A. The way that the defendant answers questions alone is not a sufficient indication of his ability to conduct his own defense. The total medical picture must be examined. Where the inconsistencies of his speech can be explained on the basis of his motives and where they in themselves cannot diagnose a medical condition I am led to the conclusion that he does not have a mental incompetency.
Q. But you do admit the he gave unclear answers?
A. Unclear as I said before, with the qualification that I said before.
Q. Why then are you of the opinion that the judgement of Dr. von Bayer gave that he is in a state of mental twilight, so to speak in a state in fact which makes his thought only come up in a sort of trance, and that he can only express thoughts unclearly. Why then do you think that this ipinion is not quite accurate if you yourself say that he gives unclear answers at times?
A. In my understanding the statement of Dr. von Bayer was to the effect that the defendant since the middle of December has been in a twilight state. My objection to this statement was upon the ground that the symptoms of the patient have been transient was upon momentary and have not persisted for a long period of time in terms of hours or even minutes during the periods since the middle of December.
Q. How long do you think one of those states can last with the defendant Strauch?
A. One of what states?
Q. This state of which I say, this unclear state, this state of mental derangement, the twilight state. I do not want to use this torn so often because apparently you and I don't agree, but the state in which he gives unclear answers, how long do you think such a period lasts?
actually mentally unclear or not. I have said that his answers are not clear in the record, but I am not convinced that the patient is mentally unlcear. do so intentionally?
A This I am unable to say. This I am unable to prove. from some symtomps is unclear, in an unclear state and gives unclear answers? far as I know, it is unknown to medical science. state exists, which influences the clear thoughts and the clear answers of the defendant, but that medical terminology concerning this particular state does not exists?
PRESIDENT: Dr. Gick, the witness, as I understood him, at no time said that he acknowledged a mental unclearness, he merely said that there were unclear answers, which could or not be symptomatic of something or other, but that his opinion was that these unclear answers did not give an indication of a pathology, which was recognized by medical science. So there is a difference between an unclear state and an unclear answer.
DR. GICK: Your Honor
PRESIDENT: I think that as Judge Speight pointed out, that the witness has indicated this unclear method of testifying at times is not any result of epilepsy, which is one disease everybody agrees that the defendant is occasionally afflicted with.
DR. GICK: That is what I understood from the witness, Your Honor, that it is in no connection whatsoever with epilepsy. However, I did understand the witness to this effect, that he objectively also states that the defendant, Strauch, does give unclear answers.
PRESIDENT: Well, that was obvious to everybody.
DR. GICK: That is, during the first part of his testimony, when he first came into court and he talked about China, and he talked about 1975, and it was very clear that that was unclear.
DR. GICK: In the last two days doubtlessly he was not quite so unclear, Your Honor, but I showed the witness a few passages which to me meant an inconsistency and the witness has stated here that at times one has to confirm this. BY DR. GICK: you could exclude the possibility that Strauch was not fully in the position to arrange his defense in such way as he normally would be able to do?
PRESIDENT: You have no evidence for that possibility, is that what you mean, because the defense counsel put it in an alternative form Do we understand from your answer that you have no evidence of a possibility that he was--that the defendant was incapable of conducting his defense?
THE WITNESS: Yes. BY DR. GICK: fully in the position to defend himself as he would have done in a normal state. statement which I submitted to the Court.
Q And what about the unclearness in this expert opinion? How do you reconcile them? even in those moments when Herr Strauch gave answers which were irrelevant and spoke in a way which was rambling, that even at those times he was mentally competent and able to participate adequately in his own defense in my opinion.
DR. GICK: I have no further questions to the witness, Your Honor.
PRESIDENT: Mr. Glancy, do you have any questions, please?
MR. GLANCY: If it please the Tribunal, I have one question. BY MR. GLANCY:
Q Dr. Gick, started one of his questions by saying, "Is it possible that," I would like to have the same privilege. Is it possible that when he was giving those rambling answers that it was consciously simulated and that he did comprehend everything that was said to him?
MR. GLANCY: Thank you, Sir. No other questions.
PRESIDENT: Anything further?
