Q Did you know of any atrocities carried out there?
A The only thing I heard about it was the affidavit of Schwarz. Before that time I never heard anything about these things.
Q Did you spend much time actually in the town of Wewelsburg?
A No.
Q Did you know of any prisoners of war who were interned there?
A I cannot recall ever having heard anything of that sort?
Q Did you know whether nationals of foreign countries were among those interned at the Wewelsburg concentration camp?
A I can't recall anything of that sort having come to my knowledge.
Q On your inspection of the work sites, did you ever notice that foreign nationals were occupied on the projects?
A No.
Q Never see any indication that nationals were present there?
A On the occasion of my visits to construction sites I saw people who wore the customary striped clothing.
Q They had no insignia on their clothes indicating that they were natives of foreign countries?
A I did not see anything of that kind.
Q Did you have any idea of the number of deaths that occurred in that camp?
A I have heard here for the first time that a very high mortality rate is alleged to have existed there. At the time I was there, I didn't hear anything at all about the mortality rate.
Q Do you have any idea of just what labor camps or projects the inmates of Wewelsburg concentration camp were employed on, in addition to those used by your associations?
A Could you please repeat the question?
THE PRESIDENT: Were the inmates used by other agencies than yours?
WITNESS: Excuse me, please, but I did not use them; only the construction management at Wewelsburg did.
I don't think that any other agencies except the construction management at Wewelsburg used them.
BY MR. HIGGINS:
Q We have seen evidence that an excess of 1000 inmates were interned there, and it would seem that they should be employed somewhere.
A We have evidence here about the fact that 1000 inmates were there. In any case, we didn't see any evidence to that effect on the part of the Prosecution. In the Schwarz affidavit only 500 inmates are mentioned, and that agrees with my monthly report.
Q Well, we saw in this report which was submitted to Pohl by you that facilities were prepared for the receiving of 900 inmates, didn't we?
A It is even stated there-
THE PRESIDENT: You draw a wrong inference and then you plant it in his mouth. They said that two huts were to be constructed with a capacity of 900, and then you say to him: "Who used the thousand inmates of the construction camp? A non sequitur if I ever heard one because there were two huts to be erected which would house 900 people. Therefore, there were a thousand people in the camp.
I don't blame him for rejecting your influence.
BY MR. HIGGINS:
Q Can you tell me, witness, whether or not the particular huts were installed there at the concentration camp?
A Huts?
Q Did you tell me-
A I assume so; I assume so from the reports.
Q You assumed that the 9 huts were actually installed?
THE PRESIDENT: Two huts.
WITNESS: There were nine, your Honor. I am quite sure. Each to accommodate 100 prisoners.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, I am wrong.
WITNESS: If I can point out with regard to my report later on that it is stated there that the camp was able to accommodate 1800 inmates; that is what the camp administration reported at the time.
BY MR. HIGGINS:
Q Well, don't you believe it is quite likely that the number of inmates who were actually interned there approximated that figure?
THE PRESIDENT: What? Eighteen hundred?
MR. HIGGINS: Yes, your Honor.
WITNESS: I can not say I think so, and I can not say I don't think so. In any case my testimony would not have any probative value here.
BY MR. HIGGINS:
Q Well, in any event then, if there were such a number of prisoners, you did not know where they were employed, other than those who were employed in your enterprises?
A I didn't know it, and if I may express the opinion which I had at the time, that apparently not all the inmates were used for work at the same time. Perhaps the camp commander had some work carried out by the inmates for his own benefit. I don't know that from my own knowledge.
Q You have no actual knowledge of it?
A I was very surprised when I heard here later that 1000 men are alleged to have been in the camp.
MR. HIGGINS: Your Honor, I am coming to another subject now.... if you care to take a recess.
THE PRESIDENT: A very good time for a recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
Q (By Mr. Higgins) Witness, you were concerned with SS confiscation proceedings, were you not?
