A Excuse me, Mr. Hardy, to whose death certificates are you referring to now?
Q To the ones you killed with phenol?
A That is the informers and traitors I am talking about.
Q Yes.
A These death certificates I did not make out personally, I just signed them.
Q Just a moment, Doctor, you have stated that approximately 50 or 60 persons were killed with phenol injection; of the 50 or 60 some were killed without your knowledge, but you were lated notified...?
A No, Mr. Hardy, that is not how it was; do you now mean about the 150 to 90?
Q Yes.
A You mean the 90 cases?
Q Yes, the 90 cases?
A They were informers who were spontaneously killed by the prisoners in camp. I was told in one case that during the roll-call, the prisoners killed one of these informers by stamping on him with their feet. Of these killings, I found out afterwards and I had no influence on them. At the most, I could have denounced them to the superior authorities; the jurisdiction of the SS I considered as criminal, however, that has always been my opinion to this very day, and therefore, there was no chance of looking for help there. The result would have been merely that there would have been a big action against the foreign prisoners, German political prisoners and Jews and as a result in retribution for the death of 90 prisoners, thousands more would die.
Q We have gone through that many, many times; in summarization fifty or sixty prisoners were killed by phenol injections?
A Phenol or Evipan.
Q Approximately 90 were killed by beatings or other methods?
A Yes, or in any other manner. I don't know the manner in which individual cases were killed.
Q How did you learn of the 50 or 60 killed by phenol?
A With phenol or other drugs, is that what you mean?
Q Yes.
A That was through the resolution of the illegal camp committee. They......
Q Just a moment, now, think a moment, slow down and try to answer my questions explicitly; how did you learn of that; were they all committed in your presence with phenol or the other drug injections?
A No, with my knowledge, my full agreement.
Q And they were performed in the camp hospital?
A Yes.
Q By yourself or by five inmates who assisted you?
A That was carried out by trusted men of the illegal camp committee and I had agreed to it and I covered up for them.
Q And how did you learn of the other 90 cases of death; did you learn that because you were the only person in whom the inmates had confidence and you were the person who had to make the official declarations of death?
A Both; it was quite clear, I had to make out the death certificates, the prisoners had filled them out, to be sure, I did not fill them out but only signed them.
Q How did you know whether or not each death was justifiable; you are assuming responsibility for a great number of deaths; how do you know that each and everyone was justifiable?
A I assume the responsibility for those 50 to 60 quite fully.
Q And you are certain in your own mind that each one was justifiable in the context that you put to us here?
A Yes.
Q Well, now Doctor, after we had our interrogation of 22 October and I had shown you a draft and I had gone through a considerable amount of this affidavit with you, then I left the interrogation and Mr. DeVries interrogated you further for a short time. Did I not return the next day with the affidavit written in a formal manner and asked you to read the affidavit?
A Yes.
Q And in fact I read the affidavit aloud to you?
A Yes, you read it aloud to me. I requested you to read a little more slowly and you did so, but then you were in a terrible rush, you got up several times and three or four times you handed me the fountain pen and I still tried to read it. I have to say, according to the truth, your personality impressed me. I did not know the true significance of this document and then I signed it, in the belief that what I meant was written or what I meant to say.
Q And the initials that appear on the affidavit are your initials?
A Yes, you told me to sign with my initials and that is what I did.
Q Did you ever write a note in English to Mr. DeVries after that interrogation of 23 October 1946?
A Yes.
Q You did in the English language?
A Yes.
Q Would you read that note to the Tribunal, which you wrote in English to Mr. DeVries on the 23rd in your own handwriting, kindly read it in English?
AAt that time I had the support of a comrade, who was in prison here and who spoke English.
Q Is that your handwriting Doctor, on that note?
A Yes.
Q Is that your signature on the bottom thereof; would you kindly read it aloud to the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: What is the purpose of this, Mr. Hardy?
MR. HARDY: To indicate to the Tribunal the knowledge of English this witness had on the 23rd of October 1946. I wish to have him read it aloud, it is in his handwriting and we might have difficulty in reading it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the witness may read it,
THE WITNESS: I told you I asked my comrades about many words that I did not know and they helped me in writing this, I did not write it from my own knowledge alone.
