Q You still don't grasp what I am asking you, witness. That all happened in 1941, didn't it? I don't know when you ware asked by someone to recall when it was that you saw Six in 1941 -- you were asked to recollect something which happened six years previously. That is right isn't it? for the first time or else I might have had to think about it a little longer. But when in November, when I happened to visit Professor Pfeffer and he told me, among other things, that Professor Six was not being believed concerning this date which was being debated, I remembered my leave on that occasion and I remembered immediately that it was the last week of August and that the following week started with the first of September. Therefore it was not difficult to draw the conclusion according to dates.
Q Then what did you do to confirm your recollection? on leave as what date I must have seen him, if I saw him two or three days previously; that was a very simple deduction. you had no document to support your memory, that you left on August 25 on your vacation? How could you recall, after six years lapse, that it was on that Monday? How could you confirm that it was that Monday? It could have been another Monday -- it could have been the following Monday or the preceding Monday. We'd like to know how you anchored your recollection to the precise date.
A The fact that I took leave in August is obvious. It is the month when one takes holidays. Also during that year there was still the order of the terms. The term had taken very long since it was the second one of the year. Therefore our leave started very late in August because we could not leave with the other students at the beginning of the holidays between the terns.
This was at the beginning of August. I had to remain another two weeks at least. I remember that. The summer holiday means a great deal to a student and it wasn't so easy for us that we had to wait some time yet. from the person at whose home you spent this vacation?
A Yes. Frau Alander and daughter Ursula, during the last week of August 1941, spent their holidays in my house in Berlin. Erich Schwanz.
Q Did you take your vacation right in Berlin?
A Yes, in the center of the city I had a small student's room. My mother came to Berlin and had stayed with these acquaintances for some weeks already. When I also got my leave I also moved in there.
Q Well then, you weten't very far from the Institute during the time of your vacation.
A No, of course not. But if one has such a short leave one does not want to have it interrupted and wants to dispose of one's own time.
Q Well, it wouldn't have been a very difficult thing for you to go over to the Institute even while you were on leave to speak to Professor Six, would it?
A Of course it would not have been difficult, but one can't just go over like that because the Institute was at the University and one had to go to the city and this took at least half a day, and if one only has a few days of leave one does not like to sacrifice half a day. the last week in August.
Q It doesn't specify any date, does it -- any date of the month? prosecution -from the 25th of August until the 1st of September.
house any time between the 25th and the 30th. difference to me whether I am there at the beginning of the week or already for the week-end. My mother had been there for some weeks and was waiting for me to take a few days leave as well.
Q And when did you return to the Institute?
Q How long was your vacation?
Q You were only allowed one week vacation?
AAt that time, yes. Already at Easter I had had two weeks leave and in the winter I intended to study in Copenhagen. For this reason I had to leave for some time and, of course, could not ask that in August I should also be given a long leave.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, any other question, Mr. Hochwald. Mr. Hochwald, do you want to proceed. I think Mr. Hochwald should proceed, and Dr. Ulmer may finish up.
MR. HOCHWALD: Yes, Your Honor. BY MR. HOCHWALD:
Q You moved from Berlin to Copenhagen, did you?
A No. In November I left for Copenhagen for two semesters. I was able to study there due to the academized exchange system; all European and non-European countries could take part in this.
Q Which day was that?
Q How do you know that? know the dates precisely. Tell the Tribunal how do you so precisely recollect this date? and pleasure for Copenhagen.
Q Can you tell the Tribunal what day of the week it was?
A I can not say that; it was a week day, as to which one I don't know any more. correct?
A Yes, it was a matter of course. There was no choice for me.
Q On what day was that?
Q The date, please?
A It was in my opinion the 2nd of April. I don't think that I make a very great mistake here; there might be a slight error.
Q And do you remember the dates so very well? special meaning for me.
Q Can you tell me how long you stayed in Copenhagen?
A I returned at the beginning of August 1942 to Germany. I do not know on what date I crossed the border, but I do know the exact date since you want check up on my memory, that on 12th of August I started to work again in the Institute.
MR. HOCHWALD: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any other questions?
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, we have in the meantime obtained yesterday's transcript, and I only want to point out that I think that I was correct. The transcript shows that Dr. Riediger expressly, as already said concerning the submission -
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, are you through with this witness now?
MR. HOCHWALD: I am sorry.
