1947-06-28, #5: Doctors' Trial (late afternoon)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

MISS JOHNSON: Your Honors, I would like now to present Prosecution Document Book No. 18, containing the rebuttal documents on behalf of the Prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.

MISS JOHNSON: The first document is NO-3848, which will be offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 529. This is the sworn statement of one Otto Bichenbach, made before a judge of a French Military Tribunal at Strasbourg where the affiant is hold in detention and charged with war crimes. The statement contains reference to phosgene experiments and implicates the Defendant Karl Brandt.

The next document is NO-3648, which is the deposition of Fritz Suhren, and will be offered as Exhibit 530.

DR. SEIDL (For Defendants Gebhardt and Fischer): Mr. President, I object to the admission of Document NO-3848. As a reason for my objection I can state the following: firstly, this statement, which is designated as an affidavit in the index bears no signature. During the recess I have looked at the original document, and I gained the impression on the basis of the German form and the German style, as well as on the basis of the entire matter, that this affidavit was to have been signed by Suhren, but for some reason was not signed by him, perhaps because he refused to sign such an affidavit. From the remarks at the end we can see that the precise date was to be inserted, for it says merely, "April 1946". The date on which the affidavit was to be signed apparently was to be inserted at a later time.

Secondly, I found out that the affidavit was not signed by Captain Ellis, in front of whom it was taken down.

The only signature under the document originates from Major Mant who merely certifies the authenticity of the copy. Thirdly, the Prosecution has had this affidavit in their possession for longer than a year. The Defendant Gebhardt has been heard on that affidavit on two occasions before the beginning of the trial. At first it was apparently intended to use him as an incriminating witness against Suhren. The first interrogation took place Paderborn in September 1946, and the second interrogation in November 1946. The prosecution has had ample opportunity to present this affidavit during their case. At the latest time they had an opportunity to put this affidavit to the Defendant Gebhardt in his cross-examination. On both of those occasions the Prosecution has not done so. Therefore, the defendant did not have an opportunity to define his attitude directly as regards this affidavit. For those above mentioned reasons I am asking you to reject the admission of the affidavit. In case, however, you should admit the affidavit, I ask to reserve the right that I bring counter-proof to the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Is the original affidavit available for the Court? The jurat attached to the affidavit does not read "Subscribed and sworn to, "but simply says, "Sworn to by the witness, Fritz Suhren, voluntarily, at Paderborn on blank April 1946, before me, Captain Duncan Ellis." Can we hear from the Prosecution?

MISS JOHNSON: I think, your Honor, that it is just as you say. It does not purport to boar any signature of Fritz Suhren; apparently it was an oral statement made before Captain Ellis. He certifies it has been made before him during the month of April 1946.

Undoubtedly the original contained the signature of Captain Ellis, and that has been certified to by Major Mant.

THE PRESIDENT: The Doctor's objection will be overruled, and the Document admitted, but the Tribunal will consider the matter of allowing counsel for Defendant Gebhardt to offer some evidence by way of sur-rebuttal in meeting this evidence. If counsel desires to offer such evidence he should apply to the Tribunal and say what evidence he desires to offer in refutation of any statements which are made in this document.

MISS JOHNSON: The next four documents contained in the document book are NO-3070, which will be offered as 531; NO-3071, which will be offered as 532; NO-3072, which will be offered as Exhibit 533; and NO-3073, which will be offered as exhibit 534. These are decrees of Hitler concerning the pardon right of himself and of the Governor-General of Occupied Poland. They are offered at this time in connection with the status of the Polish girls, the criminal status of the Polish girls whom Defendant Gebhardt performed some experiments upon.

The next document is NO—

THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Counsel, until I complete the record.

MISS JOHNSON: I am sorry.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.

MISS JOHNSON: I turn now to the document on Page 19 of the document book. NO-3853, which will be offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 535. This is an affidavit of a handwriting expert who certified as to the genuineness of the signatures of Ding and Schuler, and arrives at the opinion they are has contended that the signature "Schuler" is an alias for the name "Ding".The next document is on Page 22 of the document book.

