A You're now referring to the first case, are you? You're referring to the Kluetgen case, are you?
Q Yes, I'm referring to the Kluetgen case.
A Yes, I talked to him over the telephone and then I received an order from the Ministry to the effect that they agreed with my plan to clear up the matter and that in particular the Kreisleiter was to be interrogated. I was also instructed to make a further report that probably further directives would be issued to me. Naturally, I had to wait important directives from the Minister. Whether it was Dr. Mettgenberg who had signed that order or whether it was Dr. Vollmer who was then a ministerial Dirigent, naturally I can't tell you, for of course I was interested in the case as such but not in the men who signed it.
Q And before you could do any more, you had to wait for instructions from the Ministry in all cases of Allied fliers being shot; is that right?
A Well, that is the way I remember that circular decree but that is the only case that occurred in my area and instructions were to clear up the matter.
Q I have no further questions.
THY PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(Witness is excused.)
THE PRESIDENT: Call your next witness.
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor, may I just say something about this matter. I made an application for the files of the General Prosecutor at Duesseldorf to be sent here, and I should like to point out that a few days ago I made my application again in writing. I originally made it in June. Duesseldorf is in the British Zone. If it should be possible to get these files here, we could clear up that matter entirely.
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't it perfectly obvious already that the man who shot the two fliers received no punishment until he was executed at Dachau by the Allied powers?
I think it's not necessary to establish that any further than you have done that already.
GUSTAV MITZSCHKE, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE HARDING: Hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE KIDDING: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Witness, will you please tell the court your full name.
A Dr. Gustav Mitzschke.
Q You worked at the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A Yes.
Q What position did you hold there?
A I was a Referent in the Legislative Department, that is to say, in the civil legislative department and in the prosecution department.
Q Please don't talk quite so fast, Dr. Mitzschke. Until what time did you work at the Ministry?
A Until January 1945.
Q May it please the Court, I have a document here, Exhibit 529, these Document No. is NG-1580. This is a document that was introduced by the prosecution during the examination of Klemm. It is a file note which is called a pre-note by Helm, the General Public Prosecutor at Munich. The date at which that file note was entered is 16 August 1944. Dr. Mitzschke, on 16 August 1944, you were still at the Ministry were you?
A Yes, I was.
Q The note which I have here in front of me refers to you. It is made out on seven points and it is introduced by the following words, and I quote:
"Ministerialrat Mitzschke, when he came to call on me, brought up the following points of discussion" -- and now it will follow the six or seven points which I have mentioned before. Do you remember that on 16 August 1944 you were in Munich?
A I don't exactly remember what day it was but it's quite possible that in the middle of August 1944 I called on Helm, the General Public Prosecutor, for an official discussion.
Q At whose instigation did you go to Munich?
A For some time it had been intended that I should go to Munich for an official talk to discuss several matters of the penal law and also concerning the staff at the prosecution office. The instructions were given to me on the basis of a telephone conversation. It had been agreed that at an early date I would call on the General Public Prosecutor at his office.
Q What was the department that instructed you to go to Munich to have those conversations?
A It was the man who was the head of the department at that time, and that was Dr. Vollmer, the former Ministerial Director. He told me to go to Munich. I reported to him on the various questions that the General Public Prosecutor put to me, and I also brought to his attention several questions, a discussion of which I deemed necessary.
Q The first point which, according to the words of Helm, the General Public Prosecutor, discussed, referred to cases where socalled terrorist fliers, that is to say Allied fliers who had been shot down, had been killed by the population. I should like to read out the passage which is under discussion here, and I quote: "In the cases where the population has murdered Allied fliers, we cannot do without an official report by the police. (Decisions by Under-Secretary Klemm). The reason is that a criminal offense, that is to say action taken for selfish motives; for example, robbing the man who has been killed or taking the uniform of the dead man, etc. one must be able to exclude all such selfish motives for certain."
Would you tell the Tribunal, please, exactly what were the instructions which apparently Klemm gave to you?
