THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q Dr. Gerstacker, when you had your conversation with Dr. Marx, did you hold him responsible for the fact that the time given to you to express an opinion was too short?
A First I was of the opinion that that short time limit had been fixed by Dr. Marx.
Q And was that the reason why your conversation was very excited?
A The reason for that was primarily due to the fact that Dr. Marx had not asked me previously. I was not considerably excited, I only spoke in a very strong way, saying that I had expected of a man versed in the routine of court to ask me first.
Q Where did that conversation take place?
A On the second floor of our clinic in the female patient's ward.
Q Didn't Dr. Marx make it clear that you could refuse to give an expert opinion if you did not have enough time to prepare it?
THE PRESIDENT: We are not concerned with the discussion between the parties concerned and the shortness of the time. The question only relates to the charges of alleged improper conduct in attempting to influence the decision of this witness.
Ask your next question.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q Dr. Marx explained to you, according to your statement today, that the Americans desired to get Engert out of this trial. In your former affidavit you said that Dr. Marx had informed you that he had gained the impression that the Americans, with the aid of medical experts, wanted to drop the case; how do you explain the difference in your statements one of which apparently is not in accordance with facts?
A Maybe I did not express myself precisely enough this morning, but I stand for what I said in my affidavit, that Dr. Marx said he had gained the impression.
Q The remarks made by an individual that he, as an individual, believed somebody else has a certain attitude; could that in any way be designed to influence your answer in any way?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained, that is a question for the Tribunal to decide.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q Did you gain the impression at that time that Dr. Marx decided to influence you?
A Yes, I definitely gained that impression.
Q Why did you not immediately reject that attempt at influencing you and discontinue your conversation with him?
A I could give the expert opinion to the effect as I considered it to be right.
Q Did you make any remarks to Dr. Marx that you would not permit yourself to be influenced during that conversation?
A Indirectly I did say that. I told him I did not believe that the court would need medical experts in order to conduct the trial in the manner that was deemed necessary.
Q Didn't you deduce from the fact that the court asked for a medical opinion that the court had not yet made its decision?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object.
THE PRESIDENT: Obviously the answer is that the witness must have known that the court was waiting for the decision of the experts before deciding the question concerning Engert. It is so obvious, it is unnecessary to go into it. You understood that Doctor?
DR. ORTH: Yes, I do.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q Did you speak to Dr. Stern later about the conversation you had with Dr. Marx?
AAs far as I can remember yes, I think I spoke to him about it briefly.
Q And what did you tell Dr. Stern?
A That I believed Dr. Marx knew precisely what was at stake, but that he attempted to submit to me a somewhat changed picture and that above all I did not believe that Dr. Marx did not know of the decision made by the court, which assigned me to give an expert opinion, for it because he did not know what was contained therein.
Q Did you speak of that to Dr. Marx too?
A I believe so.
Q What did you think when Dr. Marx, according to your statements, said that the Americans wanted to drop the case Engert?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object, your Honor, for the reason it calls for the subjective opinion of the witness and has nothing to do with the direct examination before it.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q You have stated during your testimony that Dr. Marx stated that the case Engert was of no great importance to the Tribunal and that the Americans with the aid of expert medical opinions wanted to sever the case Engert from the entire trial?
A Yes.
Q Could you or did you gain an impression of the organization or structure of this Court?
A Not in detail, but on the whole I want to say that from the outset I did not quite believe Dr. Marx's statements, but generally did gain the impression that he wanted to present the case and my particular task in as harmless as possible a manner and I had that impression in fact before I talked to Dr. Marx because through Dr. Stem and Dr. Kraeteer he informed me, and I had assumed it only came from Dr. Marx, that the Court did not place any particular emphasis on this case and only looked for some means in the form of a medical opinion. From the outset I assumed this was just a ruse on the part of the defense, and, therefore, I was opposed to the attitude of the defense. I had become cautious. Consequently when Dr. Marx made this statement in the course of the conversation on Saturday I accepted these statements with great caution.
Q When was it that Dr. Stern and Dr. Kraetzer talked to you before about that matter?
