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.
witness without the Tribunal's knowledge concerning the importance or lack of importance of this witness. The witness was granted to me on the basis of this affidavit. I fully agree to this; only may I point out that this witness Husmann is in the prison here and that the Prosecution can cross examine him at any time, so that fact that this is an affidavit which is submitted does not mean that I shy away from calling a witness who is so easily available.
Your Honor, as Nosske Document No. 9, as Exhibit No. 8, I bring an ecclesiastical certificate from Walter Kawerau a retired Vicar, from Halle on the Saale River, which reveals that the defendant Nosske was married in church;also the personnel file is submitted here to show that he never left the church, but always remained a member of the Protestant Church.
As the last document, Your Honor, I submit Nosske Document No. 10; this will be Exhibit No. 9. It is in a supplementary volume, and contains an affidavit of a certain Dr. Schmitz, who was a police official in Dusseldorf, and who adds to the statement by the witness Burchardt from his own knowledge concerning his office in Dusseldorf. In the paragraph before the last he says Nosske left the Security Police and the SD; he had to hand in his SS uniform and his official pass.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. WALTON: If it please the Tribunal, my objections to these documents are purely nominal. If Dr. Hoffmann will state in his place that the three circular decrees which he has presented as Nosske Exhibits 2, 3 and 4 are all the law on the subject of protective custody, I will not object to them. The point that I make is this: One of these documents shows that protective custody could only last ten days before trial. The next document, in the first monthsof the war, shows that this protective custody was increased to three weeks. There fore, if that is true, there may be, or, at least it is reasonable to assume that this time as the war progressed was increased.
However, if the good Doctor will state in his place, or, as a legal expert and one familiar with German law, that there was no further decree on the subject of the time when a man might be in custody without trial and without hearing, why I will not enter an objection, but asit stands, the three decrees, there is nothing in them which states that is all the law on the subject.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we will grant, concede and state very emphatically that we have the highest respect for Dr. Hoffmann's legal acumen and knowledge but we cannot charge him with omniscience -
MR. WALTON: But, Your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: He cannot say that he knows that there never was any other decree on that subject. You are asking him to state as to what does not exist.
MR. WALTON: I appreciate that fact, Your Honor, but he has gone into this subject. I assume that he has made a research to find three circular decrees. Now, if he will state that he found no other decrees pertaining to this during his search, it will be acceptable to the Prosecution, but the point that I am making is that this protective custody was increased, and I think I am reasonable in assuming that if it was increased once it might have been increased again. If there is any other circular decree that he knows of on this subject, I think he should put it in.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, one of the exhibitsin the International Military Tribunal in 1945 was submitted in this connection. That is all what I know, and incomprehensible ......
THE PRESIDENT: That is exactly what I said, Dr. Hoffmann, only you put it in a little better English.
MR. WALTON: My point, therefore, is won, because the Tribunal from Dr. Hoffmann's statements can draw the same conclusion that the Prosecution draws:
That it was increased. The only other objection that I have is to the affidavit of Dr. Gunther Husmann in that he speaks of matters which inject into the case an entirely new personality on the grounds of a denunciation that Nosske claimed this person made of him. Since this was not testified to by Nosske on the stand that anyone denounced him, which caused him to leave the Gestapo, I do not think that at this time the good Doctor can overcome the doctrine of Laches' that he is barred from bringing in or injecting this now feature since it was known or allegedly known to the defendant, and he testified as to nothing about thisman Guttenberger denouncing him.
THE PRESIDENT: We will follow the same rule unless you have something to say, Dr. Hoffmann. Did you want to interject something?
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, the very fact that someone who is indicted does not know from the start what charges are filed against him, is sometimes the basis for the success of the Prosecution. This examiner Hussmann, therefore, did not inform the defendant Nosske, whose Prosecutor he was going to be, what the charges were against him, so that it is not strange at all that Nosske on his own initiative can only say what he knows, while Husmann as an investigator states matters as he sees them. I therefore see no reason. -
MR. WALTON: I think Dr, Hoffmann misunderstood me. According to this affidavit in 1933 the affiant was examining judge and Nosske came before him for interrogation in conn ection with this Horia Sima's escape. At that time in 1944 the now defendant Nosske told this examining judge that the man Guttenberger was denouncing him. Therefore, if your Honors please, this fact was known to Nosske when he took the witness stand in this trial, and he was at liberty at that time to testify concerning it. Now the prosecution contends that since he did not he is now barred from injecting into the case an entirely now feature concerning this testimony about his investigation. He made no mention of anyone denouncing him when he was on the stand here.
