DR. SERVATIUS: (Continued) It is a summation of a number of experiments to which I shall refer in my final plea. In particular it refers to the question of the voluntary nature of the subjects.
The next document will be KB-131. These are a few pages from a document which was already submitted by the Prosecution as Exhibit No. 512. This came from the "Philippine Journal of Science," including the experiments of Strong. I have here the cover and the pages 171 and pages 377 to 379 which have been photostated by me. It concerns the death case which arose during the experiments and I submit this document in supplementation of what the Prosecuhas already offered.
MR. HARDY: May your Honors please, the original document is in the English language.
DR. SERVATIUS: I don't know whether the Tribunal has the entire article before it. I have the original book here from the University of Munich and I should like to hand it to the Tribunal so that it may take official notice of it although they would have to return it at a later date. I consider it important that the Tribunal get a picture about these experiments and will see how such experiments were carried through, how voluntary subjects were obtained, and what circumstances played a part. I ask the Tribunal to accept the original document and hand it back when they are finished.
THE PRESIDENT: We have four pages of photostats. Does that cover the entire document or not?
DR. SERVATIUS: No, the document itself has 130 pages and could not be copied. I merely want to hand it to the Tribunal so that they may gain insight and gain a general opinion about the experiments. Prosecution has presented part, the expert Ivy referred to it, and I think it expedient if the Tribunal would get an insight into the document.
THE PRESIDENT: The volume may be deposited in the office of the Secretary General to be available to the Tribunal.
DR. SERVATIUS: The last document will receive Exhibit No. 104.
The following document KB 129 is offered as Exhibit 105. It is an affidavit signed by the witness Wesse. This witness had been approved by me for the purpose of cross examination. In agreement with Prosecution and in the presence of a representative of Prosecution, I interrogated this witness and I have layed down his testimony in the form of an affidavit. The documentation division has not translated that document and with the approval of the Tribunal I would read it into the record. The document has about three pages.
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for Prosecution examined the document?
MR. HARDY: The document is in order, your Honor. It has the affiant's signature on it. And, if I recall the Tribunal gave permission to call the witness for cross examination purposes. Dr. Servatius chose to get an affidavit and did interrogate the witness in the presence of Prosecution and this is his affidavit. I think this should be admitted. As to the translation problem and completing it. I think it could be read into the record but that wouldn't make an available copy for Prosecution, so he could read the pertinent parts, or.....
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be translated into the English by the Translation Division.
MR. HARDY: I think that is all that will be necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may proceed.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, then the Translation Division must be told to carry out that translation because they returned the document to me.
THE PRESIDENT: When did you deliver the document to the Translation Department.
DR. SERVATIUS: Two days ago, on Monday, after I had interrogated the witness. I didn't have the witness available before that time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Translation Department will be instructed to translate the document.
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President with reference to the contents of this document I may state that the witness talks about the Reich Committee and about Euthanasia of children. He discusses the procedure which was used there, the type of children used. In particular he speaks about his knowledge of Professor Brandt's activities. He says that he didn't know Brandt, had never seen him nor anything in writing about him - only told that Brandt was the leading personality in that respect.
The next document, your Honor, will be KB 130. I offer this document as Exhibit 106. It is an affidavit signed by a certain Dr. Wilhelm Rosenau. Mr. President, I have interrogated this witness yesterday and he made this affidavit for me. He was a witness before Tribunal III in Case III, the trial of the Judges. He was heard there regarding the question of sterilization. Here he testified as to Euthanasia. I consider him to be a very important witness who unfortunately only appeared toward the end of the proceedings. I did not know him before. He is a Jew in this case of the Nurnberg laws and was the head of the Mental Institute near the Rhine in Sein where all the Jews who were insane had been concentrated for purposes of cure. He states that questionnaires were sent to him but that the questions contained in the questionnaire with reference to Jews and other points were put in there for purposes of camouflage. He further says that Jews concentrated in his mental institution were not transported away and stayed there until the end of the War. Towards the end of the War, the Gestapo sent them away, but they were not sent away within the Euthanasia, procedure. The statement is not very long and perhaps I can be permitted to read it into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: What bearing does that affidavit have upon the case of Karl Brandt?
