22 Jan 1948_A_MSD_22_2_Mills (Lea)
MR. HOCHWALD: That is right.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, in the affidavit of Dr. Hellauer those circumstances are contained which Dr. Loewy does not state in the affidavit which I shall submit next. Therefore, these two affidavits supplement each other.
MR. HOCHWALD: If your honor please that exactly was the reason why I objected against Document 91, as in the affidavit of Dr. Loewy things which Dr. Hellauer tells that they happened to Dr. Loewy doesn't testify to himself. That is the reason why. If the two affidavits would he identical the affidavit of Dr. Hellauer would be only corroborative evidence and not directly objectionable. I am objecting that somebody is testifying out of hearsay to things to which the man who is the subject of the affidavit could have testified himself in this affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Why didn't, Dr. Durchholz, the first man testify to all the incidents? Why did the second man need to say what the first man could have said?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honors, I myself tried to got the affidavit of Dr. Loewy. Dr. Loewy is living in New York though and I waited all this time for this affidavit and as a precautionary measure I had one of his collaborators give me an affidavit just in case Dr. Loewy's own affidavit would not have arrived. As the next affidavit I shall submit the explanation of Dr. Loewy and then I shall ask the Tribunal to decide whether the objection of the prosecutor about the affidavit of Dr. Hellauer should be sustained or not.
THE PRESIDENT: Very Well.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: On page 267 I offer Document Number 92, as Exhibit Number 91. This is the affidavit of Dr. Otto Loewy, now professor at New York University, college of Medicine, of the 6 December 1947. I only received this statement a short time ago directly from New York, In this, the affiant, Dr. Loewy, states that on 6 May 1938 Schulz had 22 Jan 1948_A_MSD_22_3_Mills (Lea) released him from protective custody and that this release came about in the most friendly manner and in the presence of his wife whom Herr Schulz had asked to be present.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, may I now move that all other items as it is given in Schulz Document 92, Exhibit 91 -- that all items different from that which Loewy said himself may be stricken from the record.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Durcholz, I think you will agree to that.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes. Of course, your Honor, I could not speak to the affiant, Dr. Loewy, and I did not prescribe to him what kind of an affidavit he should give me. I left it completely up to him. If I had had the opportunity to speak with him I would have taken all these facts into his affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Loewy's statement, as much as we were able to get from you, because we don't have the text, seems to be clear enough.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes, I am completely in agreement. As the next document on page 268, I offer Document Number 93 as Exhibit Number 92. This is an affidavit of the defendant Schulz of the tenth of January 1948. Schulz states here how he helped the Jews in Bemeen, those who remained in Bremen, as well as those who wanted to emigrate at their own wish. He states especially how he discussed all these problems with the representative of the Jewish community in Bremen, Dr. Rosenack, who emigrated to American in 1937, and how he discussed all these matters in the fairest manner. It is noteworthy that Dr. Rosenack and Schulz left each other with complete respect existing on both sides. I may also state in this respect that with the help of the Defense Center I was able to determine the present address of Dr. Rosenack in New York. Thereupon I wrote to Dr. Rosenack and asked him for an affidavit, but to this day I have received no answer. For this reason the defendant Schulz has described his relationship to Dr. Rosenack and the Jews in Bremen in this affidavit.
