Q Thank you. Witness, I may ask you briefly, since I do not understand this thing very clearly, whether the concept of Wehrmacht justice has become quite clear, and therefore I would ask you to explain it, Werhmacht Justiz.
A I understand the war courts of the entire Wehrmacht, the court martials.
Q Could you explain the division briefly?
A Every part of a division of the Wehrmacht, the German armed forces, had its own administration of justice, under the Oberefehlshaber, the commander in chief, and the chief of the legal division concerned.
MR. KING: Your Honor, I wonder what possible relevance a discussion of the branches and divisions of the Wehrmacht legal setup is at this time. It seems to me that the Ministry of Justice and not the Wehrmacht legal division is under consideration at this time before this Tribunal, and I don't see that the witness' testimony on the divisional setup in the Wehrmacht is of the slightest interest or relavance at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q I would like to remark that my question was offered only out of politeness toward the Court, because it had not been made quite clear whether the civil justice and the military justice had been made clear, the distinction between them during the statements of the witness. It is not right to say civil justice, because the witness also used that concept. Therefore I wanted to ask him what he means by that also.
A The correct expression would have been "the general administration of justice, Allgemeine Justiz."
Q Thank you very much. I may also ask you, the Fuehrer Decree contained directives under the signature of Keitel as Chief of the OKW. Can you explain to what extent the authority of command of the OKW applied to the Ministry of justice, or rather, how the authority of command of Keitel could have been applied legally to the Ministry of Justice and how it happened altogether that this decree issued by Keitel for the general justice administration was decisive or was applicable to the general administration of justice?
A I believe that there is a misunderstanding at the basis of the question of the defense counsel. The decree is divided into the main decree, Haupterlass, and into the regulations for execution of the Chief of the OKW. In the main decree it says, if I still remember it correctly, in the last sentence of the decree, the Reichminister of Justice issues the executive orders for his domain.
Q That is correct. You stated that literally. My question -
A That Keitel could not order as chief of tho OKW, but because the decree was called a Fuehrer decree and issued for the Fuehrer and with his consent by Keitel, so to say that it was signed by Keitel as deputy for the Fuehrer. Thus it is a Fuehrer decree and not a Keitel decree. The executive orders apply to tho Wehrmacht, to the armed forces. The Minister of Justice, as far as I remember, had to issue his own executive regulations.
Q The regulations of the Minister of Justice are based on the decree of Keitel which he, on order of Hitler as the legister, had signed.
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Witness, during the discussions which led to the decree you pointed out and apparently during your discussions with Keitel that you personally considered the decree contrary to International Law. During the first and probably decisive discussion with Freisler, as far as I have been informed, you were not supposed to have uttered these misgivings toward Freisler or told them to Freisler.
A The misgivings referred to the case that there would be no sentencing by a judge, for through the Hague Convention regarding the rules of land warfare we had been obliged to sentence even spies by courts, legally, judicially. That is, in the appendix to the rules, orders regarding the rules of land warfare, it was expressly stated there.
These were my misgivings. And these main misgivings were eliminated through the compliance of the Ministry of Justice, that which took over these matters.
Q Through the discussion with Freisler your misgivings were completely eliminated?
A Yes, this one misgiving was eliminated.
Q And as far as the so-called Nacht and Nebel affairs remained with military jurisdiction, did you have any other misgivings still?
A There were misgivings of various natures.
Q I mean the misgivings regarding international law which you mentioned that there was no real judge.
A No. For the courts of the Wehrmacht, the armed forces, judged as they had done heretofore.
Q During the direct examination the military trials before the NN-decree, the Nacht und Nebel decree, and the military justice afterwards you compared and, if I understood you correctly, during your last answer you said that by the taking over on the part of the administration of justice these misgivings regarding international law had been completely obviated. Thus these matters were not under military justice, but under the general administration of justice, and that thus the trial before the issuance of the decree, legally speaking, had been restored. Did I understand you correctly?
A Yes.
Q I would like to put only one mere question for explanatory purposes. You spoke about the resistance against the decree. You then implied that modifications were attempted later on. All of these changes were to the effect to protect the defendants, or were there other reasons for it?
