The next document, your Honors, will be Sievers No. 58 which will receive Exhibit Number Sievers 54. This is an affidavit signed by the Dutch university professor Bohmers who received support from Sievers. Sievers had supported him in undermining Saxo-Frisia and Fryska Rio, two political and semi-cultural societies in Holland.
The next document is an affidavit and an opinion by Professor Villinger regarding Sievers. This is Document 59, Exhibit 55. Already before Sievers' direct examination I have endeavored to obtain a psychological opinion regarding Sievers's personality. Professor Villinger, professor of psychiatry and neurology and the director of the University Neurological Clinic at Marburg, has agreed to carry out this task. It is only due to the amount of work this professor has to do that I was not able to submit this opinion during the direct examination of Sievers. I shall forego reading this extensive opinion into the record and I should merely like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the last page of that document where the Tribunal will find a summary of Dr. Villinger's opinion. This opinion, as in the case of all the other documents, is certified in the proper manner.
The next document will be Sievers No. 60 which will receive Exhibit number 56. This is an affidavit signed by Count Anton zu Innhausen and Knyphausen is dated 27 May 1942. It was certified by a public notary. Knyphausen, although joining the NSDAP in 1930, was an opponent of the Nazi regime. For that reason he was sentenced to death by a German Peoples Court in the year of 1942. He was sentenced thus in absentia. Now this witness describes how Sievers supported him in his illegal work which he carried out against the National Socialist regime from Sweden.
I shall only quote one sentence from this affidavit: "Without Sievers' support my activity lasting for five years as a courier would not have been possible."
The one but last sentence is very important and throws considerable light on Sievers -- and I quote: "Sievers never accepted any remuneration.
He always acted entirely unselfishly. Occupying a position which offered almost limitless possibilities for profiteering, he was just as poor as before when I saw him for the last time in November 1943, on the evening before my escape (to which he advised me and which he covered up, even though he was bound to be held responsible as a guarantor)."
The next document will be Sievers Document 61 which will receive the exhibit number 37. This is a short Excerpt from the book of the present Bishop of Munich and Freising, Johann Neuhaeusler. This Bishop Neuhaeusler, from the year 1941 to the year of 1945, had been an inmate at Dachau. This is a result of the activities which he carried out against the National Socialist regime as vicar of Munich. Neuhaeusler, in an extensive book, defined his attitude towards a number of questions which are very interesting in connection with Sievers' defense. On page 15 of his book Neuhaeusler states that again and again after the war he had been asked, "Where was the resistance against National Socialism?" This classical witness for the movement against the regime says with great emphasis: "The resistance was right here." It describe in detail the difficulties which every resistance entailed. He said, for instance, that the spreading of leaflets was impossible. He quotes utterances of Cardinal Mundelein from Chicago in order to prove that the verbal enlightenment and the opposition against the National Socialist regime was extremely difficult.
Heading another chapter he speaks about the zones of the Third Reich, the Chinese Walls in the Third Reich; then he gives us very interesting experiences of his in the concentration camp of Dachau. This is particularly interesting in view of Sievers' testimony.
This classical witness on page 25 of his book says: "We respect the soldiers who risked their lives during severe battles, but I think we also must respect the silent fighters in the country who, throughout the years--lasting 12 years---against a bitter and cruel enemy within the country, have risked their lives for truth and justice for freedom of the people and freedom of the church, for the overcoming of tyranny and Godlessness."
The next document will be Sievers No. 62 which will receive exhibit number 58. This is an affidavit signed by the attorney, Dr. Pelckmann, the defense counsel of defendant Dr. Schaefer.
I remind you that my client was charged during the trial here while he offered himself as a witness before the I.M.T. Sievers then explained that he had been brought here as a witness by force and that he was heard against his will as a witness for the defense before a commission.
Dr. Pelckmann points out that he had written him a letter where he pointed out to him that he was a member of the resistance movement. These statements are confirmed by Dr. Pelckmann, who at that time was representing the SS in the proceedings against the International Military Tribunal.
