I believe that part of his skin, which the healthy person has, was lacking in his case, and this led again and again to circulation difficulties and disturbances of his general well being. I also spoke recently with his former prison chaplain, Reinhold, who came to my office and that was when we eventually happened to discuss the case of von Praun, and Mr. Reinhold knew Herr von Praun: as his chaplain he could visit Herr von Praun, and the chaplain did visit him much more often than I, and he stated that Herr von Praun had very weak nerves.
Q Witness, a final question. Here you criticize quite generally the harshness of the presiding judges of the special court; the two presiding judges. Do you know of any case of the defendant Oeschey in which you were defense counsel, and in which the sentence was, by way of the nullity plea, changed because it was too lenient?
A Would you please repeat this question; I didn't understand it very well.
Q I pointed out, witness, that in your affidavit you criticized the harshness of the sentences pronounced by Rothaug and Oeschey, and they I asked you whether you defended a case before Oeschey in which the sentence which Oeschey pronounced was regarded as too lenient by the Reich Court and it was cancelled?
A If I may reserve the possibility that perhaps my memory is mistaken, but with this reservation I can speak about a case in which as man was living here, or in Furth, and I can't remember his name any more was charged, because to have stolen a considerable extent of food, tobacco and luxury goods -- from an office of the Wehrmacht, he was working in this office himself. This man was first of all sentenced by the Special Court here to a long term prison sentence, and I believe that I am not mistaken if I say that the District Court Director Oeschey was presiding judge in this sentence.
Q Witness, may I interrupt you once? May not that have been the case named Bosch?
A That was the case Bosch. Now, I remember the name. Well, one can find out from the files in that case whether I am mistaken, and I believe that in this case District Court Director Oeschey, during the first trial which ended with a prison sentence, was presiding judge.
Q The sentence was then canceled?
A Yes. Then the so-called nullity plea was filed by the Oberreichsanwalt of the Reich Supreme Court; the Reich Supreme Court revoked the sentence because it was too lenient, it was said to be too lenient, and the case had to be tried again at the Special Court here; and in this trial, when I was defense counsel for this man, this man was sentenced to death; and, as far as I know, the sentence was executed.
Q Who was the presiding judge in this second trial?
A Unfortunately I cannot remember that any more, but it wasn't Oeschey. I don't believe so.
THE PRESIDENT: Any redirect examination of this witness?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, there is not.
BY JUDGE BRAND: May I ask one question of the witness? This question comes from the bench; I realize it is hard for you to tell.
Q As I understood you, the case von Praun was one in which the trial was commenced in the Special Court, and was then transferred by an order of the People's Court. Did I understand that correctly?
AAre you addressing this question to me?
Q Yes.
AAnd may I ask you to repeat this question? I didn't understand it very well.
Q Von Praun was first put on trial in the Special Court; was he not?
A Yes.
Q And the case was transferred before a sentence was pronounced to a People's Court?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell me what the reason -- the legal reason -- was for that transfer? I am merely trying to understand the procedure.
A Yes.
Q Not the facts -- but just the legal theory on which the transfer was made.
A Yes, I understand. There were two laws according to which the same remarks could be punished, according to their seriousness. The one law was the so-called malicious acts law, and the other law was for punishment of the so-called undermining of the military morale -- defensive strength. In the case of von Praun the question was from the very beginning whether he would be indicted because of the malicious attacks, malicious acts, or because of undermining of the German defensive strength. In all of these cases the files had first to be sent to the Reich Ministry of Justice in Berlin, and there it was decreed whether any indictment should be filed altogether. There were cases of violations of the malicious acts law which were not indicted at all upon orders of the Ministry of Justice; that was a breaking of the official principles. Because I that the matter was dangerous for von Praun, I went to Berlin and discussed the case in the Reich Ministry of Justice with a competent specialist or expert working in that field, a Landgerichtsdirector whose name I don't remember any more, and I tried to achieve that von Praun would not be indicted because of undermining of the defensive strength in from of the People's Court, but only because of malicious acts crimes would be indicted before the Special Court.
Q I see.
