All you have to do is request 15 copies of the German transcript, the pages that you need, 15 copies of the English transcript, take the copy to the Secretary General and have it certified and submit it to Major Hatfield as an exhibit. He does not have the exhibit, and he does not have the English; and that is something that should not go to the Translation Department.
THE PRESIDENT: That should not have gone to the Translation Department, except that I assumed that it was accompanied by certain affidavits.
MR. HARDY: That is another book.
THE PRESIDENT: Are those copies certified?
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, I did not send this Document Book to the Translation Department. I sent it right to the Secretary General and asked him to certify it, because there are already English translations of those passages from the original transcript. On 25 July I gave them to the Secretary General to be certified.
THE PRESIDENT: In some mysterious way it appears to have landed on the Translation Department, but, of course, it should not have taken any of their time, since only certified copies of the transcript before another Tribunal were required.
MR. HARDY: These two volumes you have handed me, Your Honor, are merely certified copies of somebody's transcript file, which I will hand back to you.
THE PRESIDENT: Just keep them. It will be possible to have them certified by the Secretary General.
MR. HARDY: These apparently belong to somebody's completed file. They may possibly be from your file.
THE PRESIDENT: They were handed to me by the Translation Department directly. I noticed that, but I -
MR. HARDY: I'll return them to the Translation Department.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, no, just return them to me. They delivered them We then have no English translation of Mrugowsky Document Book III.
DR. FLEMMING: The translation of Book II is not ready either, I assume--Supplementary Book II.
THE PRESIDENT: Apparently it has not been received. Are there any other completed Document Books that have been turned over to the Secretary of the Tribunal?
DR. FLEMMING: The translation Department has had them since last week, and yesterday-
THE PRESIDENT: Since last Friday, Doctor.
DR. FLEMMING: Since Thursday or Friday, yes, and the Chief of the Translation Department said yesterday that they would be ready today, so perhaps I can postpone my presentation until the translation is here.
THE PRESIDENT: We will wait a few minutes, Doctor. You may resume then.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I just received Prosecution Rebuttal Document Book 19. I can proceed with that in a few moments if I get the other copies.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Counsel.
MR. HARDY: I'll have to wait until I receive the German copies for the German Counsel to follow me. Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: While the Tribunal is in recess, will Counsel-
MR. HARDY: It could well be that I could take up the introduction of these in the same manner that Defense Counsel have in that I put in tho English of Rebuttal Document Book 19 and complete that. I don't believe there will be any objection to some of these. However, I will have to got the original of tho exhibits. If there are any of the other Defense Counsel that have document books ready to put in, then I could get these well arranged and put them in a more systematic manner.
THE PRESIDENT: Have any Defense Counsel any document books that are ready to be presented? How many Defense Counsel have further document books to offer?
(Show of hands by Defense Counsel)
THE PRESIDENT: Six- During the morning recess will Counsel for defendant Mrugowsky take up with the Secretary General the matter of the certification of these extracts from the Pohl trial that he desires to introduce in evidence. The matter will be taken up with the Translation Department to ascertain what is available from there.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I am informed that the German copies of the Rebuttal Document Book are not ready. I'll not be ready to proceed with those. The transcript of the interrogation of the defendant Hoven was in English. That had to be translated into German. They have not got the German document book together yet.
DR. FROESCHMANN (For defendant Brack): The ruling of the Tribunal on the application by my colleague Sauter makes me believe that perhaps the Tribunal misunderstood me. I cannot talk as loudly as my colleague Dr. Sauter, so perhaps I did not make myself so clear.
The other affidavit that I wanted to put in for my client contained four short statements regarding four documents put in on Saturdays, in which Brack is accused outright of crimes against humanity, and these are new crimes insofar as he is accused of having participated in the extermination of Jews. In one document it is said that a mentally ill person died in Lublin, there was the statement that there was a euthanasia station in Lublin and that in this euthanasia station this Jewish woman was killed, this is a man claim.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, I understood from you that these documents that you were offering on behalf of the defendant Brack were in refutation of documents which had been exhibited to defendant Brack while he was on the witness stand and which were then marked for identification and were later introduced in evidence by the Prosecution. Is that correct?
