A No.
Q Well, did you or did you not order such a series of experiments to Dr. Ding?
A Never at no time.
Q Are you of the opinion that Ding started these experiments on his own initiative?
A That is possible: At any rate he did not receive orders from me, and I don't know where else he could have had an order from.
Q That brings me to another point. You were saying before that in the case of experiments which were carried out on human beings by order the State, which persons that the State placed at the disposal of these experiments the State must be held responsible; whoever carried out such experiments is only responsible for the manner of the execution of these experiments; accordingly, Dr Ding would have to be held responsible for the manner in which these typhus experiments were conducted; I, therefore, was to examine these two questions with you: First, did Dr. Ding carry out these experiments for which he in any way could be held to blame; secon did you have to assume any responsibility for the experiments which Ding did carry out. First, did Ding carry out these experiments in an orderly manner?
A I already emphasized when discussing the experimental series No. that Ding only used thirty persons for their theory, and later that he decreased that number. If one agrees to such experiments, generally, one certainly should not use this small amount of experimental subject, if expects any results to be achieved. Ding only examined from vaccine for single time, and he did not examine them any more frequently than that. The only exception was Weigel's vaccine, which comes through lice intestines. There one can not speak of an examination which certainly would not have been necessary, since its effectiveness was already known. The effectiveness of other vaccines, which were unknown so far would have to be compared withe effectiveness if that vaccine. I don't believe, therefore, that one could in any way reprimand Ding for the manner in which he was carrying o these experiments, if one agrees to such experiments, generally.
Q How was the clinical treatment of the experimental subject carried out?
A The documents of the Prosecution already contain a number of statements with reference to the clinical treatment on experimental subject. Kogon and Malachowsky did not object. Kirchheimer when testifying has state that he was employed for the specific purpose to carry out hydro-therapo cal measures. In one of Ding's reports about his agredene experiment, whio is Prosecution's Document No. 582, and Exhibit No. of the Prosecution 286, states in great detail what the manner of the block circulation treatment was. He described the various drugs which he introduced into the patients which manner he did it, and with reference to that point I had a question to one of our most famous internists, and in the document, which later am going to submit anyway, from the point of view of the internal medicine, there can be no objection raised against that type of treatment.
DR. FLEMMING: In this connection, Your Honor, I submit document Mrugowsky No. 23. This can be found in the Document Book No. 1-A, on page 161. I offer it as Mrugowsky's Exhibit No. 26. This is an affidavit of former SS judge, Dr. Conrad Morgan. I'll repeat, page 161, Document No. 23 Exhibit No. 26. Dr. Morgan, after the customary introduction, says, and I quote: "In connection with my activity as SS judge I established the foll ing in the concentration camp Buchenwald:
In the fight between the so-called greens and reds, that is, between the criminal and political prisoners, the strong suspicion was raised that both parties frequently instigated and achieved that hated opponents were put on the lists of persons selected for the typhus experiments in order have them exterminated under the cover of the experiments.
As a result of my demonstrations the German Criminal Police Bureau December 1943 made these proceedings impossible. It was decided that from then on the selection should be made directly by the German Criminal Police Bureau. The selection was to be made by Kriminalrat Otto. He selected the experimental persons from the heavy criminals of the camp Buchenwald, and then went to Buchenwald himself. There he inquired at the camp commanders office about the selected heavy criminals.
He also conferred with the individuals selected in order to test them. By adopting this method it was made impossible for the greens or reds to continue their practice to put hated persons on the lists of the persons selected for the experiments in order exterminate these persons by using the experiments as a cover."
"Block 46 in Buchenwald was a building with quite modern equipment with the most modern hugienical installations. They had enough trained personnel there. I gained the impression that the treatment and supply of the sick persons was careful and good in every respect. According to the impression I gained, the sick persons were treated similar to those in a good military hospital. Against disturbances of the circulatory system, coffee and ********** were available among other remedies."
This is as far as I want to read that Document.
I remind you of the affidavit of Dr. Walachowsky, which in document bock 12; it is document N0-484, Prosecution Exhibit 291. You know that Dr. Walachowsky was very angry about experiments in block 46 and disapproved of them; would you talk about that?
A Dr. Walachowsky did not work in block 46, but in block 50, which is about five hundred meters away from block 46. He himself does not maintain that he ever was in block 46, he, however, states his sources of information. It can be seen from this that he does not report on his own knowledge at all, but that he merely refers to hear-say.
