I offer this letter of January 1939 as Exhibit 79, for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Now I come to supplement volume II for Dr. Rothenberger.
As Exhibit No. 80 I offer an original letter by Dr. Rothenberger of 24 December 1941 to Dr. Hans von Dananyi. He was the adjutant of Guertner's mentioned before, who, in connection with the July 1944 affair, was either executed or died. I should like to read one sentence from it.
Dr. Rothenberger writes to Donanyi:
"As much as I regret the contents of your letter of IS October, I was happy about the manner in which you informed me about your leaving the Administration of Justice. Again, one of the best moves is back to the profession of a judge, and I am afraid if there is not a basic change many will follow. I personally, fortunately, am enough of an optimist and therefore I will not discontinue my desperate fight for a radical change."
I offer this document as Exhibit 80 for identification.
The next document is an affidavit by Fechner, which I offer as Exhibit 81, from supplement volume II. The document is Rothenberger No. 97. I offer its as Exhibit No. 81 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification 81.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you.
Your Honor, in the same supplement volume II there is Rothenberger document No. 100 which I offer as Exhibit No. 82, which is an affidavit by Dr. Stender concerning Dr. Rothenberger, which discusses his state of health and state of mind.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification 82.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, 82.
The next document from supplement volume II is Rothenberger document No. 101.
That is an affidavit by the present Hanseatic District Court of Appeal President, Dr. Ruschewey, which I offer for identification as Exhibit 83.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked 83 for identification.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next exhibit, offered as number 84, is Rothenberger document No. 102, in supplement volume II, which is an affidavit by Landgerichtsrat, District Court Counsellor, Dr. Hinrichs.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification 84.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The last one offered is Exhibit 85, which is an excerpt from the periodical "Die Wandlung", which is published in Heidelberg by Professor Jaspers, among others. This is an excerpt from an article concerning murders committed on insane people. I included that excerpt not for its subject as much as for the general attitude assumed by Dr. Rothenberger toward Hitler as far as that point was concerned.
May I be permitted to read one sentence from that document, which I consider essential?
"A report......"
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Wandschneider, it will be necessary to take our recess at this time.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: We were informed that the interpreter desires to make a very minor correction in the matter of translation with reference to the anem of a certain decree.
INTERPRETER HAHN: The name of that decree should read, "The Decree for the Restoration of the Appearance of the Streets."
THE PRESIDENT: We would be interested in knowing more of the contents of that decree. It may be too late. You have something to say, Dr. Wandschneider?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Concerning this decree for the Restoration of the Appearance of the Streets, there is nothing I could say about it. I should like to conclude the submission of my documents, the document I wish to introduce is my last document in the Supplement Book Rothenberger. The Document No. 103, the Exhibit number is 85, and I previously offered it for identification only. It is an article in the periodical "Die Wandlung". The title is "Juridical Objections to Procedure," in connection with the subject of the murder of insane persons. A report by the General Public Prosecutor in Cologne was passed on by him to the Reich Ministry of Justice, and the report says the following and I quote: "A photostat of the law concerning mercy killings at a meeting of the Ministry of Justice at the end of May 1941 was submitted to tho Presidents of the District Courts of Appeals. The President of District Court of Appeals in Hamburg who tried to object to that law during the meeting was reprimanded by Undersecretary Dr. Freisler who said to him that it was inadmissible to criticize measures taken by the Fuehrer and that such criticism would not be tolerated."
With this document, I have concluded my presentation of documents. I hope that tomorrow I shall be able to submit the English texts. I have only a very few documents, I think only two or three, and I shall present them as early as possible. If possible, I shall introduce them together with the translations before the 13th of October, at the latest?
I shall submit them on the 13th of October. As concerns witnesses, I intended to bring two more witnesses here. They have not appeared yet, and I am almost certain that I shall not be able to bring then here at all which means that I have now presented all my evidence with the exception of those documents.
THE PRESIDENT: The documents 80 to 85 inclusive are marked for identification.
DR. WANDSHCENEIDER: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, while we are still on the subject of Rothenberger documents, I should like to raise a question of procedure in the case of two documents which I believe the Court may already have received. These two documents are respectively Rothenberger Exhibit No. 37 which was Rothenberger Document No. 63, and Rothenberger Exhibit No. 77 which was Rothenberger Document No. 74. The first of these, Exhibit No. 37, is an affidavit by one Hans Segelken of whom we have heard considerable during this case, together with a statement which he prepared in 1944. The other one, Exhibit No. 77, is a diary of Mr. Segelken's which was submitted considerably after the time that the affidavit, Exhibit No. 37, was submitted. We have requested Mr. Segelken as a witness. He failed to appear.
