Q That was assumption, the existence of which could be established quite easily through routine channels?
A Yes.
Q Did you--with Engert or with his predecessor Marx--have any fundamental discussions with either of them on that point?
A Fundamental discussions took place, for example, on the point as to whether prisoners who were sick were to be transferred, in what case prisoners could be kept back, etc. But concerning the handing on of the lists, as such, discussions were generally not needed. The fundamental questions, as such, had been settled.
Q That is enough for me, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross-examination on the part of any other of Defense counsel? Has the Prosecution any re-direct examination?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: We have not, Your Honor. The witness may be excused.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness nay be excused.
(Witness excused)
MR. WOOLEYHAN: If the Tribunal and the Defense counsel will please turn to Book VII-A, we will proceed with the introduction of evidence in just a moment.
MR. KING: The document book from which we will next proceed is VII-A; the next exhibit number will be 278, and will apply to the document NG-771, which is the first document in the document book VII-A. This document is an excerpt of a decree of the Reichminister of Justice, of 6 February 1935, concerning procedure in matters cf clemency, and it was promulgated in the Deutsche Justiz, 1945. Page 203 in it describes the manner in which clemency pleas shall be presented. We formally offer the document NG-771 as Exhibit 278.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next exhibit, Exhibit 279, will be the document NG302, which will be found beginning on page 4 of the document book VII-A.
This is a letter to Thierack, dated 17th of August 1943, from Dr. Lammers, which, in general, asks that the executions of individual sentences to death be more speedily carried out. At that time there were more than 900 persons who were condemned to death and there was a fear that during air raids this large number of condemned persons would constitute a danger in view of increasing air raids. It is a request for a quick decision on applications for clemency. We offer the document NG-302 as Exhibit 279.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As Exhibit 280, we will next offer the document NG-609, which appears beginning on page 12 of the document book VII-A, and continues through page 66 of the same book, This document consists of semi-monthly reports of death sentences approved by various departments and individuals. These reports date from September 10, 1942 to September 2, 1943. We particularly call attention to the fact that the death sentences from persons formerly resident in the so-called Eastern territories appear here apparently upon the recommendation of the defendant Joel. Throughout this document, the list of death sentences resulting from the Nacht and Nabel program--these, apparently, upon the recommendation of the defendant von Ammon.
We will not go to any further extent to point out the contents of the document, but what I have said indicates that we will, in the future refer to it in connection at least with the references I have made. We will offer, as soon as Defense counsel has finished examining the document, the document NG-698, as Exhibit 280.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask to what courts this document refers? For instance, it does not refer to the military trials, does it?
MR. KING: It is not clear on the face of the document that it does not refer to the military courts. However, if any military cases are involved in this document, it would be incumbent upon the Defense to show how they came under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next exhibit, 218, will be Document NG-301 which begins on Page 67 of Document Book 7-A. This document, in general, involves the same question involved in Document 302 which was introduced a few moments ago as Exhibit 279. The first letter in this document is a letter from Meissner to Thierack dated September 3, 1943. It refers once again to the question of the acceleration of executions of death sentences for the same reasons mentioned in Exhibit 279. The danger of air raids and the large number of people under sentence of death constituted a potential danger that some of the prisoners under sentence might escape during an air raid. This was a plea by Meissner to Thierack to try to do something about speeding up the executions. The document also contains a note by Thierack, passing on to the People's Court and Chief Public Prosecutor this thought and requesting that all possible measures be taken to accelerate action on clemency pleas and so on. The note from Theirack is also initialed by the Defendant Klemm. We offer as Exhibit 281, the Document NG-201.
THE PRESIDENT: Will counsel give us some information as to who Meisnner really was? What was his official position?
MR. KING: Meissner, to the best of my recollection, was a State Secretary who held a job equivalent to that of Dr. Lammers. If I am incorrect in that, I am sure defense counsel will correct me. I think it is important for the Court to realize that this request was from some one outside the Justice Ministry who as an official in the Reich government was passing on requests made to him by other officers in the government.
It has been pointed out to me that the next Document, NG-319; contains his title in full which is State Minister and Chief of the Presidential Chancellery. May I ask whether this document has been admitted in evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: It will be admitted in evidence.
DR. SCHILF: (For the Defendant Klemm.) According to the document book which we have before us, Page 88 in the German Book and Page 89, we are confronted with an incorrect pagination.
