As similar treatments of chronic patients, especially juveniles, had long been applied -- especially when all other medicinal therapy had failed - and had partly been found successful, rand as they were entirely harmless, we had the scientific guarantee that we would not subject the patient to any risks by applying this treatment.
"As far as I can recall, I treated about fifty patients in my surgical ward additionally with bio-chemical and balneological measures. As could be foreseen, the success of these one-sided measures was only moderate and was restricted to the well-known good general effect of contrast therapy with warm baths. I reported this to Professor Gebhardt, submitting a scientific resume and a scientific paper intended for the professional press. Only a year later did I learn of Gebhardt's and Fischer's sulfonamide experiments, which were completed in 1942. In 1943 when I was transferred from the Luftwaffe in Norway to the military reserve hospital Hohenlychen, I learned about them from an official report (in a green pamphlet issued in 1943) dealing with a congress of Consulting Medical Officers of the German Wehrmacht. A short time before me, in 1936 or 1937, Dr. Stumpfegger joined the clinic as an assistant physician; at the beginning of the war, however, he became a military doctor, and since that time he never worked at Hohenlychen. I learned that from about 1942 on he was Himmler's escort physician and that he later held the same position with Hitler."
The next document can be found on page 24 of the document book. It is an excerpt from -the report on the Third Conference East of Consultant Specialists from the 24th to the 26th of May 1943. This is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit Number 23. I should like to state that we are concerned here with an excerpt from this green pamphlet, from which the Prosecution as well as by the defense have already submitted excerpts to the Tribunal.
I submit this document because the lectures by Gebhardt and other doctors of his clinic were held during the same meeting as the lectures reporting on. the sulfonamide experiments. That was in May 1943. On another occasion; when submitted Document Book Number 1, I submitted an excerpt from this report. This was Gebhardt Exhibit Number 10. I ask the Tribunal to take notice of the contents of this excerpt. A lecture by the Defendant Professor Gebhardt in collaboration with Standartenfuehrer Schulze, who was chief physician at Hohenlychon; regarding physiotherapy and the mobilization of joints, is described under figure 2.
On page 28 of the document book you find the name Koestler mentioned at the bottom of the page. Here there is no question at all of any experiments on human beings, but of experience gained as a result of the clinical work. On page 29 under paragraph 15 you find a lecture given by Dr. Brunner. This concerns limitations of the therapeutic value of x-ray contrast pictures of injuries of peripheral nerves. I refer to the affidavit of Dr. Brunner in this connection which has already been submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit 20, a few minutes ago.
On page 30 of the document book you find reference to a lecture under paragraph 16 by SS-Gruppenfuehrer, Generalleutnant Prof. Gebhardt regarding paralysis of the nerves. This was done in collaboration with Koestler. This lecture was given as a result of experiments on animals which Koestlcr carried out under the leadership of Gebhardt. Koestlcr speaks about experiments in his affidavit which was already submitted by me to the Tribunal today as Gebhardt Exhibit 21.
THE PRESIDENT: What page of your Document Book was the last one you referred to, counsel?
DR. SEIDL: Page 30 of the German and 30 of the English document book, your Honor.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, exhibit 23 which is document 24 does that purport to be an extract of Prosecutions exhibit?
DR. SEIDL: We are hero concerned with the same document which was mentioned about an hour ago by Dr. Nelte. This is the green pamphlet about the report of the consulting physicians.
I shall not turn to page 31 of the Document Book. Hero you find the statement made by Dr. Med. von Erlach dated 23 February 1947. Dr. Erlach was the head of a mixed commission of physicians which visited the clinic of Hohenlychen. He visited this institute in his capacity as chief physician, coming from Switzerland from the International Red Cross. I submit this statement as Exhibit Gebhardt 24.
I don't think that it is necessary to quote anything from this statement and I ask tho Tribunal to take notice of that.
I then turn to the affidavit of Wilhelmine Henne which can be found on page 34 of the document book. I should like to make the following remarks in that connection. The 9 documents which I am going to submit now all concern more or loss the same subject. Those are statements made by former nurses, former male nurses, and former patients of the Clinic Hohenlychen. I picked out from a large number of letters which wore addressed to me a number of statements and converted them into the form of an affidavit. I don't thin that it is necessary to read anything into the record and I shall merely submit them to the Tribunal as exhibits. The affidavit made by Wilhelmine Henne on page 34 of tho document book which bears the number 24, will become Gebhardt Exhibit 25.
