Here, together with my advisers, especially Ministerial Dirigent Fischer and by ruthlessly putting his own person at stake, he decisively contirbuted in carrying through in Prussia, during the year 1933 until the middle of 1934, the successful central fight against the wild concentration camps, where political enemies were arbitrarily arrested and, in some cases, brutally ill treated by the SA and SS members. This task was all the more difficult as the subordinate Police and Justice authorities which were occupied throughout with officials from the Weimar time were not able to previal sufficiently over the National Socialist Revolutionary elements. This difficulty was, however, considerably eliminated in 1933 by nominating SA and SS leaders to Police Presidents as far as the 24 State Police administrating offices in Prussia were concerned. In two cases, however, the effective cooperation between the local police and the Administration of Justice was endangered because the two newly appointed Police Presidents did not oppose the illegal activity of their friends in the Party with the necessary energy. Joel, therefore, frequently and personally had to intervene on the spot, often accompanied by an armed police detachment which had been formed at the Prussian Ministry of Interior with competency for the whole of Prussia as Field Constabulary, in order to arrange for the arresting of the guilty SA or SS members on the basis of the investigations made at the place of action, and to institute a penal procedure against them in the competent courts."
MR. KING: May it please the Court, it has occurred to the Prosecution that the method of procedure now being employed may lead to certain difficulties. The documents which have not been received in evidence are being quoted from extensively. Now, it is possible-
THE PRESIDENT: This document was received, I believe, was it not? It was offered last night.
MR. KING: I was not aware that it had been received; I was under the impression that none of the documents had been received, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps not. I think we are ready to rule upon these documents now.
MR. KING: The 24 hours will not have elapsed until this afternoon at about 3:30.
THE PRESIDENT: Does counsel insist upon the 24-hour rule, having examined the documents already?
MR. KING: Well, I wasn't aware, Your Honor, that the Court was ready to rule upon them. If you are ready to rule upon the document from which the defense counsel has just been quoting, I have an objection.
THE PRESIDENT: I think I was in error; they were marked only for Identification last night.
MR. KING: Yes, that is right. Ag to some of those documents which were read yesterday, we are certainly in a position to state our objections. The one from which he just read is one such to which we have objections.
Now, having proceeded to read portions of a document into the record which is later, let us say, not admitted in evidence, a problem is raised. At this time we would only say that such documents as are not received in evidence but from which excerpts in considerable portion have been read into the record, we reserve the right to ask the Court to strike such portions from the record.
THE PRESIDENT: If counsel has objection to the four exhibits which have already been marked for identification, the Tribunal would like to hear the objections now.
DR. HAENSEL: May I say the following? The documents to which I am referring here have. I may say for weeks, been in the possession of the Secretary General. All of us know how difficult it is at the moment to have the documents translated in time. That, however, is neither our fault, nor that of the Prosecution, nor that of the Court. Consequently, I believe that we will only make progress here if we do not stick to the letter of the law but if we try to carry out our proceedings sensibly.
The idea of the 24-hour limitations for such documents as I am submitting here--that is to say, for affidavits--is no really required, because what I am reading here is in no way a surprise to the prosecution. However, as to the substantive replies which the Prosecution may wish to make here, or the formal objections which it may wish to make, well, the Prosecution may reserve.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, the suggestion you have just made is quite similar to what the Court has just said. Counsel for the prosecution has stated that as to these four exhibits which were marked yesterday, he has some objections and is ready to make them now. He thereby waives the 24-hour rule to that extent. And since you are proposing to read from those exhibits, we think it advisable to hear his objections at this time and pass upon them. We will hear the objections now.
MR. KING: Before we make the objections, it might be to the interest of expeditious proceedings if we first saw the originals . It may possibly be that our objections really as translation matters and not a fundamental defect in the document. The originals ha e not been shown to us, and therefore we are not entirely sure that it is not a translation error.
THE PRESIDENT: The originals have been in the possession of the Secretary General. I assume, since last evening.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Submit them to counsel.