22 Jan 1948_A_MSD_22_4_Mills (Lea)
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do not want to take up the Tribunal's time with unnecessary objections, I do think that this document and the next document which is also an affidavit of the defendant are inadmissable for the simple reason that these two items to which he testifies are not new. He has taken the witness stand. He had ample opportunity to tell everything that he wanted to say. Of course the thing is the affidavits in themselves are unimportant, but I just wanted to say on principle these two affidavits in itself are not admissible as they are not refering to items which came up after the defendant Schulz was at the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll rule on those objections at the end.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: I further submit on page 273, Document Number 94, as Exhibit Number 93. This again is an affidavit of the defendant Schulz dated 13 January 1948. Here he makes a statement giving the reasons why he left the Protestant Church and why this leaving the church does not mean that any SS member became an atheist. I offer this statement because after the examination of the defendant Schulz on the witness stand this question of leaving the church was hold up to the subsequent defendants repeatedly. As the next document I offer on page 275, Document 95, as Exhibit Number 94. This is the affidavit of Karl Heinz Bent of 19 January 1948. Bent states here that he met Schulz at the police school in 1941 in Berlin. Also that in 1943 it was said in Kiev that Schulz, because of his soft attitude, namely that he could not have carried out executions in Russia which had been ordered in 1941, or did not want to carry them out, was releived from this assignment in Russia very quickly. He confirms here with the statements of the witness Hurting, who made these statements on the witness stand, and who was also with the Einsatzgrup C in Kiev. As the last document I offer on page 277 Document Number 96, as Exhibit Number 95. This is an affidavit of Ernst Helmuth Wuppermann from Nuernberg from 12 January 1948. This affiant states that in the summer of 1941 he was on the station in Orel in Russia and that there he saw a box car full with, envelopes of which I will submit three examples as photostates.
I point to envelope number 1 in which there is a picture of a smiper in civilian clothes and which is signed in Russian "Glory to the Partisans". The witness says that a Russian employee in Orel had told him that these envelopes were distributed immediately after the outbreak of the war by the Russian government so that one mast assume that these were already made up before the beginning of the war. The original envelopes are here but I can not submit them unfortunately, because I must return them. However I have photostats and the translation is also certified to.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please. I object against this document just out of the simple reason that it is entirely immaterial. I also am unable to sec from the photostat whether the persons depicted on these envelopes are civilians or military personnel. That is not the nature of the objection. The nature of the objection is immateriality.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: This concludes my presentation of Doc. Book IV and on the day which will be determined by the Tribunal next week I shall submit one single document. This is an affidavit of the defendant Schulz as a reply to a rebuttal document.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, do you have any further objections to the book?
MR. HOCHWALD: I have voiced my objections against the single documents. I do not think it necessary that I repeat it. Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome. Are any other document books ready for presentation this afternoon? Apparently not.
MR. HOCHWALD: I have received Document book Number 3 for the defendant Haensch. Is Dr. Riediger willing to put it in?
DR. RIEDIGER: The document book has been submitted yesterday.
MR. HOCHWALD: I beg the Tribunal pardon. I was not here yesterday afternoon and I did not know it was already submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do not know whether there was an objection on the part of the prosecution against Documents 27 and 28 of the document book. I only want to inform the Tribunal that these are two letters written in October and in December 1947 addressed to Dr. Riediger. Therefore in their form they are entirely inadmissible.
DR. RIEDIGER: As far as these letters are concerned there is one message of Dr. Maennle, this witness who comes up again and again.
MR. HOCHWALD: I have seen the information of Dr. Maennle and have not objected against it as the Tribunal wants to hear the witness anyway. So I do think that his testimony will be decisive, but not the letter he wrote. But these are two letters from a certain Vibeke Jansen, and I do think that I am well entitled to object against the form. They are not sworn to and they are in no way in the form of an affidavit.
DR. RIEDIGER: In the case of this document just objected to, that is a statement of a witness who lives in Denmark and who has considerable difficulties if she choses any other form. Therefore I asked her for this. She wanted to go to an attorney in Denmark but I have received no more news. She merely informed me that she would have to count on difficulties on the part of Danish authorities. The probative value of this statement, of course, has to be left up to the Tribunal.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do think that an affidavit is nothing else but a substitute for direct testimony. Testimony not given under oath can not be viewed by the Tribunal in any form. Its probative value is nil Therefore I move that these two documents may not be admitted in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: That might be true if there is no explanation forthcoming as to wiry the oath could not be administered. As defense counsel has stated, the probative value is always left to the Tribunal.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do not want to press the subject but the witness does not even say that in lieu of an oath she is stating that or that. she just writes a letter. she did not say this is the truth.
THE PRESIDENT: Did the letter come through the mail and does the counsel recognize the handwriting?
