This matter was not recorded by me in the files of the Reich Court Martial because this case of foreign exchange at the same time was treated by the customs prosecuting authority; and thus it was handled by an authority which was subordinate to the RSHA.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. Mr. Witness, I think that the Commission will proceed in a more orderly fashion if you will limit yourself to the direct answering of the questions which may be propounded to you by Dr. Schilf. Will you ask questions of the witness and let him answer those questions instead of speaking at such great length?
DR. SCHILF: Before I continue the cross examination, I would like to allow Dr. Behling to speak; he apparently was to say something.
DR. BEHLING: (Attorney for the Defendant Schlegelberger) May it please the Court, the witness repeatedly has mentioned the name of the defendant Mettgenberg, I see from the Remarks he made that this statement refers to the defendant Schlegelberger.
A Schlegelberger. I ask to be pardoned, I meant Schlegelberger. When I discussed it with Herrn von Donani, he told me he was an elderly gentleman who at that time, I believe in the year 1943, yes it was in 1943 at the investigation he had already left the office.
DR. BEHLING: Yes, that is correct.
A Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: We understand now that when you referred to Mettgenherg, you intended to say Schlegelberger. Now, we will continue with the question and answer procedure.
DR. BEHLING: Yes. I ask that the record be changed, corrected accordingly.
COMMISSION III CASE III
THE PRESIDENT: The record is corrected by the statement of the witness.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Witness, may I ask you to pay attention to what the Court told you, and please give answers only that concern the context of the questions. I now have to ask you -- you said the record was not dictated by you. Do you mean the affidavit?
A Yes, I mean the text of the affidavit.
Q Do you have a copy or a typewritten copy of it?
A I did not receive it, but I asked for it; but I didn't get it.
Q This affidavit, was this taken down, written down, in your presence.
A No. It was written after the interrogation, and about one or two days later I was called to sign it shortly before the noon meal.
Q What happened then?
A I asked for changes and thereupon I was told, well, this matter is not so important here; and I said but here there are matters which change the meaning entirely, and generally does not give the meaning as the facts require it; at least, I want to change these things immediately. Thereupon he told me, all right, make your changes and make an initial in the margin. Thereupon I made the changes, and as far as I considered them especially important -- since after all I was told that these matters were not of special importance, in this strong psychosis, shall we say, in which one is due to seven months imprisonment, one does not consider things the same way as one would do as a voluntary witness who is at large who can pleasantly look everything over and think about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, I think the answer was going beyond the question again. Mr. Witness, you had the opportunity to read the affidavit and to make corrections, didn't you, and you thereafter swore to it?
A Yes.
COMMISSION III CASE III
THE PRESIDENT: Now, if you have other corrections to make, proceed to make them.
A Yes. The record in its factual contents is correct, but not complete. The essential questions which ate necessary to understand the entire attitude of the military and civilian administration of justice were not entered into the record.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q With the permission of Mr. King, I would like now during his examination to show the witness the photostatic copy. He told us that after he had signed it he did not receive a copy of it. Witness, if I understood you correctly, you have expressed the desire to correct some of the statements, and before I read a few lines to you in which you drew a conclusion that in many cases the Ministry could have, if it had only tried to exercise the necessary influence, to free many -- it would have been able to free many people from Gestapo detention. I would like to ask you to tell me do you want to maintain this statement? If you want to do so, please describe some facts which justify this conclusion or could justify this conclusion.
A In the discussion we were dealing with the following: The air force had succeeded in 1938 that everybody who was imprisoned by the Gestapo, every member of the Luftwaffe who was imprisoned by the Gestapo was within twenty-four hours or if that was not possible, as soon as possible, handed over to the administration of justice of the air force. In 1942 the Gestapo, two experts of the armament industries were put into concentration camps. Since they were directors of factories, producing only for the Luftwaffe and owned by the Luftwaffe if they had committed any offense they would have been subject to the administration of justice of the Luftwaffe.
Q Please excuse me, witness, if I interrupt you. Apparently the Court doesn't want to know individual cases.
A No. Only this is the fact on which this sentence is based.
COMMISSION III CASE III
Q All right; then please continue.
