THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence. You mean Exhibit 104, Document Number NG-208B?
MR. KING: That is correct.
May I now ask the Court, the translators, and defense counsel to refer to Document Book 1-E? We have distributed copies of 209. You will find German copies in the book. I believe the German text was not deficient in that respect.
I think I have made a mis-statement. I believe that 209 was missing from the German Book, but it has been circulated as of either Friday afternoon or Saturday morning. Defense counsel should now have copies of it.
It should further be pointed out that the Document NG-209 should have been included in the index of Document Book 1-E following Document NG-421. It was omitted, however.
This will become when formally offered and accepted in evidence, 105.
THE PRESIDENT: May I have the page in the Document Book?
MR. KING: One moment, Your Honor, I will give you the page number. Its page number in the English Document Book will be 28 -- excuse mo Your Honors, we will run into difficulties there, I think. The page numbers, Your Honor, will be 24-E and 24-F of Book 1-E.
This is a letter dated Berlin, 14 September, 1937 to Dr. Lammers from Thierack.
Defense counsel has pointed out that the page numbers in the German Book are not clear. I wonder if it would not be expedient to defer the pagination of the German Book until after I have finished reading and offering this document in evidence.
I hope that will not be too great an inconvenience. I will submit the German page numbers after I read this in evidence. I am not too efficient as a German linguist. I would rather have that job done by some one who is.
This letter is dated Berlin, 14 September, 1937.
"Dear Herr Lammers:
"As I informed you already in Nurnberg, I call together once a year the judged of the Peoples' Court including the honorary members who are for the most part SA and SS leaders, officers in the Wehrmacht and in the Police for a meeting which I intend to take place at the end of November, this year.
"I consider this necessary for the following reasons:
"1. The experience and knowledge which are won by the different senates in the course of their work during the year must be made available to all judges of the Peoples' Court since the fighting methods of the foreign countries against the German people with treason and high-treason are steadily changing and increasing.
"2. The professional judges and the honorary judges of the Peoples' Court must get to know each other and learn to feel like one in order to fulfill their task completely.
"On December 1, 1937, the Fuehrer spoke in the Reich Chancellery to the Senate President of the Peoples' Court on the topic of treason. The Fuehrer's speech produced a very impressive effect. It was at that time a great help to me in my endeavor to harden the men of the Peoples' Court for their work. However, I know, and them are sentences which prove that they still failed to recognize with ultimate consistency that our people are fitting a struggle of life and death which must be encountered correspondingly.
"If the Fuehrer could rake up his mind once more to disclose before all judges of the Peoples' Court, his opinion of the task of these men in the fight against reason which recently is developing into high treason in an increasing measure, this would promote the future work of these men in the frame of their activity as judges of the Peoples' Court in a degree I, myself, would never be able to achieve.
"The visible success of 1 December 1936 encourages me to address the Fuehrer with the request of speaking to us again on the said topic.
"Heil Hitlers.
"Thierack."
The prosecution now offers in evidence as Exhibit 105, the Document NG-209.
THE PRESIDENT: It may be received in evidence. That page will that be in the book?
MR. KING: That will be Page No. 24-E and 24-F of Document Book 1-E in the English. I will supply the German page numbers very shortly, I find that we do not have a copy of the German Document Book 1-E here, but it will be procured and I will supply these page numbers at the earliest possible moment.
We will also, at this time, try to present another document to be found in Document Book 1-E, in which the German copies, I believe, were correct and included this document. May I ask if NG-421 is to be found in the German Document Book?
INTERPRETER: No, it is not in the German Document Book.
MR. KING: As Exhibit 106, Your Honors, the prosecution desires to offer in evidence, without reading, the Document NG-421, which is cited in the index of Document Book 1-E, beginning on Page 24. The page numbers of this document will begin with 24 and continue through 24-D in the English.
JUDGE BRAND: I thought it ends with the Page 24-C.
MR. KING: The pagination of 421 should run from 24 through 24-D, and 209 in the English should be 24-E and F of that book.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Document 209?
MR. KING: 209 should be pages 24-E and F respectively. With 421 which precedes 209 in the book, Page 1 will be 24, Page 2 of the Document will be 24-C, and Page 4 of the Document will be 24-D.
THE PRESIDENT: We do not have 24-D.
