That's Exhibit 140 and is also found in Document Book No-5. Also, Your Honor, the last document is NO-1427, which is Exhibit NO-431, which was an affidavit which was sworn to by Mr. Rodell, and Mr. Mc Haney ommitted to include this when he read off the documents or affidavits sworn to by officers certified by General Taylor's affidavit which gave them the authority to administer oaths. At this time I am calling that to your attention, inasmuch as it was admitted provisionally, and I am calling to your attention now that Exhibit 431, which is in Document Book NO-16, contains a proper jurat.
I think, Your Honor, that clears up all of the Prosecution exhibits which were admitted provisionally and which were admitted for identification. I have one more Prosecution document book, rebuttal document book, which is being prepared, which I will offer as soon as it is completed. At this time, Your Honor, I have one copy of the judgment of the International Military Tribunal, a bound volume which was published officially, and I wish to present this to the Tribunal and request that they take judicial notice of the judgment of the International Military Tribunal. I do not believe it will be necessary to give that a document number. This is the entire judgment. The specific sections of the judgment which the Prosecution and the Defense have wished the Tribunal take judicial notice of have been put in individually, but this contains the entire judgment of the International Military Tribunal, for judicial notice of this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That copy should be marked in some way, as indicating that that copy has been turned over to Military Tribunal I in connection with this trial.
Mr. HARDY: Your Honor, I will give it an exhibit number if that will be convenient.
JUDGE SEBRING: If you give it an exhibit number you may be placed in the position of having to furnish copies to the Court and to all counsel. I would suggest you give it to the Secretary General and let him stamp it "Filed" before him.
Mr. HARDY: Fine, Your Honor. With the exception, Your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: This book should not have an exhibit number. My suggestion was that it merely be marked as the identical copy which was placed before the Tribunal to be used in referring to matters of which the Tribunal should take judicial notice.
Mr. HARDY: Yes, Your Honor. Now, Your Honor, that completes whatever evidence I have to offer in rebuttal, with the exception of one document book which I am now preparing and which I hope to have ready in due course.
I, unfortunately, do not have it ready today, and I will check on it this evening. It is a document book which will contain the two interrogations I referred to in connection with the Hoven affidavit; also one other affidavit of the witness who appeared here, the witness Horn, which I am offering in rebuttal; and it has in it several decrees concerning Austria and other countries as to the status of the people and citizens of those countries after the occupation by Germany; and has, I believe, one order of Himmler. Other than that I have no further evidence to offer in rebuttal unless I have something of a miscellaneous nature that appears in the next few hours, and I am now ready to turn over the rest of the time to Defense Counsel to introduce their supplemental document books.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, in connection with your phrase "due course", how long do you estimate the course will be?
Mr. HARDY: Your Honor, I will check on it this evening. I think the prosecution has now got very little left to put in. We are putting in these decrees, and so forth, and it will take a little time to process the documents, I think we have the translations pretty well in hand, and as soon as I can have it assembled I will introduce it. It will be before the end of the session on Thursday, I assure you.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, That was that I was concerned about. The Tribunal will now hear Defense Counsel who have any documents to offer. I have some on my desk. Here's a document book, Appendix 2, by defendant Weltz.
Mr. HARDY: Defense Counsel for Defendant Weltz is not here in the Courtroom, Your Honor.
Dr. FLEMMING: Mr. President, you just said that you had documents from several defense counsel. Would you be kind enough to tell me all the names, and then I shall see which of those defense counsel I can find
THE PRESIDENT: I was just going through the list, Doctor. Defense Counsel Boehm, for Poppendick.
Mr. HARDY: Your Honor, it may well be that some of those document books that you have had delivered to you as supplemental document books have already been introduced and Defense Counsel gave you copies of them during the time that they were introducing them and you have just received, through channels, your official copy. I found that same situation. I picked up a lot of supplemental books this afternoon and discovered that they had already been introduced. I was rather gleeful that we had something to put to the Tribunal today but I found myself to be badly mistaken. There are no other supplemental books available at this moment that I noticed.
THE PRESIDENT: That is possible. I have two copies in German, apparently each one of No. 4, on behalf of Defendant Karl Brandt.
