Oswald Pohl is also interested in these questions, but if the Court feels that the evidence so far submitted by the Prosecution makes further interrogation of this witness superfluous, then I would personally do without any examination of this witness.
DR. PRIBILLA: As far as that is concerned, Mr. President, I am of the same opinion as Dr. Seidl concerning what the Court has been kind enough to tell us just now. The position is that I looked through the evidence submitted so far, and I would have asked the witness about every document concerned. He is the man who is in a position to tell us about wooden sausages and things of that sort, but, of course, it is much more important for me to hear that the Tribunal feels that this complex no longer needs to be discussed by the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: As the record now stands, and in the absence of any further proof, the Tribunal feels that it is unnecessary to further examine this witness. The Prosecution may cross-examine if they wish.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. ROBBINS:
Q Witness, you had to see everyone who came into Tschentscher's office?
A Yes, i had to do that.
Q Would you say everyone, or almost everyone?
A I have to say almost everyone, not everyone.
Q Did you sit in on the conferences that Tschentscher had with the people after you had passed them on to Tschentscher?
AAs far as my field of task was concerned, I frequently took part in these conferences.
Q How frequently, and concerning what conferences, what type of conferences?
Court No. II, Case No. 4.
A I took part when the troop food depots were concerned, either as far as their personnel was concerned, questions of supply stock taking.
Q Did you know -- Let me ask you this, did you sit in on fifty percent of the conferences which Tschentscher had, or one-fourth of them, or approximately what proportion?
A I am unable to tell you this precisely. I am afraid I cannot answer your question. It might have been one-fourth, but I am not in a position to tell you that precisely.
Q Can you tell us how often Schenk visited Tschentscher?
A Schenk was very often absent from Berlin. He was more absent than present. When he was in Berlin he had to go to Tschentscher more frequently, of course, because he worked on suggestions to improve the food for the troops which were then - which would have had to be realized by Tschentscher.
Q About how often did he visit Tschentscher when he was in Berlin, once a week, twice a week, every day?
A I am inclined to say at least once a day when these two met.
Q Did you sit in on any conferences with Tschentscher and Schenk?
A Yes, I was present quite frequently.
Q Did you hear them talk about food in concentration camps on any of these conferences?
A No, food experiments in concentration camps I did not hear mentioned at any time.
Q I didn't ask you about food experiments. The feeding of concentration camp inmates, did you hear them discuss that at any time?
A No, I didn't hear them talk about that either.
Q You know, don't you, that Schenk was an inspector of food for the concentration camps? You know that he inspected the camps to see what the food condition was in the concentration camps, don't you?
A Whether Schenk's authority went as far as concentration camps Court No. II, Case No. 4.I don't know.
As far as I know he was more responsible for the troops and the regular police. Whether he had permission to visit concentration camps I really don't know.
Q And you don't know whether or not he ever discussed concentration camp food with Tschentscher?
A Why should he have talked to Tschentscher about that, because Tschentscher would not have been able to give him any answers. He would have had to talk about troop food with Tschentscher, but not food for concentration camp inmates.
Q You don't know that Tschentscher handled the food problem at Dora-Nordhausen?
A This may sound fantastic to the Tribunal, but I only heard about Dora here in Nurnberg for the first time.
Q Then you didn't hear about everything that went on in Tschentscher's office, did you?
A Well, I heard what was part of our official duties, but the Dora case, as I know now, happened in the autumn of 1943, whereas I joined B-1 only in April of 1944.
Q You didn't sit in on every conference between Schenk and Tschentscher, did you, just some of them?
A No, I was not present at every conference. Schenk had the peculiarity, or the position rather, of at least an office chief.
Q Tschentscher told us that. There is no need to go over that again. You said he had an independent position. Is that based on, is that conclusion based on your conversation with Schenk or your conversations with Tschentscher, or just seeing him pass through the office, from the correspondence, or what is that based on?
A Proof of that opinion is in a number of orders which were issued about Schenk's position, which became familiar to the members of the office.
Q What kind of orders?
A Orders came to the effect that Schenk was to work independ Court No. II, Case No. 4.ently and must not be ordered around by anybody within the WVHA.
Q You saw an order like that, did you?
A Yes.
Q Who signed it, and when did you see it?
