A. Yes, and because it is not the usual practice to mark that tooth when it is only polished.
Q. All right, if you don't make that angle only because there is no charge, why did You make the angle against the first item for which there was also no charge?
A. Well, in the case of the trepanation, the doctor has to know after the second treatment which tooth he has worked a trepanation on.
Q. Well, he has to know also which tooth to polish, doesn't he?
A. Well, we know which tooth we have treated.
Q. Well, wouldn't you know which tooth you had done the trepanation on?
A. Of course, the doctor can see that, but that saves him looking at the tooth again by merely looking at the card. Then he knows what he has treated.
Q. Why does he have to go on a searching expedition to find a tooth which must be polished. why couldn't you put that same item against the polishing operation?
A. Well we know, because on the top seventh on the left he has had a filling, and we know which tooth is to be polished.
Q. Well, why wouldn't you know after a trepanation job which tooth it was that had to be done?
Let us take the third item. On the first time you have done the trepanation job. Then he comes again on the 13th of November, still the same tooth, and you do something else. The he comes on the 26th of November and you treat him again, the same tooth. Then he comes on the 3rd of December and you treat him again. By this time you ought to know which tooth it is, wouldn't you? One, two, three, four, five-you have treated him five times. You know by this time which tooth it is, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Then why must you make thisangle each time?
A. Well, because that is the usual practice. One just does it.
Q. Well, why isn't it usual practice when he comes for his other treatment which is the polishing?
A. No. I can only repeat that is a matter -- in most cases, the patients don't come back but many of them do come back and it is simply noted down briefly when the patient has come. It is just noted down that the tooth has been polished.
Q. When he does come back for the polishing, it is important that you polish the right tooth, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Well, if you use the angle line for identification on the other treatments, then why wouldn't it be necessary for the identification of thepolishing job?
A. Well.
Q. When you don't charge, do you use a whole line or not on this card?
A. Well, I have to enter it.
Q. When you mentioned the polishing job, you did not use a whole line because there was no charge, that is right, isn't it?
A. No.
Q. Well, maybe you don't understand the question. When he came on February 7th and had that tooth polished, and you made the entry on the card, you did not give it a whole line on the card because there was no charge, is that correct?
A. Yes, yes.
Q. That is your explanation, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. All right, now please tell us why you give a whole line to the treatment of 23 October for which there was also no charge?
A. Well, treatment was continued then. We did not yet know what was to become of the tooth, whether we would have to continue treating the tooth.
Where was I to write about the extraction? I had to start a new line.
Q. You still made no charge for the item? You made no charge for that item?
A. No, the trepanation was not paid for.
Q. So therefore your explanation that the reason you gave only half line to the polishing job of February 7th because there was no payment expected is not the explanation for giving only half a line, is it?
A. This treatment had been concluded at the time, in fact, and therefore I did not hove to leave that line empty and therefore I made the totaling line one line higher up.
Q. But you did not know when you entered the item of February 7 that he was not going to comeback for some other treatment, did you? You couldn't tell whether he was coming back or not?
A. No, after one polishing, one treatment has been concluded.
Q. He could have come back on March 1st for some other kind of treatment, couldn't he?
A. Then he would have had to have pains again.
Q. He could have come back on March 1st for another tooth.
A. Yes, but now the tooth had been looked at and it could not be expected that something would occur, would go wrong.
Q. I said some-other tooth. He could break another tooth.
A. You mean the polishing?
Q. Witness, we have an item here February 7 polishing. Is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. You did not send out a bill until April 23?
A. Yes.
Q. So it was perfectly possible for him to come back in March for some other kind of treatment?
A. Well, if he had come, then of course we would have continued to treat him.
Q. So that you did not total these items until April 23?
A. No, they Were totaled when the bill was sent out.
Q. So you still do not give us an explanation why your totaling line, which was dated April 23, would precede the item of polishing which was February 7?
A. Well -
Q. Anything else you want to add? That is the explanation you had given.
A. No.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, Mr. Hochwald.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I have no further questions but it would be possibly adviseable that the witness should stay ready until after the testimony of the expert Witness on hand-writing so that further questions which may arise from this testimony could be put to the witness later.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Just one other question which Judge Dixon suggests. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Is the name Haensch a very unusual name in German?
