particularly successful, since that room was locked. Apart from that, even after the first day, fifteen of the thirty volumes which had been made available had been collected again by the Prosecution, and finally it isn't fair to compel the Defense to go through thirty volumes in order to find some evidence. Finally, it is an impossible condition if more than twenty Defense Counsel can look at documents at the rate of only one copy at a time, dealing with various parts of the evidence. ment books have been available does not alter this fact. In every trial so far, it has been the custom for all Defense Counsel to receive Prosecution documents from the Prosecution before the completion of document books. In case IX only twelve Defense Counsel have received a small number before that certain date, and in that connection as we were concerned with incomplete extracts from documents, the Defense is all the more handicapped since the indictment, as was said, concerned purely a relatively short presentation of documents. Nor can the Defense refrain from stating to the Tribunal that only a short time ago some Defense Counsel took up their jobs, and added to this, that important witnesses are being abroad, or that their addresses were difficult to find, because their camps were changed frequently or are still changing. It must also be known that mail in Germany takes a long time and it must also be pointed out that translation of the opening statement take at least fourteen days, if the present difficulties of translation don't even make an even longer period necessary. The drafting of the opening statement, of course, can only be begun after the completion of submission of the Prosecution evidence, since this will go into the details. document books must be translated. In the Judges' Trial I sent my document books to the Translation Center on the 24th of July and the last document book was ready on the 6th of September, the first one on the 2nd of September.
days should be inserted between the completion of the Prosecution's presentation and the Defenses' opening statement; only in this way it is possible to guarantee a correctly conducted defense. would appear necessary that the Defense and the defendants each be given at least one copy of the document book, as was the custom in Case 6, and not, as was the case in this instance, one document book per Defense Counsel and Defendant.
29 September 1947_M_MSD 7&8_1_Gallagher (Frank)
THE PRESIDENT: So far as opening statements pre concerned, there is no reason why you should wait until the presentation of all the Prosecution's evidence before you begin to write your statement. You know what the defendants are charged with. There is no reason why you could not at this very instance, if you were called upon, proceed to write where you now are, and give your opening statement in the Ohlendorf defense. You know what he is charged with: the indictment is very specific, and you now heard the opening statement. Defense counsel are informed now that if they intend to present an opening statement, that they should proceed to write it immediately, and, so far as translations are concerned, if we can have them done in the way that mimeograph copies can be prepared, very well; if not, then the statments may be translated and read from the interpreters's booths. With regard to the documents. I should like to hear from the Prosecution as to just what has been given to the Defense, that we can make a ruling in accordance with the facts.
MR. FRENCZ: May it please, Your Honors: the Defense Counsel made a motion similar to this and submitted it in writing to the Tribunal. At this time the Prosecution replied in writing, and the Tribunal ordered in accordance with it a careful examination of both sides of the case. I do not care to go into the details of exactly which documents were delivered on which days inasmuch as I do not have receipts in my possession at this time. However, I would like to point out that the uniform rules of procedure laid down by all the Tribunals require only that defense counsel be given copies of documents to be introduced twenty-four hours before they are actually introduced. That is all that is required by the rules as laid down by the Tribunal.
THE TRIBUNAL: Does every defense counsel now have translated copies of these documents books on the bench?
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, on Friday afternoon I received signed receipts from the Defense Administrator showing that the Defense Administrator, who represents the defense counsel, had received copies 29 September 1947_M_MSD_7&8_2_Gallagher (Frank) of every single document we intend to use in this entire case.
Those documents are how arrayed in the document book in front of defense counsel. In addition to that which is much more, in a much longer time, than the rule required, we have given to the defense counsel twelve copies of every document we intend to use. These twelve copies were delivered as quickly as our translation branch could prepare them. I gave the translation branch several weeks ago a letter instructing them to give the defense counsel those copies, and they did deliver them, so that by last Friday or last Thursday, they had received advanced copies of ninety percent of our documents and by Friday they had then all which is much more than the rules require? I do not go into examination about what the Prosecution has given to the defense counsel.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Upon the statement by the representative of the Prosecution, I should like to draw attention to it that the Defense Administrator has received this material, that is possible, but he does not in any way represent us. The nine document books from which the Prosecution is reading were handed out to us on Friday evening, but it is out of the question that if the Prosecution is to read from them; that thereafter immediately after the opening statement one is able to represent one's client with regard to every individual document. The time for preparation is much too short.