The next document, your Honors, will be a letter written by Robert Feix dated 10 February 1946 and addressed to Dr. Schmitz-Kahlmann. I shall point out at the outset that this letter has no certification and I shall try to tell the Tribunal for what reasons that was impossible for me.
The witness, Robert Feix, who worked with Rascher developing the polygal drug, I had searched for for a long time before finally finding out his address. The witness Feix came to Nurnberg and I had an opportunity to talk to him briefly one evening. I intended to meet him next morning in this building and get an affidavit from him. I intended this meeting for the end of the morning session of that day.
When I returned to my office in the Defense Information Center Feix was no longer there and I was told that he had been picked up by a representative of the Prosecution and it was no longer possible for me to establish further connection with him.
After this incident I immediately made the application to the Tribunal that this witness Feix be put immediately at my disposal for the purpose of makeing an affidavit.
Neither the prosecution nor the General Secretary were able, however, to tell me the residence of Robert Feix.
Mr. Hardy, on 20 March of this year, upon the request of this Tribunal stated that Feix had been arrested here and had transferred to Dachau.
I finally went to Dachau on 22 March and I was told there that Feix could not be placed at my disposal. I tried twice again to speak to Feix in Dachau but I did not succeed. Because of these efforts I was not in a position to obtain a proper affidavit signed by Robert Feix.
On the other hand, however, I am very anxious to show the Tribunal through Robert Feix how Sievers helped him in the concentration camp at Dachau. The letter dated 10 February 1946 was written at a time when Sievers could not at all expect that he would at any time be placed under indictment; therefore no one can say that this letter was written in view of the currently running trial. Therefore, this letter no doubt has a certain probative value, and I would like to ask the Tribunal to admit this letter in evidence in particular view of the circumstances, as I have described them before. The prosecution at that time had made it impossible for me to obtain a proper affidavit from him.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, this document has no jurat as to whether it be written in 1946 or 1947. It is clearly inadmissible. The document was obviously written to assist defendant Sievers at such time when he was incarcerated, and being interrogated extensively, I presume. I don't know the circumstances but it seems to me that the defendant must adhere to the regulations of this Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The document offered for defendant Sievers is merely a letter purporting to be signed by one Robert Feix and bears no jurat. It is not sworn to, and it is also purely cumulative evidence, but due to its form if previously presented it would not have been admissible at any time. Objection sustained.
DR. WEISGERBER: As the last document, Your Honor, I am submitting an affidavit written by my client dated June 30. When the prosecutor last Friday submitted his supplementary document book, I asked the Tribunal's permission that I obtain an affidavit from my client in regard to one document offered by the prosecution. This was approved by the Tribunal and I should therefore ask you to accept this affidavit as Sievers affidavit No. 60. The affidavit has not yet been translated.
MR. HARDY: I don't recall any approval on the part of the Tribunal to admit this evidence. I don't recall that at all, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The only thing stated in connection with these matters was these documents could be offered, if offered in time, and that they would be considered. There is no approval of the documents to agree to their submission. It simply applies to the permission to offer the documents.
MR. HARDY: I don't see what was brought out in the way of new evidence in the rebuttal document book in connection with the defendant Sievers and would give reason for a sur-rebuttal document of this nature. It seems to be nothing to me except what Sievers did as chief of the Ahnenerbe, and inasmuch as he tried to limit his responsibility in this in his cross examination-
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has no copy of the affidavit and is therefore not advised as to the statements.
MR. HARDY: There is a German copy here, Your Honor. There are no English copies. It might be helpful if defense counsel stated what he purports this document to prove.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel may state the substance of this affidavit.
DR. WEISGERBER: The prosecution last Friday submitted Document NO3629. This was a letter written by Sievers to Hirt dated 3 January 1942, which refers to Hirt's research work. I remind you that during Sievers' direct examination Hirt's research work was already discussed. During the cross examination at that time the prosecutor did not make use of the contents of this letter. For that reason I was not in a position at that time to answer this letter. Since the prosecutor has done that now, using his supplemental document volume, I ask to be permitted to define my attitude towards that letter.
