Q That speech of Hitler's was on the 26th of April, 1942, was it not?
A I believe so.
Q Yes. Now, I would like to show you a case which is identified as NG-530, is Exhibit 156, in which you played a considerable part. I will give you the facts in the case very briefly. Three French civilians were charged with having stolen a camera, a manicure set, and two or three bottles of champagne. You recommended that they be tried immediately - which they were the next day. The result of that trial was two death sentences and I don't recall what happened to the other one. I shall show you the facts of the case. This happened on June 26th - June 16, and I will ask you if you don't think perhaps that is blood justice after all.
THE PRESIDENT: What year? You said June 26th without specifying the year.
MR. KING: 1942.
A. The notation which I have before me refers to a case where the present deputy for the General Public Prosecutor, Dr. Leffman, had called me on the telephone telling me that a case of looting had occurred during an air raid. I personally am connected with that case only to the effect that I took down that notation at the time for the information of the Referent who was to handle the penal cases, Dr. Bartsch. That can also be seen from the decision, the instructions contained under the figure 2 where it says that the notation should be submitted to Dr. Bartsch after his return. Dr. Bartsch, therefore, was not present at that time.
Q. Witness, that is very interesting, the document is before us. I am not trying to connect you with the case necessarily. I simply submitted to you and asked you if you didn't know about it. You certainly knew about the facts of the case, you knew about the facts of the case.
A. Well today I can no longer describe the details of the case.
Q. No, I don't want you to. The document is in evidence. I just asked you at the time if you knew about the facts of the case.
A. At that time I dictated the facts such as they were told to me by telephone by Dr. Leffman.
Q. Now, do you think that is a case of "blood justice" or not?
A. That is a question of judgment, of evaluation.
Q. That is what I want, you judgment, you evaluation, is it or isn't it, in your opinion?
A. The law provided for cases of looting a mandatory death sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the question relates to the witness definition of a law, a legal term "blood justice". I think we are wasting our time on that issue, Mr. King.
MR. KING: All right, Your Honor, we will pass on.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Now you said some other things about the special court, do you recall Dr. Schmitheck?
A. Br. Schmitheck was a successor of Dr. Rothenberger as President of the District Court of Appeals in Hamburg.
Q. Yes, do you recall that Dr. Rothenberger occasionally while he was in that position referred to the Special Courts as Courts Martial of the Land, do you recall that?
A. According to my recollection that term was used by Dr. Rothenberger.
Q. Yes, and also according to your recollection did Schmitheck who followed Dr. Rothenberger in that job, use the same term?
A. That I couldn't remember at the moment but it was possible.
Q. Just to get the record clear on that I want to show you a letter This is identified, I think it is not in evidence at the moment, as NG 2460. Now that is a letter written by Schmitheck and you will find on the last page your signature, I believe, is that right?
A. The signature is mine, yes.
Q. That was sort of a sub-signature, a subscription, now then I ask you to look on page 3 of the original and do you see in the paragraph beginning "in my opinion", a little farther down, "the special courts are only summary courts martial, which are necessary under the conditions prevailing today." Do you find that statement there?
A. On page 3?
Q. Yes on page 3 of the document you have in your hands.
A. Yes, I found it.
Q. Do you have any comments to make on that?
A. I have no comments to make because as I remember I did not write that letter but the remark on the last page which I have signed confirms only the fact that a copy was sent to someone.
MR. KING: I have no more questions of this witness. I would like to make one correction. In referring a few moments ago to the document NG 530, I mistakenly called it 156 and the exhibit is 165.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Mr. Witness?
A, Yes, Your Honor.
Q. According to your recollection, when did the preview practice begin? There is evidence on it but I would like your recollection on it.
A. My recollection is the preview and review practice began after the speech by the Fuehrer and I believe I should like to say it must have been shortly after the meeting in the plenary court room of the District Court of Appeals but I could not state it precisely.
Q. You mean about the end of April 1942?
A. I should like to assume it was later.
Q. Well I am not asking you for the names of individuals but would you tell me the representatives of what different courts in the Hamburg area attended any of these meetings? In other words, what courts were represented?