A SS-confiscation proceedings is a contradiction with regard to the term. Confiscation could be carried out only by the authorities concerned and competent, for instance, by authorities as laid down by law.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I don't quite catch what you mean by that, "SS Confiscation is a self-contradiction". Why couldn't it be SS-confiscation?
THE WITNESS: I am thinking it is true at this moment only as far as the Reich area was concerned. Outside, therefore, the SS was not competent to seize or confiscate anything.
Q (By Mr. Higgins) As Chief of W-VIII, did you ever have occasion to carry out such proceedings?
A I suppose you are thinking of the affair concerning the Boeddeken Estate?
Q No, the affair that I am thinking of is the Lobkowicz affair. You have had relations with the RSHA concerning the confiscation of this particular property situated in the Sudenland in order -
AAs Chief of W-VIII I was not connected with this.
Q Wasn't it your task to participate in such confiscations?
A No.
Q In what capacity did you carry out such business or orders?
A The Lobkowicz property -
Q In order to refresh your memory on this -
THE PRESIDENT: He just wants to know what you are referring to. Do you know the Lobkowicz property? Is that what it is?
MR. HIGGINS: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: In what capacity did you carry that out?
THE WITNESS: I did not carry out the seizure of the Lobkowicz property.
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
Q (By Mr. Higgins) You participated in it, did you not?
A Not in any seizure.
Q I would like in this instance to submit Document NO-3788to you and for reference I would like to number it 632. The second paragraph of that letter -
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Did you give this an identification number?
MR. HIGGINS: Yes, Your Honor.
Q (By Mr. Higgins) I would like to read the second paragraph which refers to Dr. Richter of the RSHA. It states, "He protests against the accusation of sabotage which was brought against him by Sturmbannfuehrer Klein. He himself is making every possible effort to direct to the SS the property to be confiscated." This letter was written by the Defendant Hohberg to Pohl. Does that refresh your memory, Witness?
A In the paragraph before it, sit says that Dr. Richter recommends that we were all to get in touch with the competent Oberfinanzpraesident about the possible acquisition of the Biliner well. That, in other words, is the agency which would be competent to seize or confiscate something.
Q Did your office carry out the negotiations necessary for this particular confiscation?
AA confiscation or seizure of the Biliner well or its transfer to some part of the WVHA was never carried out. What conversations took place between Hohberg and Richter I do not know.
Q. Your Office, however, entered in negotiations concerning this matter, didn't it?
THE PRESIDENT: Where does it say that in the letter?
MR. HIGGINS: I am asking him, your Honor. I intend very shortly to introduce the second letter which fully indicates that fact.
THE PRESIDENT: What does this letter indicate?
MR. HIGGINS: Well, I introduced to lay something of a background for the introduction of the subject matter.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, alright.
WITNESS: May I point out that this letter was written on 18 of November 1940, when there was no W-VIII office at all.
MR. HIGGINS: Well, then, I am in error on that. The precursor of the WVHA. It doesn't much matter. But you did carry our negotiations calculated to execute the acquisition of this property, did you not?
A. Possibly we planned to acquire the Billiner Well, but it was not carried out.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Witness, what is he talking about here, when he says that you protest the acquisition by sabotage -- Dr. Richter, it is, rather. What did you have to do with this matter, anyway? Just tell us what you had to do with it.
WITNESS: What I recall is that the Sudeten guell G.M.B.H. was interested in acquiring the Billiner Well. What the conference was about between Hohberg and Dr. Richter, and what Dr. Richter protested against, I do not recall.
THE PRESIDENT: What did you do about acquiring the Billiner Well? What part did you take in it?
WITNESS: I am very sorry. This matter was never carried out and, therefore, it has slipped my mind for the time being. I shall endeavor to recollect it as best I can.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: When did you accuse of sabotage, and why? That seems to be the burden of the second paragraph.
WITNESS: I can't imagine. I don't know Regierungsrat Richter. This is a letter by Hohberg to Pohl. This accusation of sabotage, I don't think I negotiated or discussed anything with Regierungsrat Richter. It has completely slipped my mind.
