A. Because Radetsky was not the chief of the Sub-kommndo.
Q. That is Radetsky?
A. Yes, but he had nothing to do with the executive power. I can not say, he might have heard the report or discussion or talks of other leaders. As it was supposed to be asked, he might have discussed them with other leaders, that is.
Q. You don't know anything then?
A. I can say that he might have informed himself and probably did not just pass over the events.
Q. Who gave the order for the killing of the insane?
A. I never hoard of that order.
Q. It was never carried out by you and your unit?
A. No, SK-4-A never experienced such activity, and never carried out such orders.
Q. I shall refer to document II-C, page 52. Document NO 2832, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 79, I an sorry, it is page 55 Your Honor, I want to quote from Page 61 of the German, where were you on the 23rd and 24th of October? Were you ill or were you in your office?
A. On the 23rd and 24th of October I was in Kiev, where I had my head injury.
Q. Were you on duty, or were you ill?
A. I was not on duty. The whole unit or kommando was just being restored.
Q. Were you not on duty?
A. No.
Q. Did you see any reports of your teilkommandos when you returned to duty?
A. We had only one sub-kommando in Charkow, and on 23rd and 24th there was a sub-kommando stationed there for a short while. The whole SK-4-A had marched away in the direction of Lubny.
Q. Did you find the page which I wanted to quote from, in Document No-2832?
A. Yes, I have it.
Q. That is page 55 of Document Book II-C, Your Honor. Page 6l of the German. There is the last sentence of the third paragraph from below. It says, on the same day, and it is the 24th of October, through the request of the director of the mental asylum at Czernikow, liquidation of 270 incurables was complied with, and if you read the whole paragraph you will see that that is a report of the teilkommando of the Sonderkommando-4-A. Do you want still to maintain that insane were never killed by units under your command?
A. Yes, I stick to my opinion, that Sonderkommando or a unit of SK-4-A never killed any insane people in Czernikow or anywhere else.
Q. What is your explanation then to this report?
A. Yesterday in my direct examination I said that this territory and this sector, and those reports came from EK-5, which was stationed there, and which was assigned to this sector, SK-4-A had no platoons. I can say it only had a sub-kommando and advanced kommando, which on the 18th, that can be seen from this document they marched off to Lubny.
Q. Do I understand then from your answer that this report is a mistake, is that right, and your memory is correct?
A. No, that is mistaking the kommandos.
Q. It is a mistake, is it not?
A. No, it is mistaking the kommandos, but it is a fact that the EK-5 is to have supposed to have carried out the task of SK-4-A, as it is mentioned here as SK-4-A, and that is the same also, referring to the number of the document, and I have named the location yesterday of the village where SK-4-A could never have been assigned, and these locations belonged in the field of activity of this EK-5.
Q. Herr Blobel, you commented yesterday on the document which is to be found in Document Book II-a, Your Honor, it is on page 81 of the English, and page 84 of the German. It is Document NO-2938, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 44 -- 81, Your Honor, and I shall quote from the first and second paragraphs on this page; under heading "Page 13 of the original cont'd." You commented yesterday on this document, which states that on 2nd July, 1160 Jews were shot as a reprisal,that this Was a justified measure, and I want to quote what you said yesterday:
"I only had disgust for such enemies when I heard about these occurrences, because the most primitive people only did such things, and therefore, I considered the measures for a punishment of these criminals completely justified."
DR. HEIM: Mr. President, I would like to ask the Prosecutor to read the question again, as the translation is very bad and only came through in parts.
Mr. HOCHWALD: The question was not finished as yet, as a ratter of fact. You, Herr Blobel, commented on the facts which I stated here in the document, namely, that 1160 Jews were shot as a reprisal, and that these measures were justified, by say in: "I only had a disgust for such enemies when I heard about these occurrences because the most primitive people only did such things, and, therefore, I considered the measures for the punishment of these criminals completely justified." If you now examine the document more closely you will see that it has said here that a total of 10 German members of the wehrmacht were killed; as a reprisal 1160 Jews were shot. Do you want to imply that the shooting of 116 Jews for one German soldier is a justifiable measure?