A I believe it was signed by the Reichsfuehrer-SS himself.
Q And it said that the WVHA was not to give any orders to Schenk?
A It said that Schenk was independent of all orders and would receive his orders only through Himmler and Pohl.
Q How often did you see concentration camp commanders come to Tschentscher's office?
A. I did not know one single commandant of a concentration camp or see him even.
Q. So various commandants could have come to see Tschentscher through the office without your knowing it. Is that what you wish to say?
A. No, I don't wish to say that. Should the commandant of a concentration camp have come he probably would have introduced himself to me and told me, "I come because of" this or that, "and I wish to see Tschentscher," because I was sitting immediately next to Tschentscher and nobody could pass through without at least saying hello to me, introduce himself, and say briefly what he wanted to do.
Q. And do you say from your own knowledge that Tschentscher had no conferences with any concentration camp commandant?
A. I am not in a position to say so. I do not know. He could have had conferences of that sort without my seeing it in my office.
Q. Were you sitting in the same office with Tschentscher, or was it in an outer office? You said you were sitting right next to him.
A. I sat in the room just in front of his, and the entrance door to his office was in my room, actually.
Q. You told us that you didn't read any matters which were classified as secret, or any classification above secret. Is that right?
A. I saw some secret matters inasmuch as they concerned my field of tasks.
Q. What was your field of tasks?
A. First of all, the training kitchens, personnel and organizational problems of the troop food depots.
Q. You are in custody at the present time?
A. Yes.
Q. Is that because of your activities in Amtsgruppe B?
A. That is because I was a member of the Waffen-SS.
Q. It doesn't have anything to do with your activities in Amtsgruppe B? Not everyone in the Waffen-SS is under arrest.
A. No, but every officer in the Waffen-SS.
Q. That isn't true either. You don't know that you are under arrest because of your activities with Amtsgruppe B--especially B-I?
A. No, nobody told me that.
Q. You were a member of the Nazi Party and of the SS, is that right?
A. Yes.
MR. ROBBINS: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal, will you remove this witness?
(Witness excused).
DR. PRIBILLA (Counsel for the defendant Tschentscher):
If the Tribunal please, as to the next witness, may I ask for the Court's advice. This is Joseph Lindtaler; he was in the so-called auditing staff of W --correction B, and he was part of Office Group B in Office B-I. He was the official who made a great many trips to the various troop food depots in order to check up on the stocks; and who, therefore, knows everything there is to know about these depots.
He had no other knowledge because he was always on these trips. We have heard a good deal about these depots, their tasks and organization. But should the Tribunal feel that these questions have been adequately dealt with, I can do without that witness, or merely submit an affidavit signed by him.
THE PRESIDENT: Is it true that this witness proposes to testify about the distribution of food to the SS through the Army depots?
DR. PRIBILLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And that is all?
DR. PRIBILLA: A few questions have been asked about that subject, and I held this witness ready because he is the man who was on the spot in these various depots, checked up on everything and saw what was there particularly with reference to these army depots and the feeding of con centration camps.
He knows everything there is to know.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think the Tribunal is interested in, or concerned with, the feeding of the troops. Under the indictment, of course, we are interested in the manner of feeding concentration camp inmates, and if this witness can tell us anything about that, perhaps it would be well to call him. But to confine your questions to that particular field...
DR. PRIBILLA: Of course I held this witness ready to show you the "country". Namely, that the depots had nothing to do with feeding of concentration camps--which is what I wanted to examine him about.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, show us something that does have to do with feeding of concentration camp inmates. Does he know anything about that?
DR. PRIBILLA: He only knows the negative side, so to speak.
THE PRESIDENT: He just knows the people who didn't know anything about feeding concentration camps?
DR. PRIBILLA: He knows all these depots, every one of them; every man who was ever in charge of them, and he knows only too well whom these depots fed.
THE PRESIDENT: Does he know who fed the concentration camp inmates?
DR. PRIBILLA: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you want to cross-examine this witness, Mr. Robbins?
MR. ROBBINS: May it please the Court, I think it might be a good plan for Counsel to submit an affidavit and then if Prosecution wishes to cross-examine him, we can call him for that purpose. I don't think that we would--but it is possible.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Doctor, if you will submit an affidavit as to what this witness does know, then we will determine whether it is of any interest to either the Prosecution or the Tribunal.
