A. I know of some cases in which people perished because of the strenuous conditions under which they had to live.
Q. Their number can't have been very considerable, as I take it, from you answer.
A. This is due only to the very mild weather. Normally, winter starts in this part of Norway on the first of October, that is in the first week of October; in this year, it started only at the end of November.
Q. Witness, this does not vet answer the question. I asked you for the number of victims.
A. In my district that is in the district of Skjanes, I learned that one elderly man in (spelling) L-a-n-g-f-j-o-r-d-n-e-s-, had died while fleeing.
Q. Otherwise, you did not hear of any case of death?
A. And in Skjanes a woman died of heart trouble because of her exertions. That was after I had left Skjanes.
Q. Was that an old woman?
A. She was between 40 and 50.
Q. Witness, for about three or four years you served in an official capacity under the German occupation?
A. During the German occupation, under the German occupation powers, yes.
Q. Did you have any contact with the German military during that time?
A. In Finnmark the number of soldiers was many times larger than the number of the civilian population. In the course of time, Germans had more and more authority in regard to the many things that were happening there, and it was quite inevitable that the civilian population came in to contact with the German soldiers.
Q. That is what I implied in my question. I only wanted to know from you whether you had any closer contact with the German soldiers?
I ask you to answer this question with only yes or no.
A. Partly.
Q. What were your personal experiences with the German Army troops there?
A. I did not like them.
Q. Excuse me, I believe that. I asked you what were your experiences that is, how did the German soldiers behave toward you?
A. They behaved as the Germans have always behaved themselves towards the population of an occupied territory. They lock upon themselves as the Master Race.
Q. I don't believe that we can go any further into this problem in this manner. I want to hear from you whether you personally have had bad experiences with these German soldiers apart from the evacuation?
A. As police official during the time of the German occupation, I could observe how the Germans took every opportunity to look down upon one as something more or less inferior.
Q. That is a, matter of emotion. I have asked you whether something unpleasant was done to you or to your family?
A. A German officer wanted to have me punished because during a stormy night during which one could hardly see anything. I had passed him without greeting him or saluting him.
Q. That is the only unpleasant experience you had with the Germans?
A. During all this time all we Norwegians wore under tremendous pressure because of the German occupation.
Q. Witness, I certainly understand you. Nobody likes to have the enemy in his country, but this is not the matter at issue here. I'd like to ask you to answer my question now. Did you yourself suffer from unjust treatment from the part of German soldiers?
A. What do you mean by "unpleasantness"?
Q. I would then like you to answer the following question. What have you to complain of regarding the treatment of yourself or your family on the part of the German occupation forces?
Have you nothing to say in this matter, witness?
A I cannot at the moment remember anything except for this, that we were insulted. The Norwegian official authorities were not recognized.
Q You said you were continuously insulted. Surely, you must recall one of these many insults.
Witness, may I put another question to you, so that we don't spend too much time on this? Did the German armed forces provide food for the population?
AAs far as I know, the Norwegian population was not provisioned by the German armed forces.
Q The Norwegian population did also live on foodstuffs which were imported, not only on food which was raised in the country?
A We imported a certain amount of foodstuffs.
Q. These imports would have to go through the German occupation channels at that time?
A I personally don't know anything about that.
DR. FRITSCH: For the time being I have no further questions to the witness in cross examination.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. RAPP:
Q. Witness, were you a member of the Illegal Norwegian movement?
A Yes, indeed. I worked in the Illegal movement.
Q Were you ever aware of the fact that under German law this movement was illegal?
A Yes, I was, indeed, aware of that.
Q Did you look upon this work in the Illegal movement as a duty?
A Yes, I did.
Q You told us that there wore more German troops in that neighborhood than there were Norwegian inhabitants. Is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Was it very dangerous for you to servo your royal government in England?
A Yes, indeed, there was always the danger that the Germans or that the members of the Quisling Party would get news of it.
Q And what was the punishment publicly known which the military government had issued for such membership?
A In the lightest cases, it was penitentiary or forced labor and usually death sentences.
Q Witness, you told us that about 2% of the Norwegian population were adherents of Quisling. Is that correct?
