MR. HARDY: If your Honor please, I am unable to do that because of the lack of knowledge of German. However, before doing that, we have nothing before the Tribunal to indicate the authenticity of this document, where it came from what it purports to be. The prosecution doubts what it is, and according to the regulations of the Tribunal the manner in which documents should be submitted here, if they are German original documents, they should be properly authenticated with a descriptive certificate, if necessary. This document is clearly inadmissible in evidence in this form.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, was there any direct testimony concerning this book? I have a recollection of some time book having been referred to by someone. May bo this might be another one.
MR. HARDY: It was referred to in defendant Ruff's examination, but he had never seen the book before, Your Honor. This a book of an entirely different person.
THE PRESIDENT: I wasn't sure what the testimony was, but I remembered something. It was the testimony of the defendant Ruff.
DR. SAUTER: This is exactly the same book. I put it to the witness at that time, and at that time asked the prosecuting attorney to assure himself of the authenticity of it, and at that time again he said that he didn't know enough German to do so. That is, however, not necessary because whether I talk German or English makes no difference. Anybody cam see whether the book was actually written at that time or whether it was just made up lately.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, that isn't the purpose of my objection. At the time this was used in the defendant Ruff's examination it wasn't offered in evidence. At that time it wasn't appropriate for the prosecution to object, but at this time it is being offered. I am not objecting to it as being in the German language; I am objecting to the document as it is not properly authenticated. I don't know but what this might be a book of some workman working in some other institute.
There is no way to -
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any affidavit by the foreman Fohlmeister?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, of course, there is. That's the next document I am going to put in. Perhaps discussion of this book, exhibit #31; can be postponed until that affidavit has been brought to the attention of the Tribunal. Perhaps then the prosecutor will adopt a different point of view.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Consideration of this exhibit will be delayed.
DR. SAUTER: I turn now to my next document. This is in supplemental document book number 7.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal has not received that document book.
DR. SAUTER: I know that, your Honors. This affidavit is dated 11 June 1947 and. I received it only f our days ago. Three days ago I sent the copies in for translation with a request for a rapid translation but, of course, it hasn't been translated yet. I ask permission to be able to tell you the contents of this affidavit. That will then conclude the complete presentation of my defense and will give me -
THE PRESIDENT: Supplemental Document Book 7 contains merely one affidavit?
DR. SAUTER: That is so, yes, an affidavit by this chap, Fohlmeister, the man who kept this work record for years on end, in his affidavit, testifies to the authenticity of this work book so that you will then be in a position to rule on the admissibility of that book.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the original affidavit then is present in Nurnberg in some office being translated?
DR. SAUTER: I have the German original here. Copies of it are in the translating branch.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that can now be considered. We can consider the offer of that exhibit at this time.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I might inquire as to the fifth paragraph of this document. Whose handwriting is this in the light blue ink? It is a different handwriting that the signature of the affiant.
DR. SAUTER: That is different ink, but the handwriting is the same, Both handwritings are those of Fohlmeister who, at the end of paragraph 5, signed the affidavit and the whole thing is certified by a notary public in the District of the Kammergericht Berlin, Kurt Werner Hein, so the prosecutor will not be in a position to state that this hadwritten addition which is paragraph 5 is not identical with the handwriting of the rest of the document.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary will pass the original affidavit to the Tribunal for examination.
MR. HARDY: I might note, Your Honor, that the light blue ink is put in apparently after the notary or after the affiant or either before, because the affiant's signature and the notary's signature are in the same color ink. Your Honor, I withdraw my objection to the note book if this affidavit is admissible in evidence as such. It is properly authenticated. I was merely questioning concerning paragraph number 5. However, I do suggest that the work book be given to the court interpreter and ask him to interpret these words written in German for me please.
DR. SAUTER: You have the translation as document -
THE PRESIDENT: Concerning this exhibit and the reference by counsel for the prosecution to the fact that paragraph 5 is written in a different color ink, the Tribunal has examined the original affidavit. The signature of the affiant Fohlmeister appears below four lines of hanwriting in a different color ink, but that signature of the affiant is in the same color ink that the signature of the affiant is written.
Now, if the addition in the lighter colored ink, light blue ink, had not been written prior to the signature of the affiant on page 2 of the affidavit, it would be a very curious coincidence that the affiant had signed far enough below the last line of typewriting to allow just those four lines in ink to have been written in afterwards.
