In this connection I should think it necessary to contact Dr. Luft at the Medical Research Institute for Aviation and Ministerialrat Ziegelweier, the consulting nutritional expert with the Wehrmacht. A clear chart of the experiments, corresponding with the actual conditions, should then be drawn up jointly. I think it quite possible to obtain eventually now, valuable results in comparatively short time."
Q. Well now, witness -
A. The letter is signed by me.
Q. This was a contact by you with the SS, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. I understood that y u have previously testified y u never had any official contact with SS men?
A. This Obergruppenfuehrer Wolff was at the fuehrer's headquarters. That is shown by the address. He was the liaison man with the SS. He was formerly the adjutant of Himmler and then in 1943 or the beginning of '44 he was replace. The discussions which are mentioned here, as the first sentence shows were results of concentrated food given to your Wehrmacht in surrounded areas in the East which was dropped to them by parachute.
Those concentrated rations consisted of various groups. There were distinctions especially in the manner in which the fat was included. They also varied according to the protein content. The rations interned for one man, as far as I recall, corresponded to about 3500 calories. These 3500 calorics were calculated on the basis of various sums of fat, carbohydrates and protein, and after the experience of Stalingrad it was n t clear, especially in view of the food which the Food Ministry could make available for this purpose, which was the most suitable form. In order to clear up this question I had made this suggestion to Mr. Wolff as this document shows, after I had informed the Fuehrer on the basis of a discussion with Mr. Ziegelweier that there was no agreement in this food question. He had said that this was pr badly the quickest way to solve the question, and I passed on this assignment I did not consider this anything special, and besides, I had forgotten about it Under other circumstances it would have been called a troop experiment.
Q. Was the experiment carried out?
A. I cannot say whether it was carried out.
Q. Didn't y u have some contact with 66 Obergruppenfuehrer Pohl in connection with this matter?
A. I do n t recall that I receive." any information from Pohl about it. It might be, bait it is possible that according to the suggestion made here the continuation of this question was "one by Ziegelweier and Luft themselves.
Q. And this matter came up long before the Second Fuehrer decree which explicitly covered medical science and research, din't it?
A. The date of this letter is the 26th of January 1943. This was not a question of research. It was a question of practice.
Q. Don't you remember that Wolff was sick about this time and that he passed your letter on to Pohl?
A. No, I don't remember that. It is possible that he was sick at this time. It is also possible that he passed the letter on to Pohl.
Q. You said the other day that you had only met Pohl here in the prison. Are you sure that Pohl did not get in touch with you in connection with this matter?
It is possible that he wrote to me. I cannot remember it. As far as I know I saw Pohl f r the first time here in the prison. I might have met him once before without knowing that it was Pohl, but I do not remember.
Q. Do you remember whether Pohl told you about certain feed experiments he was carrying out in concentration camps, experiments with poisonous foods?
A. I cannot remember having Spoken to Pohl at any time before I was arrested hero. It is, of course, possible. It is possible that the relieving of poison from food was said to me on same occasion, but without any document I cannot remember it. Perhaps I mi ht explain it just as I have explained this case here if I have a document before me.
Q. Yes, it's always nice to know what's in the document.
A. In this document here, yes, it is very clear what's in it.
Q. Herr Professor, did you ever suggest that any drugs be tested on concentration camp inmates?
A. I do not believe so. I cannot remember. What specific drugs?
Q. Suppose we see if Document NO-1382 will refresh your recollection in that regard? This is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 448 for identification. This is a teletype from the defendant Rudolf Brandt to SS Obersturmbannfuehrer Baumert, marked secret.
"Dear Paul, SS Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Brandt called up and requested the approval of the Reichsfuehrer SS that ten prisoners from Oranienburg should be made available as of tomorrow for two days, to test a certain drug. Nothing would happen to them.
"The tests have already been discussed and must be started tomorrow morning, 3 February. SS Gruppenfuehrer Dr. Grawitz is only waiting for permission from the Reichsfuehrer SS. Please obtain the decision and pass it on immediately to Dr. Grawitz, Heil Hitler, signed, yours, Rudi."
A. I do not remember what this was about. I don't know.
Q. Do you deny the possibility that you requested Grawitz or some other SS man to have these prisoners made available to you?
A. According to the teletype message here, I did that, assuming that this is authentic, but I cannot remember what it was about. There ie no indication -- it says two days. I don't remember it.
