III - domain proper - neither the right nor the possibility of checking such matters or even of giving orders and directives in connection therewith. The two activity reports mentioned on page 9 of the Prosecution's final plea, which partly fall into the time of Ohlendorf's absence, therefore cannot be regarded as incriminating Seibert, particularly because due to the absence of the chief of the Einsatzgruppe only the Kommando leaders as the letter's appointed substitutes might be mentioned in connection with the events described in the activity reports. ordered the co-defendant Schubert to inspect the executions in Simberepol in December 1941. In this connection the Prosecution referred to Schubert's affidavit dated 24 February 1947. In this affidavit Schubert declared that he had received an order from Ohlendorf or Seibert for the inspection of the executions in Simferopol in December 1941. Even the contents of this declaration make it doubtful as to who gave this order. To this must be added that Schubert when questioned in the witness box declared unequivocally that this order could have come, not from Seibert, but only from Ohlendorf. During his interrogation in the witness box Ohlendorf testified that it was he himself, not Seibert, who gave the order for the inspection of the executions in question. Moreover, the order cannot have come from Seibert for the mere reason that he had not been in Russia at all during the time in question. Seibert, in the period from mid-November till about end December 1941 was on recreation leave, which he spent in Berlin. This follows from Schubert's testimony in the witness box. Schubert's testimony further shows how the wording came about, according to which Ohlendorf or Seibert had destined Schubert to supervise the shooting of 700 to 800 human beings.
Schubert stated;
"Where it is said that "in December, 1941 - I do not remember people."
This wording "or Seibert" is completely wrong for feropol at all.
I think I have already clarified this point by saying that I told Mr. Wartenberg that this was wrong, but he because, allegedly, I had said in the interrogation "Ohlendorf or Seibert". November and December 1941 Seibert had been on leave in Berlin for about 4-5 weeks.
I make further reference to the statement made by the codefendant Braune to this point. In addition there are two more affidavits which confirm that the defendant Seibert was on leave in Berlin at the time in question. order to supervise the executions from the defendant Seibert. the Prosecution quoted also Ohlendorf's affidavit dated 2 April 1947 in which Ohlendorf declared that the only people whom he committed in genera to inspection duties had been, besides Schubert, Willy Seibert and Hans Gabel. There is no mentioning of any executions. The Prosecution has arbitrarily added this to its quotation on page 5 of the final plea. to Seibert in connection with executions. dated 2 April 1947, as follows:
"This formula was no doubt the result of long discussion with "that I did not know anything whether, or to which executions I sent the two persons named last.
The inspection task I refer also carried out regularly; he inquired about order in the thing he had to deal with, or of any event occurred."
Upon my question put after this to Ohlendorf:
"Is it therefore correct that in this sentence you wanted to express that Seibert did not inspect any executions?"
I received the following answer from Ohlendorf;
"I expressed that I do not remember any such executions, there fore, I do not remember that Seibert inspected any."
satzbruppe D answered in the negative to the question I put to them as to whether the defendant Seibert had inspected an execution carried out by their units. did not supervise any executions. or Sonder Komnandos or for their further commitment. In the reports presented by the Prosecution as evidence, Seibert only passed suggestions and plans of the Kommandos on to the 11th Army without having himself any power of decision. It should be noted in this connection that the suggestions made in these reports were not originated by Seibert, but by the Einsatz and Sonder Kommandos. The only reason why Seibert passed on these reports was that he had been entrusted with the task of collaboration of the staff of the group with the 11th Army. nection as the Prosecution tries to imply on page 7 of its final statement. If Seibert stated on page 2587 English: "Decision rested solely with the Army", he was referring to the assignment of the Kommandos. On pages 2588 and 2589 of the English Record, however, no more mention is made of these assignments. The point at issue was the power of decision in case of necessary local transfers of Kommandos.
interview on 11 October 1941, he did so within his sphere of work and not by any means as Ohlendorf's Deputy-General. In this capacity, he accordingly signed the report "I.V." on behalf of, that is acting as deputy in his sphere of work, The respective comments on page 7 of the closing brief of the Prosecution to the effect that he had admitted having signed as deputy of the group chief, is incorrect for it says on page 2578 of the Record, quoted by the Prosecution itself, that Seibert was with regard to the staff (Stab), the permanent deputy of the Group Chief in his sphere of work, and, as such, signed these reports, This is also proven by the affidavit of General Woehler.