JUDGE MUSMANNO: I would maybe the next document might help.
MR. HIGGINS: I would like to submit Document No. 3787, and I would like to number it for reference, 633.
Q. (By Mr. Higgins) Witness, don't you have any recollection whatsoever of these vast negotiations which were carried out on only in reference to the Billiner Well, but also as to the whole property of Labkowicz. I would like to read this letter which is written by the witness Klein.
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Let's find out if he did write it. He hasn't said he wrote it yet?
Q. (By Mr. Higgins) Do you recognize this letter, witness?
A. Yes, that is my signature, yes.
Q. It is a letter addressed to Dr. Hohberg, and it states: "The transactions in the Lokowicz matter are to be carried out by this office. Since only this office is familiar with the preliminary transactions and with the property itself, I request in the interest of unified action, that your office not interfere in the transactions."
Does that refresh your recollection on this letter?
A. First of all I could like to point out the reference matter. It is addressed to Dr. Hohberg, and reference is made to action taken in the RSHA, and there is a file not for Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl. Apparently these are negotiations about the acquisition of the Billiner Well, which were unsuccessful. As to details, I really don't remember them.
Q. But you did participate in the negotiations, did you not, and it was action which was taken care of by your office?
A. Excuse me -- met by my office. You are probably thinking of W-VIII. Here we are concerned with the period of time when I was the legal adviser of the Sudeten guell Company in November 1940.
Q. This shows that you were concerned with that matter, weren't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Why did you request Dr. Hohberg not to interfere in the transactions. Do you remember that, witness?
A. I am trying to recollect this whole incident.
THE PRESIDENT: See if I can help a little. Lobkowicz was the owner of the Billiner Well, wasn't he?
WITNESS: Yes, he was the owner.
THE PRESIDENT: And he was a Czech?
WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: In fact, he was Ambassador to England after this, wasn't he?
WITNESS: Quite possibly.
THE PRESIDENT: Another question. Did this involve anything except the taking over of this one mineral water well? Was that all there was to the Lokowicz matter?
WITNESS: I don't think that any other land belong to the Billiner well at the time.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then the whole Labkowicz matter involved taking over one mineral will, did it? And that was never concluded, never done, you say?
WITNESS: The Billiner well was not taken over.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then, what is the point of this, Mr. Higgins? Do you claim it is a confiscation of foreign property?
MR. HIGGINS: Yes, your Honor. It is the contention that these confiscation matters which were to be carried out came withing the sphere of the activity of the defendant Klein. We like to show that was one of his jobs, to participate in these confiscation proceedings which were carried out.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is it your impression that this one was carried out?
THE PRESIDENT: He has repeatedly said that it wasn't. It was not carried out. He said that in answer to my question, and previously to yours.
BY MR. HIGGINS:
Q: Witness, speaking of another confiscation proceeding in the nature of an Aryanization action, I would like to ask you what you know concerning the Halscheiner Sugar Factory in Olmuetz. What can you tell us about that particular action?
A: Could you please repeat that -- the name of the firm?
Q: Halscheiner. And it is spelled H-a-1---
A: It was intended on one occasion to acquire that factory for the Sudetenquell, as far as I can remember, but it wasn't carried out, unless it was done later without my knowledge, but I have not heard anything about it.
Q: This was an Aryanization proceeding, was it not?
A: I don't know to whom the firm belonged before.
Q: In this instance, in order to refresh your recollection so that you will know, I would like to pass on to you Document NO-3783, and I would like to give it reference number 634. Did you have any objections, witness -
A: Just a moment, please, This document has been signed by me, but not the file note. There is a remark by Hohberg, "Settled Orally" -- initials. All we were concerned with here was my drawing Dr. Hohberg's attention to this matter. It was not carried out, as Dr. Hohberg's remark shows.
Q: Did you have any objections to such proceedings as this?
A: In what respect?