As far as I can see, the top of Page 89 contains a handwritten note which has not been copied. The date is missing insofar as the year has been omitted. At the moment I cannot see whether that note is a part of Meissner's letter of 3 September 1943, or whether it is a separate document. Therefore, I would ask the Tribunal to allow me to examine once again the exhibit which has just been submitted so that I can make certain. Furthermore, in case the question cannot be cleared up, I would ask you to permit me to give my view on the subject again.
MR. KING: May I see if the English copy is correct? It will appear that the note to which Dr. Schilf has referred is not a pa.rt of the Meissner letter. However, in case there may be some doubt about the manner in which the English copy has been reproduced, I agree that Dr. Schilf should be permitted to once again examine the original which has been submitted as an exhibit, and I join in his request that it be returned to him for examination.
JUDGE BRAND: You referred, Mr. Prosecutor, to Klemm in connection with the note, as I understood it.
MR. KING: No. As I understand it, Dr. Schilf's objection does not go to that part of the letter.
JUDGE BRAND: I am just asking you whether you connect the note with Defendant Klemm in anyway? The note does not appear to be a part of the letter sent by Dr. Theirack and initialed by the Defendant Klemm.
MR. KING: The part initialed by Klemm appears to be a separate note.
Dr. SCHILF: May it please the Court: May I make a remark on this matter? I have the photostat before me, but unfortunately, at the moment, it is impossible to settle the matter. Meissner's letter is dated 3 September 1943. Following that letter, on the next page, are three notes. They are numbered one, two and three. At the end of Number Three, there is a date, "Berlin, 4 October 1944." That means a year later. From the photostat we have before us, we cannot see the connection between 1943 and 1944.
Therefore, I take the liberty to suggest that before the Prosecutor submits the document in evidence, I be permitted to make a further attempt to settle the matter with the Prosecutor so we can establish why those notes differ. We will find out whether they refer to the Meissner letter of 3 September 1943 or to the note of 4 October 1944. This matter is of importance to the Defendant Klemm because in 1943 he was not yet Undersecretary.
MR. KING: I am in accord with what Dr. Schilf said, concerning the note about which there has been discussion, to a certain extent. However, this does not effect the principle question. The fact remains that the letter, sent by Theirack to the President of the Peoples Court or the Chief Public Prosecutor at the People's Court, incorporates the same general thoughts contained in Meissner's letter to Dr. Thierack. There is no question, I take, about the fact that Defendant Klemm initialed the letter from Dr. Thierack to the People's Court and the Chief Public Prosecutor.
What the origin of that note may be, at the moment, I am not prepared to say. And if it is the feeling of the Tribunal that this document should be held out until we can definitely explain it correctly, we will agree to withdraw it and submit it again at such time when we are able to explain it.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that this document, being a captured document, is of such a nature, that it is admissible. Of course Dr. Schilf can explain it as a matter of defense or under these peculiar circumstances, he can bring this matter up at any time.
MR. KING: The next Exhibit, 282, concerns the Document NG-319which is to be found in the English Book 7-1 beginning on Page 73 and in the German Book beginning on Page 91. This document consists of two letters relating to the same general subject as NG-301 which was Exhibit 281 and NG-302 which was Exhibit 279.
In Thierack's letter to Dr. Meissner, he suggests in the period from September 3, 1939, until the date of this letter, November 11, 1934, that his recommendation for clemency to Hitler bad been followed except in one case. He suggests from that fact, it follows that there is little point in submitting these lists to Hitler because obviously he and Hitler see eye to eye on these applications or petitions for clemency. He therefore would decide the question in tho future without reference to Hitler.
The next letter is a reply from Dr. Lammers. ho is agreeing essentially with Theirack's proposal with tho exception that Hitler still would like to have tho clemency pleas relating to women under death sentence who formerly lived in the occupied western territories. No offer as Exhibit 282, Document NG-319.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next exhibit, 283 , which is Document NG-535 is a sworn affidavit from a Berlin lawyer, Dr. Bruno Gruenwald who, for a considerable period of time was a defense lawyer before tho People's Court in Berlin. We will not, at this time, read any portion of the document. We will call attention to the fact that he speaks on many aspects of the procedure before the People's Court from his point of view as a defense counsel. We, therefore, offer at this time, the affidavit of Gruenwald as Exhibit 283. It is Document NG-535.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next exhibit, 284, is the document NG-190. It appears in the English Document Book 7-A at Page 85, and in the German Document look on Page 106.