A. During my testimony yesterday I spoke about the events which occurred in Sokal which I saw with my own eyes, and I drew my conclusion from this observation of mine. In Lucks, there were four German airmen who had been massacred, and then two-thousand Ukranians were slaughtered by the Russians, and whether these reprisals which was carried out and ordered by the Field Marshall -- were in agreement with the measures which are agreed upon by International Law, that I can not say in detail myself. I can not establish that formally myself, whether this number 116, or other figures, whether it is cor rect, as the correct figure of reprisals, I don't know, but that is entirely within the sphere of competency of the commander-in-Chief.
Q. Would you consider it justified to kill 116 Jews as a reprisal for the killing of one German? Do you consider that justified? Yes or no. It is easy.
A. That did not only refer to the Germans. That is the general situation which is to blame for it, and that was also judged by the field marshal. Mathematically how many reprisals were shot for one German, I do not know.
Q. My question was completely different from that which you answered to, I asked you a question which you can easily answer with yes or no. Do you and did you consider the killing of lie Jews as reprisal for the killing of one German justified? Answer that with yes or no.
A. Well, I would then have to answer with the conscience of the field marshal, and if I were a field marshal and I had the whole perspective of the happenings and if I had the right to judge this, and if German blood is shed, I would, of course, have to order a justified punishment for it in order to have the necessary prestige as the supreme commander of my army, towards my soldiers.
Q. Do I understand that you do not want to answer this question which I put to you or do you want to answer it. It is a very simple question. Do you, not the field marshal, consider the killing of 116 Jews as a reprisal for the killing for one German justified?
A. 116 Jews for one German? I don't know. I am not a militarist, you see. One can only judge it from a sort of public sentiment and from one's own human ideas. If they are enemies and if they are equal enemies the question would have to be discussed whether one to 116 is a justified ratio of retaliation.
Q. That is what I am asking you all the time, nothing else. That is the only thing I want to know from you. Do you consider this justified? Nothing else, nothing about a field marshal and nothing about the fact that they were enemies or not. That is a reprisal measure, nothing to do with enemies.
A. Well, whether for these atrocities a reprisal measure had to be carried out, well I must answer to that. (Film had here)
Q. You considered it justified, is that what you said?
A. Some kind of reprisal measure, some kind of retaliation measure is called for in this situation.
Q. So I take it you do not want to answer my question. In the same document there is a mention made on the same page, Page 55, your Honors, about a Killing of 300 Jews - I am sorry, it is Page 81, your Honor 300 Jews and 20 looters.
THE PRESIDENT: What book?
MR. HORLICK-HOCWALD: This is Page 61 of Document Book II-a. It is still the same document, your honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
Q. (By Horlock-Hochwald) There is no mention made about a reprisal. Do you consider this shooting justified?
A. No, it is the effect of the general order which is not discussed in detail. This does not say why these Jews were shot, but it says twenty looters had beer apprehended. The death punishment for looters was justified. Now, you talk about 300 Jews but it does not say why they ware shot, so what have these people to do with the happenings? It is not stated what crimes they are accused of, this is in disagreement with the major Fuehrer order.
Q. So you consider this killing of the 300 Jews as not justified?
A. No, I do not think it is justified.
Q. It was done by units under your command, is that correct?
A. Not under my command.
Q. It was a Teilkommando of your Sonderkommando.
A. It was by a kommando but not by myself.
Q. You made it very clear here that these Teilkommandos were under your command, did you not?
A. The subkommandos. Of course I was, at that time, the leader of the subkommando until these events happened.
Q. But you were still command or of sonder-kommando 4a, were you not, at that time?
A. Noo I was ill at that time and I was in the field hospital at the time when these retaliation measures were carried out.
Q. You were officially relieved of your command then, is that what you want to imply, at that time?
A. well, I cannot say relieved. I was ill, I was absent through illness.
Q. So you do not take any responsibility for the killings which were carried out in the time when you were ill in the hospital?
A. No, I do not.
Q. Did you read the reports about these killings when you returned from the hospital?
A. No, not that either.
Q. You were not interested in what was going On in your unit during the time you Were ill?
A. In those circles it was being discussed, and the people were not all together, not all collected. One could only find out, could only hear news from the cook or from this or the other person who told me that shots were fired there and some command moved to another place, but I did not have any official reports or copies of reports. I never got any information from Dr. Rasch either.
Q. You have told the tribunal not very long ago that you received reports from your Teilkommandos and that you read those. Now you say again that you have not got reports. It is not easy for me to reconcile this very different statement. Possibly you can advise us how that was possible, that you received the reports and you read them all the time, and then at once you did not read them any more.
