The rest after four weeks." What does "the rest" refer, to the one mouse? Does that refer to these unidentified persons?
A. No, that refers to the mice. It was simply a mouse experiment. It says "five dead". They have to have all the information on the mice. This is a brief entry.
Q. But this is May, 1943, when you were vaccinating people in Schirmeck, and this entry says "three dash six, point five per persons." Now, you are not suggesting to the Tribunal, that the "persons" are referring to the mice? It continues to say-
A. But then it says "six mice" with "point five", that was the scrum, I suppose, that we were testing, the immunizing effect on mice. I can't interpret it differently at the moment. "Four weeks", that means the faccine had been stored for four weeks. "Point five per persons" were vaccinated. That might mean that was a comparison experiment, that the effectiveness was to be tested on mice. At the moment, I can't give any exact interpretation. I'd have to study the document very carefully.
Q. What does this "per person" refer to? Talking about human beings, aren't they?
A. Yes. It is very, possible that that was the vaccine which we had injected into the persons in Schirmeck in May of '43; and then in parallel experiments, we tested it on mice. It was still pathogenic to mice. It was the murine typhus virus.
Q. But not pathogenic to human beings. It killed the mice, but you were sure it wouldn't kill any human beings, is that right?
A. Yes, the vaccination showed that.
Q. Let's see what it showed. Let's look at the entry for 6 July, and you will recal that this is right about the time that our witness, Hirz was testifying. 6 July, "drawings of blood, Schirmeck, 10 persons, 3 had fever, Weil-Felix," and then under number 1 to 8, indicating persons 1 to 8, you give the serum titer count, and then comes a little phrase, " The other two were not here anymore." Professor, what about these other two persons out of the ten?
You remember that the witness Hirz testified that he personally sewed two bodies up in a paper bag which were delivered to the crematorium after you had injected your vaccine. Doesn't this, "the other two are not here anymore", rather substantiate what the witness Hirz testified to?
A. No, I wouldn't say that. In my direct examination, I said that in checking these vaccinated persons, no one was missing. Whether later perhaps these serological, examinations were in May, two months ago,-whether some of the prisoners were gone in the meantime, I don't know. If anyone had died there would have been an entry somewhere in the record, I should think.
Q. Doesn't that entry say, doesn't it say "the two weren't here anymore"? Where were these serological examinations in May? I don't see that in your records. Does it show any serological examinations in May?
A. In the institute. And this is a later check on the immunity through the Weil-Felix experiments.
Q. We will proceed, Professor. Now you testified you did not conduct any vaccinations after May 1943 in Schirmeck and I must have given you an opportunity at least five times to make that perfectly clear. And even on the last document I put to you you still insist you did not make any. The next entry reads, "4 October 1943, six months, inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck, tube plus 2 cc distilled water, 0.5 per person."
Do you want to change your testimony now, Professor.
A. First I have to read it carefully. There is a figure here, "six months". I have to interpret that "20 nersons inoculated in Schirmeck". Those are probably the 20 people that we vaccinated in May that the witness here mentioned. "Two cc distilled water, then 0.5 cc ner uerson." I do not know even today that in the fall of 1943 we carried out vaccinations in Schirmeck. Then there is an entry on the 27th of January, 1944, nine months.
Q. That is right. That gives you the length of time you had this vaccine stored, does it not, Professor? On 4 October 1943 you had it stored six months? You inoculated 20 persons in Schirmeck on 4 October, did you not, as you stated in your letter to Rose, on the same date, the inoculations are now progressing, or words to that effect? You remember you said to Rose in a letter of 4 October 1943 which I put to you that was just a elan that you would do that. This entry indicates you did do it, does it not, Professor?
A. I must weigh what I said before. The letter was dated 27 January 1943, a time going much farther back.
Q. Yes, it is further back. It is obviously a mistake, Professor, as you well know. Sometimes people running from December over into January make a mistake and put the last year, you know, and that is obviously what happened in this case because he could not write a contemporaneous entry for January 1943 and then have it appear up above that entry, entries for October, July and May and April 1943, could he, Professor?
You will agree with me that that date should read 27 January 1944, when the vaccine had been stored nine months dating from 30 April 1943, is that not right, Professor?