A. The Chief President of the District Court, Hamburg, the President of the District Court, Hamburg, the President of the Local Court, Hamburg, the President of the District Court Bremen, but who usually arrived later by train from Bremen, the General Public Prosecutor, Hamburg; the Senior Public Prosecutor, Hamburg, the Presiding Judges of the Chamber of the Special Courts, the President of the Penal Senate, that is to say, the administrative referents of the District Court of Appeals. I for one attended as a referent for general questions because I always attended the presiding Presidents conferences.
Q. Were there local court judges who attended?
A. No, local court judges did not attend. The individual judges did not attend at all with the exception of the presiding judges whom I have mentioned.
Q. Did representative of the Party ever attend those meetings?
A. No, representatives of the Party did not attend such meetings.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all, thank you. Nothing else.
CROSS EXAMINATION DR. FRIEDRICH PRIES BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:
Q. Witness, it has just been pointed out briefly that Dr. Rothenberger has used the term "courts martial" for the special courts. May I submit to you a letter which was introduced as Exhibit 588 here where Dr. Rothenberger objects to the fact that cases were too often referred to the Special Courts, and said that many more cases should be indicted by the Penal Chamber in order to leave the Special Courts to deal with the appropriate cases and under consideration of the conditions caused by the war and counter action against profiteers of the war, he said that Special Courts should deal with such cases primarily. Now my question is did Dr. Rothenberger on the basis of that point of view in order to have common criminal cases handled by the Special Court emphasize the special character of the Special Court as a Courts Martial.
MR. KING: This witness cannot possibly know what was in Dr. Rothenberger's mind when he raised that point. I think the question is out of order for that reason.
THE PRESIDENT: I am not sure I understand your specific question doctor, of the witness, the document, we recall the document now.
DR. WANDSCHNIEDER: Now I asked the witness to look at the document and on the basis of that document to comment on the opinion Dr. Rothenberger had about the Special Courts.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, the objection will be sustained.
BY DR. WANDSCHEIDER:
Q. May I put another question to you then? Is it true that Dr. Rothenberger emphasized that the Special Courts should act particularly against the common criminal offenses, habitual criminals?
A. I can only say that the various crimes such as bulglarly, robbery during blackouts and crimes against the war economy, matters which today would be designated as black marketing, that those matters played an important part at that time, they were right in the foreground.
Q. Dr. Pries, during the war, did cases of looting play a tremendous part in Hamburg in consideration of the air raids?
A. After the air raids in Hamburg there were a great number of thefts: The number of cases which were tried was relatively small, because mostly in the general confusion the culprits could not be apprehended.
Q. Then one more question. You said when the professional civil servants law, was applied since 1933, or that is from 1933 to 1935, Rothenberg was competent for carrying out dismissals, I ask you now wasn't it Kauffman under whose jurisdiction that fell and wasn't Rothenberger only his adviser?
A. I cannot say that with precision today because in that period I was not in the administration myself but I was a Judge in Bremen at that time and in Bremen there were no dismissals for racial reasons and I did not examine that question of competence at that time. Therefore I am not in the position to make precise statements today.
Q. You were not in Hamburg at that time, I realize that, but perhaps quite generally, can you tell me wasn't Rothenberger's position as Justice Senator solely that of a Minister, subject to the Reichstadthalter who had been appointed by Hitler?
A. As I said I cannot define the competence of Rothenberger who at that time under the Hamburg Constitution, because I was in Bremen.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you, witness. I have no further questions, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you through with this witness?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, with this witness, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. KING: The Prosecution would under ordinary circumstances object to the recalling of the witness Becher, whom Dr. Wandschneider is about to recall. Dr. Wandschneider has told me that the recall is for the purpose of asking the witness one question and has told me what the question is. With that in mind we have no objections.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the witness has been sworn. You have been sworn, witness, haven't you, before this Tribunal?