MR. HARDY: The prosecution doesn't see the materiality of this in this connection, Your Honor. They have had ample opportunity to testify to these facts. This is a rebuttal document, rebutting the testimony of the defendant.
Furthermore, I cannot further ascertain what my objection might be to it without seeing the translation, and I insist on seeing the translation in this connection.
I don't see cause for further affidavits of this nature, particularly when this is in the true nature of rebuttal evidence.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, if I am not to be allowed to define my attitude towards a letter which has only lately been presented by the prosecution, the contents of which have not been mentioned during the direct nor the cross examination, I must consider that the rights of defense of my clients are being limited. For that reason I must ask you to permit this affidavit to enter the record, since it is not too long and since its translation will not make too much difficulty. However, a written translation is not available at the moment.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, the prosecution wishes to point out, for the sake of future trials, the theory of rebuttal evidence. This document, which the prosecution introduced in rebuttal, is NO-3629. Defendant Sievers testified on direct and on cross examination, in theory, that he was only more or less a rubber stamp in the job as the chief of administration of the Ahnenerbe Society, that he did not instigate medical experiments, that he in no way tried to bring medical experiments or scientific research in the concentration camps under the yoke of the Ahnenerbe Society. This document states clearly and shows the efforts made on the part of Sievers to so do what he denied. I don't see the purpose of allowing him to come back and give another answer or explanation of this, when this completely refutes and rebuts his testimony.
DR. WEISGERBER: Mr. President, if such a letter completely torn from its context is suddenly presented, it may under circumstances be misinterpreted. I think that it is therefore necessary to clarify the circumstances under which this letter was written, and show its connections, and I had opportunity to do this neither during the direct nor the cross examination.
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I will pass the document up for Your Honor's perusal.
I want to call your attention to paragraphs two and three, which are things which will be very familiar to you.
DR. WEISGERBER: That does not alter the fact that this letter is being presented here completely torn from its context and for that reason can well be misinterpreted, and therefore I want to submit this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: If counsel believes that a letter like this, which is an exhibit in evidence, could be misinterpreted, that is a matter he could explain in his brief and argue as to the true interpretation of the letter, according to his viewpoint. The letter in question, counsel, is clearly proper rebuttal evidence, to be introduced on behalf of the prosecution, as it tends to destroy the testimony of the witness Sievers, which he gave from the witness stand. Now, the defendant Sievers had all the time he desires on the witness stand to explain his position in these matters. Now, if he could be allowed to present further documents to attack such evidence, after this time the prosecution could offer further documents to attack this affidavit, and the chain would never end. The Tribunal is of the opinion that this affidavit is too late when offered at this time, and the objection is sustained.
When I told defense counsel that from time to time they were permitted to offer a document, it simply gave them the right to call these documents to the attention of the Tribunal. My statement had nothing to do with the question of the admissibility of the documents in the case of an objection's being urged to them. It is simply that the Tribunal would hear any offer on the part of the defense counsel and then determine the matter.
Objection sustained.
DR. WEISGERBER: This concludes my defense of Sievers.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear from Dr. Froschmann, who has a document I told him he could offer.
DR. FROSCHMANN: Mr. President, I have handed the Document Brack No. 64 during the recess to the Prosecutor and explained its contents to him by the use of an interpreter. It is dated 30 June 1947. It will be marked Exhibit No. 65 and I am handing it to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: This document will be received in evidence by the Tribunal.
DR. FROSCHMANN: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any further documents ready to be offered? I understand that the document books of the defendant Mrugowsky and defendant Schroeder will be ready by tomorrow morning when they can be offered. I don't know if they arc ready now.
MR. HARDY: Other than the documents for Mrugowsky and Schroeder, do any other defense counsel have documents to offer? Are those the last documents? The Weltz documents have been completed, Your Honor, Dr. Willie completed that the other day. Rose has been completed.