Q. You see the second page of the document, witness, indicates that the prisoners were made available. This is dated 8 February 1944, Field Command Post. "SS Gruppenfuehrer and Generalleutnant of the Waffen SS Gluecks hereby confirm approval of Reichsfuehrer SS, for ten prisoners from Oranienburg to be placed at the disposal of SS Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Brandt (SS Gruppenfuehrer Professor Dr. Grawitz). Signed, Grothmann."
Tell the Tribunal who Gluecks was, witness?
A. Gluecks was the head of all the concentration camps. I did not know him. I did not even know his name. I was of the opinion that that was Pohl, but I have learned here that it was Gluecks, and that Pohl had only an intermediate or a liaison position between Gluecks and Himmler.
Q. Well, Herr Brandt, whether or not you knew Gluecks you knew where to go when you needed concentration camp inmates for experiments, didn't you?
A. If there had been anything like that I addressed Wolff in this case, as in the first letter in '43, and here apparently through the same channels an appeal went to Himmler.
Q. But you have very expressly denied any connection with the jaundice matter which is the content of the letter of June 1943 where it says you were furthering Dohmen's experiments and wanted ten prisoners from Oranienburg.
A. I do not remember that I turned to Grawitz on behalf of Dohmen or that Grawitz approached me in this form. These three letters which I have here, the first with the food question, there is nothing which could fall under the concept of experiment. The second letter, this teletype, it's not clear to me what could have been the causes of it. I do not know whether anything was done. Certainly I did hot know whether anything was done. Certainly I did not do anything. Otherwise I am sure I would remember a drug. I don't know what it was.
Q. But, Herr Brandt, it says you called up and requested -
A. Yes, I can read that here, but I do not remember what it was about, what it could have been about. I want to clear up this concept of experiment. This document that you showed me before, of the 26th of January '43 on the food question; that is not what we normally understand by an experiment. It is a parallel use of certain foods, but it not an experiment on human beings.
Q. Well, Herr Brandt, it does show though that you were in contact with the SS and that you had gone there to obtain prisoners for whatever purpose, and you have very vehemently denied that earlier in this interrogation and in other interrogations that you had anything to do with the SS, and now we find that you knew exactly where to go when you had some little test that needed to be made on human beings.
Now, do you want to tell us about any further experiments where you went to the SS for prisoners?
A. I have already said I do not remember any. I have no idea of any.
Q. Well, maybe you will remember this one a little better. Let's have a look at Document NO-1620. This is offered as Prosecution Exhibit 449 for identification.
(Document handed to witness)
Q. Herr Professor, will you please read this document aloud?
A. Yes. A letter signed by Grawitz to the Reichsfuehrer SS Himmler.
"SS Brigadefuehrer Professor Dr. Brandt has approached us with the request to test a new ointment for treatment of phosphorous burns which is still in the experimental stage.
"As I consider trying out this ointment on German civilians for burns received in terror raids, would take too much time and would be unreliable in respect of testing methods, and as, in view of the importance of the problem, I do not believe that experiments on animals would produce sufficiently conclusive evidence, I respectfully ask you, Reichsfuehrer, to grant permission for experiments to be made in the hospital of the Sachsenhausen concentration camp on individual prisoners and prisoners who are unfit for work on account of illness. Signed, Grawitz."
Q. Do you remember anything about this matter?
A. I remember this ointment. I believe it was made by a firm in Bonn. I went to various agencies with it which had something to do with air warfare. I gave it to the civilian air raid service and I no doubt also gave it to the Reich physicians of the SS and police. In this letter Grawitz says:
"As I"... meaning himself, ..."consider trying out this ointment on German civilians for burns received in terror raids, would take too much time and would be unreliable in respect of testing methods, and as in view of the importance of the problem, I "...Grawitz..." do not believe that experiments on animals would produce sufficiently conclusive evidence, I "...Grawitz...." respectfully ask you, Reichsfuelier, to grant permission"... and so forth.
I certainly did not give this ointment to Grawitz in order to have it tested on any concentration camp inmates. I gave it to him as well as to other people, to other agencies, so that it might be tried in practice. This suggestion did not seem right to Grawitz so that on his own initiative he translated my suggestion of a test, and he considered that it would take too much time to test it on civilians in air raids. I say expressly that I gave it to him to be tested in this way.