DR. PRIBILLA: I agree to that with the President. I only held this witness ready because he was a member of the auditing staff of "B", and I was not sure how important that auditing staff B was.
Thus I have reached my evidence on behalf of Tschentscher, and I would like the provision to reserve the right that in my document book I may submit a few documents and affidavits.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, you will have that right.
DR. MAYER (Counsel for the defendant Kiefer): May it please the Tribunal, I am about to open the case of Kiefer. By permission of the Court I would like to call the defendant Kiefer to the witness stand on his own behalf.
THE PRESIDENT: Marshal will bring the defendant Kiefer to the witness stand.
MAX KIEFER, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE PHILLIPS: Please raise your right hand and repeat after me:
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 PHILLIPS: You may be seated.
BY DR. MAYER:
Q. Witness, may I remind you first of all to always wait until my question has been translated and speak slowly so that the interpreter can follow, and so that the translation is clear.
To begin, witness, will you please give us you first name.
A. Heinrich, Hubert, Max Kiefer; my first name is Max.
Q. When and where were you born?
A. I was born on the 15th of September, 1889 on the Lower Rhine, in Kempen.
Q. Will you describe to the Court your schools and the training which you went through?
A. I attended the secondary school and the high-school in my native village. I graduated in 1909, and then I studied architecture in Munich.
I stayed there for two terms. Then I went to the technical college in Aachen to do the same work. During my times of studies until 1910 I became a practicing architect by working as a pupil on a voluntary basis on big buildings sites with the Reich Railway Inspectorate in Cologne. Then also during my terms I made two large trips in order to study the history of architecture. I went to Italy, to France, Holland and Belgium. And the shortest of those trips lasted for six months.
In 1914 I was graduated as an architect and a city architect in Aachen. In August I was called up to do military service when the first World War broke out.
Q What did you do after you finished your professional training?
A I was in the army from 1914 to 1918 at the front. I was fighting on the western front with an infantry regiment. I was in all the big battles of that war on the western front. I was wounded three times. On the 1st December 1918 I was on the staff of the 185th brigade; and as such I resigned from the army. Then I began to work as a free-lance architect.
First of all I built a big settlement for miners in Palenberg, near Aachen. At the end of 1919 I went to a big building firm in order to learn the business of private firms; and there as the man in charge of building I built a city in Holland, near Limburg. This again was a large settlement with all the necessary public building--churches, schools, town hall, hospital, and so forth. In the following year I was in charge of the building of a large hospital in another place near Limburg in Holland. After its completion in the following year, in 1921, I joined the government of Aachen. There I took over the building of the new district court at a cost of two and a half million marks. I took over the office as office chief and was the architect in charge of that project. As the Reich Mark was being stabilized in 1923, this work was stopped.
Then I went to the building office in Kempen were from 1924 to 1927 I was a building consultant for that district. There again we planned cities, settlements, and the legal aspects of these things, and so on.
In that position I built a number of settlements. In 1927 my native Kempen offered me the planning and building of a large school, which I took over and for which purpose I had to leave my old job since I was not allowed to do both jobs at once. So in 1927 I established my own architectural office; and from 1927 to 1936 I worked as a free-lance architect. During all that period of time I specialized in the planning of cities and settlements; and I became interested merely in cities on the lower Rhine near Duesseldorf. I drew up the sites and plans and so forth. Then I also did research work about the very famous monuments on the lower Rhine; and the results were published in magazines or were given to the local archives.
In 1933 in the late spring of that year I received an order to plan and built a sports school for the Office of the Reich Sports Leader in Berlin. This was a school which was to be built in Garthow, a suburb of Berlin. I established a branch office in Berlin; and a second task was joined to my earlier tasks. I moved to Berlin in August of 1933; but I also maintained an office in my native Kempen near Duesseldorf where a colleague of mine deputized for me.
My activities as a free-lance architect were terminated on 1st September 1936, which was the date when I joined the Reich Air Ministry.
Q How was it that you joined the Reich Air Ministry?
A In the summer of 1936 a ministerial councillor, Loeffgen, of that Ministry approached me and said that in this junior ministry a department for settlement and dwelling questions was to be established. I knew Loeffgen from my time with the government in Aachen in 1921 to 1923 after which time onwards we had kept up both professional and personal contacts. He knew what I knew in the way of the planning of cities, and, he told me, when the Ministry was looking for a suitable man to put in charge of that department, that was the reason why he approached me.