MR. KING: You do not have 24-D of the document? Your Honor, the difference results in a different system in lettering that you and I were using. I started out with the second page as being 24-B rather than 24-A; so there is no difference really in the document. As I stated previously, we do not wish to read any parts of this document except to call attention to the fact that the document represents appointments to the People's Court or represents suggested appointments to the people's Court, Vic would, at this time, offer as Exhibit 106, the Document NG-421.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR.KING: I think we can now straighten out the pagination in the German Document Books for the Documents NG-421 and NG-209. In the German Book 1-E, the Document NG-421 will bear the page numbers 14-A through and including 14-D. The Document NG-209 will bear the number 14-E in the German Book.
I should make a correction. I said that 421 would near the numbers beginning with 14-A. I should have said beginning with 18-A and run through 18-D, and 209 then becomes 18-E. I think that straightens everyone out.
Your Honors, I regret the necessity of re-opening this question of pagination, but it seems that there is a mistake; there has been an 18-A already included in the German Document Book which apparently escaped our notice. Let's try to end once and for all the pagination of these two document in the German book: Beginning with NG-421, that first page will become 18-B in the German book; the second page will become 18-C; the third page 18-D, the fourth page will become 18-E; and the Document NG-209, which in the German book is a one page document, will become 18-F; is that correct? That is correct.
We will ask the Court to turn to Document Book I-C, the Document NG-612which should be inserted following page 41 in that book. German and English copies have been distributed. We would at this time desire to introduce the exhibit, which will become Prosecution's Exhibit No. 107; this is Document NG-612. Do you have adequate copies at all points? This document is a series of letters, decrees and sentences which we will try to make selfexplanatory as we proceed through the document. The first portion which we would like to read begins on page 1; it is a letter dated Berlin, 4 December, 1941; addressed to the State Secretary Schlegelberger, in charge of affairs at the Reich Ministry of Justice: Re: Criminal Proceedings against the Hauptwachtmeister of Police Klinzmann.
"Dear Herr Schlegelberger:
The Reichsfuehrer-SS and Chief of the German Police in the Reich Minister of the Interior has sent me the verdict of the Lower Court Stendal, a photostat copy of which is enclosed. The Reichsfuehrer-SS states the following with regard to the verdict:
Essentially I have to agree with the arguments of the Reichsfuehrer-SS. Especially I do not understand why no doubt that the Fuehrer would reject this verdict completely, and therefore I respectfully ask you, to examine, if possible immediately, whether the proceedings can be cancelled or to how the verdict could be eliminated otherways. According to the information I have received from the Reichsfuehrer-SS, Klinzmann is having the verdict contested, I would be thankful to receive information about the measure you intend to take.
Heil Hitler. Your obedient servant. There follows the name of the Reich Minister."
The next portion which we would like to read begins on page 2 of the English, at the bottom of the page.
"Dear Minister: On the occasion of a discussion I informed you that a Hauptwachtmeister of the police, who had a good reputation up to now, had been sentenced by the Lower Court Stendal to a prison term of 6 months for inflicting bodily injury and unlawful detention whilst on duty, because he admonished a long wanted public enemy by slopping him and giving him two blows on the buttocks with a rubber truncheon.
The Hauptwachtmeister furthermore, with the knowledge of the mayor's deputy, kept the criminal under police arrest for 18 days for investigation of the offences.
You, Herr Minister, assured me that you would represent my point of view towards the Ministry of Justice, and therefore I take the liberty of informing you herewith of the facts and of my point of view. " That is all that we will read from that particular portion.
We now skip to page 6 of the English text, at the top of the page. This is the same letter, continuing:
"I at any rate am going to take the action of the Hauptwachtmeister of the police Klinzmann as an occasion to express gratitude for his farsighted conduct which was only beneficial to the community. I know that I have the full agreement of the population of Seehausen and vicinity in doing so, because this strange verdict caused not only astonishment, but also considerable excitement among them. Furthermore, I have promoted the Hauptwachtmeister of the police Klinzmann to Meister of the police without considering the seniority, because he earned this regard by his actions as policeman. I must reward his action because otherwise the joy of serving in the police would be destroyed by such verdicts. But finally K. has to be rehabilitated in public because his being sentenced by a court is known in public."
And the last paragraph on the English page 6:
"I beg you, Herr Mininster, to take the appropriate steps and I would be grateful if you would inform me about the results of your efforts. A copy of the sentence of the Court is enclosed.
"Heil Hitler. Yours faithfully Heinrich Himmler."