This document is a series of letters in connection with the execution of individuals who were sentenced to prison terms and who later were executed for the most part on Hitler's order without an official order of execution issuing from the Ministry of Justice. There is also to be found from the English text, beginning on Page 92, which would be Page 115 in the German text, a list of 18 cases in this particular category, of individuals who were sentenced to prison terms and who later were executed without official orders from tho Reich ministry of Justice. As soon as Defense counsel have completed the examination of tho document we offer NG-190 as Exhibit 284.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next exhibit, 283, is Document 674-PS. It is to be found in the English text on Page 99 of Document Book 7-A and in the German text on Page 118.
This is a letter from the President of the District Court and the Chief Public Prosecutor in the Kattowitz District of Poland to the Reich Minister of Justice concerning the execution in the Kattowitz District of individuals who were sentenced to prison terms but executed without orders.
We have no further comments to make on the document and we offer Document 674-PS as Exhibit 285.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
JUDGE BRAND: Mr. Prosecutor, tho presiding judge has observed that it is time for the recess and permitted me to make a purely personal suggestion to counsel for both sides. I think this will be very helpful to the Court. This, of course, is not a request from the Tribunal.
It is my suggestion only.
MR. KING: Yes.
JUDGE BRAND: We have the affidavits and other evidence showing pretty accurately the official positions of tho defendants in the case, but it would be a very great convenience I think to the Tribunal if tho Prosecution and some of the defense counsel could make out a brief list of the higher officials with a brief statement indicating offices which they held and the period of time during which they held then. I call attention merely by way of illustration to some of the names which have appeared quite recently in the exhibits ---Meissner, Theirack, Guertner, Freisler, Lammers and no doubt others. If that could be done, it would aid the Tribunal. I am quite sure they would appreciate knowing in what capacity these different men acted.
If counsel for both sides approve that suggestion, I think it would be a very helpful thing.
MR. KING: Four honor, I think tho Prosecution are in agreement as to the helpfulness of such a document. We will perhaps outside of Court --
JUDGE BRAND: There is not has to about it.
MR. KING: Ac will prepare such a document and get together with defense counsel so you will have assurance that it is accurate, and then we will submit it to the Court at our first opportunity.
THE PRESIDENT: We will now recess for 15 minutes.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A short recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg) In regard to Exhibit 282, NG-319, there is some lack of clarity; there is a lack of clearness.
It is possible that this was only a mistake in the translation. Mr. King referred to the letter of 11 November 1942; ho explained it only and did not read it. In the German translation the contents - may I tell you that this is in the German document book, page 91, Document Book VII-A, page 91 in the German book; that is page 73 in the English text. This explanation, according to what we heard over the German sound system, was to the effect that contrary to the suggestion of the Reich Minister of Justice, of 290 death cases in which the death sentences were pronounced, only one or two were pardoned. The text, however, states the opposite; namely, that out of 290 pardons, the death sentences, where the death sentences were carried out, two of them were ordered by Hitler; as Head of State Hitler ordered two of them to be executed in his capacity as Head of State. I would only like to have it clarified whether there is a mistake in the German transcript; I would like to find out whether the same applies, whether the same mistake occurs also in the English transcript; or whether it is only a mistake in the translation.
MR. KING: It seems to be that in any event the document will speak for itself. I assume that Dr. Schilf is addressing his remarks to the translation of the German over the sound system while I was summarizing that document, rather than to the translation as it appears in the document book. At the moment, of course, I can not accurately remember verbatim what I said in summar izing this document.
In case it was not clear, may I repeat that in summarizing this document I wanted to point out that Thierack in writing to Dr. Meissner referred to the fact that in only two cases did Hitler disagree with him as to the disposition of the recommendations which ho, Thierack, had made; and since it was apparent from that, in Thierack's mind, that ho and Hitler saw eye to eye as to the disposition, that there was really no point in the future in referring these cases to Hitler. Now, if I said anything which came through differently than that, I would like what I have just said to be substituted.
Does that satisfy you, Dr. Schilf?
