A Yes, presumably, Your Honor.
Q Or by truck, by motor truck?
A I think that is hardly possible, Your Honor, to have them transported by vehicles, because we didn't have enough fuel in Germany.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, all right.
BY MR. WALTON:
Q Witness, let's consider another example. Suppose that the Operational Main Office or some agency had allotted you railway cars and for a short time you had more railway cars than you needed. Let's suppose further that at this precise time the staff of Amtsgruppe D needed rail transportation for concentration camp inmates and knew that you had these railway cars available. My question is, could Amtsgruppe D then apply to you for the reassignment of these railroad cars?
A It is not thus that the WVHA gave me a certain allocation of space for transportation, but rather we applied for the transport with the Operational Main Office, and the operational office passed on the request to the Army, and the Army passed it on to the railroads, and the railroads placed this space at our disposal. It would have had to go vice versa.
Q You mean to state if you had a surplus of railroad transportation you had to turn it back to the Army rather than loan it out to Amtsgruppe D?
A We didn't have any superfluous wagons, railroad wagons, nor did we have any vehicles.
Q I am not asking you about a fact. I am trying to give you an example, to pose a hypothetical question, that if a surplus of railway space occurred in your office and Amtsgruppe D needed this space and knew that you had such a space available, could they have requested the loan of this space which had already been assigned to you?
A That example is absolutely wrong, Mr. Prosecutor. If I may use one word, it doesn't quite make sense.
It couldn't have been that way. It simply couldn't have been that way. It is absolutely impossible. If you want me to tell you how it could have been, well, I can tell you that clearly.
Q We will skip that for the present. I believe you have stated in previous investigations that the man who handled your transportation matters was an Unterscharfuehrer. Was not his name Stopp?
A It was an Oberscharfuehrer.
Q Oberscharfuehrer Stopp, S-t-o-p-p?
A Yes.
Q Suppose that Stopp had received a request for railway space from Amtsgruppe D for the concentration camp inmates. What would he have done with this; would he have shown it to you?
A Yes, I imagine he would have because it would have been unusual then.
Q Would he have made a report immediately of this or would he have waited until his regular fortnightly period to report it?
A No, in such case he could have come and seen me immediately.
Q Did this ever happen while you were in Office B-V?
A No, I can't recall ever having received a request for inmates.
Q Did it ever happen that Amtsgruppe D requested railway transportation from your office while you were Amt Chief of B-V?
A No, I know of no such case.
Q Did Stopp ever report to you that he had supplied railway transportation to Division W?
A No.
Q Let me refresh your memory. In your interrogation of 2 December, 1946, the question was asked, "Did Division W ever requisition railway carriages through you or through Stopp," and your answer: "I can not say for certain, but I consider it possible. Will you please question Stopp on this point?" Now, which is correct, the interroga tion or the statement you made today that Division W never requested transportation from you?
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, he didn't say that, and your two answers are not contradictory. He says this morning he can not recall any such instance, and that is exactly what he said in the interrogation isn't it?
MR. WALTON: I am sorry, I missed that. I didn't get that translation. I misunderstood it.
THE PRESIDENT: As I got it he said he can not recall any such instance.
MR. WALTON: Thank you, Mr. President, for calling it to my attention. That escaped me.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Q (By Mr. Walton): Now, would you say that such a thing was possible, that Division W would call on you for railway space?
A No, I can't quite tell you for sure. That they tried to do so, just as they tried to do it with vehicles - maybe to receive rail transportation - I am quite convinced of that. That they succeeded in doing so, however, is an entirely different question.
Q Didn't you leave a large part of the decision on matters up to your railway expert, Oberscharfuehrer Stopp?
A Here is the way it worked. An Oberscharfuehrer sticks to his orders, and as he came to me from the Operational Main Office, from the rail transportation there, the order of the Operational Main Office was the only ones which was valid for him. The Army rail transportation's regulations had become so severe in the meantime that a deviation was no longer possible, or at least almost impossible.
Q Do you know, or have you learned where Division W got its railroad transportation?
A I couldn't tell you that. At least I couldn't answer that question for quite sure.
They probably requested it with the railroads directly.
Q But you knew they didn't get it from your office?
A Yes, that was known to me.