He makes a number of other statements, which are extremely peculiar. For instance, he speaks about a so-called supreme committee to which a number of gentlemen allegedly belonged. Such a supreme committee never existed. This is something completely new to me. He says that all experiments were ordered by a so-called section 5 in Leipzig. He furthermore states that all reports were sent there. That in itself contradicts Dr. Kogon's statement here and there is no reason to accept that statement as being credible for it is based on nothing.
I know of no section 5 in Leipzig. He furthermore says that a special inspector was appointed in order to check the results of the experiments on human beings and furthermore makes the assertion that I was that inspector. I heard about that activity of mine through Dr. Walachowsky for the first time and I can say under oath here that no special inspector ever existed, at lea** I never received any knowledge of his existence and I certainly was not it. All these are assertions which Walachowsky cannot have gained from his own knowledge. A number of assertions were made by him which can be discussed later, which indicate a very subjective point of view on the part of Dr. Walachowsky and lack of any objective judgment.
From a human point of view I well understand his statements, because he is speaking as an inmate, lookat the affair from the prospective of an inmate. I actually was a prisoner of war for a number of years and I know how distorted any such a picture is.
Q When examining the question whether Dr. Ding in any way failed in the manner in which he conducted his experimental series, it is necessary to ascertain whether the control persons were necessary which he infected in the case of everyone of his series; you know in the case of Dr. Ding's typhus experiments he infected a number of persons who did not receive any protective vaccine and in the case of therapy experiments a number of persons were not treated with the drug which was the subject of the examinations. These were the so-called control persons; was that necessary?
A In biological experimental science such control is needed and is necessary in the case of all experiments. They are necessary, contrary to physical or chemical experiments. The factors in biology are much more ***ereus and more complicated. If I want to examine one of these factors of biology, it is necessary for me to have some material where this factor is not present in order to compare the other factor and it is only then that I can come to any conclusion as to the results. Whenever there is necessity for experiments on human beings, which are biological experiments, this is then a very logical conclusion which cf necessity must be derived; namely that such controls cannot be dispensed with Applying this to Ding's experiments, one must state that the experimental series 3, 4, 5 and 6 and the therapy experiments with agredine, menthelene, agredine granulate, and ruthen 1 were not used in the case of the control persons that is the reason browse the strains which were used were not pathogenic.
If any such control persons had not been used, this failure of the appearance of a disease, after the infection, one would have arrived at the conclusion that this was not due to the therapeutical drug, but merely ***t the strain had failed. In that case a completely false conclusion would have been made. It can be seen therefore that controls have really a practice value.
Q Did Dr. Ding limit his control persons as was humanly possible?
A Generally yes, he kept them as low as possible. For instance, in the case of the first series of experiments when he used 145 persons, only ten were used as controls.
Q Did he also try to combine experimental series in order to save control persons?
A That is correct. He tried to start a number of experimental series simultaneously in order to use the same control persons for all of *********t was possible because the strain for both series was the same.
Q Then it is your opinion that Dr. Ding, when carrying cut his experiments, acted according to scientific principles, that he cannot be reprimanded for the manner in which he executed these experiments.
A In my opinion he cannot be so accused as to the manner in which he carried out the experiments with which he had been entrusted. I don't believe that any violations against the so-called experimental science took place. I am always assuming the prerequisite that such experiments are permissable.
Q I now turn to the agredin and ruthenol experiments. During your pre-trial interrogation in 25 July 1946 you answered the questions No. 45 by Mr. Barr, namely whether you ever did anything which was against your medical conscience and you mentioned a typhus experimental series with agredin and ruthenol; would you please state your views on that?
When I was interrogated at that time I could only very vaguely remember this series of experiments. On the other hand, I remember it very well that no such experimental series was started with agredin and ruthenol. Furthermore, I was in a position to recall the conversation which Grawitz, however, it was all very vague in my mind, but my memory had been refreshed only a short time before by a newspaper clipping being shown to me, which contained a clipping from the London Times in which the subject was reports about human experiments in Buchenwald by a French scientist. I think the French scientist who wrote that report was Dr. Walachowsky. He mentioned an experimental subject with ruthenol and agredine and said that 53% to 56% of fatalities had occurred.
I think these were the figures that he used. It was under this impression that I gave my answers during that interrogation and it was my opinion at that time that I had something to do with that series of experiments.
