Q. Now that is based upon nothing in your book, or of no record that you kept?
A. No, that is to the best of my recollection.
Q. Yes, that is right. Go ahead?
A. I was alone working for Dr. Moessner, and of course, naturally I think one must not later talk about these cases.
Q. And your memory is based upon the fact that you don't recall Dr Moessner tell you that there was a death sentence in that case?
A. That I could have seen it from the file.
Q. But you have no written record in your office, or no written record at the time you worked for Dr Moessner to corroborate your memory?
A. Unfortunately, Not.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Thank you, that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Any cross examination -- redirect examination, I beg your pardon.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, may I take the witness in redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may do so on redirect examination of the witness.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. If the doctor, or you frequently or occasionally did make entry in your schedule book, that was made also on the bases of the indictment so that it is possible that the entry with reference to the Polish Decree was taken from the indictment?
A. We entered it as soon as we had something to base it on.
Q. Regardless of what kind of nature?
A. Yes.
Q. May I conclude therefore, with reference to the Decree on Poles that it is not a definite indication that Pitra was sentenced on the bases of that decree?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Wait a minute, wait a minute, I object, Your Honor. It is not proper redirect examination. In the affidavit the witness is positive and this counsel is bound by the statement of his witness in her affidavit. During the cross examination I only asked her as to the fact upon which she based her information.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please Your Honor, I believe I was quite generous concerning the questions which I permitted hr LaFollette to ask.
THE PRESIDENT: We don't need to hear your arguments at all. The witness may answer.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Did you understand the question. Do you remember the question, witness?
A. Are you able to repeat that once more?
Q. I asked you if I understood you correctly that the entry in your schedule is not a definite indication of the fact that Pitra was actually sentenced under the Decree against Poles?
THE PRESIDENT: Objection is overruled. We already ruled upon it.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Was that clear enough, witness?
A. Yes, yes. Well, I entered it on the basis of communication received from the Court, either that Dr Moessner was assigned, or that the summons was there.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question and we will clear this right up. Over here witness.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The notes concerning which you have testified to relate to the charge which was made against this Pitra, and not to the sentence which was pronounced against him, is that right, isn't it?
THE WITNESS: No, it does not refer to the sentence in any way whatsoever.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. That is clear.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witness, in your affidavit you have stated that your employer, Dr. Moessner, time and again made known to you information whenever he came from a trial, from sessions, and he would tell you also about the results of cases; therefore, you know quite well that whenever he was a defense counsel there was never a death sentence pronounced, that is what you stated in your affidavit?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Counsel for the defense, I would like to call your attention to the fact that this is redirect examination and that you need not load your witness, and that they did not go into that matter in the cross examination.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Court, if I may base myself on an assumption, I am not sure that it is correct that I can use for my redirect examination also matters which were touched upon in the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Limit your redirect examination to matters which were discussed in the cross examination.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, Your Honor. That is all, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr LaFollette, will you be ready, or are you now ready with the ten documents that you anticipate offerring? You may hear me without your earphones.
MR LA FOLLETTE: Yes, I think they are all processed, Your Honor. I would like to have a few moments to confer with Mr King to see what is my associate's position, so I can know if they are ready to be introduced.
THE PRESIDENT: I fear we are running short of business for today, so let's have them presented as soon as possible. You have one document book ready to offer, suppose we take it now.
DR. BOTHE: Yes, Your Honor.
TRE PRESIDENT: Yes, go ahead. Concerning the witnesses proposed to be called for the defendant Dr. Rothenberger, we should be prepared to hear them as soon as they can possibly arrive, and, we call attention to the act that the defendant Rothernberger is here, consequently, you should be prepared to introduce such sur-rebuttal testimony of the defendant Rothenberger at any time without waiting for these other witnesses to appear.
DR. BOTHE: May it please the Court, of course the defense is ready to begin with Dr Rothenberger's testimony, even before the witnesses from Hamburg have arrived, but the extent of the rebuttal material, which has been submitted by the Prosecution, is such that these new investigations had to be made in Hamburg, and we do not believe that we will be in a position to begin and to have concluded these preparations before Thursday morning. May I repeat, that I recall that on cross-examination fourteen documents, some of them very extensive and a number of witnesses, have been introduced. If it were possible for the Tribunal to permit Dr Rothenberger to be absent this afternoon, we might be able to conclude our preparations for tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: We will excuse Dr Rothenberger for this afternoon, and expect him to be ready to testify tomorrow morning. We will also expect that if the defendant Klemm is to be called, that he will be ready to testify tomorrow at the latest.