Prima facie the affidavit appears to be perfectly regular in form. Unless counsel for the prosecution desires the affidavit to be read into the record by the interpreter -
MR. HARDY: Obviously the light blue ink is in the same handwriting as the affiant, but the typewritten line above the light blue ink ends the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: The mere question is whether these four lines in ink were written before the affidavit was made. The affiant may well have added something to the affidavit before it was sworn to, even though the form of the typewriting apparently concludes the affidavit.
MR. HARDY: But I am talking about the sentence before the ink, as a concluding sentence to an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that, but still there is nothing to prevent an affiant from adding a paragraph after the typewriting if he adds it before he swears to it before the notary.
MR. HARDY: If those circumstances are true, that is correct, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: And the position of the signature of the affiant on page 2 of the affidavit indicates that the ink was written before he signed it, and that signature being written in the same ink which he signed the affidavit, apparently before the notary. The affidavit may be admitted, and I take it, counsel for the prosecution, this removes your objection to the other exhibit, the extract from the time book?
MR. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, let me say the following regarding this last affidavit. I wrote first of all to Fohlmeister to have him certify the entry in the work record, and those are the points that Fohlmeister first takes up in his affidavit. Then in a second letter I asked Fohlmeister whether he knew why the witness Matthes went to Cologne. Then, in answer to this last question, Fohlmeister put down his number 5 in this affidavit and if the first four are typewritten and the last, namely, number 5 is in ink, the explanation of that is that the inquiry that led to number 5 came much later than the inquiry that led to the first four paragraphs.
Now, Mr. President -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is satisfied. Ruff's Document Number 32 contained in his supplemental document book 6 is admitted as Ruff Exhibit 31. The affidavit of Karl Fohlmeister which has been examined by the Tribunal, and which I assume would be Ruff Document 33, is admitted in evidence as Ruff Exhibit 32. The translation, of course, will be filed when it is ready.
DR. SAUTER: Then I may take the original of this work record with me and return it to Herr Fohlmeister. I am quite willing to leave it with Mr. Hardy, for a few days if he wishes but I ask then that it be returned.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the prosecution desire to examine the document? The prosecution may keep it for a few days if you desire.
MR. HARDY: I will have one of my analysts look it over, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel.
DR. SAUTER: That concludes my defense of the defendant Ruff.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal notes that the counsel for the defendant Ruff has concluded his defense.
MR. HARDY: I suggest, your Honor, that when Dr. Sauter gets his work book returned to him that he make extracts of the two entries and have them certified and file them as an exhibit so that the Secretary General's office will have an index file for that particular exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Counsel for defendant Ruff will comply with the suggestion made by the prosecution.
DR. SAUTER: They are already in. They have already been put in as a document.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand, but does counsel for the prosecution desire a photostat made of those two entries?
MR. HARDY: It is my understanding that the Secretary General does not have an exhibit folder as such with that number as it is not an exhibit until he has a folder with the exhibit in it.
THE PRESIDENT: The formal original exhibit must be prepared.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. Hardy has the document, so how can I give it to the Secretary General?
MR. HARDY: I thought I made myself very clear that when I returned the document to him, it will bo necessary for him to make extracts of the two entries, have them certified to be correct and true extracts of the entries in the document, typed on to a piece of paper, put in to a folder and given an exhibit number, and turned over to the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: For the record before the Tribunal, for the copy of that exhibit in the document book, it would appear that that has already been done. Of course, whether it has or not we arc not advised but the record is complete before the Tribunal.
DR. SAUTER: Of course, that was all taken care of long ago.
MR. HARDY: The Secretary General docs not have a folder marked Exhibit 31.
DR. SAUTER: The best thing to do would be for the prosecutor to take a photostatic copy of this book and give the original back and then everything would be all right.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit, Document 32, as it appears, Ruff supplement 38, on page 111, purports to bo a copy of these memoranda. It bears on the face of the paper: "I herewith certify that this is a correct copy of the extract of the original before me, Nuernberg, 12 June 1947. (Signature) Dr. Sauter."
