Then on page 3, the bottom of page 3 of the English text and the top of page 4 of the German, there is a calendar for another meeting on the 17th of December 1942 in which we find on page 5 of both English and German that the defendant Joel is scheduled to report on the transfer of a Pole from criminal custody, having been originally sentenced to three years, to the State Police.
Then on page 6, there are other reports to be made or made by Joel in connection with another matter. We offer the Document KG-812 as Prosecution Exhibit 444.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The second and last document in Supplement 4 is the Document NG-895, to be found on page 7 of both the English and German, which will become when received in evidence, Exhibit 445.
This is a letter to an SS-Gruppenfuehrer, signed Dr. Freisler, and dated 26 June, 1942, in which Dr. Freisler agrees to turn over to the police two Russians for -- the English translation at present is duly authorized; " that perhaps may be translated as, appropriate treatment." We offer the document NG-895 as Exhibit 445.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: May I ask the court and Defense Counsel to turn now to Supplement Book VI; the first document on page 1 of both the English and German texts is NG-222, which will become, when received in evidence, Prosecution's Exhibit 446. This is a letter dated Berlin, 18 January, 1944, to the Reichsfuehrer SS, and Chief of the German Police, from the Reich Ministry of Justice. It is not clear, as to who may have signed this letter, but it is clear that a copy of it was routed to the defendant Mettgenberg. The letter concerns the transfer of jurisdiction of Nacht and Nebel prisoners to Breslau because of the heavy air attacks at Cologne. This transfer was with regard to the Nacht and Nebel prisoners from the French occupied territories. We offer the Document NG-222 as Prosecution's Exhibit 446.
DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for Defendants Mettgenberg and Klemm.)
May it please the Court, in the copy in the German Document book several words are emitted. I do now know whether these omissions are also in the English document book. The omissions are probably based upon the fact that the person who made the German copy for the document book could not read these words in the original document. It would lead to misunderstandings if these words were not put in. Possibly after aanother examination of the original document, and also supplementing the English document book, the original document, it seems to me, can be read read with a magnifying glass, so that it should be possible for the Prosecution to supplement the book in case they should also be in the English document book.
MR. KING: The English text, as the Court has undoubtedly already noted, is complete and presumably an accurate translation, so Dr. Schilf's assumption that the document can be read is entirely correct.
It is true, as he points out, that there are some emissions in the German Text, but if it can be read, and the Defense has a photostatic copy of the original, I should think that it would be sufficient to enable them to complete the several blanks or omissions, as is evident from looking at the German copy. I would suggest that if Dr. Schilf did not get the, German copy promptly, that we undertake to have one made up and sent to him . As I understand it, the Defense Center has got the photostatic copies, and I conclude from that that he has it available to him, I think, therefore, that there is no reason to trouble the Court at this time to receive the document conditionally.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it the position of Defense Counsel that there are some material omissions in the German translation which do not appear in the original document?
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal that is quite possible, I have not stated that there are, but I only expressed the probability; that with a magnifying glass it may become readable--that is the original.
THE PRESIDENT: We suggest a further examination of this document to see if the Prosecution and Defense Counsel can agree on what the facts are, and if you are not able to agree, refer at back.
MR. KING: I believe the translator did not get your statement.
THE PRESIDENT: The suggestion is that the Prosecution and the Defense Counsel further examine the original document to see if they can work out these parts that seem to be different; if they can give a satisfactory account on both sides they should do that without further bringing it before the Tribunal, If they are not able to do that, then we will listen to you further.
MR. KING: In the meantime, what is the Court's suggestion as to the question whether or not it should be offered in evidence at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: We see no reason why it shouldn't retain its exhibit number; and may he the better plan will be to receive it in evidence conditionally.
That will be the ruling.
