KV 2/1452-2 and KV 2/1452-3

Part IIb

Meier, Carl Heinrich

Van den Kieboom, Charles Albert

Pons, Sjoerd ←

Waldberg, Jose

The most introduction essentials have been noticed at the introduction to Part IIa. This chapter named Part IIb, is dealing with Sjoerd Pons’ trial; held at the ‘Old Bailey’ in

London, November 1940.

So far both contributions Part IIa and IIb are rather extensive, because owing to the fact - that the integral tribunal sessions were recorded, and recovered from the steno transcripts; and, my

personal dislike to cut integral sections unnecessarily.

In this context: I have skipped Kieboom’s Counsellor (lawyer) plea, before the Jury. I consider - Sjoerd Pons’ case being more essential.

And Kieboom and Pons formed a couple (party) thus, in quite many respect, what is dealt within Kieboom’s case equals that of Sjoerd Pons.

In my rather comprehensive dealing with the huge number of files within the KV 2/xxx series,

I have never encountered the integral reproduction of an complicated trial, before.

Like always, please notice: that these documents are meant for studying purposes only. Therefore: do not multiply them, as they still obey, partly, to Crown Copyright.

My additional comments are always recognisable in: blue, red and sometimes green colours.

In contrast to most NA-GB copies, these trial-pages are on itself very good readable; though, in my perception: providing digitally searchable means, might be a wonderful occasion for those researching on the web.

By Arthur O. Bauer

2

KV 2/1452-2, page 60

↓

3

KV 2/1452-2, page 63

↓

4

Central Criminal Court. Old Bailey, E.C.4,

Thursday, 21 November, 1940.

Before:

Mr Justice Wrottesley.

Rex.

-v-

Carl Heinrich Meier,

Jose Waldberg,

Charles Albert van den Kieboom,

and

Sjoerd Pons.

--- Transcript of the shorthand (stenographic) Notes of george Walpole & Co., (Shorthand Writers to the Court) at Central Criminal Court).

Third Day. ↓

5

KV 2/1452-2, page 89

↓

6

Sjoerd Pons (Prisoner). Sworn.

Examined by Mr Humphreys. (Kieboom and Pons’ lawyer)

Q Is your name Sjoerd Pons? A Yes. Q Were you born in Amsterdam in June 1921? Y Yes. Q Are you a Dutchman? A Yes. Q Did you do your military service for 9 months when you were 20 or 21? A 21. Q Did you become a Sergeant in the Ambulance Corps? A Yes Sir. Q After that did you work with father in a firm in the building trade? A yes. Q And go for him as what we call a commercial traveller – A Yes. Q -- to various parts of Holland. At the approach of war was most of his building fortifications? A Yes Sir. Q Did you meet Kieboom about the time of the outbreak of this war? A Yes. Q Did you spend your time with him while you were under arms in camp or barracks during the war but before the Germans invaded Holland? A Yes Sir. Q Are you a great friend of his? A yes. Q Did he help you to learn English? A Yes. Q Have you ever taken any interest in international politics? A No Sir. Q Have you ever been a member of any political party? A No Sir, never. Q Which way did your interest lie, towards Germany or towards England? A More England than Germany. Q Why? A I liked the German (?) people, and I was particularly fond of English broadcasting. Q You used to listen to English broadcasting? A Yes, and I like speaking to English people. Q Had you any interest with Germany as against England? A I do not understand.

↓

7

KV 2/1452-2, page 90

↓

8

Q Had you any interest in supporting the Germans against the English? A I cannot understand. Mr Justice Wrottesley: Were you in favour of the Germans or the English? A I am in favour of the English. Mr Humphreys: When the war was over so far as Holland was concerned at any rate, for the time being, did you and your father find yourselves out of work? A yes. Q You said most of your work had been building fortifications, and of course that came to an end. While you were out of work in Holland did some come and speak to you? A Yes. Q Of what nationality? A He said to me he was a German. Q What nationality was he, was he German or Dutch or what? A German. Q A German came and spoke to you? A Yes. Q What did he say? A He asked me several questions, and in the end he said to me “You know you have done smuggling”. Q In your case then he began straight away with his knowledge of your smuggling? A Yes. Q In Amsterdam? A Yes. Q What did you know about you? A He seemed to know everything; he knows where I served, in which company and battalion. Q What did he say about smuggling? A He said to me he thought I had to go to Germany. Q Would you have to go to Germany? A Yes. Q Why; what had you done smuggling? A Jewels. Q From where? A from Germany to Holland. Q Had you gone to Germany specially for that purpose? A Yes. Q And he knew all about it? A yes. Q And he said “You are going to Germany to go before a court and go to prison? A To prison in any way, he said: “You → will go to prison”.

↓

9

KV 2/1452-3, page 1

↓

10

→ will go to prison”. Q Did you know the penalty was for persons caught smuggling from Germany? Yes. Q What? A Death. (AOB, most unlikely, their arguments were as to frightening him and others) Q You say in your statement “They told me I must go to Germany; I know what that means in Germany”. Then what did he say you might do if you did not go to Germany? A He said to me “We have a job for you to do. If you are willing to do it perhaps we will forget what you have done against Germany”. Q I do not think the jury heard that. Mr Justice Wrottesley: I think the gist of it. You were willing to do it – A “We will forget what you have done against Germany”. Mr Humphreys: What do you say? A I then asked him what kind of job it was. AQ What did he say? A He said: “Do you know English” said to him: Yes, I understand English but I do not speak very well English”. Then he said to me: “It is something to do with translations”. We had also to learn Morse code for listening to the radio. Then I asked him whether I could stay in Amsterdam (he lived there and was married) or whether I could go away, and he said to me I had to go to Brussels. I asked him then if he remembered that I was married. Q Are you married? A I am married, and that I wanted in any way to see my wife from time to time. Mr Justice Wrottesley: “I said: ‘Do remember I am married’ ” and what? A That I wanted to see my wife from time to time. He said he would arrange it; he thought it was every three months that I should come home. Mr Humphreys: Did you agree to work? A Yes, but also I asked him what kind of work it was, was it anything to do against England. Q What did he say? A He said no, it was nothing to do against England.

↓

11

KV 2/1452-3, page 2

↓

12

Q Then did you agree to work in translation work on that understanding? A Yes Sir. Q Did you go to Brussels with Kieboom? A Yes. Q Were you ever asked to sign a paper? A Yes Sir. Q That was later, was it? A That was later. Q In Brussels, to take it shortly, were you taught Morse? A Yes. Q After a while did you learn what you really supposed to do; if so, tell us how that came out? A We could only guess it. When we were I think two or three weeks in Brussels there was coming a man and he started to teach us about the British Army; we could not understand why it was, and then we asked again what was really the meaning of what we had to do, and I believe the man was astonished that we did not know what we were to do. Mr Justice Wrottesley: You asked “Why are we being taught about the British Army”? A Yes. Q Did you say: “Why are you teaching us about the British Army”? A Yes. Q What was the answer? A He said: “Don’t you know what you have to do”. Q What did you say? A We (Pons, Kieboom) said: “We don’t know; we know that we have something to do about translations, something to do with the English language, but further we did not know”. Q What did he say what it was? A At that moment he said it was to go to England. Mr Humphreys: He then said the real idea was that you were to go to England? A Yes. Q What did you say to that? A That we had already said in Holland that we would not do something of that kind. Q What did he say? A He stopped our training in Morse and teaching us about the British Army; we had to wait several days and then the cavalry captain (Rittmeister Mirow?) came. Q Another German officer? A Yes.

↓

13

KV 2/1452-3, page 3

↓

14

Q Another German officer came and said what? A He said: “What is the matter”. I said to him that the first officer had said to us that we had to go to England; I asked him was this true. He said “Yes, that is the reason why you are here”, and I said to him “I want not do it”. Q What did he say to that? A The he began again to speak about the smuggling affair. Q What did you say then? A He said we were not obliged to give an answer at that moment, he would come two days later. Q He gave you two days to think it over? A Yes. Q Did you then talk to your friend Kieboom about it? A Yes. Q What did you agree to do? A We make this time our plans. Q What were your plans? A In any way not to do it, but to say to the German officer that we should accept it. Q Your plans was not to do it but to say to the German Officer that you would accept it? A Yes. Q I think that is clear. Then what were you going to do when you got to England? A The Germans you mean? Q No, what did Kieboom and you decide that in fact you would do when you got to England? A I was to report myself immediately to the police. Q That was your suggestion, but what was his (Kieboom’s) suggestion? Mr Justice Wrottesley: I have not got his suggestion? “When we got to England” -- Mr Humphreys: “I was reported immediately”. Mr Justice Wrottesley: To what? A To the police. Mr Humphreys: “I was to report immediately”. A He wanted to try to escape from England (quite naïve). Q Where to? A To America. (here we might encounter that likely some sentence is missing or a confusing conflict, because this points clearly at Meier’s desire; who had a fiancé in the US) We not sure about that, you know. In any way we were that we waned not to do it. Q You mean you were sure you did not want to do what the Germans wanted you to do? A Yes. Q At the end of two days did the German officer see you again? A He came again.

↓

15

KV 2/1452-2, page 4

↓

16

Q What did you tell him? A He asked us if we did accept and we told him that we accepted. Q You told him that you accepted? A Yes. Mr Justice Wrottesley: Did he see you together, or did he see you separately? A Together. Q Had he seen you together before. When he sais he would give you two days to make up your minds did he see the two of you together then? A Also together. Q Just the two of you only? A Just the two only (Pons and Kieboom). I have never seen another person, Sir, Mr Humphreys: I think we may take it shortly. We know you went down to Boulogne or near Boulogne for a few days, and then you were given equipment to take across the Channel. You were given various things to take in the boat with you? A Yes. Q What did you say? A It said that we take service in the German force voluntarily. (without been sworn in?) Mr Justice Wrottesley: What was written on the paper? A Only one sentence. Q What did it say? A It said that we take service in the German force voluntarily. Mr Justice Wrottesley: “We take service in the German force”. (in casu: the Wehrmacht) Mr Humphreys: “Voluntarily”. A Voluntarily. Mr Justice Wrottesley: Yes. A Nothing more; there was only one sentence. Mr Humphreys: Did you sign it? A No, we did not sign it. Q You refused? A We told to him what we already had told him, but for some reason best known to him were pressed to do it; it was not that we volunteered to do it. Mr Justice Wrottesley: I did not catch that. Mr Humphreys: You told him that you had already refused to do → it, and you refused to sign the document? A Yes.