A On the 27th late in the afternoon about 1700, Dr. Kraeteer talked to me and Dr. Stern called me on the same evening over the telephone.
Q In your affidavit you stated that the conference with Dr. Marx took place in your office and today you say that it took place in the clinic, in the hall of the clinic, the corridor.
A The expression "office" as far as that is concerned, the office of a doctor is a clinic. I work throughout the clinic and in our particular profession I have to be where I work and where I do not work I am pulled by my coat practically everywhere.
DR. ORTH: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Your name please and your profession?
DR. NATH SCHREIBER: My name is Dr. Nath Schreiber. I am in charge of the defense of the respondent Huppertz.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed to cross-examine.
BY DR. NATH SCHREIBER:
Q Dr. Gerstacker. May I put a few questions to you. On the morning of the 10th of July, together with the chief nurse, the respondent Huppertz came to you. In your affidavit you begin to deal with that part covering the conversation with the words: "Several days later a secretary of Dr. Marx came to me." Today you said that upon your specific questions Mrs. Huppertz had said that she was not an employee of Dr. Marx. You stated this morning literally that Mrs. Huppertz had said that for personal reasons she worked together with Dr. Marx and you had assumed that she was just working with Dr. Marx. You have admitted, therefore, that you drew a conclusion while in the affidavit you stated the same thing as an absolutely clear fact, that is to say, that she actually was a secretary for Dr. Marx, and I see a contradiction in that.
A I stand by my statement which I have made today; at the time when I drew up that affidavit I did not know how I should express myself to characterize the unclear position of Mrs. Huppertz, the right designation for it. At that time I did know any name, I didn't know just how I should designate it. As far as I know she came from the office of Dr. Marx, the counsel for Engert.
Q We agree that is a clear formula in your affidavit, that is clear, isn't it?
A The formula is clear but it is really Mrs. Huppertz' fault that there is something in it which is not clear because she did not state her position clearly.
THE PRESIDENT: You have gone far enough in calling to the attention of the Tribunal the difference between an assistant and a Secretary. Pass on to something else.
DR. SCHREIBER: Now, Dr. Gerstacker, I should like to put a question to you which is, I believe, somewhat in your field, namely, if a person is very excited, would your experience say that he is in a position to pay very careful attention to what he says himself or what another person tells him in the conversation to the same extent as a person who is absolutely calm?
THE PRESIDENT: We require no psychiatric testimony on the question of the effect of a person being somewhat excited.
MR. LA. FOLLETTE: There was no evidence of excitement in the direct examination.
BY DR. SCHREIBER:
Q Witness, in your affidavit you say literally the following:
"Several days later a Secretary of Dr. Marx came to me and brought the second page of my questionnaire with the signature, as well as an additional blank first page. She told me that she was sent by Dr. Marx so that I would be afforded an opportunity to fill out that questionnaire once more." An unbiased listener or reader must gain the impression therefrom that Frau Huppertz at the beginning of the conversation had submitted to you the questionaire and asked you to fill it out. I want to ask, you did Frau Huppertz give you at the beginning of your conversation or show you at the beginning of your conversation that questionaire or did it occur later in the course of the conversation?
Court No. III Case No. 3.
A That I can no longer say today. At any rate, it was not a long conversation, because I immediately stated my objections.
Q Yes, I see. May I ask you something else? Right at the beginning, during the first sentences, you heard the names of Engert and of Dr. Marx, did you not? That is quite natural. Now, on the 28th of June, you had a talk with Dr. Marx, which you personally did not exactly like very much. When you heard the names of Dr. Marx and Engert on that occasion, did you get excited?
AAs far as I can recall the situation, I do not believe so. Anyhow, I am an individual who does not lose his senses when he is dealing with a matter even if it concerns himself. Particularly, due to these methods used by the defense, I would not but let myself be carried away to a point where I would lose my senses.
Q I ask you if you became excited in the course of the conversation and whether you showed that.
A Yes, I showed that very clearly by raising my voice when I complained that such a thing was asked of me, and that the document which I signed had been taken apart.