DR. SERVATIUS: The affidavit concerns the questionnaires. The Prosecution charged Karl Brandt that he knew about the questionnaires and possibly helped in the drafting of these forms. He was charged that Jews were mentioned in the questionnaires with the obvious intention of leading them into Euthanasia, you will remember that the defense of the defendants maintained that a number of points are contained in the questionnaires which have nothing at all to do with Euthanasia, but merely served the purpose of camouflage to conceal the mere matter of the intention. This, of course, was a statement which could be met with certain amount of suspicion, but now here we have a Jew, the head of a Mental Institute, who confirms that fact. Furthermore, it has been charged that the Jews were actually transferred and Karl Brandt, as the head, of the Euthanasia procedure, is held to account. Here this head of the Jewish institute says that they were not actually transferred, except for a few cases. I should like to read this statement into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: When did you turn that document into the Translation Department?
DR. SERVATIUS: I only received it last night. I tried to give it to the Translation Department this morning but they returned it to me. However, I do think that its contents are so essential as to give us a completely different picture about the question of the Jews that what we have already. Mr. President, perhaps you will remember the testimony of the defendant Brack who stated Jews were to be excepted from the Euthanasia because that act of grace it was only to be given to Germans. That was, of course, a strange statement but it must be surprising now if here the head of a Jewish Institute confirms the fact "That was too good for them, they were saved for something worse." Only the Gestapo wanted to deal with them.
Such a noble procedure was too good for them, and here you find the head of a Jewish institute saying that. I think this is of considerable significance for the case of Karl Brandt who had nothing to do with the Gestapo and who, as he maintains, intends to carry through the Euthanasia act in medical practice and orderly fashion.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, new witnesses might be coming in now for the rest of the month. It must come to an end to the time when new evidence will be introduced. Has counsel for Prosecution examined this record?
MR. HARDY: I have examined if. The document has a jurate on it. As to its admissibility, I can see some merit in Dr. Servatius statement. But it is just an affidavit from the head of one institute and may not have any probative value. It is up to the Tribunal to decide that. I think he is a little late in introducing it.
DR. SIRVATIUS: Mr. President, a dead line has been set. I think this is the limit of the dead line and I have still arrived in time. I might add, if the witness only appeared three days later I might have been able to submit it sooner. I still came in time.
MR. HARDY: The solution is to have Dr. Servatius translate it himself. He is capable of doing so and can have it certified and put it in.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, that may be done.
DR. SERVATIUS: Would you like me to read it into the record or shall I submit it later?
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may read the document into the record now.
DR. SERVATIUS: I quote: "I, Dr. Wilhelm Rosenau, official physician in Dietz/Kreis Unterlahn, have been told that I shall make myself subject to punishment if I make a false affidavit.
I state in lieu of oath that my statements correspond to the truth and are being made for Military Tribunal I, Palace of Justice, Nurnberg.
"From the year 1940 until 1943 I was head of the Mental Institution Sein of the Reich Association of Jews in Germany. And approximately at the end of 1940 all insane Jews who were in need of being cared for in an asylum were transferred. Other institutions were not allowed to accept Jews and keep them there. The Institution Sein had to fill out the questionnaires for the euthanasia procedure, and the sterilization, in the same way as all other institutions. The questionnaire contained a number of questions which we did not feel to be consistent and we agreed that part of these questions served purposes of camouflaging of the original intention of euthanasia. The questions regarding "Jews" we considered to be irrelevant in that connection. On the basis of these questionnaires no Jews at all were called from our asylum. Two or three Jews who were given care from the outside had to be transported to Eglfing-Haar, and we had heard nothing from them after that time. Since it has been told to me that defendant Brack on the witness stand has stated that euthanasia was not to be granted to Jews since it constituted an act of grace from which only the Germans were to benefit, I can state that this was entirely our opinion, too - that is to say, the opinion of the then responsible heads of the Jewish agencies, and also my opinion. I have stated this fact some time ago when testifying before the French Surete. The patients of our asylum, after they had been cured, were transferred from their home place to Poland by the Gestapo, as they were not able, as was the case of a few of them, to get passports and emigrate. The rest of the patients as from the 14 March 1942 were transferred to Poland in general large scale Jewish transports, to Poland, together with the personnel of the institution, where they disappeared. In the case of only the Jews who were in socalled privileged mixed marriages, and in the case of Jew of foreign nationality, were not transferred directly to Poland, but stayed there until very late, and were then sent to Berlin, where the Jewish hospital at first had instituted a special department for them. From there they were sent to Theresienstadt. I know that recently three of them were still alive.