DR. SCHILF: Unfortunately, I am not quite in agreement with you as yet. what Mr. King just described is the contents of the document in the document book. His former explanation, however, was somewhat more extensive; he wont into more detail and it referred to the fact that out of 290 cases only in one case a pardon was not denied, but in one case the decision of the Minister was disapproved; and to the contrary that the Minister would have granted a pardon which Thierack had suggested. Therefore, in our difference of opinion, we are concerned only with one sentence in this document which, in any case, over the sound system was given the wrong meaning - the opposite meaning that it should have. I would only like to find out whether in the English transcript the incorrect meaning was also given. Then, I would have to apply for correction of the transcript. If I may make a suggestion, I would suggest to have Mr. King road this small paragraph - then the matter will really be clarified.
MR. KING: Actually I do not think that Dr. Schilf is in any disagreement at all, on the basis of what ho has just said.
However, his suggestion that we read it - I believe there arc two paragraphs - verbatim from the text would put an end to any doubt.
Reading from Document NG-319, which is to be found on page 91 of the German text and 73 in the English text, "a letter from Dr. Thierack, dated Berlin, 11 November 1944, to the Staatsminister and Chief of the Presidential Chancellery, Dr. Meissner. Dear Doctor Meissner:" -Reading the first two paragraphs of that letter: "Since the issue of the decree concerning the right of pardon of 3 September 1939 by the Fuehrer I have submitted to you monthly a list of those cases of death sentences which I deem worthy of pardon. I grant the pardon only after no objections have boon raised by the Fuehrer.
"The number of cases in which the Fuehrer, contrary to my recommendation, has ordered the death sentence to be executed is extremely small. Of the 290 cases submitted to him during the past two years he has refused the right of pardon only once. I may conclude therefore that my administering of the right of pardon in cases of death sentences is in accord with the principles of the Fuehrer."
I assume, Dr. Schilf, that we arc in agreement now as to what this document said. May we turn now to page 102 in the English text, 124 in the German text, to the Document NG-213, which will become, when introduced, the Exhibit 286. This document contains three general subjects to which we will refer briefly. The first subject is in connection with the execution of six persons at Ploetzensee Prison on Sept. 7 and 8, 1943, who were executed without authority. Their name appeared erroneously on the list which went to the executioner, and they were, therefore, executed before it was officially intended that they should be. 2396 There are two other documents in this which we will refer to shortly which concerns this same subject, and I would request that we note that this is only tho introductory phrase of this particular subject.
Another matter which is concerned in this document concerns a letter which is signed by tho defendant Mettgenberg, and it concerns tho speeding up of executions in the Reich prisons due to air raids on the throat of air raids.
The other subject that is concerned here is that of tho disposal of bodies of persons who had been executed and because for one reason or another it was not possible to remove the bodies from tho prison area. The bodies lay exposed to he weather for several days, and finally it became necessary to have special measures taken to remove them. And, tho letter concerns tho bonus which is to be given to the men who participated in this removal.
Still another matter is concerned in this document. It appears at the end of the document, NG 213, it is a list of 142 names of persons who are to ho executed, and tho final note at the end of that document states that: "This list of names is to be telephoned at once to the chief executioner at Ploetzensee prison.
We have no further comment to make on this document at this time, and we offer it now, document MG 213 as Exhibit 286.
DR. LUMMERT: In the document MG 213, tho Prosecution has just submitted photostatic copies of this document, at tho and of those photostats, there is a list of names contained in this document -a list of names of persons whoso clemency pleas were apparently, partly supposed to have boon decided at that time. At the very end there is, under tho date of 7 September 1943, a note written by note -- typewritten note, which says: "The State Under-Secretary of the Reich Ministry of justice ..." I would like to object to this in that tho remarks had not boon signed officially; and, therefore the document does not show whether tho defendant Rothenberger dealt with the matter at that time.
Likewise I object that, two pages before this list of names, under the date, Berlin 8 September 1943, the signature is also missing.
MR. KING: Naturally we regret the defendant Rothenberger, at the time, did not sign the document, but the fact remains that they are not signed is evident from the photostat originals, and since they are clearly admissible as captured documents, with or without signature, we do not think any more has to be said in connection with the objection made by Counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: It appears that this was a general office copy.
MR. KING: I think it is apparent your Honor, that this list is generally referred to as an office copy.
THE PRESIDENT: We have been receiving office copies in evidence in the absence of tho original copies, and under these circumstances, the documents would seem to be admissible in evidence.