Q How, from your knowledge, your general knowledge of the WVHA, would you say that it was an efficient organization?
A What do you mean by that?
Q Efficient.
A Mr. Prosecutor, I really can not judge that question because I am not an administrative officer. If you ask me about my field of task then I can give you information, as much as you want, but I simply won't even try to tell you something about the entire WVHA concerning its efficiency.
Q You never did hear that it was an inefficient organization, did you, while you were there?
AAn inefficient organization? Well, I can't judge anything about that either.
Q Everything seemed to you to be working smoothly, in proper order as far as you could tell, is that correct?
A For me it was nothing but an administrational organization for the Army.
Q It looked to you like it was running all right when you saw it last, is that not right?
A Yes.
Q Now, in order to obtain this smooth-running organization, it was necessary for all people in the WVHA to cooperate, wasn't it?
A I assume that. However, they didn't necessarily have to collaborate with me.
Q Did you cooperate with your office chief, Loerner?
A Let me explain to you this whole thing, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q Merely answer the question, did you cooperate with your office chief, Loerner?
A Yes, of course I did.
Q Did you cooperate with the colleague in Amt B?
A How am I to understand that, Mr. Prosecutor? What do you mean by cooperate in this particular sense? Are not our fields of task entirely different? After all what does the transportation have to do with food, unless, of course, they pass a request through our office? I knew, for instance, that Tschentscher was working on food. That there was a cooperation is absolutely sure. After all we were all in the same building, and we simply had to work together.
Q And in order to have this cooperation it was necessary for the office chiefs, such as yourself, to know the task and responsibilities generally of the other office chiefs, wasn't it?
A Yes, the large outlines of their tasks, yes.
Q Outside of the purely secret matters which concerned particular offices, an official of your rank and your position in the WVHA either knew or could find out what activities were being daily carried out in the WVHA, couldn't he?
A No, that is not possible. It is absolutely impossible, because our fields of task were too different from each other.
Q You considered the WVHA an essential organization to the Reich effort, didn't you?
A No, I did not look upon it that way. For me it was nothing but an Army matter, mainly the supply, the administrative supplying of the Army. If you mean the war industries of which I heard for the first time in those documents, I can only tell you there is only one person who can give you information on that, and that is Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl.
Q Wasn't it your ambition while you were in WVHA to perform your task with all the intelligence and efficiency that you had?
A. Well, there are two interpretations of this - that of the ambition and the other one is the normal interpretation of duties. I carried out the orders without any ambition.
Q. Didn't you feel that you deserved your promotion while you were in the WVHA because you had done a good job?
A. Let me explain that, too. Now, if one has an expert and wants to keep that expert - and experts were rather rare in Germany at that time - then I can't hold it against them if they promoted me.
Q. On the other hand having done a good job, having been trained you would have felt badly if Loerner and Pohl had not recognized your work and had failed to promote you, wouldn't you?
A. If Pohl and Loerner hadn't promoted me then the chief of the Operational Main Office would have promoted me. I am quite sure about that.
Q. You do appreciate the fact that they recognized your work and promoted you, don't you?
A. Of course.
Q. Now you have submitted an affidavit in your own behalf by Konrad Morgen, M-o-r-g-e-n. Do you consider Morgen an honest man?
A. I don't know Morgan personally.
Q. You consider his affidavit as being worthwhile and true, and applicable to your case, do you not?
A. As far as I know that affidavit hasn't been introduced. Would you please leave that question to my defense counsel.
Q. It is in Document Book Scheide No. II, is it not?
A. Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, he has you there. It hasn't been introduced.
MR. WALTON: I am sorry. My notes showed that they talked about Document Book II yesterday but I don't know which document was introduced.
THE PRESIDENT: Document No. 35 and it has not been offered or marked as an exhibit.
MR. WALTON: Thank you, sir.
Q. Now I direct your attention to the character affidavits which you introduced yesterday in your own behalf, one of which was signed by Wilhelm Moehle, M-o-e-h-l-e. Moehle was formerly Police Commissar of your home town, was he not?