I have personally seen this special department in Berlin. Nuernberg, 1 July 1947." (Signature) Wilhelm Rosenau. and following the certification.
MR. HARDY: May I ask a few questions of Dr. Servatius concerning this field, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. HARDY: Was this affiant a Jew himself. Dr. Servatius? Is the affiant a Jewish person?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, he testified before Tribunal No. III in the case of the judges and said he was a Jew, in the sense of the Nuernberg laws. He reiterated that yesterday.
MR. HARDY: He was retained as chief of the asylum in Germany during the war?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, there was a Reich Association of Jews who enjoyed certain rights, among others the administering of this institution. I think it may be expedient to refer to his testimony before Tribunal No. III.
MR. HARDY: Was this Jew, who was a Jew, according to Nuernberg laws, a member of the Nazi party?
DR. SERVATIUS: I asked him yesterday whether he belonged to the SS, SA, or Party and he said "no".
MR. HARDY: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Does this conclude the list of the documents counsel desired to offer in evidence?
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, this concludes my case on behalf of Karl Brandt.
MR. HARDY: Concerning this affiant, do you mean he was married to a Jew or is half Jewish or some such situation as that? He isn't a full-blooded Jew?
DR. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I haven't asked him about this delicate subject. I am sure the prosecution before Tribunal III has dealt with this question in great detail, and you will be able to look it up.
MR. HARDY: That will not be necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel for Rudolf Brandt present?
DR. WEISGERBER: Counsel representing Dr. Kaufmann, representative of defense counsel Brandt.
As counsel on behalf of Rudolf Brandt there are two documents which I wish to submit; one is an affidavit executed by Gustav Schoening, residing in Teltow, who makes a statement regarding Rudolf Brandt's personality. The affiant is an old social democrat and states that is the reason he is thus qualified to make a statement on this question. This document is offered by me as Rudolf Brandt Exhibit 20.
The next document Rudolf Brandt No. 21, which I offer as Rudolf Brandt Exhibit 21, which is an affidavit of Frau Erna Brosig, nee Ladewig This statement also is a statement concerning the defendant Rudolf Brandt personality.
This concludes the submission of evidence on behalf of the defendant Dr. Rudolf Brandt.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, counsel. I will ask counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky how many documents he is proposing to offer?
MR. HARDY: I think Dr. Seidl has one document he could put in quickly.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will hear from Dr. Seidl.
DR. SEIDL: Counsel for defendant Karl Gebhardt.
Mr. President, I ask to submit the document which I was approved to submit at a later date last Saturday. We are concerned with an affidavit executed by Dr. Karl Gebhardt, which is Document No. Karl Gebhardt 47, and I submit it as Exhibit No. 45.
THE PRESIDENT: No copies in English of this document are available to the Tribunal, as far as I know.
DR. SEIDL: Last Monday I handed the copies to the translating division. Apparently they have not yet been translated. I ask for your permission to submit the original now and hand the translations to the Tribunal when and if they are finished.
MR. HARDY: This is the document, Your Honor, in answer to the prosecution affidavit of one Fritz Suhren, which the prosecution offered in rebuttal on Saturday.
It is an affidavit by the defendant Gebhardt himself. I think we discussed that earlier this week one time. I am confused; I forgot the ruling of the Tribunal on this particular document at that time.
THE PRESIDENT: Without the translation or knowing anything about the document the Tribunal cannot determine whether it is admissible under the rules or not.
MR. HARDY: I think Dr. Seidl purports that this affidavit is in answer to the affidavit that the prosecution submitted, which is dated in April 1946 given by Fritz Suhren, the former commandant of concentration camp Ravensbruck, and in this affidavit it is pointed out Fritz Suhren had knowledge concerning the activity of Gebhardt at the camp and the status of the girls. It was my opinion when arguing this once before that the affidavit of Suhren was in rebuttal, attempting to rebuttal Gebhardt's examination. Dr. Seidl wishes now to offer this affidavit of Gebhardt as sur-rebuttal.
THE PRESIDENT: This will be received in evidence.
DR. SEIDL: This will be Gebhardt Exhibit 45. If the Tribunal wishes, I can submit four copies in the German language until such time as the English translations are available.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. You may do so.
MR. HARDY: I think defense counsel for Poppendick has another affidavit, or you may wish to adjourn at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be submitted when the Tribunal reconvenes at 1:30.
