As to the defendant Schlegelberger only, at this time we offer this document as Exhibit 459.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 27 -- or rather my book isn't numbered on that document -- so after page 26 is found NG-891, which is page 29 in the German book.
THE PRESIDENT: That doesn't happen to be in my book at all.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Document NG-891 immediately follows NG-880.
THE PRESIDENT: The pages are all blank immediately following that.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: But the document is in your book, Your Honor, is it not?
THE PRESIDENT: It is listed on the index on the front page, but I don't find it in the body of the document book; it isn't in any of these books.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May I inquire of the Tribunal how many of the Judges are missing that document?
THE PRESIDENT: Three of us; it is only in one book in other words.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: With one copy of that document before the bench, may we introduce the document and supply you with extra copies at a later time?
THE PRESIDENT: It is time for the afternoon recess; probably you can supply that during the recess. We will recess at this time.
(A Recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, the prosecution has a brief word for the record which, perhaps, should have gone in prior to the Tribunal's admitting the last document, namely, NG 880, but it can do no harm to state it now. NG 880 was admitted in evidence specifically as to the defendant Schlegelberger and not as to the defendant Klemm. However, the prosecution, at some future date, does the wish by that ruling to be precluded from argument as to this document concerning knowledge by any one or all of the other defendants. I trust that is understood.
THE PRESIDENT: That may be a little confusing. How would it be to leave the document open to both sides to argue the matter of the initial?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honor, I am not mentioning the initial of the defendant Klemm. That has nothing whatever to do with my point. My point being, though, the prosecution stated we offered the document specifically as to the defendant Schlegelberger. We tacitly assume we will be able to argue on the basis of that document, as well as any other concerning the matter of knowledge.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honors, may I be permitted for one moment to refer to the translation mistake which previously my colleague, Dr. Schilf, criticized. By that I mean the document NG 996. Here we are dealing with a fine point of German grammar, which, because of the bad reproduction, was not detected by me. In German it is absolutely necessary to distinguish whether it says here -- in order to put him into a helpless position -- "um ihn hilfloser Lage auszusetzen", as the text actually says, or on the other hand "um ihn in hilfloser Lage auszusetzen". The first of the two expressions means "in a helpless condition" and the second "to put him in a position of helplessness". In the first place it means that the man was already in a helpless condition before he was exposed; in the second place it indicates a condition of helplessness was caused by his being exposed, such as the text here before us.
The situation as indicated would be that the condition of helplessness had existed already before he was being exposed. Accordingly, I should like to suggest that the translation into English be made to say, "To expose him who had been in a helpless situation," or even more accurate, "Who had been in a helpless situation already before."
THE PRESIDENT: All we can say at this time is, we will take into consideration what Dr. Brieger has argued.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, I believe during the recess you were supplied with the missing translation of NG 891. That is found on page 29 of the German book and should be inserted in the English book after page 26.
THE PRESIDENT: It is found in what book, you say?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Book V, Supplement, Your Honor, and to be inserted after page 26.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, thank you.
MR. WOOLEYHAN:NG 891 is a decree by the Reich Ministry of the Interior, dated Berlin, 5 June 1944, as it appears on the second page of the document. It concerns the illegitimate children of foreign female workers. This decree of the Ministry of the Interior was sent to the presidents of the Courts of Appeal throughout the Reich by a covering letter, which appears on the first page of the document. This covering letter went from the Ministry of Justice in Berlin on the 15th of November, 1944. It was written and sent by order of the defendant Alstoetter, as appears at the top of page 2 of the document. In this covering letter, addressed to the presidents of the Courts of Appeal throughout the Reich for their action and also for the information of the president of the Supreme Court, and the Reich Chief Public Prosecutor.
For Dr. Grube's information, that is the Oberreichsanwalt beim Reichsgericht.
The defendant Alstoetter makes a few remarks concerning this enclosed decree. He directs the presidents of the Courts of Appeal to take all necessary further steps for the instruction of the Guardianship Courts throughout the Reich as to the provisions of this enclosed decree. The defendant Alstoetter especially refers in his covering letter to the fact that with regard to paragraph 4 of the decree the forwarding of birth certificates of illegitimate children of foreign female workers who are stateless should not be requested. The defendant Alstoetter further directs that for the treatment of illegitimate children of Polish nationality special regulations have been proposed, but that until these regulations become effective the enclosed decree will be applied in matters concerning the guardianship over illegitimate children of Polish nationality.