MR. KING: Tho next document is to be found on page 2 of Supplement Book VI; also on page 2 in the German text. There are several letters --or exactly two letters--contained under this document number; and they relate to the transfer of Nacht and Nebel cases from Cologne because of the severe air attacks there. We note only in passing that on page 4 of the English and on page 5 of the German; the second of the two letters is signed by both Mettgenberg and von Ammon. We offer the Document NG-237 as Exhibit 447.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, from the document book supplement 6 is to be found on page 6 of both the English and German text, and is document NG 294, which will become when received, in evidence, exhibit 446. This is a letter dated, Hamm in Westphalia, December 29, 1934, addressed to the defendant von ammon; and it concerns, generally, the arrangement for trying the Nacht and Nebel prisoners in the Specie 1 Court in Essen, which originated in the Netherlands.
We offer the document NG 294 as exhibit 448.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: There is one remaining document in the supplement 6, which will not, at the moment, be offered.
May we ask the Court to turn now to document book, supplement 7.
The first document in supplement 7 consists of several letters and several lists of prisoners who either are awaiting execution or have been executed. The series of letters concerns the question of accelerating the executions of sentences of death, following the pronouncement of the sentences. We will not summarize each individual letter, except to point out certain names which appear on the letters.
On page 3 of both the German and English text, we find the name Mettgenberg in two places. I should point out that the signature indicated to be "M" at the bottom of page 3 in the English text as of 17 August 1938, does not appear in the German mimeograph text; that is an omission, but as the original will show, the English version is an accurate copy of the original.
On page 7 of the English text -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) Is it claimed that the letter "M" means Mettgenberg?
MR. KING: Yes, the original shows that to be the initial of Mettgenberg.
On page 7 if the English text, page 8 of the German, we find again the initial of Mettgenberg as of 15 March. In the English text, the Court will note three initials in the bottom right hand corner of the page. The first of those initials, "M" is that of Mettgenberg.
On page 10 in the English text, page 11 in the German, we note there that the letter was submitted to the State Secretary, Dr. Schlegelberger for information. I am informed that portions of this document does not appear in the mimeographed version of the German text. This is an inadvertance as the original will show the English is an accurate copy.
JUDGE BRAND: What page is that, please?
MR. KING: That is on page 10 of the English, and the equivalent page in the German, is 11.
Beginning on page 12 and continuing through page 19 in the English, that is 13 through 20 in the German, we find a long list of prisoners on whom sentences have been passed, and execution of those sentences either performed or waiting. The list is of interest since it forms the basis of the preceding letters.
We offer the document NG 606 as -- no, I am sorry, the document NG 284 as exhibit 449.
THE PRESIDENT: May we inquire as to what classification these are?
MR. KING: I do not understand your question, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: What classification are they? Are they Nacht und Nebel cases?
MR. KING: These two documents fall in the general classification of prison treatment -- treatment in prisons of prisoners, and the general matter of penal administration.
The PRESIDENT: We understood that exhibit 448, referring to NG 294 refers to NN prisoners in Holland, and I am wondering whether exhibit 449, NG 284, also refers to NN prisoners?
MR. KING: No, no, not specifically; there may be NN prisoners among those listed, but the document is not offered to show them as NN prisoners; as to whether they are NN prisoners or as to how many there may be, we do not know. The document is not offered for that purpose.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, in the case of this document, I have to make the same reservation as I did in the case of the previous document, when I spoke about the fact that in the German document book there is a number of omissions, apparently words which could not easily be read.
In this case also, I do not know whether the English document book is complete or has the omissions, but I assume that we could turn to their document in the same manner as happened in the previous one.
THE PRESIDENT: We hope that the Counsel may be able to do that, and we will, therefore make the same ruling -- admitting the documents conditionally.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: The Prosecution mentioned that on page 10, the indication was included that the letter was supposed to be submitted to the Under-Secretary, Dr. Schlegelberger. The German copy, however, --the photostatic copy shows a stamp to that effect. Across that stamp, however, there is a line drawn. If one looks at that photostatic copy one really has to come to the conclusion that line voids the disposition indicated by the stamp. There is a confirmation for that fact because on that letter, there is no indication from where it could be seen that the letter had really been submitted to Schlegelberger. It was customary that anybody to whom a letter had been submitted made clear by initialing it, that in effect it ad been submitted, and he had seen it. Therefore, I believe that the document does not represent sufficient evidence for the fact that the letter had been submitted to Schlegelberger.
