It should be a comparatively simple matter to ask the office of the prosecution if anyone there over received this document.
MR. HARDY: It would, and if we received it we would have it, your Honor, and defense counsel has it, so I am in a position now to say we never received it.
THE PRESIDENT: That doesn't altogether answer, because Dr. Reiter might have made two copies of the document.
MR. HARDY: Well, I will check with my files, your Honor, but I am sure that is the situation as I have outlined it to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, that will dispose of the matter if it is correct. If not, the tribunal will consider it tomorrow.
MR. HARDY: Since this copy is addressed to the prosecution may I keep this, your Honor, to check with the other one?
DR. NELTE: Yes, there is a photostat too.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for Becker-Freyseng.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, first of all, from document book 1, Becker-Freyseng, I should like to offer a few documents which deal primarily with experiments on human beings. From document book 1 I have already offered and assigned exhibit numbers to documents 1 to 7. Documents 8 and 9 I do not intend to offer.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I didn't hear you. Would you please repeat that?
DR. TIPP: From document book 1 I intend to offer a few papers on human experimentation. First of all, I should like to say documents 1 to 7 have already been submitted. Documents 8 and 9 I do not intend to submit. The next document which I should like to offer is BeckerFreyseng Number 10 which is on page 27 of the document book, and if it is admitted I shall assign it the exhibit number 52.
The document is the paper by Gill and Forbes.
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for the prosecution this document book?
MR. HARDY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to the admission of this document?
HR. HARDY: Your Honor, I might ask defense counsel how many documents in document book number 1 he intends to submit, and I can look them over now and give him a blanket clearance or object to the ones I wish to object to.
DR. TIPP: In this book I intend to offer only Document 10 as Exhibit 52, Document 16 as Exhibit 53, and Document 17 as Exhibit 54.
MR. HARDY: I have no objection to any of those three, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents will be received in evidence. Now, counsel gives to document 10 the exhibit number 52?
DR. TIPP: Yes, 52. 16 will be 33 and 17 will be 54. The other documents from this book I need not offer. Now I go on to document book 2. From this book I should like to offer documents 18, 19 and 20. The rest of the documents have already been offered. Document 18 is an extract from a scientific paper by Karl Kiskalt, Theory and Practice of Medical Research. It deals with the historical development of experimentation on human beings in general. I will assign exhibit number 55 to this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat, counsel?
DR. TIPP: I offer Becker-Freyseng document 18, Theory and Practice of Medical Research by Karl Kiskalt as exhibit number 33.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have no objection to these three documents, 18? 13 and 20, and I might inquire of counsel if he intends to introduce document number 32 in this document book. It has not been introduced to date
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the prosecution is correct that document 32 has not been introduced in evidence.
MR. HARDY: If he intends to introduce that, I have no objection either, your Honor.
DR. TIPP: This document, an affidavit of Professor Zugschwert, has already boon offered as a Schroeder document and I enclose it in my document book merely for the sake of simplicity. I don't believe that a new exhibit number is necessary, and I don't believe I need to read from this document either. I go on to document book 3. From this document book I have only the last document, 59-A, an article from "Time", "Conscientious Objectors as Guinea Pigs". This will be Exhibit 57.
MR. HARDY: I must object to that being admitted into evidence, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection to admission of this document is sustained.
DR. TIPP: Then in document book 4, from this book I intend to offer only documents 60 and 60-A. Professor Luxenburger of Munich was approved as an expert witness for the defense. He was to testify about experimentation on human beings. Since so much testimony has already been given on this problem, we have dispensed with this expert. He and his associate, Dr. Halbach, have recorded their attitude on this problem in an affidavit. I believe that this form will help the Tribunal more than testimony from the witness stand. The exhibit number would be 38 and 38-A.
THE PRESIDENT: What numbers were those, counsel? What number? What document?
DR. TIPP: 60 and 60-A in document book 4. Document 62, which is the only one which has not yet been offered, I do not intend to offer.
THE PRESIDENT: You must again give me the exhibit numbers for 60 and 60-A. Has counsel for the prosecution any objection?
MR. HARDY: I have no objection, your Honor, but I have no record that the other four documents were offered in evidence, any one of the other four. That's 61, 62, 63 and 64. They may have been while I was out of court. If they have been offered I would just like to get the numbers for my records hero.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 63 was received in evidence as Exhibit 43. Becker-Freyseng.