THE PRESIDENT: You are finishing up?
MR. HOCHWALD: I had the feeling that the Tribunal had excused the witness, I beg your pardon.
THE PRESIDENT: You are now excused and you may leave, witness.
(witness excused)
MR. HOCHWALD: May I proceed, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: When you get tangled up with justice, it is always hard to get away.
MR. HOCHWALD: May I proceed, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. HOCHWALD: Dr. Fiediger is now here and will certainly confirm that he yesterday told the Tribunal that he had no objection against the Prosecution's Exhibit No. 207.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, it has been clarified according to the content of this document that the said Erwin Weinmann, which is the name here, is called the Mayor of the City of Tuebbingen; the Prosecution just referred to the Mayor Weinmann. Now, as it was Erwin Weinmann was not mayor but his brother was, so that, therefore, it is particularly doubtful, that this information which was given here refers to the mayor, that is, the brother - -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, counsel, do you or do you not object to this document.
DR. RIEDIGER: Until it has been found out which Weinmann is concerned here, I have to object to the probative value of this document, and say that this document can not be considered evidence until it has been clarified which one of the Weinmanns is concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: Let's hear from Mr. Hochwald.
MR. HOCHWALD: If I understand the objection of Dr. Riediger correctly, he didn't give any reason for the admissibility of the document as such. If Dr. Riediger argues that the Weinmann mentioned in this document is not the then Obersturmbannfuehrer, or whatever his rank was, who went with the defendant Haensch to the East, it is for him to prove that, but the document being a captured document, being part of the SS personnel record, of the said Erwin Weinmann, it is certainly admissible in evidence. Moreover, if I repeat, I do hope that Dr. Riediger will be in accord with me, as he said before this Tribunal that he has no objection concerning the submission of this document. I think that it is certainly clear that it is impossible the fact that the document has been accepted in evidence over the declaration of counsel, that he does not object against the document, and that he afterwards - -
THE PRESIDENT: Well, does the record show he said that?
MR. HOCHWALD: Yes, I have it before me, and I do hope that Dr. Riediger will .....
THE PRESIDENT: We will say this, Mr. Hochwald: even if Dr. Riediger said five hundred times yesterday that he had no objection to the document, but today can advance a valid argument as to why it should not be admitted, then it will not be admitted, so that we are not concerned with what he said yesterday but as to what the legal position is today. Now, Dr. Riediger, you have heard Mr. Hochwald point out that this is a captured document which comes into Court before the Tribunal with all the safeguarding and care which goes with documents.
Now the burden is upon you to show that it is not an authentic document, and until you can in some way attach the authenticity of the document, naturally, it would be accepted as a genuine document. If you want to prove that it was not the mayor, then you will have to adduce some facts to that effect.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I would like to reserve the right here to bring other evidence in. I hope that by sending a wire to the Mayor of Tuebbingen, or other inquiry, the matter might be clarified, but in view of the fact that the date is now again emphasized, I would like to ask that the witness Maennle, who was mentioned here yesterday, who is supposed to have treated Haensch in January and February 1942, should be called here and to be examined here. It is the witness who lives in Berlin-Zehlendorf. I have not yet withdrawn h ere the application which was in the Defense Center. Everything has been done to ask him to come here, but as I have said yesterday, this should take about ten days. I believe that the oral examination in Court of the witness here, in particular when he can be cross examined here, should be far more important than the investigation by any commission in Berlin. It is not the fault of the defense if this question was only raised yesterday; an application had been made for the witness for sometime, but the defense only heard about the witness during the last few weeks, so that the defense was not able to apply for the witness to come here.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that matter will be disposed of this morning, and if you will come to my chambers at noontime, we will let you know what steps have been taken with regard to this witness, whether he can actually be brought here, or whether it will be necessary for someone to question him in Berlin, and then we will submit the results here in open court.
DR. RIEDIGER: Thank you, Your Honor .
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. LINCK: Your Honor, I think it will be understood by the Court if I am anxious to go ahead and introduce my documents.
THE PRESIDENT: I would like to know, first, Dr. Linck, if you are permanently free, or only temporarily on parol?
DR. LINCK: No, permanently free, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I want to congratulate you in having escaped.
