2 Feb 1948_M_MSD_3_5_Gallagher (Lea) man --.
THE INTERPRETER: Your Honor, will you please repeat?
THE PRESIDENT: Is the defendant who is here in the courtroom the same man whose name appears on this exhibit?
THE WITNESS: First of all, I would have to see the defendant to tell that.
Q Well, do you know who Haensch is?
A Who he is?
Q Do you know him? Do you recognize him? that mean to you? Suppose I said that he was Haensch (pointing to Dr. von Stein, German Counsel) would that mean anything to you?
Q Well, then, look in the defendants' dock and see if you can recognize him?
Q Then you have no independent recollection of Haensch at all? of indicating whether Haensch came to you for treatment, or not? Walter Haensch living at Hartmannsweiler weg 19 was treated by me in 1941 and '42.
Q Let's suppose that you didn't have this memorandum, this card. Can you of your own recollection recall that a Walter Haensch had come to you for treatment? about ninety to one-hundred patients a day, and I can not remember such a small case as this one, and I could not recognize the patient, either.
THE PRESIDENT: I must congratulate you on your big business, ninety to one-hundred patients a day is quite a thriving dental business.
THE PRESIDENT: Where were these cards kept?
THE WITNESS: In large file boxes.
Q How far back did they go? How far back in dates do these records go? that these old file indexes were still available, because when I came home from the war, I didn't assume that all these old papers were still there, and, only now because of this particular card that I was convinced they were still there.
Q Did you go to get this card yourself?
A No. This card was on my desk, and my assistant told me that this Mrs. Haensch had been to see me, and that at her request she had looked for the card.
Q You didn't see where the cards were kept?
Q And you didn't see attic with these cards yourself before you came down to testify? boxes?
Q You don't remember seeing a box with the indication of 19411942, you don't know what boxes you do have up there, sofar as these records are concerned?
A The boxes are not numbered according to the years. They are only the files and they were just there ih order to start a fire with them.
Q How is it you never started a fire with this one. What was so precious about this one that you didn't start a fire.
Q You yourself have no recollection of this particular card?
instead of this card? After the war I started colored file cards, but this file card is of a white color, and therefore, it is a file which was used before the war or during the war.
Q Of course, I know that you immediately see that my "chickenscratching" would be different from what appears upon this card, but let's suppose that some one got a card similar to this, and wrote various itmes on the card, and wrinkled it up, and soiled it a little bit, and put it on your desk, you would have no way of knowing yourself whether it was the original card, or not? entries are concerned, for example, the accounts, these are entries made by the medical office which made up the bills, who listed the numbers, it is impossible that any human being can falsify the making up of these numbers, or fabricate to just to envent them.
Q Was this hill paid for? ting office, or clearing office, and as the files show, the bills were then paid to this clearing office.
Q Was the treatment for the 7th of February paid for?
A I assume so. We had ended the treatment, but I can not say at the moment when the final bill was paid.
Q Why was it that the treatment for February 7th was not paid?
A That is no treatment. That is merely a polishing off of the filling, which is just additional.
Q You do that for nothing?
items as work done. Let me put it in another way. You have here various items of work done?
Q Then you draw a line and you total the amount to be paid? one day.
Q When was this bill paid for, please? I am referring now to the first group of items on the exhibits. in cash. ing line?
A This entry of a bill is made up in one day. In other words, the various individual amounts are filled in and the totaling line is made on the same day on which the bill goes out to the patient.
Q Why did the bill go out before the job was completed? file the last day of treatment was the 7th of February. below the totalling line? February comes before April. Why then wouldn't February 7th appear before April on that card? the 23rd of April, and below the bill she made the totalling line. ruary 7th wasn't written after that card was made up, if it doesn't obviously show an addition to the card. Now, just tell us frankly if that isn't the impression you gained from it?
Q You see that February 7 is in different ink?
Q You see it is a different handwriting? There is no doubt about it as far as that is concerned.
Q Now you say it is the same handwriting. It doesn't appear to be. Why are you so certain it is the same handwriting? fied them or forged them in any manner.
Q Well, that is a conclusion which I am asking you now. Leaving aside the business of fabrication, leaving aside any notions about fabrication, doesn't it appear different to you there?
A No. There is a difference to be sure, but I see this difference between the other entries too.
Q Did you see her handwriting in different forms?
A You mean the handwriting of the assistant? Oh, I think I do know it. always uniform, the same? writing. Once she writes straight, once across, once the other way. It is somewhat unbalanced. Sometimes the entries were quickly made, and those which show the bills were neatly put down, and there the handwriting is more distinct again.
