For this purpose and in order to direct your attention to this point I submit from Document Book Naumann II Document No. 9 as Exhibit No. 16, and Naumann Document No. 10 as Exhibit No. 17. These are pages 9 and 10, and pages 11 to 12 from Volume II. These are statements of official Dutch agencies, namely the Dutch Red Cross; and certain documents from Volume Naumann IV also belong to this, namely document 21, pages 40 to 41, in Volume IV, and Naumann Document 22, which is on pages 42 to 43. These four documents show that first of all Naumann improved the hospital installations in a camp, that he prevented misuses, and that he was able to got the release of the Dutch people who had been held as hostages. These documents also show which is to receive special consideration here, that in these camps in as far as the hostages were concerned, Naumann was not competent for this. Naumann, therefore, did everything that was in his power and more than what he did he could not do considering his position 13.
I submit this as Exhibit No. 20. This document shows that Naumann was able to get the release of a dutchman who had been arrested because he favored Jews. This particular document shows Naumann's attitude toward the Jewish question. 21. This is the affidavit of the dutchman, Dr. K. J. Frederiks, the former Secretary General in the Ministry of the Interior. This document shows that Naumann, first of all, saved four Dutchmen who had been sentenced to death. Secondly, that he prevented the conviction of six Dutch mayors, and thirdly, that he got several Dutch mayors released from custody. This document is the proof for Naumann's attitude towards the population in a German occupied territory.
From Document Book IV I submit Naumann documents 23 to 25. I submit Naumann Document 23, pages 44 to 45 as Exhibit No. 22. Document 25 on page 47, I submit as Exhibit No. 23. These are affidavits of Lagos and Woelk. Both confirm the statements of the Dutch Led Cross about Naumann's resistance against all measures of oppression. It is furthermore shown how Naumann, by going beyond his competence and his power, intervened against the abuses in the camps, and that furthermore as far as he saw any injustices during his inspection trips he immediately intervened against them. Exhibit 24. This is the affidavit of Rauter, which confirms the statement about Naumann's intervention against the abuse in the camps. Especially Naumann saw to it that the camp commandant was arrested, indicted and convicted. That concludes my presentation for Naumann.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, who is next?
DR. BELZER: (For the defendant Graf) Your Honor, one of the presiding judges of these trials has said once it was the right of defense counsel to forgot something once, and I made use of this right when I inspected the transcript of 15 January this year, and I established that during my presentation I forgot to submit Document Graf No. 20.
Therefore, the exhibit number 18 which was supposed to be given to this was left open. I would like to use this opportunity to make up for this, and herewith declare that I have now submitted Graf Document 20 as Exhibit No. 18.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. LUMMERT (For the defendant Blume): Your Honor, I ask that I may be permitted to offer the four remaining documents for the defendant Blume. Those are Blume documents 31 to 34. The Prosecution has received these documents last Thursday in English and in German. These documents are to be attached to Volume II for Blume, and are to be attached to this volume, and I assume they are available to the Tribunal. The Index on page 3, of Document Book II. The first document is Document 31, the affidavit of the Witness Kunz. It is on page 74 of Document Book II. This affidavit contains two examples of the excellent leadership of the defendant Blume as police officer in Greece. Kunz at the time belonged to the agency of the Police Headquarters of General Shimana. Shimana was superior to the defendant Blume. On page 74 an example is listed, according to which the defendant Blume immediately took measures against a camp leader, Radonski, when the leader misbehaved himself, and that Blume appointed a certain man by the name of Fischer as successor for Radonski, who was good natured and unpretentious and the opposite of his predecessor Radonski. On page 75 at the bottom and the top of page 76, is another example. Here Blume complains General Shimana about a certain Dr. Begus, when he carried out seizures and arrests to which he was not entitled according to Blume's idea. was present when Kaltenbrunner, the Chief of the RSH A, represented General Shimana that he and Blume had practiced Greece policy, but not German policy. This, I think, is typical of the correct condition of defendant Blume in Greece.
The nex document, No. 32, is an affidavit of the witness Pinder, and this affidavit supplements the preceeding one in which the affiant Pinder know some details about the cases of Radonski and Dr. Begus; even better than the affiant Kunz.
Therefore, I offer this document.
The next Document, No. 33 -
THE PRESIDENT: Are you giving the exhibit numbers?
DR. LUMMERT: Your Honor, the exhibit numbers are again the same as the document numbers.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. That is a good system.