A. I cannot remember that we vaccinated anybody in Schirmeck later; I am very sorry.
Q. You remember that you did not vaccinate anybody after May, Professor?
A. Yes, that is right.
Q. On 27 January 1944, which is the next entry, "nine months, mixed with the same amount as 21 May distilled water plus tube, 20 persons 10 cc each." Those were in Schirmeck, too, were they not, Professor?
A. It says 1 cc, 1 point O cc. It does not say anything about Schirmeck. I cannot say. I must assure you once more that I actually know nothing about these vaccinations. I am very sorry.
Q. Let us proceed to page 4, Professor. It is apparently another series on Schirmeck. Do you find the entry on page 4? Your Honors should change page 6 to page 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Our pages are numbered 1 and 2. You are referring to the numbers on the original document?
MR. MC HANEY: Yes, Your Honor, page 6 on our translation, page 6 of the original should be changed to read page 4 of the original.
Q. Now, Professor, do you find an entry on page 4 before you, of 10 October, five months, inoculated ten persons in Schirmeck? Do you find that, Professor?
A. Yes.
Q. That indicates you inoculated some after 4 October 1943, vaccinations which you mentioned in your letter to Rose, and which are con firmed by this notebook.
And then, under the entry for 10 October you find 27 January 1944. Does it appear 1944 on the original?
A. 27 January 1944, yes.
Q. Eight months?
A. Eight months, yes.
Q. You speak of inoculating 20 persons there, do you not, Professor? Can you tell the Tribunal that those were done in Schirmeck?
A. I do not know that vaccinations were performed at Schirmeck at this time. We were only vaccinating in Natzweiler at this time, and I have not heard that such vaccinations were carried out. I am sorry.
Q. All right.
A. I am trying to interpret the document.
Q. Professor, let us go on to page 5. The Tribunal will change page 7 of the original to page 5 of the original. Do you find page 5, Professor?
A. Yes.
Q. This mentions another series of inoculations in Schirmeck, 13 July 1943, approximately seven weeks, Schirmeck, 0.5 cc per person and six mice before the inoculation.
Let us drop down lower on the page. Do you find the entry for 14 October. This is on the next page of the translation, Your Honor, 14 October.
Professor, do you find that?
A. Yes.
Q. Ten persons inoculated for the third time with 1 cc. Professor, I thought you told us that you did not carry out multiple vaccinations with your murine vaccine in Schirmeck.
A. I have already testified that the only vaccinations in Schirmeck were in May 1943. I do not know from where this record came. In the fall of 1943 we were working only in Natzweiler. I am sorry, I cannot give any explanation.
Q. This entry, though, Professor, indicates an inoculation for the third time on a series of ten persons. That was your "Infektions Versuche", was it not, Professor?
A. No. I know nothing about it; I am sorry.
Q. But your series of three vaccinations were what you referred to as the "Infektions Versuche", was it not, Professor?
A. But these were vaccinations which were carried out in Natzweiler, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. The book says they were carried out in Schirmeck, and about four days before, on the 4th of October, 1943, you wrote to Rose and said, "We have to carry out infection experiments." Professor, is it possible that you really meant by "infection experiments" something other than your three-times vaccination which you had concluded on 14 October 1943?
A. Let me see exactly what it says here, page 5, 10 October-14 October, ten persons, three-times point five, it says again. It only says it is a vaccination if this document is right.
Q. Does the document say "Vaccinated ten persons, inoculated for the third time"? Is that what it said?
A. Yes, it says so. In May at Schirmeck in the control group we vaccinated three times. That is not impossible, but what I notice on this document, if you want to connect it with the Ipsen vaccine, is that it does not say anything about the Ipsen vaccine; I did not find that yet, but it does say Gildemeister.
Q. I have not mentioned anything about the Ipsen vaccine. Let us proceed, Professor, so that we get through before the noon recess. Remember, you testified you had not carried out any vaccinations in Natzweiler after January 1944. Professor, will you turn to page 7 of this little notebook on your experiments, and while this is not the only entry which shows that you carried out vaccination experiments in Natzweiler after January 1944, I think it will be sufficient for our purposes. Do you have page 7? Will you find the entry?
A. Yes, I have page 7.
Q. Will you find the entry for 25 May 1944?
A. Yes.
Q. Does that read, "Together with S inoculated, used up, five tubes of M I in Natzweiler; two ampules distilled water, three to four cubic centimeters per ampule vaccine, 0.5 cc.