Q. Please read it for us in English?
A. "When I stayed three months in the concentration camp in Buchenwald, about March 1941, I wanted to ask for my release of the camp. As soon as the prisoners heard about it, they asked me not to leave them as I was the only one they trusted, and in fact, the only one who was acting for their benefit. They also wrote it at me in a secret letter which still has Mrs. Hoven. Therefore, I felt the responsibility not to leave them, but to help the prisoners as much as I was able to, and so I did.
"I don't want to trouble you with all the possibilities I had to help the prisoners from 1941 to 43 September, I have many witnesses therefore and many letters. But I want to tell you that on 11th or April, 1945, when I was taken prisoner by the Americans, 3 miles from Buchenwald, two hours after they liberated Buchenwald, the soldiers pulled me on a Sherman Panzer. As soon as the prisoners saw me, as Jewish prisoner, August Cohn, told the CO that I had been the only one who helped them always. So they brought me up to Buchenwald where I had my first interrogation. The prisoners told the American reporter that I always helped them end saved the life of the political prisoners of all nations who were in Buchenwald. Then I got the permission to stay as a guest of the prisoners in the concentration camp itself until the next day, when I became a prisoner of war, and was brought in a camp to Kreuznach. October 23, 1946."
Q. That is signed by you on October 23, 1946, and is written in the English language in your own handwriting, is that correct?
A. Yes, that is correct.
Q. At that time were you in solitary confinement in the prison? You were, weren't you?
A. Yes, I was in solitary confinement, of course, but I had work. I could wash dishes and clean out the halls. I believe I even asked the American soldier about a few words. You can see there are a lot of erasures.
I erased things and I inserted words.
Q. Do you have before you document NO. 1063, which is the report containing the results of the investigations carried out in the Netherlands of the experiments and tests made by the German medical practitioners which contains the affidavits of Von der Ling, Lievenwerden and Schalker?
JUDGE SEBRING: What book, Mr. Hardy?
MR. HARDY: It is not a document book, Your Honor. It is a single document, on page 12 of that document. Do the Interpreters have that document?
MR. HARDY: It is document No. 1063, copies have been distributed to the Interpreters. You should have copies available but if you don't I will go on to mother subject and you can obtain them during the recess. Your Honors, in this connection the Prosecution requests instructions. Statements were made in this document by three affiants and the defense counsel requested that these affiants be interrogated. Thereupon, the Tribunal appointed a commissioner, Mr. Waltina, to proceed to Holland to interrogate the three witnesses referred to in this document, after proceeding to Holland he obtained depositions from the particular witnesses involved based on questions propounded by the defendants or defense counsel, to the questions propounded by the Prosecution. Therefore, the Prosecution does not feel that the answers gained as the result of the Commissioners while in Holland are subject to documentation and given a document and exhibit number. I have had them reproduced both in German and in English language for use here. Does the Tribunal rule we shall document them and give them exhibit numbers, or would the Tribunal take judicial notice of the hearing gained by the Tribunals commissioner?
THE PRESIDENT: Submit the documents to the Tribunal.
MR. HARDY: I presume the Tribunal is familiar with the appointment of the Commissioner for this task.
JUDGE SEBRING: Was that a Commissioner appointed by the Tribunal to take testimony or depositions of these witnesses as defense witnesses or as prosecution witnesses?
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, as I recall the question came up when the Prosecution introduced this record of the Bureau of investigation for War Crimes in Amsterdam. In the record were affidavits which were apparently damaging to defense counsel. Defense counsel then requested that they be permitted to interrogate and be permitted to examine the witnesses involved, due to the fact tho witnesses wore in Holland, the Court appointed a Commission to proceed to Holland and at the same time gave permission to the Prosecution to propound interrogatories.
JUDGE SEBRING: On the Interrogations?
MR. HARDY: Yes, your Honors, and all interrogations and answers the reto arc contained in that document that I have assembled together as given to me by tho Commissioner, Mr. Waltina.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I object to the submission of this document for tho following reasons: This was a request which I made. Upon my application these witnesses were interrogated and therefore the document cannot be introduced here against my will and that is the first formal reason. Furthermore, for reasons of the material I object because I consider it necessary if these two witnesses who were not witnesses in this trial, but who were being merely here interrogated by this Dutch Commission, if the statement of these witnesses should be introduced here then I make application here for cross examination so that I may cross examine them here. That should not make any difficulties for the Prosecution. If I was able to produce a witness from Holland, it is much easier for the Prosecution. They only have to send a car to Holland and produce tho witnesses here. In the manner in which it is done here I object to the submission of that document.