We would next like to read a few paragraphs from the sentence enclosed in the letter of Himmler's, parts of which we have just read. The first paragraph we would like to read begins on page 14 of the English text, and is from the sentence of the Court. The paragraph begins "In the first place", and he refers here to the police officer charged with the crime:
"In the first place he has intentionally, without being authorized to do so, prolonged the duration of a deprivation of liberty by not bringing witness Bloedling before the judge without delay after his arrest. It was clearly an arrest subject to articles 127, 128 Code of Criminal Procedure, as is admitted by the defendant and which he carried out in his capacity as an official of the criminal prosecution office, because suspicion was against Bloedling in the first instance owing to the report of the Labor Office, and later on he was suspected of arson. It was his duty, therefore, pursuant to article 128 Code of Criminal Procedure, to bring the arrested person without delay before the Local Judge of Seehausen, that is, without unlawful defrement. This he did not do. He arrested Bloedling on 15 July 1940 and on 2 August 1940 only he brought him before the judge. He deferred this bringing before the judge unlawfully. The deferment cannot be justified by the fact that the Labor Office did not send the report which it had promised. Even if we grant that the defendant, for practical reasons, might have waited a day or two for the above-mentioned report to come in, any duration of time beyond this must in any case be considered as exceeding the conception 'without delay', especially since the missing report was no impediment of real importance.
The defendant could have compiled a report himself corresponding to the information which he received by telephone. In this case the District Judge would have been equally well informed on the subject as the defendant himself and could have made his decision for which he alone is competent according to article 128, section 2 of Criminal Procedure, whether he considers the arrest as justified or its causes not removed."
Continuing with excerpts from the judge's opinion, we turn to page 16 of the English text, beginning with the first full paragraph on that page, referring again to the accused police officer:
"He furthermore is found guilty in two separate instances of beating witness Bloedling on 16 and 23 July 1940. He did so whole performing his duties, since he acted in his capacity as police official when he examined Bloedling on 16 July 1940 and questioned him concerning his escaping prison on 23 July 1940. There are no reasons whatsoever which he could bring up to justify exemption from punishment. If he asserts that on 16 July 1940 he feared Bloedling might attack him, this cannot be accepted. Witness Bloedling is a feeble young man compared with the defendant, a fact of which the Court is aware from the aforementioned trial against him, and while he might be liable to be impudent in his speech, he certainly would never have the courage to attack a police official of such bodily superiority in the offices of the town hall. The impression is so obvious that even the defendant himself had it and could not seriously have feared an assault on the part of the witness Bloedling. Moreover, the similarity of the cases Brandt and Utesch bears witness to the fact that the defendant responded with boxing Bloedling's ears when he was giving impudent answers. Consequently, his action was neither prompted by self-defense nor supposed self-defense. Nor could he allege that the witness Wackenroder and Schadd prompted him to be very severe and if necessary not to hesitate to deal out a few boxes on the ear. Even accepting the advices of these two witnesses as official order of a superior to commit bodily injuries while in office, he was not justified to obey such an order pursuant to article 7 of the law for civil servants of the Reich, to which he is subject as indirect official of the Reich, and he should have drawn his superior's attention to the inadmissibility of the order.
Any possible error in regard to bodily injury not being punishable if sanctioned by a superior, would be a penal error of small importance. Besides there are no circumstances traceable on the strength of which punishment could not be meted out in case of bodily injury."
We now turn to page 19, the last principal paragraph on that page in the English text--continuing with the judge's opinion:
"Taking all these circumstances into consideration, a sentence of imprisonment of five months for deprivation of liberty in office, for bodily injury with a rubber cudgel in office inflicted on Bloedling three weeks imprisonment and one week's imprisonment each for the other three bodily injuries inflicted on Brandt and Utesch, are deemed necessary but at the same time sufficient. Pursuant to article 74 of the St GB, these individual sentences of imprisonments had to be merged in the adequate total sentence of six months' imprisonment."
We would next refer to the letter which begins on page 20. It is dated Berlin, 10 December 1941, and it is addressed to the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery. We would read only the last paragraph of that letter, which is to be found on page 22 of the English text:
"No sooner had the verdict passed on Klinzmann become known here, orders were, for this reason, given to the effect that the sentence, in case of its validation, should not be carried out for the time being. Instead, reports concerning the granting of a pardon should be made as soon as possible. In the meantime, however, the sentence passed on Klinzmann became valid by decision of the Reich Court of 24 November 1941, which abandoned the procedure of revision as apparently unfounded.