MR KING: I have available for introduction at this time general rebuttal documents against the defendant Joel.
The first rebuttal document I have to offer is NG-2123, which we offer at t his time as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 630. The English and German copies are available for distribution.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: The next rebuttal document against the defendant Joel is identified as NG-2286. We offer it as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 631. The German and English copies are available.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
MR. KING: We are short one copy of 2286 for Judge Harding. We have, which we intend to introduce, one further rebuttal document against the Defendant Joel. I understand, as of this morning that it is the English or German - I believe it is the German - that is not ready. So we shall have to postpone the introduction of that.
We come now to certain rebuttal documents, general rebuttal documents, against the Defendant Rothenberger. The first of these is the Document NG-2249 which we offer in evidence as the next Exhibit 532. Did your Honor receive that last Exhibit?
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 632 is received.
MR. KING: The next rebuttal document against the Defendant Rothen berger is Document NG-2248, which we offer formally into evidence as Exhibit 633.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: The next rebuttal document against Rothenberger is the Document NG-2278 which we formally offer into evidence as Exhibit 634.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: The next Rothenberger rebuttal document is NG-2245which we offer formally into evidence as Exhibit 635.
I should like to say one word of explanation before this document is handed up. The original contains a reproduction of a newspaper picture of Dr. Rothenberger and certain other justice ministry officials. That, newspaper picture is not reproduced in the exhibit which we are distributing
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 634 and 635 are received.
MR. KING: The next Rothenberger rebuttal document is NG-2281which we offer at this time into evidence as Exhibit 636.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received. For the convenience of the defense counsel the Tribunal has received a memorandum to the effect that Cuhorst Supplement, Schlegelberger Supplement I, and Rothaug Books VII and IX are now in the possession of the SecretaryGeneral and may be offered in due time.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honor please, I find there is one more rebuttal document against Klemm. The Prosecution offers NG-2280 in rebuttal against the Defendant Klemm, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 637.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received. Have you finished, Mr. LaFollette?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I beg your pardon, yes; I have no more.
THE PRESIDENT: I comment on the fact that either the author or the translator in Exhibit 637 must have been greatly confused. Some of it is unintelligible. I don't know which it is. We are ready to proceed with documents in the possession of the Secretary-General.
DR. KOESSL: Koessl for the Defendant Rothaug. In Document Book No. VII, which I would like to submit now, the first document is the Rothaug Document No. 201.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment till we receive the Document Book, please.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The first is Document No. 201?
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 201 and I am offering it as Exhibit 199, your Honor.
That document is the affidavit by Witness Greiner who was an expert in the case Cucik, an expert witness, that is. Of particular interest is that Rothaug afforded every opportunity to the Pole to explain and prove his innocence; that it was remarkable how thorough Rothaug was trying to establish the truth; also that he made reproaches to the German peasant because he had caused the Pole to have serious difficulties by statements that he had made and that Rothaug compared with the duty of the Poles to obey the Germans, the duty of the Germans to treat the Poles in a humane manner.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, may I remind you - perhaps we haven't done so before -
DR. KOESSL: Yes, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: -- that to aid the Tribunal in the examination of Court No. III, Case No. 3.these documents we are having summaries which are presented to us through our assistants, which are more complete than the statements which counsel makes over the transmission system, so that we do have a batter summary than you have time to make verbally.
DR. KOESSL: I offer Document No. 204 as Exhibit 201.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. KOESSL: I beg your pardon. I think I made a mistake. I wanted to offer Document No. 202 as Exhibit 200. That is the next me after 201. It is an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 199 and 200 of Rothaug are received.
DR. KOESSL: As for Document 202, that is Exhibit 200, I have to make a correction there. Therefore, I ask that this number be reserved for the time being and I will submit it tomorrow morning again.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand. What number do you. want reserved?
DR. KOESSL: Exhibit 200, that is, Document 202.
THE PRESIDENT: And you are not offering it now?