Mr. HARDY: If Your Honor will hand down to me the copies you have before you, I can tell you whether they have been introduced yet or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Mr. HARDY: The one that you have, the German copy of Dr. Servatius, has not been introduced to my knowledge, Your Honor. The one on Defendant Weltz has been introduced. That was introduced by Dr. Wille this morning -- that is the affidavit of Dr. Wirth. I am not certain about this affidavit on Poppendick's behalf, affidavit of Vonkennel. It seems to me that it was introduced. I am uncertain, actually.
THE PRESIDENT: I seem to have some recollection of that name, but I am not sure.
Mr. HARDY: Other than that, Your Honor, there are no supplemental volumes available. This one of Dr. Servatius, that is in German, do you have an English copy of that?
THE PRESIDENT: Not unless it was delivered some time ago. I do not think that we have.
Mr. HARDY: In view of the circumstances, Your Honor, I think we are at a stalemate now and will have to adjourn until translations are available.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems so.
Dr. SAUTER (Counsel for the Defendants Blome and Ruff): Mr. President the situation is now as follows: Various defense counsel still have documents in the Translation Branch. I doubt whether the translations of these documents will be ready by tomorrow or the next day. I wondered now the situation could be dealt with, since we are at the end of the presentation of evidence. I had the following idea. I should like to suggest this to the Tribunal and perhaps the Tribunal will agree with me: If the defense counsel can give the Tribunal the German original of these documents which were have been down for translation but not returned yet, and assign an exhibit number to them, then it might be possible, in order to expedite proceedings, for the Tribunal to accept these documents provisionally, under the condition that the Translation Branch then sends the translations to the Tribunal. This will be done automatically - we have no influence on that. But this procedure might make it possible for the Tribunal to settle the whole question of the documents not yet received without delaying the case. We would be grateful Mr. President, if you could tell us whether it can be done in this way.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me that Counsel far the Prosecution made some such suggestion.
Mr. HARDY: Your Honor, I have a suggestion that we might follow. It appears to me that with the exception of the Defendant Sievers, the Defendant Schroeder, and the Defendant Brack, all other defendants only have maybe one or two miscellaneous documents to introduce. If they have German copies of those documents, it would seem to me that they could introduce them, bringing the original with them. In most instances I imagine they are affidavits which have jurats thereon. The question of admissibility I can easily determine by seeing whether or not the affidavits are attested. Then they can introduce them, and if the particular sections to which they have reference are not too extensive, they can slowly read them, and we could have those particular translations in the record, and then at a later date we could get the official translations from the Translation Department and have them included in our document books.
THE PRESIDENT: That would appear to be entirely feasible.
Mr. HARDY: So, Your Honor, as I see it, we can wait on the Defendant Brack, the Defendant Sievers, the Defendant Mrugowsky, and the Defendant Schroeder, and them we could clean up these single documents that other defendants have to offer in the manner I have just outlined. I will confer with Mr. Hodges, Chief of the Translation Department, and ask him how long he thinks it will take to complete these other trans lations, if you will wait just a moment.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood from Mr. Hodges that some documents would be available tomorrow morning.
DR. SAUTER: Mr. President, another possible procedure would beI don't know whether the American court would approve it - that the defense counsel first give the Tribunal and the Secretary General the original of the documents still outstanding and that during the recess before the final pleas, the Prosecution can determine whether they have any objection, and then the Tribunal might inform the defense counsel in writing whether the documents are admitted or not. That might expedite matters even more, but I don't know whether that is permissible under your rules.
THE PRESIDENT: I wonder how many documents will be available in the morning. Can Mr. Hodges give us any information on that?