DR. GICK: Not to the witness, Your Honor. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Now, Doctor, let us predicate a hypothetical question. Let us suppose an individual of complete maturity, who is subject occasionally to epileptic seizures, but during the interval between the epileptic seizures is entirely normal in his mental and physical attributes; let us suppose that in the middle of September he had a seizure in court and is withdrawn from the court room. From that period until the latter part of December of the same year, with the exception of a periodical seizure he is entirely normal and is capable of conferring with his counsel and preparing for his defense in court of charges brought against him in an indictment. In the latter part of December he begins to give evidence of not comprehending, of giving irrelevant answers to questions put to him, of rambling utterances, of confusion of dates, that then he is brought into court two or three weeks later, and in court continues to give irrelevant answers. Then let us suppose that he is given mental and physical examinations and he is instructed in court that this is the one opportunity he will have to defend himself against the serious charges which have been brought against him, that then subsequently he is brought into court and there is a marked difference between his manner of testifying, now he answers logically, he answers relevantly, and with the exception of an occasional unclear answer, gives evidence of being completely conscious of the situation, of understanding questions and answering them.
With that kind of a hypothetical case, Doctor, we ask you whether in your opinion his previous conduct could be consistent with a conscious desire to stimulate a mental condition? of incapacity, or rather we will put it in the laternative sense. In you opinion, is it possible or is it not possible for such an entire situation to evince a desire on the part of the individual involved to simulate a mental incompetence in order not to subject himself to the procedure of court? similation?
PRESIDENT: I there are no other- questions, the witness will be excused, with the thanks of the Tribunal You want another question? By all means, Dr. Gick. Proceed. VY DR. GICK:
Q I have just one question. Witness, you say that it is possible. May I conclude from that that the other alternative is not excluded from you that he does not simulate? what I would consider to be an extremely rare condition of which I have no knowledge. exists, that is what I mean?
the possibility of which I speak, that is -- because I cannot--I have not had sufficient time to observe the patient to be absolutely certain that he is simulating. I doubt whether this is possible to do in a practical period of time. BY THE PRESIDENT: medical science up to this time has not yet discovered or recorded, so far as your recognizance of medical, science is concerned?
DR. GICK: May I just put one more question, Your Honor. BY DR. GICK: Demi condition, that is what it is called?
Q May I ask you what it means this ganzer mental twilight--?
MR. GLANCY: I believe, your Honor, he is a trifle unclear, would he like to know whether it applies to Strauch or as a hypothetical thing, this twilight?
PRESIDENT: I think he is merely asking if he knows what mental twilight is a medical term. Are you fully aware of the intention of the question?
THE WITNESS: Well, I believe he means, what is mental twilight. BY DR. GICK: after whom this particular state of disease is named.
A I am not acquainted with the works of this man, or by "mental twilight", I took to mean the semi-consciousness such as we see in such medical conditions when the patient is perhaps delirious.
obviously suffering from some condition usually toxic in nature.
PRESIDENT: Very well, let us now take stock of what we have before us yet to be disposed of before Dr. Aschenauer can proceed with his summation. Now, who else has documents ready to be presented? Everybody. Well, let's Lieutenant Bedwill, you, of course, are excused. Thank you. Let us indicate please just how many documents are to be presented so we can work out this program. Come with down the line, now, how many, do you have, please?
DR. WIESMATH: Wiesmath for the defendant, Jost. Your Honor, I still have six documents which I want to submit.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Durchholz for Schulz. I have one document to submit.
DR. STEIN: Stein for Sandberger. I still have 36 documents to present.
DR. HELM: Helm for Ruehl - three documents.
DR. KRAUSE: Krause for Haensch - also three documents.
DR. VOGEL: Vogel for von Radetzky - still nine documents, Your Honor.
DR. FRITZ: Fritz for Fendler - four documents, your Honor.
DR. HOFFMANN: Hoffmann for the defendant, Nosske. Your Honor I could start now, I have got about 8 documents
PRESIDENT: Now, just a moment. Yes, Doctor.
DR. GICK: Well, I have about 25 documents.
PRESIDENT: You wont to keep us until twilight, do you?
MR. HOCHWALD: The Prosecution, if Your Honors please, the prosecution has approximately 4 to 5 documents.
PRESIDENT: Well, it would appear that with the exception of Dr. von Stein and I forget the one who had 25--Dr. Gick--you had 25, with the exception of those two, they are not numerous, the documents which have to be presented and I think that if we move right along we ought to be able to get them in tomorrow morning and Dr. Aschenauer ought to be ready to begin immediately after the luncheon recess.