I would ask Dr. Flemming, counsel for Poppendick, how many affidavits he proposes to offer, outside of this transcript from Tribunal No. II; all that is necessary to offer with that is a certificate from the Secretary General. Outside of that I understand you have five documents?
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, in addition to the documents which are being certified by the General Secretary, I have another 20 documents.
I would suggest I hand the originals to Mr. Hardy, which would enable him to look at them with the assistance of his German speaking assistants, and that I would be permitted to submit them to the Tribunal after recess.
THE PRESIDENT: We have Document Book III by Mrugowsky.
DR. FLEMMING: These are the excerpts from the Pohl record. The other documents, the other affidavits, which I submit, are in Supplement II.
THE PRESIDENT: I have here a "Table of Contents of Supplement III" by Mrugowsky, evidently what appeared by the statement of the prosecution's witness Kogon.
DR. FLEMMING: Yes, these are the testimonies of Kogon in the Pohl tribunal. Supplemental Volume 2 is also the other one I intend to offer.
MR. HARDY: Supplement 2 is the one Mr. Hodges said we would get today. I think we could hold up on Dr. Flemming and I think we will get the English today.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1:30.
(Thereupon a recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION.
(The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 2 July 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be filed with the Secretary-General the excuse from the prison physician on the absence of the defendant Herta Oberhauser, who is ill.
DR. TIPP: (Defense counsel for the defendant Becker-Freyseng.) Mr. President, I have two documents for Becker-Freyseng, which I have still to put in. Becker-Freyseng document 80, which was Exhibit 65. This is an affidavit from Dr. Max Matthes dated 25 June 1947. This document I received only yesterday for translation, but do not know if it is translated; however, I should like to read some of the important parts into the record. The document is net very long, the important passages do not embrace more than two pages. I think it would be best if we had it read into the record now.
MR. HARDY: It is a little late, Your Honor, for this document.
DR. TIPP: That is not our fault, Your Honor, but the fault of the bad postal connections between Nurnberg and Bonn. We asked for it a long time ago, but only yesterday did we receive it.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. TIPP: "The affiant Max Matthes, Bonn, Kaiser Friedrich Strass, after the importance of this affidavit and punishability of bearing false witness has been brought to his attention, signs the following affidavit to be put in as evidence before the Military Tribunal No. 1 in Nurnberg: I. Regarding the Person" I may skip the first few sentences and I shall begin about twothirds of the way down:
"At the beginning of March of 1943 I, as chief medical officer was appointed Sea Emergency Service Leader 5 (North) in Oslo, after I had prepared myself for this post by working on the documents on sea emergency service (draft of the conference report, sea emergency experience reports, etc.) which Professor Dr. Anthony and Dr. Becker Freyseng put at my disposal.
At the end of March, 1944 I was transferred in the same capacity to the main center of gravity for sea emergency service, namely the Black Sea. After the Baltic retreat I was appointed as the Navy Training Director for the medical personnel the Navy Personnel School of the Luftwaffe, Lobbe at Ruegen."
The other sentences in this part are net important. I now turn to No. 2. Regarding the facts:
"1 - In the conference on medical problems in sea emergency and winter distress of October, 1942, which took place in Nurnberg, I did not take part. The contents of the lectures delivered there became known to me only later through reading the printed reports on the conference, which were distributed in 1943 and in which the scientific grounds for the theory of rapid rewarming were given. So far as I have discussed this theme with medical officers and troops officers in the sea emergency service, they never mentioned any alleged unpermissable human experiments and did not even hint at them."
"2 - Rapid rewarming had already been introduced when I was transferred to the sea emergency service at the beginning of March 1943. This included: a) a special memorandum, which was distributed in the summer of 1943 to the troops and was to replace the memorandum of August 1942 in the soldiers' book of the Luftwaffe soldiers in the Northern and Eastern area; b) instructions for handling cases of severe cooling which occurred in ships and boats, as well as in the emergency airplanes of the Luftwaffe, and which also replaced previous instructions in which slow rewarming was ordered; c) 'Instructions for Troop Physicians', distributed by the Inspector or Chief of the Medical Service of the Luftwaffe. It was distributed to the troop doctors in Norway in the summer of 1943."
"3 - The German Navy also, on the example of the Luftwaffe, introduced the method of rewarming persons who had been severely cooled."
I can skip the next sentences. I go now to No. 4.