↓

17

KV 2/1452-3, page 5

↓

18

→ it, and you refused to sign the document? A Yes. Q And you say for some reason best known to him he did not -- I did not quite catch what he said? A Known to him that he quite had pressed it. Mr Justice Wrottesley: He pressed you? A Yes, he pressed us to do it. Q You did not like the word “voluntary”; do you know what the word “voluntarily” means? A Yes. Q During the days Kieboom had explained it to you, I suppose; Kieboom speaks English very well? A Yes. Mr Humphreys: Then you were given equipment to come to England, including a sack and the wireless; were you given a pistol? A I threw it overboard. Q Where you given and sort of instructions as to what part of England you were to land? A Yes, the said where we should come to land. Q Where did they say? A I can only explain on the map. Q Did they give you a map? A They showed us a map. Q And told you “That is where you land”? A Yes. Q And so you came over in the fishing boat, and from there you got into the rowing boat (dinghy). About how long were you rowing in the dark before you arrived on the beach? A It seemed to be very long. Q Was it quite dark? A Yes it was quite dark; I think it was three hours. Q Then at least you saw land ahead of you and you landed on the beach? Yes. Q Then in the darkness did you take the sack and the wireless sets ashore? A yes. Q The two parts of the wireless set: what did you do with the sack first? A With the sack? Q Yes? A We brought them up on the wall.

↓

19

KV 2/1452-3, page 6

↓

20

Q What did you with the two parts of the wireless set? A Those two we brought on the other side of the sea wall. Q Over the wall and over the road? A Over the road. Q With what purpose? A To find a way to hide them and to destroy them. Q How were going to destroy them? A In my mind the only way to destroy them was something connected with water. Q So you were looking for water in to which to put them? A Yes. Q Could you find any water? A I could find it. Q How much water did you manage to find. What was the wettest thing you could find early September? A It was a drainage ditch. Mr Justice Wrottesley: What was wrong with the sea: there is a lot of water there, you know. Why not spoil them in the sea? A I wanted to show later on to the police where the radio was. Q You could have dipped them into the sea? A But I could not find it again. Mr Justice Wrottesley: Oh yes you could; anyhow that is what you say. Mr Humphreys: Anyhow, you took them ashore in order to destroy the ashore, and all you could find was a ditch. How much water was in that? A I think about an inch; that is the most I could find. Q We know that Kieboom in the first place put the two cases under long grass. Did yoy move one of them? A Yes. Q Where did you take it? A Some distance away to the drainage ditch. Q What did you do with it there? A I pressed the thing in the water and mud. Q That was the best you could do?

↓

21

KV 2/1452-3, page 7

↓

22

A That was the best I could do. Q Coming away from having pressed that into the mud, as you say, what happened; did you see somebody? A I saw nobody. Q How did you come to be arrested? A I was going back to find the other set. Mr Justice Wrottesley: Going back where? A To find the other part of the radio? (the leather battery case?). I could not find it. Then I saw in the distance something like a village. Later on I learned it was a hill. Mr Humphreys: Something which you thought was a village, but which turned out to be a hill? A Then towards my right hand I saw two men. Q Soldiers or civilians? A I could not see. Q At any rate, two humans beings; where were they? A A good distance from me. Q What did you do? A I walked to them and when I walked I think about 15 or 20 yards they shouted to me. Q What did they say? A He said “Who are you”. Q What did you say? A I said: “I am a Dutchman”, but I was still walking on till I could not further because I was coming to barbed wire. Q What did you do when you got to the barbed wire? A I halted there and asked could I come to you. Q What did they say? A He said: “Stay there; I will send anyone to you”. Q Did you stay there, and did another soldier arrive and were you arrested? A Yes Sir. Q Did you ask: “Have you seen my friend”? A Yes Sir. Then were you brought before Col. Hinchley-Cooke and another gentleman, and did you then tell him at once in the course of your answers to his questions why you came over to England? A Yes Sir. Q Early on your statement you say: “I was going to give → myself to the soldiers”,

↓

23

KV 2/1452-3, page 8

↓

24

→ and you later say: “I was going to the soldiers and say: ‘Here I am, I am from Holland’” etc. (Reading to the words) “the hiding place of the radio set”. Later on you did say: “It was my meaning to go to England” etc. (Reading to the words) “go to the police directly and report myself”, and finally “It was my meaning to come to England and give all I had to the Englishmen”. Did you in fact later go before a number of officers? A Yes. Q And give them an account of everything that you knew? A Yes. Q That was the internment camp at Ham Common? A Yes. Q At any time had you any intention when you landed in England to assist the Germans in any way? A Perhaps I do not understand. Q Did you mean to help the Germans when you got to England? A No Sir.

Cross-examined by the Solicitor General. (Sir William Jowitt)

Q Did you think the Germans would be in England in a few days time? A No Sir. Q Did they tell you they would be? A They told me, yes, but as a matter of fact already at the end of July they told us they should go in two weeks to England; they were always talked of two weeks. Mr Justice Wrottesley: When they sent you on the 3rd September they told you that they were going to come in a few days time? A Yes. Q And they were going to come, amongst other places, to the vey place where you were landed? A That I do not know.

↓

25

KV 2/1452-3, page 9

↓

26

Q Did they tell you that? A I do not know anything about where they should come. Q Pons, you are an intelligent man; did you ask if they were coming to the part where you landed? A Perhaps you will repeat it. Q Did you ask them whether they were going to land at the point at which you were landed? A No I did not ask it, Sir. Q You did not ask it? A I do not ask it. Q Do you think you were sent over just to give them (the Germans) a sort of last report just before they landed? A No, I had not any idea what it was. Q What did you think they wanted you to do? A They wanted to have information, but not a last report, that was not my meaning. Mr Justice Wrottesley: I did not hear that last sentence; they wanted to have information? The Solicitor General: Did you not think, Pons, that the Germans were going to land in a very few days? A I did not think that. Q What made you do it? A I have already told they always talked that it was in a few weeks they should come to England; they told me already that at the end of June. Q Just because you heard it so often you doubted it, did you? A Yes; you could not see anything what was the beginning of an invasion, you know. (AOB, this is true, besides converting river ships into semi landing vehicles, there hardly were any signs of a real big operation!) (because Hitler had other far-reaching aims than invading Britain) Q Tell me about the jewels; I want to understand this. What jewels had you smuggled? A I did know what kind of jewels it was. I have not any – Q Just wait; what jewels did you smuggle? A It was stones and it was gold. Q What sort of stones? A I do not know, they gave it to me and I brought it over the frontier. Q Who gave it to you? A Sometimes it was a man in a garage in Germany.

↓

27

KV 2/1452-3, page 10

↓

28

Q Who gave it to you? A It was a man. Q Of course it was a man, unless it was a woman; what was the man’s name? A That I don’t know. Q What town was it at? A What time? Q No, what town in Germany; where in Germany? A It was Köln (Cologne). Q What address in Köln did he give you? A I do not know the address; we came to Holland and we met a man – Q No no no; you were doing this. I want to see whether this was true? A Oh yes. Q At what address in Köln did this man give you these things? A I do not know the address. Q And you do not know the man’s name? A No Sir. Q How did you know where to meet him? A They gave me a letter; I received a letter. Q Who received the letter? A I received it by post. Q Who sent it? A I do not know. Q When you saw the letter you opened the letter; did you not know who the signer was? A No Sir, I know that it was for a person for whom I brought these articles over the frontier. Q Tell me what the letter said, the letter from the man you did not know, told you what? A That I had to come to this particular place in Köln. Q To what address? A It was a great square place near Köln. Q To what address? A It was the great square before the church there. Q Yes I know that very well, the Dom, I think you call it, do not you? A Yes. Q You where to meet somewhere by the Dom at Cologne? A Yes. Q How were you to recognise the man? A I could not recognise him; I had given him the number of my fiancé - - car. Q You got a letter from a man you have never heard of, telling you to go to Cologne (Köln) and there in the square somewhere someone is going to hand you a parcel? A Yes.

↓

29

KV 2/1452-3, page 11

↓

30

Q Is that right? A That is right. Q How was the man to recognise you and how were you to recognise him? A I had given the number of my (North-Holland licence plate, such as: likely GZ xxx) Q And so you went there? A So I went there. Q In your car. (Pons necessitated commercially a car) Did the man come and give you the jewels? A He gave them to me, yes. Q Did you gave him any receipt or anything? A No. Q What sort of man was he? A He was a big man with dark hair. Q With a moustache? A He was clean shaven. Q And this clean shaven man gave you these jewels; where did you take them to? A I took them in the car and went to the frontier. Q To whom did you deliver them? A I delivered them in Hamburg. Q To whom ? A To Mr. Foot. Q What is his address? A I believe he is at this moment in America. Q What is his address? A He was in Hundick Street (Strasse) Q What was he by business? A he was tradesman. Q What sort of tradesman? A A manufacturer. Q How did you know him? A I know him because my wife was working in a firm of German refuges. Q German refugees? A Jewish refugees. Q When did you do this? A I believe it was in 1937. Q What did he pay you? A He paid me fifteen-hundred Dutch guilders (ƒ 1500) (much money!). Q Did you ever see what the stones were? A No Sir. Q Was that the only time you had done that thing? A No Sir, a second time I have done it. Q Why did not this man ask you himself instead of sending you to look for somebody you had never heard of? A I cannot understand you? Q You knew the man to whom you delivered the jewels? A Yes.

31

KV 2/1452-3, page 12

↓

32

Q Who paid you the money, you knew him? A Yes. Q But the man who wrote the letter to you had never heard of? A No I had not, Sir. Q Is it not very odd; why did not this man whom you did know ask you to do it instead of writing a letter from somebody you never heard of? A Perhaps you will repeat it; I do not understand. Q I will pass from it. Is this story about the jewels at all true, or is it a mere excuse? A No Sir, it is absolutely the truth. Q Now let us come to the actual; landing. Your scheme was this, if have got it aright. You were only pretending to act for the Germans? A Yes. Q And you intended directly you set foot on our soil to give yourself up to the soldiers or the police? A That is so, after I had done with the radio something that I could prove to the - - - Q Is this right, Pons, that you intended directly you landed to give yourself up to the military or the police? A Yes, only with this - - I wanted first of all to make a proof that I wanted not to use the radio set. Q Did you make a statement to Col. Hinchley-Cooke? A Yes. Q Did you tell him the truth? A Yes. Q Did you tell him that directly you got to England you were going to the police and say: “Here I am, here are my things”? A Yes Sir, I believe I said that. Q Was that true? A Nom but later on in my statement you can read that I first wanted to do something to prove that I cannot use the radio set. Q later on it becomes more plain: “It was a way of escape from the Germans, so I said I would do it, so I have the meaning to go to the police directly and report myself”. Was that you intention? A Yes, it was my intention. Q Did it occur to you that it might be as well to row that boat → a little slower so that you might arrive here in the light?

