The first document, No. 222, contains Paragraph 23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a commentary, or an interpretation, according to which a judge, on the basis of a decision by the Reich Supreme Court -
THE PRESIDENT: Will you wait until we receive the book, please?
DR. KOESSL: I beg your pardon, Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: The first document is document number what?
DR. KOESS: No. 222, Your Honor. I offer this document as Exhibit 189. The last exhibit number, 188, was in Rothaug document book V-B.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: The exhibit deals with Paragraph 23 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and there are interpretations from the commentary of Loewo-Rosenberg according to which a judge, under a decision by the Reich Supreme Court from the year 1881, may sit in the court which decides the plea for the reopening of a case oven though he participated in the formulation of the sentence. In Exhibit 411, Elkar asserts that Rothaug had said that that was an attempt to remove certain sources of dangers which otherwise might exist.
The next document, 223, contains Paragraph 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is also an interpretation according to which it is the duty of the judge to explain to the experts what is at stake. That goes to rebut the statements by the witness Dr. Xunz, who considered that a limitation of the functions of the expert.
I offer document No. 223, as Exhibit 190.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 226 contains excerpts from the commentary as to paragraphs 23 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with interpretations concerning the position of the presiding judge. These provisions and interpretations, which date back to a time before 1933, should prove how irrelevant the charges are which were made against Rothaug in that connection.
I offer the document No. 226 as Exhibit 191.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: Document 228 contains paragraph 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with interpretations which prove that the public prosecutor, even before 1933, could refrain from asking for a certain sentence, and that it was not necessary in that case for the public prosecutor to get in touch with the court. Furthermore, the document explains the rights of the presiding judge to interfere with the final plea of the defense without this being considered a limitation of the rights of the defense.
I offer document No. 228 as Exhibit 192.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: Document 229 contains paragraph 26l of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with more commentaries concerning the free presentation of evidence. I offer Document 229 as Exhibit 193.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document 221 contains Paragraph 170 of the Code of Criminal Procedure with a commentary according to which the letter by the investigating magistrate, in the Groben case, to the office of the public prosecutor, could have been taken to the files because it did not represent the transcript of a court session. That document is a supplement to Volume II concerning the Katzenberger case, and it also relates to Exhibit 560. I offer Document 221 as Exhibit 194.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document 230 deals with the question as to how far the court is bound by a decision of a court of higher instance in individual cases, and it has particular meaning for the Lopata case and the Wendel case. I offer Document 230 as Exhibit 195.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. KOESSL: Document 224 should prove that the attitude displayed by Schosser when the Pole was interred could be used as proof in the case concerning the sermon. I offer Document No. 224 as Exhibit 196.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: Document 225 proves that the prosecution was under obligation to intercede if a punishable act was reported to it, as, for instance, in the case of Schosser's sermon. I offer Document Rothaug No. 225 as Exhibit 197.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: This document, 227, proves that Rothaug acted properly if he put to a witness, who was ready to testify, statements which were made before the police, and that it was also correct to use prior statements before the police as the basis for his questions to a witness. In the Schosser case, for instance, it was asserted that Rothaug had put to the witness Stubenvoll former statements made before the police. I offer Rothaug Document No. 227 as Exhibit 198.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: That concludes the presentation of Document Book X. Yesterday, late in the afternoon, I also received Document Book No. VII and Document Book No. IX. If it has been distributed to the Secretary General and to the Prosecution I would be ready to submit these two books also at this time.
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: I shall have to get them. They were not on my desk this morning, sir.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: We have not received it in English. If the Court has, we can proceed with the German, but we have not received the English.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has not received these books.
DR. KOESSL: Then perhaps I can submit these books in the afternoon or tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: As soon as they are received.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, if no defense counsel can proceed, there is a witness Foetsch, who gave an affidavit on behalf of the defendant Cuhorst, whom I would like to examine on cross-examination, and who is in the building. However, if the Tribunal desires to hear defendants' counsel first, if anyone is ready, I will wait.
I simply notify the Court that I can do that.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any defense counsel have either documents or witnesses available for examination?
DR. DOETZER (Counsel for the defendant Nebelung): May it please the Tribunal, on the 16th of September I submitted Nebelung documents 26, 27, and 28. The Secretary General pointed out to me that it would be expedient to give these documents the same exhibit numbers. That is what I wish to do now. Therefore, they would be Exhibits 26, 27 and 28. That is, the document numbers are 26, 27, and 28, and they would have the same exhibit numbers, 26, 27 and 28.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal has been informed that that may be done, and we will make the proper notation.