DR. LUMMERT: Just now you were talking about a copy. The photostat does not show whether it is a copy or whether it is something that has been copied from the original or a copy made on the typewritten, a typewritten draft.
MR. KING: In reply to the further question raised, we can only say that this document was found in the files. As to what may have happened to it prior to the time we found it, while the Reich officials were still in control of the files, we, of course, cannot say, but the document reproduced here, is a photostat copy of the document which we found in the Reich Ministry of justice files.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we are bound to admit the document.
MR. KING: We turn now to page 124 in the English document book, on page 115 in the German, as the next Exhibit 287. We introduce, at this time, document 652 PS, which concerns the same subject as the first part of Exhibit 286, document NG 213, which we introduced a few moments ago.
JUDGE BLAIR: On what page of the document book?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Page 124. This is the incident involving the execution of six prisoners who were erroneously placed on the list which went to the execution. We offer the document 652 PS asExhibit 287.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As the next exhibit, 288, we introduce at this time the document, 653-PS, which also concerns the same incident involving the execution of six individuals whose names were reported erroneously to the executioner, and in the main is the same subject as is concerned in Exhibit 286, 287, and this one, 288.
The present exhibit, 288, involved an official explanation as to how the error occurred.
We offer the document, 653-PS, as Exhibit 288.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The next exhibit, 289, will concern Document NG-559, which appears on page 138 of the English text and at approximately 163 in the German text.
This document is an affidavit, and I should point out at this time that the jurat as it appears in the German book is not signed by the person before whom the oath was given. That is an inadvertence, as will be seen from an examination of the original document, which I have before me, and which will be offered as an exhibit to the Court. The Defense Counsel are privileged to determine that it has been signed, if they so wish.
This affidavit is given by Harold Poelchau who was the prison chaplain at Tegel Penitentiary in Berlin. The affidavit concerns prison conditions as he observed them, details as to the manner in which executions were conducted, and also refers to the fact that Nacht-und-Nebel prisoners were present in Tegel Penitentiary, and as chaplain, Poelchau's statement that to his knowledge some of these Nacht-und-Nebel prisoners who were kept there were executed.
We have no further comment to make on this document and we therefore offer the document, NG-559, as Exhibit 289.
As soon as Defense Counsel have concluded their examination, it will be offered to the Court.
DR. SCHILF (for Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg): The copy of the document which is in our German document book apparently does not contain all of the corrections which Dr. Poelchau made in handwriting in the affidavit, which has otherwise been written on a typewriter.
The handwritten changes which appear on the original are rather numerous. On one page there are ten handwritten changes. In addition to that, the handwritten changes are very difficult to decipher, even in the original. So that I cannot make sure whether they can be deciphered at all. In order to be able to examine that, I would like to request that a procedure be used similar to the one used a few days ago with regard to the document, NG-414, namely when the Defense was given the opportunity, for 24) or 48 hours, to compare the original with the copy in detail -- and for the very same reason, because handwritten remarks were so difficult to decipher.
THE PRESIDENT: There can be no objection to granting that.
MR. KING: We, of course, have no objection to the procedure suggested by Dr. Schilf. The only thought that occurs to me at the moment is that I am not sure that there is available -- that is, here in Nurnberg -- a photostat copy of this, and it occurred to me that it might be advisable first to assure ourselves that there is a photostat copy available before turning it over to Dr. Schilf for examination, since if for some reason it should become lost, we would not have the only copy in Nurnberg available to the Court. If we could perhaps first determine whether there is a photostat copy available here and then either make this original or a good photostat copy available to him, I think he could accomplish his purpose.
THE PRESIDENT: You have photostat equipment here in Nurnberg.
MR. KING: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be agreeable.
MR. KING: May the record show that Dr. Schilf and I will work out some procedure satisfactory to him, so that he may examine it as he suggested to the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. KING: In view of the fact that we have already given it an exhibit number, what is the Court's wishes as to the present exhibit? In other words, shall we let it stand, or withdraw it and resubmit it later on?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the uniform method has been to withdraw it, has it not? At least, that has happened in a number of instances, as I remember it.
MR. KING: We will therefore withdraw it at this time and submit it for re-admission when Dr. Schilf has satisfied himself as to the accuracy of the German copy.