Q Now, Doctor, just please consider this question. On February 7th, according to that card, you had the patient in your office and did something to his teeth, is that right?
Q 23rd. Why wouldn't the item of February 7th be above the item of the sending out of the bill since it preceded it in date?
Q Very well, let's have the exhibit. (The exhibit was handed back to the President). Over what period of time in all did you have Haensch as a dental patient?
1943.
Q Does that sound reasonable to you?
A Yes, absolutely. I can even find an explanation for what was wrong with the tooth. did you polish the patient's teeth? or polished off.
Q You mean in two years he only had one filling?
A May I see the card once more? (The exhibit was handed back to the witness). The treatment time was from the 16th of November until the 7th of May, '43, and the same tooth was always concerned. In the time in between, on the 23rd and 27th of October, a tooth was pulled from the patient.
Q when was that? treated by you in any way, not the extracted one, the one that was filled? and treated once more.
Q Let me have the copy. (The exhibit was handed back to the President.) Was the treatment in 1943 similar to the one that took place in the early part of 1942?
Q Just tell me what you did in January '42 to this tooth, 14th of January '42?
pains, because the tooth was opened up, and then at regular intervals it received temporary fillings. Then finally the root was treated and finally I made one filling which was to last.
Q All right, that was the 14th of January, 1942. Now, what did you do in March of 1943?
A On the 11th of March '43 the patient must have come to me with the same opened up tooth.
Q And did you treat it the same way?
Q And subsequently, that is in May, 1943; he received two fillings? 14 January, 1942?
Q Now, did you polish teeth after filling?
A I advised this to the patient. It isn't obligatory, but the patients have it done so that the filling will last longer.
Q Why didn't you polish the fillings, the two fillings which you gave the patient in May of 1943? ment did not come. fillings; do you regard that as important?
A Well, it isn't absolutely necessary, but in order to keep the filling in place it is advisable.
Q But you didn't polish these teeth in May, did you?
Q And you didn't regard it as of too much importance, desirable, but not too important? when you had only one filling? when the patient appeared. It may be that the patient appeared on his own and at the same time the examination and the polishing off were done.
Q Is the polishing considered part of the treatment? treatment if it was part of the regular treatment?
Q Why didn't she do it that way in May?
Q Well, if you consider it part of the treatment, why didn't you see that the polishing was had? him. in February?
one.
Q What did you treat the patient for in November, 1941?
A Pardon me, I can't tell from memory. (The Exhibit was handed back to the witness). In November, is that right?
Q You opened the tooth?
Q What do you mean by opening a tooth? some gas and after half an hour the patient becomes free of pain.
Q All right, and what did you do in the next item? That is, you say he is free of pain. Did he say that he was free of pain?
A That is a matter of course. That goes without saying. On the 19th of November he got his first filling.
Q All right, now which tooth was that, the first filling?
Q Then the next item, what does it say?
Q Same tooth?
Q I thought you had filled it before?
A Oh, no, that was too early. The patient got three antiseptic temporary fillings. That was between the time of the 19th of November and the 3rd of December. Then according to the file the tooth was all right, it was clean, and on the 14th of December he got the filling in the root of the tooth, and on the 14th of January the treatment was concluded.
Q Always the same tooth?
THE PRESIDENT: Any further questions?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION(Continued) BY DR. RIEDIGER: could you then tell whether you made this treatment at that time on his teeth?
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, I ask that it be permitted that the witness may look at the teeth of the defendant.
THE PRESIDENT: He can certainly look at the tooth of the defendant providing he can tell us by looking at the teeth when he treated the teeth. If he has the date on the tooth we will allow him to read that date and inform the Tribunal.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honor, but first of all it has to be clarified since the witness testified before that he cannot remember the defendant, but that the defendant was actually treated by the witness. Of course the question of time cannot be determined on examining the teeth, but considering the testimony before, that he personally does not know the defendant, it seems necessary to me.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Riediger, he does not know the defendant, does not remember him, does not recollect him, couldn't recognize him. Now you are submitting to the Tribunal that by looking at a tooth he can tell whether it is his work or not, is that what we understand?
DR. RIEDIGER: I could imagine that every dentist has his own special technique and that he can always recognize whether he did a particular piece of work. At least then we could clarify whether the witness has treated the defendant and furthermore the witness can determine whether the treatment, the dental treatment as is shown by the file was actually carried out.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Riediger, we will allow the examination, and we will let it take place at fifteen minutes after eleven, quarter after eleven, and it will be in this antechamber so that the witness can be in there, and we will make arrangements with the marshal about having the defendant there.
