THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, I am referring to defense document No. 8, Exhibit 6. I have now meanwhile inspected the original of this document and the English translation of this original seems to be correct so I believe that if Dr. Sauter has any alterations at this time they can only be done through a supplement affidavit or it has to be left as it is by the affiant. It merely indicates the time, November 1943. It does not say "5 January 1943."
THE PRESIDENT: The number of the document, though, corresponds with the January document, doesn't it?
MR. RAPP: It does correspond, your Honor, but I am just wondering whether or not the affiant wanted to say this. It does raise some question of doubt and I want to be sure that the affiant gets a chance to correct it. I wouldn't want to call him here for cross examination for this particular error if it is an error but I do think it ought to be straightened out one way or the other.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. SAUTER: I shall come back to this point later on after I have looked at the photostatic copy. I am sure there must be a mistake. It should read "5 January" but I shall prove it later.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q Witness, we looked just now at Document 1335 in Book XIX on page ly of the German, on page 12 of the English. Will you please look at this document once more and particularly the entry of 25 August 1942 and would you please tell us whether you happen to find therein a confirmation of what you have told the Tribunal just now concerning your efforts to improve hygienic conditions in the Semlin camp. It is the entry of 25 August 1942. Have you got it?
A Yes, I do.
Q Perhaps, you could read what the entry says and it will be self explanatory.
A "Chief confers with Adjutant IV-b" --May I explain, IV-b is the Senior Medical Officer -- Stabsarzt Winkler" about sanitary conditions in the Semlin Concentration Camp where a daily death rate up to 100 prevails. The Croatian Government, in spite of promising to evacuate and feed the inmates, has not yet done anything."
All this conforms -
Q Just a minute, witness. Is that the end of the quotation?
A Yes, it is.
Q Now, will you please tell us first, witness, from where it is a quotation? Is it part of an order or a report?
A It is a quotation from the War Diary.
Q Of what formation?
A Of the Commanding General and Commander in Serbia.
Q And you see therein a confirmation, you just started to say?
A Yes, I see therein a confirmation of the fact that conditions were reported to me and I felt myself compelled to do something for their improvement at once.
Q Witness, I should now like to submit another document to you and this is contained in Document Book IX on page 18 and page 14 of the English. It is Document NOKW-1127 and it is exhibit 219. It is an order dated 21 August 1942 and a teletype letter of the 30th of August 1942. Can you tell us anything further about this document in your defense?
A The first is an order by the Commanding General and Commander Serbia signed as a Deputy by Major General Hinghofer and it deals among other things with the treatment of the population in the Fruska-Gora operation. It says under paragraph 7-c that the male insurgent Serbian population between the ages of 17 and 50 are to be arrested and to be brought to the Semlin reception camp insofar as they are not needed to bring in the harvest.
The second letter, the teletype letter, which defense counsel has just referred to of 13 August 1943 has the following background. The Commander in Chief of the 12th Army and Armed Forces Commander Southeast, General Loehr, happened to be in Belgrade in those days.
He had gone out to fighting group Broowsky, a unit which mopped up in the FruskaGora area. When General Loehr returned to Belgrade he issued the order that, first of all, any alien elements to the locality were to be regarede as partisan suspects and to be done away with. The Operational Department submitted the draft of this order to me which read: "The Commander in Chief had ordered that among those arrested first of all those who do not belong to the locality are to be regarded as partisan suspects and are to be done away with." That we understood by that was to transport them to Semlin, as is contained in paragraph 7-c of the previous order. In that order I corrected with my own hand the following in the last sentence. Originally the sentence read: "Non-residents of the locality are to be regarded as those people who lately have moved in from a different region." I added, "without a plausable reason."
Q Witness, in this document there is an equivocal expression. I mean the term "to be done away with"--"beswitigen." What was the term "to do away with" supposed to mean? Perhaps you will read the sentence first and then give us your explanation.
A "The Commander in Chief has directed that of those arrested first of all those who do not belong to the locality are to be regarded as partisan suspects and are to be done away with."
Q That is how it reads is it?
A Yes, it is. As I said before, by "doing away with" I understand a treatment as is contained in Paragraph 7-c of the previous order for the insurgent male population, namely, to transport them to the reception camp at Semlin.