MR. HARDY: The Prosecution has no comments on the remarks of counsel, Your Honor, in as much as the Prosecution deems they are unsound.
JUDGE SEBRING: Isn't the whole thing, if the statement of defense counsel is true, that certain affidavits or the results of an investigation were submitted to the Tribunal as a part of the Prosecution's case, then the defendant made application to the Tribunal for the production of the afficants in person for the purpose of cross examination. That application was denied by the Tribunal and in lieu of producing the affiants for croll examination the Tribunal appointed a commissioner to take their depositions as upon cross examination and thereupon the prosecution, by leave of the Tribunal, also propounded counter interrogatories. The cross examination the report of the cross examination taken before the Commission is now back here for the use of Dr. Gawlik. You wanted an opportunity to cross examine these witnesses and you have been granted leave to cross examine them through the officers of a commission and it has been reported back. The report has been made by the Commission of the Tribunal to this Court and the question arises now whether or not a Commissioner appointed by this Tribunal, as a Tribunal official, to perform a certain function, who has performed that function and made his report to the Court, whether or not that report over the objection of counsel who originally asked leave to propound the cross interrogatories may be considered by the Tribunal,. Isn't that all there is to it?
MR. HARDY: That is my point, Your Honor. I want to know how to deal with it, whether or not it is now evidence before the Court or whether I have to produce it as evidence before the Tribunal. The prosecution interprets it as evidence before the Court in as much as it is deposition taken by the Tribunal's Commissioner.
JUDGE SEBRING: Dr. Gawlik, I understand you have objected to the Tribunal, considering this testimony or the report of the Commissioner because, now the answers having been received on the cross interrogartories either you didn't deem them helpful to the cause of your client or you deemed them immaterial, is that the point?
DR. GAWLIK: I consider then in the present form not of probative value because on the basis of the answers which the witnesses gave I consider for the clarification of the facts that further questions arc necessary, naturally, when I composed the questions, that is as ways difficult, I couldn't predict the answers of the witnesses, and naturally, of course, I could only put a certain number of questions. On the basis of the answers, I consider that; further questions are necessary in order to clarify the facts and for that reason I am not submitting it because in this form I do not consider it to have probative value and I am of the opinion since they arc questionnaires which were granted to mo on my request they cannot be submitted by the prosecution against my will.
JUDGE SEBRING: That is the point, doctor. Aren't you in precisely the same situation that you would be in the case of a witness being produced here in the witness box for direct examination by the Prosecution and then at the completion of such examination you would take the witness on cross examination, and then would say that because of the fact he has given answers on cross examination, that do not aid my case, I ask that the answers be stricken. Aren't you in that situation now? And if you are of the view on the other hand that the answers have no probative value, then, so far as your situation is concerned, you are not prejudiced by the court considering the testimony which has been brought back here on cross interrogatories taken by a commissioner who is an officer of this Tribunal, appointed for that very purpose.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I don't think defense counsel is clear that this is now in evidence and is before the Tribunal and was before the Tribunal on tho 9th of April 1947 when the Commissioner gave his report to the Tribunal. I think that is not clear to him, and those are the instructions I wish to have from the Tribunal so that I could continue my examination and use these as evidence obtained before the Commissioner and already in evidence before this Tribunal
DR. GAWLIK: No, it is not in evidence. I still have it in my hands, your Honor. I still have the original. I want to ask the question of the Court if the witness should be summoned here for cross examination and I had put these questions to him, I would have boon in a position to ask him further questions and then I would have been able to submit to him transcripts and documents which have already been submitted here and I am convinced on the basis of the evidence which has been submitted so far, the statements of witnesses and documents, and transcripts, the witness would have given different testimony. The statements of the two witnesses must be based on an error which as I now found out from these interrogations, cannot be clarified in writing and could only be clarified if the witness would be produced here for cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will now be in recess until 1:30 and will announce it's ruling then.