The next document No. 33 is an affidavit of the witness Haefner. It is on Page 60 of Document Book II. When I examined the defendant Blume on the witnessstand, that was on redirect examination, the defendant Blume mentioned that he was once put in a position to be obliged to carry out the so-called Fuehrer Order, but that he had succeeded in preventing the carrying out because the circumstances at the time were particularly favorable, so that he was able to prevent the carrying out of the order. It was the question of three English sergeant who had been taken prisoner in Greece. They had conducted end been active in the partisan combat. I don't think I have to read the affidavit. The details are evident on Pages 80 and 81.
As the last document No. 34 I offer an affidavit of the defendant Blume himself. Here he makes some supplementary remarks about the kommando case about which the affiant Haefner has reported in Document 33. This concludes my presentation of Documents. for several pages in the transcript. I merely wanted to make sure that I will have time for this before the final pleas are concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: You will have that time.
DR. LUMMERT: Thank you.
DR. ULMER: Dr. Ulmer for Six. Supplements A and B. As the first document I would like to submit Document No. 68, IV A, an affidavit of Dr. Emil Augsburg, of the 25th of January, 1948. He is a former research Chief assistant.
THE PRESIDENT: Proceed please.
DR. ULMER: I would like to ask that this document be admitted with the Exhibit No. 48. Because of the submission of Document Book III before Document Book II a mistake arose in the numbering of exhibits and the exhibit number 48 regained open. I don't know whether the Secretary General has get this correct now.
cerned with the, subject matter A which concerns the advance Kommando Moscow. This affidavit by Augsburg is a clarification to the various statements of the date made by the witness Vetter who was heard recently in cross-examination about the return of Dr. Six from Smolensk.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution objects against the submission of this affidavit and of all affidavits which are intended to impeach the witness Vetter. The Tribunal certainly will recall that the witness Vetter is a witness of the defense and not of the prosecution. The prosecution has only used its right to cross-examine this witness. Whatever has transpired from this cross-examination is testimony of a witness of the defense. It, therefore, seems inadmissible that defense itself now offers proof that the testimony of its own witness was not correct.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I consciously did not say that I would impeach the statements of the witness Vetter, but I would like to clarify the difference here. Before the witness Vetter appeared I have at least submitted eight or nine affidavits about this date which gave 20 August as the return date. After the witness Vetter had been heard here I had the witness Alander appear here and whatever the witness Alander testified was the 20th of August must be correct, and that the witness Vetter believed something differently when she told you about what she did on the witness stand. I don't want to impeach the witness Vetter. I merely want to offer a few affidavits about this subject, the return of Six on the 20th of August.
MR HORLICK-Hochwald: May I draw the attention of the Tribunal to the different documents. The first one is Six Document No. 68, and if the Tribunal looks into the second paragraph the Tribunal will see that there is direct reference made to the witness Vetter. If the Tribunal looks now -
THE PRESIDENT: What page did you say?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: This is Supplement B, Document No. 68, your Honor. This is the newest document, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes, I see it.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Second paragraph of the affidavit. If the Tribunal turns now to the document book which is Document Book No. IV, the first document is a document - it is an affidavit of Mrs. Six. In the first line of this document the name of Mrs. Vetter again is mentioned.
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, may I ask that the objections against my documents will be mentioned only after I nave submitted them. At the moment I am submitting Document 68, Augsburg, and I shall offer the other documents later. Perhaps I can bring then altogether. It is correct what Mr. Hochwald says that they do concern themselves with this subject. Perhaps Mr. Hochwald can then present his objections altogether after I have submitted then.
THE PRESIDENT: The Very well, proceed.
DR. ULMER: This affiant of this affidavit Document 68, Dr. Emil Augsburg, confirms that Veronika Vetter, immediately after the artillery fire and before the arrival of the staff of Einsatzgruppe B, had already started to work for the Advance Kommando Moscow, in Smolensk, furthermore, that the witness, namely this Dr. Augsburg, conducted investigations concerning the whereabouts of the university professor Vetter for weeks, and that the witness informed Dr. Augsburg of the results only after the departure of Dr. Six. I do not want to show any more with this affidavit than merely a more exact establishment of the dates which were given generally by the witness Vetter. The witness Vetter referred to a group which moved into one wing after she had already been there,of which she believed to be able to presume that it was the Nebe group with Nebe and in order to make these references more clear, make these more precise, I have had this affidavit made out by a notary public.
