STÁTNÍ TAJEMNÍK U ŘÍŠSKÉHO PROTEKTORA V ČECHÁCH A NA MORAVĚ, PRAHA, inv. 1123, sig. 109-4/877 Page 11 · 11 of 14
STATE SECRETARY FOR THE RUSSIAN PROTECTOR IN THINGS AND IN MORAVA, PRAGUE, inv. 1123, sig. 109-4/877
English Translation
-3- of the entries agreed between Martinek and Bronder dated 29.5. and 89.9.194l and on the general circumstances of the act S sS offer by the convicted Svere that the bindings of 29.5.41 and 8.9.4l were in fact drafted by Martinek and Fückel, is in this situation without any meaning, so that the court's sole charge to the applicant for participation in the substantive drafting of both submissions is not removed from the world. Apart from that, there is no evidence because he had already made "numerous attempts at denial and attenuation" in the investigation proceedings /p.32, line 8 of the judgment from above/ and, in his confession, clearly charged the applicant hst/p.34, at the top of the sentence/ With his information at that time, the statement that the applicant had been "only after the completion of the taking of evidence" about the Martinek's assistance in his sliding transactions would be completely incompatible and, according to his overall behaviour, would be highly unlaudable. The hearing offered by the Vappenhensch Customs Council is also superfluous, because its view of the participation or non-participation of the applicant in the proceedings of the Svarc is unconformable for the court and was without any influence for the findings of the judgment.It can also be left to the court whether Oberinspektor Wilhelm at the beginning of August 194l On the initiative of the applicant, the applicant has carried out investigations into the behaviour of the trader Svarc.On the basis of his testimony it has been established that he had communicated his official knowledge of the "suspicious trade of the Svare" to the applicant prior to the filing of the notice of appeal of 8.9.1941./see pages 28 para.2 and 36 above. Judgment/.Finally, it is meaningless whether Martinek was under the authority of the applicant.The reference in the judgment/page 55, lines 6 and 7 from below/ shows that the applicant as an official had a greater responsibility than the fellow defendant Martinek as a mere employee. Dex