JUDGE BRAND: It might be well to check the English copy and see if the handwritten interlineations are correctly typed in on the English copy also.
MR. KING: Yes, sir; that will be done.
As Exhibit 289 we now introduce the document, NG-435, which is the sworn affidavit of Walter Strelow who has been in the past, director of the Tegel and Ploetzensee Prisons in Berlin, and who is at present a director of the 3 Lehrter Strasse Prison in Berlin.
We would like to read in the case of this document, one paragraph which is to be found beginning on page 144. of the English document book, and that is 171 in the German. Before reading this paragraph, may we point out that the document concerns in the main prison conditions at the Ploetzensee Prison and the method of executions carried out there during the tine that the affiant had personal knowledge of conditions. This paragraph, on page 144, reads as follows:
"The execution of the sentences took place by hanging since the guillotine could not be used. As I was repeatedly told on the following days by eye-witnesses, eight convicts at a time, chained together one behind the other, were led to the so-called Barrack No. 4 where the gallows stood, and there they were hanged by the executioner Roettger from Hannover and his three assistants, at intervals of twenty minutes -- so that every twenty minutes eight people were executed. The hanging was carried out in the following way:
"ROETGER, standing on a stool, put the rope around the neck of the convict who was held by the three assistants; then after the assistants had lifted the convict upwards, the rope was fastened on a hook, and then the assistants let the body of the convict go. Unconsciousness is supposed to have occurred immediately in every case. In know for sure, from conversations with his officials, that this manner of execution corresponded exactly to the wishes of Hitler. Hitler wanted to avoid any resemblance to the British method by which the convict is made to step on a trap door."
We offer the Document NG-435 as Exhibit 289.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As Exhibit 290, the prosecution offers the Document NG-720, which is to be found beginning on page 147 in the English text, and 175 in the German text. This Document is signed by the First Public Prosecutor and Section Chief with the prosecuting authorities in Munich, and is dated 15 July 1945. It concerns, in the main, the method by which death sentences were executed in Munich. We do not wish at this time to go into -- to read the somewhat indelicate details in this Document, and therefore offer it as Exhibit 290.
DR. GRUBE (Defense Counsel for the defendant Lautz): May it please the Tribunal, in this Document we are not concerned with the captured document. It is a document which was composed after the occupation, with the date 15th of July 1945. The Document is that which has not been given in the proscribed form of an affidavit. In addition to this, both documents carry the name Roemer only in typewritten. Therefore, I do not believe that the Document can be accepted in evidence, and, therefore, I object to the submission of this Document.
MR. KING: In offering this Document the prosecution does so as an unsolicited, signed statement. If in front of those conditions the court feels it cannot receive it, we will withdraw it.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not sworn to, apparently.
MR. KING: It is not sworn to, your Honor, it is correct.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court. A brief history might take this Document within the category of unsworn, signed statements. This Document, as will be seen by the signature, is signed by the author, who at the present time bears a fairly responsible legal position in Munich. This Document came to the prosecution unsolicited and unasked for. Neither before, nor since, has there been any correspondence for liaison between this office and the source of this Document. Now, in view of that fact we think that the Document is credible on its face, and we submit that if the defense seeks to attack its credibility the only way for them to legitimately do it, is to call the author of the Document and ask him if there is anything there that isn't true.
DR. GRUBE: -
THE PRESIDENT: It isn't necessary to be heard, Dr. Grube, under the circumstances this Document is clearly not admissible. This Roomer, who makes the statement, is available, just as much available to the prosecution ashe is to the defense. You are offering it unauthenticated.
MR. KING: In view of the court's ruling, we will, at this time, withdraw Document NG-720, which was originally introduced as Exhibit NG--720, which was originally introduced as Exhibit 290, subject to possible resubmission later if the objections of the court can be met in any way by the prosecution.
The next Document Book to which we will turn is that of Document Book 7B.
Mr. Wooleyhan will continue presentation of Document Book 7B. That will be in the next minute or so.
Your Honors, in connection with the ruling on Document -- on the Exhibit 290, which was withdrawn -- that was Exhibit 720, may we call your Honor's attention to certain language in Article 7 of Ordinance No. 7. We do so at this time for the following reason: That not only in connection with Document NG--720, but in other documents, which we intend to offer in evidence, the question which the court, which was presented to the court, and ruled on, my become of exceeding importance to the prosecution.