A. That depended on conditions, of time, As long as the subKommandos were moving along with the army divisions, one didn't see them for days and weeks until they actually submitted their situation reports, and during the time that I was ill in hospital and reports of any kind or copies of such reports were not submitted, or at least not submitted to me.
They went to the group. It was just a matter of personal information.
Q. You had no connection with the Teilkommandos at all, is that what you want to say?
A. Yes, connections I had via the liaison officer of G-2. Yes, there was some kind of connection and contact, but I never knew what would happen today or tomorrow. At this distance one could not find out about this and one had no influence on future happenings. One justhad to sit back and watch what would happen.
Q. So you want to say that the Teilkommandos did not report to you, they reported directly to Einsatzgruppe C, and also Einsatzgruppe C did not inform you what your own Teilkommandos were doing, is that what you want to say?
A. No I do not want to say that. what I want to say is that events which happened in the frontal area were investigated, preliminary investigations took place which took some time and that then the activities during certain periods were reported by kommando leaders to the liaison officer.
Q. Did you get those reports which were made to the liaison officer?
A. The reports which the liaison officer collected I read, or at least in parts, as I could get hold of them, and I also read those documents which were received in the orderly room, because a subkommando which was near our location in Sokal and who dealt with the ready files had to submit then through AUK.
Q. Am I mistaken in assuming that the reports which were sent from the Teilkommandos to the liaison officer were the same which were sent from the liaison officer to you and the same that were sent from the liaison officer to Einsatzgruppe C, is that correct?
A. Hardly anything was changed in those reports, or perhaps nothing at all.
Q. But you, have received the same reports from the liaison officer as Einsatzgruppe C, is that right?
A. The reports, the situation reports, yes. It could not have been otherwise, could it?
Q. So let us now conclude a little bit. These reports which are in evidence are reports which were made at the RSHA from reports which were sent from Einsatzgruppe C to RSHA. These reports, as far as Sonderkommando 4a and its Teilkommandos were concerned, were based, as you just explained to the Tribunal now, on the reports of the liaison officer. The liaison officer had received his information from the Teilkommandos. He gave this information to you and to Einsatzgruppe C. Is it not true then, that you have received in your office exactly the same reports as these which are in evidence now?
A. That have been submitted here? No, not at all, not by any means. The original reports were concerned with all the little details. They were filed, discussed, and then there were additional operational reports. The liaison officer collected all these individual detailed reports. The Leader IV of Group C compiled and collected all the operational reports, because they had been too much detailed. Every little case would have been mentioned, and I don't know what Berlin would have done with all these detailed reports.
Q. Well, as a matter of fact Berlin got its reportof executions from the same source as you received your reports, from the Teilkommandos, is that right or not? The source was the same , is that right?
A. Yes. The sources may have been of a different nature. For the Group C also got the situation reports of the Higher SS and Police Leader through their own liaison officer and also situation reports fromother agencies which went through the channel of reports.
Q. But Mr. Blobel -- you have described to the Tribunal very clearly that the sources for the information of the activities of Teilkommandos came from the Teilkommandos to the liaison officer. The liaison officer forwarded them to the Einsatzgruppe C and to you. TheEinsatzgruppe C, on the other hand, forwarded them to the RSHA, so is it not true that, as far as Sonderkommando 4a and its Teilkommandos and subunits are concerned, the source of information which you received was absolutely the same as the source of information for these reports which are in evidence? Is that clear, or not? I do not speak about the Higher Police Leader and I do not speak about Field Marshal von Reichenau. I just speak -- at very most , I just speak about a small unit. I just speak about Sonderkommando 4a.
A. That was one of the sources
Q. All right. You have also commented here on another document. I refer, your Honors, to Document Book II-A, Page 89 of the English Page 93 of the German. This is Document NO-3149,Presecution's Exhibit 46. This document states that 1107 Jews were killed by Sonderkommando 4a for the simple reason that it was difficult to get food for them. You have commented on this document here by stating that this report could possibly not be correct as a small Teilkommando would have been physically unable to carry out so many executions in such a short time, is that right?