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 24 June 47)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: In regard to the matter of the interrogatories under discussion before the noon recess, these interrogatories were propounded by defense counsel by way of cross examination of certain witnesses whose written statements were offered by the prosecution and received in evidence by the Tribunal. These interrogatories being, as I said, by way of cross examination - interrogatories and the answers thereto a part of the original statements or affidavits which were received in evidence and are therefore now admissible before the Tribunal over the objection on the part of defendants who propounded the interrogatories. The Tribunal would, however, in view of all the circumstances, direct that they simply be numbered and filed and received in evidence as documents in the case, of course subject to pertinent portions thereof which are deemed of importance being read in the record.
Defendants have a right, in view of this ruling, to apply to the Court to summon these witnesses before the Tribunal or to propound other written interrogatories to these witnesses if the answers may be taken and procured before the close of the evidence. An application is made to summon the witnesses the Tribunal will consider it, but it has not been the practice of the Tribunal to direct that witnesses from foreign countries be brought here, due to passport and other difficulties and also duo to the lack of jurisdiction on the art of the Tribunal to require the presence of a witness residing in a foreign country. These questions and answers then will be filed as documents and may be received in evidence as a part of the exhibit which is already in evidence.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I hereby apply that the witnesses -Lee Warden and Johann Pieter Schacker be called as witnesses. But since this trial is approaching its end I make this application immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel must prepare the usual written application. It will be considered by the Tribunal and passed on promptly.
WALDEMAR HOVEN - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY MR. HARDY:
Q Dr. Hoven, did you at any tine ever participate in the experiments at Block 46?
A No.
Q Do you contend that the testimony of Leuvarden is erroneous?
A That I cannot judge, whether it is erroneous or whether it is perjury. I think there is confusion, that he has confused me with someone else here, because it is perfectly clear that if this is an experiment involving 120 persons it would be stated in the diary, therefore it is clear that I did not carry out the experiment. I don't understand anything about it and I never carried out experiments.
Q Leuvarden, however, says that you injected him. Do you deny that?
A Repeat your question please?
Q Leuvarden, however, states that you injected him in the course of an experiment at Block 46.
A That is impossible, because I never did that.
Q Did you ever witness the execution of Russian commissars by shooting?
A Once.
Q When was that?
A I can't tell you the exact date. I was sent there on orders of the illegal camp management and the foreign political prisoners committee to observe the activity of Kushnareff.
Q How many Russian commissars were killed on that occasion?
A I cannot tell you that because I left almost immediately because it turned my stomach.
Q Who else was there?
A Members of the Kommandantur staff. How many there were and who I cannot say.
Q When did this happen?
A I can't tell you the date.
Q Where did it happen?
A In a so-called stable.
Q Who did the killing?
A Members of the Kommandantur staff.
Q What medical officer was present other than you?
A I cannot tell you whether my boss was present or not.
Q Who pronounced them dead?
A I told you, right after it started I loft, because the sight turned my stomach. I therefore did not carry out any medical activities there.
Q Who ordered the execution?
A I assume that Himmler did, the Gestapo.
Q How do you know that?
A I don't know it. I just said I assume that.
Q Dr. Hoven, at any occasion during the course of your time at the Buchenwald concentration camp, did you request that a prisoner's head be placed on your desk?
A No, never.
Q.- Never did that?
A.- No.
Q.- You know a man named Josef Ackermann?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Who was Josef Ackermann?
A.- A political prisoner. I don't know what party he belonged to. I accommodated him in the pathological department. He was one of the prisoners who did not take an active part in the fight against the SS but who was being helped by me, the illegal camp management, and the political prisoners committee. He was to be sent sway on a transport several times. The illegal camp management wanted him rescued and I helped do so.
Q.- Did you ever point out an inmate walking across the camp yard to Ackermann and tell him that you wanted that man killed?
A.- No, never.
Q.- Let us look at Document NO-2631. This will be offered as Prosecution Exhibit 522 for identification, your Honor, This is an affidavit by Josef Ackermann. I want you to turn to paragraph No. 2 and in paragraph No. 2 we go down to the 4th sentence beginning with the words "During the last years..." and the affidavit reads as follows. I quote: "During the last years my superior was the camp physician Dr. Waldemar Hoven. Every corpse of a. prisoner was brought into the mortuary of the pathological section. I had also to compose the so-called post-mortem findings on these prisoners who were shot on escape, which findings were distributed in numerous copies, among others also to the SS-Court in Dusseldorf."