Q Herr von Geitner, yesterday in a different connection we discussed Document NOKW-1722, which is Exhibit 228, contained in Document Book IX, on Page 65 of the German text and Page 51 of the English text. You gave us the background of that document. Can you tell us anything about the document itself--what it contains which might be of importance? That sort of a document is it?
A It is an excerpt from the War Diary, and it deals with a number of items. First, there is a reference to a conference of Chiefs of Staff in Salonika with the Armed Forces Commander Southeast. I made brief notes about that in order to submit them to my own Commander. And these notes were added to the War Diary. At the conference a directive issued by the OKW was made known. There the OKW took the point of view that certain punishable deeds committed by the non-German population in the Serbian area were not punished sufficiently severely. What was expected was a more severe procedure. I submitted this to my Commander in Chief for his information, who was the supreme judicial authority, and I myself had no influence on the matter. Whether the Commander in Chief did anything I do not think.
Q Witness, now I want to show you a document in Document Book IX, on Page 93 of the German and Page 61 of the English. This is Document NOKW-1156, and it is Exhibit 229.
In this document there is a reference to extermination measures, and the population was running away to the woods because of them. Can you tell the Court from where the document originates and whether it applied to the Serbian area?
A This document is a description of conditions among the Communist insurgents in Yugoslavia. It originated with the Commanding General and Commander Serbia, and it was delt with in Department I-c, and it was meant for the information of General Lueters, who in those days was to take over the Command of German troops in Croatia. I regret and deplore the fact that the document has been submitted in these rigorous extracts. According to the original document, it first refers briefly to Serbia and then to Croatia. The expression "Sphere of extermination and retaliation measures" refers to conditions in Croatia. This becomes clear from a passage which is unhappily not contained in this previous extract. These extermination measures refer to the extermination measures by the Croatian Ustashas against the Serbians in Bosnia.
Q Do you mean to say that this document had nothing to do with the German troops, and particularly with the troops of the Commander Serbia?
A Extermination measures did not refer to the troops under the Commander Serbia, nor did they refer to the German troops in Croatia which were not under him.
Q In Document Book X there is another document which is also alleged to incriminate you. It is Document Book X, Page 18 in the German text and Page 25 in the English text. This is Document 899, Exhibit 250. Will you please tell the Court what you, Herr von Geitner, had to do with the document and the matters with which it deals?
A I was on leave on 19 January and, therefore, I have nothing to do with the first letter of 20th January, however there is also a letter contained of 25th December 1942, directed to Prime Minister Nedic. Prime Minister Nedic had asked General Bader that under certain conditions he might be entrusted with the carrying out of retaliation measures if he should come across insurgents who attacked members of the Serbian Government.
This demand was expressed by Nedic in a personal talk with General Bader. Before General Bader went on leave he had ordered me to write a brief letter to the Prime Minister to the effect that he agreed. That is the history of this letter. And, of course, I complied with the order.
Q In the same document book---Document Book X--there is on Page 39-unfortunately I don't know what page it is in the English Document Book. Just a moment. It is on Page 50 in the English. In the document book is contained Document 1029, which is Exhibit 258, From this document it becomes clear...
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, if Dr. Sauter is referring to Exhibit 258, it is listed as NOKW-1027, not NOKW-1029.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe Mr. Rapp is correct in that statement, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: I beg your pardon; it's quite true. I wish to correct it. It is Document NOKW-1027, Exhibit 258, in Document Book X.
BY DR. SAUTER:
Q From this document, Herr von Geitner, it becomes clear that General Bader ordered, for the murder of four German soldiers, that 400 Communists be shot. Can you tell us how it came about that General Bader employed the large ratio of 1 to 100 in this particular case?
A. This affair was connected with the murder and plunder of the Commander of a regiment in the 704th Division, by the name of Colonel Kensel, together with three people who accompanied him in the neighborhood of Ucara. The incident occurred on 15 February, as far as I know. I can remember the matter only dimly. The rest I know from the document. On this day it is possible that I heard of the incident but only very furtively, because before noon I had to fly to Salonika, and I had to go via Sarajevo, where I changed the aircraft, and I flew from Ucara to Salonika for a conference of chiefs of Staff with the Armed Forces Commander Southeast. The order for this measure came from General Bader, apparently after a lengthy conference with the Commander of the 704th Division on the 16th of February, on a day when I was in Salonika. On the 17th of February I flew back and reported to General Bader about the conference in Salonika. I suppose that it was on that occasion or perhaps a bit later that he told me about this measure. He was very excited that day and deeply indignant about this renewed attack on officers of the 724th Regiment, particularly about the act that the Regimental Commander who was a particularly capable man and had been a victim of the attack. And General Bader was also indignant about the way in which this incident had been carried out and the way in which the corpses were found. He told me he had made up his mind in this case to take strong measures in order, once and for all, to stop the activating of what was known as the "Simic" band at the time, a gang of brutal characters who made constant unrest in the Southeast Taurus area. I was very surprised about this, and I told him this, but he said that in this case he simply had to make a strong example.