Taking into regard also the opinion you expressed on the sentence, Sir, I now ordered the remission of the sentence and of the costs of proceedings by way of pardon, as well as the stricking out of the penalty note in the criminal records."
Signed, "Dr. Schlegelberger."
The next letter is to be found on page 24 of the English text. It is dated Berlin, 16 December 1941. It is addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice. It begins:
"Dear Reich Minister:
"In pursuance to your letter of 4 December 1941 I have directed the Chief Reich Public Prosecutor to make an appeal against the sentence. It is my opinion too that the statement of a juvenile, with many prior convictions made against a police officer, is not a sufficient basis for such a sentence as was pronounced.
"Making an appeal has the legal effect that proceedings will be taken up again. This makes it possible for me to quash the proceedings, and that is what I intend to do.
"Heil Hitler. Your obedient servant, Dr. Schlegelberger."
THE PRESIDENT: I note this underscoring in the English text. Is that in the original document?
MR. KING: That is in the original document too, Your Honor.
The next letter is to be found on page 25 of the English text. It is dated 24 December 1941, and it is addressed to the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery, Dr. Lammers. It begins:
"Dear Reich Minister:
"With reference to my letter of 16 December 1941 I beg to inform you that I have made a special appeal with the Reich Supreme Court against the sentence of 8 August 1941 of the Penal Court at Stendal. By this, the condeming sentence on the Hauptwachtmeister of the Police, Wilhelm Klinzmann, for having inflicted injuries has been removed. So I have quashed the proceedings according to the authorization given to me by the Fuehrer on 3 September 1939.
"Your obedient Servant, Dr. Schlegelberger."
The last letter in this series, or in this document, is to be found on page 28. It is dated 11 February 1942. It is addressed to the Reich Minister:
"I thank you cordially for your efforts in quashing the proceedings against Klinzmann whom I have since promoted to Meister of the Municipal Police. Only by this solution could in my opinion the sound sentiment of the people be taken into accound and confidence in German justice be maintained.
"Heil Hitler. Your obedient servant, H. Himmler."
The prosecution now offers as Exhibit 107 the document NG-612.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: Your Honor, this would be a convenient breaking point for us, if the Court is disposed to rise at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess for 15 minutes at this time.
(A recess was taken).
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution may proceed.
MR. KING: I will ask the court, the interpreters and counsel to turn to Book 1. The Prosecution would like to introduce, at this time, the Document NG-346 which is to be found at Page 54 in English text and Page 51 in the German text. This will become, when offered in evidence, Exhibit 108.
This is a note dated the Fuehrers headquarters, 30 May 1944. Is is marked "Secret" and "Not for Publication." The document shows on its face that it was initialed by Thierack. It is we the People's Judgment of Anglo-American Murderers.
"During the past weeks English and North-American fliers have repeatedly shot at children playing on play-grounds, at women and children working in the fields, at ploughing peasants, at vehicles on the highway, at trains, etc., from a low height, thus murdering in the meanest manner defenseless civilians -- especially women and children.
"It has happened several times that members of the crew of such air craft who had jumped out or made a forced landing, were lynched on the spot by the highly indignation population immediately after their arrest.
"No police or criminal proceedings have been taken against citizens who have taken part herein."
This is signed by M. Bormann.
On the next page, also dated May 30, 1944, is a note to all Gauleiters and Kreisleiters. The document on its face, shows it was also initialed by Thierack. It states:
"The Chief of the Party Chancellery requests that the Kreisleiters inform the Ortsgruppenleiters only verbally of the contents of the circular.
"(signed) Friedrichs."
The Prosecution now offers in evidence, the document NG-354 as Exhibit 108.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Tribunal, we do not think that the document which has been presented to us originated from Thierack. According to our opinion, we are concerned with an order of the Party Chancellery which was sent to the Reichleiters, Gauleiters and liason leaders of the Reich.
The second letter of 30 May 1944, was sent to the Gauleiters and Kreisleiters It was sent from the Party Chancellery. In our document, there is no reference to this having originated from Thierack.