As Exhibit No. 59 I offer Document No. 59, an affidavit of the wife of the defendant Six, dated 21st of January 1948. This affidavit contains the preliminary discussions of Frau Six, upon my request at that time, in Stuttgart, together with the witness Vetter, and the statement of how it came about that the witness Vetter, when making out the affidavit for me mentioned this 20th of August as the date for the return trip of Dr. Six from Smolensk.
And the affidavit as such is a confirmation of the affiant from her own knowledge that Six was already in Berlin again on the 23rd of August 41, and sometime later was in Hannover with the affiant.
The Document No. 60 is offered as Exhibit No, 60. It was made up by the former secretary of the defendant, Miss Ilse Richter, from Berlin, The affidavit was given en the 10th of December '47. It confirms that Six went to Hannover end of August '41 in order to take his wife to the hospital.
As Document No. 61 with the Exhibit No. 61 I offer the official confirmation of the hospital of the German Red Cross, Sisterhood Clementinenhaus in Hannover, of the 25th of September '47. This contains the fact that Frau Six was admitted to the hospital on the 1st of September '41. T is admission into the hospital is the memory support of Frau Six for her own definite knowledge about the return of her husband to Germany in August 1941.
I offer Document 62 as Exhibit 62. It is in affidavit made out by the former assistant and collaborator of the defendant, Dr. Horst Mahnke, on the 19th of January '48. This affidavit confirms that the affiant has made out the original of No-58055 submitted by the prosecution in Document Book V-B, Ex. 241 for Mrs. Vetter personally. The affiant states that the heading "Vorkommando Moscow of Einsatzgruppe'B" is to be explained as follows: After Professor Six's departure from Smolensk on 20th of August 1941 the chief of the EinsatzgruppeB, Nebe, carried out his previous effort to get the Moscow Vorkommando under his command. During Six's presence the Vorkommando Moscow was independent from the Einsatzgruppe. Furthermore, in case of Six's presence at this time he would have himself signed this as the chief of Vorkommando Moscow.
Document No. 63, offered as Exhibit No. 63, is made up by the same affiant, Dr. Horst-Mahnke. It was made out on the 19th of January, 1943. Herein it is confirmed that the widow of the university professor, Veronika Vetter, already did service with the Advance Kommando Moscow in Smolensk on the 12th of August 1941, since she was able to get china and table cloths for professor Six's birthday party -- and that in thefinal days of August 1941, possibly on the 23rd of august which is mentioned in her diary, she was given a car b the VKM in order to bring her supplies from her evacuation village.
As Exhibit 64 I offer Document No, 64. This is an official confirmation of the Mayor Korntal dated 19th of January 1948. This document tells us that the child of Veronika Vetter, by the name of Ingebord Vetter, was born on the 22nd of April 1940 in Dresden, Saxony. I went to confirm the student of the witness in her affidavit by this affidavit namely that she had returned to Smolensk with her 12 months old child. In order to make this exact I am giving the birthdate of this child. These were the documents against which the prosecutor objected before. Therefore, I shall stop now in order to let Mr. Hochwald object.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, from the presentation of defense counsel it is absolutely clear that all those documents are introduced in order to impeach the testimony of his own witness. Furthermore, I want to draw the attention of the Tribunal to Document No. 59. That is the first document in the Document Book No. IV. This is an affidavit of Mr. Six. As we are in no position to cross-examine Mrs. Six as she is a close relative of Dr. Six and cannot be compelled by us for cross-examination, this document in itself is inadmissible.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, do you think that that very well known rule of law might be modified in view of the fact that she presents an affidavit?
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: We have not been told by defense counsel that she is waiving this right, your honor. We didn't hear anything.
THE PRESIDENT: The wife of a defendant may not be compelled to disclose any evidence which would be inimical to the interests of her husband, but when she voluntarily presents herself to testify in his behalf, then, of course, who voluntarily submits herself to crossexamination and thereby waives that immunity which is given her by the law.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Am I to understand then that she can be called for cross-examination any time?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we submit that to you for your consideration and for Dr. Ulmer's consideration, It may be that he would not want to insist on the affidavit if it entails a cross-examination of the affiant.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: May I assume Your Honors, then that she would be compelled to answer to every question put to her by prosecution in the sane way as a witness not related to defendant?