The next document is an affidavit signed by a certain Mademoiselle Antoinette Delachaux and it can be found on page 37 of the Document book. This is document 27 and I submit it as Gebhardt Exhibit 26.
The following document is an affidavit signed by a certain Horr von Schlebruegge. This you find in Document Book II on page 39. It bears the number 28 and it is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit #27.
Then follows the affidavit signed by a certain Carl Friedrich Mossdorf. This you find on page 42 of the Document Book bearing the number 29 and will become exhibit 28. Then follows the affidavit signed by Paula Kallmuenzer who was a physiotherapist at Hohenlychen. This can be found on page 45 of the document book bearing #30 and will become Gebhardt exhibit 29.
There follows on page 47 of tho document book an affidavit signed by Dr. Gustav Adolf Schmeding which bears document number 31 and is offered as Gebhardt Exhibit #30.
MR. HARDY: For the convenience of the Tribunal at the completion of the introduction of evidence on the part of Dr. Seidl for the defendant Gebhardt, Dr. Merkle will have his document book ready for the defendant Genzken and he was submitted his Genzken document book and the Secretary General may procure those for the Tribunal and I will attempt to procure ones for the Prosecution and we will be ready at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: The secretary will procure the documents.
DR. SEIDL: The last document to which I referred was the affidavit of Dr. Gustav Adolf Schmeding on Page 47 of the document book. This bears no. 31 and is offered as Gebhardt Exhibit #30. The next document is an affidavit signed by Mrs. Marie Agnes Kasten. This will find on page 49 of the Document Book bearing the document number 32, and is being offered as Gebhardt exhibit #31. On page 51 of the document book you will find the affidavit signed by the physiotherapist Gisela Fritze. This document bears no. 33 and is offered to the Tribunal as Exhibit 32.
I now turn to the affidavit signed by Kaethe Sommer a licensed physiotherapist which you will find on page 53, bearing #34. This affidavit is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit 33.
These documents conclude the series of affidavits with which I intended to give a picture to the Tribunal about the spirit in which Professor Gcbhardt tried lead his clinic. As already mentioned these affidavits have been selected from a large number of letters from his former collaborators and patients. Now I shall turn to page 55 of the docunont book. Here you will find an affidavit signed by Fr. Dr. Maria Weber, a nerve specialist in the nerve clinic of the Munich University. This bears #35 and is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit 34. This document distinguishes itself from previous documents by the fact that it deals with one particular question which has played a part during these proceedings, namely treatment of psychopathic and people who are feeble minded. This serves a good purpose in substantiating of the testimony which Dr. Gebhardt made on the witness stand. It describes how the defendant Gebhardt tried to cure psychopathic children, feeble minded children, and make then again worthy members of society.
As I mentions before I an offering this document as Gebhardt Exhibit 34.
There now follow a number of Documents, Mr. President, which are intended to show what Dr. Karl Gebhardt's political attitude was and to show that he was tolerant from a political point of view and that he tried to help the people who had gotten into difficulties because of political or racial reasons. Here I am also only supplementing from a number of letters which I have received and which I am submitting to the Tribunal in the form of affidavits.
The first document of that kind can be found on page 58 of the document book. This is an affidavit signed by Mrs. Dorrit von Viereck. It bears the document No. 36 and is offered as Exhibit 35 - I repeat, Gebhardt Exhibit No. 35, In the case of this document, as well as in the case of all other documents, I forego quoting any passages into the record and merely confine myself to asking the Tribunal to take notice of the documents.
On page 60 of the Document Book you will find an affidavit signed by a Mrs Daisy von Arnim, bearing the document No. 37, which is being offered as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 36.
The next document to which I am turning now is the affidavit signed by Med. Dr. Gertrud Obermeier, on page 65 of the document book. This document bears the number 39 and I am submitting it to the Tribunal as Gcbhardt Exhibit No. 38.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you intentionally passing one document, counsel? Did you pass your document No. 38 intentionally?
DR. SEIDL: I beg your pardon, Mr. President. I overlooked that document. Document No. 38 is the affidavit signed by Conrad Scherz on the 25th of March 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Document No. 38, counsel, is it not? You said Document 39. It seems to be No. 38.
DR. SEIDL: Yes, it will be No. 38.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit No. 37.
