I think we have yours already.
(Tribunal left bench)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, you spoke about a trial brief on the conspiracy count, and Tribunal 3, you said, had said something to you. We didn't quite get that.
DR. HAENSEL: The position is this: I have spoken about the conspiracy problem from one point of view already, just conspiracy, inasmuch as it is based on Law 10, and inasmuch as it is not based on Law 10. That problem has been ruled upon by the Tribunals, but the Tribunals may perhaps take the opportunity in their verdict to comment once more on this legal problem, and may perhaps give a motivation for the ruling which has already been passed and for that purpose it might perhaps be of interest to collect all material from the international literature. That is what I am compiling and, in fact, I have compiled it already, and it is being prepared now.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it additional material to what you furnished in your argument before the Tribunals sitting together?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, it is additional material, additional material.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, we understand now.
DR. HAENSEL: Exhibit No. 1 I have presented already when I examined Georg Loerner, I submitted Loerner Document No. 3.
As Exhibit No. 2 I offer Georg Loerner Document No. 5, on page 14 of the German and English texts, an affidavit by Heinrich Luehrs. Heinrich Luehrs is a man who lived in Georg Loerner's house and who was a daily companion of Loerner's hours of relaxation. One of our greatest poets, Goethe, once said, "Tell me" -I quote -- "Tell me who your friends are and I shall tell you who you are."
For a man nothing could be more decisive than the manner in which he behaves after office hours and how the things which have occurred during office hours reflect themselves in him.
I would have liked to call Heinrich Luehrs here on the witness stand, but this is a problem about which it might be worthwhile to say a few sentences. It was not possible because this man implored me on his bended knee practically not to call him as a witness here under any circumstances. He couldn't stand it. Unfortunately, in order to throw light not only on this matter, but on the whole of the Nurnberg conditions and particularly the SS, one would have to establish a bridge between the Tribunal and the simple man in the street, and this is enormously difficult. It is always the difficulty of the hierarchy, these rising scales of important personages, and as one cannot only talk about moods but one must also talk about facts, we will always be stopped by those who had the knowledge and those are the ones who are high up on top, but the simple people who only have a dim, confused knowledge of these things cannot be produced. Therefore, the picture of a large organization, such as the SS, given before this court must necessarily be not entirely correct because the lower spheres of the simple man are unknown there. Those who know something about it already belong to a different class. I did not succeed in the first trial in calling the simple man on the witness stand, because until they had been screened only the big ones remained and in the case of Luehrs, I did not succeed either.
I am finally convinced that had he appeared here on the witness stand, he would have stammered and the court would not have formed an impression either. Therefore, took the final refuge and received an affidavit from him and that affidavit I shall now offer as Exhibit 2.
I shall only quote one brief sentence on page 2.
"As far as I could observe, Georg Loerner's mode of life was unusually simple. When he was not sitting in his room, reading or working, he frequently played rummy with us or "Don't lose your temper." Politics were never discussed. When we sometimes out of curiosity tried to question him concerning events, because we believed that Georg Loerner was better informed than we were, we never got an answer, or else only evasive ones. I had the impression that he himself did not know any more than what could be gathered generally from the press and the radio."
As Exhibit No. 3, I should like to offer Document No. 10 on page 28. This is an affidavit by Dr. Krause, a manufacturer who was entirely outside the Party or SS and whose testimony concerning Loerner's character and conduct seemed to me particularly important for that reason. I do not wish to quote from it. I hope the document will take its effect, and it is Exhibit 3.
As Exhibit 4, I offer Document No. 1 on page 1. This is the first of a number of affidavits given by colleagues of Georg Loerner, who were not made part of this trial by the prosecution. There is, first of all, an affidavit by Sepp Lindthaler. He was competent for food supplies, and in his affidavit he says that his task in food supplies for the Waffen-SS was carried out by agreement with the OKH by certain firms.
As far as food supplies for concentration camps were concerned, Office Group B had nothing to do with it, nor did they decide on the food rations, but the Food Ministry did. This was Exhibit 4.
