detailed account of what occiil'rrd xt the fvrcst 1io11sejust p15or to (his iuecting
and goes 011 to state that imlnedintely following the meeting his coulpai~gcom-
mander Krelnser (1st Company) gave a talk to his company, in the course of
which he urged them to reineinber the terror bombing attacks against their
women and children, to carry the battle forward in a ruthless and rcclrless man-
ner, fighting in the old SS tradition and giving no quarter to prisoners of w a r or
civilians. Hennecke's credibility, however, is open to question, and t h e advis-
ability of using him a s a witness without further corroboration of his story seems
doubtful.
Hennecke, Klaus Schneider, Plohmann, and Zitzelsberger, all members of the
1st Company, will testify t h a t Kremser gave them a talk on 15 December 1944 in
which he stated no mercy would be shown civilians and no prisoners of war would
be taken.
Lichtwark and Ritzer, of the 2d Cornany will testify t h a t Christ gave a talk
on the evening of 13 December 1944 in which he stated t h a t they would fight i n
the old SS tradition i n such a ruthless manner that they would spread fear and
terror before them and t h a t prisoners of war would not be taken. I n addition,
we have Christ's confession that he gave such a talk.
Schlossnikl and Krug of the 6th Company s t a t e t h a t their company commander
gave a talk t o his company late in the afternoon of the 15th of December, 1944,
from which all members of the company conclucled t h a t no prisoners of mar
were to be taken in the coming offensive. Huber, in his confession, states t h a t he
was present on the 11, 12 or 13 of December a t a villa between Bliesheim and
Pliesheim, Germany, when Poetschlre gave a talk i n which he stated they would
fight ruthlessly in this ofiensive shooting everything before their guns. H e states
further i n this confession that on the afternoon of the 15th of December his com-
pany was assembled in the Blankenheim Forrest, and he was present when Junker
gave a talk to the company and repeated these instructions. The next morning
Junker gave another talk repeating these exhortations, i n addition to telling his
men what support they were going to receive. Later on Huber's platoon leader,
Sieg (2d Platoon) gave them a filial briefing prior to t h e attack in which lie told
his platoon to remember the orders they had to shoot eTeryone before their guns,
including all civilians and all prisoners of war, but to remember t h a t Skorczeny's
men would be wearing American cnifornls and would make themselves known by
waving their helmets. Other members of this company, Mohr, Eraun, and Acker-
mann claim t h a t they were told not to take prisoners of war by their platoon
leaders, but do not remember Junker making any such statement. These last
two witnesses were initially coperatire and i t was belirved a t First t h a t their
statements were true. However, in view of t h e number of presumably cooperative
'
witnesses who have been discredited by subsequent developments, i t is believed
t h a t these witnesses a r e attempting to shield their company commander, Junker.
by placing the blame on two platoon leaders, both of whom a r e dead.
I n the 7th Company it appears from the testimony of Siptrott that Klingel-
hoefer called 111s platoon leaders together on the iuorning of the 16th of Decem-
ber, 1944, and told them to tell their platoons, among other things, that no pris-
oners of war would be taken. According to Fleps, Klingelhoefer assembled the
whole company on t h e 13th or 14th of December i n a n inn i n the middle of
town and gave them a talk, i n the course of which he stated t h a t no prisoners of
war would be taken. Fleps also claims t h a t Klingelhoefer repeated this talk
before his company on the evening of the 15th of December, 1944. Loehmann
and Nohr, members of the 3d Platoon of the 7th Company, claim t h a t their pla-
toon leader, Siptrott, told them on the morning of the 16th t h a t a new order
existed, saying t h a t no prisoners of war would be taken. Paeger and Clotten,
members of the 2d Platoon of the 7th Company, s t a t e t h a t their platoon leader,
Munkemer, gave a similar talk on the morning of the 16th of December, 1944.
Riecke, a member of the 1st Platoon of the 7th Company, recalls Rehagel, a
platoon leader of t h a t platoon, having given a talk to his platoon in which he
stated no mercy would be shown civilians and no prisoners of war would be
taken during the offensive. Reicke also recalls the talks given by Rlingelhoefer,
mentioned by Fleps.
Besides these four Panzer companies, Peiper's battle group contained Die-
fenthal's Third Battalion of the 2d Panzer Regiment. Assenmacher, who was
assigned to the Stabs Company of this battalion, and who served a s radio
operator in the vehicle iil which Peiper and Diefenthal were riding during the
first few days of the offensive, states t h a t Diefenthal's Adjutant, Flacke,
gave a talk to the Stabs company before the offensive i n which he stated t h a t
no prisoners of war would be taken. The balance of the case on the existence
Of this policy or these orders throughout this battalion is still in the proc-
ess of development. Freimnth, who i s a member of the 11th Panzer Grenadier
Company, stated that his company commander, Tomhardt (now detained i n
I P No. 2 ) , gave a talk to his company prior t o the offensive i n which he stated
no mercy would be shown prisoners of w a r or civilia~ls. Other members

of this company have not been interrogated concerning this matter.
Lieutenants Jacob and Wolfe have been assigned the job of developing the
case against members of these Panzer Grenadier units. So f a r they have
established that Preuss, commanding officer of the 10th Panzer Grenadier
Company, and also commanding officer of Peiper's point group, was utterly
ruthless i n his treatment of all opponents and gave orders to his company
t h a t no mercy would be shown prisoners of war or civilians. J u s t before I left
to return to Wiesbaden, Preuss' driver, Rohles, was requesting a hearing in
order to tell us about a prisoner of w a r whom he saw shot by members of his
company.
Mr. Elowitz and Mr. Thon a r e now working on t h e 12th Panzer Grenadier
Company. They a r e experiencing considerable difficulty in making the members
of this company talk bnt have succeeded in securing two witnesses to establish
t h a t the company commander of this organization, Thiele, gave a talk to his
coinpany in which he stated that no prisoners of war monld be taken during this
offensive. The members of the 9th Panzer Grenadier Company have been inter-
rogated by Mr. Thon with negative results.
Sprenger states that on or about the 141-h of December, 1944, in a forest near
Setzvey (272252) a t about 3 p. m. U/Stuf. Seitz nssembled the 1st ancl 2d plztoons
of the 3d Pioneer Coinpany ancl read what he called a company orcler, in
which, among other things, the company mas told t h a t they mould not take pris-
oners of war. O/Stuf. Sievers (now detained in I P No. 2 ) , company commander
of this company, was present during this part of the reading. Jaekel gave
some hearsay evidence with respect to the reading of this order, but i t is be-
lieved now t h a t the case against the 3cl Pioneer Company is developing so well
Jaekel, Hofmann, and Neve can be induced to give further evidence concern-
ing these orders. Since the 3d Pioneer Coinpany was a divisional unit before
its assignment to Pieper's battle group, the fact t h a t these orders existed in
this company might indicate t h a t they originated in some headquarters higher
than Pieper's. However, i t is probable t h a t the company a t this tinie was as-
signed to Pieper's battle group, and while these orders were read prior to the
Blankenheim meeting on the 1.5th, i t is very possible that Sievers was present
when Poetschke gave t h e Bliesheim talk. If this proves to We the case, this
may explain the issuing of such orders a t this time rather than after the Blank-
enheim meeting which Sievers may not have attended.
At the present time Maute is the only one in the 9th Pioneer Company who
says Rumpf gave a talk to his c o m p a ~ ytelling them no prisoners of war would
be taken. However, the 9th Pioneer Company was organic to Peiper's regiment
and i t i s probable t h a t he attended the Blanlrenheinl meeting and gave a talk
to his company afterwards in which he reminded thein of the enemy's terror
bombing attacks, ancl told them they would fight in the old SS tradition and
allow civilians and prisoners of war no quarter. In fact, Rnmpf himself asked ,
for a n interrogator recently, and told Mr. Thon t h a t he thought he remembered

a regimental order which stated t h a t situations might arise where no prisoners
could be taken. I t is interesting to note t h a t iu his statement, which has not
a s yet been translated, Peiper sets forth a similar philosophy, using those sxme
words. I t is felt that a s soon a s the 9th Pioneer Company case breaks, it will
appear that such orders were giren the company by Rumpf.
3. Almost all of the best witnesses to prove the route of march mill also be
defendants in this case. The only officer available to serve a s a witness in this
matter is Hennecke. Henneclce is intelligent and well-informed, bnt his cred.bility
is questionable, and i t is believecl he will he vulnerable to cross-examination.
The following a r e intelligent witnesses who mag be used to prove this part of
the case : Weiss, Zimmermann, Landfried, Reicke, F~'leirnnt11,Rinecli, blessner,
Dethlefs, and Assenmacher.
4. Having once established the rout-e of march. it would be well to introduce
certain parts of the files in the Honsfeltl case (WCB File 6-59), and the
Ligneuville (Engelsdorf) Case (WCB File 6-47), to prove that prisoners of
war were murdered by members of Peiper's column a t these two places.
5. From the testimony of many witnesses interrogated in the 6th Company
and in the 10th Panzer Grenadier Company, i t appears that these organiz:ltinns
were a t the point of Peiper's colnnm and effected the initial capture of the
American convoy which t h a t column intercepted a t the crossroads before
Ligneuville (Engelsclorf) . We have been unable to establish that any members
of these organizations remained behind to take part in any way in the main
3lalmefiy mne:rcye, A ylatnnn nf the 11th P n i i ~ c l ~G. i . ~ n n c l i ~ iCnmpnny
. nnrler
the command of Hauptscharfuehrer Hendel (now detained a t I P No. 2), and
the KWK (self-propelled 75 mm. SPW) Platoon of the 12th Company were
attached to the 10th Company in the point of the column. These units also
proceeded on into Ligneuville (Engelsdorf) before the shooting occurred. There
is hearsay evidence to indicate that a n SPW commander from the 11th Com-
pany, by the name of Schuhmacher, participated in the shooting. Bergmann,
of the 9th Panzer Grenadier Company, stated in the course of his interrogation
that an U/Scharf., Niemeier (now detained in I P No. 2) told him in I. C. No. 78
that he knows Schuhmacher took active part in the shooting of the American
prisoners of war a t the crossroads before Ligneuville (Engelsdorf). Bergmann
and Meier [Niemeier] had a discussion later on a s to whether or not Meier's
[Niemeier's] information was just based on rumor. Meier [Niemeier] denied
that it was and stated that he was certain of Schuhmacher's participation.
Groenger, of the 12th Panzer Grenadier Company, stated that Wallyer (now
detained in I P No. 2 ) , told him that Schuhmacher fired into the prisoners a t the
crossroads with his KWK cannon. We do not have Schuhmacher, but we do
have his driver, Fredrichs. Fredrichs has not a s yet been interrogated.
I t also appears that most of the first and second platoons of the 7th Company
had left the scene of the crime prior to the shooting. However, tanks com-
manded by Oberscharfuehrer Clotten (now detained a t I P No. 2) of the 2d
Platoon, and Oberscharfuehrer Koch of the 1st Platoon were mired along the
route of march and were pulled out onto the road by the tank commanded by
Oberscharfuehrer _Dubbert of the 3d Platoon. These vehicles commanded by
Clotten and Koch were consequently separated from the remainder of the ve-
hicles in their respective platoons. According t o the statements of Fleps and
Siptrott, who were gunner and tank commander, respectively, of the lead tank
of the 3d Platoon, the SPW commander of one of three SPW's parked before
the field in which all the American prisoners of war were standing, stopped
Siptrott's tank and requested assistance in shooting the prisoners of war. Sip-
trott was short of ammunition, but ordered Fleps to fire his pistol. Accord-
ing to the testimony of Fleps and Siptrott, the one or two shots fired by Fleps
into the prisoners of war were the first shots fired. Reicke, who was in Koch's
tank, three or four tanks behind Siptrott's tank, states that his tank commander,
Koch, fired the machine gun on their tank into the group of American prisoners
of war standing in the field, immediately following these first two shots. He
also states that an SPW parked alongside their tank opened fire a t the same
time, with i t s machine gun, into the prisoners of war. Siptrott, Fleps, and
Reicke state that this SPW that contributed to the firing wih its machine gun
was equipped with light bridging equipment, hung on t h e sides of the vehicles.
The members of the 9th Panzer Pioneer Company a r e unanimous in stating
that none of their vehicles was carrying this bridging equipment. A11 the mem-
bers of the 3d Pioneer Company admit that vehicles of their company were
carrying this bridging equipment. The case against members of the 3d Company
who were occupants of these three SPW's is now in the process of development.
The following occupants of these vehicles a r e now detained a t I P No. 2, and
are a t present being interrogated in connection with this matter: Sprenger,
Hofman, Jaeckel, Neve, and Goldschmidt. From the testimony of these wit-
nesses, i t appears that the SPW commander who stopped Siptrott was Beutner,
platoon leader of the 2d Platoon of the 3cl Pioneer Company. Beutner is now
believed dead. The people of the 3d Pioneer Company referred to above a r e
being reintewogated, and indicate that they, along with other SPW and tank
crews who were present a t the scene of the crime, went into the field after the
main shooting, and killed all the prisoners who showed any signs of life.
Siptrott has given us the following line-up for tanks of his company a t the
time the shooting occurred : Behind his tank came Clotten's tank; then
Pilarczelr's t a n k ; then Dubbert's tank, and then Roch's tank. Siptrott is not
sure whether Dubbert's tank preceded IZoch's or vice versa. Dubbert, whom
we do not have, later told Fleps that after the firing he had gone into the field
with members of the crews of the SPW's, and administered to coup de grgce
to those of the prisoners who were still alive. We have Dubbert's gunner,
Muling, but he has not a s yet been interrogated. As a matter of fact, the 7th
Company has not a s yet been fully exploited. It is believed that Ziegler, Heinz
Schrader, and Joseph Frank may be further exploited in the development of
the case against the 7th Company, with respect to the part played by members
Of that company in the main Malmedy massacre.
The part played by the 9th Panzer Pioneer Company i n the main Malmedy
massacre has still not been established. Members of this company who were
interrogated proved to be extremely difficult subjects, and the results obtained

were unsatisfactory. However, evidence has been secured in !hc development
of the 3d Pioneer Company case definitely implicating Rumpf a a d the company
medic, Maute, in other killings during this ~Eensive. It i s hoped that, using this
evidence a s a lever, both Kumpf and Maute can be induced to give us further
information t o clarify the situation a t the crossroads with respect to their com-
pany. Vehicles from the 9th Panzer Pioneer Company were there present a t
the scene of the crime a t the time the shooting occurred. Rnmpf's vehicle was
parked a t the crossroads just before the turn of the road t o n m d Lioneuville
(Engelsdorf). The vehicle in which Maute was traveling had stopped farther.
on down t h e road, south of the field i n which the prisoners were standing, a t
the time the shooting occurred. I t is believed t h a t the following occupants of
these 9th Panzer Pioneer Company vehicles were implicated i n the main Malmedy
massacre: li'ranke, Hoppe, Elsinger, Buth, Puplrulies, Rieder, and Steclmer.
These people will all have to be reinterrogated if the case against the 9th Panzer
Pioneer Company a t the cross~~oads I~realrs. There is a story, snbst;mtiat.ed by
Rfaute's testimony and Rumpf's testimony, to the effect t h a t Obersc,lx~rfnehrer
Rudolf Dorr mas given the order to shoot these prisoners, by some ulhdentified
Obersturmfuehrer; t h a t he objected to the job: asked Rumpf to be reliered of
this assignment, and t h a t after talking with Rumpf, he returned to his vehicle
and spoke badly about ,Rumpf. Dorr was captured shortly afterwarcls and inter-
rogated by the First Army inspector general, in January 1946 a t t i e 168th General
Hospital. We have undertaken to locate him by every known means, but have
had negative results thus far. Rieder saJ: Unterschadnehrer Walter Haas, a mem-
ber of the Straf Squad of the 9th Pio!!err Clonqmny, shoot pvisoners in tli? field
after the main shooting.
There is testimony to indicate that tanks of the 1st Company pnrticipnted in
the main shooting, bnt the picture with respect to the activities of these vehicles
a t the scene of the crime is very confusing. Mr. Elowitz has been interrogating the
members of this company, and has dictated a short statement coucel-ning the
organization and activities of t h e ~ . o n ~ p a n yThis
. statement has been filed in
the organization file for the 1 s t Company. Zitzelsberger and Ernst identify
Oberscharfuehrer Strehlow ancl Unterscharfnehrer L'rexler, tanlr commanders
of the First Company, a s pzrsons who fired into the group of American prisoners
a s they were standing in the field. Neither of these witner;ses has been able
to satisfactorily establish the location of the tanks commander by these two
persons, or give a description of other vehicles a t the scene of the crime a t that
time, which corresponds with the facts a s established by other n7itnesses. Hen-
necke, platoon leader of the 1st Platoon, indicates t h a t his gunner, Sturmmann
Rock, fired into the bodies in the field, a s his tank p:~.ssc?tlby on tLe way to Ligneu-
ville (Engelsdorf) , after the main shooting had occurred.
T h e vehicles of the Regimental Communications Platoon. under comn~andof
Unterscharfuehrer Krause stopped a t the scene of the crime after the main
shooting. There were three SPW's in this communication platoon. We have the
following occupants of these vehicles : Landfried, Weiss, Lehn, and Zimmerman.
These men will all make excellent witnesses. Their testimony will establish
that these vehicles stopped behind a Mark IV tank t h a t was parked in the middle
of the road, headed toward Ligneurille (Engelclsdorf) , that the crew of this tank
was not in the tank a t the time, t h a t a n Oberscharfuehrer or a Hanptscharfueh-
rer, in a tanliman's uniform, shot a n ,Qnlerican prisoner in t h e field who had been
playing dead, after having made the prisoner remove his jacket and overshoes;
t h a t other men i n the black leather tankman's combination r e r e walking around
in the field a t the time, t h a t several shots were heard coming from those men
i n the field, t h a t the Ober or Hauptscharfuehrer returned to the tanlr that was
parked in the middle of the road, with the jacket and overshoes n-hich he had
taken from the American prioner; that Unterscharfuehrer Hans Hillig left his
SPW and went into the field ; t h a t shots mere heard in the field after he entered
the field; t h a t he had his pistol with him a s he entered the field, and that he
cleaned his pistol shortly after returuing to his SPW. The Ober or Hauptschar-
fuehrer who shot the American prisoner in the field has been iflentifid through ad-
missions made to Dethlnes, and through his own confession, a s Oberscharfuehrer
Hubert Huber of the 6th Company. Huber, in his confession, states that Strmn.
Martin Grischatz, his gunner, was in his tanlr: when its machine gun fired into the
bodies in the field. H e does not say that Grischatz entered the field ancl did any
shooting,.but i n view of the facts t h a t have been established it is prohnble that
he did so. Huber has identified Schroder and Schreier a s members of his crew
who entered the field with their pistols a t this time. We do not have any of these
MALMEDT RIASSACRE IXVESTIGATION 293
crewmen froin Huber's tank, but we have information that when members of
the LAH were asked to step forward in a recent screening a t one of the labor
camps near Wells, Austria, Grischatz with other members of the 6th Company
remained in ranks to avoid evacuation. A teletype has been sent to War Crimes
Branch, USFA, in order to secure transfer of Grischatz and these other members
of the 6th Company to I P No. 2. If results a r e not forthcoming in the very near
future, follow-up action should be taken in this matter.
At the time that Huber was shooting this American prisoner of war, the tank
of Unterscharfoehrer Kurt Briesemeister of t h e 1st Company was parked a t t h e
intersection. A man by the name of Storm from Briesemeister's tank has been
identified by Hnber a s having been in the field, walking among the American
prisoners a t this time, and as having been in the field a t the time shots were
heard in the field after he, Huber, had returned to his t a l k Grieserueister told
Plohmann (now detained a t IP No. 2 ) shortly afterwards that he shot a n Ameri-
can in one of the houses a t the crossroads. ancl that he went among the bodies in
the field and shot those who were still living. Briesemeister was interrogated
in October of 1945 a t the SS prisoner of war camp a t Pocking, Germany. He has
not been evacuated in accordance with subsequent directives. The rumor among
other members of his company who knew him a t Pocking is that he was assigned
to a work commando a t Plattling, Germany, and that h e escaped from this com-
mando to avoid punishment for his implication in this crime. A teletype has been
sent to War Crimes Branch, 3d United States Army, requesting he be located
and evacuated to I F No. 2. Proper follow-up action should be taken to insure
his apprehension.
6. Peiper denies stopping a t the scene of the crime in the main Malmedy Massa-
cre. Diefenthal. who was ridinp in the same SPW with Peiper, admits stopping
only twice. He states in his dep&ition that his SPW stoppedfor a minute o r t w o
a t the crossroads, and then for a minute or two further on down the road beyond
the field while the men in his SPW transferred some gasoline from a jeep in t h e
American column to his vehicle. Assenmacher, who mas the radio operator i n
this vehicle in which Peiper and Diefenthal were riding, states that Diefeilthal
left the SPW before the intersection ; that the SPW then rounded the corner and
drove down the road tgward Ligneuville (Engelsdorf) to a point somewhat south
of tlie field in which the prisoners were shot; that Peiper allowed him (Assen-
macher) a few minutes for looting some of the American trucks which were
parked alongside the road; and that after a lapse of about 20 minutes, Diefenthal
rer?lountecl the SPW, and they continued on to Ligneuville (Engelsdorf).
Diefenthal states in his depositon that shortly after Peiper's column opened
fire on the American convoy he and Peiper arrived on the scene and stopped
the firing. At this time Peiper shouted an order to Poetschke, the battalion com-
mander of the mixed battalion (First, Second, Sixth, and Seventh Panzer Com-
panies) operating a s the first element of his column. Diefenthal heard Peiper
shouting a t Poetschke, but does not remember what he said.
Freimuth, who was driver of an SPW belonging to the 11th Panzer Grenadier
Company, which left just before the shooting occurred, states that he heard Peiper
tell the point group, which had stopped a t the crossroads to round up the Amer-
ican prisoners, to continue on into Engelsdorf, saying, a s he gave the order,
"The little that has to be done here can be done by those behind yon." Diefen-
thal a t t l ~ etime n7as wearing a bright yellow leather jacket. Many of the sur-
vivors have identified an officer in a bright yellow jacket a s having been present
while they were being assembled on the road in front of the field. One survivor
named Appman stated in his deposition t h a t a n officer in a yellow jacket looked
over the prisoners on the road, ancl then waved them off the road into the field.
Eclunan, of the First Company, and certain members of the 3d Pioneer Com-
pany, have tentatively identified Diefenthal a s having been a t the crossroads
shortly before tlie shooting occurred.
This is all the evidence that we have been-able to secure regarding the activi-
ties of Peiper and Diefenthal a t the scene of the crime. Reinhard Maier claims
to have witnessed the order which Poetschke gave to members of the 9th Panzer
Pioneer Company, who were supposedly guarding the prisoners, ordering that
the prisoliers be shot. Maier has been given a preliminary interrogation, but
before going further with his interrygation '
it is desired to better establish the
facts in older -tv test his creciihility.
It is evident that while these prisoners were being detained a t IC No. 78
certain of their officers conspired to place the blame for issuing the order on
Poetschlre, who is be!ieved dead. I n view of this and the fact that many wit-
nesses who were questioned referred to this Maier's statement, it is believed that
his credibility should be definitely established before his story is accepted.
Reinhoffer has stated t h a t he was in a room a t I C No. 78 with Raabe and Stehle.
Stehle was visited by Arndt Fischer, Sternebeck, Kramm, and Messner. I n the
discussion t h a t took place i n t h a t room between these people i t was agreed to
blame Poetschke for the orders because he was dead. All those participating
in the discussion further agreed t h a t they would never talk. Messner, however,
h a s had a change of heart and talks freely. H e i s now being used a s a stool
pigeon. Kramm and Sternebeck have proved very difficult subjects, but Kramm
is beginning to talk. A messenger from the First Battalion by t h e name of
Waller (now detained a t I P No. 2 ) was with Poetschke most of the time during
this offensive, and may be able to give u s additional information to further check
this story.
7. Other incidents which occurred along the route of march of Peiper's column,
involving the murders of prisoners of war and civilians will be related, a s f a r as
possible, in chronological order.
On t h e 18th of December 1944, between 3 and 3 :30 in the afternoon, Rineck,
Assenmacher and Plohmann (all now detained in I P No. 2) witnessed the killine
of a n American prisoner of war by Zwiggart (now detained i n I P No. 2 ) in t h i
presence of Peiper and Diefenthal. The evidence establishes t h a t Peiper and
Diefenthal witnessed this killing and had every opportunity to stop it. The
American who was shot was the driver of a jeep which had been fired on and
stopped by a Mark V tank. The American was playing dead. Zwiggart made
him get out of the jeep. Zwiggart then returned to his SPW to get a machine
pistol. At this time Diefenthal asked Zwiggart what was in the jeep and also
leaned forward so t h a t he could get his machine pistol. Zwiggart was the
driver of the vehicle in which Diefenthal and Peiper were riding. At t h a t time
German soldiers from surrounding vehicles were shouting "Kill the American.
Kill the dog." Peiper was sitting i n the SPW on some folded blankets looking
a t his maps. Zwiggart has confessed to this shooting and has given us testimony
which indicates the victim was clearly dead when he finished with him.
I n the early afternoon of t h e 18th of December, 1944, in Stoumont, Belgium,
Sprenger (now detained i n IP No. 2 ) was ordered by his Truppfuehrer, O/Scharf.
Wilhelm Schaefer, after Schaefer had had a conference with his company
commander Sievers, to shoot two American prisoners of war who had just
brought in a mounded German soldier. Sprenger has confessed this killing,
and Hoffman (now detained i n I P No. 2) i s a corroborating witness. Sievers
i s also now detained i n IP No. 2, but a s yet has not been interrogated. There is
evidence of another killing by Sprenger i n Stoumont involving two American
prisoners of war who were stretcher bearers, and a third American prisoner
of war who was wounded, and whom they were carryicg. This case i s being
dereloped i n the course of reinterrogation of members of this 3d Pioneer
Company.
Lehn, Weiss, Ebeling, Zimmerman, and Landfried (all now detailed in I P No.
2 ) give testimony to establish t h a t Peiper ordered Millig (now being evacuated
to IP No. 2 ) to shoot a n American prisoner of war on the 19th of December,
1944, some time after t h e attack on Stoumont, and t h a t Hillig executed this
order.
Plohmann was present i n La Gleize on t h e 19th or 20th of December, 1944,
when Eclrnlann (now detained in I P No. 2 ) came into the First Company, C. P.,
and reported to his tank commander H/Scharf. Leo Slcota that the crew of
Skote's tank had shot several American prisoners of war. Ec1;mann later told
Plohmann that the prisoners had cont~nuedto moan and groan after the shooting
and t h a t he and others had put them out of their misery. Eckmann has proved
to be a very difficult subject. Mr. Elowitz has been interrogating him for some
time. H e has recently given us a statement which he claims is the whole truth.
This statement is being translated a t the present time.
Klaus Schneicler (now detained in I P No. 2 ) was present on the 21st of De-
cember, 1944, in Wanne, Belgium, when U/Scharf, Bersin, a tank commander
i n the First Company, and Kotzur, his gunner, came over to Schneider's tank
and stated t h a t they had orders from U/Stuf. Heubeck to round up all male
civilians 1 6 and over to be shot because Heubeck had found a c l o s ~ tfull of
German Army clothes i n the house in which he had been staying. Schneider
remained behind to guard his tank while his tank commander Pflneger, ICotzur,
Bersin, Tigges, and Trettin went with Bersin to accomplish this mission.
Rotzur and Trettin have confessed to shooting Belgian civilians pursuant to
orders issued by U/Scharf. Bersin. Bersin has his own version of the incident,
I
but i t is believed a full confession will be secured from him when he is
reinterr~gated.
Wischmann has confessed to shooting an American prisoner of war during
the last 2 days of 1944, or the first 4 days of 1945, on orders of Stubaf. Siclrel
near the village of Petit-Thier. Peiper was present i n the room when Sickel
gave Wischmann the order. H e had interrogated the American prisoner of
war in English and exchanged glances with Sickel immediately prior to t h e
issuance of the order. Ebeling and Lehn corroborate Wischmann's confession.
Wischmann gave a statement in addition to t h e confession in whch he estab-
lishes that the American prisoner of war was dead when he finished with him.
8. The defense which will most probably be common to all defendants, with
the possible exception of Peiper, is the one of "superior orders." It is felt this
defense will be unavailing as a n absolute defense in all cases. It will not even
serve in mitigation for most of the defendants, since, with the possible exception
of Fleps, all of them could have avoided the full effect of the order. It is not
likely that Peiper will attempt to use this defense, but when he realizes t h e
strength of the case against him, i t is possible that he will take the stand and
tell of some division, corps, o r army order to justify his action. Peiper may
also invoke the case of Major, now Lt. Col., McCown (see WCB file No. 6-113
for McCown's deposition) to strengthen his defense. I n this case rebuttal will
be available, since the testimony of Lehn, Ehrhardt, and Wischmann indicates
that McCown received his good treatment because Peiper intended to use him
as a pawn in a n exchange arrangement, rather than from any desire to comply
with the rules of land warfare and the Geneva Convention. McCown was to
be exchanged for certain wounded prisoners belonging to Peiper's battle group
who would otherwise have to be left behind a t La Gleize.
9. This paragraph will be devoted to considering the status of the investigation
a t this time.
The personnel of the detachment developing the case against the various units
involved is a s follows :
Captain Shumacher, 6th Company.
Captain Shumacher and Lieutenant Perl, 3d Pioneer Company.
Lieutenant Perl, the Regimental STABS Company, and the 2d Company.
Lieutenant Perl and Mr. Thon, the 9th Pioneer Company and the 7th
Company.
Mr. Elowitz, the 1st Company.
Mr. Elowitz and Mr. Thon, the 12th Panzer Grenadier Company.
Lieutenant Jacobs and Lieutenant Wolfe, the 10th Panzer Grenadier Com-
pany.
Mr. Thon, the RTinthPanzer Grenadier Company.
There a r e two companies not mentioned elsewhere which should be inter-
rogated before the investigation can be considered.completed. These companies
are the STABS Company and the 1st Battalion, and the STABS Company of
the 3d Panzer Grenadier Battalion. It is suggested that a s soon a s Lieutenants
Wolfe and Jacobs finish with the 10th Company they be assigned the job of in-
terrogating members of these organizations. Mr. Elowitz started on the mem-
hers of the STABS Company of the 3d Battalion and should be consulted for pos-
sible leads in that organization.
Before going to trial the 9th Panzer Pioneer Company case, and the 7th Com-
Fany case, should be fully developed. With the confession of Rumpf, of which
I have just been advised by Captain Shumacher over the phone, and the evidence
that has been secured from members of the 3d Pioneer Company definitely im-
plicating Rumpf and Maute in killings a t Stoumont, the 9th Pioneer case should
break in the near future. Using the information we have secured from Fleps,
Siptrott and Clotten, Muling, who was a member of Dubbert's crew, should be
made to talk without too much trouble. Greater difficulty may be experienced
with the two remaining platoon leaders of the 7th Company, Rehagel and Muen-
kemer, but it is felt when the hopelessness of their position is shown them they
will talk.
The 11th Panzer Grenadier Company should also be interrogated in order to
definitely establish the part played by its members in the main Malmedy in-
cident before the case can be considered ready for trial. I n addition to what
has been said about the testimony of Freimuth, and Schuhmacher's participa-
tion in the shooting a t the crossroads, the possible implication of other members
of the 11th Panzer Grenadier Company in the main incident must be noted a t
this point. Stock boasted to Wittenmayer (1st Panzer Company) a t IC No.
78,that he went among the prisoners in the field after the main shooting, killing
those who x e r e still alive with shots from his pistol. Stock has been inter-
rogated but steadfastly drnied ever having made such a statement, even after
having been faced with Wittenmager and a man by the name of Schartner, in
whose presence he is also suppo~edto have l l l ~ d ethe boast. Wittenmayer was
very positive abont the statement and would make a goocl witness. Schartner
is not positive, and being extremely nervous, 1vo11ld nlake a poor nritaess. J u s t
before his interrogation Stork falwd a kidney ailnlent. After the interrogation
he was taken to the 216th General Hospil-21 in Stuttgart where i t was cleter~nined
after exhaustive tests that he was perfectly normal. Freimnth and Heinrichs,
drirer and medic, respectirely! who were riding in t h e same SPW with Stock
stick to the story that their vehicle left the scene shortly before the shooting
started. H/Scher Hendel who \\-as commander of this SPW has not a s yet been
interrogated. I t is belierecl he will be a very difficult sul~jrct. L e n t e n a n t
IJerl has talked with him to verify his identity. One of Lieutenant Perl's "fast
. procedure" procecdings might be effectire with Stock, bnt it is quite possible
t h a t Freimuth and Heinrichs a r e telling the truth, and t h a t Stock was just
boasting to Beep abreast of the rest of his SS friends.
If a t all feasible, all officers who a r e of possible interest should also be fully ex-
ploited before the case is brought to trial. The following officers, against whom
a case has already been made, should be fully exploited i n order to secure addi-
tional details to more definitely establish the origin of the policy which prevailed
throughout Peiper's command, to disregard the rules of land warfare and the
Geneva Convention, and to fight in the "old SS tradition," spreading terror and
panic and showing no mercy to civilians or prisoners of w a r : Peiper, Diefenthal,
Preuss, Tomhardt, Junker, Rehagel. Munkemer, Sievers, Rumpf, and Gruhle
when and if he arrives. Their confessions would nndonbtedly prove very nse-
fnl. We already have Christ's confession. He might be reinterrogated in order
to amplify it. Kramm is beginning to talk and may very well tell a11 eventually.
Frank stated t h a t Zwiggart, who mas the driver of the vehicle i n which
Peiper and Diefenthal mere riding a t the time, told Schlachter. Moosebrngge,
F r a n k , himself, and others t h a t I'eiper gave the order a t the crossroads. Zwig-
g a r t and others available have been interrogated iu order to verify this state-
ment, but the results achieved were negative. However, i t is felt, in view of
t h e importance of this lead, i t should be carefully reesamined before the case
goes to trial. Fackelmeir was riding in the vehicle with Peiper and Diefenthal
a t this time. According to witnesses interrogated by Mr. Elowitz he was evac-
uated from one of the Lagers a t Ebensee to the prisoner of war hoepital in
Gemnnden some time last fall. A teletype has been s e n t out to War Crimes
Branch, USFA, in a n attempt to have this prisoner evacuated to I P So. 2.
If time permits there a r e other leads which should be followed to completion.
Evidence exists from the testimony of members of the 3d Pinneer Company now
being reinterrogated, t h a t prisoners of war were shot generally by all of Peiper's
men in Stoumont. These incidents will undoubtedly be more clearly established
i n the course of further developing the case against the 3d and 9th Pioneer Com-
panies. Many leads were giren by Josef Frank, a medic of the 7th Company.
They a r e set out in full on his personality index card. M7e have the following
people whom he mentions in connection with the shooting of prisoners of mar
and civilians: Woefel, Thorn, Siptrott, Clotten, Burg, Rehagel, Peiper, and
Heinz Schrader. I n evaluating Frank's testimony and the advisability of using
him a s a witness, it should be borne in minil t h a t several people h a r e identified
him a s a common criminal who was disciplined by German authorities for petty
thievery. Frank has also confessed killing four wounded Canadians in Tilly,
France, dnring the Normandy campaign. Ehrhardt, whom we also have a t I P
No. 2, also shot wounded Canadians a t Tilly a t this time, according to Frank.
Captain Schumacher advises over the phone t h a t Mr. Elowitz and Mr. Thon
have made out a case against certain members of the 12th Panzer Grenadier
Company. There will be four additional defenclants a s a result of this develop-
ment. We have these people a t I P No. 2. If Thiele (commanding officer of
the 12th Company) is located and evacuated we now have enough evidence to
hang him.
Lieutenants Wolfe and Jacobs were making very good progress in developing
a case against t h e 10th Panzer Grenadier Company. When I left they were
secnring evidence which may clear up the Honsfeld case (WCB file No. 6-59).
There is one other lead which has been covered in the last two subparagraphs
of paragraph 6 above, which should be fully developed before the case is ready
for trial. I am referring to the claim of Reinhard Meier t h a t he witnessed
Poetschke give the order to shoot the American prisoners a t the crossroads.
10. I n conclusion, I shall list a few administrative details which should receive
immediate attention.
d l the statements which had been taken and translated up until the time of
my departure, have been edited. Their disposition is indicated on the file slip
attached to each of hem. Mr. Berg has them all and is following the instruc-
tions written on the file slips. Those that are ready for filing should be filed
immediately to eliminate the possibility of their loss or misplacement. At the
earliest opportunity they should be reexamined, and appropriate references
should be made on the proper personality index cards. I n the past the informa-
tion entered on the personality index card has been too lengthy. The entry on
this card should be confined to indicating the nature of the information, and
should be a reference to the statement rather than an extract from it. When
I left several very important statements were being translaed. These should
be edited a s soon a s possible and disposed of in accordance with the existing
S. 0. P.'S.
Major Brooks of the 7th Army War Crimes Branch has asked that we prepare
Retention of Prisoner of War forms on all prisoners we intend detaining as wit-
nesses or defendants. We a r e to notify Major Saxon a s soon a s a sufficient
number of these forms has accumulated to warrant his sending after them. Major
Brooks indicated that he 17-anted a description on every prisoner for whom one
of these forms was prepared. However. since this will involve a waste of much
valuable time, i t is suggested that Major Brooks be contacted to see if this
requirement cannot be eliminated. Once this question is settled, it should be
a relatively easy matter for each interrogator to prepare one of these forms on
the prisoners in whom he is interested, i n accordance with the provisions of
S. 0. P. No. 4. These forms prepared might be checked against the names listed
in the attached work sheet in order to insure that a form is made up for each
prisoner who is of interest.
The attached work sheet is suggested a s a means of keeping track of the

prisoners who are to be witnesses and defendants in the case, and their state-
ments and confessions. The work sheet attached is current as f a r a s the names
listed a r e concerned. As the case develops, new names, of course, will be added.
My affidavit has been taken to serve a s evidence of the manner in which the
interrogations in this investigation were conducted, and is in the file. I t also
indicates that the following confessions which I witnessed were made volun-
tarily without being influenced in any way by threats, promises, inducements, or
duress of any form : Wischmann, Christ, Zwiggart, Fleps, and Siptrott.'
DWIGHTF. FANTON, Major, QMC.
I hereby certify that the within is a true and exact copy of the original memo-
randum to the Chief of the Investigation Subsection War Crimes Branch, Office
of the Theater Judge Advocate, USFET, setting forth the sttaus of the investiga-
tion of the so-called BIalmedy massacre a t the time I returned to the continental
United States to be segarated from the service.
DWIGHTF. FANTON.
Major FANTON. I think that menlorandum better than any other
single piece of evidence that I have any knowledge of mill demonstrate
that we were interested in the true facts. We were interested in the
truth. We were not interested in any manufactured evidence or
testimony.
There are references in there, and this memorandum is particu-
larly good evidence for the reason that it was made at the time when
my recollection was fresh and the details in there are accurate to the
best of my knowledge and belief.
One part of that memorandum clearly indicates that we were inter-
ested in the credibility of the suspects who were being interrogated.
I f we doubted the credibility of a man, we were not interested in his
statement without having it corroborated. I want to emphasize the
importance of that memorandum.
There is one derog?tory reference to Mr. Ellowitz as a playboy. I
feel it is my duty to vindicate him. H e was one of the hardest working
members of our team.
Senator MCCARTHY. I t is a question of how rough he may have

played.
Major FANTON. NO; I think the lanugage that Mr. Bailey used on
page 449 of the record mas that he was a playboy. He was a hard-
working loyal civilian employee assigned to me for this interrogation.
Incidentally, he was not a thirty-niner.
Mr. Bailey has made the claim that Thon, who was another one of
these interrogators who was accused of. a lot of these improprieties,
was Gorman-born. T o my lmowledge Mr. Thon mas born in this
country. H e was raised in Germany but he mas born here. All of
these interrogators, as far as I know, mere American citizens.
Mr. Bailey gives an account of bread-and-water punishment that
was imposed on these prisoners for a deliberate breach of the security
regulations governing their conduct in the prison. I do not recall the
details of which he testified.
My best recollection is with respect to that incident that one of the
trustees of the prisoners, a man by the name of Bart, brought in this
mess equipment, the legend scratched in the mess equipment indicat-
ing it was a slogan of one of these orgmizations which indicated quite
clearly that these people mere trying to con~municate,and a t that time
I asked Mr. Bart to round up all of that mess equipment that had any
of those marks on it.
I asked him, of course, if the mess equipment had been without marks
before it had been used b these prisoners, and he assured me that
i t had been. We had a p& of mess equipment in my ofice. It was
about 3 or 4 feet high, a regular pile. I do not know how many were
in there. I am sure that there were npward of 200.
That may be an exaggeration, but I do not thinli so. I know it took
Mr. Steiner about a meek to go through that mess equipment, and when
we had gone through it we had all of those markings polished off.
We wanted some punishment because this mas a deliberate violation.
We were not interrogating just ordinary people. We were interro-
gating the cream of the German Army, some of the most ruthless
troops that Hitler had.
This mas the First SS Panzer Division, his bodyguards.
They were supposed to be the cream of the cr*op,and they were
not stupid, not unintelligent, and they realized probably, I have no
doubt the more intelligent certainly realized, that we were separating
them so that they could not get their stories together and continue the
collusion that we had cliscovered a t the prisoner-of-war enclosure at
which we had carried on our screening operrLL t'lons.
There was no exchange between myself and Captain Johnson re-
garding this episode. To the best of my recollection these men were
on bread and water f,or 1 day, maybe more, but I am sure it was a
very short period. Bread-and-water punishment of course is a stand-
ard discipline for special and general prisoners in the Army and the
Navy.
It is not something unusual; i t is not something cruel. It is the
only may me could discipline these people.
Generally speaking they had a better diet than the German civilian
population. They were better fed than prisoners of war. The caloric
content of their food can be testified to better by prison ~ersonnel,
security personnel, whom I understand the committee is planning to
no11
,,u...
Captain Johnson and I never had any misunderstanding. It was

always clear that the supervision of these prisoners, providing food for
them and providing guards to secure the prisoners against the escape
of any of these prisoners-we had over 400 of them there. None of
the guards carried any weapons. I f we had a break, it w o ~ ~ have ld
been a very serious matter.
Everything of that nature was the responsibility of the security
troops. I had no command function with respect to those matters,
and I never had any difficulty with the security personnel.
They were most considerate of our requirements, and they did an
excellent job in policing the prisoners and caring for these prisoners.
There has been a great deal of reference to Lieutenant Perl, and I
think it is important that I give all the facts regarding Lieutenant
Perl. I have a note here, but out of respect for Judge Van Roden's
time, I will not go into that now because I know he is anxious to
get on.
Now Bailey, on page 458 of the record, made the claim that he took
15 or 20 statements, in question-and-answer form. I am quite certain
that that is not a true statement.
The record and files of the team will best demonstrate whether o r
not he is correct in that regard. My own recollection is that we aban-
doned that method of taking statements for the simple reason that
we had to have them translated first from German into English, the
reporter had to take them down, the reporter had to transcribe them,
then they had to be translated from' English back into German again
at the time they were read back to him before he signed them, and it
just took too long.
We did not have a staff that could process them, so we took our
shtements in accordance with this S. 0. P. 4.
Now, I mtice there is a letter which has been read into the record
by Mr. Schuelinghamp, received by Senator McCarthy, and I assume
he is going to be called before the committee. It was read into t h e
record at pages 467 and 468. I will be glad to give further testimony
regarding Mr. Schuelingkamp later.
At this time I will just pause to say that Mr. Schuelingkamp was a
good soldier, a big help to me on the team. His return to Weisbaden
was under most unfortunate circumstances quite beyond my control,
quite beyond the control of Colonel Ellis.
I made a special trip to Weisbaden to vouch for the loyalty of Mr,
Scl~uelingkampbecause I was convinced that he was completely loyal
and he was a valuable interpreter.
We had very few interpreters. It was difficult to find an interpreter

who could accurately translate German into English and vice versa.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I just get the record straight? You are
referring to a letter written to M,r. Bailey or one written to me?
Major FANTON. I guess it was a letter written to Mr. Bailey. I
am sorry, I thought it was written to you.
Senator MCCARTHY. That is why I could not recall the letter.
Major FANTON. You are correct. It mas one written to Mr. Bailey.
I remember now, now that I read the rest of my notes, but I wanted
to clear that up because I think it is important.
H e was a good interpreter. H e was a good soldier. I wanted him
on the team.
91765-49--20
Now he was sympathetic with Gernlans genwally. H e believed in

that approach. There was nothing wrong with that. jn my opinion.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion l a those matters.
It did not affect his work except that he was not an effective inter-
rogator. H e would talk with them in a very friendly fashion and
they mould feel no insecurity. They would feel that they could tell
him anything and he would be willing to believe it, so that I did not
let him do much interrogation, but he was valuable as an interpreter.
I believe he worked with Mr. Ellowitz for a while. I11 fact, I think
he may have started with Mr. Ellowitz when Mr. Steiner left, but
nevertheless we were ordered to return him to Weisbaden, Colonel
Ellis as well as myself.
We both went to bet for Mr. Schuelingl~amp. Colonel Ellis I know
made a special trip to Praidcfurt to talk to the personnel people
there.
H e did so because 1had requested it. and also becalm he himself
was convinced, after discussing the matter with Schuelingkamp, and
with me, mhen I returned to Wiesbaclen, with Mr. Schuelingkamp,
t h a t he was completely loyal in every respect and was a valuable
member of our team.
Mr. Schuelingkamp, incidentally, was German by birth, raised i n
Germany. H e came to this country shortly nfter World War I.
There were some comments i n there about slii paintings, and I
thinlr that shoulcl be cleared up. T h e oil painting that Mr. Bailey
refers to was not a painting. It was drawn on paper with pencil
colored with some sort of a crayon or mater-color pencil. It mas done
by K a r l Dobistch, who was a security suspect. H e was a high-ranking
SS general.
H e had nothing to do with the Malmedy case. H e mas the com-
manding officer of the internees. There were two groups of prisoners
a t the prison, and he was the commanding officer of the internees.
H e was a security suspect by virtue of his high SS rank.
H e had been a professor of a r t at Munich before the war. H e was
a n accomplished craftsman and he was interested in his work. R e
wanted me to sit for a drawing, and I told him I did not have the
time.
H e asked two or three times about it, and finally after seeing his work
and thinking-maybe i t was vanity-my portrait might be of some in-
terest to my wife back home, I sat for him on three occasions, probably
1 hour a t the most, so that is the story abont the portrait.
It is i n my attic a t home, and I intend to enter i t as an exhibit.
I think i t is important because it indicates, I believe, that Mr. Bailey's
teetimony should be discounted to some extent a t least.
The skis were skis that I had purchased. I had purchased those
f o r my wife, also. They were too short for me. They had to be of
such length that they could fit into a mail bag, and they were only
about five, two, I believe; I guess only abont 5 feet. A t any rate,
I purchased them through this Mr. Bart from a manufacturer of skis
i n Stuttgarten. H e went and got them for me. I paid, I believe, 50
marks for them, so that is the story regarding the skis and the painting.
I believe that is all 1 have to say with respect to Mr. Bailey's
testimony.
Senator HUNT.I f i t is agreeable now with the committee, we will
excuse this witness.
.Jltdge Van Roden, will you take the stand again, please.
TESTIMONY OF EDWARD LEROY VAN EOlDEN-Xesumed
S e m t o r EUXT. Judge Van Rcclen, before any questions are asked,
do you have any preliminary or further statements you would like to
make ?
Judge V ~ a ~ R o u l r xWell,
. Senator, i t occurred to me when I referred
to the figures of the number of accused whoss cases we examined, and
the number for whom me recommended clemency or from whom we
recon~mendeclc ommutation. theer may have been some misunderstaad-
ing caused by r h a t I have said, and if that is so, this will clarify it.
As I recall, I testifid from the record that of the 139 defendants
or accused whose cases we exmlined, we recommended commutation
for 20 of those 139. The other 110, we said i n our report, me felt
there mas competent evidence to sustain the conviction and the sentence.
I thought I made that clear that of the entire group of 139, that
tllere xere 29 altogether for whom we made this recommendation.
h'om i t mas brought to my attention that that meant they were all
tile Malmecly cases. Of course, that is not so. Only 12 were Malmedy
defeildants out of the 29, and also to cl:~rifythe question about the
i eport i n which-we said the natnre of the evidence here was so un-
ieliable that it could not be considered proper with respect to these
confessions, that did not apply, gentlemen, to the other accused other
than the Maln~edydefendants. I n other words, of the 29 cases, only
12 of those, which were the Malmedy defendants, did we find and
state in our report had, as we felt, not received fair trials by virtue
cf the nature of these confessions that were secured and the way they
were secured as being the only evidence upon which they were con-
victed.
Senator MCCARTHY.May I interrupt? Do I have this correctly
in mind, now? Your was that i n the 12 Malmedy
death cases, in those cases the sentences should be commuted to life
imprisonment because you felt that the evidence was such that you
could not tell whether they were guilty or innocent, and you felt there
should be a further investigation of those cases, but i n the other 17
cases, the 17 that Bad nothing to do with Bfalinecly, those yon recom-
mended life inlprisonment instead of death because you felt that the
death penalty was too severe in view of the nature of the crime.
Judge VAN RODEN.That is correct; yes, sir. That is what I am
trying to say.
J u s t for illnstratioil-I will not take too much of your time or mine,
either-in the case of Hans S c h i ~ e i d ev~e, felt i n our report that "the
complicity of Schneider i n this crime is not measurably greater than
that of 1Pauley"-who got life imprisoment-"and it would appear
appropriate that the death sentence should be commuted to life im-
prisonineilt."
That is not a Malmedy case. The other 17 cases, the recommenda-
tions of various degrees of commutation, not all life imprisonment,
which we recommended and which me concurred with some of the
board of review's recommendations, were made not upon the basis of
these confessions. The recommendations based upon these confessions

that we have talked about relate only to the Malmedy cases.
I s that clear, gentlemen?
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me get this absolutely clear.
As f a r as the other 17 were concerned, you felt that they had a
proper trial, that they were properly tried, but that the penalty was
too great, but as far as the Malmedy cases were concerned, those were
in a class by themselves.
You felt thnt they did not have a proper trial, that you could not
determine whether the men were guilty or innocent.
Judge VANRODEN.That is substantially so ;yes? sir.
I wanted to clear that up because I may have given the wrong im-
pression that all 29 had received this treatment and were based upon
confessions. That of course is not so, and is not included in our
report. I f I gave that impression, i t was unintentional; but the 12
Malmedy cases which we are discussing in the hearings before this
committee were the ones which we found and said in, our report-
which I think you have all read-the reason for our recommendation
that they be commuted was so there could be an opportunity to deter-
mine whether they were guilty or not.
Maybe all are guilty. Maybe none are guilty. We felt we could
not tell.
That is all I have to say, I think, Senator.
Senator HUNT. Senator Baldwin, did you have any q~~estions?
Senator BALDWIN.NO; I have not any further questions. I would
suggest, Mr. Chairman, I think Colonel Chanlbers has some questions
that he worked out on the basis of testimony.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think if the judge has any comment about
the charges made by Major Fanton, he should be allowed to make
those comments. Whether or not he has any, I do not know.
Judge VANRODEN.I have not had time to read it.
Senator HUNT.I was going to say, do you not think the judge
should have time to read it before lie is questioned?
Judge VANRODEN.I W O L I ~not ~ attempt to, without reading it.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhave not had a chance to read it yet?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Judge Van Roden, yesterday you testified in sub-
stance concerning this article that appeared in the Progressive Maga-
zine, that i t was an article which was based on a speech that you had
made I believe before the Rotary Club, and you were very surprised,
and I believe you said startled, when you found that you had been
credited with being the author.
Judge VANRODEN.That is so; yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I do not know whether you are aware of it, but that
same article has been inserted in the Congressional Record by Con-
gressman Smith of Wisconsin, March 10, and it has apparently been
the basis of considerable discussion in connection with this trial, par-
ticularly as i t affected the events which took place at Schwabisch Hall.
Now I think for the purpose of the record, and in order to complete
the testimony that mas started yesterday, that we should get into a
little detail in connection with this and find what parts you disagree
with the article on, with which you are charged with being the author.
Judge VANRODEN.That is entirely fair.
Mr. CHAMBERS. For that reason I wonder if perhaps we could ap-
p a c h it this way.
You said yesterday that you were not the author, but now did you
repudiate the authorship to either the publishers or the author so that
it could become perhaps generally known that you denied the author-
ship of this article?
Judge VANRODEN.T Othe best of my ability; yes, sir. I first got
in touch with the gentleman who actually wrote the article, and told
him that I did not understand that, did not like it, did not appreciate
it, and felt it sIiould not have been done.
I wrote a letter to the editor-I believe his name is Rubin-and told
him virtually the same thing in a short letter. I said I had not written
that and was sorry i t had been published, or words to that effect.
Mr. CHAMBERS. AS far as you know-I do not know ;this is the Feb-
ruary issue-have they printed any retraction?
J u d g e ' V ~RODEN.
~ I have not had any reply. I have not heard any-
thing from that publication since. I never heard of the publication
before that time, as a matter of fact.
Senator BALDWIN.May I ask one question. You said you got in
touch with the man who wrote the article. Who was that?
Judge VANRODEN.Well, he is here in the room at the present time.
Senator BALDWIN.What is his name?
Judge VANRODEN.Mr. Finucane.
Senator BALDWIN.What is your full name, Mr. Finucane?
Mr. FINUCANE. My first name is James.
Senator BALDWIN.Are you the gentleman who is connected with
the National Society for the Prevention of W a r ?
Mr. FINUCANE. The National Council for the Prevention of War.
Senator BALDWIN.And is that the organization wLth which Mr.
Libby is associated?
Mr. FINUCANE: Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think the best way is to pick out some of the
detailed items and see if those are the items that have been placed in
this article by Mr. Pinucane.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO I understand, Judge, that you knew this
article was going to be written; that you thought it was going to be
a purported account of some speeches that you had been giving, but
that you had no idea at all that it was to be done under your byline,
in other words, under your name?
Judge VANRODEN.That is only partially so. The situation is very
simple. What happened is this :
Mr. Pinucane, for whom I might say I have a high regard as a
reporter-I did not know him until the evening of the occasion when
he was present at this Rotary Club dinner, supper, and meeting.
There were about 25 or 30 members of the club. H e took notes of
an extemporaneous talk that I had made.
The following Saturday I received in the mail a news release pub-
lished by the National Council for the Prevention of War. A news
release arrived at my office in the courthouse Saturday morning con-
taining a report of this talk that I had made at the Rotary Club that
ni ht. .,
% m e things were perfectly *Toper ;most of them I say were proper
that I had sald on that occasion. I mean they quoted me accurate1
and proper. There were several things that were a bit exaggerated:
304 MALMEDP MASSACRE IL\TT.ESTIGATION
There were several things I had not said, and there were some
things attributed to me whlch I had quoted as having been said by
Colonel Everett i n his petition.
Well, I saw immediately, if I was being quoted as having said these
things, that it n a s a misqi~otation. I promptly tried to reach Mr.
F'inucane by telephone in TaIslzington a t the office of the national
council; but, being Saturday, they mere not oficially open. I did talk
to Mr. Libby, whom I had nerer met before, on the telephone. This
is the actual chronology.
H e then referred me to Mr. Pinucane's home. As I recall, I tried
to get him a t his home. After some clifficulty as to where he lived,
the person sent out l o r him. H e came to the telephone, and I ex-
plained to him the situation that confronted me ~rlzenI saw that news
relase. H e and Mr. Libby said they wele afraicl it was too late; it
had already been sent out withont my approval or clisapprovd of
the article.
B then told Mr. Finucane ilze sections of that article which I cer-
tainly did not wish to be responsible l o r because I 11:~clnot saicl them,
and then f0ll0Willg that I think they made another news release
which eliminated these objectionable items, objectional insofar as I
was the author of them, and how f a r they got out or where they were
circulated I have not any idea as to the dissemination of these releases.
Well, it must have been sometime following that that Mr. Binucane
telephoned me, and he said th%the wanted to publish the same story
but he wanted to be sure he had i t correct, as I it, i n view
of what had happened with this first article, and he read over the
telephone certain items, and I said I felt that a a s not quite the way
to do it by telephone, that I could not fo!lom what he was saying, and
I described as best 1could what. I had saicl, all I had said, and i t was
t o be published i n that may.
I n all frankness he did say, "This is going to be under your byline."
Now I will tell you frankly, gentlemen, and perfectly honestly, I
did not know what the word "byline" meant. I did not know. I
should have ~tnown. I t means you are the auihor of it.
It did not impress me as being important. I said all right, but I
said first I would like to see a copy before i t goes to the press. Well
actually I get a copy of the Progressive magazme and then I promptly
got that.
I came to Washington, saw General Green, the Judge Advocate
General. I spoke to him about it. H e actually drove me in his car
over to Mr. Finucane's building. I went i n there.
I hope it mas not too unpleasant, but it was rather an uizpleasant
interview. We had a discussion about it. I pointed out to him the
things that I felt were not properly attributable to me, and I told
him, if I was aslzecl about it, I w o ~ l c lhave to say the very things I
am saying now.
Does that give yon the story of how the thing clereloped ?
Then yesterday before yon ncliourned the session, in line \\-it11Colo-
nel Chambers' query, Colonel Ellis and I sat clown here a t this table
and he showed me !his 7,: t i d e lnd 11" anrl 1pel;-ilecl--1 pcncile(1 with
my own hand there the paragraphs or sections or phrases which I do
repudiate and say that I am not responsible for having said at any
time or any place.
Now that may be a little helpful. gentlemen. I do not know.
Senator BAIDWIN.Mr. Chairman, may I say this: I think t h a t
Judge Van Roclen has got into this thing very unhappily. I think i n
fairness to him that the correctioils that he made in the article ought
to appear in the record, too. I mean 1thildr the copy i n which he made
the deletions ought to appear.
Senator HUNT.I would zee no objection to that.
Juclge VAwRODFN.I f you c:m tell from those marlrings what they
mean. I am sure you can tell from the X's I put there and my little
notatjons in 111y very illegible handwriti!ig. I want to be sure this is
right this time, gentlemen.
Senator MCCARTKY.I thinlc the Senator has made a n excellent sug-
gestion. We are all concerned wjth getting the facts. I would like
to know whether the other parts are parts that were quoted with Colo-
nel E v e r ~ t tor
, n-here they origin:lted.
Judge VANRCDEN.I macle notations on that.
Senatcr R'ICCARTIIY.In other worcls, you n!nclc a notation as t o
whether they were quotations from Colonel Everett or your own per-
sonal statements.
Judge VANRODEN.I believe 50 ; yes, sir.
Mr. C I ~ ~ E RMr. S .Chaiinlan, I believe that perhaps it might be
well-these notes are very rough-I think it might be better, with
the per~nissionof the comniittee, that Judge Van Roden be literally
given the opportunity of editing this article.
Judge V a s RODEN.Not f o r publication. [Laughter.]
Mr. CEIBMEERS. NO, no; for the purpose of clearing the record.
Judge VANRODFN.No more bylines, gentlen~en.
MY. CII.\JIBE~XS. I-Iowercr, insofar as the reasons f o r some of the
conclusioi:~ which yon would nfil~niare concerned, 1 do believe that
i t is proper that we proceed will1 a line of questioning to develop the
source of these conc1usioi;s.
I think I know, sir, from studying this copy, those items which you
have affirmed as things that you clicl say i n the speech, and what I am
very anxious to have in the ~-ecoidis the source of the information.
A little bit of it may be repetitious from yesterday.
Now specifically there 1s one item here which I do not believe you
have scratched out in this copy.
"Posturing as priests" was one of the things charged in this article.
Could you please tell us. Judge, where you got the evidence which
lcd you to that concluc;jon?
Judge VANRODEN.It was in some of the papers read over in Mu-
nich. What they were, I do not remember. We reacl so many, the
petitions, the staff J . A.'s reviews. the Board's reviews. We reacl these
various other applications and affidavits.
4: am not sure. Frankly, I do not know where I got that informa-
tion, b17.t I Imow I learned i t over there in Munich when I was there
last snn~mer. I am afraid I cannot tell you the exact source of that
particular fact.
Mr. CIXABIBERS.You were convinced a t the time you macle this
speech that i t was a fact that members of the prosecntion team did
posture as priests for the purpose of securing evidence to be used i n
the trials ?
Judge VAN RODEN.Yes, sir, because when the three of us were
coming home from Germany-Colonel Lawrence, Colonel Simpson,
and myself were coming home from Europe-we talked about it con-
306 MALMEDY IMASSACRE 13-YESTIGATION
versationally, and that was one of the topics of our conversation. We

all came back with the idea that that had been done.
Now often, I do not know. It may have happened once; it may
have happened more than once. We do not know.
Whether that came from the affidavits of the accused or their peti-
tions, or the persons in their behalf, or whether it came from the
Boards of Review's comments, I frankly do not know.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. Judge,. are you aware of the fact that Judge Simp-
son was asked this questlon and said tliere was no evidence to snp-
port that?
Judge VANRODEN.I am aware of that, and lie and I talked about
that before he was called to testify. He said he was a bit disturbed,
he could not think where that was. H e was very indefinite about it.
I heard his testimony. I am simply giving you what my best
recollection is. I certainly did not create that out of my own imagin-
ation. It may have come from the defendant's side of the case. I
do not know.
That may have come from a petition which I read and he had not
read. I do not know. He and I and Colonel Lawrence had talked
about it in the course of our duties.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, insofar as the beatings and brutal kick-
ings, the knocking out of teeth and the breaking of jaws are con-
cerned, you I believe yesterday testified that you believed that those
things did happen in some cases, and i t was a proper part of your
speech before the Rotary Club.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think it mould be repetitious to ask you again
what was the direct evidence that you had on it. I believe yesterday
that you made much the same statement that you had just made about
the "posturing as priests."
Judge VANRODEN.Except the report with which you are familiar.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I notice you have eliminated from your article the
charges that they used promises of acquittal or very limited rations
in order to secure confessioas. Now does that mean that you found
direct evidence tliere, Judge, which led you to believe that they did
not do that?
Judge VANRODEN.All I can say is thet I do not remember saying
anything about limited rations to secure confessions.
Senator MCCARTXY. May I interrupt at this time?
Judge VANRODEN.I do not think I even testified to that.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Colonel Dwinnell, who is in the Regular Army
and is one of the defense staff, has just informed us that one of the
sources of this information in regard to the prosecution staff dis-
guising themselves as priests to get confessions-one of the sources of
information was himself. H e described in detail the use of that pro-
cedure to you personally, so that there is no question about that.
Mr. CXIA~~BERS. Colonel Dminnell will be on the witness stand to-
morrow, and we will have an opportunity to question him on that
point.
Senator RIGCARTHY. Just in fairness to Judge Van Roden, I want
the record to be clear that this does not come out of his imagination.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I mould like to n d i e the point with Judge Van
Roden, though, that he did not talk to anyone that had seen that
method used o r was hurt by that method, but he did get evidence,
really hearsay evidence, from bne of the defense counsel on that
point.
Judge VANRODEN.Well, Colonel, all we had was from records. We
were not in the cells.
I hope you gentlemen understand this. All you gentlemen question
me about whether it is hearsay. We did not see any of the accused.
We simply went over there to examine the records. All the informa-
tion we have is based upon records.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Judge, I well understand that, and in fact the
defense counsel probably also had only hearsay evidence on the same
point, because it must have been told to him by one of his clients, and
he did not have an opportunity to see i t himself.
Judge VANRODEN.That is possible.
Senator HUNT. Judge, I mould like to ask you a question here. I n
your approach to your assignment, would i t not seem inherently the
thing to do to have both sides of this case presented to you before you
coulcl arrive at any conclusions?
Judge VANRODEN.NO, sir. YOUdo not understand the nature of
this investigation apparently, Senator. You put me on trial here.
I do not mind being put on trial, but I do not think it is quite the
thing for you to do.
Senator HUNT.1 do understand. I think apparently from your
testimony you were interested in only one side of the case.
What I am trying to get at, if you wanted to be fair in your con-
clusions, why could you not ask witnesses, those connected with the
situation, those who knew the facts froin both the prosecution and the
defense ?
I n other words, why did you-consider just one line of evidence?
Judge VANRODEN.Well, first -of all, most of the investigators, if
not all of them-most of them had actually left the country, as I
remember. Whether they were available or not, I do not remember.
My recollection is most of them were not available, so we could not
talk to those who were not there. That speaks for itself.
We did speak to Colonel Rosenfeld because he was the law member
of the court. He is among the list of persons whom we interviewed.
We interviewed everyone whom we thought was important.
As a matter of fact, Judge Simpson interviewed some persons alone
when I think Lawrence and I were not there, but most of them were
interviewed by all three of us, but not in every case.
Now you ask why. All I can say to you is that we went over there
not to try the case, but to ascertain whether there was any merit in the
accusations that Colonel Everett had made, and we did the best that
we could.
I say to you I have no personal feeling one way or the other, either
for the accused or against the accused, or for or against these investi-
gators, except that we found from what I have described to you some
of these things, the papers and records that we examined, had taken
place, and we fulfilled our duty by reporting what we had learned to
the Secretary, and it seems to me that is the official or someone under
him to get the facts pro and con. We have not got the facts from one
side or the other.
Senator HUNT.Colonel, the committee is in exactly the same posi-
tion you were in, but is i t not a self-evident fact that you could have
come but to one conclusion from the type of testimony that you got?
Judge VANRODEN.I do not understand that question, Senator.

Senator HUNT.W ell, since you interviewed only those who claimed
these cruelties had been exercised on the prisoners, you could not h a w
come to any other conclusion if you had no testimony to the contrary.
Senator MCCARTHY.Mr. Chairman, I think the record should show
a t this time the list of witnesses t h a t they interviewed, including a
preponderance from the prosecution staff. I n other words, a majority
of the defendants they interviewed were just the opposite from what
we are led to believe by your questioning.
Only two of the defense staff in the Malmedy case were interviewed,
and actually they were company a t all times of the man who was in
charge of the prosecution.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a list of persons who were
interviewed taken from the Simpson report. Since the main bulk of
these charges have not to do with the prosecution of the trial after
the interrogation, I think the record should show clearly that there
is not a single person on this list of those interviewed who had any-
thing to do with the developing of these cases for trial.
Now, there are two persons on here, and I mould like to be corrected
if I am wrong on this, Judge, Colonel Rosenfelt who was the law
member, Colonel Harbaugh who was involved in the review of these
cases. They are, so f a r as I know, the only ones who have had any
connection with the prosecution.
Judge VANRODEN.Lieutenant Moody also, First Lieutenant Moody.
I do not h o r n whether he was defense counsel or prosecution. I have
forgotten. H e was i n some of those trials. I do not know which way
he was.
Senator MCCARTHY.I understood Colonel Harbaugh said they had
statements from all the available investigators, that they had a n affi-
davit from Per1 who mas alleged to be the principal offender.
Mr. CHAMBERS,. Colonel Raymond, I believe you referred to, sir;
and .I think it should be borne in mind that the Raymond-Harbaugh
was nothing with which Judge Van Roden had anything to do. I n
substance, I believe it was a board created by General Clay as the
result of your findings-
Judge VANRODEN.NO, s i r ; before we made our findings, because
we read their report before me even made our 'findings.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I t was a separate board, I believe.
Judge VAN RODEN.Yes, s i r ; contei~~l)ol~:~neously with us. They ,
were doing it a t the sairie time me mere over there.

Senator MCCARTHP.You r e d the affidavits and all the evidence
gotten by the Raymoiid Boarcl?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes, sir; and the testimo~lytaken.
Senator MCCARTHY.And the Raymond committee had interviewed
all available members of the interrogation staff?
Judge TT-LN RCDEN.2ust sliortly befcre we lcft to col;ie lloi:ie, Col-
onel Simpson h2cl a carbon copy, which he saj7s he st>illhas, of the
Raymoncl-Harbnugh report.
Senator MCCARTEIY. May I ask you this: Am I correct, that the
Raymond report, the affidavits consistecl largely-I see that Colonel
Raynloncl is liere-consisted, to a great exlclit, of st:~ternenlsand nib-
davits by members of the prosecution and members of the interroga-
tion staff as well as some from the defense, and those were available
to yon before yo11 sipled volir re!?ort ?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes. Yesterday, I made a mistake. I was under
the impression that Colonel Per1 had testified before that Board. I
find now I made a mistake. It was either Kirschbaum or someone
else. Apparently, he was not there.
Colonel Raymond certainly is reliable. H e knows who was there
before him. There was so much to read there, gentlemen. There
were so many pages of that testimony alone taken by the Raymond-
Harbaugh Board, and I cannot recall at this time d l that I read.
That is only one of the documents that I read over a period of 6 weeks
that I was over there.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask the member of the staff, Mr. Cham-
bers, if yo;^ are deal in 111iild O i l this, SO the recod will be straight,
that the Simpson-Van Roden coininittee had available to them all
of the afidavits, all the statements, all the evidence taken by the
Raymond-Harbaugh Commission, and that they did have those avail-
able to read?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think we had better clarify this point as we go
along. The best evidence is Colonel Raymond who is here.
As I understand yesterday's testimony, many of these affidavits re-
ferred to, which were attached to the Raymond report, were not even
taken at the time the Simpson committee operated.
Now, I would like to have Colonel Raymond clear the record so
there will be no further misunderstanding on this point.
Judge VANRODEN.That is probably true, may I say.
Senator HUNT. Colonel Raymond.
Colonel RAYMOND. Yes, sir; that is a fact. Our board had been
appointed and had made part of our investigation at the time that
the other board, of which Judge Van Roden was a member, came to
Europe, and we filed preliminary report on the 18,h r! August, if
I am not mistaken, and that is the repcrt that'you had.
We had certain testimony at that time. Subseq~~ently we received
quite a batch of affidavits from the United States. We did not have
those at the time that Judge Van Roden was in the theater.
Judge VANRODEN.That is correct; we did not see those.
Colonel RAYMOND. SOwhat you saw mnst have been the August 18
report.
Judge VANRODEN.That is so and is so set forth in the report.
Senator MCCARTEIY. The deputy judge advocate general, or what-
ever his title is, ordered an investigation of these allegations of brutal-
ity prior to the commencement of the trial. Now, did you have avail-
able to yon the report of that group or individual or whoever made
that investigation ?
Colonel R A Y ~ ~ O Not
N D .a formal report. We had affidavits as to
what that investigs~torstated when he returned from his investigation.
Senator MCCARTHY. And were those affidavits available to Judge
Van Roden?
Colonel RAYMOXD. No; those came in later.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. I am referrkg now to the investigation that
was condacted long prior to your appointment in 1946.
Colonel RAYMOND. Yes; but we did not get that information until
affidavits were received from the United States. I think Major Fan-
ton's affidavit, or possibly Colonel Ellis7-I forget, one or the other-
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask this further question now? The
deputy judge advocate general also ordered the prosecution to maka
an investigation of allegations of brutality in connection with
statements and confessions. That investigation was conducted an
report rendered also prior to the coinnleilceinent of the trial by, I
gettil't'l
assume, Colonel Ellis. Did you have that report available?
Colonel RAYMOND. That was the report of Colonel Carpenter, and
we did not. As I understand it, at least, I have never heard of any
written report. I understand it was an oral report and it was reported
to us through these affidavits as to what he said a t that time.
Senator MC~ARTHY. SOthen there were four investigations as I
understand it, two conducted prior to the coinrneiicemeiit of the trial.
Colonel RAYMOND. One.
Senator ~ ~ ~ C A R T I Iget
~ Ythis
. froin your report, incidentally, in
paragraph 27 :
It is to be noted t h a t t h e deputy judge advocate for war crimes ordered an
investigation of similar allegations A p r ~ l1046, but the trial started a t the time
when all concerned mere available. A s i m ~ l a rreport was rendered by the chief
prosecutor after a n inqniry of his staff.
You are perhaps right. Olie investigation, a i d two reports.
Mr. CHAMCERS. I might add, Mr. Chalrinan, that the staff here has
made some investigation of the study or investigation made by Colonel
Carpenter at the instigation of the deputy judge advocate.
Senator M C ~ A R T HIS Y .it in ~vriting?
Mr. CIXAI~ERS. We
find that there mas no written report made of
this investigation, and it is our iiltenLion to call the officer concerned
back, but I think that will have to be discussed later. He is a t the
present time on duty in Japan. and we want to be sure when we are
ready for him and bring him back when i t will be the least iiicon-
renient to both himself and his command.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Was Carpenter in charge of the prosecution?
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO, sir. This investigation was made as the result
of a request by Colonel Corbin who, as 1understand it, LTas the judge
sdvocate of the Third Army.
Senator McCARTI~I!'. What was Colonel Carpenter's status?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I f I may finis11, sir. This investigation was made
as the result of a request by Colonel Corbin who was the J A G of the
Third Army, Colonel Niclielwait ~ ~ 1 was 1 0 the deputy judge advocate
for the theater, and he designated Colonel Carpenter. I tried t o
develop ~ h e t h e r01. not Colonel Carpenter was conlpletely unrelated
to the prosecution staff. H e was in the J A G office, and for that
reason, Senator, I do not say it is possible to say it was a completely
independent outside investigation.
The Third Army was responsible for these trials-to get an outside
investigation to find out in effect if there was any truth to these
brutalities. I have also been infornied-I think the most direct evi-
dence would be Colonel Carpenter. I came back and reported in
substance what we now know about the mock trials and matters of
that kind, and as a result of his discovering that, i t mas decided those
matters would have to be reported after the trial was started.
Senator MCCARTHY. Have you talked to Carpenter 1
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am sorry, sir ; Carpenter is in Japm I talked to
Colonel Nickelwait to whom Carpenter made his report. Colonel
Nickelwait said apparently Carpenter found no substance to the
charges of mistreatment, and for that reason they did not even think
it was necessary to have a written report.
He further said-and again I would like to say it is
ure hearsay-
P
that Colonel Carpenter reported that a t least four o the prisoners,
and there may have been others-stated to him that they had made
these allegations of mistreatment '511 an effort to get out from under
their confessions." For that reason, I think it is essential.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUare quoting now from the Army report?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Also from what Colonel Nickelwait told me, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. At that time Colonel Ellis was the man in
charge. He was in the JAG'S office; right?
Mr. CHAMBERS. AS I understand it, this prosecution staff was a part
of which Colonel Nickelwait was the deputy commander.
Colonel ELLIS. Actually, we were on T D Y to the Third Army a t
the time of the trial. Investigation was under USAFA headquarters,
which was under Colonel Nickelwait. A t the time of the trial we were
under Third Army on TDY.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, you were carried with regular
JAG personnel ?
Colonel ELLIS.And Carpenter was J A G personnel-I do not h o w .
He was assigned to war crimes a t that time.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I started to say presently J A G of the First Cavalry
Division.
Senator MCCARTHY. This seems to be an old Army practice of
investigating yourself and rendering a clean report. I n other words,
J A G was investigating JAG.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have several more questions that I would like to
ask Judge Van Roden. I would like to ask, primarily because of what
you have referred to as markings on the report of the Progressive, as
to whether or not you have stricken out from this edited document the
statement-
American investigators who abused the powers of victory and prostituted justice
to vengeance should be exposed in a public process, preferably in t h e United
States, and prosecuted.
Judge VANRODEN.May I see that? Maybe it would save time if
I tell you what my hieroglyphics mean and give it in one breath.
Referring to this article, these are the items that I have struck out as
not being accurate quotations of what I have said.
Senator HUNT.Would you give us the page and paragraph?
Judge VANRODEN.There are only 2 pages. The paragraphs are
aot numbered.
The first paragraph there I have struck out the words "very limi-
ted ratioas" and "promises of acquittal."
I heard talk about it. Maybe it happened; maybe it did not.
I n the next to the last paragraph on the first column of that first
page :
The tragedy is t h a t so many of us Americans, having fought and won the
war with so much sweat and blood now say, "All Germans should be punished !"
We won the war, but some of us want to go on killing. That seems to me wicked.
Well, I do not recall having said that. That is extravagant lan-
guage. I think I should disavow that for what it may be worth.
Senator HUNT.Judge Van Roden, we do not follow the location
of that.
Judge VAN RODEN.Next to the last paragraph, the first column.
Now, then, the next colun~n,the fourth paragraph from the top, it
says, "After this investigation ancl after talking to all sides." Now,
those words should go out. I may have said, and probably have no rea-
son to know why I should not have said the rest of that paragraph, "I
do not believe that the German people knew what the German Gov-
ernment was doing."
I am sure that 1s so, because I have talked to many Germans over
there, as we all did when in Europe.
Now, the T - ~ y last paragraph on page 21 there, the first page, "Lieu-
tenanant Colonel Ellis and Lieutenant Perl of the prosecution
pleaded." Now, Lieutenant Colonel Ellis' nanle should not be in-
cluded in there.
I may have said, probably did say, that Lieutenant Perl of the
prosecution pleaded that i t was difficult to obtain competent evidence.
I got that from some of the records over there. Where I cannot tell.
"It was difficult to secure competent evidence."
Then, the third line there where i t says, "Perl told the court." I
am sure I did not say, ''Per1 told the court." I am not sure Perl was
ever in court. H e may have been. I am sdre I did not say "Per1 told
the court." Someone told, ancl said me had a tough case to crack, and
I say that was so. W e found that i n the papers over there, but I mill
not attribute that to Perl.
Then, the next paragraph, I did not say, "There were no windows."
The words "no windows" should got out. There mast be windows
there. I think we learnecl in some of the cases they were very small,
but I did not say "no windows."
Now, i n I11 you see there, "Our ~nvestigationswould p u t a black
hood." Now, there is where I quoted from Colonel Everett's petition.
I said "Colonel Everett had said that is what had happened," and
t h a t paragraph should be attributed to Colonel Everett's petition
and his charges.
Now, i n the next paragraph m-here i t says "All but two of the Ger-
mans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had been kicked in the testicles
beyond repair," I did not say that. W h a t I said was that all but two
were recommended for conunutation to life imprisonment, and the
other two for other sentences. I do not know how many we heard
o r how many may or may not have been kicked or kneed i n the testi-
cles. W e learned some had been but that figure is absolutely wrong.
I do not know how many were kicked or abused in the testicles.
I n the very next paragraph, "Per1 admitted use of mock trials."
No, I do not think Perl admitted that, and therefore I struck that
out, but i t was admitted on the record, and the papers that we examined,
that these mock trials took place.
I understand that some members of the Army, some officers, have
said that these were not mock trials ; they were ceremonies. Whether
they call them ceremonies, as they do i n the record, or whether they
are called mock trials seems to me to be a play upon words, and we
did find that there was the admission of the use of the system of mock
trials, and that is joined i n with by Colonel Simpson and Colonel Law-
rence i n our report, as you already know, and I have said t h e same
thing here, as we said i n our report.
The last p a r t of that paragraph was quoting what the prosecution
said about the fact that of course all testimony was received.
Right down there wbere the words are quoted: .'I wiii not utter
another lie," I think that is, shall I say, a bombastic statement or a
more colorful statement that I did not use that way. I know I have
saicl that the record we fouilcl there was that this one boy, Freimuth,
had committed suicide in his cell rather than sign these papers. Now,
we learned there were 16 pages written out by him which we under-
stood were not signed, but Colonel Ellis tells me he signed every page.
That is news to me. Until Colonel Ellis told me, I did not know
that.
The records m-e had over there indicated that when he committed
suicide the paper was incoinplete, ancl that was, as such, offered in
evidence at the trial of the case.
I have almost finished, I think.
XOW,in the nest column, gentlemen, I crossed off the words 'dimly
light" in the first paragraph. That does not make any difference.
I do not know how the rooms were light. There were two candles
there and the crucifix, everyone admits including the prosecution staff.
That is not important. These words about the prosecutor or investi-
gator telling them that they would not have their American trial-
the defendant was told-I think that again is a bit of an exaggera-
tion of what I said, that they thought they were having, the records
indicated they thought they were getting, their American trial.
That is the conclusion me reached from the nature of these cere-
monies as they are called by the prosecution or the mock trials as
they are called by the defendant, that they thought they were get-
ting their American trial. That is the impression we had which,
'
after all, is only a conclusion.

Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I understand that Judge Van
Roden will undoubteclly want to testify further after he has read the
charges made by the major. And I understand no other witnesses
besides the judge are going to testify tonight. I f that is the situa-
tion, I an1 going to ask to be excused.
Senator HUNT.All right, Judge.
Senator BALDWIN.Excuse me a minute, Judge.
Would you have any objection, Senator, if instead of trying to keep
the judge here, supposing he could read the statements made by Major
Fanton and then submit what he might want to submit in the way of a
letter. Would that save any time?
Senator M~CAFWIIT. I have no objection a t all.
Judge VANEODEN.NOW,I did say that "The court passed a sham
sentence of death," because I got those words from some of the papers
we examined over there. The source, I do not know. I said the pa-
pers read indicated there had been a sham sentence of death passed
upon the accased.
Now, whether I said "He was told he would hang in a few days,"
I do not know, but I know we found in the papers there that the
accused believed they were to be hung as a result of the sentence of
death which they are supposed to have received a t these ceremonies
or mock trials.
I am again referring to the papers that we examined.
They may have been the papers furnished by the defendants or by
their counsel or by other organizations. I am not sure of the source
of that information. It was not a t the actual trial of the case. of
course.
It says here, "We were shocked by the crucifix being used so mock-
ingly." T h a t is not quite accurate.
We were first of all shocked abont it, but what has been said here
we learned to be true. I said, I think a t that same meeting, we did
learn i t is customary i n that part of Germany where most are Roman
Catholics, to use the crucifix to take an oath instead of the Bible.
Why they had the candles there we did not know. We thought that
was part of the psychology used to secure these confessions.
Now the next paragraph :
I n another case, a bogus Catholic priest (actually an investigator) entered the
cell of one of the defendants, lfeard his confession, gave him absolution and then
gave him a little friendly tip : Sign whatever the inrestigators asli you to sign."
Gentlemen, I will say part of that is accurate. The other p a r t may
be somewhat of a n elaboration.
I am not sure that I said that we found that from the petition of
the accused, and of course not i n the record of trial. Mny I say also to
you. sirs, that i t is my recollection-and me spoke to Colonel Everett
in Washington before we made our report in writing and orally to
the Secretary of the Army-that he a t that time told us that that
had happened and we got that, of course, from his lips here i n this
country.
We had found out from his petitions over there in Germany, and
he went into some detail about how that was secured, and I am sure
when I made those remarks I quoted Colonel Everett or the petitioner
as having made that accusation.
W e did find in addition to Colonel Everett's petition, some records
over there to the effect that there were men either posturing as priests
or representing themselves to be Roman Catholic priests. Who they
Rere I do not know. It was very vague and very indefinite.
Now the third and last column just above the Roman figure IV,
that paragraph is absolutely not my statement. A s a matter of fact
that information about five Germans having been ordered hung was not
even known to me, and probably did not even exist a t the time Mr.
Finucane spoke to me on the telephone.
I spoke to Mr. Finucane about it. As I recall it-he will correct
me if I am wrong-he said he got that information from somebody
I think in New York or Washington and said :
We just found this out about i t and they decided to put that in there because
i t made a more complete story.
I did not even know about the fact of these persons being hung.
I s that correct, Mr. Finucane? Did we not talk about that paragraph?
Mr. FINUCANE. T h a t part of that particular paragraph, yes.
I hope the committee will remember that we would like to make
comments on your comments on the article.
Judge VANRODEN.T h a t is up to the committee. I am just telling
you what I know.
Senator HUNT.I might just say, judge, we will call the gentleman
who wrote this article later on in the hearing.
Judge VANRODEN.I think there are about two more here. I did
not say that "the American investigators who committed the atroci-
ties in the name of American jnstice and under the American flag are
going scot free.',
I do not recall making any comment about that. Of course the
investigators are not on trial. I do not think they are even on trial
here today. I do not want the committee to think I am trying them or
prosecuting them, but of course they are subject to examination a t
the proper time, and I think they should be because of the informa-
tion we had developed and submitted to the Secretary of the Army.
Now paragraph No. 2 there which reads :
American investigators who abused the powers of victory and prostituceu
justice to vengeance, should be exposed i n a public process, preferably in tnt:

United States, and prosecuted-
I do not believe I said anything as extreme as that.
I may have said that these investigators, if they have done thest:
things, should be called to account for it, which I firmly believe.
If they have done these things and it is proven, I think you as a
committee would be the first ones to call them to account. If they have
not done it, then of course that would not be done.
Now the rest of the information in this article here I think, gentle-
men, is accurate. I either said i t in those words or have no objection
to it being attributed to me.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The record now shows the edited edition of the
article in the Progressive, and I do have two questions, judge, that I
would like to ask you on that, particularly in regard to these American
investigators.
Now you said that you were not a t all sure that yon used this
precise language, but that you felt that if they had done these things,
that they should be certainly interrogated, and if necessary, punished.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOWI woud like to ask you, sir, is it not a fact that
you have drawn certain conclusions in these items which you have
left in your article which clearly would indicate that in your own
mind at least they are guilty of these things because i t has already led
to a very substantial belief on your part that they are guilty of these
things, and yet you arrived a t that conclusion without having a single
one of these people in to tell their side of the story?
Judge VANRODEN.Well, of course you may if you wish defend the
investigators, sir, but I think this committee 1s supposed to be im-
partial and not to defend the investigators unless you hear the other
side, colonel.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I might say, judge, that you are the first witness,
sir, whom we have had here from whom we have been able to get
such complete and frank answers on this point, and i t is most helpful
because in our effort to find the facts in this case, I think it is necessary
to try to get the record complete as to all the various facets of it.
Now there is no question in my mind, and I Bin sure in the minds of
all of us, that some of the investigators feel that they have been con-
victed without having been given a trial. It appears from the record
and from this article that you have written that at least in your own
case you felt there was reason to believe that they had done things
which seemed improper in the way of the treatment and brutality, and
that being true I wanted the record t'o show-and I am certainly not
trying to cover up for them-that in arriving a t those conclusions
apparently there was no evidence in the record from the people about
whonl these conclusions have been drawn.
Juclge VANRODEN.I n the record of trial itself, you mean.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n the record of trial or in the record of the Simp-
son coininittee report.
Judg VAN RODEN.YOU are wrong on that. May I read this?
[Reading :]
Moreover, the prosecution testimony in this case was made up in large part of
the extrajudicial statements of the accused. Many of these statements impli-
cated to a damaging degree t h e other accused. Admittedly some of the state-
ments were obtamed by the use of lnocli trials in vhlch one or nlore persons
attired a s American officers pretended to preside a s judges and others attirect
in Army officers' uniforms pletended to be the prosecutor and defender of the
accused.
The room where these proceedings were held contained a table corered with
black cloth on which stood a crucifix and burning candles. The accused was
conducted to this room with a black hood over his head. The nloclt trials were
designed among other things to gain the confidence of the accused in his supposed
defense attorney, and thus elicit a statement from him.
Other practices, some of which were not brought out during the trial, were
developed in the testimony before the Administration of Justice Review Board
for the European Command a s reflected in its report of August 18, 1848.
The propriety of many of the methods enlplo~edto secure statements from
the accused is highly questionable, and me conclude cannot be condoned. The
extent to which the use of these methods operated to elicit statments from the
accused cannot, in the nature of the situation, be accurately estimated. Suf-
ficient doubt, however, is cast upon the entire proceedings because of these
factors to make i t unwlse in our opinion t o proceed with the executions of the
death sentences which have been confirmed.
That is the Siinpson report, and I think that in a few words sum-
marizes what I am saying to you here in this investigation.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, Judge. I accept that completely, sir.
The only thing I am trying to say is that insofar as the brutality and
the mistreatment is concerned, yon did not call in any of these folks to
get their guidance on the story.
Juclge VANRODEN.We could not, sir. If they were not there, ,we
could not call upon them.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Now there v a s one other think I would like to ask
about because it is important. I would like to h o w what was the
Simpson committee's understanding of this solitary confinement thing.
Judge VANRODEN.We thought that was not too bad. I have said
that in talks I have made.
I have had some experience as a prosecuting officer in our county.
1may have told it to you before. I recognize the fact if you have a
number of codefendants and if they are not kept separated, they are
bound to get together and make up a defense and a story, and they
have to be kept separated.
I have said that, I think, down a t that club that night. The solitary
confinement which was complaiiied about here was not so bad. It
had to be done.
I do think though that being kept there for 2 or 3 or 4 months, as
Colonel Ellis told nze, was rather a long time to keep a man in a cell
with no exercise and no reading matter.
We found they had no opportunity to consult any clergy or see
their families or their lawyers until shortly before the trial. To me
that was a rather exaggerated prolonged solitary confinement. That
is my own personal oplnlon.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 31'7
I think it had to be done. I think i t was overdone a bit, but I think
that is not too questionable.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have no further questions, sir.
Senator HUNT.Senator Baldwin, do you have any further questions?
Senator BALDWIN.I have no further questions. Thank you very
much, Judge, for coming down and helping us out.
Judge VANRODEN.Let me say one more thing. I do not want you
to feel I have any sides in this matter. I suggest, in answer to Colo-
nel Chambers' question, we made our report in September. Some-
body has waited for a period of 7 or 8 months to start this investi-
gation.
I should not say that; if it had been done more promptly, if the
investigators were available, they would have been heard and the
investigators would not be under a cloud as they have been all these
months. Of course, the wheels of justice turn slowly. These investi-
gations have been suggested and have been opposed, and have been
fought by various people in Washington.
It seems to me that what you are doing now, gentlemen, is a very
splendid thing. It should have been done a little more promptly, but,
of course, i t is too late to say that now.
I feel that this committee will have the benefit of hearing these
investigators. It was not our duty. It is more or less your job, per-
haps, now, and if they have clean bills of health, I will be the first
one to say "Hurrah"; but the information that we got over there, we
were bou)id to -eport to the Secretary of the Army. I t was our duty.
That is all we did.
I am not taking any sides. I f these things happened, they are very,
very bad. I f they did not happen, let them come in and say it did
not happen.
Senator BALDWIN.I think, as you have already testified, Judge Van
Roden, your primary job was to review this thing on the basis of the
record and not on the basis of the examination of witnesses, in an
effort to retry the case.
Judge VANRODEN.That is correct, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. But in the process of the thing you did examine
some witnesses in connection with the trial. For example, you talked
to one of the judges, I think Colonel Rosenfeld.
Judge VANRODEN.Lam member of the court who corresponds to
a judge, shall we say 8
Senator BALDWIN.But you did make no attempt to bring in those
who had taken part in the investigation and the prosecution.
Judge VANRODEN.I will not say that.
Senator BALDWIN. Because they were not available.
Judge VANRODEN.I think that Colonel Simpson, who had charge
of this, got all the names of the persons who were available from
Colonel Bresee, who mas Chief of War Crimes. I believe he is back
in this country, or he is supposed to arrive very shortly.
As I recall it, Colonel Simpson-this may be my imagination-I
believe he secured from him the names of all the persons who were
available, and I think that the list we have here are the names of all
persons who were available to be examined by us over there in Ger-
many, altho~zghI am not sure. That was Colonel Simpson's job as
chairman of this board, and that is all I know about it.
Senator BALDWIN.I may be wrong about this, but it is my rec-

ollection-and I would like you to correct me if my recollection is
not correct-that of the actual witnesses that you interviewed, I think
you said there were only two who were actually connected with
Malmedy.
Judge VANRODEN.Well, I am not sure of that. Colonel Rosenfeld,
the law member of the court, and 1have forgotten whether Lieutenant
Moody was i n the Malmedy case or not.
Colonel ELLIS. H e was the reviewer at headquarters. H e never
worked on the Malinedy case that I know of, even on review.
Judge VANRODEN.W e of course talked to Colonel Harbaugh, but
he was the judge advocate for General Clay. H e Rzve us all the in-
formation that he could. W e tallred to Colonel Dyinnel who was
defense counsel in Washington before we left.
I believe when we returned to Washington after we came back from
Gernzany, Colonel Simpson saw him. I did not see him, but I believe
Colonel Simpson saw him. W e did talk to him before we went to
Germany as one of the defense counsel, and he is still a lieutenant
colonel in the Regular Army.
T h e rest of them, Senator, I do not know. I guess they probably
were representing the defendants, but they were only persons who, we
were able to ascertain, were available.
Senator BALDWIN.J u s t one further question, if I might ask it,
Mr. Chairman.
I am referring to the testimony on page 545 of the record of Judge
Simpson. I asked this question :
The one question I had in mind that I didn't ask you, unless I may have asked
it of you before, was this: From a review of all of the records and a n examina-
tion of all these witnesses, mere you convinced i n your own mind that the
men for whom you recommended that death sentences be imposed were actually
present and took part in the proceedings and that there was competent evidence
upon which to establish their guilt?
T o which Mr. Simpson replied :
Now, Senator, we didn't recommend that any of these death sentences be
imposed. We recommended that all 12 death sentences be commuted because
for the reason stated in our report here, and I will say for the added reason
that we were not satisfied with the regularity of those pretrial investigations
and didn't want to see anybody hung in a proceeding which had that particular
blemish.
Senator BALDWIN. As I remember, you said before you felt that on the testi-
mony and on the record these men were guilty, but that there was a question in
your mind as to whether or not the evidence against the man had been procured
in such a way that i t warranted the lightening of their sentences.
Judge Simpson's answer to that is : "That is correct."
Then I said : "But you felt convinced in your own mind from read-
ing the record that they were guilty," and Judge Simpson said, "That
is correct, Senator."
Do you agree with that 2
Judge VANRODEN.No, sir. T h a t was not my understanding. My
mental reaction was I did not know whether they were guilty or not.
Senator BALDWIN.There was a doubt in your mind?
Judge VAN RODEN.Serious doubt. I did not know whether they
were guilty o r not. H e may have felt they were guilty.
Senator BALDWIN. I think that answers the question.
Judge VANRODEN.They may have been.
,XALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 319

Mr. CHAMBERS. Judge Van Roden, I have one further question. As
I understand it, your prime endeavor was to run down and search
out pretty carefully the record on these 12 death sentences in the
Malmedy case ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. And that inevitably led you into some of these other
cases, bat yon did not make a full-dress study of the remaining 61
cases?
Judge VANRODEN.That is correct; we did not.
Mr. C H A J ~ E R So
S . that these various charges and what not really
stemmed out of those 12 cases and not the Malmedy cases as a whole?
Judge VANRODEN.I cannot say that is so because they may have
stemmed out of all the cases.
As far as we know, we read the record of trial which of coarse cov-
ered all '73 who were tried. Then we confined our study of the.peti-
tions, the post-trial petitions that were filed, and sent to the various
boards of review to the 12 who had received the death penalty, be-
cause if we had gone over the entire 73, we would never have gotten
through up until now, so we confined our study outside of the actual
trial record to those 12 cases.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Judge, was there ever any doubt in your mind that
these Malinedy defendants were members of the S S organization?
Jnclge VANRODEN.I do not think so except that I had the impres-
sion that the SS was not part of the German Army. It was Hitler's
own force.
I t was not the German regular Army as we all know, but they prob-
ably were S S troopers. Whether they were the pick of the crop, I do
not think that is true. They came from the Russian front. They
could not have been the pick of the crop, but that is a matter of
judgment.
They may have been good soldiers. I guess they were. That is all
a matter of personal opinion.
Senator HUNT. Well, Judge, unless you have read Major Fantons'
statement of this afternoon and you care to inake a written statement
to us in reference to that statement, then I think that your duties to
this committee have ended. We are very grateful for your coming
down and giving us your time.
Judge VANRODEN.May I thank you all for being so courteous to
me, including the cross-examinat'ion.
(Whereupon, at 5 : 10 p. ni., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon-
vene at 10 a. m., Friday, May 6, 1949, in room 135 Senate Office
Building.)
MALXEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
FRIDAY, MAY 6, 1949
UNITEDSTATESSENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE COMMITTEE
ON ARMEDSERVICES,
Washington, D. C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, a t 10 : 15 a. m.,
in room 135, Senate Office Building, Senator Raymond E. Baldwin
presiding.
Present : Senators Baldwin (presiding) and Kefauver.
Also present Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Colonel Ellis, and Mr. J.
M. Chambers of the committee staff.
Senator BALDWIN. Senator McCarthy, I want to say this for the
benefit of the record. Senator Hunt could not be here this morning,
because he is working on the District sales tax. I have tried to reach
Senator Kefauver, and he has not yet gotten to his office. I do not
know whether you want to go on with this cross-examination, perhaps
with Mr. Chambers.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me make it absolutely clear. I have no
objection whatsoever to the Senator from Connecticut occupying the
chair. As f a r as I am concerned, he has not been a t all unfair. H e has
given me every opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, and I have
no conceivable objection to the Senator from Connecticut occupying
the chair. I will object to a member of the staff occupying the chair.
Senator BALDWIN.Let us make one more effort to get Senator
Kef auver.
Senator MCCARTHY. I do not see any reason, Senator, why you
should not occupy the chair.
Senator BALDWIN.I would prefer not t o while Major Fanton is on
the stand.
Senator MCCARTHY. Why do you not occupy the chair, and if you
think my cross-examination is such that there should be somebody
here to object, let us wait for sonieone else. I am sure there will be no
objection to my examination of this fellow. I have no intention what-
soever of abusing him. I intend to examine him at great length on
this thing.
Senator BALDWIN.Suppose we wait another 10 minutes.
We might start with another witness. We will put on these other
witnesses. I hate to lose time here.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Major Evans, will you take the chair, please, sir?
Senator BALDWIN.Will you hold up your right hand, sir?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in the
but the truth to the best of your knowledge and belief, so help you
God ?
Mr. EVANS.I do.
321
Senator BALDWIN.Will you give us your full name and address

for the benefit of the record?
Mr. EVANS.John Temple Evans, Crystal City, Tex.
Senator BALDWIN.And what presently is your business?
Mr. EVANS.I work for the Farmers Home Administration, De-
partment of Agriculture, county supervisor.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW long have you been there?
Mr. EVANS.I have been a t thls location about 2 years.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,Colonel Chambers, do you want to ques-
tion this witness further ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. DOyou have any prepared statement that you care to
read.
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir; I have an affidavit that I have prepared.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe before you give that affidavit, perhaps
you should tell us what your connection was with Schn-abisch Hall and
with the Malmedy case, so we will know in what capacity you were
involved.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN TEMPLE EVANS, CRYSTAL CITY, TEX.
Mr. EVANS. It was in the last part of 1945, I was on duty with the
Six Hundred and Thirtieth Tank Destroyer Battalion. My duties
with the battalion was that of battalion executive with headquarters
stationed in Ba.d Mergentl~eim. I n the latter part of the year, our
battalion received orders to take over the Schwabisch Hall prison.
Senator MCCARTHY. I missed the date; I am sorry.
Mr. EVANS.That is the latter part of 1945. .
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was that November of 1945?
Mr. EVANS.I would say about November of 1945, we took the prison
over. A little later on we received orders to accept this special group
of prisoners, what is known as the Malmedy prisoners.
About the latter part of December, somewhere between the eight-
eenth and the end of the month, I was ordered to take command.
of the prison. I was supposed to be there for just a week or 10 days.
However, I remained there until I was returned home in the first part
of May, as prison commander.
Senator MCCARTHY. May of 1946 ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. S i r ; was there anybody in charge of the prison
before yon took over, or were yon the first commancllng officer?
Mr. EVANS.NO,sir ; I was not the first commanding officer. There
was a Captain Tormey.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Captain Tormey was not there during the time that
the Malmedy prisoners were at Schwabisch Hall ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. H e was there?
Mr. EVANS.He was there.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Very well, sir. Now, you say that you left Schwa-
bisch Hall in May 19468
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,who relieved you a t that time?
Mr. EVANS.Well, there was a lieutenant. I cannot recall his name.
He was a second lieutenant with the Second Chemical Mortar Bat-
talion. I cannot recall his name a t this time.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did the tank destroyer battalion remain as guards
throughout the year a t that time?
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir; the tank destroyer battalion was returned, but
1 was transferred with my staff a t that time to a Fifty-eighth Field
Artillery Battalion. Our Fifty-eighth Field Artillery Battalion
maintained their headquarters in Schwabisch Hall.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And were they American troops?
Mr. EVANS.They were American troops.
Mr. CHAMBERS. A t
any time did you have other than American
troops under your command ?
Mr. EVANS.We had Polish employees ; Polish guards, y e call them.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When were they employed a t the prison, all the
time, or did they come a t a later date?
Mr. EVANS.They came at a later date. They came about, I think,
the middle of March, as best as I can remember.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,I believe you say you have an affidavit or pre-
pared statement you would like to read. Will you do that, please?
Mr. EVANS(reading) :
The State of Texas, County of Zavala.
Before me, R. A. Taylor, Jr., a notary public in and for Zavala County, Tex.,
on this day personally appeared John Temple Evans, known to me to be the person
whose name hereunto subscribed, and after having been by me duly sworn, oh
his oath says:
My name i s John Temple Evans and I live a t Crystal City, Zavala County, Tex.
Being a reserve officer, I was ordered to extended actire duty in the Army, effec-
tive February 28, 1942, and was relieved from further active duty and reverted
to Inactive status effective September 20, 1946.
On or about December 1, 1945, I was serving a s executive officer with the Six
Hundred and Thirtieth Tank Destroyer Battalion with headquarters a t Bad
Mergentheim, Wurtemberg, Germany. My rank was t h a t of captain of Field
Artillery, Army serial No. 0-23824. Among other duties, the battalion was
charged with tKe security and administration of t h e Seventh Army Internee
Prison No. 2, which was located a t Schwabisch Hall. On the above date, and in
the temporary absence of the battalion commander, I made arrangements to
receive a t the Schwabisch Hall prison certain special prisoners charged with
serious war crimes. These were principally former members of the First S. S.
Panzer Regiment and were commonly known a s the Malmedy prisoners. On
orders from higher authority we were to exercise special surveillance to prevent
con~municationbetween prisoners a s much a s possible.
On or about December 18, 1945, I was ordered to take command of the prison
a t Schwabisch Hall and I ~ e m a i n e da t this assignment until May 5, 1946, when
I was orclered to return to t h e zone of the interior for separation from service.
Although two other organizations succeeded the Six Hundred and Thirtieth
T. D. Battalion in jurisdiction, I, a s well a s my prison staff, was transferred
to these succeeding organizations.
As prison commander, it was my duty to see t h a t prisoners or internees were
guarded to prevent escape, fed, clothed, received suitable beds, received medical
and dental care, order punishment for infraction of the prison rules if necessary,
and other general administrative functions, and to make the prisoners available
to the War Crimes Investigation team for interrogation.
The kitchen was inspected by either myself or a subordinate, and i n addition
the distribution of food to the Malmedy prisoners was checked daily to see t h a t
they got their p r o ~ o r t i o n a t eshare. The ration a t the prison was from 2,300 to
2,500 calories daily. This was above the regular basic prison ration because
of the large amount of fresh potatoes and sauerkraut in storage a t the prison
when taken over a s a n internee prison. The quality of bread was improved by
drawing bread components and baking in the prison bakery. This ration was
much above the German civilian ration which was about 1,700 calories a t t h a t
time, a s I recall. In addition all prisoners received the tobacco or other special
ration t h a t was available. No food or other ration was withheld unless the
prisoner was placed on bread and water ration, a s punishment for violation of
some one or more of the prison rules, and in conformance with the Rules of Land
Warfare, and only after record was properly entered in the company punishment
book. Solitary confinement with bread and water ration, or separately, was for
violation of the prison rules and was entered i n the prison record.
Senator MCCARTHY. What ?
Mr. EVANS.Solitary copfinement with bread and water ration, or
separately, mas for violation of the prison rules and was entered in
the prison record. All such records were at all times available to
the War Crimes-
Senator MCCARTHY. Either bread or water ?
Mr. EVANS. Or soIitary confinement or both.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will YOU read that sentence again?
Mr. EVARS(reading) :
Solitary confinement with bread and water ration, or separately, was for
violation of the prison rules and was entered in the prison record. All such
records were a t all times arailable to the War Crimes Investigating team and
upon my departure mere turned over to my successor.
The prison was we11 heated. To assure adequate heat a t a11 times, t h e central
heating system was converted to oil burning. Heat for entire wings was con-
trolled from the main boiler plant and could not be regulated for individual cells.
I know of no time that heat was purposely withheld from any individual or any
part of the prison in which there were occupants.
Daily inspections by me or my prison staff were made of the Malmedy prison-
e r s in their cells. This was for the purpose of ascertaining the general clean-
l h e s s of the cell and occupant, and to check the general well-being of prisoners.
On asking if they got enough to eat, the answer was always a n unhestitating "jaw
(yes). On no occasion clid I see or hear about a prisoner who was beaten up or
injured in any way, neither do I know of any instance where blanliets were
denied.
The prison plant included a well-equipped dispensary and a dental chair.
An interne, a minor Nazi was the prison doctor. A clentist who had a private
practice in Schwabisch Hall did the work for the prison on a contract basis.
H e and a technician came to the prison to perform the work on a prearranged
schedule. I know nothing of this dentist other than he had been screened by
the Counter Intelligence Corps. I observed much of his work and he appeared
t o be a first-class dentist. On none of the patients did I see any evidence of
recent violence. These services and those of a n internee barber were available
to all prisoners. A written memorandum was sent to my office each day listing
those patients treated for medical or dental ills.
A Protestant minister and a Catholic priest were allowed access to the prison.
I know of no instance in which their services were denied.
During the time that I was in command of the prison I had daily contact
with the War Crimes Investigating team. Never was I interfered with or
prevented from performing my duties by any member of the team. I was
never denied access to any prisoner. I neither saw nor heard of any miscon-
duct on the part of any member of the investigating team during the course
of their interrogations. The team appeared to be most conscientious and it
always seemed to me t h a t they were bending over backward, so to speak, to
obtain information with duress, applied force, or threats.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUmean "without"; I assume you meant
"without duress."
Senator BALDWIN.DOyou want to read that sentence again?
Mr. EVANS(reading) :
To obtain information without duress, applied force, or threats.

I t is my present belief and recollection that I personally saw every prisoner
a t least once every week during the period of m r command, and I never at
any time saw or heard anything t h a t would indicate misconduct or violation
of rules and regulations on the part of any American military or civilian
personnel.
I am informed that a s against American military personnel and particularb'
against members of the War Crimes Investigating team allegations have been
made of misconduct against the prisoners, such allegations being listed a s
follows :
Punching the prisoners in the face with brass knuckles.

Beating them with rubber hoses.
Knocking their teeth out.
Breaking arms and jaws.
Solitary confinement (as distinguished from close confinement).
Posturing a s priests.
Withdrawal of blankets in winter.
Purposely withholding heat.
Allowing very limited rations.
10. Refusing to permit spiritual comfort and guidance.
11. Kicking prisoners in testicles.
12. Starving prisoners or causing them to be starved.
I here and now categorically deny each and every such allegation. I t was
impossible for me, of course, to personally inspect and see every prisoner every
day, but I did see all prisoners on a n average of once each week. I had good
officers and good enlisted personnel serving under me. I trusted them and be-
lieved in them and still do. I had their confidence, trust, and respect. I can
confidently say that if any prisoner had been so mistreated, I would have either
seen evidence of i t myself or i t would have been reported to me.
About 2 or 3 weeks-a very shorbperiod of time-before I left to return to the
zone of the interior, I saw all of these prisoners together. They were being
moved to another prison, I forget where. I noted their appearance. None
showed any evidence of abuse or mistreatment, and the thing that impressed
me most mas, and I remarked about it, how f a t they had gotten.
I therefore state that such allegations a r e not true, and that no such act of
misconduct, as alleged, occurred, a t lea'st not during the period of time I was
in command.
I t is my belief that no such acts a s alleged occurred before I took over command.
More the affiant saith not.
Senator BALDWIN. Do you want to ask questions?
Mr. EYANS.I mould like to add one thing. About the prison doc-
tors, n-e used the prison staff, the attorneys, only in emergencies.
They were used only in emergencies, this prison doctor that we had,
a Gerinan.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, on that question of medical and dental care,
did you know the name of this dentist who treated the Malmedy pris-
oners for dental matters ?
Mr. E1-L4x~. 50,sir ; I do not know his name.
Mr. CHAMBERS. We have an affidavit from a Dr. Knorr.
Mr. EVANS.
That sounds familiar.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
that refresh your menlory?
Does
Mr. EVAXS.That sounds familiar; yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Dr. Knorr has submitted an affidavit. It is very
short. It is already in the record, but I will read it again for your
information. H e says :
I n my capacity a s official doctor of the former prison a t Schwabisch Hall,
I came there twice a week (generally on Tuesday and Thursday) to attend
also to the dental needs of the internal people. These duties several times
involved the treatment of members of the Waffen-SS (all of them very young
men) who were to be heard in the Malmedy trial. Unfortunately I cannot give
any names, as i t was forbidden to ask for names or other particulars. There
may have been about 15 to 20 patients who had to be treated for injuries of the
mouth and jaw. Maltreatments by blows could be clearly traced with nearly
all of them.
Once when I asked a young man bow he was, he replied : "What can you expect
if rou are beaten so much almost daily, a t a n any rate on the occasion of every
hearing; look a t my head." And indeed he was beaten blue all over t h e head
which was bloodshot. Moreover, I can definitely remember two cases in one of
which one tooth, and the other one four teeth, were knocked out of the upper jaw
quite recently. Besides there was once presented to me a man with a rupture
of the lower jaw which I was allowed to put in a provisional splint only because
he was transferred to a n American hospital a t once. All of the men gave a very
intimidated impression and answered the questions either not a t all or very
vaguely for their statements might be the cause of further maltreatments.
I t is known to me that people residing in the vicinity of the prison could defl-
nitely hear the cries of pain of the tortured men. That is why there was much
agitation and indignation among the population.
Now, this is signed by Dr. Knorr and attested to by a notary public,
and because this is a photostat, apparently his signature does not ap-
pear, but there is a signatnre of a man by the name of Pike who was
Chief of the Translation Section, who certified to the thing.
I would like to ask your comments on that particular affidavit.
Mr. EVANS.I n my inspection of the prison, I was in the prison dis-
pensary each day. They had this chair there which he came with an
assistant. I remember one patient who was an internee. H e mas not
a Malmedy prisoner. He was %n internee not charged with mar
crimes, as far as I know, that did have a rupture. Now, how he got
it-it had been there for quite a long time.
I remember he was telling me hcw he mas going to e~rentuallyheal
that up, but now this man was not a Waffen-SS in the Malmedy case.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,were you there a t the time that any of these
Malmedy prisoners were treated?
Mr. EVANS.I f they mere treated there-I remember no one inci-
deut-bnt if they were treated they would be with one of our guards
with him at that time. It would be only on an emergency case.
Mr. CHAMBBRS. Was it the general practice to have these Malmedy
prisoners treated by Dr. Knorr or the dentist who visited the prison?
Mr. EVANS.It was not the practice to have this doctor treat the
prisoners.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did they get their dental care if he did not do it ?
Mr. EVANS. They went to either Ludwigsburg or Bad Mergentheim.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Evans, were there any records kept of these
medical matters ?
So f a r I do not believe this question was asked. Was there any
record made when a man was sent over for medical care as to what
was wrong with him or anythingof the kind?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir; each day there was a report of anyone who
had been treated both medically and dental by the local dispensary.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is, the local dispensary that mould be treat-
ing the internees. How about the Malmedy prisoners?
Mr. EVANS. I f they were treated there-
Mr. CHAMBERS. But was there any medical record kept of the
Malmedy prisoners who were sent out for treatment ?
Mr. EVANS.I do not remember about that, but I am sure there are
records of them being sent, because me kept the records on transferring
them to the various places.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, over a period of some 4 or 5 months it mould
be entirely possible that Dr. Knorr could have treated about 15 to 20
Malmedy patients?
Mr. EVANS.I do not think SO. It would be only in an emergency
case, very much of an emergency, and only then with a guard, with
one of the American guards or a Polish guard present, and I know
of no instance that it happened.
Mr. CHARIBERS. Well, now, in connection with your supervision of
these Malmedy prisoners as distinct from the internees, I believe you
testified that you saw each of them a t least once a week.
Mr. EVANS.Once a week, approximately once a week.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
During that time was there ally evidence, or did

you see anybody, or did anybody complain to you that they were being
mistreated either by the guards or this prosecution staff?
Mr. EVANS.NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOU

mean, all the time you were there, nobody said
they got shoved around or pushed around or anything?
Mr. EVANS.NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During

the course of this period of time there was
a man by the name of Freimutll, one of the accused, who committed
suicide.
Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
there have been many statements made, some
Now,
dealing with whether or not his uncompleted affidavit should have
been put in the record, but others dealing with the way he died and
the things he said just before he died.
Now, did you, as commanding officer of the prisons or the prison,
make an investigation of the suicide of Freimuth?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
you tell us what yon found; what you know
Will
about it ?
Mr. EVANS.I n this particular block, it is a large cell block, there
were two guards on there a t all times. I n the inside of the prison they
carried clubs, and I believe about 8 o'clock, it mas a standard operating
procedure, the case-this particular ilight. I ma3 called by telephone
from the guardhouse that a man had h ~ m ghimself. Well, I told them
to take him down, try to get him back. I told them to do that, that
I would be right down. I rushed down, but the guards had not done
that. They had not gone into the room, so I went with the guards into
the room, and he had hung himself, or more or less strangled himself,
I tried, before I left my quarters, to contact the investigating team
doctor, medical officer. I could not get in touch with him, so I went
down and I had the local doctor, the German medical doctor, come
over to try to revive him, but he checked him very thoroughly and said
there was no chance, that he had been dead too long to try t o r e ~ i v him
e
and there was nothing else to do a t that time, 4 o'clock in the morning,
or about 4 o'clock. So we laid him on this bed and covered him up.
The next morning, I went in as soon as I got back to the prison, about
7: 30 or 8 o'clock and went into the cell again to make a report on it,
and I pnlled the covers back and he was still warm. H e seemed t o be
still warm. I was thinking, again, and I talked to the American
doctor a t that time about, well, how long would he stay warm, -and
he said he would stay warm for quite a long time.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, what did the guards say? Did they hear
any cries, or him shouting or anything of the kind?
Mr. EVANS. I asked the guard, did he not hear anything; and he
said "no". I asked him how did he come to find him in there. He said,
he was making the checks. The lights were on the outside, the peep-
hole. H e was going along making his routine check and found the
man hung; apparently standing up, he first thought. I asked him did
he hear anything like he was trying to-any noise in the cell.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I f this prisoner or any prisoner would raise his voice
so that he could be heard by other prisoners, would the guard ham
been likely to have heard him?
Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir, if the guard had been in the vicinity.
Now, part of the prison I believe was about four stories and the
other about six. It was not full, but it was all open on the inside.
They had balconies on each floor inside. They made the rounds
loetn-een-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Hacl there ever been any reason to suspect Freimnth ?
Hacl yon ever had any difficulty with him? Had he been sick?
Mr. EVANS. I had no knowledge at all of that.
Mr. CHAMBER^. We have heard a great deal about the prison. I
expect you are in a better position to tell us than anyone else. Could
you give us a very brief description of the cells theinselves? Now,
apparently there is some difference between solitary confinenlent and
close confinement. What that technical difference is, I am not pre-
pared to say, but I would like to l z a o ~how
, these cells were arranged.
Were they as comfortable as any prison cell would normally be? Just
what is the story on it ?
Mr. EVANS. I thought it mas very comfortable for prisoners. I
intended to bring some photographs that I had. They were not very
good, but I could not locate them.
The prison was first built in about 1848. It had later on been built
onto. This particular cell block that was the newest part, I cannot
recall the number of rooms, but it was fixed up very well with very
good bunks in it.
Then, there was the old part that was-it was a wing that went
around in a half circle. These Malmedy prisoners were also located
in that part. I n fact, the Nalniedy prisoners mere located in the
best part of the prison.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, did these cells have normal bunks in them?
Mr. EVANS. They ha'd bunks, and they had straw mattresses, the
regular prison mattress that had been there.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did they have toilets in the cells?
Mr. EVANS.
Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

they have wash basins, or anything of the kind?
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That

brings up a second question then, because
there have been allegations made in the affidavits that frequently they
were unable to get drinking water, and I suspect there are 20 affi-
davits a t least in there that said they had to drink water from the toi-
let. How mould they normally get drinking water if there was no
running water in there?
Mr. EVANS.It would be brought in with the meals.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Only at mealtime. Suppose they wanted a drink
between meals?
Mr. EVANS.They were left the equipment in there. All they could
do was to call the guard.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Would the guard bring them water? Was that a
part of their instructions?
Mr. EVANS. We had the internees there that would do that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well now, I have one other question I would like
to ask you about. It concerns an incident which took place along to-
ward the end of 1945 a t which time certain of the prisoners had
apparently scrat,ched or otherwise marked their mess gear, and as
the result of that there has been some testimony before the committee
that either those particular prisoners or all prisoners were placed on
bread and water. Do you know anything about that incident?
Mr. EVANS.I remember seeing the mess kits after they were
scratched on, but I do not remember the incident. Whether I was there
then or not-
Mr. CHAMBERS. This was December 1945.
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir, I mas there in the latter part of December.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, you mentioned earlier in your testimony
that the ,only time a person was placed on bread and water was for
violation of prison regulations.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well,

now, as the result of the scratching of these
mess kits, do you know whether or not there was any punishment
meted out to the prisoners ?
Mr. EVANS.I cannot recall, but if I were there, t h e r ~would be a
record made of it.
Mr. CH-AMBERS. DOYOU ever recall having any discussion with any
of the prosecuting stag concerning this business of bread and water
for prisoners ?
Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir; there was some communication, tapping on
the heating system. That will carry all through the building. It
was in Morse code. I remember in that particular case, they were
given punishmenV;.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. When you say "they," do you mean all the pris-
oners ?
Mr. EVANS.NO; those particular ones that violated the rules.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, you say they were given punishment.
Was the punishment within your purview or was it the responsi-
bility-
Mr. EVANS.It was my responsibility.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What punishment did they get 9
Mr. EVANS.
They either got solitary confinement and bread and
water or one of the two. That was the only punishment that we gave.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO you recall a man by the name of Bailey who
worked with the prosecution staff?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir; I knew Mr. Bailey.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO you recall a party a t the end of the year, about
New Year's Eve, a t which time there was a discussion with Major
Fanton concerning bread and water for the prisoners?
Mr. EVANS.I do not remember the discussion. I remember him
there and probably a t the party. I cannot recall, but I remember him.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, do you recall that you as commanding officer
of the prison guards stated that you were going to take these people
off bread and water and that it was your responsibility, or some such
statement?
Mr. EVANS.NO,sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO ou recall any arguments or discussions with
3;
Major Fanton as to w ether they should be on bread and water o r
not?
Mr. EVANS. NO,sir ;I do not recall anything a t all.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have no more questions.
Senator BALDWIN.How were these prisoners moved from one part
of the prison to the other; that is, the Malmedy prisoners? Assuming
that they were to be taken down to be examined, how were they taken
down?
Mr. EVANS. It was arranged through our provost sergeant. H e
would gather them i n the hall with hoods, a dark hood over their face,
and they were to be led-if they had several of them, one would put
his hand on the other soldier, and they would march down to the
interrogation quarters.
Senator BALDWIN.There has been testimony here that these hoods-
o r a t least the claim made that these hoods were bloody and dirty.
Can you tell us anything about that ?
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir; I do not know that they were dirty or bloody.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever see any?
Mr. EVANS. Yes, s i r ; I inspected them when I first went to the
prison just to see what they were. .
Senator BALDWIN.Were they bloody and dirty ?
Mr. EVANS.NO,sir ; those that I sxw were not.
Sellator BALDWIN.Were you ever present at any of these mock
trials ?
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.I think you have covered i11 your affidavit all
the other facts about the beatings and that sort of thing, and I have
no further questions.
Senator McCarthy, have you any questions of this witness?
Senator MCCARTHY.Are you a native Texan?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MC~ARTITY. Now, as 1understand your testiniony, Major,
you had heard no reports of any beatings. no reports of any niistreat-
inent, nothing at all that was improper cluring all the time that you
were a t Scliwabisch Hall ?
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTIIY.When did you first hear the rumors of mistreat-
ment? Was that during the course of this hearing?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir; about a inonth ago.
Senator MCCARTHY.NOW,mill you think very carefully because I
am going to go into some other matters. Make sure you are correct.
You heard no rumors of mistreatment during all your time at
Schwabisch Hall I!
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Did you ever know that all the men were on
bread and water a t any time?
Mr. EVANS. I do not know that. I do not believe that they were a t
the time that I was a t the prison.
Senator MCCARTHY.Well, do you think you would remember if
on any occasion you p u t the entire Malmedy group on bread and
water?
Mr. EVANS. I think I would; yes, sir.
Senator C CAR THY. You think you would. Major Fanton testi-
fied that all of the Malmedy prisoners were on bread and water for,
I thinlc he said, about a clay or so. Mr. Bailey testified that they were
all on bread and water for either 5 or 6 days.
I n view of Major Fanton's testimony, do you hare any further
comment on that ?
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir. I do not remember of any time when the
whole group were on bread and water.
Senator MCCARTHY. Well, would you question Major Fanton's testi-
mony that they all were on bread and water, all of them ?
Mr. EVANS. NO,sir, I would not question it.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,I would like to get your thought on this :
Can you give hs any specific instance of any prisoner being on bread'
and water ?
Mr. EVANS.I remember this occasion, when they were trying to
communicate, and also they scratched up their rooms, defaced the-
property, and that is the only occasion.
Senator MCCARTHY. And how many men were put on bread and
water?
Mr. EVANS.Sir, I could not tell you how many.
Senator MCCARTHY. Well, they were put on bread and water upon.
your order, I assume ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir; they were.
Senator MCCARTHY. Would you give us some rough idea?
Mr. EVANS.Of how many, sir?
Senator MCCARTHY. Yes, a rough idea of how many.
Mr. EVANS. I would say about five or six.
Senator MCCARTHY. I would like to call your attention t o this:
I n view of the fact that you are sure you heard no rumor of any mis-
treatment, no rumor of any investigation of any mistreatment, I want
to call your attention to somethin that is in the Colonel Raymond
P
report, which rpakes it rather di cult for me to understand your-
testimony. I quote paragraph 27 :
Bearing on the likelihood of there having been physical mistreatment, i t i s to
be noted t h a t the Deputy Judge Advocate for W a r Crimes ordered a n investigatio~ll
of similar allegations in April 1946 before the trials started.
At the time of this investigation you were in charge 3 right?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. At the time of this Army investigation?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you tell me now that you knew nothing-
about this investigation?
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Even though the investigation had been
ordered: it was conducted in the prison over which vou had control,
and vou'never even heard anv rum& of it?
.I
M;. EVANS.NO, sir.

Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdid not. Can you tell us now how that
investigation was conducted so secretly that you, who were in charge
of all these prisoners, would not hear about it ?
Mr. EVANS. We had at various times inspectors in from the Third
Army, which was located a t Heidelberg. We had large numbers of
groups-I say quite a few of them came in, and we were having in-
spectors all the time, and I would not remember any particular inspec-
tions or investigations.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUare still sure that even whiIe the Army
mas investigating the claims of brutal treatment, even while they were
investigating while you were in charge of all those prisoners, that,
you knew nothing about it. You did not even hear a rumor about
that investigation ?
Mr. EVANS. I probably heard it at the time, sir, but I thougllt it was
routine, would naturally think i t was a routine matter.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did any of those investigators come to you and
say, "Now, Major, what do you know about these claims of brutality?"
Mr. EVANS. I f they came, all I could tell them is what I knew, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOU just got through telling us you knew
nothina about it. I am asking if they did come.
Mr. %VANS. I do not remember, sir, any particular instance, any
particular group that came there.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you remember a single individual conling
to you and saying "Now, Major, there are claims oi' mistreatment, there
are claims of brutality. We are investigating them. What do you
know about them?" Did anyone come to you?
Mr. EVANS. I cannot recall any now, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then, is it your thought that the Army actually
did not conduct this investigation that the Raymond Board says they
conducted in your prison, which mas under your control?
Mr. EVANS.It would be my thought, sir, that they did it, and I
thought it was a matter of routine, if they came. I am not denying
that they came.
Senator MCCARTHY.In other worcls, you never knew that anyone
was in there investigating claims of brutality?
Mr. EVANS.NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you tell us when Polish guards took over ?
Mr. EVANS. Approximately the middle of March.
Senator MCCARTHY. And that is while you were there?
Mr. EVANS.
Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was Maior Panton there a t that time?
Mr. EVANS. I cannot recall.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWmany Polish guards, roughly, were in
charge ?
Mr. EVANS. I suppose it was around 200.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you had all Polish guards in charge of
the Malmedy defendants, right ?
Mr. EVANS.They were on our posts. Now, they did not take the
prisoners out of the cells and bring them to the interrogation team.
That was done by American military or civilian personnel.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did the Polish guards
- take them back from the
interrogation room ?
Mr. EVANS.
NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.The Polish guards did not march the prisoners
at all?
Mr. EVANS.They may have marched them, but only in the presence
of the American guards, American personnel.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOW many American guards were there?
Mr. EVANSS. YOUmean the regular guards that manned the posts?
Senator MCCARTHY. Yes ; the guards that would be in charge.
Mr. EVANS.Well, I had charge of a prison staff of about 12.
Senator MCCARTHY.About 12 guards ?
Mr. EVANS. About 12 Americans-interpreters, supply, mess, and
so forth.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWmany guards did you have? How many
men on guard duty? I n other words, how many American soldiers
were on guard duty after you brought the Polish boys in ?
Mr. EVANS. We had five posts, outside posts. We had two roving.
Senator MCCARTHY. By outside posts, you mean posts outside the
prison ?
Mr. EVANS.Outside the prison; yes, sir. We had five towers built.
There were roving guards in the other halls. I would roughly sup-
pose about 12 or 14 at all times.
Senator MCCARTHY. And 5 of the 12 manned the outside posts?
Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir, the towers.
Senator MCCARTHY. That left seven. Tell us where the other seven
were ?
Mr. EVANS.There were two-they were either roving the grounds
or in the various buildings that had the posts. We had telephones to
the various posts.
Senator MCCARTHY.HOW many of those men were stationed in the
Malmedy area of the prison, if you know? I do not want to ask you
things you cannot answer?
Mr. EVANS.I suppose about six.
Senator MCCARTHY. About six. Now, you had seven all told.
You said some of the seven were roving outside.
Mr. EVANS. TWO were outside, about eight-somewhere about there.
I cannot recall at this time all the posts.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhad 12. Five were on the towers outside?
Ms. EVANS.Yes, sir; 12 or 14.
Senator MCCARTHY. And some were roving around outside, and
the rest were in the Malmedy section of the prison Z
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir ; that is the only part where we kept the guards.
Senator MCCARTHY. I see. Were you in charge of the balance of
&he prison also ?
Senator MCCARTHY. And there were no guards, of course, in the
balance of the prison ?
Mr. EVANS.No, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Roughly, how many men did you have charge
of, I mean both Malmedy and other prisoners ?
Mr. EVANS. Oh, at one time I think there were about 750.
Senator RIGCARTHY. About 750 all told?
Mr. EVANS.,Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And, roughly, about how many of those were
Malmedy prisoners?
Mr. EVANS.Roughly, I think about half of them.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOyou had about 3501
Mr. EVANS.Well, I am not sure of that, sir.
Senator MCCARTHT. And you had six American guards and how
many Polish guards taking care of those 350?
Mr. EVANS. The -Polish guards wodd do the same work as the
Americans. They were not there a t the same time.
Senator MCCARTHY. They were not there a t the same time?
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. SO,when the Polish boys were on duty, the
American boys were not on duty?
Mr. EVANS. 'NO, sir ; the Polish guards relieved the Americans. We
were short of personnel. They took over the work, the same work
that the Americans were doing, the guards were doing.
334 MALMEDY M A S S A C R E I N V E S T I G A T I O N
Senator C CAR THY. Then, am I correct in this? When the l'olish

boys were on duty, the American guards were not on duty?
Mr. EVANS.That is right, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. When the interrogatioll staff wanted to move
a prisoner while the American guards were not on duty, would the
Polish guards then move the prisoners?
Mr. EVANS.NO,sir; that was done by our prison staff.
Senator Mr. ' ~ R T H Y . Your prison staff did that ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator I\'ICCARTIIY.And the prison staff consisted of how many
men ?
Mr. EVANS.About 12 or 14.
Senator MCCARTIIY.12 or 142
Mr: EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. SO that the regular guards, regardless of
whether they were American or Polish, never moved any prisoners?
Mr. EVANS.NO,sir.
Mr. EVANS.They could not leave their posts; sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,I do not quite have a clew picture on the
type of treatment that Dr. Knorr gave the prisoners. Am I correct
in this, that if a Malmedy prisoner, one of the 350, had something
wrong with his teeth, he was not treated by Dr. Knorr unless i t was
an emergency case ?
Mr. EVANS. That is right, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And if it were not an emergency case, their
what happened ?
Mr. EVANS. Then, he would be transferred or taken to the dentist,
either Bad Mergentheim or Ludwigsburg.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWf a r is that?
Mr. EVANS. Bad Mergentheim I suppose is 40 miles, something like
that.
Senator MCCARTHY. And was that your job' to order the men taken
to Bad Mergentheim ?
Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir, on the request of the team.
Senator MCCARTHY. On the request of what team ?
Mr. EVANS.
The investigating team.
Senator MCCARTHY.The investigating team?
Mr. EVANS.
Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. If a man had a bad tooth, if he had a hole i n
his tooth, we mill say, you would not order him taken out to a dentist
unless the investigating team said, "I want this man to get dental
care." I s that right?
Mr. EVANS.That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. And how often did Dentist Knorr come to the
prison?
Mr. EVANS.I believe i t was twice a week.
Senator MCCARTHY. Twice a week, and he came to see if there were
any emergency cases ?
Mr. EVANS.NO,sir, he came for the internees.
Senator MCCARTHY. The internees?
Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir. We had about 350 there that had access to
the prison, except certain restricted areas.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was there a dentist or a doctor who took care
[of the 350 Malmedy prisoners there in the prison?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir, there was an American doctor.
Senator MCCARTHY. There was an American doctor?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou know his name?
Mr. EVANS. No, sir. There were two or three at the time that I
was there. I cannot recall any of their names. There was a dentist,
I believe, that came in at times, but I am not sure about that.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not know about that?
Mr. EVANS. It is too long ago.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n view of the fact that there is an affidavit
here to the effect that Dentist ICnorr fixed up a lot of broken teeth
as the result of beatings, fixed up broken jaws, it is very important for
us to get tlie picture of what happeped. You understand?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,am I correct in this, that if a Malmedy
prisoner had a bad tooth, then he was not taken care of in the densist
chair in the prison; he was not taken care of by the dentist who would
come in the prison, but lie was taken some place 40 miles away to
some dentist in the town, the name of the town you gave us, who took
care of his teeth. I s that right?
Mr. EVANS.Well, he would be taken to an American installation.
Senator MCCARTHY. An American installation?
Senator MCCARTHY. And do you recall if you ordered any of those
men taken out ?
Mr. EVANS.I do not recall. I believe there were some taken out for
medical or dental care, but I do not recall any particular instance.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid if tlie Malmedy prisos c, s were guilty
of any infraction of the rules they had, they would be placed in
solitary ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you describe solitary?
Mr. .EVANS.Solitary confinement as we used it up there was in a
cell that had bars in it, and the windows were smaller. They were
rather small. It was light.
You could see in there all right, but the room was smaller and the
,bed was not as good. It was a bed you could sleep on fairly com-
fortable; very plain.
The thing about it was the bars. Across the front end there was a
grille, iron grille, which had only a little slot to put the food.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, it was an enclosed cell with a
slot ?
Mr. EVANS.This was practically soundproof. As far as I know
they were soundproof. It was very still effect on the prisoners.
Senator MCCARTHY. I see, and when a prisoner was in solitary he,
of course, could not communicate with anyone else?
Mr. EVANS. No; sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Can you tell me roughly how many solitary
cells there were?
Mr. EVANS.Well, I think there were about four or five. I do not
know.
336 MALMEDY MASSACRE, INVESTIGATION
Senator MCCARTHY. About four or five. Now, you say the bed
was different ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. From the bed in the close confinenlent ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n what may did the bed differ?
Mr. EVANS.The bed was built up from the floor, and it had just
an ordinary tag on it. It did not have a thick mattress that the other
beds had. It was built up from the floor.
Senator MCCARTHY. And blankets ?
Mr. EVANS. They had blankets ; 011, yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you describe the cell in which you had
close confinement ?
Mr. EVANS.A cell with close confinement had more window space.
Some of them came down rather low. Others were up high, but
they had adequate space according to the German specifications, and
there was a toilet in it, bed; and in some of them they had tables.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let us get the difference. One of the differ-
ences was there was a toilet?
Mr. EVANS.There was a toilet in both of them.
Senator MCCARTHY. There was a toilet in both of them?
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,tell us the difference between solitary
and close. One of the differences was there was more window space?
Senator MCCARTHY. And you say that there might have been a table
also in the close confinement cells ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes. sir.
Senator M C C A R ~ I P . SOthere is more window space and a table.
What else?
Mr. EVANS.I n the close confinement, inside the door there was that
grillework of :teel. You had to go in'one, and then go through this
grillework door.
Senator MCCARTHY.That is in solitary ?
Mr. EVANS. And the bed.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUare speaking of solitary?
Mr. EVANS.
Solitary ; yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n close confinement, there was just one door?
Mr. EVANS. One door; yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. And was that a solid door?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And the walls were solid also ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir, there was a peephole in i t that you could
look from the outside. You could not look from the inside because
the cover was on the outside.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,let us say I am in close confinement.
Can I talk to my neighbors in other cells?
Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir; by tallring 17eryIo~~cl, you could hear. It is
not soundproof.
Senator MCCARTHY. You could shout to your neighbors; right?
Senator MCCARTHY. Did the guards allow this shouting?
Mr. EVANS.
NO, sir.

Mr. EVANS. When I first went to the prison, I had the pr~sonrules
printed in German. That was pasted in each room, and they knew-
Senator MCCARTHY. They knew they should not shout?
Mr. EVANS. They knew they were not to communicate in any form.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am still trying to get the difference between
close and solitary. I n neither case could they talk to their neighbors;
is that right ?
Mr. EVANS. I n close confinement, I believe they could, by shouting.
Senator MCCARTHY. But YOU did not let them shout?
Mr. EVANS.No, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. SO, in neither case could they communicats
with their neighbors ?
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Colonel Ellis has testified herk the reason for
the solitary or close confinement was to keep them from cominunicat-
ing -so they
. could not be able to evolve a plan of escape or get together
on their story.
Mr. EVANS. We discussed that at the beginning. By having these
rules of no communication, they could not see each other--
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,I still want to get some further differ-
ance. The No. 1 difference is there was more window space in clow
confinement. No. 2, instead of having two doors, they only had one
door for close confinement. Was there any other difference?
Mr. EVANS.The bed.
Senator MCCARTHY. The bed, a more comfortable bed?
Mr. EVANS. That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. Because there was a larger mattress on it?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Any other, difference ?
Mr. EVANS. None that I recall.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOthat then your solitary and close confine-
ment were one and the same thing except one had more light in it,
one had a larger mattress and one had two doors instead of one; is
that right ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,how long did you keep men in close
confinement ?
Mr. EVANS.Not to exceed 7 days.
Senator MCCARTHY. Not to exceed 7 days?
Mr. EVANS.Usually much less.
Senator MCCARTHY. Are you aware of the fact that Colonel Ellis
testified that they were kept in close confinement until they confessed?
After they confessed, then they were allowed to go up and mingle
with the other prisoners ?
Mr. EVANS.A t a11 times we had one or two in the room-
Senator MCCARTH?.Let us stick to the question. Colonel Ellis
has testified-if I am wrong, I wish counsel would correct me-that
these men were kept-I think he referred to solitary. He said they
were kept in close confinement until they confessed, until they signed
the confession. I s that correct?
Mr. EVANS. I do not know, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not know?
Mr. EVANS.As I interpret it, they were kept in close confinement
a t all times that I was there.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,YOU said they were never kept in close

confinement more than 7 days. Now, you say they were kept in close
confinement a t all times that you were there. Which is correct?
Mr. EVANS.They were not kept in solitary.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let us get back to close confinement. Row
long were those men kept in close confinement; that is, in a cell alone
where they could not communicate with anyone else?
Mr. EVANS.They were not kept--
Senator MCCARTHY. I am not telling yob you did something wrong.
I just want to get the information.
Mr. EVANS. They were grouped around. Some of them had two
men in the cells.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let us take it where there is one inan in the
cell. Let us take some one individual where there is one man in a cell.
How long was he kept in close confinement ?
I n other words, is Colonel Ellis correct when he says they were
kept in close confinement until they signed a confession, and then
they were released from close confinement? I s that correct or not?
Mr. EVANS.I do not know, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not; but, as far as you know, some
men were kept in close confinement as long as you mere there?
Mr. EVANS. Well, I do not know for sure of that.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUinspected them every day?
Mr. EVANS.
Because some of the rooms had two men in them.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this question: Did you gu
around personally and inspect the 350 Malmedy cells every week, as I
believe you testified?
Mr. EVANS. I got around about once a week.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then, did you find the same men in close con-
finement in No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5 1 I just want to get the facts.
Mr. EVANS.I did not check that. I just checked them for cleanli-
ness; for their appearance.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,can you tell us a t this time-if you do
not know, all right-whether or not any of the individuals were kept
in close confinement during all, the time you were there. DO YOU
know ?
Mr. EVANS.I do not know, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. You do not know?
Mr. EVANS. I do not know.
Senator M C ~ A R T HNOW,
Y . will you describe the death cells, what are
referred to as the death cells? Are those the same as the solitary
confinement cells?
Mr. EVANS. I suppose SO.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know?
Mr. EVANS. I do not know. There was one what we called the dull-
geon. As far as I know it was never used. That was in the basement
s f this big cell block. It was completely closed off it could be sealed up.
Senator MCCARTHY. AS far as you know, that was not used?
Mr. EVANS. That was never used.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,the witnesses, as I recall, agree there
were certain cells referred to as death cells ; do you know about those
cells ?
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir; except the ones that I have described t o YOU
as solitary-confinement cells.
MALMEDY MASSACRE. INVESTIGATION 339
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you ever hear any cells referred to as
death cells ?
Mr. EVANS.I do not know. I might have.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not know?
Mr. EVANS.I do not remember the particular term "death cell."
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,can you tell me whether or not certain.
of these cells, either the solitary- or close-confinement cells, actually
did not have blankets for a short period of time?
Mr. EVANS. I f they did, I did not know about it.
Senator MCCARTHY. Well, what is your thought on the matter?
Mr. EVANS.I think they had plenty of blankets. We had plenty
for the prison, and I think they a t all times had plenty of blankets.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you say if they did not, you
did not know about i t ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you do not claim you got
around and that you would personally know that they had blankets?
Mr. EVANS.Well, it might be that a man one night was cold. I f
he asked for another blanket, he was given it.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know that of your own information?
Mr. EVANS. I do not know of any particular incident.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not know of any incident where that
happened ?
Mr. EVANS.I do not know of any incident.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO not tell us things unless you know. T h e
question is: Do you b o w whether some of the cells were deprived
of blankets?
Mr. EVANS.NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not know 1
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUdo not know whether they were or not; is
that right ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you cannot pass on that?
Mr. EVANS. I cannot swear to it.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am going to read to you from the Raymond
report, if I may:
The Board does find that certain cells did not have blankets for a short period:
of time.
That is page 4. I s that correct ;do you know ?
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not know. All right. Now, did you
witness any of the mock trials?
Mr. EVANS.NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUknew they were going on? Did you know
that they were having mock trials?
Mr. EVANS.I had heard that they did have some mock trials.
Senator MCCARTHY. What had you heard about the mock trials?
Senator BALDWIN.Senator, is that really germane to this whole
situation?
Senator MCCARTHY. I think i t is very germane. Here is a witness,
Mr. Chairman, who has stated he heard not even the slightest rumor
of any mistreatment, and it develops that during the time he was there
the Army ordered, and there was conducted, an investigation into the
,alleged brutalities, and here is a man who is in charge, who said he

inspected the cells every week and he never even heard of that investi-
gation, never even knew there was ,any investigation going on. It
seems extremely unusual.
He tells us that he was-
Senator BALDWIN.Well, go ahead. I will save time, I think, by
letting him answer. Go ahead, Senator.
Senator MCCARTHY. He tells us that he knows nothing about bread-
.and-water rations, despite the fact that the major who is in charge
,does admit all men were on bread and water for, he Fays, about 1day ;
the other witness says 6 or 7 days. I would like to find out j~lstwhat
this witness does know.
Now, Mr. Evans, will you answer now the question that I was ask-
ing : What had you heard about the mock trials ?
Mr. EVANS. I had heard that they had had some mock trials.
'Senator MCCARTHY. Did you hear how they were conducted?
Mr. EVANS. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdid not hear anything about how they
were conducted?
Mr. EVANS.NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Did YOU see the room in which the mock trials
were held ?
Mr. EVANS. I saw some rooms that were fixed up for either that or
something else.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOW many rooins were fixed up for mock trials
o r something else?
Mr. EVANS. Oh, I remember one.
Senator MCCARTHY.Will you describe that one room?
Mr. EVANS.It was a room fixed up with a good deal of black in it
and a crucifix.
Senator MCCARTHY. What was in i t by way of furniture?
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not remember. Do you recall how large
that cell was?
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTEIY. DO yoti recall how many cells were fixed u p ?
Mr. EVANS.NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou recall any of the interrogation cells?
Senator MCCARTI-IY. HOW many interrogation cells were there?
Mr. EVANS. I could not tell the exact number. They used a sepa-
rate wing there.
Senator MCCARTHY. But, roughly, what did the interrogation cells
look like?
Mr. EVANS. They looked just like the other cells, except they had
tables and chairs.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW, do you know whether your guards
brought the prisoners directly to the interrogation cell or not?
Mr. EVANS.NO,they brought them to the area, to the investigating
team's area.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. And you say that the guards on duty did not
d o that, but your own special personnel for that purpose did that?
Mr. EVANS. That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n Major Panton's testimony he says, referring
t o the Malmedy prisoners: "They were closely guarded by American
Army personnel assigned to the Six Hundred and Thirtieth Tank
Destrover Battalion which was the unit responsible for the security
of the Crison."
Am I correct that Major F'anton was mistaken, that the guarding
was largely done by Polish boys brought i n ?
Mr. EVANS.The guarding was done until the Polish came in, due
to a shortage- of American personnel,
- about the middle of March until
they left.
Senator MCCARTHY. And then the guarding was not done by Army
personnel? It was done by Polish personnel?
Mr. EVANS.From March on, i t was clone by Polish personnel.
Senator MCCARTHY. Getting back to the mock trials, I gather you
did not know the mock trials were being conducted?
Mr. EVANS.Well, I had heard they were. I never witnessed any.
Senator MCCARTHY. You did not know anything much about any of
them at all?
Mr. EVANS.NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. SO,you cannot say, obviously, whether they
were properly or improperly conducted.
Mr. EVANS. No, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not claim to know what was going on
in those cells where the had mock trials ?
9
Mr. EVANS.NO,sir, never witnessed those. All I did know was by
hearsay.
. Senator MCCARTHY. And you did not attend any of the interroga-
tlons !
Mr. EVANS.I have been in rooms when they were interrogating
them, but just for a few minutes, because I did not think it was particu-
larly my business. I had other duties to perform.
Senator
-. MCCARTHY. And how many of the interrogations did you
attend '1
Mr. EVANS.Oh, I would say about a dozen; just listen in for a few
minutes, but they went so fast in German that I could not understand
it, so i t meant nothing to me. '
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask whether the com-
mittee plans upon bringing the doctors who were present in the prison
so we can get to the bottom of this question of who treated the broken
teeth, if any?
Senator BALDWIN.Well, I think I will say to the Senator that i t is
the intention of the chairman-and I think the other two members of
the committee will probbaly concur with me-that we will go into
the medical side of this thing in as great detail as we can possibly get
available evidence.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we have already
been in contact with two of the doctors who were there the majority
of the time. We have not yet' established contact with the third who
was there, We have gotten in touch with several of the enlisted
medical personnel, and they will be called as witnesses.
Senator MCCARTHY. Have you been in touch with Dr. Rnorr? I s
he still living?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Dr. Knorr, according to the information I now
have, is codined in a hospital in Germany as a mental case, but it is
our intention before we conclude the testimony to get some type of

evidence, the best evidence we can get, concerning Dr. Knorr and his.
affidavits.
Mr. Chairman, I have one further question I would like to ask the
witness.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUgo ahead. I have a question I would like
to ask, too. Are you all through, Senator?
Senator MCCARTHY. NO. Then, let me ask you this one further
question : I n view of the fact that you did not know about these mock
trials, did not know how many went on, did not know what happened
at the mock trials; in view of the fact that the Army conducted an in-
vestigation into the alleged brutalities while you were present, you
did not know anything about that investigation that they were con-
ducting, I assume that you do not claim that you can tell us whether
or not there were brutal methods used in these interrogation cells?
Mr. EVANS. I could not tell you about the interrogation cell. I was
there too little a time.
Senator MCCARTHY. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Evans, I have two q~~estions, one concerning the
investigation by the Army. You stayed at Schwabisch Hall, as 1
understand it, up until the time you came back to the States, sometime
in May ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe Senator McCarthy-and this is subject to
verification when we get Colonel Carpenter here-that the facts will
show that Colonel Carpenter's investigation was made after the pris-
oners had gone to Dachau-from the prisoners themselves-and I do
not believe that he ever went t o Schwabisch Hall, but that is a matter
for the record to develop.
One other question : Have you been, during the past year or so, con-
tacted by anywe from Germany concerning this case and perhaps
given information concerning i t ?
Mr. EVANS. I do not know about this case. About a year ago-it
could be 3 months or 4 months one way or the other, or longer-I
received a cable from Karl Debitsch.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And who was Karld Dabitsch?
Mr. EVANS. Karl Debitsch was an attorney at that time in the prison.
H e was what we referred to as the "Lagerfuehrer." H e was the senior
internee. He asked that I get in touch with some attorney in Atlanta.
That is all it said. I do not remember the exact wording, and I do not
remember what I did with the cablegram, but I tried to contact this
particular person in Atlanta by telephone.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was it Colonel Everett?
Mr. EVANS. I do not know, sir. I cannot recall the name. I was
not familiar with the name. I attempted to communicate with him.
Well, I called, but I could not locate him in Atlanta.
Mr. CHAMBERS. AS I understand it, the contact did come from Ger-
many from Debitsch to you, asking you to contact an American
attorney?
Mr. CHAMBERS. And

you were never able to establish contact with
him ?
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. However, did anyone else approach you within
the United States, or has anybody come to you for information on
this case?
Mr. EVANS.Colonel Ellis wrote me about a month ago. That was
the first that I knew of this particular Malmedy case.
Senator MCCARTHY. When did you prepare your statement?
Mr. EVANS.The 18th day of April.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU are a good friend of Colonel Ellis, I
assume ?
Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir; I am.
Senator MCCARTHY. A good personal friepd?
Mr. EVANS.
Well, just as a fellow officer; not special.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n answer to Colonel Chambers' question, if
there is no objection, I mould like to ask you what Colonel Ellis con-
tacted you about ?
Mr. EVANS.He asked me what I knew about this case and to prepare
a statement of the facts.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOW did he contact you, by telephone, by wire?
Mr. EVANS.By letter.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you have any objection to our seeing the
letter?
Mr. EVANS.There is no objection on my part, if Colonel Ellis-
Senator MCCARTHY. I do not want to ask for it, if Colonel Ellis has
any objection.
Colonel ELLIS. NO, sir; I would be very happy to have you see the
letter or any communication I have written to anybody.
Mr. EVANS.I t is dated the 29th of March.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I am inclined to think this
should be put in the record. It is essentially an honest, very friendly
letter. I think there is one phrase here that is significant in view of
the major's affidavits.
After listing the things that should be covered, the major certainly
does not ask him to tell any lies or anything of the kind. H e says:
I n other words cover everything that you might conceive of that would help
refute these false and malicious allegations.
I f the colonel wants the entire letter entered, if the chairman does
not objec-
Senator BALDWIN. DO you want it i n ?
Senator MCCARTHY. The only part I want in is this phrase that I
read. I think the whole thing should be put in.
Senator BALDWIN.All right; it will be made a part of the record.
(The letter referred to is as follows:)
HEADQUARTERS, SIXTHARMY,
Presidio of Ban Francisco, Calif., Maroh 29, 1949.
Mr. JOHN T. EVANS,
CrystaZ Gity, T m .
DEARMAJOREVANS: YOUwill probably be surprised to hear from me inasmuch

a s I only knew you for a short time a n d it has now been close onto 3 years since
last our paths crossed. I n any event, by way of introduction, I am Lt. Col.
Burton F. Ellis, who was in charge of the investigation a t Schwabisch Hall
of the Malmedy massacre. Noble Johnson gave me your address and I am writ-
ing you for your assistance in helping clear the characters and reputations of my
subordinates and the Army with respect to their conduct in this case.
I presume that you have read some of the press releases concerning the various
investigations conducted concerning the investigation and trial of the Malmedy
massacre. I doubt if you knew the defense counsel, former Col. Willis Everett,
of Atlanta, Ga., a s he was only a t Schwabisch Hall on one occasion. I n a n y
event Everett is still very active in the defense of these murderers and is cles-
ljerately trying to do something for them, even a t the expense of the characters
of those of us who tried and investigated the case.
Everett and n Judge Van Roden, a member of the Simpson Commission,
which purportedly investigated the case in Europe last summer, have alleged
t h a t the invest.;.ltors did just about everything a human could conceive of doing
to another in o r ~ i e rto get confessions from the prisoners we had a t Schwabisch
Hall.
They accused us of punching the prisoners in the face w ~ t hbrass knuckles,
beating them with rubber hoses, knocking their teeth out, breaking arms and
jaws, solitary confinement ( a s distinguished from 'close confinement), posturing
a s priests, withdrawal of blankets in winter, lack of heat, very limited lations,
spiritual deprivation, etc., and I quote from a published statement of theirs :
"All but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated, had bwn kicked
i n the testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with
American investigators."
The Army h a s had two investigations, neither complete, and the Senate is
now going to have another which promises to be a complete and thorough one.
1 hope i t will give all of the boys on the investigation team a chance to be heard,
something that h a s not happened heretofore.
Noble Johnson is preparing a n affidavit refuting all of these allegations and
Major Fanton, Captain Shumacker, Lieutenant Perl, Harry Thon, Moe Elowitz,
and myself have all prepared lengthy affidavits a s to our participation in the
investigation and denials of all the false allegations made by Everett and Van
Roden. Would you please likewise prepare a n affidavit in as many coples a s
possible of what you know that took place a t Schwabisch Hall? Would you s t a r t
your affidavit out by stating your then grade, organization, and position; then
follow up with the period you were there with a s much exactness a s possible;
your duties in connection with the prison and the Malmedy prisoners in par-
ticular; when the Malmedy prisoners first arrived (early December 1945) ; what
control your organization had over the Malmedy prisoners; whether the war
crimes investigating team ever starved or caused any prisoners to be starved,
placed on bread and water, withdrew any blankets, turned off heat; what the
prisoners' ration was ; a comparison between their ration and the German civilian
ration ; whether you ever witnessed or heard of any of the brutalities that have
been alleged to have occurred; whether you or any of the other administrative
personnel were ever interfered with or prevented from performing your duties
by the war crimes investigation team; what you know about the medical and
dental care provided for the Malmedy prisoners; whether you ever saw any of
the prisoners who appeared to have been beaten up or injured in any way ; how
of ten you saw or inspected the prisoners ; whether you were ever prevented from
seeing any of the prisoners ; whether you ever saw any misconduct by any inves-
tigators during the course of their interrogations. In other words, cover every-
thing that you might conceive of that would help refute these false and lnalicious
allegations.
A German dentist in the prison a t Schwabisch Hall is alleged to have made a
statement that h e treated 15-20 prisoners for mouth and jaw wounds. State
what you know about him. That is, was he S. S., Nazi, security suspect, party
member, and an internee and whether or not you know if he ever saw and treated
any of the Malmedy prisoners and, if so, for what purpose and under what
conditions.
I know this sounds like a big task, but i t is very, very important to all of us
who have been accused of astrocities comparable, if not worse, than any t h e
Germans ever committed. If you will do this, it will be sincerely appreciated by
not only me but by all the boss with whom yon worked a t Schmnbisch Hall.
May I add that it is important that I receive your affidavit a s soon a s possible.
If you have the address of Captain Evans, I would be most appreciative t o
receive it.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 345.
One last thing. H a s anyone else contacted you regarding your knowledge of
the proceedings a t Schwabisch Hall?
I'll be looking forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
BURTONF. ELLIS,
Lieutena~~Colonel,
t JAGC.
~ e n a < oBALDWIN.
r NOW,Senator Kefauver is here. He is another
member of this committee, and he has kindly consented to come ovep
and act as chairman while you continue with the examination of
Major Fantoa. Captain, would you just step down?
Mr. CI-IAM~ERS. Are

you through with the captaiil!
Senator BALDWIN.There may be one or two other questions.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a personal
favor of the Chair, if I may, having nothing to do with the facts of
the case.
I have been having a sinus punctured and drained every day. I
have got to report into Bethesda again tomorrow, and I would ver
much appreciate it if we could adjourn a t 12 this noon over the wee i;
end, so I could try and clear up this condition if possible. That will,
of course, mean that Major Fanton will have to come back. I think
he will have to come back anyway, because I do want to spend a great
deal of time with Major Fanton.
I think he is the most important witness in this case. I think we
should be able t o get considerable from him. After we get through
with Major Fanton I think we will have a fairly good picture as to
whether these claims made by the Van Roden committee, the Simpson
committee, are true or false. I want to spend a great number of hours
with Major Fanton.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, of course, we have got witnesses here from
a long distance. Major Panton has come down from Connecticut. On
the other hand, when a Senator asks, because of his health, for this
consideration, I certainly do not feel disposed to object to it.
Senator MCCARTHY. AS I say, I personally appreciate it an awful
lot. I just do not feel that I can sit all day and do justice t o the Army
or the American public or these men who are about to hang with this
thing bothering me as much as it does. I am sure, over the week end,
I can get it cleared up.
Senator BALDWIN.I think it would be better then perhaps if we
finished up with the captain from Texas.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I am through with the captain from Texas.
Mr. CHAMBERS. We have two other witnesses, then, sir, from out
of town. They are both security people. I believe they will go pretty
fast.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Who are they?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Jack Owens, assistant to the officer in charge of
prison personnel; and William T. Fitzgerald, who was one of the
security officers charged with guarding prisoners.
Senator MCCARTHI-.I have no objection to putting them on. Whcr
is Fitzgerald ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. He was one of the security officers charged with
guarding prisoners. I mould think me would complete in a matter-
of an hour or so. He. was one of the security officers.
Senator MCCARTHY. Owens, you say, was the assistan&

Mr. CHAMBERS. TOthe officer in charge.
Senator MCCARTHY. TOthe man who just testified?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think that is correct. I have not talked to either
of them.
Senator BALDWIN.There is just one other question that I winted to
ask the captain.
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUwere asked by Senator McCarthy some
questions with reference to whether you knew there was an investiga-
tion going on. You said that there were occasional inspectiolls made
by, I assume, out-of-town personnel; is that correct?
Senator BALDWIN.That is, personnel who were not permanently
attached to Schwabisch Hall ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.How often did that happen ?
Mr. EVANS.I suppose about once a month.
Senator BALDWIN.Where they came from or what their object
was, you did not know ?
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir; some came from the Seventh Army Head-
quarters in Heidelberg, and some came from our headquarters, our
next higher headquarters at Ludwigsburg, Germany.
Senator BALDWIN.All right, I think that is all.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one more question?
Mr. CHAMBERS. We had in testimony, again from Mr. Bailey, a
reference to a prisoner being brought in to a mock trial with a robe
on him, a hood over his head, and with a rope around his neck. His
description was rather complete and graphic. Now, you have testified
that your guards were charged or your prison staff, I believe you said,
was charged with moving the prisoners from cells back and forth
from interrogations and what not. Would you be in a position to
know anything about circumstances of that kind?
Mr. EVANS. I do not knop anything about that; no, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Would you have been in a position to have known?
Mr. EVANS.I think it would have been reported to me.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And was i t ever reported to yon that the guards
used a rope to lead the prisoners in or had it around their necks?
Mr. EVANS.NO,sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What is this robe report? Do you have anything to
put on the prisoners to take them around?
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir; i t is a hood, a black hood.
Senator MCCARTHY. Just SO this is clear, your guards turned them
over to the interrogation guards, I understand.
Mr. EVANS.A t their area ;
Senator MCCARTHY. %s7
If a ro e was sir.put on, it was after the interroga-
tion team took over and their guards took charge, so you would not
know about that.
Mr. EVANS.I do not know anything about it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did they have separate guards?
Mr. EVANS.NO. We turned them over to the group. They had no
guards there; it was their personnel.
Mr 4 MVERS a nn t p n m y v s o n n e l 9
T n t ~ r r n g ti
Mr. CHAMBERS. Which

consisted of interrogators, interpreters, and
some typists and stenographers ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It was your responsibility to take them to the inter-
rogators, leave them and pick them up when they were through with
them ;is that right ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let us see if I have this straight. I do not
know as it is very important. You took thein t o a large cell, the
interrogators picked them up a t that cell and took them to their in-
terrogation cell ; is that right ?
Mr. EVANS.We took then1 to an area there. It was a large hall, kind
of a triangular shape, a large area.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Then, the interrogators' guards, call them what
v o i ~may, the interrogation team, picked them up in that large hall?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. They took them out of your charge?
They took them over to your room. I s that right?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And your guards did not follow them from the
hall over to the interrogation room ?
Mr. E v ~ w s .Unless they n-ere asked to.
Senator MCCARTIXT. 1see. Then, you were in no position to h o w
anything about whether robes were put on, whether they mere led
with a rope or how they were led from there?
Mr. EVANS.NO,sir ; I did not.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you know this man Steiner?
Mr. EVANS.What did he do?
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you know a man by the name of Steiner?
He was one of the interrogation team. I will refresh your memory.
I might be asking y . 0 ~something that you cannot answer.
Mr. Panton testified that Steiner was on the interrogation team
but that he had to let him go. He referred yesterday on the stand to
shouts or an order or soniething that he gave to the prisoners as he
was leading them to the hall. It is not qulte clear to me yet what he
had in mind. I n any event, Steiner was one of the interrogation team.
Did you know him?
Mr. EVANS.I cannot recall him.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you know any of the interrogation team?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir; I did.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you name the ones that you knew, if you
can?
Mr. EVANS. There was Major Panton, there was Captain Shu-
macker, there was Lieutenant Perl, there was a Mr. Thon. That is all
I can recall now.
Senator MCCARTHY. A t the time Steiner was discharged, did you
have any information as to why he was discharged?
Mr. EVANS.NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you hear any reports to the effect that
Steiner had brag ed that he had put a hangman's noose around these
prisoners' necks, fed them up several flights of stairs, told them they
were on the gallows, pulled the rope across.
9176549-23
Mr. EVANS.I did not hear anything about that.

Senator MOCARTHY.I n other words, you did not hear anything
about brutalities, anything that was wrong at all?
Mr. EVANS.NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Were you in charge when the defense counsel
took over, or were the prisoners still at Schwabisch Hall ?
Mr. EVANS.I do not remember.
Senator MCCARTHY.DO you recall when the defense counsel were
appointed ?
Mr. EVANS.NO,sir; I cannot recall that.
Senator MCCARTHY. When did the Malrnedy men leave Schwabisch
Hall ?
Mr. EVANS. They must have left about the early part of April,
somewhere about that time.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then, am I correct that the first time you ever
heard of any claims of brutality, beatings, mock hangings, mock trials,
was when this hearing started, or I assume when Colonel Ellis wrote
you this letter ?
Senator MCCARTHE.That is the first you heard about i t ?
Mr. EVANS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhad not heard any such claims before that?
Mr. EVANS.No, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not recall whether you were supposed
to contact Colonel Everett, or whom it was, in Atlanta, Ga.?
Mr. EVANS.I do not remember the name.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know why you were supposed to con-
tact him ?
Mr. EVANS. NO, sir; the cablegram did not say.
Senator MCCARTHY. It just asked you to contact him?
Mr. EVANS.
Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.Thank you a lot.
Mr. EVANS. ISthat all, sir?
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is all, Captain. Thank you very much.
I think it ought to appear in the record here, reading from the
Raymond and Harbaugh report with reference to this question of
investigation before the trial. I n paragraph 27 of that report there
appears the following :
Bearing on the likelihood of there having been physical mistreatment, it is
noted that the deputy judge advocate for war crimes ordered a n investigation of
similar allegations in April 1946 before the trials started a t a time when all con-
cerned were available. Both Colonel Nickelwait and Lieutenant Colonel Ellis
state t h a t fhe investigating officer reported that he coulcl find no evidence war-
ranting the conclusion that allegation of improper action such a s the use of vio-
lence or the threat of violence were true. A similar report was rendered by the
chief prosecutor after inquiry of his staff.
I t furthermore appears that four of the defendants admitted to the investi-
gating officer that their accusations of violence and beatings were only made to
get out from under their confessions and were not true, and this was admitted
a t the time by the chief connsel of the defense.
I put that at this particular place in the record because it has a
bearing upon the question of how much the captain, who just testified,
might have known concerning the so-called investigation prior to
the trial.
Mr. Jack Owens.
Senator BALDWIN. Mr. Omens, hold up your right hand. . .
Do sveai. tlzat the '-
soleil~*l~y .---..-
L ~ tS: C u- ,)----- S ~ L ~ ~L XI t:Y 111 ihe
~ V L~L V ~ ~ ~
matter now in question shall be the trnth, the whole truth, and noth-
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 349'
ing but the truth to the best of your knowledge and belief, so help
you God?
Mr. OWENS.I do.
Senator BALDWIN.Will you sit down, sir ?
Mr. OWENS.Thank you.
Senator BALDWIN. What is your full name and address?
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say in connecl
tion with what was read into the record-
Senator BALDWIN. Could we get his name and address?
Mr. OWENS.Jack A. Owens, Maybeury, W. Va.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say i11 connec-
tion with what the chairman has just read concerning Colonel EllisL
that, while we have received a great amount of mail-I should not
say a great amount, at least a half dozen letters-from men who were
connected with the investigative staff, complaining of the treatment
that the defendants have gotten, as a whole most of them were, the
writers seemed to feel, rather kindly toward Colonel Ellis. They did
did not accuse him of any personal wrongdoing. I n fact, two of the
letters which I have did complain very bitterly about the type of
treatment these defendants got, but they went on to say that they
thought it was not Ellis7 fault. They did not think he knew about
this. I think, in fairness to Colonel Ellis, perhaps, those letters should
be put in the record.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, I will say to the Senator that I will be
glad to have him present here any letters that he has.
I f he has letters complaining about the way in which this trial was
conducted-
Senator MCCARTW.I hope to call as witnesses all those people who
have written us. Some of them I think will be very valuable witnesses.
Senator BALDWIN.Of colase, when we get down to the final analysis
of this thing, it is what people actually saw themselves that really
counts.
Senator MCCARTHY. I question that, Mr. Chairman. I think that
we will get very little from what people actually saw because, when,
let us say, Perl-he is alleged as one of the prime offenders-is in a
cell, if he did the things claimed, he did not have witnesses. It is
like proving an adultery case in court. You do not do it by witnesses,
because you do not call in witnesses when you are guilty of certain
crimes.
You have got to prove it entirely by inference, by hearsay, by cir-
cumstantial evidence, by all the surrounding facts. That is one of
the unfortunate things. I do not believe this committee will have any
unbiased witnesses.
Senator BALDWIN. What I meant, Senator, was that evidence of
physical abuse such as broken jaws, black eyes, and things of that
kind, of course, are perfectly apparent, and the claim as to how they
were made, of course, might well be disputed. One man might well
say one thing and one man might say the other. That is what I had
in mind when I said we want to get as near the physical facts, the
actual facts, as we possibly can.
Senator MCCARTHY. I merely mentioned during this interrogation
I noticed that the staff questioned the witnesses as to what they saw,
whether they saw these beatings. As I say, the only people who saw
them, of course, is the alleged wrongdoer and the man who is about
to be punished, both of them very, very prejudiced witnesses. There

is no qnestion about that, and I do not think we will get any of the
prosecution staff to freely admit that they beat up any of these wit-
nesses. I do not think, if we interrogate any of the Germans who
are about to hang, we can expect to get unbiased testimony from them.
We will just have to get all the surroundin facts and circumstances.
8
I am convinced before we are through, Mr. hairman, we will have a
very good picture without eyewitnesses.
Senator BALDWIN.A11 right, sir. Do you want to question this
witness, Colonel. Yon have talked with him, I assume.
Mr. CIIAMRERS.Not except to find out what his name was, when
he came in, sir.
TESTIMONY OF JACK A,-OWENS, MAYBEURY, W. VA.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Will you tell us, Mr. Owens, what .your positioli
was with the prosecution staff?
Mr. OWENS.Prosecution staff?
Mr. CHAMBERS. With the prison staff a t Schwabisch Hall.
Mr. OWENS.My job was supply officer. The responsibilities : I had
to see that food, clothing, coal were brought in. I had the additional
duty of recreational officer for the civilian prisoners-not for the
Malmedy prisoners.
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOW longpvere you at Schwabisch Hall?
Mr. OWENS.Our company-I was in C Company, Six Hundred
Thirtieth Tank Destroyer Battalion. I was ordered to go up to
Schwabisch Hall in December. I do not know the exact date; some
time during December; and I remained there a t the prison until the
time that they started back to the United States. During that time
the Six Hundred Thirtieth Tank Destroyer Battalion, I had charge
of the prison up until some time in February when they went home.
After that the Fifty-eighth Armored Field Artillery Battalion took
over. Captain Evans and myself were transferred to the Fifty-eighth
Field Artillery Battalion. We were familiar with the prison and the
work there.
Then later on there mas a chemical battalion took over from the
Fifty-eighth, and they were in charge when we left. I left May 10,
19!6.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, did your duties as supply officer require yoh
to have any contact with the Malmedy prisoners?
Mr. OWENS.None other'than what I might have in acting as offi-
cer of the gaard.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, as officer of the guard did you have cer-
tain duties with the interior guard and the responsibility for the guard
that was inside the prison blocks and guarding the prisoners?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir; me were in charge of those prisoners. We
had to go around and check each post to see that they maintained
proper security.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO you have any knowledge of the circumstances
that I am sure you have heard us discuss with Captain Evans here
concerning alleged mistreatment of prisoners?
Mr. OWENS.I know of no alleged mistreatment of prisoners.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let me see if I can phrase that a little more directly
because I think you know we are all very interested in getting it exact,
the exact facts that happened there. You were there quite a few
months ?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During that time did any of your boys say anything
to you abont anything that happened, or did any of the prisoners com-
plain to you, or was there anything a t all that would lead you to be-
lieve, from which yon could have drawn s conclusion, that the prosecn-
tion staff or your own people were pushing these boys around a little
bit, manhandling. them or stuff of that kind ?
Mr. OWENS.NO, sir; none whatsoever.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, as supply officer you were respol~siblefor
sreii?g that these prisoners were supplied with food, and I presume
clothing, blankets, and things of that type ?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did they receive an adequate amount of food?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir; they did.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
now, did they get as much, for instance, as
Well,
the other internee prisoners got?
Mr. OWENS.AS well as I can remember they did, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were they being fed the same rations, or was there
any difference ?
Mr. OWENS.AS far as I know it was the same ration. There might
have been some difference.
We, of course, had to requisition the food and get it from a supply
dump. I forget exactly where it mas. I believe it mas in Heidelberg
or somewhere.
This requisition was signed by the prison commander, Captain
Evans, and turned over to me. My job was to get the trucks down,
pick it up, and bring. it back in.
Mr. CHABIBERS. Were you also responsible for the preparation of
thc food?
Mr. OWENS.NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Merely drawing an issue of it. How about this
blanket situation? Were the prisoners given an adequate amount
of blankets, and I presume that should carry also the question of warm
clothin ?
Mr. ~ W E N S .Yes, sir; in my estimation they were given enough
blankets and enough clothing to keep them warm. The prison was well
heated.
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOWwas this prison heated? Was it a central
heating proposition?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir. It was converted during the time Captain
Evans and I were there from a coal furnace to an oil-burning furance
due to the fact that there was a scarcity of coal. We figured it was
cheaper to convert the thing to burn oil, and that was done while we
were there a t the prison.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were you responsible as supply officer for the
maintenance and upkeep of the prison at all?
Mr. OWENS.NO more than-well, the responsibility was that of
Captain Evans, and I assisted him in any way I could.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, do you have any knowledge of windows being
broken or windows that were stuck open so that the cells got pretty
cold during those cold months there?
Mr. OWENS.NO,sir, I have no knowledge of it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I f such a situation existed, would it have been

called to your attention, or would you have known anything about it?
Mr. OWENS.I think I would have heard about it. My job as supply
officer was not as much in direct contract with these Malmedy prisoners
as was that of the prison commander. Of course, he had an executive
officer. Mine was mainly supply job and to act as officer of the day.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever witness any of these mock trials?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you take part in them?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir ;I took part in one.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Could you describe it to us? May I ask you this
first: Do you recall the case?
Mr. OWENS.NO, sir; I did not know the prisoner; I did not know
any of the surrounding circumstances. I was called to participate in
this mock trial. It mas carried on in German. I did not speak a
word of German.
I was merely a figurehead sitting there. The trial was not com-
pleted, as I remember. It was postponed until the next day.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were you in uniforni at the time?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were

the other people participating in uniform?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, let me ask this-you must be familiar with
Ainerican courts martial: Suppose you tell us what happened at the
trial.
Mr. OWENS.AS well as I can reinenher there was a room probably
half as large as this room, and it was set up with a table and chairs
jn there. I cannot remember the exact number of people who partici-
pated in it.
I know I was made president of the court, or whatever they call it.
They spoke in German all the time. They told me that they would
like for me to participate in the thing, so I said, "0. H., I will help
out," and I went in.
The trial was carried on, the witness was examined, he was asked
questions of course in German. I did not understand what they were
asking him. .
I did not unclerstand his answers, and after a period I would say of
10 minutes, the prosecution asked that the trial be postponed until
the next clay, and I never heard any of the results after that. That
is the only one that I ever knew about occurring, and the only one
that I participated in.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During the t r i d was there someone who mas acting
as a defense counsel?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOWwas he designated as such?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir. During that short period of time he would
confer with the defendant in the case.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay that he was designated as defense counsel.
Did they say that in English or German? How do you know that ha
was the defense counsel ?
Mr. OWENS.I was told by one of the officers there in charge that
hhis particular fellow would act as defense counsel and the other fellow
would act as the prosecutor.
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOWdid he conduct himself during the trial? What
did he do, the defense counsel?
Mr. OWENS.It was SO short that the defense counsel never acted. H e
would confer with the defendant. H e would give the answer. It
was a very short thing, I would say not longer than 10 minutes. It
was postponed over until the next day.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOWwhen the prisoner was brought into the mock
trial, how was he garbed; how was he dressed?
Mr. OWENS.Well, he had the regular clothing that they always
wore, a grayish uniform. All prisoners for purposes of security were
moved from one place to another in the p ~ i s o nwith a black hood on.
If there were three or four of them being moved from one place or
another, they were required to put their hands on the man's shoulder in
front of them, and there always was a Sergeant Scalise or another
fellow-I forget his name-who worked with us in the prison. They
were responsible for moving these prisoners from the cell up to the
interrogation section, and there the guards Stayed with them and they
always moved with these hoods on for security purposes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did one of your guafds stay with the prisoner dur-
ing the mock trial ?
Mr. OWENS.They were outside the door.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let me ask you this: I11 this particular trial was
there a rope used in connection with the prisoner 2
Mr. OWENS.NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS.Was there any evidence that he had been beaten
u p ? Were there any marks on his face or anything of the kind?
Mr. OWENS.NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you heard nothing later as to what happened
i n that particular case? You did not have enough interest to ask the
interrogation staff whatever happened to prisoner so-and-so?
Mr. OWENS.AS well as I can remember they told me the next morn-
ing he wrote out some sort of confession that night after that trial.
That is all the information I have on that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you witness any other interrogations?
Mr. OWENS.Occasionally we would drop into the interrogation
rooms. Going around the prison inspecting, we might stop off. I did
not bother with too many because they were carrled on in German.
I did not speak German. I was not there too many times.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUmust have had occasion to observe the de-
meanor of the prosecution staff as well as the prisoner. Were they
going after him pretty hard? Tell us how they appeared while
asking these questions, how they acted.
Mr. OWENS.Well, to me they were just asking questions just the
same as any prosecutor would do to try to get the answers out. I never
saw any beating or anything like that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever see anybody shoved or pushed in the
stomach ?
Mr. OWEN.NO, sir; never did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have no further questions.
Senator MCCARTW.I have a few. You were supply officer. Let
me get your name again.
Mr. OWENS.Owens, sir ; Jack A. Owens.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you were a captain or a lieutenant?
Mr. OWENS.Lieutenant.
Senator MCCARTHY. Still in the reserve?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwere the supply officer, I gather?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I know all of US who were in the service know
the duties of a supply officer. It perhaps is not clear in the record to
someone who may not have had that experience.
A supply officer has no duty insofar as finding out how the supplies
are used. That is not his function to determine whether or not there
are enough supplies. He merely takes the requisition of his superior
officer and he does the procuring, right?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOthat if your superior officer would say, "Get
me a thousand blankets," you would get the thousand blankets.
Mr. OWENS.The requisition would be made up.
Senator MC~ARTHY. It was not your duty to see that the men had
the proper number of blankets or anything like that?
Mr. OWENS.NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUjust got the supplies?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOWyou were asked a question which rather
surprised me, and that was this: Whether or not if there were any
broken windows in this huge prison, whether you as supply officer
would be notified that there were some windows broken. Obviously
you would not be notified unless your commanding officer said, "Now
I want you to get so many new panes of glass." I s that right?
Mr. OWENS.That is sight, sir. These civilian internees were used
a good bit there for work around the prison. Anything that had to be
done was done by them under the supervision of American guards.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then you had the usual procedure of rotation
so that different junior officers wauld have the title of 0. D. for 24
hours ?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And as such you were theoretically in charge of
the guard?
Mr. OWNS. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. But the sergeant of the guard was the man who
would do all the work, write in the order and say, "Sign this, Lieuten-
ant," the usual procedure, the usual duties of an 0 . D. who knows
nothing about the duties of the sergeant of the guard. I s that right?
Mr. OTVENS. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOthat you do not feel i t was your duty to go
around and check in the various cells and see if the men were properly
treated or anything like that ?
Mr. OWENS.The prison was so situated, there was one section over
by itself, that most of these Malrnedg prisoners were kept in. There
was a man outside of that particular building, two, maybe three. I
do not know the exact number on the inside.
Their job was to rove around through that prison and to check
through these peep holes in the door. Thev were to be constantly
walking around the interior of the prison. Their job was to go and
check.
Senator MCCARTHY. They checked through the peep holes in the
various doors?
Mr. OWENS.That is right, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW on the question of food again, you were
not the mess officer, so it was not your job to see that the men were
properly fed. All you did was to take the requisition for so many
cans of this, so many cans of that. You did the procuring.
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir; and then too we did not have any special
divided duties. Occasionally I would go in and inspect the kitchen
for cleanliness to see how things were going, and just help out.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwould not have any way of knowing how
many days men were on bread and water, what rations they got in
various cases ?
Mr. OWEN.NO,sir; those records were kept in the prison command-
er's office. The executive officer would li-now through the mar crimes
team just what was being done as far as cutting off the food or any-
thing like that was concerned.
Senator MCCARTHY. Roughly how many junior officers were avail-
able to take over this duty as 0. D.? I n other words, how often did
you get duty; every week, 10 days?
Mr. OWENS.AS well as I can remember, once a week. Later on it
got so we caught it much more frequently due to the fact of the shortage
of officers.
Senator MCCARTHY. This day that you were asked to come in and
1 ake part in this mock trial proceeding, would you recall offhand who
contacted you ?
Mr. OWENS.I would not be sure on it. I think it was Captain Shu-
macker. It could have been one of the others. I only remember
Lieutenant Perl, Captain Shnmacker, of course Major Panton, Colonel
Ellis, and Mr. Thon.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you were in full uniform, I assume?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you were sitting behind the table as the
president of the court ?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Who were the other court members, do you
know ?
Mr. OWENS.I cannot remember, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. But there were two men flanking you?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Also dressed up in an Army uniform?
.Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know if Major Fahton was one of the
men, or Colonel Ellis, or would you know ?
Mr. OWENS.I would not know, sir. I cannot remember.
Senator MOCARTHY. DO you know whether Colonel Ellis or Major
Fanton was in the room at the time this mock trial was conducted?
Mr. OWENS.That I could not say, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. This was a very brief trial. They notified you
that they were adjourning the case until the following morning?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Before the trial started there was a man ap-
pointed as defense counsel 8
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.

Senator MCCARTHY.DO you know who was appointed as defense
counsel ?
Mr. OWENS.I am positive. I believe i t -wasMr.-
Senator MCCARTHY. If you do not know; I am not going to pin you
down.
Mr. OWENS.I am not positive, no, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Who do you think it was ?
Mr. OWENS.I think it was Mr. Thon. I could be mistaken.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou know who the prosecuting attorney was,
the fellow who took that position?
Mr. OWENS.I am not positive about that.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was the defendant sworn?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir; it was carried on as a court martial is cat:
ried on.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words. this defendant was. as vou "
understood it, led to believe he was being tried a t this time'?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwere the president of the court. The trial
would end and the sentence would be pronounced upon him ?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. But as far as what was said, you did not know
because it was said in German?
Mr. OWENS.That is right, I cannot speak German.
Senator MCCARTHY. 1)o you know who the stenographer was?
Mr. OWENS.NO, sir. I n addition to the officers there at this war-
crimes team, I did not know. '
Senator MC~ARTHY. This was at night, was i t ?
Mr. OWENS.It was in the afternoon, I would say 3 :30 or 4 o'clock.
Senator MCCARTHY. Tell me if the windows were open or if they
were covered up with black cloth ;how the room looked.
Mr. OWENS.It was just an open room-one of the larger cells which
had been made into sort of an office, like. It was used by this interro-
gating team. We had s e ~ e r a ofl those upon this one floor that were
turned over to this war crimes team for their use.
Senator MCCARTHY.I believe you said a room about half as large
as this ?
Mr. O ~ N SI .would say approximately half.
Senator MCCARTHY. With tables and chairs, I assume?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, made to look like a court?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Were there any religious articles on the table-
crucifix, candles ?
Mr. OWENS.I do not remember seeing any of them.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwould not remember that?
Mr. OWENS.NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Just SO we have this clear in mind-I do not
want to bore you with too much repetitioil-
Mr. OWENS.It is all right.
Senator MCCARTHY. I would like to have the record clear. There
is no doubt in your mind but what the purpose of the court was to lead
the accused to believe that he was having his trial, and no doubt in your
MALMEDY, MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 357
mind but what the accused thought he was represented by the defense
counsel and he was actually being tried a t that time?
Mr. OWENS.I think that is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. While I do not want you to evaluate the testi-
mony of any other witness, as that is the job of the corninittee, not
the job of the witness, I am going to read to you Major Fanton's testi-
mony. [Reading :]
There was never any defense counsel or other person who represented himself
a s such appointed for the subjects being interrogated through the use of this
technique.
From your actual participation, let me ask you, can we safely assume
that that statement is untrue?
I am not accusing the major of lying. The reason I asked whether
he was there or not, he may not have been a t these mock trials for all
I know, but in any event he is not giving us the correct facts when he
says there was no defense counsel; am I corcect ?
Mr. OWENS.NO, sir; I would not say you. are correct there because
Major Fanton was in contact with the work all the time, and I very
occasionally, and his testimony would be more correct than mine.
As well as I can remember now, I told you the facts about this par-
ticular trial as I remember it. I know that I was made president of
the court and i t lasted a very short period of time., It was convened
until the next morning. During the night he must have signed some
sort of a confession.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f you want t o change your testimony, I want
to know it. You know there was a man appointed as defense counsel?
Mr. OWENS.I do not know thht there was. As well as I can remem-
ber now, I think that there was. I could be confused on that, but I
know that I was the president of the court. That much I do know.
Senator MCCARTHY. AS president of this fake court, you could
not very well be confused as to the facts that occurred in these 10
minutes ; could you ? I do not want to heckle you, but I have got to
get the facts straight.
Mr. OWENS.It is all right. We can heckle each other.
As I said, Major Fanton would know more about this case than
I do. As well as I can remember now, I thought there was a defense
counsel. I thought someone was acting as defense counsel. It was
carried on in German, spoken so fast.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUas president of the court were under the
impression at the time that someone was acting as defense counsel?
Mr. OWENS.I thought that; yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And an Intelligent cha like you, thinking
$
that, I assume there is no reason why the defen ant did not think the
same thing ?
Mr. OWENS.Probably he did.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did he confer with the defense counsel?
Mr. OWENS.I cannot be positive on that.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUjust got through telling us that he did.
Mr. OWENS.I say to the best of my knowledge, as well as I can
remember this mock trial, that is what took place.
Senator MCCARTHT.TO the best of your knowledge he conferred
with defense counsel?
Mr. OWENS.I think that he did.
Senator MCCAR~HY. Were they sitting a t the same table or how

were they acting? I n other morcls, was the defendant and the defense
counsel sitting together 1
Let me impress this on you, if I may. You are under oath. This
is awfully in~portant.
Mr. OWENS.Yes, s i r ; I understand that.
Senator MCCARTHY. I t is not yonr f ~ u ~ c t i oto
n protect anyone.
You have told us the story. Kow becausee I call attention to testi-
mony of another witness in the case, me do not expect you to change
your story. W e just want you to tell the truth. Unless you do that
we cannot get to the bottom of this case, and this is the most important
investigation, I think, that we have ever conclucted.
Mr. OWENS.I understand that, and I an1 giving you-
Senator MCCARTIIY.It is extremely importa,lt that you forget all
the other mitnesses i n the case and tell us exactly what you uncler-
stand of the situation.
Senator BALDTVIN. Now after that statement may I say for the
benefit of the record-because the cold recorcl will not disclose this
man on the stand as he appears here today-he has been brovght here
and no one has gone over the testimony with him. H e is testifying
t o a circumstance that occurred apparently nearly 3 years ago.
Mr. OWENS.T h a t is right, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.7Vhich was, as be is describing i t here, a very
brief affair. I want to say for the benefit of the record, since you have
impressedl upon the recorcl the thought that possibly the witness is
attempting to change his testimony, that this young lieutenant gives
t o the chairman of this committee the appearance of trying to teIl the
t r u t h to the best of his lmowleclge, information, a i d belief, of a fact
that occurred a long time ago, and a n awful lot has happenecl since.
Now here is a young American officer, and I think something ought
to be said a little bit in his behalf.
You are perfectly within your right, Senator, in saying what you
said, but the cold record often discloses things when you read i t that
look a little bit hard and cruel.
I get the impression that this young man has a rather hazy recollec-
tion of this thing, but he is doing the best he can to reconstruct the
facts as he remembers them.
Senator MCCARTIIY. Let us get back to this haziness of recollection
now. I might say the young man appears to be very intelligent to
me.
(No response.)
Senator MCCARTIIY.Y OUare welcome.
I am going to ask you to tell us whether or not y,ou knew a inan
called Steiaer.
Mr. OWENS. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTIIY.You did not know him. You knew I'erl?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senat,or MCCARTEIY. Was Per1 in the room this d a y ?
Mr. OWENS.I believe he mas.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou know whether he was defense counsel?
Mr. OWENS.NO, sir.
Senator M C ~ A R T I ~1Ythink
. you said before you thought it was
Shumacker. .
Mr. OWENS.No, sir ; I did not make that statement.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdid not?

Mr. OWENS.NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. D,o you have any idea who the defense counsel
was ?
Mr. OWENS.NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOWthere was a table behind a t which you and
the other two members of the court sat?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Were there any other tables in the room ?
Mr. OWENS.I do not recollect.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not recall?
Mr. OWENS.NO,sir.
Senator ~ ~ C ~ A R T HYOU
Y . do not have any idea who the defense
connsel was ?
Mr. OWENS.NO,sir. 1-
Senator MCCARTHY. Are you sure of that?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUcould not even guess at i t ?
Mr. OWENS.NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. ISmy memory playing tricks on me ? Did not
this young man testify he thought it was Shumacker ?
Mr+.CHAMBERS. He said possibly it was Tlion.
Mr. OWENS.NO, sir; I made the statement that I t h o ~ ~ g hCap- t
tain Sliumacker was the nian that asked me to participate. That is
the statement that I made.
Senator BAWWIN.You admit, Senator, that your recollection might
be hazy as t o what happened just a few minutes ago?
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you say you thought Thon was defense
counsel ?
Mr. OWENS.NO,sir ; I did not say that.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you do not have any idea?
Mr. OWENS.I did not make a statement as to who I thought was
defense counsel. I said I thought they had one.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was he in an Army uniform, the defense
counsel 2
Mr. OWENS.AS well as I can remember, Lieutenant Thon wore an
Army uniform, being a civilian. Lieutenant Per1 wore an Army
uniform because he was a second lieutenant.
Senator MCCARTRY. What did you say about Thon wearing a
m i f orm ?
Mr. OWENS.H e wore his -regular uniform that all the civilians
wore over there with the prope~markingson it.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was Thon's uniform an officer's uniform?
Mr. OWENS.I just remember it being just a regular 0. D. uniform.
Whether or not it was an officer, I do not know.
Senator MCCARTHY. What do you mean by 0.D. uniform ?
Mr. OWENS.0. D. color.
Senator MCCARTHY. Any officer's insignia on i t ?
Mr. OWENS.I do not remember any officer's insignia.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou recall anyone around there in a WAAC
uniform a t this interrogation ?fi
Mr. OWENS.I do not recall.

Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not recall that?
Mr. OWENS.NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you recall anyone around the prison gen-

erally in a WAAC7suniform ?
Mr. OWENS.It Seems as if sometime during the time the Malmedy
prisoners were there, there was someone there in a WAAC uniform.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you know Mrs. Perl?
Mr. OWENS.NO,sir; I did not know her.
Senator MUCARTHY. YOUdid not know her?
Mr. OWENS.NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think that is all. Thank you very much.
Senator BALDWIN.J U S ~
a question or two, Lieutenaht.
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.What opportunity did you have to see these
Malmedy prisoners? When did they come, if ever, under your ob-
servation ?
Mr. OWENS.During the time that I was officer of the day I might
occasionally look-when these prisoners were brought in they were
sent to their cell. That night, or as soon as we possibly could, we
would go to each cell, a couple officers and enlisted men going a l o n ~
with us, and we would search all their clothing, have them strip an$
search them.
Senator BALDWIN.That was routine?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir ; that was routine.
Senator BALDWIN.So on those occasions you had a pretty direct
contact with the prisoners themselves ?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir ; on those occasions, because that was standard
procedure. They were brought in and sent to their cells and as soon
as we possibly could we went to each individual cell where they would
be sent. They were stripped and searched.
Senator BALDWIN.That is when they first came there?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir; when they first came there.
Senator BALDWIN.Now during the time that you were officer of the
day, did you have occasion to make routine inspections around in
the prison?
Mr. OWENSNot of each individual cell ;no, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. But after you were there awhile did you have
an opportunity to see the prisoners a t all?
Mr. OWENS.Only when they were being moved from one cell over
to the interrogation section.
Senator BALDWIN.You did see them then?
Mr. OWENS.I would see them then.,
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever see them when they were moved
back ?
Mr. OWENS.Yes; I saw them going back. They went back the
same way.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW frequently did that happen?
Mr. OWENS.Oh, every day we would see some of them being moved.
When the war crimes team needed them, they would be brought over
and, of course, had to be taken back.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,during the time that you personally ob-
served them, Lieutenant, did you ever see upon them any signs of
physical abuse; black eyes or scars-evidence of anything of that
kind ?
Mr. OWENS.NO,sir; I never saw anything like that.
Senator BALDWIN.Did there ever come under your personal ob-
servation, in what opportunity you have had for personal observation
as you have described here, any occasion when any of them were
slapped or kicked or punched or pushed against the wall or kneed in
the groin or anything of that kind?
Mr. OWENS.NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.I did' not understand that question. - The
question was, did you as supply officer-
Senator BALDWIN. The question was not "Did you as supply officer."
Senator MCCARTHY. Obviously he did not. ,
Senator BALDWIN.Can you read back the testimony to Senator
McCarthy ?
Senator MCCARTHY. Read back the question.
(The last question and answer,were thereupon read by the reporter.)
Senator BALDWIN. This witn$ss said as officer of the day he had
occasion to make routine inspections and he often saw these prisoners
when they were being brought in for interrogation and when they
were being brought back. As I recall he said he saw them in small
groups occasionally.
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. I tried to develop the basis of what opportunity
for observation he had.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Are you through?
Senator BALDWIN.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTIXY. There have been claims here that Judge Van
Roden, for example, testified that a number of the defendants-he
did not know how many-were crippled from being kicked in the
testicles. Now you obviously never conducted any physical examina-
tion of these men to determin'e whether or not they were kicked or
injured I assume. I s that right?
Mr. &ENS. NO,sir, I never did.
Senator MCCARTHY. It has-been claimed here by the dentist who
took care of them that he patched up broken teeth, in one case a broken
jaw. Did you have any occasion to ever examine their teeth, their
jaws, or anything like that as supply officer?
Mr. OWENS.NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not claim that you knew what went
on in these rooms when Per1 or any other member of the interrogation
staff were interrogating these men?
Mr. OWENS.NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. -
YOUdid not take .part in the investigation?

Mr. OWENS.NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTIZY. The only thing you claim to have personal
knowledge of was at the time you acted as president of the court?
Mr. OWENS.That is right, sir. -
Senator MCCARTHY. NO further questions.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is all, sir.
,
Senator BALDWIN. Thank you very much.

Now we have one other witness that comes from Pittsburgh, Pa.,
Mr. Fitzgerald.
Will you raise your right hand, Mr. Fitzgerald?
Do you solemnly swear that: the testimony you shall give in the
matter now in question shall be the truth, the whole trruth, and nothing
but the truth, to the best of your knowledge and belief, so help you
God ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I do.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM T. FITZGERALD
Senator BALDWIN.Give us your full name, Mr. Fitzgerald.
Mr. FITZGERALD.
William T. Pitzgerald.
Senator BALDWIN.Where do you live?
Mr. FITZGERALD.
Pittsburgh, Pa.
Senator BALDWIN.W h a t is your business now ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Insurance

business, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Will yon give us your street alldress?
Mr. FITZGERALD.
738 Bo,ggs Avenue.
Senator BALDWIN.Wow, were you ever a t Schwabisch H,all i n
Germany ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, sir; I was a t Schwabisch 'Hall in Germany.
I believe I went there i n 0ctbber 1945, sir.
S m a t o r BALDWIN.And what unit, what outfit were you attached to ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. The Six Hundred and Thirtieth Tank Destroyer
Battalion.
Senator BALDWIN.And how long did you stay a t Schwabisch H a l l ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I stayed a t Schwabisch Hall until the very latter
part of December.
Senator BALDWIN.1945 ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. 1945 ; that is right, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.During that time were certain prisoners brought
there-SS German troopers who m-ere charged with the Malmecly
massacre matter ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. T h a t is right, sir. They were brought there to
my recollection i n the latter part of November-somewhere around the
latter part of Thanksgiving or the early part of December.
Senator BALDWIN.What were your duties with reference to these
prisoners ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. A t the time that the prisoners were brought to me
and during the time i n which I mas there, there was another officer
who was over me i n charge of the prison. Due to the fact that he was
on leave in Switzerland practically a t the time of their arrival, and
then his 90-day furlough in the States, why, the responsibility of the
prison fell more or less back on myself.
Senator BALDWIN.What was your rank a t that time?
Mr. FITZGERALD. First lieutenant, sir. That is as far as the admin-
istration of the prison is concerned, the supply-well, every phase of

it-supply and the store and housing of the prisoners, the food, every-
thing concerning the prisoners a t tl7at time. I had one other officer
with me.
Senator BAWWIN. During the time that yon were there, you were
really primarily connected with supply, were you ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, every phase of the prison, sir, in the opera-
tion of the prison itself.
Senator BALDWIN.During that time did you have opportunity to
see these prisoners ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, sir; I saw the prisoners every day. I would
see them from time to time. I would make periodic checks of the cell
blocks and' of the prisoners themselves. I mean the.prisoners in the
cells.
We were handicapped by only having 80 men in the company a t
the time which necessitated operating the company mess and the ad-
ministration of the company and also guarding and operating the
prison which left us quite shorthanded, and it forced quite a bit of
the other details on the officers.
Senator BALDWIN. Would you say that you were i n contact with
these prisoners daily ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, I ,would not say I was in contact with 100
percent of the prisoners daily, but I did see any number of them daily.
Senator BALDWIN. I n other words, every day yo~zsaw some number
of the prisoners ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. T h a t is right, sir.
I was i n every part of the prison
every day.
Senator BALDWTW'
What were the occasions on which you saw them?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, it would be anything, sir. It might be just
a security check to make sure the prisoners were behaving in their
cells.
S-ome prisoners, as has been stated, were confined separately and
other prisoners, there were two or three i n the cell, whichever the cell
would allow. Some would allow three, some cells would only allow
for two prisoners. It depends on the number of beds, how this par-
ticular cell was equipped.
Naturally the individual prisoners required a certain amount of
observation as well as did the ones who were together.
Senator BALDWIN. Now during that time there were men under you
who were actually doing the guarding, were there not 2
Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, sir; there were guard posts. As has been
stated by former witnesses, there were guard posts outside the cell
blocks. There were guard posts inside the cell blocks as well as
aronnd the cell blocks.
Senator BALDWIN. N0.w will you go ahead and tell us what you
observed concerning any maltreatment of the prisoners of any kind.
Just g o ahead and tell us in your own way what you observed.
Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, as f a r as maltreatnlent was concerned, sir,
I did not observe, shall I say, intended maltreatment of any prisoner.
I remember one incident where the prisoners were first brought u p
to us there was one prisoner who refused to go into the cell and he
was forced into the cell, a t which time when he was forced into the
cell he struck his face on the side of the cell and cut his jaw and p a r t
. of the inside of his mouth.
Senator BALDWIN. Were you present 1
Mr. FITZGERALD.
That was one particular case that I can definitely
recall. I was present a t the time ;yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. What was the conduct of the prisoner?
Mr. FITZGERALD. H e was very belligerent, very arrogant, sir. He
just refused to go in. H e grabbed ahold of the sides of the doors.
When the gnards attempted to push him in, he tried t o fight them
off, so i t necessitated two or three of the guards stepping u p and
putting him in the cell.
Senator BALDWIN. T h a t was when the prisoner was first brought
there ?
91765-49----24
Mr. FITZGERALD. That is right, sir. That was when' they were
each being assigned to the different cells into which they were going.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you ever see any other occasion of that
particular kind ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. NO, sir; I did not ever witness any other occasion
of that type. I am sure if it had occurred, I would have known it
during my time there.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you ever hear of anything ?
Mr. FITZGERALD.
NO,sir ;I never did hear of any other mistreatment
of the prisoners except-I would not call that a mistreatment. I t
was just circumstances that were derived by his arrogance.
Senator BALDWIN. Did there come under your observation any
pushing or shoving or kneeing in the groin or slapping or punching
or kicking in the abdomen or anything of that kind?
Mr. FITZGERALD. NO,sir, there never came under my observation any
such thing. I might state a t this time in order to help the committee
here that our guards, as you know, took the men to the interrogation
center and right to the doors of the interrogation center where they
were turned over to the interrogating officer who requested it.
They were taken back by our guards. I n fact, there was one par-
ticular lard who did most of the moving, who was sergeant over the
prison, bergeant Scalise. H e escorted the prisoners to the interroga-
tion center and the majority of the times he escorted them back, and
he had never reported any change in any physical condition of any
of the prisoners to me, and I am sure he would have, had there been any.
That is my own assumption, but it is a point for the coinnlittee
because there is a definite fact when they left the interrogation center
and were taken back to the cell blocks, they were in the same conclition
that they left. It has never been reported to me otherwise. I am
sure he would have.
Senator BALDWIN. YOUsaid that every day you saw some part of
the prisoners during the period that you were there. Did you ever
observe any evidences of physical violence on them, I mean insofar as
you could observe it, of black eyes or bruises in the face or any other
part of the body?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, right after the prisoners were brought to us,
sir, well, let us say a good 2 weeks after they were brought to us, by
the time we were able to get around to make this-we made an entire
security check of the prisoner. We stripped each prisoner naked in
the cell. Each prisoner was examined. The prisoner was examined
for knives or any other implements that they may commit suicide
with or injure any of the prisoners in the cell with them.
That security check was made of the entire prison a t which time
I was not able to see all 400 of thein, approximately 400 which there
were. There were two other officers that assisted in conducting that
mspection, and the ones that I saw definitely did not have any marks
of any recent violence on them. Of course they did have marks of
war on them, but I saw there were no recent marks of violence what-
soever on them.
Senator BALDWIN. Was any complaint ever made to you as an
officer by any prisoner, in behalf of any prisoners concerning the
treatment ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. No, sir, the prisoners-well, i t would not be very
well for the prisoners to contact me personally because they remained
i n the..cells the majority of the time. W e were limited in personnel
guarding them.
Thev remained in the cells the maiority of the time, and therefore
they Gould only see me in passing, &d ikpecting their cells.
Senator BALDWIN. Were there occasioils when prisoners were put
on bread and water?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I C O L not~ ~ say, sir. Frankly i t runs in my mind
that there was, zind then again I cannot recall anything about a par-
ticular incident, so I cannot make astatenlent to that effect what-
soever.
I know that Major Panton and myself and the other officer did
talk over the procedure on bread a i d water and what disciplinary
action he might request of us, and a t the time I recall very vividly
of him referring to a war crimes circular concern in^ what the limits
were, the allowable limits on punishment for a prisoner as f a r a s
bread and water or solitary coilfinement were concerned, the number
of days and different things like that.
T h a t was something that mias brought up by Major Fanton i n talks
with us about that when the prisoners first came there.
Senator BALDWIN. W h a t was the attitude of these men?
Mr. FITZGERALD. They were very arrogant, sir. You mean the
prisoners ?
Senator RALDWIP;. Yes.
Mr. FITZGERALD. I n some cases-I will not say 100 percent of them,
but there were quite a few of them were naturally resentful and some
of them mere rather mean in different instances.
Senator BALDTVIN. Were they all that way?
Mr. FITZGERALD. No, s i r ; they were not. There mas just a limited
few of them that were. Some seemed to t r y to be very cooperative,
but there were some of course that would constantly t r y t o break-
hfractions.
Here is your incident under bread ancl water. It just came to me.
They tried to communicate to each other between cells between the
upper and lower cells. They somehow got ahold of a pole and tried
to drop a note down to the other prisoners who they mere.
They were divided to be kept separate so one would not know where
the other was. F o r means of communication they tried to contact
each other. The guard noticed i t and h e called the sergeant of the
guard. The sergeant of the guard came and got me, ancl we went
up to the cell block i n which they mere doing it and they still had the
pole out the window trying to drop the note down.
It was on a sheet, a piece of cloth. They were trying to get this
note down to the people below them to t r y to find out who they mere
becanse the floors, they could possibly communicate through the
floors in Morse code or maybe holler.domn. I do not know.
They were put on bread and water. The two prisoners i n that cell
were put on bread and water for 3 days.
Senator BALDWIN. W h a t were the facilities for bathing there, f o r
the prisoners bathing ancl washing?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, sir, frankly I cannot recall as to whether or
not there was a sink i n the cell or not. Sometimes I believe there was,
and then again I cannot recall definitely seeing a particular sink i n
-the cell, but I think if an examination or any pictures of the prison are
available, that xi11 answer i t better than I can because I canilot par-
ticularly say if there was a wash basin in the cell or not.
Senator BALDWIN.I t has been testified here that part of this prison
was old and part of i t 3Tas comparatively new. It was a regular Ger-
man civilian prison. I s tliat right ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. T h a t is right, sir. I t was n complete prison in it-
self. It had everything in it.
Senator BAL~:VIN.I n what part mere the Malrnedy prisoners kept?
Mr. FITZGERALD. The Malmedy prisoners were kept in both parts.
As we said, the majority of them were kept in a separate cell block
with approximately a half-block separation-1 will not say t h a t ; I
mill say about 100-foot separation between one big cell block and
a large circular building. A portion of the large clrcular building
had been bombed out during the war, and necessitated shutting it off
with wooden partitions and all so that heat could remain in the remain-
ing p a r t of the prison.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever participate in any nlocli trials,
so-called ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. NO. sir : I did not.
Senator BALDWIN.Did ever see any one of then1 conclucted?
Mr. FITZGERALD. NO,sir ; I did not.
Senator BALDWIN.Can you tell us anything about blanliets, wlietl~er
or hot these men had adequate blankets to cover them ?
Mr. F'ITZGERALD. Yes, sir. The prison when me took i t over-I do not
know who took it over bofore us, but whenever the Si- lluiiclred
thirtieth was placed i n responsibility of the prison-there were
numerous blankets i n the prison storeroon~.
After the Malmedy prisoners were brought there, Colonel Ellis'
had come down to the prison, and in fact that was niy first meeting
with Colonel Ellis, ancl he exaininecl and went all through the cell
blocks and he advised that more blankets be put where needed for tlie
men, f o r these prisoners.
H e made sure in checking there were adequate blankets, and we
made arrangements f o r drawing of them if they were needed. It was
in the early part of December. I t had not turned quite cold yet,
so therefore me could not tell exactly how ni~luchwas needed. I know
all through tlie time they were there, that I was there, there were
adequate blankets for them.
Senator BALDWIN.Were there any instructioiw given to you about
tlie treatment of the prisoners ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I n what respect, sir ?
Senator BALDWIN.I mean as to how they were to be handled? Was
there any warning given against physical abuse or were you told to
hai~dle
. them rough if they were rough, or what were yon told about
them 'I
Mr. FITZGERALD. NO, s i r ; we were not told to handle them rough
whatsoever. W e had prisoners there before, 23 Germans, quite a
few number of civilian prisoners, and eight women prisoners there.
Senator BALDWIN.T h a t was before the Malmedy men came there?
Mr. EITZGERALD. T h a t is right, sir. Therefore me were told, of
course, about the feeding process of the prisoners, due to tlie fact
that we did not have enough guards and there mas no large mess
hall i n which they could all be sat a t one time, and also for security
reasons to keep them from conzmunicating with each other, i t was
necessary to take the food t o the individual cells in many cases due
to the fact there not being any mess hall there.
That was hashed out a t the time. The colonels and majors asked
that the men be fed separate. It was the only way we could do it
to keep them from communicating wi;h themselves.
The disciplinary action, as I stated, with Major Fanton was talked
over as f a r as bread and water and solitary cells, was limited, and
as far as any added abuse, there was no reason to give them any abuse.
The men were in the cells.
As long as they behaved themselves it mas not necessary for
anybody to abuse them, and they werehot, as I say, due to limited
facilities and security reasons, they were not able to get into groups
where there could be trouble and where they could be forced to be
pushed around and do this or that.
When taken to the interrogation center and back, I do not lalow
of any instance where anyone had to be dragged or anything of that
sort to an interrogation center. They went.
They did not know where they were going. They went along
with us; put the hoods over their heads as stated before. That was
to keep them from communication-knowing who was going LIP there,
who mas conling back. They had to pass all the way through the
cell blocks in order to get to the far cell block where most of them
-
were stored.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUspecified here you put a black hood over
A
their heads ? '

Mr. FITZGERALD. That is right, sir. As 1stated, that was to keep
down recognition as much as possible.
Senator BALDWIN.Was there any rope used in connection with
that ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I never saw a rope used, sir. I t had a string a t
the bottom to keep - it from coming off. It was a h ~ o dlike on an
-
army jacket.
Senator MCCARTHY:YOU have given us some information here
which I think may prove very valuable. I understand that before
the interrogation started, the men arrived a t Schwabisch Hall-they
were stripped, you examined them, and you found at that time none
of them had the injuries which it is claimed they have since gotten,
so that if we,have a doctor examine those men now, if it is found
that they have ruptured testicles and that sort of thing from being
kicked, then we will know that that is as a result of treatment they
got subsequent to the time yon examined them ; right?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, sir, as I say, the ones that I saw I can testify
for that portion of those men. Also I might mention to you-
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this: Did you examine all
400 ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. NO,sir; I did not. It would be impossible for me.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid they were all stripped and examined.
Did someone examine them?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, sir.
Three of us officers handled it.
Senator MCCARTHY. I see; and you examined, r o ~ ~ g h lhow
y ,
many?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, I do not know, sir; one-third of 400 mould
be about 150 or 125 men.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you found none of the injuries that have
been described here ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. The only think I wish t o state in there, that there
were some war injuries the men were still carrying. Now whether
or not some of those ruptures could be considered in there, I do not
know that.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did you find any that were seriously injured?
Mr. FITZGERALD. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n the groin or thereabouts?
Mr. FITZGERALD.
NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Either war injuries or otherwise?
Mr. FITZGERALD.
NO;I cannot recall of any war injuries-
Senator MCCARTHY. SOif we have a doctor examine those men, if
they find those injuries exist today, then we know that is the result
of the treatment they received after you examined them?
Mr. FITZGERAW. The portion of the men I examined ;yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWabout the two officers, did they report any
injuries to the groin?
Mr. FITZGERALD. NO;not that I know of, not a one.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,I believe that there is no question about
i t ; it is entirely proper under international law and the rules of the
Geneva Conference to put a man on bread and water for 3 days if
he is violating the rules which are set up for his behavior ; right ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. That is right, sir.
Senator MCCARTHP.SO there can be no claim that putting a man
on bread and water for an infraction of the rules is not proper. That
is perfectly proper in any prisoner-of-war camp.
Mr. FITZGERALD. That is right, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you can put him in solitary confinement
for a certain period of time?
Mr. FITZGERALD. That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. For an infraction'of the rules ?
Mr. FITZGERALD.
That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you were aware of those rules and regula-
tions for the treatment of prisoners?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I WS, sir, and Major Fanton also reminded me of
them and referred me to the directive tlmt covered that by the W a r
Crimes Department of the Army.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you determined under what terms and
conditions you could put a man in solitary and how long you could
keep him there ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. That is right; we could not keep him there more
than 3 days.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you tell us what, in your opinion, is soli-
tary? I n other words, under the rules of the Geneva Convention that
you were operating with, what is solitary confinement ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Solitary confinement during my period of time
there, as I say there was only one case of it, there was a separate cell,
a separate area which was known as the solitary-confinement area.
I n fact, the interroaators themselves had the majority of the soli-
tary cells, although alqthe furniture was moved out, but the idea of it
was it was separate from where all or most of the prisoners were sta-
tioned, were kept, so therefore it meant that they could take the pris-
oners off away from where the other prisoners could hear anything.
I n fact, I recall particularly Major Fanton and I both, I believe
It was Major Fanton conducted an experiment to see if one could be
heard through the other cell, and we found you could not hear from
one to the other.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWdid you conduct the experiment?
Mr. FITZGERALD. We hollered to each other from one cell to the
other. This solitary cell was pretty much as was explained.
You went into a steel door and there was a small, possibly a 4-foot
space. Then you went into again another steel door of which there
was a smaller window. There was a wooden bed, built of wood.
The other prisoners had mattresses with springs underneath them,
just like an Army cot would be with a mattress. The solitary, of
'course, did not have the mattress in it. It had a small pad on the bed.
Senator McCARTH~-What is your. title? Were you camp com-
mander or what ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, see, sir, officially in the Army I was not on
official records, but I was due to the fact the camp commander being
away.
Senator MCCARTHY. Who was the camp commander?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Captain Tourney. He had very little to do.
Senator MCCARTHY. H e came in October and left when Mr. Owens
came ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. NO, sir; he left about Christmas time, somewhere
thereabouts, and Capt. Nobel Johnson came down.
Senator MCCARTHY. Nobel Johnson took over ?
Senator MCCARTHY. And during that time the camp commander
was not present?
Mr. FITZGERALD. That is right; I was the acting camp commander
at that time.
Senator MCCARTHY. AS such YOU talked over with Maior Fanton. I
understand, what rules would c&er your treatment of the prisoners;
right ?
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdiscussed how many days you would keep
them on bread and water?
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU discussed under what conditions you
would put them on solitary ?
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,you apparently did not understand my
question before. My question is this :
"Solitary" is defined as you understand it, under the rules of the
Geneva Convention. My question is, what did you understand as
solitary ?
We have had a lot of conversation as to what was close confinement,
what was solitary. Will you define, in view of the fact you and Major
Fanton discussed this subject, what you and he considered as solitary?
Mr. FITZGERALD. The impression I got and the way I carried solitary
confinement out, it was a particular cell in which a man was put into
which had double doors, and had a wooden bed. That was solitary
confinement. He was in there alone. It had a smaller window.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou mind if I interrupt you? The wooden
bed and double doors had nothing to do with whether it was solitary
u r not; right? I am not speaking about the cell you call solitary. I
am trying to find out what you understand as solitary.
I am not telling you what you did was wrong. Maybe i t was neces-
sary for you to put those men in solitary for 6 months, for all I know.
I am just trying to find out what you consider as solitary, what rules
ou were following.
The double doors had nothi'ng to do with whether i t was solitary or
not. T h e type of bed had nothing to do with whether i t was solitary.
Can you tell me what yon understoocl to be solitary confinement?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Sir, the only may I can answer that question for
vou is the fact that those cells mere considered to be the solitary cells.
i ~ h e na man was put into there, he was considered to be in solitary
confinement.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n which cells?
Mr. FITZGERALD. I n the one with the double doors and the wooden
bed. T h e other men, if they were confined alone, they had mattresses,
they had the springs, they had daylight and the sunlight and every-
thing else that any of the other prisoners had. They might have had
two in a cell.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let us take the close confinement now, where a
man is alone.
Senator MCCARTHY.That cell differed in that there was more
sunlight ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, i t was the same as any other cell in the prison.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let us forget about the other cells. They had
more s~mligllt,a. different kind of a bed, and one door?
Mr. FITZGERALD. T h a t is right.
Senator MCCATRHY.But yon say that was not solitary. Was there
a peephole i n the door?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, s i r ; a peephole on the door.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUcould see what he was doing?
Mr. ~ I T Z G E R A L DT. h a t is right.
Senator MCCARTHY.And there were solid walls?
Mr. FITZGERALD.
T h a t is right.
Sailator MCCARTHY.And how long did you keep a man in that type
of room under close confinement ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, sir, those men that were i n those cells were
i n those cells when I left. T h a t was a period of approximately 3
t o 4 weeks.
Senator MCCARTHY.They mere,kept; in what you call close con-
finement ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. T h a t is right, they were i n there. I have no
knowledge of them being moved.
Now if they were moved, i t was certainly without any knowledge on
my part, but we were limited in space.
As I said, p a r t of the prison was bombed out. Due to certain in-
terrogations, possibly we will call them clues or leads that the interro-
gators had, they requested that certain men be put in these cells.
Senator MCCARTHY.I am not criticizing. I am trying to find out
what you did. Now these men were in close confinement for 4 weeks
that you know of ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. T h a t is right.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUbrought the food to them?

Mr. FITZCERALD.
That is right, as well as all prisoners.
Senator MCCARTHY. That was shoved under the door, or was the
door opened?
Mr. FITZGERALD. The door was opened and i t was handed in to
them.
Senator MCCARTHY. Handed in to them?
Mr. F I T Z G ~ A L Dis. right.
That
Senator MCCARTHY. They were kept in that type of confinement
until they confessed ?
Mr. FITZGERALD. Well, no, sir; I could not say that. I left.
Senator MCCARTHY. They were still there when yon left? Had
you and Major Fanton already discussed the matter, and you are both
amare of the fact that you could not keep prisoners of war in solitary
for the purpose of getting a confession?
1-en are both aware of that. You are both aware of the fact that
~ ~ o u lbe
c la violation of the rules under which we operate?
Mr. FITZGERALD.
I cannot swear that I was amwe of it, sir.
Senator MCCARTHT.Did YOU discuss that ?
Mr. FITZGERALD.
I cannot recall discussing that; no, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. You cannot recall that 8
Mr. FITZGERALD.
NO,sir. -We discussed punishment, rations.
Senator MCCARTIXY. I am finished. What time do me convene?
Senator BALDWIN.A t 10 o'c10ck Monday morning, in the regular
room.
Lieutenant, thank you very much for coming clown.
(TVliereupon, a t 12: 45 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned, to re-
convene a t 10 a. m., Monday, May 9,1949.)
MONDAY; MAY 9, 1949
; UNITEDSTATESSENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE COMMITTEEON ARMEDSERVICES,
Washingdoq D.c.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, a t 10 a. m., in the
.committee room, room 212, Senate Office Building, Senator Raymond
E. Baldwin, presiding.
Present : Senator Baldwin. 4
Also present: Mr. J. M. Chambers of the committee staff; Mrs.
Francis Flanagan and Mr. Howelr J. Hatcher, of the staff of the Sub-
committee on Investigations of the Committee on Expenditures i n
Executive Departments; and Colonel Ellis.
Senator BALDWIN.I was advised by Senator McCarthy's office this
morning that he had been requestet to go to Quantico as one of the
two marines who are now Senators, to serve there as one of the hosts
to the Members of Congress who are down a t Quantico today, in-
specting the base there and watching the marine maneuvers.
I n view of that fact, and a t his request, I have suggested to Major
Fanton that we not put him on the stand today, but ask him to stay
over until tomorrow, when Senator McCarthy says he will be back,
so that he can conduct his cross-examination then.
I have talked with Senator McCarthy by telephone, and he is per-
fectly agreeable that we call Major Byrne today, and also as to Colonel
Dwinell.
Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Hatcher, who are on the staff of the Investiga-
t i n g Subcommittee of the Committee on Expenditures in Executive
Departments, and who have worked with Senator McCarthy on the
case, are both here, and I want to extend to them, as I told Senator
McCarthy I would, the privilege of asking these witnesses any ques-
tions that they may want answered.
We have got hearings scheduled for all of this week, and I think
it is essential that we go forward with the hearings so, we will proceed
today with these witnesses.
I also told Senator McCarthy that I thought that both of these two
. witnesses would probably be available tomorrow, too, and if he had
any questions in addition to what Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Hatcher
wanted to ask, that he would have thgt opportunity later on, upon
-examination of the record, to ask those questions.
Now, Major Byrne, will you stand up and hold up your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you will give in the matter
now in question will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth,.so help you God?
Major BYRNE.I do.
373
STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. BYRNE, MAJOR, JUDGE ADVOCATE

GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Senator BALDWIN.Give your full name, please ?
Major RYRNE.Robert E. Byrne; major, Judge Advocate General's
Department, presently stationed a t F o r t Knox, Ky.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW long have you been in the Army, inajor?
Major BYRNE.Since 1943, senator.
Senator BALDWIN.And when you first went into the Army, in what
capacity did you enter the A r m y ? I
Major BYKNE.AS a private.
Senator BALDWIN.Were you a combat soldier, or assigned to the
Judge Advocate Geiieral's Department ?
Majot' BYRNE.I mas initially trained as a second lieutenant in the
Tank Destroyer Corps, and assigned or detailed i n 1944 to the Judge
Advocate General's Department. I have no combat experience. The
war ended upon my arrival in the European Theater.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you have any duties in connection with these
Malmedy cases ?
Major BYRNE.Yes, sir; I did.
Senator BALDWIN.Will you describe to us what they were?
Major BYI~NE.I was initially assigned to the W a r Crimes Branch
of the then U S F E T , Judge Advocate General's section, i n November
of 1945. My first connection r i t h the Malmecly case was in the last
p r t of .January 1946, when I was assigned to the Evidence Branch
and made on-the-gromlcl investigations in Belgium, based upon the
information that had been secured by the interrogators from the
German PW's in connection with the Malmedy massacre. I n that
connection I traveled with a small detachment to Belgium, and located
in Belginm, inclividuals, some of whom had seen the actual atrocities
committed ; scme who had, on the,dates and in the places described
i n the state11:ents and in the elaborate slcetches prepared by these
witnesses, found the bodies, or people r h o had seen the bodies as they
lay on the ground after the various shootings.
I utilized in particular sketches that nTere prepared by one of the
accused in the Malmedy case, Gustav Adolf Sprenger, who drew a
very elaborate map of the village of Stournoat, and who fixed in his
sketch, with particular accuracy, on.., killing in which he, himself, had
participated, and others that had been participated in by other mem-
bers of his organization, whose names presently slip me.
I was particularly impressed by the map prepared by this prisoner
because of the geographic accuracy. I t was almost accurate to scale,
in addition to which it was 2 years since h e had been in this particular
little village, and i t is inst a little cluster of buildings. H e had very
accurately placed the principal landmarlrs, the church, school, butcher
shop, the grocery store, principal roads, and even the little small pzths
with which he had personal connection. as far as these shootings were
concerned.
I also located in the other villages, for example, Bulingen, if I am
correct, LaGleize, Lutre Bois, and Petit Thier, the corroborative testi-
mony in support of the confession statements of numerous members
who had been interrogated.
F o r example, a t Petit Their I was able to locate with, shall we say,
almost 100 percent accuracy, the location of the body of which, or
with which Colonel Peiper was connected. H e was present when his
regimental surgeon, Major Sickel, had directed a soldier, Wischmann,
to take a man out and shoot him.
The body had not been discovered until several weeks later, but the
personal effects that belonged to the soldier, I remember a tooth-
brush, a couple of small snapshots in a dilapidated billfold, were
still among the leaves in a place, on the ground, within 10 yards of
where this soldier had described leaving the body.
I also interrogated several Belgian civilian women, some widows
u-hose husbands had been killed, particularly in Wanne, and other
survivors in various families, and I arranged for those people, or a
number of them, to attend the trials a t Dachau and their testimony
Rppears in the record of trial.
That I accomplished in, i t is my recollection, two or three trips,
two of which were from Wiesbaden to the vicinity of Malmedy, and
a third which was made from Schwabisch Hall.
That part of the investigation consumed, it is my best recollection,
the time up until about the middle of March, St which time I returned
t:) Schwabisch Hall.
Colonel Ellis had taken command down there a t that time, and
Major Fanton had returned to the States some 6 weeks or 2 months
previously, and I had been assigned as one of the prosecutors of the
case and worked with Colonel Ellis, Captain Shumacker, Colonel
Crawford, and other members of the team in assembling the materidl
that we had in the manner in which we intended to present it a t the
trial.
During that period, I do not definitely recall whether I had occasion
to witness any of the confessions, that is, swear the witness to any
of the actual confessions that were taken. However, I did have occa-
sion, during that period, to administer the oath to numerous of the
accused, who signed statements identifying photographs of the various
members of the units, in which they .identified the
f essions.
photograph
being the individual referred to in this original con ession, or con- as
Of course the purpose of that was to tie the confessions and the in-
dividual in the dock at the trial, together.
I particularly remember an interesting incident with Colonel Peiper
during that period. Colonel Peiper spoke very fluent English-
Senator BALDWIN. Let n ~ ask
e you first: Who was Colonel Peiper?
Major BYRNE.Colonel Joachim Peiper was the commanding officer
of the First S S Panzer Regiment, which organization had participated
in the killings a t Malmedy, and these other atrocities that have been
described.
At the time Colonel Peiper signed this descriptive clocnment, or sev-
eral of these documents, identifying persons identified in his state-
ment, I was talking to him in English. I did have an interpreter with
me, and I asked him if they were correct,"and he said they were.
I said: "Coloi~el,you speak English well enough so that we won't
need an interpreter to swear yon in." And he mentioned that perhaps
he thought we should do it in German, that it perhaps would be more
legal.
From that point I was there from about the middle of March until
the prisoners were moved from Schwabisch Hall to Dachau on the
17th of April. I n the early part of April I did take one additional
376 ULMEDY MASSACRE I N V E S T I G A T I ~ N
short trip to the areas in Belgium with the members of the prosecution
staff, and pointed out to them, on the ground, the matters that would
become of great importance during the course of the trial.
That, incidentally, was the first time that any of the members of the
prosecution staff, other than myself, had ever been on the ground, phys-
ically, in Belgium, a t the scene of these alleged incidents.
I assisted in supervising the loading of the prisoners, between 200
and 300 of them, on the 17th of April, I believe i t was, the middle part
of April, when the bulk of them were transferred from Schwabisch
Hall, and it was a day or two later when we closed out our own quar-
ters and the rest of our operations at Schwabisch Hall, and took the
last 6 of our prisoners, who had just been returned from the United
States, and moved our operations.
I participated in the trial up until the conclusion of the prosecution's
case, which was about the 15th of June, a t which time I was transferred.
I returned on one occasion during the first 2 weeks in July, and assisted
in conducting part of the rebuttal testimony and part of the cross-
examination of one or two of the defense witnesses.
Senator BALDWIN.How much time did yon spend on this mission of
corroborating the confessioi~s?
Major BYRNE.Over all, Senator, approximately 6 weeks.
Senator BALDWIN.AS I understand it, you took these confessions, or
a t least some of them, and other material that had been secured or
obtained from the prisoners who were interviewed a t Schwabisch
Hall-
Major BYF~NE. That is correct.
Senator BALDWIN.And you went down to the scene of this so-called
massacre ?
Major BYRNE.That is right, Senator.
Senator BALDWIN.And as I understand it, then you tried to find
out the witnesses, where they were located, and secure physical evi-
dence that wo~lldcorroborate 'the statements that were made in the
confessions ?
Major BYRNE.That is correct.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUsay YOU obtained a map from one of these
prisoners ?
Major BYRNE.Yes, sir., There were several maps. The most im-
portant was the one that had been prepared by Springer, that is, it
was the most accurate and the most in detail.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW many of the different defendants were af-
fected, would you say, by this work of yours in finding corroborating
evidence and testimony ?
Major BYRNE.With the exception of some of the company com-
manders and the general who were involved in the thing from the
standpoint of orders, the bulk of those who were charged with actual
shootings, in one way or another, some portions of corroborating testi-
mony or evidence were discovered on those trips; some conclusive,
some inconclusive.
Senator BALDWIN.Were there any civilian witnesses to this
shooting.
Major BYRNE.Yes, sir; to the shooting by this man Springer, and
two other German soldiers, there was one witness by the name of
Jordan, an elderly man in the village of Steuval ( ?). He had ac-
tually been in hls house hiding, and saw the prisoners marched, and
the soldiers go by the side of his house, saw the shooting, saw people
start to fall, and after the German soldiers left, actually saw the bodlcs
on the ground.
Senator BALDWIN. And when you say he actually saw the shooting
and the bodies on the ground, you mean that was the group that was
in the field ?
Major BYRNE.NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.What group was this?
Major BYRNE.This is another group, another incident that oc-
curred, another shooting. The shootings that occurred in Stoumont,
occurred a day or two subsequent to the actual shooting at Malmedy.
This was a separate incident by the troops of the same organization.
Senator BALDT~IN. According to the list that Mr. Chambers shows
me, it is at Stoumoncon the 19th of December 1944. I t was charged
that there were \I1soldiers-
Mr. CHAMBERS. And 44 civilians, included.
Senator BALDWIN. A total of 44 civilians and soldiers shot there.
Major BYRNE.Yes, sir. They were not shot in one fell swoop, or
in a large group, Senator. They were incidents scattered over that
entire day-a small group here, perhaps behind a house-and there
was a group some other place. There was a group, the figures varied
between 10 and 20, near the store, down on the main street. There
was another group shot behind the doctor's house in the city. It was
not one group, as had occurred as Malmedy. They were scattered,
sporadic shootings.
Senator BALDWIN. And were those shootings, as you were able to
determine from the evidence, the shooting of men who had sur-
rendered ?
Major BYRNE.AS nearly as we were able to determine from the
statements given to us by these Belgian people, they were men who
were surrendered and disarmed.
Senator BALDWIN.I think it will be a good thing at this point to
put in the record what the claim as to the total number of different
places is where these shootings occurred.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The Department of the Army has furnished the
committee with a list of the alleged killings of soldiers and civilians
at the places named, and at the time they gave i t to me they said that
the figures were a little indefinite and for that reason they have given
us the most conservative estimate.
There were 13 different locations, including the crossroads incident;
and, there were approximately 369 soldiers who were killed; 106
civilians; and then they have 37 others with a question mark after the
"others."
I don't know just what they have in mind there. There is an ap-
proximate total of 512 individuals that were alle ed to have been killed
I
during the period covered by the cases tried in t e Malmedy trials.
Senator BALDWIN.I s it fair to describe these all as the so-called
Malmedy incident or Malmedy killings ?
Major BYRNE.TOthe extent, Senator Baldwin, that the great num-
ber of them were tried in connection y i t h the Malmedy case. The
accused on trial in the Malmedy incident were not all specifically
charged with shootings in the field at the Malmedy crossroads.
Senator BALDWIN. They were charged with other separate killings?
Major B ~ R N EYes,
. sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you have any confessioi~sthat concernecl

the shootings at the crossroads when you went down there to investi-
gate it on the ground?
Major BYRNE.I cannot be absolutely positive, Senator. I believe-
I know that on one of the trips that I went down on, I did have state-
nlents from individuals who were involved a t the crossroads. I can-
not be positive that I had them on the first trip. The first trip was
directed-we had the most direct evidence with regard to the Stou-
inont killing. However, i t was either the first or second trip that I
made down, which was within a matter of a space of 2 weeks, when I
did have that evidence, and had certain corroborative matters with
reference to the crossroads killing, the actual Malmedy shootings, and
was able to find witnesses who had seen the shooting occur, and who
showed me the location, generally speaking? where the bodies had
fallen in the field, the people who had lived w ~ t h i nfour or five houses
a t the intersection of the two roads.
Senator BALDWIN.This so-called Malmedy crossroads?
Major BYRNE.The so-called Malmedy crossroads; yes, sir; al-
though Malmedy is approximately 4 kilometers, or about 3% miles
from the village of Malmedy itself.
Senator BALDWIN.Then, the investigation and the prosecution did
make an effort to corroborate the claimed confessions by an investiga-
tion on the ground.
Major BYRNE.Oh, yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.And in the process of that investigation you
f onnd bodies, and you found other witnesses ?
Major BYRNE.I did not find any bodies as such, Senator Baldwin.
This was 2 years after the shooting occurred. I found persons who
stated to me that they had seen bodies on the ground in these par-
ticular places, and in this one instance, as I suggested, I found a few
of the personal articles that presumably belonged to the individual
who had been shot there.
Senator BALDWIN.Let's see, the Battle of the Bulge occurred
around Christmastime in 1944.
Mr. HATCHER. The 16th of December 1944.
Senator BALDWIN.And that was in-
Major BYRNE.This was in February of 1946, that I was down there.
Senator BALDWIN.You must have been there in March, too, if you
were there 6 weeks.
Major BYRNE.Yes, sir; February and March. I believe I left
about the last of March.
Senator BALDWIN.You did mention one case where you did find
the personal effects of a soldier, that you were able to identify as one
of the men that had been shot?
Major BYRNE.Yes, sir; that was the killing that was char ed
against Colonel Peiper, the regimentst1 commander, and Major Sic el, k:
the regimental surgeon, and a soldier by the name of Wischmann.
Wischmann actually did the shooting.
Senator BALDWIN.These witnesses that you found there, were they
called to testify at the trial?
Major BYRNE.Yes, sir. There may be some who were not called,
but the bulk of them, some 30 or 35, were called to Dachau and testi-
fied a t the trial.
Senator BALDWIN.DOyou have any questions, Mr. Chambers?
Mr. CHAMBERS.I have several I would like to ask, if I may.
You say that you took out a-group of confessions, and maps, and
what not, in an effort to corroborate or find evidence that would sup-
port the facts.
Now, were there cases involved, where you could not find evidence
to back up the statements that had been made by the defendants?
Major BYRNE.Yes, sir ;there were, Colonel Chambers. There were
statements in which the people said that a body lay at, or was shot at,
an intersection of a fence or behind a particular house, or in a general
area where I found no one who actually saw a body in that spot, or
saw any shooting a t about that time.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n a case of that kind, what kind of a report did
you turn in-a negative report?
Major BYRNE.Just that report, a negative report as f a r as that
portion of a confession was concerned.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And later on,.you were on the prosecution staff, I
believe, and helped try the cases?
Major BYRNE.Yes.
Mr. CHAJYIBERS. DO you know whether or not the statements in
the confessions for which you had not been able to h d corroborative
evidence were used in evidence against the accused?
Major BYRNE.Portions of them could have been, sir; because they
were embodied in complete statements, many of them a number of
pages long, covering numerolxs incidents, some of which I found ac-
tual on-the-ground corroboration for, some of which I found no on-
the-ground corroboration, on either the land itself, or the civilian
witnesses I was able to find, but in those cases, now, I can't say that
in all those cases, most of those cases, there was some corroboration
from the statements of others, others of the accused or other wit-
nesses who were called by the prosecution at the trial.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Major, is it a fair statement, then, that if you had
a confession given by one of the accused, which contained several
things in which he either was making statements against his own
interest, or accusing others who were jolntly accused with him, if you
found evidence to corroborate it, then the witnesses or that evidence
was introduced at the court?
Major BYRNE.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But if you had gone out and made an investigation
and either had not found evidence to corroborate it, or perhaps had
found evidence to disabuse it, did the prosecution let it be known
that that part of the confession had not been proven?
Major BYRNE.I cannot answer that question, Colonel Chambers,
for this reason : That was not done at the time the confession was in-
troduced; it may have been done in connection with the defense case
or in final argument, and I was not present for that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let me ask you this: Did any of these negative
reports come in before it was actually decided that you charge cer-
tain of the accused, so that in effect they might have decided not to
charge an accused because of insufficiency of evidence?
Major BYRNE.I believe it worked more this way, Colonel Cham-
bers, although I was not personally connected with the actual charging
of the accused: Initially, there was a group of some-and I am es-
timating-%, who were positively implicated; and, as additional evi-
91765-49-25
z 1
dence was secured during the course of the investigation, and this is
from the first of March 1946 until the actual serving of the charges on
the accused, there were additional names added to the list up until the
time the charges were actually prepared and served on the accused. I
do not believe, although there were so many I cannot state it posi-
tively, but I do not belleve there were any who were brought to trial,
or who were charged against whom we had solely their own unsup-
~ o r t e dconfession. There mere some against whom m7ehad no physical
corroboration such as the corpus delecti, but did have in those cases
statements from other individuals who implicated them at or about
the time that they stated that certain things happened.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,Major, in your investjgations did you make a
study of a case at La Gleize, that you can identify from this descrip-
tion, and this is contained in the petition before the Supreme Court
of the United States, filed by Defense Counsel Everett on behalf of
the accused in the Malmedy incident :
The defendants herein assert that incident within the churchyard a t La Gleize,
BeIgium, where groups of surrendered Americans numbering 20 to 30 were placed
against the inside wall of the churchyard and shooting them down in cold blood
with machine guns.
Did you prepare such a case?
Major BYRNE.Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And further :
The defense investigation developed the fact that there was no inside wall
of the churchyard, and merely a n outside retaining wall. The priest of this
church furnished this defense officer with a sworn affidavit that he was present
in the church the entire time of the battle and alleged crime; that he examined
the outside walls of the churchyard and no sign of bullet marks were visible, no
such atrocity had ever been committed in the vicinity of the church, and the
only dead American he had seen was the body of one in a n American tank which
had burned beyond recognition; and, finally, on the afternoon the crimes were
supposed t o have occured, he had walked along the outside wall and no dead
Americans were there.
Many more of the plaintiffs herein-
and they were the accused-
corroborated these detailed purported crimes under oath but under false con-
fessions.
There is a charge which, in effect, would say that none of the things
that the accused had confessed to actually did take place.
What knowledge do you have of that incident and what did your
investigation sh0.w ?
Major BYRNE.I n the course of my investigation, Colonel, I talked to,
1 presume it is the same priest, there is only one church, and it is a
very small village, and he stated to me bhat he had been in the cellar
of the church during the entire operation, and that he had seen no
bodies. There were two witnesses who supplied some evidence to in-
dicate that along what they described as the retaining wall, on the
outside of the church and adjacent to the road which goes around the
church, one of them I believe was the local carpenter, who, in the
course of going across the road to get potatoes, said that he had seen
bodies lying along this retaining wall, how many, he did not know,
nor how they got there. There was other evidence showing individuals
had been shot in one or two cellars in La Gleize.
The evidence as f a r as this particular incident was concerned was
vague as to whether or not those bodies that were seen by this indi-
vidual were the bodies referred to in the confession they have reference
to there, or not.
There mas some evidence not at d l conclusive, one way or the other.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ask the priest whether or not he saw any
bodies ?
Major BYRNE.I asked the priest whether or not he saw any bodies,
and it is my recollection I brou@it back an affidavit from him at the
time; he had seen the body described as you have mentioned it, in the
tank which was sitting near the church. I n fact, it was still there a
year and a half later when I was back. The body had been removed,
but the tank was still there, and lieitated that he had seen no other
bodies.
There were also allegations of a shooting which I do not believe was
charged; that allegedly happened somewhat east of the place he used
as his home, and lie stated that he had seen nothing there. His testi-
mony was substantially negative to me and was reported back as
inconclusive.
The statements of the two other individuals had some bearing on
it, but were not conclusive in and of themselves. They may have
been the same bodies referred to in the prisoner's statement, or they
may not have.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you reported t o the people developing these
cases for trial that the evidence, insofar as the massacre at the church
at L a Gleize was concerned, the evidence was inconclusive, and that
the priest had given you negative evidence on it?
Major BYRNE.I am certain that I brought back the priest's state-
ment and brought back the other two statements for such probative
value as they might have and suggested that we call those people as
witnesses, which was done.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Which was done?
Major BYRNE.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Now, are you familiar with a charge which is al-
leged in the petition to have occurred in Wanne, Belgium, where it
was alleged that one of the plaintiffs, again for the purpose of iden-
tification the plaintiffs in this case were the accused at the Malmedy
trials, had entered the home of a Belgian civilian and without provoca-
tion murdered a woman while sitting in her chair ?
Are you familiar with any case of that kind at Wanne?
Major BYRNE.NO, sir; I an1 not familiar with the specific facts on
that case.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you make a n investigation a t Wanne?
Major BYRNE.I made an investigation a t Wanne; yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did anybody else make any investigations of inci-
dents a t Wanne?
Major BYRNE.I f that is the one I think it is, Colonel Chambers, it
is in connection with the charge against a man named Tonk. The
statements with reference to the shooting of another individual were
made by another PW who was not tried, who could not describe to
us with sufficient accuracy the place at which i t had occurred. He
was doubtful whether it happened a t Stavelot, or at Wanne, .or in
the intervening vicinity. I found no case, no, positive evidence on
the ground, to establish it. However, again if this is the c&e 'I. have
reference to, that PW witness, together with an interpyeteP-,bnd,an:
other officer not connected with the particular group who .specific@ly;,
investigated Malmedy, came down to Belgium whiIe I was there;

and this man, I did not go with them at the time they did this, but
it was reported to me that he took them to a house, which house I do
not know, which he pointed out as the house that he described as
the one that he remembered as being the one where this individual
had done the shooting.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was anyone charged a t the trial with having mur-
dered a woman at Wanne?
Major BYRNE.I can't positively answer that question.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Sir, I wonder if I may at this point ask Colonel
Ellis.Z'-
Do you recall whether or not-
Colonel ELLIS. There was only a man killed a t Wanne; no women
were killed a t Wanne whatsoever.
And at this time I would like to read into the record an explanation
of the La Gleize incident, the affidavit of the priest taken from the
records of the trial which is completely distorted in Colonel Everett's
petition.
Senator BALDWIN.You may proceed and read it.
Colonel ELLIS. When I used the word "petitioner" that is referring
to the defendants in the trials. [ ~ e a d i n ~ : ]
-
I n paragraph 23 of the petition a statement of a priest is referred to and cited
in flagrant contrast to the actual trial record. The petition alleges that the
priest asserts in his statement that h e was "present in the church the entire
time of the battle."
The trial record, page 2821, proves that exactly the contrary is asserted i n
this affidavit which by the way was introduced by the petitioner himself. The
affidavit states that the priest was not in the church during the entire time of the
battle. On page 2820 of the record, the priest states that he took refuge i n the
cellar of Arthur George, in L a Gleize, on Monday, December 18, a t about 1:45;
that he left a t 4:30 on Monday when darkness fell; that he did not go to the
church but hurried while firing was going on all around to the Communal House
(the record page 2821), without being able to look around much, of course, due
to the firing and falling of darkness; t h a t he returned to Mr. George's house in
about 10 minutes and that he did not leave the cellar until December 24.
The petition furthermore alleges that there was no inside wall to the church-
yard, yet the priest in the fifth answer on page 2821 of the record states "I fol-
lowed the road along t h e cemetery inside the wall between the cemetery and
the church!' \
Equally, incorrect and incomplete is the statement in the petition that the
priest asserted that "no such atrocities had ever been committed in the vicinity
of his church."
According to the trial record t h e priest never asserted anything like this ; nor
could he have asserted anything like this a s he was hiding in a cellar practically
the whole time of the battle, a full week. To the contrary, he states that he
saw something which a t least raised the suspicion that a n atrocity was com-
mitted there. H e saw a n American hellbet with brain matter in it.
Misleading by its incompleteness is also a statement in the petition that the
priest examined the walls and no signs of bullet marks were visible. According
to the trial record, the priest did not even look a t the walls until about a year
after the incident. At that time marks still were visible. However, to him
they did not "appear t a be from small arms and certainly not from mass firing."
There is no evidence whatever to show that the priest was able to distinguish
small-arms marks or marks from mass firing from any other marks.
That is in connection with this La Gleize incident, and the affidavit
introduced by the defense at the trial signed by the priest.
Senator BALDWIN.What was that you just read?
Colonel ELLIS.A n affidavit prepared by Lieutenant Perl, and I
furnished him this information in connection with the incident at La
Gleize from the record of t,rial.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What were the age references?
!i
Colonel ELLIS. 2820 and 2821, w ere the priest's affidavit is recorded
in the record of trial.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The priest did not testify?
Colonel ELLIS. The priest did not testify, but this is his affidavit.
Mr. CHAHBERS. And this is an 2820 and 2821 of the record of trial
of the Malmedy proceedings ?
Colonel ELLIS. That is right. This affidavit was secured by the
defendant and introduced by the defendant.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,coming back to this Wanne incident for a
moment, the petitioner before the Supreme Court took exception to
the manner in which evidence was used against one of the accused, and
he referred to a a incident whereby a woman was murdered while
sitting in her chair.
Do I correctly understand Qour answer to my question a moment
ago to be that you say no one was accused for such a charge?
Colonel ELLIS. NOone was accused for killing any women at Wanne.
There were four or five Belgian men killed in Wanne. I think Major
Byrne developed the civilian witnesses, widows of some of these men
at Wanne, and if you look at the R. and R., I am sure that is borne
out. There were no women killed at Wanne. We never contended
that there were women killed at Wanne.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What would be your comment to that particular
part which is paragraph 23 of the petitioner7sstatement?
Colonel ELLIS. They are referring to what I presume to be an
incident that took place either in Bulwingen or Hansville where there
was a woman killed.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It is merely a mistake in location and n o 6
Colonel ELLIS. They make two errors in there, one in the location
and the other that the affidavit was sworn to before a priest. It was
secured by one of the defendants own investigators, Miles Rulian.
Senator BALDWIN. May I say for the benefit of the record that it
will be quite impossible for the committee to examine in detail the
testimony, pro and con, in every case. I think what the committee
is primarily interested in is this, as developed by this witness this
morning; that there was an effort made, and i t is for us to say how
thorough it was and how conscientious it was, but that there was an
effort made to corroborate the statements that were obtained from
the prisoners at Schwabisch Hall; and, if I think we could develop any
further facts on that, that is what we want to know.
What the colonel just brought out is the great complexity of this
whole thing.
Colonel E ~ I s May
. I make one additional statement of fact in
connection with these La Gleize incidents?
I n our rebuttal testimony we produced affidavits of members of the
Graves Registration which had cleared the bodies from La Gleize,
and they stated they had cleared, as I recall, upward of 200 bodies of
American soldiers, and apparently they had been murdered at La
Gleize.
Senator BALDWIN.Of course, they didn't know they had been mur-
dered.
Colonel ELLIS. They could tell by the bullet holes in heads; it was
their opinion that they had been murdered.
Senator BAWWIN.They were all shot in the head ?
Colonel ELLIS. NO,no ; some of them were.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There had been fighting around L a Gleize.
Colonel ELLIS.Yes, sir, there had been. That was fought over-
well, Peiper was surrounded there for 3 or 4 days.

Mr. CHAMBERS Thank you.
Senator BALDWIN.There is a statement in one of these doc~unents
here, a review of this case, which I think ought to be somewhere in this
record, and I think that is a statement we ought to have in connection
with this thing. We ought to develop what the orders of these men
were, and what their philosophy of going into this battle was.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Sir, I had intended, as a part of the later testimony
when we got into the question of review board procedures to introduce
t,his entire document.
Senator BALDWIN.Very well, that will be all right then.
. Mr. CHAMBERS. One other question, or perhaps two, Major Byrne.
This is a general question, and I just prefer to have your candid
opinion on it: You investigated these confessions that had been made
along with the maps and other data that was given to you. You got
over there after the war was over so that you had not been directly
connected with the Army a t the time these incidents took place.
Theoretically, you should have been a little more objective than some
that came there at a different time.
Major BYRNE.Nobody shot at me; no.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you were not mad at anybody?
Major BYRNE. NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Major,

what is your honest opinion of the type of
evidence we were getting through these confessions?
Was it being corroborated to the degree where, in your opinion, you
became convinced: (1) that the incident took place and (2) that the
individuals had something to do with that?
Major BYRNE. I think I can answer that unequivocably. The evi-
dence was not entirely of a type that would be admissible in normal
municipal practice as far as proving these events, but as far as con-
vincing me as a layman, or anyone as a layman, that the events
occurred and that these individuals were in one way or another in-
volved in it, yes, I was convinced that they were involved to some
extent-whether or not they had been directed by specific orders i n
certain cases, the degree of guilt, as far as murder, manslaughter, or
what have you is concerned, there, of course, was a question. But as
f a r as these people having been about there and involved in these
shootings, I can think of no exception in which I was convinced that
they had not been there.
Now, I say, again, it might not have been conclusive evidence to
establish that one individual perpetrated a specific crime in every
specific case, but in general, without analyzing each individual ac-
cused, I was satisfied that we were at least trying the right man.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you find cases where you were convinced that
a specific man did do a specific thing with which he was charged?
Major BYRNE.Yes, very definitely. I can remember some of them,
Sprenger shooting that man at Stoumont in particular; it bears out in
my mind, because I was particularly impressed. I knew this boy
Sprenger. H e was a good-looking soldier, had an excellent mind, and
impressed himself on me. The Wischmann-Peiper-Sickel affair a t
Petit Thier was, to my mind, very conclusively established.
. I may err on the names of some of these people, it's been quite a
while, but the killings in Stavelot, some of the s ecific shootings in-
Stoumont, in my mind, were well identified and tie$ in by a confession'
on the part of the accused in many cases, corroborating statements by
coaccused, or independent witnesses; and, in some cases, by far, not
all, of findin people who had seen things on the ground that indicated
C
that these o enses had occurred.
- Mr. CHAMBERS. May I ask you about a particular case which I haveb
read in the record? I am sorry I cannot tell you even the name of the
town, but it was an incident in which a grou of 28 civilians were
1
brought out of a cellar, after a couple of grena es were tossed in, and
dl but three were shot, and as I recall the record of trial, the German,
soldiers said, "Who was that woman that spoke German here?" And
she, and I think her two child re^, went over and escaped being shot
by the soldiers.
. Did you investigate that?
Major BYRNE.I did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did anybody confess to having done that, so you
were corroborating a confession, or why were you investigating that
particular case?
Major BYRNE.Colonel, I cannot fairly answer the question that we'
had a specific confession. I know that that event happened in Stave-
lot. I know the woman who spoke German was named Gregoire. I
spoke to her, and she took me to the cellar where she had been first
confined, and where the grenades were thrown in, and took me to the
little lot across the street where they had been lined up and shot and
very vividly described the manner in which she had, with her children,
been separated from the group because she spoke German, and wit-
nessed, in part, it was dark, the shooting of these others who were not
so fortunate and could not speak the right language.
Mr. CHAMBERS.May I ask one further question, or series of ques-
tions ?
You say you were a t Schwabisch Hall for the period of time while
these cases were being developed?
Major BYRNE.I was there roughly about 6 weeks.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you take -part in the taking- of testimony from
the accused?
Major BYRNE.T Othe extent that I have described previously, Colo-
nel Chambers, I was swearing, administering the oath, primarily on
these picture-affidavits in which they described each other as bein the
individual referred to in their original statement which had een "b
given some time before, there may have been one or two occasions, and
E do not remember them specifically, in which I administered the oath
to a full-scale confession, or to a what we normally refer to as con-
fession or statement .
- Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you take part in any of the mock trials?
Major BYRNE.I took part in none of the mock trials. I had occa-
sion to observe part of one.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me ask a question here. I have to answer a
quorum call and I must leave in a minute.
- Were there ever efforts that you knew about, of your own personal
knowledge, other than the one that you and -your group made to
secure corroborating testimony of confessions that were obtained a t
Schwabisch Hall?
386 MALMXDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Major BYRNE.I cannot say positively, Senator. I do not believe so.

When more evidenw was needed in B e b u m , they usually sent me to
get it because I knew the people and knew the area, and I might add
that I received a great deal of cooperation from the Belgians who,
once they learned my mission down there, the local grapevine worked
efficiently-volunteered to come in and give any assistance they could,
and this brought in evidence of numerous things that had happened but
with which we were total1 unable to connect with anything specifia
Senator BALDWIN. E
I n ot er words, they told you more than you had
confessions to cover.
Major BYRT. That is right. On the basis of what they told me,
it would indicate that there were far more people shot in that -particu-
A
lar area than we had an proof of.

i
Senator BALDWIN.W at was your experience as an attorney before
you went in the Army ?
Major B Y R ~I .practiced 4 years in L a Crosse County, Wis., and
before my entry into the service.
Senator BALDWIN. Are you a graduate of any law school?
Majob BYRNE.I am a graduate of the University of Wisconsin Law
School.
Senator BALDWIN.Are you a college graduate?
Major BYRNE.I am also a graduate of the University of Wisconsin,
with the degree of a bachelor of laws.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you have 4 years of college and 3 year-
Major BYRNE.Not exactly. We have a combined course which I
finished in 6 years.
Senator BALDWIN.Then, you had 3 years of college and 3 years
combined college and law traming?
Major BYRNE.That is correct, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.And were you a member of the bar of the State
of Wisconsin ?
Major BYRNE.I was, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.We will now recess until 1: 30.
(Whereupon, at 12:07 p. m., the subcommittee stood in recess until
1:30.p. m. of that same day.)
A I T E R N O O N SESSION
Senator BALDWIN.Do you have some questions, Mr. Chambers?

Mr. CHAMBER. I had finished.
Senator BALDWIN.I think Mr. Flanagan has some questions.
Mr. PLANAGAN. Major, this morning I believe you testified you con-
ducted the investigation of the incident that occurred at LaGleize,
Belgium.
Major BYRNE.Yes.
Mr. PLANAGAN. YOUwere the only one of the prosecuting or inves-
tigating teams that conducted this investigation at LaGle~ze?
Major BYRNE.TOthe best of my knowledge; y ~ s .
Mr. FLANAGAN. You were there alone at that tune?
Major BYRNE.Alone, as an investigator. I had with me a traveling
interpreter and a court reported to transcribe the necessary informa-
tion that was obtained.
Mr. FLANAGAN. About how big was this village of LaGleize, how
many buildings were in i t ?
Major BPRNE. They rambled, Mr. Flanagan. I would say there was
in the vicinity of between 50 and 100. It was a small village.
Mr. FLANAQAN. About what was the population of the town?
Major BYRNE. About two or three hundred.
Mr. FUNAGAN. During your investigation, did you determine
whether the civil population of the village of LaGleize were present
at the time of these alleged atrocities at that place?
Major BYRNE. TOa certain extent ;yes. A number of them had fled
ahead of the attacking and defending troops from both sides. There
was hea,vy fighting in the village. There were some of the populace,
if I am correct, of LaGleize-they sometimes have a tendency to
overlap-it was the general tendency to hide in the basement of the
church which was usually the strongest stone building in these villages,
and there were some of the populace there ; but, the bulk of the pop-
ulace I would say, in most of the communities, had evacuated them-
selves from the immediate vicinity of the village.
Mr. FLANAQAN. About how many of the villagers did you talk to
that were present during this period of the atrocities, around I imagine
it would be, December 18,19, and 20 of 19441
Major BYRNE.I n LaGleize, my investigation was directed primarily
to what happened in the immediate vicinity of the church. I talked
to the pastor of the church, and to probably not more than 10 or 15
of the inhabitants who had been pointed out to me by the pastor, or
by the local burgomaster as those who were present during the action
and in those buildings in the immediate vicinity of the church during
the attack.
Mr. FLANAGAN.. I want to c o n h e my remarks here to one incident
at LaGleize, that is, the incident where some 20 to 30 American soldiers
were alleged to have been lined up inside the wall of the churchyard
and executed by Germans.
Do you recall that incident?
Major B ~ N EI. recall the incident; yes.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
What evidence, if any, did you find in talking with
persons in the village of LaGleize that this incident had occurred?
Major BYRNE.The only evidence that I found of that, sir, was the
evidence I related this morning.
This church wall, which might help me to bring out the explanation
of it, is on the rear portion of the church and around the cemetery, a
retaining wall, that is, to keep the cemetery from sliding into the street
which is somewhat below it at that point. The wall at one point, I
would say, is possibly 12 or 14 feet high and tapers toward the front
of the church to a height of possibly 4 or 5 feet. It is a wall on the
inside, around the cemetery, to a height of perhaps 3 or 4 feet a t the
front, and running slightly higher. It was variable, and partially
destroyed at the time I saw it.
There is only one wall which is in part a retaining wall and in part
mi ht be considered the fence around the churchyard.
#he churchyard, if you are familiar with the churchyards in French
and Belgian countries, are immediately around the church. You have
to go through the cemetery to get into the church, and they are right
on up to the church wall. They have their cemeteries around their
churches in the same manner that we have our lawns around our
. churches; and the bodies that I found-I found no evidence of bodies
388 MALMEDY' MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
lying in the cemetery. I did find some evidence of bodies lying on the
opposite side of the wall adjacent to it.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Well, I am reading here from the review of this
case by the deputy judge advocate's office in the Euro ean theater,
i'
and the direct evidence shows that directly in front o t he church,
inside the wall, another group of approximately 20 or 30 unarmed
and surrendered American prisoners of war had been collected and
they were shot with rifles and so forth.
That being the case, would it not seem likely that the bodies of these
men would be found between the church wall and the church, that is,
in the cemetery proper?
Major BYRNE.That could be, Mr. Flanagan, and would normally
be the interpretation. I can explain it only in this way: That the
graves registration teams and collecting teams were present in the
town immediately with our assault troops a t this time, and the bodies
referred to in the review there could very well have been removed to
a collecting point either by the Germans or Americans prior to the
time that any of the Belgians had an opportunity to see them in
LaGleize, particularly. They were confined to the cellars and to their
houses for the greater portion of the operation.
Mr. FLANAGAN. NOW,as I gather from the records, this shooting
in the churchyard took place either in the morning or the middle of
the day of the 18th of December. That very day the parish priest left
his cellar and walked around the church, or walked in the vicinity
of the church.
Did you ask the parish priest whether he saw any bodies in the
churchyard at that time?
Major BYRNE. I believe I did. I cannot state positively at this
moment, but what I was asking was if ever at any time he was out
of the cellar and saw any bodies.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Am I recalling your testimony correctly in quoting
you as stating that he never saw any bodies around the church?
Major BYRNE.That is my recollection of his affidavit that I took
a t that time. I could be in error. He may have seen one or two
somewhere in the village.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did any of the native citizens, civilians in the town
of LaGleize see any bodies in or near the churchyard at that time?
Major BYRNE.Near, yes; in the churchyard, I don't recall.
Mr. FLANAGAN. HOWclose?
Major BYRNE.The wall is about 2 feet thick. The bodies were
lying on the outside of the wall in the ditch toward what would be
the south side of the church, as I recall it, within 30 feet of the church
itself.
Mr. FLANAGAN. The civilians testified that they saw those bodies;
they did see the bodies there?
Major BYRNE.HOW many were there, was vague in their testimony-
as to how many they saw.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Was there any direct testimony yon were able to
'obtain from any of these civilian witnesses to the effect that they
heard or saw that shooting going on in this churchyard ?
Major BYRNE.Only to the extent, Mr. Flanagan, that there was
sporadic shooting in that vicinity, and in other portions of the com-
munity during that period; nothing that would be conclusive, that
is, close enough from what they could hear that I could conclusively
state that they heard the shooting and that i t happened at the church-
yard.
Mr. FLANAGAN. It would be quite natural at that time, December
18 that there would be sporadic shooting in a town under attack?
h a j o r BYRNB.Yes.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And that shooting could have been a part of the
normal course of the warfare that was going on in the community?
Major BYRNE. It could have been.
Mr. PLANAQAN. Do you feel from your investigation there that
if 20 to 30 American soldiers had been shot in this churchyard, that
the villagers in that immediate area would have heard these concen-
trated reports of ~ u n f i r e ?
Major BYRNE.NO more concentrated than the ordinary battle fire,
Mr. Flanagan. They were close enough in the vicinity so they could
have and should have been able to hear the shooting.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUconducted this inquiry, Major, and I am re-
ferring merely to this churchyard incident; and, based on the in-
formation you were able to obtain from the witnesses in the town,
were you convinced in your own mind that 20 to 30 American soldiers
had been killed in that churchyard?
Major BYRNE. Solely on that evidence ?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes.
Major BYRNE. Eliminating all other evidence?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Yes.
Major BYRNE.NO.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
What other evidence did you have?
Major BYRNE.Evidence--that is straining my memory consider-
able on this-but I know there were probably, and I can only say
"probably," statements of people who were involved in it and prob-
ably corroborating statements on the part of either other accused or
other witnesses.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Then, asid-
Major BYRNE.I would have to see the record of trial to see what
the evidence was on that point, of course.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Then, aside from the statements or evidence pre-
sented by German soldiers themselves who were resent there, you
8
now state that your inquiry of the situation at La leize was not suf- .
ficient to prove the crime was committed?
Major BYRNE. Independently, no, I don't believe so ;merely corrob-
orative.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I ask a question there, Mr. Flanagnn, if you
please ?
I believe he testified this morning that you so reported back to the
prosecution staff that the evidence you got there was negative in
character.
Major B Y R ~Yes, . sir, it was not conclusive. I could bring back
only the testimony of the priest and these two individuals who had
reported seeing some bodies in the vicinity of the church, and an-
other one who saw bodies elsewhere in the village.
Mr. FLANAGAN. NOW,to leave the incident at LaGleize, there was
some discussion here this morning concerning an incident at Wanne,
Belgium.
I n the petition of the defense counsel, it is stated that a woman
was shot in a chair at Wanne. We have now determined that that is
390 MALMEDY -MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
a misstatement in the petition, that this incident actually took place

at Bulingen, rather than Wanne. The facts are correct but the name
of the town was wrong-it is Bulingen?
Major B Y R ~Yes..
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you conduct an investigation a t Bulingen con-
cerning the alleged shooting of a Belgian civilian woman in her home
by a German soldier?
Major BYRNE.I don't recall that I did, Mr. Flanagan. I recall
investigating the Goldschmidt shooting of six or seven in a yard a t
Bulingen, but do not recall investigating the killing of a civilian
woman in that town.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And you would be in a position to state whether
or not the petition of the defense counsel is correct in that respect?
Major BYRNE.I n that particular; no. I found only one dead
woman under the same or similar circumstanees, and it is my recollec-
tion that I found her in LaGleize; but, I am testifying from my
memory, of course. They really had no bearing on any of the matters
that I was down there investigating a t the time.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you also conduct inquiries a t Stoumont con-
cerning the incident that took place there?
Major BYRNE.Yes, I did.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Were you the only investigator, to your knowl-
edge, that conducted inquiries a t Stoumont and Bulingen?
Major BYRNE.TOthe best of my knowledge, yes; u p to that time,
up to the time when subsequently defense investigators went to the
same village.
Mr. FLANAGAN. DO you recall the incident a t Stoumont involving
one Hans Pletz ?
Major BYRNE.By name, I don't. However, if you will give me
some of the facts, possibly I can recall it.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I will recite the facts set forth in the review. The
facts are that Hans Pletz was a machine gunner in a German Mark
I V tank. His tank, together with a column of tanks were traveling
through the town of Stoumont, I beieve, on the 19th of December.
The facts in the case as presented in conrt were that the driver of the
tank in front of Pletz7 tank testified that he saw about 35 American
soldiers lined up in front of a grocery store, and he saw machine-gun
fire coming from somewhere, he didn't know where, because he was
down in the tank, but it mowed down part of the line of men he could
see. The driver of Pletz' tank also testified that he saw this line of
men in front of a grocery store, and heard some shooting, but didn't
see the men actually fall.
Major BYRNE.I remember the incident.
Mr. FLANAGAN. On the part of the defense, a German soldier who
was in the tank following the Mark IV tank in which Pletz, the
accused, was gunner, testified he followed Pletz' tank all through the
town and his head was sticking out of the turret and he saw no gunfire
coming from the tank a t all, directed toward the prisoners. Those
were the facts.
Do you recall investigating that alleged killing of some 30 American
soldiers standing in front of the grocery store there?
Major BYRNE.I remember investigating that particular incident,
and in connection therewith i t is my best recollection that one of the
citizens, and at, this point I cannot state which one of them, did tell
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVEGTIGATION 391
me that between 5 and 10 bodies were found a t a point slightly down
the road-the road curves a t that point and goes downhill-lying
next to a stone wall, and a t about; the time that we are discussing.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Would it, by any stretch of the imagination, have
been possible that these bodies that were down the road farther, were
the bodies of men involved in another incident near the command
quarters of Colonel Peiper ?
Major BYRNE. I f you say "by any stretch of imagination," yes.
Mr. FLANAGAN. By any reasonable stretch of imagination.
Major BYRNE.It seems to me, Mr. Flanagan, from the information
I got from these people, that the bodies they saw there were probably
a part of the group that had been assembled in front of ,the store. It
was the only incident in which the villagers recalled a group being
assembled a t bhat articular spot.
Mr. FLANAGAN. %id the villagers recall that American soldiers were
assembled in front of the store?
Major BYRNE. They recalled that they were assembled in front of
the store.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did any villagers see the firing going on?
- Major- - BYRNE. There were not eyewitnesses to that shooting, as
1 recall.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did any of them hear of it 1
Major BYRNE. Heard of it ;yes.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Hear the g u n s h o h o r r y .
Major BYRNE. Again, I cannot say unconditionally that they heard
that shooting. There was fighting going on i n that town a t the same
time.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n that town, in that incident involving the Amer-
ican soldiers standing in front of the store?
It was also charged in the trial, and reading from the trial record,
that on the same date, December 18, approximately 15 or 20 unarmed
and snrrendered American prisoners of war were shot and killed by
a crew of a German Mark I V tank a t a point next to a house which
was thought to be the command post of the accused Colonel Peiper.
That is an entirely different occurrence from the one in front of the
grocery store.
Major BYRNE. Yes.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And as I gather, you were only able to obtain testi-
mony concerning 10 bodies i n the community.
Major BYRNE. Ten in the community? No.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you find other bodies?
Major BYRNE. My last answer was, i t was between 5 and 10 bodies
at this spot near the grocery store. That is not all we found i n the
community.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Was that spot near the grocery store anywhere near
the command post of Colonel Peiper ?
Major BYRNE. Near in that i t was within walking distance. I
would say, in city blocks, it would be about three or four blocks from it.
Mr. FLANAGAN. HOW big a town is Stoumont?
Major BYRNE. It is a long, narrow town, no larger than I have
described for La Gleize, with a big church, and 25 to 50 scattered
hovels, we might call them. The village was horribly destroyed a t the
time I saw it. How large i t had been before the attack, I couldn't say,
except in area it probably covered a large area and was perhaps scat-
tered over perhaps four or five square city blocks.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Now, back to this incident of the alleged shooting
of American soldiers in front of the grocery store, can you recall
about how many witnesses you found that had seen these bodies of
dead Americans 8
Major BYRNE. It is difficult to say, but it is my recollection that there
were two or three who had seen the bodies in those places.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did the two or three see any more bodies? There
were apparently about twice that many involved.
Major BYRNE. AS nearly as I know, they did not. The witnesses,
again in this community, were taking cover in the cellar of the church
and other cellars of the village.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Were you able to obtain any reasonable explanation
as to why these bodies would have been moved away from the store, and
part of them moved away altogether, before any villagers had an
opportunity to see them?
Major BYRNE. Only the two explanations I have heretofore offered :
Some were removed, it is known, by the Germans and buried. We
found numerous American graves where they had been buried by the
Germans in the immediate vicinity of Stoumont, some in the village
cemetery, and the fact that the American Graves Registration squad
moved in with our advance troops and picked bodies up as fast as
they were able to locate them, is another factor.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did the American Graves Registration make any
report of finding bodies there that might have been massacred in a
way described in the case?
Major BYRNE.I can't answer that question, I don't know.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n this case, as in the one at L a Gleize, based on the
situation at La Gleize, were you able to obtain sufficient evidence which
in your mind would indicate that an atrocity had taken place there
in front of the grocery store?
Major BYRNE. I was satisfied i n that case, more so than in the
LaGleize case, that the incident as described had probably happened
in that spot.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other words, you were satisfied, based on the
evidence of two civilian witnesses, plus the finding of one-half of the
bodies, that an atrocity had taken place or did occur involving some
20 men ?
Major BYRNE. Involving not necessarily 20 men, Mr. Flanagan, but
that it involved the shooting of American soldiers of that approximate
number at that point.
Mr. FLANAGAN. What number are you talking about now, 10 or 208
Major BYRNE. The allegation has run in that all the way, I think,
from 10 to 35, and I would say probably between 15 to 20 were prob-
ably involved. Some may not have been killed, but shot and subse-
quently mawled off, as happened in the cross-roads massacre.
Mr. FLANAGAN. On that point, were there ever any survivors found
that testified they were shot up in that area?
Major BYRNE. I n that area; no, sir.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Isn't it likely, if Americans were lined u p and
ruthlessly shot by German soldiers, that any survivors would have
reported that matter to their superiors?
Major BYRNE.H ad there been one, I think so.
Mr. FLANAGAN. If-you think if there were survivors they would
have reported it?
. Major BYRNE.I would presume so. It is a normal thing for a
soldier to report such an atrocity, if it happened.
Mr. FLANAGAN. This morning you stated that there were some cases
that you investigated in Belgium, and you were unable to sustain the
allegations as set forth in the confessions and statements of other per-
sons that you were sent down to investigate.
Major BYRNE.I believe I said substantially that there were cases
where I could find no corroborative testimony.
Mr. FLANAGAN. How many cases of that kind were there, can you
recall ?
Major BYRNE.0ne;I remember in particular, was a reported killing
of some 150 or 200 in the vicinity of LaGleize. I could find the dis-
carded vehicles of- the Germans up in the hills where they told us
they had discarded them, the SPW's, their half-tracks. I could find
the spot, or a spot which substantially coincided with the description
of the spot that was there, but could not find a soul that had seen any
bodies in that spot.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Were there any civilians in that immediate vicinity 8
Major BYRNE.It was somewhat isolated, Mr. F'lanagan. I would
say it yas on the edge of a wood, and in a comparatively large field,
which was rolling. The houses along that roadway, and the imme-
diate farm houses on that place were not occupied at the alleged time
this happened. People who were living there and owned the place,
they had taken off southward at that time and were not at home.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Had you found any civilians in the area who had
passed by this field, or wherever these Americans were supposed to
have been killed, about or shortly after the alleged massacre?
Major BYRNE.I did not. I could find nobody that I could -put in that
spot at that time.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Did the Graves Registration make any report of the
finding of 100 or 150 bodies of American soldiers in that area?
Major BYRNE. I can't state positively, but it is my recollection that
there was a report of that sort.
You see, the Graves Registrations reports a t that time, from the
$ew that I have examined, placed their bodies solely by the name of
the villiage that they were reasonably close to, and didn't give any
further description whereby you might put any one body at any par-
ticular spot on the ground.
. Mr. FLANAGAN; What was this incident? Can you relate what the
facts were that you were supposed to determine by your investigation?
Major BYRNE.Only in part, Mr. Flanagan, and that was-I will
have to put it within a span of a couple of days, now-it was within
the period from the 19th to the 23d or 24th, when a large number of
prisoners had been taken in the vicinity of Stoumont, Cheneaux, and
LaGleize, and had been marched to the rear and assembled in a field
near LaGleize, where they were in groups and were systematically
shot. It was tied in by the fact that'it was in the vicinity of where we
abandoned some SPW's because we ran out of gas. I did find the
SPW's, which were not visible from the road. They were well con-
cealed in the woods. Who the names of the perpetrators or alleged
perpetrators in that case were, I don't recall any longer, but I know
that there were statements that connected the abandoned SPW's, and
the vicinity of the SPW's being abandoned in a wood on a hill be-

hind LaGleize.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And some 150 to 200 American troops were sup-
posed to have been killed there?
Major BYRNE. From my recollection, the figure was between 150 and
200. I know it was a larger group than initially alleged as being
slaughtered a t the Crossroads.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUknow that at the Crossroads massacre, which
is the chief one in this case, that according to the information I have,
and it may not be correct, but that within a matter of hours the in-
formation of that massacre was known Nation-wide, and-as soon
as our troops got in there, worldwide.
Major BYRNE. That could be true. I am not certain of it, myself.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I believe that the American Army field officers
started an investigation shortly after that of this Malmedy massacre
at. the Crossroads.
Major BYRNE. I know it was not until, it-is my recollection, that
it was sometime in January that they found, actually found the
bodies the snow and dug them out.
Mr. PLANAGAN. Was there any such general information to your
knowledge got out as to this other large massacre that was supposed to
have taken place in LaGleize?
Major BYRNE. TO the best of my knowledge, I didn't hear of it.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Was anyone tried for implication in that large
massacre at or near LaGleize?
Major BYRNW. I do not believe there was. I may be wrong, I can't
be specific and say that there were any 1 of the 624 accused who
were tried for that shooting at LaGleize.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. F'LANAGAN. The information I have is not definite at this time,
whether any person was specificaily accused of having taken part in
this massacre in LaGleize, but let me ask you in that connection, do
you recall from the set of facts that you had upon which your investi-
gation was based, as to the number of Germans that mag! have taken
part in that massacre?
Major BYRNE.I don't think I can answer that question fairly, Mr.
Flanagan. I would be hazarding a guess if I did.
Mr. ITLANAGAN. Was this by any chance a case where three or four
Germans armed with machine pistols were supposed to have committed
the act ?
Major BYRNE. I don't believe i t was limited to as small a number
as that.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n this case would it be fair to ask you whether
based on your inquiry, independent inquiry, you found sufficient
grounds to show even that a crime had been committed?
Major BYRNE. AS far as finding corroborating evidence on the
ground, no, I found none.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And you found none as a result of interrogation
of civilians in the area ?
Major BYRNE. Civilians were unable to give me any information
with reference to this large killing there.
Mr. PLANAGAN. Were there any other cases where you were unable
to corroborate the facts as set forth in the shtements of the accused,
and the witnesses, which have been given to the prosecution team at
Schwabisch Hall ?
Major BYRNE.Yes, in cases where specific number of dead were
listed in various confessions, there were numerous occasions when I
found less bodies, or information describing less bodies in these places
than were stated in the various statements. I n those cases, I found
evidence that there were some bodies.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n every case did you find evidence where there
were some bodies ?
Major BYRNE.I n every case, no, as I previously stated.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n any other case outside of the large alleged mas-
sacre, outside of LaGleize, where you found evidence of no bodies?
Major BYRNE.May I answer your question this way, Mr. Flanagan:
I am certain that there w e r e 1 am sure there were, but I don't re-
member any, specifically.
Mr. FLANAGAN. There were other cases where you found no evidence
of any bodies?
Major BYRNE.Right.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Where massacres were supposed to have taken
place ?
Major BYRNE.That is right.
Mr. FLANAGKN. Now, in those cases where you found no bodies, 1 as-
sume you made a report back to the Prosecutmg Team.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And to your howledge were any of those cases
prosecuted nevertheless ?
Major BYRNE.I cannot fairly answer the question.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Do you h o w of any cases where prosecution was
carried on, although you in your independent investigation were un-
able to h d the bodies of any of the alleged persons killed?
Major BYRNE.NO,I have no personal recollection of any individual
case of that sort.
Mr. FLANAGAN. You just don't h o w whether or not any cases were
presented such as that?
Major BYRNE.NO,I do not.
Mr. FLANAGAN. When you went out to conduct these investigations
in Belgium, did you receive any instructions from Major Fanton, as to
the type of inquiry you should undertake?
Major BYRNE.NO,I didn't. Major Fanton passed me at Weisbaden,
and said hello and goodbye a t the same time, as he was going to the
United States.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did anyone give you any instructions as to any
particular type of investigation?
Major BYRNE.General instructions, yes, from Colonel Ellis. I
should sa "suggestions" rather than instructions; and also from
Captain dhumacker who was working there. We had a roundtable
discussion-I was recently assigned at that time-and we went over
the statements, what they had, and they oriented me on what we were
looking for.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Had you ever conducted any investigation of that
type prior to this time?
Major BYRNE.I had not.
91765-49-26
Mr. FLBNAGAN. H a d you ever conducted any extended investigation

for the armed service prior to that time?
Major BYRNE.Extended investigation; no.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Had you ever conducted any extended investigation
in your private practice of law prior to that time?
Major BYRNE.O ther than the investigations of insurance matters,
and things of that sort.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Automobile accidents, injuries, and personal dam-
age cases?
Major BYRNE.Yes.
. Mr. FLANAGAN. I n your investigations, were you attempting t o
obtain evidence that could be used in court in accordance with the
Anglo-American rules of law that we know ?
Major BYRNE.May I have your question again?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Will you read the question, Mr. Reporter?
(The question was read by the reporter.)
Major BYRNE.Yes, I was.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Were you ever told that these courts would follow
the Anglo-American rules of law ? ,
Major BYRNE.I don't believe that I was ever told what rules of
law we were going to follow.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you know what rules of law you were going
to follow ?
Major BYRNE.The rules of law-I investigated it primarily with
a mental conception of the rules of Anglo-American law. The only
variations, as f a r as rules of law are concerned in those trials, to my
recollection, were the evidentiary rules.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Were you ever instructed as to the rules of evidence
that would be used in this case?
Major BYRNE. Yes. We had considerable study of it, at the time
we were preparing for trial.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Were the Anglo-American rules, as we know them
in our courts here, in the United States, in use?
Major BYRNE. Evidentiary rules ?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes.
Major BYRNE.NO; to the extent, as I pointed out and is pointed out
in the review, the one you have there, the hearsay rule was not applied
in the same manner, nor was the use of the confession of one accused
against another to be excluded merely because it was a confession of
an accomplice.
Mr. FLANAGAN. This morning, you testified that you had never seen
but one mock trial.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Will you describe that to us, when and where, and
the circumstances ? ,I
Major BYRNE. I can pin it down within 30 days, but that is as close
as I can do it. It was on one of the first occasions that I was a t
Schwabisch Hall, being questioned myself as to the results of my in-
vestigation in Belgium and receiving additional information in con-
nection with other matters.
The trial I saw, if you call it that, you had a play upon words as
to whether that was a schnell proceeding, a fast procedure or a mock
trial, but in any event I saw what substantially has been described
by other witnesses before the committee. It was brief. I n fact, it was
so brief, that it was over before I actually got a look a t what was
going on.
There was a table, as has been described. There were three persons
sitting behind the table. '
Mr. FLANAGAN. Who were those?
Major BYRNE. Who they were, I-don't know.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Were they dressed in the uniform of American
soldiers ?
Major BYRNE. I can't state posi&vely ; it is my recollection that they
were.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Were they- supposed
-- to be the judges or court mem-
bers ?
Major BYRNE. I frankly don't know what they were supposed to be.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you think they were?
Major BYRNE. NO, (1did not. I had been advised previously that
this mas a fast interrogation procedure that they used on some of
the-shall we say-not too bright suspects?
Mr. FLANAGAN. What do you think these three officers, or these
three persons were doing, sitting back of the table?
Major BYRNE. Absolutely nothing.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Just sitting there?
Major BYRNE. I t is my recollection tha.t at the time this one hap-
pened, that I saw, we did not have, other than Mr. Perl, any officer
personnel who could speak the language, and they could not have
participated a great deal.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And so, did you gather then that they did not
participate ?
Major BYRNE. I know that they said nothing.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I merely sat there?
Major BYRNE. Merely sat, as stage dressing.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Stage dressing, to observe the proceedings?
Major BYP.NE.Yes.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
What was your part in this mock trial?
Major BYRNE. I had no part in it. I was coming down the hall
between the interrogation section and the administration office of the
prison. The door was open. I had occasion to look in to see what
was going on.
Mr. F'LANAGAN. YOUwere just a spectator?
Major BYRNE. Just a spectator.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
I n addition to the 3 men behind the table, was one
of the accused there?
Major RYRNE. It is may recollection that he was.
Mr. PLANAGAN. Were there any other witnesses ?
Major BYRNE. I do not recall that there were any other witnesses,
Mr. Planagan. It is my recollection that there was one and possibly
two interrogators in the room.
Mr. FLANAQAN. Were thev-
Major BYRNE. One of whGm, or possibly both, were talking rapidly
in German.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Who were they talking to?
Maior BYRNE. T O the accused.
~ rFLANAGAN.
: Were they asking him questions ?
Major BYRNE.It would be difficult for me to state whether they

were asking questions or making speeches at that time. I could not
understand the language.
Mr. FZANAGAN. Was the accused making replies back to them?
Major BYRNE.Yes. The accused on an occasion or two gave the
proverbial "nein," meaning "no."
Mr. FLANAGAN. Were both interrogators questioning the man at the
same time?
Major BYRNE.They seemed to be.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Was there any indication that one might have been
taking the part of prosecutor and the other taking the part of a defense
attorney?
Major BYRNE.Nothing that would indicate that to me. You might
say that one of them seemed to be more aggressive than the other in
his question, but that is all I could gather from that.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUthink that the procedure described was one
wherein one interrogator takes the part of friend and the other takes
a more hostile attitude toward the accused ?
Major BYRNE.It could be that procedure.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And one you think was unfriendly? Why do you
think he was unfriendly?
Major BYRNE.Only because of the tone of his voice.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Was he shouting a t the accused?
Major BYRNE.Shouting? No. Shall we say, speaking disdainfully
and sarcastically, and that sort of thing.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Like the prosecutor, in making a speech?
Major BYRNE.YOUmight say that.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
And the other was speaking softly and leading him
on? -
Major BYRNE.NO, the other was speaking less sarcastically, let us
say, but equally loud.
Mr. FLANAGAN. In a m a p e r such as the defense attorney might use
to handle one of his own witnesses?
Major BYRNE.He might on occasion handle a witness that way.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I have no more questions.
Senator BALDWIN.From your examination of this whole case, are
you in a position to say that these towns you have discussed and the
places where you went to check up for corroborating testimony of the
confessions taken, were in the area through which the First SS Panzer
Regiment came ?
Major BYRNE.Yes, sir ;I can state that almost positively.
Senator BALDWIN.Was it the Pirst S S Panzer Regiment that spear-
headed this drive?
Major BYRNE.It is my understanding, from the tactical story that
we now have of this offensive, that i t was the First SS Panzer that was
spearheading it.
Senator BALDWIN. Were there any other German troops from any
other German regiments other than the First S S Panzer Regiment
that could have been in, or were in that area, from your investigation
of it, prior to the time that these shootings occurred, or at the time
they occurred ?
Major BYRNE.T Othe best of my understanding, Senator Baldwin,
they were not. I t was limited to a particular unit which had been set
up especially as combat group Peiper, to make this particular drive
through this particular spot. It is my recollection of a portion of a
lengthy history written by Colonel Peiper that their objective was
to cross th'e Meuse in the vicinity of Liege, and it was only his troops
who either were or should have been in that area at that time.
I did, in one particular place, in Stoumont, locate the house which
had been Peiper's headquarters, and the local doctor, Dr. Robinson,
had had contact with Colonel Peiper at the house at that time.
Senator BALDWIN.And you corroborated, from the doctor, that
that was Peiper's headquarters?
Major BYRNE.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.How did the doctor identify Peiper?
Major BYRNE.H e identified Peiper, it is my recollection, by his
rank and-I forget; I can't state now whether Dr. Robinson stated
that he h e w his name was Peiper or not. I believe he did. Dr.
Robinson worked with the German lazerettes-we call them medical-
aide men-during that period, in patching some Americans and some
Germans and some Belgians who were injured a t that time, and after
the impact of the battle was over.
I also, in reference to other headquarters, located Colonel Peiper's
headquarters at Petit Thier, identified a t that time by a bundle of
mail that was left there when they evacuated the place in January
of 1945, which had been found in the desk by the man who lived in
the house, the old forester-I forget his name now, but he still had
it and handed me the bundle of mail the first time I questioned him,
when I had located his house.
Senator BALDWIN.You were at Schwabisch Hall, I believe you said,
from some time in March until April?
Major BYRNE.That is my recollection, sir; from %boutthe middle
of March until we moved to Dachau in April.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you at that time have any opportunity to
come in contact with these SS troopers that were prisoners?
Major BYRNE.Oh, yes.
Senator BAWWIN.Tell us what the nature and extent of your con-
tact with them was.
Major BYRNE.Well, I had, in the course of just wandering through
the prison, shall we say, I had some occasion to see them when they
marched in groups or singly. Numbers of them were brought in
on one occasion or another for questioning or other information that
we desired from them, and Colonel Ellis' office, which I shared with
Colonel Ellis, Captain Shumacker, and I think along about that time
Colonel Crawford was there-we were all working in this one that
was a large cell which had been rigged up as an office. I had occasion
to go into the interrogation cells on quite a number of occasions to
take the oath of these people when they were signing these identifi-
cation statements that I saw. I had occasion, out of curiosity to go
through the workings of the prison to see how it was located and
where these people were confined.
There were a number of them that were only names to me up to
the time that I went to Schwabisch Hall and out of idle or other curi-
osity, I was interested in seeing what they looked like, and was taken
through the prison by, i t is my recollection, one of the prison per-
sonnel, not our own personnel, but people from Captain Evans' office,
the security people, who pointed out some of these people that I was
interested in, and in getting a physical view of the people who were
connected with these things that I had worked with for the most part
as theories and names.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever observe any of these prisoners being
abused in any way, being kicked, slapped, or kneed in the groin, or
pushed up against the wall, or things of that kind? Tell us anything
about that that you know of.
Major BYRNE.I did not, Senator. I saw nobody abused. On one
occasion when a group of 8 or 10 were being taken up a stairway in
the prison wearing these hoods that have been described here, a man
in the middle of the column stumbled and fell and was immediately
helped up by the uards, and the line assembled and they moved on
B
off. Apparently t e guard who led the column knew at least some
words of German, because they would be lined up at attention, he
would give the German command for marching, and they would
march off. This fellow missed his step in going
- - -
up the stairway or
stumbled.
Other than that I saw nothing to indicate to me that anyone had
been maltreated physically.
Senator B ~ D W I NDid. you ever observe any evidences of any mal-
treatment on the prisoners themselves, I mean as to their faces, 02
marks on their arms or bodies such as you might be able to observe?
Major BYRNE.I have not, Senator. I have seen numbers of them
that were brought in for questioning for one thing or another, and I
have never seen any of them sporting a black eye, or a bruise, or
anything of the sort that would indicate that they may have been
maltreated.
Senator BALDWIN.These that you have seen brought in for ques-
tioning, did you hear any of them make any complaints?
Major BYRNE.NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.I n your presence about their treatment ?
Major BYRNE.I did not.
Senator BALDWIN.How did they appear to be, so far as being fed
was concerned ?
Major BYRNE.I was not in a position, Senator, to make a com-
arative analysis, became I didn't know what shape they were in
Eefore they went in there; but physically they were in good condition
when I saw them. All of them were much fatter than the German
populace, on the average, that we were seeing on the street a t that time.
Senator BALDWIN.I think that is all. Any further questions?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Nothing further.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Nothing

further.
Senator BALDWIN.Thank you, Major Byrne.
Mr. CHAMBERS. For the purposes of the record and to complete
the very partial testimony that Colonel Ellis gave this morning, I
would like to place into the record a t this time a statement by Father
Blokian, of La Gleize, Belguim. This affidavit by Father Blokian
starts on page 2819 of the trial record in the Malmedy case. It was
placed in evidence not by the prosecution but by the defense, and I
believe Colonel Ellis' discussion this morning was sufficient so that it
need not be discussed further unless you have some questions on it.
I might say that i t is substantially as stated by Colonel Ellis.
(The affidavit referred to is as follows :)
Lieutenant WAHLER.At this time the defense requests permission to read its
exhibits into evidence.
PRESIDENT.Granted.
(Whereupon, Lieutenant Wahler proceeded to read exhibit D-32 a s follows :)
LA GLEIZE,BELGIUM,June 11,1946.
On the above date Lt. W. J. Wahler, in the presence of Miss Betty Young,
stenographer, Corp. George M. Convere, interpreter, a n d Mr. Miles W. Rulian,
investigator, interrogated the following-named witnesses whose statements have
all been given under oath.
Q. What is your name?-A. Father Louis Desire Joseph Blokian.
Q. What religious denomination a r e . you?-A. Catholic.
Q. How long have you had this parish a t L a Gleize, Belgium?-A. Nine years.
Q. Do you recall during the month of December 1944 the occupation of L a
Glaze by German soldiers?-A. Yes.
Q. During the occupation of La Gleize by the German armed forces did you
remaindin your parish in L a Gleize?-A. Yes.
Q. Did you take refuge while the town of La GIeize was under siege?-A. Yes.
Q. When did you take refuge?-A. On Monday, December 18, 1944, at 1:45
when the Germans entered La Gleize.
Q. Wherc did you take refuge?-A. I n the cellar of the house of Arthur George.
Q. Who 'were present in the cellar a t this time?-A. Mr. George's family;
others arrived later, but a t the present time I do not recall their names. On
Tuesday, all the people living around the parish came to refuge in the cellar.
There was also a German refugee there.
Q. When you went into the cellar, was there a lot of artillery from American
forces being fired into La Gleize?-A. No.
Q. Was La Gleize ever under fire from American forces?-A. Yes; beginning
on Tuesday.
Q. When the Germans came into La Gleize on Monday, were there any Amer-
icans in the village a t that time?-A. No.
Q. When was the first time that you heard of American prisoners of w a r being
brought to La Gleize?-A. I don't know exactly. I t was probably Wednesday o r
Thursday.
Q. Where is Mr. George's home located with relation to the church?-A. About
30 meters away, on the main road of La Gleize.
Q. How long did ou remain in the cellar before you left it?-A. I left it about
4 :30 on Monday, just a s i t u;as beginning to get dark.
Q. And where did you go?-A, To the Communal House which has inhabited
by the teachers.
Q. How long did yon remain there?-A. Five minutes.
Q. Where is the Communal House located with relation to the church?-A.
Across the street.
Q. I n order to get to the Communal House, you had to walk along the road
past the cement walls surrounding the church?-A. I followed the road along
the cemetery inside the walls between the cemetery and the church.
Q. As you walked along the road to Mr. George's house, to the entrance to
the cemetery, did'you look down the road?-A. Yes; but there was a lot of rifle
fire, and we hurried.
Q. Did you see'anything a s you looked down this road?-A. Nothing special.
There were Germans there, a s there was eveywhere.
Q. Did you a t that time see the bodies of any Amerian soldiers lying on the
road?
Q. When did you again return to Mr. George's home?-A. Perhaps 10 minutes
a t the most.
Q. Where did you go when you arrived a t Mr. George's home the second time?--
A. To the cellar.
Q. How long did you remain in the cellar the second time?-A. Until about
10 o'clock on Tuesday in the morning.
Q. Did you leaire the cellar a t that time?-A. Yes. I went to the kitchen, which
was a t the top of the stairs. The Germans were there, and the people of t h e
house were there making coffee.
Q. And what did you do, Father?-A. I just looked and went back into the
cellar.
402 WLMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Q. When did you leave the cellar again, if a t all?-A. Sunday, December 24,
1944.
Q. And where did you go this time?-A. We looked all about. The Americans
were there. I went up to the village and then back to my house. The American
commander was in the last house of the village and was still doing a lot of
phoning. I asked him where we should go. H e said to go toward Stoumont.
Q. Did you go to Stoumont?-A. No; I went back to my people in order to
tell them.
Q. And then what did you do?-A. We were given the order to evacuate, w e
were to get our things together and 'automobiles would come to get us a t 4 o'clock.
Q. What, if anything else, did you do?-A. I went to my house. We remained
there watching the troops. I was asked to go around the village to assemble
the people.
Q. Did you ever leave L a Gleize?-A. Yes ; on the 24th.
Q. How long did you remain away?-A. Until t h e following Saturday, the 30th
cjf December. I returned once during the period that we were gone.
Q. When was that?-A. Wednesday o r Thursday,'we buried a small boy who
had died while we were away.
Q. What did h e die from, Father?-A. The boy died from influenza.
Q. Between the period of December 18and Decembe? 24,up to the time that you
left the village of La Gleize, did you ever see the bodies of any dead American
soldiers lying in La Gleize?-A. No.
&..During this period of time, what was your church being used for?-A. AS a
hospital. I suppose the soldiers also took shelter there.
Q. Were these soldiers t h a t you speak of Americans or Germans?-A. Germans.
Q. Do you know if there were any wounded American soldiers lying in this
church?-A. People have told me there were.
Q. Were these American soldiers being treated by the Germans?-A. I don't
think so.
Q. Did you ever examine the walls surrounding the church for bullet holes?-
A. About a year later, when a n investigation was made by the Americans.
Q. Did you look a t the wall?-A. Yes.
Q. When you examined the wall, Father, did you notice any marks which
could have been made by bullets from small arms fire?-A. No, i t does not seem
t o me, there a r e marks but don't appear from small arms and certainly not from
mass firing.
Q. By mass firing, do you mean machine gun fire and machine gun pistols?-
& Yes. No proving marks were visible.
Q. Did you examine the outside wall of your schoolhouse?-A. Partially, yes.
Q. Did you see any marks that could have been caused by small arms fire on
that wall?-A. No.
Q. A t any time, Father, did you see t h e bodies of American soldiers in t h e
town?-A. No, except those I told you t h a t had been burned in tanks. I had
seen only one body in a tank, the body was so burned that i t could not be extracted
from the tank. I saw the helmets of American soldiers with holes and brain
matter inside.
Q. Where were these helmets found?-A. I n a small path a t the end of the
church property, which is a small field about 50 meters from the church.
Q. How many helmets did you see?-A. One with brain matter in it, and
another with a hole in it.
Q. Father, your church is in t h e center of t h e cemMe&, is t h a t right?-A. Yes.
Q. While you were i n the cellar from Monday, December 18,1944,until Sunday,
December 24, 1944, did you a t any time hear the moaning o r groaning of human
beings?-A. No; I heard cries, but they were from people i n the village who
were calling to see if we were there.
Q. Then, they were not cries in the sense that we use the word, they were one
individual calling to another?-A. Yes.
(Signed) Loms DESIREJOSEPH BLOKIAN,
Father Louis Desire Joseph Blokian, La Gleize, Belgium.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this l l t h of June 1946.
(Signed) W. J. WAHLEB,JAGD, second Lieutenant.
W. J. WAHLEB,JAGD.
I, Corporal Geo~geConvers, 42235314, being first duly sworn, state that I truly
translated the oath administered by Second Lieutenant J. W. Wahler to Father
Louis Desire Joseph Blokian, and that thereupon be made and subscribed the
foregoing statement in his own handwriting in my presence.
Corporal George Convers.
Corporal GEORGE CONVEBB.
I, Corporal George Convers, 42235314, being first duly sworn state that the
foregoing is a true and correct translation of the sworn testimony of Father Louis
Desire Joseph Blokian given a t La Qleire-on the l l t h of June 1946, to the best of
my ability.
(Signed) Corporal George Convers.
Corporal GEORGE CONVEEB.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day of June 1946, by the above
affiant, Corporal George Convers.
Second Lieutenant W. J. W A H L ~JAGD. ,
(Signed) W. J. Wahler, JAGD.
(Whereupon Exhibit D-33 was translated and read in the German language by
the interpreter).
Senator BALDWIN. Colonel Dwinell, I believe, is next.
Colonel, will you please stand up and hold up your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear the evidence you will give in the matter in
question will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Colonel1 DWINELL.I do.
Senator BALDWIN. Will you give us your full name, Colonel?

Colonel DWINELL.John S. Dwinell.
Senator BALDWIN. And you are still in the Army?
Colonel DWINELL.I am in the Regular Army.
Senator BALDWIN. Are you a graduate of West Point?
Colonel DWINELL.NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.HOWlong have you been in the Army?
Colonel DWINELL.I came in the Army with a National Guard unit
in September 1940. I have been in the Army since that date.
Senator BALDWIN. And when you came in, did you come in originally
in the Judge Advocate General's deparbment ?
Colonel DWINELL.NO,sir; I was with the Coast Artillery, a Coast
Artillery officer, until July 1947, when integrated into the Regular
Army in the Judge Advocate General'Corps. At that time, I was
commissioned a permanent major, and last July 1948, was promoted to
a permanent lieutenant colonel in the Judge Advocate General Corps.
Senator BALDWIN. And you have had actual combat experience?
Colonel DWINELL. NO, sir. I got to Okinawa about 2 days after

T:J-day.
Senator BALDWIN.Were you an attorney prior to the war?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Where did you go to school ?
Colonel D ~ N E L LI.went t o Brooklyn Law School and graduated
ill 1928, was admitted to the bar of New York in April 1930 practiced
with a law firm in New York from 1930 until 1940, at whlch time I
came into the Army.
Senator BALDWIN.What was the name of the firm you mere con-
nected with?
Colonel DWINELL.Harris, Corwin, Moffatt & Schek, 55 Liberty
Street.
Senator BALDWIN.Where are you stationed now, Colonel?
Colonel DWINELL.Governor's Island, Headquarters, First Army;
a member of the Judge Advocate General's department with the staff
judge advocate.
Senator BALDWIN.Were you assigned to this task of defending these
war criminals ?
Colonel DWINELL.I was.
Senator BALDWIN. Tell us about how it happened, or how you hap-
pened to get that assignment?
Colonel DWINELL.It came about by order issued by the Third Army
in Europe, which was issued some time in the early part of 1946, I
don't recall the date, but I came to Germany in March 1946 and was
assigned to duty a t Dachau, I believe it was the 11th of April 1946,
by virtue of that order of which I have spoken, appointing me as one
of the defense counsel in the war crimes case.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you have a copy of that order with you,
Colonel ?
Colonel DWINELL.NO. sir: but it is in the record of trial, I am sure.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,prior to taking on this assignbent, were
you given any instructions by your superiors in the Army concerning
this case?
Colonel DWINELL.Concerning this case?
Colonel DWINELL.NOinstructions whatever. I met Colonel Everett,
who is the chief defense counsel in this case, for the first time on the
11th of April. I had been sent down from Weisbaden the day before,
and met Colonel Everett. H e told me he was the chief defense counsel.
H e introduced me to one or two others who had been appointed as
assistant defense counsel, and a t that time I met for the first time
Colonel Ellis, chief prosecutor, and I think at that time I met Major
Ryrne.
Senator BALDWIN.I think the committee is particularly interested
in knowing, Colonel, whether or not you got any instructions of any
kind, written or verbal, from your superior officers, or from the Army
in an way, directing your conduct, the manner in which you were t o
hand& the defense of this case?
Colonel DWINELL.I did from Colonel Everett, with respect to this
particular case; and, those instruction were general, that this case
would be conducted in a lawyer-like fashion and we would do the best
we could for our clients despite the fact that they were enemy aliens,
that we would offer the proper defense and be vigorous in our defense
and give them all the attention that the case deserved.
I s eak of those instructions that way, because Colonel Everett
l
speci 'cally talked in that tone of voice and in that vein at the time I
first met him. I
As the rules of evidence, I didn't become acquainted with the appli-

cable rules of evidence in war crimes until a few days after that, when
I went down to Dachau, and we secured the military government ordi-
nances that are applicable to these types of trials, and they set out
definitely the rules of evidence that are to be applied in the war crimes
cases.
I read those and studied them. That was one of the first assign-
ments that Colonel Everett gave me.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, the point I want to make out, I
want to find out, because it seems to me that it is very important here,
is whether or not when you entered upon the defense of this case, so
far as instructions or anything is concerned, your hands were tied
in any way.
Senator BALDWIN.That is, you were a free agent, to do whatever
you thought was necessary for the defense of these war criminals?
Colonel DWINELL. That is correct.
Senator BALDWIN.What facilities were placed a t your disposal,
Colonel, if any?
Colonel DWINELL.We got down to Dachau about the 12th of April,
and Colonel Everett handled the preliminary arrangements, I did not.
H e secured the use of certain rooms that were set aside for us. We
had about six or seven fairly large rooms in a part of the buildings
set aside exclusively for the defense. We secured the services of about
five interpreters, local people, and we obtained the necessary type-
writers and stationery, telephones, and things of that nature, and in
other words, in a few days we had set u p a small little law office for that
purpose, with the exception of the fact that we had no textbooks of
any kind, we were equipped with all the other needs that you would
want for defending anyone.
Senator BAWWIN.I neglected to ask you whether or not, in your
experience as an attorney you had had trial experience-trial court
experience.
Colonel DWINELL. Yes, sir ;I did, in civil life.
Senator BALDWIN.Tell us about that.
Colonel DWINELL. Well, I have tried a number of civil cases, damage
suits, negligence cases, contract cases, and I would say about 10 or 12
in the various courts in New York State, and have argued appeals in
the appellate division in New York; I have argued appeals in the
court of appeals in Albany; foreclosed about three or four hundred
mortgages in that period of time, incidental to which I was required
to make the motions in court, litigated my motions in the Federal
courts and State courts.
Senator BALDWIN.SOit will be fair to say you had had, for a man
of your age-incidentally, how old are you?
Colonel DWINELL.Forty-seven.
Senator BAWWIN.For a man of your age, you have had a fairly
general legal experience in the trial work and in the general practice
of law ?
Colonel DWINELL. Yes, sir; because my experience with trial work

goes beyond that. I was born and brought up that way. My father
was a practicing attorney, and I practically lived in the courtrooms all
the time, as a spectator and a stuaent, off and on, for many years.
Senator BALDWIN.Where is your home, Colonel!
Colonel DWINEIL Brooklyn, N. Y.
Senator BALDWIN.So that reaches back prior to 1930?
Colonel DWINELL Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. Did I ask you if you were a graduate of any
college or I aw school ?
Colonel DWINELL.I am not a graduate of a college, but of law school.
Senator BALDWIN.What law school?
Colonel DWINELL.Brooklyn Law School in Brooklyn-that is asso-
ciated with the St. Lawrence University, in up-State New York.
Senator BALDWIN.That is a law school recognized by the bar exam-
ining authorities in the State of New York, as providing a competent
legal education to warrant a man taking a New York bar examination,
is it not?
Sentor BALDWIN.Well, after you had this organization, as you have
described-and, by the way, how many attorneys were there in this
group? You mentioned Colonel Everett. Who were the others; do
you recall 1
ColoneI DWINELL.Yes, sir. Mr. Strong, Captain Norvid, Richara
Wahler, Colonel Sutton, Colonel Everett, and myself constituted the
team of American attorneys.
Shortly after we got there the chief defense counsel informed us that
the rules provided that the accused could select their own German
counsel, and therefore we sent Mr. Strong to Munich. Mr. Strong
was formerly a German, and during the past years had lived in Ger-
many, and particularly in Munich.
He went to see some Munich lawyers, some association on the order
of a bar association up there, and made some inquiries, and as a
result of his efforts there were five German lawyers assigned to our
case. I think there was five. I will call their names :
Dr. Lehr, Dr. Hilling, Dr. Fiester, Dr. Rau, Dr. Willin, and Dr.
Hurtkof.
They worked with us during the entire time.
Senator BALDWIN.Were you able to judge, Colonel, anything about
their competency and standing at the German bar?
Senator BALDWIN.What was i t ?
Colonel DWINELL. Not particularly with respect to the German bar,
but I can judge from their ability as demonstrated in this particular
case. Dr. Hilling and Dr. Lehr and Dr. Piester I remember were very
well educated men. Dr. Hilling had gotten his degree a t Oxford and
spoke English beautifully and had a very fine education, and so did
the other German lawyers. They were all high-caliber men, and I
base this upon the constant observation, daily observation for a period
of 2 or 3 months, and I found that they were highly ethical and very
competent, very sincere, and very energetic.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, so f a r as your group was concerned, you
were determined not to pull any punches in the kind of defense you
put up a
Colonel DWINELL.That is correct.
Senator BALDWIN. And to the best of your ability, you did it.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you have the Malmedy prispners to defend?
Well, I might explain about that.
Senator BAIDWIN.Tell us about the group that you had to defend.
Colonel DWINELL.Well, when we realized that there was such a
large group-that is to say, 74 people-and when we found that they
had varying ranks among themselves in the army, running anywhere
from a private up to a' general; and, that they had conflicting interests
in this thing, as to who gave the orders to do what and so on, we had
a number of meetings amon the defense lawyers at the beginning
6
to determine how we were to andle this matter, and i t was finally de-
cided to arbitrarily divide the accused into three groups. We divided
them into groups like this: All of the officers, German o5cers that
we were defending; all of the noncommissioned officers; and, all of the
privates.
Senator BALDWIN. YOUdidn't distinguish
- between -general o5cers
and others ?
Colonel DWINELL.General officerswere included with the officers.
Senator BALDWIN.HOWmany general officers were there?
Colonel DWINELL. Three.
In that subdivision, I was assigned to the officer group with Mr.
Strong. The others were divided into the other two groups. That was
the initial assignment, but as the trial progressed it was discovered by
Colonel Everett that both Lieutenant Wahler and myself had more ex-
perience in court procedure than the others, a t least it appeared that
way to Colonel Everett, so he moved us up into a position of, well, I
might say I was an executive officer for Colonel Everett, in addition to
running the group that I had been particularly assigned to.
I lived next door to Everett in Dachau and therefore was in his com-
pany to discuss these matters, the strategy, evidence, and law every day
and every night durin the trlal.
Senator BALDWIN.j m I right in assuming that your task was the
defense of those charged with the so-called Malmedy and associated
killings there ?
Senator BALDWIN. And all in all you had 73 defendants?
Senator BALDWIN.What was your first contact with the defendants?
Colonel DWINELL. About the 17th or 18th of April they came down
to Dachau. Everybody had been transported from Schwabisch Hall
and they came down there and were ut in the "bunkers," which is the
7
German expression for a group of ce 1 blocks, or cells, and it was that

very day or the day afterward that we had all of the 74 accused as-
sembled in one large room, at which time Mr. Strong acted as inter-
preter and we introduced ourselves and explained our mission, what
we were there for, and told them we wanted their confidence and that
we needed to put forth the best defense that was available consistent
with the truth and we wanted the truth and that is all we wanted, and
we would do the best we could for them.
That was about the 18th of April.
I n that connection, we had a meeting of the lawyers in the case
afterward, at which we discussed the fact that it appeared to us that
the accused would not cooperate, and so we had another meeting, I
think the day after that, and discussed these things in general with
them again, and asking them very general questions. We got very
little answers ;in fact, in some cases no answers a t all.
That alarmed us to the extent that we called in for a special confer-
ence the three generals in the case and Colonel Peiper, and Peiper
spoke English and I talked to him directly, myself, and Mr. Strong
talked to him and we said: "Now,.you people have got to have c o d -
dence in us or we can't do anythlng for you. You will have to go
out and tell the youngsters out there that we are not out t o do any-
thing but to help, and we want the truth and you have got to get their
confidence for us, or we can't do a thing." Then we had another meet-
ing of all the accused, a t which time Peiper got up and talked to his
men for some length of time and then there was a gradual change after
that and we noticed they began to be free and talked to us and gave
us their version of the story.
We had the impression, however, initially that they were not willing
to believe the fact that we said we were going to help them.
Senator BALDWIN.You started in the 16th of April, and when did
the trial actually begin?
Colonel DWINELL.The trial began on the 16th of May.
Senator BALDWIN.How long did it take you to break down the re-
sistance, or whatever you want to call it, that these men evidenced
a t first, which under the circumstances seems to be perfectly under-
standable ?
Colonel DWINDELL.I T O U ~ C s~ay about a week or 10 days.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,after that were you able to confer with
themF?
Senator BALDWIN.And how often?
Colonel DWINELL.AS often as we desired.
Senator BALDWIN. And did you confer with them?
Colonel DWINEU. All day long, and all night.
Senator BALDWIN. Were there written charges preferred against
them ?
Colonel DWINEU. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.When were there charges placed into your hands?
Colonel DWINELL.I know that they were served on the accused on
the 1st of April, with the exception of six, and Colonel Ellis served
six, the balance, the remaining down in Dachau about the 16th or 17th
of April, or something like that.
Senator BALDWIN.Colonel, have we go$ copies of those? I think
i t would be a good thing for the benefit of the record to have a
sample or two of what we would call, I suppose, indictments, or infor-
mations-what they amounted to. .
Colonel ELLIS. This is my only copy, which doesn't include the
four other names, and there is another one. This is my only copy.
I also have a photostatic copy of the signature of each of the accused.
Senator BALDWIN.I think if we could have that for the record-
entlemen, there is the second call for a quorum. We will recess for a
few minutes..
( A short recess was taken.)
Senator BALDWIN. I think we are ready, gentlemen.
Let us show this chart sheet to Colonel Dwinell and ask him if .it is
typical of what was offered.
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, sir; that is a copy of the chart sheet.
Senator BAWWIN.NOW,did you address any pleading of any kind
to that information?
Colonel DWINEU. Yes, sir. Before that I would like to state that
my menlory was not too accurate on the date of the serving of the last
six accused. That was probably on about the 22d of April. I have
checked with Colonel Ellis on that, a i ~ dalso the time when the ac-
cused were sent down to Dachau, I believe I said the 16th of April,
but it would mdre probably be accurate to say the 16th-
Colonel ELLIS. 16th and 19th.
Colonel DWINELL.New, we addressed the motions to the pleadings.
I n particular, the prosecution, in adyance of the trial, furnished us
with what has been called the dosier, what appeared to be i n the na-
ture of a bill of particulars.
At any rate, it set forth with respect to each accused what the
prosecution intended to prove.
Senator BALDWIK. Let me get that clear because that is very impor-
tant.
What you say is that before you undertook the defense of the
cases-mas this before you went to work on them?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, sir; but I do not recall when we first got
that document, but I think it was about 2 weeks before the trial.
I saw that for the first time then; that was given to me, or rather,
b copy of it was given to me by Colonel Everett, and I believe he got
that. in turn. from Colonel Ellis.
ator or ~~'ALDWIN.D O you k ~ o wwhen he got that in turn from
Colonel Ellis ?
Colonel DWINELL.NO.
Senator BAWWIN.For the benefit of the record here, I think it is
very important. When did they get that? When did you give it to
them ?
Colonel ELLIS.I do not recall. We gave it to him as a souvenir
copy of what we intended to prove against each of these people, and
it was rather decorated up with an inlaid cover, with pictures of each
accused. I f he says 2 weeks before trial, I would have to go along
with him, because I just cannot recall when we delivered it to him,
but it was sometime before the trial.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me ask you this: Did you deliver it to him
at about the time that they began to prepare the defenses, or after
that?
Colonel ELLIS.I would say it was about the time they prepared
their defenses.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, this dosier, as you called it-
will you describe it to us? What was i t ?
Colonel DWINELL.Well, it was printed, and it was bound up with
a very large wooden cover; it had in red printing large words "Mal-
medy War Crimes Trial," on the outside of the cover, and it contained
several printed pages, and each page had a picture of the accused,
and the number that he was assigned, and under the picture a para-
graph or two stating that the prosecution intends to prove the follow-
ing.
I have a sample here, for example, in front of me:
No. 51, Max Rieder: Intend to prove, one, on or about 17 Deeember, 1944--
and they mention the place in Belgium-
fired on Allied civilians ; and two, on or about 17 ~ G e m b e r 1
, 944, at the cross-
roads south of Malmedy, Belgium, fired on prisoners of war.
I n other words, they gave us notice that they were going to prove
only those two allegations with respect to that particular accused.
Senator BALDWIN.Did that help you any in talking with the ac-
cused about his participation in that particular event?
Colonel DWINELL. Oh, yes, definitely.
Now, we made a motion, however, a t the beginning of the case to
ask the court to require the prosecution to be more definite and certain,
more detailed in their alleged bill of particulars. I n other words,
it did help us; certainly it was better than just having the blanket
charge, which was in very general terms, but as we got into the
interrogation of the accused, we found it was necessary to be more
d e h i t e and certain in many of the allegations in the bills of particulars
and, therefore, we made a motion to require the prosecution to be
more definite and certain, and that motion was argued on both sides
and denied.
Senator BALDWIN.How much time was taken in the argument -
of it?
Colonel DWINELL.I would say half an hour, approximately.
Senator BALDWIN.Did the court take it under advisement or was
i t decided from the bench?
Colonel DWINELL. It was decided from the bench. However-yes,
I recall it was decided from the bench; and I say that because that
stands out in my memory permanently with respect to that motion
and others because that was our first set-back with the accused; we
lost their coniidence immediately, and we had to regain it for the
reason that the more clever of the accused had immediately notified
us that it was quite apparent to them from the fact that the court
read their decision immediately when we finished our argument, that
the. thing
- had been prejudged, and that is why that stands out in my
mind.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, then, would you describe to us what hap-
pened after that in the defense-I withdraw that question.
Let me ask you this first: I n this dosier that you got, there was
a paragraph setting forth briefly what the particular participation
was and where the participation occurred, and as it applied to each
one of the prisoners.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,on the conduct of the trial, were they
charged with any other participation or any other particular other
than that of which you had notice?
Colonel DWINELL.NO, sir. I can state that the prosecution never
went beyond the bill of particulars.
Senator BALDWIN.I n reference to this motion that you addressed
to the indictment or the information, charging these prisoners with
this crime, were there any arguments or any briefs or anything sub-
mitted to the court prior to the time of the oral argument?
MALM3DY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 411
Colonel DWINELL.I think so ;but I do not know this of my personal
knowledge. I am willing to state this, that I spspect that Colonel
Everett gave the court an advance copy of our motion papers, but
I am not certain. I would have to talk to him to recall now whether
that was done or not, but I am of -the opinion that that was done,
but I am not certain.
Senator BALDWIN.Have we got, Colonel, a list of the names of the
court, and the president of the court? Do me have that information 1
Mr. CHAMBERS. w e have, sir; we have a record of the elltire pro-
ceedings in their entirety., There will be for later decision as to how
much of this should be included as exhibits t o our report.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, of course, i t seems to me that Colonel
Dwinell here, as well as Major Byrne, have developed some very
helpful testimony from the standpoint of the actual procedure fol-
lowed here. Certainly it is the most direct I have seen on this par-
particular point.
Well, go on, Colonel, and describe what happened after this motion
was acted upon and denied.
Colonel DWINELL.May I go back prior to that a little bit in con-
nection with our preparation of our defense?
Senator BALDWIN.Yes, surely.
Colonel DWINELL.The accused, having arrived there in Dachau,
about the 19th or 20th of April, fhe trial began on the 15th of May,
ancl therefore, we had approximately 3 weeks' time t o get this thing
organized, and it was decided that our first task mould be the m k'
of these various motions with respect to these various pleadings, an In$
with respect to the other forms of relief; and so most of us, and I know
I concentrated mainly at that time on preparing these motion papers.
We made several motions, if I can refresh my recollection here for
a minute, we made a motion for a severance, and we argued that for
a considerable length of time.
Senator BALDWIN. Now, for the benefit of the record and a layman,
a severance means a trial of the prisoners separately.
Colonel DWINELL.Separately, and we suggested in that motion how
we thought it could be done with respect to incidents and with respect
to the particular accused.
We also made a motion attacking the jurisdiction qf the court on
general grounds that we considered from the standpoint of interna-
tional law, in general.
I do not recall what other motions we made. I am sure there were
one or two others, but a t any rate, all of the motions were prepared
in writing, mere orally argued before the court, and all of the motions
were denied.
Senator BALDWIN. The name of this particular case was United
States v. Va1enti.n Bersin et al., was it not ?
Senator B A L D ~ I NBy
. general military government court tried a t
Dachau, Germany, beginning May 16,1946.
I wonder if thls would refresh your recollection as to the different
motions that you filed.
Colonel DWINELL.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. Refresh your recollection from that, and then
tell us, will you please?
91765-49-27
Colonel DWINELL.We made a motion which we called a motion in

the nature of a motion to strike as t o certain named defendants in the
charge sheets. It was a very lengthy motion, and it took considerable
time t o argue.
I believe, as I recall it from looking a t the motion papers, it prob-
ably took the better part of an hour.
Senator BALDWIN. Were all these niotions filed simultaneously, and
considered simultaneously ?
Colonel DWINELL.NO, sir; they were considered consecutively, one
right after the other.
It was the first order of business at the beginning of the case ; and
we made a motion then to strike certain portions of the alleged bill of
particulars.
We then made a motion concerning the jurisdiction of the court
to try this particular case, and a motion for severance, and I think
that is all.
Senator BALDWIN. I am advised that Colonel Ellis has said that
these motions were submitted in writing 2 days in advance, and then
considered by the law members of the court.
Colonel DWINELL.That is probably correct.
Senator BAWWIN.Does that refresh your recollection?
Colonel DWINELL. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.But of course, when the motions were orally
made in the court, the defendants were there?
Senator BALDWIN.And they saw the matter decided off the bench?
Colonel DWINELL. That is correct; and our motions were made
orally, and as soon as we finished our argument, their attention was
directed so that the matter could be translated for the benefit of the
accused, and then the prosecutor replied, and then that was trans-
lated.
Then, the court made a ruling, and that was translated in open
court.
That took up a considerable amount of time, preparing all these
motions. We sent one attorney up to Berlin to attempt to get some
texts on international law, and write up the brief on certain phases
of this subject, and the rest of us spent the evenings and all day
preparing them.
Then, simultaneously with that, we began the interrogation of the
accused in order to find out what their stories were.
Now, the next order of business we discovered that a t the outset
each accused had given one or more pretrial statements in writing,
and when we discovered that, we notified the chief defense counsel,
and what conferences we had with Colonel Corbin and Colonel Ellis,
I am not able to state, but he came back after several conferences,
and finally it was decided that we would be given a copy of those
pretrial statements.
Accordingly, a few days before the trial, I am not sure when, but
I think i t was probably about 10 days before the trial-I may be
wrong on that-Colonel Ellis would probably recall when we got the
first delivery of the bulk of the pretrial statements-
Colonel ELLIS. Well, that could be correct; we had to get them all
~hotostated,and they had to be photostated in Weisbaden, and we
gave them to you piecemeai, as I recaii it.
Colonel ELLIS.AS we got them assembled we gave them to you.
Colonel DWINELL. AS I remember, you gave us all of the retrial
statements, with the exception of about nine, and you stated that you
would not turn those over to us for reasons of your own, and later on
they were, however, offered in evidence, am I right in that?
Senator BALDWIN.Do you remember what nine they were?
Colonel DWINELL.NO, sir ; I cannot recall.
Colonel ELLIS. I do not think there were nine accused, there were
nine statements, as I recall, three enerals and Peiper, just those
f
statements not turned over to the de ense prior to their admission in
evidence.
Colonel DWINELL.When they delivered those statements to us,
we then noticed that some of them were 20 and 30 pages long, with
diagrams and so on. There were not-there were approximately 75
statements.
Colonel ELLIS.Well, there were probably more than that, because
some of them had two statements.
Colonel DWINELL.TWOstatements.
Colonel ELLIS.Some of them did not giGe statement.
Colonel DWINELL.Seventy-five to a hundred would be a correct
statement.
When we got those I noticed the size of them, and the bulk of the
pretrial statements; it necessitated sitting down, of course, and ana-
lyzing them.
I
11addition to that, we began interrogating the accused individually,
and as we interrogated each accused he, in turn, would give us the
name of certain witnesses whom we should call in their behalf for
various reasons, and I recall setting up a box with cards in it, and had
a girl there typing the name of each witness as it was given to me, and
before the trial was over I had approximately 300 cards and, of
course, i t was physically impossible to interrogate all those people;
but I mention that in answer to your question about our work prior
to the trial; there was another task that we had, and so, therefore, at
the time the trial opened, I can safely say that we had not interro-
gated actually to any extent that would be worth while any more than
about a third of the accused.
We had not been able to physically get around to it and, certainly,
had very little time to interrogate the witnesses that they had, so
that our interrogations of the accused and of the witnesses was a
continual process that really got under full swing a t the beginning
of the trial, and continued all throughout the trial.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you make any request for an extension of
time for the trial 2
Colonel DWINELL.NO, sir. 1 can only s t k e that I did speak t o
Colonel Everett, in fact all of us did, and we had many conferences on
the subject, and I am not able to state why the decision mas made. I
was second in command, and Colonel Everett took that responsibility
upon himself, and told me on a number of occasions that he had
conferred with higher authority, and that the matter had been ad-
ministratively determined that there would be no adjournment, and
414 ~ L M E D YMASSACRE INVESTIGATION
in fact, Everett told me many times that there would be no person

making a motion, and we would forget about it, and which we did.
Senator BALDWIN.SOthat no moilon for a postponement was made?
Colonel DWINELL. NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,will you go on and tell us anything you
want about this. I covered the main points insofar as I knew what
you might know about it. Now, I would be glad to have you go on and
make any statement-maybe Colonel Chambers has a question or two
he might like to ask.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am certain that Colonel Dwinell has a great deal
of information and a great many things that he wishes to say, sir, and
for purposes of getting first things first here, I would like to clarify a
couple of points In my mind with him.
Mr. CHAMBERS.One is, I would like to get these dates clearly i n
mind as to when the defense counsel actually came into the-picture.
T believe i t is sometime i n April, is it not? Is that not correct?
Mr. CHAMBERS. When these people were served?
Mr. C H A ~ ~ B E Do
R S .you recall that date?
Colonel DWINELL.T h e bulk of the accused I know were served on
the 11th of April 1946.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I presume a t that time yon started with your initial
work i n getting set u p to start getting the defense organized?
Colonel D W I N ~ LThe . following clay, yes, sir.
Mr. C ~ a w ~ mThe s . following day.
Now, the prisoners a t that
time were a t Dachau ? .
Colonel DWINELL.NO;they mere a t Schwabisch Hall.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When were they mol-ed to Dachau?