Q. Witness, are you sure that the day which you have indicated is correct? You said before the order had been issued on the 16th of January.
A. Yes, quite sure.
Q. I only say this lest there be a misunderstanding, The announcement and proclamation by the Commanding General contained in Document NOKW-1027, which you have just quoted, is dated the 19th of February 1943, but the order itself, as far as you remember, was dated the 16th of February?
A. I did not remember the actual days. All I know is that this occurred when I was in Salonika. This becomes clear from the War Diary.
Q. Witness, this was undoubtedly a particularly strong order on the part of General Bader. Can you, from your own observation tell the Court whether this stringent order by General Bader has any effect on the population?
A. In the neighborhood South of Pocarevac things became more quiet, which becomes clear also from a report given by the 704th Division.
Q. Witness, on frequent occasions you have referred to the general retaliation order by General Bader, dated the 28th of February 1943. It is contained in a document book 8 Page 77 of the German and Page 100 of the English version. It is Document NOKW-382, Exhibit 263. Also, you have referred to the order concerning the establishment of retaliation camps of the same day, which is contained in Document NOKW-1336, Exhibit 262, in Document Book X, on page 75 of the German text and Page 99 of the English text. Do you have anything to say about this order in order to clarify your own position?
A. I was on leave by the end of January or the beginning of February. When I returned I learned that the Commander in Chief had told his expert, who was
COURT V CASE VII
working on retaliation problems, to have the orders for retaliation measures, which were generally applicable, redrawn up. This is also confirmed by the War Diary in an entry of 30th January 1942 when OI (1st A.A.C.) reports orally about the reformulation of the order. When I returned, and on one of the first days after I had returned, perhaps about the 25th, General Bader talked with me about this draft for the order. I spoke with him for a long time that day, and I availed myself of the opportunity to suggest moderation, particularly as regards the ratio for retaliation as laid down here. General Bader deliberated on this, but then he told me that, as in January and February, incidents had increased considerably, and particularly things like the murder of Colonel Hensel and the constant attacks on Serbian burgermeisters did not make it possible for him to have any changes made. He issued this order in his capacity as the holder of executive power. I had to let matters rest with General Bader's decision, particularly as the executive power was in his hands. I did not initiate this order.
Q. Witness, then there is a letter signed by you in Document Book XI, on page 26 of the German and Page 34 of the English version. This is Document 1395, Exhibit 271,
A. What Page did you say?
Q. It is Page 26 of the German Document Book. English page 34.
A. Oh, yes.
Q. Have you got it, Witness?
A. Yes.
Q. Herr von Geitner, you've found it haven't you?
A. I have.
Q. This is an order dated the 2nd of April, directed to Administrative sub-area Headquarters 610 *** ****.
and comments are made for the disarming of Frontier posts. What can you tell us about that? What responsibility arose therefrom for you? I mean concerning your person.
A. The whole business is a letter directed to Administrative sub-area Headquarters 610, in whose area the incident had occurred for which the man in charge of the customs border guard suggested retaliation by apprehending people and burning down houses. This Administrative sub-area headquarters was solely competent to suggest a measure. It had, therefore, to give its comment first ab out the whole business.
In this letter the headquarters was invited to examine the measures suggested and report to the Commanding General about the matter. A decision would then be reached by the Commanding General. It is a letter written by me by order of the Commanding General in order to examine this whole matter.
Q Then on the basis of these suggestions which came in a new order was issued by General Bader to which you referred yesterday. Did this new order by General Bader intensify or mitigate matters?
A Do you mean the order, Doctor, of 3 April 1943?
Q I mean that order about burning the houses?