A The Landgerichtsdirector led me to understand that he wanted to have the file returned to the Special Court in Nurnberg with the order to prosecute according to the Ministry's malicious acts law; or more correctly, that he would return it to the prosecution with the order to file an indictment before the Special Court because of crimes against the malicious acts laws; that the court, however, in accordance with the result of the trial, if it should be convinced that it was not a malicious act, but undermining of defensive strength, the court should turn it over to the People's Court, and that is what happened during the trial.
JUDGE BRAND: That is my only question, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further direct examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I have one question, your Honor and that is:
EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Dr. Mayer, in view of the question that the Tribunal just asked you, would you care to recount briefly what your reasons were for thinking that Oeschey transferred the case to the People's Court on religious grounds, as you stated in your affidavit?
A I did not understand the last words of your question.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Court, I object to this question. The question has nothing to do with the cross examination. I merely asked the witness about the case von Praun. I merely asked him about the relation which von Praun made, and about what happened after the conclusion of the trial, but nothing about the trial itself, and about the reasons which lead to the transfer to the People's Court.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
The witness may be excused.
(The witness was excused and withdrew from the courtroom.)
Dr. Kunz, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Q Will you hold up your right hand and repeat this oath after me:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE BLAIR: You may be seated.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL (For defendant Rothaug): We are concerned with the document NG 531 in document book 3-I, exhibit 233.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not know the name of the witness?
DR. KOESSL: I shall ask for his name immediately. He is the witness Kunz.
Q Witness, please state your full name and tell us your profession.
A Dr. Kunz Gustav, physician in Nurnberg, formally I was physician at the court.
Q Witness, from 1929 until 1945, you were uninterruptedly the leading court physician in Nurnberg; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q What were the names of the other three physicians who were subordinate to you?
AAt the end there was Dr. Schumader, Dr. Baur and Dr. Schneller.
Q What was your official position toward the authorities of the administration of justice and the positions of the other physicians; how was it regulated?
AActually, we were not officials of the administration of the judiciary, but we were not officials of the administration of justice. We were officials of the administration.
Q To whom were you subordinate, officially?
A To the Ministry of Interior.
Q In what official relationship was the rest of the court physicians to you?
A There was not a relationship of subordination with the exception of the physician who was appointed as our assistant, Dr. Baur, who later on, however, also became an official physician. The most of the time when he was with me, however, he was subordinate; he was our assistant. Toward the rest of the gentlemen, I was actually not a superior. I was in charge of the court physicians service.
Q Were there any directives on the part of your superior office or other offices regarding the type cf psychiatric opinions for the court's purpose, and what is the names of the directives, the official names?
A There were no directives. The instructions for the psychiatric experts opinions went generally to the court physicians. I then established a certain scheme, a certain key according to which the cases were divided.
The cases which were more serious, which required a special expert opinion after general observation, were then handed to a Psychiatric Department to a type of clinical institute which was subordinate to me, and where I was working alone. Into this institute -
Q Talk a little more slowly, please.
A Yes. In this department, however, cases not only from Nurnberg, from the court here came, but also cases from the District Court of Appeals, district Bamberg, Wuerzburg, and so on.
Q You have already described that, I believe. In what stage of the trial was the court physician generally called?
A That was different in different cases.
Q Please, as a rule?
AAs a rule, he was called after the conclusion of the pre-trial investigation.
Q Did the expert's written opinions -- were they not regularly asked for by the prosecutor?
A I believe all of them were requested by the public prosecutor.
Q Witness, do you know what significance these expert opinions had for the trial?
A I do not understand the question, quite.
Q I mean, were the written expert opinions made a basis of the sentence directly?
A No, I made these expert opinions. These written expert opinions I regarded as temporary opinions, which in many cases I changed during the trial. Often I stated the opposite entirely after the result of the evidence. It was, as I would like to say, a temporary expert opinion. There were cases in which they waved the oral confirmation of this expert opinion, and in which the written expert opinion was made the basis of the opinion, but these were cases in which it was impossible that I or any other doctor could appear in the trial.
Q The written expert opinion thus had only informational value?
A Certainly.
Q And, could not replace the oral examination of the experts?
A No, not in general. The expert opinion, the written expert opinion, was also not made under oath. The oath was taken merely for the oral opinion, expert opinion.