A The two of them were then taken out of the concentration camps by the administration of justice of the Luftwaffe, and when we discussed it, the interrogator asked me whether the ministry of justice did the same -- could have done the same, or would have done the same. I thereupon stated that the Ministry of Justice had nothing to do with the Administration of Justice of the Luftwaffe, and in that respect it did not exercise any influence at all. What the Administration of Justice did in individual cases in regard to concentration camps or with regard to prisoners, that I do not know at all. This is a conclusion of the interrogator who considered it absolutely --- who did not know absolutely the absolute separation of the Administration of Justice of the Luftwaffe and of the general Administration of Justice.
Q Thus, you do not want to recognize this sentence as your own statement?
A No, in this form I did not express it, but it is as I have just stated now.
Q If you look some few lines further, there is a sentence, and I quote: "I know that the Ministry of Justice was very indignant at the independence of the Military Administration of Justice, and that in 1942 the first attempt was made to eliminate the Military Administration of Justice from all political trials."
A Yes, that is correct. I was informed about that, and Ministerial Director Lehmann told me about it.
A . Altogether since 1942 there was an undercurrent noticable which wanted to attack the independence of the administration of justice Doubtless there was also, due to the attitude of the Fuehrer regarding the use of military administration of justice in the East. Who was the cause of that attitude or who caused this current, I do not know at all because I do not know the personnel conditions in the Ministry of Justice. I do not know any one of the judges who are before the court here, with the exception of the gentlemen whom I have seen here during my imprisonment here in Nurnberg.
Q. If you say in this sentence here: "I know that the Ministry of Justice, etc,"then perhaps you would correct that today to the effect that you cannot name anybody by name, and if I understood you correctly, you want to raise some doubt as to whether this mistake was due to the Ministry of Justice?
Mr. King: One moment please. I merely want to point out to the witness before he makes the statement that he may later regret that. In the interrogation to which you refer, there is a stenographis transcript, verbatim of what you said there. Furthermore, there are other sources to which we can go for proving what was said. Now, I only want to say that on a question of whether or not you made a certain statement, if this varies from the transcript of what was said in the interrogation, we will bring the transcript into court. I only want to point out-
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. King, I do not think you should make this kind of statement to the witness. It savors, I am sure, inadvertently, of a threat. Let the witness testify freely and fully, according to the truth here, and if you are able thereafter to impeach his credibility or contradict his statements, you will be fully permitted to do so.
MR. KING: No, I did not mean-
MR. PRESIDENT: I think Dr. Schilf should be allowed to continue the examination.
MR. KING: I only wanted to be helpful, I wanted to point out that the transcript of these interrogations are available.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand. You may proceed Dr. Schilf.
DR. SCHILF: As such, I am thankful to Mr. King for his hint. Therefore, I want to address a question to the witness.
Q. You said you were interrogated twice?
A . Yes.
Q. Were you taken under oath during your interrogations or were you taken under oath in regard to your affidavit?
A. I was taken under oath as far as I remember, for the affidavit.
Q. That is the statement which you have before you?
A. No, I believe, no I was taken under oath before that. And, then the affidavit, I cannot state that with certainty. I ask you to consider the following: I am after all, seven months I have gone through all kinds of imprisonment--four weeks in Oberursel. What that means I need not say--
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. Ask another question Dr. Schilf. The witness will limit himself to answering the questions which are asked him by Counsel.
Q. I only want to ask you today if you have been put under oath, and as you have described to us your psychosis were such that during the interrogation, as well as when the affidavit was shown to you, you are of the opinion today that you are not quite free in your statements; and, I only want to point out that today you can say all those things that are in accordance with the truth because today you are absolutely free and are under no pressure of any kind, and can say whatever you want to; and, it can go to the extent that you can correct your former statements today. This is an absolute cross examination undertaken so that the correctness which you want to make, you can make them today.
A . Yes, well, regarding the sentence, "I know that the Ministry of Justice was very indignant of the indictments of the military administration of justice, and in 1942 the first attempt was made to eliminate the military administration of justice from all political trials; in other words, practically to do away with military administration of justice as a department of justice." I maintain that still today. It is based on the information which the Ministerial Director Lehmann gave me. And that he told me, and this information was given to us after the Fuehrer's speech of April 1942.
