(The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 12 November 1947.)
DR. HEIM: ( Attorney for the Defendant Blobel) before, in writing that is, because of its basic importance. On Friday of last week I asked for, I requested, that the film sound--track of the interrogation of Blobel of 16th June, in the morning and afternoon, should be reporduced before the Prosecution in this Court.
THE PRESIDENT: June 16th?
DR. HEIM: requested it on Friday last week The actual examination was on the 6th of June, that was before the beginning of the trial and before the Prosecution began, Your Honor, I would like to make the following comment.
THE PRESIDENT: I know just a moment Let's first make certain that we understand what you are referring to. This is the sound track of an interrogation.
DR. HEIM: Yes, Your Honor,
THE PRESIDENT: Between what persons?
DR. HEIM: Between the defendant Blobel and Herr Wartennurg as representative of the prosecution,
THE PRESIDENT: ALL right, now proceed.
DR. HEIM: Your honor my request for this motion is for the following reason; I questioned Mr. Wartenberg in this Court when he was on the witness stand, and I questioned him in detail about this interrogation. The defendant Blobel. also testified about this as a witness in his own case. The two statements contradicted each other, and I think in order to find out the absolute truth of the matter, these sound tracks should serve a very useful purpose if they are produced here in Court.
THE PRESIDENT: You say the two statements contradict each other Which two statements?
DR. HEIM: The testimony of Mr. Wartenberg when he was in the witness stand here and the testimony of the defendant Blobel when he was a witness in his own case, concerning his interrogation by MrWartenberg on the 6th of June, 1947.
THE PRESIDENT: You say the 6th of June? or, the 16th?
DR. HEIM: The 6th of June.
THE PRESIDENT: 6th of June, yes. How, on what particular subject did the contradiction occur?
DR. HEIM; Your Honor, the contradiction was that the defendant Blobel declared that he had drawn Mr. Wartenberger's attention to the fact that the affidavit in the form submitted to him was incorrect, and contained many omissions which would have to be filled in later. The defendant Blobel furthermore stated that he asked Mr. Wartenberg to let him make these corrections. Mr. Wartenberg had then told him that the affidait in the form submitted to him would only be changed in unimportant details. Furthermore the defendant Blobel says that at the time he had been promised that at a later date he would have the opportunity to make the necessary corrections. Mr. Wartenberg did not confirm this testimony of the defendant Blobel when he was in the witness stand here. It is his statement against another statement. In view of the question of the defendant Blobel's credibility, I think it is necessary that the sound track of this interrogation in question be reproduced so it can be established if the defendant Blobel told the truth when he was in the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, did the defendant then sign the affidavit?
DR. HEIM: The defendant Blobel signed the affidavit, and it is in Document Book I of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes; well, did he make the necessary corrections before he signed it?
DR. HEIM: No, he did not, Your Honor, As I have already said, the defendant Blobel stated here that he had been told at the time that the text had to remain unchanged and, therefore, he did not have the possibility to make the necessary changes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Heim, as Judge Speight suggests, didn't Blobel make the corrections on the stand when he testified here?
DR. HEIM: Yes, that is correct, Your Honor, but it is here a matter of credibility, Can we believe the defendant Blobel? In the final analysis, the credibility of the defendant Blobel is at stake. I have no further witnesses at my disposal for my case, but only the testimony of the defendant Blobel in his own case, and it is of basic importance whether the Tribunal believes the testimony of the defendant Blobel when he was in the witness stand or not.
THE PRESIDENT: We will hear from the prosecution.
MR. GLANCY: If it please, Your Honors, the Prosecution is of the opinion, as it has been voiced before, that the interrogations, sound tracks and other devices for recording pre-trial interrogations are not an issue in this case; and, therefore, have no relevancy. The defendant Blobel had adequate opportunity, through counsel, to examine the interrogator, Mr. Wartenberg; every opportunity was afforded the defendant Blobel to make any corrections which he deemed fit, proper and right on the stand. excluded.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Heim, can you refresh our recollection on whether you questioned Mr. Wartenberg on this very thing?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, I questioned Mr. Wartenberg intensively about this subject for almost an hour.
THE PRESIDENT: And what, in brief, did Mr. Wartenberg reply?