A. I really don't know.
Q. Well, do you know of any other Haensches? Have you ever heard the name in any other connection?
A. No.
Q. But it is possible that there could be someone else called Haensch?
A. Well, I never heard that name and I do not recall any other patients who had that name, Haensch.
Q. But you do not know the defendant Haensch personally, do you?
A. No.
Q. How do you know that the treatments recorded on this card were administered to Walter Haensch, one of the defendants inthis case? You don't know, do you?
A. I beg your pardon.
Q. I will put the question a little more simply. You do not know Walter Haensch, one of the defendants in this case, personally?
A. No.
Q. So that when you talk about Haensch, you talk about the individual who came into your office?
A. Yes.
Q. You do not know whether the individual who came into your office is the same man who s the defendant in this case of your own personal knowledge?
A. No.
Q. We would like to have you remain if you will, available, because you might be called later after we hear another witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, would you take care of the witness so that she will be comfortable?
Does the defense counsel desire to put any further questions? Very well. DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution would like to call at this time the witness Commander Francois Bayle.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the witness be called.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the witness who is a French citizen will testify in English. he will have an interpreter stand by if he should feel limited in his expressions and therefore need an interpreter.
11 Feb 1948_A_MSD_24_1_Spears (Juelich)
JUDGE DIXON: Will you raise your right hand, please? Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give to the court in this action now on trial shall he the truth, the whole and nothing bu the truth, so help you, God, and do you so swear?
THE WITNESS FRANCOIS BAYLE: I shall swear.
JUDGE DIXON: You may be seated, BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. Commander, will you please give the Tribunal your name, your rank, and your official position?
A. My name is Francois Bayle. and my rank is Commander in the Medical Corps of the French Navy.
THE PRESIDENT: Commander, please spell your second name.
THE WITNESS: My first name is Francois __F_R_A_N_C_O_I_S. My last name is Bayle __ B_A_Y_L_E.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: I am Commander in the Medical Corps of the French Navy, and a specialist of Neuro-psychiatry. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q. Go on.
A My education and training are the following. After two first years of medical studies begun in Paris, I entered the main Naval Medical School in Bordeaux, received my doctor of medicine degree and state examination in 1928, interne in 1929, became assistant doctor in the neurological and psychiatric clinic in Toulon, and received the degree of specialist for hospitals in this field in 1936. I was for four years the director of the applied psychology center of the naval laboratory in Toulon, and later on directed an institute for applied psychology in Claimant University. In the same time I took my degrees in philosophy. I always have been interested in handwriting, which from the very beginning appeared to me as the recording of the numerous and delicate gestures through which everyone 11 Feb 1948_A_MSD_24_2_Spears (Juelich) expresses his main characteristics.
The value of these analyses of handwriting is proved by the more fact that no handwriting looks like another.
Q. May I interrupt you for a moment, Commander? Can you tell the Tribunal whether, if any experience you have as a court expert as to handwriting?
A. I had approximately 12 years experience in the experimental study of handwriting. My expert training in these fields started in 1935, and consisted in the study and application of the works of the two main specialist, French specialists --I mean in this field. Crepieux_Jamain and Carton. Crepieux_Jaimain's works on the question are known the world over, and he is considered as the creator of modern scientific handwriting study. Has man works which are wellknown to me are the following: Practical Treating of Graphology, Handwriting and Characters, Fundamental Basis of Graphology. Age and Sex in Handwriting, Elements of Scoundrel Handwriting. ABC of Graphology. and so forth. I have been also a direct and personal pupil of his coworker, Dr. Carton, who died three months ago and who wrote in particular, Mentally Diagnosing by Handwriting, Diagnosis and Conduct of Temperaments, Medical Arts. Keys of Individual Diagnosis, and thirty important works books. Since 1935 I have used my knowledge of handwriting in performing such work. Moreover, I was utilized last year during the medical case as an expert the study of one handwriting during the medical case. out of some files under the heading, "Dr. Haensch, Hartmannsweller Weg 16?" I will hand you the card. all the entries with the exception of one, the date of which I do not know, but if you would hand me the card, I can tell it to you-with the exception of an entry which appears on the date of 26 November 1941, 11 Feb 1948_A_MSD_24_3_Spears (Juelich) that she has written all the entries herself.