MR. HARDY: Mr. Hodges informs me that the documents of the Defendant Mrugowsky will be ready in the morning and the documents for Rose will be ready in the morning, or nearly ready. He thinks the documents for Mrugowsky will be entirely ready and the Rose documents may take a few minutes but will be ready in the morning. It seems to me that defense counsel might get together all the miscellaneous documents - I see Romberg has 1 document, Hoven has three documents, Pokorny has two documents - and get them together in the German language. I presume that 99% of them are affidavits. If they properly sworn to, then there is no point for objection on the part of the Prosecution, unless there is evidence in the nature of re-rebuttal evidence, and the Tribunal could determine that at a later date when they get the copies, and then they could guide themselves in the use of them and we could forestall any other difficulties here.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood that these documents by the defense that you mentioned were practically ready to be presented to the Tribunal in the usual form. I don't know when those documents were presented. Mr. Hodges assured me that all documents which had been given to him up to a certain hour in the morning last Saturday would be here by Wednesday morning. They will be here, I understand. Now the only documents which will not be presented tomorrow are documents that have been delivered this week, delivered yesterday and today.
MR. HARDY: From looking at this list, Your Honor, it doesn't seem to me there are more than a handful of documents, after you eliminate the Brack documents, the Mrugowsky documents, the Schroeder documents, and six documents for Karl Brandt, and it is my assumption that, of course, Defense Counsel for Mrugowsky and Brack and Schroeder must have had their documents in before last week.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the documents for the Defendant Mrugowsky, Mr. Hodges informed me, were turned in on last Friday, June 27.
MR. HARDY: But he says those will be ready tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: He says those will be ready tomorrow morning.
MR. HARDY: Then, after you eliminate those three large document cases, you only have miscellaneous documents from each one of the other defendants. It seems to me they could put those in through the interpreters.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me also that if Defense Counsel who just have one or two documents could be prepared to have those documents here in German and that some system can be evolved whereby they can be received in evidence and possible the important parts read into the record. Of course I understand tomorrow morning we have quite a bit of work to do on the documents which will be ready at that time.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, could it be possible for Your Honor to issue a directive that all defense counsel be here tomorrow morning with the documents they wish to put into evidence so that we can go take up each case and go through document for document, be it translated or be it not translated.
THE PRESIDENT: All counsel will be in attendance before the Tribunal at 0930 o'clock tomorrow morning and have their documents either in German and English or in German, and the matter can be presented to the Tribunal and we will find out just exactly what has to be done.
Anything further, doctor?
DR. SAUTER: No. I will see to it, Mr. President, that all the defense counsel are here at the beginning of the session tomorrow morning.
FROESCHMANN (for Brack): Mr. President, I would be able to give you all the German documents. Six of them were handed in for translation last week and the other four yesterday or today, because I received them only yesterday or today. If the President desires I could offer these documents right now and save time for tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: What day were the six documents last week handed in for translation, do you know?
DR. FROESCHMANN: They were handed in on 23 June, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I wonder if those are included in the documents which will be ready tomorrow morning. Could Mr. Hodges advise us?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the Brack documents will be included in those ready tomorrow morning, the six that he put in last week. I propose that he introduce them all together, and he can put the ones that haven't been translated in after he has put in the six. I think if all counsel are here tomorrow morning we can reach some understanding and put them in in the German lagnuage and get the translation at a later date.
THE PRESIDENT: Will all the defense counsel be present with their documents either in German and English or in German tomorrow morning at 0930 o'clock.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until 0930 tomorrow morning.
Official transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 2 July 1947, 0930-0945, Justice Beals, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all the defendants are present in court with the exception of the defendant Oberheuser, absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The assistant Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court save the defendant Oberheuser who has been excused on account of illness.
The assistant Secretary General has an announcement to make for the benefit of defense counsel. Will the assistant Secretary General take the podium and make his announcement.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL: I wish to take this opportunity during open proceedings to clarify some administrative matters with the defense counsel. It is frequently difficult for me to clarify those points with you individually because of difficulties in German and English. I don't speak too well in German and I don't understand too much.
Bearing in mind that unless your documents are properly submitted to me and in certain form your case will be jeopardized to a certain extent because I intend making a report to the Tribunal on the condition of those exhibits prior to the time they are considered. I placed a piece of paper on each desk and I wish you would make these notes as to what information I require.
