Q. You spoke about the testimony of witnesses. Did the members of the commission have the opportunity personally to interrogate those wit nesses, especially the Russian witnesses?
A. We did not have the opportunity of having any contact with the population. Immediately upon our arrival at the hotel in Smolensk, Butz told us that we were in the military zone, and that we did not have the right to walk around in the city without being accompnied by a member of the German military organization, or to speak with the inhabitants of the place or to make photographs; and in reality during the time we were there, we did not have any contact with the local inhabitants.
In the first day of our arrival in the Katyn woods, that is to say, on the 29th of April, in the first half of the day, before dinner, in the locality where these graves were found, there came under German escort several Russian civilians. Immediately upon our arrival at Smolensk, we were handed personally some of the local witnesses who were half-Russian. When those witnesses were brought to the Katyn woods, we were told that those witnesses were the ones who gave the testimony which was submitted to us. There was no regular interrogation of the witnesses depositions. Professor Orses started the conversation with the witnesses and he told us that he could speak Russian because he was a prisoner of war in Russia during the first World War. He began to speak with the man who was not very young, whose name, so far as I can remember, was Andrev. This entire conversation lasted a few minutes only. As our Bulgarian language is rather similar to the Russian, I tried also to speak to some of the witnesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Don't you think that should be left to cross examination? Can't these details be left to cross examination?
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Yes, Mr. President. BY COLONEL SMIRNOV: reply to the next question. During the signing of this general report of the entire commission, was it quite clear to you that the murders were perpetrated in Katyn not earlier than the last quarter of 1941 and that 1940, in any ease, was excluded?
A Yes, this was absolutely clear to me and thatis why I didn't make any deductions in the report which I made on my findings in the Katyn woods. incorrect according to you? report, I should like to say a few words on how it was made up and how it was signed.
Q Excuse me, but will you please reply to one question. Was this report in reality actually signed on the 30th of April in the town of Smolensk or was it signed on another date and at another place? signed on the 1st of May at mid-day, at the airport which was called "Bella".
Q Under what conditions was it signed; will you please tell the Tribunal. which took place in the laboratory of Butz. It was on the 30th of April after mid-day. At this conference all the delegates were present, all the Germans who arrived with us from Berlin, Butz and his assistants, General Holm, the main doctor (Stabsarzt) of the Smolensk sector, and also some other Germans who were unknown to me, the military personnel. Butz stated that the Germans were only present as hosts but actually the most important place was occupied by General Helm and the work was performed on the direction on Butz. The secretary of the conference was the personal secretary of Butz who took down the report; however, I never saw this report. At this conference Butz and Orses came with a project, a sort of a protocol; however, I was not aware that somebody entrusted to them the writing of such a protocol. This protocol was read by Butz and then a question was raised regarding the stage and the age of the young Pines which were in the clearings of the Katyn woods. Butz considered that inthese clearings -
Q Excuse me for interrupting you. Did you have any evidence that the graves were actually found in these clearings?
A No. When we were present, we didn't find or discover any now graves. So far as some of these delegates stated, they said that they were not competent to express their opinion regarding the age of these trees. General Helm gave us an order to bring a German to this place who was a specialist on forestry. He showed us the cut of the trunk of a tree and from the number of circles in this trunk, he deduced that the age of the trees were five years.
Q Excuse me; I interrupt you again. You, yourself, can you state here that this tree was actually growing on top of the grave and not from any other place in the woods?
with small trees and that actually, when we were coming hack to Smolensk, there was a little tree being transported in the bus with us but I don't know whether there were any graves from the place where this tree was cut. As I have already stated, there were no excavations of graves in our presence. not to detain the attention of the Tribunal on the details. editorial notes, the contents of which I cannot remember at present. Then, it was entrusted to Orses and Butz to write up the protocol in final form. The signing of the protocol had to take place on the same night at a banquet which was organized on the same evening in a German hospital.
