THE PRESIDENT: We have already been advised that the Respondent Marx has no further witnesses to call. The case of the Respondents is closed. Is there any rebuttal testimony?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor, I would like to have, if she is available now for one question, this secretary Wieber recalled.
THE PRESIDENT: Is she here?
(The witness is recalled)
She has been sworn?
WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q Frau Wieber just one question. After you finished copying the questionaires that Dr. Marx put on your desk on the evening of the 9th of July, did you then take them and put them on Dr. Marx's deask?
A No, I put the copies together with the original to the left of me on the filing table and I said:
"These are the copies".
Q To whom did you say that? Do you remember?
A I think that Dr. Marx must have been standing by that table.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is all.
BY DR. NATH SCHREIBER:
Q Frau Wieber, please explain as to how you put the copies and the original down?
A The original pages, that is to say, the first sheet I bent over and I pushed the copy and the pages inside, then I put everything down on the left side of me.
Q Did you notice that Frau Karin Huppertz took the originals from the table?
A Np, I did not notice that.
Q Do you remember that Frau Karin Huppertz left the room very quickly and rather annoyed?
A No.
Q Were you very busy that evening?
A Yes, I was.
DR. NATH SCHREIBER: Thank you.
BY DR. ORTH:
Q When you had finished these copies and put them down, was Dr. Marx still busy dictating his brief?
A No. He was not.
Q Did he take the copies?
A I didn't notice that. I didn't see that.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q There is one thing more. Did you take the copies of the second sheet as well as the first sheet of those questionaires?
A No, I only copied the first sheet.
THE PRESIDENT: You are excused.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The petitioners rest.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel for the respondent Marx desire to argue the case?
DR. ORTH: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And counsel for the defendant Huppertz?
DR. NATH SCHREIBER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Commencing at one-thirty the Tribunal will allow thirty minutes in which to argue the case in behalf of the defendant Marx and thirty minutes in which to argue the case of the defendant Huppertz. Do you also want to argue?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I would like to if there are arguments, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We will give you 45 minutes to argue both cases.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I assume I shall open or shall I close?
THE PRESIDENT: You will open, and close.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: In other words, I may divide my 45 minutes between opening and closing as I see fit.
THE PRESIDENT: Fifteen minutes to close.
We will recess until one thirty this afternoon.
(The Tribunal adjourned for the noon recess .)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 30 July 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors. In presenting the prosecution's view of this evidence, I shall spend relatively little time on the matter of the respondent Huppertz, but in reviewing the evidence against both of these respondents, it is very proper, I think, to consider certain physical facts which we now know about this case, and, to begin at the beginning, apparently, of the matter of Frau Huppertz visit to Dr. Gerstacker and Dr. Kraetzer.
Dr. Marx came back in to his secretary, to his office, and bore with him in his hands the answers to the three questions, which the Court had submitted, of Dr. Kraetzer and of Dr. Gerstacker. We know that at that time they were stapled together and we know that Dr. Marx directed the witness Wiebner, his secretary, to make copies.
And now we come to the first conflict between the facts and the statement of Dr. Marx. He explained that he wanted copies for his files, but we learn that he only directed his secretary to make a copy of the first sheet of each of these questionnaires. It is indeed odd that when an attorney wishes to have a copy for his files, he is not interested in having a true copy, including everything which is written on it and a typewritten form of signature, as well as a copy on the typewriter of the written answers which were on page one, if these are for the files.
This secretary copied the first sheet only of each of these questionnaires and laid them on the table where Dr. Marx was standing, beside which he was standing, or near which he was standing. And we know that it is true that Dr. Marx was there because he tells us that he did not go to his room and therefore he could not have gotten these copies from his desk in his room because he was busy and continued to dictate in the room with his secretary. Frua Huppertz was there, and we are given a conversation in which Dr. Marx expresses his disapproval of the capacity of the German doctors to give expert opinions, and in which Frau Huppertz says she volunteered and voiced a disapproval of what the respondent Marx said because of her interest in German doctors and his position as represented.