Q I guess you have known the defendant Rothaug already since 1929?
A I believe I have known him even longer, he was active here first as prosecutor, and then, he was transferred, as far as I remember to Schweinfurt, and he returned again. Thus I -- in any case he had been here, and I believe long before the Nazi government.
Q Witness, do you remember that the method of examination of Rothaug at the jury court and at the Special Court was the same?
A I believe that there was a certain difference which existed; that the general note, that is the experience, if I may use that expression, in the activities of the Special Court was somewhat more sharp one than at the jury court, and the court of assizes.
Q Can you still remember a case from 1930 in which a man, a carpenter, raped his own daughter?
A I do not believe I was present at such a case.
Q Do you still remember a case which happened during the war in which Professor Merkl from Erlangen became active in the trial -during the trial, Professor Merkl from Munich, in the name of all three doctor expert physicians made the statement that experts did not hesitate to say that in view of the results of the trial, the former expert opinion could not be maintained any more, and that the defendant had through simulation misled the expert in the pre-trial investigation?
A. No, I do not remember that case. Perhaps I did not quite understand your question, what this incident was supposed to be, or what the essence of this incident was supposed to be.
Q. I only wanted to have a confirmation that even such well known experts as Professor Merkl, in the pre-trial investigation -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: (Interposing): Excuse me. I object to this question being repeated, and I object to the question being made. It is completely new material, with no basis or relation to the affidavit or the nature of the cross-examination that is being conducted.
THE PRESIDENT: In any event, the witness says he doesn't remember the case, so I don't see any occasion to go into it.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, when Rothaug was in charge, did the experts have an opportunity to find out whether the defendant was not somewhat feebleminded?
A. Certainly.
Q. Could you determine, as to Article 51, Paragraph 1 or 2, that Rothaug did not mention it in a sentence at all?
A. Written sentences I hardly ever read, and at the oral pronouncement of the sentence, I have been present only very exceptionally and during the last years never. Also, I cannot believe that when an export was examined and a transcript was taken of his examination, that his activity was ignored entirely in the sentence. That seems entirely impossible to me.
Q. Did you have the experience that Rothaug refused to apply Article 51, Paragraph 1, even through the expert considered the application of this paragraph necessary?
A. I do not remember such a case; also, I did net hear anything in regard to the activity of the other court physicians in that direction either. The misgivings which I had--and which perhaps the others experts had too-did not concern cases in which the penal irresponsibility was judged, but they were borderline cases, cases which partly came under Article 51, paragraph 1; but much more frequently they were cases which actually lay outside of this Article, where more psychological lines of thought had to be discussed, and those were by far the majority of cases.
Generally, we were summoned to all cases in which the possibility of a death sentence existed. It is obvious that among these there were only very few cases in which actually a penal irresponsibility or limited irresponsibility could be considered. The majority of the cases could not be classified in this way at all, but in general there were, as I have already said, psychological and pathological considerations under discussion.
It was my feeling that as to such statements--which in other courts here in Nurnberg, and also in other places where I had been working, would have found a well-disposed ear-- here in the case of the two, Rothaug and Oeschey, there was no inclination to listen to the experts.
And here I would like to express with a certain force that again and again our statements were limited constantly to "responsible" or "not responsible".
Q. Witness, when did you find out that Rothaug was supposed to have tried not to use you any longer as an expert?
A. I found that out only after the end of my activity in our jurisdiction, and at that time I was informed-
Q. Witness, I didn't ask you any more about that.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One moment, please. I suggest the witness be allowed to answer the question. He was asked it.
THE PRESIDENT: I think his answer is enough to make it fully responsive. There should not be interruption of a witness when he is still answering, but I think his answer was quite responsive to the entire question.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. In regard to the Pole who cut off the fingers of the Farmer's child, was your opinion within the framework of the question which Rothaug had put to you?
A. No. The question which was put to me in that case actually was not so much to the effect as to whether he was responsible for his acts or not, but--I think he was only 15 or 16 years old--whether he had the maturity of an adult. This question had to be put and had to be answered, and the expert had to state his opinion of that. I did that in this case also; I affirmed the fact that the boy was mature. However I had to take that as a starting point for saying: yes, he is mature, to be sure, but in the soul of such a young person--that is, according to the statements which he made to me, that was stupid, a children joke, or a childish trick, that was absolutely believable for one not absolutely mature. That was something in his defense and that was credible.
