1947-06-27, #4: Doctors' Trial (early afternoon)

AFTERNOON SESSION.

(The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 27 June 1947.)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

DR. TIPP (Counsel for Defendants Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng): Mr. President, the supplemental documents for Professor Schroeder, which I wanted to put in today, have not yet been translated. I do not want to take the Tribunal's time twice and consequently ask permission to put them in at the same time as I put in the supplemental documents for Dr. Becker-Freyseng. I hope that both of these groups of documents will be translated by tomorrow or Monday.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel, you may follow that procedure. The Tribunal desires to suggest to defense counsel—

Dr. Tipp, just a moment.

— The Tribunal desires to suggest to defense counsel that in order to expedite procedure they assemble the supplemental documents which they desire to enter and have them prepared in sequence as Dr. Servatius did yesterday and then submit them to the Tribunal at the earliest possible date.

If any of those supplemental documents can be submitted to the Tribunal tomorrow, the Tribunal would appreciate it. There are not many defense counsel here present, but if those who are present will advise the other defense counsel of what I have said, the Tribunal will be obliged.

Counsel may proceed.

DR. NELTE: Mr. President, I offer three copies of a list of the documents for Professor Handloser. Numbers 1 to 51 have already been put in, and Documents numbers 52 to 72 I intend to put in. This list is in triplicate, and for the bench I have a list only of the documents that have not yet been put in. I hope this will suffice for the future pursuit of my case for the defendant Handloser.

The prosecution also has such an index, and during the noon recess we attempted to put the documents in order according to this index.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, as for this list of documents, how many of them did you say had already been admitted in evidence; up to what number, up to 51?

DR. NELTE: Numbers 1 to 51 and this morning Document No. 56, which is Exhibit No. 52. If the Tribunal will permit, I shall begin with Exhibit No. 53, which is Document HA-32.

THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, counsel.

DR. NELTE: Document HA-32 is a certificate by the Prior of the Abbey Maria Laach. This is on page 46 of Document Book 2. The putting in of this document was previously postponed until an affidavit could be drawn up in this form. I now put this evidence in. This will be Exhibit 53.

Please then associate this affidavit with the statement on page 46 of the Document Book 2. I wish to read only a part of it.

The undersigned herewith "Benedictine Abbey Maria Laach" states that Professor Handloser, former generalsoberstabsarzt and Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Service, during his activity as Armeearzt [army doctor] in the Eifel district from November 1939 until May 1940 was frequently a guest at our abbey. It was important to him that the army hospital that was accommodated in our house give every consideration possible and that the persons in the cloister should receive all possible medical care. When the army left, Dr. Handloser, instructed the replacement unit, particularly the doctor of the Defense District 12, Wiesbaden, to see to it that a hospital unit should always be accommodated in Maria Laach. He hoped that he would in this way protect the monastery from being closed up, which was a threat to all monasteries at that time.

Since Prof. Handloser had in the meantime been promoted to Army Medical Inspector, we felt the effects of his friendship in all our subsequent dealings with the army Medical Authorities. The intention was realized and the Abbey Maria Laach did remain in the possession of the Benedictines.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel without endeavoring to control your action to any extent, even the slightest extent, to the prejudice of your client, I would suggest that you read from these documents now only matters of greatest importance to your client. These documents when they are received in evidence will be available to the Tribunal, and in your brief, which we will study carefully in writing the judgment, you can then either quote from these documents or call attention to those portions of the documents which you particularly desire to call to the attention of the Tribunal. That is really a more effective method of bringing these matters to the attention of the Tribunal, than it is simply to read a considerable portion of these documents into the record now, because you may rest assured that the Tribunal will give your brief, when they come to study the case, the most careful consideration.

DR. HELTE: I will restrict myself to the absolute minimum, Your Honor. May I ask you first to state that Document HA-32 is new accepted as Exhibit 53?

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is correct.