DR. HEIM: Mr. Wartenberg, Your Honor, did not essentially confirm the testimony of the defendant Blobel, but said the contrary.
THE PRESIDENT: Well now, as I understand it, Dr. Heim, you are submitting to the Tribunal that when the affidavit was prepared that Blobel pointed out that there were incorrect statements in the affidavit, is that right?
DR. HEIM: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: And that then Blobel signed the affidavit anyway, upon the assurance that corrections would be make later; is that what you tell us?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Now, when you asked Mr. Wartenberg the question, did he affirm or deny that he had assured Blobel that the corrections would be made?
DR. HEIM: Your Honor, decisive seems the question which I put to Mr. Wartenberg whether at the time he had stated to the defendant Blobel that the text had to remain as it was, that is, no changes could be made in the actual text as such. This question was denied by Mr. Wartenberg. He said that the defendant Blobel had had the ***sibility to make any necessary changes of any kind, which became evident, he said, from the fact that the affidavit which had been made out on the morning of 6 June had been changed by Blobel and that on the afternoon of the same day the existing affidavit had been changed and the new version of it signed by the defendant Blobel.
MR. GLANCY: If it please Your Honor, the Prosecution merely wishes to repeat its objections on the same grounds which it stated. It would seem that it would serve no purpose to grant the request of the Defense. However, I would like an opportunity to consult with Dr. Hochwald and answer in writing if it is deemed necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Do I understand, Dr. Heim, that you have already made this request in writing?
DR. HEIM: Yes, Your Honor, on Friday of last week.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will examine itself the transcript in order to refresh its memory on what transpired when you, yourself, Dr. Heim, questioned Mr. Wartenberg.
After that scrutiny, then we will determine whether the sound track or any other record which was kept of the interrogation should or should not be produced. We will assure you that every opportunity will be allowed you, in any field at all, to present your case, and if you regard this as bing vital and important, with regard to the credibility of your client, then you will have that record produced. Of course, the prosecution will be given an opportunity to answer the request and oppose it if it sees fit, and then, naturally, we will have the issue before us and the decision Will be made on what we ascertain.
MR. GLANCE: Thank you, lour Honor.
DR. REIN: Thank you, Your Honor, I am only attempting to produce the absolute truth and make it known to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: And the Tribunal will assist you in this, because after all the credibility of any witness is very vital, and anything which can shed light upon the credibility of any one who takes the witness stand is always very helpful to the Tribunal.
DR. HEIM: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome. You may now proceed, Dr. von Stein.
DIRECT EXAMINATION - (Continued) BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, how were the security measures organized at that time, that is the time of July and August, in the territory Dorpat?
A. I have said that at that time, that is July and August, in the territory of central Estonia, the center of which is Dorpat, very confused circumstances prevailed. As for guaranteeing interior security in the city and district of Dorpat, the field command, of the Army was responsible for it; it was responsible for all questions of security, and the field commander was also the combat commander, whenever the commander of the advance unit was not there himself at the time.
The field commander was also the chief of the Estonian police prefecture and the Estonian home guard. In order to clarify this point may I say that an army field command was that command which was responsible for all army matters in a certain area under the command of an army headquarters. A field commander and also a town commander were immediately subordinate to the chief QM of the army's headquarters. In a territory like Estonia the most important towns had field commanders; in the less important towns there were town commanders. Each field commander and each local commander of the army were responsible and competent for this Estonian sector in the capitol in which they were stationed. In Dorpat there was a special case because there was continous fighting going on there, and the field command was fully responsible for all subjects.
Q. Were the conditions the same in the other parts of Estonia?
A. It wasn't quite as clear in other parts of Estonia, but in the larger parts of southern Estonia and central Estonia there were similar conditions, especially in the sector Pernau and in the sector Wald.
Q. As far the cases mentioned by you are concerned, the field and town commanders were responsible for all field security measures; how was the normal procedure at that time in combatting Communism?
A. The normal procedure was the following: Arrests were undertaken, first by the Estonian home guard; to a lesser extent also by the Estonian police, especially by the so-called constabulary of the Estonian police in the rural districts. Investigations were carried out only rarely by the Estonian home guards; in other cases by the Estonian police prefectures.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Now, you tell us arrests were made by the Estonian home guard and so on. Then you follow with a statement, investigations were made. Do we understand you arrested first and then made investigations later?