Q. But you admit, witness, that strictly speaking that was already within the sphere of the evaluation of the judge?
A. Yes; but these statements required the thoughts of a physician, and therefore I considered myself competent, especially since this had a relationship to the evidence of judging his mental capacities.
Q. Witness, I have just been told that this Pole was married.
A. No, no, no.
Q. Could you not be mistaken in this case?
A. That is impossible. He was a boy of 15 or 16 years; it is absolutely impossible, that is impossible.
Q. Perhaps you can still remember his name?
A. No, I can't remember the name, but the case interested me from a human point of view. I would like to say that I remember it especially first, because he really was a nice person whose fate one would have to regret, at least from the human point of view, if he had been condemned to death. And I remember him just because of this very imperative thing, that this passage was not allowed to remain in the expert opinion.
I would like to remark in regard to this, however, that these statements were admitted in the trial.
I required this to be done and, I was not disturbed. As far as the result was concerned, whether or not he was sentenced to death, that I don't know.
Q. Witness, you also mentioned the case Heller-Muendel. In this case, did Rothaug not want to consider the pregnancy of Muendel, or did Rothaug state a reason, for the point of view of the Legal Code of Procedure, for his action?
A. Well, I cannot make a statement about his mental processes in doing so, I can only say that I was told: "You are commissioned to judge the mental condition of the girl." And perhaps it was even said: "At this stage of the trial yon are not to make any statements about her pregnancy."
I also remember this case very exactly, especially because in this case the direction of the entire trial by the then Gauleiter could simply not be overlooked. This request not to mention the fact of her pregnancy was not made to me only by saying that it would have to be deleted from my written excerpt, but also that at least during the trial I was not allowed to speak about it; that is, I should not speak about it. I know that the prosecutor and the presiding judge told me that orally, but I remember even more that immediately before the trial Gauleiter Streicher came to me and made this request. I refused to comply, and then he made the somewhat peculiar suggestion, in order to calm my conscience, that the pregnancy of the girl should be interrupted so that I would be relieved of all mental conflicts. The remark was made, and the presiding Judge also did not prevent it. In the oral examination I pointed it out. I know, of course, that this fact could have been without significance for the finding of the sentence and would have played a role only if the death sentence should be pronounced.
Q In summarizing then, you can confirm that the experts absolutely had the possibility to make their opinion clear, to point out their opinion and to do their duty?
A Whoever had the necessary firmness of purpose was in a position to state his expert opinion, even if it was not welcome.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, we will take a fifteen-minute recess at this time.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. KOESSL: During the recess, my attention was drawn to the fact that a very important translation error occurred. It should not say, "The death sentence pronounced" - Das Urtail ausgesprochen - the pregnancy of the prisoner was not to be mentioned, because in that condition she sentence was not allowed to be executed. Pregnancy, therefore, was not an obstacle against pronouncing a death sentence, but merely an obstacle as regards the execution of the death sentence. I hear that was not expressed in the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you referring to the translation of the affidavit?
DR. KOESSL: I am merely speaking of the translation of the reply which the witness gave just before the recess.
THE WITNESS: The last question which was addressed to me I would like to supplement by further reply to the effect that I personally in my statements have always prevailed with my view, but that I can altogether believe that another expert, by the manner in which the trial was conducted might not have managed to make his statements in a way, that is to say, with reference to matters in favor of the defendant, as he would have liked to do.
DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, I have to revert briefly to the Heller-Muendel case. Can you remember that the Heller-Muendel case had to be sentenced very soon after the crime had been committed?
A Yes. Two or three days after the crime was committed, the trial was held.
Q You merely meant to say that Rothaug at the trial ascertained that the pregnancy was of importance as regards the execution of the sentence and that he at the trial itself, independently of your expert opinion, made reference to the pregnancy? Can you remember that?
A No. I do not remember that. I believe that I did make those statements, but that they were passed by very quickly, and that there was no reason to discuss that matter in detail.
