Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Just a moment, please. I have heard enough of that. Now, would you read the letter of July 13, addressed to you by this doctor, July 13, 1943, which you will find on Page 94, beginning, "To my regret he did that -
A "With reference to my letter of 10 July you did not answer to that although I mentioned the document and the legal provisions which are competent in this connection. Now, it seems that you believe that against the will of the owners and the Ministry of Propaganda you can get into that -
Q Please, will you go slower? We can't go that fast. Now, read slowly, please, Dr. Mitzschke. Would you read that last sentence again?
A "However, evidently now you believe that in order to act contrary to the will of the owners and the Minister of Propaganda, obviously, to get into that house against their will, you think that you have to threaten me. That is the only way I can explain your words to myself, your words to the effect that you would report the matter to your minister who is also my minister. Now that you found that the wife of the former owner of that apartment was a Jewess by the name of Habe and in spite of the will of the deceased and in suite of that I wanted to maintain that apartment as a whole in its entirety for the family.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions? I would like to ask you one question, witness.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Was it the practice, in ordinary cases of suspected crime, for the prosecutors to report the case to the Ministry before filing an indictment?
A The obligation for the prosecutors to make a report was dealt with officially. There were regulations concerning that obligation. Reports were not made in all penal cases but only in such penal cases which were of particular importance.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q What then was the reason which required a** special ********* in this kind of a case with reference to the assassination of fliers? If it was an important case it was the duty of the prosecutors to report it in any event, was it not?
AAs regards the background of this matter, or as regards the intentions of Thierack, in fact, as regards the method by which Thierack wished to deal with these cases, I can't tell you because neither Thierack nor Klemm discussed the handling of such cases with me nor did I ever have to deal with such cases nor did I ever hear of them either.
Q My question is merely this: There were some special circumstances which required this conference that you had on instructions from the defendant Klemm which didn't apply in the case of ordinary proposed criminal prosecutions, were there not?
AAll I remember is that I was charged with that task because one was afraid that such cases might occur or because such cases had already in fact occurred where the police did not let the prosecution see the files. So that the administration of Justice or the prosecution was unable to carry out its functions as the prosecuting authorities.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May I ask a question, your Honor?
CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q Now, as a matter of fact, you stated on the 15th of September that the state secretary only told you the matters were to be reported and nothing was said about prosecuting the cases?
A Well, my mission was that I was to ask the general public prosecutor to make contact with those agencies, that is to say, the police, the criminal police, the party agencies, the Gestapo, to see to it that investigations that had been made by them were passed on to the prosecution. I know nothing about the way these cases were handled after that. I wasn't told to deal with that aspect nor was I ever told what course was to be taken.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is all.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Redirect examination.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, I should like to start with my last point. I have been under the impression that the witness Dr. Mitzschke informed himself of the facts contained in the files in order to answer the charge that he had done something in connection with that apartment which he shouldn't have done. However, he wasn't really given the opportunity under cross examination to do so; but I should like to suggest -
THE PRESIDENT: May I please interrupt you? The Tribunal has just consulted and we saw nothing which tended to impeach the witness in the slightest degree in any of the testimony concerning the apartment. We will entirely disregard that testimony and you needn't explain it at all because we find there is nothing to be explained.
DR. SCHILF: Thank you very much indeed, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Now, there is only one brief question. Mr. Lafollette put to you the matter of a talk or discussion which finally took place here at the courthouse with Mr. Beauvais. Was that where you formerly were interrogated?
A Yes, and the oath was administered to me before I was interrogated for the first time.
Q Did you ever sign a record?
A No, I didn't.
Q Dr. Mitzschke, I would like to ask you what position you hold now.
A I am an assistant in the attorney's office in Frankfurt on Main.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(Witness excused)
DR. HAENSEL: Dr. Haensel for the defendant Joel. I have one cross examination witness. His name is Ludwig. He is outside in the corridor.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
I only want to ask him three or four questions. I can deal with them very quickly. If the Prosecution agrees I will examine him after the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: You can call him now. The film is exhausted and we will have to wait until after the recess before you can proceed. The witness may be seated.
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HAENSEL: With the consent of the Tribunal, I have asked Herr Fritz Ludwig to take the witness stand.
FRITZ LUDWIG; a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE HARDING:
You will hold up 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.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HAENSEL: (Attorney for the Defendant Joel.)
