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.
Q. If I understand you correctly, you regularly only heard the examination of the defendant, and then you were examined, yourself?
A. That is how it was during the last few years.
Q. What years are you speaking of?
A. Mainly it concerns the years when Oeschey was the presiding judge.
Q. You say here that the presiding judges made long statements of a general nature which had no connection whatsoever with the trial; that is to say, political statements?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you remember, exactly, that the defendant Oeschey, too, made statements of a political nature, that went on for hours?
A. Perhaps that was more obvious with the defendant Rothaug, but Oeschey, too, worked in the same manner. I remember perfectly well a case which began at half past 8 or a quarter to 9, and when by 12 o'clock the defendant had not yet been examined; so, it really means statements went on for hours, literally for hours--statements during which matters were discussed which had nothing to do with the trial.
Q. Can you say who, in the case you mentioned just now, was the presiding judge?
A. No, I cannot; I do not remember for certain.
Q. Did you hear the defendant Oeschey use expressions with reference to the defendant saying something like: "We will put your head at your feet"?
A. Oh, yes, I heard those expressions fairly often.
Q. By Oeschey?
A. That I do not know.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: What was this, "Yes I do not know"? I thought the witness said, yes.
THY PRESIDENT: Let us hear what the reporter has to say about that. Will the reporter please read the question and answer.
(The reporter, Mr. Beard, read the last question and answer to the Tribunal.)
THE PRESIDENT: Let us have this question asked and answered again, please.
A. I did not say, yes to the question as to which of the two gentleman used these expressions. It might have been one case or the other, I no longer remember whether it was Oeschey or Rothaug. For the reason, in one case, I remember for certain, because the defendant in the case repeated it to me a little while ago; that, that remark was made: "I will put your head at your feet." Although, in that particular case it was obvious to the judge that the death sentence could never be passed for my expert opinion was to the effect that the man had to be exculpated to a far reaching extent, and in fact, he was not sentenced to death, but to one year in a penitentiary. All the same, although the judge did know what the results of the trial probably would be, he pronounced that threat. And I still remember that, that naturally gave such a shock to the defendant that since, in any case, he was an unsteady person, and as he had also experienced a prison psychosis, therefore, the danger arose that he would no longer be fit to stand trial. At that time, I dared, I may say, I dared to draw the attention of the judge to this and to tell him, "If you proceed in this manner, all you will achieve is that you will not be able to continue the trial." And, he did listen to my request after that. The treatment changed, and the trial was conducted orderly with the result which I have already mentioned.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the judge? You said the judge, thusand so-, what judge are you talking about, which of the two?
THE WITNESS:DR. KUNZ: That was Rothaug.
DR. SCHUBERT: May I continue?
Q. Dr. Kunz, in your affidavit, you state that you had a feeling that the work of an expert was merely a matter of form. Do you know of cases where a decision was made which was contrary to your opinion?
A. The defense counsel of Rothaug put some questions to me on this, and am I to answer it again?
Q. I do not remember that you answered that question before.
A. No, I personally do not know of any case as concerns my own activities nor as concerns the other court physicians. That an expert opinion of "not responsible" was not considered, according to Article 51-1, not even in the case of Oeschey.
Q. Dr. Kunz, you criticize that Rothaug and Oeschey had no understanding for border cases of psychiatry. If you submitted exppert opinions on such cases, and as you said earlier on, usually before the evidence you left the courtroom; that is to say, that you did not hear the verdict pronounced. Have you any knowledge as to how your expert opinions on such border cases of psychiatry, as to how and when they were utilized in the verdict?
A. Naturally, I often had an opportunity to speak to the defendants who had been sentenced, after their sentence had been announced and I also discussed the border cases of the session with other persons who had attended it, but I have already said that the attitude of the presiding judge, to my, or I can really say our function, as court physicians and as experts, that attitude showed that there was no inclination to listen to the expert in the matter that went beyond the scope of paragraph 51-1. I would like to repeat again; we were all, again and again, put before the question does paragraph 51-1 pertain or does it not. That means, of course, a limitation of our work, that is our work from the outset did not intend to restrict itself to paragraph 51-1 or 51-2 but to go beyond it and made statements concerning psychiatry and psychology.
Q. If I understand you correctly, witness, you only arrived at the judgement by that part of the trial which you attended and from what you were told by other people, but not from the actual text of the verdicts which were passed.
A. The text of the verdict never gave such a precise attitude concerning the medical opinion, not in as far as these presiding judges are concerned; that has always been the same in all my experience; that as a result, it made no use of the detail of our work.