Signed and sent by order of the defendant Alstoetter.
Now, the decree to which he refers is found on the following pages of the document, to which we merely wish to refer briefly, in passing. In paragraph Roman One (I) of this decree it is stated that:
"Foreign female workers who have come to the German Reich in order to be employed in the War Economy will, in case of pregnancy, not be sent home any more."
Further down, the same provision states that:
"Those illegitimate children of the above-mentioned foreign female workers, whose fathers belong to the German nation or to the Danish, Flemish, Dutch, Norwegian, Swedish or Walloon nations, and who can be considered valuable from the racial point of view, should not be cared for at the nurseries of children of foreigners, but should be brought up like German children."
In paragraph II of this decree it states that there was an agreement with the Reich Minister of Justice that, among other tilings, the Reichsfuehrer-SS was to be concerned and informed about all these matters of illegitimate children found within the Reich.
This directive concludes on page 35 of the German Book, and is the last page of the extra document which the Bench has, in the last article of this directive, paragraph VI, with the order that this decree is not to be published, not even in the information gazettes for official use. By that provision the prosecution assumes that the decree was to be kept absolutely secret.
The prosecution offers as Exhibit 460, this Document NG-891.
THE PRESIDENT: This document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 36 of the German Book is found NG894. Has the Bench been supplied with extra copies of the document that were missing from your Book 5?
THE PRESIDENT: We do not have it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN:NG-894, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We have it.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is to be inserted in Book 5 Supplement following the document just introduced, namely, NG-891.
JUDGE BRAND: I have that beginning on page 28, apparently.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That was due to a misnumbering of your Document, your Honor - due to some error in numbering, and from your page 28 on, your files will have to be renumbered.
JUDGE BRAND: It starts with the letter, "23 February."
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, your Honor. That will now follow the last page of 891.
NG-894 is a bulky and complete principal draft of a new, proposed citizenship law in February 1938. This draft was prepared by the Reich Minister of the Interior, as was the order referred to in the preceding document. And, as stated in the first paragraph of this Document, 894, this draft was sent to the other Reich Ministers. By that the prosecution infers that every other Minister of cabinet status received it -- among them being the Reich Minister of Justice. Without referring in any way at all to the lengthy proposed law, the prosecution merely wishes to briefly link this document with the present case. No defendant in this case appears in this document by name. But the document's subject matter is a proposed law concerning the acquisition and loss or deprival of German citizenship; under what conditions it can be given, and under what condition it can be taken away - with the resulting consequences here set forth.
The prosecution offers this document on the ground that it shows governmental intention in this field --"governmental" meaning Nazi government as of the year 1938 -- and we offer it to s how the long preparation and preliminary thoughts in the field of the deprival of citizenship and property, which later gave fruit in the actual laws enacted on this subject, which appear in Document Book 3 -- rather 2. Although this is a draft, a perusal of this draft will show the ground work laid for the actual laws passed and enforced, which are set forth in Document Book 2 on this subject. Without further description the prosecution offers this draft as Exhibit 451 -- no, 481.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. Prosecutor, I take it that you are suggesting that we disregard the words, "probably initials of Mettgenberg" on the second page.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, your Honor, we are offering the entire document in its entirety.
JUDGE BRAND: However, I understood you to say that you were not connecting it with any defendant directly.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We are not, your Honor, for the reason that "probably initials of Mettgenberg" so far as we have been able to ascertain, is an error. It's another man's name there and not Mettgenberg.
JUDGE BRAND: That was my point. You are not contending that that is Mettgenberg's signature?
MR. WOOLEYHAN : No, your Honor, we are not.
The final document in the Supplement to Book 5 is NG-1106. This document -- oh, I beg your pardon--
THE PRESIDENT: This Document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN:NG-1106, the last document in Supplement to Book 5, is a brief set of conference notes taken after a discussion held on 23 January 1942, at an unstated place. However, present at that conference, as the notes disclose, was - among a number of other public prosecutors and judges, Dr. Rothenberger, - the defendant Rothenberger. At this conference a Fourth Chamber of the Special Court in Hamburg was established. But, more important for the purposes of the prosecution, was the fact that in these conference notes is disclosed the fact that the defendant Rothenberger favored the refusal of the benefits of the Poor Law, or Bankruptcy Law, to Jews.