Q. Dr. Lehmann was the chief of the army-
A. Of the administration of justice of the Wehrmacht, of all three services.
A. Nut, when Dr. Lehmann made that statement he was not a member of the Ministry of Justice?
A. No.
Q. He only gave you this information from the knowledge which he had from his office?
A. That is correct.
Q. You probable did not examine Dr. Lehmann's statement?
A. I did not have any cause to do so in my position because we so-called front judges stayed away from all these questions.
Q. You gave me the word "front judge". In the next paragraph you are speaking about the jurisdiction in the occupied territories. In order to sec it absolutely clear, I ask you to state very briefly in what theater of war you worked as a front judge?
A. I was appointed in the West during the course of the campaign in France; that is in the French territory from the day of the offensive, the 10th of May until the end of October of 1940. In 1940, then in the sphere of Airforce Unit 4, from the 1st of January 1944 until the end of the war.
Q . Now, I only ask you to describe the geographical situation of Airforce Unit 4?
A. They had the southern sector of the Eastern front.
Q. That is southern Russia?
A . Yes, southern Russia, and during the retreat by Romania, a and part of Airforce Unit 4 were in the area of Uman, Proskorov, Lemberg; later on the former Polish district belonged to it; the south-ern part of it belonged to the Airforce Unit 4.
Q . This sector of Poland, did it belong to the so-called incorporated Eastern Territory?
A. Yes, Lemberg and Cracow.
Q. Do you want to say that positively or do you want to reserve the right to check it?
A. As far as I know the German administration was appointed-
Q. Was Cracow not incorporated, was that not the seat of the Governor General of Poland, Herr Frank. I just want to point that out to you, if you are not informed about it. And, if you are in doubt, I want to inform you about it. You have stated that in Poland you had jurisdiction of only military personnel?
A . Yes.
Q. Does that mean the German personnel?
A. Yes.
Q. And, that the Polish civilian population was subject to Special Courts of the Ministry of Justice. The question is decisive now whether these were the so-called incorporated Eastern territories or such territories which belonged to the so--called General Government of Poland. My question is to the effect: do you know to what extent this so-called sovereignty of the Reich Ministry of Justice went geographically?
A . No, that is entirely unknown to me. We only had the following cases, again and again, Polish workers were working in the airfield, now they stole not only air force things, but everywhere in the country something.
Q. Witness, may I interrupt you. These details are not interesting.
A. I only want to give you an example.
Q. No, that is not interesting either. You cannot toll us where the German special courts existed?
A. No.
Q. Were they in the incorporated Eastern territories or in the General Government?
A. No, that is absolutely unknown to me.
Q. Do you know that regarding the sovereignty in the different administrations of justice there were two absolutely separate offices? You do not know that either?
A. That is absolutely unknown to me.
Q. You have named some localities, and said your judges, that is the judges off the Luftwaffe who were in Warscaw and Cracow reported to you about the Polish witnesses whom they were not allowed to take under oath?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether this were special court cases, or cases before a commission or an investigating judge?
A . I cannot say how the civilian administration of justice handled it. Only our sector was of interest to me. The Polish also expressed the wish, if they were working for us and if they had committed anything also in the entire civilian sector, to be tried by the military courts. And now the military court frequently came and said, yes, we want to help the man but if he comes before a special court he is dealt with too harshly and we do not got him back. This tendency of judges of the Luftwaffe to interfere in the entire civilian sector I always forbid of course because from one point of view, first I did not want the difficulty of conflicting competency, and secondly we were already overburdened with our own cases and could not interfere with the civilian sector. So, that any wish of that kind was frequently denied when the commander of one of our airfields wanted to keep a worker who perhaps was a good worker but a little thief, you see, and I could not grant that with for basic reasons.
Court No. 3. Commission III.
Q. If the Polish workers who were working for you expressed the desire to be sentenced by the military administration of justice you say this was done out of fear before the Special Courts?
A. Yes, it was always based on the fear of the Special Courts. This expression is phrased quite generally. I wanted to say fear of the competent courts.
Q. That's what I wanted to ask you; were those courts of the Governor General or courts of tho German administration of Justice which was possible only in incorporated territories.
A. I don't know how all these courts were instituted there. That is absolutely unknown to me.
Q. You are speaking of Special Courts. Do you mean the technical expression -- there were, as you probably know, Social Courts. They had special competence. A special group of courts which existed - Penal Chambers and the District Court of Appeals. If you now name the word "Special" Court, and in your affidavit you stated that -- do you mean these special technical courts?