Q. You did not answer my question, witness. I did not ask you what it said in the verdict.
A. That is what I understood.
Q. But, I asked you whether in the verdict, you followed up as to whether and how your opinion, your expert opinion, was taken into consideration, and, I would ask you to answer only that question?
A. Well, I only know the verdict from the text of the verdict. I do not know--I cannot say where the difference lies. I do not understand you.
Q. The text of the verdicts you never read, did you?
A. Sometimes, at any rate the text of the verdict contained much more than what the expert said. They said much more than the brief mentioning of the sentence--that is much shorter.
Q. Witness, you have already been asked on the point, that apparently it was intended to push you out of the Special Court. You say here that other judges told you something about it. Who told you about it.
AA person who is not a defendant here, another presiding judge of the Nurnberg Special Court.
Q What was his name?
A Ferber, Dr. Ferber.
Q Witness, a last question.
A this was how we proceeded. Instructions to give an expert opinion were sent to the court physician without mentioning a name. My office then distributed the work according to a schedule which I had worked out, and distribution was made to four court physicians. I was told that in recent years instructions had no longer been issued anonymously to the court physician, but that the names of the court physicians had been mentioned and that those names had been chosen from whom it could be supposed, or it was even known, that they would have a different political attitude. That is what I was told.
Q Witness, you mentioned cases where a direct influence was exerted upon your work, as the author of expert opinions. Do you have any complaints about the defendant Oeschey in that respect?
A No, no. I do not remember a case where Oeschey exerted any influence of that kind.
DR. SCHUBERT: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any re-direct examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: No, Your Honor, except to briefly note that the answer to the question that Your Honor asked the witness is already in evidence. If you would care to have me ask him again I will, but I don't see that there is any necessity for it.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is not necessary.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
(Witness excused)
ARKIN BAUR, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BRAND: Will you raise your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
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.)
You may be seated.
DR. SCHUBERT: May it please the Tribunal, we are concerned now with Document Volume III-I, Document NG-562, Exhibit No. 157. The witness is Dr. Baur.
THE PRESIDENT: You said it was in Book III-I? I think you are in error. It is III-C, is it not?
DR. SCHUBERT: No.
THE PRESIDENT: It is III-C in my book, I am sure.
DR. SCHUBERT: Hay it please the Court, I remember that in Book III-C there is a reference to this document, but in the German edition it was certainly submitted in III-I, as part of III-I.
THE PRESIDENT: It doesn't matter, we all have it now. You may proceed.
DR. SCHUBERT: We are dealing with the affidavit of 3 January 1947.
EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q Witness, please tell the Court your name and occupation.
A Landesgerichtsarzt at the Landesgericht, Nurnberg. My name is Baur.
Q Dr. Baur, how long were you a District Court Physician in Nurnberg?
A Since 1937.
Q 1937?
A Yes.
Q During that time, was Dr. Kurz the court physician in charge?
A Yes.
Q In your affidavit you say that the position of the author of the expert opinions was very difficult because it happened that judges clearly expressed their wishes concerning such expert opinions.
May I ask you at what time the expert opinions of the court physicians were demanded?
A Usually they were asked for at the stage when the prosecution was making its investigations.
Q Doctor, did you observe a case where the defendant Oeschey tried to exert influence on you as a court physician?
A No. I had very little to do with Dr. Eoschey. Usually I only got my first view of Dr. Oeschey at the session.
Q Did Oeschey at the trial - that is to say, when you were submitting your verbal opinion - restrict you in any form?
A No, I can not remember any case.
Q Did you have the opportunity to cause the Special Court, under Oeschey's presidency, in certain cases, to follow your opinion in your expert testimony which went in favor of the defendant?
A I remember at least one case, which was concerned with an old woman. I stated that she was not insane but that probably she had made her statements because of old age. Oeschey accepted that opinion. As to whether he took my expert opinion into consideration in his verdict, I can not say, because as a rule I did not remain in the courtroom until the sentence was pronounced.
Q You then say in your affidavit it was known that Oeschey and Rothaug had close contact with the Gauleiter, and that it was very dangerous not to follow their will. Do you know for certain what connection Oeschey had with the Gauleiter?
A I was never interested in that, but I realized from the beginning that a man who obtained the important position of presiding judge at the Special Court naturally must have close ties with the Gauleitung.
Q Did you think that Oeschey's office in the Gau Amt was an influential position?
A I had no idea what office he held, but I did realize that the opinion of Oeschey very likely was also the opinion of the Gauleiter.
