THE PRESIDENT: But, Dr. Marx, did we not, with the agreement of the Prosecution, strike out a passage from a document which was critical of the Defendant Streicher? Does that not render this evidence entirely irrelevant?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: That was about the witness Lothar Streicher, the son, about an interview that took place in prison at which there were certain allegations, and these were struck out by the consent of the Prosecution. I confess I don’t know whether the disciplinary proceedings in the matter of Streicher . . .
DR. MARX: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. May I speak? The matter in which Lothar Streicher figures is from the Göring report concerning the visit or the conversation Streicher had with three youthful criminals, during which Streicher was supposed to have taken an ugly or improper attitude. Lothar Streicher was named as a witness by me to testify that at that time no such thing happened. That is in connection with the report of the Göring commission, whereas the other matter is concerned with a disciplinary action. This proceeding was completed in 1931 before the disciplinary court at Munich.
THE PRESIDENT: Wasn’t it all in connection with the same alleged offense by Streicher?
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: My Lord, I have the details now, if I might read them. I think it makes them clear. The first application in relation to the proceedings against Karl Holz reads:
“The documents requested herein will be used to prove the following facts:
“During these proceedings Dr. Erich Bischof, an authority on the Talmud, from Leipzig, gave evidence under oath that there was, in the Jewish religious book Sohar a law allowing ritual murder.”
THE PRESIDENT: But, Sir David, there are two different applications, aren’t there? There is this application with reference to the Jewish religious book, and then there is the other application with reference to the trial of Karl Holz.
SIR DAVID MAXWELL-FYFE: As I understood it, My Lord, this application is headed, “Files in the Trial in the Matter of Karl Holz,” and one of the pieces of evidence in the trial of Karl Holz, according to Dr. Marx’s application, was the evidence of Dr. Erich Bischof as to the Talmud; and the application goes on to say that “these facts are relevant to my defense for the following reasons: The accused wishes to prove with these court records”—that is, the record from the trial of Holz—“that Der Stürmer did not deal with the question of ritual murder contrary to his better knowledge.” That is, as I understand it, that Der Stürmer dealt with ritual murder according to the knowledge of Dr. Bischof, as expressed at that trial. That, in my respectful submission, would be quite irrelevant.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the date of this religious book? It was written in the Middle Ages, wasn’t it?