Woehler was Chief of Staff of the 11th Army and it was with him that Seibert had the interview, referred to in the document. That an interview with General Woehler did take place is proven by the photostat copy of Document NOKW-629Exhibit 159, Volume III D, which shows Woehler's initials and the handwritten annotation: "Took place on 11 October in Novnikolajewka. W". Woehler stated in his affidavit that Seibert whose sphere of work comprised economy, administration, public health, ethnic and cultural questions, never reported to him about executive measures or executions, nor about executions of Jews. It had not come to his knowledge, he states, that the defendant Seibert acted or had been appointed as deputy of the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe D. of the Kommandos of Einsatzgruppe D, between 1 February and 16 April 1942 deals with executions of Communists and the burning down of the village of Laki, that does not prove at all that the defendant Seibert had any influence whatsoever on these actions. The measures described in the report could not, by any means, be based on an order or on instructions by the defendant Seibert, because Seibert was never informed about the activities of the Kommandos until afterwards. In this connection I would refer in particular, to the deposition of the chief of the Einsatzgruppen, Oh lendorf, These reports in no way supported or promoted the carrying-out of executions as per Hitler's orders.
In particular, no connection can be proved between these report and the carrying-out of the Hitler-orders. This was not possible, alone for the reason that these reports were made only after the aforementioned events had taken place. The reports, therefore, cannot have any bearing on the carrying-cut of the aforementioned measures. the defendant is blamed by the Prosecution is just a summary of Kommando reports. In regard to the executive powers of the Kommandos, Seibert neither had the right, nor was it his task, to make any further enquiries, to check on matters or to pass decisions. It is therefore incomprehensible how the Prosecution proposes to deduce from the contents of the two documents Seibert's responsibility for the events mentioned in the reports. davit by Generaloberst Halder, formerly Chief of Staff of the Army, submitted by me. In this affidavit, Halder pointed out that in putting his name to a report, the undersigning staff officer does not assume responsibility, for the acts referred to therein, but only for the correct rendering of the report.
In view of the fact that Seibert was a "Referent III", viz. an intelligence officer and reporter - I wish to mention this fact because it was under discussions during his interrogation - it is not possible to connect him with the collection and realization of the objects taken from persons selected for execution, The Prosecution has not been able to present any incriminating evidence against the defendant in connection thereto. The Prosecution probably was laboring under a misapprehension because it cannot possibly have been one of Seibert's function to have dealt with confiscated objects. had been formed at the order of the 11th Army cannot, in any way, be con nected with the executions carried out by the Einsatz and Sender Kommandos, These companies had nothing whatever to do with executions carried out on the basis of the Fuehrer-order.
These companies had been quartered in ondangered villages, as a protection against raids by partisans; that was their only function, as shown by the documents presented by the Prosecution itself,
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Gawlik, shall we suspend now, and, Dr. Link, you will be ready to follow Dr. Gawlik?
DR. LINK: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the Tribunal will be in recess until 1:45.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1345 hours.
(Noon recess taken, to 1345 hours 10 February 1948.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 10 Feb 1948)
THE MARSHAL; The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. GAWLIK: I shall continue on page 32; supervised the military training of the Group been proved. With regard to this question the Defendant Seibert stated that he had carried out one or two driving manoevures with the drivers in Dueben, shortly before the departure of the Einsatzgruppe and that he had nothing to do with this any more after the arrival at the point of departure of the Einsatzgruppe in the East. Moreover, it is to be pointed out, that there is no proof whatever that the Defendant Seibert had participated in the screening of Communists or other persons in Russian Prisoner of War Camps. This is proved not only by his own affidavit, but also the statements made in direct and cross-examination through the Prosecution leave no doubt, that Seibert has never been implicated nor that he had any knowledge of those cases of screening during his stay with the Einsatzgruppe D. During cross-Examination Seibert testified convincingly to his affidavit.