She has further testified that the entry on the third line of the card, which appears opposite of the printed word "telephone" was written "by her in January 1948. I ask you, according to your expert opinion, is it correct that all entries, with the exception of the entry of 26 November were written by the same person, and is it further correct that the entry of the 26th November was written by someone else? I must say first that it is admitted in handwriting specialists' circles that the establishment of 10 species permits the identity and figuration of a given handwriting among hundreds of thousands of others. Without the slightest difficulty, I was able to gather 11 species for the violet handwriting and 15 different species for the black-blue one. hose species being, of course, different, and notwithstanding the possible species, they might have in common, each specie belongs to one of the seven following genus; speed, pressure, form, dimension, direction, contintuity, and arragnement. If we consider first the violet handwriting, which concerns the third line in front of the German, word "telephone" and the entry which appears in front of the date then of February 1942, I any say that this handwriting belongs in all probability to the same and only person and presents the 11 following species: the speed is fast; the pressure is sharpened, explosive, and this; the form is round, the dimension is irregular, and even-elevated; the direction is straight and centrifugal; the continutiy is very poorly organized; and the arrangement is loose. If we consider now the blue and black handwriting, I may point out 15 different species, and these species being absolutely different of the 11 ones which have just been described. That is to say, for the speed; the speed is reserved, inhibited, restrained, well something like inhibited, a variety of inhibited. The pressure is regularly conducted, thick, heavy_set. The form is large and arched. Dimension is low, inflated, and equal. The direction is rigid, slightly bent.
11 Feb 1948_A_MSD_24_4_Spears (Juelich) The continuity is slightly organized and the Arrangement is ordered. The conclusion of the pointing out of the 11 species for the violet ink and the 15 different species for the two others -- the conclusion is that with a scientific certainty two persons, at least have written these handwritings. can you tell with certainty to the Tribunal that the entry which appears opposite the printed word "Telephone" and the entry which allegedly was made on 7 February 1942 were made by the same person?
A Yes. It is absolutely my opinion and when I have described the 11 species made with the violet ink, I did not discriminate, and in my opinion the same and only person wrote the word "Sven Hedin Platz 8" and "7 Feburary - POL", which I suppose to be "polishing" and I have to precise one thing, that this violet handwriting includes a pretty rare variety of the spasmodic specie. This variety is the explosive specie which can be seen on both entries, first in front of the word "Telephone' and secondly in front of the entry of the 7th of February. This explosive specie Consists of a vigorous and short pressure described for the first time in the "Diagnosis and Conduct of Temperaments" by Dr. Paul Carton, whose first edition was published in Paris in 1926. This very peculiar variety concerns and extremely sensitive subject who reacts by violent, certain and short projection of strength, with violent, spasmodic reactions, but these reactions being checked at once, and restrained by the self-control, and this very rare specie appears, as I have said, in the entries of the violet ink and, on the other hand, it does not appear on any of the other entries. And the blue and black handwriting. in all probability, with perhaps one or two exeptions which can be precised, belongs to the one and same person. possibility that the two entries with violet ink were made by the same person who wrote the other entries?
11 Feb 1948_A_MSD_24_5_Spears (Juelich) not the same as the one who made the other entries. certain dates which indicate when these entries were made. Can you tell the Tribunal whether it is your opinion that these entries were made at those dates which are indicated on the chart? written at the top of the chart in front of the printed word "telephone" are written with the violet ink. They seem to have been written much more recently than the two first lines in blue ink and the three first entries of 1341, that is to say. at a later date than they are supposed to. They are supposed not to have been written more than three months later. Furthermore, the three entries with the black ink appearing just before the entry of the 7th of February '42 seem much more recent than, the corresponding dates, December '41 and January '42.
filled fountain pen, and the third line, "Sven Hedin Plantz 8" a Swedish explorer, seems to have been written with a common pen holder which had not much ink for the last letters. Moreover, the entries of the 23rd of October 42 and 27th of October 42 seem to be somewhat pale for having been made ten months after the two entries of December 1941. However I must say that I limit myself to a statement of probability in accordance with the actual date of these entries. This kind of an expert opinion chiefly concerns a chemical expert. The nature and quality of ink may have been altered during the war. Substitutes may have been used, and I do not consider myself as an expert, I mean a chemical expert, in this fields and in this case there is only a presumption of probability for the actual date of the entries. the entry opposite the printed word "Telephone", "Sven Hedin Platz" and the number -- I do not recall the number -
Q -- was made by her in January 1948. Would you say from the nature of the handwriting and from the quality of the ink that the entry of 7 February was made approximately at the same time?
A In all probability these two entires, "Sven Hedin Plat_ 8" and "7 February Pol" have been made by one and the same person at the same time.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Thank you very much, Commander, Your Honors, I have no further questions. BY THE COURT: probably made more recently that the on of January 42, you don't mean merely the sequence of a month,
Q Because naturally it would be more recent in chronology? month's space of time.