DR. SEIDL: Document 38 will become Gebhardt Exhibit No. 37. This is an affidavit signed by Konrad Scherz. The affidavit signed by Gertrud Obermeier, bearing the number 39, will become Gebhardt Exhibit No. 38. You will find these documents in the sequence as recorded in the index which was submitted to the Tribunal. It was my mistake in overlooking that affidavit of Konrad Scherz.
On page 67 you will find an affidavit by Medical Doctor de Valdez Lange, bearing the No. 40, which is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 39 Mr. President, the next document in the document book was already submitted by me at an earlier occasion.
This is an affidavit signed by Frau Margaretha Mydla and was submitted as Exhibit Oberhauser No. I. This document refers only to defendant Herta Oberhauser and her activity in the concentration camp of Ravensbrueck. I merely included it once more in my document book because it was then only submitted individually and not within the framework of a document book. In order to avoid any loss or oversight, I deemed it expedient to also include it in ay document book at this time.
The last document in my document book -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will you again give me the number of your Document No. 41?
DR. SEIDL: Document No. 41 bears the Exhibit Oberhauser No. 1. It was already submitted to the Tribunal into evidence and admitted as such.
The last document in the document book constitutes an ordinance by the Government General for the Occupied Polish Territories. It is a decree against acts of violations in the Government General of the 3rd of October 1939. The Court suggested that this document be offered in connection with some of the documents of Volume I. I was not in a position to submit this document at an earlier date because at that time I was not in possession of the Gazette of the Government General dated 1939. This document is on page 72 of the document book, bears the number 42 and is submitted by me as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 40. I have referred to this document in my final plea and have explained in detail what legal conclusions can be derived from the document. I cannot submit the document in the original because it is now in possession of the General Secretary's Office. For that reason I have made an excerpt from the Gazette of the Government General and had it certified. If it is desired I shall also be in a position to submit a photostat copy.
MR. HARDY: I understand defense counsel certifies that this is a. true copy of the Act as set forth in the Government General's rules, or orders -- is that correct?
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Seidl, we have been observing this document No. 42, that is certified by you. I understand this is a literal transcript, certified by you from the original?
DR. SEIDL: Yes. This ordinance was published in the same way as all other decrees and laws, that is, in a book. This book can be found in the library of the General Secretary. I have merely certified the authenticity of the copy as it was taken from that book. This decree of the Government General will become Gebhardt Exhibit No. 40.
This brings mo to the conclusion of the submission of documents which are contained in Volume II. Gentlemen of the Tribunal, there are 4 more documents which I would like to submit, which arc not contained in any document book, but which I can submit singly. These are 4 affidavits. The first affidavit is an affidavit signed by Countess von Kuonnburg. It bears No. 43 and will be submitted to the Tribunal as Gobhardt Exhibit No. 41.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I would like to inform Dr. Seidl that I have translations of these last 4 in my possession.
DR. SEIDL: The same question is treated in this affidavit which was already dealt with by the witness Dr. Maria Weber, namely, treatment of feeble-minded and psychopathic children by the defendant Dr. Karl Gebhardt.
The next document -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, just a moment. These were handed up to us not in order. We would like to arrange them in order before you proceed.
DR. SEIDL: May I ask whether the Tribunal has this affidavit of Countess von Kuennburg before it?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. SEIDL: In that case I should like to submit it as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 41. The next document listed in the index is an affidavit signed by Mrs. Spranger, This is the wife of the well-known Dr. Spranger and is intended to show in what trends Professor Gebhardt's political thinking was moving. This will be Gebhardt Exhibit No. 42.
The next is an affidavit signed by a certain Wachsmuth and deals with the same question. This bears No. 46 and is submitted as Gebhardt Exhibit No. 43.
I now turn to the last document, Mr. President, It is an affidavit signed by the defendant Dr. Karl Gcbhardt himself. I believe that it is necessary for me to state the reason which moved me to submit such an affidavit in addition to the testimony of the defendant Dr. Gebhardt, under oath, in the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I have no copy of that document in English. I wonder if one is available - an English translation of this document? We have only one copy of that document translated.