A There were other motivating reasons, motives of many kinds. In the center there was, naturally, the defendant. But politically also I considered the decree a catastrophe, and I was of the opinion that such means were politically unwise. But as I said, we were informed that generals and jurists were not competent for this.
Q If you affirm that every attempt was made to put the defendant in front of a judge and to offer him a certain protection, then I would ask you to explain still your former statement that in the discussion with Freisler in October 1941, Freisler is supposed to have told you that the taking over of these trials by the administration of justice was the lesser evil, compared to the original wish of Hitler to hand these matters over simply to the Gestapo.
A I believe that my words were not given back quite correctly, or else I didn't express myself clearly. I believe I used these words in regard to the attitude of Hitler toward the two different administration of justice an evil. That was, I believe, the meaning of what I said, and in that connection I then used the word, the lessor evil.
Q It is possible that I misunderstood this. I would only like to ask you also in regard to this discussion which you had with Freisler, was it a discussion with only the two of you present?
A Yes.
Q Now may I ask you to make a statement as to what attempts were made, after the decree had been promulgated, to increase the protection for the defendant?
A These attempts referred to the so-called closing away from the public. The condemned was, according to Hitler's order, not to be in any contact with the public any more at all. And that brought it about that very bad conditions, difficulties, resulted from this the longer the decree was in effect. When the decree was planned and ordered, nobody was probably figuring on it that it would be in effect for such a long time.
First we hoped that it would run into the ground; and secondly, we did not count upon such a long duration of the war. Both of these expectations were wrong, and therefore we tried to have a loosening up of these secrecy regulations. We did that in the following way: we forwarded applications to Keitel, and that is such applications which made these conditions very apparent. My statements which I made before, referred to the fact that these applications were refused.
Q Witness, was your affidavit of the 23rd of September 1946 shown to you already?
A Yes.
Q For the information of the Court, it is NG-484, Exhibit 307 in Document Book VI; the German Text Page 15, the English Text Page 18. On the second page -- Page 16 in the German -- you made the following testimony which I want to read to you: "In view of the secret nature of the Nacht and Nebel cases, no witnesses as a rule could be summoned for interrogation in Germany and they had to be tried on the basis of reports and interrogations sent and complied with by the investigating authorities in the occupied territories." -- Page 19 in the English -- "If, for example, a Frenchman was to be tried by Nacht and Nebel procedure in Cologne, the public prosecutor in Cologne would, as I recall it, write to the German police in Paris and request that certain witnesses be examined." May I ask you, witness, which legal consequences, so to say, were a result of this which you testified here that is to say, the consequences that no witnesses could be heard?
A I have to make the following remark. When I made this statement, which the defense counsel has just read, I had not seen the decree for a long time. I believe it is not expressed quite succincyly, namely, what I said in the affidavit. Certainly, it was possible also to have witnesses in France interrogated through an interrogator or a judge; that is, to supplement the statement. Moreover, we in the military administration of justice did not have a conclusive judgment about the effect of the regulation because by far most of the trials were referred to the general administration of justice.
However, for purposes of general understanding, I have to say that the judges and the Gerichtsherren in the occupied territories and especially in France issued regulations according to which trials were handed over to Germany only if the investigations within the country showed not only a sufficient suspicion but a serious suspicion that the offense had been committed. So, the military commander-in-chief in France acted in this manner -- in whose sphere of work most cf these trials started, and likewise, the commander-in-chief of the Luftlotte -the Air Group France. In this way, it was intended that in all possibilities, only such trials were handed over in which the evidence had essentially been found already. In this manner, the regulations regarding the limitations for the examination of witnesses which hampered the trial should be made ineffective inasfar as possible.
Q But you must have found out that because of this limitation upon the examination of witnesses before the court in numerous cases, it was not possible to convict a defendant, and therefore there were a number of acquittals.
A Yes, that is correct.
Q My general question is to the effect that by this legal treatment of the NN-cases, inasfar as they were handed over to the Reich, was that a favorable circumstances for the defendant also regarding the procedure in the trial, not only regarding the fact that in this way first of all he was taken out of the hands of the Gestapo?