DR. NELTE: Now I offer Document HA-57. This is an affidavit by the director of the University Skin Clinic in Berlin, Prof. Dr. Loehe. This is a statement about the conferences of the Consulting Specialists. Since the Tribunal has already heard about the purpose of the conference of the Consulting Specialists, I ask permission to put this document in as Exhibit 54, but will not go into any details about it.

JUDGE SEBRING: Doctor, is that the certificate or the affidavit from Professor Dr. E. Loehe?

DR. NELTE: That is right, yes, Professor Dr. Loehe.

I come now to a series of affidavits that I shall put in without entering upon them in detail. They are being put in evidence because they were sent to me spontaneously, without my having requested them and without Professor Handloser or any one of his relatives having requested then.

Such affidavits — most of them are letters — serve to make Professor Handloser's character clear, and, as Mr. Hardly said this morning, a recognition of Handloser's true personality is of great importance in this trial. I ask therefore that these documents he admitted in evidence Document HA-58 is an affidavit from one Dr. Stoecklein, which will be Exhibit 55. Then there is an affidavit from Dr. Ludwig Blum. This is HA-59, and will be Exhibit 56. Likewise the affidavit by Dr. Hirt, HA-61. This will be Exhibit 57. Document HA-62 is an affidavit by Generalarzt Dr. Wolfgang Schmidt-Brudeckner. The Tribunal approved this Dr. Schmidt-Brueckner as a witness in the case for Handloser. He was the chief of Staff in the Army Medical Inspectorate from 1 January 1941 to 31 August 1944. After months of efforts on the part of the Secretary General it was ascertained that Dr. Schmidt-Brueckner had been released from the prisoner-of-war camp after his case had been reviewed by the English military authorities. Dr. Schmidt-Brueckner immediately declared his readiness to appear as a witness, but had an unfortunate accident that made it difficult for him to travel.

THE PRESIDENT: What is this document number, Counsel?

DR. NELTE: That is Document HA-62, Exhibit 58.

THE PRESIDENT: Correct.

DR. NELTE: Consequently, I asked Dr. Schmidt-Brueckner to make his testimony in the form of an affidavit. I informed the Prosecution of this fact, and when I received the affidavit, I showed it to the Prosecution for their information. In the letter of 20 May 1947, the Prosecution stated that they would forego cross examination of this witness. This affidavit is of the utmost importance in the case of Handloser, because this is a man who was most intimately informed about Handloser's activities. Generalarzt [General Physician] Schuerfler, the Chief of Staff of the Army Medical Service, has been heard here, and this affidavit from the Chief of Staff of the Army Medical Inspectorate is the supplementation to that testimony. These two Chiefs of Staff were Handloser's representatives or deputies during his absence. They were his eyes and ears and and right hand.

Everything that was addressed to Handloser or was answered by Handloser went through them. For the purpose of simplification both Schuerfler on the stand and Schmidt-Brueckner in this affidavit were shown Handloser's statements in his affidavit regarding the organization of the Medical Inspectorate of the Wehrmacht. This is HA-29, Exhibit 4. Both chiefs of staff certified to the correctness of this affidavit of Handloser's. I wish to read brief excerpts from this affidavit of Dr. Schmidt-Brueckner, which, as I said, is of particular importance, because it appears to me important to put them into the record. On page 2, paragraph 2, Brueckner says as follows:

I should like to make it quite clear that in my position as Professor Dr. Handloser's Chief of Staff I was bound to have full knowledge of any fundamental question or Happenings which were considered important in the sphere of the Army Medical Inspectorate. Generally I can say that during my term of office I had no knowledge of anything concerning tests and experiments in concentration camps or in the domain of the SS, such as are the subject of the indictment in this trial. If I had known of these inadmissible experiments, which are contrary to all recognized medical principles, I should certainly have submitted a letter reporting them to Professor Handloser. In the same way, I am convinced that if such a case had occurred, Professor Handloser would have done everything which was within his official power to draw the attention of the responsible authorities to the matter. This conviction is based upon my long years of close collaboration with Prof. Handloser and the knowledge I have thus gained of his personality.