Q. This letter is only about three months after the jaundice letter from Grawitz, isn't it?
A. Yes, three months later.
Q. And it is only twenty-five days after the issuance of the Second Fuehrer Decree which you state was the first time you could have had any possible interest in medical science and research?
A. The dates are correct, but an appointment which I pass on to other agencies because it was given to me has nothing actually to do with the lem itself, What is generally meant by science and research is a more ext cursive concept than the reference to the testing of a salve.
Q. Let's look at the second page of the document, Herr Brandt. It is dated 7 October 1943. It is a letter from the Defendant, Rudolf Brandt to Grawitz.
"The Reichsfuehrer-SS agrees to experiments being made with the ointment for phosphorous burns at the Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp on individual prisoners who have become unfit for work through illness." with the initials "BR". I would like to remind you, Doctor, that the incendiary bomb experiment as charged in the indictment in this case took place in November 1943, at the Buchenwald Concentration Camp. Do you think that there is any possibility that these documents which you have before you now really represent the starting point of the incendiary bomb experiments which took place at Buchenwald rather than Sachsenhausen?
A. I cannot say whether there is any direct connection. I cannot eliminate the possibility. I can add that from 1943 on the problem of incendiary bombs and injuries from phosphorous was a general problem in Germany, and if one examines medical literature, one will find that there was probably a new mention of it in every weekly. It is quite possible that independently of each other experiments wore carried out in Buchenwald as well as in Sachenhausen and at other places. As far as time is concerned, at this time we were all interested in this question of phosphorous burns practically or theoretically.
Q. Doctor, isn't it a monstrous thing to conduct phosphorous experiments on concentration camp inmates when you have so many pitiful German civilians who had been burned in air raids?
A. I was not of the opinion that such experiments had to be carried out in concentration camps. The letter shows that this was Grawitz's opinion. If this was his opinion, he, no doubt, had the idea that in some cases of injuries which were kept parallel, a conclusion could be drawn more readily concerning the effectiveness of a therapeutic agent than if the primary injuries and burns were different, similar as in the case of gun shot wounds during wartime.
Phosphorous burns, no doubt, occurred in the concentration camps, too, because they were sometimes nit by air raids. As far as I know, that was the case particularly in Buchenwald. If one overlooks the primary pain involved in the injury and the wound is not too extensive so that there are general burn symptoms, the injury is not too serious. Decisive in the question of the therapeutic agent is what chemical is used to neutralize phosphorous which has a relatively low burning temperature. Experiments carried out in the camp Sachsenhausen, I did not learn anything about them from any report, and the first report on such burns inflicted for the purpose of therapeutic treatment I heard of in the trial.
Q. I can appreciate that you feel it necessary to justify these incendiary bomb experiments, Doctor. Do you deny that you asked Grawitz to test this ointment on concentration camp inmates after they had been deliverately burned with phosphorous?
A. In answer to this precise question I must say that I am nor aware that I recommended this ointment, presumably this Bonn ointment, to Grawitz in order to have it tested on concentration camp inmates. I do not know whether it was a suggestion by telephone or in writing from me. I cannot say.
MR. McHANEY: I have no further questions.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Witness, at the beginning of the cross examination you were shown a document NO-890.
THE PRESIDENT: Let the record show that Counsel for Brandt is conducting the re-examination after cross examination.
BY DR. SERVATIUS:
Q. Document NO-890, Exhibit 443, was shown to you. The document refers to the child, Anna Gasse, and a letter reached you according to which you were asked to intervene in favor of the child. What specialized knowledge was necessary to take action in this case?
A. No specialized knowledge was necessary. The letter does not say what was wrong with the child so that this question could be cleared up by a general medical understanding.
In this case I had to get a general impress of the condition of the child.
Q. Witness, you told of the case in Leipzig where this child was born that was blind and without a hand and a foot. What specialized knowledge did you need at that time in order to fulfill the assignment which was given you by Hitler?
A. There was no question of specialized knowledge here. The decision was on a human ethical basis in regard to the child and the parents of the child.
Q. Witness, you talked to Pastor Bodelschwing on the question of Euthanasia. What specialized knowledge did you need then?