MR. KING: I think it is purely a question of argument whether the line drawn through the stamp in a diagonal manner indicates that information contained in the stamped message was to be voided or not, that is certainly not clear. Dr. Kuboschok may be right, but I think it is a matter of argument, and I do not think we are going to gain anything by arguing it at the present time.
THE PRESIDENT: About all we need to say is that we will take that into consideration of each document.
We have now reached the point for adjournment for the noon recess, and we will adjourn until 1:30 o'clock. (Recess was taken 'till 1330 hours AFTERNOON SESSION.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. KING: Just before our recess we were discussing the Document NG--284. I recall that I had offered it for receipt in evidence but I do not believe that it was actually received by the Court. There were objections by Dr. Kubuschok and Dr. Schilf, and I believe the Court stated the Document would be received conditionally, subject to clearing up the difficulties in translation which were pointed out by Dr. Schilf.
THE PRESIDENT: That's correct. The objections that were made by Dr. Kubuschok will not be recognized as objections toward the receipt of the Document. That is a matter for the Tribunal to examine. -- Well, this switch is off again. -- As I said a moment ago, the objections that were made by Dr. Kubuschok were not valid. The Tribunal can examine the Document and do as well on that examination as counsel can do by helping, but the objections made out by Dr. Schilf will be the same as the other one, and the same ruling -- conditionally.
MR. KING: Yes.
I take it that 449 has been received in evidence by the Court?
THE PRESIDENT: That is correct. Conditionally.
MR. KING: I invite the Court to turn now to page 20 in Supplement Book 7, to the Document Book 7, to the Document NG 606, that is page 22 in the German text. This Document when received in evidence will be Exhibit 450. I first wish to point out to the Court that the first six pages of Document NG-606 have been previously introduced in evidence. However, because there apparently was a duplicate set of these names contained in the file, in which NG-606 was found, the first six pages are presented again with this Document.
I will leave it to the discretion of the Court as to whether to receive again the first six pages of NG-606. The remainder of the Document --
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question. In what previous exhibit did they appear before... do you remember?
MR. KING: This question I anticipated the Court would ask, and I neglected to make that check.... until just a few moments ago I did not have time... I will supply that information, however.
The balance of the Document is a series of lists -plural, lists -- of death sentences either passed or carried out. Occasionally explanatory notes appear but we do not refer to those to any greater extent than we already have. We offer the Document NG-606 as Exhibit 450. But, we do not offer it for that purpose at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: According to my usual habit I will inquire if it is known what class of cases these are?
MR. KING: This Document, so far as we are aware, does not deal with the Nacht und Nebel prisoners. There may -- and primarily are Nacht und Nebel prisoners contained in the lists but we do not offer it for that purpose at this time for the reason that we do not know, and are not sure.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: I might say that so far as possible we have tried to arrange the numbering of the Supplemental Books to correspond with the subject matter in the main Document Books.
May I ask the Court and defense counsel--
THE PRESIDENT: One moment please.
MR. KING: Excuse me.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. I had already ruled.
MR. KING: May I ask the Court and defense counsel to turn now to the Document Book - to the Document Supplement 8.
The first document in Supplement Book 8 is NG-636, which will become Exhibit 451 when received in evidence.
The document is a summary of measures suggested, and, at least partially, we know put into effect for increasing the efficiency, eliminating absolutely -- eliminating unnecessary activities of the Reich Ministry of Justice during the war due to a shortage of personnel and, in general, wartime conditions. A conference concerning these matters was held at Kochem on the 23rd and 24th of August 1944. This Document is concerned with the matters discussed at this conference at that time. We do not at this time wish to point out any particular aspects of the matters discussed at the conference, but do reserve the right, which we do in all these documents, to argue, to draw conclusions, from any or ail of it, at some later time in argument before the Court.
The Document NG-636 we now offer as Exhibit 451.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document in Supplement Book VIII is tho document NG-790, which will become, when received in evidence, the Exhibit 452. This document is a letter dated Berlin, 22 August 1944, to the Presidents of District Courts of Appeal, concerning matters of hereditary hygiene in tho total war effort. It was issued, or circulated, on the orders of the defendant Alstoetter.
