Q In that case you weren't present during the vaccination itself?
A Well, I was in the room.
Q But you didn't see whether Haagen injected or what he did?
A I really didn't see whether it was intramuscular injection or an intravenous injection.
Q And the second treatment which you think was an infectious treatment, how was that carried through?
A It may have been done in the same way. I can't tell you that exactly.
Q Witness, another question with reference to the death book. A little earlier, in the case of one name, you have stated that you knew exactly that this death came as a result of the experiment, because you added a "V" to that name. What does that "V" mean?
A The V means Versuch - experiment. I merely indicated that personally. That was not in the death book.
Q Witness, you are a Dutchman, aren't you? Do you use the German language so often that even in case of such a notation you use a German word?
A No, I really don't use the German language at all but at that time I certainly did. Sometimes, after I came home, and I can tell you that, some Dutchmen pointed out to me that I have to learn to speak Dutch properly once more. For 5 years I had to speak German and therefore I often made mistakes in Dutch and even today it occurs that I make a mistake.
Q You were saying that you abbreviated the German word "versuch" with a "V". Now, witness, let me depart from the typhus experiments and go over to the further work of Mr. Haagen. You were telling us that Mr. Haagen, in May of 1944, once more went to Natzweiler, is that true?
A I have said that either the end of April or the beginning of May.
Q During this time, witness, was another typhus vaccination or something carried through?
A I can't tell you that exactly. I only know that Professor Haagen, in the case of normal typhus patients, had ordered blood tests to be carried through and sometimes carried them through himself.
Q Now, witness, if I understand you correctly, there were normal typhus cases in the camp too?
A Yes.
Q Were they very numerous in the summer of 1944 or the spring of 1944?
A Well, there were about 40 cases. I was not working in that department and I really can't tell you that exactly but I do think there were about 40 or 30 cases.
Q Isn't it true, witness, that in the spring or summer of 1944 there was a regular typhus epidemic in the camp?
A No.
Q Witness, you yourself were not a nurse in the typhus block were you?
A No.
Q Do you know the witness Grandjean?
A Yes.
Q Do you think Grandjean is a reliable and credible person?
A Yes.
Q Now if I tell you now that Mr. Grandjean, here as a witness before this Tribunal, has appeared in the same way as you have, and has testified, under oath, that he was a nurse in the typhus block and that the number of typhus cases in the spring and summer of 1944 amounted to 1200, would you say that Mr. Grandjean has lied?
A Certainly.
Q But you were just telling us that Mr. Grandjean was a reliable man. Now you say that ho has lied. Why?
A In the whole camp there were only about 1200 people and I am now talking about the Natzweiler Mother Camp. At the most there were 2,000 at the last moment.
Q Witness, perhaps this apparent contradiction can be cleared up that Grandjean certainly did not say that these 1200 cases occurred at one time but that, one after another, throughout the year, there were 1200 cases.
A Well, that is possible.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I wish when defense counsel refers to the testimony of Grandjean he quotes the record exactly as Grandjean testified. I think this will deceive the witness here.
DR. TIPP: I haven't the testimony of Grandjean before me but I shall be able to ascertain the exact page number during the recess and will then be able to inform the Tribunal as to when he appeared.
MR. HARDY: There were a number of cases in camps outside the Mother Camp, as Grandjean testified.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess and then the matter may be investigated.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. TIPP: Mr. President, in accordance with the request of Mr. Hardy, I have determined when the witness Grandjean testified here. He was here as a witness on 6 January 1947, his testimony is on page 1099 of the English record, page 1145 of the German.
The testimony of the witness Holl is also of interest in this connection. He was here on 3 January 1947, his testimony is on page 1058 of the English record, page 1098 of the German.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q Witness, we stopped at the typhus epidemic in Natzweiler. I put to you the testimony of Nurse Grandjean, who said there was a total number of 1,200 cases of typhus and I believe I understood you correctly that you conceded this number might be right. If one took all cases together; is that true?
A Including the outside camps, that might be right.
Q Grandjean was including the outside camps, yes. Witness, I should like to go on to another subject you discussed, the poison gas experiments, which Mr. Haagen allegedly carried out. As far as I can recall, you said Haagen came back about the end of April or beginning of May in 1944; is that right?