AAs far as I recall, a few days before I went on that trip, I was rung up by the man who at that time was Under-Secretary Klemm's personal Referent. His name was Dr. Hartmann. Hartmann told me I was to call on the Under-Secretary, who wanted to give me instructions about my Munich trip. Thereupon, I called on the Undersecretary and he gave me the following instructions: "When you talk to General Public Prosecutor Helm at Munich, please tell him that in cases where Allied fliers have been killed or ill-treated the police and any other agencies concerned are to pass on the files to the prosecution office, and that the prosecution as quickly as possible must make a report to the Minister and also forward the files."
Q Did he tell you why he wished those reports to be made?
AAs fan as I remember he said something to the effect that it had happened that the police had not let the prosecution see the files and that therefore the General Public Prosecutor was to get in touch with the competent agencies so that in all cases the files would in the future be submitted to the prosecution.
Q You have just said that in all cases the files were to be submitted in accordance with the file note by Helm which I have just read out to you. In accordance with it, you are supposed to have given examples -- examples which might indicate that only when the facts of the case were of any specific kind would the files have to be submitted.
A No. The instructions of the Under-Secretary were that in all cases where the civil administration of justice was competent, the General Public Prosecutor was to ask for the files, for unless the prosecution was able to examine such cases, a lawless case of affairs would have occurred.
Q May I put this to you: Helm noted down: "The reason is that an action which merits punishment" - now what would pertain to this:
" - could be prosecuted", but examples were mentioned: "action for selfish motives, robbery, etc." The fact is not mentioned that an action meriting punishment, as such, was already constituted by a German killing a flier who had bailed out.
A The prosecution was to intervene in such cases too to make a report to the Minister.
Q Then that was your instruction quite clearly?
A Yes, it was.
Q How do you explain that Helm , the General Public Prosecutor, deals with these particular examples? Did you give him any particular hints as to how he was to deal with the police?
A I can't remember now whether I mentioned any particular or any specific examples, nor can I say how it was that the General Public Prosecutor noted down those points.
Q Was there any reason to fear that the police would not obey those instructions?
A Evidently, there was such a fear, for otherwise I would not have been instructed to go on this mission by Under--Secretary Klemm.
Q Had one had the experience that the police only handed over the files if any of the examples applied which Helm mentions here? It wasn't just a case of murder.
A I can't tell you for sure, but as far as I remember, it is very likely that one feared and that one actually had the experience that the police, at the instigation of some Party agency or other, kept back investigation files so that they were not to reach the administration of justice and so that in that way the prosecution would be prevented.
Q May it please the Tribunal, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other direct examination? There being none, you may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. La FOLLETTE:
Q. Did you go from your office over to see Under-Secretary Klemm's Referent to get your instructions?
A. From my office, I went to see Dr. Hartmann, his personal Referent and then he told Klemm that I had arrived for a visit. The room of the Under-Secretary was next to the Referent's room and I entered the Secretary's room from the Referent's room.
Q. And how shortly after this conversation in the Under-Secretary's room did you go?
A. When I left the Under-Secretary's room I went to my own office at the back of the building; whereas the Under-Secretary's room was at-
Q. How shortly after that did you go to Munich?
A. I think it was one or two days--about that.
Q. And you went down there on this particular business after receiving these instructions?
A. Well, I also had other missions to carry out for the department chief. This was not the only mission I had to carry cut.
Q. But you went on business?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Do you remember discussing this trip with Mr. Beauvais on 2 September 1947 here in Nuernberg?
A. On 2 September Mr. Beauvais interrogated me on this Question.
Q. I asked you whether or not you stated then that you happened to be on your vacation and dropped in to see Helm at Munich?
A. Well, afterwards for a few days I went to stay with my family, who at that time was living somewhere near Salzburg.
Q. Well, did you take the vacation afterwards or were you on vacation and happened to go to see Helm?
A. I can't tell you now whether that vacation had already been granted to me before Under-Secretary Klemm entrusted me with that mission or whether those two things haven't more or less happened simultaneously.