You may cross-examine your witness, Mr. La Follette.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I just want to announce to the Tribunal that the prosecution has now received, in English, Rothaug Books VII and IX, so they should be shortly available for the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You may cross-examine your witness, and perhaps the Secretary General will have the documents by the time you have completed.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: The witness Marie Foetsch - I think you will either find her in room 126, 123, or with Dr. Brieger.
THE PRESIDENT: Can we, in the period during which we wait for the witness, have any indication from counsel as to what additional testimony or documents they desire to present before the case is closed? Have we any indication which can be made at this time?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: On behalf of the prosecution I will make one, and then leave the podium.
To the best of my recollection and understanding we have one rebuttal witness, which will be against the defendant Joel, involving the transfers or lack of transfers of property in Nurnberg in the 1938 pogram.
That witness ought to be prepared to testify this afternoon. Then I think we will have not more than ten documents altogether, divided between documents against the defendant Rothenberger and against the defendant Joel. I believe that is the extent of the prosecution's rebuttal.
DR. BOTHE (Counsel for the defendant Rothenberger): May it please the Court, the Prosecution, in rebuttal against Dr. Rothenberger, submitted fourteen new documents and produced six new witnesses. The defense intends to call several witnesses, which have been called by us in time by telegram. If the Court decrees, I can give the names of these witnesses now. They are as follows:
Dr. Friedrich Priess, from the District Court of Appeal, Hamburg, who, for many years worked with Dr. Rothenberger.
The attorney Dr. Kurt Bussmann, also from Hamburg.
THE PRESIDENT: Spelling?
DR. BOTHE: It is spelled, B-U-S-S-H-A-N-N-.
The third is the witness Dr. Hans Segelken, S-E-G-E-L-K-E-N.
The fourth is Professor Herbert Fischer, attorney at Hamburg, President of the Hanseatic Bar Association.
Then, the defense intends to recall the defendant Dr. Rothenberger to the witness stand to testify in his own case.
Finally, it is intended to submit a number of documents which are in Rothenberger Supplement Books II and III, and which have been submitted for reproduction but of which we have not yet received the English translations.
We have been informed that the translation of these document books will be available the latter part of this week. Considering the difficulty of the preparation, and the large amount of new material submitted by the Prosecution, the defense will be grateful if the Court would agree to have the defense to begin its submission of material on Thursday.
THE PRESIDENT: May We have an expression from any other of the other defendants, whether they have additional testimony which they desire to produce.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Dr. Kubuschok for the defendant Schlegelberger and von Ammon. I would like to call the the Court's attention that since my colleague Dr. Schilf is not present, I should like to announce in his interest that he considers the possibility to again call the defendant Klemm to the witness box.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: For the defendant Schlegelberger, I had yesterday received the translation of the document book, and I will be able to submit that. Another book is still in translation.
THE COURT: That is Schlegelberger?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, Your Honor, Schlegelberger. Furthermore, the document book consisting of three parts for the defendant von Ammon-- for Mettgenberg, my colleague Dr. Schilf still has to submit, all the document books concerning the first volume, on which he has already made statements yesterday. For the defendant Klemm Dr. Schilf still submits a supplement volume of documents.
DR. ORTH: Dr Orth for the defendant altstoetter. For the defendant Klemm Dr. Schilf will submit a supplement document. For the defendant Altstoetter I still have one document book to be submitted, a supplement volume. I have it already in German. I also have given a German copy to the Prosecution, and as soon as I receive the translation I shall be ready to submit it.
THE PRESIDENT: Insofar as new matter of a specific nature has been presented by the Prosecution in rebuttal, the Tribunal feels that it is necessary and proper that the defendant affected should be permitted in sur-rebuttal to make specific admission of denials or explanations of new factual evidence which may have been presented by the Prosecution in rebuttal. The Tribunal itself desires to be made clear that matters which have already been testified to by the defense in their main cases are not to be repeated in connection with this sur-rebuttal. Such questions which have occupied a great deal of our time and attention in reference to the political attitude and other general matters of that type belonged in your case in chief in the defense, and must not be repeated in this discretionary extention which we are giving you for the purpose of only replying to new matter of a specific character which a presented by the Prosecution in rebuttal. I am sure that counsel understand the necessity for this limitation. Insofar as the few documents that were introduced in rebuttal by the Prosecution of a general nature as applying to all the defendants, we suggest you follow the procedure previously adopted, and to designate one of your number to handle the matter for all, if you find it necessary to discuss it at all. We also suggest to you that at this late stage in the case, it is desirable that we put all of the energy which counsel can exercise into getting the witnesses disposed of. As to the document books, if there be a few held over perhaps, we can receive them even after we have taken our recess, if they can not be presented sooner; we hope they can be presented soon, but as to witnesses, we desire to close all matters up this week. You may cross examine your witness, Mr LaFollette.