DR. RIEDIGER: Well, first of all I would have to look at the document again. It came by mail but whether I can recognize the handwriting would depend on whether I have any other pieces of writing by her, because I personally don't know the witness. But it is possible that other examples of her handwriting are available and I would reserve the right to make another statement about it. Pardon me, your Honor, at the moment I don't have the document here, but the possibility exists that the signature is certified to. We would have to look at the document.
MR. HOCHWALD: As far as I can see one of the signatures is certified to.
THE PRESIDENT: By whom?
MR. HOCHWALD: That, your Honor, I am unable to say. Folkeregister should be some magistrate, but I unfortunately do not know. It's Danish and I can't say either the one or the other. My objection is, your Honor, mainly to the fact that the witness never says at any place that this what she is writing is the truth -- neither under oath or in lieu of oath. I am absolutely sure that Dr. Riediger obtained the letter. I have no reason to doubt that the person who is signing this letter is this Vibeke Jansen, but I do not know who she is or what she is.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Riediger --
MR. HOCHWALD: It's an entirely inadmissable document.
THE PRESIDENT: You of course have observed the liberality with which we have accepted evidence, but you will also understand then there must be some safeguards in order to prevent being deceived, and there is always the possibility that someone can just write a letter and state anything. So unless we have some assurance that the statements are guarded and represent the truth, then we could all be deceived.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, after I received this statement I asked for this statement once more in the form of an affidavit. Thereupon the affiant notified me that she first wanted to go to see a lawyer, that she had misgivings that she might run into difficulties from Danish authorities and since that time I haven't heard from the witness. Of course I must admit that the Tribunal has been very liberal in accepting documents, but I believed, at least, that this letter, whose signature is certified to -
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, may we see the document. I don't happen to have my book here.
MR. HOCHWALD: If your Honors please I have only the mimeographed translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have the letter in which said that she was unable to go to the Danish authorities?
DR. RIEDIGER: I got one more letter -- I don't know if that has been handed in.
THE PRESIDENT: But Mr. Hochwald, what about the relevancy of the subject matter?
MR. HOCHWALD: I consider the subject matter completely irrelevant, Your Honor. However, I have to make this objection and I do think I pointed it out, out of principle. We cannot leave a letter written in November or December 1947 go in lieu of testimony of a defense witness. I beg the Tribunal to consider this point.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Riediger, even if this document were submitted with all the safeguards under oath, what do you content it would serve on behalf of Haensch. Here is the only statement which can be of any value to you. Let's see how far it goes: "It is also not clear to me why Dr. "H" should be convicted there since he was an official here during the war."
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, this statement alone proves the inadmissibility of the letters as it is admitted by the defendant that he was not only In Denmark but also in the East.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand that.
MR. HOCHWALD: He was not only in Denmark but also in the East.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't quite follow you?
MR. HOCHWALD: I understand in this letter he is trying to say he was all the time during the war in Denmark, as he was an official here. The Tribunal certainly will recall the defendant himself admitted having been in Russia.
DR. RIEDIGER: The contents of the document, of course, do not refer to the assignment of Haensch in Russia, but they only refer to activity in Denmark, therefore, has nothing to do with the charges against Haensch as they refer to Russia, but it serves to judge the defendant, and therefore, it can have some importance.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think you are arguing for the admission of something which even if admitted can not be of much enlightenment in the disposition of this case, for an unknown person in Denmark to say that he or she does not know why a defendant should be convicted because he was an official there during the war, which means absolutely nothing, all these defendants were officials in Russia, or that is to say, they were on official duty, so that does not prove anything at all, and I think that to insist on admission into evidence of a document which does not have the usual safeguard as to veracity, when the document, even if it did have that safeguard could be of very little use to you, is much ado about nothing.
DR. RIEDIGER: Well, of course, I must leave the decision up to the Tribunal, especially since the probative value itself could not be such as that of a usual affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, the point is, Dr. Riediger, that we are willing to make an exception against a very obvious rule when it really will mean something for us to make an exception against a rule, which is only made to protect everybody from something in the last analysis, is of no use as we are asking for a pointless thing.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I only want to point out I have objected for the same reason against two documents, the document which the Tribunal has before it, and there is a document preceding this document from the same writer, and I have objected to both documents for the same reason.