MR. HARDY: That will be necessary for Dr. Sauter to take one of those mimeographed copies and sign it and put it in the Secretary General's office. I am taking the position of the Secretary General, not the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is correct. If no original to that certificate has been filed with the Secretary General, counsel for the prosecution is correct, that should be done.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Sauter, will you please turn to Document Book for Ruff, Supplement #6, Document 32, as it appears in your document book?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, I have it.
JUDGE SEBRING: Let's see it. Hold it up, please. Now, where, Sir, is the original paper that was signed by you on this exhibit?
DR. SAUTER: At the moment I cannot tell you. I assume that it has been turned in somewhere.
The document itself is here in the possession of the prosecution. The original of the document is now in the possession of the prosecution.
JUDGE SEBRING: I mean the certificate that you made and put your name to, the copy of which now appears in the document book.
DR. SAUTER: This is always given to the Secretary General with the request for translation and that is the document that has my original signature. I give this document to the Secretary General with the request for translation.
JUDGE SEBRING: And such a document was given to tho Secretary General and it was from that that this multigraphed copy was made?
DR. SAUTER: Of course, with four copies; but if this seems so important I can again put the thing in with my personal signature. I am only too happy to do so, should that seem expedient.
JUDGE SEBRING: The only question is, Doctor, that, according to the secretary of this Tribunal that original document bearing your signature docs not seem to be with the Secretary General. It would be a very simple matter for you to sign another copy and hand it to the Secretary General because his record must be complete. That is the only difference.
DR. SAUTER: I shall only be too happy to do so.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, Secretary General, Major Hatfield tells me he has seven exhibits missing of the documents introduced this morning. He does not have seven exhibits in his files.
THE PRESIDENT: During the morning recess which I think we will take now before we open another case, investigation can be made at the office of the Secretary General to find cut if those original documents are there.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the original documents have no occasion to be there. When prosecution or defense counsel introduces a document they carry the original document or certified copy with them to the Tribunal at the time of introducing the document, affidavit or German original document the documents are merely for the convenience of Tribunal and for the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand but I thought these documents were made for the office of the Secretary General, that those are for the translation division.
MR. HARDY: I never have given the major here his copies for the true exhibits.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibits must be filed, of course, During this morning recess investigation can be made as to where or not the exhibits are there because these original must be filed with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal will now be in recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel.
DR. WEISGERBER (Representing Dr. Kaufmann, defense counsel for the defendant Rudolf Brandt): Mr. President, I have 7 supplemental documents to offer. The first is Rudolf Brandt Document #15, which will receive Exhibit number 15. This is an affidavit signed by a certain Sepp Tiefenbacher, who lived with Rudolf Brandt for many years and has much to say from his knowledge, about the manner in which Rudolf Brandt worked and lived. This affidavit bears the date of 2 April 1947. I should like to read the third paragraph I quote:
"Dr. Brandt's activities are frequently overrated, owing to ignorance of the organizational structure of the SS. Brandt took down dictation from Himmler or gave it from Himmler's brief instructions. Beyond these activities he hardly exerted any influence. The clearest proof of this is the Brandt main division Hauptabteilung. It was so understaffed that it had difficulties in coping merely with the clerical work and did not posses the technical organization required to cope with Himmler's extensive field of activities. Consequently, Dr. Brandi lacked all the prequisites for assuming the role of an adviser." I slip the next part of this affidavit, and I should like to quote again on page 2 of this document; reading the last 2 sentences of the second from last paragraph, I quote:
"He has never secured or attempted to secure an advantage for himself on the basis of his official position. His widely known readiness to help others arose from His sincere and kind heart, and remained unimpaired, even when his lack of knowledge of human nature caused him various disappointments."
I ask the Tribunal to take notice of the rest of this affidavit. This document has been signed and certified in the proper manner.
The next document is Rudolf Brandt No. 16 and will also have the Exhibit number 16. This is an affidavit signed by the judge of the local court (Amtsgerichtsrat) Gerhard Herrgesell, who know Dr. Rudolf Brandt from his early school days, having gone to school with him.