Now we are told that Dr. Marx paid little attention to that except to tell her that he would do what he wished on that matter, and we are told then that voluntarily, that evening, Frau Huppertz, without saying anything to Dr. Marx, picked up all of these papers from the desk and went to the hospital with them. But Exhibits 3 and 4--which the respondent Huppertz testified this morning are in the condition in which she took them to the hospital--were stapled together, and the last person who handled them according to this evidence, was this secretary, at which time the two originals were stapled together and the blank sheet was put in between them. But Frau Huppertz tells us that she never looked at these things until she got them out of the hospital. Yet mysteriously, from this evidence, we find that the original two sheets were stapled together with a new first sheet when the secretary finished with them, and they appear at the hospital, in Frau Huppertz' ands, stapled together with the old second sheet with the signature, and a new first sheet which has not been filled out; and yet neither the respondent Marx nor the respondent Huppertz, who were in the room all of the time because they left practically at the same time, ever took the trouble to tell this Court how that was brought about.
And I say to you that it had to be brought about, from what this record shows, in the respondent Marx's office while he was there, by his own testimony, because Frau Huppertz tells us that she never looked at them until she got out to the hospital. And Frau Ernst tells us--that Frau Huppertz did not present these to her when she first came to the hospital.
In the face of these facts we are asked to believe that out of a swelling kindness of the heart, for a man of whom she had never heard before, by the name of Engert--who, incidentally, was a pretty large sized Nazi--Frau Huppertz goes to the hospital and appears there with an unfilled out first sheet of the questionnaires of each of the doctors and a signed second sheet; but mysteriously, the original first sheet has disappeared.
Now, we do know something about that one original because Dr. Marx says that at some time-which I am not clear about, and his counsel may give a more definite date--but after that evening, he found the first sheet of Gerstacker's, but I don't know how he knew it was the first sheet of Gerstacker's, unless he knew Gerstacker's handwriting, which he doesn't say. But let's assume that it was the first sheet of Gerstacker's, and that disturbed him so that he thought something was lost.
As far as I am concerned, I don't believe anything that Frau Huppertz says about her design to go to the hospital to make a call on Dr. Kraetzer or to see Sister Ernst, nor do I believe that it was necessary for her to pick up these papers in order to serve as an introduction to Frau Ernst, because Frau Ernst says that she knew of Frau Huppertz because her reputation was well known in medical circles, and she also said that she never pulled out the papers for her until she got into Dr. Gerstacker's office.
Now these papers were returned by this woman who knowingly asked a doctor, and in fact alter went to see a second doctor about which we know nothing, Kraetzer, except that the Kraetzer statement comes back answered the same as it was before, but it also was in blank, from this testimony. She went to see Gerstacker and said that she never know that he had given an expert opinion. Yet she was present when Dr. Max denounced the German doctors for their opinion, and on that occasion she took umbrage with it. Now it is incredible to me that Frau Huppertz did not disignedly and intentionally go to see Dr. Gerstacker for the purpose of getting him to alter an opinion which had been previously delivered to the Secretary General, an officer of this court, signed, in order that she could substitute a different answer to the questions entirely opposite to the original which she had seen. And she must have seen them because if she picked them up, they were there where this secretary had put them.
Now we next come to an interesting question with reference to the respondent Marx. As far as I know from this testimony these newly signed first sheets, with the second sheets newly attached, got back to DR. Marx' office. But no one ever tells us from this evidence how they got back into the Secretary General's office, and eventually into the office of the judges of this Tribunal for their consideration. And again, it seems to me, that I am asked to believe a great deal when Dr. Marx says that he found the signed first sheet of Gerstacker and was disturbed, and then never finds it necessary to explain why he was not disturbed, why he did not ask somebody something when he found a new first sheet of Gerstacker, even assuming that he never found the original first sheet of the Gerstacker statement. And yet we are asked to believe that Dy. Marx, who had borrowed from an officer of this Tribunal, a representative of the Secretary General, the original answers for the purpose of having copies for his files, and having found a signed copy lose, isn't disturbed when he finds a new signed copy attached to Gerstacker's signature, which he must have found sometime in his office, or he certainly would have explained to this Tribunal how it got back into the Secretary General's office.
And yet we are asked to believe that he didn't know that Frau Huppertz ever went out there. And again Frau Hupperts, on her own do and say, made her decision to to to the hospital, and just before she left she testifies that Dr. Marx insulted her so that neither she nor Dr. Marx -- they apparently insulted each other so--care to testify what was said. In that frame of mind, as a volunteer -- not as what she was from the facts of this case, as an agent of Dr. Marx, going there with his knowledge, but as a volunteer, having been insulted she still goes out to the hospital the next day, taking those two sheets of paper -- we don't know how they got stalled, you know -- as a method of introducing herself to the sister out there.