MR. HARDY: And 64.
THE PRESIDENT: I have no record of 64 being offered.
MR. HARDY: Number 64 is Exhibit 7.
DR. TIPP(Counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng): Exhibit 7, Mr. President. 61 is Exhibit 20.
MR. HARDY: And 62 you do not intend to offer.
DR. TIPP: No.
THE PRESIDENT: I am sorry, counsel, but due to the conversation on the part of the prosecution, I still failed to get the exhibit number of 60 and 61-A.
DR. TIPP: 58 and 58-A.
THE PRESIDENT: I call it 58 and 59.
DR. TIPP: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not offering 61, 62, or 64, is that correct?
DR. TIPP: No. Mr. President, I am not offering 62. 63 is Exhibit number 43. Document 64 is Exhibit number 7.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, I have no record that 64 has been offered in evidence. You say it's been received as Exhibit number 7. I have no record of that, that may be true, but I have no record of that.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, at this time, in this Document Book Index, Document Book Number 4, Document Number 60 is Exhibit Number 58; Document Number 60-A is Exhibit 59; Document Number 61 is Exhibit Number 20; Document Number 62 is being withdrawn; Document 63 is Exhibit 43; and Document 64 is Exhibit 7.
THE PRESIDENT: That agrees with the records for the counsel for the prosecution, the admission of Exhibits 20 and 7?
MR. HARDY: Maybe I was out of court that day. I have no objection to the offering of those affidavits with those Exhibit numbers.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, perhaps I can explain that. Document 61 I offered in the examination of Becker-Freyseng to support the testimony of the witness; and in the same way, I offered Document 64 during the direct examination of Becker-Freyseng as Exhibit 7. Now, I come to Document 5 in the new Supplement Document Book.
Document Book 5 has already been offered.
MR. HARDY: What Document Book Number 5? There are three documents, 72, 73 and 74 that have not been offered.
DR. TIPP: That is true. 72, 73, and 74 have not been offered.
THE PRESIDENT: I have 72 marked Exhibit 50.
DR. TIPP: Yes, the other two, 73 and 74, I will withdraw.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 67 is not marked as having been received.
MR. HARDY: Document 67, he intended to introduce that later. That is on -
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, 67 is an affidavit of Professor Matthes. That was originally to be offered because Professor Matthes sent us copies of two research assignments of the medical inspectorate. He gave the affidavit that the contents were correct. The Tribunal told me that I was to obtain the originals of these research assignments, since a copy certified by the witness was not sufficient. In the meantime, the witness had told me unfortunately he has only copies which are not certified. I am very sorry that I have to dispense with this evidence. Under the circumstances, I can not offer it, and I will withdraw it.
THE PRESIDENT: Just explain that situation again, counsel.
DR. TIPP: The Matthes document which Mr. Hardy mentioned, Document 67 is a statement of Professor Dr. Matthes in Erlangen about the way research assignments were issued, their contents, and so forth. I have already offered a number of affidavits on this point. To this affidavit were attached copies of one research assignment from the Medical Inspectorate to the witness Matthes, and one to a Leipzig institute at which the witness was working. The witness had said in his affidavit that the attachments, that is the research assignments, were in order.
When this document was offered, and the prosecution objected, the Tribunal decided that the original had to be offered, that a copy certified by the witness was not enough. I got in touch with the witness and Professor Matthes told me that he could give an affidavit to the effect that the copy agreed with the original, but he did not have the original; and therefore, I am withdrawing the exhibit because I can not conform with the directions of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the situation now is exactly the same as it was when the document was offered.
MR. HARDY: That's right.
THE PRESIDENT: And the question turns upon the authority of the witness Dr. Matthes to certify to certain documents to be true copies.
MR. HARDY: That's right.
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of some extraordinary circumstances, the affiant, or the witness who makes an affidavit could not have the authority to certify that certain papers are true copies of other documents. The document in its present form was and is objectionable. The objection is sustained.
DR. TIPP: Then, I go on to Document Book Five, part 2, BeckerFreyseng. Document Book, 75. the affidavit of Professor Haagen which I showed to Professor Haagen in the examination and it was offered as Exhibit 51. The next Document is Document 76, an affidavit by Mrs. Viverowsky. It is on page 385.