THE PRESIDENT: As any other witness if she voluntarily subjects herself to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal knowing that she had the immunity against testifying, then she necessarily must submit to whatever court procedure requires, and court procedure, of course, includes cross-examination.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If I understand the Tribunal correctly then we are at liberty to call her for cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it depends upon Dr. Ulmer's determination, whether he wants to present this affidavit in the light-
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: Possibly Dr. Ulmer may make a statement,
THE PRESIDENT: --of what has transpired here.
DR. ULMER: I have no misgivings about calling the wife of the defendant into the witness stand as a witness in cross-examination because I am of the conviction that this will be welcome to Mrs. Six and would not impede her in any way and that she would take it upon herself without any question. Because being wife of the defendant she was taken into a camp and was interrogated there too, and she wasn't told anything about the fact that she had the immunity against testifying.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, there is a difference between being interrogated and being compelled to give testimony in court. Certainly everyone can be interrogated. The interrogation could not be introduced over her objection in court, but there is no reason why she should not be questioned if anyone desired to question her. question as to whether she should be brought in for cross-examination.
DR. ULMER: I don't want to hold up the trial and as for the date of the 20th of August I have submitted so much evidence. I shall therefore withdraw the statement of the wife of the defendant and I will not submit it in order not to delay the trial. I don't consider it necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I repeat then my objection against Docu ment 68, 59, 60 - oh, 50 is out, 59 is not in evidence, sorry 60, 62, 63 and 64.
Those documents, as the descriptive index of Dr. Ulmer and his presentation just now, prove, introduced in order to impeach testimony given by his own witness in crossexamination
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, I would like to repeat only that Document No. 60 was made out on the 10th of December, 1947, Therefore concern: a D the date of the return of Dr. Six...
MR.HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I am sorry, I do admit that, I am sorry your Honor, there is no objection against Document No. 61. I am sorry it was my mistake.
DR. ULMER: And there is no objection against 60 - 61.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we can truneate this discussion with a very simple announcement. While, of course, no side is permitted unless because of extraordinary circumstances, to impeach the testimony of one's own. witness, yet there is no law which produces that side from submitting any evidence which throws additional light on the issue involved. Whether Professor Six did or did not leave any given point at a certain time has become one of the things to be considered here, and any evidence which can throw some light on that particular involvement of the main issue will be received for whatever probative value will eventually be assigned to it, so that we now understand that the Document No. 59, Ellen Six affidavit, is withdrawn, and all others will be accepted.
MR. HOCHWALD: May I respectfully request the Tribunal to rule that all allusions to the witness, Vetter, may be ruled out from those exhibits, that all parts of the affidavit which directly apply to the witness may be ruled out?
DR. ULMER: Your Honor, just through this witness, Vetter, and through the fact that the witness, Vetter, in Stuttgart or Nuernberg made a mistake, at least, she must have made a mistake once, just because of this it is necessary to submit those clarifying documents and point out that they have been presented in order to shed some light on this mistake of the witness Vetter. That is why I always say we are pointing to Vetter, who has made two different statements about the date, not to impeach the credibility of the witness, Vetter, not at all, but where the witness, Vetter, does not say anything or raises doubts in all those who had to listen to her I would like to submit supplementary statements on the basis of which the unclear statement of the witness can be corrected.
THE PRESIDENT: But Mr. Hochwald, such parts of these documents which would run counter to may rule on evidence and which would have no probative value would have no effect on the Tribunal, but we would not like to throw out bodily any document which night give us a little more glean of data on something which is before the court for decision. Now, this Prau Vetter has testified, and Dr. Ulmer claims that she was in error, that it wasn't a purposeful distortion, but that she made a mistake and we know that making mistakes is part of life, and if she did honestly make mistake, he has the right to show that an error was actually made. He is not really impeaching her, that is, in the strict sense of the word; generally he is, because if he claims that she made a mistake, then he is impeaching her, but Dr. Ulmer did not plead surprise when she was on the witness stand, did he, and cross examine her?
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the prosecution has crossexamined her, not Dr. Ulmer.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, but you know that if one side puts a witness on the stand and that witness testifies differently from what the witness told the attorney the attorney, may plead surprise and then cross examine his own witness.
MR.HOCHWALD: He possibly did not do so in form, but he did certainly do so in fact.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that supports his position all the more, if he cross examined his witness, if he in effect abandoned her because she told a story different from what he had first hoard from her lips, then he has the right to support what he originally claimed that the witness said to him. The evidence will be accepted, and I know Mr. Hochwald will not find it very surprising to find he is overruled by the Tribunal.
MR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much, your Honor.