"4 - In order to carry out rapid rewarming, the following technical means were issued in the sea emergency service:
(a) In the ship hospitals of the rescue ships, hot baths were installed. (When I arrived in Norway this reconstruction had to a large part been.) Moreover, there were electrical heating rooms used there.
(b) In the emergency rescue boats, the radiator water, which was 45 degrees centigrade, was piped to a shower room.
(c) In the emergency rescue airplanes there were two electrically heated sleeping bags, which were heated up to 40 degrees centigrade.
(d "Efforts were made in all emergency rescue stations on land to have boats and air-planes and hot bathing arrangements available in the immediate neighborhood of where the ships landed. Where no other means were available, electrically heated bags were used.
"5. During my activity in the emergency sea service I frequently applied this method of rapid rewarming. I never observed fatalities or serious or lasting injuries to the body. On the contrary, when a troop transport sank in the Black Sea I experienced this castrophe, where we did not have the necessary equipment for rapidly rewarming those who had been frozen and were the immediate transport to hospitals was not possible in all cases; and in the cases which could not be subjected to rapid re-warning there were fatalities, whereas those who had rapidly been rewarmed had no fatalities.
"6-- According to the experience reports of the Nave, those on ships had good experiences with this method of rapid rewarming in the case of persons who had experienced ship wreck. At any rate the number of persons mentioned in those reports who were saved by this method of treatment is very large."
No. 7 I may skip and like wise 8, 9, and 10 also are not of decisive importance in this trial, so I shall skip them.
"11. According to the reports I knew of at that time the units of the German Sea Emergency Rescue Service carried out more than 6,000 successful resuces, of which ten per-cent were members of the air forces and navies of the allies."
I shall dispense with reading the rest of the document.
It was signed in Bonn on 25 June 1947 by Dr. Max Matthes and on the 26th it was certified by the Notary in Bonn. I shall put this document in as Becker Freyseng document 80, which will be Exhibit 65.
As the last Becker Freyseng Document I have Becker Freyseng Document No. 81, which will be Exhibit 66. This is an excerpt from the publication of the French Academy of Sciences of 7 October 1935. It is a scientific paper on immunization by Blanc, Novrit and Baltasar. This work, Mr. President, was discussed by the witness Haagen in his direct examination here. The Prosecutor at that time wished to have this document shown to him and I am taking into consideration that wish and the document is now. The translation into English is not yet ready but I may perhaps put it in and I am sure the translation will soon be here.
MR. HARDY: After considering the testimony of Haagen I think the Prosecution can dispense with receipt of this copy and thus dispense with the translation if defense counsel wished to withdraw the document.
DR. TIPP: This concludes Becker Freyseng's defense.
DR. DUERR: FOR DEFENDANT POPPENDICK:
I have one more document, Your Honors. This document was approved by the Tribunal Saturday afternoon. This is an affidavit by the defendant himself. I should like to have this affidavit read into the record.
THE PRESIDENT: The English translation has not yet come through. How long is the document?
DR. DUERR: One half a page, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Before proceeding I would ask if any of defense counsel know where Dr. Weissgerber, counsel for defendant Sievers, is. I understood his document book was to be ready at half past one. We could proceed if he was here.
DR. TIPP: So far as I know, Your Honors, Weissgerber was informed of this. He said that he would come as soon as he had received the English translation in the Information Center. Apparently the translation has not yet been received.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed, counsel.
DR. DUERR: I shall now offer Poppendick Exhibit HPO 24, which will be Exhibit 24. After the usual introduction it reads:
"Regarding Professor Teitke's letter of 29 April 1943 to me I say the following:
"At the tine when I wasan assistant at the First Medical University Clinic, 1929 to 1932, Tietke was Chief Physician at the same clinic. Teitke later became the director of a large municipal hospital in Berlin, namely the Urban Hospital. About 1943, Professor Teitke was taken into the Public Heath administration in Poland. Teitke knew that I was active in the Race and Settlement Office, but he had no insight into my activities and tasks. Teitke wrote the above cited letter to me since he knew me personally and believed that I could give him information about the above mentioned questionnaire and hereditary card file. I did not however know this questionnaire and still don't know of it. The Dieckmann Publishing House, was so, far as I know, the house that worked for the Reich Ministry of the Interior; and the card index on hereditary was introduced by the Reich Ministry of the Interior to by used in the Municipal Health Office. Consequently I was not in a position to give tietke the information he requested. As I remember, Teitke shortly thereafter came to Berlin and telephoned me to ask about this letter. I advised him to turn to the Health Department of the Reich Ministry of the Interior, since in my opinion, that office was competent. I never had anything officially to do with the matters mentioned in the letter, the taking care of German Soldiers' children born of Polish women, and never found out anything about that matter thereafter. This letter of Professor Teitke's to me with the request for information about matters that had nothing to do with my fielf of work, was an absolutely unique occurrence.
