Function Order: Fe-Si-Ne-Ti
Other characters say of Tad that he would like to put the entire state of Germany and every citizen on trail, which would be “unpractical.” It’s somewhat true, he goes after every Nazi war criminal with an identical zeal, focused on their atrocities, and uses his “emotional arguments,” which include video of concentration camps, dead bodies, gas chambers, etc, to push home the severity of their crimes, even if they were not directly involved in the concentration camps. He brings in witnesses to testify to atrocities against them and the loss of their loved ones, liberties, and reproductive rights. He’s so affected after a court session that he sometimes gets drunk just to deal with things. Tad often talks about how “we” need to hold men responsible for their actions, and how the Americans aren’t cut out to be the occupying army, because they tend to go soft and let people get away with things. He sees the trial as his duty, and wants justice, because it’s “owed” to everyone who suffered and cannot speak up for themselves. He sees everyone as being responsible to everyone else, including testifying even if they would rather not, to help carry forth the voices of the dead. He uses the same tactic in all of his courtroom trials, working steadily for two years to put these men away or get them death sentences. He comes up with reams of evidence, details, and images to convince the judge to listen to his case, and remembers things from previous trials that factor into how he approaches the new panel of judges and the new caseload. He will physically leave Nuremberg to approach witnesses and convince them on emotional terms to come back and testify.
Enneagram: 1w2 so/sp
Tad is adamant about the rule of law and using it to punish wrongdoers and make amends for the millions of lives lost because these men participated in a corrupt judicial system, intentionally looking the other way at the atrocities they signed off on, including unwarranted deaths, sterilizations, and arrests. He’s furious that they could get away with it, and wants to seek the maximum penalty. He calls their actions a “travesty of justice,” and becomes quite heated when cross-examining people who want to defend them, and when challenging the defense attorney. He thinks he’s doing this for the greater good of people who cannot speak for themselves.