THE PRESIDENT: Defense counsel must not believe that there is any intention on the part of the Prosecution, and certainly not on the part of the Tribunal to "ham-string" them in their adequate and complete presentationof the defdnse. What we want to avoid is unnecessary delay, and very often you approach a problem with the defeatest attitude, that you must have much more time than the situation really requires, for instance, with regard to witnesses. Now you have stated that the mail is slow, and much time be required for correspondance, and we can certainly understand that but there is no reason why with the immediate dispatch of correspondance for the purpose of obtaining witnesses who, enough witnesses can't be ready to proceed with the defense. After 29 September 1947_M_MSD_7&8_3_Gallagher (Frank) all, we have a great number of defendants, so that the one individual defendant need not wait until his case actually arrives before he begins to prepare his defense, he should begin immediately, I mena today, now.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Now may I bring the attention of the Tribunal that it is written the task of an adequate Defense to see that every defendant should be given the privilege to present his case in one piece, it is an impossibility for defense counsel to deal with his defense piece-meal;(one sentence missing because change of film.)
THE PRESIDENT: Do you now have copies of these defense books in German?
DR. ASCHENAUER: These document books have been handed over in nine volumes, and they are avilable, yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very well. The Prosecution will immediately proceed to introduce these in the record, and they then become proof, and subject to refutation. You will have as you now indicated you do have now the translation, and you will have amply time to read them and prepare your defense. Now with regard to the opening statements, I do not assume that you have any intention of making opining statements. Certainly they should not be unnecessarily long statements. It would appear to us that no opening statment for the defense should be longer than thirty minutes in duration. As there any one who feels they should have more time than that? It does not seem to me it would he necessary.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I believe that so far as I am concerned, half an hour will be enough. I am at least speaking so much now for the defendant than on behalf of the Defense. I am coming to the question of opening statements, it seems to me that the Prosecution today has touched upon a number of legal questions, which so far have never been mentioned before a Tribunal, with so much emphasis, and it seems necessary to me, therefore, that this speech be given to us as quickly as possible in the German language. Might I remind you, Mr. President, that in the Pohl case, President Toms took care that it was given to 29 September 1947_M_MSD_7&8_4_Gallagher (Frank) us immediately in the German language; if you look at these document books, have to come to the assumtpion that we must make our opening statements rather quickly.
We therefore should have to have this opening speech rather quickly, for this Tribunal, being legally trained, would no doubt agree with me, that the legal concepts can not be examined by hearing them, but exact reading is essential.
THE PRESIDENT: You need not labor on that point, I agree with you entirely. You should have a copy of this opening statement quickly. Mr. Ferencz, how soon may they have that translation?
MR. FERENCA: Your Honor, the German version of the opening statement is now being mimeographed, and they will certainly be available this afternoon.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. BERGOLD: Only when we have got an examined it, will be have the possibility of making a decision regarding the length of time the opening statement will require to be read, and therefore, I beg the Tribunal to reserve a discussion on the length of these opening statements, at least, for today, until we have had the opportunity to examine the opening speech, and then to come to a decision how long we should need to reply to it individually.
THE PRESIDENT: You have concluded the discussion, We want you to have had an opportunity to read the opening statement, counsel. The Tribunal will be in recess for twenty minutes.
(recess)
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom please find your seats.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Mr. Ferencz.
MR. FERENCZ: May it please your Honors, inasmuch as this case will be based almost entirely upon official German documents, I would like at the outset to outline the procedure to be used for the introduction of these documents and to establish the authenticity of the documents to be presented. as expeditiously as possible and to read in court only those portions of the documents which are particularly significant. Each of your Honors should have before you a manila folder which is marked "Military Tribunal Case No. IX, Prosecution Document Book No. I." On the first page there is an index to the contents of the book. Immediately following this index there is a more detailed description of the documents and the order in which they will be presented. German copies of these document books were presented to the defense counsel three days ago, and advance copies of a large part of the documents were made available to the defense several weeks ago. Some of the documents to be used are lengthy and cover many subjects completely unrelated to the issues at bar. We have extracted for the document books only those portions which we have thought were in any way relevant in this case. Should our judgment have been faulty we shall gladly join defense counsel in correction of it. The proof in this case is quite free from subtlety, and I think we should quarrel little respecting the admitting of documents. have access to the complete document, and it is the complete document which will be offered as an exhibit.