I would like to read the two last paragraphs of that letter, but before I do that I would like to point out that the particular copy of this letter which we are submitting also bears the initials of the defendant Klemm.
Reading from page 33 in the English document book, page 26 in the German, beginning with the second paragraph:
"I beg to advise the Hereditary Hygiene Courts that from now on the duration of the total war effort only such cases be handled that are now already pending and instantly determinable" -- we think perhaps that should have be n translated "for immediate decision" -- "or where the official physician expressly proposes the case to be carried through also during the total war effort. I beg to abstain at present from handling cases of appeal after the sterilization has taken place, since they are not urgent.
"It is necessary that the cases of hereditary hygiene which still must be treated hereafter, be handled also during the total way effort and whenever possible by experienced judges of hereditary hygiene. In order to guarantee this I intend a far-reaching centralization of the Hereditary Hygiene Courts during the total war effort. In most of the districts of a District Court of Appeal it will do if the Hereditary Hygiene Court residing at the seat of the District Court of Appeal takes care of all matters of hereditary hygiene of that district. Should you, Herr President of the District Court of Appeal, think it necessary to apply another method for your district, I expect your report until 10 September 1944.
"By order of Alstoetter."
We offer the document NG-790 as Exhibit 452. As soon as defense counsel has finished examination of the document, we will transmit it to the representative of the Secretary General.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next and last document in Supplement Book VIII is NG-900, found beginning on page 35 in the English text, and on page 28 in the German. The document contains several letters addressed to the Reich Ministry of Justice which we will read in part.
The first letter, on page 35, is dated Berlin, 3 May 1944. It is initialed by the defendant Klemm, and it originated in the Office of the Chief of the Security Police. It is addressed to the Reich Minister of Justice. We would like to read the first paragraph:
"In a number of proceedings for the checking of descent, the Lower Court of Vienna requested information about the whereabouts of Jews; in some cases it requested this information from the Central Office for the Regulation of the Jewish Problem in Bohemia and Moravia at Prague, and in some cases directly from here. These Jews were at some time either evacuated to the East or were sent to Theresienstadt. Although my local office drew the attention of the Lower Court of Vienna several times to the fact that such requests, as well as applications for the admission of such Jews as witnesses before courts or for hereditary biological examinations cannot be granted on account of reasons" -- that should be "on account of security reasons", rather than as is translated here, "reasons stated by the Security Police" -- "on account of security reasons, the Lower Court of Vienna renews its applications or requests continuously."
As I stated at the outset, the signature of the sender of the letter is not legible.
"The next letter, on page 36 in the English text and on page 30 in the German, is dated Berlin, 3 June 1944. It is addressed to the President of the Appellate Court in Vienna, and it originated with the defendant Alstoetter. It concerns the handling of cases concerning the descent of Jews or Jewish persons, or persons of mixed Jewish race.
We would like to read the letter, I think, in its entirety:
"The Chief of the Security Police and the Security Service pointed out that in cases concerning descent of Jews and Jewish persons of mixed race the offices of the police are frequently asked for information on the place of abode of deported Jews by the courts, especially by the Lower Court Vienna, or that their admission as witnesses or for the purpose of examination for hereditary biological export opinions is requested. Those requests cannot be granted for reasons of security.
"Even if the hearing of the Jews may in many cases help to frustrate the intentions to conceal their descent, reasons of security demand to desist therefrom.
"In the near future I intend to issue, in a circular decree, detailed regulations for the handling of cases concerning the descent of Jews and Jewish persons of mixed race. Already now I request to inform the Lower Court of Vienna of the following:"
Now, there has been a juxtaposition of the material that should come after the colon on page 36, and the material that should follow is to be found on the bottom of page 3, under the parenthetical enclosure about a third of the way up from the bottom of the page. The rest of that letter would continue, therefore, as follows:
"In cases of Jews who were deported to Theresienstadt or to other places, a hearing as witnesses or a hereditary biological examination is impossible for reasons of security, because persons to accompany them and means of transportation are not available. If the Resident's Registration Office or another police office gives the information that a Jew has been deported, all other inquiries as to his place of abode as well as applications for his hearing or examination are superfluous. On the contrary, it has to be assumed that the Jew is not attainable for the taking of evidence.