DR. SEIDL: I brought a number of translations along with me, Mr. President. I should merely like to explain, Mr. President, that my only reason for submitting this affidavit is to prevent any misunderstandings in interpretation during Professor Gebhardt's testimony. We have observed that the translation of Dr. Gebhardt's testimony has proved to be very difficult and for that reason I thought it to be expedient to submit to the Tribunal a concentrated summary of Professor Gebhardt's testimony on the witness stand. Nothing new is contained in that affidavit and its purpose merely is to facilitate the work of the Tribunal and to adjust and clear up any mistakes in the translations which have not been cleared up to date. I just want to add that this really constitutes no basical question for me and should the Prosecution be of the opinion that this procedure is not proper, I for my own part, will not insist on the submission of this affidavit. I don't know whether the representative of the Prosecution has already read the affidavit. In case he has not as yet read it, perhaps the decision regarding its admissibility can be postponed until such time as Mr. Hardy is in a position to state whether or not he intends to object to this affidavit.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I have sufficiently looked over the affidavit to determine enough to satisfy myself that I do not think it is admissible as an exhibit. It is a summary of evidence written by the defendant himself. However, I feel that it might be suggested that the defense counsel for Gebhardt may well file this with his brief to the Tribunal as a summary of evidence written by the defendant instead of by the defense attorney. It is not a. document as such, as we would consider here as admissible in evidence. It is merely a summary of the transcript of the evidence and the testimony of Gebhardt when he was on the witness stand. I think it is perhaps a good brief and one that the Tribunal may find useful, but I do not think it is admissible as an exhibit, In substance, Your Honor, I think the defendant could well incorporate this into his brief.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems that the defendant would have a right to file an affidavit; it would, of course, be subject to an examination, inspection by the prosecution, or calling the defendant again for cross examination if he desires, but --
MR. HARDY: But this affidavit, your Honor; is just a rehashing of the testimony of the defendant which he has been examined on. In other words, the defendant own summary of the evidence in this own judgement of how he testified. That is for the Tribunal to decide when reading the testimony.
THE PRESIDENT: If the affidavit is a conclusion rather than a statement of facts it is not a proper subject for examination but a proper subject for argument as a supplement counsel's brief. The Tribunal has had no opportunity to examine the affidavit or whatever the document is called.
DR. SEIDL: I may perhaps add the following. This affidavit contains facts as w ell as conclusions in the same way. It contains conclusions in the same way as many of the witnesses whom we have heard here have stated conclusions. It is merely a summary of very extensive testimony and is merely intended to facilitate the work of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will receive the document in evidence, and disregard the conclusions. The counsel for prosecution may call the defendant for cross-examination in connection with the document if he desires. What number do you assign the document?
DR. SEIDL: This document will receive Exhibit 44. Mr. President the document number has not been assigned on the document. It is document number 43.
THE PRESIDENT: I had already added the number which counsel gave us before.
Does this conclude counsel's offer documents?
DR. SEIDL: Mr. President; this concludes the submission of evidence on behalf of defendant Karl Gcbhardt. I may again repeat that these documents are of course also evidence on behalf of defendant Oberhauser and Fischer; and only for reasons of simplicity the designation was Gebhardt alone.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal understands that they are on behalf of all three defendants.
These documents counsel, are well arranged and in consecutive order and the Tribunal would compliment counsel on the presentation and arrangement of the documents. I am not referring to the contents of the documents because I have not read them, but the arrangement and order of presentation was excellent.
DR. SEIDL: Thank you, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: We received the book offered on behalf of the defendant Dr. Karl Genzken. Is counsel ready to proceed with those?
MR. HARDY: At the conclusion of Dr. Genzken production of evidence 0 think the defendant Ruffs document book will be ready, so if the Secretary General can have those document books ready, it will be helpful.
DR. MERKEL: Merkel for defendant Genzken.
Mr. President, Gentlemen of the Tribunal, in supplementation of the submission of evidence I should like to offer seven documents. The first document, Genzken Document 18 to be found on page 40 of the document book. This is offered as Genzken Exhibit 17. This is an affidavit signed by the witness Ruff. After the customary introduction the witness states, and I quote:
"I was Chief of the Fuehrungsabteilung (administrative department) in the SS Fuchrungshauptamt (SS Administrative Main Office) since August 1943, and from 1 May 1942 to the end of the War 1 was la of the SS Fuchrungshauptamt and I am acquainted therefore with the organizatory structure and branche of the SS Fuchrungshauptamt, and consequently also with the medical service cf the Waffen SS.
"While Groups of consultant physicians had been attached to the medical chiefs of the three sections of the Wehrmacht, groups which acted in an advisory capacity in the separate special fields of medicine, this institution dod not exist with the Chief of the Medical Service of the TIaffcn SS within the SS Fuchrungshauptamt.
"I knew that there was a large number of leaders within the Waffen SS who were not subordinate to the SS Fuchrungshauptamt, but served in ether SS branches, and were subordinate therefore to the chiefs of these branches."