Anyhow, as far as I remember, it was after I paid my visit in Munich that I joined my family in that place near Salzburg. About five or six days later--it may have been a week later--I returned to Berlin.
Q. Well then , you remember that you and Mr. Beauvais and this same Helm discussed this same Question last Monday between three and four-fifteen here in Nuernberg?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. I will ask you whether you recall that you made this answer in discussing your reason for being in Munich: "But as far as this was concerned, I did not have any instructions. I had no order for that. The State Secretary only told me all these matters had to be reported. How far they had to be prosecuted and how for they were not to be prosecuted, I was not told." Now were you told what you were to investigate in Berlin or weren't you told what you were to get and instruct Helm, in Berlin?
A. As I told you before, I was merely given that mission and I was not told anything about the steps that were to be done on the basis of the reports. I, myself, believed that of course under law such events would have to be examined and such people would have to be prosecuted.
Q. Now let me ask you this: Didn't you tell Mr. Beauvais, on 2 September, that you were on your vacation and while en your vacation you went to see Helm and that Helm had requested the visit, complaining that he was too short of personnel to carry on the work of his office and was given no replacements by the Ministry? Was that the reason you gave then for going to Munich?
A. That isn't Quite correct.
DR. SCHILF: Just a moment, Mr. Mitzschke. I should like to make an objection. The witness is being examined here under oath today and it is altogether irrelevant whatever he may have said on some other day or some other place.
THE PRESIDENT: This is cross examination. The objection is overruled. The prosecution is entitled to impeach his testimony if they can by the proof of contradictory statements at some other time.
THE WITNESS: Do you want me to answer your question now?
MR. La FOLLETTE: Yes, please.
THE WITNESS: It is untrue to say that on 2 September I stated that I bad been on vacation first and had called on the General Public Prosecutor afterwards. As far as I remember, I first called on the General Public Prosecutor and afterwards went on vacation--and it is only a week any now.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Now let me ask you, are you the Dr. Gustav Mitzschke whose personnel record is covered by that personnel file?
(File is offered to witness)
A. Evidently, my own--just a moment, can I have a look? Yes, they are. Yes, they are my files.
Q. I wonder if you would turn to page 98 of those files and see if you find a letter written on your stationery, dated 12 July 1943, addressed to Dr. Kettler, attorney and notary in Berlin. Do you find that letter concerning an apartment?
A. Yes, I have it before me.
Q. Now would you read the paragraph beginning: "In answer to your letter of the tenth of this month and your call of today--." And continue until I ask you to stop. Do you want me to read it in English?
A. No, that starts quite differently. The letter of 12 July starts with: "In reply to your letter of the tenth of this month Is that what you want me to read?
Q. That is what I want you to read.
A. All right.
"Berlin, 12 July 1943.
"Dear Attorney, In reply to your letter of the tenth of this 17-4-A-22 Sept 47-AEH-Gaylord (Hahn) month and in reply to your telephone call of today, I should now like to state again that I must insist on my claim and that I attach the greatest importance to gaining early possession of that apartment.
"Concerning your statements in the first paragraph on page two of your letter, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that according to the official information which I have received, the deceased woman Schlumberger, maiden name Haase, was a Jewess. I feel myself to be under an obligation now to notify my Minister of that matter. "
Q. And I ask you whether you did notify Dr. Thierack and whether you got him to write a letter for you dated 19 July which you will find on page 99, in which he interceded so that you could have this apartment because of the fact that the former owners were Jewish?
A. No, no. This is how it was. I had lost my apartment in an air raid on 1 march 1943 and that apartment was in Berlin-Steglitz. Since that time I had been homeless and my family and I, myself, remained homeless until the present day. I tried to get another apartment, and as far as I remember, the housing office told me about an apartment at 6 Heimkehfonstrasse in Berlin-Lichterfelde-Ost. I went to have a look at that apartment and I tried to get a contract for that apartment. I failed, however, to get a lease because, as far as I recollect, the person who had power of attorney to deal with the matter, Attorney Kettler, did not wish to help me out. Now would you please give mean opportunity to examine the correspondence which occurred prior to 12 July?