DR. KOESSL: No, because it has a technical deficiency. I ask for permission to submit it tomorrow, Document 204 also has a technical deficiency and I ask that I be permitted also, after discussing this matter with the Prosecution, to submit this document tomorrow and that Document 204, Exhibit No. 201, be reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve it.
DR. KOESSL: As Exhibit 202 I offer Document No. 205. That is the affidavit by the wife of the attorney Kern who has been heard here as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Received. We will take our morning recess at this time.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. LaFollette, will you make a penciled note of these natters.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I wonder if you would check up on the following exhibit numbers. I have called attention to the Secretary General to Exhibit 592 in which we have received only a German copy -- at least I received only a German copy and I would like an English copy. Exhibits 589, 576 and 538 appear in my records identified only, and not offered, and I would like you to check that for me. Exhibit 560 appears as received, but I haven't a copy of it. If you will check those for me, I will appreciate it.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead Dr. Koessl.
DR. KOESSL: (Attorney for the Defendant Rothaug) My next document is Rothaug Document 206, Exhibit 203.
It contains an affidavit by a university professor concerning the psychological aspect of Rothaug's conduct of trials.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 207 I offer as Rothaug Exhibit 204. This is an affidavit by an attorney who gives his comments on the manner in which Rothaug conducted proceedings.
I next offer Document 208 as Exhibit 205. This is an affidavit by the former general public prosecutor, Nurnberg, whose name is Dr. Dentz.
THE PRESIDENT: Bems?
DR. KOSSL: Bems. B-e-m-s.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 204 and 205 are received.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document 204, where I asked you to reserve the Exhibit No. 201, I now wish to offer. I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that in the document book this affidavit is certified by a notary public, Hans Vogler. The original is certified by an assistant because the copy which was certified by the notary shows several defects as far as the form is concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: There is no objection.
DR. KOESSL: No.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. KOESSL: I have now concluded the introduction of my Document Book VII. I can now passon to Document Book No. IX. The first document from Book IX which I offer is Document 215 as Exhibit 206. This contains the provisions governing the administration of an oath or the interrogation of persons who are members, or rather who were members of the Nazi Party or its affiliated organizations. The Tribunal asked me to submit this.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. KOESSL: I should like to draw attention to the fact that in the English translation the word "Gliederung" has been translated by "organization". I am not sure whether this translation is good enough, for these provisions do not govern the cases of people who were members of the affiliated organizations, of the affiliated formations. Perhaps the experts, the interpreters, could give us their views whether the word organization is not too general; affiliated formations. It is the word gliederung alone must appear in the provisions because the other organizations are not covered by these provisions.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 206 is received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 216 I offer as Exhibit 207. This document contains the transcript of the proceedings in the Heubeck case. It proves that only the judgment in the Heubeck case was used as a basis for the second judgment and that not, as the prosecution asserts, the information received from the concentration camp was used as a basis, for in that case the information obtained from the concentration camp would have had to be read out at the trial. Document No. 217 I offer as Exhibit No. 208. This document contains the judgment in the Zemlicka case, Z-e-m-l-i-c-k-a. The witness Markl referred to that case.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 207 and 208 are received -- 207 and 208.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document No. 218 I offer as Exhibit 209. This document contains excerpts from the Schosser files. These excerpts particularly serve to indicate that the proceedings in connection with the the funeral of the Pole had not yet been discontinued. The document further proves that it was the prosecution which instituted the second proceeding and not Rothaug.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 219 I offer as Exhibit 210. This document contains the judgment in the Gudich which has been discussed here a great many times.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 220 I offer as Exhibit 211. This is an affidavit by a man called Koch who was a public prosecutor here. I now have finished with my Document Book IX.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received. Does that complete the Rothaug defense? The question is -
DR. KOESSL: I have another two document books, No. VIII and No. XI. They should reach me either today or tomorrow.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: (Attorney for the Defendant Schlegelberger): I wish to introduce the Schlegelberger Supplement Document Book No. 1.
THE PRESIDENT: What was your last exhibit number, Doctor?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 107.
THE PRESIDENT: 107.