It throws nuch light on ay client's personality, when somebody who has lived with hin for many years testifies about his character. I should like to quote the third paragraph of that affidavit. I quote:
"I have always seen in Dr. Rudolf Brandt, as a school boy and a student, a model of industry, cleanliness and innate decorun. Through his industry he reached the highest speed in stenography when a nore school boy. As far as I remember, he had a speed of 360 syllables a minute at a schoolboys' test in the autumn of 1927 and achieved speeds of more than 300 syllables a minute in a great number of tests up to the year of 1933. Since I attained such speed in shorthand myself, I know what long, untiring industry and also what a temporate way of line is necessary in order to achieve such results. On account of his parents' simple circumstances, Dr. Rudolf Brandt led a particularly modest life during his school days and student days. This moderation enabled him to pay for all his studies out of his own earnings."
I ask the Tribunal to take notice of the rest of this affidavit. This document has been signed and certified in the proper manner.
The next affidavit which I am going to submit is Document Rudolf Brandt No. 17. It is an affidavit signed by Dr. Wilhelm Stuckart, a former State Secretary in the Reich Ministry of the Interior. Dr. Stuckart', on the basis of his former activity as State Secretary in the Reich Ministry of the Interior, is in a position to give material testimony regarding Rudolf Brandt's activity as the head of Himmler's Ministerial Office (Ministerbuero). I shall quote the first two sentences of the second paragraph of this affidavit:
"I am able to judge Dr. Rudolf Brandt's position only after August 1943, and then only as far as my sphere of work at the Reich Ministry of the Interior is concerned. Under the Reich Minister of the Interior Dr. Frick there already existed a so-called Ministerial Office." I shall skip the next sentence, and I shall continue to read paragraph 3. I quote:
"When Dr. Frick was replaced by Himmler in August 1943, Himmler formed a new Ministerial Office, consisting of Dr. Brandt, two assistants, and a secretary. This Ministerial Office was not situated at the Ministry of the Interior in Berling, but at Himmler's Field Headquarters, which was in the immediate vicinity of the Fuehrer's Headquarters. Himmler demanded that ministerial affairs should be reported to him there to a considerable extent. Hence, from that time onward, the Ministerial Office became the place where the documents of the Ministry of the Interior were brought by couriers for delivery or presentation daily. Himmler, on principle, did not permit the members of the Reich Ministry of the Interior to communicate with him by telephone. Therefore, the telephone calls of the officials of the Berlin Ministry of the Interior were received by the Ministerial Office. Dr. Brandt reported them to Himmler and delivered. Himmler's decision to the official concerned in writing or by telephone. The teletype messages of the Ministry of the Interior in Berlin were also delivered to the Ministerial Office. Brandt reported on all this and informed Himmler about the natters concerned, answering again all inquiries according to the decisions of Himmler, in that ho informed the Berlin Ministry about all such decisions and orders of Himmler, either through written notes or by telephone.
"The volume of work of the Ministerial Office was very great. Dr. Brandt was exceptionally diligent and overburdened with work. He, himself, as director of the Ministerial Office, had no authority; neither did he posses any power of making decisions in ministerial affairs.
"I, myself, was State Secretary in the Reich Ministry of the Interior." This affidavit has been signed and certified in the proper manner.
DR. WEISGERBER: (representing Dr. Kaufmann, the defense counsel for the defendant Rudolf Brandt.) The next document, Your Honors, will be Rudolf Brandt No. 18.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, what has this document to do with the defendant Rudolf Brandt? I do not see his nave mentioned in it at all.
MR. HARDY: At the same time, Your Honor, I wish that you would peruse the next document, which is Document No. 19. Those documents are apparently letters addressed to one Mr. Kcrsten, and the signatures of the writers or the authors of the letters are not authenticated, nor sworn to. There is merely a Notar's certificate stating that this document is a true photostatic copy of the original, which in no way renders these documents authenticated in the manner which the Tribunal has prescribed. Furthermore, I cannot see the connection and materiality of the documents in addition to that.
THE PRESIDENT: On their face, the documents have nothing whatever to do with the defendant Rudolf Brandt.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, I should like to make the following explanation in that connection: These two letters have probative value, no doubt, but how high this probative value is to be considered is a matter for the Tribunal to decide. I should like to recall that when Rudolf Brandt was examined in the witness box, he mentioned, among other matters, that he actively participated in the liberation and transfer of about 3,500 Jews from German concentration camps to Sweden. At that time an affidavit of Medizinalrat Felix Kersten, who is the addressee here, --as Rudolf Brandt Exhibit No. 5. I thought I should submit these two letters of the Jewish World Congress, dated 15 December 1945 and 4 December 1946, to the Tribunal, because we are here concerned with a very important statement regarding this act of liberation.