THE WITNESS: Yes, Your Honor.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHEIDER:
Q. Witness, Exhibit 635 has been introduced here. This document is a newspaper cutting and in this newspaper article it is said that Dr. Rothenberger was legal adviser of the Reichstadthalter Kauffman and had been his legal adviser since 1931. In connection with that question and in connection with Dr. Rothenberger's party membership, I want to ask you whether you know when Dr. Rothenberger became legal adviser for Dr. Kauffman?
A. Dr. Kauffman became Gaureichsamtslenter in 1936 or 1937. On no account did he obtain that position at an earlier date.
Q. Why do you say on no account did he obtain it earlier, when did Rothenberger get to know Kauffman?
A. Dr. Rothenberger has several times told me that he met Gamleiter Kauffman only after the seizure of power, that is to say, after January 1933.
Q. And did Rothenberger say that he joined the Party after 1933 and that his prior membership is due to the fact it was antidated? Do you know anything about that?
A. Yes, the Gau treasurer who was the competent person to deal with such questions told me that Dr. Rothenberger actually only joined the party after the seizure of power but that at the request of the Gauleiter the entry in the party register was back dated, and if I remember correctly, to 1931.
Q. Thank you, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any cross examination of the one question.
MR. KING: Your Honor, a document which I thought I had with me inadvertently left in my office and I would like to ask the witness one question based on this and I would like to ask the witness one question while we are trying to find the document.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:Q.- Witness, I show you a newspaper clipping which has been identified as NG-2245 and is Exhibit 625.
You will notice, attached to this newspaper clipping, the official release on which the newspaper story was based. I now ask you, witness -- I ask you to read, from the attached official release, the first full paragraph from the bottom, beginning right there (indicating).
A.- "On the 8th of March, 1933, he was appointed Senator member of the Regional Government and leader of the Hamburg Administration of Justice by Reichstatthalter Kauffmann, whom he had assisted as an advisor since 1931. In 1935, in the course of the centralization of the Administration of Justice, Dr. Rothenberger was placed in charge, with the leadership of the Administrations of Justice in the Northwestern German regions."
Q.- That is sufficient, witness. Now I ask you, in view of the statement in that official release furnished by Dr. Rothenberger's office to the newspaper, the Hamburger Tageblatt, may I ask you, possibly, if you don't think you could have been mistaken in your statement which you made this morning?
A.- A. mistake on my part in connection with what I said just now is quite out of the question. I can't tell you how that article was compiled. At any rate, in 1931, Dr. Rothenberger was neither a member of the Party nor the head of the Gaurechtsamt, the Gau Legal Office.
Q.- That is not the question. The question is when he met Kauffmann and when he began advising him. That is the question about which I think that you may be mistaken. Now, will you apply your answer to that?
A.- All I can say is that Dr. Rothenberger told me personally that he met Gauleiter Kauffmann for the first time after January 1933.
Q.- Just one more question, Was the Hamburger Tageblatt the official paper, or the official Nazi newspaper in Hamburg?
A.- Yes.
MR. KING: No more questions.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER:Q.- Witness, do you know that around about '33 or before '33 an attorney, Dr. Droege, was Kauffmann's legal advisor?
A.- Dr. Droege, as the head of the Gau Legal Office, was Dr. Rothenberger 's predecessor. In January 1933 be was the legal advisor of the Gauleitung.
Q.- Dr. Rothenberger has testified here that in 1931 he had no contact with Kauffmann, but von Alvoerden, the later Senator, another Party member. Do you think it is conceivable that there has been some confusion here and that is why the date 1931 has been mentioned?
A.- I know that before 1933 Dr. Rothenberger was a member of a political investigation committee of the Hamburger Buergerschaft, as an investigator.
Q.- In connection with that work, did he come in contact with National Socialists?
A.- During that work he made the acquaintance of von Alvoerden who, later on, became a senator.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(witness excused)
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other witnesses available at this time?
(no response)
Are there any documents available?
MR. KING: The Prosecution now has German copies of the document NG-2410; it will only take a few minutes to distribute.