It is NO-3680 which is offered as exhibit 536. This is an extract from the transcript of military Tribunal II of 21 April 1947. It is the testimony of Eugen Kogon who also appeared in this court as a witness, and it clarifies certain matters concerning the typhus experiments and the poison-bullet experiments conducted at Buchenwald concentration camp.

The next document is on page 24 of the document book. It is NO 1320. It will be offered as Prosecution Exhibit 537. It is the file note of one Dr. Haubold, who is from the Foreign Department of the Reich Chamber of Physicians. The Court will recall that the defendant Blome was the deputy leader of the Reich Chamber of Physicians. In this note Grawitz as chief of staff has reported and recommended a certain method of typhus vaccine production, namely, rabbit lung production.

DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Blome): Mr. President, with reference to this Document No. 1320, a letter by Professor Gildemeister to the Reich Minister of the Interior with a report of the Foreign Department of the Reich Chamber of Physicians, I ask that the prosecution state for what purpose this document is being submitted. Throughout the months of this trial we heard nothing about any Foreign Department of the Reich Chamber of Physicians. We are hearing for the first time today that any such department existed. For that reason, in my opinion, the prosecution has to make a statement in what way the defendant Blome is to be incriminated on the strength of this document. Does the prosecution try to maintain that this Foreign Department of the Reich Chamber of Physicians was headed by the defendant Blome? Or does the prosecution maintain that the defendant Dr. Blome is in any way responsible for this Foreign Branch of the Reich Chamber of Physicians? Do they think that he was in any way in a position to dispose of the actions of this department? If I get a statement on this matter from the prosecution, I shall be in a position to submit counter-proof. It will be expedient, however, if the prosecution at first states what exactly they are trying to prove with reference to the defendant Blome.

MISS JOHNSON: Our theory is that Blome, as deputy leader of the Reich Chamber of Physicians, was responsible by reason of that position for the activities that were participated in by all of the various departments of the Reich Chamber of Physicians, and one of those departments was the Foreign Department. And as Dr. Sauter will see from NO 1322, on page 26 of the document book, this Dr. Haubold was clearly connected with the Foreign Department of the Reich Chamber of Physicians.

In other words, Dr. Blome is implicated by reason of his position by the responsibility of the Reich Chamber of Physicians which obviously had some connection with the typhus experiments.

DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, I can make the following statement at this time. Blome had nothing whatsoever to do with the Foreign Department of the Reich Chamber of Physicians. On the contrary, orders had been issued that he was under no circumstances allowed to exert any influence on the activities of the Foreign Department. I shall be able to prove that by submitting an affidavit written by the defendant Blome and perhaps even additional proof.

THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be received in evidence subject to the right of defense counsel to file an affidavit on the Part of the defendant Blome and to make application to the Tribunal for permission to introduce further evidence if he desires to do so.

MISS JOHNSON: Referring again to NO-1320, the file note of Dr. Haubold of the Foreign Department of the Reich Chamber of Physicians, it will be noted that a report by the Chief of Staff to Dr. Grawitz has been made to this Foreign Department to the effect that rabbit lung typhus vaccine has been tested on concentration camp inmates at some date prior to 11 December 1942.

The next document, page 25 of the document book, is related to the same subject. This is NO-1322 which will be offered as Exhibit 538. This document is an opinion of Gildemeister from the Robert Koch Institute, concerning the assertions of Dr. Haubold as to the effectiveness of the rabbit lung typhus vaccine. It will be seen from the first paragraph that Dr. Ding has carried out experiments to determine the effectiveness of this vaccine, and those experiments were carried out with the defendant Mrugowsky and under the defendant Mrugowsky's supervision. The second page of the same document, page 26 of the document book, is a letter from the Reich Minister of Interior to the Foreign Department of the Reich Chamber of Physicians notifying that organization of the opinion of Dr. Gildemeister.