DR. DOETZER (for defendant Nebelung): It is not the question of the Bankruptcy Law here. The word "Poor Law" must be translated as "Armenrecht". "Poor Law" means that the costs of the proceedings are not charged.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the counsel for the defendant Rothenberger has no further comments I will offer this document. I am waiting for his reaction.. he has the exhibit ...
The prosecution offers, without further comments, this Document as Exhibit 462.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Just a minute, Your Honors, to state what we can do and what we hope to do this afternoon and in the morning. We still have some documents, which are loose documents, but which Mr. King will put in. He will designate the supplemental book in which they fall.
Then, tomorrow morning, we hope to have available for presentation Supplement III-A, which was distributed yesterday afternoon. Supplement III-B was distributed just this afternoon. If we can got the book prepared, and if there is no objection, we will offer that after Supplement III-A.
We also have on the road, somewhere in Germany, two witnesses who should be our final two witnesses. If they arrive this afternoon so that we may interview them, one of them will be put on tomorrow, before Book III-B. The "witness is a witness named Schmitt, who will testify with reference to the sterilization program. The other witness is the witness Franke, who was in the German Ministry of Justice, who will testify generally as to matters there, and his testimony affects the defendant Klemm. Franke has not yet arrived from the British Zone. When he gets in -- tonight or tomorrow, I don't know -- that should finish the prosecution's witnesses. We will then have a few final clean-up documents which now I think pretty positively I can say we will be able to close either Friday of this week or Monday of next week, of course depending upon when these witnesses arrive and when certain documents come out of translation that are still being translated.
That is our contemplated program for the balance of this week.
THE PRESIDENT: At this time the Tribunal will announce the uniform rule applying to all Tribunals relative to the cross-examination of affiants who have made affidavits which have been admitted in evidence. I will read the rule:
"In cases where the prosecution has offered the affidavit of a witness and the defense has requested an opportunity to cross-examine that witness, defense counsel shall apply to the Tribunal in the regular manner for his production for cross-examination.
Such cross-examination shall be conducted in open court, unless the Tribunal determines that such examination can be fairly and adequately conducted before a commissioner, in which event the Tribunal may make such an order."
I perhaps should have had copies of this made. I will do that immediately, and they will be available.
MR. KING: The document which is being distributed to the Court and the translators at this time is the document NG-973, and it will became, when offered in evidence, Exhibit 463.
THE PRESIDENT: Will this document be identified with any document book?
MR. KING: This document should be placed, as a matter of convenience, in Document Book I. May I suggest that it be placed in the supplement to Document Book I, probably as the last document in that book. There will be several other documents which we will introduce today, tomorrow, and the remaining days of the prosecution's case, which will also be placed in I; but if each document in that bank is placed after the preceding one, I think that it will be clear for purposes of reference.
THE PRESIDENT: We have one Document Book I, but this will be Supplement I, I take it?
MR. KING: Supplement I, yes.
The document which I am about to introduce pertains to a subject matter discussed in another document in the regular Document Book I, in the first Document Book I. However, all of the other documents which we are putting in relate in some manner to documents previously introduced, so I think that should not be our standard in placing them.
NG-973 is a series of letters and minutes of a meeting relating to the Gruenspan trial. I wish to refer particularly to the letter which is on page 2 of the document as circulated. It is dated Berlin, 10 April 1942, and it is addressed to the Reich Minister for Public Enlightenment and Propaganda, which was Geebbels, and it is signed Schlegelberger.
The letter merely points out that Goebbels should be aware of the fact that the proposed defendant, Gruenspan, would undoubtedly testify as to the alleged, to quote, "homosexual relations", which he had had with the Legation Counsellor von Rath, whom allegedly he murdered, and for that reason questions the advisability of proceeding with the trial. Other documents relate to the same general subject.
We offer the document NG-973 as Exhibit 463.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, which will be exhibit 464 when offered in evidence, is the document NG-1103. The document NG-1103 is a report of a conference called presumably by Dr. Freisler.
JUDGE BLAIR: You didn't give Judge Hardy a copy.