A. Here again it was not a question of specialized knowledge, either surgical of psychiatric. The talk was entirely on a medical and humane discussion of ideas. It did not require any special psychiatric knowledge on my part as far as the institution at Bethel was concerned. A part of the patients at Bethel were not psychiatric cases primarily. They were deformed and monstrous. A general medical knowledge was quite enough to be able to talk on these question in general.
Q. Then I may conclude that your activity was not that of a specialist basically?
A. It could not be if you mean my activity as far as the problem of Euthanasia was concerned. I did not exercise any function as a specialist in psychiatry. There were other doctors appointed for this function. I was concerned with the general medical questions.
Q. Then how was the decision of specialized question taken care of?
A. Specialists were appointed for that purpose. Three days ago I said that no only psychiatrists were included as experts and chief experts from general mental institutions but that the heads of university clinics participated, Wuerzburg, for instance, Berlin. I believe there were two or three others, too, Heidelberg.
Q. You were also shown a document NO-825, Exhibit 350. This is the questionnaire with the memorandum. Was this questionnaire sent to all hospitals in Germany?
A. No. It was sent only to the mental institutions, that is, to places where the patients were primarily insane.
Q. Was it sent to Kupperheimer?
A. No.
Q. Was it sent to tuberculosis sanitariums?
A. No.
Q. To other special institutions?
A. I do not believe so. The indications, referring to specific deseases such as epilepsy, schizophrenia, show clearly that they were insane. It was sent only to such institutions.
Q. In the institutions where no questionnaires were sent, were there persons incapable of working?
A. Yes, of course.
Q. Do you believe that there were Large numbers?
A. That would depend on the institution in question. For example, the tuberculosis sanitariums have a much larger percentage of seriously ill person, who were ill for long periods than a small city hospital with a rapid turnover of patients.
Q. Do you believe that in the institutions which did not receive any questionnaires that there were more people incapable of working than in the mental institutions?
A. No. There would probably be more in the mental institutions. The numbers were changed during the war by the number of injuries, the injuries in Germany.
Q. But you believe that there were a large number?
A. A relatively large number.
Q. Now why did these institutions not receive any questionnaires when the question of inability to work was brought up?
A. I have pointed out several times here that the question of inability to work had nothing to do with production but was only a part of the diagnosis in order to get a picture of the total condition of the insane person. If it had been a question of getting a hold of people in capable of working as such, then questionnaires would have been sent to all institutions.
Q. I have another question about these questionnaires. In 1939 and 1940 were there still Jewish hospitals, and were there Jews in other hospitals?
A. Yes.
Q. Did these hospitals receive questionnaires?
A. No. Again it would have been necessary to send questionnaires to all hospitals.
Q. Then I may conclude that it was not intended to get of all in hospitals?
A. No. In 1939 the questionnaires were set up purely for the insane and sent to the mental institutions. Probably for general statistical reasons additional information was asked for on the questionnaires just as a general questionnaire on the institution was included.
Q You have already said that during cross examination. Witness, you belonged to the entourage of Hitler. When do you believe that Hitler decided to exterminate the Jews? Do you know anything about that?
A I can say nothing about that. Looking back at tho period as shown by the documents, I can assume it was about the middle of the war. I did not learn anything about it myself at the time.
Q You werw also shown Document No. 1758, Exhibit No. 444. This is an excerpt from Haider's diary. According to this, the killing of insane persons in the insane asylums in the occupied Easter territory is described as necessary. Was that decision from the medical point of view?
A I do not know how this decision came about. I heard nothing about it a the time. I do not know the condition. It might have been due to other matter rather than the medical one. I do not know.
Q Witness, the incident of 21 September, 26 September, and 1 October 1941 was that the time the German Army Group North was advancing?
A North and Center, I believe.
Q Do you believe that the killing of insane persons at that time was possible without the aid of the organizations under the Euthanasia procedure?
A I am convinced that the two things had nothing to do with each other.
Q Do you believe that there was any intention of carrying this out by way of Euthanasia as Bouhler's office had carried it out?
A I do not know. I cannot say anything about that. The information might have to be supplemented by other information. It is possible that the diary of Halder's does not contain only those three entries, but further information. The one word mental institution Nowgorod has no meaning in my opinion. It could mean that some administrative staff or something also was to be established in that area.
Q Then, I may conclude that these measures could be carried cut without your being informed?
A I was not informed.