A Yes. Yes, your Honor, but it is indeed very hard to fix even an approximate date, an approximate length of time.
Q Well, we wanted to make clear that you didn't merely mean that it was subsequent,-itself it would have to be one month later.
A I don't think it is possible to see a difference of one or two or three months in an ink, in the color of an ink which has been used six years ago. I do not think that it could be possible to point out a difference of such a short distance of one or two or even three months between two handwritings written six years ago. I don't think so. That is all I meant. I meant a much, much longer time.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Does defense counsel desire to cross-examine? BY DR. KRAUSE. Writings is based on medical interest mainly. You said here you were particularly interested for diagnostic reasons. As an expert are you in a position to determine a handwriting from a technical point of view concerning the letters and the manner of writing on the basis of your experience?
A You mean the identification of a given handwriting? mainly on the basis of their exterior impression and on the basis of the technical event which took place when the writing was actually done?
able, like many handwriting experts, to determine the actual number of different species of a given handwriting. I think it is out of the question to say that it is a more question of impression, and the eleven species I have indicated for the violet ink and the fifteen other species I have indicated for the blue-black ink, indicate clearly that it is not a mere impression but these reserves are based on an objective and, let's say, scientific study.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution is not advised that defense counsel for the defendant Haensch has offered in evidence any expert opinion on the exhibit. If he did or if he wanted to be may do so, but he cannot question the witness on expert opinions which are not in evidence before this Tribunal.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor, it is my opinion that I should be permitted to put questions which concern the ability of the witness to give an expert opinion.
MR. HORLICH-HOCHWALD: Defense counsel for the defendant Haensch cannot cite and not quote evidence which is not before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, he has the right to test the capacity and competence of the expert witness.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Your Honor, he certainly has, and there is no objection to that, but I do not think that it is possible that he may question the witness on documents which are non-existent in this courtroom.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor, I am not operating with any documents or any other papers which have not been submitted to the Tribunal. I merely put questions with no regard to such basic material in order to find out how the expert was interested in handwritings and to what extent and how his opinion should be considered here.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. The objection is overruled.
Q (By Dr. Krause) Commandant, in your opinion you are speaking about special characteristics, about the speed and the pressure, the form, the size, the direction, etc., and you draw certain conclusions from this, in particular also pertaining to the temperament and the psychological state of the person who wrote. Is this not rather a graphological way of judging a handwriting? But I understand scientific graphology to be, the opinion on a handwriting to the effect that from the handwriting and from the entire impression one gains from the handwriting one can draw conclusions asto the personality of the writer, in particular to his psychological state of mind, his inclinations, etc., but has this anything to do with a comparison of handwriting? word "graphology" it wasonly as far as I have quoted the works of the two French masters who wrote specialized books about handwriting, but I have entirely and definitely limited myself to the word "handwriting" and I did not use in any way the word "graphology". Handwriting and graphology are two different things. I think handwriting is recognized the world over as an objective applied science. and whatever could be my opinion on the possibility of investigating character and temperament through handwriting, -- I do not mean to bring in this court anything else but my experience and knowledge of the objective and scientific study of handwriting. I did not say, for instance, that the person who wrote with the violet ink had such character or such temperament. I did not say that the person who wrote with the blue and black ink had such and such character.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand What you have in mind. You are merely indicating objectively what your study of the handwriting shows only for the purpose of comparison as to the possible author of the handwriting, -
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Not the characteristics which went into that person who Wrote.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I limit myself to an identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
THE WITNESS: And this identification has been a part, an official part of my training as an expert on neuropsychiatry.
Q (By Dr. Krause) I can leave this point, Commandant, but my misgivings originated when you described your career and your training for this job. You quoted a number of works which in my opinion are purely scientific graphological works and do not concern the usual comparison of handwritings which we know normally.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If your Honor please, this is entirely a matter of argument and not the subject of cross-examination.
DR. KRAUSE: Your Honor, I am not arguing at the moment but I merely took the liberty of explaining my questions.