MR. KING: I think, Your Honors, the matter can be cleared up very quickly. Counsel for the defense has stated, as I get it, that the letter did not originate from Thierack, and that any statement to the effect that it did, would be mis-leading. I do not think the Prosecution has any quarrel with that statement. We merely wish to point out that the document in our possession is initialed by Thierack, which shows that it came to his attention. That is the only point we wish to make with reference to Thierack's initials, not necessarily that the document originated with him. We do not know about that. We only know that it came to his attention; that the document we have was initialed by him.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Counsel for Defendant Rothenberger, Mr. President, Dr. Grube has just stated that the Reich Ministry as regards Dr. Theirack has made some note on this document. There is no mention of this whatsoever. I therefore request that you do not receive this exhibit in evidence. The representative of the Prosecution regards this document as important because Dr. Thierack supposedly initialed this. In our document we are not informed at all about any such not. I therefore request that a photostatic copy be made of this letter and distributed to defense counsel.
MR. KING: Your Honors, the Prosecution asks you if there is any inclination on our part to deliberate on the receipt of this document in evidence? If you have, the Prosecution would ask you to withhold the final decision until the next two documents in the this series are presented. It becomes important to know, we think, that Thierack was aware of the contents of the document we have just introduced into evidence. We offer it merely to show that the Reich Minister of Justice knew of this document. In fact, his initials appear on it. 462
THE PRESIDENT: As I understand your request, you desire that we withhold ruling on this exhibit until the next two documents have been read?
MR. KING: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be done.
MR. SCHILF: Schilf for the defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg. I would like to state in connection with this the following: that just now the second letter which was read of the 20,5,1944 of Exhibit 108, there is a note that the document which is at hand for us has the name Friedrich. This name was Friedrichs, an "s" at the end of the name, and therefore I would like to clarify this matter, because there is also another high official whose name is Friedrich, and under such circumstances, one of these may be called as a witness for the defense. Perhaps I may request the prosecutor to clarify this matter. On the photo copy which I have just received, the signature is actually Friedrich, and maybe I may request you that a German interpreter at hand where the signature is Friedrich to change it.
MR. KING: The document indeed shows that it's Friedrichs rather than Friedrich, and the prosecution suggests that the document be amended by circulation another sheet which shows that the name is misspelled in the original. That must be an error in the original German. The original English is correct. May I see a copy of the German on that, please? (Mr. King is offered a copy). Yes, that is correct. The mistake is only in the German. The English is correct. The English corresponds with the photostatic copy, so the prosecution will, assuming this exhibit is accepted in evidence, at a later time circulate a correction to that in the German.
THE PRESIDENT: I take it there are two officials whose names are very nearly alike; the only difference being the final "s".
MR. KING: I gather that is the situation, Your Honor. I am not aware of the other Friedrich at this moment.
THE PRESIDENT: The English translation has it with the final "s" and that is correct?
MR. KING: Yes, the English translation is correct. It corresponds with the photostatic copy, Your Honor.
I shall proceed on the assumption that in introducing the next two documents, that they will eventually be admitted into evidence, and for purposes of our bookkeeping, we will give them tentative exhibit numbers which are seriatim with those already introduced.
The next exhibit which we would like to introduce is the document 635-PS, which is to be found on Page 56 of the English and Page 52 of the German. It will became, when offered and accepted in evidence, Exhibit 109. In connection with this, the prosecution points out at this time an omission which occurred in the translation. The omission consists of handwritten notes on the document which the translators ignored in the original translation of the document. The notes consists of several lines, as can be seen from the photostatic copy. I think perhaps, in strict accordance with the rules, these additional lines come under the 24-hour rule and should have been circulated to counsel in advance. However, they only became available to us this morning and they have not been circulated in advance. I do have the copies here in English and German, and if defense counsel has no objection, we would like to distribute the additional material at this time. Perhaps we should distribute it first and then ask them if they have objections.
MR. SCHILF: Mr. President, I would request you to allow me that I see the photo copy, the Exhibit, that I might submit it to the defendant Klemm, if I may do so, in order to establish whether his initials are actually those shown on the original. The copy which we have just received states that those are the initials of Klemm. I may request that the prosecutor will permit me to show these to the defendant Klemm during this sitting.
THE PRESIDENT: You may have a moment to do so.
(Defense Counsel Schilf offers document to defendant Klemm.)
THE PRESIDENT: Will Dr. Schilf insist on the 24-hour rule?
MR. SCHILF: No.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that you waive the 24-hour rule for the moment, is that right?
MR. SCHILF: Yes.
MR. KING: The document 635-PS which appears at Page 56 in Document Book 1-E together with the additional sheet which has just been circulated, together constitute this document, which when offered will become Exhibit 109.