As Exhibit 5 I offer Document No. 2, which begins on page 4 of the document book. This is an affidavit by Friedrich Koeberlein. Koeberlein was charged with supplying equipment for billets. He is one of the men who, at a very early date, joined Georg Loerner's staff. He therefore is particularly able to give us the history of the development of these tasks and duties. It is concerned with equipment. About equipment for billets very little has been mentioned in this trial, unlike food and clothing. This was taken care of by Office B-III and Koeberlein describes its manner of work. It is very dry subject. Koeberlein gives all the details I do not wish to road from it, but I hope, I believe, it will complete the picture, and, this activity of B-III will be taken into consideration as part of. Office B of which Loerner was in charge.
As Exhibit 6, I offer Document No. 4, an affidavit by Alfred Tunger, which starts on page 12. Tunger is one of those men, who by virtue of the German Emergency Regulations was called up as a reinforcement for the police guards in a concentration camp. He has detailed knowledge of the food rations for inmates, and he can also testify that they were always decided by the civilian agencies, not by B and the troop depots under B.
DR. HAENSEL: My next exhibit will be No. 7. I offer the affidavit by Franz Waschkau on page 17. Waschkau has expert knowledge about the clothing problems. He also has expert knowledge of the clothing plant in Dachau, which was under B-II, and he knows also about how the clothing was distributed to the concentration camp inmates and that for the distribution in the camp the camp commandant and the administrative officer were solely responsible. The supervisory agency was D-IV, but not B-II. This affidavit tells a little story on pages 2A and 3. I shall quote here:
"A prisoner had found a letter of the donor in one of the articles of clothing which he had obtained in this manner, and had sent her a letter of thanks. She complained to the Party about it, because she had intended the article of clothing she had made for a soldier at the front, and not for a concentration camp inmate".
This shows that B took articles which were not earmarked for concentration camps and passed them on to Department D in order to increase their stocks. This also shows the ideas which the people had, namely, that it was not the innocent who were in the concentration camp, but the guilty ones.
As Exhibit 8, I wish to offer Document No. 7, which is an affidavit by Karl Bohmann on page 21. Bohmann is one of those people who had worked in the predecessor of the WVHA, namely the administrative office of the WAFFEN-SS. They were subdivided in Department I/1, for instance, and, during the case in chief, we have heard repeatedly of these various departments. Supply services were part of Department I/2. Bohmann worked for four years under Georg Loerner, and he reports about this in his affidavit.
As Exhibit No. 9, I shall offer the affidavit by Walter Heyer on page 24, who also worked in the supply service. This is an interesting affidavit because it mentions Professor Dr. Schenk and explains that although he formally operated under Amtsgruppe B he had to be placed somewhere. He never received orders from Georg Loerner, only from Pohl or Himmler directly.
As Exhibit No. 10, I shall offer Georg Loerner Document No. 9, which is an affidavit by Dr. Hermann Ertel as one of the people who knew all about the supply services and who also knows that the civilian sector was responsible for supplying concentrations camps and not the Waffen-SS or the Wehrmacht. He also knows that Loerner never gave orders as Pohl's formal deputy. I shall quote:
"Georg Loerner was a little nervous and preferred to wait until Pohl returned from his official trips, and in urgent cases he would ask for Pohl's decision by teletype or telephone."
Exhibit No. II will be Georg Loerner Document No. 11, an affidavit by Gustav Bachmann on page 31. Bachmann was in charge of a troop depot of the Waffen-SS, and from his affidavit it becomes clear what sort of a task the troop depot had to look after, one of those depots, in other words, the administration of which was one of Georg Loerner's most important tasks.
Exhibit No. 12 is concerned with the same subject matter and it is my document Georg Loerner No. 12. This is an affidavit by Fritz Mueller, he also knows all about the main supply depots and troop depots and gives interesting information about them.
As Exhibit No. 13 I shall offer Document No. 13, which is an affidavit by Andreas Weggel.
Andreas Weggel speaks in detail about his own knowledge from his own sphere of work, which was B-IV, about the supplies of second-hand material from the East. He says there, and I quote:
"As far as the Reinhardt Action is concerned, I have never heard anything before I was interrogated about it in Nurnberg." All work done by B-IV connected with the second-hand material from the East he regarded as something completely different from those things which later on were explained to us by different agencies as the Action Reinhardt.
Exhibit No. 14 will be Georg Loerner's Document No. 15, the last affidavit by Weggel. It may be found on page 40.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 14 was Document 14?