The Court will also note that at the bottom of page 26 that the Reich Chief for Public Health has been informed of the contents of this letter. That again implicates the defendant Blome.

Turning to the next document, page 28, which is NO-3671, and which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 359. We have here a letter dated November 18, 1943, from Rascher to Pfannenstiel where he reports that the deputy Reich Medical Chief, Dr. Blome, with whom Rascher has been working, has been making certain efforts in connection with the Rascher habilitation. That is, as you will recall, the efforts of Rascher to obtain a university professorship. It concerns the fact that the report has been submitted which is top secret. Rascher also makes mention of his desire to perform further high altitude experiments and states that in that connection he will contact the defendant Sievers in his capacity, apparently, as chief of the Business Managing Board — the prosecution has up to this time always contended that he was deputy chief of this board — of the Reich Research Council. This again refers to Sievers' activities in connection with obtaining materials for the human experiments. Rascher intends to request Sievers to supply a low pressure chamber for high altitude experiments.

The next document, on page 23 of the document book, is NO-3847. This is offered as Exhibit 540. This document and the next document are related in subject matter. The next document, on page 34 of the document book, is Document Number 2903-PS, and is offered as Exhibit 541.

DR. SAUTER (Counsel for the defendant Blome): Here again with reference to these two documents, NO-3847 and NO-2903, I have to ask the prosecution to tell us what they intend to prove against Dr. Blome by submitting these two documents and what incrimination is to be deduced from these two documents. Unless such a clarification is rendered by the prosecution, the purpose cannot be understood as to why these two documents have been submitted.

MISS JOHNSON: The first document, Exhibit 540, is an excerpt from the IMT judgment concerning the criminality of the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party.

The prosecution has not here charged the defendant Blome, and does not in any way contend that the defendant Blome is here criminally liable for his membership in the Leadership Corps of the Nazi Party. The finding of the International Military Tribunal establishes that persons holding certain prominent party offices are members of a criminal organization. The chart which is offered in connection with Prosecution Exhibit 541 shows that the defendant Blome as deputy to the Reich Public Health Leader Conti was Hauptaemter and was thus a person of some prominence in the Nazi Party, that he came within those groups which were defined as criminal within the Leadership Corps. In other words, the prosecution offers this primarily for the purpose of establishing the prominence of the defendant Blome.

DR. SAUTER: I should like once more to get clarification on one point.

If I understood the translation correctly, the Prosecution by submitting these two documents does not intend to maintain or prove that Blome was a member of the Corps of Political Leaders, that is, a member of a criminal organization, but merely intends to prove that Blome held a prominent position within the Party. Did I understand you correctly?

MISS JOHNSON: Yes.

DR. SAUTER: Thank you, in that case I have no further questions in that connection.

MISS JOHNSON: I believe, Your Honor, I have pointed out sufficiently the place of the defendant Blome in the chart of the Leadership Corps to make it clear to you that his position in the Leadership Corps, and as a prominent member of the Nazi Party, as I said it, put him in a position of great influence and prominence.

We turn next to page 36 of the Document Book which is Document NO-3837 and which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 542. This as a list of Dr. Hagen's expenditures which were charged to the Wehrmacht in connection with research on yellow fever and typhus during the period between 21 February 1942 and 13 November 1944. On the English translation of this document the word "Wehrmacht" appears at the top should appear, I mean to say, at the top of the page, above the words "Research Test Yellow Fever—Typhus. The word "Wehrmacht" does appear on the original.

(To the Marshal)Will you exhibit that to the Court, please, so that they can correct their copies?

The next document is on page 49 of the document book, is NO-944, is offered as Exhibit 543, is the service record of the defendant Poppendick.

DR. DUERR (Counsel for the defendant Poppendick): Before raising an objection to this document I should like to ask the Prosecution for what purpose this and the following document are being submitted?

MISS JOHNSON: Primarily it is proof of the membership in the SS of the defendant Poppendick; also to substantiate our contention as seen from Item 9 of Poppendick's office in the staff of Reich Physician Grawitz, and from Item 14, his role in the office of Grawitz. It has to do with his membership in a criminal organization, and also activities in the office of Grawitz.