A. No, I mean the courts that were working in Poland. What kind of courts they were I can not say.
Q. Could they have been Courts Martial?
A. No, they were not Courts Martial.
Q. Military Courts Martial?
A. I don't know if there were Military Courts Martial.
Q. I am again referring to your judges who were in Warsaw and Cracow. Warsaw and Cracow did not belong to the incorporated Eastern territories.
A. We didn't have Warsaw under us at all.
Q. Please look at your affidavit. That is in the large paragraph on the page beginning in the middle of the second page, "In Poland..." And on page 3, the last third of the paragraph, in the English copy on page 3, there is the sentence, I quote it: "The Special Courts were supposed to take over the functions of the Polish, jurisdiction." I now skip one sentence... "Cur judges in Warsaw and Cracow often told me--"
Court No. 3, Commission III here it says "me" -- "that the fact that Polish witnesses could not be sworn in caused constant difficulties."
Thus you mention "your judges in Warsaw and Cracow."
A. Yes -- not my judges ... they were judges of Luftgaukommando Posen. There were so-called judges' discussions, deliberations of the supervisory district. And to the supervisory district... Berlin belonged also to the Luftgaukommando Posen and East Prussia. And at these lectures at the time there were complaints voiced that the judges did not know how they should act in taking the witnesses under oath.
Q. But the causes which gave rise to those individual cases you can not state any more today?
A. No, they were general conferences of judges.
Q. Thus you also cannot state just whether they were laws of the government general or laws of the Reich Ministry of Justice for the incorporated territories?
A. No, I can't say that.
Q. Further on you speak of the SS and Police Courts which came into the foreground in Poland after the campaign in France. That is about fifteen lines after the sentence which we have just discussed.. about the middle of page 3, lower third of page 3 in the English copy... just before the end of this last paragraph. Do you know that tho SS and Police Courts were not under the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. However, they had absolutely their own official channels. And as far as I know they had nothing to do with the Ministry of Justice.
Q. Then in the next part you again mention Special Courts. Do you mean the SS and Police Courts in that sense?
A. Yes, in general we had no insight -- we could not see how the construction in the Ministry of Justice went on since 1933. In 1939, when Poland was conquered, there were some decrees about Special Courts. How they developed later on we were not interested in that at all because our sector was sharply limited to members of the Armed forces.
Q. May I draw a conclusion from what we have just discussed -please correct me if I make a mistake -- to the effect that everything Court No. 3, Commission III.
which you have said in this affidavit about Special Courts, about general courts -- that is, civil courts -- that you know that more or less only from hearsay -- without, in your official capacity or otherwise, having really no insight into the conditions?
A. No, that is going a little bit too far.
MR. KING: One moment, please. The objection may not be timely at this moment because the witness has already partially answered it. But I think the question was altogether too general because, as Dr. Schilf stated, everything the witness said about military and other special courts -- well, of course, that covers a lot pf territory and I think if he is going to get the witness's conclusion on this he had better refer to the sentence in the paragraph so that we will know for sure what he is asking. As it is I do not know.
JUDGE BRAND: The witness answered the question by saying that the question went too far. And the witness may explain his answer further if he desires. The objection is overruled.
A. My entire impression I, of course, formed on the basis of the reports of my subordinate judges who came in touch with these borderline territories and it was an opinion which was also shared by my chief judge, that was Generaloberst Richter, who agreed that it was not right to treat the civilian population too severely. In certain circles of the military leadership there was a difference of opinion with the civilian administration regarding the guidance and direction of the civilian population, and it is expressed by this that the civilian population, as we frequently find in occupied territories, has more trust in the occupying army than in the civilian administration which takes over afterwards.
Q. This is an opinion in regard to the civilian administration -but what we are discussing here is the Reich Ministry Justice. Would you, perhaps, by civilian administration would you want to include any sphere of the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A. No, To what extent the Reich Ministry of Justice was guiding Court No. 3, Commission III.
that I don't know. I can not give any information about that at all.
Q. You said that; all right.
A. I can only say what the effects of individual functions were there -- that they did not gain the confidence --
Q. You mean the civilian administration?
A. Yes, civilian administration; you separate civilian administration and administration of justice. I am going further. I am saying the administration of justice -- the entire administration.