I think then, Your Honor, the only documentary evidence we have to receive now is the documentary evidence of Mrugowsky and Schroeder and the one other rebuttal document book of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: That is my understanding. This supplemental document book No. 3 for Rose has been offered, has it not?
MR. HARDY: That has been offered, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought so. The offering of your document book will not consume more than one half day?
MR. HARDY: Much less than that, Your Honor, I think I can put it in in fifteen or twenty minutes if Dr. Gawlik does not have too many objections.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 9:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 3 July 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 3 July 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I. Military Tribunal I is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, have you ascertained if the defendants are all present in court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honor, all the defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky may proceed.
DR. FLEMMING (Counsel for defendant Mrugowsky): Mr. President, let me at first submit Supplement 2 to my document, which is just being handed over in the English language. This is the copy without a cover.
The first document, Your Honor, will be Mrugowsky No. 103, which I offer as Exhibit No. 97. It is an affidavit signed by Dr. Koch from the firm of Madaus and deals with the incendiary bomb affair.
The next document will be Mrugowsky No. 104. This is an affidavit-
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel, not quite so fast, we want to note these exhibit numbers on our documents.
DR. FLEMMING: The first one was Document No. 103, Exhibit No. 97.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, doctor.
DR. FLEMMING: The second document, Your Honor, will be Mrugowsky No. 104, Exhibit Mrugowsky 98. This is an affidavit signed by Professor Dr. Lentz, the director of the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin and deals with the manner in which bacterial cultures were sent away.
The next document, Your Honor, is Mrugowsky No. 105 and has already been submitted in the meantime by the co-defendant Professor Rose. I don't know whether I am to give it another exhibit number in order to include it with my own material.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you can give it your own exhibit number, but give us a note as to the number.
DR. FLEMMING: Yes, Your Honor, Mrugowsky No. 105 will become Mrugowsky Exhibit No. 99.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, can you give us the number of the exhibit of Rose for this same document?
DR. FLEMMING: I shall be able to tell the Tribunal the number after recess. At the moment I am not able to do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Doctor.
DR. FLEMMING: The next document, Your Honor, is Mrugowsky No. 106 and will become Mrugowsky Exhibit No. 100. It is an affidavit signed by Professor Meyer Abich. He is a university professor and one of the best known philosophers we have in Germany. At the moment he is the leading representative in Germany of Holism, the founder of which was Field Marshal Smuts. This ideology has been fought by National Socialists during the Nazi regime. This Professor Meyer Abich knows Mrugowsky for many years and knows that Mrugowsky was a follower of Holism. He also speaks of Mrugowsky's personality.
The next document is Mrugowsky No. 107. I offer this document as Mrugowsky No. 101. It is an affidavit signed by the Kapo Arthur Dietzsch from Block 46 in Buchenwald. Dietzsch speaks in detail about the question whether Ding's diary was only something which was reconstructed or whether it was the original diary.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel when you speak of the Ding diary as being reconstructed, just what do you mean? Do you mean that it has been altered or do you mean it is not a daily diary, but written up at odd times by Ding? Do you consider that the document has been forged by alterations?
DR. FLEMMING: I maintain, Mr. President, that the authentic diary has been burned. Dietzsch confirms that fact expressly. Dietzsch was present when Ding burned the authentic diary in a stove in Block 46. I maintain that the diary which Kogon-
THE PRESIDENT: I understand, Doctor. I just want to know what you mean by the use of the word "reconstruction".
MR. HARDY: Your Honor, I question the admissibility of the affidavit of the witness Dietzsch. It may be true form and it may comply with the rules of the Tribunal 100 percent, but Dietzsch was here; defense counsel announced they were going to call him as a witness so the prosecution could examine him. The Tribunal expected him as a witness and wanted to interrogate him and they found out Dietzsch did not have the information they desired, so Dr. Flemming says he did not want to call Dietzsch. Now he comes up with an affidavit of Dietzsch without the right of the prosecution to cross-examine. I don't think it is admissible, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is overruled. The document will be admitted. Counsel for the prosecution may make an argument that might tend to lessen the weight to be given to the affidavit, showing those factors, but the document will be admitted.