Colonel DWINELL.They were nlovecl about the 19th.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,between the 11th of April and the 19th of
April, did you have an opportunity to work with any of the prisoners?
Colonel DWINELL.It may be that the prisoilers were moved between
the 16th and the 19th. They did not come down in one lot. During
those 3 days they all came down.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What I am trying to get a t is this : Did you, before
they were removed t o Dachau, have much of a chance to work with
them ?
Colonel DWINELL.With them, none a t all.
Mr. CHAMBERS YOUmere merely getting this organization set u p ?
Colonel DWINELL.T h a t is
Mr. CHAMBERS. After they got to DaMlan on the 19th of April, how
long did you have to work with the prisoners before the trial actually
started ?
Colonel DWINELL.From that day until- the trial started.
Rfr. CHAMBERS. T h a t was when?
Colonel DWINCLL.About the 19th of April.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When did the trial s t a r t ?
Colonel DWINELL.T h e trial startecl on the 15th of May.
Mr. CI-ISMBERS. On the 15th of May, so that there is approxi-
mately-there is less than a month before the trial actually started.
During that time, you initially had six defense counsel, American
defense counsel assigned for the handling of these prisoners?
Colonel DWINESL.That is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Which was supplemented a t some stage of the game
by the six German defense counsel that you have previously mentioned?
Colonel DWINELL.That is right.
Now, the six American defense counsel, however, did not all assem-
ble precisely on the 11th of April. They came down a few a t a time.
I think we all got together for the first initial group meeting about
the 20th of April, so that all that time prior to that was dead time,
except that Everett and I - a n d Mr. Strong, I believe, were there-
busying ourselves with the mechanics of getting tables, desks, chairs,
telephones, and so forth.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, and I notice that you used the expression "We
obtained typewriters and transportation facilities," and so on and SO
on. Did that mean that you had to go out and locate it and scour it
up, or did the Army officials make it available to you ?
Colonel DWINELL.They did on our requisition. We told them what
our needs were.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,did they get interpreters for you and typists
for you ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Because I notice in your petition there was some
mention about the difficulties in getting-
Colonel DWINELL.Well, it was not a very smooth operation, but I
personally have-no quarrel with it. The interpreters and interroga-
tors that we had were not the best. I will say that they were not a s
good by a long shot as the people available to the prosecution, but
they were satisfactory. We had the advantage of having Mr. Strong
with us, who spoke fluent German.
Mr. CHARIBERS. When did he join you, Colonel?
Colonel DWINELL.About the 12th.
Mr. CHAMBERS. So
he was with you from the start?
Mr. CHAMBERS.
one further question that I would like to clear
Just
up a t this point: YOUsaid that in your earlier interrogation of the
prisoners you Iiad a lot of difficulty in getting them to cooperate wit11
you, and giving you any information, and it was not until you had
called the generals in, along with Peiper, and had told them the story
that they went back and, in turn, convinced the defendants that they
should cooperate.
Colonel D W I N E ~That
. is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe you made the statement that i t was your
impression that they just did not have confidence in you because of
some of the things that had happened to then1 at Schwabisch Hall.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When you say it was your impression, was that
based on things that had been told you by them, or was it that you
just felt for some reason you could not quite fathom, and it was not
until later when you had vorkecl with these people that you began to
lmow about the mock trials and what not which might have destroyed
confidence in the actual defense counsel?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes. The initial impression was one that we
could not understand. We could not understand why they would not
talk to us, and it was not as you say, until we got into the facts of the
case, and they began to tell us about the allegations of beatings and
duress and one thing and another, and then they actually told US
before the trial, at a time just before the trial, that they did not talk to
us originally because they thought it mas just another set of tricks, by
American officers, as they had been tricked in Schwabisch Hall.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When you say "they," do you mean that was a gen-
eral statement or particular individuals who said that to you?
Colonel D ~ N E L LThey
. all said that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, not to argue the point here, sir, but we
heard mock trials were only used in the case of 12.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Of the people, and I wonder-there has not been
much evidence in that, certainly, phony defense counsel were used,
or anything of the kind, except in 12 cases. I wonder why all of them
would make the statement.
Colonel DWINELL,I would say that 75 percent of the accused com-
plained of some form of duress, trickery, or something of that nature.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think from the statement, the percentage is higher.
Colonel DWINELL. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would suggest that based on some of the things
that you have told me informally, and Mr. Planagan, that you open up
on this procedural point, and then we will take this-if it is all right
with Senator Baldwin-take this question of brutality and mistreat-
ment as a separate item. I think we have two roblems here, and I
P
think if we try to discuss them interchangeab y we may run into
difficulty.
I f you could lead off on the procedural aspects of what your objec-
tions to the way of the defense in handling the trial, what mere the
weaknesses in the system, and why you do feel as strongly, as I am
sure you do, that the representations made in the petition by Mr.
Everett are correct.
Colonel DWINELL.Well, I have many things to say. Just where to
begin is the point.
I think I mould like to begin talking about one of the basic R-eak-
nesses in the whole case, and this is purely a legal matter, but it ties in,
in my opinion, with the fact that we did not have suEcient time to
prepare this defense.
I f we had had plenty of lawyers of the highest caliber, experienced
in every field of trial practice, they could not-have done it because
of the physical limitation of time.
I n connection with that, we saw fit to make this motion for severance,
and we pointed out to the court that here we had a series of incidents
running all the way from Blankenheim Forest up to La Gleize, some
13 incidents, some of which were entirely separate, unrelated with the
other main issues.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me ask you a question there, Colonel.
Did these 13 incidents all involve the First Panzer SS troopers?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, sir ; they did.
Senator BALDWIN.And no other German personnel ?
Colonel DWINELL.Well, I say that there were other German per-
sonnel involved in this .whole thing, but they were not alleged-no
other German personnel were alleged to have been part of this.
We found that i t was a physical impossibility to properly coordi-
nate the defense. We had six German lawyers with six different ideas.
We had six American lawyers with six different ideas.
Senator BALDWIN.That 1s common to iawyers everywhere.
Colonel DWINELL.SO,we had 12 ideas constantly conflicting with
respect to 74 accused, allegations of some 600 murders, a space of time
of several weeks, and 13 incidents. It was a physical impossibility to
coordinate that thing, and the difficulties were so great that we put all
of that i11 our motion for severance, and the strange part about this
whole thing is that when this case was finally decided in Frankfurt
last year, the Board of Review in Frankfurt agreed with us, although
they came to an illogical conclllsion because, if the Senator will look
at the treatment of that subject by the Frankfurt Boardaof Review, it
states this :
Severance: The question of severance raised by the defendants' counsel i n
this petition for review was treated by the deputy judge advocate for war crimes.
The defense set forth 4 grounds in its motion, all of which were not without
some degree of merit, the test being whether a n injustice would result to the
accused, a s distinguished from a violation of a substantial right of the accused.
All the accused were jointly charged. Aside from the responsibility of certain
accused for issuing the order not to take prisoners of war o r of passing the
order on to subordinates, the case is in fact a series of separate incidents occurring
a t different times and places. There can be no doubt that due to the large
number of defendants and separate incidents combined in one trial, the defense
was put to a heavy burden and suffered some disadvantage. To this burden was
added the difliculties that naturally ensue when a large group of attorneys
assemble to set up a common plan of defense and a r e given only 3 weeks' time
within which to consolidate and coordinate their efforts and prepare their case
in a reasonably d c i e n t manner. .
The three accused, Dietrich, Priess, and Kramer were charged with the issuance
of illegal orders and the trial concerned itself only with that issue and they
could have been separately tried. The accused, Bersin, Icotzur, and Trettin a r e
concerned only with the isolated incidents occurring in the town of Wanne,
and therefore they could have been separately tried. The accused Sickel and
Wichmann were concerned only where a n isolated incident occurred in the town
of Petit Thier, which could have been separately tried. There are numerous
instances of isolated and separate incidents that could properly have been
divorced from the main trial and each considered a s a separate issue.
It is apparent from the reading of the statements of several accused that a s
to most of them their interests were in conflict. This is particularly true in
those cases in which a n accused confessed t o participating in the shooting of
prisoners and then added that he would not have done so but for the orders
or instrnctions he received from another accused. That, counsel f a r the defense
were put in $he difficult position of representing clients with vitally conflicting
i~iterests. How great this difficulty mnst have been is seen when considering the
problem they had in advising which clients should testify and which should not.
I n performing that great duty of endeavoring to protect equally the interests of
each client and the defense a s a whole they could do n o other than to advise
those whose interests were in conflict not to testify. It follows that no un-
favorable inferences should be drawn from the failure of any accused to testify.
Here is the conclusion from all of that:
While there is authority under certain circumstances for the granting of a
severance-
and they refer to the trial manual which we used over there-
the granting of such a motion was in the sound discretion of the court and while
some inconvenience was necessarily suffered by the defense, it does not appear
that the denial of the motion resulted in a n injustice to any of the accused to
such a degree a s would warrant a new trial.
I confess that is a very illogical conclusion.
Senator BALDWIN. YOUare reading from what 1
Colonel DTYINELL. The board of review that finally passed on this
case at Frankfurt.
418 MALMEDY MASSACRE I~TESTIGATION
I mention all that because it is significant to note that our contentions

were considered to be meritorious by the final board of review that
passed on this case, and so that severance motion is definitely tied i n
with the defense preparation.
As a result of the shortness of time to prepare that defense and the
denial of this severance motion, these accused did not get a proper
defense. T h a t shall always be my position.
Now, I do not know what point the Senator is interested i n next,
but I think I might go to this : There was a statement made here before
the committee'to the effect that the petition i n the S u p e m e Court was
merely inflammatory, the inference being that i t was not based on sound
reasoning or have any justification.
Now, that I want t o correct, particularly do I want to correct that
because Colonel Everett is not here to state anything in liis own behalf,
but the facts about t h a t petition are these :
Last year I came back from Frankfort rather suddenly on an emer-
gency leave. About 2 or 3 days after I came into New York, I re-
ceived a message from Colonel Everett from Atlanta, and he said
for me to please arrange f o r a hotel room for him in New York and
to wire him to that effect and meet him, which I did, and when I met
Colonel Everett, he had i n his hand his draft of that petition that he
later submitted to the Supreme Court, and these are his words to
me :
I do not want to put i t before the Supreme Court-I do not want to put anv-
thing before the Supreme Court that is not true; that has no basis in fact.
I have prepared this thing as to form. I want you to read it with me and tell
me if there a r e any inaccuracies-
and so we read line for line, and we made some changes a t my
suggestion.
We eliminated some things which I ssicl mere not strictlv accurate.
There were some tllings thct he differed .with me on, and hsisted on
leaving in the petition, although I differed with him as to the accuracy
of them.
However, we did check each paragraph, and we hacl a basis in fact
for each one. '
I f there are any slight inaccuracies, such as the one that was dis-
covered this morning, i t is clue to my fault because I relied on my
memory. I clicl not have the record of trial before me when we were
i n that hotel room, but I felt that I was able to give him the inforination
correctly because 1 hacl just left Frankfurt, and H had lust gone
all through this review board finding, so I knew the record of trial
very well.
I can take each paragraph i n that petition and state the basis on
which I came to the conclusion that iL was accurate. F o r example,
not to go through them all and take all that time, but I can remember
one ~vhichwas msntionecl by a witness here also : He stated in effect that
our allegation that the prosecntion witnesses mockingly and lau$hingly
discussed the moclc trials in court was not true. Well, that IS true.
That I li-now from personal knomleclge, because the record of trial,
and I have just checkecl i t on page 1503 or soinethiilg very close to
that, and there is my cross-examination of Mr. P<irschbaum i n which
he described the mock trials.
I f you will read that evidence, you will see that he was doing i t in a
very facetious way, and he laughed i n co~wt,and SO much so that we
all had to comment on it, and we commented on the fact that the court
tolerated it, as a matter of fact, so when I made that statement in
a petition, that mas based upon my observations and not any hearsay.
That is true of all the other things.
As to duress and beatings and forms of mistreatment, those things,
of course, I know only from what my clients told me, and what the
witnesses told me.
The next thing in connection with procedure that I think was
fundamentally wrong in any court, whether it be a military commis-
sion or what, if there is going to be any semblance of justice at all,
and I feel very strongly about this and I a1,ways have, as a concession
to continental ppactice, it was determined in advance of the trial
that none of the accused would be permitted to take an oath. It was
told to us that in Germany that is the custom, or that has been the law
and, therefore, we very strongly objected on this basis. Our clients
were prosecuted, and the case mas proven against them by sworn tes-
timony taken from them by way of pretrial statements in Schwabisch
Hall and other places.
Those were sworn before officers of the Army and other people who
are entitled to take oaths, and they went in against our clients as
evidence; against which me were forbidden to rebut it with any
sworn testimony of our own, so that it was a one-sided affair right
from the start.
Senator BALDWIN. YOUmean you were not permitted to introduce in
evidence &davits of witnesses ?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, sir; but we were not permitted to put our
accused on the stand and have them sworn to tell the truth, so there
was no point in putting an accused on the stand to offer an unsworn
statement against damaging sworn evidence that went in ahead of
time.
Now, that rule was changed in the mar crimes sometime after the
Malmedy trial, and the rnles were changed to the effect that an ac-
cused then would be given the option of being sworn or not; but that
was not the rule in the Malmedy case.
A t the Malmedy trial the accused were not permitted to take an
oath.
Mr. C H A D ~ E RAtS . this point 1would like to ask a question. Was
that same rule being followed in other mar crimes being tried a t
Dachau and other places at that time?
- Colonel
- DWINELL.I do not know about any other place except
Uachau.
Mr. CHAMBERS. WOW. later I believe vou had considerable e x ~ e r i -
ence both as prosecution and delense-o; the prosecution side a i d on
the defense side?
L . I say the rule was changed somewhat.
Colonel D T ~ N E L Yes,
Mr. CHAMBERS. You
said subsequently, and I was trying to find
out whether the Malmedy trial was the only case in which the accused
were not permitted to be sworn.
Colonel DWINELL.NO; it T V ~ not S the only case. I believe that rule
was in effect at the time the Dachau trial mas tried, and the Mathousen
concentration camp was tried.
Mr. CHAMBERS. So your objection is not particularly applied to
the Malmedy trial, but you think, as a general rule, it is poor practice.
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, sir; and .me so objected at the trial. As a
matter of fact, the record is monotonously replete with my objection

on that point. There was not a single confession that went in that
I did not get up and object on that same basis.
Now, I have listened to a lot of testimony today about La Gleize,
and I would like to state a few things about that.
La Gleize, there were a number of people charged with La Gleize.
The list is quite long. As a matter of fact, I can give you the exact
number, 24 accused were involved in some instances in L a Gleize,
either at the church wall or,inside the church wall or in the school-
yard or what have you ; but La Gleize, the whole La Gleize incident,
series of incidents, appeared to us to be preposterous, and for this
reason: The defense was given an opportunity during the interim be-
tween the close to the prosecution's case and the defense opening to
send a team up to L a Gleize, and we did some investigating; also
we got the affidavit of a Bather Blokian, and also t h r e ~other affidavits
that are in the record of trial, but more particularly we got a live
witness down there in the trial by the name of Colonel MacGowan, an
American Army officer, who flew over from the States a t our request,
who testified for the defendants.
Now, Colonel MacGowan testified that he was in La Gleize, had been
captured at Stouinont just a few clays before that; had been taken there
as Peiper's prisoner, and had spent several days there, together with
200 soldiers, American soldiers, that were put under his care and super-
vision as prisoners of war, and an enclosure was set np for these people;
and MacGowan testified that there was no mistreatment whatsoever at
the entire time he was there. R e dicl confer with Peiper daily and
every night, and so on ;and Peiper movecl his outfit out just prior to the
capture of the town by the American forces. H e blew up his tanks and
escaped, and took MacGowan with him.
There has been some inference that MacGowan sold out ancl told
Peiper when and how to get out. That came to my attention when I
was questioning MacGowan, and for that reason, prior to putting him
on the stand, I asked him if that was true, and he said positively not.
I said in that event 1 am going to put him under oath, "I am gomg to
specifically ask you that question before the court," which I did, and
the question is in the record of trial.
"Did you give any tactical information to the enemy?" The answer
was, "NO."
Now, at any rate, MacGomxn, when they got out of the La Gleize
situation, MacGowan immediately escaped from Peiper and reported to
his division commander all of the circumstances, and he made at that
moment a G-2 report, in which he detailed everything that had hap-
pened at La Gleize, inclucling the treatment of 200 prisoners, including
the fact that he and Peiper made an exchange agreement in writing,
exchanging the 200 prisoners for some German mouncled, and then
went on to testify and state in that statement also that that exchange
agreement was not carried out on behalf of the American people, but
nevertheless that is as far as the German side of i t was concerned; but
nevertheless 200 soldiers all returnecl unharmed and all so reported to
their superior officers that there had been no mistreatment the whole
time they were in La Gleize.
We got three other affidavits from residents of the town who were
required by the Germans to carry cots, blankets, tended to the wounded,
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION . 421.
and so forth, who were in that town all during the time that Father
Blokian was there.
Whether that affidavit of Father Blokian specifically says he was in
the church or not has never impressed me very much because he was in
and out of the church, and all around the town, and so were all of these
people that we got as witnesses testified that they never saw any of this
business that we have been talking about.
Now, following the line of reasoning that Mr. Planagan had here
before when he was talking to Major Byme, it seems quite unusual
that 200 people would be fired at in one place and 20 in another, and
50 in another, in a town of that size, \and no one know anything about
it, except the marvelous memories of some of these accused, who
made these statements.
Now, let us get to the next point, and that is the affidavit of the
Graves Registration people. I do not have them right here in front
of me, but if I had them I could read them to you. They are abso-
lutely on their face without probative value. They are based upon the
conclusions of people, Graves Registration people, who are back in the
States, whose testimony was taken by affidavit by somebody in some
town, somewhere, while the trial was going on, and it is replete-
they are replete, with concl~~sions and opinions.
Now, that is the L a Gleize situation. If that is incorrect, as an
evaluation of it, however, it finally in this board of review of opinion
in Frankfurt, has been decided that most of these La Gleize incidents,
if not all of them, did not happen.
Now, the next thing I would like to talk about is my petition for
review which I have here in front of me, I rote every line of it i n
Dachau. It took me some 3 months to do it. There are some 228 pages
in which I analyzed all of these things, and in that petition for review,
I set forth what 1 claimed to be erroneous rulings of law, under the
rules of evidence by the court, and while aware of the fact that there
were not any binding rules of evidence, I am also aware of the fact
that the court did attempt to be fair, but failed in their rulings, and
I setmfortha number of them. The most glaring ones I put here
specifically, and the others I refer to only by page number.
However, it is my opinion from all of this, and from being at the
trial, that the cumulative effect of all of that was prejudicial to the
accused.
I state that not from reading the record of trial; I state that from
being present at the courtroon~every day, and to the point at the con-
clusion of the trial, I can honestly say that even though it is not a
thing for a trial lawyer to do, I regret that I did it, but I did acquire
a defeatist attitude, and toward the end of the trial threw in the
sponge, so to speak, and that is the cause of the continual reversal and
continual overruling of what were obviously proper objections; par-
ticularly when we were restricted in the manner of impeaching wit-
nesses of the prosecution. That was an ~znwarrantedrestriction, and
the inconsistencies, if these are annlyz-d, all of these riding; that I
set out, if they are analyzed carefully, they set up a picture that is so
inconsistent that I come to no other conclusion, and neither does any-
one else who studies each one of these things, but that there was
a set of rules for the prosecution and a set for the defense.
Senator BALDWIN.e J u ~whatt do you mean by that?
Colonel DWINBLL.T h a t the same rule of evidence would be applied

for the prosecution, but denied to the defense.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you have a n specific examples?
Colonel DWINELL.F o r example, i f the prosecution led a witness,
me objected-I am not setting that specific case out, but as a n exam-
ple-and we objected, the objection would be overruled. I f we led a
witness, and they objected, the objection was sustained. That is what
I mean by two sets of rules. There is evidence of that in this petition.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I interrupt you t o ask a question a t that point?
Awhile ago you quoted from the reviewing authorities as supporting
your arguments for severance.
Colonel DWINELL.T h a t is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS.YOUdisagreed with their conclusion7 . but you felt
t h a t they had agreed with you in their reasoning.
Mr. CHAMBERS.Did the reviewing authorities i n going through the
case also indicate that they felt t h a t . t h e court had been unduly re-
strictive i n its interpretation, or prejudicial, or anything of that kind?
Colonel DWINELL.There is a note-the record reveals a number
of erroneous rulings of the court-that is the finding of the board of
review-they say:
The record reveals a number of erroneous rulings of the court. However, the
case in the main, being in effect a series of different incidents or separate trials,
i t cannot be said that the rights of all accused were involved in every ruling
of the court or that injustice to all accused thereby resulted.
The following record citations contain the more important errors committed
by the court.
They are all listed here.
F o r instance, the court refused to permit "the defense to test credi-
bility of witnesses on cross-examination."
"The court refused to permit defense to test credibility of witnesses
on cross-examination," in another case.
"The court denied the defense a showing of combat conditions a t the
crossroads." There is another page reference. [Reading :]
Defense not permitted to cross-examine on matter brought out on direct
examination a s indicated in the record on page 9% Page 10S,5, court refused
to perniit defense to test credibility of witnesses on cross-ex:l~~ii~ation.
T h a t goes on along those lines all the way down. The board of
review icked out the most important ones and spolre shout them.
t7
Mr. 'I-IAMBERS. W h a t was their conclusion on that 1 I believe they
made one?
.
Colonel DWINELL.Their conclusion I stated at first.

Mr. CHAMBERS.I see.
Colonel DTVINELL(reading) :
However, the case in the main, being in effect a series of different iilcidents or
s e ~ a r a t etrials, cannot be said that the rights of all accused were involved in cvery
ruling of the conrt or that injustice to all accused thereby rcsnlled.
Mr. C~.r~iwmns. A t the time that the board of review sat on this,
did you have any contact with or relation with the board of review?
Colonel DWINELL.I certainly did.
Mr. C E I ~ ~ EDidR ~you
. lrnow that while you were working with
the board of review that you were working on these cases?
Coloiiel DWINELL.I did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you have anything to do with the preparatioll
of this r e ~ o r?t
Colonel DWINELL.I did not; not to this extent. The report that
I have before me was written in the main by Colonel Scarborough of
the review board, and every day he and I discussed the language
therein, and wherever I could speak for the defense I did.
Now, I will frankly state so.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then, you would say that the points of view of the
defense certainly had adequate representation before the board of
review ?
Colonel DWINELL.They did, very vigorously did I advocate the
defense.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel, before we go on with the general discus-
sion, may I go back to just one point, because I think it is important.
You took some notice of prior testimony here and mentioned that this
petition was wrong where they said they laughingly and mockingly
described trial procedures, and I think you said that the testimony here-
tofore had been .that this petition was largely inflammatory in char-
acter and, perhaps, they went further in their testimony-I do not
recall what they said. But they said "laughingly and mockingly,"
those were a couple of words that I would like to have you explain
further, because the court actually appears to be amused, is the way
I understood the testimony, and I would like to have you tell us
whether there mas a sort of mockery in their consideration of this
thing when they were listening to, I believe you said, Kirschbaum on
cross-examination.
Colonel DWINELL.That is right.. It was generally laughter anlong
the assembled spectators and accused, the defense-I did not watch
the court particularly ; I was concentrating on Kirschbaum.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What were they laughing at, Kirschbaum's manner
or what he was saying?
Colonel DWINELL.Both.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUfeel that-
Colonel DWINELL.I feel that i t was a disgraceful exhibition. I
believe there is no doubt about it in my mind.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Thank you. I have no further questions at this
time.
Senator BALDWIN.Do you want to ask any questions?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes, sir.
Colonel Dwinell, a little earlier in your testimony, you made state-
ments concerning the limited time yon had in preparmg the defense
in this case. Do you feel that this short time yon had to prepare a
defense resulted in your putting up an inadequate defense for these
accused?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, sir, very inadequate. I do not know what
I could have proven if I had the time, if I could have searchingly gone
into the witnesses that were proposed by the defense. Many, many
people were given to me as witnesses of facts that were important to
us, and it was physically impossible to develop that.
Mr. FLANAGAN. You stated that you had gathered the names of
some 400 witnesses that you n ~ i d i want
t to use in the defense?
Colonel DWZNELL. That is rigxt.
Mr. F'LANAGAN. I n the preparation of this case 1
Colonel DWINELL. That is right.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Were you able to get in touch with these 400
witnesses 2
Colonel DWINELL.Oh, no ;but we got in touch with quite a number
of witnesses. I am trying to recall the number of witnesses we used,
but about 60, I would say.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Would you have used more witnesses had you suf-
ficient time to go out and interview these people whose names you had?
Colonel DWINELL.Oh, yes; certainly.
Mr. FLANAGAN. DO YOU think that had you been able to get more
witneses you would have been able to put in a better defense in this
case?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes. Let me give you an illustration. I think
this is a good place to bring this up. I n fact, it was mentioned by
Major Byrne this morning when they were talking about Le Gleize,
when the Senators asked him whether or not there mere other people
involved besides the S S panzer army.
Our accused contended thal Skorzini, the famous-the notorious
Skorzini-was designated by Hitler himseIf to operate in advance of
this particular spearhead. The operation was called Grief, was the
name given, and Skorzini had, of course, recruited three or four hun-
dred Germans who spoke English fluently, and had put them through
a course of training to learn the American slang and habits of the GI,
and equipped them with all the G I equipment, even the pay-data cards,
and so forth. They were to go ahead and raise all kinds of difficulty
in the con~municationlines, preceding this particular spearhead.
Now, Skorzini himself told me that the operation was a failure. I t
was difficult to control. The result of that was that his men were
always mingled in with Peiper's. H e lost them completely. Peiper
confirmed that, and so did all the other officers, so did the general offi-
cers who were accused, that Skorzini's people were bobbing up all
along the ro~lteof march, and also their flank was-they were flanked
on the right by a Hitler Youth division, which was completely out
of control because they were recently recruited and trained at the last
minute, so I am quoting Skorzini and Peiper, and they were mingling
in with Peiper's spearhead continually.
Now, to establish that fact would have been an important part of
our defense, and we could not do that; we did not have the time to get
into it. But later on that matter was pretty clearly established when
they tried Skorzini and his 11 lieqtenants for incidents right around
these very places we are talking about here, and they were all acquitted.
Senator BALDWIN.Was there any - man
. convicted of the La Gleize
shootings ?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes. sir ; I believe there was. I would have to eo
t.hrough this thing very carefully, because there were so many ;f
them, I do not remember exactly which ones.
Do you mean convicted by the courtforfinally-
Mr. FLANAGAN. Convicted by the court.
Colonel DWINELL.They were all convicted.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, I mean was there anybody convicted only
on the La Gleize incidents?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Sir, may I interpose? You are talking about the
several instances in which they were charged at La Glieze or the group
of 200 which we are talking about this morning, and which had no
evidence to support it?
Colonel DWINELL.Well, there were three or four incidents in La
Gleize involving groups of people; and, to answer your question pre-
cisely, I would have to go through the record of trial again but there
were accused convicted of one or more incidents in the L a Wieze
situation only, as I recall it.
-
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Colonel, now in your discussion with the other de-
fense attorneys for severance in this case, did you feel that if you
could not get a severance that you could not adequately defend those
accused ?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
What effect do you think the lack of severance had
on the total defense of your case?
Colonel DWINELL.It made it an impossibility.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other words, it made it impossible to adequately
defend these men who were accused of high crimes because of your
inability to get a severance in this case?
Colonel DWINELL.That is right; that is correct.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Do you feel now that the lack of time and $re ara-
tion, and the lack of a severance, resulted in depriving your def eninnts
of rights which they should have had under the rules of war crimes in
Germany? I am not talking about rules in American crimes, but I
am talking about rules under which you operated in Germany.
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, I do.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
I n other words, you feel that they were deprived
of the rights that were set up for them in Germany?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Do you feel that the lack of time to prepare your
case, and the fact that you could not sever these cases, resulted in tt
lack of justice in this trial?
Colonel DWINELL.Definitely.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
YOUmentioned awhile ago that when you first met
with your clients, the defendants in this case, that you were unable to
obtain any information a t all from them, and that then you called a
meeting with the three generals and with Colonel Peiper, in an effort
to convlnce them that you were in fact out there to be their defense
counsel, and actually help them. I s that the fact?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
At that meeting or any meeting, did Colonel Peiper
or anyone else tell you why these Germans accused refused to talk to
you people or to cooperate with you in the defense of their case?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes; he did.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
What did he say ?
Colonel DWINELL.He said they had been subjected-
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Pardon me, was that Colonel Peiper?
Colonel DWINELL.Colonel Peiper, and most of the accused.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
What did they say?
Colonel DWINELL.Well, it is a long story, but in the Peiper case,
for example, his pretrial interrogations go way back to other places
prior to Schwabisch Hall. Ebensee, Freising, and Zuffenhausen were
interrogation centers where he was interrogated by Booth, by Perl,
and .I do not recall who else, but those two names I do remember, and
Peiper so testified.
This is not just from memory, but Peiper so testified, all about that.
But, a t any rate, whether that is believed or not believed, from the
month of Peiper, the point is that is one of the reasons they gave for
not trusting us because so many promises and tricks had been made
and played on them i11 these various places that a n American officer
was just another trickster so f a r as they mere concerned.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did these accusecl a t that point come i n explaining
why they did not cooperate with you, tell you that on other occasions
when they were incarcerated that members of the investigating teams
represented themselves to be defense counsel to them?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes; that happened this may: It happened in
connection with the mock trials, of course. They reported that to us
on a number of occasions, and the way they described that, and I re-
member that specifically is : This was described to us by several of the
accused, that Lieutenant Per1 frequently represented himself as a
defense counsel, the theory being that if he could convince them that
they were being tried, he could interrupt the trial and the record shows
that that was the common practice, to interrupt this mock trial, from
time to time ;but the record does not show what they told us, and that is
that he would then confer with them and say in effect:
This court has the power to sentence you on the evidence now t h a t i s before
them. It looks like the rope for you. However, if you will give me a statement
involving so-and-so, I will get yon off with a light sentence.
Senator BALDWIN.Excuse me, just for the benefit of the record
there, what you a r e testifying to now is not what you observed, but
what these German prisoners told you?
Colonel DWINELL.T h a t is correct.
Senator BALDWIN.I did not want to have i t appear on the record
that you claim that you witnessed that.
Colonel DWINELL.NO.
Senator BALDWIN.I mean i t was what they told yon.
Colonel DWINELL.I know nothing except what my clients told me.
Mr. FLANAGAN. NOW, as a result of what these Germans did tell
you, you did observe t h a t they refused for several days to have any-
thmg to do with their own defense counsel; did you not?
Mr. FLBNAGAN. Based on your own personal observation of this
group of 74 men, do you believe that they were clever enough or had
foresight enough to stand up before you, their defense counsel, and
pretend that all this beating and this duress, and these other tech-
niques, had gone on, merely for the purpose of convincing the court
later on that they had been beaten?
Colonel DWINELL.NO. I might have had that thought a t the be-
ginning, but after days and days of constant interrogation and per-
sonal contact with these people i n my office, day and night, and com-
paring notes among our Groups, everything matched up, and it seemed
like i t mas not a fabricat~on.
Mr. FLANAGAN. In other words, based on your personal contacts
with these prisoners, you are convinced that a t least part of the alle-
gations concerning duress and brutality are true?
Mr. FLANAGAN. That is based 011 your own personal discussion with
these men 8
Colonel DWINELL.Personal observations of the accused while pre-
paring the defense, yes.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes.
At the time that you and the other Americans were appointed as
defense counsel for these men, did you know any of these other defense
counsel prior to that time?
Colonel DWINELL.Not one.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Based on your experience with those men, did you
feel that of them were qualified to act as defense counsel in a com-
plicated, involved case of this type?
Colonel DWINELL.Well, I do not think I am that competent, so that
I can pass on a lawyer's ability to that extent. They were all of varying
degrees of experience. For instance, there mere two or three of the
defense counsel who frankly stated at the beginning of the assembling
of the group that they had had no experience in the trying of cases.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Well, it would be almost necessary in order to put
up an adequate defense to have had some trial experience; is that
not so?
Colonel D W I ~ E L L . Definitely so.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Colonel Everett, had he had much previous trial
experience ?
Colonel DWINELL.None at all.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other words, you tell me now that Colonel Ever-
ett, the chief defense counsel, had no previous trial experience?
Colonel DWINELL.H e has told me that a number of times; that he
had never tried any case.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And this Colonel Everett, who had no previous trial
experience, was expected to try and run the trial of this case involving
some 74 defendants?
Mr. F'LANAGAN. Did any of the defense counsel, American defense
counsel, have the same amount of trial experience as you had ?
Colonel DWINELL.Captain Narvid did.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Pardon me?
Colonel DWINELL.N-a-r-V-i-d did. Mr. Strong, and Lieutenant
Wahler.
Mr. F'LANAGAN. Awhile ago in your testimony you testified that
prior to the actual beginning of the trial you had an opportunity, or
your staff had an opportunity, to interrogate only about one-third of
the accused.
Mr. F'LANAGAN. Before the end of the trial, did you have an oppor-
tunity to interrogate all the accused?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, before the end of the trial.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you feel that you had had adequate time to
interrogate these men before you had to put them on the stand, or at
least put in a defense of some kind for them?
Colonel DWINELL.NO,no ; definitely not.
Mr. FLANAGAN. When yon were at Dachau prior to the beginning
of this trial, did it come to your attention that reports of brutality to
these prisoners had been made to higher officials in the Army ?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes; it came to my attention. I recall now that

when we first went to Dachau, and Colonel Everett told us that he
was going to report t o higher authority these allegations of the
accused, he so did. I believe he talked to Colonel Corbin about it,
and how much further than that he went, 1 do not recall.
At any rate, he handled that, and as a result of that there was an
investigation made, and Colonel Carpenter came down to Dachau ; I
remember being called in to talk to him, and I now remember that he
asked me what I knew about it, and I had a chart prepared; in fact,
it was a very large chart, that me all prepared, in which we set forth
the 74 accused, and we put columns down: Beating, tortures, trick-
eries, L'stool pigeons," and various other forms of duress; and we
checked them all over, and I either showed him that chart or told him
about it, and that is all I know about that.
Mr. FLANAG-4~. Did he a t that time indicate to you what other
investigation he was conducting?
Colonel DWINELL.NO;he did not.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did he indicate whether he wanted to talk to your
clients concerning the matter?
Colonel DWINELL.I do not recall that he did. H e had some exten-
sive conversations with Colonel Everett a t which I was not present,
so just how f a r he went on that part of it, I do not know.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I believe you may have stated this, but I think the
record should have more explanation.
As I understood your testimony, you, or at least the defense, did
not put in a motion for an extension of time in which to prepare this
case.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you discuss that matter of putting in such a
motion with Colonel Everett?
Colonel DWINELL.I did several times.
Mr. FLANAGAN. What was his answer?
Colonel DWINELL.His answer was :
Do not make any motion. We will not consider any motion of that kind. It
has been determined that this trial will go on on the date set. I have discussed
that matter with higher authority. Any motion wonld be futile and of no
purpose. It will be denied, so let's concentrate our efforts on the merits of
the case.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other words, the only reason you did not put in
a motion for a continuance or for time was that the matter was al-
ready decided and would have been a useless gesture?
Colonel DWINELL.That is what he told me.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you personally discuss that with anyone else
other than Everett, who conveyed the same information to you?
Colonel DWINELL.I discussed that with no one, except the associate
counsel in the case.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUsat in and tried a number of other cases in war
crimes trials, and would you say that was the general attitude there, or
was that merely the attitude in this single case?
Colonel DWINELL.It was not the general attitude because I sat as
president and law member of a court for several months and nobody
ever asked me for an adjournment that he did not get it if there was
any basis for it.
Mr. FLANAGAN. That being so, do you know of an reason why sim-
l
ilar continuance was not granted to you in this case.
Colonel DWINELL.I do not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I interrupt there for just a second?
Did Colonel Everett say-he said that it had been decided by higher
authority that it would not be granted.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But in effect he never made that petition or request
before the court?
Colonel DWINELL. He did not.
Senator BALDWIN. Are you through?-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Going back before we get completely away from
this investigation that was made by Colonel Carpenter, generally
speaking, in view of the fact of the interest that all members of the
defense staff must have had in these various charges of duress, and
this being the only interest that was being displayed by higher author-
ity in the form of Colonel Carpenter, the only knowledge that you
have of it as to what he said or what he did was based on a conversa-
tion you had with him. You did not talk it over with Colonel Ever-
ett later, for instance, and say "What did Carpenter find out?"
Colonel DWINELL.I did not. I did not for the reason that I got
lost in the maze of events. We were so busy on this case and so many
miscellaneous things, that i t never came up again, so far as I was
concerned.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,in order to clarify my memory, you a t this
time were concentrating pretty much on the officers, is that correct?
Mr. CHADIBERS. Officers, as a whole, or general officers?
Colonel D T V ~ E L Officers,
L. as a whole. There were about 22 of
them.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Can you tell me, and then we will be through here
for the moment, of any of the officers who might have had perhaps,
the most drastic claims about brutality which they told you $ I mean,
the ones that you typify in your own mind as being, perhaps, the worst
or a group of them, perhaps-it does not make any difference.
Colonel DWINELL.I cannot think for the moment of the particular
names, but I do remember this : This I do recall, that during the trial,
Colonel Everett sat at the head of the counsel table, and I sat at his
right-and I mention this to show you that there were notes in front
of me all the time about this-I had a clerical helper there, trained
with a pile of files, one for each officer; I had 22 files stacked up on
the floor, and this girl was trained by me to do this: As soon as the
prosecution brought a witness in, in many cases we did not know what
he was going to talk a b o u t i n most cases-and so we played sort of
a game. We waited to hear what he was going to say. If the witness
said, "I was at the Cross-roads, and Werner Kuhn was there," that
was a cue to her to give me Werner Kuhn's file, and the very next
question out of Everett's mouth was, "Was there any duress there,"
and I had it checked and marked down, and I would say that of all
the officers I had about a third that I would say there were, that is,
to the extent that it was worthwhile talking about.
Mr. CHAMBERS. About a third of the officers?
Colonel DWINELL. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Am I to draw the conclusion from that that two-

thirds of the officers did not complain to the defense counsel of any
duress of any particular note?
Colonel DWINELL. I am talking now, when I am thinking of
physical-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Physical brutality, that is what we are talking about
a t the moment.
Colonel DWINELL.That is correct. The others complainecl xbout
these other thiilgs that we have been talking about, the nlock trials
and strategems and stool pigeons.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Have you had an opportunity to go through the
affidavits submitted by the prisoners, by the accused, some 2 years
after conviction?
Colonel DWINELL.I did look a t a group of affidavits which came in
one petition, and contained about 70 affidavits.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is the group that I have reference to. Did you
observe, in going through those, that with the exception of the general
officers, practically every officer there put in an affidavit alleging bru-
tality? I mean, brutality, not the minor types of duress, if we can
call them that?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, I did:
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOWcould you explain that? At the time it was
fresh in their minds, they did not say anything, but 2 years later
they did.
Colonel DWINELL.I can explain i t this way: There were varying
degrees of brutality, and varying degrees of duress, and there were
also instances of duress that could be proven one way or the other,
and when I say I had notes of one-third, I mean I should clarify it this
way: After sifting out a lot of things that we did not think were
probative, that we could prove or that were of any importance, we had
a result of about one-third of major items, serious things: Kicking a
man in the testicles, and things of that kind. When we had some-
thing of that kind, and me had the name of the party involved, where
me could put our finger on something, that is what I mean.
Now, I should say they all complained generally about mistreat-
ment in one form or another. I n some instances we gave it little
weight, and said, "We have not time to bother about that; we have not
time to get any witnesses on that score, and let us forget about it."
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel, I seem to have inadvertently stumbled into
what I had hoped to keep as a separate part of this thing, but I think
i t is necessary to continue along with it became you are right in the
middle of it.
As defense counsel, unquestionably you all were very much inter-
ested in proving that these things actually did happen; you did not
J'wt want to accept the words of your clients.
Now, one logical way to have proven it would have been to have
asked for a medical examination of some of these people. Did you
folks request that?
Colonel DWINELL.We did not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was that because of the lack of time or what is the
story on it?
Colonel DWINELL.NOW,just a minute. I take that back. I believe
Everett did make some effort along those lines: but I did not, and he vas
the only one who knows a b o ~ that. ~t I recall some discussions about
that, but I have forgotten them.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then, do you h o w what efforts he made or what
he was thinking a b o u t 1 hate to press your memory here, because I
know you are trying to get all the details out, but to me, in talking to
the prosecution people, we have been apprised by all the boards of
review, and everyone else,'that have not made some effort to establish
some of these facts which probably either through X-ray or physical
examination could still be substantiated.
Now, can you recall anything more than the fact that there was
some discussion about it and Everett did make some efforts?
Colonel DWINELL.I cannot recall anything more than that; no.
Senator BALDWIN. May I ask a question here? You were in daily
contact with these men for several days?
Colo~elDWINEIL. That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.Several weeks, as a matter of fact 8
Colonel DWINELL. Well, I was in daily contact with the 22 that I
had under my supervision.
Now, from your personal observation of those men, did they show
any signs of having been physically abused ?
Colonel DWINELL.They did not.
Senator BALDWIN.There is some claim made here that these men, a
large percentage of them, were permanently injured in the groin. Did
you ever have any complaint of that kind from any of the men you
represented ?
Colonel DWINELL.~ ofrom t the men I represented. The people who
can testify to that are those lawyers who handled the junior officers,
the non-commissioned ofhers. They were separately interrogating
their people, and they did tell me about that in our general discnssion,
but I did not get that from the accnsecl themselves ;no
Mr. C I - I A ~ ~ E Did
R S . they-excuse me.
Senator BBLDWIN.Let me ask you this: Other than the accused
statements as to the physical abuse that they had been subjected to,
was there any other evidence-I mean, judging it from the stand-
point of being in terms of what woulcl be conlpeteilt evidence in an
American court-was there any evidence that they had been abused
physically?
Colonel DWINELL.There was some othar evidence presented from
witnesses that we interrogated on behalf of the defense.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, what witnesses were those? Do you know ?
Coloilel DWINELL.Let me see if I can remember a name. I think
we had a witness by the came of Agather. It is my clistinct impres-
?ion that he complainecl, and 1 think be testified-I am not too sure
but I think he testified.
Senator BALDWIN. Agather?
Colonel DWINELL.A-g-a-t-h-e-r. .
Senator BALDWIN.Were there any other witnesses that you can
recell, other than Agather ?
Colonel DWINELL.That were-I do not know how many; I do not
recall how many, but there were several and, of course, I do not recall
their names. That name, Agather, stands out in my mind, becanse
I saw it in the record of trial the other day.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It has been placed in the record, Colonel, that a

great many of these people came to Schwabisch Hall quite late in the
game. We have a list here of some 22-this is taken from ColoneJ.
Ellis7 affidavit, and he indicated that this p o n p of 22 came from the
5th of March up to-in fact, the 16th of April, after they had left
Schwabisch Hall, and got them into Dachau, some of those persons
have affidavits in here indicating duress of verious kinds, and it would
appear that the marks on them would be rather fresh.
Did any of the defense counsel or any of your staff come in and say
that the accused so-and-so had a black eye or he still has got a broken
jaw or his teeth are missing or things of that type?
Colonel DWINELL.No, I do not recall anything of that kind.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am trying, as you know, to get the facts on this
thing, and it mould appear that you must have made some evaluation of
that brutality situation. What was your honest evaluation of this
thing? Was it as general as alleged in these affidavits with which you
are familiar? What is your opinlon on i t ?
Colonel DWINELL.My opinion is that i t mas true. That comes from
what I might call not hearsay in a sense, but reputation. Yon know
when you hear things orally daily, and checli one story agaimt the
other, it becomes a greater thing than merely a lot of stories. It
becomes a general thing, and every day, every day, day after day,
somebody would come in and say:
"I just tallied to accused so-and-so, and he has just told me this."
So-and-so reports that to me the next minute, and son~ebodyelse,
Colonel Sutton would come in and say, "Somebody told me some-
thing"
Well, that went on continually, and me cataloged this all clown, and
we made this terrific chart, and made notes on it, and we asked them
over and over again, "Now, you are not lying to us? Were you hit
in the groin?" The answer would be "Yes." "How long ago?" "A
month, 2 months ago." I do not recall just whether I ever asked them
particularly t o show me any evidence of it, I do not think I did.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me ask you one question there: I n the face
of those complaints, did you ever ask for a medical examination of these
men ?
Colonel DWINELL. I did not, but as I said before, I think Colonel
Everett did, but he woulcl have to verify that.
Senator BALDWIN. I think that is a very important point, because
if these affidavits, and these confessions that were used in this trial
were obtained from these accused by threats of violence and by physical
violence as grave as some of these affidavits indicate, it seems a strange
thing to me that there was not a t that trial meclical testimony offered
to demonstrate that these claims were so, because it seems to me-
you say that you objected to the admission of these confessions, so-
called ?
Senator BALDWIN.You must have objected on the basis that they
were obtained under and as a result of violence or duress.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, did you yourself ever think of pressing
that medical side of this thing?
Colonel DWINELL. NO,I did not ; I did not.
MALMEDY -MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 433
Senator BALDWIN. YOUsay Colonel Everett spoke of it. Can you
tell us anything further than the fact that he had it in mind? Did
he ever do anything about it?
Colonel DWINELL.I do not think he did. That is to say, he may
have had some conversations with higher authority about that, but
he did not report anything to me about that.
Senator BALDWIN.Was there any indication on the part of the Army
authorities or on the part of the court that other than the overruling
of these motions, and the fact that there would be no postponement
that, within reason, ontside of that, as you claim it, any other request
of ours would not be granted?
8olonel DWINELL.No.
Senator BALDWIN.I mean, was there any consistent idea, any feel-
ing on your part that no matter what you offered in the way of
evidence these people were all going to be convicted?
Colonel DWINELL.Oh, yes; I had that feeling from the start, and
I still have it. I will never change that opinion. It was a hopeless
task. It was a hopeless case. Psychologically you could tell that
from the trying of the case.
I have tried lots of cases, but that was the only one in my life where
it was impossible to really go ahead with your evidence.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me ask you this question: Such evidence as
you wanted to offer, was there any impeding that?
Colonel DWINELL.YOUmean at the time of offering it in the court-
room ?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, sir. They are all listed here, all those in-
stances are listed here; and, as a matter of fact, I must confess to
another thing, that as I mentioned before, when you get a defeatist
attitude on a trial like that, you do things that are not correct from
a trial lawyer's standpoint. I think Colonel Ellis recalls one incident
which I take the blame for myself.
I called a witness and qualified him-a very important witness, he
was, a German general. I qualified him by having him testify a t
length of his experience in the German Army from 1909. H e was
a tank expert.
At the conclusion of qualifying him I began my direct evidence,
and there was an objection made, and the objection was so worded
that it would call upon the prosecution-the defense, I mean-for cer-
tain concessions that we should not have been called upon to make, and
we stopped, and that was my fault.
I say this: A lawyer should not do that. H e should not stop with-
out continuing to press his objection, and state to the court definitely
what he has in mind, what he seeks to prove; but this was toward the
end of the case, and I quit, and that is not the correct attitude. But
it comes from constant overruling of the normal things, normal
objections.
Senator BALDWIN.Were you convinced in your own mind that so
far as these prisoners were concerned, they were a part of the First
SS Panzer Division?
Colonel DWINELL.Oh, yes; yes.
Senator BALDWIN. Were you convinced in your own mind that gen-
erally, in keeping with the whole offensive, there were American
soldiers, American prisoners who were shot?
Colonel DWINELL.I will say this, that I have no doubt in my mind

a t all, and I never did have any doubt about the establishment of the
corpus delecti, with respect to the crossroads; that is, that the crime
was committed, American soldiers were killed.
I never have had any doubt about that, but whether my people, the
ones I defended, did it or not, that I still doubt.
Senator BALDWIN.But you are convinced in your own mind, or
are you not, that they were members of the S S Panzer Division, the
First Division, the First Regiment?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, sir, I am ;yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. And that they spearheaded the attack?
Colonel DWINELL.And that they were there, among others.
Senator BALDWIN.What I am trying to get io is this-it is kind
of narrowing down the field to this : Of the general shooting and the
general participation of members of this regiment, you have no doubt
in your mind, as I understand it, but what you do have a doubt in
your mind is as to the particular part the particular individuals took
in i t ; is that what you mean?
Colonel DWINELL.NO, not quite that. I mean that as far as the
crossroads incident is concerned, I have no doubt but that American
soldiers mere slaughtered there. I have not any doubt at all. I have
no doubt that along the line of inarch and in that vicinity were mem-
bers of the First SS Panzsr Regiment, but I doubt that they were
the only ones there, and I doubt the specific accused were the ones who
did what they have been accused of doing.
Senator BALDWIN. Now, I want to have you base this testimony not
on what any of these accnsed told you, but 1want to have you base it
on your general observation of the whole trial-I mean, on what the
prosecution had to offer-because I do not think it is for me to ask
you what these men told yoa, because you are their defense counsel,
and these things that you have said, are they based on your general
observation of what the prosecution had to offer, your knowledge,
generally, of the thing, as distinguished from n h t individual de-
fendants told you?
Colonel DIVINELL.That is right. It is based on the record of trial,
and the trial itself.
Colonel DWINELL.And the reviews.
Senator BBLDTVIN. Well, there mere some-to try to narrow this
thing down, the crossroads w ~ one s of the 13 different incidents.
Colonel DTVINELL. That is right.
Senator BALDWIN. And from hearing the whole trial of the case,
were you of the opinjon that there were soldiers, American soldiers,
shot clown at Honsfeld? Do po~zremember that?
Colonel DTVINELL. I remember that; yes, sir.
I am oE the opinion that American soldiers mere shot d o ~ mat
Honsfeld and in a number of other places. but whether or not they
were shot down as unarmed prisoners of war or shot in normal
combat, I never will be able to state.
Senator BALDWIN. But the ones at tl?e crossroads, you are convinced
were shot xs prisoners of war?
Colonel DTVINELL. Yes; I am convinced of that.
Senator BALDWIN.There were some civilians at Stoqmont who were
shot. What do you have to say about that?
Colonel DWINELL.May I refresh my recollection?
Mr. CHAMBERS. TO refresh your memory still further, that was the
group that was in the cellar, and was supposed to have been called out,
There was a German-speaking woman who hollered out to the Ger-
mans after a couple of grenades had been thrown in, and then-
Colonel DWINELL.Oh, yes! I amconvinced that civilians were shot
in that place, and other places, but I am not convinced from the record
of trial, and from anything else, that they were unlawfully shot.
Now, that brings up anohher point. We tried desperately-I say,
"We tried desperately"-that was one of the defense issues that we
wanted to get before the court; with great difficulty we did, to some
extent. There was common knowledge that in Belgium the maquis
had been operating for a long time, the so-called Belgian-resistance
movement, and the Belgian civilians themselves were shooting Ger-
mans from outsicle of windows and every place else.
That is a matter of common knowledge, so much so that I think
any court could have taken notice of that.
Now, whether these people were lawPnlly shot or not, I da not know.
The fact that there were some civilians who were shot, I am convinced
of that, but, for example, in one outstanding case that the court
decided against the accused-I have forgotten the name of the accused
for the moment, but I do remember this-one accused was accused
of shooting somebocly in a Belgian town, some civilians, and it was
established, at least I think it was, that there was a radio up i n the
church tower, and he was ordered to clestroy the people and the radio,
which is a perfectly normal thing.
NOW,the review board has agreed with that theory. They state
in here that is not a war crime, and yet the court found them guilty
and sentenced them to death, a i d it was instances like that that I
know and feel that the civilians, Belgian civilians, were shot, but
whether they were shot lawfully or not, 1 clo not know.
Mr. CIIAMT:ERS. Colonel, may I ask a question? I am asking now-
1have got a keen ersonal interest in this : I n what cases can a civilian
be shot lawfully.l'
Colonel DTVINELL. AS a spy.
Mr. CI-IA~TBERS. All right, there are others. Would you mind
enumerating them?
Colonel DWINELL.Well, if they actively engage in combat.
Mr. C H A ~ ~ E RRight.
S.
Colonel DWINELL.I cannot think of any others.
Mr. CEIA~~BERS. I have

had a little experience in this business of
cleaning out areas in which there were lots of civilians, and gen-
erally speaking,, unless you have got some type of resistance from
them, you certamly made an effort to round them up and not harm
them.
There are times when you cannot fool with them, I am perfectly
willing to concede that. It is your opinion that these facts here are
so sufficiently clouded by the combat situation at that time that you
are not convinced in your own mind but what the Germans were doing
right in cases of civilians who were killed, including those cases a t
Stoumont, apparently, where there were a lot of women and children
mixed up in the situation, who came out of the cellar before they were
shot down ?
Colonel DWINELL.My position is this : From the record .of trial, and
from the trial, I have a reasonable doubt, a very definite doubt.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOquestions on that one.
Senator BALDWIN.I had a question that popped into my mind and
then out again.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have one I would like to ask: You stated some
time earlier that you felt that the court was trying to be fair, not-
withstanding which, because of their repeated decisions, either on
recommendation of the law member or for other reasons, you, the
defense counsel, became complete1;ydiscouraged in yonr point of view
and eventually, as you put it, you threw in the sponge.
Do you feel if this court was trying to be fair, and that if each of
these accused had been given an opportunity to go on the stand and
make these same charges which they later made in affidavit form,
that this "fair" court would not have taken judicial notice of it and
have demanded an investigation to either approve or disapprove those
charges ?
Colonel DWINELL.I do not think they would. I do not think they
would have done that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe in two cases, two of the accused, did allege
brutality in the case of Christ, and if my memory is not too hazy,
it may have been Hennecke or others.
Colonel DTVINELL. I tried a case, prosecuted a case over there several
months afterward, and there were 22 defendants, and I made sure
there was not any duress. I f there was the slightest indication on it,
I put on no proof, and I did not find any, and to my surprise, during
the course of the trial one of the CID men took the stand and testified
to some duress. I was greatly surprised about i t ; he was called as a
witness by the defense. That court stopped in~mediatelyon its own
motion, and adjourned and investigated that thing. They were no
incensed over it, and they wanted to make sure whether it was the
truth or not. That mas not this court.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But the court trying this Bersin case, in yonr opin-
ion, would not have done that ?
Colonel DWINELL.That is my opinion.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n fact, it did not do that when a t least one of the
accused had taken the stand on his om11 behalf and charged brutality?
Colonel DWINELL.More than one.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, I believe there were only two, sir, to be ac-
curate, insofar as the accused are concerned, but a t least in the case of
Christ, which runs in illy mind very clearly, he did allege brutality on
the stand, a d you feel that the court a t that time erred in not adjourn-
ing and making a thorough i i ~ v e s t i ~ t j oofn this matter?
Colonel DTVINELL. I certainly do.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well,

was there any discnssion as to why they did
not do it?
Colonel DWINELL.I did not discuss anything with the court.
Mr. C I % A ~ ~ EIRunderstand
S. that, but there must have been discus-
sions around the place as to what wasgoing on.
Colonel DWINELL.NO.
Mr. CHAMBER. Colonel, was there much heat in back of this Malinedy
case, 'so that the methods of the prosecution-I am speaking of the
court now, not the investigative staff-perhaps they were hurrying
the thing along and endeavoring to get the thing through?
NALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 437
Colonel DWINELL.I think i t was the psychology at the time. It was
right after the war ended, and this thing was a shocking thing, the
crossroads incident. It shocked the whole world, as a matter of fact,
and I think that hate was there, present. I am not guessing a t this,
you see ; I am not testifying by guess in any of these instances.
One member of the court, during the trial, told me how he felt. I
did not solicit any information. Down a t the hotel he walked by and
he said, "Why don't you get all this mumbo jumbo over anyway,
You're wasting a lot of time."
Mr. CHAMBERS. Would you not say that that member of the court
violated his oath and probably disq~~alified himself?
Colonel DWINELL.They did not take any oath.
Mr. CECAMBERS.. Do you not feel that he disqualified himself?
Colonel DWISELL.H e did; Be got off the court.
- .Mr. CHAMBERS.
- " A
Well, did you bring it about or did he disqualify
himself 'I
Colonel DWINELL.I brought it up by reporting it to Colonel Everett.
What happened'after that, I do not know.
Senator BALDWIN.H e withdrew from the case?
Colonel DTVINELL.He went home, and I never did exactly h o w
why.
Senator BALDWIN.B hat is, he did not participate in the final judg-
ment ?
Senator BALDWIN.The question that I was going to ask before
was this: Was this trial continued until you had an opportunity to
offer all the testimony that you had then available to offer?
Colonel DWINELL.NO, sir. We were given 10 days from the time
the prosecution rested to the time the defense opened up, and there
again that matter was a matter settled between Colonel Everett
and Colonel Ellis, and I cannot speak for Colonel Everett on that
pomt.
Colonel ELLIS. NO; that was not discussed with me.
Colonel DWINELL.Well, I am not stating-I am only stating what
Everett told me.
Colonel ELLIS.I had nothing to *dowith the amount of time that
the defense would have. That was settled between Colonel Everett
and General Dalby, if it was settled with anybody; it was not settled
with me.
Senator BALDTVIN. I n other words, it mas your impression that the
length of time you would take mas settled between Colonel Everett
and somebody, presumably in authority ?
Colonel DWINELL.Colonel Ellis was probably right, that he had a
discussion with General Dalby, president of the court, and that ar-
rangement was made.
Senator BALDWIN. General Dalby, was he a line officer?
Colonel DWINELL.He is a line officer,
Senator BALDWIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay you had 10 days between the prosecution
resting and the time the defense began. I n one of the paragraphs
in the petition before the Supreme Court Colonel Everett stated that
it mas less than 2 weeks allowed to prepare the defense.
Now, I believe a little earlier you said there, and we figured that it
was less than a month?
Colonel DWINELL.About 3 weeks is about all I can figure.

Mr. CHAMBERS.Then, in addition to that, there was an additional
10 days to get your defense ready?
Senator BALDWIN.Were there facilities made available to you to go
out and look up witnesses, that is, such as oing to Stoumont?
Colonel DWINELL. NO; not ~ ~ n tthat i l 10%ay period. T h a t 10-day
period came along and Everett made arrangement with the com-
manding officer down there to permit Lieutenant Wahler and two
other people to go u p to L a Gleize and Stavelot, and S t o ~ ~ m o nand
t,
they had to go like the dickens. I remember they conlplained to
us about the fact t h a t they had to accomplish so much i n so little
time, but they did go u p there, and that was the only time that
t.lley made available to us.
Mr. CHAMBERS. T h e prosecution
- took 3 or 4 days i n that L a Gleize
thing, too?
Colonel DWINELL.I do remember discussing that with Colonel
Everett, discussing i t several times. I remember Colonel Everett-
Lieutenant Wahler and myself pleading with him to go out and see if
we could get a team assigned to us. W e conld not operate without
an investigating team, and i t was never accoinplished.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, I believe also in the discussion with yon, per-
haps not in the record here, there was some reference made t o some
discussions you had with Colonel Everett on this business of putting
the accused on the stand in their own behalf. Now, I believe because
they could not be sworn ancl for many other reasons you have indicated
the reason-part of the reason also was the fact that you felt the prose-
cution hacl not shown a prima facie case?
Mr. C ~ ~ n m mAs n. d yon felt i t was perfectly safe?
Colonel DWISELL. T h a t is correct. As a matter cf fact, I will go
further than that and say that when the prosecution rested I begged
Colonel Everett, myself, to get up and rest, ancl the theory I had was
among other things, as you have stated, that there was not a prima
facie case. They had a case based on extorted confessions and what
not, cases against accused based only on other confessions, and things
of that nature.
Despite the rules of evidence over there and the latitude, I still did
not think they hacl a case, and then to follo~v up I had a meeting of
all the 74 accused the following day or two clays after the prosecution
rested, and here is what I did a t that meeting. 1 read to the accused
through an interpreter-I callecl them by name, "Werner K ~ h nstand ,
up. This is all the prosecution has established. I n my opinion, there
is no case." Then I would say, "So-and-So, get up." And I read to
him, "This is what the prosrcution has pnt out in the record of trial,
and i n my opinion i t is not a prima facie case."
Then, I said that under our system of doing things i n the United
States or rather Acglo-S~rronl)rinciples of trying czws vhere the
burden has not been carried by the prosecution, we do not f w l we are
callecl upon to explain anything: or do anything. The burden is on
the prosecution. It is an old prmciple that I tried to drive home to
them, but their German minds could not reason it that way. They
snid, "No, we don't see it that way.''
Well, then, we had a lot of bickering. I n fact, not only did we
have it with them but particularly with the German lawyers. The
German lawyers wanted to go ahead and put the whole 74 accbsed on
the stand.
Well, it was voted-we decided, as long as 1 accused out of the
74 insisted on taking the stand, we would have to go along with them
and let them all take the stand. Consequently when we came back and
opened up our case we started off with Hennecke, Tomhardt, and one
other fellow, and then we began to notice, like a bunch of drowning
rats, they were turning on each other and they were scared, and like
drowning men, clutching a t straws, they would say, "No, I was not a t
the crossroads; I am certain I was not, but So-and-so was there,''
trying to get the ball over into his yard. So, me called a halt.
Now, how can we properly represent 74 accused that were getting so
panicky that they were willingly saying things to perjure themselves?
Mr. CHAMBEBS. NOW,from the standpoint of the defense, I think
your question is entirely sound, but from the standpoint of the prose-
cution, I imagine, they would have thought it was a mighty good
thing to happen.
Colonel DWINELL.That is right, b ~ l suppose
t my client gets on the
stand, in other words, to save his neck, and lies and hangs the co-
accused, and that was being done in my opinion, and so I said to them
after the second meeting, "I will not permit you, in charge of the whole
defense as I am, to hang each other, to get out of a jam."
Mr. CHAMBERS. Now, these were the same coaccused who later all
put in aEdavits saying that the prosecution beat the dickens out of
them, just to get those statements out of-
Colonel DWINELL.That is right. I am mentioning all that to say
that that was the problem, and that is a problem that any defense
counsel would have in handling a situation of that kind.
Now, as Colonel Ellis will recall, you will recall in the ensuing days,
after three or four accused had taken the stand, when one of them
finished testifying, I had a conference with Colonel Everett in the
courtroom, and we asked the court for a 2-hour adjournment, and the
court granted that 2-hour adjournment and cleared the courtroom, and
allowed us to keep the accused in the room.
The purpose of that was to convince them again that they ought
to quit; and, finally, they did, and they quit on that basis.
When the more intelligent ones, the general oficers, General
Kramer, in particular, volunteered to talk to the men, he got up and
spoke to them quite at length in German. I do not h o w exactly
what he said, and at the conclusion of that speech they all voted to .
quit, and then we quit.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I ask, Colonel Dwinell, did not General
Mramer previously testify?
Mr. CHAMBERS. AS had Priess and Dietrich?
Mr. CHAMBERS. SOthat the generals had testified and Peiper had
testified.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then, me had Christ, who was an officer, and several
of the rest?
440 MALMEDY M A S S A C R E INS7ES'I'IGAl'ION

Mr. CHAMBERS. When you began to get some of the enlisted men
and some of the officers I presume they began to point the finger a t
another accused.
Colonel DWINELL.That is right. As a matter of fact, the best
illustration of that is our good friend, the one who Kas taken out of
the trial, Marcel Boltz, who insisted on taking the stand more at the
German lawyers' insistence than his, and we had some bitter words
over that. H e took the stand, and pointed the finger at several people,
and then he was taken out of the trial and set up to France, as I recall
it, and I understand he was acqnitted-tried as a war criminal.
Colonel ELLIS. Never tried.
Colonel DWINELL.But the members of the accnsed, in the group,
were some bitter about him because as soon as that trial day was over
they all could not wait to tell us how he had been lying, so, they said,
to clear his own skirts.
So, I said that there will be no more of that. Each individual
accused has his own. interest, but I have the interests of the entire
accused, and that was the theory under which we operated.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, it being 5 07clock and we having been a t
this thing since a little after 1:-30, I think we will take a recess until
tomorrow afternoon.
(Whereupon, at 5 p. m., an adjournment was taken until 2 p. m.,
Tuesday, May 10, 1949.)
TUESDAY, MAY 10, 1949
UNITEDSTATES
SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTXE
OF THE COMMIWEE SERVICES,
ON ARMED
Washington,D. 0.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2: 25 p. m.,
in room 212, Senate Office Building, Senator Lester C. Hunt
(presiding).
Present : Senator Hunt.
Also present : Senator Joseph R. McCarthy ;J. M. Chambers of the
committee staff; Francis Flanagan, of the staff of the Subcommittee
011 Investigations of the Committee on Expenditures in Executive
Departments; Colonel Murphy, Colonel Ellis, and Colonel Raymond.
TESTIMONY OF LT. COL. JOHN S. DWINELLResumed
"Mr. FLAWAGAN. Colonel Dwinell, yesterday afternoon toward the
end of your testimony you mere discussing for the committee.here the
reasons why you cut your defense short and put on only a few of the
defendants, and I think that we should make the record quite clear
as to your reasons and the reasons of the other defense counsel for
failing to put on all of the defendants in this case and allow them t o
testify on their own behalf.
Can you tell the committee your exact reasons for not putting on
more of the defendants in this case ?
Colonel DWINELL.The first reason, of course, I discussed yesterday,
mas the fact that they realized that their testimony would be of rela-
tively little probative value, because it was not under oath; but aside
from that, when it was decided to put some of the accused on the stand, '
me detected that when they were testifying they were incriminating
some of the coaccused, and falsely so, and particularly in the case of
Marcel Boltz, who took the stand for several hours. We checked with
our accused, we checked with our notes, and compared all our facts.
We were also, as defense counsel, quite convinced that he was lying
in order to save himself; and it was the fact that these accused in
their desperation in that particular situation were reaching out and
putting the finger falsely on other people, that we required them t o
stop testifying because we felt-at least I felt and Colonel Everett
felt-that our responsibilities were not only to each individual accused
but to the group as a whole.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other words, you did not prevent your clients,
the accused in this case, from taklng the stand for fear that they
would incriminate themselves with the truth?
Colonel DWINELL.Oh, no.,
441
442 ~ A L M E D YMASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Mr. FLANAGAN. B u t rather that they would incriminate others with

perjured testimony.
Senator HUNT.M ay I ask you a question, Colonel?
As I get your answer, then, you deferred asking any further testi-
mony from the accused because i t was injurious to your own case?
Colonel DWINELL.T h e case as a whole. I say injurious because of
the fact that they were not telling the t r ~ t h .
I f i t was injurious and still was the truth, that would be anotl~er
matter, but I was sincerely convinced that they were not telling the
truth in a good many instances while they were on the witness stand,
purely out of the human nature angle that when they were cornered
like that, as they said, and felt that they were, they instinctively put
their finger on someone else. T h a t happened particularly wiih respect
to instances where one or two denied their being a t a particular spot.
'LIwas not there, but my captain was there," or "My sergeant was
there, and he is the one that dicl all tllis," and so ox.
Senator HUNT.T hen, your conclnsion was that placing these men
011 the stand was detrimental to the defense?
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n that regard it was detrimental to the defense
not in that you would have your defendants justly convicted but that
thev would be convicted on perjured testiniony 1
Coloned DWINELL.T h a t is right.
Mr. F'LANAGAN. And unjustly convicted?
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I interrupt?
Colonel Dwinell, there were nine of these accused that testified.
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, sir
Mr. CHAMBERS. And during the course of their testimony-correct
me if I am wrong-I believe there were three of the people who testi.
fied who mere general officers, ancl then Colonel Peiper.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Who would be four of the nine, ancl then there
were several officers including Christ and one or two others and then
perhaps some enlisted men. I t was during the course of the testi-
mony of these people that you felt that falsehoods were being put
into the record which would be injurious to others of the accused?
Mr. C H A ~ ~ E R S . now you say they mere falsehoocls. I wonder
Well,
how you knew they were falsehoocls. I n other words, were they
statements which obviously were not true, based on the evidence that
had been put into the record, or were they denied by the folks who
were being accused by these witnesses?
Colonel DWINELL.They were denied by the folks that were being
accused by these witnesses.
I put on, of those people who testified as part of my responsibility,
I put Peiper on the stand. I did not conduct the direct examination
of the three generals. Mr. Strong dicl that.
I n their testimony the three generals testified about n situntion that
concerned itself only with the giving of the orders originally a t the
beginning of the campaign, but when we got down to the lower ranks-
I mentioned Marcel Boltz as the outstancling example.
MALMEDY 'l&XASSACRE INVESTIGATION 443
I, for one: had nothing to ]do wi'th the preparation af- his direct
evidence. I did not interrogate Marcel BolBz ho any extent a t dl,!
because he was under the snpervision of one of the other groups of
attorneys, and so I remember in that particular case that when Boltz
was testifying I listened t o him almost as carefully as though I werer
on the other side of the case and began tosnotice that he, through the
questions asked of him, by his attorney for the defense, and the cross-
examination particularly by the prosecution, was saying things that
were damaging to the clients that I represented, and so we. conferred
with the German lawyers in particular, and some of them gave me the
impression, actually gave me the impre'ssion, that i t didmot bother
them so much as lonw as they freed their own man.
Mr. CHAMBERS. #ell, then, yon gnthered-and I believe yesterda 7s
9
record would show--that there was considerable disagreement initia ly

between not only the members of the American counsel but between
the American counsel and the German counsel, and then I believe you
also told us that it took considerable persuasion, and finally General
IZramer, if I remember correctly-
Mr. CHAMBERS. H a d to talk to the group as a whole, the group of
accused as a whole, to convince them that they should no longer take
the stand in their own behalf.
Colonel DWINEIL. That is right.
Mr. CRA~\IBEKS. And you were conr~inced.I take it, a t that time
that the balance of these accused would continue to put falsehoods
and untruths into the record for the purpose of clearing themselves
at the expense of the other accused?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Again, to go back to the same question I asked you
yesterday, these are the same accnsed who have signed these affidavits
2 years later?
Colonel D ~ I N E L LThat
. is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Alleging the various brntalities that tock place,
and ~ O L still
I believe that those statenlents made by them are truthful?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes; but, of course, I have been talking about
p~lttingthe finger on other people concerning the actual incidents that
happened in the campaign. I mas not talking about duress.
Mmcell Boltz testified considerably as to m-here he had been along
the route of march and what he had seen and who was present. Those
are the things I mas speaking about.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, sir. My only point was simply this : Their
testimony, which was nnsworn testimony before the court, .you had'
reason to believe that the balance of those who had not testlfied and
some of those who had testified might possibly be so untruthful in their
statements that it would hurt the case of the accused.
Colonel DWINBLL.Yes, sir.
Mr. CIIAR~BERS. But on the other hand. we now have affidavits from
all those people, the same cnes made a little later on, these statements
having been sworn to, but you do believe that the statements. pilerally
speaking, in those aflidavits are vrobably correct?
Colonel DWINELL.That is right ; I do.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Thank YOU.
Mr. FLANAGAN. One thing I am sure the committee wants to get

here and that we have been trying t o elicit from the various witnesses
is the true facts concerning these allegations of brutality.
Now, yesterday, in your testimony you stated that you talked with
various clients, the accused in this case, and that some of them alleged
that the had been subjected to physical violence, and that you did not
order physical examinations of these men.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Now, could you tell the committee why you did not
order physical examinations if you actually believed that these men
had been subjected to physical violence?
Colonel DWINELL.Well, most of the cases that were told to me by
the people that I was working with were of the nature that a physical
examination would have been of no avail.
For instance, if a man tells me that 5 or 6 months prior to the time
he talks to me some interrogator took him into a cell and punched him
in the jaw and slapped him in the face and knocked him down a couple
of times, incidental to obtainin a confession, that being so long ago it
1
was quite obvious that the mar s of that kind of mistreatment would
not be evident, and I had a lot of those cases reported to me.
I recall now one incident. I do not know which accused it was, but
I definitely remember one accused telling me that he was marched
down the hall. H e thinks i t was Polish guards that had charge of
this thing. H e had a hood on his head and they allowed him to fall
down the steps. H e did not break any legs, but he was hurt.
That was several months ago. He looked perfectly all right to me
a t the time I was interrogating him.
Mr. FLANAGAN. The reason you did not request medical examina-
tions in the cases that came to your attention was that you did not think
that the men would have on them at that tir,ne any marks that could be
proven or disproven by medical examination?
Colonel DWINELL.That is right. Now, you must understand, and I
think I mentioned this yesterday, that this was a very large organiza-
tion. When you are attempting to interrogate 300 witnesses, 73
accused, and prepare motions and what not with a set of 7 or 8 rooms
in a row, half a dozen interrogators, all kinds of lawyers running in
and out-I do not know now what Mr. Walters and Colonel Sutton
and the rest actually know about some of the more serious beatings
of their clients.
I did not have time to find out everything about the case, but I heard
them discussing it. Whether they know of any serious brutalities
to the extent that a physical examination is immediately necessary,
you would have to ask them. I do not recall.
Mr. FLANAGAN. If you had had more time in which to prepare your
defense, do you think that you would have, or would you have gotten
together with the other defense counsel and tried to make further
investigations into these charges of brutality?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes; I think so.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And the reason you did not was your lack of time?
Mr. FLANAGAN. You knew they had to be ready for that trial on
the 16th, come what may?
Senator HUNT. Colonel, may I ask you a question at this point?
Did these purported acts of cruelty happen some time before you be-
came connected with the case?
Senator HUNT.How long before?
- Cdonel DWINELL.Well, various periods of time, running anywhere

from 5 to 8 or 9 months.
Senator HUNT.D id you mention this during the defense of the
men during the trial ?
Colonel D W I N ~ LOnly
. through the testimony of those accused
who took the stand.
Senator H ~ E N J R ' Dthey

~ ~ say

in the open court that they had been
beaten and things of that kind; that they had been tortured? '
Colonel DWINELT~. The ones that took the stand did not have a n y
violent mistreatment, as I recall it. Christ did describe mistreatment,
but my memory is not as clear as to when it was or just to the extent
of it. I would have to refresh my mind from the record.
Senator HUNT.But as a defense attorney you had no plaster cast
made of the mouth to show the teeth had been knocked out or you
had no X-rays to show jaws had been broken or you had no physical
examination to prove that they had been severely injured in the groin,
or things like that ?
Colonel DWINELL.NO, sir; except that I would like to say that I
do not know what efforts, if any, Colonel Everett, the chief defense
counsel, might have mnde in that direction. I would have to check
with hijn.
Senator HUNT.NOW,I understand that you did not see any of
these acts of cruelty yourself?
Colonel DWINELL.I did not.
Senator HUNT.So what you know, you would have to classify a s
hearsay. I s that right?
Colonel DWINELL.1know it as a lawyer being told those things
by clients and witnesses ; that is all.
Mr. CHAMBERS. A question, sir.
Christ did testify, as I recall the record of trial. as to these brutali-
ties. Was he one of those witnesses who you had reason to believe
might have been falsely bringing others into the picture and moti-
vated you not to call further accused?
Colonel DWINELL.NO,no. I say that for this, reason : H e was one
of those assigned to me, and I would have detected that prior to put-
ting him on the stand.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I b~lieveyesterday you stated that you handled the
commissioned officers exclusive of the general officers.
Colonel DWINELL. Yes, sir ;22.
Mr CHAMBERS. And
out of that 22, approximately one-third had
alleged brutalities ;is that correct ?
Colonel DWINELL.Brutalities worth mentioning; yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And I believe you also testified that in a hasty study
of these affidavits you are aware now that they all had claimed!
brutalities ?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Aside from the approximate one-third that chwged
rather severe brutality, how many of the 22 that YOU defended alleged,
that duress and other illegal methods had been used to obtain state-
ments of confessions from them?
446 MALNIEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Colonel DWINELLL411of them, and when you use the word "duress,"
I mean all-inclusive, forms of trickery, deprivation of normal rations,
no blankets, various things of that nature, some in a minor degree, some
i n a major degree.
Mr. FLANAGAN. The question was brought up here by Mr. Cham-
bers, I believe, as to whether or not you had notified the court of this
brutality. Now, is it a matter of fact that Christ at least alleged in
open court, in the presence of the court, that he had been treated with
physical violence by the interrogators ?
Mr.. FLANAGAN. I n addition to that, as you testified yesterday, the
Army authbrities must have been advised that 'brutality was being
used because they conducted an investigation.
Mr. FLANAGAN. NOW,in view of that, do you know why the court
did not order an independent inl-estigation of these charges?
Colonel DWINELLI do not know what the mental processes of the
court were, what they were thinking about. My impression mas, as
I stated yesterday-and my impression was all during the trial-
that the conrt was sonzewhat prejudiced.
Whether that is the reason or not, I do not know. LUl I know is
that they heard of these things. they knew that thep existed, they
bad, evidence of i t to some extent right in front of them i n the court
and nothing happened.
Mr. FLANAGAN. NOW,an1 I correct in stating, CbIoneI, that after
the Malmedy case, you sat on a number of other cases as a member, n
law member, of the courts trying mar criminals?
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n any of those cases that you sat on. were charges
of brutality ever made ?
Colonel DWINELLNone whatever except as I mentioned yesterday.
I prosecuted a case, and the defense brought a couple of witnesses to
testify to some mistreatment of one of the accused that I vias prosecut-
ing, and that was a surprise to me, ancl the court immediately investi-
gated i t to determine whether there was any truth in it.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n that case, as soon as the allegation was made, the
court made a thorough investigation to see whether there was any
truth or falsity to it ?
Colonel DWINELI,.Yes. As a matter of fact, in that same case
General Stroop, the principal accused, testified that he had been mis-
treated right at Dachau in the brunker in the camp. H e did that in
the morning. I remember this well.
H e talked about conditions in the cell where he was living and
how cruelly they were treating him in that respect, ancl the conrt
adjourned immediately, and General Kiel. t>liepresident of the court,
personally went over to that cell and made a persorial investigation
to determine whether there was any truth in it.
Mr. FLANAGAN. AS an experienced lam inenlber in a number of
military court trials, war crimes trials. has brutality been alleged in
any of the cases, would you hare requested the cwurt to stop the pro-
ceedings nnd make a thorough inrestipation?
Colonel DTVINELL. Oh, yes; most assuredly.
MALMEDY MASSACHE ISTXS,TIGATION 447
Senator HUNT. Colonel, you were a member of the defense counsel
and then later on you were a member of the reviewing board. Did
you review cases in which you were a member of the defense counsel?
C a l m 1 D W ~ L LNo, . sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Purely for clearing the record, as I understand it,
you did seme as gn a.o&io ad.viser to the review board that passed
on these Malrnedy cases; is that correct?
Colonel DWINEF. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SOthat, in effect, while you were not technically a
member of the board of review, you did assist in hhe review?
Colonel DWINELL.I did.
Senator HUNT. By whose orders Z
Colonel DWINELL.By orders of the theater judge advocate.
Senator HUXT. YOUhad no alternative but to carry out orders?
Colonel DWINELL.None whatever.
Senator HUNT.From the standpoint of teclmical, proper law pro-
cedure, you should not have accepted appointment on the review board
after having been a member of the defense, should you?
Colonel DWINELL.I did not accept it.
Senator HUNT.YOUwere just ordered?
Colonel DWINELL.NO. Maybe this should be cleared.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I agree. May I ask a question of him, Senator?
H e testified to this yesterday, rather he told us about it yesterday,
and I think the record should show this clearly. As I understand it,
you were ordered to this board and you objected to it, and they took
you off of the actual board of review ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. And assigned you as an ex officio member?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, if you want to use the term "ex officio mem-
ber." I was directed to merely be in the room with the board and assist
them in getting a t this extremely long record, all the maze of facts,
and help them get to the thing and acted in a mechanical sort of way,
but, of course, I sat there in the room for 3 months and discussed it
with them every day.
Senator HUNT.T hen the fact that you were just , i n an advisory
capacity is more or less of ai technical term than it is a fact that you
did not participate because if you were there for that time and actually
in conference with them on the review board then you were functioning
really as a member of the review board, although technically you were
not so designated ?
Colonel DWINELL.Well, I can say this without trying to evade any
particular question, that when the conclusions were reached by the
board I did not sign my name to any report. I refused to be a part
of the board to any extent that I would go on record as agreeing with
them. Naturally, as defense counsel I could not.
Senator HUNT. Did you a t any time argue any of your points of
view before the review board?
Colonel DWINELL.Every day.
Swator H u s r . And you participated just about as fully as you
possibly could ?
Colonel DWINELL. For the defense.
Mr. FLANAGAN. That was not a matter of your own choice.

You
were ordered to do that by your superiors?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
If you were in the private practice of law or were
not responsible to Army discipline and Army authorities, would you
have taken an assignment of that type?
Colonel D ~ E L LNO, . sir.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
During the course of your preparation and defense
of this case, you had opportunity to discuss the facts of this case a t
some length with the accused, varlous accused in this case?
Colonel DWINELL.I did not hear the first part of the question.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I say, during the preparation of your defense in
this case, you had opportunity to discuss the facts a t some length with
various of the accused ?
Mr. FLANAGAN. You also had opportunity to examine the confes-
sions which these accused had given to the interrogation team of the
prosecution ?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Based on your personal contacts and personnel in-
terviews with the defendants and based on your careful examination
of the signed confessions, do you think that these confessions ex-
pressed the true facts that were in the knowledge of the defendants?
Colonel DWINELL.AS to the majority of them, no. I will say this:
As to the majority of them, on the face of them, no. Just by look-
ing at the confessions themselves, they were couched in such language
that they were on their very face preposterous and incredible.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other words, the confessions that were obtained
by the prosecuting team were on their very face, in your opinion, pre-
posterous and incredible ?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Do you have any examples of these incredible and
preposterous statements ?
Colonel DWINELL.I do. I picked out one today. I suppose it
would be facetious, but I think i t is apropos to say these were cdled
by us, in the defense, The Tales of Hoffman. It is the confession
of Joachim Hoffman. The German script was much longer than
this, but the typewritten American translation takes in 12 pages of
single-spaced typewritten matter.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Those are 12 legal-sized single-spaced pages?
Colonel D'IVINELL.Legal sized.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
And this was the statement that was taken from
the accused Hoffman by interrogators on the prosecution team?
Mr. FLANAGAN. That is correct. You read this statement, and it
recounts in detail the events that this young man was concerned with
in the month of December 1944, and he begins by tracing his move-
ments from the very time that he first attended the critiques that were
held in the Blankenhein Forest by his commanding officers.
He starts off by giving the precise date and place, the precise words
of the people who spoke to him, and he goes on to trace his movement
by date, by place, by road, by house, by bush, by pasture, and he de-
tails that page after page following the course of the route of march
f o r several kilometers.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION . 449
Mr. FLANAGAN. I f I might interrupt right a t this point, this de-
tailed description that he was giving of what went on took place in
December 1944, in the Battle of the Bulge?
Colonel DWINELL. That is right.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
A very hard fought armored engagement?
Colonel DWINELL.
That is correct.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
And I assume, and you can correct me if I am
wrong, that this German soldier who was in a Panzer division, a
fast moving Panzer division, was in this country for the first time.
He was going over country he had never seen before, or at least part
of it was country he had never seen before.
Colonel DWINELL. I do not know that. I do not know whether
he had ever been there before. H e does not say that one way or
the other here, although Peiper told me that most of his men had
been recruited from the eastern front and that those men that he
had in the Bulge, in the spearhead of the Bulge, had come from
other theaters of operation.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Nevertheless, there was no evidence that he was
familiar with this country other than in this fast moving military
operation on the way through the countryside?
Colonel DWINELL. NO.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
And it was Belgium, a foreign country to where
he lived?
Colonel DWINELL. That is right. This statement of Hoffman's
was taken in March 1946, about 15 months after these incidents are
alleged to have taken place. H e very carefully begins by making
references by coordinates to all the spots. H e gives all the coordi-
nates of the points on the map, which, of course, is possible because
some interrogator gave him the map and pointed them out. That
appears to be the fact, at any rate. A t least, it is a very careful
description of the localities by their coordinates. H e then goes
on to describe all these places in detail :
We left Honsfeld. We proceeded toward Buellingen. We made a right turn
on the far outskirts of Honsfeld. I have shown the place, and it is marked
"Exhibit D." Just before making this right turn, I remember passing an
American truck, and on that truck was a machine gun mounted. This'truck
is shown on exhibit D by a symbol and the numeral "1".
When my tank was a t the point marked by the symbol No. 2, I heard machine
gun, machine pistol, and rifle fire from my right. I made a right turn a t the
intersection a s indicated by the arrows and the route of march indicated by
the number "3". I remember there were two houses on the right side of the
road and'some artillery pieces between the houses. These artillery pieces are
No. 4.
When I reached the point indicated by symbol No. 5, I saw 8 to 10 prisoners
standing in front of the house. They were unarmed, with their hands above
their heads. These prisoners are indicated by the $gmbol "b".
I could go on reading for a long time. That is typical. It is more
in detail as you go on, but in several places he precisely states the
number of rounds that came out of his pistol, out of his machine
pistol ;in about seven or eight places, he sald :
I fired about two or three bursts of approximately four to five rounds apiece-
all of this occurring in the heat of battle.
At the cross roads I made a turn to the left, and after making this turn, there
was a house and a barn on our right side of the road. Just south of this house
and barn was a pasture. On the right-hand side of the road near the north
450 MALMEDT MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOK
stood a Mark 4 tank, shown by sybbol No. 6 on my sketch. Just a s I passed

this tank I saw 80 to 100 .4merican prisoners of war standing i n the pasture.
Another instance :
There was machine gull fire. From where I stood a t the rear of my tank
I fired four or five salvos. I fired approximately 50 shots.
I n another place :
I put a new magazine in, holding 32 rounds. I entered the field. I stood next
to two wounded American soldiers and fired six or eight shots.
When Schaefer gave this order to Sprenger, Sievers was standing next to
Schaefer and certainly heard the order. I heard it without difficulty and was
standing approximately 3 meters from Schaefer, and Sierers mas standing ap-
proximately half a meter from him.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Would it be fair to say that either this soldier had
a phenomenal memory or a very vivid imagination who m o t e this?
Colonel DWINELL.H e had a viritl imagination without doubt. I
cannot conceive of anyone having a memory of that kind. I do not
think we have people in the ,world who have memories of that kind.
Mr. FLANAGAN. O r someone may have written this for him.
Colonel DWINELL.Certainly, son~ebodycarried him along through
the tale.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And there were other statements, other than this
Hoffman, of the same type as this?
Colonel DWINEU. Yes, sir ; several.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And that is the reason why you say, or one of the
reasons why you say, that you have serious doubts whether many of
these statements express the true facts as h o w n to the clefendants?
Colonel ~DWINELL.T h a t is right.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n that same regard, did you talk to Colonel Peiper
concerning three or four of the statements that he had made?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes; I did.
Mr. FLANAGAN. A n d what did he say about those statements?
Colonel DWINELL.YOUmean his own statements?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes.
Colonel DWIXELL.Well, his o,wn statements were not of this nature.
H i s own statements were brief. H e talked about matters that were
not so much in detail as to places and times. and so on.
H e talked about, discussed whether orders had been given by vari-
ous coinmanciing generals and things of that kind. Those things I can
conceive can be remembered by a person in a situation.
Mr. FLANAG-4~. Did Colonel Peiper make any statements that
would reflect on the truth of the statenlent that he gave?
Colonel DWINELL.Of his own statements?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes; of his own statements.
Colonel I)JVINELL. Yes; he did. Of course, he testified to that in
court. H e testified with respect to all three statements that were
put in evidence, and in general he gave the impression to me, and he
told the court generally that he had decided to follow along with the
suggestions made by the rarious interrogators that if these orders had
been given by Hitler or by General Priess, Kramer, and so on, "if there
is any possibility of my saving 73 of my subordinates who worked
with me in this campaign, I will go along and put this stuff down
on paper." T h a t is about generally what he stated.
MI-. FLANAGAN. When was the last time that pol1 saw or talked to
Colonel Peiper ?
LMALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 451
Coioilei ZW~NELL. Ihaw Feiper-Goionei Eiiis, do you renienl'uer
when the trial was?
Colonel ELLIS. August of 194'7,I think it was.
Colonel DWINELL.August of 194'7, when the Skorzini trial was being
conducted a t Dachau. I met someone that told me Peiper was there
as a witness and would I like to talk to him. He had been in Lansburg
Prison for some time, and I went in merely to say "Hello."
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you have any discussion with him a t that time?
Mr. FLANAGAN. What was the discussion Can you relate the
discussion ?
Colonel DWINELL.Well, i t was something like this: I said, "Hello,
Peiper, how are you; how are you feeling?" and so on. I had known
him during the course of the trial to be very much of a courteous indi-
vidual and very much of a gentleman and very correct in his manners,
and he shocked me by his attitude. I will quote him. I remember it.
It stands out in my mind. He answered me when I greeted him by
saying, "God damn, why don't you hang me and get it over with?"
I remember that expression very well, because it shocked me that
he used that type of language. H e had always been very polite, and
I said something to the effect, "Well, we are continuing with the review
and the appeals in this case. Colonel Everett is very active back in
the States on this matter," and he said that he wished that we would
cut it out and let him alone and get it over with, because he said :
I have been i n solitary confinement since May or June of 1945, and every day
somebody walks down the aisle near the cell block, and I think t h a t is it-
and he also told me that he was suffering from battle wounds and
matters that were causing him excruciating pain and he wanted that
cleared up but that he had complained to someone, I believe he said
someone a t the jail, who told him that since he mas going to be hung,
there would be no point in doing that.
Mr. FLANAGAN. What was your feeling about keeping this man in
solitary confinement that period of time while his case was being
reviewed and reviewed, and the death sentence was hanging over him
a11 that time when he was sick or said he was sick and suffering from
wounds ?
Colonel DWINELL.My feeling then was quite definite and is more
SO no.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Well, what is that feeling?
Colonel DWINELL.Well, I think that there is something wrong with
a judicial system that permits an accused to be in solitary confine-
ment for 4 years without even knowing whether he is going to hang or
not. I do not think our system of justice advocates anything-
Mr. FLANAGAN. Just to keep the record straight here, your concern
over the treatment of this man was based upon your personal knowl-
edge and the fact that you TTere his defense counsel?
Colonel DWINELL.h c l I still am his defense counsel.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUwere not basing this concern on any sympathy
for his actions at all, if he committed any-
Colonel DWINELL.I have no personal sympathy fofColone1 Peiper
a t all.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUknow that Colonel Peiper was the commander
of an S S Panzer Division which was, at least. charged with very
brutal crimes. You know that Colonel Peiper was the adjutant or
alleged to be the adjutant to Himmler and mas said to be a high-
ranking Nazi ?
Mr. PLANAGAN. But your concern is not so much with his record
as a Nazi but the treatment that he got as a human being and as an
individual ?
Colonel DWINELL.I n the name of American justice.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I ask a question a t this point?
You have just said, "And I still am his defense counsel." I wonder,
can you explain that further, Colonel Dwinell?
Colonel DWINELL.Well, I do not believe that a defense counsel's
obligations cease with the ending of the trial. I think while there
are any forums open for appeal, unless you are specifically relieved
by that client or by some one who has the power to do so, your duties
still continue.
As a matter of fact, my commanding officer is in fnll accord on
that, and I am referring to the Judge Advocate General with whom
I have talked about that, and he is in thorough accord with that prin-
ciple, that my duties still continue as defense counsel in this matter,
and any other matter of that kind.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now to reverse the situation, had you been
the law member, for instance, would you have still felt it your job
to argue against any mercy or any mitigation being shown this man?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes; I think the court always has the duty with
respect to a case.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This is aimed a t procedures, Colonel Dwinell, not
at you at all, sir. I am trying to find out the way these things in
your opinion should operate.
Colonel DWINELL. That is the way I think they should operate.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Of course, you did have a subsequent relationship
to this case by being the ex officio member of this board of review,
but that interest is carried on through and you believe that that should
be true of al! defense co~mselin the military servlce?
Senator HUNT.Colonel, may I ask yo~za question a t this point as
to what I understand the theory is under which law operates? I am
not a lawyer. I f you are defense counsel, regardless of how guilt
you may think your client may be, you still have a dnty t o go throug
to the limit to defend him. I s that the theory of law ?
h
Colonel DWINELL.I have a duty t o see that the people who are
prosecuting the case prosecute it to the point where there is no reason-
able doubt as to the man's guilt, and that they carpy the burden of
proof right to the very end.
Senator HUNT. Of course. in this case. there is no auestion in vour
mind about the guilt?
Colonel DWINELL.I would not want to make any expression of
"
opinion as to my client's ilt or innocence.

Mr. CI-IAMBERS. 8
Well, olonel, even though there have been within
the Army, I believe, four reviews of this case-
Senator MCCARTHY. Seven.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Four on the record. There are others that appar-
entdy do not appear on the record. Do you feel that your client has
MAEMEDP MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 453
not yet been given adequate reviews'all the wa through, even though
you yourself participated in the fourth review ' Yp
Colonel DWINELL.Adequate reviews, did you say ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n other words, I am trying to find out-and again
I am talking procedurally because I really believe this is one of the
crucial points in this whole case. The record from yesterday shows
that there miere four reviews, the fourth a t which you, an eminently
able defense counsel,, participated.
I n spite of those four reviews and the fact that in each one, in the
case of Peiper at least, has been consistently adverse to the defendant,
you feel that-there still should be other reviews, and in fact that is
why you are testifying before us now because you feel like you want
to oet all the facts out 011 this particular case.
eolonel DWINELL. Yes. I felt that the review that was made in
Frankfurt was very sincerely and honestly and correctly made. I
think it was a very, very sincere effort to solve this problem, and I
think most of the bad spots were taken out of the thing by that review.
However, I then determined in consultation with Colonel Everett
that although that review had accomplished considerable in the inter-
est of justice and fairness, that we still had a duty, ancl I emphasize the
word "duty," to go to the United States Supreme Court ancl see
whether we could get them to hear the ver facts about this case that
i
we were not able to get before the conrt an the reviewing people.
For that reason we pursued it to the point of going to the Supreme
Court, who turned us down without hearing us, that is, they turned
us down on the jurisdictional question.
Now after further consultation on the matter, and when I say
"consultation," I am talking about consultation with Colonel Everett,
who still feels that he is chief defense counsel in the matter, Colonel
Everett, who still feels that he has the duty as chief defense counsel,
and incidentally who spoke to General Green last summer and asked
him if he had any objection to my being available to him in my duty.
General Green said I was always available for that purpose, and
with that in mind we considered what other avenues of appeal we had
and what other forums we could go to. It was at that time that the
Simpson committee called on us to argue before them, and Colonel
Everett and 1 did. The next forum to be heard became this committee.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Would it be a fair statement in line with the exami-
nation at this point, to state that your only interest in this case is your
interest as a lawyer and soldier to see that justice is done to the
accused?
Colonel DWINELL.' Yes; and also I think that the duty goes even
to the extent of seeing to it that the principles of American justice
and democracy are fairly demonstrated to the people that we occupied
over there in Eui-ope. I do not want to have to apologize to any
German lawyers for our procedure.
Mr. F'LANAGAN. Did you have to apologize to German lawyers in this
case ?
Colonel DWINELL.I certainly did.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUwere present in the court at the time that this
court that found the accused guilty reversed and went out and made
their decision ?
454 lMALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Mr. FLANAGAN. HOW long did it take this court to reach its decision
that these 73 men were guilty of the high crimes as charged?
Colonel DWINELL. It took them 2 hours and 20 minutes. I have to
check the record on that to make sure of the time.
Mr. FLANAGAN. It took the court 2 hours and 20 minutes to find the
73 men were guilty ?
Mr. FLANAGAN. I f they considered the case of each man, that would
take them about a little less than 2 minutes a man?
Colonel DWINEIL. That is correct.
Mr. FLANAGAN. When you sat as a law member on other courts,
x-as it your procedure to consider the case of each indiridual charged,
01- to consider the case as a whole?
Colonel DWINELL.Each individual always.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n this case they did either one of two things:
They either took 1 hour or 2 hours and 20 minutes to consider the
whole case, or about 2 minutes to consider each individual case.
Colonel DWINELL.That conclusion is the only one you can dram
from the facts in the record.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Dwinell, I believe it is a proper place to
ask for the record, in your opinion, based on one who served both as
defense counsel, prosecution, and then as I believe you told us, the
eenior member of the courts, one of the things which seems to have
most handicapped the handling of this case has been the short time
a t every stage in which it was processed. I s that correct?
First of all, the short time allowed the defense to prepare its initial
defense. Second, it was not until, I believe you testified yesterday,
during the 10-day period between the resting of the prosecution and
the starting of your case that you could go out and make any field
investigztion, and then apparently here is another very short time
element that has been injected into the picture, namely, the considera-
tion by the court of the evidence and the facts on which they arrived
at a decision.
Colonel DWINELL.Yes; but I mentioned this 2-hour-20-minute de-
Xberation by the court because yesterday Senator Baldwin asked me
$he question whether or not I had the feeling from the very start that
these people would be found guilty. I11 other words, do I have the
feeling, the impression, that the court was prejudiced, and I answered
that question "Yes," because I did have it through that entire trial.
That is borne out by the fact that a case involving 73 accused and
so many incidents and so many allegations, so many complicated facts
which required the review people 2% years to settle and determine
and they have not accomplished that; yet, that court aid i t in 2 hours
and 20 minutes, so I cannot help but come to the conclusion that they
had made up their minds in advance of the deliberation.
Mr. CI-IANBERS. Colonel, I believe yesterday at one point in the testi-
mony you made the remark that you believed that the court tried to
be fair.
Colonel DWINELL.Yes; I did.
Mr. CEIAMI~ERS. Their taking such a short time in their final deci-
sion in these cases certainly does not indicate that they were approach-
illg the evidence with an open mind from the standpoint of reaching
R verdict,.
MALMEDY MASSACRE TNVESTIGATION 455
Colonel DWINELL.I realize that that statement is on its face some-
what inconsistent. I s that what yon mean?
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is the point:
Colonel DWINELL.I mean by that that the court did not deliberately
try to be unfair. I think that they were motivated by the war-crimes
psychology at that moment-that they thought, and sincerely thought,
that they were doing the right thing.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Would it be fair to state, to finish that up, that
the7 tried to be fair but were not?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes; that is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask a question?
I might say, Mr. Chairman, I purposely am refraining from asking
any questions of this witness because you spent half a day with him
yesterday, and I know if I start questioning the witness, not having
heard yesterday's testimony, not having had a chance to read it, I
mill be needlessly going over ground that you fully covered, but there
will be times I will want to ask questions, nevertheless.
Did the law member of the court a t any time ever comment to you
en the fact that you should not spend so much time and energy trying
to defend these men-that they were going to be convicted anyway?
Colonel DWINELL.Not the law member, but one of the members of
the court did.
Senator MCCAHTHY. That is before the trial was completed?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, sir; bnt that instance, I might say, that
partirnlnr court 1neml)er withdrew fl-cni the court before the end of
the trial, but he did make that statement to me while he was on the
court, and i t was indicative to me of the attitude of the court.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other n-orcls, he said, "Why bother trying
to defend these men? They are going to be convicted anyway." This
particular man withdrew, but jou feel that was the general attitude
of the court?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, sir ; that is right.
Senator MCCARTHP.I n other words, give them a fair trial and hang
them.
Colonel DWISELL.He did not use that language.
Senator MCCARTIIY.That is the general idea.
Mr. FLANAGAN. There has been a great deal of discussion here.
Colonel, about the number of times this case was reviewed, and I know
that you probably know as much about all aspects of this case as
anyone.
Could you tell us the number of times that you know this case has
been reviewed ?
It mas tried. The trial was finished sometime in the early summer
of 1946. Can yon tell us the number of times that you know the case
has been reviewed ?
Colonel DIVINELL.I can from personal knowledge. It was first
revieved by a four-man review board appointed-where was that?
Colonel ELLIS. I presume i t was Weisbaden or Augsburg. I am
pretty sure it was Weisbaden.
Colonel DWINELL.Well, that may be correct, but at any rate it was
the headquarters of the war crimes group at that time, right after the
trial as over.
Mr. FLANAGAN. DOyou know any of the members of that four-man

board ?
Colonel DWINELL.I remember going up and talking to that board.
That is why I know that board was reviewing the case.
I went up and talked to them in connection with the defense and
our petitions for review. I n fact I went up to that board and asked
them if they would hold up their final decision until my petition for
review was in, would be considered by them, and the only one I can
remember on that board was Mr. Kessler. I think he spells it K-e-s-s;
1-e-r, Maximilian Kessler.
Colonel Ems. I believe that is right.
Mr. FUNA~AN. What was the next review?
Colonel DWINEIL. The next review was Mr. William Denson.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Who is he?
Colonel DWINELL.Formerly Lieutenant Colonel Denson in the
Army, and while he was at Dachau he resigned from the Army, but
continued to prosecute war crimes cases. H e prosecuted the Buchen-
wald concentration camp case as a civilian, and I know this per-
sonally because I was on that court and I saw a lot of Bill Denson.
He was given the second review of this Malmedy case while he was
working on the trial of the Buchenwald case.
Senator MCCARTHY.May I interrupt? Jnst to refresh your mem-
ory, was there not also a review by a two-man board before Denson had
the job ?
Colonel DWINELL.Not that I know of.
Mr. FLANAG-4~. Who did Denson represent? Who was he review-
ing it for ?
Colonel DWINELL.H e was appointed by Colonel Straight.
Mr. FLANAGAN. For the deputy judge advocate?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
And what the next review?
Colonel DWINELL.The next one to my knowledge was the one that
finally came up to Frankfurt, from Colonel Straight. It was made by
Maj. Richard Reynolds, and then signed a t the bottom of it as hav-
ing been verified and approved by Colonel Straight.
Mr. FLANAGAN. After Denson finished-
Senator MCCARTHY. May I interrupt? Do I understand that the
other two previous reviews never got beyond Straight to get up to
Frankfurt?
Colonel DWINELL.AS far as I know they did not.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, the first two reviews as far as
you know were cut off at Straight, never did get up topside?
Colonel DWINELL.I never saw them.
Mr. CHAME~RS. May I interrupt there, because I have a little knowl-
edge that I would like-
Senator MCCARTHY.I wonder, Joe, if you could tell us. This is
practically all from hearsay. I understand you have had seven reviews
and a great number of them did not get beyond certain intermediate
officers. I wonder if you have any clear picture of the number of
reviews where the different ones were shut off, how far they progressed
up the line of command.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe with Colonel Dwinell's help-incidentally
I think it is important to get this in, although we intended to get
this in a t a later time when we had the reviewing authorities here. I
would like t o get his information on this, if we can, on these things. ,
The first review which you discussed was made by, I believe you
mentioned his name.
Colonel DWINELL.Mr. Kessler, K-e-s-s-1-e-r.
Mr. CHAMBERS. By Kessler, a four-man review. Now I believe
from some conversation that we had yesterday there were some tech-
nical difficulties with that review, and that there was a review of the
review, if i t could be called that, made by the then J A G of the First
Division. I s that correct ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. And based on the review of the review, i t was
decided that they c o ~ d dnot use the first formal review that had been
made, and then another one was started which I believe was made
by Denson. I s that correct ?
Senator MCCARTHY. May I interrupt to get this straight? What
happened in that review, J o e ? I n other words, is that available today?
Colonel DWINELL.Well, I would suspect that it is available. The
Kessler review which I understand was-
Senator MCCARTHY.I s there anyone here who knows whether it is
available ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am sorry. That we will develop. It is a matter
we Bave to dig out as we go along with the hearings.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I say this: I would like very much, if
we possibly can do it-I am not asking you for some in~possibletask,
but from all of the information I have, I get the impression that there
were seven reviews, either partial reviews or entire reviews, that all
of those did make some very important recommendations.
I have got the partial information, if we can call i t that, to the,
effect that the four-man board never did get beyond Straight, because
he thought it was too detailed in each individual case, and that wxs
just thrown out and that the four men who conducted the review were
dismissed from the board and a different board mas appointed to
conduct a new review that would be satisfactory to Straigl~t.
I think unless me can take each one of those and start right
from the beginning and follow it through and see where it was cut
off and why, it will be difficult to get the type of picture we have.
Mr. CHAXBERS. It is our intention to do that, Senator. The only
thing we mere trying to do here is to get, while Colonel Dwinell is
with us, his ideas on the thing.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me say to the chairman, I have a very
serious request I would like to make of the Chair. I would like to
ask the Chair to call an executive session of the subcommittee. I
would like to ask the Chair to have someone from General Bradley's
office present. I would like to have someone from the State Depart-
ment present, and I would like to give to the subcommittee the various
pieces of information that have come to me, all voluntarily, you
understand.
I have not had a chance to check on any of them. I have not made
any attempt to check on them. I say I have not made any attempt.
Mr. Flanagan has made an attempt to check on the background of
some of the individuals making the charges of a very serious nature
458 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOT\~
that go beyond the Malnledy case, involving a number of things that

1 do, not think should be perhaps tried in the headlines of the papers
throughout the country until we have had a chance to discuss with
the Army and the State Department what, if any, check they have
made into these matters, whether they woulcl like to make a check
of it, and I think it is entirely possible that after the subcoinmittee
receives this information, that they may want to hold up calling the
witnesses publicly until they have had a chance to go into these
eharges, and if they are true, corrective action perhaps can be taken
with other than newspaper headlines, and I would like very much
to have the committee do that before we go beyond today's testimony.
If that is not done, I have no choice whatsoever but to bring before
this committee, and publicly, all the charges that have been made.
It may develop that some of them have no basis in fact whatsoever.
I f so, they can do irreparable damage to the Army, to some of the
individuals concerned, and make it difficult for our State Department
to operate, so I do not want to take that 'espansibility unless I first
know that either the Army or the State Department will take it upon
themselves to check into these matters.
I would like to have the chairinan call that session. As I say,
I do not think anything can be gained by having i t unless we have
someone from either General Bradley's office or soineone from the
State Department present.
Senator HUNT.Senator, we clisc~~ssecl that procedure yesterday. I
do not think the subcommittee did come to to any coilcl~~sion with
reference to it, but the suggestion you have made was discussed.
Now we do have some other witnesses lined up for the rest of the
week.
Senator MCCARTHY. Are they very important witnesses?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Some of then1 are coming, sir, as we discussed yes-
terday, from all over the country specifically to testify on these Mal-
medy matters. The matter that was brought up yesterday goes be-
yond the Malmedy case.
Senator MCCARTHY.It goes beyond that, but you understand it
completely covers the Malmedy case.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Oh, yes ; it is an important part of it.
Senator MCCARTHY. My position is this: I will have to, in ex-
amining these witnesses, not knowing whether they will return again
or not, unless I have some assurance that corrective action is to be
taken, I mill have no choice at all but to go into all those matters in
detail. I hesitate doing it. You know the reason why.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Surely, Senator McCarthy, as you know this was
discussed at some length yesterday. We met i n executive session at
your request yesterday and you were away on other business.
Senator McCarthy. I guess you would call i t business. I was
watching the Marine Corps putting on a deinonstration of new com-
bat techniques.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n my book that is new business. We feel the po-
sition yon have taken was correct. On the other hand, we have peo-
ple on the train coming through from California, and I think that
i t would be probably best to go ahead and clean them up and cer-
tainly I a.m sure that the Chair and s~ibcomnitteewill meet in execu-
tive session at any time on the terms that you suggest. I think it is
an important matter that shoiild he looked into
Senator MCCARTHY.Thank you very much. Pardon the interrup-
tion. I merely wanted to get that on the record so if 1 am forced
to briiig out all these facts, it is the decision of the subcommittee. I
must bring them out.
Colonel DWINELL.There are one or two other things, may 1state, in
this Matter that I discussed before about the court.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel, the record is a little interrupted here, but
can we finish these various reviews?
Colonel DWINELL. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. We had gotten up to the point where there had been
the original four-man board, then a review of that board made by the
JAG of the First Division, and then the review made for Colonel
Straight after the decision was made to reject the initial review by
then Colonel Denson, and then I believe that there were two addi-
tional reviews before the sentence was finally approved. I s that
correct ?
One was the review made by Colonel Harbaugh in which I believe
you were an ex officio party, and then there was a final review or check
of some kind by General Clay before these sentences were approved.
That is the sixth. I t gets pretty close to the seventh.
Mr. F'LANAGAN. I have lost track of them. I have the first review
by the four-man board, then a review of that review by the judge
advocate general of the First Division, then the third one, Colonel
Denson, the fourth one, Major ReynolcIs. .
Who is the fifth ?
Colonel DWINELL.The board in Frai1kfm.t. I n the case of all war
crimes cases, when they are completed and approved one way or the
other 113- the theater judge aclrocate, they go to General Clay and he
llas an attorney up there who advises him.
Mr. FLANAGAN. That is the sixth.
Colonel DTVINELL. 1 do not know whether you would call that a
revierr actually as n-e term a review,,but he has a legal adviser there
in Berlin.
Mr. FL~~KAGAN. And then the Simpson-Van Roden Commission
reviewed part of it ?
Colonel DWINELL.That came afterward.
Mr. CEIAJIBERS. I think, if 1may correct you on that, I would say
that the Simpson-Van Roden re\-iew of the Malniedy cases was con-
fined to the 12 death cases.
Mr. F'LANAGAN. We were talking about whole or partial reviews
of the case.
Senator B~CCARTHY. May I ask you this qnestion? Did any of those
reviews give a clean bill of health to the trials? I11 other words, did
any of those worcls reviews say "It is proper, let the sentences stand,"
ss far as you know ?
Colonel DTVINELL. The only review that I lrnom anything about is
the one that I read, the one that came up from Major Reynolds and
Colonel Straight to the board. I t mas considered and read by the
board in Frankfurt.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this: I have gotten the impres-
sion from talking to a great number of individuals, some of them in the
Rt.,pular Army like yourself, bnt who are reluctant to come here and
testifj---xnd I can understand why they would not, for fear it moulcl
91765--49----30
460 MALMEDY MASSACRE I~XESTIGATION
hurt their future situation-that the Malmedy case is one that sort
of stands by itself, that all your reviews without exception have
pointed out that the trials were properly conducted, that it is impos-
sible to tell whether the men were guilty or innocent in effect and
suggested that sentences be cut down not because of the fact the felt
the punishment was too great for the particular crime charge$ but
because they felt that a man should not be punished that much when
there was so much doubt as to whether he was guilty or innocent.
Now is it your thought, from your own knowledge, do you know if
that was actually the picture
- of the seven reviews or the six, whatever
the case may be ?
Colonel DWINELL.YOUare only referring now to the Malmedy case?
Senator MCCARTHY. The Malmedv case.
Colonel DWINELL.AS I say, the h o reviews that were previously
mentioned in the four-man board, Colonel Denson's review, I never
saw those. I do not know what they had in them and what they
reasoned out.
I did see the one that Major Reynolds made which came up to the
board in Frankfurt. I n fact, I read it entirely. That I am familiar
with, and, of course, I am familiar with the board of review in Frank.
furt.
Sehator MCCARTHY.Major Reynolds' review, how about that?
Did that recommend cutting down some sentences ?
Colonel DWINELL.Some.
Senator MCCARTHY. And did that indicate that they felt the sen-
tences should be cut down because there was some doubt of the man's
guilt, or was it because they felt that the punishment was too great
for the crime charged ?
Colonel DWINELL.NO, where they cut sentences down they did it
for reasons of age. I f the accused was extremely youthful, 17 years
old, something like that, or that the extent of his participation was
not great enough to warrant a death sentence.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you about this particular case of
Pletz. H e was accused of shooting American prisoners of mar who
were helpless with their hands over their heacls. The charge was with-
out any reason whatsoever, without any order of any superior officer,
he comes along in a tank and as a sport he kills off a number of Ameri-
can prisoners of war.
Now he was given life imprisonment. That was cut down to 15
years. Certainly i t was not cut down because 15 American boys march-
ing along the street with their hands over their heads, that did not
warrant death on his part. The evidence is-and you can correct me
if I am wrong-there were a number of tanks along the street. The
tank in A position saw some shells comin from what he thought was
%
a moving vehicle traveling somewhere be ind him, the tank immedi-
ately behind him or three or four or five behind-there x a s no testi-
mony on that point whatsoever, but he said from the trajectory there
seemed to be twin automatic weapons and it was from a vehicle at a
height.
Testimony of the driver of the next tank was that he saw America11
prisoners beside the road, that he did not see any of them fall. He
heard several bursts of fire from his own tank, what direction he did
not know.
The third tank i n line said t.hat none of the tanks in front of him
-. . at these prisoners, and as he passed the prisoners they were all
fired
hvmg.
Then I understand Mr. Byme, the captain or lieutenant, came into
this town to look for evidence of American prisoners being killed in
, he found evidence of 10 bodies in the town. He did not
that t o ~ m and
know whether they wem prisoners of war or whether they were men
killed in combat.
Now with th&~picturethe sentence was cut from life imprisonment
down to 15 years.
The question I have in mind is this : If they felt this boy was guilty
of killing some American prisoners with no excuse whatsoever, no
order for it, just doing it as sport, certainly they would not have felt
that death was too great a penalty, or life imprisonment. I f he was
not guilty, then anything is too much. Am I right?
Senator MCCARTHY.SOthe question is, in that case why did they
take a life sentence and cut it down to 15 years? What theory of the
law is that, I wonder? This is important in that I think it indicates
perhaps the type of review you have in all of these cases.
Colonel DWINELL.In the first place may I refresh my recollection
from the Frankfurt Review Board.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Can you tell me what book that is i n ?
Mr. PLANAGAN. You can find that in that little book you have.
Senator MCCARTHY. Colonel Ellis has it, I believe.
Colonel ELLIS. This is the R. and R. from Colonel Straight.
Senator MCCARTHY. Colonel, let me get this straight in the record.
I think that you and I will heartily agree that if this boy killed those
American prisoners of war, that he should definitely hang, period.
There is no reason whatsoever why he should not hang, whether he
is 18 years old, 19years old.
Colonel DWINELL.NO, I do not quite go along on that, for this
reason-
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me finish. I f he did not shoot the boys,
if he did not kill them, then he should not be punished a t all.
Colonel DWINELL.I think there is one other-
Senator MCCARTIEP. DO you want to see the review before you
answer?
Colonel DWINELL.This refreshes my recollection on that -part of
it, at least.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, I want to know why they
recommended that his sentence be cut down.
Colonel DWINELL.The recommendation by Colonel Straight in con-
nection with that particular case said that the court apparently con-
cluded "that the accused willingly killed surrendered prisoners of
war."
I n other words, his theory in that case, as it was in many cases in
this Malmedy affair, was that before the court we had controversy in
fact, we had conflict of evidence and facts of varying degrees, but
that the court, having heard the witnesses and heard these confessions,
determined as a matter of fact that he willingly killed those prisoners.
Now he recommended the cutting of the sentence down, however,
462 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESllIGATION
because he said, and this is also his reasdning in a number of these

cases :
I n the absence of positive evidence that some compulsion did not result from
the immediate presence of the accused's superior, it cannot be ihferred that
some compulsion did not e-xist. This circ~lmscance should be considered in
mitigation notwithstanding t h e accused's rank a s sergeant and position held a s
a tank commander.
I n other mo- cls, the theory of supwior orders came in constantly
in this case. Where a soldier of the rank of sergeant even willingly
shot prisoners of war, the question was now, if his captain was stand-
ing right alongside of him and ordered him to do that, and i t was
in his presence and he, the sergeant, knew that if he disobeyed that
order he in turn would be shot, that was taken into consideration in
mitigat'1011.
Senator &ICCAR'PHP.NOWlet us get back to this case. I can cer-
tainly understand where that is true. I think that is the rule in all
military courts of justice. Let us get back to this case.\
Where there is no evidence whatsoever t l ~ aany
t superior officer says,
"Kill those boys," in fact, the record is just to the contrary, the record
is to the effect that they were alongside of the street or the road, that
the first tank, the leading tank passes, the commanding officer is in the
first tank; his gunners do not do any firing a t all.
The second tank, the gunner in the tank who is under 110 coinpulsion
whatsoever, the record is clear on that that the commanding officerdoes
not even know what he is firing at. R e fires several bursts.
Now under the circmnstances, you or I could not coaceivab1;v find
there is any compulsion, could we, and no intelligent court could.
. Do you not get the feeling-if I am wrong, tell m e t h a t i n all of

these cases where there was some doubt as to whether a man was guilty
or not where the court said he may have been guilty, he may not have
been guilty, then they proceeded to recommend that his sentence be cut
down, just arbitrarily picked a sentence and said, "It does not appear
that the evidence proves that he is guilty. Therefore, we will give
him a light sentence."
I s that your impression?
Colonel DWINELL.I think I follow you. The point is in my opinion
the reviewing authorities should have weighed that evidence carefully
and decided that matter of fact which they had the power to do.
There being so much doubt, in this particular case as I recall from
reading the Frankfurt Review Board that resolved that doubt in favor
of the accused, they could see very readily that there was such a con-
flict and so much doubt that the direct evidence was insufficient to
warrant a finding of guilty a t all.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did the Frankfurt Board do that!
Colonel DWINELL. They did that.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, the reviewing board, did they
set the verdict aside?
Colonel DWINELL. Completely set aside. They discussed the evi-
dence, said there is no evidence that an American prisoners were
i
killed. There is no evidence that any o the residents of Stoumont
saw any bodies in front of the grocery store, nothing from the owner of
the store who presumably had to step over the bodies to get into his
place.
I t is apparent that Lesser's testimony amounts t o nothin more than
slight corroboration of Werner's statement, and so fort . f
Conclusion: The evidence i s insufticient and recommends t h a t the sentence be
disapproved.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, the reviewing board went into

the evidence and they say, L?No.1, we have found no evidence that
prisoners were killed." Of course obviously there is no evidence in the
record that he did any shooting himself. They therefore set the record
aside. A t Frankfurt, however-what do you reyer to this as?
Colonel DWINELL.A review by the deputy judge advocate. That is
not the final one.
Senator MCCARTHY. This review in effect says, "We are not goin B
to go into the evideilce to decide whether or not the man is guilty.
They say the court apparently decided he was guilty, "and we, in the
absence of any evidence whatsoever, who find that maybe he was under
some coinpulsion, even though the evidence is clear that there was no
compulsion, therefore we will cut his sentence t o 15 years."
I think everyone will agree with me. I s that not about the most
unusual system of meting out justice that you ever heard of, the most
unusual ground ?
Mr. FLANAGAN. If I may interrupt, before you answer that ques-
tion, to get the record clear, Straight's board had cut his sentence to 15
years and this board said, "Let him go altogether." Now the final
sentence was what?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Fifteen years.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Finally they put it back up to 15 years?
Colonel DWINELL.Oh, no. This board that I read about here from
Frankfurt was a recommendation made to General Clay, and he acted
on that.
Colonel MURPHY.It went from there to Colonel Hxrbaugh's office.
H e made the recommendation.
Colonel DWINELL.That is the one I am reading from.
Colonel MURPHY.H e made a further recommendation.
Senator MCCARTHY. The board after that put it back up to 15
years.
Colonel DWINELL.I think Colonel Murphy is referring to whether
o r not Colonel Harbaugh agreed or did not agree with the board
of review in Frankfurt. You are right on that. I do not know what
the final decision on that particular one that was made was.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The final decision was 15 years. Now the record
that I have in front of me does not show a t which point it was rein-
stated. A t this time I would like to ask a question.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let us first get this. The Frankfurt review
is an intermediate review, in effect. That is the one that says there
is no evidence to find him guilty, no evidence of American prisoners
of war being shot in this town. They say :
Therefore, there is no evidence of men being killed, no evidence to find him
guilty. We will recommend the conviction be set aside.
Then there is a higher board that reviews it before it goes to
Clay.
Colonel DWINELL.Not a board. I think I can explain that. Colo-
nel Harbaugh, the theater judge advocate, makes the final recommen-
464 MALMEDY MASSACRE INV~STIGATION
dation to General Clay, and he appointed this board to assist him,

and this board made certain recommendations to Colonel Harbaugh,
and he agreed or disagreed as he saw fit.
Senator MCCARTHY. I see. I think we should have this man Har-
baugh here sometime. Do you plan on bringing him ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. We are planning to have Colonel Harbaugh here.
May I ask a couple of questions, Colonel Dwinell ?
Colonel Dwinell, this board that Harbaugh appointed to assist him
in the review, is this the board we have been referring to of which
you said you were an ex officio member 1
Mr. CHAMBERS. So that in effect you were an ex officio member
and a party to that particular recommendation?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes, I would say so.
Mr. CHAMEER.I think it is important to know that at least the de-
fense side of this picture had adequate representation in review pro-
cedures.
Senator MCCARTHY.Joe, you are a lawyer ;are you not?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am a graduate of the law.
Senator MCCARTHY. I do not think you or any man who ever tried
a lawsuit in his life, anyone with any concept of how justice should be
meted out, but would agree that that is the most fantastic method of
meting out justice I have ever seen.
You find that there is no evidence whatsoever that any men were
killed, you find that there is no evidence that this man killed them, but
you say "Let us give him something for it anyway."
Mr. C H A ~ E RSenator,
. pardon this privilege on the record. I do
not think but that one review has said that, and that is the one we
have in mind here. There have been four reviews, and probably
others as you have pointed out.
Senator RICCARTHY. I think you will find there were seven.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Whatever they are, the record shows four officiaI
ones. We will certainly get the other three. Of the four that we have,
only one recommended disapproval, and I am merely quoting from the
record when I say that Colonel Dwinell was a part of that particular
thing, and that the defense had a very good representation.
Senator M~CARTHY. May I ask you this, Joe? Am I correct? This
is the only board that went into the evidence to decide whether or not
there was su5cient evidence to uphold a conviction?
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO,sir ; I do not believe that is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY. Can you find me any review that analyzed the
evidence? That does not. H e says the court apparently found he was
guilty. Can you find any review that analyzed the evidence in these
cases and says, "This evidence is sufficient to uphold a verdict of
guilty"? I would like very much to see tha& and I think it should be
part of the record. I think Dwinell's analysis of the evidence is the
only one we have gotten so far of any reviewing-
Mr. CHAMBERS. TOanswer your question specifically. this particular
review, which is the report of the board and not the detailed notes
~f it, as I understand it Colonel Straight's group did review all the
evidence, all the record of proceedings.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did not your board review the review made by
Colonel Denson, which was the forerunner of this report?
MALMEDY MASSACRE ITWESTIGATION
Colonel DWINELL.NO,sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you review any detailed report?
Colonel DWINELL.We reviewed Colonel Straight's review.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
reviewed Colonel Straight's review ?
You
Mr. CHAMBERS. And this was based on the evidence. Is that
correct ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. And that is going into the record, but we agreed
yesterday we would put it in at a later time.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Not to take too much time on this business of re-
views, but we were trying to find out the total number of full and
partial reviews that were made of this case, and I am down now to
No. 7, which was the Simpson-Van Roden review.
Am I correct in saying that either after that, or sandwiched in be-
tween that review and seine other one, the Rayinond Board made a
review of certain phases of this case?
Colonel DWINELL.I do not know anything about that review. I
know a review was made, but I do not know anything about it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The record, I believe, would show-and Colonel
Raymond is present to correct me if I make a wrong statement-that
they did make a complete review of the record of ~roceedingsof the
Malmedy trial. I s that correct, Colonel Raymond.
Colonel RAYMOND. We did not review the evidence of the Malmedy
trial. We went into the question of the allegations in .the petition
filed by Mr. Everett.
Mr. FLANAGAN. They made a partial review.
Senator MCCARTHY.Can I ask the colonel a question?
Were you a party to this Frankfurt review?
Colonel RAYMOND. I had nothing to do with any of the reviews that
have been mentioned.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this : Do yon know any boards
that have reviewed the evidence and said in each individual case, not
taking the 74, but saying the evidence in this case is sufficient, the.
evidence in this case is not, so that you had an intelligent review in
each case other than the Frankfurt board which apparently went into
the evidence. I s there any other board that did that ?
Colonel RAYMOND. Well, I cannot say from my personal knowledge,
Senator, but that would be the normal procedure.
Senator MCCARTHY. I know i t would be the normal procedure, but
we are getting so f a r from normal here in some cases. Let me ask
you this : As you know, there is a review by a four-man review board
that never got beyond Straight. The members of that review were
dischar ed from their duties and sent to different parts of Europe.
%
Do you now what happened to that review?
Colonel RAYMOND. I do not recall that I ever heard of it until this
afternoon.
Senator MCCARTHY.I think that is significant also. Do you know
if there is anyone that can tell us what happened to that detailed
review ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think Colonel Dwinell and Colonel Ellis have a
very vague recollection of it. . Since we are going to bring in Colonel
Straight and others, I expect we can go into it in detail at that time.
466 MALMEDY MASSACRE IXF-ESTIGATION
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask Colonel Ellis, if I may, am I correct

in that, that Straight was very much dissatisfied with that review
by the four-man board and refused to send it any further and dis-
charged the board and appointed a new board?
Colonel ELLIS. Yo11 will have to ask Colonel Straight about that.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU did not stay in the theater after you
finished this case?
Colonel ELLIS. I left immediately after trial, returned in October.
I had nothing to do with the reviews, did not concern myself with them
and was not interested.
Mr. FLANAGAN. After the Raymond bead tilen :t petition was made
to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court reviewed this case and
turned it down on jurisdictional grounds ?
Mr. FLANAGAN. SOthat is NO. 9.
No. 10, General Clay recently completed a review of the death sen-
tences in this case, which is a matter of public knowledge.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And the record.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And the record. That is No. 10. A t the same time,
former Secretary Royal1 announced that he was making a review of
all the death sentences before they were carried out. So, that is No.
11. And No. 12 would be this committee. So, this case has been
reviewed, with the exception of this committee, 11 times by various
judicial groups, bodies, or commissions.
I s that correct ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Reasonably so. I think it is subject, perhaps. to
some correction in detail.

Senator MCCARTHY. That is, of course, meaningless, the number of
reviews that have been held, unless we lrnow which of these boards
actually went into the evidence.
For example, Straight reviewed the review by the four-man com-
mittee and threw it out, according to the information we have, because
it did not satisfy him.
. Senator HUNT.Colonel, do yon hare a statement you want to make?
Are you through, Senator?
Senator MCCARTHY. I have just one or two questions. I f these
were aslred yesterday, then stop me, please.
Am I correct in this, Colonel, that some men n-ere sentenced either
to prison terms or death for shooting a sizable number of American
prisoners of war at La Gleize? At the time they were allegedly shot,
Colonel Peiper was in La Gleize ; he had 200 American war prisoners,
and the commanding officer-the ranking officer-of the American war
prisoners was a Lieutenant Colonel McCown. and that McCown was
riding with Peiper in the jeep, traveling with him, negotiating for the
exchange of prisoners?
He was in the town a t all times, and McCown testified first he came
back, made a report when he was exchanged, setting forth the details
of the stay in that tomw; then he testified ill the trial. His testimony
in the trial was about identical to the yeport he initially made when
he went back to the American lines.
His testimony was there were no American prisoners shot in that
area; that Lieutenant Byrne went over into the area, could find no
evidence of any sizable number of prisoners shot, allegedly shot near
a church wall; that the priest who was living in the basement of the
MALMEDT MASSACRE IXVESTIGATION 467
church most of the time knew of no American prisoners having been
shot; in spite of that, in spite of the fact that an American officer was
present at all times traveling in that area and charged with the Amer-
ican prisoners, charged with the prisoners in that area, said none of
them had been shot, that some men confessed having shot those Amer-
ican prisoners.
Senator MCCARTHY. And have been convicted and sentenced, their
sentences upheld for that alleged crime.
Colonel DWINELL.They were convicted for those things. Now,
whether each indiviclual who was convicted for the incidents in La
Gleize are still under sentence of,death, I mould have to recheck the
reviews.
Smator MCCARTHY. They are all under sentence?
Colonel DWINELL.Some of those cases rrere disapproved.
Senator &CARTHY. Aim I correct that all 73 have had their sen-
tences approl-ed to some extent? Some of them have had their
sentences cut down?
Colonel DWINELL.About 12 of them were disapproved altogether.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There were approximately 12 disapproved alto-
gether. .
Senator MCCARTHY. 61, I mean.
Mr. CHAMBERS. 61, and in addition to that there were many com-
mutations and reductions.
I might say, Senator McCarthy-you asked that we tell you if this
was discnssed yesterday. There are several pages in here on this par-
ticular inciclent, and Colonel Dwinell did discuss it in detail yesterday.
That is correct ; is it not, Mr. Flanagan ?
Mr. FLANAGAK. Yes.
Senator HUNT. Colonel, do you have a further statement you want
to make before we excuse you?
Colonel DWISELL.I just m a t to amplify what I said a little while
ago, so that the committee will understand when I make statements
concerning my feelings about the court a t the time of the trial. It was
based on many, many things. I am trying to recall all the various
incidents, but one now that I recall was the incident concerning the
confession of one of the accused, the accused Sickel. Sickel was
charged with being present at a castle-it was called a castle-in a
little Belgian town-and he and Colonel Peiper were in this castle
when a mail by the name of TVickmann, also an accused German
soldier, brought in an American soldier who was frozen, who they said
was in such bad condition he would not talk.
Sickel, who was a medical officer for Peiper's regiment, a doctor,
stated that the American soldier had third-clegree frostbites on his
legs and arms. I n order to save his life it woulcl require an amputa-
tion of all his limbs; that myas the evidence.
Sickel also stated that, in a confession to the effect,that the conversa-
tion between he and Peiper resulted in ordering Wichmann to take
the man out and dispose of him. The body was found. An American
investigator went up. The Belgian man who owned the house tes-
tified a t the trial that he found the body. There was no clear testi-
mony from him, however, that the body had any bullet holes in it.
Be that as it may, the prosecution proved that case principally by the
confession of Sickel, but that confession was divided into two parts,
and part 1of the confession of approximately two pages thereof out-
lined that Sickel had been the chief doctor in one of the notorious
German concentration camps in occupied Poland and that he had been -

responsible for the gassing of some 20,000 inmates.
Now, Sickel in the Malmedy trial was not charged with being a
member of a German concentration camp, and immediately when that
confession was read to the court, it was impossible to defend that man
before that court, because anyone who gassed 20,000 people in a con-
centration camp could not get a fair trial in this type of case, and we
objected very strenuously to that but it was read to the court.
Senator MCCARTIXY. Was he ever tried for this gassing?
Colonel DWINELL.I do not know; I do not think so. I think he is
still at Lansburg.
Senator HUNT.A nything else?
Colonel DWINELL.The taking into evidence of the confession of a
man who committed suicide, interrupting his confession and not
signing the balance of the confession, is a most unusual procedure in
any court, and we objected strenuously to that. That man was named
Freimuth.
Senator MCCARTHY. Going through the affidavits upon which the
appeal to the Supreme Court mas made. I find excerpts from the
court proceedings including the rules of the law member of the court,
Rosenfeld.
I find that the defense counsel would attempt to ask the witness yues-
tions about how his statement was obtained, how many times he was
interrogated before he made the statement, not a man testifying against
him, as I understand it, but testifying as a codefendant.
Then, I find when defense counsel attempted to find out how the
statement was obtained, Rosenfeld always ruled that that was not part
of the direct examination and therefore you could not go into it on
cross-examination.
Under the circumstances, was it possible for you to prove how the
various statements were given, what type of duress was used?
Colonel DWINELL.NO;we were restricted in that matter. I testified
at length about that yesterday.
I also commented on the fact that the review board a t Frankfurt
mentioned all that and did point out in their report the number of
instances of incorrect rulings by the court.
Senator R f c C m ~ w .I was thinking of this consistent ruling. I
noticed he warned the defense counsel. H e said :
I want to warn defense counsel to this effect, again. That is improper and you
cannot do it.
I have not gone through all the record, but I assume after that there
was not any attempt to-I believe Everett or one of you said, "I am
going to try to do this in every case. Will the court make the same
ruling a t one time so we can save time?" The court made the ruling;
that was his ruling? You are a lawyer in civilian life, are you not?
Senator MCCARTHY. Under the circumstances, is there any way
that you could conceivably give the man a fair trial if the statement
of other interested parties are used to convict him?
Colonel DWINELL.There was not, and I stated that definitely yes-
terday. Now, in addition to that, I would like to state this-
Senator MCCARTHY. Your answer was you do not think he could
possibly et a fair trial with that consistent rulin
9 4'
Colone DWINELL.NO. We tried to do that or a very, very defi-
nite reason. A number of witnesses came to us a t our request. We
requisitioned them. They came into our office and stated that they
would not be a witness for the defense. They would not talk to us,
because if they did they would become a perpetrator in a subsequent
case to this, and that the prosecution had told them that. .
We could not deterinine who of the prosecution said that. I know
Colonel Ellis knows nothing about it. I am not certain that he does
not know anything about it, never did know anything about it.
Whether one of his subordinates or one of his interrogators did that,
I am not sure either, but I knom- this, that those aitnessses, more than
one, a number of them, canle into my office and told me, "We will not
talk to you because we have been threatened with being accused." We
have found witnesses who changed their testimony. We had one
witness who testified for Colonel Ellis' side of the case and came in to
us and told us that he had lied, and we made a desperate attempt to
rehabilitate him, and we were restricted in that respect. That was
the reason why it became apparent to us we could not succeed.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other words, you thought your witnesses were
intimidated by members of the prosecution team?
Colonel DTVINELL. That was my opinion.
Mr. FLANAGAX. And that was based on the fact that the witnesses
refused to testify for you?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was that reported to the court or any effort made
t o run it down and verify i t ?
Colonel DWINELL.Yes ; that is in the record of trial.
Senator MCCARTHY. You could not possibly report it to the court
through the witnesses when the law member ruled that the court would
not listen to that. I think this is a very important point.
I f you have go a lawsuit and you are using interested parties as
witnesses, it is elementary of course that the defense counsel can
show what interest they have. They can show for example what the
size of the witness fee is. You can show what, if anything, the witness
has been offerecl. You can show what he has got to gam by his tes-
timony, what he has got to lose. I n other words, if he has been told
that he will be tried in the case a t some later time, and the law member,
who apparently either knew no law or else was guilty of just a gross
perversion of justice, ruled consistently that you could not do that
because it had not been done on direct examination, under the cir-
cumstances, of course. the court had no way of knowing, nor did
the reviewing body hare any way of knowing just what these various
witnesses were offered and what they mere threatened with.
I heartily agree with the colonel when he says with that ruling alone
it is impossible to get a clear picture of the case.
Colonel DWINELL.One thing I want to say-
Senator MCCARTHY. What is this fellow Rosenfeld doing- now; do
you know ?
Colonel. DWINELL.I do not know, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.ISRosenfeld still in the Army?
Mr. CHAMBERS. 11believe Colonel Rosenfeld is retired ; isn't he ?
Colonel ELLIS. NO; he is still in the Army.
470 MALMEDY MASSACRE IhTESTIG.4TIOX
Colonel DWINELL.NOW,in connection with all these things that

I have been saying, I want to say in fairness to Colonel Rosenfeld and
in fairness to Colonel Ellis this: Abont 3 days ago I was talking to
Colonel Ellis about this case.
We live in the same place, in the same hotel, and we are good friends,
and we have been talking about a lot of things, and I said, in talking
about this case, or he said for the first time that he and Colonel Rosen-
feld in 1947, April of 1947, had prepared, signed, and submitted a
petition for clemency on 26 of the accused, a very definite petition
in which they specifically set out what clemency they recommended
and why, and I expressed quite a bit of surprise about that, because I
had never heard of it before.
Colonel Ellis replied that he assumed that everybody had known
about it. H e had a copy-I believe he has a copy with him now of
that petition-and showed it to me. Now, I knom- that that petition
Tas not considered by Colonel Straight, never got to him. I t is not
Colonel Straight's fault, I am sure. It did not get to him. It never
got to the board of review in Frankfurt, and I know that because I
was there. I know it did not go to Colonel Straight because he men-
tioned in his review every one of those things that he got, and I know
that he has said that he has never seen it.
Now, that is a very important thing, because that petition would
have been considered by the board of review in Frankfurt and by Col-
onel Harbaugh and mentioned.
Senator MCCARTHP.That was cut off. That is why I am so inter-
ested in knowing where and why these various reviews and recommen-
dations were cut off.
Do you know where that was cut off 2
Colonel DWINELL.NO; I do not.
Senator MCCARTHY. I might say also in fairness to Colonel Ellis,
I have been r ~ c i v i n ga great number of letters pointing out improper
conduct of the interrogation team, improper conduct during the trial,
and almost without exception most of the men who have volunteered
this information-you understand that the trial was improperly con-
ducted-have felt rather kindly toward CoIonel Ellis and seemed to
think that he was, well, as one of the defense staff said, he was cer-
tainly one of the lesser evils there.
Colonel ELLIS. Thank you. [Laughter.]
Senator HUNT. Did you have anything further to state, Colonel?
Colonel DWINELL.Just one final thing; I made an error yesterday
when in the beginning of the testimony benator ~ a l d w i aasked me to
name the associate defense counsel that worked with,us. He also
asked me about their experience as trial lawyers, and I omitted-and I
would like to have this in the record-Mr. Walters7 namp Mr. Wal-
ters, who is now an attorney in Seattle, Wash., was associated with us,
and it is my recollection that he had had considerable experience in
trying cases before the Malincdg case.
Senator HUNT.Thank you, Colonel. I have not been here during
most of the time you have testified, but counsel here tells me that you
have made a very splendid witness, that you have attempted to be
very fair, and that you have presented your evidence in a most gentle-
manly manner, and the comnlittee wants to thank you for coming in
LIALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 471
and giving us the testimony mhich you have and conducting yourself in
the manner which you have.
Senator MCCARTHY.I would like to not only thank the colonel but
compliment him. I have had such an unpleasant experience so far
with witnesses who volunteer detailed inforination. Then, if they
happen to be in the position of yourself and are makiilg the Army a
regular career; that is as far as I could get. I could not get them to
'
come down here and testify.

Even though this may be personally embarrassin;: to you, the fact
that you come down here and freely testify certainly should be a com-
pliment for you. I want to thank you very much.
(Discussion mas had outside the record.)
Senator HUNT.The coinmittee mill adjourn until tomorrow inorn-
ing.
(Whereupon, a t 4: 05 p. in., an adjournment was taken until 10
a. m., Wednesday, May 11,1949, room 212, Senate. Office Building.)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 1949
UXITEDSTATES SENATE,
SUBCO~IMITTEE E EARMEDSERVICES,
OF THE C O ~ W I T TON
Washington,D. 0.
The subcoinmittee met, pursuant to adjournment, a t 10: 10 a. m.,
in room 212, Senate Office Buildin Senator Lester C. Hunt presiding,
Present : Senators Hunt (pesi%ng) and Baldwin.
Also present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy ; J. M. Chambers of the
committee staff; Francis Flanagan and Howell J. Hatcher of the staff
of the Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Expendi-
tures in Executive Departments ; Colonel Murphy, Colonel Ellis, Col-
onel Raymond, and Lieutenant Colonel Dwinell.
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. DWIGHT FANTON-Resumed
Senator HUNT. The committee will come to order. I have no ques-
tions to ask Major Fanton a t this time; so, Senator McCarthy, the
witness is yours.
Senator MCCARTHY. I know we have kept you waiting a long time;
major; however, that \i-as unavoidable.
Just for the time, being forgetting that part of the war crimes trial
that you were directly in charge of, I would like to get just a general
picture, if I could, of the chain of command, insofar as your war crimes
trials were concerned.
For the record, I don't think it has been put in the record yet, were
you a part of the military government a t that time, or were you-
well were you part of the military government?
d a j o r FARTON. NO; I mas assigned to USFET-United States
forces, European theater-to the Officeof the Judge Advocate General,
war crimes branch.
Senator MCCARTHY. And who was the Judge Advocate General at
that time?
Major FANTON. General Betts was Judge Advocate General a t that
tlme.
Senator MCCARTHY. IShe still J A G ?
Major FANTON. I don't believe so, Senator. I think he is--
Colonel ELLIS. He died in 1946.
Senator MCCARTHY. The Deputy J A G was who, at that time, if you
know ?
Major FANTON. Was Colonel Mickelwait the deputy judge advocate?.
I believe he was.
Senator MCCARTHY. And who is Deputy JAG, if you know.
Major FANTON. Sorry, I don't know.
473
Senator MCCARTHY.You were directly responsible to whom?

Major FANTON. I was directly responsible to Colonel Ellis, while I
was there.
Senator MCCARTHP.And Colonel Ellis was responsible to whom?
Major FANTON. I believe he was responsible directly to Colonel
&lickelwait, through Colonel Straight. Coloiiel Straight was the
executive officer for the branch.
Senator MCCARTHY.And Colollel Straight was with the Third
Army ; was he ?
Major FANTON. NO; he was with United States forces, European
theater, USFET. General McNamey was the coinmanding general a t
that time.
Senator MCCARTHY.And Straight mas also techilically in the JAG'S
office?
Major FANTON. T h a t is right.
Senator MCCARTHY.H e was colonel a t that time?
Major FANTON.
H e was a full colonel.
Senator MCCARTHY.SOthat Straight mas Iargely ciirectly in charge
of your operations?
Major FANTON. I would not say so.
Senator MCCARTHY.Ultimately.
Major FANTON. Ultimately, possibly he was. I think he certainly
was interested in what everybody in the branch was doing. . .
Senator MC~ARTHY. Hewas the man that signed the order asslgxnlg
the defense attorneys to their jobs, assigning the prosecution attorneys
to their particular tasks, also-in other words, he was in charge of both
the prosecution and defense, to a great extent?
Major FANTON. I can't answer that question, Senator, because I
wasn't there. I really don't know. A t the time of the trial I was not
there and don't know what the picture was.
It is my anderstanding that i t was under the Third Army. I have
seen the orders, but I don't recall how they were worded.
Senator MCCARTHY.I am trying to get the general picture of the
set-up.
Can you safely say this :That at practically all levels, the same officer
was in charge of assigning attorneys to the defense, assigning attor-
neys to the prosecution, so that one officer was in charge, largely, of the
defense and of the prosecution? I don't mean down a t the level of
goingaint o court.
Major FANTON.I know what you mean, and I wonld like to be as
definite as I can. Unfortunatelv. I wasn't there at the time. I am not
certain, but I believe you are Lorrect. I believe one officer here a t
headquarters mas responsible for both, and I think the Thircl Army
was in charge.
Senator MCCAIITHY.I n other words, there was no particular, in
effect, defense set-up ; there is no organization charged 11-it11 the job of
seeing that all the alleged war criminals had a proper defense? The
same organization that said they mould have proper prosecution, in
effect protected the defendants under it also?
Major FAITTON.Well, of course that is a little bit of a loaded ques-
tion. I think they were both interested in seeing that the prosecution
was properly represented ancl the defense m ~ properly
s reprewnted.
M A L M E D Y LMASSACRE I N V E S T I G A T I O N 475
I mean, we have had testimony here of course from Colonel Dwinell,
evidencing that he was eminently well qualified. Before I arrived,
1 understand Colonel Ellis gave similar testimony.
Senator MCCARTHY.I don't mean to belabor this testimony. I am
not speaking of the prosecution or defense in a case, but am I correct
in that the same individual, .the same organization, had the task of
assigning the prosecution, malung sure that the prosecution was prop-
erly handled, as took care of the defense of i t ?
Major FANTON. I believe that is correct. I f i t is not, I would like
to be corrected on it.
Senator MCCAFWHY.I s that correct ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. T h a t is correct, as I understand the situation. The
war crimes brancli or group a t theater level, literally had a pool of
people who, a t one time, might handle prosecution cases, and the next
time they might- be handling another group of cases from the defense
standpoint.
Now, specifically Strong, who will testify this afternoon, told me
n hen lie was cloxvn earlier, a i d didn't have a chance to testify, that
he handlecl both sides. I believe Colonel Dwinell said that generally
speaking, he was on the prosecution side ; but I think h e was assigned
twice as defense counsel, once i n this case, and once i n the case of
the W A C who was accused of stealing jewelry; so, I think what we
had was R pool of lawyers and assignments were made and a t what
Icvel is soi~iethingI think that me should clear later.
Senator MCCARTHY.Could I ask you this, Major: Forgetting, for
the time being, the handling of the specific cases a t Malmedy, take
the over-all set-up, first let me ask yon how long did you practice law
before you went in the service?
Jf ajar FANTOS. A year'and a half.
Senator MCCARTIIY.And graduated where?
Major FANTOK.Yale Law School.
Senator MCCARTISY.Where did you practice for that gear and a
hdf ?
Major FANTON.I practiced in Hartford, Conn., and Bridgeport.
Senator MCCARTHY.Who did you work with?
Major FANTOX. I started off with the Aetna Life Insurance Co.
Senator MCCARTHY.HOW long were you with the Aetna?
Major FANTON.I was there about 11months.
Senator MCCARTHY.And worked there inrestigatiag-
Major FANTON. No, my work there was as a counsel f o r the mort-
gage loan department, a particular type of specializecl work, involving
negotiable instru~nentslaws, real property laws, and local laws for all
States in which they made loans, 32, about, out of the 48.
Senator MCCAKTHY. And the other 7 months, where did you spend
that time?
Major FANTON.I spent that in Bridgeport with the law firm of
Pullmnn C" Comley.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Now, in the 11 months you spent with the
Aetna, did yon have occasion to go into court at all?
Major FANTOY.I TWS in court almost continually. I might adcl-
T think yoiw nest qlieqtion will bring it out-I was not of course in
el1arge of the cases.
Senator MCCARTHY.But you were sitting in?
Major FANTON.
That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. And this was on what type of work?
Major FANTON.
Mostly negligence work.
Senator M C C A R ~ YDefending-
.
Major FANTON. We had some contract work, I remember one o r

two contests, and I remember one will contest, but mostly we had
negligence work and-
Senator MCCARTHY. Largely automobile?
Major FANTON.
That is true.
Senator MCCARTHY. Defending cases-
Major FANTON.
We represented an insurance company, defending
these claims. .
Senator MCCARTHY.Speaking of the time you spent with Aetna-
Maior FANTON. Excuse me?
~ e i a t oM
r CCARTHY. The first 11months.
Major FANTON.
NO; during that time I was not in court.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUwere not?
Major FANTON. Because I had a different type of practice. It was
an office practice.
Senator MCCARTHY.For the other '7 months you were engaged
largely in defense work for insurance companies, largely in automo-
bile injury cases?
Major FANTON. That is true.
Senator MCCARTHY.And did you try any criminal work during
that time ?
Maior FANTON. I had two criminal cases that I handled mvself.
I w a i i n charge of these cases.
Senator MCCARTHY. What was the nature of those cases?
Major FANTON. One was an attempted rape case, and the other mas
a traffic violation.
Senator MCCARTHY. I won't ask you whether you mere successful
or not.
Major FANTON. I was with one, and not in the other.
Senator MCCARTHY. That would be a fairly good average, anyway.
Then, when you got into the service-you went in the service when.
what year ?
Major FANTON. April 29, 1942.
Senator MCCARTHY. A t what rank?
Major FANTON.
I went in as a private.
Senator MCCARTHY. A private?
Major FANTON.
Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. This was i n 1942, and then when did you
receive your commission ?
Major FANTON. I received it in-I
think it was November 1942.
Senator MCCARTHY. What month did you go in?
Major FANTON.
I went in in April.
Senator MCCARTHY. And then you went to officers' candidate school?
MMajorFANTON. That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. And was commissioned in November?
Major FANTON.
That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did YOU go directly to OCS from civilian life?
Major FANTON. NO- I went through what was called infantry basic
training, out at Fort Francis Warren, Cheyenne. That was 13 weeks.
MALMEDP LMASSACRE INVESTIGATIOIL' ' 477
Senator MCCARTHY. Then, when did you get into the combat
theater ?
Major FANTON. Well, there is quite a lapse of time. If you want
me to relate it to you, I can do it quickly.
Senator MCCARTHY. Principally, I would like to lead up to the time
you got into court work in the Army.
Major FANTON. Of course, when I was commissioned, I was sent
to the Third Air Service Command for assignment. I was sent down
to the Mobile control depot a t Mobile, Ala. Incidentally, I was com-
missioned a quartermaster officer. I was assistant quartermaster there
for, I guess, 2 or 3 months, and then Mobile became the headquarters
for the air service area command and moved from Atlanta to Mobile,
and become the Mobile Control Area Command. It was an Air Corps.
installation, air service command installation ; and then, I was, I guess
you would say, promoted to the assignment of assistant staff quarter-
master for the area. I served in that capacity for about 2 years.
Then, I went to the Command General Staff School, Fort Leaven-
worth. After I completed my training there, I went, on an Air Corps
quota, and I v a s selected to go to this staff officers' course, which was a
specialized course for Air Corps staff officers, and I was the only non-
flying officer in there. I still think there was a clerical error some-
where, but I enjoyed the training very much.
When I returned, I was assigned to an air depot gropp as quarter-
master supply officer. That mas a tactical nnit, and while we didn't
have any readiness date at the time I T T ~ Sassigned, we eventually heacl-
ed for the Pacific theater.
While I was serving in this capacity, I was selected to go to Europe
to articipate in this war crimes program which was then in June 1945.
8enator McCAnmr. June 1945? And then, what particular war
crimes trial were you first assigned t o ?
Major FANTON. Well actually, I mas assignecl to this investigation
subsection.
Senator MCCARTHY. Of the Malmedy case?
Major FANTON. It wasn't the Malmedy case a t that time. We spenr;
about a month, I guess i t was, the first month organizing-this was a
new organization.
Senator MCCARTHY. Yes?
Major FANTON. And in Paris, we had to set the thing up, promul-
gate rules and regulations and. orders to govern the procedure within
the organization, administrative work, and that I would say con-
sumed about a month.
Then, I was sent out and questioned witnesses and suspects on a:
variety of small cases. I remember one that I interviewed or interro-
gated, however you want to term it, an American citizen living in Paris
who had been an inmate of one of the concentration camps.
That was one particular assignment I recall.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOW long did you stay in this work of inter-
rogation ?
Major FANTON. I was in that for about, I T O L ~ Csay,~ another 3, o r
4 weeks.
Senator MCCARTHY. TThat was your rank, then-major ?
Major FANTON. NO; I was a captain.
Senator MCCARTHY. When did you make major?
Major FANTON.
I n December of 1945.
Senator MCCARTHT.December of 1945 2
Major FANTON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you were a major when you
were in charge of the Malniedy cases ?
Major FANTON. That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. When did you have your first court experience
in the Army? Was that in the Malmecly matter?
Major FANTON. NO. I am glad you came back to that because all
during the time I was a t Mobile, and after I went from Mobile to
Sail Antonio, Kelly Field, San Antonio, with this air depot group,
I was constantly engaged in jndge advocate work, either as trial judge
advocate, defense counsel mqst of the time, I might say, and as a
court member many times.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then, when did you have your first experience
in E u r o ~ ein connection with the trial of anv of the so-called war
criminak ?
Maior FANTON. I never had any experience in connection with the
trial, if you mean limiting it to the trial phase-
Senator MCCARTHY. AS defense counsel or prosecution?
Major FANTON. NO. I was, of course, I suppose yon would say,
on the prosecution staff in this case. However, a t the time I was in-
volved, I was-it was another investigation assignment.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you neTTerwent into court in connection
with the Malmedy cases; did you?
Major FANTON. NO;I did not.
Senator MCCARTIIY.You m-ere over there h i $ enougI~so that you
had a fairly good chance to size up the general set-up, I suppose, the
general administration
- - of justice, insofar as the war erimes trial was
concerned ?
Major FANTON. Well, that is a difficult question to answer. I can
give you the facts as I know them, but that calls for a conclnsion that
I do not think I would really be qualified to tins-er.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this, and if you don't care to
answer, all right :
Do you feel that the experience has beell such. and the general
set-up has been such that me should follow the same pattern, ~f and
when there is another war and v e should win that, in trying war
criminals ?
Major FANTON. I am glad you asked that question, because it is a
very important one.
I think there are undoubtedly many improvements that can be
made. I do not know that I am qualified to say just what they should
be. I do think that the program was very well conceived, initially,
in view of the practical difficulties that we were faced with at the
time. I t is very difficult for someone sitting nox and judging it to
really understand how it developed.
There was, of course, some lost motion, and there always is in the
development of something entirely new.
I might say, before I went to Europe, I spent 3 or 4 days here in
Washington-
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me interrupt for the time being.
111 this part of the question, I am concerned largely with what, if
any, recommendations for changes you think shoulcl be made. I am
not worried about any reasons why the thin2 m a y have been badlj
MALMEDT MASSACRE INYESTIG.4TION 479
set up, or well set np. Perhaps a good job was done, perhaps a bad
job, in the haste of the moment; but, you are a lawyer, you h a r e been
over there looking over the situation and I wonder if you have any
definite ideas for the improvement of the picture.
.Major FANTOS. NOW.I take i t you are referring to the way the
program was set u p and ad~ninistered.
Senator MC~ARTIII-.The way it functioned, principally.
Major FANTON.
Yes?
Senator MCCARTHY.F o r example, one of the questions I planned
to ask you later, after yon answered that, is whether you think it is
well to have the prosecution, the defense, and the appeal all con-
centrated under one head so the man who appoints the prosecution
staff, appoints the clefeiise staff, and also passes upon tlie appeals,
, in effect, if you can call that the effect of it. Do you think that is
a good judicial system to be followed in the future?
Major FANTOK. Of course, in answer to your question, that is the
way military justice functions, and I nnderstand in the Navy, as
well as the ,4riny. that you do hare under your cominai~cl,coinlnaliding
general, or commanding oilicer, a unit who is responsible for the
administration of justice within his unit. and i n discharging that
responsibility he is obliged to have a qualified trial judge advocate to
handle the prosecutions of cases involving military offenses, involving
military personnel; and also, he is obliged, I would think, to assign
qualified defense counsel.
I would think, jnst to try and answer your question briefly. I think
i t is quite i1nport:tnt that qualified personnel be available so that, and
then of course it is a niatter for the individual who is in command, it
is a command responsibility, and I think generally my experience i n
the Army was that both sides were fairly well treated.
Senator MCCAIITIII-. I am going to ask you to do this f o r me: T r y
and concentrate on the questions I ask ancl stick to an answer to that.
Major FANTOK.I was trying to ansmer.
Senator M c C s ~ r r n r .The question is this: Do you feel, I know you
don't have much of a legal backgronnd to q ~ ~ a l i as f y an expert i n this,
but you did have some experience-do you feel that you get a good
brand of justice when you have the defense, prosecution and the ap-
peal---
. Major F a s ~ o s And . the court.
Senator MCCARTI-II-. And the court, the whole complete set-up un-
der the same head? Do you think so?
Major FANTON. I am trying to answer your question. I don't want
to appear evasive, but i n the light of practical difficulties as I know
them, I think i t mould be difficult to devise any other system. I
believe that that is a good system, if properly administered. There
are certain dangers there, ancl I don't think it fair to compare the
military justice system with tlie civilian system. I don't thinlc you
can compare the probleias involved, because they are entirely different.
S-uator McC IRTIIT. DO yo11 think then that i t is essentially a good
systcii~as it is. 7,-it11 t h e court. p~.osecutioii,the defense, ant1 appeal
concentrated under o ~ i head, e ant1 mith no appeal from that particular
head, as we have today? I n other words, mith our United States
Supreme Court saying that we have no right to review the case, do
you think that is a good system of justice? Do you think we should
480 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIG.4TION
follow that in the future, or do you think we should recommend

changes ?
Major FANTON. I can't go along with your claim that there is no
appeal. I believe there is appeal. I know, within my own experience
with military justice, I remember one desertion case I had thab I
fought with all the tenacity I could summon, and I recall that the
sentence was reduced and the charge of desertion was set aside on
appeal, or on review, by the service command. That was a case in
the States, but the same thing applies, I believe, to the war crimes
cases, because the set-up is similar.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you have any occasioi~to make any study
of the rules of the General Convention; that is, the agreement that we
made prior to this war with Germany and other nntions for the treat-
ment of prisoners of war ?
Major FANTON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhad occasion to go into that?
Major FANTON.
FVell, I started to tell you a while back there, there
were 2 or 3 days of an orientation course before we went over to
Europe on this war crimes program, and in the course of which I
have forgotten the exact designation of the text, we were briefed on
the rules of land warfare as adopted at the Geneva Convention.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you feel that when yon were in charge
of the interrogation, you were sufficiently acquainted with those
rules ?
Major FANTON. That is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you were investigating violations of those
rules on the part of German war prisoners?
Senator MCCARTHY. German combat soldiers?
Major FANTON.
Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Your job was investigating and providing the
evidence to convict any of these German soldiers of violations of the
rnles of the Geneva Convention?
Major FANTON. That is correct; if they committed them we were
sup osed to et the material facts.
d n a t o r &CARTHY. That was the ground mle--
Senator MCCARTHY. Which governed your actions, right-the Ge-
neva Convention rules?
Major FANTON. Well, I think it is fair to say that of course we
wanted to comply with them insofar as it was possible.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Did you find at the time it was impossible to
comply with the rules of the Geneva Convention?
Major FANTON. Of course, as I said in my statement, I don't think
the law has ever been completely cleared as to just when a prisoner
of war, suspected of war crimes, changes from a prisoner of war
statns to that of a war criminal status, or war criminal suspect. We
did our best, Senator McCarthy.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me interrupt you there. What is there
in the rules of the Geneva Convention covering that point-is there
something in the rules of the Geneva Convention that states at a
certain stage of the investigation a man ceases to have the protection
accorded by the Geneva Convention rules, and that then he is put in
a differentstatus and treated in a different fashion? I s there anything
in the Geneva Convention rules to that effect?
Major FANTON. Not that I know of. I believe international law-
and you have a manual there, so maybe you can correct me if I am
in error-but I believe international law, and I think it is cited in
Colonel Straight's review and recommendation here, holds that if
you have a war criminal suspect, with reasonable grounds to suspect
him of implication in a war crime, he is no longer considered as an
honorable prisoner of war, and while he certainly has some basic
inalienable human rights, all the niceties and technical rules of the
Geneva Convention do not apply.
Senator MCCARTEIY. I n other words, you say after you suspect a man
of violating the rules of the Geneva Convention-
Major FANTON. AS I understand it, any war crimes-
Senator MCCARTHY. Any war crimes?
Major FANTON.
Violating the laws of war, or the international law.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let's get it straight. The law that controls is
the formal agreement that we signed, that Germany signed, the rules
covering land warfare, killing prisoners of war, any of the crimes
we have alleued that the German soldiers did were violations of the
rules of the 8eneva Convention-right ?
Senator MCCARTHY. And you were sent over there to investigate
and get the evidence to convlct these men of a violation of the rules
of land warfare ;is that right?
Senator MCCARTEIY. And now, in doing that, you say you tried to
follow the rules of the Geneva Convention, the rules of land warfare
yourself, insofar as possible ;is that right?
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you tell us under what circumstances you
found it impossible for your staff to follow the rules of the Geneva
'Convention Ir
Major FANTON. I will be glad to, because I think it is an important
~ o i nand
t one that should be clarified.
We did, of course, have a lot of screening before we ever took the
prisoners to the Schwabisch Hall interrogation center. Of course, it
was not my responsibility to see that they were treated as prisoners
of war-
Senator MCCARTHY. I t wasn't your responsibility?
Major FANTON. NO, because I didn't have any command responsi-
bility. It was all a matter of professional courtesy, for the camp
commander to let me come in and interrogate prisoners. I never had
any difficulty, and I also had a pass to go in, when we went to Ebensee,
and Plattling, and several others-1 don't remember the exact desig-
nations now-and internee center 78 was a war crimes enclosure. How-
ever, there again we had a Third Army unit that I believe was in
command-maybe i t was the Seventh Army, I am not clear-and
they were treated as prisoners of war, all these prisoners who were
evacuated in accordance with a command T W X that was sent out,
the were assembled and treated as prisoners of war.
Anator MCCARTHY.Was it your f ~ ~ n c t i oton make sure that your
interrogation staff, your team, call i t what you may, treated the Ger-
man war prisoners in accordance with the rules of the Geneva Con-
vention ? Was that your function?
Major FANTON. Well, I would say so, or certainly we were not-
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUwould say SO-
Major F'ANTON. There was no license for us to violate those rules,
just because I didn't have command responsibility of the enclosure, in
answer to your question. I think that is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUfound that it was your responsibility to
make sure that your team over which you had control, I assume, woidd
act in accordance with the Geneva Convention?
Major FANTON. T h a t is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUdidn't feel you were entitled to violate
the rules in proving that the German soldiers had violated them?
Major FANTON. NOW, I will have to esplain things a little, in
answer to your question.
Senator MCCARTHT.I wish you wonld.
Major FANTON. We, as I say, screened those prisoners. We elim-
inated as many as we could from our suspect catego1.y and those
that we eliminated were sent to another prisoner of w a r enclosure.
We had a time limit. We made mistakes, of course, I remember one
in particular, one of our principal accused in these cases, er:icau-
ated through error, to a PW enclosure because we did it so quickly.
We had t o make room for other criminals. I t mas quite an assignment.
I n 2 weeks I think TT-escreenecl over a thousancl prisoners.
Now, when we had determined that they had an affiliation or con-
nection with these units, and i t was such that thej- might be impli-
cated in this thing, they were then evacuated to Schmabisch Hall.
There, of course, we could not follow the rules of the Geneva Con-
vention with respect to the treatnient of prisoners of war. We did so,
as far as we could, and gave them rery good rations, better rations than
we were required to, and took care of their physical needs.
There has been some testinion here, a little testimony as to whether
1
they had washing facilities. T ey had wash basins brought to their
cells-I may be incorrect, but I believe i t was a t least once or twice
a week.
That may not sound like very much. but it n-as an attempt to
handle the situation and cope with the practical difficulties.
Vie had trustees-
Senator MCCARTHY. May I interrupt and get you back to my
question ?
After yon screened then1 and decided that they might be war crim-
inals, in other words they that might have violated the rules of the
Geneva Convention, that is our definition of war criminals, I assume.
Major FANTON. I n this case.
Senator MCCARTHY. Anyone that didn't violate the rules of the
Geneva Convention, that follo~~ecl the rules insofar as land warfare
was concerned, he as not a war criminal?
Major F'ANTON.That would be right.
Senator MCCARTHY.SO:when yo11 say "war criminxl," you refer
to a man who violatecl the rules of the Gene)-%Convention'd
Major FASTOX.W a r crimes suspect, oiie snspectecl of such a vio-
lation.
Senator McCawrr-IY. After you suspected then1 of liaving violated
the Geneva Convention rules, then they were moved to Schwabisch
Hall ?
Senator MCCARTHY.Then you say you no longer followed the rules
of the Geneva Coilvention insofar us those men were concerned?
Major FANTON. With the exception that we did, insofar as possible,
follow them. We could not for instance-could not let them exercise,
in answer to your question ; we didn't humiliate them, or assign them
to dangerous missions, of course it wasn't wartime, and I assume
other things of that nature, but to my knowledge, none of that was
done.
I remember Peiper had a cell i n the hospital ward. H e was given
reading material. I myself gave him some stuff to read, as I recall.
H e was well treated, and the other officers, insofar as possible were
treated, insofar as it was consistent with OLW interrogation and with
the job we had to do.
Senator MC~BRTHY. I n other words, if you felt that following the
Geneva Convention rules was inconsistent with your interrogation,
you felt jnstified i n violating the rules yourself, is that right?
Major FANTON. I don't like the word "violation" but I suppose that
is a correct statement, because I felt about it this way: I don't think
the rules apply, I may be wrong, and if I am I am ~ ~ i l l i to n gstand on
that. I don't think they d-o
Senator MCCARTIIY.YOU don't think the rules apply after you
suspect the man of having violated the rules ?
Major FANTON. T h a t is right. Of course, I am assuining you do
so on reasonable grounds. There were undoubtedly some people who
were evacuated to this prison who never committed a war crime, and
were perfectly deceit soldiers. I doa7t know how many, but there
were undoubtedly some in that category.
Senator MCCARTHY.Were you not instructed i n your briefing, or
didn't you determine yourself, as a major, a rather important rank
in the Army, that the Geneva Convention rules were to apply i n all
circnn~stancesuntil it is proven that the man himself has violated
those rules, proven in a regular court, and after it has been proven
that he has violated those rules, that then he could no longer claim
the rules and protection, but up to that point, some lieutenant or major
or sergeant could not determine when and under what circumstances
this law of nations applies-isn't that your understanding?
Major FANTON. I am not trying to dodge responsibility, because I
don't think I have to. I did take this matter up-
Senator MCCARTEIY.Forgetting for the time being, your own situ-
ation-it is a question of to what extent-
Major FANTON. It is difficult to answer.
Senator MCCARTHY.Forgetting your own situation, i t is a very iin-
portant q~~estion, to cletermne to what extent our interrogation teams
or courts felt they were bouilcl by these laws which we s~gned. Now,
as I understand the rules of the Geneva Convention, and I did some
defense work and prosecution work myself in the service and out of
the service, and I spent a lot of time as a judge, i t is illy understanding
though, that those rules are for the protection of the enemy soldiers,
prisoners of war, for both sides to observe those rules until it has
been roven in any court that they themselves have violated the rules
f
and t a t under no circumstances could some junior officer in the Army
or Navy or the Marine Corps decide, upon his own responsibility,.that
because he suspected a man of having violated the rules, that then he
himself will violate those rules in the treatment of those men. YOU
see, when we passed those rules it is assumed that they are adequate
to protect both sides, and that you can get convictions of men who
have violated those rules without violating the rules yourself. You
understand that to be the situation, don't you?
Major FANTON. Well, I think yon have put it quite well, with this
exception-that in a situation such as this, and in many criminal cases
I might say in this country, as well as other countries, if you allowed
a man to go free, you would never be able to investigate him. Now,
of course I don't mean to get off the track, we are talking about the
Geneva Convention, and the fact of the matter is that this case would
never have been investigated, it would just as well be forgotten about,
if we had to comply strictly to the rules of the Geneva Convention.
I talked that over with everybody who was in a position of respon-
sibility in this thing, including the Army provost marshal, and the
Army judge advocate, and we all came to the same conclusion; we
were faced with a practical field problem, where we either had a choice
of accomplishing our investigation, apprehending these people, identi-
fying the ones who were implicated in this thing, or turning around
and reporting to our commanding generals,~commandingofficers all
the way up the line to the commanding general of the Army, that this
case might just as well be forgotten, i t couldn't be investigated, and
these people would never be able to be brought to trial.
That was the practical situation with which we were dealing.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, see if I have it right: You
decided after talking to some of your superior officers u and down
6
the line, that if you were to be bound by the rules of the eneva Con-
vention, that then you never could get convictions in the cases?
Major FANTON. Insofar as this group was concerned that we had
interrogated.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUunderstand that et7ery time the district
attorney is brought before a court, or the prosecution in any case in
this country, when they are accused of violating the rights of indi-
viduals, the rules w'e have set down, that that is the claim in about
every case, that we couldn't have convicted a man unless we beat the
hell out of him, in a cell-
Major FANTON. Wait a minute there.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO YOU h o w that any court ever approved of
that, in our courts, in this Nation?
Major FANTON. Certainly not, not the may you put it, Senator.
Yon have a few words in there that don't belong in there.
Senator MCCARTHY. Well, let's make it more gentle. Let's say the
district attorney No. A comes before a court, and he is accused by the
bar of violating the rights of the defendant in criminal cases.
Major FANTON. YOUmean by-
Senator MC~ARTI-IY. He is
up before the court on a disbarment pro-
ceeding. I t is claimed that he has violated the law consistently in
attempting to get confessions. H e doesn't follow the rules and r e p -
lations our courts have set down. I n every case that I ever heard of,
the defendant always says, LLWell, I had to do it. We couldn't get
convictions if we didn't do it," and I don't know of a single court
in this country that has said, "That justifies your violation of the rules.
You can take it upon yourself to decide when these rules are to be
followed and when they are to be violated."
That is an analagous situation.
Major FANTON. I am interested in your discussion, because I have
in mind that this might come up, I did have, and so discussed this
matter with the public defenders in Fairfield County, Superior Court,
the highest appellate court, to determine what his experience has
been. After all, I had had limited experience in this matter, and I
went to experts, and he is defending criminals every day, and of
course my inquiry was directed more at these claims of duress, and
so forth, not specifically in the matter you mentioned, but from his
replies I judge that it is quite common to have a man arrested, sus-
pected of a misdemeanor or a felony, and having been questioned, and
of course if he is treated unfairly, if confessions were extorted from
him that are not true? and that fact comes put and the methods have
sufficiently reprehensible, I would expect him to be disciplined.
Senator MCCARTHY. I thought you were going to proceed further
for a moment.
Major FANTON. NO, I am sorry. I was answering your question,
directed as I understand it, to our civil procedure in this country
rather than the military procedure that we discussed initially.
Senator MCCARTHY. We have rules in this country covering the
treatment of men who are accused of crimes.
Senator MCCARTHY. We have decided after long years of expe-
rience, how to properly protect the accused, and at the same time
properly protect society; and, our law enforcement officers,are bound
by those rules. They cannot take it upon themselves to decide when
it is necessary for them to violate the rules, isn't that right? They
are running into difficulties then.
Major FANTON. Anybody who is in a position where they have to
take some action, where they are the moving party, always has to make
those decisions.
Now, if they do violate the law, then it is their responsibility and
they have to take that risk, if they violate the law. I am assuming
there is a violation.
This is very argumentative.
Senator MCCARTHY.
risk of being caught?
-
What risk do they take in violating i t ? The
Major FANTON. Of being disciplined.
Senator MCCARTHY. Disciplined?
Major FANTON.
Every man has to decide whether he is violating the
law, or conducting himself properly.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUtold us you decided, over in Europe, after
discussing with your superior, officers, that yon had to violate it.
Major FANTON. I didn't say that.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUhad to violate the rules of the Geneva
Convention, tkie rules that bound you, and said if you followed them,
you couldn't'get convictions. I wonder what risk you thought you
were taking by violating the rules of the Geneva Convention.
Major FANTON. Senator, I don't want to be argumentative. I said

that the rules did not apply, that was our conclusion, that they did not
apply. I f we were incorrect, I am not goin to dodge my responsibili-
ty, and the people who know all of the i!acts of what we were up
against feel that we acted-if they feel we acted improperly, I
think we all ought to be censurecl.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid that the rules did not apply after you
suspected a man, is that right?
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,will you tell us what rules did apply?
Major FANTON. I think that all the rules applied except those that
you had to--well, say, we were talking about---
Senator MCCARTHY. Those that interfered with getting a
conviction ?
Major FANTON. That was a lawyer's question, and a good one. Mr.
Flanagan trapped me on that one.
No, I did make that statement, but it was ill-advised. The rules did
not apply, anyway. However, there are certain rules we have. We
all have a conscience in that matter. I am sure of that, and we cer-
tainly were not going-we knew what those rules were, and we knew
that they required us to feed prisoners properly, clothe them properly,
care for their health, see that they were not assigned to dangerous
missions, see that they were not humiliated, and, insofar as po&ible,
since those rules were expressive, we will say, of international common
law with respect to treating prisoners of war, humanly, of course we
wanted to do that. I don t think there has ever been any question
about that, among those of us who know what happened.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUsay the rules did not apply after you sus-
pected them. What instructions did you give your team in this ques-
tioning? Did you tell them that the rules did not apply and that they
were to follow their conscience ?
Major FANTON. Well, that is another very difficult question for me
to answer, because to be honest-
Senator MCCARTHY. It is important.
Major FANTON. I don't recall. I do know that we had set pro-
cedures for handling those people, reduced to writing, a couple of
weeks before I left.
Senator MCCARTHY. Well then, did you inform your staff that the
rules did not apply, after you had listed these men as suspects?
Major FANTON. I don't think, Senator, to be honest with you, that I
discussed the matter of the rules with my staff, for this reason: That
I gave them instructions regarding what to do and what not to do.
We had no responsibility with respect to clothing these prisoners and
keeping them warm and feedin them and seeing that they were not
P
abused, except insofar as it invo ved our interrogation of them.
Now, of course all the people on my staff. I am sure, understood
that they were obliged not to-there has been some claim of depriva-
tion of foods. I am certain that mas never done. There has been
no testimony I have heard-
Senator MCCARTHP.Getting back to nly qi~estionagain. Did you
ever instruct your team that they were not bound 11. the rules covering
the treatment of ordinary prisoners of war ?
Major FANTON. NO; I didn't, Senator.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I find in your statement, the stgtement-
i t would have been utterly impossible to have investigated this case with any
hope of success if the suspects evacuated to t h e interrogation center had been
treated a s oydinary prisoners of war.
Did you discuss that with your team-the iiupossibility ~f getting
convictions, if you treated them as ordinary prisoners of war?
Major FANTON. Oh, yes. You mean, i n other words-we did dis-
cuss it to this extent, I am glad you asked that question, because i t
shoufld be explained.
We could not allow these people to communicate with each other.
T h a t stands to reason, because-we found definite evidence, it was
admitted later on in the courts of the interrogations that they had,
colluded, they got together and conspired and are still doing it for that
matter, or trying t o do it.
Senator MCCBRTHY.1am not asking you t o give any justification
for the things that happened a t t h a t time. I an1 asking you whether
or not you conxnnnicated to your staff what you stated i n this com-
mittee-
i t would have been ulterly ilupossible to have investigated this case with any
hope of success if the suspects evacuated to the interrogation center had been
treated a s ordinary prisoners of war.
Did yo~ztell them any of t h a t ?
Major FANTON. YOUasked me if me d i d ?
Senator MCCARTFII-.You did ?
Major Falv~on-.Certi~inlj,we discussed ~ t .
Senator MCCARTHY.And did your staff understand that they were
not bound to treat these men as ordinary prisoners of war, not asking
for your justification, but whether or not they understood that.
Major FANTON. I know what you are asking me, and I will do my
best to answer, to the best of my recollection.
Senator MCCARTHT.Thank you.
Major FANTON.Your question implies that they were given license
to disregard all rules. Of course they were not. They were instructed
carefully and repeatedly t h a t there would be no manhandling, no
brute force exercised-in fact, i t was never brought u p i n that way.
I issued the instructions, but we planned this thing out. Some of
the techniques used were discussed, but they were told that there must
be no force used, there must be no duress and most of these interroga-
tors were lawyers. They knew what those words meant and they had
necessarily to be, to interpret and apply tliein. They were not told
anything about clothing and food, because that was not our respon-
sibility. They were told, however, that these other rules would be
followed.
You see, after all, we didn't want anything to be questioned, if we
could avoid it.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did YOU instr~zctyour staff that any type of
deception was all right. as long as they didn't use pl~ysicalforce?
Major FANTON.I did say that ruses and strategems, if you want
to call i t that, deception, certainly, I said so. We had to. Some of
lhese witnesses mere cooperative. Some came forward and volun-
teered stories. Most of them, however, the great number I should say,
I don't k n o exactly
~ ~ v h athe
t nuwber was, mere not cooperative. T h e
very nature of tlie relationship was such that they -\yerenot coopera-
tive. They had to be tricked.
488 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOR
Senator MCCARTHY. Not cooperative? Let's take a case and see

what we mean by L'cooperative.7'
How about the case where the soldier confessed that he went into
this home and killed a Belgium woman and signed a confession to
that d e c t ? I assume that when he signed that confession he thought
he was cooperating. Let me ask you 'this question : When you later
discovered that the husband signed an affidavit to the effect that no
German soldiers had even been in -his home, that his wife had been
killed by American artillery fire, did you still think that the man that
signed that confession was cooperative? Or did you think he was
u&ooperative?
Major F'ANTON. I'm sorrp, Senator, I don't recall the man. I f you
could give me the facts, I might be able to.
Senator MCCARTHY. Max Rieder.
Major FANTON. Max Rieder? I don't recall him at all.
Senator MCCARTHY. The confession is in the file. It was testified
to yesterday. Now, when that was called to your attention-another
confession in this case, I assume when your staff got that confession,
and finally he signed it, you felt that that was a nice cooperative boy;
but when he refused to sign it you considered it noncooperative?
Major FANTON. That is not properly-
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwent in the cell, one of the interrogators
to try to get t,he fellow to confess t o a crime. You thought he was
guilty and let us assume that he was guilty, thought this fellow was
guilty of killing that woman in her home, and he went in the cell and
the soldier said, "I never killed her. I \I-asn7tthere and I won't sign
a confession." Up to that point, you woulcl say he is extremely un-
cooperative.
Major F'ANTON. YOUhave given me the facts, sir?
Senator MCCARTMM. I know it.
Major FANTON. And, you are asking me to draw a conclusion from
that. I think it was obvious that-let me put my meaning a little
more clearly. H e had been cooperative, and some of them were,
there has reference been made to these Tales of Hoffmann-
Senator MCCARTHY. Let's stick to that man.
Major FANTON. We are on the issue of cooperative witnesses, and
I am trying to explain what I mean.
Senator MCCARTHY.I am going to get this from you if I keep you
here a week, and I will make you answer all tlie questions asked. I
don't care how much you-
Senator HUNT.Let's be a little more courteous with the witness.
Let's not attempt any browbeating or that type of proceeding.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. I am going to get tlie answer from the witness.
I don't care how long it takes, unless the Chair rules that I can no
lon er cross-examine.
g n a t o r HUNT.The Chair is certainly not attempting to limit your
cross-examination.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I asked a question-what yon consider coopera-
tion. H e said he did violate the rules when a nian was noncooperative,
and I was giving him an example of a confession extracted from that
man. a confession proven to be absolutely false; and I have asked him
whether he felt that nian was noncooperative and he said he was not
guilty of that crime. I think it is an honest and fair question.
Senator HUNT.The witness may answer in his own way, and
amplify his answer as he wishes, Senator.
Senator MC~BRTHY. I f you think I am being unfair, Major, I wish
you would tell me. It is possible that in my desire to get you to answer
these questions I may be. I certainly appreciate the Chair calling
my attention to the fact, anytime I am unfair to the witness.
Major FANTON. I want to get this thing clear. I think it is im-
portant. I wanted to give you an exaniple of a cooperative witness,
because I think it is important to get that clear. We had testimony
here yesterday indicating that one of these witnesses whose statement
or confession was introduced in evidence, had manufactured or had
given an implausible story.
Senator MCCARTHY. Can I read to you the confession this man
signed, according to the record?
Major FANTON. I f you can give me the page.
Senator MC~BRTHY. It was

on page 126, the man was Max Rieder,
the town was Bullingen, a little village, and the statement is as follows :
Bullingen : The accused stated in his extrajudicial sworn statement t h a t about
1100 hours December 17, 1944, he and Sergeant H a a s reached the village of
Bullingen and entered t h e kitchen of a house where they found a woman about 40
years of age. Haas asked the woman whether there were any American soldiers
i n the house. When she replied in the negative Haas ordered the accused to
"bump her off." The accused then took his rifle and while standing approxi-
nlately 3 meters away from the woman, shot her through the forehead and she
collapsed dead.
And, another one :
Bullingen: An extrajudicial sworn statement dated June 26, 1946, and signed
by the mayor and registrar of t h e community of Bullingen certified t h a t a Mrs.
Anton Jonsten died in Bullingen on December 17-18, 1944, and that list in the
registrar's office containecl no other case of death from unknown causes during
1944. I n a n extrajudicial sworn statement Anton Jonsten, stated his wife was
killed by American artillery fire on the 16th or 17th of December 1944 in Bullin-
gen while she mas outside her house attempting to flee from combat and that
her body bore marks indicating t h a t death was caused by the explosion of a
grenade.
I f you could explain to me, and I think this is very important, how
your interrogators got not only a confession but a statement froiii one
of the witnesses to the effect that he had witnessed this shooting, a
shooting which never occurred, that would be of great benefit to us.
We would like to know how you got it, in this particular case. It may
shed light on how they got it in other cases.
We want to know, for example, who took the statement. I want to
know where it was gotten, want to know how many times the man was
interrogated, how long he remained uncooperative before he got co-
operative and signed the statement.
Major FANTON. May I have a minute t o read that, Senator?
Senator MCCARTHY. We will get you the statement, too.
Major FANTON.
Yes, I will be interested to see it.
(There mas a brief recess.)
Major FANTON. Senator-excuse me.
Senator MCCARTHY. They are getting the statement, if you prefer

that.
Major FANTON. I would, because that would be more in detail.
Senator M c c m r ~ Then,
~ . you would be able to know who took the
statement.
,490 MALMEDY LMASSACRE INVESTIGATION
(There was a brief recess.)

Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, it develops now that Major
Fanton was not i n charge at the time this particular confession was
taken, and with the chairman's permission, I would like to put Colonel
Ellis on.
(There was discussion off the record.)
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, Colonel Ellis informs me that
this was taken at the time he was in charge. I think this is a very
important point, to find out how they got a confession which obvi-
ously is untrue, and with the chairman's permission I would like to
call Colonel Ellis to clear this matter up for us, if he would.
Major FANTON. Senator, I don't want to interrupt your train of
thought on this, but I think I have an explanation here that is im-
portant, and it is one that we have encountered before on these things,
and may have some bearing on your line of questioning.
Senator MCCARTHY. I would like your explanation.
Major FANTON. I personally think you have got the wrong person.
I don't think it was Mrs. Anton Jonsten. I an1 aware of the fact that
the list in the registrar's office contained no other case of death, but of
course we are presuming to judge a very serious matter, and it seems
to me without having the registrar here, or without having any way
of determining how the records were kept, how accurate they were,
whether they were partially destroyed, or what the situation was, this
may be an entirely different person, and in my opinion it does not
prove that the confession in incorrect. I don't think this man, I may
say further I am certain this man wasn't convicted. While this was
certainly in evidence, he wasn't convicted on this incident primarily
because it is one of the few cases where I notice there is no corrobora-
tion and I am almost certain that he was convicted on the crossroads
incident as related in this R. and R., that is my explanation and I
think it is a good lawyer's explanation.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Let's stick to this confession. I find that
Lieutenant Perl signed as a witness. From that, can me assume that
Perl took this confession?
Major FANTON. Not necessarily.
Mr. CHANBERS. Senator McCarthy, may I answer that? I have
the record of trial before me, and it shows that Lieutenant Perl did
take the confession.
Now, you say that you think you have got the - wrong person here?
Major FANTON. I say that is a possibility. I am not making any
positive statement on it. This was an explanation. I personally
don't believe it is a false confession, because I know how these things
were secured. I am in a better position in that regard, I believe, ancl
necessarily so, than anyone else would be.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think this is interesting. Yon think the
confession was not false?
Major FANTON. I don't know, because that is opinion 011 my part,
of course.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I t is your opinion that the confession mas
true ?
Major FANTON. That is my opinion.
Senator MCCARTHY. And

are you taking into consideration the fact
that the mayor ancl the registrar said that mas the only death that
was from other than natural causes i n thnt town during that month
or year?
Major FANTON. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.And that the husband of the woman testified
that no German soldier shot her, and that she died-
Major FANTON. I think so-
Senator MCCARTHY.You still say that is your opinion?
Major FAIWON. 011, yes. I don't think you were indicating that
this was a false confession based on these deductions, and I am say-
ing that they are not conclusive by any means, because we have no
way of knowing whether Mrs. Anton Jonsten was the person involved
at all in the shooting. We have no may of knowing that.
Senator MCCARTHY.You think you have it right down, do you?
Major FANTON. Well, I would imagine so. I haven't read the
statement.
Senator MC~BRTHY. I t is important. You tell us you think this
is a true confession, this village described was a very small crossroads
tonm-do you follow nie ?
Major FANTON. I don't know.
Senator MCCARTHY.I wanted what you base your opinion on. You
say you think this confession is not false.
Major FANTON. I will be glad to tell you what I base my opinion
on, because I have a high regard for Lieutenant Perl, because I worked
with him, and I know how he interrogates. H e is an extremely able
interrogator.
Senator MCCARTHY.I gather as much.
Major FANTO;.;. H e is; there is no question about it. H e has a
rema1-kable background. This is very important, because he is being
judged withol~tbeing present to speak for himself. I think he will
be his ow11 best witness, but I would like to put this in, because it i s
very important, and i t played an important p a r t in our selection of
Lieutenant Perl.
H e was a man approaching 40, and-in his late thirties, with a very
unusual background of interrogation. I-Ie has a n M. A., Ph. D., and
a n LL, D. from the University of Vienna, which, I think, speaks f o r
itself.
Senator RICCARTHY. I voulcl like to go into the bacliground of Per1
later.
Major FANTON. I brought thzt i n ; you asked my opinion, and I
thought this was a true confession. My own opinion is that we had
no false confessions. I f i t can be demonstrated definitely that some
of the confessions ITere beyond any doubt false, then I would have t o
admit thnt there mas soinething peculiar.
Senator MCCARTHP.L ~ t ' ssay you are sitting i n judgment on
that--
Major FANTON.There shoulcl be an explanation-
S3nator RICCARTIIY.I would like to know what you need i n addi-
tion to what we have. You have a little crossroads village, the mayor
of the villege says that no woman was killed i n this village except
Mrs. Anton Jonsten. She is the only one. The registrar says the
same thing-no 11-oman was killed except Mrs. Anton Jonsten. Tlle
11~1sbanclsigns an affidavit to the effect that his wife, Mrs. Anton Jon-
91765-49--32
sten, was not shot, as this witness and the accused says she was shot,
. by a German soldier, shot in the forehead-they say she was killed as
she was running away from the coinbat zone.
Now, what more do you want to convince you that the confession
was false ?
Major FANTON. A lot more.
.
Senator MCCARTHY. I would like to know what.
Major FANTON.
I would 1ike.h have a chance to observe these peo-
ple and see what their credibility was, know, not that they are lying,
but see how well their recollection stacks up with the facts as we lmow
them. Here they have given an affidavit---
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUintroduced this into evidence, didn't you?
Major FANTON. I didn't.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUknow it was introduced, you know that,
don't you ?
Major FANTON. I know that it is in the R. and R.
Senator MCCARTIIY.YOUknow that when the defense counsel tried
to show how the confession was gotten, not the confession of the other
witness, how it was gotten, Mr. Rosenfeld says, "You can't go into
that because it wasn't brought out on direct examination."
You know that.
Major FANTON. Senator, I know this-I am very glad yon raised
this qnestion, it is 17eryimportant-I Irnorv this : That the defense was

given an opportunity on voir dire, when all the statements were intro-
duced, to get up and question the methods in securing them, to my
knowledge, and, of course, I am relating this from what I have been
told by Colonel Ellis-that was not done in a single case.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know, let me ask you, did you go over
the-
Major FANTON. The record? No.
Senator MCCARTEIY. The afficlavit submitted to the Supreme Court
with excerpts from the record.
Major FANTON. I certainly did.
Senator MCCARTHY. And did you find in that, that when the defense
would try to show how statements were obtained, before the court,
that is, that the law member moulcl rule that they could not do that,
because it was not gone into on direct examination, in other words,
because the prosecntion didn't show how the statement was obtained,
the defense could not obtain that.
Do you know of your own knowledge that that is in the affidavit,
with the page of the record cited, the verbatim record, showing that
that is what Rosenfeld did? Do you know that?
Major FANTON. Senator, let me answer it this way: I have the
petition here, and if you allow me to refresh my recollection, maybe
you can tell me where-
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know it now without refreshing your
recollection ?
Major FANTON. I don't know it now, because I have to refresh my
recollection. The petition contains so much that was untrue and
distorted that frankly I had a hard time believing anything contained
in it.
Now, if it referred to the record and the record bears it out, then
of course it is in the record.
Senator RICCARTHT. If you find that, on the record, the law member
did refuse to allow the defense attorney to go into the question of
how the statement was obtained on cross-examination, would you
then say it was impossible for the court, or any reviewing body t o
determine whether the statements were properly obtained or improp-
'
ined, keeping in mind cases such as the one I just gave to you.
Obtz FANTON.
e$ lIajor Sewtar, I have got to answer that question this
way : I don't think you could ~ossiblydetermine, from looking a t one
except from the record whether the law member ruled correctly or
incorrectly. I have talked with many people who have gone over
this record, who have studied these issues, these rulings, because this
point you have raised, you have raised it several times, and I think
it is a good one and should be answered.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think so, too.
Major FANTON. And, their opinion is that no error was committed
on these rulings. Some were questionable matters on which reason-
able men might differ, but I am told that a t no time, you are talking
about the Pletz case, are you, you read that a couple of times, but I
don't know what the direct examination was, and I can't tell whether
o r not his ruling was proper from just some short excerpt from the
record. I f I could stud it, maybe I could give you an opinion.
Senator MCCARTHY. zet7s see how much you do know about the
rules of evidence.
I f , on direct examination, the prosecution staff did not ask the wit-
ness, witness No. X, how his statement was obtained; if they did not
ask him anything whatsoever about any inducements given to him
for signing the statement, such as lack of prosecution, if he signed a
statement involving someone else-let us assume that was not gone
into on direct examination a t all-is it your thought that it would be
proper or improper to allow the defendant to go into that fact on
cross-examination
Major FANTON. NOW,I a111 going to try and get this clear. Yon
have a witness on the stand-
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me restate it for you, if it is not clear.
You are on the stand, you are a witness against John Jones, accused
of being a war criminal. You have previously made a written state-
ment, pointing out John Jones' crimes. You got on the stand and you
testified in accordance with your statement. Then, I am the defense
counsel, defending John Jones and I want to find out why you signed
that statement, whether you were oEere'd freedom from prosecution,
whether you signed that statement because of threats or duress, and
the question is-is that correct cross-examination on my part, or is
it not?
Major FANTON. The statement is introduced in evidence?
Senator MCCARTHY. All right, say the statement was introduced i11
evidence, also.
Major FANTON. That is a difficult question. That is a technical
question--
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUthink it is difficult?
Major FANTON. Yes. I f I may explain myself, ordinarily you
would never have a statement introduced into the record if you had
the witness to testify. The best evidence is the witness7 testimony,
so you have an unusual situation.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let's make it easier and say the statement i s

not introduced in evidence. Let's assume the statement is obtained
and not introduced in evidence. That will make i t easier. The state-
ment is not introduced.
Major FANTON. And, he is on the stand I
Senator MCCARTHP.H e is on the stand.
Major FANTON.
And he has testified with respect to a particular
fact or, say he admitted implication.
Senator MCCARTHY. One of the psaseatiou witnesses.
Major FANTON. And, 1believe your question is, if I am correct,
whether or not he can be cross-examined with respect to his credi-
bility?
Senator MCCARTHY. That is right.
Major FANTON. Of course.
Senator MCCARTHY. And any ruling to the contrary is obviously
improper ?
Major FANTON. Yes. The witness' credibility can always be tested,
I think.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then, .-you would agree with me that Rosen-
feld in so ruling made a fair trial impossible ?
Major FANTON. NO; I would say he was incorrect. Now, I don't
think anything would prevent you, the defense, if yon have a state-
ment and it is introduced-on voir dire there is nothing to prevent
the defense from putting a man on for the limited purpose of testify-
ing as to how that statement %-\-assecured, and the cross-examiilntiori
of the witness is limited to that one scope of inquiry. We couldn't
have gone into, and I use the "we" editorially, we couldn't have gone
into the matter of his implication, we could have gone into nothing
but what would test his credibility with respect to the methods used
in obtaining the statenlent.
Senator MCCARTHY. I don't follow you at all.
You are again on the stand. You are a prosecntion witness. Will
you explain how I can get----
Major FANTON. Your question, Senator, was wllether or not a man
would have a fair trial if such a ruling existed.
Senator MCCARTIIY. Yes.
Major FANTON. NOW,in answer to that, because I think it is im-
portant--
Senator R/lcCan.r~r.yes.
Major FANTON.I say that the man could perfectly well have had
a fair trial if there was some question about how the statement was
securecl, if there was something that led you to believe, as defense
counsel, that this stateine~!t ~ - , secured
~s through duress, or force, or
represented dictated statements, or mrtrue, or any other reason, when
they went into evidence. A t that time the man who gave the state-
ment should be put on the stand and ex:~minedwith respect to the
methods used and it could have been done, i t is done all the time when
statements are introduced.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay it could have been done. I am calling
your attention-did you find that-in other u ~ ~ d you s . say that it
should have been clone, therefore, it c ~ u l dhave been done.
1want to call your attention to the fact that it could not have been
done in this trial.
Major FANTON. All right.
Senator MCCARTHY.
This is the cross-examination of the witness
Xramm :
Question. Now, how often would you say yon were approximately interrogated
PROSECUTION. I object.
Colonel ROSENEW. Objection sustained.
Mr. STROKG.May I rery respectfully point out to the Court, with due deference,
Colonel ROBENFELD. I t is not cross-examination, because it is without scope
of the direct examination. The Court has ruled. The objection is sustained.
Question. Kramm, isn't i t a fact t h a t you, during the time you were in
Schwabisch Hall, signed a statement for the prosecution, in question-and-ans\w
Psos~cuno~ I .object again.
Colonel ROSEXFELD. This

is not cross-estuni~lntion. I t is the last time the
Court will notify you.
I n view of that, do you want to change your statement that they
could have put the witness on the stand and cross-examined about the
statement 2 -
Major FANTOX. KO: I don't want to change. Nothing you read,
or that I have seen or have been t d d about that case indicates the
defendant was ever denied the right to get on the stand and explain
how the statement was secured.
Just let me go back to that point-
Senator MCCSRTHY.Not speaking of the witness, the defendant, but
witness X, who IT-asa witness against the defendant; and, the prose-
cution attorney knon-s how the statement was obtained, he knows that
the witness, for example. was promised, as you say, in your statement,
that he can be promised, i n ~ n ~ u n ifrom
t y trial if he signs a statement,
if he is more valuable as a witness-the defense-the prosecution
knows, from an order put out, that his man mas promised immunity
if he signed a statement helpful to you in the prosecvt~onof the wit-
ness, and the defense attorney wants the court to know that. The de-
fense attorney starts inquiry of the witness how the statements were
obtained, what inducements were offered. and you understand now
that Rosenfelcl said that is not proper cross-examination. You under-
stand that, don't you?
Major FANTON. Senator, I don't want to be argumentative, because
I want to give you a direct answer, if possible. I coulcln't answer that
question mlthout knowing the direct examination. He said it was
without the scope of the direct.
Senator MCCARTHY. I will tell you th*
Major FANTON. Read i t to me.
Senator MCCARTIIY. The direct didn't go into that question in any
way 11-l~atsoever.The direct exanlination of the witness did not go
into the question of how the statement mas obtained, what induce-
ments were offered, and-is that sufficient?
Major FANTON. Was this statement?I mean, I ant to get it clear in
my mind-was this a statement or was the ~ i t n e s son the stand?
Senator MCCARTHY. I mill read that again :
Question. Kramm, isn't it a fact t h a t you, during the time you were in
Schwabisch Hall, signed a statement for the prosecution, in question-and-answer
The defense wants to know whether this man who was testifying had
previously signed a statement of 20 pages. From that, he wants to
find out what inducements were offered, and Rosenfeld says that can-
496 MALMEDY MASSACRE IIWESTIGATI~K
not be done, because it was not gone into on direct examination, and
I want to warn you again, I am asking you again, is it conceivable that
you can get a fair trial in this case with that type of ruling by the
court ?
Major FANTON. It seems as though every time I have to ask a ques-
tion, but I don't understand the picture, and I want to get it clear.
It was the statement that was being introduced, or was it Kramm's
testimony? I know there was reference in the questioning to the
statement. I don't know whether the statement was being introduced
in court or whether he was being asked that question for some other
reason.
Senator MCCARTHY. This is cross-examination, and from the ques-
tion you know as much about it as I do, it asks whether or not he
signed a statement. I f the statement was before them, if he had
signed the statement-
Major FABTON. And your point is that-
Senator MCCARTHY. If it is being introduced.
Major FANTON.
This mas a matter of testing his credibility?
Senator MCCARTHY. Certainly, certainly, certainly.
Major FAXTON.
Well, that is-
Senator MCCARTHY. Get down to the simple question: Can you
have a fair trial without the right to test the credibility of the wit-
ness ? Do you think you can, or do you think yon cannot?
Major FANTON. YOUhave to have the right to question the credibil-
ity of the witness; there is no question about that.
Senator RICCARTHY. YOUsay that Rosenfeld denied that right to
them, and then they simply did not have a fair trial?
Major FAXTON.No, I wouldn't say that. I would hare to see the
record.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay YOU have to have the right to test
the credibilit!~of the witness. I say, if yon are denied it, can you
get a fair trial?
Major FANTON. 1 think, if you are denied it, it is inconceivable,
if you had a lawyer sitting as a law member of the court, I can't
imagine these rulings occurring one after another. I don't know-
I didn't see the man on the stand. Mr. Kramni; didn't see Mr. Strong,
or observe his conduct in the court. It looks as though the court
was being a little severe. I don't know. Maybe the man was being
a little obstreperous, I don't know. I really can't answer the question,
Senator, with an answer that would be worth anything.
I c a n answer a general question-
Senator MCCARTHY. I think you are right on that. You cannot;
but let me ask yon, not because I think you are an expert in these
matters, but because the Army had yon in charge, you see, and in
riew of the fact that they apparently considered you competent in
these matters, that is why I ask, not because yon are considered an
expert on this :but, if the trial record shows that Rosenfeld consistently,
during the trial, denied the defense colmsel the richt to question the
credibility of the witness, in other words go into the question of how
the statement was obtained, what inducements he was offered, if the
record shows that was done consistently, then would you say that
those men did not have a fair trial?
Major FANTON. NO,I wouldn't say that. I would sa? this, that the
ruling might be erron8ous, don't misunderstand me, I am not con-
MALMEDY M A S S A C R E I N V E S T I G A T I O N 497
doning a ruling that prevents anyone from testing a mitness' credi-
bility, I say the man still had an opportunity to get on the stand when
the statement was introduced. I have seen or heard nothing, and I
heard Colonel Dwinell testify yesterday, and he said nothing about
that point, maybe he can clear it up, but to my knowledge none of
these people took the stand to explain how their statements were
secured a t the time they n-ere introclnced, and hey had that right and
it was never denied them.
Senator MCCARTHY. ISthere anything more important in a criminal
case or a lawsuit than the credibility of a witness? And, if he can
impeach a witness and show he is lying, that is very important in a case.
Major FANTON.Certainly.
Senator MCCARTHY. There is nothing more important in a law-
snit than the truthfulness of the witness you have on the stand.
Major FANTON. That is very important.
Senator MCCARTHY. And is recognized by every court, that you
cannot even have the semblance of a fair trial unless on cross exami-
nation you can thoroughly and completely test the credibitly of the
witness, and you and I agree on that, do we not?
Major FANTON. I certainly do.
Senator MCCARTHY. I ask you this question again :
I f the record shows, and we will put this in the record later-if the
]word shows that Rosenfeld consistently refused to allow the de-
fendants to test the credibility of the witness, and that, you tell me,
is the most important phase of any lawsuit; and if Rosenfeld says
yon can't test the credibility fo the witness, is it conceivable that they
could have had a fair trial? It is a simple question.
Major FANTON. I don't think it is. I t may seem so, but I would like
tr? answer it this way-
Major FANTON. I would answer in the affirmative, if they were
pwvented from telling their story on the stand, if they were pre-
vented under circumstances-
Senator MCCARTHY. By "they"-
Major FANTON. The accused, uncler circumstances-
Senator MCCARTHY. Talking about the witness.
Major FANTON.
Excuse me.
Senator MCCARTHY. Talking about the witness, not the accused.
The general rule, I don't believe you understand this from the
statement you made, you said you can put an accused on and show
how statements were obtained and he would not be subject to any
other questioning. You apparently are not aware of the fact that
the general rule of all our courts is when a defendant is put on the
stand on any one subject, then he is opened to cross examination on
all subjects and in that respect Rosenfeld ruled, and that is one of his
correct rulings, he notified the defense counsel in the record that if
the defendant was put on the stand on any subject he could be cross-
examined on all subjects, that is absolutely correct.
Major FANTON. I agree.
Senator MCCARTHY. SO,you mill understand----
Major FANTON. I would like to make a distinction. There is a
distinction between him vetting on the stand-
Senator MOCARTHY. Qes ?
Major FANTOK. F o r general examination, a i d cross-examinatioil ;

etting on the stand to tell how the statement which is being
introf
iL1la, uced in evidence again, was secured or obtained.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let me interrupt-
Major FANTQN.
I understand that-
Senator MCCARTHY.Stop there.
You say he can get on the stand, and he can tell how a statement
used against him was obtained. Keep i n mind the defendant was
clown in what you would call close confinement, maybe four or five
floors from the witness mhose statement as being obtained.
Obviously, he couldn't know anything al)oui lmr it was obtainecl.
You say the defendant can get on the stand and testify how the
statement of his accuser was obtainecl, and I call attention to the
fact that he was in close confinement, and had no way of being i n
contact with that witness, may never have seen him before as a matter
of fact. The witness gets on the stand and gives a story. I n this
case, let7s say the defendant knows it isn't true, such as this Belgian
situation in the town Bullingen, then the defense counsel cannot put
the defendant on the stand and say "Here is how that statement was
obtained," because he would be lying. The defense counsel wants to
kn,ow how it was obtained.
I ask you this: I f the court says you can't inquire as to how that
statement was obtained, yon can't show that this witness was offered
freedom from any prosecution, as your order saps you were entitled
t o make him that offer, you can't show that he was threatened, you
can't show why he made the statement, why he so testified.
Now, I ask you under that set of circumstances can you conceivably
get a fair trial, Major? It is a simple question?
Major FANTON.I t I T O U ~ Cbe
~ a simple question if your premise or
facts leading up to it were correct. My infornlation is to the con-
trary. My information is that Kramm, or any other witness was
never prevented or made unavailable. as f a r as the defense was con-
cerned. They could put him on, if they wanted him. if they really
thought some improper-
Senator MCCARTHY.H e is on.
Major FANTON. I mean, as their own witness. This is a cluestion,
as I understand it, this ruling-I may be wrong, but I have talked this
over with people because I listened to your esaminatio~l,? i d I think
it very proper that you go into i t completely-if this is just a tech-
nical ruling with respect to whether or not the cross-examinatioi is
within the scope of the direct, as it appears to be, I would say that,
without looking at the whole record, seeing what was done generally,
you cannot possibly conclude from that, that the men didn't have
a fair trial. I don't think that is a fair conclnsion.
Senator MCCARTHY.I s the testing of a witness' credibility ever
within the scope of direct? T h a t can be within the scope of the direct
examination. Yon say yon don't l i n o \ ~whether it is within the scope
of-
Major FANTON. I can't quite agree with you on that.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUcan't quite?
Major FANTON. NO. I f I considered it important, to tell how a
witness i n this case explains the circumstances regarding this state-
ment, that is being referred to, and I think conceivably it might have
been important, I don't know, I wasn't there, bat let's say it was im-
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESl'1GATION 499
portant, I certainly could ,po into it on direct, to give my witness
added credibility, to explain how he came to give this testimony
aghinst the accused.
senator M c C ~ i w ~Major,
r. let's start all over ?gain.
You say you can do it on direct. I am speaking of the prosecu-
tion. Let's say there is only one witness against this defendant. The
defendant has never seen the witness before, so he can't testify as to
how the statement was obtained. Understand?
I am going to call attention now to your T. X., so you will know
what I have in mind, if I may :
Where a prisoner being interrogated in a crime is implicated in t h a t crime,
i t ic perruissible to tell hrln that he will be recornmendecl a s a witness, if such
a statenrent to the prisoner will cause him to tell a full or more complete story
so that he mill be of more value to the case as a n-itness than a s a defendant.
I n other worcIs,.your T. X. says you can tell a man who is beina
interrogated that if his statement, the statement he signs will be O?
more value in convicting other men than having him as a defendant,
himself, then you can tell him that he won't be used as a defendant, he
wili be used as a witness. you see, a i d then this man signs a state-
ment, all right ?
Major FANTON. Let me-
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me finish. Let ns assume that your inter-
rogation staff has followed your T. X, and has instructed the wit-
ness exactly what you tell them he can be instructed. I f you want to
refresh your memory, I will hand that t o you.
Major FANTON. 1don't need that.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let's assume the interrogation staff instructed
him exactly as you told them to, assume, with that in mind he does
tell a story that your interrogation staff thinks will be more valuable,
using him as a witness than as a defendant, you don't put him on
as a defendant but as a witness, he is the only witness against this de-
fendant, the defendant has been down in close confinement, he has
not seen the witness, does not h o w how the statement has been
obtained, counsel has read your directive and, of course, doesn't know
either, because, we will assume if he could take the witness-he has
been offered immunity if he so testifies, he wouldn't very well back
down, but the man is on the stand now, and this man's testimony de-
termines whether or not your defendant will live or die, whether he
will be hung or not, he has been charged with some atrocious crime
and I am defense counsel-I wasn't there when the witness' statement
was gotten, and I say I want to examine this man, to the president
of the court. I say I want to find out what he was offered, find out
how many times he was interrogated, I want to find out whether or
not he was told, as your T. X. says he can be told, that he will be used
as a witness if he is more valuable, and not used as a defendant. I
went to get that information from this man, so the court can deter-
mine whether or not this man is telling the truth, or merely telling
a story that mill get him out from under, in vie* of the promises.
The court says: "No, McCarthy; you can't question that witness
because that was not gone into on direct examination."
I ask you now, under what conceivable circumstances can that man,
the defendant, get a fair trial?
Major FANTON. I think he can get a fair trial if he is allowed to put
that man--of course we are assuming-
Senator MCCARTHY. P u t what man?

Major FANTON. I f I were defense counsel and a witness appeared
against my accused, this is just my opinion of the thing, of course, I
don't know what happened at this trial.
Senator MCCARTHY. GOahead.
Major FANTON. This is in a vacuum-if I were defense counsel and
a witness testified against my clien-
Senator MCCARTHY. Yes ?
Major FANTON. T Othe extent that it really involved him in a serious
crime, and for any reason I was prevented bp the judge, we will say,
or the law member of the military court, from testing his credibility,
whether the ruling was correct or not, let us assume it was incorrect-
Senator MCCARTHY. Yes?
Major F'ANTON.Or, let's assume it was correct, that would be better.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUcan't assume that, we agreed that it was
incorrect.
Major FANTON. Then, let's make no assumption.
I would be certain to get that man on the stand, thab witness, and
find out just how, if there were any inducements involved.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let's assume you know some law. You mean
you would put this man on the stand as your witness and the court
will allow you to cross examine your own witness?
Major FANTON. H e is a hostile witness, Senator. Certainly I would
be able to do it.
Senator MCCARTHY. All right, then, in this case, to get the record
straight, this man Kramm refused to testify for the defense, and said
"I won't go on the stand for the defense." Under those circumstances,
what do you do?
Major FANTON. Under those circumstances I would appeal to the
court.
Senator MCCARTHY. What court? You appeal to the court, and
the court says what? "I won't warn you again."
You appeal to the court, or appeal to the court here, and the court
says this :"This is not cross examination. It is the last time the court
will notify you."
You have appaled to the court, and the court says don't t ~ y it
again. Then, what do you do in the ease for the man being tried?
Major FANTON. With respect to that particular ruling, I don't know
what was done when Kramm refused to testify. I don't know what
was done when he refused to testify-it may be in the record.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am asking you, you say you wo~ddap eal to
the court. I say the defense attorney appealed, i t is on the recorx, page
216, and Colonel Rosenfeld says :
This is not cross examination. It is the last time the court will notify you.
Defense consel then gave i t up.
I wonder if you would have been more competent than that defense
counsel and in some mysterious way could hare convinced the
court-
Senator BALDWIN.At that point, may I ask a question? I have
come in here recenty, and have to pick up the thread of the examina-
tion.
Does this discussion now pertain to any affidavit or confession or
anything in which the witness was involved?
Senator HOST.Not that I know of, Senator. I assumed that the
line of questioning that would be directed at Major F'anton would be
as to what part he played, if any, in these cruelties, supposedly, that
were enacted against these prisoners. So far, we have not gotten
around to that this morning. We have just more or less so f a r dis-
cussed the technicalities of procedure.
Senator BALDWIN.I wonder if we are not going to prolong this
thing to unnecessary lengths, and I don't want to see the Senator from
Wisconsin prevented in any way from asking any questions that he
might feel would be helpful to the committee, but I don't understand
that this witness was present a t the trial of the case.
Senator MCCARTHY. I mill tell the Senator this, for his benefit,
he wasn't present during the examination :
We have had a number of ui~usualdevelopments all having to do
with the Malmedy case. This man is a lawyer, gave his background,
and the Army had enough confidence in him to put him in charge of
the interrogation and prepare the case for trial, in effect.
To show what this witness' attitude is, between right and wrong, we
had part of the record here this morning read, to the effect that a
statement-a witness got on the stand and testified that he saw a
German soldier stand 2 feet from the woman and shoot her through
the forehead and kill her. The man was convicted-
Senator BALDWIN.Let me ask a question there---
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me finish.
Senator BALDJVIN. Was this confession one taken by the witness?
Senator MCCARTHY. I am telling you why I think this is proper.
This witness, who is a major, not a corporal, the Judge Advocate Gen-
eral's officer in charge of this work, was questioned in regard to this
case of the Belgian town in which the witness got on the stand and said
he saw the man shoot her through the forehead and s l e dropped dead.
That was a statement taken by Lieutenant Perl, one of the interroga-
tion staff, hired, and we will go into that later. The mayor of the
town signed an affidavit that no woman had died from unnatural
causes during that period of time except Mrs. Jonsten. The registrar
testified to the same thing. It i s a little cross roads town, you under-
stand, where everybody knew each other's name. The husband of the
woman, the one woman that died from unnatural causes during that
time, signed an affidavit saying no German soldier had shot her, that
they didn't observe any bullet wound in her, but that she was running
from the combat zone and was killed, and her injuries indicated that
she had died from the bursting of a grenade.
The major tells us, in view of that, that he believes the confession
was properly obtained, it was a prqper confession a proper thing to
introduce in evidence, and I am trylng to find out how much law this
man knows, in view of the fact that the Army considered him an
expert. I wanted to find out whether or not he thinks the trials
were properly conducted. I think it would be very, very improper,
if we were to take one of the principal men the Army relied on to
prepare the prosecution and make sure the men were convicted-if
anyone was to limit my' cross-examination so that I can't find out in
my examination, just exactly what these men who were in charge
knew, what they thought the rights of the defendant were, what they
thought was proper and improper in court; what they thought was
right in the may of interrogation.
502 MALMEDT MASSACRE 1x1-ESTIGATION
The witness testified, for exsmple, that in certain circumstances he
did not feel himself bound by the rules of the Geneva Convention.
I am going into that further, and find out why. This has nothing
to do with the particular case of kicking a man in the groin, but I
think it is part of the entire picture and unless the chairman rules
that I cannot freely examine the man, I frankly would no longer sit
on this committee. I think it would be completely improper and with-
out any justification whatsoever, You have a man, allegedly an in-
telligent witness. H e is a lawyer. He should know more about that
situation over there than we do and with the permission of the Chair,
I am intending to examine him a t great length. I may have to be
repetitious. It is difficult to get an answer from a witness, not because
he doesn't want to answer, he makes lengthy answers, and he is josti-
fied in so doing. H e is painstaking in his answers. and it takes a long
time to get down to the mformat,ion. I may bore the audience, or the
press, and the people in the room, but unless the Chair rules that I
cannot do it, I intend to continue exanlining this ~vitnessuntil I think
I have extracted every grain of truth from him that can be extracted.
I am not intimating that he is lying at all. H e was not in position to
observe much of this, but his judgment, or his thoughts as to what is
right and wrong, to me is awfully important.
Let me ask, don't you substantially-
Major FANTON.I a,gree with you, Senator. as far as the testing is
concerned.
Senator MCCARTIIP.I am glad to know- we agree on some of these
things.
Senator BALDWIX. Let me see what we are trying to finclout from the
witness here.
You see, I just came in recently, and want to pick up the threads.
As I nnclerstahcl it, you want to examine this witness to get his
opinion as to t h manner
~ in which the trial was conducted.
Senator > 4 ( 3 , ' . ~I ~may

~ ~ ask
~ . him

that if he develops enough
information on it. As of this time, he xasn't present. H e might
knom7, he may be in position to give us that. This time I have been
asking whether certain things that were done a t the trial, and are it
part of the record, were right or wrong.
I think this is very, very important in view of the fact that this
is being taken from the affidavit which the witness so thoroughly con-
demned the other day, as being so full of falsehoods. I want to find
out just what falsehoods he refers to.
As I say, I notice-this may be boring, before I get throuuh, but
i t is the only way I can get information, to go into detail-but ? think
this gentleman, and I use that phrase advisedly, is one of the most
important witnesses we have had or will have in this case.
Major, may I ask you this: I have your S. 0.P. No. G-
Senator MCCARTHY. And in it, you say "any ruse or deception may
be used in the course of the intel~ogation.hut threats. duress in any
form, physical violence, or premises uf ~imnmiityoi mitigatloll of
punishment should be scrupulously avoided."
I call your attention to this, you say "or promises of immunity or
mitigation of punishment, should be scrupulously avoided."
I n the next paragraph you say i t is permissible to tell him, referring
to one of the defendants, one of the suspects, one of the men you
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOK 503
suspected of being a criminal-it is permissible to tell him he will be
recommended as a witness if such statement is such that i t will cause
the prisoner to tell a full o r more complete story, so that he will be
of more value to the case as a witness than as a defendant.
See if I understand this correctly: Your order to your team, as I
understand it, is you can tell John Jones, whom you hare screened out
and who you think is a war criminal-your interrogation staff can
say to him, 'LJones, if your statement will be such that you will be
of more value to us as a witness than as a defendant in this case, and
if you will sign such a statement, then we will use you as a witness
rather than a defendant."
I s that a correct understanding?
Major FANTON. NO; it is not.
Senator MGCARTHY.Will you explain?
Major FANTON. I would like to clear it up. I t will require--
Senator BALDWIN.Tell me what he is reading from.

Senator MCCARTHY.Reading from the S. 0. P. No. 4, the order
prepared by Fanton and posted, I understand, at Schwabisch Hall.
Am I correct? This was posted a t Schwabisch H a l l ?
Major FANTON. I t was in the file, it wasn't on the bulletin board.
Senator MCCARTHY.These were instructions, anyway.
Major FANTON. They were instructions.
Senator MCCARTHY.T h a t you gave to your staff ?
Major FANTON.
Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.And there is no question but what this S . 0. P.
No. A
Major FANTON. What you read was a correct quotation from the
S. 0. P., escept-
Senator MCCARTHY.There is no question but what it was brought
to the attention of all the interrogators?
Major FANTON. It was discussed, paragrqph by paragraph, as I said
in the statement.
I do want to explain, because it needs explanation, I am sure.
The Senator did not go f a r enough in reading from the S. 0, P.
You will notice, in every case, that clearance was required from me
before a witness was ever told-
Senator MCCARTIIY. Clearance was to be required from the com-
manding officer ?
Major FANTON.From me, personally, or whoever was the com-
inanding officer.
Senator MCCARTEIY. I n other words, before Jollii Jones, one of the
men you suspected of being a war criminal, before he could be promised
immunity because of n ~tatementh e was-
8!fajor FANTON.NO.
Senator MCCMWHP.T hey l ~ tod say, "Major Fanton, is it all right
to make this promise?"
Major FANTON. NO; I want to explain. You are probably riglzt, i n
a r a y . There is nothing on the face of the S. 0. P. that ~ o u l explain
d
i t ; that is, of course, we had to construe the thing consistently that it
was only to be used when a man had given a statement so that we could
get him to tell more details. W e had examples of that. We had the
so-called Tales of Hoffman that was talked about so much yesterclay.
After those men, Hoffman and three or four others had given their
confessions, after they had told their story, we knew most of the
details and they went into greater detail with respect to the incident.
They were questioned over a long period of time, brought together in
a room to go over these things and refresh each other's recollection
just as any of us would, if we were in a similar situation, to get a
detailed account.
Sprenger has given us just as lqng an account. I don't have Jakel's
here, or several others that were p e n . The facts are similar in many,
but each individual was encouraged to give his own recollection. That
is the proper explanation of that paragraph.
I know it sounds inconsistent when you read it.
Senator MCCARTHY. Don't you have the explanatioil-
Major FANTON. He was allowed to be a state's witness, if he was an
intelligent witness.
Now, this Sprenger was amazingly intelligent.
Senator MC~ARTI-IY. Sprenger was amazingly intelligent?
Major FANTON.
He was.
Senator MCCARTHY. Your order says that he can be told he will be
used as a witness rather than a defendant.
Major FANTON. That was permitted.
I don't-
Senator MCCARTHY. Permitted?
Major FANTON.
I may say this, Senator: That p c o r to nlg leaving,
that was not told to a single witness. that I can recall.
Senator MCCARTHY. Now, $011 say it was told to Spi.enger.
Major FANTON. I don't sny lt was. I don't know. I lillow he became
a cooperative witness. I don't think any such representation was
made to him.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. He became a cooperative witness?
Major FANTON.
That is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you know your staff had the right to
tell him, if he would be a cooperative witness, then he would not be a
defendant, he would be a witness.
Major FANTON. They didn't have this right unless they cleared it
with me.
Senator MCCARTHY. If they cleared it v i t h you, the? had that
right?
Senator MCCARTHY.And you say they never cleared anything like
that with you?
Major FANTON. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUstarted to tell me under what conditions
you would clear him. You said this man, what is the name-
Major FANTON. Sprenger.
Major FANTON. I said I was giving him as an example of a co-
operative witness who had a retentive mind, and might have been
used; we didn't know it at the time we were interrogzzting Hoffman
and others who were going to be used as witnesses, the staff was in-
structed specifically-oh, I remember them, because I know this thing
was turning over in my mind, and originally I had the notion that we
would maybe only t r y the officers responsible for those orders, and
the thinking had not jelled so I didn't really know who mould be used.
Senator MCCARTHY.When you put i t down i n writing it had jelled
quite a bit, had it not ?
Major FANTON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.When you put in in writing you say :
I t is permissible to tell him that he will be recommended as a witness-
I am calling your attention to that, and-
If such a statement to the prisoner will cause him to tell a full or more complete
story so that he will be of more value to the case a s a witness than as a defendant.
Senator MCCARTHT.I n other \I-ords. the purpose of telling him this,
that he would not be a defendant but that he would be used as a
witness was to get him 150give a story that would be of value t o you in
the prosecution ; is that right ?
Major FANTON. That is right, within limits.
Let me define the limits.
Major PANTOX.
We, of course, as I have said repeatedly, and I wiII
make that point even stronger a little later on-we were not interested
i n hanging any innocent men, never have been, and would not want
anything like that to happen, or to be on our conscience. I don't know
of any-
Senator MCCARTIIY.I thought SOU mere trying to convict only t h e
guilty.
Major FANTON. We were as careful as we could conceive it to b e
possible, to test the credibility of all the people giving statements.
This is analogous to our use of the witnesses i n criminal proceedings
here i n the States, as State's witnesses. Frankly, I was a little uncer-
tain about it, and I will be absolutely honest, I was a little uncertain
about i t as f a r as this particular proceeding was concerned, and I
never gave any clearance, never gave anybody the authority to make
such representations. I am certain that they never did, because I
cliscussed that thing. I remember perfectly Lieutenant Per1 telling
me repeatedly that he never made any promises of inlmunity, and
might I say, Senator, because I think you are going off on a tangent
prompted by my statement, that really had no bearing on your line
of questioning. sir, I mill discuss that, but what it does have a bearing
on is techniques-
Senator MCCARTHY.Let me decide x h a t has a bearing and what
does not.
Major FANTON.Certainly.
Senator MCCARTHT.I think it has a very important bearing, if you
have an order that says in one paragraph never promise immunity,
and in the next, you sag what you can tell a man is he will have im-
n ~ u n i t yif he will be a witness.
Let's assume first-let me ask you this: Do you know whether 01-
not the witness in this Belgian case that said h e saw a soldier shoot
a woman in the forehead standing two meters away, and saw her drop
dead-do you know whether he had been promised this sort of im-
inunity if he would be cooperative and sign that sort of a statement?
Major FANTON. I don't know. T h a t was the case of Max Rieder,
the one you are talking about ?
506 MALMEDY MASSACRE IXVESTIGATION
Let me say again, I am the defense attorney-

Major FANTON. I wo111dlike to make this point, because it is impor-
tant: This was his own confession, and there mas no corroboration.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Let me get this question in, will you? Let's
assume that one of the defense staff, assume that I know or knew of
this order that says that you can offer prisoners imm~ulityif their
statement will conrict some of the codefendants. That is in effect
what you say, and a inan gets on the stand, and I know, and he k'nows
that he is not going to be tried a s a defendant. I know originally he
was one of the men you suspected of being a war criminal, and brought
him over there and during the course of the interrogation you decide
personally to grant him immunity without going to court, even though
yon were convincecl that he was a war criminal, you w a n t him im-
munitv and he gives a statement that % d lconvict t%e man I am
0
dkf en&ng.
Again, going back t o this question, the one that Senator Balclmin
said we should not go into. do von think when the court rules that I
cannot inquire f r o 6 that 'ciefehdant whether he was promised this
immunity or not, then why he has testified as he had, whether he is
doing that t o clear himself in view of the fact that he was one of the
alleged war criminals, I can't ask him those questions, do you think
that I can possibly have any way of knowing that my man gets a fair
t--. r-i n l 2.
--A
Major FANTON. I will answer your question. I thiilli the may you
want i t ans.wered, too. I don't mean to imply that I am being a co-
operative witness.
Senator MCCARTHY.I know, you mean as to form of answer.
Major FANTON. I mean in the form I think you want it.
I n t h a t case that you gave, if I could not go into this man's credibil-
ity, I would certainly think that was a rerersible error.
Senator MCCARTHY. il'ow, let me ask you a question I have asked
you several times before : Then if the record does show, the full record,
does show that the law member consistently refnsecl to allow the de-
fense counsel to go into the question of credibility of witnesses, because
it was not gone into on direct examination, then n-ill you agree with
me that a t least in all those cases if the lam nlember so d e d , the cle-
fendants did not hare a fair trial?
Major FANMN. I want to answer i t the wag I did before, because
that is the correct answer in my opinion.
You mentioned the basis of the law member's ruling? that he could
not go into the question because i t was not covered on d ~ r e c t ?
Major FANTON. H e may have erred i n that ruling, I won't argue
that point, because I think there is a possibility.
Senator MCCARTHY. A minute ago you and I agreed, I thought,
wholeheartedly that any denial of the right to go into the question of
credibility was an error; and, just a minute ago you said in that case
I gave you, i t mould be reversible error. By "rerersible" you mean
the conviction ~ o n l be d set aside?
Major FANTON.Correct.
Senator IICCARTHY. So yon and I agree that that is re\-rr4ble error,
is that right?
Major FANTOS. No, I don't.
Senator HUNT. May I say, in 5 minutes the hearing will recess
until 1: 45.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask you to do this: Give that question
some thought over the noon hour, and give me an answer.
Major FANTON. I have the answer now.
Sentor MCCABTHY. A11 right, go ahead.
Major FANTON.
I think i t is a good one.
Senator MCCARTHY. Good.
Major FANTON. The answer is this : That that error would be error,
assuming it is error without question-but now if the man is pre-
vented, or if the defense is prevented from testing that ~ i t n e s scredi-
'
bility in any other way, really prevented, I would say it constituted
reversable error; but on the other hand, if he has the right and is not
denied the opportunity to put a hostile witness on the stand and cross-
examine, it can be done, I have done it myself, I say he has had a fair
trial, had an opportunity and there must be some reason why he didn't
want to do it. I understand, here, to go a litkle further, because I
think i t is important and I may be anticipating a quetsion, I don't want
to, but I think i t is important to clear it up--you told me before that
Kramm didn't refus-
Senator MCCARTHY. He did refuse.
Major FANTON. I don't know what was done about that type situa-
tion.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask the defense attorney. I s it not
correct, Colonel, that this man refused to take the stand?
Colonel DWINELL.H e did. I interrogated him and asked him to be
a defense witness and he refused to give any statement. H e said he
would only state his name if I put him on the stand.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou know why he refused, Colonel? Why
he refused to take the stand?
Colonel DTVINELL. I can only tell you what he told me. He said, "I
have been instructed not to testify for the defense," and that is all I
know about it.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know that this fellow Kramm was
originally one of the men who had been carefully screened, as the major
told me they were, so carefully screened, and brought over as suspected
war criminals, and then he was released as a defendant and used as a
witness ?
Colonel DWINELL.We know that.
Senator MCCARTHY. And a t the time you saw him you were aware
of the major's order that said :
It i s permissible to tell him-
the witness-
that he will be recommended a s a witness, if such statement to the prisoner will
cause him to tell a full or more complete story so that he will be of more value
to the case a s a witness than a s a defendant.
Colonel DWINELL.I was aware of that, not because I had seen that
S. 0. P. I n fact, I had not. I had been told of that fact a number
of times by the witnesses being interrogated.
Senator HUNT.The hour of 12 : 06 having arrived, the committee
stands recessed until 1: 45 this afternoon.
(Whereuyon, a t 12: 06 07clockp. in., the committee stood in recess
until 1:45 o clock p. m., of the same day.)
9 1 7 6 5 4 L 3 3
AFTERNOON SESSION
(The committee reconvened at 1: 45 p. m., upon the expiration of the

recess.)
Senator BALDWIN(presiding). The committee will come to order.
May I say for the benefit of the record that I am in a rather anonz-
alous position. Senator Hunt, who has been acting as chairman in
my place while Major Fanton was on the stand, is engaged on the floor
this afternoon because he expects momentarily a bill involving his
subcommittee will came up. H e is expected to be there to handle it.
Senator Kefauver, the other member of the committee, is busy, en-
gaged on another important subcommittee, and here I am. If you
have any objection to my acting as chairman I will have to recess this
meeting.
Senator MCCARTHY. I have absolutely no objection, not even the
shadow of an objection.
TESTIMONY OF MAJ. DWIGHT F. FANTON-Resumed
Senator MCCARTHY. Major, going back to your S. 0. P. No. 4, in
connection with that can you tell me whether this man Kramin-the
one we were referring to this forenloon-was he not given i ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ n
if he would testify in this case?
Major FANTON. I cannot answer that, Senator, because I really do
not know. We tras not, as I said before. We had not taken the step
because frankly, I had not made up my mind about it myself. Later
on I understand there was some discussion as to whether or not we
mould use people who could be accused as witnesses.
To my knowledge he was not set aside-he was not implicated in
any of the crimes-he was not set aside, a t the time I left, as a prose-
cution witness.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you had not set him aside.
When you left he was still one of the defendants in the war crimes
cases ?
Major FANTON. H e was still a suspect.
Senator MCCARTHT.Let me ask you this : I assume that you and I
both agree that anyone who was in any way implicated with the murder
of unarmed prisoners of war should, of course, be punished; is that
right ?
Senator MCCARTHY. I assume we both agree that only the court it-
self could determine what punishment they should get, with, of course,
the usual review ?
Senator MCCARTHY. I assume we would both agree that it should
not be the function of any officer, any investigator, and anyone other
than the court to determine whether or not guilty men should go free.
Major FANTON. Whether or not guilty men should go free?
Senator MCCARTHY. Yes. Men guilty in taking any part in the
shooting of unarmed persons.
Major FANTON. Assuming they were guilty, regardless of the court's
action ?
Senator MCCARTEIY. Yes; assuming they were guilty. I n other
words, you do not feel that any man who was g ~ ~ i l oft y any of these
crinles should be allowed to go free because of some decision made by
some member of the prosecution staff 8
Major FANTON. T h a t is correct.
Senator MCC~HTEIY.
I n view of that, I cannot reconcile that with
paragraph (b) of your S. 0.P. 4. You say-
Where a prisoner is being interrogated in a crime is implicated in that crime-
i n other words, referring to a man implicated i n the crim'e-
it is permissible to tell him that he will be recommended as a witness if such
~ t a t e m e n t o the prisoner shall came him to tell a full or more complete story,
so that he mill be of more n l n e to the case a s a witness than as a defendant.
I
11 other ~ ~ o r c lyon
s , say here that if a man is implicated i n the crime,
i l he has taken a part i n shooting these American boys, that neverthe-
less he can be promised, told, that if he will sign a statement t h a t you
consider valuable enough in getting convictions of his codefendants,
that then you can promise him i m i u n t y . I am wondering whether yon
think that was not going f a r beyond your power.
As I understand the set-up you mere not to decide which of these men,
as you say were implicated, in other words, guilty, which of them
should go free. Your order says that we can decide which ones will
go free, and we will base that not upon their degree of guilt, but we
will base that upon the value of the statement which they will give us
i n r~g:~rdto tlwir codefendants.
Major FANTCIN. Senator, I would like to answer your question this
way :As I stated before, we wanted to be absolutely sure that the people
we were trying were implicated in this thing. that they were the people
who were guilty. W e were faced with a difficult problem, adnzittedly,
in determining that.
Senator MCCARTHY. NO doubt about that.
Major FANTOK. I weighed this thing very carefully. Maybe I
erred. T h a t is not for me to judge ;that is for the committee to judge.
You want my opinion on it. When I say "implicated," I mean he
might have been there, we do not know just Khat his connection was,
but he was implicated i n some way.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, he was guilty to some extent.
Major FANTON. Yes; to some degree of guilt. I want to emphasize
the fact that we were very careful, and I tried to control this thing as
carefully as I could. I issued this order that whenever such repre-
sentations were made to a subject being interrogated, the matter would
have to be cleared with me.
We stayed away from it, frankly, because we had not reached that
stage of the investlg:,tioa where we were deciding or reaching a deci-
sion that ~ o n l ddetermine mho were eventually going to be tned, and
who were eventually, for insufficiency of evidence or other reasons, not
going to be tried.
I am being long in my answer, and I am sorry, but I think i t is impor-
tant t o get the answer full and complete.
T h a t being the case, and i n view of the fact t h a t we were anxious t o
be sure that we were trying the proper people, if a man would give us
a full story, if he n-ere an intelligent witness, a man who had knowl-
edge of these matters, and a good witness, a competent witness, I felt
that i t would be better to use him as a witness rather than as a n accused.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you felt that you did have a
power to decide that certain of those who were guilty-you say impli-
cated, meaning guilty--certain of the guilty men would be promised

immunity, in other words, would be told that L'You will not be tried
for your crime if you will sign a statement that is helpful enough i n
convicting the other codefenclants," or call them what you will ?
Major FANTON. NO, Senator; that is not correct. It was no€ a mat-
ter of signing a statement. It was a matter of being a witness on the
witness stand. I was as careful as I k ~ l e whow to be to make sure i n
my own mind a t least, t h a i there were no promises of immunity made
which would stimulate a false story.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUsay :
I t is permissible to tell him that he will be recommended as a witness if such
statement-
i n other words, such statement to him that he will be recommended as
a witness-
i f such statement to the prisoner-
listen to this, your own order-
i f such statement to the prisoner will cause him-
will cause him-
to tell a full or more conlplete story so that lie mill be of more value to the case
a s a witness than a s a defendant
You just told me you did not want to stimulate him to tell a more
detailed story or false story. B u t you say here "If i t will cause him
to tell it." I do not know the difference between stimulate and cause.
Major F'ANTON.YOU ought t o read the whole thing. 'LA full o r
more complete story so that he will be more valuable." B y that I
mean, this was a familiar technique, as I understand it, i n intelligence
matters, and it worked well i n our case.
Senator MCCARTHY.I assume i t work very well.
Major F'ANTON. I f a witness had told his story, and told a truthful
story, we felt that we should treat him as decently as we could, re-
gardless of whether he was going to be a n accused, a defendant, or a
witness in the case. H e was given tobacco rations-
Senator MCCARTEIY.Let us forget about the tobacco.
Major FANTON. I think it has a bearing on it, that is the onlg
reason I mention it. Not with the idea of stiinulating any false story.
Senator MCCARTHY.It is correct, is i t not, that you took the posi-
tion that you did have the power, without cons~dtingthe court, to
promise immunity to guilty inen if they would tell a story that was
helpful enough i n convicting some of the other defendants?
Major FANTON. NO, that is not correct.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUsay t h a t is not correct.
Major F'ANTON. NO, sir. It was not up to me to jnclge whether a
man was guilty or innocent. H e could be implicated, but i t is up t o
the court to say whether he is guilty or not.
I agree with you, and I see what you are driving at. I am just try-
ing to explain why this order was issued. It was never actually
enforced.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Wait a second. YOUsay it was up to the court
to determine whether or not he would be tried?
Major FANTON. NO, sir. Whether he was guilty.
Senator MCCARTHY.I f you promised him immunity, did you feel
thRt ysu C9i2!d F r ~ z i s e him immnnjtv withni?t nnncnJti2rr a tho
.---n- -n..--
i~rt
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 51 1
then ? This sags nothing abont clearing with tlie court. You said you
can promise him immunity if you will clear with your commanding
officer. The court was not constituted a t that time, as I understand
it, so yon could not coliceivablg clear i t with the court.
Major FAXTON.iC1iiybe that is the reason I never exercised the
authority. I had some doubts about i t myself. I will tell you hoa-
estJy I did liave some doubts about it. W e were n p against a very
difficult problem. T h a t authority I had was never exercised by me.
Senator MCCARTI-TY. Mr. Flanagan, do you have a question to ask?
I s it 0.K., Mr. Chairnian?
Senator BALDWIN. Surely.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Assuming a hypotlletical case so we could find out
how this system would liave operated : If a defendant was present and
took part in the shooting of one American soldier, that this same
defendant observed the mass n~assacreof tlie crossroacls and could
give complete and total descriptions of what went on, and make a very
good witiiess for you ; under your orders i n that case, would you have
the power to say to that defendant "We will use you as a witness i n the
crossroacls incident, if you can give us very valuable information, and
will not t r y you f o r the crime for which yon a r e implicated?"
Major FASTON. 1would say no. 1 would not have had that power,
and I do not believe I would have exercised i t i11 that manner. It is
difficult to answer a hypothetical qi~estionof that nature intelligently.
Whether he shot one American, assuming that was proved, t o my sat-
isfaction, corroborated, because a11 these things were corroborated,
the way we developed the story, we had corroboration, we had to have
corroboration on every fact.
Mr. FLAXAGAN. 01 1 that subject, I do not k n o v whether you investi-
gated the case or not. but just so the record will be straight, let us
go back to the case of Max Riecler. There was no corroboration what-
ever.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
SOevery Inan mas not convicted on corroboration.
Major FANTON. I am not certain, as I pointed out to Senator Mc-
Carthy-
Mr. FLAXSGAN.J u s t a minute.
Major FANTOX.I am answering your question. A s I pointed out
t o Senator McCarthy this morning, there was more than just one
shooting involved as f a r as Max Rieder was involved.
Mr. FLANAGAN. True. . B u t for the murder of this woman there was
no corroboration.
Mr. PLANAGAN. And

that mas one of the things with which h e was
charged.
Major FANTON.T h a t is right.
J4r. FLANAGAN. SOj70lir statement that every act was corroborated
is not a completely true statement.
Major FANTON. Wait a minute. I was just going as f a r as my
knowledge permits me to go. When we were developing the case
we were careful abont corroboration. I f he was charged with this
crime and was tried for it, without corroboration, i n my opinioil i t
might be a mistake.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, you do think that was a mis-
take then, trying this fellov without corroboratioii?
Major FANTON. I think it might very well be. I would not want
to venture an opinion without studying the thing carefully.
Senator MCCARTHY.Goin back t o one thing we covered this fore-
!
noon : W e have this case in w ich a witness confessecl, under the exam-
ination of Perl, that he went into this house, stook back two meters,
put LIPhis rifle, and shot the woman through the forehead.
Senator BALDWIN.W h a t case?
Senator MCCARTHY.Max Riecler. It is on page 177.
She fell dead, and that was the major part of his confession. It
was subsequently f o ~ u l dthe mayor of this Belgian tom-a, not a Bel-
gian, then swore to a statement, also the registrar of the cornmunity-
it was not a town, just a little crossroads-in the community of Bol-
ligen, that there was only one person who died from natural causes,
and that was Mrs. Anton Sohnson. Her h ~ ~ s b a nunder d, oath, swore
she was not shot by any German soldier but was killed while running
away from combat, there mere no bullet n-onds, she was killed from the
explosion of a hand grenade or shell, whatever it mas.
You testified this morning that in spite of that fact, in spite of the
fact of all the evidence of disinterested witnesses i n the crossroads to
the effect that this woman was not shot by a German soldier, yon say
yon still think that confession was a true confession?
Major FANTON. I think SO, Senator, because I am not a t all con-
vinced that we have the right woman.
Let me state this, and I will say also maybe I should not have volun-
teered t o answer the question this morning: Colonel Ellis and I, dur-
ing the recess, discussed this. H e said it was established that there
were refugees going through here at the time, and i t could very well
have been someone who was a n entire stranger to the town.
Senator MCCARTHY.DO you know the size of the town?
Major FANTON. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.Then how can yon say that you think the con-
fession is true if you do not know whether 10 or SO people live i n that
town ?
Major FANTON. I am basing that on my knowledge of how these
confessions mere obtained.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUthink i n view of the fact that the mayor
of this Bslgian town, the registrar, people with no reason a t all t o
feel l.;indly toward the Germans, made this statement, and the husband
of the woman who was killed, do yon feel that this man should be
found gnilty and punished for thaL crime .without the prosecution
staff making a further check? Do you think i t should drop there and
say, "Well, because Major Panton thinks the confession is true, we will
let him go and let him serve life"? What do you think?
Major FANTON. I f that mere the only thing he were charged with,
the only crime, and we had his confession, uncorroborated, and we
were satisfied-let us not go into this issue of the identity of the woman,
there is some evidence for the defense on that-1 think further inves-
tigation should have been made. B u t that is not the only crime with
which this man has been charged, and his sentence has been com-
muted to 15 years.
Senator MCCARTEIY.NOWlet us say you can go to the town and
convince yourself that the mayor of the town is lying.
Major FANTON. I do not say that h e is lying for a moment.
Senator MCCARTHY. Convince yourself that the registrar is neither
lying nor mistaken, convince yourself that the husband of the woman
killed is neither lying nor mistaken. I n other words, you go there
and convince yourself, as apparently everybody except you were con-
vinced, that there was no German woman shot by a soldier in that
town.
Suppose you do that-and that should not be too difficult for this
committee, I do not know if me can convince you but it convinces the
committee, there are people still living in that town-then you, of
course, know that his confession, that part of it, is untrue, that part
in which he said "I shot a woman, I killed her, a defenseless woman."
Major FANTON. YOUmean if it could be established definitely-
Senator MCCARTHY. I f you can establish to your satisfaction the
things that all the rest of us cannot help but be convinced of. I n other
words, convince yourself that the mayor and everyone else is right, that
the woman was not killed.
Major FANTON. NO, sir; 1cannot agree with you. 1 am sorry.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let us say that you can convince yourself that
the afTidavits of the mayor, the registrar, and the husband are correct,
that no other woman was killed in that town except Mrs. Anton John-
son, that no other woman mas killed during that month, that is their
affidavit. Assuming that you can convince yourself that is true. And
also that this woman was not shot, that the husband is correct.
Then you mould say that that part of his confession was false;
right ?
Major FANTON. If you are assuming everything like that; yes. I f
you are assuming it is clearly proved there was no woman shot m the
town, and he confesses to having shot the woman in the town, that is
a question that does not need an answer.
benator MCCARTHY. SOyou would say that -part of his confession
was false?
Major FANTON.
Under your facts; yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. If that is proven, that that part of his con-
fession is false, it is proven that Perl got that part of his confession
falsely, could you give any of the balance of his confession any cre-
dence, the balance on which you say he was convicted? Do you follow
me, Major ?
Major FANTON. I follow you.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f he falsely confesses shooting a woman in this
town in Belgium, and in the same confession says he shot other people
20 or 30 miles away, will not you and I, as logical men, assume that
all of the confession must be thrown out if i t is all gotten by this
same man Perl ?
Major FANTON. I would say "Yes," Senator, to the question you pose
to me, of course. No question about it.
Senator MCCARTHY. This man Kramm, he was the adjutant to
Peiper '1
Senator MCCARTHY. H e was Peiper's adjutant?
Major FANTON.
I believe so.
Senator MCCARTHY. He mas promised immunity, he was given im-
munity. I am telling vou that now. He was Peiper's adjutant all dur-
ing this campaign. H e was given immunity.
514 MALMEDY MASSACRE ISVESTIGATION
Senator BALDWIN.May I interrupt, Senator. Does that appear of

record? I would be interested to know that.
Senator R/ICCARTHY. Mr. Flanagan said i t does. I s that right?
Was Kramm tried ?
Colonel ELLIS. H e was not tried and was not given immunity.
Senator MCCARTHY. H e was given immunity. H e was not tried?
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdid not promise imnzunity but you gave
him immunity ?
Colonel ELLIS. We had no reason to give him immunity because we
could not connect him with any crimes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was he not Peiper's adjutant?
Colonel ELLIS. NO. DmineZl was Peiper7s adjutmt. I believe
Kramm was the adjutant of one of the battalions.
Senator MCCARTHY. Working under Peiper ?
Colonel ELLIS. One of the regimental battalions.
Senator MC~BRTHY. We was originally listed as a suspect?'
Colonel ELLIS. Absolutely.

Senator MCCARTHY. When you decided to use him as a witness
you removed him from the suspect list?
Colonel ELLIS. NO, sir. We were not able to establish him as hav-
ing committed any offense, so we removed him from the suspect list.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you knom, Colonel, that the prosecution
staff called him in to talk to him and he said he had instructions from
you to under no circumstances talk to the defendants, and that he had
the assurance that he mas not going to be tried if he would be the
prosecution's witness ?
Colonel ELLIS. I knew that allegation had been made.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUknow that has been made?
Senator MCCARTHY. And you knom he has told the defense staff that
he received a promise of immunity?
Colonel ELLIS.Defense counsel has told me that is what he said.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you did instruct him not to talk to the
defense counsel ?
Colonel ELLIS. NO,sir, I surely did not.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUknow that he refused to talk to them and
said he had instructions ?
Colonel ELLIS. I know that is what the defense counsel said.
Senator MCCARTHY. Major Fanton, you heard what Colonel Ellis
has said, that this man Kramm was the adjutant in one of the bat-
talions in this activity.
Senator MCCARTHY. That he told the defense counsel he would not
testify, that he would not talk to them, he would do nothing but give
them his name. He said the reason for that was that he had been
instructed not to talk to them, that he had been promised immunity.
You understand that that is a t least what the defense counsel say
this man told them.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n view of that fact, in view of the facts he
was one of the prosecution's principal witnesses, had a diary from
which he testified, do you think that in view of Rosenfeld7sruling that
Kramm could not be cross-examined on a question of his credibility,
MALAMEDY MASSACKE 1x1-KSTIGATION 515
do you feel that any of the inen who were convicted on Krainm's
testimony had a fair trial?
Major FANTON. Senator, that is an awfully hard question to answer,
and I will tell you why if you will listen. I was not there at the trial.
I do not know what motions the defense made, if any. I would think
if they were faced with a witness of this character, all the details of
his claims would have been brought before the court, and fully argued.
I do not know what was done.
I would be surprised, if he was that important a witness, I cannot
conceive of the defense counsel just sitting back and letting the thing
go by default. I cannot conceive of that.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUmade a statement that the affidavit of
Everett was false.
Major FANTON. It was as f a r as I knew it to be.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you examined that affidavit?
Major FANTON.
I certainly did.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you say you cannot conceive of the defense
counsel sittinu back and doing that. I f you examined that affidavit you
must know wgat efforts they inade to cross-examine this man Kramm,
or have you forgotten ?
Major FANTON. Xo, Senator; that is not what I am referring to.
I am referring to the story by I ~ r a m i nthat he was instructed by the
prosecution not to talk to anybody and that lie would not give them
more than his name. I f that story is true-and I do not say it is
not, I do not know what the truth is-if it is I cannot conceive of them
sitting back and doing nothing about it.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did YOU read Everett's affidavit in which he
sets forth what they tried to do and the lawmen of the court said
"Do not go into it, I warn you not to try it again"?
Major FANTON. May I refresh my recollection?
Senator MCCAKTHY. I wish you would.
Major FANTON.Yon read that more recently than I have, so you
may be correct.
Senator MCCARTHP.I do not know. When you said Everett mas
lying, and that his statement was false, I assumed you had a fairly
detailed lrnomledge of what was in that affidavit.
Major FANTOX. I did not say that.
Senator MCCXRTHY. Let us see what you said. I t was carefully
prepared, I assume. Let us see what you did say.
Major FANTON. I think YOU will .find i t on page 12, the last
paragraph. -
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay :
Spreading such sensationalism i n the newspapers and indulging in improprie-
ties i n a petition of this nature, in a n effort to appeal to emotionalism rather
than reason, is no substitute for timely and proper proof of the facts.
Yon say this was spreading sensationalisnl and indulging in im-
proprieties. So I assume you have gone over this petition rather
carefully. I f you have, then you realize that the defense counsel were
not allowed to cross-examine the prosecution's most important witness
on his promise of immunity, what he was getting out of this.
I again ask you, if you will t ~ w nto page 64 of the petition, a petition
that I had frankly assumed you had read very carefully-
Major FANTON. Sixty-four?
Senator MCCARTHP.I do not believe the pages are the same.
Major FANTON. I would like to say in connection with the excerpt

of my statement from which you read, I was of course referring to
y SO forth, which I think sllould be
all these charges of b r ~ ~ t a l i tand
quite apparent from my statement as i t reads.
Senator MCCARTHY. This statement, of course, is the most inlportant
statement, I think, in the whole affidavit, this question of whether
or not-
Major FANTON.I will not argue about that.
Senator MCCARTHY. Whether or not defense was entitled to ex-
amine the witnesses properly.
Major FANTON. That is page what of this file?
Sanator MOCARTHY. Sixty-four.
Let me caIl this to your attention: you say that Colonel Everett
did not make false claims. You say on page 13:
Had the many claims contained i11 these petitions not h m e been completely
false, the petitioner would h a r e been colnpelled in the proper exercise of his
duties a s defense counsel to prove them a t the trial through the testimony
of competent witnesses or otherwise. .
Let me read that to you :
Had the many claims-
Major FANTON. I am very nlindful of \+hat it says, and I make the
claim again, those claims are all false. Not this, here, because I
was not present at the trial. I said in my statement, of course, all
my comments on sections or paragraphs of this petition relating t o
the trial are based on niy information received from reliable infor-
mants.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUadmit that this allegation on page 64 of
the document you have, that that is not a false allegation?
Major FANTON. Senator, I do not admit anything regarding this
petition, except this may be an accurate quotation from the record.
Senator &C.~RTHY. YOUdo not question that this is accurate?
May I ask the colonel now: Colonel, have you examined, and is
this an accurate quotation from the recold, the objections, the at-
tempted questions, the ruIing on page 64 of the petition, the question
as to the credibility of the witness?
Colonel DWINELL.I think it is.
Major FANTON. I am willing to concede i t is.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUcan give the defense counsel some advice,
Major. You say had these claims been true, then defense counsel
had the duty to prove them a t the trial through the testimony of ~0111-
petent witnesses, or otherwise, either through competent witnesses or
otherwise.
I n view of the fact that defense counsel was not present when
Hramm was interrogated, and offered immunity, if he was-in ac-
cordance with your S O P No. 4--and in view of the fact that defense
counsel had no witnesses who were present during this interrogation
of Kramm, in view of the fact that IZramni had refused to talk to
them, do yon know of any way that they could prove this, .prove
the competency of Ihamm, except by rigorous cross-examinatlon of
Kramm, which the court said they could not do?
Major FANTON. I have stated several times, I think that Kranim
should have been made to take the stand. Either that, or the thing
should have been explored thoroughly by the court, and a proper deci-
sion reached with respect to this matter.
I do not again-if I may say so, Senator, you are putting me on a
spot with this thing because I do not feel that I should judge the
competency of defense counsel with respect t o this one matter. I
do not lmow what the situation is.
Senator MCCAR'I'HY.YOUcriticize, on page 13, defense counsel. You
say: "Had the many claims contained not been completely falsev-
Senator MCCARTHY.T h a t is promises of immunity, that is one of
the claims, the promise to grant a witness immunity if h e would
falsely testify. You say: "Rad that not been completely false, then
the defense counsel should have proven through the testimony of
competent witnesses."
Now I ask you this question, in view o l that criticism which you have
made of defense counsel : Is there any conceivable y a y that they could
prove why ICramni testified as he did unless they had the right t o
cross-examine him on that point?
Major FANTON. I have already said, and I wiil repeat i t again--
Senator MCCARTHY.I am asking you: Do you know of any way?
Major FANTOX. Yes, I do.
Senator MCCARTIIP.W h a t is the way?
Major FAN TO^. T h e inan COU~CI be made

a hostile witness, put on
the witness stand and cross examined a t length. It is done.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I know it is done, Mr. Panton. Do you not
realize that E r . Rosenielcl said you cannot exailline this witness?
Major FANTON. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY.Ancl you do not think this brilliant man Eosen-
felcl, when they turned around and said he is nolT my witness, that he
woulcl then have referred t o his ruling and said: "I w2rn yon again
that you cannct question that man"?
Major FANTON. I think he would.
Senator MCCARTIIY.You do?
Major FANTOK.I certainly do. I think any lawyer sitting on 2
court, if he ,mere asked-sitting on the court as a lam member, if h e
were asked by the defense counsel whether or not he could put a hostile
witness on the witness stand, and test his credibility, stating to the
court the grounds for the request, I cannot conceive of it being denied.
I f that mere done, Senator, I would be willing to admit it was an
error. I do not believe i t mas. I have never heard of it being done
i n this case.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I ask-
Senator MCCARTHY.Let me ask this question, if I may. I f the
chairman wants to object-
Senator BALDWIN. I f the s t a g member wants to ask a question I do
not see why not.
Senator MC('ARTIII-. 1(10 not want the staff to interrupt me ~lnless
the Chair rules that he can.
Senator BALDWIN.1 rule that he can. Yon asked your staff member
t o take over the examination. I f a staff member on the other side
,wants to ask a qnestion, very well.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I ask the question because both copies of these
petitions in the hands of people testifying are not available t o us.
I would like to ask what that shows. Did the defense ask that Kramin
be made a hostile witness and put on the stand for examination?
Major FANTON. I cannot find it here. It certainly is not in the
petition.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And that is an excerpt .. from the record of trial?
Major FANTON. Yes, sir; i t is.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Coionel

Ellis, do yon know whether or not that
request was made to the court?
Colonel Ems. Not to my recollection.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Dwinell, was that request made to court?
Colonel DWINELL.It was not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Why not?
Colonel DWINELL.Because the ruling made at that time was the
ruling that came a t the end of a series of rulings of that nature that
made it impossjble to go forward with any hope of success.
Mr. CHAMBERS.. This ties in with that pattern yesterday that we
discussed, in which you said t h a t yon all had more or less become dis-
couraged by repeated adverse rulings, and you had sort of thrown in
the sponge?
Senator BALDWIN.ISthat a11 you have?
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Fanton, when you said this forenoon this
ruling that we had here-the ruling to the effect that you could not
test the credibility of a witness-was an erroneous ruling, you said it
would be a reversible error in a case that affected only one, in case of
the men, and there mas only one witness whose testimony convicted
the man, you said in that case i t would be a reversible error? I s that
right ?
Major FANTON. NO, sir. Wonld you like me to say what I did
say this morning as I recall it 1
Senator MCCARTEIY. I do not care what yon said this morning. We
will repeat i t this afternoon. We will take Mr. X. who is being tried,
and Y is the only witness against him. Y is on the stand. OnTdirect
examination he testifies to things that implicate X in the murder of
American boys, and such.
Counsel of course have read your S O P in which you say that you
can offer him immunity if yon think he is more valuable as a witness
than a defendant. They have reason to believe this man may be
offered immunity. They know he has. And they want to find out
why, to test this witness.
They think he is trying to clear himself in order to implicate X.
That is their position. Then they start questioning, "Where were
you interrogated, and what promises were you made?"
The court says :
We will not hear that because that was not gone into on direct examination.
The court goes further and says :
I have warned yon several times and this will be the last time.
Then counsel for the defendant stops. They never have a chance
to prove what this man has been offered for testifying as he did. You
and I agree that that ruling on the part of the court is in error, do
we not?
BIALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 519
Senator BALDWIN.Senator, would yon mind if your question was
mead ag,ain? I was trying to read something and I did not get it.
(Question read.)
Senator BALDWIN. There is one thing that is confusing in my mind.
There is a statement in the question to the effect that "you have read
your S O P in which you say you can promise him immnnity." I have
read the S O P and it says this :
Any ruse or deception niny be used iu the course of the interrogation; but
threats, duress, in any form, p h p i c a l violence or promises of immunity or miti-
gation of punishment should be scrupulously avoided.
( b ) Where a prisoner who is being interrogated in a crime is implicated i n
t h a t crime, i t i s permissible to tell him t h a t he will be recommended a s a witness
if such statenlent of the prisoner will cause him to tell a full or more complete
story so t h a t he will be of more value to t h e case a s a witness thau a s a de-
fendant.
However, before any such statements a r e inade to the prisoner the matter must
be cleared with the commanding officer.
( c ) Stool pigeons niay be employed, but prior to their selection or prepara-
tion the matter of their employment must be cleared with the commanding officer.
The reason I raise this point is that I did not hear all of this witness'
testimony this morning. The question assumes a statement in the
S O P 4 which does not appear to be in the SOP.
Of course the witness maS have said that he did promise immunity ;
I do not linow.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n view of the fact that the chairman is going
to take over the job as Supreme Court Justice, I certainly wish I could
ask the chairman whether or not, if in a criminal case he finds that
the defense attorney is refused the right to test the credibility of the
prosecution's witnesses, he would reverse the case and send it back
for a new trial or not.
But I know that I do not have the right to ask the Chair that ques-
t o n . I would be very interested in knowing what his answer would
be. I know there could be only one answer.
Major FANTOX.
I think I can answer your question.
Major FANTON.
Of course there were some assnmptions in there that
I cannot agree with. And the one that to me is controlling of the whole
question is the assunlption that he does not have a chance to test the
credibility of the witness:
Now, if that ruling, coupled with subsequent rulings, absolutely
cutting off any chance to test the credibility of this witness, is con-
sidered, I, of course, think it is a reversible error.
Senator MCC~~RTHY. Let us stop right there. Let us assume that you
are right, and that the defense counsel had some other track they could
have followed. Let us assume the defense counsel, if they had only
known it-that they could have put this man on, told the court he was
a hostile witness, and then been allowed to examine him and test his
credibility.
Let us assume if they knew the law they could have done that. Let us
take the case as it is. We discover they did not do that. You, I
gather, think i t is because of incompetence?
Major FANTON. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. 1think it is because they did everything they
possibly could. I n any event, we know from the record that here they
stopped. I n other words, when they get to the point of saying, "What
were you oft'ered?" "Why do you so testify?" "Were you promised

immunity?" the court says, "Do not do that, and 1 will not warn you
again."
Then the defense counsel stops. So the credibility of this witness
is not tested. Under those circumsta;nces, regardless of whether it is
the fault of an incomplete defense counsel or the r ~ ~ l i nofg the court,
we know the witness's credibility is never tested.
Would you say that that man X who is being tried had a fair trial?
Major FANTON. I would like to say this, Senator: I an? not ques-
tioning the competency of defense counsel. What I am q~~estioning
is that they believed that this man Kramm had actually been induced
by promises and what not, promises of immunity or what you want
to say, to give a false story. I think his story probably jibes with
the facts.
That may have been a very g$od reason for not putting him on to
test his credibility. The court has discretion with respect to the con-
trol of the examination of witnesses. I do not know what went on
before here.
I would like, however, to read Colonel Rosenfeld's statement. It is
in the record that I am reading. It says :
Both the prosecution and the defense will be permitted to cross-examine wit-
nesses other than the accused according to the rules and regulations of cross-
examination.
Where the credibility of the witness is to be attacked, the credibility will be
attacked in the prescribed manner, and the court will permit such attack.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you think testing the credibility by cross-
examination is a prescribed manner ?
Major FANTON. Certainly. Depending, of course, on the---
Senator MCCARTHY.Depending on what B
Major FANTON.
YOUmean just the credibility of a witness?
Senator MCCARTHY. J U testing

S ~
the credibility of a witness.
Major FANTON.
I believe that is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY. The prescribed manner is by cross-examina-
tion ?
Senator MCCARTHH. SOwhen Rosenfeld said, "You can test it in the
prescribed manner," and then said, "You cannot test it by cross-
examination," he is contradicting himself; is he not?
You know from the record that Rosenfeld said :
If you do not try to test the credibility under direct examination you cannot
test it on cross-examination.
This forenoon you and I agreed that the most important thing in
any criminal case is the question of a witness's credibility.
Major ~ N T O N That
. is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY. And I believe we agreed that unless you can
test the credibility of a witness and show what interest he has in the
case, and why he is testifying as he does, you cannot give a defendant
a fair trial. I s that not correct?
Senator MCCARTHY. Good. SOthat you and I then agree that if,
because of either incompetency of defense counsel, or because of the
ruling of the court, or for any reason, the credibility of these mit-
nesses was not tested, they did not go into that question ;then we agree
that the trials were not fair ;do we not?
Major FANTON. NO, sir. I may see a witness on the stand who
obviously is credible. The, story he tells jibes with the fact as I
k2ow the case. If I cross-examine him I may o,pen the door up and
let him really strengthen his story further.
There are plenty
- of times when you do not test the credibility of
witnesses.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I n view of the fact that one of the defense
counsel is here in this room, and he says they felt that this man was
not telling the truth, that he had-an interest in the case, that he was
promised immunity, and they wanted to examine him on that, in view
of that fact i t is not a hypothetical case-we have defense counsel here,
we have the record; in view of the fact that defense counsel thought
a
that this man was testifyin so as to clear himself because of a promise
of immunity, in view of t e fact that the chief prosecution counsel
says, "Yes, the defense staff did tell nze that; they told me that this
man told them that he had been promised immunity," and the chief
of the prosecution staff says, "We did not promise him immunity, but
we never did try him." I n view of that does not any logical man
have to assume that some defendants were convicted because of the
testimony of this man Kramm, and did not have a fair trial?
Major FANTON. YOUare assuming, of course, that the man is guilty
of some crime ?
Senator MCCARTHY. I am not assuming anything. I am assuming
he is a witness oil the stand, and the defense counsel said, ':We have
read your order saying that you can promise a witness immunity if
he is valuable enough." .This man tells the defense counsel-
Senator BALDWIN.Senator, is that in the order ? I s there anything
in the order that they can promise him immunity ?
I t is permissible to tell him that he will be recommended a s a witness if such
statement to the prisoner will cause him to tell a full or more complete story so
that he will be of more value to the case a s a witness than a s a defendant.
This is very, very clear.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me ask you to get it clear in my mind. You
zssume from that statement that that is equivalent to a promise of
immunity 8
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, this is a statement by the man
in charge of the interrogation team to the effect that it is permissible
to tell a man being interrogated, one of the men suspected of a crime,
that he will be recommended as a witness, and that he will not be a
defendant in the case.
I n other words, that if you are not going to be a defendant, that
means you are getting immunity, if his,story is good enough. And it
is so clear that there can be no question about it whatsoever-
If I may get back to my question. May 1ask you, Mr. Chairman,
in view of the fact I may be mistaken in this :
Do you not understand paragraph ( b ) to mean that if a witness'
story will be valuable to convict the other defendants, then he can be
promised immunity?
I think we both understand it the same way.
Senator BALDWIN. I n the light of the first paragraph, which says
no promises of immunity can be made, I frankly do not know what
to make of that second paragraph. I t does say that he will be more
valuable as a witness than as a defendant.
I am willing to put a broad construction on the thing to the effect

that the witness might very well assume, from that, that he would not
be a defendant, but would be a witness.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think we both agree on that.
Then, Mr. Fanton, in view of the fact this man Krainm was one
of the important witnesses, in view of the fact that the counsel for the
defense did attempt to interrogate him to show whether he was lying
or telling the truh, to show what reasons he woulcl have for lying,
whether he was lying because he was being let off, or why, and in view
of the fact that counsel for the defense, as I say, either because they
did not know the law-I think they knew it very well, in that case-
Major FANTON. I do, too.
Senator MCCARTHY. Or because of improper rulings by the court,
were denied the right to question this particular witness and show
what interest he hacl in the case, show what he woulcl gain by testi-
fying as he did, in other words prove whether he was telling the
truth or lyiag-in view 01the fact that they were not allowed to do
that, is it not very obvious that anybody who was convicted because
of his testimony just simply did not get a fair trial?
Major FANTON. The fact is, as I understand it, the request was
never made. I do not k1101.v why. Colonel Dwiimell is here. Maybe
he can explain it.
Senator MCCARTHY. He has explained it.
Yes, Colonel ?
Colonel DWINELL.I recall also the discussions we had on that very
point. We failed to see how we could gain anything more by a hostile
witness even though we made him our own witness than we could have
gained by cross-examination, which normally should provide you with
the greatest latitude possible.
Senator >~CARTI-IY. NO question about it. Under cross-examina-
tion you had illfinitely more latitude than you had with a hostile
witness. It is elementary. There is no question about it.
Major FANTON. I do not think there is any distinction a t all be-
tween the cross-examination of a witness if he is hostile and making
him your own witness and cross-examining him.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then you feel the ruling would have been the
same if they made him a hostile witness?
Major FANTON. Kot necessarily. I think the court has discretion
to control the examination of a witness as long as the ruling is correct.
I do not know what vcent on a t that trial, Senator, and I would be
happy to give ou my opinion if it had any value.
Senator M C ~ A R T H Y . You say the court had discretion to control the
examination. You and I agree. I ask you, Does the court ever have
the discretion to deny the defeildant the right to question the credi-
bility of a witness ?
Major FANTON. Of course not.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOyou say this was an abuse of any purported
discretion ?
Major FANTON. I cannot answer that "Yes," because I do not know
all the facts.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you say they had no discre-
tion in a case like this ?
Major FANTON. Certainly they had discretion. I think they might
very well have been exercising i t properly. I do not know; I think.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 523:
Senator, I am happy to do my best to answer your questions. But 1
am not informed about what took place a t the trial.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this again. Perhaps I mis-
undemtoocl your answer. You said the court had discretion in deter-
mining whether or not defense counsel can test the credibility of a
witness on cross-examination. Do yo~lsay that ruling was within
the discretion of the court?
Major FANTON. I think there are situations where it might be. I
do not know. There is something that leads me to indicate-
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Fanton, is it not elenlentary that in every
criminal case the defense counsel has unlimited right to examine a
witness to test his credibility?
Ma.jor FANTON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTEIY. If
he does not do that in all cases an appeal
court would set the conviction aside and send it back ?
Senator M C C A R ~ Good.
Y. No\.;, Mr. Fanton, when did you leave
Schwabisch Hall?
Maior FAXTON. AS near as I can recall i t was the middle of Febru-.
ary, February 14 or 15.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then Colonel Ellis took over; is that right?
Major FANTON. NO. I think there was a period of 2 or 3 weeks
when Captain Shumacker was in charge. Was it longer than that?
Colonel ELLIS.About 3 weeks.
Senator MCCARTHY. While you were in charge at Schwabisch Hall,
all of the defendants in these cases occupied the position of prisoner
of war ;is that right?
Major FANTON. I do not Bnow technically what their status was.
I suppose you would say so ;yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know that on the 6th of April, or.
thereabouts, an order was signed purportedly removing them from
prisoner of war status ?
Major FAXTON. I believe you are correct. Technically, I think they
were still prisoners of war.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU do not claim that you treated them as
prisoners of war ?
Major FANTON. I have outlined, I believe, how we treated them..
We certainly did not treat then1 as ordinary prisoners of mar; no.
That is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you did not treat them as.
ordinary prisoners of war ?
Major FANTON. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. I believe you testified that you would not have
been able to convict them if you had to treat them as prisoners t
Major FANTON. We would not have been able to go on with the case
a t all.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n your S O P No. 4, you have that before you ?J
Major FANTON. Yes; I do.
Senator MCCARTHY. I will not read the entire paragraph, just the.
first part :
Any ruse or deception may be used in the course of interrogation.
I gather it is your position that it was proper to naturally outsmart

these men and get confessions froin them, and your job was to con-
vict all those who were guilty and employ every legitimate means to
do that ?
Senator MCCARTITY. I believe there is no claim that while it is
proper to use stool pigeons, that i s generally clone?
Major FANTON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. What I would like to get from you is the ex-
tent to which you feel it was proper to use ruses and dkceptions.
-Major
- FANTON. It is a very dificult question to answsr categori-
cally.
Senator MCCARTHY. I know it is.
Major F'ANTON. Of course, there were a great many of these, with
variations. Generally speaking, they are described in my statement.
I think the interrogators themselves probably can give you clearer pic-
tures of exactly what they do.
I have general knowledge of the, techniques that were used. I
can give you one example, if you like, because it is an important one.
Senator MGCARTHY. Yes.
Major FANTON. There was a statement or confession, one of the
first we secured, from this man Fleps, who admitted firing the first
shot, what he believed was the first shot, into the gro'up of prisoners.
As I recall it P was in the cell when that statement mas secured from
him. H e came.in, and was interrogated by Lieutenant Perl. Without
going into all the details of preliminary questions, the results were
negazive.
As I recall it, Lieutenant Perl told hi171 to take his shirt off. The
man took his shirt off. Perl circled around as though he were looking
for something important. He saw a mole or something on his back.
He noted the mole, made a great claim about the mole.
Then he circled around some more, looked at Bleps, and said, "So
you are Georg Fleps ?"
I t seems that Fleps had boasted to some of the inmates in the room
that were with him that he had fired the shots. Perl said :
Fleps, we know you fired these shots. We a r e not interested in t h a t ; we want
t o know who told you to fire them.
And the man came right back with the answer :
My tank commander, Hans Siptrott.
That is a typical example. I do not know that that m7asbrought out
to the court. 1 have not examined the record on that score. But there
is one example that I recall because 1was right there when it occurred.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Certainly nothing improper about that. One
of the ot,her ruses, I gather, was to convince the man being interro-
gated that you had other confessions which already implicated him?
Major FANTON. Either that, or that we knew the story about him.
We had to build the fact picture up. It was almost like an intelligence
operation, exce t it as more exact, ren!ly.
8
Senator Mc ARTHY. Did you think it was proper also to tell him
that the ration cards would be taken from his family, in other words,
his wife, children, or whatever the case may be?
Major. FANTON. Senator, that certainly would have been improper.
I do not know of any case where that was done.
Senator MCGARTIIY. I have the Army report.
Major FAN'I'ON. I read that same report. And I know the claim was
made.
Senator MCCARTIIY.It was not a claim; it was the Army board
that was appointed to study the situation.
Major FANTON. I t was the testimony of one of the witnesses. I am
not certain which one.
Senator MCCARTHY. Paragraph 22, page 5, of the Army report. I
wonder if the pages are the same?
Major FANTON. I doubt it.
Senator MCCUTIIY. If you will turn to page 5, Major, paragraph
22 :
I t is alleged that representatives of the prosecution threatened harm t o rela-
tives of the accused if they did not confess, such a s deprivation of ration cards.
There was evidence t h a t this did occur.
What is your thought on that? Do you think the Army board was
wrong when they made that statement 8
Major FAKTON. It is very hard for me to judge, Senator. It was
certainly contrary to my instructions. I f we can establish the interro-
gator who mas supposed to have done these things-
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other rords, you do not know whether that
was done or not ?
Major FANTON. I cannot say m-liether or not it was done. I do not
believe that it was. But I cannot say "Yes" or "No."
Senator M C C A R ~ Y But. the fact is you yourself do not know?
Major FANTON. NO; I do not.
Sentor MCCARTHY. YOUdo not claim to-
Major FANTON.
I know it never came to my attention, if it was done.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU do not claim that you sat in all these
interrogations, of course?
Major F'ANTON.NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Obviously not. [Reading :]
The board finds that i t is probable in certain instances such threats may have
been made, but the board is unable to identify the particular instances involved.
Here is another one I would like to ask you about :
I t did appear t h a t during the trial certain members of the prosecution staff
invited relatives of the accnsed to attend a party a t the officer's club.
There is evidence, I believe by Colonel Ellis, to the effect that some
of the prosecution staff did take some of the wives of the accused up
to the officers' club?
Major FANTON. I know about that.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know anything about that situation?
Major FANTON. I h o w about it from hearsay.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did this not occur while you were in charge,
I gather?
Major FANTON. NO. But I know there was some talk about it, and
it is mentioned, of course, in here.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou know who the officers were?
Major FANTON. I am sorry; I do not.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhad to pet rid of one man, Steiner, you
testified the other day, as I recall. Will you tell us why you had to
get rid of him?
Major FANTON. I would not put it that way. Steiner, 1think, was
a conscientious interrogator. His position really was that of inter-
preter. I think he did interrogate one or two subjects.
His initial assignment, as I said when I testified the other day, was
to decipher the messages on these mess kits. His big trouble was that
he had difficulty with the English language, translating from German
into English.
That is the oAicial reason I gave, and that was primarily the reason
why he was returned. I did mention an incident, because I wanted
to be completely honest about it and tell all the facts.
There was an incident where I heard him bellow a t some prisoners
who were marching i a the hall, and there had been a lot of emphasis
on the fact that we used personnel who were described as "39-ers."
Mr. Steiner could be put in that category.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was Perl a 39-er?
Major FANTON. Yes; he was.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWmany 39-ers did you have?
Major FANTON.
Per1 was the only one who was an interrogator.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWmady others did you have on your staff?
Major FANTON. Kirschbaum, I believe, came there shortly before
I felt. I think he would be in that category. H e was an interpreter.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you name what you would call the key
interrogators ?
Major FANTON. Lieutenant Perl, Captain Shumacker, Ms. Harry
Thon, and Mr. Ellomitz.
Senator MCCARTHY. Just what you would call the key interrogators,
not all of them?
Major FANTON. That is right. There were others.
Senator MCCARTHY. I just want what you would refer to as your
key interrogators.
Major FANTON. I call them key interrogators because they were
with the team right through the entire time that we were investigating
this.
Senator MCCARTHY. Am I correct, that you got four that you would
refer to as key interrogptors?
Senator MCCARTHY. Perl, Shumacker, Thom, and Ellowitz.
Major FANTON.
Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Which mere lawyers ?
Major FANTON. All with the exception of Thon.
Senator MCCARTHY. Thon is not a lawyer?
Major FANTON. NO, sir j he is not. He has had interr~gat~ion ex-
perience in prisoner-of-war interr~gat~ion, and I think also he had
experience in the Berlin document section.
Senator MCCARTHY. I s Perl a lawyer?
Major F'ANTON.Yes ;he is.
Senator MCCARTHY. And Shumacker ?
Major FANTON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTEIY. And Ellowitz?
Major FANTON.
Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know if any of them practiced law
before or since?
Major F'ANTON. Shumacker, I think, is an experienced lawyer.
H e took active part in the prosecution and was a big help to me.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know whether Perl ever practiced
law ?
Major FANTON. Perl practiced in Vienna for, I think, 6 years. He
would be better qualified to tell you, to give you the exact information,
t h a n I.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you tell me sonlet,hing about the back-
ground of Steiner? Steiner was, I gather, a refugee from a German
concentration camp.
Major FANTON. He arrived at the detachment one evening. I made
some inquiries at the time about his training and background, and
I did discover that he was a 39-er. I believe, as I have already stated,
that his mother was supposed to have been killed in a concentration
camp.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, his mother was killed in a
concentration cam in Gennany ?
'
Major FANTON. ??
Senator MCCARTEIY.
hat is correct.
HOW
long has he been out of Germany him-
self ?
Major FANTON. That I do not know.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you go into that?
Major FANTON. I may very well have gone into it. I cs~nnotsay
now. I do not recall.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was he an American citizen?
Major FANTON.
I believe he was.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know ?
Major FANTON.
I do not know.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you knew that he felt, naturally, as his
mother was killed by the Germans in a concentration camp, you knew
he felt very bitterly toward the Germans?
Major FANTON. That is true.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUknew that?
Major FANTON. I would have, if I had been in his position.
I
think so.
Senator &/ICCARTEIY. Did

you know, according to the testimony of
Mr. Bailey, one of the court reporters, that Steiner bragged about the
way he would march some of the defendants up the flight of steps?
Major FANTON. I read that testimony.
Senator MCCARTWY. And

put a rope around their neck and jerk it
and get a confession. For a man whose mother was killed in a German
concentration camp, who told you ahead of time that he hated all the
Germans, is it not incredible that such a man should be assigned to
getting confessions and told to use any deception or ruse? I s i t not
incredible that he would use such methods?
Major FANTON. I would like to say something that I think is impor-
tant. I do not want to do Mr. Steiner an injustice. I myself felt that
the man was a very conscientious person-worked as hard as he could.
H e never told me he hated all the Germans. I never saw any sign
of animosity, with the exception of that one little incident in the hall,
which may not have been representative of anything.
It is inconceivable.to me that he could have used such a ruse without
my knowing about it, and I never heard of it. I do not know. Mr.
Bailey said it is so. It is a matter of just incredibility.
528 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGA,TIOT\?
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you think it is good judgment to hire as

your interrogator, put him in charge of the job of getting confes-
sions-
Major FANTON. I did not hire him.
Senator MCCARTEIY.Whoever did him give him that job, and getting
confessions from men, by a man who had every reason to dislike tho
German race, a man whose mother was killed in a German concentra-
tion camp ; is it not unusual 2
Major FANTON. The way you state the question, of course, the
answer would be "No."
But here is the story on Mr. Steiner: H e was not an interrogator.
H e usually woikecl with one of the other men-one of t,he other inter-
rogators. I do not recall now with n-hom he worked. I do not know.
I could not tell you.
Senator BALDWIN. What w a s the little incident i: the hall you
referred to? Has that been described here?
Major FANTON. I described that,. Senator.
Mr. CHA~BERS.
I n Bailey's testiniony.
Major FANTON.
I clo not think it was in Bailey's t.eslimony. It was
in mine. He let out a bellow once. There were some prisoners march-
ing up, and he gave them some "Achtung" but I heard it. It was quite
a loucl command. I had some doubts about the situation. I thought
we might also be subject to criticism, frankly, for using him.
Senator MCCARTIXY. I realize, of course, the mere fact a man is a
refugee does not make him incompetent to do that work. We have one
of the refugees, defense counsel, who fought harder or as hard as
anyone over there, for the defense of those men, a refugee from Hitler
in Germany. H e will be a witness here, Mr. Strong, and completely
fair and completely honest, apparently.
So I was not intiniatinq that the mere fact he was a refugee would
make hiin incompetent. Who did hire this man Steiner ?
Major FANTON. I assume personnel in Frankfort. I cannot answer
that.
Senator MCCARTHY. H e was not part of the Army personnel.
Major FANTON. H e was a civilian employee of the Army. H e had
been in the Army, I am quite certain, and I think he is one of the
soldiers who was transferred over to a civilian status.
Senator MCCARTIIY.H e was sent down to you, assigned to your
command ?
Senator MCCARTHY. And you assigned him to this job of interro-
gation and interpretation?
Major FANTON. I assigned him first, as I say, first to try to find
out what was on these mess kits. That took him about a week.
Senator MCCARTHY. You say finally the t,lling that brought things
to a head and caused you to discharge him. was his shouting some
command to the prisoners in the hall?
Major FANTON. NO,that was not it, Senator. I do not know exactly
when that happened, frankly, during his stay. It was a cumulative
matter. I had a talk with Mr. Steiner and I talked it over with him.
I think he understood why he was being returned. Frankly, I think
he realized that he really could not handle the English language well
enough to interpret for our interrogators.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO I understand that it is your testimony
today that the reason you let him go was not because you thought he
was improperly examining the witnesses, not because you thought he
was doing anything improper, but because of his difficulty with the
German language ?
Major FANTON. That is the primary reason, for this reason: he did
not do any interrogating, I am almost certain. H e worked with other
people, he was an interpreter, and a translator. That was the reason
1 sent him back. H e did not have sufficient command of the English
language.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you give us Perl's background?
Major FANTON. Per1 has quite a background. H e attended the
University of Vienna for 8 years, post-graduate work. H e has an
mnsier of arts degree, ant1 doclor of laws degree, and doctor of phil-
osophy degrze. The doctor of philosopl~y,I believe was in psy-
chology. He studied criminology, lie was a practicing attorney i:i
Vienna, he was an instructor a~ the iililitary intelliq-ence training
center, Camp Ritchie, Rld. He wcs one of the Pew intelligence officers
in this country assigned to CISDIC, ~ h i c l stands
i for "Combined
intelligence services cletniled interrogation center," which was the
highest level oP conlbined British and American intelligence.
H e came to us with the highest recommendations. H e was quite
above sadism, in my opinion, he was quite above taking unfair ad-
vantzge of these people.
Senator MCCARTHY. Just give me his background first. Was he in
a concentration camp ?
Majcr F.ZKTON. Eie riel-er as in a concentration camp.
Of course, when he was on his way to the concentration camp, as I
get the story, he escaped from the train.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO yon know whether he had been sentenced
to death?
Major FANTON. NO,I never heard that story.
Senator MCCARTHY. What was the sentence, do you know?
Major FANTON.
I do not know that he was sentenced to anything.
Senator MCCARTHY. H e was sentenced to the concentration camp.
Major FANTON. H e was segregated to be sent to the concentration
camp. As I understand i t a n d this is the story that he told me
himself-
Senator MCCARTHY. And then he escaped?
Major FANTON. Yes. When Hitler's troops marched into Vienna
they went right down the main street, they took all the doctors and
all the lawyers, anybody who was of'any prominence, and immediately
sent them off to the Gestapo headquarters, and from there they sorted
them out, those to go to the concentration camp, and those going
elsewhere, and he mas 011 the way to Dnchau.
Senator MCCARTHY. His wife was in the concentration camp for
how long?
Major FAKTON. She was not in the concentration camp a t first.
She mas apprehended by the Gestapo for indulging in underground
activities and was sent to a concentration camp and was there, I believe,
for a year and a half.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did she escape?
Major FANTON. NO. She was released.
Senator MCCARTHY. Released from the concentration camp?
,530 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Major RANTON.Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. What happened? Did she come to the United
States ?
Major FANTON. NO. She was released and &urned to Vienna as I

understand it. Then, after a while, she rejoined Lieutenant Perl in
Germany.
Senator BALDWIN.A t this point, I think we will have to take a
recess and go over to vote. We will be back as soon as we can.
(Thereupon, a short recess was taken.
I
Senator BAWWIN.The committee wi 1 come to order.
Senator MCCARTHY.Mr. Chairman, I forgot a matter this i ~ o r n i n g
that I promised to call to your attention. I do not think it is tech-
nically part of this investigation except insofar as the Malnledy
prisoners are still quartered in Landsberg. I have a number of letters
principally from the clergy in that area, from the Protestant bishops
and the Catholic clergy.
This one is from A. G. Mentz, a bishop, the apostolic delegate in
'Germany. H e writes :
In view of the Senate investigations t h a t the Senate Armed Services Subcom-
mittee is making, t h e enclosure may be of interest. I had a communication from
Cisliop John Hoya Honsler with respect to some of these charges. There seems
to be more foundation f o r them than the investigation made by the post com-
mander cared to reveal. Needless to say, such incidents h u r t our interests in
Germany very much.
Our over-all policy has been excellent. Top level administration has been good
but malfeasance on lower levels of administration has produced incalculable and
maybe irreparable harm. I n writing you I assure you I am motivated only by
the thought of keeping unsmirched the good name of our American people.
Then he introduces an article which has to do with claiins made by
both the Catholic and Protestant clergy in regard to-
Senator BALDWIX.An article from a German newspaper?
Senator MCCARTHY. I do not Inlow. It does not say. It is in
English, apparently American. It is in regard to the religious dis-
crimination over there. For example, here are some of the charges.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I have a number of other letters in my ofice
which I would be glad to let the staff have, also.
Was Mrs. Perl present in your command, Major?
Major FANTON. Yes, sir; she was.
Senator MC~ARTHY. And

was she a member of the WAC'S?
Major FANTON.
NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHT.Did she dress in a WAC uniform?
Major FANTON. No, sir. I can explain that if you will let me.
Major FANTON.
Lieutenant Perl, I believe, purchased some of this
regular officer material, the OD and so-called pinks, and had tailor-
made a suit or skirt for her out of that. But she did not wear any
uniform.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was Lieutenant Perl an officer?
Senator MCCARTIIY.And he must have been an American citizen I
assume.
Major FANTON. Yes; he was.
henator MCCARTIIY. Did you hear of these charges of Perl mistreat-
ing the suspects in order to get confessions?
Major FANTON.I did not hear of any of these charges until, I be-
lieve the first time was when I read this petition. That is not correct.
I saw them in a newspaper at first. Then one of these investigations
started. Last July-July 13, 1948-1 wrote Senator Baldwin about
the malter, because I felt i t was a thing that should be gone into
thoroughly.
I n view of my knowledge of the operations there a t the prison I
was certain that all of these charges mere false. And I thought it
was doing irreparable damage to the reputation of this country abroad
to have such charges made. 4: felt very strongly about it, and still do.
I do not want to continue. I would rather have you question me.
Senator RIICCARTIIY.On page 16 of your statement,, I would like to
hare you elaborate :
I n view of the ineffectual investigations on which mauy of the acquittals and
commutations have been based, and the uncertainty t h a t has characterized t h i s
case by General Clay's headquarters-
and then you go on making recommendations. I gather it is your
general feeling that Clay's heaclquarters has handled these matters
rather badly ?
Major FANTON. That is a tough one, Senator, but I stated my posi-
tion in the statement. I would rather not elaborate on it for obvious
reasons.
Senator MCCARTEIY. This is too important for us to let you-
Major FANTON. I ant to go a little further and explain why I say
that. Here again it is a newspaper account. I may be judging the
thing unfairly. It is all I h'd to go on. I understand that the sen-
tence of Christ mas commuted on the basis that he was mistreated,
tortured or beaten, or some other story. I happened to be present
when Christ signed his conftssioi~. I saw the man. I know, I am
absolutely certain. that there certainly was no physical force used.
And Lieutenant Pal, I mi sure, when he testifies, will be able to ex-
plain how Christ's confession was secured.
I have the story second-hand. I would rather have him explain
it. I f you want me to I will undertake to describe the technique
used. There is one case.
Another case is the case of Preuss, also sentenced to death, and was
also commuted.
Senator MCCARTIXY. HOW do you spell t h a t ?
Major FANTON. P-r-e-u-s-s, I believe.
Senator MCCARTHY.What was the first man's name?
Major FANTON.
Christ-C-h-r-i-s-t.
Preuss, I am given to understand, his confession and his admissions
were secured by none other than Peiper himself. The story is typical
of the techniqnes used, and i t is a very interesting one. I do not
know that I can do it justice. I will undertake, however, to describe
it as i t was related to me, if yon are interested.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I do not want the individual cases.
Major FANTON. Those are two that indicated to me that cominuta-
tions were being granted on the basis of claims which I considered
false, and claims which mere very serious. I mean if these charges
were true they were extremely serioas.
They prompted such articles as the article appearing in Time maga-
zine on January 17's issue. Very serious matters.
532 -MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUfelt the reviews were rather hapllazardly

conducted ?
Major FANTON. I would not undertake to characterize them. I felt
that they had reached an iinproper result. I felt that the investiga-
tions of this thing were certainly one-sided.
Senator MCCARTHY.I assume YOLI heard Judge Van Roden tell the
case of co~nmutationsfrom death to a life sentence for a naval captain
who ordered the clubbing to death of seven American fliers. I have
not read the record myself. I am just depending on what the judge
told on the stand. T h e clubbing to death of seven American fliers.
Also the testimony that the junior officer-I forget whether he was
a lieutenant or a major-who refused to carry out the old captain's
order that he kill the Americans, and then the old captain said, "March
them through the town. The civilians are not bound by the Geneva
convention." T h e junior officer refused to do that, refused to take any
part i n it. The deputy judge advocate recommended that the sentence
-
be cut down to 2y2years.
The Van Roden-Simpson committee, as I recall, agreed with that,
that he should get 2y2years. I am not clear why he got 2y2 years, i n
view of the fact he opposed all these moves. B u t the end result is that
the junior officer, who refused to follow the orders of his commanding
officer to kill these American fliers. the fliers vere finally beaten to
death directly because of the order of this naval captain. Clay's head-
quarters finally gave the captain the identical sentence that they gave
the junior officer who refused to take any part in it.
I take it t h a t is the part of your feeling that these reviews were
badly and incompetently handled.
Major FANTON. T h a t is a question, frankly, that I mould rather not
answer. I f you press me f o r a n answer, I will give you my opinion.
On the facts as you stated it would certainly appear that there was
something strange about the relative guilt of these two people.
Certainly if the junior officer did refuse or reinonktrate with his snpe-
rior officer over the violation of the convention, and received the same
sentence, if those facts were revealed a t the trial. i t seems very strange.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUsay "The uncertainty that characterized
the handling of this case." I n other words, you feel that there has been
a great deal of uncertainty. Do vou think there was any incompetence
in the handling of this case by Clay's headquarters?
Major FANTON. I would rather not characterize it.
Senator MCCARTI-IY.I have .got to ask vou not to be delicate in these
matters. This is a very impozant matter.
Major FANTON. Certainly.
Senator MCCARTHY.W e are dealing not only with the life and death
of a number of our enenzies who were defeated, but also with how the
rest of the world regards American justice, and American democracy,
on which we are spending billions of dollars to do it. F o r that reason
we cannot afford to have any of our witnesses refrain from answering
because their answer mjght embarrass-
Major FANTON. YOUmisunderstood me. I am not going to refrain
from answering. I will give you my opinion. I would rather not,
however, classify anyone as competent or incompetent. I certainly
do not feel that I am qualified to judge a person, whoever is respon-
sible for this, without knowing all the circumstances. I do feel this,
and I feel it very strongly, and have so stated i n this statement: that
MALMEDY MASGACRE INVESTIGATION 533
such serious charges should have been thoroughly and completely in-
vestigated a t the earliest possible moment.
I mean thoroughly investigated, a searching investigation.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you do not feel that there ever
has been complete, intelligent, and thorough investigation of all the
vast welter of charges that have come out of the Malmedy trials.
Major FANTON. I think the Raymond Board, the ,Qdministration
Justice Review Board, came closest in their conclusions, but I think
they should have come out and said definitely that they found no
beatings, that they found none of that alleged cruelty and torture, and
putting splinters under fingernails and things of that nature.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay the Raymond Board comes nearest to
arrive a t the actual facts and you said they should have come out and
said definitely there were no beatings. I might point out that the
Raymond Board came out and definitely stated just the opposite. I f
I may call your attention to page 9.
Major FANTON. That is what I am quarreling with :the conclusions.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdiffer with their findings ?
Major FANTON. I certainly do.
Senator MCCARTHY. That physical force was not systen~atically
applied in order to obtain statements but that undoubtedly in the
heat of the moment on occasions an interrogator did use some physical
force on a recalcitrant suspect. Do you differ with that finding?
Major FANTON. I certainly do. I want to know what they mean.
I would make a motion for a more specific statement. I do not know
what they are talking about.
Senator MCCARTHY. We will go through this a little further.
In certain instances interrogators made threats to the accused that if they did
not talk their relatives would be deprived of their ration cards.
You have told us some time ago that you could not state whether
o r not your men had done that, but that they mere told they could use
ruses and deceptions. I f the Raymond Board found that your inter-
rogators did tell John Jones that his family would starve unless he
signed a confession, certainly you do not quarrel with the Raymond
Board putting in a report.
Major FANTON. I would like to explain this because it is very im-
portant, and it underlies my statenlent and underlies the strong feeling
I have about this case. I lived with this thing for G or 7 months. I
saw the case develop. I believe that I knew the facts better probably
than any of my interrogators. I had an opportunity to weigh the
factual information that they mere securing. I had an opportunity to
observe them in action.
I knew their techniques. I understood the picture, I think, very
eclearly. To me these statements do not ring true. I do not believe
it mas necessary to do these things. I do not think they entered in
any way into the evidence that was accumulated.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I interrupt you, Major? You said the
Raymond report came the nearest to giving a true picture-
Major FANTON. I said the investigation came nearest to being a
complete investigation; at least they did request statements from the
prosecution. But they never did, to my knowledge, gat any informa-
tion from the prison personnel or any statements or information from
the medical personnel that were assigned to this prison.
534 MALlMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOK
I understand some of these witnesses are coming here to testify t o

this committee. I think you will see the importance of their testimony.
Senator MCCARTHY. Here is what the Board says :
The practices referred to in A, B, C, and D above-
that is with regard to threats, taking away ration cards, physical force,
mock trials-
the practice referred to in A, B, C, and D above, in certain instances exceeded
the bounds of propriety.
You do not feel that this board was prejudiced against the prosecu-
tion's staff or anything when they made this investigation ?
Major F'ANTON.I would not say so; no, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Would you say-
Major F'ANTON.I would say they were trying to do a fair and
impartial job.
Senator MCCARTIIY.And you said this board made the most
thorough investigation of any of the investigations, and you feel i n
making this report that they were trying to render a fair report SO
that Clay would know i t ?
Major FANTON. I beliere so.
Senator MCCARTHY. SO that under the circumstances, do you not
think that any disinterested individual is bound to believe that all of
these things actually did occur? I n other words, the use of mock
trials,. physical force, telling the man they would deprive the family
of ration cards and let the family starve unless he signed a confession?
I guess that generally covers it. Do you not feel that in view of this
report that any individual cannot help but believe that the trials were
improperly conducted ?
Major FANTON. Of course, that is where I take exception to the
Raymond report. I think it did convey that impression. I want to
make this very clear, because it underlies this whole thing-
Senator MCCARTEIY. YOUhave testified previously that you did not
know, for example, whether or not yonr investigators would tell a
man "unless you confess yonr family mill starve." Yon testified you
did not know that, and you testified that you did not attend a great
number of the interrogations, I believe, or at least you did not attend
all of them.
Major FANTON. Certainly not all of them.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n view of that you, of course, cannot tell us in
detail what threats, what physical beatings occurred, can you ?
Major FANTON. I cannot tell yon because I do not believe anything
like that occurred. I can answer that this way, Senator: These wit-
nesses will be before you, you will have a chance to judge them.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Which witnesses?
Major FBNTON. I assume all the interrogators nre being called. 1
knew these men quite well. I was with them daily. I observed their
techniques, I observed their remlts, which is even more important. I
might say that at the outset I went through each one of the statements
of the survivors taken by the I(+, within a few days of the o c c u r r e n c e
this relates to the Malmedy massacre. t,he crossroads killing-and
picked out the facts, established the pattern of facts, those facts which
all the witnesses testified to, and did the same with the statements of
captured prisoners of war.
That was the basis. Then I did everything possible to check the
information that was being secured.
Senator MCCARTHY. Good. Let us get down to that.
Major FANTON. I honestly believe that the statements are all cor-
rect, to the best of the knowledge and belief of the people giving them.
Senator McCmusu. Let us get down to the investigation you made.
There were confessions of the men to the effect that they had mowed
down a sizable number of American prisoners, shot their1 down in cold
blood, near a church wall. There were corroborative statements of
other witneeses, some of them got inlmunity and were not tried, others
of whom were codefendants.
A t the time of this alleged massacre of American prisoners you, of
course realize that Colonel Peiper was in La Gleize, a i d that a t that
time he had 200 American prisoners of war a t L a Gleize, that the
American conlmanding officer of those American prisoners was Col-
onel McCowan, that Colonel McCowan was with Colonel Peiper,
riding around, and had free access to the American village, that this
massacre supposedly occurred while he was in the village supposedly
negotiating for exchange of prisoners.
After the negotistioas were completed and he returned he gave no
report whatsoever of any American prisoners being massacred. H e
testified at the trial that wliile he had the full run of the town, the
churchyard and everything. he knew of no prisoners massacred.
The parish priest living in the basement of the church, up and down,
testified there were-no bodies around, heard no shooting, no indication
that there mas a massacre.
I n view of that, and in view of the detailed confessions you had to
the effect that those American prisoners were massacred, right in Lieu-
tenant Colonel McCowan7s area, who visited the area, does not that
give you some reason to suspect that those confessions were not true,
or do you think that McCowan mas blind, and could not see what was
gomg on ?
Major FANTON. I heard Colonel Dwinell testify yesterday. I think
he argued his case well. And I think Colonel Ellis will be allowed
to answer those arguments.
I am told, and I believe it to be a fact, that Lieutenant Colonel Mc-
Cowan was thoroughly discredited at the trial. However, I am not
competent to testify regarding that fact.
Senator MCCARTHY. Can you tell us in what way he was discredited?
I think we have his testimony.
Major FANTON. I cannot tell you, Senator, because, as I say, I have
no knowledge of the incident. I think when Colonel Ellis resumes
the stand, and answers the arguments that have been made by the
defense counsel, as he certainly should, I believe that it will be clear
to the committee just what the situation is.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you discuss this with Colonel Ellis?
Major FANTON. I have discussed that one aspect of the matter. I,
furthermore, Senator-I did not mean to be inattentive, but I was
looking for it here in my memorandum. We had a couple of witnesses
who testified-
Senator MCCARTHY. Let us get---
Major FANTON. This is important with respect to McCowan. That
is what I am doing.
Senator MCCARTI-IY.I n other words, you think MtCowan was lying

when he said that-
I was in that area, I was in charge of the 200 Arnr~icanwar prisoners, those
200 prisoners were released, I was in charge of all the prisoners in the area,
and none of my prisoners were shot, none of the men over whom I had control,
and no other American prisoners, were shot.
I s i t your thought now that he was lying a t t,hat time 1
Major FANTON. I do not know whether he was or not. When I say
a witness' testimony was discredited I do not mean necessarily that
h e was lying. H e may tell an implausible story.
Senator MCCARTHY.The affidavit of Everett, which was drafted i n
large part by Colonel Dwinell, one of the things set forth was this
particular L a Gleize situation. You say in your statement that these
were complete falsehoods set forth in Everett's statemrnt, so I assume
you must have something on which to base that.
Major FANTON. I think you are going- a little further than my
statement.
Senator MCCARTHP.May I read it to you. on page 13 ?
Major FANTON.
YOUhave to rend more than just page 13.
Senator MCCARTHY.On the top of the second paragraph, if you
will refer to that, page 13, you said :
Had the maney claims contained in this petition not been coml~letelyfalse-
then you go on to say what the defense counsel should hare done.
I n other words, gou do claim those statements were completely
false i n Everett's petition?
Major FANTON. Insofar as they relate-and I think you ought to
read this, because I did prepare this stztement carefully-insofar as
they relate t o these claims of brutality. They are listed at such lengtll
I cannot remember them all, to be honest with you.
Senator MCCARTHY.The brutality is all tied up with the getting of
confessions.
Major FANTON. T h a t is right; to the mock trials. and so forth.
Senator MCCARTHY.Colonel Everett says that an American lieu-
tenant colonel was present and swears that no American prisoners
were shot i n this area. You produced detailed confessions of German
soldiers saying they shot American prisoners in that area. Do you
follow me?
Major FANTON. Absolutely.
Senator MCCARTHY.SO Everett said those confessions were ob-
tained by force, brntality, and threats. I f Lieutenant Colonel Mc-
Coman is not lying, if he is not lying, then the confessions are false.
T h a t follows as night follows the day.
I n other words, you are i n charge of 200 American prisoners of
war, here i n this area. You are i n complete charge of them, and you
say you had the complete free run in the area. You were negotiating
for the return of prisoners, and you come to court and say that even
though confessions state on such and such a date some 20 or 30 Amer-
ican war prisoners were mowed down in the area over which you had
control, the confession stated that:
I was there, all of my men are still living, they have all been exchanged, and
no American prisoners were killed.
Now, if you say that, either you are a complete liar or the eonfes-
sions are false. Is that not right?
Major FANTON. NO; not necessarily.
Senator MCCARTHY. All right. Go ahead.
Major FSNTON.
1do not think i t necessarily follonls at all.
Senator MCCARTHP.Tell me why.
Major FANTON.
I think you have to identify the gmu8 concerning
which you are talking about. It is conceivable that Mc owan had a
group of soldiers under his control, and in fact we had, when we were
interrogating, a couple of witnesses say that Pei )er treated McCowan,
i
gave them good treatment, that he wanted to exc lange certain German
wounded prisoners for the prisoners that he had taken.
I was trying to find it. Have you read the memorandum that was
introclucecl in evidence on Febrnary 19, 19461 It is in there.
Senator MCCARTHY. Lieutenant Colonel McCo\.van's testimony ap-
parently is that he was in this small Belgian village of La Gleise.
Major FANTON. Right.
Senator JIcCximru. Rncl that he had free access to discuss any
matters with the local people, with the Belgians. He was there on
the very clay of the confessions that your men obtained, saying there
was a massacre of American prisoners.
H e said :
There was 110 massacre. If there had been I would,know about it.
I s it not obvious that either he was lying or the confessions you
obtained were false Z
Major FANTON. I cannot say that. If all the facts you are giving
me are correct, and if they are both talking about the same peopl*
Senator MCCARTHT.Could somebody get the testimony of Mc-
Cowan ?
Major FANTON. I think it is quite obvious what the answer is. I f
you have a direct conflict as to a particular shooting, either one party
or the other is mistaken.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou plan being here in the morning?
Major FANTON. I will jDe here as long as you would like me. Except
I would like to return to Bridgeport tomorrow. I have some matters
coming up on Friday that I have to attend.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I realize that this $3 a day allowed the wit-
nesses-
Major FANTON. It is not SO much that, as i t is taking care of clients.
Senator MCCARTEIY. I t is rather a costly procedure for any of the
witnesses to remain here.
Senator BALDWIN. Senator, do I understand that you are not going
to complete with this witness tonight? I understood, coming over
from the Senate Chamber, you thought you could.
Senator MCCARTHY. I thought I could. I do not know. How long
could we continue? -
Senator BALDWIN.ROW many days have you been here, Major?
Major FANTON. I really have not counted them up. About seven 1
think. Seven all told.
Senator BALDWIN.There is a young man here who has been here 2
days from Washington-Jefferson University. I f you are going to con-
tinue this, or keep the major overnight, anyway, I would like to try to
get this young man on. R e is in the middle of his examinations and
would like to get back to school.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Surely.
Major FANTON. Are we going to have a session tomorrow morning?