In accordance with the procedure established in other military tribunals and with the permission of the court, the Prosecution will assume that a document is in fact admitted into the record if no objection is raised by the defense counsel at the time that the document is offered in evidence. As a document is offered in evidence the identification number of the document will be mentioned as well as the Prosecution exhibit number. A certified copy of the original document will be handed to the representative of the Secretary-General as the offer is made. These copies become the official exhibits and are subject to inspection by defense counsel at the time of the offer if they so desire. should be noted that they fall into three broad categories: one, affidavits; two, German documents which were processed for use before the International Military Tribunal; and three, German documents which were processed for use before military tribunals such as this one.
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit No. 1 a certificate by the Chief of Counsel for War Crimes showing the authority of certain persons to administer oaths and to attest those affidavits which will be offered in evidence before this Tribunal. The certificate will be found on Page 1 of the Document Book No. I. prepared for use before the International Military Tribunal was established by a certificate of Major Willian Coogan, It was introduced in that trial as United States Exhibit No. 1 and explained how the United States Army captured, assembled and preserved German documents, records and arehives, and how they were catalogued and identified for use in trial. I would now like to offer as Exhibit No. 2 the Coogan certificate.
It is found on Page 9 of Document No. I. tribunal are authenticated by a certificate of Mr. Fred Niebergall, Chief of the Document Control Branch. This supplies substantially the same information as the Coogan certificate. I offer the Niebergall certificate as Prosecution Exhibit No. 3. Page 14 of Document Book No. I reads as follows: "Therefore, I certify in my official capacity as herein above stated, that all documentary evidence relied upon by OCC is in the same condition as when captured by military forces under the command of the Supreme Commander, Allied Expeditionary Forces; that they have been translated by competent, qualified translators; that all photostatic copies are true and correct copies of the originals, and that they have been correctly filed, numbered and processed as above outlined." Signed, "Fred Niebergall". an almost complete set of detailed reports of Einsatzgruppen operations. These reports were called operational situation reports and were prepared in the following manner; The Einsatz units in the field were required to send regular reports to Berlin by mail and by radio describing their activities and giving their locations.
I offer Document NO-2716 as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 4.
DR. KOESSL: Dr. Koessl for the defendant Schubert. the reprint, at least my reprint, has several mistakes in it. I will make a decision after looking over the original.
THE PRESIDENT: How do you now know that there are mistakes in this document if you haven't seen the original?
DR. KOESSL: The mistakes are quite evident, for example, the Reich Chancillory. Already upon the first reading you can see that there are mistakes in it.
THE PRESIDENT: Suppose we do this. Suppose we accept the document and then when you nave checked your copy with the original you may come to the podium and indicate what you think are errors and what correction should be made, and they we shall adjust the document accordingly.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, sir. But at the same time I also object against NO-3055. That is the Schubert affidavit of the 24th of February, 1947. It will be submitted later on, but in this volume.
THE PRESIDENT: Suppose you make the objection at that time. It might be easier to rule on it then.
MR. FERENCZ: If your Honors please, there will be several typographical errors in these documents, as is inevitable when we have work of this caliber. We shall be very glad to correct such errors at any time they are pointed out to us.
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Gawlik for the Defendant Naumann. defense documents that objections can be raised if there are any mistakes after looking at the original? At the moment we have to immediately compare the originals with the transcripts.
THE PRESIDENT: The door will be open at all times for corrections of any character.
MR. FERENCZ: In Document NO-2716, which is an affidavit of the Defendant Schubert, there is a description of the typical manner in which the Kommando leaders had to send reports to the group headquarters containing information as to the number of Russians and Jews executed, and I quote from Paragraph 7 of his affidavit found on Page 17 of Document Book I, Page 19 of the German copy.
"The Einsatzgruppe reported in two ways to the Reich Security Head Office. Once through radio, then in writing. The radio reports were kept strictly secret and apart from Ohlendorff, his deputy Standartenfuehrer Willi Seibert and the head telegraphist Fritsch, nobody with the exception of the radio personnel was allowed to enter the radio station. This is the reason why only the above mentioned persons had knowledge of the exact contents of these radio reports. The reports were dictated directly to Fritsch by Ohlendorff or Seibert. After the report had been sent off by Fritsch I received it for filing. In cases in which numbers of executions were reported, a space was left open, so that I never knew the total amount of persons killed. The written reports were sent to Berlin by courier. These reports contained exact details and descriptions of the places in which the actions had taken place, the course of the coperations, losses, number of places destroyed and persons killed, arrest of agents, reports on interrogations, reports on the civilian sector, etc." Here the defendant -
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Gawlik for the Defendants Naumann and Seibert. the Prosecution in every case indicates against which defendant the material is offered and what it wishes to prove by it so that we are not unclear about this.