A. Yes.
Q. And an old comrade in arms of your father?
A. I really don't know the man who sent this affidavit. He apparently sent it of his own accord.
Q. Do you state now that you do not know Wilhelm Moehle?
A. No, I don't know him.
Q. You would expect a man who was friendly to your father to be friendly to his son, would you not?
A. I think that is absolutely impossible. There are still people around in this world who have got honor.
Q. Now, his statement, and I quote: "I never noticed during my official activity that Herr Rudolf Scheide was an especially active member of the SS", is not precisely correct when you consider your direct testimony concerning the years you served in the SS, is it?
A. That applies to the time up to 1933 which is stated in the affidavit.
Q. But you were in the SS from 1930 on, were you not?
A. Yes.
Q. And you served continuously during the time from 1930 to 1945, did you not?
A. I served in the SS from 1933 on and up to 1933 I was a member of some union, that was not a military formation.
Q. All your time from 1933 on the 1945 was taken up with your SS duties, was it not?
A. Yes, quite so.
Q. Then you were continuously active in the SS during that time?
A. Let us say in the German Army.
Q. In 1933 you considered the SS as a part of the Army?
A. Yes, definitely so. It was a part of the Army. Otherwise we wouldn't have had any officers in our organization for training and as inspectors.
Q. As an old friend of your father's, isn't it reasonable to suppose that his loyalty to him would cause him to become a bit prejudiced in your behalf?
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is a very good question to ask the Tribunal on argument.
MR. WALTON: Would the Tribunal allow me to withdraw it, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: We would not only allow you but insist that you do.
Q. I next direct your attention to a statement of Wilhelm Ehlers. When you were the commanding officer of Ehlers you considered him an efficient member of your command, didn't you?
DR. HOFFMAN: May it please Your Honor, I would like to ask the Prosecutor to state at the same time where that document is so the Tribunal can find it in a minute. I see your Honors have to look at all times.
THE PRESIDENT: I have it, it is Exhibit 17.
Q. Shall I repeat the question, witness?
A. Yes, please do.
Q. When you were the commanding officer of Ehlers you considered him an efficient member of your command, didn't you?
A. That's the way it was, Mr. Prosecutor. He was such a small painter in a small workshop. He was a worker who according to my opinion was honest and decent and who told his opinion freely about his former superior. I didn't ask him for that affidavit but was glad to receive it.
Q. As a good worker who always did what was expected of him during the time he worked for you, you reciprocated by seeing that he received such awards as leave and promotion while working under you; and did you not?
DR. HOFFMAN: Mr. President, would you not permit the Prosecution to introduce that question because the same applies to this as to the question stated before. Whether the man who wrote the affidavit was his friend or not - that doesn't play any part here.
THE PRESIDENT: No, it is proper to ask him whether he gave the person who made the affidavit special favors by way of leave and otherwise. That is a matter effecting the credibility of the person who made the affidavit. That is all right, Dr. Hoffman.
Q. Shall I repeat the question?
A. Please do, yes.
Q. Now Ehlers was a good workman who did what was expected of him, wasn't he?
A. Yes, indeed.
Q. And because he was a good workman you saw that he received such awards as his regular leave and any promotion that you could get him while he was working for you, didn't you?
A. As far as leave was concerned I could not decide for the simple reason those were State workshops and State workshops leave was regulated according to Civil Service regulations. I had no right to give him special privileges nor was he paid by me but by the administration of the Army. I was not a member of the Army administration but an expert concerning technical matters in the Motor Pool.
Q. In so far as you could, you got all for that man as you thought he was justly entitled to?
A. Let me explain that to you, Mr. Prosecutor. If one employs workers then one has to see to it that the personal welfare is taken care of. I consider it the duty of the superior. That is what I did.
Q. Now you always maintained such friendly relations with him as any superior would to an efficient junior?
A. Yes.
Q. And you would have been quite surprised and hurt if he had not given you a good affidavit in light of the former associations with him, wouldn't you?
A. That's the way it was, Mr. Prosecutor, yes.
Q. Now, the other character affidavits which you submitted are all from your friends of many years standing, were they not?
A. Well, there should be a small difference between a friend and a co-worker, shouldn't there, Mr. Prosecutor.
Q. Some are from your neighbors back home, are they not?
A. However, neighbors can pass judgment on human beings because they know how you behave.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: Mr. Walton, don't all friendly and support affidavits usually come from those who are well disposed toward the individual, certainly not from his enemies.