Senator BALDWIN.Not until tomorrow afternoon.
Major FANTON. I have to catch a train back a t 4 : 10 to be on hand in
the office on Friday. That is the difficulty there. I will not have much
time tomorrow.
henator BALDWIN. GO ahead.
Senator MCCARTHY. Before you go, Major, there is one thing that
I would like to clear up, and that is the question of mock trials. Did
you attend those mock trials yourself?
Major FANTON. I attended two of them.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUattended two of them?
Major FANTON.
Yes.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Will

you describe in detail those two that you
attended ?
Major FANTON.
I have undertaken to do that in a statement, but
I will do it as best I can.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you tell me who was chairman of the
court, if you can?
Major FANTON. It would not be fair, I do not believe, to say there
was a chairmaq. I was the highest ranking officer so i t could be as-
sumed that I was president of the court.
This technique was originally designed to impress the witnesses, the
subjects, with the ceremony attending the taking of the oath.
Senator MC~ARTHY. Will you do this for nle? You have gone into
that in detail, the other day. Will you describe actually,
what was done? Who sat where, not what you or anybo y else had
in mind.
Bhysica11y9
Senator BALDWIN.Did he go through this the other day?
Senator BALDWIN.Then why do we need to go through it again?
Major FANTON. I can, for Senator McCarthy's benefit, describe the
scene, what i t actually looked like.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhave not covered that yet. I wish you
would.
Major FANTON. I have not.
Senator MCCARTHY. Give us the size of the room.
Major FANTON.
It was a large room, one of the end rooms in our
cell block. Both the end rooms were larger rooms. There was a
large window, about half the size of one of these windows. We had
a small table, with a black cloth over it.
We had a crucifix on the table, with two candles. And as the
suspect came in his hood was removed, and the oath was explained to
him, the sanctity of the oath, and the importance of telling the truth.
The candles were lit, and he took the oath. Then the interrogator
started in and described a particular incident concerning which we
had information. I have been searching my memory for the name of
the subject, because in one case I remember he started to talk right
away and told us a complete story; a very successful procedure.
Senator MCCARTHY.Will you pet back to what was in the room?
How many men were sitting behind the table?
Major FENTON. There were three of us behind the table, including
the interrogator. Two others besides the interrogator. I think there
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 539,
was myself, but I cannot remember the other person. But he was an
officer.
Senator MCCARTHY.Besides the interrogators, how many court
members ?
Major FANTON. Just US two.
Senator MCCARTHY.Just two ?
Major FANTON.
Just US two, with the interrogator.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUand who else; do you know?
Major FANTON.
I cannot recall the name.
Senator MCCARTIIY.TVho mas the interrogator on this occasion?
Major FANTON. Lieutenant Perl was the interrogator.
Senator MCCARTEIP.HOW many interrogators were there?
Major FANTON.
Just one; just Lieutenant Perl.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Was this for the purpose' of impressing the
defendant with the idea that he was being tried?
Major FANTON. No.
Senator MCCARTHY. It was not ?
Major FANTON. It was called a fast procedure. There was an
element of compulsion in it. We were interested in the point that
Mr. Flanagan has just called to your attention. I made the state-
ment that there never was any defense attorney appointed. There
never was.
I t is my understanding, as I said there, that after I left, the cere-
mony changed a little bit, there was one man who would argue in favor,
say "Let t:le mall hare a chance to talk," and the other interrogator
would be--
Senator MCCARTHY. Stick to the ones that you saw. A t the time of
the two at which you were present, was there anyone who held himself
out as defense counsel?
Major FANTON. NO; just one German-speaking interrogator, and
thzt was Lieutenant Perl.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUheard Lieutenant Owens testify the other
day that he was asked to act as president of the court. There were
two other members of the court?
Senator BICCARTI~Y. That

one man was assigned as defense counsel,
one man as prosecutor, and that there was no doubt in his mind but
what the accused thought he was being tried. You heard that testi-
mony ?
Major FANTON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwere not there that day, were you?
Major FANTOS.
No.
Senator MCCARTHY. SO that you have no way of disputing that
testimony of Lieutenant Omens ?
Major FANTON. None, other than hearsay, what I have been told
by the people who were there, or had an opportunity to evaluate the
situation.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you talk to someone who was in the room
the day that Lieutenant Owens acted as president of the court?
Major FANTON. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. SO that then you do not accuse him of lying?
Major FANTON. No.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOthat when he says there was a man assigned

as defense counsel, who held himself out to the accused as defense
counsel, you assumed he was telling the truth?
Major FANTON. I think he was the victim of clever cross-examina-
tion. I do not mean to be facetious, Senator, because I think it is
true. I do not think Lieutenant Owens realized just what you were
driving at. ' H e may have had the impression that one man was prose-
cuting. I do not think he was in a position to know.
Senator MCCARTHY. Have you read over Lieutenant Owens7 testi-
mony ?
Major FANTON. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. When you read it over you will find that before
I cross-examined him, that on direct examination, the exainination on
the part of Mr. Chambers, Colonel Chambers, he testified that he was
president of the court; he testified that one man held himself out as
prosecutor, one man as defense counsel; that this nian who was de-
fense counsel discussed the case with the accused.
You heard hjm testify to that?
Senator MCCARTFIY.YOUwould not accuse me of elicting that on
cross-examination merely because I was waiting to cross-examine him
later ?
M:tjor FANTON. NO. It an1 not sure. Did you bring that out,
Colonel? I have not read the record.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I endeavored, in examining Owens, to bring out all
the evidence I could get as to whether or not he took part in the
mock trial. Certainly if he made mention of it I mould have pushed
those points just as vigorously as Senator McCarthy.
If he said I said them, I know he is correct. He read the report.
Senator MOCARTHY. You did not say it, Colonel. The witness said
it. I n fact you were rather disappointed, rather surprised. The wit-
ness stated on direct examination that he was not prodding at any time
a t all, no pressure, that he was present, that one man held himself
out as defense counsel.
Major FANTON. DOyou have the transcript? I am quite clear, that
it mas in response to your line of questioning that he made the
statement.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, you think Owens was mistaken,
'.hat he was not telling the truth?
Major FANTON. NO, sir. I think he was doing his best to answer
your questions.
Senator MCCARTHY. Would you like to see the record?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am checking it now. I am interested.
Major FANTON. I am interested, too, because my recollection is quite
clear. I remember at the time noting.
Senator MCCARTHY. While Colonel Chambers is going into the
record, can you tell me who conceived of the idea of the mock trial?
Major FANTON. Lieutenant Per1 conceived this technique, because
having in mind the continental practice with respeot to sworn testi-
mony he felt it would be more impressive, and some of these subjects
would be impressed by the oath, and that i t might succeed in securing
a truthful statement.
Senator MGCARTHY. He discussed that with you and you agreed to
hold these mock trials ?
MALMEDY MASSACR.E INVESTIGATION 541
Major FANTON. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. The Raymond Board, which I believe you said
wn,s t,he more competent of the various boards that heard this-
Major FANTON. I said .they inade the most complete investigation;
Senator MCCARTHP.They said this :
No sentence was pronounced but the accused was made to understand that it
\$,as his last chance to talk, and undoubtedly in some cases understood he had been
convicted.
Alajor FANTOX. 1Tllel.e are you reading from, Senator?
Senator McC-iw~ru.Page 4, the last of the first paragraph.
They say also :
One member of the pros~cution team would play the part of prosecutor,
another would acb a s friend of the defendant.
Let me ask you this: I11 view of the fact that you only witnessed
two of these, and there were a sizable number conducted, do you have
any way of knowing -whether the Army report is correct or incorrect 'l
Major FANTOX. The Army report--
Senator MCCARTHY. May I see that ?
Mr. CHANBERS. Surely.
Major FASTOX. DOyou ha~reanother COPS, colonel?
Mr. Cnanmims. I ail1 sorry there is not. I will try to find one.
Senator AlcCamm-. Page 832 :
Mr. OWLNS.As well a s I can remember there was a room probably half a s
large a s this room, set u p with a table and chairs in there. I cannot remember
the exact number of people who participated i n it.
This is not my examination.
I know 1 was made president of the court or whatever they call it. They
spoke in German all the time. They told me t h a t they would like for me to par-
ticipate in the thing, so I said : "0. K., I will help yon out." And I went in.
The trial mas carried on. The witness was esamined. H e w a s asked ques-
tions of course, in German I did not understand what they were asking him.
I did not understand his answers, and after a period I would say of 10 minutes,
the prosecution asked that the trial be postponed until the next day, and I never
heard any of the results after that.
T h a t is the only one that I eyer knew about occurring and the only one that
I participated in.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During the trial mas there someone who was acting a s defense
counsel?
Mr. OWENS.Yes, sir.
Do you think that answer was the result of clever cross-examinatioa,
or that he was the victim of clever cross-examination, when he said
"yes, sir" ?
Major FANTOX-. KO.
Senator MCCARTHT.SOwhen you said a little while ago that you
thought Mr. Owens was the I-ictim of cleI7ercross-examination, when
lie ~ a l there
d was a defense counsel, you no longer believe that is true, I
gather ?
Major FANTOX. I f YOU will bear with me for a second, I will find the
passage that I had in mind.
Sellator MCCARTHY.Page 832.
Major F s m o x . I am looking for your examination.
Senator MCCAKTI-IY. Let me read the rest of i t :
Mr. CHAML~ERS. Was

he designated a s such?
Mr. OWENS.Ye<, sir Durinq t h a t shol t period of time he would confer witll
the defendant in the case.
Mr. CHAMBERS.YOUs a y t h a t he was designated a s defense counsel? Did they

say t h a t in English or German? How do you know that he was a defense counsel?
Mr. OWENS I was told by one of the officers there in charge t h a t this particular
fellow would act a s defense counsel and the other fellow ~ r o n l da c t a s t h e
prosecutor.
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOWdid-he conduct himself during the trial? What did he
do, the defense counsel Y
Mr. OWENS.It i s SO short that the defense counsel never acted, he wonlcl confer
with t h e defendant, he would gire t h e answer. It mas a very short thing. I
would say not longer than 10 minutes. It was postponed over to the next day.
Major FANTON. I do not want to quibble. I want to r e d to you
what I had in mind.
Senator MCCARTHY. Forgetting what he said in cross-examination,
in the original exan~inationhe safd yes, sir, there was defense counsel.
He was designated as such, one man d e s i ~ ~ a t e as
c l defense counsel,
and the other man as prosecution. Up until that point, up until the
time he had said that, he was not the victim, up until then, of any
clever cross-examination, was he?
Major FANTON. No.
Senator MC~ARTI-IY. SOup

to that point, where he said yes there
mas a defense counsel, there was a prosecution counsel-up to that
point he was telling the truth, do you think?
Major FANTON. I think he was truthfully trying to answer the
question.
Senator MCCARTIIY.And he was there and you were not?
Senator MCCARTHY. SOhe would be in a better position, right?
Major FANTON. H e mould be in a better position to tell what he
saw, that is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY. When he said. "There was a defense counsel,
and prosecution counsel, and I was president of the court, we con-
ducted a trial," he being there, there is no way that you can dispute
what he had to say?
Major FANTON. I think there is, because I think his statement there
was a defense counsel is clearly a conclusion.
Senator MCCARTHY. I have used up more than 5 minutes, Mr. Chair-
man, I am afraid. I have no further questions at this time.
Senator BALDWIN.I have tried to be as considerate and thoughtful
of your position in this case as I possibly codd be, and yon have
consumed a good deal of time on the examination of these witnesses.
This man has been here several days. I f it is agreeable to you he can
be excused now and then he can arrange with Colonel Chambers t o
come back at some later date, a week or two hence, to complete any
further questions that anybody might want to put to him.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think that would be an excellent idea, to give
us a chance to go over the record in the meantime.
I appreciate the Chair's calling the witness back.
Senator BALDWIN.ISthat agreeable to you, Major?
Major FANTON. Perfectly agreeable.
Senator MCCARTHY. I might say that I appreciate your waiting
around here so long. I know the arrangement we have for the pay-
ment of expenses of witnesses is completely inequitable. We drag
you down here for 100, 200, or 500 miles, and you have to stay in a
hotel and cannot conceivably get a room for the expense that you are
allowed.
M A L M E D P MASSACRE I N V E S T I G A T I O N 543
It is a bad situation, but all witnesses are subject to the same thing.
I think the Senate should do something about it, not only in this case
but in all cases.
Senator BALDWIN. If you are through with Major Fanton, we will
ask Mr. Teil to take the witness stand.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that I wrote
Mr. Flanagan, who has been doing the investigation with the colonel
on this matter, and talked to this witness, and arranged for him to
come in, with the Chairman's permission I would like to refrain from
any exmiination of this witness, and let Mr. Flanagan do it, because
he is better acquainted with the facts t,han I am.
Senator BALDWIN. You mean Mr. T e d ?
Senator MCCARTHY. I do not know what the facts are that this wit-
ness is going to testify to.
Senator BALDWIN. All right, Mr. Teil, mill yon hold up your right
hand, please? (The witness was then snwrn.)
TESTIMO'NY OF KURT TEIL, PITTSBURGH, PA.
Senator BALDWIN. What is your full name and address?
Mr. 'TEIL. Kurt Henry Teil.
Senator BALDWIN. Where do you live?
Mr. TEIL. 5454 Wilkins Avenue, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Sen ator BALDWIN. Mr. Flanagan ?
Mr. FIY~NAGAN. Mr. Teil, were you assigned to war crimes work in
Germany after the war?
Mr. TEIL. That is correct. Assigned, that is, I had a job, was hired
by the War Department and worked with the war crimes group.
There was no assigning in a Regular Army sense, that somebody told
you to go there. I actually applied for the job myself.
Mr. FIXNAGAN. Ivhat type of work did you do a t that time?
Mr. TEIL.I worked there for 2 years. I was working, assigned
t I was hired as an interpreter-
to the investigations section, and ; ~first
investigator, and conducted independent investigations of war crimes
cases.
Mr. FLANAGAN. What period of time did you work on war crimes
trials in Germany 1
Mr. TEIL.From, I believe the exact date is about November 20,
1945, until August 2S, 1947.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Prior to the time you worked on war crimes trials,
were you in the United States Army ?
Mr. TEIL. 'That is correct.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And how long were-you there, and what did you
do in the Army?
Mr. TEIL. I was drafted on March 13, I think, 1943, and assigned
to the Air Corps. After being for some time in the Air Corps med-
ical department, I was later trained as an aerial gunner, and I went
overseas with the Eighth Air Force and I flew 22 missions on a B-17
over Germany.
Then, in May, that is, when the war ended i11 Europe, there was a
circular issued by the armed forces asking German-speaking per-
sonnel to volunteer for extra duty. The volunteering was to be done
without knowing what the mission was going to be.
I volunteered and later was assigned to A-2, section staff, a t that

time, now called USAF, St. Germaine, Paris.
Mr. FLANAGAN. While working on war crimes in Germany, did
you have any occasion to make the acquaintance o r work with any of
the men assigned to the prosecution teain in the Malinedy case?
Mr. TEIL.With soine of them, yes.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Which ones in particular?
Mr. TEIL.I mean I knew the team that was a t Schwabisch Hall. D o
you want me to name them, every one of them?
Mr. FLANAGAN. AS inany as you can recall.
Mr. TEIL.Mr. Thon, Lieutenant Perl, Mr. Ellowitz, and, of course,
Captain Shumaclier. Right offhand, there were quite a number of
people there.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n additioil to those, you probably knew some
others ?
Mr. TEIL.If I were told the nmle, if I knew them: I could say "Yes"
or "NO."
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you ever have any occasion to work on any
phases of the Malmedy case for Colonel Ellis?
Mr. TEIL. I was not assigned to the Malmedy case, the investiga-
tion of the Malinedy case. However, on some occasions, I would say
it was the general set-up that investigators were making trips into
areas where there were suspects, areas i n Germany. They were a t
times called upon to help transfer those prisoners from the various
camps i n Germany to the jail a t Schwabisch Hall, and I did that a t
several times.
Mr. FLANAGAN. When you were in Gernlany, about the time this
Malmedy case was being investigated, did you ever have occasion to
discuss this case with your coworliers, or with men actually assigned
to the case?
Mr. TEIL.YOUmean this Malmedy case?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes.
Mr. TEIL. There was considerable disc~~ssion

on.
going
Mr. FLANAGAN. M%en you sag consider:~ble discussion, that was
discussion between you and other war crimes investigators i n the
Malmedy case ?
Mr. TEIL.I wonlcl say that there was considerable discussion among
several investigators. I do not remember just exactly a t what time
or who they were. I would not name anybody. I do not remember.
I just remember there was discussion. I t was one of the big cases:
it was natural there would be discussioi~sabont that case.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n coimection with those discussions, was there
anything stood out in your mind as to the statements concerning the
case, as to handling of the prisoners ?
Mr. TEIL.Any specific incidents ?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes.
Mr. TEIL.NO.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Were there any general incidents that stood out i n
your mind concerning the hardling of prisoners in this case?
Mr. TEIL.NO, not incidents.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Were there any generd rumors anlong you in-
vestigators who were then i n Germany concerning the handling of
prisoners i n this case?
Mr. TEIL.I know what you are trying to arrive at. The thing is
this: Among any investigators, working on any job, for anybody,
whoever they may be, there is always a certain amount of argument or
discussion about the possibility of using physical violence, and not
using it, the so-called third-degree method.
Of course, among all the investigators there was a certain amount of
discussion about that possibility.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did any of the interrogators assigned to the
Malmedy case ever express the belief that it would be a good thing
to use physical force to get confessions of this type?
Mr. TEIL. There were members, a few individuals, a t war crimes
that, of course, represented the view that it was more efficient, that it
would be more efficient to use it. They did not say they were using i t ;
they said they felt i t might be more efficient, quicker to do that.
Mr. FLANAGAN. It would be a fair statement, then, to say that there
were those, investigators assigned t o war-crimes cases, who thought
it would be more efficient, in this type of case, to use physical force?
" Mr. TEIL. That was their opinion. They did not say that they would
use physical violence.
Mr. FLANAGAN. It is very clear they did not say they used it?
Mr. TEIL. That is right.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
They thought - it would be more efficient if used?
Mr. FLAWSGAK. Who were the interrogators or the investigators
that made such statements?
Mr. TEIL. Well, I mean, as far as I remember, now-I am going on
n~emory-over a period of 2 years, it was common knowledge, well, it
mas knowledge, that the attitude of certain members was that way.
If I name them, I might name somebody whose attitude i t was not.
There were a certain number of investigators who felt that way.
But I hate to name them by name because I would be pinning them
down and saying this man had that attitude. I cannot say that any-
more with certainty who they were exactly. There are certain possi-
bilities. I can exclude definitely some people.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Who would you include?
Mr. TEIL. Exclude?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Who would you include in that group, that felt
it would be more efficient to use physical force?
Mr. TE~L. I n one particular instance, I would say Mr. Thon. That
I remember.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Tell us about that incident.
Mr. TEIL. I just remember it was a discussion, in a cafeteria or
something, that he made that remark. H e was, I would say, among
the other i n ~ e s t i ~ t o rwhen
s , this was brought up. H e represented
that one side of view. It mas generally known that it was his personal
opinion.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n this conversation that you had in the cafeteria,
or some other place, among a group of investigators, at which Mr.
Thon was present, he expressed the opinion or made the statement
that, in his opinion, he felt it was more efficient to use physical force?
Mr. TEIL.Yes.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUsay yes.
Mr. TEIL.I just remember that was his opinion, that is right. I
cannot remember the exact occasion at which i t was said, but that was
his opinion.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I realize that might be difficult. But you cannot
definitely remember his expression of that opinion?
Mr. TEIL.NO. H e was generally known for that.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUmean he h a d the general reputation for being
,a man of the opinion that physical force would be efficient in this type
of case ?
Mr. TEIL. I w o ~ l dnot say reputation. H e was known to have that
opinion. That is what I am saying.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n addition to the statement he made to you, he
was known to have that opinion?
Mr. TEIL.That is right.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you ever have a similar conversation, or over-
hear similar conversations on the part of Lieutenant Perl?
Mr. TEIL. NO,I did not. I personally did not have any conversation
that I remember.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did Lieutenant Perl have the reputation of being
one of those that mas of the opinion that the use of physical force
would be efficient in the investigation of war crimes trials?
Mr. TEIL. I would include him in that group, yes.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUwould include Mr. Perl?
Nr. TEIL. Yes, sir; that is right.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Were

there any other members of this prosecuting
team in the Malmedy case that had similar reputations?
Mr. TEIL.That group might have included a few others. I could
not name them.
Mr. FLANAGAN. But you know it included Thoa, and you know it
included Perl ?
Mr. TEIL. Yes. JTTheneverreference mas made, people thought of
those two.
Mr. FLANAGAN. 011 one occasion, did you go to Schwabisch Hall,
and were you taken on a tour of the Hall by Mr. Thon ?
Mr. TEIL. That is right. I delivered a prisoner that I had, I think,
picked up a t a hospital or some camp, and turned him over to Colonel
Ellis.
Thon mas standing around the room and asked if I would like to
see the jail.
Mr. FLANAGAN. When mas that, approxinlately ?
Mr. TEIL.The date?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Yes.
Mr. TEIL. I do not remember. I would say January, February 1946.
Abont that date.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n January or February?
Mr. TEIL.Somewhere around there.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
And after you received this il-witation froin Mr.
Thoa to take this tour through the prison where these Malnzedy pris-
oners were stationed, did you go on the tour with him?
Mr. TEIL.That is correct.
Mr. FLANAGAN. DOyou recall any incident at the time of that tour 1
Mr. TEIL. When we went into the jail, that is, where the cells were,
the part of the jail where the cells were, there was a long, pretty wide
hall. Mr. Thon said : "These are"-he pointed out v h a t he called the
MALMEDY MASSACRE INI~ESTIGATION 547
death cells. H e ss~icl: "These are people who will probably hang. You
can look into some of these cells." So I looked into a number of them,
three or four. I did not notice r~nytliing~ulusual. I saw the prisoner,
but I did not see anything unusual.
Then Mi2. Tho11 walked away from me, from the cell where I
had been sort of peeping into, and two or three cells in one direction,
away from me, either to the right or to the left-I don't remember
that. I was still looking i11 one cell when he said: "Icurt, come here
and look here."
Mr. FLANAGAN. You were looking in one cell? Mr. Thon was
'>
several cells away from y o u ?

Mr. T E ~Yes..
Mr. FLANAGAN. S e ~ e r afeet

l away from you?
Mr. TEIL.H e had ~rallceclav7ay, after I had looked i n two or three

cells.
Mr. FLBNAGAX. And a t that point, dicl he call to you and say : "Kurt,
come over here and look a t this"?
Mr. TEIL.That is right. I went over there.
Mr. FLANAGAN. A t his instigation, a t his call, you went over to
this other cell 2
Mr. TEIL.T h a t is right.
Mr. F'LBNAGAN. Did you look into that cell?
Mr. TEIL.T h a t is correct.
Mr. FLANAGAN. What

did you see?
Mr. TISIL. I looked in it. B y looking i n you mean through the peep-
hole? As f a r as I know, there was no window i n the cell. It was a
sort of an eyeglass you look through.
There was a prisoner lying on the floor, on his side. T h a t is, he was
lying on the side, i n a sort of crumpled-had his legs pulled up, lying
on his side, and had a black hood over his face. I looked a t the pris-
oner and he did not move.
Mr. FLANAGAN. This prisoner was lying on the concrete floor?
Mr. TEIL.I do not remember whether i t was a wooden floor, li-
nole~um,o r concrete.
Mr. FI~AXAGAN. But he was lying on the floor i n a c r ~ m p l e dposition
with a hood over his head?
Mr. TEIL.One of those black hoods.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And he was lying motionless?
Mr. TEIL. I looked a t the man, I would say, for 30 seconds and he
did not move.
Mr. FLANAGAN. What time of day was this?
Mr. TEIL.9 :30 or 10 o'clock.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
And a t this time of day when you looked i n all the
other cells, were the prisoners standing up or moving around their
cells ?
Mr. FLANAGAN. None of them were sleeping?
Mr. TEIL.I dicl not see any of them.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
But this one man was lying motionless on the floor
i n a crumpled position ?
Mr. TEIL.I t appeared to me he was motionless.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And you looked a t him for about 30 seconds?
Mr. TEIL.That is right.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Then, did you say anything to Mr. Thon, or did
Mr. Thon say anything to you?
Mr. TEIL. After I had looked in there, I turned to Mr. Thon, still
standing next to me, and said: "Harry, what is the matter with this
man?" He said : L'Hejust got out of interrogation and probably got
roughed up a bit."
Mr. FLANAGAN. He said he just got out of interrogation and got
roughed LIPa bit ?
Mr. TEIL. Yes. That is exactly what he said.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Then, what else was said?
Mr. TEIL. I did not say anything else.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
What did yon do?
Mr. TEIL. I walked back to the office, and after thnt I left.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Did tllat end the tour right there?
Mr. TEIL. Yes. I was not interested in any more.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
YOUsaid you did not want to see any more? Why
did you not?
Mr. TEIL.I would not say I did not want to. I did not have any-
thing to say. It was none of my business. I walked back to the office.
Somebody else was with me, and we drove off.
Mr. FLANAGAN. AS a result of wllat you say, that motionless man
on the floor, and as a result of the actions and the words of Mr. Thon,
what impression did you get as to the condition of the man on the
floor ?
Mr. TEIL.T he only impression that I could get was exactly what
Mr. Thon had said, that the man had been interrogated by someone, he
did not say who, and during the interrogation perhaps his face had
been slapped a bit. H e was not bleeding. I did not see any blood. I
could not say for certain that the inan was miconscious.
All I could say was that the man was not moving while I looked a t
him. He was not in a sleeping position, for that time of day.
Furthermore, I do not think Mr. Thon would have pointed out a
man that was sleeping, that he especially mould have called me back
from where I was to see a man that mas sleeping. I have seen plenty
of prisoners that were sleeping. It would not be a novelty.
Mr. FLANAGAN. It is not likely that a man who was put back in his
cell would go to sleep with that hood over his head?
Mr. TEIL.T hat was n o t 1 do not know. I do not know what the
procedure in that jail was.
Mr. FLANAGAN. He did not appear to be handcuffed or manacled
in any way ?
Mr. TEIL.NO, sir. I do not think he was handcuffed. I do not
remember, but I am pretty sure he was not.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Would it be a fair statement to say that as a result
of your conversation with Tho11 a t that point. and as a result of your
observations, your personal observations, you had the impression that
that prisoner had been subjected to some type of physical duress o r
physical violence?
Mr. TEIL.I am afraid so.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUmean, yes?
Mr. TEIL.Yes, I am afraid so.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
IS there anything else that you would like to
state a t t h ~ time?
s
Mr. TEIL.Yes. I have a statement, if I may make it. I would like
to say that when I came to W a r Crimes I was fully aware what its
mission was. I was in accord with the objective and I tried to do my
best to achieve it. I t is possible that there might have been even
better ways to achieve this nlission than those that were set up.
Senator BALDWIN. May I interrupt you there? What was the
objective as you understood it ?
Mr. TEIL.I have that later.
Senator BALDWIN. Go ahead.
I will not interrupt you.
Mr. TEIL.I f I do not answer it-
Senator BALDWIN. Go ahead. I will ask you a t the end.
Mr. TI~IL.
There might haye been even better ways to accomplish
this mission. B y that I mean t h a t perhaps it might have been better
if the whole war crimes procedure had been handled by a neutral
country. I t is my personal opinjon, since then, and perhaps even
a t that time, that if i t was really a matter of dealing -out justice,
since there has been some doubt, as told to me by various people,
that to a certain extent these crimes were happening on both sides, if
one wanted to set a precedent and wanted to punish people for vio-
lating the rules of war, that actually, i n order to make that thing
stick, it would have been better t o have a neutral country try war
criminals.
Sowever, I am glad to say that, as f a r as I am coacernecl, under
the existing rules and regnlations I feel the best was done that could
be done. B y that I mean the regulations a t hand which were not set
up by n ~ yimmediate superiors but were set up a t a much higher
level.
Operating under those procedures I think we did the best that
could be done. I feel a very deep respect for Lieutenant Colonel
Ellis-a friend, a lawyer, and an administrator. I feel he is a very
able man. I think that this feeling is shared by all those who ever
worked under him or, better, with him: I do not think anybody
actually worked under him; everybody always had the feeling that
we were working with him to achieve the objective that W a r Crimes
had.
I know that he personally was strongly opposed to the use of any
physical violence. W e received repeated warnings from him. H e
called us together, two or three investigators a t a time, and made
this point very clear at repeated t ~ m e s :that no physical violence
was to be used under any circumstances.
I remember that, in one case, a t least in one case, a inan was sanc-
tioned. B y that I think he was actually fired, or a t least his contract
was not renewed when i t came u p a t that time, and he returned t o
the States. This man had been accused of beating somebody.
Furthermore, I would like t o say that i n the period that Colonel
Ellis was not in charge of the war crimes investigations group another
man who was in charge fired another investigator upon the first vio-
lation. T h a t is, the man had been reported as having kicked a pris-
oner, and he was immediately sent back to the States.
Senator BALDWIN. When mas t h a t ?
Mr. TETL.That, I believe, was during Colonel Ellis' absence, when
Colonel Ellis had returned to the States for a leave of absence. I do
not remember the exact date.
Mr. CHAMBERS.Mr. Teil, may I interrupt? This man who was

discharged f o r brutality to prisoners, was that in connection with the
Malmedv case or was that i n some other matter that Colonel Ellis
was hanaling ?
Mr. TEIL.I think it was the one case that I remember-just a min-
ute. A t that time I think that was i n coilnection with another case.
Mr. CHAMBERS.Thank you.
Mr. TEIL.It is beyond nly inmgination that Colonel Ellis ever sanc-
tioned the use of physical violence a t any time in any case. I knew
his personal opinions. H e made a definite effort, repeatedly, to impress
i t upon the investigators not to use force. I would say that actually
the number of violators were very small, and mhen they did occur they
were punished.
I would like to say further that some remarks hare been made
about the so-called 39-ers, and I am very happy to be one, as f a r as
that is concerned, but I would like to say that, \ ~ i t h o u the
t use of not
only German-speaking-it was not only a matter that you had to have
sornebody who spoke German; you could get plenty of college-trained
personnel who spoke German-but you had t o have, for apprehension
and investigation purposes, people who had lived in Germany after
and during the Hitler regime-at least during the Hitler regime-
in order to understand the emotions, the ideologies, that were really
prevailing, to what extent they were prevailing, and in what areas
the tendencies were stronger toward nazism, and you had to know the
governmental set-up, you had to know where to find recorcls, and what
records were kept.
There were innumerable things that you cou1cI not learn from a text-
book, where the Army had to use those men. I do not think anybody
else mould have been as well qualified and mould have been able to do
any type of job that would have helped in the rapid apprehension of
any of these perpetrators.
It has been brought out here by other testimony that some of these
39-ers used physical violence, and that they used it because of a cer-
tain sense of bitterness against German nationals in general.
Senator BALDWIN. D o you make that statement in connection with
Schwabisch Hall, Malmedy, or in general ?
Mr. TEIL.Schwabjsch Hall. I do not think it applies generally.
I f , however, the statement that was made here-that the 39-ers should
not have been employed because they mere biased or they had a feeling
of bitterness in them-then I would say, if that is a general state-
ment, then this is a general answer.
I would say .that I myself mould have disqualified myself from
ever working for mar crimes, if I had felt that I could not control
my emotions to the point of not letting my rage out on prisoners.
I am corning to that i n a few minutes.
T'Vhat I thought, as I said before, the mission of war crimes was:
I certainly felt that i t did not involve stooping to a level of those
that we condemned. On the contrary-very much to the contrary-
if anything to be clone we should try to avoid everything possible
that would put us in the same class as those people.
I felt, and I still feel, that out of-I do not know how mailp in-
vestigators there mere; I do not know the exact number of 39-ers
there were-but I can say that 80 percent of those, a t least, felt the
way I felt. The other 20 percent may have felt the other way, but
NALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOX 551
that does a o i mean they used physical violence. They may have ex-
pressed an opinion, as I stated before, that i t was more efficient to do
that, but that does not mean they did it.
I n-onld say that by f a r the largest majority of refugees never used
that method and ~vouldnot use it under any circumstances whatso-
ever. I know that I mould not, and I know of others who would have
immediately clisqualified themselves from working with war crimes
if they had ever come into the situation where they no longer could
control themselves.
T h a t is my own personal opinion. I feel that perhaps a lot of this
could have been avoided-a lot of this stuff that has been brought
u p here-if more of the court membeias had been law members, a n d
perhaps international lawyers, that is, had some experience in inter-
national law.
Finally, I feel that, since we proclainled these trials to be demo-
cratic and fair, they rrould have to be just that and nothing else.
As you all realize, we are engaged in an east-west conflict. I do not
feel that me can win this conflict with bread alone. There are cer-
tain ideologies involved i n this. I sometimes think that they are
more important than bread. or butter and bread.
We have certain ideas that we call democratic. I for one am fully
convinced of the ideals of our ideology. Some feel that om- ideas
are too icleitlistic ailtl therefore ~tnattalnablei n this realistic age. I
think they are attainable provided each and every one of us lives
up to them a t all times, even under adverse cir~umst~ances.
W a r crimes were started with the idea of approaching one ideal of
western coilsolidation, namely,. justice. I n general I feel we have
succeeded in this. However, in this particular case, through the
actions of a few-a very few-individuals, we stooped, or seemed to
have stooped, to the level of those we condemned.
This is regrettable, but perhaps out of this investigation something
may yet come that will undo a t least partially the damage done.
I f you would publicize what has been happening here, i n these last
2 weelrs, as nlnch as it is publicized i n the United States, if you would
publicize i t in Germany, one could perhaps create the impression that,
whatever happened, a t least i t was not the official policy of the Ameri-
can Government to condone those actions. which is of course i n definite
contrast with what happened
-- in ~ e r m a where
n ~ apparently i t was the
-
official policy.
I think perhaps by that we can reaffirm the impression over there
that we do mean what we are saying. T h a t is about all I have t o sap,
Senator.
Senator B A ~ W I NWhen. did you go t o Schmabisch H a l l ? Do you
remember the date?
Mr. TEIL. I think January or February 1946.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUmerely brought prisoners down there from
time to time?
Senator BALDWIN.HOW many different visits did you make thece?
Mr. TEIL.I think I went there once or twice after that occasion.
Senator BALDWIN.Altogether how many times ?
Mr. TEIL.I would say two or three times at the most. Three times
a t the most. I do not remember any more.
Senator BALDWIN.When you went there, how long did you stay?
Mr. TEIL.This incident was the first time I went down. This inci-
dent that I described was the first occasion I had to go to Schwabisch
Hall. We came in there a t night and delivered the prisoners to some
guards, turned them over to some guards, then left. I was staying in
a transient hotel in that town.
I came back the next morning into the jail to pick up some more
orders or something, to take them back to Weisbaden. That was the
occasion that I was taken to the jail.
Senator BALDWIN.That was the only time that you were in the jail?
Mr. TEIL.A S I said, I had been there after that two or three times.
Senator BALDWIN.What I am trying to find out is what opportunity
you had for observation there.
Mr. TEIL.O nly what I described.
Senator BALDWIN.Just that one time?
Mr. TEIL.For any observation. The other times I just went in
there to the office and turned in the prisoner, maybe got a receipt for
him, and walked out again. I did not want any details.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you have any questions, Colonel Chambers?
Mr. CHAMBFRS. I have a couple I would like to ask Mr. Teil.
When you first got in contact with Senator McCarthy's office and
the call was reported to the committee, it was reported that-I am
anxious to see if this is correct-you had seen one of the men lying
unconscious on the floor with a black, bloody hood over his head, and
you asked Mr. Tho11 who it was, and Mr. Thon said he mas one of
the men who had just finished his interrog at'lon.
Did I understand you properly a moment ago when you said that
you saw no signs of blood or anything of the kind?
Mr. TEIL.That is correct. I do not know where that infcrmation
callle from. The letter that I wrote did not mention a bloody hood.
I have a copy of i t here. However, I did talk to the secretary on
the phone and she may have gotten the impression that I said "bloody
hood" and "unconscious." I did not say that.
Mr. CHA~EBERS. You actually observed him for 30 seconds and did
not necessarily believe he was enjoying a nap on the floor, but you
saw no blood?
Mr. TEIL.T hat is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SOthis particular thing is a misquote of what you
said?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Senator Raldwin brought out that you were a t
Schwabisch Hall on three occasions.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During which time you mere in Schwabisch Hall
Prison a very short time and you looked into several cells in which
you observed nothing out of the ordinary. You did see one cell in
which this man was on the floor?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Based on that, you have said that "apparently we
h a v ~stooped to the same level as the people we have been fighting
over there," and you did not believe that was proper?
Mr. TEIL. That is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I s that the only reason for that? or was there per-
haps a general rumor about Schwabisch Hall? or were things being
said about Schwabisch Hall which would make you believe that these
were common matters that were going on there?
Mr. TEIL.AS I said before, it was the impression that was among
some of the investigators anyway, from statements-I cannot name
anyone specifically-from statements that were made a t various occa-
sions, the impression was that physical violence was used a t times.
This was just one instance that I saw. I will not say it confirmed my
impression of these things that I heard, but it certainly did not do
the opposite.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You would say Colonel Ellis was a good adminis-
trator ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. And a good administrator certainly should have
known what his men were doing, and what the people working for him
were doing?
Mr. TEIL.That is right.- 1 do not know whether that is always
possible.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I understand, but if Colonel Ellis was a good ad-
ministrator and energetic, he should have lsnown pretty well what
was going on within Schwabisch Hall ; is that correct ?
Mr. TEIL. AS I said, I do not think Colonel Ellis could ossibly
attend all interrogations. There were 70 prisoners there. 8 e could
not know of every single instance of what went on.
Mr. CIX-IMBEY:. What I really ?lad reference to was matters of men
being beaten, which n-ould of course show up physically and probably
require medical attention, and things of that kind.
Mr. TEIL.I have no evidence of any physical beatings where medi-
cal attention was needed.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DOyou believe that, if such beatings did take place
and medical attention was required, that Colonel Ellis would have
known about it ?
Mr. TEIL. I think so.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And if he had known such things were taking place,
certainly, based on your opinion of him, he would have taken prompt
action to see that they were discontinued ?
Mr. C H A ~ ~ B E1Rhave
S . no further questions.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator McCarthy?
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that this
young man volunteered to come over. H e certainly should be com-
plimented. H e is a religious and political refugee from Hitler in
Germany. He had every reison in the world to refrain from taking
the time to come here. It has cost him some money to come here.
I think he should have the thanks of this committee, and frankly
I think an individual such as he, who as I say is a political refugee
from Germany and who comes here to give what he knows, to make
sure that the American brand of justice will be meted out even to some
who might be considered our bitter enemies, is definitely the kind of a
young man WP would like to have as a citizen.
Mr. TEIL.Thank you.
Senator BALDWIN. Just one further question. This incident that
you described as having seen, did you report that to anybody?
Mr. TEIL.What do you mean by "report"? To any authorities?
554 MALMEDT MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Mr. TEIL.NO. I did make mention of that to several other indi-
viduals later.
Senator BALDWIN.You did not officially - report
- it?
Mr. TEIL.NO, sir.
Senator BAWWIN.YOUthought there was no occasion to do t h a t ?
Senator BALDWIN.I want to express the thanks of the committee to
you for coming down here. I am sorry we took so much of your time.
You have performed a public service for us.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOthat the record is clear, the contact t h a t you
made with my o%ce mas completely voluntary ?
Senator MCCARTHY. My office, I believe, then phoned you; you
talked to someone in my office?
Mr. TEIL.I think it was your secretary.
Senator MCCARTHY. And I had no conversation with yon prior t o
this time?
Senator MCCARTHY.I want to make i t clear that the memorandum
that I read into the record mas a iilelnorandum that my secretary
made when she talked t o you over the. phone.
Senator BALDWIN.W e wiIl adjourn to 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
(Whereupon, a t 4: 50 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene a t
2 p. m., May 12, 1949.)
THURSDAY, MAY 12, 1949
UNITEDSTATES SENATE,
SUBCOMMI'~.TEE
OF THE COMMITTEE O N ARMED SERVICES,
Wmhington, D.Q.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, a t 2 p. m., in room:
212, Senate Office Building, Senator Raymond E. Baldwin presiding.
Present : Senator Baldwin (presiding).
Also present : Senator Joseph R. McCarthy ; J. M. Chambers, of the
committee stdff ; Francis Flanagan and Howell J. Hatcher, of the staff
of the Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Expendi-
tures in Executive Departments ; Colonel Murphy ;Colonel Ellis ; Colo-
nel Raymond ; and Lieutenant Colonel Dwinell.
Senator BALDWIN.The meeting will be in order. We have two
witnesses here today. One is a go~ulgman from Maine who, I under:
stand from the staff, is going to be a short witness, and I thought we
might call him first.
Senator MCCARTHY. ISth4t all we have for today?
Senator BALDWIN.We have another.
Will you take the stand, Sergeant ? Will you stand up and hold up.
your right hand, please ?

Do you solemnly smear the testimony you are about to give in this
matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God ?
Mr. KING. I do.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN W\YCKLIFFE KING, PORTLAND, MAINE
Senator BALDWIN.Will you give your full name, please?
Mr. KING. John Wyckliffe King.
Senahor BALDWIN.Where do you live?
Mr. KING. Portland, Maine.
Senator BALDWIN.What is your street address, please?
Mr. KING. It is outside of Portland; it is a rural-delivery route.
Senator BALDWIN.Colonel Chambers, will you examine the witness,
please ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,Sergeant King, I believe you were assigned to
duty at the Schwabisch Hall ?
Mr. KING. That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Can you tell us the dates a t which you were at
Schwabisch Hall, approximately?
Mr. KING. I went to Schwabisch Hall the last of December 1945.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When did you leave there?
Mr. KING. I left there in the last of February 1946.
91765-4-36 555
Mr. CHAMBERS. SO,YOU were there, roughly, 2 months or 2% months.
Mr. KING. More or less, yes.

that time, what were your duties?
Mr. KING. Well, the first week I was there I stood sergeant of the
guard, and shortly thereafter I was assigned by the first sergeant t o
escort the prisoners from their cells to the interrogating rooms, and
when they were finished interrogating then1 to take them back to their
cells or the cells that Major Fanton told me to take then? to.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You were a part of the security detachment ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was

Captain Evans the commanding officer of that
detachment?
Mr. KING.Yes; he was.
Mr. CIXAMBERS. And you have mentioned the first sergeant for whom
you worked ;could you tell us his name?
Mr. KING. NO; 1do not recall his name.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Do you remember a Sergeant Scaleez (phonetically)
or Scalise?
Mr. KING. Yes; I do.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you work with him?
Mr. KING. Yes, sir; in a way. I didn't come under him, but I did
work with him. When he ~ a a t e d me to do anything to help him out,
I did it when I had time.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Your duties, then, reqnirecl you after the first week
t o take the prisoners to the interrogation center, turn them over to the
prosecution staff of the interrogation center, and then take them back
from the interrogation center to the prisoners' cells?
Mr. KING.W hatever they gave me the number of to put them in;
yes.
Mr. CHA~XBERS. That meant you took the prisoner out of the cell,
put the hood over his head, and took him down and bronght him back
in reverse procedure; is that right ?
Mr. CHANBERS. You must have had occasion then to observe these
prisoners. Do you recall whether or not you have seen cases where
they had marks on them indicating they might have been beaten up or
abused physically ?
Mr. KING. NO,sir ; I never did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever see any evidence of brutal methods or
rough methods in handling these prisoners?
Mr. ICING. NO, sir.
Mr. CI-IAMBERS. Sergeant, did you know a chap by the name of
Deitrich Schnell who was stationed a t Schwabisch Hall as a part of
the medical detachment that was servicing the internees or civilian
prisoners there?
Mr. KING. NO;I never heard tell of him.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Sergeant Icing, we have here an affidavit, and I
would like a t this time to insert i t in the record, which discusses a t
great length certain of the matters that took place at Schwabisch
Hall. It was made by Deitrich Schnell, a medical student, who says
he was born July 1, 1921, a t Copenhagen or Goepinhagen. Schnell
was not an accused, and he was not one of the Malmedy prisoners.
He states in his memoranda-and for the purpose of identifying
it, I am merely giving background here-that he worked in the hos-
pita1 while he was a prisoner of war in the internee section at Schwa-
bisch Hall and that he saw many things that happened in the way of
handling the so-called Malinedy prisoners.
As a part of his aifidavit, he has made certain statements about a
Sgt. John nT. K ing, which I am going to read to you in detail, and
then I wo~lldlike to ask you some questions on then).
There was, so f a r as you know, no other John W. King at Schwabisch
Hall ?
Senator MCCAI:THY.Has the sergeant seen the affidavit, Mr.
Chambers ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know what the claims are, Sergeant?
Mr. KING. I haven't any idea.
Senator BALDWIN.What was Your answer to whether or not there
wa; any other John W. King? l ~ h e r ewas no other John W. King?
Mr. KING. Not that I know of, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am sorry. I said Sgt. John IT.King. H e said
Tech. Sgt. John W. King. Are you a tech sergeant?
Mr. KING. NO; I wasn't.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I hope I have the right man here.
Senator MCCARTHY. What were you?
Mr. KING. I was a buck sergeant.
Mr. CHAMBERS. For the purpose of the record, I would like to ask
Colonel Ellis :
Did you have another Ring, or know of another King, that was
there?
Colonel ELLIS. I don't know. The sergeant had left before I got
there. I know of no other King other than this Sergeant King. If
there was, I do not know.
Senator MCCARTHY. Colonel, could you check the personnel records
in any way, or could that be done at Army headquarters, to find out
if there was a Sergeant King in the area at that time, a Technical
Sergeant King?
Colonel MURPHY.We would have to go to Germany on that.
Senator MCCARTHY. How long would that take to do, that is by air
mail ?
Colonel MURPHY.We could do it within a week.
Senator MCCARTHY. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if we could ask them
to do that?
Senator BALDWIN. Surely.
Senator MCCARTHY. Bind out if they had another enlisted man by
the name of King, or men, and what their ratings were, a t Schwabisch
Hall.
Senator BAWWIN.Ever, a t any time.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I might say at the time I nslred the Army to look
into this and locate King for me, this mas the only King they came
up with. I do believe we should go further and make sure we have
the right man here.
Senator MCCARTHY. 1 believe that-due to the fact that he referred
to Technical Sergeant King and this man was not a tech sergeant-
while he may be the same man, it is important from any standpoint
to find out.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would like to ask you, Sergeant King, you have
already
- . said you did know this man Schnell or remember knowing
him.
Mr. KING. I don't beliere-I don't remember ever seeing or hearing
tell of him.
Mr. CHAMBERS. He has a statement in here that Technical Sergeant
King repeatedly said to us (internees) he &'wasnot able to stand this
beastly business7)neither physically nor mentally, and that he wanted
to get back to the United States as quickly as possible.
That is the end of the statement that was alleged to have been made
by this Technical Sergeant King. Do you recall ever making a state-
ment generally along that line, Sergeant?
Mr. KING. NO; I don't recall ever making that statement.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did YOU feel that way about the situation at Schwa-
bisch Hall, Sergeant King ?
Mr. ICING. NO; I didn't. 4
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUleft there quite early and came back to the
United States. How did you come back? Did you request transfer?
Mr. KING. Oh, no, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You were just ordered back, were you ?
Mr. KING. My points were enough to get me home, so they just
shipped me out with the rest of the outfit. At that particular time
they shipped us home on 53 points; so, I x e n t home.
Senator MCCARTIXY. YOUdid not object to coming home?
Mr. KING. Not a bit.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let me ask one other question, then, Sergeant. I
am assuming for the sake of argument that we mill lay this aside until
we can find out if there is another Sergeant King.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think that might be well.
I may suggest, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact it may develop this
was the only Sergeant King in the area, in which case we would have t o
call this young man back, that you go ahead and ex'unine him as if he
is the right Sergeant King and if it develops he is the wrong one and
there was some other King there, then we can throw this evidence out
as being of no value. Would you not think so, Mr. Chairman?
Senator BALDWIN. I think so, but it seems t o me that discrepancy
there may be a comparatively minor one, because the only way you
could tell the difference between a tech sergeant and a regular staff
sergeant would be the insignia on his sleeve. It is very minor.
Senator MCCARTHY. We can get it from the Army, the infallible-
if I can call the Army infallible in any respect-the infallible infor-
mation, so we will know.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think we should proceed, Mr. Chairman, on the
assumptioil me have the right Sergeant King, and nail it down if we
can.
Senator BALDWIN.SOdo I .
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n your duties at Schwabisch Hall, were you re-
quired to have any contact with this medical set-up?
Mr. KING. NO; I wasn't.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did YOU ever take prisoners over to the hospital?
Mr. KING. The only time I ever went over to the hospital was to
get Colonel Peiper and bring him back for interrogation.
Mr. CHAMBERS. While you were a t the hospital getting Colonel
Peiper, did you have occasion to talk to anv of the people there?
Mr. KING. NO; because he was a t one end of the corridor, and there
was a long corridor leading clown tllrough the hospital. I had no
occasion to go down there.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Sergeant, in your normal duties, not involved with
Colonel Peiper, you have already stated you did not see any signs of
people being beaten up or physically mistreated, but I wish you would
tell us more about that.
Did you ever see anybody with a black eye or bruises on them o r
anybody ever claim to you they had been mistreated or anything of
the kind ?
Mr. KING.NO, sir, they ilerer did.
Mr. CHABIBERS. While you were there. do you recall one of the per-
sons on the guard being taken off the guard for mistreating a prisoner?
Mr. KING. I heard of that incident, but it Bappened, I think, before
I got there. I11 fact, I know it llappeued before I arrived there.
Mr. C H . ~ B E R SDid . you receive m y iilstructlons as to 1 1 0 ~you
were to treat prisoners?
Mr. RING. Yes. When I went to worlc taking these prisoners back
and forth fro111 the interrogatin,o room to the cell, Major Fanton told
me that he would take severe act1011 on anybody that came to his notice
that they \%-ereabusing prisoners or stepping out of line one way or
another with them; thxt they were to be taken to their cell and brought
to the interrogating room and tllat would be all there would be to it.
Mr. CHAMHERS. Did this instmce i n which a man was taken off the
guard for abusing a prisoner appear to be a violation of some instruc-
tion that Major Fanton niight have given you, or general instructions
you had as to the treatment of prisoners?
Mr. KING. Well, he nlust have violated his instructions.
Mr. C x ~ ~ a n r m Do
s . yon recall anything about that case, Sergeant
Xing?
Mr. Iirsa. No ; I do not recall anything about it other than hearing
it discussed, that this particular fellow, n-hoever he \\-as, was taken
off guard duty.
Mr. C ~ r ~ i n r n You
~ ~ s .must have known the boys on the guard de-
tachinelit as well as the l)rosecution staff fairly well. Did you hear
them talk? And I would like to say that I mould like to have as accu-
rate an answer as you can give nle now. Dicl you ever hear them talking
bout tlle way the prosecution staff or perhaps others liandled prisoners,
that they might have abused them or threatened tlleln, or tricked them,
or tlijngs of tllat type 1
Mr. KIX. NO. I never did.
Mr. CHAMRERS. Did you ever nse a rope to lead the prisoners to the
prosecuting staff?
Mr. RING. NO.
Mr. C ~ r a n r n ~ Dicl
~ s . you e w r stay within the interrogation center
.and go illto one of tlle mock trials, or anything of the kind, as a g ~ a r d ?
Mr. RIKG. No, never.
M r . Crraarmss. Did yon ever observe any of the 111oclc trials? -
Mr. KING.N O; I ilex'er did observe any mock trials.
Mr. CI-IABIRERS. Did you ex7er see any man who might have had
medical attention as the result of an injury or anything of the kind?
Mr. KING. NO; I never did.
Mr. CHA~IBERS. I have no more questions to ask at this time.
Senator BALDWIN.
Senator McCart11-y '2
Senator MGCARTHY.Sergeant, who contacted you in regard to

coming here today ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Perhaps, I should give the story on that.
Senator MCCARTHY. I mould like to get i t from the sergeant.
Mr. CHAMBERS. All

right.
Senator MCCARTHT.Who contacted YOU with regard to coming here
today, Sergeant ?
Mr. KING. Mister-
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chambers ?
Mr. KING. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwere subpenaed ?
Mr. KING. Yes; I was subpenaed.
Senator MCCARTHI'.I n other words, somebody served a subpena
on you and yon were subpenaed in the usual manner ?
Senator MCCARTIIT.Has anyone discussed your evidence with you
today ?
Mr. KING. NO.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Has anyone discussed with yon the facts of the
case, what you knew, and what you did not know ?
Mr. KING. NO.
Senator MCCARTIIY.When was this matter first discussed. here
on the stand today?
Senator MCCARTI-IY. You are sure of that now 2
Did any of the prosecution staff or anyone talk to you about what
you were going to testify today ?
Mr. KING. Nobody did.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Nobody did ?
Mr. KING. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTIXY. When did you get to town ?
Mr. KING. 3 : 15 this morning.
Senator MCCARTHY. 3 : 15 this morning, and went where?
Mr. KING. Well, iI stayed down to the airport until about 7 o'clock
and then came uptown, went to the hotel, and called Colonel Ellis up
to see if he was in.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUcalled Colonel Ellis?
Senator MCCARTHY. What time did you call the colonel?
Mr. KING. Half past seven or a quarter of eight.
Senator MCCARTIIY.What time ?
Mr. KING. Half past seven or a quarter of eight. I do not know the
exact time ; I have no watch.
Senator MCCARTHY. Had you ever met the colonei before?
Mr. KING. NO: I never had.
Senator R~CCARTIIY. Will you tell me why yon called Colonel Ellis?
Mr. ENG. Why?
Senator MGCARTIIY.Yes.
Mr. KINC. I had no other place to go, and 'I knew he was there a t
the hotel, and so I called to get a place t o stay. I didn't have any
money to go anvwhere else.
Senator M C C A R T I ~ I .realize that $3 a day is not much, you can't
very well do too much on it. That is the fee, is it not. Mr. Chambers?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes.
Senator R~CCARTIIY. It certainly c,overs all the expenses, does i t
not ?
Then, you went up to the colonel's hotel?
Mr. RING. That is right.
Senator MCCSRTHY.And met the colonel?
Senator MCCARTIIY.And you have been with him since 7 o'clock
th j s morning ?
Mr. KING. No ; he has been out all day. I stayed in the room and
went to sleep.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. A good idea. When did vou meet the colonel ?
Did he bring you down h&e ?
Mr. KING. Well, yes ;he came back, and I got up and got dressed and
came down here.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you discuss this matter with the colonel
a t all?
Mr. KING. I asked him what had gone on before, what the thing
was all about.
Senator MCCARTEIY. H e told you mhat the evidence had been so f a r ?
Mr. KING. Yes; he told me what the story was.
Senator &!CCARTHY. He told you there were claims that he had
improperly conducted trials of the prisoners; did he?
Mr. KING. That is right, sir.
Senator MCCARTIST.And asked you what you knew about the case?
Mr. KING.Yes.
Senator MCCAIZTHY. And you told him what you knew and what
you would testify to today?
Mr. KING.Well, yes ; I told him what I knew about it.
Senator MCCARTHT.YOUdiscussed that in considerable detail, did
you, with the colonel?
Mr. KING. NO;I told him I never heard tell of any of those beatings
or ever saw any take place.
Senator MCCARTH~. MY.Chairn~an,I am sure Colonel Ellis did not
do anything at all out of the way in this case, but I do believe when a
witness comes to testify, I think, unless he is part of the prosecution
staff, in which case they certainly ought to discuss matters with the
committee, or part of the defense, or they niay want to discuss matters
with your staff or my staff, I believe the other witnesses, the so-called
independent witnesses, should not be contacted by either the prosecu-
tion in the case, the defense in the case, or contacted by Mr. Chambers
or Mr. Flanagan unless both Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Chambers are
present. Otherwise, the inclination is too great,. We saw it on the
stand when Owens was on the stand ancl heard the major who outranks
him and under whom he worked, ancl heard other men testify differ-
ently, squirmed and tried to get from under his testimony.
I know Colonel Ellis has been completely honest in this matter,
but it does create a bad picture.
I met the sergeant having lunch downstairs with the colonel today.
I think if I had been the colonel I would have done the same thing.
These men are not paid adequately for coini~lghere, and I would invite
him to lunch, too. But it just does not create the impression of a fair
hearing when the witness comes to town and gets in touch with the
man who should be principally interested in having a clean bill of
health given the prosecution staff.
And, as the sergeant says, h e discussed the evidence heretofore, dis-

cussed the fact that the prosecution staff was under fire, and I frankly
just do not think it is proper a t all. I think the prosecution staff, the
defense staff, should be instructed they should not under any circum-
stances discuss the case, with the witnesses coming in, and if Mr.
Chambers wants to discuss the matter with the witness, I think Mr.
Flanagan or the colonel here should be present, and if Mr. Flanagan
wants to discuss i t Mr. Chambers should be present. I do not think
it should apply to your discussions with Mr. Ellis or persons of the
prosecution staff. I do not believe i t should, or Flanagan discussing
with Colonel Dwinell or Colonel Everett.
I believe the Chair d l agree with me on that.
Senator BALDWIN.Obviously, we do not ant to have any testimony
here that is influenced in any way, shape, or manner. But, of course,
the committee staff is under considerable difficulty in preventing any
witness who may come here from getting in touch with Colonel Ellis
or anybody else. T h e man is under oath. Of course, you are forti-
fied by that.
Of course, 1agree with you : I do not think they ought to talk.
Senator MCCARTIIY. It just does not l ~ o good.k
Senator BALDWIN.I do not think they ought to discuss their testi-
mony, and I do not think that Colonel Ellis would do anything, o r
the other officers, that would i n any way affect that.
So f a r as the staff is concerned, the job of the staff is to present this
testimony in as brief a form as it can be presented, and I do not see
how you can do that if the members of the staff cannot find out i n
advance something along the line what the witnesses7 testimony is
going to be. I mean he does not need to go over it in detail with them,
but jt seems to me, i n the interest of brevity and conciseness and the
saving of as much time as possible, that the staff has got to have some
knowledge of what the range of information is that the witnesses
or the particular witness may have.
Of course, that is generally practiced in court. As you know,
lawyers for both sides are expected to go over the testimony of the
witness ahead of time and know something about the field of their
testimony, and I do not think that you can avoid that.
The staff is not going to-this is not a trial of any individual. It
is an attempt to ascertain the facts and what did happen. Nobody
is being charged here with anything. It is an effort on the part of
the committee to find out what goes on.
We have got to use normal processes in order to do this.
Senator MCCARTHY.Mr. Chairman, as the Chair knows and the
daff knows, I have been turning over to the staff the names and
addresses of the young men that have contacted me and given me
information. I want to sap that I could not feel free to do that unless
the Chair instructs the members of the prosecution they are not to
discoss this chse with the witnesses who come in.
Senator RALDWIN.I: think that is fair. I think as a matter of-
Colonel Er LIS. I will be very glad to comply.
Senator -BALDWIN.I: think as a matter of practice, the members of
the prosecnting staff or investigating staff should not discuss the
details of this case with the witnesses.
Senator RICCARTIIY.I think vou are right, Mr. Chairman, about
the necessity of the staff discussing this matter, certainly in prelimi-
nary fashion, to find out v-hether or not the evidence-for example,
when a man turns over R letter to Mr. Chambers, he may want to call
a witness and check the backgronncl to find out whether or not he has
got evidence of value.
I think Mr. Chambers and Mr. Flanagan have been getting along
ver well on that.
I do not imderstand, in this situation, that Col-
R n a t o r III\LDTVIN.
onel Chambers represents the defense and you and Mr. Flanagan
represent the prosecution. I thought we were all sitting in here
together as a coinmittee to investigate the facts.
Colonel ELLIS. I will be glad to comply with your request.
Senator, I hare no reason to talk to any of these people, and 1 will
take it upon inyself to coniply strictly with your desires on the matter.
Senator iUcCawrrr. 1certainly was not accusing you of anything
wrong, bnt it looks bacl hen an indepenclent witness comes in here
ancl is seen conferring with the prosecution staff ancl discussing all
aspects of the case.
I am convinced if Mr. Owen had hacl n chance to talk to Major
Fanton before he testified he never -would have testified as he did.
Ohce lie learned that was not the thing Mr. Fantoil said, he tried at a
very late moment to twist and change his testiiiiony.
341.. CIILMEERS.Mr. Chairman, purely for the record, I think I
would like to have a chance to 111ake a very brief statement here.
We hare had some 15 witnesses before us, and because of Senator
McCarthy's remarks a t the start of this hearing about not wanting the
witnesses to be intervielr-ed eren by members of the staff in advance.
I have been meticulous in avoicling talking to them.
Senatoi: McCam11~.I k n o you ~ were.
Mr. CTTAMREKS. I WO~IICIlike to, hornever, clearly point out I told
Mr. Flanagan as f a r as I was concernecl-aid I thought I was speak-
ing for the committee at the time-we did not care who you all talked
to. I am sure Colonel Dwinell, Mr. Strong, and many others-not
many, but some-have been talked to for the purpose of finding out
what inforniation they had and discussing what the best way was to
present it.
Unless I find it will be necessary to require a statement in advance
from some particular witness, or I have reason to believe I should
interrogate him in some detail, I do not intend to talk to these wit-
nesses before we put them under oath except to take care of adminis-
trative arrangements that are necessary.
Senator MCCARTHY.I might sag that I appreciate very much the
fact you have not talked to Omens ahead of time, certainly had not
coached him, and I might say I have no objection to what you have
been doing here, none a t all.
Sergeant, let me ask you this-
Mr. KING. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUsaid there was some discussion about the
discharge of a guard who had acted improperly.
Mr. KING. T h a t is rivht.
Br
Senator MGCARTHY. beaten u p the prisoner. Will you tell us
exactly what that discussion was?
Mr. KING. Well, that is a long time ago, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.I realize that.
Mr. KING. I do not know, I guess I heard them-
$64 LMALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Senator MCCARTHY. Pardon me ?

Mr. KING.I guess it was just talked freely around that one of
the guards had stepped out of line with one of the prisoners and
was taken off guard duty and put doing something else where he had
no contact with them.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU say "stepped out of line." Was the
rumor he had been hit, kicked, beaten up, what had he been doing?
You said there was considerable discussion. Can you remember any
part of that considerable discussion? I f you can, i t will help.
Mr. KING. I guess they just said in the mess hall so-and-so was
taken off guard duty.
Senator MCCARTHY. Would you speak a little louder, please.
Mr. KING. I guess it was just discussed in the mess hall that so-
and-so--I cannot remember his name now-was taken off gnard
duty for mistreating a prisoner. I don't know what he did now, I
can't recall that. H e did something to warrant taking llim off guard
duty.
Senator MCCARTHY. When you took the man to the interrogation
room-did you say?
Senator MCCARTHY. That room in which they were interrogated?
Mr. KING. Rooms, there was more than one room there.
Senator MCCARTHY.Some of the prior witnesses have stated that
the guards would bring the prisoner to a certain center, and then
the interrogation staff would pick them up from there and take them
over to the interrogation room. I s that correct?
Mr. KING. Pardon me?
Senator MCCARTEIY. ISthat correct?
Mr. KING. There is a long corridor about as wide as this room
here. On the right-hand side of that corridor there are probably six
o r seven or eight rooms.
Mr. KING. And usually when I brought a prisoner over I would
go down and stand in the corridor with him, and one of the interro-
gators would take the prisoner from me and take him in whichever
room he wanted to interrogate him in.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOthen the previous testimony that .under
no circumstances did the guards bring the men directly to the interro-
gation room but that they brought them to this center, that is incorrect?
You actually brought the men from their cells right directly to the
interrogation room ?
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask, Mr. Chairman, Colonel Ellis if
that is incorrect?
Colonel ELLIS. They did not explain it fully. H e explained it
right. There is a big hall there, and they left the prisoners there,
and the interrogator came out and picked up the prisoner-just like
walking across this room. That is what they meant by the interroga-
tion center. He is substantially correct and the others are substan-
tially correct.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Then, after the interrogation hall was reached,
one of the interrogators would take the prisoner from you?
Senator MCCARTHY. Then what did you do?
Mr. KING.I would go back up the hall and go in the room where
the clerks were doing the typing.
Senator MCCARTHY. Go back up where the clerks work?
Mr. KING. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWmany other guards were doing the same
work you were doing?
Mr. KING.Only myself and Corporal Gray. I do not know where
his home is.
Senator MCCARTHT.YOUwere the only two men that exrer brought
them from the cells to the interrogation rooms 8
Mr. KING.The only two I can recall while I was there. Before
I came Sergeant Scalise used to do it.
Senator MCCARTHY. Yon did that from December until Februarv. ., ,
is that right?
Mr. KING.That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY. When you took them back to the cell who
opened the cell door and put th& in, did you do that?
Mr. KING.I took the key over, opened the door, and put them in,
and brought the key back.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Did you take the hood off their heads?
Mr. KING. That is right. ,
Senator MCCARTIIY.I n all cases?

Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Tie1 testified yesterday that he came down
t o Schwabisch Hall and Mr. Thon said, "Come up here. I want you
to see something."
That he came up and looked through the peephole in the door and
saw a man lying there who appeared to be in an unconscious condition
on the floor of the cell wit11 a black hood over his head. And he said,
"Thon, what is wrong with him ? What happened to him ?"
And Thon said, "He just finished interrogzztion and perhaps was
roughed up a bit." ,
The testimony there was that this man had a hood over his head.
I f in all cases yon took the hoods away from them and put them in
the cells. how could he still have had a hood tied over his head when
lying on the floor? Have you any idea ? Had they any extra hoods
in the cell he could have slipped on?
Mr. KING.I don't know. I don't know horn he could have possibly
had a hood on his head when I had talien it off him unless-I don't
know.
Senator MC~ARTI-IE-. YOUdo not know of any extra hoods hanging
i n the cells that the prisoners might use if they wanted to have a hood?
Mr. KTNG.NO. Usually all the hoods were up in Major Panton's
office.
Senator MCCARTIIY. And you used to hang around Major Fanton's
ofice, did you ?
Mr. KING.NO; I didn't. sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Were yon on duty when a Mr. Steiner mas one
of the interpreters or interrogators?
Mr. KING.Interrogators 1
Senator MCCARTHY. When Mr. Steiner was there working. I be-
lieve that Major Banton testified that he interrogated only one or
two. Mr. Bailey testified he had interrogated several at least. So
he was an interrogator for at least some time while Major Panton

was in charge.
The question is : Did you know Steiner ?
Mr. KING. I can't recall him. I might have known him.
Senator MCCARTHY. Were you around there eve.ry day during inter-
rogations ?
Mr. KING. Practically every day.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you name the other interroga.tors if you
know them?
Mr. KING. Well, there was Lieutenant Perl.
Senator MCCARTHY. Per1 ?
Mr. KING. Lieutenant Perl.
Senator MCCARTIXY. And ?
Mr. KING. Ellowitz and Thon.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Lieutenant Thon?
Mr. KING. Yes.
Senator MCCARTI-IY.DO you ever recall having bronght a prisoner
to Steiner for interrogation?
-
Mr. KING. NO.I truthfullv don't reca.11that St,einer. I might know
him by sight.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid you left in February. What time in
February, if you know?
Mr. KING. Close to the last of February, because I went to B a d
Mergentheim for a couple of weeks to process, and I spent a week in
Belgium. And I think I was home the 20th of March-when I landed
in tEe States.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid you thought you left the first part of
February ?
Mr. KING. NO; I left along toward the last.
Senator MCCARTHY. Along toward the last part of February?
Mr. KING. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdid not have anything to do with the feed-
ing of the prisoners or anything like that, did you?
Mr. ENG. NO,I did not.
Senator MCCARTI~Y. Can

you speak German ?
Mr. KING. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you leave before the Polish guards took
over ?
Mr. KING. Oh, yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOwhen you were on duty they were all Ameri-
can guards ?
Mr. ICING. That is right.
Senator MC~ARTHY. You only know of one guard who was dis-
charged for beating or mistreating prisoners?
Mr. KING. That is the only instance I know of, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I see. You do not know what that man's name
was ?
Mr. Kwa. No, I don't recall.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was he one of the men under your command?
Mr. KING.NO, he was just in the company-B company.
Senator MCCARTHY. I understood you did not witness any of the
interrogations or any of the mock trials.
Mr. KING. NO, sir; I did not hang around down there a t all.
MALLMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 567
Senator MCCARTHY. There has been a claim here that there were
fake ministers and fake priests who mould go into the cells and get
statements. I assume, not having seen the mock trials and inter-
rogations, you would not know anything about that either, would you?
Mr. KING. NO; I wouldn't, Senator.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I see. You of course never saw anv of the
prisoners undressed to know whether they had been bruised o i beaten?
Mr. KING. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid you do not speak German?
Mr. EING. NO, I don't.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU did not talk to the prisoners as you
marched to the interrogation room?
Mr. KING. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY.Am I correct that there was a strict order that
none of the guards talk to the prisoners?
-Mr.. KING. There were none that could speak German that I know
of, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I see. Do you know whether there was such an
order or not, not to talk to prisoners ?
Mr. KING. I never heard of it.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n view of the fact you could not understand
the German language, the prisoners could not possibly tell you whether
they had been beaten up o r what had happened to them in the inter-
ro ation cell ?
%, KING. Not unless they could speak English.
Senator MCCARTHY.Thank vou. sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Just a quksti'on or two, sergeant.
Mr. KING.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUwere there from the last of December to the
last of February?
Mr. KING. I think I went there about the 25th of December.
Senator BALDWIN.That would be Christmas.
Mr. EIING.Well, yes, right around Christmas, or a little before
Christmas.
I think, as f a r as I can remember, that was about when it was. I will
say sometime in December, but I thought it was towards the last of
December. But I know I was home in March. I do know that.
Senator BALDWIN.During the time you were there you had frequent,
many opportunities to take prisoners from the cells and take them to
the interrogation place and back again?
Mr. KING. Yes, sir ; I did.
Senator BALDWIN. Have you any idea how many you may have
handled? How many times did that occur a day, Sergeant?
Mr. RING. I don't know. Some days I would probably take 5 or 6
and some days I wohld probably take as high as 20 or more.
Senator BALDWIN. During the time you were there did you ever
see anybody, any prisoner, slapped or kicked or punched, or slammed
up against the wall, or h e e d in the groin or manhandled?
Mr. KING. NO; I never did.
Senator BALDWIN.When they were through with the interroga-
tion you took the prisoners back to the cell?
Mr. KING. That is right, sir; I did, wherever Major Fanton told
me to take them. Sometimes they put them in a large room; they
would not go back to the cell. They would be through with them.
They had two or three large rooms, I would say, rooms as large as
this room here with bunks. They were double-tier bunks like we
had in the Army.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW is that?
Mr. KING. They had dobble-tier bunks like we had in the Army,
double-deckers, and they put them in that room there after they got
through interrogating them, and I guess they shipped them out some
place.
Senator BALDWIN. Who would handle them? Would some of the
guards put them in there? Did you ever do that?
Mr. KING. I would take them down.
Senator BALDWIN.You would take them down and put them in
the room?
Senator BALDWIN.I want to have you tell me if a t any time you
ever saw a man come out of one of these interrogation rooms who
appeared to be injured or unconscious, or semiconscious, or suffermg
from any physical abuse of any kind.
Mr. KING. NO, sir; I never did. I can't recall of an instance where
I ever saw anybody that had ever been molested by anybody. I can't.
recall ever seeing one of those prisoners ever bothered.
Anything further, Mr. Chambers?
Mr. CHAMBERS. One question. You mentioned going over to the
hospital to get Colonel Peiper.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe for a while he was billeted over there.
Mr. KING. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever have occasion to take Malmedy pris-
oners to the station hospital or prison hospital?
Mr. KING. NO, sir. Sergeant Scalise, I think, took care of those.
took them over or had somebody take them over. I never did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was the hospital in the prison used to treat the Mal-
medy prisoners ?
Mr. KING.Yes, it was. They had a dentist, in there and a nurse,
or a woman who came with him. I suppose she was his assistant.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Outside of dental care-and by the way do you
know the name of the dentist?
Mr. KING.No.
Mr. CHAMBERS. A German dentist, was it not?
Mr. KING. Yes, it was. I don't know his name. I saw him come in.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUnever heard him referred to as Dr. Knorr by
any chance?
. Mr. KING.NO; I never did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Outside of the dental cases, did they take prisoners
over for .other injnries, or sickness, or anything of the kind to the hos-
pital ?
Mr. KING. I don't know that. I know they took them over there for
dental cases. Yes; they had them over there for being sick. I don't
know whether any surgery or anything like that was performed, but
I know there were prisoners over there to the hospital.
Senator MCCARTHY. Where was the prison hospital?
Mr. KING.Right inside the prison.
Mr. CHANBERS. That is where the German doctors and German med-
ical personnel handled mostly the inlernees, but they also apparently
were treating some of the Malmedy prisoners?
Mr. KING. I think they were, sir. I know they were handling the
internees there a t that time.
Mr. KING. A t that hospital.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
And yon are pretty sure in your own mind that
they were handling the Malmedy prisoners?
, Mr. KING.I would say yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO more questions.
Senator MCCARTHY. I have one or two more.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator McCarthy.
Senator MCCARTIIY.First, may I suggest I ~mderstandthis man
Knorr has lost both legs and is now in a hospital in Germany.
I wonder if it would be possible to get his records. I assume, do-
ing his work for the Army, he must have kept some records of treat-
n~entsnncl charges he made. That would be very helpful if we could
get those.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Senator, I think this is a matter of long-range
planning as to how me shall go after this testimony in Germany, but
definitely we are going to try to pick up any medical or dental records
available.
Senator M C C A R T ~ 1 .see.
Senator BALDWIN.Any further questions?
Senator MCCARTHY.Yes, I have some, Mr. Chairman, a number of
them.
Were you present on duty the night one of the prisoners committed
suicide ?
Mr. KING. I never heard tell of anyone committing suicide.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOLIsay you were not on duty?
Mr. KING. I couldn't have been, I never heard tell of anyone com-
mitting suicide.
Senator MCCARTHY. The records show a man hung himself, and he
has been buried, so he committed suicide; take my word for it. I n
other words, you were not on duty when he committed suicide?
Mr. ICING. NO, I was not. It is news to me.
Senator MCCARTHY. Colonel Chambers, do you know if we have a
record of the date this man committed suicide?
Mr. CHAMBERS. We have it, I am sure. It will be a matter of locat-
ing it.
Senator R~CCARTHT. DO J'OU know, Colonel Ellis?
Colonel ELLIS.T he 7th or 8th of March.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That was after this man left.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you ever see a priest or a minister or a
rabbi in the Malmedy section of the prison?
Mr. KING. NO, I never did, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you were on duty practically every day?
Mr. KING. That is right, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you knew there was some sizable number
of Protestants, Catholics, or Jewish boys. I understand then there
was no chaplain assigned to these boys.
Mr. KING. I did not see one.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUnever saw one?
Mr. KING.NO. I know they were given Bibles by Sergeant Scalise
and myself. There were a few there in the prison library. I guess
a dozen or a dozen and a half.
Senator MCCARTHY. You said none of the guards could speak Ger-
man?
Mr. KING.Not to my knowledge.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let us say a prisoner was sick, or he wanted
to see a minister, or wanted to see a priest, something like that. How
would he convey that information in view of the fact you could not
understand any German ?
Mr. KING. H e would have to convey it to one of the interpreters.
That is all I know.
Senator MCCARTIIY.How would he go about getting an interpreter?
Mr. KING. I f he rapped on the door, the guard was supposed to go
to the door and see if he was sick. I assume. I was not on guard
duty there. I just worked in the daytime. But if it came to my
notice in the daytime, I would go up and get one of the interpreters
and bring him down and find out what the man wanted.
Senator MCCARTITY. HOW many people were kept in solitary,jn a
single room, with the doors locked, so they could not comn~unmke
with other prisoners ?
Mr. KING. Well, I don't know, sir. There was a lot of single cells
throughout the prison.
Senator MCCARTEIY. I see. Those mere closed-in cells, were they,
except for the peephole in the door?
Mr. KING. And a window.
Senator MCCARTEIY. And a window?
Mr. KING. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.Some men mere kept in solitary all the time
you were there, were they?
Mr. KING. All the time 1 was there?
Senator MCCARTI~Y. Yes.
Mr. RING. I don't know, sir. They were interrogating then1 and
they changed around so much, I do not know how long one Inan would
stay in a cell by himself.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know how many of those cells there
were that were closed-in cells with the peepholes in the door and a
window ?
Mr. KING. I wouldn't know.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Would you guess there were 25 or 50 o r 100
roughly ?
Senator BALDWIN.I f he does not know, Senator McCarthy, what
good is his guess ?
Senator MCCARTHY. I would like to know, Mr. Chairman. H e was
in charge there 2% months. H e testified to a number of things.
Mr. KING. I should say-I don't know-probably six or seven
hundred prisoners were there. I never did see the actual count and
nobody ever told me. I could guess six or seven hundred.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGSTION 57 1
Senator MCCARTEIY. YOUtestified for 25.4 months you would go to
the cells ?
Senator MCCARTIIY.And take a man out, and take him up to the
interrogation room?
Senator &CARTHY. And you and another sergeant would bring
him back.
Senator MCCARTIXY. Can you tell me whether or not there were
more than 50 of those solitary cells?
Mr. KING. I w o ~ l dsay there were 50; yes, sir. But there were
some men in large cells all by themselves that would hold two and
three men.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay there were some men in large cells
all bv themselves that would hold two or three men ?
- I&.I ~ N G .ye's.
Senator ~MCCARTHY. I see. Do you know whether it is a fact that
these men were kept in solitary until they signed a confession?
Mr. KING.1don't know that. .
Senator BICCARTHY. YOUdo not knom anything about that?
Mr. KING.NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. No further questions.
Senator BALDWIS.That is all, Mr. King. Thank you very much for
coming d o ~ here.
n
Mr. K I ~ Yes.
. sir.
Senator BALDTI-IN.
around, 15/11.. Strong. Will you raise your
Come
ri c&t
hand 1
Do you solemnly swear the evidence you are about to give in this
matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
so help you Gocl ?
Mr. STRONG. I do.
Senator BAI.DWIX.Will you give your full name?
TESTIMONY OF HERBERT J. STEONG, NEW YORK CITY
Ah-. STRONG. Herbert J. Strong, 118 East Ninety-first Street, New
York City.
Senator BALDWIN. DOyou have a statement there, Mr. Strong?
Mr. STRONG. I woi~ldlike to read a very brief statement.
Senator Bar,l~wm.You would like to read it?
Mr. STRONG. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. Go ahead, reacl your statement.
Mr. STROIVG. 1,Herbert

J. Strong, was born in Germany in 1904.
Because of my non-Aryan origin, I was compelled to leave Germany in
19:-IG. I arrived in this country in July 1936; became an Anierican
citizen on May 28. 1943, and mas ncll~ittedto the bar of the State of
Mew York, after having attencled lam school for 4 years, in the fall of
1943. I have been. since shortly after my arrival, with the law firm
of Scribner & Miller. first as law clerk, then as associate attorney. I
am the only attorney in this firm x-110 is not vative-born.
1djcl not volunteer for the war-crime-trials job. I had communi-
cated, early in the summer of 1915, with the office of Mr. Justice Jack-
91765 -49---37
572 MALMEDY MASSACR-E INVESTIGATION
son, as I was, on account of the singularly interesting legal aspect of the

case, interested in participating in the first Nuremberg trial. The W a r
Department approached me i n the fall of 1945, and asked me to go to
Germany to take p a r t in the war-crime trials to be conductecl there. I
considered it an obligation to this country to comply wit11 this request
2nd went on a 6-n~onths'contract, which was later extended to enable
me to stay on until the Malmedy t r i d was con~plete.
I wish to state t h a t I, per.sonally, despite all unpleasant accusa-
tions and innuendos to which the former Gernlans who were members
of the occupation forces have been subjectecl, consider it a p r i d e g e
to have been able to work for the W a r Department. I wish, further,
to state that in the various war crime trials, primarily the so-called
flier cases, i n which I defended Germans accused before various
military government courts, the attitude of court and prosecution was
exemplary. I encountered quite a few defendants who hacl executed
confessioi~sand in no case did any one of those defendants ever t r y
to repudiate his confession or claim that i t v-as untr'ue or had been
obtained by fraud or duress. The courts leanecl over baclcwarcl to
give the accused a fair trial. The files of the prosecution were open
to me as defense counsel and rice versa.
I still remember with pride, a certain trial against two Xazi oXjcials
who were accused of murclering American fliers in the nejghborhood
of Frankfurt. This trial took 6 clays. The courtroom mas ijlled wit11 .
Germans most of the time, who during and after the trial, repeatedlj~
expressed to me their admiration for the scrnpuiously fair way in
which it was conductecl and the lengths to which clefense. with the
court's permission, went to bring out everything in the accused's Savor.
I had the snme experience when I, after the Malmedy trial, prosecuted
a flier case in Dachau. I also had the same impression of absolute
fairness in the conduct of the Mauthausen and F!ossenbnrg coucen-
tratiori camp trials which took placr in Dachau, the fcimer one y i o r
to the opening of Malmedy tlial ancl the latter one simultaneo~isly
with it, which I at times attended.
I wish also to state that by the T7erynature of the war-crime trials
i t has very often been, and in my opinion agai:~will be iinpossibie to
use ordinary rules of evidence. Btcst of the witnesses. who u-ere inter-
rogated by prosecution teams a t the early stages ancl who gave affi-
davits, were not available any more. Many of them n7ere foreign na-
tionals and had returned to their respective countries. I f their state-
ments could not be used a t all, the ~)rosecntionwoulcl, ill n n~rjovity
of the cases, have been unable to prove its cases. The best-evidence
rule shoulcl, of course, prevail; but where the witnesses, with clue dili-
gence, cannot be found, their statements should be arlinitted and
given the probative valne the court will see fit to attach to them in each
particular case.
The Malmedy trial was in a category by itself. T o the hest of ~ u y
lmowledge, it was the only case where there were complaints about
improper concluct on the part of tlie prosecntion and improper inetllotls
w e d to obtain confessions. I t w w the o~llycase ~i1le1.e.
with tlie excep-
tlon of a few Belgian civilians and America11 suvviro~s, theine vrelne110
witnesses to the crimes, apart from the comracles of the accusetl.
I am now prepared to answer any questions your distino_tlisheclcom-
mittee may wish to ask me in connection 1~4ththe Maimed- trial.
Mr. Planagan, do you want to question Mr. Strong ?
Senator MCCARTEIY. I prefer that Mr. Flaunagan question Mr.
Strong because I have not had a chance to get familiar with any in-
formation Mr. Strong might hare. I think Mr. F'lnnagan can handle
i t very well.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Mr. Strong, mould you give the committee a very
briefr6samB of your legal education and experience?
Mr. STROWG. I studiecl law i n Germany from 1923 to 1030. I passed
the first judicial examination in Germany before the Supreme Court
of Cologne in 1933 and was appointed refereiidar, and as such re-
rilained in the legal attendership service.
It is pretty hard to explain. May I explain off the record about
referendar, Mr. Chairman?
Senator BALDWIN.YOUmay make a n explanation - on the record if
you like to.
Mr. STRONG. Very well, Mr. Chairman. The referendar, as 1 called
it: in Germany is a stage between the passing of the final university
examination and final nclmissioil to judgeship or bar. The last 3
years i n which time the so-called referenclar is assigned by the presid-
'ing judge of the particular district to various parts of the court civil
chambers, court of general sessions, district attorney's office, regis-
trar's office, in nrhich he also acquaints himself ~ ~ i the t h practice of
attorneys.
The so-called referendar substitutes for attorneys frequently when
attorneys are away, and by this various legal experience he acquires
a przctical experience which he neecls in addition to his legal training
i n la,\<- school, which enables him to pass the second examination-the
assessor examination-qhich was lielcl i n Berlin. Aiid upon passing
this examination he is either. according to his marks, admitted to the
bar, or if his inarks are high enough he 1s offered a jnclgeship.
I spent 3 years in the so-called preparatory stage. I n fact. I ex-
tended this period because 1had quite a i'ew periods in wl-hich I sub-
stituted for attorneys and tooir care of their oflice.
I was close to the passing of the last exainination x ~ h e nI W R ~ ill
,
August of 1933, suspended because of my non-Aryan origin. I stayed
i n the lam in Germany as a legal assistant to various a t t o r ~ ~ e yuntil
s
the elid of 1935 when 1came to this country TT-hereI nrrivcl in July
1936, after having spent 4 months in England.
I immecliateiy joined the l n ~ vfirin of Scribner C ' Miller. as I said
before, first as a law clerk.
I ~ e ntot New York University 111 1927. I took my I,.E. B. tlegree
i n 1941. During all this time I stayed with the law firm I have just
n~entioned.
I continued to stay there h o m 1941 until 1943 because I could
obviously not be admitted to the bar until I became a citizen. On
account of the declaration of war the citizenship of mine was delayed,
so I became a citizen i n Map 1943, and as 1said, was adlilitted ill the
fall 011943 and has e stayed 011 and am still with the same firm where I
handle primarily civil matters of a commercial nature.
Does that answer your question?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes, sir. When did you arrive in Gerinally to take
p a r t in these war crime trials as a civil lawyer ?
Mr. STRONG. I n the early part of January 1946.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
And from early January 1946 ulltil April 1946,
1assume, you were assigned various war crime cases in Germally?
Mr. STRONG. That is correct.

Mr. FLANAGAN. When were you first notified that you were to be
assigned to the trial of the Malmedy case?
Mr. STRONG. I had been assigned to the trial of war crimes in Lud-
wigsburg where I stayed from March 7 to April 18. During that
time I tried as defense counsel approximately six to eight cases.,
It was during one of these cases in which I defended one or two
people accused of having murdered one of our fliers when Colonel
Everett, who happened to be in Dachau to assist in the trial, on the
evening of the first day approached m e a n d incidentally Mr. Walters
was stationed in Dachau a t that time, who is now a civilian attorney
practicing in Seattle, Wash. H e approached and asked whether Mr.
Walters and I would be willing to join him in Dachau. We accepted
this offer. I told Colonel Everett I would have to complete one or
two trials I had already prepared.
I did so, and I would say that about a week or 10 days aiter Colonel
Everett had approached me, I left Ludwigsburg and via Weisbaden
proceeded to Dachau and arrived April 18.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUarrived April 18, and a t that time began the
preparation of the defense of the Malmedy accused?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Could you relate for the committee your first ex-
perience with these defendants at Dachau?
Mr. STRONG. I remember that Colonel Everett had been waiting
quite anxiously for me for the very simple reason that I was the only
one on his staff x h o spoke fluently German. And he told me that-
I am not definite in my recollection in this regard-I think the de-
fendants had just arrived. But there must be a slight discrepancy
as to dates. 1 think the defendants had just arrived, and he asked
me on the first day to talk to the defendants the next morning.
We went out to the camp. There was a very big room adjoininq
to our temporary office. All the defendants were lined up. and a t the
request of Colonel Everett I delivered a speech to them in German
in which I told them that we -were their defense counsel: that we had
just arrived; that there was not terribly much time left to prepare;
that we were very much in a hurry to prepare the case as carefully
and as well as we could ;and that we could do it only by obtaining their
full cooperation.
Senator BALDWIN.Thank yon very much.
Mr. FLANAGAN. What was the general attitude of the accused a t
that time toward you, the defense counsel?
Mr. STRONG. That particular day we had no opportunity to observe
any attitude because after the speech was made-I presume there was
a question if any of the accused had anything to ask. I do not think
there mere any questions and the accused were led back into their cells.
About 1 or 2 days later, me started to interrogate the accused and
Colonel Everett had divided us into three teams: One to handle
officers, ope for noncommissioned officers, and one for privates.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Which team were you assigned to?
Mr. STRONG.
I was, together with Lieutenant Colonel Dwinell, han-
dling the officers.
Mr. FLANAGAN. When yon first began to interview the officers you
were to defend, what did their attitude seem to be?
Mr. STRONG. We encountered rather indifference, and I would say
uninterested attitude. Let me put it this way : It was our imprasion
that the defendants felt it would not make any difference what we
could do, or what we would do, and they were not particularly inter-
ested in our assistance.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you ever have any discussions with the defen-
dants right a t that time in an effort to win their confidence so you could
properly defend them in the court?
Mr. STRONG. We tried in our initial interrogations to win their
confidence, and I remember when Colonel Dwinell and I came t o report
to Colonel Everett, he had in the meantime received similar reports
to ours from the other two teams handling noncomn~issionedofficers
and privates, and we agreed it was absolutely useless and hopeless to
go on with this attitude of the accused.
So he called a second conference at which I think I made a second
speech in German on my own initiative, in which I told them, I think
quite forcibly, that none of us loved the Nazis, and that none of us
stood for anything they had known, but on the other hand we, as at-
torneys, considered i t our duty to give then1 the very best defense we
could put up for them, and that i t was absolutely now in their hands
whether they wanted to avail themselves of our offices or not.
And the reaction was rather disappointing again. I mean we ob-
tained some statements, we obtained some cooperation, but we did not
obtain the cooperation me needed.
So about, I would say, a week passed between our first conference
and the meeting I am now going to describe.
A t the request of Colonel Everett me had one evening all the
officers-I think they mere only officers. I am not definite, but I
think only officers mere present. All the accused officers mere brought
to the rather small office of the doctor of the camp-Dortmueller. And
I think Colonel Everett mas present. And Colonel Dwinell and
myself. I do not know offhand whether the other defense counsel
were present.
I n addition we had a Lieutenant Gugh who had taken part in the
Mauthausen trials, if I remember correctly, who mas also a former
German, and who first talked to them and told them that from his
experience in the Mauthausen trial the surest 13-ay they would hang
themselves would be to lie to their counsel and then be trapped on the
stand.
Then we made our speeches again, Colonel Everett and myself, and
finally Colonel Peiper, with mhoni we had discussed it a t the time-
he was a coaccused-talked to the others and told them he had known
us now for about a week, and from his personal opinon, and froln
his exchange of opinions with us, it was definitely his belief that
we were sincere, that we ~vantedto give them a fair trial, and then
he, as senior ofhcer, excepting the generals, of course, as sei~iorofficer
of the Leibstendarte, mould definitely advise them to give us their full
confidence, and that the noncoms and privates should be accorclingly
instructed.
Mr. FJANAGAN. Were you ever able to determine later on why these
Germans absolutely refused to have any confidence in their defense
counsel when their very lives were at stake?
Mr. STRONG.We found out later on, especially during our interroga-
tions, i t was because they felt that they had in their opinion received
rather rough treatment a t Schwabisch H a l l ; that they had signed con-
fessions; and tliey had in their opinion in quite a few cases been
guided into signing this confession by false pretenses, and that their
confidence in the American justice and impartiality had definitely
been shattered. They would not believe anybody now meant well
with them.
Mr. FLANAGAX. Would yon say one of the reasons they took this
attitnde mas because they were not really convinced you were true
defense counsel but inerely impersonating defense counsel ?
Mr. STRONG. T h a t is correct.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Did tliey indicate that prior to their contact tvith
you other persons had told them, or represented theniselves to these
Germans as being defense counsel for them?
Mr. STRONG. I ~ r o u l dnot p u t it that way, Mr. Flanagan. I think
they knem we mere defense counsel to go on ~ ~ itheir t h defense during
the trial. But they thought we were the same type of defense couilsel
they had occasionally eilcounterecl i n Schwabisch Hall and would not
put up a defense with us.
Mr. FLAPTAGAN. I n other words, they indicated they had contacted
-&at they thought were defense counsel at Schwabisch H a l l ?
Mr. STRONG. I n certain cases; yes.
Mr. FLANAGSN. A t that time, or shortly after that, did these men,
the accused, begin to tell yon about duress, of various types, including
physical violence, that may have been used upon them by the prosecu-
tion interrogators?
Mr. STRONG.W e had already heard some gossip and rumors before
going to Schwabisch Hall when we accumulated i n Dacliau, and when
me encounterecl this attitude of accused. Colonel Everett hinlself pine-
pared a questionnaire, which I have not seen any more for 2y2 years,
and which my nleinory is rather ~7agueabont, but I would say that
questioi;naire contains questions as to the type of treatment rather
specific to which the accused were allegedly subjected in Schwabisch
Hall.
These questionnaires were handed to the accused, and they received
the psncils and r e r e told to take the questionnaires back Into their
cells. I went OT-erthe next morning and collected the questionnaires
filled out from the respective defendants.
And this questionnaire-again testifying from memory which is not
too exact-contained questions about niock trials, about beatings, about
other types of duress, and we received these questionnaires back filled
out by the accused.
Mr. FLANAGAN. NOW,the purpose i n sending out these question-
naires by the defense was to find out if any of the accused had been
subjected to the d~lresswhich the various defense lawyers had heard
had gone on ; is that correct?
Mr. STRONG. Correct.
Mr. FLANAGAX.
I n other words, you did not send out the question-
naire before you heard about the duress but after you heard about the
duress ?
Mr. STRONG. We could not very well have put in questions about
mock trials or beatings unless we Bad heard about them before.
MALMEDY MASSACllE INVESTIGATION 577
Mr. FLANAGAN. Your purpose in doina that was to @her
informa-
tion that might be helpful i n the defense7
Mr. STRONG.
Our purpose mas to find out definitely what actually
~ e non t and what the particular complaint of the accused was.
Let me say one thing in this connection. We did not start in this
case with the intention to believe everything our accused told us;
obviously not.
And when the questionnaires came back-testifying from my recol-
lection-they showed something quite remarkable. They showed that
the accused had filled out the questionnaires with rather large varia-
tions. Whereas some of them denied they had ever been mistreated
and some of them said they had never received a mock trial, others
admitted it, and i t was our opinion a t that time, if the accused would
have been willing to lie and to make u p false stories, it would hizve
been very easy for them to answer every one of these question with
"Yes."
And judging from the fact that only a certain percentage com-
plained about mistreatement, and another percentage about mock trials,
we regarcled these questionnaires, the answers, as more or less correct.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other words, after your exaniination of these
questionnaires which were sent to the various accused, you were con-
~ i i l c e dthat there had been n o concerted plan on the part of this group
of accused to untruthfully allege duress or physical violence?
Mr. STRONG. W e were convinced.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
You were coiwinced of that from your exaininatiofl
of the questionnaires?
Mr. STRONG.From our examination of the questionnaires, and fol-
lowing interrogation of the accused and of witnesses.
X r . FLANAGAN. NOW,did any of the accused that you personally
represented allege physical mistreatment or other types of duress o r
terrorism 2
A h . STRONG.I remember General Deitrich had complained in a
stateinent that he had been kicked i n the groin by some Polish guards.
Very frankly, Mr. Planagan, my recollection i n this regard is rather
vague. I represented mostly the officers. I think Colonel Peiper testi-
fied to mistreatlnent in court and the record will speak for him.
Priess and Kraemer, I do not think complained about any physical
mistreatment. And as t o the other officers, I am vague.
Mr. FT,ANAGAN. You are sure about-Kraemer?
Mr. STRONG.I a111 sure of Deitrich.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I mean Deitrich. H e complained of being kicked
i n the groin by the Polish guards?
P
311..STRONG.Yes ; am sure of that.
X r . FLANAGAN. Bemg a defense lawyer acd trial lawyer, you real-
ized It was an important thing f o r your case to show whether or not
these inen had been subjected to duress or physical violence?
Mr. STRONG. Cei.tainly.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
With that in mind, could you explain t o the com-
mittee why you did not go to the extent of having physical examina-
tions performed on these various of the accused that alleged they had
beeil nilstreatecl in any way?
Mr. STRONG.F o r the simple reason that all the mistreatments about
~ ~ h i we c h received coinplaints had occurred i n Schwabisch Hall alld
578 MALMEDY MASSACRE IISVESTIGATION
not in Dachau, and that all of this so-called mistreatmellt was of a

nature which ordinarily woulrl not have left any prominent damage.
We figured out that to examine somebody as to some bruises or
kickings which he received 4 weeks or 6 weeks ago would hsve been
useless.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you i n your interrogations and observations of
these prisoners ever notice any marks of physical violence on them?
Mr. STRONG. I did not.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
And I suppose that would be one of the reasons why
you did not request physical examination.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUthought it would not prove or disprove any-
thing.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Now, when you began the defense of this case-
you got there on April 18, and the record shows that the trial started
on May 16, which was a period of about a little less than 30 days in
which to prepare this defense of some 73 men.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n this short period of tiine did you experience any
difficulty in the preparation of your defense?
Mr. STRONG. We were short of time to begin with. When we arrived
we had to spend quite a few days to actually set up the technicalities
of the trial. We were billeted first in a hotel. We had to look for
our billets, which, I remember, we had to requisition a couple of houses
for, and it took 1or 2 days.
We mere short of stenographic help, of typswriters, and inter-
preters. I was, as I said before, the only member of the defense team
to speak German. So Lieutenant Dwinell and I did not need a n
interpreter. The other t ~ teams o needed them.
Whenever the accused had given us any statements embodying their
version, nobody could read i t until it was translated, which took a
considerable time.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other words, it took you some tiine merely to
pet organized ?
Mr. STRONG. T O get started.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
I11 an effort to even start your defense?
Mr. STRONG.
That is correct.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
About how much time of this 30 days, or 28 days,
R-oulclyou say, was spent in merely getting organized ?
Mr. STRONG. I would say a week, to the best of my recollection.
Mr. F'LANAGAN. Was part of this first week also taken up, or was
more time than that taken up, in attempting to win over the confidence
of your defendants, your clients ?
Mr. STRONG. I would say these two periods ran concurrently.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Ran coiicurrently. SOthat the first weel<you made
absolutely no progress so f a r as the preparation of your case was con-
cerned ;is that right?
Mr. STRONG. Hardly any.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Which left you a period then of abont 20 days in
which to get organized for a very long and complicated trial?
Mr. STXONG. That is correct.
I n addition, we had to line up German defense counsel. The ac-
cused were asked whether any of them wanted to be represented in
addition to us by German civilian defense counsel. W e had about 8
t o 10 r e q ~ ~ e sto
t s the best of my recollection.
I. Por instance, had to spend, I remember, 2 to 3 days in Munich
trying to find German attorneys who mere permitted to practice, try-
ing to obtain information about their legal a i d scliolastic background,
trying to get permission of the Secretary of Justice i n Munich t o have
them take part i n the defense.
Then we had to make necessary arrangements for the German de-
fense counsel who mere not too much tempted by the offer if they
would c6me over of promising food rations, cigarettes, and gasoline,
and all this took u p additional days.
Jfr. FLANAGAN. I understand prior t o the time the defense team took
over that the prosecution team had obtained confessions from vari-
ous of the accused and confessions from witnesses, sworn confessions?
Jlr. STRONG. T h a t is correct.
111.. FLANAGAN.
Concerning the participation of your clients i n
this case.
Mr. STRONG.That is correct.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you attempt to get these confessions i n order
to properly prepare your defense?
Mr. STRONG. We did.
Xr. FLANAGAN.
Did you have any difficulty i n obtaining these con-
fessions from the prosecution?
Mr. STRONG. I T C O L I ~say
~ me did a t last obtain these confessions,
but we obtained them a t a very slow speed, and only piecemeal. I
would say that when the trial started me probably had obtained prac-
tically all of them. There might be a few exceptions which I do not
remember.
Mr. FLANAGAN. During the preparation period, when you needed
them T el-y bczclly, you x e r e not able to get them fast enough to ade-
c~mtelyprepare the defense of your various clients?
Xr. STRONG. W e did not get them fast enough.
They should have
been turned over to us for the purpose immediately i n one block.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Who had control of these confessions?
Mr. STRONG.
Prosecution.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
I n other words you had to go to the prosecution
to get these coiiPessions in order t o prepare your defense?
BPr. FLANAGAN. By the same tolien, I assume, when you did get the
defendants to cooperate with you and did go into the facts, that it
was necessary to obtain certain witnesses to use on behalf of the de-
fense; is that so?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
About how many witnesses do you recall had to
be obtained in order to prepare an adequate defense for these nlen?
Mr. STRONG. I cannot give YOU a figure. Let me explain how we
preyared our list of T~itnesses.
IT e talked to the various accused and obtained their stories. And
during their interrogation names cropped u p ; somebody mentioned
soine lientenant or soine private who was present a t that and that
place, and ~ h wonld o be able to testify that Private Jones clicl not
commit that p x t i c c n l a crime. S o xvhenes7e1- a name came up which
we consiclered essential, we immediately put t h a t name on our list of
prospective 3~ itnesses. And on the evening of each day Colonel Ever-
ett handed our list of prospective witnesses, which occasiondly might

have m n u p as high as 50 or 60 or even 100 names, to the prosecu-
tion.
And then we received, a certain time later, information from the
prosecution whether the prosecution knew anything abont the where-
abouts of these witnesses, whether some of the witnesses were i n
Dachau, or whether some witnesses were somewhere else, or whether
some of the witnesses were not available.
Mr. FLANAGAN. W h a t percentage of the witnesses normally would
vou get when you requested a h~uldred-about how nlany would show
ilP?
Mr. STRONG. Again, from memory, I would say 10 to 1.5.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Ten to fifteen percent of the witnesses you needed
you were able to get?
Mr. FLANAGAN. W i
t h regard to these witnesses were you in the
same situation as you were with your confessions; namely, did you
have to depend pretty much upon the prosecution to get certain of
t,hese witnesses? T h a t is, was i t necessary for the defense to depend
upon the prosecution to obtain witnesses for you?
Mr. STRONG.Certainly. I mean we-let me put it this way. TTTe
had to depend upon the notification by the prosecution whether or
not the witnesses were available.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other vords, the prosecution pretty much con-
trolled what witnesses yon would have for the defense?
Mr. STROXG. The reply from the prosecution controlled the number
of witnesses whom we could interrogate.
Mr. FIAKAG-4~. D Oyo11 feel that your inability to get witnesses, and
your inability to properly examine them, had the effect of weakening
your defense of this case'?
Mr. STRONG. Yes, sir.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Yo11 say "Yes"?
Mr. STRONG.Yes. I would say that in my opinion if we would
have had time to look f o r ~ ~ i t n e s s in
e s the prisoner of war camps, o r
internment camps, o r maybe through independent investigation teams
combed the countryside for witnesses, we probably would have been
able to find quite a few of them who might have been helpful.
I realize that probably a lot of the witnesses given to us were prob-
ably dead or prisoners of war i n Russia, or nobody knew what became
01 them. B u t I would say with some more time a t our clisposal, t h e
percentage of the n&nesses whom we could have found would have
been larger.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Would you care to comment to the committee, o r
give your statement to the committee, as to the conduct of the prosecu-
tion in this case?
Let me be a little more specific. Did you encounter any difficulty
as the result of a rule they had over there about questioning defense
witnesses in the preseace of the accused?
Mr. STRONG.Yes. There was a definite ruling that no wihlesses
conld be interrogated in the presence of the accused.
Now I admit frankly that we violated this ruling occasionally, not
intentionally, but because in the heat of battle, so to speak, me wanted
to fincl out what actudly happened. When we lrnew the witness was
right in the camp we called for him.
I remember distinctly that on several occasions Colonel Everett was
approached by the prosecution with the request that this practice
st,op, and as a result of this we were called down quite frequently by
Colonel Everett.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me interrupt you a minute. I do not quite
understand what you mean.
Mr. STRONG. There was a ruling against witnesses being questioned
in front of the accused.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUmeap outside of court?
Mr. STRONG. I n our pretrial stage, aild outside of the court.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
were defense witnesses.
These
Senator BALDWIN.Yes, that is what I mean.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Did that same rnle apply to the prosecution?
Mr. STRONG.
I would not know.
Senator BALDWIN.How could it? How could i t ? I do not quite
understand what you mean, counselor, on that.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other words, do you know, Mr. Strong, whether
or not the prosecution i n their investigation of the case were allowed
to call various witnesses i n and question them in the presence of the
accused ?
Mr. STRONG. I qmnot answer that qnestion v i t h any degree of
certainty.
Nr. E'LANAGAN. The recorcl shows that at least in some instances
during these mock trials rritnesses were brought i n and questioned
in the presence of the accused. I think the record mill show that.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUi n e m i n the investigation?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes, and of course, whxt I am talking about with
Mr. Strong a t this point is the defense investigation of the case. H e
thought i t was necessary t o conduct the same kind of an investigation
so they conld prepare the defense in the same manner the prosecution
conducted an investigt~tionto prepare the prosecution.
3lr. CHAJIBERS.Off the record.
(Discussion off the recorcl.)
Senator MCC~IRTIIY. May I ask Colonel Ellis: Was there any rnle
to the effect that you could not have the accused present while you were
interrogating the witness ?
Colonel ELLIS. That is not 111y recollection, sir. My recollection is
the dispute arose orer the fact that the accused were allowed to be
alone with the defense witnesses, and that is where the argument
arose.
Senator MCCARTEIY. See if I have this correctly in mind now. There
was a rule that under no circumstances could the defense counsel have
both a defense witness and a clefenclant present in the same room.
Colonel ELLIS. That was x o t my understanding : no. sir.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Could we ask Colonel Dwinell? I s that cor-
rect?
Colonel DWINELL.My understanding of the rule was the defense
counsel conld not interrogate a witness a t the same time in the presence
of the accused. I n fact, I know that to be so becanse on two or three
occasions I violated that rule inadvertently. On one occasion I dicl
not lznov the rule existed. When I found out i t existed, on one or two
occnsions I dicl i t accidentally.
I remember being called down for it by Colonel Everett and his
telling me under no circumstances to do that again.
582 ~ I A L M E D YMASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Senator B'IOCAIITHY.Who had reportecl this to Colonel Everett?

Colonel DWINELL.That, I do not know. Some wag rhey had i t
worked out that somebody got back to Colonel Everett. How it got
back, I do not know.
Senator MCCARTIIY.See if I have this correctly i n mind. 111 other
words, you have the defendant in this room and you want to talk t o
a defense witness and discuss the facts. The rule was you could not clo
that under any circumstances?
Colonel DWINELL.Not if the accused was present.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Thnt was your same understancling of the rule, Mr.
Strong ?
Mr. STRONG.That was my same understanding of the role.
Senator MCCAIITHY.That rule did not apply to the prosecution, I
gather.
Senator BALDTVIS.I do not want to argue the point, but I do not see
your point in connection with that, because I do not see what particular
advantage i t ~ ~ o u l be c l to the prosecution. It seems to me it would
rather be to the advantage of the accused.
I f I mas preparing to prosecute a case and was questioning the ac-
cused and brought i n i n front of him one of the witnesses who was
going to testify against him, and confronted him with that witness, I
think it woulcl be to his advantage.
Senator MCCARTHT.Mr. Chairman, we are discussing defense wit-
nesses, not prosecution IT-itnesses. I n other morcls, here is what hap-
pened i n case there is any doubt about i t :
The prosecution would bring in a defense witness and had full right
to talk to him before the accused o r anyone else. The defense could not
sit down ancl C ~ ~ S C L I Sthe
S matter with a defendant and a clefense wit-
ness, which, of course, obviously you know as a lawyer n~aliesit iin-
possible to prepare a case.
It was just the rule and they had to abide by it.
K r . FLANAGAX. I think possibly the witness can clear it up for us.
Senator MCCARTEIY.It is obvious; there is nothing to clear u p
about it.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Strong, do you think i t impaired your ability
t o prepare a proper defense because of this rule which did not allow
you to discuss the case with defense witnesses i n the presence of the
accused ?
Mr. STRONG. I t did impair the preparation of the defense.
Mr. F'LANAGAN.
I n the preparation of the defense, or during the
trial of the case, did it ever come to your attention that members of the
prosecution team were tampering with your witnesses?
Mr. STRONG. Yes; I remember several cases in which, usually after
the end of the court i n the evening, we called i n witnesses whom we had
not interrogated before, or whom we wanted to again interrogate, to
ask them either about testimony which.hac1 been given that previous
day in court or about testimony which we expected the next day.
And we tallied to these witnesses and sent them back to their cells.
And sometinles we needed the same witnesses again the next day or the.
day after next. And then we called in these witnesses then, and we
encountered, quite frequently, witnesses who had been x7ery ready t o
testify were very reluctant to testify, or their memory had suddenly
gotten rather bad.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INT'ESTIG ATIOK 583
We tried to find out what was behind it. W e got in several cases
inforn~aitoiithat after these witnesses had been interrogated by us
they had been called into the office of the prosecution, had been asked
what questions we had asked them, and hati been told to be careful
i n the testimony to avoid that they mould find themselves instead of
witnesses, accused.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other words, did some of these witnesses after
they had given you one story on behalf of the defense then change the
story after being interviewed by members of the prosecution team?
Mr. STRONG. Could I have the question read ?
Mr. F'LANAGAN.
Read i t back, Mr. Reporter.
(The pending question was read.)
Mr. STRONG.
I would say they became reluctant, and usually when
we appealed to them and to their sense of loyalty to the accused and
so on, then they usually stood up. But there may have been cases of
which I am right now not particularly cognizant in ,which-in fact, I
remember one case of a certain private whose name I cannot remeinber,
but who, when I called him in the next evening, said flatly he would
not go on the stand, he was afraid. T h a t was the exception.
Mr. FLANAGAN. What was he afraid o f ?
Mr. STRONG.
Afraid of changing his status of vitness to the status
of accused.
Mr. BLANAGAN. I n other words, he was afraid of being cllarged a s
a war criminal if he testified on behalf of the clefense?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Would you call that duress?
Mr. STRONG.
I would call i t trying to influeilce a ~litness.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
And that would be one of the worst types of duress?
Mr. STRONG. It is a concI~~sion, and
I don't want to d n w conclu-
sions.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
D O you recall a n instance during the time of this
case where Lieutenant Perl allegedly entered the cells of some of the
defendants in this case and stole papers from them?
Mr. STRONG. I recall the following incident, which I did not see
myself: I remember that one day, I think it was during the lunch re-
cess, Colonel told myself, and, if I am not very ni~lchinjstal;en, Colonel
Dwinell and other clefense teams the following story: H e had ob-
served, while the trial was going on, Lieutenant Per1 entering the
bunker. I have to explain that from the benches on vihich defense
counsel were sitting you could look through the windows into the rear
yard which joined the bunker where the accused mere kept during the
nig.ht. And apparently he saw Lieutenant Perl entering the bunker
which was a kind of unusual thing. And he told us afterward lie saw
Perl coming out with papers.
Again quoting Colonel Everett. H e called this to the attention
of the officer of the security guard and either the o f h e r or Everett
or both went into one of the rooms of the prosecution where they
found Lieutenant Per1 looking a t quite a lot of papers which he had
collected from the cells of the accused who were i n the prisoners' dock.
And I think lie was trying to translate them. And I think Coloilel
Everett made some complaint. I don't lmom whether 'it was to the
security guard officer or C0l0llel C ~ l e l ~ l a l lI. don't think that hap-
pened apain.
584 MALMEDY MASSACEE INVESTIGATION
Senator MCCARTHY. Was he forced to give the papers back?

Mr. STRONG. I presume so.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was there anyone else in the room with Perl
that you know of that was studying these papers a t the time?
Mr. STRONG. I don't know.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUknow that Perl was there?
Mr. STRONG.
I know from Colonel Everett's story he found Perl in
that room. I would not know.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOI have this correctly in mind?'
Perl was caught after he had been in the cell of different defendants
that were in court being tried? '
Senator MCCAKTHY. And took private papers into one of the prose-
cution rooms, and he was caught there examining those papers by
the security guard ?
Mr. STRONG.That is correct.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Would it have been possible that any of these papers
he took were privileged communications between these defendants
and their defense attorneys?
Mr. STRONG. That is quite possible, but I would not h o w .
Senator BALDWIN.May I ask one question there? It has an excel-
lent bearing on this thing. At the time this thing is alleged to have
taken place by Perl, did that happen up a t Dachau?
Senator BALDWIN.Did that happen after the trial had started?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Mr. Strong, yon were present during the entire
trial of this case, mere you not?
Mr. STRONG.Yes, sir; with the exception of, I think, 3 or 4 or 5
clays when I was confined to the hospital with a cold.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you form any opinion concerning the attitude
of this court as a result of your presence and participation in this
trial? I n other words, do you think they were fair and j~tdicialin
their treatment of the case or do you think they were unjudicial or
unfair, or biased, or prejudiced?
Mr. STRONG. I have no criticism of the court with the exception of
the fact that I had the the personal impression that the lam- inember-
Mr. FLSNAGAN. Colonel Rosenfeld?
Mr. STRONG. Rosenfeld; yes. Ruled too often against us in cases
where, in my opinion, the rules of evidence were clearly on our side,
and on the other hand, too often he denied objections which we inade to
prosecution questions which, in my opinion, should have been
sustained.
Senator BALDWIN.May I interpolate a question there ?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Surely.
Senator BALDTVIN. Was

i t the generally accepted view a t that par-
ticular time that whatever the trial came out there would be a review
of it by the Judge Advocate General Department, or by some other
high reviewing authority, or was it the general accepted view this was
a final trial from which there would be no appeal?
Mr. STRONG. I would say, Mr. Chairman, not being a specialist in
court-martial and war-crime trials, that in this regard probably all of
us took it for granted that every finally completed trial would pass
through the reviewing authorities.
Senator BALDWIN.Would pass through the reviewing authorities?
I n fact, we filed petition; for review, and I remember
Mr. STRONG.
Z filed, myself, eight or nine petitions before I left Dachau.
Senator BALDWIN.Were those petitions granted?
Mr. STRONG. I have no idea. I have had no connection with the case
until February of this year.
Senator BALDWIN.The reason I asked the question is that I got
the impression this mas a trial from which there was to be no review
or appeal or anything like that, and, of course, in ordinary courts-
martial it is always possible to have reviews, as I understand it.
I s that not correct, Mr. Chambers?
1Mr. CITAMRERS. That is correct, sir; no matter who orders the
court, a superior authority will finally review it.
Senator BAWWIN.AS I understand you, Mr. Strong, that was the
generally accepted understanding as to this particular trial that
there could and would be a review?
Mr. STRONG. It was definitely my understanding, Mr. Chairman,
that we would ask for a review, and we took for granted-at least, I
took for granted-that if defense counsel asked for review, there mould
be a review.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. May I ask a question a t this point, Mr. Flanagan,
because I believe it will preserve the continuity ?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Yes.
Mr. CI~AMBERS. Did

not the proceedings under which these military
courts operate provide for a t least one review before the decisions of
the court or the sentences of the court would be approved?
I am asking both Colonel Dwinell and Mr. Strong.
Colonel DTT-IXELL. Yes, that is correct, the reviews were automatic.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And so the petition for reviews were just extra and
m impetus to what would be a normal operating procedure?
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask a question at this time?
Do you know of any review of the individual convictions on the
evidence other than the so-called Frankfurt review? Do you know
of any reviewing body who sat on the case of No. X and said the evi-
dence is sufficient or insufficient to uphold the verdict of guilty?
Mr. STRONG.YOUare speaking of the Malmedy trial?
Mr. STRONG. I would not know. I have been absolutely out of
touch with it.
Senator BALDWIN.1 think that ought to be a matter of record, and
I think it ought to be in the record, too, because I think it is an im-
portant factor.
Mr. STKONG. Let me say this : After I left Dauchau in August 1946,
I had no connection with this case any more until Colonel Everett
sent me a copy of his petition for a writ, and the New York Times
interviewed me in 1949.
Senator BALDWIN.I understand that. The thing I wanted to get
fixed in the record firmly is the fact whether or not this was a so-called
drumhead court-martial from which there is not any review, or
whether or not it was contemplated all around there could and would
be a review.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Chairman, a t this time, in fact, on the sugges-
tion of Mr. Flanagan, I requested the Department of the Army to
586 MALWIEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGXTIOX
give us a letter and any other inforination the^ had on the various
reviews that took place i n connection with these Malmedy trials.
I think the letter, while Re sl~ouldprobe further, is appropriate t o
place in the record.
Senator MCCARTIIY.C c ~ d dyou read it?
Mr. CHANBERS.All right. It is short and perhaps of interest to
all of us.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me make it perfectly clear that I am not
asking this question to in any way excuse the law member of the
court or any member of the court for his rulings. I mean the lam
member was supposed to make the correct ruiings, whether there was
any review or whether there was not. B u t I do think i t is a n impor-
tant factor in the whole matter of procedure.
Mr. CHANBERS.We endeavored a t some length, Mr. Chairman. t o
put together in the record the other day the various reviews giren
this case. I believe this dces i t rather concisely.
Senator BALDWIN. DO SOU want to read the letter so Senator Mc-
Carthy and Mr. Flanagan can know about it, too, nncl also tlzc witness?
Mr. CI~AMBERS. The letter is from the Judge Advocate General
and reads :
DEAR SENATOR RALDWIN:With respect to your request for information con-.
cerning the re\-ieu-s of the record of trial iu the Malmedy case, the lollowing
information, obtained from records available to the Department of t h e Army,
is submitted :
On 20 October 1947 t h e initial review for legal sufficiency was completed by
Maj. Richard D. Reynolds, Ord., OSice of the Deputy Theater Judge Advocate for
War Crimes, European Command. This was concurred in by Lt. Col. Clio E.
Straight, JAGD, Deputy Theater Judge Advocate for War Crimes, on 2 December
1947.
Thereafter, the record of trial was reviewed by a War Crime Board of Review
in the OEce of the Theater Judge Advocate. This Board consisted of Col. Howard
F. Eresee, 4 0 D ; Lt. Col. Bicliarc? F. Scarborough, JAGD ; and Lt. Col. James
B. Costello, Cml C. The Boartl considered t h e review made by the Deputy
Theater Judge Adrocate for W a r Crimes and on 4 February 1948 completed its
review of the record.
On S March 1948 the Theater Judge Advocate, Col. James L. Harbangli. Jr.,
completed his review of the record of trial aiid his consideration of the reviews
made by the Deputy Theater Judge Adl-ocate for War Crimes nl?d by the War
Crilnes Board of .Review.
All of the officers concerned with the abox-e reviews of the record of trial were
officer lawyers. Copies of each of these reviews a r e contained i n the copy of the
record of trial submitted to the Committee on Armed Services.
The record of trial and the reviews mere submitted to thc Coinmander in Chief,
European Command, who, a s final Reviewing Authority, took his action on the
sentences on 20 March 1948.
A chart is inclosed listing the name, rank, and duty of each of the seventy-three
(73) accused, the sentence a s adjudged against each by the court, the recolu-
mendations of the reviewing officers, and the approved sentences.
In addition, the record of trial and the various reviews were considered by t h e
Adnlinistratiou of Justice Review Board, Eu~'opeanCommand. in its investigation
of the allegations of irregularities set forth in the Everett pctitioa. This Board
was con~posedof Col. John R. Rayn~oncl,Legal Adviser to the Alilitary Governor :
Col. James L. Harbaugh, Jr., JAGD, Juclge Advocate, Enrol~eanConmand; a n d
Dr. Carl J. Friedrichs, Adviser to the Military Governor for Military Government
Affairs.
The Malmedy case was also considered by the Simpson Commission in the la11
of 1945 in i t s general survey oC the Dachau war crhnes cases. mhich snrmy
directed principally but not exclusively to that portion of the record involrlng
one hundred and thirty-nine (129) confirmed death sentences which : ~ that t time
~'emainednnexecuted. This Commission was headed by .Tuslice Goldon Simpsoil,
of the Texas Supreme Court, assisted by Judge Edward L. Van Xoden, Drlaware
County, Pa., and Lt. Col. Charles W. Lawrence, Jr., of the Judge Advocate Gen-
ernl's Delmrtment, Delxlrtment of the Army. I t s study of the Malmeily case ivas
primarily directed to so much of the record a s conc~rlieclthe h e l v e (12) con-
firmed death sentences.
The Mallned>-case w;ls again considered by Colonel HiWbaWh, Theater Judge
Advocate, in light of the recoll~lilenclatiol~sof the Adniinistration of Justice
Review Boarcl and the Simpson Commission, insofar a s the twelve (12) death
sentences were concerned,, after which the Commander in Chief, European Com-
nland, reconsidered these twelre (12) death sentences, reaffirnlirig six ( 6 ) nlld
commuting six ( 6 ) to life imprisonment.
The report of the Admillistr~tiollof Jnstice Review Board and the report of the
Simpson Comnlission have been made available to your committee. Also, the
cabled rei~ortsof the action of the Con~nlanderin Chief, European Command, on
the twelve (12) death sentences have been made available to your committee.
At the request of the Secretary of the Army I inacle a study of these various
reviews, reports, and parts of the record of trial, and of the petitions and affidavits
i n which mistreatment and brutality were alleged, relating particularly to the
then twelve (12) confirmed death sentences. A memoraudum of my review is
now before the Secretary of the Army.
Sincerely yours,
THOMASH. GREEN,
Xajo?' General, The Judge Advocalte G m e ~ n l .
May I ask you-
Senator MCCARTEIP.
&. CHAMBERS.
Let me make a statement on that.
Senator MCCARTHY. Surely.
Mr. CHAMBERS. In addit,ion to this, we ha;e been informed that
there mere certain other reviews that are not listed as official reviews
in this letter.
Senator MCCARTHY. Not by Green. You found by investigation?
Mr. CEIABIBERS. That is correct. and we will make further studv to
get the information on those reviews.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me ask this question: Was there attached to
that letter a list of the disposition of the sentences ?
Mr. CHABIBERS. That is correct.
Senator BALDWIN.To bring it up to date?
Senator BALDWIN.I wonder if that should not be put in at this
time ? I s that it?
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is the attachment, sir, and brought up to date
as of March 20, 1948.
(The document referred to is as follows :)
I 1 Recommended action 1
Unit Accused Duty Final appd.
L /--.
6th Panzer Army ........ loseph Sepp Dietrich (11). Lt. Qen ....... C Q.................. Life......... Life......... Disappd .... L i e ......... Life.
Fritz Kraemer (33).................... Brig. Qen..... CIS. .................. 10 yrs. ...... 10 yrs. ...... Disappd .... 10 yrs. ...... 10 yrs.
1st Panzer Korps ........ Bermann Priess (45).. . ... ............ ..1Lt. Qen ....... C Q.. ................ 20 vrs.. ..... 15 w s ....... Disauud. ... 20 vrs ....... 20 vrs.
1
1st Panzer Regt .......... loachim Peiper (42) ................... Lt. Col ........ C 0.................. Death ....... D e h h ....... ~ e a &...... ~ & t .h...... ~e"ath.
Hq Co............... Bans Qruhle (19)..................... Capt .......... Adjut ............... .. 20 yrs ....... 15 yrs ....... 8 yrs........ 10 yrs ....... 10 yrs.
Kurt Sickel (57)....................... Major......... Surg. & C 0 .......... Death ....... Death ....... Life ......... Life......... Life.
Comm. Plat-..-. Bans Hillig (24)....................... Sgt ............ Driver ................ 10 yrs. ...... 10 yrs. ...... 8 yrs. ....... 10 yrs. ...... 10 yrs.
Otto Wichmann (73).................. Sat .................................... 10 a s . ....--10 ws. ...... 10 vrs. .---.. 10 ~ r...---.
s 10 vrs. '
1st BN .......... Arndt Fischer (13). ................... 2nd Lt ........ Adjutant .............. 15 ?rs. ...... 10 yrs. ...... 5 frs. ---.-..
7 yrs. ....... 7 yrs.
1 i
Rolf Roland Reiser (49)............... 2nd L t ........ Adjutant ...........
Paul Hermann Ochmann (41) .........
_.. 10 yrs. ...... 10 yrs ....... Disappd .... Disappd. ... Disappd.
................................. Death ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death.
iI 1
i! 1-
i1 -
1st Pz Co.:
1st Platoon..-.-. Hans Rennecke (23)................... 2nd Lt ........ Plat. Ldr ............. Death.. ..... Death ....... Life......... Life.. ....... Life.
Kurt Breisemeister (5). ............... sgt .--. -. - -..-- Tank Co.............. Death ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death.
Fritz Eckmam (12)................... Pfc.. ........... ........................ Death ....... Disappd.. .. 20 yrs ....... Disappd.. .. Disappd.
2nd Platoon.. ... Valentin Bersin (1). . .................... Sat. ........... Tank Co.............. Death....... Death....... Death ....... Death. ...... Death.
Qeorg Kotzur (32) ..................... Pfc............ Radio Operator ....... Life. ........ 15 yrs. ...... 15 yrs ......,7 15 yrs ....... 15 yrs.
Hans Trettin (69). .................... Pfc ..-......... ........................ Life. ........ 10 yrs ....... 15 yrs. ...... 15 yrs.. ..... 15 yrs.
2nd Pz Co ........... Friedrich Christ (7)................... 1st Lt ......... c 0................... Death....... Death ....... Death....... Death ....... Death.
Hq SEC......... Hans Pletz (43). ...................... sgt ............ Tank C 0 ............ Life.. ....... 15 yrs ....... Disappd .... 15 yrs . - - -15 -- yrs.
-
2nd Platoon ..... Heinz Hoffman (25)................... Cpl.. ......... Gunner-. ............ . Life.. -. - -.-- 15 yrs ....... Disappd.... 15 yrs . - - -15 - - -
- yrs.
Arnold Mikolaschek (37).............. Pfc. .-.........Radio Operator ....... Life......... 15 yrs ....... Disappd .... 15 yrs ....... 15 yrs.
Erich Werner (72)..................... Tank Driver .......... Life.. ....... 15 yrs ....... Disappd .... 15 yrs --..--- 15 yrs.
3rd Platoon ...... Erwin Szyperski (65) .................. cp1.. ......... Tank Driver .......... Life-. ....... 15 yrs. ...... Disappd. ... Disappd.. .. Disappd.
Rolf Ritzer (52) ....................... Plc.. r ........ M/Qunncr.. .......... Life.. ....... l y . . ~sappd ..-.Disappd.--. Disappd.
6th Pz Co........... Werner Stelnbrck (62)................ 1st Lt ......... C 0................... Death ....... Death ....... gisappd .... Disappd. .-.Disappd.
r\
2nd Platoon ..... Benoni Junker (29).................... 1st Lt ......... n U V. .................. Death ....... Life......... Disappd .... 15 yrs ....... 15 yrs.
August Tonk (68)..................... M/Sgt. ....... Tank C 0 ............ Death ....... Death ....... Disappd .... Life.. ....... Life.
Hubert Huber (27) .................... SISgt.......... Tank C 0 ............ Death ....... Death....... Death ....... Death....... Death.
7th Pz Co ........... Oskar Klingelhoeffcr (35).............. Capt .......... c 0................... Death ....... Life......... 7.n yrs ....... 7.n yrs. - .--..21)yrs.
1st Platoon-..-.. Heinz Rehagel (48).................... Leader ................ Death ....... Life......... 25 yrs ....... 25 yrs ....... 25 yrs.
2nd Platoon ..... Roman Clotten (8) .................... sgt............ Tank C 0 ............ 10 yrs ....... 10 yrs-.....- 10 yrs ....... lo yrs ....... 10 yrs.
3rd Platoon ...... Erich Munkemer (39)................. 2nd Lt ........ Leader. -. - -.

- -.- -.
- -- - Death ..--. -. Life......... 7.n yrs ....... 20 yrs ....... 20 yrs.
Hans Siptrott (60).................... M/Sgt.. _. .-..Leadcr.. .....-........ Death ....... Death ....... 20 yrs ....... 20 yrs ....... 20 yrs.
Qeorg Fleps (14) ...................... PIC............ Asst Gunner .......... Death ....... Life......... Lik ......... Life.-. -. -..- Liie.
JoseiDiefenthal (10) ............... ......... C 0................... Death ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death.
Paul Zwigart (74) ..................... Sgt ............ Pers. Carr. Drv ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death.
Georg Preuss (44) ..................... Capt .......... C 0................... Death ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death.
1st Platoon ...... ArminHecht (21)I...... Cpl ........... Pers. Carr. Urivrr .... Lifc.........I 15 yrs..: .... Disappd .... D~sappd..-- Diswpd.
Heinz Qerhard Godicke (17). ......... Pvt ........... Radioman.. .......... Lifc......... 10 yrs. ...... Dis~ppd.. Disappd. .... Disappd.
.I
Wolfgang Richter (50)................. Pvt ........... Rifleman .............. Life......... 15 yrs ....... Disappd.. .. Disappd.. .. Disappd.
2nd Platoon ..... Willi Heinz Hendel (22)............... M/Sgt ......... Leader ................ Death ....... Death ....... 10 yrs: ...... 15 yrs. ...... 15 yrs.
Oswald Siegmund (58) ................ Sgt............ Motor Mechanic ...... Death ....... Death ....... Disappd .... Life......... Life.
4th Platoon.-..-. Heinz Tomhardt (67). ................ 1st Lt ......... C 0 ................... Death ....... Life ......... 10 yrs. ...... 15 yrs. ...... 15 n s .
Edmund Tomczak (66)-.. ............ Cpl. .................................. Life.. ....... Life ........ Disappd.. .. 20 yrs--. .... 20 yrs.
'L
Thed Rauh (47)....................... Cpl ........... Driver ................ Death ....... Death ...... Disappd .... Life......... Life.
Willi Braun (4).. ..................... Pfc ............ Gunner............... Life......... 15 yrs ....... Disappd .... 15 yrs ....... 15 yrs.
Fritz Rau (46). ....................... Pvt ........... Rifleman.............. Life......... 15 yrs ....... Disappd. ... Disappd-. .- Disappd.
Heinz Friedrichs (15).................. Pvt ........... Driver. ............... Life......... 10 yfs ....... Disappd .... 10 yrs ....... 10 yrs.
Fritz Gebauer (16) .................... Pvt ........... Rifleman.............. Life ......... 10 yrs ....... Disappd .... Disappd .... Disappd.
12th Pz GR. 0 0 :
1st Platoon.--.-. Sgt ............ Pers. Carr. C 0....... Death.. ..... Death ....... Disappd. -. - Life ......... Life.
2nd Platoon.. ... Sgt ............ Leader ................ Death ....... 10 yrs ....... Disappd. ... Disappd. .-.Disappd.
Sgt ............ Pers. Carr. Driver .... Death.. ..... 15 yrs ....... Disappd.. .. 25 yrs ....... 25 yrs.
Fic............ MIGunner ............ Death ....... 15 yrs ....... Disappd .... 25 yrs .-.....25 yrs.
1st Pz Pioneer Bn:

3rd Pz Pioneer Co Franz Sievers (59) ..................... 1st Lt ......... co-..-.---........... Death ....... Death ....... Life..
....... Life......... Life.
Hq. Platoon ..... Willi Schaefer (55).................... S/Sgt---....... Group Leader......... Death ....... Death ....... 20 years ..... Life ......... Life.
2nd Platoon. .-.. Fried1 Bode (2). ...................... Sgt .-..........Group Leader ......... Death ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death.
Ernst Goldschmidt (18)............... cp1- .......... Pers. Carr. Driver.. .. Death ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death.
Max Hammerer (20). ................. Cpl. .......... Messenger-. .......... Death ....... Liic.. ....... Life.. ....... Life ......... Life.
Joachim Hofmann (26)................ Pfc............ Pers. Carr. Driver .... Death ....... 20 yrs.. ..... 20 yrs ........ 20 yrs ....... 20 yrs.
Siegfried Jake1 (28).................... Pfc---......... Rifleman-Gunner. .... Death ....... 20 yrs ........ 20 yrs. ...... 20 yrs ....... 20 yrs.
Friedel Kies (30)...................... Pfc. --.........M/Gunner. ........... Death ....... 1 20 yrs. ...... 20 yrs. ...... 20yrs ....... 20yrs.
Gustav Neve (40)..................... P fc.-.......... Pers. Carr. Driver.. .. Deatb ....... 20 vrs ....... 20 vrs. - ..- ....
20 yrs ....... 20 yrs.
Qustav Adolf Sprenger (61). .......... Pic.-. ......... Pers. Carr. Driver.. -. Death ....... 15 yrs ....... Life.. ....... Life......... Life.
Heinz Stickel (63)..................... Pfc............ MlGunner. ........... Death ....... 15 yrs ....... 20 yrs. ...... 15 yrs ....... 15 yrs.
Herbert Stock (64).................... Pic- ........... Rifleman .............. Life.. ....... 15 yrs ....... Disappd.. -.Disappd.. -. Disappd.
Johann Wassenberger (70)............. Pvt ........... Rifleman & Asst M/G. Lifc. ........ 15 yrs ....... 15 yrs ....... 15 yrs.. ..... 15 yrs.
9th Pz Pioneer CO.. Erich Rumpf (54)..................... 1st Lt ......... CO ----.----.......... Death ...
.... Death ....... Death ....... Death ....... Death.
Willi von Chamier (6) ................. Sat............l ..................:.....I Life. ........ Life.. ....... Death ....... Life.
1st Platoon ...... Erich Maute (36) ..................... Sgt............ Medic ................. Death ....... Death ....... Disappd .... Disappd.. .. Disappd.
Max Rieder ........................... Pfc............ Rifleman.............. Death ....... 15 yrs. ...... 20 yrs. ...... 15 yrs ....... 15 yrs.
Werner Kuhn (34). ................... 2nd L t ........ Leader ................ Death ....... Death ....... Life.. ....... Life ......... Life.
Gustav Knittel (31)................... Major ......... CO ................... Life.. ....... Life.. ....... 10 yrs. ...... 15 yrs ....... 15 yrs.
Manfred Cohlenz (9).................. Life.. ....... Life.. ....... 7 yrs ........ 15 yrs ....... 15 yrs.
590 MALMEDT MASSACRE IIVVESTIGATION
Senator MCCARTHY.A m I correct that there are unquestionably two

other reviews that were conducted, one by a four-man board which
never got beyond Straight for some reason or other, and another
review of recominendations made by Colonel Ellis and the law member
of the court ?
Mr. CIIAMBERS.T h e Colonel Ellis review you refer to was not-
Senator MCCARTHY.Let us forget it. One by a four-man board,
and also one by Colonel Denson?
Mr. CHAMBERS.I a m informed that prior to the review referred t o
a
here i n which Colonel Straight was involved- there was a review made
by a four-inan board.
I am also informed there mere a great many technical objections
t o it, and that is where they had a review of the review and decided
it was too inaccurate t o use, and then make the review referred to here
as the No. 1case.
Senator MCCARTHY.I had information the reason they did not use
it was not because of its being inaccurate but the J A G D did not like
the conclusions.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that counsel be instructed t o
write Major General Green again and inform him his letter is incom-
plete and the staff has found other reviews which have been made ; that
we are clissatisfiecl with this letter and ask him to give us a complete
picture of all the r e ~ i e w made;
s and that not to again write us a letter
giving us information leaving out two or three reviews we lmow have
been made.
W e know the one by the four-man board mas made. W e lcnow the
review by Colonel Denson has been made. And I think it is an impo-
sition on the committee for Major General Green to write us a letter
which purports to give a complete detail of all the reviews which
obviously is incorrect.
Senator BALDWIN. I think m7ewill receive this i n the record for what
i t purports to be subject to your recoininencJL Xt'ions.
Senator MCCARTEIY.I might say, so the record is clear, that this is
how I feel, and I mould like a n explanation from General Green: I
think for him to write us a letter such as this, which is purportedly a
detailed accord of all the reviews, which we have stated repeatedly is
very important for us to know, and leave out a sizable n~ulinberof re-
views, is an insult to the intelligence of this committee and, I think.
completely inexcusable. And I hope the general sees fit to anhwcr and
tell us why he left out certain reviews, whether because he did not know
about them, or why they do not appear.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Strong, me were talking about the opinion
which you had that the court member, Colonel Rosenfeld, i n this
case was biased, and you based that opil~ionupon his rulings.
Do you recall rulings which he made which prevented you, the
defense, from attacking the credibility of prosecution witnesses!
Mr. STRONG. I would not have recalled the particular instance if
I would not have have been present yesterday and would not have
]lad i n the meantime an opportunity to read that particular part
of the minutes in which he tried to stop me from cross-examining
Kramm. R u t I do remember that on quite a few occasions myself,
a s well as the other members of the defense team, were stopped when
we either tried to attack the credibility of the prosecution witness
or when we tried to bring out under what conditions statements of
the accused and of witnesses had been obtained i n Schwabisch Hall.
Senator MCCARTIIY.With the Chair's permission. Mr. Strong,
I consider this one of the most important things that appears in the
record of the trial, one of the things that we need not rely upon any-
one's truth or veracity to see. This is uncontradictory and uncon-
tradictable, the fact that the court apparently i n all cases, i n effect,
said to you, "You cannot under any circumstances attack the credi-
bility of a witness."
Let me ask you this: As a lawyer, do you think you could con-
ceivably givs a defendant in a criminal case a fair trial if the court
sags to you, "Attorney Strong, we will not let you question these
witnesses as to their interest in the case, what they have been offered,
whether they have been offered immunity, why they are testifying
as they are"; in other words, if you cannot attack the credibility of a
wit1iess9
- -----
Mr. STROKG.I think i t is vital and essential to proper examina-
tion to bring out any interest which a witness might have i n testify-
ing according to a certain line.
Senator I\ZCCARTIIY.And I assume that in German courts where
you practiced as well as in American courts, as f a r as you know, every
courl considers it reversible error if i t is found that the defense attor-
ney is not allowed to question the credibility of a witness.
Mr. Smoso. T o the best of my knowledge, that is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY.Can I sav this: Where the conrt refused to
allow to attack the credibility of these witnesses-and this is especially
true under the circ~mstanceswhen we find a formal order signed by
the man i n charge of the interrogation staff saying that if v e see fit
then we will take a man guilty of war crimes, one of the defendants,
and we will tell him. "If your statement is valuable in convicting your
coclefendants, then we will offer to give you a reward, the reward be-
ing you will no longer be a defendant in a case i n any action of the
court. W e on the staff d l make you a witness." I n view of the fact
t h a t there is a formal order saying that this is proper, I assume this
question of denial of right to attack the credibility of a witness would
be doubly or of 100 times the importance normally i t would be con-
sidered to be.
Mr. STRONG. I would say, Senator RiIcCarthy, that any directive
or order to that effect, of which we incidei~tallvnever knew. would
certainly make it doubly appear t h a t a witness might have considerable
degree of self-interest i n certain lines of testimony.
Senator M C ~ A R T H 1 Y .wonld like to-
Senator BALDWIN. May I ask a question right' there. Was there,
t o your knowledge, or do you now believe there mas any ruling that
required any such conduct as that on the p a r t of the law member of
the court? Do you understand my question?
Mr. STROSG. Not quite.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, I understand Senator McCar-
thy's q ~ ~ e s t i oisnto the effect there was a directive or order requiring
that the credibility of the witnesses could not be gone into a cross-
examination. Was there any such order or ruling to your knowledge?
Senator MCCARTHY.May I say-
592 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIG~ITIOK
Senator BALDWIN. Wait a minute. Could he not answer the

question ?
Mr. STRONG. I understand, Senator Baldwin, Senator ~ c ~ a r t h ~
differently. I thought when he spoke about the order, he spoke of
the order issued in Schwabisch Hall to investigation teams permitting
them to indicate to witnesses they might retain the status of witnesses
if they testified-
Senator MCCARTI~Y. Referring to this order, S. 0.P. NO. 4, which
Major Fanton said he issued.
Senator BALDWIN.I must be confused about the thing. I thought
you mere directing your inquiry to the question of a directive as to the
limit or scope of the cross-examination.
Senator MCCARTHY. I perhaps did confuse the chairman. Let me
say, so there is no doubt in the Chair's mind, I have before me excerpts
from the record which shom repeated rulings on the part sf the law
member of the court that you could not attack the credibility of the
witness, in other words, you could not ask him what he was offered;
you could not ask whether he mas threatened that he would be sent to
Russia to be tried by the Russians; could not ask if he was offered
immunity-which may of then1 got from standing trial as a defendant
if he would testify as he did.
I say yon take that ruling and couple that with Major Fanton's or-
der : "It is permissible to tell him," meaning one of the defendants, one
of the accused rather, "he mill be recommended as a witness if such
statements to the prisoner will cause him to tell a full and more com-
plete story so that he will be of more value to the case as a witness
than as a defendant."
I n other words, an order which, I believe, the Chair and I agree is
i n effect saying, "You can take an accused and you can tell him that if
his story is so good that it can be used to convict his codefendants, that
then he will not be a defendant himself," which, of course, is the great-
est conceivable inducement to lie.
I f you have 73 or 150 men in a paddock, and you go in and say. "Any
man who will tell us a story which is good enough, which is effective
enough, in convicting the other men in this paddock, he will not be a
defendant, he will merely be a witness."
My question is to the attorney, and I think he has answered it. I n
view of the directive published by Major F'anton, do you not think
then this refusal to allow defense counsel to attack the credibility
of witnesses becomes doably vicious and made it completely impossible
for vou to give those men a fair trial?
Mr. STRONG. I would say I consider it important in every case to be
permitted to attack the credibility of the witness, but if such an order
existed, certainly the grounds for being permitted to attack a witness
should certainly be doubly more in existence than otherwise.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I say this: I n view of this order which, I
say, Major F'anton has admitted was issued, and he tells us was brought
to the attention of all the interrogation staff, particularly subsection
B, in view of that, and in view of Rosenfeld's ruling mould prevent yon
from testing the credibility of witnesses-I have before me your at-
tempt to attack the credibility of I<ramm who, I gather, was one of the
prosecution's key witnesses. He was never tried himself, even though
he was adjutant of one of these divisions.
. M A L M E D Y MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 593
I n view of these facts, is i t your thought today, Mr. Strong, that
those men who were convicted simply did not have a fair trial regard-
less of whether some of then1 are guilty - - or innocent? And I assume
some of them are guilty.
Mr. STRONG.' I would say that t h e fairness of the trial t o which they
were entitled was definitely prejudiced by the inability of defense t o
cross-examine witnesses.
Senator BALDWIN.On the question of their credibility, you mean?
Mr. STRONG. On the q ~ ~ e s t i oofn the credibility and, as I said before,
on the question of bringing out these other two points where Colonel
Eosenfeld and the defense did not see eye to eye-the question of at-
tacking the credibility of witnesses, and the question of being per-
mitted to bring out how some of the statements which were placed i n
the record had been obtained.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I believe ou also made some passing remarks here,
2'
and I would like that clari ed in the record, that another indication
of the bias on the part of Coloi~elRosenfeld was some of his rulings
which made i t impossible for you as defense counsel to show the condi-
tions under which certain confessions were obtained.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
ISthat true?
Mr. STROXG.
Yes.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Can you recall any specific cases in which you were
unable to show the conditions under which confessions were obtained?
Mr. STRONG. I cannot recall any particular name of a n accused, but
I can recall that myself and all the other members quite often started
t o ask how long they mere i n Schwabisch Hall; how often they had
been interrogated ; were they i n the death cell; or something like that.
And quite often this line of q~~estioning mas stopped short by the
lam member.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you object to these rulings on the p a r t of the
court ?
Mr. STRONG.J17e most certainly did.
I\!fr. F'IANAGAN.k i l d you would be overruled?
Mr. I~IANAGAK. And,

as a lawyer, you feel it was your legal right
under the rules of Anglo-American law, or under the rules of law
you mere following over there, to a t least find out how these confessions
were obtained ?
Mr. STRONG. I w o ~ l dsay if there would have not been the slightest
scintilla of anything being incorrect, I would say in pursuing this
line we probably w~ouldhave n~isusedthe leniency and time of the
court. Rut in view of the fact there were so nlany rumors and gossip,
if 10 percent were founded, we should have been pernlittecl to go into
that matter.
Mr. FLANAGAN. T o n felt it important to go into t l ~ i smatter as t o
how the confessions were obtained, particularly inasmuch as some of
your clients told you some were obtained by physical violence and
other forms of cluress?
Mr. STRONG.Correct.
Mr. FLANAGAN. ISthat

correct, Mr. Strong?
Mr. STROKG.Correct.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
One thing I meant to mention before when n-e were
talking about the conduct of the prosecution. Do you recall that it
594 _MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOX ,
ever came to your attention that the prosecution team were using
forged confessions to obtain true confessions, or obtain other confes-
sions from some of the defendants ?
Mr. STRONG. NTewere told by accused that i n certain cases privates
or noncoms had been shown statements ancl affidavits signed by their
officers and admitting certain facts, and implicating these noncoms
and privates. And on the strength of these confessions the noncoms
and privates signed their own confessions. A n d then later on the
officers were shown these confessions of the privates and on the strength
of the confessions, they, in turn, signed their confessions.
B u t the original confessions which were shown to the privates with
the signatures of the officers, as we were told, the signatures were
false. And the only way we could possibly prove that 1s by checking
the dates of the confessions.
Let me give you a n example. I f Private Jones signs a confession
on March 10, ancl Lieutenant Smith signs a confession on March 20,
and Lieutenant Smith says that is the only confession he ever signed,
and Private Jones says, "I signed my confession on March 13 because
I saw a confession signed by Lieutenant Smitli dated M:vch 5."
That confession of March 5 must be under ordinary reasoning 110t
genuine.
Mr. FLANAGXN. I n other words, i t came to your attention that niem-
bers of the interrogation team were using deception to obtain con-
fessions from other men?
Mr. STRONG. W e received coinplaints to this cffect, and when we
checked with several accused we mere informed they had never s i p e d
statements which would fit into the time schedule of subsequent
statements.
Mr. FLANAG~~N. YOU were present here yesterday when we dis-
cussed S. 0. P. No. 4 prepared by Major Fanton who was then i n
charge of the prosecution interrogation team, were you not?
Mr. STRONG. Yes, I was.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
A n d in paragraph 4 ( a ) he sets forth these rules :
,4ny ruse or deception may be used i n the course of the interrogation but
threats, duress, i n any form, physical \iolence or promises of immunity, o r
mitigation of punishment should be scrupulously a~oidecl.
I
11 view of the fact that he says any ruse or deception short of
threats o r duress may be used, it seems quite logical that these prose-
cution interrogttors would use this forged confession system to ob-
tain data f o r their case?
Mr. STRONG. T h a t seems possible.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
It seems to follow.
Mr. STRONG. It seems quite possible. I never saw any, but we
received complaints, and we believe on the basis of complaints re-
ceived this mas so.
Mr. FLANAGA'N. YOUbelieve the complaints were true based on facts
surrounding them ?
Mr. STRONG. We believe them based on the circumstances.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
YOUdid not take the mere word of the accused?
Mr. STRONG. We used to check the testimony with the dates. W e
used to use that.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other words, you were able to corroborate it to
some extent ?
Mr. STRONG. We tried to.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
I n your prepared statement, Mr. Strong, I find this
lmguage, and I want this cleared up if possible.
A t the end of the third paragraph, the last sentence in the third
paragraph, you make this statement, and I quote : "The courts leaned
over backward to give the accused a fair trial."
When you mad: that statement in your opening statement, you
were not talking about the Malmedy case?
Mr. STRONG. I was talking about the cases I had tried prior t o
Malmedy.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And as far as the Malmedy case is concerned you
do not think the accused were given a fair trial? Or do you?
Mr. STRONG. I do not.
Mr. FLANAGAN. AS a result of the shortage of time-I want you t o
listen to this question carefully. As a result of the shortage of time
to prepare your defense, the tactics of the prosecution, and some of the
rulings of the court, do you now feel that a t least some of the ac-
cused in this case received illegal and unjust convictions?
Mr. STRONG. I cannot answer the question the way it is put, Mr.
Flanagan.
I would say this: 'The pr.,oof that every one of the accused is guilty
of that l~articularcrime of which he was accused is not in everv case
so satisfactory it should have been sufficient for conviction.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other words, you have serious doubts all the
men accused in this case, or convicted, were in fact guilty of crimes
as charged?
Mr. STRONG. I have serious dot~btsthat all of the men have been
proven to be guilty for crimes they have been charged with.
I think they might be, but 1think in some cases the evideilce is too
shaky and not sufficient to permit a conviction.
I do not know, Mr. Flanagan, whether or not these men were inno-
cent.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOU do not think some of them, a t least, were
proven guilty in this trial 2
Mr. STRONG. I do not think so.
Mr. FLANAGAN. That is the important thing, and under our system
of law o r justice, or any system we would advocate, that is probably
the only way we would convict men, that is, by a fair trial.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I have no further questions.
Senator BALDW~N. MI-.

Chamhers 1
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr.

Strong, while this point is fresh in your mind,
perhaps, the question I want to ask could be put in the record a t t l ~ i s
time.
Apparently your doubt is not to the guilt of all these people, but is
to the proof of guilt and the manner in which i t was established.
I believe you said that in all cases yon were not satisfied as to whether
or not the proof was proper to l p p e r l y established their guilt.
Am I to infer from that you do believe that in some cases the pmof
was adequate to support the finding of guilty?
Mr. STRONG. I W O L have
~ ~ to have a better recollection of the par-
ticular cases, Colonel Chambers. I would say t,hat presnn~ablg
in some cases-I remember Preuss, I remember Fleps, two cases
596 LMALMEDY MASSACRE INYESTIGATION
which stick out in my mind. There is no doubt these people were

guilty.
And like them there are probably other cases.
The only point I was trying to make is I have no point about the
guilt o r innocence of the defendants, but I would say in quite a few
cases on account of the particular incidents of this trial their guilt, if
any, has not been proved beyond a shadow of doubt as it should have
been.
Mr. CHAMBERS. A moment ago in your testimony, in reply to a
question from Mr. Flanagan, you said you were told by some of
the accused, privates, they had been shown forged statements allleged
to have been written and signed by their officers.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Based on which they then gave their confessions
which, in turn, were used against, presumably, their officers. And yo11
said that you "tried to corroborate" this story as to whether or not
the items were forged by checking dates.
I n this effort to corroborate it, did you succeed in your own mind
in establishing the fact there had been forgeries?
Mr. STRONG. Yes. The only particular case I do remember is one
statement by Colonel Peiper, because I remember that certain of his
privates signed statements implicating him on the basis of a state-
ment he was supposed to have signed. And Peiper is one of the accused
with whom we dealt quite extensively, Dwinell and myself.
At that time, when we tried to find out from him how many state-
ments he signed and on what dates, we came to the conclusion that
he could not have possibly signed any statement as early as it mould
have been necessary to form the basis for the subsequent statement
of the privates.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ask Colonel Peiper whether or not lie had
signed that particular statement?
Mr. STRONG. We'did that a t a later stage.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did he at that time say lie had not signed them?
Mr. STRONG. He did say he did not sign them.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. A nlornent ago we were talking about, a i d you
were being asked about, the right to attack the credibility of witnesses
through cross-examination, and the fact that the court had very defi-
nitely precluded you from cross-examining K ~ a m min an effort to
find out how his statements n7ereobtained.
Yesterday Colonel Dwiiiell and some others were asked as to whjr
Kramm was not placed on the stand as a hostile witness. I would
like to ask you the same question: Why did yon not endeavor to put
him on the stand as a hostile witness and on direct examillation?
Mr. STRONG. I can only say my inemory has been refreshed by at-
tendance yesterday, and that which I would not have remembered
before, I reinenibsr now.
Colonel Everett called Kramm in :~liclH ~ m l ~ saicl
n l he \?-onlcl not
testify for the defense, and he repeated this statenlent in Colonel
Dminell's any my presence. I n view of that fact, we did not see any
point in putting anybody on the staid who would merely give liis n:me
and could have been gnilty of contempt of comt which, in tllis p ~ r -
ticular case, would not have meant anything.
Mr. CI~AMBERS. Colonel Dwinell said yesterday the reason why they
did not attempt to do so was partially because they had become dis-
conraped and thought they could not possibly get any consideration
Yrom the conrt on these matters. Did you share t h a t feeling?
Mr. STRONG. I shared the feeling that our chances of succeeding with
our objections as f a r as the court was concerned were rather bad. I
personally would have run against i t again and again and would have
forced the court again and again to deny our objections, but prob-
iibly the better view of Colonel Everett prevailed, and in some cases
h e probably desisted from doing things because of this attitude of the
conrt.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,Mr. Strong, when Kramm refused to take
the stand f o r the defense when you told him you were going to call
Ilim, did he give any reason why he would not testify f o r the defense?
Mr. STRONG. NO. Excuse me. H e indicated i n some way he was
a prosecution witness. H e had given all he had to give to the prose-
cution, and there v-as nothing else he could say.
Mr. CTIAMR~RS. lvere you present when they asked him to testify?
Mr. STRONG. I n-as called i n to Colonel Everett's office or my office.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And Iiramm v-as there at the time ?
Air. STRONG. K m m m was there. It is possible i n addition t o that
I interrogated him one occasion myself. I think I did, but I am kind
of hazy about that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I realize yon are taxing your memory over things
that happened a long time ago, Mr. Strong. I would like t o get this
point rather clear i n my mind because, as I recall yesterday's record,
there v a s an inference Kramm said he would not testify becanse he
u7as told if he did he would cease being a witness and become an ac-
cused.
Do yon recall any statement to that effect?
MY. STRONG.I can only recall the general outline of his statement,
~ v h i c hmas to the effect he was a prosecntion witness, and t h a t was
that.
Mr. C H A X I ~ RDo S . you believe that h%d he made a statement of
t h a t kind, Mr. Strong, in view of your rather clear memory on some
of these other matters of a similar nature, that you v-odd have prob-
ably remembered it ?
Mr. STRONG. Frankly, no; because my recollection is only as to
very few details. I f you ask me about details, I will have to be unable
t o answer, I am afraid.
Mr. CHAMBERS. A while ago, I believe a statement n-as made that one
private, when asked to testify, to take the stand as a witness for the
defense. said he was afraid to.
Mr. STRONG. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am a little curious as to what efforts were made
by the defense staff, if any, to get this matter thoroughly brought be-
fore, 1, the court, and, 2, higher authority to make it pretty clear
t h a t witnesses were being tampered with, or prospective witnesses
were being placed under such duress they would not have an oppor-
tunity to, or were afraid to, testify.
Mr. STRONG. I have no recollection whether t h a t was ever brought
to the attention of the court. Yob mean our experiences with wit-
nesses whom we tried to interrogate outside of court?
Mr. CHAMBERS. And who claimed they were afraid to.
Mr. STRONG.I remember one occasion, I was trying to remember the
name and cannot, where I examined one witness-one witness one
morning. It was before the 10 o'clock recess, and he went out, and
I saw somebody from the prosecution following him immediately.
I went later back to him, and he told me that as soon as he had left
the courtroom, prosecution talked to him. I don't know who it was.
H e said he had warned him and had some conversation with him
which, we, in our opinion, considered improper.
I called that man back on the stand, and he testified about that con-
versation, and i t happened one morning during the defense case
just before the 12 o'clock recess.
I have no other recollection.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUtestified in your opinion this court was fair.
You had some objections to the law member. I n fact, you felt that
you differed strongly with him on the way he ruled agmnst you, and
frequently in favor of the prosecution, b,ut you did make the state-
ment you thought the members of the court tried to be fair. Do you
feel that if you had gone to the court and called to their attention that
witnesses, or prospective witnesses, were being threatened or placed
under duress by prosecution staff, this so-called fair court would not
have taken judicial notice of it 1
Mr. STRONG. I said, Colonel Chambers, I had no criticism to make
of the court apart from the fact the court relied too heavily on the
counsel of Colonel Rosenfeld. I presume, at least, that would have
been my reaction a t that time, if we would have brought before the
court this matter, the court would have asked Colonel Rosenfeld's
legal opinion, which would have been absolutely against us, if that
would have been the answer.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That apparently seems to have been pretty much
the attitude after this trial had been going a few days of most of
defense counsel, that they could not possibly get a favorable ruling so
why ask for it.
Mr. STRONG. It is a difference of opinion, as I said before, I mould
have tried time and time again. It was a question of diplomacy and
what course to follow.
There were points both for and against.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n the early days of preparing the cases for de-
fense, you handled the three German generals pretty much ?
Mr STRONG. The three generals, and followed up in part of the
defense case. I tried to show the chain of command, Nauheim, from
Hitler down, of orders of the day, and I was not too much, frankly,
familiar with the details of the particular privates and noncom
cases.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you have some familiarity with the other
officers?
Mr. STRONG. Colonel Peiper, and primarily Peiper, and at the end
I concentrated on Henneclie, Tomhardt, and two others whose names
I do not remember.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There are two points of particular interest to me I
would really like to get your opinion on.
1. I read Colonel Everett's petition in which he argued very strongly
the court erred in not granting the severance because of opposing needs
to defend these various people stemming from the chain of command
you have been talking about.
Mr. STRONG.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Do you feel that actually existed to the point where
perhaps there was a definite conflict of interest between some of the
enlisted accused and some of the officers?
Mr. STRONG. Definitely.
Mr. CHAMBERS.I n that case, then, I notice that the three generals-
my memory ma be wrong on this-the generals took the stand-
Mr. STRONG. 8eneral Dietrich did not. General Friess and General
~ r a e i n e dr id .
Mr. CHAMBERS. And Colonel Peiper
- took the stand and some of the
other officers.
When did you all decide that you should not put the rest of the
accused on ?
Mr. STRONG.During the case of defense.
Mr. CIIAMCERS.Was i t after about t h e ninth man had taken the
stand? It does not make any difference whether the eighth or the
tenth.
Mr. STRONG. I tell you \vhat happened. W e started the defense case
with the generals' case.
I thinl; the first witness I put on was some general officer who was
liaison officer between Hitler and the Army. And we had him and
several other high-ranking SS generals testify to the chain of com-
mand for orders of the day.
Then me had two generals and Colonel Peiper on the stand for 1
cr 2 days, to the best of my recollectjon. Then we put on several
p i r a t e s and maybe officers, junior officers. I do not remember exactly.
And some of tlieiii obviously were lying on the stand, and some of
them got trapped and implicated in inconsisteiicies and contradictions.
And they dehnitely did not help their particular cases by going on the
stsnd.
And there mas quite some discussion among defense counsel, whether
-\. e should g o on putting everybody on the stand or not.
And shall we sav. I w a i n %-asin the honeless minoritv because I said
T n t everybody oi.'" 1?said "Let everybohy tell his story ;if he is lying
they will hang him."
But; Colonel Everett, I think, was of the opinion that bv accusin,~
each other and trying to implicate each other die particular"defendanT
who would take the stancl would not only hang himself, but also might
hang somebody else who might be innocent. T h a t the defense of a
certain accused inight be jeopardized by the defense of other accused.
After very heated discussion, the consensus was 5 t o 1 not to p u t
any others on. That ended the defense case.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Dwinell on that point discussed this a t some
length, and I must say his story and yours as to the way it happened
is almost comp1eteIy the same.
He, however. told us these boys got on the stand and they began i n
their desire to get out from under themselves to lie about others.
I was quite interested in that because a great deal of the Pacts that
we have t o go on, particularly as i t applies to brutality and mistreat-
ment and things of that Irind, comes from affidavits of those very boys
a i d men whom you were afraid to put on the stand because they were
going to be lying about each other.
I am just wondering i n view of your fear there and the evaluation of
credibility for that purpose, horn much we should believe the affidavit
we now have.
600 M A L M E D Y MASSACRE INVESTIG.4TION
Mr. STRONG. YOUmean about mistreatment?

Mr. CHAMBERS. About mistreatments.
The3 are the same people.
Mr. STRONG.
are the same people ;that is correct, Colonel Cham-
They
bers. I would be the last to take everything they saj7 at face value. I
would say even if you deduct 50 percent of what they say, if 50 percent
remains, certain things remain which should not have happened which
happened in the creation of these affidavits, which helped to admit them
iuto evidence and which definitely made it 17ery,very difficult, if not
impossible, for us to give them the proper defense which they should
have had.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Strong; solely in the interest of trying to again
get your evaluation of it, there are certain more or less uniform charges
in all these affidavits for which there has been a great deal of support-
ing evidence : such matters as mock trials, solitary confinement, use of
hoods, and matters of that kind. Those very definitely are in these.
Then in addition to that, in quite a few of the affidavits there is a
strong pattern in similarity in charges of mistreatment and brutality,
being deprived of food and things of that kind.
Those really are two different types of matters.
I n you own mind is there any difference as to their credibility on
those points ?
Mr. STRONG. It is my personal opinion that niistreatment did occur,
probably not so often as the defendants claim. Probably primarily
by the Polish guards, but I remember very often when I asked the
accused who mistreated them, the answer was the "Poles."
But I do believe, especially from talking for hours and hours with
men like Peiper and Dietrich, and all of the other officers, there was
mistreatment.
Mr. CHAMBERS. AS I recall Peiper's affidavit, Peiper has not alleged
any mistreatment. I believe a t one point he said he did get kicked in
the back side by a Polish guard.
As I recall Dietrich had one instance to report, and I do not recall
any other of the generals.
Mr. STRONG. Dietrich reported one instance, and I remember that
the Stars and Stripes a t that time had once or twice headlines about
Peiper claiming about these mistreatments. I probably have the
clipping somewhere, otherwise I would not remember it, so he defi-
nitely did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think we do have an affidavit from Colonel Peiper.
Senator MCCARTHY.Could we have the affidavit, I wonder, Mr.
Chambers.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think it is in the record of the trial and not the
affidavit. I wonder if I could enlist your staff to figure it out for me
while I go on to another point, and we will come back to that.
Mr. CH~MBERS. The line of questioning I was trying to pursue was
merely in my own mind to try to establish the amount of credibility
which we should give to these affidavits we have here. We do have
this matter of General Peiper, which we will try to clear up.
You have said you believe that some of these mistreatments did take
place because in talking to these people they frequently said these
Polish guards had treated them roughly.
Mr. STRONG. And, in addition, Mr. Thon had some reputation for
treating these people rather roughly.
hIALhlEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATlON 601
Mr. C I I A J H ~ I SI.n addition to Mr. Thon, did thev mention others
particularly ?
Mr. STRONG. I am definite they mentioned frequently Mr. Thon.
I think they did mention two other people, but my recollection as to
that is only 90 percent.
Senator BALDWIN. Do you recall their names?
Mr. STRONG.I would recall that they mentioned Lieutenant Per1
and Mr. I<irschbaum. 1don't think I have recollection of anybody
else ever having been accused.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Strong, I would like to ask you the same ques-
tion we asked Colonel Dwinell. Did you ever feel it necessary to have
physical examinations made or, as Senator H u n t asked, take casts of
broken jaws or inissinw teeth o r things of that kind ?
Mr. STRONG. I don? remember ever having heard anything about a
broken jaw and never heard anything about missing teeth. I only
heard about beatings, rather tough beatings, bnt figuring the time
which passed, we thought i t absolutely pointless to examine them be-
cause even if i t had been blue and black in Schwabisch Hall a few
weeks ago, the marks would have disappeared.
Mr. CHAMBERS. T h a t is correct.
You sre aware, however, me 11a.c.e another affidavit we all know about
from Dr. Knorr who did allege treating a certain number of these
people for broken jams and matters of that kind.
Mr. STRONG. That is new to me.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay you knew nothing of any broken jaws?
Mr. STRONG. I have no recollection. I should have recollection if I
would have received a complaint like that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There is one other point I would like to discnss
with you again, because it is a matter of some interest to me i n this
case. T h a t is, you saicl that you all bad extreme difficulty in getting
these defendants to accept you as defense counsel.
Mr. CHAMBERS. L4ncli t was not until after a couple of meetings with
them, finally there was a meeting which practically all of the officers
attended, and you all told them again you were there to help them and
do the best you could for them, ancl Colonel Peiper got up-
Mr. STRONG.Correct.
Mr. CEIA~WBERS. And saicl that he had known you for a week or so
and was convinced you were there to help them and for them to fall
i n line, to g o along.
Senator MCCARTHY.Could I interrupt?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.I do not h o w that Knorr testified about any
broken jaws. I do not have the affidavit, but the Army report:
Treated 15 or 20 suspects for injuries to mouth and jaw apparently inflicted
by some blows.
I ~ o n d e irf the affidavit as to broken jaws is available?
Sellator BALDWIN. Do IT-e need to stop to get i t ?
Seuator R i c C A w r z ~I. think the witness should lx~omthat in view
of the :act yo0 stated there n-as :m affidavit frmn Dr. Knorr.
Mr. C ~ r ~ t ~ nI~t is
n smy. recollection there is an affidavit to thxt ef-
fect, and I will be glad to check m c l can put i t in the record a t a later
time unless yon ~ i ~ ato
n tstop now and get it.
602 MALMEDY MASSACRE: IN7'ESTIGATIOS
Senator MCCARTIIY.I do not want you to stop. I wonder if some-

body else could find it. .
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think they could. It is in the files in the rear of
the room.
Colonel Murphy, will you get that please ?
Peiper, apparently, had a very tight control over these people ; they
trusted him?
Mr. STRONG. They trusted him blindly.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There

was apparently a period of time after they
got to Dachau in which they had a chance in meetings of this kind
and others to get together on some of these things.
Mr. STRONG. I do not think there were any other meetings. The
d y meetihgs were those two meetings where everybody was guarded,
which I mentioned, and then the meeting which, in my recollection,
was only attended by the officers.
I don't think the accused ever had any opportunity to be among
themselves and talk among themselves freely.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Do you believe that if Colonel Peiper, back before
they went to Schwabisch Hall, concentration camps, and what not,
where they were held for interrogation, had passed the word that they
were not going to talk and that they would really keep quiet
about this thing and try to put the responsibility on a battal'1011 com-
rnancler since killed and that they would have, in fact, follo-wecl those
instructions ?
Mr. STRONG. Quite a few of them would have. But whether ex7ery-
body would have, I do not know. With the guys on trial for their
lives, I do not know how intensely Peiper's influence in that wse n-oald
have been.
Mr. CHAMBERS. AS a matter of clearing up the record, I think it
should be pointed out that the questionnaire you have, Senator Mc-
Carthy, did not make any mention of mock trials. It did bring out
other matters of solitary confinement, but there was no mention of
mock trials there.
Senator MCCARTHY. Which questionnaire?
Mr. CHAMBERS. The exhibit there.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. I have it.
Mr. ~HAMBERS. Now,

this matter of difficulty in'locating witnesses.
Mr. STRONG. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am informed, and I would like to check your
memory on this because it is absolutely at variance with your testimony,
did you request witnesses through the prosecution or through the
apprehension section which had headquarters in Weisbaden but had
a local apprehension section in Dachau?
Mr. STRONG. According to my recollection, we handed our list of
witnesses every evening to Colonel Everett who went over with then1
and gave them to rosecution.
8
Mr. CHAMBERS. olonel Dwinell seems to have a little different
memory of that.
Purely for the purpose of clearing the record, Mr. Strong, I think
me should try to get the information.
Colonel DWINELL.Mr. Strong is correct in that. I remember several
instances where Colonel Everett reported to us the following day
he had turned his requisitions over to prosecution, over to the prosecu-
tion section. I did not accompany the requisitions. I am only report-
ing what he said. I do know there was an apprehension section in
Dachau. I remember we filled out our requisitions directed to them.
As I remember the form, they had some kind of a mimeographed form
we filled out and put down the names of the witnesses we wanted.
I t is my best recollection that form had on it something directing
it to the attention of the apprehension section. But Mr. Strong is
right when he says that we turned them over to Colonel Everett or his
secretary. H e had his secretary working with him all the time. And
many, many times I remember their reporting to us our requisitions
had been turned over to prosecution.
Whether Colonel Everett meant by that the whole Dachau adminis-
tration when he used the word "prosecution," I am not able to say.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Ellis, purely for the purposes of the record,
you were the prosecutor. Did you get the witnesses for the defense?
Colonel ELLIS. We did not. My recollection is, on a few occasions
they checked with us to see if we knew the whereabouts of some of the
witnesses who had once been at Schwabisch Hall and we had released
to a ,PW camp, Heidelberg, or some place else. We did not have
anything to do with actually getting the witnesses. We only were in-
formation sources for those people.
Mr. STRONG. May I say something, Mr. Chairman?
Senator BALDWIN.According to my recollection, we got the list
of witnesses back the next day with check marks as to whether the
witness was available or not. And unless I am very much mistaken,
we got this list back with this check inark from prosecution.
Colonel ELLIS. You are substantially correct on that. We had about
150 we brought down from Schwabisch Hall as witnesses that mere in
the camp. Those were the ones, not the ones that were released-
15-hetherwe had the named ones there and checked them off for them.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me ask a question here which seems to me
important at this time. Did you ever have a feeling, Mr. Strong, that
the prosecution and the Army authorities were not exercising due
diligence and care in trying to produce witnesses? Tell us frankly
what your view is on that.
Mr. S T R ~ N1G . certainly no criticism to make, Mr. Chairman, of
have
the Army authorities, and I have no doubt that prosecution, after some
checking-I have no idea how thorough or how superficial their check
was-gave us the best information they had available.
But I do think we were at a disadvantage: No. 1,by having to submit
our requests for witnesses to prosecution, and by, secondly, not having
the opportunity to send out our own investigation teams and making
onr own efforts to get witnesses, which would have been possible.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, you feel it would have been much
better and much fairer if the defense had had a team of its own to send
out for witnesses and to corroborate statements and things of that
kind ?
Mr. STR~NG. I mould say, Mr. Chairman, if, after we got the list of
witnesses back from whoever gave it to us, we should have been in a
position to check and to look for these witnesses who were reported to
us as nonavailable, i t would have been better.
Senator BALDWIN.In other words, you think there should have been
a check on the prosecution check?
9176549----39
Mr. STRONG. NO; do not mean that. I accept a t face value the list
of prosecution which says: out of 100 witnesses 90 are not available.
But then we should have been in a position, and that needed time and
investigation teams, to look for these 90 witnesses ourselves in pris-
oner-of-war camps, internment camps, a t the places where these people
resided.
I remember a t a later stage of the trial we were assigned one or two
investigators, and I think we had somebody to send to interrogate Gen-
eral Von Runstedt.
If we would have two or three investigation teams at the beginning
and maybe, sometimes, quite more, I think we would have been able t o
line up quite a few more witnesses which might or might not have had
an effect.
Senator BALDWIN.Afe you through, Mr. Chambers?
Senator MCCARTHY. Before you go on, this is the Knorr affidavit :
There may have been about 15 to 20 patients who had to be treated for in-
juries of the mouth and the jam. Maltreatment by blows could be clearly traced
with nearly all of them. Once when I asked a young man how he was. h e
replied: "What can you expect if yon a r e beaten so much almost daily, a t
any rate on the occasion of every hearing; look a t my h e a d " And indeed he
was beaten blue all over the head which was bloodshot. Rowever I can defi-
nitely remember two cases in the one of which one tooth a11d in the other
one fonr teeth were knocked out of the upper jaw quite recently. Reqides,
there was once presented to me a man with a rupture of the lower jaw which
I was allowed to put in a provisional splint only because he was transferred
to an American hospital a t once.
This, of course, was at Schwabisch Hall before you got there.
Mr. Srxoxc. I t might not even have been an accused. It might
have been a witness whom we never saw.
Senator MCCARTITY.Yes, that is rieht.
Senator BALDWTX. Any more question ; anybody ?
Senator MCCARTIIY. I do not think I have any more.
Senator BALDWIN.I mould like to ask one or two here.
How many different acq~~sed were there? My recollection is of the
testimony, thgt there were 70 ?
Mr. STRONG. I think 74, and 1 I think was a French national and
his case was severed.
Senator BALDWIN.And how many of them did yon talk to per-
sonally ?
Mr. STRONG. 15 to 20.
Senator BALDWIN. And you said that these questionnaire? Tvere
sent out and that some of these questionnaires claimed physical abuse
of one kind or another. Yo11 said a percentage of them. What I
mould like to know: Can you help us on how widespread this claim
of abuse was; what percentaqe do yon recall? Did most of the
affidavits, or half of the affidavits, or less than half, or what per-
centage of them claimed some form of physical abuse?
Mr. STRONG. I have no independent recollection. I monld say half
or less, but I remember Colonel Everett prepared a chart which
showed exactly each accused and the type of treatment he claimed to
have received. What happened to that chart I do not know.
Senator BALDWIN.When you say "chart"; those were the affidavits
that accompanied the petition that went to the Supreme Court; is
that the one you refer t o ?
Mr. STRONG. I am afraid I do not know.
Senator BALDWIN. Did yon feel, Mr. Strong, that enough time was
given for this trial ? What can you tell us about that?
Mr. STRONG. YOUmean for the trial itself ?
Senator BALDWIN.Let us take the question of preparation first.
Mr. STRONG. NO; I would say we definitely should have had more
time.
Senator BALDWIN.Was any request made for more time?
Mr. STRONG. I understand that Colonel Everett negotiated with
somebody higher up about extension of time, but I am not familiar
with it.
Senator BALDTVIN. My recollection is that Colonel Dwinell said
something. I do not know that it was him, but somewhere in the
evidence is the claimed fact this trial had to start at a certain time,
and there was not much you could do about it.
Mr. STRONG. I have some recollection to that effect, that somebody
told Colonel Everett that. '
Senator BALDWIN.You mention one general who claims to have

been kicked in the groin. Were there any others that you recollect?
Mr. STRONG. Any other generals?
Senator BALDWIN.Any other men that came to your attention.
Mr. STRONG. I think quite a few of the officers to whom I talked
claimed abont mistreatments, but it is terribly difficult, Mr. Chairman.
I talked in detail to maybe 15 or 20 people, ancl I know some of them
claimed mistreatment.
Senator BALDWIN.Did they make any particular complaint about
who had done it?
Mr. STRONG. I encountered always the same names, either guards,
or Mr. Thom, or the last two names, according to the best of m y
recollection, Lieutenant Per1 and Mr. Kirschba~un. Those three
names stick out in my memory.
Senator BALDWIN.Apparently you were under the impression the
trial had to start at a certain time. Was there any pressure of ally
kind as to how long it could continue? I n other words, what I am
trying to get at is this: What opportunity did you have to put on
the witness stand the accused or such witnesses who might have been
available?
Mr. STRONG. I do not think we had any pressure ~ v l d shoulcl
l in-
fluence us not to put anybody on. According to my recollection we
'
mere at liberty to stretch the defense case as long as we wanted to.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator McCarthy yesterday questioned Colollel
Dwinell and Major Fanton with reference to a ruling on eviclence. I
think i t concerns one of the accused named Kramm.
Senator MCCARTHY. H e was not an accused, he was a witness and
given immunity.
Senator BALDWIN. He was a prosecution witness apparently.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The prosecution yesterday made t h ~point
, thay did
not have enough facts on which to try him, so they did not have to
give him immunity.
Senator BALDWIN.You fellows can argue that. The fact remains he
v a s not an accused, he mas R witness.
And it appears from looking at this record here-the full amoullt
of cross-esai~~inatioiidoes not appear in what I h a ~ l ebefore nle here.
But it does appear i t was a witness whom you were exanlining. Do
you remeniber that incident on that ruling?
Mr. STRONG. I remember that now; yes.

.
Senator BALDWIN.Can you tell us about i t ?
Mr. STRONG.
I remember distinctly Kramm testified, and I remem-
ber his memory was simply marvelous. It was too good to be true.
I tried to trap him because I had heard something about his diary. So
I tried to trap him with a diary question.
I asked him if he had a diary. H e said, "I had a diary and noted
everything down that was important after I became an officer."
I said, "What did you do with the diary?"
"I burned it before I got captured."
I was a little bit ironical, I wanted to attack his unusual good mem-
ory, and wanted to switch to Schwabisch Hall, and wanted to show
he made this statement in order to gain immunity for himself. I tried
to bring that out, and that is where Colonel Rosenfeld stopped me
short.
Senator BA~,DWIN. I n other words, you were cross-examining the
witness on the basis of his diary?
Mr, STRONG. I was cross-examining the witness with the intent to
show to the court, No. 1, his statement which was so absolutely de-
tailed could not have been true because he would have had to be super-
human to remember all that ;and secondly, he definitely had a personal
reason for testifying as he did.
Senator BALDWIN.That mas Colonel Rosenfeld who was the law
inember of the court prevented you from pursuing that line in ex-
amination?
Mr. CHANBERS. For the record. A moment ago we were discuss-
ing whether or not Colonel Peiper had claimed to have been abused
or beaten. I n his examination when he took the stand in his own
behalf, he stated that he had on his last day at Schwabisch Hall been
beaten by a Polish guard.
Senator MCCARTHY. Why do you not read it verbatim?
Mr. CHAMBERS. All right.
Senator BALDWIN. I think you should.
Mr. CEIAMRERS
[reading] :
Q. Will you give the court the details of the beating )-on alleged you received
a t Schwabisch Hall?-A. On the last day of In;\-stay i n Schrval~ischHall I was
called for interrogation and received, a s -me usual, a black hood over m y head.
And I had to wait down there in the hall of the prison for about 6 minutes, since
the American sergeant who came for me went to get some other co~nradesof
mine from their cell. Dkiring this occasion when 1 was standing there quietly
waiting, I was struck in the face by a person unknown to me, and several times in
my sexual parts with a stick. I was of the opinion t h a t they were Poles since
they were guarding this house.
That is the entire quotation.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n addition to that I understand he testified
he was kept in solitary confinement, and told he would remain in
solitary confinement unless and until he signed a confession. I s that
correct ?
Mr. STRONG. That is more or less my recollection.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What was the statement?
Senator MCCARTHY. Am I correct in understanding you will find
in the record he testified in addition to physical beating he mas kept
in solitary confinement, and was told he would remain in solitary
MALMEDY MASSACRE INT'ESl'IGATlON 607
confinement unless and until he signed a confession? Am I correct
Peiper did say he would sign any confession a t all they would ask him,
anything that would free his men?
Mr. STRONG. That is right.
Senator MCCARTHY.T h a t they did not have to beat him to get a
confession; he said he would sign anything a t all that would serve to
clew his men ?
Mr. STRONG.T h a t is right.
Senator BALDWIN.Just one or two questions that occur to me now.
I think this appears in the record, but I would like your recollection
on how many of these accused took the stand i n their own behalf.
Mr. STRONG. I would say in addition to the three senior officers,
two generals and Peiper, maybe six.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you want to make any explanation in con-
nection with t h a t ?
A s I recollect, Colonel Dwinell yesterday said something to the
effect, ancl you intimated today something to the effect, when they got
on the stand they began to tell stories in conflict with one another.
What do you want to tell use about t h a t ? Do you recall t h a t ?
Mr. STRONG. I recollect that the privates whom we put on the stand
were rather bad witnesses for themselves and for their co-accused.
And a t least some of them-I think our opinion differed. I h a d
Hennecke a t that time-as my particular accused, and I think when
he came up on the stand some of us thought he had absolutely testified
honestly and not very cleverly, but honestly, and I think some of the
other defense counsel thought he made an awful witness and abso-
lutely insincere.
)Ire had a conference a t that time, and based upon that me reached
the decision not to let anybody else take the stand.
Senator M c C a n r r ~ yLet . me ask this: You were representing 73
defendants. Let's say you are representing 10.
Mr. STKONG. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.M7e will call them Nos. 1 to 10. I f yon
lmow that No. 1 has a story which he is telling you, and you think
he is telling the truth, which will clear him, but which will hang
No. 10; No. 10 in turn has a story which, if believed by the court,
ill clear No. 10 hncl hang No. 1. You represent both men. I an1
wondering what ground rules can guide you, or is it conceivable you
could give men a proper defense when you have such a divergence
of interests and the same lawyer representing the same defendants?
Mr. STRONG. You cannot.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, you feel the motion for sev-
erance should have been granted, and not having been granted it is
impossible for you to give them a fair trial because, while in the in-
terest of No. 1, you thought you might have to put him on the
stxnc!, n e v e ~ t h e l e ~you
s are representing Nos. 9 and 10, and in the
interest of Nos. 9 ancl 10 you have got to keep No. 1 off, and perhaps
keeping him off might actually result in his being hung.
Mr. STRONG.I T V O L I ~definitely
~ say the failure to grant severance
did undermine the conflicting interests, and going sin~ultaneouslyto
trial with 73 defendants whose interests i n many cases conflicted, you
prejudiced their cases and their chances for a fair trial.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Let me ask you this, Mr. Strong: I f the men
were given a fair, honest trial, with proper rulings by the court, do
you think thky could have convicted the guilty men all right and let
the innocent inen go 8
Mr. STRONG. I would say if we would have had sufficient time to
prepare our case, and if we would have been permitted to bring out
the conditions under which the confessions were allegedly obtained,
the court should lyave been able t o get an absolutely, or as clear a pic-
ture as is under the circumstances possible, and definitely much clearer
than it has been given under the conditions under which we worked.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you clo not feel it TTas necessary
under the circumstances to conduct this type of trial in order to
convict the guilty men ?
Mr. STRONG. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think that is all; thank you.
Senator BALDWIN.Thank you very much, Mr. Strong, for your
helping us with this investigation.
Colonel DWINELL.May I make a statement before Mr. Strong
leaves, Mr. Chairman?
Seiator BALDWIN. Yes.
Colonel DWINELL.I think Mr. Strong inadvertently made a reinark
concerning the getting of German defense counsel. He said there
was difficulty in the matter of time and they mere not attracted by the
offer to come down and had to be given cigarettes. I think that has
to be amplified.
That matter of cigarettes was legal rations authorized to war crimes
headquarters for all German civilians that worked in that capacity,
in addition to gas and payment in marks. That was done through
normal military government channels and perfectly proper.
Senator BALDWIN.I understood it that way. I understood from
Mr. Strong's testimony these German counsel were employed with
the understanding they would get compensation.
Mr. STRONG.That is correct:
Senator BALDWIN.And that the gasoline and rations and the cig-
xrettes were something that was added to the thing which they would
get in the normal course.
I did not understand there was anything improper about it?
Senator MCCARTHY. Before you leave, Mr. Strong, let me say this :
We have often heard the claim made which I have always felt there
mas no foundation for, and I think you have done considerable to prove
it-the claim made the non-Aryans who suffered persecution in Ger-
many and were forced to leave Germany have carried a feeling of
vengeance toward the whole German race. I think the fact you, your-
self, who was a refugee from Hitler in Germany because you were not
a pure Aryan, in the fact you went back there voluntarily and did
all you could to see that the German people accused of war crimes for
a fair honest trial and only the guilty punished and the innocent be
freed proves many of those claims false that have been made. And I
want to compliment you very much.
Mr. STRONG. Thank you.
Senator BALDWIN.I think that goes without saying, from the effort
he manifested in putting up the defense.
The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock toporrow morn-
ing.
(Whereupon, at 5 p. in., a recess was taken the subcommittee to re-
convene a t 10 a. m.. Fridav. Mav 13.1949.)
MALMEDY 3fASSACRE INVESTIGATION
FRIDAY, MAY 13, 1949
SURCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
Washington,D. c.
The subcoininittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m., in
room 212, Senate Office Building, Senator Raymond E. Baldwin
presiding. I
Present : Senators Baldwin (presiding) and Hunt.
Also present : Senator Joseph R. McCarthy ; J. M. Chambers, of the
co!nmittee staff: Howell J. Hatcher. of the staff of the Subcommittee
on 1nvestigati~;lsof the committie on Expenditures in Executive
Departments ;Colonel Murphy ; Colonel Ellis ; Colonel Raymond; and
Lje~~tenant Colonel Dwinell.
Senator BALDWIN.The meeting will be in order.
Dr. Perl, will you take the stand over there? Take that chair down
there.
Mr. PEG. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. Will you stand up and hold up your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in the
hut the truth, so help you God?
Mr. PERL. I do.
TESTINONY OF WILLIAM R. PERL, MAMAROBECK, N. Y.
Senator BALDWIN.Doctor, will you give us your full name and
address ?
Mr. PEKL. 205 Lawrence Avenue, Mainaroneck, N. Y.
Senator BALDWIN.Dr. Perl, what is your business now?
Mr. PERL. I am a personnel consultant.
Senator BALDWIN.For whom do you work?
Mr. PERL. I an? advising commercial establishments whom to hire,
~hom not to hire, whom to place into which position.
Senator BALDTVIN. YOUhave a business of your own as consultant?
Mr. PERL. I am self-employed.
Senator BALDWIN. May I ask how old you are?
Mr. PERZ. Forty-two.
Senator BALDWIN.Where were you born?
Mr. PERL. I n Prague, Czechoslovakia.
Senator BALDWIN. When did you come to the United States?
Mr. PERL. I n 1940.
Senator BALDWIN. And you are now a citizen of the United States?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDTTIP. HOW long have you been a citizen?
609
Mr. PERL.Since April 1943.

Senator BALDWIN.Can you tell us something about your education?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir. I .graduated from high school in Vienna. I
studied sociology, economics, psychology, and law. I graduated from
a college of social science-~t is the approximate equivalent-those
schools are approximately equivalent-in 1928 with M. A. in eco-
nomics or social science. And in addition, a-Ph. D. in law.
1 have had extensive courses in psychology. I passed examina-
tions in law which approximate the LL. B. in law.
It is not exactly education, but it is professional background.
Senator BALDWIN.Tell us about your experience; what you have
done.
Mr. PERL. I have been a member of the bar of Vienna from 1930
to 1938. I was in one of the biggest law firms in Vienna, and most
of the other partners did not like to handle criminnl cases, so i t came
that I handled during these 8 years of law experience quite a number
of criminal cases. I tried-I could not say the exact number, but
certainly more than a hundred. I would say between 100 and 250-
rather near to 200 criminal cases, some of them before the Supreme
Court of Austria.
Austria has a federal state system and has a supreme court which
in small dimensions resembles the set-up of the Supreme Court of
the United States-criminal cases. This is my background in law.
Senator BALDWIN.You left Vienna in 19388
Mr. PERL.That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.Where did you go then?
Mr. PERL. I first wext to England.
Senator BALDWIN.And how long did you stay in England?
Mr. PERL. For a few months; about 3 or 4 months.
Senator BALDWIN.Can you tell us why you left Vienna?
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir. A t the time I left I was not disbarred yet.
I could still practice m j 7 legal profession-disbarred because I am
Jewish, and when the Germans took over it was evident that all Jews
would be disbarred. But i t was the first country they occupied, and
they mere not so well mganized yet as they were later, so a few months
we coulcl still practice.. Rut I bnow that the time was running out,
and the faster I left, I believed the better, so I left before I could get
into any trouble.
I noticed in the papers i t was mentioned I had been 4 years in con-
centration camps or something of this kind. I never have been in
a jail there, neither in a German or German-controlled jail, nor in any
concentration camp. I left before this.
Senator BALDWIN. DO you say you staged in England several
months ?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.And then you came to the United States?
Mr. PERI,.Not directly so. I had only a short permission to stay,
and I went then to Italy and then to Greece and then to Switzerland,
and then again to Greece, and then Lisbon. And from Lisbon I went
to east and South Africa, and from South Africa I finally received
a visa for the United States.
Senator MCCARTIXY. May I ask counsel to brief me on why he left
Germany ? Was he a refugee?
M A L N E D Y MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 61 1.
Senator BALDW~N. H e was a refugee; yes. H e sald he practiced
law in 1938, and being Jewish he realized when the Germans took over
he would eventually be disbarred ; and seeing that coming, he volun-
tarily left the country. H e said he had never been in a concentration
camp.
Mr. PERL.I left on a regular passport with a regular German exit
permit.
Senator BALDWIN. T h a t is, your departure was entirely legal?
Mr. PERL.A bsolutely legal; yes.
Senator BALDWIN. Then you came to the United States when, Dr.
Per1?
Mr. PERL.I n September 1940.
Senator BALDWIN. What did you do then ?
Mr. PERL.F o r a few months I just tried to adjust myself to circum-
stances here.
Senator BALDWIN. Are you married and have a family?
Mr. PERL.I am married, sir, and I have a child.
Senator BALDWIN.
And your wife and child were with you?
Mr. PERL:NO, s i r ; my child was born only about 2 years ago here
in the United States.
Senator BALDWIN.
Then your wife was with you?
Mr. PERL.S he mas not with me; she mas back in Europe still a t
that time.
Senator BALDWIN. I s i t fair t o state that what you were trying to
do-
Mr. PERL.M y wife is not Jewish. She is what the Germans called
Aryan, so I did not see any danger, and I left her there.
Senator BALDWIN. ISit fair to say what you were trying to do is find
a place where you could pick u p your life again after you left Austria?
Mr. PERL.T hat is right, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. After you had been i n New York a while, tell us
something of your experience then.
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir.
F o r a few months I just looked around, and then I started lecturing
on conditions in Europe and on psychology, which I did for a few
months.
Sncl the war started in December 1941 here. Immediately, or a few
weeks after Pearl Harbor, I volunteered for the United States armed
forces. I first volunteered for the United States Navy, and the Navy
did not take me because I was not a citizen a t this time.
I have a letter, if you want to see it, where they say they are sorry
they could not take me.
Senator BALDWIN. We do not need it, do you think, Senator Mc-
Carthy?
Senator BALDWIN.
All right, go ahead.
Mr. PERL.Later on, I went into the Army. My proceedings to get
into the Army started a t the beginning of the summer of 1942, and a t
the end of 1942. I was inducted on January 11,1943, as a private.
Senator BALDWIN. Pardon me?
Mr. PERL.AS a private.
Senator BALDWIN. 1 was going to ask you that. Then, what did
you do?
Mr. PERL. After my basic training-I speak quite a number of

languages, in addition to my other background-I was transferred t o
the Military Intelligence Training Center a t Camp Ritchie, Md. 1
was assigned there t o the interrogation school. I graduated from this
interrogation school and was kept there. Most of the people werc,
shipped out to various outfits, but I became an instructor a t Camp
Ritchie Military Intelligence Training Center, and had my own small
section. I had nine men under me. I was promoted to corporal, then
to T-3.
I n the spring of 1944 I asked for an overseas assignment. I had
what you would rather call a "soft" job there, but I wanted to get
over, and I got a n overseas assignment.
I was 1,I would say, of 100 to 150 graduates a t Camp Ritchie. I
believe 4,000 to 5,000 graduated there, but I was one of 100 to 150
graduates that got commissioned.
Senator BALDWIN. AS a second lieutenant?
Mr. PERL. AS a second lieutenant.
Senator BALDWIN.
Then, after that, what did you do?
Mr. PERL. When I arrived overseas I worked for a short time with
the psychological warfare which was an interrogation job.
Senator BALDWIN. Where were you then?
Mr. PERL. I n a PW enclosure near Broadway, England; like
"Broadwayv in most of the American cities. Our job was there not
to interrogate the prisoners but to converse with them. W e had a little,
approximately 40 questions which SHAEF' wanted to find out: What
the morale was in Germany and what they thought mould happen,
who mould break first, how the food situation is, and all this.
T o get this information actually and truly we could not interrogate
those people. They had to have the feeling that they were i n con-
versation. W e worked with Red Cross officers who were interested
in their welfare which made them talk easily. I was there, I would
say, about 5 or 6 weeks, and then I was transferred to the highest level
interrogation center for both the United States and the British Army.
It was called Combined Services Detail Interrogation Center, CSDIC
being the abbreviation, which was a top-secret place. T h e highest
ranking ;3risoners were brought there and interrogated, a,o,zin in the
form of interview mainly, because these persons could not be broken.
This is the terminology usecl-could not be broken by any but psy-
chological means. They knew what they wanted; and we had to con-
vince them h s t , before we went into any kincl of interrogation, that
Germany had lost the war already and, after this, to convince them
that if they were good Germans it was their duty to cooperate with
us to tell us everything they knew freely so that less Germans should
be killed, less German clties destroyed, and the German living potential.
after the war should be higher.
I mas in charge of the polltical section, working under Major March.
the British intelligence officer, who is now a professor of law a t Oxford
University.
Major March was in charge of the whole sociological center. There
were others set up for information on V-2, German secret weapons,
atoinic and bacteriological warfare, and so on. I mas in the sociolog-
ical department.
This outfit was more or less a British outfit, although oficially a
combined unit. There were not more than a dozen American officers
there.
When the Battle of France started, the Americans demanded my
transfer to their unit. Colonel Kendrick, the commanding officer of
the Combined Intelligence Interrogation Center, the British intelli-
gence officer, requested that I should stay there to finish the work on
which I was engaged, the subject of which was "Leftist Underground
i n Germany and Austria," and the purpose was to determine whether
any help could be expected from them prior to their official German
surrender.
I finished this work and came to the conclusion that no help could
be expected from them because they are concentrating their forces on
taking over, if possible, afterwird; that they were certain of German
collapse anyhow.
Senator BALDWIN. I n other words, you came to the conclusion from
your work with the German war prisoners that there was being built
u p a plan so that after Germany's collapse the same group would take
over ?
Mr. PERL. Try to take over. They tried to preserve their forces for
the fight after the oficial Nazi collapse, and this was one of the main
purposes, not to be caught and executed by the Nazis. They were
certain of German defeat anyhow.
I was then shipped over. I would like to mention that durihg this
time, while I was a t CSDIC, I was sent several times to France to collect
prisoners and to interrogate them right d t e r their surrender, when
they were still under the shock of the capture. F o r which, by the way,
I received the Battle 01Normandy Star. I did not see actual fighting
there, but I was within artillery range and in range of mortars , a t
occasions.
When I came over, I was assigned to one of the mobile field inter-
rogation units vhich had about the same purpose ~ h i c hI just de-
scribed, to interrogate prisoners, first to screen them, those who seenled
to be important, and then to interrogate them when still under the
shock of battle.
I stayed with this unit up to the end of the war, and with thein I
participated in part of the campaign of northern France and Belgium,
in the Rhineland Battle, and i n the Battle of Central Europe, f o r
which I received a battle star, too. Again, without being in the figlit-
; again, I mas often in range of mortars.
ing ~ m i t sbut,
,4t the end of the war I was transferred to the war crimes group.
Senator BAT~DWIN. Did you request this transfer?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator BALDTVIN. You were directed?
Mr. PERL. Military intelligence did not seem so important a t this
time any more, so I was transferred to war crimes, which was badly
handicapped, I was told in'the interview, by its lack of German-
speaking personnel, and particularly as I was a lawyer a t the same
time, I appeared to be valuable f o r them.
Sentor BALDWIN.When did you come to Malmedy ?
Mr. PERI,.I n November 1945 after I had worked on a number of
other cases before I was informed by Colonel Ellis that I had been
614 MALlMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
assigned to the Malmedy massacre case which I considered a promotion

because it was the American W a r Crime Case No. 1. And other cases
on which I hacl worked so f a r : One or two were Americans, and
hundreds or thousands of displaced persons hacl been killed. While
this was the first massacre in American history.
Senator BALDWIN.Have you a statement, Dr. Perl, yon want to
read in connection with this?
Mr. PERL.NO,sir ; I do not have a prepared statement.
Senator RALDTVIN. GO on then and tell us in your own way what
your experience at Malmecly was. That is in connection with the
~ a l m e dcases.
~ You were assigned to that in the latter part of
ATovember?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,tell us what you did, what you observed,
and what happened.
Mr. PERL. At this time, Major Fanton was in charge of the in-
vestigation, and all the prisoners were together a t Z~~ffenhausenwhich
was a war criminal or war suspect camp.
H e advised me no information could be obtained from them until
then of any value.
I told him that one of the prime rules which we learned a t Camp
Kichey, the military intelligence training center, was to separate these
suspects, to separate the officers from the enlisted men, to break the
esprit de corps; and we should try t o find a prison where we could
keep them segregated, becayse he told me that after the interrogations
the interrogated came back and reported i t to his cominanclinp officer,
and the next one came with orders from the commanding officer.
The prisoners were put in Schmabisch Hall, Germany, and inter-
rogation started there.
Before this, already, a t Zuffenhausen-I had not been a t Zuffen-
hausen only a fern days. Those who mere obviously not connected
were screened there and sent away.
Before any interrogation started a t Schwabisch Hall, considerable
ndministrative work was done to get 'all the detailed information on
the set-up of the unit, the number of battalions, the number of com-
panies, who was in each company, exactly who belonged into which
platoon, and the crew of every single tank, the crew of every single
half-track, and so on, that we should be able to impress the suspects
with our knowledge.
The case was exceptionally hard to handle, because practically all
the witnesses were dead, and the Germans were s t ~ c k i n gtogether.
We soon found out that some officers were particularly well hated.
One of them was George Preuss.
Senator BALDWIN.They were particularly well-what ?
Mr. PERL. Hated-hated by their own men.
The other one, Friedrich Christ. And we decided first to make a
t r y with Christ.
We collected the information which we got on him by asking those
people who were obviously closely connected with the unit but not
the crime, because we knew that their units must have arrived later
a t the cross-roads. A t this time we knew only of the crime a t the
cross-roads.
After some time we found a very valuable man, and I think I
should explain the interrogation of Christ and how i t branched out in
M A L M E D Y MASSACRE INVESl'IGAl'IOK 615
a little mo1.e detail, because I feel, sir, that this will give you a better
idea than many separate interrogations of how it worked.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUgo ahead and explain it.
Mr. YERL. We found a man, Messner, who mas not connected with
it-at least, he claimed-and figured if he tells us the truth the in-
vestigation will be shorter, and he might be out earlier.
He told us that he had been an orderly a t a C. P. of the battalion
to which this Christ belonged, and that all the officers had met there ;
and gave us exactly the lay-out of this battalion C. P.; and all t h e
company chiefs, commanders; had met there just prior to the of-
fensive; that he made a fire in this room, and then he had been sent
out. H e did not see or hear what they were talking about, but right
after this he heard from other soldiers. He, himself, was not present
a t any one of those meetings as f a r as I recall. H e heard that the
company commander issued orders t h a t no prisoners of war should
be taken. A t this meeting he stated Christ was present, too. I had
him draw i n detail the lay-out of the little lodge i n the woods, where
everyone was seated. H e had a good memory. And when I had all
this detail and a few stories about Christ, why the soldiers disliked
him, I called Christ i n for an interrogation.
Senator BALDWIN.A t that point, Dr. Perl-
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.When you called in for an interrogation, what
was the set-up you had; how did you do i t ; what kind of a room was
i t ? Describe that for us.
Mr. PERL. It was a room-it was an interrogation cell. T h e bnild-
ing had only cells, larger and-smaller cells. It was a n interrogation
cell, one of the larger ones. I would say 6 feet to maybe 8 feet. The
furniture was a table and three chairs. T h a t was all. Besides the
chair, there was a toilet bowl i n this room. It was well lighted.
F o r the interrogation, because I considered i t very important, and
because I wanted-I was certain with the information I had could get
Christ and maybe also because I wanted to show to Major Fanton-
maybe I wanted to show off a bit-I called Major Fanton in.
A week or so ago, 2 weeks ago, Major Fanton said, "I believe I
was in during the whole interrogation. Do you remember?"
I said, ''I do not know. I knew you were in the interrogatioll; I
do not know for how long."
When I now read again Christ's statement, I recall he was in dur-
ing the whole interrogation. Christ was-
Senator MCCARTHY.D O I understand that Major Fanton called
you 2 weeks ago and asked you whether he was there when Christ
was interrogated ?
Mr. PERL. Pardon ?
Senator MCCARTHY.DO I understand that Major Fanton called
you 2 weeks ago and asked you whether he, Major Fantoa, mas presellt
while you were interrogating Christ ?
Mr. PERL. Major Fanton asked me whether he mas present all the
time while Christ mas being interrogated. H e was present. He rc-
members this, but he did not know f o r certain whether i t was all tile
time from the beginning to the end.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, Major Fanton called you 2
weeks ago and asked you whether he was present at all times during
Christ's interrogation ?
Mr. PERL. That is ri h t

Mr. PERL.
6%
Senator MCCARTHY. at did you tell him?
I said, "I know that you were present during the interro-
gation, but I cannot recall whether you were present the whole inter-
rogation."
And now, on my way down to Washington, I read the statement
in the train again, and I remember that he was present during the
whole interrogation.
Now, I believe he was brought in with a hood over his head. I
do not see the picture of him any more, how he was brought in with
the hood, but I know all the prisoners were brought in with the hood
on their head for the purpose that they should not know who else
was kept; because when they marched through our cells they could
see, maybe, other people in there from the wmdoms, and other pris-
oners were standing outside on this corridor, and if these knew
who was there, they could easily figure out what to say. Because if
they knew someone who was not there who saw them committing a
certain crime, i t boosted their morale.
I told Christ first in a very nice way, the way I have been interro-
gating very high ranking prisoners before at CSDIC, "What do you
know about the case, about the killing of prisoners at Malmedy?"
H e said, "I do not know anything about it."
Of course, I cannot repeat the words, but the meaning of the con-
versation.
I said, "Are you certain of this?" He said, "I am certain." "All
right; write it down." So, he sat down and wrote down the follow-
ing statement. I still have it here, and which was not made part of
the trial record.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was it offered as a part of the trial record?
Mr. PERL. It was not offered as a part of the trial record, to the
best of my knowledge.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was it ever given to defense counsel?
Mr. PERL. I do not know this, sir, but I have reason to believe it
was. I f you want me to go into detail, I can tell you ~ h Iybelieve
it was.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f the chairman does not object, I mould like
to know that reason.
Senator BALDWIN. All right.
Senator M C C A R ~ Y Why . do you believe it mas given to defense
counsel 8
Mr. PERL. Because-
Senator M c C m ~ w .May I ask Colonel Dwinell: Did you ever
get this statement? Have you ever seen it?
Colonel DWINELL.May I look at it, please?
Senator MCCARTHY. Yes [handing].
Colonel DWINELL.This is all in German. I do not recognize it
at all.
Senator MCCARTHY.I forget you cannot read German.
Mr. PERL. I tell you, sir, why I believe, and you will see, I think,
I have good reason to believe it was shown to the defense.
During the trial, Christ spoke of three statements which he made,
while the prosecution offered two statements only. And discussion
developed after this, and I saw in the trial record last night, and then
the t.ria1 r ~ c o r dsays that, there was a discwsion off the record between
the prosecution and the defense, and the defense said, "It is all right."
They did not ask any more about the third statement, and I know
I had it in the court room ready to shorn it.
This statement said :
I state-
he was quite happy he -would get out, if he just said he did not know
anything-
1 state under my oath t h a t never not even by any rumor I heard of any order
to shoot American prisoners of war a t Ligneville. Only once in Ebensee I heard
f r o ~ uan American CIC nlan that supposedly Poetschke should have given such
a n order. Under what circumstances Poetschke gave this order and under what
circurustances this order was executed, I never not even by-
Here it stops.
My note says, written in pencil and obviously in a hurry :
States not true. Withdrawn. Private first class Weiss Regimental Head-
quarters Company.
Now, when he was a t this place everything went very smoothly. I
mentioned to him it would be very important-"I don't want to catch
you, but yon are under oath now. And according to American law
perjury is a very, very grave crime. And you stated that you never
heard of even an order, not even by rumor, and we have placed in the
room a mike where together with the Weiss man. We know exactly
what you talk about when you are together. So, let's proceed with the
statenlant."
He said, "I am sorry. I heard one thing about a killing." I said,
"From whom did you hear it ?" He said, "From the man who is with
me in the cell." I said, "TVho?" He said, "Sturmman Weiss."
So, I said, "Then, this is not correct." H e said, "Not entirely." I
said, "All right, let's take it now as it is correct.''
And I made this note which I mentioned-"Withdrawn. Private
Weiss." That was so I should not forget the name-Private Weiss,
regimental headquarters company. And I took a second statement
with him. The sacond statement which, too, was not offered-maybe
offered in evidence, but I would say which, too, was not part of the
trial record.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me interrupt there. Was this a t the same
interview ?
Mr. PERL.Inlinediately afterwards. AS I am speaking to you now,
and in exactly the same soft voice, maybe even a softer, sir, because I
Am a bit agitated now, more certianly than I mas then-
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, both these statements were tak&
in this cell ?
Mr. PERL. I n this cell, in one long conversation. It was not actu-
ally an interrogation, because I did not ask him much.
So he stated on this piece of paper :
I hereby stated under my oath that before I came i n December 1945 to this
prison I never heard from any German, not eren by rumor, of any order to shoot
prisoners of war, and t h a t I never heard-
Senator MCCARTHY. I s this the second statement or the first?
Mr. PERL.The seconcl one. [Continuing :]
that I never heard whether such order has been executed. I only learned ill
Ebensee from a n American CIC man t h a t Poetschke gave-should have given
such a n order. No details of this h a r e been mentioned. However, a t t h a t time
618 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOY
the man i n my cell, with the name of Private Weiss of regimental neixdqual'trrs,
toJd me that he was present a t the shooting.
Signed "Christ Friedrich, First Lieutenant SS, 17 December 194.5."
Senator BALDWIN.I think we ought to have those two documents as
part of the record. Let me ask you a question about this now.
,r
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.W e will mark the first one "Christ A," and the
second one L'ChristB."
z '(Christ exhibits A and B are on file with the committee.)
Senator BALDWIN.Christ "A" is not signed by Christ !
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir ; i t is his handwriting, however.
Senator BALDWIN.Both of them are i n his handwriting?
Mr. PERL. Both of them are in his handwriting.
Senator BALDWIN.T h e second one marked "Christ B" is signed by
him and in his handwriting?
Mr. PERL. When I had this signed, I had one important advantage
already. H e had lied the first time, and I told him: "NOW,j7ou see if
you lie i t is not good. We know everything." And once a prisoner
iies and is aware of the fact he is caught lying, he is much easier t o
get off balance and easier to induce to tell the truth, because he does
not feel firm ground is under his feet any more.
I told him: "Listen ! You told us part of this alrendy. but we know
more. Do you actually believe that a man n-110 is so hated b7: his ovrn
soldiers as you are can get away with what yon did 2 Don't you think
now, the mar being over, your ow11 soldiers will talk against you
freely? All of them did; we know everything you did." And now I
told him one or two stories, how badly he had behaved toward his own
soldiers, which was of no legal importance but impressed him with o12r
knowledge.
Then, I said, "I knom,even how you were involved into the shooting."
I told him, "You clicln't shoot, yoprself, but you received orders,
and you passed the orders." "No, I did not," he said. I said, "Listen,
we know ere~ything. The other officers ~ v h owere present at this
meeting i n this lodge there already confessecl." None of them had
been interrogated in fact. "All the people told us the detail. They
even drew us pl:~nsof the place. Look ; ~ it." t And I s l i o ~hi111
~ this
sketch.
"And you mere sitting a t this tcble, ancl this officer was sittiiig to
your right and this officer was sitting to your left, ancl when you
arrived there you arriuecl with a very small, p a r t i a ~ l a r l ysli~nllcer.
And when you came d0Wll to your company Cli you had with you in
your car a big box in which you had a. typewriter."
Those were things which we had ascertained by previous interroga-
tions, information which was given freely, because the Gernlnns dicl
not thinlr i t was relevant.
Then, I said, "14'hen you arrived there, there w ~ as fire burning
there, and you posted yourself right in front of the fire, ancl then you
~ e p e a t e dthe order which j7ou had received from Poetschke."
When he heard this he broke. H e told me, "I only repeated the
order I got, and, after dl, I was-What should I have done?" 1 said,
"That is right, you repeated the order." Now, we know the order
,which you gave to your soldiers. What orders did you receive? Tell
us in detail so we should know whether you did not add mything on
your own which incited them to more brutality." S o he said, "I re-
cei~eclthese a n d these orders from nljr battalion conimander, and
ex?ctly x s I received thein I passed them on. I didn't add anything
to Incite to brutality."
Ant1 he lilacle this statellielit :
I state herc~uith the follou iug. 011 the :~ftc~riioon
of the day before t h e
attack in the Eiffel-
.\\-herethe oifense n a s started-
to nij recollectio~~~t \ \ a s on the 15th of 1)eceinber 1944 h compaiiy meeting
tooh plnw In the CI' of the armored group
On this occasion Poetschlre--
he \\as a battalion comniandei~-
stater1 that the inipeiidiug battle mould be the clecisl\ e one. Aiuongst other things
he said that we nould h a ~ eto behave towarcls the enemy in such a way that
we would cause tei ror and p a n ~ c ,and that the iuinor of the terror and of our
behavior would h a r e to precede our units.
Senator BALDWIN.Exccse me just a moment, Doctor. 1 think for
the benefit of the record we liligllt state here, if i t is correct, that you
are translating a doc~uinent~vllichis in Geralan. I s that correct?
Mr. PEEL.That is correct, sir.
Senator BALDM~IN. And a document which p ~ ~ r p o r to t s be in the
handwriting of Christ?
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir.
Senator I ~ L L ~ V I GO
X . ahead.
Mr. PERL (continuiilg) :
Would have to precede our units so that the enem!, should become f r i g h t e n d
to meet us. He furthermore stated i n t h ~ sconnection that no prisoners should
be made.
On my own, I did not add anything to this statement, ancl I did not detract any-
thing when I spoke on the same evenii~gto illy coiupany in the Blankenheiin
Forest. I just repented what Poetschlre had told me.
This statement I make on my own without having been influenced by threats
or promises I wrote it clown in my own handwriting. I t consists of two pages.
I am aware of the importance and the sanctitx of a n oath.
Signed "Christ Friedrich."
They oflicially signed their seconcl name first.
Senator B A I ~ ~ I Yes.
N.
Mr. I'ERI,. "Christ Friedrich, S S First Lieutenant, 17 Deceinber
1945."
Then the docunlent bears the signatwe: "Witnessed Dwight F.
Banton, Investigator-Examiner, W a r Crimes Branch, USFET."
And "Subscribed and sworn to before me a t Schwabisch Hall,
Germany, this 17th day of December 1945.
"T;lTilliamR. Perl, First Lieutenant, M. I . Investigator-Examiner."
At this time I was a first lieutenant. My last rank mas captain.
Sanator BAI~DTVTN. You h a ~ ealready described "Christ A" nncl
"Christ B," and we have marked them. Those two, as 1 understancl it,
myeretaken a t this interview, this single internew with Christ?
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.DO we understand correctly that this statement
1% as taken a t the same interview 2
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir; right 111 the same interview without ally inter-
rllption at p.11.
Senator BALDWIN. T h a t is, he made three statements?
91765 -49-40
Mr. PERL. H e made four statements, sir.

Senator BALDWIN.Four statements?
Mr. PERL. After the two he then admitted he had received the order,
when he saw the plan of the lodges-that he received the order and
made this statement.
Senator MCCAR~FIY.DO I understand they were all made the
same day?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.Then mill you explain why one was dated the
15th and the one the 17th?
Mr. PERL. Which was dated 15th?
Senator MCCARTHY. The first one.
Mr. PERL. I could not say that, sir. But you know we worked day
and day, Sunday and week days, and he was in jail for maybe several
weeks at this time. This was an official statement, and there, probably,
they looked a t the date, and I suppose he set the date there without
being asked what day it was.
Senator MCCARTHY.One is dated the 15th and one is dated the 17th.
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir. I n his trial, by the way, he was on the stand for
many hours, and he stated it was all taken in one long interrogation.
Senator BALDWIN.Just a moment. That is a very interesting
point, and I think it ought to be cleared up now.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think so, too.
Senator BALDWIN. I s there any German in that Christ A, the first
statement?
Senator MCCARTHY. Any date?
Mr. PERL. Christ A 8
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUwrote this.
Mr. PERL. There is no date on this, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. One is dated the 15th and one the 17th.
Mr. PERL. I believe, sir, you are i n error. It is dated the 17th, too.
The 15th of December came into your mind because he said on the
15th of December the year before they met at the lodge.
Senator MCCARI'EIY.And you just explained the discrepancy that he
explained away a t the trial and said they mere all taken on one day.
Are there two different dates, or are there not two different dates
there ?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir. You asked me how i t is possible that one state-
ment is taken on the 15th and one on the 17th if they were all taken
on the same day. Now, they mere all taken on the same day, and, as
you say, one mentions the 15th. I said he must have made the mis-
take. H e did uot make a mistake; it is dated the 17th. You mere
in error, sir.
Senator BALDWU.The point is, Dr. Perl, you testified these were
taken one after the other?
Mr. PERL. That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.And it does seem to the committee important, if
they are differently dated, and something I think we ought to clear
u p right a t this point, that is, what is the date on each one if there is
one.
Mr. PERL. All the statements are dated 17 of December, 1945.
Senator MCCARTHY. All of them are dated?
Mr. PERL. This has no date a t all.
Senator BALDWIN. That is referring to the first one?
Mr. PERL. Christ A has no date on it a t all.
Senator MCCARTHY. This is the 17th.
Mr. PERL.This was taken right afterward, the 17th of December.
Senator MCCARTHY. GO slow, will you?
Christ A has no date?
Mr. PERL.NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. Christ B has the 17th?
Mr. PERL. Christ A has neither a date or signature.
Senator MCCARTEIT. Will you do something for mc? Just answer
my questions.
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator R M ~ A R T H Y . Christ A has no date; right?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Christ B has the 17th?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator M c C ~ x . r ~ lAnd
- . what date has "C," or the third statement,
if any ?
Mr. PERL. The 17th of December 1945.
Senator BALDWIN. We will put it in the record here, Christ C.
(Christ exhibit C is on file with the committee.)
Mr. PERL. NO.-4, wliicli I did not shorn you, has the 17th) too. The
Gernlans crosses the 7. They make a 7 and then cross it. Most E L ~ o -
pean people do.
Senator Ba~,uwrr.The 15 is in my mind somewhere. Where did
we get that?
air. HATUIIER.He said that.
JIr. I'ERL. I can explain where you get the 15.
Senator BALDWIN.Go ahead.
Mr. PERL. He said in his statenlent here that upon the 15th of De-
cember 1944, ~vhichnTas1 year and 2 days before his interrogation,
they met a t their battalion CP, and that is how the 15th seems to have
come to your mind.
Senator MCCARTH~. You are right about the date.
Senator BALDWIN. NOW,go ahead. You were talking about the
third one.
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.That is marked Christ C.
Mr. PERL.
how relieved.
-
When he was through with this statement he felt some-
Senator BALDWIN. What is that?
Mr. PERL. Christ, when he was through with this statement, No. 3,
which I just read to you, felt somehow relieved.
Senator BALDWIN. Wait a minute. Senator McCarthy asked-Had
you finished translating Christ C 1
Mr. PERL. I had finished translating it, including the signature.
Senator BALDWIN. All right, go ahead.
He felt, as I said, somehow relieved, and said :"After all, I received
orders, and I passed them. So nothing can happen to me. That is
how I figure it."
I said, "I am not your legal adviser, but why did you not a t least
ask your commanding officer, your regimental commander Peiper,
if orders not to take prisoners and to act in such a way that fright and
terror- should
. be impressed upon the enemy were issued to you?" So
he said-
622 LMALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOM
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, could I ask something. I n view

of the fact I have an appointment at 1 o'clock which I have to make,
I wonder if we could have this witness refrain from giving us a detailed
account of one case and get into the question as to just what he did
at the Hall. It will take all year if he goes through each one of
these cases individually. Not that I do not think i t is important,
but I would like to get to the meat of the matter first, if possible.
Senator BALDWIN.AS I understand it, he is describing how one,
Christ, one ,of the officers, and, as you described, Dr. Perl, one of
the most important witnesses-Am I correct in that?
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir ; he was more than this. I have not the slightest
intention for your and my benefit to go into every detail.
Senator BALDWIN. Then go and finish up.
Mr. PERL.Christ was the initial break-through, and from Christ
it branched out, and I would like, with your ~ermission,to give you
the idea how i t worked, how the statements went, with Christ as a
sample and show you how one or two cases branched out of it, and
how they were talking one against the other. It takes maybe more
time than if you would just ask questions, but in the long run it
will save you time.
Senator BALDWIN.GO ahead and finish it up without too much de-
tail, Doctor.
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir.
Now, he said, "I want to state about this Peiper business, why I did
not speak to Peiper, and so on. I want to have this written down, too."
I said, "All right." He made it right afterwards in the same inter-
rogation witho~+any interruption. None of us left the room. He
made the follomng last statement-
Senator BALDWIN.Just for the record, we will mark that "Christ D."
(Christ exhibit D is on file with the committee.)
Mr. PERL (reading) :
I n addition to the statement which I made today regarding' the talk given
to u s in the Blankenheim Forest on the evening preceding the attack in the Eiffel,
I am stating the following :
I n the same building in which Poetschke gave u s a talk, in the neighboring room
was Peiper, CP. Peiper was the regimental commander. I do not recall whether
Peiper was present during the talk of Poetschke.
Anyhow, I was under the impression t h a t the order not to take any prisoners
had come straight from Peiper. I recall that right after the talk Poetschke gave
I spoke to another company commander-I believe i t was Kremser-about the
matter. That after this talk with Kremser only, I decided to give exaclly the
same talk. I did not go to Peiper because I supposed t h a t he knows about it, and
because I could not expect Peiper to give any orders which would contrast
Poetschke's orders. Neither did I ask Poetschke why he ordered that no prisoners
of war should be taken, nor to the best of my knowledge asked anyone else this
question.
The statement I make on my own and uninfluenced by threats or promises. I t
consists of two pages. I am fully aware of t h e sanctity of the oath.
Signed "Friedrich Christ, First Lieutenant SS."
Witnessed by Major Fanton and by me.
Senator BALDWIN. NOW,at that point, Dr. Perl, before you go
on further, I want to ask a few questions here.
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. About this particular interview?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.HOWlong did this interview take?
Mr. PERL.I do not think-I am certain i t could not have taken more
than, at the most, approximately 2 hours.
Sellator BALDWIN. And during that interview you were i n this
room that you described ?
Mr. PERL.And also Major Fanton.
Senator BALDWIN.
And Fanton was there?
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.
Were there any other Americans there?
Mr. PERL.NO, sir. T o the best of my recollection we mere alone.
I always objected to too many people being i n these rooms, they
distract you.
Senator BAI.DWIN. said there v a s a table and tliree clmirs?
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.
Was there anything 011 the table, a black cloth or
anything ?
Mr. PERL.I am almost certain that there was nothing of this kind
on the table in Christ's interrogation?
Senator BALDWIN. There has been testiinony here, on other inter-
rogations that there were a table, usually with two or three chairs,
and that on the table tllere v a s a crucifix and two candles.
Xr. PERL.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.
Was that so in this particular case?
Mr. PERL.I am almost certain that i t was not.
Senator BALDWIN.
Now, there-
Mr. PERL.That it was not in this case.
Senator BALDWIN.
Not in that case.
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. DO you recall-we will get into that later. I
want to confine this testimony to this particular incident if n-e can.
Was there an oath administered to Christ?
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.
l v h o administered the oath?
Mr. PERI,.I did, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.
And what did you use to administer the oath?
Did you use the Bible or crucifix, or anything?
Mr. PERL.There might have been a crucifix in the room in accord-
ance with European procedure.
Senator BALDWIN. YOUsaid before, to the best of your recollection
there was not any crucifix.
Mr. PERL.NO, black cloth, crucifix, and candle.
Senator BALDWIN. B u t there may have been a crucifix?
Mr. PERL.There might have been.
b e n a ~ o r~ ~ A L D W I N ~. u y w a y you
, did administer an oath?
Mr. PERT. Yes, sir.
Senator B A L I ~ INOW, N .
b efore or a t any time during this interroga-
tioll, cuu you llold out to L h ~ l s any t promises of immunity or did you
say, "If you tell the truth you may be used as a witness and not an
accnsed," or anything of that kind?
Mr. P T . ~No. . sir. We wwe strictlv instructed first by Major Fan-
ton and then later on by Colonel Ellis not to promise immunity to
anyone, and I never promised immunity to anyone.
I would like to add to it, that I would have been the last one to whom
such an idea would have occurred, because according to European
624 MALMEDY MASSACRE LNVESTIGATIOW
procedure the idea just does not exist.. One cannot give anyone im-
munity if he testifies in a certain case.
Senator BALDWIN.There has been testimony in the record up to
now that there was an order, an S. 0.P.-
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO. 4.
Senator BALDWIN.NO. 4. Have we got a copy of that here?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.The date of this order-let me ask you this:
Here are the paragraphs that have been referred to. Do you recall
whether or not anything of that kind, or whether or not that par-
ticular order had been issued at that time?
(Documents handed to Mr. Perl.)
Senator MCCARTIIY.I refer you to paragraph (b) especially.
Mr. CHAMBERS. (a) and (b).
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir. As far as I can make it out, this is part of air
instruction given in writing by Major Fanton to all interrogators
and maybe to other personnel, too. Anyhow, I received such an in-
struction.
Senator BALDWIN.Turn one page back, and I notice the date on
that one page back is February 7,1946. Can you explain that situa-
tion ?
Mr. PERL. Sir, obviously as to this, i t seems t o me it was given in
writing to the interrogators, and I am certain that I received one, too,
on the 7th or after the 7th of February 1946.
Senator BALDWIN. I n what form were the instructions, if there were
any instructions before that, because this interrogation occurred on
the 17th of December ? What was the situation then, that is, concern-
ing instructions, do you recall?
Mr. PERL. Sir, I don't recall when I received this order, but I do
know from the beginning on we were under orders not to use threats,
not to use force, and not to promise immunity. I never even promised
anyone that they would be a witness.
Senator BALDWIN.Prior to the time that you started this investi-
gation, interviewing these witnesses, had you talked with Colonel Ellis
or with Major Panton or any other military personnel in connection
with the investigation along the lines of how it would be conducted!
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Tell us what you can about that.
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir. As I said, I do not know when I received
the written order. I did not speak about it to Colonel Ellis before
the 17th of December. I am quite certain that I did not. But I
am certain that I spoke to Major Fanton about it repeatedly before
the actual interrogation started. We had weeks and weeks of prepa-
ration for this iizterrogation, for instance, about Christ, on which the
first attack was centered. And we discussed everything in detail all
day long, and we were under orders.
If this was issued later, they were of the same content as this written
order.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,a t this interrogation of Christ, you have
said Christ was brought in with a hood on his head. Who brought
him i n ?
Mr. PERL. Probably Sergeant Scalise.
Senator BALDWIN.Sergeant Scalise ?
Mr. PERL. Most probably, he was there a t that time, and brought the
prisoners in.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever know of a Sergeant King?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir; tall, good-looking fellow.
Senator BALDWIN.Was there one King or more Kings there?
Mr. PERL. I remember, I know of one only.
Senator BALDWIN.Do you recall whether he was a so-called buck
sergeant or a tech sergeant?
Mr. PERL. That, I do not recall, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,a t this particular interrogation, was Christ
standing up or was he sitting down or what was his situation?
Mr. PERL. He was sitting d o ~ m . I wanted him to feel comfortable
and to get easily into this lying that he had never heard of anything.
I wanted to make i t easy to him to write down he never heard even
a rumor, then by impressing him with the sanctity of the oath, I could
get more out of him.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,SO far as Christ was concerned, was he
kicked or slapped or pushed or anything of that kind?
Was there any physical force used?
Mr. PERL. There r a s no physical force whatever used. Christ took
the stand during the trial. He was one of the 9 of the 73 who took the
stand. H e was on the stand for many hours during the interrogation
and cross-interrogation and redirect. And he never claimed that he
was beaten. Although, a few weeks ago, I read in the papers that his
death sentence had been coinnluted on the possibility that he was mis-
treated. But while he took the stand he did not claim it.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator Hunt, do you have any questions you
want to ask the witness on this point?
Senator H u m . Did Christ have an opportunity on the stand to say
that he was or mas not mistreated? Was the question asked him ; do
you remember 1
Mr. PERL. I was asked prior to Christ's interrogation whether the
statement was obtained voluntarily, whether threats or force were used,
and I said "No." And after this Christ took the stand and did not
deny his interrogation. cross-interrogation, and so on, in the many
hours-he never claimed that this statement which I made in the open
courtroom was incorrect.
Do I understand the witness testified Christ at no time during his
interrogation on the stand claimed he had been mistreated or beaten?
I s that your testimony?
M ~ . P E R LNo,
. sir. He was for many hours-I could not know the
exact time-on the stand-
Senator MCCARTHY. The question is: Did he, while on the stand,
claim to the court he had been beaten and mistreated?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUare certain of that?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUare sure?
Mr. PERL. I read the trial record last night again.
Senator M~CARTHY. Yes.
Senator HUNT. There have been several reviewing boards, one of
which we are, or something, and one of the boards had a Colonel Ray-
mond. On another board was a Judge Van Roden. And in both of

their reports, there is some reference to the fact that they believe pas-
sibly there had been mistreatment of the prisoners. Did you testify
before either of those boards ?
Mr. PERL. Sir, I did not testify a t all before the Van Roden-Simpson
Board. I did not even know that it existed until I read it in the papers
that we had mistreated prisoners and broken the testicles of every
single one, with the exception of two.
I was requested by the United States Army War Crimes Group or
War Crimes Branch in October 1946 to comment in writing on allega-
tions made by Mr. Everett in a written petition. And in this case I
sent an affidavit, but I was never-never had the occasion to talk to any
one member of any board prior to my hearing today.
Senator HUNT.This is the first time you have been interrogated
with reference to what took place there ?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator HUNT.Can you give us any reason that you might know of
why you have not heretofore been interrogated with reference to these
charges ?
Mr. PERL. I do not know of any reason, sir. I heard that the
Simpson-Van Roden Commission stated that they did not have the
time to interrogate the Americans and me, that they had only the
time to interrogate the Germans and bishops there, and the people
who were not actually involved in the case.
Senator HUNT. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that is the keyman
x i t h reference to all of these charges that have been made. And this
case has been reviewed, I think we summarized the other day, 12
limes, and we were the thirteenth board looking it over.
I think it is an unexplainable fact that he has not heretofore been
interrogated when he is the man charged with accomplishing the
crimes, and I want that to be in the record.
Senator BALDWIN.I would like to ask one further question in con-
nection with that.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think out of the 10 interrogators he is one of
the three accused of most of the brutalities.
Senator HUNT.H e is 1of 10.
Senator MCCARTHY. There are three.
Senator BALDWIN.Ellowitz and Birschbaum.
Senator MCCARTHY. I b~lie1-eThon, IEirschbaum, and Perl, plus
Steiner who was there briefly.
Senator BALDWIN. I n connection with any of these reviews by the
Judge Advocate General's Department, have you ever submitted any
affidavit or been requested to submit any?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.You did submit some affidavits?
Mr. PERL. One affidavit to the United States Army.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUnever were personally interviewed by any
of these reviewing boards?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Now, calling your attention-
Senator MCCARTIIP.I might say, Senator Hunt, I agree with you,
i t is unusual to have so inany investigations of brutalities and no
board ever called this man before to cross-examine him, apparently
willing to rely upon his affidavit, and no physical examination of any
of the men who allegedly were injured. I might say 1 agree with
your statement.
Pardon me, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. PERL. May I say something, s i r ?
Mr. PPRL.I definitely do not like to interrupt your line of ques-
tioning now, but I believe that i t would be a t least as important to
see how the Christ interrogation worked, if I would be permitted to
say how i t spread out into all sides from the interrogation of Sturm-
mann Weiss.
Senator BALDWIN.I know you have got this thing in your mind i n
a certain way, but I do want to ask a couple of further questions i n
connection with this thing.
Mr. PERL. Certainly, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.I n an affidavit which was attached to the peti-
tion that was filed by Colonel Everett with the Supreme Court of
the United States, there is an affidavit of Freidrich Christ.
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.And I arn going to read to you what he says i n .
that affidavit in connection with this December 17 interview, and
he says this :
At first Lieutenant Perl threatened me with being tried for perjury, if I were
to stick to my former verbal and written statement. Then, he threatened me with
hanging. The men of the Second Company, First Armored Regiment, would be
hanged just a s well. There would be a military court and a summary cour:.
Lieutenant Perl told me further that he was in possession of a t least 20 state-
ments in writing of men of the Second Company who were accusing me henvily,
and whether it was my intention to see these men hanged only because of myself.
At that time I could no longer think clearly or reconstruct my nlemcjrx. I
requested time for gathering n ~ ythoughts and recollections. This was not
granted to me. On the contrary three other men stormed a t me and shoutc-d
a t me, men whom I do not know, and never saw again later. So that I was no
longer master of my own judgment and could not differentiate betwem ~ 0 ~ 1 1 -
position and truth. I was also told that I was the l a s t one of the officers, th.?t
everyone else had already made the same statements. I n my psychic condition
and confusion, Lieutenant Perl then dictated to me a written statement accord-
ing to his own point of view reg:irding the issuing of orders i n the Blakenheim
Forest. At the end of the interrogation, I asked Lieutenant Perl whether
or not I could face a court and when this could be done. H e only answered
t h a t I would not appear before any court but would soon be sentenced by my
file because there were not sufficient courts available for such insignificant
war criminals a s myself. After this interrogation, which lasted for 4 hours,
I was locked up in solitary confinement until rlpril 7, 1046, without receivirlg
any books or other entertainment. During this time I did not get 1 hour for
physical exercise, nor could I take a bath even once during the 4 nlonths in
prison.
T h a t is his statement concerning this interview that you have de-
scribed here. What do you want to say about that, Dr. P e r l ?
Mr. PERL. Some of the statements which he made are correct, and
only those, and I will explain them now. And I explained them
already.
I f he said I threatened him with sequences of perjury, I did not
threaten him, but I told him that perjury is a very severe crime ac-
cording to American law, to induce him to tell the truth and not t o
commit perjury.
T h e interrogation.lasted, he says, 4 hours. I doubt that very m ~ c l i .
I am almost certain i t could not have lasted more than 2 hours.
628 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATJOS
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, in connection with the wit-

ness' statement that while on the stand he never claimed-
Senator BALDWIN.Would you mind letling me finish this state-
ment here and keep this thing together?
Senator MCCARTHY. I am sorry.
Senator BALDWIN. J u s t for the purpose of an orderly record.
Mr. PERL. It is correct when he states that I told him all the other
officers had confessed. I do not know that I told him all the others,
but I told him many other officers had confessed and possibly I told him
all the officers had confessed. It would have been in the line of inter-
rogation.
It is absolutely incorrect when he states there were three people
shouting or trying to intimidipte or confuse him. I was in the room
and Major Fanton was in the room, and it just does not fit into the
quiet conversation of the whole interrogation. That is absolutely in-
correct. I never threatened him with hanging, nor did I threaten
him with anything else. The fact that he was told that perjury is tt
crime, and the fact that I showed him or told him of other statements
that others had confessed, is twisted around by him.
Besides this, he is not a boy. H e was a seasoned officer, a first lieu-
tenant. And he knows what he is talking about, and you saw from the
contents that he tries to keep his rights. He said, "I only repeated
what I was told. I did not add anything." Then, he said, "I was
certain Peiper knows about this or else I would have spoken to Peiper."
Certainly, I did not dictate these things.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW old a n ~ a nwould you say Christ was?
Mr. PERL.As I see him before me, he was a nlan of maybe 23 or 24
years, 25. But you must know, sir, that those people mature much
earlier than our boys who at 16 and 17 are still playing on the play-
gro~uldsancl living a happy life. They had to fight from their early
youth on.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I think in fairness to the wit-
ness, in view of his statement that Christ on the stand never made
any statement that he was mistreated in any way, I think I should
read what Christ did actually say on the stand, on page 2130-3132.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me pui in the record here, according to his
direct examination from the record, he was born on the 21st day of
February 1920, in Kunich.
Now, go ahead, Senator McCarthy.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. I n view of your statement, Mr. Perl, that this
man never claimed on the stand during the trial that he had been
mistreated, I want to refresh your memory, if I may. I quote from
page 2130-3132 :
I was then told about the accusations against me, that I had given orders
in LaGleize to shoot prisoners of war, that I had given orders in Stoumont to
shoot prisoners of war, ancl that I had been present a t the Cross-roads and had
given orders. I denied that. Thereupon, I was cursed terriblv, and I was tcld
t h a t if I did not tell the truth, I would be hanged in Bruchschal, that nlj ~ n o t h ~ r
would receive a form message about my hanging, and t h a t she would not get any
work, and that, since she would then not get any ration cards, she would then
necessarily starve. I was also told t h a t if I would not t x k , I would he sent t o
Stoumont and be shot there while trying to escape; they told me that I would
regret the hour in which I had not committed suicide, and that m y mother would
regret and curse the hour in w h ~ c hshe g a l e birth to me.
.
I n view of the fact he did so testify, do you want to change your
-testimony in which you said that on the stand he made no claim he
had been mistreated, or do you not consider that mistreatment?
Mr. PERL. Sir, according to the newspaper notice which I read,
T\-hichwas right after the statement that the people were beaten and
Iortnred-
Senator RICCARTHY. May I get you back to the question. You said
you read the record last night?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator RIGCARTHY. YOUsaid while on the stand Christ a t no time
made any claim he had been mistreated. I now have read to you from
t h e record. I ask you, in view of that, do you want to change your
statement that after having read the record, you find that he never
made any claim of mistreatment?
Mr. PERL. I believe, sir, that I spoke of beating here today.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you say he never claimed he
was beaten, but he did claim he was mistreated?
Mr. PERL.He certainly never claimed he was beaten; according to
the newspaper notice, his sentence was commuted because he was
beaten.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Let's get back to the question. You admit now
he did claim on the stand he had been mistreated. There is no doubt
about that, is there?
Mr. PERL. He certainly claimed whatever you read to me now.
Senator &~CARTIII-.So, in your studying of the record last night,
you did find while on the stand he claimed he was mistreated?
Mr. PERL. I n that sense, yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTISP.YOU W O L ~consider CI that mistreatment, or
would j7ou ?
Mr. PERL. Not in the sense I mentioned before, but certainly it is
rather poor treatment if someone would be treated in this way.
Senator BALDWIN. Did POU treat him in that way ?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir, I did not; and I would like to mention in the
statement which the chairman read to me today many of the things
which he mentioned here are not mentioned again. Nothing about
ration card, nothing about being shot trying to escape. I n the mean-
while here he has obviously thought out other things.
Senator BALDTVIN. What was the date of the trial?
Mr. CHAMBERS.
The testimony he quoted from there was on the 25th
of June 1946. The trial started on the 16th of May 1946. The affi-
davit that you read there, I believe, is dated, sir, at the bottom.
Senator BALDWIN. Twenty-second January 1948.
Senator MCCARTHT.Mr. Chairman, I think there is one way in
which this investigation conld be concluded very rapidly to the satis-
faction of everyone. I think that we all agree that the charges and
countercharges of American brutality, the perversion of justice, has
done and is doing us a tremendous amount of damage.
We know that if we continue this investigation along the line we
have been continuing it, that Mr. Per1 will come here and deny any
wrongdoing on his part; Mr. Thon likewise, and Mr. Steiner likewise.
When me get through with this investigation actually we will not have
laid to rest the charges; we will not either thoroughly have proven
or disprove11in the eyes of the people of this country or of Europe these
630 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGAT~ON
charges. When those men hang, there will still be a doubt whether
they were properly tried or not.
There is one way i n which we can, i n my opinion, very, very clearly
and once and for all set t o rest the rumors and prove them true or
untrue. It will take some cooperation on the part of Mr. Perl, a n d
I am inclined to think he will give us that cooper at'ion.
We have back i n my State and a number of States, a practice i n
criminal cases-I hare tried a lot of murder cases in which we used
it-where we give the defendant in a murder case where the evidence
was sketchy, where you did not know whether the man could be prop-
erly convicted or not, you give him the op'tion of submitting himself
to the lie detector run by Mr. Kieler of Western University. I have
had a great deal of experience with those, and all of the judges i n
TViscoi~sinand Illinois and Michigan. They are used extensively i n
a great number of cases, and many criminals felt they could beat
that lie detector.
We, who were judges in these cases, matters involving the licenses
of men, were convinced that no one of those men had ever beaten
the Kieler lie detector.
I f Mr. Perl would submit to that lie detector and be questioned by
Mr. Kieler, if he can come through that and show he is telling the
truth, Mr. Thon likewise, and Mr. Kirschbaum, as f a r as I am con-
cerned, then the claims are all without basis in fact. I f , on the other
hand, those men of the 10 interrogators ~ ~ 1 are 1 0 accused of these bru-
talities, if they are proven to be lying, then I believe we will agree-
in other words, if these claims of brutality and beatings, of ruptured
testicles, of threatening to starve the families, and this sort of thing,
if those are proven to be true, we will all agree, I think, the men did
not get a fair trial and must be retried.
I think that is the only way we can once and for dl close this matter.
Other~vise.me will be havjng hearings here for 2 months. The cost
will be trelnendous and not only in money but i n the time of Senators.
A sizable nuinber of Senators shoulcl be doing other work.
I wonder, Mr. Perl, if you would be willing to submit to the Kieler
lie-detector test. There is no physical punishment involved, no lrick-
ing in the groin, or anything like that. I wonder if yon ~ o u l dbe
willing ?
Mr. PER^,. Should I answer?
Mr. PERL. DO you believe, sir, that the lie detector is a method, as
a lawyer, .pnrely reliable; that the life of people should depend en-
tirely on i t ; that the reputation of the Unit,ed States which is torn
down by this allegation now in all the Communist-controlled coun-
tries, because the United States Army is our representative overseas,
the men whom they see, that the honor and integrity of the United
States Army should depend entirely on this matter?
I f this commission believes i t to be correct, I am ready to submit to
a lie detector. I believe we would make ourselves ridiculous in Europe
and otherwise more than so far. I have no objection against the lie
detector.
I f i t is so reliable, we s h o d d have used i t from the beginning. W h y
a trial at all? Get the guvs, and put the lie detector on them.
"Did yon ];ill this man?" The lie detector says "Yes." Go t o the
scaffold. I f it says, "NO"; back to Bavarja.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVES~IGATION 631
Senator MCCAK~IIY. I have the utmost confidence in them, you see.
I will recall one cslse to give you an idea of the effectiveness.
Any number of judges have absolute confidence in those.
I think you are lying. I do not think you can fool the lie detector.
You may be able to fool us. I have been told you are very, very
smart. I know you are a psychologist and psychiatrist and work a t
it. I have been told I can get nothing from you in cross-examina-
tion, and I think that is true. I am convinced you cannot fool the lie
detector.
I f I may give you an idea, before you are willing to submit: We
had one case in my court, a Mr. Johnson, which is a matter of record.
H e was a defendant where a tavern keeper and his wife were shot with
a shotgun.
Their whole chests were blown out. The evidence was sketcby.
H e came in and appeared very truthful, and made an excellent im-
pression. H e said :
If the sheriff says I am guilty, I am guilty. They found my tracks-he says
"were found outside the window," and if there, I must be guilty, but I do not
remember a t all
H e made a very good impression. We subsequently sent him down
t o the Icieler Institute for the lie-detector test. H e not only confessed
the details of that crime under the lie detector, when shown he was
lying, but he also went back into his past life and found he was guilty
of murder in the Army which they had never cleared up.
T h a t is one example.
As f a r as I am concerned, if we can get something from you, Thon
and Kirschbaum under the lie detector, if you say you are willing
to submit to that, I think, Mr. Cl~airman,that is one way to once and
f o r all set to rest these claims.
I f you think you are smart enough-I am not saying you are lying.
I personally think you are. A lot of men think you are not. I f you
are lying, I know you are not smart enough to beat it. I f you can go
clown and prove under the lie detector that you are not lying, I cer-
tainly will publicly apologize for many of the things I have been
tliinking about you and other men who have been accused of all these
brutalities.
Mr. Chairman, I think this man should be, h e is willing to submit.
Mr. PERL. I repeat, sir. I am willing to submit. I believe we
mould make a laughingstock out of the whole thing for the whole
world. The importance of machines in America is known too much,
maybe, and evaluated even too highly.
I say, again, if the lie detector is so valuable, we should have started
with it, and jf the officers who were on this trial, American officers,
are going under the lie detector, I do not think it will help the case and
I do not think i t will help us, and primarily I do not think it will help
the case. W e have much better evidence than a lie detector. You
have witnesses, many witnesses. Why a lie detector?
Senator MCCARTIIY.Mr. Chairman, I have so much confidence in
the lie detector that if Kirschbaum and Thon and this man can go
through that test, and if their story is the same a s it has been a t the
trial, as f a r as I am concerned that ends the hearing.
ah. PERL. I would like to mention one thing-
Senator BALDWIN. Just a moment, Dr. Perl. Let us review for just
a moment what this investigatjon is for.
When we started i n this investigation we started i n with the idea

of testing the procedures and the policies and the set-up of the court
and the general legalistic surroundings of this thing from the stand-
point of whether or not this trial had been the kind of a trial that was
conducted honestly and fairly, and whether or not if we ever had to
go through this thing again, we would want to recommend some
changes i n procedure.
I t seems to me that many things have developed in that connection.
Now, we have here, in the affidavit or in the petition that is filed
with the Supreme Court, the affidavits of a number of German sol-
diers, SS troopers, who, after sentence, some of them for long terms
and some of them for death, made these statements coilcerlling brutali-
ties that they claimed were practiced upon them.
These are affidavits given under oath. These witnesses have never
apparently testified before any commission or any court. And if the
officials who conducted this trial are going to be charged with mis-
conduct in connection with it, it would seem to me if we went into
that phase of the thing and into the lie-detector phase of it, it would
be quite proper to p u t all of these Germans who have made these
affidavits to their defense counsel under the same procedures.
Senator MCCARTHY.T h a t is an excellent idea.
Senator' BALDWIN. So, finally, we would wind up by having the lie
detector examine everybody i n connection with the case:
Now, i t is very novel and very interesting suggestion. I am not
prepared right now, without some reflection on ~ tto, say as to what
procedure we would follow in connection with it. So f a r as this
hearing is concerned, and this investigation is concerned. as I recall
the testimony of the Secretqy of the Army a t the very outset, I think
he made it very clear to this committee that, after all, the matter was
one i n the charge of the Army, and that while h e might be influenced
by our findings in this particular case, nevertheless he did feel that
it was a military matter, and that under the organization of the court,
and so forth, the decision of the Army roulcl have to be the final one;
that this committee mas not really a court of appeals but was real1y a
court investigating the procedures.
I personally feel if we are going to get anything of valne out of this
investigation we have got to proceed in the normal way of finding
out what did happen as much as we can from those who actually
participated. And then we can decide on the basis of all of that
testimony whether the procedure and policy followecl was the sound
one, and that is what certainly has been the hope of the committee that
would result from this hearing.
This suggestion turns i t into a question of whether or not these three
men who have been claimed by the German troopers to have been
guilty of abusing them, whether or not they are guilty of those liar-
ticular charges.
I t seems to me while that is a very important phase of this thing.
we are dealing here with an even more important one, and that is out
of our experience in connection with wartime trials, what do we de-
velop i n the way of illtentiorla1 law and procedure to deal with claims
of war crimes in the future.
I think this is even a more important thing.
Now, so f a r as the sugestion of subjecting all of these witnesses here
to the lie detector, I am frank to say I do not see where that is going
MALMEDY MASSACRE IINI~ESTIGATION 633
to accomldish n111chof any n l u e from the standpoint of the general
over-all fil~c!inps of this committee. We have already examined how
many witnesses, Colonel ?
Mr. Crr \scums. 1would imagine 18 to SO.
Senator McCamrr~.M r. Chairman, if I may say, that is certainly
an nnus:~alstatelnent on the part of the Chair.
The principal iacts in dispute, the principal facts in dispute are to
what extent these rneli were abused. to what extent they were starved,
to u h a t extent they were mistreated, to what extent other witnesses
Irere offered immunity to testify against them, to what extent
other witnesses were given inducements to lie. T h a t is the whole
case insofar as wliether or not those ~ n e ngot a fair trial, and the factual
situation hinges upon the ~t,ateine~lt of three men, three men that I
think are lying, deliberately lied a t the trial. A great mass of people
think they lied, too.
Now, we have a way of settling the factual situation. We have one
man here n-110 verj7 reluctantly says he will submit t o the lie detector
test, and the chairman of this committee says that i t is unimportant,
that this would not be of any importance. This is the whole meat of
the case, and I might say this, Mr. Chairman, and I say this not just
ofC the cuff-
Senator BALDWIN. May I interrupt you there, right a t that point 'l
Senator ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ R I f TI mxy
I I Yfinish,
. please.
Senatol. BALDWIN.Because you have made a statement there that
is not consistent with what I have said. I know it was inadvertent.
Senator MCCARTHT.1 have said nothing inadvertently.
Senator BALDWIN.I did not say "unimportant." I do say this, how-
ever, very positively, and that is that these men, these American citi-
zens who conducted these investigations, these three whom you have
named, Mr. Perl, and Mr. Ellomitz-
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. IJerl, Mr. Thon, Mr. Kirschbaum, and
Steiner. Four of them. '
Senator BALDWIN.Four of them.
Senator BLCCARTI~Y. Mr. Tho11 is not a n American citizen.
Senator BALDWIX. Those of them that are. Leave the citizenship
out of it. They are individuals, human beings.
And it is not the purpose of this committee to protect anybody. We
have tried to find the facts here, and we will continue to try to find the
facts. But i t does seem to me that if you are going to apply the lie
detector test, that you not only have got to apply it, you have got to
use that jwtly and fairly, too. Here are all these German war prison-
ers, accused of these war crimes, who have made only i n affidavit form
the statements charging serious inisconduct on the p a r t of personnel of
the American Army. Now, if the personnel of the American Army is
going to be subject t o the lie detector tests, it seems to me equally clear
that these men who have made these affidavits ought to be submitted to
the same kind of a test. Because if we are going to have a retrial of
this whole business, it is only fair to give to both sides exactly the
same kind of treatment.
Senator MCCARTIIY. W e are spending all the time trying to find
out whether the claims of brutality are true or untrue. All of the
claims are made a p i n s t three men. We have one of the men before
us. H e very relnctantly says he will-
Mr. PCRL. Not reluctantly.
Senator MCCARTHY.H e says he will submit to the lie detector. The

Chair seems to be afraid of the results of that test.
Senator BALDWIN. T h a t is totally--
Senator MCCARTHY.I am going to finish.
Senator MCCARTEIY.It is fair to say t h d this committee is afraid
of the facts. I f this committee were not afraid of the facts, they
would not refuse to allow these men who I think are deliberately
lying-and a great mass of the American people think they are
lying-to submit themselves to the lie-detector test and once and for
all either prove or disprove these claims.
And I repeat, this confirms what I have suspected all along and
that is : This committee is not concerned with getting the facts. F u r -
ther, this committee is afraid of the facts, and is sitting here solely
f o r the purpose of a whitewash of the Army and that phase of tha
military government i n charge of those trials.
And I think i t is so ridiculous, so unheard of, so inexcusable, for
t h e chairman to say that we will not allow these three key witnesses,
whom many of us think are deliberately lying-
Senator BALDTVIN. Senator, just let me interrupt you right there,
and let us keep this thing on an even, level tone. The chairman has
not said he will not allow this to be done. I think this is a matter
that ought to be considered very carefnlly by our subcon~mittee,and
I think it is a decision of such considerable importance that the whole
committee ought to act upon it. After all, we are only the subcom-
mittee. And let me remind the Senator that he nTasinvited to sit in
these hearings. H e has been given all the docuinents and everything
else the committee has. H e has been permitted to call and cross-
examine any witness that he wanted to call and cross-examine, and
we have been perfectly forthright in every way i n dealing with this
particular thing, and will continue to do so until the end.
The chairman, on the other. occasions, has expressed his confidence
i n the committee. And to be faced a t this stage of the thing with the
charge that we are trying to whitewash anybody in connection with
this thing, when we have not had an opportunity to go-
Senator MC~ARTIIY. I f the Chair is afraid of the results of a lie
detector applied to these three key men in this case, there is onljr one
conclusion 1and the American people can arrive a t : That is this corn-
mittee does not want the facts; this committee is afraid of the facts,
and this committee is sitting here to whitewash those involved.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me say to the Senator from Wisconsin that
very positively the Chair is not afraid of submitting these witnesses
in any way t o this test. The Chair has stated simply that this is a
matter that ought to be taken under consideration by the committee,
and I think the whole Armed Services Committee, because i t is, a t
least, a very marked departure from any procedure we have heretofore
followed.
And the Chair further says that the same tests should be applied,
if they are to be applied, not only to men against whom these charges
are made but also to the men who make the charges; that out of fair-
ness, they ought to be subjected to it, if this method is used, to exactly
the same treatment.
Senator MCCARTI-IY.Mr. Chairman, if these men under a lie detector
show they are telling the truth, as f a r as I am concerned, I d o not
think we need to go any further.
I f the Chair thinks we should go over and examine other men who
made affidavits, well and good. B u t i t is so obvious: Here are the
3 men out of the 10 interrogators who are accused of being brutal
and sadistic. Upon that, the truth or falsity of those charges, the
whole thing stands or falls.
I say, when one mail comes here and says he will submit to the lie-
detector test, then I submit we should subject him to it. I do not
think anyone should worry about it.
I f this m m proves under the lie-detector test he is telling the truth,
as f a r as I am concerlled, I will publicly apologize for many of the
things I have been thinking about him and other interrogators. I f
not, if it is proven that he is lying, and all those claims are true then
those men over there are entitled to a new trial. There is no question
about it.
I do not think, 1\11.. Chairman, this committee should be afraid of
those facts. You say it is a departure. I t is not a departure. Over
1x1 the House, I recall, Alger Hiss was asked whether he would submit
to a lie-detector test. And he did not have the courage to. H e did not
have the courage this young mail has. H e said, "I w011.t.'~
Lnter, i t w:.s p r o ~ e nhe lied to the extent he was since then indicted
by the Federal grand jury.
So, this is nothing new, not a new request, to use the lie detector.
I think, Mr. Chairman, we can save a n infinite amount of time, and
me mill have the facts, and there should be no one, either on the prose-
cution staff or the defense staff on this committee, who should be
afraid of those facts.
Senator HUNT.Mr. Chairman, I think yon are quite right i n your
position that this is a nlatter, of course, that we should discuss with
the full subcommittee, and then we should follow that up with a dis-
cussion with the full committee over this rather unusual, I ~vouldsay,
suggestion.
Very frankly, the junior Senator from Wyoming does not want to
set aside his own judgment for a mechanical machine, especially if
any drug of any Bind, in any way, is connected with the lie-detector
test.
I think it is a matter we should take up with the subcominittee and
then with the full comn~ittee.
Senator BALDWIK. I think the Senator from Wisconsin has made
the suggestion, and most certainly we would do that.
I had hoped ont of these hearings would come some recornmenda-
tions for handling a matter of ,this kind i n the future that would be
helpful. T h a t as our main purpose.
I might, inciclentally, say that another one of our main purposes here
was to2&monstrate to the world that American justice is to be admin-
istered tlioroughly a i d impartially, and if i t has not bcen, 11-e would
like to find that out in every way that is available to us. But I do not
think that it is within the province of the t v o members of the subcorn-
mittee here now to say that we are to decide a t this moment to follow
the suggestion of the Senator from Wisconsin.
I think this is a matter that ought to be brought to the attention,
ough to be discussed fully by the subcommittee, and then a report made
to the whole committee, and let that committee determine what should
be done about it.
My own personal opinion is that mhether or not these tests are car-
ried out, that in the interest of following the full procedure here to
get such information as we can about the conduct of this trial and in-
vestigation and prosecution, it is only fair to give the witnesses who
are concerned with i t an opportunity to appear under oath and testify.
It would seem to me that whether or not the lie detector was used
on these three men or any others, that in the interests of developing
the right kind of procedure for the future-and God grant that we
do not have to use it again-that we ought to go ahead with these
hearings and examine these witnesses.
As I say, the Senator from TlVisconsin has suggested the names of
witnesses. They have all been called. He has had the opportunity to
examine them and cross-examine them a t great length. And he has
made available to him the full facilities of the conlmittee staff and
every document that we have in connection wkh it,.
He has been given the opportunity to make any suggestions con-
cerning the conduct of this investigation that he wants to make, and
this is one of them.
However, the responsibility of this subcommittee is a responsibility
to the full committee, and, incidentally, to the whole Senate, because
there are many questions involved here that go, I think, beyond it,
There is much more to be gained here than the determination of
whether or not these men got a fair trial. None of them have been;
to date, executed, and the Secretary of the Army, when he was here
2 weeks ago, said that in the light of this investigation, they were
going to hold up execution-of sentences on the six who were still under
that sentence.
Senator MCCARTHT.Mr. Chairman, about 2 months ago, my Ex-
penditures Committee, the Special Investigation Snbcommittee, had
brought to its attention many of these claims of brutality on the part
of this man and Thon and Steiner and Kirschbaum. We felt that was
doing a tremendous amount of damage to American prestige over in
Europe.
We are wasting a lot of money trying to sell American democracy
or the Ainerican system of justice when people as a whole are led to
believe we employed tactics much worse than the Russians.
At that time we called the Armed Services Committee-I think this
is important, a i d I want it in the record. TTe called the Armed
Services Committee and asked the ,4rrned Services Committee whether
they were planning on making an investigation. They said "No," they
were not.
We told them in view of the fact we had conducted the investigation
in the Ilse Koch case, we thought we should go ahead and conduct this
investigation.
Our subcon~mitteewas unanimous. Seven ui~aniinouswe should
inake this investigation.
Before doing so, we decided we would contact the Judiciary Coin-
mittee and the Armed Services chairman. We did that. The Srined
Services chairman objected to our proceeding with our investigationb
And certain of the men over in the Pentagon objected also to the
investigation, that the Armed Services Committee had jurisdiction.
While discussing this and discussing the possibility of a resolution
to have a joint investigation by the Judiciary, Armed Services, and
Expenditures Committees, the chairman of the Armed Services Com-
mittee, without notifying the Expenditures Committee, appointed a
subcommittee to investigate this matter.
I thought a t that time, and I still think, that that was very unwise.
I t indicated to me and to many of US that the Armed Services Com-
mittee was afraid.to have an impartial investigation conducted by our
Expenditures Committee, that they wanted to whitewash the Army.
When the Armed Services Committee, contrary to precedent,.
instead of appointing one of the majority, a Democrat, in charge of
this subcommittee, deviated, as far as I know, for the f i s t time during
this session, and appointed a Republican as a chairman of the sub-
committee, I wondered why.
I have unlimited respect for the Senator from Connecticut. I was
very disturbed when I found that the chairman of the subcommittee
mas the law partner of one of the men who \17as in charge of t h e
Malmedy trials.
I felt for his om^ benefit a Senator who is as outstandin as t h e
%
chairman from Coimecticut should not sit as hairm man of t is sub-
committee. I felt he chonld take no part in it.
,111 along I hare hxcl the feeling that the Armed Services Subcom-
mittee was interested in protecting the men charged mith IT-rongdoing ;
that they were not interested in getting the facts.
Today when I find the junior Senator from Wyoming and the Sena-
tor from Connecticut very ob-c-iouslyafraid of the results of a lie-
detector test, I can only conclude that I have confirmed all of the things
that disturbed me greatly all along, and that was that this committee
is not concerned with getting the facts, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, let me say for the benefit of the record
again, that when this question was first raised by the Council for Pre-
vention of War, by Mr. Libby, the Senator from Connecticut laid the
whole matter before the Armed Services Committee and offered then.
and there to withdraw as the chairman.
Senator MCCARTHY. That is what he should have done.
Senator EALDWIN. And the Armed Service Committee discussed:
it and said that they thought the Senator from Connecticut could
proceed with the thing in a perfectly honest and forthright way, and
(he chairman of the committee, the junior Senator from Connecticut,.
went on to do that, and has offered every facility to the Senator from
Wisconsin in connection mith the whole matter.
The Senator from Coni~ecticutat the time Mr. Fanton was on the
stand withdrew and asked one of the other members of the committee
to conduct the questions. And on one afternoon in part of Mr.
Faaton's testimony, when the other two members of the snbcomnit-
tee were busily engaged elsewhere, I asked the Senator from Wis-
consin if he had any objection if I occupied the chair for t l ~ econ-
tinuance of the cross-examination, and he said he had none.
All the junior Senator from Connecticut can say is that he has
tried in every possible way to make this a fair and impartial hearing
and intends to continue t o that md. and h o ~ e sthat as a result of this
investigation we can develop some very helpful knowledge and experi-

ence t o guide our conduct i n the future. And this is an important
matter.
Of course, if we are to depart a t this juncture of the thing from
what are the time-tested methods of dealing with a thing of this kind,
that is a matter that I think requires some very careful study and
very careful consideration a t a higher level than this subcommittee,
nor can they possibly make a final decision on it.
I am surprised a t the Senator's charges as t o the conduct of this
hearing in the light of what he has said before concerning it, and
i n the light of the fact that he has had every opportunity himself
to.go into the thing very, very thoroughly, to have available all of
t h e papers, and the assistance of the staff of the Armed Services
Committee.
And I would submit the record to anyone to examine th6 conduct
of the hearings so f a r to say whether or not the chairman, the junior
Senator from Connecticut, or the other member of the committee,
t h e junior Senator from Wyoming, has in any m-ay tried to s h o any ~
partiality i n any way, shape, or manner.
Senator MCCSRTHY.I m-o~~ld like to ask a favor of the chairman
now, if I may.
This witness. I know, will take at least more than today. I nnder-
stand you have another witness here to put on this afternoon. I
have a very important engagement a t 1o'clock. I n view of the fact
that we cannot finish with this man anyway, I would appreciate i t
rery much if the Chair n-ould put the other witness on and retain
this witness.
I assume you are not having a Bearing on Satwday, but we could
have one Monday.
Senator BALDWIN.May I state for the benefit of the record: Not
only on this occasion, but on many occasions I have tried and have,
I think. acceded to the requests of the Senator from Wisconsin in
every s k g l e way I could Geet his convenience, even a t great incon-
venience to myself and Senator Hunt, the other member of the cam-
mittee, and the staff, and the witnesses.
Under the circumstances, I suppose if the Senator from Wiscon-
sin asks that courtesy, i t is only fair to grant it. But we have got
these witnesses here from a long distance, and I think this thing,
myself, ought to proceed.
I had no knowledge until the Senator from Wisconsin made the
statement today as to what he was going to propose i n any way, shape,
or manner a t this juncture of the proceedings.
Senator MCCARTHY. I might sa.y, Mr. Chairman, one of 'the things
that has made this extremely cl~fficult for me, and extremely un-
pleasant, is that, as the chairman knows, I have a tremendous amount
of admiration and considerable affection for the Senator from Con-
necticut. This is extremely difficult, but I feel I have no choice in
the matter whatsoever. I think this matter is so all-important that
v e must get to the bottom of it.
As I say, I think it was unfair to the Senator from Connecticut to put
llim i n this embarrassing position. T h a t is neither here nor there.
I have appreciated trenlendously the fact that the Chair'has gone to
some personal inconvenience to give me consideration. Last week,
MALRIEDY MASSACRE IKVESTIGATION 639
when I was having my sinus infection treated, the Chair u t off the
hearings for several days, and I appreciate it tremendous y. f
As I say, one of the things that disturbs me very much is that I am
in this position. It is difficult and unpleasant, but I have no choice
whatsoever. No choice, I think, but to go through and attempt to
get all of the facts, m d I think we finally have arrived a t a method
whereby the people of this Nation and the world, if we use this method,
will say, "Now: we know what the facts are."
Either those men have had an unfair trial and should get a new
trial, or they are lying and the investigators acted properly, in which
case we can forget about it.
As I say, and I did not mean to give that long dissertation, but I
do appreciate the personal consideration the Chair has shown me.
Senator HUNT. Mr. Chairman, there is a matter on the floor I am
in charge of, and I am going to have to be excused to take care of it.
Can you come here on Monday, Mr. Perl?
Mr. PERL. If I have to, sir, I will.
Senator BSLDWIN.All right.
How are we set for 10 o'clock on Monday?
Mr. CHAMBERS. We can schedule a meeting for Monday morning
and try to finish up with Mr. Perl. We do have another witness here
from California who is a medical nonc~mmissionedofficer with the
medical detachment at Schwabisch Hall.
Senator MCCARTHT. May I ask the Chair whether he intends t o
decide between now and Monday whether or not he will have this man
submit to a lie-detector test, in view of the fact he has agreed to it.
I realize we cannot force him, but he has agreed. I think it is a
matter of the utmost importance, and I would like to know.
Senator BALDTTIN.I intend to get the subcommittee together and
discuss it with them. and then bring it up with the main committee at
the very first possibility.
Senator MCCARTHY. The chairman would not have any idea when
that first possibility would be?
Senator BALDWIN. No ;I do not know when the next meeting is.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I t is Tuesday.
Senator BALDTVIS. Tuesday morning is the next meeting of the
committee. I
Senator MCCARTHY. Then we will have the decision Tuesday.

Mr. CHAMBERS. SO far as other witnesses are concerned, if it is
necessary to hold Mr. Perl over, of course, we can hold him as long
as necessary. However, the other is earning a living on the west
coast, and I am just wondering if we should schedule him along to-
ward the middle of nest meek, or try to clean u p on Monday, or what
is the Chair's desire on that?
Senator MCCARTHY. I might say, if the comniittee decides to use the
lie-detector test, as far as I am concerned I do not want to examine
him at all. I have so much confidence in the lie detector. I do n o t ,
know of R single 111an who has el-er beaten that lie-detector test. We
h a v e llacl a lot of expelleliw. I am willing to rely upon tliat.
If the committee decides to use tliat, as far as I am concerned I have
nothing further to ask this man. .
I know if he consents to snbmit to it, then Thon and Kirschbaum
will have no choice from their standpoint.
Senator BALDWIN.DO we have a witness for this afternoon, Mr.

Chambers ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes ; Unterseher. '
Senator MCCARTHY. I think Mr. Chambers and Mr. Flanagan have
been discussing that, and that is all right with
Senator BALDWIN.It will appear on the record then that you have
no objection to that?
Senator MCCARTBY.That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock.
(Whereupon, a t 12 : 10 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned, to recon-
vene a t 2 p. m., the same day.)
(The committee reconvened at 2 p. n ~ . )
Senator B ILDWIN. YOUare Mr. Unterseher !
Mr. UNTERSEIIER. Yes, sir.
(The witness, Calvin George Unterseher, was thereupon sworn by
Senator Baldwin.)
TESTIMONY OF CALVIN GEORGE UNTERSEHER, ARLINGTON, CALIF.
Senator BALDWIN.Will YOU give us your full name and address?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Calvin George Unterseher, 4915 Strong Avenue,
Arlington, Calif.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What is your present gccupation?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I am attending college.

the mar were you stationed in Europe or
did ou serve in Europe?
d. UNTERSEHER.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

sir ; I did.
Yes,

you have any connections with the so-called
Malmedy investigations 1
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Can

you tell us what that connection was?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I was one of the medical corps men attached to
the War Crimes Branch.
Mr. CHAMBERS. A t that time were you stationed a t Schwabisch
Hall ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOW long were you there?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. We arrived approximately the 14th of January,
I believe, and we left when the prisoners were moved to Dachau, I
think around the 20th of April.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During that time how many people were in your
medical detachment ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. There were three of us : Sergeant Sykes, myself,
and Captain Richter.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was Captain or Major Karan there while you were
there?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I do not recall, sir.
, Mr. CHAMBERS. H e
was either there before Captain Richter or after
Captain Richter left. Iwas merely trying to tie it in.
Mr. UNTERSEHER. As
a medical officer you mean?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes.

Mr. UNTERSEHER. H e
must have been there before.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What were your duties-what
were the duties of the
medical detachment as you understood them?

Mr. UNTERSEHER. When I arrived at {he prison, Major Fanton was
then presiding, and they had no set-up, no routine worked out as yet,
for taking care of the prisoners. They had one of the detachment
men, one of the medical corps men from the American unit, from the
boys that were guarding, that would go over for any of the prisoners
that requested medical attention, and he would go over and use their
own medical supplies for the work. However, when I arrived with
Major Fanton's permission we went to Stuttgart to the hospital we
had taken over there and got such equipment and supplies as we
thought would be necessary until the medical officer did arrive, and we
set up a routine. Before we arrived the practice had been that if
anyone wanted to see the medical corps man, he would leave his num-
ber with the men who gave their prisoners the records. They in turn
would write the number on a slip of paper and present it to us in the
morning. We usually arrived around 8 o'clock, or shortly after they
finished picking up the breakfast dishes.
Then we would go to the individual cells and find out what their
difficulty was, and try to alleviate it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let me see if I have this picture correctly.
There
were two enlisted and one commissioned personnel there?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. That

is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
you available all the d&yround?
Were
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Yes,

sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SO
that there was somebody on watch all the day
round ?
Mr. UNTERSERER. That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SOyour normal routine was each morning to take
the slips or requests for medical attention after the morning chow
was over, go into the cells and see if you could take care of it?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you handle all types of medical cases?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Yes, sir. Everything that came in the line of
medical attention we took care of, including the dental care.
&Ir.CHAMBERS. Before I get into the question of what kind of cases
you handled: Did you people keep a record of what you did, so that
you knew you treated a prisoner, perhaps, for a headache one time or
for some other purpose?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. We did have a sort of a record that we kept. But
I have forgotten what the officer's name was. One of the officers came
around checking on our work there and I showed him our set-up, the
way we were working the things out. I am not sure whether Captain
Richter turned in these reports that we kept or not, for just such
things as headaches and that sort of thing we did not make any
notation.
However, when something came up that indicated possibly some
greater trouble we kept records of that patient, and watched him, and
if anything developed we would take him to the Army hospital a t
Stuttgart.
Mr. CHAMERS. These records, when you left Schwabisch Hall to
go to Dachau, or when the prisoners left there, do you know what
happened to the records? Were they a permanent medical record
which would still be available, or what happened to them?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I am of the opinion that we gave the records to
Captain Richter. We worked out a sheet by the week I am of the
642 M A L M E D I M A S S A C R E INVESTIGSTIOX
opinion that Captain Richter had them sent it, or whatever they
do with them, I do not know exactly.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then we have established the fact that initially a t
least some record was made ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. And

that we do not know as yet what the final
disposition was ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. When you asked the question a t first I did not
remember exactly, but as I think it over, I remember that we defi-
nitely made out a list, I mean we kept a record of the ones treated,
that it, for something aside from ABC7s, and then a t the end of
the week we took this report and made out a sheet, and that
was given to Captain Richter.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then as I get the picture, you personally, probably
would have a pretty good knowledg! of any medical treatment that
would be given to these prisoners while you were a t Schwabisch Hall ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you, during that time, treat people for in-
juries that might have been received as a result of mistreatment
or harsh treatment on the part of the prosecution staff or the
A A
guards.
Mr. UNTERSEHER. There was no such treatment. No one com-
plained to us, or told us that there were any injuries given, that
they received any injury due to the handling of the interro ators.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You say no one complained to you. I f o not
want to appear to be pressing you too strongly, but we are very
anxious to find out, if we can, whether in fact people did get pushed
around, or slapped, or kneed in the groins, or had teeth knocked
out, or anything of the kind.
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I did not mean by my statement to be am-
biguous.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I want you to answer me definitely on this point:
Were any of your people treated or taken to the dentist to have
teeth replaced, or treated for having teeth knocked out?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO, sir; no such thing.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was anybody ever treated for bruises or aches
and pains that could be tied in to mistreatment?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Not that I know of. I would say "No."
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did the doctor, or did you ever have to treat
a man for injury to his testicles?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did some of these prisoners not require treat-
ment which required them to be taken from Schwabisch Hall?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. That is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Where

did you take them?
Mr. UNTERSEI-IER. I n
such cases I remember two cases, in particular,
one man had a severe abscess of the left lung, which required technical
equipment in order to handle it. We took all such prisoners to Stutt-
gart, to our Army hospital at Stuttgart. Guards were taken along,
and there was a 24-hour guard placed at their doors during such times.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did the Malrnedy prisoners hare access to the dis-
pensary which was kept in the prison for the benefit of the interns? I n
other words, as I understand it, there were two groups of prisoners in
Schwabisch Hall, and there was a medical dispellsary which was run
primarily by Germans.
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

they take the Malinedy prisoners to that group
for treatment on occasion?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. We tried to eliminate that as much as possible.
We took prisoners over there, and there were guards there, to see that
no one conversed with them, aside from our own personnel.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Do you mean the Germans and you, or Sergeant
Sykes ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Sergeant Sykes, myself, Captain Richter, or the
interrogation team. They were not to converse with any of the so-
called political prisoners that were there.
Mr. CHAMBER. Did you have in your work, opportunity to know a
German dentist by the name of Knorr?
"*.
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I just noticed his name in the records awhile
ago. I have been trying to think of that name for weeks. That is
r CHAMBERS. Did he treat the Malinedy prisoners?
Mr. UNTERSEEIER. That

is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS.. For

normal dental caries?

Mr. CHAMBERS. When

they were taken to Dr. Knorr, would you
have known the reason why they were going to him?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Yes, sir; I speak the language, and that is the
reason why I found out what their needs were, along the dental line,
and along the medical line. I think this was one reason I was sent
there.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Are you aware of the fact that Dr. Knorr has placed
an affidavit in the record of one of the many investigations of this case,
stating that he treated a good nnmber of these prisoners for teeth being
knocked out, and in one case for a ruptured jaw?
Mr. UNTERSEEIER. NO,sir; I am not aware of it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I do not believe it is necessary to read it back into
the record. I t is all right to make that statement 8,
Mr. FLANAGAN. The record shows it.
Mr. CHAXEERS. Wodcl you have known if Dr. Knorr had treated
people for those complaints?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. The only condition under which these prisoners
could have had dental treatment by Dr. Knorr was under the condi-
tion that I was personally there and saw to it that there was no
conversation carried on aside from what was necessary for their dental
care. I was there a t all times when any medical attention was given.
I took the prisoners down there myself and returned them to the
cell.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Again perhaps I worded my question impr~perly.
That is not responsive to d l a t T am trying to get. These prisoners,
who went over there, irrespective of what they may or may not have
said to Dr. Rnorr, were any of them being treated for teeth that were
knocked out ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. They

were just normal dental complaints?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Normal

dental complaints.
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOW about the ruptured jaw ? Do you have knowl- .
edge of that?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. The only knowledge I have is an article in Time
magazine. I have never heard of it before. And I do not know how
he-the dentist-would have been able to ascertain that unless he had
taken an X-ray, and there was no equipment for an X-ray there.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe his affidavit said he rigged up a splint
for it. I
Mr. UNTERSEHER. That is definitely not so. Not so long as I was
there, and I was there from January until the trial ended.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During your tour of duty there you had occasion,
then, to see many of these prisoners?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I wonder if yon would care to tell us about their
general appearance, physically, and whether they were properly
clothed, and did they complain about being cold at night, and the
general story of how they were treated as you saw i t ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I might mention, in the beginning, when we
arrived there was a local epidemic which had broken out. I am not
sure exactly what it was. But Sergeant Sykes and I immunized every
one of the prisoners of the Malmedy massacre that were held for the
Malmedy massacre at that time. Roughly 420 men.
At that time we saw every one of the prisoners. That was our first
week there. And generally speaking, aside from those that had
had injuries from their military service, I think they were properly
clothed, they had sufficient clothing to keep warm, and as to the
cells, the cells mere clean, and the cell blocks, the buildings, were always
kept very clean.
The cells, as you know, consisted, of course. of nothing aside from
their bunks, the lavatory, and, of course, their mattress and blankets.
They had no reading material, which you know of. As to the food, I
think my general oplnion is that they had sufficient to eat, in fact, I
am quite sure of that, because had they not have, they would have let
me know. Anybody speaking their language, they are usually plenty
anxious to tell what they figure should get to headquarters.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUdid converse with the prisoners rather freely
and generally ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO. I tried to keep away from i t as much as pos-
sible. I tried to limit my conversation to their needs as such.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO you feel that if they had been mistreated, or
were were not being fed properly, or were not getting adequate water
to drink, that they might have told you about it?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I am sure that they would have.
Mr. 'CHAMBERS. There

are numerous statements in the affidavits
that the only drinking water they had was from the toilets in the cells.
Mr, UNTERSEHER. I do not know about that. Thev were given all
the water they wanted to drink with their meals; I know that for
certain. Between meals I am not sure.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There is one other point on which I wish you
would tax your memory a little bit. You must have associated with
t,he prosecution staff and heard them comment from time to time on
the way they were conducting interrogations and gett?ng confessions,
and so on.
Did you hear any of these people, either laughing, kidding, or joking
about the way they tricked this man, or had gotten a confession out
of some other man?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I might state that we did not live with the other
personnel of the War Crimes Branch. We were in a separate group.
I n fact, when we arrived we just temporarily bunked with the first
sergeant of the company, the Six Hundred and Thirty-third Tank
Destroyers.
So we came in contact with them only, except for Captain Richter,
only occasionally. But aside from that, I was not with the other
members of the p o u p much.
Once in s great while we might have lunch with them or something
of that nature.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During those occasions did you hear-
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Not to my knowledge. I did not want to be in-
truding, so I did not generally enter into their conversations. I kept
more or less to myself-stanley and myself. We both followed that
plan.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you not ever hear any of them comment on the
way they tricked these boys into giving confessions?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Not in that respect. Yes; I heard them speaking
about im ortant individuals, to the effect that they had an important
,if'
man, an that things were shapin up in their favor, and so forth,
W
things of that nature. But I won1 limit my remarks along that line
to that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you know a medical student who worked in the
dispensary that handled the civilian internees by the name of Schnell?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I noticed his name mentioned in the interrogation
of Mr. Kean. I s he the individual who had one arm off, or the hand?
It seems to me that that is the one. One of his hands was off, and
he was awaiting some new device, some artificial hand device. I think
that is the man you have reference to.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever talk to him or have any contact with
him ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Yes. H e was always hanging around in the
dispensary, in the prison dispensary. When I would go over to take
these prisoners over for their dental care: or whenever I visited the
patients that we had there, he was usually around. I f I put it bluntly,
he was a rather nosey individual.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did he have an opportunity to talk to the so-called
Malmedy prisoners ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO, sir; he did not. At least not as long as I'
was around. Not to my knowledge. I am quite sure that that is the
man.
Mr. CHAMBERS. He would have had opportunity, however, to see
the Malmedy prisoners, and see the way the guards treated them, and
so on. I s that correct?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Yes; he would have had that liberty.
Senator BALDWIN.
Was he a German?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Yes. Well, he spoke the German language. I
think he was an Austrian, if I am not mistaken. But it is the same
equivalent.
646 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOW
Mr. C H A I ~ E RHe,
S . in his affidavit, made reference to one of The
patients who had an injury to the upper jaw. Do you have any knowl-
edge of a man who had an injury to the upper jaw?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO, sir ; I have not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did Schnell ever talk to you about the way the
interrogation staff was handling these prisoners?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO. I noticed that he had a habit, however, of
trying to wheedle information. Due to that fact, I tended to put up
a barrier against any of his comments.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I will read you one paragraph from his affidavit,
which I think is complete in itself, in which he says :
The private dentist, Dr. Edward Icnorr, Schwabisch Hall, was consulted for
treatment of numerons jaw injuries. I thereby had the opportunity to examine
the afore-mentioned hoods more closeiy on various occasions. I n five to six
cases, I ascertained beyond any doubt that there were blood clots sticking to
t h e inside, in two cases I found skin fragments, and i n one case a part of a tooth;
and a nauseating smell emerged from these hoods.
Did he work with Dr. Knorr 1
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO; he did not ~ o r with
k him at all. He just
stood around, mainly.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did he have an opportunity to examine these hoods
while Dr. Knorr was working on the prisoners?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. H e could have had. However, the hoods that
were on these various individuals were put on them by me, and I surely
would not have used a hood of that nature.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were there hoods of that nature there?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Not

to my knowledge, there was not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you ever see blood on a hood I!
Mr. UNTERSEEIER. I think

on one occasion there was blood on a hood
from one of the patients who had acquired a nosebleed. That is what
I heard, that he acquired a nosebleed en route to the prison.
Aside from that, that was the only hood that I know of that had
any blood on it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever see hoods that might have had skin
fragments attached to them, or that smelled bad?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let us come back to this nosebleed case. Do you
recall who that prisoner was?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO,sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Who told you i t was a nosebleed?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I do
not remember who it was that I had asked
about it. I just made mention of it casually, and was told one of the
prisoners had had a nosebleed.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I cannot find reference to whether Schnell had only
one arm.
Mr. UNTERSEIIER. I think he was in there. He seemed to think he
was in line for the medical profession.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was he not, in fact, a medical student?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. H e alleged that he was, at least. I would not be
sure.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUwere there at the prison at the time they with-
drew the tank destroyer outfit and substituted Polish guards?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did YOU have an opportunity to observe either our
American guards or the Polish guards handling the prisoners ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Yes; I had that opportunity.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you ever see any evidence of the American
guards mistreating or mishandling prisoners?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO, sir; I did not.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Letting them fall downstairs or shoving them down.

stairs, or something of that kind ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you ever see the Polish guards, or any evidence
of the Polish guards, mistreating or kicking or shoving the prisoners?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I believe that shortly after the Polish guards
arrived they had a tendency to take quite a bit of authority in com-
manding the prisoners about it. But that was very short-lived.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Why was i t short-lived? What steps were taken to
control it ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I do not know whether i t was Colonel Ellis or
who gave the orders not to do anything except just bring them t o
and from the cells. I did not know that, but I know that they changed
their way about treating them.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have no further questions a t the present time.
Mr. F'LANAGAN. SOthat the record will be completely clear on this
point, exactly how many places in Schwabisch Hall were there where
the Malmedy prisoners could receive medical attention?
Mr. UNTERSEIXER. TTTell,at Schwabisch Hall they had a local hos-
pital there. But me never took any of them to that hospital. Prison-
ers were always taken to our Army hospital at Stuttgart, in case they
had to be taken outside of the prison.
Mr. FLANAGAN. How many places at Schwabisch Hall were there
where prisoners could receive any kind of medical treatment, such as
the type that you gave them, for one?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I would not know that.
Mr. FLANAGAN. For one, there was that clinic, or whatever it was,
the dispensary operated by yourself and another sergeant.
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Yes; aside from that, on the prison ground there
was the regular prison dispensary. We used that freely, for anything
we needed it for.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And the prison dispensary was operated by-
Mr. U N ~ R S E H EBy
R . one of the doctors ~ l l was
6
a prisoner.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
By Germans?
Mr. UNTERSEI-IER. By
Germans; yes, sir.
Mr. FLANA~;AN.
I11 the event that one of the Malmedy prisoners
would be taken to the dispensary operated by the Germans, would he
be accompanied by an American guard ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. By either on American gnard or by myself.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
On how many occn'sions did you take Malmedy pris-
oners to the German dispensary at Schwabisch Hall ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. The thing is this: We kept prisoners over there.
They had reg~llarward cells in the dispensary, and if a prisoner
needed treatment, such as hot-water bottles or something of that na-
ture, me kept them over there, and we went over to the German dis-
pensary and treated them there. I t as just 1-are17that the German
doctor had anything to do with these men.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n what cases would the German doctor take care
of the treatment of these men ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I am not .sure, but I would say maybe twice that
some emergency arose.
One of these occasions was when one man had hanged himself. They
called him because he was the closest man to the cell block. I do not
remember of any other occasions when he was called.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Some Malmedy prisoners were taken to the German
dispensary by guards other than yourself ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO;I would say no to that question.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Did you take every prisoner over or did you not?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Any prisoner that needed medical attention I took
over there, either Stanley Sykes or myself.
Mr. FLANAGAN. A little while ago you said either you took them or
one of the guards took them. Now, you say either you took them or
Sykes took them.
/
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I am sorry. I meant for dental attention.

Mr. FLANAGAN. I am not talking about dental attention.
I am talk-
ing about any kind of medical attention.
Mr. UNTERSEBER. Any

of the medical personnel, Sergeant Sykes,
Captail1 Riohter, or myself. I don't believe Captain Richter ever did.
Mr. FLANAGAN. MTouldit be fair to say that when a Malmedy pris-
oner was taken to the German dispensary that he was accompanied
either by yourself, Sergeant Sykes, or Richter?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Were there ever any occasioils when Malmedy
prisoners were taken to the German dispensary merely by one or two
of the guards?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Not that I recall.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Where was Dr. Knorr's office, where you treated
these patients in the prison?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I n the German dispensary.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I suppose the same procedure was followed when
patients were taken t o Dr. Knorr?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Yes ;that is right.
Mr. FLANAGAN. That either you or Sykes o r - ~ i c h t ewould
r accom-
pany the prisoner ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Right.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
DOI understand it rightly now, that the more seri-
ous cases would be taken to the American hospital a t Stuttgart ?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Who would take the prisoners from Schwabisch
Hall to Stuttgart?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Either Sergeant Sykes or myself, and Captain
Richter.
Mr. FLANAQAN. DOyou recall how many prisoners you took there?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I am not sure. We took some and had to return
them. There were numerous trips. However, I think there were four.
Mr. FLANAGAN. About four that you know of 2
Mr. UNTERSEHER.
and I am quite sure.
Four,
Mr. FLANAGAN.
What was the name of that hospital?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I was trying to think of it all the way along, and
I cannot remember what the name of it was.
Mr. FLANAOAN. Was Dr. Knorr a t the Schwabisch Hall before you
got there ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. He was treating political prisoners prior to the
- -
time that I arrived ;yes.