So let us retire with that part in view, with that program in mind, that you will be ready immediately after the lunch hour to present the summation in behalf of your client, Doctor Aschenauer.
DR. GICK: May I just say something in conclusion of the matter, Strauch? May I ask the Tribunal, to invite Dr. von Bayer, the expert, to come here as a witness, He is, as is well known, the chief of the psychiatric clinic in Nuernberg, and he has observed the defendant for some tine now, in fact, from the beginning of October up to this day, and in my opinion he is able to five an exhaustive picture of the defendant, Strauch.
PRESIDENT: That will be entirely up to the prosecution, s to whether they desire to cross-examine him. Dr. von Bayer has submitted several reports and they are on file and they are available to you, Dr. Gick, in any argument which you desire to make to the Tribunal, so that it is entirely up to the prosecution if the prosecution wishes to cross examine. Of course, they are entitled to that privilege and he will be called. But if they don't, there is no need to call him.
MR. GLANCY: We do not desire, to cross examine, Sir.
PRESIDENT: Very well. The Tribunal will be in recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 3 February, 1948, at 0930 hours.)
3 Feb 1948_M_MSD_1_1_Gallagher (Juelich) against Otto Ohlendorf, et al.
, defendants. sitting at
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.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the Tribunal certainly recalls that the Prosecution has obtained Haensch's Exhibits Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in order to get expert opinion on the handwriting, and on the pictures which were put in. We has received the expert opinion, and they are in the hands of the Tribunal, the originals, and copies were handed to Dr. Riediger, defense counsel for the defendant Haensch. I have here the exhibits, but when these tests were made additional pictures and additional charts of the handwriting were made by the Research Institute. The Prosecution does not intend to offer these items into evidence. I think it appropriate as I do expect that, Dr. Riediger wants to use them to make a short survey of these by saying what was added to each exhibit. Would that be agreeable to the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: What did you specifically request?
MR. HOCHWALD: I only would make a short survey and state what was added by the Research Institute to the different exhibits so that it may be explainable for the archives why the exhibits are more and different from what was originally submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: By all means, not only I approve but it should be done.
THE PRESIDENT: By all means, not only I approve but it should be done.
MR. HOCHWALD: Haensch Exhibit Ho. 4 was one original photograph, and six more negatives were made by the Research Institute and all of them are labeled how they were obtained and from which negatives they 3 Feb 1948_M_MSD_1_2_Gallagher (Juelich) were obtained.
There are no additions in Haensch's Exhibit No. 3. Haensch Exhibit No. 2 were two negatives and an envelope, two positives from these two negatives were made by the Research Institute and added to the exhibit. Haensch Exhibit No. 1 was one appointment pad and one photostatic copy of pad No. 391 on which the name of Haensch appears. Another pad Nos. 210 to 261, was added for comparison of the handwriting, for no other reasons, and finally, Prosecution Exhibit No. 192-B which is a handwritten affidavit of the Witness Reich, Document NO-5718, a chart with different examples of the handwriting was added by the Research Institute to this exhibit. May I inquiring on his behalf -- to introduce the codes of this expert opinion as exhibits, or would that be usable for him in the form I have just given it? As I said, the original expert opinion itself is in the hands of the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: That is enough that you have presented it.
MR. HOCHWALD: I have not presented it. To be frank, Your Honor, I have not presented the expert opinion in evidence. I have only handed to the Court in partial what I have received from the Research Institue.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you have not presented it, and Dr. Riediger desires to present it, he may present it.
MR. HOCHWALD: All right. Allright, so Dr. Riediger can present it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Who is ready to present documents? I presume you have finished, Mr. Hochwald?
MR. HOCHWALD: May I present a few documents, Your Honor, before the defense -
THE PRESIDENT: All right, you may proceed while you are there.
MR. HOCHWALD: I now offer Document NO-5877. This will be Prosecution's Exhibit No. possibly 250.
MR. KNAPP (Secretary-General): Prosecution's Exhibit No. 250.
MR. HOCHWALD: Prosecution's Exhibit No. 250. This is a letter showing the Defendant Six was the moving party in urging close cooperation between the SD and the Gestapo. Here we see the organized regular 3 Feb 1948_M_MSD_1_3_Gallagher (Juelich) conferences in order to achieve a close and confidential cooperation between the Gestapo.