Q. In your affidavit, however, it says, expressly, in the paragraph about Poland which begins, "In Poland..." in the middle of the second page... some few lines below the beginning of the paragraph -I quote: "The civilian population came under the jurisdiction of Special Courts of the Ministry of Justice."
A. No, that is not supposed to mean that I want to say why I know they were subordinate to the Ministry of Justice, but the civilian population was subordinate to civilian courts; whether they were civilian courts or courts of the government general, I don't know.
Q. Well, that clarifies it. You only have to state clearly to the Court now that you do not want to maintain this particular sentence any more.
A. Would you please read it again?
Q. Thus "The civilian population came under the jurisdiction of the Special Courts."
A. Now, precisely, the civilian population came under the jurisdiction of civilian courts which were there established by the Reich government. That is exactly it. What, now, in the Reich government was the executive organ -- whether that was immediately the Reich Ministry of Justice or whether somebody else in the Cabinet of the Reich intervened, I don't know; after everything that I heard today, by God, I don't know it any more!
Q. I now come to the second point in the affidavit which we have already touched upon recently --
Court No. 3, Commission III.
JUDGE BRAND: Dr. Schilf, the time has come for recessing until tomorrow morning at nine-thirty. The witness will present himself again for further examination at nine-thirty tomorrow morning. The will recess now until that hour.
(The Commission adjourned until 0930 hours, 5 June 1947)
Commission 3 Official Transcript of the Commission of American MilitaryTribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nuernberg, Germany, on 5 June 1947, 0930-1630, The Honorable James T. Brand presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats. The Honorable, the Commissioners of Military Tribunal III. The Commission is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Commission. There will be order in the courts.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you please ascertain if all of the defendants are present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom will the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused, The proper notation of the fact will be made.
You may proceed with the cross examination.
MANFRED ROEDER - Resumed CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. With the permission of the Commission, I continue the cross examination.
Witness, last night we stopped at the sentence, "The civilian population was subordinated to special courts of the Ministry of Justice." Those are the words you used in your affidavit. Yesterday you formulated it differently. I assume that you again have the photostatic copy of your affidavit in front of you?
A. I did not receive it.
Q. I gave it to you last night.
A. The photostatic copy was again taken away from me.
Q. I regret it very much because the photostatic copy belongs to Mr. King. I ask Mr. King's pardon, and I shall see to it that you again receive the photostatic copy.
You had pronounced a correction, and you stated that it was the Commission 3 laws of the Reich Government.
Do you remember that?
A. Yes.
Q. But now you were speaking about Poland, particularly about the difference between the so-called incorporated eastern territories and those geographical areas which were subordinated to the Government General. Now I want to ask you whether the Governor General was subordinate to the Reich Government or whether it was an agency which had its own authority to issue laws.
A. I cannot answer that question because I, in my official position, did not have to concern myself with those matters so that by the words "Reich Government" I only wanted to express that some higher or competent authority issued the laws. I want to say quite in general that I do not have specific knowledge about the organization in occupied Poland because we did not have to concern ourselves with those matters because we only had the jurisdiction of the troops where such questions of constitutional law did not have to be considered.
Q. In your affidavit you said furthermore that a number of exactly described political delicts apparently by your office had to be reported to the Ministry of Justice, and you then say, and I quote, "The Ministry of Justice then decided which cases were to be sentenced by the People's Court." I want to ask you whether these occurrences which you mention here refer only to cases before the People's Court or whether you mean to say by that statement that on the basis of legal regulations, cases of general administration of justice, that is, in contrast to military administration of justice, in other words, had been turned over to the civilian administration of justice.
A. Matters were as follows: Only at the end of the war did they make their effect felt. After the 20th of July we received the directive that the military courts in regard to certain political delicts, that is, malicious attacks against the State and the Party, as far as I know, furthermore, incidents which occurred in connection with the 20th of July, were to be transferred to our superior authority, that is, by our Reich Commission 3 Air Ministry to the Reich Ministry of Justice, and that the people were to be turned over to the Reich.