Q. Witness, please state to the Tribunal your full name, your place of residence, and the date of your birth.
A. My name is Fritz Ludwig. I live in Berlin, Wilmersdorf, Siegburgerstrasse 14; I was born on the 8th July, 1899.
Q. Witness, I am now showing you Exhibit 558; that is your affidavit deposed on the 14th of August, 1947. My questions relate only to the last page and the paragraph above the last paragraph above the last paragraph. Do you know Herr Guenther Joel, or have you only heard of him?
A. I know him superficially; I have heard a great deal about him from a mutual friend; his name was Bones.
Q. Did you ever call on him at the Ministry of Justice?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you ever have any official business with him; or, was your knowledge of him limited to reports received about him?
A. I never had official business to execute with him. My knowledge is limited to the reports which I received about him.
Q. Do you know what position he held at the Ministry of Justice during the time which you knew him?
A. As far as I recall, Herr Joel was in charge of the Central. Prosecution Office at the Ministry of Justice.
Q.Did you ever go to Prague; did you go to Prague very frequently?
A. As the legal advisor for the Bata concern, I was practically always in Prague -- I went there once a week.
Q. Did you ever meet Herr Joel at Prague?
A. I never saw him in Prague.
Q. Did you ever hear of his going to Prague?
A. Yes.
Q. May I ask you who told you about that?
A. As far as I remember it was that man Bones whose name I just mentioned, who told me; and a lady also told me about that, a woman friend of Mr. Joel, Frau Ruth Haupt.
Q. Was that an official conversation concerned with business; or, was it merely a social matter; a matter which was of no further significance?
A. It did not deal with business; it was just a personal conversation.
Q. Now, if somebody told you that evidence has been produced here, that documents have been produced to the effect that Joel was in Prague, do you think that that is of greater significance than those remarks which came to your knowledge?
A. No doubt such evidence, such documents are of greater significance than those personal remarks which came to my ear.
DR. HAENSEL: I have no further questions.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Tribunal, may I ask this witness a few questions . This is intended as cross examination in connection with the Exhibit 558 again.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear you.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL: (Attorney for time Defendant Rothaug):
Q. Witness, in your affidavit you mention the fact that proceedings were started against Stegmann, twice. There was one trial before the Special Court in Nurnberg, and then another trial was held before a Penal Chamber. At the first trial, which was held before the Special Court, did Rothaug play any part there?
A. No, he didn't.
Q. That matter concerning Attorney Zilcher, which you mentioned, had that occurred before the first trial; or , did it happen before the second trial?
A. That affair in connection with Attorney Zilcher, that occurred before the first trial.
Q. Do you remember how much time had elapsed between the filing of the indictment for the second trial, and the date when that second trial opened?
A. Quite a long while elapsed; and I happen to remember this very well because I had a great deal of time to prepare that trial.
Q. In your affidavit you also mention that you made a motion for very extensive evidence, and that Rothaug rejected that motion. Would you please confirm that it was the court, that is to say the three judges and not Rothaug by himself who rejected that motion?
A. If I said in my affidavit that it was Rothaug alone who rejected my motion for evidence, then naturally that was an error, because of course it was rejected by the court as a whole.
Q. What was the reason for the rejection; was it because of insufficient evidence, or type of evidence the witnesses had; or, was it refused for factual reasons?
A. At the trial I was told that the approval of the Gauleiter to examine the majority of the witnesses for whom I had asked had not been given . I felt that I was confronted with great difficulties on account of that because most of my motions were directed against actions taken by the Gauleiter himself.
Therefore, I had made a motion to the court to discontinue proceedings to afford me an opportunity to obtain a decision from the Fuehrer's Deputy.
Q. I beg your pardon for interrupting, but I should like to ask you whether that extensive evidence was rejected for factual reasons?
A. I made that motion at the trial, and it constituted a summary of all the motions I had made before. This motion was rejected and the reasons which were given for the rejection were factual.
Q. You applied for a review at the Reich Supreme Court. Is it true that you yourself withdrew that application?
A. Yes, that is correct, I did so.
DR. KOESSL: Those are all the questions I wish to ask of this witness. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any cross examination?
MR. KING: No, questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor,does the Court desire to make an announcement?