"I told Mr. Wartenberg at the time clearly that I cannot give any detail, and I do not know at the moment whether this general knowledge was based on an order which I read or whether I heard it through conversation. I do not know exactly." order from the Army to the Einsatzgruppe for the execution of hostages. He merely informed the Einsatzgruppe of a remark made by the General von Schobert, who was dissatisfied with the situation in the army area and had therefore made the remark, that he had ordered or was going to order the taking of hostages and that he would have them shot, if anything happened. But it was not the case of transmitting an order, ashas been stated convincingly by the Defendant Seibert in cross-examination by the Prosecution.
in addition, even the absence of Ohlendorf and on his own initiative, issued the necessary orders for the murder and mistreatment of Russian citizens, the Prosecution has not even attempted to submit any evidence. had never been carried out by instruction or order of the Defendant Seibert, The activity of the Defendant Seibert in the staff of Einsatzgruppe D, which I have analyzed in detail, did in not way support the carrying out of executions either.
As for question 3: ordered the execution of Jews, Gypsies and Communist functionaries, Seibert was not present at the meeting in Pretsch, where Gruppenfuehrer Streckenbach informed the Chiefs of the Einsatzgruppen and the Chiefs of the Einsatz- and Sonder-Kommandos, who were present, of the Fuehrer order, because his sphere of activity in the Staff of the Einsatzgruppe D had nothing to do with the ordered executions, For this reason and I want to stress it particularly, he was not even invited to take part, when the order was issued. He only heard of this order, as he explained convincingly on the witness stand, on the journey to the Einsatz area. as a criminal participation in carrying out the order. First of all, it would have to be proved, that Seibert knew of the respective executions, before these measures had been carried out. carried out, because the executions, as I have explained in detail, did not belong to his sphere of activity. He can only have hoard afterwards of the respective executions through the incoming reports of the Einsatz- and special Kommandos.
Besides, even knowledge before the carrying out of the respective executions would not be sufficient to warrant a conviction of Seibert. This opinion is generally acknowledged by the literature of criminal law and jurisdiction. I refer in this matter to the expositions of Wharton in his publication, which I have mentioned already, Criminal Law, Volume II, Page 1236, Par. 734. It is stated there:
"The knowledge that a crime is being or is about to be committed cannot be said to constitute one accomplice." power and the opportunity to prohibit the carrying out of the order or to halt it, and that he criminally neglected to do so. This proof had not been brought by the Prosecution. Quite to the contrary, there can be no doubt in view of the submitted evidence, that Seibert Could not prevent the carrying out of this order in the course of his reporting duties, and that neither his position within the Einsatzgruppe nor his rank gave him the necessary power or authority to do so. one of Hitler's orders, the execution of which was supervised by the men, Himmler and Heydrich, who were among the most powerful people in Germany? question. But if that question remains unanswered, then it cannot be stated either that Seibert had the power and the chance to prevent the execution of the order issued by Hitler. In conclusion the above may be summed up as follows:
1. It has not been proved that Seibert knew in advance of measures to be carried out.
2. Seibert had neither the authority nor the chance to prevent these executions from being carried out or to halt them. Nor can, for the same reasons, a responsibility of Seibert be deduced from the fact that he failed to prevent the carrying out of the executions.
recognized as proved that Seibert took part in any of the crimes of which he is accused by the prosecution, it would be unjustified to find him guilty: for Seibert acted on orders. Here, I am refering to my general arguments in so far as they deal with the fact that, according to general principles of international law, a person having acted on higher orders cannot be found guilty. In any case, however a considerable mitigation of punishment would he justified.
Within Einsatzgruppe D. Seibert did not hold a position of command. He was a subordinate of the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe who alone was responsible for the actions of the whole Group. including the actions of the Staff of the Einsatzgruppe, and whose orders Seibert was bound. to obey. Seibert could not fell any independent decisions. In particular, he had no authority to make decisions with regard to executive measures. Seibert, while on the witness stand, declared credibly and convincingly that, according to his inner conviction, he thought the Fuehrer's order to be wrong. (Records: page 2551 English, page 2602 German). In the course of the subsequent interrogation, Seibert reaffirmed his attitude towards the Fuehrer's order and declared that be would not have carried out an order, if conveyed to his through military channels, to shoot two persons only because they were Jews (Records: page 2725 German). furthermore, he has stated that, as an officer, he would not have been bound by duty to obey such an order. Under Count 3) of the indictment the prosecution has asked to find Seibert guilty of membership in the A. the SD and B. the SS, organizations which were found criminal by the verdict of the International Military Tribunal.