The inoculation took dace during the incubation period, a transport containing also sick people, 13 became sick in the period from 29 May to 9 June; of those, two died."
Then it continues to give the titer value of some of the others. Professor, don't you have to change your testimony about vaccinations in Natzweiler?
A. No, I cannot change it. I know nothing about this.
Q. Professor, let us look at words "together with S". What do you understand "together with S" to mean? It is 25 May 1944?
A. I have no idea what "S" means.
Q. You testified that the defendant Schroeder visited you and you fixed the date, 25 May 1944. Is there any possibility that "S" could mean Schroeder?
A. No, that is quite impossible. Impossible. Professor Schroeder never carried out any experiments with me or did any work in my laboratory. He was not with me in Schirmeck or Natzweiler.
Q. He was not with you in Natzweiler?
A. No.
Q. I have no further Questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The noon recess today will be extended until two o'clock. The Tribunal will now be in recess until two o'clock.
(The Tribunal recessed until 1400 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1400 hours, 20 June, 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel may continue.
EUGEN HAAGEN - Resumed CROSS EXAMANATION - Continued BY MR. McHANEY:
Q With the permission of the Tribunal, I would like to direct a few additional questions to the witness concerning the last exhibit. This is prosecution exhibit 521 for identification which has again been handed to the witness.
Professor, will you turn to page 13 of the Exhibit?
This, if the Tribunal please, also does not appear on the translation. The notes before you - the translation before you simply concerns the note book. This chart was attached to the note book and consequently is included in the same exhibit.
Do you find a chart there, Professor, on page 13?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall your testimony to the effect that Meyer was not in a position to know anything about typhus work?
A Yes, I do.
Q Do you find this chart was drawn up by Miss Crodell, your assistant?
A This is certainly a record that Miss Crodell drew up.
Q And what dates does this chart cover?
A From the 24th of May .....
Q Will you repeat the date, please. 24 May to what?
A 24 May to 6 July 1944.
Q And this shows the Weil-Felix reaction tests?
A Yes, the Weil-Felix reaction was undertaken.
Q Will you read the name which appears across the top of the chart?
A Herr Meyer.
Q No further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect examination of this witness?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. TIP:
Q Professor, the cross examination by Mr. McHaney makes a few questions necessary.
First of all, we will discuss the old documents put in by the prosecution sometime ago me then the new ones.
First of all, a preliminary question, Professor. In your direct and also cross examination you described Becker-Freyseng's visit to you in Strassbourg. I should be interested to know, what you can say about whether Becker-Freyseng came to Strassbourg in order to visit you or whether his purpose for the trip was another and whether his visit to you was only incidental to this other purpose?
A I have already said that Becker-Freyseng, on orders from Professor Schroder, was to, if possible, meet my wishes regarding experimental animals. I told him what my wishes were. I believe I remember that Becker-Freyseng visited another institute, however, namely the Pharmacological Institute and the director there, Professor Schlemmer.
Q Thank you.
Please take document book 12 up again, Professor, and take a look at Document NO. 127 on page 94. This is your letter to Hirt of 27 June 1944 which contains the infamous concepts "control persons" and "subsequent infection." You said that in the parallel group of persons not vaccinated you could count on cases of suckness particularly in that group. In my opinion, you didn't explain clearly enough in the cross examination, why precisely in this control group you felt that you had to count on cases of sickness. Perhaps you could clarify that. Please do not go into the problem of subsequent infection at the moment.
A I shall confine myself to the interpretation I gave yesterday.
Sickness in this case means nothing more than reaction to the vaccination. As I said before, this letter was directed to laymen who wouldn't have understood more complicated terminology. That I pointed this out, the reason for that was that vaccination with injections are generally known. There have been hundreds of thousands of cases of that, so that I didn't have to point out specifically that fact, but vaccination through scarification of the skin had not been the subject of much experience heretofore. Therefore, I had to refer to my vaccinations of December and January. Therefore, for these reasons, I felt that I should point out that there would be stronger reactions, but, as I said, I did this for my own protection, so to speak.