THE PRESIDENT: Where is he, do you know?
MR. KING: I am coming to that. Dr. Wandschneider tells me now that he bad a telegram this morning to the effect that Segelken is in a hospital in Hamburg having very recently had an operation. It so happens that the prosecution has in rebuttal to the affidavit which is Exhibit 37 another affidavit which we have not been able to offer because of the Court's ruling. Rothenberger Exhibit No. 77 came to our attention after we had taken the affidavit which is in opposition to Exhibit No. 37; so as to that, Exhibit 77, we have had no opportunity to cross examine the witness Segelken. With that background, I would like to make the following suggestion. I would like to have the Court consider receiving the prosecution's affidavit given by Mr. Segelken in connection with Exhibit 37, with the Rothenberger Exhibit 37; and unless Segelken can come to Nurnberg which now appears unlikely I would ask the Court to exclude Rothenberger Exhibit 77 which, if Segelken docs not come, we will not be able to cross examine concerning.
If Dr. Wandschneider has any other proposals, we should like to hear them.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Court, the prosecutor asks that his rebuttal statement should be submitted here. It is the counter-affidavit which Dr. Segelken deposed after I had presented the affidavit which Dr. Segelken had given for no. The method naturally would have been to cross examine Herr Segelken, a cross examination which the prosecutor wishes to carry out in connection with my affidavit. Now, that can't be done because we haven't had the witness here. Concerning the presentation of the affidavit of the prosecution I would have no objection concerning its acceptance if its contents wore restricted to the affidavit which Segelken gave to me, but that is not so; for in the counter-affidavit which he gave to the Prosecution, facts are discussed which a.re not mentioned in the affidavit which Segelken had given to mo. Therefore, unfortunately, on behalf of my client, I have to object and too, I would like to ask the Tribunal to give it' s ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King, does a portion of your affidavit concern the same matters which are included in the Rothenberger Exhibit 77? In other words, is a part of it proper rebuttal to that Exhibit?
MR. KING: Not to the Rothenberger Exhibit 77. Rothenberger Exhibit 77 is a diary, or excerpts from a diary which the person Segelken kept while while he was in Berlin. That, as I said, before, came to our attention after we Had taken our affidavit which is intended to be a counter to RothEnberger Exhibit 37.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
MR. KING: Now, as to what Dr. Wandschneider said concerning the contents of our affidavit, I think that it is perhaps true that our affidavit includes more than a mere counter statement to the statements given in Exhibit -- in Rothenberger Exhibit 37. In addition to certain counter statements to Exhibit 37, it deals with testimony which Dr. Rothenberger gave while he was on the stand. To that extent, it goes beyond Rothenberger Exhibit 37.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary, do your records show that Rothenberger Exhibit 37 has been received?
SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes.
MR. KING:May I say, your Honors, that we assume, I think that Dr. Wandschneider did, when those two exhibits, those two Rothenberger Exhibits were received, 37 and 77, that the persons Segelke would be available for cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal ruled in a similar matter adversely to the defense, and we think the same rule ought to be applied in the case of the prosecution. Your Motion at this date to strike Exhibit 77 is denied. It was received in evidence without objection.
Now, there has been in some courts rather an inconvenient practice which can be resorted to, to receive portions of an exhibit and not the rest of it. Would it be possible for you to segregate in agreement with Dr. Wandschneider the portions of your prosecution exhibit which are proper rebuttal to Rothenberger Exhibit 37? If you can do that, the problem could be solved because Dr. Wandschneider has no objection to chat portion being received.
MR. KING: Well, Your Honor, I do not conceive of our affidavit which is a counter to Rothenberger Exhibit 37 as containing any material which would be improper cross examination, if the witness were in the box. While it does go somewhat beyond the scope of Rothenberger Exhibit 37, I do not believe, and I think Dr. Wandschneider will agree with me, that it would all be proper cross examination and if he were here, I would certainly ask the very questions.