DR. LINCK: If it pleases the Tribunal, before I present my documents now, I would like to thank Mr. Walton for bringing me in the other day. I should also like Mr. Walton to be informed now so I will be able to be present.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, indeed, we will take up your documents, just as soon as Mr. Walton arrives. In the meantime let's analyze our present situation so that we will know just what more there is to be presented. Dr. Aschenauer, you were not here yesterday when we discussed the schedule. We stated that you should have your summation ready for presentation to the translation section one week from today so that you would be ready to present orally your summation on Monday, February 2nd.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Of course, it will be possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the manuscript, of course, would need to be ready one week from today, which would be January 29th or at the very latest the morning of January 30th.
DR. ASCHENAUER: That also will be possible.
THE PRESIDENT: I didn't catch the answer?
THE INTERPRETER: He said he would be ready to submit it on 30 January.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Fine. Now who are ready today to present documents? Dr. Linck, of course. Who else?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I can submit two documents, but one is the result of the rebuttal. I can do that immediately. Of the questionnaire of Dr. Diels' cross examination, I shall still get in translation by today, and I shall hand this in today. May I proceed?
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I would like to state that I can start immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may after I make this announcement. Now we have to talk about Dr. Aschenauer's presentation. Of course, it follows that other counsel must have their summations ready also, and we will take up the summations in the order in which these defendants sit in the box, so that following Ohlendorf's presentation, there will be Jost, Naumann, Schulz and so on, and each attorney should have his summation ready at least three of four days prior to the day on which he is going to deliver it, so that there will be time for the translation. You may now present your own document you have ready.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, as Mr. Walton is handling the case of Ohlendorf, and Mr. Walton is coming down within a minute or two, possibly the Tribunal might have its recess now.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will take up odds and ends until that time.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I was supposed to remind the Tribunal of the following: I shall present our Document Book IV for the defendant Six, which was sent to the mimeographing department today, or would have been sent there, it will take a few days before it is concluded; Your Honor was going to instruct as to the written presentation of this document book which was to be made; I ask, because of the exhibit numbers, Your Honor. Your Honor permitted us that the document may be submitted in writing, before the final summations are started; I would be very grateful if Your Honor would here give me purely technical explanation how we should handle it, concerning the exhibit numb er, whether we should submit to you the document in writing, say, we present the document No. 70, and another exhibit number such and such, and then continuously submit it in writing, as it is submitted here orally.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ulmer, we can dispose of the remaining business in this way; today we will hear all the presentations which are ready; one day next week, which has not as yet been established we will sit, and this will have nothing to do with the recess, that is to say, the weeks period of recess will still run. We will sit one day to take up everything which may be remaining in the way of documents to be presented, or motions to be made, or perhaps even a straggling witness to be heard. We will decide this afternoon what day that will be. It will probably be the latter part of the week. Everything will need to be presented that day, in the way of documents and witnesses. At the termination of that days' subiness, all testimony in this case will be with the Tribunal, and nothing can be received after that in the way of testimony. With regard to trial briefs, they will be accepted up to and including the last day of the oral presentation of summations, closing statements, not after that day. Is that clear? Very well, then, this afternoon, we will make the announcement as to the date we will sit. Yes, Dr. Ulmer.
DR. ULMER: Just one most question, Your Honor, will we then get a support of the Tribunal that on that supposed term fixed for next week, the translation and mimeographing department would be told to get everything ready for this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the translation section and mimeographing section will be so informed.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, according to the experiences we have had here as a defense counsel, from previous trials, may I point out the following, which comes up as to our initiative in presenting our case. Sofar as I know the Prosecution is only just preparing its final concluding brief. If we want to reply to it now, I don't think that we shall be able to get ready our anti-closing briefs by the time the final summation is completed, and I don't think that we will get the translation ready in time. In the Doctors' trial before Tribunal No. I, the Tribunal No. I decided that our anti-closing briefs be after the final summation. May I ask the Tribunal that because of these technical difficulties, which I know from my experience as defense counsel here, that you will also consider that matter.