A Yes, it is.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I just wonder what all this has to do with the evacuation of Norway.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, I submit that this particular phase was brought in by defense in their cross examination, a matter which we did not intend to include. It was put in there for the purpose of discrediting the witness and I am trying to establish the fact that the witness's conduct up there was not of that nature.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Well, no one objected and we sat here and listened patiently and I don't think that warrants going back into it again. These examinations never will end if every new point that is brought up provokes another long new line of testimony.
MR. RAPP: Very well then, your Honor; if in the future such points are brought up by the defense, we shall object.
Q Witness, could you tell us the climatic conditions prevailing at the time of the evacuation?
A The climatic conditions were unusually favorable in this fall.
MR. RAPP: Shall I repeat this question in German to go back to the German language?
Q What were the climatic conditions in Norway or, rather, in Finnmark during the time of the evacuation?
A The climatic conditions at that time were very unusually favorable for this time of the year.
Q Witness, can you describe to us what conditions were like at sea during the time when you were in Finnkojnkeila?
A The weather was good.
Q Witness, if talking of the sea, I believe at least one does not talk in terms of good or bad. Could you describe just what the sea was like?
A The sea was quiet and calm.
Q Witness, was the coast up there infested with mines?
A Yes, indeed. There were nines all over the place.
Q I am not not talking of land. I am talking of the water. I am talking of sea mines.
A Yes, these were sea mines.
Q How did yon know that?
A I learned that in Vardoe because if a Norwegian ship confiscated by the Germans was ordered to go some place the crew of this ship learned what course it had to take in order to evade the mines.
Q Who laid those mines?
A The Germans laid those nines. On the other hand, German as well as British airplanes had dropped mines.
Q Did you ever see, witness, whether German ships of any kind or size--I am talking now of those which either entered the coastal area or left the coastal area--were any of those ships destroyed by mines?
A Yes, I did see that.
Q Was this fact known to you when the problem of the children's home was under discussion, the fact that German ships had hit enemy mines in the coastal areas--was that fact known to you when the problem of the evacuation of the children's hone was under discussion?
A It was generally known among the coastal population that Russian and British airplanes had dropped nines. The population got to know that in the following manner--that certain routes in the sea. were blocked until German mine sweepers had swept those lanes.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: We will take our afternoon recess at this time.
(A recess was taken)
BY MR. RAPP:
Q Before the recess we talked about mines which were laid along the coast by the Allies, and that the population knew about that because occasionally German boats exploded. Witness, was this fact one of the reasons why you tried to prevent the children from being evacuated by sea?
A Yes, that was one of the reasons.
Q Witness, you have stated here that you personally had no bad experiences with the Germans, that you can remember. Is that correct?
A No, I cannot remember any incidents.
Q Of a personal nature?
A Yes, of a personal nature.
Q Then you merely expressed your feelings?
A Yes, only my feelings.
Q Witness, can you tell us quite briefly, apart from the examples which you have already stated in your main testimony of bad experiences which you yourself observed or which were reported directly to you in your capacity as political chief, bad experiences of your countrymen up there with the Germans.
PRESIDING JUSTICE CARTER: I do not see any necessity for going through that again unless it is something in addition to what he has testified to.
MR. RAPP: That is what I wanted to test whether or not he had additional testimony to give to that particular issue, your Honor.
PRESIDING JUSTICE CARTER: I think you should limit it to anything additional then.
A. Yes. After Russia and Germany were at war, the Germans issued an order, according to which all people over 15 years of age had to have an identification card, and this identification card had always to be carried by the people. The Germans often controlled the people to see whether they had these papers, and while they pretended to carry out these controls, there were sometimes violations on the part of the Germans.
Q Witness, we are merely interested that you tell us, without beating about the bush too much, and quite briefly, what kind of violations these were, whether you were a witness of them, or whether they were reported to you in your official capacity. That is all that we are interested in.
A In one of these cases an old woman was exposed to one of these identification card controls, and when she did not produce the paper quickly enough, a pistol was pushed into her back, she was taken across the street and she was threatened with being placed before the Field Gendarmerie.
Q How do you know this?
A This was reported to me in my capacity as a policeman.