MR. WALTON: That is right, sir. I just want that in the record.
THE PRESIDENT: We will take judicial notice of that from many years of experience. Also, we will take a recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. WALTON: May it please the Tribunal, about five to ten minutes and the prosecution will be through with this witness. Just a few more questions and it will be over.
Q Witness, during the time that you were in the WVHA did you ever see a table of organization of the WVHA?
A I cannot recall that at all. I may have seen one hanging on a wall. However, I didn't go to the effort of looking at it closely, because I didn't know this organizational chart from the front and I had not established any main departments within my office.
Q While you were in the WVHA, did you ever hear of Office D-II, which was labor allocation?
A I cannot say if this was D-II. I only knew it for the following reason. Every month I had to write down requisitions for the inmates of Amtsgruppe D and I knew that this was submitted to Amtsgruppe D. However, I don't know anything about the individual fields of task there.
Q You had to write down requisitions for Office D-II, did you say?
A No, these requisitions of inmates were not passed on by us to Amtsgruppe D of Office D-II. As I have already said, these inmates were already there. Certain requisitions were handled there.
Q Do you knew generally the function of Amtsgruppe C or Division W?
A What it was? That was the administration of the concentration camps.
Q Did you know that they used inmate labor?
A I stated that I knew that they were employed in the camps in small details. The same was as it was in the work shops. However, I did not know anything about a mass allocation of inmates in the war industries. It would be different if I could have constantly visited concentration camps; of course, I would have noticed this fact.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Where did you make requisitions to for the inmates that were working under your office?
THE WITNESS: Could you please repeat your question once more. I didn't quite understand it.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: You have testified that you had about 20 inmates of concentration camps working under your office, B-II.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: To where did you make requisition for their maintenance to?
THE WITNESS: They were not requisitions, Your Honor. The inmates were paid by us, by the Office Treasury of the WVHA. That is to say, they were paid a certain salary and this accounting that the inmates had been paid was confirmed by me every month. Just how the exact accounting was carried out I don't know. However, I had the impression that this was their salary for the inmates by which, first of all, their families were supported and I also know from the prisoners who had been in penal institutions before 1933 that in agricultural plants in my homeland they also made out these request slips and paid these prisoners. This was not a requisition, but I only signed the request for payment.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Now who furnished their food and clothing?
THE WITNESS: Food and clothing came from the small camp, as I have already stated. The inmates came in the morning at 8:30, and they were sent by cars to work and they returned to the camps at night and they received their food in the camp. They only received additional food from me.
Q Witness, did you ever hear, while you were in the WVHA, that there were concentration camps outside of Germany?
A No, I didn't hear anything at all.
Q Did you ever hear that there was a concentration camp at Dachau?
A Yes, I knew that.
Q At Sachsenhausen?
A Yes, I knew that too.
Q Buchenwald?
A I heard about Buchenwald. Yes, I did hear about Buchenwald. However, I heard of it most during the last months and after the war.
Q Did you ever hear that there was a concentration camp at Flossenbuerg?
A. I know it by name, yes.
Q At Ravensbrueck?
A That also.
Q Mauthausen?
A I know that too.
Q Auschwitz?
A. Yes, I know it also.
Q Neuengamme?
A Yes, I heard of it also.
Q Did you ever hear while you were in the WVHA of a concentration camp at Lublin?
A No, it is unknown to me.
Q Stutthoff?
A I don't know it either.
Q Natzweiler?
A I do not know that either.
Q Gross-Rosen?
A I cannot recall ever having heard that name.
Q Gorss-Rosen?
A. Well, I said I cannot recall ever having heard that name before.
Q Did you ever hear of a camp at Gross-Rosen?
THE PRESIDENT: He answered that.
MR. WALTON: I didn't know, Sir, whether he was talking of Natzweiler.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no. Gross-Rosen. He said he can't remember having heard of it.
Q Did you ever hear of a camp at Nordhausen?
A No, I didn't know a camp existed there.
Q Did you ever hear of a camp located at Bergen-Belsen?
A No, I never heard of it.