DR. DUERR: I object to the submission of that document. The Prosecution has submitted an affidavit with reference to these points. The defendant was already in the witness stand and was examined on all the points. Nothing new is being shown by that document, and I don't think it is necessary to submit a rebuttal document now which for some months has already been in the hands of the Prosecution.

THE PRESIDENT: Objection is overruled. Document will be received in evidence. If the defendant poppendick claims that in his statement the document is incorrect, he may file an affidavit stating his view of the matter.

MISS JOHNSON: The next document, on page 51 of the document book is NO-1120, is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 544. This document also relates to the defendant Poppendick. This is an evaluation of the services of the defendant Poppendick by his superior, Reich Physician Grawitz. It also makes mention of the fact that Poppendick has participated in the activities of the Race and Settlement Office.

DR. DUERR: I do not object to the submission of this document, but I beg to be allowed to reserve the right to submit new evidence as counter proof.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may file an affidavit by defendant Poppendick or any other person stating this affidavit is incorrect, if he knows that it is. If any further evidence is desired, Counsel should main application to the Tribunal for permission to introduce such further evidence.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, in the case of rebuttal evidence, would your Honors kindly instruct Prosecution, as well as the Defense, what position will be taken with reference to rebuttal evidence, and to what extent the Defense can then in turn bring in evidence to refute rebuttal evidence.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, when evidence is purely rebuttal evidence it would be unlikely that new evidence would be allowed to refute that; that would have to be considered. There might be a special case where it would be allowed. As regards these last few affidavits, whether or not these are strictly rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal is not advised, I don't remember whether Poppendick denied his membership as stated in these matters. It may be and may not be purely rebuttal evidence.

MISS JOHNSON: I think they may be cumulative, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: That was my impression, that they were purely cumulative. But the fact is that the prosecution should really not introduce merely cumulative evidence in rebuttal. The Court stated to Defense Counsel that they could file a further affidavit in this connection, if he desired.

The objection is overruled. The evidence is to be admitted.

MISS JOHNSON: We turn next to page 53 of the document book, NO-3269 which will be offered as Prosecution exhibit 545. This document dated 29 April, 1943, addressed to Poppendick, merely establishes the fact that poppendick had certain administrative duties in the Race and Settlement Office, a matter which has been the subject of the testimony of Poppendick, to some extent.

I come to the next document which is on page 54 of the document book. I would like to hand the Tribunal and Defense Counsel a covering affidavit made by the author of the document, on page 54. This is NO-3347, which is offered as Exhibit 545.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, you already have an exhibit 545.

MISS JOHNSON: I have?

THE PRESIDENT: Unless I am mistaken.

MISS JOHNSON: I beg your pardon, Your Honor.

NO-3347 is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 546. I believe the covering affidavit will have to be distributed.

DR. HOFFMANN (Counsel for the defendant Pokorny): The document which was handed to me by the Prosecution about two days ago contained only the Document 3347. At the moment I have only received the accompanying affidavit. I wanted to point out that the 24-hour period when distributing documents has not been abided by, and for that reason object in principle against the evaluation of that affidavit under those circumstances.

With reference to the opinion itself I should like to ask you to give me an opportunity to define my attitude towards this eighteen page long opinion, which was already available to the Prosecution on the 25th of April 1946, at a later date by submitting a counter-opinion.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, during the course of the examination of the defendant Pokorny it was brought out that expert testimony as to the efficacy of caladium sequinum was at issue. At that time the Tribunal asked the defendant Pokorny to write an affidavit in lieu of his technical testimony. If you will recall, I at that time told the Tribunal that we would submit expert testimony regarding the efficacy of caladium sequinum as set forth in the reports of Madaus and Koch. These reports were exhaustively studied by Dr. Scheiffahrt at the University of Erlangen, He has written an expert opinion. The date of the opinion is 14 April, and the Prosecution has held it exclusively for the purpose of rebuttal evidence. In as much as Dr. ————has not executed a jurat and the particular expert opinion his not been certified as of 26 June 1947, Dr. Scheiffahrt was called here. I had a jurat executed, and that is the new sheet that is attached to the document. The document — the opinion was based on the works of Madaus and, of course, Madaus and Koch — and, of course Koch was here as a witness and testified as an expert. This is the Prosecution's Rebuttal to his testimony, and I am sure that these document books have been in the hands of the Defense Information Center longer than 24 hours.