↓

33

KV 2/1452-3, page 13

↓

34

→ a little slower so that you might arrive here in the light? A With all those articles on board? Q Yes? A What would the English people think about that? Q You told me you were going to tell the police the truth? A Yes, but I wanted to come to tell the police and later on when I have explained to them how I was coming here I wanted to show all the things we have brought with us. Q What was the point of landing in the dark if you were going to give yourself up to the police? A I never thought about it. Q Did not think about it? A No. Q Hand me one of those radio sets, will you (Handed). You say you wanted to damage one of these sets? Yes. Q If you had just put it over the side of the boat like that for a minute into the sea water - - - Mr Justice Wrottesley: Ten minutes while you were rowing for two hours. The Solicitor General: Why did not you do that? A They were packed in fenders. Q Put the fender overboard then, it would be easier? A I do not believe they sink. Q What? A I do not believe they sink. Q Do you think that they do not sink? A With the fender, no. Q You did finally take it out of the fender? A yes. Q When you took it out of the fender why not dip it into the sea? A I never have thought about it. (AOB, Pons’s profession was: a ‘building materials’ sales-traveller; this was the reason why he possessed a car) Q You did not think about that? A No. Q You know, Pons, you were engaged in a very dangerous task? A Yes. Q And you had plenty of time to think over what you were going to do? A Yes, we knew very well what we were going to do. Q Do you say it never occurred to you to land your boat in the light, or if you landed in the dark, to strike a match and holler out to the soldiers. Did that ever occur to you?

↓

35

KV 2/1452-3, page 14

↓

36

A No Sir. Mr Justice Wrottesley: Supposing you rowed ashore in the daylight. A Yes. Q Waver a handkerchief; you have been a soldier, have you not? A Yes. Q Supposing you had done what the Solicitor General has suggested, rowed ashore in daylight waving a white handkerchief, it would be very quick way of surrendering, would it not? A Yes, but I believe it is very incriminating when we have on board all these articles, also when in daylight. The solicitor General: If that was your trouble why not throw the articles overboard? A I was sure that the other parts would be found. If we said they were all thrown overboard - - - Q If you thought the articles were dangerous you could have thrown them overboard and then come ashore waving a white handkerchief without any risk? A Supposing we were so far away from the shore that we could not come in the darkness? Q I do not follow that; I want to get an answer to this question why did you not come ashore in the daylight waving a white handkerchief? A We have not thought about it, perhaps it is a manner, but I have not thought about it. Q It was not because you thought the articles dangerous then? A I have not thought about it, to come in daylight. Q And you never thought when you landed in the dark of striking a match and calling out? A No Sir, not when we have all the articles by us. Q Let us see what you did do. You landed, did you not? A Yes. Q And you crossed the road? A Yes. Q And you and Kieboom each took one of these things with you? A Yes Sir.

↓

↓

37

KV 2/1452-3, page 15

↓

38

Q And you were together? A Yes. Q And you hid them? A Yes Sir, that is so. I was going away. Q And Kieboom went back to get the sack and the spade; why did Kieboom go back did he tell you why he was going back? A I did not know that he was going back. Q You were with him, you put down those two radio sets --- (AOB, possessed the two parties 4 wireless sets? Strange, because the Exhibits at this tribunal only show two transmitter sets) A As a matter of fact I was going away. Mr Justice Wrottesley: “I was” what? A I have gone away. Q I understood you were together? Yes. Q You put these wireless sets in two packets there down together near one another in the grass? A Yes. Q What happened then? A Then I was going to land in order to find a place where I could destroy one of these radio sets; I could not find a very good place, to prove that it was my intention not to use this radio set. The Solicitor General: Do you mean to say that Kieboom just went off and did not know anything about it? A Pardon? Q Did Kieboom go off without your knowing where he was going? A I was going off. Q Did he, Kieboom, leave you and go away without your knowing why? A I leave him? Q Did he leave you without your knowing the object for which he was going? A Perhaps I do not understand. He was staying at the place. Mr Justice Wrottesley: You say he remained with the two instruments and you went away? A And I went away. Q Did you tell him so? A Yes. Q What did you say to him? A What did I say? Q What did you say to him. You say you left him; what did you say to him before you left him? A I said to him that I should look around. Q Did you say what for? A I did not say what for. Q You said: “I am going to look around”? A Yes.

↓

39

KV 2/1452-3, page 16

↓

40

The Solicitor General: When you said: “I an going looking round” did he say what he was going to do? No Sir. Q You must have been quite near to him when he was arrested? A I do not know. Mr Justice Wrottesley: Did you hear him challenged? A No, my Lord. The Solicitor General: Did you not? A No. Q How far away from the sea wall were you? A How far away? Q How far away from the sea wall did you get? A When? Q At any time; what was the furthest you got away from the sea wall? A I think 700 yards. Q It was the fact that you were not arrested until nearly half an hour after he was, 25 minutes I think do you know that? A Perhaps you will repeat it? Mr Justice Wrottesley: You were not taken until about half an hours after he was taken; do you understand that? A Yes I understand, but do not know the time he was taken. Q Counsel is asking you whether you know that: did you know that. A U understand you, but I do not know the time when he was arrested so I cannot say how much time it was. The Solicitor General: Were you in fact trying to make good your escape; were you in fact trying to escape, to get away? A No. Q You never called to a soldier, did you? A I never called to a soldier? Q You never called out to a soldier? A Do you mean that I meet a soldier? Q You never called out; do you know what to cry out means? To cry out “hoi”? A No, I have not done that. Q You never waved to the soldier a white handkerchief or any anything? A I did not see any soldier. Q Was the first you knew when the soldier shouted to you? A That was the first soldier I saw.

↓

41

KV 2/1452-3, page 17

↓

42

Q And until the soldier had shouted to you had not seen one? A No one. Q Neither the soldier nor any human being - - no one? A Only in this time Kieboom. Q What did you see when you looked around? A Then I found the drainage ditch. Q Did it seem a good place to hide? A For my idea it was the best place I could find. Q And until you were shouted at by the soldier you never tried to call the attention of any one to your presence on English soil? A No, I did not see anyone. Mr Justice Wrottesley: Were you told what to expect when you landed by the Germans? A What we had to do. Q No, what you might expect to find? A Yes. Q What were you told? A They told us that we should not find very much soldiers there. Q So you did not expect to find soldiers there? A For myself I was sure there was very much soldiers.

Re-examinded by Mr Humphreys. (their lawyer)

Q I understand it has been suggested to you by the learned Solicitor General that he does not believe your story about the smuggling. You told us you got a letter from someone? A Yes. Q As a result of which you went to Cologne into the big Market Square and met somebody? A Yes. Q Who was the letter from? A The letter was from Germany. Q Someone in Germany? A Yes. Q Giving you a meeting place? A Giving me a meeting place. Q You go to Cologne and are given jewels and you bring them back to Holland? A Yes. Q And they gave you money? A Yes. You know the dangerous thing is only to bring jewels over the frontier.

↓

43

KV 2/1452-3, page 18

↓

44

Q That was your job, to bring them over the frontier? A Yes. Q How many times did you do that? A Three times. Q Did you think that the German did not know? A Yes, I thought they did not know. Q Then three years afterwards someone comes up to you in the street who knows all about it? A Yes. Mr Justice Wrottesley: Did they tell you they found out. How did they find out? A The reasons I am friends with Kieboom is that we learned in the service that we have made the same thing when we were speaking about it, and I believed that one of our friends in the (Dutch) army had spoken about it to the Germans. Mr Humphreys: One of your friend in the army betrayed you to the Germans? A Yes, I think that is it. Q You were saying in answer to questions just now that you intended to give yourself up as reason as you landed; you intended as soon as you had done something with the radio set to give yourself up. That is what you mean, is it? A I beg pardon. Q You intended to give yourself up. To the police or the soldiers as soon as you had hidden or destroyed the radio set? A Yes. Q I only want to make it clear that is what you said. At page 9 of exhibit 20 you say: “I arrived in England off a boat” etc. (Reading to the words): “I mean to say that I was prepared to point on my own the hiding place of the radio set” (transmitter; they possessed no receiver). That is what you said to Col. Hinchley-Cooke? A Yes. Mr Humphreys: Thank you very much. That is the case for Pons, my Lord.

(Prisoner Pons returned to the dock)

Mr Howard (Meier’s lawyer): May it please you my Lord and gentlemen of the jury. It now becomes my duty to address you on behalf of the prisoner Meier. There are one of the two preliminary matters that I desire to mention before I come to deal with the actual facts in this case. - - -

↓

45

KV 2/1452-3, page 19

↓

46

Mr Justice Wrottesley: Mr Howard, I think before you address the jury there is a point I want to ask about and I would like to do it before you address the jury. Mr Howard: If the Lordship pleases. Mr Justice Wrottesley: Mr Solicitor General, you said yesterday about conspiracy for some time in July (1940). The Solicitor General: Yes, my Lord. Mr Wrottesley: I think you told the jury, did you not, that in your view this Act only applies to things done by any person in the United Kingdom? The Solicitor General (Law Officer of the Crown Sir William Jowitt): Yes. Mr Justice Wrottesley: And that none of these four persons owed any allegiance to our Crown. The Solicitor General: Yes. Mr Wrottesley: What they did in Germany was not a crime. The Solicitor General: Yes. Mr Justice Wrottesley: Does that make a conspiracy? The Solicitor General: Yes, my Lord. Mr Justice Wrottesley: There is a further alternative; they are charged with conspiracy together? The Solicitor General: Yes. Mr Justice Wrottesley: I think there is sufficient evidence that they were carrying it out two by two; I was wondering whether if they conspired in Germany that would be sufficient. The Solicitor General: I will think it over, my Lord.

↓

↓

47

KV 2/1452-3, page 20

↓

48

Mr Howard: Members of the jury, I was about to say to you this; that it must have been apparent to you as this case has gone through to its close that there is little or no dispute about the facts of this case. The question is what do those facts mean. You may think, taking a superficial view of the facts before you have had time to consider them wholly, that the task that I am endeavouring to perform is a different one. In that connection let me say this. If there is any omission to put before anything that can properly be put on behalf of Meier, then I know you will lay that omission to my charge and not to his, but I hope that when you have considered all the evidence that has been given in this case you may be able consistently with the oath that each one of you has taken, to say that Meier has not been proved guilty in this sense, in the sense that it has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he intended in the real sense of the word - - not pretended - - that he intended to help the enemy and do something injurious to this country, his mind going with the act; because in my respectful submission to you that is the real matter that you have to consider. There is no dispute here that he landed in this country; there is no dispute here that he came over with Waldberg and land in this country. The question is with what intention did he do that thing and agree to come. You may think that this trial taking place here is a great tribute to the stability and balance of this country, a trial in its whole form and proceedings just as fair as the trial of any Englishman standing charged with any offence, and I know that is the spirit in which each one of you will come to consider this matter - - a matter which is, as the learned Solicitor General told you in the opening, as solemn and grave as any you are ever likely to be called upon to consider. I know the spirit in which you approach that task will be just as fair as the form and the letter of the proceedings. Gentlemen of the Jury, it is not an easy task as you well know, → in the middle of a war in which this country is fighting for its life against a formidable and ferocious enemy at a time, as the sirens have twice reminded you this morning, ..