DR. HOFFMANN: Your Honor, may I say something about this?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I will let you, but I think that I can do it just as well. The theory of the document books is that they will contain evidence, not only rebuttal but they are still part of the case in chief -- I am speaking now of the defendants' document books - so that each affidavit could well be a speaking witness. Now Dr. Hoffmann is still presenting his case in chief and he presents this affidavit. He could have called that individual. Well, we know that in lieu of the flash and blood witnesses we are taking affidavits for the conservation of time and for many other reasons, so that he, in effect, is now presenting a witness who he might just as well have presented before. So I don't think you can charge him with laches. It is not rebuttal; it is his case in chief.
MR. WALTON: Very well, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, I don't know quite how we are proceeding and Dr. Hochwald gets up and then Dr. Hoffmann gets up. I have one docum*--* I would like the Tribunal, in order to keep the proceedings regular, to call me at the proper time, when it is the proper time to introduce it.
THE PRESIDENT: You may present it now since you are here at the podium. I don't think Dr. Durchholz will mind.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, I merely have to offer one more docu ment for the defendant Schulz but I am Willing to wait until Mr. Hochwald has returned. My colleague Link asked me to deputize for him concerning the defendant Ruehl, and he asked me to submit the Document Book No. III which consists of three documents. His wish was that I may be able to do this for my colleague Link. I think Mr. Walton is competent for this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. All right, you may proceed.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: As Document Book III for the defendant Ruehl I am to submit a few supplementary documents. As Ruehl Document No. 27 I submit an affidavit by Dr. Hans Schmitz of 21 January 1948 on Page 69 of the book. This has the exhibit number 27. Dr. Schmitz talks about the professional activity of Ruehl in 1934 to 1938, when he was a speciali for counter-intelligence matters. He confirms that Ruehl was taken out of this career against his will and the Reich Security Main Office instructed him to be a candidate for the executive service. This document is a supplement for statements made in Ruel Document No. 7 which is Ruehl Exhib*---* No. 7. In Document Book No. I on Page 19, an affidavit has been introduce there by Herr Loesse, a government councillor. I also offer as Exhibit No. 28 an affidavit by Erwin Hanson of 16 January 1948. This is Ruehl Document No. 28 on Page 71. The affiant states here further details about the position of Ruehl as administrative officer in the Sonderkommando 10b and confirms that Ruehl was not one of the senior officers after the commander. Hanson also confirms that Ruehl had nothing to do with interrogations, arrests and executive tasks, and neither acted as deputy of the kommando chief nor was he chief of a subkommando nor was he active as such
MR. WALTON: Now, if your Honors, please, I don't think even th*---* Tribunal can say about this document that he just argued about that it is part of the case in chief. This document is put in specifically to refut* the one document or the affidavit of a witness Robert Barth, B-A-R-T-H. We would never get through with this case if rebuttal, sur-rebuttal, sursur-rebuttal is continually put in. Now is this witness knew these facts which was brought out certainly in cross-examination that at least the pr cution thought Ruehl was a deputy to Persterer, the kommando chief, at the time when his document books were presesented this should have been in them as part of his case in chief.
But, if your Honors please, this is an attempt to rebut the prosecution's rebuttal document, and I think the doctrine of laches certainly applies in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, do you admit the principle that affidavits form part of the case in chief?
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, at the time, at the proper time they certainly do, but I ask your Honor to take this into consideration. The prosecution put in one document against Ruehl in rebuttal. Now then this comes as part of the case in chief that attacks the rebuttal or it is a sur-rebuttal of the defense, one or the other, and as a matter of point of time-
THE PRESIDENT: Does it make no reference to your case in chief Does it not reply to anything that you presented in your case in chief against Ruehl?
MR. WALTON: No, sir. My cross-examination attempted to bring from Ruehl the fact that he was a deputy to Persterer which he deinied. the prosecution in rebuttal introduced a document which the Tribunal has pointed out is equal in this case to a flesh and blood witness which refuted that. Now the prosecution comes today- I am sorry, correction the defense comes today and produces an affidavit from a witness that was known to the defense at the time he was cross-examined and attempts to rebut the prosecution's rebuttal document.
THE PRESIDENT: Until you cross-examined on this subject, how was the defendant informed that he was charged with being a deputy of Persterer? Since it was not in your case in chief how was he informed?
MR. WALTON: He was certainly questioned also, if my memory serves me right, by his own counsel as to what his position was in Sonderkommando 10b. We charged him in the indictment with being deputy commander.
THE PRESIDENT: Well that is what I asked you, if it formed part of the case in chief, and you said no.