THE PRESIDENT: What it wishes to prove by a document is certainly superfluous because the document itself, if it means anything, will show what it intends to prove. Now, insofar as identifying the defendant himself is concerned, I should like to hear from the Prosecution in that regard.
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, this is another illustration of a case in which the defense counsel have made a motion, received a written reply from the Prosecution and have received a court order and have brought up the same motion again in court. I will only repeat what I said in my reply to their original motion. Most of those documents are reports Which concern many of the defendants. Several of them concern all of the defendants. To stop at each point and recite the roster of the men in the dock would add very little to the case. One portion of cour case is devoted to proving the individual responsibility of each defendant. At that time we will refer back to the documents already received in evidence and point out exactly how each defendant is connected with that document. That is the procedure we intend to follow here and it seems to us to be very clear as to which documents will implicate which defendants.
THE PRESIDENT: That would seem to cover the situation, Dr. Gawlik. If, however, you find later on you are confused as to what defendant is charged with the contents of any particular document, then you may make whatever motionsyou desire to the Tribunal and they will be ruled upon, for it seems go us at this moment that the procedure outlined by the Prosecution is entirely reasonable and will be entirely clarifying to the defense.
MR. FERENCZ: In Document NO-2890, which was just introduced as Prosecution Exhibit 5, the Defendant Ohlendorff tells us in Paragraph 7, found on Page 23 of Document Book I, Page 26 of the German copy, and I quote: "The reports of the Einsatzgruppen went to the Army or Army Groups, to theChief of the SIPO and SD." Your Honor, the SIPO is the security police, "Normally, weekly or bi-weekly reports were sent to the Chief of the SIPO and SD by wireless and written reports were sent to Berlin approximately every month. The Army Groups or Armies were kept currently informed about the security in their area and other current problems. The reports to Berlin went to the Chief of the SIPO and SD in the Reich Main Security Office. After the founding of the Commando-Staff of the Chief of the SIPO and SD in about May 1942, this staff prepared the subsequent reports.
The Commando-Staff consisted basically of Gruppenfuehrer Mueller, Chief of Office IV and Obersturmbannfuehrer Noski, Group Leader in Office IV, to which specialists from Offices III, IV and V were available for coordinating the composition of the reports. Questions which had to do with the personnel of the group and with garrisons, came to Office I. Administrative questions and matters concerning equipment were taken care of by Office II. Information about the spheres of life (SD) went to Office III. The Chief of Office IV received reports on the general security situation, including Jews and communists. Information about the unoccupied Russian areas went to Office VI." book as Prosecution Exhibit 6. This is Page 29 of the German copy. This is an affidavit of an SS leader, Kurt Lindow, who states as follows:
"In October 1941, till about middle of 1942, I first was deputy chief and later on chief of sub-department IV A 1. This sub-department dealt with communism, war crimes and enemy propaganda; moreover it handled the reports of the various Einsatzgruppen until the Headquarter Staff was set up in 1942. The Einsatzgruppen in the East regularly sent their reports to Berlin by wireless or by letter. The reports indicated the various locations of the Gruppen and the most important events during the period under survey. I read most of those reports and passed them on to Inspector Dr. Knobloch of the Criminal Police who made them up into a compilation which at first was published daily under the title 'Operational Situation Reports USSR'. These reports were stencilled and I corrected them; afterwards they were mimeographed and distributed. The originals of the reports which were sent to the Reich Security Main Office were mostly signed by the commander of the Einsatzgruppe or his deputy.