The interrogation took place in Nurnberg, and when I was afterwards transferred to a camp, I had an opportunity to think about my statements and doubts began to arise in my mind, and shortly before the beginning of this trial, I was in a position to look at the documents, I found a paper by Ding regarding ruthenol and agredin experiments. This is Prosecution docuument 582.
Q That is Exhibit 286.
A Then the entire situation once more became very clear in my mind, and the investigation which we made now has helped to clear this matter even further. According to my present knowledge, therefore, in referring to the material available to me from the I. G. Farbon Industry at Hoechst and this paper by Ding, I can say that my statements made at that time were not correct, it was a deception of my memory.
Q I must interject here that I shall submit the material received from the I. G. Farben Industry at Hoechst at a later date in the form of suppiemental volume. At the moment it is not ready to be submitted.
Would you please continue; did you speak to Dr. Grawitz about this ruthenol and agredin matter?
A Yes. This is how the matter originated, and the document that was announced by Defense Counsel will prove it in detail. On the 10th of September 1942, two gentlemen came to me from the Berlin Bureau of I. G. Farben and the Behring **rks. We discussed various serum and vaccine questions, and in that connection typhus questions came up for discussion, and generally we had spoken about other vaccines. On that occasion one of these gentlemen, Dr. Weber, said that the I. G. Farben in Hoechst had produced a new drug which they wanted to have examined on sick persons. They asked me whether I had any patients that I was treating and whether I would agree to using that preparation. I said that I would because I was naturally very much interested in that question. At that time, however, I planned an official trip, and I, therefore, acquainted these gentlemen with one of my co-workers, Dr. Motum, and then gave him the necessary directives as to what was to happen to the preparation which we expected to arrive within the next few days.
DR. FLEMMING: May I interject here? Dr. Motum was approved to me as a witness and will at a later date be examined.
A We then used this preparation in various hospitals on sick soldiers but without any clinical result being achieved. Moreover, there was a difficulty connected with it since that preparation did not agree very favorably with the patient.
In the beginning of August 1943, that is, one year after our first conversation, a second discussion took place on the occasion of which I was asked what my experiences with that ********* been. I communicated my experiences to them, and they then declared that they had improved that drug which made it more agreeable and told me that they would deliver it to me in a granulated form, which is a coarse powder form.
Q Did you speak to Grawitz about these ruthenol matters?
A I discussed that with Grawitz, and I told him that this was a new preparation for the combating of typhus, but unfortunately its tolerance was not very good. He then said that that was a very important matter and told me that "We are doing everything in order to get clarity as to whether this drug can be used or not." I said that the unfavorable tolerance of that drug prohibited us from applying it on patients since it would have no success.
Q On the basis of documents which I have yet to submit to the Tribunal, the conversations with the gentlemen of the I. G. Farben Industry took place on the 10th of September 1942, and on the 19th of February, 1943. Do you now remember these conversations on the basis of the material which is available to you, and would you please speak about that?
A Well, I already said -- yes, that is all taken care of.
Q Did you put this drug at the disposal of Dr. Ding in a granulated form?
A I neither furnished him with that drug in its original form nor in the granulated form. The first series of experiments by Ding started on the 10th of January 1943. However, the drug was only discussed on the 19th of February. As a result of that conversation I just mentioned, the contingent left Marburg on the 19th of February, whereas on the 20th of February the series of experiments by Ding had already been finished. Therefore, the preparation could not have been given to him by me since I only received it after the series of experiments had been concluded. I neither gave him the drug in a granulated form, but I think that I sent it to Prague and Berlin in order to have it used on patients of the SS hospital.
The experimental series of Ding's only started on the 31st of March 1943. On the basis of the documents from I. G. Farben it becomes evident that Dr. Ding had asked for ten bottles of granulate six days before. This would not have been necessary if I had already given it to him, for I received the granulate at the beginning of February but for a different use.
Q According to the entries in Ding's diary, a third series of experiments with agredin and ruthenol was carried out on the 24th of April until the 4th of June 1943. Did you initiate that series of experiments?
A No, I did not. I only found out about it after looking through Ding's paper which he wrote about it, and which has been submitted here as a document. Well, I, rather -not through this document, but through looking at the paper.
Q The publication of Dr. Ding about his experience with agredin and ruthenol which were submitted by the Prosecution as Document NO-571, Exhibit 284, mentioned the work of Roller and Halleischek who used the sane preparation. These two persons maintained that they had good experience with that preparation.
Q How do you explain the difference?