MR. WALTON: I believe I should like to correct that. If my memory serves me, in the first pages of the indictment where each man's SS rank is given and his position in the Einsatzgruppen, it definitely states that he was charged as deputy chief of the Einsatzkommando 10b, or Sonderkommando 10b.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, if he was charged with being deputy commander in the indictment and it was part of your case in chief, then on the principle that all these documents submitted by the defense form part of the defendant's case in chief, why wouldn't he be permitted to present this affidavit to refute the charge in the indictment that he was a deputy commander?
MR. WALTON: He would, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. WALTON: At the proper time, but the point that I am asking is that this is a sur-rebuttal document.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but Mr. Walton, you know of all the difficulties that there are in getting these documents presented and prepared. There are so many mechanical propositions to overcome so that the mere delay in time does not of itself suggest that defense was not diligent.
MR. WALTON: Look at the date of the instrument, your Honor, or the 28th of January 1948. It was obtained after the rebuttal document was in and it comes in as an attempt to sur-rebut the prosecution's rebuttal.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, may I comment on this briefly?
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Walton, if you had brought in a witness instead of an affidavit then the defense would have had an opportunity to cross-examine that witness, but since you avail yourself of a privilege, which is accorded all counsel, to bring in affidavits in lieu of witness how is the defense going to reply or challenge in any way this affidavit less he does it in this way since you did not present the flesh and blood Witness?
MR. WALTON: Very well, your Honor, I put in the objections, the Tribunal rules on them.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, your objection is overruled.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, may I just make one comment on this? The necessity of introduction of this document was not based on the rebuttal but because of the cross-examination, and the fact that the document was only introduced now is due to the fact that we had no means of obtaining this affidavit before. Apart from that this supplements previous documents on various points.
As my last document I offer as Exhibit No. 29 the Ruehl Document No. 29 on Page 76. This is an affidavit by Karl Kaufmann of 16 January, 1948. The witness confirms that Ruehl was niehter introduced as deputy of the kommando chief nor was he over active as such or as subkommando chief.
MR. WALTON: Your Honor, the prosecution makes application in open court to have those two witnesses called for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: If they can be obtained.
MR. WALTON: Otherwise we object to the introduction of these last two documents.
THE PRESIDENT: If those witnesses can be obtained forthwith, the application is approved.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I shall try, if it becomes necessary, to bring those witnesses here for cross-examination.
MR. WALTON: Do I understand the Tribunal that I have the right to cross-examine these witnesses?
THE PRESIDENT: You certainly have.
MR. WALTON: If they are not brought then the Tribunal does not accept the documents, or do they accept it for whatever probative value they choose to give it?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gender.
MR. WALTON: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: He has the right to cross-examine your witness.
MR. WALTON: Very true, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, can you get your witnessin here?
MR. WALTON: He lives in the French Zone of Austria. I can set the procedure in motion as soon as I leave.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let's dispose of it this way, Mr. Walton, that if any or all of these witnesses can be obtained and presented to the Tribunal this week then we will hear them. Otherwise we will accept all the affidavits, the ones that you presented and the ones that he presented, and assign to them the probative value which the entire situation will accord to then.
DR. WISSMATH: Dr. Wissmath for the defendant Jost.
defendant Jost by presenting Document Book IV which conclude my presentation, if the prosecution does not object to this since Mr. Glancy is not present.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
DR. WISSMATH: I offer as Jost Exhibit No. 33the document J-34. This is an affidavit by Hans Daufeldt of 19 December 1947, on Pages 1 to 2. The witness was on an emergency status in the RSHA where he was assigned from 1939 until 1941 and he states that the activity in the independent Office VI dealt with making economic and political reports from foreign countries and that it did not collaborate with Office IV of the RSHA. Daufeldt describes Jost as a decent humane man who treated his subordinates in a correct and decent manner.
As Jost Exhibit No. 34 I offer the document J-35. This is the affidavit of August Finke of 12 January 1948 on Pages 3 to 6 of the document book Jost No. IV. It states that Jost was chief of Office VI in the Reich Main Security Office from September 1939 until the middle of 1941 approximately. Office VI was not a counter-intelligence organization of Office IV. It had no police tasks and had nothing to do with executive tasks. Office VI merely dealt with intelligence reports from abroad. Also Office IV of the RSHA obtained their own information apparatus which concerned enemy counter-intelligence work abroad. Attempts by Office Chief IV Mueller to influence Office VI rejected by Jost. Finke says about Jost's character. "Jost's reserved attitude was almost indifference. Things had to happen before he changed that attitude, but Jost stood up for his own opinion stubbornly, though on the whole he was very tolerant. Jost was not a political zealot nor was he doctrinaire."
As Jost Exhibit No. 35 I offer Document J-36, an excerpt from the Flick judgment. This excerpt is to be considered as part of the emergency decreestatus which concerned him.