The Curious Case of Hitler’s Death Certificate
by
Peter David Orr
When it was announced that a German federal district court in Berchtesgaden was planning to call 43 witnesses to give sworn testimony about Hitler’s death it got a lot of attention. Prior to 1956, witnesses had been interrogated and interviewed. But never before had all of them been gathered where one might compare their stories. This curious reunion of sorts was made possible by Soviet Premier, Nikita Khrushchev. Heinz Linge, Otto Günsche, Harry Mengershausen, Hans Baur, Hans Rattenhuber, Wilhelm Mohnke, Helmut Kunz, Käthe Heusermann, and Fritz Echtmann (among thousands of other German POW’s) had been released in 1955 as a way of making diplomatic inroads with Adenauer’s West Germany.
So, because of a law suit filed in the German Federal Courts demanding that a declaration of Hitler’s death be issued to enable the settling of Hitler’s estate, these witnesses could be heard in court, alongside Führerbunker eyewitnesses and expert witnesses that the West had had since 1945-46: Kempka, Karnau, Axmann, Schwägermann, Blaschke, Misch, Junge, von Below, Reitsch, etc.
Enter: Dr. Herbert Eggstain
Back in August of 1952, Viennese civil attorney, Dr. Herbert Eggstain (yes, that really was his name), applied for an Official Declaration of Death for Adolf Hitler at the Federal District Court in Berchtesgaden, Bavaria. This filing had been previously ordered by the District Court of Vienna in accordance with the Austrian Property Expenses Act of 1947. A lengthy legal battle ensued between different jurisdictions, all of which laid claim to being the proper venue for the case, but on June 16, 1955, Bavaria’s Supreme Court ruled in favor of Berchtesgaden because it had historic jurisdiction over Obersalzberg, where Hitler’s legal, personal residence - The Berghof - was located.
43 Witnesses Subpoenaed
Witnesses appeared before the court between November 11, 1953 and October 15, 1956. The presiding judge selected a well-known forensic scientist to assist with the questioning of the witnesses and presentation of the forensics before the court. This honor went to Professor Dr. Walter Specht, famous for introducing the use of chemiluminescence (think, “Luminol”) as a presumptive test for blood at crime scenes in 1937. Presiding in this case was the Berchtesgaden District Magistrate Judge, Dr. Heinrich Stephanus.
Determination of the Court
Dr. Stephanus, with input and guidance from Specht, evaluated the documentary materials, such as prior interrogations collected by British, US, and even Soviet intelligence, and reviewed the testimony of 40+ witnesses. Then, on October 25, 1956, Dr. Stephanus issued the following:
“It is hereby proclaimed that Adolf Hitler, born on April 20, 1889, in Braunau am Inn, is dead. The date of his demise is established as April 30, 1945 at 3:30 PM”.
Moreover, the court found that Hitler had shot himself in the right temple while in the bunker of the Reich Chancellery in Berlin. The resolution went into effect December 3, 1956, and took on the full force of German Federal law on December 4, 1956, as attested to by the Judicial Inspector who was also the Clerk of Courts for the case.
Long before the official proclamation, however, there were clear examples of judicial misconduct in this case. Judge Stephanus conducted himself in public in an unethical manner. Stephanus clearly violated his obligation to impartiality.
Consider this statement by Dr. Stephanus, made at the beginning of the inquiry phase:
“Our investigations leave no doubt that Hitler ended his life on April 30, 1945, in the Reichschancellery”.[1]
Judge Stephanus made this public statement just prior to the interrogation of Dr. Fritz Echtmann, a dentist who made false teeth for Hitler and for Eva Braun. Echtmann had been a Soviet POW for many years and was important to Soviet intelligence’s conclusion that the charred remains they had found were indeed Hitler and Braun’s. Publicly announcing an expected outcome, before or during a trial, is cause for a judge’s immediate removal.
