1947-07-03, #2: Doctors' Trial (late morning)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: I understand that the Schroeder documents have been delivered. Counsel for Schroeder may proceed.

DR. MARX (Counsel for Professor Doctor Schroeder): Your Honors, I begin with the submission of my documents for Professor Dr. Schroeder. The first document, which I have to offer, is Schroeder document No. 28 to which I give Exhibit No. 20. This is an opinion on the defendant Schroeder by Prelate Dr. Kreutz, apostolic protonotary at Freiburg/ Breisgau. The Tribunal will remember that I intended to submit this document, but it was not certified at that time. The certification has now been obtained. I ask that this document be admitted as Exhibit No. 20.

The next document is Schroeder No. 29. This is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Marx Meyer of the University Clinic for ear, nose and throat diseases at the University of Teheran, dated 28 April 1947. Professor Meyer sent this statement quite spontaneously and unsolicited, when he learned from the press that Professor Schroeder was a defendant in the Medical trial in Nurnberg. I should like to read some passages from this affidavit. This is paragraph 2:

In 1922 or 1923 I made the acquaintance of Dr. Oskar Schroeder by virtue of the fact that he was ordered as a medical officer to report for special training to the ear — nose and throat (larynx) clinic of Wuerzburg University, where I then held the position of a first assistant to and deputy of the doctor, Prof. Paul Manasse. Our common work continued until 1925 or 1926; I do not remember exactly which year it was after the lapse of so much time. After Herr Schroeder left Wuerzburg, our friendship continued unchanged until 1935 and even beyond this when I had to leave Germany on account of the racial laws.

And the first sentence of the next paragraph:

Even in 1939, during my wife's visit to relatives in Germany in the course of which she made many bad experiences with so-called former friends, Herr Schroeder and his wife tried to show their old friendship in every possible way.

Then I shall read all of the next paragraph because I think it is especially striking:

Naturally, the basis of every friendship is personal sympathy, besides this, however, respect of each other's personality must also be present, in order to ensure a friendship of long standing and it was just this respect of Herr Schroeder's personality, which I possessed to the highest degree. For his professional as well as his human qualities, he always appeared to me a man as he should be but whom I met only on rare occasions. Of an irreproachable personal integrity in his private as well as his professional conduct, he was already at that time not only well qualified as a physician, but moreover, showed a genuine concern for his sick and was ever ready to extend his help to the very poor. His feeling of comradeship toward his colleagues was beyond doubt and he met every one half way in the same comradely and open manner, regardless of racial and class prejudices with the result that he was held in high esteem at the clinic by those in high and low places, young and old, Christians or Jews. I know that Professor Hellman, who immigrated to Palestine (Haifa, Hadassah-Hospital) would gladly corroborate my statement.

I skip the next two paragraphs and I shall read from the second paragraph from the end:

Already at that time it was not quite safe for a man, even in a high official position, to profess his friendship to a non-Aryan or even to further his cause in any way. But this did not disturb Herr Schroeder, who at that time was an assistant to the Chief of the Medical Services of the Reichswehr [Reich Defense]. He proposed to his chief, Generalobersarzt (Lieutenant General, Medical Service) Professor Dr. Waldmann, to entrust me with the drawing up of a questionnaire concerning a certain throat disease, which at that time suddenly and frequently struck the Reichswehr; he presented me to his chief and I was given this assignment, which, however, due to my departure from Germany, was left unfinished, if I recollect correctly.

This affidavit of Professor Meyer of Teheran is a good picture of Professor Schroeder's character as a human being, as a doctor and as an officer of the medical corps. I offer this document as Exhibit No. 21.

DR. MARX: The next document is Schroeder No. 30. This is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Roessle, ordinary professor of the University of Berlin, director of the University Charite' Hospital of 2 May 1947. It describes the nature of the research assignments and also gives a picture of how the medical inspectorate dealt with these research assignments. It also discusses the financial aspect. Morever, it gives a brief statement as to Schroeder's and Becker-Freyseng's personality. I will assign Exhibit number 22 to this document.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, is that marked Exhibit 21 or 22? 22 is correct?

