STÁTNÍ TAJEMNÍK U ŘÍŠSKÉHO PROTEKTORA V ČECHÁCH A NA MORAVĚ, PRAHA, inv. 2699, sig. 109-13/6 Page 18 · 18 of 14
A SOCIETY FOR THE RUSSIAN PROTECTOR IN THINGS AND IN MORAVA, PRAGUE, inv. 2699, sig. 109-13/6
English Translation
- 9 - does not deny having read this passage himself before the signing of the Protocol; he says that he has also immediately noticed that this recording is with his view, i.e. He did not agree with what he had intended to say; but despite the recognition of the importance of this passage he had done nothing to change it; the accused could not state a plausible reason for such an almost unnatural behaviour. Quite apart from the testimony of the police secretary Oberhauser, it is already apparent from this that the defendant really made such a confession before the police officer. He would not have done that if it were not right. Finally, the Gum Death Sentenced Director Sonnevend, who has been executed in the meantime, described his visit to the defendant on all other points, essentially exactly as this one himself. But, almost literally speaking, he stated twice on different days in police interrogations and then in his main trial against him in front of the court in Prague that he had immediately told the defendant that he was asking him to find out about the possibility of housing people or to mention some persons who might help him to accommodate people who were not registered by the police and whose accommodation was at risk. That Sonnevend has testified this, the multi-named witness, who has also conducted the interrogations of Sonnvend, has stated in the main trial. About the interrogation of Sonnevend in front of the courthouse there are records, whose transfer in Scripture has compared the witness himself and confirmed as correct. So this transmission confirms once again that Sonnevend actually made this statement. The defendant says that this part of the Sonnvenden statement is incorrect. But Sonnevend was not able to relieve himself by such a statement after all the facts, nor is there any reason why he would have wrongly charged the accused; also, after the testimony of the witness, he declared quite calmly and did not show the tendency to wrongly burden anyone. Finally, it is very obvious that Sonnevend has taken action with the defendant to name what he really wanted from him.