THE PRESIDENT: It has been distributed in English to the Bench, has it?
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. KING: May I inquire of the Bench if my any chance they have their English copies of the document NG-2410, Exhibit 596, before them? There are certain corrections in signatures that appear throughout that document that I would like to make. If the Bench does not have them now, perhaps at the beginning of the next session I could take just a minute to make those corrections.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it would be better to do it then; we haven't the exhibits now?
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is exhibit what?
MR. KING: That is Exhibit 596, NG-2410, and in connection with that exhibit I am under the impression that that document has been offered. However, even at the risk of repetition, may I offer it again now that the German copies have been made available and distributed to the defense counsel? I have the original here which I will now pass up to the representative of the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 596 is the Jansen case, and it has been received.
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
The Secretary General has supplement II of Cuhorst documents, I understand.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Have we received the English of 596?
MR. KING: Yes, yes you have.
Since distribution was originally made of NG-2245, which was Exhibit 635, we have secured, for the convenience of the Bench, two photostatic copies, and we would like to hand them up now.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand that Cuhorst documents are available for introduction. Dr. Brieger is absent.
What is all you have, Mr. Secretary?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is unnecessary to say that if there are any documents which are available for introduction they are to be introduced and counsel are responsible for getting them in. If they are available now and not offered either today or tomorrow, I think it would be entirely improper and unnecessary for us to receive them on the 13th of October. If you have got them, they must go in now. If you have a good excuse for not presenting them now, then they may come in on the morning of the argument; but if there is an unnecessary delay, it will be penalized by the rejection of the document.
DR. KOESSL (Counsel for the defendant Rothaug): May it please the Tribunal, I have my last two document books here, but I was told at the Defense Center that the English copies had to be returned yesterday because there were some pages missing. If the Tribunal agrees, I can offer these documents now for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is advisable. If there are certain pages that need to be added, that can be done as soon as they are available; but you may proceed with what you have, and any necessary corrections can be made later.
DR. KOESSL: I have nothing to add, but it is the English copies that have some defects. I don't know, either, whether the Secretary General has Rothaug document Books VIII and XI.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: No.
DR. KOESSL: With the agreement of the Tribunal, I will now offer these documents for identification only.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. KOESSL: I can submit, finally, Rothaug Exhibit 202, for which the Exhibit No. 200 has already been reserved. This is part of Rothaug document book No. VII.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, we will take care of it.
The exhibit number first, please?
DR. KOESSL: Exhibit No. 200.
THE PRESIDENT: The document number?
DR. KOESSL: The document number is 202; the document book is VII.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
Have we received the English copies on that?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, the English copies have been submitted. Yes, the Tribunal has already received the English copies.
Document book VIII contains only three documents. They are documents 211, 212 and 213.
THE PRESIDENT: You want to identify document 211 as Exhibit 211, is that correct?
DR. KOESSL: As Exhibit 212, Your Honor, because the last exhibit number was Exhibit 211, in document book IX.
I offer these three documents, 211, 212 and 213, as Exhibits 212, 213 and 214.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 212 is document 211 in Rothaug book No. VIII?
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 213 is Rothaug Document 212, in Rothaug book VIII; exhibit 214 is document Rothaug 213, in document book VIII?
DR. KOESSL: That is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: They will be identified. Let the exhibits me marked for identification.
DR. KOESSL: From document book No. IX, I offer Rothaug documents No. 167 and No. 167-A, as Exhibit 215.
THE PRESIDENT: You are offering them as one exhibit? One exhibit?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, as one exhibit.
JUDGE HARDING: What are the document numbers?
DR. KOESSL: Documents 167 and 167-A.
THE PRESIDENT: They will be marked for identification, exhibit 215.
DR. KOESSL: Document 214 -
THE PRESIDENT: By the way, those exhibits are in your book XI?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, they are all in my document book XI.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. They will be marked for identification.
DR. KOESSL: I offer document No. 214 as Exhibit 216.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification. Book XI?
DR. KOESSL: Yes, yes, it is book XI.