In one case a young Norwegian was hit down on the street by two Germans. The young man wanted to meet a Norwegian girl, and the Germans also wanted to go with this girl, and therefore they hit him down. That was reported to me.
Q Witness, in the first case which you told us about, was it reported to you who the people were?
PRESIDING JUSTICE CARTER: Just a moment. The indictment in this case charges that the defendant Rendulic was charged with a crime committed during the evacuation. It seems to me that this evidence of what happened during the occupation is outside of the scope of the indictment.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, the occupation in this particular phase was part of the evacuation, i.e. the occupation was de facto still existing. I believe this would fit into the evidence we are submitting. In other words, the occupation did not cease the minute the evacuation started.
PRESIDING JUSTICE CARTER: If I remember correctly, the indictment charges the burning of the homes and destruction of property as not being a militarily necessity. There is nothing said about injuring of killing any of the population or anything of that kind. It seems to me that we are getting outside of the scope of this particular area.
MR. RAPP: Very well, your Honor, then I have no further questions for the witness.
PRESIDING JUSTICE CARTER: Is there anything further?
BY DR. FRITSCH, for Rendulic:
Your Honor, I only have one question in connection with the redirect examination.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, we submit that we have been rather liberal in permitting defense counsel to have so to speak, the last word every time the prosecution produces a witness. Heretofore we feel that that prosecution introducing a witness, that after the crossexamination, the testimony ought to be concluded. Now the defense is trying to re-direct or re-cross examine the witness at this time.
PRESIDING JUSTICE CARTER: I think where the prosecution brings in now evidence, they are entitled to bring in cross-examination. If it is rebuttal, they are not. We will permit him to ask the question.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I only have one question which arises from the re-examination of the prosecution.
RE-CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q. Witness, you wore asked in the re-direct examination whether the military government, that is the German military government in Norway had issued heavy penalties.
My question is was there a German Military Government in Norway?
A. There was a Reich Commissar, Torboven.
Q. Do I understand you correctly that this Reich Commissioner was a military authority?
A. I do not know how far his authority went, and of what kind it was.
Q. Was the office of he Reich Commissioner a military agency, witness?
A. I do not know what relation he had to the military.
Q. Witness, did you ever hear that Norwegians came before a military court?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you now mean a court of the Reich Commissioner or a Army court?
A. This was a so-called court martial.
Q. And who was on this court tribunal?
A. I was never in those courts.
DR. FRITSCH: Thank you very much. I have no further questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Are there further questions by the defense? The Tribunal has none.
Is there any reason why this witness should not be excused permanently?
The witness will be excused.
(Witness excused)
MR. RAPP: If your Honors please, we would like now to return to Document Book 23. Your Honors, the first document we would like to submit is the document which at present is marked for identification as 515-A the one I handed Your Honors this morning. --515-A. This particular jurat which has been furnished in its translation to the defense counsel; reads as follows:
I, IVAR FOLLESTAD, certify; that I am a Counsellor at Law and I am duly licensed to practice before the Supreme Court of Norway and all Inferior Courts of Norway, that I am a Lieutenant Colonel in the Norwegian Army; that I am a duly authorized representative of the office of the Attorney General of Norway and as such I am duly accredited to the office of Chief of Counsel for War Crimes (US) at Nurnburg, Germany; that I brought to Nurngerg, Germany, documents Norway 2, Norway 11 and Norway 12; that the procedure detailed herewith was followed in connection with these documents.
(A) Norway 2 is a deposition made by Egil Sorenson to the Norwegian Police at Vadsae, Norway. After the deposition was made, the deponent (Egil Sorenson) appeared before the Judge of the Criminal County Court of Varanger, Norway, on 12 August 1947 and stated under oath, in accordance with Norwegian Law, that the contents of the deposition were true. Norwegian law provides that statements which as to be used in any judicial proceedings may only be sworn to before a Judge in court. Further Norwegian law requires that sworn statements to be used as evidence in criminal cases must be made not only before a Judge in Court but in the presence of counsel appointed by the Court to protect the interests of the party against whom the sworn statement may be used. This procedure was followed and such counsel was appointed by the Court.