For us, this was extraordinarily difficult because at that time we were in Rumania or in Hungary, where the conditions of transportation were terribly difficult, and it was not always enough that the defendant was turned over, but for the clarification of the case it was also necessary that the witnesses and the evidence material be turned over. Due to all of those difficulties, two or three cases in my official sphere were turned over to the Reich according to this directive, as far as I know, over to Vienna. But a final decision as to where the Reich Ministry of Justice did transfer it, whether it went to the People's Court or to the Local Court in Vienna or Berlin, that we were not informed about any longer, because due to all this red tape and the long official channel through which it had to go: the judge, the Chief Judge, the Reich Air Ministry, the Ministry of Justice - this took so many months that practically it did not come into effect until the end of the war.
Q. Dr. Roeder, you were talking about a directive. Can you tell us what office issued it?
A. We received this directive from the Reich Air Ministry and a decree of the Legal Division of the Air Ministry, that according to the decree of that and that date, the following matters were to be turned over. I believe, if I am not mistaken, there were even seven copies that were received. It was almost impossible to produce these seven copies in the front courts because we did not have enough office material and personnel.
Q. Dr. Roeder, did this directive from your superior authority, if you remember it, that is the Reich Air Ministry, can you remember whether they referred to a directive of the Fuehrer?
A. I cannot tell you that any more.
Q. Or whether they referred to the Special Wartime Penal Regulation?
A. No, I do not know that, in order to make such precise statements. I ask you to regard my testimony only as a conversation which I had rather Commission 3 than a legally correct definition of all the authorities.
Today I cannot state that any more.
Q. Dr. Roeder, did you ever have to do with "Night and Fog" matters as chief judge in any other official activity in your sphere?
A. No. As I had already mentioned in the west, I was only considering the campaign in France, and then I was used within Germany and after that in the east where the Night and Fog decree did not apply. As far as the Night and Fog decree is concerned and about the fact that it was issued, I heard extensively about that only after I was a prisoner of war.
Q. With that, I have concluded my factual questions. Dr. Roeder, I only want to give you the opportunity now, after I could last night give you the photostatic copy of your affidavit, to make further corrections if you yourself desire to do so on your own. You told us that the formulation of the affidavit which was submitted to you was not dictated in your presence and that you only corrected the most flagrant errors in handwriting but that you were short of time. You said it was shortly before the noon meal. If you noticed anything else which could not be clarified by me Questions, you now have the opportunity to make the corresponding corrections.
A. In order to summarize the matter in a few words, the lack in the record is--
Q. Excuse me. When you speak of "record", you mean your affidavit?
A. Yes, the affidavit. The deficiency lies in the fact that when it was taken down, end during the interrogation, they did not ask me sufficiently about the reasons. Our personal attitude was that the civil administration of justice is more severe. The question would have been at hand why. The east brought with it quite special conditions and we in the east heard that too late. For us as German judges it was absolutely incomprehensible that there were still territories in Europe where, for example, there were robberies and tribes who robbed, that the administration of justice had to take a different attitude in the east.
Commission 3 That, in my opinion, was not brought out sufficiently in the discussions which led to this affidavit.
That would be something that I would have liked to add. The interrogator cut me off then. I had really expected that it would last longer -that the interrogation would last longer. My attitude during the entire interrogation was that I expected to be interrogated about the Military Administration of Justice, because at the very beginning I told my interrogator I cannot give authentic information about Civil Administration of Justice, because I already left it twelve years ago; and to what extent the differences between Military Administration of Justice and Civil Administration of Justice in its entire construction and in its essence, I hardly have to explain to the expert Court. Perhaps the interrogator did not realize that quite, because otherwise he might perhaps have extended his questioning somewhat.
Q. All right; do you have anything further to say?
A. No, I do not at the moment.
Q. Now, a purely technical problem. I am aghast that I cannot return the copy of the photostat, the photostatic copy to Mr. King, the representative of the Prosecution. Can you still tell me to whom you gave the photostatic copy?
A. Yes, Yesterday after the examination a gentleman in uniform, here in the courtroom, took it from me.
DR. SCHILF: Thank you. May it please the Commission, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination? Apparently not. Is there any re-direct examination?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:
Q. Dr. Roeder, first I would like to ask in connection with the affidavit that you signed, if in addition to what you have just told Defense Counsel about the detail into which you did not go because you thought you were going to be interrogated about military court matters, while, in fact it turned out to be an interrogation on civil matters, that you did not go into sufficient details.