↓

↓

↓

49

KV 2/1452-3, page 21

↓

50

→ in the middle of a war in which this country is fighting for its life against a formidable and ferocious enemy at a time, as the sirens have twice reminded you this morning, when you and indeed all of us are daily danger at the hands of that enemy, when you are asked to pass judgement upon a man who, upon the evidence, has worked for that enemy, and upon the evidence came to this country in the company of a self confessed agent of that enemy. It is not an easy task to judge of that man in these times coolly and calmly, but gentlemen, because you are Englishmen, because you have been born and brought up in a tradition of freedom and fair play, I know when the time comes that you will accord to the Dutchman in that dock just the same scrupulous fairness that you would give to one of your own countrymen who was standing in the same place. Members of the jury, there is one great cardinal principle which I know you will not lose sight of; it applies to this case as it does to every criminal case, and that is that every man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved beyond reasonable doubt to be guilty. As has been said in a recent case, throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen, and that is that Prosecution must prove the prisoner’s guilt. In my respectful submission to you here, if you follow that thread through all the evidence which you have heard in this case it will be possible for you to say that in this (Meier’s) case it will be possible for you to say that in this case Prosecution have not proved beyond reasonable doubt that this man, Meier, when he came to this country, came with the real intention of helping Germany or of harming England. And it is right to say this, that if you think that there is any reasonable possible explanation of the facts as you have heard them from the witness box, any reasonable possible explanation which is consistent with Meier’s innocence why then he would be entitled to be acquitted. Now may I turn quite shortly to his story and his explanation. You heard it quite recently detailed by myself → from that witness box, and it will not be necessary for me, ..

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

51

KV 2/1452-3, page 22

↓

52

→ from that witness box, and it will not be necessary for me, I think, to go into great detail with regard to it. You will remember that he was a young man, a younger man than he is now, hoping to be a doctor; that he was studying medicine in Germany, and there in 1936 he met an American girl with whom he fell in love and with whom before she went back to the United States he had come to some kind of engagement or understanding. You will remember that in 1939 in the early part of the year, February, he went to America in order to see this lady, and while there he told you that they arranged that so soon as he was able to manage it he would come back to America marry her and live his life there, and that that part of his story is true there can be no doubt, can there, because there you have seen and heard from his passport that he was indeed in the United States in February 1939. So he comes back to Holland and there he is endeavouring to make the necessary arrangements to lead the life that he and she had planned. He finds employment in the Dutch equivalent of the Ministry of Food, or an office of that kind, so there he is, a young man and happy, on the threshold as he believed a new existence in America, and then came the war, September 1939, and that shattered his life as it has done that of millions of others. He was unfit, as you have heard, for military service in the Dutch Air Raid Precautions department or its equivalent. Then in May 1940 came the German invasion in which temporarily Holland blotted out as an independent country and the Germans flooded all over it. You have heard now, in what I am sure you will agree never the view of the facts in this case, in what was an evil moment he listened to the suggestion of a friend that better paid work might be found in the employment of the Germans. That is how it came about he was first brought in touch with the German espionage system. You will remember that although at the beginning he admitted frankly - - and → indeed one thing you have noticed, ..

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

53

KV 2/1452-3, page 23

↓

54

→ indeed one thing you have noticed, I shall have occasion to refer to it again with regard to Meier in that witness box was his great frankness, whether what he said was for or against him, no one could say he did not tell a full frank story when he was giving his evidence. So you may believe him, may you not, when he says that although he said the friend had said something about there being work to do for the Germans in England, yet when he met the German authorities they denied it, and that at the time when he agreed to enter their service the information he had from them was a denial that the work had anything to do with going to England, and so he entered that service, and you may think as reasonable men of the world, using you own common sense, the once in that machine it is not an easy task to get out of it. Well, he was in, and will remember what he said in his statement which you may think seems to put the matter quite correctly, they worked it up with a careful technique slowly and surely so that he would not be scared. It is not difficult to imagine it, the cunning that those in charge of that machine are wont to use the bind to them those who fall into their clutches; this man had got into their clutches. You will remember he admits quite frankly that in those clutches he signed a paper agreeing to come to England. The question you will want to know the answer to is why; what was his intention when he said he would come to England. You possible would reach the conclusion that at that stage he really was not very clear in his own mind as to what was to be the ultimate end of what he was signing. At any rate, however that may be, do not these matters quite plainly emerge. He said, you will remember in answer to the learned Solicitor General in that witness box that he did not intend to spy, he never wanted to spy, he wanted to get away as soon as was reasonably possible from Waldberg who was his senior officer, under whose orders he was. That he was frightened can you or any other reasonable person have any doubt. He had apparently dabbled → in forbidden smuggling of money out of Germany. ..

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

55

KV 2/1452-3, page 24

↓

56

→ in forbidden smuggling of money out of Germany. He had apparently said or done something which forced him reluctantly to do what they wanted him to do, because you will remember that the Rittmeister (Mirow?), the cavalry captain, had said to him if he did not do what he was told or what they wanted him to do it would be very painful for him. I do not think it needs any words of mine to elaborate the meaning of that phrase, and there behind it all in his mind, upon his story you may well think, may you not, that there was overriding all the desire - - it may have seemed somewhat faint and dim perhaps, but still there - - to get if he could to America and get as far as he was able to, back again in the happiness that he had lost. Is that, do you think, an unfair summary of what you might reasonably suppose were the thoughts that were occupying his mind. Then you remember that it his statement he mentions and says that he wanted to go to America in order to see his fiancé, which bears out, does it not, the words that I am saying to you, that that was at any rate a great element, possibly the overriding element in his mind when he agreed to do this thing. What he really intended to do, as I have said before, in my submission is the whole issue as between the Prosecution and him. Then members of the jury, it is put against him to show that he did really intend to spy and to assist the enemy: “What about this equipment, what are you doing coming over here in a boat with that”. It is question that may seem very formidable argument against the proposition that I am endeavouring to put to you, that he never really intended to come over to this country and to spy, I agree, but when you really come to think of the position in which he was is that really so formidable an argument as it appears? If I am right in asking you to say that he had to pretend to come over he to play the German game, then, members of the jury, he had to play a part; it was no good him saying to → those who put him aboard that fishing boat “I am not going to take this equipment because I am only playing a part”; …

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

57

KV 2/1452-3, page 25

↓

58

→ those who put him aboard that fishing boat “I am not going to take this equipment because I am only playing a part”; what do you think his fate would be. If it be true that he was playing part it was impossible that he should not have to bring with him all the tools of the part that he was supposed to play, and so you find him equipped by the Germans with these wireless transmitters (AOB, still open to me, is, that each party was equipped with two transmitters; as the evidence during interrogations noticed all together only two sets. Which, is, in my perception, a quite logical number), a sack of food and the other articles which you heard about. (AOB, among Meier’s outfit were personal photo’s and that like. In case of the other party – Kieboom and Pons, among their outfit were papers pointing at, for instance, their military driver licence, or that like; I suppose not quite needed when being on a spying mission on enemy territory) It would have been, in my submission, quite impossible that he could have come over here playing the part that he was playing unless he had been so equipped, and looking at it in that light does not the suggestion that the fact of his being accompanied by this equipment proves that he was guilty fall to the ground? It has nothing to do really, has it, with what his real intention was if you are satisfied, as I ask you to be, that he embarked upon this business without any real intention of spying in this country at all. If you accept that proposition, all this means nothing; it is part of the role that he had to play in order to carry out the purpose that was in his mind. Then it is said, and let me face it, it is said with force and great force: “Well, if you had been an honest man, if you had only been as you say you were, playing a part, why did you not when you landed in this country give yourself up to the police at once. Why not, if you are honest”. Let us for a moment consider that, members of the jury. Here was a man, if his story be true, involved in his German machine, a man who, as I have said, was undoubtedly frightened, and frightened of a variety of things, and you may think, putting yourselves if you can put yourselves in the position in which he was placed, not unreasonably frightened of a variety of things. Let us think of some of them. It is quite clear he was frightened by the Germans, he had been threatened by them; it is clear, is it not, that he was accompanied by a man who was the leader, under orders as he was, and of whom → do not you think it is reasonable to suppose, he was frightened, …

↓ ↓ ↓

59

KV 2/1452-3, page 28

↓

60

→ do not you think it is reasonable to suppose, he was frightened, knowing in his mind, if his story be true, that he was not a spy at all. It was suggested to him: “The reason you did not give yourself up was because you thought the Germans were going to land”. So be it, let us think where that leads. Supposing he was; supposing the reason he did not give himself up was through fear and fright that if the Germans landed in this country they might at once shoot him, are you going to put that against him? Does that affect the intention with which he came here, or does it not rather show that what he is saying is right, that his acts were dictated not by his own free voluntary will but by something outside and beyond it, some force which made him to things which if he had been a free agent he would not have done, and so there he was in this country, his mind a prey of al the conflicting fears and doubts and perplexities that I have indicated to you; that was his position. It is not the clear cut position of a man under normal circumstances able to think out a clear path to pursue; it is that of a man caught in a machine, pursued by numerous fears of one kind of another. What does he do? He was what many man has done and I have no doubt will do when he finds himself in a terrible dilemma; he temporised, and he did neither one thing nor the other. I am among to ask you to say that he was not unreasonable in the circumstances in which he was, the fact that he temporised, and, to use his own phrase in the witness box, did you know what to do. Supposing his story were true, would you have known what to do instantly in his position, as he says quite frankly in his statement: “I did not know what to do, I behaved very foolishly”. This was when he had had time of course to sit down calmly and reflect. Members of the jury, if that is a fair way of indicating to you as shortly as may be right perspective in which to view this man’s position, am I not justified in saying that he landed here but had no real → Intention of assisting the enemy, and that all these matters which upon the surface are so damning against him, …

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

61

KV 2/1452-3, page 27

↓

62

→ Intention of assisting the enemy, and that all these matters which upon the surface are so damning against him, the equipment, the failure to give himself up at once, the hesitation, the going to Lydd (they lacked drinking water), the coming back (he never came back, because Mr Sylvester and Mr Mansfield asked him: whether he could identify himself and without any hesitation, he followed the men to a police station; where he was arrested) and the contradictions that he from time to time may have made, are they not all symbols of a mind distracted, and not necessarily proof that he was in fact here with his intention of doing that which is charged against him? Now let me say a word or two with regard to – Mr Justice Wrottesley: Are you going to another topic now? Mr Howard: Yes, my Lord. Mr Justice Wrottesley: This will be a good moment to break off. Mr Howard: If your Lordship pleases.