A. I said during my direct examination that the men which were left in Radomyszl by the Commando, about three or four, had been detailed to this operation on the part of the Higher SS and Police Leader, and took part in this operation, and that this report must come from the source of Obersturmbannfuehrer Mayer who was the permanent deputy, of Group C with the Higher Police and SS Leader, and that this kommando, these three or four men, would not have been in a position to shoot these 1107 people. This is one of the most evident reports, as to how the situation reports were compiled from all sources.
Q. would it have been possible for the men of the Teilkommandos; as far as I remember you were not sure whether these Teilkommandos were 15 or persons. Let's take it there were 15. If they would have used automatic pistols or submachine guns and would have shot the people in the neck , would it then have been possible to carry out as many executions as are mentioned in this report?
A. I have already made a statement on this in my direct. examination , that certain particular measures, executive measures of the higher supreme leader had beenordered, and that it was impossible to reach this number of executions with only 15 men.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal then that it is impossible that these Teilkommandos carried ou t shooting by submachine guns or by automatic pistols or by shooting in the neck ?
A. It was prohibited.
DR. HEIM (For Blobel): Your Honor, It is a hypothetical question and the witness is under no obligation to answer this question. Your Honor, I object to the admissibility of this question. It is a hypothetical question which the witness cannot answer and need not answer. According to my knowledge witnesses may only be asked questions which witnesses are able to answer according to their own knowledge or what they know from hearsay.
THE PRESIDENT: As the Tribunal heard the question it had to do with the methods of execution so that certainly would be within the sphere of the witness's knowledge, and as I recollect, the specific question was whether machine pistols were used or whether the method of shooting in the neck was employed.
Now, the witness can answer whether those methods were used or not. That is not hypothetical. killing was done by means of machine pistols or the technique of shooting in the neck. Will the you please answer that question?
A. For execution the kommandos had rifles as ordered. Submachine guns or machine guns or hand pistols were prohibited. They were not used. Also the Russian method of shooting in the neck, was equally prohibited and it was not carried out. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Do we understand that all those exectuions were done with rifles?
A. with rifles as ordered by the kommando.
Q. And we understand that you said yesterday that there were two riflemen per subject, per executee , is that right?
A. Two men, two rifles, for one person.
Q. Yes. Now leaving aside for the moment all discussion about the correctness or justice of an execution, we would like to have you describe an execution. Now, in your affidavit of June 6, 1947, there is one paragraph which states that out of the total number of persons designated for the execution 15 men were led in each case to the brink of the mass grave where they had to kneel down, their faces turned towards the grave. By whom was the grave dug?
A. Our men dug the grave, our men.
Q. The subjects had nothing to do with the digging of the grave, is that correct?
A. No.
Q. No, now you say, "their faces turned toward the grave. The execution squads were composed of men of the Sonderkommando." Well, we will leave that out, because we are now only describing or attempt ing to have you describe an execution.
When the men were ready for the execution one of my leaders who was in charge of this execution squad gave the order to shoot. Since they were kneeling on the brink of the mass grave the victims fell, as a rule, at once into the mass grave." In order that the subjects would fall into the mass grave and in order to avoid shooting in the back of the neck, I take it then, that the shots would pass over the grave?
A. The shootings? No, the target was : heart and head.
Q. Yes, but the victims were on the other side of the grave. In other words, they had to be facing the riflemen and consequently the grave would be between the riflemen and the victims.
A. Up to ten steps; up to ten steps.
Q. No, no, please answer that question. The position of the grave as regards the riflemen and the executees, was the grave in between these two groups?
A. No, the grave was the last unit, grave, executees and the kommando - the firing squad, the grave and executees.
Q. Then they would fall over backwards into the grave?
A. No, they fell face down.
Q. Then you had to shoot them in the neck, in the back?
A. Yes, in the back.
Q. Oh, then , you did shoot them in the back?
A. They were shot in the back position.
Q. Well, if they were facing the grave and would fall into the grave upon being shot, then they would have had to be shot in the back, would they not?
A. Yes, that is what I say.
Q. Yes, they would be shot in the back. You did not shoot into the neck, you say?
A. No, not the so-called shot in the neck of the Russians, the way we put it, the pistol shot, which is fired at a very close range of the executee.
Q. Now you say that the rifleman would aim at the heart. Was any placard or bull's eye or any kind of a marker placed on the executee's back so that the bullet would reach the heart of the subject?