Q: This Aryanization proceeding is a measure taken against Jewish property owners, is it not?
A: Only commercial contracts were made with the owners on the basis of the directives issued by the Oberlandrat, as it says here. The executive authority in these cases was the Oberlandrat. They decided whether or not a measure of that sort should be carried out.
Q: Do you contend that in such proceedings as this Jewish property owners were given adequate remuneration for their property?
A: I am bound to assume that. But I never carried out any such matter, and, therefore, I cannot give you any information from my own knowledge.
Q: You state that this action was never completed?
A: No. That becomes clear from Hohberg's file notes on the last page. "Settled Orally."
Q: Then it is your contention that there is nothing discriminatory in Aryanization proceedings?
A: No, I couldn't say that. It was a measure decided and ordered by the Oberlandrat, and the Sudetenquell was cited here as a partner, or I reported to Hohberg, who named several firms but his proposal was unimportant for the actual procedure. The really relevant fact, therefore, was the decision by the Oberlandrat.
Q: My question, witness, was whether or not you felt that there was anything discriminatory about the Aryanization proceedings. I didn't ask who carried it out, or who participated in carrying it out. My question is, do you believe that there is anything discriminatory in such action. Can you answer that question?
A: Commercial contracts of that sort - and we heard in Germany that large properties in this manner -
Q: That is not my question. I put a very simple question to you. Can you answer it?
A: Would you please repeat it?
THE PRESIDENT: Did you think it was wrong? Was it discriminatory? Of course it was discriminatory. But was it wrong?
MR. HIGGINS: I am having difficulty having the witness admit it was discriminatory.
THE PRESIDENT: It certainly was discriminatory on the face of it, wasn't it?
MR. HIGGINS: Yes, it was.
Q: (By Mr. Higgins) Do you think there was anything wrong in these Aryanization proceedings?
A: Certainly it wasn't a nice thing to do to the former owners, bat the fact of the actual handling of the matter was vested purely by the authorities concerned, who acted as purchaser. Nothing else was relevant to the procedure itself.
MR. HIGGINS: I have no further questions.
DR. BERGOLD: I am very happy to make the Court happy with the announcement that I need not put any further questions, after this cross-examination. I therefore conclude my case. I am still waiting for the witness Schwarz, whom the Court has ordered to appear here.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe the witness Morgen is to be called by some one eventually. I have forgotten which defendant it is who wants to call him. I think possibly Dr. Seidl - was it?
MR. HIGGINS: I believe, your Honor, it was in connection with the defendant Pohl.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we better not talk about it without Dr. Seidl being here.
DR. KIERER for Dr. SEIDL: If the Tribunal please, we will not call the witness Dr. Morgen. I don't know whether one of my colleagues will wish to call him.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we want to know the answer to that because inadvertently he was taken back to Dachau, and we have ordered him returned to Nurnberg. Now, does anybody want Dr. Morgen? I don't -- but does anybody else? Can you find out? Do you remember, Mr. Higgins? Certainly somebody wanted Dr. Morgen called as a witness and I can't remember who it was. We might ask the defendants individually whether anyone of them wants him.
DR. KIERER: The possibility exists.
THE PRESIDENT: Nobody wants Dr. Morgen!
DR. KIERER: If the Tribunal please, Dr. Hoffmann once spoke about wanting to produce the witness Dr. Morgen, but I am not sure whether he still wishes to do so.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we find Dr. Hoffmann in the next twenty minutes? Do you think he is in the building? Is he in another court?
DR. KIERER: I believe Dr. Hoffmann is not in the Palace of Justice now.
THE PRESIDENT: The point is, you see, that this is Friday, and I want to get word to Dachau to leave Dr. Morgen there is Dr. Hoffmann doesn't want him.
DR. BERGOLD: Dr. Hoffmann went to Munich to hear a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have a record of which counsel it was?