(Adjourned for a short time)

Mr Justice Wrottesley: It is safe to say the officers and other witness may go? Mr Howard: As far as the officers are concerned, certainly my Lord. Mr Byrne: Yes certainly, my Lord. Mr Howard: May it please you, gentlemen of the Jury; there is little more that I desire to say to you, but as you have been told, this is a grave matter and I do not desire anything that I can say on behalf of this man to be left unsaid. To turn again if I may for a moment to the intention with which Meier came here, it is true he is not charged with doing anything in this country, but you may think that what he did not do or failed to do may have considerable bearing upon the intention because this is perfectly plain, is it not, that after he landed here he did not do anything, any positive act of spying at all. You will remember he did not put the wireless together and make it workable, and was not there when it was done (Waldberg transmitted in absence of Meier). It is perfectly plain from the evidence that he did not know any message had been sent and could not have been there when any was sent, because the evidence is he was arrested somewhere → round 10 to 10.30 on Tuesday morning, September 3rd, …

↓ ↓ ↓

63

KV 2/1452-3, page 28

↓

64

→ round 10 to 10.30 on Tuesday morning, September 3rd, and according to the evidence, the information of Col. Hinchley-Cooke was that no messages were sent until the evening of that day, so that there is that much to be said in his favour when you come to judge if his intentions. He did nothing. When you take it a step further and examine what he said to the various persons whom he came across, take Mansfield (and Mr Sylvester who accompanied him) the civilian, unarmed, who met Meier in the road, Meier went with him (likely, it was in Sylvester’s car) willingly enough; he made no attempt to escape from the unarmed civilians; his attitude was not that of a spy, and then his amazing frankness about the whole matter; first of all to Sgt. Tye (of the police station) volunteering where the boat was with the sack (they might each one have been fit with such provision) in it, without being asked; full answers to questions asked by Col Hinchley-Cooke, and finally in the witness box concealing nothing. In my respectful submission that ought to go a long way towards satisfying you that his story may reasonably be true. Gentlemen, that is the story, and whichever way you view it a tragic enough one it is, but it is a story, is it not, that portrays a man who is long way removed from a person who deliberately set out to come to this country and to land here with intent to help the enemy. I ask you to say that under all the circumstances of this matter it is impossible for you, applying your minds to the evidence as you have heard it, to say that the story that he has told not reasonably be true, and if it may reasonably true then in my submission the Prosecution will have failed in the duty which is cast upon them of proving beyond any reasonable doubt that this man came here intending to help the enemy. Members of the jury, my task is finished and all I have to say in conclusion is this: to ask you again when you search your minds about it at the conclusion of the case whether it is not possible - - and I know you will take that course if it is possible - - for you in this case to avoid the grim verdict of guilty and to say that on the whole here you think that this → was a man, a foolish beyond words no doubt, but a man who striving to get the happiness that he had lost becomes entangled in the German machine, ..

↓ ↓

65

KV 2/1452-3, page 29

↓

66

→ was a man, a foolish beyond words no doubt, but a man who striving to get the happiness that he had lost becomes entangled in the German machine, and by that machine, despite his real intentions and his real wishes, he has been brought into that dock to face this grievous charge, and if you can find it possible to take that view of the evidence then I ask you, as I know you will, to turn here a verdict of not guilty. Mr Humphreys: May it please your Lordship; members of the jury. My friend Mr Howard has said so much (about Meier) that would be included in what I would say that I need to say it to you again, but you will appreciate that I am defending two men, Kieboom and Pons, whose story is different indeed from that of the German who has pleaded guilty, and considerably different from that story of Meier on whose behalf Mr Howard has just (foregoing) has just address you. It will therefore be necessary for me to touch up two points which are common both to my friend Mr Howard and myself to stress the differences between us. These two men - - and I make little distinction between them because they have been friends for many years and their story is one - - are charged under an Act which has never been applied before, the first section of which reads as follows: “If, with intent to help the enemy, any person does or attempts or conspires with any other person to do any act which is designed or likely to give assistance to the naval, military and air operations of the enemy, to impede such operations of His Majesty’s forces or to endanger life, he shall be guilty of felony (crime or criminal act), and shall on conviction suffer death”. Note the very wide scope of the acts which a person may not do, but note that every one of those facts, that it is done with intent to help the enemy; in this case that meant Germany. Forgive me stressing this again. You are not trying a man for facts, you are trying these two men for the state of their minds in the dark in the early hours of the 3rd September as they approached the → English shore and when they landed. ..

↓ ↓

67

KV 2/1452-3, page 30

↓

68

→ English shore and when they landed. What is in a man’s mind can only be known by what he does says, and there again when you are considering what they say remember that the are both foreigners, speaking a foreign language, and although they speak it well I know you will not try to trip them up upon the exact phraseology or the words they have used, or the undertones or over-tones of any particular phrase which they used. You have to decide what was in their minds, the intent, to the extent that any was formed, with which they came to this country or conspired in the way alleged in the Indictment. For one make no difference between these two counts, because as they approached our shores and came within the three mile limit they are automatically in this country, and if they set up a wireless set with that intent, or if they land here with that intent it is all the same, it makes no difference on either charge if you find them guilty upon either. It is important, therefore, that I should ask you to distinguish their cases from that of the Germans. The Germans had taken the dignified course of pleading guilty to being trained professional German spy; he is caught and he is prepared to take the punishment; Meier was with him; we never spoke to Meier from time to time of that luncheon party (Abschiedsfeier) in France; we never spoke to him much at all, Meier had a German father and has been educated to a large extent in Germany and was interested in German politics. My two clients have both told you they never took the slightest interest in any politics and their interest were definitely pro-English. Kieboom was born in Japan and he was brought up in an English mission school with English people and was taught English (Kieboom, in contrast, spoke the Japanese language poorly) His whole childhood was English. Pons learned a great deal of his English from Kieboom and was a great listener in to the English wireless, and as he said, admired the sporting English life. Now, those two boys except to the extent that they were interested in Holland were pro-English, and that must be borne in mind when → you come to consider their cases as against that of Meier and Waldberg (AOB, Mr Humphreys denies deliberately the fact: that since 1921, Meier possessed the Dutch nationality and gained his ‘A level exam’ in Holland and that he only studied about 4 years at two German Universities: Freiburg and Berlin).

↓ ↓

69

KV 2/1452-3, page 31

↓

70

→ you come to consider their cases as against that of Meier and Waldberg. It is rather interesting to consider where they landed; my two clients landed exactly opposite the Grand Redoubt which one knows would be armed to the teeth with men, swarming as it were with military right on the beach. The others landed on the comparatively deserted headland of Dungeness. My two men were in custody within 15 and 45 minutes respectively of their landing; the others themselves going as far as the Germans was concerned for 24 hours. (AOB, this is partly a false painted story: as Meier had been brought up by Mr Mansfield and Mr Sylvester about 10.30; only Waldberg had been caught later the next day) Consider these two young men as spies, I have said that being Dutchman (as was Meier!) and being pro-English they were naturally inclined towards England; it is curious therefore, if their minds should be suddenly seduced by the mere orders of the invaders of their own country for whom they would have no love whatsoever; you can put pressure upon man’s actions and drive him at the point of a revolver, it does not follow that you can drive his mind, he can keep his mind to himself and his thoughts to himself and his thoughts to himself, he can have a secret intent within the outward semblance of his agreement. Because a man says “I agree” it does not mean that he does agree. Take a case which was charged at this Sessions, the bribery of an officer by a man receiving stolen property, the officer said: “He handed me money; I agreed to accept it; I accept it and put it in my pocket”. The next thing he does is to arrest the man for attempting to bribe an officer in the exercise of his duty. So here bear in mind the very big distinction between agreeing to come to England and the real intent with which you propose to come to England so far as your own true mind is concerned. These two men were quite untrained as spies, their training consisted of learning Morse code and how to set up a wireless set; they were not trained soldiers in the ordinary sense of the term; their period of conscription, 9 month, had been served as drivers in the R.A.M.C., the rest of the time they spent in barracks doing nothing while we were fighting Germans.

↓ ↓ ↓

71

KV 2/1452-3, page 32

↓

72

After the war (15 May 1940) they found themselves out of their respective jobs, one (Kieboom) a hotel receptionist, no job he could get, and the other a builder with his father, his father having been concerned chiefly with the construction of fortifications, which of course came to an end when Germany overran Holland. Being out of work, having their whole history known in some remarkable way to the Gestapo (nonsense, we should think of military intelligence, as Gestapo was a different entity), they were each approached separately by a man who they said knew everything about them; where they served, what they were in, what unit they had served in, the criminal offences they had committed, and note that the only connection between these two young men and Germany up to that time was having committed crimes against Germany, not being a member of a political party which was pro-German. They were then approached in one case with the offer of work - - what work? Translation. After all when a Government has dominated another country and become the Government of that country the only employment in that country is under that (occupied) Government; you do not think any the less of them because they agreed to do translation work; each of them has made it clear that they told them they would do translation work but they would not do anything against England. The German seemed to have been surprised that they were not told at once what their work was; they were being trained at Brussels for some time (2 à 3 weeks only) before it was made clear what Kieboom was there for, and I believe the same applies to both cases (Kieboom as well as Pons), the threat of blackmail was applied very early; sooner or later came the removal of the velvet glove. “You will do translation work for us and eventually you will go to England, get information and send it across to us”. The answer is “No”. “Very well, then my friend you go to Germany; we have a dossier against you for your smuggling”. These two young men knew what it meant to go to Germany, prison or concentration camp, or as they knew it and they have told you, and it has not been impugned by the Prosecution: “People don’t come back”. In other words they → knew the maximum penalty was death; (AOB, hardly practical, as for their mistakes they might have got jail sentence)

↓ ↓

73

KV 2/1452-3, page 33

↓

74

→ knew the maximum penalty was death; if they did not agree, at least openly, with what the Germans said they would be taken to Germany and that would probably be the last anybody would see of them (AOB, equal frightening measures (Einschüchterung) were equally maintained by nearly all equal services, even in the UK), so they agreed, but only when they had thought it over and only when they had discussed amongst themselves what they were to do; they agreed to agree, with their own ideas about what they were going to do when they came to this country. There seems to have been some discussion between them when they made that agreement as to what they should do when they got here. Kieboom had an idea which may cause us to smile now, we knowing something about England, which may not have seemed quite so absurd to him, of sneaking across the country and getting to a port, Bristol or Liverpool, and smuggling themselves on to a boat, including something which almost comes up to a wild west film, train jumping. It all sounds very easy when you are sitting in a room in a hotel in Brussels; that was Kieboom’s idea. Apparently Pons did not thinks so much of it, he thought the best idea was to give themselves up at once, but even when they had talked it over amongst themselves and pretended to agree, there is here no agreement to commit the offence for which they are liable to be tried for their lives; there is here no agreement to do things to assist the enemy; on the contrary there is proof that they did not intend anything of that sort. This is not a defence, remember, thought out between the time of their first statement before the Magistrate and the time when they have told some kind of story in the witness box at their trial. It is a story which long before they had any Counsel assignment to them to assist them in their defence, long before any criminal proceedings were taken against them, they had told it over and again; you will find this on the second page of the statement of Pons, the moment he made it clear to them who he was warned about the evidence being taken down, and there was a little discussion, but the moment, as it were, those preliminaries were over the → questions begins: “I understand you were found” etc. (Reading to the words) “going to give myself up to the soldiers”.