A. Yes, there was a bull's eye over the heart and the middle of the head.
Q. Always on the subject's back?
A. No, the men know this from their military training where to aim.
Q. Yes, but the shot would always enter from the back.
A. Yes, they were shot from the back.
Q. Yes, now what distance was the rifleman from the subject?
A. Up to 10 steps.
Q. You say up to ten steps? Could it have been shorter?
A. 8 to 10 steps.
Q. 8 to 10 steps? Would that include the length of the rifle or not? In other words, would the ten paces extend from the muzzle of the weapon to the subject, or from the rifleman to the subject?
A. From the back of the subject , who was about 1 to 2 paces from the grave until the first member, there was always 8 steps, 7 to 8 feet, 7 to 8 steps were actually made; to one farthest back it was ten steps; when the order was given to fire, the first member kneeled down; the second member kneeled down in the place of the first; the first victim kneeled down; the next was supported by the next one; then the order was given to fire and rest arms, secure arms, arms down. The first man got up and the men stood at ease.
Q. You say that the victim was helped by the next person, you mean by the next victim?
A. I do not understand.
Q. Who took the victim to his place?
A. There were other men, other units, when, for instance, 30 men were executed in these places and 6 to 3 men shot at a time, then the others were led in by a group of another 4 to 6 people and were put into position and the men who brought in those people also were the ones who put them into the graves and the death was confirmed by them.
Q. Yes, now you did say in answer to one question that a bulls eye was used and then later I understood you to say that the riflemen were so expert that they knew where to aim. Do I understand that in som instances a marker was used and in other cases no marker was used?
A. I did not say that markers were used, that bulls eyes were used and I am only trying to explain how a group was shot by a military Kommando and how the military kommandos carried out the shooting.
Q. Then I misunderstood you. I am sorry.
A. According to military rules.
Q. Yes.
DR.HEIM: (Attorney for the Defendant Blobel): Your Honor, the misunderstandings are the fault of the bad translation of this morning.
THE PRESIDENT: I see.
DR. HEIM: I found out that, for instance, it was said when Blobel said the following: that the Russians carried out the shooting into the neck, the word "Russians" was left out. This is not true, Your Honor. The witness said there were not markers or bulls eye. It is only the fault of the mistranslation. There are misunderstandings between the Tribunal and the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Then I can clear that up very easily, Dr. Heim, I will put a direct question to him which, I am certain , will clarify the entire situation.
Q. Was any type of marker or sign used on the victim to guide the aim of the riflemen?
A. No.
Q. Were these riflemen all previously qualified as expert shots ?
A. As far us people were members of the SK 4a, they were police officials or detachments of the Waffen-SS or the Army Units and they all had had a military training, and aiming training, and firing training were within the plan of instructions.
Q. Striking a vital spot in the body requires a very steady hand, a very good eye, and perfect control of the nervous system. Could you say that all these riflemen were so trained that they could bring home their shot to a vital spot in the victim's body at all times?
A. After the order had been given to fire the deed were examined and two men were detailed with this task. It was always clearly established that the aim had been reached.
Q. Were these physicians who examined?
A. Those were people who had been detailed by their Commanders to deal with it. Sometimes they were officers of the Army units or even the leader himself, and when Army units dealt with these executions there were also medical officers.
Q. But you did not always take with you a medical officer, did you?
A. In Sokal the executions of which I am describing, these medical officers and these military doctors were present.
Q. But in the Teilkommandos which were made up of small groups, would there be a physician available at all times at the execution?
A. The respective military commander of the unit had to give the order; had to report about it to his superiors. If he had to report about an execution to his superior officer, I can assume that he kept to the instructions.
Q. But it would happen would it not, thatat times there would be no physician present and then this examination would be done by one of the squad?
A. In sokal the exectuions of which I am describing , this was carried out to the samllest detail end I can assume that in other locations officers took great care that these rules were carried out.
Q. I am only asking you, Witness, wouldn't it happen that because of the small number in the squad that a medically trained person would not be present and then the examination would need to be done by one of ths soldiers or one of the officers not medically trained?
A. I hardly think that one would have trusted the judgment, of just one single person. The officer or the leader of the SK, whoever it was, must have confirmed himself the actual death of the victim, because that was his duty.
Q.Yes, I take it that an officer would confirm the fact of death, but this officer would not necessarilybe a physician. Now what tests would the officer apply? Would he listen for a beat of the heart, or would he touch the pulse? What methods would he usually employ to ascertain whether the victim was really dead or not?
