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?
A. I have.
A. May I then ask you what kind this knowledge is? Professional training in this line?
A. I have a Specialist's Rating in the Army as a Neuropsychiatrist. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Lieut, Bedwill, suppose that we get your qualifications in the record. Now, let us have your full name,
A. William L. Bedwill.
Q. And what rank do you hold in the United States Army?
A. First Lieutenant.
A. What is your professional training? Give us a list of the schools you attended and what was the nature of the instruction which you received?
A. Well, four years of pre-medical training, of course, at two schools; Occidental College in Los Angles and the University of South California at Los Angles. Two years at each and then four academic years of medical training at the University of Southern California also located in Los Angeles. Then, thirteen months of internship at the Los Angeles County General Hospital where my training laid an emphasis upon psychiatry and then in the army a special training course.
Q. In what?
A. Psychiatry; Neuro-psychiatry.
THE PRESIDENT: At the present time where are you stationed?
A. At the 385th Station Hospital, Nurnberg,
THE PRESIDENT: And That specialty, if any, do you have at this hospital?
A. The Neuro-psychiatric specialty.
THE PRESIDENT: A nd are you engaged daily in that particular type of work?
A. I am, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you see and examine patients regularly along psychiatric lines?
A. I do,
THE PRESIDENT: you may proceed, Dr. Gick. BY DR. GICK:
Q. witness, did you see and examine the defendant Strauch before the sessions which you attended?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. May I then ask you, at what date and for how long?
A. I examined Herr Strauch first on 13 January for about 20 minutes at the dispensary in this building, about eleven o'clock in the morning. I next examined Herr Strauch on the -- that was Friday, I believe, 17th of January, between the hours of eleven and two, for three hours at the Krankenhaus, and then I next examined him with another doctor, who made a joint statement with me to this Court, also at the Krankenhaus. For a period of about two hours between 11:30 and 13:30 on the next day, the 18th on Saturday morning. On that day we made the statement which was submitted jointly to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: What was the name of the other officer, Lieutenant
A. Capt. Joseph S. Jacob who is stationed at the 3L 7th Station Hospital at Wiesbaden.
THE PRESIDENT: And what is his field?
A. He is also a specialist in Neuro-psychiatry.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. BY DR. GICK:
Q. What kind of observations were made at the time?
A. I examined Herr Strauch both physically and mentally, I made neurological tests upon him and I questioned him from a psychiatric point of view.
Q. And what did you establish?
A. That to the best of my knowledge Herr Strauch was mentally competent.
Q. Did Herr Strauch answer your questions absolutely reasonably?
A. He did, in most cases, yes.
Q. Did it not happen that he mixed up incidents?
A. His references at times were irrelevant and his speech at times was rambling.
Q. Could he remember dates and figures if you submitted them to him?
A. I don't believe I could remember dates that he refferred to. He told a rambling, but, as far as I could tell though the interpreter, a consistent story but he never gave dates to us because we did not ask for them. That was not our purpose.
Q. Witness, are you aware that Mr. Strauch suffered from epileptic fits?
A. I am.
Q. Did you make any observations to the effect that there was any connection with the epileptic fits? Were there any breaks in the continuity of his mental thinking? Was there anything that was due to these epiletic fits?
A. There were no breaks in his thinking, which were consistent with epilepsy, or epileptic equivalents.
Q. Is it basic possible that an epileptic his psychogenous, especially?
A. I do not understand,
Q. I meant to ask you wehther it is possible in the case of epileptics that their mental functions suffer because of these epileptic fits?
A. I do not hold to this view, except as it pertains to the period of the epileptic seizure.
Q. Are there no consequences and no symptoms which happen after the epileptic seizure, which mean consistency in the mental capacity of the patient?
A. My training holds that there is no mental deterioration due to epileptic fits, even in a patient who has had a great number of these seizures.