DR. RIEDIGER: At the moment, I unfortunately don't have the document before me.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean this very long statement (Looking at document before the court).
MR. HOCHWALD: It is from the same writer in the form of an ordinary letter.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, may I perhaps reserve my explanation for a day when the Tribunal will reconvene, and I shall see whether I withdraw the document.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. In the meantime if you will find that you can fortify this statement in any way with a jurat, with a statement as to who this is this Abenrade, and so on, then it might be helpful in the final disposition of the document, but for the moment both documents will be excluded.
You are very welcome to be sure.
DR. GICK: Dr. Gick for the defendant Straugh. Your Honor, before the Tribunal adjourns, I would like to repeat my motion for severance, which has been made in writing on 23 October 1947. I refer to document of 11 October 1947, also handed to the Tribunal, the opinion, of Dr. von Baier to my brief 3 January 1948, and to the second opinion of Dr. von Baier of 7 January 1943, and to my brief of 20 January 1948 which unfortunately has not yet been submitted to the Tribunal, as it is still in the translation section, and which at best can be handed to the Tribunal tomorrow. In order not to take up the time of the Tribunal, I don't want to make any more statements here. I merely want to say in one sentence to the fact that after the conclusion of the direct examination, the impression the defendant Strauch made, was such that it can not be said that he was in a position to use his personality and the use of his intellect which is normally at his disposal, and to use them to refute charges of the Prosecution. I am of the opinion that the defense of the defendant Strauch was impeded in a considerable manner, therefore, I want to repeat this motion here in court.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution does not desire at this time to make a formal announcement to this effect, but the Tribunal is advised that the Prosecution is opposed to the motion on the part of the defense for s everance of the case of the defendant Strauch.
THE PRESIDENT: In order that the defense counsel may know just what is still required of him in this trial, a decision would be made immediately, as to whether the motion for severance should be granted. On December 11, 1947, a Board composed of three physicians examined the defendant, Eduard Strauch, and submitting findings, paragraph five of which reads. "It is the opinion of the Board that the defendant is at most times physically and mentally able to understand questions put to him and to reply thereto with the full use of his mental faculties."
Subsequent to Strauch's first appearance in Court, another examination was conducted by two Doctors, Captain Joseph S. Jacobs, and, Lt. William L. Bedwell. They submitted a document on January 17th with an opinion which reads: "That the defendant Edward Strauch, except for brief periods preceding, during and succeeding epileptic seizure, is capable of understanding the proceedings against him, and of taking an adequate part in the direction and presentation of his own defense." in court, and gave every indication of thoroughly understanding the questions and of responding to them, with the exception of some hesitation occasionally due to perhaps physical exhaustion or otherwise of the defendant himself and during the entire time he was on the stand he was under observation by Lt. William L. Bedwell, who on January 20th, made this finding: "It is my opinion that the defendant Herr Eduard Strauch during the periods when I had observed him, including the court sessions in the afternoon of 19 January 1948, and the morning of 20 January 1948, has been mentally competent and so free from mental defect, derangement or disease, as to be able to participate adequately in his own defense." severance, but you should be informed at once and you are now informed that the motion is refused and that you should proceed with the defense, that is to say, in the submission of any document books that you have to submit, trial briefs, and eventually the closing arguments. will sit to hear whatever further documents there are to present, and, the reason we have not decided is that we do not know when the documents will physically be ready for presentation in Court, and we believe it is better to leave the date open rather than to give a date now which later on would have to be changed.
med at least twenty-four hours ahead of the day on which the Tribunal will sit, and on that day the remaining documents can be presented, and if there are any stray witnesses to be heard they will be heard. of the document books, the Tribunal rules, the motions made by defense counsel to the documents presented by the Prosecution during the rebuttal are overruled. The documents will be accepted for whatever probative value the Tribunal gives to them. This ruling in no way effects whatever ruling was made as to individual documents presented during the entire presentation. submitted by all defense counsel, the Tribunal rules that those objections are overruled; the probative value of each document being left to the Tribunal when it studies individually each document. This ruling in no way effects what was stated by the Tribunal as to any individual documents present at the time. The Tribunal will now.....yes, you have something.....