Its cause is to be found in the fact that Teitze remembered his acquaintance with me and had the vague idea that I might be able to give him some information." The document has been correctly certified. That concludes the defense of Poppendick.
DR. MARX: For Professor Dr. Schroeder.
Mr. President, I should like to put in five documents for Schroeder.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, have these documents been translated? Have these documents been translated into English?
DR. MARX: They have not yet been translated. Therefore, I should like to take the liberty of giving the originals to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We will proceed first with the documents which we have already translated into English. I understand that the documents on behalf of the defendant Sievers have now been translated. Is that correct, Dr. Weissgerber?
DR. WEISSGERBER: FOR SIEVERS.
I have just inquired at the Information Center for the English translations. I was told they were not yet there and that it would take a little while still.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal was assured they would be there at one-thirty o'clock.
DR. WEISSGERBER: I have just come from there and they are not there.
DR. HOFFMAN: For Defendant Porknorny:
I believe that none of my colleagues have the English translations available now but they are on the way; but I am sure that my translations will not come in today, so I ask permission to put these documents in now and permission to read them into the record.
MR. HARDY: I might inquire whether or not any defense coun sel other than those here in the court room now have further documents to introduce.
THE PRESIDENT: Whether or not defense counsel who are not in court now are advised as to that I don't know.
MR. HARDY: We night take time to find out now how much they are going to be and adjourn until tomorrow; and my rebuttal documents I can put in in fifteen minutes tomorrow afternoon. If we have five documents for Schroeder and two for another and two from another then we might be in good stead and adfourn until tomorrow morning.
THE PRESIDENT: I was assured the Sievers documents would be ready at one-thirty and we should have the rest this afternoon and I do not desire to recess, and we can go ahead with these this afternoon.
MR. HARDY: They are not here yet, Your Honors. Shall we wait for them a few moments?
THE PRESIDENT: Has counsel for the Prosecution examined these documents of the defendant Porkorny in German?
MR. HARDY: No, I haven't your Honor. Dr. Fleming--
DR. FLEMMING: I have one document I can put in now if I can get an English copy later.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Dr. Fleming. Dr. Fleming we will hear from you now with the document. You may proceed to offer the document for Dr. Steinbauer.
DR. FLEMMING: This is an excerpt from the police record of Hoellenrainer, the gypsy who testified here yesterday. This is Document Beiglboeck 40, and it will be Exhibit 38. This is the record of Hoellenrainer's previous convictions.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received.
DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, I should now like to put in the two documents for Dr. Pokorny that I did not have available during the presentation of his case but which I was permitted to put in later.
First, there is an affidavit by Pokorny himself, which gives an exhaustive explanation of what his thoughts were when he drew up his letter and explains why he thought that caladium sequinum could not be used for sterilization. I do not wish to read the document in its entirety into the record. It will be translated. However, I should like to read the most important passage.
MR. HARDY: I don't see the necessity for reading some of the passages out of this. It is an expert opinion on the part of Pokorny. His own testimony was heard on direct, and this is his expert opinion on why he thought it was of no value.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit may be received in evidence, but I see no reason for reading portions of it in the record, Counsel. Just offer the exhibit and give it a number.
DR. HOFFMAN: Very well. Then this affidavit is Document 29, and it will be Exhibit 29.
The next affidavit is an expert opinion by Dr. Jung of the University of Wuerzburg, who states his opinion regarding the question of sterilization with caladium sequinum. This affidavit is also to be translated, but if the Tribunal will permit, I would like to read the summary at the end. It is very brief.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Counsel.
DR. HOFFMANN: The expert comes to the following conclusion:
"Madaus and Koch made animal experiments on sterilization through caladium sequinum. The conclusions set down in Madaus and Koch's paper, 'Animal Experimentation as Elucidation of the Question of Sterilization by Way of Drugs, Using Caladium Sequinum', are certainly honest, but are of no importance regarding the question of caladium sequinum's sterilization effects.