Now, it is from the little things that we must test the selfserving statements of respondents in any case, or defendants in any case. It is very human to want to attempt to give an explanation that will hold water. But Dr. Marx testified that he called Dr. Kraetzer and said, "Someone will be to see you in the morning." He then said that he went himself. And I ask this Tribunal to use its ordinary experience in dealing with men, which is a standard, for I am entitled to that --here was Dr. Marx, who knew Dr. Kraetzer, and if he intended to come, he asks this Tribunal to believe that he said to her, "Someone will be to see you tomorrow." And Frau Huppertz says that she went out really to see Dr. Kraetzer. And she went out, if you please, with Exh. 4 in her hadn -- or 3, I am not certain --3 in her hand, which was the Kraetzer statement with the first page in blank.
Now there is another little piece of evidence in this matter that, I think, this Court has a right to consider and put in its place in this picture. The Court will recall that Frau Huppertz says she was very much disturbed when Dr. Gerstacker didn't want to sign another new first sheet. Why was she so disturbed? Because she knew that the two originals first sheets either were destroyed or were back in the office, and if they were lost, as she says she was worried about, it would be very difficult to account for the separation of the first and the second sheet of each of these questionnaires.
If you had to return an unsigned first sheet by Dr. Gerstacker to the Secretary General's office from which Dr. Marx got it. There would have to be some explanation made as to why Mr. Wartena would receive back an unsigned first sheet when he had delivered to Dr. Marx, purely for him to copy, two completely filled out questionnaires by two doctors, each complete and stapled together.
Now Frau Huppertz comes and associates herself with Dr. Marx. She gives an affidavit for him on the 30th day of June in another case. She maintains her office and her desk and her working space in his office. She appears at the hospital and interviews Dr. Gerstacker and then Dr. Kraetzer by her own testimony. After Dr. Marx has said that someone will be to see you, Dr. Kraetzer, in the morning --"Someone" she appears out there with a new blank first sheet stapled together, unexplained completely by anything that they have sought to explain, and they were there. The Prosecution wasn't in that secretary's And we are asked to believe that this woman that Dr. Marx requested to returned from Berlin, could act for him in his office in all other matters, and on this occasion she completely served and acted, as a volunteer. We are asked to believe that in the face of the fact that they had full opportunity to explain who took these Fragebogens back to Mr. Wartena. Frau Huppertz might have taken them. That is one thing she forgot to protect Dr. Marx in. She didn't say she took them back herself. She got them back to his office.
Now I am asked also to witness the defense of Frau Huppertz in this case, and I ask the Tribunal to witness it. Admitting the conversation, admitting that she had heard Dr. Marx' statements the night before, admitting that she had asked. Dr. Gerstacker to change his testimony, she can't be heard to say that she didn't know she was attempting to produce before this court for it to make its decision a substituted decision from that which had been filed and deposited with the Secretary General, an officer of this court.
That she knew. Under those circumstances people acting normally in their own interest would say, Yes, I did that. Dr. Marx asked me to do it, and I am sorry. I throw myself on the mercy of the Tribunal. I was wrong. But the constant conduct of this defense of Frau Huppertz has been an accentuation on the fact, through the interrogation of her counsel, of all questions which led her to answer, or any other witness to answer, Dr. Marx didn't know anything about it. It is the oddest form of defense that I have ever seen voluntarily assumed. And in determining the good faith of that defense as bearing upon the question of whether or not she acted as Dr. Marx' agent, this Tribunal is entitled, and in my humble opinion required to give consideration and weight to the things which it observed in this court room and the record which it has before it and which has been made here for two days.
Of course, agency, like many other relationships of the law, is rarely admitted by words, or can rarely be proved by words. But in determining an ultimate fact a court is always entitled to determine what aspects of the facts in the case bear upon the ultimate question. And if the facts in the case and the inferences which are to be drawn from them lead unerringly to a, conclusion of the relationship of agency, then that relationship must be found to exist, notwithstanding the vact that the parties choose to deny it.