Both counsel can be present, of course.
DR. RIEDIGER: Your Honors, with regard to the assistant of the witness-
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Before Riediger makes a motion I would like to ask the witness two questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Certainly, of course. BY MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD:
Q Witness, were you present when your assistant spoke to Mr. Haensch? box? tant nobody else had this record in his hand or his possession before you would see it on your desk?
A No. The card was in my folder on the desk and Frau Jauer handed it to me together with other important papers which I had to take care of. handed to you?
Q Wherefrom do you know that? anyone would tamper with it.
Q You presume that?
THE PRESIDENT: When we reconvene the witness will be escorted into the antechamber and then the defendant will be taken in. During the recess there will be no communication between attorney and defendant involved and the witness. The Tribunal will now be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: For the purposes of the dental examination, which is to be made of the defendant involved, the Tribunal will retire to the antechamber; and there will be in attendance Counsel from both sides; the reporters, German and English speaking, will be in the antechamber to take the notes; the interpreters will also be in attendance. the back row into the antechamber. interpreters. examination, and then, of course, we will take up here in the same court room again.
COURT NO. II, CASE NO. IX.
THE PRESIDENT: The reporters are set? The witness will not be brought in. Please sit down there, Witness. Now, Witness, in view of the fact that you have stated that you can recognize your own dental work, we will submit several individuals to you and you tell us which one or ones carry dental work performed by you. Marshal, please take the first man silting there. The next defendant. What was his reply to that?
THE WITNESS: No, that is impossible. No again.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. Sit down, Witness. Are you examining the defendant only to determine whether a particular tooth has been treated?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it is very obvious that if you are going to look only for that one tooth, which the card indicates you have treated, that this test is of no avail because all you will need to do is to find that tooth which corresponds to the tooth on the card and say that is your work.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: No, no, I don't think that he got the point. Which tooth are you looking for?
THE WITNESS: I am looking for the left upper 7, the lower left 5. The left upper 7 has a bridge, therefore it is not possible. On the second the lower left 5 was still there.
THE PRESIDENT: So that if the man who stands before you has no obvious repair work to the left upper 7 or the lower left 5, you immediately discard him as having been a patient of yours?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Now, the test, therefore, is of no avail because you are merely looking for the left upper 7 and the lower left 5, and not for your actual work?
THE WITNESS: Very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, is that so?
THE WITNESS: Yes, that is correct.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then the left upper 7 has a bridge, therefore, it is not possible that it is your work.
(Off the record discussion.)
THE PRESIDENT: For the record. In view of the fact that the prosecution does not deny that the teeth which the witness is looking for are actually teeth which have been treated, no probative value will be served in the continuation of this test. It was assumed by the Tribunal when the test was begun that the witness would examine generally the mouths of the six defendants who are here, and that he would be able to determine or not determine merely by looking at the general dental work in the mouth of the particular person he was examining whether this work was his or not. The witness now states that he does not look generally into the subject's mouth to locate his dental work, but he looks only to see whether the left upper 7 and the lower left 5 were in any way treated. Since the prosecution does not deny that these two teeth may have been treated, the test is of no probative value whatsoever, and on the contrary might convey an impression or conclusion which does not result from the actual physical facts of the test. The defendants will not be returned to the court room. The witness will be returned to the witness box. The reporters and interpreters will return.
THE PRESIDENT: Does Prosecution counsel, or counsel for the defendant Haensch desire to address any further questions to the witness?
MR. HOCHWALD: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: We should now determine, Dr. Hochwald, whether the other witness referred to is to be called or not. It must be apparent that in view of this witnesses statement that he doesnot remember the defendant, does not recognize the defendant, has no independent recollection of any work done to the defendant, and his testimony is based entirely on this care; that the authenticity of this card is a matter of moment. with what serenity this witness who made up the card may be brought to Nurnberg.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I only want to repeat shortly what I have already said. Two witnesses for who defense were heard as to the date of Haensch's presence in B erlin.
THE PRESIDENT: You are opposed to bringing in the witness?
DR. HOCHWALD: I am opposed to bringing in the witness and I do not recognize the authenticity of the charge.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Riediger, it is only fair that you be aware of what the Tribunal just stated that this witnesses testimony being based entirely and exclusively upon this card, can only have the probative value which must be obvious to anyone, so it is for you to determine whether you want this matter to rest as it is orwhether you believe it is necessary to support the alleged authenticity of this card.