MR. KING: I can make that very definite; the reason for that is that I don't have additional copies. I wonder if the SecretaryGeneral has, among his pile of papers, additional copies of 1103?
COLONEL NESBIT: We are looking for that new, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: We will identify this as Supplement I also?
MR. KING: Yes, this should be placed in Supplement I.
While the search continues, I will proceed to summarize the document.
As I stated, this was a conference called by or arranged for by Dr. Freisler, at which certain members of the Ministry of Justice were present. Included among these present were the defendant Mottgenberg and the defendant Joel. The document concerns steps that should be taken in the Ministry of Justice to smooth out certain difficulties that have arisen, principally difficulties apparently due to aggressiveness of certain under-employees in the Ministry.
We wish to point out particularly the last sentence in the first paragraph, in which Dr. Freisler, who has signed the report, states that the State Secretary -- who at that time, on June 15, 1942, was the defendant Schlegelberger -- "will take the opportunity of the meeting of the chief prosecutors on 30 June and 1 July to make a speech in this matter."
And "this matter" refers to the general question of the administration of penal law.
DR. BREIGER: Concerning the document which has just been submitted to the Tribunal, 1103, I want to be permitted to print out an essential mistake in the translation. It has just been pointed out to me that repeatedly the titles in the document, "Bezirksreferent" and "Sachreferent", have been "translated with the technical term "subdepartment chief". That would not serve to clarify the matter. "Bezirksreferent", according to the meaning of the term "Bezirk", "district", would indicate that the man has to deal with matters in a certain geographic district. I could not say now what extent it had, but I think that is irrelevant for the time being. I am only interested in pointing out that there is a geographic term covered here. The first term "Bezirksreferent", is somewhat contrary to the other term, "Sachreferent", which comes from the term "Sache", a thing, matter. I should gather that it means a field of duties which has been divided among a number of people or a number of specialists, according to the matters to be dealt with.
May I ask to take that into consideration in translation? I should not like to stick to a definite translation at the time, but I only want to say that this should be taken into consideration.
MR. KING: We wish to thank Dr. Brieger for the interesting lecture on the semantics of this word, and we will call the Translation Department's attention to it so that in the future we can arrive at a more accurate translation of the word.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I should like to clarify a slight misunderstanding. The Prosecutor pointed out the last sentence of the last paragraph of Document 1103 and said that the Staatssekretair, the Undersecretary, was at that time Schlegelberger, the defendant Schkegelberger. It is correct, that Schlegelberger was Staatssekretaer, Undersecretary, but in addition to that, for penal matters Undersecretary Freisler was competent. The document reproduces a speech made by Freisler. From the entire content it can be seen that the Undersecretary mentioned here, who was to speak to the general prosecutors, that was Freisler's task, that that could only have been Freisler.
MR. KING: Dr. Kuboschok and the Court will notice on Page 2 of the document we have reference to State Secretary Dr. Freisler and State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger. I don't know by what guiding light Dr. Kuboschok comes to the conclusion that the speech was actually made by Freisler. Perhaps he knows of the speech. We don't now of it, and since "State Secretary" generally at this period, any way, is generally assumed to be Dr. Schlegelberger, the interference on my part was quite natural.
However, if Dr. Kuboschok has any further word on it, we would be glad to hear it.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: If in this document in any place only the word "Staatssekretaer" "Undersecretary" is used then it refers to Freisler. I want to refer to the following? The first line of the document: "the Staatssekretaer called the following gentlemen to see him." Then after they are listed the sentence follows, Staatssekretaer Dr. Freisler made the following statement to the gentlemen present. Further down, the paragraph before last: also the Staatssekretaer asked to refrain from passing on directives which he, or Dr. Schlegelberger -there again you see clearly the designation "Staatssekretaer" to the person of Freisler.
MR. KING: The explanation was full and complete, but I still don't see the distinction. However, it is not a point that we certainly want to argue about any further here, and if Dr. Kuboschok is convinced that it was Dr. Freisler who made the speech, I presume that he will later refer to it and perhaps offer some proff. In the meantime may I offer the Document NG-1103 as Exhibit 464.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document which will become, when received in evidence, Exhibit 465, is Document NG 1253, Document NG 1253 consists of an affidavit of an attorney who witnessed a trial in which three defendants were tried before the defendant Cuhorst in Stuttgart. The attorney who is the affiant in an affidavit is Wizigmann, and the case is an absolutely unpronouncable name which I am going to spell. P-o-t-s-c-h-i-v-a-l-s-c-h-e-k.