Mr. FLANAGAN. Was he treating any Malmedy prisoners a t all
before you got there?
Mr. FLANAGAN. HOW do
you know that?
Mr. UNTERSEHER.
Because I personally received permission from
Colonel Ellis to have them receive this dental attention.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Prior to your boming to the Schwabisch Hall, where
did these prisoners get their dental attention that they might need?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. That I do not know, sir.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Did you ever inquire as to whether they had been
receiving any dental attention up to that time?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO. When several of them complained about
having teeth that were giving them trouble I went and asked the colo-
nel concerning what should be done with them. And I knew, of
course, of this dentist that was coming in, and I got his permission
to take them down there, providing I was there.
Mr. FLANAGAN. What dentist? I did not get that. You knew
about what dentist coming in where ?
Mr. UNTERSEITER. About Dr. ICnorr conling in to the prison.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Did you not say that Ilnorr was there before you
got there?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Yes, sir, he was. I believe he was treating-had
been treating those prisoners right along, but political prisoners, not
Malmedy prisoners.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUheard he had been?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I knew he was treating political prisoners, and
therefore asked perniission to take our prisoners there, too. The
only other place we had to take our prisoners would have been to
the dental clinic at Backnang, and on one occasion m-e took a man
there to have his plate repaired.
Mr. FLANAGAN. You mentioned here that apparently some of the
Polish guards mere possibly mistreating the prisoners or at least get-
ting out of line with them, and for that reason some action was taken
agamst the Polish guards to prevent them from doing that in the
future. I s that correct ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Do you want nle to h u g e on that?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Yes.
Mr. UNTERSEHER. They

were rather rough in giving their orders,
and so forth. That any prisoners were injured by them, I do not know
of anything like that.
Mr. FLANAGAN. 0
11 what occasion would a Polish guard have to give
an order, or direct prisoners?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Just taking them from one place to another, among
the cells.
Mr. FLANAGAN. What do you mean, taking them from one place to
another? From where to where?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Maybe I am getting mixed up. I f I 1 ~ 1 e m b e r
correctly, I beliex-e that t h q took some of the prisoners over to the
c,-ll block for interrogation. I am not sure about that.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other words, you believe that Polish guards

took prisoners from the regular living cells to the interrogation center?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Yes. I believe so. I an1 not certain of that state-
ment.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you ever see any Polish guards acconlpanying
prisoners ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I think that I have. I t sounds peculiar that a
person would not know a thingJilce that, but just walking around,
being there, we never thought we would have to give an account of
these things.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did you ever recall seeing,aay Polish guards any-
where among the Malmedy prisoners, walking along with the Malmedy
prisoners, alone?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I would hate 'to say "Yes," absolutely "Yes" or
"NO," because I am not certain any more now, when a question is
put "Yes" or "No," whether they did or not.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Of course, the question arises immediately, how
could they mistreat the men if they were not takillg them from place
to place?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I n the cell block, for instance, they would go
along and look into the little peepholes, and if the prisoners were
not all standing or doing what they wanted them to do, they would
pound on the doors; things of that nature.
Mr. F'LANAGAN. YOUthink you have seen Polish guards escorting
prisoners around, but you are not too sure of i t ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I am of the opinion that they did.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUare of the opinion that they did?
Mr. UNTERSEHER.
Yes, sir.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
And on those occasions they mould not have any
American guards with them, just the Polish guards ?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did ~ O L Zever hear of these mock trials that mere
being carried on over there?
That was news to me.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
YOUnever heard of that before?
Mr. UNTERSEHER.
heard of it.
Never
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Did you hear of any rumors, I mean any rumors
that prisoners were being mistreated, or that duress was being used
upon them, in connection with this inquiry?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO, sir. I would make this comment on that: I
should say that the interrogation was being conducted in such a way
that they mere crossing themselves up by giving one another away.
That would be the extent of my comment on that.
Mr. FLANAGAN. And that is all you heard?
That is the extent of my knowledge.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
YOUnever heard that they were being subjected
to any physical or other types of duress?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO,sir; I did not.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
I have no other questions.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have just one or two questions that occurred to
me when Mr. Flanaaan started questioning.
This business of Polish guards, did they not replace the American
guards?
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOI\~ 651
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n other words, Polish guards and American guards
were not present a t the same time, with the possible exception of some
of the senior noncommissioned officers and some of the officers who were
retained a t Schwabisch Hall after the Polish guards arrived. I s
that correct?
Mr. UNTERSEIIER. That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. So i't would have been inlpossible for Polish guards
and American guards to have been there together?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I believe we paralleled for a short time, until we
got the hang of the situation as to how they were to proceed.
Mr. FLANAGAN. JIay I ask a question?
Jfr. CIIANBERS.Surely.
Mr. FL~~NAGAX. I f that is the case, thee1 there must have been a
time, if the prisoners were taken from the regular cells to the interro-
gation block, they would have to be taken by Polish guards.
Mr. UNTERSEHER. That is true. You could deduct it that way.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The question is did you see them. You were not cer-
tain in your own mind ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I am not certain any more. I do not remember
accurately, for an accurate statement.
Mr. CHAIMBERS. I think it would be fair to say, however, that you
probably, in the course of pour duties, saw prisoners being moved after
the Polish guards took over.
Mr. UNTERSEHER. T h a t is right.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. Did you see any of those guards roughly handle, or
mistreat, or shout at, o r otherwise mishandle the prisoners?
Mr. UNTERSEFIER. Only to the extent that they hollered a t the pris-
oners, there was no other mistreatment that I know of.
Mr. CHANBERS.A while ago you mentioned that you got permission
from Colonel Ellis to have the dental matters treated by Dr. Knorr.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was that Colonel Ellis or Major Fanton?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I believe i t was Colonel Ellis. I am not certain,
but we did not take them over for dental care immediately after we
got there. We did not start that nntil some time later. I am of the
opinion that Colonel Ellis was there already, a t that time.
Mr. CHAMBERS. One other question, to help clear up a point that
I am not straight on in my own mind, and that is : Where was Colonel
Peiper quartered? From time to time there was some indication that
he was kept in a hospital, or something, or a room in tlie hospital.
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I will be glad tb give you that information. H e
was kept in the dispensary cell block, in these ward cells that I men-
tioned before, into which we took the prisoners-I mean the patients,
on occasion, in tlie prison.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was he receiving medical care or treatment?
Mr. UNTERSEEIER. NO, he was not. It was just a nicer cell then
the other. I believe he had a typewriter-I think he had access to a
typewriter-and a desk in there. and other liberties that the regular
run did not have.
Then, after this individual hanged himself, the prisoners that were
considered important to the case were put on one level, one floor, and
652 MALMEDY MASSACRE IWESTIGATION
guards kept a closer check on those, so that a thing of that nature

should not happen again.
That was when he was moved to the regular cell block.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsty that Colonel Piper was in the dispensary
ward cell block?
Mr. CHAMBERS. That he was allowed to have' a desk. Did he have
swding material?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I never had^occasionto enter his cell. H e usually
sat with his back to the door, and though I looked in on occasion, that
is all I ever did see of him, was his back.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did YOU see a typewriter in there?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I am rather sure-I am quite sure-that he had
access to a typewriter. I kno3 he had writing material.
I did not see the typewriter myself, but that is from information
that I got from somebody else, that said that he had access to a
typewriter.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I do not presume you are in position-you are noL
the proper person to be asked this question-did you ever conjecture
in your own mind why Colonel Piper had a better room than the rest
and there were a t least two generals in the other group that appar-
ently were kept with the ordinary run of prisoners?
&Ir.I T ~ ~ ~I was ~ snot ~aware
~ -that~ there
~ ~ were
. other generals
there, except for General Dietrich.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you have any?
Mr. FLANAGAN. No, sir.
Mr. UNTERSEHER.
Shall I go on with that statement or drop it?
Senator BALDWIN. DO you have anything further to say?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I was going to say, the reason they gave him
preference %as because he was considered a high-ranking officer. I
knew of only one other officer, who was a major. I do not remember
his name. He was kept in the other cell block.
But as to the generals, I did not know that.
Mr. HATCHER.
Where did you learn to speak German ?
Mr. UNTERSEIIER. My
parents are of German origin.
Mr. HATCHER. YOUwere born in this country?
Mr. UNTERSEEER.
Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. *YOUsay YOU are a student now 2
Mr. UNTERSEHER.
Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.I n what college?
Mr. UNTERSEHER.
La Sierra College.
Senator BALDWIN.
What are you studying-medicine?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. No, sir. I am majoring inGerman, and minoring
in English and woodworking.
Senator BALDWIN.When did you go in the Army?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. November 13, 1943.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW old were you a t that time?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Nineteen-wait a minute. Eighteen.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you then go overseas ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER.
I spent my time in basic training, then had 3
months of technician's training a t F'itzsimons General Hospital, ofter
which I was sent overseas.
Senator BALDWIN.On what front did you serve?
M A L ~ I E D Y MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 653
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I was with the One Hundred and Eighty-ninth
General Hospital. We were at first in Lison, Prance, and then moved
later near Rheims, Mourmelon, Le Grande, and from there I was sent
to Germany.
Senator BALDWIN.Was there any other medical service, other than
what you described here, the American medical service, provided for
the Malqedy war prisoners 8
' Mr. U-LQBR. .No, sir. That was the extent of it.
Senator BALDWIN.Was it possible for a prisoner to make com-
plaint at any time concerning his medical condition?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. That jls right.
Senator BALDWIN. And you have described the procedure for doing
i t here ?
- Mr.- UNTERSEHER. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Were there any times in the middle of the night
when a prisoner asked for medical attention, that you recall?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I believe there were just two occasions, I believe,
when the guard came over and got us.
One of these occasions was when this man hanged himself. We
were summoned then, and also Captain Richter.
Of course, several of these individuals had to have heat treatments,
hot-water bottles, and that sort of thing. We would check on them
routinely during the day, and until 9 o'clock a t night.
Senator BALDWIN.What would they have to have the heat treat-
ments for?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. For swelling, or something of that nature. A
number of them had sores, old wounds, that had never healed prop-
erly, possibly due to some bone infection, and occasionally they would
become inflamed and we had to give them treatment for that sort of
thing.
Senator BALDWTN. During the time that you were there, did you ever
render any emergency treatment to any prisoner for an injury of
any kind? I mean were you ever called to treat a particular injury?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO, sir; we were not.
Senator BALDWIN. Were you ever called to treat any case of loss
of consciousness, or anything of that kind?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. NO,sir; not while we were there.
Senator BALDWIN.What, mostly, was the nature of the medical
care that you gave while you were there?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. It generally consiste/d of primarily indigestion
or something of that kind, diarrhea, headaches; that was the main
thing. Once in a while we would have someone with a skin irrita-
tion or something, and we would give them a salve for it-just com-
. mon ailments along that line, except for a few of the cases that I have
mentioned already, the one being the man with the abscessed lung,
and such.
Senator BALDWIN.Do you know of any time that any prisoner, any
of these Malmedy prisoners, was injured in a way that required, or
in a way that asked for, medical attention, that was injured by any
of the guards, whoever it might be?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I can make a flat statement concerning the whole
thing in that respect: Never, at any one time, were we summoned to
treat a prisoner that had been mistreated in any way for any injury
at all. Never gave any such treatment at all.
Senator BALDWIN.You mentioned this bloody nose. Do you know

anythin about that?
d
Mr. NTERSEHER. That was the extent of my knowledge about that.
Just the fact that he had received a bloody nose, that he had a bloody
nose. Whether it was spontaneous or otherwise I do not know.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you treat him for i t ?
Nr. UNTERSEHER. NO.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUjust account for that as to how the blood
was on one of the hoods?
Senator BALDWIN. Do you have any further questions?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Mr. Chmbers ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would like to ask a question concerning bread-
and-water punishment. Generally speaking, when a man is on bread.
and water, on military punishment, the doctor is supposed to keep a
sharp eye on him.
Did you have occasion to keep an eye on Malmedy prisoners when
they were on bread and water ?
Mr. UNTERSEHER. I did not know that any of them were put on
bread and water.
Senator BALDWIN.Thank you very much, Ur. Unterseher, for com-
ing and helping us with your testimony.
Mr. UNTERSEIIER. I do not k n o r that i t has been of any help, but I
hope it has been.
Senator BALDWIN.It has been of great help to this record.
Mr. UNTERSEHER. Thank you.
Senator BALDWIN.The committee will go into executive session.
The hearings are closed for the day. ,
We will reconvene at 10 o'clock Monday morning.
(Whereupon at 3 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at
10 a. m., Monday, May 16,1949.)
MONDAY, MBY 16, 1949
SUBCOMMITTEE OF 'TFTE COMMITTEE O N ARMED SERVICES,
Washington, D. 0.
The subcommitt,ee met, pursuant t,o adjournment, a t 10 a. m., in
presiding.
Also present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy ; J. M. Chambers, of
the committee staff; Howell J. Hatcher and Francis Flannagen, of
the staff of the Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on
Expenditnres i n Executive Departments; Colonel Murphy, Colonel
Ellis, Colonel Raymond. and Lieutenant Colonel Dminell.
Senator BALDWIN.The committee will be i n order.
Senator H u n t has been called away and will not be here today. I
tried to reach Senator Kefauver, and he has been called to Tennessee.
I had hoped that over the week end we could have a meeting of
the subcommittee to consider this question of the use of the lie de-
tector, but it has been impossible to get the committee together. I had
hoped that me could come to a decision on that questio-1 before a meet-
ing of the Armed Services Committee tomorrow. I did discuss the
matter of the lie detector wit11 others, and i t was felt that it mas not
a matter that we could recommend to the fall committee because, in
our judgment, any number of ~ i t n e s s e shave been before the sub-
committee and if any one witness were submitted to that test i t would
be only fair that they all be submitted to the test. However, we will
submit the matter to the Armed Services Committee tomorrow after-
noon at 2 o'clock in executive session. The matter will, of course, be
submitted to the full committee for their decision, a t which repre-
sentatives of State and the Army will be present, and which meeting
has been called a t the request of Senator McCarthy, and I hope that
h e will be with us then.
Do you have a letter from Mr. Larrj;, Senator McCarthy?
Senator MCCARTIXY. I don't know, Sellator; I have a great inass of
letters here. I s he the lieutenant from Caracas, Brazil?
Senator MCCAR~I-IY. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.
DO you have any objection to my submitting his
letter f o r the record, a copy of which I have received and which was
originally addressed to you?
Senator MCCARTHY.I have 110 objection. I have examined the let-
ter and have found certain portions of it are not accurate, and for that
655
reason, I do not think we can place any weight upon the letter as a
whole.
For example, I may not have----
Senator BALDWIN.Wouldn't it be moper to submit the letter, and
L A
then you can offer such comment as you may desire as to the awnracy
of the letter?
Senator MCCARTHY. I simply want to call that to the committee's
attention, and then if you desire to submit it, that is all right.
Senator BALDWIN.Very well. And then yon can make such refer-
ences to i t as you desire.
Senator BALDWIN.I feel that, since this is a letter that comes from
a man who is one of the few survivors of the Malmedy massacre, it is
important, and a letter from a witness important as that properly
should be a part of the record. Then, it may be proper to make such
corrections orally as may be proper, as to the content of the letter.
Senator MCCARTHY.I will withhold any further statements until
after the reading of the letter.
Senator BALDWIN.This letter is addressed to the Honorable Joseph
R. McCarthy, care of the Armed Services Committee, Washington,
D. c.
( A t this point, the letter from Virgil P. Lary was read and is as
follows :)
TEXASPETROLEUM CO.,
Caracas, Vmezftela,May 10, 1949.
Hon. Senator JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY,
Care of Armed Services Committee,
Washington, D. C.
DEARSENATOR MCCARTHY:This will be my second letter within the last 2 weeks
to a member of the committee investigating the trial of the prisoners of war
respgnsible for the Malmedy massacre.
I t has come to my attention that there a r e certain statements being made that
a r e completely untrue and unjust. These statements, if not corrected, will leave
the impression with the committee that they are true, and thus influence your
decision. I refer to the charges by Colonel Everett, of Atlanta, Ga., and the
charges of Judge Van Roden.
May I have this opportunity to say that Colonel Everett has made charges
t h a t a r e absolutely untrue. I feel t h a t if you use every meaus to obtain the
truth you mill find that what I say here is correct. Colonel Everett has charged
that torture was used to obtain confessions, torture of varied means. These
statements a r e without foundation other than the hearsay from SS prisoners
after they had been sentenced. I have often wondered why Colonel Everett
waited until the trial was over, and the entire court had gone home, to make
his charges.
With your permission I will now say that I am the only officer to survive the
massacre a t Malnlecly in December 1944. I returned with five other men to tes-
tify in the trials in 1946, therefore what I am ahout to say I say with the same
oath that I took when I was commissioned in the United States Army.
Upon our return to Germany I was invited by Col. Bert F. Ellis to observe
the conditions a t the prison where the SS prisoners were retained. I took this
opportunity to see for myself the conditions a t the prison and found the follow-
ing: There were two prisoners to a cell, each had a bed and sufficient covers,
each cell had toilet facilities, each prisoner was given a razor blade with which to
share every morning and t h food ~ was superior to any that our troops received
in combat. I personally observed a number of interrogations and saw only the
most proper methods used. I heard Col. Bert Ellis warn his war crime teams
that he would not tolerate any type of physical violence to the prisoners. I
was a guest of war crime team for 1 month and many times went to the prison
Lo see the methods used. At no time did I observe any violence used on a pris-
oner, no prisoner showed signs of violence to his person before or during the
trial.
I talkecl with German Colonel Peiper, who was responsible for the final order
to his men, a n d h e told me t h a t he had signed a fnll confession of the deed and
t h a t he alone was responsible f o r the order. H e informed me t h a t Colonel Ellis
was to be commended for his treatment of himself and his men. This German
,officer spoke perfect English.
During my visit to the prison Colonel Everett arrived i n Wiesbaden a n d was
invited to view the prison by Colonel Ellis. This he refused to do and for this
and the reasons I have brought out here, I feel t h a t you a r e not being informed
of the complete truth.
-4s to Judge Van Hoden, unless he was the lieutenant colonel in charge of t h e
engineers a t Malmedy, his statement can also be questioned. As I am the only
lieutenant to survive and get t o Malmedy I am the only officer t h a t could have
possibly made any statement. When I got to Malmedy I informed t h e lieuten-
a n t colonel there t h a t we had been machine-gunned and had also been left for
dead. Those of us who were still alive, after t h e murders took place, jumpet!
up and made a break for it. From this the judge may have formed his improper
impression.
I was asked to testify in the trial and was happy to do so in 1946. At t h a t
time I spent 3 months in Germany. I would be happy again to give t h e com-
plete truth to the committee but would not be able to spend more than 1 week
away from my position with the Texas Co. This would mean t h a t a i r transpor-
tation would have to be prorided from Caracas t o Washington.
I have taken the liberty of forwarding a copy of this letter t o Lt. Col. Bert F.
Eilis and Senator Baldwin.
Most respectfully yours,
VIRGILP. LARY,Jr., 04181338,
F i m t Lieutenant, Field Al-tille~y,A m y of the United States (Retired).
Senator BALDWIN. I might say that I have written to Lieutenant
Lary as follows :
(At this point the reply to Lt. Virgil P. Lary by Senator Baldwin
was read and is as follows :)
MAY14, 1949.
b t Lt. VIRGILP. LARY,Jr., 01181338, I?. A. AUS (Ret.),
% Texas Petroleum Co., Apartado No. 267,
Carams, Venezuela, S. A.
MY DEABLIEUTENANT : The copy of the letter which you have written t o Sena-
tor McCarthy and forwarded to me has been received.
We have been making a n extensive investigation of t h e methods and procedures
used in questioning the Malmedy SS prisoners and the procedures and policies fol-
lowed in t h e prosecution of these German troops for the Malmedy a n d othler
shootings.
I am sure that the committee would be very glad to have you appear a s a
witness. I a m placing the matter i n the hands of Colonel Chambers, Marine
Corps, retired, who is the staff member of t h e Armed Services Committee who
h a s this matter in charge. You will probably hear directly from him. I am
sure t h a t transportation can be arranged for you.
Thank you for your offer of service.
Yours very sincerely,
RAYMOND E. BALDWIN,
United States Senate.
Senator BALDWIN. I might say we ought to make every possible
effort to get this man here, because he makes s6me statements which I
think should properly be before the committee and he should be prop-
erly subject to cross-examination.
However, from the statements he makes in his letter here I think
he possibly might have some very important information which should
be on record here, and we should make every effort to get him here
before us.
Senator MCCARTHY. In view of the statement which Senator Bald-
win put in the record that I should point out any patent falsehoods
in the letter, or mistakes which appear therein, I should say that if this
658 MALMEDY MASSACRE INT-ESTIGATIOP:
young man were present at the Malmedy massacre, as he states, he

would be a very competent witness to the fact of what occurred there.
But, as I said before, I do not think anyone questions the fact that
there were a number of German soldiers who committed crimes and
who certainly should be punished for them.
However, we are here investigating whether or not the Americans,
principally the interrogation staff, were guilty of improprieties.
Now, this young man says :
What I am about to say I say with the same oath t h a t I took when I entered
t h e United States Army.
H e later says he wants us to have the complete truth.
I will read a complete statement, which has been contradicted by
every witness who has appeared before us here, that shows that either
he does not know what he is talking about or that it is a deliberate
falsehood ;one or the other. H e says :
There were two prisoners to every cell. Each had a bed and sufficient cover.
Now, it is unquestioned that there were some 50 prisoners in soli-
tary at dl times. So, he is wrong there, and further he says that
Colonel Everett didn't bring the claims of torture in getting the
confessions to the attention of anyone until after the judges, long
after the judges, had gone home. That is untrue, as the Army ordered
that investigation and i t had been started prior to the commencement
of the trial. So, while this man might be competent to testify as to
what occurred at the Malmedy trials-
Senator BALDWIN.May I say, Senator-
Senator MCCARTHY. H e is not competent to testify whether or not
Mr. Perl conducted himself properly, and he knows nothing about
whether or not these other three men conducted themselves properly,
that were guilty of the methods of tortnre, as has been claimed, if
they are; otherwise, I have no objection to his coming here, so we can
find out whether he will make the statement, "I am making this
statement under the same oath," and so forth.
Senator BALDWIN. H e wrote the letter to you; he did not write it
t o me.
Senator RICCARTHY. I want to know where he says he is writing it
under oath and then makes a statement that has been contradicted by
every witness here. That shows that he apparently does not know
what is going on at all.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, we can call him, and me can better judge
after we have heard his testimony, as to how competent he is as a
witness.
I think we are ready now for Lieutenant Perl to resume his testi-
mony.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM R. PERL-Resumed
. Mr. CHAMBERS. Lieutenant Perl scas in the process of givinz us
the way this case was built up. H e was anxious to tell a complete
story without going into other developments before his testimony
along this line has been completed. H e would like to give his com-
plete story before taking up cross-examination.
Senator BALDWIN. ISthat satisfactory to you?
Senator BALDWIN. GOahead, Lieutenant Perl.
Mr. ~ R L Thank
. you, Senator.
As I explained the last time, in getting a statement from Christ, i n
1~11ichhe confirmed that he was ordered not to take ~risoners,and
how we succeeded, which is more important, by using a trick, to get
infor~nationthat a man, who was Private Weiss, told us that he had
been present at other shootings.
I f the committee recalls. the trick consisted of the fact that I told
him that we had a mike in his room and could therefore hear every
conversation which he had with his cell mate, a fact which was not
true.
The next step was that we got Private MTeis, and he proved t o
have, really, most valuable information. H e told us, after we had
told him that Christ had told us about this conversation and that we
had a mike in the room-he told ns that he knew of not less than three
shootings. none of them i n ~ o l r e din the main massacre at the cross-
roads, and here, for the first time, we learned that what is now called
the Malmedy massacre was not the shooting of one bunch or 80 or 100
or 120 American prisoners of war but it consisted of perpetual shoot-
i n g i~n the whole campaign, 5 on this corner, 3 a few days later, perhaps
20 at another place, and 20 at still another, and so on.
H e told us of the following occurrences :
No. 1. A man by the name of Wichinann-
Senator BALDWIN. Let me ask you there : Who told you that?
Mr. PERL. Weis, the cell mate of Christ, of whom Christ had told
ns, "Yes; if you had a mike, I'll tell you." And he told us in the cell,
his roommate Weis, that he was present a t the shootings.
Now, Weis denied from the beginning that he committed any shoot-
jngs himself, and we did not succeed m involving him in any kind
of shootings, but he told as of the following three individual shootings ;
No. 1, that a certain man called Wichmann, who was the supply
sergeant in our company, which was the Headquarters Company of
the First SS Panzer Regiment. came at a place called Petit Theirs in
the first days of January to where our unit was stationed, and he
borrowed a pistol and said he was going to shoot a prisoner of war,
and then he came back and returned the pistol.
That was one case. He told us that he had shot a prisoner of war
on orders of Colond Peiper, because this prisoner was too weak and
too exhausted to give any valuable information. He gave details of
the shooting as committed by this Wichmann.
The second shooting of which we knew was at the crossroads. Weis
claimed, and we didn't believe him at first but it was true, that his
half track had passed the spot of the shooting after the main shooting
at the crossroads had betn over. He told us, and we, by corrobora-
tive evidence, found it to be true, that he arrived with his men, and
most of the men were alreadv dead-
Senator h f c c . 4 ~ Are
~ ~ ~i o.u speaking now of what mTeistold you?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTEII-. What was his first name ?
Mr. PERL. I beliere Jacob.
Senator MCCARTHT.\?'as he the man finally convicted?
Mr. PERL. No, sir; he was not a defendant. We never succeeded
in involving him.
Senator I\ICCSRTIXT.I thought you said that he confessed to the
shootings.
Mr. PERL. NO, sir; you must have misunderstood. He told us that
he knew of three shootings, but he was not involved in any of them.
Mr. CHAMBERS. He didn't say in his original testimony that Weis
had confessed to any shootings, but that he told of witnesses the
shooting of three.
Mr. PERL.. The shootings of which he knew, a t the cross roads. H e
told that his SPW, his half-track, according to the American termi-
nology, had come to the cross roads shortly after the shootings, and
that 1s when they passed by.
One of the men in his unit went into the field to look around at what
was going on, and he saw another man whom he did not Irnow but
whom he described in detail, going into the field with other Germans.
Other Germans at that time were in the field shooting those pris-
oners who might still be alive, who were still moving, and he saw
another man in the field kicking, another German kicking, an Ameri-
can who had played dead. The American moved and got to his feet,
and then this German ordered this American to take off his field jacket,
take off his boots, and I believe his pants, too. Then he took his field
jacket, his boots, and I believe his pants, and shot him, and returned,
laughed to his comrades.
This Weis described the kind of tank. It was a Mark I V tank, and
we know there was only one Mark I V company. and after a short time
we located and found out which tank it was and soon we had three or
four witnesses who, by the may, were prodncecl at the trial and tes-
tified in the trial, German witnesses who knew this man and who had
recognized him. It was Sergeant - Huber, ~ h iso still uncler death
sentence.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was this Weis one of the men who was with
a unit a t the Malmedy cross roads?
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir; he was there shortly after the main shooting,
maybe a half an hour later when the Germans were still in the field, but
not those who had committed the first atrocities. They had left.
The new vehicles passing by saw many dead Americans laying in
the field and they went into the field to loot them, take their watches
and valuables off of them, and the Germans when they saw that
someone was living they shot him.
That was the second shooting of which he knew.
The third shooting of which he knew mas one a t Stoumont. There
he had been present. H e saw there that Colonel Peiper, who speaks
English absolutely fluently, interrogated an American prisoner, and
he saw there that he then called a man of his, a man in his command,
by the name of Hillig, Hans Hillig, and told Hillig, after the inter-
rogation had been finished, to shoot this man, and he saw with his own
eyes bow Hillig shot this man.
As I recall, he did not directly hear Peiper giving the order to
Hillig, but he saw that Hillig was brought to Peiper, and he shot him
in Peiper's presence, so he was not considered the best witness as to
this, and I asked him who else was present at the shooting.
We did not have Hillig at that time; he was still at large. H e told
us men, and they were all men from his own half-track, and we located
this man, a man by the name of Lansfreid, who was one of them, as
far as I recall, this man testified that yes, that they had heard P e i p e ~
giving the order, that they heard Peiper interrogating this prisoner,
who was a tech sergeant, by the way. This prisoner, when they ques-
MALMEDY b1ASSACRE INVESTIGATION 661
tioned him, said that he did not want to betray his country, and so
Colonel Peiper had him shot. This mas the third shooting of which
me learned through this man Weis.
Now, I mentioned that we did not have Hillig a t this time, and
a n ,alarm was sent out for Hillig. He m-as arrested, brought in, and
at that time he was confronted with all the men who had confirmed
these statements, and he confessed in detail to the crime.
By the way, he confessed to the crime in open court, too.
He said, In open court, that he asked for clemency, yes, he said-
I don't know the exact words, but this was definitely their meaning
and the words are very, very nearby, very close. He said :
W h a t the prosecution stated is true. I did it. I acted on the orders of my
. ,commanding cfficrr, and I could do nothing but act on his orders.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me interrupt there. You say he said this
in open court. What court? Was that a mock trial, or in open court?
Mr. PERL.It was during the trial at Dachau.
Senator MCCARTHY. ISthis Hillig's roomnlate, the man who made
them, or this one man, undress?
Mr. PERL. Beg pardon?
Senator MCCARTHY. ISthis Hillig the man who made the prisoner
undress ?
Mr. PERL. NO, it was Huber. Hillig, at the crossroads, went into
the field and went around the prisoners with his pistol in hand, but
we did not find a witness who would testify that he shot a prisoner
there Huber was another man, so there were three shootings of
which we learned through Weis. First was the Hillig shooting a t
Stoumont, where he shot the prisoner on the exact orders of Colonel
Peiper, and he refused to testify. The Huber was where he shot
the prisoner who had played dead there in the field and whom he
kicked, took his things away, and then shot.
Senator MCCARTHY. I don't have the matter straight. Either the
man confessed he shot a man on direct orders of Colonel Peiper-
Mr. PERL. Right.
Senator MCCARTHY. What else did he confess?
Mr. PERL. Nothing else.
Senator MCCARTHY.That was a t the crossroads?
Mr. PERL. ' Yes.
Senator R~CCARTHY. Did he confess to going among the prisoners
with a pistol?
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did he say he walked around among the pris-
oners looking for someone who was still living so he could kill him?
Mr. PERL. I do not know.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you get his confession?
Mr. PERL. I did not get his confession. H e was interrogated by
Harry Thon.
Senator MCCARTHY.By Harry Thon?
Mr. PERL. Yes. I know his statement.
Mr. CHASIBERS. We are looking for it now.
Senator BALDWIN. There is one question I want to ask now. Have
you a statement or a confession from Weis?
Mr. PERL. No,-:sir; I have a statement from Wichmann, which I
believe is interwing because it shows how his interrogation proceeded.
662 MALMEDI MASSACRE ISVESTIG.4TIOS
Senator BALDWIN. What I mean is : Have yon a statement from this.

man Weiss, or was i t Wichmann-what I want to know is this: YOU
have described here how Christ, one of the soldiers, told you all this.
What was that soldier's name that was in with Christ?
Mr. PERL.vreis, and he was not involved, as f a r as we could ascer-
tain, in any crime. H e just was a witness to some of the crimes; h e
was a witness to one of the crimes and as to the other two, he knew
the man who had committed the crime and had boasted of it. H e
was a hearsay witness to the crime of Wichmann only.
Senator BALDWIN.Why didn't you take a statement from Wich-
mann or Weis?
Mr. PERL. We might have taken the statement, but at this time I
do not recall. '
Senator BALDWIN.I wonder if Colonel Ellis knows anything about
that. All right, go ahead. We will clear that point np later.
Mr. PERL. All right, sir.
The next thing which m-as done was to find other people from
Weis'-you see, sir, we had Weis and he told us about the shooting a t
Poetschke by Wichmann. We did not have i t this time, Hillig, a s I
told you ; and, we did not know the name of the SS man who, m the
field, had rcbbed one of the Smerican prisoners and shot him, so
we concentrated on Wichmann, and after I had one or two more wit-
nesses who testified to the fact that Wichmann had borrowed a gun
and had gone out and then returned it and boasted that he had shot
a prisoner of war and we got MTichmann in for interrogation, and
Wichmann, when confronted with those witnesses, confessed, imme-
diately, to the crime and grave details of the crime.
By the way, I feel that Wichmann was the only one who actually
repented of his crime.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you: During all these interroga-
tions you did not feel at any time that you mere bound in either the
slightest or re] ,otest way to tell the men whom you were interrogat-
ing the truth, did you?
Mr. PERL. I did not hear you.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. YOUdid not feel that you were bound to tell
the truth to the men that )-on were interrogating, did you?
You thought it was proper to lie as much as necessary, in order t o
get the confessions, did you not?
Mr. PERL. I felt, sir, that I was entitled to use those ruses which
were permissible according to law ;yes, I felt that.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU answer my question. You can answer
i t very simply. You felt i t was perfectly proper during an interroga-
tion to lie as much as you wanted to, to those men, didn't you?
Mr. PERL.NO, sir. I did not feel that I was entitled to lie as much
as I wanted to. I felt that my permission to tell not the truth was
limited by the limit established by the law.
Senator MCCARTIIY. 7$That limits, n-hen yon were examining these
men, that directed you when yon conld tell the trnth and hen you
conld lie in obtaining col.fessiws! I a m not iaying wlletlier that
was right or wrong, I am merely trying to get the facts.
Mr. PERL. I, for instance, felt definitely that I was entitled to tell
one that we had used a microphone in his room in spite of the fact
that we did not use one, to find out the truth as to what he had told
the man in his cell.
* MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 663
Senator MC~ARTHY. Did you feel that any lie that you told the man,
as Major Fanton's order said, in a ruse or deception, did you feel it
was justified in order to obtain a confession; or were there only certain
types of lies which you felt that you could tell ?
Mr. PERL. I do not think I can answer the question in such a general
way, because everything, everything, could be under this terminology.
If yon will give me an example, I will tell you. I have to use my
discretion as to what I can tell and what not.
For instance, I would certainly have not been able to use the lie that
he would not be prosecuted if he would tell us something that would
help us in an investigatlon, because that is something I would not
be entitled to say.
Senator CA CAR THY. YOUsay that would be a lie ?
Mr. PERL. That would be a lie, because I was not entitled to promise
that.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay that would be a lie, if you told him if
he helped you in your prosecution, that then he would not be a de-
fendant, that he would be a witness-you say would be a lie?
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay that would be a lie if you told him
that?
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. The other day, you told Senator Baldwin that
this order was brought to your attention and that while it was not
written until sometime in February that nevertheless it had been
brought to your attention prior to that time?
Here is what it says :
I t is permissible to tell him that he will be recommended a s a witness if such
statement to the prlsoner will cause him to tell a full or more complete story
s o t h a t he will be of more value a s a witness than a s a defendant.
Were you aware of that, or not ?
Answer that. Do you h o w the order?
Mr. PERL. I know the order. Will you repeat the question?
Senator MCCARTEIY. I understood you to say it would be a lie if
you told any prospective witness that he would not be a defendant and
would not be prosecuted but would be used as a witness if it developed
that he were more valuable as a witness than a defendant?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. I call your attention to this statement of Lieu-
tenant Fanton which said that it is permissible to tell him that he
moulcl be recoinmended as a witness if his testimony is such that it
appears that lie will be more valuable as a witness than as a defendant,
and if it n-odd make him tell a full or more complete story, then
he woulcl be of more value as a witness than as a defendant; so, you
Irnew you could tell him that?
Mr. PERL.I believe I mentioned it last time, that I never told ally
one of the prisoners that he ~vouldbe recoinmeildecl as a witness. Also,
as the case did not arise from me, I was not in position to decide
whether it was a lie or not.
S e n ~ t o rMCPARTHP.Let me ask j7ou this: You did lie to the de-
frii~clantsin order to get confessions and pet statements; is that right?
Jh. PERL. Sir, I-
Sellator DICCARTHP.Did you or did you not; tell me, yes or no.
Mr. PERL. Sir, I would like to protest against the use of the word
lie." I f an American officer in pursuing his duties to try t o find who
rllurdered '700 of his cosoldiers and Americans and uses perfectly legal
methods to discover such things, that is not a lie. Our Intelligence cer-
t,ainly tried to funnel wrong information to the Germans and wrong
information to possible future enemies, and I do not t,hink it is ethical
under such circumstances to call an American a liar.
Senator MCCARTHY. I don't know how high ranking you were, but
you gave us your word here for what you did, and you told a man
something that was not the truth. I am not telling you i t is proper o r
not proper, to get confessions in that manner. I know i t was done
often. I only want to find out what the facts are. If you don't like
the word "lie," give me some other word that I can use, when you didn't
tell the truth, when you told a man that was something that was not
the truth. Give me some other word to use so that I wiil not insult
your sensibilities, will you? What word can I use?
Mr. PERL. Winston Churchill, in a speech in the House of Commons
in 1906, referred to a lie as a "terminological inexactitude."
Senator MCCARTHY. I won't use that, Lieutenant Perl.
Mr. PERL. That's your answer.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUtold the defendants untruths in order t o
get confessions.
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUthought that was proper. A11 right.
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f an untruth would help you to get a con-
fession, then you felt that under Major Fanton's orders in whlch it was
said that any ruse might be used, you felt that you were not violating
any order, that that was perfectly proper?
Mr. PERL. Not generally speaking, but within the limits permitted
by the orders, and, in addition to that, 1had to use my o\m jndgment.
Senator MCCARTHY. I would like to know when untruths were not
permitted by law when interrogating prisoners. What untruths were
not permitted by law, what ruses or deceptions, and I call your atten-
tion to Major Fanton's order in which he said any ruse or deception
may be used in the course of the interrogation but threats, duress in
any form, physical violence, or pronlises of immunity or mitigation
of punishment should be scrupulously avoided.
Now, you tell me what lie or what untruth could you not use?
Mr. PERL. For instance, I could not tell him I am his defense lawyer.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUcould not tell him that?
Mr. PERL. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUm-ouldn't consider that proper?
Mr. PERL. I w o ~ l dconsider that improper.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,when you say you could not tell him that,
did you think it proper to lead hinl to believe you n-ere his defense
lawyer ?
Mr. PERL. I am not responsible for something as to what people
believe, and we are speaking now about what I say, where I am per-
mitted to tell the truth and where I am not permitted the tell the truth.
I was not permitted, according to direct orders, to tell hiin I repre-
sented him as a defense lawyer.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid it mould be improper if you said
that. Now, do you say i t would be improper to indicate by your actions
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 665;
and what you did, if you were to lead him t o believe you were his
defense lawyer; is that right?
I n other words, you say you could not lie by words but you could
by actions ;is that right?
Mr. PERL. I c o ~ l dn ot lie, neither by words, nor by actions, in cer-
tain fields.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did you ever lead anyone to believe that you
were his defense attorney, or did you ever lead anyone to believe that
you were representing h i m ?
Mr. PERL. I lmow of one case where someone did not believe that I:
was his defense attorney. I don't k n o ~ imaybe
, he believed it, but h e
asked me if I would be his defense attorney, which showed that he was
not certain about it.
Senator MCCARTHY.W h a t did you tell him, "Yes"?
Mr. PERL. I told him "No, I a m not your defense attorney, you are
not entitled t o a defense attorney."
Senator MCCARTHY.Did you ever lead hiin to believe that you were
his defense attorney P
Mr. PERL. NO one ever tolcl me "You are my defense attorney." I
know of one case where someone dicl not know whether I am his defense
attorney or not, so as he hctd clonbt i n his mind, I dispelled that doubt
immediate1 a i d tolcl him "I am not your defense attorney."
Senator HccART1n. Did you ever lead anyone to believe you were
his defense attorney ?
Mr. PERL.I answered your question.
Senator MCCARTHY.Answer "Yes" or "No." Did you ever lead
anyone to believe that you were his defense attorney?
Mr. PERL. KOone ever tolcl me "You are my defense attorney."
Senator MCCARTHY.Lieutenant Perl, did you ever lead anyone tg
believe you were his defense attorney?
Mr. PERL. I can't answer your question.
Senator MCCARTHY.011 page 10-
Senator BALDWIN.Just a minute. Why can you not answer that
question, Lieutenant Perl ?
Mr. PERL. Sir, because if sonleone believes that I am his defense
attorney, then he thinks I am his defense attorney and says in his
mind, "There is no doubt about it"; and 1 know a case where there was,
in the mind of one prisoner, a doubt that I am his defense attorney or
not. Now, if I say I am not-
Senator MCCARTHP.Who mas that man?
Mr. PERL. It was Hillig again.
Now, if I say I did not-he dicl not believe I was his defense attor-
ney, I suppose that the Senator will ask me: L'Well, he asked you if
you qere," which shovs that he did know whether I am his defense
attorney or not.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did you tell him'"1 am taking care of your-
case" ?
Mr. PERL. T h a t is right, and I did take care of his case, as an inter-
rogator and investigator.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUtold him "I am taking care of your case"?
Mr. PERL. That's right.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUmeant vou were representing hi111 ?
Mr. PERL. Certainly-no, no, I am llot representing him.
666 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVEST~GATION
Senator MCCARTHY. You told this man, "I am taking care of your
case," and what you meant to tell him was that you were taking care of
him, is that right?
Mr. PERL.That is right, and that I was taking care of the case to
find out what goes on about what Hennecke did, and also, of course,
about what ~ e h e c k did e not do.
S e n a h r MCCARTHY. When you told him '(Iam taking care of your
case," a t the mock trial, and go through the nlotions of defending
him, your position is that you were not lying; you were not telling
an untruth that way ?
Mr. PERL. NO.
Senator MCCARTNY. YOUwere telling the truth?
Mr. FERL. Yes ; I took care of this case ;yes..
Senator MCCARTHY.Let's have this clearly 111 mind : Here is a man
before an American mock court, and you were assigned as either a
good boy or a bad boy or as what other witnesses have called or
referred to as defense prosecution counsel, and you were with Hen-
necke during this mock trial and you said "Hennecke, I am taking
care of your case." That's right, isn't i t ? Whereas, what yon really
meant was "Hennecke, I am taking care of you?"
Mr. PERL. It is not entirely right, as to my recollection.
Senator MCCARTHY. All right, then-
Mr. PERL.I told him later that I an1 taking care of his case. but not
from the beginning, I didn't tell him anything.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdidn't tell hiin during the course of the
trial ?
Mr. PERL.I don't think so.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUundersti~nd,YOU led hini to believe ,when
yon said "I am taking care of your case," ancl your answer is you led
him to believe you were his defense attorney, you understand that now?
Mr. PERL. I would like to say there-
Senator MCCARTHY. I want you to answer my question.
Mr. PERL. I would like to give you an explanation.
Senator MCCARTHY.Answer my question. Do you understand
now? This is a simple question: Do you understand that by your
actions and what you told Hennecke during the mock trial, that he was
led to believe that you were his defense attorney?
Mr. PERL. I understand the exact content. I understand that he
had a doubt in his nlincl whether I were his defense attorney or not.
He did not think I an1 his defense attorney as he wouldn't have asked
it. The fact that he asked showed that lie did not know whether I was
his defense attorney or not, and when he asked, I told him, expressed
the words, "I am not your defense attorney ;you do not have a defense
attorney."
Senator MCCARTHY. During the trial, at that time, when you were
testifying, did you feel then that by your statements ancl your actions
that you lzad led Henneclre to believe that during the mock trial you
were his defense attorney? During the time your were testifying
at Dachau. Do you understand?
Mr. PERL. Yes, I understand.
Senator McCam~ru.Were you a t that time-were you convinced by
your words and actions you had led Hennecke to believe you were his
defense attorney?
MALMEDY MASSACRE, INVESTIGATION 667
Mr. PERL. Sir, I do not remember what I was convinced of during
the trial a t Dachau 2 or 3 years ago.
Senator MCCARTHY.We will refresh your memory.
So, you clon't know whether a t the trial a t Dachau when this thing
was fresh in your mind, tlmt then, I know ou have this testimony
i
in the record. Did you feel that then when t lings were fresh i n your
mind, if you then testified-
Mr. PERL. Just a second.
Senakor MCCARTI-IY.Let me finish.
Let's go back to the facts. YOLZ a re a t Dachau; you are testifying.
Henneclze is being tried. You are on the stand, and you testified, and
you were asked a question a t that time: Do you know whether
o r not you were convinced that you had led Hennecke to believe that
you were his defense attorney i n this mock trial?
Mr. PERL. I do not remember what I was convinced of then.
Senator MUCARTHY.I f you testified a t that time that by this state-
ment "I am taking care of your case," and your actions, if a t that time
you were convincecl that Hennecke had been led to believe tlmt you
were his defense counsel.
Mr. PERL. I have answered that four times.
Senator MCCSRTHY.Let me finish. You are convinced a t t h a t time
that you had cleceived Hennecke, there is no reason why you should
change your mind since then; is there?
Mr. PERL. Sir, I dicl not deceive him i n this way, because the moment
he got a doubt, he was never convinced that I was his defense attorney
as he wouldn't have asked ; and, a t the moment h e asked, I straightened
it out conlpletely, and told him "I am not your defense attorney."
1 would like to say something as to this mock trial proceeding, if I
may.
Senator BALDTVIN. Let's finish that point first.
Senator MUCARTHY.YOUsaid a t the trial :
QUESTIOX.SO you led He~inecketo believe t h a t you were representing him a t
the mock trial?
ANSWER.Yes, sir.
Now, is that correct?
Mr. PERL.Certainly, if it is in the trial record, certainly.
Senator MCCARTHY.NOW,is your answer still that you led Hennecke
to believe that, you were representing him a t the t r i a l ?
You have heard your testimony here toclay.
Mr. PERL. I represented him a t the trial?
I do not recall it, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.Are you a lawyer?
Mr. P E ~Yes, . sir.
Senator MCCARTIIY. YOUsay, at, that time :
So you led Hennecke to believe that you represented him at t h e t r i a l ? .
ANSWER.Yes, sir.
Mr. PERL. Will you please continue that quotation, s i r ?
Senator MUCARTHY.Yes, I will continue; but tell me if that is your
answer l
Mr. PERL. I do not recall the whole thing, but if i t is i n the trial
record, i t is correct.
91765-49-43
Senator MCCARTHY. I understand then that you did lead Hennecke

t o believe that you represented him at the trial.
Did you, or did you not?
Mr. PERL. I do not recall it.,
Senator MCCARTHY.A minute ago, you told me that you do not be-
lieve it, and you said you told him the opposite, and that you were
convinced that he knew that you were not representing him. Which
is true?
Mr. PERL. It is true, a n d a t the trial, when he aslied me: "Are you
my defense lawyer?" I answered him, W o , YOU are not ent,itled to a
defense lawyer in this procedure here, and I am not your defense
lawyer."
Senator MCCARTHY. L'S~ I ,am representing you?"
Mr. PERL. And he asked "What are you doing?", and I told him
"I am taking care of your case,'' which might have been double-talk,
if you want it, but I used it, and I took care of his case.
Senator MCCARTHY. You told him, "I am taking care of your case,"
and led him to believe you were representing him?
Mr. PERL, NO,I did not. I told him I was not his defense lawyer.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did YOU lead him to believe that you were
representing him?
You know if we stay here all day, we will get an answer to this
question finally.
Let me ask you another question: You tell us it was perfectly
proper for yon to decide in your own conscience when you were to
tell untruths to a man in order to get confessions, when you were
to bear with the truth; and, you understand, that as of today you
are to bear by the truth?
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhave no discretion today.
Mr. PERL. Certainly.
Senator MCCARTHY. Are you telling the truth today?
Senator MCCARTHY. Did YOU leave the clefendent to believe that
you were representing him? I don't want any double-talk in an-
swer to that question.
Mr. PERL. I answered i t four or five times.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Answer it again.
Mr. PERL. TOthe best of my recollection today, there was no doubt
in his mind as to what my position was because he asked me, "Are
you my defense attorney?" and I dispelled that doubt lby telling him
"I am not your defense attorney."
A t the time of the trial, I could not foresee that everything, every
little word would have been the source of our long discussion, or I
wauld have weighed my words as carefully as I am doing now; but
I know now that I am under cross-examination for everything I did.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU were under cross-examination at that
time, and you said you told this man that you were not his defense
attorney but that you were taking care of his case and that you were
representing him.
Now, you want us to believe at this time that what you meant was,
and what you think this man understood was, that you were not tak-
ing care of his case, not in that sense, but that you were a member of
the prosecution team and interested in getting his confession ; is that
correct ?
Mr. PERL. That is what I meant.
Senator MCCARTHY. That is what you meant when you said "I
am taking care of your case." You mean, am representing you"-
Mr. PERL. That is right. Wait a minute. I did not tell him I was
representing him. When I told him, "I am taking care of your case,"
I meant, for myself, I would take good care of the case.
Senator MCCARTEIY. That is what you meant?
Mr. PERL. That is what I meant.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you didn't feel that you were
representing him ?
Mr. PERL. Definitely not.
So you led Hennecke to believe that you were representing him at that trial?
Answer. Yes.
Mr. PERL. I answered that five or six times. The moment a doubt
arose in his mind that I am representing him or not, I told him, "I
am not your defense lawyer." I told him that I was not appointed to
defend him.
Senator MCCARTHY. Answer this question. Do you think you led
Hennecke to believe that you were representing him, not taking care
of him, not trying to get something on him, but that you were looking
after his rights a t this mock triail?
Mr. PERL. I answered that question in a little more detail.
Senator MCCARTHY. Answer "Yes" or "No."
Mr. PERL. I cannot. With the answer "Yes" or "No," you would
get the wrong answer. It is usual a t every interrogation, there is
one good interrogator and one bad interrogator. Every interrogation
in the world uses that method. The average man who is not a lawyer,
of course, without knowing much about it, it might be confusing t o
him and he might think, "This is my man. H e may be my lawyer,
Here is a man who is good to me." So, the same thing obviously might
have entered Hennecke7smind, and he said, "Are you my lawyer ?" and
1tpld him, "I am not your lawyer. You do not have a lawyer."
A man who is interrogated today in any police department may be
interrogated by a good interrogator and a bad interrogator, and he
has no lam-yer either during his interrogation and he, too, might be-
lieve, "Oh, this is a good man. He is taking care of my interest." Of
course, he does not. He is trying to get the truth.
Senator MC~ARTHY. NOW,behind this table were some fake judges-
right? Some men that were dressed in American soldiers' uniforms
and posing as judge? ;is that right ?
Mr. PERL. AS to the question of whether they were faking or pre-
tending to be judges, I would like to answer.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,Lie~ltenantOwen testified the other day
that he was asked to act as president of a court. I s that correct?
Mr. PERL. I wasn't here ;I don't know.
Senator MCCARTHY. ISthat correct, someone acted as presidellt of
this court-that someone was asked to be president of one of these
mock trials ?
Mr. PERL. Someone acted as chairman of the group sit;ting there.
Senator MCCARTHY. And a t this time, someone took the. position of

prosecuting and proving the man was guilty ?
Mr. PERL. Yes ;prosecuting him-
Senator MCCARTHY. And proving that he was guilty?
Mr. PERL. Yes-
Senator MCCARTHY. And proving that he was guilty?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. And someone else took the position that he
was representing the defendant?
Mr. PERL. NO; the other one took the position that the man, the
prisoner-there were no defendants there-that the prisoner should
be given a chance to tell a story in detail and truthfully.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you, and I refer to page 10, in the
form of question and answer :
So that you led Hennecke to believe that you were representing him a t t h e
trial?
You did not misunderstand that question a t the time, did you?
You led Hennecke to believe that you were representing him a t the trial?
That is very clear, is i t not?
Yon don't pretend to misunderstand that question, do you?
Mr. PERL. I do not remember what I thought a t this time, but-
Senator MCCARTHY. Do you understand the question now?
Senator MCCARTHY. You do understand the question.
Mr. PERL. I think SO.
Senator MCCARTHY. When you were asked that question a t that
time, you don't now claim that you did not understand it?
Mr. PERL. I do not now claim it.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUunderstand it, it is a simple question?
Mr. PERL. I think so.
Senator MCCARTHY. When you were asked that question a t that
time, you do not pretend that you did not understand i t ?
Mr. PERL. I do not now claim it.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not claim that any man with average
intelligence or below average intelligence could misunderstand Lhis
question :
So you led Hennecke to believe that you were representing him a t t h e trial?
Any man with average or below the average intelligence mould
understand what that would mean?
Mr. PERL. Yes; certainly.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you can understand it?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. What were the words you used? Double talk?
I s there anything double talking about your answer "Yes, sir"?
That is your answer. That is a very clear answer, isn't it?
Mr. PERL. I didn't get that.
Senator MCCARTHY. Your answer :'Yes, sir," that is your own
answer.
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTI~Y. That wasn't double talk.
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUclaim you were trying to tell the truth
then?
Mr. PERL. Certainlv.
Senator MCCARTH; YOUwere under oath?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
. Senator MCCARTHY. After you raised your hand and said "I
solemnlv swear to tell the truth. the whole truth. and nothing but the
truth,,' i o u then swore that youled Hennecke to believe that you were
representing him at the trial. Was that the truth or was it a lie?
Was it the truth? Can you answer that? Was it the truth?
Mr. PERL. I n a wider sense, under the circumstances then, it was the
truth; but you are going now into hair splitting, and the way you are
asking it, it is not the truth, because when this general who presided
at the trial asked me, he was to believe-
Senator MCCARTHY. What general asked you that?
Mr. PERL. I don't remember. H e was part of the court.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f it was someone else, would it make a differ-
ence ?
Mr. PERL. When the gentleman, a member of the court, whoever it
was, asked me-
Senator MCCARTHY. Say it was the defense attorney that wanted
to know.
Mr. PERL. If he asked me-What is your question?
Senator MCCARTHY. "SOthat you led Hennecke to believe that you
were representing him at the trial?" .
Mr. PERL. Yes?
Senator MCCARTHY. "Answer. Yes, sir."
My question is : Was that answer the truth?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir; it was the truth, but-
Senator MCCARTHY. ISit the truth today?
Mr. PERL. I n the way it was understood at that time, it was; and
it still is thp truth, but not in every way. Not in the way you ask it,
because he definitely mas under the impression that I am taking care
of him and very well, care of his case; that I'm his friend, which I
was not, and, sir, I want to say, in this case, I do not know who
said it, but someone said that the truth has many phases and each
single one of them is a lie; and this one, taken out of the content, might
sound as a lie, but if it is connected with the subsequent statement
that I said, "I am not your defense attorney; you are not entitled to a
defense attorney," then, your line of questioning becomes superfluous.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will the reporter mark that particular portion
of the testimony. I want to get i t later, and see if I can understand it.
You say that the truth at times may become a lie, or something
to that effect ?
Mr. PERL. The truth has many phases.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay you are telling the truth today?
Mr. PERL. Certainly, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. What is your occupation?
Mr. ~ R L Personnel
. consultant.
Senator MCCARTHY. Personnel consultant?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. ISthat what you are known as-personnel con-
sultant ?
Mr. PERL. Industrial psychologist.
Senator MCCARTHY. What does your letterhead contain?
Mr. PERL. Psychological consultant.
Senator MCCARTIXY. YOUhave no objection t o our knowing what

you hold yourself out as, in your letterheads, br on your office door?
It says, "Psychological consultant 1"
Senator MCCARTHY.ISthat the same as personnel consultant? '
Mr. PERL.Yes; it is the same, because I use psychological inethods
to find out the aptitude of certain applicants for certain positions.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you think you are pretty good a t that?
Mr. PERL.I hope I am.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUthnk you understand considerably about
human behavior ?
Mr. PERL.Sir-
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUthink yon understand considerably about
human behavior ?
Mr. PERL.I think so.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you think you can tell when a man is tell-
ing the truth or when he is telling a lie?
Mr. PERL.No, sir. As f a r as that goes, you should use a lie detector
for that.
Senator MCCARTHY. You had a pretty good lie detection system
yonrself in those trials, didn't you?
Mr. PERL.What 1
Senator MCCARTHY. I say, you had a pretty good lie-detection sys-
tem, didn't you ?
Mr. PERL.I will answer the question. I do not think it was a very
good system.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not think it was so good?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. If you were doing it over again, you do not
think i t -would be proper to use a mock trial? I f you were doing it
over again, would you use mock trials ?
Mr. PERL.I would certainly not, but not because I think they are
illegal but because they give you so much pretense and so much noise.
Senator BALDWIN. What mas that?
Mr. PERL. SOmuch noise.
Senator ~ ! ~ C A R T I IYOU
not like noise ?
Y . do
Mr. PERL. Not the noise raised, raised about this case where 700
Americans were murdered, and it is a qnestion of 1or 2 of the Germans
getting slapped.
Senator R'ICCARTHY. Getting-what ?
Mr. PERL. Getting slapped, or not.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,Thon was the prosecution of this case
you are speaking of-of Hennecke? Thon was the prosecution at-
torney in the Henneclce case 8 Call it what you may, he was the man
frying to prove he was guilty before this mock trial ?
Mr. PERL. I do not know whether i t was; probably it was so.
Senator MCCARTIIY.There was one man in the mock courtroom who
took the position that his job was to prove the man was guilty; is that
right?
Mr. PERL. More or less ; yes, sir.
Senator BICCARTHP.0. K., and when the defendant-of course, the
defendant was there? ,
Mr. P E ~Yes..
Senator MCCARTHY. SO that when you said to him, 'LNow,I am
taking care of you; I am takina care of your case"-when you said,
"I an1 taking care of your case,"grou meant to convey to him that you
were looking after his interests ;am I right ?
Mr. PERL. I was looking after the fact that no injustice was done.
I meant it differently, and I didn't say that I was taking care of his
interests.
Senator MCCARTI-IY.
Mr. PERL.Yes.
-
YOUsaid "taking care of your case?"
Senator MCCARTHY. And a t that time, Thon, or whoever was the
prosecution, was taking care of the case for the prosecution; am I
right ?
Mr. @RL. I believe, if I were to be given time, just a minute, to
explain, you would understand it better, and the committee would
understand it better-the word "procedure" and the reason for it.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Answer this, if you can. Actually, you and
Mr. Thon, the prosecntion attorney, had the same identical interest,
and that was to get a confession. Right ?
Mr. PERL. Right, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And nov, you led this man to believe, however,
that you were taking a different position from Tho11;right ?
Mr. PERL. Right.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, Thon was trying to convict him,
and you were trying to prove he was innocent?
Mr. PERL. Not exactly, Thon was hostile, and I was not exactly
friendly, but because the question of whether he was guilty or not
could not come out during this interrogation proceeding. There was
no talk that this was a court wliich would pass any sentence.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let's stop right there.
You said he mas led to believe that Thon mas hostile and you were
friendly.
Mr. PERL.Right.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you perhaps tried to lead him to believe
that ?
Mr. PERL. Right.
Senator MCCARTIIY.YOUwere both hostile as far as the witness was
concerned?
]Sfr. PERL. I don't think any one was hostile; we tried to find out the
truth.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Thon was more hostile than you?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTIIY.You don't claim, and I am not telling,you what
is right or wrong, I am trying to get the facts-you don't claim a t this
time that the accused actually knew what was happening?
Mr. PERL. Certainly not.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUknow he was deceived as to the situation
in that room?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. And he was deceived into believing that you
were representing him ?
Mr. PERL. We had a long discussion about this question. I do not
want to leave your line of questioning now, sir, and go into that
again.
Senator MCCARTHY. The accused was led to believe that you were
representing him ?
Mr. PERL. O r behaved in such a way that doubt arose in his mind
as to whether I was his defense attorney, and when he made
those doubts he was straightened out that I was not his de ense
attorney.
Pain
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me read something to you from this Hen-
necke affidavit.
Senator BALDWIN. What affidavit is that ?
Senator M ~ A R T H Y This
. is Hennecke7s affidavit.
Senator BALDWIN.What affidavit?
I s this the affidavit attached to the petition filed with the Supreme
Court ?
Senator MCCARTHY. I don't know, Mr. Chairman; it is the affidavit
of Hennecke. [Reading :]
On March 2, 1946, a small lieutenant came into my cell and introduced him-
self a s being William R. Per1 and said that he was defense counsel in a summary
trial which would soon take place against me. He talked of trials, witnesses,
statements ; and my hopes made a good impression on me.
Did you talk to him before the trial?
Mr. PERL. I do not recall it. sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUdon't ?
Mr. PERL. It is possible.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n some of the cases did you talk to him before
the trial ?
Mr. PERL. As I said before, I did not introduce myself to him. He
had been Mr. Ellowitz's man before. Mr. Ellowitz had interrogated
him several times before and I had seen him in Mr. Ellowitz's inter-
rogation room several times, but this part of the statement is incor-
rect, that I introduced myself to him.
But I mi h t have gone to see him before the trial.
Senator %CCARTHY. YOUhad not interrogated him before?
Mr. PERL. I do not recall.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdon't recall ever having interrogated him
before the mock trial?
Mr. PERL. I recall I interrcgated him in the very early stages of
the case, and then he was reassigned ; he was assigned to Mr. Ellowitz,
and I, before that, interrogated him shortly.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you go to see him before the mock trial
and tell him that he was to be tried a t the mock trial?
Mr. PERL. I do not remember a single case.
On March 8, 1946, I was called for, and when I lifted my hood I found myself
before a court.
That is correct; is it? '
Mr. PERL. That I do not know.

Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not know ?
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWabout the facts? You were there, and
you said you were takin care of the case.
Mr. PERL. That is rig t.k,
I was convinced it was a regular court. I n spite of all my previous experience,
I could not conceive of anvthing so base being done. Mr. Thon was t h ~roswiitor.
~
Colonel Ellis was disguised as a colonel. The two interpreters were disguised
as a major and a captain, respectively. * * * A flood of accusations were
thrown a t me.
I s that true, a flood of accusations were thrown a t him?
Mr. PERL. False I!
Senator MCCARTHY. Not false, "flood."
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. And there were some men dressed in Army
uniforms behind the table?
Mr. PERL. Right.
Senator MCCARTHY. And on the table was a crucifix and two candles,
one on either side?
Senator MCCARTHY. And there was a black cloth over the table?
Mr. PERL. Probably. I don't remember whether there was a black
cloth over that particular table, but there were those heavy tables
and we had only black cloth to cover them, so probably it was a black
cloth.
Senator MCCARTHY. And there were those two candles and some-
body was sitting behind the table?
Mr. PERL. Right.
Senator MCCARTHY. Impersonating judges?
Mr. PERL. I wouldn't say-not exactly impersonating judges, but
impersonating interrogators.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you feel that the defendant, the accused,
thought that the men sitting behind the table were judges?
Mr. PERL.He probably thought so; yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,let me go on with this :
Witness after witness appeared. Through all this I could only say that it was
not true, and that I knew nothing about it. Lieutenant Perl defended me skill-
fully, and the ruse went over completely with me. The trial adjourned-
So far,.you were going through the motions of defending him and
representmg him ?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. You were not ?
Mr. PERL. AS to defending him, no, sir. If you are finished with
it, I would like to give an explanation which I hope would make it
better for you as well as for the committee.
Senator MCCARTHY.I know you do. I just want to ask you a
question.
A t that time were you acting as his friend?
Mr. PERL. AS his friend, definitely.
Senator MCCARTHY.And someone would shout an accusation
against him, and you would try to help him out ?
Mr. PERL. I said "Don't shont a t him. He is a good man," and not
anything really leading.
Senator MCCARTHY(reading) :
Lieutenant Perl defended me skillfully, and the ruse went over with me, and
trial was adjourned and I was told that my execution would take place within
48 hours, and I walked off into the death cell. lieutenant Perl again asked me
to confess in the presence of a Lieutenant Rupf, and gave his word of honor,
a s an officer, that h e was my defense counsel and that I should trust him fully.
My point of view was this-that I would rather hang than give any false con-
fession once more.
You went down and asked him t o give you a confession, didn't
you ?
Mr. PERL. It is absolutely untrue. It is a lie. I never told him
that I am his defense counsel. I would have found it beyond my
dignity to give to one of those men my word of honor as an American
officer, and I would not have impressed him with it because I was just
too high above him to give him my word of honor a t this time. And,
in addition, I would like to say that in his statemen*
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU say "too high above him."
Was that because he was accused of a crime?
Mr. PERL. NO; but I was the interrogator, and I never heard of
an interrogator giving his word of honor to any suspect of a war
crime.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUare aware, however, of the fact, are you
not, that in American courts the district attorney does not normally
feel high above the man who is accused of a crime, and that the Amer-
ican concept of justice is that no man is considered guilty until he has
been proven so ?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. SO,when you say you felt so high above him,
was that because of his nationality, because he was accused in a case,
or why did you feel so high above him?
Mr. PERL. First of all, I felt high above him, because of the fact-
I should not have given him my word of honor; I do not know of a
single case where a district attorney or an investigator goes to a
defendant and gives him a word of honor. Giving a word of honor
is something that is done between friends, and not between some two
persons, one of whom is a district attorney or an interrogator, and
the other is a suspected war criminal.
Senator MCCARTHY.DO you think it placed any different light
upon it, if you simply tell a man, "This is a fact," or if you add to it,
"I give you my word of honor this is a fact"?
I n other words, does that make the statement any greater or any
less, by adding "I give you my word of honor"?
Mr. PERL. I believe, sir, that we have to judge this case on the atti-
tude of the Germans, too. The Germans refer to "honor" something
almost like m oath.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUtook this man's confession?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdid?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. After the mock trial-
Mr. PEEL. No, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was it before?
Mr. PERL. There was no mock trial. There was a fast procedure.
Senator MCCARTHY. We mill call it the schnell procedure.
Was it after the schnell procedure, what the Army board called the
mock trial?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. It was after the schnell procedure?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUgot the confession, and he signed it?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator M C C A R ~ Y And
. this was after you had, according to your
testimony, led him to believe-
You got this confession after you had led Henneke to believe that you
were representing him at the trial? After that, you went in his cell
and you came out with a signed confession?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir. I want to tell you, because you took one sentence
out of a whole content. It was after I told him "I am not your de-
fense attorney, and you have no riaht to a defense attorney. No de-
fense attorney is assigned to you.''D And, you take that one sentence
out of the whole statement and make it into a big thing.
Senator MCCARTHY. SO,there is no question about your statement
there-
Mr. PERL. There is no doubt at this time he knew I am not his
defense attorney, by my express words.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Here, you were not his defense attorney but
you were representing him ?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. He did not know you were representing him?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir. A t this time, during the course of the interro-
gation, it came out quite clearly that I am not so friendly to him any
more because I am out to get the hard facts.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,I want to ask you this question:
Didn't you-
Mr. PERL. After the trial Hennecke told me "Are you my defense
counsel?" I mill tell you the truth. I told him "I am not your
defense counsel, as there is no defense counsel in these fast pro-
cedures. However, as you see, I am taking care of your case."
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUled Hennecke to believe-
Mr. PERL. This was after.
Senator MCCARTHY. After ?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you led Hennecke to believe that you
were taking care of his case, and you say you did get a confession?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir; but not after I had led him to believe I was
representing him. It was after I had told him that I am not his
defense attorney.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then, do I understand that at some time
during the procedure, you said you represented him, but at a later
time, before you got him to sign a confession, you said "Now, I am
no longer representing you 1"
Mr. PERL. During the whole time of the investigation, following
the procedure, he knew exactly that I am not his defendant, because
I had told him exactly that I am not his defendant's attorney.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWmany hours aft2r the mock trial did you
get the confession?
Mr. PERL. I do not recall, sir; but maybe it is in there. I don't
know.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou know whether it was the same night?
Mr. PERL. I am almost certain that it took several days, because I
was quite busy at this time.
Senator MCCARTHY. Do you havk the date of the confession, Mr.
Chambers?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I will see.
678 , MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Mr. PERL.And he was not the key man.

Senator MCCARTHY. DO YOU have the confession there? [Read-
ing :]
I returned to my cell, wrote a letter to my parents, and waited for my death,
which did not come. Instead of that,'by reason of newly acquired proof, as
Lieutenant Perl said, a new trial took place.
Did you go in and tell him that you were getting him a new trial?
Mr. PERL. Certainly not. I never spoke of a trial.
Senator MCCARTHY. A new fast procedure ?
Mr. PERL. I don't think so. I do not think so.
Senator MCCARTHY. But you don't know whether you did go and
We are getting you a new fast procedure," or not?
r. PERL.NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. Well, a new trial took place with the same
results on March 12, 1946 ? [Reading :]
On March 13, 1946, my willpower had been broken down. I wrote down a
new confession. Mr. Perl dictated it.
I s that right? Did you dictate a confession?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you dictate a stateiaent for him?
Mr. PERL. No. I will have to see the confession.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you dictate any introductions to any con-
f ession ?
Mr. PERL.Not in the sense of dictating as you seem to believe it.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you tell him to write down thus and so?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Did you, in any case, tell a man what to write
down as an introduction to his statement?
Mr. PERL. I can answer this only with several sentences.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Take as many as you want.
Mr. PERL. The interrogation proceedings normally, with the ex-
ception of Christ, which was a short statement, were handled in the
j ollowing manner :
I interrogated the man and while interrogating, I made either short
notes to myself, or did not make any notes so as to not make it too
important to the prisoner, what he is saying, so as I write it down he
won't be cautious not to say certain things which might be damaging
to him.
7Vllen I was through with the interrogation, with what I con-
sidered we could do on this d'ay, then I told him "Let's recapitulate.
We said this and this," and he would confirnl it and then I wrote it
down in a few short sentences and in the beginning, there were two
various phases of the procedure :
I n the beginning, I had paper and pen and ink usually ready, and
I told him "Now, that is what was said-right?" And I took down,
repeated the content of his statement. If he said "Yes," all right;
but if he said "I didn't say it exactly like that," then I made addi-
tions to the notes and then I told him "I am going to dictate," and in
this connection, your word "dictate" is correct-I would say "J am
going to dictate the content of your statement, but I want to tell you
it is not my statement, it is your statement." These were exactly my
words, I repeated them too many times, so that I know them: "It is
not my statement, but it is your statement. I f there is something
wrong in it, tell me, and we will change it." And then, he would say
yes, perhaps.
Then, after dictating, in the sense I said it now, the content of his
interrogation, it was put down. \
I have some of the original writings here with me, if you would like
to see them, and the corrections there.
I f they were not exactly right, I would say "All right, put it down
the way you want it."
Then, when I was all through, I would say, L'Now,where did this
happen, and where did that happen?". And I would leave it with him
because I couldn't help him there with the sketches, and I would leave
the cell ancl come back sometime the next day, perhaps, ancl we would
finish it.
Quite often, if the prisoner were intelligent enough to be able to do
it, I told him "This is the content. You write it domrn y,ourself."
I have here some of the first drafts of the prisoners in their first
confessions.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Can I ask you about those sketches?
Mr. PERL.Should I not finish the explanation first 8
Sennt,or RIGCARTHY. Let me ask vou about the sketches.
Most of the men from whom you cook confessions did draw a sketch?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator McCART~Y. And those, .of course, we will sav were Mr. A
ancl Mr. B, they both wrote confes'sions and they were bit11 in solitary
confinement 8
- -
Mr. ~ E R L -.Yes.
Senator MC~CARTHY. Or, in close confinement, call it what vou may..
However, they didn't lGve a chance to et together andYmmpa&
notes on how to draft a sketch, is that right. f
Senator MCCARTHY. Have you examined the sketches of the par-
ious defendants? Have you examined them to con~parethem?
Senator MCGARTHY. Have you noticed that they practically all give
the same distance in meters to certain objects, a bush, we will say, and
even half-meters, to a bush that may be alongside the road?
Mr. PERL. I do not know whether they are identical, but certainly
in many cases they were almost identical, which was corroboratjve
evidence of the facts.
Senator MCCARTEIY. NOW,did you notice that some of the sketches
of the men who passed a place in the heat of combat, were identical
sketches as to the height of a bush, for instance, and so many meters
high, and the distance was identical as to the number of meters the bush
was from the road, and other details like that? You know that, don't
vou ?
I. -
Mi-. PERL. Yes.

Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask -you this: you know the sketches
and saw that they were the same. Didn't you tell them how many
meters it was from the road, say, to the bush we are talking about;
and how high the bush was, and say "Put that in your sketch?"
Mr. PERL. Sir, I b e h v e that you, as well as the American public, is.
under a misconception about "under the heat of combat."
I mentioned three cases before, and in each one there was no com-
bat. These people came to me after their capture, and I do not know
of one case where I took which described something seen in the heat
of combat.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am under no misconception as to the mean-
ing of what "in the heat of combpt" is. You may be. I don't know
whether you saw any combat or not. I don't know; but don't tell
me I don't know what the heat of combat is.
Mr. PERL. NO. I do not doubt that you know what combat is,
but I believe that you believe the crimes were conimitted in the heat
of combat, which they were not.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUtell me this: Whether or not, when you
had three or four sketches, where they placed a bush a certain num-
ber of meters from the road, and these sketches were made by men
who were in solitary, and could not compare notes, do you deny
now that you told those men exactly how many meters they were
to place that bnsh from some other object there on their sketch?
Mr. PERL. I definitely deny it. Certainly, sir. I f I had done
that, if I had had to instruct them or tell then1 in so many details
how to draw a sketch, the investigation would have taken several
years.
When I was through with a case, when I had a confession, if it
was half-way intelligent, I gave him a paper and said, "Write; make
it in your own words," and I have here many statements which were
written in the cells. Then I would go to the next man.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this : Did you-
Mr. PERL. We had 73 defendants and the investigttion allotted us
only 4 months.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you something else, which hap-
pened during the trial :
I s i t not correct that during the trial, the guard caught you going
into cells and stealing the private papers of the defendants, and that
the g~zardcaught you in a room going over those papers, and that he
immediately made you return those papers to the prosecution, so the
men could get them back?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir; you are not correct, and I an1 glad the question
came up.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did YOU a t any time dnring the trial sneak
into any cell of any of the defendants, while the defendants were in
court, and take any of their papers out of their cells?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir. I never did sneak in any cells.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did' YOU ever walk in-walk in or crawl in
or-in other words, did you get into cell-
Mr. PERL. I would like t o explain, sir-
Senator MCCARTHY. Tell me, sir; you can explain it. Tell me
whether you went into any of the cells.
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask yon: While they were in court,
after defense counsel had been appointed, and then did you take papers
out of their cells ? Yes or no.
Mr. PERL.Yes or no?
Senator MCCARTHY. Did the guards find you in a room subse-
quently, going through those papers? Answer yes or no.
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did someone make you give those papers back
t o defense counsel ?
Mr. PERL. Yes-yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. They did?
Mr. PERL. Yes, but now I want to amplify that because it would
be definitely unfair if I answered that without telling the whole story.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think-
Senator BALDWIN. I think the witness should have an opportunity
to complete his answer.
I am going to ask the question and I will ask Lieutenant Perl to go
ahead and explain the entire matter. We want all sides of this now.
You have been vigorously cross-examined here for over an hour, and
I think if you want to answer that question, you are entitled to answer
it.
Mr. PERL. First of all-
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you be q ~ ~ ifor
e t a minute, so there is no
question about this ?
During the cross-examination, I am going to ask you to do the same
thing I have asked you t o do for the last 5 minutes; that is, to answer
my questions. And then, if you have any snbsequent explanations,
that you want to add, I am sure that you will be allowed to talk and
explain, even if it takes a week.
But while I am talking-
Senator BALDWIN. May I say to the Senator-
Senator MCCARTHY. May I finish my statement?
Senator BALDWIN.GO ahead and finish your statement.
Senator MCCARTHY. While I am cross-examining, I am going to in-
sist that where a question is perfectly clear, where yon can answer it
"yes" or "no," that you so answer; and then I think in fairness to the
witness that he should be allowed to explain all he wants to. But it is
impossible to intelligently cross-examine a witness, who is a master
of psychology-as thls man claims he is-a master of evasion, unless
I clo tie him down and make him answer certain questions. And I
certainly m m t to give him a chance to explain anything he cares to.
Senator BALDWIN.May I say this: With this witness not finished
with his direct statenlent-when the chairman permitted you to start
the cross-examination-now certainly the witness ought to have the
same privilege of explaining it, as you have had of cross-examining
him, I don't understand that we are prosecuting anybody here. What
we are trying to do is trying to find out-the chairman is interested
in determining whether or not there were ruses and deceptions that
were improperly used, and is as interested as anybody else is.
Now, I think, on an investigation of this kind, that a witness is
entitled to answer the questions. H e isn't compelled to only give such
an answer as his interrogator may hope to draw from him; but I
think he is entitled to answer the question, and I think if the witness
wants to make an explanation at this point here, I think for the bene-
fit of the record, and for the rest of the committee, that he ought to be
permitted to make a record.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I think as you said that the
witness should be permitted to get all the time he wants, even if it
takes a week. I think he should be given a chance to explain state-
ments he made at Dachau under oath, if they are in conflict with
the ones he makes today; but I think the Chair will agree with me
that when you have a witness as evasive as this man is, that then it
is not being unfair to him for me to pin him down and say, 'LMr.Perl,
682 MALMEDY MASSACRE ~VESTIGATION
here is a simple question. I want a 'Yes' or 'No7 answer," and then

if he wants to explain why he did those certain things, he certainly
should have a chance to do it. I think he should have a chance to
make an explanation, and when he gets through with his explanation,
I think the Chair will have some questions to ask with regard to the
explanations.
Mr. PERL. I should like to say something else. You see, this case
gets much publicity. I understand there will be no hearing this after-
noon, and if I do not state now, in detail, that I never stole any papers,
but just acted in fulfilling my duties, what my assignments were-
enterigg the cell as it was my duty to in the presence of-well, if 1
do not state it and explain why I did it, then i t will look in tomorrow's
paper as if I had stolen something from the defendants. The more
so if you spoke of snealring into the cell, which I did not, because
I was called into the cells by competent persons-
Senator BALDWIN.L ieutenant Perl, you have been asked here
whether or not you entered any cells, in any way, to obtain any papers
which mere the private papers of witnesses.
Now, the chairman would like to know the answer to that question.
Or whatever you want to say about it.
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir. I never entered any cell of defendants during
the trial, after they were trial prisoners, in order to obtain any kind
of papers.
Senator BALDWIN. Did YOU enter the cells a t all 1
Mr. PERL. I entered the cell with another person, for another pur-
pose-
Senator BALDWIN. What did you enter the cell f o r ?
Mr. PERL. Well, I was one of the few officers who were in the court-
room, still a t the desk. A guard came in and told me that two of
the prisoners had tried to escape, and had made a kind of channel
in the cell, and I should come over immediately, which was about 50
steps away.
Senator BALDWIN. A t Schwabisch Hall?
Mr. PERL. NO; a t Dachau. There was a certain reason why he
came to me. About 3 or 4 weeks prior to this, before the trial started,
a t Dachau, two prisoners, Hlingerherfer and Guehrer, tried to escape.
They had succeeded in sawing through the iron part of a window,
and I had investigated this, had been assigned to investigate this; so
I believe that obviously this man, believin that I had something to
R
do with it, called me and said come imme lately, that two more pri-
soners had tried to escape.
So, I went with him to the cell. There was no prisoner in the cell
a t the time. I went to find out what they had done, whether they
had made the channel and so on.
The prisoners were all in their dock in the courtroom. There I
saw that there was a connection between the two cells, one to tbe
other, but I was not so certain whether i t was made pur osely, or
1
whether it had existed previously; but it looked to me li e an at-
tempted break-through where the two before had succeeded in p e t i i n ~
out.
Then this guard, as far as I recall-he handed me a few papers
which were lying there.
Senator BALDWIN. Do you remember the name of the guard?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.

Senator BALDWIN.GOahead.
Mr. PERL. I am not certain whether he handed me the papers. I
might have taken them myself. I want to tell the full truth. I
believe he handed them to me. They were lying there, and no one else
was in the room except the guard and I, or maybe a second guard, and I
believe there was a gentleman with us, and I looked a t those papers,
because I thought that they might give me some clue as to who had
been trying to get out.
I n the case before, they had received some information from outside,
from somewhere, some files to get through the windows, and I took this
paper and brought i t in to Colonel Ellis, and just when I was with
Colonel Ellis, s h o ~ i n ghim the papers, I explained to him what had
occurred, and then I think I even started reading them, some members
of the administrative unit came in and told him that the defense coni-
plainecl about the fact that I had taken some papers which referred to
the defense tactics from the prisoners. Though I handed the papers
immediately eyer, I believe Colonel Ellis was there and told me to hand
them over, or whether I did it on my own, I do not recall, to the man
who was there, to the defense representative I believe i t was, who was
there.
Senator MCCARTHY. Lieutenant Perl-
Mr. PERL. I didn't sneak in to steal; I never did steal anything.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUknow that one of the defense attorneys
saw you through the window, going into the cell block; that he notified
the guard ; and then a guard did make you give the papers back ; is that
riuht?
k r . PERL.NOguard would make me give the papers back. I believe
it was Colonel Corwin who came into Colonel Ellis' room and asked me
to return the papers back, but i t was an officer. You see, the position
of the defense was very weak. They did not dare to let the man take
the stand, so they make a big fuss about this happening, that I have
taken the papers.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you climb a fence in order to get into the
cell ?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir. There was no sense in it, and I am not very good
a t fence climbing, anyhow. They could have shot me if I had.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you-Colonel Chambers, did you have a
question ?
Colonel CHAMBERS. YOUbrought Colonel Ellis in here, and if Colo-
nel Ellis is liere, I would like to ask him about this.
Senator MCCARTHY. I would like to clear up this qnestion that one
of the witnesses saw him-I believe it was Colonel Everett that saw
him, said he had seen you climb over the fence in order to get into this
enclosure ; is that incorrect ?
Mr. PERL. It is absolutely incorrect.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOW many cells did you take papers from?
Mr. PERL. It was this one cell.
Sentaor MECARTHY.- One cell?
Mr. PERL.The one cell which was open, because they had discovered
there that there had been a break-through, and there was a hole in the
wall.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUtook the papers and Corwin used them?'
91765-49----44
Mr. PERL. I believe it was Colonel Corwin who, accompanied by a

defense attorney, came in and said that Perl has just been in defense
cells and took some papers.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Colonel Corwin's position was what?
Mr. PERL. Colonel Corwin's position was, I believe, in charge of the
whole administrative set-up.
Senator MCCARTHY. And he told you never to do it again?
Mr. PERL.I do not recall it, but he might have. I do not remember.
Senator MCCARTHY. He said, "Give those papers back and don't let
me catch you cloing that again." Aren't those the words he used?
Mr. PERL.I don't know.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will YOU tell us why you did not inform some
of the defense counsel before you went into this defendant's cell and
took the papers? Why didn't you go to the defense and say, "I am
going into the cell and take some pzpers"?
Mr. PERL.I didn't know there were papers in the cell there.
Senator BALDWIN.Just so we can get the record straight here, be-
cause this appears on page 1377 of the record, Mr. Flanagan asked this
question :
Do you recall a n instance during the time of this case where Lieutenant Perl
allegedly entered the cells of some of the defendants in this case and stole papers
from them?
Senator MCCARTHY.Who entered-who is testifying?
Senator BALDWIN.Mr. Strong. [Reading :]
I recall the following incident, which I did not see myself. I remember t h a t
one day, I think i t was during the lunch recess, the colonel told myself, and, if I
a m not very much mistaken, Colonel Dwinell and other defense teams of the fol-
lowing story. H e had observed, while the trial was going on, Lieutenant Perl
entering the bunker. I have to explain t h a t from the benches on which defense
counsel were sitting you could look through the windows into the rear yard which
joined t h e bunker where the accused were kept during the night. And apparently
he saw Lieutenant Perl entering the bunker which was a kind of unusual thing.
And he told us afterward he saw Perl coming out with papers.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Flanagan informs me that
the witness testified the other day that Colonel Everett said he saw the
witness climb over the fence, and Mr. Flanagan says he can't find i t at
this time, so I would like to make it clear in the record-I mould like
to have the right to withdraw that from the record after Mr. Flanagan
has had a chance to go over the testimpny.
Senator BALDWIN.I think one thing that always happens in any
investigation, whether it is in court or otherwise, is that there is often-
times incorporated in the questions facts that are or are not in the rec-
ord in a different way, and in the various exchanges, or in the vigorous
exuberance of the moment, sometimes things are said that are not
altogether said perfectly honestly ;and the chainnan understancls that.
But it is a little difficult to cross-examine the witness on the basis of
an alleged fact that it later appears is not really in the record.
Senator MCCARTHY. That was the reason azd Mr. Flanagan has
the right to go over the record, and I still say ~f i t is in there I will
find it.
Again quoting Colonel Everett. H e called this to the attention of the offlcer
of the security guard and either the officer or Everett or both went into one of
the rooms of the prosecution where they found Lieutenant Perl looking a t
quite a lot of papers which he had collected from the cells of t h e accused who
were i n the ~)risoners'dock.
And I think he was trying to translate them. And I think Colonel Everett
made some complaint. I don't know whether i t was t o the security officer o r
Colonel Coleman. I don't think t h a t happened again.
Senator MCCARTHY.Was he forced to give t h e papers back?
Mr. STRONG. I presume so.
Senator MCCARTHY.Was there anyone else i n the room with Perl t h a t you
know of that was studying these papers a t t h e time?
Mr. STRONQ. I don't know.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUknow t h a t Perl was there?
Mr. STRONG. I know from Colonel Evertee's story he found Perl in t h a t room.
I would not know.
Senator MCCARTHY.DO I have this correctly i n mind?
Perl was caught after he had been in the cell of different defendants t h a t were
i n court being tried?
Senator MCCARTHY. And took private papers into one of the prosecution rooms,
and he was caught there examining those papers, by the security guard?
Mr. STRONG.hat is correct.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Would i t have been possible t h a t a n y of these papers he took
were privileged communications between these defendants and their defense
attorneys?
Mr. STRONG. T h a t is quite possible, but I would not know.
Senator BALDWIN.May I ask one question there? I t has a n excellent bearing
on this thing. At t h e time this thing is alleged to have taken place by Perl,
did t h a t happen u p a t Dachau?
Senator BALDWIN.Did t h a t happen after the trial had started?
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Strong, you were present during the entire trial of this
case, were you not?
Then it goes on to another subject. But certainly Mr. Flanagan
should have the opportunity of examining this transcript and see if
there is any other reference to it, because we want to get all of the
facts.
Senator MCCARTHY. I don't think it makes any difference.
Am I correct in this? You did show those papers to Colonel Ellis
a n d you were going over them a t the time the security guard or the
colonel that you mentioned caught you ; is that right?
Mr. PERL. I had not started reading them yet, as I remember, be-
cause i t was in German, pencil written very small. I was a b o u t 1
had showed the papers to Colonel Ellis, but I hadn't read them yet.
I had them in my hand and wanted to show them. That is my recol-
lection, now. When right a t that time one of the defense lawyers,
together with an administrative officer, entered--
Senator MCCARTHY. Did the colonel tell you it was improper to en-
ter the defendants' cells and take their papers?
Mr. PERL. TOmy recollection a t this time I did not know that I
attached much of importance to them; but he didn't have time f o r
this becahse I just had told him what had happened and whether
they-
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Strong testified, according to the testimony
read by Senator Baldwin, that you had collected these papers from
various cells. And I understand it is your testimony that you merely
got a sizable bunch of papers from one cell. I s that correct?
Mr. PERL. Sir, what Mr. Strong testified is exactly the kind of testi-
mony which you do not -want to have admitted in the German trials.
I t is hearsay. He did not know anything himself.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am asking you now, are you sure that all of
those papers came from one cell?
Mr. PERL. I am sure. I entered only one cell. I had no reason
to enter another cell-wait a moment, sir; no, no. I entered the
adjoining cell, too, because there was a tunnel between two cells, and L
went with the guard to the other room. I didn't look a t these cells,
Just looked a t this hole in the other cells.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you kindly answer my question now?
Did you take papers from more than one cell?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUare sure now, under oath, that you only
took papers from one cell ?
Mr. PERL. I am sure ; yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUonly took papers from one cell?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Are you done with that?
Senator MCCARTIIY.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.One reascn why the Chair hasn't followed the
strict rule of directing cross-examination here is because this has gone
to such lengths that by the time you get around to cross-examination
on a particular subject, you are way past it, and the matter is not and
cannot be fresh in your mind.
So, if you are through examining with reference to that situation-
Senator MCCARTHY. I wasn't through with that. I have Hennecke's
statement here, that I would like to examine the witness on.
I might say I did not mean to interrupt the Chairman's direct exami-
nation, but with his permission I will finish the examination.
You say that you did dictate parts of confessions at the time, using
your notes to refresh your recollection?
Mr. PERL. Right.
Senator MC~ARTHY. Now, Mr. Bailey testified here that those state-
ments were dictated to him and he typed up the statements; is that
rioht ?
%r. PERL. Dictated it to whom?
Senator MCCARTHY. Dictated to Bailey.
Mr. PERL. I do not know whether this statement was dictated t o
him, but some statements were dictated to him.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I n other words, they were dictated, not while
you were in the cell, but while you were back in the court reporters'
room-you dictated the confession to the court reporter; is that it?
Mr. PERL. There was more between. The statement mas taken
in German. Then i t went to another part of the building, that was
a part where Mr. Bailey worked, and there translated into English.
Then, it was dictated to Mr. Bailey, I believe-I remember there were
two or three cases in which I dictated direct my statements from
German in the court reporters' room to Mr. Bailey.
I t was before Colonel Ellis arrived, but then I gave it up; first,
because my time was considered too important to use it for transla-
tion; and, secondly, I couldn't work with Mr. Bailey. Mr. Bailey
could not understand me.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU say "I dictated my statement." You
mean you dictated-
Mr. PERL. I mean my statement. I had 10 statements in my file,
and when I say my statement, I mean one of those 10 statements which
I had in my file.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you dictated the defendant's
confession, and by your statements, you mean the defendant's
confession ?
Mr. PERL.
By my statement, I mean one of those statements which
T had in my file.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Let's take confession No. A. You would dic-
tate this confession which the defendant would later sign--
Mr. PERL. Which he had signed before-
Senator MCCARTHY. Let's go back-strike that.
Mr. Bailey's testimony was that you mould dictate and redictate
those confessions a number of times. I s that correct? The same
confession? I n other words, he would dictate a confession, he would
type it out; you would read it over, and they you would dictate a
new confession ; is that right ?
Mr. PERL. I t is not correct, sir; but there is something in it which
may make Mr. Bailey believe this.
Some of the statements were translated very poorly. We had in-
terpreters there and a translitor-I say that he believed he was an
interrogator; he never interrogated. Mr. Steiner, and his transla-
tions were rather poor. He speaks both languages absolutely fluently,
but his vocabularly is not very rich; and I sometimes objected t o
translations which he had made.
Then the thing didn't come back from the prisoners for making
corrections; it went back to the translator to make a better transla-
tion of the German into English, and all this translation of the Ger-
man contents were checked with the defense, and in every single case
in open court the defense said no objection to the translation, and they
'
were submitted that every one of them was correct.
Senator BALDWIN. Have you finished with Hennecke?
r .
;this is still on Hennecke.
Senator M c C a n ~ x ~No
Am I correct on this, that when you dictated the confession of
Hennecke, let us say-I lmow it may be difficult to tie it to one indi-
vidual defendant; I may have to branch into some of the others, gen-
erally-but when yo^^ dictated that confession to him, firs*
Senator BALDWIN.Which confession?
Senator MCCARTHY. When you dictated Hennecke's confession, you
first dictated an introd~~ctory statement ; is that correct ?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. A statement that was the same in all cases, and
said "Write down what I say"?
Mr. PERL. I said what I told you before-this whole story: it is
hearsay-I mean, "it is your statement, and if it is not what you want
l o say, object to it."
Senator MCCARTHY. But the introductory statement, that was the
same in all cases ?
Mr. PERL. I don't think so.
Senator MCCARTHY. Well, tell us roughly what you meant by the
introductory statement.
Mr. PERL. I mean I believe, as f a r as I can remember, started most
of the statements, "I am Hans Hennecke; I entered this unit on this
day7'-and I couldn't dictat,e it because I did not-"and I have been
in this unit this date, during this campaign, and my position was
this and this ; I.commanded this and this company."
' That is what I believe you mean by the introductory statement.
Senator MCCARTHY.That is what is referred to by the prisoners

when they refer to the introductory statement, is it ?
Mr. PERL. I do not know. I do not know the charges.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am asking you, is there any other general

statement, like "John Jones, being first duly sworn, on oath, deposes
and saith," something that you dictated in all cases ?
Mr. PERL. No.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, you started out by giving the
man's name and unit, and so forth' ?
Mr. PERL. Yes; there was no strict rule, but I believe I started out
i n most cases by giving his name and rank.
Senator MCCARTHY. Nom, is i t correct that you took your notes-
the notes you had taken on some previous occasion-and then you
went into the cell and said, "Now, you write down your confession,"
o r words to that effect. And you had the information in the way of
notes, and then you dictated to him what he was to write; is that
right ?
Mr. PERL. I did not dictate-yes, I dictated, but not in the sense
of giving my dictation. FVe agreed on a certain text of the content,
yes; but, as you speak of Hennecke, sir, I want an exception in the
case of Hennecke, who, by the way, was not a major case; he was
one of the six or seven cases where this fast procedure was applied-
another procedure mas used, and the procedure I told you now whlch
I told him it was his own statement and I dictated it in his presence
and there were discussions about certain points sometimes-this pro-
cedure was used in the beginning only. But Hennecke7s statement
was taken later, later on I want, to explain it because you are speaking
about Hennecke, sir, and it may ease your way of questioning-later
on, we used another method. We found a German officer who .
knows-
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you stick to Hennecke?
Mr. PERL.I want to tell yon because this method was used in Hen-
necke7scase. '
Senator MCCARTHY. What ~rocedurewas used in Hennecke7scase?
Mr. PERL. I n Hennecke's case I am almost certain that the following
procedure was used, as in most other cases :
A German officer who knew shorthand very well and was a member
of this very same unit, but whom we had not been able to involve into
the case-we couldn't find out whether he had actually committed a
crime or not-he was used for the following purpose-
Senator MCCARTHY. What purpose? Who was he?
Mr. PERL. Kramm ;he was a battalion adjutant.
Mr. Kramm-
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this-
Mr. PERL. I would like to finish this sentence.
Senator MC~SRTEIY. We are talking about-
Senator BALDWIN. YOUraised this question yourself, and I think
the witness ought to have an opportunity to answer. Then you can
go into who Kramm is.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, Kramm is a man who is the
prosecution's principal witness. H e testified in the cases at Dachau.
Later, Mr. Rosenfeld, who is a law member of the court, in the Mal-
medy cases, tried to use Kramm in the Skorzini case-
Senator BALDWIN.That all may be so, but-
Senator MCCARTHY. I think we should show who Kramm is.
Then Kramm refused to continue to lie any further, and said "1'11
testify no further," and "everything that I have said, in effect, in the
Malmedy cases, was untrue." H e made affidavits telling why he did
that, what duress and force had been used upon him, so if Kramm
was used, I think we should know about him.
Senator BALDWIN.Mr. Witness, finish your statement. That was
on an entirely different subject, as the Chair understands it, and you
can go into examination on Kramm, if you think it is necessary.
Mr. PERL. Sir, I do not not know what Kramm stated afterward.
He was not our friend. He was a member of the same unit and a very
reliable officer in his unit. He had occupied a high position; but he
knew shorthand and there we were; we had no one who could save the
time that every interrogator lost, hours and hours being in with the
prisoner while he wrote it out in longhand. They lost this time be-
cause they were very slow in writing. So after we found this Kramm,
then the procedure as in Henneclce's case was followed.
When the facts mere established from this German officer who was
called in, Kramm, and now in Kramm's presence the prisoner was told
the same thing, "this is your statement," and so on and so forth.
Then the facts were taken from the notes and from the conversation
going on in Rrainm's presence, with the prisoner, and it was all taken
down in shorthand, the statement, and dictated by me or by the other
interrogator.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n shorthand?
Mr. PERL. By Kramm, in German; and after this I left the interro-
gation cell. For hours, sometimes for 4 hours, sometimes for 5 hours,
and when I came back, sometimes I came back too early, but usually the
statement was all written out, because Kramm from the shorthand
notes in German had dictated i t to this Gern~anprisoner.
Senator MCCARTITY. May I ask you--
Mr. PERL. I want to answer in connection with what you said
before-
Senator MCCARTHY. Before you leave Kramm, just hold it there.
Mr. Chairman, I want to identify Kramm. He was a man who
went in and took the statement, and took i t down in shorthand, and
I want to properly identify him and see if I am correct.
Yon said Kramm was no friend of yours. You understand that
Kramm, at the trial, refused to get on the stand and testify.
He told the defense that all he mould give was his name. He would
refuse to testify to anything further, and you know this is the same
Kramm whom the defense attorney tried to interrogate as to whether
he was offered immunity, what he had been offered for this aid he
was giving the prosecution ; and the court would not let him answer.
That is the same Kramm whom Mr. Rosenfeld, who was a prosecutor
in the Skorzini case, whom Mr. Rosenfeld was going to use as a wit-
ness, based upon these statements which he gave you, and the story
which he testified to at Dachau, and a t that time Kramm said, "I won't
continue this farce any further." That "I was lying a t Dachan and
I won't lie any more," and that thereupon Rosenfeld was unable-
Senator BALDWIN. Where is that ?
Mr. MCCARTHY. I am asking him if he knows it. It will be in the
record.
Senator BALDWIN.It is not in the record yet,. and I don't think the
Senator should predicate his question on assertions of fact that don't
appear in the record.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mi. Chairman, I can't control the way the Chair
is putting on the case, and this witness here-
Senator BALDTVIN. The Chair is not putting on a case. The Chair
is giving you every latitude_and,youhave spent most of the time this
morning examining this witness and it seems to me that I asked the
Senator a moment ago if he was going to finish with the Hennecke
thing, because Colonel Chambers wants to put something in the record
about Hennecke, and now we are off on another phase of the thing.
Now, there has been-there has to be some order to this thing. The
Senator can cross-examine the witness to any length he wants to, but
the Chair thinks he ought to base his questions purely on what is in
the record or what he claims will be the evidence later, and proceed in
that particular may.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, if you want to call this witiiess
back after the whole storv has been told, I assume that can be clone,
and I will be glad to holcf it u p ; but in view of the fact that me have
these facts, and we know it, is a matter of record in the Skorzini case
and in the Malmedy cases, exactly what position Kramm took. We
have got to examine on the defense statements which are here, and
I am going to ask this man who took Hennecke's statement, and I might
say the Chair has two or three times each day, dePending on the facts,
has allowed me to cross-examine. I gzther that he thinks that is some
unusual leniency on the part of the Chair.
Senator BALDWIN.The Chair thinks nothing of the kind.
Senator MCCARTHY. I was invited to come and-
Senator BALDWIN.YOUcan ask any proper question you want to,
and I make that clear time and time again.
Senator MC~BRTHY. Time after time there is reference that 1 am
allowed to examine witnesses. Obviously, if I am not allowed to
examine witnesses I would not be sitting in this hearing.
Senator BALDWIN.The purpose of the Chair is to keep order in
the proceeding and to keep things together so that it will make an
easier task for all of us as a committee to keep things together. That
is why the Chair suggested awhile ago if you were through with
Hennecke, there is a point that Colonel Chambers wanted to make
here.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am not through with Hennecke, but I don't
mind waiting.
Senator BALDWIN. Would the Senator finish with Henneclie and
then let us get into the record what Colonel Chambers suggests should
be here, and then go on with Kramm. Of course if Kramm is im-
portant, we will go into it.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any objection to
stopping my cross-examination now and continuing it at a later time.
I think in view of the fact that Kramm is the man who took Hennecke7s
statement, according to-
Mr. PERL. I believe so.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUbe quiet until I qet through.
I n view of the fact that he stated that Kramm was no friend of
theirs, which is obviously untrue, Kramm would not even talk to
defense counsel during the trial, I don't think we can get a clear
picture of the Hennecke confession unless we find out what Kramm's
interest was and who he is.
As I say, I have no objection, Mr. Chairman, to stopping my cross-
examination now, and continuing it this afternoon or tomorrow, but I
will have to insist that I be allowed to do it in my own fashion, and I
think that Kramm is important, in view of the fact that this witness
says he did take Hennecke's statement.
Now, I assume that Mr. Chambers has something to put in. Good.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you have something you wanted to put in,
Colonel ?
Mr: CHAMBERS. I n connection with this, are you through with the
Hennecke thing?
Senator MCCARTHY. NO. I will be glad to have you put in what-
ever you have. I am sure the Chair understands that these con-
fessions are all so interwoven and intermixed that I can't just go down
the line and question in regard to one particular confession, without
branching out into discussin - the other 30 confessions, in which
P
there are affidavits of the de endants that were being coerced into
signing confessions.
I can't possibly take each one of the 30 alone. I don't know enough
yet, and I have to extract that from the witness. I am sure the Chair
realizes that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Starting with page 1011 of the record in this case,
we have been quoting from one or two items taken out of the context.
The full picture of these Schnell procedures is here in rather ac-
curate form, and very short, and I think it should go into the record
a t this time, and with the Chair's permission I would like to read it.
Senator BAWWIN.Very well-
Senator MCCARTW.Full picture by whom? Which witness?
Mr. CHAMBERS. We have been examining Lieutenant Perl on two
points lifted out of this. I believe that this-
Senator MCCARTHY. Whose testimony is this?
Colonel CHAMBERS. Lieutenant Perl's, whose testimony you have
been quoting in connection with the point of whether or not he had
led Hennecke to believe that he was representing him a t the trial.
Now, Lieutenant Perl on the stand said-
Senator MCCARTHY. I think it should go in.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think we all agree that this should be complete.
I might say that I mentioned i t to Mr. Flanagan here the other day.
Senator MCCARTHY. I agree with you, also.
Mr. CHAMBERS. With the chairman's permission, I will read it.
Mr. CHAMBERS (reading)

:
Question. Lieutenant Perl, how many times was Hennecke interrogated prior
t o March 13?
I might say-
Senator MCCARTRY.Would you just read i t i n ?
Mr. CHAMBERS(continues reading) :
Answer. H e had been interrogated before by Mr. Ellowitz a s to other incidents.
As to the crossroads incident, I don't know how often.
Question. Prior to the 13th of March, how many times did you interrogate him?
Answer. I believe four or five times.
Q u ~ ~ t i o nfin. direct examination, you spoke bf a ceremony used t o obtain the
statement. What form did that ceremony take?
Answer. The same form which was used before. That is the ceremony of fast
procedure.
Question. I s that the one which has been referred to a s t h e Schnell procedure!
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was the Schnell procedure a form of mock trial?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Was there a table with a cross and a crucifix and candle?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. How many of these ceremonies was Hennecke required to submit to?
Answer. I am almost certain there was only one.
Question. At this ceremony were there people behind a table, posing a s a
court ?
Answer. There were three persons, three members of our unit sitting a t a
table without asking hardly anything, didn't ask any questions a t all. Then '
there was Mr. Thon on one side of the table, a s he i s sitting here, on the same
side, and I was sitting on the other side, and he played the bad boy and I played
t h e good.
Question. How were t h e members of t h e court dressed?
Answer. They wore American uniforms.
Question. Were they wearing officers' uniforms?
Answer. Yes; they were wearing American officers' uniforms, independent of
their actual rank.
Question. What p a r t in the ceremony did Mr. Thon play?
Answer.-
What was that last-independent ?
Senator MCCARTHY.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Independent

of their actual rank.
Question. What part of the ceremony did Mr. Thon play?
Answer. Whenever Hennecke said something he shouted, "That's a lie; that's
not t r u e ; that's a lie," and insisted t h a t Hennecke should get a minus while
I insisted t h a t he should get a plus.
Question. Mr. Thon acted a s a so-called prosecutor a t the trial?
Answer. I don't think a n actual prosecutor would act like that.
Question. Did he a c t a t all a s a prosecutor, in this manner, i n the place that
h e took i n the courtroom?
Answer. If the role is so-called a t a mock trial, then Hennecke was induced
to believe t h a t Mr. Thon was that kind of prosecutor.
Question. Did you pose a s Hennecke's defense counsel?
Answer. After the trial, Hennecke told me, "As you were my defense counsel,
I will tell you the truth." At this occasion I told him, "I am not your defense
counsel, a s there is no defense counsel in this f a s t procedure. However, a s you
see, I am taking care of your case." By this, I was speaking so because I took
care of this case.
Question. At the trial, did the supposed prosecutor bring in some witnesses
to testify?
Answer. Mr. Thon brought Eckman in, from whom we had got the lead infor-
mation on the whole Stavelot incident, which was unknown until t h a t trial.
Question. During the procedure, clidn't you continue to object to some of t h e
evidence t h a t was being offered?
Answer. I did not exactly object, but I called the witnesses liars.
Question. So t h a t you led Hennecke to believe t h a t you were representing him
a t the trial?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. Did you advise Hennecke t h a t he was to write a statement dictated
by you so t h a t you could properly defend him a t the mock trial?
Answer. No, sir.
Question. Did you tell Hennecke t h a t if he did not cooperate with you t h a t
the supposed court would continue in his absence and would pronounce judgment
against him?
Answer. I never asked him to cooperate. I just told him to tell the truth,
and I never told him t h a t the court would pass judgment in his absence.
Question. Did you tell Hennecke t h a t the court, referring to the mock trial,
would sentence him to death?
Answer. No. The minute the mock trial was over, the purpose mas fulfilled,
and I didn't speak about the mock trial any more.
Question. What were t h e purposes?
Answer. There were two purposes. The main one was for me t o gain his con-
fidence so he would tell me the truth. The second purpose was to make him see
t h a t if he wants to speak the truth there is a chance to speak the truth.
Senator MCCARTHY.What page?

Mr. CHAMBERS.That is 1014.
'
Question. At that time was I-Ienneclre a prisoner of w a r ?
Answer. I don't know whether he was discharged then, already.
Question. If he wasn't discharged, then he would have been a prisoner of w a r ;
I s t h a t right?
Prosecution. I object.
Objection sustained.
Colonel Dwinell. No further questions.
Now, two other points: You asked me, Senator McCarthy, to find
out, if I could, when the mock trial took place, this Schnell procedure,
in relation to the confession. The confession was signed March 13.
There is no record as to when the Schnell procedure took place on
Hennecke.
Senator MCC.~RTHY. 1believe 1have it here. 1think it was-
Mr. CHA~IBERS. That is from his affidavit, sir?
Senator MCCARTRY. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
There is nothing in the record that shows it.

The other point was-
Senator MCCARTHY. Beg pardon ; it says in this affidavit he was in-
formed that there was a second trial on-let me give it to you if I may ;
I think it mas on the 12th.
Instead of that, by reason of newly acquired eridence by Lieutenant Perl, a new
t r i a l took place, with the same result, on March 12-
That is the second mock trial. I think the first one, according to this
affidavit, mas on March 9, and on the 2d of March he saicl Lieutenant
Perl came to his cell-on March 8 "I lifted the hood and found myself
before a courtv-in other words, his affidavitis that Perl first contacted
hiin at the mock trial, but at the trial he had on the 1Sth he mas noti-
fied that there had been another trial on the 12tl1, in his absence.
Mr. CHANBERS. The record shows-
Senator MCCARTHY. And on the 13th he signed a confession.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The record shows a confession was signed on the
13tl1, and Mr. Perl has testified that the, mock trial took place several
clays before this confession mas signed.
Senator BALDTIN.The quorum call has sounded, and I think we had
better go over there and answer that.
Senator MCCARTHY. Are we meeting this afternoon?
Senator BALDWIN.We are not meeting this afternoon.
Mr. CHAMBERS. A t 2 o'clock toinorrow afternoon there mill be an
executive session.
Senator BALDWIN. You had one other thing you wanted to put in?
Mr. C I T A ~ E Again,
R ~ . for the purpose of clearing the record,
sw-
Senator BALDWIN.If that is in connection with Kramm, let it go ;
so, again I want to say to the Senator: You want nothing more put in
on the 13eimecke situation ?
Mr. CHAXBERS. Not a t this time.
Senator BALDWIN.I f you want to go into that further, in connec-
tion with Kramin, we can get some order on that.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am not through with Hennecke.
(Discussjon was had off the record.)
(Thereupon, at 12 : 07, a recess w a s taken until Wednesday, May 18,
1949, a t 10 a. m.)
MALMEDY NABSACRE INVESTIGATION
TUESDAY, MAY 17, 1949

UNITEDSTATESSENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE COMMITTEE
ON ARMEDSERVICES,
Washingto?z,D. 6'.
The subccmmittee met, pursuant to adjournment, a t 2:50
in room 212, Senate Office Building, Senator Raymond E. B a dwin Pa
"-'
presiding.
Present : Senators Baldwin (presiding), and Hunt.
Also present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy; J. M. Chambers, of
of the committee staff; Francis Flaaagan, of the staff of the sub-
committee on ii~vestigationsof the Committee on Expenditures in
Executive Departments; and Colonel Ellis.
TEXTIMOIYY OF WILLIAM R. PERL--Resumed
Senator BALDWIN.Mr. Parl, Lieutenant Perl, you stated that you
had an explanation you wanted to make further as to how this inves-
tigation, interrogation, was conducted.
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. Would you want to go ahead and finish that as
briefly as you can ? Could you do it in a half hour?
Mr. PERL. Yes. sir.
Senator BALDWIN.All right; then we will all refrain from asking
you questions, and make notes of the questions we want to ask you,
and then ask you the questions afterwards. I s that all right with
you, Senator ?
Sentaor MCCARTHP.That is O. K. with me, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BALDWIN.All right, go ahead.
Mr. PERL. I explained last time how we achieved the original break
through Christ by using the trick of telling him that we had a mike
in his room which made him tell us that hls cell mate had told him
that he knew about shooting Weis.
The first case after which we went was the case of Wichmann which
mas a shooting a t the time when the offensive was over already or
almost over in January 1945 at a place called Petit Thiers. We went
after Wichmann first because we did not have the others whom Weis
accused too. It was the one whom we had in custody, but at this time
we did not know his identity. Huber is' the man who made the
one American who played dead get up, took his clothing away and
shot him, and killed who a t the orders of Peiper had shot a prisoner
of war who had refused to give information as not in our custody a t
this time.
We went after Hillig, and after we had several witnesses, I could
not recall the number who had seen him coming to the chapel and
695
leaving this chapel, and then coming back and heard tell him the
story of how he got these prisoners, there was no eye witness to
the shooting actually.
After we had those witnesses we confronted wichmann with those
witnesses and when he was confronted with those witnesses he con-
fessed right away.
At this occasion I would like to say that he really repented what
he did. He told the story in detail. I do not think I should read
the testimony here, but he told i t in detail.
He mas in a tank. That was his description. R e was in a stable
and saw a prisoner coming out. There was no fighting at this time.
The Germans were defeated at this time already, and he saw a
man coming out of the woods and people called him, "Otto,"-that was
his first name-"look here, there is an American," and he went out,
advised him to take his pistol, and he said, 'LThis man can hardly
walk."
He went out, he mas supply sergeant, Wichmann, and took this
American who could hardly walk and brought him down to Peiper's
C. P.
This C. P. with Peiper, Dr. Sickel, Major Sickel who was the regi-
mental surgeon and a major whom he did not know-Peiper asked in
English a few questions from this prisoner, and the prisoner en-
deavored very hard to answer, but he was hardly able to speak, as he
described it, as Peiper later on described it. It was more a kind of
barking than of talking because he had been hiding in the woods
for several days.
H e mas-around his shoes he had rags and he was completely ex-
hausted. Peiper looked through his papers and gave him his papers
back.
Another one of the officers present stole something out of his pocket-
book but Peiper did not take anything, and then the question was
asked-yes, then the sergeant asked either Peiper or Sickel-I do not
recall-"What should I do with him? Should I bring him upstairs?"
Upstairs was the infirmary, so Sickel looked at Peiper and they ex-
changed glances and he was very quiet, this Wichmann, because he
knew what it meant, as he says, and then Sickel said, "Get the swine
out and bump him off." H e told us that he was under the impression
that he was under the order of the regimental commander too, because
he was the highest ranking in the room; brought him out into the
woods and shot him there.
There were witnesses as f a r as I recall who saw him going out too
and coming back again without the prisoners. He described the loca-
tion exactly in the woods where he had shot this American. He had
even described the size.
As f a r as I remember, be was a rather small man, and when an in-
vestigation team was sent out, I believe it was Major Byrne going to
this place, they found out that actually a dead American had been
exactly a t the spot which this Wichmann wrote, which was not where
fighting mas. It was a little off the road.
This was the first interrogation. I would like to mention the sec-
ond interrogation, too, because it shows the kind of atmosphere which
prevailed between most of the prisoners after they had confessed, and
us. A few days-I do not know exactly when, but if it is important
J can establish it afterwards-
Senator MCCARTHY.Mr. Chairman, I understood that this witness
was supposed to t r y in a half-hour to give generally the picture of
how they obtained confessions and statements. Now I certainly have
no objection to sitting here and listening to the details of each con-
fession, but if he is to do that, we will have gotten nothing i n that
half-hour allotted to him.
I just wonder if Mr. Perl could not possibly give us the thing that
we have been waiting f o r him t o do now for the last 2 days, and that is
generally how he got the confessions, how he went about obtaining
them.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator, I understood that is what he is trying
to do. H e is describing in some detail how they got this statement
from Wichmann and how the case operated.
Do not go into too great details.
Senator MCCARTHY.I wonder if Mr. Perl ~mderstancisme. Cer-
tainly the chairman will make the final order on it, but you have been
telling us what this Wichmann said. T h e thing that I am concerned
with, and I believe the Chair and the committee is also concerned
with it, is how you got the statement, how you went about getting it,
not the details of his confession. W e have that all here, you see.
Mr. PERL. All right, I will go a little more into detail as to this. I
thoupht I would do this in the case of Peiper who was involved i n
this shooting, too.
I confronted TiT7ichmann with the witness to whom he had boasted
that he had shot this prisoner or who had seen him coming into this
chapel and tell him he is going to shoot a prisoner or saw him coming
back after the shooting. I do not now remember exactly when h e
boasted about it, before it or after.
I believe i t was after the shooting, and when he was confronted with
those witnesses he said, "Yes, I did it, but I did i t because I was or-
dered by Sickel to do it," so I asked him how did it happen that Sickel
ordered you to d o it. "Tell us i n detail," so he told us Sickel was pres-
ent in this room. So I said, "What room," because he believed that
I know everything already, which I did not know yet, so slowly the
whole story which I told you now developed.
I f you want to know a little more about Wichmann's interrogation,
i t is not much to tell because it was one of the easiest. T h e moment
he was confronted with those people of whom he knew that he had
told them that he had shot these prisoners, he confessed.
Senator BALDWIN.Right at that point-me said we would not inter-
r u p t you-I would like to know this: Where did you talk with
Wichmann ?
Mr. PERL. I n one of the regular interrogation cells.
Senator BALDWIN.And what was the situation a t the time you
talked with him? Who was there and what were the circumstances?
Mr. PERL. I am almost certain that I was alone when I interrogated
Wichmann. There might have been someone else there. There was
certainly in Wichmann's case nothing like what was referred to here
as mock trial.
Senator BALDWIN. Now I want to know this, too. A t any time
during your interrogation of Wichmann I want to have you describe
to the committee whether or not there was any physical abuse or any
threats or anything of that kind, whether you threatened t o withhold
his family's ration cards, or anything of that kind. Tell us fully what
was done with reference to that.
Mr. PERL. NO, sir, I did not threaten him and I clid not have to use
any other means but a pure confrontation with the others and telling
him, which of course I told him, "We have many more people who
know about it, so it is no sense-of keeping back. We know about the
crime. I f you are still lying, it makes your condition much worse,"
and he confessed immediately and he mas one of the very few.
Zwigart was the other one, and Zwigart is still under death sea-
tence, who said from the beginning that "I clid it and I am sorry for it,
and whatever I did I want, ~f I have to be p n i s h e d for it, I will stand
for it."
Senator BALDWIN.You said a moment ago you clid not have to use
any other method than confrontation with the witnesses. What other
rnethods did you ever use ?
Mr. PERL. For instance, in addition to using witnesses I showed
them sketches which had been drawn by those witnesses, which I
did not have to do in this case and I could not because I did not have
a sketch of the place where they had shot these prisoners of war, or
in other cases I told him, "Your superior has already confessed too."
I n this case I just told him what the others had told me about him.
Senator BALDWIN. All right, go ahead.
Mr. PERL. SOhe described the story quite in detail how he had sliot
this prisoner of war, and he clicl not try to involve his superiors into
it. Just the contrary, he said Peiper did not say anything, just Sickel
said he should bump off the swine, but on the other hand Feiper was
l~resentso he thought that he is under his order too.
Now from this shooting later-now we did not have Siclrel. We had
Peiper. An alarm went out to find Sickel, and after not very long
time Sickel was picked up s,omewliare, I believe in the British zone
of occupation, and he was brought in for interrogation too.
Sickel was a much more complicatecl case because Sickel was a very
intelligent man, not only that he is a doctor; he is, I believe, more
intelligent than the average man with his background mould be.
He was told, "We want to knom about your participation," because
first of all I want to know what he knows and what ha heard from
others in the British zone of occupation about the case.
I soon noticed that Siclrel does not lmow anything, so I asked him
whether he remembers this Petit Thiers. Yes, he remembered Petit
Thiers. He remembered that there was a prisoner of war there and
that this prisoner of war was brought in, but then he said this prisoner
of war was never sliot. This prisoner of mar was sent out and he does
not knom any more what happened to him, so then after he had denied
that the prisoner was ever shot, I told him that the prisoner was shot.
Then he said, "I do not know about it. I told the sergeant he should
get the prisoner up to the next floor to the infirmary," so I said, "But
he did not bring him up to the next floor," so he said, "I do not knom
about it."
Tllen I confronted this Sergeant Wichmann with Sickel, and Wich-
mann told him, "How can you say this? You told me 'Get the swine
out and bump him off.' "
Sickel aclinitted that he had given the order to Wichmann to shoot
the prisoner. H e denied all tlie time up to the trial and until his
final report, too, that he had ever called the prisoner a swine, and
stated he remembers now that the prisoner was i n such poor shape that
he had him shot in order to save him further pains. This was the case
of this prisoner.
I believe I am through with tliis part which I wanted to develop.
Senator BALDWIN.Lieutenant Perl, just a moment. We cannot go
into the interrogation of every single one of these cases.
Mr. PEEL.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Bnt through this cliscussion of Wichmann now
you claim to have involved S i c l d ?
Mr. PERL.Sickel ; yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Go ahead and tell ns further about Sickel. Then
you nientionecl Peiper. V o u l d i t be fair to sa:~that those two cases
were typical of how investigations mere conducted ?
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir. There were exceptions, but tliis was tlie typical
procedure, to make one talk against the other.
Now, I described now horn me got tlie confession from Sickel,
Sickel admitted that he remembers that tlie prisoner was brought in
at this Petit Thiers, but he claiined not knowing because of the solitary
confinement in ~ ~ h i cpeople h were kept that we had TViclimann, ob-
viously 1:0i I r i ~ c ~ v i ihe
~ gcluined,
, '*B:i I told the sergeant, I renieinber
there was a prisoner who was in very bad conclition, but I told him
get him u p to tlie nest floor to the irfirmarj-," and he stuck to tliis
story until to the moment that I confrontecl hi111 with the sergeant,
and when he mas confronted with the sergeant, then lie felt his ground
losing beneath his feet and he said, "Oh, I remember now when the
sergeant tolcl him, 'You tolcl me I should bunip this swine off,' I would
have never done it if I would not have had your orders."
H e said, "Oh, I remember now tthat was this very poor man and
he was in awful condition and that is why I had him shot, so he should
not suffer too much."
Then in the final statement which lie inacle, this Sickel, he told me,
"I want to mention one thing." This was his excuse up to the t r i i l
all the time.
"I have been in the east, and in the east I saw many atrocities.
I have been in Treblinki and in other exterinination camps where ter-
rible thiiigs happen for which I have not been responsible." T h a t is
what he claiined.
H e was physician there, I believe, in charge of the health of the
Jews in these camps, and "I saw terrible things there so that life did
not count so much for me any more, and when I saw this man suffer
so badly, life did not mean so much for me. I tolcl hiin, 'Kill him so
he should not suffer,' " and this story of what lie saw in the East is
a t his request i n the final statement, too, becanse he thought it would
exonerate him to some deg~ee,explain how he mas.
Senator BALDWIN.I think there if you have got Wichmann's state-
ment-have you got Wichmann's statement?
Mr. PEW.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Have you got Sickel7sstatement?
Mr. PERL. I have Sickel's statement here. too. but I could not read
it. It is very poor, but you have it in the t r i d recbrd, sir.
91'765-49-45
700- MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Senator BALDWIN.Both of those are in the trial record?

Mr. PERL. I do not know whether the second statement of Wich-
mann is in the trial record. The first one I am quite certain is in the
trial record.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, I think if you have got those statements,
they ought to be made a part of the record here.
Mr. PERL. I will be glad to translate as I read. That was the first
statement he made. [Reading :]
I, Otto Wichmann, SS sergeant, truly am stating the following a n d am writing
it down i n my own handwriting.
I was born on the 18th of March 1920, a t Eschenwalde, Kreis Ortensburg. I
am a butcher by profession and I entered the SS voluntarily in 1938. I admit
t h a t during the Eifel offensive in the last 2 days of 1944 or the first 4 days of
1945 I shot a n American prisoner of war. This I did on the orders of Maj. Dr.
Sickel and Lieutenant Colonel Peiper.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt? We are going
to have a vote on Senator Green's motion to recommit. I would like
to et over there in time.
#enator BALDWIN.I think we all should. Let us take a recess now
and go over.
(Short recess.)
Senator BALDWIN. All right, Lieutenant, you may go ahead.
Mr. PERL. I believe, sir, I should hand you the sketches which he
drew. The explanation is in German. The statement refers to it, and
I will translate it. This is a sketch which was not made part of the
trial record which he drew before this final sketch. It does not show
his and the PW's, the American's, position. That is why I told him he
should draw it too. This not the final sketch.
Senator BALDWIN. It will be put in the record at this point.
(The documents above referred to are as follows :)
Sketch of commander's room, German regimental command post, P e t i t ~ h i e r s

Diagram of scene of shooting American prisoner of mar made by t h e accused Otto Wichmann
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVF,SllIGATION 703
(Enlarged sketch of commander's room shown on p. 701)
Mr. PERL
(reading) :
I am supply sergeant and in charge of the arms of Headquarters Company of
the First SS Panzer Regiment to which I have belonged ever since it was founded
in 1942. Around New Year's Eve, 1944 or 1945-1 cannot recall t h e exact date
more exactly-I was in a stable near the Castle Petit Thiers busy with cleaning
this stable in order to provide possibilities for living. This stable was near the
Castle Petit Thiers, approximately 300 meters away from the village of Petit
Thiers. Where t h e village of Petit Thiers was, I cannot recall.
Near to me i n the stable were standing around four of my comrades, but I
cannot remember their names with the exception of one Private Einfalt, whose
first name I do not remember. Einfalt was wounded approximat@y 1 to 2 weeks
after the incident which I am describing here, and I never heard from him again.
I t was on the morning; i t must have been around 10 or 11 o'clock, when I
looked through the open window of the stable and saw a n American soldier
coming out of the woods with his arms up. I went to him and my comrades
shouted a t me, "Otto, take a pistol with you." 1-answered "He won't hurt
anyone any more."
With this I meant t h a t the American was too exhausted to be of any danger.
The American wore a n American steel helmet, a n American field jacket which had
a zipper, and beneath his field jacket he had one of the very big American wool
mufflers. He had brown trousers a s the Americans a r e wearing them. I cannot
say what Bind of boots he was wearing because he had rags around his feet.
This American did not carry any arms, and obrionsly he had come out of the
)voods to surrender. H e held his hands above his head. As the American w a s
too weak to go himself, to walk on his own, E i n f a l t a n d I supported him beneath
his armpits and thus supporting him from both sjdes we brought him to t h e
regimental command post.
On the way to the regimental command post we met a few members of t h e
German Wehnnacht. When they saw the exhausted American they thought this
was probably the man who a day before, had shot one of their men. These
Wehrmacht soldiers claimed t h a t the clay before they had captured a few Ameri-
can soldiers but one did not let himself be captured but had run away into t h e
woods. From there he had not surrendered but in the country from there he
had shot one of their soldiers.
These Wehrmacht soldiers named and said the man who they had not cap-
tured hacl a certain name. They asked the American-I do not remember his
name-but some of them said t h a t he had a rery similar uosture to the man
whom we had with us right then, nnd they reminded that they shonlcl be per-
mitted to shoot him. I said, "This man is a n SS prisoner, and I mill bring him
to our command post," which I did.
Senator MCCARTHY. What ?
Mr. PERL.An S S prisoner. There were Army soldiers. [Reading :]
The regimental command post was near the castle a t Petit Thiers. At least
i t was callecl by us Castle Petit Thiers. First I left Private Einfalt with the
prisoner waiting outsice the door of the commander.
I knocked a t the cloor, a s the rules demanded, and opened the door only very
slightly and asked for permission to enter. A voice said t h a t I could enter,
but I cannot recall whose voice i t was. I entered and told the comlnancler that
I made a prisoner of war. I also told him that I had captured him near the
stable, t h a t he had come out with his hand high up, of the wood. The com-
mander then answered, "Bring him in." If I speak of co~umander,I of course
mean our regimgntal commander, Colonel Peiper. IV'henever we spoke of the
commander, me meant Colonel Peiper.
After that I brought the prisoner into the room of the commander. I ordered
Private Einfalt to wait outside. After I had let the American enter, I told
Colonel Peiper about the remarks which t h e soldiers of the Army had made. I
am absolutely certain of this t h a t .I did not mention the name of the man who,
according to t h e Wehrmacht soldiers, had r u n away. The room was approxi-
mately 5 steps to 5 steps wicle. I made a sketch of this room and I am attaching
i t to this statement.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did YOU say the room was approximately 5
st,eps?
Mr. PERL.Five steps wicle and five steps long. [Reading :]
I made myself a sketch of this room and I am attaching i t to this statement.
On this sketch-
now this is the latest sketch you have there-
-yo. 1 means the position of Colonel Peiper who was sitting on a chair i n front
of the table. First he was sitting with the back toward me, but then h e moved
his chair slightly to the side so that he was sitting diagonally and had American
in front of him, and on the other side of him was Major Sickel who was sitting
on a couch opposite. This way Colonel Peiper and Major Sickel were facing
each other.
The prisoner stood more or less between the two officers between Colonel Peiper
and Major Sickel,_but in such a way that he stood a bit outside and the officers
could talk and look a t each other.
The room was not big, and this way the prisoner stood within reach both of
Colonel Peiper and of Major Sickel and myself. The moment in which I men-
tioned to Colonel Peiper the remarks which the Army soldiers had made, a major
in the room whose name I did not know remarked, "If he bumped off one of
our men, he should die too."
I cannot remember whether I ever saw this major before. I was under the
impression that he was a guest who was present by coincidence. During this
whole incident which I am describing, the officers had coffee-
Senator MCCARTIIY.Mr. Chairman, do we not have a translation
of that in the record?
Mr. PERL. I am almost through.
Senator BALDWIX. HOWm ~ ~ morec h have you got?
Mr. PERL. I would say I have two-thirds of it about through.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOW many pages more?
Mr. PERL. I have half.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask, is that not in the record now, a
translation of it ?
Mr. PERL. Yes; quite possibly.
Senator BALDWIN.Why do we not do this to save time? I n other
words, the purpose of putting this into the record is to have a typical
example of the kind of statement that was taken. Can you not give
i o the stenographer at this point a translation of it, and then go on to
another phase of it because this is, as I understand it, Wichmann's
statement, and we were talking about Sickel.
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. I think that if you would do that, that would give
us a sample of the type of statement that was taken, and then you
could go on and explain the Sickel case.
Mr. PERL.If I would do what, sir?
Senator MCCARTHY. If you will hand the reporter a translation,
which you undoubtedly have-
Mr. PERL. I will be glad to read it.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, then, why cannot the reporter take the
translation? 1thought you only h?d a page or so.
Mr. PERL.NO,no, sir. You see, why I thought it might be of interest
because he mentions a few details how he suddenly, while Peiper
talks to this prisoner, remembers with fright, this sergeant, that he
forgot to search him for arms and brought him in, how he is searching
him. I t gives quite a number of details to show how the thing devel-
oped before his mind.
Senator BALDWIN.Developed in his own mind ?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. All right, pow go ahead with this Sickel.
Mr. PERL. I have Sickel's handwritten statement, but I could not
read it, the photostat is so poor. It is on page 1560 of the trial record.
Senator BALDWIN.WOW, as I remember when you confronted Sickel
with Wichmann, Sickel finally said that he had told Wichmann to
take this prisoner upstairs.
Mr. PERL. NO;before I have confronted with him.
Senator BALDWIN. Then, after that, he said when confronted with

him, he said, "Life is cheap out in the east," where he had been, and
the prisoner was in bad physical shape and he wanted to put him out
of misery, or something like that.
Mr. PERL. Yes ; he told Wichmann to give him a mercy shot because
they had given many mercy shots in the east too and it was probably
the best thing to do under those conditions.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, nom; on the basis of that you have got this
statement from Sickel and Wichmann which we will put into the
record.
(The documents referred to are as follows :)
I, Otto Wichmann, SS Unterscharfuehrer, make the following statement truth-
fully and write i t down in my own handwriting.
I was born on March lf$th, 1920, in Eschenwalde, Kreis Ortensburg. I am a
butcher by trade but I entered the SS coluntarily already in 1938.
I admit having shot and killed a n American prisoner of war during the Eifel
Offensive i n the last two days of the year 1944 or the first four days of the year
1945. I did t h a t under orders of Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Sickel And Standarten-
fuehrer Peiper.
I am Tool-Weapons Sergeant of the HQ Company of the 1st S S Panzer Regiment
of which I was a member since i t s inauguration in 1942.
At the turn of the years 19441945-1 can't fix the date more exactly than I
did a b o v e 1 was busy cleaning a cow stable near the Chateau Petit-Thiers i n
order to arrange living quarters. The stable was about 300 meters a\T7ay from
the castle. I don't know any more where t h e village Petit-Thiers was situated.
Near me in the stable stood four comrades, but I recall only the name of one of
them. Sturmmann Einfalt, whose first name I do not know. Einfalt was
wounded one or two weeks after t h e incident described herein, and I nevm heard
of him a n y more.
One morning, it must have been about ten or eleven o'clock, I saw, a s I looked
through the open door of the stable, a n American soldier slaggering rather than
walking out of t h e wood.
I walked towards him and my comrades shouted a t me, "Otto, take t h e pistol
with you." I replied, "This one doesn't do anybody any more harm." I meant
to say t h a t the American was too exhausted to be dangerous.
The American had a n American steel helmet on and a n American field jacket,
which was of the zipper type; below his field jacket he had one of the heavy
American woolen mufflers, a d he wore t h e brownish trousers of t h e regular
American Army uniform. I couldn't see what kind of shoes he wore 3s he
had rags wrapped around his feet. H e was unarmed and had obviously left
the wood i n order to surrender. I-Ie had his hands raised above his head.
The American was too n;enlr to walk. Einfalt and I took him under the
shoulders and thus supporting him from both sides, we led him to the regi-
mentill CP.
On the way to the C P we met some inenlbers of the Wehrmacht. When they
saw the exhausted American they said that this is probably the man who had
shot one of their illen the preceding day. These members of the Wehrmacht said
t h a t they had captured some American soldiers the day before. Howerer, one
had not been captured but had escaped i n the wood; he did not surrender, but
on the contrary, shot one of their comrades. These members of the Wehrmacht
also mentioned the name and said the man whom they did not capture had had
such a name or a similar one. They did not ask the American whom I was leading
for his name but some said that his figure was simllar to the one who had
escaped and t h a t I should hand over the prisoner to them, a s they wanted to
shoot him.
I replied, the man is a prisoner of the SS and I am bringing him to my CP.
So I did.
The reyimental CP was located in the castle which was called the Castle of
Petit-Thiers, or a t least, that's what we called it.
First I had Sturmmnnn Einfalt waiting with the prisoner in front of the
Kommandenr's door. Then I lmoclred a t the door. As the orders demand, I
opened the door only very slightly and requested to be admitted. A voice said
that I could enter, but I cannot recall whose voice i t was.
I stopped before the Kommandeur and reported to him that I had a prisoner
of war. At the same time I said that 1 had captnred him neAr the stable and
that he had come ont of the wood there with his hands raised. I h e Kommandeur
told me a t that : "Bring him in."
If I speak of "I<ommanilenr" I mean, of course, the Regimental Commander,
Starltlxrtcnfnehrer Peiper. \Vhene\-er we spoke of "Koinnlandeur," Stanrlarten-
fuehrer Peiper was meant by it.
I then brouaht the ~ r i s o n e rinto the room of the Kommandeur. I had Sturm-
mann E i n f a ~ t ~ ~o~fisicle.
ait
After I led the American in I reported to Standartenfuehrer Peiper the re-

marks of the members of the Wehrmacht. I am absolutely certain t h a t I did not
menxion the s ~ ~ p p o s ename

d of this American who did not let himself be Cap-
tured by the Wehrmacht.
The room was approximately 5 steps long ancl 5 steps wide. I nlgself have
made a sketch of this room and an1 attaching it to this statement. On this
sketch, number 1 means the position of Standartenfuehrer Peiper, who was sit-
ting on a chair in front of the table. He s a t a t first with his back towards t h e
door hut he then n~ovedhis chair to the side in such a manner that he had the
American diagonally to his left and he faced Sturmbanafuehrer ,Sickel, who was
sitting on the corner of the conch opposite him. This way Stnrmbannfuehrer
Siclrel and Standartenfuehrer Peiper sat facing each other. The prisoner stood
more or lrss betwe" the two named officers (Standartenfuehrer Peiper and
Stnrmbannfeuhrer Sickel) but in such a manner t h a t he did not impair their
vision of each other.
The room was not large ancl thus the prisoner stood within reaching distance
of both Standartenfuehrer Peiper and Sturmbannfeuhrer Sickel and me.
The morner~tI had finished my report to Standartenfnehrer Peiper about the
renlarks of the menll~ersof the Wehrmacht, a Sturmbannfuehrer whose name
I did not know, remarked : "If he bumped off one of our men he too must die."
I cannot remember having seen this Sturmbannfuehrer before. I was under
the impression that he was a guest who mas present just by coincidence. During
the whole scene described herein, the officers had coffee before them.
After this remark of the one Sturmbannfuehrer who was not lrnown to me,
Standartenfnehrer Peiper (who a t this time was still a n Obersturmbannfuehrer
gave some order to the prisoner in English.
As the result of this, the p ~ i s o n c rtried to open his shirt pocket but he could
not do so a s his iingers were frozen. At that I opened the left shirt pocket of
the Americnn ancl handed the contents to Standartenfuehrer Peiper.
At this occasion I remembered frightfully t h a t I had never searched the pris-
oner for weapons and while Standartenfnehrer Peiper was looking a t the con-
tents of the shirt pocket, I felt him, looking to see if he had any weapons. I
found no weapon whatever, nor any other suspicious thing.
The contents of the Smerican's shirt pocket consisted only of a dark brown
poclretbook.
Standartenfuehrer Peiper scanned through the p.ocketbook. This Sturmbann-
fuehrer who was not known to me, remarked "Jochen, give i t to me." Jochen is
the first name of the Komrnandeur, but I believe that i t is written Joachim.
At t h a t Standartenfuehrer Peiper handed the pocketbook to the one Sturm-
bannfnehrer n7ho is not lrnown to me, and he had not talren anything out of the
poclretbook, not even temporarily. On the other hand, I clearly saw how the
one Sturmbannfuehrer who was nnknown to me, took several items~~~. out of the
~--.
pocketbook but I couldn't see exactly what they were. Then this Sturmbann-
fuehrer unknown to me, handed the pocketbook to me and again I put it into
the American's shirt ~ o c k e t .
Now ~tnnclartenfu&er Peiper asked the prisoner one short question which the
prisoner answered. At this I saw how the American was endeavoring to go into
"attention" a s well a s he eonld. I t is possible that this Sturmbannfuehrer who
was not known to me also put a question to the prisoner. I n any case, altogether
not more than two, or a t the most, three qcestions were asked of him and this
questioning lasted a t the most, 6 to 7 seconds. I am certain t h a t Sturmbann-
fnehrer Sickel did not ask any qnestions. The American was hardly capable of
speaking a s he was too exhausted but I heard him pronouncing with a weak falter-
ing voice, three to five very faintly spoken words.
Now Sturnlbannfuehrer Sickel took the left hand of t h e American, who during
this did not leave the spot where he stood. H e then took the right hand of the
American, he felt and looked a t both hands of the American and then he said:
"Frostbite 3rd degree."
After this, nobody said anything for one or two seconds. I can recall the
silence distinctly. I interrupted the silence by asking, "Should I bring him up?"
By this I meant the aid station, which was located on the next floor.
At my question there was again silence in the room for one or two seconds-it
might have been three. I remember the silence distinctly. I t was quiet outside
too. I remember it so distinctly because I immediately saw from the glances
exchanged between Stunnbannfuehrer Sickel and Standartenfuehrer Peiper what
was being decided here.
Then after that, Sturmbannfuehrer Sickel motioned with his thumb to me
and said in a sharp and loud voice, "Get the swine out and bump him off." At
this time Standartenfuehrer Peiper and Sturmbannfuehrer Sickel were seated
opposite each other. Sturmbannfuehrer Sickel said these last words in sych a
loud voice that they could have beeli heard even in a room much larger than the
one in which we were a t this time.
Standartenfuehrer Peiper, who without any doubt had heard this order of
Sturmbannfuehrer Sickel, silently sat by and didn't comment on this order.
After that I said to the American, "Come on, comrade," and I led him out.
I n front of the house I met Einfalt again, who was waiting there for me. He
asked me what the commander ordered and I answered, he ordered to bump the
prisoner off. I still remember that I met Oberscharfuehrer Otto Becker, who
was the Panzer driver of the Kommandeur, in front of the house. Becker also
asked me what the Kommandeur had ordered and I told him that the Kom-
mandeur had ordered me to bump him off. I then went into the nearby chapel in
which, as f a r a s I can remember, the communication platoon was laying and f
borrowed a pistol. I t was a n pistol which had a caliber of 9 miliimeters. I
myself made a sketch of the locality and am attaching i t to this, my statement.
On this sketch, number 1 means the CP with the room of the Kommandeur in
the left lower corner.
Number 2 is the chapel in which I borrowed the pistol.
Number 3 is the stable in which I was working when I noticed the American.
Number 4 is a sandy slope, steeply sloping towards the road.
Number 5 is the spot where the American soldier mas shot.
Number 6 is a so-called Sanua Bath, which is a steam bath and which was
erected temporarily by us.

Number 7 is a wooden shed.
I led the prisoner along the road accompanied by Sturmmann Einfalt. At the
road fork indicated on my sketch I took the right fork which leads uphill.
The American could only walk a few steps a t a time; then we had to support
him as he could not continue.
When we came near the spot on the road which in my sketch is marked number
5, I turned to the right into the wood.
Up to this point we had been leading the American. From there on I had him
go to the wood in front of us. However, h e did not reach the wood, only up to
t h e edge of the wood approsimately 15 to 20 meters away from the road.
I only went a few meters into the field and then I stopped and brought my
weapon into position and then I shot the American with two or three shots.
I I am a good pistol shot. Normally, I had to test the repaired weapons as I was
the weapons sergeant.
The Smerican immediately fell forward. At that point I went to him to see
whether he was already dead and to make certain of it. I established that he
was already dead. He had two bullet holes in the left upper half of his back
right below the shoulder. The two shots were only approximately 3 to 4 centi-
meters away from each other and both had gone through the heart. I didn't
take anything away from the corpse. While we were going to the spot where
the American was shot I took the poclretbook out of his shirt pocket and looked
through it. At this time he had no money with him. I cannot say whether there
was also money amongst those items which this Sturmbannfuehrer who is un-
known to me had taken out of the pocketbook.
When I was searching the pocketbook I found in i t only some photographs. I
remember that one of them showed a little isolated house and another one a n
elderly woman. I then returned this pocketbook to the shirt pocket of t h e
American.
The name of the American is not known to me, nor did I know it a t any time.
As I have here been asked whether the name of t h e man was Seifei-t and
whether I asked him whether this was his name, I state that i t is not impossible
that I asked him something similar before I brought him to the CP, maybe i n
case the members of the Wehrmacht mentioned such or a similar name. How-
ever, I repeat t h a t I cannot recall anything of this nature.
I do not remember to have noticed any rank insignia on this American. H e
was small, ap~roximately1.65 m. H e was very slim. I cannot estimate his
age a s his face was completely drawn due to exhaustion.
During the entire time the American did not try to escape nor did he try any
resistance nor did he do anything else t h a t would have justified the shooting.
After the shooting I went into the chapel and returned the pistol. Then I re-
turned to the stable, where we all had our lunch.
After lunch a messenger came with t h e order, "Dig the American in." I can
recall this expression distinctly because where Germans a r e concerned, one
speaks of "burying."
Sturmbannfuelirer Sickel is the Regimental Doctor of the 1st SS Panzer Regi-
ment LSSAH and ::t this time he was also the CO of the HQ Company of the
1st Panzer Regiment LSSAH a s Obersturmfuehrer MAULE had been killed i n
action just previously.
This statement has been written in my own handwriting and I have not been
influenced either by threats or promises.
I am fully aware of the sanctity and the importance of a n oath.
This statement cohsists of 16 handwritten pages and it has been reread to me
before I put my signature on it.
WICHMANN, OTTO,
SS Unterscl~n?-tzrehrer.
28 December, 1945.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 28th day of December 1945 a t Schwae-
bisch Hall. Germans. William R. Per1 0-555149 1 s t Lt. MI. Investigator-
Examiner, i ~ a Crilnes
r Branch USFET.
I, Sturmbanf. Dr. Kurt Sickel, being duly sworn state the following:
I. I applied for admission to t h e Allg. SS in November 1932 and belonged to
the Allg. SS until Sept. 39, and t o the Waffen SS from the 19th Sept. 1939 on.
Immediately after my entrance into the Waffen SS, thus shortly after the out-
break of war, Lwas transferred to the East with the SS Totenkopf, Cav Division.
My duties were the supervision of the health of the troops and of Polish Jews,
who were constructing there a Lager for themselves and later were used a s slave
laborers in the SS works. Later, t h a t is i n the years 1942 to 1944 (30.6.42-
beginning of February 1944) I was garrison surgeon for Lublin, that means t h a t
I was responsible for the health of the troops and also for t h a t of the Jews who
were brought from all parts of Europe into the below-mentioned concentration
camps in the area of Lublin. Especially the following concentration camps were
under my medical supervision.
( a ) Poniatowa
( b ) Daw-Lublin
( c ) Travenicki
( d ) Airport Lublin
( e ) Krasnik
I was responsible for these camps respectively for the state of health in these
camps from their installation until their dissolution. I n these camps no gassing
took place. Executions were occasionally carried out.
Now and then against my will and on order of my superiors I had to deliver
to the Vernichtungslager Maideneck (extermination camp Maideneck, T N ) per-
sons who had beenworking for me in t h e orthopedic workshops. It was known
to mp t h a t gassing-: took place there and t h a t these people got gassed. I-Iowerer,
I h a l e not :ondnc:ed myself a:ly gassings. Among those persons brought into
the exterminaiton camp Maideneck were women and men. I d o not recall the
exact number any more.
On t h e whole, I had to supervise i n these camps the health of about 20,000
Jews, men, women, and children. Continuously new trains from all parts of
Europe arrived, among them Cech, French, and Roumanian Jews, etc.
All these camps dissolved one morning i n November 1943, by shooting all
Jews without my knowing about it. F o r this purpose these Jews had t o build
enormous ditches and then were lined up i n the ditches one close to another
and were shot with machine guns and rifles. Then the second shift got into the
ditches and the procedure was repeated. The ditches were about 2% meters
deep and t h e Jews were shot in about 4 to 5 layers. Men, women, and children
were shot in the same trenches. On this day, according to my estimate, about
7 1.0 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
20,000 Jews were shot in this manner. The shootings for the greatest part were
carried out in the KZ-camps in which the people were up to that time. Thus for
instance i n Traveniki, Poniatowa. At this time I was Hstuf of the Waffen SS.
The shootings proper were executed by Totenkopf Infantry Units and hy the
S. D. (Sicherheitsdienst-Security Service, T. N.) .
11. Shortly after the extermination of the Lagers in the Lublin area, which
were under my medical supervision, I got transferred back to the "LSSAH," to
which I belonged already since 1939.
During the Eifel offensive in December 1944 and January 1945, I was the
regimental surgeon on the First SS' Panzer Regiment "LSSAH," and for about
the 4 weeks of the Eifel offensive, the exact date I cannot remember any more,
I was also commanding oilicer. of headquarters compang7. I n the first days of
January 1945, the exact date I do not remember any more, I was a t the Command
post of the First SS Panzer Regiment "LSSAH" in a castle ,in the neighborhood
of Petit Thiers. In the room, besides myself, were present the regimental com-
mander, J o a c h i ~Peipcr, Obersturmbannfuehrer a t that time, also a stnbaf.-
and I think i t was stubaf.-Werner Poetschke. As we were sittiug this room
during the afternoon hours, the door opened and U-scha, Otto Wichmann, the
equipment sergeant of the headquarters company, First SS Panzer Re.ziment
'.LSSAH," brought an American prisoner of war into the room. This American
prisoner of mar looked extremely starred and frozen, a s he had hidden himself
for quite some time in the woods to prevent being taken prisoner.
Obstubaf. Peiper questioned the man in English, but the American prisoner
of war refused to make a statement. I looked a t the hailds of the American
prisoner of war and determined t h a t he showed third-degree frostbites on both
hands. Ou the whole, lie was physically very much emaciated.
F o r these reasons I proposed to Obstubaf. Peiper to have the prisoner bumped
off. I cannot recall any more if I made this proposal with words or only with
gestnres or with glances. However, I do know t h a t Obstubaf. Peiper accepted
this proposal of mine. If this acceptance of my proposal was made in words
or by gestures or with alances I do not remember any more, but I know t h a t
I was authorized by him in one form or another to have the American prisoner
of war shot.
I ,ordered thereupon the U-scha. Otto Wichmann of the headquarters com-
pany, first SS Panzer Iiegiinent "LS,SAH," who a t t h a t time .mils under ing
command, to lead the lxisoner of war away and bump him off. If I did that
with words "Take the sv-ine outside and bump him off" or if I used other words
for this order, I do not remember any more.
!I!his prisoner of war had, in fact, been bumped off.
I do not remember any more if Wichiuann reported back to me that the
execution was carried out or if I had the Irnowledge of the esecuted shooting
from anothev source. I only Iznow t h a t he got bninpecl off. I cannot rerall to
have ordered or carried out another shooting of prisoners of war or civilians in
the Eifel offensive.
For better comprehension of this statement, I h a r e prepared a sketch of the
room i n the castle in Petit Thiers. This sketch I have marked "A" and attached
i t to my statement. The numerals signify:
1. Table. 8. Cnpboard.
2. Chair. 9. Corner, cupboard.,
3. Stove. 10. Entrance door.
4 , 5 , 6 . Chairs. 11. Obstructed door.
7: Divan. 12,13. Windows.
I have made these statements voluntnri!y of my own will uninfluenced by
force, threats or duress, and uninfluenced by promises of any Bind.
I s v e a r before God t h a t the statements which I have made i n this deposition
a r e true, and am prepared to repeat same before any court under oath.
Dr. IZURT SICKEL,
SS Stt~~'mbcr.n?~f?~eIt?.er.
April 9, 1046.
Witness :
HOMERB. CRAWFORD.
Lieutenant Colo!zel, Air Co~1)s.
Sworn to and subscribed to before me this 9th clay of April 1946 a t Schwabisch
Hall, Germany.
WILLIAMR. PICRL,
First Lieu$ena?zt, d l . I.,.0-555149,
~-y-~ff,"ct~r.",m?.r?{??c~-Y C R J7,CffVT
Senator BALDWIN.Now tell us about Peiper.
Mr. PEKL. W e got Sickel's statement rather late during the investi-
p t i o n . 1believe i t must have been March or near March, and the
statelnent regarding this shooting was the last one which we took
frolll Peiper. Peiper first claimed that he remembers that the pris-
oiler mas brought in a i d that he heard later on that he m7as shot,
but he did not recall the details.
Senator MCCAK~HY. You are now referring to the prisoner who
-\7-alkeclout of the woods?
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Described in the FVichmann statement.
Mr. I'ERL. Peiper remembered the prisoner; that this prisoner had
been very exhaustecl; that he had looked like a mummy. - I a m certain
these were Peiper's expressions; that he had looked as if he would
have been 50 years old, ancl that he had hxd n~uclipity for these looks
-with this prisoner, and first claimed that he heard t h a t the prisoner
in this region was shot a t Petit Thiers, which was after the main
fighting was over, but clicl not associate the shooting of which he had
heard of the prisoner with this soldier.
Then, when he m7as confronted with Wichmann, he said, "Yes, I
remember nom7 how it happened." H e was very cautious in his state-
ment in this way, because he did not want to involve Sickel too much,
not only himself. I t involved Sickel, ancl Peiper and Sickel were
T-eryclose friends, but when he was confronted with Wichmann, and
Wichmann told him, "Commander, I shot the prisoner on your orders;
you cannot expect me to stand up for it," and he explained in detail,
then Peiper said, "Yes, but you are lying when you say anyone said
'Bump the swine off.' No one said 'Bump the swine off'," and in his
final statement he stresses very much i t mould not have fit into the
whole atmosphere of the room, which was a n atmosphere of pity.
Everyone was very impressed with the sufferings of this prisoner.
The prisoner mas brought out and shot because he was i n so poor con-
dition anyhow. I n this detail his statement varied up to the end from
Wichmann's statement, but he admitted that SicBel had told Wich-
inaim to get, bring the prisoner out a i d shoot him, and that he had
been present. So, from the little trick which we used b;y telling Christ
we know "me spoke with your roommate," we got the information
about this killing a t Petit Thiers which involved Wichmann, one of
the shootings of Peiper and Sickel.
We furthermore had got from Weis the information without too
inany details that a t the crossroads one sergeant in a Mark I V , whom
he described in detail, had shot an American prisoner of war who had
played dead and taken his clothes away, and soon we succeeded i n
narrowing down the circle until we knew which tank it was and until
we knew which man i t was.
I t was rather easy to identify Huber. Huber was the man who a t
the crossroads had got this man undressed, this American, taken his
clotl~esaway. I t was rather easy to identify him, and a t the trial
he was identified by several witnesses because he is quite u n ~ s ~ ian l
his looks, this Huber, and he has a very unusual way of walking.
H e walks as if he would be very bowlegged, and everyone describecl
him as a tech sergeant, an upper-grader who was walking verv bow-
legged, and we knew there was only one company with Mark I V , and
then we found out which Mark IV had been a t this place, and SO me got
witnesses who had seen Huber; and, when Huber was confronted
with those witnesses, he confessed too, and this procedure which I
described now was typical because from every story we got others too;
from almost every story we got other stories, too. -
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, you mean, by that, that when one
man nmde a statement he was pretty ant to involve somebody else?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Then, did you talk with that somebody else?
Mr. PERL.Not immediately, sir, because before this I tried or we
tried to find additional witnesses so that, when me get the accused
in, we have more solid evidence against him, but just one witness, we
ask him who else saw him and to whom else did he talk.
Just one more thing, not in this connection any more, but which
might be of interest to you. We gave papers to tlze prisoners in the
cells and told them, "If you know of anything and you were not in-
volved yourself, tell us." I have one of those papers here which was
given to a prisoner in a cell. His name was Siegmund. He was later
on a defendant, and which was written in space on top in my own
handwriting is written in defendant.
Senator MCCARTHY. He was a defendant or a witness?
Mr. PERL. Defendant in the end. This time he was just in a cell
and he was handed this aper.
Senator MCCARTHY. 8 f what was he convicted?
Mr. PERL. H e was convicted, Siegmund, of having participated in
target practicing on American soldiers. He, Siegm~md,and Fry-
mund on an afternoon or evening when they were not very busy lined
up 9 or 10 American soldiers who had been with them for some time
and did target practice on them. They lined them up in front of
them one after another, shot those Americans.
This is tlze first statement in which, of course, he does not involve
himself. H e got into his cell a paper which says in my writing "Per-
sons of whom I know that they bumped off prisoners or civilians or
officers of whom I know that they gave orders to shoot prisoners or
who were present when risoners were shot.''
'h
This was an empty s eet of paper which was given into his cell,
and here he starts telling. Of course, he himself had done nothing a t
this time, but he starts telling what he saw and what he heard, and
this information we used. Here yo11 have another case.
Senator BALDWIN.I would like to make that a part of the record.
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
(The document above referred to is on file with the committee.)
Senator BALDWIN.Do you mean by this, Lieutenant, that this in-
formation was volunteered to you?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir. Sir, I am certain that you understand that if a
man has been in solitary confinement for several weeks, he has the
desire to tell his story, and then lze gets a paper on which it does not
say, "What did you do?" It says, "What did you see tlze others do
something ? "
Some, not every one, but some of them said, "This son-of-a-bitch,
I will show it to him," and thus they became involved into the whole
story because if they had seen it, they must have been present at the
shooting.
Senator BALDWIN.That has been made a .part of the record, as an
exhibit.
Senator MCCARTHY. I missed part of your statement. Let me ask
you one question that I meant to ask you before. Did a number of
the officers have dogs that they had named after various defendants?
Mr. PERL. I heard now just outside for the first time that Colonel
Ellis named or is supposed to have named a dog 1year after the trial
. with the same name as one of the defendants.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. How many of the officers had dogs?
Colonel ELLIS. I am the only person that I know of. I saw that
letter. Colonel Rosenfeld is alleged to have named his dog, but I do
not think that is so because his dog, as I recall, was Bruce, and none
of the defendants had that name. I named my dog after Sepp Diet-
rich. I called my dog Sepp.
Senator BALDWIN. Why did you call him Sepp ?
Colonel ELLIS. Well, this was a year after the trial, and my dog was
a Boxer and he looked like Dietrich. H e was kind of ugly so I just
named him after him. That is the only reason 1 had. I had no other
reason.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you bring the dog home?
Colonel ELLIS. Yes, I brought the dog home. I still have him.
Senator MCCARTHY. With the chairman's permission, may I ask
Colonel Ellis this: Did the interrogators at that time wear the battle
decorations of the defendants?
Colonel ELLIS. Peiper alleges that, but I never saw any of them
wear them, and I doubt it very, very much.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did YOU promise Peiper that you would send
his decorations to his wife?
Colonel ELLIS. NO,sir I certainly didn't.
Senator MCCARTHY. d f course YOU were not with Mr. Thon all tho
time. Do you know whether Mr. Thon wore the decorations of the
various defendants ?
Mr. PERL. I never saw him, and I consider it impossible. It would
have made him ridiculous, American with German decorations, in
their eyes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Thon was not an American, was he?
Mr. PERL. I believe, gentlemen, you are nnder quite a misapprehen-
sion. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Thon is an American-born
Gentile. That is my best knowleclge. I am certain he is in Phila-
delphia, that he was born in Philadelphia.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou know where he is now ?
Mr. PERL. Pardon ?
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou laow where he is now?
Mr. PERL.I understand that he is overseas still.
Senator MCCARTHY. IShe working for the American military?
Mr. PERL. I have not seen him since the trials.
Senator MCCARTHY. Some of the witnesses here said that he was
referred to as a "39er," meaning by that a aon-Aryan refugee from
Hitler Germany.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou know, Joe?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes; the trial record shows-I mas trying to locate
it-he was born in Philadelphia, if my memory serves me correctly.
H e presently is employed by the American Military Government in

Germany. H e is still on investigative work.
Senator MCCARTHY.While we are on this, how about I<irschbaum?
I s he an American or is he a German citizen ?
Mr. PERL. R i r s c h b a ~ mis an American citizen. I know that he
comes from Vienna originally.
Senator MCCARI'HY.I i e left about the time you did. I11 other
words, he was a refugee als:,?
Mr. PERL. T h a t is right; yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.HQWabout Steiner?
Mr. PERL. Steiner mas originally Viennese, or around Vienna,
Austria.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you and Kirschbanm and
Steiner were refugees, but Thon was an American citizen?
Mr. PERL.I was a n American officer, sir, not a refugee. As to
Steiner, Steiner was never an interrogator. H e v a s an interpreter,
and a very poor interpreter at that.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUwere a refugee from Hitlerian Germany?
Mr. PERL.That is right, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.And then you in 1042 got your citizenship?
Mr. PERL. I n 1943, I believe, sir. I know i t was early 1043.
Senator ]SICCARTHY. That was the fast procedure whereby you got
your citizenship, I gather?
Mr. PERL. I n the Army.
Senator MCCARTHY.A different kind of a sclinell procedure?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.I11other words, you did not take the usual time
to get your cit.izenship ?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir; I served i11 the Army. Because I was i n the
Army I became a citizen.
Senator MQCARTHY.Just this one question. You did not see ally
combat, did you?
Mr. PEIU.I mentioned it, sir. I was not a combat soldier, but I was
with a field interrogation detachment and I saw people die around me.
Senator MCCARTI-IY.DO you know of any of the interrogators who
had been i n combat units ?
Mr. PERL. I am almost certain that Kirschbaum was.
Senator MCCARTHY.You think he was?
Mr. PERL. I am almost certain that he was. Again, sir, as an intel-
ligence man I believe lie was i n intelligence. You know these field
interrogation teams interrogated the prisoners right after they are cap-
tured when they were still under the shock of battle, and they did
not shoot a t the enemy, but around them everyone was shooting
and they were i n the same dangers, in more dangers because when
the Germans got any American who was of European birth, they
shot him right away. W e know quite a number of those cases.
Senator R/IcC!.~RTIIY. I am trying to find out whether any of the in-
terrogators were a t any time combat solcliers.
Mr. PERL. I am not certain of Thon, but Thon mas a master ser-
geant before he became a civilian. I could not tell you. I do nct
want to speak for hinl.
Senator MC~ARTFIY. D O you know of anyone in the entire group of
interrogators from your own knowledge or who told you they had
been combat soldiers?
Mr. PERL. I do not know, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. You do not know of any?
Mr. PEIIL. There might be. I do not know.
Senator MCCARTHY. Pardon me, Mr. Chairman.
XIr. PERL. AS this question was brought up, sir, I ~vonldlike first
of all-I mentioned already that I have never been in concentration
camps. A witness here testified under oath that I have suffered very
badly, that I have been under death. I was never under any sentence
a t all.
If the cominittee believes it important, I have an affidavit with me
stating, testifying to the fact-someone who has been with me all the
time-I was nevel. in i~ concentration camp. I u-ill be glad to submit
it if you think it is important.
Senator MCCARTHY. 110 yay 13ecall which witnesses said that you
had been in a concentration camp? I think one of them said you had
escaped from a train on the way to a concentration cnnlp. Do you
recall which witness said that?
Mr. PEEL. Yes, slr, I recall that it was testified to under.oatl1 by
Mr. Bailey, and this is as true as the fact that he snw me slap some-
one, kneeing in the groin.
Senator MCCARTHY. Do you recall what Major Fanton said about
your background ?
Mr. PERL. I was not here, no, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you check that testimony?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUchecked Mr. Bailey's testimony.
Mr. PERL. Yes, I must say I did not check the testimony, but I
read it in all the papers.
Colonel ELLIS. I think yon asked me about Lieutenant Perl's back-
ground, and I told you that was the story I had heard. That was
hearsay, but I was not testifying it to be a fact that he had escaped
from a train or was about to get on a train and was taken back and
later escaped, but I did not know that to be the truth, and I tried to
make that clear a t that time.
Mr. PERL. I want to also mention something else in this connection,
sir. It is quite obvious why the Senator mentlons my European birth,
and I want to stress two things. I have no prejudice against Ger-
mans as such or against any Germans.
I feel that those boys, those Germans, whether they were Germans
or Belgians, who shot in cold blood our soldiers, should hang inde-
pendent of what their nationality is, but I have no prejudice against
anyone because of his nationality, color, race, or faith.
I n this connection I want to show to the court, if you want to make
it a part of the record, the year of 1948 I spent about $308 spending
food parcels through CARE, a Quaker organization probably Icnown
to the cominittee, to Europe, all this to gentiles of Austrian or Ger-
man origin, and I have the receipts here by CARE, and I already
mentioned I believe that Mrs. Per1 is what you call a gentile, whlch
would speak against prejudice on my part too, because she is of the
same stock as those people whom I interrogated here.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this: The other day you said
you would not give your word of honor to any of the defendallts be-
cause you felt that they were far beneath you. You mean they were
9176.7-49----46
beneath you because they were defendants in a criminal case, or because

of nationality, or why ? You recall when you said that?
. Mr. PERL.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I believe the words used were "These men were
so far beneath me I would not give them my word of honor." I am
curious why you said that.
Mr. PERL. I will explain, sir. I'believe I read in Peiper's affidavit, I
am quite certain the last affidavit that he sent in again, that he gives
his word of honor. Here the word of honor is not as frequently given
a sover there. It is something which is given amongst people of the
same grade between friends.
One officer will give his word of honor to the other officer, but an
officer, according to the German views, never gives his word of honor
to an enlisted man, for instance, even ~JI private life never.
You put yourself on exactly the same level and he is, and of course
not because I am an American officer or because I am a lie~~tenant and
he is a defendant, but due to the whole circumstances that he is the
accused and I am the interrogator, right or not, I have a certain advan-
tage over him. After all, he goes to jail afterward and I go out, and
I would be losing part of this advantage if I mould put myself entirely
on the same level.
We conversed very nicely, very friendly, but there was still a reserve,
and this reserve between us would have been broken down completely
if I would have given my word of honor.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this. Twelve of the defend-
ants were convicted a t Dachau, 12 of the Malmedy defendants who
were convicted had their convictions set aside later. I n other words,
they went free. Now did you feel that you mere far above those men
a t the time, or do you still feel you are far above them?
Mr. PERL. Maybe I do not seem to understand.
Senator MCCARTHY. Tmelve of the defendants whom you interro-
gated, the men whom you say you were so f a r above, 12 of them
were freed when the court got through hearing the evidence. The
court said, L'Tl~ese men are not guilty of any crime." Do you follow
me?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOWmy question is did you or do you feel f a r
above those defendants who are free?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir; definitely not.
Senator MCCARTHY.Now then, I understand that when you said you
felt that you were f a r above them you meant in rank. They were
prisoners and you were not.
Mr. PERL. Sir, I am glad about the way you are questioning today
because I believe we will understand each other very easily, because
we want the same thing. We want to clear it up.
I did not feel in the way that I am high above them, but the circum-
stances created that I was above them definitely. I was a free man and
they had to answer me.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then you did not feel morally above them?
Mr. PERL. I felt morally above them, but not because I was an
American and an officer, but because they had killed and I had not,
but I did not feel in the way above them, "Who are you?" That is
what you mean. LLYona re just German or you are just a workman
who has nothing to say."
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay you felt morally above them because
they had killed?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you decided which ones had
killed and which ones had not, and those that you had decided were
guilty you felt that you were morally above them. I s that right?
Mr. PERL. Sir, I am reconstructing now. I f a prisoner came in
and I did not know anything about him, which hardly happened be-
cause before we got them in I had information on them; we had a
whole 201 file which was kept by Major Fanton. If I just screened
people as we did in the beginning, fishing and we did not know any-
thing about him, then I did not feel above him.
Senator MCCARTHY. All right, now after you have decided that
a man is guilty, you yourself before the court has decided he is guilty,
you, Lieutenant Perl, have decided that he is guilty, at that point you
have decided you are morally above him.
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. A t that point you felt you did not owe him
the
.
same
..
obligation that you would owe someone who is on your same
level ?
Mr. PERL. I would not say this, sir, any more. I believe that cer-
tain higher positions oblige us to the moral responsibility.
Senator MCCARTHY. Wlll you repeat that? I did not get it.
Mr. PERL. I felt that I am above him. When he came in and we had
before not 100 percent proof, you might call it, but three or four wit-
nesses had said this man, "I saw this man shoot him," he did not con-
fess it, but we had considerable proof against him, certainly my atti-
tude was I did not think of this but if you try to locate me on this
point, I follow you.
I most probably felt morally higher than he did, but it would be
wrong to draw from it that I did not feel the obligation because I am
morally higher than he is, to give him all the fairness which everyone
should have.
Just the contrary, because I was above him, I had to exercise this
position more carefully. I was obliged to.
Senator MCCARTHY. Before we leave here I would like to get your
definition on another matter which I consider very important. I have
before me the testimony you gave the other day. Do you recall we
asked you whether you led a certain man, Hennecke, to believe you
were representing him. You said no, you did not, that you told him
you were taking care of his case.
By that you meant that your job was to get his confession and con-
vict him. Then later on either under cross-examination or direct
examination a t Dachau in the record you were asked, "Mr. Perl, did
you lead Mr. Hennecke to believe that you were representing him?"
Y O Lanswer
~ was, "Yes, sir."
Then I called your attention to the discrepancy as I recall between
your testimony there and here, and we had some discussion as to just
what you would call a lie. I have before me your answer. I wonder
if you want to elaborate on this. You said :
"I did not know who said it, but someone said that the truth has
many phases and each single one of them is a lie."
You said, "I did not know who said it, but someone said that the
truth has many phases and each single one of them is a lie."
Now do I understand that you subscribe to that definition of the

truth, o r were you merely giving us that for enlightenment?
Mr. PERL. Sir, not to your enhghtenment, but I wanted to describe
by it-I hope you do not mind-the procedure that you took out-
that is how I felt-of the whole content of my st,ztement about Hen-
necke, one sentence, and brought the sentence out here, so I said the
truth has ninny faces, not phases, and each single one of them is not
truth. Each single one of them is a lie. If you put then1 all together,
this is the truth. This is what I wanted to say, because taken oct of
content the one sentence which you mentioned was not truthful, and
i11 the connection with the other sentences, i t was the truth.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Well, do you want to tell us now that you did
or did not lead Henneclie to believe that you were representing him in
a mock trial? We will forget about the phrase "defense attorney."
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Forget about that phrase. Take the phrase
5-epresexting him," which I think all of us understand. Now do you
want to tell us that that was the truth or a lie, or that that mas a lie
that is partly the truth, or in what way does this particular definition
of yours apply to t h a t ?
Mr. PERL. TOthis?
Senator MCCAXXHY. Let us ask them one at a time. First, is i t
true now and the whole truth that you led Henneclie to believe that
you were representing him, that during the mock trial and before the
time you got his confession, you did lead him to believe you repre-
seilted him ?
Mr. PERL. Hennecke ?
Senator MCCARTHY.Hennecke, yes.
Mr. PERL. Yes, I started to say Hennecke was under the impres- .
sion, because of my behavior he was doubtlessly under the iinpression
that I might be his defense attorney, and the moment I noticed that
he might be under this impression, I corrected him and said, "I am
not
- . vour defense attornev."
gnato or MCCARTHY.POU said, "I will take care of your case."

Senator MCCARTHY.YOUsaid, "I will take care of vour case."
Mr. PERL. Yes. I said this.
Senator MCCA~THY. 'LI w ill take care of your case."
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, that you would represent him
in the case.
Mr. PERL. I t was a double nleaning, as I stated yesterday.
Senator A~CCARTHY. Well, now the meaning that you conveyed t o
him-
Mr. PERL. I wanted t o be evasive by this.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUwanted to be evasive?
Mr. PERL. Yes ;I did not want further questions.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwanted to be evasive?
.
Mr. PERL. When I told him, "I am not your defense attorney; I
am taking care of your case," I did not want further discussion about
it.
Senator MCCARTEIY.YOUsaid, "I am taking care of your case"?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
SOyou led him to believe you were taking care
Senator MCCARTIXY.
- ..
of his case.
Mr. PERL. I let him decide whatever he thinks after I had made
clear to him, "I am not your defense attorney."
Senator MCCBRTI-IY.Let us forget about the defense attorney. Do
you feel that you led Heilnecke to believe that you were representing
him, that you were taking care of his case?
Mr. PERL. I n the sense of being his good boy, a man who means
well to him, yes ;i n this sense, yes. b
Senator MCCARTI-IY.And lookiilg after him; looking after his in-

terests ?
Mr. PERL. Not only looking after his interests but believing that he
is not such a bad man after all.
Senator MCCARTHY.And looking i f t e r his interests ?
Mr. PERL. Yes, in this sense.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, you in this mock trial, were, as
you say, this good boy taking care of his case ancl looking after his
interests. Is that correct now?
Mr. PERL. TObe the good boy and--
Senator MCCARTEIY. Using your own language.
Mr. PERL. Looking to the fact that he should be given a n oppor-
tunity to tell the truth, and I pretended that I believed him to tell
the truth right from the beginning.
Senator MCCARTEIY.NOW let us get down to this. It is a very
simlsle matter. You and this man were in the same room tonether 'Y
andLyou were talking ?

Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MC~ARTHY. 1 want to know whether or not you led him
to bl.!iere that you were representing hiin and looking after his case.
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHP.Did you or did you not?
Mr. PERL. Sir, Hennecke claims now that I beat him. Do you ever
hear of a defense attorney beating his client?
Senator MCCARTIZY. Let us forget about the beating now, I am ask-
ing you this question. You were there i n court. This man says, 'LAre
you my defense attorney?" You say, "I am looking after your in-
terests." Now my question to you is this :
W e will talk about the beatings later on, if you want to. I will
be glad to, but for the time being this is my question: A t the mock
trial did you lead Hennecke to belleve that i n this mock trial or cere-
mony-call it nrhat you like-you were taking care of his case and
were representing him ? Do you understand ?
Mr. PERL. Yes. Not that I am representing him. H e was under
the impression, he should be under the impression, that I am an inter-
rogator who believes him to be a good man, and as there was another
man
. - who aln-ays shouted a t him, he should turn to me. T h a t was the
idea.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did you lend him to believe i n your opinion
that you were representing h i m ? Did you think that this man thought
that you were representig him, looking after his case, his interest? It
is a simple matter, you see.
Mr. PERL. Sir, I believe it is quite obvious from the trial record that
he was under the impression that I probably or possibly am his defense
attorney, so he must have for a short moment believed that I am repre-

senting him, but the moment he uttered it, I corrected it.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay you corrected it. By correcting it you
said, "Now, Hennecke, I am taking care of your care."
Mr. PERL. NO, sir; I said before this, "I &mnot your defense attor-
ney. You do not have a defense attorney."
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid, "I am taking care of your case?"
Senator MCCARTHY. SO you told him you were taking care of his
case ?
Senator MCCARTHY. ISthat right?
Mr. PERL.Right.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOthere ii no doubt in your mind but what you
led Hennecke to believe what you told him, and by your actions that
you were taking care of his case. I s that right or not?
Mr. PERL. Sir, I believe that until I told him this, that I am not his
defense attorney, he was under the impression that I probably am his
defense attorney. After I told him this, as to my opinion he was under
the impression, "He is not my defense lawyer. H e is an interrogator,
but he is some well-meaning, very well-meaning interrogator."
Senator MCCARTHY. Let us get this straight. When you said, "I am
looking after your case," you said, 6'Iam not your defense lawyer, but
I am looking after your case," you have already testified that yon cor-
rectecl the impression to this man that he was in court, that he was
being tried; in other words, that he was having his trial.
Now my question is this, and it is a very simple matter. I f you want
to tell me the truth, you can. I f not, we can keep this on forever or as
long as the chairman lets us.
Senator BALDWIN.I f you are going to keep it on forever, I will go
and do something else.
Senator MCCARTHY. I intend to keep it on until the man answers the
question, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BALDWIN.GO ahead. I am not going to impede in any
way. Go ahead.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you lead this man to believe that you were
taking care of his case in court that day when he thought he was being
tried for his life? Did you lead him to believe that you were taking
care of his case ; you answer that, will you ?
Mr. PERL. Yes. As to my recollection, this question whether I am
his defense attorney or not was not asked in this room where he was
interrogated where the fast procedure took place, but as to my-recol-
lection it took place afterward, when I was with him alone in the cell,
so I do not know what his belief was dnring the fast procedure.
Senator MCCARTHY. All right. NOWdurlng the fast procedure you
say you do not know. You do know there was a fake court. Let me
ask you this. Those fake judges were not dressed in uniforms of their
own rank. Am I right?
Mr. PERL. They might have been, they might not. I do not recall,
but it is possible that there were people there who had higher ranks
or they might have been civilians and had ranks on.
Senator MCCARTHY. Well, now do you know that you previously
testified that they were not dressed in uniforms of their own rank?
Do you remember that ?
Mr. PERL. I do not recall it, but it is quite possible. It was usual
in Intelligence if it is preferable, then you put on bars o r eagles or
whatever seemed appropriate for the occasion.
F o r instance, one could not interrogate, let us say, a major as a
second lieutenant. A German major, he would not have answered
you, so you put on eagles to interrogate.
Senator MCCARTHY.I am not speaking of interrogating. I am
speaking of the judges in the Schnell procedure. I n those cases the
judges used to put on uniforms that were not their own. It that
r i .ht ?
%r. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.Then we are in this room with the fake judges
behind the bench and what you call the bad boy, bringing in the wit-
ness, accusing the defendant. The defendant thinks he is being tried
for his life.
Now you said this man did not ask you whether you were his de-
fense attorney until you left this courtroom. Now my question is this :
Daring these proceedings by your activity and by what you were say-
ing did you then lead him to believe that you were taking care of his
case, i n other words, that you were haidling his case for him, that
you were representing him, seeing that he would get fair play?
Mr. PERL. Sir, I cannot judge b ~by~ thet circ~~mstances of what hap-
pened, what occurred in this man's mind. I would have to conclude.
You know the circumstances as I know them what was going on. They
are not disputed, so you can draw this conclusion just as well as I can.
I do not know from my own what went on ill his mind except f o r the
fact that afterward h e asked me whether I am his defense attorney.
Senator MCCARTHY.Well, was this whole set-up designed to con-
vince him that he was being tried ?
Mr. PERL. Now, sir, this question I would like to answer, and I be-
lieve i t is important to answer it. I do not think that this committee
is aware of the fact that according to Continental law-
Senator MCCARTHY.I think we will have to hold i t until tomorrow.
Senator BALDWIN.DOYOU want to go on while you are in the middle
of this now ?
Senator MCCARTHY.I will be glad to come back, Mr. Chairman.
(Short recess.)
Senator MCCARTHY.Mr. Perl, the chairman says we will continue
until I have gotten an answer to this one queStion. W e are going t o
adjourn for the evening, I guess. You can determine whether we get
home for a hot or cold lunch.
Wow I still want to find out from you the answer to this one ques-
tion. Forget, if you will, for the time being about the various phases
of truth and t r y to stick to what the average people over here consider
truth. First, let me ask you this: The purpose of the mock trial was
to create the right psychological atmosphere i n which to get confes-
sions, right?
Mr. PERL. It was to create the right psychological atmosphere to
find out the truth. 1
Senator MCCARTHY.And t o get confessions?
Mr. PERL. I f they were true; yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUdid not want any confessions that were
not true, did you?
And you thought u p this Sclznell procedure,

Sellator MCCARTHY.
I gather, according to Major Fanton.
Mr. PERL.I belleve after this, Major Fanton, if he said that I
thought it out, then he was in error. I suggested it, but it mas liot
mny idea. The idea is based in Eyropean law procedures; if you will
permit, I will explain it a little more in detail.
Senator MCCARTHY. He may have said "suggested" ancl not have
said you thought it up, but yon are the man who suggested it to Major
Fanton, right ?
Mr. PERL. The first kind of procedure, not the lloisy second type
which is to my best knowleclge-nncl I am certain that I am exact-
was usecl in only two cases, in I<uhn and in the Hennecke case.
Senator MCCARTHT.I n other worcls, you clo not like that noisy trial
of people shouting back and forth. You like a more orderly trial, we
will call it ceremony, if you prefer that.
Mr. PERL. Interrogation, I vould call it, formal interrogation.
Senator MCCARTHY. The only objection you had was when they
got noisy, shouting back and forth. You wauted to keep i t more for-
mal, more quiet, more like a court, in other words.
Mr. PERL. More like a court, not like a trial, but like an investiga-
tion court.
Seaator MCCARTHY. And the purpose of having the mock judges,
the fake judges was to convince the defendant that he was actually
having his trial, right ?
Mr. PERL. The purpose--
Senator MCCARTHY. w a s that one of the purposes, let us say, to
avoid a lengthy explanation?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay no?
Mr. PERL. NO, definitely not.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOI understand that you did or did not want
to let the defendant believe that he was being tried ?
Mr. PERL. We did not want the defendant to believe that he is being
triecl. I did not want him and I do not think anyone else wanted it.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOthat the purposes of the judges behind the
bench was to convince the defendant that he was not being tried?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir. If I mould have the possibility to explain to
you about the investigating procedure, then you might understand the
purpose better.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this. The chairman suggests
that this bill take some time. Let me take 5 ininutes. I do not think
1can complete it then, Mr. Chairman. We will see if we can arrive
a t anythin@.
senator %UNT. Go ahead.
Senator MCCARTHY. Now you say it was never the intention of the
court to convince the defendant that he was being triecl. I s that
right ?
Mr. PERL. I co~ildnot answer for the court. I ~ o u l ndot know what
Mr. Owens, the prison officer, thought, but I, with some legal exper-
ience in European lam, definitely had not the intention t~ give I1im the
impression that he is being tried. I wanted him to believe that it is
a very formal ancl very important interrogation.
Senator MCCARTI-IY.YOUwere the man who suggested this to Major
Fanton ?
Senator MCCARTHY.Did YOU suggest that men sit behind the table ?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.And t h a t they would impersonate judges?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTILY. You did. All right, so that i n this mock trial,
this ceremony, there would be fake judges. T h a t is your suggestion?
Mr. PERL.I n this sense, yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.And i t was your suggestion also that there be
what you call a bad boy and s good boy, the bad boy being the man
who would present the case against the defendant to the judges, and
the good boy being the man who would represent the defendant, object
to the questioning, and in other words protect the rights of the defend-
ant. I s that right ?
Mr. PERL.This procedure was used i n two cases. I do not think
this procedure was my suggestion, but I participated i n one of those
cases.
Senator MCCARTEIY. YOUparticipated ?
Mr. PERL. I do not think i t was my suggestion.
Senator MCCARTEIY. I n other words, you do not think it was your
supestion t c ha~rea good boy and a bad boy?
38. PERL. I do not think so, no.
Senator MCCARTI-IY.All right. I n the suggestion that you made,
how was the mock trial or the ceremony to be conducted?
Mr. PERL.I tell you. According to European, to Continental
criminal procedure---
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Will you forget about-
Mr. PERL. I have to, sir. You mi13 not understand.
Senator MCCARTHY.You do this. l v e will understand. You take
us into that room, mill you; the defendant is i n the room.
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.We have the fake judges behind the table.
Now from there on you pick it up. You tell us what was to happen.
Mr. PERL. I n the beginning-
Senator MCCARTEIY.We want the baclrground why i t was done and
that sort of thing. We will go into that, but I want you to tell
us what was done In that room. Will you do t h a t ?
Mr. PERL. Yes. There were two sharply defined kinds of pro-
cedure. 1am speaking about the first now.
Senator MCCARTIIY.That is the qniet procedure ?
Mr. PERL.Yes. There were five or six, I believe, or four or five
of this kind. I do not think any of the defendants was before such
a fast procedure. A s f a r as I remember it was used on witnesses.
Now the prisoner came in ancl behind the table there were two and
i n some cases three persons sitting.. On the table was a crucifix and
there mere two candles. The hood was taken off the prisoner either
just before he entered the room or i q the room itself.
Then one of the two or three persons sitting on the other side of
the table invited him to sit down. Then he was advised of the sanc-
tity-then he was told that he is snspected of having committed such
and such crime. Then he was advised of the sanctity of the oath.
He was told that perjury is a severe crime and he was reqnested to

stand up. He was requested to stand in front of the crucifix. The
candles were lighted and his oath was taken. Then during the cere-
mony the two or three men sitting behind the table, the Americans,
rose and then they sat down again, and then the formal questioning
started.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOWstop right there. Tell me the purpose of
the formality of their standing up and sitting down. Was that to
create the impression it was a court ?
Mr. PERL. It was the clear intention to impress him with the im-
portance and the sanctity of the oath.
Senator MCCARTHY. Now let us go back to this question.
Mr. PERL. Sir, I do not deny that this was intended to impress him
that this is a court.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, there is no doubt about it.
The purpose of it was to impress him that this was a court.
Mr. PERL. An investigating court, an investigating judge.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you say that this was not intended to
impress him that he was to be tried?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you are sure of that?
Mr. PERL. That mas as I understood it. I do not know what some
legal member of the court might have thought.
Senator MCCARTHY. And did you tell any of the defendants that
this was not a court, they had no right to pronounce sentence, that
this was merely an interrogation?
Mr. PERL. I 'understand your question. I will try to recall. I
do not think I ever told any defendant that he is not being tried.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, with one of those minutes to
go yet, I would like to take that time to point out to this witness what
Major Fanton had to say about this. Does anyone have the original
statement of Panton, the formal statement?
Mr. CHAMBERS. It was included in the record, and I think you are
reading from it.
Senator HUNT.W hile you are looking for that, Colonel Chambers,
you had a question you wanted to ask.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I wanted to ask a conple of questions on this mock-
trial procedure. You have just mentioned, you used a term which is
new here, and that is the investigating judge.
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Earlier you made some mention of the continental
procedure. Now am I to infer from that remark that under the con-
tinental system of investigations and court procedures there was an
investigating judge that, with some sort of ceremony, mould make an
investigation before the trial, before the actual trial?
Mr. PERL. This is absolutely correct, sir, and this was the reason why
I suggested this formal interrogation to Major Panton. I t is 3 years
ago. I do not remember whether I told him this reason, but this can be
established by everyone who j'ust studies, looks into the European law.
The procedure is on the Continent, in Germany, Austria, in Czecho-
slovakia, in all those countries where Germans live, is as follows :There
is a difference, of course, between the trial and the pretrial procedure,
but the difference is not as sharply marked as it is according to Ameri-
c a n procedure. The pretrial investigation is conducted by a regular
judge.
Mr. C % I A ~ ~ EYou
R S . mean he is a regular member of the court?
Mr. PERL.H e is a regular member of the court of the territory
within which this crime was committed. This judge, as far as I
speak now I am certain i t applies for all those countries of which I
spoke now. Froin now on i t applies certaintlg to Austria, Czecho-
slovakia, to certain parts of Poland which once belonged to Germany,
and certain parts of Yugoslavia, and so on, but I am quite certain i t is
in Germany.
This same investigating judge who i n Germany, too, is a inember
of the same court can be 3 days a week an investigating judge, and 3
days a week a trial jndge.
I n the morning he might be investigating case No. A, and in the
afternoon he might be investigating as a trial judge in case No. B,
of course, not the same case.
Mr. CHAMBERS. JVell, Mr. Perl, tlwough these processes where a n
investigating judge has a prisoner in for that purpose, do they swear
i n their witnesses and ask them questions and things of that type?
Mr. PERL. The procedure is quite formal. It is believed that it is
very important to impress the suspect with the sanctity of the oath.
H e does not have to be necessarily a prisonsr. H e might be free and
called in to testify before the investigating judge.
Senator MCCARTHY.?Vliile you are questionmg, mould you go into
this matter? I understand on the Continent they do not allow the
defendant to take an oath.
Mr. CHAMBERS.T h a t is the very question I was going to ask. D o
vou mean that the witness is sworn in or the accused is sworn in by
h e investigating judge 1
Mr. PERL. The witnesses are sworn in by the investigating judge.
The defendant is not sworn in, but he is in a very formal and veiy
soleinn way reminded of the fact that if he lies, this, according to
the law-this is the law-is the reason to give him a stiffer sentence.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, do they have, for instance, a crucifix around,
candles, and things of that type?
Mr. PERL. Now I s eak for all the countries which I mentioned
with the exception of &emany. I do not h o w , i n Gerinany maybe,
too, in Austria, i n the Sudeienland, in many of the territories from
which those people come they definitely hare a crucifix, they have two
candles on the table, and prior to the witness taking the oath, the judge,
the investigxting judge reminds him of the sanctity of the oath. Then
h e tells him, "Put yourself u p in front of this crucifix." Thea h e
rises. With him everyone present in the courtroom-and i t is a court-
room even if i t is a pretrial procedure-rises. Then 1Ye takes his oath
and then only he sits down.
I have with me an affidavit of an authority on continental law, a
man who practiced law there for 39 years i n which he describes some-
thing of this procedure. I t is Dr. R u g o Medak of Los Angeles,
Calif. I f I am permitted t o read i t or hand i t to you-
Senator HUNT.D O you want to put that into the record?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.Jde, in view of the short time-
Mr. CHAMBERS. May we, for the purpose of identifying this docu-
ment, put it in the record, and then tomorrow we mlll pick up,
if it is agreeable, a t this point, and go further with this particular

discussion ?
(The document referred to is as follows :)
AFFIDAVIT
Dr. Hugo Medak of 223 South Kenmore Avenue, Los Angeles, Calif., duly sworn
deposes :
1. I was a member of the Bar of Vienna, and exclusively engaged there i11 the
practice of civil, a s well a s criminal, from t h e year 1899 to the ear 1938.
2. I hereby certify, t h a t according to judicial procedure there, a crucifix was
standing in every courtroom, on the courts table or desk, in front of the inves-
tigating or presiding judge. To the left and to the right of the crucifis was a
candlestick, each with one candle. The following was t h e procedure of aclmin-
istering t h e oath to a witness: The investigating or presiding judge first re-
minded the witness of the sanctity of t h e oath. He then requested the witness
to take his stand in front of t h e crucifix. Then the judge rose and with him
rose to their feet everyone else present i n the courtroom, including sk~ectators
and visitors. The judge then spoke aloud the following oath formula, which
was repeated word by word by t h r w ~ t n e s s :"I call God the Almighty and all-
knowing a s a witness t o the fact, t h a t ;, will speak the full and exact truth and
nothing but the truth. So help me God. After the witness, his a r m raised dur-
ing all this ceremony, had repeated the above whole sentence word by word,
not only the words "I do," the judge, and after him everyone else present in the
courtroom took his seat again. The solemnity of the ceremony was stressed
by the fact, that the t n o candles to the left and to the right of the crucifix were
lit prior to the taking of t h e oath.
In my thirty-five years of law practice I made the experience that this solemn
procedure achieved its purpose, and this purpose was not t o intimidate the
witness, but to impress him with the sanctity of the oath and thus to impress
upon the witness the duty of speaking the truth.
Dr. HUGONJDAK.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 10th day of May, 1949.
[SEAL] CLIFFORDB. GRAW,
Notaty I'l~blic.
My commission expires May 27, 1950.
Senator MCCARTHY.Let me ask you this: You say, in the conti-
nental practicc, No. 1, they never swear in the defendant.
Mr. PERL. No, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.Your procedure, the one that you recorninended
to Major Fanton did provide for swearing the defendant?
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n the continental practice i t is actually a judge,
a legitimate judge who conducts the mock trial, the investigntion trial.
They do not call someone off the street.
Mr. PERL.Not the investigation trial, the pretrial investigation.
Senator MCCARTHY.They do not have any fake trials in the con-
tinental procedure ?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator MCCBRTIIY.SOwhen you say this was modeled after the
continental procedure, let us make it clear that here you had fake
judges, men who were not judges, men dressed up in uniforms other
than thair own, where i n the continental procedure you had an actual
juclge of the court who sits down and takes the witness' statement.
A m I right?
Mr. PERL.Sir, YOU are not right, because we are speaking about
the word "judge" and the word "juclge," accorcling to you means a
trial juclge, whereas the juclge there is an investigator. H e is not a
member of the court, but he 1s an investigator, so In this sense it was
correct. We were investigators, and we could not be later on in the
trial any more, but we had approximately the same position which
the investigating judge had there.
Senator MCCARTHY. Am I correct that in the continental procedure
SOU say the judge may be in court in the morning, and in the afternoon
sit as an investigating judge ;is that right?
Mr. PEHL.T h a t is quite possible; yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOthat he is a judge, not a member of the
police department ?
Mr. PERL. No.
Senator MCCARTHY.H e is not a member of the police clepartment?
Mr. PERL. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY.Not part of a detective agency ?
Mr. PERL. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY.H e is a member of the court; right?
Senator MCCARTHY.You d o not know under continental practice
of their recognizing any fake judges and having mock trials by the
police department or the detective agency investigating the case?
That is not recognized on the Continent?
Mr. PERL. I do not lmotv whether the police use nlocli trials there.
I do not 1<11ow.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOU suggested this because i t follows con-
tinental procedure. Am I correct in this : That as f a r as you know
continental procedure does not recognize mock trials conducted by
the police department or any detective group or anything like t h a t ?
Mr. PERL. KO.
Senator MCCARTHI-.SO that when you say this was modeled after
the continental procedure, that is untrue in that the contineiltal pro-
cedure does not recognize any mock trials?
Mr. PIRL.R ight.
Senator MCCARTHY.The continental procedure recognizes bringing
witnesses in ?
Mr. PERL.Right.
Senator MCCARTHY.Not the defendant, but witnesses, smearing
in witnesses?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOU departed from that. in that NO. 1 vou
say, ' W e mill swear in the defendant, we will p i ~ thim under oaih."
Right ?
Mr. PERL. Right.
Senator MCCARTHY.And No. 2, you do not have any judges from
the court. You call in anyone like this young Mr. Owen who mas
a supply officer and say: "Here, you act as president of the court,"
so there is no likeness a t all, is there, except perhaps the size of the
room or something like that 2
Mr. PERL..Yes. Now, sir, we come always, you see, back to the
same thing. I do not know what Mr. Owen though about it, but
when I suggested this I thought-and this was the intention: I do
not claim that we acted exactly according to European procedure but
the idea was to make this mail feel that he is interrogated in a very
formal and very important interrogation and that he has therefore
to speak the truth and that if he does not speak the truth he might
get into very bad trouble.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,let me ask you this one question. You

were a criminal lawyer in Vienna. You tried, I believe you stated
the other day, some 100 or 200 important criminal cases. You went
before the Supreme Court, so apparently you had considerable prac-
tice. Let me ask you this : If a criminal case came to you, you had the
job of defending a man accused of a crime, and if you found out that
the police department had conducted a mock trial and convinced
this man he was being tried and they had what you call a good boy
and a bad boy, one representing him, taking care of his case, the
other one trying to prove he is guilty, and they have men dressed up
behind the bench impersonating judges who are not judges, the3
swear this man in and say "Now, you have got to tell the truth in this
case;" here is a crucifix; here are candles, religious articles, and you
found that under that procedure the extracted a confession from
%
him, would you consider that reversi le error, that you would get
that case reversed? Under the laws of Austria, would that be a rever-
sible error? O r would you think, "No, that is not a reversible error"?
Mr. PERL.Sir, I am not very familiar with the expression "reversible
error."
Senator MCCARTHY. Well, by that I mean a case that the reviewing
court sends back for a new trial. The court says, "This trial is not
properly conducted." That is what is know as reversible error, a
type of error which is great enough so that the reviewing court will
say, "This must be retried."
Mr. PERL. I do not think my position-I try to put myself now into
the position of the defense lawyers there. I do not think my position
would have been good.
The rules of evidence are by f a r not as stiff as they are here. Almost
every evidence is admitted, not almost, practically every evidence is
admitted as long as i t is relevant and the court attaches importance t o
it, whatever he wants to attach.
Now, if the court would find there that this evidence is so impor-
tant that he believes it, he could appeal for leg+ reasons, but against
the opinion of the court that this is true or this is not true, I could
not have done much. For legal reason, I could have appealed only.
Senator MCCARTHY., Let us assume this case comes to you. You
have got the job of handling the appeal.
It appears that you have this mock trial and that the man is told
he will be hung. His defense lawyer, or, as you say, the man repre-
senting him, the good boy, goes back to his cell then and says, "Now,
if yon will sign this confession, then your family will get back their
ration cards; then, they will not be hung, you will not be hung; I will
get you off with 10 or 15 years; yon sign this confession." Just assume
for the time being those are the facts in the case, would you say that
then you had a case which would be reversed by a court in your
homeland under the laws in existence at that time?
Mr. PERL. First of aI1, I want to state, as you know, this was not the
case in our case. It is a hypothetical case, and secondly; sir, I believe
you will not believe me ; as I suggest, consult someone else with legal
experience there. I might be wrong, but I believe that I could not
have done much even in the very hard and very extreme case which
you just described, because the evidence could have been brought into
court. I do not doubt this, because you could bring evidence as long
as it was relevant, and if the court attached the importance to it.
Of course, I would fight i t a t the court, and I might be able to fight
it for legal error, too, but I do not think, because only legal reasons
that could be wrong procedure coulcl be brought in.
Senator MCCARTHI-.J ust one question. Let us say that instencl of
being the defense lawyer you are the reviewing judge and this case
comes before you and then you find all that I allege is true ii~clucling
the statement to him that he is going to hang i n the morning.
"I am your friend. I am the man who is taking care of your case.
I have arranged that if you sign this confession you will get off with
10 years," and the man takes the choice instead of hanging-.
You are the reviewing court. T h a t case comes before you. Would
you then say that man did not get a fair trial, or woulcl yon say, "No,
i t is fair" ? "We got a confession froin him."
Mr. PERL. I would say that this man who was treated as you de-
scribed now got a very unfair trail, and I wonld look into the law,
whether I can find something in the law to have the first judgment re-
versed, if he was treated as you said now.
Senator MCCARTHY.Thank you.
Senator HUNT.W e will adjourn until tomorrom morning a t 10
o'clock.
(Whereupon, a t 5 : 20 p. m., a n adjournment was taken until 10: 00
a. m., Wednesday, May 18, 1949.)
WEDNESDAY, MAY 18, 1949
UNITEDSTATESSENATE,
OF THE COMNITTEEON ARMEDSERVICES,
SUBCOBLMITTEE
Washington,D. 0.
The subconmiittee met, pursuant to adjom.ninent, a t 12: 35 p. m.,
i n room 212, Senate Office Builcling, Senator Xaymoiicl E . Baldwm
presiding.
Present : Senators Baldwin, and McCarthy.
Also present: J. M. Chambers, of the coliinlittee staff; Howell J.
Hatclier a11d Francis Flanagan, of the staff of the Snbcomnlittee on
Investigations of the Committee on Expenditures in Executive De-
partments ; and Colonel Ellis.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM R. PERL-Resumed
Senator &!~_(.~RI'ILY. 311..Perl. you ni~lerstanclvithout being s n o m
from day to day that you are still under oath 1
Senator IS/~CCAI~THY. Mr. Perl, did you know that the Army con-
ducted some sort of an investigation, prior to the trial, of the claimed
brutalities or torture nlethods, call i t what yon limy? .
Mr. PERL. Yes, I knem- that.
Senator &CARTHY. ,411d had any of the prisoners complained to
you that they had been mistreated?
Mr. PICRL. I learned of this investigation; there are two questions
M-Iiiclia re put to me no~v.
Senator MCCARTHY.Tlie first one first.
Mr. PERL. I learned of tlie investigation of tlie Army conducted by
Colonel Carpenter, to irly lrnowledge, only 1 or 2 clays after I arrived
in Dacliau shortly before the whole-set up i11 Schwabisch Ha11 would
up. I went to relieve a i d there I learned for the first time, to lny best
recellection.
Senator MCCARTIIY.DO sonietliing for me, t r j to answer my clues-
tion-be quiet for a minute, will you try to answer my q~lestion?
And if you feel that an explanation is necessnry, tell us and we will
let you explain.
Mr. P E ~ LYes.
.
Senator MCCARTHP.What I asked you was tliis: Did you k n o ~
the Army conclnctetl suc11 an investigation, if yon can possibly tell.
iiie yes or no, tlien if you ~ v a n tto explain your answer, we w111 give
you an opportunity to do that. Y e will try to get you :LWRJ' tocl:~?
yo11 want to I I<no1~ :a!id if yo11 continue to give a lengthy esl>lanatioll
of e v e n i>'>s\vel.,it will be inlposible to yet ?ou nw;L;;. Do pnil
understand ?
Mr. PERL.All right.
Senator MCCARTHY.The next question is: Did any of the defend-

ants complain to you personally that he had been mistreated?
Mr. PERL. I believe that General Dietrich after the interrogation in
Schwabisch Hall mentioned that on his way to the interrogation cell,
he was kicked into his behind by some guard.
Senator McCARTHY. Do you know what guard kicked him?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was that the time the Polish guards were on
duty?
Senator MCCARTHY. And he complained that he had been kicked
around by the Polish guard!
Mr. PERL. Not kicked around, he didn't make much out of it, but
he complained more, in a way, that it hurt his dignity, not that he
was actually hurt.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, he told you that he had been
kicked around.
Mr. PERL. I believe he told that on this occasion.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,you were interviewed by Carpenter, were
you not?
Mr. PERT,. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Were you interviewed by any of the Army staff
that was conducting the investigation into these alleged beatings
and kickings ?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did anyone come to you and say, "Mr. Per&
what do you know about this," or anything like that?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. During any of the investigations into the al-
leged brutalities, were you ever contacted, either by tlie Army, or any-
one else, on this particular question of what you knew about beatings
or kickings or anything of that kind?
Mr. PERL.AS far as I remember, tlie man who had claimed mistreat-
ment prior to the trial claimed to have been mistreated by Captain
Schumacker.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Listen to me, will you? I asked you a ques-
tion-whether anyone contacted you and asked you any questions,
asked you for any infarmation, about any of the kickings or beatings.
Do you understand me?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then you-
Mr. PERL. I was contacted by the United States Arniy War Crimes
Branch Office approximately in October 1947.
Senator MCCARTHY. October 1947?
Mr. PERL.October, 1948.
Senator MCCARTHY. Were you contacted by mail?
Mr. PERL. Right.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdon't have that with you, the letter 8
Mr. PERL. What?
Senator MCCARTHY. The letter.
Mr. PERL.NO.
Senator MCCARTIXY. Did they ask you to make out an affidavit?
Mr. PERL. Right.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOX 733

senator MC~ART-HY. Telling everything you knom about ally kick-
ing~ o r beatings or tortute, or anything of the kind?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHT.And you made out an affidavit ?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
SenatorMCCARTHY. I n the affidavit did you say that Dietrich had
con~plainedto you that the Polish guards had mistreated him?
Mr. PERL. I do not remember whether I said it, but it was part of
the tl-ial, it was known t,o everyone ~ h had o anything to do with the
case. Dietrich repeated his charges in open court.
Senator MCCARTHT.All right. Did you, in your affidavit, if you
knom, alld if you don't know, we will give you the affidavit, but in that
affidavit did you set forth the facts about Dietrich's mistreatment b y
the Polish guards ?
Mr. PERL. I don't think SO.
Sellator MCCARTHP.NOW,there is an order here, an order of Major
Fanton in regard to the interrogation, I believe they call it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. S O P NO.4.
Senator MCCARTHY. I think you told me the other day that you
did not follow, you did not believe in the wisdom of paragraph B, o r
something to that effect. I would like to have you clear i t up so.
that there will be no doubt, if I may read this paragraph to you.
Where a prisoner being interrogated ill a crime is implicated in t h a t crime-
in other words TT-herethe prisoner is in~plicatedin the crime so that
he is one of the war criminals-
i t is permissible to tell him t h a t he will be recommended a s a witness if such
statement to the prisoner will cause him to tell a full or more complete story s o
t h a t he will be of more ralue to the case a s a witness than as a defendant.
Now, as I understood your statement the other day, it was that you
did not agree with this order.
Mr. PERL. I t was new, the whole idea was new to me, that is what
I stated.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUthink that this was a good idea, to follow
this procedure? You think it was proper?
Mr. PERL. It ran somehow-yes, I think it was proper.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, you think it was proper f o r
you to promise a man who is a war crimmal, in other words engaged
in the Malmedy shootings, we will say, who shot our American boys,
you think it is proper to you to tell him that if his statement was
such that i t would be valuable to you in convicting some of the other
men who were equally guilty, that then he would not be a defendant,,
that then he would be used as a witness. Do you think that was
proper ?
Mr. PERL. I started to say before, somehow, I wanted to say, it was
somehow against my European-continental legal feeling to make such
a statement to any witness, but this S O P was made by an American
lawyer and I thought it was proper, and according to the laws of this
country.
Senator MCCARTHY. I can assure you now it is not in accordance
with the laws of this country. I can assure you now that a district
attorney or a police department-no one except the judge can take it
upon himself to offer immunity. Do you understand that?
Mr. PERL. I understand that, and according to continenbal law even,

the judge or no one could give him this promise.
Senator MCCARTHY. This would be improper under continental
law ?
Mr. PERL. It would be improper under continental law.
Senator MCCARTHY. Knowing now that this is not in Eine with
American law, do you now say that this was entirely i m p r ~ p e r ? I
don't want to deceive you on it. Let the question rest there.
You say now this would be entirely improper or this was entirely
improper ?
Mr. PERL. I wouldn't make this judgment, I do not think that I can
judge it, and as to Smerican law. As to European law, it would not
only have been improper or would have been proper, but it would have
been impossible. No one can promise him that he would not be a de-
fendant, and I believe none of the defendants would have believed
him if anyone had pronlised it to him. because the idea is just strange
to European thinking.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this: 011 the question of
whether you believe i t or not, we have the affidavits that they did, the
defense attorneys said they did, every indication was that they did,
but I want to ask you this, forget whether or not the men believed it,
let's confine ourselves to this order. I t , in effect, says to you, Mr.
Perl, where a man is ilnplicated in a crime, in other words where he
is guilty, where he is one of the mar criminals, it says, Mr. Perl, where
you think that by promising hiin immunity, you'can get a statement
which will be effective in conricting the other defendants, that then
you may do that.
I s that, in simple language, what the order says?
Mr. PERL. I would like to have the question repeated.
Senator MCCARTEIY. I won't ask the reporter to read i t over. I will
repeat it for you.
Paragraph B. can we reduce it to this simple language, that this in
effect says to you, one of the interrogators, Mr. Perl, when you are
dealing with a defendant, a Inan implicated in the crime, in other
words a war criminal, if, by promising him immunity, in other words
that he will be a witness and not a defendant, if by cloing that you
can get a statement which mill be valuable in convicting the other cle-
fendants, you may so do. I s that as yon understand th1s order
Mr. PERL. I clo not remember the words, but I n-odd like first t o
say what I remember, before reading it. 1 rennen~berthat we had in
every case, where the possibility existed that one man could be used
as a witness instead of a defendant, an idea which mas new to me,
that where such a possibility existed, before doing anything we had
to consult with Major Fanton. That is what I remember. And, as
the occasion did not arise for me, I probably did not think about
permissibility of it, and what you are asking me nox is what I think
now about it.
. I am asking w 1 ~ yo11
Senator M c C a n r r ~ ~No; t as an interrogator
understood this language to mean. To me I think i t is very clear. I
think there is no doubt about what it nleans. I think it is very clear,
but I am aslring n-hetller or not J-oil understood the English language
well enough, ~mderstooclthe order well enough, to I i n o ~what it
means, and 1 will read it again. if you care to have me to.
MALMEDT MASSACRE INVESTlGATIOS 735
Mr. PERL.
I would like to have you.
Senator MCCAXLHY(reading) : \There a l~risoner being interrogated in a
crime i s implicated in a crime, it is peru~issibleto tell him that he will be rec-
ommended a s a witness if such statement to the priwner will cause him t o
tell a full or more completq story so t h a t he would be of more value t o t h e
c a w a s a witness than a s a defendant. However, before any such statements
a r e made to a ptisoner, the matter must be cleared with t h e co~nmanding
officer.
Do you follow that ?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator &CARTHY. &fy question is this : Do you understand that
to mean that i t is proper after first clearing with the commanding
&cer, not a jndge, that it is proper for you to pick out one of the
war criminals who is implicated in the crime, and say to him, "If
your statement is such that you will be of more value as a witness than
as a defendant, then we will promise you immunity"?
I s that as you understood this order?
Mr. PERL. I do not remember how I understood it7 but now I
wouldn't understand it as you say, because I would think that this
question, whether his testimony is more valuable as a witness or as a
defendant is to be decided between the interrogator and Major Fanton,
and the witness certainly could never have been told, "Listen, I am
going to talk wit.11 you now and if you will be more valuable as a
witness than as a defendant. then you will not be a defendant." I
would not hake misunderstood, that way.
Senator BALDWIX. I f I understand Senator McCarthy7s question,
Lieutenant Perl, it is this: Did you believe, when you interrogated
these prisoners that if you thought. from what they had to say, that
they wonld be more valuable as a witness than it would be trying to
build up a case against them and making them a defendant, that you
could tell theell that they would not be a defendant but would be a
witness? I think that is the sense of the whole thing.
Senator MCCARTEIY. That is the sense of it, very clearly stated.
Mr. PERL. I am under oath. and I do not remember what I believed
at this time. All I remember is that the possibility existed theareti-
cally, before talking abont such a thing with the prisoner, if such a
thing appears more opportune, to discuss i t with the commanding
officer, that is all I recall nom-. And everything else I would have to
do would be reconstructing it.
Senator BALDU-IN. Do I understand you to mean if you thought that
was the situation, here is a man we have to say to, L ' N o ~if, you will
tell us the whole story. yon won't be a defendant, but you will be a
witness." I f there mas a man like that, do I u ~ ~ d e r s t a nyou
d to mean
that you then would discnss that with your commanding officer and
he would decide whether or not you were to say to this prisoner, "If
you will tell us the hole story, we will make a witness of you and not
a defendant"?
Mr. PERL. This is how 1 understood it, but as I said before, I never
vsed it b~causesornelmv it goes against mv legal background to tell
so~~ietliil~glike t111q.
Senator MC~ARTIIV.
Did you ever tell M:~jorFanton that this was
one part of this order that yon just did not intend to abide by?
Mr. PERL. NO.
Senator MCCARTHF.Well then-
Mr. PERL. I did not make up my mind nbt to abide by it, but I just
did not because I felt an aversion against it.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I think that7sa natural aversion, but my ques-
tion is this: I n view of the fact that you were working as one of the
interrogators, in view of the fact that you desidecl that this was an
. improper order and went against your ain, or whatever you call it,
F
could you tell me why you didn't go to B ajor Fanton and say, "Major,
I can't abide by this particular order"?
Mr. PERL. I did not have the intention not to abide by it, sir. The
occasion did not arise and maybe the occasion did not arise for me
because I just was not eager to apply it in this case.
Senator MCCARTHY. But, the other interrogators knew they could
apply that rule?
Mr. PERL. I suppose SO. Everyone read it.
Senator MCCARTHY. You wouldn't be in any position to know what
offers the other interrogators made?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOwhat the other interrogators felt like using
if it went against their grain, or what they thought was proper, and
whether they used it, obviously you cannot tell at this time?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.NOW,the other day in answer to Senator Bald-
win's question in regard to whether you had beaten a certain witness-
I think i t was Weiss or 1'Vichmam~-you said that-if I don't quote
, you can check the record-you say, ' T o ; we didn't have
qo? o in this case. He very freely confessed."
Can you tell me how many other cases there were that you didn't
have to indulge in any beating or anything!
Mr. PERL.I am quite certain I never said "we did not have to in this
case."
Senator MCCARTHY. I may be doing you an injustice. Let me
check that.
Senator BALDWIN.While you are checking that, Senator, we have
cot here in this, in our records here, the statement of everybody who
Eled an affidavit in connection with the Supreme Court matter who
makes any complaint about being abused by this particular witness.
I think that before Mr. Per1 gets off the stancl I would like to examine,
o r have someone exainine him on the different claims made by these
different Germans in their affidavits, so that he may have an op-
portunity to either admit i t or deny it, or to give some explanation in
connection with it, such explanation as he wants to. Don't you think
that is the way we ought to proceed with this?
Senator MCCARTHY. I heartily agree with yon, Mr. Chairman;
ver heartily agree with you.
(%iscussion was had off the record.)
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,when you said you didn't have to in this
case, and it is being traced in the record for the exact words, in an-
swer to Senator Baldwin's questions, whether or not you were beat-
in him-
5,. PER,.I f I could read it, I could probabb recall it. I certainly
did not mean in this case we did not have to beat him, but probably,
I do not remember the wording, but we didn't have to use any method,
any additional tricks or anything; but just telling him and confront-
i n r him with those people---
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU examined-was i t Colonel Peiper, or
General Peiper ?
Mr. PERT,. Colonel Peiper.
Senator MCCARTHY, You examined Colonel Peiper and got his
statement?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUtold him that there was, so far as he was
concerned, he was one of the major criminals, there was no chance for
him, but he could save his men by signing a confession; right?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Your answer is "No"?
Senator MCCARTHY.Did you ever tell him that by signing the type
of confession you gave him, that he would be able to clear some of his
men, or take the responsibility himself?
Mr. PERL. I never gave him any confession ;he gave me a confession.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUgave him a confession to sign a t one time.
Mr. PERL. NO; I never handed anyone a confession to sign. As I
told you last time it was taken down, the statements in a narrative
form, which is again in accordance with the law governing !he pretrial
procedure there in p a r a g a p h 104 of the Austrian Criminal Proce-
d u x , of 1887, I believe, we can find now the same words in July 1945,
the story or statement made by the witness before the investigating
judge is to be taken in a narrative form, and not by question and
answer. The investigating judge is permitted to deviate from this
procedure in certain cases, if he thinks it necessary, but this is the
regular procedure.
Senator BALDWIN.May I ask a question there? You mention this
procedure. These are statements that were taken in these pretrial
procedures, so-called, that you have described, how were they used in
connection with the case? That is, in the normal process of the law?
Do you understand what I mean?
Mr. PERLI n Austria ?
Senator BALDTVIN. Yes.
Mr. PERL. The witness was called in, and if he took the stand, it
was normally not used; but if there was a discrepancy between his
statement and what he had said before, then it was used.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, it was used as a basis of cross-
examination ?
Mr. PERL. That is right, sir. I f he were on the stand. I f he was
absent, for instance, had fled or something, or if he did not take the
stand then the statements which had been made by him before were
read to the court, and they could be read in any case. The district
attorney or the defense attorney could insist that these statements
should be read.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,you got the confession from Peiper;
right l
Mr. PERL.I ot three confessions.
Senator MC&RTHY. Three different confessions ?
Senator MCCARTHY. Were you the only interrogator who got a
confession from Peiper?
Mr. PERL. I believe I was. At least he spoke, after he had told me
about it, he spoke freely to all the others about it.
738 MALMEDY MASSACRE IKVESTIGATION
You see, he is quite an interesting person, a i d although they had

no business to do it, sometimes after he was through with the interro-
gation people visited him in the cell and brought him cigarettes, and
so on, and on this occasion he spoke freely about what he had done.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am going to tell you something else. I am
not going to interrupt you any more, I am going to let you make
answers a t as great length as you care to, but I want to ask you a
question and find out whether any other interrogators got confessions,
and I want to know, yes or no--
Mr. PERT,. AS f a r as I lrnow no formal confessions-
Senator MCCARTHY. Listenia minute. You can give as lengtny
an explanation as you want to. You have my word that i t will be
impossible for me to finish my questions today, and I think the chair-
man will have me ask all the questions I think are necessary, but there
is one way we can finish this today and that is if you will try and
answer the questions and if you think the answer is not complete or is
unfair, in that case then you can make a further explanation; but, all
of these lengthy explanations will mean that we will be here for days.
Do ou understand ?
d r . PERL.Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I want to ask you this: I n talking to Peiper,
did you ever indicate to him that if he would take the responsibility
of issuing the order, that that would make it easier on the men in his
command ?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdidn't ?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHT.Did you tell him that the men of his command
would be able to use his confession as part of a defense or a mitigation
if it appeared from his confession that he issued the order and said,
"Rill these Americans boys?" Did you tell him that?
Senator MCCARTHY. Did he ever tell you that he would be glad to-
strike that.
You had no difficulty in getting a confession from Peiper? You
didn't have to beat him or anything, did you? .
Mr. PERL. I didn't have to beat anyone, and I wouldn't have beat
anvone.
Senator MCCARTHT.0.K. YOUhad no difficulty in getting a con-
fession from Peiper.
Mr. PERL. I wouldn't say that. I had some difficulty, sir.
Senator MCCARTEIT. Did he ever tell you that he would sign any
confession whatsoever that would help the men of his command?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir. I wonldn't have accepted such a confession.
Senator MCCSRTHT.Let me ask you one question, just leaving
Peiper for one monlent and going back to this man Hennecke. Where
you were the defense attorney, or friend of the court, or call it what
you may, you had interrogated him, and he had refused to sign a con-
fession and I believe your testimony is that he had been interrogated
four or five times. but after this trial or ceremonv. call it what vou
may, he then signed a. confession admitting his guilt; right?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Can vou tell us why he changed his mind and
signed that confession, the ~onfessionhe iefnsed tg sign before the
mock trial? Did conditions change or were you persuasive, or what
happened ?
Mr. PERL. I had interrogated this Henneuke in the very eady stages
before we had any information a t all. Then, I believe he was inter-
rogated for a length of time by Mr. Ellowitz. I had, when I interro-
gated him, some evidence at my disposal all ready, after the first pro-
ceeding; and with the help of this evidence which I had, I interro-
gated him for the first time with a weapon in my hand. The first time
I had been fishing, with the help of this evidence, and due to the fact
that he felt that now he must talk, because if he doesn't talk, this is a
fast procedure before which he has been, and he might go to the
trial, to the real trial before he had the opportunity to tell his story.
These two things operated in softening him up, and slowly and slowly
I penetrated into his story.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUmade one statement there that I am par-
ticularly interested in. You said something about you didn't inter-
view him before you had some weapon in your hand. What do you
mean by that ?
Mr. PERL.I mean some information on the case, not a pistol or
something.
Senator BALDWIN.That is what I wanted, if you had a club or
anything.
Mr. PERL. NO, these were the weapons we used, material to get
something out of him. When I interrogated him before, one or two o r
three or four times, it was very early in Schwabisch Hall, and I just
was fishing for information.
Senator MC~ARTHY. NOW, ou got a confession 4 days after the
H
first mock trial, after the moc trial or ceremony, or call i t what you
may, roughly 4 days after the ceremony-you then got a confession;
is that right ?
Mr. PERL. Probably right.
Senator R'ICCARTHY. Mr. Hennecke in his statement says, this is on
the 30th of March, or the 12th, I forget which, you went into his cell
and told him that unless he signed a confession, another trial would be
held and he woulcln7tbe there; that he would be sentenced. Did you
tell him that ?
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you tell him there would be another cere-
mony ?
Mr. PERL. Tell him what?
Senator MCCARTHY. That there would be another ceremony.
Mr. PERL. This I do not recall.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwent in and talked to this man before
the first mock trial, and will you tell us what you told him at that time?
Mr. PERL. Before the first procedure ?
Mr. PERL. I do not remember.
Senator MCCARTHP.YOUdon't recall 2
Mr. PERL. I believe it was something which had a distant relation
to this case; if you want, I will tell you what I think it was. H e had
shot prisoners-he had shot, during-during the time the Germans
retreated from Paris, he was accused by one of the men, it was one
of the early statements that we got, that he shot in the streets there
with his machine gun at civilians who were promenading in the streets,
and as far as I remember I was questioning him about that, just to

feel him out and try to find out how he was connected with thls, n4
which we were interested.
Senator MCCARTHY.When you would see a defendant before a mock
trial, would you explain to them what was going to happen a t the
mock trial? That is, in a case in which you were the friend of the
defendant, or representative, or call it what you may?
Mr. PERL.Only once I took part in one of these, the second time,
fast procedures it was in the case of Hennecke. I do not think I was
on the Kuhn case. There were two cases.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUonly took part in two?
Mr. Perl. I believe I took part in one, I do not believe I was in the
Kuhn case. By the way Kuhn was identified by a half a dozen wit-
nesses that he shot this man-maybe less, but quite a number of wit-
nesses.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you get the statement from this fellow
Kramm ?
Mr. PERL. I tried very hard to involve Kramm into the case, but I
did not succeed.
Senator MCCARTHY.DO you recall you got a confession from--do
you recall the name of the man who was charged with murdering a
Belgian woman-do you recall you got a confession from one of the
defendants, to the effect that he went into the home of a Belgian family
over in, was it a t B-r-u-e-n-n-i-g-e-n I believe was the name, and his
confession set forth that he went into the home, asked this husband
and wife whether there were any American soldiers in the home and
they said, "No," and he then stepped back 2 meters and shot this
woman in the forehead and that she fell dead. Do you recall getting
that confession?
Mr. PERL. I believe that you are referring to a soldier with the name
of Max Rieder, and I got his confession.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUgot that confession?
Mr. PERL. It is not exactly-as f a r as I remember, there was only
one woman in the room, and he shot her, as I remember it.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n any event, he went into this home, and the
confession is here-I wonder if we can find that confession.
Mr. PERL. He confessed to other shootings, too.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let's stick to this. You recall getting this
confession ; do you ?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. And he gave the details of how he deliberately,
for no reason at all, murdered a Belgian woman?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. And you recall that toward the closing days
of the trial the defense counsel was assigned one or more investigators;
do you recall that?
Mr. PERL. I do not, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou recall that the defense sent an investi-
gator, or someone, over to this Beligan town?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And they came back-first. let me ask you
this: This was a litle crossroads hamlet; is that right? Bullingen is
just a litle crossroads hamlet?
MAEMEDY IIASSACRE INVESTIGATION 741.
.
Mr. PERL. That I don't know.
Senator McC-~RTHF.Well, do you recall that the defense investi-
gator went over to this town and came back with an affidavit from the
mayor, or whatever you would call the head of such a little hamlet,
and from the registrar, to the effect that only one person had died in
that town from other than natural causes during all the period of the
time involved in this alleged shooting of this woman in her home,
and that that was a Mrs. Anton Jonsten. Do you recall that so f a r ?
Mr. PERL. I remember the facts but not the name.
Senator MCCARTHY. And do you recall that Anton Jonsten signed
the affidavit to the effect that his wife was not shot and that no bullet
\T-oundswere found on her, and that she was killed while running, I
believe the affidavit said, from combat and that was a result of either
a grenade or a shell. Do you recall that?
Mr. PERL. I will tell you what I recall. I cannot answer "yes" or
"no," because I only recall part of what you have said.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUrecall the husband did sign an affidavit
saying that his wife was not shot by a German.
Mr. PERL. I don't remember whether it was her husband but I re-
member it was a competent person who signed such an affidavit.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f I tell you that the affidavit is to the effect
that he was the woman's husband, his name is Anton Jonsten, I assume
we can agree that it was the husband; right?
Mr. PERL. I suppose SO, not the husband, but a husband of one
woman who obviously perished in another way there.
Senator MCCARTHY. Have you ever wondered-strike that.
Did you use any physical force, any threats, any inducements to get
this German soldier to sign that part of his confession, the part in
which he said he deliberately killed this Belgian woman ?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir; and, I would like to answer the question that you
started asking, but didn't finish. Have you wondered-yes; I did
wonder, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Just a second, I will give you a chance to ex-
plain it, but until I get through with my question will you please just
answer "yes" or "no"?
Mr. PERL. All right.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n any event you know that these affidavits are
now on file, from the so-called mayor of this little hamlet, the regis-
trar, and the husband.
Mr. PERL. Yes; they were introduced a t the trial.
Senator MCCARTHY. My question is this: Did you use any force,
m y beatings, any mock trial, or anything like that to get the con-
fession from this man ?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Are you sure that he was not subjected to a
mock trial?
Mr. PEW.Certainly not in my presence. I am almost sure he was
not subjected to a mock trial ;no.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaj7he was not subjected to a moclr tlbial?
Mr. PERL. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did Harry Thon he1 you get the confession ?
Mr. PERL. P
I cannot answer this "Yes" or 'No." I wil lhave to tell
you, a "yes" would be an incomplete answer, and an incorrect answer.
Senator MCCARTHY.Can I read to you this part of Max Rieder's

confession which concerns this one particular woman, to refresh your
- Mr.
lnemO? ERL. You don't have to. I remember her case.
Senator MCCARTHY(reading) :
About 1100 hours in the morning of 17 September 1944, we reached the village
of Bullingen. At the exit of the rillage our SPW stopped. Our whole crew
left the vehicle in order to look around i n the nearer houses. I first walked
with Sterman Regigel, or with one or two others of my comrades toward a de-
serted American kitchen which was located up right in our direction of travel
and in which we found cocoa and drank same. I n this house we did not shoot
anybody, but thereupon I walked into a house which was across the street, to-
gether with Unterscharfuehrer-
Mr. PI:RL.You pr01101111~eit very 11-cll.
Senator MCCARTHY (continuing) :
Unterscharfuehrer Haas, who suggested walking through the house. In the
kitchen of this house we saw a woman about 40 years old who was apparently
left behind in this house. When we entered the kitchen we saw her standing in
the middle of the room, and Haas asked her whether there were -4merican sol-
diers in the House. The woman montioned with her head "no." Thereupon, Haas
said to m e : "Rieder, bump this woman off." I was armed with a rifle which I
then aimed a t this woman. Thereby, I stood approximately 2 meters away from
this woman, my face opposite her face. When the woman saw that I aimed a t
her she screamed with fright, remained standing, though. At the same moment
I already shot, aiming exactly a t t h e center of her forehead, the end of my barrel
only about 1meter away from the woman, and I hit exactly the same spot I aimed
at. I fired one shot, after which the woman immediately collapsed-dead. I
then bent down to her to see whether she was dead, because if she would not
have been dead I would have fired my second shot a t her. but this was not neces-
sary, because I established that the woman was dead without trouble. I also
established a t this examination that the bullet which penetrated the forehead
came out the back of her head and that there was a big hole in the back of her
head which the brain flowed out of. Thereupon. I return~clto my SPW, while
H a a s still remained in the house, evidently to search through it. I n my opinion,
this woman gave no cause for which she should be shot. At the SPW I helped the
driver-
I guess the rest has nothing to do with it.
Now, you got this confession, right?

Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator MC~ARTISY.
YOUsay you didn't use any force or violence or
anything of the kind to get this confession?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. You say this illan, insofar as you lmom, was not
subjected to any mock trial?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.You heard one of the witnesses testify that
Sxteiner had bragged that he submitted the defendants to mock hang-
ings,alld by mock hangings he described the defendant nwuld have
a hood placed over his head and would be walked u p three or four steps
and told l ~ was
e on the scaffold and the rope put up around his neck
and over the rafter and given a jerk. and after that they got him to
sign a confession which was previously prepared.
Now, had this inan been subjected to any mock hanging, as far as
you know ?
Mr. P E ~I ~ do.llot know of any mock hangings. I believe that was
all Mr. Bailey's imagination.
Sellator MCCARTHY.YOUsay he was not subjected to any physical
violence at all?
Mr. PERL. NO.
Senator MC~ARTIII-.What type ruses did you use on this man
Rieder to get him to confess?
Mr. PERL.NO ruses. If YOU do not let me tell you any stories, sir,
then i t will never end, because you will not understand how I could
get it without ruses.
Senator MCCARTHT.All right ;go ahead then.
Mr. PERL.YOUasked me whether Thon interrogated this man, too.
As far as I remember, Thon had interrogated him before, and he had
had from this Rieder a confession a t the time of the shooting, he shot
a t the cross roads, but he had not taken the statenlent for one reason or
another, and Idvas to take the statement which was very unusual,
normally one took the statement of the prisoner whom one had inter-
rogated, but this mas I-ery late in the procedure, it was shortly before
the trial started-
Senator MCCSRTHY.1don't want to interrupt, but can 1ask as you
oo along, Will you tell us in the course of your statement where you
Erst got information about the killing of this .c~-oman a t Bullingen?
Mr. PERL.During this, I believe-during the interrogation which
I am going to describe to you as short as I can, Thon told it to me, as
far as I remember now, or I was told by the commanding officer, I
should take the statement Riecler had told about some shootings
already and confessed, and that he was a cooperative man.
So I went into Rieder's-T was in the room. I do not know whether
Rietler n as i n the 1.00111 before me. but I ~wnenrberthat from the
beginning I had Kramm, because I was to dictate this statement of
this story which Thon had told me about some other shootings.
I n the course of taking the statement in shortl~andby Kramm, this
Rieder, who is a very stupid and primitive boy, mentioned an old
woman, I remember because it appeared afterward odd that he called
a woman 40 old-an old woman n7hon1 he-whom this bad boy Haas
had shot. Haas had been his superior noncom. It was in the course
of taking this statement of another shooting about which he had told
before, so I just asked him to tell me in detail how Haas had shot this
woman. H e described in detail the house where they came in, and so
on and so on, and how Haas had shot this woman.
Then I told hiin. now really tell me the truth. Did you shoot the
woman or did Haas shoot the oman an? So he said again, "Haas shot
the woman."
Smator MCCARTHY. Did yon hare Haas a t that time 1
Mr. PERL. NO; Hnas n-ns not in custody. We didn't have him.
Senator MCCARTHY.And he jnst vent on and volunteered the
information that Haas shot this other woman ?
Mr. PERJ,. Yes. He didn't volunteer it-yes, in a way he volun-
teered it. He wanted to put something on Haas' connection and show
that he was not a bad man ; his superior mas a bad man. And he told
in detail the story of the shooting by IIaas.
When I qnestionecl him a little closer, he then admitted that not
Haas had shot the woman but he, on express orders of Haas, had shot
the woman. When I heard this storv I tried t o locate where he was.
Now, I have never been in this place in Belgium, I just knew it by
map, and I must admit I am not so thorough, as you might notice
from his statement. as, for instance, Major Fanton or Captain Schu-
macker is. They had the defendants draw sketches according to map,
coordinate, and so on-
Senator MCCARTHY. Did this man draw a sketch of this town, and
of the house?
Mr. PERL. I do not recall this, but there is certainly a sketch at-
tached, though he described exactly where the village was. He de-
scribed where he was. So I brought a map in and showed him which
village it was, and he said it must have been this village here, and
this village was Bullingen, and it seemed logical to me it must have
been Bullingen, and of course if they were driving through this
town-at this time I did not think he made a mistake, and this time
I thought it must have been Bullingen, and I mroty, Bullingen into
the statement; and, later on, it was obviously from this statement
from this man it was o r could not have been Bullingen because such
a woman was not killed in Bullingen. I would like to finish this, if
I may.
The evidence as f a r as I h o w , after all the same discrepancy which
you mentioned now was evident to the court, too, a court consisting of
7 members, a general and 6 colonels, and the defense brought this fact
in; but his statement was corroborated by evidence and obviously it
is a mistake in the name of the village.
Senator MCCARTHY. Statement corroborated by evidence-you say
the statement of shooting this woman was corroborated by evidence?
Mr. PERL. I am quite certain of this; I don't remember the details
but I am certain there was some corroborative evidence.
Senator MCCARTHY. By corroborative ericlence yon mean evidence
by another witness ?
Mr. PERL. I don't remember what it was.
Mr. FLANAGAN. The record will show in this case that the only evi-
dence against this man was his own statement.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you understand that S
Mr. PERL. Possibly. It is my recollection that there was some evi-
dence, but that is to my best recollection, which was corroborative.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Flanagan has gone through the record.
and now he tells you that there was no corroborative evidence. Does
that refresh your recollection ?
Mr. PERL. I do not remember it. I f he says so, it is no doubt in the
trial record.
Senator BALDWIN. Maybe we should put this in the record, because
I would like to keep this together.
I n the review and recommendntions of the Deputy Judge Advocate
for War Crimes, being United States v. Valentin Bersin, and others,
Case No. 6-24, this is dated October 20,1947, on page 126 there appears
that this Max Rieder was sentenced by the court to death by hanging.
On this review of the Judge Advocate General's office, a petltion
for review was filed by American defense counsel on December 28,
1946. Recommendations that the findings and sentence be approved
but that the sentence be commuted to imprisonment for 15 years
commenci? July 16, 1946. The reason given is youth apparently
%
coupled mt mental immaturity and narrow experience which, com-
b i n d n-ith the circumstances, should be considered in mitigation.
There is also in this record proof that there was another shooting
of American soldiers, which apparently there was, as the Judge Ad-
vocate found, substantiated by the evidence.
The point I am interested in is the point of-
This point : How did the name of Bullingen get in there? I n other
words, this shooting was supposed to have occurred in Bullingen?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. How did you decide that that was the town?
Mr. PERL. H e described where they had taken off this morning and
where they went in the afternoon, and he described the approximate
time at which this happened, so I got a map and I showed him the
map, where was it! And he pointed a t a place and said this must
have been here. I said look-
Senator BALDWIN. I n this particular case, it seems to me that either
one of two things happened : Either the shooting did not occur a t all,
or else if it did occur, i t did not occur in Bullingen. It is either
one or the other.
Mr. PERL. There is nb doubt in my mind that it occurred, but it
occurred oh-iously a t e nother place.
Colonel ELLIS. Could I say something that might help clear this
matter here? As I recall, Mr. Flanagan, there was no collaborating
evidence for this particular murder. I n the statement, Rieder refers
to this Haas. Right a t the end of our operation at Schwabisch Hall
we brought 5 prisoners from the United States. One was Haas.
Haas was involved in several other incidents, as I recall. When we
talked to Haas, that is, when someone talked to Haas, he disclaimed
any knowledge of it. When he m s confronted with other witnesses
or other suspects who said, "This is not the Haas we are talking about,"
and consequently the Helmuth Haas we had was not the right Haas,
and there was not an corroborative evidence in this particular case.
Senator MC~ARTHY.
i
That is my firm recol ection.
May I ask you this, Colonel? This was
allegedly heard December 17, 1944, do I nnderstand the prisoners of
war subsequently taken to that date were shipped over to this country I
Colonel ELLIS. Prisoners that were taken subsequent, that is,in this
offensive, mere shipped to the United States. We brought back a total
of six from the United States. One was Haas and the others were
named as defendants in the case, and we thought Haas really was
going to be somebody and he turned out to be wrong man.
Mr. BLANAGAN. Mr. Perl, this statement from Max Riecler was
taken about 7 weeks before the trial, on March 26 ?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Mr. FLANAGAN. YOUrecall it ? .
Mr. PERL. I remenlbar it was very late ;yes.
Senator BALDWIN. Can we interrupt now? We will adjourn until
2: 15, because we have a quorum call and we are getting near the end.
(Thereupon, a recess mas taken until 2: 15 p. m., of the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
The committee reconvened at 2: 45 p. m., upon the expiration of

the recess.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM PEBL-Resumed
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Perl, this place, Bullingen, was roughly
how f a r from Schwabisch Hall, do you know ?
Mr. PERL. About a hundred miles.
Senator MCCARTHY-About a hundred?

Mr. P ~ LSeveral
. hundred miles.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUknow that for a fact?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY.HOW f a r was i t from Dachau ?
Mr. PERL. Farther.
Senator MCCARTHY.About how much farther?
Mr. PERL. Very roughly, probably 400 or 500 miles. 400 miles a t
least.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUtold us this forenoon that i n the case of
this confession obtained from Rieder, regarding the shooting a t
Bullingen, that a t the time you took the statement from him that you
were not convinced then that it was Bullingen, and he was not, either ;
is that right?
Mr. PERL. NO. H e showed me the place, and said-I do not remem-
ber the words-I showed him the map, as I remember, and he said
it must have been here, that is Bullingen. Here it is.
Senator BAJXWIN. The committee will come to order.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did he describe the size of the village?
Mr. P ~ LI .do not remember.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did he describe anything about the roads a t
any time ?
Senator MCCARTHY.Did he gi1-e you any way of identifying the
village ?
Senator MCCARTHY.D O YOU recall that lie described exactly where
the iness hall was?
Mr. PERL. Yes. H e described a fen--one or two houses there. H e
described how to get into this house.
Senator &CARTHY. Did he describe where this mess hall was, and
where the house, the Johnsten house, was in relation to the mess hall?
Mr. PERL. He gave a few descriptions which ~ o n l dapply to i m n y
places, but he pointed a t the map a ~ l dsaid i t was here.
Senator MCCARTI~P. Answer rny question, - \ d l you ? H e described
where the Johnsten home was, the home where he killed the woman?
Mr. PERT,.Yes.
Senator ~ ~ C S R T I I In
Y . relation to the American mess hall; is t h a t
right ?
Senator RI~CARTFIY. Do you know that the defense investigators
went over, checked, and found the Johnsten h o n ~ ewas in the same re-
lation to this mess hall as he had described it?
Mr. PERL. AS f a r as I remember, there was no mess M I , but he de-
sxibecl the house i n which thc Ainericans had eaten. B u t I might be
wrong.
Senator ;LIcCs~r~xr-. Do yon know that the i::vestjgators wext over
to the town, verificd this, found the house in which the Americalis had
eaten, found the J:hnsten home exactly where this man has described
it ? Do you linow t,hat?
Mr. PER],. That I clo not know.
Senator M&AK~I%Y. 1gather that your stateinei~tnow is that at the
time yon interrog:~teclthls innn that you had to get him a map before
he I i n e ~what ton 11~t was ; js that right?
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOAT 747
Mr. PERL. Before h e knew the name of the town, yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n view of the fact that you are dealing with
a matter of life and death, the death of this unarnletl 11-oinan, and the
possible hanging of this nlan who allegedly killed her, w,11jr did you
not put tlmt i n the confession? I n these detailed confessions, you
seemed t o write 16- and 18-page confessions. You write the heieht of
111e Lush, the number of meters a bush was from the road. I f both
01you were not certain this was Bullingen, why did you not say t h a t ?
T h y did you leave the details out of this confession?
Mr. PERL. I did not doubt a t this time that it was Bullingen, because
I ]mew when they had talien off i n the morning, and I knew M-here
this column had arrived in the evening, and i t fitted. I t could have
been a village 1, 2, or 3 miles away. But he told me it was Bnllingen
from the map. I had no doubt i t was Bullingen.
Senator D~CCARTMY. Think verr carefully before you answer this
question, if you will: H a d yon heard, prior to interrogation of this
prisoner, tlmt some woman had been shot by a German soldier in
Bullingen 1
Mi.. PERL. I n where ?
Senator MCCARTIIY. H a d you, before you got this confession, heard
from other sources, that a 11-on~anhad been killed I s j a German soldier
in B ~ ~ l l i n g ?e n
Mr. PERL. I do not think so.
Senator ~ICCARTI~I-. T o refresh your recollection. did you not tell
one of the other interrogators that you thought you had the man who
shot that woman and that you were going to get a confession from
him, and that he was the inan who contessed he shot this woman
in Bulliiig~n,and j70u hail the knowleclge of the killing in Bullin-
gen, before gou got the confession from 1111112
MI-. PERL I do not think so. I remember that when Rieder came
i n I had no idea that he mas coilnectecl with any shooting of the
woman.
Senator MCCARTHY. But you did know that soinebody was rumored
to have killed a woman in Bullingen, and you had cliscussed t h a t ;
had gop not !
Mr. PEEL. I do not know, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Yon do not?
Senator NCCARTIIY. I f some of the other witnesses who came here
and macle thc statement that you had discussed it. that you had heard
that a, woman liad been shot by Germans i11 Bullin,rren: and, if they
so testified, then I understand that your memory is such that yon
could not question their testimony. I s that correct?
Mr. PERL. That is right).
Senator MCCARTIIY. IVhen you went inlo that cell, you did know
that a woman-maybe I an1 l x h 5 n g ~ ~ o r into d s j7our mouth. A t this
time I understand your testimony is that at that time you started
to interrogate Riecler you do not recall whether you had heard a
Tilmor, and n-as of the opinion that a woinan had been killed i n
Bnllingen ?
Mr. PERI, I do not recall it.
Senator MCCARTHY. I wish you would think this ovel- c a r ~ f n l l y
anil tell us whether this is not the situation: That you did have the
o p i n i o ~a ~vCnia:i h ~ ibeen
l Idled in Bullingen, as t o the time and every-
91765-49----48
thing, and you had decided you were going to get this confession from
this man covering that crime, because you had previously heard that a
woman was killed in this identical town ? I s that not the truth ?
Mr. PERL. AS t o the best of my recollection, I did not know, when
Rieder came in, that he was involved in any other crime. If it was
known to me-as I do not remember-that the woman was killed
a t Bullingen, we had so many rumors-not rumors, where people had
told, but we could not go after detail, that they had killed someone-
I do not think, if it would not have come up, I would not have wasted
my time on a prisoner who already has confessed to a shooting which
was much more important to us, the shooting of American prisoners
of war, to be particularly eager, maybe, to get something out of him
about the woman. It developed during the interrogation.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let us get back to the question of getting con-
fessions of killings being rumors. You know the Frankfurt board
in going over the Pletz case, Pletz was convicted of shooting down
unarmed Americans in a Belgian village. Some 20 of them. Do you
recall the case?
Mr. PERL. From the trial only.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo recall the case?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Pletz was convicted, either sentenced to death
or life imprisonment for shooting clown 13 or 20 unarmed Americans :
do you recall that ?
Mr. PERL. Yes. I do not remember the number.
Senator MCCARTEY.DO YOLI recall the statements introduced in
evidence describing the unarmed American prisoners shot, lying be-
fore this grocery store ?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir. But I do not doubt it was introduced.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not know that the Frankfurt board
found, formally, that there was no evidence whatsoever that any
Americans were killed in this particular town; that the grocer, who
was a Belgian, as I recall, stated they had passed in and out of the store
all the time that it was alleged this pile of American prisoners lay
dead in front of his store, and never saw any ;that they could not find
anybody in the town who saw the prisoners shot, no evidence, and that
the Frankfurt board, in view of this fact, said, "There is no evidence
whatsoever upon which we can base a finding of guilt and that this
man should be discharged."
Mr. PERL. I remember in one case there mas a confession that bodies
were found, or that bodies were not found, and I remember an affi-
davit or two we had from American soldiers who, right after the
dmericans moved into the city, found large numbers of American
dead, and put some on a truck and removed them immediately.
This, to my recollection, cleared up during the trial of the case.
But, as I told you, the Pletz case-I never interrogated him. I saw
Pletz for the first time when he came into the courtroom at Dachau.
Senator MCCARTRY. I an1 curious about getting confessions and
convictions based upon rumors of killings later proven by an Army
board untrue. Let us go back to the Pletz case. We have an Army
board sitting at Frankfurt. You and I can assume that they were
essentially fair, I believe, in the Frankfurt report. They say, "A man
is convicted of killing some 10 or 12 or 20 Anlerican boysv-I do not
recall how many-and the statements which either ourself or some
of the other interrogators got and introduced in evidence gave de-
tailed pictures of where those men lay, like all these confessions-like
the shooting of the Belgian woman-and the board said there was no
evidence of those American prisoners ever having been killed in this
town, and therefore this conviction should be set aside.
I am curious to know just how your interrogators got these con-
fessions, confessions which prove rumors, rather which verified rumors,
and then an impartial board went out and said those rumors mere
nothing but rumors.
Does thatallot lead the nlan of average intelligence to assume that
you got those confessions and statements in a very unusual manner?
Mr. PERL.Sir, I probably know less about the case than you know.
Pletz was interrogated, I am almost certain, by Elowitz, and he was
not my case, and as to the impartiality of the board, I do not doubt the
board was impartial, but I believe the board which tried them, and it
consisted of a general and six Regular Army colonels, probably was
impartial, too.
You would look at it in various mays. As to Pletz, I do not know
more than you told me and what I faintly remember from the trial.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let us get back to the case of the shooting of
the woman. This is a case in which yob set down that he shot her a t
11 in the morning, December 17, in the village of Bullingen. Half
of your confessions that yon have obtained were in such thorough
detail, as I say, giving the height of a bush, the distance to the center
of the road. If at that time this man mas not sure it was the town
of Bullingen, why did you not put that in the statement?
Mr. PERL.Because he was sure. H e was just erroneously sure. but
he mas in his mind certain it was Bullingen.
Senator MCCIARTHY. And you were sure ?
Jlr. PERL.I did not doubt it. I do not remember what I thought
at the time. But I am certain if I had doubted it. I am not such
a complete idiot that I would have someone shoot somebody in a little
village where everyone can go out and find out whether the woman
was shot or not.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOU consider yourself a thorough investi-
gator ?
Mr. PERL. I think so; yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f the defense had not gone out and found
that this woman, Mrs. Jonsten, was not shot by a German, and found
she was killed by a shell, from the affidavit of the husband, if you
did not have the affidavits here from the mayor and the registrar that
Mrs. Jonsten was not shot by a German, that there was no woman in
that town shot by a German, you would not change your story and
say it was not Bullingen at all; that i t was some other town? I s that
not right ?
Mr. PERL.Sir, he never claimed he shot Mrs. Jonsten. He claimed
that he shot a certain woman. He was just in error about the town.
Senator MCCARTHY. He described the house; did he not?
Mr. PERL.There are many houses in Belgium.
Senator MCCARTHY. Answer my question. H e described the hollse,
did he not?
Mr. PERL. Yes. ,
750. MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Senator MC~ARTIXY. H e told what direction i t was from the place

where Americans were inassecl ; did he not ?
Senator MC~ARTHT. DO you think that when you later found that
in this particular house Mrs. Anton Jonsten lived, that Mrs. Anton
Jonsten was not shot, but that she died as a result of an American shell
falling, or hand g~enade,be that as it may, do yon not think then that
it is incumbent upon you or some other member of the prosecution to
find out what happened, what is wrong wikh this story, why a man
would sign a confession putting his head into the noose, when all the
evidence is that no crime occurred there?
Let me read to you what this inan Riecler said about how you got
this confession. See if you do not agree with me that any nian m-BO
can add two and two cannot help but conclude tliat you today are
lying and that this man is telling the truth; that his story is so niucll
more logical when con~binedwith other affidavits. Let me read what
he said about how yo11 got his confession, why he confessed to shoot-
ing a woman who later was found to have died from either a grenade
or artillery. Let us start at the beginning :
I was taken to the prison a t Schwaebisch Hall on December 5. There I h a d
t o sleep together with four men i n one cell under impossible conditions. W e
received only bread and water for 7 days.
I might say that Mr. Bailey testified i t was about 5 days on bread
and water. The man in charge of Schwnebisch Hall, a n oficer from
Texas, said they weye ne\ el* on bread and w a t e ~ .:IS fur as he knew.
Mr. Per1 and Mr. Thon interrogated me for the first time on January 12,
whereby I was threatened bodily, and received nothing to eat on t h a t day. On
t h e end of January, I was kicked in the genitals, but I cannot say who the person
mas who did this, because I was wearing a hood. After 2 days I started snberilig
terrible pains and was admitted to a hospital. But since my condition worsened
I was taken to a hospital a t Stuttgart and operated on a f e d ~a ~ later.
s
The hospital records will show this man was operated on, I assume;
will they not? We can check the hospital records.
Mr. PERL. Certainly, if i t is true. What I hecard from the medical
sawe, i t cannot be true.
$enator MCCARTHY. I f the hospital records show he was operated
on because of damaged testicles, will you still deny you kicked him i n
the genitals?
Mr. PERL. I never Bicked him. Maybe soinebodj- else did. I do
not think it ever happened.
Senator MCCARTHY. DOyou know whether Thon did?
Mr. PERL.I am almost certain that Thon never hit anyone. at least
I never saw it. I saw him quite often interrogating.
Senator MCCARTIXY. YOUare certain that he neyw hit anyone?
Mr. PERL. I never saw it, sir.
Senator MCCARTEIY. Bronl

the rumors around that camp, do you
think tliat Thon did, on occasion, hit prisoners?
Mr. PERL. I never saw him hit anyone. 1 never heard any runlor
that he hit anyone.
Senator MCCARTIIY.You never did?
Mr. PERL. No, sir.
Senator MCCAETHY. When the Army bmrd came out to investigate
the alleged brutality, then you heard that Thon hit people?
Mr. PERL. NO. AS far as I understand those people who were
jnvestigated by General Carpenter: I believe claimed-I a m almost
certain-that they were beaten by Captain Shoemaker. They were
his prisoners, not Thon's. He could not even interrogate them.
Senator MCCARTHY.One of the witnesses testified that Thon had
the reputation-I cannot quote his exact words-the reputation of
beating and torturing prisoners. I s that correct?
Mr. PERL. I never heard of this reputation. I believe all this repu-
tation came u p after the trial. Thon took many statements, and they
had to claim something, after all.
Of course, statements accumulate, and they get after me, because
the two of us took most of the statements.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUunderstand that we find a detailed con-
fession to the effect that a inan alleged to have shot a Bel,'crian woman
in cold blood, a confession which would hang him. Then we find
statements from people, including the husband of the woman, signing
affidavits to the effect that this woman was not shot by a German
soldier. We then begin to ~vonderhow your confessions mere obtained.
Do you understand that?
Mr. PERL.I understand. But there is one hitch in it. It was not
this woman's husband; it was another =oman's husband.
Senator MOCMTRP (reading) :
After 2 days I started suffering terrible pains and was admitted to the hospital.
But since my condition worsened I was taken to Stuttgart and operated on a
few days later. To the best of my memory I was taken back to Schwaebisch
Hall on the 12th but was no longer treated medically a t Schwaebisch Hall and
taken to a cell where the medicines were taken away from me. Only after 14
days did I receive a complete set of clothes. Having been interrogated 20 times
I would like to describe my main interrogation during which Mr. Per1 and Mr.
Thon, on March 19 threatened me for half a n hour, by treatment, in the upper
and lower abdomen and head.
Let me ask yon: Did you and Thon interrogate this prisoller a t
the same time?
Mr. PERL. Certainly not at that occasion. I t might have been before,
when he confessed to the shooting of the woman. I do not remember.
On this occasion I was alone with Krain and him.
Senator MCCARTHY. 011 the occasion when he was beaten about
the head and lower abdomen, was Thon present then?
Mr. PERL.He was never beaten.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you and Thon ever interrogate this man?
Mr. PERL.Together ?
Mr. PERL. I told you I do not remember. I do not think SO. I t is
possible, but I do not remember.
Senator JICCARTIIP.I f Tho~l'sname was on the confession also,
~vonldthat inclicate that Thon mas present?
Mr. PERL. At the signing?
Senator MCCARTIIY.I beg your pardon. It is Elowitz. Elowitz'
name is on the coilfession as a witness. Elowitz' name is on the confes-
sion as well as yours.
Mr. PERL.It does not indicate he was present during the interro-
gation. When the interrogation was taken, and when the statement
was finished, then another ~ritnessusually was called in, and the
whole statement was read once more. aloud, to the defendant, in the
752 MALMEDY MASSACRE I~WESTIGATION
presence of another An~ericanwitness. Then he was asked whether

this is true, what was just read to him, and when he confirmed it, then
the oath was taken and he signed it.
Senator M C C ~ T H (reading)
Y :
Mr. Perl and Thon, on March 19, threatened me for a half hour by treatment
on the upper abdomen and head-with hanging. I was kicked in the genitals by
Mr. Perl. At t h a t time I did not wear a hood and only woke up a t night in my
cell. When I wanted to report sick, this was prohibited by the guard.
During my interrogation at Schwaebisch Hall I could not take a bath from
December to April. I also several times asked whether I could get some drink-
ing water, but this was denied me, and I was forced to drink water out of th6
toilet.
Mr. Perl, yon say this is all completely false ?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator RICCARTHS.And you want us to believe today that the con-
fession is true, all except that part which was proven false by the sub-
sequent investigation, that is, the name of the town. You say every-
thing is true except that he got the wrong town. I s that right?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And no one in the prosecution undertook t o
go out and find out whether or not someone had been shot, as this man
said he shot this woman, in any of the other surrounding little towns?
Mr. PERL. This case-it must have been another town; that was
another town, came out during. the trial. I left right after the trial
at Dachau. I do not h o w whether someone went out. I do not
think so.
Senator MCCARTHT. YOU didn't think i t rras necessary to send
anyone to Bullingen to check this, when yon got the confession origi-
nally, to see if the woman had been IiilIecZ, or if you were merely get-
ting a confession based on rumor?
Mr. PERL. There was no rumor, sir. H e had told it to us. There
was 110 ru11101'.
~ Y . you think it was necessary to send an
Senator ~ I C C A R T Did
interrogator over to Bullingen, and find out whether a woman had
:~ctuallybeen shot by a German soldier ?
Mr. PERL. I knew that someone would go out to Belgium to look
over all those places which gained importance, and the crucial places
in this case.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUknew someone would go out?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARWY.You mean representing the prosecution?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know that no one went to that town
re resenting the prosecntion ?
k-. P ea. I do not h o w whether someone went to this town. I
know Major Byrnes went, maybe with someone else, to Bullingen.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you tell us how yon knew somebody was
going to check this story at Bullingen, when we have no evidence today
that no one representing the prosecution went there. but that one of
the investigators for the defense went to that town I Isn't that right?
Mr. PERL. I do not know, sir, whether someone went to Bullingen.
I knew that someone would go out to Belgium and look at all those
places which acquired importance due to certain happenings during
this case.
Senator MCCARTHT.I n view of the fact that it was proven a t the
trial, without any question of a doubt, that this woman was not shot
in Bullingen, as the confession you have obtained said she was shot-
in view of the fact that it was proren beyond any possible doubt, don't
you think that the prosecution and the court, just in conimon decency,
should have sent someone out to investigate and find out, then, if i t
wasn't Bullingen, what town it was, find out if it was some other town .
in the area ?
Senator BALDWIN. Right there-
Senator M c C a x T ~ r .Let me finish. Find out if it was some other
town in the area that answered a description that he gave of Bullingen,
if some woman was shot in that manner?
Mr. PERL.I told extensively what I know. It was not my com-
petence to send someone out to look into this matter.
Senator BALDWIN.At the trial of the case, the matter of whether or
not this was Bullingen, and whether or not a woman was shot, was
checked apparently by the defense. There appears to be some dis-
crepancy about the matter, so much so that apparently the reviewing
officer recommended in this particular case a commutation from hang-
ing to-
Senator MCCARTHY. The Frankfurt board said there was no evi-
dence whatsoever to sustain it. It says :
Conclusion: The evidence is insufficient to support a finding that the accused
killed anyone a t Bullingen.
That is in regard to the Bullingen case.
Senator BALDWIN.There was another charge against this man,
which apparently was substantiated, and they recommended that his
sentence be commuted from hanging, I believe, to a term of imprison-
ment. I have forgotten what the years were.
Senator MCCARTHY. The point that I think is ultraimportant in
this case is that here is a man who was accused of all the sadistic prac-
tices in the book, either rightly or wrongly so. We find here that
half of the confession, a part which would definitely hang this man,
is completely and absolutely false.
I n view of that, it is only lo ical to assume that the other half may
be true, accidentally, but most fkely is also false.
Senator BALDWIN.According to the report I looked at, the other
half appears to have been corroborated by other witnesses.
Senator MCCARTHY. Yes; corroborated by other witnesses, by other
confessions gotten in the same manner. That is why I say this man
should be submitted to a lie-detector test.
Senator BALDWIN. We are carefully considering that now. We are
trying to give it every consideration. I know nothing about that
procedure myself. Before I make any recommendations to the whole
committee I would like to have the full explanation of the thing, and
we are in the process of getting that now.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to go into a dis-
cussion of that now. I understand we will discuss that later. The
thing that I say is important is first the Von Roden-Simpson com-
mittee went over and said these men used such a method that an inno-
cent man would sign a confession as veil as a guilty man. As some-
one said, an innocent man screams just as loudly as a guilty man when
you are torturing him.
'754 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
The Army was not trying to indict the man. and they said this is
practically true to some degree.
Now we find a case in which this man now before us gets a con-
fession which is false, no question about i t at all, absolutely false. I
wsnder what steps, if any, the prosecution took in a case like that.
The prosecution mas standing there. in court, trying to convict this
man, asking that he be hung. They found that half of the confession
is absolutely false.
I wonder if the prosecution staff felt under any duty to go out and
check the matter. Do you know that?
Mr. PERL. I don't think so.
Senator MCCARI'HI-.Mr. Ellis, may I ask this question, ~vitlithe
Chair's permission : When yon were in court, and you fonnd that this
part of the confession was false, absolutely false, that no woman was
ever killed in Rullingen; you found that from the affidavit of the
leader of this little crossroads hamlet, and the registrar, and the hus-
band; you find from the description this man gives that it is appar-
ently the same town, the mess hall in one spot, Mrs. Jonsten's home,
where he claims to have shot this woman. Did y,ou feel then, as head
of the prosecution team, that you had any duty to go out and check
on that story, or did you think that your sole job was to get as many
convictions as yon could ?
Colonel ELLIS. we sent Major Byrnes up there to check all these
stories.
Senator RICCAKTIIY. Let's take this story.
Colonel Er,r,~s.I am sure he checked this story.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did he bring you back a repod on it?
Colonel ELLIS.It is my recollection that he did, and his report-
Senator McCawr~~rn. Did he give you a written report?
Colonel ELLIS. NO. He took statements at various places, and I
don't recall that he had any statement-
Senator MCCARTHY.Did lie put anything in the record on the
Byrnes record? Did you inform the court what his report was? Do
you follow met
Senator R/IC@ARTITY. I n other words, you have a man whom you ask
the court to hang, because of one of the most unrvar-ranted crimes a man
could be guilty of. H e goes into a house and shoots a woman 40 years
of age, in cold blood, a crime for v-hich he certainly should hang for.
My question is this: When you find that that confession is untrue,
and that this man did not shoot this woman at Bulling,en, and that no
woman died of gunshot wounds in Bullingen, a little hamlet where the
mayor and the registrar of the hamlet could not conceivably be mis-
taken, then you say you sent Byrnes to investigate.
You say as you recollect he gave you a report. What I want to
know is if you recollect whether you told the members of the court
what that report was, whether you made a record of it at all, on
whether you let the matter rest.
Colonel ELLIS. Your premise that the confession was untrue is not
the same conclusion that I have.
Senator BIGCARTHY. DO you know that the Frankfurt board, a
board of Army officers, arrived at the same conclusion that I have?
Colonel ELLIS.NO,sir. I know in this particular instance they said
that that ,offense was not established; they disproved that. I know
bhi,.
MALMEDT MASSACRE IKI'ESTIGATION 755
Senator MQCXRTHT.They said there was no evidence to prove it.
They saicl there was no credible confession.
Colonel ELLIS. I disagree with them in a niuliber of cases.
Senator MCCIARTHY. 1want to knon whether you realize that the
Army board revieving this boarcl agrees with the conclusion that, I
hare arrived a t toclay.
Colonel ELLIS. That there r a s not s~~fficient evidence to estdlish
a con~iction. I do know that. But I also know that there are many
prosecuting at torneys who get a c q ~ i t t a l on
s i m r d e r charges, too.
Senator MCCARTHY. you found that the affidavits all proved
that this woman was not shot, that there was no person who died in
this little hamlet from other than natural causes during this period
covered, and you say you sent Byrnes u p to in~estigateit, did you give
him specific instrllctions to go to this little town of Bullingen and say
bring me back a report, 01. anything to that effect; or did you merely
send him out to generally check all the stories ?
Colonel ELLIS. Byrnes was given all the information that we had on
a11 the incidents in Relgiluin. I presume he had this one, too.
Senator MCCARTHY. I70u don't know t h a t ?
Colonel ELLIS. I just deduct that he did. I don't recall particularly
discussing this incident. I discussed all of them with him.
Senator MCCARTHY.I7ou don't recall cliscussing this incident?
Colonel ELLIS. I an1 sure I must have, however.
Senator MCCARTHY.You discussed these incidents, all of them, prior
to the trial, with Byrnes?
Colonel ELLIS. Byrnes macle two or three trips u p there.
Senator MCCARTHY.IVllen did he make his last trip, before the
trial ended ?
Colonel ELLIS.H e made it before the trial started. H e made his
last one--
Senator MCCARTHY.When did he make the last t r i p ?
Colonel ELLIS. The last trip was on the 8th o r 9th of April.
Senator MCCARTHY.Before the trial started?
Senator MCCARTHP.His last trip was before the trial started. A t
that time yon didn't hare these affidavits showing the falsity of his
confession. I ask asking you this: After you learned, Mr. Ellis, you
who were in charge of the prosecution, that this confession of a most
gruesome crime, one calling for the death penalty-when yon learned
i t was not true and that no woman, or no one, was shot in this little
town, then I ask you clicl you think it Kas your duty as the prosecutor to
send someone u p to check on this story, and if, as this witness surmises,
. if. as you surmisecl the other day, it was some
it was another t o ~ n 01.
fugitive going through tom71 that nobody heard about, that that be
either proren or disproven ?
Colonel ELLIS.I never considered this a false confession.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUdidn't?
Colonel ELLIS.NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.DOyou think t h a t a woman was shot by a Ger-
man soldier in the town of-and I may be pronouncing it wrongly,
we all know the town-Bullingen? Do you still think a woman was
shot in that town by a German soldier?
Colonel ELLIS. I believe so.
'756 MALMEDP MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Senator MCCARTHY. You are aware of the fact that the mayor, the
head of a little hamlet, and the registrar, both signed affidavits to the
effect that the only women in that little hamlet who died from other
than natural causes was Mrs. Anton Jonsten, and that Anton Jonsten,
the husband of this woman, signed an affidavit to the effect that his
wife was not shot by any German soldier. Do you know that?
Colonel ELLIS. I am aware that the defense put in both those affi-
davits, or one of them a t least.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwant to tell us that because of some psy-
chiatric power that you have, or for some reason or other, you know
t h a t a woman was shot in that town?
Colonel ELLIS. I had reasonable cause to helieve that a woman was
shot in that town.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you have reasonable cause to believe that a
woman was not shot?
Colonel ELLIS. I think you could go either way on it. You could
take the position you are taking or take the position that I am taking.
I think reasonable men could differ on it.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you have any evidence, any cause, to be-
lieve that a woman was shot in that town, other than this confession?
Colonel ELLIS. At the time of the trial, no, sir, we didn't.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhad no reason to believe that a woman
was s h o C
Colonel ELLIS.I had no reason to doubt the confession, either.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhad no reason to doubt the confession?
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay you had no reason to doubt it, even
after these affidavits, saying nobody was shot in this town?
Colonel ELLIS. I don't think I necessarily should have doubted it.
The defense was putting on its case.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let me ask you this, and I think it is very
important: You say that when the affidavit of these, not German,
but the Belgian people-the mayor of the hamlet, the registrar and
the husband-after these affidavits, you say that you had no reason
to doubt, even after those affidavits, no reason to donbt but what this
confession was true ? I s that right ?
Colonel ELLIS.Yes, sir. And for this reason: The rest of the con-
fession was established by corroborative evidence.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid it was established by corroborative
evidence?
Colonel ELLIS. The rest of it, yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. We are referring to this part about killing
the woman. There is no corroboration of that.
Colonel ELLIS. We didn't produce any, I know that.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdidn't produce any ?
Colonel ELLIS.No, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you have some?
Colonel ELLIS. We thought we were going to have some, but i t
developed we didn't have.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOW,we get back to the original position, and
I might say, Mr. Ellis-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Would you ask him why he did it?
Senator MCCARTHY. NO. I might say that if in my court a man
came before me as prosecutor and he had a confession of this kind, and
MALhIEDY MASSACRE INT'ESTIGATION 757
then he had affidavits froin the people of the town, the registrar, and
the husband of the woman killed, and said, as prosecutor, "I have no
reason to doubt the confession," I would do one of two things : I would
ask that he be immediately disbarred, or perhaps first commit him
to an institution for observation.
I want to ask ?on this: On this day, today, do you have any reason
t o believe that this confession, insofar as the shooting of the Belgian
wonlsn is concerned, is untrue; or do you still believe it is true?
Colonel ELLIS. I still believe it is true.
Senator BICCARTHY. DO you still believe that a woman was shot
in this little town of Bullingen, by a German soldier ?
Colonel ELLIS. I certainly do.
Senator MC~SRTHY. ,And you have no reason to doubt that?
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you think that the affidavit-let's take thg
registrar first-do you think his affidavit was false?
Colonel ELLIS. AS far as it goes, I believe it was true.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUbelieve it w& true?
Senator MCCARTHY. AS far as it goes; it goes this far: H e says
there was no one who died from other than natural causes in this
little crossroads hamlet, except Mrs. Anton Jonsten. Do you believe
that is true ?
-
Colonel ELLIS. I believe so. I presume he knows what he is talk-
in about.
tenator MCCARTHY. When Anton Jonsten signed an affidavit say-
ing his wife was not killed by a German soldier, do you believe he was
lying, or telling-the truth?
Colonel ELLIS. He must hare been telling the truth.
Senator MCCARTHY. When the mayor of the town signed an affi-
davit saying that Mrs. Anton Jonsten is the only woman that died
within the confines of this hamlet from other than natural causes
<duringthis period of time, do you believe he was telling the truth?
Colonel ELLIS.-4s far as his knowledge went, I beheve he was.
Senator MCCARTHY. When the soldier-
Colonel ELLIS. I don't recall that he put in a n affidavit.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdon't deny that Mr. Jonsten knew the
facts?
Colonel ELLIS. I don't deny the authenticity of the affidavits put
i n ;certainly not.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n view of the fact that you say the registrar
was telling the truth when he said no one died except Mrs. Jonsten
and that the husband was telling the truth when he said, "My wife
was not shot," do you still tell us that the confession of the German
soldier to the effect that he went into this home and deliberately
murdered Mrs. Jonsten was true? Do you believe that confession is
true and that you have no reason whatsoever to doubt it 8
Colonel ELLIS. He didn't say that he killed Mrs. Jonsten.
Senator MCCARTHY. H e confessed he killed a woman.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO yon still believe that is true?
Senator MCOYBTHY.DO you think that before a ma0 should be
hanged for a crime such as this, that perhaps you, as the head of the
758 MALMEDT USSACRE 1~1-ESTIGATION
prosecution staff, should have gone to the trouble of sending a inan

over to that town and get further facts 2
Colonel ELLIS. We sent Byrnes over there.
Senator MCCARTHY. You told me that you 11e\~ersent Byrnes over
there after the trial.
Colonel ELLIS. NO, we didn't.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid the last time yon sent him over was
the 8th of April.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUtell ine now you don't recall what his
report was.
Colonel ELLIS. NO;I don't recall on this instance.
Senator MCCARTHT.Let me recall these facts to your mind: You
say you sent Byrnes to investigslte it. A111 I not correct that you
did not knom of the affidavit of the n~agorand the registrar until
after the trial was comnenced ?
Colonel ELLIS. I didn't Bno13- about it untiI the defense put on their
case.
Senator MCCARTIX~. Then you learned about it ?
Senator MCCARTHY. Then yon were arguing that this man should
be found guilty of this crime. I s that right ?
Colonel ELLIS.Generally, yes. I don't know that me ever argued
his case particularly.
Senator MC~ARTIXY. Before you urged the co~lrtto find this nlan
guilty and hang him for killing this woman in cold blood-and cer-
tainly if he did hang it mas a reasonable penalty-did you think you
had any duty a t all in view of these affidavits to send an investigator
over and check the facts?
I understand it is only 100 miles away. . A man's life depended on
this. Did 37011 think, as a prosecutor. you had any duty to him a t all?
Colonel Er,~.rs.Senator, my duty was to present the evidence. I f
the court found this man guilty on that evidence, I don't think my
duty went beyond that.
Senator MCCARTHP.YOUdidn't think that when it appeared to you
that your evidence may have been false. you didn't feel that then you
should check on that evidence, did you?
Colonel ELLIS. I didn't think that the evidence was false.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you think there would be any reason t o
question its truth, in view of these affidavits ?
Colonel ELLIS. NO,sir ;I did not.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Colonel, what did you conceive your duty to be as
head of this investigating group a t Malinedy ?
Colonel ELLIS. TO investigate the alleged Malinedy offense and the
allied offenses that mere com~nittedby the First SS Panzer Regiment
in these offenses.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I assume by "investigation," you meant you had not
only the d~ztyto find where men mere guilty. but you also had the duty
to separate the innocent froin the guilty?
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n cases such as the Bullingen case, involving Max
Mieder, in cases where you had nothing other than uncorroborated
statements from accused, did you have a policy of attempting to obtain
MALMEDT MASSACRE Ih?:ESTIGATION 759
corroborating evidence coilcerning that case by a n inclepeiident field
investigation?
Colonel ELLIS.Yes. I l ~ r o u g hMajor Byrnes.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n this case, can you recall whether or not you sent
Major Byrnes specifically to Bullingen to make a n inquiry?
Colonel ELLIS. AS I told the Senator, I recall, by d~tlnclionI niust
have, because we gave him all the evidence we had about these various
individual crimes. I cannot sit here and tell you t h a t I definitely
talked to him about it. I presume I must have.
Senator MCCARTHY.I f lie went to Bullingen, then we can assume
that he reported back to you that there ViIs no evidence that he could
find of any woman having been killed i n that town, except Mrs.
Jonsten, and that she was not shot.
W e can assume he reported that back to you ?
Colonel ELLIS.T hat, or the equivalent. I presume he did.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did you not think i t was your duty to tell that
t c the court, that your investigator went over to this tomn, and that
your inrestigator reported back to yon that it appeared that the con-
fession was false, and that this woman was not shot?
Colonel ELLIS. I do not think my duty went to that extent.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n other words, Byrnes comes back and says:
Mr. Ellis, I was over t o Bt~llingen;I f o m d t h a t there i s no e ~ i d e n c ewhatsoever
of a n 1 woman having been shot by a German soldier or any woman in t h a t tomn.
I found, further, t h a t t h e evidence of all those in t h e town was to the effect
t h a t definitely no woman was Shot in the town, t h a t the only woman who died
from other than natural causes was Mrs. Anton Jonsten; and her husband said
t h a t she had no bullet wounds ; her body showed no bullet wounds.
You say you^ duty would not then be to gil-e that inforniation to
the court ?
Colonel ELLIS.011the general conditions a t that time, as I think I
told you in the private co;~versation, 1do not know whether it was in
the record, there were a. great many refugees in that country.
Senator &~CC.~RTIIP. A i d lily question, will you-
Senator BALDTYIX. Let hini aasm-er it. H e is trying to answer it. I t
111aynot be the answer you expect, but he is entitled to answer it.
Senator M c C a a ~ ~1rwant . to know whether he sent his iuvestigator
over. This investigator reported back to hi111 the facts that I have
enumerated, and that is that no one in that town knew of a woniail
having lneen shot, not a single person in this little hamlet, and that the
mayor, the registrar, the liusbancl-everyone-says no one was she!
ill. this town, bat that Mrs. iZnton Jonsten did die as a result of either
an artillery shell or something like that.
I f he reported that back to you, do 1,niiderstand that you felt that i t
was not yolw duty to go in and say to the court : "This part of the coil-
fession is, at least, questionable, because of what my own investigator
reported to me" 2
Colonel ELLTS.NO; I do not think so.
Senator b I ~ C - i x ? ~ lYou
r ~ . do not thinlr Illat wonlcl br your clutg ?
Colonel ELLIS.No, sir.
Senaior McC.wrrrr. Tliwt is a n ilico~lceirableattitude. is it not, JIr.
Ellis ?
Colonel ELLTS. KO, sir: I (20
not believe so, uilder the conditions.
Mr. YERI,. May I.a& a question ?
Srnaror B-\I~wIN.
I Y h t do you want to say ?
Mr. PER..I would like to ask two questions in direct connectiol~

with this. No. 1,was it established whether this husband, who claims
that his wife was not killed by a bullet mound but by a grenade
splinter, is capable of establishing the difference between a grenade
splinter and a bullet wound I I t might still be the same village.
Secondly, Senator McCarthy referred to the relation to the mess,
hall. It was not the mess hall ; it was the place where the Americans
had eaten, the distance and so forth, to this house.
I do not remember whether this affidavit described these distances
to this house. I believe this is brought out now.
Senator MCCARTIIY.DOyou think he might ha-ve been incompetent
also to testify whether she was shot in the house or rullllillg down the
street when this shell or grenade fell?
Mr. PERL. Pardon?
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUasked whether we checked to see whether
the husband was competent. to pass upon whether she had a bullet
hole through the middle of her forehead, as the confession said, o r
whether she was killed with a hand grenade. You are aware of the fact
that the husband's affidavit said his wife was not killed in the house,
as the confession you obtained stated, but that she was outside, running
down the street ?
Mr. PERL. I do not kno,w this. Then if this should be correct, it
would probabl not have been Bullingen.
Senator M C ~ A R T H T . You are a lawyer?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f you were in charge of the prosecution, as
Mr. Ellis was, and if you sent an investigator over, as Mr. Ellis said
he did, to Bullingen, to this little hamlet, you would do i t because
you had a confess~onof a man murdering a wonlan in cold blood.
He said, "I went in and pointed the gun at the middle of her fore-
head and shot her. The brains were streaming out the back of her
head."
You told Byrnes to go there and check these facts. Byrnes came
back and said :
Mr. Perl, in checking in t h a t town, I found t h a t there is no one who know3
of any woman having been shot. J u s t to give you the eoitlence cn it, I went to
the most reputable people; I went to the mayor, t h e xegistrar. the man who
keeps the records, and they gave me affidavits t h a t no one mas shot, that the
only person who died from other than natural causes was Mrs. Anton aonsten.
He said :
Mr. Perl, I went to Mr. Jonsten, the husband of the woman. H e gave me an
affidavit to the effect t h a t his wife did nor die in the house, that she was running
down t h e street when a grenade or artillery shell fell, and t h a t she died a s a
result of that.
You have that information. The only evidence you have against
the soldier is this confession, which one of your interrogators got.
You know that prior to that time your interrogators have been accused
of torturing. You know that the Army conducted an investigation.
Listen to me, will you?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTI~Y. YOUknov- that prior to that time, the *4rmy
thought enough of those rumors to conduct an investigation.
Would you think, as a la,yyer, that it was your duty to go to the
court and say, "Judges, here is some information I have, here is what
illy investigation has fonnd : for that reason we may or may not want
to place any weight upon this confession." Would you think that was
your duty ?
Mr. PERL. I would like to be able to answer you, even if the answer
is not esactly what you want me to tell yon. Will yon please let m e
tell SOU what I want to tell, and I will tell you in not more than two
or three sentences.
I f I had been i n Colonel Ellis' position, I would have acted exactly
as he did for the following reasons, which he did not bring out:
There was not only once. but quite often, confusion a t the trial
between the Americans, between the defense lawyers, and the Ger-
mans, as to the names of the various villages. T h e villages had Ger-
man names, and they had French names. It was i n a Belgian region
where French and German was spoken. I would not have eonsid-
ered the possible error in the name of the village as important t o go
and start a new investigation. This occurred during the trial, when
the proceedings were on already, and the court had opportunity to
evaluate everything.
A s to these claims which yon mentioned before, of torture, no one
claimed torture before Von Roden and this paper brought it into
the paper.
Senator MCCARTHY.Will yo11 come back to my question?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Let him answer.
Mr. PERL. YOUasked me about torture. I want to answer it.
Senator BALDWIN.Let us all stop. Do you want to state the ques-
tion again ?
Senator MCCARTHY.I am going to ask this again, and I a m going to
insist that you answer it.
Senator BALDWIN.There is only one thing that the Chair feels you
ought to insist on, Senator, for the purpose of getting a good record
here,
Senator MCCARTHY.That is the truth, I assume?
Senator BALDWIN.Yes; that is the truth. It is exactly on that
point that the Chair makes this point. The Chair would ask that
the Senator incorporate in his question those things here which are
admitted or undisputed facts, or of which there is going to be evidence
later. I think that is only fair.
Otherwise, you get confusion about the thing, that winds up in an
answer that is not helpful to you o r the committee or anybody else.
Senator MC~ARTIIY. I vould like to know from the Chair what
facts I have stated that are not in the record 8
Senator BALDWIN. YOUstated i n your question that the man from
whom the confessioil had been obtained had been tortured. As I
understood, what the witness was attempting to explain was the
fact that he did not accept that as a fact. H e does not believe it, and
has taken the position here consistently that these men were not
tortured.
Whether they were or not is what we are trying to find out. H e is
under oath. fie is supposed to tell the truth.
Senator MCCARTHY.Mr. Perl, do you feel now, as Colonel Ellis
does, that a woman was shot by a German soldier i n the town o f -
Bullingen? Do you feel t h a t ?
762 MALMEDP MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOS
Mr. PERL. I would like to ask a question of the Chair?
Senator MCCARTHY. GO ahead.
Mr. PERL. I was asked a question before, and I had no chance to
answer it. I am shouted at one question after another and I never get
the chance to answer it. So it sounds as if all this brought out now
would not be answered.
Senator BALDWIW. Let me put the question i11 this way. ,
Senator MC~ARTHY. Here is the question. I think I am competent
t o ask my questions.
Senator BALDWIN.DO ~ O L It hink it is fair for the Chair to ask a
q u ~ t i o ?n
Senator MCCARTHY. Certainly. I wonld like to have an answer
to my question, if I may. Will ~ O answer U the last question?
I asked you whether or not, as of now, at this moment, feel that
some woman-whether Mrs. Jonsten or not- as shot in the town
of Bullingen by a German soldier?
Mr. PERL.I would like to ask a question from the Chair.
Senator MCCARTHY. Can you answer that question?
Mr. PERL.May I answer first the question about the purported
tortures of this man, which I was asked before?

Senator MCCARTHY. We will get back t o the torture.
Mr. PERL. I have one question after another.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I am going to ask that the Chair insist he
answer this question. I t is an honest, fair question.
I asked him whether or not, as of today-
Mr. PERL. I was asked another question before.
Senator MCCARTHY.Whether or not, as of today, a t this moment, as
you sit in this chair, you feel that someone was shot by a Gekman
soldier in this little town of Bullingen.
Mr. PERL.Mr. Chairman, the question of the torture which was
brought up so publicly in this Von Roden report, or whatever it was,
was brought up again. I -i=iould like to answer, in connection with
the Rieder case, the question which I was asked before, in view of the
fact that it mas known that people claimed to have been tortured-
that is what Senator McCarthy asked me-would you, in such a case,
start an investigation. And I want to say that there was one case
prior to this only-a case of four-where people had claimed they
were beaten; and it was investigated. Rieder knew of them, and it
was claimed that they were beaten, and Rieder was not among them.
And these four told the investigator: "We made the story up and
it was not true."
As to Rieder, he was a t the trial. He had a dozen defense lawyers
. sitting there. He never took the stand to deny one word of these
accusations. So I had no reasoil to doubt that he had killed this
woman, even in case the name of the village is not exactly as it might
be. I do not know-
Senator BALDWIN. Let me ask a question. Do you recall, in your
whole experience with this thing, whether or not there was any other
case where a woman, a civilian woman, was alleged to have been shot
cr l!illecl by any of these S S troopers?
Mr. PERL. To the best of my recollection, I did not handle any
civilian shootings. I clid not llandle any civilian shootings a t all.
Senator BILDWIN. DO you lmow of any other case, other than this
one that we are talking about, whether or not there was any other case
that involved the killing of a monlan ; the shooting of a woman?
Mr. PERLNO,sir.
Senator BALDWIN.DOyou know of any other, Colonel?
Colonel ELLIS. There were many killed around Stavelot, and an-
other little town below there, but not a single woman, not to my
recollection of a single woman.
Mr. PERL. I believe I remember one case, when Hennecke drove
through a Belgian village which they had just occupied. The civilians
mere standing in the doors to look a t the tanks, the armored vehicles
which were driving through, and as far as I know, he opened fire a t
the civilians and killed a woman or two.
S,enator BALDWIN.I am speaking of a single case. The reason X
ask this question is this: Just to illustrate the confusion that is in
the Chair's mind with reference to this now, here is paragraph 13 of
Colonel Everett's petition. This has been called to my attention by
Colonel Chambers. It appears to be the only. incident of a single
woman having been shot. I s that correct?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, sir; and the only one in which affidavits deny-
ing it have been tied in.
Mr. PERL. It is the only case in which a woinan was shot in her
house.
Senator BALDWIN. This says: "An officer was sent to Belgium, and
he investigated an incident at Wanne, Belgium, where it was alleged
that one of the plaintiffs herein had entered the house of a Belgian
civilian7'-that is the plaintiff in this petition, one of the
petitioners-
Senator MCCARTHY. Colonel-
Senator BALDWIN. May I read it first?
Senator MCCARTHY. I f you do not want to know what the situa-
tion is.
Senator BALDWIN.That is completely uncalled for. I have this
n-itness on the stand, and Colonel Ellis is here.
Senator MCCARTIIY.DOyou want to know why the name Wanne is
substituted for Bullingen? If you want to know, I will tell you.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator, I have tried to conduct this matter in
a manner not to interfere with you, and I think it is only fair that you
reciprocate with the same kind of treatment.
Getting back to this thing, to try to get i t straightened out:
An officer was sent to Belgium, and he investigated a n incident in Wanne, Eel-
gium, where it was alleged that one of the plaintiffs herein had entered t h e house
of a Belgian civilian and without provocation murdered a woman while sitting
in her chair.
There is a marked discrepancy.
This plaintiff, in a forced, false confession, fully admitted the commission of
t h ~ scrime, and four or five of his codefendants swore to the s m l e facts in their
forced, false confessions, and related every detail exactly the same.
This defense officer brought back a n affidavit by the husband of the purportedly
murdered woman to the effect that his wife had been killed during enemy at-
tacks; but t h a t his wife was standing i n the street in front of his home when
a n American artillery shell exploded and killed her. This statement mils promptly
sworn to before his priest.
Do you remember any such incident as that 8
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. DO you ?
Colonel ELLIS. I think they are referring to the Bullingen incidel~t.
It is the only incident that is similar to what they are reciting here.
91765-40---49
Senator BALDWIN.This is the only killing of a civilian woman 1ne11-

tioned in this petitioh.
Senator, you had some explanation?
Senator MCCARTHY. Lieutenant Devinnell testified-it is in the rec-
ord-that he drafted the affidavit. I t is all under oath. By clerical
error, the name Wanne was inserted instead of Bullingen. It was
very clear. H e was here on the stand and so testified. It is all
part of the record. The Chair knows it.
Mr. FLANAGAN. It is in Colonel Devinnell's testimony. The name
of the town is a clerical error. The name of the town involves Max
Rieder. They got the wrong town in preparing the affidavit.
At that time, as I recall, we also examined-I do not know whether
we put them in the record or not-the affidavits taken from the mayor
and registrar. They were from the town of Bullingen.
Senator B ~ m m ~ . _ T h statement
is said it was promptly sworn to
before the priest, that IS, the statement of the husband was apparently
sworn to before the priest. It says nothing about the mayor or regis-
trar.
Mr. FLANAGAN. There was a registrar, what would be the equiva-
lent of a coroner here.
Colonel ELLIS.It was not sworn to before a priest. I t was sworn
to before a civilian investigator, Myles Rulien. The priest's name, as
I recall it, did not occur in any place upon the affidavit.
I would like to make another statement on this very controversial
subject, if I may.
Senator BALDWIN. GO ahead, if you can clear it up. It will be
helpful.
Colonel ELLIS. I n considering this case of Max Rieder, the murder
of this woman in Bullingen was not of the primary importance. I
think he was involved at the crossroads, where there was substantial
corroborative evidence. I f all we had had against Max Rieder mas
the statement which proved to be uncorrobor~tedwhen we went to
trial, he certainly would not have been one of the defendants.
There were four dropped from the trial right on, I think, the
opening day, because we had no corroborating evidence. Originally
there were 78, and four of them were nol-prossed on the opening day
of the trial. We had no corroborating evidence.
I f we had only had this on Max Rieder, he certainly would not have
been a defendant.
Senator B-~LDWIN. Apparently, from the original finding of the
original court, as I get it, this confession was put in evidence.
Senator BALDWIN. It contained the confession-the claimed con-
fession-about the shooting of this woman. It also contained the
confession of another incident.
Senator BALDWIN. Apparently the original court convicted this
man and ordered him sentenced to be hanged. The reviewing
board-or one of them; the Frankfurt board, I tl~inlrit mas-recom-
mended a reduction in the sentence to 15 years in this Rieder case; is
that correct?
Mr. C H A ~ E RThat
S . is correct.
Senator BALDWIN. The point that the Chair would like to know is
this: Why was it, n-hen the confession was offered in evidence, and
MALMEDY ,MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 765
contained the claimed confession of two incidents, one of which
apparently was uncorroborated either because it didn't happen or
because i t may have happened in some other village over which there
seemed to be some confusion-I think what Senator McCarthy is
getting a t is why is it, under those circumstances, that the prosecution
didn't bring to the attention of the court that the incident at Bul-
lingen or Wanne, or wherever i t was, which was uncorroborated, was
in fact not corroborated? Was that brought to the attention of the
court? That is what you want to know, is it not?
Senator MCCARTHY. NO. It was uncorroborated. Whether it was
brought to t h a t t e n t i o n of the court ornot, it was untrue. The court
knew i t was uncorroborated. The court found him guilty on this
count.
I am sure the chairman will agree with me, and I think this is so
fantastic that a man guilty of this should stand a court martial. The
duty of the prosecutor, when he finds a confession is untrue--a con-
fession under which a man can be hanged, under which he was s ~ -
tenced to hang-his duty was so obvious, so clear-not just common
decency-he should have said to the court, "I sent an investi ator to
this town and he has reported back that no woman died there? I do,
not think it is even worth while. The only reason I insist on ques-
tioning these witnesses is to show what type of moral obligation they
thought they were under, what ground rules were covering the thing.
I know I cannot make them admit that they did soinethihg legally
\v1.0ng7but we can spread on the record the type of rules, the type
of morals, of the men who were prosecuting these cases.
Senator BALDWIN.May I say one thing in connection with that,
while we are on that subject, becanse it is a point that I think ought
to be considered when we make any recommendations in connection
with this whole thing, so far as trial and procedure is concerned.
You say, "when it was found to have been untrue." Of course, on
that basis, if you find the fact one way or the other, you have either
got to accept or reject the testimony of one side o r another.
On the one side there was the confession of the SS trooper; on the
other side there was the sworn affidavit of the husband of the woman
in this particular town of Bullingen, which also appears to be some-
how confused with the town of Wanne, that there was no woman
killed in that town, or who died in that town, under the circumstances
described in the affidavit.
So there you have a question of whether (1) the thing actually did
happen, or (2) whether i t happened in some other town.
I think, myself, that under those circumstances there may very well
have been some responsibility upon the prosecution to bring that fact
out, but apparently, from an examination of this review, the defense
did bring i t out, and what effect i t may have had in the over-all deci-
sion of the reviewing board is difficult to say, but the fact remains that
a death sentence, by hanging, was commuted to 15 Tears.
So you have the question of whether o r not, in this trial, the proseca-
tion deliberately offered confessions which were uncorroborated, and
whether or not, on the uncorroborated confession of any S S trooper
there was actually a conviction in which a death sentence was imposed,.
or a substantial sentence of any kind.
I think that is one thing the committee ought to look at from that
particular point of view TTerycarefully.
Senator MCCARTHT.May I say that I do not think the question of

corroboration or lack of corroboration is important if confessions are
properly obtained. As a judge, I hare found men guilty of murder
on uncorroborated confessions, but in those circ~mstancesyou make
every conceivable effort to make sure that the confession is properly
obtained.
I am not worried about an uncorroborated confession. The prose-
cution had a right to submit an uncorroborated confession, but the
prosecution was guilty of a crime if they submitted a confession to
the court which they previously knew was untrue.
There is no doubt about it. It is the same as a district attorney
trying to convict a man of mnrdering someone in X village, mhen he
has previously determined, by sending an investigator over, that
no one died in that village.
1 am going to ask Mr. Perl a, question, if 1 way. I t is the same
question that I asked you some time ago. Do you now agree with
the statement made by Mr. Ellis that a woman actually was shot in
the town of Bullingen by a German soldier?
Mr. PERL.There was so much confusion between the villages. Even
the defense mixed up TVanne and Bullingen. I n my ppinion she was
shot in Bullingen. You say, I saw the story developng. I saw this
man before me--
Senator BALDWIN.Never mind that. Your answer to the question
is that, in your judgment, she was shot in Bullihgen, but the fact
remains that there was no corroborating testimony.
Mr. PERL.Yes. and I helieye the investigator who went over there
might have mixed things up. I do not know, sir. But I know he
gave me the impression of being so truthful. This Rieder-this is a
small detail, but i t is essential-he comes from lower Bavaria.
Mr. Thon speaks exactly his dialect, and as far as the conditions
permitted they were almost friends; they were always joking together.
I took him over from Thon, so I had no reason to shorten thls very
agreeable relationship.
I spoke very nicely to him, and it came out: Why should he have
related sonlething which was not true. He pointed at the village of
Bullingen. There was so much confusion about the village-and
still is-that the error might just as well have been somewhere else.
There is no doubt that he shot someone, and I still think it should
have been a t Bullingen.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay he shot someone, because he was a
truthful youn chap?
Mr. Perl. 80, not because he was truthful, but because he was
truthful when he told me this. Now he says he was beaten. We heard
of no one being brought to the hospjtal, with a sergeant, with any
injuries. H e claims he was brought to a hospital. He was sitting
there in the stand and had lawyers there.
The trial lasted for months. H e never took the stand to claim that
he was beaten.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Let's go back to this.
Mr. PERL. Excuse me. Even now he claims that he was beaten in
the testicles, to the best of his knowledge by Lieutenant Perl, so he
knew me very well. If I had beaten him, he wonld have said it was
Lieutenant Perl. I f Mr. Thon had beaten him, who spoke his dialect:
he would have said Mr. Thon.
Senator RIGCARTHY. Mr. Perl, do you think he would recognize
your foot if he had a black hood over his head? He claims he was
kicked in the enitals.
Mr. PERL. fes.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you claim he would have reco nized
3
with a black hood over his head ? Would he have recognize you w el1
you kicked him ?
Y
i
Mr. PERL. The moment he entered the cell he did not have a hood
on any more, and he would have recognized me immediately.
Senator MCCARTHY. Getting back to my question again: You are
going to answer it if we have to stay here all week, unless the Chair
says otherwise. Do you now tell us that you feel that there was a
woman killed in the town of Bullingen by this German soldier, as of
now? Do yon think that part of the confession is true, that he did
shoot this woman in the town of Bullingen?
Mr. PERL. I do not know for certam. There are reasons not to
doubt it, but I still believe it might be true that the error might be on
someone else.
Senator MCCARTHT. Then, do you think that you have any reason
to believe that the mayor of this little Belgian town and the registrar
were prejudiced ?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir: but this mas war. When the colonel started
telling it-it was my thought too-there were so many refugees from
other villages, people who came from neighboring towns, who fled
from the Germans, i t is quite possible that the woman, who was not an
inhabitant of Bullingen, was shot a t this place and the body then
removed or even found. It is quite possible.
Senator MCCARTHP. Take the statement that you made that the
body might have been removed or not found :The test of the confession
is that he shot her through the middle of the forehead, that her brains
were dripping out on the floor.
I s it your thought that the body lay there and has not been found
up to this day, or had not been found up to the time the investigator
got there several inonths later? You did not mean that?
Mr. PERL. NO-sir. I meant something entirely different. I meant
that the moment the Germans moved-as long as the Germans were
there the population were in hiding. If the Americans moved in,
and they saw s dead woman lying there, it is quite possible-not proba-
ble-that they removed the body immediately, and then the registrar
comes and says? "NOone is missing in my town; everyone is here.''
I do not claim i t was that way, but there is a possibility. There is still
a good possibility that this woman x i s shot in the town of Bullingen.
Senator M~CAI~TI-IY. I think this is important, so that we can de-
cide what part of your story to believe: You say that, despite the
fact that the re,qistrar, who is living in this little hamlet, says there
was no woman killed there except Mrs. Anton Jonsten, whom I spoke
of, and the mayor says, "I have been living in this town, in charge of
it, and I lanow there was no one killed but Mrs. Anton donsten," and
t 1 ~ 1 s1iyl~ecl afidarit saying that "mj- \vife 11-a~
$11.. .int-c,n tJol.<:e~i
not shot iu the l m w ; she died as she was ruillling down the street,"
yon say, in spite of that, that as of today there is a good probability-
a good probability-that there was a woman actually shot in the man-
ner described in your confession, in the town of BnIlingea?
Mr. P E ~1. would not say "good probability," but a good possi-
bility; qes, sir. Was the mess hall in the same relation to the house
as described ?
Senator B*LDWIN.DO not volunteer any infonnatioa; just answer
the questions.
Senator MGCARTHY. I n relation to Mr. Ellis' statement that, to
his knowledge, Major Byriles went over to investigate this case and
came back and reported to him. I am going to read Malor Bymes7
testimony :
Mr. FLANAGIN. Did you conduct the investigation in Bullingen concerning
the alleged shooting of a B e l g ~ a ncivilian woman in her home by a German
soldier?
Cololiel ELIIS.I do not r t c t ~ l ltllat 1 (lid, 311..Fliulagnn. I recall investigating
the Goldschmidt shootmg 2 '. a but do uot recall inrestigating the killing
of a civilian woman i n t h a t town.
I n view of that, Mr. Ellis, do you r a n t to change your testimony
now to tell us that Mr. Byrnes did not report back to you in this case?
Mr. ELLIS.NO, sir ; I do not want to.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you still say that Byrnes reported back to
you ?
Colonel ELLIS. I think that he did.
Senator BIGCARTHY. I n other words, you say that Byrnes was either
mistaken or lying?
Colonel ELLIS. I do not say that he was lying; no, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f you are SO sure that he reported back to you,
will you relate what he reported and some of the conversation?
Colonel ELLIS.YOU misunderstood me before. I said that I
thought, by induction that I surely must have given him the Bullingen
situation, that by induction he surely must have reported back to me,
by process of reasoning. I do not recall that he ever made a direct
report to me. I know we had no reports in writing other than the
statements that he brou h t back.
Senator M C C ~ ~ T HBee
Y . if we get your testimony finally straight:
Your testimony now is that you do not recall ever having talked to
Byrnes about the Bullingen woman; you do not recall ever having
gotten a report from him, but you think that, under ordinary circum-
stances, you would have told him to and he would have reported
back to you.
Colonel ELLIS.T hat is what I mean to say.
Senator MCCARTHY. But you have no knawledge whatever of this
case ?
Colonel ELLIS. I cannot recall that he ever made a report to me
about the Bullingen matter. I believe that he must have.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n view of the fact that you do not recall any
such report, when you were in the courtroom, and you then discoverecl
these affidavits from these people in Bullingen, and discovered that,
under all the normal rules that you and I follow, we would have to
conclude that the confession was false, then did you think that you
had any duty as a prosecutor to go to Bullingen and find out if some
refu ee was killed in somebody's kitchen, and her body not found, as
B
Mr. erl says, and try to get the facts, or if it was the wrong town,
if you could not find out then in what other town nearby a woman
had been killed?
WALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 769
I n other words, did you not feel that you had a duty-and I wish you
to stop and think before you answer this-did ou not feel that you
E
had a duty, in view of the fact that you were as ing for the death of
this man, where you had a confession which on its face was false,
when you knew that there were claims by these defendants that they
had been beaten and tortured into confessing, when you knew that
the claims were such that the Army sent in investigators to check on
them, in view of the unusual picture behind the confession; did you
not then think that, as an officer in the Army, yon had some duty to
go out and check and see whether the confession was true or false,
and get some facts?
Colonel ELLIS.Senator, you put many things in there that I do
-
not think are true.

Senator MCCARTHY. Then let us remove all the things that are not,
true. (1) You are an officer?
Colonel ELLIS.Right.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwere a t that time?
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUwere in charge of the prosecution?
Senator MCCARTHY. (2) YOUintroduced this confession?
Colonel ELLIS.I did.
Senator MCCARTHY.(3) This confession tells in detail how this
man deliberately, with no provocation-no excuse whatever-in cold
blood, murdered a Belgian woman?
Senator MCCARTHY. That is in the confession?
Colonel E ~ I sRight.
.
Senator MCCARTHY. A t that time you had the affidavits?
Colonel ELLIE.No, sir. I did not.
Senator MCCARTHY.I am speaking of in court. When you were
in court, when the matter was being tried, when the affidavits were
being submitted, then you have an affidavit that you yourself can
read, and that a5davit is from the registrar and the mayor of the
town, whatever the name may be-this little hamlet. Do we have
the affidavits here ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. They are unquestionably in the record of trial
somewhere.
Senator MCCARTHY. This affidavit says-and if 1say anything false,
tell me-the affidavit says :
There was no civilian killed in this town. The only civilian-
Let us put it this way.
The only civilian in this town who died from other than natural causes was
Mrs. Anton Jonsten.
You have an affidavit on that. You have an affidavit of Anton
Jonsten saying :
My wife was not shot ; she did not die in'the house ; she died on the street when
she was running. There were no bullet wounds on her when she was found
dead.
You are in court; you get this. It is a Belgian town, not German.
There is no reason, as far as you are concerned, why they should be
prejudiced in favor of a war criminal.
A t that time did you not feel-

Colonel ELLIS.Right there, let us get that.
Senator MCCARTHY. We mill strike that. We ~villsay they am
Belgian people, not Germans. Am I right?
Colonel ELLIS.They may have been of German ancestry, but I mill
not quibble'about that. That used to be part of Germany.
Senator MCCARTHT.They are people living in Belgium?
Colonel ELLIS. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhave these affidavits, one by the husband,
who certainly would feel very unkindly, I assume, t o ~ a r dany man
who would come in and shoot a woman in the forehead. You have
these affidavits and you are in court.
At that time did you feel there was any duty upon your part to make
a further check on this particular case, or did you think that mas
unnecessary ?
Colonel ELLIS. There are many controversial issues.
Senator MCCARTHY. Answer that. Did yon think you had a duty ?
Colonel ELLIS. NO, sir ; I did not. I answered that question, I be-
lieve, once before, for you.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid that, if this confession were the only
evidence you had-in other words, if you did not have confessions
covering other crimes or other evidence against him-if this confes-
sion were the only evidence against him, that then you certainly would
not have made him a defendant in the case?
Senator MCCARTHT.If you had only this confessioll-not1 else ;
you are merely trying him on this confession-if you did make him
a defendant then you would have felt that the court certainly sl~ould
not have found him guilty ;is that right?
Colonel ELLIS. If that is all I had?
Colonel ELLIS. NO; they should not have found him guilty.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then you would say that a court that would
find him guilty of this was an incompetent court?
Colonel ELLIS.NO; I would not say that.
Senator MCCARTHT.YOUwould feel it was wrong?
Colonel ELLIS. hTotnecessarily. You just said, I think yourself, Sen-
ator, that you have found people guilty on uncorroborated confessions.
Senator MCCARTH~. YOUsaid, if this is the only thing YOU have,
you would not have made him a defendant. I n other 15-ords, you feel
he should not have been found guilty?
Colonel ELLIS. I do not think they should have, under those circum-
stances as yon ontline them.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then you think that a court that would have
found him guilty used bad judgment?
Colonel ELLIS. I think it would be an error in judgment, from n17
viewpoint ;yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. When the court found him guilty of that
charg-
Colonel ELLIS. I do not know that they fonnd him guilty.
Senator M C ~ A R T ~ II Pdo
. not have the record.
Colonel ELLIS. I do not believe there is any way to determine on
what charges they fonnd him guiky, when he was charged with more
than one matter.
MALMEDY MASSACRE ITSTESTIGATION 771
Mr. FLANAGAN. Was he not found guilty as charged?
Colonel ELLIS. AS I recall, they just found everybody guilty.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Guilty as charged?
Colonel ELLIS. Whatever the record says. I do not know. They
made no excepti~ns,as I recall.
Senator MCCARTHY. When you were convinced that the man shot,
we will say, an American prisoner at Stuttgart, killed another Amer-
ican prisoner at the Malmedy Crossroads, and a civilian somewhere
else, then would yon have him under two or three specific charges so
the court could find him guilty or not guilty of each individual charge?
Colonel ELLIS.NO; it T T ~ Sa joint matter. They were all 74 joined,
and the 13 different places where the atrocities mere committed were
recited. I have a copy of the charge sheet here if you would like to
take a look at it.
You could not tell whether he mas found guilty of participating in
all 13 or one.
Senator BALDWIX.I n the normal criminal trial in this country
there are counts 1,2, 3, &a number of different alleged counts. Did
you have such things as counts?
Senator BALDWIN.So that the finding of the court was "guilty as
chargecl," irrespective of what particular count it was on?
Colonel ELLIS. I presume that is the way their finding was. I do
not recall how it is recorded.
Senator BALDWIN.The reason why I ask you that-are you through?
Senator MCCARTIIP.NO,sir ;but go ahead.
Senator BALDTVIN. I n this review of the 20th of October 1947, which
is reviewed by the deputy judge advocate's office, there appears, on
page 126 of this document, this Bullingen incident is mentioned, so
f a r as this Max Rieder is concerned.
There are apparently two charges. One is shooting this woman in
the house, in Bullingen. Then there is another heading called the
Crossroads. There is a description of another shooting of a substan-
tial number of American prisoners who, it was claimed, had surren-
dered. Evidence in both of those n-as apparently presented, and there
were no counts. That is the difficulty here-you do not know whether
you are offering evidence on the first count or the second count. But
h e r e were two different alleged crimes here, apparently both of them
covered in the confession.
As to the first one Bullingen is mentioned, which apparently refers
to the shooting of this woman in the house.
Senator MCCARTEIY. What does it say in that regard ?
Senator BALDWIN.The evidence for the prosecution was :
The accused stated in his sworn statement that a t about 1100 hours, Decem-
ber 17, 1944, he and Sergeant Haas reached the village of Bullingen and entered
the kitchen of a house where they found a woman of abont 40 years of age. Haas
asker1 the woman whether there were any American soldiers in the house. When
she replied i n the negative Haas ordered the accused to "bump her off."
The accused then took his ride, and while standing approximately 2 meters
away from the woman, shot her through the forehead, and she collapsed dead.
Now, the evidence for the defense was that an extrajudicial sworn
statement stated June 26, 1946, and sim~edby the mayor and registrar
of the community of Bullingen certified that a Mrs. Anton Jonsten
died in Bullingen on December 18, 1944, and that the list in the regis-
trar's office contained no other case of death from unknown causes

during 1944.
I n a n extrajudicial sworn statement Anton Jonsten, husband of Mrs. Anton
Jonsten, stated t h a t his wife was killed by an American artillery fire on 16th or
17th of December 1944 in Bullingen while she was outside her house attempting
to flee from combat, and that her body bore marks indicating that her death was
caused by the explosion of a grenade.
Senator MCCARTHY.DO they say that is sufficient for a finding
of guilty?
Senator BALDWIN. The other incident is the one at the Crossroads,
which is the one that has been described by several other of the defend-
ants in their claimed confessions, where 60 to 70 American prisoners
of war were shot in a field.
The answer to the Crossroads case was this :
The defense offered testimony by Buth that he was in the salue company a s
the accused, Rieder, and that he did not see the accused shoot a t the Crossroads.
However, his vehicle did not arrive until 1400 to 1430 hours, which was after
the time that the accused reached the Crossroads, according to the record
and the testimony.
Then the court-the reviewing officer-says this :
Sufficiency of evidence: The accused obviously realized that his acts of par-
ticipating in the shooting of a civilian, and surrendered prisoners of mar who
were deprived of potential means of continuing a s opponents in warfare, were
inherently wrong and contrary to the universally accepted standards of human
conduct.
He was ordered to and did participate in the killing of prisoners i n the
presence of a superior. His youth was apparently coupled with mental irnma-
turity and the narrow experience, which should be considered in mitigation.
The findings of guilty were warranted by the eridence. The sentence is
excessive.
A petition for review was filed by the American defense counsel
December 28, 1946. No petitions for clemency were filed :
Recommenc?ation: That the findings and sentence be approved but that the
sentence be commuted to imprisonment for 15 years, commencing July 16, 1946.
So there is not anything except the deduction that yon draw from
reading both of the defenses here, and the final recommendation, to
indicate whether the finding of guilty was on both of them or on one.
The fact remains, as the Chaw sees it, that there was apparently a good
defense-at least one that raised a very serious doubt-as to the
Bullingen statement, and a defense which the court seems seriously
to have questioned on the basis of the time factor, as to the Crossroads
incident, in which the accused claimed to have participated.
The only assumption is that because of his immaturity considered
in mitigation, that the court ordered the sentence commuted from
hanging to 15 years, but it does not say whether on the basis of find-
ing not guilty on the Bullingen incident, or finding of guilty on the
Crossroads incident.
Nevertheless, the sentence was commuted. I n the trial of these
cases, Colonel, as you said, there were no counts, as such, presented?
Colonel ELLIS.No, sir. I do not have a copy of the charge sheet
here, but it mas just one specification which covered all the defend-
ants and all the incidents. There was no count, as we know them
in municipal criminal law.
Senator MCCARTHY. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I think the record
should be clear on this: Apparently the reviewing court, despite the
MALMEDP MASSACRE I N V E S T I G A T I O N 773
recommendation of the Frankfurt board, approved the finding of
guilty as to the shooting of this Belgian woman, because, they say, "the
accused obviously realized that his acts,of participating in the shooting
of a civilianv-that is, a civilian he was accused of shooting--"and
prisoners of war was inherently wrong."
I n other words, they say he obviously realized that the shooting of
a civilian m7aswrong, which makes you wonder, as I said before, just
what type of reasonmg those men in the court followed.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Chairman, I think Senator McCarthy should
realize that the report he Oust read from was prior to the Frankfurt
I
review. I think the Fran furt review was made some months after
that.
Senator MCCARTHY. The point is that you have a confession of a
shooting of a woman in a town. It is uncontradicted that no woman
died in that town. The court said most likely he realized he was
wrong. They do nat go into the question of whether there was any
evidence or not.
Senator BALDWIN.I come to the conclusion that i t was apparent,
because of what appeared to me to be a defense that raised a great
deal of doubt, while it does not say so in the record, apparently that
was one of the factors that entered into the commutation, because the
man was sentenced to be hanged, and the board recommended and
did commute his sentence to 15 years, although he was involved in
this second incident where 60 to 70 men were shot.
Senator MCCARTHY. That has been the trouble with so many of
these cases. The reviewing body looks over the evidence and says
there is no evidence here to find a man guilty. The facts are such that
we cannot tell if he is guilty, so therefore me mill cut his sentence down.
Which certainly is not a brand of justice a t all.
The same in the Pletz case. Either the man was guilty of delib-
erately shooting American prisoners and this woman or he is not.
The most fantastic brand of justice that I have ever heard of.
May I ask you, Mr. Ellis, did you make any recommendation in the
Pletz case ?
Colonel ELLIS.Yes, sir; I did.
Senator MCCARTHY. What recommendation did yon make in that
case?
Colonel ELLIS.Just a moment.
The court sentence was life. I recommended 20 years. Colonel
Rosenf eld 'oined me in that.
Senator ~ C C A R T H Y . On what theory did you recommend 20 years
for Pletz? Plietz is the man who was accused of deliberately, from his
tank, which was the second in line, shooting down i11 cold blood some
15 or 20 American prisoners of war, men who were along the side of
the road, principally in front of the grocery store. That is what he
is accused of. Nothing else. The court found him guilty of that.
I am wondering on what theory you recommended that the sentence
be cut down?
Colonel ELLIS. 011 his age.
Senator MCCARTHY.HOW old was he?
Colonel ELLIS. I think he was-at the time of the trial-21. I
Senator MCCARTHY.Twenty-one?
Colonel E m s . Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. You had men much younger, 18 and 19, also.
Senator MCCARTHY. Some of them you did not recommend that
their sentences be commuted ?
Colonel ELLIS. I think Rieder was younger than he was.
Senator MCCARTEIY. What did you recommend in Rieder's case?
Colonel ELLIS. I made no recommendation.
Senator MCCARTHY. IlTasit your practice there to recominend that
all those who were 21 or younger, we will say, that they have their
sentence commuted to 20 years?
Colonel ELLIS. NO. I made some exceptions, as I recall now.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Was it solely becanse of his age?
Colonel ELLIS.On Pletz?
Colonel ELLIS. I believe. I would like to say this about this case:
I discussed it considerably with Captain Shoemaker before we joined
Pletz. I think the review shows only two pieces of evidence there
against him. But we had-if you look at the records-it shows four
different pieces of circumstantial evidence against Pletz. I think my
own mind wondered whether it was sufficient for a conviction. I de-
bated considerably about that.
Senator MCCARTHY. It is a pretty gruesome crime he was charged
with.
Colonel ELLIS. Yes; it was. But I did not feel personally the way
this evidence was scattered through the record, that the court would
ever be able to pick it up, because I think it was in four different state-
ments, of four different people, who had testimony against him.
I n that particular case I debated whether it mas wise to inc1;de
him as a defendant.
Senator MCCARTHP.I n other words, you did not know whether he
was guilty or not?
Colonel ELLIS. There was circumstantial evidence there. I f the
court could find d l of it when it was put in, he would be.
Senator BALDWIN.I f you are going to continue this with Colonel
Ellis for some time, I wonder if you could defer this to some other
day. Lieutenant Per1 has been here for 5 days, not under subpena. He
came here a t the invitation of the committee, voluntarily. H e h a
been away from his business all that time.
The Chair tried to give him some assurance that me would be done
with him yesterday. We both tried to give him some assnranc~etoday
that we would be done with him today. I wish we could finish with
him.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n the meantime, Colonel, I wonder if you
would go through the record and find all the evidence against this
man. I want to know, for example, if you charged him with any crime
other than the shooting-
Colonel ELLIS.I am certain that is all.
Senator MCCARTHY. What I am concerned with is this: You say
you recommend that his sentence be commuted to 20 years. If he is
guilty of this deliberate and wanton killing of 20 men I wonder why
you commuted it to 20 years. I f you did it because you felt he was not
guilt,y, as the Franlcf~~rt board said he was not guilty, then I wonder
why you think he should get 20 years.
I am not going to ask you to answer that now. But I will definitely
want an answer on that. Do you follow me, sir?
Colonel ELUS. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f he is guilty or not. I f he was guilty it is
one of the worst crimes over there. H e killed more men than anyone
over there. H e was 21. H e was the reatest criminal there. No indi-
vidual ordered him to do that. Eitpher he was guilty of that or he,
was not.
I want to h o w whether you thought he was guilty, but that he was
too young and should get only 20 years, or that there was not enough
evidence t o convict him, as the Frankfurt board said, but should get 20
years anyway.
You still think this confession is true in all details and that there
was a woman killed in Bullingen ;is that right, Mr. Per1 ?
Mr. PERL. I do think so.
Senator MCCARTHY.I assume you are using the same brand of
judgment in all these matters as you are here. Did you have anything
to do with investigation of the Pletz case ?
Mr. PERL. Sir?
Senator MCCARTHY. Pletz ?
Mr. PERL. NO. Nothing.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you get any of the statements from any of
the witnesses ?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
S-.natoi.JIPC~RTFIT. SOT 011 l ~ i v xnothing
- nbout that case?
XPr. PISKL. Kothing.
- Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsax you were a criminal lawyer in Vienna?
Mr. PERL,Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And defended a number of criminals ?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator RICCARTHI-.Did YOU do any prosecution work?
Mr. PERL.Very minor prosecntion work. I was for several months,
for maybe 4 months: a kind of second assistant district attorney yon
might call it. with 110 equivalent to it in America. But I was a mem-
ber of the court and prosecuted very minor cases.
Then, as a lawyer. I prosecuted those cases where there is a civilian
prosecutor for slander. and those things are prosecuted by civilians.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. DO ~ O L think
I that a man 21 year of age is old
enough to be held accountable, if he is guilty of murcler ?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. SOthat you would not think in a murder case
that the mere fact that a man is 21 vears of age would jnstify his
actions ?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let us take the case of one of the defendants.
Let us say i t is proven that he, in colcl blood, as he drove along in a
tank, murclerecl a sizable number of American prisoners of war, men
completely defenseless, along the side of the road in front of the store,
just mowed tllem down, 15 or 20 of them. Would yon say that there
~vouldbe any grounds there-of course, proving he did that, and is
found guilty-wonld you find any grounds whatsoever for asliing
that a death sentence be commutecl to 20 pears?
Mr. P E ~Not . on the evidence which you just told me. I would
not suggest a change of death sentence just because he is 21, I would
not have done it.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f you think he is not guilty of the crime, of

course; if you think the evidence is not sufficient to find him guilty,
on the other hand there is no reason why he should serve 20 years.
Mr. PERL. He should be entirely free.
Senator MCCARTHY. I have before me the Frankfurt board recom-
mendation in the case of Pletz. I can review the testinlony for you
briefly, and give you the board discussion.
Mr. PERL. Senator McCarthy. I did not have anything to do with
Pletz. I answered every question in detail. You know more about
Pletz than I do.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator, it seems to me that we ought t o con6ne
our examination here to the things for which this officer is particu-
larl charged. It does not seem to me that it is going to be helpful
E
to t is committee to have the officer's opinion as to whether or not
he thinks a particular procedure followed is the correct one.
What we would like to have is the facts, and let the committee
render its opinion as to whether it thinks the procedures that were
followed or not followed is the correct one.
Mr. PLANAWN. Dir you take any statements from Fritz Eckmann?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir. Fritz Eckmann was Elowitz7sman.
Senator MGCARTHY. &/Ir. Chairman, I do not want to make any
issue of this matter. I will be glad to abide by the Chair's ruling.
The reason for folloming this line of testimony-and obviously I think
it is important or I wonld not do it-is this: Here is a man who is
an attorney. He mas instrumental in getting the statements on which
x great mass of the convictions were based. Prom the statements he
made to me in regard to this Belgian woman who was killed, the.
unusual type of reasoniiig he follows, and the court apparently fol-
lowing the same kind of reasoning, I am just testing to see what his
concept of justice conceivably can be. I have before me the Pletz
case which I will not recite in detail, qhich had the most unusual
treatment, directly contrary to what the military court recommended.
But as I say, there is so much that he took part in himself that
I do not want to argue with the Chair as to whether we should go
into that or not.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator, let me have you understand there is no
ruling about the thing. The only thing is if we are going to have
information here, that would be helpful. What I am particularly
interested in here are the serious charges made against this man on
the stand in these sworn affidavits of these S S troopers made after
they were convicted and under sentence. I would like to know what
he has to say about these charges.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUgot confessions from some of the men
whom the court dismissed; is that right?
Mr. PERL. I do not know whom the court dismissed. I saw a list
at Colonel Chambers' desk, and I just glanced a t it. I do not know
who were dismissed.
Senator M c C A R ~There
. is a man namkd Rolf Ritzer, who was
dismissed by the court.
Mr. PERL. I do not believe he was my man. I believe all those dis-
missed were in the eleventh company; and they were not in my
company.
Senator MCCARTHY. How can I tell which statements you took?
Senator BAWWIN.You will find, Senator, i n each place in the
book that you now have, there has been put by the staff of the com-
mittee or by somebody, a paper picking out the different affidavits
of these S S troopers-
Senator MCCARTHY. They were my own staff. I h o w it.
Senator BALDWIN. Who were the defendants, and who made some
allegations against the witness.
Senator MCCARTHY. I am reading from the statement of Friedel
Bode. Here is what he says :
At a confrontation with my comrades, Schaefer, Hofman, Jaeckel, Neve, Spren-
ger, First Lieutenant Perl grabbed me by the neck and pushed me with my head
against the wall. When I did not answer I was taken back to the death cell.
Here I was again grabbed by my neck by Lieutenant Perl, who pushed my head
against the iron rail of the window in my cell so that blood gushed out.
I s that true or not?
Mr. PERL. It is not true.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOWwe go to the statement of Briesemeister.
Do you recall interrogating him?
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir.
Senator MCC~RTHY (reading) :
I n the interrogation cell I was accused by the interrogating officer, First Lieu-
tenant Perl, of having shot United States prisoners of war, whereupon I defended
myself rerbally. I was thereupon slapped in the face by Lieutenant Perl. My
written testinmny \\-as dictated to me. I had to write the testimony, whatever
Lieutenant Perl IT-anted in order to achieve my being sentenced to death.
I s that true or false?
Mr. PERL. It is not true. H e had told the whole story before to
someone with whom he was in the same room. We had planted some-
one with him. This nzan told us the story, and when I told him, "We
know you told i t to your roommate," then he confessed.
Senator RIGCARTHY. Did you get the confession of Richter ?
Mr. PERL. NO. H e was not my man.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOW about Hecht?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Motzheim ?
Mr. PERL. Not my man.
Senator MCCARTHP.HOW about Gebauer?
Mr. PERL. Gebauer was not my man.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWabout Rau ?
Mr. PERL. Theodore Fritz ?
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUhandled one?
Senator MCCARTHY. Ritzer ?
Mr. PERL. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWabout Godicke ?
Mr. PERL. Not mv man.
Senator MCCAR&Y. YOUsaid Richter, no?
Mr. PERL. NO.
Senator MC~SRTHY. HOWabout Szyperski ?
Mr. PERL. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOWabout Fritz Rau ?
Mr. PERL. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOW abont Reiser ?
Mr. PERL. HOW is it spelled ?
Senator MCCARTHY. R-e-i-s-e-r.

- Mr. PERL. Not my man.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOW about Eckmann ?
Mr. PERL. Elowitz. I believe Reiser was Elo13-itz's too.
Senator MCCARTHY.. HOW about the statement of Frederick Christ :
"First Lieutenant Perl accused me of beingv-
Senator BALDWIN.I have no objection to going o\-er this, hut we
went over this before.
Mr. PERL. I n very much detail.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Was this read to him?
Senator BALDWIN. Yes, I read it to him.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n any event you deny that you did anything
but speak softly to Christ; is that right?
Mr. PERL. I do not know that I spoke softly. But I did not even
shout.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdid not threaten him?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdid not touch him?
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you slap or hit any of the prisoners at
all ?
Mr. PERL. NO. 'I did not slap any one of the defendants-I mean
touch him. But not in a hostile way.
Senator MCCARTHY. NOWv e go to Fritz Eckmann. Yon say you
did not interrogate him?
Mr. PERL. I never interrogated him.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUnever did ?
Mr. PERL. No, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUare sure of that ?
Mr. PERL. I might have been present once when Elomitz interro-
gated him, but I did not.
Senator MCCARTHY. HQWabout the other names that I read to
you ? Were you present when they were interrogated 8
Mr. PERL. You mean did I participate in any interrogation by speak-
ing something ?
Mr. PERL. NO.
Senator MCCARTHT.NOWI read from Fritz Eckil-~;unn'saffidavit:
I was born May 16,1925. On December 6,1945, I was taken to the state prison
a t Schwaebisch Hall. I had rnx first interrogation on December 18 and I can
remember it well. Those present were Lieutenant Perl, Elomite, and a n
interpreter.
Do you recall from that whether you and Elowitz and an inter-
preter were present ?
Mr. PERL. I know that I was not present at any first interrogation
of that.
Senator MCCARTHY. Were you present at any second, or third in-
terrog,atioiz or the fourth or fifth?
Mr. PERL.I believe that I once entered the room while Elowitz was
interrogating him with some interpreter while I mas not busy.
I was told by Lieutenant Pel1 that I would be executed the n e ~ inorninz.
t He
therewon :lsked me if I wanted to talk to a priest. I was then taken into the
death cell. I was fully convinced of it.
MALMEDY MASSACRE- INVESTIGATION 779
I s that trne ?
Mr. PERL. NO, it is not. I t wodcl have beell improper and wrong,
to handle a man II-IIO is handled by someone else. I do not know what
Elowitz toltl him 5 niinutes before. I might contradict Elowitz.
Senator MCCARTIIY. The I)\aponcl 1-eport referring to mock trials
said midoubteclly in some cases the clefencl~~iits were led to believe
that tlreb had been con~ictecl:is that correct, according to your
nleinory ?
Ah. PERL. I clo not ki10~1-011 which facts that report is based. I d o
not k11011- of any such cases, and they were not induced to do it. T h i s
jnvestigation team hehincl the board just dissolwcl, and nothing \\-as
announced.
Senator RScCarr~xr.Mr. Steiner, accorcling to the testiinony of one
of 'the witnesses-Mr. Bailey-came in after interrogzztions and quite
gleefully said: "I have another confession," and related that he had
employed mock hanging to get the confession. I n other words, h e
placed a hood over the man's head and marched him np several steps,
and said : "You are on the $allows," or somethin$ to that effect, tight-
ened the rope arouncl his neck, and got confessions in that manner.
Do you know anything about that situation?
Mr. PERL. I do not Iiilow. and every one of the prisoners, i n a m$y,
I ~ forS us mhat the patient is for the doctor in this way. He mas im-
portant. and I do not tllidi that anyone would h a r e permitted S t ~ i n e r ,
who actually mas not a. man of the standard, t o fool around with any
of the prisoners. He JTas an interpreter, not a n interrogator.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Kurt Teil, who voltulteered to testify, who
was a refugee from Hitlerisin in Germany because of his nonaryan
bnckgrowd. and under the circuinstailces of course had no reason t o
feel especiallv kindly to the SS troops, came here and testified that
among other things he had seen a, nmn called by Thon. Thon said,
bbConlehere and look i11 this solitary cell." H e looked and saw a man
lying on the floor, apparently uilconscious with a black hood over his
head. at 10 o'clock i n the morning. H e said "What happened to this
man"? Tlloil said "He n-as in interrogation anel got roughed u p a bit."
H e testified that yon were one of the men who had a reputation of
using p h ~ s i c a lforce, or anyway, kicking the boys around to get con-
fessions. That v a s tesiified by a t least one other witness, as I recall.
Can yon tell me now whether i t is correct, rightly or wrongly, that
you had the reputation of using physical force on the prisoners m
order t o get confessions?
Mr. PERL. AS to my knomleclge-I might be wrong-it was Mr.
Bailey who testified to this reputation. Teil could not have even
known anything. H e just once or twice brought a prisoner in, stayed
for a day or so. I do not kilow Teil. A s f a r as I know I do ndt
remember him.
Bailey testified under oath that I was for 4 years in a concentration
camp. T h a t is as to my reputation. I do not know the reputation
I had among the Germans. I certainly had no reputation among our
people.
Senlator XXCCARTI-IY. Did Thon have n reputation of being sadistic
or usin force.
Mr. ~ E R LI never heard of it.
Senatcr MCCARTHY. YOUnever heard of it ?
Mr. PERL. NO.
917GJ-49---50
Senator MCCARTHY, YOUdid hear of this alleged brutality when

the Army commission came ovei to investigate? I should not say
came over. When the Army commission apparently-
Mr. PERL. I heard after the commission had made its findings. It
was not a commission. I believe i t was just a one-man commission,
Colonel Carpenter. .
Senator MCCARTHY.SO that you know that the charges were in-
vestigated. I believe xou answered this before, and if so, I am sorry,
but I understood you to say that 37011were not contacted by this Colonel
Carpenter.
Mr. PERL. He was a colonel. He had a kind of a d j u t a n t h e was,
I believe, an adjutant. He was a full colonel.
Senator MCCARTHY. Were you here when Mr. Strong testified?
Mr. PERL. I heard in the papers. I read in the papers. No; I
believe I read in the record that after second questioning he mentioned
Thon, that he was mentioned often by the prisoners, and then he said
after he questioned the second time that my name was mentioned,
which was only natural. I do not know whether most, but I got a large
number of the statements.
As they testified to Colonel Carpenter, they tried to get out of it.
Senator MCCARTEIY.I n any event you know that Mr. Strong, who
also happens to be a refugee from Hitler Germany because of his non-
Aryan background, and also had no reason to protect the S S troopers,
volunteered to come down. H e testified that you had a reputation of
using physical force on these men to get confessions.
Mr. PERL. Sir, I believe that I recall the testimony, and he was asked
which names he heard, and he said Thon, and then the second question,
he said Per1 was mentioned, too, or something like that.
I do not think he said that I had the reputation of that kind. It is
quite possible that one told the other about that. I think you should
know this, and you probably know it: One spoke against the other in
these statements, which you all know. Then they had to use some
excuse not only before the court, but before each other, too.
Senator MCCARTHY. The question I want to ask you is this : I n view
of the fact that you were one of the men who had the reputation, maybe
wrongly, of beating the men up, and using mock trials and mock hang-
ing, in view of the fact that you were one of the men who were charged
principally with being sadistic-
Mr. PERL. Not sadistic. Mr. Bailey charged me with that.
Senator MCCARTHY. I mean being rough on the prisoners. Do you
not think it is unusual that at the time Colonel Carpenter was
appointed by the court to investigate the charges of brutality, he never
came to you to talk to you?
Mr. PERL. It is not unusual, because I have no reputation of being
brutal or sadistic, no reputation of that kind whatever. When Colo-
nel Carpenter came down, the only allegations which existed were of
Sprenger, Hofmann, Jaeger, and one other. The claimed they were
beaten by Shumacker ; th'ey were Shumacker's men. I did not interro-
gate them ; Shnmacker did.
Senator MCCARTHY. I will read you Mr. Teil's testimony, not for
the purpose of impeaching what you said, because you cannot be
expected to remember all the testimony.
Mr. PERL. I did not read his testimony at all.
AJIBLMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 781
Senator MCCAXTHY. I know. I an1 reading this to you with this
i n mind. I n view of the fact that these disinterested witnesses say that
you have the reputation of extracting confessions by brutal methods,
it seems unusual that an Army lieutenant colonel, who was appointed
to check into these alleged brutalities, never even contacted you. I
am wondering how thorough that investigation was. Teil is the man
who delivered prisoners to Schwabisch Hall. There is no evidence
whatever that he got any information from the defendants.
I n other words, he did not talk to the defendants who were about to
be hanged or something like that, or about to be tried. The evidence
is that he got his information from the personnel around the prison,
the other interrogators. Do you follow me?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator MCCARTEIY. I will read Mr. Teil's testiinony :
Mr. ~TTANAGAN.
Who
were the interrogators o r the investigators that-
referring to some of the investigators having made statements that it
would be more efficient if physical force were used-
Who were the investigators or interrogators who made such statements?
Mr. TEIL. AS I remember now, going in memory over a period of 2 years, i t is
common knowledge-wdl, i t was knowledge t h a t the attitude of certain mem-
bers was that way. If I name them I might name somebody whose attitude i t
was not. There were a certain number of investigators who felt that way, but
I hate to name them by name because I would be pinning them down and saying
this man had that attitude.
I cannot say t h a t with any more certainty who they were exactly. There
were certain pockets. I can exclude definitely some people.
Mr. FLAXAGAN. Whom would you exclude?
Mr. TEIL. Exclude?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Whom would you include in that group that felt it would be
more efficient to use physical force?
Mr. TEIL. I n one particular instance I would say Mr. Thon, t h a t I remember.
Mr. F L ~ N A G ATell
N . us about that instance.
Mr. TEIL. I just remember i t was a discussion in the cafeteria or something
that he made that remark. H e was, I would say, among the other investigators.
Then this was brought up. He represented that one side of view. I t was generally
know that it was his personal opinion.
I am afraid I am starting too far back.
Mr. FLANAGAX.Did you ever have a similar conversation or overhear similar
conversations on the part of Lieutenant Per1 ;
Mr. TEIL. NO; I did not. I personally did not have any conversation that I
remember.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did Lieutenant Perl have the reputation of being one of those
that was of the opinion that the use of physical force would be efficient in the
investigation of war crimes trials?
Mr. TEIL. I would include him in t h a t group ; yes.
Mr. FLANAGAX. You would include Mr. Perl?
Mr. !ML. Yes, sir ; that is right.
Mr. FLANAGAX. Were

there any other members of this prosecuting team in
the Malmedy case that had a similar reputation?
Mr. TETL.That group might have included a few others. I could not name
them.
Mr. FLANAGAN. But you know i t included Thon and you know it included
Perl?
Mr. T m . Whenever reference was made people thought of those two.
Do you know whether this Colonel Carpenter talked to Mr. Thon
when he was making this alleged investigation?
Mr. PERL. NO, I do not. But I know that this is wrong, what he
says. I do not know about me, because people do not talk to yourself.
Bnt if they would have talked a b o ~ Thon
~t I would have heard it.
Senator MCCARTHT.I n other words, yon say that Teil 'was com-
mitting perjury at the time?
Mr. PERL. Sir?
Senator RICCARTHY. YOUsay he was Iying ancler oath; committing
perjury?
Mr. PERL. T would not say that. But he might have been mixing
up things which he heard afterwards, after the defense spread these
words-things vhich did not exist before.
Senator MCCARTHY. Do you feel t h & normally, if a colonel or a n
officer is appointed t o conduct an investigation as important as he
was allegedly conducting, as to find out whether or not the inter-
rogator, such as yourself, used the type of brutal method that would
exact the same confession from a man whether guilty or innocent, his
job was to investigate that matter and report back to the court? Do
you think that conceivably it would have been a thorough investiga-
tion unless he talked to the investigators who were charged with these
brutal methods ?
Mr. PERL. YOUare asking opinions of mine. I do not know more
about the case than you know. That is four-altogether four de-
fendants who claimed they had been mistreated. Those four peoyle
were people who had been interrogated by Captain Shumacker. I he
moment Colonel Strait heard about it he appointed-that is what I
know-this Colonel Carpenter, who was a kind of inspector general,
something like that, within this unit, to go down and investigate it.
I suppose he asked Shumacker, because he probably was the onl?:
m e accused, and no other accusations existed. And these rumors
of mistreatment or reputation which you mentioned, this Teil, I am
certain, has no bad intentions.
But it is easy to mix up what he knew in February 1946 and what
he knew or believed he knew in August 1946. Once the trial started,
all the defendants said, of course, "I was beaten."
Senator MCCARTHY. AS me go through the affidavits of the alleged
brutalities, your name stands out above all the rest, with the possible
exception of Thon. I have before me 30 affidavits; not 4, but 30.
Mr. PERL. Certainly. I interrogated most of the prisoners, and they
do not want to be executed.
Senator MCCARTHY. Thirty affidavits, all charging you with using
physical force in these matters. I s that right?
Mr. PERL.I do not know the number, but it is logical.
Senator MCGARTHY. DO you know of any nien having been taken
to the hospital after you interrogated them?
Mr. PERL. I know that no one was taken to the hospital after in-
terrogntion, by me or an;ybodg; else. Because the man would have
been immediately punished, and I would have heard about it. I mean
the interrogator would have been punished.
Senator MCCARTHY. I wonder if the hospital records are such,
Mr. Chambers, that we could get them. One of the witnesses testified
that he TTas kicked in the genitals so badly that he was taken to the
hospital at Stuttgart. I wonder if yon could check, or if you have
checked, to see whether ov not those hospital records are available.
I f so, that, I believe, wonlcl be very important.
Mr. CITAMBERS. Senator McCarthy, yon recall esterd day or the drry
Before, this medical sergeant who wnq on the stand. testifietl that
he-
Senator MCCARTHY. I wasn't here then.
Mr. CHAMBERS. H e testified that he believed some records had been
kept, and that they possibly were still available. On Friday we will
have the two doctors who commanded the medical detachment during
the entire time of this interrogation, Dr. Koran and Dr. Rickard. It
is my intention to find out from them the circumstances, and the
records, to see if they are capable of being checked.
Senator MCCARTHY. I believe I read Eckrnann's statement, and you
denied its truth.
Mr. PERL. Sir, I have to leave tonight. I have been here for 5
days. I can come back after 5 or 6 days.
I n no single case did I use force, and not a single one of them took
the stand to claim I used force, when hacked 11p with a battery of
lawyers. After they were convicted, suddenly force was used; not
before.
Senator MCCARTHY. Maybe we can get through shortly. This man
Eckmann was convicted solelv on a statement which you obtained?
Mr. PERL. NO.
Senator MCCARTHY. At least he was convicted solely on his own
statement, and the sentence was set aside. Here is what he said.
Mr. PEHL. Sir, I didn't interrogate him.
Senator BALDWIN. If he didn't interrogate him, Senator, what U s e
is there in q~~estioning him ?
Mr. PERL.I was never present at any interrogation. I t might be
that I once looked into a room.
Senator BALDWIN.Eckinann said that yon did interrogate him.
Mr. PERL. Eckmann ?
Senator BALDWIN.Read what he says.
Senator MCCARTHY. Leaving om the preliminaries, as to birlh, et
cetera :
I had my first interrogation on 18 December and I can remember it well. Those
present were Lieutenant Perl, Mr. Dlowitz, and an interpreter.
Do you recall having been present when Eckmann mas interrogated ?
Mr. PERL. I am ahnost certain that 1 mas not in for a moment at
the first interrogation, because the first interrogation via$ something
very touchy, and I believe I once looked into the room while he was
interrogated ; but I am almost certain it was not the first interrogation.
Senator MCCARTHP.Regardless of when it was. were you in the
room during an interrogation before he signed the confession?
Mr. PEEL. I believe I was once in the room while he wns interrogated, '
in the early stages.
Senator MCCARTHY. See if this refreshes your nlemory :
I was told by Lieutenant Perl t h a t I would be executed the next morning.
They thereupon asked me if I wanted to talk to a priest. I was then talien t o
the death cell. I was fully convinced of it.
Does that refresh your recollection ? ,
Mr. PERL. I t is not true, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.(colitinues reading) :
About February Mr. Thon and Lieutenant Perl came to my cell.
Do you recall that you were in the cell with Thon, also?
Mr. PERL. T7Vith Tho11? And Eckmann ?
Senator MCCARTHY. The first time allegedlp was with Elom-itz.
784 MALWEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Mr. PERL.NO.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n February he said you came to the cell with
Thon.
Mr. PERL. NO, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.Were you ever in the cell with Thon?
Mr. PERL. Was that interrogation? It might be that we brought
him something.
About February Lieutenant Per1 and Thon came to my cell and wanted m e
to make a statement. ,
Mr. PERL.No, sir.
Senator MCCARTHT(continuing) :
Mr. Thon then beat me in the f a m with his fists until I fell t o the ground. They
then left the cell.
On about February 10 I was again beaten in the face by the interpreter, and
following this I was supposed to be taken to Klein-Ursel to be executed there.
When I was standing in t h e hallway I was beaten with a club, but I cannot say by
whom because I was always wearing a hood. Whenever we wanted a drink of
water we had to drink out of the toilet.
I n my death cell I heard doors opening i n other cells next to me and other
comrades crying and shouting for help. This happened almost every day.
When we were taken out of our cells m-e invariably received a hood so t h a t
we could see nothing.
Do you recall any of that?
Mr. PERL. I know i t is not true. If it had been trne it would cer-
tainly have impressed the court.
Senator MCCARTHY. I t impressed the court so much that they left
this man free.
Mr. PERIL. Why did he not bring i t out in open conrt 'i There was
a trial which lasted for months, and he had a dozen lawyers there.
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you know this man signed a confession,
admitting crimes? You understand that, don't yon? You under-
stand this man Eckmann-I wonder if \ve could get that confessioa.
You understand this man Eckmann, after this treatment, or whatever
treatment he got, signed a confession wl~ichthe prosecution put into
the record, and the prosecution asked that they be convicted on that
confession.
You understand the court thought so little of that confession ob-
tained from this nian that they dismissed the case. Do Son understand
that now 8
Mr. PERL. I understand it. I understood it before, sir. I had
nothing to do with his statement. I never interrogated Eckmann. 1
might have been in for a few seconds once while he was interrogated.
I never spoke to him. H e was not my man.
One wrong word can make very bad damage if you' clo not know
the case.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n any event, you say all of these charges are
untrue. You say that you do not recall having been in the cell
except you possibly were in it, with Elowitz, did you say?
Mr. PERL. I believe I was once in the cell while Elou-itz interrogated
him for a few seconds, but without participating in the interrogation.
Senator MCCARTHY.Can you give me the names of two men a t whose
mock trial you took p a r t ?
Mr. PERL. I did not take part in any mock trial.
Senator MCCARTHY. Call it the Schnell proceeding.
Mr. PERL. I believe the difference is important. I polled 10 per-
sons. Six of them believed-just average men from the street, six of
them, simple persons-that the defendants never had a trial.
There was a table, a few mock judges. They passed the sentence,
and that is why theaboys are under sentences now.
I do not think we should use the words "mock trial." It is mis-
leading. I took part in two of those proceedings.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay there were mock judges?
Senator MCCARTHY.But you would not call the trial a mock trial?
Senator MCCARTHY. The prosecutor was a mock prosecutor; is that
right ?
Mr. PERL. We go again into a field which we exhausted. The prose-
cutor was an interrogator who posed as a good boy.
Senator MCCARTHY. It is never exhausted until we get the truth.
Mr. PERL. I am ready to come back.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay that the prosecutor-what do you call
him? a mock prosecutor? a fake prosecutor?-was not actually a
legitimate prosecutor ? H e was on the interrogation staff. Right ?
Mr. PERL. There was no prosecutor there. There was an inter-
rogator who played the good boy.
Senator MCCARTHY. Who played the good boy?
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Was there an interrogator who played the bad
boy?
Mr. PERL. Right.
Senator MCCARTHY. The interrogator who played the good boy-
Mr. P m . I took part in one, I believe, only.
Senator M C C A R T ~On . one?
Mr. PERL. It might have been Kuhn, too; but I do not remember
whether I participated in that-Kuhn, who later on was identified
by witnesses as the killer.
Senator MCCARTHY. The Army report says that in some cases un-
doubtedly the defendants xere led to believe they had been con-
victed. I n the case in which you took part, Hennecke, I believe it was,
do you know whether Hennecke was led to believe that he had been
convicted '1;
Mr. PERL. I am certain that he did not think he had been convicted.
Senator MCCARTHY. Whether defendants in the other-I would not
shock your sense of responsibilities by saying mock trial; we will say
the Schnell proceedings-whether the defendants in the Schnell pro-
ceedings had been convicted, that you do not know, because you were
not there.
Senator BALDWIN. Are you goin to finish with this man? I would
like to ask him some questions. s o u have spent the day on it. I
mould like to ask a few myself.
Senator MCCARTHY. Even if this witness were to confine himself to
answering the questions, it mould take me at least a day, or maybe days
with him yet. I think by staying with him long enough we may
finally get the truth. I f he makes lengthy answers, as he has been and
giving his information far beyond what I request, it is entirely possi-
ble I will have to spend 4 or 5 days with him.
786 MALMEDY MASSACRE ISVESTIGATION
S o I certainly cannot finish tonight. I do hope that by continuing

with this man we may be able to get some semblance of truth from
him.
Senator BALDWIN.W h a t time do yon have to leave tonight?
Mr. PERL. Any time.
Senator BALDWIN.Do you want to continue on a while longer?
Senator MCCARTHY.I f this man has to leave, if there is a certain
time he has to catch a train, we would not be unreasonable with him.
I f he has work to do, he can g o home and d o it. We can find out when
he can come back. W e can arrange that to he agreeable to everyone.
A s f a r as I am concerned, I will be glad to stag here. I thiilk we
should leave it u p to the witness.
Mr. PERL. I would prefer t o stay here, sir, and be as short as I can.
I f I won't finish, I will answer as best I can.
Senator MCCARTHY.HOWlong do you want to stay ?
Mr. PERL. AS long as this committee decides to stay.
Senator MCCARTHY.My suggestion is that i n view of the fact t h a t
I cannot finish with you tonight-no doubt about that; I want to spend
several days with you-if you want to leave tonight to do some work
and come back, I want to leave i t t o yon to decide how late you want
t o stay here tonight.
Mr. PERL. I t makes no difference.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Mr. Chairman, do you want to ask some qnes-
tions?
Mr. PERL. Sir. if i t will be, as the Senator indicates. for a length
of time, then I will talk i t over maybe with Mr. Chambers and arrange
f o r the dates.
Senator ~ICCXRTHY. I might say that the Chair has this matter
under consideration, going into the matter ill some detail. for which
I am grateful. If the Chair decides to allou- you to subniit to the
Keeler lie detector test, as f a r as I am concerned, that ends it.
Senator BALDWIN.May I sap to the Senator, as I said illany times
before, and as he knows full well. I told him I will take this matter up
with the fill1 committee. I t is a matter for the committee to decide. It
is a marked departure.
Senator MC@ABTHY. I was not criticizing the Chair.
Senator BALDWIN.Certainly, Senator, you have to admit we have
given you every possible consideration and latitude in cverytlling i n
connection with this.
Senator MCCAETI-IT-.1 do not know d l y the Chair rel~eatsallnost
daily about the latitude. I TTRS in~ritedto sit with this committee. I f
I were not given latitude in exanlining these witnesses I would not stay
here; and I do not think there is ally special consideration. I think
this is a matter of tremendous importance.
Senator BALDWIN.I merely mentioned that, because on other occa-
sions you indicated otliermise. I wanted t o keep the record straight.
Mr. PERL.I f the Senator wants to go into the details of lily nloral
attitude toward justice, why do i t with me, who had only one part of
the story, and published i t in the pape;s. or participated, in a way, i n
publishing i t in the papers?
I did not investigate the moral attitncle toward justice there.
Stenator MCCAK'I'HY.I hope before we are thi~oughwe will be able
to interrogate all men i n r ~ o l ~ ~inethis
d matter.
MALJIEDT MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 787
91r. PERL. I believe that,>on. i11 your belief. are exactly a s much as
I am 21 victinl of judginent. Because you belie~edwhen you went into
it that it was true, or you would not have gone into it.
Senator M c C a ~ ~ i 1 r might
~. sax that 1 @I-e you a lot of credit f o r
saying the other day that you would be willing to submit to a lie detec-
tor. You should get a lot of credit for that.
We have had inen before us; f o r exa~nple,Alger Hiss was asked if
he would submit to a lie-detector test when it was thought he was lying.
H e refused a t that time.
I sincerely hope that the committee decides to allow you to do that.
I think if that is done-
Senator BALDWIN.Senator-
Senator MCCARTHY.May I finish my stateinent?
Sellator &~CCARTIIT. I t l ~ i n kwe will know once and for all whether
you are telling the truth or not. whether the men who claim all these
brutal methods were used were telling the truth, whether the Van
Roden comniittee ~ a wrong s or right, whether the Army conmittee is
wrong or right.
I think the offer on Tour p s r t to submit to a lie detector is one of
the greatest contributions that can be made toward finally finding
out just what did happen over in that area.
A s I said, I tried the Keeler lie detector any number of times. I
a.m firmly convinced that there is not a man i n this country that can
beat that lie-detector test. When Professor Keeler gets through with
that, then I know yon will be telling the truth.
I mant to say that if i t develops that there are minor discrepancies
i n yonr story here. that that has to be expected. I am concerned
with one thing insofar as disputed facts are concerned. And that is
whether or not methods used by you and Thon and Kirschbaum-I
believe those a r e the three charged-were such that an innocent man
~ o u l sdign the same confession as a guilty man mould, i n other words,
whether your tactics were such that you got confessioils which were
untrue, merely because the defenclants were afraid of the treatment
they would get.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator, may I just say this, before we adjoilrn :
You have commended this witness for saying that he would be willing
to subnlit to a lie-detector test. J u s t a few minutes ago you made the
statement that you thought this witness was lying.
Senator MCCARTHY.I think he is.
Senator BALDWIN.That is a very serious charge to make against a
man who once wore the Amq- uniforin of the United States, and this
committee is-
Senator & ~ ~ C A R T Z18,000,000
IY. men wore the uniform, Senator.
Senator BALDWIN.T h a t is right. I have enough confidence i n the111
not to charge them lying- or anything else until they have had a
full and fair opportunity to present their side.
Senator MCCARTHY.TTTearing the Army uniform does not make
a man-
Senator BALDWIN.There are many scoundrels in it, too, I know.
Senator MCCARTHY.I do not want to wave the flag. I wore it, too.
1 do not claim i t made me better or worse.
Senator BALDWIN.Wait a minute. You Bnve done a lot of talking
here. I would like to tell this witness, until all this evidence is in, and
788 MALMEDY MASSACRE -IXVESTIGATION
the committee has had a chance to consider it, we are not going to
prejudge this case in any way.
I know that in his exuberance Senator McCarthy makes these
statements.
Senator MCCARTIIY. I have made no statements, Mr. Chairman-
Senator BALDWIN. It is within his right to do so.
Senator MCCARTHY. I made them carefully and deliberately.
Senator BALDWIN.May I have the consideration on your part just
to say what I would like to say for a moment? You have made those
charges and I do not question your sincerity or your integrity about
making them. I just want to say that this committee is trying to pre-
side over this thing as an impartial committee to determine what all
the facts are after we have heard all of the evidence.
This witness has come here voluntarily and has expressed a willing-
ness to come again. I think that every witness that appears before this
committee is going to have a full and fair opportunity to answer ques-
tions that are put t o him and to make his statement with reference
t o the charges that have been made against him, an opportunity which
I may say in this case most of these men have not had before.
Senator MCCARTHY. Before you leave, so the record will be com-
plete, so that you will know that none of the things that I have said
to you are done on the spur of the moment: they are all very carefully
considered. I firmly think that any man who goes out and gets a
confession, proving the most, cruel, brutal crimes, shooting a woman in
cold blood, then finds that no woman was shot in that town, that no
one even died in that town from gunshot wounds, and does not then
feel that he has any obligation whatever to that man who may hang
because of it, I think there is something radically wrong with that
man.
As I say, when I made that statement it was done deliberately.
When the prosecutor, Mr. Ellis, learned that a confession upon which
he was asking a conviction, asking that a man be hanged, when he
finds that confession is untrue, and there is no basis in fact whatsoever,
and he refuses to tell the court, then I think he is guilty of an offense
which makes him subject to court martial; just so there is no doubt
about my position on that.
Mr. PERL. But this was not the case.
Senator BALDWIN.Would you do me the favor of waiting until I
finish this thin ?
8
Senator Mc AHTHY. I will do you any favor you want.
Senator BSLDWIN. Have you a list, Lieutenant Perl, of the men
whom you interrogated ?
Mr. PERT>. I do not have a list.
Senator BALDWIN.I saw you had a list a moment ago.
Mr. PERL. I have a list here of those who claim they have been
beaten, and I know of those whom I interrogated.
Senator BALDWIN.We want to check on this between now and the
next time you come in. The first one I have is a man named Bode.
Did you interrogate hlm?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.The next one I have is a man named Briesemeis-
ter. Did you interrognte him?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
MALLVEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 789
Senator BALDWN. The next man is a man named Christ. Did you
interro ate him?
i
Mr. ERL. Yes.
Senabr BALDWIN. The next man is a man named Eckmann, who
make charges against you. Did you interrogate him?
Mr. PERL.NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.
The next man is a man named Fleps, who makes
charges in his affidad here. Did you interrogate him?
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. The next one is Hammerer. Did you interro-
gate him ?
Mr. PERL.Yes. But I do not think he makes charges against me.
I think he claims to h a w been beaten by unknown persons.
Senator BALDWIN. We can check it later.
Mr. PERL.I interrogated-
Senator BALDWIN. The next one is a man named Hendel. Did you
interrogate him ?
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. And a n ~ a nnamed Hennecke. Did you inter-
rogate him ?
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. The next one is a man named Hillig; Did you
interrogate him ?
Mr. PERL. NO.
Senator BALDWIN. You did not interrogate him?
Mr. PERL. I saw him the first time----
Senator BALDWIN.
Did you interrogate a man name Goldschmidt?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you interrogated a man name H. Hofrnann?
Mr. PERL.NO.
Senator BALDWIN. Did YOU interrogate a man name Jakel?
Mr. PERL.NO.
Senator BALDWIN.
Did you interrogate a man named Junker?
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.
Did YOU interrogate a man named Kuhn?
Mr. PERL. I believe I was in at one of the interrogations of Kuhn.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you interrogate a man named Maute?
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.
And Motzheim ?
Mr. PERL. NO.
Senator BALDWIN.
Munkemer ?
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.
Neve ?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.
Ochmann?
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator BALDWM.
Rieder ?
Mr. PERL. Yes. Wait a minute. Yes, that is Max Rieder.
Senator BALDWIN.
Ritzer?
Mr. PERL.NO.
Senator BALDWIN.
Rumpf ?
Mr. PERL.Yes.
Senator B A ~ W NSickel?
.