Now we will turn to the next page - page 3 and on page 3 of the English, we will find on page 2 of the German - the last sentence on page 2 of the German, which is the sentence beginning just about the middle of page 3 of the English, above the words in parentheses (page 3 of original) the sentence beginning "Dr. Hoven stood once..." Do you have that?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And I quote therefrom: Dr. Hoven stood once together with me at the window of the pathological section and pointed to a prisoner, not known to me who crossed the place where the roll calls were held. Dr. Hoven told me: I want to see the skull of this prisoner on my writing desk until tomorrow evening. The prisoner was ordered to report to the medical section, after the physician had noted down the number of the prisoner. The corpse was delivered on the same day to the dissection room. The post-mortem examination showed that the prisoner had been killed by injections. The skull was prepared as ordered and delivered to Dr. Hoven."
Do you know anything about that doctor?
A.- This is the biggest lie I ever saw in my whole life.
Q.- You don't know anything about that?
A.- First of all, Mr. Hardy, there was never a skull on my desk.
I never interested myself in the pathological section. There was a doctor there from Berlin by the name of Miller, and before him a Dr. Leve. Moreover I only visited once the pathological section. Ackermann usually stood at the door, used to greet me, and thank me for saving political prisoners and such things. But, never in my life did I have a prisoner killed and acquire his skull. I wasn't interested in skulls. This is an unmistakable lie.
Q.- In the Buchenwald Concentration Camp were prisoners beaten, that is, given lashes?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Was it necessary for a medical officer to approve the beating of a prisoner?
A.- There was an order to that effect, namely, that a doctor should be present and that the doctor should examine the prisoner before hand.
However, this order was never observed by my predecessors. I was the first doctor to require that the prisoners who were beaten should first be physically examined. Together with representatives of the political prisoners we did everything we could to suppress these penalties - these beatings. And the decision as to whether a man was in good enough condition to be beaten, was not reached by me but by prisoner nurses and the trustees of the illegal camp committee. We did. everything we could to see to it that no foreign or German political prisoners were beaten. Tha.t was our greatest success.
Q.- Well then suppose a professional criminal was involved. Would you approve the beating of a political criminal?
A.- I was against these beatings but we couldn't change orders from Himmler. That was impossible. The only way you could help was to try to keep as many beatings as possible from taking place but if I had refused to be present or if I had simply asserted that no prisoners could be beaten, then I would have been replaced or penalized and the consequences of that would have been that all prisoners who were to be beaten would have been beaten and in that case there would have been no opportunity to help the prisoners.
Q.- fell, before a man was beaten or before approval was granted for him to be beaten, wasn't it necessary that the flogging be approved by the medical officer?
A.- I just told you that was not done before my time. I was the first to introduce that - the prisoners told me such an order did exist and I went myself to the SS and insisted that we should be allowed to see the prisoners before they were beaten and to be sure that the interests of the prisoners were being represented the illegal camp management sent its representatives to me. They made the selection, saw to it that the prisoners were sent to the hospital, etc.
Q.- Well here is a document. It is Document NO-2313, your Honor, which I offer as Prosecution Exhibit 523 for identification, which apparently, Dr. Hoven is the slip necessary to be filled out and the approvals marked thereon before a prisoner can be beaten.
Now, I want to pass this up to you and see if you can identify on the reverse side the signature of the medical hauptsturmfuehrer. Whose name is that t here?
A.- Dr. Plaza.
Q.- How do you spell that?
A.- P-l-a-z-a-.
Q.- Was he your assistant, at that time?
A.- He was a camp doctor. Yes.
Q.- Well, was he your assistant?
A.- I can't say assistant. He was a camp doctor. He was subordinate to me.
Q.- Yes. Well now you turn to the front page and you will notice this person was a Polish worker, considered a shirker and he left his labor squad without permission and was found later smoking in a hall. And that on page 3 of the translation, your Honor, we note that before any prisoner can be punished the medical opinion must be given and in this case Dr. Plaza has stated, quoting from the document: "The culprit, named on the reverse side, was medically examined by me before the execution of the flogging. I do not have any objections against the application of flogging from the medical point of view."
And then the other statement is "I, as a physician, either raise objections against the flogging - and gives the reason, or does not raise and crosses out the word "raise". Well, was that the usual procedure in every case of flogging?