↓ ↓ ↓

75

KV 2/1453-3, page 34

↓

76

→ questions begins: “I understand you were found” etc. (Reading to the words) “going to give myself up to the soldiers”. The question goes on: “You do not understand me correctly” etc (Reading to the words) “Is that correct” and so on. The moment he got a chance when he was before a competent tribunal he was making that statement straight away as to what his intention was. That was not thought out weeks afterwards, it was the story he told on finding himself before a superior officer. Kieboom did not make that statement at once, he told us he knew that sooner or later he would be taken before a proper tribunal and cross-examined at great length as to what he knew, to help this country. He was quite right, because after this had been finished with he was taken before such a tribunal. I did all that I could; I examined him about that statement, and all he could say was yes; when he was at the internment camp there were further questions by a number of officers; I did all I could to have that challenged. If they were really spies and meant to lie to you could they not have told you a much better story instead of this curious story which shows a divided mind wobbling about three possibilities which may happen, not an easy story for the to put across with their limited or their good knowledge of English; not an easy story for you to understand, but a story which from its very complexity you might think may be true. If they had agreed on the boat coming over: “Supposing we were caught, let us agree on the lie we can tell”; would they not have agreed on a simpler story and committed much simpler acts when they arrived. I do not know what time they had to discuss this story between them. Although they were separately examined by Col. Hinchley-Cooke they told exactly the same story. What is the story they have told? The circumstances of their coming over are interesting in themselves although it is difficult to see in a way how it is of more than academic interest to you. Does not the whole story of the way in which → these two men came to England and landed straight opposite the Grand Redoubt seem almost fantastic and difficult to believe even from the German point of view. …

↓ ↓ ↓

77

KV 2/1452-3, page 35

↓

78

→ these two men came to England and landed straight opposite the Grand Redoubt seem almost fantastic and difficult to believe even from the German point of view. Look at the equipment they are bringing; were the ever meant to succeed or were they dummies as it were, meant to be caught them would say: “Now we have caught them we are not going to look any further”. Putting all the points together, look at the equipment they are given; tins of food useless because there was no tin opener. (AOB, incorrect; as they possessed a pocketknife fit with handy tools like a bottle-opener/screwdriver) Have any of you tried to open a tin of food (Blechdose) with a stone on the beach perhaps – brandy, what is the use of that without any water; where were the going to get water if they were going to go into hiding. A bottle of brandy is not much use if the cannot get any water; the pistol is a dud (failure); the passport is four months out of date; the money, it sounds very much to give them, how could they keep their story of being Dutch refugees going for one minute? Upon them found £60 in notes; is anybody going to believe the story that that was given to them by friends over here to help them escape? What Dutchman was going to give them £60 in notes; where were they going to get it from? No maps of any real use, no instruments for survey work for any real discoveries of value. Supposing there was a road, the Germans would see that from the air; “If we are captured let us say we are Dutch refugees”, their capture was absolutely inevitable. As Sgt. Roberson pointed out, it was a restricted area, every yard of the coast was patrolled, and there was a close watch kept on every living thing, and they could not get near without being seen. The Germans must have known it, and these young men were put into a boat which brought them opposite the Grand Redoubt. What did they do to follow out what we understand was the German’s second suggestion, the first being hiding, the second: “If you are caught say you are a Dutch refugee”. The moment they come before a competent officer they tell the whole story; they made no attempt to → play the part of Dutch refugees; …

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

79

KV 2/1452-3, page 36

↓

80

→ play the part of Dutch refugees; how could they, with all this extraordinary paraphernalia found upon them, with this vast sum of money, with the binoculars, with the loaded revolver, how could they keep that story up? It is clear, I suggest, and is not controverted by the evidence for the Prosecution that they gave themselves up. One of the very first questions I asked in this case to the first witness Pte. Tollervey, who said he saw Kieboom running, was: “In what direction”: “towards me”. Those sentries - - it is not for me to criticise military procedure - - were walking on the sea wall, and as the light grew they would be perfectly obvious to other persons; “But, said Pte. Tollervey: “had he lain still I should not have seen him. I saw him running towards me 15 to 20 yards off. He flung himself down against the sea wall”. Imagine yourselves running in a foreign country by night expecting it be well defended; you see the an you want to give yourself up to; you have somehow to get yourself into his hands without being shot. When the sentry (guard) does see him he levels his rifle; do you blame him for flinging himself against the sea wall, but he is running across the road towards him. He is on the sea wall silhouetted against a rising light in the sky; is that a man who is caught or a man who is giving himself up, who has abandoned his hopes at any rate to get across the country, and seeing the sentry there he is giving himself up. If there is any doubt about he is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, and I submit that is borne out by the evidence of the witness for the Prosecution. He gave himself up and did not in the least resent being arrested. That is the witness Pte. Tollervey giving the only evidence as to the way in which this man was arrested. Later he was taken before a responsible officer, and he answered all the questions asked him, and when he got before the proper tribunal he told the story he was told in this Court. Again, Pons has told you that he having taken the → first part of the wireless set from the grass in which it had been concealed to a place where he thought he could destroy it, …

↓ ↓

81

KV 2/1452-3, page 37

↓

82

→ first part of the wireless set from the grass in which it had been concealed to a place where he thought he could destroy it, being a ditch with some mud and water in it, coming back from there he saw something which was obviously a man or a human being, and as he got closer he saw it was a sentry (guard), and walking towards him the sentry challenged him and said “Who are you”, he said “I am a Dutchman”. He then walked on and found himself against barbed wire (Stacheldraht) and said “Can I come over”, and the sentry says “Stay where you are” and sends men to arrest him. There is nothing in the sentry’s evidence to contradict that. There is nothing in Pte. Tollervey’s story which contradicts Kieboom’s story of how he was arrested. It is all part of the story these men told you was upon in Brussels. It is obvious that they cannot get across England; and the more sober and sane plan of Pons was adopted, and in fact they gave themselves up. As to the wireless sets (still strange, did they really possessed then two transmitters, or was spoken of sets whereas they actually ment what is shown at the next hyperlink: transmitter and secondly the battery package? The left-hand leather case contains the transmitter, whereas the right-hand leather case contained the batteries), they are treading a very difficult way. At the back of their minds was the thought that the German’s boast that they would in a fortnight’s time be in England might be true. Their desire was, not to fight for Holland against Germany or for England with Germany, still less with Germany against anybody, but to get away. Nor a very noble idea for two young men, but you are not trying the attitude of their minds in regard to fighting for their country or their allies; their idea was to get away; it may be cowardly but not criminal. They got out of Holland and then they wanted to get out of England in case England was in turn overrun by Germany. That was one of the reasons why they wanted to get to England and get away, with the same idea at the back of their minds that the Germans might come they had to play not merely a double but indeed a treble game at the same time; they had to protect themselves in the first place from the English, it would look very awkward if the other two were caught first and then the → English police or soldiers caught them before they had given themselves up: ..

↓ ↓ ↓

83

KV 2/1452-3, page 38

↓

84

→ English police or soldiers caught them before they had given themselves up: “Did you not have a wireless set. We understood you had” “We threw them overboard”. That would not be much use to them then. On the other hand if the said: “Yes, we had a wireless set, come this way, we have preserved it, we have not used it or been set it up”, and indeed there is Pons’s effort to destroy it by putting it in water. They did not put it in the sea, they did not know where they were going to land, and they did not make their plans until they landed. Having landed, they wanted to do something with the sets (I suppose: transmitter and its according combined battery pack; both kept within two leather cases, please notice foregoing hyperlink), and in corroboration (confirmation) of that the two parts were found in different places, one on flat ground and the other in a ditch. The witness said it was not wet. Well, there certainly was no sign upon the leather. Their difficulty, as I say, was in a way they were trying to hedge, it I may put it that way, they were trying to protect themselves first against being betrayed by the other party, and at the same time they had it in mind that they might get on all right with the English and that the English would understand that they had come here not as a spy, but to give themselves up, but what if the Germans caught them; they could show their wireless set if they only hid it. Whereas if they could not show it they would be shot by the Germans. On all side was fear, and the only hope was to get out of England to the U.S.A. (here Mr Humphreys’ fantasy is mixing up Meier’s desire!) That is a complicated state of mind, but I put it before you as I understand it from the evidence; it is not easy for them to put you across to you in a foreign language, but is it a state of mind which is anywhere near the state of mind which the Prosecution have to prove was theirs, a clear cut precise intent to help Germany? I submit to you it was never there. Is there not a very grave doubt in your minds in regard to these two men as to what their intent was? It is a cardinal principle of English law, as you have heard, in the trial of any man, whether English or a foreigner, → that the prosecution have to prove their case.

↓ ↓ ↓

85

KV 2/1452-3, page 39

↓

86

→ that the prosecution have to prove their case. If there is any doubt you do not give the prisoner, as is sometimes said, the benefit of that doubt, it is a right, because it means that the prosecution have not proved their case conclusively. That right these men have according to our law as much as any one of yourselves. In deciding this fine balance of the matter remember the various little points which may help you to decide. Waldberg was the only trained German (partly French) spy of the party; so much had he served himself from the other two that not only did he (and Meier) land eight miles further down the coast, but when he came to give his statement he did not remember the name of one of the two and knew practically nothing about them (AOB, Waldberg, he never took part in the forgoing trainings in Brussels, and joined the group at the last moment), so these two at any rate were not under the orders of a trained German spy; two you Dutchmen naturally sympathetic to this country rather than to Germany (here again Mr Humphreys is, against the truth, designating Meier being a German, with he was not! He might once have been born there, but at least since 1921, he was a Dutch citizen!) (KV 2/1699 Part I), with totally inadequate equipment, set ashore in a boat opposite the Grand Redoubt; is it difficult to accept their story that their idea was to give themselves up, as indeed they did? Now one final word in the way of detail. Forgive me if I have taken up a little of your time because this is a grave matter. Had these two men (Pons and Kieboom) agreed to injure England why did they both refuse to sign the paper by which they were to bind themselves to the service of the Germans? If they had agreed to do it why should they mind signing to that effect: they both refused to sign that paper, so they have said and it has not been challenged; does not that show a very important item of corroboration of their story: “As we are going over not to hurt England but to escape, why should we sign a paper saying that we do wish to injure England”. They were prepared to enter the German service in France: “We never did enter into the service of Germany for the purpose of hurting England; we only served for the purpose of doing translation work”. It is their minds you are trying, and their actions are important as showing the state of their minds. If there → is any doubt in the mind of any of you (the jury), you will acquit; it will be your duty as your pleasure to acquit (finding ‘them’ not guilty).