(B) Norway 11 is a letter of 18 June 1947 written and signed by Dr. John Caspersen Deputy Director of the Norwegian Ministry of Social Welfare. The letter is also signed by Dr. Karl Evary, Director of the Norwegian Ministry of Social Welfare. After the letter had been read and signed, Dr. Caspersen appeared before a Judge of the Criminal Inquiry Court of Oslo, Norway, on 3 July 1947 and stated under oath, in accordance with Norwegian law, that the contents of the letter were true. Norwegian law provides that statements which are to be used in any judicial proceeding may only be sworn to before a Judge in Court. Further Norwegian law requires that sworn statements to be used as evidence in criminal cases must be made not only before a Judge in Court but in the presence of counsel appointed by the Court to protect the interests of the party against whom the sworn statement may be used.
This procedure was followed and such counsel was appointed by the Court.
(C) Norway 12 contains three letters as follows; the first dated 25 February 1947, the second 26 June 1947 and the last 3 July 1947.
All three letters were dictated by Antoni Skoen, Deputy Director of the Central Statistic Office of Norway. The letters of 25 February and 3 July were signed by Mr. Skoen. The letter of 26 June was initialed by Mr. Skoen and signed by Arne Skaug, Director of the Central Statistic Office of Norway. The three letters were addressed to Ivar Follestad Antoni Skoen appeared before a Judge of the Criminal Inquiry Court of Oslo, Norway, on 3 July 1947, and stated under oath, in accordance with Norwegian law, that the contents of the letters of 25 February, 26 June and 3 July, all 1947, were true. Norwegian law provides that statements which are to be used in any judicial proceeding may only be sworn to before a Judge in Court. Further, Norwegian law requires that sworn statements to be used as evidence in criminal cases must be made not only before a Judge in Court but in the presence of counsel appointed by the Court to protect the interests of the party against whom the sworn statements may be used. This procedure was followed and such counsel was appointed by the Court.
signed: IVAR FOLLESTAD IVAR FOLLESTAD Lt. Colonel Norwegian Army Nuremberg, Germany, 25 August 1947
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I object to the introduction of this document as an exhibit. With Exhibit 515-A the prosecution tries to introduce Norway Document No. 2, 11 and 12 which are not admissible according to the rules of procedure of this court. This kind of procedure in my opinion would only mean getting around the regulations. According to my duty I must also object to the certificate of a witness who gives a declaration in this form and of this contents for his government.
In addition, I would like to point out that according to the principle of the better proof, in my opinion as the witness is here in the courtroom, he himself must be heard on these questions. Furthermore, I cannot see how the witness gets the basis for his statement that the declaration of the persons mentioned in the documents 2, 5 and 11 were actually given to the Norwegian court in the correct form. In no case do the documents in themselves correspond to the rules of procedure as they are valid for this court.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Is there any question in the mind of counsel as to the authority of this man to make this certificate?
You didn't hear?
DR. FRITSCH: I didn't get the last question, Your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I say if there is any question on the part of the defense as to the authority of this man to make this certificate, we think he is entitled to call him for cross examination on that subject if the defense cares to do it.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes, that is also one of the reasons submitted by me.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I say if you care to examine this man about his authority to make the certificate, you may cross-examine him on that subject.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes, Your Honor. But I would have to decide about this. In my opinion, the other reasons submitted by me should be sufficient in order to rule out this document.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I don't think it is so important on this document as it is on the documents they are trying to get in evidence when that objection comes up, but if you want to question his authority, you may do that now.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes, that is what I am doing, Your Honor, and I would also ask that the documents should only be admitted if the validity of this Document 515-A is recognized. If those persons who in Documents Norway 2, 5, and 11 have also given statements are placed in the witness stand for me by the prosecution so that I can cross-examine them.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: If you care to cross-examine him, you can do so now. He is here in the courtroom, I understand.
MR. RAPP: That is perfectly agreeable to us, Your Honor. I believe defense counsel was inquiring whether or not the affiants could be brought to Nuernberg for the purpose of being cross-examined by defense counsel.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Oh, I misunderstood him on that. Well, I suppose if you request it that, under the rule, they have to obtain them if they can for cross examination.