A Yes.
Q Well, then will you please toll us from your own knowledge what you know about these gas experiments?
A Professor Haagen came back about this time, he had people picked out again from among the gypsies who were in the camp, who were in a certain block and he put them in the same two rooms.
Q May I interrupt you a moment; how do you know who selected the experimental subjects?
A They were selected by the camp doctor and told to come to the prisoner's hospital, they came early in the morning or at noon, I don't remember exactly and Haagen and the camp doctor picked them out.
Q How many people were taken out of these blocks as possible experimental subjects; was it a large number or a few?
A I believe eight, there were four groups.
Q. Do I understand you correctly? Did you say eight?
A. Perhaps eight, about eight.
Q. The experiments were carried out on eight persons?
A. Yes.
Q. I believe you said this morning that these experimental subjects included some gypsies who had already been in the typhus experiments, is that true?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, do you know whether Mr. Haagen ordered the people to come to the hospital and from what group of persons these people were taken or whether it was a camp doctor who did this? Do you know anything about this?
A. No, I only know that perhaps an orders from above -- I don't know -- the camp doctor ordered them to come to the hospital and Haagen and the SS camp doctor selected them; but primarily Haagen.
Q. Witness, do you know Professor Haagen well?
A. I saw a great deal of him.
Q. Well, the Court has seen Mr. Haagen too. Can you please describe to us what Mr. Haagen looks like?
A. Well, he is about one meter sixty-eight tall. He had gray hair. He wore a Luftwaffe uniform, blue-gray. He had a white epaulet, a golden staff of Aesculapius. He was not fat, but rather stout.
Q. You knew Mr. Haagen from the typhus experiment?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, did he carry out these typhus experiments alone?
A. Yes.
Q. Was no one ever there?
A. No --- there were visitors sometimes.
Q. Now, I must put some other testimony before you, witness:
A witness, Hirz, whom we heard here said that Mr. Haagen came with another Stabsarzt of the Luftwaffe.
A. No, sometimes people came alone and sometimes not, but occasionally he brought somebody along.
Q. But when the injections were made nobody was there.
A. No, only the assistants.
Q. It was a female assistant?
A. Yes.
Q. There was no other officer there?
A. No.
Q. Now, what happened in this gassing experiment, Witness? Just briefly.
A. I have already said that Professor Haagen divided these people into four groups. I am assuming this number, eight. It might have been ten. And then he went down with one group each time and he took a drinking cup and an ampule , a white ampule, that he brought with him in a big box. It was put in soot or something like that. It was very well packed. He took that out and he took the people down or else he sent for them; he had gone ahead, and then they came back and were put to bed.
Q. Just a minute, Witness, What actually happened to these people when they were away from the hospital until they came back. You don't know that?
A. No.
Q. And you don't know whether Mr. Haagen performed experiments on these people in. the meantime or whether somebody else did it and maybe Haagen was only the assistant. You can't say that?
A. No.
Q. Now, what did the people look like when they came back?
A. The first were not seriously affected. They were used again later. And became worse and worse. When the worst came the people were trying hard to breathe. They couldn't get air; they had foam at their mouth. Terrible, terrible to look at. I can't judge, of course. I only know that the diagnosis when they died was lung oedema. That was determined by Professor Haagen and some of the prisoner-doctors, including this Dr. Kredit, the Dutch doctor!
Q. You said, Witness, I believe, three people died of these experiments, is that right ?
A. Five, and some died in Dachau too.
Q. How do you know that.
A. I went with an evacuation from Natzweiler to Dachau with the sick transport. There was a train with thirteen hundred patients and these people were among them. I know that on the way some of them died. We had one car for this ward and another car for that ward, and so we had the cases sorted. And Dr. Kredit reported that these people had died, but I don't remember the names.
Q. Now, how many of these people died while they were still in Natweiler and how many died in Dachau?
A. I can only say that I saw some of them in Dachau. One was in the hospital with me for something -- had something the matter with his lungs.
