I have further shown that the so-called “wild euthanasia”, which was carried out simultaneously with and immediately after legal euthanasia, was not instigated by Karl Brandt. The stopping of euthanasia in August 1941 has been proved, and therefore that was the end of the defendant Karl Brandt’s duties; for what would have been the meaning of this cessation if, after it, increased activity was to set in? The contacts of Karl Brandt after the cessation have been clarified as being the consequence of his activities connected with evacuation for air protection. Where the name of the defendant Karl Brandt is mentioned otherwise, it obviously serves only as means of information for uninformed people who never saw or heard anything of him themselves. I shall deal here with euthanasia only to the extent that it is officially dealt with under the ordinance of 1 September 1939. Concerning the “Reich committee”, I refer to my closing brief. The presentation of evidence has established that the defendant Karl Brandt actually had no “administrative and medical office” from which the whole organization might have been administered. On the contrary, it is a fact that Bouhler declared himself solely responsible for the procedure; this is testified to by unequivocal documents. Nor has any regulation or instruction become known which was issued by Karl Brandt. Not a single document was signed by him. He made no speeches and conducted no discussions. But what did he do and what was his duty? His duty was not to carry out euthanasia; he was only to be informed in special cases in order to be able to report to Hitler. This was in conformity with the existing conditions—his presence at and simultaneous attachment to the Fuehrer’s headquarters, and to Hitler. Only once was Karl Brandt seen active, and that is in the negotiations with Pastor von Bodelschwingh, which led to the result, amazing for us, that the defendant Karl Brandt won Bodelschwingh’s sympathy, and after the collapse the latter said in a radio interview that Brandt was an idealist but not a criminal. But the defendant Karl Brandt took note of interrogation forms, he inspected a registrar’s office, and he co-signed the authority for physicians to execute euthanasia. What could the defendant Karl Brandt learn from the forms? The prosecution thinks that Jews and foreigners were to be affected in the first instance. The affidavit by the director of the Jewish lunatic asylum, in which all the insane Jews of Germany were concentrated, proves that this was not the case. The prosecution says that all persons unfit for work were to be killed as “useless eaters”. But it is a fact that even work-houses were requested to give information only about cases of really grave insanity. What did the defendant Karl Brandt know about the procedure?