DR. FLEMMING: In that connection, Mr. President, let me say at that time when Dietzsch was present here, I informed the Tribunal that I did not intend to call him into the witness stand and thereby delay the Tribunal, because the points about which I wanted his testimony were not known to Dietzsch and that in particular the chain of command. The prosecution said at that time-
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, the objection of the prosecution has been overruled and the document will be admitted.
DR. FLEMMING: The next document, Your Honors, will be Document Mrugowsky No. 108. This will be Exhibit Mrugowsky 102. This document contains an affidavit signed by Dr. Erwin Schilling. Schilling was the chief of Department 16 ever since 1944 where he acted as a hygiene Referent. He therefore knows about the authority and the significance of the hygiene Referent at Department 16. He also knows about Ellenbeck's activity, who is repeatedly mentioned in Ding's diary and who there produced blood serum.
The next will be the affidavit by Ruoff, Document No. 109, Exhibit Mrugowsky 103. Ruoff was the chief of the SS operation office under Juettner. I beg your pardon - he was not the chief but the IA, which means that he was merely in the position where he had to deal with all questions of organization, questions of operation and questions of administration, and he testifies about the possibility of double subordination as we maintain was the case with Ding in Buchenwald.
The next document will be Mrugowsky 110, Exhibit Mrugowsky 104. This is an affidavit signed by Dr. Adolf Murthum. Murthum was one of the closest collaborators of Mrugowsky. He participated in the cold meeting at Nuernberg and in a discussion regarding Ruthenol, where also representatives of I.G. Farben, Weber and Kohlmann were present. From September 1943 until September 1944, that is, during the time between Mrugowsky and Schilling, he was the chief of the Department 16 and, therefore, can tell from his own knowledge about the relationships of command there.
The next document, Your Honors, will be Mrugowsky 112, which I offer as Mrugowsky Exhibit 105. It contains an extract from the fifth letter of Hippocrates which some time ago I put to the expert, Dr. Ivy.
The next document, Your Honors, will be Mrugowsky No. 113. This will become Mrugowsky Exhibit 106. It is an affidavit of Professor Dr. Killian, the ordinarius for surgery at Glotterbad near Freiburg, Breisgau, at the sanatorium there. He has special experience in the field of gas gangrene and talks about the Fraenkel toxoids.
Mrugowsky No. 114 will become Exhibit Mrugowsky Exhibit 107. This is an affidavit by Dr. Konrad Morgen, who was active in Buchenwald in his capacity as an SS investigating judge.
The prosecution has submitted a number of documents originating from him. Dr. Morgen speaks about the manner in which prisoners were selected, whom he had observed carefully, and he is the only one who from his own knowledge can testify about the Chain of command at Block 46. On top of the second page of the document he states - this is the first line of the second page - I quote:
"To start with, it seemed essential to obtain full knowledge of the facts. In order to clear up these crimes I had repeated talks with Dr. Ding. On this occasion Ding showed me a paper signed by Grawitz and by which he, Ding, was ordered to conduct these experiments, Ding said, 'You can see that I've been very careful. I've thought all the time that one day one of you jurists will poke his nose into this business, so I insisted on having the order in writing.'" Further down in the document he says that he was ordered to go to Grawitz at the end of these experiments in order to report to him and that Grawitz on that occasion had told him that Ding was his man and that he would regret it very much if Ding was in any way incriminated by Morgen's investigations.
He talks in great detail about the manner of selection of prisoners and also about Kogon's personality. On page 8 of this affidavit he is speaking about the special experiments on four persons mentioned in Ding's diary. Ding in this connection also mentions Dr. Morgen and Dr. Morgen testifies that Dr. Ding's descriptions about this experiment were wrong. He, in turn, describes the details of these experiments.
The next document is an affidavit signed by Udo von Woyrsch, Document Mrugowsky No. 115. It is on page 59 of the English document book. The affidavit is signed by Udo von Woyrsch, which will become Mrugowsky's Exhibit 108. Woyrsch is the man upon whose request the incendiary bombs were made with the drug R-17. He speaks about the origination of these experiments in detail.