DR. MARX: 22 — 22. The next document is 31. This is an affidavit of Dr. med. Habil Fritz Roeder in Goettingen 9 May 1947. It also deals with the research assignments and research work and it presents a picture of how this matter was handled. It also comments on the research subsidies. I offer this document as Exhibit 23.

The next document is Document No. 32 which will be Exhibit 24. This is an affidavit of Professor Franz Vollhardt of Frankfurt on the Main and Dr. Edgar Hermann.

THE PRESIDENT: Apparently, counsel, we have not yet received that document in English.

DR. MARX: I am sorry, Mr. President. I didn't understand you. Does the Tribunal have the translation of this document?

THE PRESIDENT: No, we have not.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this is in a proper form. However, it is an affidavit of Dr. Franz Vollhardt who appeared here as a witness. I wonder what is the purpose of introducing this in behalf of the defendant Schroeder.

DR. MARX: As counsel for Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng, I intend to prove by submitting this document how the opinion of Professor Schroeder was formed and what material was available for him to base an opinion on these questions on. This is necessary because the prosecution has ex pressed certain doubts as to whether the material which Professor Vollhardt had was really in order.

Therefore, I should like to read the important passages from this affidavit.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, prosecution submits that Professor Vollhardt testified here at great length about his own experiments and he gave expert opinion concerning the material he had in the Beiglboeck experiments even though he was not aware of the fact that some of the figures had been altered and I could see no further reason of an affidavit concerning this matter. The whole testimony of Vollhardt came up, the whole proposition in its entirety.

DR. MARX: I am afraid I was not able to understand the translation. There must be something wrong with my ear phones. May I ask you to repeat it, Mr. Hardy?

MR. HARDY: I merely stated that I don't see the purpose of an affidavit inasmuch as —

THE INTERPRETER: Just a minute.

MR. HARDY: I state that I don't see the purpose of this affidavit inasmuch as the witness Vollhardt appeared here and was examined extensively by defense counsel. There is no necessity for further testimony. He has testified as to the experiments at Dachau and his knowledge of the reports and records and further testimony would be merely accumulative.

THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand counsel to say that this exhibit was offered on behalf of defendant Becker-Freyseng.

MR. HARDY: And Schroeder.

DR. MARX: Primarily for Professor Schroeder but also for Becker-Freyseng because it deals with the same subject; but if there are misgivings against that I shall offer it only for Professor Schroeder. It belongs in the Schroeder document book.

MR. HARDY: I object to the admission of it, your Honor.

DR. MARX: Your Honors, this is not testimony of Professor Vollhardt. This is clarification and explanation of what material Professor Vollhardt had available and what preparations he had made by his medical associate Dr. Hermann and what material was available to this Dr. Hermann.

If the prosecution says that they have no objection against the opinion of Professor Vollhardt being built on adequate foundation, then this document is perhaps not important. If that is not the case, however, then in the interests of an orderly conduct of my defense I consider it necessary to offer this document.

THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel been informed when the English translation of this document will probably be ready?

DR. MARX: Mr. President, I was informed by Captain Rice that this translation was being prepared and that it would be finished very soon. It would perhaps be advisable to wait until the translation is here.

THE PRESIDENT: Before passing on the objection of counsel for prosecution the Tribunal should be advised as to the statements made in the affidavit.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I don't need to see the English translation. I can readily see there, from looking at the German and the few words I know in German that this document here is just what I explained to the Tribunal that it is, and I object to it. If the Tribunal wishes to rule in its favor, he may put it in in this form.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hardy, that is not very much help to us, the fact that with your knowledge of the German language it appears to be not in good form. We haven't had the advantage of even seeing the German.

MR. HARDY: I didn't say it wasn't in good form. I state it is immaterial and the evidence has been heard from the witness on the stand and I don't see further reason for an affidavit of the witness that has appeared before this Tribunal.

DR. MARX: May I add something?

THE PRESIDENT: From the information given to counsel for defendant Schroeder it would seem probable that the affidavits would be available before very long.

