|
VIII. EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS ON IMPORTANT
ASPECTS OF THE CASE Continued
F. Necessity
a. Introduction
The defense generally argued that the medical experiments took place because of
military necessity or the national emergency presented by war. The defendant
Sievers argued that his participation in various experiments was a necessary
part of his participation in a resistance movement in Germany. The defendant
Hoven argued that the concentration camp inmates, who were killed by him or
with his approval and knowledge, were selected by the camp leadership which had
been formed by the political inmates themselves. Hoven also argued that the
inmates killed were all dangerous criminals who collaborated voluntarily with
the SS, and if they would not have been removed, the political inmates would
have been exterminated by these criminals and by the SS. He concluded that it
was therefore necessary, in order to prevent greater harm, either to kill these
"stool pigeons" personally or to give his approval for their
extermination.
On the argument of military necessity and national emergency,
extracts from the final plea for the defendant Gebhardt are included on pages 5
to 12. On the general question of necessity, extracts are included from the
examination of the defendant Karl Brandt by Judge Sebring on pages 29 to 30,
and from the cross-examination of the prosecution's expert witness, Dr. Andrew
C. Ivy on pages 42 to 44. The prosecution discussed the general question of
necessity in its opening statement.
The argument of the defendant Sievers that his participation
was necessary in connection with resistance to the Nazi leadership appears in
his final plea, an extract from which is given on pages 13 to 25. From the
evidence supporting the claim of Sievers, extracts from the testimony of
defense witness Dr. Friedrich Hielscher are included on pages 30 to 41. The
prosecution's reply to Sievers' special defense was made, in part, in the
prosecution's closing statement, an extract of which appears on pages 4 to 5.
The argument of the defendant Hoven that the killing of concentration camp
inmates, of which he was accused, was justifiable homicide appears in his final
plea, an extract of which is set forth on pages 25 to 28. The prosecution's
reply to this special defense is set forth in the closing brief against the
defendant Hoven, an extract of which will be found on pages 2 to 4.
1
|