Q. I don't think it's that important. Is that your explanation of the matter?
A. Well, may I say this: my reply dated 12 July was caused by the attitude which Attorney Kettler had taken up. As far as I remember, he made representations to me over the telephone saying my wish to rent that apartment indicated an attitude which was not in accordance with the times. He obviously wanted to charge me-
Q. Excuse me, what do you mean by "not in accordance with the times"? You refer to the fact that he was trying to get this family-to see this Jewish woman out of her apartment.
Is that what you mean?
A. No, that isn't what I mean. What I mean is that apartment was vacant. The point was that Attorney Kettler wanted to get a very high rent and wanted to let the apartment furnished. I told him I could only take over part of the furniture; the apartment was too expensive for me fully furnished. He said, "No, I don't want to give in." And over the telephone--maybe it was in a letter, I can't tell you that right away on the spot---anyway, he tried to charge me with not displaying the attitude of a National Socialist; that is, he wanted to pull my leg.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q Just a moment, please. I have heard enough of that. Now, would you read the letter of July 13, addressed to you by this doctor, July 13, 1943, which you will find on Page 94, beginning, "To my regret he did that -
A "With reference to my letter of 10 July you did not answer to that although I mentioned the document and the legal provisions which are competent in this connection. Now, it seems that you believe that against the will of the owners and the Ministry of Propaganda you can get into that -
Q Please, will you go slower? We can't go that fast. Now, read slowly, please, Dr. Mitzschke. Would you read that last sentence again?
A "However, evidently now you believe that in order to act contrary to the will of the owners and the Minister of Propaganda, obviously, to get into that house against their will, you think that you have to threaten me. That is the only way I can explain your words to myself, your words to the effect that you would report the matter to your minister who is also my minister. Now that you found that the wife of the former owner of that apartment was a Jewess by the name of Habe and in spite of the will of the deceased and in suite of that I wanted to maintain that apartment as a whole in its entirety for the family.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions? I would like to ask you one question, witness.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Was it the practice, in ordinary cases of suspected crime, for the prosecutors to report the case to the Ministry before filing an indictment?
A The obligation for the prosecutors to make a report was dealt with officially. There were regulations concerning that obligation. Reports were not made in all penal cases but only in such penal cases which were of particular importance.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q What then was the reason which required a** special ********* in this kind of a case with reference to the assassination of fliers? If it was an important case it was the duty of the prosecutors to report it in any event, was it not?
AAs regards the background of this matter, or as regards the intentions of Thierack, in fact, as regards the method by which Thierack wished to deal with these cases, I can't tell you because neither Thierack nor Klemm discussed the handling of such cases with me nor did I ever have to deal with such cases nor did I ever hear of them either.
Q My question is merely this: There were some special circumstances which required this conference that you had on instructions from the defendant Klemm which didn't apply in the case of ordinary proposed criminal prosecutions, were there not?
AAll I remember is that I was charged with that task because one was afraid that such cases might occur or because such cases had already in fact occurred where the police did not let the prosecution see the files. So that the administration of Justice or the prosecution was unable to carry out its functions as the prosecuting authorities.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: May I ask a question, your Honor?
CROSS EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q Now, as a matter of fact, you stated on the 15th of September that the state secretary only told you the matters were to be reported and nothing was said about prosecuting the cases?
A Well, my mission was that I was to ask the general public prosecutor to make contact with those agencies, that is to say, the police, the criminal police, the party agencies, the Gestapo, to see to it that investigations that had been made by them were passed on to the prosecution. I know nothing about the way these cases were handled after that. I wasn't told to deal with that aspect nor was I ever told what course was to be taken.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: That is all.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
THE PRESIDENT: Redirect examination.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, I should like to start with my last point. I have been under the impression that the witness Dr. Mitzschke informed himself of the facts contained in the files in order to answer the charge that he had done something in connection with that apartment which he shouldn't have done. However, he wasn't really given the opportunity under cross examination to do so; but I should like to suggest -
THE PRESIDENT: May I please interrupt you? The Tribunal has just consulted and we saw nothing which tended to impeach the witness in the slightest degree in any of the testimony concerning the apartment. We will entirely disregard that testimony and you needn't explain it at all because we find there is nothing to be explained.