THE PRESIDENT: As to the questions of the admission of the un-named exhibit which the prosecution wishes to offer, I take it to mean that you wish to offer it as rebuttal testimony?
MR. KING: That's right, that's right.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will give it consideration and rule upon it al a later time.
MR. KING: Would it aid the Tribunal in its consideration if a copy in English of our proposed exhibit were handed to it?
THE PRESIDENT: It would be impossible to rule upon it unless we see both exhibits 37 and the proposed rebuttal.
MR. KING: Exhibit 37 you have, and I now offer NG-2153, a copy in English, of our proposed exhibit.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the court, I should like to point out that this counter-affidavit docs refer to the prosecution essentially but it does not refer to the affidavit by Dr. Segelke, and I would ask you to pay attention to that and compare the two affidavits. That is why Dr. Rothenberge has his misgivings about admitting this document.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the problem may be stated in this manner, and I should be glad to have your criticisms of the statement. The first fact for consideration is that Dr. Segelke will not be here available for examination personally by either party. In view of that fact, the prosecution desires to offer an exhibit which upon examination may appear in part to be proper rebuttal to Exhibit 37. It offered only for rebuttal then only these portions which constitute proper rebuttal would be admissible, but the prosecution asserts that they desire to offer it not merely as cross examination relative to Exhibit 37, but as affirmative rebuttal matter, isn't that the issue?
Now, if you offer it in rebuttal and not merely to answer Exhibit 37, then we are confronted by the fact that the new matter offered by you in rebuttal could not be attested on the part of the defense by the examination of the witness in open court.
MR. KING: The fact remains, however -
THE PRESIDENT: I am merely trying to state the facts and see if that is the view you take of it. We arc reserving our decision for the time being.
MR. KING: I would like to have one last, small thought on the point, that the fact remains that nothing is contained in that affidavit which we propose which has been set down there, that is not in rebuttal to statements either made by Dr. Rothenberger on the stand or by Dr. Segelke in his Exhibit 37.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears that your purpose in offering it is not merely a cross examination or attesting of the matter contained in Rothenberger Exhibit 37, but it is offered as general rebuttal evidence for the prosecution.
MR. KING: No doubt about it. It goes beyond Exhibit 37.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we understand the issue. We are now informed that the Secretary General has Rothaug Book 8, Joel Book 5, Mettgenberg Book 1, and Rothaug Book 9 --11, pardon me.
MR. KING: Your Honor, before you take up that order of business, I do have before me the Decree For the Restoration of Sightly Appearance of Streets" which was passed on the 12th of November 1938. I am informed that it is only two paragraphs long, and if Your Honors would like to have it read into evidence or presented in some other way for your purusal, I think it would be very convinient to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any objection to having it read into evidence to save time? If there is no objection, you may read it into evidence. Submit it to counsel for the defense first.
Has counsel had opportunity for the defense, to check the authencity of the decree?
MR. KING: May the record show that the the interpreter is now being handed the Reichsgesetzblatt for 1938, page -- part One, page 1581.
THE PRESIDENT: You may read it. Yes, have it both in English and German.
THE INTERPRETER: The decree concerning the restoration of unsanitary appearance of streets near Jewish business enterprises, dated 12 November 1938.
"In pursuance of the decree for the execution of the Four Year Plan of 18 October 1936, Reich I-S-887, I order the following:
"Article I: All damage done due to the indignation of the people at the incitement of international Jewry against National Socialist Germany carried out on the 8, 9 and 10 November 1933, on Jewish enterprises and living quarters is to be removed by the Jewish owners immediately.
"Article II: The costs of restoration are to be borne by the owner of the Jewish business concerned of the apartment.
"Section 2: Insurance claims of Jews of German nationality will be confiscated in favor of the Reich.
"Article III: The Reich Minister of Economics is authorized to issue executory decrees, an agreement with the other Reich Ministers. Berlin, 12 November, 1938. The Deputy for the Four Year Plan, Goering, Field Marshal."
MR. KING: I understand that Dr. Koessl is about to offer into evidence certain exhibits. We would like to state that we have no objection to the acceptance into evidence of Rothaug Exhibit 200 and no objection to admission into evidence of Rothaug Exhibits 212 to 223, both inclusive.
DR. KOESSL: Koessl for the Defendant Rothaug. This morning Rothaug Book No. 8 was offered by me for identification with Exhibits 212, 213. and. 214. I would now ask you to accept these documents which have been identified already and I also ask you now to accept finally the provisional exhibits 215 through 223 in Document Book No. 11.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 200 has been received. Have we had the English copy of that?