DR. RIEDIGER: May it please the Tribunal, I have request for the defense that this witness be called to Nurnberg. The Prosecution objected to the introduction of the affidavit, but the witness is very important.
DR. HOCHWALD: Does the affidavit contain the name and address of this witness?
DR. RIEDIGER: It does. Berlin-Zehlendorf/Teltowerdamm. It is Mrs. Yauer, Hertha Yauer nee Schoch.
THE PRESIDENT: In view of the fact we have announced several times throughout the trial that every opportunity will be given the defense to obtain and submit testimony and evidence, even this ususual request will be allowed. It is to be regretted that all this wasn't done in ample time before we had reached this point in the trial, but the Tribunal is not going to complain or criticize anyone. We are interested in ascertaining the truth in every given instance. The affidavit will provisionally be held in abeyance until the efforts have been made to obtain the witness. The affidavit may or may not be introduced in evidence with the opportunity given to the Prosecution to cross-examine. The Tribunal instructs the Marshal, or rather the Secretary General, to immediately notify the Defense Center to contact this witness and have the witness brought forthwith to Nurnberg. The program of this week will continue as previously announced, and when this witness arrives opportunity will be found to hear her.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, in view of the fact that the Prosecution does not submit that the chart are correct. I would ask the Tribunal to have the chat given to the disposal of the Prosecution, so that tin Prosecution can have a handwriting expert look over the chart and we respectfully request that the handwriting expert be heard at the same time as the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: That request is a reasonable one, we only request from both counsel the necessity for speed in all of this so that there will be no unnecessary delay occasioned by this very late evidence. The card will now be placed in the custody of the Secretary General, and the Prosecution will have access to it for the purpose of having an expert witness examine the exhibit, in order to testify with regard to the handwriting appearing upon the exhibit.
DR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: The present witness is instructed that he must not correspond, communicate or converse with the witness who is to be called.
The witness who is claimed to have entered the various items on the card in question. You understand that, witness, that you are not to talk?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the witness will be excused.
Dr. Gick, you have filed a motion for an opportunity to crossexamine the witness who had submitted an affi*avit with regard to the defendant Strauch's mental condition. We had that witness in Court all morning, but were unable to locate you. We have now instructed that witness to be here at 3:30. Will you please be here at that time, so that this matter can be disposed of?
DR. GICK: Yes, Your Honor. This is an American physician, is it?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct.
Who is now ready with the document books?
DR. GAWLIK: (for the defendant Naumann) Your Honor, I should like to present Document Book Naumann No. II and III and No. IV, and I would like to quote from these books.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed.
DR. GAWLIK: I submit first from Document Book III Naumann Documents 13 to 17, in order to prove the extension of Partisan activity in the area where Einsatzgruppe B was active when Naumann was Chief of the Einsatzgruppe B. I want to prove that the fighting in the Partisan activity was the main activity of Einsatz Group B, especially the Group Staff, and that this took up all of Naumann's time. This confirms Naumann's statements that he did not take part in any executions, and he at no time had a hand in executions, and at the same time that Naumann's time was completely taken up in combatting Partisans. I now submit Document 13, which receives Exhibit No. 8. It is on pages 15 to 16 of Document Book III. Here is the report of the occupied Eastern territories. I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the statements made in this document that the Partisans' activity in this territory increased considerably and that large areas were infested by armed bands, and that Partisan activity became so extensive that whole villages were forced to supply the Partisans with necessary food stuffs.
that Naumann was active in combatting the Terrorists.
I now submit Document 14, which receives Exhibit No. 9. It is on page 17 to 18 of the Document Book. From this document also the extent of Partisan activity and the difficulties in combatting them. The same applies to Document 15, Page 19, Doc. Book III , which will receive Exhibit No. 10.
I now submit Document 16 as Exhibit No. 11, page 20 to 21 of the Document Book; and Document Naumann 17, Exhibit 12, page 22. armed bands becomes evident, and also the difficulty of combatting these bands. It is evident from this document that the bands were heavily armed. 20. With these documents I intend to prove the other tasks and activities of Einsatzgroup B, especially of the Group Staff, and especially of Naumann himself. These also were assignments which Naumann had to deal with personally as Chief of Einsatzgroup-B, which took up most of his time and could not be left to other members.
Next I submit Document 18 as Exhibit No. 13, which is on pages 23 to 27 of the Document Book. Here is an extensive report on the reorganization of the educational system in the territory of Einsatzgroup-B. Also from this document the difficulties become evident in carrying out these measures.