THE PRESIDENT: We are naturally always ready to hear anything which has to do with the disposition of the issues in this case, but necessarily we must specify a deadline, because if we say we will receive evidence or briefs even after that date, then, knowing lawyers as I do, you will bank upon that and then not attempt to get your briefs ready by that deadline. That is the reason we have indicated that all briefs should be with the Tribunal no later than the last date of the summations, because, naturally, the Tribunal will need time to study all these briefs in the preparation of the eventual judgment, but, of course, no one will be excluded, no one will be denied the privilege and opportunity and right to present anything any time up until the very last moment the decision is rendered, which is vital and important to the case, but , we must specify a certain date and hope that the mechanical difficulties will not prevent your submit ting your evidence or arguments by that date.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I intend to join the defense on this motion. The deadline now passed by the Tribunal for the submission of briefs, is, of course, a correct one. Nevertheless, the Prosecution is extremely pressed in its time, we have to prepare altogether twenty-three briefs, it will be extremely hard for us to present these briefs before the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: We can not expect to know that no attorney has done any work up until today, and then we are suddenly confronted with this mountain of work. You cannot tell us now you are immediately to start on the twenty-three briefs. I presume you have been working on these briefs before now.
MR. HOCHWALD: We certainly did, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Because if you have not been working, you certainly ought to notify those who pay you that you have not been working.
MR. HOCHWALD: We have already finished some of these briefs but the Tribunal knows that a lot of evidence was presented just during the last days; we have to amend our briefs to that effect, we have to make some stand as to the defense of the defendant, also as to their documents. It is just that we ask the Tribunals pardon and ask respectfully a little bit to enlarge the time given us for submitting the briefs.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, we have a calendar here, and I trust everyone will take note of these dates. When the Tribunal recess this afternoon, it will recess until February 2nd, allowing for one day, which will be established this afternoon, to receive whatever remaining documents still must be presented; summations will be heard during the week of February 2nd, that is, from February 2nd up until and including Saturday, February 7th. Two weeks will be taken by the Tribunal in preparing the Judgment, which will be delivered on February 24th , the week of February 24th, because February 23rd is a holiday.
Now, that is the schedule, so you see that the longer the briefs are delayed, the less time the Tribunal will have to weigh them thoroughly, as they should be weighed, so it is to the interest of every attorney to get his briefs in as quickly as he can.
MR. HOCHWALD: We certainly shall endeavor to put our briefs in as quickly as we can.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Mr. Walton, you will be ready to proceed immediately after the recess. You are not to proceed, but you will be here when Dr. Linck presents the documents.
MR. WALTON: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now we can assure Dr. Linck that we will positively hear him immediately after recess. It is one week now we have had him going back and forth. The Tribunal will be in recess fifteen minutes.
(Recess) (The hearing reconvened at 1130 hours.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. DIETMANN: Dietmann for Jost. Your Honor, may I ask that the defendant Jost be excused from the sessions this afternoon in order to prepare the final plea and to give instructions that he be sent to Room 57 at 2 o'clock.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Jost will be excused from attendance in Court this afternoon. At 2 o'clock he will be taken to Room 57 where he may confer with his counsel.
DR. DIETMANN: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I submit Document Number 64 as Exhibit Number 65. It is submitted as proof that Ohlendorf was not sent to Russia as a full-time member of the SD, and that through the order to report there, no change happened in his honorary membership in the SD. I quote very briefly , "During his assignment in the East Ohlendorf was subject to the regulations as everybody else in the army was subject to them or anyone else employed in the war service or in the Reich Group Trade, that is to say, he received his salary minus the certain amounts which were deducted for his family. Furthermore, he also received that from the Reich Group Trade." In their Document Book VD the prosecution submitted Document Number 5821. I have asked a few questions to the prosecution witness, Dr. Rudolph Diels, in the form of cross examination and have put them into the form of an affidavit. I shall submit the translation later on. I have agreed with Mr. Walton that any objection he might have would be raised by him after the translation has been submitted.
MR. WALTON: If Your Honors please, Dr. Aschenauer is essentially correct, but I would like the record to show that that agreement was made subject to approval by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Approval is granted.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I shall hand in the translation to the Tribunal, too, I may briefly quote from this affidavit. May affidavit in Volume VD is handed to me by defense counsel for Ohlendorf, Document Number 5821 which I have made out in the year 1946. I have the following to say about that, My affidavit does not refer to the problem of the resistance against the Fuehrer Order. If during my time in office as a senior government counsellor in the Prussian Gestapo Office, it had been possible to me to save Communists from execution, this was possible because at that time I always was able to have personal access to Hitler or Goering. Because of my anti-revolutionary practices I could no longer be kept by Heydrich and Himmler. I became a victim to the power-grab of Heydrich and Himmler, with the reason that I had sabotaged the German revolution. In the case of Gauleiter Lauterbacher, it isn't a matter of military orders, but these are directives by the civilian superior. As a result of the difficulties with Gauleiter Lauterbacher, I had to leave my job as a senior Government Counsellor. This corresponded to my desire because I could now be active in industry without bothering with politics. In the case of the Count Faber-Castell, whom I know from hearsay, it was not a military disobedience to the Fuehrer Order, but a refusal to carry out the directives of the immediate superior. If I am told that in Ohlendorf's transfer as an Einsatzgroup chief in the East it was practically a transfer as punishment, then I must say that a strict refusal to obey an order on the part of Ohlendorf would have had severe or even the severest consequences for Ohlendorf."