DR. KOESSL: Yes; that was contained in Document Book 7; and in Document Book 8 there are Exhibits 212, 213 And 214.
These are Rothaug Documents 211, 212 and 213.
THE PRESIDENT: If we can have the book we will receive them in evidence. Exhibits 212, 213 And 214 are received in evidence. That concludes all the exhibits in Document Book Rothaug 8?
DR. KOESSL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now come to Book 11. Are there any objections to Exhibits 215 to 223 inclusive? No objections. They are received in evidence.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you. May I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that Exhibit No. 215 is not very clear in the photostat and, therefore, I would ask you, your Honors, to take a look at the original.
THE PRESIDENT: All those exhibits which I mentioned are received in evidence down to and including Exhibit 223, Rothaug Book 11.
DR. KOESSL: I should also like to point out that Exhibit 218 is a supplement for Document Book 5-A, and 21 belongs to Exhibit 214 in in Document Book 8. Exhibits 222 and 223 relate to Prosecution Exhibit 560.
THE PRESIDENT: We have Joel Book 5.
DR. HAENSEL: Karl Haensel for Guenther Joel.
Of Document Book 5 which the Tribunal has now before it, I give the first Document No. 74 on Page 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Wait just a minute, please. Have those exhibits in Book 5 been identified before?
DR. HAENSEL: No, only the first three. The first three have been given provisional numbers.
THE PRESIDENT: What is the last Joel exhibit which has been received?
DR. HAENSEL: 73 is the last exhibit which has been received, Exhibit 73. 74 had been given a provisional number and it refers to the Hardingen affidavit. It is Book 4 end the Document is 69.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the exhibit number?
DR. HAENSEL: 74.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number do you wish to give to Document 74?
DR. HAENSEL: 74 is the exhibit number. Thus document I am speaking of is not contained in Book 5. It is contained in Book 4- Now I want put everything right: Book 4, No. 69.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 70 on the 5 of September was given Exhibit No. 75.
DR. HAENSEL: 75 was the Brauchitsch affidavit, Book 5, No. 78 May I just say, by way of explanation, this Brauchitsch affudavit has been given the Number 75 provisionally. It is in Book 4, No. 70. The preamble has been put right in accordance with the court readings and it is now contained in Book 5, No. 78. The Exhibit No. will be 75,
THE PRESIDENT: Then your Document No. 74 should be Exhibit 76, shouldn't it? You have just stated that your Document No. 78 should be Exhibit 75; is that correct?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Then, you have used the Exhibit 75 and your next number in exhibits would be 76, would it not?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, that is right.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, what document do you wish to offer as 76?
DR. HAENSEL: My Document 77.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. HAENSEL: But the three documents in the book before, the three preceding documents 75, 75 and 76 have already been given provisional numbers; therefore, they are not new numbers. The first being the Hoeller document, Document No. 74 was given the provisional Exhibit No. 21.
THE PRESIDENT: And what was the number for 75?
DR. HAENSEL: The provisional number for 75 was Exhibit 44.
THE PRESIDENT: And for 76?
DR. HAENSEL: 76 was identified as Exhibit 53. May I just point out that this is an affidavit by Gisevius, who lives in Switzerland, and this document was certified by a mayor in Switzerland. The Prosecution has told me that they are going to object. I have written again to the Gisevius, but not correction has get been received. Now, a decision hrs to be made as to whether this document will be received or not. That is -
THE PRESIDENT: I an completely confused in this matter, and I think not without reason. Is there an objection stated to Document 76 which has been marked for identification, I understand, as Exhibit 53?
MR. KING: Yes, Your Honor, Dr. Haensel is quite right, We do object to the form of the document because it is completely lacking in any of the formal requirements.
THE PRESIDENT: Unless the facts stated by counsel are controverted, the objection will have to be sustained.
Now, will you proceed with the offering of the documents in your Book V?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, The next document, Document No, 77, has been given the Exhibit No. 76. This is an affidavit by Meindl. If you will read now on, you will com to the Document 78, and, as we have already agreed, it will be Exhibit 75. We have just been talking about it.
THE PRESIDENT: I have it marked 75.