Q Yes, we shall deal with that soon.
Now, you say in your affidavit, literally--and I quote: "She mentioned that Dr. Marx had been called before the Court." Today you said that Mrs. Huppertz had told you that Dr. Marx had been called to see some important person at the Court. Would you please explain that to me?
A I do not see any difference in that. At any rate, the account that was given to me was that it was an important official of the Court. I did not know whether that official was appointed by the Tribunal or the Prosecution.
Q Was this Tribunal included in the scope of your imagination when you heard that remark?
A Yes.
Q This Court before which we are now?
A No, not this one, but that of the Justice trial. I don't know Court No. III, Case No. 3.whether this is the same court.
Q In your affidavit you also say: she mentioned that Dr. Marx had been called to the Court and that he was addressed in very severe tones, and you said that today too. I am very much concerned with the actual wording. Can you recall with absolute precision whether Frau Huppertz used the words in that conversation that Dr. Marx had been reproached--that is to say, by the Court--in a severe tone?
A I don't recall the expression "severe tone", but I do recall, as far as my memory goes, that that person was even more excited, as if that court official had talked to Dr. Marx in great excitement. I had gained the impression of a person who sits at a desk, and there is some great power behind him, and poor Dr. Marx is standing in front of him and is getting a callingdown. That was the impression that I gained from the description given to me by Frau Huppertz.
Q You told us before that in the course of that conversation you became very excited and expressed that excitement. Do you believe it to be possible that, because of that excitement, you are no longer in a position today to give us the precise words of that conversation on both sides? I am concerned with the precise words.
A Well, that I cannot give the precise words is not based on the excitement of that conversation but it is because I could not assume at the time that it would lead to a trial where I would be asked to give testimony as a witness.
Q The respondent Frau Huppettz, as is quite natural, on the basis of your accusation, also became very excited on her part. Do you consider it possible that Frau Huppertz, in what she wanted to tell you, did not formulate it very happily in her excitement and therefore you had to get the wrong impression of some of the things she said?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: To which I object, Your Honor, for the reason that the question calls for the state of Frau Huppertz' mind, which is pretty incompetent for the witness to testify to.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection sustained; it is purely speculative.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
BY DR. NATH-SCHREIBER:
Q Now, Frau Huppertz submitted that questionnaire to you-that most unfortunate document. First, you got justly excited because the questionnaire was no longer in its original form.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you may omit any further discussion about excitement. We have your point; just ask him the question.
DR. NATH-SCHREIBER: Good.
BY DR. NATH-SCHREIBER:
Q After Frau Huppertz had explained to you why that questionnaire was in that condition, did she tell you that she herself did not like it at all, and that it would be explained later. Didn't she say, "Well, after all, nothing has happened; here is your signature on the second page, and here is the copy which is not filled in, all you have to do is just put the "yes's" on it again, so that the document is again in good shape."? Thereupon you put your "yes" down three times, in the appropriate spaces. Is that correct?
A Mrs. Huppertz did not ask me from the outset to put the "yes's" in, but she first wanted me to think it over again and formulate it anew. Only after she could see from my attitude that I would not change my mind, she said: "Well, then, just complete the document by putting the same things in that you put in there the first time." However, before that, a remark was made by our chief nurse, who was present, as I explained before.
Q Is it true that Frau Huppertz said then, "Well, originally I intended to go to Dr. Kraetzer as well as to have the questionnaire filled out by her, but now I don't care to do that any more."? Isn't it also true that you said to Frau Huppertz, "You might as well go to Dr. Kraetzer, she is not as unfriendly as I am."?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor, I object for the reason that there is no part of it in the direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: He may answer that question.
You may answer if you recollect, Doctor.
THE WITNESS: I told Frau Huppertz, "You might as well go to Dr. Court No. III Case No. 3.Kraetzer, she will not be unfriendly as I am."
That was to mean that as from one woman to another, it would be easier to talk to her.
BY DR. NATH-SCHREIBER:
Q And then did you say goodbye to Mrs. Huppertz and did you shake her hand?