Q In these camps that you heard of, which is about half of them, did it ever occur to you that was a large amount of concentration camps for German Nationals only?
A Mr. Prosecutor, May I tell you my point of view as a soldier? Perhaps, this will give you an answer. I thought the concentration camps disposed over ten-thousand rifles. For each six we had one guard, consequently, we had sixty-thousand inmates. I was unable to know anything about the size and the extent of the concentration camps.
Q You said that you knew about Auschwitz. Did it ever occur to you that was rather a far way or distance to have German Nationals sent to a concentration camp?
A I could not tell you any more today where and when I heard the name. I can not tell you whether this was Germany, or Poland, or something of that sort. I just don't know.
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution has no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any questions, Dr. Hoffman; also any further questions from any other defense counsel. The Marshal may remove the witness.
(witness excused)
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, I as defense counsel of the Defendant Scheide, after the statement by the prosecution, and after what the statement by the prosecution, and after what we have heard here now in this trial, I still have the question whether the defendant Scheide did not know anything at all about the exterminations in the concentration camps, and the other atrocities. I believe that it is my duty as his defense counsel to clarify this question by introducing an affidavit, which has already been presented to the first trial. It is an affidavit which is contained in Document Book II, page 83 of the English Document Book. It is Scheide's Document IMT on 26 June 1946 on behalf of the SS, and, afterwards it was also submitted to the International Tribunal and the senior defense counsel there. This document is of importance to me for the following reasons:
Firstly, it contains a statement about the extermination of the Jews and the conditions in concentration camps from a witness, who gave this affidavit already on 1 June 1946. That is at a time when these things were not yet known through the press, the radio, or through the trials made.
This document also shows that the SS Tribunal in the year of 1944 began to investigate these matters, and that they were the first ones to find out these atrocities. This document further shows that the man in charge of the investigations, who deposed this affidavit, states that the circle of persons who committed these atrocities was extremely small, and that the secrecy was handled in such a way that even the chiefs of the main offices of the SS, in his opinion, could not possibly have known anything about these matters. This is of extreme importance for my client. I believe that this will also decide for him whether he was rather far removed from all these things and could not actually have obtained any knowledge of these things. In this document the Tribunal will also find a statement, which is on page 9 of the document, page 91 of the English Document Book II, which reads as follows:
DR. SEIDL: Dr. Seidl for the defendant Oswald Pohl. May it please the Tribunal, the defense of the defendant Scheide contends to introduce document 35 contained in a document book. This affidavit by Morgan contains a number of accusations against other defendants in this trial. Amongst other things, it also contains accusations against Pohl, when I represent here. I, therefore, request this affidavit should only be admitted with the reservation that the signer of this affidavit, formerly SS-Sturmbannfuehrer Dr. Morgen, should be placed at the disposal here for cross examination by the defense. In view of the fact that the accusations brought forth here, which have not been brought forth as yet by the Prosecution, I request that this affidavit should only be admitted with the reservation that the defendant Oswald Pohl personally will be given an opportunity to testify in the witness stand about these new accusations which are now raised against him. He was unable to make any statement about that on the witness stand in the course of my examination, because these accusations were not as yet known at the time, and no body could count on the fact that such accusations would be brought forth in the course of this trial by the defense.
I want to point out at this time that I request in particular that Dr. Morgen should be called here together with the formal legal officer of the SS, Dr. Schmidt-Klewenow.
DR. HOFFMAN: Your Honor, in this connection I would like to say the following: I don't want to explain any longer why I consider this affidavit necessary. Moreover, I am of the conviction that I have to submit it on behalf of my client. Of course, I agree to a cross examination. I don't think that the accusations which are now raised against the defendant Pohl and others contain more than what Morgen has stated. However, it is of importance for me that the secrecy is confirmed at a time when nobody knew that the defendant Scheide later on would be accused. Also from this objective investigation, which took place under an utterly different condition at a time that this circle of people who committed the atrocities only consisted of some hundred people, or so therefore, the charges against the defendant Scheide can not be maintained. I therefore, insist upon submitting this document, even though this will bring wrath of my colleagues upon me.
THE PRESIDENT: The date of the document does not appear in the copy which I have here. It is 13 July, but the year is not given when the document was sworn to. What year was that?