DR. HAENSEL: No, it is my document 15. I shall not offer Document 14. Document 14 is not necessary for my case. It will not be offered. My Document 15 will be exhibit 14 and this is the last affidavit given by Weggel. It deals with the main supply depots which he know as the man in charge of the main supply depot in Vienna.
The next document, Georg Loerner 16, I shall not offer because Dr. Rauschenbach has offered it on behalf of Frank. I need not offer it once more; it has been offered already.
And the last document in this book I shall offer as Exhibit 15, my Document Georg Loerner No. 17. This is a reprint of 13 regulations under the Reich Citizenship Law. I see that my colleagues have already offered important excerpts from the Justice Register, but not this particular one, which I shall therefore offer. I would like to, because of the sentence in paragraph 2 at the beginning, according to which the regulation concerning heirs was discussed on behalf on the Reich, in favor of the Reich, and I shall draw certain conclusions from this in my final speech for my defendant and that is why I wish to submit this memorandum now.
This is Document Bock 1 and this is the end.
THE PRESIDENT: He will take a recess.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. BELZER: Dr. Belzer for the defendant Karl Sommer. During he recess I have passed on an English copy of he document book with the following documents to the Tribunal:
JUDGE PHILLIPS: You just have one supplement?
DR. BELZER: No, I have two supplements which are completed up to now, and by he testimony and affidavit of Sommer I have turned in a third supplement for translation. Right now I can present the document book and two supplements. It is supplement I and Supplement II.
As Exhibit No. 1, dated 8 July 1947, in the examination of the defendant Pook, I have already submitted Sommer's Document No. 37, which is obtained in the Supplement No. II of the document book. It is the first document in Supplement No. II. This document was already discussed during that court session, and in order to identify the Blockloader Karl Sommer, it was at Neuengamme. I shall now read from the document book of Karl Sommer. Sommer's Document No. 1 is an affidavit of former SS-Standartenfuehrer Gerhard Maurer, 23 May 1947.
As Exhibit No. 2, and in paragraph 1, of this affidavit Maurer states just how he made the acquaintance of the defendant Sommer, and how Sommer came into the Office of D-II. In paragraph 2, Maurer tells us that Sommer was first of all a civilian employee in Office D-II, and later on by Maurer's suggestion he was conscripted into the Waffen-SS. In paragraph 3, I would like to make a correction in this third line here, instead of 17 January 1945, the date should read the 17 April 1945. On 15 January 1945 Maurer was sent to his unit, and on 17 April 1945, to return to Office Group-D.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. What paragraph are you correcting?
DR. BELZER: It is paragraph 3 on page 3, it is page 2 in the English Document Book, Your Honor. In paragraph 4 the position & the field of work of the defendant Sommer is discussed, and I quote: "After me Sommer was the highest ranking SS-Fuehrer in Office D-II, From that it can be deduced that Sommer was my first co-worker. Since I spent much time on official trips it was Sommer's job to see to internal order, and regulation of the work in Office D-II. In fundamental questions of labor allocation of prisoners Sommer could not make any kind of decision. Even I myself could aprove the asignment of prisoners only with special permission of Pohl, and in the case of very small units, which were planned to exist for only a short time." Of any approvals which "I gave I had to inform Pohl in any case. On principle the person competent for the assignment of prisoners for labor allocation was the Office Group Chief, or, and predominatly, the Chief of the Main Office himself." I then go on and read paragraph 5: "Incoming post came to Gluecks on arrival. Insofar as incoming mail concerned the labor allocation, it was given to D-II where it was submitted to me by Sommer. If I was on an official trip Sommer submitted it to me after my return. Secret Reich matters and top secret military matters, so far as such were delivered to Office D-II at all, had to be given to me by Sommer in scaled envelopes. But I expressly add that I do not remember receiving any secret Reich matters myself. I certainly did not receive Top secret military matters." I now come to paragraph 6: "Sommer did not take part in Commandant conferences. I myself took part in these conferences only insofar as questions of labor allocation were concerned. It is possible that Pister saw the defendant Sommer in the Offices of D-II when Pister visited me in my office." Standartnfuehrer Maurer refers to Pisters affidavit presented by the prosecution. "Since Pohl had ordered that all requests for labor had to be submitted to him." As Exhibit 75, Book 3, dated 3/3/ 47. I come to paragraph 7 of Maurer's affidavit:
"It was necessary that Gluecks and I went to Pohl on an agerage of once a week for he purpose of discussing the current applications for assignment of prisoners, by the fact that Pohl gave instructions that all applications for assignment of prisoners had to be submitted to him for personal decision. Sommer was never present at these conferences with Pohl." In paragraph 8 Maurer states that office chief discussions never took place in his office. In Office Group-D Maurer makes a statement in paragraph 9: "The individual offices of the Office Group-D were administratively connected with each other only through the person of the Chief of the Office Group. Officially the offices as such had nothing to do with each other. By the fact that I had to visit, on Pohl's orders, the armament works which employed prisoners it happened that questions which did not concern the labor allocation, for instance, questions of clothing also, were put to me. In these cases I reported directly to Gluecks and Pohl, but also informed in addition he Office Chief D-IV, in the case in question, or the Office Chief otherwise competent." I now am going to read paragraph 10: "From the day he entered D-II until the end of the war, Sommer worked in the Office D-II without interruption. He was not even temporarily detailed to Auschwitz as labor allocation leader. In Office D-II one of us had always to be present. A simultaneous absence of both of us was limited to 1 day at the most, and them it was a matter of participation in conferences of labor allocation leaders." In paragraph 11 Maurer gives the name of the allocation officer at Auschwitz, and here he mentioned Heiner Schwarz, first of all, and then his successor who was his former co-worker Sell. Paragraph 12 is as follows: "I remember that there was once a conference of labor allocation leaders in Auschwitz in which Sommer participated for one day. As far as I remember Sommer arrived in in Auschwitz in the morning, and drove back to Oranienburg with me in the evening.
During the whole of this day Sommer was near me all the time." Apart from that I only know that Sommer brought his wife to Auschwitz to Professor Glauberg. I know nothing of any other visits of Sommer to Auschwitz." Paragraph 13: "To enter the Prospective Custody Camp in a Concentration Camp, Sommer needed the permission of the Camp Commandant. But even in this case Sommer could not enter the camp alone, but had an escort from the Camp Commandant, with the exception of the watch-makers workshop in Sachsenhausen. "In paragraph 14 Maurer tells us that Sommer only very rarely took any official trips, but in any case he had to comply with the special order from Gluecks. Maurer can not recall that Sommer in connection with the Construction Project Staff, "If Sommer was there it can only have been a question of acquainting the labor allocation leader Eilers with his duties." I shall then read from paragraph 15: "It is correct that I had entrusted Sommer for some time with he supervision of the watch-maker's repair workshop in Sachsenhausen. The leader of this watch maker's workshop had to have some one to whom he could turn, for example, when he needed materials or workers. So Sommer was appointed for this purpose. Sommer forwarded the requirements of the leader of the watch-makers workshop, letters, to the competent offices. The watches were delivered from Office A-II, and came originally, as far as I know, from the "Action Reinhard" The Action Reinhard" had something to do with conficated enemy property."
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel, are you going to read this whole affidavit? I am reading it at the same time that you are.
DR. BELZER: No, I only want to call your attention to the most important phrases so far as they are directly concerned with statements of the Prosecution. That the watch repair shop is mentioned in the opening speech of the Prosecution, and it has been claimed that the defendant Sommer had knowledge of the fact, but here watches were repaired which had been taken away from Jews who had been killed.
In this paragraph 15, it is a question of a discussion by Maurer.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I can read from Maurer's affidavit, the contents, just as well as to have you read it to me. In following word by word as you are reading it does not add anything, does it?
DR. BELZER: I shall then briefly restrict myself to giving the contents of the affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Just to point out without reading it what each paragraph shows, that is important.