MR. HIGGINS: Your Honors, I believe I can get the story on this in a very few moments and I will let you know in ten minutes just how the story stands.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if it develops that he isn't wanted as a witness, we will get word to Dachau to leave him there and not bring him back here. He is probably wondering why he has got to retravel.
MR. HIGGINS: I will do that, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The other witness, Schwarz, will be ready Monday morning.
There is nothing we can do for fifteen minutes? Well, then, we will adjourn.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until ninethirty hours Monday morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 18 August 47)
OFFICIAL transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America against Oswald Pohl, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 18 August 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Toms presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal II.
Military Tribunal II is now in session. God save the United States of America and this honorable Tribunal. There will be order in the Court.
DR. HOFFMANN(for the defendant Scheide): May it please the Tribunal, as witness Morgen is now on the witness stand, I should like to say this. I had requested Morgen s my witness; and meanwhile Morgen went to Dachau so that I did not have the possibility of preparing him, nor was I told that he would return or, in fact, had returned. I should, therefore, like to ask to postpone the interrogation of this witness by two days because I should talk to him first. I was not informed that he would come today; and as he had been in Dachau all the time, I could not talk to him before.
THE PRESIDENT: You know what you wanted to ask him? You know what information you wanted him to give as a witness, don't you?
DR. HOFFMAN: Oh, I know what I want to ask him; but I have a number of questions to put to him which I would have liked to put down in writing first. The interrogation probably will last a day, and I'm not really properly prepared yet.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Tribunal, we might put on Schwarz and Karl. I understand Schwarz is here. I shouldn't think it would take Dr. Hoffmann and entire day to prepare, however.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you know whether Karl is here or not?
MR. ROBBINS: I believe he is, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will hear the witness Schwarz, then the witness Karl, and follow with Dr. Morgen.
No matter when it is, he will follow immediately after Karl. The Marshal may remove this witness.
DR. HOFFMANN: May it please the Tribunal, could the Tribunal perhaps make a ruling that Witness Dr. Morgen could be taken back to see me and not go to the cell first lest I lose time? If I had to file an application first, I would lose time again.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course. Where are these interviews conducted? There's a room provided for interviewing?
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And you are ready to do that now?
DR. HOFFMANN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, the Marshal, instead of returning the witness to the jail, will take him to the interrogation room. The witness Karl is in jail, isn't he?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, your Honor. May it please the Tribunal, if it meets with the approval of the Tribunal and Dr. Bergold, since our interrogator was questioned on the methods that he used in interrogating Schwarz, if Dr. Bergold has no objection, I should like to ask the interrogator for the defense who interrogated Schwarz some questions, just two or three.
THE PRESIDENT: Before the witness takes the stand?
MR. ROBBINS: Yes, before the witness takes the stand.
DR. BERGOLD: I have no objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold has no objection. Who is the interrogator, please?
MR. ROBBINS: I believe it was Dr. Bergold.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, did you do the interrogating?
DR. BERGOLD, Yes, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will not require Dr. Bergold to be sworn. We'll take his testimony without administering an oath.
(DR. FRIEDRICH BERGOLD, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q. Dr. Bergold, did you interrogate the witness Schwarz?
A. Yes, I did, in the presence of my secretary, Fraulein Herbst and an American Officer, in Dachau.
Q. Did you tell the witness Schwarz that the affidavit which he had given the prosecution might be held against him in a de-Nazification proceeding? Did you tell the witness Schwarz that the affidavit which he had given the prosecution might be held against him in a trial in which Schwarz would be a defendant?
A. No, I did not say anything about a de-Nazification trial of Schwarz.
Q. You didn't mention the de-Nazification trial of Schwarz?
A. No, I cannot remember any such thing. All I told him was that he had given an affidavit to an interrogating officer in the case of Pohl and others; and I wanted to interrogate him about that affidavit.
Q. You didn't tell him that that affidavit would be used against him or it might be used against him?
A. What affidavit do you mean? He gave two.
Q. The affidavit which he gave to the Prosecution.
A. No.
Q. You didn't tell him that the SS as an organization is being reborn today, reorganized, and that it would be unsafe to have given evidence against Higher SS officers?