THE PRESIDENT: 385 of what? I have the documents Becker-Freyseng 1 admitted as Exhibit 31; an affidavit of Eugen Haagen?
DR. TIPP: 51.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this document book that I have doesn't have the Haagen document in it, and in the index it is crossed out as if it wasn't to be introduced.
I suppose because we had Haagen here and heard him in direction testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have before me a copy in English and a copy in German of an affidavit by Eugen Haagen. I have it marked Becker-Freyseng Exhibit 51, 17 of June. It was not included in the document book. It is an unattached affidavit.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, this affidavit which you just mentioned by Professor Haagen which I offered as Exhibit 51 was put in the index of this document book by mistake. It is not a second affidavit by Professor Haagen, it is the same one, but since the document itself has already been offered, we can strike it out here in the index.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, counsel, again what document book are you referring to. I have here before me a document book 5 for Becker-Freyseng, but I have no part 2. I have it hero. Very well, now if you will start over again with that.
DR. TIPP: I offer Becker-Freyseng Document No. 76 as Exhibit 60. This is an affidavit of Mrs. Viverowsky. It is on page 385. I do not intend to read from this affidavit, Mr. President. I shall but point out that Mrs. Viverowsky worked for Professor Haagen for years. She worked primarily in the field of hepatitis epidemica, and she confirms as Professor Haagen himself said that no human experiments were carried out in this field. And I should also like to point out that on page 3, in the third paragraph, Mrs. Viverowsky says: "He..." meaning Professor Haagen "...used his new dry typhus vaccine at first on himself and Miss Crodel." The next sentences only refer to the witness herself. The next paragraph begins: "In 1944, I heard that a typhus epidemic had broken out in one of the camps. It had been brought by prisoners recently transferred from the East. Professor Haagen had a disinfecting station installed at the entrance to the camp. I do not know what was subsequently undertaken there. Fraulein Brigitte Crodel had to deal with the Weil-Felix reactions during this epidemic."
I shall merely refer to the rest of the contents of this document. The next document which I offer is Becker-Freyseng No. 77, Exhibit number 61. It is an affidavit by Dr. Fritz Witt of Nuernberg. I should like to point out that Dr. Witt was a witness here on the 28th of February. I am offering this affidavit, Mr. President, to clear up the question of the file note refer at numbers, and the organization of the medical inspectorate once more. I should like to call the attention of the Tribunal primarily to the drawing which is attached to this affidavit which shows the organization of the office of the chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe as it actually was. I do not intend to quote from this document. The next document is Becker-Freyseng number 78 which I offer as Exhibit 62. It is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Knothe. It is on page 396 of the document book. Professor Knothe says that Becker-Freyseng suggested to him to set up a training company in the experiment station in the construction company at Jueterbog, and Professor Knothe also says that this suggestion of Becker-Freyseng was refused by his superior. I believe I must offer that affidavit in order to show that Becker-Freyseng had no right to give orders as the prosecution alleged.
The next document is Becker-Freyseng 79 , as Exhibit 63. It is an affidavit by Professor Dr. Achelis, the contents again a description of a research assignment, how it came about. The witness says that there was no check, no control exerted, and there was no authority to issue orders on the part of the office which issued the assignment. I do not intend to quote from this document.
Mr. President, I should like to offer one more document in the following connection. The Court will remember that in the sea--water case, in the case of Document NO-183, there wore considerable difficulties in translation. It is a letter from Schroeder to Himmler, drafted by Or. Becker-Freyseng. The Court will remember that the defense objected to the original translation of it by the Prosecution. The interpreters were asked to comment on this document and they s aid that the German text was not ambiguous. I was permitted to bring counter-evidence. I have obtained an opinion only now. Franz Rudolf Matthes, the head of the English Department of the Interpretation Institute of the Heidelberg University has translated it. English copies are here and I should like the Secretary General to hand the English copies to the Tribunal.
Mr. HARDY: I request that this matter be taken up outside the Court with the Prosecution and with the interpretation department. We have put in an alternative translation, certified by them in order to avoid confusion and argument; not having the facts familiar at my fingertips now, I wish that this could be taken up with the Prosecution outside the Tribunal and taken up before the Tribunal perhaps Wednesday or Thursday.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will discuss this natter with the Prosecution outside of Court this evening or some other time and see if any adjustment of the matter can be made, and then report to the Tribunal; or, if an agreement cannot be made, the matter should be brought before the Tribunal and settled by order.