Stephanus showed the same kind of blatant judicial misconduct when he wrote a six-page press release announcing what the court was going to determine. This took place six months before the court even heard the live testimony of the two most important witnesses, Otto Günsche and Heinz Linge.[2]
Judges should also be disqualified when they stand to profit from their position or from a particular outcome in a court case. In this respect, Stephanus’s unethical attitude and behavior was strident. While the trial was yet ongoing, he announced his intention to write a “world best-seller” about the court case, proclaiming it would provide a full account of Hitler’s death—including important psychological background. Profits from this book, Stephanus said, would “repay him for his years of labor on behalf of the good cause”.[3]
An American journalist covering the case in Berchtesgaden wrote this at the time:
“Several groups of Hitler relatives believe once the late Fuhrer is proclaimed officially dead they will be able to claim hitherto undisclosed riches. Others, including Judge Stephanus, aim to cash in as legal advisers”.[4]
This is flagrant judicial corruption. Any official proclamation by this judge and the court he presided over in this matter should be nullified.
Testimony Discounted
Dr. Stephanus “discounted” portions of the testimonies of three key witnesses, as you can see from this newspaper clipping [5, See below]:
No explanation has ever been given for this discounting. What aspect or aspects were discounted? Why these three witnesses? Which important parts were discounted? Fritz Echtmann, for those unfamiliar with the name, was the dental technician that created Hitler’s artificial dentition—the crowns, porcelain and plastic veneers, and bridges.
The relevance of this court ruling, and the reason for it, needs to be known. Why? For decades historians have made copious use of the accounts of Dr. Fritz Echtmann, Hans Baur, and Heinz Linge. If historians place any value in the rulings and findings of this court case, they need to know which of the evidence that they’ve used over the years in constructing the narrative of Hitler’s suicide was rejected by the court. Perhaps there are compelling reasons why historians should not be presenting certain testimony and evidence in their accounts.
Why haven’t more historians asked these fundamental questions?
Evidentiary Records and Witness Transcripts
Historians, such as Hugh Trevor-Roper, should have been chomping at the bit to either be there in person or get their hands on the court transcripts. Historians must have had a field day using the transcripts and records from this trial.
No. Why not?
Was it because these witnesses said nothing new? No. In fact, witnesses like Harri Mengershausen, Dr. Fritz Echtmann, Hans Baur and Heinz Linge mentioned details that had never been heard before by any western investigator, journalist, historian or judge.
Only rarely does one find in the histories of Hitler’s ‘last days’ any references to the actual trial transcript. If there are references, only one or two of the forty-three witnesses are ever mentioned or quoted.[6]
There are two reasons for this. First, if all of the witness statements are compared, not just cherry-picked, the supposed weight of evidence for Hitler’s suicide is lifted right off the scales. Publishing the transcripts of this civil matter would expose the endless contradictions, conflicting statements, errors, omissions, implausabilities, nonsensical stories, atrociously vile pop psychology, prejudicial statements by the judge and chief investigator, glaring judicial conflicts of interest, and uncorroborated hearsay. Secondly, because the Bavarian government has long been aware of the judicial shortcomings of this ‘trial’ copies of the transcripts and recordings have not found their proper place in the Bavarian State Archives or German Federal Archives. They remain the exclusive, and closely guarded, property of the court in which the proceedings took place and are not accessible to historians without going through a detailed and lengthy application process, which involves proving to the court that the use of the transcripts are academically sound—in the court’s opinion, of course.
Since the beginning of 2006, Germany has had its own version of what is known in the US as the Freedom of Information Act—the Informationsfreiheitsgesetz. In 2013 this German Federal law was updated with the intent of encouraging (not requiring) the sixteen Bundesländer (states) to follow suit with similar laws. Written into the law is the clear provision that seeking government documents of historic value requires no legal, commercial, or any other kind of justification. Unfortunately, Bavaria is one of three that has resisted.
The Wolfpack Judging the Wolf
Specht—what a curious case he is! Dr. Walter Specht: NSDAP member (number 5956835). His professional life began as the primary assistant to Dr. Gerhard Buhtz at the University of Breslau. Dr. Buhtz was Professor of Forensic Medicine and Criminology and known as an ardent advocate of National Socialism among his peers. After Specht gained international notoriety by inventing Luminol in 1937 he became a lecturer in Forensics and Criminology at the same institution. When the war broke out he joined the SS, rising to the rank of Hauptsturmführer in 1942. In the mid-war years Specht assisted Dr. Buhtz in the most famous forensic case of the times: the Katyn Massacre. Let that sink in for a moment. Thereafter, Dr. Specht became the Gestapo’s head of criminal forensics, which means he worked for Heinrich “Gestapo” Müller.