Q Then, if I can sum up what you have said, the control group, as it is hero called, was to be vaccinated only once by a scarification process whereas the other group of 150 persons was to be given preliminary vaccinations in the usual and well-known way by intra-muscular injection, and in this regard you are saying that more severe reactions must be expected in that control group which was vaccinated only by scarification of the skin.
Now, we must turn to the documents that have been put to you by the prosecution. Perhaps, Mr. McHaney would be so good as to give me the photostatic copy that was discussed this morning. I mean the photostatic copy of Document 807. Apparently, the photostat is not here at the moment, Professor. In the meantime, we can take up another document.
I have the photostat copy now, so we can continue in our discussion of it.
You recall this document don't you? This is the document with the letterhead "Camp Physician- Concentration Camp Natzweiler." It contain these individual sentences that Mr. McHaney put to you this morning and regarding which he asked you whether these individual sentences, referred to your work. I want to clear this thing up, because in some cases I am not clear in my mind whether you think that certain of the sentences really do refer to your work.
The first sentence reads, the date is 25th October, 1942, and I quote:
"In addition there is the now scientific experimental series that is going to begin in the next few days which will make particular demands on us."
Can you tell us Professor, whether this sent one refers to your work?
A That sentence comes from a report of 1942 so that sentence does not refer to my protective vaccinations.
DR. TIPP: When I look at this document, your Honors, I see a number of points in it that will be of very considerable probative importance. There are clippings. I see that the letterhead, with the date, is on an extra sheet of paper and the text thereunder is on a different sheet of paper. Therefore, you cannot even see from this document what dates belong to what entries. That is quite obvious from the photo copy. I do not know whether the Tribunal has a photo copy of this document. At any rate, it can very clearly be seen in my copy that the letterhead and the dates are not on the same piece of paper as the entries. Perhaps Mr. McHaney can explain that, but in the form that I have it here I can see no probative value in this document whatsoever. Perhaps I may be permitted to show the document to the Tribunal. Here, for example, and perhaps Mr. McHaney will confirm this, this is supposed to be a letterhead. Now this is written on the slant, by another typewriter, and then the entry thereunder is obviously another piece of paper cut out from somewhere.
MR. McHANEY: It seems to me we have had considerable discussion about this document. It is quite clear that the excerpts here were cut out of a report made by the camp doctor, the report covering other matters than those in issue here and which were not included by the French authorities who prepared this. Now, of course, if you cut the bottom or middle paragraphs out of a report, it is not going to show the date on that piece of paper which is excised from the full report. Consequently, I think the obvious explanation is that the French authorities who prepared this, as far as this top line goes, apparently took off the letterhead of the report and then excised a paragraph further down in the text in the context of it and then photographed the two together. As far as the second excerpt goes, it seems they did not even do that. They just cut out the particular paragraph which they wanted to reproduce in the full report and then apparently typed in the date of the report on some other machine, contemporaneous with preparing this exhibit.
All this will be quite clear on the original exhibit itself, that is to say, the album of pictures. It is rather difficult to very specifically analyze this photostatic copy, but since the document has been authenticated as genuine by the proper French authorities, and has been admitted into proof, I take it that this material is admissible and can be put to the witness and can be used for whatever value appears.
DR. TIPP: From this document, as it is put together, and from individual sentences which taken by themselves are incomprehensible, it cannot be seen where this sentence really was in the original document. These are individual slips of paper in a row, one after the other, and they have been photo-stated, without its being possible to know what any particular sentence belongs to. That the sentence really belongs under the date which is written alongside it is not to be seen from this document. This is, at any rate, the first document of this sort that has ever been put into evidence here in such a form. It is quite possible for the Prosecution to cite certain sentences in a document, but heretofore it was always usual for the entire document to be put in and if individual sentences were extracted from it, their context was comprehensible.
MR. McHANEY: If the Tribunal please. There are two questions open here. Is the document admissible? That question depends upon the authenticity of the document and its probative value. Now this document has been properly authenticated by the appropriate French authorities and has long ago been admitted into evidence. Now the second question is materiality. I put these excerpts to the witness and he has conceded that it is possible, if not probable, that certain of the excerpts applied to him. Others, he said, did not. I take it that this is some proof and that it can be considered by the Tribunal. Dr. Tipp's efforts now are to have the Tribunal rule that this portion of the document is not admissible and that no questions can be put to the witness, whereas the witness, himself, has already conceded the possibility that certain of the excerpts do apply to his experiments.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will reserve the ruling upon this point until the photostats are prepared and distributed and can be examined. Meanwhile, counsel may proceed with the redirect examination.