This affidavit should prove there were no so-called groups of consultant physicians at the Waffen SS. This supports the testimony of the Defendant Gebhardt who designated himself as consulting surgeon of Himmler and therefore was not subordinated to the SS Fuehrungshauptamt or the chief of the Medical Service of the Waffen SS.
All the other documents are copies of the Pohl trial which is Case No. 4 in Courtroom No. 2 All of these arc certified by Major Schaefer.
The first of these series of documents is Genzken 19-A, and can be found on page 41 of the document book. It is going to be exhibit 18. This is the interrogation of witness Dr. Kogan by the porsecution in Tribunal IV. I quote on P. 41 the last question:
"Q And in 1943 Block 50 was abandoned and was used for the production of typhus vaccine?
"A We entered the block on the l5th of August 1943. It had been arranged for the purposes of production of typhus vaccine, and the production had been changed."
This shows that Block 50, the vaccine production station was only used as from the 15th of August 1943. If the Tribunal will remember as of the 1st of September 1943 the institute for the production of vaccine was no longer under the jurisdiction of Genzken, but under the jurisdiction of the Reichsarzt SS Grawitz. The block was only occupied on 15th August 1943. The actual production of vaccine must have stated much later, certainly after the 1st of September 1943.
The next document will be Genzken 19-B, and will become Genzken Exhibit No. 19. This you will find on page 43 of the Document Book. Here we have the cross-examination of the same witness, Dr. Kogan by defense counsel Dr. Seidl. As it is well-known Balachowsky had submitted an affidavit to the prosecution, document No. 484 which was Exhibit No. 291. On page 65 of the cocument 12 of the prosecution, there Balachowsky speaks about a Main Committee on typhus research and alleges Genzken was a member of that committee.
Other documents have already established that no such main committee existed. It has been proved that Dr. Balachoswky had not sufficient knowledge about the situation in Block 50 and Block 46, and it is for that reason I am going to submit that document, No. 19. I merely read the last question on page 43.
"Q On the basis of your statement, I must assume that Dr. Bachalowsky also was well informed about the conditions in Block 46 and Block 50?
"A Not so well not even approximately so well as I was."
The next document will be Genzken Document 19-C, which will be Exhibit Genxken 20. This you find on page bb cf the Document Book and it is also an excerpt from the cross-examination of witness Kogan by defense counsel Seidl:
"Q I shall now come back to these medical experiments at Buchenwald that were carried out there. You testified that Dr. Ding from 1943 was chief of the Division for Typhus and virus Research at Buchenwald, is that correct?
"A Yes. The time within '43 must be stated more accurately. I tell you the Department for Typhus and Virus Research was later on decided upon by the Hygienic Institute at Berlin, rather than at the time when Ding-Schuler took over these functions practically."
"Q When was the Department for Typhus and Virus Research created?
" A The Department which received that title later on, according to my recollection, was created in November 1941, within the framework of the Department for Special Tasks of Dr. Ding-Schuler, and that was only for a clinical station there. The plan for the foundation on the station for the production of inoculants for typhus started in Autumn of 1942. The execution itself ran from the end of January 1943 to the 15th of August 1943. The common title, Department for Typhus and Virus Research, at Buchenwald, was, according to my recollection, finally decided upon at the end of 1943, at the Hygienic Institute of the Waffen SS, Berlin."
Since the common title was only finally decided upon at the end of 1943, one finds that only at that period of time was the production of vaccine started.
The next document will be Genzken 19-D, Exhibit 21, which one finds on page 45 of the document book. This is the direct interrogation of the Witness Ackermann by the prosecution:
"Q. Was Dr. Mueller, whom you mentioned, subordinated to Dr. Lolling?"
A. Dr. Mueller, like every other doctor in the concentration camps, was subordinated to Dr. Lolling."
This establishes that every Doctor in the concentration camps, including Dr. Ding, was subordinated to Dr. Lolling, the head of the concentration camps. Dr. Lolling and his department were part of the W.V.H.A., Sub-department D-3. Dr. Lolling and his department, D-3-, were not part of the SS-Fuehrungsamt.
In addition I submit Genzken document No. 19-E, which will become Genzken Exhibit No. 22 and can be found on page 46 of the document book. This is the continuation of the interrogation of the Witness Ackermann by the Prosecution, I quote:
"Q: Do you know if this camp was subordinated to the W.V.H.A. in Berlin: the economic and administrative head office in Berlin?