DR. BELZER: Very well, Your Honor. Then in paragraph 15 Maurer states that he himself did not know that these watches had been taken away from Jews who had been killed, and consequently Sommer could not have any knowledge either. Paragraph 16 deals with the question of the discharges of concentration camp inmates, and paragraph 17 gives us a description from Maurer with regard to the monthly reports which were submitted to Office D-II, and also deals with their contents. Paragraph 18 deals with the question of the inmates transports. In paragraph 19 Pohl issued an order according to which, in the concentration camps only six percent of the camp inmates should be employed for purposes of maintaining the camp. Paragraph 20 of the affidavit deals with the additional procurements of food, and clothing for concentration camp inmates. In paragraph 21, Maurer confirms that in 1944 a summary including all orders on prisoners' work issued sofar was sent to the camp commandants. Paragraph 22 deals with the subordination of the concentration camps sofar as the remaining territory was concerned the control came from the higher police and SS-officer. Paragraph 23 states the labor allocation officer of the camp belongs to the staff of camp commander, and was not subordinated to Office D-II. In paragraph 24 Maurer comments on the affidavit by Entress, Document NO-2368, Exhibit No. 516, in Document Book 21 of the Prosecution. Paragraph 25, here Maurer states that Office D-II had nothing to do with the ordering of medical experiments. Paragraph 26, here Maurer explained to us in detail the position of the defendant Sommer. He comments in detail on the question whether Sommer was the Deputy Office Chief, whether he was the deputy, or only a representative. Maurer states here that the term "Deputy" goes too far, and that Sommer had only acted as his representative when he received telephone calls, or when he received wishes and requests for the allocation of inmates.
Paragraph 27, here Maurer gives us a description of the character and personality of the defendant Sommer. In paragraph 23 Maurer states that Sommer on account of war injury always wore long trousars, and that he could never wear high boots. He also states he had never seen Sommer riding a motorcycle, but only a bicycle. In paragraph 29, Maurer then comments on the testimony of the witness Bilski, about the alleged commitment of two murders by Sommer at Auschwitz.
As Exhibit No. 3, I want to submit Sommer's Document No. 2, which is an affidavit of Albert Mueller. Mueller during the time from July 1944 until early in January 1945, was secretary of the defendant Sommer in Office D-II. In his affidavit he gives detailed description of Sommer's work. Mueller also confirmed that Sommer always wore long trousars, and he never wore high boots. In the last paragraph Mueller gives a description of the character of the defendant Sommer. In Exhibit No.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute, we apparently are not numbering these exhibits the same way. What was the exhibit No. 1?
DR. BELZER: Exhibit No. 1 I have already presented during the examination of the defendant Pook. This is document No. 37 in the Supplement No. II, to the document book.
THE PRESIDENT: Maurer's affidavit is No. 2.
DR. BELZER: It is No. 2, Your Honor, and next is Mueller's affidavit, which will be No. 3. Now when coining to Exhibit No. 4, it is the affidavit of Phillip Grimm. From the 1 September 1943 until 1 May 1944 Phillipp Grimm was member of Office D-II, WVHA. This period of time is a very important in view of the testimony by the Witness Bilski. Grimm states in his affidavit that during this time when according to Bilski's testimony Sommer is alleged to have been labor allocation officer at Auschwitz.
He saw the defendant Sommer daily at Oranienburg when he was in charge of Office D-II. Furthermore, Grimm also describes here the activity and work of the defendant Sommer in Office D-II. In the last sentence of the affidavit Grimm refers to Document Exhibit 298 of the Prosecution's, in Document Book II.
THE PRESIDENT: That is his previous affidavit?
DR. BELZER: Yes, Your Honor, it was presented by the Prosecution in Document Book II, Exhibit 298. This document was put before Grimm when he gave this affidavit.
The next document, Sommer No. 4. I shall not read and present. This is an affidavit by George Rammler, who has been examined here as a witness.
I shall then offer Document No. 5 as Exhibit No. 5. This is the affidavit of Ernst Schultz. Ernst Schultz describes in this affidavit that he made a request to Office D-II for locksmiths to be furnished and that Sommer told him that he was unable to approve that because that was Maurer's competence.
As Exhibit No. 6 I shall present Sommer 6, which is an affidavit by Helmuth Kiener, and Helmuth Kiener states here that, from his observations, the defendant Sommer was not the Deputy Office Chief of Office D-II.
The next document also refers to the question of whether Sommer was Deputy Office Chief. This is Sommer Document No. 7, which I shall offer as Exhibit No. 7. It is an affidavit by Heinz Schwarz. He was a civilian employee of the DEST.
As Exhibit No. 8 I shall offer Sommer Document No. 8, which is an affidavit by the former commander of the concentration camp Buchenwald, Herman Pister. In this affidavit reference is made to the affidavit by Pister which was presented by the Prosecution and which we have mentioned before. It was Exhibit No. 75 in Document Book 3. Pister states here that his former claim that he had seen Sommer at the comandants' conferences can not be maintained, and he admits that it is possible that he saw Sommer only in Maurer's office.