BY DR. TIPP:
Q Since there is still the possibility that this document will be admitted in its present form, I must still go over certain points that it involves. Now on 25 October 1942 there is the sentence: "In the roll-call that the professor conducting the experiments called, only 14 suitable persons could be found. Treatment reduced those who had scabies to 4. Further measures to improve the general level of health are under way." As I say, this is dated 25 October 1942. In your opinion, could this roll-call or examination refer to the one that you referred to in your direct examination? Perhaps I could read the next sentence, to make this clearer. "The gypsies provided by Ahnenerbe for Natzweiler from Auschwitz on 12 November have after medical examination been released from the concentration camp as unsuitable. On 12 December 1943 some other gypsies were sent from the concentration camp of Auschwitz. Experiments are not yet under way." If you look at these 2 sentences again, Professor, which of these 2 sentences refers to the group of persons which, according to your testimony in direct examination, were examined by you and found to be unsuitable?
AAs I said in my cross-examination, the situation was as follows: If the persons mentioned in paragraph 2 were provided for my vaccinations, then I can repeat what I have already said - that these persons were really in a state of health such as made it impossible to vaccinate them. To that extent there is a connection between the fact and this statement here.
Q Just a moment, witness. In paragraph 3 it says, "on 12 November 1933 prisoners sent from Auschwitz were released, as unsuitable. That is 12 November 1933. That date corresponds to the date given in your letter to Hirt, in which you stated that you examined this group of gypsies. Do you want to say that this paragraph refers to your experimental group?
A Yes, but I was explaining the second paragraph.
Q Then you think that under the circumstances the second paragraph too might refer to your experiments?
A In the cross-examination today I said that I cannot be sure whether or not these were the gypsies I was going to use for my vaccinations. If these are the same gypsies that are mentioned in the third paragraph, then the whole matter is perfectly clear, because it says here that the people were unsuitable for vaccination. "After careful medical examination they were released from the experimental station. Instead of them, on 12 December 1933, another 89 gypsies were sent in from Auschwitz." That is the continuation here in the document.
Q In other words, witness, the two paragraphs could refer to your intended vaccinations and, if I understand you correctly, this is certainly true of the third paragraph?
A Yes, that is the way it is.
Q Now the fourth paragraph in this document - I should like to ascertain the following from the document. Here is a little slip of paper, apparently a letterhead on which stands "Camp Physician, Concentration Camp Natzweiler, 23 January 1933." That is all there is to that slip of paper. This slip of paper obviously partially covers another slip of paper, the text of which it is very difficult to read. The first line is altogether covered and the second line reads? "Part of the additional dressings needed were taken from the SS drug-store and the rest from the medical military department of the Anatomical Institute of the University of Strassbourg." Is it your opinion that this sentence refers to your experiments or your vaccinations?
A No, that is out of the question, because the date proves, namely, January 1943, that that was not possible. Moreover, this date refers to an altogether different letter, as you can see here.
DR. TIPP: Then let me state in order to clarify the probative value of this document that in the third paragraph of this document the date of 12 November 1943 is mentioned and then as continuation there is a date of 25 January 1943. These dates alone show how carelessly this document was put together.
Q. Now there follows a slip of paper with the letterhead, "Camp Physician, Natzweiler Concentration Camp, 1 February 44. This slip of paper is again alone another slip of paper. However, attached to it is another slip which doesn't seem to be the same piece of paper but another: "Experiment Stations in Ahnenerbe have not yet started 89 experimental subjects, namely gypsies. Of the 89 experimental subjects (gypsies) 1 has in the meantime died; 40 have been vaccinated for a typhus experiment."
If we assume, Professor, that the date is in order--namely, 1 February 44 -- do you then believe that these 40 gypsies who must have been vaccinated in the meantime were your first experimental group?
A So far as the last line of this paragraph is concerned, it says that 40 gypsies were vaccinated for a typhus experiment. That, of course, is probable, but I don't believe that any German doctor would use the wrong gender for the German word "experiment" which is done in this document; as far as the time element is concerned, it does seem to be in order.