DR. SCHILF: Thank you very much indeed, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Now, there is only one brief question. Mr. Lafollette put to you the matter of a talk or discussion which finally took place here at the courthouse with Mr. Beauvais. Was that where you formerly were interrogated?
A Yes, and the oath was administered to me before I was interrogated for the first time.
Q Did you ever sign a record?
A No, I didn't.
Q Dr. Mitzschke, I would like to ask you what position you hold now.
A I am an assistant in the attorney's office in Frankfurt on Main.
DR. SCHILF: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(Witness excused)
DR. HAENSEL: Dr. Haensel for the defendant Joel. I have one cross examination witness. His name is Ludwig. He is outside in the corridor.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
I only want to ask him three or four questions. I can deal with them very quickly. If the Prosecution agrees I will examine him after the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: You can call him now. The film is exhausted and we will have to wait until after the recess before you can proceed. The witness may be seated.
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HAENSEL: With the consent of the Tribunal, I have asked Herr Fritz Ludwig to take the witness stand.
FRITZ LUDWIG; a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
BY JUDGE HARDING:
You will 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.)
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. HAENSEL: (Attorney for the Defendant Joel.)
Q. Witness, please state to the Tribunal your full name, your place of residence, and the date of your birth.
A. My name is Fritz Ludwig. I live in Berlin, Wilmersdorf, Siegburgerstrasse 14; I was born on the 8th July, 1899.
Q. Witness, I am now showing you Exhibit 558; that is your affidavit deposed on the 14th of August, 1947. My questions relate only to the last page and the paragraph above the last paragraph above the last paragraph. Do you know Herr Guenther Joel, or have you only heard of him?
A. I know him superficially; I have heard a great deal about him from a mutual friend; his name was Bones.
Q. Did you ever call on him at the Ministry of Justice?
A. No, I didn't.
Q. Did you ever have any official business with him; or, was your knowledge of him limited to reports received about him?
A. I never had official business to execute with him. My knowledge is limited to the reports which I received about him.
Q. Do you know what position he held at the Ministry of Justice during the time which you knew him?
A. As far as I recall, Herr Joel was in charge of the Central. Prosecution Office at the Ministry of Justice.
Q.Did you ever go to Prague; did you go to Prague very frequently?
A. As the legal advisor for the Bata concern, I was practically always in Prague -- I went there once a week.
Q. Did you ever meet Herr Joel at Prague?
A. I never saw him in Prague.
Q. Did you ever hear of his going to Prague?
A. Yes.
Q. May I ask you who told you about that?
A. As far as I remember it was that man Bones whose name I just mentioned, who told me; and a lady also told me about that, a woman friend of Mr. Joel, Frau Ruth Haupt.
Q. Was that an official conversation concerned with business; or, was it merely a social matter; a matter which was of no further significance?
A. It did not deal with business; it was just a personal conversation.
Q. Now, if somebody told you that evidence has been produced here, that documents have been produced to the effect that Joel was in Prague, do you think that that is of greater significance than those remarks which came to your knowledge?
A. No doubt such evidence, such documents are of greater significance than those personal remarks which came to my ear.
DR. HAENSEL: I have no further questions.
DR. KOESSL: May it please the Tribunal, may I ask this witness a few questions . This is intended as cross examination in connection with the Exhibit 558 again.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear you.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. KOESSL: (Attorney for time Defendant Rothaug):
Q. Witness, in your affidavit you mention the fact that proceedings were started against Stegmann, twice. There was one trial before the Special Court in Nurnberg, and then another trial was held before a Penal Chamber. At the first trial, which was held before the Special Court, did Rothaug play any part there?