A. When no doctor, no physician was available, I am sure that he must have gotten hold of a trained medical officer of some kind, whom he consulted.
Q. Well, now you said in your answer that "when no medical officer was abailable." That presupposes that none was available. Did the examining officer merely look down into the grave to see whether anyone was moving or not and be satisfied with that kind of an examination whether death had been inflicted?
A. No, no. After every shooting order this happened: After each firing order, when the shots were addressed, somebody looked at the victims because the victims were then put into the grave, when they did not fall into the graves themselves and these tasks were in the field of tasks of the men of the individual commandos. The edge of the grave had to be cleaned, for instance. Two men who had spades dealt with this.
They had to clean it up and then the next group was lead there.
Q. Since this was all done rapidly, might it not be possible that a victim would be buried, even though not actually dead?
A. No, that is quite impossible, Your Honor.
Q. You exclude that possibility?
A. Yes, for the simple reason that if it was ascertained that the shots which had been aimed at the head had not actually hit the head, one of the men of the firing squad was called in, who fired again from a distance of 3 to 4 paces. He shot again and thus it was made absolutely certain that the person concerned was dead.
Q. In applying the coup de grace, was a pistol or the rifle again used?
A. Only the rifle was used.
Q. The rifle was used in every instance?
A. Yes.
Q. I understand that your regulations, as you pointed out yesterday, provided that two rifles were used for a non-German and five rifles for a German, in the event there had to be an execution of a German subject, is that correct?
A. No, that is not correct.
Q. Will you please tell us just what you said yesterday on that subject?
A. The military regulations decree that if a German has to be shot, the man must be shot by five rifles; five rifles must point at the victim. That was the subject of the discussion which Field Marshal von Reichenau had who decreed that only two rifles should be used in disagreement with the regulations and who also further decreed that the grave should be dug and this grave had to be placed in a territory suitable for executions and executions had to be carried out either in the early morning or in the evening. After that the grave had to be filled in immediately. The ascertaining of death in each case was the duty of each leader and he had to make use of medical officers or Army physicians and these regulations were thus carried out by officers and leaders and they were followed.
Q. You told us that an execution would usually occupy about ten minutes. Would ten minutes include the marching to the grave and the placing into position and the firing, the examination of the victim, and the actual burial?
A. As I said that ten minutes was the minimum period, that is, of course, all according to the area and the various groups. It might have taken a little longer.
Q. But, generally, ten minutes or a little longer would include the entire operation from the moment that the victim marched to the grave until it was all over.
A. Ten to fifteen minutes.
Q. Yes, now was that also true when women and children were executed?
A. I never saw that.
Q. You never witnessed the execution of women and children?
A. No.
Q. We will come back to the question I put about a minute or so ago which I don't think you fully answered, namely, the German regulations which provide that five rifles shall be used in the execution of a German. Then you stated that the Field Marshal had reduced this number to two for non-Germans.
Is that what I understand you to say?
A. Yes, in this form it had been ordered.
Q. The original order which came from Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich, Streckenbach and all the way down to you, what did it say with regard to the number of rifles to be used per victim?
A. There were no directives about the carrying out of this order, or, at least, they were not announced. I received my instructions from the Supreme Commander.
Q. When he reduced the number from five rifles to two rifles, was there any discussion on the subject?
A. No. the Supreme Commander ordered this in his instructions. He said there used to be five men who participated in an execution of Germans. Now we shall use only two, and that was the order.
Q. Did he regard that two would be ample to do the job?
A. That must have been his opinion.
Q. Yes, well, then, do you know the original regulation provided for five, if two would have been ample?
A. I don't know the individual orders of the Army units.
Q. Very well. Now, isn't it possible that the reason five rifles were ordered originally was to exclude the possibility that the victim might not actually fall dead after the volley?
A. Whether the possibility exists that the victim might not be killed after two shots, is that what you meant, Your Honor?
Q. No, this was what I meant: That five rifles, or five bullets, were required by the regulation in order to lessen as much as possible the chance that one of these bullets, at least, did not strike a vital spot. In other words, there is more chance that a man will die when five rifles are firing at him than if only one is firing?
A. I do not understand. In the case of five shots, it is without doubt that death would occur.