Affidavit by Kirchert. According to this there was general cessation in the summer of 1941. (Karl Brandt 18, Karl Brandt Ex. 15.)
Affidavit by Asam-Bruckmueller. (3865-PS, Pros. Ex. 365.) According to this euthanasia was also discontinued in Ansbach.
Affidavit by Jordans. (3882-PS, Pros. Ex. 371.) Hereby euthanasia was also discontinued in other institutions in 1942.
(The statements regarding date of cessation may be erroneous inasmuch as they were made long after the end of 1941. It is also possible that in spite of the order to cease, some places still carried on upon the instruction of the local authorities.)
A new purpose for euthanasia is presented, which begins after the cessation. The motive is no longer medical and also has no more connection with the authorization.
Letter from Liebehenschel to the concentration camp of Gross-Rosen of 12 December 1941 on the discharge of prisoners. (1151-PS, Pros. Ex. 411.)
Correspondence of Mennecke. (NO-907, Pros. Ex. 412.) Therein a report is made about the cooperation of a new group, concerned with extermination. Under the date of 15 June 1942 Mennecke speaks about the “re-commencement” of euthanasia.
Statement of Brack. The witness reports of Bouhler’s worry that before requesting the euthanasia commission on 1 September 1939, Bormann and other powers might wish to use the opportunity and he feared they might abuse it (wild euthanasia).
Legal foundations. Karl Brandt is not acquainted with the legal foundation for such proceedings after expiration of the authorization of 1 September 1939. After the cessation of euthanasia in August 1941, the powers held on the basis of the authorization of 1 September 1939 could no longer be exercised.
Statement of Karl Brandt. (Tr. p. 2421.) According to this, Karl Brandt, in 1944 learned of two cases in Saxony and of one in Pomerania where euthanasia was carried out. He forwarded this report to Hitler, Bormann, and Bouhler because he felt that within Bormann’s sphere extremists were at work.