First of all I shall deal with Membership in the SD. The defendant Seibert was a full-time employee of Office III (SD) of the Reich Main Security Office. But that fact alone does not justify a verdict of guilty because of membership in an organization which has been found criminal by the verdict of the IMT. The IMT has expressly stated:
"The mere membership is not sufficient for a person to be affected the these findings." (Records: Page 16503 German). that the fact that a group of persons has been declared a criminal organization must not result in wholesale convictions of its members. (Records: page 16503 German transcript) But if the mere membership were found sufficient for a verdict of guilty, then the result would be mass convictions.
DR. GAWLIK: I shall interpolate something here. I unfortunately find that outside in the denazification boards in the British as well as in the American Zones, mass convictions do happen of members contrary to these expressed statements by the IMT - mass punishment merely on the basis of the membership in a circle of people generally declared to be criminal.
organizations may be summed up as follows: Individual members may only be found guilty of membership in criminal organizations when the following conditions have been fulfilled:
1. The member must have supported the criminal aims of the organization in co-operation with the other members, because, according to the IMT verdict, a criminal organization is similar to a group of criminal conspirators (Records: page 16503, German transcript):
"In both cases, the co-operation for criminal purposes is the essential factor."
2. The member must have been cognizant of the criminal aims or actions of the organization. That also can be unequivocally concluded from the IMT verdict. According to the IMT verdict, those members who had no knowledge of the criminal aims or actions of the organization do not belong to the condemned group of persons. This limitation rests on the principle, expressly recognized by the IMT, that the criminal guilt be a personal one. The IMT has recognized this principle of personal guilt as one of the most important principles of criminal law. (Records: page 16503, German).
3. The membership must be voluntary, for, according to the IMT verdict, all those members are expressly excluded from the group of persons declared criminal I refer in particular to the statements of the Chief Prosecutor of the USA, Justice Jackson, and to the statements of the British Prosecutor, Sir David MaxwellFyfe, in the session of 28 February 1946.
Among other things Jackson has stated:
"Organizations with criminal aims are regarded everywhere as criminal conspiracies in keeping with their character, and their criminal character is viewed according to the principles of their conspiracy."1 1) Page 400 of the official text "The Trial against the Chief War Criminals before the IMT", Volume 8 Thus the following result may be obtained:
The fact of more membership does not suffice for conviction. The member must in addition have fulfilled the prerequisites of the conspiracy, and indeed a conspiracy to commit the crimes designated by the IMT in the sense of Section 6 of the Statute. facts of the conspiracy. the following must be differentiated:
1.) his activity in Group D of Office (Amt) III,
2.) his activity as Chief III in the Einsatzgruppe, With respect to 1): (The activity of this Group D of Office III)
a) The activity of Seibert as Group Leader III in the sphere-oflife work was concentrated on the Sector Economy. and of the Party in Economy and to work the result of these findings into reports. State and of the Party in question, to show up possible deficiencies. In the opinion of the IMT it was established that the SD (Office III) pursued tasks and aims, which are war crimes or crimes against humanity according to Section 6 of the Statute. a judging of this sort with respect to Amt III (SD) will not have a support in history. SD in the reasons for the verdice were not carried out by the SD. I have demonstrated this in detail in my final plea before the IMT. As a matter of fact the very evidence in the proceedings has shown that the organization Office was merely an intelligence service. the purpose of which was to investigate the frame of mind (Morals) of the people toward measures of the State and of the Party, and to forward the results of this work to the authoritative offices.
for example, as is set down in the judgment of the IMT, to shoot hostages, to arrest relatives within the blood kinship, to carry our the "Nacht und Nebelerlass" (Night and Fog Decree), "Kugelerlass" (The Bullet Decree), and the Kommando orders, to commit any given atrocities and murders in concentration camps and to put through the slave-labor program of the German Reich, In fact this very Court will know, for example, from the proceedings against Pohl and others, that other main offices bore the responsibility for the conditions in the concentration camps, and that one cannot ascribe responsibility to Office III for the latter. The findings may be presupposed before this Tribunal to be a fact known to the court. ever be regarded as a support of any criminal tasks in the sense of Article 6 of the Statute. The presiding judge of this Tribunal has declared this activity as legal in the course of this Trial (Record p. 2521 German). commission of war crimes or of crimes against humanity by being employed in Office III (SD), For that reason already the first premise is lacking, for the punishment of Seibert for belonging to a criminal organization because of this activity. justify a conviction of this kind, are also lacking.
b) Since the SD (Amt III) Was not party to a conspiracy for the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, article 6 of the statutes, the knowledge that Amt III was pursuing such aims does not obtain. ion of Seibert because of membership in the SD as a criminal organization is lacking.
with the Einsatzgruppe had knowledge of the execution of the Hitler Order.