"The reports 'Operational Situation Reports USSR', No.'s 114, 115 118, 121, 122, 128, 138, 141, 142, 144, 159, as shown to me, are photostats of the original reports drawn up by Dr. Knobloch in subdepartment IV A 1 of which I was the chief." evidence. They were a sampling. They were shown to the affiant for the purposes of identification. Lindow continues:
"I recognize them as such by the red bordering discernible on the photostat, by their size, the types and partial bordering. I identify the handwritten initials appearing on the various reports as those of persons employed with the Reich Security Main Office, but considering that six years have elapsed since, I cannot remember the full names of these persons whose handwritten initials appear on the documents. From the contents of the handwritten notes I conclude that these were made by Dr. Knobloch, and moreover I notice that various parts of the abovementioned reports are extracted from the original reports of the Einsatzgruppen to the Reich Security Main Office.
"On the strength of my position as deputy chief and, later on, chief of subdepartment IV A 1, I consider myself a competent witness, able to confirm that the Operational Situation Reports USSR which were published by the chief of the Security Police and the Security Service under file mark IV A 1 were compiled entirely from the original reports of the Einsatzgruppen reaching my sub-department by wireless or by letter." of facts officially reported by the Einsatzgruppen themselves. Einsatzgruppen. The Defendant Ohlendorff has given us a careful exposition of the formation of the Einsatzgruppen before the Russian campaign and how they were organized. This affidavit is Document NO-2890, found on Page 21 of Document Book No. I, and was received as Prosecution Exhibit 5, Page 23 of the German Document Book. It reads as follows:
"1. The Einsatzgruppen for the Eastern Campaign (Russia 1941) began as a result of an agreement between the Chief of the Security Police and Security Service on the one hand, and the Chiefs of the OKW and OKH on the other," This, your Honors, refers to the Army High Command, "As I remember it, this agreement was signed by Heydrich and a representative of the OKH. On the basis of this agreement between the chief of the Security Police and Security Service, the OKW and OKH, the Einsatsgruppen were to take over the political security of the front areas, which, up to the time of the Russian campaign, the army units had carried out themselves. The Secret Field Police were to occupy themselves only with security within the groops to which they were assigned.
"2. As far as I remember, this agreement took effect about three weeks before the start of the Russian campaign and was as follows:
"a) The Chief of the SIPO and SD formed his own motorized military units in the form of Einsatzgruppen, which were divided into EinsatzKommandos and Sonderkommandos and were to be assigned in their entirety to the Army Groups or Armies. The Chief of the Einsatzgruppen was the deputy of the Chief of the SIPO and SD, who was assigned to Commander in Chief of the Army Group or Army.
"b) That the Armies or the Army Groups had to supply the Einsatzgruppen with quarters, food, repairs, gasoline and the like. Each Army Group and the 11th Army, the latter as nucleusof another Army Group for the Caucasus, was assigned an Einsa tzgruppe, which in turn was divided into Einsatzkommandos and Sonderkommandos.
"During the Russian campaign there were four Einsatzgruppeh, which bore the identifying letters A, B, C, and D, The area of operation of each Einsatzgruppe was determined by the fact that the Einsatzgruppe was assigned to a certain Army Group or Army, and marched with it. The Einsa tzkommandos or the Sonderkommandos formed from them were assigned from time to time to area designated by the Army Group or Army. The Einsatzkommandos were divided into Sonderkommandos in order to have more small units available for the size of the area of operation.
"The areas of operation of the Einsatzgruppen were as follows: The Einsatzgruppe A operated from the center Latvia, Lithuania, and Esthonia towards the East. The Einsatzgruppe B operated in the direction of Moscow in the area adjoining Einsatzgruppe A to the south. Einsatzgruppe C had the Ukraine except for the part occupied by Einsatzgruppe D. At a later time, when the Einsatzgruppe D advanced towards the Caucasus, Einsatzgruppe C was in charge of the entire Ukraine, in so far asit was not under civil administration.
"Einsatzgruppe D had the Ukraine south of the line Czernowitz, Mogilew-Podolsk, Jampol, Ananjew, Nikolajew, Melitopol, Mariupol, Taganrog, Rostow. This area also included the Crimean peninsula. At a later time Einsatzgruppe D was in charge of the Caucasus area.
"All of the Einsatzgruppen were made up of a number of Einsatzkommandos and Sonderkommandos. For example, Einsatzgruppe D, of which I was chief, had the Sonderkommandos 10A, 10B, 11A, 11B, and Einsatzkommando 12." Tribunal the breakdown of Einsatzgruppen.