It's to be found on Page 52 of the German. This is addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Thierack, and it comes from the Reich Minister and Chief of the Reich Chancellery. It is dated: Berlin, 4 June 1944, regarding: "People's justice against Anglo-American murderers."
Most revered Dr. Thierack, The chief of the Party Chancellery informed me about the enclosed transcript of a secret circular letter and requested me likewise to inform you.
I herewith comply with this and beg you to consider how far you **at to instruct the Courts and district attorneys with it.
The Reichs Leader and chief of the German Police has, as I was further told by executive leader Borman, so instructed his police-leaders.
Heil Hitler Your very devoted Dr. Lammers" Now the handwriting which appears on the document and which subject is on the additional sheet which we have distributed this morning, reads as follows.
It is first initialed by the defendant Klemm. It contains the Roman numeral IV, followed by these words:
"Return note with the addition that such cases are to be submitted to me for the purpose of their examination for quashing in case proceedings are pending."
Then the initialed signature: Thierack.
DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for Defendant Klemm and Mettgenberg) Mr. President, I am sorry if I return now to this document.
I want, however, to clarify the twenty-four hour notice business, and, to talk about the German interpretation of that which the prosecutor has just now read, was signed by Klemm or supposed to have been signed by Klemm. According to the copy, which I have at hand, various notes are made which at the upper-most corner the so-called stamp of the Reich Justice Ministry were dated the 7th of June, 1944, and that is to say, it is stamped with the Department which has registered this letter, that is to say, the Department of the Reich Ministry No. 4. According to this stamp, then after this stamp we have a signature which I can't at the moment read; it is a copy; one of the gentlemen has seen this document. According to this I cannot actually read it; it seems to me that underneath it there is a signature of K.L., that is to say that nothing else than the signature of the defendant Klemm has been submitted; the letter was submitted to Klemm and he actually saw it; there is no order of Klemm, but I have seen it. And now underneath that the is an order and that contains what the prosecutor has read, with the request that such cases be submitted to me for the purpose of their examination for quashing because these proceedings are pending; and under this order there is then the name, actually abbreviations of the name Therack, his signature T.H., that is to say the signature of the Minister Therack, and from this local arrangement, we get the fact t0hat Therack, as Minister, has requested an order, according to which in his capacity as Minister, he wants to have all such cases submitted to him. The signature of Klemm only appears because he has seen the document, but he has had no order; the order was only given the Ministry about that, and all cases were to be submitted to him as Ministry I consider it necessary to clarify this and to clarify the initials from the third copy.
MR. KING: We take the position, concerning what has just been said, too much of it is argument, arguing as to what part Klemm played in this program The Prosecution at this time does not seek to show anything but the fact that Klemm's initials appear on this document, and, therefore, the document must have been seen by him.
We do not at this time wish to draw any conclusions from that fact, and I think as to that fact defense counsel is in agreement with us. I infer that they do not question the fact that Klemm's initials are on this document. We, therefore, offer on the same basis as Exhibit No. 108 this Exhibit, which is Document 635-PS, as Exhibit No. 109, to be received in evidence by the Court after we have presented the next document which is NG-149; that appears in Document Book I-E, at page 57. However, I would like to point out that in assembling this document, a number of pages were reversed to such an extent we felt it was simpler if we got out another document assembled in the proper order; and we have done that. Copies were distributed to the German Information Center and we have additional copies here this morning for those who did not receive them. It will make it much easier to follow the presentation if we have copies before us in the order that they appear in the original. The Prosecution asks the Court and defense counsel, translators and transcribers to disregard the copy in the book, and be concerned only with the copy which has been distributed. We would first like to read the letter which appears on page 5 of the document we have just circulated. It is dated June 14, 1944; it is from the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces; and it is to the Foreign Office, Ambassador Ritter, then located in Salzburg:
"In connection with home and foreign press reports concerning the treatment of terrorist airmen," -- I neglected to call the attention of the Court to the fact that this is also labeled "draft".
"In connection with home and foreign press reports concerning the treat ment of terrorist airmen who are falling into the hands of the population, an unambigious fixation is needed of the concept of what facts constitute a criminal act in this sense. At the same time the procedure should be established as to the publication of such cases which have led either to a lynching by the population or - in case of apprehension of terrorist airmen armed forces or police - to a special treatment by the SD.
In agreement with the Commander-in-chief of the Air Force, I intend to write the communication, a draft of which is attached, which should be an instruction to the commander of the Airmen Reception Camp at Overursel.