DR. HAENSEL: And there will be no difficulty with the subsequent numbers. Document 79 becomes Exhibit 77; this is the affidavit by Osterkamp. I just handed the document to the Prosecution and as far as I know, these documents are all right from the point of view of the Prosecution.
My Document 73 -- no, no; I mean my Document 80 in Book V will become Exhibit 78.
My Document No. 81, the Faber affidavit, Exhibit 79.
My Document No. 82, the Schiffelbein affidavit becomes Exhibit 80.
My Document No. 83, the Tondock affidavit, becomes Exhibit 81.
My Document 84, Martin affidavit, becomes Exhibit 82.
My Document 85, excerpts of the military service record of Joel, becomes Exhibit 85.
My Document 86, my own statement, becomes Exhibit 84.
Document No 87 becomes Exhibit 85, extracts of the seniority list of the SS.
My Document 88, the von Haacke affidavit, becomes Exhibit 86.
Document 89, the Died affidavit, becomes Exhibit 87.
Document 90, the Dr. Straeter affidavit, becomes Exhibit 88.
Now, we can go on to the next page, Document 91 becomes Exhibit 89.
No, 92 becomes Exhibit 90.
No. 93 becomes Exhibit 91.
No. 94 becomes Exhibit 92.
No. 95 becomes Exhibit 93.
Document No. 96 becomes Exhibit 94.
Document No. 97 becomes Exhibit 95.
And Document 98 becomes exhibit 96.
THE PRESIDENT: May I summarize the ruling on these exhibits? First, with reference to the first three exhibits which appear in the index to Document Book V, for the defendant Joel, they are how marked Exhibits 21, 44 and 53. 21 and 44 are received, and 53 is rejected for insufficient certification.
Can you tell me in what book Exhibit 44, the Document 75 is? Is that Book IV?
DR. HAENSEL: No, it is in Book V. It is the second document in Book V, but it was given a provisional exhibit number earlier.
THE PRESIDENT: In any event, it is received in evidence. Then, Exhibits 76 to 96, both Inclusive, are received in evidence. That means that all of the documents in your Document Book V, with one exception which we have indicated, are received in evidence.
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, May I just point out that Exhibit 75 is my Document 78. Your Honor, you have just stated 76 and the following -- I am talking about the fifth document in this book.
THE PRESIDENT: 75 is received. Exhibit 75 is received
DR. HAENSEL: And I should like to say this: Exhibit 74 had been given a provisional number; it was originally in Book IV, as No. 69, and I am submitting it today.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. HAENSEL: There was something wrong with the signature before; but now I have concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: What are the next documents to be received. Dr. Haensel, does that include all your Joel exhibits?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are there any other books which can be received this afternoon? We will recess until
MR. KING: I have one small matter, Your Honor, namely NG-2410 -- if Your Honors have the English copy before you. If you don't, we can take it up tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document NG-2410?
MR. KING: Document NG-2410, Exhibit 596. I mentioned the fact this morning -
THE PRESIDENT: I have it here.
MR. KING: Yes, Exhibit 596. I mentioned -
THE PRESIDENT: You can make the correction; that is the Jansen case?
MR. KING: Yes, may I ask the Court first to turn to page 5 in the English, the signature under the figure 2 should be "Dr. Waldo", the signature at the very bottom of the page, under the District Court of Appeals the signature should be Dr. Waldo.
THE PRESIDENT: At the bottom of the page?
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it the first signature you refer to immediately below the figure 2?
MR. KING: It is under "The Presiding Judge of Penal Chamber 4", where it says "(signature) illegible."
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, all right.
MR. KING: Now on page 6, which is page 140 of the original at the bottom of the page the signature should be "Jauch". On page 7 at the top of the page under "The Presiding Judge of Penal Court 4", the signature is "Luhrsen". Then down at the bottom of page 7 right above "trial", that should be "Jauch".
Now turn to page 9, it is page 141 of the original.
THE PRESIDENT: Page 9, you say?
MR. KING: Page 9 in the English copy. That signature under "Attorney at Law Schwarz & Hennings", should be"Dr. Walter Hennings."
THE PRESIDENT: Apparently it is Dr. Hans Henning here.
MR. KING: That is correct, it should be "Dr. Walter" and then four lines further down under the lower case "b" the illegible signature there should be "Dr. Waldo", and turning to page 11 in the English which is page 146 of the original, near the bottom of the page, opposite "The President of the Small Penal Chamber No. 4", the signature which is indicated as illegible should be "Dr. Waldow."