A I believe so.
Q Now you said today, literally, "I gained the impression from the request made by Frau Huppertz that in the interest of greater similarity of the expert opinions of the German and American doctors, she wanted to negotiate with me." And you also said: "I cannot remember that Frau Huppertz made a definite demand."
Were you of the opinion that Frau Huppertz intended to cause you, contrary to your own opinion, to give a wrong expert opinion?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: To which I object, Your Honor. It calls for the very issue which is before the Tribunal, and it is objected to.
THE PRESIDENT: I think the witness has already answered the question.
THE WITNESS: I answered that question with "yes".
BY DR. NATH-SCHREIBER:
Q If you were convinced of that, witness, then I would like to put the following to you:
You are a man, after all; why didn't you throw Frau Huppertz out of your office? Why....
MR. LA FOLLETTE: To which I object.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained.
THE PRESIDENT: Confine your questions to the relevant issues in the case.
BY DR. NATH-SCHREIBER:
Q I have one more question. Why did you hesitate so long before you made your report? Why didn't you make it immediately?
A I want to state clearly here that I have not denounced anybody; I have not made a report.
DR. NATH-SCHREIBER: I have no further questions to the witness.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any redirect examination
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No redirect.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(Witness excused)
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Please call Dr. Stern.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. PETER STERN; a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Doctor, do you care to testify in German or in English?
THE WITNESS: In German.
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
JUDGE BLAIR: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q You will state your name please and your profession and where you are presently employed.
A I am Dr. of Medicine Peter Stern, at present at the City Hospital where I am working as assistant physician, and at the same time I am medical consultant in the language division in the Palace of Justice here.
Q Do you know Dr. Gerstacker and Dr. Marx?
A Yes, I do.
Q Were you present at a conversation in the Nuremberg City Hospital on the 28th of June 1947 between Dr. Gerstacker and Dr. Marx?
A Yes.
Q I ask you whether or not you heard anything in that conversation with reference to the position of the defendant Karl Engert in this Tribunal, whether or not any one wished to have the case dropped or anything upon that subject in that conversation, and if so by whom it was said.
A I can recall that Dr. Marx not only during that particular conversation but also before expressed to me the opinion that the Engert case was a comparatively unimportant one and that he had gained the impression that the Tribunal was looking for a reason which would enable it Court No. III, Case No. 3.to sever it from the trial.
Q Was that statement made to Dr. Gerstacker in this conversation that you were at?
A Yes.
Q Do you have any reason why you can particularly remember that statement by Dr. Marx? Is there anything that aids your memory?
A The problem was that the expert opinion had to be given very quickly and that Dr. Gerstacker, the chief physician, stated that according to German law he would have six weeks in order to give a psychiatric expert opinion. Thereupon Dr. Marx stated that in this case we were not concerned with an expert opinion of the nature that was necessary formerly under German law, but that this was merely a matter of form, so to speak, and that this had to be expedited.
Q Had Dr. Marx prior to the 28th of June ever made any statement similar to that to you?
A From several conversations I had gained the impression that this was the case.
Q Conversations with Dr. Marx?
A Yes.
Q Now then I ask you whether or not on July 17, 1947, in the evening you received a call from Dr. Marx and where you received it.
A Yes, I did. On the 17th of June.
Q 17th of June. Excuse me. I beg your pardon.
A This telephone call I received from Dr. Marx at my home.
Q What was the substance of that conversation, or what did Dr. Marx say, as well as you can remember.
A Yes, I remember. Dr. Marx said approximately the following, that his assistant, Dr. Link had informed him that the state of health of the defendant Engert who is a patient in my ward, had worsened considerably, and that for that reason he considered it necessary to inform the court about the changed state of health. Thereupon I told him that an intermediate expert opinion by a physician could be given for that purpose, however only upon written request by the Military Tribunal.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Do you know Dr. of Medicine Otto Duerbeck?
A Yes, he is working in my ward at the hospital.
Q I will ask you just the fact, not the subject of the conversation, but ask you, do you know whether Dr. Otto Duerbeck on the 18th of July 1947 received a telephone call from Dr. Marx.