A. In most cases it was, Your Honor, that most people who were known to have cooperated with the communists, or had sympathized with the communists during the year of annexation were arrested first by the home guard on their own initiative, and only after that the homeguard and Estonian police started investigations.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
A. This does not exclude that in individual cases, of course, first on the part of the Estonian police offices investigations were carried out and then the subject was arrested. The judgments and proposals for sentences in those cases were prepared and completed in the Estonian police offices where they were submitted in writing, giving the motives --and especially --making suggestions for the sentences. The final confirmation of the decisions was given of the German sub-kommando leaders. In the months of July and august and Sept ember the general tendency , however, on the part of my commando and on the part of my sub-kommando leaders was that only temporary measures had to be taken and executions had to be limited to the most necessary and the most unambiguous cases.
BY Dr. VON STEIN:
Q. If now you arrived at a new locality with your sonderkommando, or even by yourself, what did you do?
A. The answer to that question refers first to the time, approximately from the 28th of June or July (?) until the 17th of August, that is 1941. In those cases when I arrived in a town. I first tried to establish what kind of Estonian agencies existed there, because Estonian agencies were not set up by the Germans, but in most cases Estonian home guard units and Estonian agencies had already formed when the Germans, be it of the army or the security police, arrived there. As a result, it would first have to be established what Estonian agencies existed at all; that is mayors, counts office and other administrative offices. home guard units, police offices, Then I discussed matters with the Estonian police, and I tried to make it quite clear to them that first of all written material had to be secured and safeguarded; material, that is, from the administration and government offices of Soviet party organizations and state organizations. This material then had to be Sent to the Estonian police prefecture in the County seat; in each of the 12 country scats there was one Estonian police prefecture.
A (continued) I also emphasized that Communists should, if Necessary, be arrested but certainly not executed. It was necessary to emphasize this because the attitude of the population was so embittered that in many cases the Eastonian Home Guard was inclined to carry out immediate measures. I tried to prevent that as far as I could by talking to the Estonian Administrative Offices that they should use their influence on the Estonian Home Guard with the effect that no immediate executions would be carried out - only arrests. to you?
A No they were not. The Home Guard and Police Authorities were not subordinate to me but to the Field and Town commands of the Army.
THE PRESIDENT: Do we understand, witness, that you called in the leaders of the Estonian Home Guard and gave them directions as to what to do?
A No, I had talked about the Estonian Police Authorities. That is something different. That is not the Home Guard.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. And you called in these Police Authorities and you told them under no circumstances were they to execute any Communists, they were merely to arrest them?
THE PRESIDENT: And did you also tell them that they were not to execute any Jews, merely to arrest them?
A Yes. Jews were not even talked about. Except in one case in Pervau in the middle of July 1941, I never gave any orders to arrest Jews. That was only later, in the end of September or the beginning of October, 1941. During this time that I have just talked about there were no Jews arrested.
THE PRESIDENT: But you told the Police not to execute any Communists or Jews, merely to arrest them?
THE PRESIDENT: So that in effect you instructed these Police officials to flat-footedly disobey the order which you had from the Fuehrer down through Stahlecker?
or from Stahlecker, that everywhere I went I should immediately see that all Jews and Communists should immediately be shot. As far as the Communists were concerned I was of the opinion, first of all, that it would have to be established who came under the category of this Fuehrer order, that is who was a Communist functionary who was so dangerous in fact that an execution could be considered. That, in my opinion, would at least have to be investigated.
THE PRESIDENT: Tell, what you very specifically stated was that all Communist functionaries and all Jews were to be liquidated, is that correct?
THE PRESIDENT: Now, you told the Police officials not to execute Communist functionaries or Jews, merely to arrest them.
A Your Honor, I did not say that Jews should be arrested. I said that arrests of Jews at this time, July or August, were not carried out except for one case in the middle of July in Pervau; in the period which I just talked about, approximately 17 July to the 28 august no Jews were arrested in the sector I was in, that is the Northeast Estonian Sector between Togotapsk and Narva.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you say anything to these Police Officials about Jews? No. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q Would you like to proceed with this question? am sorry that the Estonian Home Guard and Estonian Police Authorities were not subordinate to me but to the Field and Town Commands of the army. My command had the right to give directives to the Police Prefecture if security police questions were concerned and only with the agreement of the Field and Town Commands.