A I cannot answer that with yes or no. The meaning of the jurisdiction in sabotage cases is of course a deterrent-
Q Witness, I think you misunderstood me. I only wanted to hear about the legal procedure in the trial, namely, from the point of view cf the administration of justice, this matter was treated by justice. Was there not a very serious advantage achieved for the defendant compared to the situation if these people had simply been handed over to the Gestapo as Hitler wished it?
MR. KING: Your Honor, the question elicits a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical situation. The witness was in no position to compare the two, and for that reason, I think he should not he allowed or permitted to answer the question.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Witness, I would like to ask you now what conception one had when the decree was issued and immediately after that -- before the executive orders were issued -- what conception people generally had as to what should become of those who had been acquitted by the German courts?
A This question was already put to me by the interrogator and unfortunately I cannot answer it now either. It is peculiar that the decree does not say anything about this. Also, the executive regulations don't say anything about this; and I don't remember any more whether during the trials -- during the executions -- this was simply overlooked or whether the people in the discussion thought first of all: we shall complete this decree for until this question will become of practical significance it will probably have been repealed already. I don't remember any more hich of these considerations counted.
Q Later, in practical cases, did you find cut how these matters were handled and can you tell me on the basis of which orders this was handled?
A Only after my interrogation by the interrogator did I remember to a certain extent again -
MR. KING: I think with that introduction to his answer we do not need to hear his answer further. He said he has no personal knowledge; that he learned cf it only after the interrogation, as I understood him. Perhaps my interpretation is incorrect, but I understood him to say that he now recalls -- on the basis of what he learned in the interrogation.
If that is true, I submit the answer should not be given. If it is a matter of refreshing his memory, then of course it falls into a different category.
DR. SCHILF: I would be in a position to refresh his memory in case the witness does not have to say anything else in answer to this question after the interruption.
MR. KING: Of course, we have no objection to Dr. Schilf referring to the record which is replete with instances of what happened to these people, and if that will serve to refresh the witness' recollection, we have no objection of course to such refreshing.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may answer.
A. I believe that now I remember that this question in the latter course was discussed; whether it was first discussed in the armed forces, in the Wehrmacht; or first in the general Administration of Justice; whether it appeared first in one or the other, I do not remember any more. In the sphere of the Wehrmacht, the courts in individual cases, if they could not bring any evidence, the courts interrupted the trial because a correction of acquittal by the Gestapo was not desired by us; we found it undersirable. I believe that in the general Administration of Justice those who had been acquitted did not remain in the institutions of the Administration of Justice, but were handed over to the police. However, I do not remember these events very clearly.
Q. I would like to ask you to clarify what you said; you said they were handed over to the Gestapo; wouldn't that look as though the general Administration of Justice had the initiative in this. Do you know anything about the so-called "Abgegebenwurden", the return order?
A. No, I don't know that expression.
Q. I may ask you, however, by whom were the prisoners from the occupied territories handed over to the general Administration, brought over to the general Administration of Justice?
A. According to the original decree, the Geheime Feldpolizei, the Secret Field Police, were supposed to do that. However, it became apparent that the forces were insufficient because it was a very small force: they did not have very many people. The practice developed to have the transport to Germany carried out by the Sicherheirspolizei in France. That happened, I think I remember, after intervention by the divisions up there, counter-intelligence in the high command, which made representations to tho fact that the Secret Field Police could not handle these cases. I am not quite sure about this last point.
Q. The result was thus that these prisoners were handed over to the detention of either the Field Police or the Gestapo.
A. Yes.
Q. And then they were given over to the Justice Administration?
A. Yes.
Q. I now ask you if they were acquitted, when they were acquitted whether then the original order of detention of those two authorities again became effective, that is, either the Secret Field Police or the Gestapo after some one had been acquitted he was dismissed from the Administration of Justice?
A. Yes.
Q. Thus you just affirm that the detention then went over again to the original police authority?
A. At least I do not remember any more now what discussions were conducted about this; what you said is just a conclusion.
Q. Thank you. That is enough for me. I only wanted to ask you if the Nacht und Nebel Decree and executive regulations was in each case in all occupied territories in the same way announced and promulgated, that is, applied, or were there any differences within the different territories?