A Yes, he informed me about the fact.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: You may cross-examine.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. ORTH:
Q Dr. Stern, did Dr. Marx ask you about the appointment of an expert?
A Yes.
Q What suggestion did you make to him?
A I suggested to him to appoint my immediate superior, Frau Dr. Kraetzer, as clinical expert, medical expert, and the consulting physician of the psychiatric clinic for internal diseases, chief physician Dr. Gerstacker, for the psychiatric part of the expert opinion.
Q In so doing did you declare yourself to be ready to Dr. Marx to undertake informing Dr. Gerstacker about it?
A Yes.
Q Did you inform him?
A I informed Frau Dr. Kraetzer about this affair and she in turn informed her colleague.
Q Do you know whether and when Dr. Kraetzer informed Dr. Gerstacker?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, none of this was touched on direct examination. If we can save time and fix these dates and the witness is the defense witness, I shall not object, but this is supposed to be cross-examination. I suggest this is clearly outside the sphere of the direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Doctor, do you know when Dr. Kraetzer notified Dr. Gerstacker of the appointment? Do you know what date it was?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: What was it?
THE WITNESS: It was on Friday, the day when the expert opinion was made about five o'clock, seventeen o'clock.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q On that Friday evening you repeatedly called Dr. Marx in his apartment by telephone. For what reason did you do that?
AAt fourteen o'clock the American physicians, Brody and Carpenter, appeared and brought along the ruling of the Court concerning the expert opinion and stated that the Secretary General, Col. Millard, had given them the commission to give an expert opinion by twelve o'clock the following day, that was Saturday. Since I knew that the time limit was too short, I called up Col. Millard and asked him to extend the time limit.
Q That, however, is no reason to call up Dr. Marx. I am interested in knowing why you called Dr. Marx.
A On the 17th?
Q On the evening in his partment, repeatedly.
A Oh, yes, I beg your pardon. I just confused it at the moment. Dr. Gerstacker called me up in order to tell me that he intended not to give an expert opinion because he had not been informed about the nature of things in an orderly way. I thereupon called Dr. Marx in his apartment in order to inform him about this, so that on the next day on Saturday in the morning he should personally go to Chief Physician Gerstacker in order to out things straight.
Q You just said that Dr. Gerstacker received the request to give an expert opinion from an American office.
A Yes.
Q How could Dr. Marx then be in a position to influence Dr. Gerstacker if the order by the American office was there?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor. That doesn't touch any part of the direct examination. The question in its form constitutes an argument with the witness.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. ORTH: Your Honor, we also asked to have the witness appear as our witness, as defense witness. If I could not during cross-examination -
THE PRESIDENT: You may combine cross-examination and direct examination. In fact, you will be required to do so.
DR. ORTH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you restate your question please? Restate your question.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q You knew that the Tribunal had ordered Dr. Gerstacker to give an expert opinion and you also knew, in view of your connection with the Tribunal, that this order had to be carried out. Why did you then turn to Dr. Marx when Dr. Gerstacker wanted to refuse to give an expert opinion?
A Because Dr. Gerstacker was of the opinion that the defense counsel could inform him about the entire state of affairs and because Dr. Gerstacker was of the opinion that the expert opinion had to be carried out at the instigation of the defense counsel.
Q Did Dr. Gerstacker also make Dr. Marx responsible for the short time limit given for the making of the expert opinion?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Then on the 28 of June Dr. Marx came to the hospital to you?
A Yes.
Q Will you please briefly describe the contact of the conversation which you had with Dr. Marx and Dr. Gerstacker?
A I accompanied Dr. Marx to Dro. Gerstacker and introduced the two gentleman to each other. I excused myself for Dr. Kraetzer, that he had not been informed quickly enough, and Dr. Gerstacker thereupon said that was unimportant because he considered it a duty of decency that in such an important matter Dr. Marx would come to him.