MR. WALTON: Referring to the affidavit which has just been read, if Dr. Aschenauer will state to the Court that the affidavit is in the proper form and that he has read into the record as pertinent parts or the gist of that affidavit, I can answer the affidavit now and it will not be necessary to dispose of this matter at a later time, since the Court kindly reserved time for objection to me at some future date. If he will assure us that this affidavit is in the proper form and that he has read the pertinent parts and the full gist into the record, I can answer.
DR. ASCHENAUER: The affidavit was taken by me personally and is properly made out, and what I read out are quotes from the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. That is adequate.
MR. WALTON: Unless then,sir, there is something new or startling in which he has not read, then I offer no objection to this document. Now, of course, if when I get it there is something which was not read, then I would ask to be heard on it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution does, however, object to the Ohlendorf Document Number 65, which is Prosecution's Exhibit 64 on the grounds
JUDGE SPEICHT: That is the other way a round.
MR. WALTON: Ohlendorf Document 65, which is Defense Document 64 on the grounds that this document is immaterial in that what position he occupied in the SD when he was de facto an SD member with full power in the East does not - is not material to the issues in the case, and for that reason the Prosecution objects.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. We don't need to reply to that, we are going to make our rule after all the documents are submitted. Dr. Linck, would you please now present your documents?
DR. LINCK: Linck for Ruehl. Your Honor, I have two document books to submit. Both of them have been translated and are available here. I ask the Tribunal to take up Book II first.
THE PRESIDENT: For the moment we only appear to have Book I before us. Do you have II, Judge Speight? Yes, well, you may proceed.
DR. LINCK: The defendant, Ruehl, belonged to Einsatzkommando 10-B in Einsatzgroup D, as is well-known. First of all, I would like to describe the time of his membership to this commando by two affidavits which are in Document Book II. The affiants of these affidavits studied with the defendant at the University of Berlin, were torn away from their studies with him, and were ordered to report to Pretsch and together with Ruehl they resumed their studies on the first of October '41, which had been interrupted by the military assignment.
For this I offer and submit Ruehl Document Number 23, affidavit of August Haeffner, of the 17th of December 1947, as Exhibit Number 1. of Johannes Feder, as Exhibit Number 2. the defendant as a member of the Commando 10-B. The first is the affidavit of Erwin Hansen of the 1st of November 1947, Ruehl Document Number 1. This is in Book I. It is the first document in Book I. I offer it as Exhibit Number 3. The affiant had a central position on the Commando 10-B. He was the staff sergeant, as one says, in military language, "the top-kick." He belonged to the commando from its activation until Ruehlls time and beyond that.
the agrrison, Czernowitz. He, Hansen, was with the last column which was commanded by Ruehl, and which arrived in Czernowitz several days after the advance command and the main echelon. Towards the end of the document the witness outlines the tasks of the defendant, Ruehl in the commando as those of an administrative officer, thus, for example, obtaining shelter and housing and supply for the unit, making up the guard roster, caring for commando members, etc. He continues, and I quote a few lines here, it is on page 3, "As far as his assignment went, he had no power of command. To my knowledge, down to the Crimea, Persterer, who was the commando leader, did not have a deputy. Ruehl did not command a subcommando either." I am skipping a sentence now, and I am quoting again, "Ruehl did not have anything to do with the writing of reports. Reports were written or made verbally by the man who was in charge of the platoon or the subcommando, reporting to the chief personally. Apart from this, the leaders of subcommandos were also under the direct command of the commanding officer. Persterer forwarded the reports directly to the higher agency or he compiled summarized report on his own and dictated it to a clerk in his room, During this, neither Ruehl nor anyone else was present. Furthermore, I know that no carbon copies were made nor were any files kept. Persterer had a strong aversion to office organization of any kind. The unit did not have any office whatsoever. The few important papers, as far as they existed at all, were kept by Persterer personally." offered as Exhibit Number 4. This is an affidavit by Karl Kaufmann, of the 1st of November 1947, who likewise belonged to Commando 10B, and who confirms the essential statements of the above-mentioned document, He states especially clearly that in Czernowitz a small advance commando arrived, first of all, and the main echelon of the commando were the commanding officer, and the platoon of the witness followed, and then more small columns followed after each other within a period of 2 to 4 days. The defendant, Ruehl, arrived with the last column, and for this the affiant has a special support for his memory.