Dr. Tipp: Very well.
MR. HARDY: I have 2 document books, Supplement No. 2 and No. 3 from Beiglboeck. I wonder if Dr. Steinbauer has any other supplemental books or arc these the only two that he intends to put in?
Perhaps he can put into evidence now. I won't object to either one of then I might add.
DR. STEINBAUER (Counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck): From the list which the Prosecution offered today, about documents for identification, I have seen there arc 2 Vorlicek affidavits. The defense has no objection to these 2 documents because they arc properly certified. Then I had the assignment from the Court regarding Exhibit 5, statement of the witness at the University Clinic, Professor Heinmeyer, that this document should be certified. I wrote to Professor Heinmeyer and now I have the certified copy, so that this document is in order now.
MR. HARDY: Was this one offered before as a Beiglboeck exhibit?
DR. STEINBAUER: No, I gave it the old number - Exhibit No. 5.
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution has no objection now that it is in order, your Honor. Apparently the Tribunal admitted that provisionally.
THE PRESIDENT: I assume that it was admitted provisionally. Reference will be made to this matter in the record. What is that document number - Beiglboeck 5?
MR. HARDY: It is Beiglboeck Document 24, which is exhibit No. 5.
THE PRESIDENT: May the record show that Beiglboeck Document 24, Beiglboeck Exhibit 5, was formally admitted in evidence, being correct in form.
DR. STEINBAUER: And then the Tribunal asked me about a document which I offered in English - an excerpt from a book by Gritchler to get German translations for the Tribunal and the Prosecution. I have had it translated and I give yon copies now.
MR. HARDY: The document which you arc getting a German copy of, your Honor, which is Beiglboeck Exhibit 37, rather Document No. 37, was Beiglboeck Exhibit No. 30, I believe.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, it was Exhibit 30. It was just a German translation that was missing. Then, as Exhibit 36, I should like to offer affidavit of Dr. falter Rode, from my Document Book 2. The number is 39. It was in the supplement on page 148 to 154. I do not intend to road it, in order to save time. It is properly certified.
MR. HARDY: Does the Tribunal have copies of the English of Document book 2, that is document 39, which just was offered as Exhibit 36 Beiglboeck?
THE PRESIDENT: Are those Defendant Beiglboeck document books? No, we haven't those here.
MR. HARDY: Here is one copy, your Honor, and the others can be picked up....
DR. STEINBAUER: I have them here.
MR. HARDY: Here are a sufficient number of copies.
DR. STEINBAUER: And here is the German. And then the last document which I intend to submit today will be Exhibit #37, the list of names of the gypsies.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, doctor, we haven't received these documents yet. How what document ore you offering, Doctor?
DR. STEINBAUER: A new document. I have already given the original to the Secretary General. It is part of Exhibit Ho. 34, a black cover with the names of the gypsies. Since the ease is completed now I should like to offer this list officially. I have asked the General Secretary's office to prepare photostatic copies for the Tribunal and the Prosecution already has copies.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I don't think the introduction of the list as contained in the black cover is necessary as a separate number. I believe that the charts and the 2 books were introduced as Beiglboeck Exhibit #34 and the 2 books that are included in Exhibit #34 have one which has the black cover thereon, where those lists of names are found. I think it would save trouble and would not create too much difficulty if we continued to keep thorn under one number, 34, rather than submit the list on the cover of the black book as an additional number.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood Beiglboeck Document 39 has just been offered as Exhibit 34; am I wrong?
MR. HARDY: No. 36.
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, the last number was 36, document 39, Exhibit 36, affidavit of Dr. Med. Walter Rohde. And now I wanted to give an exhibit number to the list of names but I agree with the prosecutor that it is not necessary to give it a. separate number.