Q (By Dr. Krause) Commandant, the female witness who has been questioned here, said among other things that the entries on the card were often made in a hurry. Is that your opinion and did you consider that in your opinion? when she made the entries. Did you consider that too, because she didn't have time to sit down? far as I can be sure -- I am sure that several words which would appear to a, let's say, amateur handwriting expert as written by two different persons have in all probability been written by the same person standing up, for instance, or being obliged to write without a support or in a bad physical condition, but I think it is quite easy to consider and to see on this chart -- Yes, but that does not keep me from believing that main question resides in the fact that at least two different persons have written entries on these charts so far.
addition was made this was done in the evening and sometimes even on Sundays. I believe that she had more time to work then than in the hurry during the day. Do you still stick to your statement that the differences, which you also find concerning speed, oblige you to draw the conclusion that two different persons have made entries on this card?
A Well, I do not understand very Well the question. I do not want you to repeat it counsel. I just want to say that, do you mean the entries which have been written with the exception of the violet 1 ink, that is to say the blue and black ink, or do you mean that there is a possibility of identity between the violet ink and the blue and black ink?
blue-black ink, as far as I know, which refer to the prices and the addition of the prices, in my opinion were written by the same person. Therefore no two persons took part in writing those figures.
A In all probability. I agree.
DR. KRAUSE: Yes, thank you.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I have only two questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. BY MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD. on the handwriting of the so-called Ding Diary an exhibit before Tribunal No. I, in Case No. I? accepted by the Tribunal and whether in the judgment this Tribunal has accepted your view on the genuineness of this document?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, do you know whether you will need the other witness again?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If Your Honors please, in view of the testimony of the witness, who has herself testified that she has added something on the exhibit at a later date, and with the view that she herself has admitted that somebody else than herself has made entries on the chart, in view of the expert opinion given by Commander Bayle now, I respectfully move that the exhibit may be rule out and not accepted in evidence. Furthermore, I respectfully move that the witness may be warned by the Tribunal as, according to her own admission, she has made statements in this affidavit under oath, which could not be upheld by her on the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: We have just been informed that the sound tape is about to run out this evening, so that the ruling will be made tomorrow morning.
The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 12 February 1948 at 0930 hours.)
Michael A. Musmanno, 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.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I would like to ask that for today, too, the defendant Ohlendorf should be excused for this afternoon and, if there should be a session, also this evening, and be brought to room 57 in order to continue our discussion.
THE PRESIDENT: That, of course, will be entirely agreeable, Dr. Aschenauer but we wanted to make an announcement so that all defense counsel will be informed, and the defendants, Prosecution, of course. Tomorrow the defendants will have the opportunity to make their final statements which procedure is provided in the ordinance under which the court operates. So, that the program for the remaining period will be as follows:
Today we will hear the four remaining closing speeches. Then tomorrow morning we will convene in Courtroom #, the large courtroom. The Prosecution will make its final statement. Defense counsel will be permitted extemporaneously to reply to any completely new matter which could by any chance appear in the Prosecution's final statement. And, then following that the defendants will individually make their statements. In order that the defendants will know the approximate length of their remarks we would suggest that 10 minutes would be ample for each defendant, a maximum of 10 minutes. He, of course, does not need to use all that time if he doesn't desire. The defendant Ohlendorf, of course, will be allowed more time - whatever time is required, whatever time he feels is in order burden of outlining the general defense, the law, and so on. Amd, so with that in mind he would not be limited within reasonable bounds, of course.
If any defendant should feel he would require more than ten minutes then the Tribunal should be informed today of that fact so the necessary arrangements can be made. Then, we will add, the defendant Ohlendorf will be excused from attendance in court - you want him all day today?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Only this afternoon and evening, if there is a session.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Ohlendorf will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon and, also, this evening if there should be an evening session.
DR. ASCHNAUER: That means tonight he needn't come either?
THE PRESIDENT: That's right, should there be an evening session.
Not all the lawyers are here this morning. Will those who are present please take it upon themselves to acquaint their colleagues with what the Tribunal has stated? Thank you. BY DR. HOCHWALD:
Q. May it please the Tribunal, I have only a very few questions to the witness. Witness, yesterday after you had testified the Tribunal heard the testimony of an expert witness on the file card which you ---
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. BY DR. HOCHWALD:
Q. Witness, yesterday after you had testified the Tribunal heard testimony from an expert witness on the file card which you have allegedly filled out. This expert witness has declared that the two entries, the one opposite the word telephone "Seven Hedinplatz 8" and the entry of 7 February 1942, both written in violet ink, can not possibly be written by the same person who made the other entries. When I asked this witness whether it is his opinion that if one of these two entries was made as late as January 1948, that also the other was made at the same time, the expert witness said that it is his expert opinion that both entries were made at the same time. Will you tell the Tribunal now, and that's the last time I am asking you this question, who made these two entries?