Q Then, Document No. 892 was shown to you, Exhibit No. 442. That is a letter from the public Transport Company of 20 July 1943, to the mental institution Hadamar. The letter concerns the transfer of insane persons in connection with the evacuation of areas endangered by air raids. Were only insane persons transferred from these areas at that time?
A No, at that time there was a general evacuation of the sick, which was undertaken at that time. I looked at a map and discovered at first a sanatorium a little south of Paderborn. I assumed that this might concern an evacuation of the institution for the insane to have an evacuation hospital for Paderborn which was continually being attacked because of its railroad junction. And, in the sane way as Doctor Schmidt indicated for Eichberg from 1943 on it was used as a general evacuation hospital.
Q Then I may conclude that these were general measures and not specific measures?
A No, not specific measures. It was a general measure which was necessary from this time on.
Q Did you issue instructions as to how the individual hospitals were to be evacuated?
A No. There were general instructions which went through the entire Administral Air Raid Committee. There could be special cases. If I encountered something on the spot, for example, there was Cologne, Ponn--there were such possibilities, but in general I did not deal with the specific cause but only with the general instructions.
Q Witness, yesterday it was said that the Fuehrer principle was decisive for you in your profession. Do you believe that medical questions could be dealt with according to that principle?
A No, medical questions depended on the doctor as far as their decisions were concerned.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess for a Few minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
Q Witness, do you believe that it is correct to know whether the people with whom you collaborate are physically and mentally healthy or whether they are considered as suffering severly?
A It certainly would be decisive to know about the possibility of efficiency of his collaborators.
Q Do you believe that it is important for the state to know whether the responsible politicians or other personalities are physicially and mentally competent?
A The same thing as what I have just said will apply in this case an even to a larger extent.
Q And do you believe that applies still more if the state is in danger as a result of the war?
A That would be the same thing for both cases; and I would even say that in the last case it would be more acute.
Q Do you believe that the state is entitled to make this information available to it?
A The institutions within the state were from the very beginning following this procedure. For example, in this case I can refer to the Wehrmacht where losses on a large scale or even smaller losses were reported through normal channels.
Q Witness, I am asking you once more to look at Document NO-119, which was presented yesterday in the course of the cross examination. This is a letter according to which doctors were told that they did not have to maintain their secrecy any more; and I want you to take a look at Page 3. Then I want to read the text to you once more. It is stated there: "Physicians, practitioners, and dentists are not only relieved from secrecy towards the General Commissioner Brandt but I am now obligating them to report immediately after their diagnosis of a serious and progressive disease to a person occupying a leading and responsible position within the state, the party, the Lehrmacht, the economy, and so on, and then to inform me for my own information. 23 December 1942. (Signed) Adolf Hitler."
In your opinion does this request violate the oath of Hippocrates? Is something being demanded here which the physician from his professional ethics should refuse?
A In general the physician is obligated to maintain secrecy about what he finds out in the course of his profession and not to pass on any information. He is relieved from this moral law at the very moment when his knowledge implies a general danger because a physician knows that in some cases, for instance, in the case of the dangerous insane patient, he of course is obligated to impart the Knowledge which he has gained in practicing his profession and obligated to pass it on for general safety. Then the general interest exists; and it is far above the interest of the individual, patient. Therefore there can be exceptions. In the previously mentioned questions there is a reference toward the necessity, resulting from the decree of the 23rd of December 1942.
Q Do you know the history and the origin of this decree?
A Yes.
Q What were the reasons for it?
A There were two acute cases; in one case a gauleiter and in another case a general became insane. The physicians who were treating them, especially those of the general, maintained secrecy and carried out a treatment for a period of two years without any information being imparted to the public, These precise cases were the causes of this decree.
Q And the obligation to maintain secrecy has been determined by law?
A Yes.
Q Was this is the only case where an exception was made from the obligation to maintain secrecy or were there other cases where reports had to be submitted about diseases?
A I can once more refer to the military procedure. That is about the only thing that I remember at the moment.
Q In the hospital is there an obligation to report?
A Yes, naturally.
Q Therefore I can conclude from your statements that the interests of the individual under certain circumstances must be subordinated to the interests of the public?
A Yes.
Q Witness, today several documents were presented to you about drinking water experiments and food and the testing of ointment. Now, first of all I want to ask you, is there any difference between experiments which were carried out for purposes of research and experiments in practice which were being carried cut with drugs?