"If in an individual case it is in the interest of the public to make an exception and to render possible the taking of evidence by special provision of persons to accompany and means of transportation for a Jew, a report has to he submitted to me in which the importance of the case is explained.
In all cases offices must refrain from direct application to the office cf the police, especially also to the Central Office for the Regulation of the Jewish Problem in Bohemia and Moravia at Prague, for information on the place of abode of departed Jews and their hearing or examination."
We turn now to page 3 again of the English document book, and note at the top of the page the statement that: "In the enclosure I submit a copy of my letter to the President of the Appellate Court Vienna for your information." That, presumably, refers to the letter which I have just read. That little note it initialed Alstoetter.
Then, further down, on page 3, is another note, signed by Alstoetter, which we wish to read. It is addressed to: "Herr Minister; with request to permit the dispatch of the above letter signed by me. The arrangement of the report could be settled in connection with the report on the decree concerning a general order on the handling of cases concerning the descent of Jews and Jewish persons of mixed race. It is intended to put into the draft of this official decree the directives in the above letter sent to the President of the Appellate Court Vienna for information to all Presidents f the Appellate Courts and General Public Prosecutors."
And that letter is signed by Alstoetter.
We offer the document NG-900 as Exhibit 453.
DR. SCHILF (For the Defendant Klemm): May it please the Court, in the case of the second document, that is the letter of 3 June, 1944, we are concerned with a matter which is not very clear, not very easy to discern. The letter is a draft, actually. The draft has been written on a typewriter and subsequently handwritten changes have been made. These are handwritten changes apparently made by two different people - two different handwritings.
The second paragraph is given in the German document book, as follows, and I quote:
"Even if the hearing of the Jews nay not infrequently help to frustrate the intentions to conceal their descent, reasons of the Security Police demand to desist therefrom."
In the original, written on a typewriter, this paragraph reads as follows; and I quote again:
"Even if tho hearing and examination of tho Jews may be an important piece of evidence for tho clarifying of the question of descent and may not infrequently help to frustrate the intentions of the Jews to conceal their descent, reasons of the Security Police demand to desist from this piece of evidence."
From tho comparison of the two texts it appears that the original contains many words, even half a sentence, which arc not contained in the copy. One has to remark, however, that those words which are in the original and which were left out of the copy, that they have been crossed out with a very thin line, a much thinner line than other things that have been crossed out, and the other lines are much more clear to see. Where these thin lines have been drawn through the words there is a remark on the margin in handwriting. I can not read it on the original, however. The question thus arises, since it is only a draft, in what form the final letter went to the person to whom it was addressed, the president of the District Court of Appeals in Vienna.
I only want to call the attention of the Court to this question of doubt.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask what you contend for, Dr. Schilf? Which version do you contend is the correct one?
DR. SCHILF: Mr. President, unfortunately I can not decide that, which the correct version is. In the German document book the abbreviated version appears, and on the original document there is a longer version. I am convinced that the gentlemen of the Prosecution would have to toll us which version they consider the one which the recipient, the president of the District Court of Appeals in Vienna, received.
THE PRESIDENT: I think he has already answered that question because he read that part which had the interpolated matter stricken out.
MR. KING: I think perhaps the only answer that we can supply is actually supplied on Page 37 of the English translation, the letter that I read. It does appear that the letter from which Dy. Schilf has just been quoting is a draft, and on the note there on the middle of Page 37, Alstoetter is requesting permission to send the draft when it is put into final form out to the presidents of the Appellate Court and general public prosecutors. As to exactly what form the final letter took, we arc certainly not prepared to say, because we have, so far as we know, never seen a copy of the letter as finally circulated. However, we submit that the entire document shows state of mind and intention. As to what form the final letter nay have taken is not of paramount importance.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, it seems to me that decisive for purposes of clarification, is the handwritten remark on the margin which I have already mentioned, on the margin of this draft.
I, myself, however, can not clarify because in the photostat I can not decipher this handwritten note. Therefore it is my opinion that the Prosecution should be charged with producing a photostat or the original on which this marginal note can be read.