Anyone who has read my book, Eyewitness to Hitler’s Escape, knows just how important Heinrich Müller was to Hitler’s pseudocide.
After the war Specht worked continuously at the Bavarian State Office of Criminal Investigation until his death in 1977, somehow escaping scrutiny over his Nazi past.
Dr. Heinrich Stephanus, the judge in the case which finally proclaimed Hitler was dead, was not new to the judiciary in post-war Germany. His youthful appearance apparently kept people from asking, “What did he do during the Nazi era?”
Well, the simple answer is that he served as judge in the very same Berchtesgaden District Court from 1937 to 1945.[7] Anyone who knows what transpired in the judicial branch of the German government during the Nazi Era also knows that one didn’t remain in such a position without the proper party bona fides—particularly in Hitler’s own backyard. After the war, the vast majority of Nazi era justices retained their positions. In fact, according to historian, Jörg Friedrich, roughly 80 percent of judges and prosecutors serving under The Third Reich were still in their jobs in the 1950’s and early 60’s. In Stephanus’ case, he served until 1963.
Since judges cannot initiate civil court cases on their own, how did the case even come to court? It was filed by Dr. Herbert Eggstain, a Viennese attorney-at-law. On August 2, 1952, Dr. Eggstain applied for a Declaration of Death for Adolf Hitler at the district court of Berchtesgaden. This application was filed in keeping with a previous ruling by the District Court of the Inner City of Vienna and in accordance with Section 8 of the Austrian Property Expenses Act 1947.
Was Eggstain another member of the “wolf pack”? You be the judge.
Herbert Eggstain was a member of the Nazi Party and a lawyer who made a fortune and name for himself despoiling Austrian Jews of their property and then re-selling the real-estate to other high-powered Nazis. After the war he was not called to account for these activities and specialized in the rescue and recovery of material assets that had belonged to other Nazis and their family members.[8] In short, many leading Nazi government officials and family members had their property confiscated by the Allied occupation governments or post-Nazi German federal, state and local governments, in order to pay hefty fines for their crimes. Dr. Eggstain specialized in helping these former Nazi get their property back.
The two most important government officials in this case, and the attorney initiating this case, had insurmountable and disqualifying conflicts of interest. The shadow of a potential cover-up and judicial corruption is dark enough that it is reasonable to demand the release of the non-redacted court transcripts from this case to the public, including any pertinent notes made by Stephanus and Specht.
------
[1] “Probe Hopes to Declare Hitler Dead” The Gaffney Ledger, Nov. 2, 1954.
[2] The press release was issued in the name of the court on April 26, 1956.
[3] Leslie R. Bain, “Adoph [sic.] Hitler to ‘Die’ Oct. 25”, The Salem News, Oct 16, 1956, p. 4; “Probe Hopes to Declare Hitler Dead” The Gaffney Ledger, Nov. 2, 1954.
[4] Leslie R. Bain, “Adoph [sic.] Hitler to ‘Die’ Oct. 25”, The Salem News, Oct 16, 1956, p. 4
[5] Leslie R. Bain, “Adoph [sic.] Hitler to ‘Die’ Oct. 25”, The Salem News, Oct 16, 1956, p. 4
[6] Note: When bits and pieces from the trial are encountered they are almost always from The Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich or from the sparse and meager newspaper accounts of the time.
[7] Helmut Heiber, “Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei. Partei-Kanzlei”, Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Munich, Germany), Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter-Partei, K.G. Saur, 1983, p. 803; Berchtesgaden Adressbuch, 1938-1943. “Dr. Heinrich Stephanus - Amtsgerichtrat” lived on "Adolf-Hitler-Strasse 4, Berchtesgaden".
[8] Christoph Ransmayr, Im blinden Winkel: Nachrichten aus Mitteleuropa, (Brandstätter, 1985), p. 138; Erika Wantoch, "Spinrad. Ein Geschäftsbericht"
Die Zeit. Nr. 42 October 11, 1985.