94 played his part in mob violence which led to the unlawful killing of the seven American flyers, […] under the law each and every one of the accused [was] guilty of murder”.264 211. It bears emphasising that by taking the approach just summarised, the Prosecutor substantially propounded a doctrine of common purpose which presupposes that all the participants in the common purpose shared the same criminal intent, namely, to commit murder. In other words, the Prosecutor adhered to the doctrine of common purpose mentioned above with regard to the first category of cases. It is interesting to note that the various defence counsel denied the applicability of this common design doctrine, not, however, on principle, but merely on the facts of the case. For instance, some denied the existence of a criminal intent to participate in the common design, claiming that mere presence was not sufficient for the determination of the intent to take part in the killings. 265 Other defence counsel claimed that there was no evidence that there was a conspiracy among the German officers, 266 or they argued that, if there had been such a plot, it did not involve the killing of the airmen. 267 212. In this case too, no Judge Advocate stated the law. However, it may be fairly assumed that in the event, the court upheld the common design doctrine, but in a different form, for it found some defendants guilty of both the killing and assault charges 268 while others were only found guilty of assault. 269 213. It may be inferred from this case that all the accused found guilty were held responsible for pursuing a criminal common design, the intent being to assault the prisoners of war. However, some of them were also found guilty of murder, even where there was no evidence that they had actually killed the prisoners. Presumably, this was on the basis that the accused, whether by virtue of their status, role or conduct, were in a position to have predicted that the assault would lead to the killing of the victims by some of those participating in the assault. 264 Ibid., p. 1190 (emphasis added). See also pp. 1191-1194. See e.g. ibid., pp. 1201, 1203-1206. 266 See ibid., pp. 1234, 1241, 1243. 267 See ibid., pp. 1268-1270. 268 The accused Akkerman, Krolikovski, Schmitz, Wentzel, Seiler and Goebbel were all found guilty on both the killing and assault charges and were sentenced to death, with the exception of Krolikovski, who was sentenced to life imprisonment (ibid., pp. 1280-1286). 269 The accused Pointner, Witzke, Geyer, Albrecht, Weber, Rommel, Mammenga and Heinemann were found guilty only of assault and received terms of imprisonment ranging between 2 and 25 years (ibid.). 265 Case No.: -94-1-A 15 July 1999