A This is a typical example of how dangerous it is if one only reports on results of very few cases. If I have ten persons, it is quite likely that I have success in the case of two persons. Inspite of that the drug would be wrong because it failed in the case of eight persons. If, on the other hand, I only used two persons, accident nay have it that in the case of these two persons the drug is effective whereas in tne case of the next one hundred twenty or one hundred no result would be achieved. Therefore, in my opinion, this paper has no value whatsoever.
Q It is your opinion today that your testimony during the pre-trial interrogation of the 25th of july 1946, had been incorrect?
A Yes. The document from the I. G. Farben Industry proved that I was mistaken at that time and that I was mistaken to my disadvantage.
DR. FLEMMING: The next document I want to offer -
THE PRESIDENT: It is time for our recess. I desire to state in regard to the conversation between Counsel and the Court concerning a witness who was to be called this week if present that an order was signed to call the witness and the order provided that the witness would be heard if he appeared this week. I had not been advised whether' or not the witness was available and had come to Nurnberg, and I had forgotten that witness was called by the Defendant Hoven, but that is the fact. If the witness is available tomorrow, the witness will be hoard and put upon the stand, but I do not know whether or not the witness is here and will be available tomorrow.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, are you speaking of the witness that was discussed by the Prosecution before?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
DR. FLEMMING: Or are you -
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I ask to have permission to call the witness, Horn, on Monday. The witness horn told me that he was exhausted as a result of his journey and he had to deal with a number of formalities here. I, therefore, had not any opportunity as yet to speak to the witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now, Counsel, what is the name of the witness that you mentioned?
DR. GAWLIK: Dr. Horn.
THE PRESIDENT: As I remember it, the witness who was summoned by the Tribunal was Dietsch.
DR. GAWLIK: The witness, Dietsch, was called by my colleague, Dr. Flemming.
DR. FLEMMING: Dietsch is the former Capo of Block 46, and I asked for him. Up to this point I have received no information telling me that the witness has arrived. The witness however, that the Prosecution talked about at the beginning of the session was not Dietsch, but it was the witness, Dr. Horn about whom Dr. Gawlik was just speaking. This Dr. Horn has already arrived here, but Dietsch has not arrived as yet.
MR. HARDY: May it please Your Honor, the sun and substance of my request earlier in the day is simply this: Dr. Horn I assumed was to return immediately to Czechoslovakia because of his business or some other such reason, and if they want Dr. Horn to take the stand on Friday, that is tomorrow, either after direct examination of Mrugowsky or in between time, I am perfectly agreeable. However, if I start crossexamination of Mrugowsky on Friday afternoon -- and I am sure it will run into Monday -- I do not wish to be interrupted during the course of the cross-examination this time in the manner that I was the last time. Of course, if the Tribunal rules that I may be interrupted -- but I will not agree to be interrupted, and if Horn is here and they want to put him on the stand -- Defense Counsel has had all day today to talk to him -- I don't see why he couldn't take the stand tomorrow and return to wherever he has to go.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask Counsel for Defendant Hoven if the witness Horn can be used sometime tomorrow prior to the opening of the cross-examination of the Defendant, Mrugowsky.
MR. HARDY: In addition to that, Your Honor, the Delegate of the Czechoslovakian Legation just tells me that Dr. Horn has specifically requested to depart from here on Saturday.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I am not going to interrupt the cross-examination of the Prosecuting Attorney.
With agreement of the Tribunal and the Prosecution, I shall either call the witness, Horn, before the cross-examination or after the cross-examination.
DR. FLEMMING: Mr. President, in that connection I may say that the direct examination will probably take up all of Friday.
THE PRESIDENT: Then Counsel for the Prosecution advises all present, all concerned, that the witness is requested to return to Czechoslovakia Saturday. I understood Counsel for Defendant Mrugowsky to state that he was willing that his examination should be interrupted tomorrow for the hearing of this witness.
DR. GAWLIK: Mr. President, I spike to the witness this morning, and according to what the witness told me, it is now absolutely necessary for him to return on Saturday. It would be all right, he said, to return on Monday, but, at any rate, I shall either examine him before the cross-examination or after the cross-examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Very well. Well, now, just one moment. Yesterday Counsel for Defendant Mrugowsky had several exhibits identified that were not offered in evidence. They received numbers. I would suggest that at the opening of tomorrow's session those exhibits be formally offered because the Tribunal now has available the supplementary document book, and can note their entries as exhibits upon that book.