Q. Witness, the Chief of the local Psychiatric Clinic in Oberministerialrat, Dr. von Bayer, who treated Defendant Strauch and treats him now and has been treating him, for the last three months, in an expert opinion, which he made out, confirms that Strauch since the middle of December, 1947, has been, in a state of a trance. He called it the Ganser state. Are you of the same opinion?
A. That is, in the state of trance?
Q. I mean a semi-conscious state, meaning that his conceptions are not clear and that he is not capable of thinking, capable of answering clearly.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: If the Tribunal please, if the witness is supposed to give his opinion on an expert opinion, made by someone else, it seems to me correct if he gets the opinion itself, not the transcription by the defense counsel.
DR. GICK: Your Honor, may I just make a short remark. It is an expert term which could be expressed in two letters and I do not have to circumscribe this particular state. This is "Ganser", the state of semi-consciousness, "Ganser" being the name. If I make this remark to the witness, then, of course, he knows what it is all about so that the knowledge of the exact expert opinion would not be absolutely necessary.
MR. HORLICK-HOCHWALD: I only can repeat what I have said, Your Honor, without pressing the point. I do think it would only be fair, if the witness is asked about the contents of a certain opinion that he may see the opinion itself.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gick, if you have the opinion to which you are referring, you might either show it to the witness or read from it to him.
DR. GICK: I have the expert opinions here, Your Honor, but I only have a German copy of it. I don't know whether the Tribunal has received the opinion in English.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you please tell me which one it is?
DR. GICK: It is one of the 7th of January, 1948.
THE PRESIDENT: I have one here dated January 14. I have one dated January 15. You say this is dated January 7?
DR. GICK: Yes, it is a letter to me in the nature of an expert opinion and it is dated the 7th of January, 1948. I think I have submitted it to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: Suppose you read it very slowly and, if you come to a technical term, please hesitate so that the interpreter can be certain as to just what is intended.
DR. GICK: "In accordance with your wish" -- as I have I said, the made and my examination of the patient, I comment again concerning the possibility of being tried of your client, Edward Strauch.
Since about the middle of December, 1947, the mental state of Strauch has deteriorated through addition of certain states of mental inconsistencies, which are similar to a so-called Ganswer mental twilight. Strauch since that time is mentally unclear, gives senseless answers to questions, and does not absorb the questions which are put to him or, at least, only to a small extent. It is very rare that one would get a sensible answer out of him. He has not had epileptic fits for the last few weeks. The Ganser mental twilight means a certain reaction due to custody which is psychologically continues, but in the opinion of most psychiatrists is not intentionally simulated in the way of a simulation where he pretends. We do not assume a simulation in the case of Strauch it has had the reaction on the basis of epilepsy or an organically affected mental capacity." the 25th of December. 1) The state of health of the defendant has deteriorated so much during the last few days that he can only at times follow the indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: Well Dr. Gick, you are supposed to put a question to the witness. What are you doing now?
DR. GICK: Well, this is the contents of the expert opinion and in brief the physician says here that the defendant is in a state of mental twilight.
Q. (By Dr. Gick) I would like you, Mr. Witness, to comment on this attitude.
A. I do not agree with this attitude. I believe that the mental twilight, as the doctor has called it, is not consistent. The psychic symptoms of this patient have been very transient. During my examinations I was able to extract a large marjority of logical answers, the answers which did suggest mental confusion are taken together with neurological, that is physical symptons, and other data such as one, one rather, desire, alleged hallucination, a combination of these symptons, in other words, in my opinion, did not conform to any neurological psychiatric or medical condition known to me and could on the other hand be sufficiently explained by the anxiety of the patient's situation.
Q. Is it then not possible that the situation in which the defendant finds himself leads to certain changes in the mental picture of the defendant, I mean, changes in the way, that he is no longer in a position to express himself and to answer questions, as he was used to in former times?
A. I do not agree to this term, "mental". I would rather say, "emotional". There are emotional changes, I suppose.
Q. That you mean you give an affirmative answer to the changes, if I understood you correctly, that is?
A. There are emotional changes in any patient faced with such a charge this patient, but I do not believe that that precludes the mental competency to participate adequately in his own defense.