In the matter of the Home Guard, for instance, we could only give directives via the Field and Town Commands. If I may emphasize again the difference in the relationship of my own commando to the Estonian Home Guard on one hand and to the Estonian Police on the other hand, it is that we could not give any direct directives to the Estonian Home Guard but only by way of the Field and Town commands, but we could give directives to the Estonian Police Prefecture in matters of security police matters. Nevertheless, Estonian Police Prefecture was actually subordinate to the Field end Town commands. Police when Reval was captured in the end of August and you installed a permanent local Army administration? centralized in Reval and now the sub-commando leaders were no longer responsible for all individual decisions the way Stahlecker had basically ordered. Now the competence for all Security Police decisions in Estonia was in the hands of the Department Chief IV in Reval. This was a change which was brought about in order to unify matters and to make things more objective. Stahlecker gave his agreement to this change. Also the matter of reporting and information was centralized. Even within the Estonian Police a centralization took place for call individual decisions and for the channels of command. The Estonian Police Prefecture in Reval was the central administration office of the Estonian Police for the whole of Estonia. of Communist activities in Estonia at this point? time from 20 August and the following weeks. This Soviet leadership in Estonia had left an underground movement in Estonia in order, after the military struggles had been finished, to carry out espionage and sabotage activities in Estonia.
Many Communist functionaries, even leading functionaries had been left behind for this purpose. Apart from this, as I have already mentioned, special Communist terrorist groups had been supplied and armed. They had explosives and poisons, chiefly to be used to poison wells. The situation had become very critical because even in the following weeks, in September and even late in October and November, the front was very near. Even at the time when the front was in the sector south of Leningrad, that was from the middle of September, the front was comparatively near Estonia, and in the sector between Leningrad and the Peipus Lake an extraordinarily strong Partisan activity had developed. This was favored by the territory which consisted mainly of forests and swamps and also favored by the fact that from the Leningrad front as well as from the Moscow front Partisans could be sent to this area. This became especially acute when the winter came which, we know, arrived very early and very severely in 1941. These Partisans came from the east of Peipus Lake. They came across the ice of the Peipus Lake and came into Estonia. The activity concerning the infiltration of the Partisans to Estonia during the whole time from September 1941,on was a very strong one. On the other hand, however, from approximately the beginning of September there were very few German troops in Estonia. As from October there were hardly any, as far as active combat units were concerned, of the strength of but one regiment. But, in Estonia at that time there were a number of staffs of the Army and coastal troops consisting of coastal units of the marines and the Navy, but no actual combat units. The actual security of the country in this time, as I explained, was only secured by the Estonian Home Guard which was practically a militia of Estonian citizens and farmers.
the country and the rear connections of the Army succeed? of the Estonian Home Guards and the Estonian Police the combat of Communism was very successful. The centrally organized espionage and sabotage machinery for this underground organization, which was to exist and which was to contain members of the functionary corps of the Communist Party in Estonia was eliminated very soon and many arrests were carried out, arrests of Communist functionaries and agents of all kinds. further danger averted? the whole time tremendous activity developed on the Russian side and in Estonia sabotage and espionage was carried out and the population, in order to influence the Estonian population in a Communist way, and against Germany. It becomes evident from a number of reports of events that strong Communist activity took place. It becomes evident in fact from parts not submitted by the Prosecution so far. May I now give a few examples?
THE PRESIDENT: Who made all the arrests you spoke of, the arrests of the Communist functionaries? lesser extent by the Estonian Police and the Constabulary in the rural districts, but to a lesser extent also in the towns.
THE PRESIDENT: Did you not make any arrests yourself, that is, your organization?
A No, this wasn't possible mainly for the reason that we had only four German interpreters who knew the Estonian language. One cannot carry out arrests without knowing their language and these four German interpreters were fully used for other tasks and not for arrests only. Furthermore, these Estonian authorities arrested rather more Communists than too few, so there was no necessity in our paying too much attention to it.