I'll continue:
"(5) The personnel strength of the Einsatzgruppen varied. It usually consisted of a total of 500 to 800 men. Einsatzgruppe D belonged to the smaller Einsatzgruppen. The officers and non-commissioned officers of the Kommandos were composed of men on detached service from the State Police, Criminal Police, and in limited numbers, from the Security Service, Aside from these, the troops were largely made up of 'Not dienstverpflichtete' (Compulsory service) of companies of the Waffen-SS and Order Police."
will return to it shortly when we deal with the subject of the function of the Einsatzgruppen which is the topic of that paragraph. 27 of Document Book #1, which is Document NO 4134 and offered as Prosecution Exhibit 7. This is on page 31 of the German book.
DR. ASCHENAUER (Defense Counsel for defendant Ohlendorf): I object against the submission of the Document NO. 4134. This document contains obvious errors. On page 31 of the German document book, Report USSR, No, 42 126, dated 29 October 1941. On page 36 of this copy, German document book, I find the following: "Situation report, USSR, #126, 27th October 1941." On the same page, the following text is to be founds "On daily report #110, 27 October 1941 the communication report remains unchanged." Daily report is evidently confused with situation report. Then 110 and 126 are not correct. It is also completely out of the question that from the 22nd of October to the 27th of October, 16 situation reports or daily reports should be made out and passed on. Here there is a question of mistakes and I therefore ask that this document be refused.
MR. FERENCZ: As I understand the objection, Your Honor, it is to either a poor translation whereby something was translated as "daily report" instead of "Operational report" and there is a number on the report which confuses the defense counsel. In the absence of a showing here of exactly what the defense counsel is talking about, I don't feel competent to comment on the particular objection. However, as a general matter, if there is such an error, I will certainly be glad to correct it. I am certain that there must be several errors in the presentation as we will give it. If there is anything more than purely formal objection, I wish the defense counsel would make that clear.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, is the document, as you read it, at least clear as to intent, and you find objection only to some detail which perhaps later can be straightened out?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, Your Honor, I have the original in front of me now and here there are no typographical errorsand this is not a matter of typographical errors nor of details. My objection refers to the probative value of the document. First of all, in the operational report 126, there are two different dates given. One date, the 29th of October 1941, on the first page of the document. In one of the further pages, the date 27th of October 1941.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you reading now from the original? That is, the photostat?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, this is the original document which the prosecution is offering.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that's what I say. You are reading now from the original?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes,
THE PRESIDENT: And the objections, I take it, are to the original document and not to the translation?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, that's right. And if I say "operational report" is confused with "daily report" or "situation report", then it's completely out of the question that the number 110 is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, if you have no objection to the translation itself, then we don't see how your objection to the original can have any value, because the prosecution submits it as it is and if it is defective in any way then, of course, it's to your advantage that it's defective and, at the proper time, you will point that out in argument to the Tribunal when the issue must be decided. So, therefore, it does not go to the authenticity nor to the relevancy of the document. It's up to the prosecution to determine whether they wish to present in evidence a document which may be defective.
DR. BERGOLD (Defense Counsel for defendant Biberstein): I believe my colleague would have to object to something else. It isn't really the actual original, but the photostat of the original and, anmely, that copy which the prosecution is submitting as evidence to the Tribunal. The objection of my colleague could, if I understand him correctly mean that this is something which is not authentic and which perhaps, at the first look at it, might look like a forgery. Therefore, it seems necessary that the prosecution in this case does not submit the photostat, but the originals, so that it can be objected to or not.
THE PRESIDENTS: Well, the photostat is always taken at its face falue unless it can be shown that there was some mechanical difficulty in the actual photographing of the document. Do I understand you to say, Dr. Bergold, that you insist on the presentation of the original report itself, and how would that help you any more than the photograph would?
DR. BERGOLD: No, the photostat isn't always the same. Sometimes one can see, by looking at an original, that, for example, different kinds of paper were used so that the original might be composed of different reports. Or that various typewriter ribbons were used. But you can only see that by looking at the original. The photostat does not show those color differences nor does it show the differences in the quality of paper.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Ferencz, what have you to say to this?
MR. FERENCZ: Your Honor, there are two different objections to this document. The first objection made is that document which we have offered as a photostat of the original has, on the first page, the date 29 October 1941, whereas, on one of the pages next to the end, it has the date 27 October 1941. It seems quite immaterial to me whether the date was 29 October or 27 October, We have offered the document for a completely different purpose.