THE PRESIDENT: I was about to inquire if there are any other defense witnesses for examination?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If there are none -
DR. HAENSEL: I am wanting for a witness whose name is Schulz. He is on his way by car, but he hasn't arrived yet. The moment he arrives, I shall produce him here.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Mr. President, as regards the sixteen documents and six witnesses which the Prosecution produced in rebuttal, I have to examine two or three witnesses who haven't arrived yet. I hope they will have arrived by tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, and then I shall like to produce them. Please, may I reserve the right to examine those two or three witnesses if and when they arrive? And, I have a few documents which so far have only been marked for identification, and I should like to offer them in evidence so that my presentation may be completed.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Then, I still have two supplement volumes that I hope will be ready in a day or two. May I now
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say they are documents which have received exhibit numbers for identification?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, Your Honor, numbers have been reserved. There were some minor defects in the documents which have now been eliminated, and I have discussed the matter with the Prosecution and those documents are now all right and I can now offer them in evidence. The first document is contained in Rothenberger Volume I; it is an affidavit by Dr. Schmidtheck.I would ask you to receive this exhibit as Exhibit No. 5. It is contained in Document Book I , pages 23 to 30.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me, just a moment.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. The second document is on pages 34 through 40-
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please -- I haven't found the place in my notes where that exhibit was identified. It is Rothenberger Exhibit 5?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, it is Rothenberger Exhibit No. 5.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. The next document is contained in the same volume, Book I. The number is Exhibit 10; it is an affidavit by Griess.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 10?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, Your Honor, Exhibit No. 10.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next document is contained in Rothen berger Book II; it is Exhibit No. 10; it is an affidavit by Dr. Siegelmesser.
THE PRESIDENT : It is received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next exhibit is also contained in Document Book II; this is an affidavit by Dr. Becker; the exhibit number is 51.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next document is in my Bock IV, Exhibit No. 33. It is an affidavit by Lenz.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next document occurs in Book IV; it is an affidavit by Jrmgard Felder, Exhibit No. 34.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: And the last exhibit is contained in the Supplement Volume I; that is an affidavit by Kuhlenkamp, Exhibit No. 52.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: That is all; all the exhibits have been cleared up now.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I would like to ask Dr. Wandschneider if the affidavit of Becker is by the same Becker who testified. If it is, I think it should be rejected.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: No.
MR. La FOLLETTE: This is a different Becker he informs me.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes. The name of the witness who appeared here was Becher,B-e-c-h-e-r; and this man's name is Becker, B-e-c-k-e-r.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I am prepared to proceed with the witness Helm, and the witness by the name of Herget -- if the Court will permit me to present them. They are both in the case Klemm.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand there is no witness available for the defense at this time. Assuming that to be the case, you may proceed.
Mr. LA FOLLETTE: Would you call Arthur Helm.
THE PRESIDENT: Have you got a witness?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: No, Your Honor.
ARTHUR HELM: a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE BLAIR:
Hold up 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.
DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY MR. La FOLLETTE:Q.- Will you state to the Tribunal your name, please.
A.- Helm, Arthur.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't understand it.
A.- Helm, Arthur; H-e-l-m.
Q.- What position did you occupy?
A.- General Public Prosecutor.
Q.- During August, 1944?
A.- General Public Prosecutor, Munich.
Q.- General Public Prosecutor?
A.- Yes, I was.
Q.- You have before you a German mimeographed copy of a document marked NG--1580, and also referred to as Exhibit 529. Have you seen a photostatic copy of the original of that since you came to Nurnberg about a week ago?
A.- No, I never saw a photostat, but I think it is the original which I saw.
Q.- It was the original that you saw?
A.- Yes, it was the original.
Q.- And it had your signature at the bottom of the original; is that correct?
A.- Yes, it bears my signature.
Q.- With reference to the matters set out in the first paragraph of those notations; they are dated 16th August, 1944; are they?
A.- Yes.
Q.- How shortly after Ministerial Counselor Mitschke came to Munich did you write those?
A.- After he was there I put that down in connection with his visit.
Q.- I see. How shortly after he was there did you make this notation?
A.- I should think it must have been on the same day.
Q.- And as far as you remember, you noted-down in that first paragraph the message brought to you?
A.- Yes, naturally.
MR. La FOLLETTE: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any cross-examination?
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for the defendant Klemm and Mettgenberg) Q.- May I just have a look at that file.
Witness, you say that probably it was on the same day that you made this notation in the files? Can you tell us exactly when it was? Do you remember exactly?
A.- No, but I am sure it wasn't later than the day after.
Q.- When you had that conversation with Dr. Mitzschke, was there anybody else present?
A.- I don't remember; I can't remember that conversation, that is to say, I do remember in a way but I don't remember where it took place; I don't know whether anybody was present.
DR. SCHILF: I have no more questions, Your Honor.
MR. La FOLLETTE: I have no questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
Mr. La FOLLETTE: Will you call Franz Herget, please.