MR. KING: Specifically, with regard to document No. 5 which appears on page 19 of the English document book, the affidavit of Grauert, now the affiant Grauert is available, or at least was at the time this affidavit was made here in Nurnberg. The affidavit is faulty in that first paragraph does not conform with the rules laid down by the Court for defense affidavits. I don't believe it is sufficiently clear so that we can say that it in any sense meets the requirements. And since the affiant is available, the Prosecution suggests that he be called in order to save the affidavit for the defense.
We have no desire to raise a technical objection merely to keep the affidavit from being admitted in evidence. However, we think that when it is admitted in evidence thought to be done according to the prescribed rules.
As to the others, as to 1, 2, 3, and 4, the Prosecution has no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 2 is the one you just spoke of?
MR. KING: No. 5 is the one I just spoke of. It is document 5, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 5, but Exhibit 2? You see saying you have no objection to documents 1, 2, 3, and 4?
MR. KING: But to document 5 we do, yes.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Documents I, II and III have not been offered as yet. Document IV is Exhibit 1. There being no objection, it is received. What about Exhibits for Identification 3 and 4 which are Documents VI and VII?
MR. KING: We have no objection to Document VI.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received too as Exhibit 3. Document VII is Exhibit 4.
MR. KING: Your Honor, as to Document VII, Exhibit 4, we have the same objections. Yes, No. 7 is all right.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 4 is received. Then all of the four exhibits which were marked for identification yesterday, with the exception of Exhibit 2 which is Joel's Document V, are received in evidence.
Dr. Haensel, is the affiant Grauert in Nurnberg?
DR. HAENSEL: No, As far as I know Grauert is no longer here. The reason for my affidavit was the fact I heard that Grauert would not only leave Nurnberg but was going to leave the American Zone and therefore the American Zone of Competence. As far as I know Grauert is now in the British Zone of Occupation. Therefore, there is now no opportunity to examine him here. This is a typical example for the case where one must try to get an affidavit from a witness of whom one knows that he is going to leave Nurnberg and in that way to get him to play a part in this trial, From a purely formal point of view I can not find anything wrong with the affidavit.
It has the introductory clause that the affidavit is to be submitted here and it says that Grauert, who is accustomed to act as a witness, knows the significance of an affidavit. In his case one can assume that anyhow, without mentioning it. The signatures and everything else are in order.
I would ask you, therefore, to admit this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: The only objection which remains, in view of the statement of counsel, is that this is not in the strict form required for a statement in lieu of oath. It appears to be taken before Court No. III, Case No. 3.Dr. Haensel.
DR. HAENSEL: Would you please take into account the date? On the 21 of March there were no other limitations. On the 21 of March the only point was that an affidavit had to be taken at all and it was in accordance with those rulings. The only rulings were made after that date. But this affidavit does in effect contain what, according to the rules which were made subsequently, you did wish an affidavit to contain, that is to say, it mentions what the affiant has to say. It points out the significance and it says that this affidavit will be introduced in evidence .
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Haensel, and we will rule on Exhibit 2 after the recess. Go ahead.
DR. HAENSEL: May I add one more thing about the method of quoting from documents? If I quote from an affidavit I am not wasting time, but I am gaining time for otherwise the same material would be read out twice, and in this manner the witness Joel can comment and can corroborate or correct the contents of the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has made no strict rule with reference to the reading of documents which are introduced in evidence. It has suggested to both sides that since the Tribunal reads these documents in any event, the reading into the transcript of documents which are in evidence should be reduced to the minimum. You may proceed.
DR. HAENSEL: Grauert goes on to say: "Thereby JOEL, as results from the description below of some individual cases which I remember from the reports of Ministerial Director FISCHER and the documents, tackled this task with a personal initiative which far exceeds the normal degree of a Ministerial Official. As in the case of "Esterwege", he did not shrink back even when his life was threatened and at the same time he became an energetic help in the endeavor to maintain the idea of a constitutional state in those revolutionary times.
"In the summer of 1933, political enemies were arbitrarily arrested by inmates of the SS-Camp Esterwege where unemployed SS members from the Ruhr district were gathered for the cultivation of the East Court No. III, Case No. 3.Frisien moor regions; they were imprisoned in one part of the camp and, in many cases, physically ill-treated.