On the question of the first meeting we have only the statement of what Dr. Marx said he said and what Dr. Stern and Dr. Gerstacker said. I can see no reason why Dr. Stern should report a conversation which he did not hear, and the conversation was to the effect that the Americans are not impressed by the gravity of the Engert case, and with the help of physicians they would like to see it dropped. Dr. Stern says that he remembers well that it was stated in the presence of Dr. Gergtacker. Why? Because it had been said to him before. Now, there is nothing in this record to show that Dr. Gerstacker and Dr. Stem have entered into a plot to injure Dr. Marx.
But there is much in this record to show that as members of the medical profession of Germany they finally felt that they were obligated to report what to them was not only on one occasion but on two ocassions a deliberate influence the testimony which was to be given to this Court upon a material point, a material, issue, which this Court by approving a stipulation which I had entered into with Dr. Marx asked that the doctors should report impartially to this Tribuanal.
THE PRESIDENT: You have five minutes more of your first thirty minutes.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Thank you. I think in the statements which are set out in the petition and in the affidavit of Dr. Gerstacker, of the conversation of the 28 of June are sustained by the proof and I think they lead unerringly to the conclusion that it was the purpose of the defendant Marx, in making those statements, to influence the testimony which Gerstacker was to give in his report; and if that is found then there is a contempt of this court.
I also am convinced that this woman, Frau Huppertz, went for the deliberate purpose of altering a report which had previously been given to the Secretary-General of this court and despite the denial and words of Dr. Marx and Frau Huppertz, there is evidence in this case from which I say this Court can clearly find, whatever the standard may be, beyond a reasonable doubt or by a fair preponderance in a proceeding of this kind, that there was an agency relationship and that this respondent Huppertz went, at Marx' express request; and if that is true then they are, each of them, guilty of contempt and I shall ask in my closing, if the Court so finds, that it shall assess a power punishment against each of these respondents.
DR. ORTH: May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecutor first -and I also want to follow that order of discussion--first discussed the question whether Dr. Marx gave the order to Frau Ruppertz to go to see Dr. Gerstacker. I believe that with one single argument I can solve that question. If Dr. Marx would really have had the intention to have the document changed and on the first page, instead of the word "yes" to have three times the word "no" put in, then he would have had to take this changed questionnaire and would have had to return it to exactly the same office from which he received the questionnaire.
About the fact that in a German questionnaire the wrod "yes" was recorded, he discussed this fact extensively with Mr. Wartena, and there exists no doubt at all that if that questionnaire would have been returned with the changed, Mr. Wartena would have been surprised immediately and would have said, "What happened to this questionnaire?
All of a sudden it says 'no'."
Dr. Marx is not that stupid to expose himself to such an obvious danger that everybody would be able to predict it; but there are other reasons for which one can say that this was not the case and it is not so that when the questionnaires were returned Dr. Marx must have realized that they are new questionnaires, as the Prosecutor beliefs, for the questionnaires which Frau Huppertz returned had only three handwritten entries on the first page and these were made by the same people who had originally made these entries in the same handwriting. So that one cannot distinguish at all whether those are the originals or the questionnaires which had later been copied.
Thus in that moment, when he returned the questionnaires, he could not see at all and recognize that they had been filled out anew. Compared with the original questionnaires they did not show the slightest change, and the Prosecution did not at all bring even the slightest evidence to the effect that the relationship between Dr. Marx and Frau Huppertz was not described correctly.
There is no reason to believe that she went to the hospital as Dr. Marx ' agent. On the contrary, all reasons speak for the supposition that Dr. Marx did not give the order and that he at first did not know anything about Frau Huppertz' visit to Dr. Gerstacker.
The Prosecutor broached the question why Dr. Marx gave the order to copy only the first page. The witness Wieber testified here that she had been given the order to copy the expert opinion-- not to be sure the order to copy, only the first page. Of course, the first page is the only important one because the second page does not contain any expert opinion at all. In both expert opinions the second page is literally the same and does not contain anything but the order and the signature. In effect, only the first page is in the nature of an expert opinion, and this may perhaps have also been the reason for which the witness Wieber only copied the first page.