All I am interested in is that the list of names be made complete. On tho photostat copy of the black cover there are 29 names. On the list, the fever charts, there are 11 other names; that makes 40 altogether. Berglboeck remembers definitely that the last experimental number was a person named Hoff and #43 was somebody named Keifer. The witness, Laufinger, said that Kiefer was in the experiment. The only ones that are missing, then arc perhaps 20 and 42. On the occasion of the cross-examination of the witness, Mettback, by Mr. Hardy, he mentioned a name which is supposed to be No. 20. Since I do not have a list of my own I cannot check it, but that may be right. Then, of the whole number of names, only one is missing - that would be Ho. 42. I haven't found him on any list and it is impossible for no to tell the Tribunal what this last name is, that otherwise we have all the 43 names.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the exhibit number of that book itself?
MR. HARDY: The exhibit number of the charts and the 2 books that wont over in tho cross-examination of the defendant Beiglboeck, is Beiglboeck Exhibit No. 34.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any copies of these lists for the Tribunal?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes, I can give you copies, but I asked tho Secretary General's office to make photostatic copies and this gentleman here was kind enough to say he -would take care of it and gave me a copy and the prosecutor a copy and I would like to ask him to give the Court 4 copies.
THE PRESIDENT: Then copies will be furnished to the Tribunal?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the photostatic copies of the page is not actually necessary. Dr. Steinbauer has made a certified copy of the names as written on the photostatic copy which I think would be sufficient, rather than having the book re-photostated. As a matter of fact....
THE PRESIDENT: My reference was merely to tho photostatic copy of that pa c of the names.
MR. HARDY: That is what I mean. I mean it has been photostated once and I have a copy and the Tribunal nay have my copy if they wish and I will take one of these in lieu of it.
I think this is sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: Probably that typewritten list of names will answer the purpose of the Tribunal.
DR. STEINBAUER: Thin I have.....
THE PRESIDENT: Just one moment. Nov this list of names is supplementary to a hat Beiglboeck exhibit?
MR. HARDY: This list of names is the sane list of names as contained in the black cover of the book that is in Exhibit 34.
THE PRESIDENT: Then this photostat and this list is a supplement to Beiglboeck Exhibit 34?
DR. STEINBAUER: Yes.
MR. HARDY: Yes, you can call it that, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, doctor.
DR. STEINBAUER: I ask the Tribunal to approve an expert Dr. Glatzl from Flensburg, I have a statement from him in my Document Book No. 3, but it is inadequate since I could not give him any data on wright. I wrote to him and asked to come here or else to give me a written opinion. He promised to do so, but so far I have not received the opinion. Therefore, I asked the Tribunal to be able to offer this opinion if it arrives in a few days. Flensburg has very bad postal connections; it is in the British zone, and it wasn't possible to do this earlier. I believe the prosecutor will have no objection to this delay.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear from Counsel when the affidavit or statement or opinion or whatever he calls it is received. If it is received before Wednesday evening, it will certainly be admitted.
DR. STEINBAUER: And today I asked Mr. Hardy whether I can complete my closing brief and go away, leave Nurnberg, whether the water case is finished. He said, Yes". I was very happy to hear this, but after the recess he told me that the prosecution intended to call the witness Karl Hoellenrainer again. Therefore, I should like to ask the prosecutor whether he gave me this information officially or whether that was not official?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the prosecution is entertaining the thought of perhaps recalling Hoellenrainer to get his testimony. However, as I say, we were merely entertaining the thought and Mr. McHaney and I were going to have a conference on it late this afternoon and I merely stated that to defense counsel so that I could alert him in case he decided to leave for Vienna before the end of the week and if we did agree in a conference the Tribunal would recall the witness Hoellenrainer. That is purely tentative.
THE PRESIDENT: You will notify the Tribunal at the opening of tomorrow's morning session whether you expect to call the witness Hollenrainer?
MR. HARDY: Yes sir.
DR. STEINBAUER: Then I have nothing more to say at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will he in recess until ninethirty o'clock tomorrow morning.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until nine-thirty o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1 July 1947, at 0930 hours.)
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 1 July 1947, 6930-1700, Justice Beals, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court with the exception of the defendant Oberhauser, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The Clerk will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court with the exception of defendant Oberhauser, who is hospitalized on account of illness pursuant to the orders of the prison physician.