FRANZ HERGET, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE HARDING: Hold up 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.
DIRECT-EXAMINATION BY Mr. La FOLLETTE:
Q.- Will you state to the Court your name.
A.- Franx is my first name; Herget.
Q.- And the last of January, 1945, where were you employed and in what position?
A.- I was employed by the Gestapo in Frankfurt on the Oder, as a Criminalrat Q.- Did you know there Obersturmbannfuehrer Viktor?
A.- No, I didn't know him.
Q.- Wasn't Viktor your Chief at Frankfurt on the Oder?
A.- Richter was his name.
Q.- Yes.
A.- Obersturmbannfuehrer Richter.
Q.- Is that right he was your superior?
A.- Yes, he was.
Q.- Do you remember the occasion of a telephone call?
A.- Yes.
Q.- On the evening of one of the last days of January, 1945, from SS -
A.- Yes.
Q.- Oberfuehrer Fischer in Berlin. Do you remember that conversation?
A.- Yes, I do.
Q.- Will you state to the Court what that conversation was; and where Richter was at that time?
A.- Yes.
Q.- And just what happened, and what was contained in that conversation; what you know about it; just tell the Court.
A.- Well, that was during the last days of January, 1945. I was very overburdened with work, particularly in connection with civil servants who were coming back from the east, when suddenly a telephone call came from Berlin. Oberfuehrer and inspector of the security police Dr. Fischer was on the other end of the telephone, and he told me that he had just been rung up by the General Public Prosecutor in connection with the penitentiary at Sonnenburg. At that moment, Obersturmbannfuehrer Richter, whom the person at the other end really wanted to talk to, and who was not to be found in his office, came into my office, and the telephone call had been put through to my office because he had not been in his office.
As I said, he entered my office at that moment, and I handed the phone over to him.
Q.- Did you hear his end of the conversation; was he standing where you could hear him?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Did he protest against anything; did he issue -
A.- Yes.
Q.- Did he protest against what he was being told to do?
A.- Yes.
Q.- Yes, I see.
A.- Yes, he did. He was absolutely shocked, for I could tell by his facial expression and then he protested "it is quite impossible and you can't carry that out; that can't be carried out;" that it was impossible, he said he tried to ward that off.
Q.- Did he turn from the telephone and did he tell you what the conversation was immediately?
A.- Yes, he didn't right away because there was a lot of people there, and I don't remember now whether he told me outside the office afterwards. Anyhow, he did tell me sometime what it was all about.
Q.- What was it about?
A.- It was the order issued to shoot the inmates of Sonnenburg penitentiary.
Q.- And were the inmates of Sonnenburg penitentiary shot by a commando from Frankfurt on the Oder the next day?
A.- Yes, they were shot -- only can t tell you whether it was the very next day.
Q.- But the commando went to Sonnenburg from that station at which you were located, Frankfurt on the Oder; is that correct?
A.- Yes, that is right.
Q.- And the Generalstaatsanwalt was the Generalstaatsanwalt in Berlin; is that correct that Fischer referred to?
A.- Yes, I am pretty sure that it must have been that man in Berlin.
Q.- Well, Fischer in Berlin says he had received an order from the Generalstaatsanwalt and he must have told Richter that when he called?
A.- He didn't exactly say that he had been requested to do so. All he said that he had been telephoned and what Fischer had said in fact was "the general public prosecutor rang me up"; that is more or less what he told me.
Q.- Yes. Do you know what happened to Richter after the first refused to carry out that order?
A.- Well, for the moment nothing happened, but a few days later he was replaced by another Obersturmbannfuehrer.
Q.- Was he demoted?
A.- Well, yes, he was transferred to the Waffen SS.
Q.- And you know where Fischer is; or, do you have -- have you heard anything about his whereabouts?
A.- No, I assume and I mentioned that in my interrogation, in fact I am almost certain that he must have died in Berlin.
Mr. La FOLLETTE: That is all BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Witness, I would like to ask you a few Questions.
A. Yes, do.
Q. You said that telephone call came from Berlin?
A. Yes.
Q. And Dr. Fischer smoke about a phone call from Berlin, can you tell from what office he was speaking?
A. No, I can't tell you that.
Q. According to his official position Dr. Fischer was SS Oberfuehrer?
A. He was an SS Oberfuehrer and Inspector of the Security Police in Berlin.
Q. Therefore, he must have been subordinate to the RSHA?
A. Yes, without any doubt.
Q. You said Fischer had told you he had been rung up by the General Public Prosecutor?
A. Yes, by the General Public Prosecutor or that it had been a phone call from his office.
Q. Did he mention any names?
A. No, he didn't.
Q. You said you had thought that was the General Public Prosecutor in Berlin. Was he mentioned or on what did you base that assumption?