May it please the Court the prosecution has made an objection concerning Exhibit 216, which is document 214. I withdraw this document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the exhibit is withdrawn.
DR. KOESSL: Withdrawn, yes.
Rothaug document 168, with the subdivisions Roman I through Roman VI-A, I offer as Exhibit 216. In other words, this document will get the exhibit number which I have just withdrawn.
THE PRESIDENT: That is in Book 11, is it?
DR. KOESSL: All these documents which I am about to introduce now, or which I have introduced, are in Book 11.
THE PRESIDENT: 216 will be marked for identification.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document 166, I offer as Exhibit 217.
THE PRESIDENT: It is a document for identification, 217.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document 203, I offer as Exhibit 218.
THE PRESIDENT: We assume, unless otherwise advised, that you are offering these only for identification at the time. It will be marked for identification.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, for identification.
Rothaug Document 234, I offer as Rothaug Exhibit 219.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document 231, I offer as Exhibit 220.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification, Exhibit 220.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document 235 I ask to be identified as Exhibit 221.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification 221.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document 233 I offer for identification as Exhibit 222.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification, 222.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document No. 232, I offer for identification as Exhibit 223.
THE PRESIDENT: Let is be marked for identification, 223.
DR. KOESSL: All the documents which I had available I have now submitted to the Tribunal from Document Books VIII and XI, and I have offered them for identification. When submitting my Document Book I-B, incomplete copies were handed to the Bench. I am not sure whether, since, perfect copies have been submitted - and as a matter of precaution I have brought along today three perfect copies of the Document Book Rothaug I-B. I shall be glad to make them available to the Bench.
THE PRESIDENT: We will receive them.
DR. ALTSTOETTER (For the defendant Cuhorst): Dr. Brieger has given me Document 59? Exhibit 21. This is an affidavit by Frau Magarete Scholl. As far as I know an objection was made on account of the version of the affidavit, but the matter has now been put right.
Document No. 129 -- I think the Exhibit number must be 127.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give us again the first document to which you referred? These are Cuhorst documents; - and what was the first one you mentioned?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Just a moment, please. What was Document No. 59? Exhibit 21. This is an affidavit of Frau Magarete Scholl.
THE PRESIDENT: That was offered before, and there was an objection--
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Yes, it was objected to because the introductory paragraph was not in order and because it was the husband of Frau Magarete Scholl - it was he who certified the affidavit, and he as husband should not have done so. The text itself has not been challe***
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. We will mark it down. Exhibit 21 is received.
DR. ALTSTOETTER: As Document No. 129, Exhibit No. 127, I offer extracts from the "LeMonde", the French newspaper, which deals with the judiciary and the future constitution.
THE PRESIDENT: That document has not been offered before, has it?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: No, no. That has not been offered before.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit number what?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: 127 should be the next number; according to my notes, 126 was the last one - the previous one.
THE PRESIDENT: 126 was the last? I have 124.
DR. ALTSTOETTER: According to my notes 124. was Document 127, Exhibit 125, Document 124. But apparently there has been some mistake with the figures, the numbers.
THE PRESIDENT: Two more exhibits were received.
This is properly marked Exhibit 127. We had 126 before. And the document number?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: 129.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that in any book?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, your Honors, it is in the second supplement volume. I can tell you properly now. It is contained in the supplement volume for Exhibit Document Book III. Pages 1 through 4.
THE PRESIDENT: I still don't understand. I am sorry. You said supplement II. And now you say what?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: It is not in Supplement. Volume II. I am talking of Document Book III.
THE PRESIDENT: Document Book III?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit is received.
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Document 130, Exhibit No. 128. This is an extract from the Stuttgart newspaper, "Stuttparter Zeitung". The article is called, "Criminality has arisen three-fold."
THE PRESIDENT: In what document book is it?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Document Book III, pages 3 and 6. It comes after the other document.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Document No. 131, Exhibit No. 129, extracts from "Stuttgart Zeitung" headed "The Death Penalty for Railway Thieves". It was also contained in Document Book 3 and it appears on page 7.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Document 132, Exhibit 130, extracts from "Stuttgart Zeitung" headed "The Workers Warn You".