DR. MARX: Yes, Mr. President.

MR. HARDY: If we are going to wait for the translation, I will withdraw my objection and let it be admitted.

THE PRESIDENT: In view of the withdrawal of the objection of counsel for prosecution, the affidavit will be admitted and received in evidence as Schroeder Exhibit 24.

DR. MARX: Schroeder Exhibit 24. The next document is Document No. 33 which will be Exhibit No. 25. This is a report by Dr. Med. Hermann about the experiments performed by Professor Vollhardt in his own clinic in Frankfurt on the Main. There were four doctors and one senior medical student who subjected themselves to these experiments. The Tribunal will remember that the defense was asked to submit this report to the Tribunal. I must assume that this has not been translated yet.

I should like to read some pages from, this report, only a few sentences which the interpreters will be able to translate:

Summary Report about Seawater Experiments at the Medical University Clinic at Frankfurt on the Main.

The seawater experiment, 500 cc. of seawater daily and 1,600 calories daily, was carried out carefully with regular urine and blood checks. The experimental subjects: 4 doctors and 1 medical student continued to work in their laboratories from 8:00 in the morning until 1900 hours in the evening and later.

Then on page 2, the heading Subjective Findings:

During the first two days of the experiment psychic changes were not observed with the exception of thirst which slowly increased. On the third day the individuals, according to on their temperament, varied in their conduct. Vitality and depression were contrasted. Some were talkative, while others withdrew since it was unpleasant to them to talk. On the fourth day these symptoms could be especially easily seen.

Then the next paragraph:

During the night from the fourth to the fifth day sleep was interrupted by vivid dreams. Some people indicated their dreams by cries and restless movements. On the fifth day there was a certain exhaustion with all the subjects. Movements were slow because of the dryness of the mucous membranes; only very little was spoken. But also the thought process was somewhat slowed down and concentrating ability was consequently reduced. The fifth experimental subject ended the experiment after 6 x 24 hours. In this case there was general fatigue; thirst had not increased to any considerable extent but was very unpleasant and monopolized the thoughts. During the whole course of the experiment there was not the slightest sign of any psychotic changes. In the cases of all experimental subjects, after drinking a slight amount of fluid, two cups of tea, there was immediate feeling of well-being. The average loss of weight was approximately one kilogram daily. After two days this was compensated for again. There were no after effects. Efficiency remained unchanged.

THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for the prosecution examined the form of this affidavit?

The journal is not in the English language.

MR. HARDY: No objection to it.

THE PRESIDENT: That is Schroeder Document No. 33.

MR. HARDY: Exhibit No. 25.

DR. MARX: The next document and the last document which I have to offer is document 34. This is an affidavit of the Chief Nurse Karin Huppertz, Berlin-Nicolassee. During the course of examination of Professor Haagen it was alleged or rather the prosecution expressed the possibility that on the 25th of May, 1944, Haagen together with Professor Schroeder went to Natzweiler because the document said that Professor Haagen together with S. Now, with this affidavit of Chief Nurse Huppertz I want to prove that Professor Schroeder on the 25th of May, 1944, could not have possibly been in Natzweiler. The affidavit of the Nurse Huppertz reads:

It is very brief, Mr. President, and I should like permission to read it:

Nurnberg, 30 June 1947. Affidavit. I, Chief Nurse Karin Huppertz have been warned that I will be subject to punishment if I make a false affidavit. I am informed that this affidavit is intended to be used as evidence before American Military Tribunal 1 in Nurnberg. I can testify with certainty that Professor Schroeder, on the 23th of May 1944, came in from Strasbourg, arrived in the Evening, at 8:00 at Karlsruhe and left again for Berlin on the 25th of May 1944 in the evening. In the meantime he stayed in the house of my sister Mrs. Hella Kux in Karlsruhe, Folkestrasse 1; now Moltkestrass 27. I can remember this fact so definitely because the reasons for his interrupting the trip was a birthday celebration in my family which was on the 24th of May. Professor Schroeder continued his trip to Berlin, on the 25th of May 1944 in evening in the sleeper. My sister and I took him to the train.