MR. La FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
MARIA FOETSCH, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE HARDING: will you raise your right hand and repeat after me the following oath: I swear by God, the Almighty and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath)
JUDGE HARDING: You may sit down.
GROSS EXAMINATION BY MR LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Now you are the same Maria Foetsch who gave an affidavit signed on 14 July 1947 for the defendant Cuhorst?
A. Yes.
Q. Now do you have with you in the witness box all the record which you kept of them on Dr. Moessner's cases?
A. Yes.
Q. Dr Moessner was an attorney at law at Stuttgart?
A. Yes.
Q. You were his secretary?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. Now will you turn to the entry made on 5 August 1942 in the matter of Pietra?
A. Yes.
Q. And tell this Tribunal what you find?
A. Yes, I have already opened it on that page. Yes, I have found it
Q. What is the first entry on the left? Now, is that the date?
A. No, that is the number from the list of cases.
Q. Yes, and what is that number?
A. 1206.
Q. And then the next number to the right, the next figure to the right, what does it represent?
A. Sir, it was received 5 August, entry, 5 August.
Q. Now the receipt, that refers to what? What did you refer to when you said "receipt." What part of the case?
A. Dr Moessner was assigned to it, when he received the case.
Q. I see. What did you receive, a notification of employment, or a summons, or an oath. How was that done so that you made that entry?
A. An assignment just came.
Q. Then the next entry that you have to the right, what do you have there?
A. That is the name, Pitra, Stanislaus.
Q. And then occurs the page. What next entry do you have there?
A. That it was marked what kind of a case it was; a crime against the decrees against Poles.
Q. Yes, and that entry that you made, as I understand it, you made either from the summons, or from the nature of the case, or it was described in the notice employing Dr Moessner as an attorney?
A. Yes. That is to say, I did that when it was written on a slip that we received.
Q. That would be either a slip employing Dr. Moessner, or of notifying him of his employment, is that right, by the Court?
A. Yes, yes, on that.
Q. Or a summons, then you would take it off of the summons, one way or the other, is that right?
A. Yes, if the summons came together with it. Usually there was just a slip there.
Q. And you made the entry as soon as you received the slip in the book which you have there?
A. Yes, because on the slip I could see what it was.
Q. Yes, all right, and what is the final entry on there?
A. The case was considered ready to be filed on 21 September 1942.
Q. Does that entry indicate when you say "the date" when that case was disposed of, or what was the occasion that caused you to put that date down?
A. Probably that is when we were paid on the finishing of the case for Dr. Moessner.
Q. Yes. Now you state in your affidavit that to the best of your recollection there was no death sentence in the Pitra case?
A. Yes.
Q. Now that is based upon nothing in your book, or of no record that you kept?
A. No, that is to the best of my recollection.
Q. Yes, that is right. Go ahead?
A. I was alone working for Dr. Moessner, and of course, naturally I think one must not later talk about these cases.
Q. And your memory is based upon the fact that you don't recall Dr Moessner tell you that there was a death sentence in that case?
A. That I could have seen it from the file.
Q. But you have no written record in your office, or no written record at the time you worked for Dr Moessner to corroborate your memory?
A. Unfortunately, Not.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Thank you, that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Any cross examination -- redirect examination, I beg your pardon.
DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, may I take the witness in redirect examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, you may do so on redirect examination of the witness.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. If the doctor, or you frequently or occasionally did make entry in your schedule book, that was made also on the bases of the indictment so that it is possible that the entry with reference to the Polish Decree was taken from the indictment?
A. We entered it as soon as we had something to base it on.
Q. Regardless of what kind of nature?
A. Yes.
Q. May I conclude therefore, with reference to the Decree on Poles that it is not a definite indication that Pitra was sentenced on the bases of that decree?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Wait a minute, wait a minute, I object, Your Honor. It is not proper redirect examination. In the affidavit the witness is positive and this counsel is bound by the statement of his witness in her affidavit. During the cross examination I only asked her as to the fact upon which she based her information.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please Your Honor, I believe I was quite generous concerning the questions which I permitted hr LaFollette to ask.