The witness Wieber furthermore expressly stated that she had not received the order to separate the expert opinion and Dr. Marx, who at that moment was present occupied with quite different tasks, did not concern himself with that question at all. Thus, it is not an odd defense of the defendant Marx or of Frau Huppertz if they maintain that no order was given and I cannot see how, from a chain of unfavorable circumstances and coincidences, that sometimes occur in life, one can here conclude as to an intention to influence a physician in giving an expert opinion.
In addition if, for the sake of argument, one were to assume that this actually happened, then one could not understand the mode of action if Dr. Marx had had the intention to ask for anything that was contrary to truth and the witness Huppertz stated how, on the morning of the same day, Dr. Marx already stated that the condition of Engert had deteriorated again and we know that his opinion was correct. If, thus, he had actually had the intention to cause a change in the expert opinion, and one can never reproach him because of that.
As far as the first case is concerned that was described here, in which Dr Marx, on the 28th of June, was supposed to have influenced the physician, on can here too not speak about an attempt of that nature of perhaps does a man have the intention to influence a physician, a man who the day before, for half an hour, refuses altogether to go to the hospital and only under pressure exercised by Dr. Stern declares himself to be ready to go to the hospital. Or does he perhaps have the intention to influence a physician, who, as Dr. Gerstacker himself states, Says: "You are free to refuse to give an expert opinion." Or perhaps does a man have the intention to influence a physician, who tells the physician himself: "I am not interested in your expert opinion because I attache importance to the physical condition and not the psychiatric one." And, finally, does a man have the intention to influence a physician, who is constantly Quarreling with the physician, who is in contrast with that man and who does nothing in order to overcome that contrast?
And, then, if we examine objectively and dryly what Dr. Gerstacker said, the only sentence perhaps which could be interpreted as exerting an influence is, namely, the remark of Dr. Marx: "I had gained the impression that the Americans want to sever the Engert case."
Is this sentence as such, quite coldly and bears as it stands, apt to be regarded as an influence on a physician? I would like to see that physician who could be influenced by such a remark, who would be impressed so as to determine his expert opinion.
If I say I have the impression--I and not somebody else -have the impression that this is the case, I can tell the physician twenty times that I am under the impression Engert is dying, but the physician will answer: "You may be under the impression but this is my expert opinion." And without doubt this sentence was not suited at all to influence the physician, and even less could it, therefore have been an intentional influence.
And Dr. Stern stated that Dr. Marx had told him the same thing before and from that, in particular, your Honors, you can realize that there was no intention to influence because for that Dr. Stem would not be the expert and cannot be the expert because he was officiating physician on the ward. That Dr. Marx knew . What sense would there have been in making that statement to him if it was supposed to have involved the intention of being an attempt to influence?
If I wanted to influence a physician without doubt quite different means and ways and statements would be needed. I believe that Dr. Gerstacker himself at first did not have the conviction at all that Dr. Marx wanted to influence him and only later on when Frau Huppertz came to see him did he perhaps have misgivings. Only at that time did he perhaps think, "Now the things that happened before appear in an entirely different light." In other words, as a result of the discussion with Frau Huppertz, looking back on the discussion with Dr. Max, he ascribed a different meaning to the conversation with Dr. Marx.
This can be understood more plainly when we know of all those who participated, from all circumstances, that the discussion between Dr. Gerstacker and Dr. Marx in particular was everything but friendly and kindly.
In this excitement, neither Dr. Marx nor Dr. Gerstacker even recognized the attempts, by Dr. Stern, to, calm than down, to explain matters to than. In this excitement, many a word may have been said on one side and on the other side, which later may have been misunderstood or misinterpreted.
In any case today, as a result of the excitement that prevailed, one can no longer make a man like Dr. Marx responsible if another person misinterprets his words or in this excitement misunderstands them.
However, and this seems to me more important and essential than anything else, I have very serious misgivings and these misgivings are as follows: The concept of contempt of court does not exist under German laws. According to our German legal regulations, criminal legal regulation, without doubt Dr. Marx did not render himself liable for punishment, this legal regulation does not exist under our law. The problem now is, can this provision of American penal law, altogether outside of German law - can it be here applied.
No doubt exists that the Tribunal, as in the case in Germany, also has the so-called police authority during the session, that the Tribunal can prosecute and punish, excesses and transgressions in the court room, but beyond this "contempt of court" possible within the court room, we do not have the corresponding penal regulations under German law also applicable for an action outside of the court room. We do not have the corresponding penal regulations under German law.