The Einsatzgruppen were not an integral part of the SD. They were units of a specific kind. That they did not belong to Office III is demonstrable in particular from the following facts:
1. The formation of the Einsatzgruppen was not ordered by Office III.
2. They weren't under the command of Office III.
3. Not all members of the Einsatzgruppen were members of the SD.
Only a small percentage (approximately 3%) of the members of the Einsatzgruppen belonged to the SD.
The Police, the II A, page 1, submitted by the Prosecution. in the Document Books submitted, this classification regarding the composition of the Einsatzgruppen is not contained. entrusted to the Group Staff but to the parts of the Kommando charged with the executions. The carrying out of the Hitler order thus was not a task of Amt III (SD). Hence, the knowledge of the execution of the Hitler Order Decree was no know of the tasks and the activities of office III. For this reason having knowledge of the execution of the Hitler order cannot be looked upon as having knowledge of a criminal activity on the part of office III (SD).
c) The defendant Seibert was not a voluntary member of the SD during the war. In Seibert's case it is proved particularly clearly that this membership after 1 September 1939 could never have been a voluntary one. At that period, the defendant Seibert served with his army unit and was ordered back to the SD office III on 1 September 1939 without his knowledge and against his will subject to the National Defense Act. He therefore did not volunteer for service with the SD. His repented applications for a retransfer to the army were rejected as proved by the evidence mentioned heretofore. Seibert had already previously been a volunteer member of the SD. This opinion of the prosecution is not correct, however, The IMT verdict expressly rules that an activity before 1 September 1939 could on no account justify a conviction for membership in a criminal organization. The time before 1 September 1939 must therefore be eliminated when judging this case. The crucial point is, whether the membership after 1 September 1939 has been a voluntary one or whether it was subject to a lawful command.
Seibert's membership in the SD after 1 September 1939 was not voluntary. which would justify a conviction for membership in a criminal organization based on the fact that Seibert had been active in Office III.
Seibert's activity as Chief III in the Einsatzgruppe staff does not justify any such conviction either, because the Einsatzgruppen did not form parts of Office III (SD), as explained already.
Moreover, Seibert's activity as chief III in the staff of Einsatzgruppe D was not voluntary, but was subject to a lawful command, i.e. the German National Defense Act. Seibert had no means of evading this lawful command. He was drafted into this activity for the Einsatzgruppen staff.
verdict, whereby the members of the Security Police and the SD had no free choice with regard to their activities, and that a refusal to accept any particular post, especially for service in the occupied territories, could have meant severe punishment. (Page 16544 in the German transcript) member of the criminal circle of persons in the SS. have been expressly enumerated in the IMT verdict; they are the members of the General SS, of the Waffen SS, of the SS-Death-Head-Units and of the various Police Departments who had been members of the SS,(Page 16527 of the German transcript) as he has stated during his examination on the witness stand.
Document NO-2969, Exhibit. 162, Vol. III D, page 192,-proves that after 1 September 1939 and this is the date of importance, Seibert had only been a member of the SD.
As such he was a member of the SS-Special Formation SD. The SSSpecial Formation SD is not mentioned in the IMT verdict as being one of the parts of the SS which were declared criminal. from the SS which was declared criminal, because it was not an SS-unit, no part of an organization either, especially not a part of the SS or the SD. The Special Formation SD was in fact a mere enrollment of members of the State-Police, the Criminal Police, the SD and also that group of the Criminal Police Office V which was not declared criminal.