The document is offered as a rebuttal document against the defendant's contention that he was never anything else but a scholar. I have here two documents concerning the defendant Schulz. These are Document NO-5862 and Document NO-5871. The documents were already previously distributed. I want to inform the Tribunal that originally I have received Document NO-5862. As, however, the identity of the defendant was not clear but of this first exhibit. I have returned the first affidavit and sent a picture of Schulz, Which actually is attached in photostat to the first affidavit, and have obtained a second one. Those documents which I gave the numbers 251-A-B are rebuttal documents in order to refute the statement of Schulz that he never participated in the crimes of the Gestapo when in charge of the Gestapo of Czechoslovakia.
DR. DURCHOLZ: Dr. Durcholz for the defendant Schulz. Mr. President, I object to the admission of these two documents, and I shall give my reasons for these objections when I have looked at the original -
MR. HOCHWALD: I am sorry to say the original is in Czech. I don't know whether Dr. Durcholz can find something out of it but it is with the Secretary-General, and sofar as I know Dr. Durcholz has received the German Copy through the Defense Information Center.
DR. DURCHOLZ: I only got a copy of No. 5871. I know nothing about the first document.
MR. HOCHWALD: The distribution was made last Friday, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, has the Tribunal received a copy?
MR. HOCHWALD: The Tribunal has received copies in the frame of distribution, and I have had further copies handed to the SecretaryGeneral yesterday. and sofar as I know, the Tribunal has the document before it.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Who is ready to proceed now?
DR. HOFFMANN: Excuse me, but my colleague wants to speak before I do.
3 Feb 1948_M_MSD_1_4_Gallagher (Juelich)
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, if you are agreeable, I am agreed.
DR. KRAUSE: Dr. Krause for the defendant Haensch. Your Honor, may I ask that the opinion concerning the documents by Frau Schreyer he handed to me by the Secretary-General so that I can introduce them as documents for the defendant Haensch.
MR. HOCHWALD: It would be possibly easier if Dr. Krause would introduce copies. There will be no objection against the introduction of the copies from the Prosecution, as copies were made by the Prosecution.
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Gawlik for Herr Ulmer, for the defendant Six. Your Honor, I object to the rebuttal document which was submitted as NO 5877, Exhibit No 250. I would like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the date of the document of 16 June 1937. I do not know what the Prosecution is trying to prove with this document, which concerns a period of time which occurred long before 1 September 1939, and the International Military Tribunal already established that only the activity after 1 September 1939 is considered criminal in such an organization. In addition the following must be said concerning this document. It was in fact decided by the IMT that before 1938, a certain degree of cooperation between the SD and the Gestapo took place, but in the year of 1938 in particular a decree was issued separating the two, and since that time the Gestapo and the SD worked in completely different spheres, and had different tasks, and the Prosecution's Exhibit is from the year 1937, that is before the date of this socalled decree of separation; that is the question which has been discussed in detail by the IMT, and the IMT has already established the fact that only such activity as was carried on after 1 September 1939, can be considered criminal according to the statutes.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, rebuttal is every evidence which can refute the contentions on the part of the defendants.
THE PRESIDENT: This document could under no circumstances be 3 Feb 1948_M_MSD_1_5_Gallagher (Juelich) controlling of any issue which is before the Tribunal.
In itself it would not establish any mooted point, but it does shed some light on the history of the entire affair, and we think that it would be well to have it in evidence for whatever probative value would be assigned to it later on.
3 Feb 1948_M_MSD_2_1_Gallagher (Juelich)
DR. DURCHOLZ: Dr. Durcholz for the defendant Schulz. Your Honor, I have objected to the introduction of Document No. 251-A-B. I would like to five reasons for this objection. Apart from the fact that the incidents stated in this document and directed against the defendant Schulz constitutes a completely new charge against the defendant Schulz, which were not subject of the trial until now, and since at this stage of the trial the defendant has no opportunity of defending himself against this, therefore, if this document were received, this would violate the elementary principles of law: that is why I ask that this document be rejected. Only yesterday Your Honor stated here that in his trial you wanted to find the truth; but owing to such a one-sided attitude by the Prosecution this has become completely impossible. The defendant would have to state that he had nothing at all to do with the incidents mentioned in this document. That document is also called Indictmente. Therefore, another trial would have to be started against the defendant Schulz, but neither the defendant nor I have ever heard of such a thing. The defendant Schulz does not know this witness Pauker at all who makes the statements in the document. Also the document does not show that this socalled Pauker actually made these statements under oath. Finally, this statement of Pauker is completely torn out of context, because this document refers to an interrogation before the State Police Office in Reichenberg, which is an interrogation about which I don't know anything. Also it does not show whether this Pauker actually identified the defendant Schulz, and whether on the basis of a photograph of the defendant, he was able to identify him at all. May I also point out that another person called "Schulz" is repeatedly mentioned in this document, and he is called "Schulz No. 3". Also in the decisive part of the document there are a number of contradictions and inconsistencies and untruths, which the defendant Schulz and the man who is used as a witness of the opposite side could refute immediately. Also the document does not conform with the prescribed form of documents presented here. That 3 Feb 1948_M_MSD_2_2_Gallagher (Juelich) is why I ask that this document be rejected for purely formal reasons, but if the Tribunal should accept it inspite of my explanation, seeing that they are so generous, even if they only attach to it such probative value as it may be worth, I move that the Prosecution call the witness Pauker here, so that I may cross-examine him.