DR. FROESCHMANN: No, your Honor. The first Brack affidavit was to refer to the document put to Brack during cross examination, and this the Tribunal rejected. Then Saturday Hochwald for the Prosecution put in new documents which had not been put to Brack during his cross examination, in which these assertions are made--namely, that in the Lublin matter that I just mention, he helped kill a Jewish insane woman secondly, that in 1942 at a conference of the Reich Ministry of Justice he delivered a lecture which Brack also has not been able to make a statement about because this was not put to him before; thirdly, a document was put in by Boehm.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not remember that Dr. Hochwald introduced any new documents. I might be wrong. I thought he was merely explaining documents which had heretofore been submitted as Exhibits for the Prosecution.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, Defense Counsel has stated that these are new charges. I wish to call Your Honors' attention to the Indictment. In the Indictment -
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the question is not altogether as simple as that. As to documents which were exhibited to the defendants in the course of cross examination and were marked as Prosecution Identification, the defendant then had a full opportunity to answer those documents on re-direct examination. If other documents were offered later which were not exhibited to the defendant while the defendant was on the stand or offered by way of rebuttal, and very properly, the Tribunal is disposed to allow the defendant to deny those affidavits if they had not been called to the defendant's attention while the defendant was on the stand. That was the occasion of the ruling on the document offered by Dr. Sauter.
MR. HARDY: Well, Your Honor, suppose the situation be this - that we withdraw all the rebuttal documents and put them in when defense has completed the case.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Then I may assume that this second affidavit of mine may be put in and accepted in evidence because reference to the document was not put to Brack's attention during the time he was here on the stand.
MR. HARDY: Prosecution requests, your Honor, that the Tribunal peruse the documents we put in rebuttal in connection with the Euthanasia case to see whether or not they are rebuttal evidence. Prosecution contends they are. Therefore they are not admissable.
THE PRESIDENT: If they were exclusively rebuttal evidence and brought in no new matters they should not now be denied.
MR. HARDY: The only question is that Dr. Froeschmann is trying to bring up that we did not charge Brack with extermination of the Jews. We specifically charged him with extermination of the Jews in the Indictment. The theory of the Euthanasia case was that Euthanasia was and eventually existed in the extermination of the Jews as outlined in the Indictment. He has known from the first day he received it. It is nothing new, your Honor.
DR. FROESCHMANN: If the Prosecution now states that Brack is not being charged with participating in the extermination of the Jews, then it is clear that I do not have to do any refuting here. But Hochwald explicitly stated last Saturday that Brack was charged in participating in extermination of the Jews and I consider it my duty as defense counsel to give my client the opportunity to make statements about these new charges or documents from the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems clear counsel that the charge was in there against the defendant Brack in all stages of the proceedings including the indictment and when Brack took the stand in his own behalf he had the opportunity to give full testimony concerning the charges given in the Indictment.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Yes, but these are new documents, your Honor - Document NO-3356, Exhibit 552.
THE PRESIDENT: Those documents, counsel, according to the Prosecution, I have not read them recently, are simply in rebuttal to evidence of defendant Brack. He had a full opportunity to testify. Prosecution presents further evidence to the effect that the testimony of Defendant Brack is incorrect. They have that right in offering rebuttal evidence. Brack on the stand had the opportunity to tell his story. Prosecution on rebuttal has the right to show his story is incorrect. That cannot be carried on indefinitely by then denying what Brack had the right to testify to when he was on the stand.
DR. FROESCHMANN: In my opinion these documents are not rebuttal evidence but are brand new statements, brand new material.
THE PRESIDENT: They are entitled to do that, of course, on rebuttal to bring in any evidence in rebuttal. That is the purpose of rebuttal evidence - to bring in any evidence which tends to prove that the evidence by the defendant on the stand was incorrect.
DR. FROESCHMANN: Well, but then the defense ought to have a chance to state his opinion about this new evidence because it might be an obvious error. How am I going to have a chance to refer in my brief to that which might be wrong. I fully agree here with Dr. Sauter.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, isn't it my understanding in rebuttal evidence that if we introduce any new evidence that the Tribunal will exclude new evidence in judgment. If we have offered any new documents they are clearly inadmissible and if one of the documents would be a new factor it seems to me they would merely ignore it, because the Tribunal won't pay any attention to new evidence any way.
THE PRESIDENT: On rebuttal, as stated by Prosecution Prosecution must limit evidence to rebutal, refuting evidence by the defense, if there is new material in it the Tribunal is justified in ignoring it. Counsel in his brief may call attention to the fact that it is not proper rebuttal evidence and should be ignored. If there is such evidence.