If not, the Prosecution asks for a waiver of that time. I don't see that anything is necessary for further study on the part of the Defense Counsel. He has had his expert an the stand; his expert has testified explicitly on that situation of many of the facts set forth in this expert opinion. And he tells me that the defendant Pokorny will do likewise.

THE PRESIDENT: This statement appears to he proper rebuttal evidence. Of course, there is the affidavit, Document No. 3347. Is that a supplement to 334? In the book?

MISS JOHNSON: Yes, Your Honor, the affiant in the affidavit, Friedrich Scheiffarth, is the person who wrote this treatise which is on page 54 of the book and he signed it on page 71 of the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, the objection is overruled. This exhibit will be admitted.

DR. HOFFMANN: Will I have the possibility to submit counter rebuttal against this affidavit?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, this is proper rebuttal evidence. This is in direct contradiction of evidence that was introduced. Prosecution on rebuttal is entitled to contradict that evidence. Nothing new is brought in, as I understand it, than that in the testimony of Pokorny. That did not call for any new evidence on your part as I understand it. If Pokorny wants to prepare another affidavit in connection with the statement here he may do so if he moves promptly.

MR. HARDY: If Your Honors please, the expert opinion is based on the evidence that has been submitted by Pokorny. I had also intended to have evidence submitted on which the affidavit is based. In as much as all the pamphlets and material are available and Pokorny's testimony it is unnecessary to submit the same material so we will just submit the affidavit and it is well referenced to the material used in Pokorny's presentation.

MISS JOHNSON: Turning now to page 73 of the Document Book we have NO 3629 which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 547. This is a letter from the defendant Sievers to Professor Hirth.

DR. WEISBERGER: Mr. President, Dr. Weisberger, counsel for the defendant Sievers. For the moment I have no objection but I would ask Prosecution to give me the original document in order to ascertain the date it bears.

MISS JOHNSON: This letter relates —

DR. WEISBERGER: I am asking this question because the copy which was submitted to defense bears no date.

The photostatic copy here does bear a date but it appears doubly and in my opinion cannot be identified easily. I have no formal objection to make but I beg to reserve the right to revert to this document at a later date.

THE PRESIDENT: There won't be very many later dates. What is it you desire to discuss concerning the document? You say that the mimeograph bears two dates. There is only one date 3 January 1942 on the document before me.

MISS JOHNSON: We contend that is the proper date although it has been apparently typed over. It may be a carbon copy and the carbon has slipped and made an impression of the two dates.

THE PRESIDENT: Cursory examination of the documents indicates that in any event the letter was written in January 1942. If there is any question in counsel's mind an enlarged photograph could be taken of that date if it is considered important. An enlargement would probably show exactly what that is. The document will be admitted but if defense counsel desires identification of that date an enlarged photograph can be taken.

MISS JOHNSON: NO 3629, Prosecution Exhibit 547, the document under discussion, signed by Sievers addressed to Hirth relates the preliminary activities of the defendant Sievers in connection with services of the addressee Hirth at the Ahnenerbe [Ancestral Heritage] Institute. You will see that the reports of Hirth passed through Sievers to Himmler. The third paragraph indicates Sievers knowledge that experiments on human beings are approved by Himmler and are anticipated. The fourth paragraph indicates the political atmosphere of the original Ahnenerbe in which Sievers was Reich business manager.