As a result of a denunciation at the Prussian Ministry of Interior, JOEL was ordered to carry through the investigations in the camp accompanied by a division of 50 men of the Field Constabulary, since the competent police authority was not able to prevail over the revolutionarily behaving camp garrison due to lack of political importance. SS-Gruppenfuehrer WEITZEL who was present in the camp first tried to oppose the investigation to be made by JOEL and he threatened with armed resistance. JOEL did not let himself be influenced by that; on the contrary, according to instruction received by the Ministry of Interior, he made the Field Constabulary draw up with loaded rifle ordering it to make use of the weapon at the slightest resistance. Under the protection of the police troop JOEL then made his investigations which, thanks to his energetic proceeding, were no longer opposed by SS-Gruppenfuehrer WEITZEL. The result of the investigation was the immediate clearing of the camp by the SS, as ordered by the Ministry of Interior, and the taking over of the camp by the Security Police."
I shall now introduce a new exhibit. It is Exhibit 5. This is Document 30 and it is contained in Document Book II on Page 35. No, it is not Page 35; it is 31, and in accordance with the rulings of the Court I am first of all offering it for identification until the Prosecution has seen it. It is my document 30 contained in Document Book II on Page 31. I only want to refer to a very short sentence. On Page 35, Number 3 of the Document it says:
"Joel took especially severe measures in the case of ill-treatment which occurred in the concentration camps in 1933-34. As far as I remember, Herr von Haacke and Dr. Joel made representations to Goering personally to ask that the infamous concentration camp Bredow near Stettin be cleaned out. Their efforts were successful. The camp commandant Hoffman, an SS leader from Stettin, received a sentence of five or seven years hard labor, I believe, for ordering ill-treatment of prisoners."
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q The files incriminating Hoffman and his comrades I have requested but I did not receive them. The Prosecution charges you, Joel, with having co-signed a report concerning an order for squashing the penal proceedings concerning the Bredow Camp. The Prosecution has submitted Exhibit 120, Document NG-249, Prosecution Book Volume I, Page 23.
I am showing you this document and what are your comments?
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
A The proceedings against the guards at the Kemna Camp in the Wuppertal Valley I tried to have instituted with the same energy, for about a year, as I did in the case of Esterwege and Bredow. The competent SA Obergruppenfuehrer at Duesburg and the Gauleiter at Duesseldorf opposed the institution of proceedings. The lawyer, who was the Gau legal representative of the Gau leadership, played a particularly nasty past in the matter. The SA Obergruppenfuehrer was finally convinced of the necessity of instituting an investigation and the competent public prosecutor and I started investigations. The Gauleiter at the meeting raised first opposition and had complaints made about me, in writing, by his Gau legal official. The Gauleiter wrote a letter of complaint to Goering, with the request to have me dismissed from my office. At the same time, he approached the Party leadership at Munich and there he saw to it that a Party disciplinary court proceedings was instituted against the guards so as to eliminate proceedings being instituted by the public prosecution. I made a report to Goering. The police president at Wuppertal, who was the chief of the camp guards, was dismissed from his position and the camp was dissolved. The disciplinary court of the Party started proceedings, the result of which were merely disciplinary penalties. The public prosecution continued its proceedings of investigation. I went to Munich with the referent from the Public Prosecution of Wuppertal to see the supreme SA leaders, the Party court and the Party leadership and to convince them that it was necessary to carry out these proceedings. When proceedings had reached the stage of signing the indictment, the chief of the penal department told me that Hitler did not wish proceedings to be carried out. He, Hitler, had asked the Minister of Justice to make an application for proceedings to be quashed. At the instruction of the Minister of Justice, I made a draft. The Minister had ordered me to give a full description of the cases of ill treatment that had occurred in order to prevent proceedings being quashed. In spite of further efforts to prevent proceedings being quashed, Hitler ordered that they be quashed.
Q Concerning the duties as a referent, I shall refer to those Court No. III, Case No. 3.later.
Now, concerning the Kemna Camp I shall have to refer to the following passages from the documents. From exhibit 1, the Haacke Affidavit, Document Volume 1, page 12, which has already been submitted, I want to quote a brief passage.