If this Felix Kersten the man to whom this letter is addressed, has made an affidavit in favor of the defendant Rudolf Brandt, I ask that in support of this affidavit for Rudolf Brandt these two letters of the World Jewish Congress be admitted, because they throw light on the conditions at that time, and it is for that reason that I believe that these two documents have a certain probative value.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal rules that these documents have no probative value, and they will not be received in evidence.
DR. WEISGERBER: Then I shall offer in evidence as the next document Rudolf Brandt No. 20, which will receive the exhibit number 18. This is an affidavit signed by Ludwig Pemsel. I merely offer this document in evidence, and I should like to ask the Tribunal to take notice of it without my reading any of the passages.
The last document will be Rudolf Brandt Document No. 21 as Exhibit No. 19. This is an affidavit signed by a certain Gebhardt Himmler, which also refers to the sphere of work and activities of the defendant Rudolf Brandt. This document concludes all the documents as they are contained in Rudolf Brandt's supplemental volume.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal as received no copies of these documents in German. Those should be submitted to the Tribunal at some later date.
DR. WEISGERBER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has just received Supplement I on behalf of the defendant Mrugowsky. Is the defendant's counsel ready to present these documents? I don't see Dr. Flemming.
MR. HARDY: Defense Counsel for defendant Weltz is ready to present his supplemental documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand that counsel for the defendant Weltzer will present these documents on behalf of the defendant Mrugowsky.
MR. HARDY: No, Your Honor, the defendant Mrugowsky's document books are not in order and ready as yet for presentation. He has several supplements, I understand, but the defense counsel for the defendant Weltz is prepared to present documents for the defendant Weltz.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will proceed with the documents for the defendant Weltz. We have not as yet received the documents.
DR. WILLE: (counsel for the defendant Weltz). Mr. President, I have only few affidavits which I want to offer in supplementation of my previous evidence. From the very beginning I have tried to keep my submission of evidence as brief as possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment counsel. Is the English translation of these documents available to the Tribunal?
DR. WILLE: Mr. President, I have them with me, except for one document, but I believed that they were all before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: These documents have just been handed to the Tribunal.
DR. WILLIE: May I continue, Your Honor? In supplementation of my sumbission of evidence, I first offer an affidavit signed by Dr. Wendt, whom I have mentioned here before. I tried once before and you, Your Honor, suggested that I submit this affidavit at the end of the entire submission of evidence. I should like to offer this document, Weltz Document No. 23, as Exhibit No. 21. The English translations have been attached.
I should not like to quote this extensive document, I believe that I can limit myself to summarizing the relevant contents in a few words.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. These documents in the Document Book Weltz No. 3 are not numbered.
DR. WILLE: The document which I have just submitted was liven to me by my secretary and she told me it was Document No. 23. I don't know why this supplemental volume has no numbers. That I really don't know.
THE PRESIDENT: Those numbers should be added. If you will number the original document book.
MR. HARDY: This whole presentation is only a question of one or two documents, I think, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that we can proceed. We can take down the numbers ourselves as they are assigned. What document number is this?
DR. WILLE: No. 23, Your Honor, Exhibit No. 21. I beg your pardon, Weltz Exhibit No. 22. In order to go sack to your objection, Your Honor, I shall immediately see to it that all these documents are given proper numbers. I am surprised by the lack of numbers, and I shall proceed to clarify the situation immediately.
I shall briefly summarize the contents of this document. Captain of the Medical Corps Wendt, who had been for many years a competent assistant of Dr. Veltz in his institute, confirms here that Weltz at no time made any suggestion to hin to carry out experiments on human beings at Dachau. Rascher at that time, without any influence from Weltz, came to the institute. And he further says that Wendt himself was surprised at this. Furthermore, he confirms that Rascher showed hin a telegram from Himmler which indicated that the proposed experiments had to be kept secret from everybody, including Professor Weltz. Wendt drew his conclusions and stated immediately to Rascher that he, Rasched, could no longer stay at his institute. He subsequently dictated a letter to Air Gau VII, asking that Raschcr be relieved of his assignment to his institute, Dr. Wendt in his affidavit goes on to say that the institute of Professor Weltz supplied no instruments for the later cold work carried out by Professor Holzloehner and that the furnishing of a calorimeter, which had been requested by a representative of Professor Holzloehner, was refused.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, this Document Book not only lacks document numbers but it lacks an index. Will you see that an index in prepared?