DR. FRITSCH: Yes. I would like to make this application, Your Honor. I therefore ask that in case the documents are admitted in evidence I be allowed to cross-examine those witnesses who made the declarations in the documents Norway 2, 11, and 12.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: We will cross that bridge when we get to it. Let's get the preliminaries out of the way first.
MR. RAPP: May I inquire from defense counsel now what defense counsel intends to do in relation with this document?
DR. FRITSCH: I would ask that this witness be called into the witness stand so that I can cross-examine him.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: You are now dealing with Exhibit 515-A and not the documents themselves. Do you care to examine Follestad as to his authority to make this deposition?
DR. FRITSCH: Yes.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: All right, proceed to do so.
(IVAR FOLLESTAD, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows.)
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Does the witness speak English?
A. Yes, Your Honor, I do.
Q. I solemnly swear that the testimony I will give in the case on trial will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me God.
(The witness repeated the oath.)
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q. Witness, please give your full name.
A. My name is Follestad.
Q. Witness, where were you born?
A. I was born in Bergen in Norway.
Q. Where are you living at present?
A. I live in Bergen in Norway, but for the time being at the Grand Hotel in Nuernberg.
Q. What are you by profession, witness?
A. I am counsel at the Supreme Court of Norway.
Q. And what is your education?
JUDGE BURKE: Just a moment, Dr. Fritsch. Do you seriously question the authority of this witness to make the type of certificate which he has assumed to make here?
DR. FRITSCH: First of all I must do that, Your Honor. Unfortunately, I must do this, Your Honor, but I will be very brief.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: Proceed.
BY DR. FRITSCH:
Q. Witness, I would like to ask you only to tell me whether you received the usual education for the profession of a lawyer.
A. Yes.
Q. How far did you know about the events which were connected with the evacuation in Norway?
A. I only learned of them after the war, on investigation.
Q. Witness, did you conduct these interrogations by order of the Norwegian Government?
A. Yes, I did. On the authority of the Attorney General and the Norwegian Department of Justice.
Q. Witness, on whose order are you here?
A. I am here on account of the authorities just mentioned, the Attorney General of Norway and the Justice Department of Norway.
Q. In which office here did you submit your legitimations?
A. The Attorney General had taken up contact with General Taylor and General Taylor has got the appointment from the Norwegian Attorney General.
Q. Witness, the document marked for identification, 515-A, is known to you?
A. Yes, I know the documents because, as stated, I brought them here myself.
Q. Were you yourself present, witness, when the witnesses mentioned in these documents Norway 2 and so forth were sworn in?
A. No, I was not present. I was not present when the witness mentioned in Norway No. 2 was examined under oath, but I personally was present when the three latter witnesses mentioned in 11 and 12 were sworn under oath. Anyhow, I can certify that it was done also with the witness named in Norway 2 because their protocol from the court testifying just reached me yesterday. I have it here.
Q. Then this declaration of the 24th of August 1945 was not given by you from your own knowledge but by reason of documents which you have just received?
A. No, that is a mistake on part of counsel. I just stated that I was personally present when the witnesses mentioned in Norway 11 and Norway 12 were sworn under oath in the Norwegian court. I was not present myself when the witness in Norway was sworn, but as I just told you, I have the protocol here with the following letter from the Attorney General himself.
Q. And what can be seen from that?
A. What I stated, that this witness was examined in court, counsel being appointed by the judge for the defendant Rendulic, and that he made the same statement word for word as appears in the Document Norway 2. Afterwards, defendant's counsel or judge made a few questions and they were answered, supplementary.
Q Witness, in Document 515-A, it states that the witness in Document Norway 2 on the 12th of August 1947, before the Judge of the Criminal Appeal Court of Varanger, appeared and that on this day he swore under oath that the contents of the declaration was true.
A Yes, that is right.
Q This affidavit was only made on the 12th of August 1947, then?
A The witness first made a statement to the police and afterwards this statement was sworn to in court in the presence of a Norwegian Criminal Judge and in the presence also of counsel appointed for the defendant Rendulic.