A.- This what I first insisted on - that prisoners be brought before me. Previously the practice was that the orders came from Berlin and the man was flogged. The medical certificate was just read, was never previously paid any attention to.
This certificate went to Berlin and came back signed and the prisoner was flogged and then after he w flogged it was out to my predecessor then his doctor and signed post facte and I was the first one to object to that procedure.
Q.- How many of such floggings did you sign? Did you sign many each week and allow floggings to go on because the person was physically able to endure the flogging?
A.- Mr. Hardy, I didn't judge according to the state of health of a person. I didn't really examine him at all. What we did was everything we could whether healthy or not. We were fundamentally against the practice of flogging and all political prisoners, including the foreigners, wore saved by us so far as possible from the flogging. I can't give you the exact percentage any more but I know we did save some. It wasn't all. If I would have tried to save everyone I would have been fired and penalized and the prisoners would have had no recourse. If this man here was really flogged in September 1942 I can only explain it by the fact I wasn't present at that time and Plaza didn't consult me in the matter of medical examination for this prisoner. As I have already said I o.id whatever I could whenever I could, namely kept as many as possible from being flogged, making no difference, whether German or foreign.
Q. Would it make a difference if he was a political prisoner or a criminal prisoner?
A. Well, if he was an out-and-cut informer whom we knew of, then I had no objections - none at all - to the man's being flogged. He deserved it.
Q. Well, did you know the name of the man who was on that particular slip there? Kisiliczka?
A. No, I didn't know him.
Q. Did you know a man named Woidellek, Ernst W O I D E L L E K ?
A. No, I can't remember that I did know him.
Q. Was that man a notorious criminal in the camp?
A. Could you please spell the name again?
Q. W O I D E L L E K.
A. I can't remember the name, at the moment.
Q. Well, I note that you approved that he be given twenty-five lashes. He is a professional criminal. Because he tried to escape one day from a labor squad and did escape and was captured a few days later. And you approved that he be given twenty-five lashes. Now, that is Document NO 2312, which is marked Prosecution Exhibit 524 for identification. Now, on the reverse side of that document, is that your signature, Dr. Hoven?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us about that case.
A. How can I do that. I don't know this case at all. I told you that I left this up to the agents and liaison men of the foreign and German prisoners and these men did whatever they could.
Q. Then you approved of beating a man - giving him twenty-five lashes - without having examined him yourself and then certified that you did find him physically fit to be flogged?
A. I told you that the nurses and these agents of the political resistance movements did this on my orders. That w as much better than if I had done it myself because in the first place, those were all comrades and, secondly, they were actually more interested in this than I was and, thirdly, they know their cases better than I did.
If for instance ten blows were ordered and they managed to reduce it by six, then they did so. I couldn't take care of everything in tho whole camp. It wasn't a Sunday school. But, it is also possible and this did happen, that prisoners who were caught while escaping were to be shot and then, through tho work of tho illegal resistance groups and through having connections with tho administrative head of the protective custody camp, it was possible to commute that sentence to a flogging and I can tell you that tho prisoner was very glad for the commutation. Moreover, we had an illegal treasury from which various officials were bribed.
THE PRESIDENT; will tho Counsel pass to tho Tribunal the original of Prosecution Identification Exhibit 523?
MR. HARDY: I am handing up for the Judges' perusal also, Exhibit 524.
BY JUDGE SEBRING:
Q. Witness, I shall have handed to you Document # NO 2313, which has been marked for identification as Prosecution Rebuttal Exhibit 523, and I direct your attention to tho fact that on tho front side of tho document, at the top, are certain pencil notes, will you please examine those notes and state, if you know, in whose handwriting they appear and state, if you can road tho note, what tho note says?
A. I can try to explain it, Your Honors, although I cannot say for certain. I assume that this is "III" which is at tho top in tho middle - I think that must moan "Department III". That was the administrative head of tho protective custody camp. His office.
Q. Who was in charge of that office?
A. That was tho first administrative head of the protective custody camp. At this time that was I think Sturmbannfuehrer Schobert S C H O B E R T.
Q. Well then, I direct your attention to tho handwritten note which appears on tho front of that instrument, to the left of the red pencilled markings "III", and ask you, if you w ill road that,