DR. ULMER: I am offering Document Number 65 as Exhibit 65, but I don't know whether by withdrawing Number 59 I have to change my exhibit numbers or whether the number "59" will remain skipped. Well, under Exhibit 65 I offer Document number 65, affidavit by Heinz Wenninger, a referent of personnel Office in Office I of the RSHA, was made out on the 11th of January 1948. It says that the Reichsfuehrer SS made a promotion dependent on an assignment with the troops or an assignment in an occupied territory. It confirms that the concept "Einsatz" does not only refer to an activity in the so-called Einsatzgroups.
Document Number 65 I offer as Exhibit 66. It was made out by the journalist, Rudolf Mueller, an affidavit dated 29th of December 1947. During the cross examination of the defendant he was reproached with having made an incriminating statement about a former police official in Warsaw, Mueller. Of course, this testimony by this police official, Mueller, was not submitted as a prosecution document as had been announced, but one had the defendant read this testimony on the witness stand, and thus the incriminating statement of this man, Mueller, did finally appear in the transcript. And to rebut this, we have offered this affidavit.
MR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, I do not want to cross the point but the affidavit is immaterial.
The prosecution has offered no proof for the utterances of this Johannes Mueller. This utterance was contradicted by the defendant when he testified on his own behalf. I do not see what purpose the affidavit should serve. A naked statement by the prosecution is no proof and nothing else is in the record according to the statement of Dr. Ulmer.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it does seen an unnecessary issue which you are raising here, Dr. Ulmer, because the prosecution has not charged anything which needs to be refuted in this connection.
DR. ULMER: The prosecution during the cross examination of the defendant, Your Honor, has put to him this incriminating statement about this Major Mueller. That is what it says in the transcript.
THE PRESIDENT: What did Muller charge with?
DR. ULMER: He said that Six was a wild man of whom one could expect that he would work with the Eisatzgrups in the Russian territory and of whom one could expect that he did whatever he was charged with here. He could be expected to do that which he was charged with here.
MR. HOCHWALD: I still do maintain it is unnecessary, for one reason, the prosecution has offered no proof that these utterances were made by the police major, therefore, there is no reason to press the point. I can cross examine or ask the witness whatever I want, "Did you kill 1500 people then and then" without the slightest proof, and I do think that the proof that he did not kill the 1500 persons, or that he did allegedly kill 1500 people is not necessary.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Ulmer, the question was put and the answer was in the negative, is that right?
DR. ULMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant denied that there was such a story or that the story was correct.
DR. ULMER: Yes. That was the content of his statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then that ends it, because the prosecution did not follow it up by showing that this condition did exist, so the defendant has already denied it, Raid there is no evidence on the point, so this affidavit is entirely immaterial.
DR. ULMER: I shall withdraw it then. Then I have only one more to submit. Document Number 67 is offered with the Exhibit Number 67. It is Supplement A to Book 4, and it contains the affidavit of the former legation councillor. Eberhard von Thadden, dated 23 of January 1948, It confirms that it was exclusively the task of Group II Interior to maintain liaison between the Foreign Office and the RSHA. Therefore, the events presented in the rebuttal document under Document Number 3319, page 31 to 47, German text B, had neither an official connection with the Cultural Division nor a personal connection with former Ambassador Six. That concludes my a presentation. Your Honor, and I would like to point out that I made a motion about translation corrections the transcript. I think that this motion was received but I would like to have confirmed.
THE PRESIDENT: Is Mr. Hochwald familiar with this motion?
MR. HOCHWALD: I only want to inquire, your Honors, in general how those motions will be handled. Will those corrections be checked by the court reporters or I just am at a loss to know what will happen to this motion.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, with regard to procedure, Mr. Hochwald, perhaps this might be one convenient way of attending to the problem. Let opposing counsel in each instance endeavor to reconcile their differing views, if they do view the things differently, and if they can't compose that difference and cannot reach a common understanding as to what was said and what should he recorded, then each should reduce to writing his view on what the word or phrase should be and then that itself will become part of the record.
MR. HOCHWALD: May I ask then respectfully the Tribunal to rule that those motions may be filed from the part of defense and of course on the part of the prosecution, may be filed in such a form where it may be easy to find out which changes counsel desire in the record. If only the page is given and it is said, word, so and so, should be replaced by word, so and so.