The next document I do not want to submit. It is Document Mrugowsky No. 116.
It is an excerpt from the newspaper "The Stars and Stripes". It has no certification and I am sure that the prosecution would object to the admission of the document.
I now pass over to Mrugowsky Document No. 117, which is an affidavit signed by Dr. Scharlau. This will become Mrugowsky No. 109. Dr. Scharlau was one of the closest collaborators of Mrugowsky. Originally, I intended to call him here as a witness but I have not done so because Mr. Hardy, when I suggested to call him on the witness stand, had stated that he would not cross-examine him and, therefore, in order to save time I merely am submitting his affidavit. He speaks about the creation of the hygiene institute, about the manner in which the hygiene institute worked, about the official trips on which he accompanied Mrugowsky. He is the man who travelled with Mrugowsky during the winter 1941-1942. This is during the period when the so-often-mentioned conference on 29 December 1941 allegedly took place, which is the first entry in Ding's diary. He also travelled with Mrugowsky the summer of 1942. That is from June until the last third of August. This is the time when the sulfonamide experiments took place. His testimony shows that even during this time Mrugowsky was not in Berlin.
The next will be Document Mrugowsky No. 120 which will become Mrugowsky Exhibit 110. It is signed by Dr. Hans-Dieter Ellenbeck, also a member of the Hygiene Institute. He is mentioned in Ding's diary in connection with the blood serum and reconvalescent serum and he makes statements with reference to those. In addition to that, he carried out a number of nourishment experiments in Buchenwald.
The next document will be the affidavit by President Robert Hecker, which will become Mrugowsky No. 131, Exhibit 111. Hecker was the presiding officer at the Reich Ministry of Justice. He talks about the competence and the duties of an execution physician. This is relevant in connection with the aconitin poison bullets.
I further submit affidavit of the defendant Mrugowsky himself, which is I Mrugowsky 124, and will become Mrugowsky Exhibit 112. Mrugowsky here defines his attitude towards the documents submitted after he left the witness stand. It particularly deals with the documents submitted during examination of the co-defendants Rose and Poppendick. When the first of these documents was submitted I objected to their admission because Mrugowsky would not be able to define his attitude towards them. The Tribunal then said I would be able to call him to the witness stand at a later date. I waited until all the material was presented and then did not ask to have him recalled to the witness stand. Instead I asked him to write an affidavit wherein he defines his attitude toward a number of these documents put in by the Prosecution after he left the witness stand and here he mentioned
MR. HARDY: I must object to the introduction of this affidavit. This affidavit deals with matters that Prosecution introduced in evidence during cross examination of Mrugowsky. I asked him specifically questions concerning these matters and he denied my questions and answered in the negative to my questions and in as much as I did not wish to introduce such documents at that time I didn't impeach his credibility as I did with the other documents, but in this particular instance I saved the documents to use on Rose's cross examination and one in Poppendick's cross examination and they are merely rebuttal documents refuting the testimony of Dr. Mrugowsky and I gave him ample opportunity to tell this Tribunal about any connection he had with the Robert Koch Institute and Rose and I gave him ample opportunity to do that on cross examination and he didn't do it and it completely refutes his testimony.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, in this connection, let me say that Mrugowsky had no opportunity to reply to those documents submitted, in Poppendick's, Rose's and the other co-defendant's cross examinations that took place after his own examination. In Dr. Rose's examination, for instance, the documents Exhibits 491 and 492 were submitted, one is a letter by Rose to Mrugowsky and the other is a letter from Mrugowsky to Rose.
The Prosecution could just as well have offered those two documents when Mrugowsky himself was examined. Then ho would have been able to reply to these documents and would have been able to explain how these letters originated and what the individual points contained therein mean. When Mr. Hardy maintains now that he already asked Mrugowsky on the witness stand about the contents of these letters, it is not correct. Mrugowsky, of course, was not in a position to define his attitude towards the subjects contained in the letter inasmuch as they were not submitted in evidence.