A. After all letters, at least those from the medical section, had been read and after we sent them to D-3 and Lolling had repeatedly come there for inspection, we had to assume that the W.V.H.A., with whom we were in direct contact regarding economic matters, actually was the superior organization of this SS institute."
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, will you please read again Document No. 19-E slowly and I shall ask the interpreter to interpret without the benefit of the manuscript.
DR. MERKEL: "Question: Do you know whether this camp was subordinated to the W.V.H.A. in Berlin, the economic and administrative head office in Berlin.
"Answer: Since all letters, at least from the medical department, had been sent to D-9, to Lolling's office and Lolling had come there repeatedly for purposes of inspection, we had to assume that the W.V.H.A., with whom we were in direct contact regarding economic matters, actually was the superior agency of this SS institution."
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. MERKEL: Finally, in order to prove the same matter, I am submitting the document 19-F, Exhibit 23, on page of the document book. This is also an excerpt from the examination of the witness Ackermann and I quote:
"Q. Do you remember with what Amtsgruppe of the W.V.H.A. you were in contact?
"A. Mainly as a medical department we were always in contact with the department D-3, the referat of which was Dr. Lolling, which was the competent organization. We also wrote to other departments and I cannot remember what departments they were exactly."
This concludes my submission of evidence on behalf of the defendant, Dr. Genzken.
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, these documents which you are about to offer, do they run from No. 22 through No. 32; does that comprise all of them?
DR. SALTER: No, I am afraid that is not correct. The documents which I now intend to submit, run from No. 17 to No. 23.
This is the supplemental volume 3, it begins with an affidavit of Dr. Professor Werner Knothe, repeat supplement 3 to document book Blome, starting with document 17.
JUDGE SEBRING: Well, counsel members of the Tribunal have supplemental 3 in their rooms. If you would start this afternoon on supplement 4, then we will take up supplement 3 in the morning.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, supplemental volume 4 was already submitted by me when dealing with my evidence. If you remember, these were excerpts from the Philippine Journal, which were already submitted. Mr. President, the supplement No. 3 is available here in the English translation and you can have it.
THE PRESIDENT: Let us have some of them, sir. Counsel, are you offering documents on behalf of the defendant Ruff or Blome?
DR. SAUTER: For the defendant Blome.
THE PRESIDENT: WE had not received those documents until this moment, I was misled by supposing that you referred to other documents. Proceed.
MR. HARDY: If Dr. Sauter would permit and is not in a position to put in the bocks on Ruff maybe at this time we could, put in the documents on Rudofl Brandt. He is all ready to go and we could delay on Blome until the morning.
DR. SAUTER: I am also in a position to submit Dr. Ruff's documents immediately, would you prefer that?
JUDGE SEBRING: Well, Dr. Sauter, when I directed my inquiry to you, it was with regard to the Ruff documents. We have here before us Ruff Documents Nos. 22 to 32, inclusive At the time I directed my inquiry, we did not have the Blome document book.
Are Nos. 22 to 32 Documents Ruff all of the supplemental documents to be put in on his behalf?
DR. SAUTER: Yes. If you desire, I can immediately start with the case of Ruff.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection, Mr. Hardy, to starting with the Blome documents?
MR. HARDY: If he has any more than the one supplement I just have one, I don't have all the Blome documents and this is rather confusing to me. I cannot scan my files and know what is to be used. Is ho going to put in more than the one supplement document book on behalf of Dr. Blome?
DR. SAUTER: No, only the supplemental Volume No. 3, volumes 1, 2 and 4 were already dealt with. I have only document volume 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel then proceed with Blome documents?
DR. SAUTER: Yes, Mr. president.
The next document, on behalf of Blome, are documents in Blome supplemental volume 4. These are the documents Blome Nos. 24, 25, and 26. I repeat Nos. 24, 25 and 26, which all had the common exhibit No. 18. I am now continuing with the presentation of the Blome documents, starting with document No. 17. I repeat Document No. 17, which will receive the Exhibit No. 19. I repeat Document No. 17 will be given Exhibit No. 19 in Blome's supplemental volume. This is an affidavit signed by Professor Dr. Knothe, who comes from Goslar.
I am not going to read these affidavits, nor shall I road the others, but I shall merely confine myself to a brief statement of the contents. This Professor Knothe, who signed affidavit No. 17, was for many years the chairman of the German X-ray Association.