THE PRESIDENT: That is entirely unsatisfactory. If defense counsel challenges the accuracy of interpretation or of transcription that defense counsel will see the opposing counsel of the prosecution and point out to him physically on the page where this misinterpretation or mistranscription occurs and from that point they will work together until they will have to work against each other.
MR. HOCHWALD: Thank you very much, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Dr. Aschenauer.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, this matter also concerns my motion of the 6th of December 1947. This was a motion for correction about the examination of Ohlendorf. This motion contains about eight pages. I have the pages here, and I listed all the expressions which are to be corrected. For example, one problem was the investigation of the problem -- the sphere of competency.
It was mistranslated later when the defendant Ohlendorf, was interrogated. For instance, it didn't say here that he had to decide "whethe* or not", but it said that he did not have to decide "whether or not."
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Aschenauer.
DR. ASCHENAUER: This motion was handed to the prosecution. I was handed this back from the prosecution with the note that the prosecution could not examine these corrections and this motion was supposed to be given to the interpreters of the court and then the prosecution says that they would agree to every decision which the interpreters would make in court.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, then what happened?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Well, nothing further. I just wanted to present the problem to the Tribunal and I would like to ask that the president would rule that these translations be scrutinize and that the interpreters make a decision about the corrections.
MR. HOCHEWALD: If the Tribunal please, it is entirely satisfactory for the prosecution if the court reporters can check those motions and according to their expert knowledge translate the parts of the transcript in question.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Mr. Hochwald, it seems to us that if both counsel for instance, as far as Dr. Aschenauer is concerned, if he and Mr. Walton will get together and they do not agree then they will see the court reporters and the interpreters involved and I feel confident that in most instances the interpreters will be to satisfy all persons involved If there comes an impasse where there cannot be a universal agreement as to just what was said, then that is something which must be submitted to the Tribunal.
MR. HOCHWALD: I only want to draw your attention to one problem. If Mr. Walton and Mr. Aschenauer comes together, there is a difficulty of language. Dr. Aschenauer's knowledge of English is not good enough in order to know by himself whether the translation of a certain sentence is correct or not.
Dr. Walton has no command of the German languages at all.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but each side is representing a certain point of view and naturally you will have to confer with the interpreter and then you always have the sound tape.
MR. HOCHWALD: But, your Honors, I only want to suggest it would be the much easier way if Dr. Aschenauer and all other defense counsel would submit those translations, and there are always translation difficulties and nothing else, to the competent interpreters instead of to in this case to incompetent counsel for the prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: That certainly does not apply to you, Mr. Hochwald.
MR. HOCHWALD: Your Honors I certainly would not dare, in having no experience in court interpreting, to translate certain parts of the transcript where certain difficult, technical expressions are used, which I just do not know.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think we are making this unnecessarily complicated. If Dr. Aschenauer, I am only using Dr. Aschenauer as an example, this applies to every other defense counsel, if he will see Mr. Walton, inform him he is going to speak with the interpreters about getting the correct translation, that is, enough just so long as Mr. Walton is notified so that the other side knows what is being done and if the interpreters then make the correction, then the correction will be made in the transcript.
MR. HOCHWALD: This is perfectly satisfactorily.
THE PRESIDENT: Who will follow immediately after the recess? Everybody.
DR. HELM: Attorney for Ruehl. I would like to submit a few supplement to Book III.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Well, we will do that immediately after recess, please. The Tribunal will now recess for 15 minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHALL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, the Prosecution would like at this time to introduce three or four rebuttal documents.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Hochwald, would you mind deferring that until Lieut. Bedwill will take the stand and will allow Dr. Dick to examine his on the matter of the defendant Strauch?
DR. HOCHWALD: That is certainly very well.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Lieut. Bedwill, will you lease take the stand?
LIEUT: WILLIAM L BEDWILL, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE DIXON: Raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give to the Court in this action now on trial shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Do you so swear?
THE WITNESS: I do. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Lieut. Bedwill, on January 20th of this year you submitted the following certificate to the Tribunal: "It is my opinion that the defendant Karl Edward Strauch during the period when I have observed him, including the Court sessions on the afternoon of 19 January 1946 and the morning of 20 January 1946 has been mentally competent and so free from mental defect, derangement or disease as to be able to participate adequatel in his own defense." Are you still of that same opinion?
A. I am, sir, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gick, counsel for the defendant Strauch, will address some questions to you. You may proceed, Dr. Gick. BY DR. GICK:
Q. Witness, may I first ask you whether you have any expert knowledge, of psychiatry?