A. No, most certainly not. My secretary can testify to that effect. Is my secretary present? No. You can call her immediately if you like. Not one word is true. As an attorney I would be the last person to make such an idiotic statement.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Robbins, can you refer us to the volume where the first affidavit is to be found?
MR. ROBBINS: Your Honor, the number is NO-2169. It is in Book XVII, I believe. I think it is the last affidavit in Book XVII, the last document. May it please the Tribunal, while Schwarz is being called, I should like to distribute to the Tribunal and to defense counsel an affidavit which was obtained from the secretary who attended the first interrogation of Schwarz, in which she describes the methods used by the interrogator for the Office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes. I should like to mark this as Prosecution Exhibit 635 for identification.
DR. BERGOLD: May it please the Court, I should like to make a motion. In view of the somewhat unusual procedure on the part of the prosecution in the present case, I should like to ask to have my secretary, Fraulein Kaethe Herbst, whom I have sent for, heard as a witness about the facts of in what manner I conducted the interrogation of Schwarz and whether I made any such statements as were just put to me. I must say in an incomprehensible manner. I have been a lawyer for some time but never before did any official submit that I behaved in the manner as described by the prosecution. It is a mot unusual accusation which has been raised against me; and I believe I am justified in view of the long and honorable life I have led, in having the truth stated here.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Bergold, no one has accused you. No, one has accused you. No one has said that you acted improperly. Your answer stands uncontradicted. Your testimony from the witness stand up to this time is uncontradicted. You see, you have the German notion that you must prove your innocence. You don't have to do that. Until somebody accuses you, your denial will stand.
DR. BERGOLD: If the Tribunal please, there is a proverb that "Honor is as sensitive as the dust on the wings of a butterfly." The question put to me just now can only have come from somebody making allegations about what I am supposed to have said; and I think it is important that it is stated quite clearly that no such thing occurred.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, you have stated that quite clearly, and nobody has contradicted you yet.
DR. BERGOLD: All right.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to start the week off with the usual confusion it now appears that the witness Schwarz has not arrived from Dachau. The Marshal called the jail this morning and was told he was here; and he calls the jail later and is told that he is not here. Either he is or he isn't; but he isn't available as a witness at the moment.
What about the witness Karl? Who wanted him called?
MR. ROBBINS: Karl is being called for cross examination by the defendant Eirenschmalz, and he is a witness for the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to cross examine him, Counsel?
DR. VON STEIN (For defendant Eirenschmalz): Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: It may take a few minutes before the witness is here. We'll just suspend. We are not in recess. We'll just leave the bench until the witness arrives.
HUBERT KARL, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat after me.
I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
THE PRESIDENT: Be seated, please.
MR. ROBBINS: May it please, the Tribunal, there are two affidavits of the Defendant Karl. One is in Book XXIII, at page 67, Exhibit 572, NO-4007, which deals with construction matters of the WVHA. The second one, which the Prosecution made available to the defense several weeks ago, is Document NO-4154, which I should like to mark for identification Exhibit No. -
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: 636.
MR. ROBBINS: 636. There is also in front of the Tribunal Document NO-4123 which is a diagram of he Verwaltungsamt-SS under the Defendant Pohl, which is referred to in Karl's affidavit, and the chart is confirmed and sworn to by the witness Karl. I should like to mark this chart as Prosecution's Exhibit 637 for identification.
I believe that counsel for Defendant Eirenschmalz wishes to cross examine the witness.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DR. VON STEIN (For Defendant Eirenschmalz):Q.- Witness, in your two affidavits you described the construction service of the SS from 1933 onwards.
A.- Yes.
Q.- This goes back a long time, over ten years in fact, and as I shall now ask you questions, I would like to think very carefully how these things were handled ten years ago. You are only to give facts to the Court, and if you don't know something please tell us so, and in particular when you only assume something. Do you have the two affidavits?