DR. LUMMERT: Dr. Lummert for the defendant Blume. Your Honor, before you adjourn, will you permit me to ask one brief question. The Tribunal will recall that the Prosecution at the beginning of this trial had issued a so-called basic information which the defense counsel also received in translation. This basic information has the heading: "Basic facts about the SS, about the SD, about the Gestapo, the RSHA and the Einsatzgruppen." My question is this, does this basic information have any probative value?
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, we have compiled this basic information to the best of our knowledge and belief, and we are absolutely clear in our minds that something which is not in evidence before the Tribunal has no probative value.
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, may I then assume that this basic information will not be considered at all.
THE PRESIDENT: You may assume that.
DR. LUMMERT: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: It is understood that the Tribunal will reconvene on the morning of January 31st, to hear Dr. Aschenauer's final statement in the case. It will also reconvene for one day prior to January 31st upon call. We are unable to state the exact date today, but defense counsel will be notified through the Defense Information Center, and the Prosecution will be notified in an appropriate manner. Therefore, with that understanding the Tribunal will meet upon call. It is now in provisional recess until January 31st.
(The Tribunal adjourned subject to intervening date until 31 January 1948)
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.
DR. HANS DIETRICH MAENNEL, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE SPEIGHT: Witness, raise your right hand and repeat after me: pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
JUDGE SPEIGHT: You may be seated now.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Riediger.
DR. RIEDIGER (Attorney for the defendant Haensch): May I examine the witness, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed. BY DR. RIEDIGER (Attorney for the defendant Haensch):
Q Witness, please give your personal data. When and where were you born?
INTERPRETER: I cannot hear the witness speaking.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't have the witness' name on the record, Dr. Riediger. Will you put that on the record? BY DR. RIEDIGER: What is your name?
A Dr. Maennel, Hans Dietrich.
Q Do you know the defendant, Dr. Haensch?
Q When did you have anything to do with him?
Q Can you give us a more exact date?
AAccording to the personnel files, Dr. Haensch was treated by me on the 16th of November, 1941.
Q And how long did this treatment take?
Q Was he during this time with you at regular intervals? Can you get this from any kind of documents?
A The intervals were regular. There was only a longer interval in the treatment between the 10th of December and 14th of January.
Q Did you register the treatment exactly? disposal?
Q Can you hand this over?
Q Did you, yourself, make the entries in this index? can keep up. Who made these entries?
Q How long did this lady work for you?
Q Is she still with you? did you ask this lady about her entries recently? found it. possible that a mistake was made in the entry about the name of the person, or is that completely impossible?
on e patient by the name of Dr. Haensch.
Q And how long were these index cards kept by you?
A I cannot tell you exactly. I still have index cards from the beginning of my practice.
Q And when did you begin your practice? that Dr. Haensch started treatment with you in November, 1941, and remained under treatment with you until February, 1942, in regular intervals?
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I have no further questions of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. RIEDIGER: May I offer this index card at this point as an exhibit to the Court. I have just been given it. I think the Prosecution -
DR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: There are of course no objections on the part of the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_3_1_Gallagher (Lea)
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, the number of the exhibit will be submitted afterwards. I can not determine that at the moment. I don't know which number it will be.
MR. HOCHWALD: Number five, but I am not sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the number may be supplied later. Mr. Hochwald. BY MR. HOCHWALD: recollection of your own about these treatments of Haensch by you, did you? that the patient was being treated by me.
Q Will you tell the Tribunal now how this record was found? old boxes this particular card was picked out by my secretary.
Q When?
Q Can you tell us who requested your secretary to find this record? I could not make out a medical certificate to the effect that her husband was being treated by me in the year of 1941.