Now, the Prosecution, particularly in the Jurist Trial in Case III, reproached the German administration of justice for having introduced German criminal laws in foreign countries and does the Prosecution now here make the same mistake? Does the Prosecution not here apply this American penal regulation, which does not apply under our law and apply it to Dr. Marx?
I believe that here the Prosecution, contrary to International Law, wants to apply a regulation which it cannot apply and that, for that reason too, the behavior of Dr. Marx in this trial cannot be punished and prosecuted in this way. But Dr. Marx requested me expressly to point that out at the end, because he welcomed the chance to justify his actions, because he never intended in any way to disrespect the court, as his endeavor was always only to serve justice and the truth. This was his only aim and intention in all his actions and therefore he cannot be punished.
DR. NATH-SCHREIBER: May it please the Tribunal, the defendant Frau Karin Huppertz is charged by the prosecution with contempt of court. The defendant does not intend to withdraw from the responsibility, however, just as my co-defense counsel Dr. Orth, I ask for a review of the legal question as to whether this American Tribunal can apply to the defendant, who is a German citizen and subject to German criminal laws.
I now want to go into the case itself. As a preliminary remark, I may say when on last Saturday I began to concern myself with this case and for the first time in my life spoke with the defendant Huppertz, my first words were the same that I always used in my practice of long years as a lawyer in complicated cases, and any way in every case to the client: "The highest standard is the truth." I told her I wanted to know what happened and how it happened, regardless of whether you have to incriminate yourself by your statements or another person. When during the discussions, which I had with her on Saturday and Sunday, repeatedly peculiarities in her description came to my attention, I again and again asked, "Did it happen in this way and in no other way?" This is what I want to say in advance.
How, I want to make the following remarks as to the case itself. In judging the respondent Huppertz and her actions, it is essential to consider the discussion between her and Dr. Gerstacker, which took place on 10 July 1947. In order to be able to understand this discussion at all, it is necessary to examine the basis of this discussion, on the one side as well as on the other side, on Dr. Gerstacker's side as well as on Frau Huppertz' side.
In the case of Dr. Gerstacker it was as follows. He was angry at Dr. Marx and as I assume for unimportant reasons. The excited interchange of words between Dr. Marx and himself on 28 June resulted in the name Marx having an effect on him like a red cloth to a bull and it made him excited.
On Frau Huppertz' part the following situation existed. Without any preliminary knowledge of the facts, without knowledge of everything that had taken place before, she came and knew nothing about the fact that Dr. Gerstacker sometime previously had sub mitted an extensive written expert opinion.
She came to him without any order, she did not know that Dr. Gerstacker was angry at Dr. Marx and that an excited conversation had already taken place with him. When she now came to him, she stepped on a wasp - nest.
Is it surprising then if this conversation on the 10th of July from the very beginning did not take the course, which it should have taken - the normal calm course of events which occurs in a calm discussion between two educated persons?
This explains also why Dr. Gerstacker was so excited, and that at the very beginning of the conversation. His excitement grew especially when he discovered that the original questionnaires had been changed. This excitement was transferred to the defendant Huppertz, and in accordance with experiences in such conversations, words are passed from one side to another without the persons involved weighing the words they used.
I do not blame Dr. Gerstacker, and I can understand very well if after the submission of these changed questionnaires he had gained the impression that something was not quite all right with this matter, and that Dr. Marx must be in back of this thing. But I am convinced that if Dr. Gerstacker had heard the testimony by the witness Wieber, and through this testimony would have found out how these unfortunate questionnaires got into this form, that if he had heard this, he probably would have reached a different conclusion. One thing, however, I cannot understand in the case of Dr. Gerstacker, if he was so convinced that in this discussion the defendant Huppertz, with the aid of Dr. Marx, would have required a change of his questionnaire against his better knowledge that the following actions which ho took cannot be understood. First, -- that he did not cut off the conversation with the defendant and show her the door. Secondly -- that he again filled out his questionnaires. Third -- that he himself sends the defendant to Dr. Kraetzer with a remark that the latter was not as unfriendly as he was, Fourth -- at the end of the conversation he apologizes and says goodbye to Frau Huppertz by shaking hands with her. And fifth -- that neither to any German nor American office did he make a denunciation.