THE PRESIDENT: We don't need to hear your arguments at all. The witness may answer.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Did you understand the question. Do you remember the question, witness?
A. Are you able to repeat that once more?
Q. I asked you if I understood you correctly that the entry in your schedule is not a definite indication of the fact that Pitra was actually sentenced under the Decree against Poles?
THE PRESIDENT: Objection is overruled. We already ruled upon it.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Was that clear enough, witness?
A. Yes, yes. Well, I entered it on the basis of communication received from the Court, either that Dr Moessner was assigned, or that the summons was there.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question and we will clear this right up. Over here witness.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The notes concerning which you have testified to relate to the charge which was made against this Pitra, and not to the sentence which was pronounced against him, is that right, isn't it?
THE WITNESS: No, it does not refer to the sentence in any way whatsoever.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all. That is clear.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witness, in your affidavit you have stated that your employer, Dr. Moessner, time and again made known to you information whenever he came from a trial, from sessions, and he would tell you also about the results of cases; therefore, you know quite well that whenever he was a defense counsel there was never a death sentence pronounced, that is what you stated in your affidavit?
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Counsel for the defense, I would like to call your attention to the fact that this is redirect examination and that you need not load your witness, and that they did not go into that matter in the cross examination.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Court, if I may base myself on an assumption, I am not sure that it is correct that I can use for my redirect examination also matters which were touched upon in the affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Limit your redirect examination to matters which were discussed in the cross examination.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, Your Honor. That is all, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr LaFollette, will you be ready, or are you now ready with the ten documents that you anticipate offerring? You may hear me without your earphones.
MR LA FOLLETTE: Yes, I think they are all processed, Your Honor. I would like to have a few moments to confer with Mr King to see what is my associate's position, so I can know if they are ready to be introduced.
THE PRESIDENT: I fear we are running short of business for today, so let's have them presented as soon as possible. You have one document book ready to offer, suppose we take it now.
DR. BOTHE: Yes, Your Honor.
TRE PRESIDENT: Yes, go ahead. Concerning the witnesses proposed to be called for the defendant Dr. Rothenberger, we should be prepared to hear them as soon as they can possibly arrive, and, we call attention to the act that the defendant Rothernberger is here, consequently, you should be prepared to introduce such sur-rebuttal testimony of the defendant Rothenberger at any time without waiting for these other witnesses to appear.
DR. BOTHE: May it please the Court, of course the defense is ready to begin with Dr Rothenberger's testimony, even before the witnesses from Hamburg have arrived, but the extent of the rebuttal material, which has been submitted by the Prosecution, is such that these new investigations had to be made in Hamburg, and we do not believe that we will be in a position to begin and to have concluded these preparations before Thursday morning. May I repeat, that I recall that on cross-examination fourteen documents, some of them very extensive and a number of witnesses, have been introduced. If it were possible for the Tribunal to permit Dr Rothenberger to be absent this afternoon, we might be able to conclude our preparations for tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: We will excuse Dr Rothenberger for this afternoon, and expect him to be ready to testify tomorrow morning. We will also expect that if the defendant Klemm is to be called, that he will be ready to testify tomorrow at the latest.
MR KING: I have available for introduction at this time general rebuttal documents against the defendant Joel.
The first rebuttal document I have to offer is NG-2123, which we offer at t his time as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 630. The English and German copies are available for distribution.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: The next rebuttal document against the defendant Joel is identified as NG-2286. We offer it as Prosecution's Exhibit No. 631. The German and English copies are available.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
MR. KING: We are short one copy of 2286 for Judge Harding. We have, which we intend to introduce, one further rebuttal document against the Defendant Joel. I understand, as of this morning that it is the English or German - I believe it is the German - that is not ready. So we shall have to postpone the introduction of that.
We come now to certain rebuttal documents, general rebuttal documents, against the Defendant Rothenberger. The first of these is the Document NG-2249 which we offer in evidence as the next Exhibit 532. Did your Honor receive that last Exhibit?
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 632 is received.
MR. KING: The next rebuttal document against the Defendant Rothen berger is Document NG-2248, which we offer formally into evidence as Exhibit 633.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: The next rebuttal document against Rothenberger is the Document NG-2278 which we formally offer into evidence as Exhibit 634.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
MR. KING: The next Rothenberger rebuttal document is NG-2245which we offer formally into evidence as Exhibit 635.
I should like to say one word of explanation before this document is handed up. The original contains a reproduction of a newspaper picture of Dr. Rothenberger and certain other justice ministry officials. That, newspaper picture is not reproduced in the exhibit which we are distributing
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 634 and 635 are received.