Mr. PERL.Yes.
790 MALMEDT MASSACRE II'T'ESTIGATIOx
Senator BALDWIN.Siegmund :l
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Sievers ?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Sternebeck !
Mr. PERL.NO, never.
Senator BALDWIN.Toinczak rl
Mr. P E ~NO. .
Senator BALDWIN.When I said interroglite, I meant, also, were you
there a t any part of the interrogation?
Mr. P E ~NO, . sir. I cannot exclude the possibility that I looked
into the room, but I mas not in during the interrogation. I did not
take part in any of the interrogyation to which I have pre~~ionsly
said "No."
There n-ere some men interrogated, I believe, in the interrogation of
Jaeger.
Senator BALDWIPI'. Let me finish my list, and I will ask you if there
are any others.
How about Tomhardt ?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Zurgart ?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Are there any others whose names I hare not
read, that you interrogated?
Mr. PERL. I do not have the names of all of those here. But these
are all of those who claim any mistreatment.
Senator BALDWIN.The names that I have read to you are all
names-
Mr. PERL. Certainly there are many more whom I interrogated.
Senator BALDWIN. dust a second. Let us get this straightened out.
These names that I have read to you are all the names of men who, in
their affidax-its. have claimed that they mere maltreated in one way
or another by you.
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Were there others whom you interrugated?
Mr. PERL. Many.
Senator BALDWIN. Have you their names?
Mr. PEEL.I f I could have the list of defendants then I would be able
to tell you.
Senator BALDWIN.See if yon can read froin that list of the defend-
ants those that you interrogated, whom I hare not named here, so we
can get this phase of it straightened out.
I l r . PERL.
Roman Clotten.
Mr. CHAXBERS. I s he a defendant?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator BALDWIW. Check them on the list as you call then1 oft.
Mr. PERL. Joseph Diefenthal, Joseph Dietrich, Arndt Bischer,
Hubert Huber. I am not certain about Hubert Hnber any more.
Senator BBLDTVIS. W h a t i~ t h e n ~ i i l e ? Hnber?
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Benoni Junker; Fritz Kraen~er.who mentioned in the trial how
nicely he was treated by me, as far as 1 remember; Joachim Peiper ;
Georg Prenss; Rolf Rolnd Reiser I Hnns Sipirott.
h4ALMEI)T lMASS.4CRE I N V E S T I G A T I O N 791
Senator BALD.~~-IX. Will you ndi-e sonrle arrangement with Colonel
Chan:bers, or with Colonel Ellis. about some time when you can come
back here?
Mr. PERL. I will, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.$Ye realize that you have been here 5 days, and
that ~ O L Ih ave your own personal matters to attend to. I f you can
come back we certainly would like your cooperation.
Mr. PERL. I will C ~ ~ S C U it
S Sin detail with Colonel Chambers.
Senator BALDWIN.We will recess until 2 o'clock tomorrow after-
noon.
(Thereupon, at 5 : 20 p. 111.. the committee recessed to I,p. m., Thurs-
day, May 19, 1949.)
MJiLMEDY NASSACRE INVESTIGATION
TqV,RSP4Y, MAY 19, 1949
SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE COMMITTEE
ON ARMEDSERVICES,
Washington, D. 0. .
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2:15 p. m.,.
in room
. .. 212, Senate Office Building, Senator Raymond E. Baldwin
presiding.
Present : Senators Baldwin (presiding), Kefauver, and McCarthy,
Also present: J. M. Chambers, of the committee staff; Francis
Flanagan, of the staff of the ,SuE,committeeon Investigations of the
Commltt~eon Expenditures in Executive Departments, and Colonel
Ellis.
Senator BALDWIN.The meeting will be in order. I think we ought
to state for the benefit of the record that since our last meeting, as
chairman of this subcommittee, I did-as I told Senator McCarthy
that I would-take up the matter with the whole committee of the
use of a lie detector on three of the witnesses, if not more. I think
the witnesses were Lieutenant Perl-
Senator MCCARTHY. The three charged with extracting confessions
by torture methods.
Senator BALDWIN.Also Thon and Kirschbaum. I had previously
discussed the matter with Senator Hunt, and I have since discussed
it with Senator Kefauver. They both expressed opposition to it.
And I might say, in taking the full share of the responsibility that
would come to me as a member of the committee, that I myself feel
that it is such a marked depargure from congressional procedures in
the past that i t ought not to be used in this particular investigation
or in congressional investigations generally which are, after all, not
trials, but efforts to ascertain from all sources possible the facts, and
then give them such weight and force as they appear in an impartial
study to have.
However, I did today bring the matter up with the Armed Services
Committee; and the members that were there, which constituted a
quorum, all expressed opposition to the idea and said, however, that
if the subcommittee recommended i t that they would consider it
further.
The subcommittee, however, as I have already indicated, was unani--
inously opposed to the idea. So I think that it is only fair that I
should tell Senator McCarthy now of our decision with reference
to the matter.
One of the difficulties attendant upon it is the fact that i t mould
seem unjust to submit three men-lieutenant Perl, Kirschbaum, and
793
Thon-to this test, although Lieutenant Per1 testified that he would

be willing to if he were asked to do so. I t would be unfair to sub-
jeet them unless we also subjected their German accusers. That ap-
peared to be a very impractical thing just on the physical arrange-
ment in connection with it.
Under all the circumstances, it seems to me that on interrogation
and cross-interrogation of these witnesses we will have ample op-
portunity to develop from their testimony the facts pro and con con-
cerning the charges made here. So, it is the decision of the com-
mitteq
-. that we will not use the lie detector in the course of these pro-
ceedings.
Senator MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman,. as a point of information,
did the third member of the subcomm~tteediscuss this matter with
you ?
Senator BALDWIN.Senator Hunt mas out of town.
Senator MCCARTHY. Not Hunt.
Senator BALDWIS.Senator Kefauver dicl. I spoke to him about it
before the meeting this morning of the Armed Services Committee,
and at the meeting itself. H e expressed himself as being firmly in
opposition to it.
Senator MCCAKTIIY.Mr. Chairman, in view of this, I might say
that I will hare a statement to make in the morning. and some action
to take. Before doing that, I ~ v m t o report fully to some of the
members of the Expenditures Committee, at whose request I have
been sitting in on this hearing. As I say, before taking any action or
making a statement. I will discuss the matter with them. But I will
have something to put in the record tomorrow niorning.
Senator BALDWIN.I hope if the Senator has the statement to make
that he makes it here in a meeting of this coininittee, so that i t mill
become a part of the record and so that the committee members them-
selves may make such observntions and statements wfth reference to
i t as they think appropriate under the circumstances.
Senator MCCARTHY. I do not think the chairman can find that I
have been coy at all. Everything I have said has been on the record
in his presence. I intend to contlnue in the same line. The chairman
does not need to ~ o r r ythat anything I will say will not be said in
his presence and on the record. I am sure he knows it.
Senator BALDWIN.The chairman did not make that statement with
any thought of that kind in mind. Since this is a vitally important
decision, a t least to the Senator from Wisconsin, since i t was his pro-
posal, the statement with reference to it ought to be made, it seems to
me, in a hearing, so that they might have the benefit and opportunity
of being incorporated in the record.
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask the Chair: I understand that the
Chair recommended t o the full committee that they not allow these
three men to submit to a lie detector?
Senator BALDWIN. I mas asked by the chairman of the committee
what were my recommendations, and I frankly told them that I
thought it woulcl not be conducive to jnstice and fairness in this case,
or helpful to the committee to use a lie detector. I am willing to take
the f111lresponsibility for that. However, I dicl not tell the committee
that 1 felt the matter was an important one as a matter of policy. and
they could decitle it as they saw fit.
And may I say t h a t they were unanimously opposed to it because
it is, as I say, such a marked departure from anything we have had
heretofore.
Senator MCCARTI-IY.Mr. Chairman, nzav I ask this, i n view of the
fact that this is of the utmost import~nce;I v a n t to take it u p with
my Expeuditures Committee, i n view of the fact I am sitting here
upon the invitation of the committee, to send a man over. I want to
report this back to them. I have my own definite ideas as to what this
action means, and, for that reason, I would appreciate i t if the hear-
ing this afternoon does not last too long.
Senator BALDWIN.I think my colleague from Wisconsin recognizes
that in the past we have tried to suit his convenience, and we will
continue to do so as long as he sits mith the committee.
Will you hold up your right hand ?
(The witness, Mr. Ralph Schumacker, was sworn by Senator
Baldwin.)
TESTIMONY OF RALPH SHUMACKER, CHATTA,NOOGA, TEBN.
. Senator MCCARTHY.Mr. Chairman, last night I asked Mr. Ellis t o
go into a subject and give us his answer on it a t some time. Would
the Chair hnve any objection if we find out what his answer is a t this
time ! I t had to clo with the alleged killing of some 15 or 20 prisoners,
American prisoners that were not taken by the unit that allegedly
killed them.
The story was that a man in a Panzer unit came along and shot some
other unit's prisoners of v a r with no order whatsoever from any
superior officer. The colonel recoinmended that this man's sentence
be cut froin life imprisonment or death to 20 years. I want to inquire
to find out what was the reason behind it. I wonder if the Chair
has any objection to my doing that.
Senator BALDWIN.I do not recall the question. B u t I have no
objection to doing it. Can you furnish the information, Colonel?
Colonel EWLIS. I made the reduction purely on the basis of age, as
1 recall now. I made that i n April 1947.
Senator MCCARTHY.See if I have the case in mind. This man was
charged mith deliberately-the man Pletz-charmed with mowing
down, from his tank, prisoners of war who were taT<enby some other
unit, and no evidence whatsover that he was ordered to do so by any-
one. I n fact, the evidence is that the commanding officer's tank pre-
ceded him, and the machine gunners in that tank did not shoot a t these
men, but that the gunner in the secoilcl tank, with no provocation
whatsoever, opened up with his machine guns and shot some 15 o r
20 unarmed American boys.
Colonel ELLIS.I believe that is substantially the fact.
Senator MCCARTHY.SOthere is nothing i n the record other than
his age to recommend that this nlan be given leniency?
Colonel ELLIS.That is all that I recall.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did ~ O L If eel that, because he was 21 years of
age, that jnstified his deliberately, wantonly, killing 18 or 20 American
unarmed prisoners ?
Colonel ELLIS.N O; I do not think that was justification for it.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n some cases in which t h e defendants killed a
lot less than one, you did not recommend that their sentences be cut
down ?
91765--49-51
Colonel ELLIS.Killed a lot less than one?

Senator MCCARTI~Y. Killed a lot less than the 16 or 18 that this man
killed.
Colonel ELLIS. AS I recall, you are correct; yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. And some younger men, also? I am trying
to find out why you recommended that one man, 21 years of age-
apparently you had told me yesterday that he was charged with the
most unwarranted murder of American boys, the most unwarranted
murder. I n many of the other cases there was some indication that
he was acting under the order of a superior officer. There was no
evidence of that kind in this case. I am wondering why you recom-
mended there that his sentence be cut down, and that in other cases,
where you had boys who were younger than 21 years of age, and who
killed even under the broadest interpretation of the testimony, killed
a lot less people, why you did not recommend that their sentences be
cut down?
Colonel ELLIS. I do not have in mind right now any of the other
cases. I do not believe there were some that mere less than 21, where
I did not recommend that the senten~ebe cut. That is the statement
from my recollection.
Senator BALDWIN.Did YOU recommend it in this case, Colonel?
Colonel ELLIS. Yes; I believe so. I think we went into that yester-
day, and I think that that is true.
Senator MCCARTHY. You told me yesterday that you recommended
the sentence be cut down to 20 years.
Colonel ELLIS.I believe that is correct.
Senator MCCARTHY. ISit your feeling that a man of 21, when there
is no evidence of mental incompetency of any kind, should not be
answerable to a charge of murder?
Colonel ELLIS. Certainly he should be answerable.
Senator MCCARTHP.DOyou see any reason why that particular age
of 21 makes him less responsible, as though he were 22 or 23? I s there
something peculiar about the age of 212
Senator BALDWIN.Senator, did you read the review of this case?
Semtor MCCARTHP.I do not want the review. I want to get the
answer from him, Mr. Chairman. I have the Frankfurt review before
me. I am going to read i t to him.
Colonel ELLIS. There is nothing particularly different about the
age of 21. I felt this way: My reasoning generally on all of these
cases was that these boys, when the war started, were in the Mitler
Jugend and were not in the army in most cases ; that the S S had been
glorified to them; that they were brought up under a regime which
was entirely foreign to our way of life, and I felt that if they had had
the same leadersh~pthat we have in America that they would not have
done the things that they did.
Why I picked out Pletz at the age of 21, I figured thab he was just
one that wonlcl fall in the category. There was nothing that stood out
in my mind, at the time I made this up, that made his crime any more
heinous than any other one.
We fired ; lots of the others fired. I just felt like under the system
under which they had grown up that they were not entirely responsible
for their acts, and I do not feel that they were. That was my own
opinion.
MALMEDY MASSACRE I N V E S T I G A T I O N 79'9
Senator MCCARTHY. JLIS~ SO there will be no doubt in your mind
as to the information I am trying to get from you, and most likely will
not get it from you, is this : I feel that you are not telling me the truth
when you say you cut down his sentence because he was 21 years of
age. I feel that you had some other reason. Therefore I want t o
find out why you did not recommend every one who was under 21, o r
21, why you did not recommend in all those cases that their sentences
be cut down if it was solely because of age. Do you follow me?
Colonel ELLIS. I do.
Senator MCCARTHY. Will you tell me now why you singled out
one man? I f I may review the facts, see if I am correct :The evidence
that you presented to the court was that there was a tank column going
through this little Belgian town, that there was a column of American
prisoners of war, unarmed, that had not been taken by this tank unit
but taken by the other unit, prisoners of another unit; that the com-
manding officer's tank had passed the Americans standing along the
side of the road or walking, I do not recall which, in front of a grocery
store; that the gunner in the second tank, having received no orders
from anyone to do it, but out of pure viciousness opened up with his
machine gxns and mowed down some 15 or 20-a sizable number of
rne~l-who were not doing anything at all, were not his prisoners, were
the prisoners of another unit. H e just mowed them down. That is
the case you presented to the court, was it not?
Colonel ELLIS. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you not think that, of all the cases of mur-
dering American prisoners, of all the cases that you can think of,
that that was about the most aggravated case? It was not under the
heat of combat; it mas not even under combat conditions, but just
going through a town.
Can you think of any of the cases over there that were more vicious,
more unwarranted, than that shooting ?
Colonel ELLIS. Right offhand, the case of Huber comes to me, who
!rilled the soldier in the crossroads, went out in the field, kicked him
to his feet, took his clothes from him, and shot him in the head. That
comes to my mind.
Senator MCCAR~HY. YOLIthink that is more vicious?
Colonel ELLIS. I think it is.
Senator MCCARTHY. You think it is more vicious to take one man's
clothes from him and shoot him than to shoot 20 fello~vswith their
clothes on? .
Colonel ELLIS. Under the circumstances, the wav the crime was
committed, it appears to me to be so.
Senator MCCARTEIY. If this boy had gotten out of his tank and took
the clothes off one of these men before he shot him, then would you
have recommended that his sentence be cut down.
Colonel ELLIS. I do not know.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. DO you think it was more vicious because h e
took his clothes off before he shot him?
Colonel ELLIS. It could have been.
Senator MCCARTHY. Why did you not pick out other men? Why
did you not recommend that all the men of that age have their sen-
tences cut down? Why do you single out this one man, who killed
so many Americans ?
Colonel ELLIS. Right now I do not know the reason.
Senator MCCARTIIY.YOU cannot think of any reason why you

would ?
Colonel ELLIS. What I had in mind was the age,of the individuals,
as I recall it now, and the viciousness of their particular crime. That
is the way I determined it.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. Outside of Huber, whose sentence you did not
recommend be cut down, can you think of any other of the men who
mere guilty of anything more vicious than the deliberate, wanton
murder of 20 boys, unarmed? Can you think of any crime more
vicious ?
Colonel ELLIS. I think all of them were equally vicious, maybe.
Senator MCCARTHY. I f they are all equally vicious, why did you
not take the other boys, who were 19 years old, 20 years old, and recom-
mend that their sentences be cut down?
Colonel ELLIS. AS I told you, I really cannot look back now and
give you the answers. I do not know. I went through the informa-
tion that I have-mind you, I did not have the record of trial when
I made this; I did not have that at my disposal. I had their ages, and
I had talked this matter over with, as I recall, Mr. Denson, and
expressed my feelings about it.
Senator MCCARTHY. I do not care what you expressed. You say
you recommended 2
Colonel ELLIS. I am trying to reconstitute this in my mind, what
happened. I expressed my feeling, I recall, to him about the age of
these fellows, and I know he said: "If you feel that way, why don't
you put in a plea of n~itigation?" And then I did. That is what,
happened.
Senator MCCARTHY. Now, will you tell me why you did not take the
other men, some of whom killed a far less number of Americans?
Why did you not take the other men of 19 or 20, if i t is solely on age?
I am sitting here, and I do not know what motivated you. You say
you cut their sentence down solely on age, and you agree with me this
1s the most viclous crime, the wanton murder of 20 fellows, s crime
that you yourself said they should have been convicted for. And
that is all they are charged with.
You sit here and say yon cut his sentence down because he was 21
gears of age. I say, if that is true, how about the other men who were
19 to 212 Did you have some other reason for cutting his sentence
down ?
Colonel ELLIS. I did not have any other reason that I can recall.
Senator MCCARTHY. You had no other reason?
Colonel ELLIS. NO other reason, no sir, not that I can recall of.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then can you conceive of any reason, any
reason at all that this committee might have in mind, any reason at
all, why you did not say in all cases with boys 21 or younger, they
should have their sentences cut down?
You say solely on age. Was it because of his name, appearance, or
what is it? You say only his age?
Colonel KLLIS. I do not know, when I went over the list. I frankly
cannot tell you. If there are some that I did not recommend that
their sentences be cut, today I cannot tell you why I did not do it.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUcannot ?
Senator MCCARTIIY.I f we find a sizeable number that were nader
21 on which you made no recommendation for leniency. I understand
you can give us no help a t all why you made the recon~mendationi n
this case. I s that right?
Colonel ELLIS. I v o ~ l c nl ot say that I could not give you no help
a t all. I might be. I clo not know.
Senator MCCARTHY.Mr. Ellis, is it not actually a fact that you
were deliberately deceiving us here today, that you recommended his
sentence be cut down because you felt the man was not guilty?
Senator MCCARTHY.D O you know that the Frankfurt board had
this to sav about the case. a i d the F r a i ~ l r f u board
~t said : ' W e will set
his ;-nte&e aside"? I will read it to you. This is a boarcl of army
oficers.
Discussion : l'ractically all the witnesses say the attack was made on Stoumont
betn-een 0800 and 0900, and the village was not taken nntil abont 1100. Werner
said he entered Stoumont abont 0700.
A t the time you made the recoininendatioils to have the sentences cut
clon~n,you say the trial record mas not before you. I s that right?
Colonel ELLIS.N O, sir ; i t mas not before me.
Senator MCCA~WHY. A t the time you recomnleilclecl 'that the sen-
tences be cut down, were you aware of the crime which these men were
charged with ?
Colonel ELLIS.I think so, generally. Certainly.
Senator RICCAR~HY. You say generally. You do not mean to tell
us that you ~;oulclrecoininend that a. man's sentence be changed if you
clicl not know exactly hat you hacl charged him with, what you
thoilgllt you conld prove hiin guilty o f ?
Colonel ELLIS. I felt we could prove them all guilty. B u t to take
riglit clown the line, even today, and say that A was guilty of one act
a i d B of another, I clo not remember.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator, I do not like t o iilterrupt you. But
we have a man here from Tennessee, who has come all the way here
voluntarily to testify. Why do we not proceed with his examine-
tior? ?
Colonel Ellis has been here clay after clay, a i d will continue to be
here day after day. You will have ample opportunity to examine
him.
I t is now a quarter to three. This young man, I am sure, would
like to finish his testimony and get out of here.
Seaator JIGCARTHY.I understand this young man is not charged
with any of the brutalities that the other iaterrog,ztors vere.
I would like to ask the Chair if he would bear with me for 10 min-
utes? I would like to get this answer from Mr. Ellis. I think that
his activity here is that h e is deliberately trying to deceive us. I think
that he is proving that.
The only reason, Mr. Chairman, reading the record-
Senator BALDWIN.Senator, you were invited to sit in as a member
of the committe-, to try to judgc this thing as impartially as the lfest
of us.
Senator MCCARTEIY. I am asking the Chair for 10 minutes to finish
with this man, if I may have it.
Senator BALDWIK.Go ahead.
$00 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Senator MCCARTHY. Here is a man yesterday who told us that if he

found the confession was false, and he was asking the man to be
hanged because of what was in that confession, he said he owed no
,duty to the court to tell them what was in the confession. Today he
tells us that a young man, 21 years of age, wlroin he tried to prove
guilty of wanton murder, should have his sentence cut down because
he was 21, and 110 other reason. A t the same time, he cannot tell us
why he did not recommend it for other boys 10 or 20.
I t is obvious that this man is not telling us the truth, and that the
reason he asked that sentence be cut down mas that he knew from the
record, as the Brankfurt board knew, that this man mas not guilty.
And it is part of the whole picture, where the courts decided a man
was not guilty, instead of setting the conviction aside, they said : "Let
us give him 20 or 25 years anyway."
With the Chair's permission, I will use the balance of the 10 minutes.
Senator BALDWIN.I will yield you that much inore time. in view of
your statement.
Senator MCCARTHY. Thank YOU.
I am going to read to you what the Frankfurt board said about
this case. First, as ~ O L Isat down to make a recoinmenclation to the
court as to what sentence shonlcl be cut down and what should be left
as they were, do I understand that you then tried to make a complete
and thorough study of the case ?
Senator MCCARTI-IY. I n other words, yo^ made a recoininendation
without going into the facts in the case ?
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you think your recoinmendation mould be
very valuable, when you made i t without attempting to go into the
facts of the case first 1
I n other words, you say you did not try to go into the facts of thc
case first. You made these recommendations rather blindly. Under
the circumstances, what weight could a superior officer or reviewing
board conceivably place upon your recommendation ?
Colonel ELLIS. I do not know. The way I prepared it I do not
know that they could give as much weight as if I were to analyze each
case, written a paragraph or a letter about each case. I am sure they
could not have. But mind, a t the time I prepared this, I was thinking
almost solely on age, not entirely, because there are two or three that
I made recon~mendationson that were more than 21 years of age, as
I recall it now.
Senator MCCARTEIY. May I see your recommendation i n that?
Senator MCCARTHY. AS I understand it, you felt you had no duty
before recommending to the court what punishment these boys should
receive-could you find that recommendation?
Senator BALDWIN.While he is looking that up, does that record
indicate who the members of the reviewing board were?
Stnator MCCARTHY. I think the colonel knows who they were. I
do not have all the names.
Colonel ELLIS. NO,I do not.
Senator MCCARTHY.It is an army board. Maybe Mr. Chambers
could tell us.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I do not know who the board was. I do know that
was the board of which Colonel Dwinell said he was an ex-officio
member.
Senator MCCARTHY. ISthere any way of finding out?
Did you find the recommendation you made?
Colonel ELLIS. Yes. Age 21, date he joined, and the court sentence
and my recommendation. And I believe these penciled notations-
Senator MCCARTHY. DO you give the court any further report?
Colonel ELLIS.I sent this to the commanding officer of the 7708th
War Crimes Group.
Sen,ztor MCCARTHY. You did not notify the court of the basis of
your recommendation ?
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdid not feel that was necessary?
Colonel ELLIS. It is based primarily on age.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let- us take the boy Stickel. You base it on
age. H e is 20 years of age. You recommend that he gets life. The
boy who is 21, you recommend that he get 20. I f it is solely on age,
how can you make that recommendation ?
Colonel ELLTS.I do not follow you on what you said.
Senator MCCARTHY. He is a man called Stickel. H e is 20 years
of age. Your recommendation to the court is that he get - life im-
prisonment '2
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsay it is solely on age. Let us go to the
man who is 21, the man Pletz. Pletz, you recommend that he get
20 years.
If it is on age, solely on age, is there something peculiar about the
age 21, that you say the man 21 will get 20 years, a i d a man only
20 mill get life? O r was there something besides age that you con-
siclerecl ?
Colonel ELLIS. If you notice here, the court sentence where they
gave life, I recommended 20 years. Where they recommended death,
I recommended life. I think I am consistent throughout on that
recommendation. I think there is somebody here who had a term
of years, 15 years, that I recommended 10years on.
Senator MCCARTHY. Then I understand that you felt that you could
make this recommendation to the court without going into the facts
of the case, to determine what particular crime he had been proven
guilty of, how many American prisoners he shot, how deliberate, how
cold-blooded the act was.
You said : "I will do this solely on age"?
Colonel ELLIS.T his was not made to the court. It was made to
the reviewing authority.
Senator MCCARTHY. I t is the same thing as the reviewing authority.
I s that right?
Senator MCCARTHY. Answer my question. Your thought was that
you should make a recoinmendation to cut down sentences in certain
cases and confirm them in certain cases, without having in mind what
the facts of the case were, the heinousness of the crime, the number
of people he had shot, any excuse for the crime or anything of that
kind. You felt that you had no duty to have those things in mind
before you made a recommendation to the board ?
Colonel ELLIS.Not particularly; no, sir.

Senator MCCARTHY.0. K.
Now, I want to ask you this: Mr. Ellis, here is a discussion of the
Frankfurt board :
Practically all of t h e witnesses said the attack was made on Stoumont be-
tween 0500 and 0900 and the village was not taken until 1100. Werner eaid he
entered Stonmont a t 0700 and it was still dark a t t h a t time. Of the 30 to 35
prisoners of war he saw fired upon, apparently none escaped to tell the story.
Of the approximately 135 Americans captured a t Stoumont and released on
December 24, 1944, none reported the shooting of prisoners. There is no evi-
dence t h a t the Americans who took Stoumont on December 21 found any evi-
dence t h a t prisoners mere killed there. There is no evidence t h a t any of the
residents of Stoumont saw any bodies in front of the grocery store, nothing from
t h e owner of the store who presumably would have had to step over the bodies
to get into his place of business.
You are aware of this?
Senator MCCARTHY.This is what the Army board said. There is
no evidence on the p a r t of the Americans who took the town, no evi-
dence on the part of the residents i n the'town, no evidence from the
grocer in front of whose place these men were allegedly shot, that any
American prisoners of war were shot in this town.
Therefore, there is no evideace whatever to sustain the finding of
gnilty. And they say the conviction should be set aside.
Colonel ELLIS.Yes, I know that.
Senator MCCARTI-IY. And you still say this n ~ a nwas guilty of shoot-
ing those men ?
Senator MCCARTHY.DO~ O L nI ot m m t to tell us now that the reason
you recommended that we have his sentence cut down was because a t
that time you felt that this man was not guilty?
Colonel ELLIS.I felt he was guilty when I made that recomn~enda-
tion; I feel that he is guilty today.
Senator MCCARTHY.And you say that you only cut his sentence
down because of age. I s that right?
Colonel ELLIS.A S I recollect, that is the only reason.
Senator MCCARTHY.What if he were 22 years of age? Would you
snggest i t be cut down? If he were 22 years of age, 1year older than
21. then would you say he should die: or cut his sentence to 20 years?
Colonel ELLIS.I did not consider that.
Senator MCCARTI-IY.Can you tell us now, if he were 22 years of ago,
would you say then t h a t he would have graduated to the point where
he was responsible for his acts?
Colonel ELLIS.I mould not have had a different feeling about him
unless I knew him particularly as an individual.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Let us take the situation as i t was. I f t8herec-
ord showed that he were 22 years of age, then would you have recom-
mended that the life sentence stand?
Colonel ELLIS. I think I would, a t that time.
Senator MCCARTI-IY.I f he were 2ll/z? 111 other words-
Colonel ELLIS. H e may have been 21%. I did not figure i t out day
by day or month by month.
Senator MCCARTIIY.I n other words, if he TTere one clay less than
22 years of age, you say he should get 20 years. I f he had his birth-
day, however-in other words, if he were 2 or 3 days older, 22-then
you woulcl say: "We will not touch the sentence"?
Colonel ELLIS.A S I recall, I had in inincl the age 21.
Senator MCCARTHY.I f he were 22, then do you think he mas old
enough to be responsible for his acts?
Colonel ELLIS.It is not a matter of being responsible for his acts.
Senator MCCARTHY.I f he were 22, then do I understand that you
would have recommended that his sentence not be touched?
Colonel ELLIS.I do not think so, because I had the age 21 i n mind,
as I recall, with some exceptions. I think there were some 23 or 24,
one or two. I do not recall, but I think there were some.
Senator MCCARTHY.I think the 10 minutes are up.
Senator BALDWIN.We will have to leave for a vote. We will take a
short recess.
(Thereupon, a short recess was taken.)
Senator BALDWIN.Would you like to interrogate the witness,
@olo11el?
Mr. CEIARIBERS. Yes, sir.
Give us your full name and present address.
TESTIMONY OF RALPH SHUMACKER, CHATTANOOGA, TENN.
Mr. S ~ u a r a c m Ralph
~. Shumacker, 1400 Riverview Road, ~11atta-
nooga, Tena.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What is vour uresent occuuation?'
A
MI-. SEIUMA~KER. I am a kercLant.
Senator KEFAUVER.May I say that Mr. S h u n ~ a c k and

e ~
I come from
the same city. 1used to teach i n the Chattmooga College of haw,
and he was one of my students. Later on i n the practice of lam, Mr.
Shumacker mas in our law firm as an associate and enjoyed a very
high reputation in the Chattanooga b a r ; also a fine reputation as a
citizen of our city.
H e is a friend of mine f o r whom I have the highest respect.
Senator BALDWIN.I thank the Senator for his statement with ref-
erence to this witness.
Mr. S E I U X A CThank~ R . you.
Mr. CIZANEERS.During the war, were you assigned to the interro-
gation staff in the Malnlecly case?
Mr. SI-IU~~ACKER. Yes, sir.
I have prepared a statement; if i t is permissible to read it I think
that will tell almost what I know about this.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Suppose you give us the prepared statement, after
which we will have some questions.
Mr. SIIUM.~CKER. Prior to my entry into the service I was engaged
i n the general practice of law i n Chattanooga, Tenn., for about 12
years. F o r abont 5 of those years I was associated i n practics with
your colleague, Senator Estes Kefanver. I r e t ~ x n e dto practice i n
early 1947, but I am now a merchant in Chattanooga.
I was a member of the team which investigated the so-called Mal-
inedy case, and was an assistant trial judge advocate when the case
was tried at Dachau, Germany.
Maj. Dwight Fanton Tms the ranking and commanding ofice?
during most of the in~estigationa t Schwabisch Hall. After his re-
turn to the States in the spring of 1946 I was the ranking officer and
in command of the team for 2 or 3 weeks prior to the arrival of Lt. Col.
B. . Ellis. Thereafter Lieutenant Colonel Ellis was in command of
the team and was later chief trial judge advocate when the case was
tried.
Shortly after the defendants, suspects, and witnesses, dong with
prosecution and defense personnel, arrived at Dachau, I learned that
some of the defendants were claiming.that their confessions had been
obtained by force. This did not particularly surprise me.
1 have rarely heard of a criminal case in our own courts where a
confession was involved in which the defendant, through his counsel,
did not attempt by similar claims to get the conl'ession thrown out so
as to avoid conviction.
An investigation was ordered by higher authority. This investiga-
tion was made by a Colonel Carpenter. I never saw his report, but
I assumed the claims were not substantiated because both sides con-
tinued to prepare for trial, and the case came on to be heard some
weeks later. -
I n November 1948, a little over 2 years after my separation from the
service, I received a copy of a petition for writ of habeas corpus that
had been filed in the Supreme Court of the United States by Colonel
Everett on behalf of his clients. This came to me from a Ccl. Edward
H. Young, Chief, War Crimes Branch, Civil Affairs Division, in Wash-
ington. Colonel Young reqnested that I furnish an affidavit with re-
spect to the allegations in said petition, and I complied with his
request.
Some few weeks later I was shocked by a story in Time magazine
relative to the Malmedy case. This news story was apparently based
on the petition just mentioned and the report of a committee headed
by a Judge Simpson.
I have recently seen a few news items relative to the hearings be-
fore this committee. I desire, of course, to make this statement in
answer to allegations that the confessions generally were obtained
by the use of brutality, torture, gestapo methods, or other means
destroying their value as evidence.
To present a fair and clarifying picture, I deem it proper to
give some background to the investigation which our team conclucted,
and the trial which followed:
On December 17, 1944, a rather large group, a hundred or more,
American soldiers were taken prisoner at a crossroads near Malmedy,
Belgium. They were disarmed, herded into an adjacent field along-
side the road and were then shot down in cold blood.
When I was assigned to the case in August or September 1945,
about the only information available as to those responsible was a
report of the Inspector General's Department which pointed the
finger a t the First SS Panzer Division. It is possible that Combat
Group Peiper was also mentioned in this report. I do not recall for
certain.
At that time the War Crimes Branch of the Judge Advocate Gen-
eral's Department, United States Forces, had none of the members
of the suspect German units in cnstody, being held as such suspects.
After an extended trip through the American zone of occupation,
we learned that the members of the suspect SS units were scattered
throughout Germany and might be found i n American, British o r
French PW camps, internment centers, or jails.
B y telegraphic order of the commanding general, United States
forces, European theater, then General Eisenhower, all members of
the suspect units were evacuated to one enclosure near Zuffenhausen
i n late November or early December 1945. B y this time we h a d
learned the units, that is, the companies we thought were responsible
for the atrocity.
About a thousand men were thus gathered near Zuffenhausen. They
were screened and about half of them were eliminated as beloqging t o
units we felt were not involved.
A t Znfienhausen these prisoners were housed in one very large
building. The atmosphere was that of a division reunion. Although
they were not questioned as to the crime under investigation, i t was
quite apparent that when such questioning did begin, i t could not
be conducted there, for the simple reason that each man questioned
would immediately return to the aforesaid building and report i n
detail our questions and his answers.
I t should be observed here that the team realized from the begin-
ning that the Germans would have to convict themselves. There was
only a handful of American snrvivors, and we doubted then if any
of them-they had been questioned by the I G shortly after December
17, 1944--would be of any help in identifying the German units re-
sponsible o r the indiviclual triggermen.
We therefore recommended to our superior officers that a place be
found where the remaining four or five hundred suspects could be
kept separate or i n rooms holding two or three men. Such a place
was provided at a former and modern German penitentiary i n
Schwaebiscl~Hall, Germany, and the four o r five hundred suspects
were sent there from Zuffenhausen by truck.
We tried to arrange i t so that men from the same company did not
travel i n the same truck and were not confined i n the same cell. W e
did not want any man to know what men or how many men we h a d
from his particular company.
The first weeks a t Schwaebisch Hall were spent i n trying to build
on paper ancl on cards a near-perfect con~panyroster of each unit we
felt was implicated. During this period, only rarely if ever did we
question anyone as to the atrocity under investiwtion.
We questioned coc?lcs, company clerks, s n p p ~ ysergeants, and like
personnel, f o r we doubted if they had actually killed prisoners them-
selves. We accumulated a great mass of information about each com-
pany, and almost every man in each company, about the route of march
and crder of march on December 17,1944.
Our information about each company became so complete that we
could just abou: furnish the full mine of each man, his rank, his aoe,
his description, his home town, marital status, children if any, Ris
company job-gunner, loader, radio operator, driver, et cetera-his
tank number, position of his tank or vehicle i n the column, and other
like detail.
Then we began our interrogations of those we felt were more likely
to be the real triggermen. The pattern of questioning was fairly uni-
form. W e always began with the assertion that we knew all about
the man being questioned, all about his unit and its men, and the p a r t
\
that each man played in the events of December 17 and the week that
followed.
We would then ask questions about inconsequentials, the answers to
which we knew from the mass of information obtained from the usually
nonco~nbatant personnel. Almost invariably we received f d s e
answers.
Whereupon, we would proceed to tell the man being questioned the
whole history of his unit, the names of his comrades, their jobs, their
vehicle numbers, their positions i n the march column-even where
they had stopped along the route to urinate.
The man being qucstionecl apparently thought, as we had hoped
he would, that we Bnew the whole story. and he would then often
proceed to tell us what we didn't know; whether he shot prisoners,
who else shot them, and on ~vhoseorders and under what circum-
stances the shootings took place. I n short, if guilty, he frequently
confessed and then "ratted" on everybody else involved with him.
From the standpoint of rank, we worked from the bottom up, and
the same with respect t o units. After his confession had been given,
we would question those he had implicated and mould use him to con-
front the others face to face.
H e would verbally repeat what h e had told us as to his own impli-
cation and tell in detail what his comrade before him had also done.
Armed with confessions of t ~ v oo r three from each company unit, the
task with the others in the same company was comparatively easy.
The SS soldier was so completely indoctrinated with the Fuehrer
concept that he apparently considered murdering prisoners of no
consequence if a corporal, sergeant, or anyone of higher rank ordered
it done.
T h a t concept, together with his firm belief i n the stupidity of his
questioners a i d all persons except Germans-the superrace theory-
were two important factors enabling us to get sufficient inform a t'lon
t o support the charges which led to the trlal and convictions. cor-
roborated by a few of the American survivors and some Belgian
civilians.
As I told the court on direct examination, we did employ tricks,
ruses, and stratagems to obtain evidence. Certainly we did not bring
i n a suspect, invite him to be seated, ofier him a cigarette and say:
"Did you murder any American prisoners near Malmedy on Decem-
ber 17th?" An investigation so conducted would have justified the
label of stupidity these German suspects initially pinned upon us.
Apparently much has been made of the so-called mock trials. W e
lmew them as "Schnell (fast) procecl~~es."My recollection is that
we used this method on four to six suspects or witnesses out of about
400 interrogated. We dared not use it on any suspect we considered
anything but very, very stupid.
I n most of those instances we used rooms that were about 10 feet
by 10 feet in size, which were furnished with a small table covered
by a black cloth, on which we had lighted candles, and either a Bible
o r a 'cr~~cifix.Two or three men, nctndly officers or enlisted per-
sonnel dressed like officers, sat behind this table.
The S I I S ~ ~ Emas
C ~ brought into the room and his hood was removed.
He was told in German that this was the "fast procedure." Then one
interrogator started talking, making accusations and general
arglimeat.
Then he woulcl bring in a witness, usually a comrade who had
alrencly confessecl ancl had implicated the one bcing interrogated.
The "witness" wonld be sworn and woulcl tell his story.
Then the other interrrogator .woulcl take the part of the suspect and
woulcl argue in his behalf. My recollection is that two or three of those
we used this trick on dicl fall for it. No sentences were passed out
by them seated behincl the table that I ever heard. I sat in on one
or two of these "fast procedures," and usually eavesdropped on the
others for a moment or so.
The use of this trick mas specifically and i n detail disclosed to the
court by me on direct examination . At the snine time I told the court
everything else I knew as to the n~ethoclswe used in conducting the
investigation and the questioning of suspects ancl witnesses, such as
the use of "stool pigeons," bona fide and ialse witnesses, telling a sus-
pect we had such-ancl-such information m hen we did not have i t but
only hoped to get it, falsely telling suspects ,we had a concealed rnicro-
phone in his cell ancl had recorded his conversations with his cell-
mates, e t cetera.
It seems there have been allegations, too, of beatings and other
f o r n ~ sof physical violence having been used to obtain confessions. I
saw and heard no evidence of beatings or other corporal puaishmeut.
No complaints were ever made to me or i n my presence by any of the
suspects of such except that shortly before lye left Schmaebisch Hall
or shortly after arriving a t Dachau I heard that one suspect was
claiming that one of the Polish guards nsecl at Schwaebisch H a l l
had kicked him in the seat of the pants when he was being brought
from his cell to one of the interrogation rooms.
There were stancling orders, of course, against such conduct by this
guard detachment as well as by our own small "team." After the
case began to break I spent a great deal of time i n the office attempting
to correlate the evidence, study the evidence against each tent a t ive
' sus-
pect to see if I thought sufficient evidence had been obtained against
him, et cetera. This office of ours was actually another cell, though
larger, just down the hall from the cells used for questioning. The
rooins used for questioning were alongside and across the hall from one
another.
A t no time while I was either i n an interrogation room or the office
did I ever hear any sound that would indicate any physical mis-
treatment or "rough stuff,"so to speak. I doubt if such concluct can be
indulgecl in without cries of pain from the victim, and I believe such
would have been easily audible by me. Furthermore, each of us
knew froin the outset that evidence so obtained would be either in-
admissible or utterly worthless.
We knew, of course, that the military courts established to t r y war-
crimes cases were not bound by our own rules of eviclence. We knew
that the trial procedure was more akin to courts-martial procedure
than that found in our State or Pecleral courts. The trib~ulalsmere
free to admit practically any testimony of any probative value and
give i t such weight as i t deserved.
Despite these latitudes nct enjoyed by or, perhaps more correctly,
n-hich do not burden our onra bench and bar, we attempted to secure
evidence ancl to present i t in snch a way that there could be no doubt
about its materiality or credibility.
There are those who hold with sincerity that the entire war-crimes
program from the Nuremberg trials on clown was wrong. And there
are those who have become quite sympathetic toward the German
nation and its people, perhaps in part as a result of our struggle with
the U. S. S. R. to implant there a democracy rather than a dangerous
police state. I believe the trials were proper.
Specifically, I believe the investigation and trial of the Malmedy
massacre case were fair and proper and that justice was done-this
despite the fact that perhaps these S S suspects and defendants were
not accorded all the privileges that would have been theirs under our
constitutioiial safeguards had they been citizens of the United States.
I have met, talked to, and known a handful of the survivors. I
have viewed the rows of white crosses and stars of David which mark
the graves of those Malmedy victims who cannot speak. They were
mute testimony enough for me of the righteousness of our action in
bringing to justice those who needlessly and with sheer delight took
their lives.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Shumacker, you were a t Schwaebisch Hall
throughout the entire period of time during which the Malmedy cases
were being investigated; is that correct ?
Mr. SIIUMACKER. Except for 1 week right after they were moved
from Zuffenhausen when I had a week's leave, and was in Switzerland.
Then occasionnl Saturdays, perhaps, when I went t o Wiesbaden to
report.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During this time you had intimate contacts with
the entire group of prisoners, or only a portion of them that you
might be handling for interrogation purposes? Which way would it
work ?
Mr. SI-IUMAGKER. Only the ones that were brought up to be
questioned.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were you confined to a particular group of those
prisoners, or did you have occasion to from time to time observe all
the prisoners who were being interrogated?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I believe I saw every prisoner that was brought
there for interrogation. I may have missed one if he were brought
up and kept for 5 or 10 minutes and then taken back. But I was up
and down that hall between the office and the interrogation rooms all
day long, or either in one of the interrogation rooms specifically.
Mr. CHAMBERS Did you have certain prisoners who were your
responsibility from the standpoint of interrogation in securing state-
ments and what not, o r did you work in pairs, or in teams, with other
interrogators?
Mr. SHU~~ACKER. A t first I had to use an interpreter, of course. I
always had to use an interpreter because I could not speak German.
That was a slow process, because it took my time and it took the inter-
preter's time, and it became pretty unsatisfactory because the man
being interrogated during the translation could anticipate the next
question, and it was hard to get anywhere with that method.
So I think about after a month of trying it that way, maybe 6 weeks,
anyway, after the case had actually broken and we were getting
statements-as I said in my prepared statement, i t became easier as
the evidence snowballed-the interrogations were conducted almost
solely by Mr. Thon and Lieutenant Perl.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION go?
Then I was back in the office working on the statements that had
been secured. If they were very brief 111 detail, but still contained
'incriminating evidence, then I would bring that suspect into the office
and use an interpreter for further details and to elicit from him a
chronological and more coherent statement.
Mr. CHANBERS. I n connection with those statements, how were they
secured? Did the accused write out the statement in his own hand-
writing, after which it was smoothed out or dictated for the purpose
of translation, or how was that handled?
Mr. SHUMACKER. Generally that is correct. There may be excep-
tions to this; but, as I remember it, here is the way it generally worked :
They would get maybe a two-page statement written in German from
the suspect.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I interrupt just a second?
- Mr. SHUMACHER. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Could you tell us of a case in which you yourself
got the statement, how you got it, and built it u p ?
Mr. S I ~ ~ A C KThe ER . statements that I got were from-I can
best
remember then1 because I did not get very many-were from Sprenger
and Hofmann and a man named Neve, who were in the same company.
Hofmann, I remember, broke first and spilled the whole beans on
himself and on Sprenger and Neve.
Mr. CHAMBERS. He
broke to you ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. Yes. Then Sprenger also talked very easily after
he had seen that Hofmann had told his story. After they talked
verbally to me I took both of those men-I do not remember, I could
not swear, but I do not remember their writing down anything on a
piece of paper, but perhaps they dicl-I took both of those men, and
I remember this distinctly, into this larger cell that me used for an
office, where we had road maps showing the area over which this route
of march took place, so that we could name towns.
If you have seen the statements, sir, you will see we had the grid
numbers in parentheses. I have not had much occasion to use that
term lately. That is the way I took those statements in the office,
using an interpreter.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n the case of Hofmann, his name has been men-
tioned here in other testimony. I n fact, his testimony was referred
to as the "Tales of Hofmann." I think the defense counsel said they
rather facetiously called them that because of the tremendous amount
of detail they had done.
Did Hofmann write ont all that himself or did you work with
hini and help grid him in the way it was prepared?
Mr. SHUMACHER. I worked with him and dictated it from the in-
formation which he gave to me.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When you say "dictated", do you mean you told
him what to say ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. O r
did you take the information he gave you-
Mr. SHUMACHER. Of course not. When I talked to him I would
say, for instance-I do not remember this specific question-"Hof-
mann, at what time of day did you get your orders from your platoon
leader or your com'P anY commander to shoot prisoners?" He would
say, for example: At 5 o'clock on the afternoon of the 16th."
810 MALRBEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
That would be told t o me by the interpreter.

Then I would turn to a stenographer and put i t ii: mrrative form :
"I received orders from my platoon leader a t 5 o'clock on the evening
of December 16 not to take ally prisoners of war," using his words, but
putting it in narrative form.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n the case of the charts that Hofnlann prepared,
you said Sprenger and Hofnlann more or less collaborated on them,
used maps, coordinates, and grid marks t o get i t down to as accurate
a scale as possible.
Mr. SEIUMACKER. I did not have them in the office a t the same time,
sir. I had them on separate occasions.
Senator BALDWIN.We will answer this quorum call and come back.
W e will take a short recess.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Shumacker, ;you have mentioned that Sprenger
was one of these persons who you interrogated and who broke his
confessions to you ; is that correct 1
Mr. SHUMACEBR. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. We have here an afficlavit signed by Gustav Adolf
Sprenger. I s that the Sprenger you have reference to?
Mr. SHUMACIIER. Yes ; I think so.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Dated January 21, 1945. I n this affidavit, which
is very short, he makes certain statements concerning yourself. I
might say, before reading it, that they are matters concerning you
in relation to mock trials. I want to get to that point:
On the 4th of December 1945 I came from Zuffenhausen to Schwaebisch Hall.
I was kept there in solitary confinement until my interrogations were finished.
From the 10th of January 1946 to the 5th of February 194&
the first date must have been January 10, 1945.
Mr. SHUMACKER. No ; 1946.
Mr. CHAMBERS (continuing) :
I was interrogated by American officers. Nearly erery day I was taken by

a guard for interrogation with a black hood over my head so I could not see
where I was going t o or where I had to run. At the beginning of January 1946
I made in Schwaebisch Hall a statement upon oath about the offensive, a s f a r
a s I could remember a t t h a t time. This, my statement was not believed. As
they did not believe me they made promises to me a t later interrogations. They
told me that they did not want anything from me and I could go home i n 6
months time and more, which I do not remember any more today.
When this did not help I was taken before speedy court. There I was told
to be ready any time for hanging. These and other menaces were made to me
often. I also was beaten by a n American guard before and afler interrogations,
sometimes. B'ellows of mine---
Senator MCCARTHY. May I ask you there? I did not hear the first
part of that. Does he identify ShumacHer with that, so f a r ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Not SO far. H e does later. [Continuing:]
Fellows of mine mho were in the same company were confronted with me,
which accused me falsely. One interrogator, Thon, said I had to confess every-
thing, I was told, because Captain Shumaclrer was my defense counsel, and he
otherwise could not defend me. When I was made weak by the above-mentioned
interrogations and did not know myself any more what I really did or did not do,
I said yes to everything. I was reproached with and was told to do about the
others. All this was made to a statement by Captain Shumaclrer and dictated
to me by a n American soldier. I wrote 4 days. I also made some sketches.
Senitor MCCARTHY.All this was made what?
lMALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Mr. CHAMBERS
(contin~~ing)
:
All this was made to a statement-
I am quoting from this-
by Captain Shumacker aud dictated to me by a n American soldier.
Senator MCCARTHY.I did not understand he was charging Shu-
lnacker with takin,q part in beatings a t all. I think that is a statement
for Shuinacker obviously, because he said Thon is getting the statement.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I finish it?
Senator MCCARTII~. I am sorry.
All this mas made to me to a statement by Shumacker aud dictated to me by
an American soldier. I wrote 4 days and also made som0 sketches I t was never
showu to me when I was ready. Before signing i t I was not allowed to read it
At this time I was a prisoner of mar and became only 20 years old on the 10th
of February 1946 We could not write, not to our relations. and nol to :1nyoi1e
else in Schwaebisch Hall. The knowledge aud signature of the sworn statement-
and so on. Signed "Gnstav Sprenger."
Senator MCCARTHY.H e made no charge that Shuniacker touched
him, or that Shumacker was present.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Senator McCarthy. what 1was trying to do was to
ask questions concerning the mock trial, of ~ h i c hCaptain Shumacker
was supposed to be the defense counsel.
Senator MCCARTHY.I think he testified he was a judge, not the
defense counsel.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Sir, the affidavit from which I read is that Captain
Shunlacker was his defense co~msel.
There are three questions I mould like to ask you about this. One
is: You testified that Sprenger broke his case to you. Now, was that
after a Schnell procedure ?
Mr. SEIUMACKER. NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did Sprenger go through this Schnell procedure?
Mr. SHUMACKER. No, sir. Sprenger ancl Hofmann-1 am not sure
about Neve-perhaps the Schnell proceclure was used on Neve, I would
not be sure one way or the other about that. I think Neve was the
last one of those three who told us his story-I know Sprenger and
Hofmann both told us their stories before this idea of a Schnell pro-
cedure was ever conceived of.
Mr. CHAMBERS. H e states here that before and after interrogations
which I understand you conducted-
Mr. SHUMACIEER. I conducted them, and certainly through an in-
terpreter-I do not remember who. I may have used Thon; I may
have used Per1 ; or somebody else. I do not know.
Senator MCCARTHY.HOW long will i t take you ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. About 2 or 3 minutes.
Senator MCCARTHY.With the Chair's permission I have about two
or three questions to ask the witness and I do want to get away early
to take care of a job which I think of the utmost importance. I have
to talk to members of my own expenditures committee. I wonder if
i t T T O L ~interfere
~ with your investigation if I would ask thess
questions ?
Mr. CIIAMBERS.Not at all. But I n-odd like to finish this particular-
point which will take a minute or two and then stop.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Very well.
91765-49---52
Mr. CHAMBERS. This statement said "I also was beaten by American
guards before and after interrogation, sometimes." I f they were
beaten before interrogation, they would have had to come in to you
and you could have seen them ?
Mr. SHUMACHER. Yes, sir.
Mr. C H A M ~ RWas S . this man Sprenger ever beaten, to

your
howleke?
Mr. SCHUMACHER. Absolutely not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There

was never any evidence of being struck in the
face or pushed around 1
Mr. SHUMACKER. Absolutely not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

he ever make any claims to you to that effect?
Mr. SIIUMACKER. Absolutely not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have no further questions at this time.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not claim if somebody kicked a prisoner
in the "seat" that you could see the marks when he came in to be inter-
rogated by you.
Mr. SHUMACKER. NO,sir. I am just testifying to what I know. I
do not know where Springer's cell was. I t might have been in another
wing of the building, or what person was brought into the interroga-
tion.
Senator MCCARTHY. I have not gone over the entire record; it is too
lengthy, but I have gone over most of the affidavits, and I received cor-
respondence from a great number of people on this matter. I have
found nothing upon which I believe anyone could claim that you have
not treated those men properly.
As f a r as I am concerned, I do not know of anything that gives any
valid case of your mistreating the prisoners. I want to make that
clear. There are some affidavits that may bring you in.
I think this might indicate that you have a slightly different con-
cept of your duty over there than some of the interrogators. You are
a lawyer ;are you not ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. By profession; yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUtook part in the trial, I gather.
Mr. SHUMACHER.
Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Colonel Ellis yesterday told us that if he were
presenting a confession to the court, and before presenting it to court if
he had learned that the confession was false, that he felt he had no
duty to the court to so inform the court. Would you have the same
conception of your duty as defense atttorney ? I n other words-
Mr. SHUMACKER. As prosecuting. attorney ?
Senator MCCARTHY. AS prosecutlng attorney.
Mr. SHUMACHER.
I f I thought-
Senator MCCARTHY. I n other words, if you got a confession from
one of the interrogators for you, and you learned later that the confes-
sion was not true, you sent your own investigator over, in other words,
and learned that-would you feel then that you had a duty to the court
to inform the court that you had subsequently discovered the confes-
sion was not true 2 Do you think you were doing right in going ahead
in trying to convict a man upon a false confession?
Mr. SHUMACHER. Of course not.
Senator MCCARTHY. I want to read to you what Colonel Ellis said.
I think it is the only answer that any honest, decent attorney or anyone
else could make. I want to read to you what Colonel Ellis had to say
on this subject, and see if you think that this is the proper concept of
the job the man in charge of the case had. [Reading :]
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n this case can you recall whether or not you sent Major
Byrne specifically to Bullingen to make inquiry?
Colonel ELLIS. AS I told the Senator, I recall by deduction I must have because
we gave them all 'the evidence t h a t me had about these varions individuals. I
cannot sit here and tell you t h a t I definitely talked to him about it. I presume
t h a t I must have.
Senator MCCARTHY.If he went to Bullingen, then \Ire can assume that h e
would report back to you there was no evidence t h a t he could find of any woman
having been killed in t h a t town except Mrs. Jonsten and t h a t she was not shot.
We can assume t h a t he reported that back to you.
Colonel ELLIS. That or the equivalent. I presume he did.
Senator MCCARTHY. Did you not think it was your duty to tell t h a t to t h e
court, t h a t your investigator went over to this town and t h a t your investigator
reported back to you t h a t i t appeared a confession was false and this woman
was not shot?
Colonel ELLIS. I do not think my duty went to t h a t extent.
Does that not seem to you to be an uiiusual concept of the duty of
a prosecutor in any criminal case?
Mr. SHUMACKER. NO, sir, I do not interpret it that way. The way
I interpret that, from what you read to me, that this investigator
brought back no corroborative evidence. I do not believe, sir, khat
it is the duty of an attorney on either side of his case to point out the
weaknesses of his case.
I f Colonel Ellis thought, or if I had thought, that the fact that no
corroborative evidence was found, conclusively established the fal-
sity of the confession, then I think perhaps, unquestionably, there
would be a duty, if you absolutely felt the confession was false, to so
tell the court.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUsaid you did not think any attorney should
present any weak link in his case. Am I correct in this-and I have
been in court-martial proceedings myself, not as a defendant but as
a prosecutor or defense attorney-I have always understood that a
prosecutor in a court-martial case had the duty not to present what
you or I would consider a strong case, but to present the facts, and if
there are any facts which would held the court, not to find a man
guilty, but to determine whether he should be found guilty or not,
that then it is the duty of the prosec~tingattorney, the defense attor-
ney, to present all those facts to the court? I s that not the clear duty
yo; haqe ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I think I tried one court-martial case in my ex-
perience.
Senator MCCARTHY. YOUare a lawyer?
R . sir. But in my State, sir, it is not the duty
Mr. S I ~ M A C K EYes,
of the prosecuting attorney to point out the weaknesses in the State's
case. The defense attorney usually takes care of that pretty well, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let us take the Malmedy cases. You took
part in them?
Mr. SCHUMACKER. Right.
Senator MCCARTHP.I f you found some facts which you felt would
weaken the case against the defendant,,you knew of some facts which
would weaken the case against the defendant, then you felt that you
did not have any duty to let the court know those facts?
Mr. SCHUMACKER. Not if i t weakened the case. I f I thought t h a t

it would throw some light on the falsity or the veracity of some evi-
dence introduced, I would think that it should be disclosed to the
court.
Senator M c C a w m ~ .Let me read further from Colonel Ellis' testi-
mony :
Senator McCAIGHY. I n other words, Byrne came back to you and said "Mr.
Ellis, I was ovel L , ) Uull~ngen. 1 found that t h e ~ eis 1x1 e\idence whatsoever
of any wonlan llavlng been shot by a Gernlan sol die^ or any woman i n t h a t
town. I found f n r t l ~ e rt h a t the evidence of all tl~osein the lorn11 \ \ a s to t h e
effect t h a t definitely no woman was shot in the town, that the only woman
wlio d~eclfrom oher than natural causes was Mrs. Arltoll J o n s t e ~and ~ her
husband said she had no bullet wonncls, her body showed no bullet wonnds."
Yon say then your duty ~ ~ o u not l d be to give t h a t information to the court?
W h a t woulcl your answer to that be, if you were prosecuting? I n
other worcls, if you sent a man over and he came back to you a ~ ? d
said "Sliumacker, the confession shows this man shot a woinan 111
the house across from where the Army had messed. I checked with
the members of this little hamlet, the people who live there. They
all say that no woman was shot, the only woman died from other
than natural causes was Mrs. Anton Jonsten. Her husband said he
saw her killed i n the street from an exploding shell."
J u s t to make sure the facts are submitted to you properly, affidavits
are brought back, either from the burgomaster, registrar-call him
what you may-or the husband. H e sald "These are the facts."
Now, you are submitting this confession to the court, the coilfession
of a brutal murder, and you know the penalty m~oulclbe hanging.
Would you then think that your duty as an attorney was to give the
court those facts?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I do not think so, unless I was convinced b
them that absolutely the crime had not been cominitteecl. I thin
that is what the couqt is for, sir, t o weigh the testimony and the extent
z
of the corroboration, if any.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Then if you are i n charge I understand you
to say that if you send an investigator over and he comes back and
says he macle an investigation and his information is that the con-
fession is untrue, then you would not Lave a duty to send him back
to conduct further investigation, you would not have any duty to do
that, and you would not have a duty to either let the court know what
those facts are or to go into the matter further?
Mr. SHUMSCKER. I f he comes back, sir, and reports to me that he
thinks the confession is untrue, I would either disclose that to the court
or have a further investigation macle, because I woulcl relay on him
to make an investigation for me and if he said "I think the evidence
we have is untrue" for such and such a reason, I think I would hesitate
not to disclose that to the court or order some further investigation.
Senator MCCARTHY.It is just common decency, when you ask a man
to be hanged, that you say to the court "Here are the facts." There
is no doubt about that, is there? I n other words, you are trying a man
for his life, you send an investigator over, and he reports back to you
that the confession is not true, is it not as clear as night foIlows day
that i t is your clear duty, not only as an attorney but as common
decency, to say to the members of the court "This confession appears
t o be untrue. Here is the information that I have got." I s there
any doubt about that in your mind?
Mr. SHUMACICER. I told yon horn I feel about it.
Senator MCCARTIIY.ISthere any doubt in your mind about t h a t ?
Mr. SHU~~ACICER. I said that I would either order a further investi-
gxtjon or disclose that fact to the court.
benator MCCARTHY.Do you think that any lawyer who refused
t o do that. failecl to clo that, was competent to continue on trying men
for important criminal cases?
Mr. SHWACEER. I do not know about that. I cannot judge the
competency of other lawyers.
Senator MCCAIITHY.1 think i t i~ important to know what pour
attitude is to~varclother lawyers. You are a lawyer, yon practiced
lam, you went through the Dachau cpse. I ask you whether any
lawyer who failed to do that, in your opinion, shoulcl have been left
i n charge of important criminal cases over there?
Mr. S H K T ~ I A C KWhoF ~ . failecl to clisclose to the court that he felt
the confession was false?
Senator MCCARTHY.Who failed to clo either one of the two things
that you said you would hare clone, either clisclose it to the court or to
hare further investigations.
Bfr. SI-IU~~ACICER. 1 would not say arbitrarily that he mas inconi-
petent, sir.
Ssllator M c C a c ~ ~ r yLet
. me read to you :
Senator McC-IRTHY.I want t o know whether he sent his investigator orer,
this investigator reported back to him the facts t h a t I hare enumerated, and
that is that no one in that town knew of a woman having been shot, not a
single person in this little hamlet, and that the major, the registrar, the hus-
band, elerybocly said no one was shot in this town, but that Mrs. Anton Jonstrn
did die either a s a result of a n artillery shell or somethin; of t h a t order. If
he reported that back to yon, do I mnderstwnd t h a t yon feel it was not your duty
to go in and sag to the court i n effect "This part of the confession is a t least
questionable hec.?use of what my investigator reported to me"?
Colonel ELLIS.No, I do not think so.
senator MCCARTHY. YOUdo not think t h a t would be your duty?
IToulcl you have the same attitude as the colonel i n a case like
that ?
Mr. S H U ~ ~ A ~I K ER
just .
cannot answer that question dogmatically,
sir. I told you how I felt about it. It depends upon how thorough
an investigation the man had made, that it depended on whether or
not his report to me convinced me the confession mas false.
I f I thought it was false I would disclose it to the court. I f I?
thought my case was merely weakened by lack of corroboration, I
would think that that mould be for the court to decide, whether or
not the evidence was sufficient.
Senator MCCARTHY.Could you tell me what your opinion of the
competence or incoinpetence of an attorney would be if he took upon
himself the task of making recommendations i n cases involving sen-
tence to death, sentences to life imprisonment, and i n making his
recommendations he mere not to consider the facts i n the case at
all, but the only thing entering into his recommenclation was the
age of the men involved, that he submitted his recommendations, the
recommendations saying this nian should have life imprisonment, to
a higher court, without telling them that he did not take into con-
sideration one iota of the facts In the case; mould you think that man
was completely and criminally incompetent or not 1
Mr. SHUMACKER. NO,sir, I would not think he was criminally in-

competent.
Senator MCCARTHY. Would you think he was competent to con-
tinue making further recommendations in cases involving death sen-
tences, life imprisoriment ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. Yes. I do not see that i t affects his competency. I
know what you are talking about, Senator, the line of examination
just preceding mine. Here is my view on it, sir: I do not believe that
that soon after the trial occurred could Colonel Ellis or I, or anyone
else, in a similar position.
Senator MCCARTHY. HOW soon after?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I think he said it was January 1947. That was
about 6 months, I believe-5 months-after the trial was over. I
do not believe yon could look upon the case of an individual without
remembering more details certainly than I remember now, and I
do not believe Colonel Ellis could have.
I heard his testimony, and he talks about age. But if lie thought
i t was age a t that time, and solely age, I believe, that he could not
have have failed to have been influenced by the evidence and the facts
involving the particular defendants. I do not believe you can divorce
it, sir. Maybe you can.
Senator MCCARTHY. Let us not talk about what you and I could do.
Colonel Ellis told us he made recommendatioils to higher authorities.
He told us here today that the only thing he took into consideration
was age. He told us that he did not inform the higher authorities that
that was the only thing he took into consideration.
I think this is important. I would like to get the ideas that you
gentlemen over there had when yon were trying these men.
Do you think that those were the actions of a competent attorney o r
officer ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I think age is only one consideration. That is my
view.
Senator MCCARTHY. If YOU, as an officer, yourself, were examining
cases allegedly, making recominendations to higher revieming bodies,
as to whether nien should die or live, or how much time they should
spend in jail, and you made the recommenclations, do you not think
that just ordinary common sense would dictate that you would put
a note on that recommendation saying to the higher court "My recom-
mendations are based solely upon the age of the individnal, and not
taking any other factors into consideration," otherwise you would
be deceiving the reviewing body? I s there any doubt about that?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I do not think i t is a matter of exception, sir.
I do not believe that a recommendation without stating the reasons
for it would not be of much value. I f I were making recommendations
I would give the reasons in each individual case, I would give the
basis for the recommendation.
Senator MCCARTRP.And if you were a reviewing body and he
recommended a certain man lives, and certain others die, you would
assume that he was basing his recommendations upon all the facts
in the case, would you not?
Mr. SHUMACEER. Oertainly.
Senator MOCARTHY. And then if you discovered later that he
was not doing that, that he was basing it only on age, nothing else,
and he said this man must live, and this man must die, he was basing
~ L M E D YMASSACRE INVESTIGATION 817
i t only on age, would you not consider that man incompetent to do that
kind of work any more ? Completely incompetent ?
Mr. SHUMACRER. I f he were basing i t solely on age, to the exclusion
of something else, no, I would not think he was totally incompetent;
I would say that in that particular
- instance his recommendation was
worth very little.
Ssnator MCCARTHY.Completely worthless, bemuse the reviewing
board would know what the age was?
Mr. SHUMACHER. Sure, thgreviewing board knew the age.
Senator MCCARTHY.SOthe recommendation was completely worth-
less? I n other words, if you were the-
Mr. SHUMACKER. Let me get your question again, sir. You say
that if the recommendation stated that i t was based solely on age-
Senator MCCAETHY.NO, let us have the recommenclation. You are
a reviewing court. I make a recommendation to you involving 73
men. I recommend that a certain ma11 hang. I recommend that
certain others not hang. I recommend that certain sentences be cut
down.
Yon have before you the ages of all those men. My recommenda-
tion is based solely upon the ages of the men and not on the facts of
the case, not how bad their crimes were, not how fairly the crime
was conducted. My recommendation is based solely on age. That
recomi~~endation is about worthless, is it not?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I think so.
Senator MCCARTEIY. I n view of the fact that I do not tell you i t is
based solely upon age, in riem of the fact that I have access to a11 the
records, all interrogation, all the men that mere interrogated, you
would assume that my reconzmenclation was based upon the facts m
the case, would you not?
Mr. SHUMACRER. NO, sir; I would make no assumption. I f I got a
recommendation from a reviewing authority, and lie gave no reason
for his recommendation, I doubt li I mould consider i t a t a l l .
Senator MCCARTHY.I f a n oEcer who has all this information avail-
able a t his fingertips makes a recommendation such as this, and does
not state in the recommendation that he is taking no facts into consid-
eration whatsoever except the ages, and makes t h a t very serious recom-
menclation to a reviewing board, does not tell them that, understand, is
that not akin to a fraud upon that body? .
Mr. SIIUJIACRER.NO, sir; not in my opinion.
Senator MCCARTHY.YOUdo not think so ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. 1do not think i t is a good job, but 1do not see
anything fraudulent about that.
Senator MCCARTIIY.Can ;YOU not see it is about the silliest thing
you have ever heard ? Actually, is not that a fact?
Mr. SHUMACEER. I do not think it is the silliest thing I ever heard.
B u t I do not think a recommendation t o change any decision of any
individual or group or body without giving. a reason for it is a worth-
while recommenclation or deserves any consideration.
Senator MCCARTHY.Did Colonel Carpenter talk to you when he was
conducting the investigation of the alleged brutalities?
Mr. SHUDIACHER. I think he did, sir. B u t I mould not swear to it.
I remember him being down there a t Dachau. I learned what be mas
there for, and I assumed that he did talk to me.
818 MALMEDY MASSACRE, INVESTIGATION
Senator MCCARTHY.There is one case we have before us here, a case

involving Pletz. The Frankfurt board recommencled that the convic-
tion of Pletz be set aside. T h e evidence i n the Pletz case, if I may
review it, was rougldy this: Pletz was a gunner. The commanding
officer, I believe i t was, a t least somebody in the tank ahead of him-
h e was the second tank-the testimony is that there were a number of
American soldiers along the side of this street in this little town.
The testimony of the boy i n the front tank was to the effect that he
saw a double stream of tracer fire coniing past his tank and hitting
these war prisoners, and that he saw about half of the coluinn drop.
Senator BALDWIN.Pletz said t h a t ?
Banator MCCARTHY.No ; the boy in the front tank said thttt. This
i s evidence against Pletz.
You do not recall tliat you got the statement from the boy in the
front tank, do you?
Mr. SHUJIACKER. NO; I do not. Was that a Stoumont incident ?
Senator MC~ARTIIY. Yes. You do not recall getting such a state-
ment ?
Mr. SCHUMACKEK. No, s i r ; I do not.
Senator MCCARTHY.Then the testimony of the driver of the second
tank was to the effect that he heard several rounds of machine-gun fire
from his tank, that he did not see any of the prisoners fall or die.
Mr. SIXUMACHER. I believe that -was the testimony of a driver or
I-adio operator in the tank.
Senator MCCARTHY.I n the second tank, that he heard somebody
fire several rounds from his tank, but did not know the direction of
the fire. The testimony of the man in the back column is that they did
not see any American prisoners killed, and did not see any machine-
gun fire from the machine guns toward the prisoners.
The Army reviewing boarcl a t Frankfurt said that they found no
evidence that any American prisoners of war had been killed iil that
area, by interviewing the residents of the little hamlet ;that the grocer,
before whose door the mei; mere allegedly piled, knew nothing about
any killings ;and the Frankfurt board recommended that i n view of the
fact there was no evidence that this boy shot any h n e r i c a n prisoners,
110 evidence that any were dead in that town, and the people were living
there all the time, that the convictions ~houlclbe set aside.
Would you agree with that recommendation?
Mr. SHUMACHER. I think I would. No bodies were found in Stou-
moat, maybe not in front of this grocery store.
Senator MCCARTHY.No evidence of any prisoners having been shot ?
I will read i t to you if you like.
Mr. S ~ r v a r ~ c mI do
~ . not care what the reviewing officer said about
it, sir. What I am talking about is that there was evidence a t the
trial-maybe not in front of the grocery store, I do not remember that,
specifically. but t h e r ~a a s evidence. and I talked, I think there was
testimony from two Belgian civiliniis about some bodies tliat viere
found down a little pathway beside some building.
I am sure that is Stoumont. Maybe I am getting on a tangent that
is not material.
Senator MCCARTKJY. Did you say.you testified in this case?
Mr. SIIUMACI~ER.
Yes, s i r ; I testified.
Senator ~!~CCARTIIY. You

testified in the Pletz case?
. sir. I thought you meant in the old trial.
Mr. S n r r x a c ~ ~ mNo,
Senator MCCARTITY. I thought you said you testified, that you inter-
viewed some Belgians.
Mr. SHU~IACKER. No, sir; 1did not.
Senator MCCARTHY.I f the Army board is right i n this, and we can
check i t from the record, if they are right-I will read it to you :
Of the 30 or 35 prisoners of war fired on apparently none escaped to tell t h e
story. Of the approximately 135 Americans captured a t Stoumont and released
December 1944, none reported a shooting of prisoners.
I n other worcls, 135 prisoners were captured a t Stoumont.
There is no evidence t h a t the Americans who took Stoumont December 21,
1944, found any evidence t h a t prisoners were killed there. There is no evidence
t h a t any of the residents of Stounlont saw any bodies in front of the grocery
store. Kothing from the owner of the store who presnluably had to step over
the bodies to get into his place of business.
This board recommended that the coilviction be set aside. Would
you agree with the board in t h a t ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. Yes, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.Then if you agree with the board you think
that the court that confirmed the sentence for 20 years, or whatever
i t mas, mas in error ? You spent some time in combat, did you n o t ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. No, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY.I f a man comes down in a tank, behind a ma-
chine gun, as this man allegedly did, and deliberately, with no orders
whatsoever to do so, shot someone else's prisoners of war, not even
his own unit's prisoners, just deliberately shot down 15 or 20 men; if
he did that, 21 years of age, no evidence of incompetency, then he cer-
tainly should pay the full penalty for those murders.
I f he did not do it, then he sho~dclnot serve any time. I n other
worcls, he was either guilty of the most atrocious crime that you and I
could conceive of, not under battle conditions a t all, or he mas guilty
of nothing.
,4m I right? W e cannot compron~isea case like that and say,
"There is no evidence that he is guilty but he might have been guilty
of something else. We will give him 15 or 20 years."
Mr. SHUMACHER. I personally think that if that is what he did,
that he should be hanged for it.
Senator MCCARTHY.Right. I think you and I are in agreement.
Mr. SHUMACKER. B u t I will not say, sir, that anybody else who
feels that because of age, or youth, training, and so forth, that i t
should be commuted, is absolutely wrong. I just cannot say that.
I personally feel the other way. B u t there are a lot of other people
who do not feel that capital punishment is proper for any kind of
crime. I cannot say arbitrarily and dogmatically that they are wrong.
Senator MCCARTHY.All through these cases we get the impression-
and I lrnow this is not p a r t of your work ; your work is to present the
eviclence-we get the inescapable impression that the boards
and the subreviewing boards took the position that there mas some
half-way mark between guilty and innocent, and a crime which would
call for the death penalty-let us put i t this way: I11 a case where
the death penalty would be called for if a man were guilty, thap
then if the evidence were insufficient to find him guilty of that crime,
he should not be let off, that he should get a halfway marli in Ille
theory that he was guilty of something else.
That is a pretty bad brand of justice; is it not?
Mr. SHUMACKER. YOUmean reducing sentences because of insutti-
ciency of evidence?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I do not think that is proper, sir.
Senator MCCARTHY. I n fact, entirely improper ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. Yes.
Senator MCCARTHY. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
Senator BALDWIN.GOahead, Colonel. Could you stay a little while
until we finish mith this man? Colonel Chambers told me that he
wants to question this man with reference to Per1 and Thon, and
who else ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Several others. I f Mr. Planagan could stay here
it might serve the purpose.
Senator MCCARTHY. 0. K. Mr. Chambers, I will have a statement
for you which I hope you will insert in the record in the n~oming,
in regard to this whole matter.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Shumacker, you have been asked to evaluate
the findings of a board of review in coimection with this Pletz case?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I feel that the record should show one thing else,
as long as you are passing your opinion on various matters of this
kind. This board of review, which is referred to as the Frankfurt
Board of Review, did recommend, as was stated to you in the Pletz
case ?
Mr. S H U M A C ~Yes,R . sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Would it make any differeme to you, in your evaln-

ation of the way this board was operating, or their findings, if an
ex officio member of that board of review, who was consulting daily
with the man writing that report, had been one of the defense connsel
in this case?
Mr. SHUMBCRER. I W O L not ~ ~ like the idea, of course, that counsel
from either side should sit in on the board of review in any capacity.
I do not like to pass any judgment on the conpetency of any review
board or appellate court, or w11;~teverit might be, but I felt I was
com elled to say so because the Senator asked me.
$ just read facts, as I understood it, from that report, vhich the
board apparently hzd established to its satisfaction. What those facts
consisted of I do not know, and how much subsequent investigation
they made I have no way of knowing.
But if those facts, as read to me by Senator McCarthy, are absolute
truth, I would say that I would agree with that report.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And if the facts as stated were absolutely true, it
would make no difference to you, I presume, if the man helping to
advise in writing that report had been a defense counsel at the trial?
Mr. SHUMACEER. I f the facts are absolutely true i t would make 110
differeqce. But I think a different light could be thrown on it by
counsel, who might be very interested.
Mr. CHAMBERS. 1 think at this time it would be proper, mith the
Chair's permission, to put in the record a very brief statement con-
cerning Colonel Dwinell, concerning this board of review. He was
a defense counsel a t this trial.
I n response to a direct question here under oath he stated that he
was "working with this board of review." The interrogation is as
follows :
Mr. CHAMBERS. At the time the board of review sat did jou have any contact
with or relation with the board of review?
Colonel DWINELI.. I certainly did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you know t h a t while you were working with the board of
review t h a t yon were working on these cases?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you have anything to do wlth t h e preparation of this
report ?
Colonel DWINELL.I did not, not to this extent. The report t h a t I have before
m e w h i c h is the report which was read to you-was wrltten in the main by
Colonel Scarborough, of the review board, and every day he and I discussed
the language therein. And wherever I could speak to the defense I did. Now I
will frankly state so.
Mr. CHAMBEILS. Then you mould state t h a t the points of view of the defense
had adequate representation before the court?
Colonel DWINELL.They did.
During your tour of duty a t Schwaebisch Hall were you not a t one
time in command pending the arrival of Colonel Ellis, after Major
Fanton had left Schrrabisch Hall ?
Mr. SIIUBIACEER. Yes, sir.
Mr.CIIAXBERS.During that time were any complaints made to you
by any of the prisoners, or was there any report of any kind which
led you to believe that either the guards or interrogators or anyone
else was abusing these Malinedy prisoners ?
NO,
Mr. S I ~ X A C K E R . sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO YOU have enough of a n op1)ortunity by your
personal observation to form an opinion as to whether or not they
mere being improperly treated?
Mr. SHUMACICER. I feel sure they did, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What was that opinion?
Mr. SIIUXACKER. My opinion mas that they were properly treated.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You do not believe that their food was reduced, that
they mere required to take drinking water from the toilets in their cells
in order t o get water to drink, that they mere beinq deprived of
blankets, that they were being beaten and abused, that they were being
kept i11 solitary confinement for long periods of time?
There is a whole series of qnestlons. I am trying to hurry this
along. Can you answer categorically?
Mr. SIIU~IACKER. 1think 1 can. 1think that those-I have for-
gotten how you phrased your question-they mere not abused, they
did have clrinlcing water, they had sufficient food. I remember Hof-
mann, for instance, told me that since he had been in the German Army
he had never been fed so well, and he got so f a t we had to get some
larger clothes for him.
That is Hofmann, one of those three men we were talking about a
few minutes ago.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did YOLI have occasion during your stay a t Schwae-
bisch Hall to work directly with Harry Thon and William Per1 ?
Mr. SIIU~WACXER. I did.
Mr. CIIAMBERS.Did you join them in the interrogation of any
prisoners ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I am sure H a r r y or Bill: (1) Helped me with
one of those three men that I have mentioned. When they were in-
terrogating a prisoner alone I m-ould frequently drop in on the inter-

rogation, not that I was any help, but I wanted to see how things were
progressing.
I could not tell too much about what was g+ng on, because i t was
all in German, but I -\~oulcl interrupt a i d ask Bill or H a r r y what evi-
dence he had obtainecl, if any, and I would stay in the room maybe
2 or 3 minutes and then go to maybe where the other one was cluestion-
ina, or someone else was working, to see what was going on.
hr. CHAMBERS.Did yon ever see either Thon or Perl strike a
prisoner ?
Mr. SIIUMACKER. NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS.O r kick him or abuse h i m ?
Mr. SEIUMACEER. No, sir. Not only did I not see it, none of the
suspects or prisoners ever complained to me about it. There was no
evidence on their bodies, their faces, or their arms or hands, that
showed any physical nlistreatment whatsoever.
Mr. CHAMBERS.Mr. Shumacker, it has been testified here that Thon
in particular, and Perl, had a general reputation for believing that
prisoners should be handled roughly and that they in fact were known
to be inclined to treat them roughly.
Do you know of that reputation?
Mr. SHU~CACKER. I have heard of it only since the trials, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS.Only since the trial?
Mr. SEIUMACKER.
Yes, s i r ; just what the Gerinans have said since
the trial. Of those who took the staid, I think there was very little
complaint on the part of defendants a t the trial itself of any. physical - .
misCreatment. -
Mr. CHANBERS.Do you believe that if they had had a reputat,ion f o r
being brutal to prisoilkrs a t the time the i i ~ e r r o g a t i o nw j s going on,
you woulcl have known of i t ?
Mr. SIXUMACKER. I do not see how I could have Belpecl it, sir. Our
o f f i c e l e t nze explain this physical set-up. I t might help the commit-
tee, sir. It was a long corridor-I mean a hallway, in this corridor.
Our office was a t one end, say over there where the hat rack is.
It mas a n office about 20 by 20. I think there was one small cell next
to it, and then a cross corridor, and then these s m d l 10-foot-square,
approximately so, interrogation rooms on either side down the hall,
some, I would say, 35 to 75 or 80 feet away from the office.
Even while in the office, and our door mas always ajar, I clo not see
how there coulcl have been any physical inistreatment such as I have
read about, of men, and striking them in the face and kicking them,
and that sort of thing, without just the physical reflection of screams
and cries from such men, the subjects of such brutality.
As I have said before, I mas not in the office all the time; I was in
the rooms and u p and down that hall and crossing the hall over t o
where the stenographers and translators mere workmg, all -day long,
and that - - could not, i n my opinion, have been the practice without my
knowledge.
Mr. CIXAMBERS. You hacl occasion, I Dresume. to observe the 'guards
,
taking the prisoners to and from the ikerrog,ztion centers, and mov-
ing them around the l-rison?
Mr. SHUMACIKER. Only in that portion, sir. This prison had, I
think, about three wings to it, and one separate building, actually, i n
the enclosure. I would not often see them when they were away from
this corridor where the rooms for questioning and the office were.
But I did, on occasion, see them. I n other words, I clid not follow
the gnarcl, take a man LIP on the next floor into another wing.
Mr. CIIAMRERS.A moment ago you made a point that only a few
of the accused took the stand in their own behalf a t the trial. Do you
k11ow why others did not take the stand?
Mr. SHUBIACHER. I, of course, was not informed by their defense
co~ulselwhat their decision, their reasoning behind it, was. I did feel
that those who toolr the stand did themselves more harm than good.
I was told-you were told by defense counsel, when the case started,
when the defendants started putting on their proof-that it was going
to take weeks and weelrs to try that case. I assumed that every man
was going to take the stand i n his own defense.
But they clid pretty poorly, I thought, on cross-examination, and
that might have been a factor. I do not know.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When you say "clid pretty poorly," did they in-
criminate themselves or others ?
Mr. SHUMACICER. Yes, sir. T h a t is what I mean.
Mr. CHAXBERS.DO you believe that they were telling the truth a t
the time they were incriminating themselves ancl others, or did the
prosecution staff form an opinion of t h a t ?
Mr. SH~&TACICER. Yes, I thought they were telling the truth when
they incriminated others.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did YOU have occasion to work with a man named
Bailey, who was a typist or reporter, with you?
Mr. SHUMACEER. Yes, sir.
Mr. CIXABIBERS. During the time that Bailey was there, I believe it
was the custom to dictate these statements or confessions to him. I s
that correct?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I do not remember specifically dictating one to
Bailey. B u t that was the practice, yes, sir, to one of the stenographers.
Mr. C H A ~ ~ E RDid
S . Bailey work around the point where you could
observe his work or have any direct knowleclge of i t ?
~ . I have knowledge of his work.
Mr. S H U M A C I CYes,
Mr. CHAXBERB. I n
his testimony before us, Bailey has indicated
that the confessions would be dictated and then frequently changed,
that the coiifessions finally. si ned by the prisoners mere not those that
%
had originally been made by t em.
There have been several efforts made to explain it one way or an-
other. Do you have any knowledge of that matter?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I think I know exactly how they were taken,
sir. They would either write out a very brief statement containing
incriminating evidence, or would make a verbal statement t o either
me or Thon or Perl, and then relay it to me, so that 1 knew the sub-
stance of it. When they write the statement I thought that i t should
be enlarged upon to see if we could get more information, and to give
body ancl detail.
So either with the verbal statement or the preliminary brief state-
ment, I would take the man, as I have said, into the office and get fur-
ther detailed information by question-and-answer form, through an in-
terpreter, which was not then dictated or put down on paper a t all.
Then I would turn to a stenographer, or court reporter-1 think we
called them all court reporters-and dictate i n narrative form the
answer to the question that I had asked. That, of course, was then
typed in English.
Then one of the translators would take that English statement and
translate it into German. Then, if I took the statement, and the
others did the same thing, that German statement, that statement
written in German by one of our own translators was then handed t o
the man who had made the statement. He was told to read it, and,
if there were any changes, to make the corrections on that statement
that he had not written himself.
So that when he went to ccipy it, so to speak, in his own handwriting,
it wonld not have to be changed or corrected again. And I told every
man, whenever I took his oath, or whenever such a=statement was
taken, that if there were any errors, no matter how inconsequential
he thought they might be, that we wanted nothing but the truth in
detail, and to tell me about it or to tell the interpreter so he could
tell me.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have one further question to develop with you.
We have had considerable discussion of a matter which I believe you
should have some direct knowledge of. Operating under SOP No. 4,
which I believe was reduced to writing but at a rather late date, you
were supposed to have been operating under those orders prior to the
actual written issuance of the orders.
There is a question of whether or not the accused were promised
immunity if they wonld tell such a story that they could be used as
witnesses for the prosecution.
Do you have any knowledge of the way that situation developed
and how such promises of immunity might or might not have been
used ?
Mr. SHUMACKER.
e
I do not even remember anythin in the SOP
about immunity. My recollection was that we could ma e no promises
whatsoever to any man being questioned.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you, in carrying out your duties as an inter-
rogator, ever promise anybody immunity if he would elaborate upon
his story ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. Absolutely not.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
DO you have any knowledge of anyone else doing
that?
Mr. SI-IUMACKER. NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have here a copy of SOP No. 4, and it has been
read into the record so many times I see no reason to do it again. But
section 4 ( a ) says that-
No promises shall be made.
Rut section 4 (b) seems to be a qtlalification of it. I wonder if those
were the instructions under which you worked.
(Witness read document.)
Mr. SHUMACKER. I think what Fanton meant, at least the way I
construed that, is that if me had some information that slightly impli-
cated a man, but was not sufficient to have any chance a t conviction,
that after clearing with the commanding officer that man might be
told that he would be used as a witness. By "commanding oficer" I
assume he meant Colonel Miclclewaite, or some higher authority.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DOyou know of any case where this procedure was
followed 1
Mr. SHUMACHER. NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
During the period of time that you were command-

ing officer, was it followed? .
Mr. SHUMACKER. AS far as I know; yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Pardon ,me. While you were commanding
officer-
Mr. SHUMAOEER. I did not change that SOP.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SOthat as far as you know, section 4 (b) in there,
which indicates that they could be promised immunity if the testimony
was more valuable from the standpoint of the prosecution witness, was
never used ?
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Before I finish my line of questions I am going to

take the liberty to ask you-and remember that you are under oath-
some very definite q~~estions.I want your frankest opmion.
You have worked with men like Perl and Thon, Elowitz, and a chap
named Steiner, for a while there?
Mr. S H U M A CYes, ~ R sir.
.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would like you t o tell me what your personal
opinion is of Mr. Perl, from the standpoint of not only efficiency as an
interrogator, but whether or not he would mistreat people, and what
SOU think of him.
Mr. SHUMACBER. I do not think that Perl would mistreat prisoners.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Can you tell us more about him, in your evaluation
of him ? Was he a good interrogator ?
Mr. SHU~~AGKER. Here is the reason 1think so. I n my opinion he
was an excellent interrogator. He was full of this thing all the time.
.I guess
- he did more talking than all the rest of 11s put together there
in the quarters.
Bill was always thinking. of some trick or some new angle. I can't
remember specifically, now: But it was always a matter o? cleverness,
the use of some psychological trick.
It just does not make sense to me that. a man who thinks that way
would go to the trouble of trying to clrea,m up all these methods and
ruses, if he were the kind of man who just resorted to brute force to
obtain a confession. I can't see any reason to do it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUa11 lived in the.same quarters, or associated to-
gether closely ?
Mr. SHUNACBER. We ate together in the same house. Most of us
lived there. But Lieutenant ~ : r l and his wife slept in a room across
the street.
Mr. CHABTBERS. But you did associate with him very closely?
Mr. SIIUXACEER.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n YOLW C ~ ~ S C L ~ with

S S ~ him,
~ ~ S
did these matters of
"I could slap this out of him" or anything like that-
Mr. SIIUXACBER. Never mentioned in my presence.
Mr. CHA~EBERS. Did Per1 ever comment on manhandling the pris-
oners ?
Mr. SHU~TAGKER. Never in my presence.
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOW about Thon?
Mr. SEIUMACKER. Never.

Mr. CHAMZERS. Could YOU give us your evaluation of Thon, some-

what the same as you have of Perl? Was he as good an interrogator?
Did he handle himself as well?
Mr. SI-IUMACHER. 1don't believe that he was quite as clever in hiin-

self conceiving of new things as Bill. Bill told ine tlmt he had received
training at CICDIC, I beileve is the name of the operation, or what-
ever you call it, in England. And their British intelligence was-I
mean they were taught how to pet information.
I understood from Bill that that is the best training that American
personnel received, at this center. H e passed on a lot of tricks to us and
told us about various things.
Senator BALDWIN. When you say tricks, what do you mean by tricks?
Mr. SIIUXACKER. H e told us-of course, we had not heard about it-
about the minute microphone that they had. H e saicl that it did not
make any differencehow firmly convinced a prisoner was that a micro-
phone was hidden somewhere in a room, that if you put a comrade in
that rooin with him that they would eventually begin to talk, that
the just could not stop.
d e told me that they wo~~lcl talk for days and weeks to some of the
prisoners they had there, gaining their confidence. They would some-
times take them out of the prison and take them to downtown London
and let them see, for instance, that the German propagmda that had
been fed to them about London having been completely wiped out was
not true, that they would take them to night clubs. I mean actuallgr
more psychological tricks, sir, convincing them by their handling of
the man that it was more to their advantage and to the ~ d v i ~ n t a gul-
e
timately of Germany to give them the information that they were try-
ing to get, and that ~ a the s tenor, generally speaking, of his efforts
there at Schwabisch Hall.
Mr. CHAMBERS. AS f a r as Thon was concerned, would you comment
on the same matters of mishandling of prisoners or beating of any
kind ? Did he talk about it?
Mr. SHUNACKER. H e never talked about mishandling any. I fre-
quently would go in the rooms when Harry mas talking to his prison-
ers, and he mocked, I felt, pretty much, Bill's tricks, when the day was
over and me would have supper together. Bill would tell what he had
done, what he hncl saicl. or how he had elicited some information. And
then I would find that Harry was using the same thing.
I was amazed at Harry's ability and watched him frequently be-
cause his education had not been as good as Bill's, ancl I thought that
he did a fine job. That was my opinion.
Mr. FLANAGAN. May I ask a question?
What was Thon's baclcground? You lived with him there.
A h . SI~~\IACICER.
Tho11 told me that he mas born in Pennsylvania,

I believe he said, and that-I forgot how old he was, but sometime
when he was just a boy he went back to Germany to live. And then
later, perhaps early in the thirties, I believe it was 1932 or 1933, he
came back to the States and worked as a waiter in a New York res-
taurant. I think he told me it was a German restaurant.
I n the Army, I think, he was used as a member of a prisoner-of-war
interrogation team.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Mr. Schifney, he had been a waiter prior to his en-
trance in the Army ?
Mr. SEIU~~ACKER. I do not know if that was his whole career, but
I remember that specifically.
Senator BALDWIN.He spoke German fluently ?
Mr. SIIUMACK~R. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Returning to that mention you made of tricks
again. You described them as p~ychologicnltricks. What we are
particularly interested to know, is, in any of these methods that were
used, whether torture or physical abuse, lack of food, or threatening
to withhold ration cards of the family of the men who were in prison.
o r solitary confinement, or torture of any kind, was used.
Mr. SHUMACRER. Not to my knowledge, s i r ; and I never received
any complaints. There was one occasion where food was witld~eld,
but not for that reason.
Senator BALDTVIN. Tell us about that.
Mr. SEIUMACRER.
That was pretty soon after we got to Schwabisch
. Hall. W e had told all the prisoners not to attempt to communicate
with each other through any means, a i d that if they did so they would
be punished. W e found that they were writing their names and var-
ious messages, or scratching them, on these a l ~ ~ m i n u mare,
in or simi-
lar ware, eating utensils which were brought to them a t every meal-
time. When we found that going on, that being the only thing we had
to feed them with, and thinking that would not 0111y hurt our case
but was a general threat t o security, we had those names and nzes-
sages removed from those utensils by the German cooks-not Mal-
medy suspects-who were on duty there i n the prison, and my recol-
lection is that took a couple of days. During that time they had
bread and vater ; and after that time, after they were cleaned up, the
rations were resumed.
Senator BALDWIN.DO YOLI have any further cpestions?
Mr. FLANAGAN. On these questions of tricks, I think one of the
things the committee would like to know is the extent of these tricks.
We knew, for example, from the testimony here, that prisoners mere
told that you knew more facts than yon actually knew. You pre-
tended to know inore than YOU actually knew.
Mr. SHUMACKER. That is right.
Mr. FL- NAGA AN. JTe know from the testimony that the prisoners
were advised that a microphone was i n the cell and that you knew
the conversation when, i n fact, there was no microphone. W e know
that you used stool pigeons, planted them in the cells with the various
prisoners, or however you used them. We know that those tricks
took place.
I n acidition to that, clid yon ever know of anybody telling any of
these men that this mas a very serious crime a t the Crossroads, for
example, that they would surely be dealt with very severely because
a t the Crossroads the son of a prominent businessn~an,and the son of a
Senator, was involved? Did you ever know of them using that type
of deception ?
Mr. SHUMBCKER. I believe I do.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
They clid use t h a t ?
Mr. SHUMACKER.
I believe I do.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Did you ever know that they used such deception
as telling the prisoner: "If you do not cooperate with us fully here,
we will turn you over to the Russians" ?
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Did you ever know of such a trick where they would
say: "If you do not cooperate completely and fully with us, we will
cut off ration cards from your family" ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. NO,sir-
91765--49-53
Mr. FLANAGAN. I am not meaning that they would do it, but would
they tell the prisoners that they would do i t ?
Mr. SEIUMACKER. NO, sir.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Are there any of these other tricks that you can tell
us about, specific tricks, as you recall them?
Mr. SHUMACEER. I do not know whether you would call it a trick,
Mr. FLANAGAN. Well, a technique?
Mr. SHUMACKER.
I remember, for instance, that we would never-
when we thought a man was about ready to spill the beans, so to speak,
we would say: 'LWedo not want you to tell us anything a t all about
the prisoners you shot ;all we want you to tell us is why you did it and
on whose orders you did it."
I called that a trick of questioning, because I felt that the SS
especially, as I said in my prepared statement, they might have thought
that just because somebody else told them to do it, somebody of higher
authority, that i t was all right, and if we evidenced a disinterest by
phrasing our question in that manner, that he might tell us who
ordered him to shoot; and, after he told us who had ordered him, his
platoon leader or company commander, then it would be easier for
him ; the German mind would make it easier for him to tell us whether
or not he shot prisoners himself.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I n other words, you tried to implant in the accused's
mind the idea that superior orders might be a defense to what he did?
Mr. SHUMACKER. NO. Well, I would say we played on that concep-
tion that might be in his mind, by telling him that "we do not want
you to talk about the prisoners that you shot a t the Crossroads; we
know all about that. All me want to know now is why you did it."
Mr. FLANAGAN. Did YOU ever have any of the stool pigeons attempt
to plant that information in the mind of some of these less-educated
Germans, that "we are not going to do anything t o you if you will
blame it on your superior."
Mr. SHUMACKER. I do not remember doing that.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
ISit ~ossiblethat that mas done to build up this
conception ?
Mr. SHWSACKER. I would sa
it is possible. yes.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
9,
Was i t p o s i le that any 02 your interrogators ever
intimated or indicated or planted the impression in the minds of some
of these less wily prisoners that, if they would implicate a superior,
they, themselves, might not be dealt with so severely?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I do not believe anyone would go nearly that
far, because that would be akin to a promise of immunity.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Nevertheless, you were trying to make an impres-
sion on their minds that it would be better to blame it on a superior
rather than to say that they did it without orders?
Mr. SHUMACICER. We wanted to make i t easier for them to confess,
and we felt i t would be easier if they blamed it on son~ebodyeke.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Would YOU now say that that is fringing on the
borders of offering immunity?
Mr. SHUMACKER. NO; I would not.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
At least, that is what you are planting in the man's
mind.
Mr. SHTSMACKER. I am not planting anything in his mind, sir. I
am just capitalizing on what is already in his mind.
Mr. FLANAGAN. You are capitalizing on his ignorance.
Mr. SHUMACILER. Well, I do not call it ignorance.
I call it thinking.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
Obviously, a trick like that would not work unless
the man himself thought that superior orders were a defense. If for
example-
Mr. SHUMACIEER. I do not Bnow whether he thought - i t was a defense.
He thought perhaps it was some help.
Mr. FLANAGAN. A t least a partial mitigation?
Mr. SIIUMACKER.
Maybe some partial mitigation.
Mr. FLANAGAN.
I f , for example, I was being interrogated, and hav-
ing read the Articles of War or the rules of American warfare, and
I knew definitely that superior orders was no defense, I surely would
not fall for ruses like that if I were going to lie about it.
Mr. S I ~ M A C HThey E R .testified, those who took the stand, that they
had been thoroughly indoctrinated in the rules of warfare.
Mr. FLANAGAN. Some of them must not have remembered them.
Mr. SHUMACKER. Maybe they did not. I do not know.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I wonder if you would give us a fast statement on
Kirschbaum, on the same general subjects?
Mr. SHUMACKER. My recollection of Kirschbaum is that we used
him, not as an interrogator, but as an interpreter.
Senator BALDWIN.We will recess for a few minutes while I go to
vote.
(Whereupon a short recess was taken.)
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Shumacker, I believe you had jnst made t h e
statement that i t was Kirschbaum who was largely used as an inter-
.preter !
Mr. SHUMACKER. Yes. I think he and Ellowitz, if I remember
correctly, worked together most of the time; perhaps during the tail
end of the investigation Kirschbaum was used on occasions as a n
interrogator.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DOYOU have any knowledge, or could yo11 comment,
on Kirschbaum's attitude on these things? Did he ever discuss how
prisoners should be handled or have any ideas or express any opinions
on i t ?
Mr. SHUMACITER. Kirschbaum was jovial, a phlegmatic individual,
and was quick to do pretty much just as he was asked to do, very coop-
erative, no great display of feeling or emotion about the problem.
Mr. CHAMBERS. How about Ellowitz?
Could you discuss him from
the same angle ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. Ellowitz,

I thought, was a very conscientious and
capable interrogator and lawyer. I believe that Ellowitz and Fantoir
and I, because of our legal background, probably saw tllings the same
way all the time. Perhaps more so than, say, Kirschba~mor some-
body like that without legal training.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did Ellowitz ever discuss this matter of manhan-
dling prisoners with you ?
Mr. SEIUM.~CIIER. NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO
you know a man by the ilame of Steiner who
worked there ?
Mr. SHUMAOKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It has been testified here by Mr. Bailey that Steiner
worked with Perl, that they would come back and Steiner was much
more talkative than Perl. And he told us, generally, mostly when
Perl was not present, of the things that they did. One of the things
that Steiner said that they did-I presume he means Perl and him-
self-was to march a man up some steps and make him believe he
was on a scaffold, tie a rope around his neck and jerk him, for the
purpose of getting a confession.
Would it have been reasonable to assume that Steiner mas assigned
to work with Perl?
Mr. S H U M A CNot ~ Rany
. r e m x in the world, because Perl spoke
much better German than Steiner. Steiner was conscientious, but
the fact is that he was brought there as a translator. But he wanted
to do a bigger job, to work as an interrogator or interpreter. But
his translations actually were unsatisfactory, because his command
of both German and English was inadequate, we felt. And he was
sent back to Wiesbaclen.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did Steiner carry out any interrogations by him-
self?
Mr. SHUMACKER. Not that I know of.
Mr. CHABIBERS. DO
you feel that he had occasion to observe closely
the work of Perl or any of the other interrogaters?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I do not see why he would have ever worked with
Perl or Thon. Perhaps if Mirschbanm might have been trying to do
an interrogation he might have served as an interpreter, a substitute
interpreter, for Ellomitz.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did he ever work for you?
Mr. SHUMACKEE. I think I tried to use him as an interpreter on one
or two occasions, and he tried, but he just could not translate literally,
the question as I phrased it, in the exact words.
After a few months of hearing pretty much the same questions all
the time, although I still did not know German, I could tell that it was
not a literal translation, and I could tell from the answers it was not
a literal translation.
So he did work with me enough for me to make that observation.
Mr. CI-IA~BERS. Did you hear Steiner express himself on the subject
of Germans generally, and whether or not he disliked them or hated
them, and would like to push some of these prisoners around 1
Mr. SHUMACKER. He never made that statement to me.
Mr. CHAXBERS. Did you know that his mother had been killed by
the Germans?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I may have known i t a t that time, but the men-
tion of it does not bring back any recollection of it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO you recall the circumstances under which
Steiner left Schwabisch Hall, why he actually was sent away?
Mr. SHUMACHER. I think because of unsatisfactory translations.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You never heard of any incident where he abused
or shouted at or had any trouble with the prisoners?
Mr. SHU~ZACHER. No, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Just

one other question: 1 notice that your name
has been mentioned in the affidavits as having taken part in some of
the mock trials?
Mr. SHUNACKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would be interested, not in going into the lurid
details or description of the mock trials again, unless Mr. Flanagan
I
MALMEDY ,MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 831
1I

-
wants to brine i t out, because I think n e know -pretty well the set-up
of the thing.
I But there are two points on which I am still a little confused-
maybe many more, but two i n particular. One is i n this business of
the bad boy and the good boy, as Per1 called them, or the defense
counsel and the prosecution, o r the prosecuting attorney as we might
1 call him. W h a t was the role that they played and how f a r did the
defense counsel go in convincing the accused that he was, i n fact,
I
his def ease counsel and was there to take care of his case ?
Mr. SIXU~IACKER. I cannot repeat actually what was said, because
1 do not know what was being said myself, those that I sat i n on, be-
cauce i t was a11 German, and all Greeli to me. B u t I do knom that the
ciie who posed as the good boy, or as you say, the defense counsel,
did not talk to the man before he was brought into the room, that
I ever sr,m7. H e v a s brought up to the ha11 ;the stage was set with two
or three or inaybe one, or wliatever we could get, men sitting behind
the table. The man mas b ~ ~ ~ in, g the
h t hood was removed, and one
of the men sitting behind the table mould have him take a n oath, and
immediately the bad boy, or the prosecutor, if you want to call him
that, \'iodcl start maliing a big harangue, I assume telling him that
he mas accused of sl~ootmgprisoners of war a t Malmedy, or Stou-
mont, or whatever the situation was. And then the defense counsel, or
the good boy, would say nothing.
Then me monlcl bring in a witness x-110 had implicatecl this man,
who was in the room, and he would tell his story. Then if we had
another story, n-e would bring hiin in. I f me had no other witness,
we might bring in a fake witness. Then the good boy, who was be-
friending him, vould start talking German, not to the man that was
going to be questioned, but arguing with the bad boy, the prosecutor,
and arguing to the men sitting behind the table, and taking ups taking
the part of the man who had been brought in.
What he said, H do not know. Maybe 1could have gotten just the
gist of it. B u t the point I a m making is that I never Beard any re-
marks directed by the good boy to the nlan that he was supposedly
befriending.
Mr. CHAMBERS.011 the other hand, there is no question but that
they were trying to build the good boy u p in the estimate of the
accused ?
Mr. S ~ x u m c n e n .T h a t is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SOthat later on he could probably get some coa-
f essions from him ?
Mr. SEIUMACIIER. T h a t is right.
Mr. CIIAMI~ERS. HOW
many mock trials did you take part i n ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I W O L I ~guess

~ maybe two.
Mr. FL~NAGAN. May 1ask a question ?

Mr. CHAMBERS. I would appreciate i t if you mould while I am look-
in . for something here.
%r. FLANAGAN. I n view of the circomstances t h a t the judges were
sitting back of the table, and you hat1 a crucifix there, nllc? you llad
brought witnesses in, and you had one lnaa who was maybe the prosecu-
tor ancl the other the defense lawyer, clo yon think that in ally of these
cases i t is possible that this whole procedure mlght have left the im-
pression with any of these particularly young and uneducated soldiers

that they were being brought before a judicial tribunal 2
Mr. SHUMACEER. It might be. Not so much because of the set-up,
because i t was actually very pitiful. You just didn't have the facilities
to work with. But: because-I am inforined, and I believe-people
in Nazi Germany were accustomed to suminary hearings if any hear-
ings a t all.
Because of that niental idea, because of that coilception t h a t they
might have, they could have so concluded that this was a bona fide
hearing.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Bailey testified that he attended one mock trial,
at which I believe he said that vou took uart. T h a t was the mock trial
i n connection with the case of %heinan by the nawe of Neve.
Do you recall that mock trial, by any cliai~ce?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I think that I do. I think that I testiSed before
that Neve was the last of those three nien to give us the story, and I
think we did use it on Neve.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n his description of that mock trial there are a
couple of matters I ~ o u l dlike to ask you about. One is that he
said, and I will quote from his statement :
Mr. BAILEY.On this particular occasion, we n-allred in the cell, and when I
saw that I said to Captain Shumaclrer, I said, "What the hell is this?" I thought
i t was something out of the ordinary coming off, and he sald, "That's 0.K.;
wait a minute." So, in a matter of a couple of niinutes, one of the MP's brings
the prisoner in n i t 3 his regular dress, black hood, cloak, and a rope.
Senator BATDWIN.But what I meant w a s : You said he had a black hood on
a n d a black wrapper you called it.
Mr. BAILEY.I t was not b l a c l ~ This wrapper was mostly all colors. I t mas
white and red and green and everything else. If you have seen a camouflaged
battleship in the First World War, t h a t is what this wrapper mas like.
Senator ~ L D ~ I And S . you say i t was sleeveless?
Mr. BAILEY.Yes, sleeveless.
Senator B A L ~ W I NThen,
.
you spoke of the hood the prlsoner had on, a black
hood.
Mr. BAILEY.A black hood with no eyeholes in it a t all. That was the r c ~ u l a r
. garb t h a t they brought every prisoner in the cell with.
Senator B A L D ~ I XThen,
. you mentioned a rope
around the neck. Tell u s
about the rope. What kind of a rope was i t ?
Mr. B A I L ~ YI. would say a rope twice a s thick a s the ordinary clothesline, prob-
ably three-quarters of xn inch in rliameter. It was not tied tight. It was not
put around to choke him, or anything like that.
Senator BALDWIK.Well, would you say t h a t i t was like a I?angman's rope
or would you say---
Mr. BAILEY.Exactly.
Senator BAI.D~IK(continuing) : O r would yon say it was a rope to tie t h e
hood down so t h a t it could not be pulled off the head?
Senator BALDWIN(continuing). Or would yo11 say it was a rope to tie the
prisoner; and outside nf mental brutality, there was no physical brutality at-
tached to it.
Mr. BAILEY.I thinlr the whole garb mas to have a psychological effect on t h e
prisoner; and outside of mental brutality, there mas no physical brutality
attached to it.
Senator B A L D ~ IHow ~ . long would the rope be? Would it hang down-
Mr. BAILEY.Oh. the M. P. who would bring him i n would have hold of t h e
other end, probably 3 feet in back of him. That would be around his neck.
The M. P. would have to steer him in, he could not see where he was going.
H o w about this rope proposition?
Mr. SI-IUMACHER.
There wasn't any.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then you are saying that Mr. Bailey is drawing
on his imagination ?
Mr. SHUMACXER. H e is certainly drawing on his imagination.
There was no rope, there was no varicolored cloak; there was a hood
on Neve, as on everyone else when brought up here.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YYourmenlory is pretty clear on this particular
~nstance?
Mr. SHUMACKER. I am not talking just about Neve; I am talking-
I don't remember the detail of the Neve Schnell procedure, no ; but he
said that I was there, and I know that I never saw a rope on Neve or
anybody else. I never saw a varicolored cloak on Neve or anybody
else.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The only other question that I wouId like to ask
about is where Neve fell down and got himself a bloody nose there.
Mr. SHUMACKER. NO. But Neve was afraid, and he told me, I
think on that occasion, that he was sick-no, he told me that he had
heart trouble. Neve told me that he had had heart trouble, and I
clon7tremember-I believe Captain Karan was the medical officer on
,duty at that time, I believe that was before Dr. Richter came.
I had told the doctor-a captain or maybe major-to look at him,
to check him.
Mr. FLANAGAN. I have no further questions.
Senator BALDWIN.I n these various reviews, Lieutenant, have you
3ver appeared and testified in any of this investighon of this case
before this time?
Mr. SHUMACKER. NO, sir. Only I furnished that affidavit that I
made.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUfurnished the affidavit, but you have never
ap eared and testified?
Rrr. S H ~ ~ I A C K E
NOR . sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I did 11-ant to ask you: You had a chance to see
a lot of these prisoners and you helped work them all u p for trial. I
believe you testified that you screened approximately 500, to where
there were only 73 accused for trial.
Some 2 or 3 years later, now, you have had a chance to hear a lot of
stories. Do you still believe these people are guilty of the crimes of
which they were charged?
Mr. SHUMACKER. Absolutely, I do. I might have some reservation
about this, as I say, if those facts are true that were read to me from
that-
Senator BALDWIN.YOUmean about Pletz ?
Mr. SHUMACKER. Yes. I think any man, if he is given such evidence
that seems conclusive, might change his mind about any question.
Senator BALDWIN.His sentence was reduced to 15 years, as I recall
it. You were there all the time that these Malmedy prisoners, these
SS troopers, were there, from the time they were first brought there
t o the time they were taken to Dachau?
Mr. SHURXACHER. Except for the 1 week, sir, that I spoke of, and
occasional Saturdays.
Senator BALDWIN.During part of that time you were in command
.of the investigation?
Senator BALDWIN.What period did that cover?
834 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOI';
Mr. SHUMACKER. I think it was a period of-well, to be safe, I

would say 2 to 4 weeks, sir, that I was in command, you inean? O r
the entire period?
Senator BALDWIK.That you were in command.
Mr. S H U ~ A C K ETwo
R . to four weeks.
Senator BAEDWIN.And that was at the end of i t ?
Mr. S~unl-ACKER. 1think

Colonel Ellis was down there for perhaps
a month before we moved to Dachau, is my recollection.
Senator BALDWIN.The period you were in command was after Fan-
ton left?
Senator BALDWIN.And before Colonel Ellis came?
Mr. SHUMACJKER.
Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUhad occasion to see these men after they went
to Dachau, and during the trial, and you have already testified that
you are convinced they were guilty. Did any of thesa men seem to
have any remorse or feel that possible they had done wrong, or still
feel they were fighting for the fatherland?
Mr. S ~ u a m c n I~ remember
~. one, I believe I may be wrong, but I
believe his name was Gebauer, after we had his confession, and that
might have been a day or two after he had actually verbally made it,
but after he had actually signed his confession, he started crying in
my presence, and told me that he realized what a horrible thing he
had done, and he did not want to live with himself, and he did not
understand why we just did not take him out in the courtyard and
shoot him and get it over with.
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOW about the rest of them?
R . is the only one that I remember, specifically
Mr. S H U M A C ~That
making any comment about it.
Senator BALDWIN.What was his name?
Mr. SHUMAGEER. I believe i t was Gebauer.
.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO
you recall his sentence?
Senator BALDWIN. H e got life, commuted to 10 years, and i t was
disapproved. H e was apparently released.
Mr. SHUMACKER. H e did all right.
Senator BALDWIN.Lieutenant, thank you very much for coming.
Colonel ELLIS. May I make a brief statement for the record?
Colonel ELLIS. I n connection with the making of recommendations
for commutation of sentences, I would like to have the record show that
a t the time that was made, Mr. Denson was working on the review of
this case, he was a former lieutenant whom I had known for well over
a year. One evening, I believe it was, when our headquarters was
in Augsburg, I spoke to him about what he was doing with the young-
sters in the case.
That participated into some discussion. I expressed to him my
opinion as to how these youngsters could do that, similar to what I
had said here this afternoon. H e said to me "If you feel thgt way,
why do you not put in a recommendation?" I said "O.K., I will."
And this was prepared, very informally, on a check-slip, or an inter-
office cornmunlcation.
I knew it was going to him, it was not going to go to anybody else,
over to the commanding officer, who was Colonel Straight, and then
to Denson. I f I had been of the opinion that it was going to Frank-
furt or something like that, I would certainly have prepared it in a
- way, but I just want the record to -show how it was prepared
different
.
and why.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. Did Colonel Rosenfeld oin you in that 2
Colonel ELLIS. He certainly did. I went back, after talking with
Denson, and told Colonel Rosenfeld, who was chief of the trial branch
a t that time, that.1 had talked to Denson, and what my sentiments
were. We said "Whatever you prepare I want to join with you," and
we both signed the recommendation.
Senator BALDWIN.The meeting is adjourned until 10 o'clock tomor-
row morning.
(Thereupon, a t 5 :45 p. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene
Friday, May 20,1949, a t 10 a. m.)
MALMEDY* MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
FRIDAY, M A Y 20, 1949
UNITEDSTATESSENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE COMMITTEE
ON ARMEDSERVICES,
Washington, D. 6.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, a t 10 a. m., i n
presiding.
Present: Senator Baldwin and McCarthv.
Also :J. M. Chambers, of the combittee staff.
Senator BALDWIN.The hearing will come to order.
Senator McCarthy has a statement to read and I mill give him the
opportunity to read it first, if he mould like.
Senator MCCARTHY. I have before me both a statement to the
Chair and a press release, which I am issuing simultaneously. I would
ljke to read both of them into the record. They have been submitted
to the Chair only about 15 or 20 minutes ago, so I assume he has
knowledge of the general content of these statements.
First is a statement to the chairman.
Mr. Chairman, some time ago our Special Investigation Committee
became interested in the charges of the Van Roden-Simpson Commit-
tee and the Army investigating group to the effect that American
Army officers in charge of war crimes trials mere, in effect, tearing a
page from the books of Hitler and Stalin in order to get confessions
in the greatest possible number of cases, regardless of the guilt or
innocence of the defendants.
These charges, made by two competent judges whom the Secretary
of the Army sent to Europe to make an investigation and confirmed
by an Army board, lead us to believe that the matter should be in-
vestigated thoroughly and completely by a fair and impartial
committee.
The decision of our S,pecial Investigating Committee was unani-
mous that we should conduct this investigation. Upon contactipg
the Armed Services Committee we learned that no thought to such
an investigation had been given up to that time.
Onr subcomn~ittee,headed by Senator Hoey, felt however, that this
was a matter oE such vast importance that the Judiciary Committee
and the Armed Services Committee should be formally consulted
before the investigation commenced. The chairman of the Armed
Services Committee strenuously objected to our committee's investiga-
tion and almost immediately appointed Senator Baldwin of the Armed
Services Committee to head a subcommittee to make this investiga-
tion. Our committee was invited to send one of its members down
to participate in the Armed Services Committee's hearing. I under-
838 MALMEDY MASS.4CRE INVESTIGATION
stand the Judiciary Committee was invited. I11 accordance with that
invitation, I have been taking part in the Armed Services Committee's
investigation.
During the hearing to date some unusual tl?ings have developed.
F o r example, the chief prosecutor, i n explainmg his conception of
his duties a t the time of the trial, stated that after obtaining a con-
fession, if his own investigators found evidence that a confession
uas untlwe and that the crime actually was ne:rer committed, they,
nevertheless, had no duty to so inform the court and that he could
proceed to attempt to convict a man upon a confession xhich he had
reason to believe untrue.
I understand, inciclentally, that the chief prosecutor has received the
Legion of Merit for his prostitution and perve~sionof j u h c e b e f o ~ e
the world.
When this attitude is coupled with the orders issued by Major Fm-
ton, who was i n charge of the interrogation team, a situation creating
the possibility of tren~endous$justice is present. The order to whicl~
1 refer is paragraph B of Major Failton's SOP No. 4, in which he in-
structs interrogzztors that they could promise mar criminals itnmmlily
if they would sign statements sufficiently helpful in convicting their
fellow criminals. This, of course, was a direct bid to thoce who
wished to lie sufficiently so as to obtain their own freedom and incli-
cations are that the worst of the lot obtained their freedom in this
manner.
T h e important fact t o be decided by this committee v a s whether
or not the methods used by the interrogators were such as to force
an innocent man to sign a confession the same as a guilty man i n
order to escape torture. I t is, of course, an unquestioned fact that
a n innocent man will scream just as londly as a guilty man when
being tortured, and, likewise, an innocent man will sign a confession
just as quickly as a guilty man when being tortured.
I t developed during: the hearing that the Army hired refugees from
Hitlerian-Germany to obtain confessions from the accused. T h a t
these refugees had every reason t o thoroughly dislilre members of
the German troops is obviocs. Three of these refugees, plus a %.
Thon, were charged with brutalities greater than any me have ever
accused either the Russians or Hitler Germany of employing. It is
of tremendous importance that the truth or falsity of these charges
be established.
When the first of these interrogators, Mr. Perl. was on the stand
and was caught in contradictory statements, he excused himself by
stating that,, "Truth has many faces. Each one of which is a lie, but
when taken together, these lies constitute the truth." I n my opinion,
i t w2s obviously impossible t o get the t r u t h from this man except
by the use of a Keeler lie detector. I asked him whether he moulcl
submit to such a lie detector test. H e objected to the idea, but
reluctantly a g ~ e e d . Thereupon the chairman of the subcommittee,
Mr. Baldwin, n m e d i a t e l y objected to this one certain may of getting
the truth. H i s actions a t that time and the subsecpent actions of
the subcommitte i n refusing to allow this'witness, or the other two
witnesses, to submit to a lie-detector test indicates only one thing
to me; namely, that this subcomnzittee not only bas no desire to obtain
the truth but is conducting a deliberate attempt to avoid the facts
and effect a whitewash of the Army officers involved.
I feel that the investigation has degenerated to such a shamefuI
farce that I can no longer take part therein a i d I am today requesting
Ihe espenditures subcoininittee chairlnai~to relieve me of the dnty to
continue, I feel that if the Senate alld the people of America conclone
this refusal on the part of a Senate coininittee to get the facts of a
case as all-iinportant as this, then we can never honestly coizdemn Rus-
sia or any other nation of employing the tactics which the Von Roden-
S i i n ~ s o ncoininittee a d the Coloi~elRayinold coininittee and dis-
interested witnesses inclicafe that Army officers and employees used
ill atiemptlng to improve their score of coilvictioils in our occupied
areas.
I n my opinion illere is a single and effective way in which this com-
mittee can obtain the truth and. redeein itself; namely, have the thl.ee
inen a c c ~ m dof the principal brutalities submit t o a lie-detector test.
I believe that if the coiiiinittee fails to follow this course of action, tnr,
people of America will have no choice but to believe that the conimit-
tee is afraid of the facts.
Mr. Chairman, I have before me a press release, which contains suL-
stniltially the same inforiliation, but I mould like to read it into the
record also. This is a press release from the ofiice of Senator Joe
McCartlly (Eepublicm, IVisconsii~). Release date, Friday, May'20,
3949, 10 a. in. :
I wish to announce that I will no longer take part in the hearing of the Armed
Services Coinmittee investigating the War Crimes Trials. I arrive a t this deci-
sion with great reluctance, but I can no longer cbnscientiously participate.
I was designated by the Senate Investigations Subcommittee to participate
with the subcommittee of the Armed Serrices Committee in this inquiry. Since
April 16, 1949, I have s a t with this committee, listened to, and cross-examined
witnesses. I am convinced of several things. The subcommittee is not sincere
in its investigation ; it is not conscientious i n pursuing the facts.
As a practicing lawyer and a judge on the circuit bench in Wisconsin, I know
and respect the American system of justice. I believe the world expected a
demonstration of American justice to be applied to even our defeated enemies.
Instead, Gestapo and OGPU tactics were used.
I have listened to testiniony and seen documentary evidence to the effect that
accused persons were subject to beatings and physical violence in snch forms a s
only could be devised by warped minds. They were subjected to sham trials,
to mock hangings; and families were deprived of rations-all of which the
prosecution justified a s being necessary to create the right psychological at-
mosphere in which to obtain confessions. I am firmly convinced that innocent
as well a s guilty persons thus put in the right psychological atmosphere will
confess to or make statements supporting anything.
I want no murdering Nazis freed.
I do want the innocent protected from the abuse of Hitlerian tactics, Fascist
interrogation, and the communistic brand of justice.
Consistently the evidence pointed to four interrogators. One in the course
Of his appearance before the subcommittee agreed to take a lie detector test a s
to whether or not brutalities were used i n securing of confessions or state-
ments. The cliainnan of the s~tbcorumitteeobjected to the use of the lie detec-
tor test. The subcommittee chairman submitted the question to the Armed
Services Committee ; but they also objected to the secnring of the facts a s would
he dereloped by the lie detector test.
I accuse the subcommittee of being afraid of the facts. I accuse it of attempt-
ing to whitewash a shameful episode in the history of our glorious armed forces.
I accuse it of compounding a wrong, perpetrated by a few members, and impugn-
ing the f a i r name of the millions of men and women who served with valor
and distinction in the armed.services. I accuse it of sabotaging our efforts nnder
the European Recovery Act, setting a t naught t h a t which we spent and a r e
sPend:ng billions to prove.
If this is aljowed to stand, if the whitewash succeeds. the United Stat?s can
neCer protest the use of these methods by totalitarian countries. If the United
840 ~MALMEDYMASSACRE INVESTIGATION
States condones those actions by a few men, all the world can criticize and
forever after question our motives.
I want to thank the Chair for the opportunity I have had to sit
with this committee this morning, and I thank him for the invitation
extended to our committee. and I want to thank him for the personal
consideration he has shown me during the hearings.
Senator HALDWIN.The chairman regrets that the junior Senator
from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, has lost his temper and with it, the
sound impartial judgment which should be exercised in this matter.
Before Lieutenant Per1 was halfway through his interrogation, the
junior Senator from Wisconsin charged him wit11 lying and suggested
that a lie detector be employed. A t that time the Chai? stated that
the suggestion, which came as a complete surprise, was a marked
departure from any procedure that had heretofore been used in con-
gressional committee hearings and investigations. I discussed it with
the members of the subcommittee, and likewise with the members
of the Committee on Armed Services. The subcommittee, and the
Armed Service Committee, were opposed to any such procedure for
reasons I shall list. The junior Senator from Wisconsin refused to
abide by the decision of the subcommittee and the Armed Services
Committee as well. The chairman does not propose to have any
exasperations on the part of the junior Senator from Wisconsin affekt
his ludgment in this matter.
More than 100 unarmed surrendered American soldiers were bru-
tally shot clown in cold blood by German S S troopers. To this day,
not one has been executed for this crime. They ha~7ebeen tried and
convicted. There have already been several reviews by the Army.
We are at the present time engaged in a full and comprehensive
investigation of the methods used in ( a ) developing the Malmedy cases
for trial; ( 6 ) the manner in which the trial itself was conducted;
( G ) the manner in which the various reviews and investigations of
this subject have been conducted by the Army.
The subcommittee is nowhere near ending its search for the truth in
this matter. Pending the completion of the taking of evidence and the
studies in this matter, the Chair and the subcommittee have scrupu-
lously avoided forming opinions concerning the ultimate conclusions
to be drawn from the investigation, and certainly have avoided judging
the merits of the various charges that have been made.
The junior Senator from Wisconsin has apparently proceeded from
the assumstion that the charges made concerning the items under study
by this subcommittee have all been proven, and that the Department
of the Army and the members of the American prosecution staff are
guilty of the conduct charged t o them. Those so charged have had
until this time no opportunity to refute the charges or describe their
actions. Oddly enough, the junior Senator from Wisconsin has been
quick to accept and espouse the affidavits made by convicted German
war criminals some 2 years after the completion of their trials. While
he has repeatedly argued various aspects of procedure in American
courts, he has apparently overlooked the fact that affidavits of this type
have little or no value in an American court. H e has in the meantime
on numerous occasions stated that he believed American officers testi-
fying under oath were not telling the truth. As late as yesterday he
made such a statement concerni~igColonel Ellis though no proof was
offered.
One of the most provocative sets of charges made against the mem-
bers of the prosecution staff were contained in an article appearing in
the magazine The Progressive under the byline of Judge Edward L.
Van Roden. And I might say here that Judge Van Roden is the same
Judge Van Roden who is mentioned in the statement of Senator
McCarthy.
This article with its charges was inserted in the Congressional Rec-
ord. The junior Senator from Wisconsin has accepted these exag-
gerated statements of brutalities and mistreatment and has quoted
from them a t frequent intervals. The last instance of such reference
was in a letter addressed to various members of the Senate Armed
Services Committee dated May 16,1949, in which he states as follows :
"The Van Roden-Simpson Committee, especially Judge Van Roden,
brought back a story, which has received wide publicity, to the effect
that the American interrogation teams did torture the defendants by
means of mock trials, depriving families of tlie accused of ration cards,
solitary confinements, beatings, et cetera, in order that confessions dic-
tated by certain members of the interrogation team would be signed."
And may I insert here in this statement that, as I recall the testi-
mony-and I do not pretend to judge it now-there was a marked dif-
ference in the testinlony of Judge Simpson and Judge Van Roden with
reference to these matters. I n other words, as I recall it, Judge Simp-
son did not subscribe to the things, all of the things that Judge Van
Roden had said in his statement.
Judge Van Roden appeared before this subcommittee some 10 days
ago at which time he categorically denied having written the article
which has been the basis of so much discussion. H e denied in detail
certain of the more brutal parts of it. Judge Van Roden on the stand
stated that a representative of the National Council for the Prevention
of War had written this article and, through a misunderstanding on
Judge Van Roden's part, a byline attributed the article to him. S o
here we have a representative of the National Council for the Preven-
tion of War writing an article and then in a press release from that
organization, pointing up this article as a voluntary one by Judge Van
Roden and publicizing it throughout its circulation.
I n spite of the repeated charges made by the junior Senator from
Wisconsin, the Chair has tried assiduously to avoid either partiality
or lack of desire to obtain the full facts in this case. Such an action
would not be consistent with the instructions of the full committee, or
the avowed and oft-repeated desire of this committee to find all of the
facts in this case.
A t this point the Chair would like to read from a letter addressed
to the chairman from the junior Senator fro,m Wisconsin concerning
the conduct of the hearings, letter dated April 21,1949.
Senator MCCARTHY. That was 3 days after the hearings com-
mencecl.
Senator BALDMTIN. Three days after the hearing was commenced
and after charges similar to those made here were made. The letter
reads :
APRIL21, 1949.
Hon. RAYMOND E. BALDWIN,
United States Senate, Waskingtom, D. C.
DEARSENATOR RALDWIN : After yesterday's hearing on the Nalmedy cases, I
read some accounts of statements I made which would appear t o do you a great
injustice. None of the accounts I read misquoted me, but I fear that statements
I made with regard to the attitude of the Armed Services Committee in this
case may have very easily been misinterpreted to mean t h a t I was critical of your
personal handling of this matter.
As yon know, our Expenditures Investigating Committee became concerned
with reports of the Vaq Roden-Simpson Committee and the Army Committee,
regarcling the methods used by the American Army Staff i n obtaining confessions,
convictions, e t cetera, in the war crimes cases. When the i\rmecl Services Com-
mittee suddenly appointed your subconlnlittee to investigate this matter after
our special investiga~ingcommittee of the Expenditures Committee had an-
nounced i t s intention of conducting this investigation, I frankly was very
much disturbed by what I thought was a n attempt to head off a complete investi-
gation by our committee and provide a whitewash of the Army's proseculion staff.
However, I am convincecl that a t least since you have taken over, this situa-
tion does not exist ancl the efforts of the committee will be directed toward as-
sembling and clearly presenting all of the facts. I want you to know t h a t I have
no criticism whatsoever of your handling of this investigation. I think you have
been eminently f a i r arid certainly ha\ e accorded every opportunity to the Expendi-
tures Commitlee and the Jndlciary Committee to participate in this investiga-
tion.
I might add that I think this is one of t h e most important investigations which
the Senate has conducted for some years: I think it is doubly important in
view of t h e billions of dollars we a r e spending in Europe to create good will
toward this Nation and t h e amount of money and effort we a r e expending
t o sell to the peoples of the world democracy and American concepts of justice.
Sincerely yours,
JOEMCCARTHY.
It is the understanding of the chairman of this subcommittee that
the junior Senator from IVisconsin wished to conduct hearings on this
matter himself i n a subcommittee of the Committee on Expenditures
i n the Executive Departments. Since the junior Senator from Wis-
consin has on many occasions i n the record statecl that he believed cer-
tain American officers were lying and that the Malmecly trials were
unfair, the chairman of this subcommittee wonders how impartial
would have been the condnct of these hearings had they been conducted
under the chairmanship of the junior Senator from Wisconsin.
The apparent vehic!e, the junior Senator from 7iVisconsin has found,
t o occasion his ~ i t h d r a w a lfrom these hearings, is the question of
whether or not these witnesses should be subjected to a lie detector test.
T h e chairman of this subcommittee would like to state that the first
witness, Lieutenant Perl, who was asked to submit to such a test, indi-
cated hls willingness. H e would further like to state that this is a
most unusual procedure in the Congress of the United States and has
not yet been followed to the knowledge of the chairman on any occa-
sion. While the chairman of this subcommittee is not aware of the
reliability with which this method is regarcled, he is of the opinion
that the American officers ancl personnel, particularly Lt. William R.
I'erl, H a r r y Thon, and Joseph Kirschbauin are to be subjected to it:
certainly i t would only be proper to also subject the 74 German accused
mho signed affidavits a t variance with their original testimony after
they had been sentenced.
I think I should say for the benefit of the record the fact which I
almost overlooked, although i t already appears in testimony here, that
only a very few of these German accused took the stand in the Dachau
trials in their own defense, and that one of their defense counsel has
stated i n the record here in his testimony that the reason the defense
counsel did not put the rest of them on was that the moment they got
on the stand they began telling stories which would incriminate one
another, and that the defense counsel, a t least some of them, expressed
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 843:
the doubt that they were then telling the truth ancl decided that the
best thing to clo was not to continue putting them on the stand.
That fact was borne out by the testimony of Lieutenant ShumacBer
yesterday, as I recall it. B u t still we will have t o pass upon that, and
I can make no final cletermination with reference to it as chairman of
this subcommittee, nor am I prepared now to mnke any recommencla-
tion about it.
T o submit one side without the other wonlcl v o r k a great injustice.
To subject every witness to take tests mould be, as a physical matter,
an impossibility. Because of that, the chairman feels that the junior
Senator from Wisconsin can either withdraw or not from these par-
ticular hearinw as he sees fit.
The junior #enator from Wisconsin proposes to use this lie detector
upon three witaesses-Liev.tei~ai~t Perl, Thon, and Kirschbxum. The
use of this devise by a ~ong~essioilal committee might have the eilcct
of putting a Federal stamp of approval upon a inethocl ancl device
which, a t best, is only in its infancy and which is not used generally
in judicial or quasijudicial proceclure throughout the United States.
Such a precedent might well malie a travesty out of congressional in-
vestigations which are, after all, not trials in ~ h i c ha person or per-
sons are charged with a crime but are a search for inforn~ationand
facts upon wl11ch recon~menclationsor legislation is b~secl. The coin-
illittee is capable of weighing the testimony and ascertaining the facts
without the help of any such devices. The committee does not intend
to be swayed by any emotional threats or charges.
No~i~ithstanding the decision of the junior Senator from Wisconsin
to withdraw froin these hearings to which he was invited by this sub-
committee, I will ask the chairman of the Committee on Expenditures
if that committee would care to designate another representative to
sit in on these hearings.
I want to say here, i n acldition to the prepared statement, that the
chairman feels-and I am sure the other two members of the subcom-
mittee feel-that we would be very glad to have a representative of
the Committee on Expenditures i n the Executive Departments, or
the Judiciary Committee, if i t so desires to send a representative.
I can assure the junior Senator from TViscoizsin, and the public,
that the hearings mill be continued in a thorough and complete man-
ner and with a: maximum effort t o determine t h e t r ~ ~ t hBased
. on the
findings of this snbcommittee appropriate recommendations will be
~ ~ a for
d esuch action as the facts warrant.
The chairman and, I think, the other two members of the subcom-
mittee and the Armed Services Committee as well consider this in-
vestigation of great importance because i t seems to me that we are
dealing here with a new, and completely new, phase of international
lam and procedure, and i t is the hope of the chairman of this com-
mittee that out of these hearings may come some recommendations
for future conduct of such matters that will be helpful i n this whole
field of international law.
While the junior Senator from Wisconsin has apparently accepted
the ~msnpportedaffidavits of German SS troopers, some of whom un-
questionably were guilty of the cold-blooded inurcler of numerous
American prisoners of war and helpless civilians, as against the sworn
testimony of American officers and military personnel, v e will en-
91765-40-54
deavor through every reasonable means possible to determine the

truth and then judge the case on the facts as presented.
Senator MCCARTHY. I thank the chairman. I might say ;Ithink the
chairman is inherently so fair and honest that the day is going to
come when he is going to bitterly regret this deliberate and very
clever attempt to whitewash. I think it is a shameful farce, Mr.
Chairman, and inexcusable. Good-by, sir.
(Senator McCarthy leaves room.)
.Senator BALDWIN. Who is the first witness ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Dr. Karan.
Senator BALDWIN.Dr. Karan, raise your right hand. Do you
solemnly swear the testimony you will give in this proceeding will be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truht, so help you
God ?
Dr. KARAN.I do.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MAX KARAN, BROOKLYN, N. Y.
Senator BALDWIN. Give us your full name and address, Doctor.
Dr. KARAN.Max Karan, 1873 Ocean Parlc.way, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Dr. Karan, wi1l you please tell us your present
profession and where you are practicing.
Dr. KARAN.I am a licensed physician in the State of New York
and have been in practice since 1928.
Mr. CHAMBERS. TVill yon please give us some of your qualifications
as a physician, including your educational background.
Dr. KARAN.I graduated from Indiana University in 1927, and I
interned at St. Mary's Hospital in Orange, N. J. I have been a
licensed physician in New York since the end of 1927. I am now
connected with several hospitals in New York and Brooldyn.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During the war were you attached or assigned for
duty to Schwabisch Hall 1
Dr. KARAN.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During that time were you in charge of the medical
detachment at that point?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Can you tell me the dates when you were at
Schwabisch Hall?
Dr. KARAN.I was assigned December 20, 1945, and I was relieved
from that assignment on January 20, 1946.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During that time were you responsible for the
medical care and dental care of the Malmedy prisoners who were im-
prisoned at Schwabisch Hall?
Dr. KARAN.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Can you tell us very briefly of your organizational
set-up and how those particular prisoners were handled?
Dr. KARAN.Well, we had a dispensary set up with some medical
aide men, of whom I was in charge, and the set-up was that the names
of those who were sick would come down through the commander of
the prison and they would be handed do,wn either to me or to one of
the aide men, medical aide men, in the hospital, and then I would go
through with him and visit the prisoners, the internees, in their cells
and whatever medical attention they would need I would prescribe
for them. I f it was hospitalization that was necessary, I would send
them to the hospital.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Now, Doctor, during this time were the Malmedy
prisoners as distinct from the political internees a t Schwabisch Hall
given any other medical treatment than that given by yourself?
Dr. I~ARAN. NO. When I was there, I was responsible for the treat-
ment of the Malmedy internees.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was there any other medical care that was brought
in or did the Geims~ndoctors and medical staff who were interned, in
fact, at Schwabisch Hall treat the Malmecly prisoners?
Dr. KARAN.Not the Mdmedy prisoners; only the others.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SO it would be fair to state that during the period
of time you were there all matters requiring medical attention were
your responsibility up until the time you were relieved ?
Dr. KARAN.That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then during this time, Doctor, did you have cases
of Malmedy prisoners requiring medical care for injuries that might
be attributed to beatings or brutalities of any kind?
Dr. KARAN. No.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did YOU ever have any case of Malmedy prisoners
who received injuries to the law either in the form of broken jams or
ruptured jaws?
Dr. KARAN.NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever have occasion to send people to the
hospital for injuries?
Dr. M ~ R A NYes;
. for injuries they sustained in the German Army.
I n other words, old war wounds, but not recent injuries.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you know of any cases where the genitals of
Malmecly prisoners were damaged in any manner whatsoever and
required medical treatment ?
Dr. &RAN. None.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOWDoctor, do you speak German?
Dr. KARAN.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n
visiting and treating these patients in their
various cells, did anybody ever complain to you of mistreatment
or mishandling by the guards or by the interrogators or by any-
one ?
Dr. KARAN.NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. No complaint was ever made to yo11 ?
Dr. KARAN.NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO
you believe, Doctor, that because of your con-
tact with the prisoners that you would have observed any cases that
might not have been reported to you?
Dr. KARAN.The way the set-up was I think all the cases that re-
quired medical treatment were reported, because it came through the
prison commander and the guards were watching. They brought
the names down to me, and most of the time the team didn't even
know which cases, which names came down to me.
I n other words, when I had to send a patient to a hospital, and
although I was with the team, we ate together in the same place, t o
tell them ancl ask them if it was all right to transfer them to t h e
hospital. It just wasn't really a request because Major Fanton never
refused me medical attention, but I just told him that patients re-
quired hospitalization and I will have to transfer them.
Mr. CHAMBERS. F r o m your experience there do you believe i t would

have been possible for prisoners to have been beaten or perhaps have
suffered injury and placed i n solitary confinement or in cells and t h e
matter not reported to you ?
Dr. &RAN. They could have placed them i n solitary coilfinenlent;
a lot of them were; but not to be beaten because 1mould find out. I
found out most of the things.
Mr. CEIAMBISI:~. I wonder if you would care-you say you found out
most of tlie things that mere going on-would yon care to comment,
Doctor, on the way that the prisoners were treated?
NOW,before you answer the question, I might say that we have had
many charges, some of them by persons who mere attached as typists
or court reporters to the interrogation staff, that n-odd indicate that
prisoners in some cases were deprived of rations-in other morcls, put
on bread and waterLfor rather extended periods; me have many xffi-
davits f o r tlie prisoners themselves that indicate they were deprived
of rations; that they did not get adequate drinking water; that they
suffered greatly from the cold because they did not have adequate
blankets, and that i n many ways their physical being mas drastically
aff ected by their treatment.
I wonder if out of your long months of experience there yo~rcould
tell us pretty generally how you evaluated the treatment given the
prisoners.
Dr. KARAN.I n a general way the sanitary condition was good. The
medical treatment was definite!y adequate, and the rations were al-
ways adequate and ample, except there was only one time during the
stay that I was there when they were put on bread and water for, I
think, only about two meals, and that mas because, I believe, they were
passing signals or passing messages, secret codes through the mess
gear; and I sort of took a l-land in i t and said I was going to report
i t and that was discontinued. It was only for about two nienls >during
that month. The rest of the time rations were definitely a d e q ~ ~ a t e .
I did not treat anyone for n~alnutritionor for any deficiency. The
only treatment I had there was for old wounds and for things, minor
ailments, and whenever a patient had to be hospitalized, there was no
question. I f I thought, i n my judgment, he had to be hospitalized,
we sent him down; I took him down myself under guard to the Stutt-
g a r t General Hospital, and there he got the same treatment as other
patients in the general hospital.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay you did not treat anybody for malnutrition.
Prom your observation of prisoners, were they getting sufficient food?
Dr. KARAN.Yes; they were. Their rations were adequate. They
were getting sufficient food.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were they approximately the same rations that the
interilees and other prisoners a t Schwabisch Hall were getting?
Dr. KARAN. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOU said a minute ago in connection with this
bread-and-water incident that you decided to interfere a little bit
after a few meals, I believe you said one or two. As the surgeon o r
medical officer a t that station, i t would be your responsibility on bread-
and-water cases to keep a n eye on those prisoners ; is not that correct?
Dr. I ~ R AYes. N . T h a t is why I did it, because i t came within illy
duties.
Mr. C E I . ~ B E R Did
S . they place all tlie Malmedy prisoners on bread
aiicl water, or just certain individuals?,
Dl-. IEARAN.1believe a t that time all of them were placed for just
a b o ~two
~ t rations, and it was supposed to be continued, but i t was dis-
continued after I spoke to tlie conimandei~of tlie prison.
Mr. CHAAIBERS. Do you know on whose orders they were placed on
bread and water ?
Dr. I<.IRAN. They were placed, I think, on the order of the team.
Whether i t was Major F'anton, who was i11 charge, or Lieutenslit Per1
o r someone else, but it was the team that did that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When yon say two rations, you mean 2 days; is t h a t
correct 'l
Dr. KARAN.NO; ~ T T Onieals.
Mr. CHAMBERS. J u s t two nieals ?
Dr. I<ARAN.Two meals.
Mr. CHAMBERS.Why did you feel breacl-and-water punishment for
only two meals would be harmful, Doctor ?
Dr. KARAN.I felt that it should be reported properly. It wasn't
a case of really-if that was proper punishment, then it should be
reported to t h e p r o e r authorities.
Mr. CHANBERS. s o w did you find out about the bread-and-water
incident ?
Dr. I ~ A R A N . around the prison all day long and bcing with
Being
the men, I h e w what was going on.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did the men omp plain to you of being on bread and
water or not being fed?
Dr. KARAN.No ;they didn't complain to me.
Mr. CHANBERS.B u t i t just came to your linowledge through going
around that they were on bread and water nnd then you tallied t o
Captain Evaxs 01: Major Fanton about the matter?
Dr. KARAN.Yes; I spoke to Captain Evans. I thinlr Major Fanton
and the team left Schwabisch Hall for a clay or so and were not around
that particular day.
Mr. CHANBEXS.As f a r as you know, that was the only instance of
bread and water f o r any individual prisoner or the whole group of
prisoners while you were a t Schwabisch Hall ?
Dr. RARAN. T h a t is right.
34r. CHAMBERS.Now, Dr. Karan, we have a n affidavit here from a
Dr. Knorr. who Kas a German dentist, 1believe, who came in periocli-
cally to treat the teeth of the Malmedy prisoners. Did you know Dr.
Knorr?
Dr. ILRSN.I did not know Dr. Knorr, but I knew that for the teeth
we sent one or two prisoners to be taken care of by a German dentist.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Only one or two ?
Dr. KARAN.While I was there only one or two, and that was just
f o r teeth. I n other words, cavities or toothaches or the like of that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When these prisoners were sent to Dr. Knorr for
treatment, were they under guard and were the guards with them o r
did they have a free oportunity to talk to Dr. Knorr and make coin-
plaints to him about any brutalities that might have taken place?
Dr. KARAN.I was never with the prisoners when they went t o the
dentist, so I wouldn't h o w how they behaved themselves down there.
I was never present and I don't know exactly the set-up.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO you know whether or not they were sent down
under guard ?
Dr. KARAN. They were sent under guard wherever they went.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think i t wohld be proper to ask your opinion as
t o a couple of charges made by Dr. Knorr. I have a sworn statement
here by Dr. Knorr in which he states :
I n my capacity a s official doctor of the former prison a t Schwabisch Hall, I
came there twice a week (generally on Tuesday and Thursday) to attend also
to the dental needs of the internal people. These duties several times involved
t h e treatment of members of the Waffen-SS (all of them very young men) who
were to be heard in the Malmedy trial. Unfortunately, I cannot give any names,
as it was forbidden to ask for names or other particulars. There may have been
about 15 or 20 patients who had to be treated f o r injuries of the mouth and
jaw. Maltreatments by blows could be clearly traced with nearly all of them.
Once when I asked a young man how he was, he replied : "What can yon expect
if you a r e beaten so much almost daily, a t any rate on the occasion of every
hearing; look a t my head." And indeed, he was beaten blue all over the head,
which was bloodshot. Moreover, I can definitely remember two cases in the one
of which one tooth, and i n the other one, four teeth were knocked out of the
upper jaw quite recently. Besides, there was once presented to me a man with
a rupture of the lower jaw which I was allowed to put in a provisional splint
only because he was transferred to an American hospital a t once.
A11 the men gave a very intimidated impression and answered the questions
either not a t all or very vaguely for fear their statements might be the cause
of further maltreatments.
It is known to me that the people residing in the vicinity of the prison could
definitely hear the cries of pain of the tortured men. That is why there xvas
much agitation and indignation among the population.
That is signed by Dr. Knorr, dated June 1,1948.
Dr. Knorr, of course, was treating the prisoners there even after you
left, and some of these incidents might well have taken place after you
were transferred from Schwabiscl~Hall; but up until the time you
left, what would your comn~entbe as to Dr. Knorr's statements?
Dr. KARAN.Of course, this is over 3 years ago, but the way I remem-
ber it he did not visit these prisoners regularly a t the prison, and I
remember, not too clearly but pretty well, that we used to send to hiin
and we only had about one or two.
I n that prison there was a dispensary that was being conducted by
a German doctor and for the other prisoners, not the Malmedy inter-
nees, and he was treating those prisoners twice a week, and in a sort
of general statement he might have seen one or two prisoners here and
mixed the whole lot up and made one lot. I was supposecl to inspect
that dispensary once a week or so, but I had no charge of treatment.
I was suposed to see they had adequate medical supplies a;nd that the
prisoners were getting proper treatment, but I had nothing to do
with the treatment. It was a German civilian doctor that was treating
the other prisoners.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I WOUICI infer from Dr. Knorr's coinments about
the teeth freshly knocked out and the black and blue head, and what-
not, that they were Malmedy prisoners from the way his affidavit was
drawn. What would be your comment as to that ?
Dr. KARAN. When I was there, to my knowledge, there was nothing
of the sort. Nobody suffered from any injuries, either to the mouth or
to the rest of the body.
Mr. CHARLBERS. Where were you quartered whilegou were at Schwa-
bisch Hall ?
Dr. KARAN. It was in town with the Judge Advocate's office team,
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTTGATTON 849
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was there agitation and unrest in the town as to
the way the Malmedy prisoners or, for that matter, any prisoners were
being treated in Schwabisch Hall?
Dr. KARAN.NO; I don't think there was any more agitation than in
any other German town.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever hear any comments about maltreat-
ment of prisoners at Schwabisch Hall from the Germans or from any-
body else ?
Dr. KARAN.The Germans didn't comment on anything. They kept
to themselves mostly.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were you in a position to hear cries of pain indicat-
ing people were being mistreated ?
Dr. KARAN. When I was there, there was nothing of that sort. I
didn't hear anything.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUhad opportunity and your duties required yon
to go through the prison either visiting individual prisoners in the
cells when they needed medical treatment or making sanitary inspec-
tions and other types of inspections throughout the prison; is that
correct 2
Dr. KARBN.That is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During that time did you ever hear any people
being mistreated ?
Dr. KARAN. NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO screams, no cries?
Dr. KARAN. NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO
you know anything about a man who had a rup-
tured jaw ?
Dr. KARAN.Not when I mas there. Nobody had a ruptured jaw
that I saw in the hospital.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Going beyond the medical questions for a moment,
did you know members of the interrogation team : Perl, Thon, Kirsch-
baum, and those people ?
Dr. KARAN.I don't remember Kirschbaum. I remember Perl and
Shumncker and Fanton. I remember them very well.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did vou associate with them and eat with them and
things of that type? "
Dr. KARAN. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever hear Perl orj for that matter, anyone
else talking about the way they had handled prisoners, either from
the standpoint of tricks, psychological
- - - tricks, things
- of that kind, or
mistreatment ?
Dr. KARAN. Psychological tricks, probably, but not mistreatment..
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did vou ever hear that discussed as to whether or
not it would be a prop& thing to do in a particular case in order to
force a confession?
Dr. KARAN.They never spoke about mistreating or physical vio-
lence on the patients, that that would be proper. They inferred you
might get some place with it, but they never considered it as an imme-
diate or satisfactory thing to resort to or to use; whereas, psychological
tricks-well, they discussed that very often, and they thought that
was proper.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I t has been testified here by one witness that it was
just pretty generally known or accepted by various people that certain
of the interrogators believed that force might be the best way to get
,850 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOX
I
evidence and confessions from these prisoners and that ill particular
Thon and Per1 were known to have that belief.
I do not believe that witness said they actually did it, but he said
1
they were known to have that belief and had that reputation. Do you
have any knowledge of that particular point, Doctor ?
Dr. ELLRAN. He expressed opinions a t different times that the
Russians would get confessions from them by using their methods,
which would mean force or torture or something, and he sort of some-
times expressed the opinion that any way of getting the truth out of
them or confessions out of them was the proper may. Perl used to
make those statements every once in a while a t the meal table.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Perl used to make such statements?
Dr. KARAN.
Yes, he was about the only one that I remember.
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOWabout Thon? Did he seem to concur in that
point of view ?
Dr. KARAN.Was Thon an officer then?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Thon was one of the interrogation staff, Doctor.
Dr. KARAN.I think I remember him. They used to sort of some-
thing, some of the other men would chime in and sort of agree, but I
don't think i t was ever discussed from the point of view of doing
things like that. It was just an expression of opinion.
Mr. CHAMBERS. AS to how the Russians would go a t it?
Dr. ICARAN. That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay there was no indication that they thought it
should be done ?
Dr. KAR-4~. I don't know-sometimes in arguments-I shared the
other view, I didn't believe that was right, and sometimes we would
get in an argument and sometimes they might take the other view
in extreme statements, but I didn't really think they really felt like
doing it or wanted to do it. I t was just talk.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DOyou believe if they had done it, that you would
have known about it ?
Dr. MARAN.While I was there I am fairly sure they didn't. Not
only that, they-
Mr. C ~ r n ~ n r RIs .think I linow why you have answered the question
that way,.but may I pick you up on it for a second?
You sald that while you were there you are pretty sure that it didn't
happen. Does that mean that you, by any chance, have reason to
believe it happened after you left there ?
Dr. KARAN.I don't know. I couldn't answer that, because that is
guessing. Your guess is as good as mine.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am trying to ask you directly : Has anything hap-
pened which would lead you to believe that it did happen after you
left ?
Dr. KARAN.Well, when I read those reports, I will tell you, I didn't
believe them. So that is all I can tell you. Knowing the men and
knowing what was what, certainly there might have been a grain of
truth, but certainly not much more than a grain of truth in the whole
report about the atrocities. I don't believe lt, that is all.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Doctor, ~ v h a tis the "grain of truth" that you are
talking about ?
Dr. &RAN. They might have gone off a little and done something9
but they didn't do it in a systematic sort of way.
Mr. CHAMBERS. B u t up until the time you left there you are sure
it wasn't being done?
Dr. KARAN.T h a t is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS.I have no further questions, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.When did you first go there, Doctor ?
Dr. KARAN.December 20,1945.
Senator BALDWIN.When did you leave?
Dr. KARAN.January 20,1946.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUwere there one month ?
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,a t that time these Malmedy suspects, so-
called, were they confined i n this Schwabish Hall prison ?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.H a d the interrogations yet started?. Were they
the11 questioning them, do you remember?
Dr. KARAN.This was in the midst of it.
Senator BALDWIN. I want to say this to you, Doctor: No one has
inferred, nor do any of these affidavits, insofar as 1 have seen them-
ancl I think I have seen them pretty thoroughly-no one has inferred
that you are guilty or have you been charged with any torture o r
abuse, physical or otherwise, of any particular prisoner.
What we are anxious to get a t here, what we desire to get a t here
is the full and complete truth.
I do not mean to infer by that that you are trying to protect any-
body or anything of the kincl, but what we want is the full and com-
plete facts, and if you know of any ocC'asion where any of the inves-
tigating team or any of the guards, t o your knowledge, abused these
prisoners in any may, we woulcl like to know about it.
Dr. KARAN.I think I stated the truth here, Senator, as well as I
could. T o my knowledge, the prisoners were not abused physically.
I was never around the investigations t o watch out how it was con- ,
ducted, I don't know enough about i t to know which is the right and
wrong way of doing it, and as f a r as the psychological or psychic, I
can't pass any judgment, and I wasn't there to watch them.
I used t o see them from the medical stnnclpoint. They were not
abused that way. There was one attempt to punish them with bread
ancl water, and t h a t was f o r one or two meals, ancl t h a t was cut short.
That is the only incident while I was there.
I did not treat them f o r any injuries, whether accidental o r in-
flicted by anyone, except injuries that they had sustained during the
war, old wounds that they had to be transported to the hospital, and
some skin conditions or minor ailments.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW would a report of an injury or illness come
to you ? W h a t system did you have for determining what men needed
medical attention?
Dr. KARAN.The system that was followed i n that prison was when
the guards would serve breakfast to the internees, they would give
them the name, the one that required the medical attention would
give the name, and that would come down to the commander of the
prison, and when I would come in i n the morning about 9/9 : 30, they
mould give me the names, and I would go to see each internee i n his
cell.
Senator BALDWIN.I n his cell ?
Dr. KARAN.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Were you available for emergency cases of any

kind ?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir, a t all times.
Senator BALDWIN.D O you recall an incident when one of the pris-
oners committed suicide? Was that while you were there?
Dr. KARAN.NO,it was not while I was there.
Senator BALDWIN.B u t supposing one of the prisoners had been
seriously injured, either b a guard or by one of the investigating
i
team o r through some acci ent. W h a t would have been the way you
would have been notified and how would you have handled the case?
Dr. I ~ NI was . around during the hours that I was on duty
between about 9 and 5 or 5 : 30. I was usually around the prison i n
the office and the names would be given to the guard.
The guard knew what was going on most of the time, and he kept
i n touch with these internees, and they would give him the name,
and the name would come down the same way.
I f it was an emergency, it would come down to me, and I would go
see him, and if it was during the night, they would call me a t my
quarters.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUdid not live a t the prison?
Dr. KARAN.NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW f a r from the prison did you live?
Dr. KARAN.Oh, about a mile or a mile and a half. I t would take
about 5 minutes i n a jeep or car.
Senator BALDWIN.During the time you were there, the month
you were there, did yon spend the daytime hours at the prison?
Dr. KARAN. Most of the time I mas a t the prison.
Senator BALDWIN.Were you ever called for any emergency case
that you recall?
Dr. KBRAN.1must have been. I don't recall any single case. A n
emergency didn't impress me as much unless i t was something ex-
ceptional, and there was nothing exceptional that I remember.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you have an office there at t h e prison?
Dr. KARAN.I had a desk and office space i n the prison.
Senator BALDWIN.Who did you share an office ~ v i t h ?
Dr. KARAN.Captain Evans was i n the office.
Senator BALDWIN.Captain Evans ?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Whereabouts was your office?
Dr. KARAN.It was right near, I think, one of the desks, Captain
Evans had one, I had one, and some of the girls were typing a t the
other desks.
Senator BALDWIN.It has been stated here that in the prison
itself some of the cells were used f o r offices. I s that your recollection :l
Dr. KARAN.I have never used one fol- an office. It was used by the
investigating team probably.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you remember where the office of the com-
mander of the prison was?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Where was that with reference to the ofice
space you h a d ?
Dr. KARAN.T h a t was in the same room.
Senator BALDWIN.I n the same room?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.And did you know where the rooms were where
they conducted these investigations?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.HOWf a r were they or where were they from
where you had your office?
Dr. KARAN.Well, that would be going through-it was one flight
up and then you would have to go through several doors, and it would
probably be about a hundred feet from there, from the office.
Senator BALDWIN.W o ~ l dyou say i t was within earshot? I mean
by that was it within hearing distance? I mean by that if there were
any shouts or screams or anything of t h a t kind, from where you were
in your office could you have_heard it ?
Dr. KARAN.I might not have heard it from the office, but I would
know about it because somebody would come down and tell me.
Either, I was around there, I wasn't sitting a t the desk, most of the
time I was walking around through the prison seeing what was
gojng on.
Senator BALDWIN.Did YOU make regular rounds of the prison?
Dr. KARBN.Yes. sir.
Senator BALDWIN.During - that time did you talk with-any of the
prisoners ?
Dr. KARAN.Well, I tried to limit mv conversation to what was
their comulaint.
~ e n a t o ;BALDWIN.Do you speak German ?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.And you were born in the United States?
Dr. KARAN.NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Where were you born?
Dr. KARAN.I was born i n Russia.
Senator BALDWIN.And when did you come to the United States?
Dr. KARAN.When I was 12 years old.
Senator BALDWIN.SOyou had most of your schooling and all of
your education here in the United States?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir.
Senator BAWWIN. But you do speak German?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.MTere there any records kept of the treatments
you @ve these men there?
Or. KARAN.The records that were kept, the first aid men or the
medical aid men-he had a book and put down the names and he
would jot clown diagnoses and treatment.
Senator BALDWIN.Under your direction?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Have you any idea where those records may be?
Dr. KARAN.Those records are not permanent records. T h e only
permanent records in the Army are the ones i n hospitals, even among
the enlisted men. I f we treated them i n the clispensary, it was just
temporary and they were lost some place.
Senator BALDWIN.I n the Medical Corps of the Army, as I under-
stand yon, the only records that are preserved are the hospitalized
cases.
Dr. KARAN. That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.SOif there mere any hospitalized cases a t the
prison in connection with the Malmedy prisoners, would those records
be available, do you suppose, in the Medical Corps of the A r m y ?
Dr. HARAN. They should be. T h e cases that were hospitalized,

the records should be there in the hospital.* They are permanent rec-
ords in the hospital.
Senator BALDWIN.You said that you orerheard conversations of
Lieutenant Perl ancl some of the others i n which they inferred that you
might get somewhere with these prisoners in getting confessions with
physical violence. Can yon tell us more about that ? W h a t did they
say about it P W h a t was their attitude toward i t ?
Dr. KARAN.These were across-the-table clisci~ssionsand just talking,
they mentioned-there was no discussion about the guilt, abont the
crime having been committed. The question was as to how to find
out the guilty ones. This was agreed, everyone that as there felt
the same may, and Perl used to say the only ~ a ythe , best way to get
i t would be the Russian way-they get results, send someone in for
a n hour or so and he comes out with a confession, because they use vio-
lence or they Llse something, and he thought that might get results.
Then we also had Mrs. Perl who had dlnncr with us on several occa-
sions as a guest, and she claimed that she v a s in a concentration camp
and she thought those inethods woulcl be appropriate.
Those were just expressions of opinion, but she expressed that many
times, saying that the Kazis woulcl get it, they had us, they vouid get
confessions. T h a t was the general line of cliscnssion.
I used to take the other side. They probably got into some extreme
statements because they argued the other ~icle.
Senator BALDWIN.Horn often n-as that discussecl, wonlcl Son say ?
1 mean by that :Was i t a freqnent subject of conversation?
Dr. &RAN. When I first was assigned to this, the first week or SO$
I thinlr this discussion went on almost every cliimer h o w or every
other dinner hour. I n other ~ r o r d sa, few times a neek that discnssion
would come up.
Senator BATDTVIN. Was there discnssiop oil the other side as well?
Yon mentionccl the fact that you were opposed to it.
Dr. KARAN.I think I nrzs the only one that took u p this discnssion
because the other men woulcl usually chinie in and say there was no
question about the crime, no question that some of them were guilty
ancl should get the p ~ ~ i ~ i s h m eitn tseems,
, the others-prol~ably would
be all right to use any means.
Senator BALDWIN.I n the light of that discussion, were any of these
means, to your knowledge, used? And if there were- we would like t o
know about it.
Dr. KARAN.TOmy knowledge, they were definitely not used. I
know of no case, and as f a r as I know, I can state that they weren't.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW do you know they were not?
Dr. I ~ R AActually,
N. altliough as I said, I was not going around
watching the investigation, but I had my eyes open, and the medical
end of it, after all, is connected up with a lot of the phases of it.
I was also in the investig,zting room, and if sonlebody complained
about some illness, they might also complain about the way they are
treated. The patients never did complain to me. They never com-
plained to me about those things.
I didn't see any violence. My men, the medical men, the men in the
prison. the guards never told me of anything that was clone. T h e
Germans. the civilians that were in the prison-I spoke to them. most
of them could speak English very well, a few of them-they were
around all over the prison and they never complainecl or said anything
about means that were used that were cruel or brutal.
I have reason to believe that if any of these means were used, they
probably ~voulcltell me or I would hear some rumor to that effect.
Senator BALDWIN.Dicl you ever hear any a t all?
Dr. KARAN.NO; I did not.
Senator BALDWIN.You are sure of t h a t ?
Senator BALDWIN.Do you think, Doctor, that you were i n a posi-
tion to know of your own direct knowledge whether or not any physical
abuse or violence mas used on these prisoners?
Dr. KARAN.The possible 1x7aythat I conlcl know is the fact that I
dicl not treat any of the cases. Also the way the system was, if there
mere any cases like that to be treated, I would have to be informed
abont it. So I have reason to believe that there were no cases of
violence.
Senator BALDWIN.A t least, no cases that required medical treat-
ment of any Bind. -
Senator BALDWIN.YOUmean if a prisoner was pushed against a
wall or if any of those other things that did not require medical atten-
tion occurred, woulcl you know anything about those?
Dr. I ~ R S N .I f i t was very minor and the internee would not com-
plain about it, I woulcln't know about it.
Senator BALDWIN.During the course of your trips around t h e
prison you say you talked with these prisoners?
Dr. KARSN. The prisoners, the Malmedy internees, I only talked t o
them when I mas called to treat them; and I tried to limit it to their
complaints and anything related to it.
Senator BALDWIN.Was there an opportunity offered for them i n
their talks with you to make any con~plaints if they had any
complaints ?
Dr. KARAK.They k n e I~ IT-as ~ a doctor and they knew that to a doc-
tor they have to complain, IT-hether it is anything that has to do with
their health, whether i t is an injury, or whether they had pain or if
they didn't get proper food.
Senator BALDWIN.There had been a charge made in one of the affi-
davits that many of these men were kicked and injured i n their
genitals. Was there any complaint made about t h a t ?
Dr. KARAN.There was no one who complained to me or was treated
for any of these conditions during the time I was there.
Senator BALDTVIN. YOUare quite sure of that ?
Dr. HARAN.I am absolutely certain of it. I would remember that.
Senator BALDWIN.I think that is all the questions I have.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have one or two questions.
I n this matter of kicking in the genitals, and what not, Doctor, that
would have been, if i t had been done, that vould have been of such a
serious nature that they would have required medical treatment o r
hospitalization ; is not that correct ?
Dr. KARAN.I think they would, unless i t was very mild and very
transient.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I f they had#been injured to the point where they
were ruined for life, would that have required, i n your opinion, hos-
pitalization or medical care? o
Dr. KARAN.Yes ; it would.

Mr. CHAMBERS. Coming back to these conversations, which appar-
ently took place across the dinner tabje, and what not, were those
somewhat general in character? Did it appear to be that the whole
staff would sit down and discuss this thing from the standpoint of
arguing whether they should or should not, perhaps, slap the boys
around for the purpose of getting some fast answers ?
Dr. KARAN.I t was general, but it was more general than that, and
it was general enough not to insinuate that this was the method that
was going to be used.
It was a question of whether this should be used and/or whether
this might bring results. It was not a thing that was considered, that
this particular team was going to be usiltg it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOU formed the opinion that they discussing it
rather abstractly and not trying in their own minds to justify their
doing it or talking themselves into doing i t ?
Dr. KARAN.That is the impression I had, just an up-and-back
talk, and I expressed the opinion that I didn't think it was proper,
and they said, "Well, under the conditions it might be proper,'' but
that is about all.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Speaking specifically of Perl, do you feel that his
expression of those opinions would indicate that possibly he would
adopt such tactics if he felt it necessary to get a confession?
Dr. KARAN.I had the impression that if he was in charge, he might,
but I didn't think he Tvas, and I didn't think he would. That is the
impression I had.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You are rather confident that he did not 8
Dr. KARAN. He didn't while I was there.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever hear any of the investigating team,
any of the men connected with the investigating team, boast of the
way they secured confessions from any of those prisoners?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir; I did.
Senator BAWWIN.What did you hear about that?
Dr. KARAN.Oh. the tricks that they wonlcl say something of catch
them unawares, mostly tricks that lawyers use. They mould boast
about that. They didn't boast about any----
Senator BALDWIN. What lcincl of triclrs do you mean?
Dr. KARAN. Sonie promises that they would make them or some-
thing they m-ould tell them. I don't remember the d2tails.
Senator B'ALDTVIN. What promises wo~lclthey make them?
Dr. KARAN.They promised them, they told them they weren't after
them but after their snperior, who was responsible, so they would give
them the evidence that would get to the one who was guilty, and then
they would get off easier. This is the general promise, the general
wag the proinises were made.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever hear any of them say they were
going to promise immunity to any of these fellows if they would give
a story ?
Dr. KARAN.NO, I don't think I heard them say that.
Senator BALDWIN. Did YOU ever hear any cliscussion about with-
holdincr ration cards or anytliiilg of that kind?
Dr. ~ A R A N .I don't remember, and I don7tthink I heard it. I don't
remember anything %bout that.
Senator BALDWIN. Did any of these men ever boast about having
told these prisoners that they were going to be tried and they had better
tell the truth and if they did not, they would be taken out and executed
right away?
Dr. KARAN. I got the impression that this was the kind of talk they
would use to them, that sort of a promise I think they would make.
Senator BALDWIN. What is that ?
Dr. KARAN. I think they did make those promises. A t least, that
is the impression I got.
Senator BALDWIN. Would make what promises?
Dr. KARAN. That if they tell the truth, they would get away with it,
and if not, they might be executed just like this, because they thought
this was perfectly proper to do, and that is from the discussion, the
conversation, I gathered.
Senator BALDWIN. D O you remember any particular members of
the team who said anything of that kind?
Dr. KARAN. Well, the most vociferous of tha team mas Perl, and
he did most of the talking, and most of his opinions were that it was
perfectly proper to do those things.
Senator BALDWIN. It was perfectly proper to make promises that
they would get off if they told the truth and t h a t they were trying
to get their superior officers ;is that what you mean?
Dr. KARAN. T h a t is right.
Senator BALDWIN. Were there any other promises of any kind that
you heard them discuss there?
Dr. KARAN.There was this routine sort of a thing that if anybody
made out an affidavit or made a statement, he would be put i n a large
room with the others, about 20 or 30, and the other way he was kept
in solitary. T h a t was routine investigation.
Senator BALDWIN. I n other words, if the man n ~ a d ethe statement,
he would be put i n a big room, and the other fellow that had not, would
be put in solitary?
Dr. KARAN. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. ,DOYOU know why that was done?
Dr. KARAN.The reason was they shouldn't communicate with one
another a i d concoct up a story. They mere anxious that the internees
should not cominunicate with each other.
Senator BALDWIN. These men that were kept i n solitary, did they
get any different food from the other men, to your lrnowledge?
Dr. KARAN. TOmy knowledge, they got the same food.
Senator BALDWIN. There have been some complaints here about the
lack of blankets and clothing. Do you know anything about t h a t ?
Dr. KARAN. NO. The prison was well heatecl a t the time I was there,
and that was in the middle of the winter, and I can't see where the
shortage of blanlrets would come in. The building was a very snb-
stantial builcling, a brick building, and they had a central heating
system.
Senator BALDWIN. W h a t was the conclition of the bedding that these
men had ?
Dr. KARAN. I don7t r e m e m ~ e rexactly, but f o r a prison I think i t
was adequate.
Senator BALDWIN. Were any complaints ever made to you about
lack of clothing or heat or bedding or blankets or anything of that
kind ?
Dr. KARAN.NO, sir. I would have observed those things becanse

in the inspection, this was my duty, my job, to observe things, whether
they had sufficient blankets or they had enough clothes or whether the
beclding was proper, and I think it was.
Senator BALDWIN.What were the facilities for giving these men
water when they needed it or wanted i t ?
Dr. KARAN.The water, I think, had to be supplied by the guards.
There were gnards all along the prison, and if a prisoner wanted
something, he asked the guard for it.
Senator BALDWIN. What were the conditions of these cells as to
cleanliness ?
Dr. KARAN.I think the sanitary condition mas very good.
Senator BALDWIN.What was the condition of the prisoners as to
their cleanliness, their personal cleanliness?
Dr. &RAN. I think that was good, too. The cleanliness was good.
I t was one of the finest prisons, I understand, in Germany that they
were housed i n ; it was a model prison, and the conditions, I think,
were very satisfactory there.
Senator BALDWIN. Any further questions?
Mr. CHAMBERS. No, sir; I have no further questions.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me ask you this q~~estion: Do

you know
this dentist, Dr. Knorr-K-n-o-r-r ? t
Dr. KARAN.NO,sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever see him there?
Dr. KARAN.NO,sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Who handled the dental care of these prisoners?
Dr. KARAN.I think the dental care there was so set up whereby a
prisoner was sent to the dentist's office at the time he needed it under
guard and there were very few occasions they were sent. During my
being there I don't think there were more than two or three prisoners
sent out.
Senator BALDWIN. For dental matters?
Dr. KARAN.That is right. I am sure if there was any fractured
jaw or any injury to the jaw or any disease of the jaw, I would have
been consulted first because it was a medical problem more than a
dental problem.
Senator BALDWIN. Did some of these men ]lave old battle wounds?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir. Some of them had osteomyelitis from shrapnel
wounds, and I believe one or two I had to send to the general hospital
for treatment.
Senator BALDWIN.Did YOU have an adequate supply of drugs and
medical supplies there ?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you have adequate medical eq~~ipment in the
way of instruments and that sort of thing?
Dr. KARAN. Yes, sir; we had the same equipment that I used for our
enlisted men.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you have charge of the medical care of the
enlisted men that were connected with the post?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir; the detachment that was in charge of the
prison.
Senator BALDWIN.ISthere anything further?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Dr. Raran, have you ever been asked to testify or
to give a medical report on this Schwabisch matter before?
Dr. KARAN.NO,sir.
Mr. CHARIBERS. Have you submitted any affidavits or made any
representations to any investigating board or any body ?
Dr. KARAN. NO, sir; I never wrote any letters to newspapers, never
spoke to any radio con~mentators,never complained to the Army.
This is the first time I have reported on this, except to my wife. This
is the only time I have spoken about it.
Mr. C H A ~ ~ E R S . is perfectly unclerstandaMe. 1would like to
That
ask again for the record. A t no time has any board of investigation
or board of inquiry consulted you about the condition of these people
at Schwabisch Hall?
Dr. KARAN.None. I was never consulted.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Thank you, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Were you the only medical officer there a t that
time?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.For that month you were in charge of tlie medi-
cal care of these prisoners and the military personnel as well?
Dr. I<ARAN. That is right, sir. .
Senator BALDWIN.Did you have any Army medical assistants with
you ?
Dr. KARAN.Yes, the medical detachment, the enlisted men who were
taking care of tile di-pensnry, and the? took care of dispensing the
drugs, they went with me when I went to see the patients. I always
had an enlisted man with me.
Senator BALDWIN.DOYOU know the names of any of those men?
N .sir ;but they changed personnel, and if I would see
Dr. I ~ R ANO,
them, I would recomize them.
Mr. CHAMBERS. %as Sergeant Unterseher, or some such name-
Dr. I~ARAN. Probably. I f I would see him, I would recognize him.
I t was over 3 years ago, and I am very bad on names.
Senator BALDTVIN. Are tlie names of the members of the meclical
detachment available to us?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, sir; the names are available to us, and one of
the medical sergeants already testified.
Senator BAI~DWIN. Have you any further questions?
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO,sir, I have not.
Senator BALDWIN.Thank you, Doctor, very much.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would like to pnt one letter in the record.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Several days ago Senator McCarthy placed in the

record a letter from the Bishop of Fargo, the Apostolic Visitator in
Germany, concerning some alleged abuse of prisoners at Landsberg
prison.
I have a letter dated May 19, 1949, from the Department of the
Army, commenting on this letter, which I would like to place in the
record at this time.
Senator BALDWIN.Very well. The letter of May 6 from the Bishop
of Fargo, the accompanying clipping, and the letter of May 19 from
the Department of the Army will be made a part of the record.
91765--49---68
(The documents referred to, are as follows :)

[From New Pork Herald Tribune, May 3, 19491
LANDSBERG, May 2.-American Army personnel in charge of Landsberg prison,

where war-crimes prisoners a r e held, h a r e been accused by high German Protes-
tant and Catholic churchmen of using brutality, interfering in religious matters
a t the prison and intimidating chaplains who protested it, it was learned here.
Bishop Hans Meiser, Catholic Bishop of Munich, said t h a t a t least some of the
abuses were called to the attention of General Lucius D. Clay, American Nilitary
Governor, in a letter from the bishop, December 6. H e said promises to investi-
gate had brought no results and that he had been unable to get a reply to later
letters.
He said specific charges made by Protestant and Catholic Church heads s a y :
1. T h a t a prisoner was beaten in a t least one known instance.
2. That the prisoner named Muhlbauer was chained upright to his cell do01
until he fell unconscious, was revired with cold water and then forced to sign a
. statement that he had not been abused. This allegedly occurred after Captam
Gerald Wilson, Army commnndant of the prison, learned he hacl reported the
previous incident to his German chaplain.
3. That Captain Wilson ordered Evangelical Chaplain Ekardt out of th; prison
with abusive language and under threat of physical riolence when Jlr. Ekardt
complained of prison conditions, and t h a t no regular Protestant chaplain now
i s available a t the prison.
4. That Captain Wilson subsequenkly ordered a raid, alkgedlg without a search
warrant, on Chaplain Ekardt's apartment, in which all his prirate papers, in-
cluding confessionals of prison inmates, were seized, and t h a t t h e papers have
never been returned.
5. That Captain Wilson lipped clown a religious wreath and candles placed
in the prison mess hall prior to Christmas, stamped on it, kicked it across the
mess hall and used abusire language against the chaplains while the prisoners
looked on.
6. That Captain Wilson tore down crosses, erected on the graves of executed
prisoners by relatives and chaplains and had not replaced them, although i t was
understoocl he had been ordered to do so by his Army superiors.
Brig. Gen. Clinton A. Pierce. Angsburg post commander, under whose imme-
diate authority Landsberg falls, said t h a t a n inquiry had been made into some of
the complaints, but t h a t nothing had been found to support the charges.
~ I O SREV
T A. J. ~ ~ U E N C R .
VATICANMISSION, APO 757.
c/o POSTMASTER, NEW PORK, N. P.,
31au 6, 1949.
The Honorable JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY,
U n i t e d States Sennte,
Washington, D. C., United States of America.
DEARSENATOX i f l c C . 9 ~: I~n~view
~
of the investigations t h a t the Senate Armed
Services Subcommittee is making the enclosure may be of interest.
I had complaints from Bishop John Heuhaeusler, auxiliary to Cardinal Faul-
haber, with respect to some of these charges. There seems to be more foundation
f o r them than the investigation made by the post commander cares to reveal.
Xeedless to say that such incidents hurt our interests in Germany very much.
Our over-all policy has been excellent, top-level administration has been good, but
malfeasance on lower levels of administration has produced incalculable, and
maybe irreparable, harm.
I n writing you I assure you that I am motivated only by the thought of keep-
ing unsmirched our good American name in dealing with other people.
With sentiments of regard, I am,
Yours very truly,
A. J . NUENCH,
Bisltop of Favgo, Apostolic Visitator i n Qevnzanrj.
MALRIEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 861
DWARTMEIWOF TEE ARMY,
Washington, D. C., J l a y 19,1949.
col. J. M. CHAMBERS,
Senate A ~ m e dSel-vices Committee, Wnslii~~fyton, D . C.
DEAKCOLONEL C H ~ M B E:~With
< S reference to the letter of May 6, 1949, from
%Iost Rev. A. J. Muench addressed to Senator McCarthg, the following informa-
tion has been received from headqnarters, EUCOM:
"Extensive inoestigation was made between March 29 and April 2, 1949, by
I n s ~ e c t o rGeneral of the incident connected with the dispatches printed in the
lJaris Heralcl Tribune, after previous investigation in January 19-49. Prisoner
Muehlbauer, 33 years old Germau nntiounl, had been a colnrno~lcriminal con-
fined in German penitentiaries in 10:19. He nras placed in Uacl~au,where he was
used a s a n agent provocator duriug 1944 and 194.5. He was found guilty of
repeatedly beating his fellow inmates with rubber hoses aud clubs. For this
he mas sentenced by a \\'ar crinles court tc~6 years imprisonuieut connuencing
July 30, 1946.
"On December 10, 1948, SPC Arthur A. Reilly searched Mnehlbaner who w a s
reputedly carrying contraband and feigning toothache and eye trouble. Upon.
removal of a patch from the eye a swe~lingof his face was more evident. His
mouth was opened and a roll of contraband monej- was discowrecl in his mouth
a s the cause of the enlargement. S e r g a n t Reilly entleavored to remove the
money and Muehlbauer severely bit Reillg's finger, Reilly slapped.
Muehlbauer a s a reflex and i n self-defense. He was later handcuffed t o a cell
door by Corp. Marion D. Howard for approximately 1 hour. Nuehlbauer h a s
the reputation a t Landsberg for b e i ~ ~a g~ ~ r o ~ o c aamong
tor his fellow prisoners,.
also undisciplined am1 difficult.
"Details in regard to the removal of g r a r e markers ancl mess-hall decorations:
are contained in letter 2 of 20,1949, to the Judge Sdvocate General. Briefly
the decorations containing cautlles were remooed a s a fire hazard from t h e
woocle~lbuilding \\-here they lliid brru pl:irtbtl by prisoners contrary to prison
regulations. Cross grave n ~ a ~ , l t e hr sa ~ ebeen replaced over the g r a m s of the
war criminals who have been lianged. I t is to be noted t h a t these December
incidents were enlarged upon and not published until Mag after investigation
and corrective action such a s replacement of crosses ancl further instruction
on prison discipliuary practices were initiated. The similarity of these mis-
representations from rarious sources indicate these to be p a r t of a n organized
operatioon to use both Catholic and Protestant Churches facilities for discrediting
the war crimes program.
"Investigation of allegations concerning t r e a t ~ u e n tof Pastor August Eckhardt
disclosed that t h e prison director mas informed that Eckhardt was engaging in
encouraging the breach of prison good order and in discrediting the war crimes
program in general. These were contrarx to the scope of his religious duties.
Upon presentation of information to military go\-ernor of Landsberg, this official
issued a warrant authorizing search of Eckhardt's quarters. Search was con-
ducted on March 31, 1949, by German police i n presence of prison director and
in presence of German civil-service employee acting a s disinterested witness-
15 documents were seized and Eckhardt mas gi-ien a written receipt for same.
Analysis of clocuments was made by CIC. Dociiments contain deparaging
remarks and statements detrimental to occupation and reveal efforts towarcl:
establishment of a nlovernent based on iuflalnmation of public opinion against
War-crimes trials i n general and the creation of a state of dissatisfaction among
war crinlinals themselves based upon alleged unjnstness of their sentences.
"On April 28, 1949, the Eraugelical district dean, Oscar Daumiller, was in-
formed by the co~nmandinggeneral. Augsburg Military Post, personally of the
reasons which prompted the disnlissal of Pastor Eclrhardt. Dean Daumiller also
adrised t h a t request of Army for replacement for Eckbarclt should be honored a s
Soon a s possible. I n meantime Protestant religions services for prison have been
provided by the local Evangelical minister of Landsberg."
The letter of April 20, 1949, referred to above, reads a s follows i n regard to t h e
rellloval of grave markers and mess hall clecorations :
"Bishop Neuhausler complains in his letter t p a t on December 2, 1948, the
director of Landsberg prison tore down with great indignation and unfair
\vords' a Christmas wreath with candles from the ceiling of the prison mess.
Investigation by a n inspector general reveals that the wreath was taken down
a s it was a fire hazard and t h a t i t had been put in place by the prisoners con.
trarg to prison regulations.
"Bishop Neuhausler also makes the complaint that recently the crosses a n d
name plates have bee11 removed fro111 the graves of executed men who a r e buried
in the Spoetting Cemetery and t h a t the crosses were replaced hy small slabs
bearing only the former number of the prisoners. The complaint is mainly
addressed to the removal of the crosses. The inspector fonncl t h a t this com-
plaint is true. A current directive prescribes that if the remains of prisoners
who were convicted of war crimes a r e not claimed by relatives, they mill be
buried inconspicuously in a prison cemetery in graves unmarked except for a n
indentitication number. The purpose is to prpvent the graves of the war crimi-
nals from beconling shrines for the pogulation. Amending instructions have been
issued to permit the use of crosses."
The letter to Senator McCarthy is returned heren-ith.
Very truly yours,
C. C. FENN,
Colonel, BSC, Special Assistant to the Acting Secretnty.
Senator BALDWIN.Senator McCarthy said the other day he had a
great many letters in his office from different people concerning this
case. I think we ought to ask Senator McCarthy if he would be willing
to turn those letters over to us to see if out of those letters we can
develop any witnesses or find any helpful information bearing on the
whole issue involved here.
IVe will recess now until 2 o'clock.
<Whereupon, at 12 : 12 p. m., the cornmittee recessed, to reconvene at
2 p. m., on the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
t

Also present : J. M. Chambers, of the committee staff; Colonel Ellis,
and Dr. Karan.
Senator BALDWIN.Will you go ahead with this witness, sir?
Will you hold up your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to glvt: In
the matter in question shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. RICKER.I do.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN RICKEX, M. D.,PHOENIX, ARIZ.
Mr. CHAMBERS. ?Till you give us your name and present address?
Dr. RICKER.John Ricker, 926 East McDowell Road, Phoenix, Ariz.
Mr. Chambers. I believe you are a doctor?
Dr. RICEER.That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I wonder if you would give us some of your medical
background, schools, and medical experience?
Dr. RICKER.I graduated from McGill Medical school in 1940 and
went to Phoenix, Ariz., where I took an internship, surgical residency.
After a short time of practice, I went into the Army in January of 1944.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Dr. Ricker, were you attached to the Schwabisch
Hall detachments?
Dr. RICJKER. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Will you give us the dates that you were there?
Dr. RICEER.I think it was from Januarv 19 to March 9.1946.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And during that timeyou were in charge of the
medical detachment that was responsible for the medical care and
dental care of the so-called Malmedy prisoners 1
Dr. RICKER.Well, yes; that is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did those duties require you to keep these people
close medical and sanitary supervision?
Dr. RICRER. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe that you sat througll the hearings this
morning, Doctor. I wonder, if you wonld, based pretty generally on
the type of questions we asked, care to make a general statement about
the situation ?
Dr. RICI~ER.Well, yes. When I got there I believe it was Captain
Karan, a t the time, who had pretty well organized the set-up. There
were two sergeants of the Medical Corps. Do you want their immes?
Mr. CHAMBERS. DOyou know their names?
Dr. XIC~EI:.I know their names, yes; Calvin Untersehr and Stanley
Sykes; anel they x e r e there-before I came, I think they had been
there a matter of several weeks, ancl they had i t very well organized.
They liacl a small office i n one of the prison blocks where niost of the
important prisoners were kept, and that was set u p f o r minor first aid,
with some aspirin, clressings, and anything like that, t h a t we -nouldl
need to take care ~f the ininor ailments 01the prisoners.
During the night and cluring the day the guards would bring names
down to the commaider of the detachment of men who needed care
or hacl complaints, n h o ~ o u l c turn
l these over to the two sergeants,
ancl they in turn would tell me about them; and u s ~ ~ a lin l y the morn-
ing when me first went on daty we v-odd inake rounds of the various
cells, and along with the two sergeants, one of n-hom spoke excellent
German, me talked to the prisone~sand did what we could for them.
Most of the treatinelit was right in their cells, a c d if I felt they
needed some type of medication I mould tell one of the sergeants wlmt
to do, to give i t to them.
Mr. CI*AXBI:RS.Well, insofar as the treatnient that you gave the
prisoners is concernecl, did you treat thein f o r any injuries or any
clainage to their bodies which might have resulted froiu blows or the
use of force, mistreatment, or anything of the kind?
Dr. R I C ~ RNO. .
Mr. C H A ~ E I ~Did S . you see any evidence of prisoners being man-
handled or mistreated !
Dr. RICHER.NO.
Mr. C I X A ~ ~ E Did
R S . anF of them ever tell you through the sergeant
or directly-
Dr. RICKER.No ;none of them ever complained of that.
Mr. CHAXBERS.Well, now, Doctor, do you feel that you were i n a
position a t the tinle you were in command to know if, i n fact, all men
who required inecljcal attention were actually being treated by you
and that you were being notified that they needed treatment?
, Dr. RICICER.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, did von inspect other than those who asked
for medical treatment ? '
I n other words, I believe yon stated that yon would get requests
that would build u p during the night and in the morning when yon
came on, through the sergeants?you wonld k n o v who needed medical
care, and then you mould go and visit them: but were there others
who you did not visit so t h a t it might have been possible f o r someone
requiring attention not to have been callecl to your attention?
Dr. RICKER.It would have been possible. I did not open the doors
pf every cell and look in to see, but as we walked by I usually looked
m through the little glass window that m7asthere.
Mr. CHAMBERS. D O you believe that if a nlan did require medical

attention, that it would have been called to your attention?
Dr. RICHER. Oh, yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did YOU ever have any reason to believe that per-
haps some of the boys were being l ~ i s t ~ e a t or
e d beaten up in such a. way
that they needed medical help and were not getting i t ?
Dr. RICICER.No, I know they were not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. All the medical treatment ailcl clental treatment
that was given to these Malmecly prisoners was either hancllecl by your
organization or through your organization ; is that correct ?
Dr. RICICER.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. So, in fact, it is a fair statement to say' that 110
one else ,was treating them and therefore yon r e r r giriilg then1 all the
medical treatment that was necessary?
Dr. RICKER.That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you are conriilcecl that everybody who should
have had medical care m-as getting it ?
Dr. RICKER.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUheard us this inonling cliscu5sing a Dr. Kuorr
who was, I believe, a German dentist ~ 1 1 0visited Schwabisch Hall
periodically f o r the purpose of taking care of the dental needs not
only of the Malmedy prisoners but the internees of fk11wabisch Hall.
I s that correct ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. What can you tell us about the way Dr. Knorr
handled the prisoners? How inally did he llandle and m-hat types of
cases did he handle, and so o n ?
Dr. RICKER.Well. there mere very. T-eryfew that he s a y . H e came,
I believe, twice a week; and they were mostly extractions and very
minor dental or oral hygiene that were carried out. I do not know
out. .
if he made any fillings or not. I doubt it ; probably just pulled them
When any of the Malmecly prisoilers v w e over there, one or both of
the sergeants was with them, so there was no chance for the dentist
So converse with them.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was it a part of the regulations that he should not
be permitted to converse with then18
Dr. RICHER.T h a t is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Other than to find out y h a t Tras wrong with them,
I presume ?
Dr. RICKER.H e could ask questions pertaining to their aihnents,
yes, but not any other conversation.
Mr. C I < . ~ I ~ E RDid
S . any of the sergeants e-cer report to yon or any
of the guards ever report to you that any of the lxisoners did try t o
talk to h i ~ nor complainecl that they \I-ere being mistreated or any-
thing of the kind?
Dr. RICRER.KO, I neTTer got that report.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you hear this affidavit read this morning that
Dr. Knorr submitted ?
Dr. RICKER. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you notice that he inacle a reference in there
to one bov m.110 had a blooclv head and another who had had a ruptured A
jaw that Le had treated ;things of that type?

MALMEDY MASSACRE IXVESTIGATION 865
Do you know anything of the circumstances surrounding those cases 8
Dr. RICKER.NO,I d o not know anything like that a t all.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, Doctor, as a medical man how did you
feel these prisoners were being treated ?
Dr. R I C I ~ RI. thought they were being treated quite well.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you think they mere getting enough food?
Dr. RICICER.They certainly were gettin.g.enough food and adequate
food. It was the same food that the polltical internees were getting
from the same kitchen.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, as I understand, from time t o time,
people mere placed i n what they call solitary confinement, that they
did have a few cells that mere different from the individual cells i n
which they normally were placed. During that time, did they get the
same food ?
Dr. RICKER.Yes.
Mr. CHARTBERS. There tras no change i n rations when they went
into solitary confinement?
Dr. RICKER.NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOW about this business of blankets?
It has been charged by many of the prisoners that they did not
have enough blankeLs, it was very cold, and so on, all the time.
Dr. RICKER.Well, as f a r as I know they had enough blankets.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
.
Did anybody ever complain t o you or request addi-
tional blankets or anything of the kind ?
Dr. RICKER.Well, if they did, we saw to it that they got extra
blankets if they were available, but I do not remember any specific
instances where they complained of that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There have been a large number of these affidavits
filed by the individual prisoners that allege they did not get enough
drinking water; t h a t the only way they could get enough drinking
water mas t o take it from the toilets i11 the cells. What would be
your comment on that 8
Dr. RICKER.I thought they got enough drinking water. I do not
remember just how i t was dispensed. I am sure i n some of the cells
there was running water other than the toilets. I do not remember f o r
sure, but I am pretty sure there was.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, also being responsible for the sanitation and
the medical care of these prisoners, do you feel that possibly the water
regulations were so stringent that they were not getting enough water
t o drink?
Dr. RICHER.I do not think so. May I make a comment here about
the food?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Surely.
Dr. RTCIECR. Everybody \\as very cooperative about the food they
got. I n fact, I remember one prisoner i n particular who complained
repeatedly about stomach ailments, a i d we requested a special diet for
him, and he got i t ; so that if any of them had complaints about their
fclocl or indigestion o r anything else, they nould have certainly gotten
i t clown to myself or one of the enlisted men.
Mr. CHAXBERS.Now, Doctor, is i t fair to say that throughout a
period of a week or something like that, that yon would probably hare
observed all the prisoners ?
Dr. RICKER.Oh, I would think so, yes, a t least from outside the cell.
Mr. CHAMBERS. From their appearance, did you ever see men with
black eyes or beaten heads, or anything of that kind, which would lead
you to believe that they had either been shoved around or fell down
the stairs, or something of the kind?
Dr. RICRER.NO; I did not see any evidence of that.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. Well, in your travels around the prison, did you
have occasion to enter the interrogation cells?
Dr. R I C I ~ RYes.
.
Mr. CHAMBERS. While interrogations were going on?
Dr. BICKER.Occasionally.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

yo11 have occasion to see the guards moving the
prisoners from spot to spot?
Dr. RICKER.Oh, yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did SGLI ever see any e\ idencr of slloving or push-
ing or beating or anything of the kind?
Dr. RICKER.NO;other than just a guiding-for instance, since they
had their hoods on, they could not see. They might shove them gently
to clear a doorway or something like that, but there certainly was not
any rough stuff.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did sonie of them have to go up or clown stairs,
moving from their cells to interrogation centers?
Dr. RICKER.Yes, they did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever see or hear any man failing down tlie
stairs ?
Dr. RICKER.NO,never did.
Mr. CEIA~IBERS. Were yon there when they changed the American
guards and replaced them with Polish guards?
Dr. RICRER.I believe so. I thinli it was just about the time I left.
Mr. CHAXBERS. Was there any difference in the way the Polish
guards handled the prisoners than the Americans?
Dr. RICITER.I do not remember seeing tlie Polish guards handle
them enongh to tell you that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,Doctor, you sent, I believe, your cases re-
quiring hospitalization or more serious medical attention to Stutt-
gart ?
Dr. RICKEP.That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Could you tell us some of the cases that you sent
there ?
Dr. RICKER.Well, one case in particular I remember had' an old
wound of his chest with a lung abcess, and he was quite sick. We
sent him down there. Well, I am sure he was there when I left.
He had been down there for several weelis. And pneumonias. I
think we had one case, at least it was a respiratory infection of some
sort, that mas serions enough to need treatment i11 a hospital. The
others, I am not sure. I think there might have been some old wounds
that flared up and started to drain and needed more attention.
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOW many prisoners did you send down to the 110s-
pita1 a proximately, do you recall.?
DL ZICKER. Oh, I would say probably four or five. We made, I
t,hink three trips while I was there to take prisoners down.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And none of those were for fresh or new injuries?
Dr. RICKER.Oh, no, none of them.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, Doctor, you have heard a good deal of
comment around here about kjclcing m the groins and beating the
testicles and things of that kind. I n your opinion, would such cases
require either hospital attention or medical care?
MALMEDY MASSACRE ISVESTIGATION 867
Dr. RICEER.If the blows had been hard enough; yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was there ever any complaint made to you or
did you have any reason to believe that possibly some people had suf-
fered that way?
Dr. RICEER.NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you associate mitll, live with, and eat with the
members of the interrogation staff?
Dr. RICHER.That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever hear thein discuss this matter of how
they handled prisoners ?
Dr. RICKER.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Ahd how they got coufessions from them, and
things of that kind?
Dr. RICEER. Yes.
Mr. CIIAMBERS.Did you ever hear them tell of or talk about extort-
ing or getting the confession through mistreatment, manhandling, or
torturing a prisoner ?
Dr. RICEER.NO; I never heard them say that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Not to the slightest degree?
Dr. RICHER.Not in the slightest degree.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well,

now, what did you hear them say?
Dr. RICHER.Well, they mentioned the use of various psycl~ological
tricks. That is the word they are using here, such as-let me see
if I can remember some of the instances.
Oh, telling them they already had facts, they knew facts about it
and they knew what this man had done, and trying to morm a con-
fession out of him that way.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever hear them talking about perhaps plac-
ing a rope around the man's neck and making him believe he was going
t o be hanged?
Dr. RICEER. NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever hear them talking about telling a man
that they had a concealed microphone in his room when in fact they
did not have a microphone in his cell ?
Dr. RICKER.NO,I do not remember ever hearing them talking about
microphones there.
Mr. CIIAMEERS. NOW,did you ever hear them talking about pos-
sibly making promises to them such as "If you will give us the dope,
and so on, why, we will let you off easy," and things of that kind?
Dr. R I C I ~ RI. did not hear them make that sort of promises. The
only thing I do remember was that some of the minor, the ones that
they thougl~twould be better witnesses and gave good stories, they
gave them slightly better living conditions than the others, reading
and writing material, and possibly a larger cell, something like that,
but I do not know that they promised them that.
I do not remember hearing then1 promise them that, but I know that
that was a fact. That happened.
Mr. CHA~BERS. DOyou know whether or not those same people who
gave good stories were going to be used as witnesses and not charged
and made defei~dantsin the case?
Dr. RICKER.NO. I think they planned to use them as witnesses. I
think most of those people were involved in a very minor degree in
the situation.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, i n your association with members of

the staff there, did you hear them conjecture as to whether or not they
coulcl get their coi~fessiol~s a little quicker or a little easier if they
applied some of the methods that the Russians used or the Germans
used on Ainericans under similar circumstances ?
Dr. RICKER.NO. The only thing I ever heard mentioned mas they
said if the Germans or Russians were doing it, they would not treat
them as nicely as we do.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,did you ever hear Per& Ellis, or Shumacker,
or any of the group arguing as to whether or not that was the best
way to do it ?
Dr. RICHER.NO, I never heard them argue about it. I never heard
them even intimate that they thought it was a good idea. They merely
stated, as a fact, that that is what other people would d o ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Where mere you stationed before you went to
Schwabisch Hall ?
Dr. RICIIER. I was in Karlsruhe and Bad Wildungen.
Mr. CHAMBERS. H a d any word gotten around as to what was going
on a t Schwabisch Hall w h e ~ ~you e were stationed a t that time?
Dr. RICHER. No; I had no idea, anything about it, until I went over
there.
Mr. CHA~IBERS. Then, when you.got down there, did yon hear ally
general reputation or conimon bellef that some of the investigators
might have felt that the best \my to handle this matter would have
been to be a little rougher on the prisoners ?
Dr. RICKER.KO; I did not hear anything like that a t all.
Mr. CHANEERS.Did you l ~ n o wPerl pretty well?
Dr. RICHER. Oh, fairly viell. Not as well as I knew some of the
others.
Mr. CHAMBERS.DO YOU believe that Perl felt that it would have
been
. . proper
- to apply rough treatment to the prisoners to get a con-
f esslon Y
Dr. RICIIER. No; I do not really thing he did feel that way about it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did he ever talk to you along that line?
Dr. RICKER. No. H e mentioned, as I told you before, that others
woulcl use rough methocls.
Mr. CHAMBERS.Did you ever see Perl interrogating a prisoner?
Dr. RICKER.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did he at that time appear to be threatening them
of using force of any kind?
Dr. RICKER. No; I do not understancl German-just a few mords-
and i t was all carried on in German. H e talked very niuch like a
Eos Angeles lawyer or anybody else. I clo not know if he was threat-
ening or promising or what he was doing, but it was all psgcliological.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did the prisoners seem to be intimidated or i n any
fear, or anything of the kind?
Dr. RICKER.I only remember one case. H e became quite emotional,
and I think he cried a little.
Mr. CFI-~~~IEERS. Do you remember the name of that particular
individual ?
Dr. RICHER.NO; I do not even remember who it was.
Mr. CHAMBERS.Did you ex-er see H a r r y Thon inter~ogatea prisoner?
Dr. RICIIER. Only for a very brief moment when I woulcl look inlo
the interrogation rooin and go out again.
lMALMEDT MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 869
Mr. CIIAXBERS.M'ell, now, did yon ever see Thon strike or give
any evidence of mistreating them?
Dr. RICHER.KO.
Mr. CIIA~IBERS. Was he inclined to be a little rougher than Perl on
some 01these bogs ; or could you tell?
Dr. RICHER.Well, you mean rongli, physically?
Mr. CIXAMBERS. I am not trying to g ~ v you e a tricky question, Doc-
tor. I was just wondering if there was a difference in the way they
handlecl them, either in the way they approached the matter or pcssi-
bly physically ?
Dr. RICHER.No, they appronched then? very much the same may,
I think.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was he any rougher physically than P e r l ?
Dr. RICHER.KO,I do not think either of them was rough physically
a t all.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Ancl I presume that same answer woulcl go for Shu-
rnaclcer and any of these other interrogators ?
Dr. RICEER. T h a t is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Tl7hile you were there were the prisoners either in-
diviclually or collectively placed on short rations or on bread and
water ?
Dr. RICIIER. NO,they were not.
Mr. CHANBERS.Did you know of or have any knowledge of this
one incident ?
Dr. RICHER.Not until I heard about i t today.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were any complaints ever nlade to you by any of
the prisoners that they had been deprived of rations ?
Dr. RICHER.NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I clo not believe I have any more questions at the
present time, sir.
Senator BALDWIS.IVhat records did you keep there, medical
records ?
Dr. RICHER.The enlisted men kept a daily record of the name of
the patient, approxinlate diagnosis and what was done for him, and
the cell number so that me mould have a general idea if the next day t h e
man called again or 2 or 3 days later we would have t o see him again,
we would be able to tell what was done for him the first time.
Senator BALDWIN.DO yon kuom whether or not those records were
preserved ?
Dr. RICHER.I doubt if they were. They were just written in pencil
on a piece of paper.
Senator BALDWIN.What is the custom and practice of the Army
with reference to medical records?
Dr. RICHER.Well, I was never connected with a dispensary before
or after that time, ancl I do not really know what they clo in the clis-
pensary and battalion aid stations, and so forth, but I know in the
hospitals they kept very excellent records, and those are permanent.
Senator BALI~VIS.YOUclo not know mhether these dispensary rec-
ords are permanent or not?
. I do not. I doubt very much if they are, however.
Dr. R I C ~ RNO,
Senator BALDWIN. Did you have there adequate medical equipment,
drugs, and so forth ?
Dr. RICHER.Oh, yes. We had everything me wanted. We had quite
n large supply from one of the units that had recently left Schwabisch
Hall. I think i t mas the T ~ e n t i e t hField Hospital.
870 MALLMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
It was a small unit and they turned over all of their surplns supplies
t o us, and then anything else we needed we went to Stuttgart and
requisitioned it from the general hospital there.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you also treat the enlisted personnel and
the officer personnel there, our own personnel?
Dr. RICHER.No, not except as a favor to them. My only duty was
to take care of the Malmedy prisoners.
Senator BALDWIN.Were there other medical men for our own
troops ?
Dr. RICHER.Yes, and on occasion there was another medical officer
there that had a small dispensary and I helped him out on two or
three occasions when he lia~lto go out of town, and he would staid by
for me occasionally.
Senator BALDWIN.Where was your ofice?
Dr. RICHER.I did not have any definite office, just this small cubicle
I mentioned where the enlisted men stayed.
Senator BALDTIN. Did you have a desk in anybody's office?
Dr. RICHER.NO.
Senator BALDWIN.You used this cubicle. Was that a cell?
Dr. RICHER.NO; it was just the entrance, going into this one prison
block. This was not the main prison. It was a two- or three-story
block, off to the side. There were two sets of doors. first of all going
into a small anteroom ancl off on either side were these small rooms,
sort of, I suppose, warden's offices, or something like that, and one of
those was what we used for our first-aid office, and then, going on
through, there was another set of doors into the main prison ~tself.
Senator BALDWIX. Dr. Iiaran said he had a desk in the comman-
dant's office. Did you have any such desk?
Dr. RICHER.NO. I am not sure now, but I thinlc he was probably
assigned to treat the American enlisted personnel as well as the others.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUmere not?
Dr. RICHER.I was not.
Senator BALDWIN. During the time that yon were there, was there a
medical man on duty at all times?
Dr. RICKER.Yes. The two sergeants lived in the same building as
the prisoners. It was not the main building, but it was within the
,enclosure.
Senator BALDWIN.Supposing an emergency had arisen with refer-
ence to any of these prisoners, either from an injury or otherwise, i n
the middle of the night, what would have been the method for han-
dling it ?
Dr. RICKER.Well, one of the enlisted men would have been called,
and they would have called me by phone, and I could have gotten
down there in a very few minutes.
Senator BALDWIN. mTereyou ever called on any such emergency?
Dr. RICKER.No, except one morning, early, I was called on a hang-
ing that you mentioned before.
Senator BALDWIN.What happened at that time?
Dr. RICKER.YOUmean, how did-
Senator BBLDWIN.Yes, just describe that to us.
Dr. RICHER.Well, one of the guards discovered this prisoner. 1
do not how long after lie hung himself, but it was quite a length of
time, and he cut him down and then called the enlisted man who called
me. It was about breakfast time or a little before. It was not in
the middle of the nicht. The man was obviously dead even when
the p a r d saw him. By the time I got there, there was not any ques-
tion about it.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you make rounds of the prison 8
Dr. RICKER.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. And what f o r ?
Dr. RICKER.For inspections and on these daily tours to see the
ailing prisoners.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUsay you treated the111 in the cells?
Dr. RIGKER.I n the cells as much as possible. If they needed minor
surgery such as opening of an abscess or a dressing that we could not
handle in a cell, we took thein over to the prison dispensary and took
care of things there, and there were also a few hospital beds in the
prison dispensary that we could use for treatment of minor condi-
tions that did not require real hospitalization but meant that they
should be out of their cells.
Senator BALDWIN. During the time that you were there, did you
have any emergency cases other than this hanging?
Dr. RICKER.NO.
Senator BALDWIN.Were there any injuries, emergency injuries,
that you were called to treat?
Dr. RICKER.So. there were none at all.
Senator BALDWIN.What kind of complaints did you get mostly ?
Dr. RICKER.Oh, sore throats, colds, and occasionally digestive com-
plaints, a few diarrheas. We had quite a f e v sli-in-well, rashes and
skin conditions that they complained about.
Senator BALDWIN. What was the condition of this place as to
icleanliness ?
Dr. RICKER.I think it was quite good.
Senator BALDWIN. Was that under your charge?
Dr. RICIIER.Well, indirectly. Any recommendations I had were
promptly carried out by the commanding officer of the detachment
them
,Senator B A L D ~ I N
HOK
. about the cleanliness of the prisoners them-
sehes, personal cleanliness ?
Dr. RICIKER. Well, as I remember, it was satisfactory.
I think they had-they certainly had facilities for washing if they
wanted to, and I know on one or more occasions the bedding and mat-
tresses were taken out and aired during the time that I was there.
Senator BALDWIN. m7llat were the conclitions of the beds?
Dr. RICIKER. They ITere clean for a prison.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUsay LLcleanfor a prison." What do you
mean by that ?
Dr. EICKER.T he mattresses-I mean it is pretty hard to keep them
spotless like a hospital, or something like that, but the mattresses were
clean. As far as I could tell, there vere no parasites or bugs of any
sort. They all had mattresses either on the floor or on bunks.
Senator BALDWIN.Now, Doctor, nobody has made any coniplaillt
about your treatment in this case. and I would like to have you tell
me very, very frankly on your oath what you ever observed that you
might have considered an abuse of these prisoners in any way-push-
ing, slapping. threatening, striking, lineeing in the groin, or anything
that you may know aboout.
872 %IALMEDT LMASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Dr. RICICER.I did not see any evidence of abuse of them a t all. I
thought they mere quite well treated f o r the type of prisoners they
were.
T h e fact that they had to be kept without conmlunication with
others and in what you call solitary confinement, although i t was not
actually what I would call solitary confinement-they mere just alone
i n the cell, with light, air, adequate facilities-but I saw n o evidence
a t all of any abuse.
Senator BALDWIN.IQere you present a t any of these interrogations?
Dr. RICHER.J u s t the one that I inentioned here to Mr. Chambers.
Senator BALDWIN.Do you recall how that was conducted?
Dr. RICHER. Well, it was, I suppose, v h a t they would call the
"schnell" procedure. They had the cell set up with a table and two o r
three chairs, and I sat in there bel~inclthe table. There mere two or
three others besides Lieutenant Perl. I do llot remember which ones
they were, but there were t ~ oro three other Sinericans i n the room,
and they brought this prisoner i n and Lieutenant Perl proceeded t o
interrogate him.
Senator BALDWIN.Describe Lieutenant Perl's conduct. How did
h e interrogate him?
Dr. RICIIER. Well, he usecl all the n~aimerisinsand voice iixflections,
and so forth, of a lawyer i n the courtroom in front of a jury or any
other place that I have ever heard. H e never struck him, and he did
not, as f a r as I could tell, bully him.
Senator BALDTVIN. This was in German?
Dr. RICKER. T h a t was all in Gennan, so I coulcl not understand
very much of what was going on.
Senator BALDWIN.Did he lay his hand on him at all ?
Dr. RICHER. I do not think so: I would not remember. I clo not
think he did.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUw o ~ d dnot k n o Gernlan ~ ?
Dr. RICICER.Not nluch; just a fen- words.
Senator BALDTVIN. Could you tell ~ i h e t h e his
r language and nlailner
was tlzreatening? W h a t would you say about hinl?
Dr. RICHER.No ; I do not think i t mas exactly threatening.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, what was it ?
Dr. RICHER.Any more than you are trying to get somebody to tell
something, and you kind of get, excited about it and raise your voice,
and so forth, but I do not, I mould not say that he mTas exactly
threatening.
Senator BALDWIN.You do not recall the name of this particular
prisoner ?
Dr. RICHER. No :1an1 sorry, bnt 1iust do not.
Senator BALDTV~N. I n t h i s w & - t i c ~ d case
a r was there soinebocly who
seemed to take the prisoner's p a r t ?
Dr. RICICER.I really do not remember abont that. I tried to when
they talked about it yesterday, but I do not remember if they had a
so-called defense counsel or not a t that time.
Senator BALDTVIN. Did they use regularly a set of rooms, or one
room, for these interrogations?
Dr. RICHER.They had four or five cells that had previously been
cells that were set aside for that.
Senator BALDWIN.Where were they with reference to your head-
quarters ?
Dr. RICKER.Well, they were in another cell block.
Senator BALDWIN.Another cell block?
Dr. RICICER.But I spent practically d l my spare time wit11 the team.
There was not very much medical work to do. I did a few odd jobs
for them, like composing a file of the case. I remember indexing it.
That took several weeks. I was u p there a good many hours a clay
with the men.
Senator BALDWIN.What was their attitude generally toward these
prisoners? I mean, ,was i t one of bullying, or was it one of tolerance,
one of threats, anger, hatred, or what was i t ? , How would you de-
scribe i t ?
Dr. RICKER.Well, it was one-they felt that certainly some of thein
were guilty and they should be punishecl for it, and they would d o their
best to find out which ones were. There certainly was not any attitude
that I noticed that they were bound to get somebody for i t a t all costs.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you mess at the prison with this team?
Dr. RICKER.1lived in the same house with them.
Senator BALDWIN.Did yo11 ever hear them talking about using any
violence or mything of that kind?
What, if anything, was ever said about that that yon might have
heard ?
Dr. RICICER.None, except what I inentioiled to Mr. Chambers a few
minntes a2o. They did mextion that if the Sermans or Russians or
some of the other nations had been doing this the prisoners would not
be treated as well.
Senator BALDWIN.A t the time you came there. which was the 19th
of January, that was the day before Dr. Karan left, was it not?
Dr. RICKER. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.H a d the case been broken by then? Do you know
what I mean by t h a t ? H a d they yet gotten any leads?
Dr. RICKER.Oh, they had gotten a lot of leads. As I remember
nothing had shaped up very well. They had not gotten any confes-
sions a t all by that time, a t least I do not think they had. Even when
I left they still had not the whole case worked out.
Senator BALDWIN.W h a t was the attitude of these prisoners toward
the guards, toward you, and toward the interrogators as you might
have observed it ?
Dr. RICKER.Well, they were very sullen. They were fairly coopera-
tive. They just did not exhibit anything much of a n attitude a t all.
They did what they were told and they behaved quite well wllen we
took them to the hospital or on a couple of occasions we went down
t o the dental laboratory about 30 miles away. They behaved quite well.
Senator BALDWIN.Could any of these Germans talk English?
Dr. RICKER.Yes, a few of them could, a few words they would
mention, but as f a r as any conversation was concerned, there was not
any except about their complaints, but occasionally I would have to
see a prisoner without an interpreter for one reason or another, and I
would t r y with my meager German and his English and we might get
a little understanding out of him.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever hear any screaming or crying for
help or shouting, or anything like that, in the prison ?
Dr. RICHER. NO.
Senator BALDWIN.While you were there, did you ever see any
weapons of any kind that might be used f o r beating a person, o r any-
thing of that kind?
Dr. RICHER.NO;never saw anything like that.

Senator BALDWIN. Did you ever hear any of this investigating team
brag about the manner in which they might have secured a confession?
Dr. RICKER.Yes; I heard them-
Senator BALDWIN. What was said?
Dr. RICKER.They merely made mention of the way they had tricked
the prisoner into giving some evidence.
Senator BALDWIN. What do you mean by "tricked" ?
Dr. RICHER.Well, by either telling them, letting them think that
they knew all about it and were only trying to fill in the details, or
by saying that so-and-so has already confessed. "You might as well
do it yourself," or by some trick questions, I suppose. They men-
tioned that too.
Senator k m w m . Was there any other trick employed that they
mentioned ?
Dr. RICEER. Not that I remember.
Senator BALDWIN. There is testimony in the record to the effect that
a man by the name of Thon took a prisoner one time, led him up a few
steps, put a rope around his neck and said that he was about to be
executed, about to be hanged. Did you ever hear Thon saying anything
about t h a t ?
Dr. RICEER.NO; I did not.
Senator BALDWIN. Do you know anything about that incident a t
all ?
. do not. I heard nothing about it. I do not remember
Dr. R ~ c n w I
hearing about it.
Senator BALDWIN. I n one of the affidavits here there is the state-
ment that many of these prisoners had been seriously injured by being
kicked in the genitals. Do you know anything about that?
Dr. RICHER.There was not any evidence as f a r as I could see.
Senator BALDWIN. Did any of these men ever make any complaint to
yon ?
Dr. RICKER.NO; they never complained about that a t all.
Senator BALDWIN. This time that you attended this investigation-
how did you happen to be there at that time?
Dr. RICKER. Well, I believe they needed somebody in there for
effect.
Senator BALDWIX. What did you do?
Dr. RICKER. I just sat at the table and did nothing.
Senator BALDWIN. Do you recall how long that interrogation lasted?
Dr. RICHER.Oh, I doubt if it was over 10 or 15 minutes.
Senator BALDWIN. How did they bring tl>e prisoner i n ?
Dr. RICKER.J ust one of the guards opend the door of the cell and
marched him in.
Senator BALDWIN. Did he have anything over his head?
Dr. RIOIIER.I think he had the hood on when he got in there. I
believe lie did. They took that off.
Senator BALDWIN. You had an opportu~lityto see Lieutenant Per1
there a good deal of the time ?
Dr. RICKER. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. What is your estiniate of him and his methods?
That is a kind of a difficult question to ask you. Did you gather any-
thing from his talk or from his manner that he exhibited any hate
or venom ?
\

Dr. RICKER.Oh, I think he clid hate the Germans.
Senator BALDWIN. What made yon think that?
Dr. RICHER.From some of the things that he said. I do not re-
member the specific comn~entshe made, but he tallied repeatedly about
his wife being in the concentration camp for 4 years and about friends
of his and the ~ a hey had been treated, and getting out of the country.
Senator BALDWIN. H e clid talk about that ?
Dr. R I C I ~ RH.e inentioned it.
Senator BALDWIN. When he mras in the presence of any prisoner
alld yo" may have observed him, did heexhibit that venom in any way?
Dr. RICKER. NO;I never observed him taking i t out on the prisoners,
so to speak.
Senator BALDWIN. What did you yourself think of the methods that
you observed being used and that yon heard talked about being used
on these prisoners ? I mean, what was your personal reaction to it ?
Dr. RICKER. Well, my personal reaction was that it was all right.
The inethods they were using were perfectly 0. K. and fair.
Senator BALDWIN. DOyou know of any occasion where they threat-
ened any of these prisoners ?
Dr. RICKER. NO;I do not.
Senator BAWWIN.Did you know Peiper? Did you ever talk with
Peiper ?
Dr. RICHER. I never talked to him. I cto not believe I ever saw any-
thing but the back of his head and shoulders. H e sat in the cell in the
hospital, in the dispensary, and practically all of the time had his
back to the door working at a desk.
Senator BALDWIN. When you were with these investigators, what
was their general talk and, if you could judge anything, their general
attitude toward these prisoners?
Dr. RICHER. Well, the general attitude was that some, if not all, of
them were guilty of a crime that they should pay for, and that i t was
up to the investigators to find out which ones mere guilty and how
guilty and see that they were punished.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, did yon ever hear anybody say that so-and-
SO is a liar, "We will get him the next time; we ought to bat him
around,'' or anything of that kind?
Dr. RICHER. NO. I certainly heard them say, "Well, so-and-so is
lying; we will have t o see if we cannot get the truth out of him," or
something like that, bnt I never heard them mention having to beat
anybody around.
Senator BALDWIN. TThat was the attitude of the guards toward these
prisoners as you saw them ;that is, the American guards ?
Dr. RICKER. Well, more or less indifferent. That was their job, to
go over, get them out of their cells, and bring them to the interroga-
tion section.
Senator BAWWIN.Were you there when the Polish soldiers were
there acting as guards?
Dr. RICHER.I just cannot remember. I think they came there just
about the time I left, and I did not have very much opportunity to
observe them in action.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you ever know of any of the guards or any.
body kicking these prisoners, tripping them, shoving them against the
wall, pushing them around, slapping their faces, or anything of that
kind; I mean the type of physical violence that probably would not
91765-49-56
result in the requirement of medical attention but nevertheless might

be torturous or abusive?
Dr. RICHER.NO; I never saw any of that happen. I never heard of
any.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Dr. Ricker, I have several affidavits here. Yon niay
not identify these prisoners by name. I mould not expect you to
remember them all. These are more or less typical of some of the
statements that have been made, and I woulcl like to ask your coninlent
on them.
You say you got around through the prison q ~ ~ iat ebit and that
you spent considerable time in the interrogatioll center. Now here
is an affidavit signed by a prisoner by the name of Flepss, T T ~ Ostates,
among other things :
From January 3, 1946, to approsinlately Narch 7 I was then located in cell
No. 84 near the interrogation cells, and I ofteu heard the doors of the cells open-
ing and my comrades crying and shouting for help.
Now you must have been arouncl that area considerably.
Dr. RICHER.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Have you ever heard of any matters of that kind?
Dr. RICHER.NO; I never heard any of them screaming or crying
for help.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you by any chance recall a prisoner by the
name of Hendel ?
Dr. RICKER.NO; I never heard of him.
Mr. CHAXBERS. He was an SS trooper who said he was badly
wounded in the head four times during the war, and he makes a
statement here on April 5. That is while you were there, I believe.
Dr. RICHER.No; I left in early March.
M8r.CHAMBERS. Well, then you could not be expected to testify on
this point. For the purpose of the record me will complete what he
did say:
On April 5, when I reported sick, a United States sergeant medic appeared
and told me that I mould be taken to the- hospital. After a short while he
told me t h a t putting me in the hospital hatl been prohibitecl. This sergeant
spoke German very well.
Now, were there any cases callecl to your attention while you
were there of people who reported siclr and who the sergeant at least .
thought should be put in the hospital, but who were turned down?
Dr. RICHER.No; they were very cooperative about it. I f we felt
they should be hospitalized, it was done.
Mr. CHAMBERS. A decision of this kind, whether or not they could
go to the hospital, would that be np to the prosecution staff or woulcl
it be up to you?
Dr. RICKER.Well, it should be up to the medical officer, but it is
just possible that, in talking it over with the team, one of the men
could have been so important and the meclical complaints so trivial
it really did not need hospitalization, that it was postponed for a while.
I am just supposing that. I always went to Major Fantoh. H e was
in charge most of the time I was there, and I said, "So-and-so is siclr
and he really should be hospitalized," and he would s?y, LLA1l right;
go ahead and take him down," but I always cleared wlth him first to
be sure that there was not a good reason for not sending him down.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was there ever a time when you thought a mall
shoulcl go to the hospital and Major Fallton overruled you and said
lie should not go?
Dr. RICKER.NO; there never was.
.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Ellis, you were there April 5. Do you
recall any reqnest being made to you or any statement made to you
that a man was sick and should go to the hospital?
Colonel ELLIS. I recall no such instance.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO you recall this man Hendel?
Colonel ELLIS. Yes; by name.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. Doctor, here is a part of the statement by a man
by the name of Henneke, and this episode took place during the night
of the 24th to 25th of March 1946:
A man was beaten down with a whip in front of my cell. H e shouted and
lnoaned "I did not fire." Those were his ~ o r d s and
, his torturer's words were,
"You swine, you did fire ; admit it and you will be left alone."
Senator Baldwin asked you a question. Did yon ever see any
weapons around the place? Did you ever see any whips or anything
that could be used for a whip around the prison?
Dr. RICKER.I never saw any ; no.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you eyer hear of any being there or anything
about a whip?
Dr. RICKER. No.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Here is another statement by a man by the name
of Goldschmidt :
On March 9 I was told by Mr. Perl t h a t I had been sentenced to death, t h a t I
would be executed within 2 days. I n this cell I often heard desperate crying
and shouts of help conling from various other cells.
Well, now, if you were around the prison, would it have been
reasonable to assume that you would have heard such cries?
Dr. RICKER.I think so; yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But you have testified that-
Dr. RICHER.I did not hear any a t all.
Mr. CHAMBERS. We
have a statement here from a man by the name
of Max Rieder. I think there are two points here that I would like
to ask you about. This is before you came there, perhaps.
At the end of January . mas kicked in the genitals, but I cannot say who t h e
I
person was who did this, f o r I was wearing a hood. After 2 days I started
suffering terrible pains and was admitted to the hospital, but since my condition
worsened I was taken to the hospital a t Stuttgart and operated on a few days
later. To the best of my memory I was taken back t o Schwabisch Hall on the
12th- a
I assume that is the 12th of January-

but I was no longer treated medically a t Schwabisch Hall, but taken into a cell
where the medicine was taken away from me. Only after 14 days did I receive
a complete set of clothing. Having been interrogated 20 times, I would like
to describe my main interrogation during which Mr. Perl and Mr. Thon on
March 19 threatened me for half a n hour, by treatment in the upper and lower
abdomen and head, with hanging, and t o the best of my knowledge I was kicked
in the genitals by Mr. Perl. At t h a t time I did not wear a hood, and only woke
up a t one time i n my cell. When I then wanted to report sick, this was prohibited
by t h e guard.
Now I will stop there. There is another matter I would like to
discuss with you. Now you were at Schwabisch Hall, I believe?
Dr. RICKER.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.What is the name of that prisoner?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Rieder, sir. Prom the 19th of January on?

Dr. RICEER. Yes.
Mr. C H A ~ ~ E R SoS a. t the end of January you would have been i n
charge of the medical detachment?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Here is a man who says he was admitted to the hos-
pital where he was operated on as a result of having been kicked in
the genitals. Now you testified that there was never any kicking
in the genitals that you knew of around there, and nobody got medical
care for it. Now what have you to say on this?
Dr. RICEER. I remember the name and I remember that we took
him to the hospital, but I do not remember what the reason was.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, Doctor, if he had been kicked in the genitals,
do you suppose you would remember that?
Dr. RIGKER.I think I would have.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But you cannot state from memory whether his
statement here is correct or not?
Dr. RICKER.NO; I cannot.
Senator BALDWIN.What was the date of that? H e did not come
there until January 19.
Mr. CHAMBERS. H e said at the end of January.
Dr. RICKER.I remember the name of the man. That is one I do.
I remember some of these when you mention them to me. I recall
their names.
Also I cannot conceive of any operation that would have t o be per-
formed on a person that was kicked in the genitals. I just cannot
think of any.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, if he was ruptured, he would have to be
operated on ;would he not ?
Dr. RICKER.That is not going to rupture a person.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, if he had been operated on shortly after
the end of January-bear in mind he said at the end of January he
was kicked and "after 2 days I started suffering terible pains and was
admitted to the hospital a i d operated on, and a few days later," well,
he says, "the 12th of February I was returned to Schrrabisch Hall,
bnt was no longer treated medically."
Dr. RICKER.Well, if he was operated on and was returned in such
a short time, I doubt very much if that is true because I h e w about
all of the men that were brought back, the patients that mere brought
back from the main hospital, and frequently they were put back in
one of the dispensary cells where they would have a little more super-
vision than in their own cells.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, I presume that the hospital records a t
S t ~ ~ t t g a rIt ,believe yon testified, were good recorcls and they were
pernlanent, so we should be able to verify this statement one way or
the other from their recorcls, is that not correct ?
Dr. RI~KER. I am sure they kept the same records as they did with
sonnel in our hospital.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
-
the Americans. I know me did when we took care of Ciernian per-
But insofar as a man coming back from the hos-
pital and having his medicine taken away from him and no longer
being treated medically is concerned, do you think that 11-odd be
poss~ble?
Dr. RICKER.NO;I do not see how it could have been, because I would
have either been in the ambulance bringing him back, or would know
about it when he returned. I went down there three times with the
prisoners.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Doctor, is it a fair stateinpt, then, to say that you
remember something about a man by the name of Rieder?
Dr. RICI~ER. That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And do you remember whether or not he was sent to
the hospital ?
Dr. RICKER.I think so ;yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUdo not recall, however, the diagnosis that took
him to the hospital?
Dr. RICIIER. NO; I do not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUdo not recall whether or not he was in fact
operated on ?
Dr. RICIIER. No ; I do not recall that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you do not recall but categorically state that
if he did come back from the hospital, you cannot conceive of him
being deprived of further medical treatment?
Dr. RICHER.If he needed it. -
Mr. CHAMBERS. I f he needed it ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Here

is one other point which ties into this ques-
tion of health and sanitation also contained in Max Rieder's state-
ment. He says :
During my interrogations a t Schmabisch Hall, I could not take a bath from
December until -4pril.
Now that statement is somewhat unique in Rieder's affidavit. It
does not appear generally throughout these affidavits. Now under
what circnmstances or why was not a man permitted to take a bath?
Dr. RICHER.I did not realize they were not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, do you know what facilities they had for
taking a bath? Was it a bucket of water that they got for bathing
purposes? Were there showers available, or how did that work?
Dr. BICKER.NO; I just do not remember. As I said before, some
of the cells had other running water than the toilets, and some of
the cells had nothing but the toilets in them, but in those I am sure
that they were given a basin or a bucket of rrater.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, from the standpoint of medical care, the
ability to take a bath or wash up occasionally would appear to be a
very important and necessary part. Here is a man who says he was
not permitted to take a bath from December to April.
Dr. RICHER.I doubt if that is true.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOWI had one other question. I think you have
already answered this so many times, but for the purpose of the record
1 want to put it in.
This is the affidavit of a man by the name of Ralph Ritzer and he was
i n cell No. 145 of block C. I do not knom7 whether vou recall where
that is or not. I n his affidavit he says :
Every day the prison inmates of the death cells mere beaten terribly. I t did not
Suffice to beat them by fists, but shoes and clubs were used a s well. Since the
floor and the walls of this building were very thin, I had to listen to everything
whether I wanted to or not, and whenever everything else was completely quiet,
I could understand every word t h a t mas spoken. The men were mostly beaten so
strongly and so long that they bellowed a i t h pain terribly for 30 to 30 minutes
until they had shouted themselves hoarse. Sometimes a s I mentioned before, I
could understand almost everything. I t mas really not difficult to hear who i t
was that was carrying out the beating.
Now there again you have a n affidavit to the effect that there were a
lot of people bellom~iagout with pain for periods of 20 to 30 minutes,
and apparently over a period of a great many days. Now you have
testified that you got arouncl that prison regularly a i d you spent a lot
of time i n it. What mould you say to this statement?
Dr. RICKER.I do not know how it could have been possible without
either myself or one of the medical sergeants hearing about it, or hear-
CHAMBERS. Did YOU ever hear anybody talliillg about anybody
c r ing out or screaming or hollering?
6,. RICKER. No; I never did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have n o more questions, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUare quite sure about t h a t ?
Dr. KICKER. I am quite sure.
Senator BALDWIN.HOWthick were these n-alls? Can rou tell u s
anything about that ?
Dr. RICKER.T h e outside walls were quite thick.
Senator BALDWIN.I mean the walls between the cells.
Dr. RICHER. I think they were masonry of some sort. I do not think
they mere just stucco or plaster. I think they was masonry between
them. I am not sure but I know that there were some hooks i n the
cells that they tried to get out, and finally had to saw them off because
they were imbedded so deeply. T h e doors were thick.
Senator BALDWIN.W h a t were the doors made o f ? Wood or steel?
Dr. RICHER. Some of them were steel and some were wood. Most of
them mere steel.
Senator BALDWIN. Most of them were steel. T h a t was the little
window you described? Was that always open or was i t a glass win-
dow ?
Dr. RICRER. It was a glass window.
Senator BALDWIN.Could you open i t ?
Dr. RICRER. I do not think so, on that ope. I think they had another
apertmre somewhere that they could put the food in. I am not sure
though. I really do not remember, but I think they did. T h a t window
mas just f o r observation.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, would it have been possible for a nian in a
cell to have heard and understood conversations being conducted i n
other cells in the vicinit j r ?
Dr. RICRER. Well, I suppose if they were conducted loud enough,
I guess they could.
Mr. CHAMBER.Could a man stand inside of the cell and talk t o yon
on the outside and you understand what he was saying?
Dr. RICHER. No. Yon could hear lie was talking orshouting, but
that was about it. I
Senator BALDWIN.You say you could hear if he was talking o r

shouting. Did you ever hear any of them shout ?
Dr. RICKER. NO; but I meant when I stood in front of the cell and
looked in, maybe the man inside wonlcl holler something, which I
do not know what he said. You could tell he mas doing it, but as
f a r as the exact words are concerned, yon conlcl not.
MALMEDP MASSACRE INT'EGTIGATIOhT 881
Senator BALDWIN.VThen you were there a t the prison, where did
yon spend inost of your time?
Dr. R I C I ~ RI. spent most of my tinle in and around the investi-
gators' office.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you et8r hear m y shouting or screaming
or calling for help ?
Dr. RICKER.NO.
Senator BALDWIN. You are qnite sure about t h a t ?
Dr. RICIIER. Quite sure.
Senator B A L D ~ I NI. wanted to ask Dr. Karan if he 1;nows any-
thing about the Rieder case. Did you hear the questions that were
asked concerning the Rieder case, the man who was kicked in the
genitals so badly that he had to go to the hospital?
Dr. I ~ R A N .
While,I 13~asthere there was no case that was taken to
the hospital because of t ~ o u b l ewith the genitals. 1 definitely re-
member-that.
Sellator BALDTVIX. I think we should t r y to get those hospital re-
cords if we possibly can.
Mr. CI~A~IBERS. Sir, we have alt-eady requested the Army to first
of all make a check to find if the dispensary records are still avail-
able. Secondly, we have also asked them to locate these hospital
records which are supposed to be permanent, and we will make a
check of them.
Senator B L i ~ ~ ~ r 1Hna. .~ you
e any further questions?
Mr. CIIA~IBERS. I have no further questions, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.I think that is all the questions I have. Thank
you very much.
Mr. CHAXBERS.Thank you, Doctor.
Senator BALDWIN.Any further witnesses ?
Mr. CHANBERS.No further witnesses today, sir.
(Whereupon, a t 3 :I0p. in., the subcommittee adjourned, subject to
the call of the Chair.)
MONDAY, MAY 83, 1949
UNITEDSTATESSENATE,
SUBCOMMIT~RE OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
Washinyton, D.C .
The subcommittee met, p ~ ~ r s u a ntot adjournment, at 10 a. m. in
presiding.
Present : ~ e n a t o rBaldwin
s and Hunt.
Also present: J. M. Chambers of the committee staff.
Senator BALDWIN. The committee will come to order.
Will you stand up, Colonel, and hold up your right hand? Do you
selemnly swear the eviclence you shall give in the matter now in
question shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God ?
Colonel CARPENTER. I do.
TESTIMONY OF LT. COL. EDWIN J. CARPENTER, HEADQUARTERS,
FIRST CAVALRY DIVISION, TOKYO, JAPAN
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Carpenter, will you give your full name
and your present station?
Colonel CARPENTER. Edwin J. Carpenter, lieutenant colonel, head-
quarters, First Cavalry Division, located a t Tokyo, Japan.
-Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Carpenter, during the war were you a t any
time assigned to any duty in connection with the so-called Malmedy
case ?
Colonel CARPENTER. Yes. I was assigned at that time in the War
Crimes Branch, Judge Advocate's Office, the European theater, and
I had, incidentally, some association with the Malmedy trial before
the trial was had in that I was directed t o go down to Dachau from
our headquarters at Weisbaden and inquire into some allegations that
had been made by the defense prior to the trial of the case.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I interrupt, Colonel? Who assigned you to
this task?
Colonel CARPENTER. The deputy theater judge advocate for war
crimes at that particular time, Col. Claude: Mickelwaite.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And he was theater deputy judge advocate, is that
correct ?
Colonel CARPENTER. Later. A t that time, I am sure, he was the
deputy theater judge advocate for war crimes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. All right, sir. Do you recall what had called this
matter to Colonel Mickelwaite's attention?
883
Colonel CARPENTER. Yes. H e informed me, prior to my trip down

to Dachau, that he had been informed by Colonel Corbin who was-
well you might call him the chief of the Dachau branch. I don't think
that was his exact title but Colonel Corbin had informed Colonel
Mickelwaite that Colonel Everett and the defense attorneys were mak-
ing a number of accusations against the prosecution in the manner that
Ibe case had been investigated.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were the Dachau courts run by one of the armies,
or were they run by the theater ?
Colonel CARPENTER. There were different changes, different times.
Whether the Seventh Army was running that court at that time, I
would have to look a t the records. They were run by the armies.
Mr. CHAMBERS. They were run by the armies?
Colonel CARPENTER. And when the armies were deactivated they
came under the theater.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SOin effect what you had was an Army judge advo-
cate getting in touch with the theater and saying that allegstions had
been made concerning this treatment of prisoners and asking that ont-
side investigation be made ; is that correct ?
Colonel CARPENTER. Substantially. I think a t the time-as I say,
I would have to refresh my recollection on that-but I think you are
absolutely right. I think at that time these courts were Army courts
and Colonel Corbin was the judge advocate of the Army in charge
of war crimes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Pardon me for interrupting you. Can you tell us
the instructions you received from Colonel Mickelwaite ?
Colonel CARPENTER. My instructions were verbal. My instrnctions
were to go down there and ascertain,the claims being made by the
defense, the claims of misconduct, if there were any, and what the facts
were, and report the facts to him.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Carpenter, in carrying out those instruc-
tions, I wish you would tell us in just as much detail as your memory
will permit a t this time, what you did. It will be helpful t o us, I a p
sure, if you could divide the charges into those of brutality and physi-
cal mistreatment, and those involving the mock trials, the so-called
Schnell proceedings.
Colonel CARPENTER. When I arrived-I have briefly outlined my
instructions which were very brief aiid entirely verbal, to try to ascer-
tain the facts. When I arrived at Dachau I contacted Colonel Everett,
who was the chief defense counsel. And I talked to Colonel Everett
and his staff in an effort to ascertain factually what claims they were
making of misconduct.
They informed me they had obtained statements from each of the
accused in their own handwriting, signed by the accused, and from
these statements they stated that they had learned about these mock
trials.
- That was the whole gist of their complaint, Everett's and his
staff.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay that they had complained of the mock
trials ?
Colonel CARPENTER. That was the main burden of their story. They
had these nnnlber of statements, and they had winnowed out from these
total number of statements some, in the twenties-I can't give the
exact fignre, but they had bet.~c-een-twenty-some statements, and most
of these statements referred to these so-called mock trials.
Now you ask me to differentiate a i d segregate the alleged brutali-
ties and mock trials. That is very difficult to do, but I will do the best
I can.
Mr. CHAMRERS. All right, sir.
Colonel CARPENTER. For this reason : None of these accused in their
statements claimed that they had been brutally treated or beaten up
in an effort to obtain statements from them or confessioils from them.
Senator BALDWIN.May I interrupt right there, Colonel. You refer
to the statements. Were these statellwilts copies of the claimed con-
fessions that the prosecution had secured, o r were they statements
that the defense had secured in the preparation of the case for the
defense ; do you know ?
Colonel CARPENTER. Statements that the defense had obtained from
all of these accused in the preparation of their defense.
Senator BALDWI~-. Do you know how they were obtained by the
defense? Did they tell you anything about the routine they went
through in coilnection with them ? - -
Colonel CARPENTER. They told me they had reqnested each one of
their clients, so-called, every one of the accused, to inake a sts~tement
of any mistreatment or any alleged mistreatment that they had suf-
fered a t the hands of the investigators. I mas so informed by-I can-
not tell you the exact name. It may have been Colonel Everett or
one of his assistants. H e had a staff of six or seven. And those were
t h e statements I have reference to, that he turned over to me and dis-
(cussed with me, he or his staff.
Senator BALDWIN.Colonel Chambers shows me a questionaaire here
which reads as follows :
PERSOXAL DATA O F ACCUSED F O E INFOKM9TIOX O F DEFEASE COUKSEI,
To accuierl: This information is necessary to enable your counsel to initiate

his preparation of yonr defrnse. I t is to yonr Interest to be accurate with respect
to charges Yon will be persoually interrogated a t a later date. If there i s
insufficient space to answer ally questions, contiuue on the reverse side of t h e
sheet, listlng the nmnber of t h e question.
Then it calls for name. rank, serial nnmber. date of capture, appre-
hension, name of organizatioils from December 31, 1944, to date, and
so forth-age, rank, permanent residence, married or single, place of
birth, list of all dependents, educa t ion.
'
What was your occupation in civilian life? Military education and training?
What inrtrnctions, if any, have yon received during your military career relatmg
to the Genera Conr-ention and the treatlneut of prisoners of w a r ?
And then is a long- series of questions t h a t go into their military ex-
-
perience.
Then they go on, further donm, q ~ ~ e s t i o21-110;
n
i t is No. 20 :
When and i n what places were you in prison? . Give dates and locations.
2 1 : State any circnmstance relating t o yonr treatment, denial of food, or loss

of privileges in any of abore places.
2 2 : Have ~ o been
u in solitary confinement during yonr imprisonment?
23 : If so, how long aud where?
24: What part did yon play in the Eiffel offeusive during the months of De-
cember 1044 and J a i i u i u ~ -19G? List organizations and duties.
The Eiffel offense was the so-called drive in the Battle of the Bulge
which has been described here.
Is that the type of q~~estionaaire you say you discussed with them?
Colonel CARPENTER. They had excerpted the parts from the mswers
as a result of that questionnaire, referring to mistreatments, and had
these statements for me that they wanted me to see; statements that
were the result of that questionnaire. The part where they asked them
if they had been mistreated in any way.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When you first talked to Colonel Everett about
this, and he said as a result of this questionnaire they had developed
charges of alleged mistreatment, and so on, do you recall whether or
not he made i t clear to you that these charges were first brought to
their attention by this uestionnaire, or was i t something that they had
?,
found out by other met ods?
Colonel CARPENTER. From the fact he had all these statements he
said that these people had made, it was nzy impression, and I was
fully convinced it was the result of this questionnaire that these al-
leged so-called mistreatment facts were developed.
Senator BALDWIN.DOyou recall about what date that was, Colonel?
Colonel CARPENTER. Without referring to the records, I know it was,
I know i t was before May.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was it before the trial started?
Colonel CARPENTER. Oh, yes, sometime before the trial started. It
was just after they had gone down to Dachau, both prosecution and
the defense. They n7erethen just getting under way in the prepara-
tion for the trial.
Mr. CHA~IBERS. Now, did Colonel Everett turn the statenlents over
to vou or extracts from them?
Colonel CARPENTER. Yes, the whole bunch of these statements.
&h-.CHAMBEHS.1wonder if you could tell us, and I realize we are
drawing on your memory here. I mixht say for the record, Mr. Chair-
man, that the colonel has just gotten in today from Tokyo.
Colonel CARPENTER. Late yesterday evening.
Mr. CHANBERS. And has had very little opportunity to refresh his
memory on any aspect of this matter, and several years have passed by.
However, I wonder if yon mould dram on your memory now and telI
us as accurately as you can the type of charges, and what some of these
claims were.
Colonel CARPENTER. Well, the claims that the defense were stressing
were these so-called mock trials. Any alleged brutality was wholly
incidental.
1went into that in detail when I examined a11 of these people. I
took the whole bunch of them that made a n y claim of any alleged mis-
conduct, which included mock trials, and examined them. I had a
lieutenant who mas n fluent linguist, and I talked to them all individ-
ually and separately.
Mr. CHANBERS. May I interrupt to ask who was this lieutenant, do
you recall?
Colonel CARPENTER. That-I would have to look a t the records t o
tell that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was he connected with the prosecution staff?
Colonel CARPENTER. He was not. He was one of Colonel Corbin's
men. If it was under the Army, which I think it was, he was not even
connected with our office.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,you have said there were certain types of mis-
treatment which included 'mock\trials. What were some of the other
types of mistreatment ?
Colonel CARPENTER. The whole bnrden of their complaint a t that
time was lhese mock trials. However, when I interrogated them-
and I think it perhaps was in the s'tatement-fonr of these twenty-
some. which I would have to find records to get the exact number of,
between 20 and 30-4 of that g o n p claimed that they had been h i t
incidentally. There was no claim by anyone that they had been
brutally treated in an effcrt to get a confession or to get a statement.
They claimed on their way from the cell to the place of interrogation
somebody took a punch a t them, or on their way back somebody took
s p~ulcha t them. I went into that quite carefully. I could not get;
any description of tpe facts. They did not know the names. They
were very vague as to time, or as to place.
They always said on the way to or from. And that was the extent
of the physical brutality that I was able to develop.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Carpenter, let me go back and see if I have
this clew. You say you went down to see Colonel Everett, and he
turned over to you roughly twenty-odd different cases in which mis-
treatment had taken place.
Colonel CARPENTER. Me turned over the whole bunch of these state-
ments. We then, through the staff, went through them and found the
ones that alleged any kind of mistreatment including-the main mis-
treatment was these mock trials.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Those were the original questionnaires that had been
filled out and mere in the hmdwriting of the German prisoners?
Colonel CARPENTER. SOhe stated. Of course, I do not know.
Mr. CHANBERS.And only 20 of those alleged mistreatment, is that
correct ?
Colonel CARPENTER. Between 20 and 30. The exact number I can-
not give you.
Mr. CHA~TBERS. Out of that number only four alleged any type of
physical brutality?
Colonel CARPENTER. T h a t is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was there any claim in there of being on short
rations or on bread and water?
Colonel CARPENTER. NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was there any claim in there that they had
suffered ?
Colonel CARPENTER. Let me qualify that. There may have been
some claims as to that before they had been transfered. There were
some claims. I want t o be sure that I am right about this. There
were some claims that while they were in the hands of other troops
other than mar crimes investig,ztors--I thinlr there were some claims
of not having enough to eat. But I am very sure there were no claims
of not having enough to eat while they were in Schwabisch Hall.
Mr. CHAMBERS. While a t Schwabisch H a l l ?
Colonel CARPENTER. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Excuse me for interrupting .you, Colonel. But
when you got those documents, did you talk wlth the defendants
themselves, the accused, about them?
Colonel CARPENTER. Yes, sir. I brought them in individually, one
a t a time.
Senator BALDWIN.T h a t is the Germans themselves ?
Colonel CARPENTER. Oh, yes.
Senator BAWWIN. Did you talk with all 20 of them?
Colonel CARPENTER. I talkec! with a11 of them, the whole-I think

somewhere between 25 and 30. I would have to look up the records.
Senator BALDWIN.May I say, Senator Hunt, that this is Colonel
Carpenter from Tokyo. And we have been discussing and questioning
the colonel on the information that he obtained. His statement is
that Colonel Everett of the defense staff, after they got a t Dachau,
made a complaint through channels, ancl that Colonel Carpenter was
sent down to Dachau to look into this coniplaint made by the defense
i n behalf of the accnsecl, ancl he mas just telling us that lie examined a
number of questionnaires, and that there were between 20 and 30 of
them. I s that correct, Colonel?
Colonel CARPENTER. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.That had in the questioizizaire some reference
to either mock trails or physical abuse, or both, and as a result of that
he, with the assistance of an interpreter-I understood the lieutenant
with you was an interpreter.
Colonel CARPENTER. This lieutenant, I could find his name, but he
was a lieutenant under Colonel Corbin. H e was not assigned to our
ofFice, or he was not part of the prosecution. H e \\-as not in the prose-
cution.
Senator BALDWIN.H e was a linguist?
Colonel CARPENTER. H e was a linguist from Colonel Corbin's office.
Senator BALDWIN.Colonel Carpenter states that he sat clown with
these 20 or 30 German defendants, S S troopers, and questioned them.
Now go ahead from there, Colonel Chambers.
Senator HUNT. I want to apologize, Mr. Chairman, for tlie way I
have neglected this comniittee, but I have been out of t o ~ until
n today.
Senator BALDWIN.You have two other subcommittees of your own,
1understancl.
Senator HUNT. Both of then? are meeting today.
Senator BALDWIN.And you cannot be in more .than one place a t
once.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,to repeat, perhaps. Out of this 20 to 30 cases
which alleged mistreatment you found only 4 of them, approximately,
had claimed any mistreatment of a physical nature ?
Colonel CARPENTER. That is correct, only four claimed they had
ever been hit.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And none of them had claimed they had been on
bread and water after they had come to Scliwabisch Hall?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did any of t h e h complain to you that they had not
been given adeqnate blankets or had been uncomfortable from tlie
standpoint of cold, or what not? - '
Colonel CARPENTER. Not a t ~ & v a b i s c hHall. There were some
claims prior. But there were no claims made a t that time.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This may appear to be a foolish question in the li h t
of the other testimony, but so the record will be perfectly clear: Bid
any of these people claim they had teeth knocked out or jaws broken
or that they had been kicked in the genitals, and mistreatment of that
kind ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did they get into this question of solitary confine-
ment at Schwabiscli Hall?
Colonel CABPENTER. I think they were all i n solitary confinement
at various times.
Mr. CEIAMBERS. What did you find out that solitarj- collfineinent a t
Schwnbiscl~Hall amounted to ?
Colonel CARPENTER. Merely an individ~zalcell. There was no soli-
tary confinement for the matter of punisl-lment. I think most of them
ITere in incliviclual cells of their own. There were no other people in
with tlzein.
Mr. CHA~IEERS. I n talking to these people-and these are the Ger-
man prisoners, the accused, part of the 73 Z
Mr. CHAMBERS. None of them madg clainls that their confessions
had been extorted through force o r through physical niistreatment?
Mr. CHAMBERS.They did, howex'er, indicate that the "schnell"
procedure, or the mock trials, had been used for the purpose of get-
ting their confessions ?
Colonel CARPENTER. Yes; that mas their claim. That mas the bulk
of the claim. I n other words, that was practically all of their claim,
Mr. CIXA~IBERS. I wonder if you could tell us their reaction to it.
What are some of the things they said about t h a t ?
Colonel CARPENTER. Well, of course, as I say, it is quite a while.
TVithout illy notes that I made at that time I doubt if I ~ ~ o u lbe c l able
to give you any individual claim of any inclividual. I t was generally
the same pattern : That they were called in and confronted by someone
who made these accusations, one of their own-maybe a co~nradewho
mould come in and state the facts before them. And in general they
described the fact they had been taken from one place to another ~ i t h
ib hood on their head and taken into this room where there were
candles lighted, and informecl t h a t these witnesses would appear
against them.
Mr. CHAMRERS. NOW,did they tell you they had people appointed
to represent them or serve as their defense couasel, or anything of the
-
type ?
Colonel CARPENTER. Well, as I say, I cannot recall. They talked
about the prosecutor. They may have told me that, and they may
]lot. I cannot recall that. T h a t was nothing of any particular-
I do not think they talked about any defense counsel. I do not recall
it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did they give any indication that they believed that
.\\-as their trial, or that they had been judged, or would be sentenced,
or punished, or anything of the kind?
Colonel CARPENTER. I think one or two of them tried to say that
they thought they n7ere their trials a t the time, and that they later
learned i t mas not. There mas no particular claim. They merely
cited these facts.
I did not go into those in any great detail because I knew the pic-
ture after talking to two or three of them. It was the same thing
over and over again.
I asked several of them if they believed that mas their trial, a i d
they said they did not know, or they did not think it was. Several
said to me that they were not fooled. T h a t mas a comment.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I f they were not fooled, what were they kicking
about on i t ?
Colonel CARPENTER. They were ~llerelymaking all of this statement

in reply to inquiries ut to them by the defense counsel.
Mr. CHAMBERS. &LI say they did not claim physical mistreatment
to themselves. But did any of them make any statements concern-
ing mistreatment to others within Schwabisch Hall, and that they had
heard cries or any indication of physical violel~cebeing used?
Colonel CARPENTER. I think one of them said that just before he
went in he heard a noise of somebody crying, and he thought they were
trying to fool him. I have a recollection of one of them thinking they
were trying to fool him-these yells.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,did they mention the fact that they had made
confessions, that they had given confessions against their own in-
terests as well as accusing some of their own comrades of the various
Malmedy crimes 8
Colonel CARPEXTER. I did not conceive it was my purpose to go into
the truth of their confessions. I n other words, I was inquiring into
the circumstances in which they were claiming misconduct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I wonder if that carried with it the responsibility
of trying to see whether or not those confessions had been secured
through improper methods.
Colonel CARPENTER. The only claim-is your question-I want to
be clear myself. I s your question: Did these people say that these
confessions were obtained by these means ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is what I would like to have answered, yes.
Colonel CARPENTER. A very small percentage of them even made
that claim. There were, 1think, perhaps some that made that claim.
I asked them, and they said they were not fooled.
Senator HUNT. Colonel, did you write a report at the time?
Colonel CARPENTER. NO, sir. I will explain that. I took very
voluminous notes, and I came back to Weisbaden intending to write
a report. I arrived a t Weisbaden late Saturday evening, and I mas
called in a t 10 o'clock the next Sunday to give a verbal report, which
I did. And the matter was then decided, and there was nothing fur-
ther. I had no further connection.
Senator HUNT.May I ask the chairman, has the colonel given you
his verbal report he made?
Senator BALDWIN.NO; we have not gotten to that part yet.
Mr. CHAMBERS. We had not gotten around to the point of asking
his conclusions, sir. We mere trying to find out what he did while
down there, and the scope of his investigation. And I was going to
ask him then what his conclusions were.
During this period of time ,pihen you were talking to these people
did they make any charges against any particular indiriduals, or
refer to any particular individuals?
Colonel CARPENTER. That is why I tried to pin him down, especially
in regard to any physical brutality. They were so vaene as to time,
as to who did it, when, and so on, that I could not pm them down
at all as to any physical brutality. They mentioned the names of
Lieutenant Perl-and all of thein seemed to know him in connection
with the mock trials. But outsick of that-taking these up separately,
alleged brutality and the mock trials, as to the alleged brutality, I
could not get anything out of then1 to indicate I could go further in
my investigation.
I
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let's see if I have that exactly correct. There were
no charges made where Perl was concerned-aad I am going to men-
tion several other names-or Thon or Kirschbaun~,or Schumacker,
concerning br~~talities.
Colonel CARPENTER. They claimed they were punched, as I say.
F o ~ xof them clnimecl they had been punched but they would not tell
me vho. They said they didn't know. I mould say, "Was he an
officer or an enlisted man, or was h e a civilian?" ,
They didn't know.
"Can you describe them 1"
Well, one of them tried to describe the man, or hid describe one.
The other three could not even descjibe anybody. ,
Mr. CHANBERS.I s that man that tried to describe one, do you recall
whether or not he h e w Lieutenant P e r 1 . b ~sight ? Did he bring Perl
into it i n any other manner?
Colonel CARPENTER. I cannot recall without referring to my notes
on that particular individual.
Well, after interrogating these prisoners-and again for the record,
there were between 20 and 30 of the 73 accused whom you yourself
had screened out from all of the 73 after going through their com-
plete statements.
Colonel CARPENTER. With the assistance of the defense.
Mr. CIIABIBERS.With the assistance of the defense. After talking
to tE3se people. ?-:hat T-ere .-our conclusions concerning these charges?
Here, I think yon slloulcl tell us what your report was to Colonel
Mickelwaite and Colonel Straight.
Colonel CARPENTER. My report was factual. I merely recited the
facts as I found them, substantially as I have here.
My conclusions were that t h e s e t a k i n g u p the brutality, physical
brutalities first-were so vague that they conld not be corroborated
by any further investigation. You could not put your finger on any-
one to t r y to find out if that was the fellow alleged to have punched
him, because i t was over a long period of time, and for the reasons I
have outlined, and there was no way you conld corroborate that or
could even further investig?te those alleged punches.
So I came to the conclusion that those four people either did not
know them, or if they did-I mean they did not know who hit them.
Where these supposed punches were of no substantial importance and
had no connection with the obtaining of the original statements be-
cause they did not even claim that. O r that this brutality was an
effort on their p a r t to get out of their confession.
As to the other, the so-called mock trials, my conclusion was that
they did not affect the validity of the confessions.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO you recall as a result of your report what deci-
sion was made concerning the mock trials, and for that matter, the
other charges of brutality? What disposition was made of your
verbal report ?
Colonel CARPENTER. Well, the qnestion was as to what to do, and a t
this discussion i t was decided to go ahead and t r y the cases.
Mr. CHAMBERS.I n other words, you had found no evidence which
Would support a belief that these confessions and other corroborating
evidence obtained from prisoners or witnesses a t Schwabisch Hall had
91765-49-57
been secured through such media as to require you to throw them out
and start over again?
Colonel CARPENTER. That is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOWI W O L ~ Clike~

to go back to your investigation
just for a moment. Did you talk to any members of the prosecution
team ?
Colonel CARPENTEX. N O ; I kept away from them entirely. My
whole dealings clown a t Dachan mere with the clefeiise, ColoneI
Everett and hls staff.
Mr. CHAMBERSAnd they offered no evidence to you other than the
evidence that wonld be given by the prisoners ?
Colonel CARPEKTER. And their olvn statements.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I mean the prisoners' statements, or their own evi-
dence, given to you directly.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What was the attitude of the prisoners when you
talked to them? Did you feel like they were telling you the truth, that
they had some confidence that you were making a n investigs~tionon
their behalf? How did that work out, Colonel?
Colonel CARPENTFR. They seemed to. They gave me the impression
they were backing up their statements, that is all. . I n other words, i t
had been a very short time before thnt they had giren these state-
ments to the defense. And they seemed to take the position that those
statements, anything: I asked them outside of those statenleiits, I just
could not get anything out of them. I n other words, 11-lien I went.
into the fact of who hit them, these four claimed they vere struck
occasional blows, and I coulcl not get anywhere with them.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did any of them volunteer any information to you
beyond that, did they seem to want to open u p and tell you more.
Colonel CARPENTER. NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was anybody from the defense staff present a t the
time ou interrogated these people?
Coronel C A R P E N ~ IR think
. they were in and-out of the room, but I
cannot be sure about that.
Senator HUNT. Colonel, do you think the defense staff themselves
were sold on the truth of these charges ?
Colonel CARPENTER. I think they were sold on the trnth of these
mock trials.
Senator HUNT.I mean the brutalities.
Colonel CARPENTER. They did not stress that brntality. That bru-
tality came in incidentally. Mostly I tried to develop that. They
did not seem to be concerned about brutality but about mock trials.
Senator HUNT.DO you think their primary interest as defense at-
torneys was simply to t r y to exhaust ev'ery avenue they conld to save
their clients ?
Colonel CARPENTER. Right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have no more questions, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.You made some reference, Colonel, t o some
notes. Have you got those?
Colonel CARPENTER. I would like to see, for my information and the
information of the committee, if they are amongst my personal papers.
I may have saved the notes I made. I made these notes before I came
back to Weisbaden intending to make a written report. The time
&ment was such that I was not given time to such a written report,
and these notes may be in my personal papers, and would like t o make
a search for them to see if I could find them.
Senator BALDWIN. Where are they?
Colonel CARPENTER. Here in Washington. This is my home.
Senator BALDWIN. Would you be willing to t r y to find them?
Colonel CARPENTER. I would be glad to. I may not have saved
them, I do not know, but I would like to try to find out.
Senator BALDWIN. When you 'talked with these prisoners in the
conrse of your investigation, were you alone with them, or was there
a representative of defense counsel there?
Colonel CARPENTER. That is the thing that I cannot be sure about. I
don't think the defense counsel was there as a defense counsel, no.
He may have been in and ont of the room. I was in the room by my-
self. I had my interpreter. And 1sat on one side of the desk. The
accused came in and sat on the other side of the desk. I had the
interpreter, and I made notes as we went along.
I had their statement of so-called brutality, and then I made my
om1 notes along with that.
Senator BALDWIN. What they said 1
Senator BALDWIN.Did you tell them who you mere and why you
were there?
Colonel CARPENTER. Oh, yes ;through the interpreter.
Senator BALDWIN.And have you reason to believe they had con-
fidence in you ?
Colonel CARPENTER. Well, they gave me no indication otherwise.
They talked freely. As long as they were talking on their statement,
as long as I limited my questions to the matters they had-
Senator BALDWIN.TOthe matters they had put in their statement?
Colonel CARPENTER. P u t in their statement in answer to this ques-
tionnaire.
Senator BALDTVIN. DO you remember now what their claims were
with reference to physical abuse You mentioned punching. Was
there any other ?
Colonel CARPENTER. That was the limit. There were about four
of them who said that a t various times somebody had taken a punch
at them. As I say, I am talking now about these four. There were
no claims to me that they had been brutally beaten in an effort t o ob-
tain a confession, or anything of that kind. I f there had been, I
would have so reported it.
These four punches-the four people, who claim to have been
punched-were incidental. Like a guard would take a prisoner from
his cell to the interrogation room.
Senator BALDWIN.Did not they say anything about being kicked
in the groin, or anything of that kind?
Colonel CARPENTER. I cannot recall of any claim of anybody being
kicked in the groin.
Senator BALDWIN.There is a Dr. Knorr, a German dentist, who
used to attend some of these prisoners at Schwaebisch Hall. And we
have an affidavit from him in which he mentions a number of men
whom he saw who had fractured jaws which he claimed were the re-
sult of having been hit or beaten b;y somebody in the prison.
Have you any recollection oT anything of that kind?
Colonel CARPENTER. NO.

Senator BALDWIN.Did not any of these fellows make any kind of
complaint like that ?
Colonel CARPENTER. I f there had been any complaint of that kind,
I am sure I would recall it.
Senator BALDWIN.How long were you down there, Colonel?
Colonel CARPENTER. I was down there parts of 2 days.
Senator BALDWIN.How many German prisoners did you talk with
in that time?
Colonel CARPENTER. About 25 or 30, between 20 and 30. I talked
with all of them who claimed any misconduct.
Senator BALDWIN.Did they mention the names of any of the inter-
rogators ;do you recall?
Colonel CARPENTER. When I questioned them in trying to get the
names of these people who had punched them-they claimed they had
punched then1 or perhaps kicked them, but I think i t was punching.
Then they would not give me any names. So I asked them, "Was
it Lieutenant Perl?" O r "Was i t Harry Thon?" "I don't know."
When i t comes to name, I was the one who used the names. They
didn't. I couldn't get them to identify anyone.
Senator BALDWIN.You asked them, mentioning the names of the
prosecution staff?
.
Senator BALDWIN.Did YOU mention the name of Kirschbaum?
Colonel CARPENTER. I don't think I did.
Senator BALDWIN.Was there anything said in your talking with
these prisoners-did any of them make any complaint of a mock
hanging to which he had been subjected?
Senator BALDWIN.Did you hear anything of that kind?
Senator BALDWIN. Did you personally know any of the men on
the prosecution staff?
Colonel CARPENTER. Oh, I know some of them, yes.
Senator BALDWIN. HOW intimately?
Colonel CARPENTER. Well I knew-well, they were all working at
various times in the same office. That is all.
Senator BALDWIN. Were you on intimate or friendly terms with
any of them?
Colonel CARPENTER. I was on friendly terms. I was not the enemy
of any of them. I was on friendly terms with all of them that I came
in contact with, of course.
Senator BALDWIN.I mean by that, was your relationship with them
one of cordiality or just one of working together? What I trying
to et at, is any interest why you should try to protect them?
Eolonel CARPENTER. I had no interest in this. I knew them the
same as I knew the defense. They were all of the same office. Colonel
Everett went'down, sent down from Weisbaden. Colonel Ellis was
sent from Weisbaden. Colonel Ellis's staff was sent down from the
same office as the defense staff.
Senator BALDWIN.Then you knew both sides equally well?
Colonel CARPENTER. I did.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you h o w Lieutenant Colonel Dwinell?
Colonel CARPENTER. Yes, sir. ,
Senator BALDWIN.And, of course, you knew Colonel Everett?
Senator BALDWIN.Did you talk with him down a t Daehau?
Colonel CARPENTER. Oh,

yes. My relations down there were with the
defense. I was going down there for the purpose of trying to find out
what they were claiming. My conference was with Colonel Everett
and his whole staff. And I conferred with him frequently during the
time I was there.
Senator BALDWIN.What claims did the staff make?
Colonel CARPENTER. It was all the same. It was their claim sub-
stantially of these mock trials. That was the main burden of their
complaint. I n their opinion they thought the confessions were ille-
gally obtained by reason of mock trials. That was the claim of the
defense.
Senator BALDWIN.Did they attempt to explain to you how the mock
trials were condncted from their point of view?
Colonel CARPENTER. NO; they merely went on and related the facts
they claimed they had gathered from the accused.
Senator BALDWIN.What, if anything, was ever done abont it after
you got back and made your report?
Colonel CARPENTER. TOmy knowledge there was nothing further
done.
Senator BALDWIN.Whom did you report to?
Colonel CARPENTER. I reported to Colonel Mickelwaite and Colonel
Straight.
Senator BAL~WIN. Colonel Straight and Colonel MickelwJ t e ?
Colonel C A R P E N ~Yes;
R . and we had a conference, a t which confer-
ence Colonel Ellis was present.
Senator BALDWIN.I do not think of any further questions, but if
you could spend enough time here with us to see if you could look up
those notes, it would be most helpful.
Colonel CARPENTER. I wilPbe glad to do that.
Senator HUNT. I want to ask one more question. Can you tell US
i11 a very few words the essence of your report to Colonel Straight?
Colonel CARPENTER. Well, I gave them these facts. Then I recom-
mended that these four who made these claims, unsupported, unsub-
stantiated claims, of being punished, be eliminated from the trial.
That was the substance of my report, and we would go on with the rest
of them. Not because I thought they had obtained any illegal con-
fessions, or anything of the kind, but solely because they had so many
defendants I thought it. was better to eliminate that factor entirely .
from the case.
Senator HUNT.DOyou remember the names of those four?
Colonel CARPENTER. I cannot remember the names of them now.
They were not principal defendants. They were mostly, I think-
they were not even officers. I think they were either privates or
noncoms.
Senator HUNT.T hey were of the Malmedy group, though; were
thev ?
Colonel CARPENTER. They were of the group of 72 or '73.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have a couple of questions I would like to ask you,
which sort of gets into the realm of opinion.
But we have some 49 affidavits that were filed by various accused

some 2 years after the trial was over. A great majority of these affi-
davits allege physical mistreatment. They range-a great many
of them allege they were kicked, broken teeth, pushed around; a
majority of them a t some time or another in thelr afidavits allege
they were beaten. Some few allege they were slapped, a few alleged
they were beaten with clubs, and a substantial number allege they
were kicked or beaten in the genitals.
Now these are the same people, at least 20 of whom you interviewed.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I wonder if you care to comment on the fact that
they have now made affidavits as to why they did not tell you at the
time yon made your investigation.
Colonel CARPENTER. I think it is typical. Most of these people have
been convicted, and it is my opinion those stateinents were made so as
to delay the execution of the sentence of the court, and possibly avoid
the execution of the sentence of the court. I think i t would probably
be quite pertinent in that connection for me to make the observation
that the statements that xi-ere obtained by the defense counsel back
within a week or so after they took over, it would be quite of interesr;
to compare those statements made at that time with the affidavits
which you have referred to in your question.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel, you have no way of knowing What hap-
pened to those original statements ; do vou ?
Colonel CARPENTER. They were, at the last I h e w , in the possession
of the defense.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have no further questions at this time. But 1
mould like to ask this: Colonel, how long do you think it would take
you to search out these notes and locate them?
Colonel CARPENTER. Not too long. I either hare them or I have not.
I have a number of boxes and 1am going through them as fast as I
can. AS I say, I do not know whether I have them or whether I have
not, but I will ascertain it in a very short time and let you know.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That will be fine.
Senator HUNT.D id YOU interrogpte these prisoners after the trials
were completed ?
Colonel CARPENTER. NO, this was sometime before the trials coni-
menced. This was, I think, within sc week or 2 weeks of the time that
the defense was appointed to prepare for their defense. I11 other
words, the defense group of attorneys at TViesbaden went down to
Dachan and began their work in preparation for the trial. It was
shortly after that that I went down to Dachau.
Senator BALDW;N.That is all, but if you could dig out those things,
we would appreciate it.
Colonel CARPENTER. I will be glad to try to.
Senator BALDTVIN. And if you do, come back with them. Come
back anyway. We would like to go orer that with yon anyway.
Thank you very much, sir.
(TVitness excused.)
Senator BALDTTIN. Will

you stand up and hold up your right hand?
Do you soleinnly swear that the testimony you sh,zll give us in the
matter now in question shall be the trutll, the whole truth, nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Xl. SLUHIVL.T
I U".
1
TESTIMONY OF HERBERT K.SLOANE, WASHINGTON, D. C.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Sloane, would you give us your full name and
present occupation ?
Mr. SLOANE. Herbert K. Sloane, and I am presently i n the Civil
Aeronautics Administration here i n Washington.
Mr. CHA~IBERS. During the war, Mr. Sloane, you were i n E T O in
Europe ?
Mr. SLOANE. T h a t is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were you at any time connected with the war
crimes group, or have any connection with the Malmedy trials?
Mr. SLOANE. Yes, I was with war crimes group, I would say ap-
proximately from the early part of March 1946, until the end of March
1947.
-
Mr. CHBMRERS. And during that time did you have occasion to deal
with any of the Malmedy prisoners or the investigatioill
Mr. SLOAN. Yes, on two separate occasions, one before the trial and
one considerably after the trial when the prisoners were already at
Landsberg. I had occasion to contact one prisoner a t Landsberg.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Suppose, Mr. Sloan, you tell us about the case
before the trial first, and tell us i n your own words what you know
about the particular case and what happened a t that time.
Mr. SLOANE. It was soon after I was transferred from the Air Corps
into war crimes that I received an order, and I believe it emanated
from Colonel Smoak. I am not sure exactly. It was relayed to me
through a Lieutenant Hatcher. T h e order was that I was to proceed
to Eschborn Airport i n Frankfurt from MTiesbaden and there pick
up, I believe i t was, five or four prisoners, accused in the Malmedy
case, who hacl been prisoners of war in a n American P O W camp and
had been returned t o Germany as part of the 73 who eventually stood
trial.
I believe they were flown t o Paris and then transferred to another
aircraft in Paris and sent on into Frankfurt. Then I picked then1 up
there with instructions to bring them to Wiesbaden.
I went over, and I believe it was five prisoners I picked up. I f I
remember correctly, they were all enlisted men. I picked up all five
of then1 and put them i n the back of a weapons carrier, and I had an
M P escort, and I took them back to Wiesbaden and lined them u p
outside of the war crimes building. And by the time we got there the
orders hacl been changed, and I was to bring them all the way through
to Schwabisch Hall.
S o we loaded them into this weapons carrier again and took off f o r
Schwabisch Hall by way of Heidelberg, if I remember correctly.
We pot to Schwabisch I-Iall-it m7as a long route because several of
the b r ~ d g e swere down, and me got a little messed up on our route.
We got there pretty late in the evening. And they were all taken
right into the prison. I accompanied them right into the prison a t
Schwabisch and got a receipt for them.
I f I remember correctly, i t was signed by a yoinan who was con-
nected with the interrogation staff. I believe, in the capacity of in-
vestigator or something like that. Ancl the prisoners were then
marched C I O Tinto I ~ a cell block.
I f I remember correctly, there mere four or five cells on the left

side of the bloek, and each one was told to stand outside the doors,
and the doors were opened, and each one of thein were, well, ushered
into the individual cells.
Then I returned to the prison office 2nd made arrangeineilts with
my crew to stay overnight with the investigation stzff i n their house
in Scl~wabischHall and r e t ~ ~ next r n day to Wiesbaden. And I talked
with one or two of the members that were in the office a t the time
about what these fellows had clone, and so forth, and so 011, and then
one of them, one of the members of the investigation-team group,
asked me if I monld be interested in seeing an interrogation-some-
thing t o that effect.
And I said, "Yes, I woulcl like very much to see it."
So we went into the cell of one of them. I cannot give you his
name. I remember what he looks like, and if I saw pictures of the
various defendants I could iclentify him.
Senator BALDWIN.Have we got a picture of the clefenclants here?
Mr. CHAMBERS. W e have, sir, but a very small scale.
Mr. SLOANE.It youlcl have to be fairly good.
Senator BALDWIN.Why do m-e not show i t to h i m ? They all have
numbers on, and maybe we can iclentify this fellow.
(Mi-. Chambers hancls pictures to the witness.)
Mr. SLOANE. I am afraid I could not make a positive iclenti6cat'l on
from this. T h e faces are not very clear. I remember that the fellow
made a n impression on me on the t r i p down.
Senator EALDW~N. It was one of the men you brought down?
Mr. SLOANE. Yes, s i r ; one I brought down, and I remembered him
particularly because of the features of his face. That is why if I sa,w
him on this picture I lmow I could identify him.
Senator BALDWIN.I f ~ O L cI annot, never mind. I thought that pos-
sibly you might.
Mr. SLOANE. I remembered him specifically because he was-well,
he was what you might call one of these tough guys. H e did not like
a lot of things on the trip down and-
Senator BALDWIN.Did he speak English ?
Mr. SLOANE. NO,sir ;he did not.
I spoke German.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUsay you speak German?
Mr. SLOANE.
Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.When you say that he was a tough g ~ ~what y ,

do
you mean by t h a t ?
Mr. SLOANE. Well, sir, he had a strange attitude from the moment
that we got him off the airplane. I think I might have to qualify
that.
When we picked these fellows off the airplane we were a little bit
impressed by their appearance i n that they were all beautifully
clothed in these blue uniforms. They had nice American uniforms
dyed -blue, and nice shiny G I boots, and barracks bags loaded with
some of the things we had not been able to get f o r some time. And i t
didn't make a very good impression on us. I guess you could under-
stand the reaction.
Senator BALDWIN.You did not look that good; did you?
Mr. SLOANE.NO; we did not, sir. W e did not look quite that good.
W e hadn't had the advantage of being i n a n American prisoner-of-war
camp.
Senator BALDWIN. Go alieqd.
Mr. SLOANE.
I know we wallred into the cell, this member of the
investigation group and I-we walked into the cell and the prisoner
was standing-if I remember the cell, it was a long rectangular cell,
with a window toward the end, and the prisoner was about three-
quarters of the way down when we walked into the cell, and the in-
vestigator walked directly up to the prisoner and said something or
other to the effect, "Take off your shirt and raise your"-either 'Lyour
left" or "your right arm." I am not certain of that any more.
And I wouldn't, I can't say definitely whether it was because tfie
prisoner didn't move quite fast enough, or whether the prisoner had
whispered, said something under his breath, or what i t was. Any-
way, he got socked.
Senator BALDTVIN. What do you mean, "he got socked"?
Mr. SLOANE.
He got hit.
Senator BALDWIN.I n what way? --.

a-
Mr. SLOANE. With his fist [demonstrating].
Senator BALDWIN. He was punched?
Mr. SLOANE.
Yes, sir ;he mas punched.
Senator BALDWIN.I n the face or body ?
Mr. SLOANE.Right about here, I would say [indicating].
Senator BAWWIN.Did he have a blindfold on a t the time?
Mr. SLOANE. NO, sir; he did not. R e was just brought into the
cell. It wasn't 5 minutes after he was ushered into the cell for the
first time.
Senator BALDWIN.Did he have any handcuffs or anything like that
on?
Mr. SLOANE.
NO, sir; we took off tlie handcuffs when I got him out
of the truck.
Senator BALDW~X. You say you do not know why lie mas hit. You
think maybe because lie did not get his shirt off fast enough. Did you
hear him say anything?
Mr. SLOANE. NO, sir; I didn't hear him say anything. I think
probably i t was because he was a little bit slow taking: his shirt off.
Senator BALDWIN.T h a t was he aslred to take his shlrt off for; do
you know ?
Mr. SLOANE. At tlie time '1didn't h o w , but as it went on I realized
it was to see if lie had some identification under his armpit. I believe
it was an S S number of some sort which was tatooed under their arm.
Mr. CIIAXBERS.What happened after lie was hit in the face or in
the chest ?
Mr. S L ~ A N EH.e was hit approximately here-I will have to dem-
onstrate.
Mr. SLOANE. H e was punched like that [throwing right fist]
and words then soniething to the effect, "Bursche gehorsa hnikeet."
Bursche, is, a rough translation, "tough guy" It means "obedience"
or "obedience i sn~eanthere." Something Illre that. "Bursche" and
66gehorsa hmkeet" are two words I do specifically remember. And with
that the other arm was thrown up like that [indicating]. I n other
molds, the man used his arm again, used his hand simply to get that
arm up in a hlwry.
Senator BALDWIN. Who was this man that did this?
Mr. SLOANE.
Mr. Thon.
L 900 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Senator BALDWIN. Mr. Thon ?
Mr. SLOANE.Yes, sir.
Senator BAI.I)TVIX.. H O Wbald clicl he hit him ? Dicl it knock the
man down ?
Mr. SLOANE.Oh, no, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Did it bring any blood ?
Mr. SLOANE.NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. Did the prisoner cry out at all '2
'
Mr. SLOANE. No, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When he raised his arm, ;Ms. Sloane, did he hare
an S S mark under his arm 2
,
Mr. SLOANE. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then

what happened, oi. what was said?
Mr. SLOANE.
The only thing "hast clu gescl~ossell" or ,'did you
shoot 2"
The prisoner said "Yes," and that is all. We walked out, and Thon
said to me, "See; there is your confession."
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Sloane, when you were called in to talk to us
about this cas,e, there was a little more detail mhich you may or may
not want to repeat.
Mr. SLOANE. I have no hesitancy about repeating anything, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUtold me that Thon asked if you would like to
see how he could get a confessioa.
Mr. SLOANE. That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. AS
I recall our conversation, there was some levity
about how fast he could get a confession, and he said, "Come on in. I
bet I can get a confession before yon take off your raincoat."
Mr. SLOANE.I am sorry. I didn%mean to omit that purposely in
any way. As I said, when we were standing out in the office, and the
prisoners had been ushered into their cells, and Thon aslied me, as I
told you, "Did I want to see a confession," and I believe he did say
something at the time, "Do you want to see how fast I can get a con-
fession," or something like that. And to qualify it even more-I am
sorry I did not think of it-he did say, "I bet I can get a confession
before yon can get your raincoat off."
All of this transpired so rapidly that I was still in the process of
taking my raincoat off when the thing was already over and the ques-
tion had been asked of the prisoner, "Did you shoot?" and the answer
was "Yes," and that is all.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay he asked the question, "Did you shoot?"
Did this prisoner know v h a t he was there for? Did he know whether
or not lie was being charged with shooting American prisoners a t
Malmedy, or was he just asked the question, "Did you shoot?"
Mr. SLOANE.He was just asked the question ;that was all.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Almost any soldier would have to answer that ques-
tion 'LYes."
Mr. SLOANE. This is just personal opinion, but I don't think there
was any question but the prisoner knew what it was. I am certain
he knew why he was there.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During your work in Europe in this connection, I
believe you told me you had occasion to take prisoners around from
spot to spot and do certain investigatire work of your own.
Mr. CHAMEERS. DOyou feel that this ppisoner was handled brutally
or mistreated ?
Mr. SLOANE. Certainly not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. WiH

you explain your answer a little further?
Mr. SLOANE. Yes, sir. As I say, a t that time I was a neophyte with
the war crimes group. I was merely an investigator on one of the
teams. Subsecnientlv I became commanding officer of one of the
teams and afterward became supervisor for half of the investigating
teams, under Colonel Sinoak first, and later on Colonel Ellis. And as
I progressed in my contacts with some of these Germans, it became
apparent to me in case after case why occasionally an investigator
or anybody connected with war crimes and with prisoners might once
in a while probably be terribly tempted to take a swing at them.
Senator B A L D W TI7hyI ~ . do you say that ?
Mr. SLOANE. Well. sir, I guess the best way I could describe that
is: When you have just gotten through digging up a body, and that
body is an Ainerican soldier, or three of them, and you stand there
and you see the German pathologist go throngh what is left of him
and clig into the head. and they pull out a bullet, and you see another
body having just gone through a pathological examination, and you
see the guy has been stabbed to death with a blunt instrument-the
bones are in such a way that the pathologist can readily ascertain the
cause of the death-when you have seen a few of those thing?,. and
then you come up against a man ~ 1 1 0 20 or 30 or 40 people positively
identify as not only having been there when the men were murdered,
but every one of the stories is exactly the same, that that inan com-
mitted the murcler. and you talk to this fellow and you get a little
sass from him; well. sir, then you take a swing a t him.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever hit any of the prisoners?
Mr. SLOANE. Yes, sir ; 1hit a prisoner.
Senator BAIDTI-IS.What prisoners v-ere those?
Mr. SLOANE.
I 1-i-ent to the English zone to capture a man, to find
and capture a man by the name of Trummler, who was an assistant
to Heinrich Himnller for quite some time and later on was one of
the big shots in the Gestapo, in the Wehrkreis XII, which is around
Wiesbaclen and Frankfurt, part of France and Belgium, and so forth
and so'on.
And after finding him in the English zone, in Hannover, I went to
the place where I had been told he was living. I was with a corporal
at the tinie.
Senator BALDWIN. Were you a conlmissioned officer?
Mr. SLOANE. Yes, sir ; I was a captain.
And we made preparations to get him. He wasn't a t home, and
there was an old lady and her daughter in the house. The old lady
was approximately 75 or 80, and the woman was maybe 40.
He had a room there, this fellow Trumniler, and when we saw him
coming, to make it appear natural on his approach to the apartment,
I told the woman of the house to open the door, which was the usual
procedure, and let him in. And we were waiting, my corporal in one
room and I was waiting in another room. And when this fellow finally
did come into the hall he was carrying a loaf of bread in his hand.
When I told him to get his hands up and drop the bread and he did
]lot drop it, so I socked him.
902 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOIG'
I might add, incidentally, that before the thing ever occurred I had
taken the bullets out of the machine gun which the corporal was hold-
ing so as to prevent any possibility of his getting trigger happy and
shooting up the place with these two civilians there. Frankly, it was
something new to me too, so I socked him first to make sure he did not
have anything on him.
Senator BALDWIN.A t that time mas he in miform '2
Mr. SLOANE. NO, sir; he was working as a janitor in an English
military hospital.
Senator BALDWIN.Was he connected with the Malmedy cases at all?
Mr. SLOANE. NO,sir; he was not.
Senator BALDWIN.You told about these men that yon saw the patho-
logical examinations being made. They were not in the Blalinedy
cases, either?
Mr. SLOANE. NO,sir; they were not.
Senator BALDWIN.They were other cases?
Mr. SLOANE. They were American pilots.
Senator BALDWIN.American airmen ?
Mr. SLOANE.
Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. ISit fair to say, Mr. Sloane, that mas a general
custom, slapping prisoners, or a rare and unusual thing, or what was
the story on that ?
Mr. SLOANE.TOthe best of my knowledge, it mas a very rare and
unusual thing. I know that one man was severely censored for having
dealt out a little rough treatment to one prisoner. And, if I remember
correctly, he was e ~ ~ relieved
en of his job.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was

that in the Malinedy case ?
Mr. SLOANE.
NO,sir; in a subsequent case, but a man who was with
War Crimes at the time of the Malmedy case. He kicked a German,
and he was immediately let go. I speak of a inan by the name of Harri-
son, who was an attorney, who kicked General Strope, who deserved
it, and he was immediately let go.
Mr. CHAMEERS. NOW,before coming to Schwabisch Hall, had you
had any knowledge of what was going on at Sclin~abischHall?
Mr. SLOAPFE. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you hear any stories concerning the way they
were treating the prisoners there?
Mr. SLOANZ. Well, I mean again this is merely things that I heard
and couldn't even say where I heard them froni. I don't know. But
we did hear that things were a little rough.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What do you mean by "a little rough"?
Mr. SLOANE.
Well, in view of the fact, Colonel, this is merely a
repeat of a hearsay, I couldn't possibly embroider on it specifically
what I mean by "a little rough."
My impression when I heard the general talk about it was that it
wasn't exactly a lark for the prisoners, that the prisoners were domn
there on business, and nobody was going to take any back talk. And
I imagine also that, well, the investigative body was domn there and
out to get the facts.
Mr. CHAMBERS. A t that time did you have, by any chance, a lad by
the name of Teil working for you ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. K u
r t Teil ?
MALMEDY MASSACRE IN\7F,STTGATTOW 903
Mr. SLOANC. A t that time K u r t Teil was an investig~atoron the same
team I was connected with, 6839, commanded by Lieutenant Hatcher.
Mr. CHAMBERS. H a d he been down a t Schwabisch Hall a t that time?
Mr. CHAMBERS.H a d he reported anything that happened at
h to yon or told you about it?
S c h ~ ~ a b i s cHall
Mr. SLOANE.
I couldn't say for sure that I discussed it with Teil.
I know the hfalmedy case was uncler discussion quite a lot n p in the
office. You see, I mas connected immediately with the headqt~arters
of W a r Crinies in the Evidence Branch. My team t h a t I was connected
with worked directly out of the Evidence Branch of the war crimes
group h e a d q ~ ~ a ~ t e rSo
s . there was a good deal of discussion about thc
Malmecly case.
As I say, the general tenor of the discussion was that it was not
a lark. But on the other hand, I cannot conscientiously say a t any
time I heard any disc~~ssion about brutality.
Mr. CH-~MBERS. M711at was your e ~ a l u a t i o nof Teil?
Mr. SLOANE. I w o ~ l ds ay that Teil was a very good investigator on

certain types of cases.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you form any opinion as to emotional stability
and so on ?
Mr. SLOANE.Yes. I thonpht lie was emotionally not mature. H e
was a, v e q youilg boy. i h c l I thought he was enlotionally rather un-
stable in certain mays, and that is why I qualified that statement and
said that he was a good investigator, a n excellent investigator, in
certain types of cases.
Mr. CHA~IBERS. Now, did you ever hear Teil or anyone else talking
about any particular members of the in>-estigatiuestaff a t Ychwabisch
Hall ?
Mr. SLOANE.NO,sir.
Mr. CHA~IBERS. Specifically, did you hear ally rumors about Per1
and Thon and Kirschbaum and the others, that they might feel that
mistreating prisoners was the proper way to handle them in getting
confessions from them?
Mr. SLOAXE. I can't say that any individual name was ever men-
tioned a t any time.
Mr. CHANBERS.But there was just a general understanding it was
pretty rough a t Schmabisch Hall ?
Mr. SLOANE.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And the prosecution staff was out to get the facts?
Mr. S L O A ~Yes, . sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOU were working in the Investigative Branch.
Was there a chap by the name of Byrne working out of that same
branch a t that time?
Mr. SLOANE. I recall the name, sir, but I can't say definitely.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let me ask this question: Was there anyone out of
your staff that ever had anything to do with corroborating evidence
as secured by the prosecution staff at Schwabisch H a l l ?
Mr. SLOANE.NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. s o you have no way of forming any opinion as to
~ h e t h e or
r not they were corroborating the evidence that they secured
through statements from the prisoners ?
Mr. SLOANE. NO, sir; because, as I say, when I went in there, all
this time while this was going on down in Ychmabisch Hall, we were
tied up on another major case.
904 MALMEDY LMASSACRE I N V E S T I G A T I O N
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, when you first started your testimony,
you made mention that there were two times that you had contact with
the Malmedy case. You described the one before the trial. There
was one after the trial ?
Mr. SLOANE. Yes, sir; do you want me to talk about that one?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes ;tell me about that.
Mr. SLOANE.
The second contact I had with the Malmedy case was
strictly a contact with Colonel Peiper, Joachim Peiper, who, after
he had been tried and sentenced to death and mas in Landsberg at that
time, I believe, awaiting execution-the case a t the time was under
review; that is, the first review-and I do not know how or why,
but Mrs. Peiper contacted me and asked if i t would be possible for
her to get down to Landsberg to see her husband.
I referred the case at that time, if I remember correctly, to Colonel
Smoak, although it may have been Colonel Ellis-he would have to
help me out on that-whether it would be all right. The thing was
referred to higher channels in view of the fact that Peiper was no
longer under the jurisdiction of War Crimes.
Anyway, as I understand it,. permission was gotten from General
McNarney for Mrs. Peiper to visit her husband, and I was ordered t o
pick her up in Wiesbaden and drive her to Landsberg, be present dur-
ing the entire time she was there with Peiper, and then bring her to
Munich afterward.
I did that. During that time I spoke to Peiper for, I would say, a t
least an hour, both in the presence of his wife and out of the presence
of his wife. I had been given the side job during this contact to see
if I could get any information out of Peiper relative to the Skorzeny
case. I got no information from him and did not pursue the subject
further.
But at that time Peiper did make a statement which I relayed im-
mediately after my return to Colonel Ellis, and that is that Peiper
bore no animosity whatsoever or hard feelings against Colonel Ellis.
I
1 1 fact, he sent his regards. I gave that message to Colonel Ellis in
his office.
Senator BALDWIN. HOW did that happen to come up ? How did you
happen to discuss that?
Mr. SLOANE. What, sir?
Senator BALDWIN.That Colonel Peiper had no hard feelings toward
Colonel Ellis. What brought on that conversation?
Mr. SLOANE. Frankly, I do not remember, sir. I discussed just
generalities with him. I n fact, I purposely tried to stay away from his
trial and tried to get the conversation going to Skorzeny and his
activities and did not get anywhere, and toward the end he expressed
his appreciation for my having obtained permission for his wife to
come down and having brought her down, and he said something to
the effect that-I do not know how Colonel Ellis got into it. I think
he said, "Colonel Ellis must think I am a terrible person," or some-
thing like that. I am really not certain any more how it came in.
Senator Barawm. I was wondering if it came up in connection with
any complaints Pei er made or anybody made concerning the manner
in which Colonel 8llis or any of the prosecution team had treated
them.
Mr. SLOAXE. NO, sir; I remember how it came up. Mrs. Peiper
mentioned originally something about Colonel Ellis wouldn't look at
I MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION I 905
her during the latter part of the trial or something, and she wondered
whether he had some resentment against her. I believe something
like that started it, and then it turned as to Peiper's personal reac-
tions and he expressed that opinion of Colonel Ellis, and I immediately
relayed that to Colonel Ellis a t the time.
Senator BALDWIN. 'In your talk with Peiper, did he make any com-
plaints about any physical abuse of him or any physical abuse of his
men ?
Mr. SLOANE. NO,sir; the only conlplaint he spoke about was a com-
plaint a t Landsberg, itself. H e mentioned nothing whatsoever about
the pretrial treatment or events at the trial a t Dachau, and he had only
one complaint which was a t Landsberg.
Senator BALDWIN.Was that where he was confined awaiting
execution ?
Mr. SLOANE. Yes.
'
Senator BALDWIN. What was the complaint about?
Mr. SLOANE.
It was about electric lights shining in his eyes all the
time, and he could not sleep, so I told him he would get used to it.
Senator BALDWIN.This thing that you described as havina hap-
pened a t Schwabisch Ball, was that the only time you were at gchwa-
bisch Hall ?
Mr. SLOANE. the onlv time I was at Schwabisch Hall.
I went
It was
down to Dachan several time: to the trials.
If I may be permitted, I would say, during the time I sat there

which was four or five times during the trial, twice during the early
stages and twice at the very end, I certainly saw no evidence of any-
body having a broken jaw. A broken jaw usually shows up, and
there was none there.
Senator BALDWIN.At Dachau, did you have any contract, frequent
contact, or any at all, with the Malmedy prisoners awaiting trial?
Mr. SLOANE. NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUdid not?
Mr. SLOANE.
NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.HOW did you happen to be a witness in this case?
Mr. SLOANE. I had heard about the investigation-am I allowed to
speak frankly, sir?
Senator BALDWIN.Yes, sir.
Mr. SLOANE.
I had read about the investigation and read insofar
as the newspapers gave, the versions of the testimony of certain peo-
ple as well as some of the questions that had been asked the witnesses
and certain remarks and statements that had been issued by certain
members who were doing the questioning, and I felt very strongly-
'
I discussed it with my wife at great length as to what I should do, and
I felt very strongly that an injustice was being done to a group of
peo le who had done a tough job very well, and I felt that by de-
E
scri ing an incident which had been in the minds of some people
seemingly completely distorted, I could bring out the truth of the
fact, and that is that any body might occasionally slap somebody,
especially when it is immediately after a war and when we are faced
with the realities of a pretty gruesome tragedy and when we are all
under pressure to do a job, which in many instances may be personally
distasteful, and that was an entirely difterent thing to sit 2 or 3 years
later in judgment of those events when the war hysteria and the
hysteria that immediately follows a war is over and done with and
long since forgotten, and that many events, when yon look a t them
today, may seem different than they did then.
Also, I might add that the war crimes trials-I am sure I have seen
a dozen letters go over my desk from Congressmen demanding aggres-
sive and imperative action regarding the case of so-and-so and so-
and-so, who was shot down or who has been missing and rumor has
it that he had been mistreated or killed by the Germans. When you
get those letters, and you are told to go out and do something about it,
you
.
. do- something about it, and it 'is a difficult thing to sit 3 years later
in judgment.
Today, I think I would probably act different in many instances,
too, in my relations with the prisoners, but a t that time-well, pres-
sure was on.
Senator BALDWIN.YOU only had this one opportunity t o be a t
Schwabisch Hall, and you saw that one incident?
Senator BALDWIN. Did you talk to any of the prosecutors that were
a t Schmabisch Hall?
Mr. SLOANE. I talked to a member of the prosecution staff a t the
time in one of my visits to Dachau. I talked to Harry Thon.
Senator BALDWIN. Harry Thon?
Senator BALDWIN. Did he say anything to you about how these con-
fessions had been obtained o r anything of that kind?
Mr. SLOANE. Well, he felt, and still feels, very strongly that no un-
due pressure was used a t any time.
Senator BALDWIN.I mean by that : Did you get the impression that
these people were being batted around?
Mr. SLOANE. NO, sir; I did not get any such impression. I do not
think they were batted around. I think occasionally if somebody
did not move fast enough or somebody got out of line, they may have
gotten punched, but I would say, in light of what they did to us, that
was not very bad.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUknow, one of the interesting points about this
is that you are one of the few eyewitnesses that ever saw anybody
slapped or abused. Everything else has been pretty much hearsay.
I would like to pose this question to you: Thon was interested in
getting a confession and showing you how fast he could get a con-
fession. Suppose, after that one punch or one slap that he had not
gotten the confession. Do you feel Thon might have gane ahead and
been more rough in his tTeatment of the prisoners ?
Mr. SLOANE. I could not answer that.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
were there and knew the feeling of the place.
YOU
Mr. SLOAN.Yes, sir.
Mr. CEIAXBERS. You say you cannot answer the question, but what
would you have done or what do you think Thon would have done?
Mr. SLOANE. I do not know what Thon would have done. I can
say what I would have done.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I snppose I have got to ask you: What would you
have done?
Mr. SLOANE. I would have slapped him until I got a confession out
of him if he got smart with me. I am not interested in the confes-
sion-I would like to show him who is boss. That is what I would
have done 3 years ago. Today, I would not. ,
I
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO you suppose that Thon might not have done-
the same thing?
Mr. SLOANE. I do not know, sir.
I cannot speak for Thon.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did
you ever hear Thon, whom I believe you said
you saw later on, comment on any of the confessions that he secured,-
or did you ever talk to Thon about any of his cases at all?
Mr. SLOANE. Yes, sir, I talked to Thon as recently as 6 weeks ago '
when I was on active duty in ille military, again on the airlift.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUmust have remembered this one incident.
Mr. SLOANE.
Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
YOU ever tall; this one instance over with him?
Did
Mr. SLOANE. NO, sir ; I did not think, in view of the investigation
and the charges and countercharges, that it wonld be a good idea to
discuss it.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. Did Thon have any comment to make about this
investigation or any charges being made against the prosecution staff 8
Mr. SLOANE. Yes. sir: me did discuss that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. $Vhat did he have to say?
Mr. SLOANE.
H e made the stateineat that Colonel Everett was-
well, going off the deep end, so to speak; to put it politely.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. Did he have other comments to make?
Mr. SLOANE. He simply said that it was not the truth, that all this
business about broken jaws, and, particularly I know he mentioned the.
broken jaws and the kicking in the genital organs, that it was ridicu-
lous because it mas such an open-and-shut case that those things were
not necessary, and also : How is i t that they all came out 2 years after
the trial instead of at the trial ?
He was pretty incensed about it, I know that, and he felt, I know
from the way he spoke, that a cloud was being drawn around this
event, this investigation and trial-of the Malmedy case, which was
absolutely unfair.
Senator BALDWIN.Any questions, Senator H u n t ?
Senator HUNT.I have nothing.
Senator BALDWIN.Thank you very, very much.
We will take a recess until 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
(Whereupon, at 3 :45 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 p. m. Tuesday,
May 24, 1949.)

.
WEDNESDAY; JUNE 1, 1949
UNITEDSTATES
SENATE,
SUEC~MMITTEE
OF THE COMMITTEE SERVICES,
ON ARMED
D.c.
W@~?l'irLgton,
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10 : 30 a. m., in room 212
Senate Office Building, Senator Raymond E. Baldwin, presiding.
Present : Senators Baldmin (presiding), and Hunt.
Also present: J. M. Chambers, of the committee staff, Colonel Mur-
phy, Colonel Fenn, Col. C. B. Mickelwaite, Lt. Col. Charles Perry, Jr.,
Col. C. E. Straight, and Virgil P. Lary, Jr.
Senator BALDWIN.The meeting will come to order.
I s Colonel Mickelwaite here 8
Colonel MICHELWAITE. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Hold up your right hand. Do you solemnly
swear that the testimony you shall give in the matter now in question
shall be bhe truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
Colonel MICEELWAITE. I do.
Senator BALDWIN.Sit down, sir.
TESTIMONY OF COL. CLAUDE B. MICKELWAITE, OFFICE OF THE
JUDGE ADVOCATEGENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Mr. CHAMBERS. Give us your name, rank, and present station, please
Colonel.
Colonel &IZCEELM~AITE. Col. Claude B. Mickelwaite, Assistant Judge
Advocate General, Office of the Judge Advocate General, War Depart-
ment, rather Department of the Army.
Mr. CHAMBERS. C~lonel~Mickelwaite, during the war I believe, for
a time, you were connected with the war crimes activities of the Euro-
pean Theater.
I want to ask, in your own words, if you could tell us how you fit
into the picture, the job you had there and some of the lines of organi-
zation that ran below you, parkicularly a t i t affected the Malinedy
trial, in order to sketch in your relationship to the picture, as a whole.
I wish you would tell ns the whole story.
Colonel MICEELWAITE. I n 1942, I went to Africa as judge advocate
to General Patton, and I was fimt judge advocate of the Fifth Army.
I went into Italy with General Clark on D-day, and in the spring of
1944, I went on temporary duty to England, at the request of General
Eisenhower. While I was in England, I was requested by General
Bradley, to be judge advocate of the Twelfth Army Group, and later
the transfer was effected.
909
910 MALMEDY MASSACRE INT7ESTIGATIOI\'
So, I went. into France as judge advocate of the Twelfth A r W

Group, and remained as judge advocate at headquarters until August
1945.
During the fall of 1944, instructions, or a directire came from Wash-
ington in regard to an investigation of war crimes, and the theater
headquarters imposed certain duties upon suborclinate orgsmizatiolls,
including the Twelfth Army Group. I n the Twelfth Army Group,
most of the investigating duties were assumed by the varions Judge
advocate connections, as the directive had come from the Officeof the
Judge Advocate General in Washington, and it was in that capacity,
as judge advocate of the Twelfth Army Group, that I first had any-
thing to do with the Malmedp case.
The report of the investigation in that case came through my office
and on to the theater office. This report of the investigation came
from the First Army, which was one of the armies of the Twelfth
Army Gronp.
I n the spring of 1945, I was assigned as deputy theater judge advo-
cate, in addition to my other duties, which meant that I occupied
two positions from the latter part of May 1945 until the 1st of
August, when the Twelfth Army Group was disbanded. My office
at that time was in Wiesbaden, which was the headquarters of the
Twelfth Army Group, and during that period while I held tmo posi-
tions, the War Crimes Branch of the theater movec7 to Wiesbaden.
From the 1st of August 1945 until early in May 1946 I ITas deputy
theater judge advocate in charge of the War crimes Branch, as i t
was called, at that time.
Upon the death of General Betts, early in 1946, I became the theater
judge advocate and remained in that capacity until I returned to
the United States in April of 1947.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,this War Crimes Branch, rras that clivided
down into sections so that you had your investigative end, perhaps,
and your trial groups, and so on? How was that organized?
Colonel MICKELWAITE. Yes, it was organized substantially along
the lines yon have mentioned. There was the Evidence Branch,
which included the investigation ; there was the Prosecution Branch;
and, there was a Post-Trial Branch; and, Administrative Branch,
and others.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,at the time you were in charge of the War
Crimes Branch as deputy theater judge advocate, who vas in charge
of the Evidence and Investigation Branch?
Colonel MICIKELWAITE. I couldn't be sure as to who was in charge
over the entire period. There were certain changes from time to
time.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I should ask it this way: Was Colonel Ellis a part
of that branch while you were in charge?
Colonel MICIIELWAITE. Yes, he was, His exact position during the
entire period, I could not tell you; but, I believe he was in charge
of the Investigation Section, a t least during a period of the w i a t ~ r
during 1945 and 1946.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,one of the duties of that Branch. Eviclel~ce
and Investigation Branch, would be to develop the facts and pre-
pare the cases for trial 'in the Malmedy matter. is that right?
Colonel MICKELWAITE. Yes, to develop the evidence. The Prase-
cution Branch would then determine whether there was a basis for
trial.
Mr. CHSB~ERS. XOW,Colonel, I am sort of groping here trying to
use you to fill in some of the many tllreats of testimony that we have
received, so if you will bear with US on this just a little bit.
During this period, in the Malmedy matters, were you responsible
for the assignment of personnel to that particular staff
Colonel MICI~ELWAITE. I n large measure, yes. I suppose we ought
to review the organization further down to a certain extent. There
were, during this period, two armies in occupied Germany, the Sev-
enth Army and the Third Army. The investigation teams had been
assigned by the theater to the armies, originally, even before the war
ended a few teams were assigned, I believe, or about the time the war
ended. Those tcwns continued to be assigned to the armies, so long
as the armies existed; and, it was primarily the function of these in-
vestigation teams which were established for the purpose of investi-
gating cases, it was primarily their function to secure the evidence in
a case where a war crime was alleged.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I interrupt you? When you say these teams
were assigned to the armies, do you mean that they were assigned on
temporary duty from your outfit, or were they transferred to it and
became organically a part of the army?
Colonel J~ICEELWAITE. They were organically a part of the army,
subject, however, to technical direction from my office.
Now, in regard to the RiIalnledy case, I cannot, at this time, tell you
whether i t was an army team which initially investigzated that or not,
but at a later time. a special team was sent out of my office, as was1
done in certain unusual or important cases. We called those infor-
mal investigation teams because they did not fit into the table of or-
ganization which the formal investigating team occupied. I n other
words, the formal investigating team was the table of organization
unit, and was treated like a company and administered in the same
fashion.
Mr. CHAJIBERS. Was the Malmecly case one i11 which an informal
team was created at a later date?
Colonel &~IcKELWAITE. That is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am trying to get at the personnel situation a little
bit because there has been some criticism about the type of personnel
that was assigned to the Malmedy case.
What type of personnel did you try to get for assignment to this
informal team, and then if you didn't get the type of personnel you
were asking for, why didn't you get i t ?
Can you answer that question? It's a general story, but I think it
should go in the record.
Colonel MICKELWAITE. If you bring up the subject of personnel, it
is a long story and we need to go back long before the incidents in the
Malmedy case.
There have been, on numerous occasioiis, centers set up for the per-
sonnel which me desired, and the members which we wanted : Lawyers,
investigators, interpreters, stenographers, all qualified.
With the demobilization, the inadequate organization which we had
disappeared, in part-in fact, I may say disappeared in large measure.
They just went home, as they were entitled to do. o
However, on numerous occasions in our conferences with Washing-
ton, in our written requests upon the theater judge advocate, in G-1
of the theater, we stated requirements and we stated the qualifications
of the personnel which we desired, and, to a degree, we were given some

assistance. That is, personnel from the United States was recruited
in Washington, and was sent over. Some of these were officers, still on
active duty, and some were civilians.
Likewise, the theater headquarters, especially G-1, searched the
rolls of the personnel in the theater, for the same purpose. We were
never able to fill our table of organization. We were never able to
procure the personnel qualifications which we desired in any great
numbers. It got to the point where we would take anyone who had
the slightest indication of capabilities along the lines of these qualifica-
tions that we had set up.
To show you the situation in the winter of 1945 and 1946 : General
Betts, the theater judge advocate, came to Washington on a special
mission from theater headquarters. General Eisenhower had approved
his mission, and it was for this purpose: On J C S 1023-10, the re-
quirement was imposed of the trial of hundreds of thousands of war
criminals. Now, I say hundreds of thousands, because having at-
tended the trial of those found guilty of belonging to an organization
condemned at Nuremberg, that was included in requirement J C S
1023-10.
Senator BALDWIN.What organization was that, if I may interrupt?
Colonel MICEELWAITE. There were 10 organizations which were
charged at Nuremberg, P believe it was 10 ; and, as I remember, some 6
were found guilty. That included the SS-frankly I can't remember
the others; but, a t the time General Betts came back, as I sag7,some
10 were charged, the organizations were charged, that mas the.manner
of indictment a t Nureinberg.
Now, i11 addition to the responsibility for the trial of those people,
we were charged with the responsibility for the trials of concentration
czmp cases, for offenses against American troops and for the higher
Nazis, other than those on trial at Suremberg at that time, which were
the additional four-power trial.
General Betts came back v i t h the proposal. transferring the trial of
the higher Nazis to an organization which mould succeecl the Interna-
tional Tribunal and also there was shifted from his responsibility, the
trial of the members of the organization; and later, as you know, that
was turned over to the Germans under the de-Nazification program.
Now, while he was back here, the situation as to lawyers and as to
judges advocate was particularly critical, and when I went into the
officeI had a study made and on about the Ist of January in 1946, Gen-
eral McNarny who had succeedecl to General Eisenhower, sent a per-
sonal message to General Eisenhower, or at least the Chief of Staff, and
I think General Eisenhower had become Chief of Staff a t that time,
saying in effect,"I cannot be responsible for the proper aclministration
of military justice in this theater, or the completion of the war crimes
program, unless you send me personnel of appropriate qualifications
in sufficientnnmbers, which is not indicatecl at this time."
Nothing much happened. We got a few people, but no judges aclvo-
cate or lawyers in the nnmbers which General McNarny regarded as
appropriate, for those two programs, that included military justice as
we11 as war crimes.
I merely say that to show you the sittlation in which we found our-
selves. As the result of that, we were obliged to use the people me had,
according to the best of their ability.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There has been some criticism of, -sell, several as-
pects of i t : One was lawyers with inadequate experience, that is one
of the things that was criticized ;and then, the use of other than native-
born Americans, in particular native-born Austrians and Germans, for
the purpose of investigators.
Now, how clid those people come to you, Colonel? Did you select
them yourself or were they sent down to you for further assignment, or
how did you get them?
Colonel ~V~ICBBLWAITE. We did very little selecting. They came t o
us from Washington, and came to us upon assignment from G-1 in
the theater. My recollection is they would appear and hand us their
orders, and they were with us for duty.
We had little or no opportunity, I mi& say no opportunity f o r
preselection a t the time of assignment. We took the people as they
sent them t o us.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel, did you have any feeling as to the pro-
priety, for instance, of assigning a man who might have been a native-
born Austrian, who might have had some reason to have personal
animosity toward the Germans, perhaps even an excess of that which
we as Americans would have had, to the job of developing these cases
and handling the investig,ations?
Colonel MICKELWAITE. T o the best of my recollection, that matter
was not even consiclerecl.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You assumed when they came to you that they were
competent, and you tried to evaluate their experience and training and
assign them accordingly, is that correct?
Colonel MICKELWAITE.T h a t is correct.
Senator BALDWIK. Do you mean by that that personnel was so short
that you had to use. t o tho best mt.ans available, those that were sent
to you ?
Colonel R'IICUELWAITE.That is correct, Senztor. W e were given a
job, and we took the people they sent us. We were a t all times
desirous of procuring personnel of a qualification that me had estab-
lished. for instance 10 years law practice, but we did not get them.
Likewise, with investigators. The G-1 sent us investigators from what
were available to them, as well as some that came over from Wash-
inp,ton.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe you said in your testimony that a t one time
i t became so critical that the theater commander felt it necessary to
say that he could not assume the responsibility for the administration
of war crimes unless he did get-
Colonel MICKELWAITE. T h a t included military justice and war
crimes. I n other words, the legal job in the theater.
Senator HUNT.Colonel, now after having given us this information
with reference to how they mere selected, would you care to make a
statement for the benefit of the committee, whether you feel the staff
that did conduct the hlalmedy cases was-not properly qualifiecl?
Now, let me say one more word before you answer that: Most of
them have appeared before us here. I have been very much impressed
with some of them, they appeared to be very smart, capable men. I
am assun~ing,from what yon have said t o us heretofore, that you feel
you did not have capable personnel. Did yon mean to infer t h a t ?
Colonel MICISELWAITE. Let me p u t i t this way: W e did not have
qualified, capable personnel in sufficient numbers to carry on all of the
necessary duties, which were imposed on us. However, in the a s s i p -

ment or selection of personnel for a ~ a r t i c n l a task,
r depending upon
its importance, or the character of the job, we sought to use our per-
sonnel which we had, to the best advantage.
Now, I do not want to leave the iinpressioll that we did not have com-
petent personnel. We did have, but we did not have them in sufficient
numbers, and some of our personnel we had to use in such a fashion
that we hoped that they monld carry on properly, even though we
couldn't put them on the more important tasks.
We tried, however, in the inzportallt cases, to select personnel which
was best qualified for that particular task.
Senator BALDWIN.Excuse me, Senator.
Senator HUNT.That's all right.
Senator BALDWIN.Were you t h r o ~ ~ ?g h
Senator HUNT. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.TVhat process did you use for cleterl~liili~lg what
the qualifications were, of the men who were sent to you?
Colonel MICIIELWAITE. About all we had was the 66-1, which was
the combined qualification and efficiency record for officers; and, for
civilians, as far as I can remember, we just asked them what their ex-
perience had been.
Senator BALDWIN.Talked with them before they went on the job?
Colonel MICKELWAITE. Well, I didn't talk to them. I have no doubt
that the officers in charge did talk to them in order to determine their
qualifications. There were some of them, of course, with who111 I did
consult.
Senator BALDWIN.Do you remember whether or not any were
rejected?
Colonel MICKELWAITE. NO, sir, I have no recollection either way on
that.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,these people that you assigned to do this,
these different tasks, before they undertook their jobs, were they
briefed at all, were they given any instructions as to how they were
t o proceed 2
Colonel MICRELWAITE. I co~ildnot say that they were, individually.
There were written instructions for the principal tasks which we
had. We called them SOP'S-we had them for the investigations, for
example-an extensive instruction.
Senator BALDWIN.Are copies of those available now? We would
like to have for the record such SOP'S, as they are called, that may be
available.
Colonel MICRELWAITE. I have no records myself. but if I an1 not
mistaken, Colonel Straight has a copy of the revised instructions is-
sued in October ; is that correct ? I
Colonel STRAIGHT. The field directive on investigation?