Q. And how many dead people from these experiments did you yourself see in Natzweiler?
A. Five.
Q. Those are the five in the book here?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, can you, opening the book, Witness, tell from the book when these people died? Can you see that from the entry?
A. The month, yes.
Q. Now, Witness, how does it happen that only the month is entered and not the day?
A. The dates were not always given, the dates. Sometimes the report came up. It was always reported to the SS and the date wasn't important, only the month.
Q. But if I understood your correctly before, you said that the death record from which you copied this list was kept in the hospital.
A. Yes.
Q. And was kept by prisoners?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, Witness, it seems rather remarkable that prisoners would not have enough interest in their dead comrades to record the date of the death, especially since you say that there was the intention of notifying the relatives later.
A. If you will look at the book you will see that in the cases of the Dutchmen -- and I was a Dutchman -- I wrote down the exact dates or had them written down, because I was especially interested. The other prisoners , too; but I was interested in my Dutch comrades, and if you look at the Book you will see that in the cases of the Dutchmen the exact date is given.
Q. Well, Witness, are these exact dates given in your copy too?
A. Of the Dutchmen ? Yes they are.
Q. Now, Witness, to go back to Mr. Haagen: Can you say definitely that Mr. Haagen carried out these experiments or is there a possibility that you are confusing Haagen with some other Luftwaafe doctor who was also a Stabsarzt -- captain -- and who to your knowledge actually did carry out such experiments in Natzweiler?
A. What experiments are you talking about, the typhus experiments?
Q. No, I mean the gas experiments.
A. I know only that Haagen only --- was the only one who came to the camp and was the only one who had the interest of having the case history recorded.
Q. You think you can exclude any mistake then?
A. Yes, it is quite impossible.
Q. But whether Haagen actually carried out the experiments, you don't know?
A. No.
Q. Now, Witness, a final question on the witness, Dr. Kredit. Kredit was a Dutchman, I believe.
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us whether Dr. Kredit died?
A. In February, 1945, in Dachau.
DR. TIPP: Then I have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross-examination by any of the Defense Counsel?
(There was none.)
Has Counsel for the Prosecution any redirect examination?
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution has no further questions, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused from the stand.
(The witness, Nales, left the witness-stand.)
I understand that Counsel for the Defendant Becker-Freyseng has some documents to offer.
MR. HARDY: May I inquire at this time whether other Defense Counsel will be prepared to put on their documentary evidence? It seems to me that some of these translations should be through by now.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other Defense Counsel prepared with any of the documents which re to be offered in evidence?
MR. HARDY: I think Dr. Wille has one document.
DR. WILLE: I have a single document to offer.
THE PRESIDENT: Will Dr. Wille have any further documents?
DR. WILLE: No, only one.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Wille may offer that document at this time.
DR. WILLE: Mr. President, this is Weltz 25. I have -
THE PRESIDENT: Is that document available to the Tribunal?
DR. WILLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you hand them to the Tribunal?
DR. WILLE: I offer this document as Weltz Exhibit 24.
The event described in this document is a visit of Professor Alexander to Hirschau where the aviation medicine institute of Professor Weltze was at that time.
I do not believe it will be necessary to read the document, although it is quite short. I shall merely refer to the contents and ask that it be accepted in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number do you assign to this document?
DR. WILLE: Twenty-four.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
DR. WILLE: Mr. President; may I come back to my presentation of documents of Saturday ? I have investigated. The President said that the so-called document book was not supplied with numbers and there was no index. I have inquired in the meantime. There was a misunderstanding in the translation division which has been cleared up in the meantime. I had only one document; which is very extensive. I had given it to the translation section and it was mistakenly treated as a document book. That is why there were no numbers and not an index.
MR. HARDY: I may inquire whether Dr. Gawlik has any further supplemental evidence inasmuch as I have not any other document books for the Defendant Hoven; perhaps he has already completed his documentary evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Has Counsel for the defendant Hoven any further documents to offer?
DR. GAWLIK: At the moment I cannot say, Mr. President. I am still busy preparing my final rebuttal material.
MR. HARDY: That should have been all prepared by now, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: If there are any further documents to be offered and if they are not in the hands of the translation department, it is very doubtful that they will be prepared in time to be offered.