"I am thinking here particularly of the proceeding against the SA guards of the camp Kemna near Wuppertal. In this case Joel stuck to his goal with all the energy and tenacity he could muster and in particular continually stressed that it was a matter of course that the camp should have been liquidated but that thereby the criminal side of the case could never be settled. Joel's action resulted in a written complaint being sent to Goering by the Gauleiter Florian. In addition, the competent SA Fuehrer and the Gauleiter Florian made representations to Under Secretary Freisler against Joel. The public prosecutor Winkler also, who under Joel's supervision was working on the case in Wuppertal, had so many difficulties in this matter with Gauleiter Florian that after the case was finished he was transferred to Kassel at his own request."
I am now submitting, for identification as Exhibit 6, my document 9 from Document Book 1, Page 51, the Kneisel Affidavit, of which I want to quote a brief sentence which is on Page 52. It says:
"During the time that followed I frequently was with Dr. Joel in Berlin. On these occasions I also visited other agencies. Doing so I found out that Dr. Joel was the only person who emphatically demanded an investigation and legal prosecution of the Wuppertal crimes and who really did something in this direction."
The affidavit of the man Winkler, who has already been mentioned, appears on page 55 of document book 1. This is my Document 11. I am offering it, for identification, as Exhibit 7. I will quote a brief passage from the affidavit on page 56:
"In a specially energetic manner Joel demanded the investigation and complete clearing up of the 'Kemna case'. After I had made the first investigations in this case I reported to Joel in this regard Court No. III, Case No. 3.in his capacity of representative of the Reich Ministry of Justice.
When, a propose of my report, the then Under Secretary Freisler voiced some misgivings as to the opening of the case, Joel and I together emphatically demanded a complete clearing up and investigation of the affair. As subsequently the Party and SA agencies, especially Gauleiter Florian in Duesseldorf, tried to prevent by all means the clearing up of the case, Joel had several conferences with Gauleiter Florian, SA Gruppenfuehrer Knickmann of the SA Gruppe Niederrhein and several agencies of the Reich Leadership (Reichsleitung) in Munich and Berlin. I attended two conferences with Florian, two with Knickmann and one, in Munich, with persons I no longer remember. During all these conferences Joel expressed the point of view that the law must be satisfied and that sadistic acts such as happened in Kemna must be prosecuted under ell circumstances. I remember that Florian became very excited on account of Joel's opinions, as a result of which there was a sharp discussion between both during which Florian declared he would complain about Joel."
A little bit further down:
"In addition, I must mention that the 'Kemna Affair' also concerned the Supreme Party Tribunal in Munich. In February 1935 there was a trial there against the main defendants, in which I had to testify as a witness. Before I went to Munich, I was in Berlin. There Joel told me I shouldn't protect the bastards and should speak my mind."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, I'm afraid we're not keeping our record quite as accurately as we should. Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 will be marked for identification by the Secretary General. They relate to documents numbered 3, 9 and 11 in the Joel Book. 3 in Joel Book 2, 9 in Joel Book 1, and 11 in Joel Book 1.
MR. KING: Your Honor, isn't that Document 30 rather than 3?
THE PRESIDENT: Document 30. I beg your pardon, 30 is right.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q As Exhibit 3 I have already submitted the Schnoering affidavit. It is Document 6 in Document Book 1 on page 30 through 32. From this document, I want to quote from page 30 in Document Book 1:
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
"After his successor (first Public Prosecutor Thiesen) and the new experts had been made acquainted with the penal matter 'Kemna', the latter expressed to me a number of misgivings regarding the continuing of the procedure. Especially the possibility of proving the individual accusations on the basis of the existing evidence - particularly in view of the judgment of the Party Court - was judged by them more conservatively and less optimistically. I could not ignore this and communicated these misgivings orally to Dr. Joel, whereby I was also guided by my experiences with the Wuppertal lay judges closely related to the Party. When, finally, I also heard from a Higher Party Office of the Gau of Duesseldorf, probably the District Officer Manager, Attorneyat-law Schroer, that Hitler himself had been approached in the matter (maybe as a result of the report to Lutze, mentioned above) and requested or demanded that the penal procedure be discontinued, I also passed this communication on to Joel with the suggestion that the Minister of Justice should try to obtain information in this direction, for, under such circumstances, a continuing of the procedure seemed impossible. If I remember correctly, Dr. Joel told me later that the Minister of Justice had acted accordingly and that he no longer could insist on the continuation of the procedure. At any rate, it never became known to me - and I also consider it impossible - that Dr. Joel at any time spoke in favor of a cancellation of the proceedings. He always advocated the ruthless carrying through of the proceedings and he was very much depressed with the eventual result of the cancellation. This is quite natural and comprehensible because he himself instituted the proceedings, and, in spite of an already heavy work load, he dedicated a great part of his strength to this cause and its being carried through energetically. If Dr. Joel, after others, without his assistance, had decided that on principle the proceedings should be discontinued, had made a rough copy of the report destined for Hitler, then he undoubtedly did it reluctantly, but as adviser in the matter he necessarily had to do it, by order. The positive representation of this report which attempts to see the individual facts everywhere as apt to prove and the Court No. III, Case No. 3.lack of mentioning the rather considerable difficulties of evidence is extraordinary remarkable and deviates from the report of the Chief Public Prosecutor in Wuppertal.