A I don't think that this order is in any way connected with the previous matter, but General Bader felt obliged to re-arrange the whole matter, and he issued this order 3 April 1943. In this order it is expressed that the burning down of buildings during combat actions would only be done by orders of an officer, but that the burning down of houses after the event, after combat, was a retaliation measures, and therefore needed the approval of the officer in command of the Serbian Headquarters. This regulation meant, as compared to the regulation covering guerrilla warfare, in force at the time without doubt a modification, because according to the band warfare regulation as far as I know any Captain was authorized even after the event, as a retaliation, you might say, to have a house burned down.
Prior to that this order contained orders how to proceed in a case like this with the population.
Q What was the rank of the man in charge of the sub-area headquarters concerned with this matter?
AAs a rule Colonel, Lieutenant Colonel, or General. In other words a higher rank or older man.
Q Then there is another order concerning the shooting of women and children which is contained in Document Book 24, page 95 and on page 136 of the English. It is Document 1668, Exhibit 534. And it is alleged that the Commander of Infantry Regiment 721 of the 714th Division, a man called Lt. Col.
von Wedel, gave the order to the officer in charge of a company that they are to shoot women and children. Were you connected with this event at all, are you in any way responsible for that.
A I heard of this business in a letter by the Armed Forces Commander Southeast, which apparently was written because OKW had made inquiries. This matter was passed on to the 714th Infantry Division, to whom at that time or at least at the time the incident is alleged to have occurred the company of the Brandenburg Regiment was subordinated to.
Q What about the company in the Brandenburg Regiment, did this Regiment belong to the area of the Commander of Serbia?
A This division belonged to the fighting unit of West Bosnia, General Stuhl, and the unit West Bosnia was subordinated to General Bader. General Stuhl reported after he had seen the Regimental Commander, who was alleged to have given the order to shoot women and children and was alleged to have given the order to shoot anybody who was still there. He interrogated the Regimental Commander and reported that this Regimental Commander neither in writing nor orally had issued any such order. It was true that on one occasion when his attention had been drawn to the fact, that among the fighting partisans there were women, he had said, "we cannot save these Amazones". (Flintenreiter) . Nothing was said about children. I remembered, the matter afterwards. General Bader ordered me to pass on this, reporting to the Armed Forces Commander Southeast. He emphasized, you should, pass it on to the Armed Forces Commander Southeast only 1-C had signed, so the master was passed on. It came back in order to be once more examined, whereupon General Bader and General Stuhl talked about this particular case personally. The result was that General Bader, as can be seen from the document dated November 17, wrote back that having conferred orally with the Commander of the 714th Division, he maintained his attitude fully, as had been expressed in the letter of 23 September.
In this letter it says the person of Lt. Col. von Wedel guarantees that an order given to the 7th Regiment Brandenburg, had not been given in fact.
DR. SAUTER: If the Tribunal, please, this puts me to the end of those documents which I wanted to discuss with Herr von Geitner, which it seems to him were the most important ones. Now, the prosecution has connected defendant von Geitner with a number of other documents, and have expressed that he was responsible for matters contained in these other documents. Were I to discuss all these further documents with the defendant this would take perhaps two or three days. The result which we would arrive at would, in my opinion, be out of all proportion to the time that is employed. On the other hand the defendant wants to give is comments on all the documents with which the Prosecution alleges he is co-responsible. In order to arrive at a compromise I suggest to the Tribunal and the Prosecution that the defendant, as far as these other documents are concerned, has expressed his comments in two affidavits about every single document, and it is my intention to include them into a later document book, Book IV perhaps, perhaps as Documents 109 and 110 and present them to the Tribunal and the Prosecution. In this way the defendant would have the opportunity to give his responsible comments on each document, and we would save much time. Should the Prosecution wish to define its attitude towards the two affidavits by the defendant it would become possible by recalling the defendant von Geitner to the witness stand. This procedure, in order to save time, was used for instance in the IMT trial, and I believe it might be a good idea to follow it here as well. Should the Prosecution agree and the Tribunal be agreeable I would only have one or two questions to put to the defendant, and then will submit such documents as I have still to submit.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have any comment to make concerning the suggestion made?
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I am certainly in favor to expedite these proceedings, hut this is something rather unconventional and a kind of a surprise to me. I wish to ask the Tribunal, in view of this, to make any comments possibly after the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We will take our noon recess at this time.