DR. GAWLIK: The material was offered last week; I really must have a little time to refute it. I am not in the fortunate position of the Prosecution; to be able to get in a car and drive to distant areas and get witnesses.
MR. HARDY: I don't understand what the Defendant's Counsel means by "evidence offered last week." This is rebuttal evidence, Your Honor. If this continues we will be here until next December, letting them answer our rebuttal evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know -- the rebuttal evidence admitted was-
DR. GAWLIK: I am speaking of refuting the material offered by the Prosecution in regard to the Defendant Hoven, on Wednesday of last week, during cross examination. It is not possible for me within three or four days to obtain the evidence. I am endeavoring to rebut these documents which have been offered. But if the Prosecution offers this material so late it is an affidavit of Ackermann of the 21st of March which the Prosecution was only offering *ow, I believe that I am justified in asking for a few days at least.
MR. HARDY: I am sorry, I can't see the justification, your Honor; but I would like to know from other Defense Counsel how many of them have their documents ready and can they present a list to the Tribunal of when they will approximately be ready to present these documents so that we will be able to ascertain whether we should sit nights. Me might run out of evidence and have to adjourn. The Prosecution is nearly finished . We may have two or three little jobs to clean up our case, but other than that we have these documents marked for identification which I am endeavoring to get together, and I have perhaps another day that I am entitled to in the case of the rebuttal. They have two more days left -- that is Tuesday and Wednesday. And if they don't have any material ready, then we won't finish this week.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood when I asked Counsel for the Defense questions the other day that they would be ready by Wednesday and I also understood all the documents they wanted wore in the hands of the translation department and that the delay was occasioned in the translation department in furnishing the documents. No one suggested then, as I remember, that there were further documents to be offered to the translators.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, it is only material to refute the rebuttal material. We have to have that opportunity. If the Prosecution waits until the last minute and then offers evidence, then have to have a certain amount of time to be able to refute it.
THE PRESIDENT: Just what evidence are you referring to as rebuttal evidence, Doctor? You referred a moment ago to the cross-examination of the Defendant Hoven. That isn't rebuttal evidence.
DR. GAWLIK: I bog your pardon. I mean the material which was shown to the defendant Hoven last Wednesday in cross examination. I am trying to refute that. It has not been possible to find the witnesses from whom I want affidavits, to get them here by now. I assume that they will be here tomorrow or the next day but I can't do it any quicker; because the prosecution doesn't offer the evidence sooner, it is not my fault, Mr. President.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, it is my understanding -- maybe I am subject to correction -- it has been my understanding that these documents that the prosecution used during the course of cross examination were rebuttal documents in the true sense of the word and because of that understanding the Tribunal ruled that our documents would be offered formally during the course of our rebuttal and that they would be marked for identification during the cross examination period.
Now, it is my position that those documents marked for identification are rebuttal documents and he had ample time. He got them two, three or four months ahead of the actual rebuttal. The cross examination of Hoven, true, was last week but there was nothing new to speak of brought out in the cross examination of Hoven.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents offered by the prosecution and marked as identification during the examination of the defendants were furnished to the defendants long a go. Copies were offered to most of the defendants. Of course, those defendants whose cases came last did not receive them quite so soon but those documents are proper rebuttal evidence, as stated by counsel for the prosecution; at least, I assume that there is no evidence in them that is not proper rebuttal testimony. I know that most of them was proper rebuttal evidence. If there was evidence in those document that in no way concerns the defendants' defense, it might be said to be original evidence but I do not think there was much of that.
Now, those documents marked in defendant Hoven's case wore heard during the close of the case but counsel has had those documents for some tine.
If the witnesses are not available, that night ho true of some witnesses who would not get here until next Fall and we cannot wait indefinitely on the procuring of witnesses. It is unfortunate that witnesses are not readily available but it is a grim fact and this evidence must be closed; and I will hear from counsel at any time -- tomorrow or Wednesday -- if he can procure any documents but documents which will not be prepared until after that and then will not be referred to the translation department I see very little chance of those documents being received in evidence.
Counsel may present any particular situations to the Tribunal. I will always listen to him but, as stated some days since this evidence has reached the point where it must reach a final determination.