DR. KUBUSCHOK : The first document is No. 36. It is an affidavit by Dr. Dix. The Exhibit No. 94 has been reserved for that document.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you wait just a moment? Exhibit 94 is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document 41, affidavit Dr. Strucksberg for that the exhibit No. 99 has been reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: That was in Document Book II, Document 41?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Hasn't it been in Supplement Book No. 1?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The third document, Your Honor, is Exhibit No. 40.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK" The affidavit by Hornef, for this document Exhibit No. 76 has been reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: 76 has been reserved? It is your Document 76, isn't it, and Exhibit 40 was reserved?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: No. The document 76 is Exhibit No. 40, and now I am coming to Document 83, which is to become Exhibit No. 76.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 76 is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document is an affidavit by Dr. Marenzi. The document number is 44 and I offer it as Exhibit 108.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 47 I offer as Exhibit 109.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 48 I offer as Exhibit 110.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 75 I offer as Exhibit No. 111.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 115 I offer as Exhibit 112.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I must object to this document 115 for the reason that there is no preamble in the form prescribed according to the rules.
THE PRESIDENT: Can you agree on the facts so we will not have to examine the document?
MR. LAFOLIETTE: I don't think it is very important. We will withdraw the objection.
THE PRESIDENT: I think you are right. Exhibit 112 is received -both certified and stated to be under oath; it may be irregular in form. The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 116, the next one on the index, I am not offering. I skip it and pass on to Document 117 which I offer as Exhibit 113.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 118 I offer as Exhibit 114.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 119 I offer as Exhibit 115.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document No. 120 I offer as Exhibit 116.
THE PRESIDENT: It is received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 121 I offer as Exhibit 117.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document No. 122 I offer as -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. 121 was offered as Exhibit 117, and 122 -
DR. KUBUSCHOK: As Exhibit 118.
THE PRESIDENT: They are received; both of them.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 123 I offer as Exhibit 119.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 124 as Exhibit 120.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 125 as Exhibit 121.
THE PRESIDENT: 120 and 121 an received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document No. 126 is offered as Exhibit 122.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 127 as Exhibit 123.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The following document I shall have to introduce later; I haven't got it with me at the moment. Document 128 I offer as Exhibit 124. 129 as Exhibit 125.
THE PRESIDENT: They are both received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 130 as Exhibit 126.
THE PRESIDENT: I hope counsel is not going to leave out William Blackstone?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: The only thing about Blackstone -- I don't have William in my book; I don't have anything beyond 107.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not in the book, page 77 seems to be the last page in our book.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: That is due to the fact that the last documents are originals in the English text, that is to say, the original was in Enlish and, therefore, never got to the Translation Department. The English texts are therefore contained in the German version, and, therefore, the whole thing should be re-stapled.
THE PRESIDENT: You can add those later. They will be received when offered. The last one will be 127.
With the exceptions noted, we assume that that disposes of the case of the defendant Schlegelberger, with the exception of the documents which you are going to supply that closes this case does it not?
The Cuhorst document book is available.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: We have the book in English, Your Honor, but then doesn't seem to be any lawyer to put it in.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary, the Cuhorst supplement is the only thing you have there, is it.
THE SECRETARY: I have books of Dr. Metgenberg but Dr. Schilf says the pagination is not in order.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the attorney for the defendant Cuhorst and tell him we are ready to receive his supplements.
DR. KOESSL: Someone has already gone to get Dr. Brieger.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Have you the document book Mettgenberg over there?
THE SECRETARY: Yes I have three- I have four, sir, but I believe the pagination is bad according to what Dr. Schilf said.
THE PRESIDENT: On the Mettgenberg too?
THE: SECRETARY: Yes, that is the one Dr. Schilf discussed.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, I have just been to ask the defense information center what has happened to my remaining documents and for Court?
3, Case 3 the last week I have been going there about three or four tines a day, Unfortunately, they have not promised me for certain when they will have the documents ready for me to submit them.
Captain Rice actually told me that in the case of quite a few documents the translations cannot be found. I don't think at all this is Captain Rice's fault but I think it is very likely that the German staff has made some mistake.
THE PRESIDENT: We were told your Cuhorst supplement is available here and ready to introduce.
DR. BRIEGER: Captain Rice told me and I also walked to Mr. Reese who is in charge of the translation department.....
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, are you possessed at this moment with the Cuhorst Supplement Books?
THE SECRETARY: Supplement I.
THE PRESIDENT: Cuhorst I; yes.