It is important to reply to the various subjects and quotations contained in the documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand, counsel, this is the last affidavit which you were submitting, the only other affidavit?
DR. FLEMMING: I have two more documents, Mr. President. One has been certified. It is a copy containing an extract from the IMT trial and deals with execution orders from Himmler and has the number 1751 PS. I have handed this document to the General Secretary for the purpose of certification. From the General Secretary it went to the language division and has not come back. And the last document is an affidavit by Kranz. Kranz was approved to me months ago as a witness but I only saw him a few days ago. Two days after his arrival I asked him to prepare the affidavit which has not yet come back from the translating division. These are the only two documents which I wish to submit.
MR. HARDY: This extract from the IMT need not be sent to the Translation Division.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not understand counsel to say that. I understood counsel to say it had been sent to the Secretary General.
MR. HARDY: And then to the translation division afterwards. That is completely unnecessary.
DR. FLEMMING: Only the affidavit by Kranz will have to be translated.
I could only get this affidavit at the end last week because the witness only appeared then.
THE PRESIDENT: Mrugowsky affidavit 124, the affidavit of the defendant Mrugowsky will be admitted in evidence, and the objection of Prosecution is overruled.
DR. FLEMMING: It is Mrugowsky 124, Your Honor. Now document 1751 P S, Regulations regarding executions, will become Mrugowsky Exhibit 113.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't knew whether we have a copy of that or not, counsel.
DR. FLEMING: I don't think the Tribunal has a copy. I only received tho certification for that document yesterday and I haven't yet received my copy. However, there must be the original document from the IMT trial.
MR. HARDY: If Dr. Fleming could give us the page number of the IMT record, I suppose that would be tho first thing to logically check and refer us to whatever page of the IMT record it is on and what date and then it isn't necessary to submit a translation of it.
DR. FLEMING: I will be able to ascertain that during the recess.
The next document, Your Honor, will be the affidavit by Kranz, which will be Mrugowsky document No. 126, Exhibit 114.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, the translation of the document has not yet been received. I don't know when it will be ready. Have you the original affidavit in German?
DR. FLEMING: The original is here, yes. I handed tho original to the Secretary General. It has been submitted for translation.
MR. HARDY: The document is clearly admissible, Your Honor. There is no question of that. It is a Prosecution document admitted before the IMT, which Dr. Fleming has submitted to the translation division, for translation, which is actually unnecessary.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood counsel is not speaking about another document, an affidavit which was prepared here recently.
MR. HARDY: Well, I haven't this other document yet, Your Honor to see what it is. I can't get a page number on it and I can't get a translation. I don't know what he is referring to and I want to get that information. It seems to mo he could give me some information so that I could find it in tho record.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel stated he would give the page of the English translation, of the English documents at the morning recess. He didn't seem to have it now. Of course, a certified copy of the record before the IMT is clearly admissible. Counsel is now speaking, as I understand him, about another document, about an affidavit which he had recently procured.
DR. FLEMING: Yes, I received this on the 25th of June and I have handed it the same day to the translating division. I think I will have it very shortly and I will see to it myself.
MR. HARDY: May I see the original, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Please submit the original of this affidavit to the counsel for the Prosecution.
DR. FLEMING: Kranz was Mrugowsk's collaborator in tho Hygiene Institute and talks about a number of matters in that connection.
MR. HARDY: I merely asked him when counsel submitted it to the translation division.
THE PRESIDENT: When did counsel submit that document for translation?
DR. FLEMING: I am just being told that the affidavit was taken down on the 25th of June and was sent down to the language division on the same day but only yesterday the mimeographed copy came back to us, so that it was only translated yesterday.
MR. HARDY: The translation division Ms no record of it coming down on this date. I won't object to the admissibility. It is in good form but again I wish an English translation of it at some time.
THE PRESIDENT: After the recess we will endeavor to find out when the English translation will be available. We will pass that matter for the present.