A (Continued) At this banquet Buts arrived with a report and he started reading it, but the actual signing did not take place for reasons which are still not clear to no. It was stated to us that this report would have to be rewritten, so the banquet lasted until three or four in the morning. Then Professor Pangier told me that the Germans were not pleased with the contents of the report and that they were carrying on conversations with Berlin an that, in general, perhaps there would be no report at all. morning, we took off from Smolensk without having signed the report I personally had the impression that there would be no report at all issued and I was very pleased at that fact. On the way to Smolensk, also on our way back, some of the delegates asked to stop over in Warsaw in order to see the city, but we were told that it was impossible in view of the military situation. would like you not to speak of it. was called Bela. The airport was apparently a military air field because I saw some temporary military barracks. We had dinner there and immediately after dinner, not withstanding the fact that we were not told that the signing of the report would happen on the way to Berlin, we were submitted copies of the protocol to be sign During the signing many military persons were present, because the were no other people except military personnel on this air field. I was rather struck by the fact that the reports were ready but we not submitted to us for signing in Smolensk, but this didn't wait so that we might sign these reports in Berlin a few hours later. They were submitted to us for signing at this isolated military air field. This was the reason why I didn't sign the report, in spite of my opinion at which I arrived during the autoposy which I perfermed at Smolensk. in the protocol are incorrect?
where you couldn't do better?
THE PRESIDENT: Colonel Smirnov, I don't think it is proper for you to put leading questions to him. He has stated the fact. It is useless to go on stating conclusions about it.
COLONEL SMIRNOV: Very well, Mr. President. I have no further questions to put to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does anyone want to cross examine him?
DR. STAHMER: Attorney Stahmer, for Goering.
Mr. President, I should like to ask a legal question first. Each side was to call three witnesses before the Court. This witness, as I understand it, has not only testified to facts but has also made statements which can be called an export judgment. He has not only expressed himself as an expert witness, as we say in German law, but also as an expert. If the Court is to listen to these statements made by the witness as an export, I should like to have the opportunity for the defense also to call in experts.
THE PRESIDENT: No, Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal will not hear more than three witnesses on either side. You could have called any expert you wanted or any member of the experts who made the German examination. It was your privilege to call any of them. BY DR. STAHMER: of 1927; on the University faculty of Legal Medicine in Sofia, firs of all as a Professor, and now I am Professor of Legal Medicine at Sofia University. I am not a regular professor at the University. This work could be explained by the German word "Ausserordentlicher Professor" (Extraordinary Professor). that you were to participate in a political action without consideration of your scientific knowledge?
about the Katyn question as a political one. time?
AAt what time?
Q At the time when you went to Katyn? you to explain your question. one, the task which you had to carry out there? political task and therefore I tried not to participate in it. task?
A Yes; from everything I read in the Press. rived at Katyn the graves had already been opened and certain corps had been laid out. Do you mean to say that some corpses did not come from the graves at all?
A No, I didn't want to say that, because it was obvious that the corpses were taken out of the graves and I saw that some corpse were still in the graves. no indication that the corpses viewed by the Commission did not come from the mass graves?
THE PRESIDENT: He didn't know where they came from, did he?
THE WITNESS: I didn't have the impression that they were not taken out of the graves which were already excavated. BY DR. STAHMER: to the results of the legal medical examination of this International Commission, a protocol, a record was taken down. You have furthermore stated that you signed this protocol.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, this protocol is contained in its full text in the official material published by the German government on this incident. I ask that this evidence, this so-called White Book, be admitted as evidence. I will submit it to the Court later.
THE PRESIDENT: We will adjourn now.
(A recess was taken.)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal rules that you may cross examine this witness upon the report, and the protocol will be admitted in evidence if you offer it in evidence under Article 19 of the Charter. That, of course, involves that we do not take judicial notice of the report under Article 21 of the Charter, but that it is offered under Article 19 of the Charter, and therefore it will either come through the earphones in cross examination, or such parts of the protocol as you wish to have translated. BY DR. STAHMER:
Q. Witness, was the protocol or the record signed by you and the other experts in the same way in which it is included in the German White Book?
A. Yes, the record of the protocol which is included in the German White Book is the same protocol which I compiled. A long time after my return to Sofia I was sent two copies of the protocol by General Director Dietz. These two copies were typewritten, and I was requested to make necessary corrections and additions if I judged it necessary, but I left it without corrections and it was printed without any comments on my part.