THE PRESIDENT: Book 3?
DR. ALTSTOETTER: Yes, Book 3, page 8.
THE PRESIDENT: Are these exhibits -- are these exhibits in Book 3 which we have already received?
DR. BRIEGER: May I continue now because after all I am rather better informed. Namely, in Document Book 3, but in the document book which I think was submitted to the Tribunal yesterday, or perhaps it ** only today. That was the difficulty with which I have been fighting the last few days.
THE PRESIDENT: We are not expecting any explanations about your difficulties; we know about them. I have no book before me today which shows these numbers. Where are the English versions of Documents 129 to 132?
DR. BRIEGER: I asked the Defense Information this morning again whether the English version of this text is ready and I was told not, and that was the reason that after today I wasn't ready to submit those documents to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You can revoke the order receiving them and have them marked for identification.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibits are not here in the English version. The orders receiving them in evidence are in each case as to Exhibit 127 to 130 inclusive rescinded and those documents will be marked for identification only. They will be received when we receive the English copies.
DR. BRIEGER: Document 127 through Document 130 - that is the documents you are referring to, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: That is what we stated.
DR. BRIEGER: All right.
THE PRESIDENT: Marked for identification. And now when we receive them will they be in a document book which will be marked Document Book 3? We were informed a moment ago that they were in Document Book 3.
DR. BRIEGER: No, it will be a supplemental volume, supplementing Document Book 3.
THE PRESIDENT: We will make the correction.
DR. BRIEGER: Now, I am going to submit to the Tribunal Cuhorst Document No. 134. The exhibit number being 131. I assume that the Tribunal has before it a supplement for Document Book 2, is that so? This supplement--
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
DR. BRIEGER: This supplement should contain Documents 134 through 136, and I attach particular importance to this affidavit, and I will refer to the Raeder affidavit which has already been offered. I am referring you to the exhibit number. I am anxious to avoid a misunderstanding arising in connection with the Petra case, and that might have happened quite easily if we had only had the previous affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 131 in Document 134, Cuhorst Supplement Book 2, is received in evidence.
DR. BRIEGER: As Cuhorst Document 135 with Exhibit No. 132, I offer the affidavit by Dinkelacker, deposed on the 13th of September 1947. This affidavit had been offered once before; the prosecution made an objection and I have since put it right.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. BRIEGER: As Cuhorst Exhibit 133 I offer Cuhorst Document 136, an affidavit by Helmut Baumert, dated the 12th of September 1947. This document, too, was offered to the Tribunal once before. In view of an objection made by the prosecution, I had to withdraw it because the preamble was not in the proper form.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received, Exhibit 133.
DR. BRIEGER: I have come to the end for today. These are all the documents which I have. I would ask the Tribunal to accept my apologies for not having appeared here sooner today. I had a very good reason because of my wound received in the war I had to go and see the doctor. He had asked me to go and see him several times, and at last I had to go.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is excused. The Secretary General, Dr. Brieger, has given us a memorandum. Perhaps we could make some progress by inquiring with reference to Cuhorst Exhibit 2. My notes and those of the Secretary General show Exhibit Number 2 was reserved for Document 32. Has anything been done about that?
DR. BRIEGER: Document No. 2?
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit No. 2.
DR. BRIEGER: Exhibit No. 2.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 32 in your book 2-A-B.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, I don't know at the moment what that relates to. I should be able to tell you early this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you make a notation, please?
DR. BRIEGER: Certainly, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: There are certain other numbers also, if you are prepared to do so. Will you report on Exhibit 2?
DR. BRIEGER: Exhibit 2 again.
THE PRESIDENT: 6.
DR. BRIEGER: 2, 6.
THE PRESIDENT: 21.
DR. BRIEGER: 21.
THE PRESIDENT: 22.
DR. BRIEGER: 22.
THE PRESIDENT: 45.
DR. BRIEGER: 45.