Chief Nurse Karin Huppertz, signed by myself, because the signature was given before me. I ask that this document be admitted as Exhibit No. 26.

THE PRESIDENT: Has prosecution examined the form of this document?

MR. HARDY: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Let the document be admitted.

DR. MARX: Mr. President, I have completed the documents which I had to offer for Schroeder.

THE PRESIDENT: I enquired a short time ago if any other defense counsel had any document to offer and there was none then. Are there any now? Apparently there are none. I would ask counsel for defendant Mrugowsky if he has received a certified copy of the record of trial in the Pohl case? I understood that had not been received.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I gave this certified copy of the proceedings of the Pohl case to the Secretary General.

THE PRESIDENT: It has not yet been returned. That document was received before with the proper certificate, certificate of the extract of the testimony before the International Military Tribunal and it has not been received. Is that correct, counsel?

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, defense counsel, in that particular document, wasn't introducing an extract of the International Military Tribunal, but introducing a document used before the IMT, as a document certified by Mr. Vorwerk, Chief of the Document Center. My suggestion was merely that in lieu of sending to the Translation Section he could have taken the record of the IMT and save the translation proper.

THE PRESIDENT: I understood counsel but that document has not been returned to counsel in any form.

DR. FLEMMING: I asked for the record, at one time but can't remember at the moment through what channels I received it from in the mimeographing section. Then I took out the pages which were important for my case and I crossed out the contents that did not interest me in order to make the work of the Tribunal easier and I put these pages into the document book and gave it to the defense center asking for a certification and the certification is in the hands of the Tribunal.

THE PRESIDENT: Is the certification in order?

MR. HARDY: As I stated, the document is an original document and certified by the Clerk in charge of the document center for IMT and the only problem now is the translation of that document and Dr. Flemming has sent the document of four pages to the Translation Division to be translated and as I explained it was unnecessary because the translation already exists from the IMT records and he could get the page that was introduced before the IMT and insert that and we would have the translation.

THE PRESIDENT: The original document of the certification for the Secretary of the IMT is now on file and translation can be furnished from one source or another in due time. I understand then there are no further matters for defense to be brought to the attention of the Tribunal? Counsel for defendant Karl Brandt is not present. I wonder if his documentation is complete?

DR. FRITZ: Mr. President, Dr. Servatius is in his office. I saw him a little while ago.

MR. PRESIDENT: Will you be kind enough, counsel, to call him and ask him if there is anything he would like to call to the attention of the Tribunal.

MR. HARDY: Yes, immediately.

THE PRESIDENT: I requested defense counsel to advise me if any defense counsel has further documents and receiving no answer I assume there are none.

DR. VORWERK: Mr. President, I am empowered in the name of Dr. Servatius for the defendant Brandt to say there are no more documents to be offered in this case.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel. Nothing further to be offered by any defense counsel, the prosecution may proceed.

MR. HARDY: The prosecution is prepared to proceed if the defense counsel got the rebuttal books.

THE PRESIDENT: Have defense counsel the English rebuttal document books? If not will the defense advise the Tribunal. Are books available to each defense counsel?

MR. HARDY: This is prosecution document Book No. 19 which is the second rebuttal document book. We turn to page 1 which is document 654-PS which will be offered as Prosecution Exhibit No. 562. This document, your Honors, contains a discussion with the Reichfuehrer SS Himmler and his field headquarters in the presence of State Secretary Dr. Rothenberger SS Gruppenfuehrer [General] and SS-Obersturmbannfuehrer [Lieutenant Colonel] Bender. This document shows the connections between the Reichfuehrer-SS and Ministry of Justice there is a discussion which enlightens us on the connection between those organizations and proposals and regulations concerning a legal status and the treatment of Poles and Russians particularly.

The next document, Your Honors, is document NG-715 which is the entire document book No. 2 which was used in the Justice case, which are extracts from the Justice case containing laws and decrees imposed by Germany in the occupied territories. I have not given German copies of this to Defense counsel inasmuch as German copies were never prepared or introduced in the Justice matter.