Q Prior to the trial, Rothaug did not meet Streicher, did he, or did he come to see you?
A I believe, yes.
Q Did you not confirm that Streicher spoke to you alone?
A That too. I believe I met Rothaug on the way to the courthouse rather I spoke to him in the courtroom - and then he said, "That has nothing to do with us. That will be discussed later when the sentence will be executed. At the moment we are only concerned with pronouncing a sentence, and from that point of view, it is of no importance."
Q There was no cooperation with Streicher in this case prior to the trial, you mean?
A I can not reply to that question. At any rate, Streicher was informed about that conflict, if I may say so, for Streicher came to me in the courtroom before the judges appeared and attempted to influence me.
Q What concrete observations did you make as regards the trip to Munich?
A Personally, none whatsoever. I merely was told that during the same night, Rothaug and Streicher went to Munich together and that they carried on there in a manner which to me appeared to have little dignity. I, myself, made no observations on that point.
Q Therefore, you have made no observations concerning the spree you mentioned?
A No.
Q In what year did Streicher carry out the criminal anthropologicalal investigations?
A That went on over many years. I know it for certain that these two cases, Heller and Muendel, were both "investigated" by him - that was the expression.
Q These so-called investigations, therefore, were all made prior to the war?
A I can not say that for certain. They were made again and again. They were cases in which Streicher had a personal interest, where he appeared in person at the trial. It was in those cases that he had that done.
Q But before the outbreak of the war, Streicher was deposed from his office as Gauleiter. Can you confirm that to me?
A I believe it was at the very beginning that it may have happened, before the outbreak of the war; at any rate, it was in 1939. He did leave his office in 1939.
Q Who was in charge of prisons and the supervision of prisons?
A The supervision was immediately in the hands of the Board and of the Prosecutor General.
Q Can you tell me who gave permission to enter the prison and whether permission from the competent authorities had been given?
A I do not know, but certainly permission was granted by the president and at an earlier phase, by the investigating judge. They certainly gave permission to visit defendants.
Q The cases which you mention here concerned visits paid by relatives and persons who played a part in the trial.
A Without some kind of permission, Streicher naturally would not have been able to enter the prison. As to who granted permission, I was not interested in finding out. I was not the prison physician. I had nothing to do with those people. That matter interested the prison physician.
Q Can you tell me whether steps were ever taken concerning Streicher's entry into the prison?
A I don't think so, because other excesses too occurred. That is well-known. It was frequently discussed that a former close Party friend of Streicher's who later left the Party was mistreated by him in the prison.
Q In the courthouse, there was a Gauamtsleiter of the NSDAP for legal matters.
A I believe so.
Q Who was it, can you remember?
A I believe it was Oeschey.
Q Do you know who it was before?
A No, I don't think so. I believe it was Herr Denzler.
Q Do you admit that Denzler held the official position of the Gauamtsleiter?
A Whether I admit that?
Q And that he was closer to Gauleiter Streicher, therefore, than Rothaug, who did not hold an office in the Gau administration.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: I object to that question as calling for a conclusion of the witness on facts not yet in the record.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q You can state, in any case, that Denzler was in Streicher's entourage?
A Certainly, certainly.
Q Did Rothaug at any time complain to you or any superior authority on one of your medical officials?
A No.
Q Witness, can you remember whether in the medical journals, before and after 1933, questions of forensic medicine were treated in the same manner?
A What questions of forensic medicine?
Q Did the medical periodicals concerning the application of Paragraph 51, before and after 1933, follow a different tendency?
A. I do not think that in 1933--or shall we say National Socialism brought about a change in this respect, but the application of Paragraph 51, Section 2, has always been a disputed matter. There were many authors, of experts and scientists who on principle did not wish to have Paragraph 51 recognized. I remember a well known person, Rudin, who said that he would not operate paragraph 51, Section 2. This is the point to which I referred earlier on, that is, that our work was a very meagre and limited affair and that we were merely superfluous, if we would only deal with paragraph 51, that is to say, with the question of complete responsibility before the law. I personally always held the view that our much more important task was the one of giving medical statements on actions which in some way had been committed by persons who had minor psychological defects. I know it was a very dangerous thing. In many cases one wanted to tell the court that the crime concerned this or that or the other; that it was in accordance with a mentality which I myself, may possess, and which has nothing to do with a mental disorder, etc. Therefore, many authors of expert opinions fought shy of speaking their mind in that way, and, if I may say so, to defend the defendants.