I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal, however, to the affidavit as a whole, Document HA-62, which with the permission of the Tribunal will be Exhibit 58.

The next document is an affidavit by Professor Eyer, Professor Eyer was the director of the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research in Cracow. Prof. Eyer camp doctor in the camp Becklinghausen, but he fell ill. In view of the importance of this witness, I informed the Prosecution when I went to the Becklinghausen camp, and I took the following affidavit from Professor Eyer, from which I shall read only the most important passages here, namely, the passage referring to the well-known Eyer-Schmidt in February, 1943, and the passage referring to the shipments of lice.

I was head of the Institute for Typhus and Virus Research of the OKH in Cracow. It is correct that early in February 1943, I was in the concentration camp Buchenwald with Dr. Bernhard Schmidt. It happened thus: We had produced yellow fever vaccine by order of the Army Medical Inspectorate, and to my knowledge had already delivered it at this time to the Military Medical Academy, Hygiene Section. I had constructed a new storage container, and one day received the order to demonstrate this storage container to a unit of the SS. Dr. Schmidt and I went to Weimar and were picked up there. We drove to Buchenwald. In a barracks there I showed Dr. Ding and several other persons in white coats the use of the new container and how to dissolve the dry vaccine. Several persons were also vaccinated. After this we were shown the kitchen, supply rooms and hygienic equipment.

At this time the camp was not occupied. Apparently the people were at work. We were in the camp one to two hours. I emphasize particularly that we were told by nobody at all that typhus and other experiments were being carried out on the concentration camp inmates there. I knew nothing of this. That was the first and the last time that I saw a concentration camp.

We went back to Berlin and I immediately went on to Cracow. I spoke to no one from the Army Medical Inspectorate. Where the camp Buchenwald got the yellow fever vaccine which it later used for inoculation, I do not know. We left only the opened demonstration ampules there. No vaccine of any kind was ever delivered from Cracow to Buchenwald. We delivered to the main medical supply depot or when so directed, to other units but never to SS units of any sort. Neither did we ever send infected lice to Buchenwald from either Cracow or Lemberg.

I know Dr. Hass. He was the head of the Behring Institute in Lemberg. This was a branch of the Behring Works in Marburg and had nothing to do with the Wehrmacht or in particular with our institute.

Please accept this affidavit in evidence as Exhibit 59. Mr. President, the Prosecution has offered excerpts from the printed reports of the work conferences of the Consulting Specialists. These are documents 921 to 924, Exhibits 434 to 437. There is an omission in connection with these documents.

First of all, they do not present any unified picture. Secondly, if excerpts are taken and the parts left out are not known, a picture can be conveyed which does not correspond to reality. For this reason Professor Handloser, in Document Book 1, as Document HA-2 and Exhibit 37, has brought evidence regarding the purpose of these conferences, and in the same document book, on pages 17 to 20, has explained that on the problems of dysentery and freezing there were conferences every year in which medical knowledge was ascertained and supplemented. In the same document and also in Document 2-A, Exhibit 37, he drew up a typical agenda for such a conference from which it can be seen how many problems were discussed.

In order to give a true total picture of these conferences I have had Dr. Handloser take a few excerpts from these four books and have them translated and put in evidence. This has been done. Under NO 922, that is a prosecution number, there are also those excerpts translated which are to be put before you by Professor Handloser.

Now, I think that in order to avoid confusion I should give this document, NO-922, a special exhibit number in the Handloser case. Moreover, Professor Handloser, has put in an affidavit which will make it unnecessary for me to go too deeply into this problem in my final brief.

Regarding the question of freezing, typhus, and hepatitis epidemica — all concepts which we know from this trial — he has made remarks which he and I both believe will show the real integrity of the medical activities of the German Wehrmacht.

I offer the affidavit of Prof. Handloser, HA-75 which has not yet been translated, let me say again, which has not yet been translated.