A. In the entire east the decree was not effective at all. I believe the decree itself says where it is to be applied; where it was to be applied.
Q. That is not the case, but referring to the decree we can find that out. I only want to ask you the concrete question: Does the decree, for example, was the decree for example handled differently in France than in the Netherlands?
A. In the Motherlands there existed a special resistance to the decree. Any how, it was very difficult to apply; it was difficult to have it accepted because the gentlemen of the court, the Gerichteherrn, as well as the judges, were very angry about this discrimination of the military administration of justice. Then, it was up to the personalties; it depended upon the personalties, that is, the generals as well as the jurists, how the decree was handled in practice.
These questions were, however, examined in the Wehrmacht branches because the OKW was concerned with the practical application of the decree -- correction, as such it was not concerned with the practical application of the decree. The supervision of the administration of justice was a matter of the Wehrmacht branches.
Q. Do you still remember that the OKW only knew of the decree of the 7th of October 1943, and only at that time ordered regulations, executed orders for the Nacht und Nebel decree in the Netherlands?
A. The exact date I cannot recall. I know, however, that the handling of the decree in the Netherlands was different than elsewhere.
Q. And the fact that the Nacht und Nebel decree was only about three years later, after it had been promulgated, introduced into the Netherlands, is that due to the circumstances which you have stated that especially in the Netherlands among the military commanders, that is as you said the generals and judges, special resistance existed?
A. I believe so.
Q. Other motives you cannot state at the moment?
A. No.
Q. I have one final question, witness. Did the referenten, department heads of your office also in subsequent times repeatedly or frequently meet referentens of the Administration of Justice, the Ministry of Justice in order to effect a solution for the defendants under the Nacht und Nebel decree-- to discuss these and to vot upon them; to coordinate them?
A. As far as I know, there were a number of discussions; they served naturally the purpose of improving the decree. In addition, there were conferences between the Wehrmacht branches and the judges of the Administration of Justice. I do not know details about this because we did not participate in it, we of the OKW.
Q. You said for the improvement of trials.
A. Yes, in the Rechtsstaatlichen; in the legal sense.
DR. SCHILF: Thank you. I have no further questions.
BY DR. HAENSEL (Attorney for Defendant Guenther Joel):
Q. In your affidavit, which my colleague Dr. Schilf has already quoted, you mentioned you knew the defendant Joel personally. I suppose -
A. For along time.
Q. Do you know for how long?
A. Since about 1934.
Q. At that time you were colleagues in the Ministry?
A. I was in the Ministerialrat in the Ministry of Justice and Joel was a Oborstaatsanwalt.
Q. But he was also referenten?
A. Yes.
Q. In the Ministry?
A. Yes.
Q. In your department and outside of it, in the Ministry of Justice, you spoke with him frequently and saw him and exchanged opinions so that you have some pictures of his personality?
A. We had a few official contacts, but I knew him personally and knew him also through the descriptions which other members of the Ministry of Justice gave me so that I have a picture of him.
Q. According to this are you of the opinion that he would have been a suitable man to execute the Nacht und Nebel decree? Can you imagine that the Minister or the leaders of the Ministry would have entrusted him with such a function?
A. I cannot answer that question.
Q. Was he entrusted with such a function?
A. In the Ministry, as far as I know, not.
Q. Did you ever discuss with him the Nacht und Nebel decree; executions carried out during the war?
A. No.
Q You want to say during the war, until 1945?
A I saw him.
Q Where?
A Here in Nurnberg.
Q Here in Nurnberg; could you speak with him?
AA little bit. I only heard him as a general public prosecutor in Hamm. He also in his penal institution had people who had been condemned according to this decree.
Q So, that was later?
A Yes.
Q After 1945?
A Yes.
Q Before that, did you also -- did you not hear about his activities in Hamm directly through him?
A No.
Q This is probably the reason why you mentioned the name of your Joel in this affidavit?
A Yes, because otherwise -
Q Because otherwise one could not understand why you out him in this affidavit, mentioned him in this affidavit?