Then Pister goes on to say that in the fall of 1944 Sommer did not see him on official orders and he did not have any inmates transferred to Ohrdruf, as has been alleged by the Prosecution.
As Exhibit No. 9 I shall offer Sommer Document No. 9, the affidavit of Karl Hayn, the director of the Heinkel Works at Oranienburg. He frequently negotiated with Sommer, and he called Sommer a very small man who could never have made any independent decision. He said Sommer was just working in the ante-chambers of an office.
Further, he goes on to say that Sommer was a very honorable, decent map.
As Exhibit No. 10 I shall submit the affidavit of Max Sollmann. This is Sommer Document No. 10, and Sollmann confirms here that in the fall of 1943 he became acquainted with the defendant Sommer at Sudelfeld when Sommer brought mail to Maurer, who stayed there on a furlough from Ornnienburg.
As Exhibit No. 11, I shall submit Sommer Document No. 11, which is an affidavit by Werner Courte. In this affidavit it is also stated that during consultations which Courte had with Sommer by order of Kammler, Sommer did not make any decisions.
As Exhibit No. 12 I submit Sommer Document No. 12, the affidavit of Herbert Siggelkow. Hervert Siggelkow was with the Medical Quartermaster General, Dr. Blumenreuter, and he had to negotiate with Sommer about the procurement of inmates, and he observed also that Sommer could not help him by making any direct decisions but referred to Maurer for his decisions.
Exhibit No. 13, Exhibit No. 14, and Exhibit No. 15 I would like to provide with Document Nos. 13, 14, and 15. They are affidavits of various officials who had to do with the procurement of inmates and who also heard from Sommer that the defendant did not have the right to make his own decisions.
I shall then submit Sommer Document No. 16, which will become Exhibit No. 16. This is an affidavit of Ernst Peters. From the fall of 1942 until the end of the war Peters was the director of the watch repair shops in the concentration camp Sachsenhausen. In his affidavit he comments on the duties of Sommer, and he also confirms the statement by Sommer on the witness stand with regard to the matter of the bonuses for Jewish inmates.
As Exhibit No. 17 I offer the Affidavit of Albert Schwartz of 10 May 1947. The Prosecution received an affidavit from Albert Schwartz, in Document Book 11, Exhibit 299.
In this affidavit Schwartz refers to his previous affidavit in the affidavit which I am presenting now.
As Exhibit No. 18, I want to offer Sommer Document No. 18, which is an affidavit by Dr. Gerhard Hoffmann. Hoffmann in the year 1943 tried to obtain a position for Sommer in a private enterprise as a businessman. However, this attempt was not successful because Office D-2 refused to release Sommer.
Sommer Document 19 will become Exhibit 19, and this is an affidavit by the criminal inspector, Fuerster, in the RSHA, who refers to the activity of the defendant Sommer in the DEST with regard to the releases of concentration camp inmates.
As Exhibit No. 20 I offer the affidavit of Dr. Helmuth Schmidt. Helmuth Schmidt worked at the Heinkel Works at Barth, and in this affidavit he describes the conditions which prevailed in the labor camp at Barth, and he goes on to describe the attempts of the Heinkel firm to help alleviate the conditions of the inmates who worked in that plant. He states that Maurer, Sommer and Suhren, with whom he had to negotiate when he submitted his requests, always showed understanding of his problems at all times.
Then, the next document also deals with conditions in the Heinkel Works. It is Sommer Document 21, which I shall submit as Exhibit 21. This is an affidavit by Hermann Knaak, and in this affidavit it is confirmed that approximately 30 inmates were released as a reward for their efficient work.
As Exhibit No. 22 I offer Sommer Document No. 22. This is a diagnosis of the American prison physician, and it confirms that Sommer can not wear boots because of an old fracture of the right ankle.
The next document, Sommer No. 23, I shall not present here because Caesar has been examined by me on the witness stand in this court.
The next documents, Sommer Nos. 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28. I shall offer as Exhibits Nos. 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27. They contain character references for the defendant Sommer, and they were sort in after notices appeared in the papers about the testimony of the witness Bilsky.