Q. Just now -
COLONEL SMIRNOV: (Interposing): Mr. President, I believe that there is a slight muddle here. The witness is answering in regard to the individual protocol, whereas Dr. Stahmer is questioning him on the general protocol.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I would have cleared this matter up on my own account. BY DR. STAHMER:
Q. Do you mean your own protocol?
A. Yes, I mean my protocol which I compiled myself.
Q. What is the relationship of this to the general protocol or record, or rather, when did you receive a copy of this general protocol or record?
A. I received a copy of the general protocol in Berlin when as many copies were issued as had been signed by the delegates. There were a number of delegates.
Q. Just a little while ago you stated that Russian witnesses had been taken before the commission in the forest of Katyn, but that, however, there ha been no opportunity afforded the experts to talk with these witnesses concerning the question at hand.
and I quote:
"The commission interrogated several indigenous Russian witnesses personally. Among other things, these witnesses confirmed that in the months of March and April 1940, almost daily large railroad transport trains containing Polish officers arrived at the railroad station near Katyn by the name of Nersova. These railroad trains were emptied; the inmates were taken in lorries to the forest of Katyn, and they were never seen afterwards. Furthermore, official notice was taken of the testimony and statements, and the sites containing the evidence were inspected."
A. As I already said, during the questioning which occurred on the spot, those two witnesses spoke to Orses. They actually said that they saw how Polish officers were brought to the railroad station of Nersova and that later they no longer saw them.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, the Tribunal thinks the witness ought to be given an opportunity of seeing the report when you put passages in it to him
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Havn't you got another copy of it?
DR. STAHMER: I'm sorry, Mr. President, I don't have an additional copy, no.
THE PRESIDENT: Can the witness read German?
THE WITNESS: No, but anyhow I can understand the contents of the record and report.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean you can read it?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I can also read it.
THE PRESIDENT: Can the witness read German, do you mean?
THE WITNESS: Yes, I can read German.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Stahmer, if you have only got one copy, I think you had better have it back. You can't have the book passing to and fro like that.
DR. STAHMER: I should like to make a suggestion, that the cross examination be interrupted and another witness be called, and I will have this material typed. That would be my suggestion, that we interrupt the cross examination for a minute, call another witness, and then go on from there.
THE PRESIDENT: You can read it. Take the book back.
DR. STAHMER: Mr. President, I propose to read only short sentences. BY DR. STAHMER: or limited themselves to dissecting one corpse only and to carry out an autopsy on only one corpse. In thisreport the following is set down. I quote:
"Of the members of the commission, nine corpses were submitted for autopsy by members personally and numerous, selected cases were submitted for inspection."
Is that right? the exception of Professor Devile, did open one body. Heim carried out two autopsies. the corpses being inspected. we carried out very hastily on the first day and no individual dissection was carried out but they were inspected as they lay there. the concept, under the expression of inspection of corpses? corpse is undressed and inspected and after that there is an inner inspection of the insides, when the inner organs are inspected. This was not done to the hundreds of bodies which were exposed there because this was not possible, it was not physically possible. We were there only before lunch. Therefore, I consider that there was no actual medical legal expert examination of these corpses in the real sense of the word. found there and you said that an expert explained the age of the trees according to the rings found in their trunks. In the protocol and the report, the following is set down. I quote:
"After the inspection by the members and according to the testimony of Forstmeister vo n Herz, who was called in as an expert on forestry, they were small trees of at least five years of age which had been standing in an area of large trees and had been transplanted to this spot about three years ago."
inspection and that you convinced yourself on the spot whether the statements made by the forestry expert were actually correct? only refers to the fact that in the Katyn forest there were clearings where small trees were growing and a German expert showed us a cross-section of these trees. But I do not consider myself competent and cannot make any deduction and I cannot judge whether his deductions were correct, the deductions which are set forth in the report. Precisely for that reason it was judged necessary to call in a forestry expert for we doctors were not competent to do so. therefore, these conclusions are merely the conclusions of a competent German expert. you have any doubts whether these statements or whether this testimony was correct? of the delegates neither I nor the other delegates expressed any opinion as to whether his conclusions were correct or not and therefore, these conclusions are set down in the report in the form in which the expert expressed himself. of the Polish officer which you dissected was clothed and in detail you described the clothing. Was this winter or summer clothing that you found?
Q In the protocol, in the record, it says further and I quote:
"Furthermore, Polish cigarettes and matchboxes were found amongst the dead in single cases tobacco containers and cigarette butts and the inscription 'Kosielsk' was inscribed thereon.