It is here in the original. To avoid later repetition, and leaving the Prosecution the full right to object, I should like to put in this affidavit along with the other documents that have been copied, as Exhibit 60, and the excerpts from the conference reports will be put in as Exhibit 60-A.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this procedure is agreeable to me, but I don't have the extract of 922. I have the extracts of NO-921, 923, and 924, but I can't find the 922 extract.

THE PRESIDENT: I have here an extra copy of 922. Will the Secretary hand this to Counsel for the Prosecution?

MR. HARDY: I have it here, excuse me, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: You have it now?

MR. HARDY: Yes. As I understand it, the extract from Prosecution Document NO-922 is being marked for convenience as Handloser Exhibit 60-A.

DR. NELTE: Yes.

MR. HARDY: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Was that 60-A or was that 60?

MR. HARDY: 60 is the Handloser affidavit accompanying this.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, we haven't that yet.

DR. NELTE: I now put in the affidavit of the Generalaerzt and Generalstabsaerzt in Camp Muensterlager C. These affidavits cover the same material as has been covered by the other affidavits. I bring them to your attention, and thus Document 64 will become Exhibit 61. Through direct examination of the witness Generalarzt Hartleben, the Tribunal tried to clarify the questions involving the Medical Inspectorate. This question is of particular interest in the Handloser case. The Tribunal will recall that I pointed out when examining Generalarzt Hartleben that the court procedure that apply here are set down in Army Regulation 21, Part II, and when I offered to put the whole printed regulation in evidence I was refused by the Tribunal, but Handloser was asked to point out the passages in these regulations that appeared particularly important to him and to have them put in evidence.

Handloser has done so and now puts in an affidavit on court procedure in the various branches of the Wehrmacht. This is Document HA-65. This will be Exhibit 62, with the permission of the Tribunal.

In this affidavit those parts of Army Regulation 21 to which Handloser refers are reproduced, and I will give Army Medical Regulation number 2 to the Prosecution so that they will have a basis of comparison. I shall forego reading individual excerpts, but I ask the High Tribunal to look at page 5, Roman numeral II. These are the regulations concerning reports which are not made at specific intervals. This passage here is of particular importance for a matter that concerns this trial; namely, the reporting of special occurrences which have to be brought to the attention of the higher offices immediately and without delay.

Also I ask you to look at pages 9, 10, and 11. These are the regulations regarding the method of reporting medical research and papers on such research. That is Document No. 65, which will be Exhibit No. 62, with the permission of the Tribunal.

I now have an affidavit from the former Colonel Wolfgang Mueller, which he sent to me spontaneously; it is of particular importance, since he was a colonel whose rank was broken because of the events of 20 July. He was a department chief in the Army High Command and knew Professor Handloser there. When such a man offers to testify in behalf of Handloser, saying that he protected the interest of the Medical Corps with dignity against encroachments of the Party, that is important. I shall read only one sentence. He writes here, "I would not make this affidavit for Handloser if I had only the slightest suspicion that Dr. Handloser was one of the criminal Nazi physicians. On the contrary, historical research will show his merits in preventing the German medical profession from being permeated by Nazi ideas. Details of the above-described facts I put into my diary at that time. I shall shortly publish these facts in my book; Against the Lie about the Stab in the back". This Document HA-66 becomes Exhibit 63.

The Prosecution put in an affidavit by Oswald Pohl. This is Document NO-407, but I have not been able to ascertain the exhibit number. This affidavit is formulated in very general and consequently easily misunderstood terms. The Prosecution had Pohl state that doctors of the Luftwaffe, the Army, the Navy, and time SS seem to have only little difficulty in getting Himmler's approval for such experiments. And further he states:

I assume that Grawitz, Gebhardt, Karl Brandt, and others were Himmler's advisors in such matters.

When Pohl was examined about this he said:

I know of no fact that would justify attributing experiments in concentration camps and demands for concentration camp inmates for experiments to Professor Handloser or his office. Professor Handloser was certainly not one of Himmler's advisors in such matters.

This Document HA-67 I wish to put in as Exhibit No. 64.