Colonel MICKELWAI~. Yes.
Colonel STRAIGHT. Yes ; I have some of those. I do not have all of
those that were in effect at that time. What I have are those that
comprise a draft of the history of the war crimes that I hare here on
m y lap. I can help you with some of thein.
Senator BALDWIN.&fay I sag to yon gentlemen that one of the
things that the committee would like to clo would be to make some
helpful recommendations. based upon the experience that we have
had with this thing, for the future conduct of such a11 affair. The
committee is well aware of the fact that the Army was dealing with
something that was entirely new i n warfare, and that i t was, for that
reason, a difficult task to formulate policies and issue instructions con-
cerning a matter with which our Army had had very little, if any, ex-
perience whatever. So, one of the things we hope to develop out of
this hearing is a recommenclation or 'recommendations for the guid-
ance of such a thing in the future.
Colonel, may I ask you this: When was it first contemplated, t o
yonr knomleclge, or when was it first decided that there would be such
a thing as war-crimes trials?
Colonel MICKELWAITE. Well, ofhially, the first lnowledge I had of
i t \\-as in June 1946. when n lnesqage reached SHEAF-I bdieve i t mas
SI-IEAF, or i t may have been the theater, I am not sure, from the Joint
Chiefs of Staff-stating that war-crimes trials would be initiated
before ~ililitary-goverii~iieilt courts. 1 saw t h a t message i n General
Betts' office in the presence of Mr. Justice Jaclrson, a i d the reason for
the conference mas that the trials mere authorized before military-
governnlent courts.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, these conrts were to be set u p
under the military g o v e r ~ m e n of t Germany 1
Colonel A ~ I C K E L ~ ~ A I T E . That is correct.
Senator BAI~DWIN. Aimerican military government.
Colonel ~I~CKELUT_~ITE. T h a t is correct. I w m t to add that i n July
the original directive was amended; ancl, as I remeinber, the word
"Governinent" was omitted, ancl i t said "military courts."
However, in the meantime, we had begun our study of the use of
military-go~~ernmeilt conrts, and i t was later determined that, as soon
as we could adapt them to this program, the military-goveriimeilt
courts would be used as distinguished from the pure military com-
mission.
Now, i t is only hearsay with me, but I understand that military-
government officials desired that the courts be-that the trials be-
held before military-governmeilt courts, and that was why that deci-
sion was made, and why most of the trials were held before military-
government courts.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUsay that was in J u l y 19451
Colonel MICKELWAITE.I n J ~ m the e first authorization for the trial
of war criminals reached the European theater.
Senator BALDWIN.Then yon c16t17tknow where they came from?
Colonel MICKELWAITE.Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Senator BALDWIN.Was that the American Joint Chiefs of Staff ?
Colonel M I C K E L ~ ~ ~ IYes. TE.
Senator BALDWIW.W h a t were the connections of the other occupy-
i n r armies with the thing, in the very beginnkg ? Do you remember?
Colonel ~ ~ ~ I C R E L T 111 V Aregard
I ~ . to war crimes, there mas no other
connection except t h a t SI-IAEF had issued instructions, I thinlc in
the latter p a r t of 1944, in regard to the investigation of war crimes.
Now, S H A E F was a combined headquarters.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, as early as 1944 the combined
headquarters had issued instructions or were talking about the trial
of mar criminals ?
Colonel MICKELWAITE.I have no doubt t h a t they had i n mind the
trials, but there mas always the bar against the trial of a war criminal
while the mar was i n progress.
Senakor BALDWIN.Yes, yes.

Colonel MICKELWAITE.And S H A E F specifically directed that courts
of inquiry be set up. Now, that was the British approach, because
they used a court of inquiry as an investigative body, as distingnished
from our court of inquiry.
Senator BALDWIN.But, i t was not until June of 1945-that is, after
V E - d a p t h a t the J u d g e Advocate,Genera17sDepartment actually got
instructions to set u p these miliiary courts.
Colonel MICEELWAITE.T h a t is correct.
Senator BALDWIN.A n d it was a t that tinie that you knew that one
of your jobs was going to be the trial of war criminals?
Colonel MICEELWAITE.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.And, after that, you already testified that you
began an orgzanization of how the thing was to be handled.
Colonel MICKELWAITE.Let me say this: Even prior to my connec-
tion, the organization hacl been set u p in the theater judge advocate's
office, and again Colonel Straight, who was there prior to my contact
with it, can give you details as to the time when that organization
was established.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you know-excuse me.
Colonel MICEELWAITE.I f you are speaking of the organization and
the arrangement for trials, from J u n e on, I can tell you of how i t was
organized in the theater.
Senator BALDWIN.W e would like to know that very niucli, Colonel,
if you would tell us.
Colonel MICKELWAITE.Colonel Straight, if you will bring me my
brief case, I conld give you the exact dates on certain directives.
Colonel STRAIGHT. ISthis i t ?
Colonel MICKELWAITE.Yes ;that is it.
On J u l y 9, 1945, S H A E B sent a directive t o U S F E T , which I be-
lieve directed the institution of the war-crimes trials before especially
appointed military-government courts.
Now, notice that t h a t was from S H A E B , General Eisenhower. to
USFET, General Eisenhower. U S F E T was the United States Forces,
European Theater; that is, U S F E T was the American headquarters
of the theater.
So, General Eisenhower was authorizing himself as theater com-
n ~ a n d e rto proceed with these trials before especially appointed
military-government courts.
Now, on the 16th of July 1945, a directive was sent from USPET
(the United States Forces, European Theater) to the Third and
Seventh United States Armies, outlining the procedure and directing
tlie trial cases referred to the armies, before courts appointed by the
armies. That is, the Third and the Seventh Rrinies.
Now, cn the 25th of August 1945, a similar directive related t o
trials before military conimissions was seni to the Third and Seventh
Armies. It was actually directecl to the Eastern and Western Military
Districts, but those names were synonymous with the Third and
Seventh Armies, so that by the 25th of August tlie armies were author-
ized to try war criminals before military-governineilt courts, and
before military conlrnissions; bnt there was always the tag on the mili-
tary-government courts that they should be especially appointed.
F o r instance. we increased the number of ineinbers on the court from
three to five. I say "we.!' The theater judge advocate really did
it, but I was on some of the conferences. W e provided f o r a law
member. W e provided for a finding of guilty and a sentence only
upon two-thirds of the courts rather than a majority as provided i n
the military-goveriunent manual.
We provided f o r a review by t l ~ jenclge advocate, in a maliner similar
t o review of court-martial cases. -All those things are i n addition t o
the ordinary processes of military-governnleilt courts, and intended
t o safeguard, so f a r as we were able, the appropriate administration
<ofjustice in this field.
I n other words, we went out of our way to assure, we hoped, fair
trials. Those requirements w e x imposed on the armies by this theater,
and that is why we call them especially appointed military-go\-ernillent
courts.
Senator BALDWIS.What is the clistilictioii between a military-gov-
ernment court and a military commission ?
Colonel MICKEL~AITE. Senator, if you ask me as a lawyer to tell
you the distinction, I am afraid I am unable to; but, practically, there
has always been this distinction, because military-governinei~tcourts
were set u p specifically f o r the occupation and military commissions
have been used for the trial of spies under marrial lam, and were used
i n the Ex P a r t e Quirin case here, although I think the jurisdiction f o r
the two courts stems from the same forces. T h a t is my impression.
Senator BALDWIN. No military comn~issionstried any war criminals?
Colonel MICKELWAITE. Yes, sir ; tliey did. T h e reason for that was
that we had a few cases ready f o r trial before the special regulations
f o r the military-government courts-that is, adapting the military-
government courts to the n-ar-crimes trials-were issued; so that I
cannot say how many, but there were a few trials by military com-
missions i n the summer and early fall of 1945.
Senator BALDWIN.Could these military-goveriiilleit conrts t r y our
own military personnel?
Colonel MICKELWAITE.I can't answer that, Senator. It had never
been tested to my knowledge.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUknow of no such case ?
Colonel MICHELWAITE.You are speaking of military persoiiiiel?
Senator BALDTVIN. y e s ;our own military persollllel is what I mean.
Colonel M I C K E L ~ A I T It~may
. be that, later on in the occupation,
certain traffic courts under military gorernment did t r y our personnel.
T h a t was under consideration, as I remember it, a t the time I was i n
the theater; but I believe that the regulations specifically prohibited
t h e trial of Allied military personnel by military-government courts;
but if you are asking me whether they had authorltp, that is more
difficult as a question.
Mr. CIIAMBWS. How about a trial of our own military personnel
for violation of the Articles of T a l - ? Could that hare gone before a
military-goveri~mentcourt, or did tliey have to be tried by our own
mllitary courts?
Colonel MICKELWAITE.They xTere universally tried before courts
martial.
Senator BALDWIN.KOW.to get at this thing from another angle,
because I think there is a great deal of mismlderstanclin~about it,
certainly among the people generally, and I tliiiik l)roba%lY in the
918 M A L M E D Y MASSACRE. IhWESTIGATION
Congress as well, the so-called Nureinberg t r a l s . at ~ ~ h l cthe

h top
Nazis were tried, so to speak, the one in which Justice Jackson par-
ticipated, that was a court that was establislied under all of the United
Nations, so t o speak, mas it n o t ?
Colonel MICEELTVAIT~. I t was established under a charter which
was the result of a four-power agreement-Russia, France, Englaad,
and the United States. I suppose you would call i t a n executive
agreement, because, as f a r as I know, it was not ratified by the Senate.
T h a t was the result of Mr. Justice Jackson's representations, on t h e
American side, in London in J u n e and J u l y of 1945, and the agree-
ment was signed i n Angust, I believe, of 1045; and the charter out-
lined the jurisdiction, the rules of procedure, ancl so forth, and the
court was bound by those-by the charter.
Senator BALDWIN.T h a t mas separate and distinct from the military-
government courts such as heard the Malmedy cases?
Colonel MICEELWAITE.T h a t is correct.
Senator BALDWIN.B u t clicl those two different courts, established
i n two different ways, deal with war crimes generally? I mean, was
there any distinction made ?
Colonel MICKELWAITE. The only clistinction as to who would be tried
came from the liinitation in the charter, which was, as I remember it,
f o r the trial of the higher Nazis. I may be mistaken i n that. I11 any
event, there mas some cliscussion as to whether they mould continue the
International Tribunal after the orig-inal trial was over, and it was
finally concluded that no further international trials ~ ~ o u be l d held
by the four powers.
Senator BALDWIN.SOthe military government-the American mili-
tary government-went forward with the military-government courts
t o try the so-called lesser xyar crinlinals?
Colonel MICKELWAITE.That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.Excuse me, sir, go shead.
Colonel MICKELTVAITE. AS a result of General Retts' ~risithere in
the winter of 194546, our responsibility became limited to the trial
of accused i n concentration-camp cases, within the American zone.
T h a t was the original limitation, a11 offensive against American citi-
zens, particularly American soldiers. In other words, those were the
two types of cases which we tried, ancl both of them were tried under
t h e laws of war, not unclsr the Nuremberg Charter or any other
agreement.
Senator BALDWIN.T h a t was the very next question I was going to
ask you, Colonel. T h a t xas, how did you determine what constituted
a trial-constituted a war crinle over which these court,s mould have
jnrisdiction ?
Colonel IV~ICRELWAITE. We cktennined that by reference to tl-le con-
ventions, such as the Geneva C~nvention,the Hague Con~ent~ion, the
sources of customary jurisdictim under the laws of war, as stated by
the writers; for instance. our past experience in the Revolutionary
War, the Mexican War, when General Scott established military com-
missions. I n other worcls, we went to the basic law as interpreted
a n d practiced with reference to violations of the laws and customs of
Wars.
Senator BALDWIN.Well. violations of the laws and customs of wars
which were supposedly based ugon a rule of conduct that mas con-
sistent with warfare, and :I violation of i t would be conduct so in-
MALNIEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 919
llunlane and unwarranted under the circumstances as to constitute
a crime ?
Colonel MIC'KELW.\ITE.I thinlc i t is very well stated, Senator; yes,
sir.
Senator BALDWIN.So that you did have sort of a backlog of so-
called statute law and, you might term it, conlinon law of warfare,
upon which you-
Coloiiel MICHELWAITE.T h a t is correct. You will find no American
statutes dealinq with such trials, except as they may possibly be
brought under the trial of spies and,those who give information under
the Articles of W a r 81 and 82. But, military commissions, as I
say, since the Revolutionary War, whether by that name or others
have tried offenders of the Articles of War. that is, persons who had
violated the laws of war have b e e r t r i e d and sentenced and, i n some
cases, hanged. F o r instance, Captain Werz was tried after the
Civil War.
Senator BALDWIN.I was going to ask you about that. That is
the only one I recall, fi-nnl m r ~knowledge of history; he was the com-
mander of Ecli~onvillePrison at Georgla, and he was tried by a mili-
tary court or a, commission.
Colonel B~I~ICELW~~ITE. After the Civil w a r .
Senator BAWWIN. Yes; for inhuman treatment of prisoners. I
do not recall whether he was ever executed or not.
Colonel MICBELWAITE.I am not certain of that. I believe he was.
There were other trials of a similar nature.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, that was your background, your
background of rules of conduct of warfare?
Colonel MICHELWBITE. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDW~N. That mas so reprehensible or inhumane as to
warrant the special consideration of the military court, and the im-
position of a sentence of some kind for their violation.
Colonel MICHELWAITE.Yes, sir.
Senator BAEDWIN.DO YOU have any questions, Senator H u n t ?
Senator HVNT. ('olonel. (lid IOU know Colonel Ellis?
Colonel MICHELWAITE.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you know Major Panton?
Colonel MICKELWAITE.Yes; I didn't know Major Fanton very well.
Senator HUNT.D O YOU know Colonel Ellis well enough to give us,
in your opinion. an appraisal of his capacity?
Colonel MICKELWAITE. I n what respect ?
Senator HGNT.TOconduct the trials; he was the prosecuting at-
torney, the prosecutor in the Malmecly cases.
Colonel MICKELWAITE.Well, my association with Colonel Ellis,
that is, I dealt with him from time to time on various matters, and it
impressed me sufficiently that I thonght he was competent as a
prosecutor.
Senator HUNT.Did YOU or did you not know Major Fanton well
enough to make a statement on his capacity and his ability?
Colonel M~CKELWAITE. NO; 1 did not know Major Fanton well
enough to-but I should appropriately express an opinion as to his
ability as a prosecutor. I was under the impression, and still am, that
h e was a competent lawyer and investigator. H e was not a member
of the prosecution staff, as I remember it, a t the trial.
Senator HUNT.Now, Colonel, in assigning personnel to the prose-

cution and to the defense, did you have any rules or regulations set
up with reference to the ability of a man, whether he should be
assigned to the defense or the prosecution? How did you decide when
you were given a list of men, to conduct these trials-how did you
decide who should be prosecution attorneys a i d who should be defense
attorneys 'l
Colonel MICKELWAITE. Well, let n ~ esav at the outset that there
never was any plan or intention to pack" the prosecution with our
most competent personnel. We always sought to balance the prose-
cution and the defense personnel to the best of our ability.
Now, as to the particular qnalifications, I cannot say that we had
any rules other than our judgment, from knowing or hearing these
people tell us their qualifications, and sometimes I may admlt that
we were disappointed. I am not speaking of the Malniedy cases
particularly, but in some other cases we were. We had to take them,
more or less, a t their face value, until we found o11t otherwise.
Senator Hunt. Well, you have stated very clearly the point I
wanted to develop, that you favored neither the prosecution nor
the defense in your selection.
Colonel MICKELWAITE. I can say most positively that in all our
discussions there was never a thought of packing the prosecution, so
to speak.
Senator HUNT. Before you left the European theater, Colonel, was
it ever called to your attention, or were you ever told or advised, or
did you learn of any force or violence being practiced upon the
defendants by any member of the prosecution teams, or by the in-
terrogators ?
Colonel MICKELWAITE. I f you are asking me, Senator, whether 1
had credible knowledge of such practice, my answer is no. How-
ever-
Senator HUNT. Would you tell us what hearsay knowledge you had,
if any?
Colonel MICKELWAI~. I was first apprised of allegations on the
part of the defense counsel, in the latter part of April 1946; and it
came to me by telephone from Colonel Corbin, was the Third
Army Judge Advocate in charge of war-crimes activities. H e did
not tell me what the allegations were, but he mas seeking assistance
i n regard to his course of conduct and, I may say, that o3 A war-crimes
matters my office dealt directly with war-crlmes officers of the Army
on routine and tecl~nicalmatters.
As a result of that telephone call, Colonel Carpenter was sent to
nachau from Wiesbaden to find out firsChand what the allegations
were and to give us a basis for advising the Third Army as to the
trials and the details thereof. -
Colonel Carpenter returned after his visit to Dachau and about the
same time Colonel Ellis was called in. Upon the basis of the infor-
mation given us by Colonel Carpenter and Colonel Ellis, I reached
the determimtion that allegations as to force and violence were not
substantiated :that ruses, strategems had been used, that was admitted,
and that a procedure which has later come to be termed as a mock
trial, was L I S L ~in certain instances-that was also revealed.
Upon the hasis of that information, I advised Colonel Corbin that
i t appeared to me that the best method of determining the truth of
the sta.t,enients, whether they were confessions or otherwise, and for.
determining whether they were voluntary or not, was to present t h e
entire pic,ture to the court who, under our customary procedure, deter-
mined whether confessioils ancl statements are admissible, whether they
are voluntary, and wliether they should be received as the truth.
Senator BALDWIN.May I interrupt you there? Were there not
some,
. - or any specific instructions issued against abuse and physical
violeiice 'l
Colonel A~ICI~ELTVAITE.Yes. I n those instructioiis which were
issued to a11 investigators, the matter of tlie use of physical violence
was treated, that method I can't tell you, but when Colonel Straight
prodnces that, you will find it.
Senator BALD~TX. You h a w got a copy of those instructions?
Senator HUXT.Colonel Panton introduced a copy in his testimony.
11111. CIIBBIBERS.I think Colonel Banton has the S O P he put out
at Schwabisch Hall, but we will get from Colonel Straight copies
of i!?:trnctions on a theater level.
Senator BALDWIN.AII right, Colonel, pardon me for t h e
interruption.
T E I. remember, Colonel Corbin agreed with
Colonel M ~ C K E L ~ A I AS
onr rjews as to the method of handling these allegations on the p a r t
o i the defense, and ~ccorclinglythe trial opened as had been planned.
NOIT, subsequent to that time, I have not seen, I have not read t h e
record of t r ~ a l the
, petition for review, or tlie military government
reg-ulations or the petition to the Supreme Court so that I am not
further acquainted with those details.
Mr. CHAMRERS. Colonel, may I ask one question about this admis-
sibility of confessions?
The inference I got from your remark was that they would be
judged by the court as to their admissibility, somewhat under t h e
same rnles that we would have i n our normal American courts, and
is it not a fact that under the rules under which you were operating
that such confessions could be admitted for such value as the court
a o n l d care to put on them? I n other words, the degree that they
had been influenced by strategems, ruses, and things of that type
would be weighed against what was said in a confession; but weren't
you all operating under this E x parte Quirin document where prac-
tically anything was aclnlitted for such probative value as a reason-
able man would put on i t ?
Colonel MICEELWAITE.Generally speaking, your statement is cor-
rect. So f a r as military commissions were concerned, both i n Italy,
in France, and i n Germany, the instructions were all copied from
E x P a r t e Quirin, to the effect that any evidence having probative
value, ancl so forth, in tlie minds of the Commission, shall be admissible.
Now, i t is true that tlie military government military regulations
do not speak in exactly the same terms ;but, if you analyze them. yon
will find that any evidence is admissible, bat its weight is to be
determined by the court. That is a brief stitement of what the mili-
tary government regulations provide, so that i t is substantially the
same as tlie E x parte Quirin, as used i n E x parte Quirin, or in re
Yamasliita.
Mr. CIIAXBERS.I n the military government regulations which I
believe were put out by S H E A F , were they influenced by the rules
of procedure that had been developed a t Nuremberg? I n other
words, did they have international colnplexion as distinguished by

the rules that would be normally developed under ordinary Anlerican
practice ?
Colonel MICIIELWAITE. Colonel, I can't tell you what influenced the
drafting of the original military government regulations. Those
were drafted in SHEAF; and S H E A F was separate from the theater
in these matters. To the best of my Imowledge, even General Betts,
the theater judge advocate, did not participate in the drafting of
the rules and regulations pertaining to military government courts.
Mr. CHAMBERS. S H E A F was an international organization
- ; is that
not correct?
Colonel MICEELWAITE.That is correct; it was allied headquarters.
Mr. CHANBERS. And there is no question but what the regulations
they issued are different from our normal practice?
Colonel MICEELWAITE. That is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The inference is that they had been affected by some
international agreement on the matter. I am not trying to pin you
down, if that is not the fact, but repeated comment in our testimony
here has been that we were operating under a sort of an international
arrangement whereby we had lowered our own arrangements down-
ward, perhaps, toward a continental code for the admissibility of
evidence and thereby deviated froin our criminal evidence in the latter
which we are now judging this case.
Colonel MICKELWAITE. I have heard it said that the drafters of those
regulations were influenced by the fact that the principal accused
would be citizens of continental countries, where, as I have been told,
1have not made a study of it, where the evidence is admissible for
such value as the court may wish to give it. That is pure hearsay.
I have discussed the matter t o a degree with Col. Charles Fairman,
who participated in the drafting of the regulations, military govern-
ment regulations, for the occupation of Sicily. Professor Sutherland,
of Cornell University, assisted him.
Those regulations were, I am told, the basis for these military gov-
ernment regulations which were prepared for use in occupied Ger-
many, primarily.
That again is largely hearsay and my recollection of discussions
with Colonel Fairman who is a professor of internationa! law on the
staff at Stanford University, and the author of articles and books on
nmrtial law and war crimes and other subjects.
Senator HUNT.When Colonel Corbin, the judge adrocate called
you, did he call or did he write?
Colonel MICKELWAITE. He called.
Senator HUNT. T-Vhen he called and asked advice and 'suggestions
on a directive, and you sent Colonel Carpenter up to make the in-
vestigation for you, do you happen to remember-did Colonel Corbin
give you the source of his information?
Colonel MICEELWAITE. H e merely said that defense counsel had
made certain allegations, as I remember it, which he thought ought to
be looked into.
Senator HUNT.H e didn't, of course, I presume, say that he had
witnessed any mistreatment of defendants himself ?
Colonel MICEELWAITE. Colonel Corbin?
Senator HUNT.Colonel Corbin.
Colonel M~CKELWAITE. Oh, no.
Mr. CIIAMBERS.Colonel, if I may interrupt to ask one question
there, why was there never a written report made of this matter, or
some recorcl of i t ? I t has been discussed several times a i d apparently
there was no ~vrittenreport filed.
Colonel R~ICIIELWAITE. Frankly, a t this time I caimot tell you why
there was not a written report made. T o the best of my recollection,
we hacl anticipated a record being,macle by Colonel Carpenter, bnt I
cannot be too sure of that i11 detail, because within, over the week end
that he returned and perhaps the same day, General 13etts went to
the hospital with a heart attack. H e mas involved a t that time in the
Litchfielcl trials, of which you have heard, perhaps. I mas called to the
theater judge aclvocate's office and remained there, actually from that
time on.
Now, i t is only recently that I have learned that the files contain no
record-of Colonel Carpenter's findings froin his visit, but i t may well
be that Colonel Carpenter was busy and went about some other work
and failed to make a report. I cannot say that I directed him to do it.
(There mas discussion off the record.)
Colonel MICKELWAITE. I miglit say, i n addition to the statement I
have made, that the situation at that time is vastly different from that
which exists today, and that if one had the foresight, which they
have hinclsight, there woulcl certainly have been a recorcl of Colonel
Carpenter's findings; but, frankly, it as all in the clay's work with
us. We nere very busy and perhaps mistakenly did not appreciate
the fact that at a later t m e , that would be important.
Mr. CIIANBERS.Colonel, is this a fair statement then, that Colonel
Carpenter's report to you ~ v a sof such a nature that in your consicler-
ate judgment you did not feel i t necessary to either direct that a
record be made, or take any more positive action in it, it seemed that
the matter had been pretty well clearecl up and you felt that you
could leave i t up to the court to decide, insofar as the validity of tl!e
confessions was concerned, but insofar as the charges of brutality
were concerned, they had not been substantiated ?
Colonel MICKELWAITE. That is a very, very f a i r statement.
Senator HUNT. I have nothing further.
Senator BALDWIN.Would you tell us again, Colonel, how the rules
of procedure for the trial were developed l. Where they came from?
I know you have already touched on it, but I mould like to have i t
again here in this place, if I miglit.
Colonel MICKELWAITE.The specific rules for the' especially ap-
pointed military government courts, and the Malmedy court was one
of those, were cleveloped in the office of the theater judge advocate. I
had very little to do with the preparation of those. I may have been
called in on one occasion, but a t that time, or at least during a portion
of the time, I was also judge advocate of the Twelfth Army group i n
Wiesbaden, and the theater office was in Paris, and then i t was moved
to Frankfort, which was some 30 miles from Wiesbaden.
S o far, then, as the deviations I may say, from the military govern-
ment manual were concerned, those were prepared i11 the theater judge
advocate's office. It is true that my office prepared a guide, but it
was, i n effect, an interpretation of the manual and the theater direc-
tives, and were designed primarily to guide the courts and the counsel
in this somewhat unusual procedure for Americans, that is, unusual
in the sense that i t differed from our customary court-martial pro-
91765-49-59
cedure in certain respects, as, for example, the accused may be called
a t the outset of the trial, under these regulations; and, you may get
the inference that he might be questioned as to whether he was guilty
or not. That certainly is unusual in our procedure, and so we limited
that to merely identifying the accused, and so on through the trials,
so that they would have a guide in the same fashion that our courts
have a guide which is in the back of the court-martial manual.
Senator BALDWIN. And were the rules of evidence developed in
just the same way?
Colonel MICKELWAITE. That is, our interpretation of them was
developed in that fashion, yes.
I may say, in regards to the rules of evidence, and certain other
important matters, the trial guide was considered in detail by General
Betts, in my office, before it was given the approval of the war-crimes
branch.
Senator BALDWIN.Have you any further questions?
Senator HUNT. NO further questions.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO questions.
Senator BALDWIN.Colonel, I notice you have some further notes
there. I s there anything further that you have that you would like
t o testify to, or state?
Colonel MICHELWAITE. Well, these notes are largely authorities
which I thought I might have available if the questions dealt with the
subjects. I might say, and probably you are already aware of these
facts, that the rules of evidence used in this trial, the Malmedy trial,
military government courts, military commissions in the European
theater, are substantially the same, and in some cases identical with
those used in the Pacific theater, those used by the British in their war
crimes trials, and are supported by the rules which were used even in
the Civil War. Furthermore, the directive of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff speaks on that subject, requiring that the theater establish for the
trial of war criminals appropriate military courts which should, to
the greatest practicable extent, adopt fair, simple and expeditious
procedures designed to accomplish substantial justice without
technicalities.
That was the basic directive under which we operated.
I don't think I: have anything further for the committee.
Senator BALDWIN.Colonel, you have been very helpful to us, and
I think this, your testimony, has turned out to be very important.
How long have you been in the Army, Colonel ?
Colonel MICKELWAITE. I entered the military service on the 12th
of May 1917 and except f-or a short period in 1919 and 1920, I have
been in the Army continuously since that time.
Senator BALDWIN.I n the Judge Advocate General's Department?
Colonel MICEELWAITB. NO, sir. I served in the infantry for 14
years and then transferred to the Judge Advocate General's Depart-
ment. My law degree is from the University of California. I have
a bachelor of science degre,e from the University of Idaho.
Senator BALDWIN. Your service then in World War I was as a
combatant officer, an infantry soldier?
Colonel MICKBLWA;ITB. That is right.
Thank you very much.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel

Straight, please.
Senator BALDWIN.Will you hold up your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in the
matter now in question shall be the truth, the whole truth, and noth-
ing but the truth, so help you God?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I do.
Senator BALDWIN.Be seated, please, Colonel.
TESTIMONY OF LT. COL. CLIO E. STRAIGHT, JUDGE ADVOCATE

GENERAL'S DEPARTMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Senator BALDWIN. Will you give us your full'name, Colonel?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Clio E. Straight.
Senator BALDWIN.YOU are presently a lieutenant colonel in the
United States Army?
Colonel STRAIGHT. That is correct.
Senator BALDWIN.Judge Advocate General's Department?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.How long have you been in the Army?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I have been on active duty since September
- 10,
1940.
Senator BALDWIN. Were you in the Army before that?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I held a Reserve commission, and have since
August 1933.
Senator BALDWIN.Are you a veteran of World War I ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you attend college?
Colonel STRAIGHT.
Yes, sir; the University of Iowa, with a B. A,
in 1928 ;doctor of jurisprudence in 1930.
Senator BALDWIN.All right, go ahead, Mr. Chambers.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Straight, I believe it has been testified t o
here that yon were a part of the war crimes branch, in the ETO dur-
ing the war. Will you tell us, if you please, of your assignment to
that org,snization, and of the part you played in the mar crimes branch,
as well as, and of course in particular, of your relationship with the
Malmedy trials?
Colonel STEAIGHT. Briefly, I was called in to Paris March 13, 1945,
by General Betts; assigned to the war crimes branch at a time when
it scarcely existed, if you measured it from the standpoint of person-
nel, and a few days thereafter I was assigned as deputy, second in
charge of the branch. I remained in that capacity until, I think,
May 13,1946, at which time Colonel Mickelmaite had been assigned as
theater judge advocate, and following which I mas assigned as deputy
judge advocate for war crimes, in immediate charge of the operation.
I remained in that capacity to the end of the operation, namely,
July and August 1948. From about September 1946 until June 1948,
I also had the dual capacity of commanding officer, 7708, war crimes
group, an org~snization created by the theater for administrative
purposes, to facilitate the handling of the assignment of personnel
and equipment and so forth.
I think your question covered my Lonnection with the Malmedy
case ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yon have given us your general background, there;
but didn't you also have something t o do with the review of the
Malmedy cases ?
Colonel Micli-elwaite, before me, and while I was deputy judge ad-
vocate for war crimes, the deputy judge advocate for war crimes
had the responsibility, by theater directiue, to prepare a review and
recommendation, as to each ;ecord of trial, for the consideration of
the theater commander. The same directive required that the theater
judge advocate prepare for ,the theater cominander his views and
comments upon the review and recoininendation prepared by the
deputy, and, yes, I did review the Malmedy massacre case.
Mr. CHABIBERS. Did you prepare the printed review on that case?
Colonel STRATGIIT. I did not prepare the rough drafts. I had a
post-trial section, composed of lawyers, with stenographers helpinq
them; i n other words, I had a staff that always prepared the rough
drafts of reviews. However, in connection with this review and rec-
ommendation, I spent, I caimot tell you exactly, illy best memory is,
between 2 and 3 weeks on going over the draft of the r e ~ i e wand rec-
ommenclation with Dick Reynolds, the man who did the latest spade
work.
I want to emphasize, ill-that connection, that I arranged myself
a hide-out i n the billets a t the caseriie, so that during that time I
was completely free from administrative responsibility and we worked
days, and we workecl nights, as was customary.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel, me have had a great deal of testimony
here about different reviews, and I clo not intei~clto go into a complete
enumeration of all the and investigations that studied the
Malmedy trials, but 1 think me got up to around 11 or 12 of them.
Could you tell us the review steps, LIP until the time General Clay
first passed on the senteilces of these accused ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I was the first one to review the record. I say
that i n the sense t h a t I mas the first one who had the responsibility
for the review. I had a staff with me, in my post-trials'braiich,
of course. I have read the record, incidentally, of course, and have
seen the stories about the number of reviews. There was a draft re- ,
view and recommendation made, submitted to me in January, or early
Februaiy 1947, and my best memory is that Maxmillian Kessler, a
civilian; Mr. Childs, a civilian; and Lieutenant Dedamio, worked on
that draft.
I sampled that draft, and a t the same time I was sampling a review
on the Mathausen conceatratioa-cal~lpcase, a i d in view of the fact
that I had no trained personnel in my post-trial branch, many, many
times reviews were sent back to be rewritten and built up anew from
the record, because i t was thought that an accurate, workmanlike job
had not been done.
I knew that Colonel RIickelwaite was uneasy about the time expir-
ing in connection with those two cases particularly, and with reviews
in general, because of my lack of personnel.
It happened that he was in Augsburg and Dachau almost siniulta-
neously with my examining those two drafts, and I insisted, on the
morning that he planned to leave, that he come to the office and the two
of us exanline the review, the draft of the review and recommenda-
tions in the Malmedy case and i n the Mathausen concentration-camp
case, because I was of the opinion that they must be built u p anew
from the record, irrespective of the question of time.
We did, jointly, sample, examine, spot-check, aild go over those two
reviews and recommendations. ancl he agreed with me that thev must
MAI~MEDYMASSACRE INVESTIGATION 927
We were in grave doubt as to who shonld be assigned to it. I had
Dick Reynolcls with me, who had done some writing, I founcl, he re-
cently hacl come with me, for corpus juris. 1 called Dick in a n d
assigned him to rewrite the review ancl reconnnenclatioil in the Math-
amen concentration-camp case, and told him he could select someone
to work with him. H e selected Captain Mueller.
I think Colonel Mickelwaite remained there while that was done.
Then ITe discussed the problem of who should prepare, or build
u p the draft anew, of the Malmecly case. W e could not identify
anybody in the organization that had ever hacl any review experience
before, any work writing reviews in courts-martial cases, or similar
vorlc, with the exception of Bill Dennison. H e was just finishing the
Flossenburg concentration-camp trial, as chief prosecutor, and we
plannecl to assign him the Buchenwalcl concentration-camp trial, but
it ~ ~ a s nscheclulecl
't to start until soinetiine in April.
I thought he was the man for the job, and that while he would have
some work in comlection with the Buclienwalcl case, there had been
a tremendous amount of n-ork done on it and he woulcl have a sub-
stantial staff to assist him on the job.
Senator BALDWIN.I thinli that we will hare to suspencl here, and
we will go forwarcl a t 2 o'clock.
(Thereupon, a t 12 : 03 p., in., the subcomnlittee stood in recess until
2 p. m., that same clay.)
AFTER RECESS
The committee reconvenecl a t 2: 50 p. m., upon the expiration of the

recess.
Senator BALDWIN.Colonel Perry ?
mTillyou raise your right hancl and be sworn ?
(Thereupon, Et. Col. Charles J. Perry was sworn by Senator Bald-
win.)
TESTINONY OF LT. COL. CHARLES J. PERRY, ADJUTANT GENERAL'S
DEPARTMENT, ARMY SERVICE UNIT 4202, WESTERN RECRUITING
DISTRICT, EL PASO, TEX.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Perry, will -you -give us your full name ancl
present station?
Colonel PERRY.Charles J. Perrv, lieutenant colonel. Acliutant
General's Department, presently stL;tioned with Army service Unit
4202, El Paso, western recruiting district, El Paso, Tex.
Mr. C H A ~ ~ E R
How
S . long have you been in the Army?
Colonel PERRY. Thirty years, sir. I entered the Army in December
1917.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you are a lawyer, I take i t ?
Colonel PERRY.I hold a master's degree a t Northeastern University,
of Boston, Mass.
Mr. CH IMBERS.During the war, Colonel Perry, I believe you were
engeged in the investigation of some of the n-ar-crinies trials; is t h a t
correct ?
Colonel PERRY. During the war, sir, I was acljutaat general of the
Eighty-sixth Blackhawk Division. After VJ-day, in January 1946,
I returned to the United States, and subsequently returned to Ger-
many, then assigned to the war crimes group.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Perry, it has been reported to us and I be-

lieve we have an affidavit which was submitted in part by Colonel El-
lis, in the record, that in connection with your investigation of another
case which had to do with the Malmedy matter, that you interviewed
some of the accused, some of the Malmedy accused, during which
time I believe certain statements were made to you concerning their
affidavits alleging mistreatment or brutalities.
I may have misstated my memory of that affidavit, but will you
please tell me, or tell the committee, what you remember of that par-
ticular instance?
Colonel PERRY. I11 February 1947 I got a clearance to enter Lands-
berg Prison to interrogate some of the condemned in the Malmedy
case in connection with the investigation of the One Hundred Fiftieth
Panzer Brigzde.
Mr. CEUMBERS.ISthat the One Hundred Fiftieth Panzer Brigade
commonly known as the Swrzeny 1
Colonel PERRY. That was commonly called the Scorzeny case. While
there I did interview Peiper and Junker in connection with their treat-
ment prior to, dnring, and subsequent to the trial in the Malmedy
case.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n the Malmedy case?
Colonel PERRY.
Yes.
Mr. CHANBERS. May I ask, Colonel, were you assigned the mission
of looking into Malmedy case mistreatments?
Colonel PERRY. NO, sir. My mission was to identify jeep teams in
American uniform with American equipment behind American lines
during the Battle of the Bulge.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Why did you feel it necessary to talk to Peiper and
Junker concerning alleged mistreatment in connection with the Mal-
medy trials?
Colonel PERRY. Since I was ping to Landsberg, Ellis asked that
5
if possible I talk to Peiper and unlrer about their treatment to save
a trip down there, presumably, since I was there. H e stated at the
time that the chief defense counsel in the Malmedy case, Colonel
Everett, had returned to the United States and there were charges of
mistreatment.
There was a charge of bullet holes in the mall at Schwaebisch Hall,
there was a charge of pieces of flesh in the wall at Schwaebisch Hall.
H e asked that I look into that. My mission was investigation.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Could you tell us ~ v h ayou
t found out from these two
individuals concerning their treatment at Schwaebisch Hall?
Colonel PERRY. I talked first to Junker. I asked about bullet holes
in the vall, pieces of flesh in the wall, and it was,amusing to Junker.
'The b&is for the rumor or charge was a jingle thdt Junker had writ-
ten. I f I remember it correctly :
Remember yon well dear ole Schwaebisch Hall,
With its pieces of flesh and bullet holes in the mall.
He did that to rag Ellis. It was a jingle.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Did Junker say he had been mistreated or that in
any way he felt that he or any of the rest of the people at Schwaebisch
Hall had been physically mistreated?
Colonel PERRY. H e not only said that he had not been mistreated,
but he was amazed a t the treatment he had received.
Mr. CIIA~CBERS. What do you mean by that?
Colonel PERRY.
He did say that had circumstances been different,
had he been an American in the hands of German captors, the treat-
ment would have been mnch worse than the treatment he had re-
ceived as a German.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What was the date that you talked to Junker, ap-
proximately ?
Colonel PERRY. The 7th of February 1947-the 8th of February I
think i t was, 1947.
Mr. CI%AMBERS. And this is-
Colonel PERRY.
The exact data I am not sure of.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The

first name of this man Junker is spelled B-e-
n-o-n-i 2
Colonel PERRY. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have here an affidavit which was executed on the
19th of January 1948, signed by Benoni Junker, which I am going
to read to you. I t is very brief. It is a sviorn statement and i t goes as
Pollows :
Aware of the significance of a sworn statement a s well a s of the fact t h a t false
sworn statements a r e punishable both by United States military government and
German authorities, I hereby declare the following :
During the pretrial investigation for the Malmedy trial I was once subjected
to a mistreatment. This took place on 28 February 1946 a s prophylactic measure
for t h e interrogation which was to follow. I was standing against t h e wall
of a hallway with a hood over my head and suddenly received a series of blows
by fist into the abdomen, the side of my body and my back after I had been pulled
back from the mall. Thereupon I was pushed into a n interrogation cell where
after a few moments the hood was torn off from behind.
The interrogation officer who was sitting before me a t the table who during
the main trial was revealed to have been Lieutenant Perl, breathed heavily, h a d
a reddened face and bushy hair. H e said "Now, now, quiet down-I am not
t h a t way." From which I conclud~da t t h a t time t h a t he had been the one to
beat me. The truth of this statement is strengthened by the fact that the "special
treatment" was very mean, but was not carried out in a n expert fashion.
I was used to greater firmness and technique in this field from t h e United
States prisoner camps. I would like to emphasize especially t h a t my statement
was based less upon the daring fists of Lieutenant Perl but rather upon the con-
frontations of false witnesses, a few well-placed lies excerpts from strange
statements and the intimate appeals to my duties a s a n officer.
I would like to add yet t h a t during my 3-month stay a t Schwaebisch Hall I
'epeatedly heard in the hallways and in cells located next to mine the resound-
ing of beatings, cries for help, moaning, crying and shouts of agony.
( Signed) BENONIJUNKER.
That is signed a t Landsberg on January 19, 1948. Some few
months before this was executed you talked to him and a t that time
the statements made to yon apparently are not consistent with what
had been put in this affidavit. Do you have any comments to offer on
that ?
Colonel PERRY. Subsequent to my talking with Junker I think
petition was made for clemency in his case. I may be wrong on that.
I have no ~ e r s o n a lknowledne of it. I t mav be that he made the
statement ih hopes of ~lemen;~,but that is o h y a guess. I have no
personal knowledge.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I noticed in your affidavit which was submitted to
Colonel Ellis. and a t this time with the Chair's ~ermissionI would
L
like to insert this in the record-,

Colonel PERRY. I have a copy of my affidavit.
Mr. CHAMBERS.I notice you say that Junker volunteered the state-
ment that the origin of these stories-that concerns the holes in the
cell walls and the bits of flesh and what not-was based on a deslre to
wiggle out of damaging testimony voluntarily given by some of the
defendants.
Colonel PERRY. T h a t is right. T h a t is what Junker told me.
Mr. CHAMBERS. ROW would you evaluate this affidavit that he placed
i n here ?
Colonel PERRY. I would give it very little probative weight, the
subsequent affidavit.
Mr. CHA~IBERS. You talked to Junker. W h a t was his attitude when
you talked to him? You say he apparently felt he had been well
treated a t Schwaebisch Hall. Did you feel that he was telling you
the truth when he said that h e had not been struck or threatened with
bodily harm and so o n ?
Colonel PERRY. H i s attitt~dewas friendly toward me. It was co-
operative. I believed him a t the time.
Mr. CHANBERS.YOUbelieved him a t the time?
Colonel PERRY. The statements that he gave me ;yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. D O you still believe t h a t he was telling the truth
when he talked to you?
Colonel PERRY. I still believe that he was telling- the truth when h e
spoke to me.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Either he was telling the trnth when h e talked to
you or he was telling the t r n t h in this affidavit.
Colonel PERRY. I have no knowledge of the circumstances surround-
ing the second affidavit. My affidavit I took. I had opportunity t o
see the man, to note his reactions, note the response to my questions.
Since I talked to the man face t o face, talked to him personally, he was
friendly, he was cooperative, I believed that he was telling me the
truth.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Perhaps for the record you shoulcl tell us directly,
after reference t o your statement if you care to, what he Bad to say
concerning his treatment a t Schwaebisch Hall.
Senator BALDTVIX. Let me interrupt there. As I understand you,
Colonel, you went clown there in connection mith the investigntion of
another case entirely; is that correct?
Colonel PERRY. T h a t is correct, sir.
Senator BALDTVIN. B L I the
~ man you wanted to see was this fellow
Junker ?
Colonel PERRY. I saw others.
Senator BALDWIN.Btlt YOU clid want to see him?
Colonel PERRY. I did want to see Junker. I was attempting, sir,
to iclentify jeep teams, to identify the personnel i n jeep teams, since
the personnel a t the time in point, point of my investig,ztion, were i n
American uniform, passing throngh the German lines.
J~ulBerwas a member of the Flrst SS Panzer Division. T h e jeep
teams passed through the First SS Panzer Division. Interrogation,
investigation, showed a very cro~vded'oacl, very poor traffic clrcula-
tion. A jeep, an American quarter-ton jeep, which is as American as
some of our idioms, could not possibly be construed as German equip-
ment. I f they hacl seen a jeep, clid they recognize any of the personnel
i n American uniforms in that jeep ? That was my p+t, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.And that was entirely unrelated to the Malmedy
case.
Colonel PERRY. Entirely unrelated to the Malmecly case.
Senator BALDWIN.Before going clown there you had talked to
Colonel Ellis ?
Colonel PERRY. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.What did Colonel Ellis say?
Colonel PERRY.H e saicl that Colonel Everett had returned States-
side-returned to the United States. There mere charges of beatings,
maltreatment, torture, during the pretrial investigation a t Schmaeb-
isch Hall. He asked me if I had time to talk to Junker and to Peiper,
and find out, as an impartial investigator. I had not been in the
theater clnring the pretrial investigation. I went there impartially.
Senator BALDWIN.SOit was under those circ~~instances that you
talked with Junker ?
Colonel PERRY.It mas under t h ~ s circumstances
e that I talked with
Junker ; yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.And that I think you said mas on the 7th or 8th
of February 1946 ?
Colonel PERRY. On or about the 8th of February 1947, sir.
Senator BAJ,DWIN.What is the date of the affidavit?
Mr. CHAMBERS. J a n ~ ~ a 19,

r y
1948.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you inake out a written stateinent?
Colonel PERRY.
I made out a written statement; yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.For yourself?
Colonel PERRY.
For myself.
Senator BALDTVIN. Did you get any statement from Jnnker?
Colonel PERRY.
No, sir; I did not take a written statement from
him.
Senator BALDWIN.Read to us what you saicl in your affidavit that
Junker saicl.
Colonel PERI~Y (reading) :
Junker, who spoke excellent English, informed me t h a t dnring the develop-
ment of the Malmedy case a t Schwabisch Hall, G e m a n y , he, a t no time, was
struck by anyone connected with the investigation of the case. H e stated
that the treatment he received d n r i l ~ ghis confinement a t Schwaebisch Hall
was better than the treatment he receil-ed a t Dachaur and the physical conditions
a t Schwaibisch Hall were much better than these a t Lansclberg. I again asked
specifically whether he had a t any time before or during his trial been strnck
or t,hreateoecl with bodily harm by any interrogator. H e answered specifically
that he hstd nerer a t any time been struck or threatened with bodily harm by any
Americau captor, interrogator, or jailer.
I asked whether he had been treated in any manner which might tend to
humiliate him or degrade him in the eyes of his former subordinates or superiors.
He stated that he was intensely interrogated a t Schwabisch Hall and that fre-
quently his answers to direct questions mere distorted and colored to suit the
ideas of his interrogators in a n effort to elicit fnrther information, but t h a t such
methods mere not nnusnal and were probably a great deal milder than the
methods which would have been used by German interrogators had the circum-
stan-es heen reversed.
H e further stated that the interrogation was not believed by him to be a n
effort to degrade him before his German comrades and actually did not so
degrade him. I asked whether he had a t any time seen or had been placed in
cells which contained bullet holes or pieces of-flesh, human or other. He answered
that the story about pieces of flesh was t h e -figment of someone's imagination
and without basis of f a c t : also t h a t since the prison a t Schwabisch Hall m s a n
.
old prison there map have been holes in the cell malls, but he was certain that if
there were such holes he had not see11 them.
H e stated further that the story refeTeence to pieces of flesh and bullet holes
in the walls was so fantastic to him that he wrote a humorous limerick about
that subject and addressed the limerick to the chief of the prosecution staff
during the trial a t Dachau. Junker volunteered the information that he held no
malice toward any individual connected with the prosecution of his case and
that he particularly esteemed and respected the chief of the prosecution staff,
Lieutenant Colonel Ellis, Judge Advocate General's Department.
I asked whether he had heard stories of mistreatment of prisoners a t
Schwabisch Hall during the development of the Malmedy case. Junker replied
that h e had heard such stories from many of the defendants in that case but
that he believed none of them to be true.
He further volunteered the statement that the origin of these stories was based
on a desire to wiggle out of damaging testimony voluntarily given by some of
the defendants; that when they realized that such testimony was to their dis-
advantage they attempted to negative such testimony with the false claim that
i t was beaten out of them. He regretted that such realization was too late to
help them and was fnlly aware that the claim of mistreatment was a weak and
futile defense.
I asked whether this weak ancl futile defense was known to or fostered by the
defense staff of these individuals. Junker was emphatic in his assertion that
this attempt to discredit the prosecution mas not only sponsored by the defense
staff but was of the opinion that i t originated with them. I asked wheher the
defense staff or any person on that staff had advised hlim not to answer qnes-
tions for American interrogators after the trial. Junker stated that after trial
and sentence and subsequent to his initial confiuement in Landsberg he had been
advised by Lieutenant Colonel Sutton and by Colonel Everett, of the defense staff,
to answer no more questions for any A4mericanand to submit to no further inter-
rogations by American investigators or interrogators.
When asked by me whether he desired me to convey any word from him to any
member of the prosecution, he stated that he particularly wanted his thanks
conveyed to Colonel Ellis and his kindly feelings conveyed to the other members
of the investigation team who developed the Malmedy case. He particularly
wanted all members of the prosecntion to know that he held no malice or unkind
feelings toward them, fully realizing that a s members of an armed force they
were performing an assigned mission to the best of their ability.
At the time he made this statement to me, sir, he mas in conclenlned
row. He was awaiting the execution of the death sentence. I be-
lieved it to be true.
Senator BALDWIN.DOYOU know when that execution had been set?
Colonel PERRY. NO,sir ;I do not.
Senator BALDWIN.Did he mention the fact to you that he was under
sentence of death?
Colonel PERRY. H e had a red jacket on, which was the mark of a
man condemned to death.
Senator BALDWIN.Did he give you any information about the part
that you wanted to know?
Colonel PERRY. He told me that at the time of the Mslmedy massacre
he was not present with his unit but was on leave, I think a t Fry-
dendal, somewhere in the vicinity of Berlin.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you believe .that?
Colonel PERRY. The man said he was not present with his unit. I
had heard that before from other sources.
Senator BALDWIN. Have we a record of what happened to Junker?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think the record should show that he was con-
victed and sentenced to death, and that was changed to life on review,
and was finally approved for 15 years' confinement.
Senator BALDWIN.I n your affidavit, have you got anything there
about the information concerning the jeep teams?
Colonel PERRY. NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.This just pertains to the Malmedy matter?
Senator BALDWIN. When you referred to this affidavit, is that the
one you filed in connection with some of the Malmedy investigations?
Colonel PERRY. This is a copy of the affidavit I filed. This has been
in my possession since I made it.
Senator BALDWIN. I mean your purpose in making this affidavit
was in connection with the Malmedy investigation?
Senator BALDWIN. DOyou know Colonel Ellis?
Colonel PERRY.
Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. HOWlong have you known him?
Colonel PERRY.
I met Colonel Ellis on his return to the United
States, sometime in the fall or early winter of 1946.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you know him in Germany?
Colonel PERRY.
That was in Germany, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.
Are you an intimate friend of his?
Colonel PERRY.
NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.
How often have you seen hinl?
Colonel PERRY.Only on official business.
Senator BALDWIN. Have you ever been out with him socially in any
way ?
Colonel PERRY.I went hunting. mith him in the Tanes Hills once. I
L,
had dinner at his home, once. That is the only personal association
I have had mith Ellis.
Senator BALDWIN. When vou went hunting with him and had dinner
with him, were there other beople present ? -
Seimtor BALDWIN.
Have you seen him since?
Colonel PERRY.
I have not seen Ellis since I left Germany in June
of 1947.
Senator BALDWIN. How did you happen to file this affidavit, Colonel?
Colonel PERRY. I made notes on all information I received. I was
preparing a summation of another case. Ellis asked me to condense
mv notes into the form of an affidavit.
senator BALDWIN. SOyou did i t at the request of Ellis?
Colonel PERRY.
Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.
Where was it that you talked with this Junker?
Colonel PERRY. I n the prison officer's office in the prison at Lands-
berg, Germany.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you talk with Peiper there?
Colonel PERRY.
Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.
What was the occasion of your seeing Peiper?
Colonel PERRY. The same day, the same occasion, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.
TVhy did you see Peiper?
Ccionel PE~RI-.
Peiper ccinmancled the First S S Panzer Regiment.
Any unit passing t h r o ~ ~ ghim
h should be with his knowledge. Again
I was attempting to identify jeep teams.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me identify you. It was your belief, or a t
least the belief of the American forces, that in connection with this
drive and the Battle of the Bulge, the Eiffel offensive, so called-is
that what it was called?
Colonel PERRY. It had several cover names-Eiffel, Grief, Veirnach-
tenbaum. There were several.
934 M A L M E D Y lMASSACRE I N V E S T I G A T I O N
I
"
Senator BALDWIN.I t was your belief that German military per-
sonnel, dressed in American uniforms and using American equip-
ment, came through the Gerilian lines into the territory. I s that cor-
rect ? Spearheading this drive?
Colonel PERRY. Not only my belief, but I established that as a fact.
Senator BALDWIN.You established that as a fact ?
Senator BALDWIN.T h a t was a fact?
Colonel PERRY.
Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you se ant to talk with Peiper about t h a t ?
Colonel PERRY. I wanted to talk to Peiper about t h a t ; yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Because Peiper conilllanded the First SS Di-
vision ?
Colonel PERRY. The First SS Regiment, u i d e r the First SS Divi-
sioa.
Senator BALDWIN.What did Peiper say about that 1
Colonel PERRY. I got no information. There was a jeep team that
came up, was to have spearheaded hiin, but conlcl not get througl;ll.
Ssnator BALDWIN.T h a t mas his story?
Colonel PERRY. Yes, sir. I asked for the identification of personnel.
H e said they m-ere i n American uniforms ;the personnel mere gathered
from all branches of the German armecl forces to iaclude the merchant
marine. They were not known to him.
There were Gerinan natioilals i n the armed forces who spoke the
English language. They were nmsqueraclillg as Americans.
Senator BALDWIN.Of course, that mas an element of surprise i n
the thing, in coniiection with tlie offensive.
Colonel ELLIS.Are yon asking for an opinion, s i r ?
Senator BALDWIN.Obviously that was the purpose of it, t o get tllelil
through as f a r as they coulcl.
Colonel PERRY. I think i t x e n t f~wtllerthan the eleineilt of surprise.
i t mas a combat mission.
Senator BALDWIN.It was part of the plan of the offensive?
Colonel PERRY.
It mas p a r t of the plan to get through the line. get
to the bridgehead a t Antwerp and hold the bridgehead until Peiper's
unit got up there.
Senator BALDWIN.I judge, from what you say, Peiper did not know
anything abont that.
Colonel PERRY. There was a jeep team, but i t did not get tllrough
him, and he did not lmow the personnel in the jeep team.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you believe that ?
Colonel PERRY. Yes, sir; I d i c l . I had information as to the chaotic
conclition. Roads were muclcly. The Gerinans are not the morlcl's best
vehicle drivers. Traffic circulation was bad. They were receiving a
heavy artillery barrage. They did not get very far.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you talk with Peiper about the Malinecly
matter ?
Colonel PERRY. I did ; yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Ancl tlie work of the SS troopers under his com-
mand ?
Colonel PERRY. I do not quite understancl yonr qvestion, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.AS I understand you, yo11 went d o ~ there n pri-
marily to find out if Peiper could iclelitify ally of these jeep teams i n
American uniforms.
Senator BALDWIN.That was your prime mission.
Colonel PERRY.
Yes. sir.
Senator BALDTVIN. 111 coimection with another investigation.
Colonel PERRY.
Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Did YOU talk to Peiper about the Malinedy thing?
Colonel PERRY. I did; yes, sir.
'Senator BALDWIN.I mean the Malinecly massacre a i d those other
killings.
Colonel PERRY. Not about the massacre itself.
Senator BALDWIN.What did you talk to him about?
Colonel PERRY.I tried to have Peiper clo as much tallring as he
could, in the hopes that I might get .a thread that would lead me to a
clue. H e mas typical Nazi, English edncatecl, well educated. H e was
regimental comn~ancler. H e was hostile toward the Americans. H e
said "The war is over, yon have won. You interpret the Hague and
Geneva Conr~entionssince you are the conquerors. So f a r as the con-
clitions a t Crossroacls, below Malinedy are concerned, I hacl been in my
regiment, I was regimental commander, I was their father. They
came to me with their troubles. One of my boys told me that your
Air Force hacl destroyed not ollly his town but 17 of his close rela-
tives were in 1house and they were all killed by 1 of your American
bombs. Now, ,when these boys came face to face with the Americans
who destroyed their families, I could not say it was wrong that they
shoot. The war is orer, you have won, you say i t is wrong, TT-ewill pay
the penalty."
I said 'LPeiper,how about Coventry?"
Peiper said "The destruction of Coventry is an infamous lie. It
is a British lie. Nothing like that ever happened."
I dropped the subject.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you talk with Peiper about Schwaebisch
Hall or the treatment that he not there?
Colonel PERRY. Yes. sir. 1<alkecl about his treatment at Schwae-
bisch Hall.
Senator BALDTVIN. What did he say? Did you put do,wn in the
statement what he said?
Senator BALDWIN.Did you make any notes a t the time?
Colonel PERRY.
Yes, sir.
Senator BALDTVIN.DOYOU still have those notes?
Colonel PERRY. No, sir. I destroyed the notes. This statement mas
based on those notes.
Senator BALDWIN.When did you destroy the notes ?
Colonel PERRY. I think I destroyed them on my return to the United
States. I am not sure of that.
Senator BALDWIN.Where did you make this affidavit?
Colonel PERRY. A t Augsburg, Germany.
Senator BALDWIN.Read from it.
Colonel Perry (reading) :
I then interviewed Joachiin Peiper, who spoke excellent English. Peiper was
asked by me whether he was a t any time struck or threatened with bodily harm
during his confinement a t S c h ~ a e b i s c hHall. He exhibited surprise a t the
question and was emphatic in e x p r ~ s s i n ga negative answer. He was then asked
Whether he had heard of nny case of beatings or physical force against t h e per-
son of any defendant in the Malmedy case. Peiper's answer was at first hesitant
and then he stated clearly that h e had heard of beatings and physical force
from the majority of the defendants who were former members of his command.
When asked where and a t what time this information came to his attention
he stated that i t was given to him by the defendants concerned a t Dachau just
prior to and a t the time of the trial. He was then asked whether he had personal
knowledge of or had himself seen any such beatings or mistreatment. His
answer was in the negative.
I asked Peiper whether these reports of mistreatment came to him sporadically
over a long period of time or were closely related in point of time. His answer
was that the reports came to him closely in point of time; that during a confer-
ence with his chief defense counsel, Colonel Everett, he was told that a s a
regimental commander he must keep the best interests of his men ever present
i n his mind and should encourage his men to confide in him; t h a t the defense
staff had been informed of mistreatment of these men during their confinement
a t Schwaebisch Hall and that hepeiper-should encourage his men to talk t o
him and among themselves of such occurrences.
I asked whether i t was possible that this might be a plan of defense to which
Peiper immediately retorted that such a suggestion was impossible and that
no American officer would resort to such unsportsmanlike tactics even in the
defense of individuals being charged with murder.
He further stated that he had, a t Schwaebisch Hal1 and a t Dachau, expressed
his disgust toward his men for their lack of soldierly attributes in divulging
vital information to American interrogators, and, that it was possible that the
stories of beatings and mistreatment were a n effort to regain his friendly feeling
toward them.
Peiper was then asked whether h e had been advised by any member of the
defense staff to refuse t o answer questions for or submit to interrogation by
Americans not connected with the defense of his case. He stated that he had
been advised by his chief defense counsel, Colonel Ererett, to answer questions
for no one who was not connected with the defense staff. H e was then asked
when h e had been advised and answered that the advice had been given to him
a t Dachau before, during, and after trial.
I asked whether this advice had been repeated a t any time subsequent to trial
and announcement of sentence to which Peiper answered that Colonel Everett
had visited him a t Landsberg prison subsequent to his initial confinement there
and had said that he-Everett-was dissatisfied with the outcome of the triaI
and that Peiper should refrain from discussing the trial, or the testimony brought
out therein, with any person not actively connected with the defense and should
refuse to submit to further interrogations by any American except in the
presence of Everett.
H e volunteered that since that time he had opportunity to reflect on the
matters upon which his trial was based, that Colonel Everett had now returned
to the United States and that Peiper saw no cogent reason for maintaining con-
tinued silence. I again asked Peiper whether he had personal knowledge of mis-
treatment a t Schwaebisch Hall and he again answered in the negative.
I asked whether he had a t any time in Schwaebisch Hall been submitted t o
actions which might tend t o humiliate him or degrade him in the opinion of his
superiors or subordinates. He again answered in the negative.
I asked for his opinion a s to the nature of his treatment in Schwaebisch Hall
a s compared to treatment received while a t Dachau or a t Landsberg prison t o
which he replied that his treatment a t Schwabisch Hall was f a r superior t o t h a t
of either Dachau or Landsberg. When asked whether he had been mistreated,
humiliated, or degraded a t either Dachau or Landsberg he replied empatically
i n the negative and amplified his immediately prior answer with the statement
that his treatment a t the hands of his American captors was not inconsistent
with the treatment he would expect of soldiers and gentlemen toward a prisoner
of war.
I then asked whether h e desired me to transmit for him any remark or state-
ment to any member of the prosecution staff which prosecuted the Malmedy case.
Peiper asked that I convey to Lieutenant Colonel Ellis, chief prosecution counsel,
his-Peiper's-best wishes and kindest regards, that he entertained neither
resentment nor malice toward any member of the prosecution staff and con-
sidered the trial of the M'almedy case fair and considerate toward the defend-
a n t s and to have been conducted by soldiers and gentlemen as a military mission
and without personal animosity or prejudices.
Senator BALDWIN. HOWmuch time did you spend with Peiper?
Colonel P E ~ Y .
About an hour.
Senator BALDWIN. YOUsay he spoke perfect English?
Colonel PERRY.
Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. At that time was lie under sentence of death?
Colonel PERRY. He was under sentence of death; yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.You do not know when that sentence was to have
been executed ?
Colonel PERRY. I do not think review had been completed, sir. I
do not know.
Senator BALDWIN.HOWdid they look from the standpoint of
health ?
Colonel PERRY. Very good physical condition, clean, neat. He
needed a haircut, but his hair was well combed, he was shaven, he
seemed to be in good physical health.
Senator BALDWIN.Could YOU identify a picture of Peiper ?
Colonel PERRY. I think I could, sir.
Senator BALDTVIN. Here is a group of pictures. See if you can pick
Peiper out of that [handing pictures to the witness].
Colonel PERRY. I think this prisoner, marked 42, is Peiper.
Senator BALDWIN.I s that correct? I s that a picture of Peiper?
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is a picture of Colonel Peiper, sir. According
to the trial record he was assigned No. 42.
Colonel PERRY. The profile picture is a better picture of him, the
facial expression.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel, you said that Peiper was a typical Nazi.
What do you mean by that ?
Colonel PERRY. H e was arrogant; he was hostile; he had not com-
mitted a crime against the laws of war or the laws of God or the laws
of man.
Mr. CHAXBERS. How about Junker ?
Colonel PERRY. Junker was young, more of a college type boy. H e
was reasonably buoyant for a man condemned to death.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you feel that he might have been sorry for any
of the things-he claimed he had not done anything?
Colonel PERRY. He claimed he had not done anything, that he was
on leave, on a holiday, at home, during the Christmas season.
Mr. CHAMBERS. In that connection, with your investigation of this
other matter, which as I understand was tied in very intimately
with the operations of the First SS Panzer Division and more directly
the First S S Panzer Regiment, did you have any occasion to form any
opinion as to whether or not the First S S Panzer Regiment did carry
out these atrocities of which certain members were accused?
Colonel PERRY. From Peiper's attitude; p s , sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. From

Peiper7s attitude.
Colonel PERRY.
Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n
other words-
Colonel PERRY.
When Peiper said, "When my boys who have lost
their families are confronted with your American killers, if it is in
violation of international law that they shoot them down, then you
can say we violated international law. But had circumstances been
otherwise, there would have been no violation."
I n other words, he had not, in his own mind, committed a crime.
Senator BALDWIN.H a d you ever seen those pictures before?

'
Senator BALDWIN.D OYOU know any other members of the prosecut-
ing team ? Did you know Sliumacker ?
Colonel PERRY. Not that I can recall.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you know P e r l ?
Colonel PERRY. By reputation. I would not knonr the man if I: saw
him.
Senator BALDWIN.You say by reputation. MJhat clo you mean by
reputation ?
Colonel PERRY. I heard him referred to as a member of the pros-
ecution staff.
Senator BALDWIN.17Vhat was the reputation ?
Colonel PERRY. One more member of the prosecution staff.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did YOU ever hear any remarks concel.ning Perl,
his attitude toward prisoners, the way he handled prisoners ?
Colonel PERRY. There was a feeling that he was too exuberant, he
was overbearing. Of course, that is merely opinion ; that is hearsay.
I do not know the man personally.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever hear any comment to the effect that
he had beaten any prisoners, kicked them, kneed them, or something of
that kind?
Senator BALDWIN.W hat do you mean when you, say he was
exuberant ?
Colonel PERRY.Getting: his face down close to the prisoner, the in-
dividu.al, the suspect being interrogated, the suspect making a state-
ment, with his face close to his : "You lie, that is not the truth," what
is popularly referred to as police third-degree methocls.
Senator BALDWIN.Was there any comment that he had used any
physical violence ?
Colonel PERRY. Not that I know of, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did YOU h o w H a r r y Thon?
Colonel PERRY.I knew Thon very well. Thon was assigned to me
as an investigator-interrogator.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What was Thon's reputation for handling of
prisoners ?
Colonel PERRY. Thon was an effective, efficient, competent
- inter-
ro ator.
%r. CHAMRERS. Did that competency and efficiency carry with it
that he possibly pushecl them arouncl a little bit to get coi~fessions?
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay "no, sir'' positively. And he was working
for you a t the time. Have there ever been any reports made to you
in connection with you own investigations or rumors concerning Mal-
medy that Thon might have pushed prisoners around, mistreated them,
or manhandled them ?
Colonel PERRY. NO, sir. Had they came to me, Thon mould have
answered to me. When I first reported to War Crimes Group, I was
informed that I was clealing ~rrithprisoners of war, and if me were
to enforce the Hague and Geneva coilventiolls we had best not be guilty
of violating them ourselves.
Senator BALDWIN.When was that said ?
Colonel PERRY. The day following Labor Day, 1946.
Senator BALDWIN.Did ;YOU I ~ O Strong W who was one of the defense
staff?
Colonel PERRY.I' lrnew a Strong who mas the supply officer, W a r
Crinles Group. Whether it is the same inclividual I have no knowleclge.
Senator n-LLDWIN.Did you know Dwinell ?
Senator RALIIWIN.Where did you see him?
Colonel PIZRRY. A t Dachau.
Sellator BALDWIN.Was he there during some of the time that you
mere there ?
Colonel PERRY. A t Dachau, yes, sir.
Senator I~ALDTVIN. Did

you know Benjainill Reichman?
Colonel PERRY.
T h a t name does not mean anything to me, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Did YOU know Colonel Straight!
Colonel PERRY.
,Yes, sir.
Senator BALDT~IN.
you under his command a t One time?
lATere
Senator BALDWIN.A t any time while you were at Dachau, or any
other place, was there ever a meeting of tlie defense counsel, the mem-
bers of the court, and the prosecuting staff for a joint meeting for
discussion of the trials and the conduct of the trials?
Colonel PERRY. None that I know of, sir. Dachau is a very small
ton711. A coilcentration camp is reasonably closely organized in dis-
tances. They ate a t the same mess. There mas but one club. Isola-
tion was not possible. It mas not possible. There was no discussion,
normally, about a case before or after trial. There mas always that.
worry ainong men young i n the military service that if they talked
about a thing i t might be interpreted as a n attempt t o influence opin-
ion. They did qot do much talking about it. T h a t is what made
Uachau tougll.
Senator Baldwin. Were there several courts i n session a t Dachau?
Colonel PERRY.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.And were the Malmedy trials going forward
about the same time that your work was going forward there?
Colonel PERRY. I arrived in the theater-I was assigned to W a r
Crimes Group-after tlie concl~~sion of the Malmedy case. I have no
knowledge of pretrial investigation, conduct of the trial. That I
have no knowl+lge of.
Senator BALDTVIN. You did not get to the W a r Crimes Group until
after the Malmedy trials had been completed?
Colonel PERRY. T h a t is correct, sir.
Senator BALDTYIN. I think that is all. Thank you very much-
Colonel.
Colonel PERRY. Thank you, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Gnth?
(Thereupon, Paul C. Guth mas sworn by Senator Baldwill.)
TESTIMONY OF PAUL C. GUTH, ATTORNEY, NEW YORK CITY

Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Guth, will you give us your full name and
address, and present occupation, please?
Mr. GUTH. My name is Paul C. Guth. I live at 61 East Eightv-
second Street, New York City, and I am a n attorney.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Guth, would you mind telling us a little bit
about your backgrouncl, where you were born?
91766-49-60
Mr. GUTH. I was born in Vienna, Austria, and I went to high schoo~
in Austria and England. I had parts of my college education in
England. Then I had the rest of my college education, my l e d
education, in the United States.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When did you come to this country?
Mr. GUTH. I n 1940.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When

were you naturalized?
Mr. GUTH. 1944.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were

you in the American armed services during
the war ?
Mr. GUTEI. ;Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. AS an enlisted man or officer?
Mr. GUTH. Both.
Senator BALDWIN.We will have to take a short recess while I answer
this roll call.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were you assigned a t one time to Dachau?
Mr. GUTH. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n
what capacity?
Mr. GUTH. I think I mas assigned down there as an interrogator,
and then a month later I mas made assistant to Colonel Denson, as
prosecutor of the Dachau case. Then after the end of the Dachau
case I was more or less put in charge of the interrogation in Dachau,
and about 3 weeks later Colonel Demon was assigned to the Mulhausen
case and at that time I was assigned to &lone1 Denson again.
Mr. CHANBERS. DO you recall sometime in 1946 Colonel Carpenter
coming down to Dachau?
Mr. GUTH. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were you assigned to assist him in any way?
Mr. GUTH. Yes, sir; I was.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n
what connection?
Mr. GUTH. I was told to go and work with him evenings. I was
told that there seemed to have been some unpleasantness in the investi-
gation of the Malmedy case; there mere charges, and that I should
assist Colonel Carpenter in finding out how much of the charges were
true.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Can you, in your own words, tell us the way you all
worked on that investigation, and what you found out?
Mr. GUTH. Yes, sir. I reconstructed i t since getting your letter
yesterday. Immediately after dinner I was busy on the Mulhausen
case during the day, and then would have dinner.
Immediately after dinner Colofiel' Carpenter, Colonel Everett, and
myself, went over to the War Crimes compound. Colonel Everett gave
Colonel Carpenter a list of prisoners who claimed they had been mis-
treated. He also gave him some sort of qnestionnaire-a mimeo-
araphed questionnaire, as I recall it-and I think the first evening he
Ekft us, after giving us some questionnaires.
Then Colonel Carpenter just picked off a name from the list. I
do not know whether he had been informed that this man had the
strongest complaint or whether he just happened to pick his name.
He called him in. As I recall it, on the first prisoner Colonel Car-
penter had me translate for him, and then after that he just indicated
generally what I should find out. Then, after I had talked to the
man-while I was talking to him, after a few minutes-I would turn
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION ,941
to Colonel Carpenter and I would tell him what the man had been
telling me, but I was more or less conducting the questioning on my
own.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Guth, going back to when you first went to work
on these cases, were you the only interpretation or translation staff ?
I realize that you were an interrogator, but were you the o d y in-
terpreter assigned to work with Colonel Carpenter?
Mr. G ~ H No, . sir. Coming clown yesterday, when I tried to re-
construct it, I thought I was. Coming down on the train today I re-
inembered that, I think, there were one or two German girls who
were just kind of sitting around and waiting to see whether Colonel
Carpenter would use them.
Toward the end I believe Colonel Carpenter gave me one or two
names, and I questioned those names. H e would take, with the help
of one of the girls, and he would interrogate-talk to-some of the
other prisoners.
So, actually, I was not the only interpreter in the room when the
interrogation was going on. There were other people who knew
German and English in the room.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were these questionnaires that you were talking
about filled out in German?
Mr. GUTH.That is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DOyou know whether or not Colonel Carpenter had
had them translated before you went to work with him?
Mr. G u m , I read them in the original, in German, but I believe
they had been translated. As a matter of fact I am pretty sure, be-
cause both girls who were there the first evening had both been per-
manently assigned to the defense staff,and one of the girls had told
me, before Colonel Carpenter came 'down, that there would be an
investigation, and that the defense staff had been working on these
complaints.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you read all of the statements?
Mr. GUTH. I could not say that, sir. I read a substantial number.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO you recall what statements were made by the
prisoners concerning mistreatment ?
Mr. G ~ H Well,. sir, when we started questioning them, the first
thing we tried to find out was the charge of actual beatings.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let me go back to my original question. Do you
recall what these questionnaires said?
Mr. GUTH. Yes, sir. It is over 3 years since I saw them, and I did
not pay much attention to them a t the time. I believe they asked
for the man's name, rank, for his outfit; then they asked how long he
had been imprisoned in various American prison camps.
Then I do not know whether they asked several questions about
Ihe way he had been treated or whether he was asked just t o give us
his story. There was a space where he could give his story and put
down his complaints.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What was the general tenor of the answers to that
question concerning mistreatment, or the way he was treated ?
Mr. GUTEL I n the written answers ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes.
Mr. G ~ H I. do not know whether there were any complaints of
physical violence. I know there were complaints of mock trials;
there were complaints about having a black scarf thrown over the
942' MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
individual's head, and he was kept that way for some time. There
were certain complaints about insults.
I think there may have been con~plaintsabout variotls acts which
viere designed to huniiliate prisoners, physical exercise and SO on.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe you said there mere no conlplaints that
you recall about pllysical mistreatment in the questionnaire?
Mr. GUTEI. YO, sir. I would not say that. Wl1at I am saying is:
Having read s~nlething-aboat it in the papers since, and not having
been particularly interested in the case when it came up, I do not recall
whether there were any complaints of physical mistreatment. I f there
vere any complaints, they were not very strong, because after reading
them I just shook my head and told myself they had not made much
of a case.
Mr. CEIAB~ERS. You then, based on what you had read. would call
in prisoners and interrogate them ; is that correct ?
Mr. GUTH. That is correct, sir.,
Mr. CHAMBERS. What did you do; screen out a certain number of
them that had niade complaints?
Mr. GUTH. I had nothing to do with the screening. Colonel Car-
penter wonld give nie a name and tell me to have that name brought it.
During one of the breaks lie indicated that the names he had called
were the names of the people whose questionnaires had been inost3
unfavorable to the investigation methods used by the prosecution.
I also talked to Colonel Everett. I talked to him pretty constantly
during that time, because, as Colonel Perry mentioned, Dachau is a
pretty sinall place, and he mas a very sociable gentleman.
H e mentioned to me that Colonel Carpenter had picked the inan
whose complaint had been strongest.
Mr. CHABIBERS. So Cololzel Carpenter had apparently got the m~o~st,
complaints ?
Mr. GUTH. That is right.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. But you yourself-and those that you read from
the group Colonel Carpenter had picked out-did not feel they had
made too great a case?
Mr. GUTH. I did not read the conlplaints of the group Colonel Car-
penter had picked out, particularly. I just leafed through the general
sheets, ancl as one inan came in Colonel Carpenter woulcl give me his
sheet, but I could not distinguish, after that time, between tlie com-
plaints of tlie men who were called in and the complaints of the men
who were not.
Mr. CIXAMBERS. Do you recall how many people you ancl Colonel
Carpenter interviewed ?
Mr. GUTH. I should say about 15.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I presume, in those that you questioned yourself,
you were trying to corroborate tlie statements that they had niade on
their questionnaire, plus such other information as you could get from
them ?
Mr. GUTEI. That is correct.
Mr. CIIAMBERS.What was the nature of the testimony that you got
from them as a result of your interrogation?
Mr. GUTII. Well, slr, I have been trying to recall it. I can only
recall one incident of a. man who conlplained that lie was slapped.
H e did not claim that he was slapped during interrogation.
As he told me the story, or as I recall the story, when he was told
t o leave-I do not know whether he had made a confession a t that time
o r had not-he started to get up, and was a bit slow going through the
door, and then someoile slapped him.
I do not even know whether i t was a member of the prosecution staff
.or one of the enlisted men who were assigned t o bringing in and tak-
ing out prisoners, who did the slapping.
H e clid not claim that lie was beaten. The Germans used the expres-
sion for a slap i11 the face. There were one or two people who claimed
tliat when they were taken from the interrogation room to their cells,
and from their cells to tlie interrogation room, a black cloth was placed
over their heads and they were brought i n that way.
I t is possible tliat they told me that-I an1 just trying to think of one
incident-they told me that i t was removed before they mere ques-
tioned, because \~11e11they first said they were brought in with the
black cloth over their heacls, I said, "You could not have talked very
well," and a t that point he said, "Oh, no; that black cloth had been
taken off my head."
Mr. CHAMBERS. You said that you hacl been reacling the newspapers
about some of the stories that came out about Malmedy. I am certain
that you liave read some of the statements conceriiing real physical
mistreatment.
Mr. GUTEI.That is correct.
Mr. CIIA~IBERS. Based on the investigation that you and Colonel
Carpenter made, would yon feel t h a t those claims that are now being
made are accurate?
Mr. GUTIX.Certainly none of tlie people who talked to us claimed
they had been subjected to physical mistreatinent, other than one slap
that I recall. They all complained about inadequate food, and they
ail complainecl about solitary confinements.
Nr. C I L ~ I ~ E RDid
S . they talk about any particular iaclividuals who
might have humiliated them or mistreated them ?
Mr. GUTH. I was interested. I liave been in the same branch of the
service for a long time, ancl I knew quite a few of the interrogators.
So I v-as interested to linow wlio had-clone the interrogation.
I tried to fincl out w110 it was. T h e ol?ly ilaine that I recall-because
I knew the naine before hearing about hini-wag Lieutenant Perl. All
the other names are completely new to me. '
Now, they inay have been mentioned. I f they were, I have for-
gotten Ihein, because I never had any contact with these individuals.
Mr. CIIAMBERS.w h a t did they say about P e r l ?
Mr. GUTIX.They all said he had talked i n a rather loud voice. They
all described him as a relentless interrogator. There was no complaint
of physical violence in his case.
Mr. CEIAJIBERS.Did you have occasion, through your duty there a t
Dachau, to become acquainted with other members of the Malmedy
~ t ~ f f - H a r r yThon, f o r instance; Joseph Kirschbaum?
Mr. GOTH. No, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS.Ellowitz ?
Mr. GOTH. NO, sir.
Mr. CIIAMBERS.Was there any general reputation anlong the staff
at Dachau concerning the way these people had been haiidlecl a t
Schwabisch Hall ?
Mr. GUTH. Sir, none a t all, except that, as I mentioned before, 1or 2
days before Colonel Carpenter came down, the German girl who had
first applied for the job to me, came to me and said, "Something is
going to happen about the Malmedy case. Colonel Everett is work-
ing up a big record on mistreatment, and as a matter of fact it has
become so big that a colonel will come down from Frankfurt."
Mr. CHAMBERS. She said that Colonel Everett was worlcing up a
big record on mistreatments?
Mr. GUTH. That is right. She was not suggesting that he was a t
all influencing people in what they were saying about mistreatment.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But she did indicate that he was taking a particular
interest in this question of mistreatment; is that right?
Mr. GUTH. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. TOthe point that he was, even before the trial,
building up quite a record about it ?
Mr. GUTH. Well, maybe the expression "building up" is not fair.
He was taking down the facts, and as I note, as I recall it from what
I have heard from Colonel Corbin, he then went to Colonel Corbin
and mentioned the fact that he hacl found out about these things to
Colonel Corbin, and probably asked him, for them, what he, Colonel
Corbin, thought Colonel Everett should do.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay you knew Colonel Everett and talked to
him on quite a few occasions?
Mr. GUTH. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did he ever mention these matters to you?
Mr. GUTH. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What

did he have to say about them?
Mr. GUTH. I hacl been on most of the early war crimes trials, and
he tallied to nie quite a bit. As long as I was there he expressed be-
wilderment. Let us put it this way: H e did not believe-he could
not believe-that physical violence had been used, and that Colonel
Ellery, I believe his name was, the chief prosecutor, and at the same
time he felt it was his duty to the individuals he had been assigned
to defend to go to the bottom of that matter. On the other hand he
did not feel that he would like to raise a big cloud of dust if those
stories would turn out wrong in the end.
At the time I talked to him he was rather puzzled
- as to where his
duty lay.
Mr. CHAMBERS. A t that time, you say he was' convinced that they
could not have occurred under Colonel Ellis?
Mr. GUTH. Well, he was not convinced that any stories which
people were telling him, his defendants were telling him, were wrong.
That would not be a fair way of putting it. H e could not just imagine
that Colonel Ellis would allow that sort of thing to happen.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When was the last time you talked to Colonel Ever-
ett in relation to this investiffation?
Mr. GUTH. The day I l e g for the States. That must have been
around May 10,1946.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n other words, it was during the trial?
Mr. GUTH. NO. Before the trial.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I
11 May 1946 ?
Mr. GUTH. Yes.

Mr. CHAMBERS. And at that time Everett was still undecided in his
own mind as to whether or not there was any truth to these charges
that had been made?
Mr. GUTH. Sir, I do not know whether that is a fair way of put-
ting it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUtell me what you think is a fair way. Do not
let me put words in your mouth.
Mr. GUTH. I think that he realized that certain people, at least,
had complained about the treatment they had been subjected to.
He also realized that those people had made statements which, if
unchallenged, would mean that they and others would be hanged.
He realized that he was dealing with people with whom he had
had very little experience. He realized that, by taking their state-
ments at face value, he was likely to do a good deal of damage to other
people's reputations-people who just thought they were doing their
own jobs-so that, on the other hand, he felt that he was defense
counsel, that he had to put the case of those people before the court
to their best advant3ge.
So he did not quite know where his duty lay in bringing these
matters out during the trial, out into the open. I think at one point-
1mentioned to him that possibly he could talk to the prosecution,
and that possibly they might not introduce some of the statements
where there mas a feeling that these statements had been obtained by
improper means.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe you said that at one time Colonel Everett
had felt that Colonel Carpenter had picked out the 15 or 20 worst
cases.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did he still feel that way at the time you left
there ?
Mr. GUTH. Yes, sir. He felt i t so strongly that, on one occasion, he
asked me to address the defendants and ask them to be truthful in their
statements to him, because actually the result of the interrogation
Colonel Carpenter conducted was disappointing, from the point of
view of the defense.
I mean, all those statements, mock trials, mistreatments. and so
on, melted to nothing when they were probed.
Mr. CHAMBERS. If Everett still believed that Colonel Carpenter
had picked out the 15 or 20 worst cases, did he have confidence that
Colonel Carpenter and yourself had gotten the facts from these 15
or 20 people?
Mr. GUTH. I did not ask him that, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let us put it another way. Do you believe that
he was convinced, after your investigation, that there was no physical
mistreatment of these people?
Mr. G ~ H I. do not know that, sir. I very carefully kept from-
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n your own mind, were you convinced so far as
these 15 or 20 were concerned ?
Mr. GUTH.I was convinced there was no physical mistreatment.
I might add something at this point, which ties in with what Colonel
Perry testified to. Colonel Everett asked me to talk to the prisoners
in one large group in the guardhouse in Dachau one evening, 2
days before I left. On that occasion the officers were called in first.
I had interrogated Colonel Peiper for about 6 weeks in June and
July 1045, on other matters than the Malmedy case, so Colonel Peiper
knew me fairly well.
He came over to me and coilgratulated me on my promotion. We
got to talking. A t the time I had interrogated him I had carried
several letters to his wife, and after he had left, he wanted to know
how she had been, and so on, we got into a conversation, then the
enlisted men started coming in.
They were a pretty sorry sight a t that time, not because they were
not well fed, but they were not in uniform and they were not too well
made up, well-dressed, and they obviously did not take much care
about their personal appearance.
He told me: "I never thought that Gerinan soldiers would give
such a poor show. First they think that by betraying their comrades
and betraying their officers they can save their own necks." I am
just paraphrasing what he said during a fairly long conversation.
"Now they come and they come crying and raising all sorts 6f con?-
plaints. You know how much tlmse are worth."
I am not giving his exact words; I am just paraphrasing what
went on as lie saw the people coming in. He would recognize a m a n
and he would say that he had always reposed great confidence in him,
and that that man had been particularly good at apple-polishing, or
something like that, and had been one of the noisiest Nazis in his out-
fit. "Now look at the statement he made. Now he claims that he
was beaten," and he would just laugh or smile at something like that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you gather from that that Peiper hnnself did
not believe many of these statements that they were making ?,
Mr. GOTH. I believe he felt that a substantial number of the people
who were not claiming mistreatment-and I do not think there were
many a t that time who were claiming physical mistreatment-that they
mere just telling; him and the other officers that they had been mis-
treated, or a t least they were making the treatment they had re-
ceived morse, so that they would look less bad.
Peiper, for instance, used the expression that the had gotten a
certain man who was just filing in leave, when all leaves in the German
'Army had been canceled. "Now look at the statement he made,"
and so on.
-
He had the feeling that the whole investigation had reallv been
against him, and tlizh6 the investigation-the way it had been carried
on-was rather a dirty trick on him, because the day I left-2 days
later-Colonel Durst, who was his personal defense counsel, came to me
and told me that Peiper had told him that when I first interrogated
Peiper in Freising I told him (Peiper) we were out to frame him, and
he asked me to malie an affidavit to that effect.
So I think Peiper felt that his men had let him down pretty badly,
and whatever the facts of the actual treatment were, they were making
them much worse in order to appear better in his eyes, now that they
were all in the same boat.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have been asking you specific questions about this.
You have vol~ulteereda great deal of information.
I wonder: Are there any other comments that you would care to
make concerning this situation? Here me have on one hand a rather
imposing group of affidavits that were given some 2 years after sen-
tences, and alleging very serious physical mistreatment-brutal and
iizhumaae, I think, would be a very easy way to describe it. On the
hand you sat here and testified that while these things were still
current, that within a very short time Colonel Carpellter picked out
the worst cases and none of those stood up from the standpoint of
physical mistreatment, with the exception of one slap.
Mr. GUTH. That is correct.
Mr. CHA~EBERS. I am frahkly puzzled.

Do you have any general
comments to make on this situation?
Mr. GUTH. I do iiot feel that I am qualified t o do that. I may say

that most of these Germans, when they were first interrogated, just
thougllt of saving their own skins.
They thought that, by currying favor with the interrogator thzy
were very likely to get off lighter than the people they were in-
crimiaatiag.
Tliey did not iniiid incriiniilating tlieinselves in the process, since
apparently they had become accustomed to the traditional system
under which punishment was meted out not according to a man's
deeds but according to the light in which he stood with his superiors.
So I imagine most interrogators found that sort of thing very
helpful. I laiow I did. Then they all foulid themselves i n one big
room ; they were all, charged together ; they were all i n the same boat.
Tliey started thiiiking ( I ) "if he is going to treat me better than
the rest he certainly is not starting to do i t rlght, tlie way he is doing
it." (2) "These fellows know a lot of things about me which tliey
have iiot put down, because I clo not think any interrogator ever
flattered himself that he got out everytliiiig. I am sure I dlcl not, and
I am sure no one el'se ever did. I f he is really mad about the state-
ment I made about liin~,tliat other fellow is likely to come out i n
court and lie is going to make a statement that is going to incriminate
me even worse. Then even if they had tlie intention i n tlie first place
to treat me better they are very likely to treat me worse because he
gave them more."
They would have every interest in the world to claim they were
treated badly. They all follomecl the early mar crimes trials with a
good deal of interest. I know, f o r instance, tliat Gerinaii nempapers
reporting those trials were a t a premium on tlie black markets in the
camps, so I assume4 that they started with what tlieir predecessors had
done, they stndied how their predecessors had failed to break the con-
fessions tliey had made, how they had a11 been senteiicecl, and probably
came to realize tliat oaly claims of physical inistreatinent would be
strong enough to take away from the force of their confessions, be-
cause i11 the first war crimes trials there was no claim of physical vio-
lence, just claims that they had been mislecl into believing they would
get off easier, and thiilgs like that, and the court apparently took the
confessions a t their face value, and tliey knew-there were plenty of
German lawyers i n the camp wlio were prisoners, and who instructed
them on it.
As a matter of fact, the Malmedy prisoners were taken to the court-
rooms while the Mulhausen trial was going on, to listen i n and see how
the trial was being conducted. They went i n during the time the
. defense mas on, so I have no doubt that they heard a lot of their former
comrades in arms repudiating their confessions and ii~akinpthein-
selves appear ricliculous in tlie colonel's cross-exaininatioas, because
their claims were that they had iiot hotliered to their confessions,
and so on, and that they had not understood the import of the con-
fessions.
Colonel Denson, who was chief prosecutor in these cases, and is a
pretty strong cross-examiner, made most of these people look very
silly when he got through. Imagine the Malinedy prisoners listening
to that, and the thing got bnilt up in their own minds, they had plenty
of time to think about it, and their lives depended on it, and consciously
or unconsciously-possibly they were not meaning to commit perjury
at all-what had been a rude gesture at first became a threatening
move, became physical contact, and finally became mistreatment.
Senator BALDWIN. When you talked with these prisoners you had
in your hands, as I understand it, questionnaires which had been given
to you by Colonel Carpenter ?
Mr. GUTH. Either Colonel Carpenter had them or I had them.
Senator BALDWIN. And those were questionnaires that were pre-
pared by defense counsel for completion by these prisoners?
Mr. G ~ H That. is correct, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. And those questionnaires contained charges of
mistreatment, as described by the prisoner in the questionnaire?
Mr. GUTH. Yes, sir. Not necessarily physical mistreatment, but
anyway mistreatment.
Senator BALDWIN. YOUthen asked the particular prisoner about
the information that he had in his affidavit?
Mr. GUTH. That is correct, sir. I do not know whether those state-
ments mere in the form of affidavits. I rather believe they were not.
Senator BALDWIN. Jnst questionnaires?
Senator BALDWIN.
What did they say?
Mr. GUTH. A t that distance it is hard to remember. As I recall it
the main emphasis was on the so-called mock trials. The main empha-
sis was not on physical mistreatment. -
I recall Colonel Carpenter, in several instances, asking me, with some
impatience, to get to the mock trials while I was already workin on it,
P
and then I would come out with an answer that would not satis y him,
and he would feel somehow that.1 had not put the question r i ~ h t ,
because once the prisoners was being questioned about the mock trials
it was absolutely impossible to get out that any mock trial had actually
taken place.
He might claim that he had been told, "You are being charged k i t h
the killing of American prisoners; you face your Maker tomorrow
morning," but as I recall it there was certainly not one man who
described one of the mock trials I have been reading about in the
papers.
Colonel Carpenter was quite impatient and quite upset, because no
story about those mock trials materialized.
Senator BALDWIN. Did any of these prisoners describe to you any
physical abuse that was used on them other than this one slapping?
Mr. GUTH. NO,sir; and it was the first question I asked. I pointed
out to them that it was for their own interests to tell the story now, that
they had given pretty incriminating evidence, and there was, as I recall
it, sir, no other case.
Mr. CHABIBERS. I would like to ask you one more question, Mr. Guth :
I n listening to your discussion of the conference in which you and Colo-
nel Peiper had the conversation as his boys were coming into the room,
you were there for the purpose of talking to the whole group; is that
correct ?
Mr. GUTII. That is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you talk to that group?
Mr., GUTH. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you have an o portunity to speak to or have
any contact with anybody else besides 8eiper that night?
Mr. GUTH. He, as I recall it, introduced me to his officers.
Mr. CRAMBERS. Did anyone else make any comments at all about
these matters ?
Mr. GUTH. NO, sir. I talked to their commanding officers, and
they were hanging axound, but as I recall it he was the one to carry
on the conversat'ion.
Senator BALDWIN. TVhat q7as the purpose of this meeting? Why
did they call you i n ?
Mr. GUTIS. Colonel Everett felt that ~ossiblyhis inexperience in
war crimes cases might handicap those people, and he wanted them
to have the benefit of advice based on the actual conduct of war
crimes trials, so he asked me to tell them how dangerous it was to lie
on the stand, but that they should not accuse each other, that i t had
happened in both of the war crimes trials that Colonel Denson had
conducted that the accused mould go 011 the stand and try to clear
himself, but he would incriminate five or six other accused, so I
pointed out that that was not the right policy to follow, and so on.
I just gave general advice. Frankly, I think the only good my
talk did was to provide them with an evening's entertainment.
Senator BALDWIN. What law school did you go t o ?
Mr. GUTH. Columbia.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you graduate there?
Mr. GV~II.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. Do you have a baclielor's degree of any kind?
Mr. GUTII. Yes, sir. Colunibia College too.
Senator BALD~VIN. Thank you very niuch.
Mr. G a r s . Thank you, sir. ,
Senator BALDWIN. Mr. Pinucane.
(Thereupon, James Finucane was sworn by Senator Baldwin.)
'TESTIMONY OF JAMES FINUCANE, ASSOCIATE SECRETARY,
NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR THE PREVENTION OF WAR, WASWING-
TON, D. C.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Finucane, will you give us your full name and
present occupatibn ?
Mr. F'INUCANE.My name is James Finucane. I am associate sec-
retary of the National Council for the Prevention of War, 1013-18th
Street NW., Washington, D. C.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Are you testifying today as an individual o r as a
representative of the council ?
Mr. FINUCANE. AS a representative of the council.
Mr. CHAIMBERS. DO
you have a prepared statement, Mr. Pinucane,
that you care to make 1
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes, I do.

Mr. CEIANBERS. I would like to ask you: can you estimate the time
i t will take to read i t ?
Mr. FINUCANE.I would say about 20 minutes, or less.
Senator BALDWIN.What is this statement about? I s it about your
connection with Judge Van Rodent
Mr. FINUCANE. It includes that, yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.ISit a statement of your opinion concerning these
trials or anything of that kind ?
Mr. RINUCANE.Yes, and some recommen2ations for the cominit-
tee based on our study of the proceedings as they have taken place, and
based on the information.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n other words, you are testifying today as a fol-
low-up on the request of the council to appear before the committee
when we held these hearings?
Mr. FIKUCANE. T h a t is right.
Mr. C~XA~IBERS.
111 addition to that, you are responding to some

of the questions that were raised in connection with Judge Van Roden's
testimony ?
Mr. FINUCANE.T h a t is correct.
Senator BALDWIN.Have you conducted any independent inrestiga-
tion of your own of these trials?
Mr. FINUCANE. We have been taking an interest in this since-
Senator BALDWIN.Will you answer my question? H a r e you con-
ducted any independent investigation of your own concerning these
trials ?
Mr. FINUCANE.Yes, Senator.
Senator BALDWIN.What investigation have you conducted?
Mr. FIKUCANE. M7e have corresponcled with the bishops in Ger-
many, Bishop Neullaeusler and Bishop Wurm. We have corresponded
with General Clay ;we have corresponded with the German attorneys ;
we have correspcnded with the German prisoners who are under death
sentences. We have also talked with Judge Van Roden and shared
the authorship of that report with him, y h i c h was in dispute here a t
the hearing.
Mr. FINUCANE. This applies to your question as to first-hand knowl-
edge, Senator.
I wasn't a t S c l ~ ~ ~ a e b i Hall
s c h where the men were beaten. I was
not a t Lanclsberg where the men were kept in jail. Everything I have
to say about the United States atrocities that toolc place against un-
armed Germans is hearsay. But these men were convicted by hear-
say, by perjured statements of their coaccused in the first place, and
it IS only fitting perhaps that a certain degree of hearsay should be
permitted in exanlining their cases and the procedures under which
they were sentenced.
What do me care about the Germans? Why are ,we interested in the
fate of these few?
One, because we do not wish to see men hansred by our Government
and in our name who have not been found guilty by American stand-
ards of justice.
Second, because we are interested that the reputation of our country
for hancling out a clean brand of justice be upheld.
Third, because in promoting reconciliation between the nations, we
1' 0 not want to see men of good will i n all countries turned ag,zinst
each other and frustrated by the abuses and excesses of the few.
We can read and we can hear, and when certain things are brought
to our attention, we become obligated by them.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me say this to you, Mr. Finucane : You are
the associate secretary of the Society f o r the Prevention of War. You
are a paid secretary?
Mr. FINUCANE. T h a t is right.
Senator BALDWIN.I do not believe that you ought to use this com-
mittee to advance the propaganda of your own organization. Such
facts and letters and documents and evidence as you have t o offer we
are perfectly glad to hear. But your opinions as to the procedures
and so forth, we are glad to Bear those, too. I do not think that you
ought to use this committee as a sounding board for the propaganda
of your organization.
I say that in all fairness and in all justice to you. And I wish, in
making your statement, that you would have that in mind.
Mr. FINUCANE. All right ; I will, Senator.
Mr. FINUCANE.
F o r many months we have been hearing rumors
about United States atrocities i n Germany. W e read about them i n
the newspapers, reported guardedly, but nevertheless recurrently
and disturbingly.
We received letters from Bishop Neuhaeusler, of Munich, Bishop
Wurm, of Stnttgart, and from respected German lawyers who were
handling the cases of the condemned Germans.
I t struck us that just as we were concluding the Nnremberg trials
with charges of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and
war crimes, we were beginning to commit the same crimes ourselves,
through our agents i n Germany. Certainly i t is a crime against peace
to destroy confidence between peoples. Certainly it is a crime against
humanity for the Americans to run a concentration camp like Schwae-
bis'ch-Hall or Landsberg. I t struck us that to treat captured pris-
oners of war as ordinary felons, depriving them of the protection of
the Geneva Convention, was a war crime.
T o make matters worse, this gruesome performance was manufac-
turing convictions, issuing death sentences, and lynching its victims
a t the rate of 10 a week. The detailed statistics are available in the
1948 Annual Report of the Secretary of the Army.
Could we stand by and watch this go o n ? Could we say that these
men-that is, the Americans-had been properly appointed, and wore
the uniforms of the greatest country on earth and therefore could do
no wrong? Could we blind ourselves to the moral issues because, to
our simple, nonlegal minds, all the technicalities seemed to be in order ?
O r could we, and should we, recognize a lynching bee when we
saw one?
Senator BALDWIN.Let us make that perfectly clear. T h a t is a n
expression of your opinion.
Mr. FINUCANE. That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.Evidently, you have judged this case already,
while this committee is still in the process of taking testimony. That
is the point I want to make.
Mr. FINUCANE. I f I may say, Senator, I had an opinion before the

committee went into action. My opinion has been modified by some
of the testimony that has been brought out here.
During the second week of December last year, Judge Edward L.
Van Roden spoke at a meeting of a society of Federal bar attorneys
'in Philadelphia. H e had just come back from Germany a few weeks
earlier and had the facts. We heard about his talk and interviewed
him. We put his story on paper and circulated it to the newspapers,
to magazines, to Congress, to bar associations, and to individual mem-
bers of the public a t large.
It is important to remember at this point that the Supreme Court
had refused to hear the Germans' pleas for habeas corpus. The Army
mas hanging them. All regular channels seemed closed.
However, when our article began to circulate, it worked as a catalyst
and things began to happen.
Senator BALDWIN.What do you mean "when our article began to
circulate?" Do you mean the Van Roden article?
Mr. FINUCANE. I mean the first statement we put out, which was
the basis of that Van Roden article of substantially the same thing.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That was your press release based on the Van Roden
article. I s that correct ?
Mr. FINUCANE. That is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n
other words, that is the statement which you re-
leased, saying that Judge Van Roden, a popular American judge, now
in the United States, after an investigation of the situation in Ger-
many, which describes tortures nsed to extract confessions-is that the
article you mean ?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes, sir.
Mr. CIIAIVIRER. And your press release was based on the Van Roden
article, which you wrote?
Mr. FINUCANE. That is right. That is the Van Roden statement.
The Federal Council of Churches and the American Civil Liberties
Union got interested. Many private individuals wrote to Congress
and to the Pentagon. Religious magazines, such as the Christian
Century, began to support our demand for an investigation.
This committee is making that investigation or the first part of that
investigation now. I f there had been no public appeal such as we
made, there would probably have been no such investigation as this.
The Van Roden-Simpson report would still be buried, where it was
when we started, in the "confidential" files of the Pentagon.
Our report came out December 18, 1948. The Department of the
Army shook loose with the Van Roden-Simpson report January 6,
1949, apparently because they were getting some heat built up under
them. It had been in their hands since September.
If we had only nsed leqal means, no one woulcl have been convicted.
That is what Secretary of the Army Royal1 told this committee on
the first day of the hearings.
I saw Lt. William Perl-an American investigator-slap 'em and knee 'em
double in the groin * * * . Some of them were kept on bread and water.
That is what James J. Bailey of Pittsburgh, a court reporter in
Germany, said when he appeared before this committee.
Per1 told you :
I spoke to t h e prisoner in a soft voice, just a s I am speaking now; I had him
sit uowu ; I wauteu m n LO ue comior~slule.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 953;
Those three statements were the high lights of this hearing, from
my point of view, and I have sat through most if not all of the
sessions.
It is not necessarily to comment on the play on words about "soli-
tary confinement" and "close confinement" or on the skillful definition
of ' % r ~ t h "which "has many faces, all of them lies," as one witness
put it.
Mock trials with figurehead judges, as admifted to you, might sup-
port charges of false wearing of the uniform, degrading the uniforms,.
and conduct unbecoming an officer. But that would be too small to
bother with, when the whole procedure by which these men were
hung-and over 100 of them have been hung by the Dachau court-
might be called a mock trial.
I s it just a qnaint coincidence, a mathematical curiosity, that the
number of men convicted for the Malmedy massacre corresponded
ioughly to the numbered massacred? Why this symbolic 74--later
reduced to 72? Why-unless it were in intention a cold-blooded
American reprisal?
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUhave been attending most of these meetings?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe you recall that the testimony before the
committee has indicated that there were some 700 fatalities involved
in the so-called Malmedy atrocities, as distinct from the Malmedy
crossroads incident.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Thank

you.
Mr. FINUCANE.
YOUare welcome.
Why this symbolic 741 Why-unless it were in intention a cold-
blooded American reprisal?
We think this committee has been motivated by good faith, but
handicapped by an implicit premise, even if snbconscious, that the
Germans are guilty, the same premise that handicapped the Dachau
court and investigators.
As for the evidence before the committee, the Americans have had
the same motives for telling the truth or "making a case" that the
Germans had when they filled ont their affidavits. It had been said
that the Germans swore to affidavits about how a handful of nndisci-
plined Americans maltreated them in order to save their own lives.
The former GI's and the officers have been trying to save the balance
of their lives, where the stories of these atrocities have put their repu-
tations at stake. I n fact, some of the Americans protest too much.
I
11 aclclition, innocent Americans in the war crimes program, have
testified in defense of their not-so-innocent comrades-unknowingly
I believe for the most part; knowingly perhaps in other cases-out of
a sense of unit loyalty. All felt that an admission regarding one
would reflect on all. Every witness here has been testifying in
self-defense.
Senator BAWWIN.Just a moment. Let us examine that statement
briefly.
You heard Colonel Perry this afternoon?
Mr. FINUCANE. I did.
Senator BALDWIN.IShe under any charges in connection with this
thing ?
Mr. FINUCANE. NO; he is not. However, he has a sense of unit

loyalty, which we are all familiar with: people that you work with,
people that you were in the Army with. You do not like to see
anything happen that reflects on their reputation.
Senator BALDWIN.YOU heard Lieutenant Colonel Perry under
examination ?
Senator BALDWIN.ISit your inference that he did not tell the truth?
Mr. FINUCANE.NO; it is not my inference that he did not tell the
truth. I was very favorably impressed by his statement. However,
I noticed the same, statement, i11 reference to his statement, that I
noticed in reference to others. While he did not know about most of
'the charges, or denied that to his knowledge the charged events had
taken place, at the same time he did, just on the side, admit other
charges which have been denied by other witnesses.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Specifically ?
Mr. FINUCANE.
For example, he said that prisoners he interviewed
did not complain about physical abuse but that they did talk about
deprivation of f oocl.
M'r. CHAMBERS. Pardon me.
Who said that today?
Mr. FINUCANE.
Was that not Colonel Perry?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Today

2
Mr. FINUCANE.
Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I do not recall.
Mr. FINUCANE.
It was one of the witnesses here this afternoon.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Perry is still here.
I would like to ask
Y O U : I n your statement today, and you are still under oath-
Colonel PERRY.
Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you make any statements concerning any of
the people testifying to you that they had been deprived of food
or mistreated ?
Colonel PERRY. I made no such statement. I clo not think I used
the word "food" in my testimony. I made no inference.
Mr. FINUCANE.
Would you ask the other witness?
Mr. CHAMBERS. This

is a rather unusual procedure, but I would
like very much to bring it out, with the chairman's permission.
Mr. Guth, remember that you are still under oath.
Mr. GUTH. Yes, sir.
M'r. CHAMBERS. YOUtestified that Mr. Everett, who is the chief
defense counsel, said that Colonel Carpenter had picked out the
15 to 20 worst cases.
Mr. GUTH. That is correct, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And

that in 'chis testimony the main onus of com-
plaint involved the mock trials and the ruses and what not and the
use of the black hoods and so on.
Mr. GUTH. That is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOU

also testified that as far as physical mistreat-
ment mas concerned that there was only one man who had alleged
physical mistreatment and he mentioned a slap.
Mr. GUTH. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Perhaps my memory of your testimony is unclear.

I would think being deprived of food would come under the heading
of physical mistreatment. I would like to ask you about t h a t ; did you
so testify?
Mr. GUTH. No man testified, or no man told us that he was deprived
of food. Some complained that the general rations a t Schwabisch
Hall, or for that matter, i n the other prison camps they had been in,
mere inadequate or were poorly prepared. B u t they did not claim
'
that withholding of food was used as a n interrogation method.
And Colonel Peiper, who I mentioned that fact to, said that the
food was actually, by German army standards, good, and that those
people who did complain would have complained just as much about
German rations.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Thank YOU, Mr. G ~ ~ t l l .
Mr. Finucme, it woulcl be quite simple for you to make statements
as to what other witnesses have testified to, and the ollly way in the
worlcl, of course, that we can resolve one of these arguments is either
by going througli this process or of checking the record.
Mr. FINUCANL Senator Baldwin asked m-hat I meant by saying
that every witness was testifying here i n self-defense, and then fol-
lowed that line of questioning.; I was attempting to explain it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Pardon me, ~f I interrupted there. But I think the
record should show that over a period of long weelm your contacts
and mine have been very friendly and on a free-and-easy basis. We
hare had many arguments. not nncler oath, or across the table, about
matters of this kind.
Mr. FINUCAXE. T h a t is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It would appear to me that if you are going to put
words into the mouths of the people-in other words, i n this partic-
ular case, where we mere asking you to say specifically-and I delib-
erately picked you up on the first thing-
Mr. FINUCANE.I am sorry. I interpreted what Mr. Guth just said
to confirm illy statement.
Mr. C I I A ~ ~ E RThen
S . if i t is an honest cliflerence of opinion, that
is acceptable. and the record is clear on that point. There are state-
ments that had been rnacle so f a r here. however, which have been taken
out of context in the record, and we will have to go back and pull
those out for the purpose of correcting them. These, of course, we
can do.
But I inlagine there are many things that you want to say. I am
just as anxious a.; yon are that all the facts come out. but that the
record be clear and concise on this thing.
Mr. FINUCANE.Yes. Could I complete my answer?
Senator BALDWIN.Go ahead.
Mr. FINUCANE. Colonel Perry-I am fairly definite he said this,
because he is the man who interviewed Peiper ancl Junker. H e said
that he knew that Junker, or I'eiper., I am not sure which. was under
a death sentence because he mas wearing a red shirt. The committee
has had witnesses in here who had denied that they ever talked to
prison el*^ who were dressed in an imnsual faqhion.
~ s . I again point ont to ;vou that Colonel Perry
Mr. C ~ r a ~ n m3I:iy
said that he visited Colonel I'eiper at Lanclsberg Prison. So f a r there
lixs been no testii3iony at all in the record concerning people after
trial ; and if there is. it is incidr~ltal.
Senator P,.\LI)wIs. J:E imt in this position: The coinmittee
has to iliclpe this caLe after all the testiiuony is in. I have got 110
91765-49-61
preconceived notions about it whatsoever. I am not prepared now

to render any final judgment or express any opinion on the whole
thing, and I don't intend to, until after we hare heard all the testi-
mony and examined it very carefully, and completed the taking of
all the testimony.
The mere fact I want to point out is that your position is a little
different than that.
Senator BALDWIN.Apparently, from your statement here, before
yon have heard all of the testimony in the thing, you are prepared
with some conclusions. T h a t is all right; that is your opinion.
Mr. FINUCANE. I had a hypothesis, Senator.
Senator BALDWIN.All right. I t is a hjrpothesis.
Mr. FINUCANE. It is possible that men like Major Fanton did
not know what their subordinates were doing. Colonel Everett told
me that Major Fanton "did not know about the rough stuff." Sad-
ism is, after all, a private affair. Between the four walls of a cell,
no one can know what you do. No one will ever know, unless you con-
fess. T h e skilled sadist needs no whips or bludgeons to torment. H e
often prides himself on leaving no marks. H e has no inhibitions and
no eye witnesses.
This is not taking sides. This is not accusinp Lieutenant Per1 or
Mr. Thon or Mr. Kirschbauin or anyone else of brutality.
This is to say that if brutality was used-there mas the familiar hood
over the head. There are the sensitive parts of the body which can
take skillfully applied torture and display no surface damage. There
was the power of the guards and interrogators, they being as absolute
gods to the prisoners. I f by mistake a prisoner mere marked up, let
us say, they had it in their power to keep him from the eyes of med-
ical attention until he got better or the sign had disappeared.
This points to the inconclusiveness which is bound to result from the
medical
- examination which this committee is planning to make in
Germany.
No wonder they "confessed." No wonder they let themselves be
forced into smearkg oaths to perjured accusation; against each other.
A s Lieutenant Colonel Dwinell told this committee: "The accused
did not get a proper defense; that d l always be my position."
We recognize that there has been some pressure on this committee,
overt and legal, and some below the threshold of co~~sciousness even.
For example, Lieutenant Owens reversed his testimony i n favor of
Major Fanton's version with regard to the mock trials. Sergeant
King denied seeing anyone about the hearing in advance, yet @nutted
he had lunch with Colonel Ellis before coining into the hearing room
and then could not remember anything he mas questioned about.
General Green sent over a list of reviews to this committee, which
the visiting Senator from the Expenditures Committee pointed out
was incomplete. The same General Green summoned Judge Van
Roden down from Pennsylvania, as he told you in his testimony-
Van Roden told you-and put him on the carpet about his speeches
and magazine article in the Progressive. Judge Van Roden testi-
fied before you, when he was asked a. ticklish auestion, inrolving his
opinion of an action of the Department of the Army, "I am an Army
officer. now ; I do not know about later."
When the Senator from Wisconsin proposed that the lie detector
be used on a witness, he mentioned that Pentagon pressure was used
to get this hearing away from the Expenditures Committee to the
Armed Services Committee. Senator Baldwin, i n justifying his deci-
sion a t that time to limit these hearings to the Malmedy cases and
the Dachau court, quoted the testimony of Secretary Royal1 in support
of his decision a t the time.
This is the not unfamiliar hand of the Army a t the old lobbying
game. We do not object too strenuously. B u t we think it should be
noted. W e do not think the Army has been pulling the strings au-
claciously enough to warrant a n allegation of contempt of Congress.
We merely note the facts, to underscore them, as it were, where,they
appear in the record.
We believe that in spite of those biases, which have been unsuccess-
fully resisted by the committee, this investigation can be pushed
through exhaustively and honestly and that justice can be done.
We believe that to date this hearing has more than justified its ses-
rsions. It would seem to us that the material has been put into the
record to support the following recommendations, listed not accord-
in to the order of their importance :
s o . Wers-refugees or perseeutees-should h a r e a hand in such
I- rifilq
- -..--.
Prosecution, defense, court, appeal, and other branches should not
be a single-command operation.
Prisoner-of-war status should be retained by defendants. A bLpro-
~ e c t i n gstate" should represent them.
The actual courts should be composed of better qualified personnel.
Picturesque Kipling career men, even though decorated in three wars,
ought to have legal training to qualify them f o r the court.
Even better, judges should be citizens of a neutral country.
Appeal procedures to the Supreme Court i n Washington should be
made available.
Where there is grave reason for believing that things have gone
wrong, provision should be made for a retrial. T h a t applies to this
case, now.
The Judge Advocate General's department should be separated f r o m
111e chain of command.
Such suggestions as these which this committee may care to make
should be codified as p a r t of a revision of the Geneva Convention.
That is for the fnture. F o r the present case, we venture to make
I he following recommendations.
The committee might see if any new forum is now open t o the
defense in which to plead their case i n the light of recent judicial
decisions, and refer them to it.
Three witnesses, unheard a t this writing, have been suggested by
Colonel Everett. They are Colonel William Denson, chief counsel for
the Atomic Energy Commission; Benjamin J. Narvid, assistant to
Everett in Dachau, and now in California; and Wilbur J. Waller,.
llow in Chicago, who made a field investigation i n Belgium i n the
Malmedy case. They might have something of value to contribute.
The coininittee might examine Colonel Everett's correspondence
M-iththe Army a t the Pentagon. That is Colonel Everett's suggestion.
The committee might send a commission to Atlanta to take a clepo-
sition from Everett. who is suffering from a heal-t attack.
958 AIALMEDY MASSACRE IS-VESTIGATION
While in Gernlany. in the next few weeks, the conrnlittee might;

drop in for a visit t o the Landsberg prison, where the Dachzn defend-
ants are kept, and to the notorious Spandau prison, where the Nurem-
beru defendants are kept. Both have become places of ill-fame.
?he conlmittee might inquire hat has been done about the clemency
program for over 1,000 German prisoners which was recommended
by Van Roden and Siinpson i n their reports. W e received letters from
these prisoners and cannot help feeling that many are unjustly i n jail.
Finally, this committee should go on to a sweeping investigation of
t h e Nurenlberg defendants.
I have a photostatic copy of an excellent summary of the Nurem-
ber cases in case you are interested, which I woalcl like to present.
'l%ese men have been denied a hearing in United States courts
and are now i n jeopardy again. A s a starter i n this field, the com-
mittee might ask the Department of the Army for information i n the
Inspector General's report, reputedly nlade with respect to the con-
duct of the Von Weizsaecker case a t Nuremberg.
I was in the Ardennes toward the end of the Ardennes campaign
and recall something of the psychological state i n which our troops
were a t that time. I think the best key to that psychological state
is given by the late Gen. George S. Pattou. Jr., writing in 1947
in his autobiography, W a r AS 1 K n e l ~I t . H e said-page 351:
Prisoner-of-war guard companies, or a n r q u i r a l r n ~orgilnizatioa, should be
a s f a r forward a s possible in action to take 01 er prisonels of war, because troops
heated with battle are not safe custodians.
Patton knew our troops IT-erenot safe-to handle Gerinans. Neither
vere the Germans to handle our men. T h a t is the explanation of
Malmedy. T o make anything more than a battle incident out of
i t should make millions of us, who supported or endorsed or tolerated
or shut our eyes to the fire-bombings of populated cities, forever sleep-
less. W a r is hell. I t is idle to talk of degree-, of hell, or t o show
horror or surprise on examining any one atrocity. Malinedy was not
the greatest crime of the war. The u-ar itself was that crime.
As Shakespeare said, in Hamlet :
Treat them not according t o their deserts, for ~f we were all to be treated
according to our deserts we would all be \I-hipped. Treat them, rather, accord-
ing to your own honor and dignity.
Listening to these hearings has been a humbling experience for
us. W e have learned sonlethmg about human nature here and about
its depths and heights. We are sm.e that i t is not the purpose of the
coinmittee now to punish Lieutenant Perl or to punish the Germans,
but t o support justice ~ ~ l i i cinh its finest sense is not revenge,. i t is
not vindictive, is not an eye for a n eye, is not estortjonwte, wild IS not
overbearing.
Perhaps the coininittee fears that freeing these Germans will con-
stitute an indictlrient of Perl and the others we have seen in this hear-
ing room. T h a t is not so. Perl, had he done all that was charged to
him, was the agent of the worst part of u y at ollr or st. We cannot
condemn him, our agmt, for carrying to their logical co~iclusionour
co~tntry'swartime passions.
Freeing these Gel-1-naris will not ('oilstitnt? a11 111(lictinent of Pel-].
Hanging them or keeping then1 in prrson .ivlwir the ardor of wtr 1 1 ~ s
cooled will constitllte an ~nclictnlrntof this comruit tee. The time.; re-
quire an act of conciliation. Let us, in being lzuinan to the Germans,
be kind to ourselves. Let us sleep at night. Let the dead rest and
the living ho Ie. Add no more to the tragic toll of this war.
The days l!lave been vivid with terror and wretchecl with loneliness
for these soldiers now in jail for the fourth year. Let them go home.
Let them return to their families and friends. Enough tears and
enough heartaches have been weighed in the balance. Why add more?
A new roof is being built on the Capitol and me expect'this shining
Republic to live on as long as it has a helpful function to perform in
the world. Can it be ~ v l ~ita hopes
t to be to all the tired and oppressed
peoples of the world unless it break the cycle of hate with an act of
far-visioned statesmanship ?
This committee has shown a certain amount of interest in the author-
ship of an article in the February 1949 issue of the Progressive maga-
zine. I would like to find one Senator or Cong~essinanwho has never
had a speech or a magazine article written for him. The Congressional
Record is half filled with ghostwriting. Members of this Collgress
could not carry on their jobs without ghostwriters. Across the Poto-
mac, the Army has its speech writing ancl public appearances section
to take care of the brass.
I ghostwrote the article "United States Atrocities in Germany" for
the Progressive on the basis of information supplied me by Judge Van
Roden, and with his agreement to have the article appear under his
byline.
Webster's dictionary lists the following entry :
Byline, n. Journalism. The line at the head of an article telling by whom i t
mas written.
Judge Van Roden said that he misunderstood the meaning of "by-
line," before the committee. It is our opinion that Judge Van Roden,
the editor of the Progressive, which published our article, and the
National Council for Prevention of War were-all three-acting in
good faith. Misunderstandings will happen.
A 2y2-line addition was made to Judge Van Roden's article by me
without the use of identifying editorial brackets. This was a state-
ment to the effect that the Army had just hanged five men, for whom
Van Roden and Simpson had asked mercy; no one has ever denied
these men were hanged.
That is the end of my prepared statement.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Taklng last things first, Mr. Pinucane, when Judge
Van Roden was on the stand he took your article and went through it,
as I am sure you recall, and repudiated certain parts of it.
Mr. PINUCANE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. He
said that he had not made those statements in the
speech from which you picked up this information, and categorically
denied some of the things which were said here.
He said, furthermore, that he did not know, in detail, what was in
this article when it was published. I would like to ask you: Did
Judge Van Roden know what was in this article in detail?
JIr. FJSGC.\>;~:.Pzs. Here is the story on that: I went up to see
him. I heard him make a speech and talked to him in his chambers.
I came back here and wrote up a statement, attributing to him, in quo-
tation marks, substantially what was in his speech, and summarizing
it in an opening paragraph or two, without quotation marks, and
960 MALMEDP MASSACRE IXVESTIGATION
concluding, beyond the end of the quotation marks, with three

recommendations which our council made, which are: There should
be a stay of executions, hearings and something else, and Per1 and Than
should be tried.
There was no question about the sponsorship for that statement
which was circulated around. Judge Van Roden did make certain
amendments to that first article, which he forwarded to us, and we
had just sent out a few copies the first day. We made those amend-
ments, and the hundreds of copies we sent out later contained the
amendments.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is hundreds of copies to the press release?
Mr. PINUCANE.That is right ;and it was also in the form of a state-
ment to the J~ldiciaryCommittee which TTRS sent to them by special
delivery, each member, with the hope that they would read it. I t
was over one of the holidays, just before Christmas.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I interrupt you to ask: You say you heard
Judge Van Roden make a speech on this subject?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Can

you tell me some of .the circumstances about
that? How did you happen to be there and hear that particular
speech ?
Mr. FINUCANE. Mr. Libby, our executive secretary, had been in
Philadelphia a week or so earlier and had been talking to a friend of
his, Burton Parshall, who told him Judge Van Roden had made some
shocking statements to a meeting of the Federal Bar Attorneys7Associ-
ation, Federal Bar Association, something like that. Mr. Libby asked
Mr. Parshall to send us a memorandum on the contents of Van Roden's
speech. The memorandum was from memory, and we wanted to
check up on it, so I went up to see Van Roden. H e said : "It happens
that you came a t a time when I am making a speech a t the Rotary
Club ;you can come up with me."
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you go to see him or did you call him u p ?
Mr. FINUCANE. .I called him up and made an appointment.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then you went to the meeting that night, which
was before the Rotary Club?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Based

on that then, this press release came out?
M'r. FINUCANE. That first statement was made; yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,

would you mind telling me how the story
which appeared under his byline in the Progressive magazine came
to be written?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes. One of the persons whom we reached in our
circulation with that statement was the editor of the Progressive. He
wrote us a letter saying: "Could you get Judge Van Roden to let us
run that article in the Progressive as his story?" It was 90 percent
in quotation marks, the original expression. "And could you also get
him to accept as his own, for our purposes, for our publication, some
of the matter not in quotation marks7' which was the statement of the
council preceding and closing the original statement.
I called Judge Van Roden on the phone and told him what the story
was. I don't think he had ever heard of the Progressive magazine at
that time. I explained to him and I said "We want to incorporate in
your statement additional material." H e was familiar with what we
MALMEDY MASSACIZE INVESTIGATION 96 1
had been distributing, and, as I say, had made amendments to it.
So we figured those amendments had made it correct or he would
have made additional amendments.
He said, "What do you want to add?" Words to that effect. I read
to him over the telephone the additional material, which was the
opening and closing, and said, "The editors of that magazine want
to run this as your article under your byline."
I read it to him. Certain things in the original article which I read
to him he deleted. Certain parts of our statement he struck out,
verbally, over the telephone. He said, %o; I do not want to take
that as my statement." We did work out verbal telephonic additions
to this report which he agreed to.
I said, "They want to run it under your byline. Will you send them,
along with your byline, one of your campaign biographies and a
photograph? He said, "Yes, I will do that," and he dld do that. His
secretary sent a couple of biographies-I suppose they ran more than
once-and sent his picture, too.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUmentioned in your prepared statement that
misunderstandings will happen. It would appear rather clearly from
what you said that Judge Van Roden realized that he was being con-
nected directly with this article.
Mr. FINUCANE. That was my understanding. I understood it that
way. It was my intention to make it clear t o him, and it was my im-
pression there was a meeting of hinds. I presumably was mistaken
as to the meeting of minds.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay yoti were presumably mistaken. Did any
matter concerning pay for this article come up a t this or any later
time?
Mr. FINUCANE. Some time after the article was published Judge
'Van Roden wrote a letter and said :
As a matter of curiosity could you tell me how much money the Progressive
magazine pays for articles which they publish?
Mr. CHAMBERS. And a t that time that is the only comment that you
had received from Judge Van Roden about this article?
Mr. FINUCANE. There was iust routine comment. I think that was
the first comment, yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This was before or after h e visited you a t your
offices here in Washington?
Mr. FINUCANE. That was before he visited us.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SOthat Judge Van Roden, I presume, got a copy
of the article. There is no way to know about that.
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes ; I am sure he did.
Mr. CHAMBERS.Did you send him one?
Mr. FINUCANE. I suppose SO.

It was a courtesy.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SO
he did not write you and deny or repudiate any
of the statements at that time which he later repudiated on the stand
already ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. H e
wrote you a letter and asked as a matter of
curiosity "What does the Progressive magazine pay for articles of
this kind?" I s that correct?
Mr. CHAMBERS. There was no mention of that at the time you had
your phone call?
Mr. FINUCANE. NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What

did you tell him in response to that?
Mr. FINUCANE. I did not know what they paid. Morris Rubin,
the editor, came into our office a few days later and said "I am going
to send you a check for that article." I said, "Do not send it to me,
it is Van Roden's article." H e said "Of course, you did most of the
work on it.', I said, "I know, but it is still Van Roden7s article, it
is all his idea, he 0. K.'d it." So Morris Rubin, the editor, compro-
mised and sent $10 to Judge Van Roden and $10 to us.
Mr. CHAMBERS. AS I get the story, the Progressive magazine paid
$20 for this article, $10 of which went to Van Roden and $10 to
yourself.
Mr. FINUCANE. That is right. I understand from later correspond-
ence with Mr. Rubin, the editor, that Judge Van Rodell, when he
received the check, refused to accept it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did he refuse to accept i t or did he send it back
to you ?
Mr. FINUCAIVE. No, sir; he did not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

he send it back to t,lie Progressive?
Mr. FINUCANE.
I presume so.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What

did you do with you $10 fee?
Mr. FINUCAKE.
I t was credited as a fee to the council.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Along

that line tliere are quite a few statenlents
here which Judge Van Roden has repudiated on the stand. You have
written the article, and I presume that these items i11 here which lie
has repudiated, and he said he did not say, are items of which you have
some basis for your information that went in here?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am going to ask you a few questions about these.
I would like to met from you, specifically, where you got this particular
information. xgain, before we go into it, you have sat through all
these hearings ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am digressing just for a momelit here.
Mr. FINUCAKE. Except Benjamin Reichman. I missed him.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am digressing for a moment. YOUstarted out

our statement by saying that these men, the Germans, were convicted
$ perjured statements?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then

you went in various places i11 your testimony,
you commented on what certain witnesses had said. You drew the
conclusion that p~~actically everybody that was testifying before us
had some reason for testifying as they did; is that correct?
Mr. FINUCANE. 011, naturally.
Mr. CHAMBERS. KOK,

I w o ~ l dlike to ask yon: who gave you the
testimony, or the evidence, which permitted you to make statements
such as this, because frankly some of these things I have not even seen
in the affidavits. This posturing as priests, where did you get that?
Mr. FINECAKE. I am sure I can save you a lot of questions.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. I would like to ask you the questions. I would like
to ask you quite a few questions for the record.
Mr. FINUCANE. I understood Van Roden said that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yon

understood him to say that?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes. The reason I say I understood him to say
that is because he denied it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This matter of promises of acquittal by-
Mr. FINUCANE. I understood him to say that. Could I say some-
thing that might amplify this?
Mr. CIIAMBERS. I would like to ask you specific things that we have
on Van Roden i n the record, because I would like to know where they
came from. You said, L'Afterthis investigation, and after talking t o
all sides, I do not believe the German people knew what the German
Government was doing," and so on. Van Roden marked that out on
the stand here, and made i t very clear that they never talked to any-
body on the prosecution side of this thing.
Where did you get the information that he had talked to people on
the prosecution side?
Mr. FINUCANE. I uiderstood him to say it.
Mr. CI-IAMBERS. Going on with some of the specifics here, this is
one which aroused a terrific amount of comment. I believe i t is the
most inflammatory thing.
You make this statement :
A11 but 2 of the Germans in the 139 cases we investigated had been kicked in the
testicles beyond repair. This was standard operating procedure with American
investigators.
Mr. FINucaNlr. I understood Judge Van Roden to say that. I think
you probably recognize the Army language, which a person like he
would use.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think you also were i n the Army, so the standard
operating procedure would not be too unfamiIiar to you.
Mr. FINUCANE. I recognized the term that he used.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You understood Van Roden to say t h a t ? You read
this particular thing back to him! It was in your press release?
Mr. CIIAMBERS. Van Roden did not repudiate that to you ?
Mr. ~~.TNuc.?NF,.111 the

original press release he made several minor
repudiations, which we promptly amended. We sent corrections out
to people to whom we had sent first copies, and continued our circula-
tion with this amended edition.
Mr. CHAMBERS. S o your statement is that this matter of 139 sets of
damaged testicles mas known to Van Roden?
Mr. FINUCANE.That is right. T h a t was not denied by him until i t
was denied here.
Mr. CHAMBERS. T h a t is the point I am wetting at. H e said he did
not say it, under oath. And you say that Re did say it. or you under-
stood him to say it.
Mr. FINUCANE. I ~mderstoodhim to say it, that is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. H e also marked out the statement here about the
boy who committed suicide, who was heard muttering i n German that
"I will not v-tter another lie."
Mr. FINDCAKE.T h a t is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS.You charge that to Van Roclen ancl Van Roden
denies having said it. I notice that in one or more of the affidavits,
discussing thls particular matter, that that particular language was
used. I wonder if perhaps in writin-g this article you took some of
the things that mere said in the affidavits, and in your memory charged
them to Van Roden. I s that possible?
Mr. FINUCANE. That would be ~ossibleif I were not aware of the

danger of doing that. I will teil you how I happen to be aware
of the danger.
After hearing Judge Van Roclen speak that night I went back to
his office and he showed me the Everett affidavit. which was the first
time I had seen it. H e had alluded to that ~ v e r e t affidavit
t in his
speech before the Rotary Club.
I n going through Everett's affidavit after his speech, I recognized
the similarity at points between his speech and Everett's affidavit
just as you have noticed. I will show you the circumstantial evidence
to indicate how careful I was to indicate what Van Roden told me
and what I later read in the affidavit, but before compiling the
statement.
For example, Lieutenant Perl's first name and correct spelling mas
given in the affidavit. I dicl not use his first name.
I n other words, I just took-I would not even correct Van Roden's
original statement to the extent of adding a first name for complete-
ness and accuracy, but just took it the way Van Roden had said it,
as closely as I could get it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUwere meticulous on that particular point?
Mr. FINUCANE. I tried to be as n~eticulousas possible, yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Apparently on some of these other points you mis-
understood, on very controversial matters, what Van Roden said and
included them in the article.
Mr. FINUCANE. NO. I am sorry. Everything that is in that article
I understood him to say, with the exception of the opening and
closing paragraphs, which were our idea but which he later accepted
in a teIephone conversation. All tlG things you asked me about so
far I understood him to say at the Rotary Club.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I take it that this section 4 in here mas outside of
the quotes on your original press release where you draw conclnsions
from what happened there.
Let me ask you a specific question. I n section 4 of your article
you draw the conclusion as follows, which Van Roden has denied
saying, I might add :
The American investigators who conmitted the atrocities in t h e , n a m e of
American justice and under the Smerican flag a r e going scat free.
Mr. FINUCANE. Let me look at that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That

is on page 22 of the Progressive, if you have
it there.
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes. I could tell i t better from the article which
I have here. I f it wasn't in the article, I said it. If it was in the
quotes, Van Roden said it. That is not in quotes. I said it.
Mr. CHAMBERS.YOUsaid i t ?
Mr. CHAWERS.That is a conclusion that American investigators
had, in fact, committed these atrocities; is that correct?
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you, a t that time, based on what you heard
Van Roden say-and I am speaking to you now as a careful journalist
as I know you are-mside no effort to try to find out if perhaps there
was some other side to this story?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Again, as n fair-minded individual who is interested
in cutting out this cycle of hate that you are talking about here, why
didn't you at least make the effort to find out if perhaps there were
arguments on the other side of the picture for the purpose of giving
an objective report on this thing?
Mr. FINUCANE. I mill tell you why: First of all, these men were
being hanged every week, on Friday usually.
Senator BALDWIN. Just a moment. You are not referring to the
Malmedy people. You are referring to the general Nuremberg trial?
On the Dachau cases, while I recognized the desirability of doing
what you say, I realized that i t had to be done in part because Van
Roden had a statement in his report from Colonel Mickelwait, I be-
lieve it was, in the introdt~ctionto his work, which makes a very clear
statement.
The defense said we used the utmost care in selecting personnel,
and we think they did a good job.
It occurred to me-it struck me-that while that wasn't a complete
opportunity for the Americans to testify, there hacl to be some minor
investigation or pretty good investigation made in that direction,
and in the meantline these people were being hanged. We thought
.me had better just do son~ething. I mill admit it wasn't a thorough job
as far as examining the American sicle of the case was concerned.
We should have done it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO you feel that your organization, which is an
American organization and which has a very excellent reputation
so far as its membership is concerned-
Mr. FINUCANE. Thank you.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Doesn't

owe some little bit of effort to make sure
that in the eyes of the world generally at least American people are
not condemned until they themselves have a chance to be tried or have
hacl a chance to have their sicle come i n ? You are here asking, i n
your prepared statement, that we judge these things in the light of
American standards of justice.
Mr. CHAMBERS. One

of the basic things there apparently is that
both sides of an argument are Beard.
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. On
this particular case, if I can complete the cycle
of it, qou heard Judge Van Roden and apparently had already made
other investigntions. You, in collaboration with Van Roden, pre-
pared this article. You based it on a press release which you had
already put out, attributing these things to Van Roden. Then, hav-
ing done that, in your prepared statement you used this as a vehicle
to drum up this interest in this particular case. It has been intro-
duced, as you h o w , in the Congressional Record; i t has become the
subject of considerable discussion before this committee; and I am
sure the Committee on Expenditures also, and others.
I t has been quoted in the newspapers. Yet that particular article,
which has become somewhat the basis of this whole thing-and I con-
gratulate you on your results-you wrote without maklllg any effort
a t all to verify the statements insofar as these charges about Americans
are concerned. You presumed that they were guilty; 1s that correct!
Mr. FINUCANE. We took-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Can you answer that question, sir? I don't want to
take the tactics now of other investigators here. But will you answer
that question? Did you not presume that these people were guilty,
and your conclusions are predicated on that?
Mr. FINUCANE. I had a hypothesis at that time that me had ex-
ceeded our right methods in the conduct of the intsrrogations.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Your hypothesis was that you had exceeded the cor-
rect methods ?
Mr. FINUCAXE.That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But your hypothesis also j astified the coilclusion
that they had committed atrocities in the name of American justice;
is that correct ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I will stop on that point.
Mr. FINUCANE. I would like to say that both the accusation and the
defense we took from Judge Van Roden.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yet Van Roden comes down here and denies that
particular statement. This is not Van Roden: this is outside your
quotes.
Mr. FIKUCANE. I agree. That is my conclusion. But the defense,
the Mickelwait statement at the opening of the Van Roden report, and
the allegations in the Van Roden report. we thought. inasmuch as it
was compiled by two competent American jurors-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Maybe I am not nzaking myself clear. Here is an
article under Judge Van Roden7sbyline which you wrote. And you
say that these things are predicated on what Van Boden said?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then

vou interpolate a conclusion, based on what
you say he has said. I will not go over the fact---
Mr. FINUCANE. ISthis statement in the Progressive article, the one
we are discussing?
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is right.
Mr. FINUCANE. Van Roden accepted it. I read it to him on the
telephone.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Van Roden, under oath here, denied having
said it.
Now, certainly you are saying one thing under oath and he is saying
another.
However, on that particular point I mould like to come back to the
conclusion that you just ngreed to; that your hypothesis did include
the fact, without any verification other than Van Roden's statement,
tllat these American investigators had committed these atrocities in
the name of American justice ; is that correct 8
Mr. FINUCANIE. That is correct. I thought it was a reasonable con-
clusion to draw from all the-
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUhave been sitting through these hearings now
for some many weeks. I do not lmom whether this is a fair question
to ask you or not. You heard witness after witness testify here?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Some of them were not on the team. Some of them
are not charged with anything. Some of them had never had any
connection with the services. Some of thein mere in the services but
had no connection with the prosecntion st$. Do you still believe that
Alllerican investigators-and that is an all-inclusive term-commit ted
these atrocities in the name of American justice?
Mr. FINUCANE.I believe that there have been witnesses here, includ-
illg Thoa, Teil, Dwinell, and Bailey, and this captain with the crew
haircut, who adduced evidence which would point to the conlmission
of atrocities ;yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. &fay me repeat those names?
Mr. FINUCANE.Surely. Lieutenant Colonel Dwinell, Teil, Bailey,
Thon, and the captain with the crew haircut who was here last week.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Sloane?
Mr. FINUCANE. Sloane; just to mention a few. I have not made a
detailed analysis.
Mr. CHAMBERS. AS you probably know-and I believe that your
Imowledge of this case is probably more complete than mine-Colonel
Dwinell testified, I am sure you will recall, that he had believed that
some of these things had occurred ?
Mr. FINDCANE. That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There mas a long line of questions on this?
Mr. FINDCANE.
That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But

that it was all hearsay with him?
Mr. FINUCANE.That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And he had come to believe it because of association
with these people. It had been repeated so often that he believed it
to be true.
Yon-, toclay : u ~ at
l our last nieeting gesterdr,~v e have had wit-
ne~sestestify directly on this saine subject before trial, at a time when
these people certainly should have been telling their story freely and
completely, and they apparently denied that. Does that change your
opinion at all of Dwinells' testimony ?
Mr. FIXUCANE. No.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Dwinell was associate defense counsel?
Mr. CHAMBERS. His

superior, Colonel Emrett, asked that an investi-
gation be made?
Mr. FINDCANE.T hat is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That investigation was made ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. That investigation very definitely, from the stand-
point of the testimony of these t ~ witnesses,
o indicated that they
found no mistreatment from the standpoint of physical being?
Mr. FINUC-ISE.I f I were captured by the Russians and the
Russians-
S . is not the question. I am talking about what
Mr. C H A J ~ E ~That
these people testified to today; is that correct? That they hadn't
swayed your feelings on this one way or other?
Mr. F ~ a u c a m I. think from the evidence such as was given today
that a case could be made for each side.
I do not think anybcdy but God is going to know what actually
happened in those cells.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What c11d Mr. Teil say that led you to believe that
atrocities were committed i u the name of American justice?
Mr. FINUCANE.Teil said lie delivewd a prisoner, walked down the
hall and looked in a peephole and said, "Here is a man lying here
with a black hood over his head. What is the matter with him?"
I believe he said that Thon made the statement, or somebody made

the statement "We gave him a working over."
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think the direct quote is "he probably just h i s h e d
interrogation."
Mr. CHAMBERS. I s it not a fact that a week ago, talking about
Mr. Teil on precisely the same point, you said, "I saw a bloody figure
lying unconscious ,there7' when I showed you in the record that that
had been a statement made by Senator McCarthy, and we both recalled
that Teil had not said that, and he had in fact testified as you just
said here?
He testified as I just said now.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And
Teil testified that this figure was lying in
there; and I am not attacking his credibility; and ~thad a black hood
on its head. There is a question as to why that should have happened.
He said he watched that figwe for some 30 seconds?
Mr. FINUCANE. That is right ; he didn't move.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Based

on that, you think that that is sufficient cir-
cumstantial evidence to bolster up your case here?
Mr. FINUCANE. That plus the statement of Thon, I guess it was, that
he had just finished interrogation of that prisoner.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let's go on to Mr. Bailey.
Mr. Bailey, as I recall, tried very hard to separate his testimony
from that which was hearsay to him and that which he had seen.
A t one place in his testimony-and check me if I am wrong-did
Mr. Bailey not say that "the only one that I saw abuse prisoners
was Mr. Perl, and I saw him knee son~ebodyin the groin 2"
Mr. FINUCANE. And slap him.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I don't recall the slapping. I remember the kneeing
in the groin. And slightly later in the testimony, in direct response
to questions by Senator Baldwin, he was asked again, "Bailey, did
you see with your own eyes any evidence of physical mistreatment?''
Bailey said, "No, not a t all, with the possible exception of Mr.
Perl." Isn't that correct?
Mr. FINUCANE. I think he n i g h t have misunderstood the Senator's
question.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUare quoting from the record and I am trying to
do the same. I will be glad to pull it out accurately. Isn't that the
substance ?
Mr. FINUCANE. I agree.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you don't accept that as a qualification of
Bailey's testimony? Based on Bailey's testimony, you are willing
to say that there American people that you have seen sitting here, or
most of them, did commit atrocifies in the name of American justice?
Mr. FINUCANE. Not just Bailey's testimony; the others'.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let us go ahead. This whole thing is piecemeal cir-
cumstantial evidence, a little bit added here and a little bit added
there.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What did Mr. Strong testify to? H e was a defense
counsel.
Incidentally, I notice that yon say that no refugees or thirty-niners,
as you call them, should be permitted to have anything to do with the
case?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Does that apply to Mr. Strong? H e was a thirty-
niner.
Mr. F'INUCANE.T h a t is right. I don't believe he should have been
on the job.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DOyou impeach the testimony that he gave here?
Mr. FINUCANE. NO. I think for a broad qualification a person con-
ducting such an investigation should be segregated from such a
procedure.
Mr. CIIAMBERS.I am inclined to agree with you. I think that was
an error. There may be good reasons for it. But you think Strong
was capable of doing a good job ?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But yon think the other thirty-niners on the pros-
ecution staff were not ?
Mr. F'INUCANE. .I don't know how many there were.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Answer my question. Do you feel it is all right for
them to work on the defense side? I11 Strong's case he could and did
do a good job ?
&Ir.FINUCSNE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. B u t you don't think they should have been per-
mitted on the prosecution side?
Mr. FISOCANE. I don't b2lie~reStrong shoulcl have been there.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But you clo believe lie did a good job?
Mr. FINDCANE. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUheard the hearing and you heard Dwinell par-
ticularly. What did Dwinell say about this business?
Mr. F I ~ J C A N E . Dwinell said that sticks in my memory is
What
that he said, "I believe a t least 50 percent of Everett's affidavit is trne."
Mr. C H A ~ ~ B EAnd
R S . you believe that Dw-inell's statement, which lie
classified as hearsay, is true ; is that correct ?
Mr. FINUCANE. The Everett statement.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO, Dwinell's statement on the stand concerning
mistreatments he saicl specifically and definitely were hearsay.
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes. H e didn't see any of them himself.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And they were based on the statement of the accusecl
to him ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you further recall that when Dwinell said that
they put nine people on the stand in their own behalf, those nine, in
his opinion, first of all, did not allege brutality, but h e was afraid to
put the rest of the people on because they were lying so much about
other matters that they would incriminate them?
Mr. FINDCANE. H e said they would incriminate themselves.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe in response to a question he said that is
why they didn't put them on the stand?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then all these prisoners, the people on the stand,
were there in court. Admittedly, Dwinell, defense counsel. as any
defense lawyer properly could do, could allege t h a t h e wasn't getting
a square break out of the court and his evidence is replete with that.
But shouldn't these people, if they had been brutally treated, have
told that story to the court because these cases had to be reviewed some
time? The regulations call for it.
Xr. FINUCANE. They should have done that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Why

do yon think that they didn't do that if there
was anything of these allegations. That is a good defense against
any type of confession,
Mr. FINUCANE. I think they did it because they had an intimate
face-to-face acquaintance with terror,
Mr. CHAMBERS. Who ?
Mr. FINUCAWE. The prisoners.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am not talking about the prisoners: I an1 talking
about Dwinell who got up here and said he was the man who recom-
mended it, and had to argue with them to make them do it. We have
a picture of it here.
Mr. FINUCANE.He recommended that they take the stand in their
own defense.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes. You say "Why did he do it?" Shouldn't
they have been put on the stand if they were treated that brutally ?
Mr. FINUCANE. There were all fighting for their lives and were
willing to incriminate others as they incriminated themselves.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Pinucane, if they had been brutally treated,
which would be a good defense against any confession of that type,
shouldn't they have told that to the court?
Mr. FINUCANE. They should have.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Why didn't they. Why do they wait 2 years after
their conviction? In your opinion, why didn't they tell the story be-
fore they were tried, rather than wait until later to put it in?
Mr. FINUCANE. I wish Colonel Everett were here.
Mr. CHAMBERS.YOUdraw one type of coi~clusionthat we commit
atrocities in the name of American justice.
Mr. FINUCANE. I think it ought to be proven by completing this
investigation.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I notice you have c l r a ~ na conclusion that medical
evidence won't help any? .
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is a conclusion based on medical opinion to
you?
Mr. FINUCANE. Pardon?
Mr. CHAMBERS. ISthat medical opinion to you from some competent
source that medical evidence a t this time would not be helpful?
Mr. FINITCANE. NO,that is an a ~ i l a t e ujudgment.
~
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n
view of these beatings, brutal kickings, knock-
ing out teeth: breaking jaws and 139 testicles damaged b e y o d repair,
you think medical evidence would not be helpful; that X-rays mould
not show fractures? Of course, X-rays would show fractures, they
would not necessarily show when the fracture was incurred.
Mr. FINUCANE. You put your finger on it when you said it wonld
not tell when they got it.
Beatings and kickings could be administered so they wonld not
show marks even a few minutes afterward.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am not an expert, but in one particular case me
have an affidavit where a man claims he was beaten so badly in the
genitals that lie had to be taken to the hospital and operated on. Da
you recall that affidavit read into the record?
Mr. F I ~ C A NYes,E . sir.
&IALMEDP MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 971
Mr. CHANBERS, For your information, I have the best medical
advice I could get-and not the Army medical detachment-and I
have been told that there would be positive evidence on those matters;
so that certainly negative evidence would indicate that that one par-
ticular affidavit would be false. Positive evidence vould corroborate
the affidavit ; is that cor-r*ect
?
Mr. FINUCANE. NO, neither way, and I will tell you why. There
l dcould be damage. It could have resulted from some other
~ ~ o u or
source. There could be no damage, and i t could have at the same time
been the opinion of the patient, the prisoner. It could have been his
opinion a t the time he made out that affidavit that he was permanently
damaged.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOU said a moment ago that we should get the
evidence in. We have discussed everything except Sloane. I think
very definitely Sloane should be brought into it because Sloane defi-
nitely is the only man who has taken the stand and testified that he,
himself, ever nsed physical force, or that he ever saw physical force
nsed.
I think the record should show clearly that Sloaee was not mixed
up in the Malmedy matters.
Mr. FINUCANE. Bailey.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO, he didn't. I will argue with you on that, be-
cause you have admitted it in your testimony. But Sloane alleged and
stated that he himself slapped a prisoner and he saw Harry Thon
slap a prisoner.
I agree with you that Sloane's testimony throws some very definite
doubt on this thing.
Mr. F r ~ r c ~ s bnre.
e.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
However, I would like to ask you: We have heard

such people as Gordon Simpson, who has testified, and he was a'co-
member of that commission of which Van Roden was a member. I n
his opinion, these brctdities did not take place; is that correct?
Mr. FINUCANE. Simpson? I believe that was the man; that is
right. He made some criticism of the legal aspects.
Mr. CHAMBERS. They were members of the same commission?
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO
you have any reason to believe that Simpson was
not testifying his true convictions, and based on the same knowledge
that Van Roden had?
Mr. FINUCANE. I believe he was testifying according to his true
:onvictions.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Does that throw the slightest doubt in your mind
that perhaps American people have not coniinitted these atrocities?
Let's go on further.
Mr. FINISCANE. There is an interesting thing there. Simpson
signed that report with Van Roden. There are statements in the
Van Roden-Simpson report. This is not all taken from the evidence.
There are statements in the Van Roden-Simpson report.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am not quarreling with that. I am referring to
the stsltements made under oath before this committee. We have had
a lot of witnesses. I am not going to ask you to comment on each of
thein.
For the purpose of the record, I think we should mention Colonel
Raymond, whom you possibly accuse of having been on the team.
91765-49---62
We have Ahrens, Scalise, Ellowitz, Major Byrne, Fitzgerald, Fanton,

Unterseher, two doctors, one of whom testified he was very active
around the prison when these things were supposed to have gone on,
and stated it was impossible for him not to have known about it. We
have all of those witnesses and many others who testified directly that
there was no brutality of the type you are talking about here.
Having listened to those things-and again still in a position of
keeping an open mind on itr;-and I may not sound like it but definitely
I am-I would like to ask you: Has your position on this matter
changed a t all-
Mr. PINUCANE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. From

the time that you wrote that article?
Mr. FINUCANE.
Yes, my position has changed.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then today you have put in a statement in which
you apparently again have arrived at the same conclusions?
Mr. FINISCANE. My conclusion is changed to this extent: I think
it will foverer remain in doubt just what went on in those cells. My
conclusion has differed to the extent that I don't think Thon and
Perl or anybody else should be prosecuted. I think that was a war-
time excess and it should be written off.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO you still tlGnk Thon has committed atrocities
in the name of Ameciran justice?
Mr. F'IWJCANE. I don't know. Every tritness adds to my confusion.
All I know is that every witness says soniething which can be con-
strued to make a case against the American prosecutors.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That. of course. is the purpose of investigations.
So far, I believe, you will admit that you have impeached their
motives 2
Mr. FINUOANE. I am sorry, but I haven't impeached their motives.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOU say it will be difficult for them to come in
because they are all trying to protect the team.
Mr. FINUCANE. They are all acting in self-defense and in the
spirit of unit loyalty. I don't think they are lying.
Mr. CHAMBERS. They have to be lying if they are sitting up here
and saying brutalities did not happen when they, in fact, did.
Do you believe it would have been possible, for instance, for Ello-
witz not to have known what Thon and Perl were doing? Do you
believe i t is possible lor Fanton, Ellls, the guards, the doctors, the
medical people not to have had some knowledge of these things?
Mr. FINUOANE. I ought to tell you about my experience.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
you answer that question "Yes" or "No," if
Will
you can, or qualify it as you see fit?
Mr. F'INUCANE. Will you give it to me again?
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO you believe it would have h e n possible for all
of these things to have happened without this group of people know-
ing-without any of the large group kilowing?
Mr. FINUCANE. NO, I don't believe so. Some of them knew about
it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then these people are lying; is that what you are
telling us ?
Mr. F'INUCANE. NO,sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then they are telling the truth?
Mr. FINUOANE.
Everybody who-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Are

they telling the truth?
MALMEDY LMASSACRE ISVESTIGATION 973
Mr. FINUCANE. Certainly they are telling the truth. I am not
going to impeach another witness.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I might say that you have made a pretty strong
stab a t one of them, but we won't discuss that a t the moment.
Let me ask you about your statement today. You say, "These men
were convicted by hearsay, by perjured statements of their co-accused
in the first place"? You are talking about the German prisoners?
Mr. CHANBERS.They, for the moment, are under trial here. On
what do you base that perjured statement business?
Mr. FINUCASE.Three very obvious statements.
One is the Stounlont grocery store, two is the churchyard, and
three the Bullingen woman who was killed.
According to all the evidence that was brought in here, those events
never took place. Statements were made that they took place, and
confessions obtained to those alleged crimes. It must have been hear-
say because it never happened. Somebody must have said it, so it
must have been hearsay.
Senator BALDWIN.See if my recollection is correct on this Stou-
mont case. There is considerable confusion about it.
As I remember it, in Colonel Everett's affidavit, a like circumstance
is described as haring occurred at another tow-11. That was Warne.
Bullingen and Warne were confusecl in Everett's petition. That is
not the case that he is referring to.
You are talking about the Stouinont case where there were s ~ ~ p p o s e d
to have been some prisoners executed in front of a grocery store?
Mr. FINUCAXE. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHA~IBERS. May 1 follow up oil that Stoumont case for a second?
With regard to the Stoumont case, yon say that these statements
were perjured?
Mr. FINUCAXE. They must have been. '
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is what I am after here because that is what
we are trying to find out ; were they or weren't they ?
Mr. FINUCANE. You are certainly as well qualified as I an1 to form
an opinion about that. There is no evidence that the events actually
happened, so the statement must have been perjured.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There is considerable evidence that the events could
have happened. I sat here and listened to Senator McCarthy ques-
tion Per1 who did not handle those cases, incidentally, and Ellis on
that matter.
Frankly, I am still confused, but apparently you are still convinced.
Maybe that indicates that I have a closed mind, I don't know, but you
have said that that one case was a perjury.
The Bnllingen-MTnrne mas another one that you were going to
mention ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is another case where apparently a petitioner
before the Suprenle Court, Colonel Everett, confused the location of
this thing. I submit to you: I s it proper to say that the confession
was a perjured confession when the man who was implicated him-
self and the defense counsel hiinself are not sure in which town it
took place?
Mr. FINUCAXE. Certainly you can perjure yourself in a confes-
sion. You can confess falsely.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There is no argument about that. But is i t proper

to draw a conclusion based on what you heard here, when very ob-
viously the defense people themselves are confused as to what town
i t happened i n ?
Mr. FINUCANE. I
11 that particular case there seems to be confusion
as to the particular town, but as a minimum I think they should have
located the ton-n in which the crime was supposed t o have taken place.
Mr. CHAMBFRS. I understand. This is hearsay with me. Colonel
Ellis told me this man was charged with two counts; that h e was
convicted; that there mas a m m - named Kahn brought from the
United States with corroborative evidence on that business of one
woman being killed; and when he got there it was the wrong town
and there was no corroborative evidence. There was possibly a proper
objection in Ellis not telling the court that on that part of the state-
ment they had no corroboration for it. B u t they apparently did cor-
roborate the balance of the man's confession, and now you are saying
that the whole thing was a perjury?
Mr. F'INUCANE.That part of it was perjury, certainly.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What is your third case?
Mr. FINUCANE.The churchyard case, the Bullingen case, and the
grocery case.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The churchyard a t La Gleize?
Mr. CHAMBF~S. I f you recall, in that case there has been the most
conflicting evidence in here.
Mr. FINCCANE. Tlmt is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Frankly, I cannot judge it. I would hate to judge
it now. But I do know this, that when yon say "perjury," you say
a man is telling a deliberate lie.
Mr. C H A M B ~We S .
have had evidence concerning the testimony
from this priest. So many people say the priest was not even close
to the place and did not have a chance to see it. Admittedly, the
priest did not look out there for a year, so f a r as the bullet marks are
concerned.
But you are willing to say, based on that-you are not talking about
these three cases-you are making a statement that these 73 men were
convicted by hearsay, by perjured statements of their coaccused in
the first place. Is that correct ?
Mr. FINUCANE.That is correct, although both parts of tha cllurge
apply to all 73; bat in general that statement is correct.
Mr. CITA~~BERS. Are you taking the three statements in which you
allege perjury 8
Mr. FINUCANE.I am 11sing that as samples.
Mr. CI-IAMBERS. Based on that, you are drawing the conclusion
that all 73 were convicted on perjured evidence?
Mr. FINUCANE.They all signed confessions under duress.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This is just a passing point. You make a claim
here that your committee is making an investigation as a result of the
pressures that you brought about through your article in the Progress-
ive ~nagazine.
I think the record should show that on January 7, 1942, this resolu-
tion, S a a t e Resolntion 42, was introdcced. 1 do not I;nom~ whether
you k n o ~ how~ Senate committees operate. bnt I do not think there
MALIMEDY M A S S A C R E I N V E S T I G A T I O N 975
IS any question that that would have eventually become the pending
business of our committee.
Mr. FINUCANE. YOUdo not think i t w o ~ l dhave become-
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think i t would have become the pending business
of OLIT committee. A t least, the initial steps had been taken without
any pressure by the Council for the Prevention of War or anyone
'else.
IMr. FINUCANE. I was not referring to Senator Baldwin's position.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I realize that. I want the record to show there
was action being taken.
Mr. FIATCANE. There were two or three other bills introduced and
two or three other com~nitteesinterested in this.
Mr. CII \iwnmb. l y e have already discussed Bailey. There is appar-
,ently some difference of opinion as to what Bailey actually said here.
I recall a discussion in 11-hich there was a bet of a dinner between two
(of our Senators on that particular point.
There is certainly a doubt in their mind, ancl there is certainly a
doubt in mine.
Mr. FINUCANE. There is 110 doubt in mine. I thought you looked
it up and straightened i t up.
Mr. CHAMBERS. We did. You say, "These three statements were the
high lights of this hearing.': You picked out three things.
Mr. FINUCAXE. That is right.
Mr.. CHAMBERS. Royall's statement, which has been taken out of con-
text; if you recall the whole tenor of Royall's testimony, i t was that
he wanted to get all the facts in on this case. And, while he was con-
vinced they did a pretty good job over there, nevertheless the Everett
petition had so stirred him up that he had sent first the Simpson-Van
Roden Cominission over. Then Clay started his hearings ; and then,
of course, all this interest in the Congress started.
Mr. FINUCANE. H e deserves a lot of interest for that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is right. You quoted: "If we had used only
legtd means, no one would have been convicted."
Mr. FINUCANE. That is what he said.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOU

would not care to elaborate on that particular
statement further ?
Mr. FINUCAXE. H e was talking about the American methods of con-
ducting trials, and went on to say, if we had used these methods ancl
treated these prisoners according to the way that they should have
been treated, that they would not have been convicted.
Mr. CHAMBERS. H e was referring to legal means, I presume, of not
getting confessions and evidence under duress ?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes ; I believe he was talking about that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you believe that Secretary of the Army Roy-
all's statement there, then, indicated that he believed these things did
happen 8
Mr. FINUCANE.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That American investigators had committed atro-
cities ?
Mr. F~NUOANE. Yes. That was a rery interesting thing to me. He
indicated that he believed, as I believe now, that these thlngs hap-
pened, but that the people who did them should not have been judged
too harshly. He referred to the difference in the climate of opinlon
976 MALMEDY ,MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOX
a t the end of the war and the opinion now. I am sorry I: did not get
the precise citation.
Mr. CHAMBERS. ISit not the fact that Secretary Royall had started
through the Gordon Simpson thing, his own investigation, long before
these other matters got into it ?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And,

based on the Van Roden report, that Secretary
Royall had felt that he should delay these further executions?
Mr. CHAMBERS. But

that, generally speaking. it was a matter of
making sure all the evidence and facts were in, but that he said, "I am
going to wait before proceeding with these things, before removing
the bar on executions, until this committee has finished its findings.''
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

he further indicate that he felt there was a
doubt as to whether or not these cases had been improperly conducted?
Mr. FINUCANE. The tenor of his testimony, as I got it, was that we
had used unusual methods i11 the whole set-up. such as \I-ere described
by Colonel Mickelwait here this morning. I t was not American law.
I t was not American civil law or criminal law. And his in~plication
was that, if we had used that type of law and treated the prisoners
that way, there would have been no convictions.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Secretary Royall, on page 66 of the record of that
day, in commenting on mock trials, which are certainly a lesser degree
of duress than any physical brutality, in response to a question from
Senator McCarthy, said this :
For example, in that report, frankly I do not believe from a partial reading
of the record in this case we a r e going to find any such mock trial a s that report
describes. I don't believe they occurred and I don't believe there is evidence
that they did occur. At least I have tried to get some evidence and I have not
completed my investigation, but I hare found no evidence that they did
Did you find any such evidence?
Mr. FINUGANE. I did not find any such evidence of anybody being
sentenced. That was on the subject of mock trials.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am sure at one point in here he made a comment
on the -way the staff had handled testimony. As I recall, he felt
that they had done a pretty good job, but, he wanted to make sure of
the facts before they were completed.
Mr. FINUCANE. I think his statement is self-evident to any reason-
able person. I ask you, do you think those men would have been
convicted if they had been tried by our methods ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Wait a minute. We are not talking about trying
by our methods, are we? The thing t>hatwe are trying to pin down
here is a very specific and definite thing, having no.yelation to the
way these people were later tried, except as the way the evidence was
admitted.
We are trying to find out as to whether or not, as a result of these
atrocities that you allege, that these prisoners p v e these confessions.
I s that not correct ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would agree with you wholeheartedly, that if
such atrocities had been committed, certainly any American court of
any kind, no matter what the rules of procedure they operated under,
would have freed them.
MALMEDY AMASSACRE INVESTIGATION 977
Mr. FIXUCANE. That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What I am saying to you is that the American
court which tried these certainly had nothing presented to them by
the defense people or the accused that alleged brutalities.
Mr. FINUCANE. I clo not know what was in their minds. They
may have thought that that was not the place. Dwinell said, "I
thought I was licked before I started out."
Mr. CHAMBERS. I will not comment on anything of that kind. I
am sorry I cannot find the Secretary's statement. I will try to find
it later.
Mr. FINUCANE. I t is my fault. I should have produced the citation.
I am sorry.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay, "Colonel Everett told me that Major Fan-
ton did not know about the rough stuff."
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n
the light of the testimony that we have heard
today from Mr. Guth concerning Everett's apparent belief that there
had not been much rough stuff clown there, hat are you talking
about there?
Mr. FINUCANE. I am quoting what Colonel Everett told me. He
said Fanton did not know about the rough stuff.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you probe with him further about the rough
stuff?
Mr. F'INUCANE. H e u7as referring to these allegations which were
made about mistreatment.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you-ever try to find out from Everett-and
it is most unfortunate that he is unable to come here-what he him-
self begm to base these extravagant charges of brutality on?
Mr. FINUCANE. No, I do not know what that was. I would like
to make a statement about Perl's remarks, as me are going over them
one by one.
Perl said :
1spoke to the prisoner i n a soft voice; I wanted him t o be comfortable.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There is plenty of evidence that Perl shouted a t
prisoners and things of that kind.
Mr. FINUCANE. That statement to me is well nigh incredible, be-
cause 1saw-and I think everybody who ever saw prisoners of war
handled just knows that they are not handled that way. I know they
are not handled that way.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Of collrse these people, as 1 understand it, were
not at that time in a prisoner-of-war status. Perl testified that they
were trying to get statements from them through psgchological tricks
and things of that kind. The weight that this committee will give to
Perl's testimony is something for final decision.
But there has been testimony from time to time that people were
shouted at and thinks of that kind. I wonder why, however, yon
would pick that out as one of the highlights of this thing?
Mr. FINUCANE. It just struck me.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It just struck you?
Mr. F'INUCANE. I think i t must have struck you, too.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, I chink that it did. There are many, many
things that struck me during this trial. But one thing that struck
me is that practically everybody who has come in here, practically
everybody, has apparently made an honest effort to tell the truth.
Mr. FINUCANE. I think so.

Mr. CHAMBERS. And that being true, the testiinony so far, direct
testimony on this thing, is conspicuous by its absence.
Mr. FINUGANE. That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Finucane, you saw service during the war, did
you not ?
Mr. F'INUCANE.T hat is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe you mentioned you were in the hrdennes.
What other service did you see?
Mr. FINUCANE. That is ,all. I went in the Army in 1944, in June,
and went over to Germany, to Belgium, i n J a n w ~ r p1945, and the
Battle of the Bulge mas almost over.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you go on through Germany with them?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe you told me you were with the combat
engineer outfit ?
Mr. F'INUCANE.Eleven Hundred and Twenty-first.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What were your duties with that outfit?
Mr. FINUCANE. I was called the I and E noncom. I think it 1s
called information and education noncom. My principal duty. in
addition to doing KP-I was an eidisted man-was putting out a
unit newspaper, a mimeographed weekly newspaper.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During that campaign did you have an opportunity
to hear the boys talking or anyone talking about these Malmedy
matters?
Mr. FINUCANE. We read about them in the Stars and Stripes, and
there was talk about it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Subsequent to your duties with the combatant engi-
neers, what was your service in the Army ?
Mr. FINUCAXE. None other. I came back here to Washington,
where I was redeployed.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you not say you had some public-relations duty
some place?
3rr. FINUC:ANE. Yes, at Fort Belvoir.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. I mean over there. Did you not come back to a
port company?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes.
I held a base conlpany at Marseilles.
Mr. CEIAM~ERS. That
was a temporary assignment?
Mr. FINUCANE.
Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. How

much opportunity did you have of your own
knowledge to pick up the feeling of what mas going on over there
at that tlme ?
Mr. FINUCANE. I n connection with the unit paper that we put out,
I interviewed people immediately after being released by the Ger-
mans, or who were escaping from the Germans, during the latter days
of the Battle of the Bulge.
I talked to them about their experiences while they were prisoners
of the Germans. That is one point which has a bearing on this case.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. Did yon at that time feel that the Germans had so
conducted themselves toward the Amerkans that these atrocities that
you allege here might have been a logical result of the-
Mr. FINUCANE.The reports that I got from returning prisoners
were pretty good about the German treatment of them. I was sur-
prised at the Malmedy massacre story; and remembering the atrocity
M.4LhIED7' MASSACRE; INI~ESTIBATION 979
stories of the First World War, I was, to tell yon the truth, inclined
to disbelieve it. I saw pictures in the papers of the heaps of bodies
in the snow.
Mr. CITA~IBER~. What changed your mind? When did you become
convinced that our investigators carried out sueh atrocities m the name
of American justice? What convinced you of i t ?
You sap that yon have been in contact with, the prisoners in Ger-
many. with Gernlan defense counsel; you testified that you were at-
tached with Colonel Everett and I presume that others who are inter-
ested i n this case, from the standpoint of establishing the fact that
these atrocities took place.
Mr. CHA~IBERS. Why in the name of just straight American justice
were you not also interested, since j7ou just indicated that you were
a little surprised at it, in trying to find out if there was anything
to i t ?
Mr. FINUC.\NE.Yes, I think that this committee is serving that
purpose.
Mr. CIIAMBERS.Why did you not do it? Thtlt is what I am after.
I s not your organization one which feels that i t can afford to take
a one-sided approach to a matter of this kind?
Mr. FINDCASE. Have you estimated that amount of money i t costs
to conduct this hearing?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have.
Mr. FINUCANE. W e h n ~ to e pay everybody more than the $2 a day
to pet them here and keep them here.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SOv h a t your organization has done then is to take
one side of this argument, and has used this congressional committee
to bring out all the facts in the case, and a t this date you are still
judging the matter. I s that correct ?
Mr. FINUCANE. T h a t is correct. W e are still forming opinions.
Mr. CHAMBERS.In other words. we have not carried our investiga-
tion f a r enough to satisfy the ~ a c i o n a Council
l f o r the reve en ti on-of
W.. --Rl- ~
Mr. FINUCAKE. YOUhave done an excellent job, but you have to
go on. I think there is more to be done, as I indicated in my testi-
mony. T h e American prosecutors have the same access to the press
that we have, and the same access to this coinillittee to defend
themselves.
As I say, a preliminary, very scanty inr-estigation, the Van Roden
report, showed there had been some investigation paid to the side of
the American prosecution. W e thought i t was adequately taken
care of.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What did you say about the Simpson-Van Roden
report ?
Mr. FINUCANE.The Sin~pson-VanRoden report-
Mr. CHAMBERS.Indicated that the prosecution side had been ade-
quately taken care of.
Mr. FINUCANE. There was indication.
Mr. CHAIVIDERS. What

indication ?
Mr. FINUCAXE.I think the first or second docuinent after the travel
order introduced by Colonel hlickelwaite indicated how the mar crimes
personnel mere picked.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUthink that because Colonel Mickelwaite said

the personnel had been properly selected that that is a clear indication
that in a study of this kind they have had a chance to express their
opinion in this matter?
Did you read the Simpson report in its entirety?
Mr. FINUCANE.
I did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you read the list of witnesses in there?
Mr. FINUCANE.
Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Who

in there represents the prosecution staff who
are accused of atrocities?
Mr. FINUCANE. I understand that list is not complete.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am sorry, but that is the signed document that is
in the Simpson report.
Mr. FINUCANE. I realize that. But you mill find, I think, that Van
Roden talked to some of the other people who mere witnesses here
who talked to him and still are not on there.
Mr. CHAMBERS. AS long as we are commenting on Van Roden's and
Simpson's committee3 activities in this matter, mhy did they not calI
the prosecution staff to probe into i t a little. bit?
Mr. FINUOANE. I do not know.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You are aware of the fact that when they came
back, they did call defense counsel before them in Washington 8
Mr. FINUCANE. I believe they had some contact with Everett.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And

also Dwinell.
Mr. FINUCANE.
Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. TO give YOU a hypothetical case, maybe we are try-
ing to defend the actions of these American people before a German
court. Do you not feel that they should have been given an oppor-
tunity to appear before the Simpson-Van Roden Commission, for in-
stance, to present their side of the case ?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes. As a hypothetical case, if I were continuing
the Van Roden-Simpson Commission, which is an unlikely possibility,
and had no political duties at home or business or family to return to
in a hurry, and if I thought it merited it, I would certainly have called
additional witnesses from the other side.
Mr. CHAMBERS. As a newspaper reporter, or as a reporter, a man
writing an article for a reputable magazine, did you not feel it incum-
bent upon you perhaps to take a look at the other side of this matter?
Do you feel that the average newspaper reporter, for instance, will
take only one side of the picture and publish it ?
Mr. FINUCANE. NO; he should not do it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Why did you do i t ? You are writing a magazine
article and had some little time on the matter.
Mr. FINUCANE. AS I say, this is based on the Van Roden-Simpson
report.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Not these conclusions. They might have been based
on there, but you testified those conclusions are your own.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Those

conclusions obviously, you testified, only
came from the Van Roden side of it, not the Simpson side of it ;but the
Van Roden side,
Mr. CHAMBERS.
as a reputable writer did not feel it necessary
YOU
to perhaps check around and ve+ify some of these facts?
Mr. FINUCANE. The American defense counsel had an opportunity
to laeach us, to reach the press.
34/11..CHAMBERS. Did the American counsel approach you on this?
Mr. FINUCANE. I do not mean the American defense counsel. I keep
leferring to the American prosecution staff at Malmedy and Dachau
as the prosecution staff.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay you have been in contact with the defense
people over a period of time. You have been writing letters to Ger-
many over a period of time.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe that you have been getting material from
defense counsel and others in Germany?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Part

of which I believe you turned over to Senator
McCarthy ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUwent to all that trouble. But did you make
any effort to get in touch with any of these prosecution people through-
o u t this entire case?
Mr. FINUCANE.The American prosecution staff. Do you mean
Major Fanton, Major Dwinell-
Mr. CHAMBERS. I mean anybody who had any connection with the
preparing of the cases for trial or handling the cases before the court..
Mr. FINUCANE. NO. We felt that it would have been improper for
us to do that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Why ?
Mr. FINUCANE. Because we might have been in the position of in-
fluencing the witness befor-
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUdid not hesitate to contact the defense people,
I believe you told me, on several occasions?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Why

did you feel that you could contact the defense
people and prejudice them before they came before this committee,
and were afraid to do it where the prosecution people were concerned?
Mr. FINUCANE. Let me say that-
Mr. CHAMBERS.
is an unfair question, but I am going to ask it
This
anyway. It is possible perhaps that you are only interested in proving
the case?
Mr. FINUCANE. NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then

why, before we ever took one action on this
case, did the National Council for the Prevention of War issue a press
release prejudging the actions of this committee?
Mr. FINUCANE. We reported what Judge Van Roden had said, and
clrew the conclusions that he should have drawn, that anybody would
have drawn who was not blindfolded by a legal background. Judge
Van Roden thought that because the procedure i n Malmedy, in the
Malrnedy case, followed the rule set down by military government,
or by the authorities that Colonel Mickelwait told us about, he thought
that because it followed the letter of the law, it was acceptable.
It was not acceptable to anybody who had a sense of decency.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Wait a minute. Are you saying that Judge Van
Roden does not have a sense of decency ?
Mr. FINUCAW~. NO, sir.
982 MALMEDT MASSACRE IX\-ESTIGATIOK
Mr. CHAMBERS. Are ycu saying that others who try to judge the case
and get both sides of it do not have a sense of decency?
Mr. F'INUCANE. These people are experts-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let me get this straight. Are you saying that these
people interested in getting both sides of the facts of this case, and who
might possibly, based on those facts, come out to a decision contrary
to your own-and that decision I submit to you was arrived at before
these hearings started-
Mr. PINUCANE. Are you talking about the Van Roden-
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Apparently there is no change in your decisions i n

these cases?
Mr. FINCAUNE. I am sorry. I missed the drift of that introductory
statement.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Perhaps I am running down here, and I will wind
up in a few minutes. Before this case was ever started, before this sub-
committee had arrived at certain conclusions-
Mr. FINUCANE. Hypothetically.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Pardon me. Any time a thing gets into print, it goes
a little beyond the hypothetical thing. You make the direct statement
that American prosecutors committed atrocities in the name of Amer-
ican justice.
Mr. FINUCANE.We had a moral certainty to that effect a t that time,
Mr. CHAMBER. DOyou still have that?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n
spite of all the testimony that has gone on before
this committee?
Mr. FINUCANE. That is right; because of some of it.
Mr. CHAMERS. And I presume that if we continue right on through,
ad infinitum, because of your beliefs in this matter, nothing would
ever change you. I n other words, I come back to my opening state-
ment. Are you not interested in proving a case?
Mr. FINUC.ISE. No; not particularly.
Mr. 'CHAMIIERS. Why

then have you not gone to the prosecution
peaple and tried to build np a case as strong as you have with the
defense people? These are American officers and American people,
American judges involved in this. Most of them were civilians like
you and me. Most of them mere civilians before the war.
Why are you not interested in proving that they are wrong about
this thing?
Mr. FINUCA~~E. It is no joking matter to have a noose around your
neck and to wait in a cell while somebody in a forei country goes
$"
through the etiquette of seeing that both sides are a equately repre-
~ e n t e dwhile you are in jeopardy.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let me recap. We had an Ainerican investigation
of this thing. The point in issue is whether or not that American
investigation was properly handled or not.
Mr. FINUCANE. Which investigation ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. The investigation a t Schwabi~chHall.
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
The second thing is that you had a trial before
American Army officers and admitted that the defense counsel claimed
that they could not get anywhere with that court, but at least they
went through the motions of a trial. I s that correct?
Mr. FINUC ~ N E .That is right.
Mr. CI-ISMI~ERS. You sat here and !ward review after review, after
review. all by competent people.
Mr. FINUCANE. That is fight.
Mr. CH.MBERS.I n fact, Colonel Dwinell, in whom you seem to have
a tremendous ainount of confidence, who was defense counsel, sat
on the board of review that passed on these things.
Mr. FINUCAXE. I was inspired by some of his stateniefits.
Mr. C I I ~ ~ ~ ~You E R Sclo.

not question tile properness of this at all.
As defense counsel, yon mill admit that he clicl serve as adviser to
the board of reriew. Fn~therniore,I believe that you placed your
interpretation on that-and I mould like an answer on that-that that
was a sign of bad conscience on the a r m y because they put him u p
there. Is that correct? T h a t is your interpretation of it ? Can you
answer that ?
Mr. F~KUCANE. Yes, I can answer that. First of all-
X r . CIXBBIBFBS.Will you answer it ?
Mr. FINUCANE.I believe I made that statement, yes, that the com-
mand may hi~vePelt that there was an excess, and that therefore they
insisted, there was every indication that they insisted, in spite of his
constant refusal that he serve in that capacity.
Do not take me to luiderstancl that I approve of his serving in that
capacity. J u s t as with Strong in that other case, he should not have
had the review, I do not think.
Mr. CHABIBERS. I n view of all the review procedures u p to the time
that Clay finally approved those sentences, and in view of thc effort
that was made by Simpson and Van Roden and Raymond and the
other people, and their recommendations, you still feel that the evi-
dence is such that there should be new trials on these people ?
Mr. FINUCANE. T h a t is right. General Clay's statements are
masterpieces of illumination. H e said, "A review of this case shows
this, that. and the other thing. I t is not a very good case. However.
e iriust not forget that these Gerniaris killed our boys in cold blood."
Mr. CHABIBERS. I wonder if you are aware of the fact that i n the
12 death cases, General Clay reviewed-have you read his complete
reviews on them ?
Mr. FINUC-~NE. 1 do not l i l 1 0 ~ . There are about five paragraphs.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Have you read them?
Mr. FINUCANE.I do not believe I read them all.
Mr. C H - ~ ~ E RAre S . you aware of the fact that c l a y did set aside
six of the death sentences because there was no corroborative evi-
dence to support the confessions of the individuals?
Mr. FINUCANE.Yes.
Ah. CHAMEERS. hid that 111 the other six cases he did approve
them. because there was corroborative evidence, and he said it was
with great reluctance in several of these cases ''that I set aside the
death bentences because I ixn1 convinced these people are guilty, but
becanse that corrobor,ltive evidence is lacking, I am setting it aside."
Mr. FINTCAXE.NO: I did not get that in~pression. As I said, I
read four, I believe it was. of these.
Mr. C H A ~ E R SFonr. of the twelve?
Mr. Frsuc.~wic. Four of the twelve; yes.
>TI,. C H A B I ~ E R
In~ .sl)ite of the h c t t,h& these things have been
revie\\ ed and checked 311 the way ulong the line, the National Council
for t h e Prereniiou ol' War's position 19 t l l i ~ T : hat you are still con-
vinced that these Germans-and I want to ask if you will admit that
these are SS Troopers?
Mr. FINUCANE. I believe so.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
these atrocities did take place?
That
Mr. FINUCANE.I believe so.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And

that the organization to which these people
belong was in that area?
Mr. PINUCAKE. Among others.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOU

m11 admit those things?
Mr. FINUCANE.
Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS.And I thin1 the evidence shows many things con-
cerning, for instance, Colonel Peiper and others of that organization.
So there is a presumption at least that you are dealing with people
who might not necessarily be the type of person that you would find
in America unless it would be in a gangster or in a criminal element.
You still believe in spite of all these reviews and all the court pro-
cedures they have gone through, by people qualified as you and I
are qualified, that we should go back and try them over again?
Mr. FINUCANE.Yes. General Clay, in the review I read, a very
small sampling, in some cases where he confirmed the sentence, there
was no mention of additional corroborative evidence beyond the
sworn statements of the coaccused, which were distorted.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Just a couple of more qnestions, and I am through
here for the time being. You mentioned awhile ago that you had
a letter from Mr. Rubm reqnesting ypu to get in touch \vith Judge
Van Roden and see if he would perinit an article to be used and in-
corporate your interpolations.
Mr. FINCCANE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Could you bring a copy of that letter in and put
it in the record?
Mr. FINUCANE. I have it here.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Wo~lldYOU

put it in the record?
Mr. FINUOANE.
Yes.
(The letter of January 5, 1949, from Mr. Rubin will appear in the
record at this point as follows :)
THE PROGRESSIVE,
Nadison 3, Wis., Jonzccn-y 5 194'1.
Mr. JAMES FINUCANE,
Associate Secretary, National Co~tncilf o r the Pvevention of War,
Washington, D. C.
DEARMR. FINUCANE: I think the release you prepared on the experience
and statements of Judge E. LeRoy Van Roden i s a walloping fine job. I am
greatly tempted to use a t least a fragment of i t i n the February issue of The
Progressive, which we a r e now readying for the press.
I wonder if it would be a t all possible for u s to use a s much a s me can manage
of the material under the judge's byline? Do you have any idea whether he
would object? If you have any doubt about it, I wish you would telephone him,
and bill u s for the call, because I must know a t t h e earliest possible moment.
Assuming his approval, there remain one or two technical difficulties. Tour
release winds up with the council's observations rather than the judge's. Weuld
i t be possible for us to compress some of the effective concluding material into
the article under his name?
Also, would you be good enough to send us a paragraph or so on Judge Van
Roden, his background, and so forth? I f by any chance a photograph is a v a ~ l -
able, I might be able to use it if i t were sent me immediately.
Time is the essence just now, and I would, therefore, greatlj- appreciate a
collect wire from you just a s soon a s yon have the answer for me.
With best wishes and many thanks,
Sincerely,
M O R R I S ki. HUBIN, fi(1ZtOI'.
Mr. CHAMBERS. W e asked most of the witnesses who appeared be-
fore us to give us some idea of their background. Would you give
us your educational background, and so o n ?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes. I am one of the few witnesses who appeared
before ou who does not have a B. A. o r any degree of any type.
Mr.! ( 'HAMBERS. YOUare not a lawyer?
Mr. FINUCANE. T h a t is right. I an1 not a lawyer. I was in news.-
paper work before the war. I ran a weekly n e ~ ~ s p s p ei nr Chester,

Pa. F o r a while I worked for the Philadelphia Record. I also worked
for the Chester Times. Since the war-
Mr. CHAMBERS. T h a t is Chester, Pa.?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes. Since the war I worked for a radio station
in Wilmington, Del., and I worked for the National Council for the
Prevention of War.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUwent i n the Army i n 19441
Mr. CHAMBERS. T h a t was getting along late in the game. Were
you working for the newspaper prior to that time?
Mr. F'INUCANE. I
11 1940 I was registered, and I registered as a con-
scientious objector. I spent the first 2y2 years after I was drafted i n
a work camp for conscientious objectors.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You were in a conscientious objectors' camp up
to 1944?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then what did you do? Voll~nteerto go i n the
Army ?
Mr. FINUCANE. I think that is how you would p u t it. I did not
like the idea of going.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Why did you g o ?
Mr. FINUCANE. I could not take being a c. o., the psychological,
physical, and financial pressure.
Mr. CHAMBERS. POLI took it for 33 months, did you not?
Mr. FIXUCANE.
Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was i t the psychoIogica1 or the financial?
Mr. FINUCANE.
A conlbination.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then you volunteered, and you went into the Army
when ?
Mr. FINTICANE.J u n e 8, 1944, I think.
Mr. CHA~IBERS. I f you were in the Battle of the Ardennes, that
means you got into action pretty darn quick. When did you get over-
seas ? About January ?
Mr. FINECANE. T h a t was not quick. I took basic training twice
and still was shipped out on the Queen M a ~ yon January 1.
Mr. CHA~WERS. Then you were assigned to this combat engineers
outfit where you were probably in battalion headquarters?
Mr. FINUCANE. I ITas in the gronp headquarters.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then you came back to the port company? This
col~scientiousobjector proposition, that meant that you had a pro-
found dislike and did not believe in war. I s that correct.
What was your classification! There were two or three classifica-
tions of conscientious objectors.
Mr. F I N U C , ~ ~My
: . classification was 4-E.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I f
my memor)- is correct, that is the one where
You do even want to go into the medical service.
986 ~UALMEDP MASSACRE IN'I'ESTTGATIOK

Mr. CHAMBE~S. SOthat you shifted from an original concept of
not wanting to go to war under certain pressures, financial and psy-
chological, and you then went into the Army ?
Mr. FINUCANE. T h a t is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOU served during that Ardennes campaign?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then you went back to the port company?
Mr. FINUCANE.
I stayed with the company all the way through
Germany into Czechoslovakia, then came back.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then you came back and transferred to the port
company 8
Mr. FINUCANE. No, the company came back to Marseilles on its way
to the Pacific, as the story was a t the time. While we were there,
I was transferred to the Delta base section headquarters.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That was in Marseilles?
Mr. FINUCANE.Yes. That is the base area.
Senator BALDWIN.Are you milling to stay out? It is after 6 o'clock.
Mr. FINUCANI:. I enjoy going over my memoirs.
Senator BALDWIN.We do not want to inconveilience you.
Mr. FINDCANE.Not at all.
Mr. C ~ r ~ i n r e Yon
~ ~ s .mere

in public relations work here?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then I believe you said you got out of the A r i ~ i y
when?
Mr. FINCCXNE. May 26, 1946.
Mr. CI-IAMBXRS. How did you get out ? On points ?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes. I had 38 points. I f I hacl had two more,

I would have been out somethiiig like 6 months earlier.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You were anxious to get o u t ?
Mr. FINUCSNE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you by any chance make any effort to get ovt
in advance of your regular time?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes, I did.
Mr. CIIAMBER~. What s you use for that ?

g r o ~ m d did
Mr. FINDCANE.I came to see Senator Guifep. H e was the Sen:itor
at that time. I told him that I had been drafted in 1941.
Mr. CEIAMEERS. You had been drafted?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes. I got an induction notice from my draft
board. They said, "Take that train on such w date and go to such
and such a camp." I said, "I was drafted in 1941. Here i t is 1945,
sometime-1946, early 1946, almost 5 yews, and all I had was 38
points. Do you thinlc that is fair?"
Mr. CHAMISERR. Did yo11 not tell him that you had been in a con-
scientious objectors' camp?
Mr. F I N U ~ . Yes.~ ~ .
1 advanced that as :m additional reason.
Mr. CFIAB~I~ICR~. I n other
words, you wanted to get time for the
time in the coiiscientious objectors' camp ?
Mr. FINT:CANE.Thiit is right.
Senator B A L I ~ I NJust. one other question. Yo11 have n statement
here in which you quote Secretary Rognll as saying, "If we hacl only
I I S P ~legal means, uo one \T-ouldh a w heen convicted."
I s that your recullectio~iof what he sajtl. or tiid actually get
thnt out of the record?
Mr. FINUCANF,.T h a t is my recollection, based on my notes a t the
time.
Senator BALDWIN.While this examination has been going on I have
been going through this transcript. I have been through it twice, and
I am on the third time through i t now.
The only thing that I can find that sounds like it is this :
I don't helieve t h a t it is intended to condone the items enumerated before, but
certainly it is subject to that construction, and i t is not clear a t all.
I agree with you entirely t h a t me must insist that our methods of obtaining
confessions a r e entirely in accord with the American concept of justice. There
is no doubt about that. And if there is anyone in t h a t work who does not appre-
ciate that, they ought to be removed.
Could that have been the thing that you liacl in mind ?
Mr. FINDCAKE. That was not what I was referring to, Senator. I
should have looked up that citation.
Senator BALDWIN.I n all seriousness, i t is a pretty difficult thing to
attribute, in direct quotes, to a man who was Secretary of the Army, a
statement that he allegeclly made, as serious as that one is, as impor-
tant as that one is, unless you can absolutely prove it.
Mr. FINUCANE.Yes, I should have looked that up.
Senator BALDWN.We will look this over. You mill be here to-
morrow ?
Mr. FINUOANE.I hope to be ;yes, sir.
Colonel MICKELWAITE. May I make a statement?
Colonel MICHELWAITE. 011 several occasions the witness has referred
to a report or statement which I made to the Simpson-Van Roden
committee.
I would like to correct that. I made no report to them. There is a
report in here from Colonel Bresee, which may be the one t o which he
refers.
Senator BALDWIN.You made no report, Colonel?
Coloriel MICKELWAITE. That is right,
- . to the Simpson-Van Roden
committee.
Mr. PINUCANE. T h a t is the one-Colonel Bresee. I think I indi-
cated a t the time that I was not positive i t was you. B u t i t was some-
one representing the American prosecution.
Senator BALDWIN.We will recess until tomorrow a t 2 o'clock, and
you d l be here because we want to interrogate you further.
Mr. PINUOANE. Yes, sir.
(Thereupon, a t 6: 10 p. m., the committee recessed until Thursday
afternoon, June 2,1949, a t 2 p. m.)
MALMEDY NASSACRE INVESTIGATION
THURSDAY, JUNE 2, 1949
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMEDSERVICES,
Wasl~ington, D. C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2 : 15 p. m., in
room 212, Senate Office Building, Senator Raymond E. Baldwin pre-
siding.
Present : Senator Baldwin.
Also present :J. M. Chambers, of the committee staff.
Senator BALDWIN.The meeting will be in order.
Mr. Finucane, please.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES PINUCANE-Resumed
Senator BAWWIN.I thinlc when we adjourned last night we were
discussing a statement attributed to Secretary of the Army Royall by
the witness, Mr. Binucane, which he hacl containecl in his statement
submitted to the committee, which reads as follows :
"If we had only used legal means no one would have been convicted." That
is what Secretary of the Army Royall told this committee on the first day of the
hearings.
Colonel Chambers has searched the record of the testimony of Secre-
tary Royall and has found this statement which contains some of the
language attributed to him in the statement, but which, even when
lifted from its context, has a different connotation, to wit :
If all legal means had not been used to induce these prisoners to talk about
these occurrences, there would have been no chance a t all to apprehend or convict
any of those guilty of t h e massacre.
I think you have conferred with Colonel Chambers, Mr. Finucane,
and you are of the opinion-you have told Colonel Chambers-that
that must have been the statement that you had in mind.
Mr. FINUCANE. That is the statement that I hacl in mind ;yes.
Senator BALDWIN. I thought that we ought to put that in the record,
because you said last night that you had not taken this quotation
directly from-
Mr. FINUCANE. I had taken it from my notes. And where the Sec-
retary had said, "If all legal means," I understood him to say, "If
illegal means." It seemed to me that that was not an unreasonable
thing for him to say in view of n-hat he had said previously. It seemed
to me that he had led up to that. so that when he said that, I thought
he said "illegal" instead of "all legal."
Senator BALDWIN. I think it should appear in the record that the
statement made by Secretary Royall, immediately preceding the one
lulder discussion, is this :
Here the evidence clearly shows that all of the defendants \\-ere members of
the SS,and wrre uucl?r strict orders not to talk a t all.
989
990 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOIS
And then went on to say:

If all legal means had not been used to induce these prisoners to talk.
Do you want to proceed with the examination, Mr. Chambers?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Finucane, I believe you would like to point out
why you believe this is a mistake in the record.
Senator BALDWIN.DOwe need an explanation on that? As I under-
stand it, Mr. Finucane's claim is that this is a mistake in the transcript.
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes. I understood him to say "illegal" and the
record says "all legal." I have noted a couple of points earlier in the
record which seemed to support my drawing what at the time seemed
to me to be a natural conclusion, and which I still maintain was a
natural conclusion.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then you are not maintaining so much that this
is a mistake in the record as you are that you could easily have misun-
derstood what he said?
FINUCANE. I could have.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And

because of your interpretation of his remarks
you thought he probably said "illegal" instead of "all legal."
Mr. CHAMBERS.I would like to ask you a question in connection with
your statement. We have in the record here, I believe, cleared up what
Royal1 said. Has this statement of yours been mailed to your normal
mailing list ?
Mr. FINUCANE. P a r t of i t ; yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe it is a perfectly proper request to ask if
you are going to correct it with them.
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes; we will.
Senator BALDWIN.To get a matter straightened out in my own mind,
this article attributed to Judge Edward L. Van Roden appeared in
the Progressive magazine. I s there any connection between the
Progressive magazine and your organization?
Mr. FIXUCANE. None whatever.
Senator BALDWIN. YOUmerely got in touch with this magazine to
have this article publicizecl?
Mr. FINUCANE. That is right. We sent them a copy. I presume he
got it someho\r in our routine circulation. Then they got in touch
with us. That letter mas put in the record; a photostat copy was put
in the record last night.
Mr. CHAMBERS. They apparently got a copy of this press release
dated December 18, which quoted Van Roden's speech. 1s this
correct, Mr. Finucane?
Mr. CHAMBERS.
on that, according to his testimony of yester-
Based
day, they wrote him a letter, a copy of which was placed in the record,
asking that he contact Van Roden.
Senator BALDWIN. At the time you wrote this article. which you
p~~blished under the byline of Judge Van Roden, the only information
you had was Judge Van Roden's statement?
Mr. FINUC~NE. That is right.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you have any other information on that on
which yon based this article?
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGAT~ON 991
M i . FINUCANE. Judge Van Roden's statement plus Everett's peti-
tion, which I saw but did not use.
Senator BALDWIN.I11other words, on the basis of Judge Van Roden's
article, and the affidavits of these SS troops attached to the petition
filed i n the Supreme Court of the United States; this petition that
was addressed to the Supreme Court after these men were convicted
and were awaiting the execution of their sentences, some of them to be
hanged and some for terms of imprisonment, on the basis of those
statements made by those SS troopers and Judge Van Roden's speech,
you drew the conclusion that-
The American investigators who committed the atrocities in the name of Amer-
ican jwtice and under the American flag a r e going scot free.
I s that correct ?
Mr. FINUCANE.T h a t is substantially correct. There is just one
modification. I did not see the affidavits. I saw the sumnlarg of them,
which was i n Everett's petition.
Senator ]B-ILDWIN. Yon did not even see these affidavits?
Mr. FINUCAXE. No. I saw the summary of them which was in
Everett's petition. H e attached the affidavits as supporting docn-
ments to his petition.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, you based this statement that you
inserted in t h s article, upon the affidavits attached to the petition in
Jndge Van Roden's speech ?
Mr. F I X U C ~ EYes.
. His report, and of course, the review board
reports which the judge had.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever read those ?
Mr. FI~UCANE. I looked a t the-
Senator BLLDWIN.Wait a minute. Did you ever read them?
Mr. FINUCANE. No, sir. I read part of them.
Senator BALDWIN.You did not read them a112
Mr. FINUCAKE.
NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.You were here, of course, when Jndge Van Rodell
went over this article piece by piece, and repudiated some of i t as not
being what he said or not being what he believed1
Mr. Fr;.;rrc.\m. That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.That is all.
I Swould
Mr. C H . L ~ ~ E R . like to ask a further question if I may.
Yesterday you testified, in the early part of your testimony, that you
had been in touch with numerous people on this matter. You men-
t,ionecl se~-era1churchinen.
Mr. FII~UCANE. T h a t is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And defense counsel in Germany and what not?
Mr. FINUCANE.Right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I ask a t what stage of the game-was it before
or after Van Roclen's speech that you began to get i n contact with
people i n Germany ?
Mr. FINUCANIL I think that we, as I recall the precise date, this
began t o take shape, say, around December. I think we had gotten
our first direct contact from anybody directly concerned with this,
say, last November. T h a t was very indirect, as a matter of fact.
A friend of ours i n Chicago sent us a n affidavit of Willi Schaefer
which we gave to one of the Senators, and the Senator to the W a r
Department. A few weeks later we got the letter from Bishop Wurm.
Then the Van Roden incident. I think that is the approximate timing.
Then ,the circulation of that, which reached Germany, .gave our

address to a lot of people in Germany who knew we were interested
in it and thereupon began communicating with us.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Bishop Wurm contacted you on his own initiative?
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO
you know how he became aware of the existence
of your organization or how he knew you were interested in this
particular matter?
Mr. FINUCANE. NO. I could only surmise.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What

do you surmise on this?
Mr. FINUCANE.Frederick J. Libby was our executive secretary. He
has been a figure on the national scene here for many years and is well
known as a defender of the downtrodden, Zo use it much more in
clich6.
Significantly the two things Bishop Wurm sent us were a copy of
the cable which he had sent to President Truman and a copy of the
letter which he had sent to John Foster Dulles. Mr. Dulles and Mr.
Libby are friends. I do not know whether he knew that or not, but
I think the names are sort of in the same pool, in some sense in the
same hat.
Senator BALDWIN. Did not Mr. Libby at one time represent some
organization during the twenties that had to do with prohibition?
Mr. FINUCANE. I do not know. H e is here. I know he is interested
in that, but I do not know whether he actually represented them.
Senator BALDWIN.His work has been in connection with various
organizations promoting or opposing different things in the Congress
for 25 years or more, has it not?
Mr. FINUCANE. For 28 years he has been executive secretary of this
organization.
Mr. CHAMBERS. A t what stage of the p m e did these defense
counsel, these German attorneys, begin to get in contact with you?
Mr. PINUCANE. I would say-this may modify a previous state-
ment I made a little bit, but since thinking about it my menlory has
improved-the affidavit concerning Willi Schaefer which we gave
to one of the Senators, which we gave to the War Department,
bore the stamp of a German lawyer named von Schlabrendorf. As
I recall it, I wrote him a letter and said :
This looks like a pretty serious thing. If you have anything to substantiate
this, send it to us.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When did von Schlabrendorf write you?
Mr. FINUCANE. I do not know. Probably a month or so later.
Mails weren't too good.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUtestified before that your interest began to
firm up in this thing in December.
Mr. FINUCANE. That is right. Our interest has been in it for a long
time, but we have not had anything to go on.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When did von Schlabendorf write you? Was it
December, November, or when?
Mr. FINUCANE. I really do not know. I would say it was in Janu-
ary sometime.
Mr. CEIARTRERS. After the Van Roden incident?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes. I would say by the time we got his reply
it was in, say, January, after the Van Roden incident.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When did von Schlabrendorf first write you?
MhLMEDY MASSACRE INYESTIGATION 993
Mr. FINUCANE. I believe around January.
That would be about
the time of the first reply.
Senator BALDWIN.
DOyou have the letter 8
Mr. FINUCANE.
I have gone through our files today and yesterday
and have not come across such a letter from him.
Senator BALDWIN.
Do you think you could produce i t ?
Mr. FINUCANE. I do not know whether I could or not.
I will look
for it.
Senator BALDWIN. That would be a pretty important letter.

You
do not mean to say you misplaced it 8
Mr. FINUCANE. Come to think of it, I did see i t today. I think
it said-
Senator BALDWIN. Never mind what i t said.
I f you can, produce it.
Mr. FINUCANE.
I can produce it.
(The letter froin von Schlabrendorf referred to above is as follows:
LETTER FROM GERMAN ATTORNEY VON SCHLABRENDORFF
WIESBADEN
JANUARY MTH, 1949.
Bia Airmail.
NATIONAL COUNCILFOR PREVENTION OF

W m ,
1013 1Sth Btreet Northwest, Washington 6, D. C., U.S. A.
DEARMR. FINUCANE
: AS per your request, we hereby submit one copy of Willi
Schaefer's case records.
Sincerely yours,
VON SCHLABRENDORFF.
1 Incl. a/s.
2 4 AUGUST
~ ~ 1948.
Now : Adelheidstrasse 70 I.
To : Post Trial Section, W a r Crimes Group.
Miinchen : Tegernseerlandstrasse.
Subject: Malmedy case. Willi Schafer, born a t Wiesbaden on 20-2-1921. S o w
in jail a t Landsbergfiech W. C. P.
Please find enclosed power of attorney according to which I am acting a s the
convicted Willi Schafer's counsel.
WilIi SchXfer partook a s a n underofficer, 3rd SS armored engineers company,
engineers battl. I, group Peiper, i n the Ardennes offensive of December 1944.
Being a member of the police division transferred into the Armored SS (Waffen
SS).
Before U. S. Military Court, Dachau (Malmedy case) Willi Schiifer was
charged :
1. To have watched and not to have taken action against shootings of U. S.
P. 0 . W.'s a t crossroad Engelsdorf south of Malmedy, on 17-12-1944, i n
presence of his company leader, Obersturmfiihrer n a n z Sievers;
2. To have forwarded, a t Stoumont on 1S12-1944 i n the presence of his
company leader Franz Sievers, a n order of Sievers running to h a r e 5 U. S.
P. 0. W.'s shot by members of the'company ;
3. To h a r e joined, a t La Gleize on 21 and 22-12-1944, in his company
leader's presence, in shootings of U. S. P. 0. W.'s.
Willi Schlifer was sentenced to death by hanging on 16-7-1946. I n Spring of
1948 that sentence was converted into lifelong imprisonment.
Consideri?tg the evidence enclosed to this i a m asking you for a review of the
aente?~cenow soztnding in lifelong imprisonment.
994 MALMEDY MASSACRE IhTESTIGATION
The following is to explain this evidence :

The U. S. chief counsel of the defense in the Malmedy Case, Lt. Col. Everett,
askecl in his petition for review of Willi Schiifer's case that the accused U'illi
Schiifer be acquitted. Please find this petition for review enclosecl a s annex 1.
I n his petition for review Lt. Col. Everett noted Willi Schiifer's ,omn.writtenl.
statement yet not made voluntarily a s argued by the defense to be the only
proof against him besides charges raised against him by the statements of the
accused Gnstav Aclolf Sprenger (files, p. 691), Joachinl Hofinann (files, p. 645)
and Siegfried Jaeckel (files, p. 681).
Neither a r e there unprejudiced witnesses not other valuable evidence.
As regards the way of .taking those statements by the investigations officers
a t Schw5bisch Hall with confessions made by accused of the Malmedy case
or their mutually charging themselves, there has been alleged by many parts
with evidence being submitted for that these statements were made under hard
duress and following heavy bodily ill-treatment on the part of the investigations
officers, so they mere said to be not of any value a t all.
As publishecl by the press the War Department, Washington, D. C., has ordered
a n investigation of those investigations methods to take place.
Willi Sch6fer i n a nonvolnntarily made statement drawn a t Schwiibisch Hall
on 8-4-1946 admitted :
1. To have watched members of his company shooting on U. S. P. 0 . W.'s,
a t crossroad Engelsdorf, south of Malmedy, on 17-12-1944:
2. To have forwarded, a t Stoumont a t a street corner, the order of his
company leader, Branz Sievers, to shoot 2 U. S. P. 0.W's to Sturmann
Gustav Adolf Sprenger.
Willi Schafer revocated this confession in his final words stated in trial.
On 25-1-1948 stated a n affidavit showing the way this confession was obtained.
Please find Willi Schiifer's affidavit enclosed a t annex 2.
A confession obtained that way cannot be of the least value.
Nor a r e the statements nlacle by Joachim Hoffmann (Eles, p. 645) and Siegfried
Jaec-kel (Eles, p. 6S1) against Willi Schiifer ancl proof against him.
In a n affdarit dated on 20-1-1948 Joachim Hofnmnn ancl. i n one clated
21-1-1948 Siegfried Jaeckel stated the way their charges were obtained. Please
find enclosed these aficlavits a s anneses 3 arid 4.
A particularly bad part in the blalmecly Case was played by the accused
Gustav Adolf Sprenger who becnme a jnst milling instrument in the hand of
the inrestigating authorities, affirming jnst everything they wanted him to do.
This is revealed by the afidarits by Oslrar T r a t t dated 3-12-1947 and by Gustav
Adolf Sprenger himself datecl 21-1-1948, enclosed a s anneses 5 and 6.
Gnstav Aclolf Sprenger, a young and unsteady person himself, is a personal
enemy to Willi Schiifer; he is resenting Willi Schiifer haring him had trans-
ferred for negligence to another company in I\Iarch 1945. Gnstav Adolf Sprenger's
reacliness to charge other men is enough explanation for his unrestrainedly
accusing a man he hasn't been on good terms with before.
In reviewing the death sentence against Willi Schsfer there was sure laid
special stress on examining t h e question Wl~ether Willi Schdfer indeed for-
wardecl, a t Stoumont on 19-12-1944, to Sprenger, a s he has alleged, a n order
from his company leader Franz Sievers to shoot 2 U. S. P. 0. W.'s. At mid-
April Gustav Adolf Sprenger a t 1,anclsbcrg prison acknowleclged to TVilli Schifer
that he again, hat1 made a statement to Mr. Harry T l ~ o nregarding Willi Schiifer,
maintaining the charges against Willi Schiifer a s regards Stoumont for fear
of his own person. Willi SchSfer made a statement llin~selfon ererything Gustar
Adolf Gprenger had told him with regard to llis hearing by Mr. Thon, dated
of 15-7-1943 enclosetl a s annex 7.
Enclosecl to this statement by Willi Schiifer is a n affidavit by Gustav Adolf
Spre~lgerdatecl 9-k1948, sufkiently proring what to judge of Gustav Adolf
Sprenger's charges. Sprenger's statement lacks any w l n e . A man cannot be
sentenced on the base of his statement.
Enclosecl a s annexes 8-16 are further affidavits :
( a ) affidavit Richard Scheeler dated ----l------------------------ 20- 6-1947
( 6 ) affidavit Gerhard Taut datecl -------------------------------- 19-10-194'7
( c ) affidavit Paul Beer dated-------------------------------- 18- 8-1947
( d ) affidavit OsBar T r a t t dated - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1-11-1947
(e) affidavit R~~clolf IGmpfe datecl ------------------------------- 21- 7-1947
( f ) affidavit Josef Pichler datecl--------------------------------- 22- 1-1948
(8) affidavit Karl Heinz Rose dated ------------------------------ 8-11-1947
( A ) affidavit Hans Giinther Eberding dated ----------------------- 27-11-1!94i
M A L M E D Y M A S S A C R E INVESTIGATION 995
The following is proved by these affidavits :
( 1 ) Willi Schafer arrived together with Obersturmflihrer Sievers' SPW ( a r -
mored c a r ) , which had stayed a t Losheim for a panne, a t crossroads Engelsdorf
soutl~of Malnlecly, on 17-12-1944, a f t e l . d a i ' l i i ~ e s sh a d set ,ill. At thtlt time his
conlpany had already left the region. Willi Schlfer with his companions found
his company but short of Stavelot 011 17-12-1944 by 24 hours.
It is therefoce impossible Willi Schgfer had watched U. S. P. 0. W.'s being shot
by members of his company in the course of the 17-12-1944 a t crossroads Engels-
dorf. The conformin- statements by Richard Scheeler, Gerharcl Taut. Paul Beer,
Oskar Tratt, Rudolf k ~ m p f e Josef
, Pichler, K a r l Heine Rose, and Hans Giinther
Eherding fundamentally correspond to those made before by Gerhard Taut (pp.
2601 and 2602), Siegfried Jaeckel (p. 49), E m s t Goldschmidt (p. 2398), Marcel
Roltz (p. 2464), and Joachim Hofmann (p. 46). Facing these nonobjectionable,
t h a t one made under duress and revocated by Willi Schgfer a s well a s those made
by Gustav Adoli' Sprenger a r e bare of any value of proof.
( 2 ) Gustav Adolf Sprenger's allegation t h a t Willi Schafer had forwarded to
him, a t Stoumont on 1S12-1944, an order of the then present commanding
officer F m n z Sievers to shoot U. S. P. 0. W.'s is clearly refuted by these enclosed
affidavits. Of a special importance a s regards t h a t issue is Josef Pichler's affi-
cia\-it dated 22-1-48. Josef Pichler has stated a s regards Stoun~ont:
"I-ia~ingreturned to our point of departure we went on passing Stavelot late
in the evening and reaching Stoumont early in the morning of the 19-12. By
ten o'clock the company was ordered to make a search of the town for P. 0 . W.'s.
Schafer by order of Siel-ers ordered all P. 0. W.'s to be marched to the first-aid
station, castle of Stonmont, order forwarded to t h e group leaders.
During that search and even later the town was under heavy fire from the
c-nemy. I myself got i n connection with six Americans t h a t day. I was jointly
with Schiifer staying in a grocer's door we had found a shelter against the enemy's
fire when 2 Anlerican soldiers brought a wounded German. The wounded got a
bandage by SDG Rose and was mounted on a jeep. Schiifer ordered a man
gassing by to march the P. 0 . W.'s away. Immecliately upon this a U. S. Iieu-
tenant appeared who was jointly with t h e German wounded taken by the jeep
to the first-aid station.
A short time later there appeared 2 other Americans carrying a third wou~idecl
American on a stretcher. Schafer asked Sievers whether to wait for t h e returu
of that jeep regarding those 3 P. 0 . W.'s. Sievers ordered those 3 P. 0. W.'s to
be brought back t o the first-aid station after its return. Schafer asked the leader
of the 2nd echelon : Unterscharfiihrer (sgt.) Beutner to execute this order, being
near us.
Schlfer and I went for finding a c. p.; here I observed Sievers going in the
direction of the church together with a n officer. The c. p. was established a t a
butcher's, l a b r on removed to a children home. On 19-12-1944, i n the afternoon,
a meeting took place a t the children's home with Peiper and PStschke being
present. That meeting lasted for about half a n hour, then Peiper and Potschke
went away. I n the afternoon Sievers did not leave t h e children home. There
was hard fighting for that children home unto our retiring on 21-12-1944 i n the
erenina hours, we haring been forced out of the house, get again taking i t and
Captnring about 40 P. 0. W.'s, among 2 officers, who were marched back,
on ?0-12-1944,"
Josef Pichler's statement represents i n itself a big issue considering he was
together with Willi SchLfer in the chief car a11 over 19 and 20-12-1944. Josef
Pichler has coufirmed MTilliSchiifer by order of the company leader Franz Sievers
forlvarded a n order to all group leaders to march all P. 0. W.'s back to the flrst-
aid station, castle of Stoumont. H e h a s also confirmed t h a t n o order t o shoot
1'. 0. \P.'s was issued by the company leader Frana Sievers, so could not have been
forwarded by Willi Schiifer and wasn't so indeed. So confirm Gerharcl Taut,
O s h r Tratt, Paul Beer. Karl EIeinz Rose, and Hans Giinther Eberding i n their
affidavits in the main Josef Pichler's afficlavit a s well.
These affidavits piove Gustav Adolf Sprenger's allegation regarding the Stou-
mont issue is 1il;emise false.
( 3 ) 11s to the La Gleize issue no witnesses have appeared who had made
observations of their own. What h a s been said to this i s more hearsay. Gustav
Adolf Sprenger has falsely charged Willi Schlfer a s to this point too. H e . h a s
said he xot information by one Lasinslri t h a t he, Lasinski, had seen Franz Sievers,
milli Schlfer. Max Bentner, Max Hammerer, and men of the 1st platoon shoot
9 U. S. P. 0. W.'s a t the courthouse. Yet the nnrefuted evidence of trial a s re-
Eards this issue has shown Max Beutner was already dead, beiug killed in action
Stonmont one d;!.~1)rfol.e.
996 MALMEDY MASSACRE INTESTIGATION
The statements by Oskar T r a t t (p. 2763), Ernst Goldschmidt (p. 2429), Lt. Col.
McGown (p. 1820) (p. 1824), obviously refuted t h a t charge by Gustav AdoW
Sprenger made upon more hearsay during the Dachau trial already.
Basing a sentence against a n irreproachable, man such a s Willi SchLfer of life-
long imprisonment on the charges raised by a n unreliable man such a s Gustav
Adolf Sprenger whose statements-as admitted by him-were made under duress
a s well would not be just.
Willi Bchiifer is not guilty. The petition for review and acquittal is.therefore
justified.
(Gee.) volv SCHLSBRENDORFF,
Attorneu.
16 annexes.
ANKES1
Pages 134/135.
No. 55 : Willi Schafer, a staff sergeant.
The bill of particulars made the following allegations :
( 1 ) On or about 17 December 1944 a t the crossroacls south of Malmedy,
Belgium, fired on P. 0. W.'s.
( 2 ) On or about 19 December 1944 a t Stoumont, Belgium, ordered P. 0. W.'s
to be shot.
( 3 ) On or about 20 December 1944 a t Stoumont, Belgium, fired on
P. 0. W.'s.
( 4 ) On or about 21 December 1944 a t L a Gleize, Belgium, fired on
P. 0. W.'s.
(5) On or about 22 December 1944 a t L a Gleize, Belgium, fired on
P. 0. W.'s.
The accused made a written statement (record, p. 1399) obtained under duress
(record, p. 1406).
The failure of the prosecution to prove the incidents of Malmedy, Stoumont,
and La Gleize has been previously discussed herein under the separate analysis
of other accused (supra).
The only evidence against Schafer, a sergeant, i s his own written statement,
which the defense contends was not voluntarily given, and accusations against
him in the written statements of Sprenger (record, p. 61S), Joachim Hofnlann
(record, p. 645), and Jaeckel (record, p. 681), all concerning the alleged killing
of three American P. 0. W.'s, two of v h o m were carrying the third on a litter.
Schafer claims that he transmitted the order of his commanding officer who was
then immediately present when the order was given and transmitted.
We call the attention of the court to t h e following inconsistencies in t h e state-
ments of Schafer's fellow accused :
( a ) Sprenger claims t h a t Biloschetzky and Graeber marched these three Amer-
icans into a n alley where Biloscheteky shot the two Americans who were carry-
ing the litter, t h a t the litter was then dropped to the ground and Sprenger then
shot t h e wounded one on the litter.
( b ) Hoimann made a n incredibly long statement ('record, pp. 645-657). He
stated t h a t Biloschetzky alone marched the three Americans into the alley, t h a t
the litter was lowered to the ground i n the alley and Biloschetzky then marched
the two Americans "behind the house to a point" and there shot them. Then
Sprenger suddenly appeared on the scene and shot the wounded one lying on the
litter.
(c) The accused Neve however, who claims to have been a n eyewitness to the
incident says (record, p. 667) t h a t Sprenger alone was walking behind the three
Americans a s they were marched iuto the alley; t h a t Spreuger shot thefAmerican
carrying the rear end of the litter and this American dropped his end, stepped
forward to the right of the litter and fell to the ground. Neve claims the incident
happened in the afternoon and t h a t about a half hour later Ne-re, accompanied
by Gielehofer. Hofmann, and Schulte went into the alley, saw the two Americans
lying dead, but the man on the stretcher was still alive. I could see him breathing.
( d ) Boltz, in his written statement (record, p. 711) says the incident happened
between nine and ten o'clock in the morning, t h a t Altkruger and Boltz marched
the three Americans into the alley and Altliruger shot all three of them. There
a r e four completely divergent and entirely antagonistic versions of the same
incident.
The accused Sprenger, in his written statement (record, p. 632), to show the
court another inconsi~tencyin that statement of S p r e n ~ e r says
, that he arrived
in La Gleize on the 21st and says that between 1600 and 1600 hours, Lasinski
told him t h a t he, Lasinski, had seen Sievers, Shafer, Beutner, Hammerer, and
men of the 1 s t platoon shoot nine Americans P. 0. W. a t the courthouse. Yet
the uncontroverted evidence in this case conclusively shows t h a t Bentner was
dead, and t h a t he was killed in action the day before, a t Stoumont.
These inconsistencies were submitted to the court with the conviction on the
part of t h e defense counsel t h a t there could be very Little weight, if any, give11
to the accusations contained in the statements of Schafer's fellow accused. As to
the statements of Sprenger and I-Iofmann, we submit t h a t no human being, let
alone a n immature youngster, could possibly report all of the details of this of-
fensive with such exact accuracy of the activities of his fellow accused, more
than a half year later than the events happened. I t is physically and humanly
a n impossible thing to do. Those statements were dictated by the prosecution
and they erroneously made the inconsistencies in the picture about the litter
case. Further the evidence offered by the prosecntion against the accused
Schafer is either hearsay evidence or accusations contained in the statements of
his fellow accused, which is not sufficient to warrant his conviction. The defense
produced direct testimony of the witness Taut (record, 11. 2603) that during the
battle of Stonmont, Schafer ordered all captured P. 0 . W.'s to be Liken to the
first-aid station, and Oslrar T r a t t testified that during the short period of time
t h a t Schafer was in L a Gleize he was with him and no prisoners of war were
seen nor mistreated during t h a t period.
The finding of guilty and the sentence of death should be set aside and the
accused acquitted.
Being aware of the meaning of a n affidavit a n d of t h a t false statements in a n

affidavit a r e subject to punishment by German authorities a s well a s by U. S.
Military Government I a m stating a s follows, regarding the investigations made
during the preliminary inquiry in the Malmedy case :
On 5 4 1 9 4 6 I, a P. 0. W. a t Sennelager near Paderborn, was surrendered by
British authorities to the U. S. War Crimes Group. During 5th to 7th April 1946
I was transported from Sennelager to Schwabisch Hall. The travel w a s inter-
rupted for passing the night a t Butzbach jail and court prison, Wiesbaden. Dur-
ing my transportation me S men were h~andcufledwith each other, besides this
cuffed to the car. I n beginning the travel, a t Sennelager on 5G41946 we were
warned by a U. S. lieutenant that the least suspicions movement by any single
person all of us would be shot. On 6-41946, being photographed a t Wiesbaden,
a U. S. sergeant made signs of hanging not to be misunderstood (level keeping of
the hand a t the throat). During the travel from Wiesbaden to Schwabisch Hall-
74-1946-the SS man, Zimmer, accompanied u s on our car a s a spy.
On 7-4-46 Mr. Harry W. Thon asked me a t SchwLbisch Hall for making a n
affidavit charging me. H e remonstrated me the accusations raised against me,
granting me insight into a n affidavit, Sepp Dietrich's, wherein he had admitted
the total murder order, telling me the real issue was but t h e heads of the generals
and nothing was to be feared by us little men. I declared in principle milling
to state a report of my experience i n t h e Eiffel offensive yet told Mr. Thon I had
not been aware of any offences under the laws of war. Thereupon Mr. Thon
gave me paper and pencil, set a last respite of one night, closed me into a death
cell telling me that, should I not make a statement charging me, my family would
be taken their food and ration cards. I n t h a t night I wrote a report of my ex-
periences vhich yet did not include any charges.
On 8 - M 6 , in the morning, Mr. Thon appeared in my cell, read the above-said
report, tore it, iusnlting me roughly and even attacked me. I n leaving the cell
he menaced me with my soon death i n case of further refusal. Some minutes
later my cell mas ol~ened,a black cap the inside of which was incrusted with blood
was put on my head and I was taken to another room. Considering the precedent
menaces the psychological efi'ect of t h a t cap on me was crushing. Folloming the
cap was taken off I faced Mr. Thon and 4 men of my company-Sprenger, Jaeckel,
Neve, and J. Hofmann. These men accused be conformably with regard to cross:
roads and a t Stoimont, thus they were false witnesses, for in trial itself, re-
garding the crossroads, Sprenger's statement, a s to 19-12, regarding Stoumont,

Sprenger's and Hofmann's statement a n d regarding 20-12 a t Stoumont Jaeckel's
statement was charging me. Nevertheless I Refused making a statement charging
myself. Upon which Mr. Thon told me i n case of further refusing I would but
demonstrate my nazi opinion, .so he would provide for my being charged together
with the generals on the same bench, my fate subsequently being sealed. Con-
sidering I would never stand against 4 witnesses in a trial he gave me t h e good
advice to make t h a t statement, f o r this would be followed by my release within
a short delay. H e had me informed by those 4 witnesses t h a t similar cases had
ended with a n acquittal or with sentences of short imprisonment. Notwithstand-
ing I continued refusing. Thereupon Mr. Thon had me see a falsified statement
by my company leader-Sievers, adding t h a t this was the 5th proof against me. I
told Mr. Thon t h a t I, despite disposing of a good memory, I was not able to recall
ally of these remonstrances and t h a t they mere completely false. Upon this Mr.
Thon left, returning a short time later with 1 s t It. Poerl, who beastly insulted and
outraged me, ordering Mr. Thon, should I not write within half a n hour he was to
stop the hearing and leave me to my fate. 1st It. Poerl in a concealed yet obvious
way confronted me with the alternative of either writing and living in freedom or
not writing and dying. I decid@ for life, declaring willing t o sign any statement
desired. Now Mr. Thon dictated the shorthand called SS Ustuf. Kramn-my
statement according t o Sprenger's which was snbseqnently dictated to me by
Iiramin. Any objections raised by me were ruled down by Mr. Thon mith the short
remark t h a t Sprenger w a s better inforn~edthan I. The sketches enclosed to the
statement were drafted by Kramm.
I am hereby stating t h a t I never tool; part in any shootings of P. 0. W.'s, that
I never issued any such orders nor watched any shooting. I stated this already
before Military Court Dachau.
On 8 or 94-46, following a confrontation with Hammerer a t Schwahisch Hall
where I did not seem to have behaved according to the inl-estigators' in ten ti or!^,
I suffered heaviest ill-treatment by kicks in the hollox of the knee and the back-
side a s well a s by strokes with a stick in shonlders and the rear part of the head.
That ill-treatment caused me for some tinle to suffer from heary hradxche, a
blooclsliot swelling in the r e a r head gnre me pains for one week. I c n m o t gire
exact details regarding the executing persons and the place, for during the ill-
treatment I had a black cap on my head. Subseqneritlg I w ~ forcibly s pulled
into cell 100. A partial witness is Rudolf Sch\van~bnch,now Landsberg/Lech,
W. C. P., who can hiinself state on the iniplications of those ill-tr?atments.
As to t!~e facts I ain stating a s f o l l o ~ :~ s
I passed the cross~vnclssonth of i\Ialmedy on 17-12-1044, in the evening with
complete darkness reignin' (about 1900 hours). A bnrning house nt the cross-
roads a s 1~1ella s a n abandoned group of U. S. cars were conclusi\-e for lxevious
fighting. On acconnt of the darkness I did not see any dead hinericans. TVe
drove a single car a s a damage in the motor and change of car ncur Scheidt had
caused a stay of some times. Together mith me in t h a t car mere SS Ostuf.
Sievers, Uscha (sgt.) Beer, Rttf. (pfc.) iliryer, Rttf. Karl Schwarz, Rttf. Pichler,
l i t t f . i<olilenberger, Rttf. Eberding, Strnl. (pvte.) Steets. Ii'ro~x19th to "-1244
I was a t Stoumont. Prior the entering Stouinont I transn~ittedthe group leaders
t h e company leader's order to march all P. 0. W.'s back to the first-aid station.
From 19-12-44, in the afternoon, 1mto 21-12-44 in t l ~ eerTeninahours I mas a t a
girls' school (children home) a t the west exit of Stomuont. Fiyliting was very
hard here and for a n esplanation the fact may be sufficient that the 3rd armored
engineers comgany lost S4 soldiers by fighting with the enemy during these 2%
da.~s.
At L a Gleiee I stayed bat in the night of 21-12-44, about 2.330 honrs unto
22-1244 by 0900 hours. We got then new positions in t h e direction of Bourse-
mont which I left but later on when we retired from the. encirclement. In the
night of 21/22-12-44 I had felt a biq want for sleeping because of the p r e c ~ d i n g
hard fightinc a t Stoumont, so I satisfied t h a t in a house. I n and about La Gleize
I nerer sa:v any P. 0. W.'s a t all nor did I shoot any.
I was released a s a P. 0. TV. by the beginning of Alny 1946 a t Dachau, so I was

protected hy the Geneva convention during the preliminary inclnir~-in the Mal-
inecly case.
This statement stretches ore1 6 handwritten pages. TTr15ting by pencil wis
the implication of t h a t ; there a r e no other means of writing available for me in
this prison.
MATjMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 999
The following alternations a r e contained in the statement and were Signed
by n ~ sigu
r "Ij7S" :
Page 1,line 12 : "mir" into "wir."
Page 5, lines 9 and 16 : "22-12-44" into "21-12-44."
I an1 declaring in lieu of oath that the statements inclndecl by this affidavit
are the pure truth.
This afficlarit is for submission to courts and authorities.
( S ) TVILLI S C H ~ F E R .
LINDSBERG/~JECH, 2 s Jnnwl-y 1948.
This is to certify that the nbove is the true sigliatnre of \Villi Schafer.
( S ) LLOYD A. WILSON,
Capl., C N P . P r i s o ? ~
D irector.
Certiiiect true copy made after the original submitted t o me.
[SEU]
-- - , Notmy.
JYIESBADEK, 24 ilz~gust1 948.
AXNEX3
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
Joachim Hofmann, WCP Landsberg.

AFFIDAVIT
For subluission to courts or authorities.
Understanding the meaning of a n a f i d a r i t and that false statements made
in a n afiiclavit a r e subject to punishment by the German authorities a s well a s by
U. S. Military Government I am making this present statement :
I, Joachim Hofmann, was vom 3-12-1945 unto 84-1946 kept i n presumptive
arrest a t the prison, SchwLbisch Ha11 (Malmedy case). During that time I was
a P. 0. W. At SchwLbisch Ha11 I mas hearcl about SO to 3 times. During my
presumptive arrest I was severely ill-treated. For 3% months I mas kept in soli-
tary coufinemeut without neither writing nor bathing allowed. Even when
taken for a hearing 1got a black cap on the heacl. The g-uards who took us for
hearing often struck or kicked me. I w a s twice thrown clowll the stairs so that
I was h u r t so much a s that blood rnn out of my mouth and nose. I gave t h e
hearing officers information of that ill treatment I suffered yet they only laughed
about it. Mostly I was not able to answer a t all a t the hearing; even when not
giving those answers the investigating officers deemed good or none a t all that
cap was pulled over my ears and I was again and more strnck than before.
I n March 1946 I was talien before a summary-court. Prior to this I was
struck and several times kicked in the privates. On that trial I was sen-
tenced t o death and was closed up in a death cell. That cell contained but a
wood chest as a bed and I had but one blanket. I was kept in that cell for 3
weeks. I n t h a t cell I was currently hearcl. The inrestigating oficers made iue
promises a s to being released within 2 months provided but I wrote what
wonlcl be dictated. I was not able a t all to resist the force esercised on me. I
often watched comrades being ill-treated. T h a t treatment caused me final11 to
write a false statement dictated to me. I beliered the promises made to me, yet
all of this was mere illusion.
LAT?DSBER~~&~-~~~S. ( S ) JOACHIM HOBMANX.
I herewith certify that the above is t h e t r u e signature of Joachim Hofmann.
Directo~.
G<fIpt.G X P , PI.%SO.IL
CertiBed true copy from the original.
STUTTGART, 10 B'P~Y~'~ILO~'?J
1948. ( S ) SOAIXER,hTot(1l.?/. [SEAL]
Certified true copy made after the original.
[SEAL] --A , Not(~q~.
WIESBADES,
24 dugrrst 1948.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION t
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
Siegfried Jaeckel, Landsberg/Leoh WCP.
Understanding t h e meaning of a n affidavit and that false statements made i n

a n affidavit a r e subject t o punishment by t h e German authorities a s wen a s by
U. S. Military Government I a m making this present statement:
On 4 December 1945 I arrived a t Schwabisch-Hall. There I was closed up i n
solitary confinement, no walk, no bath being allowed nor going to church, nor
was there any mental caring for me, correspondence with my family being for-
bidden. It must be understood t h a t I was a P. 0. W. all over t h a t time passed a t
Schwgbisch-Hall. Furthermore I was urged to make a statement, under pretense,
of false facts, duress, promises, and force; this statement was besides this dic-
tated to me. Yet today it is impossible for me to depict the exact details of
the hearings a s nearly 2 years have passed since. Yet some of them have re-
mained in my memory, so I will t r y writing them down according to the best
of my memory and conscience. I was, e. g., subjected to a summary trial taking
its course a s follows :
Taken to one of the hearing cells and passed there sometime a guard entered,
pushing that black over my head and, after a while, I was taken by my jacket
collar and pulled out of the cell, flung i n a corridor to and fro, left and right.
I w a s often waUIing on my nose instead on my legs. Having t h a t cap pushed
over my head I was not able to see something. Then I w a s taken to a dark
room, pushed to the wall with my hand, having to put my legs broadly to the
walls and my arms high up to the wall. T h a t cap over me. Then stand a certain
time t h a t way. I n that room I heard some noise like drum beatiug. Then came
somebody, besprinkling me lightly with water. Subsequently I was taken by my
jacket and marched to a cell. T h a t cell looked about a s follows: There was a
table, a black cloth on i t and on the table a crucifix with right and left to i t
a burning candle. Behind that table s a t a major, a captain, and a 1st It. As I
heard later on this was Major Ellowite, Capt. Schuhmacher, artd 1st It. Perl.
I t It. Perl set forth t h e issue, etc., t h a t I had shot P. 0. W.'s there and there,
now being subject to sentence. Thereupon witnesses were produced who all of
them stated I had shot P. 0.W.'s. When the 3rd witness left Lt. Perl talked to
the major and told me: "The major desists of further witnesses-20-considering
these 3 witnesses a r e by themselves sufficient for the death sentence." Things
went on that may. By the way the 1 s t prosecutor appeared whom I learnt to be
called Mr. Harry Thon durhg the RIalmedy trial. This summary trial lasted
from 9-12 hours and 14-16 hours. Among other things \\-as I warned with:
"People like SOU we will deal shortly with, we take then1 into a .j?ep, take
them out, you will have a look t o nature and will be hanged. You a r e not worth
a bullet, we have rough strings only we will bind you a t that tree, you take
once more fresh a i r and then you will go up." Mr. Thon spoke out this menace
dnring a trial. T h a t snmnlary trial ended with 1st It. Perl pronouncing the
death sentence and I was to be hanged the n e s t 24 hours. I neT7er doubted of
everything said t o me and believed everything. Two days later I was taken for
a hearing to t h a t summary court and Lt. Perl told m e : "We have given con-
sideration to your youth, were induced and acted upon order. You a r e pardoned.
W e will make again a trial with you and you tell us the truth, we have helped
you a s you were not able to remember." Thus they commenced again. I n this
1 s t It. Pearl spoke the following: "Well, you don't want, well we will get you
there. You have no money for paying so you must hang. Look a t your com-
rades, they a r e well, they said the truth and will soon be released. You see,
nothing will happen to you. You had a n order and had t o execute it, came from
your superiors, nothing can be done to you if you tell u s everything, you will
soon be released, yet i n case you keep silent and do not say anything, you will
be hanged." I do not longer exactly know how many times I mas heard, sure
10-15 times. I was also struck, I listened crying in other cells, too. Whenever
taking for hearing and being in t h a t hearing cell, I was trembling with fear.
I was then a t Schwabisch Hall 19 years old only, never having anj-thing to deal
with courts. I n that atmosphere and given that duress I was exposed to I gave
in, believing everything I was told and menaced a s well a s promised, I had t h a t
long statement dictated, designing those big sketches I alone would never be able
t o draft, for my education is not sufficient nor have I such a memory. The state-
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION . 1001
ment was dictated to me, so were the sketches drafted by a comrade a n d I had t o
copy them, Capt. Schdimacher saying: "The streets etc. shall be the same, yet
the other specifications shall be made and composed distinctly, else it would too
much appear like a copy." I am underlining t h a t my statement and t h e state-
ments, that a t Schwabisch Hall, a r e not true. My charges against comrades by
my statement dictated a t Schwabisch Hall, a r e likewise not true.
(S) SIEGFBIED JAECKEL.
LSWDSBEEG/LECH, 21 Janfbary 1948.
I herewith certify t h a t the above is the t r u e signature of Siegfried Jaeckel.
( S ) LLOYDA. WILSON,
. ,
Capt., CMP, Pvison Director.
Certified true copy from the original.
(S) SOMMEX,Notary.
STUTTGART, 10 Febr-uary 1948.
[SEAL] -- , Notary Public.
WIESBADEN, 24 A ~ ~ y ~1948.
ist I
ANNEX5
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
OsBar Tratt, born on 23-12-26. Wiirzburg-Heidingsfeld, 2-l2-47.
F r a u Holle Weg 69.
AFFIDAVIT
From 612-1945 unto 1 7 4 1 9 4 6 I was i n presumptive arrest for t h e Malmedy
case a t t h e Schwabisch Hall prison. There I was several times heard and upon
physical ill-treatment .and mental influencing I was slowly made a n instru-
ment of the prosecution, forced to charge other comrades when confronted with
them such a s inculcated in us before by the prosecution. I n t h a t same intantion
my fellows of my company: Sprenger, Jaeckel, Joachim Hoffmann, and Neve
were used. Upon good conduct a s meant by the prosecution during confronta-
tions cigarette and tobacco premiums were granted t o us. Not behaving accord-
ing to the prosecution's intents exposed u s to new ill-treatments and menaces,
connected to promises of a soon release i n case of our conforming. The victims
of our confrontations became by numerous false witnesses, insultations, re-
lated to the promise nothing would happen a t all for they said to only want to
punish t h e officers, a s well a s by physical ill-treatments demoralized such a
way a s to make finally any statement desired.
Late in February/early i n March 1946 I was confronted with my then com-
pany leader Franz Sievers, remonstrating him with what the prosecution had
drubbed into me which were invented of course. Sievers shook but his hands
toward these accusations a s he was forbidden to make any counterstatements.
J o a d ~ i mHoffmann, hTeve,Sprenger and I were once again confronted with Sievers,
having got to again setting forth our drubbed in matter. The investigating
officer, 1st It. Pearl, told Sievers: "Here the men of your company tell t h e
truth, give in, yet you a r e lying, you say you were a n officer and company
leader, yon should be ashamed. T h a t is t h e way of these officers, do not know
of anything, but the man can remember everything." Sievers who couldn't stand
all these lies said: "Such a s these 4 men a r e standing there they a r e lying."
Upon which the investigating officer, 1 s t It. Pearl, gave Sievers a push telling
him he shall keep silent. Sievers was roughly insulted by the investigating
ofticer i. e. by the words : he should be ashamed, he was a swine and says he was
an officer. Continuing Sievers should be spitted a t he spit before Sievers! feet.
Sievers got quite a lot of such rough words. We had to go back to our cells,
here I heard Sievers being insulted furthermore, all the house resounded from it.
I myself wrote under these same conditions a t Schwabisch Hall a statement
against my comrades which is bare of any trnth. During my stay a t Schwabisch
Hall I was several times ill-treated being kept under a cap pushed over my
head, I was furthermore menaced with t h a t my parents would be deprived of
their food tickets and that I would be taken to Belgium. I n a mock trial a s re-
vealed later on sentenced to death. I was promised, too, t h a t in case of good
behavior I worrld in a very short time be released. These utterances were
chiefly made by Lt. Per1 and Mr. Thon. Cpt. Schuhmacher participated i n these
promises and menaces a s well. The mental disposition a t Schwabisch Hall was
so depressive t h a t we complied with everything the prosecution wanted u s to
do, for we found u s ever in such a psychosis of fear excluding any will of our
own.
I am declaring upon oath t h a t these present statements represent nothing but
the truth and that they were made bare of any urging or duress.
Fully understanding the meaning of a n affidavit intended for submission
to the authorities I am making this affidavit.
( S ) Osxxn TRATT.
(Certified Oskar Tratt's signature.)
Deeds register No. 646/47.
This i s to authenticate the above signature made before me by Mr. Oskar
Tratt, a resident of Wiireburg-Heidingsfeld, F r a u Holle Weg No. 59, identity
established by his identity card No. 322/4760 regarding his registration with the
labor office, Wiirzburg.
( S ) M ~ ~ L L ENot[lrjj
R. Public.
WURZBURG, 3 December 1.947.
[Seal of notary public Miiller.]
[SEAL] -- , Not(~1.vPublic.
WIESBADEN, 24 A ' ~ L ~ /1948.
us~
ANNEX6
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
Gnstav Adolf Sprenger, WCP Landsbe~g/Lech. For snhmiesion- to courts or

other authorities.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Gustav Adolf Sprenger, am making this present affidavit :
On 4-12-1943 I was sent from Zuffenhausen to Schwiibisch Hall. I was kept
there in solitary confinement until my hearings were finishecl. During 10-1-1946
unto about 1.3-246 I was heard by U. S. officers. Nearly every day I was
taken with a black cap pushed over my head by a gnard to a hearing. So I
mas not able to see where t o and where I had to go. Early in January 1946
I made a t Schmabisch Hall a statement upon oath regarding the offensive such
a s I could remember i t then. They did not believe this statement. Because they
did not beliere me they made promises a t later hearings. I was told they wanted
nothing from me and I might go home in 6 months and other things too, which
I cannot all of them remember now. When t h a t did not help I was put before a
summary court and told to keep ready for being hanged any hour. I suffered
these and similar menaces frequently. I mas likewise struck some times by U. S.
guards short before and following the hearings. Comrades of my company
were confronted with me and raised false charges against me. One of the
investigators told me I was to admit everything I was tolcl, a s cpt. Schuhmacher
was my defense counsel and might not be i n a position to defend me should I
not. When these hearings had made me weak and I did no longer know my-
self what I had committed or not I said yes and amen to everything I w a s re-
monstrated with, also of others. All this was subsequently clrawn into a state-
ment by Capt. Schnhmacher and dictated to me by a U. S. soldier. I wrote 4
days on it. I made a s me11 some sketches. Ready made ones were shown to
me. I was not allowed to read the statement prior to signing it. At t h a t time
I was a 0. W., having become 20 y/ears old on 10-2-46. We could not write,
neithpr to our family nor elsewhere during tliat time, a s Schmabisch Hall.
Understanding the meanillg of a n affidavit and t h a t false statements made
in affidavits a r e subject to punishment by the German authorities 'as well a s
hy U. S. Military Government, I am hereby representing and warranting the
:~bove-madestatement in the mere trntg.
LANDSBERG/LECH, 31-1-48. ( S ) GUSTAVBDOLFSPRENGER.
I herewith certify t h a t the above is the trne signature of Gnstav Adolf Sprenger.
( S ) LLOYDA. WILSON,
Captain,, CMP, Pviso?z Dil-ector'.
[SEAL] ( S ) SOMIIER,Notnl-?/ Public.
STUTTGART, 10 Febl"l~c6qt1948.
Certified trne copy made after the original.
[SEAL]
WIESBADEX,
24 August 29-48.
IV. C. 1'.
Willi SchBfer, l,~ll~tlsl)e~'g/Lrcl~,
CEHTIFIED TliUE COPY
Understanding the 111eahillg' of a n affidavit and t h a t false statements made

in an affidavit a r e subject to punishment by the Gerinan and American authori-
ties, I am making this present atlidal-it :
At mid-April of this year I called the fellow accused in the Malmedy case,
Gnstav Adolf Sprenger, to account because of his false staten~entsraised against
me, asking him why he had kept up these charges aud did uot revocate them.
Upon this Sprenger declared that the investigator (Mr. Thon) had made him
clear that he could not revocate this single charge raised against himself arid
Sievers a s well a s against me, because subsequently nobody would believe him
a t all. I11 this case there might be a possibility t h a t Sievers and I might get
rid of the string round our necks, yet he himself would then be lost without any
means of saving him. Yet provided he wonld upheld formally this charge
( 1 9 - 1 2 4 a t Stoumont) his life wonld be sared because in the review instance
the rank-and-file men (enlisted men) wonld be granted a full protection f o r
obeying orders. Sievers and I would not be saved a t all, so he might keep up
this false statement out of a good conscience. Following this he had kept up
the issue Stoumant against himself, Sievers, and me formally in order to save
his life.
This statement is for submission to courts and authorities.
( 9 ) WILLI SCHSFER.
LANDSBERG/LECH, 15 Jut!/ 1945.
I herewith certify that the above is the true signature of Willi Schafer.
Capt., C H P , Prison. Di?wtoi'.
[sE~I -- , ATotnry Public.
24 August 1945.
WIESBADEN,
Gustav Adolf Sprenger, Lanclsberg/'Lech WCP.
Understanding the meaning of a n afiiclavit and t h a t false statement made

in a n affidavit a r e subject to punishment by the German authorities a s well a s
by U. S. Military Government I am stating upon oath a s follows :
I n the course of my hearings a t Schwabisch Hall in 1946 I mas heard about
crossroacls Malmedy. Having told what I had sawn there they took me for a
big lier. I was frequently askecl whether I wouldn't tell the truth, else I would
be hanged. As I ever stuck to my statements I was confronted with colnrades
of my company and with statements made by comrades of my company repre-
senting the contrary of my statement. Some time later I was strnck on a n
hearing by U. S. soldiers, so under duress by Harry Thon and 1st It. Pearl I
finally clid not know myself what I said. In t h a t state I was asked ahont
people whose names I even do not know. Even accusing those people I n-as not
familiar with they terminated my hearing.
Among those fully unknown peogle I accused a n officer I lwetenclecl to ha1.e
seen on 17-1244 a t crossroacls. When H a r r y Thon and 1st It. Pearl asked me
how he w a s called I not able t o give them a name because I did not know
whether there was a n officer with a fair jacket a t all. Harry Thon and Capt.
Schuhmacher told me they mould show me t h a t man ~ ~ e a r i such
n g a jacket. Some
days later I was talcell to another building', t h e hospital, and shown a man lying
in berl and covered unto the chin. I was askecl who this man w a s and said this
was him who wore the jacket. I was so fed up with all those hearings executed
with me. Therefore I said yes a s I did not want to suffer i t all again, tilough
91766-49-64
I exactly knew I had never seen that man prior to this. Some days later pic.
tures were shown to me. I was to recognize that man with t h e jacket which w a s
just impossible for me because I did not think i n the least of keeping t h a t man
I was shown i n my memory. Capt. Schuhmacher subsequently showed me a
man who had lost his left leg unto about 1 0 cm. below the knee. He aslred me
whether I knew t h a t man and I denied. H e told me he was the man wearing t h e
fair jacket and he would show me t h a t man again. When I was again taken
to that building I had t o stop there with a black cap being pushed over my head.
Harry Thon who accompanied me left me for a short while. When he came back
I was lead to a cell door and had to look through a small hole closed with glass,
in the door. I saw two beds one above the other, on the upper bed a man was
sitting who had lost his left leg unto his knee nearly. Then I knew the issue,
answering this was the man wearing the fair jacket in order to get rid of i t all,
for I was fed up with it. Later on I was once more shown that man when he
in the presence of Capt. Schuhmacher gave his rank and name a s a major Josef
Diefenthal. All whnt the investigators Harry Thon, 1st It. Pearl and C a l k
Schuhmacher had got out of me was drafted into a statement by Capt. Schuh-
macher and translated to me by a U. S. soldier (Miiller). I never again saw my
old statement made i n the beginning. A11 I wanted to h u e changed in t h a t
statement made by Capt. Schuhmacher considering nearly nothing of it was
true was mostly changed wholly, vaguely, or not a t all. When I had completed
by my own hand copying that statement drafted by Capt. Schuhmacher I was
not allowed to read i t any more. I t took me 4 days to complete it.
Today I want to state a s already done in France and here to Mr. Thon a s well,
that t h a t statement is almost completely false. Defending me a t Dachau trial I
revocated it. The accusation raised therein against Major Diefenthal i s not a t
all true. I passed t h a t crossroads i n the afternoon between 15 and 16 hours.
( S ) G U S T AADOLF
~ SPRENCER.
This affidavit i s for submission to courts and other authorities.
LANDSBEEG~~ECH,
9-4-48.
( S ) GUSTAV ADOLFSPRENGER.
ANNEX8
[Translation]
I, the undersigned building engineer, Richard Scheler, born on 14-3-1910 a t

Gross-Lichterfelde, residing a t Wehrda 11S, near Marburg, am hereby stating
additionally to my affidavit of G 5 4 7 a s follows.
I n the morning of the second day of the Ardennes offensive, i. e. on 17-12-44 by
9 o'clock a. m., I w a s amazed on meeting the commanding ofTicer of t h e 3rd tank-
engineer company, the SS Sturmfiihrer Sievers and his company master sgt. S S
Oberscherfiihrer Willi Schiifer, by the railroad bridge a t Loosheim. Considering
t h e tank group Peiper the 3rd tank-pioneer company was detached to was to be f a r
i n the enemy's hinterland, according to my knowledge and the tactical order, I
called Sievers to account for what he had to do there without his company.
Sievers reported me t h a t his tank car he used together with his company master
sgt., Schafer, had suffered a break-down. I subsequently draw Sievers' attention
to t h a t a company leader i n such a case had to move into another tank and to
remain with his company. Time had grown later until Sievers and Schafer
finally continued their drive. Viewing t h a t the advance roads were then highly
choked already, both, a s to what I esteem, could have reached their company
but with a n extremely high retardation.
DARMSTADT, 20th June 1947.
( S ) R. SCHELER.
This i s t o authenticate the above-inade signature of Richard Scheler, residing
a t Wehrda near Marburg/Lehn, was done in my presence.
The president of the Main-campcourt.
By proxy : Signature.
DARMSTADT, 20th June 1947.
Stamp: German interment camp Darmstadt, camp self-administration, main
camp court.
QF~TIRMATION OF AN OATH
INSTEAD
I, the undersigned Gerhard Taut, born on 3 November 1921 a t Klein-Heins-
dorf, residing a t (14a) Asperg/Wiirttemberg, IG5nigstrasse 50, SS unit in De-
cember 1944: 3rd Armored Pioneer Company I LSSAH, answer the following
questions instead of a n oath :
Q . ( 1 ) Did you take part in the Eifel offensive?-A. Yes.
Q. ( 2 ) What do you know about a n order.the shooting prisoners?-A. Such
order to shooting prisoners did not exist nor h a s i t been given.
Q. (3) When did you reach the crossroad south of Malmedy-by what: platoon,
and which irregularities did strike you?-A. T h e crossroad was reached by t h e
1st platoon a t the midday hours of the 17 December 1944 about 1 to 2 o'clock.
On the right-hand side a t the nearby camp there were American dead soldiers
lying.
Q. ( 4 ) What did yon know about the following: When did the 2nd platoon of
your company and when Obersturmfuhrer Sievers with Oberscharfiihrer SchBfer
reach the crossroad?-A. The 2ncl platoon may, according to the order of march-
ing, after one hour behind u s have passed the crossroad. Since Obersturmfuhrer
Siere1.s and Oberscllarfiihrer SchBfe? sallied out with their vehicle earlier,
same can have passed the crossroad a t [the evening hours.
Q. ( 5 ) When did you reach Stoumont?-A. I n the morning of the 19 December
1944 abont S to 9 o'clock early.
Q. ( G ) Whicil order giren prior to t h e attack on Stonmont by Oberscharfiihrer
Schafer in respect to prisoners of war?-A. Prisoners of war a r e to be brought
to the Main First Sic1 Post (Hauptverbandsplatz), since there was the first place
of assembly.
Q. ( 7 ) What do you know about the treatment of prisoners who were brought
in by our company a t Stoumont?-A. The prisoners brought i n by the company
were treated decently and correctly.
Q. ( 5 ) From when to v h e n were yon a t L a Gleize?-A. At t h e night from
21 to 22Decelnber 1944 La Gleize was reached from Stoumont. L a Gleize was
left on 22 December 1944 early abont 9 to 10 o'clock i n direction to Bourgemont.
Q. (9) Did yo ulearn anything a t La Gleize concerning shooting of prison-
e1.s:'-A. At La Gleizc I did not learn of any shooting of prisoners.
Q . (10) From when to when were you entrenched in front of Bourgemont?-
A. From 22-12-44 forenoon about 9 to 10 o'cldck up to t h e night of the 23-12-1944
to 2612-44 when the company retired with the fighting troops from the enemy.
Q. (11) Were you a t Stoumont, L a Gleize, and Bourgemont (one kilometer
north of L a Gleize) together with Sievers and Schafer, temporarily or all t h e
time?-In the affirmative c a s e a t what time and where?-A. At Stoumont from
19-12-44 till retiring to La Gleize during t h e night of 21-12 to 22-12-1944. When
defending the school. At L a Gleize during the repose of 21-12 to 22-12-44 spent
lhe night together a t the village house. I n front of Bourgemont from 22-12 u p
to the breaking out of the encompassment.
Q. (12) During your staying together with Sievers and Schgfer, did you make
any perceptions concerning shooting of prisoners, or corresponding orders?-A.
I never could made any perceptions concerning shooting of prisoners or corre-
sponding orders during my staying togther with Sievers and Schafer.
(13) Observations: Our talks a s pioneer company with the armoured group
was f a r too serious and dificult to u s then a s to allow u s t o devote ourselves t o
such actions.
I afXl-m instead of a n oath to have answered all questions to the best of my
knowledge and conscience.
The significance of a n affirmation instead of a n oath is known to me a s well a s
the consequense of a false affirmation instead of a n oath.
Asperg, the 19th of October 1947.
( Signed) GERHARD TAUT.
CERTIFIED TRUE OOPY
I , Paul Eeer, born on 1-4-1921 a t Rheinhausen, a resident thereof, Miihlenweg

20. am hereby representing upon oath :
During the Eiffel offensive from 16 December unto being wounded on 2 1 - I N 4
TI was a me~nberto the 3rd SS armored engineers batl. I LSSAH. My company
leader was SS Obersturmfiihrer Sievers. I was during that action in that Com-
pany platoon. My rank was of a Unterscharfiihrer (sst.). As a member of the
company platoon I w a s i n the SPW (armored. c a r ) of my coiupauy leader li'ra11~
Sievers. During t h a t offensive we were assigned a s an engineers conlpany to
the tank rgt. 1 which shows the platoons were clivicled into armored groups.
Thus every platoon leader was to carry out the duties assigned to him personally.
The company leatler, Sievers, considering the platoons were separatecl for some
km. in the armored group, had no survey of the company, the inore a s our SPW
fell of west of Schleiden a s early a s 16-12-44. Alternating our wireless set w e
could continue our ride but on 17-1244. The road was so chocked up t h a t w e
went on but rather slowly, furthermore we had to interrupt i t some times for
dive bombers. By 18 hours we reachecl crossroads Malinedy. Fighting was sup-
posed to have taken place there, for short of the crossroads a house was still
burning. We did not see any dead persons for d a ~ l m e s shad already set i n about
t h a t time. Short of Engelsdorf and Stavelot we met some tanks of the 2nd
company, reaching Stavelot, i. e., 2 kin. before it the whole of the armored group.
I t was but since then t h a t connection was reestablished with the dir-ided
company.
I n the night of 19-19/12/44 we continued going on in the direction of Stou-
mont, reaching Stounlont on 19-12-44 in the morning, when i t was already taken
by other units of our group. The first duty was to make a search for enemies a t
Stoumont and to guard it, against north with one platoon. The results were
5+60 P. 0. W.'s currently sent back i n the direction of La Gleize. This action
finished P. '0. W.'s were captured but in the night of 20/21-12-44, immediately
marched back by order of company leader Siecers, for Stolnnont urns from
1%12-44 under mortar and artillery fire, which caused my wounding on 21-1244.
I am furthermore declaring I riel-er got a n orcler hy company leader Sievers n o r
learnt of t h a t P. 0. W.'s were to be shot. Nor no I know anything about such
events in the co~npii~iy.I have known my then company leader for a calni and
conscientious man never learning of any tort done by him.
All these statements have been made by me after 34 nlontlis follomina the
events to the best of my knowledge and conscience. I am understanding t h e
meaning of a n affidavit.
RHEINHAUSEN, 15-8-47. ( 8 ) PAULBEEL:.
This is to certify t h e above signature made by his own hand.
[SEAL] F o r the Stadtdirektor (mayor) : signature.
RHEINHAUSEN, 16-8-47.
[SEAL] --- , N o t w y PubTic.

WIESBADEN, 24 August 1948.
1 N o v e n ~ b e v1 9 $ 7 .
DACHAU,
T r a t t , Oslrar, born on 23-12-26. 31 g 2 '728 413.
AFFIDAVIT
Concerning the incidents in the 3x1 con~p./I tank eng. batt,l. within the caclre
of the fighting group of the 1 SS tank dirision, during the courses of the Ardw~n?s
offensive.
Fully understanding the meaning of a n affida\-it intendcd for subinissioli to
authorities and t h a t false statements in such 'are subject to punishment I am
stating upon oath :
Region w h e r e to p+epa?-e for t h e attack in t h e zooo& a t the Rontmz. ?.oad.-
Arriving from the old station a t Satzvey we reached with our company the
wood a t the Roman road i n the night of 14/15-12-44 cninping there. In the night
of 15/16-1244 our coinpany received the orcler for attack. Following this orcler
our company became divided up. The 1 s t platoou with the 1st group where I
was a machine gunner and the 2nd platoon n w e assigned to combat group Peilwr
whereas both the other platoons received special orders ~ i ~ i t hthe i i ~cadre of the
division unknown to me. We were ourselves going on within the cadre of the
1st mixed battl. a t the beginning of the Ardeiines offen~ire. 321,ioi.to h:>ing fil!>d
into the marching column our platoon which liitheito had stayetl a t rest ill the
preparatory region in the Iloinan wood near Blanlrenheini i'ecc,i~-edorder to get
MALMEDY MASSACRE INT~ESTIGATION 1007
son the SPW. Our gronp leader after coming back from a short conference with
tlie platoon commander after his return from a conference held with the company
leader. SS. Oberstnrmfiihrer Sievers, forwarded only t h a t order to us and watched
it. The orders concerning the tactical tasks of our company received on the
conference with the company or pleaton leader were not made known to us.
SS. Oberstnrinfiihrer Sievers neither in the Roman wood nor at a later date during
the Ardennes offensive carried through a company meeting, nor harangued the
company a t any other occasion i n that time. SS Obersturmfiihrer Sievers never
gave any order to shoot P. 0. W.'s nor to treat them contrary to the convention
of Geneva, nor did he make any illusion to preceding to such a treatment.
Fillimg into the marching column of the combat grow,p.-At the beginning of
the march Obersturmfiihrer Sierers met himself a t the head of both platoons,
filing thus into the combat group. Following a short stay behind Blankenheim
t o be referred a s I heard to a bridge blast before the Losheim trench, the SPW
of SS Obersturmfiihrer Sierers shortly after the march was continued fell out.
SS Obersturmfiihrer Sievers remained back with his team for repairing the car.
SS Untersturinfiihrer Seitz, August, leader of the 1st platoon, took from that
d a t e conlmwnd of the company a s its senior officer.
b/cide??tsin t1r.e course of tile Ardewtes offensive.-On 16-1%44 in the erening
t h e 1st platoon received orders to take up nlines between Losheim and Lanzerath
to assurc the steadiness of the march, whereas the 2nd platoon stayed in the file.
Our order esecuted ancl the combat group continuing i t s march we closed up and
filed into the column behind Biillingen ant1 before the se(ronc1 platoon. There
mere 2 or 3 tank companies between the first and second platoon. Passing cross-
roacls south of Malmeclg on 17-12-41 between 13-14 hours t!lere were dead U. S.
s!~lcliers lying on a meadow on the right in the clirection of our march. Our
platoon pmsed the crossroads without any stay, ccntinuing i t s march in the
direction of Starelot by Engelsdorf. On 18-12-44 i n t h e morning SS Obersturm-
fiihrer Sierers joined the company with his team.
Short of Starelot, we filed out in the direction of Wanne within tlie cadre of the
7th tank company f c r a specixl order. These orders were out off on our march
t o Wanue and we returned. Off Stavelot we were stopped by a dive bomber
attack of the enemx's, taking cover for some hours. Late i n the evening of
18-1244 our company passed Stavelot without any stay for the march road of
the combat group reaching the entry of Stonlnont by damn. On 19-12-44 by 9
I~onrs. Stouinout was attacked by the 2nd tank conipany and parts of the 3rd
SPW battl. ancl taken. By 10 o'clock a. m. our conilmly was ordered for search-
ing Stoumont of P. 0. W.'s and, t h a t order executed, to guard against north.
Vighting about Stouluout finished the cal~tureclU. 8. soldiers by orciei. of the
SS Obersturmfiihrrr were marched back to the castle between Stonluont ancl L a
Gleize. I was myself capturing 16 U. S. soldiers a t Stonmont, anlong them a n
officer. At rades \\-l1o took the P. 0. W.'s back to the collecting point. Passing
there that same day I could see the P. 0. W.'s a t the collecting point. At Stoumont
1 was on 22-12-44 assigned to the company gronp. I n the 11ight of 21/22-1244
we received order to retire back to L a G l e i z ~ . After a short rest a t L a Gleize
the 1st and 2nd plat-oon went to Bonrgelnout for protecting La Gleize, coniinanded
by $8 Oberstnrinfiihrer Sievers. The leaders of both the 1 s t and 2nd platoon
were killed in the night of 20/21-12-44. AS I constantly kept close to SS Ober-
t u r x f i i l ~ r e ron his c. 11. for my being a messenger of the company gronp, even
during fighting, I can well depose t h a t Oberstu,rmfiihrer Sievers by no means
made himself guilty of any act against international law. Eesicles a short hour
on 23-12-44 in the afternoon when SS Oberstnrmfiihrer Sievers together with
SS Rttf. Schmarz mas ordered to the commanding officer of the combat gronp:
SS 0bersturinbannf:jhrer Peiper, Sievers ever kept the c. p. a t Bourgemout. Nor
did I ever learn or see any man of the company shooting P. 0. W.'s.
I am mxlring this statement unclerstandiag the importance of niy testimony
coucrming the incidents i n the 3rd tank eng. comp. in the course of the Arclennes
d'fensire; i t i s borne by my will to help the truth going ahead.
( S ) OSKARTRAIT.
Ad(?ress : Wiirzburg-Heidingsfeld, F r a u Hollo U'eg No. 59.
Certified true copy macle after the original.
[ SEAL]
Notary Public.
lllit.sbaden, 2 ', A~qi.s.t1 948.
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
Rudolf Kampfe 3 1 g 5 307 009, CIE 29/Hospital, Camp Dachau
As a former platoon chief in the 3rd tank eng. company, of the 1 s t SS tang
division I am making this affidavit :
I n the niaht of 15/16-12-44 I was ordered to the SPW of mT company leader
SS ~berstucmfiihrerSievers for receiviug of orders, to the Blankenheimer forest.
This conference united all platoon leaders of the company : SS Untersturmfuhrer
Seitz, SS Oberscharfiihrer Trommler, SS Unterscharfiihrer Beutner and myself.
I n the beginninq of t h e conference the order of attack regarding the offensive
was read to us covering about these items :
I. Situation of t h e enemy : Strength, ammunition, and nnits.
11. Our own situation : Divisions to carry on the attack.
111. Description of the ground and the roads where the attack was to be carried
a h ead.
-------
IV. Beginning of the attack.
V. Intended course of the attack: Offensive launched by the Vollrsgrenadier
division, followed by the tank units. Breakthrough. ~ e r s e c n t i o nof the beaten
enemy, no regard of contact with the infantry units. Piercing through to the
Meuse. Cleaning the villages and woods, capturing P. 0. W.'s and things w a s
to be left to the following infantry.
VI. Orders to the single units.
VII. Subordination: 3rd tank eng. company was p u t under t h e orders of
tank re&. 1during the action.
VIII. Organisation of t h e march.
IX. Ways to march : Red, tanks ; Blue, cars.
X. Objects of attack.
Following this general instruction every platoon leader was instructed regard-
ing his own duties, i. e., every platoon leader was informed about to which
tank bttl. or tank company resp. he was subdued regarding engineer duties
and about the place where he had to file in with his own platoon into the
marching column.
An order to shoot P. 0. W.'s and civilians was never issued, nor by a n y
illusions and ambiguous utterances. There was no haranguing the company
neither by SS Obersturmfuhrer Sievers nor by one of his platoon leaders.
On 17-1244 I saw SS Obersturmfuhrer Sievers pass the town of Losheim by
1 0 o'clock a. m., i n his SPW.
I am voluntarily making these statements, declaring upon oath t h a t they
a r e true.
( S ) RUDOLFKXBTPXE.
I herewith certify the above signature of Rudolf Kimpfe.
( S ) Signature, deputy camp commander.
HEILBRONN, 2 1 J u l y 1947.
Certified true copy made after the original. --
WIESBADEN, 24 August 19/18. D e p u t y Notary ~ i b l i o .
-
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
ST. G ~ o n a mI. ATTERGAV,

R:2-1-$5.
The undersigned Josef Pichler, born on 31-10-21 a t St. Georgen, glassmaker,
i s deposing on oath a s follows :
During the Eiffel offensive in December 1944, I was a motor-bycicle messenger
of the company group, 3rd SS tank eng. comp. LAH. I n the beginning of the
offensive on 16-12-44, I was a messenger kept behind the chief car. Near
Schleiden the Chief SPW fell ont for a damage in the steering and I got orders
to get back another SPW from the before going 1st and 2nd platoons filed into
the combat group for eng. tasks, furthermore to stay with the leader of the 1 s t
platoon. At the same time I forwardecl Ustuf. Seitz, the leader of the 1st platoon,
>UaL>lEnV MASSACRR TNVRSTIGATION 1009
order to command the company unto return of t h e substitute chief car. I
ordered a SPW of the group Bode-driver Meyer-back remaining then with
the head. On 17-12-44 between Biillingen.and Thirimonth because of the bad
way conditions I mas unable to go on, staying there together with the damaged
SPW of Geilhofer which came up with me. I n the afternoon by 17 hrs. the chief
car reached us, I loaded the bycicle on the SPW of Geilhofer, continuing my
march i n the chief car. Geilhofer followed the chief SPW unto the solid road
between Weimes and crossroads Weimes-Malmedy-Engelsdorf. At t h a t time t h e
chief SPW's team consisted of the following persons : Obersturmfiihrer Sievers,
commanding officer of the company, Oscha Schafer, company staff sgt., Uscha.
Beer, sgt. for special design, Rottf. Schwarz messenge of the company leader,
Rottf. Pichler, messenger of the staff sgt., Stnrmm, Steets, technical designer,
Rottf. Kohlenberger, signal group leader, Sturmm. Eberding, signal man and
driver Meyer. We passed the crossroads quickly and noticed, while turning to
t h e left out of the direction of Weimes, on the right side a still burning house
ruin. I could not notice any P. 0.W.'s. Darkness h a s already set in and about
19 hours. Same 100 m. south of the crossroad I saw, when passing by, some
abandoned U. S, cars. We passed Engelsdorfin the direction of Stavelot, reaching
the company by midnight of 17-18/12, short of Stavelot. The 18/12 was passed
with trying a turning of the enemy's flank t h e direction of which I cannot
remember today.
Having returned to the point of our d e p a r h r e we went on, passed Stavelot
late i n the evening, reaching Stoumont on 1 S 1 2 4 4 early in t h e morning. By
10 o'clock the company was ordered to make a search of the location, taken i n t h e
meantime, for P. 0 . W.'s. By order of Sievers Schafer ordered the gronp leaders
to march all P. 0.W.'s back to t h e first-aid station, castle of Stoutmont. During
the search of the village, Stontmont was under constant heavy fire by the enemy.
I myself got i n connection with 6 P. 0. W.'s t h a t day. Together with Schlfei I
was jointly with him staying in a grocer's door me had found a shelter against
the enemy's fire, when 2 American soldiers brought a wounded German. The
wounded got a bandage by SDG Rose and w a s mounted on a jeep. Schafer
ordered a man passing by to march t h e P. 0 . W.'s away. Immediately a U. S.
lieutenant appeared who was jointly with the wounded German taken by the
jeep to the first-aid station. A short time later there appeared 2 other Americans
carrying a third wounded American on a stretcher. Schafer asked Sievers
whether to wait for the return of that jeep regarding those 3 P. 0. W.'s. Sie~-ers
ordered those 3 P. 0. W.'s to be marched back to the first-aid station after i t s
return. Schlfer asked the leader of the 2nd platoon : Uscha. (sgt.) Beutner, who
was near, to execute this. Schkfer and I went for finding a c.p. There I observed
Sievers going on in the direction of the church together with a n officer. The c. p.
was established a t a butcher's, later on removed to a children's home. On 19-1244
in the afternoon, a meeting took place a t the children's home with Peiper and
Potschke being present. That meeting lasted for about half a n hour, then
Peiper and Potsd~lrewent ama:.. In the afternoon Sievers did not leave the
children's home. There was hard fighting for that children's home unto our
retiring on 21-1244 i n the evening hours, we having been forced out of the
house yet again taking i t and capturing about 40 P. 0. W.'s among them 3
ofiicers who were marched back, on 20-1244. On 21-12 in t h e evening we
retired from Stoumont, the company group keeping a t the end of the company..
We reached La Gleize by midnight, billeting in a peasant's house. On 22-1244
in the morning by 8 a. m. the rest of the company took up a position before x
group of houses in the road to Bourgeinont abont 1-2 km. west of L a Gleize.
The c . p. was erected in t h e northern one of these houses. Sievers left t h a t
position only on 23/12 for a short while together with his messenger, Schwarz,
in order to get a t Peiper's c. p. the orders concerning the retiring moves. Schlfer
and I did not leare that position before that retiring move. On 23-1244 we
retired from that position, left the encirclement of L a Gleize, returning behind
the German lines. In and abont La Gleize I did not see any P. 0. W.'s. I n my
capacity of Schafer's personal messenger I accompanied him constantly d a y
and night from t h e afternoon of 17-1M4 unto reaching the Germall lines. The
same applies, with the above-mentioned exceptions to company chief Sievers.
During that time I did not observe anything concerning shooting or ill-treatment
of P. 0. Mr.'s or respective orders, open or made in the form of allisions, by
Sievers, Schafer, nor any other person. Concluding this my statement I want
to have you know one thing, i. e., every soldier was inculcated not to under-
estimate the enemy and to treat him a s a soldier a s 13'ell.
I am deposing upon oath that these statements a r e the mere truth, made with-
out any urging or promises.
( s ) JOSEF PICHLER.
Town office of the community of St. Georgen i. Attergan., District of Vijclrla-
bruclr, 0. H.
This i s to certify t h a t above signature of Josef Pichler.
[SEAL] The borgomaster ( S ) Signature.
Certified t r u e copy made after the original.
[SEAL] -- , Notary Public.
WIESBADEN, 24 August 1948.
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY

K a r l Heinz Rose.
AFFIDAVIT
I, Karl Heinz Rose, born on 17-1-1920, a t Bremen, make this affidavit :
I partook i n the Eiffel offensive of December 1944 a s a Unterscharfiihrer (sgt.)
and first-aid man in the 3rd tank eng. comp. I SS tanli division. Afy company
leader was Oberstnrmfiihrer Franz Sievers.
I n the night of 13/14-1244 t h e company removed from Satzvey to the Blanken-
heim Wood. I did not know of a n imminent offensive t h a t time. I learnt this
but in ,the evening hours of 15-12-1944, The company became subdued to the
tank rgt. I for eng. tasks during the action. I n the morning of 16-1244 I was
ordered by my company leader to drive with the 2nd platoon, 3rd tank eng. coln-
pany. I went with the SPW of Sturmlnann Sprenger.
Regarding the action my company leader gave me so f a r information that the
3rd tank eng..company mould accompany the combat group for eng. tasks, divides
up in its platoons. There was a German combat group in U. S. uniforms and
cars going ahead to throw disorcler to the enemys' ranks.
Late in the afternoon we passed Schleiden. After Schleiden I saw the SzlV
of the company leader standing with its team on the right side of the road. l h e
SPW was damaged. It mas only in the morning of 18-12-44 t h a t I saw the com-
pany leader and his team and SPW 2 lrm. short of Stavelot.
We marched then by Losheiin, Lanzerath, Burhholz, and in the morning dawn
through Honsfeld, on 17-1244. After Honsfeld t h e second platoon 3rd tank
eng. comp. stayed for some time. I heard fire from the direction of Honsfeld.
When daylight set in, the S P W s went to cover against airplanes. I never
watched i n or out Honsfeld P. 0. W.'s being shot or even captured.
The 1 s t platoon who was likewise in cover against the bombers, preceded the
2nd platoon in starting about 1 hour before. B y noon the 2nd platoon reached
Buellingen. We stopped a t the entry. The 2nd group, 2nd platoon, captured
20-25 P. 0. W.'s sent back to Honsfeld.
At t h e west exit of Baellingen the SPW's of the 2nd platoon filled up gasoline
a t a gasoline station, had artillery fire and went on i n direction of Thirimont.
Uy 16 hours on 17-12-44 tlle 2nd platoon passed hg the crossroads Engelsclorf-
Malmedy. Having turned off in the direction of Ihgelsdorf I saw right of t h e
road about 50 U. S. soldiers dead on the ground, closedup. The SPW went on
without staying or shooting Gnto short of Engelsdorf.
When darkness set i n the 2nd platoon passed Engelsdorf and reached a t 2 kln.
short of Stavelot in the night of 17-12-44. On lr%1244 I saw there the corn-
pany leacler with his SPW team folloming the panne near Schleiden.
Short before darkness set in the con~pany,commanded by its conlpany leader,
passed Stavelot on 18-1244, passing La Gleize in the night and staying the other
morning, on 19-1244, on the road of Stonmont. .Stnumont was taken by the
tanks and parts of the 3rd SPW-bttl.
By 10 o'clock the 1st and 2nd platoon, 3rd tank eng. com., entered Stoumont
with the order to make a search of the town for 1'. 0. W.'s and to guard against
north. I kept close to the company leacler who talked to the tank ordnanceman,
Mertens. Shortly afterward I saw the company leader l e a w together ~ v i t h
Hauptsturmfiihrer Diefenthal in the direction of the church. The SIJW took
cover. Thc colnpacy messenger established a c. 11. in a butcher's.
The about 50 P. 0. W.'s captured during the search of the town were by order
of the company leader marched back in the direction of La Gleize, inmwdiately.
I cannot remember details of the order and the marching hac!li of the P. 0. W.'s.
On 19-1244 i n the afternoon no P. 0.W.'s were made a t Stoumont. Stoumont
already since 19-1244 in the morning lay under heavy mortar fire. The conl-
pany leader soon arrived a t the new established c. p. Every platoon was ordered
to send a messenger to the c. p. This was Rttf. Hammerer of the 2nd platoon,
who a p a r t from bringing messengers to the 2nd platoon, always stayed with
the c. p. On 1 9 - 1 2 4 i11 the afternoon the c. p. was removed to the castle (chil-
dren's home), in the direction of the station. There Col, Peiper with Sturm-
banufuhrer Poerschke came for a meeting on 19-12-44 in the afternoon. After
the conference Col. Peiper left while the company leader stayed a t the c. p
During the time the comnpar~~ was in action the SPW of the 3rd tank eng. com-
pany were in corer between Stonmont and L a Gleize. The drivers were or-
dered to Beep to their cars. The 2nd platoon took position i n the direction
of the station on 19-12-44 i11 the afternoon.
On 20-12-4-1 the Alnericans nttaclied the position of the 3rd tank eng. com-
pany before the castle (children's home). The 2nd platoon, after his leader
had fallen out, retired into the castle in t h e afternoon of 20-1244. By the
evening the castle was given up yet retalien in the night of 20/21-1244.
On 21-12-44 was the hardest fighting clay. The conlpany defended the castle
where there was fighting about every room, temporarily keeping but the kitchen
as the only room. I n retaliing the castle in the night of 20/21-12-44 40 U. S.
soldiers, among them 3 officers were captured. The P. 0 . W.'s were by order of
the company leader a t once rnarchecl back to La Gleize. Unterscharfiihrer
(sgt.) Beutner was killed on 20-1244 i n the afternoon a s the leader of the 2nd
platoon, the coinnlanding officer of the 1st platoon: Unterstnrmfuhrer August
Seitz, was Billed in the night of 20/21-1244. On 21-1244 in the evening the
c.on:pnnp i w t i r r d fro~rl Stoun~olltto La Gleize. There the company and t h e
cmnpany group s l e l ~ tthe rest of the night in a house. From the afternoon unto
the retiring from Stoumont to La Gleize Obersturmfiihrer Sievers, Staff Sgt.
SchKfer, a s ell a s Itttf. H ~ n i i n e r e rwere taking part in the fighting in the
castle. I n retiring the colnpanq- group ~ v a the s last p a r t of the company.
Neither on the wag f ~ ~ ) Stoniuontui to La Gleize nor a t L a Gleize itself did
I see any P. 0 . W.'s or shot U. S. soldiers. On 22-13-44 in the morning the com-
pany tool: over a guarding position in the direction of Bonrgemont, staying there
unto breaking through the encirclement in the night of 23/24-12-44.
,4t noon of 32-12-44 the messenger, Rttf. Hammerer, IWS wounded. On 28-
1 2 4 4 in the afternoon the company leader left for a short time together with
Rttf. Schwarz for the receiving orders with the commander i n La Gleize.
With t-he 211~1platoon and on Strm. Sprenger's car I passed the towns of
Honsfeld, Buellingen, Thirimont, Crossroads Malmecly, Engelsclorf, Stavelot, La
Gleize, and Stoumont, yet neTer watched any lnan of the 2nd platoon s h o o t i n ~
1'. 0 . \TT.'s. I was myself from 19-12-44 unto brenliing out of the encirclement
in the night of 23-32-44 to 2412-44 together with t h e company leader, staff
sgt., the messengers and other men of the company. I never learnt or heard
(if any order by ni$ coinl?an!. leader, both the platoon leaders nor of any non-
coninlissioner oflicer to shoot T. 0. W.'s. Nor were there any ambiguous orders
01. instrnctions issnetl in in.\' p r ~ s e n c ewhich might infringe with the convention
of Geuera. I learnt the colnpany leader, Obersturmfiihrer Sievers, for a hoi~est
straight soldier who \vas aln-ays morliing for the sake of his company and
never suffered any r r o n g .
I am inaliing this afficlarit voluntarily and assure this upon my oath.
( S ) KARLHEINZROSE.
BI~EMEN.
3 iVol;ei,t be]. .1947.
Ceecls Register No. 414/1047.
This i s to certify t h e abore signatlwe of the painter, Karl Heinz Rose, a resi-
dent of Bre1uen-Obrrne111i111cl. 1111 Holze No. 74. identity established by his
ici~ntityc a ~ dYo. 1GS 342, issuecl bl- the Free Hansestancl of Bremen, 01-iice a t
Oberneulancl-Rock~~~i111rel.
[SEAL] ( 8 ) Dr. ~ ' O R L E I E E - ~ I . T ~ I A ~ ~ ,
lVota?y PubZic.
BREMEN-VEGSESACK, 8 h701:e1?11ie1'1.1197.
Certified true col7y made after the original shown to me.
[SEAL] ( S ) Dr. D'ORI.EL~E-OLTMANN~,
Notaqi Public.
[SEAL] ( S ) Dr. D'OR~.EI~<E-~LTI\~AKNS,
B X E ~ I E N - V ~ c s ~8s iVovs?nbev
ac~, 1497.

I
, A'otcrry P16bTic..
TT'1~snnnen-,2.4 d.rcg1rst 19/18.
iMALMEDY MASSACRE INFJESTIGATION
CERTIFIED TRUE COPY
I, the undersigned Hans Giinther Eberding, mining assistant, born on 2 6 - 6

. 1924 a t Briihl near Cologne, a resident of Briihl, Wilhelmstrasse 10, am hereby
making this afiidavit :
Folr the time of the Ardennes offensive our radio operator group, Rttf. Kohlen-
berger a s . a group leader and I a s a-radio operator, together with a radio SPW
were commanded from the staff company of the SS tank eng. battl. I "LSSAII"
to the 3rd company. SS Obersturmfuhrer Sievers was the commanding officer of'
t h e 3rd company. Because of lack of cars the radio car contained, beyond radio
operators and commanding officer, the whole company group, incl. commanding
officer Obersturmfiihrer Sievers; 2 radio operators, Rttf. Kohlenberger and Strm
Eberding, Staff Sgt. Oscha Sccafer ; messengers Uscha. Beer, Rttf. Schware, Strm.
Steets, and driver. Some weelis prior to t h e offensive we stayed i n the region of
Satzvey to wait. Only when going for a preparatory position into a wood near
Engelsgau in the night of 15/16-12-44 did we learn of the imminent offensive and
t h a t special eng. tasks were assigned to our company within the cadre of t h e
tank rgt. I. Our platoons were divided up to several units, so our company did
no longer exist a s a whole. The platoon leaders were to carry out any orders by
their own. There was but loose connection with the commanding officer, totally
jnterrupted when our SPW fell out for motor damage in the course of the 1612-
44. Eefore another car w a s a t hand and our radio set reinstalled had the night
passed away, when we stajred in a lonely house left of the road Stadtkyll-Lot.:-
heim. On 17/12 in the morning we went on to take up connection with our unit.
Because of choked roads and air raids we went on but very slowly. On 17-1244
in the evening hours we passed by a crossroad near i\lalmedy where me saw still
traces of fighting. No details were recognizable for the darkness. I n the night of
17/13-12-44 we closed up to our combat group, reaching Staoelot i n the evening
hours. The nest day, on 19/12, we entered Stoumont, already talien. There
several P. 0.W.'s were captured and sent back a t once. Because of the follonr-
ing hard fighting all SPW, but the radio SPW, were taken back to L a Gleize.
T h e conlbat group followed in the night of 21/22-1214, taking up a position
back a t L a Gleize. When i t became obrions t h a t our entertaliing mas of no value
we retired from the encirclement a t La Gleize in the night 23/24-1244 a t 2 a. m.
Our own wounded a s well a s those of the enemy remained back a t La Gleize
church.
During all over the combat I never learnt of any case of P. 0.W.'s shot bp any
man of the company. Nor do I know of any order by the company leader, Sievers,
to shoot P. 0 . W.'s, nor were there'intleed an;\- such orders which might 1181-e
remained unknown to me a s n radioman.
Sievers was always lcnown for a gond superior and straight man. I-Ie was a
soldier, and shooting P. 0.W.'s would haye been rejected by him a s a n act which
w a s not a soldier's.
I an1 representing these statements ulmn oath. I know false statements made
i n an affidavit a r e subject to serere punish~uent. Rriihl, 27 November 1947.
( S ) HANSGUNTHER ERERDING.
This i s to certify the above signature.
[Seal and fee st am:^] F o r the registrar's : signature.
BRUHL,DISTRICTOF COLOGITE, 28 N O C C ~ I I , ~1947.
WT
- , , X o t a ~ yPublic.
m T 1 ~ s s ~24 DA ~ ?~ ~, B Z19/18.
CS~
Mr. CIIAMBERS. Who were some of these other German attorneys?

Mr. F'INUCAXE.The two most prominent ones are von Schlabrendorf
and Rudolf Aschenauer. Von Schlabrendorf, inciclentallg, is an anti-
Nazi. Aschenauer represents n n~unberof defendants. Another one
is Dr. Froeschinau, w11o has prepared an analpsis of this case wllich
I believe the coinn~itteeprobably has. We seem.; to be worl<ing with
Leer. I think we have had a letter from Leer.
Here is a communication from a group of eight German lawyers,
statement of German counsel f o r the defense of the war crimes trials
a t Dachau. This was sent to us by Bishop Wurm, not directly from
them.
Senator BALDWIN.Have you a letter from Bishop W u r m ?
Mr. FINUCANE. I have a letter from Bishop Wurm and a letter from
Bishop Neuhausler.
Senator BALDWIN.May we see them 1
Mr'. FINUCANE. Yes, sir. I could save your time by introducing it.
H e is the Roman Catholic Bishop of Munich.
Senator BALDWIN.Do you want to offer this for the record?
Mr. FINUCAKE. Yes, I would like to.
There is a closing paragraph'
there. I think I indicated that I w o ~ ~ likel d
to read it, i n which he
says: '[We make the urgent request to give the defendants the right
of ameal."
1 L
Senator B ~ L D ~ IA11K . right.

- I do not think you need to read it.
It will go in the recorcl.
(Letters from Bishop Wurm and Bishol~Neuhansler were made
.2 Part of the record at chis point.)
S T U ~ A R T - OM. ,a r c l ~2, 1949.
2'0 the Nationnl Co~otcilfor Prevention of War, SYash.in,gton 6, D. $7.
D E ~ RMR. FINUCAYE:N anp thanks for your letter of February 24. The c l i p
.ping from the New Pork Herald Tribune concerning the Gieseking affair h a s
greatly interested me. 1 was ueTy pleased to see how firmly and frankly citizens
.of the United States uttered their opinion on t h a t matter.
Your information that the execntions of another 14 Germans in Lanrlsberg
a r e still in question has surprised me because, a s f a r a s I know, the number of
those who a r e possihly still to be executed, is larger. May I for yonr information
refer to the enclosed memorandum of my referee which bases on intelligence
transmitted to us.
As I am writing to you I should like to add my heartfelt thnnlis for all s o u r
efforts for right and justice. I feel your intervention in t h e discussion of t h e
problem of the w a r crimes trials was a remarkable event.
With best wishes,
I am yours sincerely,
D. WURII, Lnndesbischof.
LETTER FROM BISHOP NEUHAEUSLER
[Translation I
J O H A NNEUHAEUSLEB
N Mnenchen 2, dem 14.1.1949.
WEIHBISCHOE Erzbischoeft. Ordinariat.
Promenacleplatx 2
Telefon 26.53
NATIONALCOUNCILFOR PREVENTION OF
WAR.
1013 16th Street, N W . , Washington 6, D . C .
DEARSIR: Please accept my thanks for your kindness i n sending me your press
release about your application to the Justice Committee of t h e Senate. I am
enclosing a copy of the "hIuenchener Allgemeinen" i n which yonr announcement
was published. I think this is well fitted to show our people how Americans
frankly and sincerely expose mistakes in their own ranks and even advocate
their punishment. Unconditional truth and justice a r e really a means for pre-
vention of war and for that I a m really grateful t o you.
Perhaps i t i s of interest t o you to receive five documents more (enclosed) :
( 1 ) A description of the Malmedy trial.
(2) A copy of the petition made by the Catholic Bishops of Germany a s a unit
to General Clay.
( 3 ) Copy of a statement about the happenings in Oberursel sent t o me which
should be considered seriously.
( 4 ) Copy of my correspondence with Gen. Clay about the removal of the
tombstones from the graves of those executed a t Landsberg.
( 6 ) My opinion.
With t h e assurance of my highest esteem and sincere wishes for your valuable
work in the service of better understanding of the nations of the world.

Respectfully,
( S ) J. NEUELAEUSLEE.
WASHINGTOK, D.C.,Julg 13, 1949.
I, Oskar W. Egger, notary public, in and for the District of Columbia, hereby
certify t h a t this is a t r u e and correct transaction of the original letter.
[SEAL] OSKABW. EQGER,.
Notary Public.
My commission expires September 14, 1953.
During the offeusice in t h e Ardennes i n December 1944 a special operation of

the Panzer fighting group of the S. S. took place a t the crossroads i n the area
of Malmedy-Stavelot-La Gleize where American soldiers of a scouting battery
were killed or taken prisoners.
This purely military event gave rise to certain statements broadcast by radio,
t h e truth of which conld never be ascertained in detail. One of the prisoners
taken by this Panzer group was Major RfcCown, IA, who later escaped.
I n a later official report of t h e Third American Army under General Patton
about the fight i n the Ardennes a description of the e ~ e n at t the crossroads south
of Malmedy i s mentioned. The events i n this report a r e neither judged a s
offenses against the Iaws of war nor is even the suspicion of such a n oEense.
intimated. But on December 20, 1944, the radio station in Calais managed, bs
the propaganda forces of the United States Army, announced t h a t near Rfalmedy
America11 prisoners were shot by the Germans. Details about localities were
not mentioned in the announcement.
The colonel of the Armed S. S., Sepp Dietrich of the First Division LAH, or--
dered a n investigation, which showed t h a t no prisoners mere shot to death.
Until the capitulation of the German Army no international intervention had
taken place conforming to the announcement of the radio station Calais, eithe:
by military or political action, or by military commanding authorities or by the.
American Government or through the Red Cross.
After the capitulation, i n the prison camp of the allied forces, the members of
military groups were selected who had passed the crossroads during the offen-
sive in the Arclennes South of i\falmecIy. These men mere transferred to the
W a r Crinles Comnlission in Schwaebisch Hall. The Commission consisted of
Lt. Col. Ellis a s chairman, his coworkers, Capt. Shoemacher, First Lt. Perl, Ofti-
cia1 Thon (German Emigrant), Official Ellomitz, and Interpreter ICirschbaum
(Emigrant from Vienna). lJntil the end of 1945 abont 1100 members of t h e
unit LAH were presented to this m7ar Crimes Commission; particularly the
youngest people were selected for a special investigation.
I n the middle of April 1946 abont 300 prisoners from Schwaebisch Hall went to.
the fifth trial a t Dachau, 74 of them a s defendants. Among the accused and
later condemned were 32 soldiers who were on the official day of the offense
i n the Ardennes. Twenty-three of them mere under twenty years of age, one of
these was 16 and another 17.
[The methods of the investigation of t h e War Crimes Commission Ehlis a r e
here explained i n detail. The whole investigation lasted ten months. The aim
of the commission was, according to this report, to show proof that during t h e
offemive i n the Ardennes about 900 prisoners and 150 civilians were killed.-
TRANSLATOR'S NOTE.]
The official defense attorney took a n appeal, after co~;riction,to the Supreme
Court of the United States. Through the i n i t i a t i ~ ecf a memher of the Supreme
Court, Robert Jaclrson, this was denied by a 4 4 vote.
General Clay ordered on March 24, 194s the reduction of four death sentences
to acquittal (with release) ;' eight death sentences to life imprisonment; two
death .sentences to inlprisonment for 25 years.
Eight convictious for life imprisonment were clianped to acqnittal (with re-
lease), two convictions for life in~prisonn~ent to 20 gears of imprisonment.
Twelve death sentences were sustained.
The change of death sentences to _acquittals can only mean t h a t the review
h a s found convincing proof in t h e objections of the defense against the judg-
ment.
To the petition of the conference of the bishops a t Fulda for the establishing
of an appeal authority for the defendants i n the Nuremberg and Dachau trials
and f o r the reestablishment of the integrity of American justice, General Clay
has answered t h a t he is not able to do so, since the United States Supreme
Court has not any authority i n such cases. H e also does not believe that a
procedure which has found international approval could be subjected to a ju-
dicial review. Clay stated that the war crime tribunals were cstablished in t h e
interest of Supreme Justice and in the hope of contributing to international
peace and of serving a s a deterrent to future aggressors.
WASHINGTON,D. C., July 13, 1949.
I , Oskar 'CV.Egger, notary public in and for t h e District of Columbia, hereby
certify t h a t this is a true and correct translation of the original.
[SEAL] O S K ~ RW. EGGEB,Notarg Pz~blic.
(Documents 2, 3, 4, and 6 omitted from the record a s having no connection
with the Malmedy cases.)
WAR CRIMESTRIALSBY OBERIZIRCHEXRAT

M E M O U N D U M CONCERNING T H E
DR. WEEBER,
STU~ART
1. The continuation of the w a r i n the courtrooms
Since Germany's surrender Germans a r e being tried for war crimes i n almost
a l l the allied countries. During the past years thousands, perhaps even ten.
thousands of Germans have been held i n prisons and camps or extradited bg
military governments t o the surrounding countries. War crimes trials a r e pend-
ing i n Germany, France, Belgium, Luxemburg, Holland, Yugoslavia, Greece,
Poland, Russia, and Czechoslovakia. It i s especially distressing for us t h a t the
British, for instance, a r e still extraditing Germans to Poland and t h a t a l a w was
passed in France in September 1948 which, in contradiction to generally recog-
nized legal principles, reverses the burden of proof and forces the prisoners to
prove t h a t they a r e not war criminals. I n all these countries the German prison-
e r s have no diplomatic protection whatever ; although military government in
Germany exercises the German sovereign rights on trust it makes no use of these
rights when it is a question of protecting Germans i n a foreign country. And
so these German prisoners i n foreign countries, who a r e almost entirely defense-
less, a r e exposed not only t o a n unusually sexTereadministration of justice, but
also to the hatred resulting from t h e war, to passionate nationalism, and unfortu-
nately also often t o falsehood. Many court proceedings in foreign countries have
been delayed for years. There is no end i n sight to this protracted state of war
which has been transferred from the battlefield to the courtroom. Peace will
never result from these methods. On the contrary it is to be feared that hatred,
passion, strife, and misery will arise anew from such grievous conditions.
2. War crimes trials i n the American zone in Gertnanu
I n Nurnberg the sentence against the members of the Foreign Office in the
Wilhelmstrasse is still pending. It i s to be pronounced in the near future. This
is to be the last trial for w a r crimes before American military courts in Germany.
This fact, however, i n no way solves the problem which'these war crimes trials
have raised i n international law and in politics.
I n the w a r criminal prison No. 1 i n Landsberg there a r e a t present about 770
prisoners whose sentences have for the most part been confirmed by General Cla).
Only a small number i s still waiting for the confirmation of their sentences.
Amongst the latter prisoners a r e 14 men who were sentenced to death i n the
Einsatz gruppen (task group) trial and 3 death sentences from the Pohl trial
both of which took place i n Nurnberg. None of these sentences has been con-
firmed. Furthermore, about 22 men a r e i n Landsberg who were sentenced t o
death i n trials before the military court in Dachau ; 12 of these death sentences
weer pronounced i n the Malmedy trial. This trial and the preliminary examina-
tions conducted for i t have, more than others, given rise to the strongest pro-
tests: the American counsel for the defense, Mr. Willis N. Everett, Jr., 402
Conally Building, Atlanta, Ga., h a s protested particularly against this trial. All
t h e other prisoners i n Landsberg have been sentenced to imprisonment for life
or to other terms. Even though we share with many others the opinion that the
offenses committed during the national socialist regime against members of the
German and of foreign nations on German or on foreign soil must not remain
unexpiated, many people consider all the military court sentences a s very sex-ere.
W e also call attention t o the fact t h a t the punishments inflicted by the military
courts are, a t least in some cases, not normally proportioned to the crimes and
misdemeanors committed. We a r e convinced, furthermore, t h a t ~f a careful and
objective examination of t h e evidence should take place, not a few of the sen-
tences could not be maintained in their preseilt form. This i s especially true of
death sentences which have i n the meantime been executed. There i s reason t o
suspect t h a t judicial murders have been committed in these cases.
3. GriminaZ methods of PI-eliminary investigations
Every man, even the greatest criminal, h a s the right to a fair trial i n which the
facts a r e incontestably ascertained, the reliability of the evidence is examined
a n d the extent of the guilt of each individual i s unquestionably proved. I t must
unfortunately be said t h a t ?the Dachau trials especially have not fulfilled this
condition which is indispensable in a state under the rule of lam.
MALI\SEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 1017
The criminal practices i n the preliminary examinations for the so-called
Malmedy trial a r e widely known. These examinations were conducted in the
prison in Schwabiscli Hall (Wiirttemberg) by American investigating officials.
I11 treatment of the severest nature with blows, beatings, and kicks have been
proved through numerous affidavits given by the men who were personally con-
cerned. In addition to these we have the affidavit of the dentist, Dr. Know, in
Schwabfsch Hall, who was called in for the treatment of men whose teeth had
been knocked out and whose jaws had been broken. The men, who have been
named as the chief tormentors, a r e : Mr. I<irschbanin, Mr. Thonn, and First
Lieutenant Pearl. Mock trials were carried out and death sentences pronounced
accompanied by the blasphemous misuse of the crucifix. The mock trials were
followed by mock executions staged to extort confessions and incriminating
statements.
Justice Van Roden, of Pennsylvania, seems to be well informed about these
practices, a s he was a member of the investigating committee under the chairman-
ship of Justice Simpson which was sent to Miinchen in the summer of 1948 to
investigate the death sentences in the American war crimes trials.
The reports on the occurrences in the American interrogation camp in Oberursel
(Taunus) are appalling. There German prisoners were locked into heat cells
and practically parched. I n addition they were continually maltreated.
From the other internment camps downright sadistic methods of treatment
have also been reported; they reveal to how large a n extent those who worked
here were animated by a spirit of uncontrolled hatred. They show that these
men served not the law, but blind revenge.
4. The defects and irregularities of the procedure
( a ) The trials a t Dachau.-These trials were begun without rules of procedure.
I t was not until later that a few of the basic rights of t h e defendant were estab-
lished. The defendants were not informed, a s they should have been, of their
procedural rights. The law that was applied to them was completely strange
and unknown to the German defendants and their defense counsels. The de-
fendants were unable to prepare their defense. For weeks and months they were
almost completely cut off from the outside world in prisons and camps and during
this time they mere under the great pressure of bad treatment, insufficient food,
and inadequate accommodation. For some time after the armistice there was
neither mail nor railway service in Germany, so that the isolation of the prisoners
was almost complete.
I n many cases the charge sheet was not served on the defendant until a short
time before the court proceedings began, so that it was still rendered practically
impossible for him to prepare his defense. But even if the charge sheets had
b ~ e nserved earlier, this would have been of little use t o the defendant, as ther
did not a s a rule contain a definite description of the deeds with which the
defendant was charged. I n many cases the charge sheet contained only general
phrases. Frequently the defendant did not learn what individual charges had
been made against him until he heard the argumentation of the prosecution during
the trial. Thus the prosecution surprised the defendant with its summary of
evidence during the trial, while the defendant did not have sufficient opportunity
to defend himself a s adequately as may be expected in regular court proceedings.
It has been reported that the reliability of the evidence was not very carefully
investigated. Even in cases of grave charges such as manslaughter, murder and
similar crimes hearsay evidence was admitted and accepted by the court. I n
an article in the Evening Star, Washington, of October 2, 1948, a member of the
American prosecution, Mr. Leon B. Boullada, admitted this to be a grave defect
of the proceedings. As no investigations were made by t h e court, i t was im-
material to the prosecution whether or not a witness was a previously convicted
criminal or had committed prejury. There was also the institution of "pro-
fessional witnesses" who hung around the Dachau camp for weeks ; they were
a t the prosecution's disposal a s incriminating witnesses and a t the same time
they built up a flourishing black market with American cigarettes, etc. Thus,
so the report cqntinues, such sinister figures appeared a s witnesses for the prose-
cution in a s many a s 80 trials.
Untmthfulness, hatred, and inducement to false statements were character-
istic of the procedure which has become Imown as the Dachau stage show. This
was a special manner of confronting prisoners of the camp who were to be
prosecuted, with former inmates of concentration camps. I n the theater of the
camp the prisoners n e r e led onto the stage, strong searchlights, which blinded
them, were turned on them while the witnesses, who had been collected in all
Europe, sat in the darkened house. I n the prisoners on the stage the witnesses
were to recognize their tormentors and to incriminate them. The "shows"
staged by the above-mentioned Mr. Kirschbaum have been designated a s especially
ugly events. Protests have been raised against them even by former concentra-
tion camp inmates. Kirschbaum, who had distinguished himself in Schwabisch
Hall already through his ill treatment of the prisoners, drove a car in the camp
a t Dachau on which the word "rache" (revenge) was written in large letters-
a charactertization of his attitude towards his work.
The prosecution also saw to i t that a s few exonerating statements a s possible
were made. For this reason there was a close connection between the prosecu-
tion and the organizations of those who had been persecuted by the Third Reich.
The members of these organizations were told not to make esonerating state-
ments f o r the defendants.
The military courts in Dachau consisted of soldiers only; each court had only
one legal adviser. The provisions for the defense of the accused were insuffi-
cient. An American official counsel for the defense usually had to represent
whole groups of defendants simultaneously so that it was impossible to treat
each individual case with a s much attention a s is necessary when i t is a ques-
tion of life imprisonment or death sentences. The German lawyers who assisted
the counsel for the defense (lid not have sufficient knowledge of the procedure
which was applied. In addition to this it was said of the' interpreters who
worked in Dachau that some of them a t least were in no way equal to their task.
The prosecution's superior position enabled i t to gain a strong influence on
the choice of what was put in the court records and what was omitted. This is
still of the greatest importance today, as no oral or written reasons were given
for a single one of the Dachau sentences. There are persons, it is said, who have
been convicted, even persons who were sentenced to death and have in the mean-
time been hung, who were able to maintain that they did not know why they had
been sentenced, a s they had refuted all the charges made against them during
the trial. After the sentence had been pronounced, the convicted were not suffi-
ciently informed of the means a t their disposal for appeal against or a revision
of the sentence. I n particular i t was apparently unknown to the convicted that
the worse of the official defense counsels came to a n end when the sentence was
pronounced, and that the counsels were not obliged to protect the interests of
their clients when the sentences were reriewed by the competent authoritiea
in military government. Instead, men who took p a r t in working out the sentence
were permitted to participate in reviewing the sentence. American military
government in Germany has emphasized again and again that, before a sentence
was confirmed, a s many a s eight reriew boards examined i t to determine whether
or not it could be maintained. I n spite of this, however, this review of the sen-
tences must be termed inadequate. It does not provide sufficient guaranty
against the execution of misjudgments. I n making this statement it is not
our intention to give an opinion on the equality of the legal work which the review
boards have done in individual cases. This legal work can be excellent and it
is still possible that misjudgments a r e confirmed. The reason for this is that the
work of the review boards is based solely on the files. Here, however, we
must again call attention to the fact that, due to the manner in which the court
records were made, these records are not an adequate and reliable basis for a
just review of the case. A piece of paper does not reveal whether the witness
h a s committed perjury, whether he is a previously convicted crilninal, or whether
he is unreliable for other reasons. That is the reason why the Christian churches
in Germany requested that a court of appeal be established which would guar-
antee the exclbsion a s f a r a s possible of the above-mentioned sources of error.
(b) The Niirnberg trials.-The ATtlrnberg trials a r e distinguished externally
from the Dachau trials insofar as, due to the Giiring trial and others, the search-
light of world publicity has been turned on them from the very beginning. Such
incredibly grave offenses against elementary legal principles such a s the Dachau
trials reveal were, a s we hear, not committed in Niirnberg. On the contrary the
visitor to the Nurnberg trials gained the impression that these trials were being
conducted in a n absolutely fair manner. But h e for whom this superficial
impression is insufficient and who examines the matter more closely will find
that i t must be said against the conduct of the trials in Niirnberg that the prose-
cution and the defense have not fought with equal weapons. The prosecution
has, on the contrary, been able to secure for itself a position which is undeniably
superior to that of the defendants and their counsels.
The objections which the church raises against the Nurnberg trials, a r e chiefly
concerned with the fact t h a t there the victors a r e sitting i n judgment over the
vanquished a n d that i t occurs to no one to apply the law practiced in Nurnberg
to other war criminals also who a r e neither German nor Japanese citizens. The
Numberg sentences have also lost value through the fact t h a t the Russian
accomplice and assistant i n various capital crimes against peace and humanity
has been permitted to a c t with the western Allies a s legislator, prosecutor, and
judge.
In the preliminary investigations in the Niirnberg trials the investigators did
not shrink from exerting extremely heavy pressure on witnesses and other
persons who were to give information. The arrest of witnesses who mere held
in custody for months a s long a s it was believed t h a t they would be needed to
give testimony, had a similar effect. During the stage of preliminary investi-
gations persons who were later prosecuted were not told whether they were to
make statements a s witnesses or a s defendants. It even occurred that persons
who were later prosecuted were, under the threat of punishment, induced t o make
statements under oath. An especially popular method t o induce statements
%as the threat with extradition to foreign powers, for instance to Poland and
Russia. For this the record of the interrogation on March 6, 1947, of Dr.
Friedrich Gauss, the legal adviser t o the German Foreign Office, by the p r o s e
cutor, Dr. Kempner, is a classic example. After Gauss had given wag t o the
pressure exerted upon him, he no longer had cause to fear t h a t he would be
placed i n the prisoner's dock in the trial against the Foreign Office. On the
contrary, he was permitted instead t o help with sorting out the files f o r the
prosecution i n Dr. Kempner's anteroom.
The standpoints under which the prosecution i n Nurnberg chose those whom
it wished to bring to the dock can only be understood if i t is recognized that
they were based not on legal hut on political grounds. To how large a n extent
political points of riev determined tlie legal practices in Nurnberg has already
become apparent in the concentrated propaganda campaign which the prosecu-
tion, i n order to win public opinion, initiated i n support of its work. Unfortu-
nately i t appeared that in the IMT trial the prosecution had selected a Mr.
G. Ulmann, whom the press had unmasked a s a n international swindler, to
explain the important events i n Siirnberg over the radio to the German people.
It should not cause surprise t h a t his endeavors v e r e not crowiled with much
success.
The difficulties for the defense were considerably aggravated by t h e f a c t that
the prosecution had secnred a monopoly of the historical document material.
The prosecution was i n a position to determine what p a r t of t h e material it
wished to use for its own purposes. The defense was permitted only restricted
access to this material. Furthermore the defense had practically no possibility
to bring witnesses and other evidence from foreign countries to the trials a t
Nurnberg. With two exceptions American lawyers were not admitted a s counsels
for the defense in Niirnberg.
The Nurnberg trials with their extensive material were under the constant
pressure of having too little time; naturally this was greatly to the detriment
of the thoroughness with which t h e defense should have been prepared and
carried out after the charges had been preferred. I n order to save time the
Niirnberg courts even went so f a r a s to drop the principle of the necessity to .give
evidence before the court and simply collected evidence indirectly through judges
appointed for this task (commissioners).
I n contrast to the Dachau trials the prosecution i n Nurnberg made use of
more refined methods, which, however, were not less effective, in order to attain
its goal. I t would have been of decisive importance, if the impression had been
avoided in Dachau a s well a s in Niirnberg that the right of the victor was being
Practiced-a hope which seems quite justifiable in both cases, but was fulfilled
in neither. I t would have been of decisive importance t o show the German
People and t h e world that here international-that is, generally binding-inter-
national law was being applied. Although there was a great deal of talk about
this, no convincing proofs were given. It would have been of decisive importance,
if the historical truth had been searched for with genuine objectivity and not
with a semblance of objectivity. The ascertainment of historical truth should
not have been left f o r the most part to the polemical rhetoric of a prosecution
whose attitude is one-sided and who is much concerned with the preservation of
Its own superiority. Unfortunately many of the sentences from the Niirnberg
trials read like political pamphlets.
91765-49--45
1020 MALMEDY MASSACRE INT7ESTIGATIOIZ:
5. Suggestio7ts for the relief of these critical legal ciractnstalzces

These critical legal circumstances a r e characterized by the fact that, as Bishop
D. Wurm wrote to General Clay on November lS, 1948, "the gallows and grares
in Landsberg will do nothing toward creating a memory of fair jurisdiction and
of justice. I n consideration of the inadequacies and mistakes in the jurisdiction
At Dachau those sentences which justly punished genuine crimes must unfor-
tunately also be subject to doubt. Instead of giving the German people an
example of court proceedings whose integrity cannot be questioned, the manner in
which the Dachau trials have been carried out has confused rather than strength-
ened their sense of right and justice."
For the relief of these critical circumstances the church has asked again and
again that a court of appeal be established. No convincing reasons have a s yet
been given why a court of appeal should not be established for these trials which
involve the life and death of human beings and in many cases extremely complex
facts and circumstances, while on the other hand for insignificant property dis-
putes and other unimportant lawsuits courts of appeal a r e conceded without fur-
ther difficulties. I t is quite understandable that a desire has arisen to bring the
war-crimes trials to a conclusion a t last and that there is no great inclination
to begin all these trials all over again with a renewed collection of evidence. But
it must be made clear that all the mistakes that have been made in these trials
so f a r are felt to be injustices and continue to act a s such. I t is necessary in
Germany to reestablish in the minds of the people the inviolability of the admin-
istration of justice. But this will not be possible a s long a s the accusations
mentioned above can be made against the war-crimes trials. If retrials cannot
be held in all cases, i t should a t least be possible in the interests of the reestab-
lishment of offended justice to establish a completely independent committee
of judges for the examination of a t least those cases t o which justified objections
have been raised. This committee should be charged with the following tasks :
( a ) To hear the convicted and their defense counsels.
( b ) To permit the convicted or their counsels to examine the files ; that is, not
only the court records, but also the review files which have until now been kept
strictly secret.
( c ) To examine anew the reliability of the evidence on which the sentence
was based.
( d ) To give reasons for the final decision arrived at.
I n contrast to the Simpson committee this committee of judges should have
the authority to make decisions. If only reports which a r e not binding a r e made
by the committee, i t would not be worth the effort and the expense. Nor should
the committee be pressed for time. The SimpsoQ committee, for example, only
had a few weeks' time in the summer of 1948 to examine numerous death sen-
tences. I t is impossible to carry out a thorough examination of the cases from
all sides in so short a time.
Since the United Nations have to date not been able to make use of the Xiirn-
berg trials for the creation of a new international criminal law, the suggestion
to establish this committee within the organization of the UN must unfortunately
be considered a mere illusion. It seems to me, however, to be worth considering
whetber the United States should not appoint neutral jurists to serve on this
committee in case it should be established. Thus an important precedent would
be created in international law which would be well adapted not only to prove
the victor's objectivity but also to establish the belief that international law and
not the law of the victor is to be applied. It would perhaps also combat in the
future the opinion that it is a self-understood part of international relations that
the vanquished enemy must be judged by the victor alone.
6. The question of mercy
In conclusion we mas- call attention to the fact that all jurisdiction, even the
jurisdiction oyer war criminals. finds its highest expression not only in pro-
nouncing sentences, in hanging and ilnprisoning the criminals, but also in show-
ing mercy in suitable cases. I t is uot pomble for us to judge from here whether
the psychological s~tnationin the countries in cpestio~iwill already permit a
public represmtation cf this idea. Amongst Christians this q n ~ s t i o nwould pre-
sent no problen~s. Bnt unfcrtnnately i t is a strange fact that, although the
nwstern world wislles to be Christian, its politicians do not dare to act accortl-
ing to Christian gliuciples ill public.
STUTTGART, Febw6at.y 26, 19/,9.
Mr. FINUCANI~. They think something more tha!l a review based
-
on. present records is required, that the Germans should have a new
trial.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,you have the letters from the lawyers?
Mr. FINUCANE. This is one letter from<the lawyers, signed by six
of them. It came to us from Bishop Wurm. I do not believe I have
any letters with me that came to us directly from the lawyers. The
correspondence is bulky.
Mr. CHAMEERS. Are they available at this time?
Mr. FINUCANE.
Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
they in yonr office now ?
Are
Mr. FINUC~~NE.
Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would like to ask; Have these various letters and
correspondence been trans~iiittedto other members of the Senate for
their use in connection with this case?
Mr. FINUCANE.Some of them have ;yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was that at the request of the Senators or did you
instigate that yourself?
Mr. FINUCANE. Both ways. I say mutual.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I notice also that you said yesterday you had cor-
respondence with the German prisoners.
Mr. CHAMBERS. 7TTliat German prisoners have you been in contact
with '?
Mr. FTNUCANR. I tllouglit SOU might ask that qnestion. I have
brou&t EL letter here from t h ~ e eof the hlalmedy men. Their ila~nes
are Rmemer, Grahle, and Fischer. I mas surprised that they were
able to write. They sag, "VTe are n o ~ vnearly 4 years behind barbed
wire, behind the bars of the jail."
Mr. CHAMBERS. Could you read that for the record?
Rfr. FINUCANE.
Yes.
Senator WATKINS.Make it is quickly as you can because we have
some other witnesses.
Mr. FINUCANE. It is from Fritz Kraemer, Hans Gruhle, Arndt
Fischer, W a r Crimes Prison, W a r Crimes Jail, Landsberg, Germany,
clatad April 27, 1949, and addressed to the National Council for Pre-
vention of MTar, Executive Secretaq Mr. Frederick J. Libby, 1013-
18th Street,'NW, Washington 6, D. C.
DEARSLR:AS accused in the Malmedy case, please permlt u s to send you en-
closed three copies of the petitions tor rerirn- of Frltz Krnemer, Hans Gruhle, and
Arndt D'ischer. The originals have been forwarded i n June 19-18 to the Com-
mander in Chief of the Armed Forces of United States i n Germany, but up t a
this date we were not informed about any decisions based npon these petitions
Now, these petitions shall show to you t h a t we a r e entirely innocent, t h a t
we never committed any of the crimes raised against us, and that we never
participated in crimes raised against others. We have never drafted or trans-
mitted orders v~olatingthe lams of war. As being staff offiers we also h a r e
had no disciplinary power.
We are lruowing your endeavor to remove injustice, and we hope to God
that i t will succeed to restore our honor and freedom. We a r e now nearly
4 years behind barbed wire or behind the walls of the jail
Now we got acknowledge too t h a t a commission-War Crimes Board of Rr-
view and Recommendations-at February 4, 1948, reviewed the Malmecly case
and concerning to Fritz IZraemer the following recommendations were found:
"That the finding and the sentence be disapproved."
Concerning to Hans Grnhle and Arndt Fischer we didn't get such rwom-
mendations in time, so t h a t we a r e not able to show you it.
1022 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATTQX
I n spite of such recommendations General Lucius D. C@y co~~iimed o>nMarch

20, 1948, the sentences. We don't know what we can do f m t h e m o ~ .
Please would you be so kind to give our best regards to our most honor-
able counsel, Col. Willis M. Everett. H e is one of our fairest and unfrightened
helpers in this f a t e and day for day we beg God to help him in his efforts.
Our families and we, we a r e thinking of him a11 the time in deep g ~ a t i t u d e
for his hard fight against injustice.
Please inform Col. Willis M. Everett that the conclusions of W a r Crimes
Board of Review and Recommendations of F e b r m r y 4, 1948, are in a s p e a a l
envelope in Heidelberg 1, Germany, War Crimes Branch, because we don't know
i f these important decisions a r e known to him.
With our best regards, respectfully yours-
and then signed by Fritz Kraemer, Hans Gruhle, and Am& Fischer,
and it bears the stamp of the prison censor.
Senator BALDWIN.Colonel Chambers has checked these names.
For the benefit of the record, he states h a t none of these defendants
here make any claim in any affidavits of any physical abuse 01 any
kind.
Mr. FINUCANE. I did not know that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This

answer that you gave yesterday, Mr. Finucane,
was in response to a question as to how you knew about these brutalities
of your own knowledge and what investigations you had conducted I
Mr. FINUCXNE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. ISthis the only correspondence that yon have had
with prisoners ?
Mr. FINUCANE.We have had correspondence-I could not answer
that question without looking a t the record, without looking at our
files, because some of the things come in German, and I do not even
know who writes them. I cannot read German and nobody in o w
office can read it except Mr. Libby, and he does not read it well.
Mr. CHAMBERS. ISi t a safe statement to make then that insofar as
your own individual investigation which corroborated the belief,
hypothesis, that you had built up that our investigative staff had
committed these atrocities, that insofar as the German prisoners are
concerned they are confined to three letters in which they do not allege
brutalities, and in which those particular three prisoners did not pnt
in affidavits alleging brutality ?
Mr. FINUCANE. As I say, there is a considerable bit of correspond-
ence. Some of it alleges brutality. I n some cases i t comes from a
sister, or "I am so and SO'S wife and I am writing for him,'? and there
are descriptions of what has taken place.
I think this is the letter, from these three prisoners, which struclr
me most, because just within the last week or so we have been getting
mail with the stamp of the prison censor.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What is the date of that letter?
Mr. FINUCANE. It is right there. I was impressed by the fact that
they let these people write out, in view of the----
Senator BALDWIN. What particularly impressed you about that?
Mr. FINUCANE. I n view of all the stories about the difficult condi-
tions under which they are living, the fact that they do not have or
have not had more entertainment, such things as even being allowed
to take a walk in the courtyard.
As you know from Leer's affidavits, they claim that they were not
permitted to have any exercise for a number of months.
Senator BALDWIN.These particular men do not say that, do they ?
MALMEDP MASS.~CHE INVESTIGATION 1023
Mr. FINUCANE. NO;they do not. As I say, there are some others-
Seantor BALDWIN.I n other words, the American authorities over
there, the military authorities, are permitting these prisoners to carry
on correspondence under censorship, to be sure,, with a private organi-
zation in the United States, and which is promoting this program of
retrial, and so forth, for them
Mr. FINUCANE. There is the evidence. I think you have inter-
preted i t correctly.
Senator BALDWIN.DOyou think there are many other countries in
the world where that would be permitted?
Mr. FINUCANE. I think there are quite a few other countries; yes
I think they should have done it from the start.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The only statement that I would like to make-and
correct me if I make a wrong statement-yesterday, in telling us what
investigations you had made and which supported the conclusions
that yon had, first your press release and later the article in the Pro-
gressive, the only investigation that you had conducted which affected
you consisted of these three letters. A t least yesterday you told us
that you had corresponded with German prisoners and you had cor-
responded with General Clay; you had corresponded with German
attorneys, and that you had corresponded with these two bishops.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SOthe evldence from those sources, plus Van Ro-
den's statement and the Everett petition, is what you based your con-
clusion on ?
Mr. FINUCANE. NO. I had formed my hypothesis before a lot of the
material you mentioned came in.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is the point I would like to get.
On what did
you form your hypothesis ?
Mr. FINUCANE.
I f I could cite parallel-
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would like for you to answer me, if you can. On
what did you form your hypothesis?
Mr. FINUCANE.
We had the statement from two respected judges:
the Van Roden and Simpson report, which alleged serious miscar-
riage of justice.
Mr. FINUCANE.
Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
you are referring to that, their report is vary
Since
brief, only five or six paragraphs long as you know.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOU

say it alleges very serious miscarriage of jns-
tice at the Dachau trials. We are talking about the Malmedy trials.
That is what your press release was written about.
The Simpson-Van Roden commission, I believe, looked into the
sentence cases, of which only 12 of them were Malmedy. They, in
their report, apparently in your minds, made such serious and sweep-
in charges as to establish this hypothesis.
hr. FINUCANE. That is right.
Mr. C H . ~ I E E RWould
~ .
YOU mind telling 111ewhat i t is ?
Mr. FINDCANE. 1 can tell you witl~outgoing off that page. They
recommend a clemency program for over a thousand Germans. There
must have been something wrong with that whole system if they
recommend a clemency program for a tliousacd. They recoinmend
1024 MALMEDY MASSACRE 1SVES'l'IGA'~IOX
comn~utationfor 29 Germans, of their death sentences, when they

started out with 43 death sentences. There were 43 sentences orig-
inally adjndged in the Malmedy case, I unclerstand.
Mr. FINUCANE. There were 29 of them still to be exscuted-none of
them had been executed. But Van Roclen and Simpson recommended
that the 29 death sentences, in all, be commutecl.
Mr. CHAMBERS. All Malmedy cases?
Mr. FINUCANE. NO. Not DSaln~edy. The mathematics of this, X
understand, overlap in other categories.
Mr. CHA~~BERS. Isn't i t a fact that the review boards that had already
passed on this, before Simpson and Van Roclen had gone over, h ~ d
reduced the 43 down to 29 1
Mr. FINUCANE. That is right. And they had since been reduced to
12, which I think is a red arrow pointing to the injustice that must
have taken place.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is one may of interpreting it. Another wav
is perhaps a conlplete leaning over backwarcl in the matter.
Mr. FINUCANE. That is another interpretation, I will admit that.
And I am glad to see that the review boards have done that, when
they thonght it was right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It was the Simpson-Van Roden report, then, which
formed this hypothesis on which you based the statement that Ameri-
can investigators had committed such atrocities in the name of Arner-
ican justice, ancl that they should be prosecuted?
Mr. FINTJCANE. That was one of the items; that is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. We
went over all that yesterday in the record, and
it is pretty clear. I have no further questions on that point.
Senator BALDWIN. Would you modify that statement now, or do you
still think that is so?
Mr. FINUCAPITE. What statement. Senator?
Senator BALDWIN.The one the colonel just asked about.
Mr. FINUCANE.
Could you repeat i t for me.
Senator BALDWIN.I n substance, based on the Van Roden-Simpson
report, and Van Roden's speech, that yon formed a hypothesis that
American investigators had committed such atrocities in the name of
American justice, and that they should be prosecuted.
Mr. FINUCANE. That was the first substantial thing that we had
to go on. However, it was common lrnowledge, and still is common
knowledge in this country-and that type of evidence has been ac-
cepted a t those trials-that there was sometliing funny about the whole
adn~inistrationof military justice, as it applied to the Germans since
the end of the mar.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I interrupt? You say it is common knowl-
edge and there was something funny about it?
Mr. CHAMBERS. What is that common knowledge? Where does it
stem from ?
Mr. FINUCANE. There have been reviews written in legal journals in
this country criticizing the set-np of the military justice program
since the end of the war.
Mr. FINUCANE.
Certainly.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There have also been articles written in other maga-
zines which have criticized in most violent terms the same thing.
Are these all in the same category? Are they cut from the same
cloth ?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes. There have been articles on both sides of the
subject. I s that what you are saying?
Mr. CHAMBERS. No. YOUare quoting as authority for your state-
ment that it mas common knowleclge in this country that there was
something fnnny about the prosecution of the German prisoners under
the mar-trial program ?
Mr. CHA~CBERS.
Xow, I am asking this question of you: There have
beell other articles written, in apparently reputable magazines, which
make far-reaching charges; but, when you begin to analyze them, you
find that the article credited to the judge from Pennsylvania was
written by an employee from the Society for the Prevention of War-
Mr. FINUCANE. With his information.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I understand that. Where does this conunon knowl-
edge come from 1 I s it all cut from the same cloth?
Mr. FINUCANE. No.
This has been since the end of the war.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
article, I belipe, was written in December
This
1948, which was some 3 years after the end of the war in Europe.
illr. FINUCANE. That is right. That is not the first article thar;
criticized the conduct of the war-crimes trials.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I understand that. The only point that I am trying
to get at is that you made the statement that i t was common knowledge
in this country that there was something funny about the way they
conducted these war crimes?
Mr. FINUCANE. That is right,
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am trying to find what you predicate that on.
One thing you have said is that there have been articles written in
legal magazines. I was just wondering the source of those articles
because, frankly-and in all honesty I will say this-when I first read
in the Congressional Record this story, which I believe has been t o a
marked degree repudiated by Judge Van Roden, was so repugnant to
everything that I thought was decent, and the people in this office
could probably tell you what I said about it.
Mr. FINUCANE. What did you say 1
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am afraid it should not go in the record, but
simply if those things had been done, in accordance with the way that
article was twitten, nothing, in my opinion, would have been too
strong to punish the people who did it. That was my first reaction. I
think that since that has been published, since it has gone in the
Congressional Record, since on December 18 the National Council
for the Prevention of War released it to the press, that you might
just as easily say that it was common knowledge in America pointing
to these things as evidence.
I would like to know your basis of common knowledge of something
that was funny with the war crimes in Germany, because Colonel
Dwinell, in whom you seem to have considerable confidence, and
others-in fact, Mr. Strong on the stand testified that the only cases
where there had been any difficulty, to his knowledge, with war crimes
were the Malmedy cases. I believe if you will check the record, you
will find my memory is correct,on that.
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes, sir. I think if you will check the record that
you will find that many of the witnesses said it was common knowledge,
or talk, about certain investigators, like Perl, and yet they had diffi-
culty in pinning i t down. It is common kno~vledgethat there is a
place called China. I have never been there, but I have reliable re-
ports on it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think that the existence of China has been estab-
lished over a rather long period of time by many sources of information.
Now, when yon get down to something like this, you have a little
more difficulty in really judging what is common knowledge. Here
is all I am getting at, and you and I know it, too: I had not heard;
and goodness knows for the last 6 weeks, I suspect primarily because
of this catalytic act that you referred to yesterday, that you prepared,
I have been getting into these war crimes matters.
This is not a question of, my opinion against yours, but so many
people have told us, and on the stand so many people that you have
relied upon have told us, that it was only in the Malmedy trials that
there were any particular charges of duress or mistreatment or things
of that kind. 1 would be willlng to concede that you are bound to
have complaints from anybody who was ever convicted under any
system of government or team of courts. But this common knowledge
you speak of is a pretty broad statement.
Mr. FINUCANE. I think that is one of the beauties of this investiga-
tion ;because. if this hearing discovers that there is one rotten apple,
then you can be justified in forming an opinion about the other apples
in the barrel.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUmean if this particular case, the Malmedy case,
if we find that that in itself is a rotten apple, that we should judge
all the other-
Mr. FINUCANE. YOUcan look a little farther.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n
other words, because one black cat kills chickens,
all black cats should get killed?
Mr. FINUCANE. J u s t be suspicious.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUhave given us this letter, a statement, signed
by the German defense counsel for the accused?
Senator BALDWIN. When you got this, was it in English?
Mr. FINUCANE.
It was in English.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, this is k a c t l y in. the form in
which you got i t ?
Mr. FINUCANE. That is the original.
- It has the stamp of the bishop
on the back.
Senator BALDWIN. I think for the benefit of the record we might
insert this one paragraph, so it will be brought to the special attention
of the committee :
The undersigned have ascertained, in short, the following essential defects
of the proceedings a t Dachau : certain irregularities in the preliminary investi-
gations ; use of ddubtful witnesses by the prosecution : failure to reexamine the
credibility of state men;^ made by challenged witnesses; acceptance of hearsay
evidence; discrimination against the defense and to the advantage of the prose-
cution in procuring eviclence; restrictions imposed on the defense from time to
time; appointment of nonprofessional judges to the court; failure to give any
reasons whatever for the sentence.
Then it goes on to say: "These defects have in some cases led to
decisions through which the accused has suffered injustice."
Have you any other letters from the counsel, other than this?
Mr. FINUCANE. Any other letters from the bishop?
Senator BALDWIN.NO; from the defense counsel?
Mr. FINUCANE. NO. We have a number of statements from them.
Senator BAWWIN.I notice that this statement does not allege any
physical abuse or violence or withholding of ration tickets or any-
thing of that particular kind. I wondered if you had anything from
the defense counsel that make those allegations?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes. Dr. Aschenauer sent us a number of state-
ments from the defendants.
Senator BALDWIN. I am talking about the defense counsel. It seems
to me that if the charges alleged here were of consequence in this thing,
or had foundation, that the defense counsel for these men would have
mentioned it specifically. I n other words, they would have said
that the confessions were obtained under duress or by force and vio-
lence and trickery and so forth.
Mr. FINUCANE. I think if they had made a complete statement they
would have included the brutalities.
Senator BALDWIN.You think that?
Mr. FINUCANE. If they had made a complete statement.
Senator BAIDWIN.But they did not?
Mr. FINUCANE.
I think in that particular document they were al-
luding to the technical defects.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Judge Simpson testified that Bishop Wurm and
this other bishop testified before-you remember that?
Mr. FINUOANE. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. A t
that time, Judge Simpson testified that both
these gentlemen approached him, not from the standpoint of alleged
brutahties, but from the whole philosophy of war crimes then~selves.
That was their main approach. And at no time did they allege bru-
talities of the nature which we have discussed here. I s my memory
substantially correct on that ?
Mr. FINUCANE. I do not have sufficient grounds to differ with you.
I think that was about it, yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SOapparently of those t v o churchmen, one has
bken in touch with us by wire, and I think it is not in the record, and
have raised repeated questions-
Mr. PINUCANE.The bishops ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes [continuing]. About this matter of mar
crimes and keeping people in prison for long periods of time, and
things of that type.
Of course, we have only had the one thing from them. But in that
they certainly did not bring up these charges of brutality. I n these
letters to vou, they do not bring it up.
With the Chair's permission, I believe I can promptly locate this
statement of Judge Simpson.
Mr. FINUCANE. I f I could make a comment about that: Both Van
Roden and Simpson were rather vague in their memories as to what
they said.
Senator BALDWIN.That is your understanding of it ?
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes, that is my understanding. They interviewed
one-hundred-some witnesses.
Senator BALDWIN.If you have any more statements from these at-
torneys that make any allegations, we would like very much to have
them.
Mr. FINUCANE.I will bring them up with me the next time I come up.
Senator BALDWIN.DOyou have anything further ?
Mr. FINUCANE. Could I give the committee the name of a witness
whom the committee may be interested i n ? It is John V. Case, 1101
Massachusetts Avenue. H e has some material.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have talked to Mr. Case. H e is present. I did
not realize you were appearing as a possible witness. Mr. Finucane
has mentioned the fact that you have some evidence that may be of
interest to us. Do you care to make a statement in connection with
the Malmedy trials.
Mr. FINUCANE. Could I say that Mr. Case does not represent the
National Council, that we are separate parties in this?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, surely.
Mr. CASE.The statement that I have in mind might not be relevant
here.
Senator BALDWIN. It does not pertain to the Malmedy cases ?
Mr. CASE.It does pertain to the war crimes a t Dachau, and the con-
duct of the United States investigators, violating the faith and their
office in working hand and glove with the Nazi prisoners who had
committed brutal murders; cases where one investigator for war
crimes manufactured statements and alibis for one criminal, and
sent-
Senator BALDWIN.That has nothing to do with the Malmedy investi-.
gation, as such. I think that is a matter we ought to consider at
another time.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I might say that Mr. Case has approached me on
the matter which he is discussinz here. I understood from Mr.
Pinucane's remark that possibly h g had some light to throw on this
Malmedy proposition; and if you haven't I would agree, sir. This
other matter he has is a most pressing thing, but has nothing to do
with this articular case.
Mr. C A ~ E . I thought perhaps this committee would widen its scope
of inquiry to include it.
Senator BALDWIN.We have not the authority to do that yet. Mr.
Case, I am glad you came up and made yourself known.
Mr. CASE.Thank you, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Mr. Lary?
(Whereupon, the witness, Virgil T. Lary, was sworn by Senator
Baldwin.)
TESTINIONY OF VIRGIL T. LARY, JR., CARACAS, VENEZUELA
Senator BALDWIN.Give us your full name and address.
Mr. LARY. Virgil T. Lary, Jr., a t the present time from Caracas,
Venezuela.
Senator BALDWIN.For whom do you work there?
Mr. LARY. The Texas Petroleum Co.
Senntor I ~ A L D ~ IHow
N . long have you been domn there?
Mr. LARY. About 4 months.

