THE TRIAL could not have gone any worse for Hanna. She had already made a bad impression on the court during the preliminary questioning. After the indictment had been read out， she spoke up to say that something was incorrect； the presiding judge rebuked her irritably， telling her that she had had plenty of time before the trial to study the charges and register objections； now the trial was in progress and the evidence would show what was correct and incorrect. When the presiding judge proposed at the beginning of the actual testimony that the German version of the daughters book not be read into the record， as it had been prepared for publication by a German publisher and the manuscript made available to all participants in the trial， Hanna had to be argued into it by her lawyer under the exasperated eyes of the judge. She did not willingly agree. She also did not want to acknowledge that she had admitted， in an earlier deposition， to having had the key to the church. She had not had the key， no one had had the key， there had not been any one key to the church， but several keys to several different doors， and they had all been left outside in the locks. But the court record of her examination by the judge， approved and signed by her， read differently， and the fact that she asked why they were trying to hang something on her did not make matters any better. She didnt ask loudly or arrogantly， but with determination， and， I think， in visible and audible confusion and helplessness， and the fact that she spoke of others trying to hang something on her did not mean she was claiming any miscarriage of justice by the court. But the presiding judge interpreted it that way and responded sharply. Hannas lawyer leapt to his feet and let loose， overeagerly； he was asked whether he was agreeing with his clients accusations， and sat down again.
Hanna wanted to do the right thing. When she thought she was being done an injustice， she contradicted it， and when something was rightly claimed or alleged， she acknowledged it. She contradicted vigorously and admitted willingly， as though her admissions gave her the right to her contradictions or as though， along with her contradictions， she took on a responsibility to admit what she could not deny. But she did not notice that her insistence annoyed the presiding judge. She had no sense of context， of the rules of the game， of the formulas by which her statements and those of the others were toted up into guilt and innocence， conviction and acquittal. To compensate for her defective grasp of the situation， her lawyer would have had to have more experience and self-confidence， or simply to have been better. But Hanna should not have made things so hard for him； she was obviously withholding her trust from him， but had not chosen another lawyer she trusted more. Her lawyer was a public defender appointed by the court.
Sometimes Hanna achieved her own kind of success. I remember her examination on the selections in the camp. The other defendants denied ever having had anything to do with them. Hanna admitted so readily that she had participatednot alone， but just like the others and along with themthat the judge felt he had to probe further.
What happened at the selections？
Hanna described how the guards had agreed among themselves to tally the same number of prisoners from their six equal areas of responsibility， ten each and sixty in all， but that the figures could fluctuate when the number of sick was low in one persons area of responsibility and high in anothers， and that all the guards on duty had decided together who was to be sent back.
None of you held back， you all acted together？
Yes.
Did you not know that you were sending the prisoners to their death？
Yes， but the new ones came， and the old ones had to make room for the new ones.
So because you wanted to make room， you said you and you and you have to be sent back to be killed？
Hanna didnt understand what the presiding judge was getting at.
I . . . I mean . . . so what would you have done？ Hanna meant it as a serious question. She did not know what she should or could have done differently， and therefore wanted to hear from the judge， who seemed to know everything， what he would have done.
Everything was quiet for a moment. It is not the custom at German trials for defendants to question the judge. But now the question had been asked， and everyone was waiting for the judges answer. He had to answer； he could not ignore the question or brush it away with a reprimand or a dismissive counterquestion. It was clear to everyone， it was clear to him too， and I understood why he had adopted an expression of irritation as his defining feature. It was his mask. Behind it， he could take a little time to find an answer. But not too long； the longer he took， the greater the tension and expectation， and the better his answer had to be.
There are matters one simply cannot get drawn into， that one must distance oneself from， if the price is not life and limb.
Perhaps this would have been all right if he had said the same thing， but referred directly to Hanna or himself. Talking about what one must and must not do and what it cosplayts did not do justice to the seriousness of Hannas question. She had wanted to know what she should have done in her particular situation， not that there are things that are not done. The judges answer came across as hapless and pathetic. Everyone felt it. They reacted with sighs of disappointment and stared in amazement at Hanna， who had more or less won the exchange. But she herself was lost in thought.
So should I have . . . should I have not . . . should I not have signed up at Siemens？
It was not a question directed at the judge. She was talking out loud to herself， hesitantly， because she had not yet asked herself that question and did not know whether it was the right one， or what the answer was.