Q And Norway No. 11 and 12 were also only prepared in 1947, on the 18th of July and 27th of February? And the 3rd of July and sworn to?
A The dates just mentioned are the dates when the letters were written. On the 27th of September, the first one; on the 18th of June the second one; and on the 3rd of July the last one. They were sworn to, all of them, in the same meeting in the Criminal Inquiry Court of Oslo on the 3rd of July, 1947.
DR. FRITSCH: I have no further questions to the witness.
MR. RAPP: Your Honor, we have no questions.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The witness will be excused.
Exhibit 515-A will be admitted in evidence subject to the usual limitations that we place on evidence of this kind.
MR. RAPP: If your Honors will now please turn to page 4 of Document Book 23 and page 5 in the German Document book, your Honors, this is a deposition by Egil Sorensen to the Norwegian Police of Vadsoe describing the destruction and killing of Sorensen's wife by members of the German Wehrmacht.
DR. FRITSCH: Your Honor, I would ask the prosecution to tell me against whom this document is directed. I have pointed out already that the navy which is charged here and who is supposed to have committed some act -- was not subordinate to the defendant Rendulic.
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, as to the argumentation of defense counsel, we will show later on and tie this document up that the defendant Rendulic as a matter of fact at that time commanded all German units within the German Wehrmacht in Norway in his capacity as armed forces commander Norway and commanding General 20th Mountain Army.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I am wondering whether this deposition is within scope of the indictment against the defendant Rendulic with regard to his conduct in Norway.
MR. RAPP: That is correct, your Honor; the area involved is in Finnmark, the Lakesfjord, and is part of the evacuation conducted by the 20th Mountain Army at that time.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: The point I make is, he is not charged with any responsibility for killing anybody in Norway under the indictment, isn't that correct?
MR. RAPP: Your Honors, I believe the indictment states that in connection with the evacuation, several hundred people suffered death. At least 61,000 people were evacuated, or 31,000 people forcefully and, in connection with this, hardship and death was brought on the Norwegian population.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: It is the opinion of the Tribunal that the probative value is rather questionable, but rather than try to determine that now, we will permit it to go in and deal with it at the proper time.
MR. RAPP: Very well, your Honor. May I call your Honor's attention to the fact that this particular document is only submitted here as an excerpt, but we have furnished -- and the original document is in Norwegian and we have only translated into German and English up to yesterday - that part which we are submitting into evidence but I have meanwhile furnished defense counsel the complete translation of this Norwegian document for his use.
PRESIDING JUDGE CARTER: I think under those circumstances you can read what parts you want to as long as you provide the balance to the defense.
MR. RAPP: Very well, your Honor.
"Report to: Police Chief Vadsoe submitted by Police Officer L. Naess.
"Subject:
"Compulsory evacuation and arson in Veidnedklubben and the killing of Frau Wilhelmine Soerensen.
"Interrogated on 2 July 1946 in Veidnedklubben: The witness Wilhelmine Soerensen. He is familiar with the incident and understand his responsibility as a witness. He is ready to make a statement and declares:
"On 16 December 1944 the witness was on the trip by motorboat to Ifjord. At that time most of the residences in Veidnes had been burned by the Germans but the entire population had fled to the mountains and was living in adobe huts. No Germans were left in any camps in Lakesfjord which made the population feel secure from the Germans. Arriving at Ifjord the witness and the other people in the motorboat suddenly became aware of a warship lying in the Trollbukt near the shore. Dawn had just broken and the moment the people in the motorboat saw the warship, automatic weapons from there shot in front and behind the motorboat so that there was no possibility for flight.
"When the Commander of the warship heard that the families of the people had remained in Veidnes the destroyer went to Veidnes.
"There the German lieutenant with 14 soldiers went a shore with a Norwegian (Martin Mikelsen) who had orders to show the way to the families.
"The witness and the other people on the motorboat remained aboard and were locked into the boxes where the ropes are kept. There they remained locked up until 2100 hours when the Captain arrived and issued an order to some others to go ashore.
"The witness and two other people remained aboard in the box where the ropes are kept all night. The next day at 12:00 o'clock the witness was permitted to come out of the box and to move around the deck freely.