DR. HOFFMANN: It was 5 July 1946. That is the date which is contained here, 13 July.
THE PRESIDENT: 13 July.
DR. HOFFMANN: The 5th of July. July 5. Oh yes, Your Honor, the 13th of July. It is the year of 1946.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Rauschenbach.
DR. RAUSCHENBACH: Dr. Rauschenbach for the defendant Frank. The defendant Frank is also concerned in this affidavit. I, therefore, join the request of my colleague, Dr. Seidl, and I want to go beyond this request in the following respect.
According to the principle of presenting the best possible evidence, which was particularly adhered to in the trial before the IMT, I request that this affidavit be rejected. I would like to request also that the defense counsel of the defendant Scheide be requested, if he wants to submit this affidavit, to call Dr. Morgen personally onto the witness stand. He is located in the prison, and he can be called here at any time. I also want to announce that because of the importance of this matter that I will have to confront Dr. Morgen, not only with regard to my client, whom I represent, the defendant Frank, but also the defendant Dr. Hoven from the medical trial, and to the witness Dr. Kogon, who was here once before this Tribunal, because these two witnesses will be able to say something decisive about the veracity of the witness Dr. Morgen.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, we have a faint recollection of another affidavit of Dr. Morgan's which was presented earlier in the trial during the Prosecution's offer of proof. Was it admitted?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes. Well, it was offered on the cross examination of defendant Vogt, and it was marked for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't this affidavit?
MR. ROBBINS: It isn't this affidavit. It contains some of the same information.
THE PRESIDENT: It has not been admitted in evidence?
MR. ROBBINS: It has not been admitted. It has just been offered for identification, and the Prosecution intended to offer it later to impeach and contradict the defendant Vogt.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Morgan is in custody here in Nurnberg?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, Your Honor. I believe the Court inquired as to that at the time we offered the affidavit, or marked it for identification and at that time I stated that he was on that day testifying in Dachau, I believe he has been returned since that time.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, may I say the following in this connection: Contrary to the opinion of my colleague Seidl, I have presented this document because of its importance for the Defense, and for these reasons which I have already given, I want to present it because it was already given in June 1946 and because it contains statements which show just how strict secrecy was kept and that it was impossible that the defendant Scheide could have had any knowledge of it. However, I am perfectly willing to have the witness Morgan called. However, the importance of this affidavit to the questions of secrecy is already shown by the testimony before the IMT.
DR. SEIDL: May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution has just been asked by the Tribunal whether the Prosecution had already introduced an affidavit by Dr. Morgan. I can recall that only one affidavit was introduced. This was in the cross examination of the witness Dr. Schmidt Klewenow.
However, in the supplementary document book which the Prosecution submitted afterwards and in which the documents are contained which were introduced for identification, I have found a document by Dr. Morgan which is not identical with the affidavit of Dr. Morgan which was shown to the witness Dr. Schmidt-Klewenow in the course of the cross examination. The affidavit which was shown to Dr. Schmidt-Klewenow was a short affidavit which consisted of only three pages. The other affidavit, on the other hand, is a very large affidavit, and it is approximately ten pages in the German text. I am not quite sure whether two documents were introduced by the Prosecution or whether this is not all a mistake here. If the second document is to be presented by the Prosecution and if this is done on the assumption that this was the same document which was shown to Dr. Schmidt-Klewenow, then I would have to object to the admissibility of the document. I therefore request the Prosecution to explain just how many affidavits by Dr. Morgan have so far been introduced.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, there has been only one affidavit of Dr. Morgan's which was marked for identification. It is true that another Morgan affidavit was shown to Schmidt-Klewenow by Mr. Higgins when he was cross examining him. However, it was not marked for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, during the noon recess, I'll compare the affidavit which was marked for identification as Exhibit 554 with the one which is in the document book and make sure that it is the same affidavit. I think Mr. Robbins' explanation probably clears that up.
The affidavit of Dr. Morgan, Exhibit 27, will be admitted in evidence in defense of the witness Scheide. In as much as it contains accusations against other defendants, the witness may be called in person for cross examination as to any matters contained in the affidavit which implicate any other defendant.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: Is the ruling clear to you, Dr. Seidl?