Coming to the next document on page 73 which is NO-3675 which will be offered as Prosecution Exhibit 548. This is a letter of 22 September 1942 which was form a manufacturing company which manufactured the instrument called the electrocardiograph. The writer refers to the fact that Sievers has advised him that an electrocardiograph has been used in important scientific experiments carried out at the Research Institute for Applied Military Science in Munich.

That would incriminate the defendant Weltz and all other defendants involved in freezing experiments.

On page 74 Sievers has added a note to this letter and forwarded it apparently to Dr. Rascher. Sievers here refers to the activities in connection with trying to obtain equipment for the high altitude experiments.

The next document is on page 75, is NO 3674 and is offered as Exhibit 549. This letter of the 20 October 1942 from Sievers to Dr. Wuest, who was curator of Ahnenerbe and who was also rector of the Munich University requests certain materials and supplies which will be used for experiments to be performed in Munich.

The next document, on page 77 of the Document Book, is NO 3819, is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 550. This is a letter of 29 October 1942 from the defendant Sievers to Dr. Hirt at Strasbourg stating that an Ahnenerbe subsidy will be made available to Hirt in support of his research activities.

Coming to the next document on page 78 of the Document Book. This is Document NO 2506 which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 551. This is a cross-affidavit secured with the permission of the Tribunal from Dr. Hans Reiter who made an affidavit on behalf of Processor Handloser which, as the affidavit states, was Document Handloser 25. This document relates to the typhus conference 29 December 1941 and the affiant expresses some doubt concerning just how explicit the understanding was at that conference that artificial typhus infection should be made on concentration camp inmates to test the efficacy of the typhus vaccine.

The balance of the documents in the Document Book relate to Euthanasia. Coming to page 80 is Document NO 3356, which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 552. We have here a transport list from Eglfing insane asylum dated 18 January 1940 and the first name on the list is the name of a Jewish person as indicated by the name Israel.

The Tribunal recalls that the witness Leibrandt testified that all Jewish people had to take certain names to indicate their race. The name Israel was the name for the men. This list is signed by one Vorberg who was in charge of the transport company, and his name appeared on the chart of the defendant Brack in connection with Euthanasia activities.

The next document on page 81 of the document book, NO 3355 is offered as Exhibit 553. This document signed by Pfannmeuller who appeared as a defense witness before this Tribunal relates mostly to administrative details of Euthanasia concerning children.

DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for the defendant Karl Brandt): Mr. President, the document has three annexes to which reference is made. They describe the condition of the children. I ask that the Prosecution submit the entire document and not only the first page. I am very interested in the condition of the children at that time. It says, above: "Enclosures: 3 Reports." However, these three reports are not attached.

MISS JOHNSON: The Prosecution would be glad to supply these reports if they had them but we do not have them. They were not found with the document.

DR. SERVATIUS: In that case I ask the Tribunal to instruct the Prosecution to give me a report on how these documents were found. It seems peculiar to me that the main document was found and the enclosures were not found. There must be some report on that.

MISS JOHNSON: Dr. Servatius, you observe in the top paragraph related to deformed children — I believe that is the subject you are most interested in, isn't it — the deformity of children?

DR. SERVATIUS: Yes. There must be an exact report on these three children and I think that this dates back to the beginning of the Reich Committee at the time when the Eglfing institution was active. The expert has told us that these children were carefully selected. On the other hand, somebody else said that these children were who were reported on.

MISS JOHNSON: Your Honor, there is no certainty that the information which Dr. Servatius seeks to obtain in this connection would be available, even if we did have the reports.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal would instruct the Prosecution to furnish Dr. Servatius and bring before the Tribunal these three annexes if they had them; but as it is stated they do not have them, if the Prosecution can give Dr. Servatius any information as to where they found this document, they should do so.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, these documents, as you will plainly notice -this particular document has the initial of Pfannmueller on it. Therefore it is a carbon copy and I imagine it was standard procedure in Pfannmueller' office, as it would be in a law office or any other office, that if you make reports you do not usually make voluminous copies of them.