The rest of the document consists of the indictment in this case, in which one of the co-defendants, Skowron, was sentenced to death. It is the defendant Skowron in whom we are particularly interested.
I wish to read the portion of Wizigmann's affidavit beginning at the first full paragraph from the bottom of the page in the English with this sentence: "The first crime was committed on 26 July 1942, that is t to say at a time when SKOWRON was under 18 years of age the last committed on 24 January 1943. It could be seen from the indictment that several crimes were always committed within a period of a few days, as, for instance 6 crimes early in November, 3 crimes early in December 1942, and 3 at the end of January 1943, The first crime on 26 July 1942 was a theft from a countryman, who had taken considerable amounts from him at cards, and whom he therefore robbed of 190.-Marks.
"The other crimes start in October 1942. In most cases, the defendant stole mainly food stuffs, a part of which he immediately consumed. On a couple of occasions he took shoes, once a bicycle and once tools. Nearly all the stolen items were returned. Once only, 270.-Reichsmark were stolen, and of this money 155.- Reichsmarks were used, so that together with the theft from his comrade, a total of 345.- Reichsmarks was involved. As the remainder of the stolen items had almost all been taken from the Pole, there was a further amount of approximately 100.- Reichsmarks included. It should have been apparent, that the criminal was interest mainly in food-stuffs and simple clothing. The Special Court acted on the theory that 24 separate crimes had been committed, whereas in view of the fact that the thefts occurred within a very short period of time, often several in one night, they should have been regarded as a continued action.
Under normal circumstances, in a series of cases the crime of the defendant would have been considered as petty larceny for personal use.
"The fact that the defendant was sentenced to death under the presidency of CUHORST was incomprehensible and inhuman, taking into consideration his youth and past clear record and the fact that the damage done was very limited. The trial opened at about 10 O'clock and, as far as I can recall, ended shortly after 12 o'clock. With the wealth of evidence available, the trial could never have been carried out in such a short time under a conscientious president.
"During the trial, it became apparent that the President CUHORST was antagonistic towards foreigners, especially of Polish Nationality, and in stating his reasons for the sentence used the following expression with regard to the Pole "must be eradicated."
Then we would like to read a portion of the affidavit which appears on Page 3, beginning in the English six lines down with "in conclusion."
"In conclusion, I would like to make the further remarks that, considering the amount of evidence, the trial was conducted at great speed, which showed clearly CUHORST's animosity towards foreigners, especially of Polish Nationality, and that the death sentence should . never have been pronounced in view of the boyish appearance of the defendant, his mouth and past clear record. The manner in which the trial was conducted gave the impression that CUHORST did not value human life, as a judge who is conscious of his responsibilities, or, for that matter, a person with any feeling should.
Whereas another Judge would have shown sympathy when pronouncing the death sentence, CUHORST was merciless. SKOWRON was executed."
The remaining part of the document is the indictment in the case. The opinion in that case we do not have.
We offer the document NG 1253 as Exhibit 465.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. BRIEGER: I should like to refer for one moment to the document just submitted by the Prosecution. From the affidavit by Wizigmann, it can not be seen that he put the indictment at the disposal of the Prosecution. On the other hand, it cannot be seen from the certificate attached by Dr. Rolf Schneider that this is a captured document. In other words, it is not shown in what manner the document came into the possession of the Prosecution.
As for the indictment itself, I have to say: it is not the original indictment because the document does not have the signature in ink of the chief prosecutor, Link. The signature is affixed only by typewriter. Accordingly, as is my duty, I dispute that this is the original copy of the indictment and in the document itself I find that after page 4 the paginations on pages 4, 5, 6, then again on 3, have possibly been changed. On pages 10, 11, 12, and so forth from there on the paginations can no longer be seen at all up to page 16, where they are to be seen again. That is what causes me to contest the completeness of this document, and it seems to be all the more important to me because, if pages are missing, they must contain facts which were essential for the decision of the defendant Cuhorst, and such facts may possibly have been taken into consideration also in the sentence.