MR. KING: The Prosecution has a counter offer. When the defendant Alstoetter takes the stand we will ask him what he meant by it. We can't do any more than we have already done on this document.
THE PRESIDENT: The document would seem to be one that should be received in evidence, and these other matters will have to be determined as best they can. The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: At this time I would like to retrace my stops to Book 6 Supplement and offer the document NG-996 as the next exhibit 454. This is an excerpt from the German Criminal Code, Paragraph 234. We offer NG 993 as Exhibit 454.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, in regard to this document we are concerned only with determining a mistake in the translation. I do not have the English Translation in front of no. This paragraph 234 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure talks about the fact that a human being is exposed in a helpless position. We have found out that the translation into English does not report this faithfully. The English version is in such a way that it could mean to put him into a helpless position. That is, that the "helpless" applies to the exposing him to the helpless position and not to the situation in which he finds himself.
For that reason a very exact examination of the English translation seems to me to be necessary. My colleague, Dr. Brieger, who is an expert on questions of translation, perhaps can clarify this matter better than I can.
DR. BRIEGER: In the English text it says, "in order to render him helpless". The German translation of this accordingly would be "um ihn der Hilflosigkeit zu ueberantworten"--"in order to put him into a helpless position". If I understand it correctly, the meaning of the German text is supposed to be "to put him in a helpless position". As far as I can see, the translation in this place is correct.
JUDGE BRAND: In other words, the difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Tribunal and Defense Counsel will please turn to Supplementary Book 5-- The first document in Supplementary Book 5, namely, NG 304, is a complete dossier with a fly sheet at the beginning bearing the tittle of the Reich Ministry of Justice, entitled, "The Transfer of the Prerogative to Grant Pardon to Jews and Poles; Treatment of the Death Sentences".
I might interpolate here a moment to remind both the Tribunal and Defense Counsel that this Rook 5, Supplement, has the same general subject matter as the original Rook 5, namely, the lowest common denominator of all documents to be found in this Rook is that of the extension of German law, both civil and criminal, to various occupied and annexed countries.
Reverting now to NG 304, under the fly sheet we find a covering letter from the General Public Prosecutor in Kattowice, which is in Poland, to the Reich Minister of Justice in Berlin, dated 28 October 1944. In this covering letter this General Public prosecutor to Poland, namely Dr. Haffner, tells the Minister of Justice that he is enclosing several lists of death sentences passed on Poles and the dates that such defendants were executed in Poland.
Turning to page 3, 4, and 5, we see the lists to which the General Public Prosecutor in Poland referred. In both cases, the lists contain but one name each, and in each case it will be noted that the crime briefly described was that of selling stolen bicycles, ranging in number from 13 to 30 having known than to be stolen, and that in each case the defendant was executed, and the dates are given; in other words, in both cases cited here, the Pole in question was sentenced to death and executed by the Special Courts of Bielitz and Kattowice, both of which are in Poland, for the crime of receiving stolen goods in these cases, namely, anywhere from 13 to 30 stolen bicycles.
These lists apparently were seen in the Ministry of Justice, and an endorsement was placed thereon and sent back to the place of origin, namely, the General Public Prosecutor in Kattowice and also in Koenigsberg. This endorsement which was returned to the senders in Poland state that the reporting of such cases of executions would no longer be necessary as far as the Ministry of Justice was concerned, but that each individual case should still be reported, with a copy also, to the governor in the Polish province concerned.
The bottom of this endorsement bears the pencilled notation "Before dispatching send to the State Secretary with the request to take notice of the contents," and to the right of that on the original document are found the initials of the defendant Klemm. On the English copy on page 6 of the document book that only appears in fragmentary form. For the benefit of the Tribunal, I might repeat that in the lower right hand corner on page 6 the following should appear, as it does on the original. In pencil it states, "Before dispatching the above to the State Secretary with the request to take notice of the contents," and to the right of that the initials of the defendant Klemm appear.
THE PRESIDENT: We are unable to locate the place where you read last.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: On page 6 of the document book, Your Honor, just above the Certificate of Translation, you see the phrase "Pencilled note". That has been translated only in a fragmentary form.