The next document, HA-68, is an affidavit by Dr. Albrecht Ziaja, a former generalarzt, who sent me this affidavit on his own initiative. He makes the same positive statements about Handloser's personality as all the other Generalaerzte have made. Document HA-68 I should like to put in as Exhibit No. 65.

The next document, HA-69, has not yet been translated. It is a very brief document from Generalarzt Wuerfler. The Tribunal will recall that the Prosecution put in a list of research assignments, NO-934, Exhibit 458. Since Wuerfler had already been heard and had said that if such a document had reached the office of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht he would have seen it, and sent this document, Prosecution Exhibit No. 458, to him and asked him to tell me in the form of an affidavit whether he had ever seen this document. The affidavit reads:

On 10 March 1947 the attorney Dr. Nelte sent me Document NO 935, 40 typewritten pages, and I have read through this document. I do not recall that this document ever came to the office of the Chief of the Medical Service of the Wehrmacht.

Please accept this document, which will be translated within the next few days as Exhibit 66, without prejudice to Prosecution's right to object.

Now there comes a series of five letters, bearing numbers HA-76-A to HA-76-E, which have not yet been translated. They were brought to my attention too late for me to have them translated in time.

THE PRESIDENT: They bear the number 67, not 76 according to you.

DR. NELTE: Yes. They are not yet translated — or are they?

THE PRESIDENT: I don't have them.

DR. NELTE: I believe there are two documents in question here, 76 and 67.

THE PRESIDENT: No Document 76 appears on this list — 72 is the highest number.

MR. HARDY: He is referring, your Honor, to Document 76 which is Exhibit 67.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I see it.

DR. NELTE: Let me ask, Your Honors, whether I should make statements about this document now, without prejudice to Prosecution's right to object since he doesn't know these documents, or should I present it later?

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may make his statement now.

MR. HARDY: It would appear to me, Your Honor, that these last few exhibits, that is 67, which is missing. Exhibit 70 I don't have, which will be Exhibit 68, Nos. 71, 72, 73, and 74 I do not have.

DR. NELTE: In the case against the defendant Handloser the Prosecution referred to the well-known typhus conference of the Reich Ministry of the Interior of 29 December 1941, in which Professor Handloser did not take part but a representative of the Army Medical Inspectorate did, Stabsarzt [Staff Surgeon] Schrott. This is Document N0-1315, Exhibit 454. And it is a file note of the Reich Ministry of the Interior. The Defendants Professor Mrugowsky has reports from Drs. Zahn and Demnitz on this same subject, Documents Mrugowsky 63 and 64, Exhibits 30 and 19, and an affidavit from Demnitz, Mrugowsky Document 62, Exhibit 18. These documents present a clear picture of what was discussed in this conference of 29 December 1941. This was a discussion with the pharmaceutical industry. Now in Document 1315, Exhibit 454, there is a discussion, as you may remember, of experiments planned on 29 December 1941, discussed between Professor Gildemeister and Mrugowsky, which had already been agreed upon. Let me point out that it was not agreed on at this conference because Mrugowsky was not even present. It had already been agreed upon before the discussion. Now the Prosecution states that this was the basis for the subsequent human experiments. The Prosecution further asserts the participants in the discussion knew of this and knew that Buchenwald experiments were to be made. Since there were also representatives of the Army Medical Inspectorate present, the Prosecution concludes that also the Army Medical Inspect orate and Professor Handloser knew what was going on in Buchenwald at this time.

Although this conclusion is refuted by a letter of 5 May 1942, Mrugowsky Document 10, Exhibit 20, and by his sworn testimony, the Defendant Professor Handloser wishes to dispose of any last vestige of suspicion in this manner by putting in these five documents. They bear numbers HA-76 a to e. I shall put them in as one document and ask that they be given Exhibit No. 67 a to e.