A Before a drug can be used in practice, theoretical laboratory preliminary tests are usually made. Under some circumstances certain experiments are carried out on animals; and it, of course, depends on what drug is concerned.
Q In testing and practice there is a fundamental difference from making experiments in research?
A From a certain period of time let us assume that a drug is ready for practical use and from that moment on this drug is used in such a way as though it had already been tested for years in practice.
Q Witness, in your interrogation you have stated your views with regard to the individual experiments and you have judged them with regard to their necessity and with regard to the volunteers. Will you please tell us something about what has been mentioned today? Perhaps first of all you can tell us something about the question of drinking water, that is decontaminated water.
A I want to state in connection with this that I am not acquainted with the exact procedure. The document shows that the testing of this decontaminated water no doubt already had behind it a long period of preliminary testing in laboratories. After all, those are special apparati and such apparatus was suggested for production.
Q Witness, will you give me a brief statement as to the danger of the experiments which have been presented here?
A I want to describe them as negative because the document itself set forth that no danger was implicated. In time of war the production and preparation of apparatus for the decontamination of drinking water is of the highest importance.
Q How can you judge in this case the question of the volunteers?
A In this case I cannot judge whether these experiments were carried out on volunteers or not.
Q You used the words "troop experiments." Is a troop experiment a voluntary experiment?
AA troop experiment in my opinion is quite natural. An order is issued on the basis of considerations which have been made previously; and then within the unit a corresponding order is issued to test and to carry out the experiment. The question of using volunteers or not using volunteers is of subordinate importance in this case because in the imposition of such an experiment the danger and other considerations are not even considered.
Q Were the experiments which were carried out or suggested with regard to concentrated food important experiments?
A They were important experiments which were not in any way dangerous. They actually meant the contrary. The ration contained twice or more the number of calories; and certainly those who took them were not subjected to any danger.
Q Can you perhaps describe to us more in detail of what such experiments consisted and with what they dealt? If I am informed correctly, then such food in concentrated form was to be dropped from the air.
A. These were rations which had been computed in relation to the demands of front-line soldiers; and I think that the rations had been set at 3500 calories. This number of calories was to be brought together in as small an area as possible. The selection of special fats, oils, and so on as a substance played an important part in order to fill the intestines. Various kinds of protein had been selected, consisting of various meat substances and various sorts of meat. There were differences which lay within this field.
Q. Was the experiment carried out to see if this food was dangerous to the health of those who were taking it?
A. We wanted to test the composition of these food substances as to what composition would be perhaps the most agreeable and easily digested. However, most of all we wanted to test which would be the most suitable in helping a soldier to carry out his assignment.
Q. Will you please state your view with regard to the question of the treatment of lost burns and also with regard to their danger?
A. Yes, I will mention this phosphorous ointment. I believe that I received such an ointment from a factory with the corresponding label; and it was pointed out that this was particularly suitable for the treatment of phosphorous burns. We tested this ointment and used it in our clinic at Berlin. However, in order to reach quicker results, I passed this ointment on to other agencies.
Q. Professor, I should now like you to state your views with regard to their danger and importance. We know the rest of the subject.
A. At that period of time such an ointment was very important to us. The danter depends on the size of the phosphorous burns.
Dr. SERVATIUS: Mr. President, I do not have any further questions for the witness. I would like to clarify a mistake which has been made in the translation. I am informed now that the following has been wrongly translated. We spoke here of "obligations of reporting contagious diseases" and then it was translated as "compulsory reporting of diseases in hospitals". I believe it will suffice for me to point out that this has been a misunderstanding.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that in one of the documents, or in the witness's testimony?
DR. SERVATIUS: This term was probably misunderstood by the interpreter.
THE PRESIDENT: My question for information was whether the mistake was in one of the documents or a mistranslation of witness's oral testimony on the stand.
Dr. SERVATIUS: It was a mistake in the oral statements. I do not have any further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused, there being no further examination of the witness.
MR. HARDY Prosecution has no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
DR. SERVATIUS: May it please the Tribunal I now want to call the witness Lammers.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will summon the witness Herr Hans Lammers.
JUDGE SIBRING: Mr. Marshal, place the head phones on the witness.
HANS HEINRICH LAMMERS, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE SEBRING: You will held up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath; I swear by God, the Almighty and omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath.)