If counsel Ms a witness tomorrow and can procure an affidavit, I will endeavor to expedite his translation. I have already talked to the translation department in an endeavor to expedite these matters. I will speak again, but the material must be here for the translators to work upon.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, may I say something? I am trying to obtain it as quickly as possible? It is not material which goes back for months. It is a question of refuting the affidavit of Ackermann dated 21 March which was offered last Wednesday. I had no knowledge of this beforehand and therefore could not refute it. If the prosecution asserts that it is immaterial, it would be different -- it was a completely new affidavit of which I have had no previous knowledge.
MR. HARDY: And it was in the nature of rebuttal evidence, Your Honor, and the prosecution feels it was proper evidence to be offered on cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: In every case there always comes a point where there is an examination of the defendant and then a cross examination and in that case evidence is properly identified to be offered as rebuttal evidence.
If counsel can suggest anyway by which he can procure further affidavits within the time specified the other day by the Tribunal I will be glad to do anything within my power to assist in the presentation of that evidence. If counsel will see what he can do and the Tribunal will endeavor to procure evidence insofar as possible, but it must come to an end some time.
DR. GAWLIK: Very well, Hr. President.
MR. HARDY: Will a committee of defense counsel, maybe two of them, make a schedule out today or this evening to show the Tribunal how the rest of this evidence will be presented? Prosecution is endeavoring to pick up shreds of evidence and put it in to take up the time and, of course, we have our problems, too, and we are only two or three men as opposed to twenty-three of defense counsel. I would like to get a schedule to show how they are going to put in their document books and who has to complete them. There may be some defendants who have none.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we can judge the time. If the counsel for the defendants will get together and furnish such a statement to the Tribunal and to the counsel for prosecution, it will be appreciated and, if they will, do that this evening and furnish such a statement tomorrow morning as to what documents they will have to present and when they expect to present it.
Counsel for Becker-Freyseng may proceed with the introduction of his documents and Dr. Nelte has some.
DR. NELTE (Counsel for defendant Handloser): In an agreement with my colleague, Dr. Tipp, I have only two brief questions on which I should like to have a decision of the Tribunal.
On 18 June 1947 I offered an application to the Tribunal. It dealt with a questionnaire to Dr. Balachowsky. On the 8th of January, on thee day when the prosecution submitted the affidavit of Dr. Balachowsky here, I, according to the instructions of the Tribunal, submitted a questionnaire, as prescribed, to the General Secretary and asked that this questionnaire be given to Dr. Balachowsky so that I could use it as evidence.
This application was made on the 8th of January 1947 but I receive no answer.
Every month I have asked the Secretary General's office about .it and every month I was told that efforts were being made but that no answer had been obtained yet. I am not in a position to obtain this affidavit from Dr. Balachowsky -- or, rather, the answer to the questions. I believe that this is an approved cross examination. If the witness does not appear, then what is said in his affidavit against Professor Handloser cannot be used as evidence. Therefore, on the 18th of June I submitted an application to the Tribunal that the affidavit of Dr. Balachowsky insofar as it contains statements concerning the defendant Handloser should not be admitted in evidence and I ask for a decision on this application before I lose all opportunity of submitting further evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: For a ruling on such a question the Tribunal would like to know what has become of the application which was filed in January. Of course, I don't remember it among the many dozens of applications which have come to my desk. I would suggest that counsel go to the office of the Secretary-General and ask that the original application be traced and find out when it was filed and if it is there -- if not, if they have any idea what has become of it. It has always been my endeavor to have the Tribunal rule on tho applications very promptly. It is possible one may have been lost or mislaid. I don't know. I have no recollection of that particular application.
DR. NELTE: On tho 8th of January I did not make an application to this Tribunal. I submitted a questionnaire to the Tribunal asking that it be sent on to Dr. Balachowsky.
THE PRESIDENT: That is not an application? That is what I refer to. It is an application for interrogation on questions. Whether it is is a.n affidavit for a witness or interrogation, I refer to them all as applications; but my suggestion is that counsel immediately go to the office of the Secretary-General and find out what record they have of that application, if any, if they have any way of ascertaining where it is or what has become of it.