First, I would like to know how many document books have been prepared for each defendant. Listed under those document books as supplements there is an additional group of documents. For example, you have Document Book I and Supplements 1, 2 and 3 to Document Book I, etc., down to 4 or 5 document books. In addition to that, I need to know what exhibit and the corresponding document numbers are found in those document books and supplements. I need to know the document book and page on which those documents are found. I need to know what was the date when the document was formally accepted into evidence. Further, I need to know what witnesses have appeared on the behalf of your defendants and what date they appeared.
Recently, I sent to each member of the defense counsel a list, that is a mimeographed or typewritten form, for you to fill out and Captain Rice asked you to fill that out and send it back to me. I wish that you would bring that up into final form and submit it to me at the termination of your case, some time in the next few days. I have only two of those so far. If you have turned this in to Captain Rice get it back and make a complete report to me on that matter.
Some time within the next few days I would like each and everyone of the defense counsel to come into my office, which is room 272. Bring your secretary and consult with me on the matter of those exhibits, bearing in mind that I have only been in this case for a couple of weeks and there is a lot of information which I don't have and must have to certify the record in its final form when it is sent forward for review.
I would appreciate your cooperation in that respect.
Now, I might ask before I leave the podium if there are any questions from defense counsel. Perhaps Dr. Servatius could speak for the defense counsel and ask any questions, or any other counsel if you have any questions. It is fairly simple. Give me a complete picture of your documents, your document books, the exhibits, the exhibit numbers, and the pages oh which they are found in the document book.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, the only objection I can submit is a lack of time. We all have only one secretary each. We shall hasten to meet the wishes of the Secretary General so far as we can; we are also interested in achieving clarity in this matter. I shall, therefore, be grateful if we could have a certain extension of time because we also in addition to this have to conclude our closing briefs by 7 July. After that we can handle this matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, as stated by the Assistant Secretary General, this record is required by him largely for the purpose of certifying the record to the Military Governor for review of the judgment. That matter will not have to be certified for some time. So, it does not seem to me that this matter should interfere with what you have to do now. The Assistant Secretary General is required by his official duties to certify this record after it is complete, but that, Mr. Secretary General, will not have to be done until after the judgment is returned in the case. So, I think that the work need not interfere with the preparation of the briefs and the immediate pressure under which everybody is working within the next ten days.
ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL: I wish to explain this further. I am not completely familiar with my records. I have the records up 99% correct and all I need is a little information from you to make sure I do have them correct. Maybe you misunderstood me or I didn't make myself clear in that respect, but a visit, not necessarily from you, from your secretary or your assistant defense counsel, would serve the purpose, Just come to me sometime before you leave Nurnberg and finish this case and see that you have completed your records. This can be taken care of in a matter of a few minutes. It is very simple. Thank you.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, Dr. Tipp introduced an affidavit concerning the translation of document NO-l85. Prosecution feels that they do not wish to reach an agreement as to the acceptance of that translation. Prosecution hassubmitted a translation on review of their Translation Department which they wish to content to be the proper translation. The defendants Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng, represented by Dr. Tipp, have an alternative translation. Prosecution will not object to the admission of the affidavit as to the alternative translation and feel it should be left up to the Tribunal to decide on the basis of the context and any other evidence, which meaning is intended.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. HARDY: If the Tribunal wishes Dr. Tipp can read his new translation into the record or would you like to have that prepared in another form? And Prosecution will read theirs in again. However, ours does appear in the record on one occasion.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't know in what form Dr. Tipp's statement is prepared.
DR. TIPP: Dr. Tipp for Schroeder and Becker-Freyseng. The new translation, Mr. President, has been prepared by me in the usual form of an affidavit which was drawn up by the head of the English Department of the Interpreters Institute of the University of Heidelberg. I think it would be well if this affidavit could be read into the record in the same way that the expert opinion on the part of the translation branch was read into the record. The translations are not yet in.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel. Proceed. Well, then I would suggest we wait until they are in so that we might follow you. How long is the affidavit, counsel?
DR. TIPP: This affidavit is 2 pages, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed to read it now.
MR. HARDY: He has the affidavit both in English and German language it is notarized in both languages. Seems to me that he could have a stencil cut today. It would only be a matter of 10 or 15 minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: We expected we would have copies. We would like that but I since counsel brought the matter up he may read it into the record and furnish the stencil later.