This here apparently is the cover-letter that went with the reports. It was found in the Pfannmueller files, at his institute. As a matter of fact, these documents were found in early 1945 by none less than the investigating team conducted by Dr. Leo Alexander. They are contained in a CINFO report, which was bound and published by an organization, that is Combined Intelligence and Detective Agencies of the British and United States Armed Forces. It would be rather difficult for me to go into any further detail to explain the source of the documents.

THE PRESIDENT: You have just complied with counsel Servatius' request that he get information that was available and the Prosecution has given it, which is sufficient.

DR. SERVATIUS: Thank you.

MISS JOHNSON: Turning to the next document which is on page 82 of the document book and which is document NO-3354, which will be marked as Prosecution Exhibit 554, we have further evidence in connection with the Euthanasia program. This shows that a Jewish person has met his death at Lublin. This statement confirms the statement of Brack's witness, Pfannmueller, that Jewish people were sent to Lublin and I believe the defendant Brack made a statement on the same subject.

Turning now to page 85 of the document book, which is NO-2094, which will be offered as Exhibit 555 —

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, how about document NO-2094 on page 83?

MISS JOHNSON: Your Honor, in my book it skips from 82 to 85. On 82 we have 3354 and I don't know whether that's 85 or 83, NO-2094 — 83. I guess that is 83 perhaps.

DR. FROSCHMANN (Counsel for the defendant Brack): Could you please hand me the original? Mr. President, I must object to the admission of this document. Obviously this is a document which was not signed. The minimum required of a document is the fact that it at least indicate the sender. Neither the name or the address of the sender has been started here.

THE PRESIDENT: Pass the document to the Tribunal.

MISS JOHNSON: Your Honor, this document was found in the files of the Ministry for Eastern Territories. It was one of the documents that was found with documents which were submitted to Brack on cross-examination and which were apparently admissible at that time although, of course, the admissibility of those documents has not been determined for certain. It relates to the question of whether or not Brack received a certain letter dated November 1941, which he denied on examination that he received, and this is proof of the fact that the letter was sent.

DR. FROSCHMANN: Mr. President, may I state in that connection that in the document which was submitted to Brack during the cross-examination, no letter dated 11 November 1941 was mentioned? The letter which was submitted to Brack was dated the 25th of October 1941. Therefore no letter 11 November 1941 could have been attached?

MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal. This document purports to be an original German document, found by our forces in the overrunning of Germany. It is obvious from the contents thereof that it was around the November period of 1941. I assure you that we didn't manufacture it. It was found by the Allied Forces here in Germany. It is a German document and it has probative value here it is —

JUDGE SERBRING: What probative value does it have, Mr. Hardy, in its present form?

THE PRESIDENT: And against whom?

JUDGE SEBRING: And against whom and by whom?

MR. HARDY: It has the probative value that Miss Johnson just outlined to you and that is in that it refers to Oberdienstleiter Brack right in the document.

DR. FROSCHMANN: Mr. President, that may have been a draft. It may have been a copy. It need never have been sent. It is a document which lacks every trace of probative value and admissibility.

THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained. This document will not be admitted.

MR. HARDY: If your Honor please, would the situation change if the Prosecution could produce positive evidence where this document was obtained, from what file folder and in what ministry?

THE PRESIDENT: At most this simply refers to a letter sent to certain persons including the defendant Brack.

MR. HARDY: Well, inasmuch as I did not take the cross-examination of the defendant Brack I assume that the purpose of this document is to refute and rebut answers that the defendant Brack gave concerning his connection with the Reich Kommissar for the East and the Reich Kommissar.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course the Tribunal will reserve the ruling if counsel desires to examine the evidence in the case of defendant Brack. We can hear from counsel again Monday.

MISS JOHNSON: The next document appears on page 89 of the document book. It is NO-1874. It will be offered as Prosecution Exhibit 555.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, what number is the number of the document to which you are referring?

MISS JOHNSON: 1874. I beg your pardon, 1873.

THE PRESIDENT: Well there is one document on page 84 — Document No. 1234-PS.