Q Then there is the last sentence in the last paragraph of this document. This, too, again is two different slips of paper as the photo copy shows. The first one says: "Camp Physician, Concentration Camp, Natzweiler, 22 March 44"; and the next fragment of the sheet of paper carries the number "10" and says: "As last reported in the last monthly report, there were two vaccinations in the experimental station, followed by the vaccinations proper after which blood analysis and tem-peratures were taken."
Let me say the following regarding this. Here there is mention of the last monthly report and then it says after two typhoid vaccinations there followed the third vaccination.
Am I correct in thinking that when they speak of the last monthly report they are speaking of the report from the month of February which we don't have here?
A The lapse of time would have had to be about two months so that, apparently, one report is missing here, a report that was made in that period of time?
Q That is apparently the report at the end of February and in this report which is missing it is reported what took place in January; and there it says that after two typhoid vaccinations the typhoid vaccination proper took place.
Q Witness, do you think we can assume that this sentence, as it now stands, refers to typhoid which we, of course, should really understand to be typhus vaccinations in Natzweiler?
A Yes, I think so because every general physician who has anything to do with innoculations knows what an innoculation is and this expression can hardly be confused with anything else. The date also remember, please, that the reports are not given at regular intervals and that on 22 March the camp physician already knew the results of the vaccination. It isn't stated precisely when that third vaccination was made but it certainly was done before 22nd of March.
Q. You, apparently, are overlooking, witness, that it says here in this document: "As already reported in the last monthly report." Therefore, that statement must have been made in a February report. Don't you agree with me to that extent?
A "As it was already stated in the last monthly report, there were two vaccinations followed by the typhus vaccinations proper which in turn was followed by blood analysis and temperature taking." That is what it says. But, I think the number "3" here was wrong. Number "2" would be right. It is badly printed here. I read it "number 3" and I am trying to correct it. It should have been "2". If it says two vaccinations here, they everything is in order. There followed thereupon the third vaccination.
Q If I understand you correctly, witness, you are saying that this sentence of the report refers to your vaccinations in December and January. Your series of three vaccinations. Now let's take a look at NO 3450, Exhibit 519. This is the list with the letterhead statement of expenditures, with bills and receipts included, for influenza research assignment, et cetera.
A I don't have the document here.
Q One question about this, witness; Mr. McHaney has said that you said that you did no vaccinating for the Medical Inspectorate. Nevertheless, you made many trips to Natzweiler and Schirmeck and many telephone calls and included the charges for that in the statement of expeditures for the influenza research. Let me ask you the following about this, witness; were the individual expenditures in research assignment sharply kept separate or was the general policy that the funds could be spread around for the individual assignments and the funds for one assignment could be used to make up for deficits in the other assignment?
A Yes, that was customary. If you had several funds and one fund had just been exhausted or was about to be exhausted, and if you had money in the other funds, and if the same person was using both of these funds, that came from the same place, then you took the money from the one fund without question and used it for the other fund.
On the occasion of the conversation I had with Kwenzel during which I told him that the funds for one research assignment were exhausted, Kwenzel told me explicity that I could take funds to make up for that lack from the other fund. In a laboratory where many things are being worked on, that is quite a customary procedure. That is something that everybody does and in saying this I base my statement on what Kwenzel told me himself. I believe others here could substantiate that.
Q Then you say that these trips and telephone calls to Schirmeck were included in this statement of expenditures for influenza research but that this does not prove that the trips and phone calls were made actually in connection with this influenza research for the Medidal Inspectorate of the Luftwaffe but this was done for purely practical or formal reasons?
A Yes, that's os.
Q Do you have the next document, witness, 2874, your letter to Rose of 4 October 43?
A No, I don't.
Q I will have the document put to you. First, one little question about the document 3450 we have just been discussing: it strikes me that there are a large number of phone calls to Schirmeck listed here which really must be phone calls that were made to Natzweiler. Wasn't the situation this, witness -- Natzweiler didn't have it's own telephone exchange; consequently, all phone calls for Natzweiler had to go through the exchange at Schirmeck, so that you couldn't keep these two things separate in the bill at all?
A That I cannot tell you because the connections were always made by my secretary but you will see that in parentheses you will see the name "Natzweiler" after the word "Schirmeck 108". Consequently, these can only have been phone calls to Natzweiler.