These letters of February and March 1942 will prove that the Army Medical Inspectorate, if it had known what was to go on in Buchenwald, and if it had been in agreement with this, namely, that human experiments were to be carried on in Buchenwald in order to expedite the production of typhus vaccine — it would have been absolutely without any purpose for the Army Medical Inspectorate to have written the letters contained in this document. If it had known and approved what was going on in Buchenwald, then it would have waited for the results of this experimental plan. However, during this time it corresponded with the Behring Works and told the Behring Works, which had been given an order, that they should be sure to see to it that the vaccine to be delivered should contain only Rickettsia Prowazeki. The Behring Works did not answer these letters from the Medical Inspectorate saying:

Wait until the Buchenwald experiments are over.

They answered on the 21st of March that the typhus vaccines were now being manufactured of Rickettsia Prowazeki alone, and thus the requirements of the Reich Ministry of the Interior and the Army Medical Inspectorate were being met. There are 5 documents here which I ask you please to examine most carefully. In my final brief I shall evaluate the contents and probative value of those documents.

MR. HARDY: May I see the original exhibit, Your Honor, those documents which were just mentioned?

DR. NELTE: These are copies from the files of the Behring Works, which have been certified by a notary.

MR. HARDY: The Prosecution would like some of the German copies too, Your Honor, in addition to the English translations, inasmuch as they purport to be original German documents. This apparently is the Court Exhibit.

DR. NELTE: The German originals are not in my possession but are in the possession of the Behring Works. This is a case quite analogous to the one my colleague, Dr. Flemming, was confronted with, who also put in letters from the Behring Works, which had been certified by a notary on the basis of the originals there.

As I remember, the Tribunal accepted this certification by a notary as sufficient and accepted the letter in question in evidence, but I ask for your ruling as soon as you see the original.

MR. HARDY: I am not objecting to this procedure, Your Honor, inasmuch as the Tribunal has established that it would be all right in the case of Dr. Flemming's documents. I merely would like German copies of these now so that I could peruse them this evening, or my analysts could do so, so that I could go over them immediately, without waiting for translations.

THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel for the defendant Handloser see that German copies are furnished to the Prosecution this afternoon, if possible?

DR. NELTE: Yes. Next I put in a certified copy of a ruling by the German Reichstag [Parliament] on 26 April 1942. Let me correct an error in the copy. In the copy here it says 26 September 1942 but it is really 26 April 1942. This was in the Reich Legal Gazette, Part I, No. 44, page 247. This is a very well-known resolution of the Reichstag, with the force of law, dealing with the concentration of the total power in Germany in the hands of Hitler. This document is put in evidence in connection with the question of what significance the so-called State Order has in the totalitarian State. I do not wish to read this resolution, but I shall refer to it in my summation. HA-70 becomes Exhibit 68.

MR. HARDY: For clarification of the record, I believe this Reichsgesetzblatt [Reich Law Gazette] extract is dated the 26 of September, not April.

DR. NELTE: I have already made that correction.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel just stated that the document was dated in September, not April. I understood the interpreter to say it was dated April, not September.

DR. NELTE: It is erroneously dated September and should be dated April.

MR. HARDY: Well, then, I would like to see the original exhibit, Your Honor. The translation has the 26th of September thereon.

DR. NELTE: I have already attempted to correct that. The original of this resolution probably cannot be found. This resolution is reprinted. It was published in the Reich Legal Gazette (Reichsgesetzblatt) which can be found in the library here. I assume that the Prosecution may take a look at it at any time. If not, I can produce it for the Prosecution.

MR. HARDY: Is Dr. Nelte certifying that Document HA-70, Exhibit 68, the date thereon should be the 26th of April and not the 26th of September?

DR. NELTE: That is right. I come now to my final documents which deal with Prosecution Document 1305, Exhibit 469. The Prosecution, in putting in this document, asserted that there was a general agreement between the Medical Inspectorate of the Army and the Hygiene Institute of the Waffen-SS — an agreement to test the Behring Work vaccines on human beings in Buchenwald. This document is a letter from the Behring works in Marburg to Dr. Mrugowsky, dealing with the testing of the Behring vaccine, and it says, and I quote:

Oberstarzt [Colonel, Medical Corps.] Dr. Schreiber has told us that the testing on human beings will be taken care of in the future through your office.