At the end of the affidavit the affiant talks about the job of Ruehl in the commando. May I call the attention of the Tribunal to the third last paragraph, and may I quote briefly, "The then ober jturmfuehrer and Criminal Inspector Ruehl, I well remember him. Ruehl was under the command of Persterer for the command of the administrative matters. He had no type of power of command, but he was merely used for administrative matters of all kinds, such as motor repair, billets, supply, and assignment of tasks. As long as Ruehl was with Commando 10 B, Persterer had no deputy. Ruehl did not command a subcommando. Number 5. The commando member, Max Werner, testifies in his affidavit that it was his special task to supply gasoline, spare parts, etc. He confirms that even this task which was actually a matter of administratives to t ake care of was not handled by Ruehl, but that the mission was always assigned by the commando chief personally. He remembers Ruehl who never appeared as the deputy of the commando chief and who did not lead any subcommando.
Ruehl Document Number 4 is offered as Exhibit Number 6. It is the affidavit of Wilhelm Nispel, who is a member of Commando 10 B, advanced or rather arrived in Czernowitz with the last group of this unit, that is, together with Ruehl, at least 4 to 5 days after the main echelon of the commando. About the jobs of the defendant in the commando, this affiant says that Ruehl made out the guard rosters, that he also had to see that the equipment was supplied and, for example, in Czernowitz, he had to set up a shoo repair shop. At the end of the document the witness emphasizes, "I never saw Ruehl as the deputy of the commando chief, and from my comrades I never heard at any time that Ruehl had had such a function. There were also at least one Haupsturmfuehrer and several Sturmfuehrers belonged to the commando. the service of the defendant as a police official before his activity in Commando 10 B. The Tribunal will recall from the defendants' examination on the witness stand that this activity was carried out in the counter intelligence department.
I offer Ruehl Document Number 7 as Exhibit Number 7. The document is on page 19. It is the affidavit of Josef Losse, Losse was export for personnel matters in the main office, security police. Ruehl was known to him first through his papers and later personally. He confirms that Ruehl was a specialist in counter-intelligence matters. ments which concern themselves with the missions of the counter-intelligence corps as part of the police service. Thess two documents are in my Document Book II, and they are listed as Documents 25 and 26. Those are two affidavits which were offered to the IMT and which were admitted by it. One comes from the witness, Schmitz under whom Ruehl served for several years in the counter-intelligence department. I shall come back to this personal contact on the day which will be determined next week, and I shall submit a special affidavit on that subject. I offer these two document Numbers 25 and 26 as Exhibits Number S and 9. As for as the other documents are concerned, these are character testimonials. I want to show the humane conduct of the defendant as well as the manner in which the defendant curried out his service as a police official. I want to show especially with these documents that the conduct of Ruehl towards politically and racially persecuted people was in strong contrast to that attitude which the prosecution has charged the members of an Einsatzkommando. I submit Ruehl Document Number 5 as Exhibit Number 10, on page 14. Your Honors, this is the affidavit of Hermann Bobbe of Luckenwalde. the affiant belongs to the social democratic party since 1912 and since 1929 he has been a leader of the Marxist organization of the Reichsbanner in Luckenwalde, which is the home town of the defendant. Bobbe has known the defendant since he was 20 years old. He emphasizes that despite contrary political attitude he always discussed matters with him objectively, that Ruehl was not one-sided and was not an agitator, and that publicly he had always conducted himself beyond reproach. He confirms furthermore that Ruehl, when the affiant was politically persecuted in 1933, had supported him considerably and especially saved him from being confined to the Oranienburg concentration camp.