no special activity either, the members never met for a joint service, not had them any other joint meetings, There was no feeling of community in this circle of men. This group of men was not organized at all; e.g. it had no leaders. organization declared criminal by the judgment of the IMT, it would not be justified to pronounce Seibert guilty because of being a member of this group of persons. nor perform any common tasks, its aim cannot have been the commission of war crimes of crimes against humanity within the meaning of *rt. 6 of the statute, or, in other words, this group of persons could not participate in any conspiracy. consequence of his political attitude at that time. He never was a fanatic as the Prosecution istrying to make him out. It was not political fanaticism which prompted him to join the SD. after he had finished his studies, Seibert saw no chance of making a living as political economist. After his attempt to get a position as official in the armed forces had failed, he took advantage of the opportunity to work as a political economist for the SD then in the stage of organization, This was the reason why he joined the SD, during the whole time of his membership in the SD this attitude of Seiberts' did not change. He approached and handled all his assignments from a merely economic point of view. I refer to the numerous affidavits as proof for these facts. 1) Affidavit Borst, Doc. Seibert No. 2, Exhibit 6, Vol. I, P.1 German " Beyer, " " No. 3, " 7, " I, P.3 " " Beecke," " No. 4, " 8, " I, P.5 " " Bommerich " " No. 5, " 9, " I, P.8 " " Kroeger, " " No. 6, " 10, " I, P.10 " " Petersen," " No. 7, " 11, " I, P.12 " " Stackelbeck " No. 9, " 13, " I, P.15 " " Schieber " " No. 33, " *), " III, P.45 " *) Not yet submitted at the time this Final Plea was drafted.
life, has never shown a fanatical attitude, not even towards people who had convictions different from his.1) In this connection it made no difference to him if the person concerned was Jewish.2) Thisis proved especially by the affidavit of Frau Bolte, a Jewess.3) Moreover, Seibert was a soldier. He was an officer of the German army. It would have been quite inconsistent with his soldierly mentality to concern himself with war crimes. 1) Affidavit Paul Seidel, Doc. Seibert No. 25, Exhibit 25, Vol. I, P.
" Berners, Doc. Seibert No. 26, Exhibit 26, Vol. I. P.
" Seegers, Doc. Seibert No. 26, Exhibit *), Vol II, P.
" August SeidelDoc. Seibert No. 32, Exhibit *), Vol II, P.
" Driesch, Doc. Seibert No. 35, Exhibit *), Vol. III, P. 49 German 2) " Kellner, Doc.
Seibert No. 21, Exhibit 4, Vol. I, P.
" Klingemann, Doc. Seibert No. 24, Exhibit 24, Vol I, P. 3) " Bolte, Doc. Seibert No. 23, Exhibit 34, Vol. I, P. 4) " Hemmiche, Doc, Seibert No. 20, Exhibit 3, Vol I, P. *) Not yet submitted at the time this Final Plea was drafted.
THE PRESIDENT: Before you begin. Dr. Link, we would like to take inventory of the summations yet to be delivered. I am sorry that Dr. Gick and Dr. Koessl are not present here because they follow next in the order of the defendants. Nearly every defense counsel who has addressed the Tribunal has taken more time than that allotted, so because of that fact we have fallen behind somewhat iin the schedule perhaps we ought to have an evening session this evening in order to catch up.
Now, Dr. Belzer, will you be ready to follow Dr. Link?
DR. BELZER: Your Honor, certainly at the request of the Tribunal I will be ready at any time to present my final plea. For tactical reasons I would prefer personally if I could follow Dr. Ratz because in both pleas the same basic question of the emergency war status is treated, and the client of my colleague Ratz is first of all charged by the prosecution on the basis of this emergency war status, but, of course, I am ready to waive these personal reasons if the Tribunal wishes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. MINZEL: Your Honor, I am in a position to present the final plea for Strauch after Dr. Link if the Tribunal so desires.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. All right then, which two counsel will be ready to present their pleas this evening? You would be willing to do so, Dr. Fritz for the defendant Fendler, and who else would be ready? If we can have two this evening that will sort of even up the schedule. Anybody else ready?
(No response.)
TEE PRESIDENT: Well then, you will need to find Dr. Koessl.
DR. MAYER: Your Honor, I am prepared to present the final plea for the defendant Klingelhoefer.
THE PRESIDENT: Well then, I think that would take care of it. We will have Dr. Link now followed by counsel for Strauch, and then this evening Dr. Mayer for Klingelhoefer and Dr. Fritz for Fendler.