In order to clarify this matter I have interviewed anyone who could know anything of value about this matter and whom I could get in touch with, in order to get affidavits from them. These are Professor Handloser, Generalarzt Dr. Schmidt-Bruecken, as Chief of Staff of the Army Medical Inspectorate and the superior of Oberstarzt Dr. Schreiber, Dr. Bernhard Schmidt, as Hygienist in the Department for Science and Health, also Dr. Demnitz, director of the Behring Works in Marburg.

MR. HARDY: Is it my understanding from Dr. Nelte that Document NO 1305, Prosecution Exhibit 469, was introduced after Dr. Bernhard Schmidt had appeared before this Tribunal as a witness, or had it been introduced before that time?

DR. NELTE: It was put in later, or in cross-examination.

MR. HARDY: Then, your Honor, it seems to me that if this was put in before Dr. Bernhard Schmidt appeared before the Tribunal as a witness, defense counsel had ample opportunity to cross-examine Schmidt on that document, and this would be a second opportunity to examine him on it by putting in this affidavit. The witness was here and testified here, and the document at that time had been put into evidence, according to defense counsel. Therefore I do not see any reason for further affidavits from people who have been here as witnesses.

DR. NELTE: At the moment I cannot say at what point in the trial the Document 1305 was put in. At any rate I do know that I asked Dr. Bernhard Schmidt about this matter. I believe that I got a full perspective of this matter when I made the acquaintance of Dr. Mrugowsky's Document Book and Demnitz' letter. In a matter as important as this, Your Honor, the formal rules of evidence must be set aside and a real effort should be made to ascertain what the situation actually was. So I ask that the documents that I am not putting in this matter, namely Documents HA-70, 71— no, I shall start again— HA-71, HA-72, HA-73, and HA-74, be accepted in evidence as Exhibits 69, 70, 71, and 72. I have just been informed that Document 1305 was put in evidence during the cross-examination of the defendant Mrugowsky.

MR. HARDY: I think my recollection serves me the same, your Honor. If the document was put in after the witness appeared here, then I have no objection to the affidavit.

DR. NELTE: This concludes my submission of supplemental documents for the defendant Professor Handloser, and thus my case for this defendant. I should like, however, to reserve the right, should it be necessary, to offer one more document which may be made necessary by the documents which the prosecution gave to us yesterday.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear counsel if he deems it necessary to offer in evidence any further documents.

JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Nelte, I have in my hand here a document apparently of the prosecution, NO-924, which presumably is an extract from Document NO-924. It is not quite clear to me what Handloser exhibit number you gave that extract.

MR. HARDY: It hasn't any number yet, Your Honor.

DR. NELTE: Yes, NO-924 is a prosecution document. Documents 921 to 924 are prosecution documents, excerpts from the printed conference reports.

MR. HARDY: Does defense counsel wish to have Documents NO-921, NO-922, NO-923, and NO-924 attached to the Handloser affidavit, which is Exhibit 60?

THE PRESIDENT: That was the purpose of my inquiry. I assume so.

DR. NELTE: Yes.

MR. HARDY: In that instance, could we number the extracts from Document NO-921 as Exhibit 60-A, the extracts from NO-922 as Exhibit 60-B, the extracts from NO-923 as Exhibit 60-C, and the extracts from 924 as Exhibit 60-D? Then I will be able to keep track of them.

THE PRESIDENT: They will be so numbered.

DR. NELTE: I have no objection to that. I thank you. I have concluded my defense.

THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further documents to be offered by the counsel?

DR. KRAUSS: Dr. Krauss for the defendant Professor Rostock.

Mr. President, at this time I should like to put in three affidavits in the case for the defendant Professor Rostock. I do not know whether or not the Tribunal has the translations of them.