DR. TIPP: This is Becker-Freyseng Document No. 80.
MR. HARDY: It would be difficult for the translators to follow in this brief argument that is prepared in the affidavit without copies unless he goes very slowly. I think it could be taken up later.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, we will wait until the English translation comes in.
DR. TIPP: This is Becker-Freyseng Document 80.
We have the English translation, Your Honor, if you would like to have it read now.
This is an affidavit by Franz Rudolf Mattis, who as I have already said is chairman of the English Department, of the Interpreters Institute, University of Heidelberg. The document reads, "Expertise: The Document No. NO-185, submitted by the prosecution contains the following sentences:
"Ich stehe heute wider vor einer Entscheidung, die nach zahlreichen Tier-und auch, Nenschenversuchen an freiwilligen Versuchspersonen eine endgultige Losung verlangt: die Luftwaffe hat gleichzeitig wei Verfahren zum Trinkbarwachen von Meerwasser entwiekelt."
The question to be clarified is whether this sentence is ambiguous, and what translation does it justice.
The sentence is somewhat slipshod, apparently written or dictated in haste. However, the stylistic defects -- such as "a decision which demands a solution" - do not affect the logical implications of the sentence: these rather derive from the adverbial modifications "after numerous experiments on animals and human beings too" (nach zahlreichen Tier -- und auch Menschenversuchen) and "upon voluntary test persons" (an freiwilligen Versuchspersonen).
If this sentence is spoken rhythmically as it ordinarily would be, a definite rest follows "Manschenversuchen", leaving the adverbial phrase "an freiwilligen Versuchspersonen" to be related to the verg "verlangen." Thus, the following English translation results:
"I stand today again facing the necessity of making a decision which, after numerous experiments made upon animals and human beings too, demands conclusive experimentation on voluntary test persons."
If, on the other hand, the German sentence is arbitrarily read in some such way as:
"Ich stehe heute wieder vor einer Entscheidung, die nach cahlreichen Tierversuchen - und auch Nenschenversuchen an freiwilligen Versuchspersonen eine endgultige Losung Verlangt."
The English equivalent would shape as follows:
"I stand today again facing the necessity of making a decision which, after numerous experiments on animals as also on voluntary test persons, demands conclusive investigation," Such arbitratiness, however, seems to me indefensible."
It follows the signature and certification by the Notary, in Heidelberg.
THE PRESIDENT: The affidavit may be received in evidence.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, in order tokeep the record straight it might be advisable to read the Prosecution's translation at the same time with this one, so it may be put in. This memo has been put in the record before. I merely will read the prosecution's contention. Document NO 185, is that the translation in issue should read as follows:
"Today again I stand before a decision which after numerous animal as well as human experiments on voluntary experimental subjects demands a final solution."
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. The record is now in concise form before the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has received Supplement IV, document on the defendant Brack.
Counsel may proceed to offer these exhibits.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Froeschmann for Brack.
This morning I was informed, Your Honor, that supplemental Volume IV has been translated into English and handed to the Tribunal I was further informed that Supplemental Volume V, which was turned in day before yesterday to the Translation Department has not yet been translated.
The documents from Document Book V which have not yet been translated, amy I put them to the Tribunal in the original German, so that I can conclude the presentation of these this morning?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, counsel may do that with the consent of the Counsel of the Prosecution. Is that satisfactory with the prosecution?
MR. HARDY: My understanding is he is going to offer Supplemental Book V in the German. I will follow him with the original exhibits, Your Honor. It is perfectly satisfactory.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I shall then put in from supplemental book IV for Brack, Document 55, the affidavit --
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the first document in this book is Document 53.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, but I wish to put these in somewhat more different order, in order to make them more perspicuous for the Tribunal, and I wish to begin with Document 55.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Counsel.
DR. FROESCHMANN: The first document will be Document 55, affidavit by Heinz Heggenrainer, 8 May 1947, Exhibit 45, which is on page 13, Book IV. It is signed by Heggenrainer and certified by the local Mayor. I shall now give the original to the Secretary General.