Q. Witness, did you, owing to your observations during those last two days in the session here, gain the impression that the defendant answered all the questions that were put to him sensibly and consistently, or were their sometimes clear moments and then again unclear moments in the testimony he gave which prove a certain deterioration of his mental system?
A. There were unclear moments and mostly clear moments, I remember, for example, one of the unclear moments: The patient asked of whom he was talking and he said,"I am talking about Denmark", but these unclear moments, in my opinion, were not evidence of mental deterioration.
THE PRESIDENT: Lieutenant, do you think at any time when his answers were obviously irrelevant answers could be consonant with a conscious desire on the part of the defendant to appear to be, or make himself appear mentally incompetent?
THE WITNESS: I believe that they could be consonant with that desire.
THE PRESIDENT: Very small, Dr, Gick.
Q. (By Dr. Gick) Witness, if I may read very briefly from the record during these days, then just at that morning the defendant for instance, answered questions which were put to him on the 1st of August, 1931, he had entered the SA and at the same day, the 1st of August, 1931, he had joined the party. When thereupon he was asked, "Was that the same day," he said, "No, it was not the same day, it was on the 31st 32nd, the 33rd, on those days I joined," Later on then he said he joined the Party in 1933. Therefore, as I see matters, there was not a clear picture of the question which I put to him.
The questions were, "When did you join the SA, the SS and the Party?"
A. These discrepancies are indeed discrepancies in logic and time, but they are not diagnostic of any known - that is known to no - mental defect, disease or derangement.
Q. May I ask you then what you deduce these inconsistencies from?
A. From my previous testimony, that I could find no syndrome which was diagnostic and that such discrepancies, as well as other symptoms, could be explained by the exigencies of the moment, I was led to the prescription that the situation in which the defendant found himself was sufficient explanation.
Q. You mean the situation in which the defendant found himself confronted, in fact with the charges of the prosecution, and this leads him to lose his memory concerning dates and figures, that he mixes them all up?
A. I say this is possible and it is a sufficient explanation.
Q. If this is thus, Witness, then in some moments he is not clear and he is not in the position to account for his actions.
A. Repeat that please?
Q. If the defendant, due to his position in which he is at the moment, gives unclear answers, then, of course, this means that he is not in the position to give clear answers all the time to what he is being asked and that he is not in a position to a full extent to make use of his right, that is, to defend himself.
A. By situation I meant to say the emotions and feelings in the patient which are concomitant with the situation, with the external physical situation of being in the courtroom. It is possible in that one situation to be both clear and unclear in expression and yet be consistent in motive.
Q. Do you not arrive at the conclusion that this defendant after all is not in the position to defend himself to that extent that he would be able to do if he were in a normal condition?
A. I do not see how that conclusion can be arrived at from the for going.
Q. I did understand you correctly, did I not, when you said that in the testimony of the defendant there were clear and there where unclear moments. Did I understand you correctly?
A. There were clear and unclear moments to the recorders. That is what you meant, I presume.
Q. Yes, for those people who were listening.
A. Yes, I agree.
Q. Now, if the defendant also gives unclear answers, then I am of the opinion that in such moments he is not, to that extent, in the position as every other defendant who normally gives clear answers. Am right, or what is your opinion of that?
A. Repeat that again, please.
Q. I do not know whether I have expressed myself unclearly. I would like to say the following. If the defendant gives unclear answer a fact which we have now established, is the defendant during this time in which, in fact, he gives these unclear answers, in the same in the position to lead his defense as other defendants who always can give the clear answers, or is he not?
A. I do not see that there is mental defect, disease or derangement unless it can be proven by medical - by the medical examinations which the patient has been given.
Q. But this is not the question at the moment, whether there is an organic state which leads to a change of his mental state, but the question, I believe, is whetherany phychological symptons could be seen, of course from the situation he finds himself in as a defendant, which, of course, limit his possibility to defend himself?