During the entire conversation Dr. Marx tried to make the whole affair seem trifling. Dr. Gerstacker, therefore, became somewhat excited since he was used always to give an objective and extensive expert opinion, whereas Dr. Marx stated again and again that under American law matters were different, that Americans anyhow had very little interest in the whole affair and that, therefore, such an extensive expert opinion was not necessary.
Q Did Dr. Marx, during that discussion, not point out that he was mainly interested in the physical expert opinion and that the psychiatric expert opinion was, in his opinion, of lesser importance?
A It is correct that he attached more importance to the expert opinion on the physical state of health. Nevertheless, he stated repeatedly that for him, as a lawyer, it was very difficult to negotiate with a person whose memory was bad and whose mind worked very slowly.
Q Did Dr. Marx state that the Americans would like to exclude Dr. Engert from the trial and what was his exact remark?
A I can no longer recall the exact wording of his remark but the meaning of it was that the Americans, as I have already stated, were little interested in the presence of Engert in the trial and would like to find a reason in order to sever him from the trial.
Q You stated that Dr. Marx had already, before that, made similar statements to you?
A Yes.
Q Did you have the impression that these statements were made in order to influence you and your medical opinion about the condition of Engert?
A This question is peculiar because I was not being considered as an expert and I had nothing to do with that at all. My attitude toward Engert is merely based on the relationship of physician and patient and has nothing to do with this affair before the Tribunal.
Q Did Dr. Marx, in the discussion with Dr. Gerstacker, not tell Dr. Gerstacker expressly that it was up to him to refuse the giving of an expert opinion if the time limit was too short to give such an expert opinion?
A I can remember that but I believe that he added that that would be connected with unpleasantness for him.
THE PRESIDENT: I think this may be an appropriate time to call attention to the parties on both sides to the fact that the order appointing the American and German physicians is in writing; that is is based on a stipulation of both parties; and that the order contains absolutely no provision whatsoever, as to the time within which the medical report was to be made. The transcript will bear out the statement which I have just made. Go ahead.
BY DR,. ORTH:
Q Who had set the time limit for this expert opinion?
A I can remember that on the document the fourth of June was mentioned. I mean July, excuse me.
Q Where did the document originated?
A The document was made out as an order of the court by the Court, as far as I remember.
THE PRESIDENT: The stipulation which is before me, provides that the parties agreed that a report should be made on or about the third July 1947. The order of the Court is separate from the stipulation and makes no mention whatever of the date on which the report was to be made.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q Did Dr. Marx, when he spoke about the fact that the defendant Engert was to be taken out of the trial, express, in so saying, that the case against him should be severed from the rest of the trial or that the whole case against Engert would be dropped?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor, I can't see that that has anything to do with either direct or cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: He may answer. Did he use the word "severe" or "dismissed?"
THE WITNESS: The expression was "sever", but I personally am not informed about legal questions and I believe that to sever it means the same as to drop it.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is correct. Ask your next question.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q Between the giving of the expert opinion and the filling in of the questionnaires was Dr. Engert again examined by a physician.
A I personally examined Engert every morning and every evening.
Q Did Dr. Gerstacker again examine Engert?
A No. There was no reason to do so.
Q What is the present condition of the defendant Engert?
THE PRESIDENT: We will not go into the present condition of the defendant Engert. This Tribunal is not now determining whether Engert may be tried or not. We are determining only the question as to whether improper influence was used, as I have before stated. The Tribunal will consider the condition of Engert at the proper time.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q In your affidavit you said that the behavior of Dr. Marx and his telephone call in July made you angry. When did you become angry at him?
AAfter the incident between Dr. Gestacker and Dr. Marx after I had listened to it - I saw Dr. Marx' behavior in a different light, and accordingly I was very angry about his behavior, especially because in the telephone conversation he mentioned that his assistant, Dr. link, had told him that the patient's condition was continually getting worse and, therefore, something had to be done. Since, as ward physician, I am very well informed about the sphere of my activity, I considered it rather like assuming that non-physician made such statements.
DR. ORTH: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: There appears to be no further cross examination or direct examination of this witness.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I would like to ask one question of the witness now, your Honor.