The Tribunal will now be in recess and we will see what can be done to clear us these documents.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. HARDY: May it please the Tribunal, Dr. Servatius has four or five or six documents that I think he can put in now in the German language. At the completion of that, Dr. Tipp has two documents that he can put in in the German language. I believe that Dr. Seidl has one; Rudolf Brandt has another, and I think Poppendick one, and Hoven one, and Beiglboeck one. I think those can all be handled now.
DR. HOFFMAN (Counsel for defendant Pokorny): Mr. President, last Friday I finished my submission on behalf of the defendant Pokorny. The Tribunal permitted me to submit another two affidavits, one affidavit by the defendant and one by the witness Dr. Jung. In the record it is expressly stated that I was permitted to submit these affidavits as soon as they are ready. This was the statement made by the President.
Today I have these two affidavits and I tried to submit them to the Translation Department. I was told there that they could not be accepted anymore. In addition, all the documents which have been submitted since Monday were sent back with the notation that they could no longer be translated. I should like the Tribunal to rule in my special case that these two documents be accepted for translation and equally that all the documents that have been submitted this week should also be translated.
In my case I would not have been able even at the best to get these documents ready any faster. I think that originally the Tribunal gave us time until today or even until the 3rd of July to submit the documents to the Translating Division. I feel that we are here concerned with a misunderstanding of the Translating Division.
THE PRESIDENT: I remember the ruling of the Tribunal was that these documents might be offered up through today and possibly tomorrow, but that did not mean that they would be accepted after that. The counsel may present this matter this afternoon. We will now proceed with hearing Dr. Servatius and the documents he has to offer.
MR. HARDY: In regard to Pokorny's case, the Tribunal did grant permission to the defense counsel to submit an affidavit from Pokorny himself.
I think we could, take these two later in German, and in the period of the week's recess and so forth they could eventually get to the Tribunal before you set out to write your judgment.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Pokorny having been the last defendant to testify, naturally his documents were delayed. If it is stated by the counsel for the prosecution that he agrees, these may be offered in German this afternoon.
MR. HARDY: Fine, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We shall hear from Dr. Servatius, counsel for Karl Brandt.
DR. SERVATIUS (Counsel for defendant Karl Brandt): Mr. President, I offer now the Document KB-119 as Exhibit 102. This is an official document of the Fuehrer, Adolf Hitler, in which Karl Brandt receives a special assignment in his capacity as General Commissioner for the Health and Medical Services. It tends to illustrate his position as it was. The document is not yet translated; it is very short and I shall read it into the record:
"Fuehrer Headquarters, 26 October 1942.
"The care for the wounded demands an evacuation of the hospital bases. Therefore, the interests of all military and civilian agencies have to withdraw. I commission the Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Services with the building of these new hospital bases and also the General Quartermaster of the Army. The Chief of the Wehrmacht Medical Services and the General Quartermaster of the Army will receive the necessary authorization in connection with my General Commissioner for Health and Medical Services. (Signed) Adolf Hitler"
MR. HARDY: Will Dr. Servatius kindly make a statement regarding the authenticity of this document? That is, where the document came from, and so forth, for the record.
DR. SERVATIUS: I received this document from my colleague Dr. Nelte, who in turn has received it from Handloser. I have a photostatic copy before me and I have no doubt as to the authenticity of the signature.
MR. HARDY: Is this the original signature?
DR. SERVATIUS: I have never had the original in my hands.
MR. HARDY: That is supposed to be Adolf Hitler?
DR. SERVATIUS. Yes, that is supposed to be Adolf Hitler.
MR. HARDY: I recognize the signature as being that of Hitler. I think the document is authentic, and if defense counsel will make the statement that it was received from Professor Handloser and that Handloser had had it in his possession as an official document, that will meet the qualifications of the Court. He can made a certification to this on a later date, just to assure us of the authenticity for the Court record. I won't object.
DR. SERVATIUS: I will submit a statement of that nature.
MR. HARDY: The statement need only be in the English language - just a brief statement as to its authenticity.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number will that bear for Karl Brandt?
DR. SERVATIUS: This will receive the exhibit number 102.
MR. HARDY: It is my understanding that this is in the translation mill and we'll have English copies in due time.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Servatius has stated that it apparently went into the translation two weeks ago.
DR. SERVATIUS: Yes, it was submitted for translation.
I now submit Karl Brandt Document 117. It is a compilation of experiments taken from a scientific lecture dated the year 1937, entitled "Infectious Experimentation on Human Beings". The document was submitted to the Translating Division two weeks ago but is not yet available. I should like to ask your permission to submit it in the German language and the translations will arrive later.
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.