He told me that in all probality a big task would come from the organization of the Luftwaffe and that he would recommended me urgently to interest myself in these things, even though for the time being I would have to do on less money than before as a small official.
So I reported to the authorities concerned in the Reich Air Ministry. I applied for the job. The application was granted; and on 1st September 1936 I took over the Department Dwelling and Settlements in the Air Ministry.
Q Your activity in the Air Ministry was the reason why later on you were transferred to the Waffen SS and the WVHA. Therefore, I want to ask you a few questions about your activities in the Air Ministry. Would you please tell us briefly the position and duties you had in the Air Ministry?
A From 1st September 1936 until 1st September 1941 I was in charge of that department. From 1938 onwards I was called "Baurat", a building councillor. under me there was the entire settlement business of the Luftwaffe with the exception of settlements for workers, which was looked after by the industry. I said before that when I joined this department it did not actually exist and that I had to built it up. Thus I had to furnish all the basis for that department. I worked on the various legal orders for that type of task. Then came the basis for large settlements of the Luftwaffe in connection with the building and planning of cities and large settlements, and in the end the basis for the economic buildings of the Luftwaffe in those settlements.
I wish to say that the last two points were recognized in circles far beyond the Luftwaffe and were even made part of the standard work about the building of German cities. In the period between 1936 and 1941 there were under my direction for building about 20,000 dwelling places, according to my directives. In 1938 I also took over the Department for Arts within the Luftwaffe. When war broke out, the building of dwelling houses was discontinued. At the beginning only those buildings were allowed to be completed which had already been started. This lasted until about 1941. That then was the end of that chapter, too.
Meanwhile, the Fuehrer Order had been issued about the building of houses after the war, this happening in September of 1940. A large building program for the whole of the Reich to the tune about five million dwelling houses was to be appointed for the program. I myself was given the order in collaboration with the dwelling experts of the navy and the army to represent the interests of the Luftwaffe with that Reich Kommissar and to adapt the peace-time program of the Luftwaffe to the newly planned program. We discussed and worked on all the preliminary plans for this; but when I left the Luftwaffe in September of 1941, that work had not been completed yet.
Q Who were your superiors in the Reich Ministry?
A The chief of the whole building administration was Galwitz. The Chief of department 11, of which I was part, was Oberregierungsbaurat Dr. Kammler until about May 1940. From 1940, to 1941, Regierungsbaurat Kollert.
Q What was Kammler's position in the Reich Air Ministry?
A Dr. Kammler was chief of Special Task Number 2, that meant hospitals, settlements buildings, art monuments and intelligence buildings. That is four department altogether.
Q Did you have much or little contact with Kammler in the Reich Air Ministry?
A Yes. He was an immediate superior. I had to tell him about everything. In all important matters, I had to obtain his signature. This was done in the form usual with any Ministry namely that you reported orally and personally. However, in view of the vastness of my tasks, it did not happen too frequently. When we were most busy, it happened about once a week. During Kammler's time, I went to see him once or twice a month.
Q Did you have any contact with Kammler outside of his house?
A No. Relations between Kammler and we were entirely formal throughout that period of time. He was quite ordinarily regarded as a comparatively unsocial man. In 1937, I had a fairly grave argument with him and offered my resignation. This avoided when the highest chief asked me to stay on. I finally said I was quite prepared to go on with my department. During my period with the Reich Ministry, therefore, I had no personal contact, with Dr. Kammler, nor was I anxious to have it. He did not seem anxious to see too much of me. He never invited me to his house and I had no personal meetings with him.
Q When and why did you leave the Air Ministry?
A I left the Air Ministry not in the actual sense of the word, in August 1941. I was asked to report to Army District 6 in Berlin. When I went there I was told that the fact that I had been indispensable in the Ministry had been rescinded because the Army wished my services as a reserve officer of the Old Army.
The men in charge of this Army District Command, when I showed them my pass from the Air Ministry, which said among other things, that no other authority must avail themselves of my services without the permission of the Air Ministry, told me I would be called up. A position as adjutant with the battalion had been provided for me. I would have to wait until that agency contacted me.