MISS JOHNSON: Yes, your Honor. Yes. Coming to page 84 which is No. 1234-PS, which will be offered as Exhibit 555, we have here under date of 3 April 1942 a letter from the commandant of the Gross-Rosen Concentration Camp to the Reich Main Office of Economic Administration, stating that it has received a report, that is that the concentration camp has received a report that 127 prisoners have received special treatment on 2 April 1942. The prosecution contends that "special treatment" in this case is extermination or euthanasia as it is applied to concentration camps.

We come next to page 89 of the document book, which is NO —

THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel; Dr. Froschmann is waiting.

DR. FROSCHMANN: I merely wanted to ask the Prosecution against whom this document 1234-PS is directed? The document to be found on page 87 of the German document book dates back to 5 December, 1944, and I do not know against whom it is really directed.

MISS JOHNSON: Well, your Honor, this document is directed against all the defendants who have been charged with activities in connection with euthanasia.

DR. FROSCHMANN: Mr. President, I should like to reserve the right that I submit an affidavit in answer to document 1234-PS, and affidavit by the defendant Brack.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may submit an affidavit by defendant Brack if it is prepared and presented to the Tribunal promptly.

MISS JOHNSON: We come next to Page 89 of the document book.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, Page 35 is the next page on my document book.

MISS JOHNSON: I believe that runs through, that one document. I don't have any comment on the balance of NO 1234-PS. Let me see, we come to Page 89 of the document book, Document NO-1873, which will be offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 556. This is a notification from the concentration camp Gross-Rosen to the euthanasia extermination station, Bernburg, that seventy prisoners are being transferred from the concentration camp to the extermination center. This is under the date of 17 March, 1942. 1942 that is dated.

We come now to Page 93 of the document book, Document NO-2253, which is offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 557. We have here the affidavit of one Suchomel. He was in the Ministry of Justice during the Hitler regime, and he makes certain statements with respect to the euthanasia program. He states that the parents of children subjected to that program were not asked to give their consent, but rather that euthanasia was applied without any regard to the consent of the parents. He further states that foreigners and Jewish people were included in the program, and he makes special reference to the activities of the Defendants Brandt and Brack.

We come now to Page 99 of the document book, Document No-3059, which is offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 558. This is a document which has been before the Court before. At that time the defense objection to the document was sustained because the document did not contain a proper jurat. We have now obtained affidavit in proper form. The affidavit relates to the question of euthanasia in regard to children.

Your Honor, I see that I have made a mistake here in my comment on Document 3059. This an affidavit which is newly submitted to the Court. It has not been before the Court before. It is an affidavit of Hermann Boehm and has to do with euthanasia, the activity of Defendant Karl Brandt in that Program.

We come now to Page 102 of the document book, NO-896, which will be offered as Prosecution's Exhibit 559. This is the affidavit which was presented to the Court at an earlier stage and which was not admitted because it did not contain proper jurat. We have now had it prepared in the proper form. It relates to euthanasia concerning children.

The completes the presentation of rebuttal documents of the Prosecution.

MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, of course, the Prosecution has a few miscellaneous documents which they will put in rebuttal as they are processed next week. As you will recall I promised I would introduce interrogations of the Defendant Hoven, and those are now being processed. Those will be put in. Of course, we do have a few other miscellaneous documents. At this time the Prosecution does not have any further documents to submit to the Tribunal today.

THE PRESIDENT: There are a good many Prosecution documents for identification.

MR. HARDY: Those we have are now in the stage of being processed, and when we get them together we can introduce them in a more expeditious manner than if we attempt to hobble along here today. We are attempting to make an index of all documents which are marked for identification, and we perhaps can cover that problem in the matter of an hour or two. We will cover that next week.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will announce that it will not hold sessions on the 4th or 5th of July next week, unless some emergency arises which requires the Tribunal to change its mind. The Tribunal will now be in recess until nine thirty o'clock Monday morning.

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 Monday morning.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 30 June 1947 at 0930 hours.)