The Tribunal will now be in recess until nine-thirty o' clock tomorrow morning.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 0930 hours, 28 March 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal I in the matter of the United States of America, against Karl Brandt, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 28 March 1947, 0930, Justice Beals presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal I.
Military Tribunal I is new in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the Court room.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, you have ascertained that all of the defendants are present in Court?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honor, all defendants are present in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary-General will note for the record the presence of all the defendants in court.
Counsel may proceed with the examination of the witness MRUGOWSKY.
JOACHIM MRUGOWSKY - Resumed (Direct Examination - Continued)
DR. FLEMING: (Counsel for the defendant Mrugowsky) Mr. President, yesterday at the end of the session you ruled that I submit an index of the documents which I have read but which I hadn't yet submitted because they are in the supplemental document book and give then exhibit numbers.
I should like to offer Mrugowsky Document 4-a, which is to be found in the supplemental document book, I, page 76. It is an exerpt from the Reich Legal Gazette of the year 1917, regarding treatment of viruses. I offer this as Mrugowsky Exhibit No. 27. That is document Mrugowsky 4-a.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, counsel. Will you please repeat that offer?
DR. FLEMING: It is document Mrugowsky 4-A. The Tribunal has not as yet available the supplemental volume, and it hasn't been translated yet.
It is document Mrugowsky 4aA in supplemental volume I, page 76. I offer it as exhibit Mrugowsky No. 27.
MR. HARDY: May it please your Honor. This is extremely confusing for me, as I have three Mrugowsky document books now: Document books 1-, 1-a and 2; and now he speaks of a supplemental volume which doesn't include the documents in the index, and I wonder if he could clear that up.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has only two English documents books of Mrugowsky so far.
DR. FLEMING: The Tribunal has so far 1 and 1-A, Document Volume 2 has not yet been translated. After it was completed, I yet received a number of other documents.
THE PRESIDENT: We cannot proceed with these documents which are in supplement book No. 2. There were several offered and narked as exhibits which were to be included in Mrugowsky document book 1-A, which we now have, and I thought in so far as those documents were concerned they could now be properly admitted in evidence.
DR. FLEMING: Yes, I beg your pardon. I misunderstood the Tribunal. I offer Mrugowsky 2, which is to be found on page 153 of the document book 1-a. This is an excerpt from the Reich Legal Gazette of 1900, to be found at page 306, and concerns the duty of reporting so-called commonly dangerous diseases, such as leprosy, cholera, typhus, yellow fever and small pox. I offer it as Mrugowsky Exhibit No. 28. Again, Mrugowsky No. 2., on page 153 --
MR. HARDY: Your Honors, I am sure Dr. Fleming misunderstood this Tribunal. This seems to be an entirely new offer that has never been referred to. I think he is now proceeding to put in all of his documentary evidence.
DR. FLEMING: The document was mentioned yesterday when Mrugowsky said in case of dangerous diseases the SS hospital treatment was considered to be a front line duty.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel is correct.
MR. HARDY: I nave never marked it in my book as being offered before, your Honor, and I understood you to mean documents he has offered before.
THE PRESIDENT: As I remember the matter, counsel stated for some reason this document was not ready to be offered, but if counsel for the Prosecution has any objection to the document being offered at this time it will be delayed, and if counsel has no objection we will proceed. That is Mrugowsky document No. 21?
DR. FLEMING: I offer document Mrugowsky No. 21 in connection with the testimony of the defendant Mrugowsky that treatment of dangerous diseases within the Waffen SS was considered to be a front line duty. I wasn't in a position to identify that document yesterday, because the English translation was not yet available. The English translation only arrived during the session yesterday. For the same reason I didn't identify another two documents yesterday, the first is Mrugowsky document 19 which is on page 154. This is an excerpt from a paper of the defendant Mrugowsky from the medical clinic periodical regarding typical and abnormal courses of the disease of typhus. The defendant Mrugowsky mentioned this paper when asked the question whether typhus was extremely prevalent in Germany. He stated in that connection that, for instance, in Naples, the American commission had found cases where human beings, after failing ill of typhus, fell dead in the s streets. Similar cases were described in his paper and I am now submitting as Exhibit Mrugowsky No. 29, document Mrugowsky 19, on page 154, which will become exhibit No. 29. In that connection I should like to ask the defendant:
BY DR. FLEMING:
Q Witness, can you state under your oath that the cases which you mentioned in your paper were actually happening in the manner in which you recorded them?