(Thereupon the noon recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the Courtroom will please take their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Your Honor, the Secretary General informs me that it would be preferable from the standpoint of his records if we cleared up the problem of having two exhibits under the same Exhibit No. 594 by actually changing the exhibit number on one of the documents. I suggest if it meets with the approval of the Tribunal that we change the document number NOKW-1779 which was offered during the cross-examination of the defendant Kuntze from Exhibit 594 to Exhibit 593-B. That particular document has been referred to on no other occasion than on the occasion of its actually being offered into evidence. One other document problem, your Honors will recall that at the time we offered NOKW-076 as Exhibit 338, upon objection by defense counsel, that document was not immediately admitted into evidence. It was then given the Number 338-A for identification and subsequently on the 27th of August, the Tribunal granted the motion of the prosecution to re-examine the question of the admissibility of the document and it was on that occasion admitted into evidence as Exhibit 336. We did not actually hand the document to the Secretary General as an exhibit at that time but I will do so sometime this afternoon, if that is agreeable to the Tribunal. That will simply clear up the matter of 338, remove the 338-A and change the document to Exhibit 338.
THE PRESIDENT: The suggested changes may be made with the approval of the Tribunal.
MR. FENSTERMACHER: Thank you, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. Sauter.
DR. SAUTER: I think that, first of all, Mr. Rapp wants to make a statement.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, the question as to whether or not the affidavits of the defendant Geitner contained in defense Document Book No. IV should be admitted in lieu of all testimony by the defendant Geitner or witness Geitner, I would like to answer for the prosecution as follows.
Firstly, up to now we have not received an English edition of Document Book IV. I was handed this morning a German copy. It is true that I speak German but there are other members on the staff who have to examine these document books and we are still waiting to get them, which means that unless we know what is contained in these affidavits, we have no way of including in our present cross-examination anything we may like to ask the witness.
If there is anything in these affidavits which is worthwhile for us to go over again, we would then have to call the witness back. Consequently I don't see at the present time any time-saving. I think, furthermore, Dr. Sauter had two days to examine this witness and this is a very reasonable time in which some of this testimony could have been included if Dr. Sauter felt that it was important enough to be heard; so before the prosecution can say whether or not it agrees to this procedure, as suggested by Dr. Sauter, we must first examine the affidavits, possibly by tomorrow morning if I can get the translation of the document book, and then see whether or not it will actually be a time-saving factor. I may also like to call to the Tribunal's attention that the splitting up of a cross-examination in this case for the convenience of defense counsel puts us possibly in a very dangerous position.
I may ask the witness on the basis of the information I have now certain questions to which the witness will make certain answers. Then these answers may not correspond with the answers he has given in these affidavits and I would have to go over that same ground and I am sure defense counsel would object to that and I would have to say why I would have to go over that same ground. Therefore, I think this procedure leaves a lot to be said. In any event, before I have examined these affidavits, I am in no position to stipulate at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: I think, Mr. Rapp, that what Dr. Sauter had in mind was to avoid the witness being interrogated about a number of exhibits which he has not previously mentioned or to which he has not given attention and concerning which the witness has not been examined.
MR. RAPP: I understand that, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I think it was to avoid some of these other documents that he had in mind and you referred to as being accepted in lieu of all of his testimony, if I understood you, and I think he only referred to portions of the document.
MR. RAPP: That is right, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Under the circumstances, I suppose the only thing to do would be to wait until morning until you have a chance to check into it further.
MR. RAPP: That is correct, your Honor, and I would like to ask Dr. Sauter when we could expect these missing document books. There are still some document books. I have received a letter which I think was addressed to the Tribunal. It talks of Document No. IV, probably until the 27th of October, probably Document Book No. V to the 31st of October, Document Book No. VI the 8th of November. All these document books pertain to the defendant Geitner.
THE PRESIDENT: May I inquire as to whether or not all the material in these books refers to matters which were included in the material sent from Washington?
DR. SAUTER: About half of the document books which have not yet been been translated contain material from the Washington war diaries. In the last weeks we have been going through this very extensive material and we have made the necessary excerpts so that the Tribunal and the prosecution may know what the defense wants to use from this material. Because of the large extent of material, it was very difficult to complete these document books and was not possible to do so earlier. During the past weeks, one of my assistants has worked on these books the whole day every day, and of course I would not be in a position to go through all this material with the defendant and I am ready to do this but I don't think that this would be very expedient because the Tribunal has not yet got these new document books in translation and therefore cannot follow as well as if they had these document books in front of them in English; and for the second reason that the prosecution has not yet been able to go through these document books.