MR. KING: The next Rothenberger rebuttal document is NG-2281which we offer at this time into evidence as Exhibit 636.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received. For the convenience of the defense counsel the Tribunal has received a memorandum to the effect that Cuhorst Supplement, Schlegelberger Supplement I, and Rothaug Books VII and IX are now in the possession of the SecretaryGeneral and may be offered in due time.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honor please, I find there is one more rebuttal document against Klemm. The Prosecution offers NG-2280 in rebuttal against the Defendant Klemm, Prosecution's Exhibit No. 637.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received. Have you finished, Mr. LaFollette?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I beg your pardon, yes; I have no more.
THE PRESIDENT: I comment on the fact that either the author or the translator in Exhibit 637 must have been greatly confused. Some of it is unintelligible. I don't know which it is. We are ready to proceed with documents in the possession of the Secretary-General.
DR. KOESSL: Koessl for the Defendant Rothaug. In Document Book No. VII, which I would like to submit now, the first document is the Rothaug Document No. 201.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment till we receive the Document Book, please.
DR. KOESSL: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: The first is Document No. 201?
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 201 and I am offering it as Exhibit 199, your Honor.
That document is the affidavit by Witness Greiner who was an expert in the case Cucik, an expert witness, that is. Of particular interest is that Rothaug afforded every opportunity to the Pole to explain and prove his innocence; that it was remarkable how thorough Rothaug was trying to establish the truth; also that he made reproaches to the German peasant because he had caused the Pole to have serious difficulties by statements that he had made and that Rothaug compared with the duty of the Poles to obey the Germans, the duty of the Germans to treat the Poles in a humane manner.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Koessl, may I remind you - perhaps we haven't done so before -
DR. KOESSL: Yes, your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: -- that to aid the Tribunal in the examination of Court No. III, Case No. 3.these documents we are having summaries which are presented to us through our assistants, which are more complete than the statements which counsel makes over the transmission system, so that we do have a batter summary than you have time to make verbally.
DR. KOESSL: I offer Document No. 204 as Exhibit 201.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. KOESSL: I beg your pardon. I think I made a mistake. I wanted to offer Document No. 202 as Exhibit 200. That is the next me after 201. It is an affidavit.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 199 and 200 of Rothaug are received.
DR. KOESSL: As for Document 202, that is Exhibit 200, I have to make a correction there. Therefore, I ask that this number be reserved for the time being and I will submit it tomorrow morning again.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't understand. What number do you. want reserved?
DR. KOESSL: Exhibit 200, that is, Document 202.
THE PRESIDENT: And you are not offering it now?
DR. KOESSL: No, because it has a technical deficiency. I ask for permission to submit it tomorrow, Document 204 also has a technical deficiency and I ask that I be permitted also, after discussing this matter with the Prosecution, to submit this document tomorrow and that Document 204, Exhibit No. 201, be reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve it.
DR. KOESSL: As Exhibit 202 I offer Document No. 205. That is the affidavit by the wife of the attorney Kern who has been heard here as a witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Received. We will take our morning recess at this time.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. LaFollette, will you make a penciled note of these natters.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I wonder if you would check up on the following exhibit numbers. I have called attention to the Secretary General to Exhibit 592 in which we have received only a German copy -- at least I received only a German copy and I would like an English copy. Exhibits 589, 576 and 538 appear in my records identified only, and not offered, and I would like you to check that for me. Exhibit 560 appears as received, but I haven't a copy of it. If you will check those for me, I will appreciate it.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead Dr. Koessl.
DR. KOESSL: (Attorney for the Defendant Rothaug) My next document is Rothaug Document 206, Exhibit 203.
It contains an affidavit by a university professor concerning the psychological aspect of Rothaug's conduct of trials.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. KOESSL: Document No. 207 I offer as Rothaug Exhibit 204. This is an affidavit by an attorney who gives his comments on the manner in which Rothaug conducted proceedings.
I next offer Document 208 as Exhibit 205. This is an affidavit by the former general public prosecutor, Nurnberg, whose name is Dr. Dentz.
THE PRESIDENT: Bems?
DR. KOSSL: Bems. B-e-m-s.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 204 and 205 are received.
DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document 204, where I asked you to reserve the Exhibit No. 201, I now wish to offer. I should like to draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that in the document book this affidavit is certified by a notary public, Hans Vogler. The original is certified by an assistant because the copy which was certified by the notary shows several defects as far as the form is concerned.