法庭审理对汉娜来讲糟得不可以再糟了。在审问她个人状况时，她就没给法庭留下什么好印象。起诉书宣读完之后，她需要发言，由于她觉得有的事不属实。审判长愤怒地驳回了她。他说，在刑事诉讼主要程序开始之前，她已有足够的时间研究起诉书，而且可以提出反对建议，目前大家已进入了主要程序，起诉书中起诉的事属实不属实，要由听证来决定。听证开始时，审判长建议舍弃朗读那位女儿写的那本书的德文版本，由于有家德国出版社正筹备出版此书，所有与此有关的人都已经人手一本草稿。审判长恼怒的目光注视着汉娜，他让其辩护律师说服她，使她赞同如此做。汉娜不认可。她也不想同意那种觉得她在一次初审中承认过她过去拿到过教堂的钥匙的说法。她说，她没拿过那把钥匙，无人拿过那把钥匙，根本就没开教堂的一把钥匙，而是有好多把开好多门的钥匙，它们都插在门外的锁眼里。但，在一份审判员的审讯记录中所记载的状况却是另外一个样子，那份记录由她本人阅读过并签了字。她问大家为何要把这件事强加于她，但这丝毫无济于事。她问得声音不大，听起来并不自以为是，但却非常固执。就像我感觉到的那样，她感到困惑不解和无可奈何。她说大家强加于她时，并非谴责他们如此做违反了法律。但，审判长先生却是如此理解的，而且反应强烈。汉娜的辩护律师急忙跳起来，热心地为她辩护。当他被问到他是不是想把大家对他的委托人的谴责据为己有时，他又坐了下来。
汉娜想要讨个公道。她觉得她被冤枉的地方，她就提出抗议；假如她觉得其他人对她的谴责公正的话，她也同意。她有时固执地抗议，有时无怨无悔地承认，仿佛她要通过承认来获得抗议的权利，或者通过抗议的方法来承认她正常状况下没办法争辩的事情。但，她没注意到她的固执惹恼了审判长。她对前后关系没定义，对游戏规则没定义，对我们的和其他人的表达方法都没定义，不知有罪或无罪，判刑或释放总是取决于表达方法。为了弥补她的这种缺点，她的辩护律师需要是个经验丰富、沉着自信或者高人一筹的高手才行。可能汉娜不该那样难为他，她明显地表现出对他的不信赖，但她没能选择她所信任的律师。她的律师是由审判长为她指定的，他有义务、有责任为她进行辩护。
有时汉娜也能获得某种胜利。我还记得对她在集中营里挑选囚犯这一问题所进行的审讯。其他被告用某时某刻做了某事来不承认参与了此事，汉娜却无怨无悔地承认参与了此事，但她说她不是惟一的一个，而是像别的人一样，和别的人一块参与了此事。如此一来，审判长就不能不逼问她。
挑选是怎么样进行的？
汉娜描述道，她们几位女看守获得了一致建议，从她们六人所主管的同样大小的范围内，选出同等数目的囚犯，也就是说，每个人选出十名，总共为六十名。但，被选出的人数在低发病的状况下和高发病的状况下要有所木同。如此，所有当班的女看守最后要一块决定哪个该被送回去。
你们当中无人回避此事，你所讲的包含所有些人吗？
是的。
难道你不了解你是送那些囚犯去死吗？
当然是了解的，可是新的要来，先来的需要要给后来的让地方。
由于要腾地方，你是如此说的吧：你，你，还有你就需要被送回去杀掉吗？
汉娜没弄了解审判长想以此问那些问题。
我有我觉得如果你的话，你会如何做呢？汉娜是把这个问题作为一个严肃问题提出来的。她不了解她该如何做，又能如何做。因此她想听一听看起来广见多识的审判长该如何做。
一时，大厅里鸦雀无声。被告人向审判长提问题不合乎德国的刑事审判程序。但，目前问题被提出来了，而且所有些人都在等着审判长的回答。他需要回答，不可以避开问题或者做非难性的评论或者用反问的方法拒绝回答。每一个人都了解，他一个人也了解，我也了解了他做出恼怒的表情的诡计。恼怒的表情给他戴上了一副假面具，在这副假面具的背后，他为自己回答问题取得了一点时间，但没太多的时间，他拖延的时间越长，大家的期待就越大，氛围就越紧张，而他的回答就需要越好。
有的事情大家根本就不该做，假如不去做不会要命的话，大家就需要回避。
倘若他说汉娜或者他一个人怎么样做，或许就足够了。只谈论大家需要干什么，不允许干什么和大家干什么要付出什么代价，这与汉娜提出的问题的严肃性不相符。她想了解的是处在她当时的状况下，她应该如何做，而不是有哪些事情大家不能做。审判长的回答看上去无可奈何，毫无分量。在座的人都有同感。大伙都非常失望地深深地呼了口气，惊奇地看着在某种程度上取得了这场舌战的汉娜。但，汉娜本人仍在沉思。
那样，我如果没假如我不可以在西门子公司报名呢？
那不是向法官提出的问题。她在自言自语，她在犹豫不定地自问，由于她还没把这个问题提出来。她在怀疑这个问题的正确性，在探寻它的答案。