Joel, without any doubt, intentionally chose this form of the report. According to my opinion, he was guided by his great disappointment of the result of the penal proceedings instituted by him and by the intention, to represent the accusations as crass and as clearly proved as possible in order to make Hitler fully responsible for the cancellation and, maybe, to induce him once more to revise his decision."
Herr Winckler, whom I have just mentioned concerning Document 11, Exhibit 7, has submitted an affidavit, my document No. 13, that is contained in book 1, page 60.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Dr. Haensel, will you wait just a moment?
DR. HAENSEL: Document book 1, page 60, my document 13, marked as exhibit 8 is offered for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, your purpose is to and the court in getting the full and fair understanding of your case and we wish to aid you in aiding the court. The reading of these affidavits is not in our opinion a proper part of the examination of Dr. Joel. If you had a document, such as these captured documents, and desired to examine him concerning the circumstances that is one thing, but this is quite another matter. We gain practically no benefit from your reading of the documents. We gain much benefit by reading them ourselves slowly and carefully.
Now I think you should proceed to examine Dr. Joel and if you have some documents, which ho must explain, you may feel free to use them. The reading of these affidavits is not part of his examination at all. We suggest that you discontinue reading them at this time. We observe that you have bracketed in red portions, which you consider of special importance and we will give them special consideration.
DR. HAENSEL: May I be permitted to make a brief remark? My idea was that there are a great many matters about which Dr. Joel can comment on much more quickly if I put them to him, instead of having him explain them in a more detailed way.
THE PRESIDENT: You may put them to him, but you may not proceed with this method of reading affidavits.
DR. HAENSEL: Witness, with reference to the "Kemna Affair", I would ask that you would discuss now the person of Dr. Winckler, who functioned as a prosecutor in the case, and had a sad experience in dealing with that case.
Did anything come to your knowledge, witness, as to what attitude the present government has taken as to Dr. Winckler and what do you know about the events that happened at that time, so that they could be compared; can you tell us this in a few brief sentences?
THE WITNESS: The prosecutor Winckler, who together with me, made the investigations against the guards at Kemna had in 1935, as he and his family were persecuted by local party agencies, to leave Wuppertal. At my request. Minister Guertner transferred him to Kassel. After the collapse in 1945, the inmates of the camp, who had been ill treated, approached the newly appointed minister of justice for North Rhine-West-phalia and the British Military Government and asked that the old referents reopen the case. Public Prosecutor Winckler on 23 May of this year was placed in charge by the British Military Government to investigate further the Kemna Affair. He has informed me that in 1945 he sent the five volumes of files, which we accumulated in 1934 and 1935, to the I.M.T. at Nurnberg and that until now he has not had them returned to him; in other words the five must be here.
DR. HAENSEL: In Elberfeld, the Association of Nazi Persecutes is now supporting Winckler and, consequently the Joel action. I am referring to Document 12 without reading it and it is in document book 1, page 58. I offer it as exhibit 9 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked for identification also exhibit 8.
DR. HAENSEL: I would now like to refer to the Schnoering affidavit, which I have already submitted as exhibit 3, document book 1, page 26.