The Reichsgesetzblatt [Reich Law Gazette] is the official law of Germany and is available in every German Library and the OCC Library. The extracts and indexes are available to defense counsel and they can look up important sections. These are merely made available to the Tribunal to determine what laws governed in Germany during their occupation and particularly the status of inmates of concentration camps. The Tribunal should be interested in knowing just what laws will be applicable to the Russians, Poles, Czhechoslavakians, and Hungarians and the purpose of these documents is to show the Tribunal what laws they were subjected to and in what manner they could be duly incarcerated in concentration camps, etc. I think my colleague Dr. Seidl has an objection.

DR. SEIDL: Mr. President, I object to the admission of the document which is NG 715. This is nothing but an index of a document book in the lawyer's case in one of these Tribunals. If one looks at this index which merely contains headings of laws one sees that document NG 715, which is called a document, is really the constitution, the so-called Weimar Constitution of the German Reich. Apparently this was offered in the Justice case. I am of the opinion that an index of a document book which gives only the headings of documents cannot be offered as evidence in another trial since it has no probative value. I therefore take the position that this document can not be admitted in evidence.

MR. HARDY: And for the convenience of the court.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the document consists of approximately 66 pages, and seems to me more than an index. But in any event the document is probably admissable for the Tribunal for its use but it appears to more than an index.

MR. HARDY: The situation is that I have not supplied German copies inasmuch as the Reichsgesetzblatt is the official law in Germany and I supplied them with an index so they could check the reference and they have the reference of each English extract before you.

DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, you just said the document had more than 60 pages and was more than an index. I believe that is a mistake.

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel just explained that. Counsel for the prosecution explained that he had furnished German counsel with an index of the laws which are printed in our English document book. German counsel then by the use of the index may easily find in the Library here in the Palace of Justice the laws which are referred to in the index. Objection is over-ruled. Document is received in evidence.

MR. HARDY: This document is NG 715, offered as Prosecution Exhibit 563. The next two documents are transcripts of interrogations of the defendant Hoven which were done by myself which I promised on this occasion — I will have to wait until defense counsel puts on his ear phones so he will hear my presentation before he enters his objection. These two documents are the transcripts of the interrogation of the defendant Hoven which I promised to introduce in rebuttal inasmuch as I used them in the course of my cross-examination of the defendant Hoven. The defendant Hoven at that time substantially substantiated this interrogation with his affirmative answers to my questions concerning the interrogations. I submit them now to show the Tribunal that these answers coincide with the affidavit which was executed by the defendant Hoven and that when the defendant Hoven was executing said affidavit he had ample opportunity to read it; in face these interrogations will indicate to the Tribunal that I read to him passage for passage right straight through the affidavits; they were returned on the next day, which was the second document and had him sign it after reading it again and having a draft up of the first day corrected by him, and a final copy brought back the next day. He signed it and then at the same time also made corrections and initialed each page.

All these incidents are outlined in this interrogation and will substantiate the affidavit at issue here. I submit these documents No. 4068 and No. 4069 as Prosecution Exhibits 564 and 565 respectively.

DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I object. First of all for a formal reason, because the documents were not submitted 24 hours beforehand according to the ruling of the Tribunal. In view of the great length of these two documents it is not possible for me to examine them carefully in the short time. I just got them a few minutes ago and it is impossible to find out whether they are in order. The Prosecution had these documents since last October. Since January I have been objecting to the affidavit because Dr. Hoven does not understand English and I said I objected to the affidavit for that reason. The Prosecution could have offered these documents earlier. In any case they could have given me the German translation yesterday so I could examine it. In this short time, these few minutes, I am in no position to examine the documents and make objections. Furthermore, there is no indication that they are complete records. If these records are offered then I demand a complete record of all interrogations of Dr. Hoven be offered in evidence. I should like to remark that so far I have not seen the original at all. I must assume that the prosecution is offering these documents of the last day just in order to prevent my making objection.

