STATE SECRETARY FOR THE RUSSIAN PROTECTOR IN THINGS AND IN MORAVA, PRAGUE, inv. 2045, sig. 109-7/52

Page 22

English Translation

To uni she sold the boots from the cell of Hexlus gegon an ant from TT RM 3.-- at the J-Strm.sörr. Lr üborgab diebcin through the window and told him thereby, soien his boots. The fact that he announced Bünlmeyer sicll l iabcr has made further theft or inferiors schooly, did not result in the main negotiation with sufficient certainty. The result of the evidence in particular is not sufficient to transfer the accused Buhlmeyer, who in the oklage genanaton embezzlement to letter-endwngen vu. Bühlmeyer hated in the time of 28 May Bie 5.July l940 the post-stello of the 3rd comp. among himself. At the time the overcrowding at the post office a cien- ical mess. Atva 100 letters were stored there, which were not delivered, since the envoys were now transferred to other troops. The acceptance of these mail was such that, according to the new andchrift, the respective consignee was sent after it. In the same way, Bühlmeyer continued the arrangement of the mail delivery. At the time of his replacement at the beginning of July l940, about 500 letters were not delivered at the post office. Furthermore, it was found that a gente anzehl of letters we were embossed. from several letters money had been denominated. Thus, in a letter sn the 4-Anw.Berger a betreg of icl z.-- and in oneof the letters en den H-Meum Deisseroth lu lo.-. Lie Aclege delights with dieaen futen the "-Mam Bühlmeyer. Bünlmeyer denies to have read and embezzled at the post office Briere. Ar claims that to the post-stollenraum had been more honorable Sellüssel. Therefore, he could conceal each access. In the mail parts itself Aeine possibility existed to bring the postal cases of uiter Verschius. It was right that you had listened to great disorder at the post office. The witness i-houptoturmfüluer Bartelt confirmed that at the mail office a cicnliche Jrunter and Drtber.governed hat, and that also unauthorized sicl Zagang have acquired. Under these circumstances, the icgebnis of the evidence in the main proceedings does not rule out the transfer of this matter to the persons concerned; however, there is an intrusive suspicion that it exists. From a further clarification of this fact, the court in the Kinbliek has refused to consider that the penalty for this punishment, in addition to the penalties for the other faits, does not fill in the matter.