Q Witness, you then give your opinion on a case while Oeschey was the presiding judge. I am now concerned with the Pirner case. In that case you submitted a written expert opinion and, if I understand your affidavit correctly, you criticized the fact that in the verdict something was mentioned that differed from your expert opinion. Can you give a brief account of that case?
A I must go a little further back. During my many years as a doctor I have, in principle, dealt with questions from the point of view that I have stated that a person of 17 can be evaluated in the same way as a person of 18. From the medical point of view, there are no differences between a person of 17 and 18, and therefore I think it is impossible for a doctor to be able to say "This person has the maturity of a person of 18." For that reason, in the case in hand, all I could have said was in fact what I did say in my expert opinion. I consider it impossible that I might have changed my view during the trial, because it would have been completely paracoxical, on an expert opinion which I had written during many hours of work, if I had suddenly just thrown that overboard.
Furthermore, in my experience of court practice, it is customary that whenever the author of an expert opinion does in fact change his view, that is noted in the reasons for the verdict. The usual words used were, "The expert has changed his point of view on such and such points." Such a change can not have occurred in this case, otherwise it would have been mentioned.
Furthermore, I remember the case clearly, and there was no reason whatsoever why I should have abandoned my first opinion.
Q Dr. Baur, do you remember who the judge was who wrote out the verdict in that case?
A I do not remember that.
Q The former Landesgerichtsrat Gross, who came here as a witness, said, when he was examined, that he took down your oral expert opinion in shorthand. Do you think a misunderstanding is possible?
A I do not consider a misunderstanding possible because as a rule when somebody says, "Yes," one would not understand "No." Furthermore, I believe that if there be any suspicion of such a misunderstanding, another question would have been asked, as this case after all was of considerable importance.
Q Dr. Baur, can you state that the defendant Oeschey rendered your opinion wrongly?
A I didn't understand your question.
Q I asked you whether you can or whether you wish to assert that the defendant Oeschey misquoted your expert opinion in the verdict.
A Who misquoted it, I don't know, but what was shown here is not in accordance with what I actually put down as my expert opinion.
Q You cannot hold any definite individual responsible?
A No, I cannot, because I was not interested in the legal aspects of the proceedings.
Q You then say that one had always been under the impression that the verdict had been a foregone conclusion anyhow. Did you ever experience a case where the defendant Oeschey made it clear to a defendant from the very beginning as to what decision he would make?
A Certainly not to a defendant.
Q Did you ever appear at other special courts?
A Yes, at Munich and at Bamberg. Munich and Bamberg were the only other special courts where I worked.
Q Did you make observations to the effect that the jurisdiction of those special courts regarding Article 51, II, were different from the jurisdiction in Nurnberg?
A The matter of Article 51 was not restricted to the special courts alone, but apparently it was a directive which was issued by a higher authority. I remember that I was sent to a training course in 1937 at the Clinic for Psychiatry, and Professor Nicolai, who was lecturing there, stressed that Article 51, II, should be avoided as much as possible. It would seem, therefore, that there was a general effort to eliminate Article 51, II.
Q Dr. Baur, you then mentioned a case from the year 1944, according to what you say you were called to the telephone and were told that it was the presiding judge of the special court who was ringing you up. It was about a Pole who had serious burns and the gentleman on the other side of the telephone is supposed to have told you, "Don't make so much fuss because we will put his head at his feet." Can you say for certain that the person you spoke to over the telephone was the defendant Oeschey?
A I can for certain that I was called to speak to the presiding judge of the special court. I believed that I was talking to Oeschey, and that jocular manner of speaking made me assume that I was talking to him. At that moment, the terrible state in which my patient was, had excited me so much that I cannot say for certain whether it was Oeschey's voice or whether it was another voice, but I know for certain that it cannot have been Mr. Pfaff or Ferber because I would have recognized them, because with them I always began a telephone conversation by exchanging personal remarks.
Q Is it possible that it was a prosecutor who rang you up?
A I cannot decide that.
Q I have concluded my cross examination.
DR. KOESSL: Koessl for the defendant Rothaug.
EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, did Katzenberger or his defense counsel in any way express to you the opinion that Katzenberger was not fully responsible for his actions, or in any case, was only partly responsible?
A No, on the contrary, in the case of Katzenberger it was quite superfluous to examine him from the psychiatric point of view.
Q Unfortunately, I did not understand you properly. He was of the opinion that it was not necessary?
A No, it was superfluous because he himself felt that he was in a normal mental state, in fact, he was almost offended.