THE SECRETARY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to introduce them? They are here.
DR. BRIEGER: Then I will go back to my office and do it right away, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I wonder if some defense counsel will inform the evanescent Dr. Schilf that he should be prepared to complete the oral examination of the witness Klemm? I see he is not here. We were informed he desired to do so, Dr. Schilf, to call the defendant Klemm. He should be prepared to do so.
DR. BRIEGER: On account of the objection which the Prosecution voiced the other day when I wished to introduce several of my documents, I have now put them into the right shape and I should be very glad if I could now submit to the Tribunal my documents 134, 135 and 136. I should like to ask the representative of the Secretary General whether he has with him the affidavit by Reiger, the affidavit of Dinkelacker and the affidavit of Sommert in the new version. The document numbers are 134, 133 and 136. I shall now submit my documents. Exhibit 125 is Cuhorst document 134, an affidavit by Reiger.
THE PRESIDENT: What is that? The book which we have starts with document 124, document book 126. but I assume that is an error.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: As I understand it, these are correction documents.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: But I can't agree to certain affidavit unless I get them in English. I don't know what has been substituted.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Court that were exactly the misgivings which I had and that is why I went back to the Defense Information Center today and was told those document were not available, and I had first thought they were available.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question? Me have here a supplement book. It is marked document book 126, and contains documents numbered 124 to 127, inclusive. Are you prepared to offer those documents at this time?
DR. BRIEGER: If you would allow me to go through the documents. For the moment I am having great difficulty; because my Secretary has gone away.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until one-thirty. We are wasting time this morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 1330 hours, 23 September 1947)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 23 September 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Tribunal, before I submit the documents which the Court expects me to submit, may I be permitted to suggest that Dr. Schilf begin with with his material, because he is in a great hurry?
THE PRESIDENT: That is agreeable to the Tribunal. You may proceed, Dr. Schilf.
DR. SCHILF (Counsel for the Defendant Klemm): May it please the Tribunal, I wish to call the Defendant Klemm to the witness stand to give us a brief explanation of what he has to say concerning documents which have been submitted in the meantime.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so.
HERBERT KLEMM, a witness, having been previously duly sworn, took the stand and testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Mr. Klemm , yesterday, in the course of the afternoon, the Prosecution offered a bundle of documents and stated specifically that these documents were directed against you and so were submitted in evidence against you.
Have you had an opportunity to scan through these documents so that you are now in a position to comment upon them?
A. I have here before me, first of all, Exhibit 605, and apparently Exhibit 607 belongs to it. Exhibit 607 is a proclamation by the General Commissioner for Public Security at the Hague. The proclamation is dated 25 February 1941, and it refers to incidents in the same manner as Exhibit 605, apparently, incidents which occurred art Amtsterdam about two or throe weeks before I left Holland and was transferred to Munich.
Referring to these matters, I can only say that as to the incidents , as well as to the measures which were planned, I did not obtain any information before-hand, and afterwards I got only that which was occasionally discussed at the Luncheon table.
As can also be seen from Exhibit 611, the General Commisioner's Office for Security -- that is, the Office of the Commissioner of Police -- was quite separate from the General Commissioner for Administration and Justice, and the Administration of Justice had nothing to do with these matters at all.
Furthermore, the Prosecution submitted Exhibits 606 and 608. They are newspapers clippings from Dutch papers dated the beginning of March 1941. These newspaper clippings are reports about death sentences which had been pronounced at that time in the Netherlands. These documents, quite apparently, were submitted by the Prosecution in connection with the fact that during my first testimony in the witness box I said that according to my recollection, as long as I was in the Netherlands and in charge of the German Administration of Justice, no death sentences had been pronounced.
These newspaper clippings do not contradict my statement in any way, because all that is contained in Exhibits 606 and 608 are solely sentences pronounced by German Military Courts, but not by German Civil Courts under the Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Netherlands Territories. The jurisdiction of the German Military Courts, for which the Military Commander of the Occupied Territories was competent, had nothing to do with the jurisdiction and the sphere of jurisdiction of the Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Netherlands Territories. It was quite separate from that; we had no influence in that sphere.
Q. Have you mentioned all the documents yet?
A. No, not yet.
The Prosecution, by submitting Exhibits 609 and 610, presented copies of letters written by me.