Senator BALDWIN. And you came up at the request of this commit- .
tee to testify?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. I believe you wrote a letter to Senator McCarthy ?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir, and to you also, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.And sent me a copy of it?
Mr. LARY. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.We have that letter in the record?
Mr. CHAMBERS. The letter is in the record, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.
I think the thing that we wanted particularly
to ask you, Lieutenant, was a statement as to the testimony of Judge
Van Roden, concerning some lietztenant whom he described as coming
illto a command post and making some statements with reference t o
the Malmedy thing. Have you got a prepared statement?
Mr. LARY. I n conclusion only.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would like for the purpose of identification t o
see if we can tie you in with this statement made by Judge Van Roden.
I believe yon are a survivor of the so-called Malmedy massacre, is
that correct?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were there other officer survivors of the massacre?
Mr. LARY.To my knowledge there were no other officer survivors.
&Ir. CHAMBERS. After the escape from the massacre-and we will
give you ample opportunity to tell us about it at a later time-did
you report in to any American authorities where you were inter-
r o ~ a t e d and
. eive vour storv?
~ rI .~ Y . iir.
yes,
Mr. CHAMBERS. DOyou remember Judge Van Roden being present?
Mr. LARY.Sir, I reported to Malmedy when I finally got back. I
got into a combat engineer aid station. The field hospital in Malmedy
had been evacnated and there was nothing left but this combat engi-
neer aid station. At the time, I was interrogated by a lieutenant
colonel. who was their battalion commander i5I recan correctly. I
gave h&n the story of what had happened at the time.
I do not know ~ h Judge o Van Roden is, and I do not even think that
I could recognize the gentleman, if he was in uniform a t the time.
Senator BALDWIN.Were you in the group that was a t the Malmedy
crossroads ?
Senator BALDWIN.YOUwere in the group that came to the cross-
roads and then the German fire put you down?
Mr. LARY.That is correct, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Then later some prisoners were rounded up-
I am speaking of it from what we heard from other witnesses-and
marched you out into a field? Were you in that particular group?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were you a second lieutenant or first lieutenant?
Mr. LARY.First lieut,enant.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was this lieutenant colonel that you reported to
with the Fifth Armored Division, or do you know?
Mr. LARY.I do not h o w , sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUhave said he was a battalion commander.
Mr. LARY.It is my understanding he was the battalion commander
for this combat engineer detachment.
1030 M A ~ M E D Y MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Mr. CHAMBERS. Perhaps we should allow him to tell his story now,
sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Yes. That would be better. Suppose you tell
us your story and tell us what you reported to this colonel that you
described.
Mr. LARY.DO YOU want the full details of the inassacre and the
manner in which i t occurred? The reason I ask you. the only informa-
tion I have been able to get in Caracas is from the newspaper re-
ports.
It seems to me that through some of these reports some people even
today feel that the massacre did not occur, that they have some doubts
that the massacre occurred. I just wonder whether you want nie to
go to the beginning ?
Senator BALDTVIX. I think, since you are all the may here from
Venezuela, maybe you had better go ahead so we will have it in the
record in the event we need it. You go ahead and describe it to us.
Mr. LARY.On December 17, 1914, Battery B of the Two Hundred
Eighty-fifth Field Artillery Observation Battalion was stationed in
the Hurtgen Forest in Germany. On the night of the 16th we
received orders from First Army headquarters that we were to proceed
south into a small area close to Bastogne, in Belgium.
On the morning of the 17th the convoy left this particular area,
and, of course, the necessary road markers and so forth had been
taken ahead with the station so the convoy would not lose its location.
We proceeded more or less uneventfully until about noon of that
particular day, at which time we stopped the conr.oy, north of Mal-
niedy some 15 or 20 miles, and ser~eclhot food to the troops-that is,
we had a kitchen on the back of one of the trucks.
We then proceeded through Malmedy to a position, or a place,
about 2 miles on the other side nt a point where roads crossed; about
three or four roads came together a t this particular point. We mere
directed on by an M P who wsls standing at this road crossing. This
MP later returned with us to Germany and testified in the war crimes
trials.
After passing this road intersection, approximately 100 yards, we
were brought under intense fire, mortar, machine gun, and artillery,
t o our left and left front. Being unable to turn around o r turn to
the right because of a large ditch, or to go ahead, that is, in a southerly
direction, we abandoned our vehicles and got into the ditches along-
side of the road. The Germans continued to bring 11s under fire and
a number of the men were killed and wounded during this time.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me iilterrupt you there for a iuinute. Did
you know, or did you have reaseon to believe or did you suspect that
there were any German forces in this locality?
Mr. LARY.No, sir. We had passed over this same area approx-
iinaiely 2 months before. We knew that it mas the Ardennes area,
and that the Germans had occupied it, but our troops were at that
time 10,000 meters to the front that is, to the east. Therefore, we
had no indication that the Germans were in that particular area.
After we were under fire for approximately 10 or 15 minutes, the
Germans had advanced on the convoy from our left and lePt front and
were then upon us with tanks and armored infantry. As they came
down the road and came up from the fields, they continued to fire into
the nlen that were lying in the ditches and some of these men were
returning the fire.
I was 111 the leading jeep with the captain. It wasn't the battery
commander. I don't recall who the captain was a t this time. But he
was in charge of the convoy, was with the convoy. We were crawling
up the ditch the entire time that they were firing.
We discussed as to what would be the best procedure of defense, or
what we could do to escape from the particular circumstances we were
in, and it was decided because of the overwhelming forces and the type
of forces that we were combating, due to the fact that we were armed
with small arms, i t was decided that i t would be best to surrender t o
this overwhelming force, the First Adolph Hitler SS Panzer Division,
as we learned later. This me did.
We abandoned our arms and surrendered our persons and personnel
to the Germans when they surrounded us in this particular area.
Senator BALDWIN.How did you do that? Tell us what you did.
Did you throw away your arms?
Mr. LARY.Initially we stood up and put our hands over our heads.
A t the time I stood up and put my hands over my.head there was a
German in the half-track who took a pistol, aimed i t a t me and started
to shoot me. I immediately stepped behind one of the vehicles and
deflected his aim.
Cal~tainMills was killed. He was still in the ditch. This German
took iivo shots at him but missed him both times. So when they saw
that we had stood u p with our 11ancls over our heads and abandoned
our weapons, they then started asking some of the personnel if they
could drive the vehicles that we had abandoned. No one professed
they could drive. They refused to give them any cooperation. So
they placed us under guard.
We were approximately a thousand yards froin this area where the
massacre occurred. They sent us back to this particular area under
guard. As we approached the area, we could see that the men were
being searched for their valuables, wrist watches and whatever else
they may have had.
A t that time we were all placed in this field approximately 150 to
160, maybe 175 men. There were one-hundred-and-fifty-some-odd
men in this particular area.
In addition to this they had rounded up numerous medical personnel,
medical officers and enlisted men from other detachments, and other
enlisted help from M P battalions and so forth. The distance from
the road to where the groups were standing with their hands over
their heads-every man had his hands over his head-was approxi-
mately the width of this room, 15 yards or so.
While we were standing there conversing, the Germans still had
us under their surveillance with their small arms trained upon the
group. We assu-med at that time that we would be treated as ordinary
prisoners of war and sent to the rear.
The Germans then, at the particular time, were continuing to ad-
vance in a southerly direction toward Bastog~le,and one of their
self-propelled 88-millimeter gtms was ordered to stop, and it was
backed around facing the group of personnel as they were standing
in the field.
After what happened, I have no doubt today that if they had been
able to depress the muzzle of this gun into our group, they would have-
fired a t point-blank range with their artillery into that group of men.
They were not able to do that, however, because we were more or less
in a depression below the gun and they couldn't lower it.
S o this particular self-propelled weapon was blocking their advance
and it was ordered off. A t that time they drove up two half-tracks
and parked them facing the group, a t a 15- or 20-foot interval between
the two. A man stood up in this vehicle, who I later identified at
Dachau, and fired a pistol, or he took deliberate aim, I should say first,
and fired into the group.
A t that time we ordered our men to stand fast because we knew if
they made a break that they would have a right then to cut loose on
us with their machine guns. His first shot killed my driver. The
second shot that he fired into the group then set off a group of machine
guns firing into this helpless group of unarmed American prisoners
of war.
Those of us who were not killed immediately in the initial burnt
fell to the ground. I was under the impression a t the time that the1.e
were two machine guns firing into the group, but I later learned
when we went back to Germany that there were eight machine guns
firing into the group. .
We continned to lay on the ground and the fire continued to come
into us. Of course, the biggest percentage of the men were killedi in
the initial firing. When they ceased firing after approximately 5
minutes, maybe 3 minutes, they came into the group to those men
who were still alive, and of course writhing in agony, and they shot
them in the head.
One of the men, where I was laying ~ i t myh face in the mud, stood
a t my head, fired into a man laying beside me and walked on. During
the initial firing I was only hit one time.
Then these men assumed that everyone lying in the field was dead,
in my opinion, so they went back to their vehicles and the convoy
proceeded south into Bastogne. We lay there for approximately an
hour and a half or two hours until it was becoming dusk. We saw
or could count numerous tanks passing, half -tracks, armored infantry,
and so forth.
As these groups would pass we could hear them laughing and every
once in a while they would fire into the group of men as they lay on
the ground, more or less as target practice. Then this convoy passed
us and we could still hear one or two, maybe three Germans talking
a t the crossroads.
So in undertones we began to discuss, those of us who were still
alive, began to discuss the best method of surviving the affair, and i t
was decided that those of us who were left would make a break for it.
Senator BALDWN. How many of you were there still alive?
Mr. LARY.I would say there were 20 to 25 men still alive at the
lime. It would be an estimate.
So one of the fellows said, "Let's go'-one of those in the group.
So we got up, those of us who were able to, and made a break. I would
like to state that the hardest part was to leave those men who were
still there, wounded, because we felt those Germans at the crossroads
would come back and kill them. I n fact that is what happened.
Some of us ran off into the woods and escaped. A group of us ran
into a house. I ran into a shed a t the back of the house. I was the
only individual there, and got under what looked like tobacco stakes
and was fortunate enough that the German's didn't come into the
shed because I was positive they would have found me there and, of
course, killed me.
But these men who ran into the house set the house on fire. When
the men ran out-when I say they set the house on fire, I mean the
Germans who were left at the crossroads, they had left a half-track
at the crossroads which I observed when I got up to make a break-I
presume to cover their advance, more or less a rear guard.
These Germans set up a machine gun. When the house was on fire
and these men ran out they killed them. Of course, I could hear
these screams of anguish where I was in the shed and realized they were
killing these men in the field who were still alive.
Then, after dark-I stayed in the shed until after dark-the house
was still on fire, lighting up the area. I fortunately had a compass
with me and was able to get back into Malmedy, walked back into
bfalmedy and was able to go through the woods and so forth.
Senator BALDWIN. HOWfar was it from there to Malmedy?
Mr. LARY.I didn't know exactly where Malmedy was. The route
that I took was approximately 3 miles. I got into a small settlement
of 5 or 6 or 7 houses a i d some Belgian people helped me into Mal-
medy at the time. So when I got to Malmedy I immediately
reported to this lieutenant colonel-I don't know his name or who
he was-what l ~ a doccurred. I told him at the time how this thing
occurred, and what had been clone, and I understand from the news-
paper articles that Judge Van Roden has said-this is just from what
I read from newspaper articles-Judge Van Roden said that a lieu-
tenant reported to him that the reason the Germans started firing into
the group was because the men had made a break for it.
Senator BAI~DTVIX. Let me read to you, Lieutenant, just what he did
say :
Also, by way of that background, we went into a village called Sn-eiful in
Germany the Friday before the Germans moved into t h a t same section of Bel-
gium. I happened to have had a n o 5 c e in a barn or stable in Sweiful in Ger-
many and was there when a lientenan:, a rather bedraggled lieutenant, liter-
ally crawled in there and made a report t o G-2 of the Fifth Armored, and I heard
what he had to say about what he experienced a t the time the shooting took
place. The shooting certainly took place.
Senator BALDWIN.That is the Malmedy shooting?
Judge V.&N RODEN.Yes. This may be hearsay, but I am tell you for what it
is worth what I heard. I don't remember his name, but he was a young lieu-
tenant, a second lieutenant, I believe, a first lieutenant or second lieutenant, and
he reported to lieutenant colonel-I have forgotten his name-of the Fifth
Armored Division, acting a s G-2 of that clivision staff.
As I recall the substance of his statement, it wis-he made a report, he was
bedraggled, had walked, tramped, and hitch-hiked, and his vehicles had broken
down going across the hills there, and h e said his impression was t h a t some
Americans were trying to escape and t h a t somebody started shooting to prevent
the Americans escaping, and his impression was t h a t the Germans became
trigger-happy, a s I am afraid all soldiers-you will understand as I do because
1, myself, was in combat in this war, i n active combat-and everybody started
shooting all a t once. That is what he reported a s to the Malmedy incident.
I do know from t h a t that t h e Malmedy massacre took place, and they were
killed. I t was a horrible thing to have happm.
Senator MCCARTHY.T his chap had just come from Malmedy; is t h a t right?
Judge VAN RODEN.We left the Fifth Armored, what was left of it. There
had been terrible casualties in Luxembourg. They left a t midnight or early
morning on Friday, we got up to Sweiful t h a t same day by vehicles, of course,
and the following Sunday, which is about 72 hours later, this lieutenant came in
there and he then told u s ; for t h e first time I learned myself about t h e so-called
massacre a t MaImedy.
Senator MCCARTHY.H e was a n eyewitness?
Judge VAN RODEN.Yes; he w a s a n eyewitness. I do not remember his name.
I do not remember t h e name of the lieutenant colonel.
Mr. LARY.What was the date that he said this lieutenant reported
to him ?
Senator BALDWIN.The date doesn't appear in here. I t was a
Sunday.
Mr. LARY.I f this lieutenant got to Sweiful lie got there somehow.
It is approximately 75 to 100 miles north of Malmedy. It is the only
Sweiful that I know of in Germany. I hardly think that it is possible
that a man, if he was very badly wounded, could have hitch-hiked
or gotten through that type of thing, if the man was wounded, and
gotten to Sweiful without some sort of treatment, medical aid, along
that route of march, because we still held the road between Sweiful
and Noville and on into Malmedy.
Senator BALDWIN.The report that you made, was that the only one
that you made to anybody?
Mr. LARY.That is the only one, and that was Malmedy, and not
Sweiful.
Senator BALDWIN.That was made how soon after the massacre?
Mr. Lary. That was made the same night that the affair took
place. Approximately 12 o'clock at night.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUsay it took place a t 12 o'clock at night?
Mr. LARY. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. That is when you made i b
Mr. LARY.When I made the statement. The same night that the
massacre took place I made the statement, approximately 12 o'clock
that night.
Senator BALDWIN.A t the time you were standing there in the field,
did you have your arms over your head?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir; in this manner [indicating], as was customary
with prisoners of war a t the time.
Senator BALDWIN.A t the time of the shooting or immediately be-
fore the shooting had anyone started to run?
Mr. LARY.Absolutely no one, sir. I was standing in the left rear
of the group, and could more or less oversee everybody, the actions of
all the individuals. And no one had made a break for it.
Senator BALDWIN. Were you the only officer present at the time?
Mr. Lary. No, sir. There were all officers present of my battery,
there were other officers present from medical detachments and other
detachments I don't know.
Senator BALDWIN.What instructions if any did the officers give to
the men a t that time?
Mr. LARY.Well, sir; I only said myself, "Stand fast" when they
started firing into the group. I heard the statement said by other men.
I don't know whether they were officers or who they were. But others
said, "Stand fact.,'
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would like to ask one question there.
So that after the first shot or two was fired. there was no individual
or concerted effort by the group to break up; scatter or start t o run?
Mr. LARY. No, sir. .-. --
Mr. CHAMBERS. SOin your opinion the Germans had no valid reason
to believe that you were trying to escape?
Mr. LARY. Sir, they took two pistol shots into the group, and they
still stood there and took it. After the second pistol shot the Germans
opened up. There had been no man that had made an attempt t o
escape.
Senator BALDWIN.Did any of you have any weapons at that time?
Mr. LARY.NO, sir. We had surrendered our weapons. I n fact we
had been searched for our weapons, as we were more or less massed and
sent over into ,the field.
Senator BALDWIN.Do you know of any other officer, lieutenant or
other officer, of that particular group, who escaped, other than your-
self ?
Mr. LARY.NO,sir. I know that all other officers in my battery were
killed, and I asked the same question when we were sent to Germany.
They told me that-that is, the war-crimes group here in Washington,
which I believe at that time was headed by Colonel Rosenfeld-told me
that to their knowledge there was no other officer that survived the
massacre.
Senator BALDWIN.You would say of your knowledge there was no
other officer in that particular group that survived?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Lary. after you had reported in, I believe you
said that you had been wounded. What happened to you? Where
did they send you? What did they do with you?
Mr. LARY.They kept me there overnight; then I was sent to Liege,
finally to England, then back to the United States.
Mr. CHSXBERS.Back stateside?
Mr. LARY. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n due course you had some connection with the
trials of the accused in the Malmedy case?
Mr. LARY.HOW do you mean that, sir?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did YOU come back to Germany to testify at the
trials?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When did you come back to Germany?
Mr. LARY.I believe it was i11 March 1946.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That was before the trials had started. Did they
send you down to Schwaebisch Hall by any chance?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHANBERS. For what purpose did they send you to Schwaebisch
Hall ?
Mr. LARY.We were led to believe that before we got to Germany the
trial would approximately take-the entire procedure-6 weeks, that is
all we would have to be away from the United States. But i t later
developed that they were still interrogating prisoners and that other
prisoners were being found that they had gotten leads on, so i t ran into
a longer period.
At that time we were introduced to Colonel Ellis. He invited me to
come to Schwaebisch Hall to observe the prison and prisoners, and so
forth.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you had an opportunity to see the prisoners
being interrogated and questioned and what not?
Mr. LXRY. Yes.
91765-49-66
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did they also take you down there for the purpose
of trying to identify any of the accused?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir. They didn't a t the time. I n fact, they didn't
know a t the time that I thought-in fact, when I got there, in a dis-
cussion with these gentlemen, I told them that I thought if I could see
the man who started firing the initial shots, that I would be able t o
identify him, because he was only the distance across this room. And
a t that time i t was decided that I would be given that opportunity.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When you got to Schwaebisch Hall and observed
these interrogations and what not, were you actually present in the
cells when the were interrogating the prisoners?
Mr. LARY. $es, sir. I would like to give you the background of that,
if I may.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Surely. Suppose you tell us the story in your own
way, what you observed in Schwaebisch Hall.
Mr. LARY.I should say when I arrived at Schwaebisch Hall I was
invited by Colonel Ellis to have complete freedom and access to the
prison, with a special pass, of course, to observe the interrogation and
to observe the treatment and to observe anything that I wished to
observe while I was there.
I was there approximately 3 to 4 weeks. During that time I made
many visits to the prison and. unbeknown to the interrogators, I
watched their interrogation at numerous times. The cells were so
arranged that they had a peep hole in them. That is, you can see
through, but the prisoner inside couldn't see out. Many times while
interrogation was going on-I say many times, half a dozen, maybe a
dozen times-I observed Mr. Perl-Lieutenant Perl-Mr. Thon. I
don't recall if there were others, I don't remember the names. But I
observed those two men in their interro ations.
Mr. CHAMBERS. d!
DO vou remember a
r. Kirschbaum?
Mr. LARY. NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO YOU

remember a Mr. Ellomitz?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you ever observe him?
Mr. LARY.Yes; I observed his interrogations.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO
you remember a Captain Shumacker?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you ever observe him?
Mr. LARY. No, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOU

mentioned Perl and Thon particularly. If you
have been reading the newspaper you will know that from time to time
there have been charges made concerning the may they handIed
prisoners. Do you have any comment to make on that? .
Mr. LARY.Yes; I would like to say that i t wasn't a t first, when I
first arrived there, that I took so much interest in watching interro-
gations. But in conversing with Colonel Ellis it was more or less
thought it would be a good idea if I did see how these men were in-
terrogated-no thought occurred that anything like this would occur
in the future, such charges-but more orJess for my information to see
what procedure and methods were used tn handling the interrogation,
so that I would know how they got then mformation.
I observed Mr. Perl in his interrogations, and I observed that in
particularly tough cases he had to crack-I say in tough cases because
he was working with the type of mind that, had been trained from
youth in their beliefs and in their mannerisms. They were all work-
ing with very tough individuals as an SS man.
And when he would interrogate a particularly tough man I would
say that Mr. Per1 became very red in the face and would shout a t the
prisoners. He used no physical force, to my knowledge, whatsoever.
He did use forceful, persuasive means, as far as his voice was con-
cerned, but not as f a r as physical violence.
Mr. Thou.was,more or less of a persuasive-talking individual. H e
would stand up very close to the prisoner and tell him t h a t - o f course,
1can't understand German, and they could speak it fluently and under-
stand it-but he would stand up close to the prisoner and talk into
his face and say t.hat such and such and such, whatever it may be, em-
phasizing his words, you niight say, more or less, by gestures.
But at no time while I was at Schwaebisch Hall did I hear of or see
any mistreatment of a prisoner of war, as f a r as physical violence
is concerned. As f a r as using loud language, yes; I did observe the
loud language being used on this type of mind.
Mr. CHAMBERS. T O nail this down for the record: You had com-
plete freedom of the prison?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir; complete freedom. Special privileges.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you have opportunity to see how prisoners
were moved from spot to spot?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you have any opportunity to see how they were
fed?
Mr. LART. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOW
were clothed?
they
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS You

have already testified that you watched*unbe-
known to the interrogators, quite a few of the interrogations. Did
you ever observe or take part in any of the mock trials, the Schnell
procedures ?
Mr. LARY. No, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. During this of observation, which lasted
approximately a month to 6 weeks, did you ever see or hear of any
physical violence being used on a prisoner?
Mr. LARY. NO, sir.
Mr. CHA~UBERS. By the guards ?
Mr. LARY.NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS By
the interrogators?
Mr LRY.
NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you ever hear of then1 being deprived of food,
having their blankets taken away from them, or anything of the kind?
Mr. LARY. NO,sir, I might say, in connection with the mock trials,
that you have brought out, I was told at the time that they were using
such a system. And I asked Colonel Ellis why they were using such
a system to obtain confessions. He said, "Lary, we are working with
individuals who understand from their bringing up, and from their
own misdeeds and crimes, brutality. Certain persuasive means must
be used, not physical violence, but persuasive means, every persuasive
means and ruse that we can devise because of these, you might say, first
times that these things have been done to get confessions. We must
use these things to obtain confessions from individuals."
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUwere living very intimately, I take it, with the
prosecution staff and the guards there. I s that correct?
Mr. LARY. I was a guest in the home where all of the prosecution
was eating and sleeping ;yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you hear them discuss or discuss with them var-
ious methods of cracking cases and getting confessions and so on ?
Mr. LARY. A t one particular time, a t supper, when we were at the
table-I had my own room there so I didn't know what was goin on
in the other places, in the discussions-one time at su per Mr. &on
came in and he was more o r less, you might say, tire%. H e said, "I
have had a very tough case today, it has been a mental trial to try to
get outR-words to this effect-"it has been a mental trial in attempt-
ing to get out what we have to find out from these people."
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever hear any general discussions or con-
jectures or arguments that if they used physical force on these people
they might get better results? I am speaking now of general dis-
cussions and arguments.
Mr. LRY. I will say this: Of course, you realize that I have great
feeling in the matter. I tell you this: I said, "Colonel'Ellis, why is
it that when you can't crack these people, why is it that when you
know these people have murdered, from the Russian front to our front,
that you cannot use physical violence, or use any means t o get the
confession that you-that I know they are guilty of 8"
He said, "We are not permitted under our to use physical force.
I have to keep constant surveillance to prevent any such thing."
I said, "Haven't you ever used physical violence?"
He said, "No, the only time was when two British sergeants brought
in a man from the British zone. They had beaten the individual or
individuals up very badly, and I immediately relieved them and sent
them back to their unit with a reprimand."
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did YOU ever hear Per1 or Thon or anyone else a t
the lunch table or dinner table conjecturing how these prisoners would
be treated if they were prisoners of the Russians or something like
t,h
. - -...?
at .
Mr. LARY.NO,sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you know Dr. Karan while you were there?
Mr. LARY.NO. sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you know Dr. Richter 1
Mr. LART.NO,sir.
Mr. CHANBERS. After the period of time that you spent a t Schwa-
bisch Hall, and they took the prisoners on to Dachau for trial, did
yon go there to testify?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir. There are some other things I would like to
tell you about Dachau if I may.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Before we leave Schwabisch Hall is there anything
else you would like to tell us about that ?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Please do.
Mr. LARY. I noticed that the prisoners, from my observation in the
prison. were always moved from cell to cell or from cell to interro-
a
iation'cell, with black hood over their head. I commented on this
to Colonel Ellis.
I said, "Colonel Ellis, why is it necessary to move these men in such a
manner?" He said, "Due t o the type of individuals that they are,
we must take every precaution and security means to prevent them
planning an escape. This is an old SS prison. Undoubtedly some of
these men have been in this prison as masters, you might say. We
must move them from place to place with this blindfold, or with this
hood over their head, so that they will not know their surroundings,
and cannot talk, or make any plans for escape" which to me seemed
very feasible.
I also had an opportunity, an ample opportunity, to observe their
food. I would Like to say that the cells were kept clean, they were
inspected. Each cell had two cots, a mattress, and, of course, a
blanket.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay two cots?
Mr. LARY.TWOcots ;yes, sir. To my recollection, they had two cots.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was there more than one prisoner to a cell?
Mr. LARY. There were two prisoners to each cell that I observed.
They took me around-when I was first introduced they took me
around the entire cell block, and I was able to look in on each man
and see how many men were in there. There were two men to a cell.
That is, the officers, I think, had a cell to themselves.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you have an opportunity to actually see all the
cells and all the prisoners ?
Mr. LARY.Well, sir, I had an opportunity to observe all of the
cells that I had any interest in, where the prisoners of the Malmedy
massacre were interned.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Lary, it has been testified to here by many peo-
ple that this prison had single cells, and that it had others that had to
take more people, and that there were a large number of these people
who were kept in the single cells by themselves. Didn't you see any of
those people ?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir. I saw Joachim Peiper.
Mr. CHAMBERS. H e was kept in the hospital area, wasn't he?
Mr. LARY.T Omy knowledge, sir, he was kept in a single cell.
Mr. CHAA~BERS. But was that in the hospital area? That was one
block of cells.
Mr. LARY.That was one block of cells separate from the others. I
don't know whether it was hospital or not. And I believe Sepp
Dietrich also had a single cell.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Outside of those two you didn't see any others in
single cells ?
Mr. LARY.There was one other man that I saw in a single cell on the
same floor and cell block, where they were keeping those of double-
that is, double bed cells. This man was particularly interesting be-
cause he was there by himself.
I commented, "Why is he there?'' I was told, I don't recall who told
me at the time, that he would not confess to his crimes, therefore he
was kept alone and away from companionship until he could more or
less-that is, you might say, mental deprivation, until he could be
made to confess.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would like to get it perfectly clear. You feel that
you saw all of the prisoners confined in Schwabisch Hall?
Mr. LARY.I feel certain that I did.
Mr. CHANBERS. And that you had an opportunity to look in all
cells ?
Mr. LARRY.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Were there any so-called death cells there that

you heard anything about?
Mr. LARY.No, sir. Not for this group of men. I was told that
there were other prisoners convicted by courts for crimes against
humanity, who were held in other parts of the prison. But I did
not see them.
I would like to say, sir, that these cells were clean, equipped with
sleepil?g facilities. They each had a toilet. I n the morning each man
was given a razor blade to shave with. The razor blade was then
taken away from them. They were served, I would say, rations that
were superior to those that we received in combat. The testimony
that I understood has been given that the food was poor and inade-
quately cooked, I can only say that is true because the Germans did
not know how to cook it themselves, because they had their own
German cooks.
Senator BALDWIN.What time were you there? Can you give us
the dates?
Mr. LARY.I can only give you an approximate date, Senator. It
was somewhere around the first, maybe the middle of April 1946.
Senator BALDWIN.Do you know whether or not there were any
American medical officers i n attendance?
Mr. LARY.I do not know, sir. I did not ask.
Senator BALDWIN.Was i t one of your purposes for being there to
see if it were possible for you to identify any of these men?
Mr. LARY.That was not the purpose when I originally went there,
but when I told them that I thought I could identify one of the men
who started firing into the group, then Colonel Ellis said, "There will
be only one way that we can submit to such scrutiny of the prisoners
and that would be that they be brought before you in groups, or in
twos and threes, and a number of men, so that there would be no
subterfuge in the matter. And if that is done, it must be done in
court."
I said, "I do not think it will endanger the proceedings or weagen
the proceedings if you handle it in such manner."
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever identify the man who started
firing ?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUdid identify him?
Mr. LARY.I did identify him; yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Where did you identify him?
Mr. LARY.First a t Schwaebisch Hall.
Senator BALDWIN. HOW was that identification made?
Mr. LARY.On the morning that they decided to let me see if I could
identify the man, they told me the men would be brought in in groups
and that I would have an opportunity to bring back any man that I
so desired, and that was done. They brought in, as I remember cor-
rectly, a group of four men first. Out of that group I was not able to
identify anyone. They then brought in a group of three, and of the
three men, I definitely, in my o - \ ~ nmind, identified this particular
individual.
They then brought in another group. I said nothing about i t at
the time, until the last group had been brought in. Then I told them
that i t would not be necessary to bring any more men into the room
MALMEDY MASSACRE TWVESWGATIOhT !041
because I felt certain that I had identified this particular individual in
the second group, and asked that they be brought back. This was done,
and I pointed out the man who started firing initially.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you recall his name?
Mr. LARY.I did not know i t a t the time, but I later learned a t Dachau
that his name was Georg Phleps-P-h-I-e-p-s.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would like to verify the spelling for the record.
We have a G-e-o-r-g Fleps-F-1-e-p-s. I s that the man?
Mr. LARY.Yes ; I thought it was P-h-I-e-p-s.
Senator BALDIN.Was he an officer?
Mr. LARY.NO,sir. H e was not an officer.
Mr. CHAMBERS. How could you identify him?
Mr. LARY.You mean how could I identify him as the man who
started firing?
Mr. LARY.Sir, when we were standing in the field, the distance, as
I say, was. approximately across this room where me were standing
facing these half tracks. This man stood up in the half track. We
could view him from his waist up. I had ample opportunity because
he took sufficient time to more or less torment us, by aiming into the
group, three times. H e brought his pistol down and aimed. The third
time he brought his pistol down he fired. I had ample opportunity
to see that man's face.
Of course, any man who is getting ready to shoot you in broad day-
light, you might say the distance of this room, you would remember
his face, I feel certain. A t least I did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you at Dachau testify to the identity of Fleps
before the court?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did YOU attempt to identify others at Dachau?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you identify anybody else?
Mr. LARY.NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
And this identification mas made a t Schwaebisch
Hall ?. Was that along toward the end of your stay there?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir. Along toward the end of the stay.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DOyou know appro~iinatelythe date that that took
place ?
Mr. IAARY. NO,sir ; 1do not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO
you know xhether or not by that time the inter-
rogators had completed their interrogation of these people?
Mr. LARY.NO, sir. It was my understanding that they were still
interrogating prisoners a t the time.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were these particular individuals that were brought
in for identification those on which interrogation had been completed?
Mr. LARY.I do not know. They did not tell me. They just brought
these men in to face me.
Mr. CHANBERS. Did these men, when brought to you, have a black
hood on ?
Mr. ~ R Y NO,. sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. They brought tl~emin ~ ~ i t h o theu t hoods?

Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There

has been considerable testimony here that
prior to the time they \rere here-through the interrogation these
people were kept absolutely separate from each other.
1042 MALMEDY -MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Mr. LARY.Durin the time of interrogation of each inciiviclual ?

Mr. CHAMBERS. 8 p until such time as they had their confessions.
Mr. LARY.I see what you are speaking of. I do not know about that,
Colonel. I got into Schwaebisch Hall more or less, you might say, a t
the end of the entire proceeding. It is my understanding they had
been working on this for some eighteen-some-odd months.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You got there in the middle of March?
Mr. LARY.It is my recollection i t mas around that time.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And left there about the middle of April ?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. TOgo to Dachau ?
Mr. LARY.NO, sir. We returned to TViesbxclen for another period
of wait, then went to Dachau.
Senator BALDWIN.It might be well to put in the record a t this point,
that in this document you state against Valentin Bersin and others,
case 26-24, review and recommendations of the deputy judge advocate
for war crimes, that this case of Fleps appears on page 61 of that
record.
Have you anything more that you want to say, Lieutenant, about
your stay at Schw~ebischHall?
Mr. LARY.NO, sir. Only to emplu~sizethat at the time I was there
I saw absolutely no physical violence, or no evidence of physical vio-
lence, on the prisoners.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you hear any shollts of screams or anything
of that kind?
Mr. LARY. NO,sir.
I will say this : I asked permission to speak to Joachim Peiper and
was granted permission. I was permitted to go into his cell and talk to
him. And at the time, to the best of my recollection, these are the
words that passed between us. The man spoke perfect English.
I said, "Peiper, I would like to lmow why your outfit committed such
a crime."
He said, "We had orders to do so, and you are responsible for similar
crimes."
I said, "Colonel Peiper. we never, to my knowledge, in this war or
the last war, treated prisoners of war in such a manner."
Of course, it was difficult to talk to him-I mean it was difficult
for me to talk to him because I had great feeling against the man.
I said, "Do you admit that you committed these crimes?"
He said, "I have given a written testimony to the effect, and I take
full responsibility."
Then I said, "How has your treatment been since you have been
here?,'
He said. "I commend the treatment that I have received-commend
Colonel Ellis7'-or the chief prosecution ; I forgot what the designation
was, but I assume it was Colonel Ellis he was speaking of-"for the
treatment that me have rereivecl while me were at Schmaebisch Hall."
Those were the words that passed between us at that time.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you talk with the other officer whom you
mentioned-Dietrich ?
Mr. LARY. No, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you talk to General Kraemer?
Mr. LARY. No, sir.
MALMEDY M A S S A C R E INVESTIGATION 1043

Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you have an opportunity to talk to any of
the other prisoners?
Mr. LARY.That was the only prisoner to my knowledge that could
speak English.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay YOLI went to Dachau to testify at the trial.
Did you stay there throughout the entire trial proceedings ?
Mr. LARY.NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What did they do: put you on the stand early in
the ame?
&. LARY.The trials were in progress approximately a week and
then we were put on the stand to testify.
Senator BAWWIN.What did you see at Dachau, if anything, con-
cerning these prisoners ?
Mr. LARY.I saw that the prisoners were being thrown together in
larger groups. I asked permission to go into the compound to see
how they were being kept. There were other groups being retained
because of these crimes. I think the Mulhausen case, the group were
still there. And I saw that these prisoners
- were thrown together
in larger groups.
I commented to Colonel Ellis. I said, "Colonel Ellis, I see they
have thrown the men together in larger groups."
He said, "Yes, that would be a fine opportunity for them to get
together. And after our work and the efforts we have made, it will be
a fine opportunity for them to get together and trump up lies."
That was the observation that passed between us, and that was the
only observation that I had in the compound.
Senator BAWWIN.Did you have opportunity at Schwaebisch Hall
to observe the attitude of the prosecution staff toward the prisoners?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. What was their general attitude? Can you de-
scribe i t ? Was i t one of hate or one of violence or extreme dislike
and disdain ? What was i t ? How would you describe it?
Mr. LARY.I would say, sir, i t was an attitude of complete impar-
tiality on their behalf. That is, they took their work seriously. I say
this in speaking of Colonel Ellis, Captain Shumacker, and the others
that I did not know too well; they took their work seriously, they
worked long hours, many hours a night, in typing these reports, and
to my knowledge-and as far as I can see-they were conscientious,
and as far as their treatment of the prisoners was concerned it was
absolutely on an impartial basis, you might say, neither with disdain,
absolutely no respect, or no disdain, just an impartial basis.
Senator BALDWIN.I n any of your conversations at the mess table or
anywhere else, did you ever hear any discussions about 'LWeshould
use phyiscal violence in order to get these so and so's to confess," or
anything of that kind?
Mr. LARY.NO,sir. d have heard them called so and so's, but the use
of physical violence was never brought into the conversation to my
knowledge while I mas there.
Senator RALDWIN. YOUsaid in one of your statements that Colonel
Ellis said they had to use ruses. I think yon used the word. I s that
correct ?
Mr. LARY. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Did he tell you about u-hat the ruses were?
Mr. LARY. Yes, sir. I am referring to the mock trials that they
used. And to my knowledge, as to what he told me, to the best of
my memory, the men who were brought into the cell, a dark end cell
you might say, with a crucifix on the table and candles, not as a dis-
respectful symbol toward religion but more or less to m ~ k ethem
aware, to make them aware before the eyes of God, of the crimes that
they had committed, if they had committed those crimes.
I n no way, as a disrespect to the crucifix. I mould like to empha-
size that point. It was a psychological ruse, or use, to make a man, if
he had any religion at all, realize that if he had conlmittecl the crimes
against hnmanity, that this crucifix and possibly the canclles, as I
understand the Catholics in that country use for certain reasoils, pos-
sibly such things would make him aware of his sins, you might say, or
crimes, and make him confess.
Senator BALDWIN.Did they say how they interrogated him there?
Mr. LARY.No, sir. They did not tell me.
Senator BALDWIN.You never witnessecl one of these so-called
trials ?
Mr. LARY.NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.You said you had something you wanted to say
about Dachau.
Mr. LARY.I spoke of that when I said that they threw the prisoners
together. Oh, yes, and I will say that before and during the trial,
when I had ample opport~tnityto observe the prisoners, there were
no marks of physical violence on any of the men. They mere still a t
their ramrod attention m-hen they stood u p ; they were capable of
walking to and from the cells in perfect order.
Their appearance was excellent as far as their physical appearance
was concerned. They all appeared to be well-fed and well-treated.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO YOU have a statement that you want to make, a
general statement?
Mr. LARY.Ohly in conclusion.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have no more questions, Senator Baldwin.
Senator BALDWIN.Have you talked with anybody about the case
since you have been here? Have you talked with Ellis at all?
Mr. LARY. I was in correspondence with Colonel Ellis as soon as I
found out that this investigation was being conducted. I told him that
a t the time I would like to have the opportunity to return if possible
to give the testimony that I was able to give.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Have you also been in contact with ~ d * j oFanton?
r
Mr. LARY. NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Have you anything further you want to say,
Lieutenant ?
Mr. LARY. I
1 1 conclusion, yes. sir; if I may take the liberty.
Senator Baldwin, Colonel Chambers, and other gentlemen of the
investigating committee, I take this opportunity to express my ap-
preciation to you for the opportunity to testify. I n conclusion, may
I give these additional opinions: I hold in great esteem the members
of the war crimes and other units who conducted the Malmedy trials.
Their efforts in ferreting out the SS men from every conceivable hole
in Europe are outstanding.
The interrogation of those prisoners was excellent and beyond re-
proach. I feel certain that charges of misconduct against them or
their methods of procedure mill be proven false. I charge that any
person or persons who has stated that the prisoners were beaten or
tortured have no basis for their charges. I am positive in my own
mind as an eyewitness that those accusations are absolutely untrue,
unjust, and improper.
I feel certain that those statements are based on the words of S S
men who were under sentence of death ancl who naturally took any
encouragement to escape their punishment. You may or may not be
aware of the fact, but the people of the world are matching with great
interest this investigation. This is true in the country where I am now
stationed-Venezuela. Your decision will be, I know, fair and iinpar-
tial. F o r the benefit of m y who may doubt that the massacre mag
1lar.e occurred. I am certain that they could no longer have that doubt.
It is great co:npassion and sorro\T for the parents ancl wives and
children of my inen and fellow officers that I feel, because those mur-
derers responsible for the Malmedy lnassacre have not paid for their
crime. To those relatives I say be patient, for this committee will
prove, I am certain, that this penalty liiust be paid. It is only just that
this investigation be conducted, for in this manner our system of
justice will be absolved of any blot and the untruths of certain indi-
viduals will be returned to them in kind.
Tllis completes my statement.
Senator BALDRIN. What is your position with the company, Lieu-
tenant?
Mr. LARY. I am an accountant.
Senator BALDWIN, Are you a college graduate?
Mr. LARY. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.
TiTThat college?
31r. LARY.University of Kentucky.
Senator BALDWIN.
What year did you graduate?
Mr. LARY.I graduated in 1948. When I returned from the service
I took advantage of the G I bill of rights and returned to school.
Senator BALDWIN. When did you enter the Army?
Mr. LARY.I n January 1941 as an enlisted man in the Regular
Army.
Senator BALDWIN. YOUenlisted i n the Regular Army ?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIS. How old were you then?
Mr. LARY.Eighteen.
Senator BALDWIN.
Where were you living at that time?
Mr. LARY.Tulsa, Okla.
Senator BALDWIX.
Tell us something, Lieutenant, about your mili-
tary career. Where did yon serve; where did you go for your
training 'd
Mr. LARY.I enlisted in the Field Artillerv in 1941 and went t o Fort
Sill where I received training as a recruit." They did not have basic
training camps at the time. When we later returned to duty and I
joined my battery I was sent on maneuvers to Texas and Louisiana.
Out of the Louisiana area I transferred to the Air Force where I s ent
2
2 years, and attained the rank of staff sergeant, and applied for 0 cers
Candidate School and was con~missionedn t Fort Sill, Okla., i n the
Field Artillery as a second lieutenant.
Senator BALDWIX. When did you go overseas?
Mr. LARY.I n 1944, sir. I do not remember the exact date.

Senator BALDWIN.And you went to the European theater?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir .
Senator BALDWIN. Where did you land in Europe?
Mr. LARY.We landed at Normandv. Not on D-dav. but n consider-
able time after D-day. I would say $ months after ~ - d a ~ .
Senator BALDWIN.Then you were in those campaigns, the final
campaigns ?
Mr. LARY.Yes, sir. We were in Luxembourg and me were in Hol-
land; we were in Belgium and we were in Germany. We were in the
Hurtgen Forest when we were ordered to proceed south to Bastogne.
Senator BALDWIN. That is when this incident occurred?
Mr. LARY. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.In this massacre you were wounded. Where
were you wounded ?
Mr. LARY.I was very fortunate. I was shot through the foot.
Senator BALDWIN.Thank you. Thank you very much. We appre-
ciate your coming up here to offer your statement on this matter.
Mr. LARY. Thank you, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Colonel Straight, can you be with us tomorrow?
Senator BALDWIN.The hearing is recessed until tomorrow morning
a t 10 o'clock.
(Thereupon, at 4 : 05 p. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene
Friday, June 3,1949, a t 10 a. m.)
FRIDAY, JUNE 3, 1949
SUXCOI\IBIITTEEOF THE C O M M ~ ONEARMED SERVICES,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, a t 10: 30 a. m., in
presiding.
Also present: J. M. Chambers, of the committee staff, and Colonel
Fell.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Straight, when your testimony was inter-
rupted last time, we were in process of developing with you some of
the details of the organizational set-up of the War Crimes Branch,
and my memory is a little hazy as to where we left off.
TESTIMONY OF LT. COL. CLIO E. STRAIGHT-Resumed
Colonel STRAIGHT. I suggest, what I was doing was answering your
questions about the reviews, preceding General Clay's action, wasn't I ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is correct. We had reached the point in our
testimony where we had said that there had been a great inany reviews
made and we were asking you to give us rather a detailed picture lead-
ing up to Clay's final approval.
Colonel STRAIGHT. That's my view.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Proceed from that point.
Colonel STRAIGHT. I n that testimony I mentioned the fact the drafts
had been prepared by three men, and I named the men that I thought
prepared them. I am not sure of it because the cases were assigned
for review by the chief of my post-trial section. I did not, except in
rare instances, take any part in it and say that this case should be
assigned to such and such a man.
I also mentioned the fact that we had to go back and build it up
again from the ground, from the record, and we assigned Mr. Denson
to that task.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I interrupt 1 I believe that on the first review,
one of the three men was Maxmillian Koessler.
Colonel STRAIGHT. That's my best memory, yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Why

did you feel it was necessary to go back to
the record and build up the review the second time ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. For the reason that 1 did not believe that it
accurately portrayed the record. It was not editorialized in such a
manner that it facilitated my work or my superiors, but it accurately
portrayed what was in the record.
1047
1048 MALMEDY MASSACRE IhTESTIG.4TION
Mr. CHAMBERS.Did you fincl that you were in clisagreenlent with

the conclusions they had drawn from their analysis, or was your ob-
jection t o i t that the review itself was so prepared and so presented
that it did not permit you to really evaluate their conclusions?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I n trying to refresh my recollection I have given
a lot of thought to the matter, and t o the best of my memory, I cannot
recall with any degree of accuracy srhatever, as to the recommendations
that were made; but, in the reviem work the fact that I might have ,
disagreed, or thought that I might ultimately have disagreed with their

proposal as to what action should be taken as to a sentence, was beside
the point, if i t accurately portrayed what was in the record of trial.
I hope I can demonstrate i t so that you will appreciate my point of
view. The action with regard to the sentence only i n ~ o l v e dabout one
sentence, and obviously I disagreed with many recommendations in
many reviews as t o what should be done with the sentence by way of
commutation, reduction, approval, o r setting it aside.
There certainly would have been no point, and I never did send back
any reviews to be built up again for the record, if I thought that i t
appeared to be an accurate portrayal of what was in the record.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOK, Colonel Straight, as executive officer of the
W a r Crimes Branch, one of the organizational units you hacl was this
Posttrial Section?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Yes. However, the executive officer of the W a r
Crimes Branch, or group, never had any responsibility in connection
with the review of cases, until Colonel Rficlieln-ajte was assigned as
theater judge advocate.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When was that, sir?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Approximately May 13, 1945-1 was assigned in
charge of the group on May 13,1945.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUwere in charge of what--
Colonel STRAIGHT. War Crimes Group, May 13,1945. H i s 8ppoint-
meilt as theater judge advocate no doubt preceded that by a day or
two, or i t might have been simultaneous.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Subsequent to that assignment clicl anyone come
in superior to you in the W a r Crimes Group?
Colonel STRAIGHT. NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SO,i n effect the Postrial section or branch was really
recommending to the head of the W a r Crimes Group, the recommen-
dation that you would make the higher authority, as to the disposition
of the sentences of the court?
Colonel STRAIGHT. It is all a question of phraseology. I think i t is
better expressed by this: That the Staff Section doing spadework for
me-I had the responsibility by a theater directive to make direct
review and recommendation for the theater commander, and i t passed
through the judge advocate for his action.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SOit is a fair statement that starting with the time
that you were appointed that you were responsible for the review action
of these cases for the theater coinnlander ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Exactly.
Mr. CHANBERS.Now, to carry this continuity on through did'the
theater commander set up any review of your review? Was there
another group or layer between you and the theater cop~manc~er before
he made his final decision?
Colonel STRAIGHT. The theater directive required, as I said the other
day, that the theater judge advocate give the theater commander his
view, the theater judge advocate's views as to the reviews and recom-
mendations of the deputy judge advocate. I n other words, there was,
by directive a requirement that the theater judge advocate also go.
over the case.
Now, as something directly related to that, about July or August
1947, because of the trenlendous volume of reviews of war crimes cases.
and the multitudinous duties of the theater judge advocate in that
connection, he, informally and not by way of a theater directive,
assigned men in his staff to agencies or boards which he termed boards
of review, to facilitate his work ,in taking his action in coming to,
his recommendations as to the records.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,were these informal boards of review that
were created by the theater judge advocate, those boards of review
which have been referred to in our records from time to time as the.
Frankfort Board or the Harbaugh Board, and so on?
Colonel STRAIGHT. NO doubt, both-I
don't remember the rword,
but it is entirely probable that those expressions have been used.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Because it was a fact that they were located in

Frankfort, and Colonel Harbaugh at that time, was he responsible f o r
doing that work for the theater judge advocate?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Oh, yes. Colonel Mickelwaite ceased to be the-
ater judge advocate and was returned to the United States the latter
part of March 1947. Colonel Harbaugh reported to the theater 2 or.
3 weeks before that time, and as Mickelwaite left the assignment
Colonel Harbaugh took it over.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, there has been mentioned in the record,.
it has been repeatedly mentioned, that when Colonel Dwinell was
assigned as an adviser to one of the review boards-was that your
posttrial section or was it the so-called Frankfort Review Board?
Colonel STRAIGHT. It had nothing to do with my organization.
That is in connection with the informal staff board, or whatever you
term it, that was working for Harbaugh.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,Colonel Straight, perhaps you are not the
best person to ask this question, but who assigned Colonel Dwinell to
duties in connection with the reviewing of cases in which he ha&
been an active participant?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I can help you out by way of hearsay.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
have that.
Let's
Colonel STRAIGHT.
AS I recall, I was aware of the fact that he was
being so assigned as an aide to the board a t the time or soon afterward.
I cannot be a t all sure, but my best memory is that Colonel Harbaugh
discussed the matter with me by telephone. Also, my best memory is.
that I recommended againt it, on general principles. It certainly was
a novel thing to do. Also, my best memory is that he expressed the
view, in the discussion, that the record was extremely complicated.
The facts back of the case in this combat action were difficult to por-
tray, incidentally there was great difficulty for us in preparing the
review and recommendations, that is, my staff-and he thought under
the circumstances, and I believe also that the question was mentioned
as to the rumors and gossip in connection with the development of
the case-he thought it appropriate under the circuinstances in order
to make certain that no injustices resulted to any accused, that

Dwinell's knowledge of the record be made available to the board to
facilitate their action.
Now, since the hearing started, I discussed the matter with Colonel
Harbaugh. I was surprised a t some assertions that he had appoiilted
Dwinell to the Board, and he had required him to assist the Board, to
some extent, over his objections ; and I: was told by Colonel Harbaugh
that the first he realized that Dwinell was assigned to a board, and
was to review the Malmedy case, was when Dwinell came to his office
and raised the question of his serving in connection with the Board.
Y think I accurately portray his remarks to me when I say that he then
told him, "Oh, no. It's not right for ~ O L tI o be on this Board." A
lengthy discussion of an hour or two ensued, e7olonel Harbaugh's
interest being an interest in the case generally. and as an outcome of
it, the idea was born for Colonel Dwinell to render dome ex-officio
assistance to the Board in working the records.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, would it have been possible for Colonel
Dwinell, in fact without his duties having required it-sei~ing as an
ex-officio member of that Board of Review-to have reviewed cases
other than the Malmedy case, in which he might have been a partici-
pant?
Colonel STRAIGHT. NO; I don't think that follows at all : for the rea-
son that the membership 011 the boards, he first had only one, and Inter
near the end of the review program, I think he had four or five, but the
personnel on a particular board was not static, they were shifted in
order that, one of the reasons for shifting them, the primary one was,
to be sure that the men didn't work on them in conilection with the
cases that they prosecuted or defended. Most of the personnel on these
boards were personnel that were assigned to my Dachau detachment.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did Dwinell only work on the Malinedy case dur-
ing his assignment to the Frankfort Review Board?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I can't be at all sure about that, but I think it is
quite certain that he worked on other cases.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And isn't i t a fact that Dwinell, while ork king as
a part of the War Crimes Group, with the exception of the case in-
volving the TiTThC captain that was mixed up in some thefts, that
Dwinell normally was on the prosecution side of the cases?
Colonel STRAIGHT. First, about the WAC captain, the Litchfield
cases, and the Kronburg cases which incidentally drained my person-
nel by General McNarny's personal direction, that I was to deliver
u p personnel for those cases-had nothing to do with war crimes op-
eration, nothing to do with my functions at all ;and, insofar as Dwinell
worked on those he was on temporary duty with the judge advocate of
the Continental Hase Section.
Senator BALDWIN. What was that case, that escapes ,my nlincl?
Colonel STRAIGHT.I didn't work on it-
Senator BALDWIN. That had to do with our own personnel?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Some American military detention facilities in
England, and a colonel in the American Army, and I cannot tell you
his name right now.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Rillian.
Colonel STRAIGHT. That's right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The

point I am getting at, Colonel, is simply this,
that as I understand the picture Colonel Dwinell probably did work
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 1051-
on other cases in a review capacity, for Colonel Harbaugh, and I
further believe, this is why I am checking the record now, that Colonel
Dwinell himself said it would have been possible for him to review
the other types of cases.
Now, it is rather an unusual procedure to find a man who had
\ been a defense counsel placed in a position to advise the Board of
Review on the case, but it would seem to be even much more unusual to
find that same man who had handled the case from the prosecution
point of view to have been put in the position where he might have been
passing on it, or advising groups of people who were passing on
cases in which he had been a prosecutor.
Colonel STRAIGHT. I don't think a t all that you will find that Colonel
Dwinell ever, while working in Harbaugh's office, aided in any manner
in reviewing any case in which he served as a prosecutor. I don't
think you will find it. I don3 know, myself.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I certainly know that the record does not show that,
but I also. know that the record shows that a man who had been work-
ing in inferior courts was up there i n one case of your courts review-
ing a case in which he had been an active participant for the defense.
Colonel STRAIGHT. Well, it's a question of phraseology in reviewing.
However, I don't want to argue about that. I can concede this, that
Harbaugh's problem mas a problem on which reasonable mights might
differ. I recall quite positively, I recommended against it when he
discussed it with me.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Without trying to impeach Colonel Harbaugh or
yourself or anyone else but speaking as a matter of procedure, before
we get through here I will find this particular statement, Colonel
Dwinell said that as an ex officio member, that he was advising the
Board of Review on the Malmedy cases, and Colonel Dwinell further
stated that he took occasion, a t every opportunity, to advance the cause
of the defense.
Colonel STRAIGHT. I realize his testimony to that effect.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is in the record.
And in addition to that, Colonel Dwinell said that he assisted in
the preparation of the recommendations of the so-called Harbaugh
Board, and I am merely speaking now from a procedural point of view,
that there are two inferences or two conclusions that could be drawn:
One is that Colonel Harbaugh felt that the earlier reviews, and the
handling of the trial were under such a cloud that he needed to bring
somebody from the defense staff up to help advise him on i t ; or the
other conclusion is that either due to a scarcity of personnel, or some-
thing of the kind, they reached out and picked out a trained man to
help them.
Now, there may be other conclusions, Colonel, but those are two
immediate ones that come to my mind.
Colonel STRAIGHT. There is an implication or inference there that
I don't think it is appropriate for me to respond to. However, I would
be extremely glad if you would get Colonel Harbaugh to express his
views, both from the standpoint of my ability and my integrity. Peo-
ple at times may have more than I have-
Mr. CHAMBERS.Colonel Straight, I would like for the record t o
show very clearly that this line of questioning is not aimed at you-
Colonel STRAIGHT. I realize that.
91765-49-67
1052' MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGAT~OW
Mr. CHAMBERS. This line of questioning, however, is a sincere effort

on my part to bring out evidence which might indicate where this
committee could be helpful in avoiding some of the mistakes that
have crept into this matter. I am not referring to the Malmedy case
particularly, but in the Malmedy case we did find that a man that
had been anactive participant in the lower court, through action,
certainly of higher authority, was placed in position to materially,
according to his own statement, argue his side of the case before a
board of review.
I submit to you, and I think you have answered it fully, but I
submit to you that it should have been impossible, that after having
been assigned to work with the board of review t o have also been
passing on cases in which he had been on the prosecution side of the
matter-if I may finish the situation to show you what I am after
here: A great many of the difficulties that seem to have gotten into
the war crimes situation stem from this matter of adequacy of com-
petent personnel. It would appear that the reasons why Dwinell
was put there were rather important. Now, if it is based on this
personnel situation, then definitely it is something that gets into the
question of long-range planning to meet situations of this kind in
the future; if Colonel Harbaugh had, because of all the rumors and
gossip and stores that have been connected with the Malmedy case in
particular, felt it necessary to bring Dwinell up there, I agree with
you we should get Colonel Harbaugh over to tell us why he did it.
Now, I repeat again that so f a r as the evidence we have before us
is concerned, on this particular point or any of the others, that nothing
affects your integrity or ability, but this whole situation is confusing.
I have made rather a long speech only for the purpose of clarifying
my line of questioning, and if you care to comment or elaborate on
the matter, go right ahead.
Colonel STRAIGHT. Well, my only remark would be this, to be sure
the record is correct as I know the facts: That is, the Ilse Koch
hearings to the contrary, prosecution and defense counsel were not
positioned in my organizat~onto influence the action of the staff that
worked for me in preparing reviews and recommendations. And,
insofar as I have been able to gather, by hearsay, I don't think that
in Colonel Harbaugh's office that anybody ever worked in a capacity
similar to what Dwinell did, except in this Malmedy case.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And I presume that, you have already said that this
was a rather unusual procedure, that in talking to Colonel Harbaugh
about it you said it was rather an unusual thing.
Now, I presume from the standpoint of procedure, that it is not
a desirable situation to have either a prosecutor or defense counsel
assisting in the review of cases.
Colonel STRAIGHT. Not in my opinion. I agree - with you thor-
oughly.
Senator BALDWIN.There was testimony from Colonel Mickelwaite
that there was a great shortage of personnel. Would you concur in
that, Colonel ?
Colonel STRAIG~T. Yes, I certainly would. I could give you, if you
are interested, orally, a brief rBsumB of the situation throughout the
program, and also some brief idea as to the tremendous steps we took
to try to get personnel.
MALh!KEDY. .MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 1053
Senator BALDWIN. I would like to have yon say what you would
like to say on that, because I think that is an important factor in this
whole thing.
Colonel STRAIGHT. I have quite a lot of documents here that I can
give you. You can have an opportunity to look a t as many of those
as you wo~zldlike, in that connection.
When I came to Paris, at General Betts' direction-
Senator BALDTVIN. When was that '?
Colonel STRAIGHT.
March 13, 1945, and assigned second in charge
of the War Crimes Branch, as it was then called, to look over the
situation, it appeared to me that, if even part of the plans of the
War Department were carried out, that i t would be a tremendous
task. I t would call for a tremendous number of personnel, as com-
pared with what those then working on the problem had in mind.
I was successful, to a considerable degree, in getting General Betts
to the same point of view, sufficiently so that I think that on April 6,
1945, he flew to London to have a conference as personal adviser to
President Rosenman, I believe his name was, who. was with Roosevelt
and President Truman. H e took a considerable interest in it and he
said that he would take direct action, and indicated that the direct
nction he intended to take was take it up personally with Assistant
Secretary McCloy.
About a week following that, Assistant Secretary McCloy and Col.
M. I. Cutter, who was then McCloy's adviser on war crimes, were in
Paris, and General Betts had a conference with them.
As a result of that conference, a telecon conference was arranged
with the War Department, I think General Henry, and at least a
couple of generals in G-l of the War Department, and they placed
quite a sizable reqnisition for personnel and tried to impress upon
the War Department that personnel were not procurable, either by
way of training or in numbers i n the theater, and incidentally those
were not in large enough numbers to satisfy my ideas as to the answer
to the problem.
The War Department finally got some action. They sent over some
lawyers. They sent over some court reporters and some interpreters,
but they never did fill even this initial requisition, during 1945. I do
s o t remember whether that requisitioning included the requirements
that they had for about 25 or 30 lawyers of proven legal ability with
5 or 10 years' practice, I forgot which, it was in that area, but I know
for sure that soon thereafter, I was snccessful, Jaworski and I. Colo-
nel Jaworski is a very bright partner of the firm Colbright, Cooper &
Freeman, of Texas. We were successful in selling the idea that they
should be German-speaking lawyers. Incidentally, Colonel Jaworski
could speak German. We had a requisition for 25 I think was the
actual number that was put in for.
Well, about VJ-day, or a little before, a considerable portion of the
recommendations for a req~iisitionfor court reporters and interpreters
canceled out and they said they couldn't send them. They also said
they couldn't send a portion of the lawyers that were requested, as
I recall.
We had staff studies going about every week or 10 days, as much as
we felt we could and still be within the bounds of military propriety.
I n the early fall, or middle fall, about October, I think, the idea was
born in the War Department that they couldn't furnish the officers,
, .
1054 MALMEDY MASSACRE INYESTIGATION
VJ-day having happened, but they might be able to procure civilians

if we could use them.
Now, the situation a t that time was not very advantageous from the
standpoint of handling civilians, but we told them we could if they
would put them in uniform and give them proper-that is, the uniform
they required civilians to have-and I think there was another telecon
conference between General Betts and G-I, War Department, in
August and another one about October, or November, as Colonel
Mickelwaite indicated the other day General Betts was in Washing-
ton at the end of the year 1945, to personally pursue the problem, and
our results in the War Department were very, very meager until
December of 1946. I think we had a telecon conference in the spring
of 1946, but, any rate, we got General Bevins and General Ball-
General Ball was chief of staff under General RfcNarny and was par-
ticularly interested in this thing-and they started sending some per-
sonal cables to the War Department.
Following, about May 1946, the position of the theater headquarters
was extremely adaqant that they just had to have personnel in proper
numbers and proper capabilities, and I sent, or we sent, Colonel Car-
penter, who was here to testify the other day, to Washington in June
t o aid in plans for selection, in efforts to get the personnel.
Starting about August 1946, personnel turned up in numbers that
were quite satisfactory from sources within the War Department,
within the theater, and, incidentally, I think in about February they
ran all the officer personnel in the theater to locate officerswith legal
experience, and it was a command directive that if they had legal
experience of any kind they were to be assigned to the war crimes,
which was done.
Following, about September or October 1946, we had personnel in
sufficient numbers. Our efforts to get German-speaking lawyers and
lawyers generally with considerable trial experience and experience in
law never materialized. I don't mean to say that we didn't have quite
a few very good personnel in the war crimes. We did. A t the same
time, from the very start we were required to utilize young lawyers
with no experience at all, just out of law school and in the Army.
I n that connection it might be of interest to note that we took the posi-
tion that each war-crimes investigating team had to be staffed b two
lawyers, two or more. We took the position that the evidence s ouldE
not be procured by laymen, and I am still extremely sold on that con-
clusion. There was pressure from General Betts and some people at
headquarters to use CIC personnel, but, particularly in view of the fact
that we were going to use the sworn testimony, the extrajudicial state-
hents of witnesses, I was of the view that it was essential that it be
done by capable lawyers.
We ultimately got to the place where there was no other solution,
other than to use laymen almost exclusively on the war-crimes investi-
gating teams. We had 19 of those working in areas from the North
Sea to the Alps, down into Austria, in the early days. Also, there
was agitation, which was a factor, from the standpoint of consumption
of personnel, for us to take on projects other than what we had in
mind. The directive at the outset, of the War Department, was not
too much in detail, and we concluded that the only people we could
ever possibly expect to try would be those who had committed crimes
involving American nationals, as victims, and mass atrocities com-
mitted in the American zone of occupation. W.hen I say "mass atroc-
ities," I mean such cases as concentration-camp cases, and so forth.
But, there were letters from the War Department, agitating for us
to investigate cases involving nationals of any of the United Nations.
We successfully avoided their burdening us with that. Also, there
was agitation for us to take over the job of tryiag-I think Colonel
Mickelwaite mentioned this the other day-members of the criminal
organizations that were on trial at Nuremberg. We successfully
avoided taking over that job.
Also, there was agitation, after the decision at Nuremberg, which
we successfully avoided, for us to include a charge in each of our cases
based upon the Nuremberg decision control counsel law No. 10,
touching such of the accused as were members of criminal organiza-
tions, with that. We did i t in one case, and then we got thereafter
relieved from that. That would have dragged our cases out and made
the investigation problem much more burdensome.
I think I have covered that, perhaps, as well as possible.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, the cases that you did try were those that
were violations of the rules of war in one phase or the other?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Yes, sir. Incidentally, almost without excep-
tion, I cannot say to you for sure, but almost without exception every
case we tried involved an ordinary crime, had it been a violation of
the municipal criminal law, and was a violation of the very wording
of the Hague Convention, the annex thereto, or the Geneva Prisoner
of War Convention of, I think it was, 1909. I n other words, we were
not proceeding on untrodden ground.
Senator BALDWIN.When you got this personnel, what procedures
or programs did you follow with reference to them? I mean, here
comes a man over from the United States, that was to report to you for
duty. How did you deal with them? What was your procedure?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I n the days when I was executive officer, I think
it is fair to say that I personally interviewed 95 or more percent of all
officers,court reporters, and interpreters that came in.
Senator BALDWIN.What was the nature of that interview? What
did you discuss in those interviews?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I had the personnel people cause the man to 611
out a mimeographed questionnaire that I had prepared for that pur-
pose, in an endeavor to find out what his experience and capabilities
were. Then the man was sent to me, with that questionnaire com-
pleted, and with his 66-1 card, and such other records as he had
available.
Senator BALDWIN.What is the 66 card?
Cblonel STRAIGHT. It is merely a card with rather meager amount
of information on it, but it is an official card that travels with the
officer.
Colonel STRAIGHT. It shows a little bit about his activities in civil
life, and his assignments in the Army, and incidentally, his rating in
the Army.
They came to me and I talked to them and endeavored to find out
the things I needed to know, in addition to what I could.see by looking
at their 66-1 card, and also the mimeographed sheet.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUdid this individually, or in groups?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Individually.
However, in addition, particularly with the larger groups that came

in, I had some of the others, talked with them in an endeavor to orient
them on the work; and, moreover, we had a mimeographed set of
pr'inted directives and instructions in regard to the operations, that
we delivered to them. As a matter of SOP routine to each officer
that came in.
Senator BALDWIN. Well-
Colonel STRAIGHT.After Colonel Mickelwaite was assigned as
theater judge advocate, I still interviewed quite a few of the people
that came, but I don't think the percentage was near as high as it was
before.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, in those conferences, did you ever say any-
thing to them that would indicate your feeling, if you had a feeling,
about what the outcome of these trials ought to be, or how these people
should be handled, or that we should make short shrift of them, or
anything of that kind 8
Colonel STRAIGHT. NO,sir. I, from the beginning to the end of the
program, I made every endeavor I could, with the tlme and personnel
available, to assure that people had a fair trial.
Senator BALDWIN. One of the witnesses here, I think-
Off the record.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you a t any time a t any of these meetings,
'either in conferences with individuals or in general meetings, say
anything to the prosecution staff, or to the defense staff, or to any of
the personnel that they were not to be involved in technicalities; that
they were to make short work of it, and that they were to proceed
as rapidly as possible, or language of that kind?
Colonel STFL~IGHT. NOdoubt I have used expressions somewhat simi-
lar to what you used. This situation obtained: That some of the
defense counsel weTe set on the idea of haggling abont this and that,
as one would if he were trying a case in American municipal criminal
law. As you have observed a t the hearings, you well know that follow-
ing the rules of evidence that the President prescribed, such as in the
saboteur case, that such evidence as the court thought to be of probative
value was admissible; hearsay evidence would be admissible, and so
on. The statements, extra'udicial sworn statements of one accused
against another were used. by superiors were doing t l ~ e i duty.
r
were urging n?e to get along with the job, and, very appropriately,
They
they were urging me t o see that every man, to the greatest extent
possible, did a day's work for the Government, and I attended, I think,
two-I don't know whether you refer to the counsel meetings at
Dachau-I attended, I thinlr, two counsel meetings at Dachau. I think
they were started by Colonel Bresee and Colonel Durst in the forepart
of 1947; I attended two and I am sure that I made remarks about the
law applicable, the rules of evidence applicable, and discouraged the
idea of purely dilatory tactic.; in connection with argument on rules
of evidence, endeavors with that reason to apply the rules of evidence
in American municipal court law as contrasted with the rules of evi-
dence applying to the war-crimes trials. I n other words, I have said
that I am sure I discussed the rules ; I discouraged indulging in dila-
tory tactics by way of arguments or repetitious objections every time
someone asked a 'question that the court would obviously have to
overrule.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, in that case----
Colonel STRAIGHT. It was inescapable.
Senator BALDWIN.ISthe committee to infer by that that what you
are saying is that the point that you stressed was t h a t these cases were
tried under the rules that were different from those that are obtained
in American criminal courts; that is, they were tried under rules
established f o r military courts. I s that what you mean to imply ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Exactly, exactly; and also i n those conferences
1touched on such questions as lawyers going ahead preparing their
cases and not being dilatory and saying, "Well, no," never being ready
t o t r y cases.
Also, I stressed the fact that they were not to grasp every opportu-
nity to run over to Munich with pretenses of going over to interrogate
somebody and actually going out on a frolic, and so forth. The admin-
istration a t Dachau was very difficult, because our war-crimes opera-
tion was carried on i n a series of low one-story buildings that had
been used, part of them, a t least, had been used as small-arms ammuni-
tion factories, or a t least small-arms factories, and had been operated
as concentration camps. There were innumerable entries to these little
buildings, and personnel rightfully had excuses f o r going out, maybe
down to inside the prison enclosure to interrogate witnesses, or go
outside to interrogzte witnesses, and the problem of keeping people on
their work was a very difficult one.
Senator BALDWIN.Was your task as executive officer, Colonel, con-
cerned with the selection of the defense counsel ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. We had little occasion to select defense counsel
during the time I was executive officer, because-defense and prosecur
tion-because a t that time the responsibility for the actual operations,
the investigation of cases and the trial cases was i n the armies, the
T h i r d and Seventh Armies. I t is true that we did lend personnel to
the Armies from time to time, as we did i n the Malmedy case, to prose-
cute and defend; and I led quite a n active life as executive officer and
no doubt in some instances I did, and there were instances where we
were going to lend personnel, recommend to Colonel Miclcelmaite that
fhis or that officer be assignecl to the task.
Senator BALDWIN.How was the defense counsel selected? From
your knowledge, that is.
Colonel STRAIGHT. I n cases generally ?
Colonel STRAIGHT.
A t the time when we took over the operation or
while i t n-as in the Armies ?
Senator BAIDWIN.Both times.
Colonel STRAIGIIT. The people working for the Judge Advocate for
the Armies, I ass~~inecl, made re~omine~~clatioi~sto or i n the name of-
that is, recommendatioi~sto the Judge ,4dvocate of the Army as to who
should serve as prosecution and defense, and as ZL result memorand~lms
were processed to the adjutant a t the B r m y headquarters for the propa-
gation of orders.
I do know that insofar as the operations of the Third Army were
concerned, that Colonel Corbin, who was in charge a t Dachau a t tile
t h e the Malmedy cases went to trial, was given almost a complete
hand by Colonel Cheever in all those matters. As a matter of fact;I
think he would call up the Judge Advocate General of the Third Army
and ask for orders to be issued and there was no coordination there
with Colonel Cheever at all.
Now, if you are getting to the question of whether the cards were
stacked against an accused, I never at any time saw any evidence of
that. The contest was pretty well matched from a standpoint of prose-
cution and defense counsel, insofar as those, while we had the responsi-
bility of those in the Army-when we took over the operational end of
the war crimes program-
Senator BALDWIN. When was that?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Around July 1, 1947, 1946, pardon-we concern
trated everything at Dachau. We closed the enclosure near Ludwlgs-
burg, the war crimes enclosure that was established and moved them
all to Dachau, and the court section that was operating near Ludwigs-
burg was moved to Dachau, and the man who acted as chief of the
Dachau detachment, to a great extent, was the nmn who made recom-
mendations as to the appointment of counsel. I will be very frank
with you in saying that, except in the larger cases, after that time I did
not personally deal with the problem because I was of the opinion that
Colonel Bresee was proceeding in an appropriate manner.
On the bigger cases, I did take an active part in assigning counsel,
but to a great extent it was merely okaying recommendations to Colonel
Bresee.
Senator BALDWIN.It is not clear in my mind just what your duties
were, in connection with the assignment of defense counsel, prosecu-
tion counsel, investigators, and interpreters.
Colonel STRAIGHT. During the stage, after the operations were taken
over a t theater headquarters-or afterwards?
Senator BALDWIN.When you first went. You spoke of going to
T a r i s as an executive officer under General Betts-
Colonel STRAIGHT. Yes. At that time the organization consisted
solely of the little section in the office, with the theater directive re-
quiring that the Army groups establish a War Crimes Branch in the
judge advocate of that group, and that there be likewise one estab-
lished in the judge advocate sections of the armies. All those agencies
were virtually without personnel. As we campaigned for personnel,
we also organized war crimes teams and we organized and equipped
them in Paris and assigned them down to the Army groups for se-
assignment later.
At the end of hostilities we had organized and staffed and delivered
eight such teams. Later we organized the additional number going
u p to 19.
The teams, with the exception of one or two, were all assigned to
the armies with no opportunities for headquarters to control them,
other than to give them suggestions on 'down the line.
Virtually all the time before the operations were taken over by
the headquarters, to July 1,1946, there was one or two what we called
formal teams assigned to an agency near our ofice so that we could
in fact, even though a staff section, direct their actions; and, on cer-
tain important cases we had what we called informal teams, people
of certain ability that went out and gathered evidence.
Senator BALDWIN.At the time of the Malmedy trials you were at
Dachau, were you?
Colonel STRAIGHT. NO.
Senator BALDWIN.Where were you?
-
Colonel STRAIGHT.
Our headquarters were moved from Paris to
Wiesbaden in June 1945. The headquarters remained there until
about the 20th day of November 1946 when they moved to Augsburg,
so the headquarters were a t Wiesbaden a t the time of the Malmedy
trials.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, what is not clear in my mind a t all, is how
the prosecuting attorneys that tried the Malmedy cases, for example,
and how the defense attorneys that tried the Malmedy cases were
, selected.
Colonel STRAIGHT. I think that Colonel Mickelwaite, in that in-
stance, in fact I know that he selected Colonel Everett. It is entirely
possible that by 'phone call in from the field, Everett expressed the
desire to have Mr. Strong, and he was assigned to him. I have no
recollection whatever of being involved in the assigning of Colonel
Dwinell. As a matter of fact, I am not sure that I knew him ; a t the
same time i t is entirely probable that he came in, was shipped over
from the States, and if he did he was processed through headquarters
and I did know him.
I took quite an active part in the development of the Malmedy case
by assigning Major Fanton and some of his staff down a t Schwabisch
Hall. Major Fanton, I remember there was the question came up
as to who would take his place. Colonel Ellis was then head of what
we call the Evidence Branch, and he wanted very much to go down
and take over the balance of the investigation and try the case. I
think it entirely probable that I recommended to Colonel Mickelwaite
that that be done.
Of course, in technical approach to it, these men that were assigned
as prosecution or defense counsel were agents of the Third Army.
The Third Army headquarters issued the order appointing the court,
the court was working for the Third Army in its technical aspects.
These men that came from headauarters were loaned to the Third
Army for that purpose.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, was your War Crimes Division under the
Judge Advocate General's Office of the theater ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. It was part of i t ; yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. And then, I mean In other words, your work was
a separate division under the Judge Advocate General's office?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Exactly. I n other words he had a deputy for
what he called operations and a deputy for war crimes.
Senator BAWWIN.Well, the deputy for operations was the deputy
that dealt entirely with the procurement of the personnel-
Colonel STRAIGHT. NO, he dealt with the military justice side and
then there was a war crimes side.
Senator BALDWIN. And the war crimes side is the side that-
Colonel STRBIGHT.That I was involved with.
Senator BALDWIN.And that was the side that set up the organiza-
tion for the prosecution, the defense, the investigation and the inter-
preters, is that correct?
Senator BALDWIN.What I am trying to get is, the record of, in
my own mind, the organizational set-up of this thing. Of course, the
whole originally was under the Third Army or the Seventh Army,
is that correct ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. The operational responsibility for the gathering

of evidence and the trial of cases was under the Seventh and Third
Armies, following about the 1st of July 1945, when the other armies
Were deactivated. The War Crimes Agency at the Headquarters, part
of the Theater Judge Advocate's Office was purely and simply, a t least
in the technical aspects, a part of the staff section, up until Jnly 1,
3946, when the theater headquarters took over complete responsibility
for all operational aspects for the war crimes program.
Have I made myself clear?
Senator BALDWIN. I n a may, yes. I t is still a little bit hazy in my
mind.
Colonel STRAIGHT. I think if we started in with this thing in its
chronological order, it probably would have been easier for us to bring
out the picture.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Stmight. would it be possible for you to
reconstruct an organizational chart and keep i t on ,z chronological
basis? You might have four or five charts.
Colonel STRAIGHT. I can show you organizational charts. I think
there is one about July 1945-yes, here is one.
Then, I am sure there is a later one.
Senator BALDWIN.I would like to have that.
Colonel STRAIGHT.Here is one July 1945, and one December 1946,
~ h i c hshows the thing at the time the armies liad the operational
responsibility and at the time when the headquarters had the respon-
sibility.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What are you quoting from or showing us the chart
from, Colonel Straight ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. History of War Crimes Operations which I was
required by an operations directive to make at the end of the operation.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is an official document of the Department of
the Army ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Yes, it is in this sense, that I was required to
make it, as you make histories of organizations in the armies.
Now, I might add this, that General Harbaugh planned, in pub-
lishing it and printing it, to change its form, and he was going to add
n preface to it by way of another volunie possibly and portray the end
of the operation that took place in his office. That other aspect of it
has not yet been covered but that is an official document as such.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It would then be possible to secure a copy of it for
the record ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Yes.
Mr. CI-IANBERS. Will Colonel Fenn or yourself see that copies of
those get in the record ?
Senator BALDWIN.I wonder if we have available the r e ~ o r of t the
Deputy Judge Advocate for War Crimes.
Colonel STRAIGHT. I am quite sure you do not, as yet.
I\
Colonel FENN. Could they have that?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Yes; I imagine they can get that. I hope 1 can
get another one.
Colonel FENN. YOUcan have that.
Senator BALDWIN.I think that is very important, particularly these
two organizational charts.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
That will be fine.
Colonel STRAIGHT. T h a t gives the history of all applicable opera-
tional records, and otherwise, i n connection with it.
Senator BALDWIN.Colonel, Mr. Chambers was questioning you con-
cerning the participation of Colonel Dwinell i n the review of some of
these cases.
I
1 1 these reviews were there any members of the prosecution, to your
knowleclge, that mere ever concerned with the reviews, as a member
of the reviewing boarcl ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. The answer is "No."
Certainly not in my operations or i n my office, and I have every
reason to believe that Dwinell constitutes the only exception to the
proposition that prosecution and defense never worked or aided i n
making reviews and recommendations.
Senator BALDWIN.I n making these recomineildatiolls and reviews,
would Colonel Dwinell, to your knowledge, actually participate i n
the final decision as to what was going to be done about the review ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I don't think he would. T h a t is, I do not think
he did; but, that was in Colonel Harbaugh's office ancl I cannot help
you on that, except that I put i n so much hearsay before with regard
to that matter that I do recall Harbaugh saying, "Well, he wasn't
interested in Dwinell's views." The last 2 or 3 days, he made that
remark.
Senator BALDWIN.Here's what Colonel Dwinell testified to :
Mr. CHANBICW. At t h time
~ t h a t the bonrtl of re\-iew sat on this, did you have
any contact with or relation mitli the boarcl of review?
Chlonel PWINELL.I certainly did.
Mr. C H A ~ I B E EDid
S you Bnow t h a t while you were working with t h e board
of 1w7iewthat you were working on these cases?
Mr. CHAMBEES.Did SOU h a r e anything to do with the preparation of this
report?
I don't recall what report that was.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It was the report of the Harbaugh board on the
Malmedy cases.
Senator BALDWIN(continuing) :
COLONEI, DWINELI,.I did not ; not to this extent. The report that I have before
me was written in the main by Colonel Scarborough-
Mr. CHAMBERS.That's correct.
and every day he and I discussed the language therein, and wherever I could
speak for the defense I did.
Now, I will frankly state so.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then you would say t h a t the points of view of the defense
certxinlv h a d adequnte revresentation before the boarcl of review?
Colonel DWIKELL. They did; very vigorously did I advocate t h e defense.
You, yourself, did not sit on this board of review ?
Colonel STRAIGHT.
NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.W h a t was your connection with i t ?
Colonel STRAIGHT.None actually. T h a t board of review was i n
Colonel Harbaugh's office, the theater judge advocate's office, see. O u r
o.?ce headquarters was a t Munich, and I had no connectioil with it
a t all, except that I w t ~ son Colonel Harbaugh's staff, too, located
about 250 miles away.
Senator BALDWIN. So it is a fact that a t the time these M a h e d y

trials were reviewed that Colonel Dwinell was working with the
review board?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I wasn't a t Frankfort at that time, during the
entire time, but I understand it is true. I think I was told so over the
telephone more than one time and the record here says it is true.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Volume 10, page 1054, Colonel Dwinell said further
on that point, in response to a question by Senator Hunt when he
asked him after some discussion about the board of review:
Senator HUNT. Then the fact t h a t you were just in a n advisory capacity is
more or less of a technical term than it is a fact that you did not participate
because if you were there for that time and actually in conferences with them
on the review board, then you were functioning really a s a member of the review
board, although technically you were not so designated?
Colonel DWINELL.Well, I can say this without trying to evade any particular
question, that when the conclusions were reached by t h e board I did not sign my
name to any report. I refused to be a part of the board to any extent that I
would go on record a s agreeing with them. Naturally as defense counsel I
could not.
Senator HUNT.D id you a t any time argue any of your points of view before
the review board?
Colonel DWINELL.Every day.
Senator HUNT. And you participated just about a s fully a s you possibly could?
Colonel DWINELL.For the defense.
So I think the record shows pretty clearly from Colonel Dwinell's
own testimony that he had a very active part in these review pro-
cedures, and I think it is highly significant, Senator Baldwin, that this
particular board of review, the Harbaugh board of review, recom-
mended to Colonel Harbaugh that 27 of the sentences which Colonel
Straight's board of review had recommended to him be disapproved
in their entirety. I think it is also significant that that recommenda-
tion was only accepted by Colonel Harbaugh in 11 cases. I would
like to ask Colonel Straight this question just to clear the record : Did
Colonel Harbaugh talk to you about that situation? That is, did he
talk to you about the fact that Scarborough and the board of review
had recommended that a lot of these cases be disapproved ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. We discussed the Malmedy case many, many
times over the telephone, and I am sure that Colonel Harbaugh was
i n my office in Munich on one occasion, in which we discussed the
case, at the time they were reviewing it at Frankfort, and there is no
doubt but that he mentioned the position of his board on one or more
occasions. I don't remember anything specifically about it, however,
about the remarks insofar as they involved any particular accused.
I do have the distinct recollection that the matter of wanting to dis-
approve so many of them was mentioned because obviously I thor-
oughly disagreed with it. I did theh, and do now, in that review and
recommendations-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Which is the review and recommendation prepared
under your jurisdiction by the posttrial section?
Colonel STRAIGHT. That is right, and incidentally you might be in-
terested in this, that Mr. Reynolds who did the final spade work on
that thing, is the best man I ever had in my posttrial branch. He later
went to Berlin and worked for Colonel Raymond, head of the Legal
Division up there, and I understand that he has done some extremely
good work u p there.
I should mention this, that that constitutes a rework of Mr. Den-
son's draft. I toId ou before it was assigned to him. Mr. Denson did
very good work. dowever, if he were to look at that he would prob-
ably say it doesn't bear much resemblance to what it did, for the reason
that he expressed himself, his review was extremely long and the review
of the case, i n order to portray it for one's self, or for anybody else,
was extremely difficult in view of the nature of the charges, and the
actions of the Combat Group Peiper. Mr. Denson's work from the
record was very accurate. However, after we got Mr. Denson's draft,
I read the thing through a time or two, and I couldn't visualize what
' happened. Mr. Reynolds the same-way. We finally devised a scheme
to rearrange i t editorially and approach it both from the general evi-
dence from the defense and prosecution and with regard to a par-
ticular accused, set it up on an incident basis, and that for the prose-
cution as to that incident and that for the defense as to that incident,
so that in reading the thing and working it back to the record and
weighing the evidence and reaching a conclusion there would be set
out there, one against the other.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did Colonel Denson arrive at conclusions and make
recommendations affecting the sentences ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you agree with those recommendations or did
you change them?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I didn't agree with all of them. I doubt that
I ever agreed with all of the recommendations any of my men ever
made, particularly involving that many accused.
As I recall, he took the position that two, possibly three sentences
should be disapproved. I only recommended that one sentence be
disapproved; and, as to the sentences, altering sentences which were to
be approved, I don't remember too well what his recommendations
were; but I h o w this, that with regard to the men under 20 years
old, I took a stronger view than Mr. Reynolds or Mr. Denson did, that
I could not see the death sentences being executed against those men
in view of the fact that these atrocities were closely connected with
military operations; there is a difficult situation in the Army when
superiors tell infer~orsthey will do something, particularly in con-
nection with combat operations. Also, over and above everything
else, I was of the view that these men who were untrained, some of them
as I recall it were down to 18 or 17 a t the time of these acts, had been
brought up in the shade, they had not seen the sunlight, they had been
taught doctrines that are quite far-reaching for our imxgination to
grasp and it occurred to me that they can be salvaged and that is the
better thing to do than to go ahead and approve the death sentences.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then you were basing that, to a large degree, in that
type of case, on the youth of the accused?
I believe that the record shows that approximately, in 37 out of the
'73 cases, the sentences were reduced, which included this one dis-
approval that you referred to.
Colonel STRAIGHT. YOUmean, my recommendation?
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Yes.
Colonel STRBIGHT.
I don't remember the figures.
Mr. CHAMBHRS. I was tabulating them as you talked, but you did
believe because of the age of the accused in a lot of cases they should be
reduced, they were in fact guilty but because of their age, there were
mitigating circumstances which should bring about a mitigation of
sentence, is that correct ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Exactly.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It was testified to here by Colonel Ellis, and I believe
by others, that Colonel Ellis submitted a recommendation for clem-
ency in the case of some of these younger people. Were you aware
of that ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I was; yes.
Mr. CHANBERS. What happened to that recommendation?
Colonel STRAIGHT.
My best memory as to all aspects of i t is as
follows :
I n talking to Colonel Ellis in connection with other operations, near
the time I was concentrating on the preparing of this review and
recommendation, I gathered from him that he had submitted a recom-
mendation in addition to that one in relation to Junker and somebody
else. And, in pestering, I say that advisedly, Mr. Reynolds to find
that for me, he couldn't locate it. I have talked to Colonel Ellis
during this hearing about what he did with it. He is not sure whether
he delivered it to Mr. Denson in Dachau, where Mr. Denson worked on
the case, or whether he had it delivered to somebody for my office. I
do not ever remember seeing it.
Now, either in talking to Colonel Ellis, before I made various de-
mands on Mr. Reynolds to find it, or afterwards, I gathered the very
distinct impression that his recommendation was based solely on age.
Also, I gathered that my views in that connection were stronger than
his, and that the thing did not contain anything by way of analysis of
the evidence, or other infornlation that would be helpful, and therefore
I dismissed the problem of finding it.
Now, I would like to hasten on to say-
Mr. CHAMBERS. It would save me a question if you do, Colonel.
Colonel STRAIGHT. Much to my surprise, it came out in this hearing
that he had a copy of it and I seriously regret that I didn't ask him
for a copy of it to attach to this record; but I sag to you, my informa-
tion as to what was in it was correct, even after seeing a copy of i t
after he had it here. as I think somebody in the line of questioning,
when he was here as a witness, somebody pointed out that there was
nothing to it other than a blank recommendation to reduce the follow-
ing sentences as indicated opposite their names.
Mr. C H A ~ ~ B EColonel,
RS. I recognize the situation-
Colonel STRAIGHT.
How come it did not occur to me to ask him for
a copy and direct Mr. Reynolds to get a copy, ,if he had one, I can't
help you. I don't remember.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It would appear that had Ellis7 recommendations
perhaps been stronger than your point bf view, that that would have
been rather a serious thing not to ask Ellis to submit a new one, or to
have gone further in trying to find thf: copy that he did submit-I be-
lieve that a fair statement of your testimony is : I n your opinion, as of
today, after looking a t Ellis' recommendation, that none of the ac-
cused suffered thereby ?
Colonel STRAIGHT,. Oh, I got.so exercised about the problem that I
sat down to check it out name by nam! to see, and i t is true that my
recommendations, as I recall, in every mstance go further in that con-
nection than his.
Senator BALDWIN. Off the record.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have one other series of questions, that I would
like to ask you about.
We have had presented to this committee as a art of the record,
since the report of the Evqrett petition before the A p e m e Court, and
then from many other sources in the form of magazine articles and
statements, concerning alleged mistreatment and very brutal and sadis-
tic treatment of these Malmedy accused.
Now, being in charge of this War Crimes Branch, and I think you
have already made reference to the whisperings and the undercurrents
about this particular case which affected Colonel Harbauph to some
de reepyou must have had some knowledge of the general situation.
&ow, I would like to ask you if you knew of this business of accused,
sometime after conviction, beginning to sign affidavits, and whether or .
not you made any effort to investigate the matter and find out what
the situation was?
Colonel STRAIGHT. First, I want to correct an impression I may have
given. I didn't intend to convey the idea that Colonel Harbaugh was
impressed by the rumors and the gossip. I don't know.
As regards the rest of your question, it is rather general. However,
up to the middle of 1947, around July, any assertions or informal let-
ters or anything coming to us about any improper conduct by investi-
&itors were very few, mild, and far between.
The picture changed definitely, however, in 1047-that is, July 1947.
I distinctly remember that soon after moving my headquarters again
to Freising, which was about the 5th of July 1947, soon after that I
had a letter, I think two letters, one came in before I decided to answer
it, and t,here was another that came, letters by a high church official
in Munich to General Milburn who was commanding our First Divi-
sion. Why he wrote him, I don't know, because he had nothing to
do with the operation, and was purely a stranger to it, but the rank
sounded good.
Those letters by that high church official were the first ones I had
seen, where there were broad fantastic allegations of, shall I say,
atrocities committed by American personnel?
Senator BALDWIN.What was the date of that?
Colonel STRAIGHT. The date ?
Colonel STRAIGHT.
I n July or August 1947.
As I recall, General Milburn's headquarters sent it to me for such
action as I thought fit. I originally toyed with the idea of going in
to see this high church official, and see if I could get some leads to the
sources of his information, what war crimes the accused were involved
in, what cases were involved, and what i t was about.
Then, however, before I definitely decided on actioh in connection
with those two letters, the CIC personnel of the War Crimes enclosure,
that is, the personnel o erating the enclosure for us, the housekeeper
P
service, intercepted a egal-sized envelope with a packet of papers
probably about an inch and a half or two inches thick. Some of the
statements were signed, and some mere not. I then decided that I
should make a recommenclation-
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I interrupt and ask what was the substance of
those papers? You say there were papers in a manila envelope?
Colonel STRLIIGHT. They were of the same character. Incidentally,

that is, they were broad, extreme allegations of a type different than I
had theretofore seen.
Mr. CHAMBERS. What was the form of these papers?
Colonel STRAIGHT.Some signed and some unsigned, incidentally.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You mean that these were a series of apparent
$ffidavits or statements that various accused, some accused had signed
ahd that others were still unsigned?
Mr. CHAMBERS. And

they were all grouped together a t that time,
indicating that they-
Colonel STRAIGHT. I distinctly remember one fantastic, as I recall,
there was one fantastic story about a man who had been tried and
something about convicted with perjured testimony and, in fact, the
man had been acquitted. I am quite sure with regard to another-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was that signed or unsigned?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I don't recall. I n regard to another supposed-
to-be recipient of abuse, the records of the War Crimes enclosure did
not. indicate that he had ever even been there. Those are merely two
of the items that I recall. I had my inspector run it out as best he
could, following the submittal, and I couldn't establish, couldn't find
evidence that my personnel had done the things alleged. And, as I
started to say a while ago, I recommended that the chief of staff,
headquarters, submit i t t o Colonel Harbaugh, my superior judge
advocate, have the CIC investi ate the American side. That is, the
f
American side, for possible su versive activity and following that,
partially depending on what they found, that they have a very vig-
orous I. G. investigation of my own organization thinking that some-
body outside might find what I could not inside.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Straight, I am quite interested in this par-
ticular situation.
Let us see if I have it clearly in mind.
I n 1947, and of course we date everything from Malmedy here, some
few months after the Malmedy trials were over-
Colonel STRAIGHT. About a year.
Mr. CHAMBERS. About

a year after the Malmedy trials were over,
one of your personnel brought to you a large Manila envelope in
which were grouped a large group of statements alleging mistreat-
ment, brutalities, and things of that type-part had been signed
and part had not been signed.
MP. CHAMBERS. This

brown envelope was found by your personnel
in the vicinity of the prisoners?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Not mine, CIC personnel who operated the W a r
Crimes enclosure.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did he find these in relation to the enclosure?
Colonel STRAIGHT.
Yes, inside the enclosure at Dachau.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Up
until that time, there had been very few accusa-
tions of a serious nature concerning mistreatment of prisoners?
Colonel STRAIGHT. That is true. And my answer t o that is, what I
intended to portray was that folowing that time, there has been a
stream of i t all the time, a t least until I left over there, and in view
of what I have seen since I got back here in September, there has been
quite a volume continuing.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Straight, did you arrive at the conclusion
that someone had brought this in for the purpose of getting signatures
on these things and submitting them and using them a t a later time?
Colonel STRAIGHT. My belief was, at the time, that somebody from
outside was the instigator and was procnring these things from inside
the enclosure. I n other words, there was someone outside that had
some sort of a plan to discredit the occupation of the war-crimes
operation, or something, and that they were after these items from
detainees inside the war-crimes enclosure.
Mr. C H A B ~ E RISthink
. i t is important we find the form they were
in. Were these individual statements that had been written by peo-
ple or were they prepared in such a way as it would look as though
they had been prepared on the outside and brought in for signature?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Well, it is entirely possible that some German
personnel helping, not in detention, helping operate the enclosure,
could have used a typewriter available inside the enclosure to write
them with. As I recall it, there was no statement in longhand. I am
quite positice each had been written on a typewriter. Now, I don't
think it's probable, however, that German personnel aiding Colonel
Kohler in running the enclosure typed them out. It could easily be
true.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUdon't think it probable?
Colonel STRAIGHT.
Certainly typewriters are not available to the
detainees themselves.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were there as many as 10 of these statements?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I think there were about-18 or 19. Some of
them were pretty long. There was one tirade about the procedure
used that was quite long, written by a man who professed to be a
lawyer, and his complaint was that we were not following German
procedure in the trial of the cases.
Senator BALDWIN.Where are these documents now, do you know,
Colonel ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. They would be in headquarters, I suppose, over
ther-
Mr. CHAMBERS.I n Europe ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I n Europe. Yet, i t is entirely probable that
copies of all those exhibits were with the records of the war crimes
grou which were sent to inactive records a t St. Louis at the time I
2
close the doors over there.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But there should be available in the official records
of the Department oflice, a report of this matter, along with your rec-
ommendation for an investigation, and there should also be available,
copies of the documents that were picked up by the CIC personnel?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Oh, yes.
Senator BALDWIN. I think we had better recess. I think we will
recess until 1:15, and get an early start, because we want to go ahead
and get through this afternoon as much as we can.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would like to ask this. Do you have other ques-
tions to ask Colonel Straight?
(Thereupon, a t 12 : 05 p. m. a recess was taken until 1:15 p. m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
Senator BALDWIN.The meeting will come to order, please. Colonel

Straight, will you take the stand again.
TESTIMONY LT. COL. CLIO E. STRAIGHT-Resumed
Senator BALDWIN.U p to the time that you had these letters or these
papers that you found or that were brought to you making these gen-
eral accusations about the conduct of the investigation, mere there any
complaints of physical abuse or violence or anything on these
prisoners ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Very few, Senator Baldwin.
Senator BALDWIN.There were some?
Colonel STRAIGHT.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.And did they come up in connection with the
review, do ou recall?
4
Colonel TRAIGHT. I particularly remember one case where there
was a lot set forth in the record. It involved a number of S S people
up in what is now the British zone. There was a burgomaster up
there who had received some abuse from them, and when the American
forces came in, he immediately got himself appointed as burgomaster.
H e mas not before.
He proceeded to put this gang in jail, and by his own testimony he
went from cell to cell and told them he knew about their killing these
American fliers and they had better put i t in writing and confess. He
il~dulgedin considerable violence.
Senator BALDWIN. What you are referring to now is not the record
of the Malmedy trial?
Colonel STRAIGHT. This is a flier case.
Senator BALDWIN.Was there any in the Malmedy case, do you
recall ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. There was a little bit. There were, I think, two
or three who gave a little testimony to the effect that they had been
the recipients of force and threats of force.
Senator BALDWIN.I want to call your attention to the book that
contains the review that was made under your direction. I find here
in that report in the case of Anton Motzheim, he stated in his evidence
for defense concerning the pretrial investigations, he said there in
connection with his extrajudicial sworn statement that he--without
going into details of the thing-he claims that Lieutenant Per1 kicked
him four times in his sexual parts and Mr. Thon kicked him on the leg.
This lasted for one-half hour.
Then there is another record I notice in the review record that you
prepared of the accused Peiper.
Incidentally, the first page referred to in the record is page 100
and this page is page 112.
While in the cell, he did not have any physical movement. The day
before he left Schwabisch Hall he was beaten. He could not find out
m7ho did the beating, but he had a hood"over his head. H e assumed
Poles were responsible. This occurred only on one occasion. On the
last day of his stay there he was standing waiting in the h a 1 for inter-
rogation and had a black hood over his head, had to wait there for
ahout 5 minutes, and while the American sergeants who came for
him went to get some others from their cells, while he was standing
y i e t l y waiting he was struck in the face and several times in his
parts with a stick He was of the opinion that it was a Pole,
inasmuch as Poles were used as guards.
Do yon recall any other in that record?
Colonel STRAIGHT. I think Hennecke also contended that he had been
beaten. Thesubdivision near the end under "Aennecke" under the title
"Interrogations," or something like that.
Senator BALDWIN. Pretrial interrogations?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Yes; i t is under that.
Senator BALDWIN. I think Hennecke's complaint was based upon
threats that had been made to him in the mock trials.
Colonel STRAIGHT. Probably so.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Do you recall the testimony of Christ, by any
chance ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Not right now; no.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think Christ made some allegations that he was
terribly cursed. I believe we looked into that when Senator McCarthy
was here. But outside of Peiper and Christ and Hennecke's charges
concerning the Schnell procedures and whether or not Lieutenant Perl
was his defense connsel, and there was a lot of stuff in the record on
that, I do not recall of the nine who took the stand anyone who testi-
fied that they had been physically mistreated.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you recall during the trial of the Malmedy
cases whether or not any complaint came to you as executive officer
concerning pretrial irregularities of any kind?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Yes. I played a part in this inspection that Car-
penter made clown there. That is, I mas in on conferences in the offices
with Colonel Mickelwait as to what me should do, and I know I was
in the conferences we had after Carpenter came back, and I know I
was of the same view that Colonel Mickelwait was, that inasmuch as
we found no credible evidence that physical force and violence and
threats of force had been ~zsed-true, there mas indication that some
ceremonies of some kind had been had. We Fere jointly of the view
that we should go ahead with the trial and also at that time, either
at Colonel Ellis' suggestion or our direction-I would say it was our
direction, and I think if you asked Colonel Ellis he would say it was
his suggestion-that he should put all the interrogators on the stand,
develop exactly what happened, and have them there available for
cross-examination, which the record does indicate was done.
I n that connection, there was another thing. Perl, for instance, was
ready for redeployment to the States, and we got special permission
from General Bevins' office, G-1, to hold him there and all interroga-
h r s until the trial was over so they could be there and the court would
have a chance to see them and cross-examine them and the defense,
too.
Senator BALDWIN.That is all. Do you have anything further you
would like to say ?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Yes; very briefly.
Co!onel STRAIGHT. There have been contentions about law in the
record, as to whether i t is legal to kill prisoners of war, and I have
authorities noted in the front of that book in longhand with regard
to that matter, which are as follows :
Article 2 of the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention of July 27,

1929, which provides the positive duty to protect prisoners of war
against acts of violence.
Paragraph C, article 23, annex to the Hague Convention, No. 4,
of October 18, 1907,.prohibits the killing or wounding of any enemy
who has laid down hls arms and has no longer means of defense.
Now, prior to that time, Winthrop, an American writer on military
law, in his book entitled the "Military Law and Precedents," pages 790
to '792, took a like position.
The trial of Henry Werz during the Civil War was based on the same
theory of lav.
I n the authorities collected by Winthrop in that work he cites hear-
ings in the House or Senate during the Revolutionary War, the War
of 1812, and, I think, the Civil War-I am sure about the first two-
in which the same view was expressed.
Wheaton and Hyde, writers on international law, take a like posi-
tion.
There has been a lot said about our treatment of these war-crim-
inal suspects. I collected some authorities in the law portion of this
review and recommendation on that matter in which I cited the deci-
sion of the United States Supreme Court in the Yamashita case, and
I think Wheaton also; in addition to that, Oppenheim and Hyde
contend that prisoners of war who have committed violations of the
law of war prlor to capture are not entitled to the affirmative privileges
set forth in the Geneva Prisoner of War Convention.
On the question of killing prisoners of war because of military neces-
sity or otherwise, I have never been able to run into any writers on
the subject who contended there was any such thing as a right under
anything called military necessity, except one or two German writers.
The writers in all other countries are uniform that it is illegal.
One other aspect of law that I think i$ of considerable interest is
that these cases were not tried in accordance with American municipal
criminal law, they were tried in accordance with American law in
this respect, because it is the procedure applied in the trial of war
prisoners since the Mexican War and further back. One has only to
examine Winthrop to ascertain that and particularly the rules of
evidence, about which there has been a lot said, spring from President
Roosevelt7s order creating - the court that tried the saboteurs in the
Quirin case.
Colonel Mickelwait mentioned the other dav that Great Britain has
followed similar rules of evidence. I wodd like to add that all
English-speaking countries have followed procedures, rules, almost
precisely like that of the British-South Africa, Canada, Australia.
The question of whether it is good wisdom is something else. Frankly,
I do not quarrel with it.
It is of interest that Wigmore even doubts the utility of the hearsay
rule in our own municipal criminal law trials.
It is also interesting to me to note that the hearsay rule is common
only to English-speaking countries' jury trials. It does not exist
other places.
Senator BALDWIN. Could I look a t those authorities again? I
would like to make a note of it.
Colonel STRAIGHT. With regard to the killing of prisoners of war?
Senator BALDWIN.Yes; these authorities that you mentioned here.
Have you anything further you want to say, Colonel?
Colonel STRAIGHT. With regard to the submission of the general
sweeping statements about abuses, my report and recommendation
that an inspection be made, Colonel Harbough, I was told at the
time-and, in fact, as I recalled-through the fall of 1947 recom-
mended to the Chiefs of Staff that such inspection be made. I also
understood it was not made.
Temporarily I considered it possibly a compliment to the war
crimes organization, that they felt they had sufficient knowledge of
what we were doing that i t was not being done.
However, at the same time I was convinced even at that time-at
least, I was suspicious-that the general attacks would progressively
increase.
With regard to Mr. Kessler, I would like to say that I think Mr.
Kessler is a fine man. Examining his academic record, I have reason
to believe that academically he has a very active mind. However,
insofar as work in defense work or prosecution work and review work,
il seemed to me that, while he would probably make a brilliant law
professor, he was not too good a man in applying law in everyday
work.
I n writing reviews his favorite trick-to show the agility of his
mind, and he does show it-he would set up a straw man and take
pages and pages to whip him and then set up another one. The volume
of our review work was such that even that tendency and character-
istic was not, in my opinion, a profitable thing:
Now, there was a question asked this morning that seemed to bear
upon my attitude toward giving these people a fair trial. I f I made
any inappropriate statements at counsel meetings, the a o u g u to be
30 to 50 witnesses whom the committee could get to say that I did.
On the very face of things? if I was not interested in givir'g these
people a fair trial, X certamly was wasting my efforts in ~vorking
nights, Sundays, week ends, all the time for no other puipose, I
thought, than to get them a fair trial.
With regard to reviews, they piled up, the backlog ot larirer and
P
larger. I would not let them go out unless I was satls ed with them.
I had considerable, to say the least, administrative duty to ~ e r f o r m .
Nevertheless, unless I was satisfied with them, I did not 7et them
go out, and it was only after the trial program at Dachau 1)egan to
level off and toward the end of it that we took from the personnel thew
personnel for the Post Trial Branch having no experience jn review
work and gave them on-the-job training and got at the b:~cklogof
reviews and cases.
I have nothing further.
Senator BALDWIN. One case that comes to my mind, Colonel, in the
light of what you have just said, is the case of Georg Bleps, and it
comes to my mind because Lieutenant Lary was here yesterday.
I n his extrajudicial sworn statement Fleps stated that he was at the
crossroads-at Malmedy, I assume-December 17, 1944, and saw
approximately 80 unarmed and surrendered American prisoners of
war standing in a field with their hands raised.
The accused admitted that he fired the first shot at the crossroads
from his pistol at one of the American prisoners and later shot a t two
others.
Lary, an American lieutenant- who was present a t the crossroads,

identified the accused as one who fired the first two pistol shots into the
group of American prisoners, one of whom was hit. Lobman testi-
fied that the accused said that he fired several shots into the prisoners.
So, apparently, you had an American officer who identified this Fleps,
you had his sworn statement for what that might be worth, and you
had the testimony of two other witnesses that they saw the accused fire
these pistol shots.
The evidence for the defense was that the accused stated in his extra-
judicial sworn statement that he fired the shot a t the crossroads pur-
suant to the command of his platoon leader Siptrott.
This is corroborated by an extrajudicial statement of Siptrott to
the extent that Siptrott permitted the accused to fire.
On the question of sufficiency of evidence the court concluded that
the accused willingly killed prisoners of war in accordance with the
directions of his superior, a noncommissioned officer. However, io
the absence of some positive'evidence that some compulsion did not
exist in the absence of his superior, and so on, this fact should be con-
sidered in mitigation. The findings of guilty are warranted by the
evidence. The sentence is excessive.
On the petition for review filed by the American defense counsel and
by others, whom it is not necessary to mention here, apparently this
man was a Romanian, who was an ally or a cobelligerent of Germany at
that time, the recommendation is that the findings and sentence be
approved, but the sentence of death by hanging be commuted to life
imprisonment.
Do you remember whether or not that was your recommendation or
whose recommendation was that?
Colonel STRAIGHT. The recommendations provided in that book that
you have, whatever you term it, are certainly mine.
Senator BALDWIN.These are all your recommendations?
Colonel STRAIGHT. Oh, yes. It is true that while Mr. Reynolds
signed it, thaj nre did not agree-I do not remember disagreements, but
there was a lot of discussion, and I have no reason to think he thor-
oughly agreed with me in each instance, but I was the one who had the
responsibility of making the recommendations. It had to be mine.
Senator BALDWIN.Apparently you felt there was evidence of com-
pulsion on the accused from his superior officer or officers.
Colonel STRAIGHT. I felt this: I think you will find in examining
that review and recommendation that in the absence of very strong
evidence as to the eagerness with which a man went about his work,
that if he did it in the presence of his superior, that military organi-
zations are such, even though these were S S men and apparently they
had been taught to do these things, that there was an element, a cir-
cumstance, that should be taken into consideration in mitigation.
You will also find in there in the case of the officers that did not do
anthing else by way of giving directions other than passing on the
general campaign plans and orders for this application of terrorism
in warfare, that I recommended commutation of those sentences from
death to life. To me there was a considerable difference in passing
on those general orders f r o p possibly passing them on and havin .
definite evidence that he told a certain sergeant or enlisted man to kil 4
some prisoners or civilians a t a certain point.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO,sir.
Senator BALDWIN.Are you going to be around awhile, Colonel?
Senator BALDWIN.We may want to qudstion you again. I f you
could be available, it would be very helpful to us.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Judge Van Roden.
Senator BALDWIN.Judge Van Roden has already been sworn.
STATEMENT OP JUDGE EDWARD LEROY VAN RODEN-Resumed

1\9r. CHAMBERS. Judge Van Roden, when you were last before us
Major Fanton had just introduced into the record a statement which
contained in part some references to yourself. We realized that you
had not had an opportunity to read it in any detail and gave you the
opportunity of submitting a statement or appearing again before the
committee for the purpose of referring to that statement.
I believe you now have a statement you would like to make, and you
may proceed.
Judge VANRODEN.I will just read it into the record, if I may do
so, and any questions you have I would be happy to try to answer.
Senator BALDWIN.Very well.
Judge VANRODEN.Your committee very graciously and very prop-
erly suggested that I have an opportunity to answer and comment
upon a prepared statement made by Maj. Dwight F. F'anton which he
filed and which he orally read to the members of the committee at the
last meeting which I attended. I did not arrive in time to hear this
statement read, and your chairman furnished me with a copy for me
to read and answer if I so desire.
Let me make it clear at the outset that my position has not been,
and is not, that of an advocate for or against any theory or any action
taken for or against any individuals or groups of persons who were
connected with the preparation and trial of the Malmedy case. I have
simply endeavored to bring to the attention of the Secretary of the
Army and now to your committee conditions which mere disclosed
by investigation with the Simpson Commission, of which I was a
member, discovered.
It is noted with great satisfaction that your committee agrees with
me that all of the facts shall be brought to the attention of the
American public, because of the great importance of the issues raised
in this matter now under investigation.
Accordingly, I have read Major Fanton's statement, and my initial
comment is that it shows careful and cautious thinking by a lawyer
of no mean ability, and it is evident that he has prepared this wlth
great care and has exerted his very best efforts to present his view
of the situation in its most favorable light.
The best way to answer Major Fanton's prepared statement seems
to be to submit a summary thereof, and I believe you will find the
following to be an accurate summary of all of the essential portions of
the statement :
1. It was determined that in all probability the Malmedy massacre
had been perpetrated by units of the First S S Panzer Regiment, and
Colonel Peiper, the regimental commander, was interviewed in August
1945.
2. A team of interrogators screened prisoners and suspects were

located.
3. Interrogators were instructed to conduct extensive examination
of persons not members of the units implicated in the crimes being
investigated in order to secure stool pigeons and they reported "the
nature of rumors circulating within the enclosure."
4. A description is given of the general set-up and administrative
plan of evacuation of persons not implicated and the classification of
persons according to their importance.
5. The information was organized through an analysis of material
received from the interrogators. Files and index cards were made.
6. The statement expresses with great particularity that "it was
realized from the outset that any statements or confessions secured
had to be voluntary and that such statements and confessions would
be subjected to careful scrutiny by the court trying this case to
determine whether or not they were admissible under Anglo-American
Rules of Evidence."
'7. The key interrogators were all lawyers who fully appreciated
the importance of employing "proper interrogation techniques."
8. "Other interrogators were carefully briefed so that they enter-
tained a similar awareness of the importance
- of these considerations"
(techniques).
9. Major Fanton issued "SOP No. 4" as stated by him "in order
that the interrogations might be properly controlled and coordinated
to insure maximum exploitation of the witnesses and suspect^.'^ H e
discussed this with interrogators prior to the issuance of the order
and discussed it in detail with interrogators who joined his team
later, and he "constantly supervised interrogations." His statement
sets forth that this order forbid the use of threats, duress in any form,
physical violence, or promises of immunity or mitigation of punish-
ment 'Lby all the interrogators." H e does not state whether his
instructions mere carried out ;and apparently he does not know of his
own knowledge whether they were carried out as he fails to make
such a very important statement in his report.
10. I n a great many places in Major Panton's statement he uses
the words "interrogation techniques," but leaves it to the imagination
of the members of your committee as to what he means by techniques.
11. H e states that "most of these techniques were discussed by him
with the interrogators before being used on particular subjects" (re-
ferring to the accused). He then goes on to say in the next sentence
that he observed the interrogations L'frequently," but in no place in his
statement does he say how frequently or how often he observed the
interrogation of the acc~zsedby the interrogators, nor does he give
any names of the accused who were interrogated in his presence.
It is suggested a t this point that if Major Fanton knew about the
treatment of the accused by the interrogators of his own knowledge,
this being the real issue in this investigation, he would give the com-
mittee some definite testimony upon this subject. I cannot find it
in his report.
12. Although he refers to Colonel Everett's version of the mock trials
a s reading like "flights of he does not deny that mock trials
were resorted to and used. H e describes the mock trials as "tech-
niques" and calls the term "mock trial" a L'misnomer." H e admits
that a "black cloth was thrown over a table and candles weie lit before
a crucifix at the taking of the oath in order to convey the impression
of a court" ;and he then proceeds to state "this 'board7or 'court' usually
consisted of three persons. Officers, enlisted men, or civilians were
used. When important subjects were involved, I sat in on the pro-
ceedings."
13. The statement then contains one entire page in single spacing
about these mock trials which he describes as "the fast procedure,"
and he describes this ceremony of lighting the candles before the
crncifix "as a formality to impress the subject with the sanctity of
the oath through the use of a ceremony which customarily attended
the taking of the oath on the continent," and "it was then explained
to him [the accused] '" " '!' that he must tell the truth." He even
describes how the interrogator would reconstruct the details leading
to the implication of the accused in the crime, and that when they could
not get the accused to "tell the truth," which, of course, means admit
his guilt, "fnrther investigation of such a suspect would be postponed,"
assuming that he would then go through a second mock trial. Major
Fanton continues to state that if an accused happened to be im-
pressed by the ceremony but "was afraid to tell the truth" he was
given an opportunity to think about it, and then visited by another
inerrogator who advised him that he would have another chance in
a "fast procedure," and that in some cases after a second hearing
the accused told a different story than he had told at the first hear-
ing. He concludes on this page, by stating "Others persisted in lying.
These had to be reserved for other techniques." H e does not state
what these "techniques" were. He does not deny that these "tech-
niques" were what the interrogators described as "persuasive methods
and expedients."
14. H e states as his conclusion that he was satisfied that the court
believed that the confessions and statements secured through the use
of this technique (mock trial) were in all respects voluntary and
truthful, although he says in his prepared statement that he was not
present at the trial.
15. Illustrations and expressions of opinion permiate the entire
written statement such as what he understood happened after his de-
parture, and how two interrogators, oue friendly and the other hostile,
participated in the proceedings, and how witnesses were "rarely used
in this procedure," and "I am told that they were not used very much
after my departure," and 'LI believe the number convicted through the
use of this technique was very small."
16. The statement admits that "it was only the more important
suspects who were held in solitary confinement." H e further states
that stool pigeons were used only with important suspects and "to
my knowledge they were never used in connection with the so-called
'mock trials' which were generally reserved for the interrogation of
simpler subjects." I n other words, he tells us that the mock trials were
used for the accused who were not very intelligent.
17. I n a very carefully worded paragraph wherein Major Banton
attempted to give the impression that "these accounts of b e a t i n ~ ,
threats, inducements, starvation, spiritual deprivation, and a variety
of tortures are al.1 untrue" @hathe really says is contained i n the next
sentence of that paragraph in which he states "I have been told many
of these stbries have been admitted as such by those responsible for

them." He does not state the source of his information, nor does he
indicate for the benefit of the committee who has admitted these
accusations to be untrue. This would seem to be the very crux of
the matter before the committee, and Major Fanton should have
given the committee the benefit of facts instead of avoiding the subject
matter a t issue.
18. The statement goes on to admit that i t was customary for the
interrogator to rephrase the subject's language, which mould seem to
corroborate Colonel Everett's accusation that the statements were pre-
pared by the interrogator and would not always reflect what the
accused had said. Following this the statement proceeds to set forth
that "there is a very strong urge on the part of a person gnilty of a
serious crime to unburden himself through confession." H e does not
further explain what he means by "confession" and adroitly avoids
making any denial of or affirmation that improper and profane use
of sacramental confession was had.
19. He states frankly: while "not present for the trial of this case"
he has "every reason to believe" that the claims that Colonel Eeverett
made in his petition were "distorted and untrue," but he does not state
any basis for his personal opinion and belief, and in the next paragraph
he refers to "what I have learned about what transpired after my de-
parture." He believes the accused were given a fair trial. He has no
actual knowledge of this, of course. H e frankly admits this to be
true, and then proceeds to state "I have been told that the defendants
who did take the stand to testify with respect to these matters mere
thoroughly discredited." Such statements of opinion by Major Fanton
would have no weight before any American court, particularly where
based on hearsay, and it is submitted that they should have no more
weight with the members of this committee.
The concluding comments in the statement are criticisms and attacks
upon the Army, the Simpson commission, and the Administration of
Justice Review Board, and although there are no averments of facts,
simply name calling, they may be commented upon briefly as follows :
(a) It is difficult to understand what Major Fanton means when he
states, "I was, and remain, highly critical of the manner in which the
Army has handled this case since its trial and initial review."
( b ) I n a somewhat bombastic outburst justifying the trial and the
review and criticizing @ims of mistreatment and indicating that the
court acted properly with respect to convictions and, death sentences,
the committee is referred to the record, which directly contradicts this
statement in that, although the court had sentenced 44 of the defend-
ants to death, only 12 of these sentences were approved by General
Clay after reviewing the record of this trial. Perhaps this explains
the criticism above referred to that Major Fanton has of the Army,
to wit, that even before the commission of which Colonel Simpson and
I were members mas appointed the action of General Clay in disap-
proving 32 of the 44 death sentences.
( c ) Major Fanton's attack upon the Simpson commission does not
merit any reply, except to say that his statement that we heard only
the defense is not accurate.
(d) The criticism of the Administration of Justice Review Board
for considering the report of the German dentist (relating to the
injuries claimed to have been inflicted by the interrogators upon the
defendants), claiming this to be a false affidavit, does not give any
explanation or any assistance to your committee to controvert the
findings of that Board.
( e ) The final criticisms of General Clay's headquarters for disap-
proving and commuting many of the sentences without giving any
reasons does not merit any reply.
( f ) The statement that Colonel Simpson deserves credit in that "he
realized the importance of refuting these unfounded claims and pub-
licly repudiated Judge Van Roden" iadicates that Major Panton, ap-
parently not thinking it important, did not familiarize himself with
what Colonel Simpson stated.
The best answer to this is the official report made by our commission,
which was joined in by Colonel Simpson, Colonel Lawrence, and my-
self, and which I believe is before your committee in its entirety; and
I shall only point out what I believe are points which Major Panton
has overlooked and quote from our report as follows :
( a ) The unesecuted confirmed death sentences resulting from the Dachau
war-crimes trials a r e based upon records which, under the procedures prescribed
in title 5, Military Government Regulations ( t a b F ) , a s modified by Manual for
Trial of War Crimes and Related Cases ( t a b G ) , reflect t h a t the trials were
essentially fair.
( b ) There was no general or systematic use of improper methods to secure
prosecution evidence for use a t the trials.
( c ) Except a s to the cases of the 29 l~risonersreferred to in t a b H, no reason
is perceived why the death sentences under consideration, all of which were
imposed for participation in murder, should not be executed.
I t is stated in tab H, referred to in paragraph ( c ), above, as follnws :
The so-called Malmedy case is distinguishable from all the other war-crimes
cases tried a t Dnchau. These offenses were committed in t1 (' lleat of one of
the most furious battles of the war. The Ardennes offenslr c. L German forces
began on December 16, 1944, and the members of Combat Group Peiper who com-
mitted these crimes were supposed a t all hazards to reach the I\laas River within
2 days. The assassinations which were the basis of this prosecution occurred on
December 17. They a r e most reprehensible and merit stern retribution. How-
ever, i t is extremely doubtful that a n American court martial would fix any
punishment more severe than life imprisonment if i t were trying m e m h ~ r sof
the American ,4rmy who committed like offenses in the heat of battle.
Moreover, the prosecution testimony in this case was made up in large p a r t
of t h e extra judicial statements of the accused. Many of these statements im-
plicated to a damaging degree other of the accused. Admittedly, some o f the
statements mere obtained by the use of mock trials in which one or more persons
attired a s Anlerlcan officers pretended to preside as judges and others attired
in Army oflicels' uniforms pretended to be the prosecutor and defender of t h e
accused. The room where these proceedings were held contained a table covered
with a black cloth on n7hich stood a crucifix and burning candles. The accused
was conducted to this room with a black hood over his head. The mock trials
were designed, among other things, to gain the confidence of the accused in his
supposed defense attorney and thus to elicit a statement from him.
Other practices, some of which were not brought out during the trial, were
developed in the testimony before the Adminlstration of Justice Review Board
for the European Command a s is reflected in its report of August 18, 1945.
The propriety of many of the methods employed to secure statements from t h e
accused is highly questionable and, we conclude, cannot be condoned. The extent
to which the use of these methods operated to elicit statements from the accused
cannot, in the nature of t h e situation, be accurately estimated. Sufficient doubt,
however, is cast upon the entire proceedings because of these factors to make it
unwise, in our opinion, to proceed with the executions of the death sentences which
have been confirmed.
The record of trial, however, sufficiently manifests the guilt of t h e accused
t o warrant the findings of guilty. We conclude t h a t any injustice done t h e
accused against whom death sentences have been approved will be adequately
removed by commutation of the sentences to imprisonment for life. This we
recommend.
It will be seen that there is no disagreement between Colonel Simp-
son and myself. I might add, however, that although not specifically
stated in our report, by reason of the policy still in force that no new
trials would be granted, all three members of our Commission recom-
mended commutation of the 12 death sentences in the Malmedy cases
for. the reasons stated and in order that a t some future time some
proper tribunal (perhaps your committee is such a tribunal) might
ascertain whether any or all of these 12 defendants were guilty, and, if
so, what a proper sentence other than death would be. There is posi-
tively no dispute or disagreement that these 12 defendants did not
merit the death penalty for the reasons stated in our report.
Having summarized Major Fanton's prepared statement, i t seems
clear that the entire statenlent is patently an effort to justify what was
done rather than deny that these things were done. It is clear from
reading Major Fanton's statement that he knomrs very little of his
own knowled e, and his statement is almost entirely a statement of
f
personal conc usions and opinions with no definite statements of the
facts or the actions upon which his conclusions and opinions are based.
A careful reading of this statement indicates to me only two places
where he makes any suggestion that he has personal knowledge of
what the investigators did : and I quote these references :
I constantly supervised interrogations in progress to insure strict compliance
with all of its provisions.
Most of these techniques were discussed with me by the interrogators before
being used on particular subjects. I covered the interrogations frequently while
they were in progress and witnessed certain important confessions secured
through the use of such techniques.
The statement fails to state whether he knew that his instructions
to the interrogators were carried out.
The references to "techniques" and "fast procedure" are not
explained.
No statement is made of just how many interrogations the major
witnessed or the names of the accused in such cases, nor is i t stated
that he knew of his own knowledge the treatment accorded the accused
by the interrogators ;simply the hearsay reports of these interrogators
to him.
No denial of the use of mock trials, simply calling them by different
names.
Repeatedly he uses phrases indicating his testimony is based upon
hearsay and personal opinion, such as "I am told," "I believe," "to my
knowledge," "what I learned after my departure," and so forth.
I n conclusion, if Major Fanton feels that he has been put on the
defensive by Senator McCarthy, who is apparently trying to ascertain
the true facts of the situation, and if he attacks Senator McCarthy for
this reason, and goes on to call Colonel Everett and me names, with
the purpose of drawino me into a personal debate or controversy,
my reply is that he win not be successful. This is undignified and
not in line with the purposes of thc investigation of your committee.
I am sure the members of your committee desire to ascertain the true
facts, and if any of the statements which I have made cannot be sup-
ported by the records, or if Major Fanton has any affirmative answer
which can be proven by proper evidence, I am confident that your
committee will ignore the name-calling ; and I respectfully request
the public press to bring to the attention of the citizens of our country
that Major Panton by relying upon such methods instead of pro-
ducing testimony (of himself and other competent persons) to con-
tradict what I have said cannot be considered as a reliable source of
assistance to your committee and to our Government, whlch is trying
to find what the true facts are.
It is my earnest hope, and in confidence I believe that the members
of your committee will not consider this as a controversy between
individuals and certainly not any controversy amongst groups of Army
officers or investigators. I have no personal desire for publicity. My
only purpose is a patriotic one, and my only desire is that the con-
science of America shall be saved and that our country shall not com-
promise with our ideals of justice and make a record in the history
of nations of having condoned the practices in the administration of
justice which do not measure up to our boasted high standards.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Thank you, Judge.
Judge VAN Ronm-. I s there anything Turther you have?
Mr. CHAMBERS. There

are several questions I would like to ask you,
one in particular with regard to this statement. You have given a
very excellent technical and careful analysis of Major Fanton's state-
ment. I am wondering if you had opportunity to read his complete
testimony before the committee.
Judge VAN RODEN.I have not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That in many of the matters, in which you were
referring only to the written and prepared statement, these very points
you brought up were gone into in some detail. Some were answered
by Major Fanton and as other witnesses came before us, we attempted
to develop those same points.
I notice in your statement you commented that you were glad to
see that our committee was in complete accord with your desire to
see all the facts brought out in this matter.
Judge VAN RODEN.I believe you are, and I hope you will continue
to be that way, and I know you will.
Mr. CHABTBERS. I n that light, I have a few questions here to ask.
One of the things which your statement has brought out-and I think
it is of very great interest-is that you attack Major Fanton's prepared
statement from the standpoint that he had so much hearsay in it. I
think that this is in almost any area a very good method of attack, and
I might say that you have also made the statement that there is no dis-
agreement between you and Judge Simpson, and I certainly have
noticed that both you and Judge Simpson-and I believe the recorder,
Colonel Lawrence-all signed the same report, so there is obviously no
disagreement between you two insofar as the Simpson report is con-
cerned.
But there seems to be a rather vast area of disagreement between
you and Judge Simpson insofar as the development subsequent to the
rendition of that report. Judge Simpson in testifying before us was
here practically as long as you, sir, and we got into this question with
him of brutalities and mistreatment of prisoners because the report
itself was very silent on that.
. It said, I believe, there was no evidence of systen~aticmistreatment
of prisoners. We were very anxious to find out, in view of the fact
1OgO MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION'
that you, a member-of that same Commission, viewing the same evi--
dence and the same facts, had come out with apparently one conclusion
as to what had happened and Judge Simpson had come out with
another.
So we asked Judge Simpson whether or not in his opinion these
brutalities had taken place or whether these mistreatments such as
beatings and kickings, and so on, had taken place.
Senator Mcl'arthy asked the questions. The testimony reads :
Senator MCCLIITIIY.YOUsaid you found no evidence of any physical punish-
ment?
Judge SIMPSON.I found no evidence of bludgeoning with clubs or kicking in
the geeitals or that sort of thing. I think it was possibly physical punishment
to keep these men in solitary confinement a s they did. I don't condone that a t all.
And later on Senator Bnldwin asked him :
I n connection with these trials, was there evidence that came before you of beat-
ings, physical abuse of any kind?
And the answer was :
Judge SIMPSON.I found none.
And then there followed another question and answer:
Senator BALDWIN.Was there any evidence of men being slapped i n the face
or kneed in the groin or anything of that kind?
Judge SIMPSON.I found no evidence of that.
Now, on the day you testified here, you were asked a great many
questions about that article that appeared in the Progressive magazine.
I n that there were very serious allegations of physical abuse.
You rather carefully marked that copy up for us so we could tell
those statements we could attribute to you and those we could attribute
to your ghost writer, Mr. Finucane.
That left still in the article the charges of knocking out teeth and
breaking of jaws and beatings and brutal kickings as statements which
could be attributed to you.
I would like to ask Judge Van Roden what evidence-and this
may be repetitious of your earlier testimony, but we have had many,
many witnesses before us since you were last with us-what direct
evidence did you find that there were beatings and kickings and physi-
cal abuse ?
Judge VANRODEN.It has all been covered before.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, sir, I understand, Judge; but I would like to
get it in the record again.
Judge VANRODEN.It will take a long time ; will i t not?
Mr. CHAMBERS. It might.
Judge VANRODEN.All I can say is what I said before, as I remember
it, that we had access to a great number of records. We divided up
our work among the three of us. Gordon Simpson took certain cases,
Colonel Lawrence took certain cases,.I took certain cases to work upon.
We had the records pf trial, including the testimony, the staff judge
advocate's review and recommendation, we had literally hundreds of
thousands of petitions filed with the War Crimes Branch there in
Munich by civilian attorneys, by friends, by organizations, by clergy,
and by numerous people, many of them being, we called them emo-
tional appeals and with nothing new for consideration by the several
boards of review. There were two functioning while we were there.
>
Mr. CHAMBERS. Many of those petitions did allege mistreatment.?
Judge VANRODEN.Oh, yes. We could not all do all the cases in the
short 6 weeks' time we had. We divided up our work. I think he
explained-and, if he did not, I will do so-the way we accomplished
this work with respect to only, gentlemen, the 129 cases where the
death penalty had been approved by General Clay not executed yet,
had not up to that time been executed-of which ollly 12 were the
Malmedy defendants. The only may we could do it was divide up this
work, ancl when we had any doubt about the validity or propriety of
the findings and/or the sentences, we then brought that to the atten-
tion of the other two, and if we felt that the record was legally suffi-
cient to sustain the findings and sentence, me passed them on as being
legally sufficient. I doubt if we even discussed them unless there were
important factors we wanted to discuss.
So, it is entirely possible that Judge Simpson examined cases which
I did not see ; Colonel Lawrence examined cases we did not see, and I
examined cases they did not see. We had these many records we
worked on, shall I say modestly, very diligently, during that period
of time . When we had a case where we had doubt, then we sat down
and discussed it, and we would either say, "I recommend this be com-
muted," or whatever the recommendation might be ;and after referring
the disputed o r the doubtful cases between or among the three of us,
we then decided which cases we should recommend for commutation
or clemency or whatever you choose to call it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DOyou recall whether you personally or did one of
the other two study the 12 cases involving the Malmedy people?
Judge VANRODEN.I do not recall. I read the record of the Mal-
medy cases.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The record of trial?
Judge VANRODEN.Record of trial. Maybe we all read that. That
was the most challenging of all the cases because of the nature of the
testimony.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Do you recall any charges made in the record of
trial by the nine accused who took the stand as to beatings and physi-
cal mistreatment ?
Judge VANRODEN.It was either in the record of trial or it was in
some of the post triql petitions that were filed, as I just referred to.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I ask a specific question as to the record of
trial? I am well aware of these post trial petitions, and we will
come to those in a moment, but in the record of trial where only
nine accused took the stand, do you recall any statements or charges
made by the accused on the stand that they were physically mis-
treated ?
Judge VANRODEN.I could not be definite on that. I think there
were, but I do not remember.
Mr. CHAMBERS.YOU were present here when Colonel Straight
testified ?
Judge VANRODEN.I came in as he was testifying.
Mr. CHAMBERS. T Orefresh your memory on that testimony and to
state what is in the record here, there is evidence that Colonel Peiper
on the stand said that near the end of his sojourn at Schwabisch Hall
he was kicked in the rear by a guard, not in connection with getting
his confession, but he made that as a statement.
1082 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOR*
There is record in the trial proceedings in the case of a man named

Christ that he was terribly cursed.
There is record in the trial on the part of Hennecke concerning the
"schnell" proceedings.
I f you will accept this as a statement, sir, merely for clarifying the
record, there is nothing in the testimony of those nine people alleging
brutality or physical mistreatment. I n view of the fact that there is
nothing in the record of trial-and they are here, if you care to ex-
amine them-I would like to go on down to where the charges came
from.
Senator BALDWIN. Just a moment. ;I might correct you on one of
those. I think there is in one of these cases a claim.
Colonel STRAIGHT.1will find that for you.
Senator BALDWIN.I n one of these cases in the first review made by
Colonel Straight there is the claim made by Motzheim that Lieutenant
Per1 kicked him four times in the sexual parts and Mr. Thon kicked
him on the leg. I think that is the only one I have been able to find.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am sorry. My memory is faulty, sir, because I
have been making some very general statements here. I am sorry,
Senator.
I will simply say I have read all of these and in Motzheim's case
apparently my menlory is completely at fault, and because of that I
do not want to go further along the line I was proceeding because I
want to be meticulous on this.
Senator BALDWIN. Let me say this for the benefit of the record. Of
the nine who took the stand i n their own defense, is it not correct,
Colonel, that the record shows that in one case, Motzheim, there was
complaint of physical abuse ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is correct, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.I n the case of Peiper, he claims he was kicked by,
he thinks, a Polish guard on the last day he was at Schwabisch Hall.
Senator BALDWIN. Hennecke complained of the methods that were
used to extract a confession from him, the so-called "schnell" proce-
dure. Of course, outside of these nine, none of the other accused who
later filed these affidavits with Everett's petition in the Supreme Court,
none of the rest of them took the witness stand.
Judge VANRODEN.I do not recall, gentlemen.
Senator BALDWIN, They did not take the opportunity that was of-
fered to them to testify as to physical abuse.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The point I would like to explain is, I am relying
on my memory and i t has been pretty accurate so far and apparently
it has slipped on this one, so I would like, before pursuing that further,
to check and make sure.
But the point to the question is this : I n reading the record of those
who took the stand in their own defense, there were very few who
alleged brutality, and the great bulk of these charges that came out
at a later time were based primarily on the petitions and the affidavits
submitted by the accused subsequent to trial.
Judge VANRODEN.That is probably so, and it is also so that many
of the people whom we interviewed over there brought these accusa-
tions to our attention. I am not an advocate on this matter. I had a
job to do for the Secretary of the Army. We made our report to him
because long before we were appointed these accusations had been
made. W e did not make these things up out of our heads, and that is
the reason we were sent there. They had been made by Colonel
Everett, and Secretary Royal1 sent us to see if there was truth i n them.
W e brought back whatever we could for the Secretary or some
proper tribunal to go into the matter, and hear evidence pro and con
to see what the real facts were. T h a t is the only purpose of my duty.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have no quarrel with what you did there, sir. I n
fact, I have the full belief-
Senator BALDWIN.May I ask a question here?
As I recall, Judge Van Roden, when you testified before-and if my
recollection is not correct, do not hesitate to say so-you testified
that your findings were based upon an examination of the records
that were available, the affidavits, and the testimony of the trial itself,
the affidavits accompanying Everett's petition, the letters and state-
ments, and affidavits of interested people that were filed with the
authorities; you examined those?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes.
Senator B A L D ~ I NWas
. there any witness, eye witness, that you in-
terviewed in this review who testified that he personally had seen any
physical abuse of these prisoners ?
Judge VANRODEN.NO, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.In other words, your review was based upon an
examination of records and not upon statements of witnesses?
Judge VANRODEN.T h a t is partly so.
Senator BALDWIN.I n person.
Judge VAN RODEN.T h a t is partly so. We did interview as you
see from our report, a number of persons, listed most of those whom
we saw.
Senator BALDWIN.That was my next witness.
Judge BANRODEN.Incladiag the law member of the count, Colonel
Rosenfeld, and other persons mentioned in one of the tabs attached
to our official report.
We interviewed others whose names we did not record. They came
in flocks the last few days we were there. One or two clays toward
the end of our tour of duty, Colonel Simpson had people in his room
and Colonel La~vrenceand 111:~clpeople in our room a t the same time,
talking to these people. They had heard me v e r e there, and it was
published in the papers, and they came t~ see the Simpson Commis-
sion with the iclea that we were having a retrial.
Senator BALI)WIN. Were they people who claimed to have wit-
nessed any of these claimed abuses ?
Judge VAN RODEN.NO, sir, for the reason that the accusation is
they were all done in the cells and only the interrogator and the ac-
cused would lmom about it. All of the abuses transpired that way,
v e discovered. Nobody could have witnessed them.
Senator BALDWIN.Were there any of these people you interviewed
who claimed to have seen signs on any of these prisoners of physical
abuse ?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes, I think there was. H e was a civilian lam-
yer whose name I clo not recall. Maybe Colonel Straight would know.
Was there a lawyer namecl Schmeer, defense counsel ?
Colonel ST'RAIGI-IT.A n American ?
Juclge VANRODEN.NO, a German.
Mr. CHAMBERS.Leer?
91'765-49-69
1084 MALMEDY MASSACRE I N V E S T I ~ T I O N
Colonel STRAIGHT. Dr. Leer was one of them.

Judge VANRODEN.I am not sure, but I think Dr. Leer is the one
who said to us that he had seen-I am not sure he is the one, but one
of the Germany lawyers whom we interviewed said that one of his
clients he represented had had marks of abuse upon him. I have for-
gotten his name; I have forgotten what the name of the accused was.
I cannot remember all of that. We did not attempt to. We ex-
amined 129 cases over there, and my mind simply will not hold that
detailed information.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Insofar as the list of persons interviewed is con-
cerned, you say this is incomplete?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This was contained in the signed report.
Judge VANRODEN.The last da or so, the last week we were there,
I
there were numbers of persons- or example, one or two wives of the
accused came in to us, whose names we did not record. They were not
important enough to record.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DOyou recall whether or not in those last few days
or perhaps on other days when their names were not listed, these per-
sons interviewed by your commission, whether or not you talked t o
any of the prosecution staff, that is, the investigating staff-that built
up this case ?
Judge VANRODEN.I do not believe we did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n other words, the only persons connected with the
handling of the cases were the lam member of the court, Judge Rosen-
feld, and Colonel Mickelwait, who a t that time was with the W a r
Crimes Court ?
Judge VANRODEN.Also Colonel Bresee.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Col. Howard F. Bresee?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes. We worked under his office. He assigned
rooms for us and gave us access to files. He is a very helpful and
efficient officer.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There was no effort to get into the investigating
staff that was still over there?
J u d e VANRODEN.I do not recall that we did. I think most of them
f
Bad le t.
Mr. CHAMBERS. A t that time there were some still available.
After coming back to this country, did you make any effort to get
into contact with any of the investigative or prosecuting staff against
whom these charges were made ?
Jndge VANRODEN.We were making no charges. We were making
a report to the secretary.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUwere making a report to the secretary and one
conclusion was there was no evidence of systematic mistreatment.
Judge VANRODEN.Read t h a t o f a general systematic-
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOgeneral or systen~aticuse of improper methods to
secure prosecution evidence.
Judge VANRODEN.That is right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is the conclusion you arrived at ?
Jndge VANRODEN.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But

did that mean you had found evidence that there
was-did you find evidence that there was other than a general or
systematic use of improper methods?
Judge VANRODEN.We found& certain cases that had transpired-
there was no general systematic use in those 129 cases. That is what
we said in our report. I s not that clear?
Having prepared the report and turned it in, we then come back t o
what, of course, is the prime thing that we have in mind here, that
you, based on the study that you all had made, felt i t proper to go into
considerable detail concerning this mistreatment and physical man-
handling of prisoners, which in the report you found was only predi-
cated or only strong enough to support a finding that there was no
general or systematic use of improper methods.
Judge VANRODEN.I do not understand the question.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let's go back. I n your report you said that the
evidence was such that there was no general or systematic use of
improper methods to secure prosecution evidence.
Judge VANRODEN.GO on beyond to the final paragraph referring
to that where we said the case was recommended for clemency.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay [reading] :
Except a s to the cases referred to in tab H, no reason is perceived why the
death sentences under consideration should not be executed, all of which were
imposed for participation in murder.
Then a further paragraph.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Recommendations were made to the commanding general that clemency exten8
to prisoners listed in tab H.
Corning back to your finding P B , there was no general or systematic
use of improper methods to secure prosecution evidence for use at the
trials. That was your official finding?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. However, you then saw fit in an article to say that
there was apparently sufficient evidence to support a statement that
there mere beatings and brutalities, knocking out of teeth, posturing as
priests, and so on.
Judge VANRODEN.That is 29 of the 139 cases. We found that 111
of those cases, in regard to them there was no reason to disturb the find-
ings or the death penalties. That is set forth in the report as clearly
as can be.
We found of the 139 cases that 110 of them we felt there was s n s -
cient competent es~idencethere to sustain not only the findings but
the sentences of death. We so recommended.
With respect to 29 cases, which inc1u.de these 12 death sentences in
the Malmedy case, they were not in that category, and some of these
things had been done to some or all of these persons in different
degrees, and for that reason we recommended they not pay the death
penalty.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yon moved the Malmedy cases o~ztof this general
finding of no general use of improper methods and said in those
cases there mas sufficient evidence to support a recommenclatioil for
clemency ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. All right. That is correct. Then a t a subsequent
date you began to go into details as to what supported that particular
conclusion ; is that correct ?
Judge VANRODEN.Tnat is probably so.
Mr. CIXAMIIERS.Then in the artyde which you published-

Judge VANRODEN.I did not publish the article.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The article which appeared in the Progressive
nlagazine under your byline, yon felt you had sufficient direct evidence
to publicly state that American investigators used the following
methods to obtain confessions-and that this knocking out of teeth and
these various things IT-hich we have already mentioned, and yon felt
you had direct evldence sufficient to support that and publicize i t
before the American public; is that true?
Judge VANRODEN.T h a t is substantially so.
MI-. CFIAMBERS. Do you still believe t h a t ?
Judge VANRODEN.I firmly believe those things happened. I firmly
believe those things happened.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. Let's go back to the basis for your belief. You do
question Fanton's use of hearsay a i d criticized him for using hearsay.
Judge VANRODEN.I was not criticizing, I simply say if this com-
mittee considers his report, all I tell the coinmittee is that he is telling
you hat the investigators told him.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is correct. What you are saying here is what
the accnsecl themselves told you through affidavits; is not that correct?
Judge VAN RODEN.No, s i r ; that is not wholly accurate. T h e
situation, as I have tried to describe i t to you, gei~tlemea,is this: We
in our duties found eviclence, we found i11 the records accusatioi~sand
considerable basis that these things had taken place.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUfo~~ilcl accmations that these things had taken
place, and you felt that, based on that, you could let an article come out
under your byline, which said they did talie place, not accusations, sir.
This thing said the American investigators used the follon~ing
methocls. That is not a n accusation, that is a statement.
Mr. CHARIBERS. YOU have just said that over there yon found
acc~~sations to that effect, but no direct evidence as to it, but then
you come out and permit a n article to be published, Judge, which
savs they did use those methods.
Judge VAN RODEN.I do not know whether you are trying to be
aclroit or not.
Mr. CITAMBERS. I am not trying to be adroit. Mavhe we will get
some basis of unclerstai~dingand save a lot of detailed questioning.
A report went in from you and Juclge Simpson, ~vhichwas a very
factual and apparently a very appropriate report, and snbseclnent to
that time, appearing before this committee, Judge Simpson said these
brutalities did not take place; you come in and say that they did.
Now, we are trying to get down to the point of finding what actually
happened. P a r t of this thing, Judge, goes back to what is the basis for
the charges that you made.
Judge VANRODEN.Papers that we saw over there, that all three of
us saw, most or all of those papers.
Mr. CEIARIBERS. W h a t type of papers were they?
Judge VANRODBN.I will repeat it.
Judge VANRODEN.The records of trial, post-trial petitions, persons
we interviewed, the reports of the several boards of review-as a mat-
ter of fact, me talked to members of the boards of review over there,
including Lieutenant Colollel McClure, Colonel McClintock, and I
have forgotten the other names, except for Major Haefle, and we talked
to Colonel Bresee. We had the benefit of their reports.
We talked about several cases, got their reactions, and all we could
do was find out what these records indicated to those persons who were
doing that job for the W a r Crimes Branch.
As a result of all of that, I cannot point my finger right now to
each individual person we spoke to and all the papers, we read many
papers. I am sure all of us, including Colonel Simpson, were con
vinced that some of these things had taken place i n some of these
cases. We had the report from the German dentist, the report of these
teeth knocked out.
Mr. CIIABIEERS.T h a t is Dr. Knorr.
Judge VAN RODEN.Yes.
Mr. CIIAMBERS.I think you might be interested in knowing that
since you have been here there has been direct testimony from the
medical oficer station at Schwabjsch Hall. There were two different
people, Dr. Karan and Dr. Ricker, also some enlisted medical people
there at that time. Each of them testified Dr. IZnorr did come t o
Sch~i~abisch Hall to treat the prisoners stationed there, primarily the
internees, but some of the Malmecly people.
They also testified Dr. Iinorr, any time a prisoller went down for
treatment, that one of the medical staff was with him.
They also testified that to the best of their recollection and knowl-
edge-and they mere there the entire time or one or the other mas
there-that there was never any teeth l~noclceclout, broken jaws, or
anything of that kind in the case of the Malmedy prisoners.
Judge VANRODEN.That may be true. I do not know.
Mr. C I - ~ ~ ~ B EEventudly
RS. I hope to have an opport~ulityto get
more direct evidence from Dr. Knorr, but that is the status of i t a t the
presellt time.
I
11 other words, you have a statement, an affidavit from Dr. Knorr,
which I believe you follrs did not have time to run down and turned i t
over to the Raymond board for further investigation; is that correct?
Mr. CIIAMRERS.AS yet that is a completely unsubstantiated state-
ment macie, and the fact is that so f a r 011 the basis of the eviclence
that has come in i t has been completely refuted, but the point I am
trying to get a t is that, based on the evidence which you had picked
up in the too short a time that you all had there, you felt that you had
ample evidence to come back and support public statements of this
kind.
Judge VANRonmi. May I answer that this way: I was convinced
wl~enI was over there-and I believe all three of us were-that these
things had taken place. We had no means, we did not have the time,
we did not have the authority, I do not believe-although that is de-
batable-to go into hearings. We were not over there as any hearing
board.
VTeread these papers, talked to people, ~ e n over
t the record. W e
were convinced these things which I have said, .privately shall we
say-and I will not say publicly, but maybe semlpublicly-me were
all convinced these things had taken place as to these 29 cases. That
A
is the reason i t happened.
Senator BALDWIN.I think the important thing from the standpoint

of the committee is this: The basis of your convictions, as you state
them.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.AS I recall your testimony, the only witness, the
only eyewitness you now recall, who I think may have said that he
saw some evidence of injury on one of the accused, was a Dr. Leer.
Judge VANRODEN.I am not sure he was the one.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUare not sure of anything.
Judge VAN RODEN.I cannot be sure. I was not making records
of those things then. We were ascertaining whether or not there was
sufficient to warrant a recoinmendation that these sentences not be
carried out. That is what we were there for. We were sufficiently
of that belief to make that recommendation as to 29 of those cases
because we believed they had had those mock trials, we believed these
things had happened to them, and we put in our report the reasons
for it as briefly and tersely as we could.
I thought myself the report was a little too brief, b ~ l they
t wanted
to have it in military form, Colonel Lawrence was a military lawyer,
and a very able one he is, and he wanted to have it in a page and a half.
I came along with that, a i d we had a brief report, and with the tabs
or exhibits. I f these things are refuted by proper evidence, I will
be very happy to know that is so. We certainly were convinced over
there that these things had happened or we mould not have made rec-
ommendations to commute 29 death sentences if we had not thought
that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Twelve of those cases were Malmedy cases?
Jndge VANRonm. Yes.
Mr. CEIANBERS. DO
you recall bases in other than the Malmedy cases
for recommending clemency ?
Judge VANRODEN.AS 1recall the Rfnlmecly cases. they were based
chiefly upon the mock trials. As I recall, in the Malmedy cases, they
were given mock trials and other means of getting confessions, be-
cause the evidence-no doubt you have read the evidence in the
Malmedy case-almost the entire record there of the prosecution con-
sists of these pretrial or extrajudicial affidavits, and we believed that
they were not secured in a voluntary way, they were not voluntary
statements by the accused.
That was the chief reason we thought in the Malmecly case that the
trial was not proper, even under the rules laid down in the conven-
tion of 1945.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Excuse me, Judge. Do I gather from these remarks
that what you are saying here is these detailed charges of brutality
stem not particularly from the Malmedy cases, but that the reasons
why you recommended commutation in the Malnledy thing was based
primarily on the schnell procedures or mock trials ?
Judge VANRODEN.A combination of both, but chiefly the complaint
we found in the Malmedy cases was they had given these men the mock
trials and had other threats to try to secure confessions, such as the
boy, Friemuth, who killed himself, who had a mock trial, a i d then
the man in his cell who had signed several pages and then hung him-
self before he completed it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am having difficulty with Xhe article in the Pro-
gressive magazine in the light of the last statement.
Judge VANRODEN.YOUare basing your xoss-examination, if I may
call it that, on the article i n the Progressive, which is not the matter
before the committee.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I was not trying to be adroit; let's see if I can be
blunt.
The Simpson report is one thing, but probably the most inflamma-
tory report that has come out in this whole matter is this article in the
Progressive magazine, and if I may say so, it has received such wide
circulation and such wide publication, both i n the press throughout,
and the magazine itself, i t has been inserted i n the Congressional
Record, and heaven only knows, it has been used here time, time, time,
and time again.
Judge VANRODEN.That may be very regrettable.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I do not know whether it is regrettable or not. I f
it happened, the facts should come out. I f it did not happen, then
certainly they need to be disproved.
Because of articles of that kind, and this article in particular, we are
constantly having difficulty finding out what actually took place.
I do not think any of us have attempted to question one iota of the
Simpson report, but after the Simpson report came in, you see fit t o
go into some detail i n this particular article, and we get you before us
and yo11 say that you still have reason t o believ,e that the statements
made in that article are correct.
Judge VANRODEN.AS amended by me, if I may call it that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There are further questions to come on that, sir, but
you say that the article is substantially correct as amended. Judge
Simpson comes before us and says, "We did not find any such evi-
dence." Then me have had a long stream of people coming through
here, many of them very competent persons, who have appeared to be
credible witnesses, who have repeatedly and specifically denied, and
I do not mean just the interrogation team.
Judge VANRODEN.Nobody has affirmed any of these?
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO, sir. T h e only affirmation of these charges of
brutality and direct affirmation is a man by the nanie of Sloan, and
h e is the only man -who has said, 'LIsaw anything happen," and Sloan
was a t Schwabisch Hall for a grand total of about 2 hours.
Judge VANRODEN.I have no ~ d e who a he is.
Mr. CHAMBERS. We found him and brought him in for the purpose
of getting facts. I am perfectly frank to scree with you that I am
proceeding on my cross-examination i n an e8ort to clear oiit and find
out if the facts as appearing in this article go beyond what you
honestly believe happened, and then if i t begins to appear that they
are exaggerated and weighed against the other conipetent evidence
we think we have had in here, then perhaps we can begin to find out
just how much trnth there is to the whole story.
01 this particular article, and just so that we will get this record
1
completely clear, I took the liberty of calling you the other day to ask
you to decide what you wanted to do here because I felt you should
know the developments in this thing. When you were here earlier,
as I understood the story, Mr. Finucane showed up at a meeting of the
Rotary Club a t which you were to make a speech, and after that there
was a press release issued, to which after you saw it you had some
objection, and you wrote them and they retracted i t in either a sub-
sequent release or through their normal mailing channels.
Subsequent to that, you had a call from Mr. Finucane stating that
a magazine desired to publish this article under your byline, and you in
your testimony said you should have known, but you did not kno~v
what was meant by a byline, and that he went over it-I may not be
quoting your testimony exactly here-but he went over it with yon
and very hastily told you some of the things he wanted to add, you
objected to some and accepted others; and, based on that-and you
told us in the hearing-you were a little surprised a t the thing and
that you had written the publishers of the magazine a i d mentioned
a inan by the name of Rubin, if my memory IS correct, as the man
to whom you had written, commenting on or denying some of these
things, but, as f a r as you know, there had been no retraction or denial
published by them.
Again on the assumption that that has been the basis for so much
of the testimony here, insofar as brutality is co~~cernecl, so much ref-
erence made to it, I would like to ask you, Judge, how much of the
detail that was to appear in this magazine did you know of a t the
time you approved the publication?
Judge VAN KODEN.I COLIICI not tell you that. The best answer I
can give you is what I told you the last time I was here as to the parts
I definitely repudiated and did not know that happened, did not know
they happened, and could not be responsible for.
Mr. CHANBERS.Mr. Finucane testified here in response to direct
questions that you had a detailed k n o ~ l e d g eof everything that went
into this article.
Judge VANRODEN.T h a t is not accurate.
Mr. CI~ANBERS. YOUmean my statement is inaccurate or what he
says i n inaccurate?
J ~ t d g eVAN RODEN.What he said. I was not here to hear him
testify. F o r example, it mentions in that article about five persous
being hung. 1 had no knowledge of that fact that General Clay
had given those orders until I saw i t i n the Progressive magazine
when i t came out.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUhad categorically denied so many points that
I wondered about them. My Finucane, in fairness to him, did qualify
some of those statements by explaining that many of these things
were based on his misunderstanding of what you said, but what I
am asking you directly is this: Did he read this thing in all of its
detail over the phone to you when he called you?
Judge VANRODEN.Before publishing i t ?
Mr. CIIAMBERS.Yes.
Judge VANRODEN.No. Read i t in detail ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes.
Judge VANRODEN.NO,not that I remember.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did he explain to you he was taking the news release
and adding certain things to i t and explain those additions?
Judge VAN EODEN. I got the impression he was having a condensad
tion of the news release to put in a local publication published by the
LaFollettes, and that is what I knew about it. H e did mention some
of the items that I agree I believe now I say occurred such as some of
the acts of cruelty there. H e mentioned some of those and I said yes
and I would still sZy yes, that I would adhere to it, because I believe
they happened.
Seilator BALDWIN.How did you first meet Mr. Finucane?
Judge VANRODEN.HOW I first met him 2
Senator BALDWIN.Yes, where did you first meet him?
Judge VANRODEN.I n Meclia. H e used to live in Chester and work
for the Chester Times.
Senator BALDWIN.Did yon know him there?
Judge VAN RODEN.NO, I lcnew his name. H e has a brother still
employed by that same newspaper, whom I just know by sight, and
maybe very casually. H e was visiting his brother, I believe, i n
Chester, and we talked, ancl I was going to this-
Senator BALDWIN.Did he come to your office?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes, he came to see me a t the office, and he also
went to this Rotary Club meeting, maybe 20 or 30 people were there,
~ h i c shtarted this whole thing.
Senator BALDWIN.That is the thing that interests me. Why
should Mr. Finucane have gone to such pains to look you u p ? T h a t
is the problem.
Judge VANRODEN.I clo not know.
Senator BALDWIN.One of the problems that puzzles the committee.
Judge VAN RODEN.I cannot answer that. I do not h o w why he
took such pains.
Senator BALDWIN.When you first saw him, did he tell you he had
come to talk to you about these Malmedy cases?
Judge VAN RODEN.NO. I do not remember the detail. As I re-
member, the first thing he talked about was he said that he was
associated wit11 this National Council for the Prevention of War,
about whicll I had never heard. Maybe he said that a t the little
Rotary Club gathering on the Chester pike, and I tlzink he gave me
a letterhead saying they were started some time after the First World
War.
I did not h o w i t was an organization to broadcast news releases.
I thought i t was a council for the prevention of war. There are many
organizations, I supyose, of similar objectives. I had no idea this
was going to be a coast-to-coast broadcast. All I knew or thought
was he wanted information about tlzese war crimes for their ~ouncils
for whatever i t might be worth, for the prevention of war. Then the
news release came to me on a Saturday morning, and I mas startled
and surprised, ancl finally I telephoned to the council and talked to
Mr. Libby and finally got him at his home and that is when I ques-
~ t news release, told him the things I did not like
tioned him a b o ~ thls
about it.
I think I wrote a letter following that to him specifying certain
details of that release which I said were inaccurate and should not
be p~~blished, and he said he was sorry, but i t had already gone out to
the press. Mr. Libby told me that. That is the situation.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Perhaps you would be interested in Mr. Finucane's
statement before us, because he apparently went to Philadelphia de-
liberately for the purpose of talking to you. We asked him abont some
of these circumstaizces: "HOW did YOU happen to be there alld hear
that particular speech?" Mr. Finucane said :
Mr. Libby, our executive secretary, had been in Philadelphia a n7eek or so
earlier and had been talking to a friend of his, Burton Parshall, who told him
Judge Van Roden had made some shocking statements to a lneeting of the
Federal Bar Attorneys Association, a Federal bar association, something lilie
that.
Do you know Mr. Parshall?
Judge VANRODEN.NO.
Mr. Libby asked Mr. Parshall to send u s a memorandum on the contents of
van Roden's speech. The memorandum was from memory, and we wanted to
check up on it, so I went up to see Van Roden. H e said: "It happens that you
came a t a time when I am making a speech a t the Rotary Club; you can come
up with me."
Senator BALDWIN.. I have one question. Had you made a speech
to the bar association?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes, I had.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Had you made other speeches on this subject,
Judge ?
Judge VANRODEN.I guess I had, yes. I made talks to private indi-
viduals and to groups, a few, I do not know how many.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe you already testified you were so firmly
convinced of these things-
Judge VANRODEN.I was.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Finucane, in response to questioning about the
article that appeared in The Progressive, said :
I called Judge van Roden on the phone and told him what the story was. I
don't think he had ever heard of The Progressive magazine a t t h a t time. I
explained to him and I said, "We want to incorporate in your statement"-
that was the press release, I presume-
"additional material."
You just testified you thought he was was condensing it. [Con-
tinuing :]
H e was familiar with what we had been distributing, and a s I say, had made
amendments to it. So we figured those amendments had made i t correct or he
would have made additional amendments.
H e said, "What do you want to add?" Words to that effect. I read to him
over the telephone the additional material, ~ ~ h i cwas h the opening and closing,
and said, "The editors of t h a t magazine want to run this a s your article under
your byline."
I read it to him. Certain things in t h e original article which I read to him he
deleted. Certain parts of our statement he struck out, verbally, over the tele-
phone. H e said, "No, I do not want to take t h a t a s my statement." We did work
out verbal telephonic additions to this report which he agreed to.
I said, "They want to run i t under your byline. Will you send them, along
with your byline, one of your campaign biographies and a photograph?" H e
said, "Yes, I will do that," and he did do that. His secretary sent a couple of
biographies-I suppose,they ran more than once-and sent his picture, too.
I asked this question :
You mentioned in your prepared statement t h a t misunderstandings will hap-
pen. I t would appear rather clearly from what you said t h a t Judge Van Roden
realized t h a t he was being connected directly with this article.
Mr. Finucane said :
That was my understanding. I understood i t that way. I t was my intention
to make i t clear to him, and i t was my impression there was a meeting of minds.
I presumably was mistaken a s to the meeting of minds.
Judge VANRODEN.I am sure that he was.
Then I asked him :
Mr. CHAMBERS.
You say you were presumably mistaken. Did any matter concerning pay f o r
this article come up a t this or any later time?
Mr. Finucane answered :
Some time after the article was published Judge Van Roden wrote a letter and
said, "As a matter of curiosity could you tell me how much money the Progres-
sive magazine pays for articles which they publish?"
Then I said :
And a t t h a t time t h a t is the only comment t h a t you had received from Judge
Van Roden about this article?
I1 other words, I was trying to find out if you had written in and
1
taken exception to these things which you later struck out before the
committee. Mr. Finucane said :
There was just routine comment. I think t h a t was the first comment, yes.
Then I said :
This was before or after he visited you a t your offices here in Washington?
Mr. Finucane answered :
That was before he visited us.
There is a great deal more along that same line in there. Mr. Pinu-
cane testified, as far as the pay is concerned, that he got a 10-dollar
check and that the Progressive magazine sent you a 10-dollar check
which you returned, and so on. It would appear from that, Judge,
in Binucane7smind, at least, he felt that you understood thoroughly
this was going to be published under your name and that yyo had a
very detailed knowledge of what would go in there.
Judge VANRODEN.He may have thought that, but I did not have
such an idea, and I just got out my files before I came down here, got
them yesterday.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I pursue that just a second further? You say
he may have thought that but you did not have such an idea. I accept
that fully, but when this Progressive article came out and the copy
sent you, as he said was sent to you, did you a t that time either get in
touch with Finucane or the magazine and repudiate any part of it or
ask him to correct it?
Judge VANRODEN.I did not correspond with the magzzine at all
until they wrote me a letter-I did not write them at all until on Feb-
ruary 11, 1949, a letter came from this magazine signed by Maurice
H. Rubin, reading:
Dm& JUDGE VAN RODEN:I am herewith enclosing our check for $10 for t h e
article which we carried in our February issue. I thought i t a trnly fine job
and we a r e receiving a great deal of favorable comment on it.
I wish i t were possible for us to have i t reprinted and distributed throughout
the country, for I think i t expresses eloquently a national crime whose meaning
needs to be hammered to the American people.
011February 18, about a week later, I got around to i t and I wrote
to him and I said :
DEARMR. RUBIN:Thank yon for your letter of February 11, enclosing check,
which is apparently intended to be in the natnre of compensation for the article
which appeared in the February issue. The check is returned herewith for t h e
reason t h a t I can't accept the compensation for this article which bears my name.
I appreciate your thought and trnst under the circumstances you understand
I cannot accept any compensation.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Had you discussed this matter with Mr. Finucane?
Judge VANRODEN.I want to get this accurate. Let me look here.
Aboui that photograph which you mentioned, it never was published,
P 094 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
and I an1 glad i t was not, but I see here a letter, I do not know wllere
I was, whether he spoke to my secretary but I see a letter of January
6 which my secretary, one of them, wrote to Mr. Rubin, and I will
read it to you:
DEARMR. RUBIN: At the request of Mr. James Finucane, associate secretary of
the National Council for the Prevention of War, I enclose two typewritten state-
ments of the biography of Judge Van Roden and pages 677 to 553,being, a n extract
of volume 33 of the Delaware County Reports, froin which you will be able to
secure such information a s you need.
I might say when I came back from the service, I happened to have
been the first member of our bar to return from overseas service; I mas
elected t o the judgeship while I was overseas and took the judgeship
for 10 years, and I am still there.
The editor of the Delaware County Report put in an article about
war service a i d what had happened, and a lot of the flowers they like
to put i n there as a matter of record. My secretary sent those Rages,
pages 577 to 583, of the Delaware County Reports, volume 33, and,
continuing :
from which you will he able to secure such information a s you need. Also t n o
newspaper mat photographs and a glossy photograph a r e enclosed.
Now, that is signed "Sincerely yours, Iris Gorsuch, Secretary."
I was out, and came back-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yon knew nothing of that being sent out?
Judge VAN RODEN.I think I telephoned her and she said Mr.
Fii~ucanecalled, and I called her, and she said she had taken the
liberty of sending this to 3Ir. Rubin in Madison, TVis. T h a t went
out. That is the only correspandeilce that I had with that Progressive
a t all. I did not know about it, until on January 28, the previous
letter was January 6. January 28, I have a letter from Mr. Finucane.
H e says here :
You are in the Progressive. Hope you will be pleased with the editorial
ant1 typographical treatment which was given your article.
Senator McCarran said Monday he would appoint a subcommittee to conduct
a n investisation. Senator Langer introduced a bill, S?n:ate Resolution 39, yester-
day to accomplish the same purpose.
I suppose by now Son h a r e been reprinted and quoted from coast to coast,
including newspapers and magazines of every description.
I am also enclosin: copy of the Christian Century which contains a n editorial
about your statement.
That is by Mr. Finucane. H e enclosed a copy of the Progressive.
T h a t is a letter I received.
Mr. CIIAMBERS.Having received that letter and read the article,
you did not feel i t necessary to either contact the Progressive or Mr.
Finucane or the editors for the purpose of repudiating those things
which later you repudiated to us?
Judge VANRODEN.I mould not say that. As a matter of fact, 011
February 3--
Mr. CIIAMBERS. That is what I am asking you. Did you do t h a t ?
Judge VANRODEN.I wrote to Mr. Finucane, and I said :
I clo not wish to do anything which is unethical so f a r a s the D ~ p a r t n ~ e nist
concerned. Neither d o I wish to jeopardize my cl.edit with the Department of
the Army. For that reason I mnat be w r y careful about any further publications,
and I shall depend upon yo11 t o communicate with me before anything further
i s published wherein n ~ yname will be mentioned.
And then he replied on February 7 :
You can clepentl upon us to be judicious in handling any material of yours
regarding war c r m e s trials.
I did not write to the Progressive. I thought I mas not go-ng to
start a controversy; I would just let well enough alone, not dignify
it by any further action.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was Mr. Finucane accurate in saying that you did
ask soinething about pay?
Judge VAN RODEN.W e telephoned or talked about it. I think
either he said this Progressive is a magazine which works on a sort
of small margain, they do not pay much-I said, "I don't care any-
thing about the pay."
Mr. CIIAXBERS.R e testified yesterday you brought up the subject
and asked, 'LAsa matter of curiosity, what do they pay?"
Judge VANRODEN.T h a t may have happened. I did not want any-
thing for myself. I thought i t mas a closed issue. This letter came
February 11, and I promptly sent that back, within a week, to the
editor, in which I said I could not accept that.
Mr. CIIAMDERS. There is something 1did not realize, Judge Van
Roden, and that is that when you received your congratulatory letter
fr,oin Finucane-
Judge VAN RODEN."Here you are in the Progressive, I hope you
like it."
Mr. Crr-Ins~~Rs. H e also made mention of the fact apparently, t o
yon, that Senator McCarran was going to start an investigation;
Senator Langer had introduced a resolution, a i d that other articles
were picking this up. A t the time that you mere discussing the pub-
licati,on of this article, did you have any indication that i t would have
such widespread publication or effect?
Judge VANRODEN.I had no suspicion of it. I f I had, I mould not
have had the t l ~ i n ggo out, because it has been unpleasant to have the
thing bandied about. I have no guilty conscience as to what I have
done or said, but I do not think it was necessary to have it done, and
T would not have had it happen for anything.
Mr. CZIARIBERS. Does i t not appear to you a n unusual sitilxtion for
an organization to geL the name of an eminent American jurist--
Judge VANRODEN.Thank you very much.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I say that rather carefully [continuing]--in a n
article as inflammatory in character as this one is and couched in the
language it is, ancl from which you had to publicly repudiate a-great
many parts, that in getting that article together, those same people
had gone to the trouble of sellding a reporter over, who hapl3ened t o
be available for this purpose, and, as a result of that, wide publicity
was achieved, not for yourself so much as for the problem, a 1 ~that 1 in
testifying before this committee that same inan who wrote that article
mid that they had gone to great lengths, not great lcagths, but they
had k e n gettinq inforn~atioafrom defense counsel in Garillany and
they had been corresponding with the accused, a i d so 011, that these
things all tie together in a rather i n t e r ~ s t i n gpattern which sort of
puts you in the position of coming back nncl making these charges
which were apparently broader than you actually made becznse you
have 112d to chanf;;e parts of them, and then use t h t ~ as t a spri!lgboard
for this investigation, and tEings of that type.
1096 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATIOA~
I just wonder if you have any feelings or comments on that.

Judge VANRODEN.My feelings are not very happy about it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think the record should show what your feelings
are.
Judge VAN RODEN.My feelings are not happy about it. I came
down long before i t was suggested that this committee be appointed; I
do not know what the time was ; I came down and talked to the Judge
Advocate General, General Green.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you come down of your own initiative?
Judge VANBODEN.Yes; I talked t o General Green. He saiddhe
would talk to the Secretary, who was upset, not by anything like this-
the article in The Progressive had not come out then, as I remember
it-upset about the fact that he felt that certain information was dis-
closed before i t was authorized to be disclosed in regard to our report.
That was the chief complaint that was made.
I talked to General Green about it, and then went from there; Gen-
eral Green drove me in his own car; he drove i t froin the Pentagon
Building to TVashington where the National Council for the Preven-
tion of War had their office a t 1013 Eighteenth Street NTV., and I
am afraid I had a little blood in my eye and worse on my lipe, and
went up to speak to Mr. Finucane and Mr. Libby, and I said that the
matter was distressing, and I thought it had gotten beyond control and
beyond any intention that I had; and he was very pleasant about i t ;
he did not fight with me, and I have a high regard for his ability as a
writer, but that is what we are talking about. We are talking about
the way this was done, the way I was quoted, over-quoted. and mis-
quoted, and I said the same to him that I will probably go before a
committee; if I am sent for, I will have to go. Mr. Pinucane said, "All
right. You tell your side of it and we will have to tell oursn-words
to that effect. "I will have to tell you I am clistur'bed about this; it is
upsetting to me and upsetting to my very good friend, General Green,
and I just don't think it is the way to do. This thing shouldn't have
been done the way it was done."
H e said, "Well, that is all right. We won't be bad friends about it"-
or words to that effect. He virtually, as I remember, admitted this had
made a good story in The Progressive. I remember one thing, I point-
ed out that last part of the paragraph about these five men that had
actually been ordered hung by General Clay. Where is that here?
I pointed out this and I said I did not know anything about this:
However, in spite of Secretary Royall's action in this matter, there is little
real room for complacency on the part of Americans. Rather our report reveals,
by implication, that we still have a serious situation in Germany to clear up.
Moreover, five of the men for whom we recommended commutations have
been hanged since we turned in our report.
I do not know that is true yet. I certainly did not know about it.
I t was not included.
As I recall Mr. Binucane7sanswer to that part of my criticism it was
that he talked to Mr. Rubin, word had just come down, and could they
put that in the Van Roden article, and he said, "Go ahead and do it."
That is the conversation Mr. Finucane and I had about that particu- ,
lar paragraph because I had no knowledge it had happened, if it had
happened. I believe it has. I do not know whether it has or not. I
had a very unpleasant conversation with him, I think, and that hap-
pened promptly when I came to-Washington that day and talked t o
General Green.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I ask this, Judge :I believe I was in touch with
you last Friday concerning this matter and getting your statement, and
so on. A t that time I told you some knowledge I had of what I
thought Mr. Pinucane was going to testify to.
Has he been in touch with you since last Friday or have you been i n
touch with him?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes, sir; we talked on the telephone. As I re-
member it, I do not know whether he called me. I think I called him,
and I said to him, "I am going to probably send a statement down t o
t,he committee, I do not know whether I am going to be down there or
not, 1 do not want to go down, I am busy at this time of year.,'
H e said something a b o ~ he~ t was going to be called. You told me
he was going to be called.
I said to him, "Well, I may be down there and I may not," and I
think I said something more about beine unpleasant about this thing;
it is not to my liliina and it is just one of those extra worries you have
on yon, but I said, %Iwill probably have to come down, and if I do,
I will be there" ;words to that effect.
H e said he would be there, too, and we then talked. That is about
all we had to say.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you mention to Mr. Finucane that I had dis-
cussed the matter of his possible testimony before our committee?
Judge VANRODEN.NO;but I think I did say to him that I was told
by you that he was going to be called to testify.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did yo11 tell him that I had mentioned to you that he
probably would testify about this bnsiness of pay for the article and
that you had known of it in detail before?
Judge VANRODEN.I do not think I said anything about that. I do
not recall because that was not in my mind about the pay for the
article. The pay for the article is very unimportant because this check
arrived and I sent it back. That is all.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you mention to him that I had told you I
thought he was going to say that you knew in detail what was in this
article, that he had read the whole thina to you over the phone?
Judge VANRODEN.Not that I rememter. I may have, I do not think
I said that, no. I was not concerned so much about that. I was con-
cerned if he was oing to be here and maybe I better be here to answer
5
him, and he and could face each other here before you. That is my
purpose in calling him. Although I still think the debate
between him and me is not helping the committee in finding out
whether any atrocities were wmmitted or not, unless it is an attack
on my credibility, and on that basis under the law it is admissible, and
I cannot object to it.
I f you wish to do that, I have no objection to answering any ques-
tions.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me say this :There is not any effort, I think,
on the part of Mr. Chambers to attack your credibility.
Judge VANRODEN.H e has that right as a prosecuting attorney or
defense attorney.
SENATOR BALDWIN.YOUwere asked to go over by the Army to re-
view these cases ?
1098 M A L M E D Y MASSACRE IMiESTIGATION
Senator BALDWIN.And you had y o ~ ~ r s e been

l f a combat officer?
Judge VANRODEN.For several of those months ; yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.And when you came back, as is quite natural
as I understand it, some of the people that yon know like the bar asso-
ciation and your Rotary Club, knowing you had this experience.
thought you might be an iateresting speaker.
Judge VANRODEN.T h a t is so ;yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.And YOU went to those places and spoke.
Senator BALDWIN.And describe'cl some of your experiences and
what you found. I assume that a t those particular meetings there
were no newspapermen present; or was there?
Judge VAN RODEN.A t some there were. They simply made little
comment aboqt it. It was not until Mr. Finucane with his innate
ability-and he certainly has ability to write-was there and got this
information and has, apparently, the means of disseminating this
information throughout the country that the thing became really
broadcast.
May I say this, Mr. Senator : I did not know he was n reporter. H e
is here as associate secretary of this org,anization. That is his job.
I did not know he was a reporter.
Senator BALDWIN.When he came to this meeting a t the Rotary
Club-
Judge VANRODEN.H e took notes.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you know there mas going to be a press re-
lease issued by the Council for the Prevention of War on your speech?
Judge VANRODEN.I did not understand it. I thought he was taking
that for the benefit of this ilational council.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUdid not know there was going to be a press
release ?
Judge VANRODEN.NO; unless he may have said it was to be relased
to some of the members of their organization, their council, not a
release of this sort, until this letter come from him on a Saturday
nloi-ning of December 20-110, I beg your pardon-it was before that,
December 1'7,when he s?id i n his letter to me :
Here is how we handled your story here in Washington to s t a r t with. We
hope it mill (lo some good and inay be effective i n remedying the coqditions
which yon so vividly describecl in your speech.
Senator B A L I ~ V ~Was
N . that the first knowledge you had of the
press release issued on it ?
Senator BALDWIN.Did he ever read the press release to you?
Senator BALDWIN.Then after that did he call you and read an article
that he has written?
Judge VAN RODEN.NO, sir. And as soon as that arrived-1 have
it, before me here-as soon as that arrived, I was just ainezed a t some
of the things that were here. That is when I telephoned him and that
is when he explained about it, and then he wrote to me on December
20, in which he says :
Thanks for your prompt editing of our report.
Editing was that I telephoned complaining about things in there
that should not be published.
Senator BA~,DWIN. I1 the press release?
1
Judge VANRODEN.I n that original press release. H e says the cor-
rections are also being transmitted-I beg your paldon-
Your suggestions have been adopted and incorporated in the revised edition
01 the release.
I understand from Mr. Libby that i t liad already gotten out before
i t could be revised to any great extent. That is all that I lniow.
Senator BALDWIX.H e issued the press release without your lrnow-
ledge and before you liad exanlined i t ?
Judge VANRODEN.That is so ; but I say, in all fairness to him, Sen-
ator, that a t the conclusion of tliat Rotary club meeting we had a
little talk there ; he had been taking these notes, and I said, "What have
TCLI got domn there", and he coimnentecl up011 his notes, which was
entirely all
H e was the reporter, and getting the story for his natiollal council,
as I nnderstoocl it to be, a i d he asked me some questions about it then,
but I do not recall that he said anything about what was to b2 done
about it, unless i t mas to go, as I thought, to their membership, what-
ever that may consist of.
I never heard of the org.anization before, very frankly, this nntionaI
council. I did not 1mow it was a publication outfit. It does not say
so on the letterhead. H e does not tell me that. I t dicl not have Asso-
ciated Press status. where it could send articles throughout the country.
Senator BALDWIN.What was the first knowledge that yon had of
this, that you had written, on your byline, so to speak?
Judge VANKODEN.I told you about that, but I will repeat it again.
H e telephoned me later and said, "We wslnted to put a short article or a
condensation of what n7e had before into n niagazine called the Pro-
gressive," of which I had never heard, which he saicl was originally
started by Robert La Follette, and he said, "If you want to condense
i t and make it a shorter article along the lines that we stated i n your
release"-I said again, "We have to be very careful."
I never heard of that Progressive, but I said, "I do not want any
misquotation, and tliat is why I am calling," and we had a talk, and I
said to him, "These are some of the things you might publish," and
"other things" I said not, and that is all we talked about.
H e did not read the entire thing over the telephone to me because he
could not have because it had not been written at that time; lie was
getting the data and, as I understood it, he was taking the revised
original release, which he published i n December-that is the impres-
sion I have, at least-maybe I am wrong, but I do not think that I ain-
that he was condensing that for n magraziize, to make a condensation
of this, to publish some of these things in tliat paper.
H e did nlention the byline, lie told me that. I did not dispute that,
did not know what i t meant, very franlrly-I did not clis~uteit-did
not say lie should use it, and that is how the thing developed, as I have
told you.
I have tried to be frank, and I tried to be fair to him, as well as to the
committee ~ n c tol myself.
Senator BALDWIN.You think you have, Judge Van Roden, and I
think you have been very frank about it.
I did not quite understaid when i t was that you came domn to see
General Green. TJTasthat after the article mas published?
917G6-49-'iO
Judge VAN RODEN.Oh, yes, that was -published-because General

Green had this article, had photostatic copies of it, and the Secretary
of the Army.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you call him or did you go down to see him?
Judue VANRODEN.We both called each other. At least, he called
me-dkneral Green and I are very Close friends, I mean, socially as
well as-
Senator BALDWIN. Well, anyway, was it as a result of the letter?
- .Judge VANRODEN.I think he called me, and I came down to see
him.
Senator BALDWIN. And as a result of that you came over?
Judge VANRODEN.After I talked to General Green, he showed me
the photostatic copies of the Progressive ; me had a talk in his officein
the Pentagon, and went over the matter with him, and I said, "I am
going over there and see Mr. Finucane, and to have a talk," and he said,
"All right, I am going down," and he and General Hoover went down
to the car and drove me over to the office, and I had a talk with Mr.
Finucane and Mr. Libby.
Senator BALDWIN.Did Mr. Pinucane ever tell you that he served
overseas in the Army at any time?
Judge VANRODEN.I do not remember that he said so. Did you
sa that?
I f r . W ~ n c a n e .I do not remember.
Judge VAN RODEN.NO; I never knew he served overseas. I did
not know it.
Have you ever served overseas? I did not know whether you
had or not.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, as a matter of fact, Judge Van Roden,
when you were here before, Colonel Chambers went over the article
with you, and you deleted some of the things which you saidj which
you stated you had not said.
Judge VANRODEN.I denied the authorship of having stated orally
or any other way. 1d
Senator BALDWIN.And you never did have an opportunity to see

the article in full before i t was published under your name?
Judge VANRODEN.That is correct. I never saw the article, neither
in typing nor mimeographing nor longhand in any way at all until
I pot a P R from Mr. Finucane, a copy of the magazine itself.
He said, "Here you are in Progressive," and he enclosed a copy of
that in his letter to me.
Senator BALDWIN. What was the date of that letter 1
Judge VANRODEN.That was on January 28, when he sent'me that
letter. "Here you are in Progressive. I hope you will be pleased with
the editorial and typographical treatment which was given your
article."
Senator BALDWIN.Did you get that letter before you came down
to see General Green, or was that afterward, do you recall?
Judge VAN RODEN.I do not remember. It was about the same
time ;that was all in that period of time.
Senator BALDWIN.I take it, from what you have said here today,
yon were very much upset by the whole thing?
Judge VANRODEN.I still am upset about the may this is, taken
and the importance to i t which has been attached, but I can readily
see how it happened when it got into the Congressional Record, but I
still do not mean that to be construed as saying that I do not believe
some of these things happened that we found over there overseas.
I do not want to confuse the issue. I still do not mean to say that
I am taking back any of my testimony that I have given you here as to
what I found over there in the records in the course of our duties.
Senator BALDWIN.But you certainly do believe that in this article
in Progressive, in the treatment that has been given to it, they have
exaggerated-your position has been,exaggerated.
Judge VANRODEN.Very m ~ ~ cso,h and it went way beyond any-
thing that I told them or would agree to, and beyond the actual facts,
as I have told you a previons time when I mas down here, and marked
these deletions.
That was done, may I say to you, Senator, at the request and the
suggestion of Colonel Ellis who, during the recess, came over and
said to me, "Did you write this?" and I said to him, "No," and we sat
down during the recess, the noonday recess, and I checked off on this
paper here the articles that I said were not accurate and were not true,
and I would not be responsible for having said at any time.
Senator BALDWIN.That is, YOU did that voluntarily yourself.
Judge VANRODEN.041,yes. Colonel Ellis and I sat here-I do not
know whether you were here then or not, Colonel.
Mr. CI-ISMBERS. YOUbrought it to me imniediately after the recess
period and called it to my attention.
Judge VANRODEN.Yes; and that is when I did that, and the rest
of it, I think, the articles that are here, that I have not deleted, I do
not take back the things that I have said on that. I do not want the
thing to be confused.
Now, I am not trying to beg the question, gentlemen.
Senator BALDWIN.I think the committee understands your position
exactly.
Have you any further questions?
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO; I have not. I have no further questions.
Senator BALDWIN.Have you anything further you wish to say?
Colonel FENN. May I say for the record that I think there has been
an inference here that there was some of this physical abuse in some
of these 29 cases, other than the 12 Malmedy, and you corrected your
statement on that the last time you were here, Judge Van Roden.
You left some inference that there were atrocities or mistreatment
in some of those 29 cases, other than the 12 Malmedy. Would you
care to elaborate on that? I think you went over that and said there
was not any at one time, which is true. The other 17 are all on the
question of area responsibility.
Judge VANRODEN.Yes; that is correct.
Colonel FENN. And all the alleged mistreatments. I wish you would
correct that.
Judge VANRODEN.I n the tabs in the report, we set forth the reasons
for the other cases-not the Malmedy cases-we have set forth the
reasons for our recommendations for commutation, and they were,
such as in that Borkum Island case, Major Seiler, who had passed
on an order of no cruelty or atrocities there. You are quite right,
Colonel.
I n the other cases, other than the 12 Malmedy cases, the other reasons
are set forth in our report as to the manner in which those cases were
handled.
Colonel STRAIGHT.And they are not cases concerning any atrocities.

Judge VANRDDEN.That is right.
Colonel FENN. And in all of those, did you not base your reasons
on the responsibilities they had in the crimes, and f o r no other reasons?
May I suggest this: I11 some of the recommendations we made in
some of the other cases, other than the Malmeclg cases, we did nothing
more than to follow the recominendations of the W a r Crimes Board
of Review, which were also recommended by Colonel Breese, m~hich
hael not acted upon them up to that time, and we concurrecl i n the
reco~nmendationsof the TVar fiimes Board of Review to recominend
commutation.
Colonel FENN. And in the five cases that General Clay has over-
ruled your recommenclations, i t is purely on judgment as to the re-
sponsibility of those concerned, and no atrocities involvecl.
Judge VAN RODEN.AS to securing confessions from the accused,
you mean, as to the treatment of the prisoners by the investigators,
you mean Y
Colonel FENN. I mean on the five cases that h e has ordered the
executions which have been stayed now. ' There are no atrocities in
those cases.
Judge VANRODEN.I clo not know what those five cases are. I do
not know the names of the cases, who they are, and what they are.
Colonel FENN. They are part of the 29, other thzn the 12.
Judge VANRODEN.Yes.
Colonel FENN. I t is purely a difference in his judgment as to the
area of responsibility, in your opinion.
Judge VANRODEN.YOUcan put i t that way.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There is one other further question that conies up.
You testified here earlier today, Judge, that the bulk of the reasoning
back of your reco~nmendingcommutation on these 12 hinged around
the use of the mock trials, and the "schaell" procedures, augmented by
some of these other things.
Judge VAN RODEN.I t might be summarized in this way, yes: If
that is not clear, please let it be cleared up before I leave. I do not
want to have any inis~nderstandingbecause, to ;ne, it is very impor-
tant. . It is very important not only to me, but I think to the public at
large and to all of us.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. T h a t is all, sir. -
Senator BALDWIN.All right, sir ; thank you very much.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES FINUCAWE-Resumed
Mr. FINUCANE. I have some material which might reconcile the
appal.ent divergence in Judge Van Roclen's, statement today, or the
statement I made yesterday and the day before. May I present i t 8
Judge VANRODEN.I ~ v o ~ rather
ld have i t happen while I am here
rather than happen later, gentlemen.
Mr. FINUCANE.I think s~ibstailti~lly everything that Juclge Van
Roclen has said is correct. However, there are certain rather ~ m p o r -
tant details which are, perhaps, overlooked.
Most of the Progressive krticle; as is agreed by all of us, is based
on the original press release, or the second edition of the press release.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me pause right there to say, that you recall
Judge Van Roden has testified here that he never saw the press release.
Mr. FINUCANE. We put out an edition No. 1, a copy of which I have
here, mhicll we sent to Judge Van Roclen; in retimi from hi111 the
same day, December 18, there are a few statements in the news release
which really should not have been published. Then, he submits about
eight minor corrections in his statement.
Senator BALDWIN.I11 the press release?
Judge VANRODEN.I w0~11dnot call them minor corrections.
Mr. FINUCANE.This is the original.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me ask you this question before me get be-
goncl tlre press release.
Mr. FINUCANE. All right.
Senator BALDWIN.Did Judge Van Roden ever see this press release
before i t was issued?
Mr. FINUCANE. NO.
Senator BAWWIN. Was i t ever read to him over the telephone?
Mr. FINUCANE.NO; i t mas not. I t is not attributed to hi111 except
as our statement. I t is our quotation; we put no responsibility upon
him for i t except that fact that were quoting him.
Senator BALDWIN.Just a moment. You say i n the second para-
graph of this press release :
Citing the popular lectures being made by an American juclye, now in the
United States after a n investigatioll of the situation in Germany, which describa
tortures used to extract confessions, the counsel asked :
Do you understancl Judge Van Roden was out nralcing a series of
lectures on the subject ?
Mr. FINUCANE. I knew that lie had spolren on ~ e v r a occasions,
l
yes.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUclescribed them as lectures.
Mr. FINUCANE.Yes; that is right.
Mr. FINUCANE. After having made these reservations, we corrected
the release in conformance with his additions, ancl sent out this version
o i it, which is the number one release, 13-hich is the unrevised release,
corrected.
Then. we sent a letter to Judge Van Roclen explaining what we had
clone and saying that the corrections are also being transmitted to
the kenate Committee on the Judiciary, to whom we had sent the
bulk of the first release, as a personal communication, or as a com-
n~unicationfrom our organization to them asking for a n investigation.
We followed i t n p with the corrections.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I ask a question?
Mr. FINUCANE. YOUcan have this.
Mr. CHAMBERS. IStlre corrected version of release No. 1, plus the
items which appeared outside the quotes, vhiclr I believe were separate
things-
Mr. FINUCAND. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS (contiii~ing) . The identical language which appears
in the Progressive magazine?
Mr. BINUCANE.Here is what happenecl. I can reconcile a n apparent
contracliction in what was said by both of us, J u d g e Van Roden and
myself.
Judge Van ~ o d e n said there was to be a condensation, and yet ma-

terial was added. What happened was the Progressive article is a
condensation, but it also includes material which our organization
first put out as its statements, and which we arranged with Judge
Van Roden to attribute to him.
It seems that since then there has been some misunderstanding as to
the correctness of that attribution.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,Judge Van Roden, let me ask you this: You
say a copy of this present release-
Judge Van Roden. Which one are you referring to?
Mr. CKAIWBERS. I have the revised copy in my hand. Did you ever
see a copy of that ?
Judge Van Roden. May I ask which one that is, and which date
it is ? I do not know to what you are referring.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This is the one which is marked "Delivered to the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, December 18, 1948," signed by
Mr. Binucane.
Mr. FINUCANE. That is-
Judge VANRODBN.Did I ever get that ? I do not remember.
Mr. FINUCANE.
I will tell you how you can identify them readily:
The unrevised one has a covering news release because we thought it
was news that clay, and sent it out to some papers which did carry it.
Judge VANRODEN.Yes, I have that here.
Mr. FINUCANE. The second does not have the cover release, just a
statement.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you receive a copy of the revised one?
Judge VANRODEN.I did on December 20, in which he says, "The
corrections are also being transmitted," and so on, and he sends me
this with, apparently, h ~ shandwriting in red pencil, as amended.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, looking at this very hastily, Judge, and
apparently anything that was not stricken out of the initial release
was left in the revised copy.
I notice that there are items left in there which you subsequently,
before this committee, denied having said.
Well, this was received by me after it wen) out.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, that is the press release.
Judge VAN RODBN.Both of them, both press releases.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That

is correct, sir, but you received the initial
press release after it went out, and you objected to certain of the things
in there, and you sent a letter down to them asking for corrections, that
is, this one here.
Judge VAN RODEN.I did two things: I telephoned first and sent
this letter to specify in detail, or some detail, some of the talk we had
on the telephone.
Now, subsequently in this Progressive magazine, which is, as I un-
derstand, substantially identical with the revised press release, you
have certain items.
Mr. PINUCANE. That is right, there is one addition, I believe, this
Progressive article is substantially the second edition of the press
release, condensed, with one addition, which is the question of the
hanging of the five men.
Now, I notice, Judge, that in the press releases which you did see,
even though after they had gone out, you have these items of very
limited rations, and promises of acquittal.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Which you subsequently marked out on the copy
with Colonel Ellis; then, further down the line, there is a paragraph
which was in the press release, and which you had an opportunity to
see, which reads :
The tragedy is that so many of u s Americans, having fought t h e war with s o
much sweat and blood, and having defeated t h e enemy, now say, "All Germans
should be hung."
And so on.
Before our committee you scratched this out, and did not state it.
But you did not scratch it out of the release that you had read.
Judge VANRODEN.HOW could I correct it?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Excuse me. -You wrote them a letter asking them
to correct it, and you did not-
Judge VANRODEN.NO, sir; I did not. That is the second release.
You have the revised release here.
Mr. CHAMBERS. On December 18 you wrote them a letter asking
them to correct the first release, is that right?
Judge VANRODEN.That is right. Here is your first release.
Mr. CHAMBERS. All right, sir.
Judge VANRODEN.That is the first release they asked me to correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is what we have here.
Judge VANRODEN.I do not think that you have that one.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n
the first release, which you asked them to correct,
you had those two items of %cry limited rations"-
Judge VANRODEN.NO,that is not there. You have got the wrong
release.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUare right.
Now, Mr. Finucane, you have said this is substantially the same one,
and yet this business of "promises of acquittal" and "very limited
rations" have been apparently added.
Mr. FINUCANE. Are you comparing the second edition with the
Pro ressive article ?
&. CHAMBERS. That is correct.
Mr. FINUCANE.
That is right.
When I discussed it with Judge Van Roden on the phone he struck
out that particular thing.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Why did you not strike it out in your article?
Mr. FINUCANE.
I did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n
the Progressive magazine?
Mr. FINUCANE. I did. You told me it was not in there in the Pro-
gressive article.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Maybe I am getting completely confused here.
Let us start over again, because I would like to get at the facts. You
put out a first press release which did not contain those particular
items, and we will confine ourselves for the moment to "very limited
rations" and " romises of acquittal."
Judge VAN9 0 D E N . You are wrong in that; that is the first press
release.
Mr. C I ~ A ~ ~ EThis
R S ,is the one you habded to me, marked "Unre-
vised."
Mr. FINUCANE. This one is not identical with this in two respects:
It includes this covering press release, this single sheet, which sum-
marizes the contents.
When we put this out subsequently there was no point in putting this
summary on i t because i t was no longer news.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Will you please show me what Judge Van Roden
saw, based on which he wrote you a letter ?
Mr. FINUCANE.That, complete.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This?
Judge VANRODEN.May I see t h a t ?
Mr. CHAXBERS.Yes.
Judge VANRODEN.T h a t is the original one I received ; that is true.
Mr. CIIAMBERS.I n this there is no reference to the promises of ac-
A
quittal, or "very limited rations."

Mr. FINUCANE. I know there is not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, you have just said here a inonlent ago that
with the exception of this one change over here, that this Progressive
magazine article-
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes.
Mr. CIIAXBERS(continuing). Was substantially the second release.
Mr. FINUCANE. T h a t is this one here.
Mr. CHAMBERS. T h a t is correct.
Now, may I see this second release?
Mr. FINUCANE.
Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS.Now, in the second 'elease which Judge Van Roclen
had not had a chance t o see until after i t went out--
Mr. FINUCANE. I t followed his instructions.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, but he did not tell yon to put i n "promises of
acq~~ittal," and "very limited rations," did h e ?
Mr. FINUCANE.
He did not strike that out here.
Mr. &AMBERS. I t was not on there?
Mr. FINUCANE.Let me see. You will find that the reason for the
change between the first and second edition is explained if you read
this.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Based on the first release, Judge Van Roden said
he eiiminated "semistarvation," "family reprisal threats."
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You did eliminate that, but you placecl in lieu thereof
"very limited rations," is that right ?
Mr. CIIAMBERS.Judge, you had no opportunity, of course, to correct
that before the Progressive article came out?
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, he struck out, after Jadge Von
Roden7s suggestion, "semistarvation," but without his authority 119
inserted "very limited rations," is that correct?
Mr. F~NUCANE. The authority was conveyed by a telephone conver-
sation, which snpplements this letter which we had with Judge Van
Roden, and made notes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Are you saying that Judge Van Roclen knew that
you were going to put in the Progressive article the language "very
iimitecl rations 1"
Mr. FINUCANE.H e must have known from the tenor of our con-
versation.
Mr. CIIAMBERS.Answer 1ny question.
Mr. FINUCANE.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. D Oyou know that he knew that and understood i t ?
Do you know t h a t ?
Mr. FINUCANE. I believe Be did.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOLIbelieve he d i d ?
Mr. FINUCANE.
Yes, and he had that second release to comment on
if he wanted to. W e sent him a copy of that, and got no conmiknt
on it.
Judge VANRODEN.I thought what was the use of carrying on any
further, of telephoning and carrying on correspondence. The more
I talked and the more I wrote, the more they misquoted me, and I
thought I should not write any inore about it.
Mr. CHA~EBERS. F o r the purpose of clearing up the record, Judge,
did you understand when the article that the Progressive nlagaziile
was g o k g to write, came ont, mas going to include "very limited
rations" or "promises of acquittal"?
Judge VANRODEN.NO; because I do not know what happened over
there, and I did not know. If i t did not exist, I certainly was not going
to say it.
Mr. FINUCANE. May I point nine counts here, and there are eight
here: there was one stricken on Judge VAN RODEN'Sverbal order.
Mi. CHAXBERS.TVlien you read thYe proposed article over the tele-
phone to him, you read all these things in detail 1
Mr. FINUCANE. I read him that word for word, a i d when I came
to the point which-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let me see.
Judge VAN RODEN.What do you mean, "word for word," Mr.
Finucane ?
Mr. C H A ~ ~ RI Swant . to get just that particnlar word, Judge.
May I unclerstand you very clearly, Mr. Finucane, the opening para-
graph is not under discussion; that is where you say or make this
statement :
American investigators a t the United States court in Dachan, Germany, used
the following methods to obtain confessions-
that is not under discussion a t the moment, but the following metliods
were all ennnierated, and that is what we are talking about, and you
are saying that you read over the telephone to Judge Van Roden-
Mr. CIIAMBERS(continuing). Prior to the release of this article i n
the Progressive magazine in detail, these various items which had been
enumerated, is that correct?
Mr. FINUCANE. T h a t is correct, and I can tell you what he said
as I went along. H e would say, "Strike that." After completing
another line, or paragraph, he w o d d say, "That is a matter of fact."
I would conlplete another paragraph and he would say, "Yes, that is
what I understand to be correct," and so forth, and he struck about,
I would say, 25 percent.
Mr. C H A ~ B E RNow,
S . just a moment, me are still talking about this
enumeration of the methods used.
Mr. PINUCANE. All right.
'1108 MALMEDY ~ S S A C R E INVESTIGATION
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you are saying that you read each of those
t o Judge Van Roden over the telephone?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Judge Van Roden, did you, in fact, have those
read to you by Mr. Finucane?
Judge VAN RODEN.H e did read some of the sections. I am re-
minded of that now. H e read certain sections here, and I do re-
member I said-he said I cut 25 percent of it. I do not know how
much I cut out of it. I told him that so much should not go in.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Can we confine ourselves to the first part here?
Judge VANRODEN.T Othe first part here.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Because it is rather limited in area.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Were those read to you?
Judge VANRODEN.Which are the items you are referring to, YOU
mean "beatings and brutal kickings" ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Let it show conzpletely, "used the following methods
to obtain confessions." Then, there are eight in the Progressive
magazine. There are, I believe, nine in the document that you lzave
in front of you.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The first one is "beatings and brutal kickings?"
the second one is "knocking out teeth and breaking jaws," the third 1s
"mock trials," and the fourth is "solitary confinement," the fifth is
"posturing as priests," the sixth is "very limited rations," the seventh
is "spiritual deprivation," and the eighth is "promises of acquittal."
Now, there was a ninth that appears in the thing before you.
Did you locate that as we went through i t ?
Judge VANRODEN.Let me see ; the ninth must have been about the
torturing and the burning with splinters.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes.
Judge VANRODEN.That is not in there; that was stricken out.
R~~.-CHAMBEES. Those things were reacf to you ; is that right ?
Judge VANRODEN.I believe he is right. - I struck those out as we
went dong.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW.Judge. before us. however., vou " struck them
out here, saying that did & say them. '
Judge VANRODEN.Yes. I f he read them to me, I certainly nmst
lzave struck them out.
Mr. FINUCANE. That is a long time ago.
Judge VANRODEN.YOUare right about that, Colonel; he did read
some of these items paragraph by paragraph, but I know that these
things that I struck out here and now should not be published in this
article were something that was published.
Senator BALDWIN.Will you come down here, Mr. Finucane?
Mr. FINUGANE. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. -
First I had better ask Judge Van Roden on this
letter dated December 18,your letter to Mr. Finucane-
Judge VANRODEN.Yes, sir ; I have a carbon copy.
Senator BALDWIN.There are some corrections here in pencil appar-
ently to the paging. Did you make those corrections ?
Judge VANRODEN.NO; I did not make those. Here is my carbon
copy; you have the original over the're. The original is over there
m evidence, the original letter.
Senator BALDWIN.Let me point out this fact here: I s it a fact that
when you submitted a copy of the press release to Judge Van Roden,
it was the first press release or the corrected one?
Mr. FINFCANE. It was the first one.
Senator BALDWIN.The first one?
Mr. FINUCANE.
This letter is based on the first one.
Senator BALDWIN.I n the letter of Judge Van Roden on December
18 you say-
Page 1: Eliminate "semistarvation, family reprisal threats, and false promises
of freedomv-I do not recall having said this.
Mr. FINUCANE. "Semistarvatioi~"mas changed.
Senator BALDWIN.You put i n then, in its place, "very limited
rations."
Mr. FINECANE. That is right.
Judge VANRODEN.I did not suggest that, Senator.
Senator BALDWIN.That is what I mean; you did not suggest that;
and then you said-
Mr. FINUCANE.
"Family"-
- Senator BALDKIN.Then you said "family reprisal." That is stricken
entirely; there is no substitution for that in the second press release;
and then you said-Judge Van Roden said "false promises of free-
doin," and you said, L'Ido not recall having said that."
You asked him to strike it out, but he substitnted i n place of it
"promises of acquittal."
You did not authorize that, did you?
Judge VANRODEN.NO; I could not have.
Senator BALDWIN. Just a moment.
YOUhave had plenty to say
in this thing, and let me ask you a few questions.
Mr. FINUCANE.
Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. NOW,calling attention to page 5 of the first
press release, according to Judge Van Roden's letter-
Judge VANRODEN.Page 5 ?
Senator BALDWIN.I think i t would appear as page 6-you have
got it, but he has corrected it. Did you correct these hera?
Mr. F'INUCANE.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.TO make it correspond with the first press re-
lease ?
Mr. FINUCANE.
Yes.
You say on page 5-
I do not like the last sentence nrhich reads "actually the prosecution had thrown
in everything but the kitchen sink."
T h a t was the last sentence on that page and apparently it was stricken
out.
Mr. FINUCANE. I t was stricken out on th-
Senator BALDWIN.Second press release.
Mr. FINUCAKE.Colonel Chainbers wants to check it. Page 5, of
the last sentence.
Senator BALDWIN.Page 6 [reading] :
The fourth paragraph should not be published. This is really a part of our
confidential report to the Secretary.
That was a statement about the 74 Malmedy massacre defendants

who were tried in one room a t one time in one trial.
Lawyers, who had been given only 2 weeks to prepare a defense, were frantic.
Horrible beatings had made some of the defendants afraid to t a l k
You asked that that be stricken out?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.I t apparmtly was stricken out of the second
press release.
Mr. FINUCANE. Page 6.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I t was stricken out.
Senator BAWWIN. Again, 011 page 6, Judge Van Roden says:
I mould have preferred t h a t the comments about the dentist in the fifth para-
graph had been omitted.
You say-
We tallred to the AMG dentist a t the trials. H e said the great majority of
the German defendants had had th?ir teeth knocked out and three of them
hacl gotten broken jaws during the investigation.
Judge Van Roclen asked j7ou to strike that out.
I would have preferred that the comments about the dentist in the fifth para-
graph had been omitted.
Why did you make that observation, Judge?
Judge VANRODEN.I do not remember why I put that in, except that
I felt that the report we had u-as, as you k n o ~ of
~ , Dr. Knorr, the
dentist who had made his report, a i d that mas a bit of exaggeration,
having all the teeth lmoclred out.
Senator BALDTVIN. YOUm ~ s have
t asked that it be stricken out,
because you did not think it correctly and accurately representative.
Judge VANRODEN.Yes. We had talked t,o the Secretary.
Senator Bi LDWIN (reading) :
I did not sag t h a t Lieutenant Perl was dictating the statement to the 18->ear
defendant, and I do not know who the inrestigators were who prelmrecl this
statement.
S o that he took issue with you on that.
Mr. FINUCANE.I w o ~ l dlike l o have that notacl, that all those cor-
rections were made.
Judge VAN RODEX.On the second release.
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. W h a t paragraph ?
Mr. FINUCANE.Lieutenant Perl's name.
Mr. CHAMBERS. ISthat what he requested, s i r ?
The second release reads as follows :
One 18-year-old defendant, after a series of beatings, was writing a statement

that was being dictated to him by Lieutenant Perl mhen they had gotten to
the sixteeuth page, the boy was locked up for t h e night. During t h e early morn-
ing, Germans in nearby cells heard him muttering, "I'll not utter another lie."
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ask to strike that out?
Judge VANRODEN.I was attributing i t to Perl. I did not say that
Per1 s a d i t ; I did not know who said that.
I did not say that Lieutenant Perl was dictating the statement-
and so forth. , I
Fifth paragraph-although not important, I did not say that the table was
drk~pedlike :I coffin.
Judge VAXRODEN.I said i t was covered by a cloth, candles, and a
crucifix, \vhich was in our report.
Mr. FINUCANE.That correction was nzade.
Mr. CHAMBERS. T11:rt mas nzade.
Judge VANRODEN.I think they all have been made.
Mr. FINCC-WE:. They were all made.
Senator. BALDWIN.T h e first two were not.
Mr. FINUCANE.That was in our covering release and not Judge
Van Roden's.
Judge VANRODEN.B u t do not blame me for it.
Air.YC~~anrnr:~s.R hat is the very point in issue a t the moment.
Senator BALDWIN.Page 8, "The fourth paragraph--"
Mr. FINUCANE.I n parentheses stated-
Senator BALDWIS(continuing) :
The fourth paragraph from the bottom of the page in parentheses it is stated
that I challenge by iniplication the whole procedure. This might be c o n s t r ~ ~ e d
to mean that I challenge the procetlure of crimes trials rather than the pro-
cedure of investigation, and I think t h a t it is susceptible to either interpretation
and therefore unfortunate.
Then, you continue :
I n the nest paragraph, certainly the conrersation between Secretary Royall
and us was confidential, and it should not be published.
Page 9, fifth paragraph-
Judge VAN RODEN.Third paragraph.
Senator BALDWIN(continues reading) :
You mean that my exoneration is merely technical a s apply to Secretary Royall?
This i s a very unfortunate statement.
Then, there is this statement:
I do not believe that yon made any of the statements intentionally to embarrass
me, but I had no idea you woulcl write a n article "quoting" me without giving me
a n opportunity to see the release before i t was distributed.
Let ns put these together.
Mr. P I X ~ C A N EI f. I wight offer ail observation a t this point, i t is
coininoil practice not to send statements of this sort to the people you
quote for confirmation before publicat'1011.
Judge VANBODEN.Did you hear that, Senator?
You say:
The fact that you were not consulted before the release was issued for word-by-
r a l yon to n certain extent from responsibility for the matter
Word ~ l ~ l ~ r ofrees
eX;actlp a s quoted. In other cases where i t is not a matter of quoting you but
is rather a matter of onr independent interpretation of the facts, you a r e not
quoted and we stand behind our own statements exclusively.
I n-ould just like t o have i t appear for the benefit of the record t h a t
outside of the first pages, first and second pages, outside of the first
and half of the second page, everything i n this article that is i n quota-
tion marks, until me get to the bottoin of page 8-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Judge Van Roden, I notice that there is another
item in the Progressive magazine which you have indicated that you
did not say, which appeared in the first draft of the press release, and.
i n the second draft of the press release. That is the paragraph which
reads :
The tragedy is that so many of us Americans-
and so on.
Did Mr. Finucane read that to vou the night that he was discuss in^
u u
this article with you 1
Judge VANRODEN.H e may have, I do not remember that he did,
but to me that was just sort of flowery language. That does not seem
to set forth any facts. Of course, it is extravagant language; people
like to read that sort of thing. The fact that we Americans did so
and so is what they like to read, and I do not think that changes the
factual situation; I do not remember that I made that extravagant
statement ; although they put it in an editorial.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But since the press release used the language "all
Germans should be hung," and the Progressive toned it down to the
point that "all Germans should be punished,)' and since you did not
strike it out or indicated that it should come out of your press
release-
Judge VANRODEN.I do not recall that we even talked about it at
all ; we may have, but it does not make any impression upon me.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But it was in the mess release.
Judge VANRODEN.YOUmean th; one that you have there?
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Yes.
Judge VANRODEN.That is in the revised or the original release?
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is the original press release. The one that
you had an opportunity-
Judge VANRODEN.That did not impress me as making a comment
worth while at that time, becanse it impressed me as extravagant lan-
guage, "The tragedy is that so many of us Americans," and so on; it
did not make any assertion of facts.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,I notice that in this first press release-is this
item that "all but two of the Germans, in the 139 cases we investigated,
had been kicked in the testicles beyond repair"?
Judge VANRGDEN.Not over 130. I do not know horn many vere
kicked; all we found mas that some of them were kicked or kneed
in the groin or in their testicles.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Nom, in your original testimony you denied that
categorically.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you said you did not say and never heard any
such things.
Judge VANRODEN.I do not know how many were kicked. Some
of them were kicked; I do not say none mere not. Maybe I said cate-
gorically-I did not say a specific number had been kicked. I never
said all but two. I think what I said there was that when I referred
to "all but 2 of the 139 cases," we recommended clemency to the extent
of coininutation of their death sentences, but for 2, that is life im-
prisonment. But for two recommendations, one got 10 years and one
2% years, all but two; we recommended rather that they be com-
muted from death to life imprisonment. That may be where the con-
fusion of that 2 came in, but I denied categorically, and still deny
categorically that all but 2 were kicked in the testicles.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 1113,
Mr. CHAMBERS. It is not the question of kicking, but "damage be-
yond repair."
Judge VANRODEN.Damaged beyond repair.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But

also since it was in your original press article
which you had a chance to edit and correct, why did you not see fit
to delete i t from there rather than later let i t get out as a later story?
Judge VANRODEN.I do not know.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Because

that particular item has been the most in-
flammatory thing that has come before us. I will say the same thing
about that particular part of it.
Judge VANRODEN.That one item?
Mr. CHAMBERS. That

one item is probably the worst, and you fur-
thermore made the statement, or the statement was accredited to you
. in the original press release, that this was standard operating pro-
cedure with our American investigators, and that also appears in the
Progressive.
Judge VANRODEN.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
denied it later before us, and you said you did
YOU
not say that; but you let it stand in the press release. Now why,
Judge ?
Judge VANRODEN.Oversight is all I can think of to answer that,
I remember the telephone conversation; I tried to cover all that
by telephone, and I wrote a letter which has gone out there. I can-
not explain it to you.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, Judge, here is what I am getting at.

Judge VANRODEN.Why was it in that letter of December 181
Mr. CHAMBERS. On December 18 you wrote a detailed letter enumer-
ating a great many items which should be deleted from this press
release, but you did not see fit to delete that one about the 139 cases
with respect to having been kicked in the testicles, and the statement
that they had been damaged beyond repair, and the statement that this
was standard operating procedure with our American investigators.
Judge VANRODEN.It should have been.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It should have been?
Judge VANRODEN.I t should have been.
Mr. CHA~~BERS. I think all those should have been deleted-I

think
we will freely admit that had all of these things which should have
been deleted, had not appeared, we could not have gotten into diffi-
culties, and if we could have'gotten a little more of the facts and not
so much of an argument on this-
Senator BALDWIN.Colonel, I think it would be a good plan, while

the judge is here, since his second press release is in the record, to give
him an opportunity if he wants to correct it. Would you want to do
that, Judge?
Judge VANRODEN.Will i t serve any useful purpose?
Senator BALDWIN.That is what I understood Colonel Chambers
was trying to do.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. I am trying to find out, Judge, what you actually
think happened over there. ,
Judge VANRODEN.That is right, and that is what I am trying to
tell you.
Mr. CHA~~BERS. That is right.
Now, you have gone through the Progressive magazine here and
scratched out certain things for us.
Now, Mr. Finucane took the stand and also under oath testified
that you knew all of these things.
For instance, on this particular item where it appears you had n
chance to correct and did not, and which has proven to be of great
controversy, it, i n fact, cannot be corroborated; that is, this matter
of-
J~zdgV e ANRODEN.Let me see if we are very f a r apart on that. You
are suggesting that because I did not correct the item with respect to
the number of persons who had heen kicked in the testicles, that
should be repudiated in its entirety? I do not know if I follow that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am not saying that a t all, sir. I merely want to
ask you this: You say that the whole thing-I read the two parts of
it :
"All but 2 of the Germans, in the 139 cases me investigated, had been kicked
in the testicles beyond repair. This mas standard operating procedure with our
American investigators.
Senator BALDWIN.AS I understood, Judge Van Roden, you said that
yon did not say that.
Judge VANRODEN.AS to the number, yes, sir. I said some had been
kicked, and some injured beyond repair, from what we found in the
papers.
Senator BALDWIN.But you did not say a hundred.
Judge VANRODEN.Not all but two.
Senator BALDWIN.And you did not say i t was standard operating
procedure.
Jndge VANRODEN.NO.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you further said that should have been deleted
and was not deleted when you marked that up.
Judge VANRODEN.When I wrote that letter.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When you wrote that letter; is that correct?
Judge VANRODEN.All right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. O n that point, I think that is correct.
Now, there are a great many other similar instances i n here-I am not
so sure but that the record should be complete on it, because the way
it is now, Mr. Chairman, we have got two people testifying here, and
the inference is that from Finucane's testimony he either misunder-
stood Judge Van Roden7s permission on these various things, or the
jud e has not told us the right story.
&w, the judge has told us definitely arid categorically a t the earlier
session about these things.
Senator BALDWIN.Yes. Jndge Van Roden has suggested deleting
certain items in this article which he has marked.
Judge VAN RODEN.Which I declined to have attributed to me.
Now, the question is in the second press release which, apparently,
was gotten out, do you want the opportunity to go over that and delete
some things in that which should not be attributed to you? I s that
not your point?
Mr. CEIAMBERS. T h a t is a further question in that, sir, and that is
why, since the judge has a chance to delete in the Progressive article
before us these things, why did he not delete the same articles i n this
press release.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, in answer to one, he said i t was an over-
sight.
MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION iiiS
Judge VANRODEN.I n the second release I let the thing go ; I was
not gomg to be involved any more about it. The second release, when
it came I did not write any more letters. I let it go and did not do any-
thing else about it.
I n the first one I telephoned immediately, and I thought the whole
thing was edited in such a way that I did not approve it, and I tried
to go over the items over the telephone, and I think the letter went out
the same day, I believe ;it must have been after the telephone conversa-
tion or immediately before or about that same time; and I dictated
promptly, as promptly as I could on this Saturday morning, and prob-
ably in the haste of getting that done, I missed that item about 139
cases, all but 2 of which had been kicked, and that is one thing I have
forgotten. That is all I can explain on that item.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Will you explain the one about th6 priests, because
we had some discussion about that before, Judge. You said you were
shocked, and all of us said the same thing.
Judge VANRODEN.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And we were kind of wondering about that.
Now, as I understood it, you deleted that in this article about the
priests ;is that correct ?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes. But there was evidence over there-you
see, we are confusing-I am so sorry I do not follow you. We are
either going to have this matter before the committee to ascertain what
the facts are that I found or you are going to be involved in what was
published as I have said, which to me seems to me to be entirely out-
side of the matter here before you as a committee.
Senator BALDWIN.The point on the thing, Judge Van Roden, is
this: Here is the Simpson report and here is your testimony in the
case.
Judge. VANRODEN.That is right.
Senator BALDWIN.I n this hearing. As opposed to that, here is the
article that was published in the Progressive which you have already
refuted in substantial art.
Judge VANRODEN. fright.
Senator BALDWIN. And then, in addition to that, here are these
two press releases which we are trying to get straightened out, on the
basis of what statements you probably made with reference to the
thing.
I mean, what me are trying to do is to give you an opportunity to
correct something that has been done here, which the committee is
pretty thoroughly convinced was done, at least in part, without your
knowledge, or at least on the basis of mishnderstanding, and we do not
want to have this in the record as representing testimony which you
would not substantiate.
Judge VAN RODEN.Well, I appreciate the opportunity given me
to defend myself with respect to articles which have appeared in pub-
lications, and that may have a bearing to aid the committee in deter-
mining what to do about these accusations and fiindings which will
be ascertained from the testimony.
But I think there are two distinct things. I do appreciate the oppor-
tunity that you are giving me to answer any inferences as against me
as my having said things which I did not say.
Senator BALDWIN.NOW,you see here---
91765-49-71
Judge VAN RODEN.I do not see that it has any bearing on your
initial problem, but I am not trying to duck it.
Senator BALDWIN.Mr. Finucane has said after the first press re-
lease was issued he sent a copy to you, which was issued without your
knowledge, and you wrote back this letter in which you made these
corrections, and then the second press release was issued ; and in that
second press release there are statements as variance with what you
have already repudiated as having been placed in the article.
What I think Colonel Chambers is tryind to do is to get the second
press release in the form that you think fairly represents what you
said.
Judge VANRODEN.I f you consider the press release evidence, why,
that is one thing.
Mr. CHAMBERB. May I say this, Judge, and perhaps we are giving
it more time than we should, but over a long period of weeks of testi-
mony here, I have sat here and heard the charges which have appeared
in the Progressive article used against the prosecution staff.
Now, you will wonder-
Judge VANRODEN.Charges used by whom, by witnesses who testi-
fied ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO, in questions asked there have been constant
references to these various things- which have come out in the Progres-
-
sive articles.
I think if vou check the record you will find that all of them have
been mentioned many times.
What I am trying to find out, and what the committee is trying to
find out, is if in fact you, who were attributed at least to be the author
of these statements, can tell us of those which were in your opinion not
correct, and then we are getting down to the point where there may
be four or five or six types of things which we have to decide on their
merits.
Now, you repudiated before us quite a few things in the Progres-
sive magazine the last time you were here.
Mr. Pinucane spent some little time on the stand here a couple of
days ago, and endeavored to explain where he got this information,
because i t had to come from you, sir, or the man who wrote the story,
who was Mr. Finucane.
Now, with both of you here, I certainly see something that I have
not seen before, a revision of this thing, and I find that you had an
opportunity in advance, in Finucane's mind, a t least, to delete from>
the second press article, by this letter of the 18th of December-
Judge VANRODEN.That is the first article.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is correct. I n other words, in going through
the first article there was certain-
Senator BALDWIN.First press release.
Mr. CHAMBERS. First press release, which later appeared in the
second press release, and which later appeared in the Progressive
magazine, that you did not see fit to delete on the 18th of December.
Now, some of these things are the ones which are most controversial.,
Judge VANRODEN.All right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,what I was trying to find out from you was
this matter of whetlier or not in your opinion American investigators
adopted a standard operating procedure, the custom of kicking people
in their testicles for the purpose of getting confessions.
Judge VANRODEN.NO;I do not believe so.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And if you had caught that a t the time you would
have deleted it.
Judge VANRODEN.I may summarize it, in answer to your question,
and say this: The deletions i n the Progressive that I have told you.
about a t the previous hearing, I still say should be deleted, and they
should not be attributed to me, and those same averments, either in the-
same words or meaning the same thing, if they appeared in a n y
previous press release, they are hereby repudiated by me, and should
be deleted, and if they were not deleted, if one that you have men-
tioned here was overlooked and not deleted, all I can explain that is
due to the fact of the suddenness of this matter, when this release
came to me on a Saturday morning, when I tried to get them on the
telephone I could not, had a lot of difficulty, finally got Finucane, and I
think it was that same morning, December 18-it must have been-
whether it was a Saturday or not, I can tell from the calendar-
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes.
Judge VANRODEN.I took my girl there and dictated to her in the
desire to get it off as soon as I possibly could, and i t must have been
that I overlooked mentioning that fact of 139 only 2 had escaped-let
me finish. When the second release came there I got that, and I put i t
in my file, and I was disgusted with the whole.thing, and I did not
know how far it had gone; I got the impression from Mr. Libby, as a
matter of fact, that the first press release had already been distributed,
and it was impossible to call it back, and Mr. Finucane said that he
thought there was some that they could recall and not have them deliv-
ered and have them revised.
I think it could have happened on the following Monday. The
time limit-I did not have the time to go over it thoroughly, but I
was entirely upset and distressed about that going out without my
having seen it, and that is the only excuse I can give you for not
icking it up, picking up the one thing I should have picked up,
fecause it certainly is not so that of 139 a11 but 2 were injured beyond
repair.
Now, that is the fact for the committee to consider, and I repudiate
that as not being attributable to me and not having been said by m a
Mr. CHAMBERS. Will you also, because this same item appears in
press release No. 1and press release No. 2 and the Progressive maga-
zine article, and you repudiated it there, a t least you scratched it out,
this matter of the bogus Catholic priests going in to get confessions-
Judge VANRODEN.NO; with respect to the bogus Catholic priests,
I cannot testify to that, there was some evidence there that persons-I
remember I told you in my testimony that it had been reported to us
that investigators-I do not know how many of them, I cannot tell
how-did pretend to be Roman Catholic priests, and attempted to1
get confessions from these accused. Now, we learnd that over there.
Senator BALDWIN.Was that in connection with Malmedy?
Judge VANRODEN.I n connection with Malmedy. After they had
the mock trials with Malmedy; yes. I think you questioned me at
length the last time I was here as to where I got the information from.
Senator BALDWIN.That will be very interesting to know, because
all the witnesses we have heard and all the questions we asked your
statement with reference to it-
Judge VANRODEN.Did not Dwinell mention that?
Senator BALDWIN. No ;I do not recall that he did. Do you, Colonel?

Judge V - 4 ~RODEN.I am pretty sure-I think he is the one who
talked to us about it a t the Pentagon Building before I went over,
I am not sure.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think Colonel Dwinell said he had some memory
about a priest, and I showed him an affidavit in which a prisoner was
asked, "Would you like to see a priest?"
Judge VANRODEN. NO, not that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Finucane, your memory is better than mine on
some of these things. Did Dwmell testify to that?
Mr. FINUCANE. Somebod
started to ask him a question, and he re-
ferred to Colonel ~ a ~ m o or n dhe
had mentioned that Colonel Ray-
mond had mentioned it to him, and was in the room, and expected to
.testify later, and it was the intention to ask him about it, but there
was no questioning about it.
Senator BALDWIN.I think I would rely upon the witnesses in the
record.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I' would like to check this rapidly. It mill not
take but a minute, and we will complete this, I hope.
Again, Judge Van Roden, this is a minor point, perhaps, but you
scratched it out from the Progressive article. Do you recall now
saying, "You will now have your American trial, the defendant was
toldI7' That was in connection with the mock trials; that appeared
in the first press release, the second press release, and the Progressive
article, and you scratched i t from the Progressive article.
Judge VANRODEN.That was not very important, it seems to me;
they were going to have an American trial was not important. They
thought they were having an American trial. They were having a
mock trial. Whether the words were used, I do not think was very
important. It is in our report, too ;they thought they were having a
trial, and it was a mock trial. It was a technique, as Major Fanton
called it, or a ceremony, as it was called, but we over there learned that
they were mock trials, and so described as mock trials.
Whether they were told "You are going to get an American trial,"
that may have been said, but I do not think that is important.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That completes these items in quotes so we need
not go into Mr. Finucane7s-
Judge VANRODEN.Editorial.
Mr. CHAMBERS (continuing). Editorial at this point. But let me
ask this.
Mr. Pinucane, I would like to ask you, did you read to Judge Van
Roden that night this paragraph, section 4 of your article, which
appears outside of the quotes, and which we discussed when you were
on the stand, and where you said that American investigators who
committed the atrocities in the name of American justice and under
the American flag are going scot free, do you recall our discussion
on that ? Did you read that to Judge Van Roden?
Mr. FINUCANE. Of course, I did not-I cannot remember precisely
every paragraph, but I read him everything that was outside the
quotes, and I read him, perhaps, part of the things that were in the
quotes.
But everything he had previously signified approval of through this
letter of correction, everything that he had not already approved
by implication in that letter I read to him.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, Judge Van Roden, that is a conclusion that
American investigators who committed the atrocities in the name
of American justice-tha't -is a conclusion that these atrocities were
committed, and I might say, as you have testified, that you had not
had an opportunity to talk to any of the prosecutors from the stand-
point of getting their side of the case.
Judge VAN RODEN.Nor the defendants either. We did not talk
to the defendants nor the prosecution, either.
Mr. C H A ~ ~ E YouR S . talked to a great many of the defense counsel.
Judge VANRODEN.Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you did not have a chance to talk to any of the
prosecutioii who are under attack here. That is correct, is it not?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Piizcuane drew a conclusion for you, which is
that American investigators who committed the atrocities in the name
of American justice-that is a conclusion, that the atrocities were
committed; and later on he also drew another conclusion that Ameri-
can investigators who abused the powers of victory and "prostituted
justice to vengeance, should be exposed in a public process, preferably
in the United States, and prosecuted," both of those you scratched out.
Do you repudiate those statements?
Judge VANRODEN.I did not say that, Mr. Finucane.
Mr. FINUCANE. If you compare press release No. 2, you will see
------
some-
Judge VANRODEN.That is your editorializing of my statement.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The point I am getting at is, did Mr. Finucane read
that. to you, Judge?
Judge VANRODEK.Not that I recall.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And had you read that-had he read that to you,
you would have repudiated it ; is that correct?
Judge VANRODEN.I believe so. That is flowery language, - - it seems
to me,%gain.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DOyou not interpret that as a conclusioil that these
atrocities in fact had been proven ancl that such investigators should
be prosecuted ?
Judge VAN RODEN.Yes; but I did not recommend that they be
prosecuted. I believe that this-
Mr. GA~~BERS. I n order to draw a conclusion in your report that
they had committed atrocities in the name of American justice, did
you say that? That was not contained in your report anywhere.
Judge VANRODEN.That is right. It is not. Of course, I do think,
ancl certainly if this committee should, by way of argument only, if
this committee should determine that the investigators or some of
them did commit atrocities, certainly they should be prosecuted. I
hope you recommend that they be prosecuted; that would be a matter
that anybody would draw a conclusion with respect to if found to
be a fact.
Mr. CHAMBERS. S~zpposethe committee found after cobplete in.
vestigation-the word "atrocities," of course, is subject to a broad
definition, but suppose this committee is not able to substantiate the
fact that atrocities had been committed. This conclusion would seem
to be a little out of place with that; mould it not?
Mr. CHAMBERS. And if I understand you, in your opinion, Mr.

Finucane did not read that to you, and you did not authorize him to
say it for you.
Judge VANRODEN.That is my best recollection, and I am pretty
sure I am right about it. H e read things and he did not read them,
and we talked about it. It was not in our conversation; we could not
have gone over that entire article on the Progressive. We did not
have that much time on the telephone.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have no more questions on that point.
Senator BALDWIN.I have no more things to say.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO yoh have anything more to say on this, Mr.
Finucane ?
Mr. PINUCANE. Yes; I think I can clear up a little bit of the mystery
which has come up here. I have to read this paragraph from a letter
from Judge Van Roden saying-this is on February 3, and up until
this point, with the exception of the telephone conversation and the
letter of correction, everything was going along, and the artic1.e had
been published in the Progressive, and there had been no' repudiation
of the article in the Progressive, but on February 3, Judge Van Roden
wrote :
I have received a letter from the Secretary of t h e Army (the contents of
which, of course, I shall not comment upon a t this time).
I do not wish to do anything which is unethical insofar a s the Department
is concerned. Neither do I wish to jeopardize my credit with the Department.
For this reason I must be very careful about any future publications ; and I shall
depend upon you to communicate with me before anything further is published
wherein my name will be mentioned.
I think that the fact that Judge Van Roden came down here and
was put on the carpet by General Green might explain why he dis-
covered now that he was not very careful in editing that first release
because his memory-because he was in a hurry.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Finucane, may I interrupt?
Mr. FINUCANE.
Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Van Roden has testified here that he initiated
Judge
a trip down here to see General Green, and after a telephone con-
versation came down to see him, and after which he came over to see
you.
Mr. FINUCANE. Yes, Mr. Chambers.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,YOU just made a remark that he was called
"on the carpet by General Green."
Mr. CHAMBERS. What

do you base that on?
Mr. FINUCANE.
YOUknow, it is regrettable when confidences must
be infringed. Judge Van Roden and Mr. Libby and I had a very
friendly talk about this, and Judge Van Roden explained that he had
been criticized by the Secretary of the Army for this article.
I got the impression, although Judge Van Roclen did not say SO, that
the Army was being criticized itself for these trials, and that they
wanted some kind of a retraction by him ~vhichthey could use to
reply to people who complained to them,
Judge VANRODEN.I did not say that.
Mr. FINUCANE.
I say I got that impression, and he said, "Now, if
this comes up, I am going to have to say certain things in that
article are not true. I don't want you to be surprised," and we talked.
about the points a t issue, and, as he has told you, I said, 'Tf there is
ever a hearing on it, you tell the committee what happened and I will
tell them what happened, and we will let the committee put the thing
together and get a version of it."
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUsay you talked about it. What do you mean?
That you all decided which points, what the judge would say on some
points, and what you were going to say on them? Just what do you
mean b that ?
3
Mr. INUCANE. NO. Judge Van Roden at that point mentioned sev-
eral, I would say three or four angles, of the article which apparently
General Green had objected to most strenuously. One of them, the
only one on which we mere in agreement, which we did not think we
would have to leave up to the committee to decide, was the question
about the five men being hanged.
I said that I had added that without the proper editorial identifica-
tion.
Senator BALDWIN.What do you mean you thought you would have
to leave it up to the committee to decide it?
Mr. FINUCANE. Well, at that point, Judge Van Roden and we were
differing-he said a t that point, he said, "Iwill have to deny responsi-
bility for7,-I forget what the items were in there now, two, three, or
four items, and as I said, LLWell, it is not a question of fact; i t is a
question of opinion."
You have seen the procedure we went through to get the material;
you saw the first release, the second release; we have correspondence
that indicates that Judge Van Roden accepted responsibility and also
accepted any credit that went along with it, and there was, as I say, a
situation where we agreed on one aspect of the article, which was the
one about the five men being hanged. That was a two-line paragraph,
I believe, or a three-line paragraph that was added, and it should have
had editorial brackets around it that indicated it was not Judge Van
Roden's statement.
I am very sorry that I have to talk like this, to have to bring these
things out, but I owe it as an obligation to the Progressive Magazine,
which went into this thing in good faith, and to our organization which
went into it in good faith, and to Judge Van Roden who went into it
in good faith, but who, under pressure, is putting out another edition
of the story a t this time. That is my opinion.
Did I give you that letter?
Senator BALDWIN.What letter is that?
Mr. FINUCANE. That one I read from, the Secretary of the Army--
Judge VANRODBN.I quoted from that a little while auo.
Mr. CLIAMHERS. It is already in the record; Judge ~ a n % o d e nread
it in part at least.
Judge VANRODEN.I do not want to prolong this, gentlemen, but I
want to say that I was not on the carpet in the sense that Mr. Pinucane
would have you think.
Secretary Royall's only comment to me was-this is not part of your
investigation, but I am bound to answer this-the only comment was
that some of the information had been disclosed prior to-I have his
letter here somewhere, if not, back in the office-prior to its release by
the P I D , Public Information Division.
, I think Colonel Eyster had issued an original release sometime in

December, and one again in January, and the complaint was nothing
at all along the lines you are investigating or discussing. His com-
plaint was that some information had been released prior to the PID
release. I showed General Green the dates, and he said, "That is
wrong-." H e said, "The Secretary was mistaken." And it was Gen-
eral Green and I who talked about it, and he said to forget all about it,
and he said I had better see Mr. Finucane. That is the situation.
I mas embarrassed; I did not want to embarass General Green, of
course, or the Secretary. I did not want to have any more confusion
about this matter, because it all developed as a result of that one Rotary
Club speech. I f it had not happened, and you had not been there,
this would not have happened.
Mr. CHANBERS. The point is not too clear in my mind. Did you see
General Green on this matter on one or more than one occasion?
Judge VAN RODEN.I generally did. The day is probably gone,
and I do not know whether he is in town or not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. On this particular matter?
Judge VAN RODEN.I think I saw him on two or three occasions
when we mere talking about it. I think on two occasions. I talked
to him on two occasions about i t m a y b e on a third. I do not re-
member.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were you ever asked by General Green to come down
here for the purpose of either talking to him or Secretary Royall about
this matter?
Judge VANRODEN.Not Secretary Royall. He called me, he talked
to me on the telephone about it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Who did, Green?
Judge VANRODEN.Genera1 Green. We tallied two or three times;
I do not know how many times. We talked a good deal on it in his
office. He made some comment, and I said, "Shall I go to see the Sec-
retary on this?" H e said, "No, he will have time to hold his water,"
or something like that, an expression that he has, and he said, "No,
I understand what this thing is now," and he said, "It is just all right.
This thing is going along all right; just let the thing go."
Then the Progressive came out, I think, after that first talk-no,
the Progressive had already come out, and he had a photostatic copy
a t that time, and then I said to him, "I think I had better go over and
see Finucane." I was talking to General Green in the Pentagon, and
he drove me over. I was embarrassed, so I told Finucane this-I
was embarrassed about General Green, with respect to the fact that
I did not want to embarrass him with the Secretary, because, after all,
he was the Judge Advocate General of the Army, and I did not want
to have any embarrassment of him. I did not want to put myself in
that position or, as I said to him, "lose my credit with the Depart-
ment."
Senator BALDWIN.Judge Van Roden, did you get a letter from Sec-
retary Royall ?
Judge VANRODEN.I did.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUmentioned in this letter of February 3 to
Mr. Finucane that you got a letter from Secretary Royall.
Judge VANRODEN.I did.
Senator BALDWIN. Have you got that letter?
Judge VANRODEN.I do not have it here; no, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. Have you any recollection of what its contents
were ?
Judge VAN RODEN.Yes. Just as I have told you. It was a very
terse letter, such as Secretary Royall writes, to the effect that it had
come to his attention that there have been satements made about the
war crimes trials investigation by the Simpson Commission or Simp-
son-Van Roden Commission, as he called it, and i t was regrettable that
"you have disclosed information before proper release by the Army."
Then, I got my dates to correspond, and I found that the P I D had
two releases, I think-one in December and one, I think in the last part
of January, and I showed it to General Green, and he said: "It is
satisfactory; that is all you are going to hear a b o ~ it."
~t
Senator BALDWIN.After you got the letter from Secretary Royall
you came down and saw General Green?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes, sir; I saw General Green; yes, sir.
Senator-BALDWIN.
. When you refer to the P I D releases, what do
you mean by those?
Judge VANRODEN.The Public Information Division of the Armv.
~ e n l t oB
r ALDWIN. Yes.
Judge VAN RODEN.They are releases, restricted reports and con-
fidential reports. ,
Senator BALDWIN. They were not press releases; they were instruc-
tions 8
Judge VANRODEN.NO,they were releases to the press by the Army
of any confidential matters. I think Colonel Eyster is in charge of
the PID.
Colonel F'ENN. That is correct, sir, Public Information Division, and
when a confidential matter or confidential information is released and
it is of public interest, it is released through the Public Information
Division, which is the prescribed procedure.
Senator BALDWIN. DO I understand from what you said that you
found on looking into ib--
Judge VANRODEN.That it was not prematurely released.
Senator BALDWIN. That it was not prematurely released ?
Judge VANRODEN.I satisfied him, and he said he would tell the
Secretary. That is all the Secretary was interested in, and I heard no
more about it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO one ever asked you for for a retraction of the
statement ?
Mr. FINUCANE. I am glad to hear that.
I would like to point out to Judge Van Roden's credit, that he had
the Van Roclen-Simpson report at that time, which had that confiden-
tial mark across it, and he did not make it available to me.
There is a subsequent letter which I would like to read a paragraph
from, which I think m i g h 6
Senator BALDWIN.May I see the letter?
Mr. FINUCANE. DO you want to put that i n the record, Senator?
I think it should be.
Judge VANRODEN.What date is that?
Mr. CHAMBERS. March 11, 1949.
Mr. FINUCANE.
Shall I read that paragraph, Senator?
Judge VANRODEN.A letter from me, is it?

Mr. FINUCANE. Yes, March 11.
Judge VANRODEN.I do not seem to have a copy of it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would suggest, with the Senator's permission, that
we read the whole letter.
Mr. PINUCANE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is a letter since the hearing started, incidentally:
Thank you for keeping me on the mailing list, and I hope you will continue
to send me releases with reference to the war crimes trials subject. I should be
interested i n having your personal opinion or guess a s to whether John M.
Franklin, appointed to succeed Secretary Royal], would have adopted a different
policy or-
This is not important.
I have been thinking about the conversation we had when I was last i n Wash-
ington, and I hope you did not get the impression t h a t I did not appreciate all
t h a t you tried to do for me. I n fact, I think t h a t what you have published and
t h e widespread extent to which your publications have permeated, has done a
great deal of good i n arousing the people of the country, and I apprecate very
much your efforts which have given me Nation-wide publicity.
I shall be pleased to hear further from you, a n d if I have any new authentic
information I shall be glad to pass it on to you.
Very sincerely,
Judge VAN RODEN.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That was after you had seen the Progressive article,
of course?
Judge VANRODEN.It must have been.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And that was in uncensored form by you?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes.
The reason for that was I got a release from him about some other
matter which I was not involved with, and it was not involved in our
matter at all, and I said, "Thank you for being on the mailing list."
I am keeping abreast of the times; I am anxious to keep abreast of
the times, and anxious to know what was going on.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUmust have been aware of some of the reper-
cussions of this article. Did they ever worry you particularly as to
the effect they were having; this investigation is, perhaps, one of them ;
Finucane had put you on notice that there was at least one con-
gressional resolution and one investigation that had been started by it,
and so you did not feel it necessary to try to correct those items
which, as you have put it, were gross exaggerations of your position?
You did not feel it necessary to take any steps at all to correct, perhaps,
the exaggerated impression that the public generally was getting of
this thing?
Judge VANRODEN.NO, I did not see, first of all, how they would
do it. I f I sent a letter to the Progressive, and they started the con-
troversy again and broadcast it, I do no+
Mr. CHAMBERS. I have no more question, Senator.
Senator BALDWIN.Are you still in the Reserve?
Judge VANRODEN.Yes.
Senator BALDWIN. Mr. Finucane has said something to the effect
that the Army put you on the carpet. Have you ever had any instruc-
tions or letters of criticism or reprimand?
Judge VANRODEN.NO sir.
Senator BALDWIN. Or anything of that kind?
Judge VANRODEN.NO sir.
Mr. FINUCANE.
Could I make one further comment, please?
I think that Judge Van Roden started out to do a good job, and did
a good job, and i t is unfortunate that he was intimidated by the Army,
even though they may not technically have put him on the carpet;
still his letter indicates, and conversat~onsindicate, that he was under
that pressure.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, Mr. Finucane, you have drawn a conclusion
that he has been intimidated.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Does

he impress you as a man before us who has
been intimidated by anybody ?
Mr. FINUCANE. I can only explain his reversal of testimony after
that; yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is a conclusion that you have drawn?
Mr. FINUCANE.
Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. ISthat a similar type of conclusion that you drew
about "American investigators committing atrocities in the name of
American justice?" Did you draw that conclusion on about the same
kind of facts?
Mr. FINUCANE. I do not see any analogy between them.
Mr. CHAMBEXS. NO
comment.
Senator BALDWIN.I think that is all. We will take a short recess.
(Short recess.)
Senator BALDWIN.All right, we will resume the hearing.
TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM R. PERLResumed
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Perl, we have asked you to come back primarily
for the purpose of getting some additional information that has de-
veloped since you were first here.
Mr. PERL. Mr. Chambers, excuse me, if I interrupt you. May I
make a short, a very short, prepared statement?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes.
Mr. PERL. I have been accused here of lying by gentlemen who, after
numbers of witnesses had testified as to the untruth of the accusations,
retired from this investigation, and I believe that this is the time to
bring out where the lies are actually to be found.
We heard here from Mr. Van Roden of how the brunt of the accu-
sations published under his name was based on hearsay evidence or on
"oversight." It is not hearsay evidence certainly with respect to the
700 American Gold Star Mothers and the almost 700 American soldiers,,
some of whom are being brought back dead now to the United States,
while the murderers and some Americans unmolested, are spreading
disgraceful rumors about the United States Army and about those
officers who found the men responsible for the empty places in almost
700 American homes.
Mr. Van Roden, who, in his prepared statement against Major
Fanton, stresses the high ethics of American justice, found it right t o
make statements regarding atrocities purportedly committed by
American investigators.
Not a single member of the American prosecution team was heard

by Judge Van Roden prior to this public utterance, not one member
of the administrative prison staff, not one American prison officer,not
one American prison sergeant or prison chaser, not one medical officer
o r medical enlisted man.
To say that Mr. Van Roden, before making these public utterances,
heard only one side, the murderers' side of the case, would be incorrect,
because many of the statements were not made even by the murderers
themselves.
This article which was published under the name of Mr. Van Roden
in the Progressive contains a shockingly high number of lies. I sin-
cerely believe that for reasons of security of this conntry, an investi-
gation should follow this investigation as to who is, who was actually
interested in making these claims against the United States Army;
what interests were behind these claims, and what their connections
are between Mr. Van Roden, between the National Council for the
Prevention of War, and a Mr. App, who is unknown to me, but who
is reported to have demanded that General Eisenhower be executed
as a war criminal.
I am ready now to answer any questions.
Mr. CHAMBERS. m a t was that name that you gave there?
Mr. PERL. Mr. App. I believe that this committee is aware of the
facts to which I am referring. I f not, I will be clearer.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Can you be more clear? A t least I know nothing
about it.
Senator BALDWIN.I do not recognize that name or the reference,
Mr. Perl. Could you tell us about that?
Mr. PERL. I read in a New York newspaper that Mr. v a n Roden
endorsed, as the paper says, a book which was published by a man
with the name of Fritsch, who is presently a clerk in a department
store in Chicago, and that this book, which is pro-Nazi, and heavily
anti-Semitic, and accuses President Roosevelt of having been sur-
rounded by foreign Jews like Mr. Morgenthau, Mr. Baruch, Judge
Frankfurter, and others, that this book was endorsed by Mr. Van
Roden, who wrote about it, and this is sent out to readers, that it is
strikingly true-I believe this is what he says about i t ; I have the
newspaper article here if the committee wants i t ; I will read the
article to the committee.
The same article stresses that it is also endorsed by Mr. App, who
is a member of some Yorkville German organization who, a t some
time claimed that General Eisenhower should be executed as a war
criminal.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, you can give ns the article.
Mr. PERL. I will be glad to give it to you. I have it here.
The journalist who spoke of it, I suppose, as he says, he spoke over
the phone with Mr. Van Roden.
Senator BALDWIN.All right. We will keep this. P u t it in the
record.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Perl, we recently have had appear before this
committee a man by the name of Capt. Herbert Sloan. Do you h o w
Captain Sloan ?
Mr. PERL. I do not think so, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Captain Sloan was a member of the war crimes
group, I believe, and who on occasion, one occasion, took some pris-
oners down to Schwabisch Hall.
He has testified that Harry Thon, who was one of your collten~pa-
raries at Scl~wabischHall, asked him if he would like to watch him
get a out of one of these prisoners that he brought dowll;
and not to go into the entire matter, which is in the record here, he
stated that he went with Thon to one of the cells, and that Thon
into the cell where the prisoner was, told him to take his
sllirt ofi, in German, of course, and when he was apparently a little
slow about doing it, hit him with his fist in the chest, and said some-
thing else in German about, "We will have obedience here," or words
to that effect; and then hocked his arm up for the purpose of locating
the S S mark which, apparently, was under the arm.
After that he pointed his finger at the man and said, "You did
the shooting," and the German, according to Mr. Sloan said, L'Ja,
wohl," or "Yes, sir," was the way he translated it to us. That is the
most direct testimony that we have head concerning anyone's ever
striking or mistreating the prisoners a t Schwabisch Hall.
Now you, and Mr. Thon worked very closely together there, and
while i t was seldom that you collaborated on the same prisoner, nev-
ertheless you had a general knowledge of what the others were doing,
and it appeared that i t vonld be wise to ask you again as to whether
or not you ever knew either of this instance or any other instance
-where force of even a minor kind v a s used on the accused.
Mr. PERL. Sir, I do not know-I did not notice this incident, first
of all ;and I never saw Thon or anyone else use any force.
1saw sometimes when the prisoners were marched outside, that
they mere pushed by a guard, but 1would not say they used force, be-
cause you said "minor force," and I would not even call it minor force,
but I am mentioning it that when they mere walking and they did not
walk fast enough through the open door, it happened that after the
interrogation-because before the interrogation I did not see then1
because I was waiting inside-that he pushed them so that they should
go faster through the door, but actually it was not violence, this push-
ing, and I never noticed any violence.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Now, you must have had many conversations with
Thon, Shumacker, Kirschbaum and all the boys. Were there ever
any conversations concerning the use of force and, perhaps, i n con-
ject~~ring or guessing as to whether or not you could not get faster
results if you did use force?
Mr. PERL. That there were conversations about the use of force,
theoretically is possible, I do not recall it. It is too long ago.
But I am certain that never in the affirmative, I mean lt might have
been that someone spoke about force, but I am certain no one ever said,
"I am using force," and I do not recall, because I would have jumped
in, and I do not recall anyone to have advocated force.
Mr. CIIAJIBERS.Now, Mr. Perl, did you ever discuss the use of force
from the angle that if the Russians had these people prisollers or if
perhaps the Germans had us prisoners that they would not have hesi- .
tated to use force ag,ainst us and maybe we are being too easy on these
people, and so on 0
Mr. PERL. NOW,sir, I read Rlajor Karan7stestimony.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I f you read Major Karan's testimony you know
what I have reference to. Major I h r a n has testified here that there
were quite a few discussions among all members of the prosecution
staff; yon, I believe, on one occasion, a t a social affair, and your wife
were present, and there were comments which Major Karan sald defi-
nitely did not lead him to believe that this was being done, but which,
a t least, indicated a very healthy interest in the subject. Do you recall
those conversations ?
Mr. PERL. I do not recall the conversation to which Major Haran
referred, but I recall something, generally, in conversations with Major
Karan which might be of interest.
You see, we were in a small place, and there was no entertainment.
W e had no contact with the German population there, and the desire
for fun is quite strong; and Major Karan, somehow did not fit into
the times, and Mr. Ellowitz started every day a t lunchtime kidding
Major Karan, who was a captain then.
Usually the subject was that Ellowitz pretended to be for socialized
medicine, and the moment Karan heard this he jumped up, and there
was a very heavy discussion, and everyone a t the table agreed that we
mere for socialized medicine, and whatever subject was brought up by
Karan we were of the opposite opinion.
I do not recall such a conversation about force, but I cannot exclude
that he once said force should be used, and that I or others should have
joined and I believe that i t might be worth while for you, if you were
to ask !Mr. Ellowitz-he was usually the one who started this conversa- .
tion, with a twinkle in his eye, that he might recall a little more about
this conversation.
Senator BALDWIN. Excuse me. What has been said here is that it
has been reported by two or three different witnesses that there were
some conversations among the investigating team that what they ought
t o do is to get tough with these eople and use some force or knock
E
them around, or words to that e ect, and that they would get along
faster.
IVhat do you want to say about that?
Mr. PERL. I am not of the opinion that one gets along faster if one
uses force against prisoners, and I do not recall this conversation.
Senator BALDWIN. You do not recall any such coilversation?
Mr. PERL. Definitely not, sir.
If the subject would have been brought up I would have mentioned-
I suppose otherwise I would have said this, too, that I am not for using
force.
There is one thing which I read in Major Karan7stestimon~which
he might have misunderstood. I was of the opinion, and unfortua-
ately still am of the opinion, that the Russians ~mderstandthe German
mind better than we do, but that does not mean that I approve of Rus-
sian methods. I believe both peoples are used to totalitarian regimes .
and, therefore, one understands the mentality of the other better.
Maybe Major Karan concluded from that that I am for Russian
methods, which I definitely am not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Perl, you have testified before us at great
length, I imagine, much longer than you would have liked to have
testified here, and you have tried to get across to us the picture that YOU
and your group were trying through psychological approaches and
ruses and what not, to get confessions and statements which could be
used in building up this case.
I recall that on one occasion you were asked did you shout, did you
raise your voice, and so on, and you replied, "No, I talked to them
softly as I am talking to you now," and a t that time there was no
further question about it.
I would like to ask you'again if your handling of prisoners was
such that you ever found it necessary to use physical force?
Mr. PERL. TOuse-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Physical force.
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever find it necessary or did you ever
threaten to use physical force on anybody?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever make threats against the prisoners as
to perhaps, taking ration cards away from their families?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Or depriving their families of other privileges?
Mr. PERL. NO,sir. We had nothing to do with ration cards. I did
not do it, in addition.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,did you find occasion to shout at prisoners
- or
curse a t them ?
Mr. PERL. If you would call it cursing-I will tell you an example,
sir, and I would not call it cursing.
First of d l , i t has nothing to do with the Malmedy case directly,
but I used the same system several times in the Malmedy case, an ap-
proach which I used while I was still in military intelligence, and
the story which went around and was told to me by the colonel who
interviewed me before I was assigned to war crimes because he had
heard of it and had laughed about it ; that is what I would like to tell
you about.
I used to do quite often the following thing : Just imagine this pic-
ture : Prisoners had been captured durin the war, and they had been
f
hanging around, and it was important or us to find out as fast as
possible to which units they belonged.
What I did was I spread word that an American officer was coming
t o address them, and then I came in there. They were standing around,
expecting someone to address them in the English language, and then
1 shouted at them exactly as a Prussian drill sergeant would shout
a t them "Alles stillgestanden," which means approximately "Atten-
tion." At the very some moment I would be shouting very strongly ;
and you must understand that the German soldier reacts to it much
more dramatically than the American soldier, and everyone jumped
to attention.
Their thinking ceased; they were soldiers, and I was their master,
and then I shouted to them, "You are soldiers," exactly as their sergeant
would shout a t them.
I had taken the officers out first. I would shout to them, "You are
not soldiers ;you are schweinen begande, a horde of swine."
The highest ranking noncom then steps forward. He steps forward,
reporting, "Sergeant So-and-so", and I shouted, "Sergeant, you are
responsible for the discipline of men." "Yes, sir." H e was all at
my will, happy to be a sergeant again, and not to be a prisoner, and
t o have men under him. more men than possibly he had ever had in
his life.
I said, "You are looking forward toward a very diEcult time. You
are looking forward toward a long imprisonment. We want to be
uice to you. We want to treat you well. We do nst warlit to break up
old friendships. We will leave you together in your units if you want
to stay together. Who wants to stay together stays on this side;
who wants to be separated from his unit steps over there."
No one steps over there, and then I told the sergeant, "You now
organize them according to their units." He very eagerly did it so,
within a few seconds, they organize one unit. No American sergeant
would have done it as fast as they did.
Then, yhen they were organizing their units, I took the sergeant
into the house, and to me, and out we went into the enclosure, through
the back door. I did not need him any more.
Then I took the first one from his group and asked him to which
unit he belonged. H e told me, because he wanted to stay with his
friends.
I asked the second one, I made a check, and so the whole unit went
through the back door, and so with the other units, and did it with
absolute certainty, and within the shortest possible time, the exact
units to which they belonged, and with their complete cooperation.
The same system I nsed several times during the Malmedy investi-
gation. It was the system of making them forget everything else but
snap a t a command.
I f this case which is reported about Thon, which Sloan mentioned,
should have happened-I never saw it--I cannot imagine it, but there
is one moment in it which sounds like me in my ear, and this is the
shouting at him, "Geh~rsamkeit'~-the only thing is that it is no Ger-
man command, and in this he would be absolutely incorrect, because
yon had to shout to them these commands, which, of course, does not
imply that the rest of the Sloan story is correct. So if perhaps some-
one came in and I saw he was not capable of thinking a t all-that he
just thought in the one way-I will say nothing; I will say nothing,
and then sometimes I tried to shout a t him, "Attention," and he jumped
a t "attention"; and sometimes when I ordered him immediately, "Now
you tell me the truth," he was more pliable, because I was in his
command, you understand that.
These were the cases where I shouted a t prisoners, but I did not
curse them. It may be I cursed them at such an occasion, but I do
not recollect it. But I did not curse them in the way of threatening
them, but in the way his sergeant would have cursed him, but I do not
recall cursing.
I recall that I on several occasions called people to stand a t attention
for a moment and asked right then afterward the question.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, there must have been occasions, Mr. Perl, when
yon got pretty impatient in trying to get an answer out of someone
who was obviously lying, and the average person would have gotten
a little excited and shouted a t them, perhaps cursed at them. Did you
ever, in addition to calling them to attention, find occasion to shout
a t them?
Mr. PERL. YOUsee, the moment I would have gone into the field of
threatening or physical force I would have left the field in which I
felt that I was fairly competent.
If these people-if you would actually-I do not speak now about
the morality to it, but the practicality-I wanted that those people who
had committed a crime should be punished; and if I wanted it, I could
not beat them, because if you want to get a confession by beating it out
of a man like that you would have actually to beat him more than
Judge Van Roden in one or the other cases said, or the article said,
that they were beaten. You could not "break," as the term is, a
iprisoner and get a confeskion out of him or the trnth out of him by
slapping him. It is absolutely impossible. You would antagonize
him in a line where he could feel stronger, because after attack which
you used against the prisoner has to lead to success, if you are not
certain of the success, do not use it.
What certainty do I have if I slap him, and more I could not do. I
had Major Fanton about i t ; I mean I did not do it. You understand
what I mean ?
Mr. C E I A ~ ~ E R S . ; I understand.
Yes
Mr. PERL. It was an absolute impossibility. There were 20 people
all around, and with slapping alone, as it seems evident that was indi-
cated in one case, nothing would have been achieved; it would have
been absolutely wrong, because if he would have been slapped, and
still he would not have said anything, he would have been the victor.
He would have mori the game, this one round of the game.
I did not try to leave the field, where I was the stronger one. I n
physical force, maybe he is stronger, maybe he resists strong fear.
Independent of any other attitude, this was my approach to it.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, Mr. Perl, Schwabisch Hall itself was
a village; is that not correct, a part of which was a prison?
Mr. PERL. It was a village of about 8,000, maybe a little larger.
Mr. C H A B ~ E RYes;
S . and you lived in Schwabisch Hall; is that
correct ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. And you told us that Mrs. Perl was with you a t
that time ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did YOU find that you were going back to the prison
at night and doing a lot of work with the prisoners a t night?
Mr. PERL. We were there several times late in the evening; late
in the night I was never there. I was never there alone.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You were never there alone?
Mr. PERL. I do not recall to have been ever there alone.
Mr. CHAMBERS. At
the prison?
Mr. PERL. A t the prison.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Of
course, you were in cells in the prison alone;
is that not correct?
Mr. PERL. Yes; but in the night I would have had to-I remember
one or two occasions Colonel Ellis asked us to work very late hours,
and Major Fanton, too, but there were all of us.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That was the exception and not the rule; is that
correct ?
Mr. PERL. It was the exception and not the rule, right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But you did on occasion go back to the hall, either
at Colonel Ellis' request or because you wanted to go ahead and do
your job and work; is that correct?
Mr. PERL. At nighttime?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes.
Mr. PERL. I never interrogated a t night time ; no.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You

never interrogated a prisoner a t night?
Mr. PERL. Except I remember one case, someone came in who was
suspected to be a man for whom we were looking, and I went there
9176549-72
to identify him. That was about 10 or 10: 30 in the evening, but he

mas not the righL mail, and he was sent out the next day.
Mr. CHANBERS.Well, now, Mr. Perl, Lieutenant Lary, whom you
probably remember-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was on the stand here jnst recently, and he testi-
fied concerning his identification of Flets.
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Mr. CIIAR~BERS. 1was interested in the details of it, because there
was a little deviation from v h a t I unde~stooclwent on down there,
and, perhaps, there was an explanation of it.
H e testified that the accused were brought in groups and with
their hoods off, and he had a chance to pick out Flets; he did not
find him the first time, I b~lieve.or the second-maybe i t was not
the second group, but a t any rate I was under the i~npressiollthat
you never let these people get together until after they had con-
feseecl or that yon were through interrogating.
31r. PERL. Right.
Mr. CHAMRXRS. ISthat correct ?
Mr. PERI,.R ight.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then, were these people who were brought in before
Lieutenant Lary those that yon 11-ere through n-it11 from the stand-
point of interrogation ?
Mr. PEEL.I do not remember ~ ~ h e t hIe was
r the man who brought
them before Lary.
Mr. CEIARIBER. I do not know that either. I am merely trying to
clear my own thinking on that point.
Mr. PERL. I do not t l ~ i n kI was.
Sellator BALDWIN.Where you were making a personal iclentifica-
tion like that ; how did you do it ?
Mr. PERI,.T hat was the only identification through an American,
and I do not think I did it. You see, my time was mainly spent
with interrogating. There were not many peaple there who could
speak German, so I am quite certain, and as I clo not recall it, that
either Captain Shuniacker or someone else must have done it.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever see them bring in 11-itnesses for
identification? . I mean, for individual identification?
Mr. PERL. For identification, individual identification, by Ameri-
cans ?
Mr. PERL. Yes ; I remember one day. .
Senator BALDWIN.HOW was it done?
Mr. PERL. It was in the daytime. T h a t is all I remember, sir.
Lary was standing ontside in this corridor where there were the cells,
the interrogation cells were on the side, and Lary was standing there,
and people were brought in, in groups, and he looked a t them, and
I do not think I was present when he identified Flets.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But were those people who had already completed
their interrogation?
Mr. PERL. I do not know.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUdo not know.
The point I was trying to get a&
Mr. PERL. Sir, a t this time almost everyone had completed their
interrogation.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This was alon
Mr. PERL. It was in April, I be?=
Mr. CHAMBERS.
I believe Lary testified to that.
Yes;
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SO,

i t is reasonable to assume that these people
were no longer subject to individual interrogation and that they had
broken the security rule for the purpose of removing their hoods
and letting them see who was around.
Mr. PERL. Yes; I believe. I f I recall now, Lary was shown other
people, too, whom he could not identify. I believe, if I am not mis-
taken, I was interrogating at this time Diefenthal, and he was brought
out for this purpose, too, and Lary did not identify. I am not cer-
tain, but I believe that Diefenthal was taken out during the interroga-
tion, as to whether he could be identified by Lary.
Mr. CHAMBERS. There has been some mention made, Mr. Perl, of the
delivery of some prisoners to Schwabisch Hall by two British enlisted
personnel who had beaten the people up before they came to Schwa-
bisch Hall. Do you recall anything in connection with that case?
Did you ever hear either Colonel Ellis or Major Fanton talk about it?
Mr. PERL. British who had b r o u g h L
Mr. CHAXBERS. Had brought prisoners to Schwabisch Hall.
Mr. PERL. Thii part I do not remember, and I had nothing to do
with this administratively.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you ever hear anybody talking about some
prisoners who had been brought in who had been beaten up?
Mr. PERL. Once, sir, a general was brought in with handcuffs, and
I immediately ordered his handcuffs removed, not because he was a
general, but because it was not the rule and he mentioned it in the
trial, I believe. I t was General Kramer.
Senator BALDWIN.Why did you do it, Mr. Perl ?
Mr. PERL. N7e never had any prisoner handcuffed. It mas a mistake
of the erson who brought him in. I looked into the cell; they told
me, " I j&
ust brought General Kramer in," and I looked into the cell,
and I saw him there with his handcuffs, and I had his handcuffs
immediately removed.
That is the only case where I know of anything that was not abso-
lutely right with a prisoner who was brought in.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUwere questioned a little while ago about
shouting at the prisoner or shouting to them. Did you not ever get
your face right up close to a prisoner's face or close up to him and
shout a t him ?
Mr. PERL.Sir, it is quite p r o b a b l e 1 do not recall the incident, but
it is quite probable that I was standing close to a prisoner and told
him, "Now, listen, you tell me the truth." I did it during the course
of my Army career, but whether I did it in the Malrnedy case, I do
not know. It could have been during my intelligence experience.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, some of the time these fellows must have
-been pretty difficult to deal with ; is that not correct ?
Mr. PERL.Yes, sir; they were never fresh.
Senator BALDWIN.They were never fresh?
Mr. PERL. NO;not one was ever fresh to me.
Senator BALDWIN.What do you mean by that ?
Mr. PERL. I mean they did not talk back, and they were not offend-
ing in these cases, not in the Malmedy cases. During the war, and
shortly afterwards, yes, sir.
1134 -MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Senator BALDWIN. Were they not sometimes very sulleil?
Mr. PERL. Very-
Senator BALDWIN.Sullen, noncomnlunic at'ive.
Mr. PERL. Yes; they were sometimes.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, did you not get exasperated a t times?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir. I had a purpose in my mind, and it mould have
defeated my purpose.
You see, I was brought up-I would not say I was brought up, but
I had a very long interrogation experience before me, and I saw all
the time the purpose before me.
I would not compare myself with a judge, but a judge is usually
not so personally involved in a case so that he will become exasperated
if the man does not talk.
If he did not talk, I tried to confront him-I spoke about one case
which I mentioned-I forgot the name of this lawyer whom Senator
McCarthy had-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Flanagan.
Mr. PERL. Mr. Flanagan and Colonel Chambers, after the trial, how,
for instance, I got a confession from Preuss, who was absolutely un-
communicative, because I think I should mention it here since again
it shows a different kind of psychological approach.
Preuss was the best-hated officer in the whole unit, Wore than Christ.
When the soldiers died, he said, "Fine, gpody-goody." That was his
expression. H e was called Goody-Goody m the German concentration
camp.
Senator BALDWIN."Goody-Goody" ; what for ?
Mr. PERL. I f a German soldier was killed, he said "Goody-goody;
one more German woman for me." All his soldiers confirmed it.
H e was a very tough guy, and very hard to get, and I knew it in
advance. When he was confronted with the facts, he did not confess;
he did not do it. The facts were that there were witilesses here that
had told that he had shot an American flier in the woods during the
campaign. The American flier had parachuted, and they had found
him there, and Preuss had had coffee with him and had given him
some cigarettes and was very nice to him, and then he noticed that he
had an American flier's jacket and a pair of trousers, much better
equipped than the Germans had, and Preuss left for some short recon-
naissance and ordered the sergeant, I believe Berkholz was the name
of the sergeant, to shoot the prisoner.
. We had testimony of the man who saw it, but I believe the sergeant
who actually shot him was not there any more. So, we had the testi-
mony of people who heard Preuss saying, if I recall it-this is not
the essential part of what I want to say. We have the testimony of
one or two witnesses who heard Preuss saying or giving this order, and:
saw him later on with the same kind of dress; he had his trousers
shortened. Preuss would not confess.
Now, a t the same time, we kept a 201 file for every one-Major
Banton kept it, and then Colonel Ellis. We knew that this Preuss had
been warded the Ritterkreuz, which is the highest German decoration,
for a number of accomplishments, among them it was mentioned that
he had shot a flier i n the woods near this and this place who, this
citation said, had jumped from a tree and he had fought him in close
hand-to-hand combat and had showed presence of mind and had shot
this flier.
Now, he denied having shot any flier, and we knew this story that
he had shot this flier, according to the citation. So, I went to Peiper,
who, at this time, already had confessed. You see, we worked it up;
We considered Preuss as one of the very toughest ones, and Peiper
was amongst the last ones, but I believe there were only one or more
to confess after Preuss, so I told-one more story, we had heard a t
the same time that Preuss had stolen the ring from this dead American
soldier. H e was an officer, as far as 1 recall, a first lieutenant from
Texas-that is what Preuss told us-and amongst the Germans it is
a much worse crime to steal something than to murder someone. They
considered this awfully dishonorable, to steal.
So, I went to Peiper and told him : "Listen, Peiper7'-I was on very
good ternis with Peiper, and he attested to that in his last statement,
that we talked like gentlemen to each other. "Something most dis-
agreeable happened. After all, you are an officer, and I am an officer,
and you reconiniended Preuss for the Ritterkreuz." H e said, "Yes."
I said, "One of the reasons was that lie shot a flier who jumped from a
tree and fought in close combat with him." H e said, "Yes." I said,
"What would you say if I tell you this is not true ;that Preuss shot this
flier, who was an unarmed American prisoner of war because he
wanted to get his ring or his shoes or his clothes?" So Peiper said:
"That is impossible." I told him, "I will bring you in the man who
testified to it," and I brought a witness in whom Peiper knew, because
the witness was a driver, and mhile usually the regimental commander
does not know the men, they know the drivers ; he was Preuss' driver,
one of the company commander's drivers. So, lie confirmed i t to him.
He spoke to him: "Du,"-they were on very good terms, "Yes, that is
true; this is true."
Peiper was very much upset about it. I tbld him, "Listen, Peiper,
the whole thing is very disagreeable with this ring, and I think you
should straighten it out, and if you straighten it, I will try to see that
the whole thing with this ring and with the trousers, if you do not make
any monkey business about this stuff, does not get into the trial, be-
cause I am not interested in this ring business. I am interested i n
whether he killed the flier or not. That is clear, and if he killed him,
and if he admits to it, I will not -put into the statement this statement
about the ring."
So, I got Preuss in, and Preuss was very excited, and I said, "Preuss,
now. what is it? Did vou ever shoot an American flier?" H e said,
"No; I did not shoot a i y American flier." So, Peiper said, "But you
told me that you shot an American flier." H e said, "Yes, I told you
that, but it was not true. I lied to my regimental commander," he said.
So. Peiper said, "Could I stay alone with Preuss for a few minutes?"
I said that I coulcl not decide that, and I left him alone with Thon-
I called Thon in, or Thon was in-I do not believe he was in, I called
him in. and then I went to Colonel Ellis and tdcl him what the story
mas, and I said that I believed Peiper would break Preuss for us,
and Colonel Ellis said, "You must not leave them alone," so I went back
and I said, "No, I cannot leave you alone"; so, Peiper said, "Listen,
Preuss, you have brought disgrace to the German Army by stealing
this ring which Berkholz" or whatever his name was-I do not recall
the name-"confirmed to me. I think that you should tell the whole
story." So, he said, "Yes, 1 ill tell the whole story : I stole the ring,"
and he admitted that it was not true. I do not want to go into tool
many details.
Peiper told him, "You tell the truth," because Peiper was furious
with him, and Preuss told the truth. I n this way, by playing on the
particular German sense of honor, I had Preuss broken, and I would
even have stuck to this statement that I do not get the ring story into
the trial, but Preuss himself brought it into the trial. I do not know
whether you know that he tried to influence a witness about this story.
So, I would just like to show how I had, on my part, to adjust the
methods to every single case.
Senator BALDWIN.The last time you mere here, Lieutenant Perl,
you made a statement, something to this effect : "Truth has many faces,
each one of which may be a lie," or something to that effect.
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.But, as I understood it, "which put together
would make a true picture."
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN. Just what did you mean by that?
Mr. PERL.YOUsee, sir, I will be very exact.
Senator McCarthy asked about Hennecke, he asked me whether I
am his defense lawyer before he must have believed I was his defense
lawyer, and as far as I knew, the s~~bsequent sentence already said,
"and I told Hennecke I am not your defense lawyer." and whenever
I wanted to get the second sentence in and refer to it, he always jumped
back to the first, and I wanted to stress by this that you cannot take
a truth apart. You have to consider everything together, because if
you tear it to pieces, which in itself is incorrect, it might be in itself
mcorrect, but together they are the truth.
I t was incorrect to deduct from what Senator McCarthy told me,
because it was just one part of the statement, that I had told or made
him believe that I am his defense lawyer.
Senator BALDWIN.But you did say to him after you said to him,
"I am not your defense lawyer7'-you did say to him, "but you see I am
taking care of your case." What did you mean by that?
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir, I wanted him to believe that he mas not a very
good friend of his, but I am friendly interrogator, someone who, after
all, does not mean it so bad as the other man meant it, and the other
man was Thon.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you ever use any ruses where you led these
people to believe that if they would tell the truth or give you a con-
fession that you would make it easier for them ?
Mr. PERL. That I would make it easier for them if they would tell
me the truth?
Mr. PERL. YOUsee, I want to be correct and that is why I think over
this.
Senator BALDWIN.Yes. I mean, did you ever say anything like this
in German, "If yon will only sign this confession and tell the truth
I will see if I cannot get vou off easy" ?
Mr. PERL. NO,certainly not this, but I certainly told them, "If potr
tell me the truth it will be better for you than if you are lying, because
we li11o~vthe truth anyhow, and if you are lying. you will be the one
who shot, and at the same time make an awful impression on the
court," and in this way I told him that i t is better to tell the truth.
Senator BALDWIN. What I mean by that is, did you not ever make
an promises of immunity ?
h r . PERL. No, sir, definitely not.
Senator BALDWIN. HOWdid you decide which of these men you
would use as witnesses against the others, and which you would in-
clude in those who were to be charged?
Mr. P E ~There
. was not a single one of them used as a witness, and
I do not think that it was intended to use any one of them as a witness.
Shortly before the trial, after they had been indicted, then it was
mentioned that one or two or three should be made as witnesses, but
then they were not made, but as long as this investigation was on, to
the best of my knowledge, none of the prisoners whom I treated was
ever considered as a possible witness.
Senator BALDWIN.Was not there something in that S. 0. P. to the
effect that certain ones would be used as witnesses?
Mr. PERL. Right, sir. Major Fanton gave this S. 0. P. out, and I
mentioned already to Senator McCarthy that I never stuck to it. It is
so entirely foreign to my conception of law, that it is certainly not cor-
rect to promise him immunity that he would be made a witness ; and I
never djd it.
Senator BALDWIN. Did YOU not ever think it feasible that with a
threat of repeated beatings on these prisoners, I mean if a fellow was
beaten badly one day, and you said to him, "Now, if you do not come
through tomorrow we are going to come around tomorrow and beat
you u p again," that that method would get a confession?
Mr. PERL. I do not think, sir, that you should threaten if you want
to have anything that you cannot execute, because if you cannot stand
behind it you can only use those methods which you can execute.
Senator BALDWIN. What I mean is this: Supposing you are inter-
viewing a witness and you cannot get anywhere with him, and you give
him a severe beating.
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN.And then you get him the next day and say,
"Now, well, you know what you got yesterday, and unless yon come
through you are going to get the same thing today." Was that ever
.--
done2
A -.
Mr. PERL.Sir, it was never done. I am absolutely certain it was
never done. I would have heard about it, and I myself never did i t ;
and if it were done, in addition to that it would have been absolutely
wrong, because this use of force was exactly what they expected, this
use of force about which they had fortified themselves in 2. and 4, and
6 weeks in solitary confinement or in confinement with one man to-
gether or solitary confinement.
This is what they were waitinq for, and we had to treat them in
exactly the way in which they were not prepared.
Then, their stamina might go along, and you are the loser, and then
you do not have anything. It would have been absolutely wrong-, and
if some one would have suggested it to me or said he intended to
use it, I would have been intensely against it because it is not a method
which you can use, which you can treat effectively SS troops. You
would actually have to have broken every single bone in their bodies if
you wanted to get anywhere by confessions, by beatings.
Senator BALDWIN. Why do you say that?
Mr. PERL. Because these people were beaten by their own officers.
Peiper had one of his soldiers shot. It came out in his investigation.
I know of one case where one young boy who had just come to the SS
during the American offensive-he was a bit naive-when the Ameri-
cans advanced, he took the SS signs off, nothing else, because in case
he should be captured one should not know he was in the SS. They
expected the worst treatment.
When Peiper heard about it, he had him come to him and had him
shot because he was a coward, he said.
They were beaten. Rumpf-I have, by the way, a statement by
Rumpf here with me-Rumpf was known to have beaten his soldiers
on occasions; Maute beat his soldiers. They beat them, and they were
used to beating, and i t would have been absolutely the wrong thing
t o do, wrong from the point of achievement, inclependent of whether
it was morally or immorally wrong.
Senator BALDWIN.Have you any further qnestions?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes, sir. There is one question I would like to ask
Mr. Perl.
I n reading over these affidavits, or rather reading over the confes-
sions which the accused signed and which were later introdnced in
evidence, I ran across an expression in there which has puzzled me.
Any number of them say that in talking about statements that
were made or orders that were given they would say that this German
sergeant or this German said, "Take him out and bump him off, bump
him off." Well, "bump him off" is just a typically American expres-
sion, and I was just wondering how that cropped n p in the confessions
that were made by the Germans. Can you tell about that?
Mr. PERL. Umlagen means ''bump off." It was their daily bread.
They spoke about it daily, 50 times a day, "This man has been bumped
off ;" "This man has been bumped off."
Now, I could not translate the word "urnlagen" into American, and
I remember that I conversed about it with Cohen, because he, of
course, knew the German expressions. I could not find the expression.
We discussed it.
I believe Major Fanton was still there. We must use a slang expres-
sion because this "umlagen" used a slag expression and someone, it
was not me, found the translation "bumped him off.."
Senator BALDWIN.What is the literal translation?
Mr. PERL. "Lay him flat."
Senator BALDWIN."Lay him flat?"
Mr. PERL. That is the translntio~iwhich I had suggested "lay him
flat," anil someone said, "This does not do justice to the word "umlagen"
because "lay him flat" is not a slang expression enough, not enough of
a slang expression. ,
The translation of "umlagen" did not orginate with me, but that
the translation is correct is obvious, because they had quite a number
of defense lawyers, members of the defense who spoke German and
English absolutely fluently.
The word was their daily word. They spoke about it 20 times a
day. This man had "bumped off this man," this man "bumped off"
somebody else.
Those troops, sir, most of them, if yon see the statement, many of
them-I w,ould not say most of them-had been in concentration
camps before, and it was a daily occurrence; others, their whole unitm
had been for a long time in fighting in Russia where they had not made
any prisoners at all. It was, therefore, used very, very commonly.
Senator BALDWIN. What do you mean they were in concentration
camps ? They were guards?
Mr. PERL. They were guards in concentration camps. Hennecke
and Wichmann-I do not know Wichmann-Ochmann was for 7 or 8
years, he was some high-ranking noncom in Oranianburg concentra-
tion camp, and this man Ochmann who shot eight or nine prisoners
of war, who was identified by a Belgian woman and German soldier
as having done it-
Mr. CHAJIBERS. SOthat this business of "bumping was the best
translation you could give, was the best explanation you could give
of a slang expression used by the German troopers.
Mr. PERL. I did not hear the expression until I heard it here. I had
suggested %y him flat," and they said that it did not do it justice,
because this is the literal translation.
Senator BALDWIN.There has been some testimony from Judge Van
Roden, I think it was, or in the record somewhere, to the effect that
at Schwabisch Hall there were bogus priests who were used to obtain
confessions.
Mr. PERL. Definitely not, sir, never.
Senator BALDWIN.There was-I read here in the record somewhere
of one case where a priest went in, a bogus priest, presumably to obtain
a confession, and was told-the story is that he told the German to
lie about it, and admit it because that would help him get out of it,
and he would absolve him for the falsehood.
Mr. PERL. That is definitely incorrect, sir, absolutely. This could
not have occurred without my knowing about it, and I would have
very severely objected. It is impossible. I would have severely ob-
jected for many reasons. It would have been wrong, and then because
I am Jewish I am in a very particular position, so that I would have
very heartily objected to this occurring.
We were a small communitj7 ; we were eight or nine people sticking
together, eating together. I n the evening we were together. We knew
what went on. We could not go any place ; we were sticking together
every evenmg.
Senator BALDWIN.Were these SS troppers, did they have any reli-
gious affiliations of any kind?
Mr. PERL. This, I wanted to stress, too; no, sir, they were all-
now, they have suddenly called the bishops to their support, but they
were all, as far as I remember, Gottglaeubig, which means the new
German religion ; Gottglaeubig means, through a literal translation,
"believing in God," but not any particular god. It was the German
pagan rehgion. They had it in their book. Every German soldier
had a kind of identification passport where his pay was written and
his promotion and the SS had i t in their Gottglaeubig, and I do not
think any one of them could have had another religion a t all.
Senator BALDWIN.HOWdid they say it?
Mr. PERL. Gottglaeubig, which means "believing in God." But it
means exactly the contrary. It was this Rosenberg. religion. .
Senator BALDWIN.It was the what religion?
Mr. PERL. It was the Rosenberg religion; Rosenberg, who was exe-
cuted, I believe, in Nuremburg, had invented this paganistic German
religion.
Senator BALDWIN. Well, during the time that these men were there,
did any of them ask for priests ?
Mr. PERL. NO, sir ; I never heard of it.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, if these men had no religion-
Mr. PERL. Yes.
Senator BALDWIN (continuing). How was it that you felt that
it would inzpress them to bring then1 into a room where there was a
crucifix and a candle?
Mr. PERL. I handled these questions, and I said I do not know to
which degree they will be impressed by this procedure, but i t is not
sn much the crucifix as such, but the whole ceremony of the taking of
the oath, which, after all, even under the Nazi Germany, as I know,
was used. It is the familiar set-up of giving an oath.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, it is a Nazi-it was even in Nazi
Germany that they used a crucifix to administer an oath?
Mr. PERL. I am not certain of this, sir, but I believe-
Senator BALDWIN.What do they do in the courts of ~ u s t r i awhere
j
you were?
Mr. PERL. They definitely-they used it all the time.
I understand that in Germany-I am not certain of this-it is not
miginally arranged into Catholic regions, into Bavaria and others.
Certainly they use i t in Austria, the crucifix, the candle, even now,
and they used it in Czechoslovakia, and the Communists, what they
are doing now, I do not h o w . I n the Sudeten, they had 3,000,000
Germans, and whether they are using it now I do not know. They used
it, the German-born in Rumania, and so on.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Senator, 1have no further questions.
Mr. PERL. Sir, I think I should show you-I mentioned that some of
the prisoners made statements in their cells, and I showed you some-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes.
Mr. PERL. Here, for instance, I have a statement of Rumpf, which
he wrote in his cell in pencil. The original final statements are all
written in ink, which I still have under the remark "Rumpf, La Gleize,
very good." This is as it came in, it was put in the 201 La Gleize
.statement.
Here he describes how he received in La Gleize the order from P e i ~ e r .
the order to shoot prisoners of war, and how he dispatched men ffom'
his unit to shoot prisoners of war that he had orders to shoot.
Senator BALDWIN.What is this map here?
Mr. YERL.This is the map that he drew in his cell of the locatioii
where it happened. I f you want I can read you the statement here
It is not long.
Senator BALDWIN.I would be interested.
Mr. PERL. It reads, "Rumpf E." That is his initial-"La Gleize."
When we retired from Stoumont toward La Gleize, I marched together with
First Lieutenant Sievers, and there arri~-ed,when it started to become I was told
by Genneke, First Company, that tanks were standing around the church. I
saw prisoners standing there supervised by tankmen, and I saw them walking
aroundathere.
You see, this is not what is a dictated statement. It is not that I
translate so abruptly, but the sentences are abrupt.
Mr. PERL
(continuing) :
By speeches, by conversations I heard that prisoners were forced to work.
Second Lieutenant Genneke, First Company, came to me and said that I should
dispatch a Pew men who on orders of the Commander Peiper should shoot
prisoners of war because they had refused to work. I went into a basement
where I knew that there are members of my company, and I told them that I
need a few men for this order. One of them was Maute. According to the
recollection-
he does not say "to my recolle~tioi~~'-Itranslate as he writes-
according to the recollection there were in this basement members of the First
Platoon. Who i t was particularly I do not know, and I cannot say it with
certainty. I ordered them to go to the church because there they would receive
their orders. Where the prisoners were shot I do not know, but I saw dead
American soldiers without arms approximately six to seven. They were probably
shot (look a t the sketch). The drivers of the company spoke of the shooting of
American prisoners of war already a t the time when we arrived. Whether they
meant this case or whether prior to our arrival other shootings had taken place,
. J do not know.
It is written in his handwriting, and there is a sketch attached to
it, which reads "La Gleize," and several points.
This point here, he writes-he did not put numbers on it because
&henwhen we made it ready for trial we made it ready for the court.
Here he writes, "Point where the dead American soliders were
lying." This is obviously the church. To this buildin he writes,
"School," and a sign at it reads "Headquarters Peiper oetschke."B
Here is another sign "Headquarters of Western Hagenoder
Diefenthal."
This is one of the sketches which was not used in the trial because
in the end we had-you see he confessed to five or six or seven more
incidents, and then it was all put together.
I also would like you to see how exact the final drawings were. You
see this is a clmwing. We had, I do not know about how many draw-
ings. One of them should be that L a Gleize drawing. This is not
even amongst them, but exactly they drew it, and, for instance, I
know that Siegniund accused me of beating him. I f you will just
look, sir. this is a copy of the way he treated a handwriting margin
and only someone who has time and is not in an utter state of con-
fusion or excitement could treat a margin like this. I believe he
probablv wrote i t even with a ruler. This is his confession. These
are the various drawing the people made.
MY.CHAMBERS. Mr. Perl, onathisRumpf statement-
Mr. PERL. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
Are those prisoners who are supposed to have
been shot down there the ones that the defense alleged in fact were
never found ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. And

the ones that the priest later made some state-
ment about not seeing the bodies.
Mr. PERL. I do not think so. I believe this priest who appears in
Colonel Everett's-
Mr. CHAMBERS. Petition.
Mr. PERL. Petition was in L a Gleize, was in Wanne, I believe.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO;it was La Gleize.
Mr. PERL. But there were many shootings in La Gleize. This was
the shooting at the church, and this is the case in which the defense
alleged that it never occurred, but that you might have noted in the
record that an American who was not connected with the case a t all
testified that right after they moved into the town of La Gleize, they
removed heaps of bodies of American soldiers.
Mr. CHAMBERS.NO,sir.
You are excused. Thank you very much.
Mr. PERL. Sir, I would like to state just one more thing.
Senator BALDWIN.I was going to ask you: Do you have anything
further to say ?
Mr. PERL. The question of hatred of the Germans was brought up
again in the course of interrogation of Major Karan, I believe, and I
made a few statements with respect to that, and I would like to add a
few very concrete data.
On the 1st of November 1948, a German girl arrived in the United
States on the boat G r i p s h o h , only on the strength of my aadavit. I
brought her over. She is a German, not a Jewish girl. She was a
friend of Mrs. Perl over there.
A little boy with the name of Rudy Safarosky was on my expense,
a German boy, a German gentile boy, was on my expense during the
time of this investigation in a German children's hospital or home, the
Elizabeth Children's Convalescent Home, in Bad Nauheim, Germany,
for approximately 2 or 3 months. H e was sick, and I took care of him,
and before leaving from there, I deposited 3,000 marks in an account
for him. I later on intended to adopt this child, and there is corres-
pondence between me and his aunt-he has no parents-and-I could
not adopt him because I was informed by the agencies in New York
that I cannot ado t him because the child is Catholic and I am Jewish,
P
and due to the di erence of religion I cannot adopt him.
H e is getting parcels occasionally still now from us.
Other persons to whom I am sending parcels regularly are Dr.
Wachter of 3 Lessingstrasse, Bad Nauheim, who was a captain in the
German Army, or a major in the German Army, a prisoner of war
when I met him. H e was later on Mrs. Perl's physician, and I am
sending him parcels regularly.
Mrs. Friedel Pohl of Berlin, Charlottenburg, No. 16 or 76 Kant-
strasse, equally a German gentile girl, a woman, is receiving regularly
parcels from me.
Mr. Kurt Pietkau of 24 Lieberburg, awiesbaden, is a friend of ours.
I met him while I was serving with the War Crimes Group in Wies-
baden. I am sending him parcels, and to his wife, regularly.
I could go on with this list, but I thought I should mention it.
Senator BALDWIN. Why do you do that?
Mr. PERL. I will tell you something else-unfortunately, I forgot
this letter a t home. I wanted to bring i t with me, but I will send i t to
you if you are interested in it. I have a letter of which I am rather
proud. I t was written to me by the former British Secretary of
Labor, Lord Josiah C. Wedgewood, and he writes me on w p e r of
the House of Commons or House of Lords, "Dear Dr. Perl : You saved
2,400 lives from death by cold and starvation. You ought to be a
proud man, and I am proud of your friendship." It is signed "Josiah
C. Wedgewood."
My whole life I have tried to help other people. These people,

these 2,400 whom I helped here, most of them were just those who
tried to flee Germany but they were not necessarily Jews; everyone
who tried to flee I tried to help him out. It would be too long if I
would go into details of how I did it. If you are interested, I will
tell you these things, too, and I thought I should mention this so that
you can see that you are dealing with a man, I would not say of some
standard but of some ethical standard, and while I certainly tried to
help those first who were nearest to me and of whose plight I under-
stood better than others, the Jews, I did not tell you about them,
because my attitude toward them was not in question, but only after
you asked it. I did not want to boast of this fact, that I mentioned
this case. I think if a human being is in need, he should be helped ;
which woulcl not change the fact that, on the other hand, I believe
that those who killed our boys with premeditation, who did it in cold
blood, shoulcl be executed. I believe that this is just a part of justice
and that we owe this to our boys who died there for us, exactly as I
owe it to this German major or captain who was not a Nazi, to help
him because he is a decent man.
Senator BALDWIN. Thank yon very much.
That is all.
Mr. PERL. Thank you very much.
Senator BALDWIN. We can excuse you, Mr. Perl.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes ;and you can go back to California.
Mr. PERL. I am not going back to California.
Senator B ~ L D ~ IWe N . will

recess until 2 o'clock Monday afternoon.
(Whereupon, at 6 : 05 p. m.. an adjournment was taken, to recon-
vene at 2 p. m., Monday, June 6,1949.)
XALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
---
NZONDAY, JUNE 6, 1949
UNITEDSTATESSENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
Wmshington, D.C .
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, a t 2 p. m., in room
212 Senate Office Building, Senator Raymond E. Baldwin presiding.
Also present : J. M. Chambers, of the committee staff ; Colonel Fenn,
and Colonel Straight.
Senator BALDWIN. The committee will be i n order.
Mr. CHAMBERS. General Harbaugh, will you come forward, please?
Senator BALDWIN.Will you hold up your right hand ?
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you shall give in the matter
General HARBAUGH. I do.
TESTIMONY OF BRIG. GEB. JAMES L. HARBAUGR, JR., OFFICE OF
THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Senator BALDWIN.General Harbaugh, will you please give your full
name and your present station for the record?
General HARBAUGH. James L. Harbaugh, Jr., brigadier general,
United States Army, Office of the Judge Advocate General, Depart-
ment of the Army.
Mr. CHAMBERS. General Harbaugh, I presume, being in the Judge
Advocate branch, you are a graduate lawyer.
Will you ive us some idea of your background ?
B
General ARBAUGH. I am a graduate of the United States Military
Academy. I have a juris doctorate degree from New York University,
a master of law and S. J. D. degree from Georgetown.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,during the war, General, I believe it has been
testified that you had some connection with the war crimes work in
Europe. I wonder if you would tell us the relationship you had to
that, in your own words, and just give us the picture so we can see how
you fitted into the organization?
General HARBAUGH. Actually, during the war I was staff judge
advocate general of the United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe,
from June of 1942 until September or October of 1945 ;and our work in
connection with war crimes ,was rather incidental. We had some
screening to do, but no direct connection with it.
1145
I returned to the United States in September of 1945, and was on

duty in the United States until February of 1947, when I went t o
Germany to replace Colonel Mickelwait as staff judge advocate of
EUCOM. That was in February of 1947. P a r t of the responsi-
bility of the judge advocate of EUCOM were the mar crimes trials
a t Dachau.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you serve as a member of the so-called Ray-
mond board?
General HARBAUGH. Yes, sir.
Mr. CIIANEERS.Could ~ O L It ell us very briefly in your own words,
how that board happened to be organized, and the mission that was
assigned to i t ?
General HARBAUGH. Well, this board v a s called the Administration
of Justice Review Board. It was established by General Clay. I for-
get the exact time, but i t was established for the purpose of looking
jnto all matters concerning the administration of justice in the Euro-
pean command. As I remember, i t was originally established by
General Order No. 90 of 1947.
Mr. CHANBERS.This board I believe was created as a result of
General Clay's interest which, in turn, was a result of the petition
which had been filed before the Supreme Court in the Malmedy matter
and also the appointment of the Simpson-Van Roden board; is that
correct ?
General HARBAUGH. I don't believe so. I think the Administra-
tion of Justice Review Board was appointed with general responsi-
bility for everything that occurred in the command. W e had ques-
tions that arose in military government courts, in the court-martial
czses and several other classes of cases.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you make a particular study of the Malmedy
matter?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I noticed in this report that you all draw certain
conclusions as to the conduct of the pretrial activities, as well as the
trial procedures later on.
Generally speaking, I believe you divided those down into those
nwtters involving physical mistreatment, and those involving mock
trials and ruses and stratagems, and what not.
General H.?RBAUGH. That is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,did you, during the course of vom stndv of
the Malmedy case, call in witnesses who had direct knowledge of these
Malmedy matters?
General HARBAUGH. We made a study of all the available people m
the European command. I n fact, we got the names of everybody we
could get, who had anything to do with the pretrial investigation, and
I believe that we summoned before us all of the members of the prose-
cution staff or the investigating teams who were then in Europe.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n addition to that, did you get affidavits from those
who were state-side?
General HARBATTGH. Well, in our interim report, we recommended
t o the W a r Department that additional evidence be obtained in the
United States, particularly from Colonel Ellis and others who had
been mentioned m the various affidavits that we had, from the men
convicted in the Malmedy case.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,did you talk to any of the accused, themselves?
General HARBAUGH. YOUmean-
Mr. CHAMBERS. The

German accused.
General HARBAUGH.
NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you talk to their defense counsel or anyone who
represented them at the trial?
General HARBAUGH. I do not believe we did. Our report shows a
list of the witnesses; I do not recall.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you study the record of the trial in the Malmedy
case ?
General HARBAUGH. Not directly; no, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you have someone available to you to tell you
what was in the record of trial?
When we wanted any information
from the record, we called Colonel Costello, who was in my office.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did

you study any, or have access to any, affidavits
or any charges alleging mistreatment or mishandling of prisoners at
Malmedy ?
General HARBAUGH. Yes, sir. We had a great many affidavits that
were submitted, I guess most of them to my office, from a great many
sources.
I might say, the board mas appointed to investigate the allegations
made in Mr. Everett's petition, and that was our general problem.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n addition to that, however, ypu had these col-
lateral responsibilities that you have already mentioned; is that cor-
rect?
General HARBAUGEI. I do not believe I understand.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You

said that you had other responsibilities in
addition to the Malmedy matter; is that correct?
General HARBAUGH. You mean in the Administration of Justice
Review Board?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes.
General HARBAUGH,
Well, a t that time the board was only engaged
in investigating this one case.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n other words, it was started originally to look
into these allegations made in the Everett petltion as to the Malmedy
case, but it later became somewhat of a continuing board; is that it?
General HARBAUGH. NO, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I am sorry; I must be confused on it, General.
General HAFBAUGH.
My recollection is just to the contrary; that
the Administration of Justice Review Board was originally appointed
for the general responsibility to report to General Clay on any mal-
administration of justice in the European command.
Mr. CHAMBERS.Yes?
General HARBAUGH.
And as f a r as I know, a t the time he desig-
nated this board the Malmedy case was not in the picture. I do not
know what General Clay had in his mind.
Mr. CHAMBERS.Did you get a special directive to take a look a t the
Malmedy matter, or how did you get into that particular case?
General HARBAUQH. According to my recollection, the Secretary of
War directed General Clay to make an investigation of the allegations
in Mr. Everett's petition to the Supreme Court. General Clay desig-
nated the Administration of Justice Review Board to make the inves-
tigation and report to him.
9176549-73
Mr. CHAMBERS. Had the Simpson-Van Roden board already been t o

Europe when you started studying the Malmedy case?
General H-AUGH. No, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. General, I wonder,if you could tell us, as the result
of your studies, how much credence or how much weight did you give
the charges that had been concerning physical mistreatment and bru-
tality ?
General HARBAUGH. I think I could speak for Colonel Raymond, too,
in saying that neither of us believed that there was any systematic
violence or mistreatment of the accused.
Mr. CI-IAMBERS. What do you mean by "systematic"? That is the
key word here, 1 believe.
General H A R B ~ G HWell,. that it was a planned procedure, that
violence was to play any part in the obtaining of confeod ~' i o n ~ .
Mr. CEIA~CBERS. Did you believe that violence had taken place?
General HARBAUGH. Well, we believed that maybe on occasions some
interrogator may have been antagonized by a witness and may have
pushed him around.
Mr. CHAITBERS. Did you believe that they were beaten and were
kneed in the groin or kicked in their genitals, as has been testified here?
I must change that. I don't mean to say it was testified here-I
mean as has been alleged here that it happened.
Did you believe that there were broken jaws and knocked-out teeth,
and things of that type?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, how much of an investigation did you
make to determine that? Did you have any physical examination
made of the prisoners, General, or anything of that kind?
General HARBAUGH. No, sir; we did not.
Mr. CHAIMBERS.
Why did you arrive a t the conclusion that this
thing or these things did not happen?
General HARBAUGII. We heard the witnesses. We read and studied
all these affidavits, some of which portrayed every possible form of
mistreatment that could possibly be conceived of. We considered the
facts and the fact that most of these affidavits had been submitted
long after the trial and mere obviously submitted by men who had
everything to gain and nothing to lose by making false statements.
Mr. CHA~CBERS. Did you talk to Colonel Carpenter by any chance?
General HARBAUGH. NO,sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel Mickelwaite was not present at that time
either ?
General HARBAUGH. NO,sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you have knowledge of the fact that an inves-
tigation had been made by the theater at the time of trial, of the alleged
mistreatment of prisoners ?
General HARBAUGH. Yes, sir. I think that was included in either
Colonel Ellis' affidavit or Mr. Panton's, I have forgotten which.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NO one appeared before yon presenting the accused
to try to prove that these things actually happened? The only things
that you had alleging mistreatment were the petition of Everett and
the affidavits ; is that correct?
General HARBAUGH. That is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,General, let's come back to this systematic
thing a little bit.
You say that you believe a t times the interrogators might have
become sore or irritated at some other prisoners and shoved them
around a little bit. What d o you mean by that ?
General HARBAU~H. Well, pushing-
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO
YOU mean struck them with their fists or kicked
them ?
General HARBAUOH. Not kicked, perhaps gave them a shove but no
extreme form of violence in any way.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, what did you base that on?
What evidence did you have that they did shove the prisoners
around ?
General HARBAUGH. Well, I think we did have some testimony to
that effect from Steiner.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Steiner ?
General HARBAUGH. Yes.