A. Well that is the only thing I can imagine that could have happened because he was in Berlin, he was in Berlin to the end.
Q. In reply to Mr. La Follette's question you said that Dr. Fischer had not spoken of an order with which he had been entrusted?
A. No.
Q. You were a Kriminalrat with the Gestapo, were you not?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Can you say whether a General Public Prosecutor can give any instructions at all to the RSHA?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: To which I object because it calls for a conclusion of this witness as to rights under the law with which he is not acquainted and to which they are not pertinent. Whether or not he could give an order is not relevent to this issue. The fact is: he testified he received a phone call and which constitutes an argument as to the nan who called which is not at issue.
THE PRESIDENT: The first question is who it was who called him but I think he might be permitted to state, if he knows, whether the call was an authorized one under the procedure. If you know whether the General Public Prosecutor had the authority you may state it.
DR. SCHILF: Witness, you may answer.
THE PRESIDENT: If it should be a fact there was no authority it does not militate against the other fact if the call was made. This is cross examination and he may inquire as to the knowledge of the witness concerning the authority, if any.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Do you understand, witness? Will you please answer my question whether a General Public Prosecutor had the possibility to issue instructions to the people at the RSHA, for example, Dr. Fischer?
A. Not in my view,no.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not asking you for testimony. I am merely asking you what is your contention as to who the person was who is alleged to have rung up Fischer?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I thought the witness stated it was the General Public Prosecutor in Berlin as I understood him.
THE PRESIDENT: I asked you what your contention was as to the name of the person who called up?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: My contention is that there was only one Public Prosecutor in Berlin and his name was Hansen. I don't know that this witness knows his name.
THE PRESIDENT: His name was Hansen?
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Do you know the name of the General Public Prosecutor in Berlin at that time?
A. No, I didn't know the name.
Q. Bat this was the General Public Prosecutor at the Kammegericht in Berlin, is that right?
A. Yes, that is a supposition on my part. I can't tell you for certain whether it was the General Public Prosecutor of the Kammergericht. I can only assume that because the inspector was rung up by the General Public Prosecutor without giving any of the details.
Q. That is right, but the fact remains Fischer did tell you he had been called by the General Public Prosecutor in Berlin?
A. Yes, he told me that the General Public Prosecutor had called him up.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. May it please the Tribunal. May I ask one more Question?
Witness, did you know that in Berlin there were two General Public Prosecutors?
A. No, I did not know that.
Q. There was the General Public Prosecutor of the District Court as well, did you know that?
A. No.
Q. And then there was the General Public Prosecutor at the Kammergericht, did you know that?
A. No.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further Questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I don't know what your Honors want. The Prosecution can introduce some rebuttal documents that are available if the Court wants to receive them at this time.
THE PRESIDENT. The Court will receive rebuttal documents if there is nothing else to receive at this time. We have already stated we desired that the defense should complete their defense before rebuttal but if the defense is not prepared to proceed we will receive your documents now.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Would you give me about five minutes to go and select the documents which I know are ready that I may bring them in.
THE PRESIDENT: We see a large assortment of documents on the table. Some counsel must claim them.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, at lunch time today I found that a document book for Dr. Metgenberger had arrived but in bad order as concerns Volume I. They are Quite incomplete in the English translation, that is to say a number of pages are missing, some of them have just been mixed up in the way they are stapled and I am afraid that the Tribunal wouldn't like it if I introduced these documents in their present shape. Therefore. I would ask you if you won't give me a chance to put them right first. All Quarters have told me that the document book cannot be properly offered in the form which the General Secretary has before him. I cannot introduce it because the pagination is out of order and so forth.
THE PRESIDENT: When can you be prepared to offer them?
DR. SCHILF: I think I should be ready by tomorrow and at the latest by the day after tomorrow but I cannot at this moment judge the technical difficulties which may possibly arise.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary, are all of the documents which you have Mettgenberg volume I?
THE SECRETARY: No sir, I am making a list now of some odds and ends here. I don't know what these mean myself, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary General is in possession of Rothaug Book No. 10. What is the situation with reference to that?
DR. KOESSL: I can introduce Book No. 10. I would be able to do so but I discussed the matter with a member of the Prosecution and as far as he knew Book No. 10 had not yet got into possession of the Prosecution.