THE PRESIDENT: You just sat back and reviewed the sentences which were passed by the Home organization, is that right?
A No. I did not speak about sentences just now, only spoke about arrests. The question - -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Don't tell me what the question was. I know what the question was. You had stated some time today that you reviewed - you and the sub-commando leaders reviewed all sentences, is that right? shall come back to. That is, I personally. Otherwise, the suggestion for sentences were submitted to the Estonian Police Authorities based on an investigation which had been carried out locally, then affirmed and confirmed by the sub-commando leader....
THE PRESIDENT: In all the time you were in Estonia you only passed on six cases?
A I personally dealt with six cases and made my decision. That is, I personally. It was actually the task of my department chief IV to examine and investigate the judgments and to confirm them. I may say now that I shall deal with this procedure at a later point.
THE PRESIDENT: But do I understand you to say that all the time you were in Estonia you passed on only six cases - you reviewed only six cases? cutions. That means six death sentences. The whole number of cases which were examined by myself was 25, on two different occasions. Among those there were six executions.
THE PRESIDENT: So that in all the time that you were in Estonia you reviewed 25 cases and from these 25 six executions resulted? to deal with this. BY DR. von STEIN:
the danger of Communism had been averted?
A I said that I can see examples in many reports of events. In fact such reports which have not been mentioned and submitted by the Prosecution, especially from the report of events #95 which is 26 October 1941, document 3347, that's page 15. Then #130 of 7 November 1941, document #2823, page 10. Then #155 of the 14 January 1942, document #3279, page 21. And then from the report of Einsatzkommando A of 15 October 1941, document no 1180. That's inclosure VII, A large part of other reports which were issued in Reval in this department deal with this too. It was not included in reports in Berlin then, so now it is not contained in the documents here. From inclosure 7 which I mentioned last, that Is document 1180, the activity of the so-called Illegal Central Committee is described which had been left after the end of military operations. The President of this Committee was the former President of the Central Committee of the Communist Party when they were legal. He had therefore been left as an illegal chief of the underground organization. As members of this illegal Central Committee of the Underground Movement there are marked former leading members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party in Estonia or the council of the People's commissars of the Soviet Republic. In one case even a people's commissar, that is the leading man in charge of the Ministry of the former Soviet Republic was concerned. It becomes evident that no loss than five leading personalities had been left in order to deal with this underground movement and to be in charge of it. The number of the rather minor and small functionaries was relatively larger. From another report of events I take the confirmation that in Narva the Communists among the working population formed about 15% and that small groups were still in hiding in cellars on top of the buildings and operated from there and organized plunderings and attacks. It is furthermore proved that the Russian population of Narva was Communisticly infected so that espionage aid to refugees of this illegal organization and partisans could only be stopped by systematic combing operations.
In another report of events, that is January which reports about the events in December, it is mentioned that in Narva and in Petschura, that is again in the border territory, the atmosphere and attitude of the Russian population was connected with evacuation of Rostov and Ritwin by German troops and a consequence of the entry into the War of the USA, that through this in fact the Russian population that had Communistic tendencies the general mood improved. In another report of events in November, that talks about events which happened in October it is mentioned that experiences so far in the sector south of Leningrad make one conclude that the system of mass assignment of agents which had already been used by the Russians in World War of 1914 - 1918, would now be used again. I may add that this report was not issued by my own commando but by Einsatzgruppe A, that is south of Leningrad, but that these events reported about had repercusions on Estonia. Furthermore it is mentioned that for espionage and sabotage actions young people between 14 and 20 and women were employed.
In another report of event of January concerning events until up to the end of December, there is mention made of difficulties in food supply and accommodations and that, therefore, smaller troops are non formed from the partisan units which are active as terror groups, Furthermore, it is stated in this report that at the Estonian northern coast in the middle of November 1941 a hundred partisans had been landed who were to start operations in the vest of Narva. I may add here that such an event repeatedly happened. I remember now that even in later months it was attempted again and again to land via the Finnish Bay and to smuggle through large units of partisans consisting of 100 to 120 men......