A. No, he didn't.
Q. That matter concerning Attorney Zilcher, which you mentioned, had that occurred before the first trial; or , did it happen before the second trial?
A. That affair in connection with Attorney Zilcher, that occurred before the first trial.
Q. Do you remember how much time had elapsed between the filing of the indictment for the second trial, and the date when that second trial opened?
A. Quite a long while elapsed; and I happen to remember this very well because I had a great deal of time to prepare that trial.
Q. In your affidavit you also mention that you made a motion for very extensive evidence, and that Rothaug rejected that motion. Would you please confirm that it was the court, that is to say the three judges and not Rothaug by himself who rejected that motion?
A. If I said in my affidavit that it was Rothaug alone who rejected my motion for evidence, then naturally that was an error, because of course it was rejected by the court as a whole.
Q. What was the reason for the rejection; was it because of insufficient evidence, or type of evidence the witnesses had; or, was it refused for factual reasons?
A. At the trial I was told that the approval of the Gauleiter to examine the majority of the witnesses for whom I had asked had not been given . I felt that I was confronted with great difficulties on account of that because most of my motions were directed against actions taken by the Gauleiter himself.
Therefore, I had made a motion to the court to discontinue proceedings to afford me an opportunity to obtain a decision from the Fuehrer's Deputy.
Q. I beg your pardon for interrupting, but I should like to ask you whether that extensive evidence was rejected for factual reasons?
A. I made that motion at the trial, and it constituted a summary of all the motions I had made before. This motion was rejected and the reasons which were given for the rejection were factual.
Q. You applied for a review at the Reich Supreme Court. Is it true that you yourself withdrew that application?
A. Yes, that is correct, I did so.
DR. KOESSL: Those are all the questions I wish to ask of this witness. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any cross examination?
MR. KING: No, questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor,does the Court desire to make an announcement?
THE PRESIDENT: I was about to inquire if there are any other defense witnesses for examination?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If there are none -
DR. HAENSEL: I am wanting for a witness whose name is Schulz. He is on his way by car, but he hasn't arrived yet. The moment he arrives, I shall produce him here.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Mr. President, as regards the sixteen documents and six witnesses which the Prosecution produced in rebuttal, I have to examine two or three witnesses who haven't arrived yet. I hope they will have arrived by tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, and then I shall like to produce them. Please, may I reserve the right to examine those two or three witnesses if and when they arrive? And, I have a few documents which so far have only been marked for identification, and I should like to offer them in evidence so that my presentation may be completed.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Then, I still have two supplement volumes that I hope will be ready in a day or two. May I now
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say they are documents which have received exhibit numbers for identification?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, Your Honor, numbers have been reserved. There were some minor defects in the documents which have now been eliminated, and I have discussed the matter with the Prosecution and those documents are now all right and I can now offer them in evidence. The first document is contained in Rothenberger Volume I; it is an affidavit by Dr. Schmidtheck.I would ask you to receive this exhibit as Exhibit No. 5. It is contained in Document Book I , pages 23 to 30.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me, just a moment.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. The second document is on pages 34 through 40-
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please -- I haven't found the place in my notes where that exhibit was identified. It is Rothenberger Exhibit 5?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, it is Rothenberger Exhibit No. 5.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. The next document is contained in the same volume, Book I. The number is Exhibit 10; it is an affidavit by Griess.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 10?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Yes, Your Honor, Exhibit No. 10.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next document is contained in Rothen berger Book II; it is Exhibit No. 10; it is an affidavit by Dr. Siegelmesser.
THE PRESIDENT : It is received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next exhibit is also contained in Document Book II; this is an affidavit by Dr. Becker; the exhibit number is 51.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next document is in my Bock IV, Exhibit No. 33. It is an affidavit by Lenz.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: The next document occurs in Book IV; it is an affidavit by Jrmgard Felder, Exhibit No. 34.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: And the last exhibit is contained in the Supplement Volume I; that is an affidavit by Kuhlenkamp, Exhibit No. 52.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: That is all; all the exhibits have been cleared up now.