MR. HARDY: No, Your Honor, the Prosecution is only introducing them to authenticate the affidavit and inasmuch as I have heard the remarks of defense counsel, he then has no further objection to the affidavit which is executed by Hoven and admitted into evidence and the Tribunal doesn't deem it necessary to certify to the fact that Hoven doesn't understand English; that is not the purpose to put them in; the only purpose is to show the Tribunal that the defendant was fully aware of the English language and understood what I talked about during the interrogation and defense counsel's 24 hour ruling applicable at this time is true, but certainly I have waived the 24 hour rule for the past four days because I haven't seen some of the documents of defense counsel yet.

THE PRESIDENT: Objection by counsel for Hoven is over-ruled and the documents arc received in evidence, if the certificate is in proper form.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor will find the certificate on the last page of each interrogation.

MR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal to several pages in this document, should I do that now or after the prosecution is finished?

MR. HARDY: That can be done in the argument, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: That would be a matter for counsel to bring forth in his argument. If he desires to bring any argument in his brief or in oral argument he may call attention to these documents.

MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, during the course of the cross-examination of the witness Horn, who appeared here in behalf of the defendant Hoven, I asked him certain questions concerning the corruptness of the defendant Hoven. Horn at that time said defendant Hoven was not corrupt, etc, I believe the Tribunal will recall his testimony. Fortunately, a few days ago in examining my files I ran across an affidavit of Horn which was taken in 1945, immediately after the liberation of the Buchenwald concentration camp. This is document No. 4051 which I offer as Prosecution Exhibit No. 566 to rebut the testimony of the witness Horn on the witness stand in that this document which is an affidavit by the witness Horn of the 24 of April 1945, he states in the fourth paragraph—

THE PRESIDENT: Horn was a defense witness?

MR. HARDY: Yes sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Is that the same Horn as was a defense witness?

MR. HARDY: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: I notice in the index the affidavit is dated 1946.

MR. HARDY: The date should be changed to 1945. Your Honor, in the index.

Wherein he states in the paragraph beginning "As a surgeon he came to Buchenwald—" which is a little above the middle of the first page. He states within that paragraph, and I quote:

At that time Dr. Hoven was regarded as a great murderer of prisoners, but I was taken out of the quarry by him and put into the hospital as a sick. He made this concession to the governing prisoners clique. Why? He was very corrupt and the prisoners knew it. They corrupted him in every possible manner; furniture, underwear, food.

Then the affidavit continues. We offer that in rebuttal to the witness Horn's testimony.

THE PRESIDENT: We will hear from counsel for defendant Hoven, if he so desires.

MR. HARDY: And the original affidavit has a picture of the witness Horn on it taken at the time of the execution of the affidavit, which Your Honor can see is the same witness as appeared before this Tribunal.

This affidavit, the translation is sworn to, executed and sworn to at Buchenwald, Weimar, Germany, the 24th day of April 1945, by Raymond Givens, Lt. Col., U.S. Army.

DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I object to this affidavit. This is not the original affidavit. It is a translation as I see here.

MR. HARDY: That is right, Your Honor. It is a translation.

DR. GAWLIK: It is translated from German into English. In my German document book there is a notation which I do not find in the English. In the German document book it says, the note of the translator:

The above translation was prepared from an original written in poor English. No responsibility taken for interpretation.

The translation from the original text which Horn gave — Horn gave the affidavit in German and it was translated into English, and according to the translator's note here the translation was so poor that this translator refused to take any responsibility.

I must say I wondered very much at not finding this notation on your English document book, Mr. President. I am therefore of the opinion that this affidavit has no probative value at all, and we can't tell what Horn actually said.

MR. HARDY: This document is a translation of the original German document done by the War Crimes Group. They kept the original German and sent us the translation. It is sworn to — the translation — and is signed with the oath of the translator when it was taken. As far as the note of the translator in this department that is simply for defense counsel. If we didn't have that note, we wouldn't have noticed that it wasn't the original. It wasn't the original German, Your Honor; that is the purpose of it.

DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, the affidavit does not indicate that this American officer was competent to take an oath.