Document 56, affidavit of Karl Freiherr Michel von Tuessling, of 9 June 1947, page 15, Book IV. Document 56, Exhibit 46. Now, from supplemental Volume V, which the Tribunal does not have, I put in further affidavit -
MR. HARDY: I don't see the reason for jumping around from one document book to another. Why can't he content himself with Book IV, and then go to document book V.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Counsel, proceed with Document Book IV, and then proceed to Document Book V.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Then I continue with Document 57, affidavit of Thea Brack, 7 June 1747, Document Book IV, page 7, Exhibit 47. The original I am now handing to the Secretary General. This proves that the defendant Brack, as brought to light in my defense in June 1944, met Brigadefuehrer Globocnik in Berlin.
Now, comes Document 53, the expert opinion of Dr. Walther Rump, 11 June 1947, Exhibit 48.
MR. HARDY: I must object to this affidavit. This affidavit of Dr. Rump contains information concerning the availability of X-ray tubes, and their consistency. On page 4 it says they are no longer available after 1942, and on page 9 it states no longer available after 1941. As to the probative value of the document, it seems there isn't any. If X-ray tubes were available in 1942 they certainly would be available in 1941, and it seems that X-ray could be performed if there was one tube as the witness Belicky said he was sterilized by X-ray machines, and the photographic evidence bears this out. The affidavit shows inconsistency in dates. This affidavit has no probative value whatever, and is immaterial when the manufacture of these tubes took place.
DR. FROESCHMANN: I do not understand the prosecution's objection. In Dr. Rump's expert opinion of 11 June 1947, it states on page 9, perfectly clearly, consequently it is my task to ascertain whether at the beginning of 1941 it was technically possible to administer an X-ray dose of 300 r to females and 500 r to males, in order to bring about a state of sterility. The date mentioned here is 1941.
This, Your Honor, is on page 2 of the English translation, sentence before the last.
Now, Document NO 203 and 205 referred to the date March 28, 1941. In other words, this expert is investigation the possibilities of permanent sterilization at precisely the time that this report is drawn up.
Therefore, I cannot understand why the prosecution wanted to say that this expert ---
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the Tribunal will receive this document in evidence. Counsel for the prosecution may call attention to any discrepancies therein in the prosecution's brief and supplemental brief. This document will be admitted as Brack Exhibit 48.
DR. FROESCHMANN: In this affidavit, I should like to draw the Tribunal's attention to the concluding passage which states the expert's opinion that at that time it was not possible to carry our a permanent sterilization in this way.
The next document will be Document No. 54, an affidavit of Pleikard Stumpf, 20 June 1947, page 10. He considers the question from the specialist's medical point of view whether on the basis of report NO. 205 sterilization was possible. He says "No". I gave the original to the Secretary General. This is Brack. Exhibit No. 49.
The next document will be Document No. 58, an affidavit of Mrs. Thea Brack of 7 June 1947, page 18. The prosecution yesterday put those two documents in which I objected to, from which the representative of the prosecution, Dr. Hochwald wanted to prove that Brack participated in the extermination of Jews. In the cross-examination, I have already raised an objection to this and in three exhibits I have proved that during the time from September, 1941 until the end of October, 1941, the defendant Brack was on sick leave in Southern Germany and in Tyrole. The details of what went on during this sick leave are to be ascertained from this affidavit, of Mrs. Brack, which I new put in as Brack Exhibit No. 50.
In this connection, I likewise put in as the next document, Document No. 59, an affidavit by Walther Kleffel, dated 24 June 1947. He also confirms that in October of 1941, Brack was in Southern Germany, and Tyrole on vacation and consequently between the 18th and 25th of October he could not have had any conference with Wetzel. This document will be Brack Exhibit No. 51.
So much for Book 4.
Now, Book 5, containing affidavits, to wit; the following five documents, two of these documents contain affidavits by the Defendant Brack, regarding the documents which were put to him during the crossexamination or put in very recently. These are documents No. 63 and 64.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I challenge the admissability of affidavits concerning documents which we put to the Defendant during crossexamination; he had ample time to explain the documents at that time; the purpose of them during the cross-examination were rebuttal in nature.