Joshua Greene’s Justice at Dachau puts the case for the prosecution in all the Dachau proceedings. James Weingartner’s recent book a Peculiar Crusade is about the Malmedy case defense lawyer Willis Everett, whose conscientious exertions brought matters to public notice. Joseph Halow’s Innocent at Dachau may be regarded as a primary source, since Halow was a court official. The ideal primary sources would be trial transcripts and backstage correspondence but I don’t know if these have been preserved.
Everett’s concerns resulted in a three-man (Simpson, van Roden, Lawrence) commission of enquiry into all the Dachau trials, which reported to the Secretary of Defence around August 1948. As far as I can find this Simpson report was never published. We also need to see what might be called the Raymond Report, an independent review board commissioned by General Clay which apparently reported threats against relatives.
The general outcry also resulted in a separate Senate investigation which the Army chiefs switched from the Judiciary Committee to an Armed Forces sub-committee led by Senator Baldwin. Baldwin was an attorney in the law firm of Pullman and Comely, where one of his associates had at first been in charge of the Malmedy massacre case. Another member of the three-man sub-committee was Estes Kefauver, who had practiced law with the second most important member of the Malmedy prosecution team. Even from the findings of this rather conspicuously interested body, and even from Joshua Greene’s laudatory book, one can deduce that the Dachau proceedings were kangaroo courts. But I have a feeling Mark Turley would not dispute this. The Dachau trials cannot be considered an isolated matter because the War Crimes Branch was involved in other trials, notably Ohlendorf’s, and they symptomize a culture of coercive interrogation also found in British and French investigations.
The Progressive article was published without van Roden’ review and should not be quoted as source on any particular matter, especially the lurid particular of the 137 damaged testicles on death row. Most of the 137 were dead by the time some of the 12 Malmedy death row cases were medically examined for the sub-committee along with 35 other Malmedy cases who alleged physical ill-treatment. Three years after the event, there were still signs of possible injury in “only” ten cases but we are not told which these cases were.
Baldwin’s sub-committee reported:
-------------“ Judge Simpson stated categorically to the subcommittee that in his opinion there had been no physical mis- treatment of the accused in the Malmedy matters, but that the use
of the mock trials and similar matters had influenced him in his
decision[ to advise commutation].
However, Judge Van Roden, in testifying before our subcommittee,
and in speeches and publications after having seen the same evidence
and heard the same witnesses as Judge Simpson, violently attacked
practically all phases of the pretrial examination. While he admitted
in his testimony that he had no direct evidence of physical mistreat-
ment he stated that he was convinced that many of the matters
alleged by the accused, after conviction, were fact, and that he had
made his recommendations accordingly." -----------------------------
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/ ... report.pdf
At IMT Goebbels assistant Fritzsche was aquitted, if I recall, because there was no evidence that he knew about actual exterminations in the east. The inflammatory Jew-baiter Julius Streicher was hanged because he was deemed to have known about them. If were shown that IMT offered no solid evidence that Streicher did know about such things, would Mark Turley consider this an unfair and illegal verdict?