Again on, now on page 12, that is also page 146 of the original, the signature very near the bottom of the page just above stamp, should be "Jauch" again.
On page 13 of the English copy, page 151 of the original, near the top of the page under 9 November 1935, that signature should be "Dr. Waldo", and at the very bottom of the page under "The President of the Small Penal Chamber 4" should be "Dr. Waldo".
And on page 14 of the English, page 151, on the reverse page 151 of the original, under "Hamburg 9 November 1935" two corrections: The sentence which now reads "for the correctness of the copy by order" should read "The Chief Public Prosecutor", and under that the signature should be "Jauch" again.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean we should strike out the words "for the correctness of the copy by order"?
MR. KING: That is right, Your Honor. These were abbreviations which were mis-translated by the original translator.
THE PRESIDENT: And insert what words, "The Chief Public Prosecutor"?
MR. KING: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you filling in the illegible signature under E on page 14?
MR. KING: That we can't apparently figure out either, and near the bottom of the 15th page, 152 of the original, near the signature should be "The Attorney Bohlen". And then on page 23 of the original copy, that would be on page 153 of the original/
THE PRESIDENT: What is the page number?
MR. KING: 23 there is a correction at the top of the page. You will find the notation "rubber stamp", 11 February" and instead of 1933 it is 1936, and then in approximately the middle of the page in English you find the words: Hamburg, Chief Public Prosecutor" and that should be Dr. Schubert, and now at the very bottom of the page, just above the last line we find the signature, one signature should be Kreiss, and then there is a second one which is illegible still to us, and a third one which is Bock. While we are on that page just above those signatures appears the line:
"District Court, Lower Criminal Chamber IV", that should be the "Small Criminal Chamber".
THE PRESIDENTS: There is that?
MR. KING: Just above the signature, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: On page 23?
MR. KING: Yes, and now on the next page 24 of the English copy, which is 179 of the original, there are several additional corrections. First, opposite the "2" with the parenthesis mark near the top of the page: "communication to be made to " and that should be "local court". Then in the same paragraph on the next to the last line, "The District Court in Hamburg, Lower Criminal Chamber IV", should be changed to "Small penal chamber IV", and then right opposite the IV followed by the parenthesis mark should be the name "Drescher", who was the General Public Prosecutor, and then under "Hamburg, 19 February 1936", "Chief Public Prosecutor of the District Court", that should be Dr, Schubert, and then under the last line there are some that we cannot decipher, one however is Jauch again, J-a-u-c-h.
THE PRESIDENT: Where you said that these names should be inserted, you mean that they are signatures?
MR. KING: They are signatures or initials which can be identified positively as the names which we have given you.
DR. KOESSL for Defendant ROTHAUG:
Mr. King by mistake used the name Rothaug instead of Rothenberger.
THE PRESIDENT: At what time and place was that mistake made?
DR. KOESSL: On the first page of the document, no it was at the beginning and it must have been page 8 or 9.
MR. KING: If I pronounced Jauch as Rothaug, I apologize.
THE PRESIDENT: I have no Rothaug down in this exhibit at all.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Your Honor, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that I don't know for certain whether the Jansen document which was presented here a few days ago had the same size as the document which is now being presented.
A few days ago I had a document which dealt with only a very fey; events and it is possible that supplements have been added now and I should be glad that supplements have been added now and I should be glad if I could have the document and compare it if any additions have been made and I should like to give my opinion on them.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, the document which I have in my hand we were asked this morning to bring to the bench. We brought it, it is the identical document I marked 596 at the time when it was first presented.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: When Hr. King says that it deals with the same matters as the document which was presented a few days ago and Dr. Rothenberger has commented on it
THE PRESIDENT: So far as the English copy is concerned I brought a copy from the office and made the corrections on the original which I marked 596. However, you are entirely at liberty to check anything you desire and if there is any error we will correct it.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: I am quite satisfied because you have mow given me an assurance. I only want to make quite certain because it is a long document and I want to be absolutely certain.
THE PRESIDENT: We will be glad to have you make any investigations you want to, including the copy which I have.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: No, thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Mettgenberg documents are ready and we will expect to have them offered tomorrow morning at nine-thirty, until which time the Tribunal will recess.