Mr. HARDY: In compliance with the request of the Tribunal that the Prosecution state the position in regard to the calling of the witness Karl Hoellenreiner. The Prosecution at this time requests that the witness Karl Hoellenreiner be recalled to the witness stand. It may be convenient to recall him at 12:30 this afternoon rather than this morning, and then the defense can continue with their documentation in as much the witness Hoellenreiner has not been alerted. It should be 1:30, Your Honor, I am sorry.
Dr. STEINBAUER: Mr. President, it would be a good sign that the Prosecution does not think it can dispense with this witness, but nevertheless, I must strenuously object to a renewed examination of this witness for legal reasons.
Karl Hoellenreiner was called by the Prosecution as a rebuttal witness and was examined. No one told or forced the Prosecution to say, "I have no further questions."
By making this statement he indicated that the examination of the witness was completed, thereupon, I also said that I had no questions of the witness. If this witness is to be called to the stand again, after there has been an opportunity to interrogate him, and to tell him what Laubinger testified to just before him, then I believe that the value of this witness is slight, and it would be prejudicial to all the defense counsel, because then, of course, we would make application to re-examine our witnesses on weak points after having told them of faulty material of the trial. For these legal reasons I ask this application be rejected, but if counter to my expectations the Tribunal will grant this request, then I make my application on the basis of the mental condition of the witness Karl Hoellenreiner. When a regrettable incident occurred, and recess was called, a woman whom I had not known before came to me and said that she was Helen Hoellenreiner, the wife.
There were very few defense counsel present -
Mr. HARDY: This is all hear say based on defense counsel's evidence that he is building up. I can not see what that has to do with the admissibility of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. STEINBAUER: She asked me to help her husband, saying that there was something wrong with his head. He had been in four experiments, and was suffering greatly. But not this circumstances alone, but a much more important one has occasions me to make this application, I have had great difficulty in trying to find experimental subjects that were scattered throughout Germany so far as this type is concerned, and I come across Karl Hoellenreiner. I went to see him, and I tried to find him at his home town. Then I sent a doctor to talk to him. He told this doctor he had been in four experiments, and that he was very much excited and disturbed. This doctor came to me and said we can not use this man as a witness, he is a pathological liar.
One must grant even a young doctor the ability to judge that this person is not quite normal. Therefore, I ask that before his examination that Karl Hoellenreiner be examined by a doctor appointed by the Tribunal, and that the Prosecution be given an opportunity to participate also in the examination by the doctor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other defense counsel have anything to say on this subject?
DR. STEINBAUER: May I continue, Mr. President, I am almost finished.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I thought counsel had concluded.
DR. STEINBAUER: In case Hoellenreiner is called to the witness stand I further make application immediately to send a messenger to the Nurnberg-Furth District Court in Erlangen and get a complete record of the file of 19 March of Karl Hoellenreiner who was born on 14 March 1914 in Furth. This could be done within two hours. The reason is that Karl Hoellenreiner is not unknown to my colleagues. They told me that to their knowledge Karl Hoellenreiner must have been convicted at least 12 times. He lied to you. He was asked whether he had been convicted and he said, "No." I don't have the German record here but I remember that. My colleagues have told me that Hoellenreiner has been convicted for theft, fraud, assault, etc. Therefore, I went to the penal registry and the officials said that as a private person he could not give me any information. I must, therefore, ask the Court to help me. I went to the Secretary General's Office yesterday and he also told me that witout an order from the Court the Secretary's General's office could do nothing. It is without doubt necessary in judging this witness to determine whether he told the truth on this point or not and whether we are dealing here with a decent person or with a person who has been repeatedly convicted.
Mr. HARDY: Your Honor, Prosecution wishes to point out that I believe my words at the time of the interrogation here in the Tribunal in connection with the witness Hoellenreiner were due to the confusion and due to the conduct of the witness. I had no further questions at that time - that is in answer to the defense. Secondly, defense counsel have called witnesses back to the stand, and third, the testimony of Karl Hoellenreiner is deemed to be essential and necessary in this case. Be whatever his record may be that the prosecution has no knowledge of, he was experimented on in the sea water experiments and has knowledge of them and, in addition to that, he underwent at least one of them.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel for the Prosecution having requested the right to call Karl Hoellenreiner again to the stand, the Court, having heard counsel for Prosecution and counsel for the defendant Beiglboeck in resistance of Prosecution's application, it is the order of the Tribunal that the witness Hoellenreiner may be recalled to the stand.