Only in that manner could the defendant Schulz's disadvantage be made up for. The defendant Schulz asked me to state that he never in his life had beaten a human being, and that he was not competent for the prison where this alleged socalled Pauker is supposed to have been, and that he never visited that prison.
charge of the police president in Reichenberg with which the Gestapo, and therefore, Schulz had no connection at all. Also, the Gestapo in Reichenberg did not have any air raid shelters, which are mentioned in this document; also, the defendant never gave an order such as is mentioned here. The defendant is also prepared to make an affidavit himself to refute the statements of this document, and is also prepared to give testimony concerning this in the witness stand. I also ask for permission that as a witness of the opposite side concerning this incident. I may call the witness Hasse, and that I may examine him here as a witness in this trial. He was in Reichenberg at the same time as Schulz, and who will clear up and refute the inconsistencies and untruths which are contained in this document. The defendant also tells me that the statements of the so-called Pauker in this document are nothing but a clumsy denunciation. My client and myself, therefore, ask for the protection of the Tribunal against these untruths.
DR. HOCHWALD: If Dr. Durchholz wants to testify, he may do so in the witness box, but it is impossible and there is no possibility to do that in any kind of procedure in the world in the manner he is now attempting. He is testifying not only for his client, but also for a number of other people. If Dr. Durchholz knows something of his own knowledge about the documents, about the persons, about the prison, about the happenings in 1941, he is at liberty to testify, but this is no objection against the documents, but what he is speaking about.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, I thought it was my duty to make these statements in order to show to the Tribunal why I had to make these motions and raise these objections against these documents. Therefore, I ask for your permission that the witness Pauker be called as a witness for cross examination.
DR. HOCKWALD: If the Tribunal please, if I understood the objection correctly, it was to the effect that the happenings which are described in the affidavit are a completely new feature of the case.
Count III of the Indictment is to criminal membership, and the defendant Schulz is charged with having been a member of the Gestapo. The defendant has testified at great length that he, having been a Gestapo officer was blameless in the discharging of his duties. He had testified at great length what he has been doing as chief of the Gestapo, among other places in Liberets, in Reichenberg from which this affidavit was obtained. Therefore, the affidavit in itself, the affidavits are prefectly permissible rebuttal evidence.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, may I say here that yesterday exactly the opposite case occurred here, that a document was offered and the Prosecution asked that this document be only admitted if they have the right of cross examination of a witness, I ask you to grant me this same right. Also, the defendant Schulz wants to refute this great reproach by cross examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Schulz testified at great length on the witness stand that not only was he innocent of the crimes charged against him in the Indictment but that at no time was he guilty of any inhumanity towards those who came within his jurisdiction; and testified rather amply to what happened in Salzburg and other places. So that, in principle, this evidence would be entirely relevant to rebut the picture which you have drawn of a person who is entirely free not only of crime but even of bad conduct in his relationship with his fellow man. So that there is no question that in principle this evidence is absolutely relevant. However, we are confronted with another situation, another equally sacred principle in Anglo-American procedure, and that is that every accused person is entitled to confront his accuser; so that unless the Prosecution is willing and able to produce forthwith, or, in the next day or two, these witnesses who accuse Schulz of crime, we cannot possibly accept these statements as they stand.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Because he certainly has the right to cross examine his accuser. That is fundamental. Now, this affidavit is a recent one which would suggest that the affiant is not too far away. If he can be obtained quickly, then we will entertain any motion for his reception here in Nurnberg, but it is a mater of time.