Q When was that, witness, when Frau Haensch came to your place?
Q And what did you do then, afterwards? made out a medical certificate, giving the various data and statement about the treatment. find this record? my secretary.
Q Will you tell me something. You have here an entry on the 14th January, and an entry on the 7th February. Will you be good enough to 2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_3 _2_Gallagher(Lea) explain to the Tribunal what these two entries mean?
was filled. On the 7th February this filling was polished off.
Q What was polished off?
Q On 7 February?
Q Will you please look at the card, Doctor. Do you see a difference in the writing between the entry on 14 January and the entry on 7 February?
A Yes, of course. The entries were made with different ink, and with a different type of handwritings.
Q Who made these entries?
Q Why, if it was done by one person is the writing different? me whether you do not see a difference between the entry on 7th February, and all the other entries during other dates?
A yes, there are differences here. For example, between that of 23 October and the 14th of February, and between that of the 27 October and that of 23 September 1943.
Q That was not my question, witness. Please answer this one very simple question. Do you see between the entry of 7 February 1942 and the other entries in this same record a difference in the handwriting?
DR. HOCHWALD: I have no further questions, our Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: No one has as yet asked you, or told the Tribunal just what is your profession?
MR. HOCHWALD: I am sorry, Your Honor.
THE WITNESS: I am a dentist.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. I don't know why it was kept such a secret. I would like to see the exhibit, please. (The court is given the exhibit).
2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_ 3_3_Gallagher (Lea) Did you want to ask another question, Dr. Riediger.
DR. RIEDIGER: Yes. BY DR. RIEDIGER: the witness once more whether she made that entry, or did you refrain from asking that question, because you recognized this handwriting as that of my assistant?
A No, I didn't. I recognized it as the handwriting of my assistant, and I never paid any more attention to it. to the effect that she actually did write it? these entries, and that she listed the dates of treatments, of those dates.
Q Do you have this affidavit of the witness?
Q Will you please hand it over?
(Mr. Hochwald looks at the paper.)
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, would you please permit me to read this affidavit here. I quote:
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, if Dr. Riediger submits this affidavit, the Prosecution must insist on cross examination of the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: That observation of the Prosecution is approved by the Tribunal.
DR. RIEDIGER: I have no further question to put to the witness, and I ask that the right be reserved to me to offer this affidavit of the witness. I merely have to have it translated.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the statement made by the Prosecution, Dr. Riediger, that affidavit may not be accepted unless you have the affiant ready here for cross examination.
DR. RIEDIGER: Actually, the defense would saive the calling of this 2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_3_4_Gallagher (Lea) witness -- of this affiant, because in my opinion the testimony of this witness here is so clear that this witness does not seem to be required for the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean then, that you will not present the affidavit.
DR. RIEDIGER: The affidavit is such I don't have to offer it.
THE PRESIDENT: We have told you, Dr. Riediger, that you may not offer this affidavit, that the Tribunal will not accept it unless you have the affiant here who may he cross examined.
DR. RIEDIGER: Well, then,I would have to insist upon the witness being called, and, of course, it is clear to me that this witness can hardly be called because of the time element. The affiant is also in Belin, but since the Prosecution objects to the submission of this affidavit, I have to insist on the appearance of the witness.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, certainly you will remember that Dr. Riediger asked the assistance of the Tribunal in order to procure a witness who will prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Haensch was in Berlin and not in the East. If Dr. Riediger after having had three witness on the same subject brings into court with the assistance of the Tribunal on the last day, the fourth witness who is not able to testify on his own, to these facts, and then requests an affidavit of the fifth witness now --
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the affidavit is out, Mr. Hochwald, you need not argue that.
MR. HOCHWALD: --- so I think it is unnecessary to call at this late stage of the trial a fifth witness to the stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, do you know the defendant Haensch?
THE WITNESS: No.
Q Do you recognize him there in the defendants' dock?
Q Do you remember his having come to see you?
Q Do you remember having treated him at all?