Mr. CHAMBERS. That

he personally had done it?
General HARBAUGH.
I believe he said that he personally had not
dont it-but I am just speaking from recollection-I am not sure, and
also we had the affidavits ; me listened to the testimony of Kirschbaum
and Mr. Thon; and Colonel Raymond and I both arrived a t the same
solution, separately.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Am I to gather from that. that Kirschbaum and
Thon, and possibly ~teineryadmitted that they had on occasions
shoved these people around?
General HARBAUGH. NO, sir. I don't believe Mr. Thon or Mr.
Kirschbaum admitted touching anyone, and I don7tbelieve Mr. Steiner
admitted personally touching anyone; but it seems t o me Mr. Steiner
did mention the fact that he had seen somebody pushed around.
I am speaking from recollection now.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That has been some time ago.
Now, before you got into this study of the Malmedy case, you also
had had some contact with the Malmedy trials through your normal
duties as deputy judge advocate, isn't that correct?
General HARBAUGH. Colonel Straight was the deputy judge advo-
c~te-
General HARBAUGH.
I was the judge advocate, and the Malmedy
trials took place before I arrived in the command. I think it took
place between-
Mr. CHAMBERS. April ?
General HBRBAUGH. Between

April and July of 1946, and 1arrived
in Eucom in February of 1947.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were review procedures in process when you got
here?
General HARBAUGH. Yes, sir. The records were coming in, from
time to time, from the deputy into my office and had been coming in to
Colonel Mickelwaite's office for review prior to presentation to the
theater command.
, Senator BALDWIN. May I interrupt ?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Surely, sir.
1150 MALMEDY MASSACRE I~TESTIGATIOX
Senator BALDWIN. General, I notice in your report that you head

the report "Final Report of Proceedings of Administartion of Justice
Review Board :
Concerning allegations contained i n petition for writ of habeas corpus filed i n
t h e United States Supreme Court by defendants'in case of United States against
Bersin e t al. (the Malmedy case).
I n other words, as I understand, the sole purpose for which you and
Colonel Raymond conducted this investigation was to investigate the
allegations made in the petition.
General RARBAUGH. Of Mr. Everett.
Senator BALDWIN. Of Mr. Everett, and the affidavits accompanying
the petition that Mr. Everett filed in the Supreme Court of the United
States?
General HARBAUGH. That is correct; but we also considered some
other affidavits which I have in my office, mhich pertained to the same
matter, and mere within the scope of the investigation.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, as a result of i t you morked-
met pursuant t o the order of reference (exhibit 2 ) a t Berlin and Frankfurt,
Germany, on 7 , 1 6 , 1 7 , and 26 July and 20 August, 1948, to investigate the allega-
tions in a petition of writ of habeas corpus * * *
And then further on, you say :
Thereafter on t h e date of 20 August 1948 the Board submitted a preliminary
report i n which it recommended t h a t testimony of additional witnesses in the
United States be furnished to the Board. This h a s now been done. The Board
reconvened on 11, 12, and 13 January, and on 10 and 11 February, 1949, for
further consideration of the matter. Between 20 August 1948 and 11 January
1949 the Office of t h e Advisor to the Military Governor f o r Military Govern-
ment affairs became vacant, and therefore, a t the subsequent hearings the Board
consisted of Col. John M. Raymond, director of the legal division, OMGUS, chair-
man, and Col. J. L. Harbaugh, Jr., judge advocate, EUCOM member, both of
whom were present a t each meeting. Although the chief judge of the military
government court of appeals, United States Military Government courts for
Germany, was appointed a member of the Board on 24 January 1949, he was
excused by the chairman and took n o part in t h e proceedings inasmuch a s he
had not been present a t any of the earlier sessions.
So, when you were originally getting into this, it was on the basis
of this petition, as I understand and what you were specifically look-
ing for was proof, if you could find it, to support the allegations of
the petition; and, the affidavit accompanying the petition-is that
' correct ?
General HARBAUGH.
Yes.
I might say, Dr. Carl F'riedrich was the third member of the Board
prior to our rendering of the interim report.
Senator BALDWIN. H e didn't sign the report however.
General HARBAUGIT. NO,

sir.
Senator BALDWIN. Why is that, do you know?
General HARBAUGH. H e
left EUCOM shortly after we submitted
our original report.
Senator BALDWIN.Now, you say in your report here that you ex-
amined 7 witnesses that appeared before the Board, and 26 exhibits
, were received.
I n addition, another witness was interviewed by Dr. Friedrich, a member
of the Board, who r e ~ o r t e dto t h e Board the substance of what the witness
would testify if called. The Board accepted in evidence affidavits from 52 of
t h e petitioners who filed t h e petition for habeas corpus a s indicating the testi-
mony they would give regarding the allegations i n their petition.
Do you have any idea where those affidavits are?
General HARBAUGH. I think they are attached to the report of the
Board.
Senator BALDWIN.TOyour report?
Senator BALDWIN
(reading) :
Other witnesses in this command who would appear to have any knowledge of
the matters in question were interrogated. Most of the witnesses having first-
hand knowledge of the matters complained of, other than t h e petitioners them-
selves, a r e no longer within this command.
At the hearings in January and February 1949 the Board received in evidence
affidavits from the following individuals.
Then, .you say that you received the affidavits of Colonel Mickel-
waite, Lieutenant Colonel Ellis, former Major Fanton, former Lieu-
tenant Colonel Crawford, former Captain Shumacker, former Lieu-
tenant Perl, and former civilian interrogator Morris Ellowitz.
Senator BALDWIN. So, I would say you made a fairly thorough study
of this thing.
General H A ~ A U G EWeI . did the best we could with the available
witnesses. There were a great many other witnesses whose names we
had, like the doctors and certain other people that we could not call,
and they were not called.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you, among the seven witnesses, interview
the physicians, the American surgeons?
General HARBAUGH. NO,sir; they were all in the United States.
Senator BALDWIN. I mean, the men attached at Schwabisch Hall.
General HARBAUGH. They were not in Europe at the time.
Senator BALDWIN.Beyond the reach of your investigation?
General HARBAUGH.
Yes, sir.
The Eoarcl also receired in evidence additional affidavits of several individuals
submitted by the defendant Peiper in the Malmedy case (exhibit 36) and a num-
ber of affidavits submittecl by Cardinal Frints, archbishop of Cologne, t h e latter
being duplicates of certain of the affidavits in exhibit 23 (exhibit 37).
That is the petition, I assume.
Perhaps I can explain about those affidavits. I n my capacity as staff
J A of EUCOM, I received petitions and afficlavits from a great many
people. A great many of them ~vouldbe duplicates. For instance, a
great many of these affidavits that we received from Cardinal Frints
were duplicates of the affidavits which were attached to Mr. Everett7s
petition, and I think we received some from the Pope, but they were all
the same identical affidavits, in most cases.
Senator BALDTVIN. NOW,General, did you personally know any of
these men involved ?
General HARBAUGEI. Of the interrogators?
General HARRAUGH. I think the only ones I met would be-I know
Colonel Straight, of course ;and Colonel Ellis; and I believe that is all,
Senator.
Senator BALDWIN. Are they in any way, or have they been in their
service in the Army, in any way associated with you?
General HARBAUGH. Well, all during the war-crimes operation,

Colonel Straight was the deputy judge advocate for war crimes; and
Colonel Ellis was down a t Dachau as one of his officers.
Senator BALDWIN. What I am getting at, frankly, is this, General:
Have you any reason to feel particularly friendly, or kindly disposed
toward any of these men whom you were investigating; I mean
friendly ?
General HARBAUGH. NO, sir. I think our approach was a judicial
approach. We were striving to find the facts.
Senator BALDWIN. Did you, yourself, feel that the Army was sort
of on the spot here? I mean, did you yourself feel that the Army was
on the spot here in connectjon with this thing?
General HARBAUGH. Not necessarily on the spot, but I couldn't help
but know all the accusations that were going on because of the affi-
davits that were just flowing into my office. Cardinal Frints, Bishop
Worm, and Bishop Neuhauser were not only sending letters to General
Clay which would be referred to me, but I knew all about what was
going on particularly in Germany.
Senator BALDWIN.When did these affidavits first begin to appear,
and these letters and petitions?
General HARBAUGH. I think there were a number of them attached
to the record of the trial, but I think the great mass of them came in
early in 1948.
Senator BALDWIN. That would be-
General HARBAUGH. NO, no; it was later than that. No, that is
probably right, in 1948.
Senator BALDWIN.This trial took place in April, as I recall, of 1946P
Senator BALDWIN.YOUwent over there as I remmeber it prior to
April 1946?
General ,HARBAUGH. NO, sir. I went over as J A of Eucoin in
February of 1947.
Senator BALDWIN. That is right.
General HARBAUGH. I was in Europe all during the war.
Senator BALDWIN. And you came home in 1945?
General HARBAUGH. Yes,

sir.
Senator BALDWIN.And you went back in 19471
General HARBAUGH. That

is correct.
Senator BALDWIN. Did the matter of the investigation of this whole
thing come under your charge in any way? What I mean is-was it
part of your regular duties ?
General HARBAUGH. Not the pretrial investigation of the Malmedy
case because that occurred while I was in the United States.
Senator BALDWIN. Was the prosecution,
- the actual -prosecution of
the trial?
General HARBAUGH. NO, sir, that had been completed when I
arrived.
Senator BALDWIN.SO, in other words when you approached this
investigation you had had no connection with it, with the interroga-
tion, and you had had no connection with the preparation of the
prosecution of the trial.
General HARBAUGEI. That is correct.
Senator BALDWIN. YOUsaid, early in your direct testimony I believe,
that you made some statement to the effect that while you were judge
ndvocate g e n ~ r s fQr
l tho nir F n r c w , ac: T r~rslllit-
Senator BALDWIN.YOUhad some screening to do. What was t h a t ?
General HARBAUGH. Well, that was when the prisoner-of-war camps
were overrun by our troops, and all the American prisoners of war
were interrogated as to any possible war crimes; and, the Air Force,
as well as the Ground Forces had a general directive to get affidavits
from anybody who had any knowledge of any war crime. However,
my A i r Force connection with the investigation of war crimes, while I
was there, was not to any great extent.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, the screening yon had to do was
to take our men who were being released from prisoner-of-war camps,
under the Germans, and find out what they might know or say con-
cerning the war crimes?
General HARBAUGI-I. Yes. As I remember, we had to interrogate
everybody before they went back, not only those that had been prisoa-
ers, but all the solcliers, before they went back.
Colonel Straight would know, because I think he was drafted by
the directive of August of 1945-
COLONELSTRAIGHT. The requirement was to interrogate and get,
information from any who indicated that they h a d knowledge or had
witnessesed the commission of a war crime.
Senator BALDWIN.Well, we will resume here.
You said :
Finally the Board received i n evidence a copy of a n affidavit of Dr. Eduard
Knorr who had been part-time dentist a t Schwabisch Hall (exhibit 3 9 ) , and a
document purporting to be a copy of a n affidavit by Carl Diebitsch, German
camp commander a t Schwabisch Hall, (exhibit 40) and a n affidavit from Lt.
Col. J. B. Costello, who had previously testified a s a witness (exhibit 41).
You said the allegations i n the petition for habeas corpus related t o
three distinct matters :
A. Alleged improper methods used i n procuring testimony,
B. Impropriety in the conduct of the trial,
C. Certain legal questions bearing principally on the guilt of the accused and
the sufficiency of proof to support conviction.
Then, you say :
The allegations a s to misconduct fall into two principal categories:
A. The use of moclc trials, threats, inducements and strategems to procure

sworn statements against other accused and to obtain confessions ; and
B. The use of physical violence for similar purposes.
I n your findings, you say this :
That there was a limited use of mock trials.
Would you expand on that a little bit, G e n e r d ?
General HARBAUGH. Well, the various witnesses gave different num-

bws-I think Colonel Ellis had said five or six and somebody else said
ei@t o r nine, and we took that number from testimony that we had.
benator BALDWIN.Did you find that that was a part of a general
program that was to be applied to all prisoners, or if i t was used only
in specific cases ?
General HARP,AUGII. No, sir. W e found that the maximum number
of cases in which it was used was 10 or 12, and there
were 73 defendants.
Senator BALDWIN.Then you say :
B. That there was a general use of t h e practice of persuading underlings t o
talk by telling them the prosecution wanted to get their superiors and was not a
so much interested in them.

Sentaor BALDWIN.Would you, as a lawyer obtaining evidence for a
prosecution, be willing to express an opinion as to whether or not
that was fair or unfair-whether or not it was proper practice or
improper practice ?
General HARBAUGI-I. Well, I didn't regard that as very improper.
Senator BALDWIN. I think you said, in your detailed discussion of
this thing, that it was apparently the program of the prosecution, or
the interrogators to break down, so to speak, the enlisted men by
telling them that the only people that the prosecution was trying to
get to was the officers, in order to try to get them to speak. I s that
correct ?
Senator BALDWIN.What is your opinion on that, as to the propriety
or impropriety of i t ?
General HARBAUGR. Well, I regarded that as sort of borderline.
I didn't regard it as highly improper.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, is i t your feeling it would have
been better if it had not been done?
Senator BALDWIN.Then in "C" you say:
That physical force was not systematically applied in order to obtain s t a t e
ments, but that undoubtedly in the heat of the moment on occasions interroga-
tors did use some physical force on a recalcitrant suspect.
Were you able to identify any particular cases?
Senator BALDWIN.Well, upon what did you base your conclusion
of that kind?
General H-~RBAUGET. AS I said before, I think we had the testimony
of Mr. Steiner, that he had seen some violence.
Senator BALDWIN.Who was Steiner?
General HARBAUGH. He was an interpreter who was there for 2 or
3 weeks.
Senator BALDWIN.Do you have Steiner's testimony before the Har-
bau h Board?
gr. CHAMBERS. H e was still in Germany.
General HA~<BAUGH.
I may be mistaken, but that is my recollection.
We also heard Mr. Kirschbaum and Mr. Thon's testimony, we read the
affidavits and we just had our experience in the world and arrived at
that determination. From the testimony of Mr. I<irschbaum and Mr.
Thon, why, it was a ladies' seminary, and that didn't strike us. as being
true to life, and we just used our judgment of what we had.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, from your experience in the
Army, I take it what you mean to say is this : You thought it highly
improbable that a group of prisoners such as they had at Schwabisch
Hall, these 74 SS troopers conld be handled and interrogated and let
around and returned to their cells and all that sort of thing without
there being, at some time, some physical force used?
General HARBAUGH. Not to any great extent, but they were not
just Gaston and Alphonse. When they wanted a prisoner to move,
he moved.
Senator BALDWIN. Was there anything in the examination of the
matter you made to indicate that the idea of threats of force, or physi-
cal force itself was used in order to secure a statement?
General HARBAUGH. NO, sir; I didn't come to that conclusion.
Senator BALDWIN.You are quite sure of that?
General HARBAUGH. Yes, sir. I mean, I did't think-I don't know,
I can't speak for Colonel Raymond, but I didn't think that physical
force itself played a part in obtaining the confessions.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I would like to ask a specific question a t this point.
We have this statement which appeared in the magazine known as the
Progressive, m d e r date of February, 1949, which states categorically
that :
American in~estigatorsa t the United States courts in Dachu, Germany, used
the following methods to obtain confessions :
Beatings and brutal kickings: knocking out teeth and breaking jaws; mock
trials ; solitary confinement ; posturing a s priests ; very limited ration ; spiritual
deprivation ; and promises of acquittal.
It says that they used those methods in obtaining confessions. Do
you agree with that statement?
General HARBAUGH. It is hard to answer that question because there
are so many factors involved. I know that mock trials were used.
Mr. CHAMBERS. All right, sir.
Suppose we take them in the order
in which they are listed :
Beatings and brutal kickings.
General HARBAUGH. I don't believe that beatings or kickings played

any part in obtaining confessions.
Mr. CHAMBERS. "Knocking out teeth and breaking jaws."
General HARBAUGH.
Same answer.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mock trials.
General HARBAUGH. I believe-I know that mock trials mere, froin
the testimony in the record of the trial itself. It was conceded by the
prosecution that mock trials did take place.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. "Solitary confinement."
General HARBAUGH. Well, it is hard to answer that question exactly.
I don't believe anybody was confined in solitary confinement for the
express purpose of obtaining his confession; but, I do know that, from
the testimony, that they kept the accused separated during the course
of the interrogation because they did not want to send them back to
their co-accused so they could talk over the story,
Senator BALDWIN.From your studies of the thing, and the inves-
tigation of it, was there any occasion where any one a t the mock
trials said, "Now, we have decided that you are going to be hung
tomorrow. I f you want to make a confession, this is your last chance to
save your neck."
And then, they mere put in a death cell.
Do you know of anything of that kind?
General HARBAUGH. We did our best to find out what was meant by
the expression "death cell"; and, the best we could find out was that
certain cells were there that may have been used for purpose in the old
days of the prison, and as far as v e C O L I ~ascertain,
~ no executions
occurred while the Malnledy suspects were at Schmabisch Hall.
Mr. C H A B ~ E But,
R ~ . they did, as a matter of routine, keep these
people in separate cells 111 this prisoll during the course of interro-
gation ?
General HARBAUGH. That is what I believed, and I think that was
what they said they did.
311'. CHAMBERS. That is the same process of keeping prisoners in sep-

arate cells that exists in normal civil prisons, is that correct 1
General HARBAUGH. Yes, and also they were faced with the proposi-
tion that they didn't want the accused to get together and make up a
common story. They wanted to interrogate them separately.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you ever hear, or get any evidence that they
postured as priests for the purpose of getting confessioils ?
General HARBAUGH. NO, sir; we could find nothing excepting, I
think, in some of the affidavits that allegation might have been made.
Mr. CHAMBERS. How about their being deprived of rations or placed
on very limited rations for the purposes of getting co~~fessions?
General HARBAUGII. To the best of my recollectioi~,we found noth-
ing that would warrant a conclusion that they u7ere deprived of any
rations.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were they kept away from spiritual advice during
that time ?
General HARBAUGH. I don't recall much evidence 011 that point.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,did you find, and this has been a rather im-
portant point before the committee, whether or not, for the purpose
of getting confessions that they made promises of acquittal, and things
of that type?
General HARBAUGH. I don't believe they promised anybody iinmu-
nity.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUsay :
That i n certain instances interrogators made threats to the accused t h a t if
they did not talk, their relatives would be deprived of their ration cards.
Were there any specific instances of that, that you recall? This is
one of your findings.
General HARBAUGH. I recall that ;yes, sir.
I think that allegation mas repeafed in almost every affidavit that
we had, and I don7trecall right now whether or not we had any direct
evidence to support it.
Senator BALDWIN.You say "in every affidavit you had." Do you
mean the affidavits of the Germans?
Senator BALDWIN. Were there any affidavits of others who were not
Germans who said that, do you recall? '
General HARBAUGH. I don't recall any.
Mr. CHAMBERS. General Harbaugh, I noticed that Colonel Steiner,
in his testimony before your board, was asked-
General HARBAUGH. Colonel Steiner?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr.

Steiner, pardon.
General HBRBAUGH. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was

asked about this business of telling the accused
that food tiokets would be taken away from the mothers and wives,
and in one instance, the testimony is as follows :
Oh, yes, I memember one instance.
Question. And when did t h a t occur, while you were i t Schwabisch Hall.
Answer. Yes. I don't know whether you referred to this incident t h a t just
comes to my mind One of the accused was told that the food ticket had been
taken away from his mother and his wife, or from his mother, parents, and
sister, because the accused was a war criminal. Is that to what you a r e referring.
sir.
Question. No. Was the accused ever told t h a t ?
Answer. Yes, sir.
Question. By whom?
Answer. Most likely by Mr. Ellomitz because he was the only man I worked
with extensively. Yes, I remember that. H e told him because he was a war
criminal his folks would have to starve because the food ticket had been taken
away from them.
Question. Who was the suspect, if you remember?
Ansu-er. Nave, I guess,,Nave, the man who had fits, the man who fainted
several times. That i s the same man if I am not mistaken. H e comes from the
north of Germany.
I have read all of Mr. Steiner7stestimony, and that is the only refer-
ence he made to it.
Outside of that, Thon and Kirschbaum do not appear to make any
reference to that partic~darmatter.
General HARBAUGH. I thought we had some testimony to that effect.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Based on this testimony by Steiner you believe that
i t was possible that had happened?
Senator BALDWIN.Off the record.
(There was discussion off of the record.)
Mr. CHAMBERS. T h a t was the translator or interpreter who said he
conducted an independent investigation solely for the purposes of get-
ting the organizations and units of the accused.
Senator BALDWIN.YOU say i n your conclusions here, with refer-
ence to mock trials, persuading underlings to talk by telling them
t h a t the prosecution wanted to get their superiors and mas not so much
interested in them; physical force, and this ration card thing-you
say with reference to those four items, i n "E" :
That the practices referred to in A, B, C, and D above i n certain instances
exceeded the bounds of propriety but the Board has been unable to identify such
cases.
Do you now want to expand on that a bit, General?
General RARBAUGH. N O ; that expresses i t pretty well; just what
we thought.
Senator BALDWIN.DO you mean by that, that you don't think o r
couldn't think of any particular instance or don't know of any par-
ticular instance?
General HARBAUGH. W e couldn't nail down any particular accused
who was subjected to any one of those particular forms of duress.
We felt that from time to time those measures were used, but upon
whom they were used we didn't lmow.
Senator BALDWIN.Then you say :
That there r a s a general use of other ruses, stratagems, stool pigeons, and
General HARBADGH. Yes, sir ;that is what we believed.
Mr. CHAMBERS. General

Harbaugh, I wondered, on that particular
point, did you feel that there was anything wrong mith the custom
of using stool pigeons and things of that type for purposes of getting
evidence i n this case ?
General HARBAUGH. NO, sir. Any legitimate ruse or strategy we
did not question.
Mr. CHAMBERS. SO that the fact that you included that in your
report as a conclusion was because you were merely reporting facts
a s yon found them, and not something that could be picked up mith
which you disagreed or felt was wrong?
1158 MALMEDY MASSACRE ITUTVESTIGATIOS
General HARBAUGH. We didn't find that as anything that was rep-

rehensible. We said the particular things that we thought were
improper, and they were mentioned in A, B, C, and D ; but this state-
ment about ruses, stratagems, was just a statenlent of fact, a state-
ment of things that were done and admittedly done, vhich we thought
were reasonable under he circumstances.
Senator BALDWIN. Then you say:
That the conditions obtained a t the prison, and the method einployed in the
interrogations had a definite psychological effect on the defendants aild resulted
in their being more amenable to giving statements.
What did you mean by that?
General HARBAUGH. Well, we meant that they were kept separately,
and they were moved around with hoods on them to keep them from
speaking to any of their coaccused, and those measures resulted in
making them more amenable to making statements.
Senator BALDWIN.Other than the affidavit of Dr. IZnorr, which we
have before us in evidence, and which is only a page and a half long,
as I recall it, mas there any evidence at all of any broken jaws and
knocked-out teeth, that you recall?
General HARBAUGH. Not directly, but I think perhaps some one of
the accused may have claimed that in one of his affidavits. They
claimed everything. If that wasn't included, it would be strange.
Senator BALDWIN. But other than the affidavit of the accused, you
didn't find evidence of that, outside of Dr. Knorr's?
General HARBAUGH. And maybe this fellow Diebitsch. I believe
Dr. Knorr was the only one who made any statements to that effect.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you make any effort to get in touch with Dr.
Knorr or get any infornlation from him of a direct nature?
General HARBAUGH. Yes, sir. Colonel Raymond and I mere going
to call him, and we had inquiries made and ascertained that he had
just had either one or both legs amputated and was in the hospital,
and under the circumstances we did not call him or go down there.
Senator BALDWIN. Then, you say :
That the defense had difficulties in preparation of its case, but such difficulties
were ironed out, and the defense, considering all the circumstances of the case,
had a reasonable time in which to prepare its case.
Senator BALDWIN. Was this investigation and report that you made,
to your lmowledge, intended to be used in any way as it affected the
judgments that shonld have been rendered and the sentences imposed;
or was it a study on the general conduct of the investigation and
prosecution ?
General HARBAUGH. AS I stated before, General Clay directed us to
investigate and render a report, and that is what we did. I think we
added, in our recommendations, that our report be utilized in any
future action that might be taken on the Malmedy case.
The Board recommends that this report, together with the testimony and
exhibits, be considered in connection with any further consideration of t h e
Malmedy case.
So, you did anticipate that in a review of the sentences imposed, this
report would be considered?
MALMEDY MASSACRE IWESTIGATION 1159
General HARBAUGH. Yes, sir. We thought that whatever value it
had should be made available to anybody who was considering any
other cases.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you find any evidence to the effect that a
very substantial number of these men, I have forgotten what the num-
ber is now, but it has been stated here on several different occasions
that a number were permanently injured in their private parts by
being kneed and kicked in the groin.
General HARRAUGI~. 1 didn't believe any of that-any of those
allegations.
Senator BALDWIN. What evidence, if any, mas there to back up any
such claim?
General I~ARBAUGI-I. The only evidence that I recall were statements
in several affidavits, but by no means was that allegation general, even
in the affidavits. According to my recollection, I know individuals
accused claimed such mistreatment, but I do not believe that was one
of the general claims.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUsay here :
Only after the prisoners were a t Schwabisch Hall, relatively isolated, and after
experienced interrogators had been procured, was the case finally broken. The
strategy of using one man against another was almost a necessary step. I n
every case that was approved the accused was convicted not only by his own
statement but by corroborative testimony from others.
Do you still believe that to be a fact?
Senator BALDWIN.Then, yon say:
A second point not to be overlooked is the fact t h a t only 9 of the 73 accused

who were convicted took the stand. Whatever may be said about t h e method
used in obtaining statements, had t h e defendants given completely false state-
ments in their signed confessions, it i s difficult to understand why they did not
want to take the stand and repudiate them. The witness Narvid, the only mem-
ber of the defense staff who testified before the board, stated that the defense
staff felt t h a t a prima facie case had not been made by the prosecution, but h e
further stated :
"We felt that the prosecution had still a considerable amount of other evidence
i n the form of statements involving these accused which they were utilizing f o r
rebuttal, or intended to use for rebuttal * * *. They gave the impression
they were hoping the accused would take t h e stand so that they could again
'really give i t to him' * * *. They would involve themselves more than they
were already involved." Colonel Everett, chief defense counsel, is reported t o
have stated t h a t if he put the accused on the stand they would probably hang
themselves (testimony of Straight). Lieutenant Colonel Ellis, in his affidavit,
states that during the trial Colonel Everett w a s concerned about the unfavorable
showing the accused were making on t h e court by their testimony, and discussed
the matter with Lieutenant Colonel Ellis who told him t h a t if he were acting
for the defense and believed the accused were guilty, he would not put them on
t h e stand. Thereafter, only three more of the accused took the stand.
You still believe that to be accurate?
Senator BALDWIN.YOUsay:
Although the findings in this paragraph have only a remote bearing on t h e

issues before the board, there was testimony on this point which was felt im-
portant enough to report. It does tend to discredit the idea advanced in t h e
petition for habeas corpus t h a t the methods used by the interrogators were so
severe a s to cause the accused to sign false confessions.
General, you investigated t,his thing personally, spent quite a lot of
time on it, and took a good many pages of testimony. Did you
examine the different sentences that were imposed?
General HARBAUGH. This board did not. I h a d two capacities in

connection with the Malmedy case: I mas a member of the Adminis-
tration of Justice Review Board, which conducted this special investi-
gation for General Clay; and, on the other hand, I mas judge advo-
cate of EUCOM, and I handled thesMalmedy case as part of the
war crimes cases.
Senator BALDWIN. I
11 other m-ords, you made this investigation of
the way the case was investigated and prosecuted, I take it, on the
basis of which you rendered this report ?
General HARBAUGIL Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.
What was your other connection with i t ?
General HARBAUGH.
I n my capacity as judge advocate of EfiCOM,
I received the review and recommendations as well as the record of trial
from the deputy judge advocate for war crimes, which was Colonel
Straight.
Senator BALDWIN. Was that before or after this investigation?
General HARBAUGH. That mas before.
Senator BALDWIN.
SOyou had already passed upon, or had already
considered the sentences, the judgments, and the sentences imposed?
Of course, after this report, I, again, had the job of submitting the
cases t o General Clay for reconsideration.
Senator BALDWIN. SO,you had been over them three times?
General HARBAUGH.
I have been over them many times.
Senator BALDWIN.
Did you participate in the recommendations, the
last recommendations that were made to the theater commander, Gen-
eral Clay, for the reduction of sentences and the commutation of some
of the sentences ?
General HARBAUGH. DOyou mean the last action General Clay took
on the 12 condemned ?
General HARBAUGI~.
Yes, s i r ; I made recoinmendations to General
Clay on each of the 12, and submitted a summary of the evidence and
analysis of i t and made recommendations. T h a t was in March of this
year.
Senator BALDWIN. March of this year?
General HARBAUGH.
Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.
And, I have not compared your recommendations
with the final directions of General Clay, but did he follow your
recommendations, all of them, or did he not ?
General HARBAUGH. Well, there were 12 cases involved. I recom-
mended commutation i n one and reaffirmation of 11. General Clay
commuted 6 and reaffirmed 6.
Senator BALDWIN. DO you know what the process was in General
Clay's office, of dealing with this? No doubt he personally passed on
this thing, did he not?
General HARBAUGH. I wasn't there, but I know that he did, because
all of these actions in these last 12 were virtually dictated by General
Clay to his secretary, Captain Allen, because she would call me or I
would call her when I received a copy of the cable that had been sent
to the Secretary of the Army if I noted any obvious mistakes. Soine-
times there would be a mistake in the translation or transmissioll of
some word, and I would call Captain Allen and ask her about that par-
ticular matter, and she would say that she would see what General
Clay had to say, and she would check with General Clay and see
\~hetherit mas to be changed - or not, depending
- - upon what General
Clay said.
Senator BALDWIN. Wlmt year did you graduate from the Military
Academy?
General HARBAUGIZ. November 1918.
Senator BALDWIN.So. vou saw service in World War I ?
General HARBAUGH. ~Teveiidays,

sir.
Senator BALDWIN.And you spent your life in the Army '?
General HARBAUGH. Yes,

sir.
Sellator BAI,DWIN.Did you start off with the idea of being in the
Judge Advocate's department ?
General HARBAUGH. NO, sir. I was a line officer up until 1932, or
1931 rather.
Senator BALDWIN. And, then, you transferred ?
General HARBAUGH. After I obtained my law degree from New
York University and was admitted to the New York Bar and detailed
in the Judge Advocate's department, I think in 1931 o r 1932, and
actually transferred to the department in 1935.
Senator BALDWIN.Would you say that you had a familiarity, rea-
sonable familiarity, and knowledge of every single one of the death
cases involved in this proceeding?
General HARBAUGH. Yes, sir. I would have to refresh my recol-
lection, but every death sentence that was adjudged at Dachau went
over my desk, practically all of them, after I relieved Colonel Mickel-
wait ; the bulk came to nie.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you review, carefully, the 12 cases on w'hiclr
you made recommendations to General Clay?
General HARBAUGH. Very carefully. 1 had a staff, of course, to
assist me, but I checked the reviews against the statements of the ac-
cused, and in some instances I had retranslations made where a word
was very important.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you think this matter was important ?
General HARBAUGH. I thought it was very important.
Senator BALDWIN.Why ?
General HARBAUGEI. Well, for every reason. I mean, 1 considered
any case important, but particularly a death case, and this was probably
one of the most outstanding cases that we had a t Dachau.
Senator BALDWIN.I didn't ask that question, with any thought or
inference that I did not consider it important. I, like you, consider
them of vital importance. I was just wondering why you thought they
were. I have my own opinion as to why I think so. You stated that
in your opinion one thing was that a human life was involved. Was
there any other reason or reasons?
General HARBAUGH. Well, I mean the public i n t e r e s t t h e r e was
more publice interest in the Malmedy case. T o be frank, my inail1
interest %-as: I had a great many cases, and I wanted to come out with
the right answer if I could.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you think it was of any great consequence
to the Arniv ?
Senator BALDWIN. I n what way?
1162 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION J
General HARBAUGII. Well, I mean our procedure was under trial.

There were allegations that it was improper, and I thought it was my
job to examine the fact and give my best opinion.
Senator BALDWIN.Did you think that American interests were
involved? I mean by that, American interests in the sense of world
public opinion.
General HARBAUGII.Yes, sir.
Senator BALDWIN.I n the course of your studies, General, did you
ever make any special study of this matter of war crimes?
General HARBAUGH. I have made a great stndy of a number of war
crimes cases-you mean, as to the policy 1
Senator BALDWIN.Yes, as to the general policy of things, and how
it should be conducted, and so forth.
General HARBAUGIX.
I have not made any great study as to that,
because I joined up right in the middle of it. I t was my job to
carry it out-
Senator EALDWIN.YOUhad nothing to do with the original set-up
of the corps of the investigating staffs, prosecuting staffs, defense
staffs, interpreter staffs, and so forth.
General HARBAUGH. NO, sir, not as originally conceived; but after
April of 1947, the whole war crimes operation came under my super-
vision. Colonel Straight was my deputy on the ground, but I was
responsible.
Senator BALDWIN.Did any complaint ever come to you after you
got over there in the theater in 1947 about the way the defense counsel
had acted, or the prosecuting counsel acted-I mean, irrespective of
the investigation 1
General HARBAUGI-I. 1don't remember anything definite, but I am
sure I did hear something, because it was a great controversy at all
times. Some people felt very strongly one way, and others felt
strongly the other way.
Mr. CHAMBERS. General, I would like to come back to these last
12 death sentences.
I understand from your testimony that yon recommended reaffirma-
tion of 11 death sentences and one commutation. Now, I take i t by
that that you not only felt that these people were guilty in those
11cases but that the proceedings and record and everything s ~ ~ p p o r t e d
that belief.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO
you know why General Clay changed five of
those recommendations? I am not putting you in any position of
judging General Clay, but was any reason given why he commuted
five more than you recommended?
General HARBAUGH. He stated his reason in his cable to the De-
partment of Army.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Could you tell us what-
General HARBAUGH. I can't recall exactly what they were.
The way I set up my recommendations, there were reasons for the
commutation and reasons for the reaffirmations because I knew General
Clay would have to give the reasons for his action, and I wanted to
present the case to him so that he could make up his own mind. The
fact is, he wanted to make up his own mind.
Perhaps I might add that the Simpson Board recommended com-
mutation of 29 cases. Well, General Clay required my office to re-
submit all of the 29 cases and he personally told me to consider first all
non-Malmedy accused, and then to take up the Malmedy accused. H e
further stated he did not want any recommendations from me, be-
cause I had already made one recommendation, and he had another
recommendation fromihe Simpson Board, and he stated illat he would
make up his own mind. As to the 17 non-Malmedy accused, recom-
mended for commutation by Simpson, I made no recommendation, but
I saw him just before the latter part of February, on the Malmedy
cases, a n d we discussed the best way of presenting them to him, and
T asked him did he want me to follow that procedure and not make
recommendations or did he want me to make a recommendation. H e
said : "Well, make a recommendation." So, I made a recommendation.
Mr. CHAMBERS. NOW,in your opinion-and, again, if this question in
the slightest degree is embarrassing a t all, just say so and do not
answer it, but in your opinion did General Clay believe that these
people were guilty bnt that the evidence had either been presented in
such a way, or the procedure was wrong and therefore he felt it proper
to commute a,total of 6 out of the 121
General HARBAUGH. I think he stated in one of his actions that he
agreed with me that the man was guilty but that because of certain
matters revealed in the evidence before him, he thought it mas proper
to commute.
Mr. CHA~~BERS. Was there any doubt in your mind as to the 12 death
cases, that the men were guilty?
General HARBAUGII. NO,sir ;no doubt in my mind as to the guilt of
any of them, no.
Mr. CHAMBERS. How about the one that you recommended for com-
mutation ?
General HARBAUGH. That was Briesemeister, and that was on the
basis of the absence of much corroboration. I mean, there wasn't as
much corroborating evidence in that case as we had in the others, and
when I first recommended the execution I thought he was guilty.
On my reanalysis, I recommended commutation, not because I did
not think he was guilty, but it is hard to explain-between a death
sentence and a life sentence, I mean there is a certain degree of moral
certainty that you must have for a death sentence wheras, on a life
sentence, any evidence beyond a reasonable doubt convinces you ; but
with me, on a death sentence, I had to be morally sure.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Well, now, as I understand the situation, you had
made one earlier recommendation to General Clay on all of these cases?
Mr. CHAMBERS.
see if I have the picture correctly on that:
Let's
You had a group of officers that would analyze the reviews of the
cases that Colonel Straight's office sent up to you, and they were sort
of a staff for yourself, and based on their findings or conclusions, you
mould prepare a full recommendation to General Clay; is that correct?
General HARBAUGH. Perhaps, I could describe it as it actually hap-
pened.
General HARBAUGH.
When I first arrived in April, or took 'over
the duties of staff J. A. in April of 1947, the cases were not coming in
very frequently, and Colonel Mickelwait, in the past., had reviewed
them himself. I mean, he had read the evidence and elther concurred
with Colonel Straight or made some other recommendations. I fol-
91765-49-74
1164 - MALMEDY MASSACRE INVE-STIGATIOX
lowed the same procedure for several months, until I finished with
the Mathausen concentration camp case which involved, I think, forty-
odd accused with maybe 20 or 25 death sentences, and the record con-
sisted of roughly from ten to twenty thousand pages of testimony. I
read that record which took me approximately 6 weeks, working day
and night, and I arrived at the conclusion that I could not do it, that
I monld have to have somebody to assist me. So, as the result of that
experience, I ~ppointedboards of review in my office who had to
certify to me that they had read the record, that ColoneI Straight's
review was correct and contained all the material facts, and if i t
didn't they furnished the additional facts.
Senator BALDWTN. May I interrupt ?
What do you mean by "Colonel Straight's review"? You mean this
document here [indicating] ?
General HARBAUGH. Yes, sir, the review of the deputy judge advocate
for war crimes.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I know that, but is that what might have been called
9 review by the Frankfurt Board? That expression has been used
here in identifying various review boards. I s this the one?
General HARBAUGH. It may be. I don't know whether you referred
to the Frankfurt Board and the adjutant's review board or the W a r
Crimes Board of Review.
Mr. CHAMBERS. ISthe Frankfurt Board the board that prepared the
review for you in the Malmedy matter ?
General HARRAUGH. That is correct. I might explain that.
Originally, I had one board of review in my office, of three officers,
three lawyers. Then, the volume of work became so great that toward
the end I am sure we had five boards and possibly six boards. The
boards functioned directly under Col. Howard Bresee, who was chief
of my review branch, and when a record of trial, together with n
review of the deputy came to my office, it went to Colonel Bresee who
assigned it to one of the boards, and that board rendered a report t o
him, and he rendered the board's report to me together with his
recommendations.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Then, his recommendation was sr separate rec-
ommendation from that made by the deputy judge advocate's office?
General HARBAUGH. The board of review made a separate report,
signed by the members of the board.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Which, however, was not binding upon you finally.
insofar as your final recommendation to General Clay mas concerned?
General HARBAUGH. It was merely advisory to me. As I said be-
fore, I had them appointed because I found i t was physically impossi-

ble for me to personally read all of the records of trial. I
Mr. CHANBERS. I noticed that in the MaImedy case-and we have

this analysis which has been placed in the record previousIy-it indi-
cates that the advisory board, to you in the Malmedy matter, recom-
mended that 27 of the cases be disapproved.
General HARBAUGH. I think that is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
that you felt that a t least in 16 cases they were
But
wrong, because you finally recommended disapproval in only 11 cases
to General Clay.
General HARBAUGIT. I have forgotten the exact number, but when
t.he board's report came to me, I studied and I think I read most of
the statements of the accused and the recommendations that I made
to General Clay reflected my judgment of what I thought was right.
Mr. CHAMBERS. It would appear that the Bresee board or the ad-
visory board there had placed a little more weight on these various
arguments of the defense as to duress and things of that type than
you did, yourself.
General HARBAUGH. Yes, sir, and also they @ve great weight to
the fact that the dead bodies were not found in certain instances.
I n each of those instances I analyzed the evidence and I considered
whether it was probable that it would be possible to discover the dead
bodies under the circumstances, and where 1disagreed with them, I
recommended to General Clay that the convictions be sustained.
Mr. CHAMBERS. General, there has been a great deal of discussion
that perhaps the defense had a little undue weight on this advisory-
board because of the fact that Colonel Dwinell was there in an ad-
visory capacity. Colonel Dwinell testified here that he was assigned,
not to one of these boards b ~ l to
t serve in an advisory capacity to the
board and he further stated that he argued the defense's point of view
on every occasion and as strongly as he could.
I wondered if that might have had some effect on the fact that you
later had to sort of tone down their recommendations and reaffirm
the decision of the earlier court?
General HARBAUGH. Well, I can explain just how that happened.
I did not know that Colonel Dwinell was defense counsel in the Mal-
medy case when he was originally in the office. The Malmedy case-
came in, went to Colonel Bresee, and he had a board set up for them.
H e came to me and said, L'ColonelDwinell is on this board, he was a
defense counsel7', and recommended that we put somebody else on.
Well, it came back to the personnel job. I talked to him for awhile-
and I said, "Who will we put on there?" And he said, "Well, I will
think about it."
I think the same afternoon Colonel Dwinell came in and pointed out
to me how he could not very well be defense counsel and at the same
time sit on the board. I talked to him a t considerable length and, as
a result, relieved him from his official designation on that board.
Nevertheless, he had a vast knowledge of that case, he had been
studying i t with the trial; so I wanted to utilize his knowledge of
that case, or I wanted the board to utilize his knowledge of the case,
so I made him available to the board.
Mr. CHAMBERS. YOUmade him available because of his technicall
knowledge and not as an advocate for the defense ?
General HARBAUGH. I did not know that he was going to argue every
question with the board. The fact is, I do not know what happened
between Colonel Scarborough and Colonel DwineIl or with any other
members of the board. What I received was the report of the board.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I think, perhaps, it would be we11 to read the short
extract from the 'record here to you. When we were talking to Colonel
Dwinell on the stand here, we asked him if he had any contact with
the board of review, and the colonel said, "I certaidy did." He was
asked, "Did you know that while you were worlcing with the board of
review, that you mere working on the Malmedy cases?" And he said,
"I did." And I said, "Did you have anything to do with the prepara-
tion of this report?", and Colonel Dwinell said, "I did not, not to this
extent. The report that I had before me was wr'itten i ~the i main by
Colonel Scarborough, the Review Board, and every day h e and I
discussed the language therein, and wherever I could speak for the
defense I did. Now, I will frankly state so." And I said to him fur-
ther, then, "You would say that the point of view of the defense cer-
tainly had adequate representation before the board of review?" And
he said, "They do. Ver vigorously did I advocate the defense."
d
General HARBAUGH. e did have access to the.board.
Mr. C H A M B ~ Surely.
S.
General HARBAUGH.
And what I wanted was the whole story. I
think Mr. Everett was going to file a petition to the Supreme Court.
I did not want to be surprised on any point.
I never talked to Colonel Dwinell, maybe a couple of times, on the
case. My main connection with the review board was through Colonel
Scarborough, who wrote the review. I did not know, if so, that Colonel
Scarborough went over every sentence with Colonel Dwinell before
he submitted it to me.
Mr. CHAMBERS YOU had no knowledge a t the time that Colonel
Dwinell was going t o assist Colonel Everett in preparing that peti-
tion, did you, General?
General HARBAUGH. NO;I did not know. All I know about that is
later on. after. I think. the case had been acted on bv General Clav. ,I
request Lame in fromZEverettto send Colonel gine ell back toYthe
States to assist him in preparing the petition; and i t came back to
the same old question of personnel, and I thought Colonel Everett
had had more than a year and a half to work on this petition and that
I needed Colonel Dwinell, so I recommended that Colonel Dwinell
not be sent back.
Mr. CHAMBERS. General Harbaugh, having read the trial proceed-
inm. the record of review. and the recommendations of vour advisorv
bo'&d of review, and then subsequently in connection mith this latir
board having the chance to read the Everett petition before the
Supreme Court, do you feel that the allegations made by Everett in
support of his petition were in accord with the record as you knew
them ?
General HARBAUGH. I do not believe the allegations as to physical
violence were supported by any proof. I mean his statements about
mock trials, I think, are more or less accurate. You might find soma
differences. Bnt the best description I saw of the mock trial was
Lieutenant Perl's testimony in the record of trial in connection with
Hennecke.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Insofar as the charges in his petition, concerning
brutality and physical mistreatment of prisoners, from your knowl-
edge was there anything in the record to substantiate those?
General HARBAUGH. I n the record of trial?
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n
the record of trial, or in any of the records you
had seen, any evidence of probative value that would have supported
his petition.
General HARBAUGH. The only things I have seen are these countless
affidavits from the accused and from other people. I mean very
recently-I guess the committee is familiar with Eberle's affidavit
which came in rather recently. That was referred to EUCOM while
I was there.
I do not know if final report has been made. We were endeavoring
to run that down. A t thk time I left we were of the opinion t h z
MALMEDY MASSACRE I~TESTIGATION 1167
Eberle was never at Schwaebisch Hall. I do not know whether any
final report has been made to the committee. R e was down in the
French zone and we were checlring through the French authorities.
Mr. CHAMBERS. General, I would just like to ask your comment on
one other question that has come up here repeatedly. We have had
this rather provocative article which has appeared both in the press
and in this magazine. They end it up with the conclusion that the
American investigators who committed the at ~wcitiesin the name of
American justice and under the American flag are going scot free and
that they should be exposed i n a public process, preferably in the
United States, a~:d prosecuted.
Now, as responsible officer over there for matters of this kind,
particularly the investigative branch, pretrial branch, do you feel
that the facts as you know then1 warrant such a conclusion?
Gene~alRARBAUGH. AS a matter of fact, before I left. why, we were
expecting an inquiry from the newspapers at any tinle as to what we
were going to do with respect to the accusations against the various
interrogzltors, and I had some officers working on that problem. The
only evldence that we had of any misconduct on the part of iaterro-
gators mas these affidavits, and it was a question of whether you
believed them.
We had arrived at no decision, but there was no-as a matter of
fact, we stopped it as soon as we heard that this committee was in-
vestigating it because we lmew you would be able to obtain a great
deal more evidence than we would ever be able to get.
Mr. CEIA~IBERS. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman, except
1 do think we should put in the record just one very brief statement
here by Steiner. I have skipped through his report, and insofar as
this question of brutality and beatings is concerned, Steiner was
asked several times, both by yourself and Colonel Raymond:
Question. Did you ever witness any physical violence being used on these
suspects by the interrogators or by their translators?
Answer. Real physical violence I never witnessed myself. Probably pushing,
something like t h a t ; I wouldn't deny that. I have seen i t tmo or three times.
I don't remember exactly who did it, but I mean what you would probably call
beating u p ; personally I never witnessed anything of t h a t kind.
And there are six or eight answers of a similar vein here which
corroborates completely the statement.
General HARBAUGH. What I ,had i n mind mas the statement that
that was the only testimony of that character we had. I would also
say I used my own judgment. I have been on duty i n a prison for
4 years, and I have also investigated cases, and I know that it is not
m y girls' seminary, and some of Mr. IEirschbaum7s testimony and
Mr. Thon7s did not impress me as being-I do not mean they were
lying, but it was too gentle.
Senator BALDWIN.They gave themselves the benefit of the doubt?
General HARBAUGIT. Yes, sir. I just used my own experience in
the world in general.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But you did not feel that beyond this pushing
around that any of these other charges were substantiated?
General HARBAUGH. That is correct. I did not believe they were
beaten with a view of obtaining confessions from them or that they
were struck.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you believe they were beaten?
1168 MALMEDY MASSACRE IKVESTIGATIOS
General HARBAUGII. NO; I say I do not believe they vere beaten f o r

the purpose of obtaining confessions. There was evidence, I believe,
from Peiper, which may have been true, that some Polish gnard kicked
him in the back side, which might have happened, I do not know, but
that had nothing to do with his confession.
Mr. CHAMBERS. AS a matter of fact, if I remember the record of trial
o n that, that was shortly before they were taken to Dachau.
Senator BALDWIN.The day before, I think he said.
Senator BALDWIN. When I saicl that they gave theniselves the
benefit of the doubt, I mean I was putting words in your mouth. I
did not intend t o do that, General. But what I meant was that, as I
saicl before, i t mas your opinion that in handling the SS troopers,
it is highly improbable that there was not at any time some pushing
.or shoving or maybe some physical force used, but that you did not
find there was any systematic use of physical force in order to obtain
,confessions; is that true?
Senator BALDWIN.I think that is all. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Sutton.
Senator BALDWIN.Hold ~111your right hand. Do you soleinilly
.swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter now in question
shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
Mr. SUTTON. I do, sir.
TESTIMONY OF GRANGER G. SUTTON, WASHINGTON, D. C.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Sutton, mill you give us your full name and
present occupation ?
Mr. SUTTON.Granger G. Sutton, lawyer and printer.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Would you give us some knowledge of your legal
-background, Mr. Sutton?
Mr. SETTON. I graduated from National University in abont 1930
or 1931 with an A. B., and about a year later with a master's degree.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When did you go in the Army?
Mr. SUTTON. November 29, 1940.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did -you go

-
directly into the J A G Corps, or in what
capacity ?
Mr. SUTTON. I have never been detailed or assigned to the J A G
Department, but I have had extensive legal work on &e general courts,
special courts, as well as summary courts.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were you a practicing attorney before you went in
t h e Army ?
Mr. SUTTON. Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. A member of the District bar?
Mr. SU~TON. Member of the District bar and also inember of the
'bar of the State of North Carolina.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe during the war you were assigned to the
W a r Crimes Branch.
Mr. SUTTON. Yes, sir; I was sent over from Vienna, Austria. They
-were in need of lawyers, and they selected abont six of us and sent
a s over to EUCOM. From EUCOM I was assigned over to Wies-
baclen, and very shortly after that, a day or two, went down to Dachau.
Mr. CHAMBERS. You m7sre one of the defense counsel i n the Mal-
medy trials?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Sutton, I wonder if you could tell us i n your
own TI-ordsor give us any coininents i n your own words about the Mal-
medy trials. As yon know, there have been a great many charges
made, both pro and con, in connection with the way the Malmecly trials
were prepared ancl the way they were conductecl, and I thought you
might have some general statements you would care to make, based
on which we might develop further testimony by questioning.
Mr. SUTTON. I was the last of the clefense counsel to be assigned
to the Malmedy case. The special order, which is mentioned i n t h e
writ of habeas corpus filed by Colonel Everett in the Supreme Court
of the United States, is i n error. I mas not the trial judge advocate.
I was one of the defense counsel.
A t the time 1arrived i t mas several days before we could get any
interpreters, and ~711e11we did get interpreters, their German was not
too good and their English was not very good. Some of the inter-
preters assigned to the other defense counsel were very good.
The defense was divided up so that the German defense counsel
had various officers ; all of the higher-ranking officers were represent-
ed by German Counsel.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Were they civilian defense counsels hired by t h e
Germans, or military defense counsels who could speak German who
were assigned to them ?
Mr. SUTTON. There were five German lawyers, and they were paid,
if at all, from other funds than that of the United States Government.
Mr. CHAMBERS. And they pretty generally handlecl the officers; is
that correct ?
Mr. SUTTON. Colonel Dwinell and Mr. Strong also were charged
with responsibility of defending all of the commissioned officers. Mr.
Wahler and then Capt. Ben Narvid were assigned to defend the non-
commissioned officers, and Second Lieutenant Wahler and myself were
detailed t o defend the privates and private, first-class.
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOWmany rivates and privates, first-class, were
1Mr. SUTTON.
P
khere in the group, do you reca 11
Twenty-four.
M r . CHAMBERS. Twenty-four out of seventy-three?
Mr. SUTTON.
And the noncommissionecl officers ran about the same.
I t figured out i t was very well divided i n three ways as to aumbers.
Mr. CIIAMBERS.SOthat this division did give a fairly uniform dis-
tribution of the work load, with the exception of the fact t h a t there
were five additional German attorneys who had been retained by
some of the officers ?
Mr. SUTTON. T h a t is correct.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When you first got d o ~ to n Dachau, did you find
t h a t i t was possible t o get going with the preparation of the ease f o r
defense and did you have adequate time to prepare your defense?
Mr. SUTTON. AS I previously stated, it was some time before me got
any interpreters.
Mr. CHAMBERS. 1wonder if we can pin t h a t down. Do you recall
when you got there? Sometime i n April, I take it.
Mr. SUTTON.Yes ; it was sometime in April. I would say maybe
about the 10th of April, right a]-ound there, I am not ~ o s i t i v eof that
date.
Mr. CI-IABIBI~RS. HOWlong did it take you to get an interrogation
staff that mas adequate to do the job?
Mr. SUITON.Maybe 4 or 5 days, maybe even longer.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did yon feel that you had after you got your in-
terrogators adequate time and adequate Pacilities lo prepare your
case for defense ?
Mr. Sumox. TTTecould have clone a inucli better job if we had had
more time.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. Did the prosecution or the Army authorities gener-
ally assist yon by making facilities available to you or did they per-
haps go the other way and impede your efforts?
General HARBAOGII. I would say that the facilities there were ade-
quate. There was nothing elaborate. Lieutenant Wahler and I had
a room there and, as I stated, we had most of the time two interpreters
there. They could do a little typing, but I did most of the typing
that was done for our group.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I believe it has been testified that shortly after the
defense began to work on this matter, they prepared a questionnaire
which mas circulated to all the accused for the purpose of developing
certain basic data in connection with their own particular part in the
matter. Had that been prepared when you arrived ?
Mr. SUTTON.Xo, sir; that was not prepared until sometime after I
arrived. As a matter of fact, I participated in framing this q~~estion-
mire.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I n the preparation of it ?
Mr. SUTTON.
Yes, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS.When those questionnaires came in, did they turn
over the 24 that were assigned to you or did they keep those in the
central office or how was that handled?
Mr. SUTTCX. My recollection is that they filled them out, and those
of the enlisted men were given to Lieutenant Wahler and myself, and
the others were given to other teams.
Mr. CHAMBERS. That means you had an adequate opportunity to
study those questionnaires and get all the data off them ;is that correct?
Mr. SUTTON. Yes, sir. I will state, though, that those question-
naires did not develop by any nieans what was developed later. These
men seemed to have a kind-they were leery about taking us into their
confidence, notwithstanding the fact that we tried to impress upon
them, and we had to do it frequently, that we were representing them
and that what they told us we were not to divulge to others, except in
the use and defense of themselves and their fellow officers and enlisted
men.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Sutton, when did you first become aware of the
charges being made by the accused concerning this physical mistreat-
ment and violence?
Mr. SUITON. Well, I had statements prepared from each one of the
12. I had 12 of thc oms who actn-lly vere at Malmecly; and from
the time that we gave the questionnaire, that was the beginning
of when we got information about it, and in preparing for the trial
we were requiredfto write down every question and every answer that
MALMEDY MASSACRE. INVESTIGATION 1171
we proposed to put to them, and that involved a considerable amount
of work.
Mr. CHAMBERS. By whose requirement was that; sir?
Mr. SUTTON.The chief defense counsel's requirement.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Colonel

Everett?
Mr. SUTTON.
Yes, sir.
Mr. CHANBERS. GO ahead, sir.
Mr. SUTTON.
I thought it was a very good idea and, of course, if
anything else developed, we could ask additional qnestions, and if
something else was brought out on the stand, then, of course, we could
pursue the points that were brought out. We were not confined to
those questions and answers.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Surely. As I understand the picture, you had direct
responsibility for 12 of this number of privates or privates first class.
Mr. CHAMBERS.
did they in the preparation of the case for
NOW,
trial after you began to get into their confidence a little bit, begin t o
allege physical mishandlings and brutalities in connection with get-
ting their confessions ?
Mr. S m o ~ Yes, . sir; out of the 12 I represented there was some
form of either duress or promises of reward or mistreatment or
threats.
ML CHAMBERS. Can we sort these out, Mr. Sutton, because we have
this matter of promises of reward or immunity, then we have this
matter of threats, and then we have this matter of physical force used
3s duress or for the purpose of getting their confessions.
Included, I presume, in duress mould be many things, but we can
take this matter of physical brutality and mistreatment a i d talk about
that for the moment.
Mr. SUITON. My recollection is there were about four or. five. Now,
the group that I have would be more than likely, they would be most
subjected to bad treatment, if bad treatment was given, and I have
their words for it and also the words of other people questioned there
and those that we questionecl. Those we questioned outside of the
actual accused were also members of that regiment, almost without
exception.
Mr. C H ~ ~ B E R Did
S . you feel these four or five who alleged physical
mistreatment were telling the truth?
Mr. SUTTON. I only have their word for it, and I have nothing else
to say.
Mr. CEL~MBERS. 1am not pinning it down on you; but, as I gather,
you have had some experience in the law and other matters, and here
you have men who have given you a confession. The thing I am
trying to cret is your honest evaluation as to whether or not these people
had beenhaten np and perhaps gone through this rather strenuous
physical mistreatment you have heard discussed here this afternoon
for the purpose of getting their confessions.
Mr. SUITON.These four, I do believe they mere mistreated. I have
no reason to disbelieve their statements.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO you recall any of the particulars of their
charges? Was i t physical beating, knocking out of teeth, was it
kicking in the genitals, or what is the story ?
Mr. S u r r o ~ One,
. I believe, said he was kicked, and two or three
said they were hit by either interpreters-one or two said they mere
hit by Polish guards.
Now, at Schwabisch Hall-

Mr. CHAMBERS. Excuse me, sir. You said, "interpreters" and
"Polish guards." How about interrogcators ?
Mr. STITON. When I said "interpreters", I meant "interrogators,"
the teams that worked with them in getting statements.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Yes. Did they mention any particular names or
an particular individnals 2
%r. S u m . We had a photograph there of the Army team-that
is, there were in my recollection ten or twelve, and included among
those were Colonel Ellis, Captain Shumacker, Mr. Thon, Mr. Perl-
Mr. CHAMPERS. Mr. Ellowitz ?
Mr. SUTTON. Ellowitz was on there. There was a lieutenant there,
promoted to captain just before he left.
Senator BALDWIN. mshumacker ?
Mr. SUTTON. NO, sir. H e participated as assistant trial judge ad-
vocate. They pointed out three or four of these as people who had
been mistreated. I am quite sure Colonel Ellis was not involved, nor
was this young lieutenant I mentioned. My recollection is that Ello-
witz and Perl and Thon were the ones they centered on.
Senator BALDWIN.What did they say they did?
Mr. SUTTON. Just pushed them around, hit them or kicked them.
Senator BALDWIN.Did they say they had knocked out any of their
teeth ?
Mr. SUTTON. NO, sir, Senator, the only thing I recall about anyone
getting teeth knocked out was a statement by one other than the
accused, and this thing about being kicked in the genitals, I do not
recall whether it was one of the accused or not.
Senator BALDWIN. There was one case you remember, though, Mr.
Sutton, of a boy, some one of them being kicked in the'genitals ?
Senator BALDWIN. DOyou know by whom?
Mr. SUTTOX.No, sir, I do not recall that. I can say this, though:
That frequently when we could get an opening on the stand, when the
prosecution would put a witness on, if the prosecution would open the
door, frequently we could get evidence in of mistreatment of the ac-
cused as well as others by the teams.
Senator BALDWIN. You say there one case of a man who had teeth
knocked out but he was not one of the accused ?
Mr. STJTTON. My recollection is that he was not one of the accused.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUsay there was another one of the enlisted
men that you defended-that is, the privates or privates first class-
another one who claimed he had been kicked in the genitals?
Mr. SUTTON.I am not positive whether it was one of the accused or
one of the others. I believe it was one of the accused. It has been
sometime ago.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUdo not recall positively?
Mr. SUTTON. Not positively.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When these charges came in, I believe you were
conferring with the other defense counsel on this matter, and they had
similar complaints from their people ; is that correct ?
Mr. SUTTON.Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, the way i t worked out
after the trial, we wrote up the petition for review and in that petition
we covered the record thoroughly, pointing out the deficiencies in it.
as much as we conld and analysed the evidence and, in addition to that,
there were quite a few statements, I believe, attached to that petition
that went on up to the higher headquarters, which is EUCOM.
Mr. CHAMBERS. HOWdo you account for the fact, Mr. Sutton, that
it was not until some 2 years later that we suddenly got this flood of
.
affidavits, the majority of which allege most serions things, and I mould
say that a great number of them allege kicking in the genitals and
beatings-they are just uniform throughout all of them-and their
being kept on short rations, and I think about 10 or 15 in this group
who charged that the only drinking water they could get was drinking
from the toilets in their cells, and very exaggerated things.
Were stories like that told yon when you were preparing the cases
for the trial ?
Mr. SUTTON.AS I stated, there was evidence of promises and threats
and some violence.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Have you had an opportunity to read the affidavits
that supported Everett's petition for habeas corpus ?
Mr. SUTTON.NO, sir; I have not. I have not had an opportunity
to read them all. There were a few prepared while I was still at
Dachau.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Can you remember the name of any one or two of
the people you defended?
Mr. SUTTON.Oh, yes. I have got a sheet here.
Senator BALDWIN.Will you read their names off?
Mr. SUTTON.I am not sure whether I can give them all or not.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Just one or two.
Mr. SUTTON.
Marcel Boltz is the first one.
Mr. CHAMBERS. He was released to the French zone. Can we have
somebody else ?
Mr. SUTTON. Eckman is the next one; Fritz Eckman.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Another?

Mr. SUTTON.
Georg Fleps.
Mr. CHAMBERS. DO
you remember, by any chance-
Senator BALDWIN.Let's get him to read off those he represented
as well as he can remember.
Mr. SUTTON. YOUmust remember, Senator, it has been a long time
since I have seen this list, and i t is a little difficult.
Senator BALDWIN.DOthe best you can with it.
Mr. SUTTON. I think Gebauer.
Senator BALDWIN.I think they have their ratings in this report
here.
Mr. SUTTON. I f I could see a copy of that-Fritz Eckman, Rolf
Ritzer, Georg Fleps, Wolfgang Richter, Heinz Friedricks, Fritz Ge-
bauer, Joachim Hofmann, Siegfried Jakel, Friedel Kies, Springer-
I do not see his name on here-Johann Wassenberger.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did you get your 122
Mr. SUTTON.
That is the best I can remember.
aenator BALDWIN.DO you remember which were the four that
alleged brutalities, physical beatings of any kind?
Mr. SUTTON.NO,sir; I do not recall that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did anybody ever say they had been beaten with a
club, for instance, beaten to the ground, knocked unconscious?
Mr. SUTTON. There were statements to that effect from some of t.he
men, but I do not recall just who they were.
11'74 MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Mr. CHAMBERS. It is down to the point, however, where there were

about four of the group who alleged physical mistreatment?
Mr. S u r ~ o w .I would say four or five alleged physical mistreatment.
Mr. C H A ~ ~ B EWe R S .will take a look at a couple of these affidavits
here. Here is the affidavit of Eclmann. I am going to take the liberty
of just pulling extracts from it about physical brutality. He said :
I had my first interrogation on December 18. Those present were Perl, Ello-
witz, and a n interpreter. I was told by Perl I would be executed the next morning
H e thereupon asked me if I wanted to talk to a priest. I was then taken into
the death cell. I was fully convinced of it. O n January 7 , I was interrogated
by the prosecutor, Ellowitz. I was beaten in the face by the interpreter, and
my head was beaten against the wall. When I did not say anything, Mr. Ello-
witz turned away and nodded to the interpreter, whereupon he beat me with
his fists in the face again. I then fell to the ground.
Following this, I had t o stand a t attention against a wall when the interpreter
said, "I am told that yon a r e a hard nut to crack, but I'll soften yon up." I
received some more slappings and fists in the face and then they left the cell.
I then once again was taken into a death cell and w a s kept for 14 days. The
windows were open day and night; there were no blankets and mattresses a t all.
I had to lie on the wooden bed day and night. There was no sleeping due t o
the cold.
On about February Mr. Thon and Mr. Perl came to my cell and wanted me t o
make a statement. Mr. Thon then beat me in the face with his fists till I fell
to the ground. Then they left the cell. I was supposed to be taken t o Klein-
Ursel to be executed. When I was standing in the hallway, I was beaten with
a club, but I cannot say by whom because I was always wearing a hood.
Whenever we wanted a drink of water, we had to drink it out of t h e toilet-
and so on.
Now, were statements like that made to you by Eckmann or can you
recall ?
Mr. SUTTQN.I cannot recall that Eckmann made a statement, but
that is typical of a t least five who made statements of that kind, a t least
five.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Who was the next one, Fleps?
Mr. SUTTON.George Fleps ; yes, sir.
Mr. CHA~IBERS. Fleps said that Perl kicked his legs-he says :
Per1 kicked my legs and shouted for me to undress my upper body-
talking about L i e ~ ~ t e n aPerl.
nt
I was then led by Perl to the death cell but was returned right away to t h e inter-
rogation cell where I was beaten from the back with a club by a guard.
That is Fleps.
Mr. SUTTON.Yes, sir. Fleps mts the one that was alleged to have
fired the first shot there a t Malmedy.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Do you recall Fleps making charges of physical
mistreatment ?
Mr. SUTTON. 1will be frank, I do not have definite recollection of
the statements they made, but that is the tone of the statement, that
at least five made. and when I gave the figure "5" I was conservative.
Senator BALDWIN.I n other words, your best recollection of i t now
is that, conservatively estimated, five of these privates and privates
first class that you represented made statements sort of in the nature
along the lines of those contained in the affidavits about their treat-
ment at Schwaebisch Hall?
Mr. SUTTON. There were a least five who testified as to physical vio-
lence in obtaining confessions, and there were about six others testified
about threats of withholding rations and also promises that they would
be given lighter sentences if they would confess and also that they
were not interested in prosecuting the small fry; they wanted to get
their officers.
As a matter of fact, they kind of led them to believe that they were
not going to get any punishnlent if they mould just talk, and one of
them did talk, namely, Springer, to the extent of his first statement
consisting of around 14 or 16 pages, legal-sized paper, single-spaced.
His secoilcl statement was almost as long, and then, in addition to that,
he had two or three additional short statements.
Now, the question has been asked here : Why dicl we not put them
on the stand and bring out the fact that there were threats and duress
and promises of reward?
The reason was this: That it mas talked over with the law member
of the court as well as the prosecution, Colonel Ellis, and they said,
both of them, if they were put on the stand for any purpose that would
open the door for any question the prosecution or the court wanted
to ask; and we figured it would be better not to put them on the stand
with that in our face.
I only put one man on the stand, and that was Marcel Boltz, and the
way he got out of it was this: That he happened to be an Alsatian,
the Germans came along and picked him up like that-they had a lot
of other people in that part of the country-put him in the army; he
did not have any choice?just like some of the others there. H e did
not have any choice of bemg in this SS outfit.
There was a lawyer who came clown from Paris to talk to us about
that. He was there 3 days, and I let him have all the information I
had. He was a graduate of Harvard Law School, a Frenchman. I
told him when he first started talking about it that the only thing he
could do, in my opinion, was to get in touch with our State Depart-
ment and have the French authorities get him out of there.
Presumably that is what happened, because after he took the stand,
just about 2 days later, a telegram came from EUCOM dropping him
from the case. I do not know where he went from there.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Sutton, you say that the reason you all did not
put them on the stand to give them a chance to tell about duress, physi-
cal force, and what not, was because you were afraid you would open
up a line of questions about other matters which might condemn them
becanse they had been associated with other units or other activities
which would prejudice their case; is that correct?
Mr. SUTTON. Well, of course, the way I understand the law is that
you can put a man on the stand and he can testify about things that are
not pertaining to the issue.
For instance, in your courts martial, you can put an accused on the
stand and, assuming that he is being tried on five specifications, he can
testify about one, and the prosecution is not permitted to ask him
questions about the others.
H e can get up there on the stand and testify about his good con-
duct, what a good soldier he is, and have other people testify to this
effect, what campaigns he has been in, the duties he has performed,
length of service, and things of that kind, and he cannot be questioned
about the specifications.
But that departure was taken along with other departures, not only
in procedures, but, I believe, in the findings of some of the courts-and
I speak advisedly because I was a member of many a court down there.
Right here, this is the law that worked over there. It is taken from
the handbook :
Rules of Evidence a n d Procedure : A, Ordnance No. 3 of Military Government,
which ordnance is incorporated iu the Technical Manual for Legal and Prison
Officers, second edition. rule 3, ordnance 3, evidence: A military government
court shall in general admit oral, written, and physical evidence having a bearing
on the issues before i t a n d may exclude any evidence which in i t s opinion is of no
value in proof. If security is a t stake, evidence can be taken in camera, or i n
exceptional cases where security demands, it may be excluded altogether.
2. The court shall in general require the production of the best evidence avail-
able .
3. Evidence of bad character of t h e accused shall be admissible for finding
only when the accused has introduced evidence a s to his own good character or a s
to the bad character of any witnesses for the prosecution.
B, Guide to Procedure: Military government courts may waive requirements
from the guide to procedure. Evidence: Rule 12 does not incorporate the rules
of evidence of the British or American courts or the courts martial.
I n other words, Senator, they made their own rules over there.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Mr. Sutton, did they make the rules-not to beggar
this point, but it has been one which has been discussed a t great
length by both sides-you were operating under a set of rules for the
conduct of these military courts and commissioi~s,which originally,
as I understand it, were prepared by S H A E F , and when S H A E F
went out of business, a manual which was substantially the same was
prepared and came out, and insofar as the rules of evidence were con-
cerned, they pretty much followed the continental system in that they
would admit any evidence that had probative value to a reasonable
man, which is entirely different from our common law rules of evi-
dence ;is that correct ?
Mr. SUTTON. I have never practiced i n Europe except in military
government courts and courts martial cases, but I did talk with Ger-
man lawyers in regard to the matter, and they say they have no pro-
cedure that compares with our type of procedure. That is, the type
that was conducted over there in these cases. Now, continuing here:
The only positive rules binding upon the military government courts a r e found
in rule 12 ( 3 ) , rule 17 (11, rule 10 ( 5 ) , hearsay evidence, inclucling the state-
ment of a witness not produced i s thus admissible, but if the matter is important
and controverted, every effort should be made to obtain presence of the witness,
and a n adjournment may be had for that purpose. The guiding principle is to
admit only evidence t h a t will aid in determining the truth.
On that hearsay evidence, let me tell you an instance. This is in
the record. After beating this fellow clown, wearing him dowil-
and, undoubtedly, a man getting in that frame of mind was not treated
with kid gloves-he committed suicide, and, Senator, the court ad-
mitted that statement, unfinished statement, not signed, admitted it
in evidence. Now, they do not bother about admitting hearsay only,
they will even get secondary hearsay, and, I believe, the record mill
show some of that is in. I h o w they even got tertiary hearsay in
some of the other cases because I was a member of a court when such
evidence was presented.
Senator BALDWIN. I n the Malinedy cases ?
Mr. SUTTON.
I n regard to this fellow's statement who committed
suicide, which was in the Malmecly case.
Senator BALDWIN. Were the others you referred to in the Malinedy
cases ?
Mr. SUTTON. Quite a bit of hearsay was admitted, even in the Mal-
medy cases, and in other cases secondary and even. third-hand infor-
mation was put in. As a matter of fact, in one of the cases a clipping
from one of the magazines in the United States was entered in evidence.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This is a case you have reference to, the Freimuth
case ?
Mr. SUTTON. Freimuth was the man who committed suicide.
Mr. CIIAMBERS. And he had been in process of preparing a rather
lengthy statement which he had not had an opportunity to sign and
in which he implicated other accused, which was admitted in evidence
against those accused ;is not that correct?
Mr. SITITON.That is correct; and, incidentally, his statement in-
volved one man, I think his name was Rau, and that was the only
scintilla of evidence in that entire case involving Rau, if I remember
correctly. The record would show and I believe that is,a correct state-
ment.
Mr. CHAMBERS. The record of review prepared by the Deputy Judge
Advocate's office says about the Rau case-there were two crimes,
individual crimes charged against him-and it says :
The accused was in Cheneux from 1800 to 1900 hours December 18, 1944,
and saw 30 to 40 American prisoners of war with their hands clasped behind
their heads standing directly in front of a house. Reiher had a conference
with the accused's group leader, who returned to the vehicle and stated, "These
prisoners of war will have to be bumped off." The group leader, Sergeant Weilfer,
then gave t h e order to fire, and t h e accused shot down three prisoners. H e then
fired a t two Americans who mere lying on the ground writhing i n pain. This is
corroborated by the extra judicial sworn statement of Gebauer.
Mr. SUTTON.There are two Raus in the case.
Mr. CHAMBERS. This was Fritz Rau.
Mr. SUTTON. It must have been the other Rau.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Was

it Theodore Rauh?
Mr. SUTTON.Yes, sir; I think so.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I might say in there that, without reading the whole
thing, in the case of Theodore Rauh, I notice that at La GTeize-he
was mixed up with Freimuth, all right-but i t says :
The accused shot a t the back of the head of one prisoner ancl saw him fall
forward dead. This instance is corroborated by the extrajudicial sworn state-
ment of Seigmund and the pretrial nilsworn and unsigned statement of Freimuth.
So that there was corroboration over and beyond Preimuth's state-
ment.
Senator BALDWIN.What was the disposition of the case?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Found guilty, sentenced to death by hanging, recom-
mendation that it be commuted to life imprisonment.
I mi ht say also on this Ranh case that there was another instance
8
where tock in his extrajndicial sworn statement says that he saw the
shooting of six to eight prisoners of war and that the accused was one
of those who participated in the shooting. Now, his sentence was
finally approved for life. There was more evidence than just Frei-
mnth in that case.
Mr. SUTTON. My recollection was-
Mr. CHAMBERS. That is all right. May I ask this : Coming back to
the point of putting the accused on the stand, because this has puzzled
us, you state that the reason you did not think they should be put on
the stand was due to the fact that they would open themselves up to
any line of questioning that should be directed toward them.
Mr. STSTTON. I said the reason for it was because the chief prosecu-
tor, Colonel Ellis,'and also Colonel Rosenfeld, stated if they were put
on the stand they could be asked any question by the prosecution or by
the court.
Senator BALDWIN.Your point was, evidently, " , that was the rule
under which the trial was behg conducted.
-

Senator B.'~.T)wIN.That is a different rule than yon have in an ordi-
narv court the United States. A man can take the witness stand
in ;criminal trial and testify, for example, as to his moral character,
and what his business had been, et cetera. He can testify as to the
fact that he was somewhere else. H e can prove an alibi or something
of that kind.
Mr. STSTTON. I believe there is a division of authority on that, but
the way the authority is :I f a person gets on the stand to testify about
one particular defense, his cross-examination is limited to that.
Mr. CHAMBERS. When Colonel Dwinell was here he testified that
after the prosecution has rested its case he, himself, wanted to rest.
H e did not want the defense to put on anything; he did not believe a
prima facie case had been made by the prosecution, and there was
considerable discussion among the accused, the German lawyers and
the balance of the defense staff, and he says :
Well, then, we had a lot of bickering. I n fact, not only did we have i t with
them but particularly with the German lawyers. The German lawyers wanted
to go ahead and put the whole 74 accused on the stand.
Well, i t was voted-we decided, as long as 1 accused out of the 74 insisted on
taking the stand, we would have to go aloilg wit11 them and let them all take the
stand. Consequently, when we came back and opened up our case we started
off with Hennecke, Tomhardt, and one other fellow, and then we began to notice,
like a bunch of drowning rats, they were turning on each other and they were
scared, and, like drowning men clutching a t straws, they would say, "No, I was
not a t the crossroads; I am certain I was not, but So-and-so was there"; trying
to get the ball over into his yard. SO,we calIed a halt.
Senator BALDWIN.Whose testimony is this?
Mr. CHAMBERS. Dwinell's. Then a little further along, still dis-
cussing the same problem, Dwinell says in response to a question from
me-apparently this was sound from the standpoint of the defense:
That is right; but suppose my client gets on the stand, in other words, to save
his neck, and lies and hangs the coaccused, and that was being done in my
opinion. * * *
And then further on Dwinell says, talking abo'ut Marcel Boltz, the
client you just referred to, one of your cases-he had previously men-
tioned Christ and some of the others as having been lying, then he
said in response to a question from me as follows :
Mr. CHAMBERS. When you began to get some of the enlisted men and some of
the officers I presume they began to point the finger a t another accused.
Colonel DWINELL.That is right. As a matter of fact, the best illustration of
t h a t is our good friend, the one who was taken out of the trial, Marcel Boltz,
who insisted on taking the stand more a t the German lawyers' insistence than
his, and we had some bitter words over that. H e took the stand, and pointed
the finger a t several people, and then h e was taken out of the trial and sent up
to France, a s I recall it, and I understand he was acquitted. * * *
Dwinell went on to say :
But the members of the accused, in the group, were so bitter about him because
a s soon a s that trial day was over they all could not wa'it to tell us how he had
been lying, so, they said, to clear his own skirts.
So, I said that there will be no more of that. Each individual accused has his
own interest, but I have the interests of the entire accused, and t h a t was the
theory under which we operated.
He further testified they decided not to' put any more on the stand.
I f these people were taking the stand and lying a t that time, were they
still lying or were they telling the truth when they prepared these
affidavits charging brutalities? That is pretty much the problem we
aTe up agamst.
Mr. SUTTON.Colonel, that is so much a question of conjecture I do
not think anyone can answer it. I think they were pretty honest with
me, the ones I handled. I think they were telling me the truth. Mar-
cel Boltz was about the only one, I am sure he was the only one, that
did not testify to some form of duress or promises or threats, and he
had quite an argument on the stand.
He disputed the testimony, the method in which the statement was
taken. I think Shumacker and Colonel Ellis mere in the office there
when they took the statement, and 'Boltz was on the stand and very
vehemently in the office denied that he made a part of that statement.
That is, the wording, according to Boltz, mas changed. Now, Colonel
Ellis does not speak German-that is, not fluently.
Mr. CHAMBERS. He does not speak it.
Mr. SUTTON.Shumacker does. Well, who would the court believe
under those circumstances? I think Shumacker was put on the stand
to rebut it, if I remember right.
On this thing of putting people on the stand-as a matter of fact,
I advocated not putting one on the stand, and I do not think the record
would have been sufficient to convict any of them according to Ameri-
can rules of jurisprudence.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Did any of the people you handled take the stand?
Mr. S ~ T O NH .e was the only one and did it against my advice.
Mr. CHAMBERS. I notice that in the record. As I see the picture,
you believe from your association with these 12, a t least, that they
were telling you the truth about these physical mistreatments.
Mr. S ~ T O N1.do.
Mr. CHAMBERS. But that it is correct to say, and it is a fair state-
ment, that it was all hearsay with you and based on stories that they,
the accused, told yon. You saw no evidence of it, no bruises or any-
thing of the kind which vould indicate that they had been beaten
around.
Mr. SUTTON. No, sir; I did not see any bruises on them. You must
recall it was several months after the investigating teams, interro-
gating teams, had interviewed them, and if there had been any physical
damage done to them, undoubtedly it would have been cured by that
time.
Senator BALDWIN.Are you practicing law now?
Mr. S ~ O N NO;. I am not right now.
Senator BALDWIN.YOUare in business?
Mr. S ~ O N I am
.
working a t the Government Printing Office right
now, sir.
Mr. CHAMBERS. Have you had an opportunity to read or study Col-
onel Everett's petition before the Supreme Court?
Mr. S ~ T O NI .read it over once or twice. I have it in front of
me now.
91765-49-75
1180 MALMEDY iMASSACRE INVESTIGATION
Mr. CIIAMRERS.YOUhave had a n opportunity to read it but not

necessarily in detail. Do you agree with the statements made by
Everett charging physical mistreatn~enti n there and brutalities t o
the degree that he has charged?
Mr. SUTTON. I think my testimony is that there was some brutality
and that is as f a r as I would c u e to go. A s a matter of fact, I have
not tried to cover it all. I clo not h a r e any particular interest in it
except to answer the.questions according to my best recollection; and
if I have leaned one way, i t certainly has been leaning toward the
Government.
Mr. CHAMBERS. May I read one brief statement, which is not in
Everett's ~ e t i t i o nit
. was in a thoronghlv discredited news account, but
it was on6 of the 'most i n f l a m m a t o r ~~ ~ t e m e n tto
s . the effect t l k t all
but 2 of the 139 accused had beenukicked i n tlle genitals until they
were ruined f o r life and that this was standard operating procedure
with American investigators.
Mr. STITON.T h a t is exaggerated. I do not think that coulcl be
substantiated.
Mr. CHANBERS.I have 110 further questions.
Senator BALDWIN.Thank you very much for coining, sir.
(Whereupon, the subcommittee adjourned.)
APPENDIX
Exhibit -4. Petition filed in the Supreme Court of the United States by Willis M.
Everett, Jr., on behalf of Valentin Bersin and others.
Exhibit E. Copy of brief and supporting documents filed by Dr. Eugene Leer
has been omitted from the printed record because of its great bulk and ordered
placed on file in the offices of the Armed Services Committee.
Exhibit C. Copy of memorandum to Secretary of the Army dated 14 September
1948, from Col. Gordon Simpson, JAGD, Col. Edward L. Van Roden, JAGD
and Lt. Col. Clarence W. Lawrence, Jr., JADG (Simpson Commissior~)render-
h g their opinions and recommendations on the w a r crimes trials held a t
Dachau, Germany.
Exhibit D. Final Report of Proceedings of Administration of Justice Review
Board, 14 February 1949.
Exhibit
- E. Excernt from Preface of Technical Manual for Legal - and Prison
o k c e r s ( % edition).
Exhibit F. Rules of Procedure in Military Government Courts (excerpt beginning
on p. 33 and ending p. 48).
Affidavit with six exhibits of Lt. Col. Burton F. Ellis, JAGD.
Letter to Senator Raymond E. Baldwin dated May 24, 1949, from Lt. Col. F. W.
Carstens.
Letter to Lt. Col. Burton F. Ellis, dated May 29, 1949, from Judge Gordon S i m p
son, chairman of the Simpson Commission.
Letter to Senator Raymond E. Baldwin, dated June 21, 1949, from Mr. Louba
Schirman, of Paris, France, together with affidavit concerning his knowledge of
conditions a t Schwaebisch Hall.
Letter to Armed Services Committee, dated August 1, 1949, from Mr. Morris W.
Kolander.
Letter to Armed Services Committee, dated August 3, 1949, from Mr. Frederick
K. Baer.
I n t h e Supreme Court of the United States. Willis 31. Everett, Jr., on behalf
of Varentin Bersin, et al, Petitioner, v. Harry S. Truman, Commander in Chief
of the Armed Forces of t h e United States, and James V. Forrestal, Secretary of
Defense of the United States, and Kenneth C. Royall, Secretary of t h e Army
of the United States, and General Omar N. Bradley, Chief of Staff of the Army
of the United States, and Thomas C. Clark, Attorney General of t h e United
States, Respondents. Habeas Corpus No. -
PETITION F O R WRIT O F HABEAS CORPUS
To the Honorable Fred M. T7inson, Chief Justice of said Court and t7~eHonorable
Associate Justices thereof:
This petition of Willis M. Everett, Jr., on behalf of Valentine Bersin, Friedel
Bode, Willi Braun, K u r t Briesemeister, Willi Von Chamier, Friedrich Christ,
Eoman Clotten, Manfred Coblenz, Josef Diefenthal, Joseph (Sepp) Dietrich,
Fritz Eckmann, Erncit Fischer, George Fleps, Heiaz Freidrichs, Fritz Gebaner,
Heinz Gerharcl, Goclicke, Ernst Goldschmidt, Hans Gruhle, Max Hammerer,
Armin Hecht, Willi Heinz, Hendel, Hans Hennecke, Hans Hillig, einz Hofmann,
Joachim Rofman, Hubert Huber, Siegfried Jakel, Benoni Junker, Friedel IGes,
Gustav Knittel, George Kotzur, Fritz IZraemer, Werner IZuhn, Oskar Klingel-
hoefer, Erich Maute, Arnold Mikolaschek, Anton Motzheim, Erich Munkemer,
Gustav Neve, Paul Hermann Ochmann, Joachim Peiper, Hans Pletz, Georg '
Prens, Herlnann Priess, Fritz Rau, Theo Rauh, Heinz Rehagel, Rolf Roland
Reiser, Wolfgang Richter, Max Rieder, Rolf Ritzer, Axel Rodenburg, Erich
Rumpf, Willi Schaefer, Rudolph Schwambach, Kurt Sickrl, Oswald Siegmund,
Franz Sierer, Hans Siptrett, Gustav Adolf Sprenger, Werner Sternebeck, Heinz
Stickel, Herbert Stock, Erwin Szyperski, Edmund Tomczak, Heinz Tomhardt,
1181
August Tonk, Hans Trettin, Johann Wasenberger, Gunther Weiss, Erich Werner,
Otto Wichmann, and Paul Zwigart, most respectfully shows unto this Honorable
Court a s follows :
1. T h a t petitioner, Willis M'. Everett, Jr., is a n Attorney and Counsellor a t Law
of Atlanta, Georgia, but from September 1, 1940, t o June 15, 1947, was a n officer
i n the United States Army. I n May 1946 while serving under the Commanding
General, United States Forces, European Theater, your petitioner was directed
by him to serve a s Chief Defense Counsel for each of the above-named parties who
will hereinafter be referred to a s parties plaintiff or accused. Petitioner is unable
to secure the verification by individuals named a s plaintiffs due to the lack of
time and the facts hereinafter set forth. Petitioner h a s continued to act a s
Chief Dzfense Counsel for plaintiffs herein and they have full knowledge, coupled
with a request, t h a t this petition i s being brought by petitioner on their behalf
to this Honorable Court.
2. That each plaintiff named herein was a n enemy soldier who unconditionally
surrendered to the Army of the United States of America. Further, each plaintiff
i s a citizen and national of Germany. Each plaintiff is presently unjustly and
unlawfully detained and imprisoned a t a United States Army Penitentiary a t
Lanclsberg, Germany, or a Penitentiary operated under the Commanding General,
European Command, a t Landsberg, Germany. Each plaintiff i s being illegally
restrained thereat a s a result of the verdict and sentences of a certain General
Military Goverment Court a t Dachau, Germany, on July 16, 1946
. 3. The respondent, Harry S. Truman, is Commander i n Chief of the Armed
Forces of the United States of America. I n his capacity a s Commander i n Chief
h e has custody and control of each plaintiff herein.
4. The respondent, James V. Porrestal, i s the Secretary to the President of the
United States of America i n charge of all Defense, including the Department of
the Army, who also has custody and control of each plaintiff herein.
5. The respondent, Kenneth C. Royall, is t h e Secretary of the Army under the
Secretary of Defense and is directly responsible for the Department of the Army.
I n his capacity he has custody and control of each plaintiff herein.
6. The respondent, General Omar N. Bradley, i s t h e Chief of Staff of the Army,
Department of the Army, who was selected by the President of the United States,
and has supervision of all troops of the line and i n this capacity h a s custody and
control of each plaintiff herein.
7. The respondent, Thomas C. Clark, is the Attorney General of t h e United
States of America and i n his capacity a s Attorney General i s t h e Chief Prosecu-
tor for t h e United States of America and t h e proper person upon whom service
shall be perfected under existing laws.
8. Petitioner alleges with certainty t h a t the trial before t h e General Military
Government Court a t Dachau, Germany, lxreinafter referred to a s the W a r
Crimes Trial or Malmedy Trial, was utterly void because of the facts hereinafter
set out and especially f o r the reasons that:
( a ) No defense was possible d ~ i eto the short period of time, less than t,wo
weeks, to prepare the defense for the 74 accused, and
( b ) The unfamiliar and arduous task of communicating through idexperienced
interpreters-as well a s a lack of assigned stenographers and interpreters so
hampered the Defense Staff that it was not even physically possible to interrogate
all of the accused, much less plan a defense, prior to the forced commencement of
t h e trial, and
(c) The entire plan of this forced trial was calculated to make t h e whole
defense impossible by not allowing time to procure and interview witnesses.
Upon assignment a s Chief Defense Counsel petitioner was assured by various
responsible Officers of the United States Army t h a t these 74 accused would be
given a fair trial, but the entire trial was totally lacking i n due process a s known
in the courts of t h e United States of America, Great Britain, France, Italy,
Belgium, Netherlands, and other Nations.
9. Plaintiffs were of varying ranks from Generaloberst (General) t o Sturmman
( P r i r a t e ) with varying length of service in the German Army but each plaintiff
was i n the German Army until the Commanding General, United States Forces,
European Theater did, on or about May 9, 1946, purportedly discharge all of
plaintiffs from t h e German Army, thus attempting to end their Prisoner of War
status. Copy of said original carrier note requesting and confirming such dis-
charge is hereto attached, marked "Exhibit A", and made a part of this petition.
10. Plaintiffs were, under the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war after sur-
render and apprehension by the United States Army until they were discharged a s
MALMEDT MASSACRE I~~TESTIGATION 1183
aforesaid. However, their status probably changed to that of a n accused war
criminal on April 11, 1946, when they were first served with notice that they were
being charged with war crimes. Copy of said charge sheet, less the German
translation, is hereto attached, marked "Exhibit B," and made a part of this
petition.
11. Plaintiffs had been illegally and forefully incarcerated in Schwabisch
Hall, Germany, a German Penitentiary the equivalent of one of our United States
Federal Penitentiaries and used by the United States Army a s a n Interrogation
Prison, for varying lengths of time but generally in excess of ten (10) months
prior to being served with charges of W a r Crimes a s set forth i n Paragraph 1 0
above. There were approximately 500 other German soldiers, suspected war
criminals, also confined thereat. With few exceptions, each was placed i n
solitary confinement throughout this .period. That the said Schwabisch Hall
was exclusirely under the control of and used by the United States Army for a l l
suspects in the Malmedy Case. One Lt. Col. Burton I?. Ellis JAGD United States
Army was t h e senior officer thereat and responsible for the abuse and mistreat-
ment of plaintiffs herein a t said penitentiary.
12. The forced and illegal detention of plaintiffs a s aforesaid was i n violation
of the Geneva Convention which provides t h a t prisoners of war must be
humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence and insults.
They should be equally treated. No coercion may be used on them t o secure
information, and under no circumstances will they be threatened, insulted, o r
exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind whaterer.
They a r e entitled t o have their honor and person respected. They must have
sanitation, open air, and exercise. Under all circumstances, prisoners of w a r
a r e subject to the laws i n force of the detaining power. Attention is invited t o
Exhibit C.
13. As illustrative of these violations of International Agreements, t h e Ameri-
can Prosecution Team i n Schwabisch Hall, Germany, would place a helmet hood
completely over the head of individual plaintiffs herein, then usually a beating
would be administered, after which they would be forced into a completely dark
cell which was their "trial" room. The hood was removed and each plaintiff
would see before him a long table, draped with black cloth touching the floor,
with candles burning a t both ends of the table and a crucifix in the center. Sit-
ting behind this table were varying numbers of American civilians, members of
t h e Prosecution Team, who were wearing illegally the Uniform and Rank of
United States Army Officers. A mock defense counsel, usually a n Officer of the
United States Army on the Prosecution Team, was furnished these youthful
German soldiers, who, although he was not a n Attorney, held himself out to t h e
plaintiffs herein a s their defense counsel. They were informed or led to believe
t h a t they were being tried by the Americans for violations of International Law.
At the other end of the table would be the Prosecutor who wonld read the charges.
yell and scream a t these 18- and 20-year-old plaintiffs and attempt to force con-
fessions from them. If this method of threats failed to force desired false
confessions from those plaintiffs, the mock trials would proceed by bringing i n
one false witness after another against them, "proving" beyond a doubt by false-
hoods t h a t these plaintiffs were guilty of many war crimes. During the entire
mock trials these purported defense counsels were making a sham and pretest
of defending them. At the end of these illegal trials conducted in the name of
the United States of America, these guileful defense attorneys would pretend
to make a plea to this purported Army Conrt for mercy. Upon concuslon, these
sham courts wonld render death penalties within 24 t o 48 hours by hanging.
Thereupon said false defense attorney would' express his sympathy, stating
t h a t he had done the best he could for these various plaintiffs. After these
mock trials, the pretended defense attorney would attempt t o and was in a
majority of instances successful in coercing these plaintiffs to sign false and
void confessions, admitting any and all charges brought against them, because, a s
this false defense counsel would i n effect say, "You will be hanged in 24 hours
anyway, so why not absolve someone else by taking t h e blame and writing out
this confession I will dictate to yon." Many variations and modifications were
made i n the conducting of these mock trials which appeared entirely regular to
these plaintiffs a s they were devoid of any knowledge of the American Army
Courts Martial System or War Crimes Trials. There were 74 defendants, and
there were 74 Prosecution-dictated statements. All of t h e above-described acts,
deceits, and chicanery of American Justice were performed by United States
civilians, under Army jurisdiction, and by Officers of t h e United States Army or
executed under their immediate supervision and control.
14. As further illustrative of t h e violations of said International Agreements

and Treaties, many plaintiffs herein a t various times were deprived of food for
clays, all blankets were withdrawn i n t h e middle of winter, many were given
severe and frequent beatings and other corporal punishment, many were forced
into what w a s called t h e death cell f o r days and weeks, others were given
~ r o m i s e sof immunity or light sentences if they would sign confessions iinplicat-
ing others, and endless tricks, ruses and so-called strategem, all performed by
these United States civilian employees of the Army or O~fficerso r Enlisted Men in
the United States Army, or uuder their direct supervision, instruction, or acqni-
escence. Said group of American investigators or a majority of them subse-
quently became the Prosecntion Team in said Malmedy Trial.
15. As illustrative of promises of immunity or hope of reward, various be-
hooded plaintiffs herein wonld be conducted to a room, then allowed to look out
of a window where unknown persons were playing volley ball and similar games,
a t which time some American member of the Prosecntion Team xvonld urge
plailltiffs to sign a confession, stating t h a t they were not interested in punishing
them, but were trying to convict their high-ranking officers, and if they wonld
sigu these dictated confessions implicating their officers they would be released
within a few months and be out playing games with those other boys. Various
plaintiffs herein would be assured and promised by the Americans that if they
assumed full ancl complete responsibility for all the acts or alleged crimes com-
mitted by the soldiers under them and signed these Prosecution-dictated state-
lneuts or confessions, then the Prosecution wonld not prefer any charges against
inembers of their command.
16. As illustrative of t h e cruel torture and inhumane treatment of these plain-
tiffs a s well a s others in Schwabisch Hall, Germany, while prisoners of mar,
reference is made to the introduction into evidence of a n unsigned statement by
Arvid Freimuth, a young German soldier who had been through t h e various
tricks, ruses, and strategem administered by the American Prosecution which
ended i n one of those fateful mock trials. Lieut. William R. Perl, a n officer of
t h e United States Army, had purportedly defended this youth. H e mas dictating
t o Freimuth one of these forced confessions in March 1946. Only 16 pages had
been written by this bop and due t o the lateness of t h e hour t h e completion was
delayed until the nest day. His death would not occur until then, according to
the fake verdict of this false American Military Court. H e was forced to write
lies about his "comrades in arms" pointing to their guilt in crimes never com-
mitted. About two o'clock in the morning other prisoners heard hiin crying out
in his cell, "I cannot utter another lie," or words t o t h a t effect. The body of that
20-year-old German youth mas found dead hanging from his prison cell in Schwa-
hisch Hall, Germany, when the guard opened the door a few hours later. The
American Prosecution was not satisfied with having t h e blood of this youth on
their hands. During the real Malmedy Trial t h e Prosecution, over the objection
of the Defense Staff, introduced this unsigned and unfinished statement in evi-
dence against other plaintiffs herein, all with the approval and favorable ruling
of the law member of the court. I t was then t h a t the American Prosecution com-
menced asking this Lieutenant Perl, under oath, what this dead German youth
would have said in his statement if he had lived. This incident is illustrative
of the total lack of justice both pretrial a n during trial.
17. I n furtherance of illustrations wherein violations of International Lam mere
carried out by the United States Army investigation team or Prosecntion. while.
holding plaintiffs in solitary confinement in Schwabisch Hall, Germany, the in-
vestigators would forge the names of certain of plaintiffs' superior officers to
confessions or statements, which would completely detail and point out the pur-
ported guilt of another accused. Then they would confront these young German
soldiers with one or more of these forged statements and induce them to sign
confessions to acts never committed by them. Many of plaintiffs herein while in
Schwabisch Hall, Germany, would be hooded and taken to the "death chamber"
smrl there unhoocled and shown bullet holes in the wall where gruesome human
flesh a n hair would be imbedded from one of their "latest executions." By this
methocl the American Prosecution mould force confessions of crimes never com-
mitted. On other occasions various hooded plaintiffs herein would be taken to
the "hangman's room" and there unhooded, placed on a high stool and a hang-
man's rope placed around their necks. I t was then that various plaintiffs herein
would. upon belid that they would be hanged forthwith, sign directed statements
not only admitting their own guilt of crimes never committed, but implicating
other plaintiffs herein of crimes they had committed, which i n trnth had never
been committed.
At the conclusiou of many of these moclr trials where other ruses had failed,
the United States Prosecntion Team would suggest and allow these youthful.
plaintiffs to write farewell letters to their parents before they mould be hanged,
which was in furtherauce of the duress, sche:!ling, and conniving of the Amer-
icans. Also the America11 Prosecution woulcl oder the privilege of seeing a
Priest i n order to secure the "Ministration of a Catholic Priest bePore.death."
The American Prosecutor woulcl make inany threats of violence and torture
directed toward the mothers, fathers, sisters, wives, and children of various
accused unless they signed coinplete dictated coniessious of acts ancl deeds never
committed by them, and acts and cleeds of other accused never witnessed by
them.
18. One favorite ruse of the United States Prosecntion Team in Schwabisch
Hall, Germany, was to place plaintiffs in solitary confinenleut upon first beiig
captured. These Germau 3-ouths had no lrnowleclge of mhy they were placed i n
this penitentiary. For weeks and lnonths they n~oulclstay in the same cell with-
out seeing a single person, not allowed t o recei7-e or write even a letter to their
pareuts or wires, aucl not allowed to reat1 anything. Then a "stool pigeon" would
be placed in the same cell who was another Gennan soldier. This youthful
plaintiff was anxious to know what it mas all about. This Prosecution "stool
pigeon" would relate a n imaginary story of how he hacl just..been tried by t h e
American Army for shooting many Belgian ciriliaus ancl maybe a few American
soldiers. The "stool pigeon" wonld go iuto much detail about his own trial and
theu conclnde with how light the verdict had been because he had cooperated,
admitted e ~ e r y t h i n gwhether true or not, auc1 hacl written exactly what t h e
Americans had dictated. Although he, the "stool pigeon," had admitted many
murders he had received only one, two or three pears confinement for all t h a t
he had done. I t was only a few days thereafter until the German lad would be
hooded aud brought before oue of these "moclr trials" with the hope and expec-
tation of a light sentence such a s the "stool pigeon" had desceibed if he wonld
sign a n American Prosecution dictated statement.
19. All of the foregoing illustrations of violations of International Laws, or
practically all, were laughingly or jokingly admitted by the American Prosecntion
Team during their presentation of their case in the Malmecly Trial o r on direct
examination of the witnesses. At this point these questions strongly suggest
themselves : What did the American Defense do about these forced confessions a t -
the real Rlalmedy Trial? Why were these confessions admitted as evidence and
in many cases constituted the sole and only evidence against certain of those
plaintiffs? Attached here, marked "Exhibit C," and made a part of this peti-
tion, is a copy of Motion to Withdraw Confessions or Statements of Accused
which were properly presented ancl pleaded a t the Malmedy Trial, but this motion
was promptly denied by the ruling of the Law Memher of the Court.
20. The question of Jurisdiction of t h e General Military Government Conrt of
t h e United States of America a t Camp Dachan, Germany, is specifically raised
because all of the crimes alleged to have been committed occurred within t h e
Sovereign State of Belgium ancl the situs of the crimes lay entirely outside t h e
American Occupation Zone of Germany. The claim a s t o jurisdiction by the
.United States Army was by virtue of the physical cusf6cl~of plaintiffs herein.
,Generally speaking International Law has repeatedly ruled t h a t a person must
be tried before t h e forum where the crime mas committed. These principles were
recoguized in the Rloscow Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration, and the London
Conference. Reference is made to the Moscom Declaration of 30 October 1943,
-which mas entered into by Great Britain, the United States, and the Soviet
Republic. The l~ertine~nt portion of said agreement touching on the subject
presented to this Honorable Court is herewith quoted :
"German war criminals whose cleeds can be localizetl will be sent back to those
cmntries in which their abominable deeds were clone i n order t h a t they mag be
punished accordinx to the laws of those liberated colintries."
Again in the Potsdam Declaration of 2 Augnst 1944, entered into a t Cecilianhof,
near Potsdam, by the United States. Great Britain. ancl the Soviet Republic, the
following is provicled under Article VII which reads :
"The three Governments h a r e taken note of the dimissions which have been
proceeding in recent weeks in London between the British, TJnited States, Soviet,
ancl French Representatires, with a view to reaching a n agreement on methods
of trial of those major war criminals whose crimes nnder the bfoscow Declara-
tion of October 1943, have no particular geographical allocalization. The three
Governments affirm their intention t o bring these criminals to swift and sure
justice. They hope that the negotiations in London will result in a spe,edy agree-
ment being reached for this purpose and they regard i t a s a matter of great
importance t h a t the trial of these major w a r criminals should begin a t the
earliest possible date. The first list of defendants will be published before
September 1."
This London Agreement entered into by the united States, Great Britain, the
Soviet Republic, and the provisional government of the French Repcblic on 8
Angnst 1945, provided a s follows:
"Whereas the United States have from time to time made declarations of their
intention t h a t war criminals shall be broughtto justice and whereas the MOSCOW
Declaration of 30 October 1943 on German atrocities in occupied Europe stated
t h a t those German officers and men and members of the Nazi Party who have
been responsible for or who have taken a consenting part in the atrocities and
crimes, will be sent back to the countries in which their abominable deeds were
done in order that they mag be judged and punished by the laws of those liberated
countries and the free government that will be c r e a t ~ dtherein, and whereas this
declaration was stated t o be without prejudice to the case of m i ~ j o rcriminals
whose offenses have no ~ h r t i c u l a rgeographical location and who will be punished
by the joint decision of the governments of the Allies."
This London Agreement went on to establish the International Military Tri-
bunal to be held a t Nurenberg, Germany, for the trial of war criminals whose
offenses have no particular location. Article I V of this London Agreement fur-
ther provides :
"Nothing in this agreement shall prejudice the provisions established by the.

Moscow Declaration concerning the return of w a r criminals to the countries
where they committed their crimes."
A Central Control Council was instituted for the establishment of a military
government in Germany by the four powers (United States, Great Britain, Soviet
Republic, and the Provisional French Republic) and to each was allocated a zone
of occupation, wherein each power was t o establish its own Military Government.
I n the United States Zone of Occupation the Military Governor was and is the
Commanding General of the United States Forces, European Theater. General
RilcNarney, the then Commanding General aforesaid, did on 12 January 1946 issue
a directive a s an amendment to the previous directive dated 7 July 1945 subject
"Administration of Military Government in United States Zone in Germany,"
which embodied Control Council Law No. 10 and reads a s follows :
ARTICLEI , Control Council Law No. 10 provides : "The Moscow Declaration of
30 October 1943 concerning responsibility of I-Iitlerites for committed atrocities
and the London Agreement of S October 1945 concerning prosecution and punish-
ment of major war criminals of t h e European Axis a r e made-integral parts of
this law."
The Military Governor was without authority to alter or change the Moscow
Declaration, the Potsdam Declaration, or the London Agreement. His own
orders authorizing the Conrt and requiring Officers under his command to act
a s Judges of plaintiffs herein and to direct the Prosecutor to draw charges and
prepare for their trial was in violation of and inconsistent with his own directive.
21. Petitioner shows t h a t the detention, confinement, and restraint of liberty of
plaintiffs herein i s zinlawful and without authority in law i s t h a t :
( a ) The General Military Conrt which tried plaintiffs herein was unlawfully
constituted and the individual members or a majority of them were not lawfully
appointed to such purported General Military Court, and said war crimes trial
and the proceedings thereof were void ab initio.
( 6 ) On May 10,1946, the Commanding General, Third United States Army, did
attempt to appoint to such Court eight officers by Special Orders Number 117,
and that six of such officers a t the time of s ~ ~ purported
ch appointment were not
attached to, or under the command of the appointing authority, and that said
appointing authority had no command over or authority to control or right to
appoint these six officers t o said purported General Military Court.
( C ) Further that said six officers, Colonels Berry, Watkins, Raymond, Steward,
Sonder, and Rosenfeld, were not even subsequently transferred or assigned to
said Third United States Army, thereby placing them under the control and
authority of said Commanding General.
Petitioner thus charges t h a t by virtue of the above orders a l l members of
t h e purported Court with the exception of Brig. Gen. Josiah T: Dalbey and Col.
Paul H. Weiland were not subject to the command of the appointing authority,
had never been assigned or transferred to the command of the appointing au-
thority, and the appointing authority had no authority in law to appoint said
officers with t h e exception of General Dalbey and Colonel Weiland to the pur-
ported Court, and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction whatsover over any
of the 73 plaintiffs herein or the subject matter thereof, and t h a t the proceedings,
trial, and subsequent verdict were void ab inito. Attached hereto and marked
Exhibit 'ID" is copy of the Third United States Army order which is made p a r t
of this petition.
22. Petitioner shows that only six counsel were assigned him immediately
prior t o the commencement of this Malmedy Trial and sereral of said Attorneys
were not adept, experienced or skilled i n defending criminal cases. Petitioner
shows that less than two weeks' time w a s allowed by the United States Army t o
prepare the defense for seventy-fonr (74) defendants in the case. At first t h e
Chief Prosecutor, Lt. Col. Ellis, even refused to turn over these forced confessions
to the Defense for inspection. Petitioner shows t h a t three meetings of all t h e
plaintiffs herein on different days were required, with their own officers exhorting
them t o confide in this petitioner and his staff, before it was possible to break
down the barrier of mistrust between attorney and client created by the misdeeds
of the American Prosecution. Each of plaintiffs herein thought this was merely
another mock trial. Not even all of the plaintiffs herein could be interviewed
prior to the commencement of the Malmedy Trial clue t o lack of interpreters and
stenographic help which the United States Army failed to furnish upon repeated
requests. Irrespective of many demands of petitioner, a s Chief Defense Counsel,
i n s d c i e n t time was given to make a n y investigation whatsoever prior t o t h e
beginning of the trial. Vigorous protests were made t o the proper officers of t h e
Third Army and the United Forces, European Theater, over t h e lack of time t o
prepare the defense, the lack of assistants required t o make a n investigation, and
t h e questionable actions of the Chief Prosecutor and his staff.
23. As illustrative of the inadequacy of time to properly prepare a defense f o r
t h e 74 defendants in the Malmedy Case and the falsity of the confessions forced
from the plaintiffs herein, reference i s made to two atrocities alleged to have
been committed by certain ones of t k e plaintiffs. When the prosecution rested i t s
case, a few days were allowed the Defense Staff to interview witnesses and plan
the defense for their 74 defendants. An Officer was sent t o Belgium and he in-
vestigated a n incident in Wanne, Belgium, where it w a s alleged t h a t one of plain-
tiffs herein had entered the house of a Belgian civilian and without provocation
murdered a woman while sitting in her chair. This plaintiff in a forced false
confession fully admitted the commission of this war crime and four or Eve of
his codefendants swore t o the same facts in their forced false confessions a n d
related every detail exactly the same. This Defense Officer brought back a n
affidavit by the husband of the purportedly murdered woman to the effect t h a t
his wife had been killed during enemy action, but t h a t his wife was standing in
the street in front of his home when a n American artillery shell exploded and
killed her. This statement was properly sworn to before his Priest.
The second illustration of the falsity of these forced false confessions relating
to alleged atrocities concerned certain incidents within the churchyard a t 'La
Gleize, Eelgium. Certain ones of plaintiffs herein admitted, i n their forced false
confessions, placing two or three groups of surrendered American soldiers, num-
bering 20 to 30, against the inside wall of this churchyard and shooting them down
i n cold blood with machine guns. The Defense investigation developed the fact
that there was 110 inside wall of the churchyard, but merely a n outside retaining
wall. The Priest furnished this.Defense Officer with a sworn affidavit t h a t h e
was present in the Church the entire time of the battle and alleged crimes, t h a t
he had examined the outside ~ v a l l sof the churchyard and no sign of any bullet
marks were visible, that no such atrocities had ever been committed in t h e vicinity
of his Church, and t h a t the only dead Americans he had seen in the town w a s
t h e body of one in a n American tank which was burned beyond recognition, and
Enally that on the afternoon the crimes were purportedly occurring he had walked
along the outside wall and no dead Americans were there. Many more of t h e
plaintiffs herein had corroborated these same detailed purported crimes under
oath, but in forced false confessions. No additional time was given the Defense
Staff to investigate each and every charge although repeated requests were made.
24. On several occasions when witnesses were requested for various plaintiffs
herein the members of the American Prosecution Staff mould call them into their
office before they could even be interviewed by t h e Defense Staff and would
threaten them with being made defendants in the Malnledy Case if they testified
a s to any knowledge of certain incidents and thereupon took sworn statements
under duress from those witnesses to the effect t h a t they knew nothing. Tam-
pering with witnesses in t h e Malmedy Trial was not a n uncommon occurrence on
t h e part of the United States Army Prosecution Staff.
25. Many witnesses for the Prosecution were interviewed by the Defense Staff
after they had testified on the witness stand and several were returned to the
stand by t h e Defense who thereby adopted them a s their witnesses. I n each case
they positively denied any truth in their original testimony and freely admitted
perjury, giving a s their reason therefor t h a t they had been the 1-ictims of force,
duress, beatings, and other forms of torture. However, when details of the b e a ~ -
iags, etc., were requested, the Prosecution would object ancl the law member of
t h e Court wonld always sustain the objection and prevent the evil and ruthless
tactics of the Prosecution from being further exposed in open court.
26. As illustrative of violations of the laws of all civilized nations the following
i s given. The relation of Attorney and Client is one of universal application.
During the presentation of the defense of those plaintiffs, petitioner was in Court
with all his assistant counsel and all of the defendants, when petitioner noticed
Lt. Perl slip into the "bunker" or long cell block where defendants slept. Shortly
thereafter he was observed slipping out with a n armful of papers. No American
was allowed in this building as directed by competent American military authority.
Lt. Perl then reported to the Chief Prosecutor Lt. Col. Ellis and after a short
conference went out of the courtroom. Within a few minutes petitioner secured
t h e assistance of the Officer of the Guard who then surprised Lt. Perl in the Chief
Prosecutor's office, and he admitted taking the private notes ancl papers written
by the accused to their defense counsel and was translating them in accordance
t o instruction of Lt. Col. Ellis.
During the course of t h e said Malmedy Trial one or more of the Prosecution
Staff wonld approach the wives of plaintiffs herein who were attending said trial
a n d falsely represent themselves to be members of the Defense Staff. While
posing a s their husband's defense attorney they wonld attempt to gain further
information about any and all privileged comnlunications between husband and
wife.
27. In addition to the absolute grounds of total lack of jurisdiction by this
alleged Court, petitioner h a s dealt briefly with many details which are recognized
a s not pertaining exclusively to the subject matter of jurisdiction, but i n con-
sideration of the broadened view of recent cases in the United States Snpreme
Court and Federal Courts, i t now appears a well established rule t h a t other
matters such a s due process may be inquired into by this Honorable Court.
25. Petitioner charges t h a t the misconduct of the Chief Prosecutor in the
sanctioning of said acts and many of his staff in the execution of said acts was
of such a grave character, both before and during the trial, t h a t i t rendered t h e en-
tire proceedings void. I n addition to illustrations hereinabove enumerated,
t h e abusive manner of members of the Prosecution Staff in the questioning of
plaintiffs herein a s well a s witnesses for the defense in open court was so offensive
t h a t i t became necessary for the petitioner to call two recesses during the trial
and advise all the plaintiffs herein not t o take the stand in their own behalf.
Finally early i n July 1946 petitioner, a s Chief Defense Counsel, announced in open
court t h a t he was taking the full responsibility in preventing the remaining
defendants from taking the stand i n their own behalf and further testifying a s
t o the force, duress, and so-called tricks of the Prosecution because "the fear of
those Prosecutors lingers on."
29. Petitioner requested from the United ~ t a ' t e sArmy copies of t h e record of
the Malmedy Trial held during May, June, and July 1946, but the same was
refused. For that reason petitioner is unable to give with certainty exact names,
dates, quotations, facts, and places t h a t involve the mass trial of 74 defendants
and which covered a period in excess of two months. Furthermore this trial
was concluded almost two years ago.
30. Petitioner shows t h a t from t h e best information available, three reviews of
said case were made by t h e Deputy Judge Advocate for W a r Crimes and one
review by the Judge Advocate, European Command, but petitioner has not
received any of said reviews. Further that on or about March 20, 1947, General
Lucius D. Clay, Commanding General, European Command, prononnced final judg-
ment on plaintiffs herein. T h a t execution of t h e death penalties will be carried
out on Valentin Borsin, Friedel Bode, K u r t Briesemeister, Friedrich Christ,
Josef Diefenthal, Ernst Goldschmiclt, Hubert Huber, Paul Herman Oehmann,
Joachim Peiper, Georg Preuss, Erich Rumpf, and Paul Zwigart on or about t h e
20th day of May 1948.
31. Petitioner further shows t h a t much time and effort has been spent following
the final verdict in said Malmeds Trial pointing out many defects, deficiencies,
illd incorrect rulings during thecourse of said t r i a l by pceparing a brief based
on the record and filing the same with the original record. Copy of said brief
is hereto attached and marked "Exhibit E" and made a part of this petition.
Due and impartial consideration was not and conlcl not be given to said brief
because the appointing authority mas directed by t h e reviewing authority t o
trj' those plaintiffs and no latitude or freedom of juclicinl action could be accorded
under such circumstances.
32. Petitioner has j ~ l s treceived a petition addressed to this Honorable Court
fro111 Dr. jur. Eugon Leer,.a German attorney who was a n assist@ to petitioner
during said Mahnedy Trial. Said petition, it is believed, points out additional
facts of other force, duress, cruel and inhuman treatment against certain plaintiffs
herein by the American Prosecution which was unkaon-n a t the time of said trial.
Said petition is substantiated by various sworn statements of witnesses as well
a s medical examiners. Said petition is in German, and your petitioner h a s
no English translation thereof and is unable to present the same either separately
or in conjunction 1~-iththis petition. After translation, permission is reqnested
to amend this petition by adding the same hereto if its contents speak to t h e
issues herein. Said petition is addressed a s follows :
T o : SUPREME COURT
77i? Chief Defence Counsel
Colonel Willis M. Everett
Connally Building
Atlanta, Georgia.
33.
That snch imprisonment and restraint of plaintiffs i s not by virtue of any
process issued by a court of the United States, or by a judge or commissioner
or other officer thereof in a case where such court, judge, commissioner or officer
thereof had, or has acquired exclusive jurisdiction uncles the laws of the United
States, and
That snch imprisonment and restraint is not by virtue of any judgment or
decree of a competent tribunal of criminal jurisdiction, nor by virtue of a n
execution issued upon such judgment or decree, and
That the cause or pretense of such iinprisonnlent and restraint is by virtue of
the verdict and sentences of the illegally appointed General Military Court
a t Dachau? Germany, on July 16, 1846, and
That there i s no judge or officer i n Germany or Europe competent t o issue
or grant a writ of habeas corpns or other legal remedies, and
That none of plaintiffs herein has any funds to defray the expenses i n con-
nection with the bringing a writ of habeas corpus in any other court, thereafter
perfecting a n appeal to this HonorabIe Court, and under existing statutes and
the decisions of the Federal Courts no alien is permitted to proceed in forma
pauporis, and
T h a t the Commandant of the Landsberg Prison is an officer of t h e United
States Army but i s not made a respondent herein because he is not situated
within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court and cannot be served with any
process of this Honorable Court. However, said Commandant derives his
power from and is subject to the direction and colnmancls of the respondents
Harry S. Truman, James V. Forrestal, Kenneth C. Royall, and General Omar
N. Bradley, all of who are located within the jnrisdiction of this Honorable
Court, and
That the facts hereinabove stated a r e clnestions of great moment and many
difficulties a r e involved, to snch an extent t h a t both the principles of law and
facts clearly classify this petition for a writ of habeas corpus a s a n exceptional
matter. The case is therefore one within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court
of the United States.
Wherefore petitioner on behalf of plaintiffs named i n the opening paragraph
of this petition respectfully prays :
1. T h a t a writ of habeas corpus issue directed t o H a r r y S. Truman a s Corn-

mander in Chief of the Armed Forces of t h e United States of h e r i c a , Wash-
ington, D. C.
2. That a writ of habeas corpus issue directed to James V. Forrestal, Secretary
of Defense of t h e United States, Washington, D. C.
3. T h a t a writ of habeas corpus issue directed to Kenneth C. &wall, Secretary
of the Army of the United States, Washington, D. C.
4. That a writ of habeas corpus issue directed to General Omar N. Bradley,
Chief of Staff of the Army of the United States, Washington, D. C.
5. That service be perfected on Thomas C. Clark, Attorney General of the
United States, Washington, D. C.
6. T h a t respondents H a r r y S. Truman, James V. Forrestal, Kenneth C. Royall,
and General Omar N. Bradley be directed to withhold instantly any action con-
templated i n the execution or hanging of any of the plaintiffs herein by the Com-
mandant of the Landsberg Prison in Germany until further order of this Court.
7. T h a t respondents be required to furnish any necessary copies of the original
record and all allied papers, documents, and exhibits to this Honorable Court
and furnish petitioner with two copies of the original record and all allied
papers, which shall include two copies of all reviews made in said Malmedy Case.
8. That, after sufficient time h a s been afforded petitioner to read and study
t h e proceedings of this trial and reviews, petitioner may amend or make additions
t o this position to conform t o the record if any changes a r e necessary.
9. That respondents furnish to petitioner any necessary German-English trans-
lations of papers and documents received from plaintiffs or their German at-
torneys in connection with this case.
10. T h a t respondents shall be required to cooperate with petitioner i n the
taking and securing of any necessary depositions of plaintiffs herein or of
witnesses to the extent t h a t the truth may be freely testified to, rather than the
fear of prosecution. Also t h a t depositions may be had, where nkcessary, from
members of t h e Prosecution Staff, and
11. T h a t respondents shall do what this Honorable Court shall order and
direct concerning the illegal detention and restraint of plaintiffs herein.
(P) WILLIS M. EVEBEIT, Jr., Petitioner.
(Willis M. Everett, Jr., 402 Connally Building, Atlanta, Georgia. Attorney f o r
Petitioner and Plaintiffs. Everett & Everett, Attorneys for Counsel.)
STATEOF GEORGIA,
Coultty of Fulton, ss:
Personally appeared before me Willis M. Everett, Jr., who being duly sworn,
deposes and says :
1. T h a t affiant is a citizen and resident of the State of Georgia,
2. That affiant is t h e petitioner named above, and
3. That affiant has read the foregoing petition and knows the contents thereof
and that the same a r e t r u e of my own knowledge except a s t o the matters therein
which a r e on information and belief, and a s to those matters affiant believes
them to be true.
4. T h a t affiant has carefully examined the case and has just cause and verily
believes t h a t because of poverty, petitioners a r e unable to pay costs or give
security therefor. I t is further stated with certainty t h a t no agreement or
understanding h a s been entered into between plaintiffs herein and this affiant
f o r any compensation for the services of affiant and there i s no understanding
to pay affiant on the p a r t of anyone whatsoever i n or on behalf of plaintiffs
herein.
(S) WILLIS M. EVERETT, Jr.
Sworn to and subscribed before men this 11th day of May, 1948.
[SEAL] ( S ) MARYEVERETT TOWNSEND,
Notary Puhlic. State of Georgia a t Large.
My commission expires April 2, 1950.
EXHIBIT
A
Internal route slip, headquarters, U. S. forces, European theater
[File No.: -. Subject: Discharge of German Prisoners of War. Date: 26 April 19461
From- .P&s to- Date

Has this paper been coordinated with all
concerned7
JA War Crimes 0-1, German Af- Apr. 26,1946
&anch. fairs Group.
a-1; QA Br .-.... Apr. 26,1946
1 Incl.: nic:
TPM. USFErP.- 3-1. German AI- May 31,1946
Documentation as civilian internees-as re-
fairs JA War quested in c/p above was completed on
Crimes Branch 9 May 1946.
(in turn). For and in the absence of the Theater
Pmvost Marshal:
(S) FREDERICK R . LAPFERTY
Colonel Cavalry ~ e ) p u t y
~hlatater~ r o i o s M
t arshel.
151. 3-3771
i i d . : n/c
[A War Crimes lune 4,1946
0A/RWCt/cws/24607.
Branch. Request, contained in Minute:#l has been
complied with.
For the A C of S G-1:
(S) A. F.'s. MACKENZIE
Lt. Colonel, OSC, Acting dhief,
German A f a i r s Branch.
Incl.: n/c.
MILITIULYGOVEBNMENT
COURTOHAEGESHEET
DACHAU,GEEMANY,
11 April 1946.
RAYES OF THE ACUUSED
Yalentin Bersin Josef Diefenthal H a n s Gruhle
Friedel Bode Josef (Sepp) Dietrich Helmut Haas
Marcel Boltz Fritz Eckmann Max Hammerer
Willi Braun Arndt Fischer Armin Hecht
Kurt Briesemeister Georg Fleps Willi Heinz Hendel
Willi Von Chamier Heinz Friedrichs Hans Hennecke
Friedrich Christ Fritz Gebauer Hans Eillig
Roman Clotten Heinz Gerhard Godicke Heinz Hofmann
Manfred. Coblenz Ernst Goldschmidt Joachim Hofmann
EXHIBIT B-Continued
-Hubert Huber Worner Pedersen K u r t Sickel
Siegfried Jake1 Joachim Peiper Oswald Siegmund
Benoni Junker H a n s Pletz Franz Sievers
Friedel Kies Georg Preuss Hans Siptrott
Gustav Knittel Hermann Priess Gustav Adolf Sprenger
Georg Kotzur F r i t z Rau Werner Sternebeck
Fritz Kraemer Theo Rauh Herbert Stock
Werner Kuhn Heinz Rehagel Erwin Szyperski
Oskar Klingelhoefer Holf Roland Reiser Edmund Tomczak
Herbert Losenski Wolfgang Richter Heinz Tomhardt
Erich Mauto Max Rieder August Tonk
Arnold Mikolaschek Rolf Ritzer Hans Trettin
Anton Motzheim Axel Rodenburg Johann Wasenberger
Erich Munkemer Erich Rumpf Erich Werner
Gustav Nere Willi Schaefer Otto Wichmann
Paul Hermann Ochmann Rudolf Schwambach Paul Zwigart
a r e hereby charged with t h e following offenses :

First charge: Violation of the Laws and Usages of War.
Particulars: In that Valentin Bersin, Friedel Bode, Marcel Boltz, Willi Braun,
Kurt Briesemeister, Willi Von Chamior, Friedrich Christ, Roman Clotton, Man-
fred Coblenz, Josef Diefenthal, Josef (Sepp) Dietrich, Fritz Eckmann, Arndt
Fischer, Georg Fleps, Heinz Fdedrichs, Fritz Gebauer, Heinz Gerhard Godliclie,
Ernst Golclschmidt, H a n s Gruhle, Helmut Haas, Max Hammerer, Armin Hecht,
Willi Heinz Heridel, H a n s Hennecke, Hans Hillig, Heinz Hofmann, Joachim
Hofmann, Hubert Huber, Siegfried Jakel, Benoni Junker, Friedel Kies, Gustav
Knittel, Georg Kotznr, F r i t z Kraemer, Werner Knhn, Oskar Klingelhoefer, Her-
bert Losenski, Erich Maute, Arnold Mikolaschek, Anton M o t z h e i ~ ,Erich Rilun-
komer, Gustav Neve, Paul Hermann Cohnlann, Werner Pedersen, Joachim Peiper,
Hans Pletz, Georg Preuss, H e r m a r ~ nPiess, Fritz Rau, Theo Hauh, Heinz Renagel,
Rolf Roland Reiser, Wolfgang Richter, Max Rieder, Rolf Ritzer, Axel Rodenburg,
Erich Rumpf, W-illi Schaefer, Rudolf Schwambach, K u r t Sickel, Oswald Sieg-
mund, Franz Siever, Hans Siptrott, Gustav Adolf Sprenger, Werner Sternebeck,
Herbert Stock, Erwin Szyporski, Edmund Tomczak, Heinz Tomhardt, August
Tonk, Hans Trottin, Johann Wasenberger, Erich Werner, Otto Wichmann, Paul
Zwigert, German nationals or persons acting with German nationals, being to-
gether concerned a s parties, did, in conjunction with other persons not herein
charged or named, a t or in the vicinity of Malmedy, Honsfeld, Buellingen, Ligneu-
ville, Stoumont, La Gleize, Cheneux, Petit Thier, Trois Ponts, Stavelot, Wanne,
and Lutrebois, a l l in Belgium, a t sundry times between 16 December 1944 and
13 January 1945, willfully, deliberately and wrongfully permit, encourage, aid,
abet and participate in the killing, shooting, ill-treatment, abuse, and torture
of members of t h e Armed Forces of the United States of America, then a t war
with the then German Reich, who were then and there surrendered and unarmed
prisoners of war in t h e custody of the then German Reich, the exact names and
numbers of such persons being unknown but aggregating several hundred, and
of unarmed allied civilian nationals, t h e exact names and numbers of such persons
being unknown.
Officer preferring charges :
( S ) H O W ~ RF. D BREUSE,
Colonel, CMP, Army of the United States.
The above charges a r e referred for trial to t h e General Military Court ap-
pointed by Par. 24, Special Order Number 90, Headquarters, Third United States
Army, dated 9 April 1946, to be held a t Dachau, Germany, on or about 2 May 1946.
By Command of Lieutenant General Keyes :
( S ) W. G. CALDWELL,
Colonel, Adjutant General's Bept., Acting Aajutant General.
Copy of above served on accused ------,1946.
..................................
(Signature of person making service)

I n a General Military Government Court of the United States of America, Camp

Dachau, Germany. I n the matter of the accused Bersin, Valentin, et al.
9
1. Now come the defendants or accused and move t o withdraw all their state-
ments or confessions and expunge all reference thereto from the record.
A. (1)All of the abo~-edefendants were prisoners of war until 11 April 1946,
which date was the day of the service of charges against each defendant. On and
after 11 April 1946, each of the defendants \%-ereremoved from the status of
prisoner of w a r and became accused war criminals.
(2) The only law controlling this point is the Yamashita case in the Supreme
Court of the United States of America which i s quoted a s follows:
"The day of final reckoning f o r t h e enemy arrived in August 1945. On Sep-
tember 3rd, the petitioner surrendered to t h e United States Army a t Baguio,
Luzon. H e immediately became a prisoner of war and was interned in prison
in conformity with t h e rules of international law. On September 25, approxi-
mately three weeks after surrendering, he was served with the charge in issue
in this case. Upon service of the charge he was removed from the status of
a prisoner of war and placed in confinement a s a n accused war criminal."
Although this opinion i s i n Justice Murphy's minority opinion, it is in no sense a
dissent from the majority opinion, a s the issue was not raised i n the petition.
The majority opinion is therefore silent on this subject and the court was not
asked to decide this point. No other law or decision touches on this "change
of statns" and this expression of fact is the controlling law.
B. (1) Under the Geneva Conrention, they, a s prisoners of mar must be
humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence and insults.
They should be equally treated. No coercion may be used on them to secure
information, and under no circumstances will they be threatened, insulted or
exposed t o unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any klnd whatever. They
a r e entitled to have their honor and person respected. They must have sani-
tation, open a i r and esercise. Under all circumstances, prisoners of war a r e
subject to the laws in force of the detaining power. Does solitary confineqent
for months or black hoods or mock trials, or stool pigeons meet the degnified
provisions of the Geneva Convention?
( 2 ) Chapter 6, Prisoners of W a r of Geneva Convention of July 1929 :
( a ) Under Article 2 of the following applicable paragraph i s quoted: "They
must a t all times be humanely treated and protected, particularly against a c t s
of violence, insults, and public curiosity."
( b ) Under Article 3 the following applicable paragraphs a r e quoted : "Prisoners
of war have the right to have their person and their honor respected. * * *
Difference in treatment among prisoners is lawful only when i t is based on the
military rank, state of physical or mental health, professional qualifications or
sex of those who profit thereby."
. ( c ) Under Article 5 the following applicable paragraph i s quoted: "No co-
ercion may be used on prisoners to secure information relative to the condition of
their army or country. Prisoners who refuse to answer may not be threatened,
insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind
whatever."
( d ) Under Article 9 the following applicable parts of paragraphs a r e quoted:
"They may also be interned i n enclosed camps; they may not be confined or
imprisoned except a s a n indispensable measure of safety or sanitation, and only
while the circumstances which necessitate the measure continue to exist."
( e ) Under Article 10 the following applicable paragraph is quoted:
"Prisoners of war shall be lodged i n buildings or i n barracks affording a l l
possible guarantees of hygiene and healthfulness."
( f ) Under Article 13 the following applicable paragraph is quoted :
"It shall be possible for them to take physical exercise and enjoy open air."
( g ) Under Article 21 the following applicable paragraph is quoted:

"Officers and persons of equivalent statns who a r e prisoners of war shall be
treated with the regard due to their rank and age."
( h ) Under Article 45 the following paragraph i s quoted :
"Prisoners of war shall be subject to the laws, regulations, and orders i n force
i n the armies of the detaining power."
( i ) Under Article 46 the following applicable paragraph is quoted:

"Any corporal punishment, any imprisonment in quarters without daylight, and
i n general, any form of cruelty, is forbidden."
( j ) Under Article 56 the following applicable paragraphs are quoted:
"In no case may prisoners of war be transferred to penitentiary establishments
(prison, penitentiarjes, convict prisons, etc.) there to undergo disciplinary pun
ishment. * * * These prisoners s h d l every day be allowed to exercise or to
stay in the open a i r a t least two hours.
C. (1) As prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention all confessions were
extracted by using varying degrees of force, duress, trickery, deception, mock
trials, ceremonies, including the passing of judgment on those accused. I n every
situation involving a stress on the physical well-being, the natural impulses
dominate the reasoning faculties. Any alternative that promises relief from a
present intolerable situation is accepted without regard to consequences. When
t h e primary feelings a r e stirred, the reasoning faculties are practically suspended.
Under a promise or inference of relief, a person will choose to make a false
confession a s the speediest way to make his freedom certain. The question
arises: Was the situation such that there is a reasonable probability that the
accused made a false statement under duress? If so, the confession must be
excluded.
( 2 ) Attention is drawn to the opening statement of the prosecution in which
the following language was used : "Despite the youth of these suspects, it took
months of continuous interrogation in which all the legitimate tricks, ruses, and
strategem known to investigators were employed. Among other artifices used
were stool pigeons, witnesses who were not bona fide, and ceremonies."
The Prosecution's own witnesses testified on direct examination a s follows :
"Q. Did you use any ceremony of any kind in the interrogation of Nevo?
"A. I guess you would call i t a ceremony. We used sort of a mock trial I ,qess
you would call it. We had whoever wasn't busy sitting in the chairs behind the
table, posing a s officers hearing the testimony. * * * First the witnesses
that we had against him were brought in, and if they were bona fide witnesses,
they were sworn. And the interrogator sat down a t a table with him and took
notes, or maybe h e started writing the statement right then.
"Q. Do you know whether or not the accused (sic) were confronted with wit-
nesses who were not bona fide?
"A. I know t h a t they were.
"Q. Do you know whether or not the interrogators ever raised their voices
during interrogation?
"A. I a m sure they did.
"Q. Do gou know whether or not suspects ever broke down and cried after they
h a d confessed?
"A. I saw a few ; yes, sir.
"Q. Did they cry silently or did they sob out loud?
"A. I think out loud, sir.
"Q. Do sou recall any other methods used for eliciting information other than
you have already described?
"A. No special methods. Each interrogator had his own bag of psychological
tricks, you might cail it."
D. (1) The laws of military courts martial certainly control insofar a s these
accused a r e concerned up to the moment they were served with charges, alleging
w a r crimes, a t which time the Supreme Court has ruled that their status changes
to a suspected war criminal. Under our Court Martial Laws no confession could
be used and admitted against another jointly accused. I n view of the position
of authority of the prosecution staff, i t will go without contraversion that all the
accused were in an inferior position and confessions to superiors should be re-
garded as clearly incompetent. I t is not believed that by the widest stretch of
imagination could these confessions or statements be used in a trial by courts
martial due to the varying degrees of force and duress employed by the prosecu-
tion. On the other hand, it is readily conceded that if those statements had been
subsequently reexecuted after the accused became suspected war criminals, no
grounds for this motion would exist.
( 2 ) On page 329 of Winthrop's Military Law and Precedents, we find the fol-
, lowing language with appropriate substantiating cases :
"In military cases, in v i m of the anthority and influence of superior rank,
confessions made by inferiors, especially when ignorant or inexperienced, and
held in confinement o r close arrest, should be regarded a s incompetent unless
very clearly shown not to have been unduly influenced. Statements, by way of
confessions, made by an inferior under charges to a commanding officer, judge
advocate or other superior whom the accused could reasonably believe capable
of making good his words, upon even a slight assurance of relief or benefit by
such superior, should not in general be admitted. And i t has been similarly ruled
in cases of confessions made by soldiers, upon assurances held out, or intimida-
tjon resorted to, by noncommissioned ofseers."
On Page 427, Sec. 493, of Evidence from American Jurisprudence, the fol-
lowing is quoted a s a clear statement of the law on confession implicating sev-
eral persons :
"The voluntary confession of a co-defendant or co-conspirator made after the
commission of a crime or the termination of the conspiriicy can not be admitted
against the other defendants when such confession was not made in their pres-
ence and assented to by them, even though the several defendants are being tried
jointly."
This principle is briefly confirmed on Page 327 of Winthrop's Military Lam and
Precedents, a s follows :
"A judge advocate upon a military trial may desire to keep out of sight a por-
tion of confessions because i t implicates parties other than the accused ; but this
is a reason not recognized a s sufficient a t law, since a confession is not evidence
against any person (not a n accomplice) other than the one who makes it."
E. The alleged confessions o r statements of these accused a r e absolutely void
and not admissible in evidence in this case. The laws of our nation provide that
a man should have only one wife a t a time, and any subsequent marriage without
appropriate divorce decrees render the second marriage void. The contracts f
minors a r e roid unless subsequent ratification after they reach their majority.
The contracting of a party to commit a crime is void. Certain prerequisites
are unnecessary to make a note negotiable, such a s date due, a sum certain t o
be paid, etc., and without those elements they are void. So in criminal laws
certain safeguards surround confessions o r statements, in order to be admissible
and not void. As proviously outlined. International Law laid down certain
safeguards for treatment of prisoners of war, and any confession or statement
extracted in violation thereof is not admissible in a court martial or any subse-
quent trial under a code set u p by Military Government. If a confession from a
prisoner of war is born in a surrounding of hope of release or benefit, or fear of
punishment or injury, inspired by one in authority, i t is void in its inception and'
not admissibl; in any tribunal of justice. Could anyone, by artifice, conjure u p
the theory that the Military Government Rules and Ordinances are superior t o
the solemn agreements of International Law a s stated in the Geneva Convention
of 1939? Is this court willing to assume the responsibility of admitting these
void confessions? Is this court willing to condemn those accused on written
statements that are stained with illegality, due to their being obtained i n the first
instance in violation of the Geneva Convention to which our Nation is a signatory
and which has been championed from its inception?
F. That the so-called confessions o r statements of these accused must be ex-
cluded from the record is apparent. It is not believed that the Court will put
itself in the anomalous position of accepting statements into evidence which were
elicited from prisoners .of war in contravention of the Geneva Convention and
therefore a violation of the Rules of Land Warfare on the one hand and turn
squarely around and mete out punishment for other acts which they deem viola- -
tions of the same laws. To do so would be highly inconsistant and subject the
Court and all American Military Tribunals to just criticism.
[Restricted]
SPECIALORDERS) HEADQUARTERS, T H ~ RUNITED
D STATESARMY,APO 403,
No. 117 10 M a y 1946.
EXTRACT
32. Pursuant to authority delegated to t h e Commanding General, Third
United States Army by Commanding General, United States Forces, European
Theater, a General Military Court consisting of the following officers is hereby
appointed to meet a t the time and place designated by the President thereof
for the trial of such persons a s may be properly brought before it.
9 1 7 6 5 4 G 7 6
DETAIL FOR THE COURT
Brig. Gen. JOSIAH T . DALBEY 012440

USA Hq. 3rd Inf. Division.
Col. PAUL H . WEILAND08418 F A Hq. Third U. S. Army.
Col. LUCIENS. BERRY04461 CAV. 9th Inf. Division.
Col. JAMES G. WATKIRTS 07249

F A 32nd FA Brig.
Col. ROBERT R. RAYMOED, JR.012274 FA 9th Inf. Division.
Col. WILFREDH. STEWARD 08448

CAC Ha. 31st AAA Brigade.
- -.R
Cnl - a- v
-.n.< . - CONDER
n-~ nC,. - 016131 FA HQ-%h Inf. ~ i v i s i o n .
COL A. H. R O S E N F E L D ~ H ~i . ~u~s ~m~ .

1 2O. ~
Lt. Col. GRANGER G. SUTTON0185405
Inf. Hq. USFET, Trial Judge Advocate.
Lt. Col. HOMERB. CRAWFORD 0902586 AC ~ a USFET, .
Asst. TJA.
C2nt. RAPHAELSHUMACKER 01798521

CMP Ha. USFET. Asst. TJA.
~ S ~ L ~ ~ R O BE E. RBYRNE
T 01826233 JAGD Hq. USFET, ASS^. TJA.
Mr. MORRISELOWITZ, U. S. Civ., Asst. TJA.
Col. WILLIS M. EVERETTJR.0179702 MI Ha. USFET, Defense Counsel.
Lt. Col. JOHN S. DWINELL0241872 CAC ~ q USFET, r

Asst. Defense Counsel.
Capt. B. N. NARVID 01557506 CE Hq. USFET, Asst. Defense Counsel.
2nd Lt. WILBERTJ. WAHIER, 02052758 JAGD Hq. USFET, Asst. D e f m s e
Counsel.
Mr. HERBERT T. STRONG, U. S. Civ., Asst. Defense Coztnsel.
Mr. FRANK WALTERS, U.

S. Civ., Asst. Defense Counsel.
The employment of stenographic assistance i s authorized.
By command of Major General Parker :
DONE. CARIETON,
Colonel, Gcneral Staff Corps, Chief of Staff.
( S ) W. G. CALDWELL,
Colonel, Adjutant General's Depnrtnzent, dctrng Adjutant General.
At the direction of the chairman this exhibit, which was a copy of a brief
a n d supporting documents filed by Dr. Eugene Leer, h a s been omitted from t h e
printed record becanse of i t s great bulk, and ordered placed on fiW i n the offices
of the Armed Services Committee.
C
EXHIBIT
14 SEPTEMBER 1948.
Memorandum f o r : The Secretary of the Army.
Subject : Survey of the Trials of War Crimes Held a t Dachau, Germany.
1. Pursuant to Department of the Army orders (Tab A ) , the undersigned re-
ported 30 July 1948 to t h e Commander i n Chief, European Command, and informed
him of their mission a s set forth i n those orders and amplified by Department of
t h e Army radio 85938,16 July 1948 (Tab B).
2. There were tried a t Dachau 489 cases involving 1672 accused. The follow-
5qg tabulation reflects action taken a s of 12 August 1948 :
Number of accused convicted ............................... 1,416
Number of accused acquitted--------------------------------- 256
Number of death sentences approved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Number of death sentences disapproved ........................ 10
Number oflife sentences a p p r o v e d - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - 220
Number of disapproved sentences (including 10 death sentences) -- 69
Number of 'sentences reduced--------------------------------- 138
Number of death sentences commuted - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 119
Number of death sentences executed--------------------------- 152
711 view of the voluminous records (estimated to weigh 12y2 tons) appertaining
to the trials of war crimes a t Dachau, i t was determined, after consultation with
the Commander in Chief, European Command, to direct the survey principally but
not exclusively to t h a t portion of the records (65 cases) involving the 139 con-
firmed death sentences ( u n d ~ r s c o r e don Tab C) which remain unexecnted.
3. In the course of this survey there has been examined, in connection with
each approved and unexecuted death sentence, the Review of the Deputy Judge
Advocate for War Crimes, the recommendations of the Chief, War Crimes Branch,
the recommendations of t h e W a r Crimes Boards of Review, and the recommen-
dations of the Judge Advocate, European Command, both with reference to t h e
original proceeding a s well a s any petition for review or clemency subsequently
filed. I t mould not have been possible t o have made a n examination of t h e
entire record i n each case within the time alloted ; and, i n view of the information
furnished by the Chief, War Crimes Branch ( T a b D ) , and confirmed by t h e Judge
Advocate, European Command, this was not necessary t o accomplish this mission.
The assumption made with reference t o the correctness of the facts a s stated i n
the reviews h a s been verified by a complete examination of t h e record in doubtful
cases including, but not limited to, those in which t h e claim h a s been advanced
t h a t prosecution evidence w a s impkoperly obtained by pretrial investigation or
otherwise.
4. Based upon the examination made and additional information from other
sources, including interviews with persons connected i n varying ways with the
w a r crimes program (Tab E ) , i t i s the opinion of the undersigned t h a t :
( a ) The unexecuted confirmed death sentences resnlting from the Dachau
war crimes trials a r e based upon records which, under the procedures pre-
scribed i n Title 5, d[ilitar2/ Government Reyulatzons (Tab I?) as modified by
Manual f o r Trial of War Crimes and Related Cases (Tab G ) reflect t h a t t h e
trials mere essentially fair.
( 6 ) There was no general or systematic use of improper methods to secure
prosecution evidence for use a t the trials.
( G ) Except a s to the cases of the twenty-nine prisoners referred to in Tab
H, no reason is perceived why t h e death sentences under consideration, a l l
of which were imposed for participation in murder, should not be executed.
5. Recommendation has been made to t h e Commanding General, European
Command, t h a t :
( a ) Clemency be extended t o t h e prisoners listed in Tab H to the extent
and for the reasons there stated.
( b ) The temporary system Presently i n operation i n the Office of t h e
Judge Advocate, European Command, for the consideration of petitions f o r
clemency be continued; and t h e Commander i n Chief, European Command,
a s soon a s i s practicable, supplant that system by establishing a permanent
clemency program for the consideration of sentences of prisoners convicted
i n War Crimes cases.
6. I n compliance with paragraph 2 of the applicable orders (Tab A ) t h e
Commander i n Chief, European Command, has been informed of the substance
of this report.
( S ) GORDON SIMPSON,
Colonel, JAGD.
( S ) EDWARD L. VAN RODEN,
Colonel, JAGD.
( S ) CLARENCE W . LAWRENCE, Jr.,
Lkeutenant Colonel, JAGD,
8 Incls. : Tabs A-H
(Material MUST NOT be removed f r o m o r added t o this file)
Concerning Allegations Contained i n Petition for W r i t of Habeas Corpus

Filed in the U. S. Supreme Court by Defendants i n Case of U. S. Against
Bersin e t al. (The Malmedy Case)
1. The Administration of Justice Review Board, established pursuant to Gen-
eral Order No. 90, Headquarters European Command (Ex. I), met pursuant
to the order of reference (Ex. 2) a t Berlin and Frankfurt, Germany, on 7, 16, 17
and 26 July, and 20 August 1948, t o investigate the allegations in a petition f o r

W r i t of Habeas Corpus filed i n t h e U. S. Supreme Court by defendants in the
case of U. S. against Bersin e t al. (The Malmedy Case). Colonel John M. Ray-
mond, Director of t h e Legal Division, OMGUS, Chairman of t h e Board, and
Colonel J. L. Harbaugh, Jr., Judge Advocate, EUCOM, Member of the Board,
were present a t each meeting. Dr. Carl J. Friedrich, Advisor to the Military
Governor for Military Government Affairs, Member of t h e Board, was present
a t all meetings except a portion of the hearing on 17 July and a portion of the
hearing on 26 July 1948.
2. Thereafter on t h e date of 20 August 1948 the Board submitted a prelimi-
n a r y report in ' ~ i c hi t recommended t h a t testimony of additional witnesses i n
t h e United St:.tes be furnished t o the Board. This h a s now been done. The
Board reconvened on 11,12, and 13 January, and on 10 and 11 February, 1949,
f o r further consideration of the matter. Between 20 August 1948 and 11 Jan-
u a r y 1949 the Office of the Advisor to the Military Governor for Military Gov-
ernment Affairs became vacant, and therefore, a t the subsequent hearings t h e
Board consisted of Colonel John M. Raymond, Director of the Legal Division,
OMGUS, Chairman, and Colonel J. L. Harbaugh, Jr., Judge Advocate, EUCOM,
member, both of whom were present a t each meeting. Although t h e Chief Judge
of the Military Government Court of Appeals, U. S. Military Government Courts
for Germany, was appointed a member of the Board on 24 January 1949, h e was
excused by the chairman and took no part i n these proceedings inasmuch a s he
h a d not been present a t any of t h e earlier sessions.
3. At the hearings prior to its preliminary report, seven witnesses were called
and appeared before the Board, and twenty-six exhibits were received in evidence.
I n addition, another witness was interviewed by Dr. Friedrich, a member of the
Board, who reported to t h e Board the substance of w,hat t h e witness would
testify if called. The Board accepted i n evidence affidavits from Bty-two of
t h e petitioners who filed t h e petition for habeas corpus a s indicating the testi-
mony they would give regarding the allegations i n their petitions. Other wit-
nesses in this command who would appear to have any knowledge of the matters
i n question were interrogated. Most of t h e witnesses having first-hand lmowl-
edge of t h e matters complained of, other than t h e petitioners themselves, a r e no
longer within this command.
4. At t h e hearings i n J a n u a r y and February, 1949, the Board received in
evidence aftidavits from t h e following individuals :
Colonel C. B. Mickelwait, JAGD, formerly Deputy Theater Judge Advo-
cate f o r W a r Crimes, U S F E T and later Theater Judge Advocate, U S F E T
(Ex. 27).
Lt. Colonel Burton F. Ellis, JAGD, formerly Chief, Investigation Section,
War Crimes Branch, Office of Theater Judge Advocate, USFET and later
Chief Prosecutor of Malmedy Case (Ex. 28).
Dwight F. Fanton, formerly Major assigned to Investigations Section,
W a r Crimes Branch, Office of Theater Judge Advocate, USFET and i n
charge of investigation of Malmedy case until March 1946 (Ex. 29, 30).
Homer B. Crawford, formerly Lt. Colonel, Air Corps and a member of the
investigating team i n t h e Malmedy case (Ex. 31).
Raphael Shumacker, formerly Captain assigned t o W a r Crimes Branch
USFET and formerly Interrogator connected with the Malmedy case (Ex.
32, 33).
William R. Perl, formerly 1st Lieutenant and Interrogator i n Malmedy
case (Ex. 34).
Morris Ellowitz, formerly Civilian Interrogator i n Malmedy case (Ex. 35).
The Board also received in evidence additional affidavits of several individuals
submitted by the defendant Peiper i n t h e Malmedy case (Ex. 36) and a number
of affidavits submitted by Cardinal Frings, Archbishop of Cologne, the latter being
duplicates of certain of the affidavits i n Exhibit 23 (Ex. 37). The Board received
i n evidence copies of letters written to t h e Secretary of t h e Army by Senator
Baldwin a n d Senator Ecton, and copy of a telegram t o the Secretary of t h e Army
from Representative Case (Ex. 38). Finally the Board received in evidence a
copy of a n affidavit of Doctor Eduard Rnorr who had been part-time dentist a t
Schwabisch Hall (Ex. 39), and a document purporting t o be a copy of a n affi-
davit by Carl Diebitsch, German Camp Commander a t Sohwabisch Hall, (Ex.
40) and a n affidavit from Lt. Col. J. B. Costello, who had previously testified a s a
witness (Ex. 41).
5. The affidavits included i n Exhibit 23 have been accepted a s representing what
the petitioners would testify. The Judge Advocate, EUCOM, has in i t s possession
a number of additional affidavits from various sources, many of which claim
similar mistreatment. The Board has looked these over and is of the opinion that
such evidence would only be cumulative in showing a n alleged course of conduct,
which is fully described in the affidavits now in evidence. Therefore, these addi-
tional. affidavits have not been received in evidence.
6. The allegations in the petition for habeas corpus relate t o three distinct
matters :
a. alleged improper methods used in procuring testimony,
b. impropriety in the conduct of the trial, and
c. certain legal questions bearing principally on the guilt of the accused and
the sufficiency of proof to support conviction.
The Board has construed the order of reference a s relating only to the first two
of these matters and has not dealt with any questions of law, questions regarding
the guilt of the accused or questions of possible clemency action. Questions re-
garding the sufficiency of the evidence to support their conviction were only con-
sidered incidentally. After careful consideration of the testimony and the ex-
hibits the board makes the following findings :
FINDINGS
7. On or about 16 December 1944, a combat team of the German Army known a s

"Combat Group Peiper," to which the several accused belonged, participated in a
counteroffensive known a s the "Ardennes Offensive" or the "Battle of the Bulge."
I n the course of this offensive surrendered and unarmed prisoners of war as well
a s unarmed allied civilians were killed a t various places in Belgium by members
of Combat Group Peiper, the largest mass killing being a t the "Crossroads," a t
Malmedy, Belgium, on 17 December 1944. A t this place surrendered American
prisoners of war estimated from 80 to 200 in nnmber were herded into a pasture
and fired upon by the Germans of Combat Group Peiper with machine guns, tanks,
and various other kinds of weapons. Various members of the group walked
among the bodies, fired additional shots a t prisoners who appeared to be alive.
Similar ruthless killing by Combat Group Peiper took place in other vicinities.
8. From that time on there mas considerable public demand for arrest and
trial of those responsible. I n June 1945 work started on the case. While there
was plenty of evidence of the atrocities committed, particularly a t the Crossroads,
the names of those participating mere not known. Consequentlg. . eps were taken
to locate all members of Combat Group Peiper including the 1st .;J Panzer Regi-
ment. As a result, over nine hundred and ninety known members of the First S S
Panzer Regiment were collected in one place. I t then developed that Colonel
Peiper was still controlling his men, and i t was impossible to develop the story.
To avoid intercommunication, they were moved to a modern German prison i n
Schwabisch Hall, Wuerttemberg-Baden, where prisoners could be reasonably well
segregated from each other. Ultimately 74 such prisoners were tried and 73 con-
victed ; 60 convictions were finally approved by the Commander-in-Chief, includ-
ing 12 cases involving the death sentence.
9. The aIlegations in the petition for habeas corpus which the Board is charged
with investigating charge t h a t improper methods were used in obtaining evidence
from the accused. Such charges relate almost exclusively to what was done a t
Schwabisch Hall. The interrogation of the accused and witnesses confined there
was a t first under the command of Major Dwight F. Fanton, then for a short time
under Captain Raphael Shnmacher, and finally under Lt. Colonel Burton F. Ellis,
who became Chief of the Prosecution staff a t the trial. Those primarily accused
of misconduct were Captain Raphael Shumacher, 1st Lt. William R. Perl, Morris
Ellowits, Joseph Kirschbaum, and Harry W. Thon, the last three being civilians.
Of all these people only Kirschbaum and Thon were available to the Board a s
witnesses. However, affidavits were received from all the other people named i n
this paragraph.
10. The allegations as to misconduct fall into two principal categories :
a. the use of mock trials, threats, inducements, and stratagems to procure
sworn statements against other accused and to obtain confessions ; and
b. the use of physical violence for similar purposes.
11. Moc7c Tria2s.-At the trial the prosecution admitted and the Board finds
in the evidence before it, that in certain instances, probably about eight or ten,
the use of a so-called mock trial was resorted to in a n attempt to "soften up" a
witness who was thought to be susceptible to such procedure. Those trials were
held a t Schwabisch' Hall in one of the cells, sometimes a small cell about 6 x 8
feet, sometimes in a larger room two or three times that size. There wouId be a
table covered with a black cloth on which stood a crucifix and burning candles
. and behind which sat one or more people impersonating judges.
12. The defendant would be brought from his cell hooded. The practice of
using black hoods whenever a defendant was taken from his cell was universally
employed a t Schwabisch Hall to prevent communication with other prisoners a n d
t o prevent knowledge of where he was going. Allegations t h a t these hoods were
bloodstained were not supported by any testimony before the Board, other than
affidavits of the petitioners.
13. When the prisoner was brought into the mock-trial room sometimes other
people were brought in who purported to testify against him. There is no.
evidence on which t h e Board can find t h a t the prisoner himself was forced t o
testify a t such trial. One mmeber of the prosecution team would play the
part of prosecutor and another would act a s a friend of the defendant. While
this latter may have been not held out affirmatively a s clefense counsel the accused
had every reason to believe he wastaking that part. No sentence was pronounced,
. but the accused was made to understand that it was his last chance to talk a n d
undoubtedly in some cases understood he had been convicted.
14. Following the moclr trial the man who had played the friend of the accused
a t the mock trial would talk to him confidentially and advise him to tell what h e
knem. This procedure met with varying success, but undoubtedly some clefendants
would confess a t least part of their crimes under the influence of such procedures.
15. This procedure has a further bearing on the preparation of the case when
i t really came to trial. Defense Counsel appointed for the accnsed founcl difficulty
in getting the confidence of the defendants because of their experience with the
mock trials, but i t appeared t h a t such difficulty mas overcome after the first
two or three days.
16. Intinzidation a,nd Abuse.-It is further alleged in the petition for habeas-
corpus or in the affidavits of the accused t h a t various methods were used in con-
nection with the interrogation which had the effect of intimidating or abusing.
t h e accused. For example, i t is alleged that floodlights were thrown in their eyes
when they were being interrogated. On all the evidence the Board finds t h a t this-
w a s not a general practice, and t h a t if any light mas used in the interrogation
room it was a low-candlepower light and its use was not i n any objectionable
way. Again it is claimed t h a t the accused were deprived of blankets and cloth-
Ing on occasions when they refused to testify. The Board cannot find that there
w a s any deprivation of clothing, but does find that certain cells dicl not have
blankets for a short period of time. However, these cells were heated to normal
room temperature. I t is also claimed that they were deprived of food until they
would confess. The Board finds that when food was brought before a particu-
l a r interrogation had ended the accused may have had to wait until the interro-
gation was finished before h e was allowed to eat his meal, but there was no de-
liberate withholding of food to force a confession. It is further claimed that in
one of the cells where defendants were taken there mere bullet holes in the walls
and human flesh and hair clinging to the bullet holes. There was no substantial
testimony to support this. The Board is not convinced there was basis in f a c t
f o r this allegation.
17. Dictation of Confessions.-There is a claim t h a t confessions were written
or dictated by interrogators and that the accused were forced to sign them a s so
prepared. The Board finds that after many interrogations the story of the a@
cused vonld be pieced together and he wonlcl then be told to write out his
story covering such and such points. When something was omitted it would
be pointed out to him and he wonld be told to include i t if it was the truth. I n
some cases the interrogator nlidonbteclly would dictate the exact language, but
t h e Board finds that in such cases t h e language probably represented substantially
what the accused had already confessed i n his interrogations. The accused w a s
permitted to read over and to correct what he had written. All such confessions
were signed and sworn to before an officer, so that when the interrogation was by.
a civilian (for example Kirshbaum, Ellowitz, and Thon) the statement was signed.
and sworn to before Captain Shnmacher or Lt. Perl. There is no evidence t h a t
these officers in such cases forced the defendant to sign and swear to anything
t h a t he was not willing to sign or smear to.
18. Suicide Ca,se.--It was alleged that mistreatment caused a snicicle of one of.
t h e prisoners a t Schwabisch Hall named Freimuth. Freimuth committed suicide^
by hanging himself in his cell. He had been under interrogation, a s had the
other accused. The Board is unable to make any findings as to the reason of
t h e suicide, but in view of all the testimony i s not convinced that Freimuth
received the mistreatment alleged.
19. Death Cell.-There is constant reference to a so-called "death cell," or
death cells, the inference being that prisoners who were placed in such a cell
had been sentenced to death. While this term was generally used a t Schwabisch
Hall for a particular cell, the origin of the term goes back to the fact that when
i t was a German prison that cell was used to confine prisoners who had been sen-
tenced to death. There is no evidence, apart from the use of the term, that the
accused were threatened with death by being placed in that cell. The Board
finds that there were no gallows or other means of execution in the so-called
death cell or anywhere in the prison, and no executions took place there during
the period in question.
20. Solitczry Confi?~e?nelzt.-Prisoners were from time to time placed in solitary
confinement for infraction of prison rules or to prevent their communicating
with other prisoners. I t is not clear whether this practice was followed in the
case of prisoners who refused to give statements, although this is possible. Soli-
tary confinement was usually for a period of only a few days. However, after
the number of prisoners a t Schwabisch Hall had been reduced by weeding out
suspects who were not to be charged and not to be used a t witnesses, a s far a s
possible the remaining prisoners were confined in individual cells or in cells with
not more than one other man. This was part of the plan to prevent intercom-
munication, between prisoners, which was deemed necessary as a result of early
experience in order to prevent coordination of stories by the accused.
21. Inducments.-It is alleged that prisoners were told that the prosecntion
was only interested in convicting the officers, and that this was held out a s an
inducement to enlisted men to give testimony against their officers, and in-
cidentally, to state their participation in the affair. The Board finds that the
strategy of the prosecution, in order to break the case, was to get statements
first from the enlisted men, who were men more likely to talk, and get them
to involve their immediate superiors, then to confront those superiors with these
statements and get them to involve people still higher up, until finally the top
man was involved. Undoubtedly representations were made along t h e lines:
"You know that what you did was under orders. Now who gave you the orders
and what were they?" I t is probable that in certain cases the interrogators went
further in their representatfons.
22. Relatives of Accused.-It is alleged that representatives of the prosecution
threatened harm to relatives of the accused if they did not confess, such as d e p
rivation of ration cards. There was evidence that this did occur. The Board
finds i t is probable in certain instances such threats may have been made, but
the Board is unable to identify the particular instances involved. I t did a p
pear that during the trial certain members of the prosecution staff invited rela-
tives of the accused who attendecl the trial to a party a t the Officers' Club. There
was no eridence, h o w e ~ e r ,that this means was used to obtain any statements
that could be used against the accused.
23. Btool Pigeons.-It is admitted, and the Board finds, that stool pigeons were
placed in cells with the accused in an attempt to get statements.
24. PhysicnZ Pi0lenoe.-As to the claim that physical violence was used against
the accused, considerable evidence was taken. Practically a11 of the accused in
their recent affidavits claim violence w a s used on them. On the other hand all
of the interrogators and those in charge of the interrogators assert no violence
was used.
25. Corroborating the claims of the various accused a s to physical violence,
there is the affidavit of Doctor Knorr, the dentist a t Schwabisch Hall, that h e
treated 15 or 20 of the suspects for injuries to the mouth and jaw, apparently
inflicted by blows. There is also the affidavit of a German prisoner of war who
Worked in the hospital that he observed a number of the prisoners who had to be
treated for bruises and contusions. On the other hand, Karl Diebitsch, in a n
affidavit dated 11 April 1946, stated that he was the German Camp Commander
iof the suspects in Schwabisch Hall during the period in question, and did not
personally see any ill treatment, although h e repeats in his affidavit rumors of
mistreatment that he heard from various sources.
26. I t appears that on 7 February 1946, an SOP was nnblished by Major Fanton,
then commanding the interrogators a t Schwabisch Hall, which contained the
following provisions :
4. RTTLES .GOVERNING INTERROGATION
a. Any ruse or deception may be used in the course of the interrogation,

but threats, duress in any form, physical violence. or promises of immunity
or mitigation of punishment, should be scrupnlously avoided.
b. Where a prisoner being interrogated i n a crime i s implicated in t h a t

crime, i t i s permissible to tell him t h a t he will be recommended a s a witness,
if such statement to the prisoner will cause him to tell a full or more cOm-
plete story so t h a t he will be of more value to the case a s a witness than as
a defendant. However, before any such statements a r e made to a prisoner,
t h e matter must be cleared with the Commanding Officer.
c. Stool pigeons may be employed, but prior to their selection or prepara-
tion, the matter of their employment must be cleared with t h e Commanding
Officer.
I t also appears t h a t these instructions were never changed and were continued
in force until the end of the investigation.
27. As bearing on t h e likelihood of there having been physical mistreatment
i t i s to be noted t h a t t h e Deputy Judge Advocate for War Crimes ordered ail
investigation of similar allegations in April 1943 before the trial started. a t a
time when all concerned were available. Both Colonel Mickelmait and Lt. Colonel
Ellis state t h a t the Investigating Officer reported t h a t he could find no evidence
warranting the conclusion that allegations of i i n p r o ~ e ractions, such a s the use
of violence or the threats of violence, were true. A similar report was rendered
by the Chief Prosecutor, after inquiry of his staff. It furthermore appears t h a t
four of the defendants admitted t o the Investigating Oficer t h a t their accusa-
tions of violence and beating were only made "to get out from under" their con-
fessions and mere not true, and this mas admitted a t the time by the Chief
Counsel for the Defense.
28. I t i s to be noted t h a t the Chief Counsel for the Defense, shortly after he
was appointed and before the trial, submitted forms to he filled out by each of
t h e accused. These forms called for information a s to ally mistreatment t h a t
they had suffered. Presumably these forms were completed and in the hauds of
t h e Chief Defense Counsel prior to trial. Nevertheless, only nine of t h e seventy-
three defendants who were convicted took the.stand i n their own behalf, and of
these nine only three- (Motzheim, Sievers, and Tomliardt) then claimed any
physical mistreatment in connection with their interrogation. I n January or
February 1948 when these same individuals prepared affidavits they ach-anced
ne?v and greatly expanded claims of mistreatment. F o r example, Goldschmidt,
testifying a t t h e trial, made no claim whatsoever t h a t he was subjected t o
duress or improper treatment (Ex. 41). Pet, in his affidavit of 11 F e h r n a r ~
1948 (Ex. 23) he claims t h a t on 12 February 1946 he was "kicked and beaten i n
the face" and after a hood was put over his head "I was taken to a cell opposite
where I was beaten in t h e abdomen: fell to the ground and screamed"; t h a t
thereafter he was made to stand between two objects which were pressed to-
gether strongly "and was beaten several times over the head with a hard
object." Two days later "I was kicked twice in my lower body" and later "was
beaten i n the face and kicked in the legs." An example of a greatly elaborated
claim of mistreatment being made for the first time long after t h e trial is the
case of Motzheim. At t h e trial he mentioned beating administered b y M r . Thon
and Lt. Perl but without giving any details (Ex. 41). I n his affidavit of 11 Feb-
ruary 1948 (Ex. 23) he stated, "I was beaten by Mr. H a r r y Thon and Lt. Per1
into the face, i n the abdomen and i n the genitals." Later Thon "kept pushing
my head against the wall of the cell and Lt. Perl kiclrecl me in the geni-
tals, :: * ': I was kept on being beaten nntil I colla~~sed."I n his next inter-
rogation he says the same methods were used, and he n-as hit i n the face and
i n the abdolnen, and his interrogation "continued till late a t night with constant
beatings by Mr. Harry Thon and Lt. Perl." On his third interrogation he says
"after a half-hour two U. S. guards appeared and beat me with their clubs
when I was wearing the hood and when I lay on the ground kicked me with their
feet. Then Mr. Thon and Lt. Perl continued the interngation till noon by means
of beatings and other mistreatments." Certainly if any such actions liar1 taken
place i t was within the knowledge of the defendants a t the time of the trial and
presumably within the knowledge of their counsel. hTo reason appears to es-
plain the fact t h a t the matter was not brought out a t t h a t time, or if brou@t out
was not developed to the fullest extent.
29. The affidavits of mistreatment which has been received in evidence and
those which a r e i n the possession of the Judge Advocate, EUCOM, were almost
universally executed i n January or February 1948, two and a half years after
the trial was concluded. I n view of the doubt a s to the reliability of the state-
ments contained i n affidavits executed a t t h a t time-by the accusecl who testified
a t the trial, further doubt is cast on the affidavits also prepared a t that time by
the other accused.
30. On a l l the evidence, the Board finds t h a t physical force was not system-
atically applied in order to obtain statements, but that undoubtedly i n the heat
of the emo~nenton occasions, interrogators did use some physical force on s
recalcitrant suspect. The Board fnrther is satisfied t h a t the description of
physical violence that is given in the affidavits of t h e accused i s exaggerated
f a r beyond anything that might have taken place, and that the individuals who
may have been snbjected to some physical violence were probably few in number.
31. The allegations relating to the trial and preparation for trial can be
grouped a s follows :
a. Difficulties of preparation of defense.

b. Tampering with witnesses.
c. Hampering defense a t the trial.
There i s further allegation t h a t the prosecution jokingly admitted a t the trial
t h a t there had been misconduct during the interrogation of the accused.
32. Dlflcdties of Prepamtion of Defense.-Findings a s to difficulties of the
defense caused by the use of mock trials a r e set forth in paragraph 15 aQove.
The petition for habeas corpus fnrther alleges that t h e time f o r preparation of
defense was too short. The order appointing defense counsel was dated 9 April
1946. Charges were served 11 April 1946 and trial commenced 16 May 1946.
The prosecution's case lasted four weeks ancl a t the conclusion there was a
recess of one week to allow the defensee further opportunity to prepare i t s
case. The defense staff included seven American lawyers, two of whom had
command of the German language. There was not limit placed on the number
of German counsel the defense could employ. Actually, about a half dozen
German defense counsel were used, a t least one of whom spoke fluent English.
The defense were permitted complete access to their clients. Each defense
counsel Had a secretary and i n addition a n interpreter, and other interpreters
were available if needed. American vehicles and personnel mere made available
to connsel to go out to look for witnesses and evidence. There was some lack
of cooperation ancl unpleasant relationship between the prosecntion and defense
a t first, but these difficulties were ironed out by the Third Army Chief of War
Crimes under whose jurisdiction the case fell. One of the principal causes of
such friction was t h a t the prosecution continued to interview the accused
while the clefense was trying to prepare i t s case. Another was a refusal on
the p a r t of the prosecution to let t h e defense interview certain witnesses, and
when they were interviewed by the defense t h e prosecution would again inter-
view them and the witnesses would change their story. The defense were fur-
nished copies of statements of the accused before trial, but were not furnished
testimony of all other witnesses. The Board finds t h a t t h e prosecution did
interfere with the preparation of the defense i n the manner above indicated,
but by the time the defense was required to pnt i n its case they had had sufficient
opportunity, generally speaking, to prepare the same. At the opening of t h e
trial there was no request for any delay or continuance, and a t the close of
the prosecution's case the only continuance asked by the defense was granted.
33. Theft of papers.-There is a particular allegation t h a t during the trial Lt.
Ferl, while the trial was i n progress and all the accused and counsel were i n
court, entered the rooms of some of the accused and took papers which they had
prepared for their counsel, and examined them a t his office. It appears from
t h e affidavits of Lt. Colonel Ellis and Lt. Per1 t h a t these papers were taken by Lt.
Per1 in connection with a search growing out of a n attempt t o escape. T h e
Board is not convinced that the papers were taken for a n y improper purpose.
34. Hampering of Defense a t T?-,ial.-It is alleged t h a t the Defense was h a m p
-
ered in presenting the case. This boils down to a n allegation t h a t they felt t h e
rulings of the court mere unfair although not illegal. The court frequently would
say they had heard enough evidence on a certain point or did not care to hear
anything along a particular line, or would overrule objections of the defense
to testimony offered by the prosecution. The rules under which the court was
operating permitted the introduction of "oral, written, and physical evidence
having a bearing on the issues before it" and permitted the exclusion of "any evi-
dence which in its opinion is of no value a s proof" (Ex. 10, page 68, rule 12). The
Board finds t h a t the court might have been more considerate of the position of
the defense, but considers i t beyond the scope of the order of reference to deal
with any legal questions involved.
35. Testimon?~of Prosecutiom Witnesses.-The prosecution witnesses testified
a t t h e trial regarding the-mock trial proceedings. The Board finds t h a t while
this testimony was not given in a joking manner, the witnesses would make light
of it although frankly admitting t h e facts.
36. Additional Gonsideratio?zs.-As to the case a s a whole, two additional facts

must be stressed.' Findings have already been made in paragraph 8 above re-
garding some of the difiiculties facing the team t h a t mas charged with prepara-
tion of this case for trial. The accnsed were hostile wit~iessesa t all times. Al-
though young they were tough SS men, who hacl been trained t o hate Americans.
They were all controlled by Colonel Peiper who had issued instructions not to
talk. There were no eyewitnesses to identify perpetrators of the crime, with one
.exception. As a result the entire case had to be developed from statements
procured from members of the First Panser Regiment. About 1,000 such people
mere collected, but no one knew which of thein had knowledge of this particular
affair. With public demand for a trial aroused by the brutality of the Malmedy
Massacre, which had received tremendous publicity in the American press, the
interrogating team mas under pressure to crack the case. Methods tried a t first
failed. Only after the prisoners were a t Schwabisch IIall, relatively isolated,
and after experienced interrogators hacl been procured, mas the case finally
broJ<en. The strategy of using one man against another mas allnost a necessary
step. I n every case that was approved the accused was convicted not only by his
own statement but by corroborative testimony from others.
37. A second point not to be overlooked is the fact t h a t only nine of t h e 73
accused who were convicted took the stand. Whatever may be said about the
method used in obtaining statements, had the defendants given completely false
statements i n their signed confessions it is difficult to understand why they did
not want ot take the stand a n a repudiate them. The witness Narvid, the only
member of the defense staff who testified before t h e Board, stated t h a t t h e de-
-fense staff felt t h a t a prima facie case had not been made by the prosecution, but
he further stated : "We felt that the prosecution had still a consiclerable amount
of other evidence in the form of statements involving these accused which they
were utilizing for rebuttal, or intended to use for rebuttal. * * * They gave
t h e impression they were hoping the accusecl mould take the stand so that they
could 'really give i t to him' * * * they wonld involve themselves more than
they were already involved" (testimony of Narvid, Q. 798). Colonel Everett,
Chief Defense Counsel, i s reported to have stated t h a t if he put the accused on the
stand they would probably hang themselves (testimony of Straight, Q. 207). Lt.
Colonel Ellis, in his affidavit, states t h a t dnring the trial Colonel Everett was
concerned about the unfavorable showing the accused were making on the Court
by their testimony, and discussed the matter with Lt. Colonel Ellis who told him
that if fie were acting for the clefense and believed the accused were guilty, he
would not put them on t h e stand. Thereafter only three more of t h e accnsed took
the stand (Ex. 28). Although t h e findings in this paragraph have only a remote
.bearing on the issues before the Board, there was testimony on this point which
was felt important enough to report. I t does tend to discredit the idea advanced
in the petition for habeas corpus that the methods used by the interrogators
w e r e so severe a s t o cause t h e accused t o sign false confessions.
CONCLUSIORS
35. The Board concludes :

a. T h a t there mas limited use of mock trials.
b. T h a t there w a s a general use of the practice of persuading underlings to
talk by telling them the prosecution wanted to get their superiors and was not so
much interested in them.
c. T h a t physical force was not systematically applied in order to obtain state-
ments but t h a t undoubtedly i n the heat of the moment on occasions interrogators
did use some physical force on a recalcitrant suspect.
d. That in certain instances interrosators made threats to accused t h a t if they
did not talk, their relatives would be deprived of their ration cards.
e. That the practices referred to in a , b, c, and d above, in certain instances
exceeded the bounds of propriety but the Board has been unable to identify
such cases.
f. That there was a general use of other ruses, strategems, stool pigeons and
g. T h a t the conditions obtaining a t the prison and the nlethocls employed in t h e
interrogations bad a definite psychological effect on the defendants and resulted
i n their being more amenable to giving statements.
h. That the defense had difficulties in the preparation of its case, but such
difficulties were ironed out, and t h e clefense, considering all the circunlstances
of the case, had a reasonable time i n which t o prepare its case.
i. T h a t the remaining allegations o f the petition relate t o matters which are
n o t cleemed t o have been substantial abuse under the circum%tances.
RECOMMENDSTIONS
39. T h e Board reco~nmendsthat this report, together with t h e testimony and

exhibits, be considered i n connection with any further consideration o f t h e
Nallnecly case.
JOHN&I.R AYMOND.
Colonel, GXC, Chairman of the Board.
J. L. HARBAUGH,JB.,
Colo?zel, JAGC, Menzber of the Board.
SUPRICME
~ I C A D Q U A I W E R SALLIED
, ExPEDI~IoxAXY E'OIICE
G-5 DIVISION
T h i s Manual is published for t h e guidance o f Legal and Prison Officers and
,other Officers concerned w i t h the discharge o f legal ancl prison duties. T h e
Manual i s divided into four parts, t h e first o f which i s intended for Legal
Officersancl the second for Prison Officers. Parts 111 and I V provide a Glossary
and a n Index. T h e Manual contains Rnles for Military Government Courts and
t h e Guide to Procedure. I t also contains detailed instructions with r e s p x t t o
the supervision o f German Courts and an outline o f German Criminal Law:
'The relevant forms t o be used b y Legal and Prison Officers are placed at t h e
,end o f each section.
Certain extracts from Chapter V o f Part I1 o f t h e Military Government Hand-
book for Germany have been incorporated i n t h e t e x t , and a marginal reference
t o the section number i n t h e Military Government Handbook is given i n each
case. I t shonlcl be noted, however, that the whole o f Chapter V o f the Handbook
h a s not been reprinted i n the present edition. As Chapter V of t h e Handbook
i s now being revised, opportunity has been t a k e n t o introduce the proposed re-
-visions i n this Manual. Until, therefore, the revised Chapter V is issued there
will be a discrepancy between t h e Manual and the Handbook. T h e former, o f
,course, should be followed.
For the convenience o f those who have used t h e first edition o f t h e Manual, a
:separate table has been made showing where t h e old documents and supplements
are incorporated i n t h e new text. Supplements 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 have been
included i n t h e main t e x t and no longer appear as supplements. A list o f t h e
.subjects covered by such supplements i s included i n t h e comparative table
referred t o above.
A n English-German glossary o f technical Military Government terms has been
.added.
I n view o f the provisions o f Ordinance PTo. 3 making the English language
,official for the areas under the control o f the English-speaking forces and t h e
French and English languages i n t h e area under the French i\!Iilitary Government
.control, German translations o f t h e proclamation, laws, and ordinances have not
been included. However, German translations o f the forms t o be used by Mili-
tary Government Courts and directions t o German authorities, though they are
n o t official tests, have been included for the convenience o f practitioners.
A. E. GRASETT,
Liel~tenantGenel-al, Assistant Chief o f S t a f f , G-5.
RULES O F PROCEDUCE IN M I L I T A R Y GOVERNMENT COURTS

1. Constmction o f Rules.-These Rules shall be read with ancl subject t o the
Proclaination and Ordinance o f the Military Government.
COURTS, PROSECUTORS A N D C O U N S E L , A N D O F F I C I A L S
2. Cot~rts.-(1) Before proceeding w i t h the hearing of any case, a Military

Government Court shall satisfy itself that i t i s properly constituted, having regard
t o whether it i s a General, Intermediate or Summary Military Court, that n o
1206 MALMEDT M.4SS.4CRfi INVESTIGATION
member of the court has a personal interest in the case, and t h a t it has jurisdic.
tion over the pers6n and offense.
( 2 ) I n General and Intermediate Military Courts, and, when practicable, in
a Summary Military Court, a t least one member shall be a lalvyer serving with
the Military Government.
( 3 ) When the court consists of more than one officer, t h e senior i n rank shall
preside except that when feasible a Legal officer shall be designated to preside
by the Appointing Authority or by the senior in rank. The presiding officer shall
be responsible f o r the making of the record and may require any other member
to assist him in making it. Any member of the court may sign the record.
( 4 ) No addition to or substitution i n the membership of the court shall be
made in the course of a trial. The failure of any member t o be present through-
out any trial shall not invalidate the trial, provided t h a t t h e court is a t no time
reduced below the legal minimum. No member who has been absent a t any
time shall take any further part in the trial.
(5) ICvery issue shall be determined by a majority of the votes of the
members of the court a s then constituted, except t h a t a two-thirds vote
shall be required for a sentence of death. When the voting is evenly divided
the presiding officer shall cast a second vote. When the court consists of more
than one officer, voting shall be inverse order of r a n k ; except that t h e presiding
officer shall always vote last.
3. Prosecutors and Counsel.- (1)Any officer of the Allied Forces, or any other
person acceptable to t h e court, may act a s prosecutor.
, ( 2 ) Any lawyer not debarred from appearing by the Military Government o r
by the court, or any other person with the consent of the court, may appear a s
defending counsel. The court may appoint a n officer of the Allied Forces, or
with the consent of the accused designate local counsel, to represent the accused
or assist in his defense if the nature of t h e case makes i t desirable. Before a
General Military Court, where a sentence of death nlay be imposed, and the
accused is not represented, t h e court shall appoint a n officer of the Allied I' owes
to represent him a t his trial.
4. Officials.-A Military Government Court may appoint interpreters, reporters,
advisers and other officials, either generally or for the trial of a particular case,
who need not be members of the Allied Forces. Any official reporter or inter-
preter shall, before assuming his duties, take a n oath in the form set out i n
Legal Forms, Military Government Courts, for the purpose of palticular pro-
ceedings or of any term o r session of the court.
PRELIMINARY PROCEEDINGS
5. Arrest and Rrtmmo~s.-(1) All proceedings i n a Military Government Court

will be commenced by summons t o appear, warrant of arrest, or arrest without
warrant.
( 2 ) A warrant of arrest may be issued by any officer of t h e Allied Forces and
may be executed by any member of the Allied Forces or any person acting under
t h e authority thereof.
( 3 ) A summons may be signed and served by any member of t h e Allied Forces
o r any person acting under the authority thereof except a s may be otherwise
directed by or under the authority of t h e Chief Legal Officer or a n Army Group
Commander.
6. Charges.-(1) A copy of the charges shall be delivered to a n accused or his
representative a s soon a s practicable after arrest and i n any event before trial.
Where proceedings a r e commenced by service of a summons adequately stating
t h e charges, no separate charge sheet need be used. A copy of any amendment
t o the charges shall also be given to the accused unless waived i n open court
by him or his counsel.
( 2 ) Each charge shall disclose one offence only and shall be particularised
sufficiently to identify the place, the time and the subject matter of the alleged
offence, and shall specify t h e provision under which t h e offence is charged.
(3) Any number of charges may be contained i n the same charge sheet, and
alternative charges may be based on the same facts.
(4) Two or more persons may be tried jointly for the same offence where the
charge arises out of the samr set of circrmstnnws.
7. Arraignment and Pleadings.-(1) All persons arrested for a n offence with
o r without a warrant will be brought a s soon a s practicable before a Summary
Military Court, except t h a t the Chief Legal Officer or any officer authorised by
him in order t h a t any particular case or Class of cases be brought directly before
a n Intermediate or General Military Court f o r trial.
( 2 ) A Summary Military Court, on the accused appearing before it, may
defer the hearing if the accused has had insufficient time to prepare his defence
or for other reasons, and i n t h a t event will order the accused to be detained in
custody or released on or without bail on such terms a s the court thinks fit.
( 3 ) I n the event of a decision to proceed, the court will read to the accused the
charges brought against him and will ask the accused after the 1,rading of each
charge whether he pleads guilty or not guilty to it. If necessary, the Court will
explain these terms to the accused. The Court will enter in t h e record of the
case the plea made to each charge.
( 4 ) At th8 time of pleading to the charges, the court may interrogate t h e
accused a s provided i n Rule 10 ( 5 ) .
(5) The court may accept a plea of guilty t o a n offence other t h a n t h a t charged
and a plea of not guilty to the offence charged.
( 6 ) If the answer of the accused to any charge is such that it appears he may
not be guilty of the offence charged, then whatever his plea may be the court
shall enter a plea of not guilty.
(7) A plea of not guilty of any offence for which a sentence of death may be
imposed shall be entered by a Summary Military Court in any case reported
for transfer t o a General Military Court.
( 8 ) A Summary or Intermediate Military Court may deal with any offence f o r
which t h e penalty of death is authorised if i t is satisfied that, i n fact, a penalty,
which i t has power to inflict, is adequate.
( 9 ) All charges to which a n accused person pleads not guilty shall be tried
together, unless on the application of the accused the court grants leave for any
of them to be tried separately.
8. Procedure o f Plea of G u i Z t ~in Sunzrnarv Military Court.-(1) Upon a plea
of guilty of all offences charged, a Summary Court will hear such statements f o r
the prosecntion and the defence and such evidence a s i t requires to enable it
t o determine the sentence to be imposed. If it has power to impose adequate
punishment, i t will proceed a t once to t h e sentence.
( 2 ) If in the opinion of the Summary Military Court a sentence should be
imposed in excess of t h a t which i t has power to impose, it will report t h e case
to t h e legal officer of the next higher Military Government echelon for reference
to the appropriate Intermediate or General Military Court.
( 3 ) Before such reference, a Summary Military Court may, however, in its
discretion for the purpose of perpetuating the testimony or for any other reason,
receive evidence respecting the commission of t h e alleged offence.
9. Procedc~rsom Plea of Not Gzci7ty in Bumrmavz~M i l i t a r ? ~Court.-(1) Upon
a plea of not guilty, the court, either by way of preliminary hearing or a s p a r t
of the trial, will hear such statements for the prosecution and the defence and
such e v i d ~ n c ea s i t requires to enable i t to determine:
a. Whether the case should be referred f o r trial t o a n Intermediate o r Gen-
eral Military Court, either because of its own lack of power to impose ade-
quate sentence in the event of conviction, or for any other reason;
b. Whether there is sufficient substance to the charge to justify a trial
thereon by any court.
( 2 ) A Summary Military Court will then either :
a. dismiss some or all of the charges (whether or not the court would have
had power to impose sufficient sentence in the event of a conviction) ;
b. report the case to the legal officer of the next higher M. G. echelon for
reference to the appropriate Intermediate or General Military Court; or
c. retain t h e charges and proceed with the case.
( 3 ) The court, even if it decides to report the case f o r reference to a higher
court, may receive further evidence a s provided i n para. ( 3 ) of Rule 8, and
should do so if there i s any doubt a s t o t h e future availability of witnesses.
10. Trial Procedure in S u m m a r y Military Courts.-(1) A Summary Military

Court shall be guided by the following outline of procedure, which may be modi-
fied to fit the circumstances of t h e particular case :
a. a statement by the prosecutor outlining the facts to be proved by t h e
prosecution, and the calling of the prosecution's witnesses ;
b. after each witness has given his evidence, cross-examination by the
accused or his representative ;
c. reexamination by the prosecutor of any witnesses upon any new matter
appearing in the cross-examination or, with the court's consent, upon any
other matter ;
d. when all the witnesses for the prosecution have been called and the case3
for the prosecution closed, a statement by the accused or his representative,
followed by the calling, examination, cross-examination and reexamination
of the witnesses for t h e defence ;
e. when all the witnesses for the defence have been called and the defence
closed, the calling by the prosecution, with leave of the court, or recalling Of
any witnesses for the purpose of rebuttal of any material made by any wit-
ness for the defence or of giving evidence on any new matter raised by t h e
defence ;
f. a sum- Ing up by the prosecution following by a sn~llmingup by the
accused or his representative ;
g. consideration and announcement of the findings ;
h. in the event of acquittal on all charges, the discharge of the accused;
i. in the event of conviction, hearing of statements and evidence for the
prosecution and the defence, including evidence of prior conriction, beariug-
upon the sentence to be ~mposed;
j. consideration of sentence and its announcement in open court.
( 2 ) After the close of the case for the prosecution, the court may acquit t h e
accused on any charge if i t decides there is not sufficient evidence to support the
charge and that the accused should not be required to answer it, and any such
acquittal shall be entered in the record of the case. The court may on applica-
tion of the prosecution also direct that any further charge or charges be pre-
ferred against the accused and may grant any necessary adjournment for that
purpose.
( 3 ) The court may a t any stage of the examination question any witness a n d
may call c r recall any witness a t any time before finding if i t considers it neces-
sary in the interest of justice.
(4) Each witness called shall take an oath or make affirmation in the f o r m
ccntaiued in Legal Forms, Military Government Courts, before giving evidence,
except that a chlld under fourteen years of age who in the judgment of the court
does not understand the nature of the oath but nex-ertheless understands the duty
of speaking the truth may give evidence without being sworn or malting affirma-
tion. The oath or affirmation may be administered either in English or in any
other language.
(5) The court may interrogate the accused a t the time of pleading or a t t h e
trial, but shall not apply any compulsion to require him to answer. Any state-
ments then made may be received a s evidence. If the accused chooses to testify
a t a later stage of the trial, he may do so, but he may not be required to do so
and shall not be sworn.
(6) The Court shall have power to order trial in camera if i t is necessary tol
prevent any prejudice to the security of the Allied Forces or for some other ex-
ceptional reason.
( 7 ) I n the event of the accused not appearing before the Court, the following
action may be taken :
a. if i t is proved that the accused was dnly served with a summons to,
appear, the Court may proceed with the trial in his absence and may, if it
considers the case against him proved, record a conviction and sentence;
b. if i t is not so proved but the Court is satisfied that after reasonable
steps have been taken to find and summon the accused he cannot be found,
the Court may proceed in his absence up to but not beyond the recording of
evidence and making any order permitted under subrule ( e ) of this Rule.
I n the event the accused being subsequently brought before the Court, such
recorded evidence shall be admissible a s evidence in the case, provided that
the accused shall be entitled to cross-examine any of the original witnesses
for the prosecution whose attendance can be procured (in which case the
prosecution shall be entitled to reexamine) and both the prosecution and
the accused shall be entitled to call fresh evidence ;
c. in either of the above cases the Court shall appoint a n officer of the
Allied Forces or other suitable person to represent the defence ;
d. in addition to its powers under Rule 14 (4) the Court may, in proceed-
ings under subrule ( a ) of this Rule, for the purpose of enforcing,a sentence
of a fine make such order regarding the custody or disposition of any property
which the accused owns or in which he has a n interest a s appears to be just
and approprite ;
e. in proceedings under subrule ( b ) of this rule the Court may, whenever
it appears to be just appropriate, make a n interim order for the custody o r
impounding of any property which the accused owns or in which he has a n
I) MALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 1209
interest, pending the conclusion of the trial or may make any final order
with respect to such property a s may hereafter be authorized by further
Rules of Procedure. This power of the Conrt i s without prejudice to t h e
powers of the Military Government under Law No. 52 (Blocking and Control
of Property).
11. Trial P~ocedctrei n Intevntediate and General Military Courts.-The proce-
dure in Intermediate and General Military Conrts shall be the same a s t h a t pro-
vided herein' for Summary Military Courts except that :
(1)the record of any evidence taken in a Summary Military Court will b e
made available to the Intermediate or General Military Conrt, and the
record bf any evidence taken in t h e Intermediate Military Court made avail-
able to the General Military Court, and any witness whose evidence differs
from that given by him before the lower court may be cross-examined thereon
or questioned by the court ;
( 2 ) if any witness is unavailable, the Intermediate or General Military
Court may, after hearing the prosecution and defence, receive in evidence the
record of his testimony in the lower court;
( 3 ) a plea of guilty to a n offence punishable by death may be accepted
provided the court i s satisfied from the nature of t h e case t h a t the punish-
ment of death would be clearly excessive and t h a t a lesser punishment which
i t is within its power to impose would suffice.
12. Evidence.-(1) A Military Government Court shall in general admit oral,
written, and physical evidence having a bearing on the issues before it, and may
exclude any evidence which in its opinion is of no value a s proof. If security is
a t stake, evidence may be taken in camera or i n exceptional cases where security
demands i t may be excluded altogether.
( 2 ) The court shall in general require t h e production of the best evidence
available.
( 3 ) Evidence of bad character of a n accused shall be admissible before finding
only when the accused person h a s introduced evide8ncea s to his own good char-
acter or a s to t h e bad character of any witness for the prosecution.
13. Amendment of Charges a n d Pleas.-(1) A Military Government Court
may am&d a charge a t any time before finding, provided that a n adjournment
is granted if necessary, and t h a t no injustice is thereby done to t h e accused.
( 2 ) An accused person may a t any time before finding, with t h e leave of the
court, alter a plea of not guilty to one of guilty.
( 3 ) The court mag on i t s own motion or a t the request of the accused a t any
time before sentence alter a plea of guilty to one of not guilty.
( 4 ) An accused person who has pleaded guilty to a charge i n a Summary or
Intermediate Military Court may, if the case is referred to a higher court for
trial, alter that plea to one of not guilty.
14. Sentences.-(1) A Military Government Court shall announce its findings
on each charge before i t and shall pronounce one sentence in respect of all the
charges upon which the accused is found guilty.
( 2 ) Every sentence of imprisonment shall state the date of commencement
thereof, which, if the accused was previously i n custody, shall ordinarily make
allowance for the period of custody.
( 3 ) A Military Government Court shall, when imposing any fine, impose a
sentence of imprisonment to be served i n default of payment of such fine, and
may direct the period within which the fine shall be paid. I n the event of
default in payment of a fine, the court may order the alternative sentence to be
put into effect without bringing the accused again before the court. A report
shall be made in the manner provided f o r transmission of records.
(4)'In addition to or in lieu of sentence, imprisonment or death (within i t s
jurisdiction) a Military Government Court may :
( a ) order the restitution to the lawful owner, or the forfeiture to. or
temporary custody by, the Allied Forces or local public authority of any
property including n n p proceeds therof whether i n their original form or
converted into some other form of property when the accused is found guilty
of a n offence of which the illegal possession, use, purchase or sale of such
property is a n essential element :
( b ) order the closing of any business premises or residence, the snspen-
sion of business, or the withdrawal or suspension of any license for the
operation of the same or any similar business, where the accused is found
guilty of the illegal operation of a business, and, in any such case, map
order the forfeiture to, or temporary custody by, t1.e Allied Forces or local
public authority of any stock i n trade to which such illegal operation re-
lates ;
( c ) order the accused to establish his residence within or without a

designated area or not to leave or enter a designated area without per-
mission.
(5) A Military Government Court in imposing any sentence may in ex-
ceptional circumstances suspend the execution thereof in whole or i n part on
such terms a s i t thinks fit.
( 6 ) Except a s the court may otherwise direct, every sentence except a s e n
tence of death shall be put into execution forthwith and without awaiting the
action of the R e v i e w i n g ~ u t h o r i t y .
( 7 ) When a n offense i s charged under German Law the Court on conviction
is not limited b'y the maximum sentence permitted under such law but may
i m ~ o s esuch sentence withifi its powers a s the circumstances of the case may
require provided t h a t :
( a ) except in cases of homicide, attempted homicide, or assault with
intent t o do grievous bodily injury, no death sentence shall be imposed
when i t could not have been imnosed under the German Lam under which
thecharge w a s framed ; and
( b ) when the offence charged i s a contravention (Ubertretung) only,
any sentence of imprisonment shall not exceed two years.
GENERAL
PROVISIONS
15. References to Higher Court.-(1) Whenever a Sumlnary Military Court
o r Intermediate Military Court reports a case for reference to a higher court
for trial, whieh either may do a t any stage of the proceedings, t h e court shall:
( a ) make a notation of such report in the recckd of the case;
( b ) make and enter in the record, after hearing t h e prosecution and de-
fence, a n order directing t h a t the accused be held in custody, or leased on
or without bail, pending trial ; and
( c ) send the record to the Legal Officer of the nest higher M. G. echelon.
( 2 ) Unless otherwise directed by the Chief Legal Offlcer, the Legal Officer of
.the next higher M. G. office shall refer the case for trial to a n Intermediate or
General Military Court a s he deems appropriate, or may direct t h a t theocase be
tried by the court which reported the case or by any other court.
16. Attendance and Detention of Witnesses.-(1) A Military Government Court
shall have power to summon a s a witness any person except a child under fourteen
years of age, in which case i t may summon the parent or guardian to bring t h e
child to attend a s a witness, and except a member of the Allied Forces, i n which
case it may request the Commanding Officer of such member to order his at-
tendance.
( 2 ) Any person whom t h e court may summon a s a witness may be ordered t o
bring with him any document or article in his possession o r under his control
which has a bearing on the issues i n the case.
(3) Wherever the court has reason to believe t h a t a witness may be intimi-
dated or become unavailable a t the trial, i t may direct t h a t he be detained a s a
material witness, provided t h a t no such person shall be detained for a period of
more than 21 days without a further order being made. A report of such deten-
tion shall be made forthwith i n t h e manner provided for the transmission of
t h e record.
17. CompeZZabilit~/of Witnesses.-Any person other than the accused may be
required to testify before a Military Government Court except a person of un-
sound mind, provided t h a t no witness shall be required to incriminate himself
and provided also t h a t a court shall not compel-
(1)a husband or wife or a parent or child to give evidence against t h e
other ;
( 2 ) a legal adviser to disclose any communication between himself and a
client made i n the course of a professional relationship except when the
communication was part of or connected with a n unlawful a c t or omission;
( 3 ) a priest to disclose any communication made i n the course of a con-
fession.
18. Contempt.--A Military Government Court schall have power to hold in con-
tempt any person, including the accused, counsel, witness, officials, or spectators,
who offends the dignity of the court, in any manner, or disregards its orders. Such
contempt may be punished by fine, imprisonment, or other appropriate punish-
ment. I n exercising its powers to punish for a contempt, a Military Government
Court shall make a record which shall be transmitted and reviewed a s in the
case of any other sentence.
19. Impounding.-A Military Government Court may in its discretion impound,
by a n order directing any person to be charged with the care thereof, ally docu-
ment or article relating to proceedings before it, whether or not i t h a s been
received in evidence.
20. ~isp'ositionof Funds.-Receipt shall be given f o r all fines and property
forfeited to the Allied Forces. Property forfeited to the Allied Forces shall be
disposed of a s the court shall direct, or i n accordance with such procedure a s
may be prescribed with respect thereto by t h e Chief Legal Officer or under his
authority. All fines tread a s funds of the Military Government t o be accounted
for i n accordance with financial instructions, Military Government. A record
of fines shall be kept, by each court and report made to the Chief Legal Officer
or a s he may direct.
21. Insalzitv.-Wherever a conrt is satisfied t h a t t h e accused is unable by
reason of i n s b t y to understand the nature of the charges against him or t h e
proceedings of the court, or t h a t the accused committed the offense for which
he is being tried but was insane when he committed it, the court shall record a
finding of either such fact and may make a n order providing for temporary
custody pending direction by the Reviewing Authority for permanent custody
or other disp~sition.
22. Juvenile 0ffendeers.-(1) I n cases involving offenders under the age of 18
years, the Military Government Courts shall adopt a flexible procedure based
on the accepted practices of local jnrenile courts and those of Great Britain and
the United States or France (according to the nationality of the court), including
so f a r a s practicable t h e following measures :
a. report by a Welfare Officer in advance of trial ;
b. detention, where necessary, i n a special institution, or in any event
a p a r t from adult offenders ;
c. hearing informally in closed sessions ;
d. interrigation of parents and release in their custody if appropriate.
( 2 ) An offender over 16 years of age but under 18 years of age may be treated
i n all respects a s a n adult unless in t h e opinion of t h e court his physical a n d
mental immaturity make his treatment under section I (above) advisable.
23. Recol-ds.-(1) Every Military Goverrment Court shall in every case make
and transmit to t h e Chief Legal Officer or a s he may direct a record containing
the date and place of i t s proceedings, the names of t h e members of the court,
of the accused, of the prosecutor, and of defence counsel, the original charge
sheet or summons, and pleas, any amendments to t h e charges or pleas made
during the course of the trial, t h e name and the opinion of the adviser, if any,
the findings, and the sentence or order of the conrt. I n addition, in every case
in which there i s a plea of not guilty, the record shall contain minutes or sum-
mary of the essential evidence. A Summary Military Court may include t h e
record of more than one case i n a single report.
( 2 ) Every Military Government Court shall keep a permanent register of its
proceedings.
( 3 ) If before t h e co~clusionof any proceeding o r before review, the record
of such proceeding is lost or destroyed and no sufficient certificate of t h e sub-
stance of the proceeding can be obtained, the court or the Reviewing Authority
may declare such proceeding null and voil and remand the case for a new trial.
A sufficient certificate shall be one signed by any member of the court embodying
to the satisfaction of t h e Reviewing Authority the charges, findings and sentence
a n d the effect of the material evidence.
24. Review.-(1) Such cases or clases of cases a s t h e Chief Legal Officer may
direct will be administratively examined, and, if considered appropriate, sub-
mitted to a Reviewing Authority for review.
(2) A petition by a convicted person for review of the finding or sentence
must be filed with the court within ten days of conviction, i. e., completion of
announcement of findings and sentence (Rule 10 g. and j.) . Petitions for Review
shall be transmitted to the Chief Legal Officer or a s he may direct i n the same
manner a s records.
25. Powers of Reviezving Authorit?/.-(1) The Reviewing Authority m8y upon
review :
a. affirm any finding of guilty, or set aside any such finding with or
without ordering a new trial ;
b. substitute for any finding of guilty a finding of guilty on a n amended
charge if i t appears that the court might before finding and without
prejudice to the accused have so amended t h a t charge and t h a t the court
would have been satisfied on t h e evidence t h a t the accused was guilty on
the charge so amended ;
91765-49-77
c. affirm, suspend, reduce, commute or modify any sentence or order, and

make appropriate order for the discharge of the accused or the return of
fine or restitution of property ;
d. increase any sentence where a Petition for Review which is considered
frivolous has been filed and t h e evidence i n the case warrants such increase.
( 2 ) The Reviewing Authority may a t any time remit or suspend any sentence
or part thereof.
26. Effect of IrreguZarities.-The proceedings shall not be invalidated, nor any
findings or sentence disapproved, for any error or omission, technical or other-
wise, occurring in such proceedings, unless i n the opinion of the Reviewing
Authority, after a n examination of the entire record, i t shall appear t h a t t h e
error or omission has resulted i n injustice to the accused.
27. Procedure i n Absence of Specific Rde.-Where no procedure has been
directed i n any matter, a Military Government Court may adopt such procedure
a s it thinks fit, provided no injustice i s thereby done to the accused.
-25. Forms.-Forms used by Military Government Courts shall conform sub-
stantially t o those set out i n Legal Forms, Military Government Courts in P a r t I,
section 4 hereof.
This guide is based upon and should be read i n conjunction with the Military
Government Courts Ordinance and the Rules of Military Government Courts,
which for cross-reference purposes a r e represented by the symbols 0 and R,
respectively. The comments contained i n P a r t I, below, a r e referred to thereafter
by the symbol Q The Guide is designed primarily for Summary Military Courts
and prosecutors. Provisions inapplicable to Intermediate and General Conrts
should be disregarded by officers concerned with those courts.
I. GENERAL
1. Basic Principle.-The purpose of Military Government Courts and of the
principal enactments enforced by them is the protection of the Allied Forces and
the advancement of their military objectives. All pertinent enactments must
therefore be interpreted ( a s in fact a German defendant and defending counsel
will expect them to be interpreted) broadly and in accordance with their obviohs
intention: all courts must be conducted with a view to the attainment of this
purpose to the fullest possible extent. I t is important, therefore, t h a t when a n
offense against the Allied Forces has been established, appropriate punishment
should be imposed with a view to t h e prevention of further such offenses. A
technical and legalistic viewpoint must not be allowed to interfere with such a
result.
2. Role of Judge.-It is the practice in continental countries for the presiding
judge to conduct the examination of the accused and witnesses and generally to
take the leading part i n the proceedings. Officers presiding in Military Govern-
ment Courts where the prosecutor, defending counsel, or accused a r e not familiar
with common law procedure may be obliged to do the same, and must in any
event see t h a t the interests of the accused a r e protected, and that t h e facts a r e
fully brought out.
3. Dignity of Cow-t.-The court is responsible t h a t its proceedings are, such a s
to enhance the prestige of the Allied Forces. The judicial officer, prosecutor, and
other military personnel should, if circumstances permit, wear full uniform, in-
cluding tie if summer uniform, tunic or blouse if winter uniform, and maintain a
high standard of conduct. No disorders should be tolerated i n or near the court.
4. Nodifica'tion of Procedure. R 10 ( I ).-In simple cases, steps set forth in the
Rules may be omitted or greatly abbreviated, but no rights of the accused may be
disregarcled. Opening statements in particular may frequently be omitted. The
court is i n complete control of the proceedings, and may cut short any person
who becomes repetitious or wanders from the issue.
5. Jtcrisdiation. 0 II.-a. Over persons: During the presurrender period,
Courts may be met with claims from accused to be treated a s prisoners of war.
Any person who succeeds i n establishing this status is not subject to the juris-
diction of Military Government Courts and must be turned over to the Provost
to be dealt with in accordance with the Geneva Convention of 27 July 1929.
Doubtful case should be turned over to Counter Intelligence for interrogation.
b. Over offenses: T,he jurisdiction of Military Government Courts only arises
i n respect of offenses committed subsequent to occupation. Offenses committed
prior to occupation must be left t o be dealt with by German courts unless they
come under the categorv of War Crimes. The manner in which war criminals m
MAT,MRnV M A S S ACRE TNVESTTGATl ON ----
1214
general are to be dealt with will form the subject of separate instructions. I n
any case in whicll a specific accusation or evidence of a war crime is to be
made against any person, the accused and the evidence should be held and dis-
posed of under existing instructions.
6. Adviser. 0 I V 6.-Whenever deemed necessary a Military Government
Court may, on its own motion or the request of the accused, appoint a n impartial
adviser to assist the court in a particular case in checking the interpreter, giving
testimony or written opinions as a n expert on German law, local customs or
technical matters. Such adviser may be invited to sit with the court, but not
participate in the decision, and may be paid as a court official.
7. Prosecutor. R 3 ( I ).-The prosecutor should preferably be an officer of the
Allied Forces, and may be a qualified other rank or enlisted man, or a member of
the indigenous police or other indigenous authority.
8. Interpreter.-Pains should be taken to obtain a qualified interpreter,'because
the task is difficult and important. The interpreter should translate directly
and in the same person everything that is said, subject to the direction of the
court. He should not be permitted to engage in colloquy on his own, or to con-
duct the proceedings in any respect in lieu of the court. Questions to witnesses
should be addressed to the witness and not to the interpreter.
9. Evidence.-Rule 12 does not incorporate the rules of evidence of British or
American courts or of courts-martial. The only positive rules binding upon the
Military Government Courts a r e found in Rule 12 ( 3 ) , Eule 17, and Rule 10 ( 5 ) .
Hearsay evidence, including the statement of a witness not produced, is thus
admissible, but if the matter is important and controverted every effort should
be made to obtain the presence of the witness, and a n adjournment may be ordered
for that purpose. The guiding principle is t o admit only evidence that will aid
in determining the truth.
10. Charges. 0 V 8 ( a );R 6.-The charge consists of two parts; t h e charge
itself (e. g., "Circulating without a permit during curfew in violation of Ordi-
nance No. 1, Sec. 22) and the particulars (e. g., "On 30 Sept. a t 2300 was found
i n the public square"). Any offense committed with intent to aid the enemy
should be charged under Crimes and Offenses Ordinance No. 1, Sec. 20, in addi-
tion to any other appropriate section, in order t o permit imposition of a sentence
of death. If there is no room on the charge sheet for the names of all the
defendants or for all the charges, additional pages may be annexed and in-
corporated by reference. I n general, multiplicity of charges based on the same
set of facts will be avoided.
11. Failure to Answer Summons.-If a n accused or witness who has been sum-
moned does not answer the call a t the appointed time, the court should order
that he be arrested and brought before it, and may issue a warrant of arrest.
Unexcused failure to appear is punishable a s a contempt of court or under
Crimes and Offenses Ordinance No. 1, Sec. 21.
12. Interrogation, of and Testimony by Accused. R 10 (5).-The interroga-
tion of the accused by t h e court a t the time of pleading is not known to British or
American practice but is permitted a t discretion because the process of pleading
is unfamiliar to subjects of continental countries. The court should arrange to
be provided prior to the trial with a dossier of the case against the accused,
such dossier containing ail documentary and written evidence and a summary
of the testimony to be given by the witnesses for the prosecution. The dossier
should be studied by the court prior to its examination of the accused; i t should
not be regarded as proof of the statements it contains, which will have t o be
established in evidence i n the usual way, but should merely be used a s a basis
for examination of the accused. The court should enter the plea on the basis of
the accused's statements, except that i t should enter a plea of guilty, only if the
accused expressly admits all elements of the offense, and i t must enter a plea of
not guilty when the statements by the accused so indicate (Rules 7 ( 6 ) and (7) ).
Notes should be made of the accused's replies and should form part of the record.
Before concluding the interrogation, the court should bear in mind that the
accused may choose not to give evidence a t a later stage and there may be no
further opportunity to examine him. The court may draw such inference a s the
circumstances justify from the refusal of the accused to answer or from his
failure to take the stand in his own behalf. If the accused elects to take the
stand in his own behalf, he is not pellnitted to take the oath (Rule 10 (5) ).
This provision represents a concession to continental practice where the accused
is not sworn.
I n further application of the continental practice A i t is pointed out that i t is
neither necessary nor proper to warn the accused t h a t 'he is not required to
answer when questions are put to him. Since the Court may draw an unfavor-
able inference from refusal to answer, any statement to the effect that he need
not answer is a p t to be misleading. However, the accused may not be sentenced
for contempt for refusing to answer.
WHERETHE ACCUSED IS A BRITISH OR AMERICAN SUBJECT HE SHOULD NOT BE IN-
TERROGATED UNDER RULE 1 0 ( 5 ) BUT THE TRIAL SHOULD BE CONDUCTED I N A C C O m N C E
WITH ANGLO-AMEXCAN LEGAL PROCEDORE, THE ACCUSED BEING SWORN IF HE mEcTa
TO TEST~FY.
13. Mimed Pleas.-If there is more than one defendant, and one or more, but
not all, plead guilty, or if a single defendant pleads guilty to one or more, but not
all of the charges, the court shall deter sentence on any of the charges until the
trial of all is completed, in order to impose one sentence on each defendant
with respect to all the charges of which he has pleaded or been found w i l t y
( R 14 ( 1 ) :)
14. Makzng of Record.-The making of the record is the responsibility of the
court. The matters stated in Rule 23 ( I ) , including minutes or summary of the
essential evidence, a r e required to be included. Form No. 8 i s t h e regular form
of record. I n lieu of using Form No. 8, a Summary Court may report more than
one case of a very minor nature (e. g., involving sentence of imprisonment of 2
n-eelis or less or equivalent fine) in the form of a n abstract of the court's register
(Form No. I I a ) . I n such cases, a single phrase may constitute a n adequate
summary of the evidence. The summary of evidence, if no official reporter is
used, should be made by the judge in the course of the trial. It may be entered
directly on the record i n the course of the trial, or transcribed later from the
judge's notes.
15. Transmission of Records. 0 V I (9) R 23.-Records of trial should be sent
to the Legal Officer a t the next higher M. G . echelon through normal channels for
other official communications, which means that they will pass through the Legal
Officer of the headquarters or detachment to which the court is attached. Certain
powers may be delegated to Legal Officers of lower formations, so that i t is
important that the records go through channels. The same is true of records
on report for reference to a higher court, and of petitions for review.
16. Petitions for Review. 0. V. (9) R 84 ( 2 ) .-,Courts should be available to
the accused or his representative, upon request, a copy of Form No. 10, and should
receive and transmit any such petitions filed. The court may forward together
with the petition its own comments thereon where there is any matter or issue
raised in the petition which calls for further explanation or information beyond
what already appears on the face of the record. The filing of a petition for
review should not be deemed a n act of disrespect to the court. Petitions not on
Form No. 10 may be accepted if there is sufficient reason why the form has not
been used. The power t o increase the sentence on review ( 0 VI 10) should be
c o n k e d to cases where the petition is not bona fide or is manifestly frivolous
and the facts of the case warrant a n increase.
17. 8entences.-The paramount consideration in the determination of sentences
by a Military Government Court is the protection of the interests of the Allied
Forces, by deterring further violations by the accused or by others. Where
offenses which a r e of direct concern to the military a r e involved, such a s inter-
ference with communications, sentences may properly be given which a r e much
more severe than would otherwise be warranted. Additional considerations
a r e whether the act was premeditated, the prevalence of the offense i n the
locality, the previous record, and the age and sex of the accused. The court
should give the sentence which it considers proper and not a s s m e t h a t the
reviewing authority will modify it.
1s. Suspension of Sentences. l3 14 (5).-Unless the court orders otherwise, a
suspended sentence will be deemed suspended indefinitely to be put into effect
a t any-timeif good behavior is not maintained or upon breach of such other
conditions as the court may impose. A sentence should be suspended only for a
definite reason and not a s a means of cutting down a sentence considered appro-
priate. If suspended sentences a r e imposed, i t is important that the court's
register be checked upon charging a n accused, to detect previous offenses. I t is
a good altmnative practice to file a n abstract of all proceedings with the local
judicial or police archives and to have those filed checked for previous record
in all cases.
19. F o r f e i t u ~ eof Property, etc. R 14 ( 4 ) (a) (b).-Orders of forfeiture of
property, closing of premises or suspension of business or license should be
made only with knowledge of the severity of the financial burden which will
result to the accused.
20. CompuZsory Residence. R 14 (4) ( e ) .-Order$ restricting residence
should be made only in exceptional situations. They should be considered
security measures rat he^ than punishment, and should be based upon the recom-
mendation of public safety or security officers.
21. Imprisonnzent i n Default of Pagment of Fine. 0 1119 ( 6 );R 14 ( 3 ) .-
a. Where a n order is made imposing a term of imprisonment i n default of pay-
ment of a fine the rate of one day for each 3 shillings/$l:00/50 Irs. of the fine
imposed shall be used a s a guide. This r a t e will, of course, have t o be modified
i n t h e case of large fines i n order t h a t the alternative sentence will not exceed
the court's power. The power of a court t o impose a n alternative prison sentence
i s not affected by any sentence of imprisonment imposed i n addition to t h e fine,
but t h e alternatice sentence may be the full sentence such court h a s power to im.
pose, e. g., a Summary Military Court may impose a sentence of one year's im-
prisonment and a fine of 250/ 1,000.00/50,000 frs. I n this case, the alternative
prison sentence cannot be computed in accordance with the above scale, but
must be limited to one year, t h e sentence and alternative sentence totaling two
years.
b. Unless t h e entire fine is paid within t h e time fixed by the court, the full
alternative prison sentence shall be put into effect and no credit shall be given
for part payment. If, however, after t h e alternative prison sentence h a s been
put into effect, the accused pays to the court which imposed the sentence (or, if
unavailable, t o the nearest court of similar jurisdiction) the entire amount of
the fine or the balance due if a partial payment has been previously made, the
court will issue a n Order for Release (Legal Form No. 17) from such alternative
sentence. No credit on the fine shall be given for time served in prison.
c. T h e power to impose a n alternative prison sentence should be exercised
solely for the purpose of collecting the fine imposed. It is improper for t h e court
deliberately to impose a fine which the accused is probably unable to pay, a s a
device for imposing a term of imprisonment otherwise beyond t h e power of t h e
court to impose. If the case seems to call for a term of imprisonment beyond
t h e power of the court, i t should be referred to a higher court.
22. Disposition of Fines, other Funds and Property.-Every M. G. Officer who
collects fines or other monies pursuant to his legal duties will execute i n tripli-
cate a receipt voucher (form CA/Gf 3 ) . The original receipt will be given
to t h e person paying money and the triplicate retained for the files of t h e
officer. Duplicates of such receipts will be delivered t o the nearest M. G. Sub-
Accountant together with the corresponding funds. The Sub-Accountant will
give i n exchange a single receipt form (the original) covering t h e duplicate
receipts and t h e money turned over. Property ordered forfeited or confiscated
by the court will be turned over t o t h e nearest M. G. Property Control Officer
(against receipt).
Upon a n order of the Reviewing Authority t o refund a fine, t h e 11. G. Officer
will apply to t h e nearest M. G. Finance Officer f o r the necessary funds.
23. Numbering of cases; Disopsition of Records.-Cases will be numbered con-
secutively by each Summary, Intermediate and General Court in each area, and
the record (Form 8) will show number, type of court, and area (town, city, or
other locality and i n addition the district o r other next higher political sub-
division). Records will i n t h e first instance be filed a t the Headquarters a t
which review is t o be exercised. They will be filed a t such Headquarters under
courts of each type in each locality, and will be filed or indexed, with respect to
the cases in each such court, alphabetically according t o the names of the accused.
24. Proceedings in C m e r a . R 10 ( 6 ) .-Any order for trial in camera will be
noted on the record and a report attached stating the reasons therefor. If any
Intelligence Branch requests for security reasons t h a t a particular trial o r part
of it be held i n camera but the court i s not satisfied a s to the reasonableness
of the request, the court will postpone or adjourn the trial and submit the ques-
tion for decision to or in accordance with the instructions issued by or under
the authority of the Chief Legal Officer or a n Army Group Commander.
11. CIIECK LIST FOR TRIALS
A. Pveliminavy Matters
1 Personnel:
-.-.-- --
a. Judge, 0 IV.
b. Prosecutor, R 3 (1); C 7
c. Adviser, if appointed, 0 IV 6 ; C 6.
d. Internreter: must be sworn. R 4 : C 8. Oath Form No. 14.
e. ~ e ~ o r t ei ri ,appointed ; must be sworn. Oath Form No. 14.
f . Clerk, if possible, R 4.
g. Guards to escort prisoners.
h. Attendants to keep order, R. 4.
2. Courtroom :
a. A regular local courtroom, if available.
b. Tables a t same level for prosecutor and defense counsel. Suitable
chairs or benches f o r personnel. Accused near defense counsel, but not
too near. Interpreter not too near witness. Place f o r witnesses to wait out-
side courtroom until called. Accused and witnesses t o stand during interroga-
tion unless t h e Court gives special permission for them to be seated.
c. Flags of Great Britain, United States.
3. Transportation to bring prisoners and witnesses, if necessary.
4. Serving of charges on accused a s soon a s practicable before trial. 0 V
8 (2);R6;C10.
5. Summoning of witnesses or request to attend. R 16 ; C 11.
6. Copies of record, commitments, and receipt for fine on h a n d ; also the court
register. R 23 ( 2 ) .
B. TriaZ o r Hearing
I N I T I A L STEPS
1. Case called and charge sheet handed to court.

2. Court satisfies itself that i t has jurisdiction of the person accused (not a
member of the Allied Forces or a person entitled to be treated a s a prisoner of
w a r ) and of the offense. 0 I1 C 5.
3. Accused and witnesses identified ; ace and sex noted i n record.
4. Accused asked if he has counsel. Counsel identified.
5. Reason for adjournment, if any, considered. R 7 ( 2 ) .
6. If accused under 18, court proceeds pursuant to Rule 22.
7. Charges read to accused by court; asked if "guilty" or "not guilty" after
each charge. R 7.
8. Court interrogates accused and records statement, but shall not require a n
answer, nor shall accused be sworn. R 10 (5) ; C 12.
9. Pleas to charges noted in record. R 7 ( 3 ) .
10. Statement of case by prosecutor. R 10 ( 1 ) ( a ) ; C 4.
N. B. At this stage, and a t every later stage before sentence in case of a plea
of guilty, otherwise before finding of guilty or not guilty, the court must satisfy
itself t h a t i t has power to give a n adequate sentence. If not, it will report the
case for reference to a higher court, but may first hear and record evidence,
either because witnesses may become unavailable, or to determine whether there
is sufficient case to require accused to stand trial. R 8 ( 2 ) ( 3 ) ; R 9. Report
f o r reference noted in record, and order made a s to custody of accused or f o r
release on or without bail. R 15.
11. Evidence of character, including prior convictions. R 8 ( 1 ) .
12. Statement by accused or defense counsel bearing on sentence. R S ( 1 ) .
13. Sentence announced in open court 0 V I I ; R 14 ; C 17,18, 19,20.
PLEA OF NOT GUILTY
14. Examination, cross-examination and re-examination by prosecution wit-

nesses. R 10 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( b ) ( c ) . Both administered by Court. R. 4.
15. Acquittal of accused on any charge, if not sufficient evidence t o sustain
it. R 10 ( 2 ) .
N. B. If the court h a s not power to impose a n adequate sentence in event
of conviction, but there i s not sufficient substance to the charges to justify
a trial by any court, the court may dismiss the charges a t this stage or a t a later
stage, but mill not "acquit" because that word presupposes a trial. R 9 ( 1 ) ( b ) ;
R 9 ( 2 ) ( a ) . This power should be exercised only in a very clear case.
16. Statement by accused or defense counsel. R 10 (1) ( d ) ; C 12.
17. Examination, cross-examination and re-examination of defense witnesses,
including accused if he chooses to testify. R 1 0 (1) ( d ) . The accused shall
not be s r o r n . R 10 ( 5 ) .
18. Rebuttal testimony for prosecution. R 10 (1) ( e ) .
19. Summing-up by prosecutor. R 10 ( 1 ) ( f ) .
20. Summing-up by accused or defense counsel. R 10 (1) ( f ) .
21. Finding of guilty or not guilty on each charge, announced i n open court.
R 1 0 (1) ( g ) .
22. If acquittal, immediate discharge of accused. R 10 (1)( h ) .
23. Statement, and evidence if desirable by prosecution bearing on sentence to
be imposed, including evidence of prior convictions in any court. R 1 0 ( 1 ) ( i ) .
24. Opportunity by defense to rebut any matters presented bj- prosecution bear-
ing upon sentence. R 10 (1) ( i ) .
25. One sentence announced in open court with respect to all charges on which
accused found guilty. R 10 (j) ; R 14 ; C 17,18,19,20.
26. Accused ordered removed in custody, or released a s case may be.
27. Next case called.
AFFIDAVIT O F LT. COL. BURTON I?. ELLIS

I, Lt. Col. Burton F. Ellis, 029033, JAGD, being duly sworn, depose and say:
T h a t reference herein made to "the petitioner" refer to t h e chief defense coun-
sel, former Colonel, Willis M. Everett, J r . ; t h a t references to petitioner's writ of
habeas corpus referred to herein i s the unnumbered petition in the Supreme Court
of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus entitled "Willis M. Everett, Jr., on
behalf of VaZentin Bersin e t al., Petitioner, v. B a r r y 8. Truman, Commander i n
Cl~iefof the Armed Forces of the United States," and other "Respondents," which
was sworn to by the petitioner, Willis M. Everett, Jr., 11May 1948.
That all the following statements, are, t o t h e best of my knowledge and belief,
t r u e and correct, except a s to the matters herein which are on information and
belief, and a s to those matters I believe them t o be true.
1. T h a t I reported for duty with War Crimes Branch, ETOUSA, 6 May 1945, i n
Paris, France, and was assigned to the Investigation Section a s assistant t o the
Chief; t h a t shortly thereafter Major Dwight Fanton (then Captain) was assigned
to work on the Malmedy Case, File No. WCB &24 ; t h a t I personally took a keen
interest in the development of t h e case i n my official capacity and carefully
watched, and aided in i t s development; t h a t early in September 1945 I became
Chief of the Investigation Section, and in t h a t capacity I was charged with the
gathermg of the evidence for war crimes cases, which included t h e Malmedy
Case ; t h a t I personally took more than ordinary interest i n the development of
this case and carefully selected the personnel t h a t I assigned to it, t h a t I inspected
t h e detachment a s often a s conditions permitted and personally aided them in
obtaining a suitable prison, living quarters, transportation, and in formulating
plans for the investigation; t h a t in late February 1946 I was relieved a s Chief
of the Investigation Section and assigned a s Chief Prosecutor on t h e case, with
instructions to bring i t to trial by 25 March 1946; t h a t on 5 March 1946 I was
ordered to Schwabische Hall, Germany, where t h e investigation cletacllment was
located t h a t was developing the case, and personally took over and supervised t h e
investigation, preparation of the case for trial and t h e apprehension of the ac-
cused ; t h a t when the trial date mas postponed until 16 May 1946, I continued the
development of the case; t h a t on 16 April all but six of the accused and possible
witnesses were moved to Dachau ; t h a t on 19 April 1946 I completed the movement
of the prisoners and investigation staff to Dachau, Germany, where the trial
was held.
2. That I was the Chief Prosecutor during t h e trial, which began 16 May 1946
and was concluded 16 July 1946; t h a t I personally supervised and inspected t h e
eridence adclucetl, inclncting pretrial interrogation of the witnesses ; that I person-
ally conducted a t least 50 percent of t h e trial work and was i n court with the
possible exception of not more than 3 or 4 hours during the entire t r i a l ; t h a t I
planned and directed t h e trial tactics and methods and saw t o i t t h a t they were
carried out.
3. That i n the early stages of the investigation t h e personnel of the 1st SS
Panzer Regiment were scattered thronghont the prison camps, hospitals and labor
detachments of Germany, Austria, the liberated countries and the United States ;
t h a t whenever any of them mere located, they were interrogated, but conditions
i n the prison camps were such t h a t they Tvere able to rejoin their comrades im-
mediately after interrogation and soon they knew exactly what the investigators
knew and by their eschange of information gleaned from the interrogations, they
were able to effectir-ely block the clereloplnent of the case; t h a t I believe that i t
was cluing this period it becomes known t h a t prior to t h e beginning of the Ar-
dennes offensive the SS troops were sworn to secrecy by their colnmanclers not to
divulge the orders to kill prisoners of w a r ; t h a t in November 1946 when all the
known members of the 1st SS Panzer Regiment were assembled a t the Internment
Camp, Zuffenhansen, they were housed i n a single barracks ; that here i t was im-
poss~bleto maintain any security of commuliication between the accused; that
while here the Regimental Commander Peiper, although i n close confinement,
gave instrnctions to blame the Malmedy Massacre onto a Major Poetchke (Com-
manding Officer of the 1 s t Tank Battalion, who had fallen in Austria .in the last
days of the w a r ) , and t h a t these orders were carried out by the accnsed; t h a t
from these experiences it became apparent t h a t if the perpetrators of the Mal-
medy Massacre were to be brought to justice, a place where absolnte secnrity of
con~municationconld be maintained would h a r e to be found; t h a t after several
conferences with the t h e n ' ~ n d g eAdvocate (Colonel B a r d ) ancl the then Provost
Marshal of the Seventh Army, and the inspection of several prisons, the Intern-
ment Prison #2, Schwabische Hall, Germany was selected and made available to
W a r Crimes Branch, USFEIT,by the Seventh a r m y for t h e purpose of investigat-
ing the AIalmedy Case; t h a t early in December 1945 approximately 500 of the
suspects were moved there. (See Exhibit 1. undated, entitled "Investigation of
the 'Malmedy Massacre' by War Crimes Branch, USFET" prepared by the affiant
f o r and delivered to Col. C. B. kIickelwait! Theater Judge Advocate, prior to the
conclusion of the trial 16 July 1946.)
3. Wiat Internment Prison #2, was a large German penitentiarx and con-,
sisted of several buildings-all of stone ancl concrete; that the Investigating
Detachment maintained offices and interrogation rooms i n the administration
bnilding ; that part of t h e prisoners were kept in the administration building and
t h e balance in other buildings of the prison ; t h a t the administration of the prison
was under the 58th AFA Battalion, Seventh Army, and was separate and a p a r t
from the Investigation Detachment; t h a t the Investigation Detachment had noth-
ing to do with the administration of the prison or prisoners; that to the best of my
recollection, sometime during March 1946, the 58th AFA Battalion was replaced
by another organization, whose name I no longer remember; t h a t t h e guards f o r
a few weeks were American troops which were later supplanted by Poles.
4. That because of a shortage of American personnel, only two American en-
listed men were available to move prisoners; t h a t many of the accused had t o
be moved between buildings; t h a t in order to move more than one accused a t a
time and still maintain absolute security of communication between prisoners, a
hood was placed over their heads, thus preventing them from knowing who else
from t h e regiment was also confined there or who was i n t h e group being moved,
and coinniunicating with them (See picture marked Exhibit 2 ) ; that by this means
i t mas also possible to Beep them from learning the layout of the prison and finding
out from one another how much was known about them individually; t h a t when
once interrogated they were kept in close confinement until it was decided that no
more information conld be obtained from them.
5. T h a t throughout the the interrogation period a t Schwabische Hall of ap-
proximately four and one half months, additional accused were being located,
apprehended and bronght i n ; that a s a matter of fact, additional accused arrived
within 24 hours of the time of the last movement to Dachau; t h a t during t h e
investigation period a t Schwabische Hall approxin~ately700 accnsed were in-
terrogated, many of them several times, and a t no time mere there more than
four interrogators working, and then not continuously.
6. That the petitioner alleges i n paragraph 8a of his petition for writ of habeas
corpus t h a t he had less than two weeks to prepare the defense; t h a t I know of
my own knonrledge t h a t Chief Defense Connsel Willis M. Everett, Jr., w a s
appointed defense counsel some time prior to 11 April 1948, or a t least five
weeks prior to the t r i a l ; t h a t this statement is based upon a n entry in my diary
dated 11April 1948, which reads a s follows :
"Got back to Schmabische Hall about 1930 hours ancl found Col. Everett of
defense counsel here. Served 67 defendants tonight in Everett's presence.
Got back to billets and found 3 more def. counsel-Lt. Col. Dwinnel, Capt. Narvid,
and 2nd Lt. Waller. H a d to find them billets a t transit hotel and i t was 0100
before I retired."
7. T h a t petitioner, in paragraph 8 of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
generally alleges t h a t he was not afforded sufficient time to prepare the defense ;
t h a t the record of trial i n the case discloses t h a t defendants failed to ask for
a continuance. and when asked on the opening day of the trial by the President,
"Are you now ready for trial in this case?", defense counsel replied, "May i t please
the Court, on behalf of the accused they desire to answer in the affirrhatice except
a t the proper time a motion for severance will be made." (R-71).
8. T h a t petitioner in paragraph 11 of his petition for wrlt of habeas corpus
alleges that the accused were confined in Schwabische Hall for varying lengths
of time but generally in excess of ten (10) months prior to being served on 11
April 1946'; t h a t this allegation by petitioner is not a t r u e statement of f a c t ;
t h a t the first accused, with other suspects i n the Malmedy Massacre were trans-
ferred from IC No. 78 a t Zuffenhausen, Germany, to IP No. 2, Schwabische Hall,
Germany, on or about 5 December 1945, a s evidenced by SOP NO. 1 dated 5
December 1945 (See Exhibit No. 3 ) ; t h a t from time t o time thereafter addi-
tional accused were located or apprehended and transferred to Schwabische Hall ;
t h a t my diary indicates the date of arrival of twenty-two of the accused a t Schwa-
bische Hall to be a s follows :
Hillig ----------------- 6 March 1946 Rauh 4 April 1946
Klingelhoefer - - - - - - - - 14 " " Kraemer 5 " "
Kies------------------ S4 ""' Sickel----------------- 7 " "
Bmhle ---------------- 15 " " Bode------------------ 7 " "
Bolta ------------------ 16 " " Schaefer -------------- 7 " "
Von Chanlier ---------- 20 " " Weiss ----------------- 12 " "
Dietrich - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - 2- 1- " " Priess ----------------- 12 " "
Rriesemeister --------- 1 April 1946 Braun --------------- 16 " "
N!iclrolaschelr ---------- 2 " " Richter ---------------- 16 " "
Werner ---------------- 2 " " Bebauer --------------- 16 " "
Siegmund ------------ 2 " " Wassenberger ---------- 16 " "
That to the best of my recollection the following three accused were trans-
ferred to Sclmabische Hall from France on the dates a s indicated : Schwambach,
on or about 10 April; Hammerer, on or about 10 April ; Stickel, on or about 18
April.
T h a t the policy for handling prisoners was to keep them confined separately
only while they were being worked with ; t h a t a s soon a s they had confessed they
were confined together, for company and a s a precaution aaginst suicides; t h a t
t o the best of my knowledge and belief, none of the accused were confined alone
after they had confessed; t h a t while being interrogated they were usually con-
fined alone for security of communication purposes, b u t the food and accommoda-
tions were t h e same a s for all other prisoners.
9. That to the best of my knowledge and belief none of the accused or other
prisoners were ever abused or mistreated in any manner; t h a t the only inci-
dents of maltreatment of prisoners ever reported to me were several days after
the completion of the interrogation of Dietrich-either he tolcl nle this, or one
of the staff told me t h a t Dietrich had told them t h a t he was kicked in the rear
by a ,pard, and I heard also t h a t Peiper was kicked by a guard, but whether
I first heard of it before the trial or during the trial I am no longer able to recall ;
that I never witnessed any maltreatment of prisoners; that t h e procedure for
interrogation did not permit or countenance any threats, duress in any form,
physical violence, or promises of immunity or mitigation of punishment ; t h a t this
was always the standard operating procedure in t h e investigation of the Malmedy
Massacre and i t was reduced to writing by Major Dwight F. Fanton (see para-
graph 4, SOP No. 4, War Crimes Branch, USFET, Detachment a t IP No. 2, 7
February 1%6, Eshibit 4 ) and was never revoked.
10. T h a t the principal defense of the accused was to attack their own con-
fessions; that in preparing the defense each accused filled out a questionnaire
(See Exhibit 5 ) , prepared by petitioner or his s t a b , which was directed primarily
against the confessions. See particularly Questions Nos. 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 31,
82,33,34, 35, 36, 37 and 38 of Exhibit 5 ; t h a t a few days after the accused arrived
a t Dachau t h e petitioner officially complained about t h e alleged improprieties i n
the manner i n which the confessions were ohtained; t h a t on or about 24 April
1946 the then Deputy Theater Jndge Advocate for War Crimes ordered a n
investigation made of the matter by Lt. Col. (then Colonel) Edward J . Carpenter
(now Judge Advocate of 1st Cavalry Division in J a p a n ) ; that he came to Dachau
on or about 24 April 1946 and made such investigation ancl talked with several of
t h e accused ; that on Sunday 28 April 1946 I was in Wiesbaden and was called into
conference with Lt. Col. (then Colonel) C. E. Straight, the petitioner, Col. Willis
M. Everett, Jr., ancl Lt. Col. (then Col.) Edward J. Carpenter; t h a t I was
ordered to return t o Dachau and inquire of my staff if any such alleged im-
proprieties had taken place ; t h a t I returned to Dachau on 29 April 1946 and held
the conference with my staff a s directed, and upon informing them of t h e allega-
tions of Colonel Everett I was assured t h a t none of the alleged improprieties
had talien place; t h a t I have subsequently discussed the matter with Colonel
Carpentel. and he tolcl me that four of t h e accusecl had admitted to him t h a t their
accusations of violence and beatings mere only made "to get out from under"
their confessions and were not t r u e ; t h a t on 30 April the petitioner, Willis R1.
Everett, Jr., stated to me t h a t Sprenger, Neve, Hoffmann, J., and Jaekel admitted
fabrication of their story of beatings ; t h a t in connection with t h e above my diary
recites the following :
WIESEADEN, 28 A l ~ l ' i l1946.

2-hour conference today with Col. Straight, Col. Carpenter, and Col.
Everett (Def. Counsel). Defendants claim they were beaten. Ordered t o
make inquiry of my staff and to withdraw all statements gotten under com-
pulsion.
DACHAU,29 April 1946.
Flew back to Dachau today. H a d ,immediate conference of staff and
they assured me none of the defendants were beaten. I so advised Straight,
Corbin, and Everett. * * *
DACHAU,30 April 1946.
Col. Everett said today t h a t Sprenger, Neve, Hoffman, J., and Jaekel
admit fabrication of story of beating. * * * ;
t h a t a s further evidence t h a t the allegations of maltreatment a r e without
foundation and were probably born in the minds of the defense counsel, there
is attached hereto the affidavit of Lt. Col. Charles J. Perry dated March 1947
(Exhibit 6 ) , covering his conversation on 6 February 1947 with t h e accused 1 s t
Lt. Junker and Col. Peiper, both of whom received death sentences.
11. T h a t petitioner, in paragraph 13 of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus,
describes a so-called mock trial used i n t h e investigation of this case, which
i s erroneous and misleading and not based upon f a c t ; t h a t a n accurate descrip-
tion of t h e so-called mock trial (which is based upon knowledge gained from
once a s a n unnoticed observer and not a s a participant, once a s a lrnown observer,
and from discussions with investigators) i s a s follows :
The regular interrogation cells were used. They were about 8 feet square,
with a full normal-sized window and i n one corner was a toilet bowl. The
furniture consisted of 3 o r 4 chairs and a small table. The table was covered
with blackout cloth and held two lighted candles and a crucifix. (The crucifix
Was nearly always used when taking sworn statements, a s i t was my under-
standing t h a t i t was continental practice to use the crucifix instead of the Bible
for this purpose.) Two or three members of the s t a g were usnally seated behind
the table, posing a s officers, and two German-speaking interrogators were pres-
ent. This was lrnown a s t h e "schnell procedure" by the staff. The accused w a s
brought i n and told t h a t this was the "schnell procedure." P7itnesses would be
brought i n and the accused was confronted by them. To the best of my recollec-
tion only bona fide ones were used and they were sworn. This was all done
very rapidly, with considerable lack of decorum and noise. Everything was i n
German, and I do not understand it, but I was told tliat one investigator kept
telling the various crimes the accused had committed and the other investigator
kept insisting t h a t the other investigator let the accnsed tell his story and
called the witnesses liars. By the time the witnesses finished telling about the
shootings the accused had participated in, the accused was whispering to t h e
investigator. Ahont t h a t time the whole thing dissolved, the witnesses being
taken away and the staff departing to other duties. No announcement of any
kind was made. I do not recall t h a t the people sitting behind the table ever
said anything. The instructions given to all concerned were to scrupnlonsly
avoid stating t h a t a trial was being conducted, t h a t no one should hold himself
out a s being the defense.counsel, and tliat no findings or sentences would be pro-
nounced; t h a t i t would he referred to a s the "schnell procedure" ; t h a t I only
have personal lmowledge of two of these ceremonies being held, but I have
been told t h a t there were a s many a s six or seven, all of which were not snc-
cessful; tliat the accuseil Hennecke, one of the two whom I saw undergo the
"schnell procedure", was 23 years of age a t the time of the t r i a l ; t h a t my diary
inaicates that his "schnell procerlure" was held S March 1946 and t h a t tlie date
of his sworn statement taken subsequent thereto and used a t the rial i s 13
March 1948; t h a t the other "schnell procedure" which I witnessed was i n the
case of Von Chamier, and occurred on the night of 20 March 1946; this. accnsed
arrived from the United States by plane and was delivered to the prison a t
Schwabisclie Hall, Germany, a t about 2100 hours on t h e 20th of March; t h a t
about 2300 hours that evening he was interrogated in my presence; t h a t I ?at
behind a table in semidarlrness--due to the fact t h a t there was no ceilinq light.
a wall light was used ; a s f a r a s I can recall I never snolce a word; that Corno!'al
Cain brought the accnsed into the room ; t h a t Captain Shnmalrer and Mr. Thon
did the i n t e r r o ~ s t i n g :t h t no witnesses were user1 : t h ~ at f t n ~ahout ten min-
Utes of VOII Cbamier stating "Sein, nein," he arlinitted his participation in the
"Malmedy Massacre"; t h a t the statement he made and which was used i n the
trial was sworn to 011 21 Ma1~111946; that a t the time of the trial Von Chamier
was 30 years of age.
12. That I do not know of a n occasion, even f o r disciplinary reasons, where any
of the accused were ever deprived of their food for a s much a s even one day, nor
mere any blankets withdrawn i n winter or i n spring t h a t I ever heard about;
t h a t I do recall asking t h e officer in charge of t h e prison for the 58th AFA to give
Peiper more blankets, a s he complained to me of sleeping cold ; t h a t t h e so-called
death cells which were on the same floor and opposite the interrogation cells,
were used a s a matter of convenience to hold prisoners while they were being
interrogated; that they were never held there more t h a n a few days a t a time;
t h a t these cells were approximately t h e same a s the others except t h a t the win-
dow w a s higher and it had a n additional door; the bed may have been closer t o
the floor, but a s to this I am no longer certain ; t h a t if there were beatings or any
corporal punishments administered to either t h e accused or witnesses, I did not
hear of them, and I cannot believe this would have happened without my knowing
of i t ; t h a t the only tricks and ruses and so-called strategems employed which I
know about were those the prosecution told t o t h e court during the presentation
of t h e evidence ; h a t I know of no instance where promises of immunity or light
sentences were ever made to any of the accused or where any hopes of reward
were ever held out to them.
13. T h a t petitioner, i n paragraph 16 of his petition for writ of habeas corpus,
gives a completely incorrect account of the suicide of Freimuth ; t h a t my h o w l -
edge of this event is a s follows: T h a t Freimuth committee suicide the night of
6-7 March 1946; that a t the time h e was confined alone i n a cell in the building
used exclusively for accused and witnesses of the "Malmedy Massacre" case;
t h a t if Freimuth was ever given the "schnell procedure" i t never came to my
attention, and if it had happened I'm sure I would have known of i t ; t h a t t h e
entries in my diary in connection with this event a r e a s follows :
6 MAR.1946.
Harry Tone got H a n s Hillig's confession today. Per1 took Freimuth's con-
fession. * * * Perl went with Capt. -, M. D., t o Stuttgart to get
his car. * * *
7 MAR.1948.
* * * Arried Freimuth hung himself last night (had lined American
PW's up a t La Glaise and engaged i n target practice on them). * * *
t h a t my recollection is not clear on all t h e details, but it is my belief t h a t Perl
and the Medical Corps Captain left rather early in the afternoon of 6 March f o r
Stnttgart and left Freimuth to finish writing his confession without supervision
and t h a t he was given paper, pen and ink to take t o his cell to finish the job and
t h a t the confession was found in the cell the next morning by myself a s I was
called a s soon a s the body was found by the guards; t h a t I have no reason t o
believe t h a t Freimuth was ever mistreated i n any way by any of the personnel
under my command and supervision, nor by any of the guards or other adminis-
trative personnel of I P No. 2, a t Schwabische Hall.
14. T h a t I never was apprised of any occasion where forged confessions were
ever used in a n effort to persuade accused to sign confessions; t h a t t h e "death
chamber" with bullet holes in the wall in which hnman flesh was imbedcled was
pure imagination and was a subject of ridicule even among t h e accused them-
selves. (See Exhibit 7-a limerick which was sent to me during the trial by the
accused Junker) ; t h a t to the best of my knowledge and belief no accused was ever
taken to the so-called hangman's room and there unhooded, placed on a high
stool and a hangman's rope placed around his neck ; nor did the prosecution team
suggest and allow the accused t o write farewell letters to their parents before
they would be hanged; nor did members of t h e prosecution team offer the ac-
cused the privilege of seeing a priest before death; nor were any threats of vio-
lence and torture ever directed toward the mothers, fathers, sisters, wives, a n d
children of the accused unless they signed confessions.
15. That to the best of my knowledge and belief "stool pigeons" were not used
a s described by petitioner in paragraph 18 of his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus.
16. That Exhibit "C" referred to by petitioner in paragraph 19 of his petition
f o r a writ of habeas corpus does not correctly Yecite t h e testimony of the record
of trial, which i t purports to do ; t h a t said Exhibit "C" purports to be testimony
which was elicited i n chronological order, whereas a s a matter of f a r t i t i s
excerpts taken from over 25 pages of record, beginning on page 675 and ending
on page 701.
17. That Exhibit I'D'' referred to by petitioner in paragraph 21 of his petition

for a writ of habeas corpus is not the correct and true order appointing the court,
a s he alleges ; that I, the affiant, was the appointed Trial Judge Advocate and did
t r y the case, whereas Exhibit "D" referred to by petitioner shows a Lt. Col.
Granger G. Sutton a s the Trial Judge Advocate.
18. T h a t I do not know to what the petitioner refers in paragraph 22 of his
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, by the statement "qnestionnble actions of
the Chief Prosecutor and his staff"; that I do lrnow t h a t the petitioner was ap-
pointed chief defense counsel prior to 11 April 1946; t h a t on t h a t date he and
members of his staff arrived a t Schwabisch H a l l ; t h a t he did not make a request
t o interview a single accused while he was there but shortly left for Dachau;
t h a t on 1 5 April 1946 I went to Dachau to make arrangements for t h e arrival
of the accused and witnesses, secure office space and billets for my staff, and to
complete other arrangements for the t r i a l ; t h a t I found the petitioner i n Dachau
had made no arrangements for billets, office space, transportation, nor any other
necessary arrangements for his staff; t h a t I personally secured billets for his
staff, a s well a s office space, typewriters, etc., and on 20 April 1946 turned over
to him half the transportation I had assigned to me for the use of my staff; t h a t
I repeatedly urged him to get bnsy on the preparation of his defense, a s we were
anxious t o get started, a s my staff were looking forward to early redeployment.
19. T h a t thereference by petitioner,,in paragraph 23 of his petition for a w r i t
of habeas corpus, to a woman allegedly murdered in Wanne, Belgium, is false
and misleading, a s there is no reference i n the record of trial to any woman being
killed a t this place; t h a t there was a n unknown woman murdered i n Bullingen,
and to rebut this the petitioner produced a statement by a man whose wife had
been killed by artillery fire, not sworn to before a priest, a s the petitioner alleges,
but before one of the petitioner's own investigators, Miles W.Rulien, P-5.
20. T h a t the alleged tampering with witnesses of the defense by the prosecu-
tion, a s stated by petitioner in paragraph 24 i n his petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, is not t r u e ; t h a t t h e facts a r e t h a t a t that time many w a r criminals i n
other cases, from other places of confinement throughout Europe, were being
brought t o Dachau; some of these were coming a s a result of T W S ' s sent out
i n the fall of 1945 for all members of t h e 1st S S Panzer Regiment to be sent t o
Zuffenhausen; others from this Regiment were being sent by F'ranre ; t h a t i t was
the policy of the prosecution to interrogate all members of the 1st SS Panzer Regi-
ment when they arrived; t h a t the defense did not notify the prosecution who
their witnesses were, and i t did happen t h a t the prosecution interrogated some
defense witnesses before t h e defense had a n opportunity to do s o ; that I have
no personal knowledge of any tampering with defense witnesses by t h e prosecu-
tion; t h a t if there was any tampering with witnesses i t was on t h e part of t h e
defense and not the prosecution. See R22966, where accused Georg Preuss tried
to influence the testimony of prosecution witness Kehles.
21. That the incident recited by petitioner in the 1st paragraph of paragraph
26 of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus is incorrect i n t h a t i t is a complete
distortion of t h e facts : t h a t what actually happened was t h a t the accused had
been searched by theblack guards and all prohibited writings and communications
taken from them; t h a t these writings were turned over to Lt. Perl by the block
commander of t h e guard and I instructed Lt. Perl to translate them for me.
That a s to the allegations in the second paragraph of paragraph 26, it should
be said t h a t t h e wives of the accused were permitted to and did attend the trial ;
t h a t members of t h e prosecution s t d were sitting a t t h e prosecution table and
could be easily identified a s the prosecution; t h a t in many instances wives of
the accused came to t h e prosecution staff requesting special privileges, but t h a t
t o my knowledge no one on t h e prosecution staff ever represented himself to be
defense connsel of the accused.
22. That the allegations of petitioner'in paragraph 28 of his petition for a
writ of habeas corpus may represent the petitioner's state of mind when he
made the announcement i n court aboiit "the f e a r of the Prosecutors lingers on";
that: however, a day or so before this fateful announcement he aslred t o see
m e privately, either one morning before court started or a t recess; that a t t h a t
time he evidenced concern about the unfavorable showing and impression t h e
accused were making on the court and asked my advice a s a friend and fellow
attorney a s to whether or not he should continue putting them on t h e s t a n d ;
t h a t t o this I replied in substance and effect: "Willis, a s f a r a s I lrnow, none of
the defense counsel i n previous cases have kept the accused off the witness
stand. It seems to me t h a t if I were defending one of these cases and felt my
accused were guilty, they would only take the witness stand over my dead
body, for the reason most of them get mixed up in their attempts a t explanations
and wind up giving credence to their confessions" ; t h a t following this conversa-
tion, three more of the accused took the witness stand, all with disastrous re-
sults ; t h a t then followed the petitloner's announcement t h a t he was not putting
any more of the accused on t h e stand.
23. T h a t petitioner in paragraph 23 of his petition f o r a writ of habeas corpus
states t h a t when the prosecution rested, only a few days mere allowed the de-
fense staff t o interview witnesses and plan t h e defense for their 74 defendants;
that the record of trial on page 1579 recites the following :
PRESIDENT : The German counsel have requested a lapse of v e working days
before the defense opens its case, which request is endorsed by chief counsel
for the defense. I n order to fully serve the interests of justice, this request
is granted by t h e Court Accoidingly, the Court is now acljourned to meet
again a t 0830 hours, Monday, June 17th.
T h a t the prosecution rested i t s case a t 1555 hours 7 June 1946; t h a t it is
pointed out t h a t the petitioner a s chief defense counsel did not ask in open
court for more than the five working days requested by German counsel; that
a s a n actual fact the defense had nine days between the time the prosecution
rested on Friday 7 June 1946 and the time the trial commenced again on Monday
1 7 June 1946.
24. That the aspersions cast bx the petitioner upon the character, integrity,
uprightness and professional ethics of my subordinates in the investigation and
trial of the 3lalmecly Massacre is a matter of grave concern t o me ; t h a t with t h e
exception of one War Department civ~lianinvestigator, Harry Thon, all the
principal investigators and counsel were members of the B a r of some State or
Austria; that I personally hold them in high esteem and am proud of them for
their accomplishments in this case; t h a t they participated throughout with a
strong sense of responsibility and a n exhibition of devotion to duty, loyalty and
sincerity of purpose never before nor since witnessed by m e ; t h a t without the
great spirit, enthusiasm, diligence, industry, thoroughness, intelligence nnd
team play exhibited by each and every one of the detachment, including officers,
enlisted men, United States and Allied civilian employees, male and female, t h e
announcement made by the W a r Department early i n 1945 "that the perpetrators
of the Malmedy Massacre would be brought t o justice" i n my opinion never
would have been accomplished.
Dated a t the Presidio of San Francisco, California, this - of October 1948.
BURTONF. ELLIS,
Lt. Colonel, JAGD, Asst. Avmy Judge Advocate.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this - day of October 1948.
[SEAL] --.
The investigation of this case by War Crimes Branch began while W a r Crimes
Headquarters were still located in Paris. Lieutenant Colonel Martin H. Otto,
who was Chief of the Investigation Section, some time i n June 1945 assigned
Major Dwight Fanton (then Captain) to s t a r t working on the files of the case.
The files consisted of the 1st Army I. G. report, the SHAEF Court of Inquiry
Report and a few miscellaneous affidavits of survivors. This material contained
only the facts of the massacre, names and statements of the survivors, and t h a t
t h e atrocity was probably committed by elements of t h e 1 s t SS Panzer Regiment.
The names of some of the personnel of this Regiment were in the file but the
name of even one single perpetrator was unknown.
Wanted Reports on the known members of the 1 s t S S Panzer Regiment were
prepared and filed i n June 1945 but no results were obtained. I t was rumored
t h a t the C. 0. of the regiment was i n captivity and his name, Colonel Joachim
Peiper, was known. By late July, no results having been obtained, special T m ' s
were sent to t h e Commanders,of both the 3rd and 7th Armies and t o USEA,
requesting information on the whereabouts of Colonel Peiper. Abont the same
time it was discovered t h a t General Josef (Sepp) Dietrich, Commander of the
6th SS Panzer Army, of which the 1st PS Panzer Regiment was a component part,
was confined i n Wiesbaden. H e was first interrogated by Lieutenant Colonel Otto
and a few days later by Lieutenant Colonel Burton F. Ellis (then Major) but
little information of real value was elicited from him, other than to confirm
reports t h a t Peifer was still alive. At almost the same time, the place of deten-
tion of Skorzeny ( C . 0. of Operation Greif-Germans speaking English and
dressed in American uniforms who were committed during the Eifel Offensive)
was found to be a t the Intelligence Center in Ober Ursal. H e was interrogated by

Lieutenant Colonel Ellis early i n August 1945 but with negative results.
About the middle of August 1945, Stars t Stripes published a n article stating
t h a t Colonel Peiper was i n a Prisoner of War Camp a t Freising. It was then
decided by Lieutenant Colonel Otto, Chief of t h e ~nvestigationSection of W a r
Crimes Branch, to have Colonel Peiper interrogated immediately, and Lieutenant
Colonel Otto, with two other officers of the Section, Major Dwight Fanton (then
Captain) and 2nd Lieutenant William E . Binder, left immediately for Munich
on about a ten-day trip. Major Fanton interrogated Colonel Peiper a t Freising
on 25 and 26 August 1945 and from him elicited a detailed story of the Eifel
Offensive a s f a r a s the 1 s t SS Panzer Regiment was concerned. This story was i n
t h e nature of a recital of t h e strategy of the offensive and the tactics employed,
but was negative on the subject of the prisoners they shot. Other Prisoner of
W a r Camps were visited i n the area around Munich and a few of t h e members of
the 1st SP Panzer Regiment were located.
Sometime around the 1st of September there appeared a n article in "B Bag"
of Stars & Stripes, signed by a Lieutenant Higgenbotham, stating he had been a
captive of Colonel Peiper's a t La Glaise, Belgium, during the offensive. I t was
decided then to place this officer on thirty days TDY with War Crimes Branch
and send another group of investigators to the P W Camps i n Austria and t h e
Munich area to see if Lieutenant Higgenbotham could identify any of the mem-
bers of the 1st SS Panzer Regiment. At this time Lieutenant Colonel Ellis (then
Major) was Chief of the Investigation Section of W a r Crimes Branch, and a
party headed by Major Fanton and Captain Shumacker (then Lieutenant) left
on an extended trip to this area. Higgenbotham was unable to identify anyone,
but several officers of the Regiment were located and interrogated. Little was
obtained from them other than to verify Peiper's historical account. Some of
these suspects were then moved t o Dachau for confinement, a s i t was apparent
t h a t after a suspect had once been interrogated and was allowed to rejoin his
former comrades, the truth of the massacre would never be known.
Again through Stars & Stripes, the whereabouts of fifteen of the survivors of
the massacre was found out to be a t Buscheim. This was in October and by this
time Colonel Peiper was i n Ober Ursal a t the Intelligence Center. Lieutenant
Colonel Ellis and Lieutenant Colonel H. B. Crawford took Colonel Peiper to
Beuscheim to see if he could be identified by the survivors but this was unsuccess-
ful. A few days later, Lieutenant Colonel Crawford flew with t h e f i t e e n sur-
vivors t o Dachau to see if t h e members of the Regiment held there could be
identified. Again this proved t o be unsuccessful.
During all this time Major Fanton and Captain Shumacker were scouring the
P W Camps of Austria and 3rd Army Area for possible suspects. During this
t r i p many P W Camps, Internment Camps, P W Hospitals and other such installa-
tions were visited. On these visits it was learned t h a t the Wanted Report-De-
tention Report method of apprehending suspects could not'be counted on a s a n
effective aid i n this case. Most commanders of the installations visited had
never even heard of such reports. They returned in the latter days of October
and made the recommendation t h a t if the case was to be broken, all the members
of the Regiment would have to be brought together a t one place where they could
be confronted with one another and a t the same time kept separated i n order that
they might not tell one another what they had learned. Because of their findings
i n respect to Wanted Reports and Detention Reports, they recommended t h a t a
command TWX be sent out to all the commands i n the ETO and request to the
Allied Governments to send all P W members of the 1st SS Panzer Regiment a t
once to I. C. # 78, t h e W a r Crimes enclosure a t Zuffenhausen.
When this plan was proposecl to Colonel C. E. Mickelwait, Chief of the War
Crimes Branch, he readily adopted i t and the command TWX was sent out.
By the middle of November, over nine hundred and ninety PW's had arrived a t
Zuffenhausen but facilities there were such t h a t all of them had to be put to-.
gether in one barracks. With this situation it was impossible to make a suc-
cessful investigation.
By this time the investigation team was composed of Major Fanton, Captain
Shumacker, 1st Lieutenant William R. Perl, Mr. Morris Elowitz, and Mr. Harry
Thon. At this time i t w a s discovered t h a t Colonel Peiper, who was alone in
one of t h e eight or nine individual cells a t No. 78, had sent out the word to the
members of his command t h a t they should say t h a t "Poetschke (one of his
battalion commanders) gave the orders for the massacre of PW's a t the cross-
roads south of Malmedy" because Poetschke was known to be dead. There was
no opportunity t o keep the suspects from communicating with one another and
therefore, Major Fanton, Captain Shumaclrer, and Lieutenant Perl conceived the
idea that if the inyestigation was to be succe6sfu1, the suspects must be placed in
single cells ~vithoutany means of comlnunicating with one another.
I n the last few days of November, this plan was presented to Colonel Mickel-
wait, who gave his approval. Several prisons were inspected and finally, the
prison a t I. P. No. 2, Schwaebisch Hall, was selected. This was a former
peacetime penitentiary and had approximately two hundred eighty individual
cells, with adequate space for several hundred more prisoners. Absolute security
of co~nmunicationsbetween prisoners could be maintained and they were unable
to find out who else was also in the prison.
I n the meantime, the prisoners a t Zuffenhansen were screened and about five
hundred likely suspects were moved to Schwaebisch Hall during the first few days
of December.
Here i t was that the real investigation took place and the case was developed.
The interrogations were conducted by Captain Shumacker, Lieutenant Perl, Mr.
Thon, and Mr. Elowitz. Major Fanton was in command and took care of the
administrative work. I n February Major Fanton was redeployed and Captain
Shumacker took command. Early in March, Lieutenant Colonel Ellis was selected
a s the Trial Judge Advocate and he went to Schwaebisch Hall and took over
command and work of the Enal preparation of the case for trial.
The first few weeks of the interrogation a t Schwaebisch Hall were devoted
mainly to securing information from the suspects a t hand relative to the com-
ponent elements of all units involved, the names of the officers, platoon leaders,
group leaders, squad leaders, types of vehicles and weapons, the membership of
each unit, the names of the crews of each vehicle, and a s much information about
the personal background of each individual a s could be obtained. This informa-
tion was essential to the interrogators who had to appear perfectly informed when
they interrogated a suspect because of the absence of any eyewitnesses to the
atrocities being investigated.
I n the initial stages of the interrogation, the interrogators concentrated their
efforts on the massacre that took place on 17 December 1944 a t the crossroads
south of Malmedy, commonly known a s the "MaImedy Massacre." As a matter
of fact, this atrocity was the only one known with any assurance to have been
committed by the 1st SS Panzer Regiment.
After the aforementioned background material had been obtained, assimiliated
and correlated, interrogations were begun with emphasis on the atrocity under
investigation. I t became quickly apparent from these interrogations that not
only were approximately 100 American prisoners of war murdered a t the cross-
roads south of Malmedy, but others, usually smaller groups, were killed by
members of the 1st SS Panzer Regiment all along their route of march during
the period of the offensive and even during and after the retreat from L a Glaise
on the night of 23-24 December 1944. These "satellite cases" were gone into
thoroughly, even though a t that time i t had not been determined to try such
cases along with the case of the "Malmedy Massacre" so that the incriminating
evidence obtained a s to these incidents could be used a s a wedge and lever to
elicit information on the main case under investigation.
So f a r a s was possible, all suspects were kept alone in individual cells and when
brought to the rooms for interrogation, were kept incommunicado. I n this man-
ner, a suspect once interrogated, was unable to inform those not yet inter-
rogated a s to the method or subject of his interrogation, nor was he able to in-
form his comrades the story he had given - so that their stories might conform
to it.
Various tricks, ruses, ceremonies, etc., were employed by the interrogators.
Stool pigeons were used and false witnesses were occasionally used to confront
suspects, identifying them as having perpetrated a crime a t a certain place on a
certain date in a certain manner. One ceremony occasionally used on suspects
not considered too intelligent was a sort of mock trial. Once a single perpe-
trator in a company saw fit to confess his own crime he quickly named those
who participated in the crime with him and gave the names of others who had
perpetrated similar crimes elsewhere during the offensive. When it was learned
that the soldiers of the 1st SS Panzer Regiment had perpetrated their crimes on
orders received from their company commanders prior to the offensive, this
fact was held out to them as a n "excuse" and the suspect found i t easier to admit
to having killed prisoners of war o r noncombatant civilians because t h e inter-
rogators appeared to understand such conduct engaged in p ~ ~ r s u a ntot superior
orders.
I n no single instance did a suspect assert that he was a prisoner of war and
was only required to give his name, rank and serial number. Such lack of dis-
cipline in this respect was a great aid to the interrogators. Once the suspect
began to talk, he usually became so involved in his initial falsehoods that he had to
talk even more to cover such falsehoods and once he was proven to be lying,
he more often than not toId what crimes lie had participated in or knew about.
Comrade was played against comrade, officers against their men and men
against their officers, and in this way, substantial truth was finally elicited.
The basic plan was to start with the soldier and work up through his group
leader and platoon leader to his company commander, then to battalion corn,
mander level then to regimental level, and finally, to the chief of staff and com.
manding general of the 6th SS Panzer Army themselves.
All forms of physical force, threats, and promises were strictly prohibited
and were not employed by the interrogators. The industry, ingenuity, enthusiasm,
and intelligence of the interrogators employed in this investigation cannot be
over-emphasized or praised too highly.
In January 124'5 Captain Robert E. Byrne (then Lieutenant) was assigned
to work on the case. On a lead furnished by the French Government he went to
Alsace and interrogated a witness who later became a suspect and was then
delivered to the American Government for trial. I n February 1946 Captain Byrne
went to Belgium and spent six weeks in the various villages along the route of
advance of the Germans interrogating witnesses. From his efforts alone, approxi-
mately thirty Belgian civilian witnesses were found and many of them were eye
witnesses to the atrocities. Two were able to identify a perpetrator.
Six of the survivors of the Malmedy Massacre arrived in the latter part of
March 1946 and 9 April 1946 in the company of Lieutenant Colonel Ellis, Captain
Shumacker, and Captain Byrne, they returned to the scene of the massacre.
The entire route of march of the Germans was completely covered on this trip.
Although t h e directive to send all prisoners of war to the component units of
the 1st SS Panzer Regiment had wide circulation, a large number of its members
were never sent either t o I C #78 a t Zuffenhausen or to I. P. #2 a t Schwa+
bisch Hall. Therefore, a s the investigation progressed, both suspects and wit-
nesses gave the investigators leads a s to the whereabouts of many suspects. In
order to get these suspects definitely located, Major Luke P. Rogers was sent
to the P W enclosures and additional suspects were apprehended in this manner
and through Major Rogers' efforts.
For about three weeks in March and April, three War Crimes investigating
teams from the Seventh Army were loaned to this detachment for the purpose
of developing leads and apprehending suspects known to have committed atroci-
ties, who were not yet in custody. One of these teams was sent to Paris to check
P W I records ; one was sent to t h e British Zone; and the other team was sent
to Austria. Through their efforts, more suspects were apprehended and were
ultimately made accused in the case. Six such suspects were found to be in the
Z I and they were brought to the European Theater and were among the accused
tried.
The interrogators themselves, when they learned that a suspect might be found
within a radius of a couple of hundred kilometers of Schwaebisch Hall, made
short trips to apprehend such suspects and some of these trips were completely
successful.
Statements taken from suspects and witnesses were written in longhand by
the suspect o r witnesses himself and sworn to before a n officer. Then the state-
ment mas translated and a n affidavit of the translator attached thereto. Several
copies of the translation were made so that a copy of the statement could be
placed in the 201 file, not only of the affiant himself, but of every other person
incriminated by the statement.
I n preparing the material for trial, photostatic copies were made of the state-
ments and especially of the sketches and maps which formed a p a r t of the state-
ments for use by each member of the Court a s this material was offered in
evidence.
The investigation was completed on 18 April 1946 ( a s a matter of fact, the
last confession obtained was signed about midnight of that date) and a11 wit-
nesses and accused were moved to Dachau on 19 April 1946.
The following important observations and decisions were highly significant a s
affecting the successful results of this investigation :
1. The Pact that members of a regiment, scattered throughout Europe and the
21, could not be effectively located or interrogated by the detachment assigned
to the task.
2. The fact that locating or apprehending suspects through the means of
Wanted Reports and Detention Reports was most unsatisfactory and was nega-
tive in results obtained.
M-ALMEDY MASSACRE INVESTIGATION 1227
3. The fact that all suspects (every member of the 1st SS Panzer Regiment
was a t first a suspect) had to be brought to one central enclosure for screening
and interrogation.
4. The fact that effective interrogation demands complete isolation for each
man interrogated and absolute security of communication between him and
other suspects.
5. The employment of well trained, industrious, conscientious, intelligent and
where possible, German speaking interrogators, preferably with legal training
and certainly, with a lawyer i n command.
6. The decision to gather all suspects a t I. C. #78 a t Zuffeahausen-this was
accomplished by the Command TWX hereinafter mentioned.
7. The decision to provide a facility adequate to t h e requirements of effective
interrogation-this facility was obtained, same being I. P. #2 a t Schwaebisch
Hall.
EXHIBIT NO.2 *
SOP #I:
1. This SOP will govern the transfer of prisoners involved in the Malmedy case
from I C #78 and I P #1 to I P #2.
2. This transfer will be known by the code name, Project "X."
3. A copy of the form letter whici will accompany these shipments is attached
a s Exhibit "A." This transfer letter will be prepared in original and five copies
i n the case of prisoners being transferred from IC #78. When a shipment is
composed of prisoners from I P #1, the original and six copies of the transfer
letter should be prepared. When there is a mixed shipment, an original and
seven copies will be prepared. The original and two of these copies will be placed
in a sealed envelope and handed to the noncom in charge of the shipment covered
by the transfer letter. Of the remaining copies two will be withdrawn a t the
USFET War Crimes Detachment office, one for the office files of the team worb-
ing on this case and the other to be forwarded to Apprehension and Detention
Sub-section of the War Crimes Branch in Wiesbaclen. The copies that a r e left
will be delivered to the Administrative office a t IC #78 or I P #1 a s the case
may be for its use. These copies which a r e to be delivered to the Administrative
office will be so delivered the day prior to shipment so that the men shipping may
be properly prepared and so that shipment schedules may be met.
4. The 788th FA Battalion has been designated as the unit to make this move-
ment. All drivers and noncoms assigned to this detail will be briefed regard-
91765-49-78
ing the importance of maintaining strictest security concerning their mission.

Six trucks will be furnished daily by this organization for the transfer, operat-
ing on the following schedule: (Times of Departure from' IC $ 7 8 0900-1000-
11304300-1400-1500. The personnel assigned to this detail will not be changed
throughout the transfer except in cases of emergency. A11 new personnel as-
signed to the detail will be carefully briefed on security precautions by a repre-
sentative of the War Crimes Team investigating this case or the Commanding
Officer of the 788th FA Battalion.
5. Upon arrival a t IP #2, the prisoners being transferred will be processed in
such a way a s to prevent the disclosure of their arrival and identity to any but
authorized American personnel. They will be assigned to cells in accordance
with the code designation appearing opposite their names on the transfer letter
in the column headed "Conf. Status." Men having the same letters or combina-
tions of letters opposite their names i n this column will be assigned cells to-
gether. Others having the letters Sol. after their names will be assigned to cells
i n solitary confinement. Where t h e letters Sol. (A) appear after a man's name,
is indicates that he is a cooperative prisoner and should be assigned to a special
cell offering him additional comforts as soon a s such cells are prepared.
6. Administrative personnel at I P #2 in charge of processing incoming
prisoners will indicate the number of the cells to which they are assigned oppo-
site their names in the left hand margin of the original of the transfer letter.
The file containing these letters will be made available to the War Crimes team
investigating this case so that the cell numbers to which these prisoners a r e
assigned may be transferred to locator and index cards being maintained by this
team:
Distribution :
1 cpy-War Crimes Branch, USFET Investigation Sub-section.
1 cpy-War Crimes Branch, USFET Apprehension and Detentiop Sub-
Section.
1 cpy-USFET W a r Crimes Team (Malmedy Case).
1 cpy-IP #2.
1 cpy--Commanding Officer, 788th F A Battalion.
1 cpy-Commanding Officer, 34th AAA Group.
EXHIBITA
W a CRIMESBRANCH,
DETACHMENT AT I C #78,
USFET, 5 December 1945.
RS/iir.
-- -,""--
Subject : Project X.
To: Prison Commander, 7th U. S. Army Internee Prison #2.
Thru : Camp Commander, I C #78.
1. The following prisoners a r e belng evacuated from IC #78 to 7th U. S.

Army Internee Prison #2 in accordance with SOP #1:
Cod. status
Reichert, Wilhelm ...........................

Buntins, Edward C .........................
Ochmann. Paul ..............................
Bergmann, Lothar ...........................
1 11 1 Sol.. ........
: vur --------
. .
...........
...........
Hoffmeister, Hans ........................... T ...........
..--- Ewald.. ...........................

Frohlich.
- v ...........
~ichberher,Ferdinand ....................... u ...........
Holle, Wilfried............................... T..--- .- .-.-
Meding, Otto ................................ v ...........
Kowitz, Ernst. .............................. u ...........
CzoaaUa, Herbert ............................ T ...........
Posf, Robert ................................. I Sol.......... 11th-ido. I11 Bn. 2
I 1 PGR.
u - -- ..- .-- .. 12th Go.

1
Motsheim, Anton ............................ 78 2 I11 Bn. 2
PGR.
Sol.-- -. - ..- - 9th Pz. Pi. Co.
Jensen, Friedrich. ...........................
Niemeier, Wilhelm .......................... 81 1
4 v ........... 11th Co.
PGR.
I11 Bn. 2
2. These prisoners will leave I C #78 a t 0900 on 5 December 1945.

RAPHAJSLSHUMACHER,
Caotain. CMP. TTRFET. W C B .
WARCRIMESBRANCH,USFET,
DET~CHMENT
AT I. P. #2,
7 Pebruary 1946.
SOP No. 4:
1. Scope.-This SOP will govern the manner in which interrogations i r e con-

ducted i n this investigation.
2. Interrogation register.-A register will be maintained showing all prisoners
interrogated, the date they were interrogated, their full name, name of the
person conducting the interrogation, number of the cell in which they a r e being
interrogated and the number of the cell to which they a r e taken following the
interrogation. The person conducting the hterrogation will be responsible for
seeing that the foregoing information is correctly entered i n the appropriate
columns of this register. The name of the prisoner being interrogated will be
printed. The interrogator will be responsible for making any changes in the
register necessary to show t h e location of the prisoners during the interrogation.
Where the prisoner is taken to a cell different from that in which he was originally
located, proper adjusting entries will be made by the interrogator in the person-
ality card index file and the locator file, to reflect this change (See Paragraphs
5a and 5b of SOP #3). When these files a r e properly adjusted, a pencil check
mark will be placed by the interrogator alongside the cell number appearing in
the disposition column of the register. When the interrogator pulls a locator
card on a prisoner whom he has been interrogating, to adjust the locator file for a
cell change, and the file indicates that the cell in which the prisoner was originally
located is vacant a s a result of this change, the interrogator will withdraw the
cell separator card and place i t ~ i nthe section of the locator file marked "Vacant
Cells."
3. Prointerrogation preparation.-a. Prior to interrogating a prisoner, the
interrogator will examine his personal effects for photographs, addresses, diaries,
wallets, and pens with American names or indicating American manufacture,
American invasion currency, etc.
b. Next, the interrogator will examine the personality card of the prisoner -
being interrogated and any other cards i n the personality card index cross
referenced on the prisoner's card.
c. The interrogator will then examine the appropriate organization file for
additional information regarding other personalities i n the organization and
information regarding operations of the organization of which the prisoner was
a member.
d. Interrogator will also inspect the locator file to determine the identify of
the prisoner's cellmates so that h e may learn what exchange of information has
occurred among the inmates of this cell.
e. The final pre-interrogation step will be a conference with the Commanding
Officer so that the plan of the interrogation may be outlined for his approval i n
order that interrogation activities may be properly coordinated.
4. Rules governing interrogation.-a. Any ruse or deception may be used i n
the course of the interrogation, but threats, duress i n any form, physical violence,
or promises of immunity or mitigation of punishment, should be scrupulously
avoided.
b. Where a prisoner being interrogated in a crime is implicated in that crime,
i t is permissible to tell him that he will be recommended a s a witness, if such
statement to the prisoner will cause him to tell a full or more complete story so
that he will be of more value to the case a s a witness than a s a defendant. How-
ever, before any such statements are made to a prisoner, the matter must be
cleared with the Commanding Officer.
c. Stool pigeons may be employed, but prior to their selection or preparation,
the matter of their employment must be cleared with the Commanding Officer.
5. 'Statemelzts.--a. Before a statement is taken from a prisoner, the matter will
be cleared with the Commanding Officer in order to determine the necessity or
desirability for taking such statement and in order to review the points which
should be covered in the statement. I n taking a statement, the interrogator
should dictate the statement, or where a n intelligent prisoner is making a s t a t e
ment and is going t o write the statement himself, take the necessary measures
to make sure that all important points a r e adequately covered and the picture
to be presented is painted in all its details. Whether the statement is dictated
or whether the prisoner writes it himself, the actual writing will be done by the
prisoner himself so that the statement is in his own handwriting.
1230 MALMEDY MASSACRE IJYTESTIGATION
b. I n dictating or supervising the preparation of the statement, all possible

defenses should be anticipated and answered by the statement. For instance, i t
should be made clear t h a t the soldiers who were killed were Americans, not
merely because the person making the statement says they were Americans,
but because they wore American uniforms, spoke English and were armed wlth
American weapons, or because a n examination of their personal effects disclosed
that they were Americans. It should also be established in the statement t h a t
they were prisoners of war, that they had discarded their arms and surrendered,
raising their hands over their heads or indicating their surrender in some other
manner. Another possible defense that should be anticipated in the statement
is the familiar "attempt to escape" defense. I t should be shown in the statement
t h a t the prisoners who were shot gave no provocation for the shooting. Another
very important point t h a t is very often overlooked in the statements, are the
details necessary to establish that the soldiers were dead. A11 possible details
regarding the nature of the bullet wound, the number of shots fired into the
bodies, the reaction of the bodies following the shooting and the distance. of the
bodies from the person doing the shooting, should be established. The disposi-
tion of the bodies should also be covered. The statement should also indicate
other witnesses to the shooting.
c. I n order to conserve the time of the office personnel working on the atate-
ments, a s well a s the trial personnel reviewing them, it is desired t h a t all state-
ments be a s brief as possible. Necessary steps should be taken to insure that
all irrelevancies a r e excluded from the statements.
d. Each statement should be carefully checked by the interrogator for com-
pleteness and accuracy of identification information, such as, the name, rank,
complete organization designation, dates and geographical names appearing in
the statement.
e. When a statement is completed it,will be placed in the file basket marked
"Statements for Translation."
f. Upon completion of the translation, which will be prepared in triplicate, the
translator mill initial the translation in the lower left-hand corner of the last
Page of the original, to indicate that he has proofread i t for typographical and
other errors. H e will then accomplish one copy of the translator's affidavit
and attach it to the original of the translation, which will in turn be attached
together with its copies to the statement. The statement, together with its
translation, will then be referred to the interrogator for final check. The inter-
rogator will then examine the statement and its translation for completeness
and accuracy, and after making all necessary corrections, mill place his initials
i n the upper right-hand corner of the first page of the original of the translation.
H e will then place the statement together with the translation in the file basket
marked "Information for Personality Card." Until the statement i s placed in
this file basket, it is the interrogator's responsibility to see that it is complete in
every respect and that i t is processed a s speedily a s possible.
g. I n making his translation, the translator will take all necessary steps to
insure that i t is absolutely correct. Where confronted with a word or phrase
which he does not clearly understand, he will discuss the matter with other
German-speaking personnel in this Detachment and consult a dictionary or other
appropriate reference.
h. Since many of these statements will undoubtedly have to be introduced in
court to prove a particular phase of the case, it is imperative that they be legally
sufficient in all respects to prove the necessary facts. It will be the Commanding
Officer's responsibility to insure that the statements are a d e q a t e in this respect.
I n the case of a n interrogator who is not a lawyer, the advice of the Commanding
Officer should be sought prior to the taking of the statement i n all cases where
the interrogator is in doubt regarding the proof necessary to establish a material
fact.
i. The Commanding Officer will review the statement and determine what
information should be extracted from the statement and entered on the per-
sonality cards. Upon the completion of this operation, the statement will be
placed in the file basket marked "Statements for File." Translations of the
statements in this basket will then be typed in final form. The translator will
then accomplish and attach the translator's affidavit and return the translation
and statement to this file basket for filing.
j. The interrogators will supervise the prisoners while they write their state-
ments and draw sketches lo be attached to their statements to insure that a n
ample margin is left a t the top of each page of the statement so that perforations
may be made for filing.
6. Postinternogation procedure.-a. Any material facts for the proof of this
case or any information of immediate value i n conducting the investigation of
the case, established by the testimony of the prisoner will be communicated to
the Commanding Officer by the interrogator immediately following the inter-
rogation, so that such facts or information may be entered on all appropriate
personality cards.
b. At the conclusion of each interrogation, the interrogator will have a con-
ference with the Commanding Officer to discuss the results of the interrogation
and formulate future plans.
c. The following rules will govern disposition of a prisoner upon completion
of his interrogation :
1. If a prisoner i s occupying a cell with other prisoners he will not be
returned to that cell.
2. If i t is determined that a prisoner is a cooperative witness he will be
assigned to one of the cells reserved for cooperative witnesses, D-101 through
D-117 or A-32 through A 4 5 for important witnesses, B-39 for less im-
portant witnesses. I n no case will a n officer occupy a cell with a n enlisted
man except in special cases after receiving clearance from the Commanding
Officer. Members of the same units should not occupy the same cell, unless
they a r e the same grade.
3. Where i t is determined that a prisoner was not a member of an im-
plicated unit, or i t is believed that he is of no value a s a witness o r suspect,
he will be transferred to C-050, C-029, 8-049, or A-053 for eventual
evacuation.
4. Where difficulty is encountered in exploiting a prisoner and i t is de-
sirable to permanently transfer him to a convenient location for reference
during subsequent interrogations, he will be transferred to one of the cells
i n the D-75 through D-83 block.
5. All cell changes will be cleared through the Commanding Officer. Be-
~ fore anv such channes a r e made the locator file should be consulted for
- -~
availabfiity of cells.
d. War Crimes Clearance Sheet: If i t is determined upon completion of the
interrogation of a prisoner that he i s of no further interest in this case, a War
Crimes Clearance Sheet will be accomplished for him on the form supplied for
that purpose. In preparing this form, the CROWCASS wanted list together
with all of its supplements will be carefully checlred and appropriate reference
entered on the clearance Sheet i n accordance with current directives.
e. Retention of Prisoner Form: As soon a s i t is determined that a prisoner is
to be used in the trial of this case, either a s a witness or a suspect, a Retention
of Prisoner Form will be accomplished on him, using the mimeographed form
provided for this purpose. The interrogator will prepare this form, being careful
to insure that all information written into the form is completely legible. This
form will be made up in original only. When there is a sufficient accumulation
of these completed forms, the 7th Army War Crimes Detachment a t I C #78
will be contacted so that they can send for t h e completed forms.
f. Crowcass Report.-At the completion of the interrogation the prisoner's
personality index card will be examined to determine whether or not h e is
wanted by Crowcass. If a check mark appears in the upper left-hand corner of
his card he is listed in the latest Crowcass list, and this fact should be reported
to the Commanding Officer. If a zero appears in the upper left-hand corner of
the card i t indicates that the prisoner is not listed in any of the crowcass lists.
If no marking appears in the upper left-hand corner of the personality card, the
interrogator will make a search of the latest crowcass list together with all of
i t s supplements to determine whether o r not the prisoner could possibly be the
same a s the persons listed in the crowcass lists having the same o r similar
names.
If there is a possibility of identity between the prisoner and a person listed
in the cromcass lists, his personality index card will be marked with a check
mark in the upper left-hand corner of the card. If not, his card will be marked
in the upper left-hand corner with a zero. Wherever t h e possibility of identity
is established, the name of the prisoner will be given the Commanding Officer,
together with a note stating whether the identification is positive or possible, so
that the proper report may be made throngh c h ~ n n e l si n accordance with cur-
rent 7th Army directives.
(S) DWIGHTF. FANTON,
Major, QMG, Conma?zdi.ng Oflicer.
EXHIBIT5
PEMONALDATAOF ACCUSEDFOR INFORMATION
OF DEFENSECOUNSEL
To accused: This information is necessary to enable your counsel t o initiate

his preparation of your defense. I t is to your interest to be accurate. With
respect to the charges you will be personally interrogated a t a later date.
If there is insufficient space to answer any question continue on the reverse
side of the sheet listing the No. of the question.
1. Full name:
2. Rank :
3. Serial No. :
4. Branch of Service (Infantry, Artillery etc.) :
5. Date of capture o r apprehension :
6. Name your organizations from December lst, 1944 to date of capture or
apprehension, giving dates served in each organization :
7. Your age:
8. Place of birth :
9. Religion:
10. Legal residence :
11. lllarried or single :
12. List all your dependents:
13. Education prior to entering military service:
14. What was your occupation i n civilian life?
15. Military education and training (list military school attended and type
of basic training) :
16. What instruction, if any, have you received during your military career
relating to the "Geneva Conventions" and the treatment of prisoners of w a r ?
17. Prior to the date of your capture or apprehension i n what major military
or naval engagements did SOU participate in this or any other W a r ?
18. Where, by whom and under what circumstances were you captured or
apprehended?
19. State what treatment you received a t the time of capture or apprehension :
20. When and a t what places were you imprisoned (give dates and locations of
imprisonment) ?
21. State any circumstances relating to your treatment, denial of good or loss
of privileges a t any of the above places :
22. Have you been in solitary confinement during your imprisonment?
23. If son, how long and where?
24. What part did you play in the "Eifel Offensive" during the months of De-
cember 1944 and January 1945 (list organizations and duties assigned) :
25. During these engagements were you a member of any unit which captured
American Prisoners?
26. Name of such unit :
27. Who was your immediate commanding officer of this unit?
28. What knowledge have you regarding the shooting or mistreatment of
American Prisoners during the above engagements? (State fully) :
29. Did you participate in any mistreatment or shooting of American Prisoners
or Belgian Civilians during these engagements?
30. If so, state times, places, and circumstances (give detailed statements) :
31. After capture, when, where, and by whom were you first interrogated?
32.- Did you make a full statement then?
33. If so, was i t made voluntarily?

34. How long a period of time did this first interrogation last?
35. State a t what places, times, and by whom you were interrogated afterwards :
36. Approximately how long did each interrogation last?
37. Did you a t any time make a statement or confession n o t voluntarily?
38. If so, state the time, place and to whom i t was made and all circumstances :
39. When you were served with Charges on the 11 April were you informed
that you had a right to be represented by a German Civilian Counsel of your own
choice, in addition to the assigned military counsel. Do you desire such counsel?
40. If so, state his name and address :
41. Do you desire to call any witnesses in behalf of your defense?
42. If so, give names and addresses :
43. Ha-ve you any other comments to make?
DEPUTYTHEATERJUDGE
ADVOCATE'S
OFFICE
7 7 0 8 WAR CRIMES GROUP
UNITEDSTATESFORCES,
EUROPEAN
THEATER
APO 178
STATEMENT
OF CHARLES
J. PERRY,0240597, LT. COL,AGD
On 6 February 1917 I visited Landsberg Prison for the purpose of being present
during the interrogation of former S S personnel who were awaiting execution
f o r their p a r t in commission of atrocities committed i n vicinity of Malmedy,
Belgium, and for which they were found guilty by a military court and given the
death sentence. While a t Landsberg Prison I interrogated Joachim Peiper and
Benoni Junker, i n connection with their interrogation and treatment prior to
their trial before the Military Court which heard their case.
Junker, who spoke excellent English, informed me t h a t during t h e develop-
ment of the Malmedy Case a t Swabish Halle, Germany, he, a t no time, was struck
by anyone connected with the investigation of t h e case. He stated t h a t the
treatment he received during his confinement a t Swabish Halle was better than
t h e treatment he received a t Dachau and the physical conditions a t Swabish
Halle were much better than those a t Landsberg. I again asked specifically
whether he had a t any time before or during his trial been struck or threatened
with bodily harm by any interrogator. H e answered specifically t h a t h e had
never a t any time been struck or threatened with bodily harm by any American
captor, interrogator or jailor. I asked whether he had been treated i n any man-
ner which might tend to humiliate him or degrade him i n the eyes of his former
subordinates or superiors. H e stated t h a t he was intensely interrogated a t
Swabish Halle and t h a t frequently his answers to direct questions were dis-
torted and colored to suit the ideas of his interrogators i n a n effort to elicit
further information, but that such methods were not unusual and were probably
a great deal milder than the methods which would have been used by German
interrogators had the circumstances been reversed.
H e further stated t h a t the interrogation was not believed by him to be a n
effort to degrade him before his German comrades and actually did not so de-
grade him. I asked whether he had a t any time seen or had been placed i n
cells which contained bullet holes or pieces of flesh, human or other. H e an-
swered t h a t the story about pieces of flesh was t h e figment of someone's imagi-
nation and without basis i n fact, also, t h a t since the prison a t Swabish Halle
was a n old prison there may have been holes i n the ceIl walls but he mas certain
that if there mere such holes he had not seen them. H e further stated t h a t the
story reference pieces of flesh and bullet holes i n the walls was so fantastic to
him t h a t he wrote a humorous limerick about t h a t snbject and addressed the
limerick to the Chief of t h e Prosecution Staff during the trial a t Dachau.
Junker volunteers the information t h a t he held no malice towards any individual
connected with the prosecution of his case, and t h a t he particularly esteemed
and respected the Chief of the Prosecution Staff, Lt. Col. Burton Ellis, JAGD.
I asked whether he had heard stories of mistreatment of prisoners a t Swabish
Halle during the development of the Malmedy Case. Junker replied t h a t he had
heard such stories from many of the defendants i n that case but t h a t he believed
none of them to be true. H e further volunteered the statement t h a t t h e origin
of these stories was based on a desire to "wiggle out of" damaging testimony
voluntarily given by some of the defendants; t h a t when they realized t h a t such
testimony was to their disadvantage they attempted to negative such testimony
with the false claim t h a t i t was beaten out of them. H e regretted t h a t such real-
ization was too late to help them and was fully aware t h a t the claims of mis-
treatment was a weak and fntile defense. I asked whether this weak and futile
defense was known to or fostered by the defense staff of these individuals.
Junker mas emphatic in his assertion t h a t this attempt to discredit the prosecu-
tion was not only sponsored by the defense staff but was of the opinion t h a t it
originated with them. I asked whether the defense staff or any person on
t h a t staff had advised him not to answer questions for American interrogators
after the trial. Junker stated t h a t after trial and sentences and subsequent to
his initial confinement in Landsberg he had been advised by Lt. Col. Sutton and
by Col. Everett of the Defense Staff to answer no more questions for any Ameri-
can and to submit to no further interrogation by American investigators or in.

terrogators. When asked by whether he desired me to convey any word from
him to any member of the prosecution he stated that he particularly wanted his
thanks conveyed to Col. Ellis and his Binclly feelings conveyed to the other
members of the investigation team who developed the Malmedy case. He par-
ticularly wanted all members of the prosecution to know that he held no malice
or unkind feelings toward them, fully realizing that as members of an Armed
Force they were performing a n assigned mission to the best of their ability.
I then interviewed Joachin Peiper, who also spoke excellent En-glish. Peiper
was asked by me whether h e was a t any time struck or threatened with bodily
harm during his confinement a t Swabish Halle. H e exhibited surprise a t the
question and was emphatic in expressing a negative answer. H e was then asked
whether he had heard of any case of beatings or physical force against the person
of any defendant i n t h e Malmedy Case. Peiper's answer was a t first hesitant
and then he stated clearly that he had heard of beatings and physical force from
the majority of the defendants who were former members of his command.
When asked where and a t what time this information came to his attention he
stated t h a t it was given to him by the defendants concerned a t Dachau just
prior to and a t the time of t h e trial. H e was then asked whether he had
personal knowledge of or had himself seen any such beatings or mistreatment.
His answer was in the negative. I asked Peiper whether these reports of mis-
treatment came to him sporadically over a long period of time or were closely
related in point of time. His answer was that the reports came to him closely
in poine of time; that during a conference with his Chief Defense Counsel, Col.
Everett, he was told t h a t a s a regimental commander h e must keep the best inter-
ests of his men ever present i n his mind and should encourage his men to confide
in t h a t ; that the defense staff b a d been informed of mistreatment of these men
during their confinement a t Swabish Halle and that he (Peiper) should en-
courage his men to talk to him and among themselves of such occurrences. I
asked whether i t was possible that this might be a plan of defense to which
Peiper immediately retorted that such a s suggestion was impossible and that no
American officer would resort to such unsportsmanlike tactics even in the defense
of individuals being charged with murder. H e further stated that h e had, a t
Swabish Halle and a t Dachau, expressed his disgust toward his men for their
lack of soldierly attributes in divulging vital information to American interro-
gators, and, that i t was possible that the stories of beatings and mistreatments
were a n effort to regain his friendly feeling toward them. Peiper was then asked
whether he had been advised by any member of the defense staff to refuse to
answer questions for or submit to interrogations by Americans not connected
with the defense of his case.
H e stated that he had been advised by his Chief Defense Counsel (Col. Everett)
to answer questions for no one who was not connected with the defense staff.
H e was then asked when he had been advised and answered that the advice had
been given to him a t Dachau before, during and after trial. I asked whether this
advice had been repeated a t any time subsequent to trial and announcement of
sentence to which Peiper answered that Col. Everett had visited him a t Landsberg
Prison subsequent to his initial confinement there and had said that he (Everett)
was dissatisfied with the outcome of the trial and that Peiper should refrain from
discussing the trial, or the testimony brought out therein, with any person not
actively connected with the defense and should refuse to submit to further interro-
gations by any American except in the presence of Everett. He volunteered
that since that time h e had opportunity to reflect on the matters upon which his
trial was based, that Col. Everett had now returned to the United States and that
Peiper saw no cogent reason for maintaining continued silence. I again asked
Peiper whether he had personal knowledge of mistreatment a t Swabish Halle and
he again answered i n t h e negative. I asked whether he had a t any time i n
Swabish Halle been submitted to actions which might tend to humiliate him or
degrade him i p the opinion of his superiors or subordinates. He again answered
in the negative. I asked for his opinion as to the nature of his treatment in
Swabish Halle a s compared to treatment received while a t Dachau or a t Lands-
berg Prison to which he replied that his treatment a t Swabish Halle was f a r
superior to that of either Dachau or Landsberg. When asked whether he had
been mistreated, humiliated, or degraded a t either Dachan or Landsberg he
replied emphatically in t h e negative and amplified his immediately prior answer
with the statement that his treatment a t the hands of his American captors was
not inconsistent with the treatment he would expect of soldiers and gentlemen
toward a prisoner of war. I then asked whether he desired me to transmit
for him any remark or statement to any member of t h e prosecution staff which
prosecuted the Malmedy Case. Peiper asked t h a t I convey to Lt. Col. Ellis,
Chief Prosecution Counsel his (Peiper's) best wishes and kindest regards, t h a t
h e entertained neither resentment nor malice toward any member of the
Prosecution staff and considered the trial of the Malmedy Case fair and consid-
erate toward the defendants and to have been conducted by soldiers and gentle-
men a s a military mission and without personal animosity or prejudices.
( S ) CHARLESJ. PERRY,Lt. Col., AGD.
Sworn to and subscribed befoi-e me this 5th day of March 1947.
[SEAL] ( S ) C. A. HILEMAN,Lt. Cot., ACfD,
Adjutant.
Sir, do you know Schwabisch-Hall?

With bullet-holes in the wall
With pieces of flesh
The latter still fresh
0,r e s ; you were on the ball !
The author of this humbly begs not to introduce the Limerick in evidence.
Thank you.
JUNKER.
CARSTENS& PICKETT,
Beatrice, Nebr., May 24, 1949.
Hon. RAYMOND C.
BALDWIN,
United States Senate, W a s 7 ~ i ~ ~ y tD.

o n ,C
.
DEARSENATOR BALDWIN:
I was very much interested recently in a n associated
Press dispatch which I read in our local paper concerning the investigation
which is being made of the members of t h e United States Army who conducted
the investigation of the members of the Germany Army who a r e reported to
have committed atrocities in the Malmedy massacre which occurred during the
Battle of the Bulge.
The reason t h a t I was particularly interested was because of the fact t h a t

one of the persons who conducted this investigation was William R. Perl who
was a t t h a t time a lieutenant in the United States Army. I n 1945, immediately
after the war, I mas assigned to the Investigation Section of the War Crimes
Branch. I n the course of my assignment, I became acquainted with Lieutenant
Perl and subsequently he was on my investigation team i n various parts of
France and Germany and we in the course of our duties conducted a great many
investigations and interrogations of persons who were charged with having
committed atrocities against American Armed Force personnel. I had oppor-
tunity over the course of 4 months to observe Lieutenant Perl in action and I
do not believe t h a t he ever conducted any interrogation or investigation while a
member of my team which mas out of either my sight or hearing. We operated
i n villages and cities in Germany and in prisoner of war camps in France. I n
t h e course of our operation, we came in contact with the innocent and t h e
guilty, with the mildest of criminals to the most depraved and degenerated
specimens of humanity imaginable. We met those who were willing to confess
and often times eager to do so and we came in contact with persons who had
been heads of concentration camps and who had been responsible for committing
great atrocities whose stories and denials could not be broken under days of
interrogation. We discovered members of the German Army i n these concentra-
tion camps who had been members of the units which operated i n and around
Malmedy a t the time t h a t these murders were committed.
I can say without any reservations or qualification t h a t I never observed
Lieutenant Perl ever committing any acts of violence to obtain confessions
from any of the accused parties, nor did he ever altempt to gain any confessions
by fraud, intimidation, brutality or violence or in any manner which was illegal.
I consider Lieutenant Perl to be one of the finest interrogators or investigators
t h a t I have ever seen in action and he was extreme11 skillful in interrogating
those accused parties. I do not say, nor do I wish to infer, t h a t we treated these
people like children-we conducted our investigations i n a b a r d a n d busi-
nesslike manner because hardened criminals respond to no other treatment.
To do any less would result only in gaining their contempt, but I wish to empha-
size, however, t h a t I never observed any tendency or inclination of brutality
or use of force on the part of Lieutenant Perl. I thoroughly believe that his
character is f a r above such conduct.
Please let i t be understood that I have not had any contact with Lieutenant
Perl for around 2 years and this letter is written with the sole intention in doing
whatever I can to help a man who I believe to be wrongly accused of a very serious
offense. This letter is not solicited nor requested by Lieutenant Perl, but is ab-
solutely voluntary on my part. Immediately upon reading this newspaper account,
I sent a telegram to Lieutenant Perl offering my assistance such as i t might be
and he told me by a letter t h a t if I wished to do anything for him, t c write to the
Senator.
I n the event that anyone wishes to look a t my record, they may do so by
requesting i t from t h e Adjutant General, United States Army.
Very truly yours,
F. W. CARSTENS,
Lieutenant Colonel F A Reserve, Serial No. 0370381.
GmeR.4~AXERICANOIL CO. OF TEXAS,

Dallas, Tex., March 29, 1949.
Lt. Col. BURTON F. ELLIS,
Assistant Army Judge Advocate, Headquarters S i x t h A r w ,
Presidio of S a n Francisco, Calif.
DEARCOLO~EL ELLIS:

Yours of the 23d instant is acknowledged.
During the progress of this war crimes investigation i t was not practicable for
us to have the benefit of your views for which I mas very sorry. However, we
were able to get a right accurate picture of the situation.
I had a great deal of sympathy for Mr. Everett who appeared to me to be
prompted only by a desire to represent his clients conscientiously and well.
He may have been overzealous but I can forgive this in a lawyer when I think
he is sincere. You might be interested to know I had information lately that
Colonel Everett had a severe heart attack and is in a serious condition.
Judge van Roden and I got to he very good friends indeed and I felt greatly
disappointed when I read in newspapers and periodicals the very extreme state-
ments he had been making, statements which were based upon allegations rather
than proof. He was certainly not being helpful nor constructive in any sense
and I repeat that in my opinion he does us all a disservice.
Sincerely yours,
(S) GORDON
SIMPSON.
PARIS,21 June 1949.

Senator RAYMOND EARLBALDWIN,
Armed Services Committee,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
DEAR SIR: I wish to transmit to yon herewith a n afidavit signed by me con-

cerning the matter of alleged mistreatments of German SS by members of the
War Crimes Prosecution Staff in the Malmedy case, presently under investigation
by t h e United States Senate Armed Services Committee.
I also wish to state t h a t both as a lawyer and a s a French national I would
never have approved of physical mistreatment of prisoners-even though they
were members of the SS-the more so, since any such brutalities would have
reminded me of the horrors we witnessed during four years of German occupa-
tion.
Hoping my statement will prove of some use to you, I am, dear Sir
Sincerely yours,
Lorna SCHIRMAN.
To the Chairman of the United States Senate Armed Swvices Committee:

I, the undersigned, Louba Schirman of 7 Bond Point Mirabeau, Paris, France,
a member of the Paris Bar, do hereby depose and state as follows:
I was assigned by the Legal Department of the French Military Government
a s executive officer of the French War Crimes Liaison Detachment to Head-
quarters USFET on duty with the Deputy Theater Judge Advocate for War
Crimes from October 1945 to January 1947.
I n the early spring 1946 I was ordered to proceed to Schwabisch Hall and to
report on the investigation carried out by the American War Crimes Prosecution
Staff in view of the trial of members of the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler charged
with murdering of unarmed American Prisoners of War and of Belgium Civilians
during the Battle of the Bulge. One of the suspects held in American custody
was a French national of Alsatian origins, named Marcel Boltz, and my Heaa-
quarters wanted a full report on his case.
I went several times to Schwabisch Hall and during my stays there I was
allowed to enter the premises of the prison, to attend interrogations, to visit
the cells and to see the meals served to the prisoners.
I attended the interrogation of Marcel Boltz by Army investigator Harry Thon.
By reason of my knowledge of German language I interpreted once or twice dur-
ing my presence on the premises for Lieutenant Colonel Burton F. Ellis a n d for
Captain Ralph Shoemacher in order to help them in the course of their interroga-
tions during the absence of one of the interpreters. I heard Marcel Boltz admit
after a very short interrogation and after being confronted with Gustav Sprenger
that he participated in the killing. I heard three or four of the men interrogated
by Lieutenant Colonel Ellis and Captain Sbemacher admit that they had made
their written confessions without duress and that these confessions were the
expression of the truth. I was impressed by the polite and even friendly manner
in which Lieutenant Colonel Ellis and Captain Shoemacher carried out their
interrogations. I felt shocked by what appeared to a m e n & national as a n exces-
sive friendliness towards a n SS chief when I heard Lt. Col. Ellis order that one
of his blankets be given to Colonel Peiper who complained he was not warm
enough.
The prisoners looked healthy and well fed. I reported to my General that
their food which I tasted myself was better than the food most French families
could afford a t that time. The cells were clean. The prison was heated. Many
homes in France had no heat in the winter of 1945/1946.
I sincerely believe that I got a fairly complete picture of the treatment given
to the German suspects and of the general attitude of the American Prosecution
Staff. I t is my opinion that they were treated f a r better than a r e usually treated
ordinary prisoners. I wish to state furthermore t h a t having had myself the
experience of a German prison and of German interrogations, I can ascertain
that it takes a lot more than being merely submitted to pressure to obtain from
prisoners confessions of crimes they did not commit; however, I never witnessed
any kind of mistreatment and I never noticed the slightest bruise or any other
sign of beatings or physical mistreatments on the many suspects whom I saw
during my visits to the prison. Their looks could by no means be compared with
the looks of French prisoners of war returning from German P W camps.
It is my definite opinion, such a s I reported it to my Headquarters, that after
getting confused by numerous interrogations, breaking down and confessing the
truth, the German suspects entered into a general conspiracy organized by their
chiefs who were held in the same prison and unanimously claimed that their con-
fessions had been obtained under duress. Such a claim was made by Marcel Boltz
to the French investigating magistrate in spite of the fact that his confession
had been made to the American Investigator i n my own presence, without the
slightest attempt to duress against which I would not have failed to protest
immediately.
I was profoundly shocked and grieved when learning that American personnel
on duty with the Judge Advocate General's Department were under public investi-
gation on charges of mishandling SS suspects held in Schwabisch Hall and my
feelings a r e shared by my former chiefs and the former members of my mission.
These charges appear to us a s a n outrageous and unjustified slander made for
the benefit of German and international Nazi propaganda against t h e reputation
of members of American Occupation Forces whose conscientious hard work,
perfect dignity and moral standards fully deserved the high consideration paid
to them by the French Government when awarding the Legion of Honor to all
the leading members of the Ameriean War Crimes Group.
PARIS, 21 June 1949.
LOTJBASCHIBMAN.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 21st day of June 1949 by Louba
Schinnan.
I S E ~ JEAN V. SMITH,
Vice CorzsuZ of the United States of America.
1238 MALMEDY MASSACRE ILJ-EXTIGATION
PHILADELPHIA, PA., August 1, 19.49.

ARIVIED SERVICES COMMITTEE,
United Btutes Senate, Washington, D. c.
GENTLEMEN:I read the press release dated July 29, 1949, concerning charges
made by one Benjamin Reich, a Cleveland attorney, in connection with the con-
duct of the American military tribunal of the War Crimes Branch of the Army.
I was a civilian lawyer connected with the same branch of the Army for a period
of 6 mouths following the end of hostilities, and was actively engaged, a s a
civilian prosecutor, in the actual preparation and trial of cases in the same area
as Mr. Reich and came in frequent contact with him.
Mr. Reich's charges a r e untrue, unwarranted, unjustified, and unfair. I knew
Colonel Straight personally and other officers in charge of the American war
crimes trials. Mr. Reich's participation and experiences in the trials were de-
cidedly limitecl. and of little consequence. There is not the slightest basis for
the charges agzunst Colonel Straight. The allegations and complaint of Mr.
Reich, coming a t this late date, a r e shocking and baseless.
I am prepared to furnish information of vital interest in the subject matter
to your subcommittee and to the Arrpy Inspector General. I am also prepared
to appear before your committee to refute the charges in justice to the officers
and men who served their country well and loyally a s members of the War Crimes
Branch of the Army.
Appreciating your immediate reply, I am,
Very respectfully yours,
MOREIS W. KOLANDEE.
CITYOF SOUTHBEND,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW,
South Bend, Ind., August 3, 1949.
ARMEDSERVICPIS COMMITTEE,
Uni)ed States Senate, 'washington, D. C.
GENTLEMEN:My attention h a s been called to a press release dated July 29,

1949, referring to charges made by Benjamin Reich concerning the conduct of
the war crimes trials in Germany.
I was in Germany during the latter part of 1945 and 1946, and for a number
of months participated a s prosecutor in the trials to which Mr. Reich refers. I
would like your committee to know that a t no time did I receive instructions
from Colonel Straight o r any other member of the administrative branch of the
War Crimes Division such as were reported in the press release. On the con-
trary, our instructions always were to give the defendants every opportunity to
present their defense i n an orderly manner.
I n handling the trials which I conducted, I personally saw to it that every
defendant was represented by American defense counsel and, in most cases, addi-
tional and capable German counsel was also employed. German defense counsel
received their pay, transportation, housing, and food through United States
sources and they did their best in interposing such defenses a s were available to
them on behalf of their clients. I wish to repeat that the German attorneys who
participated in these trials were most competent.
In addition to the employment of counsel for the defendants, we also gave
every defendant an opportunity to present witnesses on his own behalf. I n most
cases, weeks before the trial would commence, the defendant would let us know
which witnesses he wished to appear on his behalf. Thereafter, we went to
extremes in attempting to obtain these witnesses, furnishing transportation,
housing, and food. I do not recall if these witnesses were paid for their time.
Further, my recollection is that the members comprising the courts were very
liberal in their interpretation of the rules of evidence and permitted the de-
fendants every opportunity to express themselves fully.
It is my personal opinion that the defendants had greater leeway i n present-
ing their evidence before the military courts than they would have had in courts
in this countrv.
If you wishany further information on this subject, please advise me.
Very truly yours,
FREDERICK K. BAER,Corporation CounseZ.
X

Malmedy Hearings US Senate - Volume I 1949

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Malmedy Hearings US Senate - Volume I 1949

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

-MALMEDY

UNITED STATES SENATE

T R I A L O F PERSONS RESPONSIBLE F O R 'THE MASSACRE

O F AMERICAN SOLDIERS, BATTLE O F T H E BULGE,

NEAR MALMEDY, BELGIUM, DECEMBER 1944

Printed f o r t h e use of t h e Committee on Armed Services

COMMITTEE 'ON ARMED S E R V I C E S

RAYMOND E . BALDWIN, Connectiuut, Sz~bcommitteeChairman

Ahens, Kenneth F - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 102

Bailey, James J - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 154

Byme, Maj. Robert E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374

Carpenter, Lt. Col. Edwin J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883

Dwinnell, Lt. Col. John S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403,441

Ellis, Lt. Col. Burton F - - - - - - - _ - - _ - -. - - _ 28,171,382.

Sutton, Granger G - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1169

April 18. Statement of Hon. Kenneth C. Royal], Secretary of the Army- - _ .

April 29: Page

Testimony of James J . Bailejr _ _ _ _ _ . - 154

Insertion: Evcerat from a letter written bv Herbert J. Strone of New

Yorlr t o Senator Joseph R. McCarthy _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ..

Insertion: Affidavit of Dietrich Schnell relating t o medical treatment

given Rlalmedy suspects a t Schwabisch Hall (from Report of -4d-

ministration of Justice Review Board) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - __ . _ - _ _ - - - - - 184

Insertion: Letter from a veteran living in Santa Monica t o Senator

Joseph R. McCarthy _ 185

Insertion: Letlm from Bernard Schuelingkamp, a former interpreter a t

Rchwabisch Hall. t o James J. Bailey - - _ _ _ _ - __ ----- 189

Testimony of Judge Gordon Simpson - - _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ 190_

t h e Army Royal1 t o Gen. Lucius D. Clay arranging for the Simpson

survey of Dachau war crimes trials program _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - - - - - - - - 192

May 4: Testimonj. of Judge Edward LeRoy Van Roden _ _ - - - _ _ - _ _ - - - - -225

Statement and testimony of Maj. Dwight F. Fanton _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - - - - -270

Insertion : Excerpt from Wigmore on Evidence (Exhibit A ) - _ _ _ - - - - - 282

Insertion: Memorandum dated February 9, 1946, from Maj. Dwight F.

Fanton t o Lt. Col. Burton F. Ellis _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ 288_

Testimony and statement of John Temple Evans - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - -322 - -

t o John Temple E v a n s _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 343

Testimony of Jack A. Owens _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - ­ 350 --

Testimony of Maj. Robert E. Byrne, JAGD _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - - 374 - . . -

gium, dated June 18, 1 9 4 6 - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - ­ L401 - -

Testimony of Maj. Dwight F. Fanton (resumed) . - - - - - - - - - - - - . . -473

Letter from German Bishop A. G. Mentz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530

Testimony of John Wyckliffe King _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -555 - -

Testimony of Herbert J . Strong (including prepared statement) - _ - _ 571

Insertion: Let,ter from Maj. Gen. Thomas H . Green, Judge Advocate

General of the Army, with tabulation on disposition of sentences

regarding reviews of record of trial i n Malmedy cases- _ _ - _ - - - _ - - - 586, 588

Affidavit of German dentist, Dr. Edward Knorr - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 601.

Testimony of Dr. William R. Perl (resumed) - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - ._ - - - - - - -­ ..-- 695

Insertion: Statements of Otto TVichniann and Dr. K u r t Sickel

(translated) together with sketehes of commander's room, German

Command Post a t Petit Thiers and scenes of shooting of American

Insertion: Affidavit of Dr. H u s h hledak relative t o Austrian judicial

May 19: Testiniony and statement of Ralph Shumacker__ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _- _ - _ - .- 803

Senator Joseph R. McCarthy announcing his retirement from t h e

ICl ccarthy's statement withdrawing from the hearings___ - _ - _ - _ - - - -

Insertion: Letter dated April 21, 1940, from Senator i\tcCarthy t o

Senator Baldwn--. - - - - _- - - - - _- - - - - - - - - _ - _ - - --_-

entitled."German clergy accuse United States of brutality in Lands-

Insertion: Letter from t h e Department of t h e Army dated May 19,

of Munich t o the National Council for t h e Prevention of War-- - -

Insertion: Letter dated March 2, 1949, from Bisho Wurm of Stuttgart

t o t h e National Council for the Prevention of b a r - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

General of t h e Army (resumed)--_ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1047,

Testimony of Jack A. Owens _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - 350 --

gium, dated June 18, 1 9 4 6 - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - L401 - -

Testimony of Dr. William R. Perl (resumed) - _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - ._ - - - - - - - ..-- 695