The question is, did you see these objects?
A These tobacco pouches were ingraved with the name "Kosielsk" thereon. We saw them. They were exhibited to us in the glass cases which were shown us in the peasant hut not far from the Katyn forest. I remember Buch drew out attention to it.
and I quote:
"In the clothing documents were found and they were put in safe keeping under the folder number 827."
Now, I should like to ask you how did you discover these documents? Did you personally take them out of the pockets? As far as I can remember they were taken out by a German who was undressing the corpse in my presence.
Q. At that time, were the documents already in the envelope?
A. They were not yet in the envelopes, but after they had been taken out, they were put into an envelope which bore a number, as this was usually done we were told:
Q. What was the nature of the documents?
A. I did not examine those documents, as I have already said, and I refused to do so, but according to the size, I believe that this was a certificate of identity. I could distinguish individual letters, but I did not know whether one could read the inscription, for I did not attempt to do so.
Q. In the protocol the following statement is made, and I quote:
"The documents found among the corpses (diaries, letters and articles from newspapers) dated from the fall of 1939 up until March and April 1940. The last date which up until this time had been fixed was the date of a Russian paper of 22 April 1940." accordance with the findings that you made.
A. Letters and newspapers were indeed in the glass cases that were shown to us. Some similar papers were found by some members of the Commission who were dissecting the bodies, and if I remember correctly, they were destroyed by them, but I did not do so.
Q. In your examination justa little while ago you stated that few scientific statements were contained in this protocol and that this was done intentionally. I should like to quote from this record as follows:
"Various degrees and types of decomposition were caused by the position of the bodies in the grave and the position that the bodies had one to another Aside from some mumification at the upper levels and around the edges of these corpses, there is some maceration found among the center corpses -- in other words, the corpses found in the center of the graves. The sticking together of the adjacent corpses and the soldering together of corpses through cadaverous acids and fluids which had been covered over and particularly because of the pressure that obtained which brought about corresponding deformations among the corpses, show a condition of primary preservation of the bodies.
"Among the corpses insects or remains of insects which might date back to the time of burial are entirely lacking, and from this we may gather that the sheeting and the burial took place at a season which was cold and free from insects." are in line with your findings.
A. I said that little was said on the condition of the preservation of the corpses, and indeed as can be judged by the quotation, one is speaking in general phraseology which concerns the various degrees of decomposition of the corpses, byt there was no concrete or detailed description of the corpses. that they were not discovered is in flagrant contradiction to the conclusions of Professor Palmieri, which are recorded in his personal record concerning the corpses which he himself dissected. In this protocol, which is published in the same German White Book, it is said that there were traces of remains of insects and their larvae on the corpses.
Q. Just a little while ago you spoke of the scientific investigation dealing with skulls undertaken by Professor Orses. The record also refers to this matter, and I quote:
"A large number of skulls were examined with respect to the change that might have taken place, which, according to the background and experience of Professor Orses would be of great value in fixing the date of death. In this connection, we are concerned with stratified encrustations at the surface of the mush found in the skull as a residue of the brain. These symptoms are not to be found among corpses which have been in their graves for less than three years. Such a condition, among other things, was found in a very decided form in the skull of corpse number 526, which was found near the surface of a large mass grave." here on the skull of one corpse, but among other corpses, according to the report of Professor Orses such a condition was discovered.
A I can answer this question quite categorically. We were shown only one skull, and that skull which is precisely mentioned in the report and which was numbered 526. I do not know whether very many other skulls were examined. I consider that Professor Orses had no possibility to examine many corpses in the Katyn Woods, for he come with us and left with us. Therefore, he did not stay in the Katyn Forest any longer than I did, or any longer than any ether members of the Commission. I should like to quote the conclusion, in which it is stated:
"From these statements made by witnesses, the letters and correspondence found among the corpses, the diaries, newspapers, and so forth, it may be seen that the shootings took place in the months of March and April, 1940. The following herewith are in complete agreement -- the materials found among the mass graves, and the pieces of evidence found among these single corpses."
Is this statement actually correct?