Q. Witness, do you know that before the war psychological experts of Erlangen University attended Rothaug's sessions, together with their students, because they were of the opinion that Rothaug's technique of examination was particularly suitable to communicate practical psychological knowledge--medical students or legal students who had been taken to the session by their professor?
A. I never heard of that, and I can't believe it; and, if it did happen, I can merely regard it as a matter which was instituted by the party. That was considered particularly instructive, I cannot believe that. I never heard of it.
Q. You had an opportunity for years to observe Rothaug as he appeared. Did you know that Rothaug suffered from a serious ailment of the stomach, and did you bear it in mind that his manner-
the way be behaved at the sessions--might be considerably affected by his ailment--all the more so because he was heavily over-worked?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Court please, I object to that question. I am not quite sure on what grounds I object to it, but I object to it in the first place because it calls for a conclusion of the witness on facts stated by counsel which are not in the record and not in the affidavit; it is completely outside the scope of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a test, however; we will apply the test.
DR. KOESSL: Is this question to be answered or not?
THE PRESIDENT: You may answer.
A. I had no personal relations with Rothaug. Therefore, I know nothing about his state of health. At the time I never heard of any stomach trouble. That Rothaug was a judge who was extremely overburdened, that I must admit certainly.
DR. KOESSL: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I should like to ask the witness a question, and may be it should come now. During the course of your examination, you made the statement that Streicher came to you on one occasion in the courtroom and tried to influence you. What was the occasion of that?
DR. SCHUBERT: The witness did not understand the question.
THE PRESIDENT: During the course of your examination when you were being examined by Dr. Koessl, you made the statement on one occasion that Streicher came to you in the courtroom and tried to influence you, but I did not get the occasion nor the cause of it. Will you explain that--how he tried to influence you and on what point?
A. I know for certain that before the opening of a trial against Heller and Muendel it happened. He, or people he sent in on the cases to see me, whom I can no longer mention by name, where the person concerned under the pretext of wishing to obtain information came to see me but I was given to understand, what expert opinion, would be welcome, desirable. There were a number of different persons, from the city magistrate, or other people, who came at the instructions of the Gauleitung, and at their instructions wished to obtain information from me.
Naturally, I usually understood the meaning of their representations.
THE PRESIDENT: I understood that you made that statement when you were talking about the Heller-Muendel case, and I was wondering how Streicher tried to influence you.
A. Yes. Clearly and openly he repeated the demands of the presiding judge, that does not effect you at this phase; you only have to make a statement on the mental state.
THE PRESIDENT: I can't get it out of him; he seems not to have understood.
You may proceed.
EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHUBERT: (Attorney for Defendant Oeschey)
Q. Dr. Kunz, in your affidavit you criticized the treatment of the defendants by Rothaug and Oeschey. I am only interested in the defendant Oeschey. Did you, when Oeschey was presiding judge, also attend the sessions which, concerning the form, were completely decent?
A. The phrasing of the question makes it difficult for me to give an answer. I should like to say that the manner in which the trial was conducted, in principle, certainly deviated from the practice to which I was used to in my twenty years of experience. It was also different from the manner in which trials were conducted at other special courts where I worked--special courts outside of Nurnberg; but naturally, occasionally, a trial may have been conducted in a way that gave no grounds for criticism--that perhaps one has to admit, but the general lines certainly were such as to make them deviate from experiences one made, where one was also used to other judges not at the special court.
Q. Dr. Kunz, when you attended a session as an expert, at what stage of the trial did you give your opinion?
A. Normally, the medical opinion was rendered at the end of the evidence. Our extra ordinary amount of work during the later days made it necessary, however, to ask that the experts would render their opinion before all the evidence had been submitted. I often asked the presiding judges to hear me and then to make it possible for me not to attend the remainder of the submission of evidence. In practice, what happened was that during the last few years I generally spoke first--before the witnesses, in fact.