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. von Stein, the witness has given us quite a report of the reports that have been turned in, but he has sort of forgotten himself. It will be interesting to know just what he was doing during this period. After all, any report can be relative only as long as it throws light on the defendant himself. He has sort of taken himself out of the picture completely and he is just giving us a general account, which is interesting, but we would like to know hour he fits into the picture.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, we shall come back to those questions in individual details. The witness only wants to paint a general picture of Estonia at the time. He only wanted to express the Communist danger and he wanted to say that the Communist danger was the same before and after the occupation, and I shall come back to the individual details later.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. SANDBERGER: I may conclude at this point and say that the lack of any combat units in the sector of Narva was very dangerous for the security because in the vicinity of Narva there were a number of extensive slate mines which was the most Important industrial enterprise in Estonia, and was of tremendous importance because of the oil which was produced there for the German Navy. Sabotage attempts on this industry would have had most serious effects on the German Navy.
I may furthermore say briefly that in the whole of the winter 1941 to 1942 and even later, as it becomes evident from the report, parachute partisan operations were caried out over Estonia. These partisans were equipped with explosives, with wireless sets and with plans of arms dumps, and addresses of Communist agents in Estonia and so forth. I believe in December 1941 one of these parachutists stated that in partisan schools of the Soviets there were approximately 3,500 men who were trained and these men should land over Estonia in the spring of 1942. Even attempts on army information units were made again and again which was most irritating because the most important information and news channels went via Estonia; especially in the southeastern corner of Estonia that is the area bordering the Pleskau sector. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q I now come to the documents submitted by the prosecution. They are based apparently largely on reports which were issued by your officials. Please tell us first what kind of reports were issued by your office. five departments. This concerned, as far as Departments I and II were concerned, general changes referring to own personnel, administration and information service. As far as Department III was concorned there were reports made about the modestic spheres and the atmosphere within the population concerning the domistic spheres. As far as Departments IV and V we e concerned, security measures and matters of security police were discussed. There were reports which dealt with the situation and with the activity until the end of the month. Those had to be submitted at the latest, the last day of the month, at the Einsatzgruppe Riga.
Q What was contained in these situation reports?
A In these their own activity was mentioned. First of all, the activities of Department 4 and 5, but also the acitivities of other offices concerning general security, and then general events which concerned the security situation in Estonia, and which neither had to do with our own security nor with the German Army. and the activity of other authorities concerning the general security position? Was this difference clearly understandable?
A No. The difference is not easily recognizable in the documents submitted here, I would almost say that in most cases it is not recognizable.
THE PRESIDENT That in not the question which Dr. von Stein asked you. He asked whether your reports differentiated between your activity and the activities of local authorities. Please answer that question.
MR. SANDBERGER: I beg your pardon. In the reports of Department 4 in Reval the difference between our own activity and the activity of other authorities was generally distinguishable but not always. BY THE PRESIDENT.
Q Well, why wasn't it always?
Q No, no not deduced. You had charge of these reports. You are sending in a report on what is happening with your organization. How, tell the Tribunal why you wouldn't distinguish between what you would do and what somebody else does in a report which you submitted to your own headquarters, reports dealing with situation and activity of Department 4, were not issued by mo personally and in a majority of cases I did not even know them before they were sent off for the mre reason that I was absent; if, however, I was present -
Q You were in charge of that commando, were you not?
Q And, therefore, you were charged with making reports?
Q All right, how long were you up in this part of the world?
Q Yes, and you sent in a report each month?
Q How, when you were, of course, you saw the reports? Now, you are there, and you are sending in a report. Let us take that situation.
Q All right, now when you send in this report, don't you distinguish between what you do and what somebody else does?
Q Now, please don't go back over that again. We have a situation where you are sending in a report. Now, you don't need to modify that. You have the report. Here is your report. You are going to send it in. You are in charge of the commando. How, in this report you distinguish between what you do and what somebody else does, don't you? when these reports were sent in?
Q Now, just a minute. Didn't you say just a moment ago in most cases you were present?
Q Well, then, just a minute, let us correct this. If there is a mistake, we want to correct that. That is what we got over the earphones. At least, that is what I get. Did you get that, Judge, that he said "in most cases"? Will the German reporter please look at her notes and tell us if the witness said that "in most cases" he was present when the reports were sent in?