THE PRESIDENT: I did not quite understand the statement. As I heard you read it, it was something like this: From the statements of witnesses letters, and so forth -
DR. STAHMER: In complete agreement: The remains found among the mass sites and among the single corpses of the Polish officers. That is at the end of the quotation.
THE PRESIDENT: It doesn't say that the following persons are in complete agreement, but that the following facts are in complete agreement. Is that right?
DR. STAHMER: No. My question is, "Is this statement approved by you? Do you agree with it?"
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I know, but you read out certain words, which were these: "The following are in complete agreement." What I want to know in whether that means that the following persons are in complete agreement, or whether the following facts are in complete agreement.
DR. STAHMER: Special facts had been set down, and this is a summarizing expert opinion signed by the entire membership of the Commission. Therefore, we are concerned with a scientific statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you just listen to what I read out from what I took down? "From the statements of witnesses, letters, and other documents, it may be seen that the shooting took place in the months of March and April 1940. The following are in complete agreement."
Just a moment, Dr. Stahmer. Listen to what I say.
What I am asking you is this. Does the statement mean that the following persons are in complete agreement, or that the following facts are in complete agreement?
DR. STAHMER: No, no. The following people testify that this fact, the fact that the shootings took place in these months of 1940, agrees with the statements which they made after looking at the remains in the mass graves and these materials that they found with these single corpses. That is what is meant. That is the finding, that the things which have been found are in agreement with that which has been set down and determined scientifically. That is the meaning.
THE PRESIDENT: Go on. BY DR. STAHMER: conviction? the corpses is supposed to correspond with the date quoted by the witnesses, but this date is actually in contradiction to that which I myself observed on the corpses which I myself opened. That means that I did not consider that the date which could be deduced from the dissection of the corpses was actually the date named by the witnesses or mentioned in the documents -- that is, the date of the occurrence. If I had been convinced that the condition of the corpses did indeed correspond to the date of death mentioned by the Germans, I would have given a statement in an individual protocol; that is, I would have made a similar statement in my individual protocol. However, I always had doubts. sentence of the report -- the sentence which precedes the signatures -- I realized that this sentence was absent in that draft of the protocol which we saw at the conference in Smolensk.
worked upon in Smolensk, in that protocol it was only stated that we were shown papers and that we heard witnesses, and this was supposed to prove that the killings were carried out in March or April of 1940. medical ascertainment, nor was it confirmed by purely medical terminology. That was the reason for the signing of the protocol being retarded and for this protocol not being signed in Smolensk. fully aware of the political significance of your task. Why, then, did you desist from opposing or fighting this report which was not in accord with your scientific training? Why didn't you protest it? circumstances which had been created on this isolated military spot, there was no other way for me to act, and therefore I could not make any objections.
Q Why did you not take steps later on ?
what I am stating here. I repeat, I was not convinced of the truth of the German version. I was invited many times to Berlin by Director Tietz. I was also invited to Sofia by the German embassy. And in Bulgaria, the Bulgarian Minister of Foreign Affairs also invited me to make a statement over the radio or to the press, and I was requested to say what conclusions we had come during our investigation. However, I did not do so, and I always refused to do so. Because of the political situation in which we found ourselves at that moment, I could not make a public statement and declare that the German version was not really the correct one. exchanged between me and the German embassy in Sofia. And when, a few months later, another Bulgarian representative was asked to be sent to prevent a similar commission for the investigation of the corpses in Vinizza in the Ukraine, the German ambassador stated quite openly to the Bulgarian Minister of Foreign Affairs that the Germans did not wish me to be sent to Vinizza. opinion on that matter. In our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Minister Plenipotentiary Ceratov had some documents, transcripts, which, if the Honored Tribunal considers it necessary, can be sent here from Bulgaria. col to carry out any activity with the propaganda aims or responsibilities, I have stated here, namely that the conclusions laid down in the collective protocol do not answer my personal conviction. And I will repeat that if I had been convinced that the Corpses were buried for three years, I would have signed a statement after having dissected a corpse, and I would not have left my personal protocol unfinished; for this is a quite unusual thing in the case of a medical-legal examination. carries the signatures of eleven, Dr. Birckler, whose name you gave yesterday, and some of the scientists enjoying world reknown. Among these men is found a scientist of a neutral country, Professor Navile. the meantime so that the protocol could be corrected or so that you would bring about a correction of the record ?