MR. KING: The document concerning which Dr. Brieger has raised a question is a document mimeographed and circulated by some one connected with the court in Stuttgard, of which the defendant Cuhorst was president. Whether this was the document that was handed to the defendant Skowron or a copy of it, I don't know. It may have been a document that was later circulated, for perusal of various people in the immediate area of Stuttgart and perhaps even forwarded on to Berlin. However, the fact remains that it was produced by the Stuttgart court, someone connected with it. It is in the original German, and, while it may not be a captured document, it is a part of the record in this trial, which is clearly admissible under the rules under which this Court oper Court No. III, Case No. 3.ates.
The fact that the pagination is not clear all the way through is unfortunate. However, the sense of the indictment, as can be seen by reading in the English version, is clear. There do not seem to bo any omissions. The original document shows that there were 21 pages. The last page is page 21, and there arc exactly 21 pages here, so I think Dr. Brieger's suggestion that there may be something missing is not well taken.
It also should be called to the Court's attention that a great many of the records, nearly all of them in fact, of the Stuttgart court were destroyed by bombing and subsequent fire. That is why in many of these cases it is very difficult to produce the actual document that was used in the trial, if such there were.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask a question? Does the affidavit refer to the copy of the indictment at any point? I have not found it.
MR. KING: The affidavit does not refer to this particular copy of the indictment, but the affidavit does refer to the fact that there was an indictment, and certain things can be seen from reading the indictment, so one knows from the affidavit that there was an indictment filed, which the affiant in this affidavit had seen.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be possible to have any better authentication by tomorrow morning, or is that time too short?
MR. KING: I doubt that it is, but we will see what we can do.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll bring it up again tomorrow morning. We'll recess at this time.
(Whereupon at 1625, 13 May 1947 the Tribunal recessed until 0930, 14 May 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 14 May 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
Military Tribunal III 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 please ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused temporarily at his own request. Let proper notation be made.
MR. KING: At the close of yesterday's session we were discussing the Document NG-1253 which had been offered as Exhibit 463. Objection was raised by Dr. Brieger to the effect that the indictment, which forms a part of this document, was, in his opinion, not the indictment served on the defendant, or, in fact, not officially distributed. We are not in a position to furnish more proof than we already have, with one exception: It is clear from the number in the upperright-hand corner of the document, the number, Roman numeral one, and then a slanting line followed by the number 10; it is clear from that that this indictment was drawn by the prosecutor Rimelin, who has appeared before this Court as a witness. It is well known, as Dr. Brieger himself could determine by consulting his client, that that was the number assigned to Rimelin and the one he always used in preparing his indictments. We also have learned, although I am not able to put the source of our information on the stand this morning, but we also have learned unofficially that this is probably the indictment, I mean, a copy of the indictment which was served on the defendant.
In any event, this indictment was a copy of the indictment which was sent to all prosecuting attorneys before the Stuttgart court, as was customary in every case. This particular copy Rimelin received, and we, in turn, got it from him. With that exception we have no further proof, but we think on the basis of what we said yesterday, plus the appearance of the original, that it is a document admissible as a part of a court record. The offer will now be made again. It might be of some convenience to the Court if the document, which we are about to hand up to the Secretary General, were before it for examination.
JUDGE BRAND: You got the document not from the affiant, but from another person?
MR. KING: That is correct; the document was obtained by us from Rimelin who was a prosecutor before the Stuttgart courts; in fact, Rimelin himself drew this indictment.
JUDGE BRAND: Of course I am not questioning the good faith of the integrity of your statement at all, but what is there to show, aside from your statement, that the indictment -- copy of which is here -- was received by the prosecutor or by any one else, or that it is the authentic copy of the original indictment? I haven't examined the affidavit of this unpronounceable affiant, but I understood from you that it does not incorporate by references the indictment at all.
MR. KING: No. The affiant in the affidavit is Witzigmann, who merely refers in his affidavit to the indictment in this case; he said the indictment would show certain things or did show certain things. From that we know only that there was an indictment. We do not know from that statement that this is the indictment to which he refers. When the witness Rimelin testified, he referred to this case, and he also made a remark at the time that there was an indictment in this case and some other comments on it.
JUDGE BRAND: But no one, other than yourself as an attorney, has identified this paper as being a copy of the indictment.