A The reason was the following: I wanted to say Joel, the general public prosecutor Joel, whom I know well, confirmed to me that these cases were tried in accordance with law and justice.
Q You meant to say as general public prosecutor Joel as well as all other general public prosecutors was obligated in accordance with the law?
A Yes.
Q Did Joel among these general public prosecutors occupy any special position? Do you want to say, no?
A No. I know only about the fact that in an unusual he also took the part of law.
Q This should not enter the transcript. Only in order to see the significance Joel had -
THE PRESIDENT: This examination is being carried on to rapidly for the translators to follow it. Please go a little bit slower, and give a pause between the question and answer.
Q You said the work on the nacht und nebel case by the court and by the prosecution did not take place throughout Germany?
A No. The Ministry of Justice had entrusted a member, a number of courts for caring for these cases, in the West and later on in the East.
Q And, you think that Hamm was among these?
A That I do not know. I know only or rather I believe, to know from what Joel told me, that in his penal institution such condemned persons were kept.
Q But you do not mean to say that Joel is public prosecutor had anything to do with the immediate trials, but only as the secondiary?
A That is right, that is how I remember it.
Q The sentencing, I believe that the Court would be interested in this. The sentensing was done by the penal court, that is, the court of the first instance, and then the general public prosecutor, was he active at the first instance or at the higher court, at the higher instance? Joel as general prosecutor, did not have anything to do with those matters immediately, directly, but only possibly as superior of the actual prosecutor?
A Yes.
Q Do you know whether a court in the district of Hamm dealt with the accepting of nacht und nebel cases at certain times had been commissioned to deal with them, or do you not know about this? Was that outside of your branch in the Wehrmacht?
A Yes.
Q Now, in conclusion do you just want to tell me, you told us that you know Joel. What impression did you get of his attitude toward the execution of law and justice and regarding his defense, his position against illegal treatment?
A The Oberstaatsanwalt Dr. Joel, in the Ministry of Justice, belonged to the so-called central prosecution. As far as I remember this office, to put it more precisely, the division of the Ministry was created about 1934. The activities of this central prosecution, I could not observe immediately myself. At that time I was Ministeral Councelor with the legislative division for penal law. However, in the Ministry of justice we discussed the Zentralstaatsanwaltschaft. After the year 1933, it came about that the local prosecution was not also in a position toward the very powerful political influences to get through with their legal points of view, and the idea in the creation of the central public prosecutor was probably the following: Namely, to have especially difficult cases in which our position on the part of the influential circumstances could be counted upon to have this met by the greater influence of the Ministry of Justice, the greater authority of the Ministry of Justice, I visited Joel sometimes, looked him up. I always liked him especially well because of his extraodinary brightness and openness. Also because of his sense of humor. And, then he told me about his trials. From this it became apparent, resulted that he was fighting a very stiff battle, stubborn battle against political influence of the party and of the affiliated organizations of the party. He then reported how during his frequent trips through the country, he had negotiated with gentlemen who were politically influential, and the direction of his activity was also to defend the rights and law toward political influences. The same opinion of him I heard from many other people in the Ministry of Justice. Above all that Joel spoke very openly and bravely; that applied also toward his superiors.
DR. HAENSEL: No further question.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
I would like to correct a mistake in the translation. I have just been informed that the translator who otherwise is very good, translated the name Gerichtscheor as a gentlemen of the court. She could not know that this word is a very difficult technical term in criminal law of the Wehrmacht of the armed forces.
In my opinion, the the expression could be translated something like this: There is no regional chief of judicial power of the army. The Berichstsheer functions, as the witness will know the details much better than I and of his opinion which had been handed down within his army sphere of competence, and that he had to make a decision as to whether he affirmed or denied this sentence.
MR. KING: May I inquire if ther is further cross examination at this time?
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, I ask to be excused if I put another question to the witness. During my previous cross examination, I referred the defendant Mettgenberg, that is how I reported. In regard to the defendant Klemm, I would like to ask a question which in my opinion the witness can answer yes or no. The question. Witness, did the nacht und nebel decree, did the agreement of the consent of party chancellory before the regulations were issued, not even asked; and in answering it is question I would like you to distinguish between Bormann as secretary of the Fuehrer, was active in the headquarters and the party chancellory which was in Munich.