↓ ↓ ↓

87

KV 2/1452-3, page 40

↓

88

→ is any doubt in the mind of any of you (the jury), you will acquit; it will be your duty as your pleasure to acquit (finding ‘them’ not guilty). One final word. I am insulting you, I do not wish to; do not imagine here that the alternative to conviction is that these two men will be let loose in this country to do exactly what they like and to tell who they like what they may know about the English defensive system; there are ample powers today under the Regulations by which our Government act to see that they shall do no damage to anybody; they are aliens, they landed without permit; they can easily be locked up for the war. (as was later done with Sjoerd Pons, after he was not convicted to the death penalty!) Do not think if you do not find them guilty they may well loose and damage. The authorities will see to that. You have to decide one thing only according to your oaths. Have the Prosecution proved to each individual one of you that these two men (Pons and Kieboom) - - you must bring in a separate verdict - - came to England with the intent to help Germany, or are you left in doubt, because if you are left in doubt that is good enough for my purpose, and will be your pleasure as your duty to find them not guilty. The Solicitor General: May it please your Lordship (Mr Justice Wrottesley). Members of the Jury, it is indeed satisfactory to anybody holding my position to think that these men have been defended by such eloquent experienced and able Counsel as have just addressed you. At least you will be convinced of this, that everything that could possibly be said for these men (Meier, Kieboom and Pons) has been said. Of course I agree with the observations they both (Mr Howard and Mr Humphreys) made, that is to say, that although the Germans may bomb this building brick by brick they will never succeed in destroying the heritage we have handed down to us and will hand on the British justice and British fairness. (AOB, considering the many foregoing considerations, it is without any doubt, that all sessions prove to be a fair process) I entirely agree that you will not let your prejudice against these men sway (influence) you. I entirely agree that if there is any reasonable doubt you will give them the benefit of the doubt. My plain task is this. War is a grim business, it is a stern (harsh) business; my business is a stern business today.

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

89

KV 2/1452-3, page 40

↓

90

All I ask you to do is to do what I know you will do, to carry out your duty without fear or favour, without prejudice (Voreingenommenheit), but do not shrink from your duty because it is an unpleasant duty. Many of us today, and many of out young men today have to do duties from which they might shrink, but thank God they do not shrink, and you will not shrink to do your duty as you see it. Let me tell you this Statute. The learned Counsel have perfectly correctly pointed out you the basis of this charge is that the acts done were with intent to assist the enemy; unless that is proved all the charges fall to the ground. It is said if, with intent to assist the enemy andy person does an act or conspired with any other person to do any act - - in this case to be frank with you the distinction is not important; for instance, if one of His Majesty’s ships had captured this boat, say within a mile of the shore within the three mile limit and therefore technically with British territorial waters, before these people landed - - a case which probably before long it may be my duty to present to a jury in the Court - - it would be difficult to say that the people in the boat had done acts because they had not landed, and there the case would have to rest upon conspiracy to do an act; conspiracy to do an act which you have heard was carried out by rowing the boat within the three miles limit still further towards the shore. I speak on this matter of course entirely subject to my Lord’s directions. Let me tell you this. Conspiracy is an act of the mind, but it is an act of the mind which is proved by what we call overt (explicit) acts, that which a man does, because in no other way you can try what a man’s mind is. You not frequently get conspiracies, odd though that may seem, where the conspirators never know each other at all. You may remember a case some years ago of a certain sergeant of police who was in the habit of receiving bribes; it was a notorious case at the time, indeed I as Attorney General at the → time had to try to recover the money which was found. …

↓ ↓ ↓

91

KV 2/1452-3, page 42

↓

92

→ time had to try to recover the money which was found. There was a man called Ribuffi who kept a night club and a woman called Mrs. Meyrick who kept a night club, and they had both of them given Sgt, Goddard bribes of money to allow them to break the licensing laws. Ribuffi had never seen or heard of Mrs. Meyick, and Mrs. Meyrick had ever seen or heard of Ribuffi and yet they were found guilty, as the Appeal Court said rightly found guilty, conspiring together. If you think of a bicycle wheel, you will get people on the circumference communicating with the hub by means of spokes. One point on the circumference may not know another point on the circumference and yet they are all connected together with the hub, and you cannot doubt, can you, that the hub (centre) in this case is the German Secret Service. All four of these people, if my case is correct, are conspiring with the German Secret Service to do an act calculated to injure this country. It matters not the least bit of the world, it is a mere coincidence that these people met together and had a farewell luncheon. The case would be exactly the same if these two parties, each of two (Meier-Waldberg and Kieboom-Pons), had been completely separate expeditions, having never seen or heard of one another, and had set off from France to do acts in this country, always provided that, as they are foreigner and not British subjects, I cannot indict them for conspiracy, which is a mental state, unless I can show that that conspiracy is not to be carried out in a part of this country. If I find the overt (explicit) act in this country then I can indict them all for this conspiracy. That case my Lord (Mr Justice Wrottesley) will find in the 21st volume of the Criminal Appeal Reports, the particular passage I have in mind it is page 102. Mr Justice Wrottesley: What is the name of the case? The Solicitor General: Rex v. Meyrick and Ribuffi, my Lord.

The next thing I want to say then is this. In this sort of case people who came over here as spies in the hope of receiving very large rewards hereafter run a risk of being → caught.

↓ ↓ ↓

93

KV 2/1452-3, page 43

↓

94

→ caught. Of course if they are caught what are they going to say? It is quite obvious that no competent person will come over here, and no sensible person will come over here unless he considers what he is going to say if he is caught. That is what I described to you in the opening as the classic spy case: “Good gracious me; I love this country; dear old England. I have never been but I love it. Goodness gracious; I would not do anything against England for the world. Of course those Germans, you know what brutes they are; I had to do it to escape from them. What I intended to do was to come to this country, and directly I got here whistle to the nearest policemen and say; ‘I have come here, I love your country; I love your people’” and so on. That is the defence is made out. After you have heard the whole of the case if you think that may be true in this case then it is your duty to acquit these people. There is this to be said about these spy trials. Sometimes you will have a spy, who for the sake of his country and no pecuniary reward at all, because he is a German who loves Germany is prepared to come over here and risk his life in trying to find information. Of some of them it may be said there are very gallant gentleman; even that would not prevent you doing your duty, but this is a different case, a very different case. There were four men (Meier-Waldberg and Kieboom – Pons) charged in this case; three of them sit here, the fourth has pleaded guilty. Mr Humphreys refers to them as being a German; I know of no evidence that the fourth man was a German, none whatever, but these three men at any rate are Dutchmen; they are men whose country has been trampled down and mercilessly overrun by the German invader, and these are the men who embarked upon this expedition, the one on the left (Meier) who you may think - - it is a matter entirely for you - - was the most truthful of the three of them, Meier, said frankly because he found his existing → remuneration too low and he thought he would like a better job, it would be risky job but he would be well paid. …

↓ ↓ ↓ ↓

95

KV 2/1452-3, page 44

↓

96

→ remuneration too low and he thought he would like a better job, it would be risky job but he would be well paid. The other two told the usual story, which mark you, may very well be true, because I should not put it past the Germans to blackmail people into taking these jobs on, they probably know when they have got a week and cowardly fellow who rather than incur imprisonment will undertake the job trying to do down the supporters of this country; it maybe true. We heard the story three times over. When I tried to test it on the last men, Pons, he seemed a bit weak about the jewellery smuggling; he had not thought of that out, I think. You heard his story which, as I say, may possibly be true, and if it were true I have no doubt for a moment that the Germans would use it. What you have to consider this: look at the facts; are the facts made to fit in the stories there men tell? In the case of Meier you have rather a longer time than the other two because the other two were arrested at once, but this I would say to you. It is obvious that with regard to all three men you are dealing with highly intelligent men. You are not dealing with the village oaf (fool); indeed if you were dealing with that sort of men the Germans would not trouble to waste money on him. What the Germans want are quite unscrupulous People who may see the things through. After all, even these things cost money, you know, and they are not going to give this to an absolute dud (fiasco); you select highly intelligent men, and from the language they speak you can see that these men are highly intelligent. Let me suppose for a moment that these three men were, as they very likely were, very apprehensive (hesitant) and nervous about the thing, because the spy game is a dangerous game (to all nationalities!); if it were not a dangerous game more people would take it on. I hope it will continue to be a dangerous game, but is it not quite certain that these intelligent men would say to themselves before they came across: “Well, it may succeed but it may fail, and supposing we are caught → what are we going to say”. …

↓ ↓ ↓

97

KV 2/1452-3, page 45

↓

98

→ what are we going to say”. It is quite certain, is it not, that these men when they had those 5 or 5 days at Boulogne knew they were coming and they must have discussed it amongst themselves. It all depends of course how well the thing succeeds. If they succeeded in landing they might carry out their part of the bargain. Two of the men admit that they thought in a few days time the Germans would be here, and they were frightened of the Germans, but if they were caught on landing what would they say. I think you must agree with me that must have been considered. Take the three cases, take Meier’s case first because Mr Howard spoke to you (the Jury) first. I listened as I have vey often listened to Mr Howard’s speech with interest and with admiration. The Israelites were given years ago the task of making bricks without straw; I confess I thought that was child’s play compared with Howards’s. What are the facts about Meier? Meier lands with Waldberg, and they take with them from the boat two wireless sets (think of one wireless package in a leather case and one battery leather case)(not two transmitters!); they placed them under some advertisement board by the side of some house and they go to sleep. This is Meier’s own story. I suggest to you that on Meier’s own story there is no possible doubt about this. When they woke up Meier helped Waldberg to take the wireless cases (transmitter + batteries), and they selected the tree because it is a good place in which to hide the wireless. That was his own statement, so these two cases were put there, and then half past 8 (p.m.) in the morning Waldberg, who cannot speak English, said he is thirsty, so Meier who speaks very good English walked off to Lydd some two or three miles away, I think, and perhaps rather gave himself away by the fact that he did not know our extraordinary licensing laws and tried to get cider at 9 o’clock in the morning. He hung about there, and then he went back to Waldberg carrying a drink back - - (AOB, but he never arrived him, because he was held up by Mr Sylvester and Mansfield; both men brought Meier voluntary to a police station) (Hence, he never reached as far as Waldberg!) carrying a drink back to this German spy who knows is by this tree to which he carried the wireless. (sad, this deliberately is rubbish)