DR. WILLIE: I beg your pardon, Your Honor.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, as far as I can make out, this Document Book III will be only one document, because one is a Prosecution exhibit that is already in evidence, and I don't see any sense in putting it in evidence again.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has just received the supplement, which contains only an affidavit by Dr. Wendt. Now, is the document, Counsel, to which you have just referred and given the number of Weltz Document No. 23, is that the deposition of Dr. Wendt taken on questions qnd answers? I assume so, but I desire the record to be clear.
DR. WILLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That may be admitted as Weltz Exhibit No. 22.
DR. WILLE: No. 21, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel gave it NO. 22, but it should be 21.
MR. HARDY: It is Weltz Document No. 23, Exhibit No. 21.
DR. WILLE: Yes, I now submit a further document which is Weltz No. 24 and to which I shall give the Exhibit No. Weltz 22. It is a supplemental statement made by Dr. Wendt. For interests of brevity I need not explain this document any further. I shall limit myself to submitting it to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received as Weltz Exhibit 22.
DR. WILLE: I now submit Weltz Document No. 15, which will be Weltz Exhibit No. 23. This is a statement by Dr. von Wers, a former associate of Professor Weltz.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal does not have that document.
DR. WILLE: I am submitting this document together with two English translations.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I do not have a copy, but I have looked over the English copy before it was presented to you and I will not object and it may be admitted now if he will supply me with a copy after the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will supply the Prosecution with a copy of this document in English after the recess and supply two more copies to the Tribunal.
Now, this Doctor, is Weltz Document No. 15?
DR. WILLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And what is the exhibit number assigned to it?
DR. WILLE: No. 23.
THE PRESIDENT: The document is received in evidence.
DR. DILLE: Mr. President, I have yet another document, but I have not yet received the English translation. I therefore ask the Tribunal whether I can offer this document now, supplying the English text later, or whether I should postpone the submission of that document.
What is a further supplemental statement by Dr. Wendt.
THE PRESIDENT: Submit the document to the Prosecution.
MR. HARDY: This is properly notarized, but it seems to contain a good deal of information about Dr. Alexander. I see "Dr. Alexander" throughout here in the German. I would ask what the document purports to be.
THE PRESIDENT: The presentation of that document will be delayed until English translations arc available to the Prosecution and the Tribunal. When they are available, the matter may be again called to the attention of the Tribunal.
DR. WILLE: I have no further documents to offer.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other documents on behalf of defense counsel?
DR. FRITZ, (counsel for the defendant Rose): Mr. President, I could offer 12 further documents today, but I have found out that although the English and German copies are mimeographed they have not yet been bound into a volume. I have been promised that they would be done at 11:30. Therefore, I expect them to be here any minute now. I think it would be expedient for the Tribunal to wait until such time as the document books are actually in the courtroom.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the secretary of the Tribunal ascertain whether these document books are available?
SECRETARY: They are not yet available.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood that Dr. Flemming for the Defendant Mrugowsky had a number of documents, and we received those document books. The doctor is not present in court.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, there are a considerable number of documents already filed in the case of Becker-Freyseng. It seems to me that the attorney for Becker-Freyseng could introduce some documents this afternoon. I have two supplemental document books with a rather extensive number of documents and it night take presumably an hour on his part to put those in.
I don't know whether he has others to present afterwards.
THE PRESIDENT: I wonder where these counsel are, whether they are available.
DR. FRITZ: Hr. President, perhaps you would permit me to go to the Defense Information Center and sec whether these gentlemen are there, and at the same time I can find out how my document books are coming along.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it would seem to me that we could get a reccapitulation from defense counsel and find out just how many more document books they have to offer and how many are in the process of being translated.
If Your Honors please, if there is nothing to put in this afternoon, the Prosecution would be in a position to offer their Rebuttal Document Book No. I.
THE PRESIDENT: We will receive that this afternoon if defense counsel are not ready. In the meantime while awaiting the return of defense counsel from the Information Center, the court will be in recess for a few moments.