Q At the same time I was told that my call-up might occur very quickly, and I should make myself available by telephone. A few days later I was told to report again. I had a medical examination and a card index was filled out about me.
Then, again, I was told I might expect I might be called away any moment now by telephone. Then one day I was given a sealed envelope addressed to the Personnel Office of the Reich Air Ministry. I never learned the contents of this envelope.
Anyway, the Reich Air Ministry told me and the personnel office in particular that as I had been called up, my contract with the ministry was no longer applicable and had to be validated while I was in the Army. The arrangement made was that after I had done my service with the Army, I was to take over the department without any formality. I resigned from the Ministry on 31 August 1941.
Q Can you please describe to us, if you can, the events which lead to your transfer to the Waffen-SS?
A My explanation for this process is very difficult for me. I was sitting at home waiting to be called up on the telephone a few days later when I received a letter with the so-called Red Army letters on it which said that I had been called up as a Lieutenant in the Reserve, at the disposal of the Army. There was a footnote to the letter which officially started my term of services with the Army.
A few days later, I received a registered letter from the personnel department of the OKH which said that I had been transferred to the Waffen-SS, and I had to report immediately to the headquarters of the Waffen-SS in Berlin; which I did.
Q Would you have been in a position to refuse to obey the order to report to the Waffen-SS?
AAs far as I know I had no possibility of that sort because the order said clearly I had been transferred and that I had to report to the agency concerned. A refusal would have been tantamount to a conscientious objection and I would have been subject to relevant punishment.
Q When was this that you reported to the Waffen-SS Agency?
AAs far as I can recall that today, it must have been about the middle of September, 1941.
Q Were you before then active in any sense with the SS Administration?
A No. Neither as a fulltime job nor as an honorary occupation, nor in any other sense of the word.
Q So, it was by the middle of September when you first joined the SS administration by order?
A Yes.
Q What were the orders given to you by the headquarters of the SS?
A When I reported to the Main Operational Office, the Fuehrungshauptamt, I was given a little slip of a paper, and I was taken to the recruiting depot of the Waffen-SS.
There I had another medical examination. Cards were filled in. Then I was told that I had to wait until the Fuehrungshauptamt, the Main Operation Office, would contact me. That happened very quickly, after a few days.
I reported to them and I was told that I had been detailed for the technical service of the Waffen-SS, and I should report to the Office.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
A This I did on the same day, and so for the first time since 1940, I was re-united with Dr. Kammler who was in charge of the Office Budget and Building in the Main Office.
THE PRESIDENT: The recess please.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is in recess for 15 minutes.
(A short recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. McHANEY: I have been advised that during this afternoon's session the Tribunal ruled that the Defense witness Arnold Ertel should not be heard "in the face of the present record" on the food experiments, with respect to which the Prosecution has heretofore submitted evidence. I am not clear just what the Tribunal meant by "in the face of the present record", but I must conclude, and I think Defense Counsel has also concluded, that the Tribunal has ruled in effect that the Prosecution has made out no crime with respect to the food experiments. The Prosecution therefore feels compelled to request the Tribunal to reconsider its ruling and to permit the witness to be heard on this point.
I would like to point out that in Document Book No. 8 the Prosecution introduced Document NO - 003 as Prosecution Exhibit 260. It is on page 10 of the Document Book. It is a letter dated 9 September 1942 from Pohl to Himmler in which he suggests experiments on concentration camp inmates with poisoned food. We have introduced Document NO 1422 -
THE PRESIDENT: Where does it say that? Where does it say that, Mr. McHaney, in Exhibit 260, or are you referring possibly to the statement on page 12 of the English document book?
MR. McHANEY: Yes, indeed, Your Honor, under the reference "to 16".
THE PRESIDENT: That's right.
MR. McHANEY: "We shall have to make two groups of food experiments.
"First, such which cover the examination of poisonous ingredients of our food or such as are slowly growing poisonous.
"The prisoners can very well be used for those experiments."
The next document is NO 1422, which is on page 15 of the same document book and which was introduced as Prosecution exhibit 261. This is a letter dated 20 March 1943 from Pohl to Karl Brandt, replying to a letter in which Brandt had suggested that concentrated foods be tested on concentration camp inmates, and in this letter in reply Pohl indicates that he has no desire to see such experiments carried out and remarks to Brandt that he--that is, the defendant Pohl--was carrying out food experiments of his own.