↓ ↓

99

KV 2/1452-3, page 46

↓

100

(skipping the foregoing rubbish!) With great respect to my friend said (Counsellors: Humphreys or Howard) I cannot see any possible answer; there is no answer if those are true facts (which he should have known: there existed!) He had ample opportunity if he really wanted to play the game by this country, if he was frightened of Waldberg he had ample opportunity when he got to Lydd (where he shortly thereafter had been invited by Mr Sylvester and Mr Mansfield, to come to the police station!), a very considerable distance away from Waldberg and his tree, to go up to the authorities and say: “Here I am, here are the facts”. Not a bit of it. He was finally, thanks to the acute observation of the civilian aircraft examiner (Mr Mansfield and Mr Sylvester), arrested (not at all, he was asked to follow them to the police station, without hesitation Meier accepted) on his way back to Waldberg. My submittion to you is that on his own evidence there is no possible doubt about it that he is guilty of this offence, just as guilty as Waldberg is, the fourth man who has confessed to his guilt. Now I come to the other two, the two Dutchmen (AOB, incorrect, as Meier possessed the Dutch citizenship!), Kieboom and Pons. Observe here if you will how as in at least case, the Germans select their couples carefully, having always one man who speaks very good English and the other man who is not so good, or in Waldberg’s case does not speak it at all but is able to do the other work (W/T operator); so Kieboom who speaks very good English paired off with Pons, whose English is not anything like so good. What is their story? These two intelligent men had discussed with themselves what to do, and when they were dropped overboard by the fishing cutter into the dinghy and they had to row for three hours do you suppose they did not discuss with each other then what they were going to do; of course they did, and of course they got some plan of campaign as to what they should do. If their story is true that they had been forced by the Germans reluctantly to undertake his horrible task surely these two intelligent men had perfectly easy course open to them. They need not have → rowed so hard; they might have spared themselves a little trouble; they might have brought their boat in in the daytime. …

↓ ↓ ↓

101

KV 2/1452-3, page 47

↓

102

→ rowed so hard; they might have spared themselves a little trouble; they might have brought their boat in in the daytime. The sun rose that morning at 6.15 so it would be getting light about an hour earlier; they could have come ashore; they are soldiers both of them and they know what a white flag means; the could have told the whole truth; it is a very simple course. They did not do that, not a bit. What makes it so difficult for Mr Humphreys in his case is what they did. They landed and they had each got a wireless case (one containing the W/T set, the other case carrying the batteries), and they succeeded in going up the beach, they did not call attention to their presence, they went up the beach, got over the sea wall, crossed the road, then they went in the grass on their side and there they hid their wireless set. Then Kieboom is going back again for the sack and the spades, whether he is crossing the road it at an angle towards where the soldier is I am not in the least concerned with. He is crossing the road to get the sack, that is what he says, and while he is going across to get the sack had been messing about with the wireless set in the grass in order to render them harmless. (How does the Solicitor General knows this so certain? According Pons - he tried to destroy the transmitter in a bit muddy ditch. Though, within their leather cases? One of them, for sure, must have handled the battery containing leather case!) Members of the jury, there was a much easier way of rendering them harmless. They were on a boat by the sea shore; if they wanted to render those wireless sets harmless - - they had to get them out of the fenders to get them ashore - - what was easier than to lift them up like a dump them down for one fraction of one second in the sea water; they are heavy things I can assure you, (Nonsense, these were quite light weight leather cases! The Solicitor General at that very time: was sleeping in a warm bed, whereas these two men, certainly in a rather nervous mood, what do humans when in a stressful state of mind? Painful, is, that some essential details have not been correctly recorded, at least not what was supplied onto the Court) instead of fuddling about on the grassland near the side and seeing whether the 3rd September in this country there was a wet spot on which they could put them. That seems the reasoning of the village idiot; it would not be reasoning of these men highly trained (rubbish, they were not arriving early August in Brussels where they were trained in Morse a few weeks later they were brought to Boulogne; do we consider this being: highly trained men?) with days to plot out their course, who can speak many many languages and are obviously men of intelligence, Kieboom told you one story and Pons told → you another story.

↓ ↓

103

KV 2/1452-3, page 48

↓

104

→ you another story. I suggest to you that Kieboom altered his story from time to time; indeed he started altering his story between the time Mr Humphreys cross-examined one of the witness, the soldier, and evidence in chief, until I put him right again about the code word; do you remember that? He says now that he was going to America and he was going to Liverpool; he had not the least idea how far Liverpool was or anything about it; he had £65 in his pocket and apparently he thinks he had better go to Liverpool with a sack on his back - - what utter rubbish!: a sack would be useful if you were going to eke out a precarious existence dodging about amongst the dykes and the rushes for ten days until the German come, if you have to keep very scare and not show yourself; oh yes, a sack is useful then. Mr Humphreys said: “What use is a bottle of brandy without water”. There are good many people - - I will not say which school I belong to - - who think a bottle of brandy is ruined with water. There you are, if they did in the excitement of the moment forget the tin opener I should not suppose it past the wit of a hungry soldier to open a tin of food (in contrast: they possessed a pocketknife fit with additional handy tools!), but to go to Liverpool with that thing on your back when you have £65 in your pocket, and Pons did not play up to the Liverpool game at all. You will remember to Col. Hinchley-Cooke there was not a suggestion of Liverpool or trying to get to Liverpool or anything of that sort. Very well then. What is said? Here is a man who had got the preconceived plan of what they were going to say; what did he do when he was caught? The wireless was hidden (whether it was the battery leather case of the one containing the real transmitter; who knows? Because both leather cases were about identically sized) (an: according photograph proves it) and he did not know whether it had been found. Indeed by that time it had not, it was not found until 3 p.m. He sees 2nd Lieut. Batten and the policeman earlier, and he said he came from Brest. Why Brest? Because he had been told to say Brest. He was carrying out instructions which his German masters had given him; there is no doubt he thought he had better carry out because he thought the Germans might be here in few days time. (apparently: Solicitor General Sir William Jowitt, is expressing his imagination: what Pons might have had in mind) Then he tells the → police sergeant that cock and bull story about having paid 5000 francs to a fisherman. …

↓ ↓

105

KV 2/1452-3, page 49

↓

106

→ police sergeant that cock and bull story about having paid 5000 francs to a fisherman. He did not think of telling the truth then. Then he asked that he might go the W.C., and down the W.C. he throws the code grid. He only remembered he had got the code because he was searching in his pocket for a cigarette and he said: “Hullo, what is that; it is the code grid”. I am bound to submit to you to you that if you believe that anything; it is a fantastic story. If it is the truth that this man was going to use that code grid is it not obvious it would have been thrown over the boat, unless he was going to take the simpler course, the more honest course of going straight to the police, hollering (shouting) when he got to the beach, striking a match or waving a white flag and telling them everything. He asked you to believe he forgot it was on him until he felt for a cigarette, and then he threw it down in the W.C. That story, for an intelligent man to tell, is in my submission an impossible story. Then he was interrogated by Col Hinchley-Cooke and again on the 15th September he sticks to his Brest story that his German masters had told him never revealed that he is so keen to support this country for some obscure reason he never mentioned the fact of the other couple, Meier and Waldberg, he never mentioned that at all; he did not mention Pons until he knew Pons had been arrested. Oh no; this man is playing his part for which he hoped to receive large sums of money from the Germans as a Dutchman, although I cannot say a loyal Dutchman. He is playing his part by his German masters. That is the way I put it to you, and now comes the time when the Court normally rise and I do not want to detain you any longer. Mr Justice Wrottesley: You will be dealing with the case of Pons; would you like to do it now? The Solicitor General: Yes, I could do it now, my Lord. I really will not take a or two longer with the case of Pons. You will remember the story of Pons, Pons is → seen in a field, it was some 25 minutes lighter, and the soldier saw Pons and called out to Pons, it was not Pons who called out to the soldier, …

↓ ↓ ↓

107

KV 2/1452-3, page 50

↓

108

→ seen in a field, it was some 25 minutes lighter, and the soldier saw Pons and called out to Pons, it was not Pons who called out to the soldier, Pons who had been through this elaborate farce of dipping his radio set into a ditch in order to try to destroy its efficacy; there was plenty of water in the sea but he goes to dip it in this ditch and quite fails to destroy its efficacy, and then in a field at 5.25 in the morning he was seen by a soldier and told to stop and he stopped. What was he doing for this 25 minutes between 5 o’clock and 5.25? At 5 o’clock Kieboom was arrested; I agree with Mr Humphreys that he may have wandering about wondering what he could do, wondering whether he could make his escape, but he could not, he was caught, he was encircled. (Sir William Jowitt is fantasising quite much, all guesses; as he cannot proof it - but his aim is to influence the jury’s minds) Then he tells this story, which is which is although not a very full story, far more truthful than the story told by Kieboom. He does say he was coming from Le Touquet; he does say he had a companion, but members of the jury, then he was caught; what had he done before he was caught; crossed the road, carried a radio set (may even it was not this, maybe the according battery case), hidden it. Ask yourself whether the true position was not this; if he had not been caught he had all the materials there to send off message to the German; tell them what regiments, what troops, what tanks, what guns, what strong post we had there; it was not until he had to own up. Is it conceivable that this intention was as he said it was, to come to this country and go straight to the police and tell them everything, that he would have done those acts unless he intended if they proved successful to serve well his German masters in order that in a few days time when they overran this country he might reap (harvest) a rich reward. (what is the real difference between: The Solicitor General, Sir William Jowitt, and the prosecutors in dictatorial (totalitarian) countries?) That is the explanation I ask you to accept with regard to these men; I am not concerned with the morals of the thing; it does not matter to me or to you whether it is for greed or gain or from some more desirable motive, but remember this; the though in a men’s mind is untriable; you → can only tell what is in a man’s mind by what a man does. ..

↓ ↓

109

KV 2/1452-3, page 51

110

→ can only tell what is in a man’s mind by what a man does. Look at the acts which these people did and ask yourselves whether the acts of Pons and the acts of Kieboom and the acts of Meier show that they had in mind and desire to reveal everything, to assist this country or whether, obsessed with the idea that the Germans were going to get here and if they had not escaped from their German masters they meant so far as they could to carry out instructions which they had received. With regard to each of these three men it is my duty to ask you to say - - there are two accounts to each of them - - that each one of them did an act which was likely to assist the enemy, and did it with the intent to help the enemy, that is to say, he landed intending when he landed if things went well and he was not caught or interfered with to transmit those messages, the secret of which he had learned in Germany (Mr Solicitor General actually knew, that all three never had been taught in Germany!), and that each one of those three men conspired with other people, namely, the whole network of the German Secret Service, to do acts likely to assist the enemy, namely, send message (which all three did not!) to the Germans to enable the Germans to know just the last minute sketch - - you heard the evidence September 3rd was the first quarter, September 16th was the full moon. You may remember what happened on September 15th, the greatest air battle, the greatest air victory we had then achieved, some ten days. They were going to send a last minute report of what forces and what guns were available there, and after some ten days if the shock of food held out and their messages had been sent these spies, these Dutch spies, would have received their reward, the monetary reward for enabling the Germans to overrun this country, the ally of their country, in the same way that the Germans had already overrun Holland, Belgium and France. (AOB, The Solicitor General Sir William Jowitt, is holding a propaganda speech, because in this phase of his speech, all what he is saying cannot - by any means - be found in the evidence; maybe in Stalin’s Russia such is common sense) Now you consider these facts, members of the jury; if you have reasonable doubt, certainly give it to the prisoners, do not let any prejudice sway or affect you minds. KV 2/1452-3, page 52

If you have any doubt, do like thousands of other Britons, younger than yourselves, are doing today, do your duty.

(Adjourned (suspended) till 11 o’clock tomorrow morning)

Termination of Part IIb

To be continued hereafter, Deo volente, with

Part IIc