A The observations which lead me to this paper were made in the year 1941, that is during the first time when typhus ever came up in Germany. They are not based on observations in concentration camps but on observations with the army and civilian populations of the occupied Eastern territories. In that connection, cases were observed whore within a space of two days persons died without having regained their consciousness.
Q This paper was published in the Medical Clinic Periodical which appeared on 27 February, 1942? When did this paper have to be submitted by you in order to appear on the 27th of February 1942.
A The manuscript for any such publication would have to be submitted about three months before it's publication in a weekly paper to the publishing house. There would have to be corrections made, et cetera, and it is certain that this paper was finished at the end of 1941 and then submitted to the editor's office.
Q That was at a time when the human experiments in Buchenwald had not yet started?
A Yes, that is right. That has nothing whatsoever to do with these experiments.
DR. FLEMING: As the last of the documents to be submitted yet, I offer Mrugowsky No. 63, which is to be found on page 171 of document book 1. Again No. 63, on page 171 - this is one of the documents originating from Marburg --
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, counsel.
DR. FLEMING: On page 71, Mr. President, document Mrugowsky No. 63, page 71.
This is one of the documents which I received from Marburg, and for which, according to the ruling of the Tribunal, I shall submit photostats of the original with certification of it's authenticity. This is a file notation which was made by Dr. Denmitz, who was mentioned repeatedly yesterday, the head of the Behring Works in Marburg, about the conference of the 29th of December 1941. On the last page, page 4 of the document, this is page 74 of the document book, it is stated:
"A plan of experiments was discussed with Dr. Mrugowsky; Weigel's vaccine and the vaccine of the Robert Koch institute were included in this plan. When we asked that the vaccine of the Behring works should also be included in this test, Professor Gildemeister remarked that he was not interested in them. In the course of later discussions he probably realized that this peculiar point of view - for it was regarded as such by all participants - could not be maintained and he advised us to get in touch with Dr. Mrugowsky himself, so that this vaccine too, might be included in the test. Regarding this it was intended to have tne vaccine ready in its present form and in the double concentration for those experiments and to inform Dr. Mrugowsky on 6 January after his return from Kiew."
This is a confirmation of something I already proved yesterday by other documents. I offer that as Mrugowsky Exhibit No. 30. As I said before, I shall later submit photostatic copies of the original.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, counsel. Counsel, I think you did not understand me. On the first day of the opening of the case of the defendant, Mrugowsky, as I remember, you offered three documents in evidence. At that time Document book 1-A had not been prepared, and the documents were not av ailable in the English translation.
Nevertheless, exhibit numbers were assigned to these documents, and those documents were the only ones to which I referred. I was not endeavoring to interfere with the orderly trial of your case as you desire to conduct it, but it did occur to me that it would be a good idea to have those documents to which exhibit numbers had been assigned, definitely narked in our books as exhibits received, and those were the only documents to which I referred.
DR. FLEMING: In that case I misunderstood the Tribunal. Using the index I may perhaps compare the documents and the exhibit numbers once more.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel it is not necessary to do that now. You nay take the time and find those three documents later and submit then later on in the day, so that we can regularly mark them.
MR. HARDY: I might submit, your Honor, that two of the documents you are referring to, one is exhibit 17 on page 159, and exhibit 6, page 167, those two he had referred to before. We received one document book 1-A, that wild be page 159, that is No. 17, and then page 167, which is No. 6.
THE PRESIDENT: I do not believe that has been given an exhibit number, has it, Mr. Hardy?
MR. HARDY: Yes, I have it marked as Exhibit No. 6, Your Honor. Now those are the only ones that I have as haven't been introduced before.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you repeat again the document number of Mrugowsky No. 6.
MR. HARDY: That is document Mrugowsky No. 26, Exhibit No. 6, which is an affidavit of Dr. Karl Blumenreuther on page 167 of the document book 1-A.
DR. FLEMING: And Dr. Mrugowsky No. 48 on page 154
THE PRESIDENT: Mrugowsky document No. 26?
DR. FLEMING: No. 23 is Exhibit 6. That is on page 167.
MR. HARDY: Does the Court also have Mrugowsky document 23 marked exhibit 26? I think that taxes care of all the documents which have been introduced today in document book 1-A.
JUDGE SEBRING: What page is that on.
MR. HARDY: That would be on page 161, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The matter is possibly completed and counsel nay proceed with the examination.