On page 18 of the same Document Book-
THE PRESIDENT: Well, don't leave that document for a minute. In what part of the document is there any intimation of criminality?
MR. McHANEY: Well, there is not necessarily any indication of criminality in this particular document, Your Honor. It does prove, however, that the defendant Pohl was at this time carrying out food experiments of some sort. Now, the rest of the proof, I think, indicates quite clearly what food experiments were then in progress. In other words, I think no single document among the series which we have introduced in and of itself makes out the complete crime.
THE PRESIDENT: It is not disputed that experiments in nutrition were carried out. They have been described by the Defense from the witness stand.
MR. MC HANEY: Well, if Your Honor please, if we come to the affidavit of Antres, which is in Document Book 21--
THE PRESIDENT: We are familiar with that. We have just inspected it.
MR. MC HANEY: I think, if the Tribunal please, the affidavit of Antres certainly established the commission of a crime. He talks of food experiments by Dr. Schenk, and that these experiments resulted in death, and I submit that these four or five documents taken together certainly establish a crime.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Antres, of course, does not disclose the source of his knowledge nor any details.
MR. MC HANEY: Well, that may be, Your Honor. I will not at this point, unless the Tribunal wishes me to, undertake the argue the weight which should be given to the affidavit of Antres, but as the record stands, Antres, who certainly was no curious interloper, but was, in fact, the commander of the Mauthausen concentration camp, states that the experiments were carried out and that people were killed. This is a crime which occurred in concentration camps. It is a crime in which Dr. Schenk participated. It is a crime which, the prosecution submits, the other documents prove the defendant Pohl was connected with. We will also maintain, at the proper point in the proceedings, just what effect we think this evidence should be given with respect to other defendants, including the defendant Tschentscher, who called the witness Ertel, who was a subordinate of his and worked in an adjoining office, to testify about Schenk's experiments, which on its face indicates that Tschentscher and his subordinates knew something about the work of Schenk. So that we submit--
THE PRESIDENT: Tschentscher admits he knew something about the work of Schenk. That is a long ways from knowing that Schenk was engaged in criminal activities and participating in them, or even condoning them.
MR. MC HANEY: Well, if the Tribunal please, I think that the prosecution has submitted proof on literally thousands of crimes which occurred in concentration camps.
It is certainly premature, I think, to require the prosecution, or for the Tribunal to rule that this or that crime, to which a microscope is suddenly placed, does not apply to any defendant in this dock and cannot be used against him. The whole theory of the prosecution is that crime systematically occurred on a great scale in concentration camps by and large, that these defendants are the men who ran the concentration camps and who drew sustenance from them, and we therefore base a theory here that these defendants are responsible for those crimes, but then in this or that case this or that defendant did not even know that the crime had been committed.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, this involves the res gestae, Mr. McHaney. This involves the prerequisite proof that this particular crime was committed. In the absence of that proof we are not concerned with the multiplicity of other crimes, are we?
MR. MC HANEY: No, but if Your Honor please, if we can be very clear about the basis of the Tribunal's ruling, I think we can disregard the connection of the defendant Tschentscher, or any other of the defendants in the dock, with the food experiments. If we can concentrate, then, simply on the proposition whether crime was committed, I submit that the affidavit of Antres, which on its face states that Schenk conducted the experiments and that deaths did occur, then on the face of the record that constitutes a crime. Now, as to what weight the Tribunal may choose to give to the affidavit of Antres, I shall certainly not take upon myself to suggest, but the affidavit has been admitted. It is in evidence before this Tribunal, and I think that in the face of that the defense is certainly open to go in to the details of these food experiments and to contradict Antres' affidavit in any manner which they can. I am not up here pleading for the rights of the defendants, of course, these defense counsel, except incidentally, because I was concerned about the ruling on this particular experiment. I do submit that the record shows on its face that it was a crime.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the Tribunal did not close the door. It said as a witness for the defendant Tschentscher, and in connection with this particular phase or allegation in the indictment, although there is no allegation as to food experiments in the indictment, that this witness might be withdrawn and offered later if it appeared advisable or necessary.