DR. HOCKWALD: If the Tribunal please, the affiant is in Czechoslovakia. The Prosecution will make every effort to get him here, but I doubt whether we can conform to the tine limit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, the matter will stand this way that the affidavits will not be accepted at the present moment. In the event the Prosecution advises that the affiants may be brought here for cross examination, then we will again take up the situation.
DR. HOCKWALD: Thank you very much.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Thank you, Your Honor.
DR. HOFFMANN: (Attorney for the Defendant Nosske) Your Honor, I have seven documents which I would like to offer.
Your Honor, during the direct examination of the defendant Nosske the latter said that generally a political prisoner could not be kept for more than ten days while being in protective custody. Concerning this, Your Honor asked me to bring documents to prove this. That is why I offer in Document Book Nosske the Document No. 3 as Exhibit No. 2. This is a circular decree of the Reich Minister of the Interior of the 25th of January, 1938, concerning protective custody. It is on page 2 of the English document book, and I ask you to look at page 3 , the first paragraph there which reveals that a person under protective custody had to be released after ten days' at the latest unless the secret police office has asked for him to be kept in protective custody. Also,
THE PRESIDENT: Where is that, Dr. Hoffmann?
DR. HOFFMANN: It is on page 3 of the English document book; the first sentence.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't find it.
DR.HOFFMANN: Nosske Document No. 3, page 3 of the English document book.
JUDGE DIXON: It is page 4 of our document book.
THE PRESIDENT: I see; page 3 of the original, page 4. Yes, I find it.
DR. HOFFMANN: Excuse me, Your Honor. The next decree concerning protective custody, which also concerns the period of time of protective custody is submitted as Nosske Document No. 4; this will be Exhibit No. 3. It was issued after the second World War, that is the 4th October, 1939; and in the second paragraph under Figure 1 it says: That the previously established term of 10 days is extended to three weeks. Another question, Your Honor, which was also brought up in the direct examination of the defendant Nosske was whether on principle the secret state police office, later the Reich Security Main Office, alone was authorized to issue such decrees for protective custody. I ask that this statement be looked into on the basis of these two statements. In all these documents it says that the written order for protective custody was issued by the Secret state police office, and Later by the Reich Security Main Office, and that they were the only ones to issue such decrees. I submitted these documents first of all because Your Honor asked me to; and, secondly, in order to prove the credibility of the defendant Nosske in his testimony.
The next document which I offer is Document Nosske No. 5; this will be Exhibit No. 4. This is another decree about protective custody where a certain simplification of this procedure is ordered, but it says that the decree was issued by the Reich Security Main Office.
As Nosske Document No. 6, Exhibit No. 5, I offer an affidavit by Dr. Hans Ehlich, a physician. Ehlich talked about the so-called commando staff in the Reich Security Main Office, and on page 13 of the document book he sais that the commando staff merely had to compile reports from the occupied eastern territories. In contrast to the previous reports from the UDSSR, they did not contain any figures about executions which were carried out due to the Fuehrer Order in the East. In order to show the credibility of the defendant Nosske, this is also important because the Tribunal will remember he stated in the witness stand that he did not see any figures about shootings carried out because of the Fuehrer Order when he compiled reports from the occupied eastern territories.
As Nosske Document No. 7, Exhibit No. 6, I offer an affidavit of Kurt Geissler. It is on page 15 of the English document book, and reveals that after Nosske returned from Russia he was not established permanently with the Reich Security Main Office nor did he want to have a permanent position there, and that the Gruppenleiter because he let the leader of the Iron Guard of Romania escape at the time.
The next document is Nosske Document No. 8, which I offer as Exhibit No. 7. And, Your Honor, I attach special value to this document No. 8 because it is an affidavit of Gunther Husmann, who was the investigation chief in the case against Nosske, because of his attitude in Dusseldorf, Nosske describes that Guttenberger made a report against Nosske and as a result a case was started against him, and as can be seen on page 21 of the document book, finally the decision was made that Nosske had to leave his position immediately and was released from the Gestapo. Husmann states that Nosske's leaving the Reich Security Main Office, and therefore leaving the Gestapo to which he belonged, was confirmed to him, to Husmann. This is on page 21 in the center, Your Honor, of the document.