MR. HARDY: He is a lieutenant colonel in the United States Army, Your Honor, Raymond Givens, the investigating officer that investigated Buchenwald and took these depositions from all the inmates.

THE PRESIDENT: I do not find the note referred to by counsel for defendant Hoven concerning the translation.

MR. HARDY: That note, Your Honor, is put on in order to have the document book complete. This English translation was originally translated back into German for defense counsel's document book. The people who translated that back into German made a note because it wasn't up to the standard they usually put out translations, and they wanted it understood that they were not responsible for this translation made in 1945. That note on the German translation they made was put there for defense counsel.

DR. GAWLIK: Could that be repeated? I don't understand it. The notation reads as follows, Mr. President. It is in my document book, page 58, the translator's note:

The above translation was prepared from an original written in poor English. No responsibility taken for interpretations.

Then the initials "G.G."

MR. HARDY: The initials "G.G." refer to George C. Grant on the certificate of translation and were put on in this department downstairs.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands. I am not sure the defendant Hoven does. Would you please make the explanation again, counsel, for the defense?

MR. HARDY: I am showing you this document in English, which shows in English the translator of the document does not want to be responsible for this English, that he did not translate it and it was in poor English and that accounts for the translation being was it is.

I am sure Dr. Pelckmann has something to say in this matter. I wish he would come and address the Court and we could clarify the matter immediately.

DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, Horn made this statement in German and what you have before you is not the original. The original was in German. It was translated into English, and from this statement of this translator here I see that it is poor English and that this translator does not want to take the responsibility for the interpretation, and there is not proof that what you have in English, Mr. President, is actually a true translation of what Horn said. The prosecution should offer the original text, but that don't give us a translation which a translator here says is poor. You don't have Horn's statement, Mr. President.

THE PRESIDENT: Was there any original text of this affidavit in German, counsel?

MR. HARDY: I haven't seen it. I understand that this translation was sent to me certified by the War Crimes Investigating Team. They sent us a bunch of material they secured when investigating the camp. They keep the original German with their reports and I imagine it is on file in Washington, D.C. It would be impossible for me to find it. This is a translation duly certified by an officer of the U.S. Army. It is not for the translator here to be responsible for it. The lieutenant colonel said he is responsible for it and has sworn him in for the translation.

THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence. The matter referred to by counsel refers to the probative value to be given to the document, not to the document itself. Counsel is at liberty to call attention to this document in his brief on his argument. The Tribunal will consider them and give to the document such probative value as it deems it's entitled to have.

It will be received in evidence Document NO-4051 as Prosecution Exhibit 566.

DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I am asking this remark be put in the English document book, too.

MR. HARDY: It is not a part of the English document.

THE PRESIDENT: It is not a part of the English document. The Tribunal has ruled. That is the end of this matter.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the next document is NO-3060 which is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 567. The last exhibit, the affidavit of Horn, was Prosecution Exhibit 566. Your Honor, if you will turn to page 118 of your Document Book you will find a certificate here from Councillor of the District Court wherein the witness Mennecke was tried and sentenced to death. And these photos, as stated in the affidavit, are photos which were found according to the Eichberg case among the possessions of Dr. Mennecke. They are in the envelope, the original photos, and they are marked "criminal photos, Concentration Camp Buchenwald, 25 November 1941".

These photos have been inscribed on the reverse side obviously by Dr. Mennecke. Dr. Mennecke admitted this at his trial. On these photos, as well as the original envelope are inscribed "criminal photos, Concentration Camp Buchenwald, 25 November to 5 December 1941." They were produced in court in Dr. Mennecke's case which is called the Eichberg case. According to Mennecke's statements during his case the persons shown are inmates of the concentration camp for whom he was making out registration forms. According to his statements in the same trial the date of the envelope is the date of one of his visits to Buchenwald for the purpose of making out these registration forms. They are signed and notarized in due form.

You will note that the next page of this document gives the names of particular persons and there are the translation of the inscribed words on the back of each picture:

hoarded immense amounts of food and what charges are against them.