THE PRESIDENT: You told him to answer that with yes or no.
DR. SCHILF: I think that the court agrees that you should answer the question.
WITNESS: Unfortunately, I can answer this question neither with yes nor with no.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other defense counsel desire to further cross-examine this witness? Does the prosecution desire redirect examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, Your Honor, there are several minor matters to which the prosecution would like to call attention. I anticipate that would take practically fifteen minutes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then we shall adjourn at this time until tomorrow morning at 0930.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 24 April 1947, at 0930)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al., Defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 24 April 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall, presiding.
THE MARSHALL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal 1.
Military Tribunal 1 is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, you will please ascertain if the defendants are present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of defendants Rothaug and Engert, who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: Proper notation will be made.
RUDOLF LEHMANN - Resumed.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q. General Lehman, just two or three questions. I wasn't quite clear in my own mind yesterday how many Nacht und Nebel cases you had actually seen tried before the civil courts operating under the jurisdiction of the Reich Ministry of Justice. Could you tell us a little more bout that new?
A. I can, unfortunately, not name the figures. The contact between the Ministry of Justice -
Q. I wonder if we may have that answer repeated?
A. Yes. Exact figures I can, unfortunately, not state. The contact between the Ministry of Justice and the Wehrmacht in Nacht und Nebel cases was between the branches of the Wehmacht and not with the OKW, so that I did not have an exact insight into the matter.
Q. Did you ever attend any trial before the Special Courts of a Nacht und Nebel case?
A. No never.
Q. So that your testimony yesterday was in relation to the theory of Nacht und Nebel and not to the actual proctice of the trials before the Special Courts?
A. In my opinion, which I stated yesterday referring to the carrying out of the Nacht und Nebel decree as we had intended it, however, through conversation and through reports of ay referenton, my department heads, I naturally got a certain insight into the handling.
Q. You stated yesterday that one of your original objections to the Nacht und Nebel program went to the fact that it was a secret program. Let me ask you this, you are not under the impression, are you, that the Nacht und Nebel cases before the Special Courts were conducted in open session of the courts, are you?
A. Certainly not, for it was the purpose of the decree that these matters should be accomplished in secret, and that was just the very reason for my misgivings about the decree. I do not believe that the Nacht und Nebel cases were tried in public.
Q. Now, you also stated yesterday that your misgivings were somewhat alleviated when the Reich Ministry of Justice agreed to assume the trial of Nacht und Nebel cases, because you thought at that time that the cases would be heard before a judge. Now, in connection with that statement I would like to ask you several questions. General Lehmann, would you consider a trial in which the judge's sentence could not differ in any case from the recommendation of the Prosecutor, would you consider that a fair trial so far as the accused was concerned?
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I object to this question. It is a question of opinion of judgment, and not of fact.
THE PRESIDENT: Opinions couldn't differ on that, so the objection will be sustained.
MR. KING: Your Honor, I do not wish to take issue with the Court's ruling. I only point to Document NG-226, to be found in the English Document Book 6 at page 50.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the number again?
MR. KING: That was page 50 in the English document book, page 73 in the German,
THE PRESIDENT: Which English document book?
MR. KING: English document book 6. I point to this paragraph which related to the conference which Freisler originally had with General Lehmann in which he says the following.
"I conducted the preliminary proceedings of that time myself, together with Ministerial Director Lehmann of the OKW. They were considered top secret state matter, and have therefore not been recorded in the files then. It has therefore not been recorded either, why these cases were not assigned to the People's Court to be dealt with."
Then, and this is the ccucial sentence -- "This was done because it had to be made quite sure that under no circumstances any other sentence than the one proposed by the Prosecutor should be passed, neither in the verdict nor in the actual penalty."
It was in connection with that sentence that I asked the witness the question. It seemed, while I agree with the statement of the Court that no reasonable man could differ as to the answer, I wanted to be sure that the question was properly before the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The statement that has just been read speaks for itself, and the opinion of this witness on that doesn't render any material aid to the Court.