If it is agreeable to the Tribunal, I should like to but the three documents in now, even if they do not have the translations, giving a brief summary of their contents.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed. The Tribunal has no copies of the documents that I know of.

MR. HARDY: We have no copies. Are they affidavits on character reference or what are they? If I could look at the affidavits to see if they are properly executed, I may allow this, but I would rather have them in English before we have them introduced, Your Honor.

DR. KRAUSS: I ask the Tribunal to rule on this. Either decision is acceptable to me.

THE PRESIDENT: I was endeavoring to ascertain whether English copies are available. I have seen none.

MR. HARDY: I should like to look at the German copies and see whether they are in order.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will submit copies in German to counsel for the prosecution, who will examine them.

DR. KRAUSS: The German originals are here and can be examined.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, they appear to be in order and have jurats thereon. I have no objections to their being put in now if copies are served on me with the numbers on each affidavit when they are served so that I will have a record of them.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, and those for the Tribunal also, when we receive the copies, should bear the exhibit numbers which are assigned to them.

DR. KRAUSS: Mr. President, first I shall put in an affidavit by the witness Margarete Baldow. This I put in as Rostock Exhibit No. 11. The witness Baldow was chief nurse at Professor Rostock's clinic. She had a precise knowledge of Professor Rostock's activities and personality. She states in the affidavit that Professor Rostock, even after taking over the Office of Science and Research, still remained the responsible chief of the university clinic, and that from a purely temporal point of view he spent most of his time and energies in the clinic and with his patients.

Because of her intimate knowledge of Professor Rostock's character, both as a human being and a doctor, the witness states that she knew of no participation of Rostock in illegal experiments and considers it quite out of the question that he even knew of any illegal experiments.

The second document that I wish to offer to the Tribunal is an affidavit by Professor Menzel. I offer it as Rostock Exhibit 12. Professor Menzel was business manager of the Reich Research Council. He has a precise knowledge of the organization of the Reich Research Council. He says in his affidavit that Rostock himself was not a member of the Reich Research Council, that he was merely the deputy of Professor Karl Brandt from 1944 on, and that Professor Rostock himself never participated in a meeting of the presidial council or of the chiefs of specialized departments (Fachspartenleiter) in the Reich Research Council. The affiant particularly states in the affidavit that Professor Rostock had nothing to do with the issuing of research assignments by the Reich Research Council. He also states that it was not Rostock's job to help determine the priority rating of the individual research assignments. The affiant also states that Rostock, as leader of the Science and Research Office, had no right to give orders to the Reich Research Council.

Third, I put in an affidavit by Margaret Georgi. I put this affidavit in as Rostock Exhibit 13. This witness is a doctor. In 1936 she received a long prison sentence for insulting the Fuehrer, and today she is recognized as a victim of Fascism. This witness says that in view of her political punishment she could not find work in the Third Reich, that she had difficulties wherever she turned, and that Professor Rostock, in full knowledge of the fact she had been sentenced, employed her as assistant doctor in his clinic. She further states that during her activities as assistant doctor, in view of her political past, she was put at no disadvantage by Professor Rostock, but that she was promoted the way every other associate was promoted by Professor Rostock.

Mr. President, these three documents conclude my defense of Professor Rostock.

THE PRESIDENT: The three documents will be admitted in evidence as exhibits oh behalf of defendant Rostock, under the numbers assigned to the exhibits by counsel. Copies are to be furnished the Tribunal as soon as possible.

Do any other defense counsel have any documents to offer?

DR. SEIDL: Seidl for Gebhardt, Oberheuser, and Fischer.

Mr. President, after the recess I shall be ready to put in supplemental documents for these three defendants. These documents are in Document Book 2. Moreover, there are prepared four loose documents which also contain affidavits. I should be obliged if the Secretary General will give the Tribunal the translations of these documents which are already prepared, and then I shall offer the documents.

THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary will furnish the Tribunal translations of these documents, to be taken up at the close of the pending recess.

The Tribunal will now be in recess.

(Thereupon a recess was taken.)