DR. NELTE: Then there is a second ratter, Mr. President. The prosecution has submitted a new document book XVIII. In this document book there is a sworn statement of Professor Reiter of 29 March 1947 concerning a typhus conference 29 December 1941. This is document N02506. The prosecution has offered this as a rebuttal to the affidavit made for Professor Handloser, Document Ha25, Exhibit 10. It is the only document in this document book XVIII which affects the defendant Handloser. I offer a document in evidence in that connection. Professor Reiter himself, according to the information of the Security office is in the Hospital and. since he has already made two affidavits I do not intend to ask him for a third; but I have in my possession a statement which Professor Reiter gave to mo when I asked him about an affidavit and wanted to determine whether he had already made any statement on the typhus conference 29 December 1941. When I said to him that in making an affidavit as I wanted it he should take into consideration what he had already stated, he said that on 22 November 1946 he had been interrogated by the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, let me ask you, I understand that you have an unsworn statement from Dr. Reiter; is that correct?
DR. NELTE: I do not have another affidavit, but a statement by Professor Reiter.
THE PRESIDENT: I said an unsworn statement, not an affidavit, but a statement by him without an oath, without a jurat; is that correct?
DR. NELTE: Yes, Mr. President, but it was not given to me but to the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, do you wish to introduce it in evidence or what is your desire?
DR. NELTE: Yes, I want to submit it in evidence because it contradicts the statement which Professor Reiter made for the Prosecution as an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you submit the statement to the Prosecution and possibly he will agree and maybe admit it, I don't know.
MR. HARDY: I absolutely will not agree to the admission of it, your Honor. I do not know whether I ever had it or not. If the prosecution had it Dr. Nelte certainly would not have it in his hand, but be that as it may, he submitted an affidavit from Professor Reiter. The prosecution then submitted a cross affidavit from Professor Reiter pertaining to the facts in the direct affidavit by defense counsel.
The proposition is as simple as that. I don't see any need for further evidence from Reiter.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel has no affidavit from Dr. Reiter, and an unsworn statement would not be admissible over the objection of the prosecution.
DR. NELTE: I believe. Mr. President, this is a misunderstanding. I offered an affidavit, and the Tribunal accepted it as Handloser Exhibit 10. The prosecution document NO-2306, was a second affidavit from Professor Reiter, dealing with the same subject, as Document HA-25. In this affidavit Professor Reiter makes different statements than he made on the 22d of November 1946 to the prosecution in writing, and for the evaluation of the probative value of the affidavit of Professor Reiter, I want to offer this statement which was made on the 22d of November to the prosecution.
MR. HARDY: You see, your Honor, if this was made to the prosecution I am sure it would be in my files. If Professor Reiter sat in his cell and wrote me a letter and never delivered it, that isn't something that I have received. This is not under oath. Ho executed an affidavit under oath for the defense counsel. Then we called him, presented that affidavit to him and asked him for other statements. He gave us statements and swore to those. What this piece of paper is is beyond me. He may well have written that in November.
THE PRESIDENT: Pass the paper to the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: There is no receipt stamp that it has been received by my office.
DR. NELTE: Mr. President, this document is the copy signed by Professor Reiter of a document which he alleges he gave to the prosecution. If the prosecution says that they did not receive a document, then I offer it here for identification. Then the matter is settled -then I won't offer it in evidence, if Mr. Hardy says that he never got this letter from Professor Reiter -- then the matter is settled.
MR. HARDY: I can state positively that Mr. Hardy never got it, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that only answers the question in part. If counsel for the prosecution would ascertain whether that letter is in the file of the prosecution - someone else may have received it. I don't know who prepared the affidavit.
PR. HARDY: Your Honor, suppose it is in the file of the Prosecution? What is the point? I don't understand his trying to offer the document. It is not under oath. It's not a document; it's just a letter.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand, but if a paper writing shows contradictions between statements made by a witness and it is contended that the affidavit prepared by one party does not conform with the statements made by the affiant, it might have relevancy, but Dr. Nelte has stated that if the prosecution will state it never received this document he will not offer it.