Also in the Document 3060, you will note throughout that race defilement, anti-German agitation, Easter Jews, etc., are mentioned. If your Honor should care to see these photos I will pass them up to you.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will examine the photographs.

MR. HARDY: Then there is a description of the photos and the Councillor of the Court's affidavit attached to them.

This list that is attached to the Councillor's affidavit consists of 8 pages and gives 63 names with detail, and corresponds to the 63 inclosed photos which according to documents in the Eichberg case were found among the possessions of Dr. Mennecke.

These details given in the affidavit and the enclosed translation in your Honor's Document Book are copied from the inscriptions on the back of the original photographs. You will note the nationalities of some of the particular subjects, there is one an attorney from Prague, and several others.

THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be received in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit 567.

JUDGE SEBRING: Mr. Hardy, may I inquire whether or not those exhibits 3060 and 3436 are to be offered as Prosecution Rebuttal Exhibits 567 and 568.

MR. HARDY: I am going to give 2436 number 568 as the document which runs with the other document actually. I am turning to that now, your Honor. This is document No. 2436 which is found on page 130 of your Honor's Document Book. I will mark it as Exhibit 568. This is an extract from the Mennecke trial and is duly certified by the Landgerichtsrat and the contents are obvious — I won't bother to read them, they verify the photographs which are introduced in the other document.

Now, if your Honors please, I have in the last page of this document book a loose document. Do you have that? Your Honor, this won't be offered as Prosecution Exhibit. This is really an addition to Beigleboeck Exhibit 34 which are the charts. We find on the back of chart A-29 some words written in German language in the handwriting of the defendant which I think are worthy of translation to be called to the attention of the Tribunal. On the back of chart No. A-29 there are German words therein. You will notice on line 19 there has been an erasure and this erasure, beginning on line 19 one inch from the left margin and extends three and three quarters inches.

In line 24 there was also an erasure beginning 1½ inch from the left margin and extending 3 inches. And it appears —

THE PRESIDENT: I note counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck is not present.

MR. HARDY: Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck is being represented by Dr. Hoffmann who was appointed deputy for Steinbauer in the absence of Steinbauer.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will note that Hoffman represents Beiglboeck.

MR. HARDY: Line 19 which was erased was somnolence. The erasure in line 24 cannot be read. It is impossible to diagnose what it is. I want to introduce this translation of this particular graph for the Tribunal which is contained here and marked translation of Beiglboeck Document Exhibit 24, transcription of the long hand notes on the back of chart A 29 and the symptoms of the subject are noted therein and in the places where the erasures were done we have blank lines.

THE PRESIDENT: I notice your document which you refer to is 34, not 24.

MR. HARDY: 34 is what I said, your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: I understood you 24.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, also attached to this as part of Exhibit 34, is restoration of the original stenographic notes on the back of page C-23. You will recall Prosecution presented you with a translation of the notes, and this is the restoration given by Beiglboeck when on cross examination. For the convenience of the Tribunal we now offer restoration of the stenographic notes as they appeared after alteration.

DR. HOFFMANN (Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): Mr. President, I should merely like to reserve the right to see the original of A 29 so that the defendant Beiglboeck can comment in his closing brief on this affidavit in connection with what Prosecution has now said.

MR. HARDY: I explained to defense counsel that he could have a representative of the Secretary General's office appear with him in an interrogation and the document could be presented to Beiglboeck at any time he requests the use of them.

THE PRESIDENT: That procedure will be followed.

MR. HARDY: If your Honor pleases, I have one —

THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, it seems that this document should be identified in some way. While it may not be properly an exhibit I think better way is to mark it as an exhibit and then it will have a status as a supplement —

MR. HARDY: I can very conveniently mark it Prosecution Exhibit 569.

THE PRESIDENT: That is better way. Then it is formally part of the record and can be referred to.

MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have one last document that I will distribute at this time. Sorry, your Honor, I will have to ask you to recess until 1:30. The German copies seem to be confused. They have left a copy of the German out which I shall refer to. I will have to check on it.

THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will now he in recess until 1:30 o'clock.