For this reason, I have suggested that the statements made by Geitner to these document books should be submitted in the form of two affidavits and that the prosecution should have the right-- that is what I said already this morning--that the prosecution should have the right to later on examine the defendant Geitner about these document books if they want to charge him with anything in them. This proceeding is also expedient for another reasons. As far as I know, the prosecution will go through this Washington material in the next few days, and I assume in advance that the prosecution will find many things in this Washington material which they will probably charge against the defendant Geitner, and as defense counsel I don't want to oppose this but I welcome it. I will welcome that everything is charged against the defendant which can possibly be charged against him, and also from the prosecution point of view this is also only possible if the material is correspondingly prepared. The fact that through this procedure we will gain two or three days and that it would also not be a disadvantage I have already mentioned this morning.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, you have asked defense counsel -- I believe so how many documents in these missing document books pertain to the documents which came from Washington. If Document Book No. IV which I have not received as yet officially is any indication, I will state that Document Book IV contains three affidavits which could have been submitted in Document Book I or in any other document book, but there is certainly no excuse that they should not be in our hands by now.
I don't know whether or not all the other document books will only contain documents from Washington. I understood Dr. Sauter to say only about half. Be that as it may, certainly there is no excuse that these should not be in our hands. The prosecution has rested its case against the defendant Geitner. I doubt very seriously that we will use any other documents against this defendant which have come from Washington, possibly a few during rebuttal or as surprise documents, but I think that the procedure is not knowing the defense's case, while the defendant Geitner is still on the stand, is to some degree hampering our plan of crossexamination.
THE PRESIDENT: May I suggest that we proceed with the documents that we have at hand and in the meantime if you can check over it so you can advise us Monday, Mr. Rapp, perhaps that will clarify that situation.
MR. RAPP: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Now I want to make this further statement. The defense began the presentation of their evidence on September 15, I believe. I have, I believe, with all courtesy and yet with a reasonable amount of firmness been inquiring from time to time as to when the defense documents would be in and so they could be translated and brought to the attention of the Tribunal. I do not want to do anything other than be courteous, but there will come a time apparently when I will have to take on a more different attitude apparently if we are going to get results. It seems to me we must ask and insist and the Tribunal is entitled to it, and out of the proper presentation of the case on behalf of the defendants it is incumbent upon counsel to see that these documents are ready.
Now that is all I want to say now, but I think that is saying it sufficiently. I don't think the interest of the respective clients should be jeopardized by having these documents come in late and the Tribunal will have to receive them in a haphazard sort of a way. We have tried to cooperate. I am certain it is the attitude of the Tribunal that if we can't get that cooperation, we will have to take some more stringent action.
You may proceed with the presentation of your evidence.
Judge Carter would like to ask a question.
JUDGE CARTER: Dr. Sauter, these exhibits that you have listed in your affidavits, I assume are those that you consider less important and you are merely setting out in the affidavits the reasons why they don't apply to the defendant Geitner.
If that is true, it seems to me that we would be wasting a lot of time here if it was just merely a group that he wants to dispose of by saying that he wasn't present or he didn't sign them or something of that kind. I would hate to take the time of the Tribunal to go through a whole list of documents like that when that was all you were trying to establish. If that is the nature of the affidavits and the documents contained in it, couldn't you cross-examine on them just as well from the affidavit as well as after going through all that ceremony?
MR. RAPP: I quite agree but, your Honor, since the cross-examination is not going to be acute this afternoon, Dr. Sauter told me that he would put in the three document books. It won't come up before Monday morning if the statement of Dr. Sauter is actually that that is all these affidavits amount to. Obviously there is no delay.
JUDGE CARTER: Well, I merely thought that it would be useless -taking a lot of useless time, wasted time, if that was the nature of the affidavits.
MR. RAPP: That is correct, your Honor.
JUDGE CARTER: Of course, the affidavits can't be admitted except by stipulation, I quite agree with that, but it seems to me if that is the nature of them -
MR. RAPP: If that is the nature of the affidavit, your Honor, then there will be no delay on our part.
JUDGE CARTER: Very well.