The regulations about the Right of quashing Proceedings, which play a great part in this matter, are to be found under Joel Document 10, document book 1, page 54, To make the procedure understandable, I think it is necessary for me to submit this document. I am offering it for identification as exhibit 10, it is my document 10 on page 54 of document book 1. This is a Decree by the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor, which says, speaking of Hitler:
"I reserve the right to quash criminal cases coming under the jurisdiction of the law courts, and official disciplinary proceedings, which are already pending in any disciplinary criminal courts." Dated 1 February 1935.
That is for the time which we are dealing here and I would like to point out that later things were handled differently, but during this period this decree was enforced. It is my exhibit 10.
The files concerning Kemna, I had asked for but I did not receive them. According to the information from Winckler whom I mentioned repeatedly the former co-- worker of Joel, who is now dealing with the matter upon the instructions of the British Military Government, five volumes of files compiled in 1934 and 1935 were sent to the I.M.T. in 1945. There is appossibility that those files are with the large stock of files of the I.M.T. which arc not accessible to us at the moment.
Witness, did the experiences from these penal proceedings in which you were active cause the Ministry of Justice to take measures?
THE WITNESS: Yes. The Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, repeatedly complained to the chief of the security police and to the Reich Minister of the Interior, who was in charge of the police.
When the oral complaints met with no success, we finally, at the order of Minister Guertner, drafted a protesting letter of the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick. That is the letter written by Guertner on 14 May 1935 to Dr. Frick.
DR. HAENSEL: That letter of 14 May 1935 is contained in my document book 1 as document 8. Because it is of great importance to us, I offer it for identification as exhibit 11.
THE PRESIDENT: That document does not come within the suggestion I made at all. It is not an affidavit, it is a document and you are at liberty to examine the witness with reference to it.
DR. HAENSEL: Yes. Witness, I consider this document important and it is particularly important as to how and where it came into existence. I thereofe want to recall to your memory several sentences from this document. As we have heard before, it is dated 14 May 1935 and it is addressed to the Reich and Prussian Minister of the Interior. At the beginning it says:
"Enclosed please find the copy of a letter by the Inspector of the Secret State Police dated 28 March 1935.
"The letter causes me to state my position in principle in the question of shastisement of prisoners. The numerous cases of mistreatment that have been brought to the attention of the judicial authorities show 3 different reasons for such abuses on prisoners:
1. Beating as internal punishment in concentration camps.
2. Mistreatment - usually of political prisoners - as a coercive measure to obtain statements.
3. Mistreatment of prisoners for pure wantonness or from sadistic inclination."
The Minister now refers in detail to these points: At 1 he refers to prisons and prisons of detention. He says that no requirement for introduction of beating as an internal punishment has been felt. I quote: "The experience of the judicial administration proves that well trained, reliable and conscientious guard personnel are able by employing strict discipline, to create and maintain an exemplary order within the institutions without resorting to thrashing."
THE PRESIDENT: The Time has arrived for our recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. The Tribunal with some reluctance is about to rule on the offer of Exhibit 2, the Grauert affidavit. It is certified by Dr. Hansel that the signature of Grauert is authentic, and there is a paragraph at the beginning of the affidavit which states that the affiant is fully informed with regard to the results of an intentionally wrong declaration and gives the following affidavit to be produced at Military Tribunal III. Under the circumstances of the taking of the affidavit as set forth by Dr. Hansel, we are constrained to hold in this particular case that there is a sufficiently substantial compliance with our rule and the exhibit will be received. It is received.
Now, Gentlemen of the defense, you are all learned members of the legal profession. You can all read. We counsel you to read rule 21 of the rules of procedure of this Tribunal and to follow them. It doesn't take any intelligence, it simply takes care and we expect you to follow the rules and not present technical problems to the Court which are wholly unnecessary. I am sure you will realize that is only a reasonable request on the part of the Court. I am referring to the rule with reference to statements of witnesses in lieu of oath. There is a reason for that rule. We expect you to follow it. You may proceed.
MR. KING: At this time it may be well on the part of the Prosecution to say that we have no objections to the receipt in evidence of Exhibits 5 through 11, which were offered this morning prior to the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 5 to 11 inclusive, are received in evidence.
MR. KING: Inclusive, Your Honor.